Immortal's Handbook continuation thread

[Eldorian]

I probably shouldn't even bother, but exactly where in any of your posts do you think you have inrefutable proof that the cloak of resistance is balanced with other magic items? Please quote them for me. I made a post that discussed the scaling issues between spells and physical combat, which I believe covered my end quite nicely.

Anyways.. Probalby not worth my time, you'll just come back with more CAPS on how YOU have PROOF.


Eldorian

 

[Impeesa]

Gods can create other beings; but if you don't have a functioning CR assembly mechanic the whole thing won't be balanced.

Wow, epiphany there... I suppose it never really occurred to me why you were making such a big deal out of that, I thought you just wanted to offer an alternative for the GM to keep an immortal game running smoothly.

The Cloak of Resistance is either underpriced or the feats which bestow save bonuses are too weak.

How? If we assume, say, Luck of Heroes (+1 to all saves) costs 5000 (on the higher end for feats), an item granting it 5 times should cost roughly... wow, 25000 gp. If you double the cost of subsequent 'effects', it still wouldn't top 45000. Divide by bonus squared to find standard multiplier.... you get 1800. Round up to 2000, and it's now on the same scale as natural/deflection armor bonuses, or weapon enhancement bonuses. I can see that, but I really don't think it needs to go any higher. At the absolute most, a multiplier of x2500 might be acceptable, but that would be the same cost as the universally-useful Luck bonus. Remember, you can equate feats, magic, skills, and abilities all day long.... but it doesn't make sense if your magic items don't equate with each other any more.

--Impeesa--

 

[Anubis]

Eldorian, I counted your essay on magic and physical combat. That is where the proof is. The post where I explained that saves must go up faster to keep with the scale of magic DCs and all. Ya' know, like how ability scores cost Score^2*1000, so too do saves. Makes perfect sense.

For more, I think Impeesa put it betterthan I ever could have by comparing the cost to the other various bonus types. Like he said, although I still think it's impossible, for the very reason he gave why you shouldn't in the first place, equating the other stuff is useless if you lose the equity within that grouping.

Basically, this is pedantic. Eldorian, I could ask the same of you. Where is the proof? Basically, throughout all my campaigns, I have NEVER ONCE had a balance issue with the Cloak of Resistance. Not once. If that ain't proof that it doesn't need fixing . . .

 

[Anubis]

BTW, UK, you may wanna interject on the force weapon enhancement discussion. I may disagree with your CR and magic CURRENT magic item stuff, but for new stuff, you seem to have a good enough grasp of things.

By the way, with the +1250 weapon that makes an entire race die if one is touched, does that mean if you kill one deity that they all die? Or is it if you kill a creature that is the same race as a deity, that deity dies?

 

[Eldorian]

How can you have a balance issue, while playtesting, with a low costing, passive effect magic item? I don't advocate increasing the price HUGELY, like UK might. I simply think the item should cost approximatly twice that of armor enhancement, since, by my arguement, magic combat is at a scale 1/2 of physical combat. A cost something like

+1 2000
+2 8000
+3 18000
+4 32000
+5 50000

Which is the same as the price of an amulet of nat armor.
Or perhaps 4000 for +1.

As for the amulet being as expensive as the ring of deflection, although the item creation rules don't mention, did you ever wonder why Forge Ring gets a feat all by itself? Perhaps because rings are meant to be more powerful than wonderous items. In my homebrew magic creation rules I'm tring to formalize, the ring will eighter be combined with amulets and bracers (one option) or rings will use standard item costs, whereas slotted wonderous items will cost an additional 25%, with ring being prehaps combined with amulet anyways.

For your arguement that because saves are needed, they should be cheaper. Well.. the more valueable something is, the more it costs right? Least that's how it's always worked as far as I can tell, for balance issues.

I mean, look at the costs on any item that gives spell resistance. Spell resistance is a slightly better defence against spells than saves, if you have enough of it, but the items that give it cost outragious amounts of money. The mantle of spell resistance, which grants SR 21, costs 90,000 gp. Since most DMs stipulate that you can spend at most half your money on one item (many say even less), one would need to be level 15 to buy this mantel. SR 21 protects against level 15 spell casters about 25% of the time, assuming no spell penetration. A cloak of resistance also adds about 25% protection. And SR doesn't protect against Supernatural or Extraordinary abilites such as breath weapons, gaze attacks, trap saves, poison, psionics, etc. which the cloak of resistance does help against. There are few spells that offer no save but offer SR, but all supernatural abilites do not offer SR. I've encountered FAR more supernatural attacks than spells without saves. While I'll admit that the mantle of spell resistance is overpriced, I believe that it should cost about the same as a cloak of reistance +5, which I advocate to be 50,000 gp.

