Immortal's Handbook continuation thread continuation

[Anubis]

Damn, and here I thought I would be able to let my PCs have thier high point buy system and be able to effectivly determine what a challege for the party would be. I beg of you, UK, to include stats as part of CR. That way even with 42 point buy and 28 point buys, the DM will know a proper challege. Also, if you factor in stats for say, and ogre, are you not going to factor in the effect of having the standard array of stats for elite npcs? Like those listed by level in the DMG. A human with straight 10s and a human with the standard array of 15 14 13 12 10 8 are two very different things.

Eldorian Antar

Whether it's 42 or 28 for point buy, the party still has pretty much the exact same amount of power. Ability scores within the "standard array" simply do not have enough an effect to warrant a change.

Like I said, it either has to be ability scores rated for all, or ability scores rated for none.

I could've sworn this issue was settled after our conversation . . .

You seem to think that you have to have one extreme or the other, when the only chance for balance comes from the middle ground. Assign a modifier for any bonuses or penalties to ability scores, but ignore the standard array. That is the middle ground and the only way to accurately determine power levels. If you don't, a lot of the more powerful monsters will be severely underrated I think.

Hmmm . . . Then again . . . Wait a sec . . . UK, are you perhaps inplying (or outright stating) that you think it is possible to equate things without the ability scores AT ALL due to the fact that by the time PCs MEET those ridiculous creatures with extreme high ability scores, they will have multitudes of magical stat boosters? Is this also why you increased the HD effect for monster types by any chance? If THIS is the case, I may be forced to actually consider not thinking about ability scores at all as well . . . A very interesting proposal indeed!

I will put in some research on this as I examine spell-like abilities, and see if it holds water by my estimation.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

My vote on the attribute discussion is to *not* modify CR if a race has "balanced attribute bonuses" (high elf; +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution = +0.0 CR), and to modify their CR if a race has "imbalanced attribute bonuses" (goblin; +2 Dexterity, -2 Strength, -2 Charisma = -0.2 CR) or (female drow; +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution = +0.4 CR).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

I could've sworn this issue was settled after our conversation . . .

We didn't settle anything as far as I recall. I was intrigued by your idea, but these things have to be investigated.

I already stated my case. Either we incorporate ability scores into CR for EVERYTHING or NOTHING. Otherwise all the monster CRs are about 15% too high. 15% is not much in the grand scheme of things but it will be noticably wrong.

...I don't like being wrong.

You seem to think that you have to have one extreme or the other, when the only chance for balance comes from the middle ground.

Not so.

Assign a modifier for any bonuses or penalties to ability scores, but ignore the standard array. That is the middle ground and the only way to accurately determine power levels. If you don't, a lot of the more powerful monsters will be severely underrated I think.

The problem is I can't say a 32nd-level character with all 18 stats is still CR 32 and at the same time so is a Pit Fiend.

Hmmm . . . Then again . . . Wait a sec . . . UK, are you perhaps inplying (or outright stating) that you think it is possible to equate things without the ability scores AT ALL due to the fact that by the time PCs MEET those ridiculous creatures with extreme high ability scores, they will have multitudes of magical stat boosters?

Something like that.

Its a leap of faith though, rather than scientific process. However, it does have some advantages otherwise I wouldn't be considering it...Firstly it circumnavigates the question of what ability scores are factored into CR (I am not happy with rating epic feats into CR, also the +1/4 Levels is redundant because I already equated that into Class Levels). Secondly it simplifies CR for PCs and NPCs, so that we get that comfortable +1 CR/Level.

Is this also why you increased the HD effect for monster types by any chance?

No, I had to do that anyway, the Wealth modifier was flawed therefore all Level and HD mods were flawed.

If THIS is the case, I may be forced to actually consider not thinking about ability scores at all as well . . . A very interesting proposal indeed!

The flipside is that a character with all 18s in ability scores IS tougher than a character with all 10s. We would just be guilty of ignoring that facts (though we would be in good company because everyone else ignores it as well).

I will put in some research on this as I examine spell-like abilities, and see if it holds water by my estimation.

I hope you have as much fun with spell-like abilities as you did last night!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

My vote on the attribute discussion is to *not* modify CR if a race has "balanced attribute bonuses" (high elf; +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution = +0.0 CR), and to modify their CR if a race has "imbalanced attribute bonuses" (goblin; +2 Dexterity, -2 Strength, -2 Charisma = -0.2 CR) or (female drow; +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution = +0.4 CR).

But what if there are two NPCs of equal power; one NPC has all 18s and another has all 10s. Are they still equal 'challenges'?

