Immortal's Handbook continuation thread

[Anubis]

Not to unduly support Wizards of the Coast, but they have been quoted as saying "not all feats were created equal". They were even talking about Skill Focus at the time (when asked to justify the +2 bonus against a feat like Alertness). Many people were already imbuing Skill Focus with a +3 bonus, and then additional supplements jumped on the bandwagon.

My point is this ... while all feats are relatively equal in power, some feats are going to break the bell curve of power, and that is seeming by design. Giving a non-epic character +10 on a skill bonus at 1st level is the equivalent of giving them an automatic Take 10 ability (the ability to perform a skill even under stressful circumstances). It's simply too great a bonus.

If you are going to imbue the feat with a bonus greater than +3, then make the bonus +5 at most, make a Greater Skill Focus feat +10 (in total), and keep the epic skill focus feat at +10 (self-contained).

Curious, if you do increase the Skill Focus bonus to +5, then how do you plan on changing feats like Alterness?

Heck, I could possibly even live with the +5 over the +3.

To be honest, if you make it +5, there is no need to change Slertness or any other such feats. Think about it this way: +5 comes to those who specialize in ONE thing, but if you want bonuses in two, you give up one and divide the rest in half, leaving you with +4. Consider it the cost for getting two bonuses instead of one. Sounds fair enough perhaps.

I think I'll wait and see the revisions to the core rules before making a final ruling on the subject.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Eldorian mate!

Cloak of resistance ain't broke? Listen here mate. Saves work on a scale approximatly half that of AC.

Well I never said it was broke, I suspect it is too cheap though.

IE, spell combat is scaled to half that of weapon combat. So you're saying that an item that gives a universal bonus to spell defence, the cloak of resistance, the same price as the equivalent protection for weapon combat, ie, magical armor enhancement, is a good idea?

I'm just not happy with the relative balance between Saving Throw enhancing feats and items.

If you don't immediately follow that saves should be approximatly half ac.. look at this. Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers get new spell levels every other character level. The save DC on a spell (think Attack bonus with an average roll of 10) is 10 + spell level + stat. Now, the bonus to hit weapn a weapon, for a warrior type, is Level + stat. Level is twice spell level, ergo, the "attack bonus" of a spell is scaled approximatly half that of a physical attack. This discrepency is even more disgusting when you consider that physical attack bonus is very simple to increase, with enhancement bonuses to weapons. Also, the spell caster often must use spells lower level than his max spell level, which pushes the DC down some more.

Even if we assume you are right then the various Saving Throw enhancing feats should be +3 rather than +2. Or there should be a feat to increase all Saving Throws by +1.

Is there an enhancement bonus for spell attack bonus?

I'm not sure, but we can assume a parallel with ability score bonuses at least.

(note to self. FINISH ALTERNATE ITEM RULES.. new idea, add in alternate types of bonus to saves, other than enhancement, to mimic AC)

Now for defence. We'll assume a monk, which gets the best saves. The monk's defence against spells is equal to 1/2 level +2 +stat. A npc fighter's AC (out of DMG, he has the best AC), on the otherhand, is approximatly ("roll" your AC to compare it to saves) level +3~4 + stat(2 stats for monk). So obviously his physical defence is scaled to be ~ twice the monk's magical defence.

So, obviously, since there is a single weapon attack bonus magical bonus, and enough armor bonuses to keep up, and there is not a magical bonus for spell "attack bonus", but there is one for spell defence, the spell defence one should cost significantly more than the armor bonuses (at least twice, if not more, since there is no spell attack bonus item).

My idea would be to seperate the cloak into 3: Fortitude; Reflex and Will.

Therefore a Cloak of Fortitude Resistance +5 would be 25,000 GP.

Adding +5 to Reflex would cost +50,000 GP.
Adding +5 to Will would cost +50,000 GP.

So a Cloak of Total Resistance +5 would cost 125,000 GP

Now, I'm not saying that cloak of resistance is "broken" in that the mechanic destroys the game.

I don't think its 'broken' simply too cheap.

I am saying that the mechanic favors defenders. And that the magic item is vastly superior to other defensive items of similiar cost. After all, a ring of protection, which is one of the 4 main AC magic items, costs twice as much as a cloak of resistance. Would you rather have a cloak or a ring? In the games I play in, we fight things that make us save or bad things happen. I assume, given the number of spell caster classes and the amount of supernatural and spell like abilites on the monsters in DnD, that other players have had similiar experiences. Since AC costs twice as much to increase as saves, and the saves are easier to get above the enemy spell caster's DCs, then the cloak would be a better buy. If the world were fair, there would be a way to use magic items to enhance your spell DCs, and 4 ways to enhance your saves, just like with weapons and AC, except that the magic attack and defence times would cost twice as much.

Well you can increase DCs by ability score enhancement.