As for it being impossible to equal feats to items, why should it be? Both are aspects of character power, they can both be estimated as a character gains in level (because we have a nice chart stipulating the amount of money a character of a given level should have). Therefore, logically, one could equate thier values.

Anyways. I thank you kindly for stopping the excessive use of all caps, which I interpret as shouting. Now we can have a reasonable discussion.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Anubis]

How can you have a balance issue, while playtesting, with a low costing, passive effect magic item?

By comparing character that have it with those who don't. Cloak of Resistance is a very important and necessary item.

For your arguement that because saves are needed, they should be cheaper. Well.. the more valueable something is, the more it costs right? Least that's how it's always worked as far as I can tell, for balance issues.

That's real-life economics. In a game, you have to consider balance itslef. If something is so important that damn near everybody has to have it, it needs to cost less to make it more likely that people who need it will get it.

To be honest, however, that is totally beside the point. Just using your old argument about the rate of magical combat compared to physical, I can easily demonstrate my point. You see, for physical combat, defense copsts half that of offense. Weapons are on the 2000 scale and armor is on the 1000 scale. Just the same, magical combat is the same way, except the saves increase slightly differently. Saves increase based on spell level (gained every two levels for most) and ability scores (which go on the 1000 scale but you need twice as much in order to get equal effect), and therefore can be averaged out as if on the 2000 scale. Again, saves, the defense, should be on the 1000 scale.

I mean, look at the costs on any item that gives spell resistance. Spell resistance is a slightly better defence against spells than saves, if you have enough of it, but the items that give it cost outragious amounts of money. The mantle of spell resistance, which grants SR 21, costs 90,000 gp. Since most DMs stipulate that you can spend at most half your money on one item (many say even less), one would need to be level 15 to buy this mantel. SR 21 protects against level 15 spell casters about 25% of the time, assuming no spell penetration. A cloak of resistance also adds about 25% protection. And SR doesn't protect against Supernatural or Extraordinary abilites such as breath weapons, gaze attacks, trap saves, poison, psionics, etc. which the cloak of resistance does help against. There are few spells that offer no save but offer SR, but all supernatural abilites do not offer SR. I've encountered FAR more supernatural attacks than spells without saves. While I'll admit that the mantle of spell resistance is overpriced,

I would probably concur that SR is overpriced . . .

I believe that it should cost about the same as a cloak of reistance +5, which I advocate to be 50,000 gp.

. . . but you can't compare saves and SR. They are two totally different methods of defense, and SR is far more potent.

As for it being impossible to equal feats to items, why should it be? Both are aspects of character power, they can both be estimated as a character gains in level (because we have a nice chart stipulating the amount of money a character of a given level should have). Therefore, logically, one could equate thier values.

That's not how logic works in this case, though. The actual logic is that since the factors are so different, you can't equate them, because they all are balanced against each other on their own scale and are too variable. You can't equate variable variables across variable sections of a variable system. That is impossible!

Anyways. I thank you kindly for stopping the excessive use of all caps, which I interpret as shouting. Now we can have a reasonable discussion.

Eldorian Antar

For me, that's one way to put EMPHASIS on things.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Clay_More mate!

Thats what I hoped, my group wont even cross level 10 for another couple of months, dont think they need any +10 equivelant weapons just yet

I am sure I'll have something for everyone in there.

How will undead deities function by the way?

Can you be more specific?

Concept seems strange to me, since deities normally hold the power to destroy undeads (or command them).

There will be some undead only SDAs, naturally. As well as the Undeath portfolio.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

Like I said, you do whatever you want.

Thank you.

I'll have none of it.

Don't tease.

It's useless arguing with a brick wall.

Adamantine net actually.

I have played these rules since they were released and I KNOW which ones are messed up and which ones are not. I KNOW what can be equated and what can not through simple playtesting. I KNOW when I hear someone trying to fix something that is not broken.

You seem to know everything except how to give me one single fact that repudiates my theory.

You have provided no proof for ANY of your theories, yet you say you have.

Its simply mind-boggling that you can make such a claim in light of every reply I have made over the past few days. I mean, honestly, do you even read my replies!? I really am starting to wonder!?