 

[Clay_More]

Hey UK, was laying back a while, seeing how the new thread moved along. Seems you are getting ahead still on the CR system, any news of when it will be finished for the view of the public?
I actually heard about some people that said Adept should be good enough to play as a Class, even with their unusual collection of spells (which would mean they value it as equal to the PC classes). I most admit myself that the Adept has some interesting class features, even if I havent exactly compared it to the normal PC classes yet. If I told one of my more Munchkiny players that he could play Adept and get a +40% XP bonus, I think he would do so. But, again, some of these guys are horrible Munchkins, horrible sometimes. Not all, but especially one.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey UK, was laying back a while, seeing how the new thread moved along.

Hi Clay_More mate!

sorry I haven't been more actively involved in the new Lich thread (interesting stuff) but things herein have been keeping me pinned down.

Seems you are getting ahead still on the CR system, any news of when it will be finished for the view of the public?

Everything hinges on the resolution of the ability score quandary. The rest of it is 99% done.

I actually heard about some people that said Adept should be good enough to play as a Class, even with their unusual collection of spells (which would mean they value it as equal to the PC classes). I most admit myself that the Adept has some interesting class features, even if I havent exactly compared it to the normal PC classes yet.

I have, it rated +0.62 on the new scale. Where the Fighter class only rates +0.77 and the Cleric rates +0.9.

So the Adept rounds to +0.6 and all the classes except Cleric and Druid round to +0.8 (although they run from +0.77 to +0.84).

Cleric and Druid are both +0.9 although I may not specify that in the IH.

If I told one of my more Munchkiny players that he could play Adept and get a +40% XP bonus, I think he would do so. But, again, some of these guys are horrible Munchkins, horrible sometimes. Not all, but especially one.

Give him a 22.5% bonus, then it will be balanced.

 

[Clay_More]

sorry I haven't been more actively involved in the new Lich thread (interesting stuff) but things herein have been keeping me pinned down.

Kewl, you noticed it. I was actually talking about this thread though
No need to get involved, you gave some excellent advice on the Vampire. Its just this old, danish fart that wants to redo everything (hmmm, seems I know an old, irish fart with the same tendencies).
Just had one question from the Vamp thread, in the end, I wanted to re-ask. Was there going to be any "playtesting" volumes of IH available for the most faithful of followers?

How did you rate the different classes? I still find it amazing that Fighter rated so low, compared to the fact that it is probably the most played class. I can though understand why the Cleric got high points. In my opinion, the Cleric when properly buffed kicks ass on any fighter. Druid is pretty strong too, good spells with the combination of offensive / buffing / healing.

Do you, a little off-topic, use the normal Ranger for your game?

 

[Anubis]

But what if there are two NPCs of equal power; one NPC has all 18s and another has all 10s. Are they still equal 'challenges'?

Not *exactly*, but . . . And this statement is more for those wondering this than for you, because I think you know this already, although it applies all the same . . . Do those ability scores provide the same amount of power as LEVELS? The answer, of course, is no.

Ask any player. Would you give up four levels of experience for +40 to your stats, with the condition that you will continue to fight the same monsters you are already fighting? Any and every player (save for the munchkins) will answer no to this question.

Basically, the fact is that the ability scores do NOT make a *significant* difference to the challenge level. Yes, the character is tougher, but not LEVELS tougher. To say a character with 18 in every stat is the same challenge as a character four levels higher does not work. The Stone Giant is CR 9 (revised) and so is a character with five levels and 18 in every score (based on the system that does include ability scores . . . or would he be CR 10?). (By the way, these are based on the current available UK PDF.) I am willing to bet all my books and my soul that the Stone Giant is still far more powerful.

Any questions?

 

[Anubis]

Okay, from initial research, it looks like it IS possible to leave out the ability scores once you use the new numbers you came up with for HD. You would HAVE TO, however, increase the value of size as follows:

Fine -8
Diminutive -4
Tiny -2
Small -1
Large +1
Huge +2
Gargantuan +4
Colossal +8

OR make it a flat +1/-1. I'm still researching that.

 

[Alzrius]

Love the Avatar by the way!

Thanks U_K! I saw that pic and just knew I had to have it as my avatar! But on to the other questions I thought up (hope these haven't come up before - if so, sorry!)...

Given that the current rumors are that the ELH and D&Dg are going to be released into the SRD in April (or so we've heard), and the Immortal's Handbook will be released immediately after that, does that mean that you aren't planning on worrying about 3.5E changes, or are you trying to work in the changes as we learn about them (some of the monster changes discussed in Savage Species, for example), or will just give us a 3.5E update later, or what?

Also, how much of the book will you release as OGC (not counting the mechanics that are/will be in the SRD, since those are OGC by their very nature)? If this book is as cool as it sounds like its gonna be, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people wanted to use its material...