Incidently I have just been checking Ioun Stones and they rate the Alertness feat the same price as a +2 ability score enhancement (8000 GP). Which is a little strange considering Gauntlets of Ogre Power cost 4000 GP. Though presumably because Ioun Stones don't use up any item slots (though double the cost seems a bit too much for that luxury perhaps).

So from the above we can extrapolate that a magic item that adds a feat is presumably valued at 4000 GP.

Same as (all 4000 GP):

Bracers of Armor +2
Cloak of Resistance +2 (to all saves)
Gloves of Arrow Snaring
Pearl of Power (2nd)
Periapt of proof against poison +4 (to Fort vs. poison)
[Ability Score] enhancement +2
+2 Armour

Less expensive items include (all 2000 GP):

Boots of Elvenkind (+10 skill bonus)
Cloak of Elvenkind (+10 skill bonus)
Ring of Climbing (+10 skill bonus)
Vest of Escape (+10 skill bonus)
+1 Weapon

So from the above evidence we can ascertain that under the official rules a feat could conceivably even add +14 to a skill!

Though I would maintain that the skill bonus cost should be doubled meaning a +10 skill bonus item would also cost 4000 GP.

Another problem with DnD combat (one that I realised from computer RPGS) is that magic spells scale funky. They increase in power MUCH faster than physical attacks. And save or die mechanics are simply annoying, and require resurrections to be in the game to balance it out, which I find a tad annoying.

Yes I'll have to sort that out for 4th Edition.

Anywho, I'ma gonna go do something else than rant about dnd balence and how I could make it better.

Later mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Greetings!

Hi Eä mate!

It has been a while since I posted here the last time, but I have been busy for a long time now...

Hey, no need to explain mate. Just nice to see you again.

I have, however, been following the thread, and while I haven't replied, I have given some issues some thought.

Sure, fire away.

As for skills: In the campaign in which I am playing, skills are perhaps more important than combat. Given: combat is universal, so it should be rated higher than skills, but indeed skills are vital.

Agreed.

Know that: All challenges have a challenge rating. Not only opponents that you face, but also difficult situations. For instance, last time I played, I joined a tournament in a gnome city. This tournament involved extensive use of the balance skill (as have many of my activities of late). This was far more challenging than facing a group of 3 orcs (for my second level character) and should be rated as such.

Indeed.

To me it seems that many of you underrate skills, and I am happy with the current rating of skills.

Do you mean that 5 bonus skill points = CR +0.1?

However, I do not agree with the skill bonus of skill focus: I think +10 is too much:

I admit its a terrible shock, but all the evidence supports that theory. I know that on the surface it seems ridiculous, but I actually think its valid, though I am still not convinced myself its for the best.

The skill bonus from skill focus is an unnamed one, and is therefore more valuable than a racial one (remember, racial bonuses don't stack). Other bonuses that are unnamed have a higher cost than those that have a name.
Also: Skill Focus is a prerequisite for entering many prestige classes. This may not seem as a balancing factor to many of you, as also "good feats" may be prerequisites, but in my opinion, it is a valid argument for it not grow "out of proportion."
As you develop your character, you may gain different racial bonuses, from magic, special circumstances, divine intervention and so on, but only the highest one counts. I guess this is minor, but it should e accounted for.

I suggest changing Skill Focus to a +5 bonus. This way it is treated as an unnamed bonus and is 2.5 times better than the original Skill Focus feat, which at least makes it worth it for some characters.

Thats certainly one option. Though for the purposes of determining the rating I would wholly ignore the current +2 bonus.

I hope this made some sense, but I wouldn't bet on it (-;

 

[Upper_Krust]

Goodday everybody!

Hiya mate!

It makes perfect sense. And I agree with an unnamed +5 as the bonus, and perhaps upgrading the epic to +13 or +14.

Personally I would prefer to keep the various feats equal, even epic feats.

There is no reason why epic feats should be intrinsically more powerful.

As for the Cloak of R., it may be underrated, as much of what Eldorian said makes sense. Of course I don't try to find flaws in the books, like it seems some of you do ('course I'm not writing a book).

You could argue even WotC don't always look to find flaws.

Later

Take care mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi mate!

Not to unduly support Wizards of the Coast, but they have been quoted as saying "not all feats were created equal".

Naturally they added that caveat after the work was published.

I bet may feats will be tweaked (for balance) in the Revised Core Rulebooks.

They were even talking about Skill Focus at the time (when asked to justify the +2 bonus against a feat like Alertness). Many people were already imbuing Skill Focus with a +3 bonus, and then additional supplements jumped on the bandwagon.

I think that one is obviously so weak that its apparent even after minimum familiarity with the system.

My point is this ... while all feats are relatively equal in power, some feats are going to break the bell curve of power, and that is seeming by design.

I am happy to concede that point, but it is the overall balance I am concerned with, not individual balance.

Giving a non-epic character +10 on a skill bonus at 1st level is the equivalent of giving them an automatic Take 10 ability (the ability to perform a skill even under stressful circumstances). It's simply too great a bonus.