I have shown ample proof as to what I have said, yet you dismiss everything with a grain of salt.

I have literally replied to the minutiae of every single solitary shred of prose you have typed, quoting at each step of the way, point for point.

I grow weary of this.

I'm here all week!

It has become obvious that you have lost sight of what was truly important, which was making a SIMPLE YET BALANCE system for determining CR/ECL/EL.

I have done that, and then some.

Now you have diverted on tangents spanning every factor of the game. Argh . . .

Exaggeration (as ever). Actually I have reddressed a few feats and items for balance.

Anyway, I'm outta here. I'll still get the Immortal's Handbook for the deity information, but I imagine this stuff will be useless to me because I feel that the current system works just fine.

So that will be about one page out of 272+ you won't be using, okay.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Alright, that's quite enough fo that.

Hi Anabstercorian mate!

I've been watching this argument for a while, and while both of you have had many clever and legitimate points arguing your case, I'm forced to make a comment.

Sure, fire away! I think we could use some impartial comments.

Both of you seem to think that you're each ignoring the others arguments -

Do you mean we think that the other is ignoring our arguments, then I would have to say that Anubis is and I am not.

This is not the case from the best of my perception. You're both examining each others arguments, spotting significant holes in them, and dismissing them because of reasoned counter-arguments.

I have to admit (from my perspective) it seems to me that Anubis has been willfully ignorant of every point I have made on this matter.

As regards me responding to Anubis points I can't see how I could bend over backwards anymore than I am already doing!? I quote and respond to every point he makes, yet I seem to be answering the same questions time and time again.

Neither of you is off-handedly dismissing anything, and as flamy as this has gotten, I admire that.

Anubis and I are good friends, I would also venture that neither of us has even begun to flame the other yet - at least I know I haven't.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Impeesa mate!

Wow, epiphany there... I suppose it never really occurred to me why you were making such a big deal out of that, I thought you just wanted to offer an alternative for the GM to keep an immortal game running smoothly.

I like to have a reason for everything.

How? If we assume, say, Luck of Heroes (+1 to all saves) costs 5000 (on the higher end for feats), an item granting it 5 times should cost roughly... wow, 25000 gp.

Incorrect.

Actually Luck of Heroes that stacked five times would be a feat chain/string (whatever you want to call it).

As such the cost multiplies at each increment as with pretty much every numerical based magic item.

My problem is with the Resistance cost multiplier. If it is bonus squared x1000 for a bonus to all three saving throws what does it cost for a bonus to a single saving throw?

Logically about Bonus squared x 400 sounds about right. Which means that placing the Great Fortitude feat into a magic item would cost 1600 GP. Which is far off where our perceived average feat cost (4000 GP) is. Ideally we would want the Great Fortitude feat to be at least +3 (3600 GP) to bring it into line. Of course this is only a minor change, but poignant when the potential for deities to scale such abilities wildly is available: think Divine Fortitude.

Vice versa, if we assume that the Great Fortitude feat is spot on at +2, then a single feat change should cost bonus squared x 1000 (4000 GP item). The idea then would be to reset the modifier for the resistance bonus. Probably bonus squared x 3000 (Giving us a 75,000 GP +5 Cloak of Resistance)

So ideally, either:

Great Fortitude Feat = +2 Bonus
Cloak of Resistance = Bonus squared x 3000

OR

Great Fortitude Feat = +3 Bonus
Cloak of Resistance = Bonus squared x 1000

If you double the cost of subsequent 'effects', it still wouldn't top 45000. Divide by bonus squared to find standard multiplier.... you get 1800. Round up to 2000, and it's now on the same scale as natural/deflection armor bonuses, or weapon enhancement bonuses. I can see that, but I really don't think it needs to go any higher. At the absolute most, a multiplier of x2500 might be acceptable, but that would be the same cost as the universally-useful Luck bonus.

Actually something I have noticed is that Luck (and Insight while we are on the subject) are very badly handled.

Case in point. Luck is valued at bonus squared x 2500. But technically that is for attacks; damage; armour class; saves and checks. What happens if (like the Luck Blade) the luck bonus applies to only one of the above. Why should luck cost any more than resistance in those circumstances?

One caveat is that the luck (or insight) bonus when applied to AC is actually as good as a deflection bonus.

Remember, you can equate feats, magic, skills, and abilities all day long.... but it doesn't make sense if your magic items don't equate with each other any more.

Absolutely.