Not necessarily. Remember that the automatic Take 10 ability works on at least 4+ skills whereas Skill Focus only works on 1.

If you are going to imbue the feat with a bonus greater than +3, then make the bonus +5 at most, make a Greater Skill Focus feat +10 (in total), and keep the epic skill focus feat at +10 (self-contained).

Currently I haven't seen any evidence that suggests I should take things below +10. I know its a hefty increase; especially at 1st-level but it seems to make sense.

However, that said I still haven't convinced myself its for the best, primarily because it is such a huge leap rather than any logical reasoning though.

Curious, if you do increase the Skill Focus bonus to +5, then how do you plan on changing feats like Alterness?

Well it would be nice to keep Skill Focus as an even number.

 

[Anabstercorian]

I think a +5 bonus would be about right. It would definately make Skill Focus a highly tempting feat... I remain convinced that +10 is far too much.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

There is a reason, after all, why an epic wizard could almost always defeat an epic fighter of the same level in a duel. Spells are stronger!

Isn't this in actual fact an argument that the various classes are imbalanced rather than an indictment of a saving throw enhancing item!?

You see, the Cloak of Resistance is balanced off WEAK saves, not strong saves. The game assumes you'll USUALLY succeed at making your strong saves anyway, so that's a non-issue. Fact still remains that even if you're Level 20 and have a Cloak of Resistance +5, you're STILL gonna have to roll pretty high to make saves! Trust me, the Cloak of Resistance is always one of the first magical items in the game, and although it makes a difference, it has NEVER been broken.

Some interesting points there mate, however the flipside to this coin is as follows.

Even if we assume the Cloak of Resistance is perfectly balanced with regards its peers, the feats which provide saving throw bonuses therefore become completely undervalued with regards their peers.

We know approximately that a feat should equate to a 4000 GP item.

Therefore a feat like Great Fortitude which adds +2 to a single save type is about one third as effective as a Cloak of Resistance +2.

One or the other isn't ideally balanced.

Heck, I could possibly even live with the +5 over the +3.

I would like to think so given the evidence.

To be honest, if you make it +5, there is no need to change Slertness or any other such feats. Think about it this way: +5 comes to those who specialize in ONE thing, but if you want bonuses in two, you give up one and divide the rest in half, leaving you with +4. Consider it the cost for getting two bonuses instead of one. Sounds fair enough perhaps.

Personally I want to change as little as possible. It seems logical that Alertness should be perhaps slightly higher in total since they make the two choices for you. But there should be very little (if anything) in it.

I think I'll wait and see the revisions to the core rules before making a final ruling on the subject.

Thanks mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anabstercorian mate!

I think a +5 bonus would be about right. It would definately make Skill Focus a highly tempting feat... I remain convinced that +10 is far too much.

It does seems universally regarded as 'too high'. Even though the evidence supports it.

Though the flipside to making the feat bonus +5 is that for extra skill points to monsters you would add +1 CR per 25 skill points.

Meaning the Vampire would gain +2.2 CR from its 56 bonus skill points. Which in itself seems too much.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Upper Krust, your problem is that you're viewing six +6 bonuses and a single +36 bonus as somehow equivalent. This isn't the case... Specialization is important in dungeons and dragons, and large bonuses applied to a SINGLE score is more important than a minor across-the-board bonus. The Vampire's skill bonuses aren't as important as you think they are...

Simply put, you're going about this the wrong way. Simply totalling the bonuses is not the way to go - It's more complex than that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

Upper Krust, your problem is that you're viewing six +6 bonuses and a single +36 bonus as somehow equivalent. This isn't the case...

I would agree it probably isn't the case to the individual because it puts the focus (no pun intended) on that single ability.

But generically it is exactly the case. Especially given the formulaic relationship between Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as I attest.

Remember the effect of CR on EL lessens the higher we increase CR.

Specialization is important in dungeons and dragons, and large bonuses applied to a SINGLE score is more important than a minor across-the-board bonus.

Specialisation always represents a sacrifice in other areas, typically a weakness.

The Vampire's skill bonuses aren't as important as you think they are...

Lets have a look at the example in the monster manual but using my CR/EL rules:

A 5th-level NPC Fighter Vampire would be CR 12. Meaning its a moderate challenge for a party of PCR 12 (approx. 10th-level) characters and a difficult challenge for a party of PCR 6 (approx. 5th-level) characters.

If we don't factor the skill bonuses (as I suggest) the NPC becomes CR 11. A moderate challenge for a party of PCR 11 (approx. 9th-level) and a difficult challenge for a party of PCR 6th (approx. 5th-level).

Not really so much of a big difference is it!? Remembering of course that the Vampire is the biggest proponent of skill bonuses in the Monster Manual.

So really you are arguing for something that makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. Yet something that is often poignant on an individual basis.

Simply put, you're going about this the wrong way. Simply totalling the bonuses is not the way to go - It's more complex than that.

Its only more complex than that if you want it to be.