Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary (Epic Monster Discussion)

[dante58701]

XXX - ERROR - XXX

 

[dante58701]

Rocs are based upon a real world animal that was quite large and could fly. Humans killed those things off by eating their eggs. Not to mention we have prehistoric artifacts that indicate a large number of tremendous, and very mobile, terrestrial life forms. Dinosaurs for example. In theory giants could (and some real world examples exist) exist. It has also been theorized by reputed scientists that creatures such as dragons, although they do not exist, easily could. Nature always finds a way to astonish the limited imaginations of us mere mortals. Im actually amazed that you of all people are so negative in regards to this particular topic. Ive seen quite a few of your posts and know that you have in the past stated that such things could exist, however improbable it may be.

It is entirely possible that the reason nobody pays attention to the rules as is, is because Krusty had yet to redifine them as they should be. His virtual size categories and notes regarding physics are an awe inspiring insight into how things should be. He should have done this in OD&D with Gygax and friends.

 

[paradox42]

D&D Damage IS patently absurd.

Fair enough, but as you've already pointed out yourself, your own rules get patently absurd at other points. The problem then becomes to find a place where it "looks good."

Conceding the point that real-world physics has as much to do with D&D as bread has to do with the core of the sun, this then brings me back to the original point of my earlier post: the estimate of planet hit points that you've been using is far, far too low. Zarquin's number looks remarkably close to yours, so presumably zarquin's argument is much like the one you yourself use. However, since D&D is so clearly not based on real physics, then no argument that begins with real physics can be used to estimate D&D numbers with any validity. Therefore, the method which was used to arrive at a number of 720,000 hit points for an entire planet is wrong, because it used real-world physics numbers as the foundation of its argument.

The better method, in this case, is to go purely by D&D rules- take the number of hit points given to a stone 10 feet thick (easily derived from the known number of 15 per inch of thickness- the result ends up being 1800) and then scale that up to planet-thickness. Using a value of 8,000 miles (approximate diameter) for Earth, that's 4,224,000 x the number given above. The number comes out to be 7,603,200,000. That's how many hit points an object made of stone that's the size of a planet has in D&D. Note that the SRD rules don't say how wide or high an object with "X hit points per inch of thickness" has; only the thickness itself matters. We have only one dimension to work with and cannot go on volume. It is, perhaps, a valid method to assume that "thickness" simply refers to the object's smallest dimension, however large its other measurements are, and this means that a sphere of stone 10 feet across would have 1800 hit points- and a sphere of stone 8,000 miles across (like a planet) has exactly the number I stated above.

We could also calculate it using an Earth Elemental or other monster that's made entirely of stone, and scale it up using the normal size increase rules (and the valid-within-D&D-rules paradigm that a doubling of base hit dice increases the size category by 1 step) until it's planet-sized. Doing this, we can start with a Medium Earth Elemental, average human size (4 HD, 30 hit points), and scale that up to average Earthlike planet size: Mega-Large. Doing this, we get 8,388,608 HD and a CON score that's 84 points higher (granting +42 hit points per hit die in the process), yielding an average of 415,236,096 hit points- before we take into account any Toughness, Improved Toughness, or Great Constitution feats it gets with its 2,796,203 feat slots.

Whatever effects you have that deal with cosmic-scale events like destroying a planet have to be dealing damage of that order or more to be even remotely believeable.

If you want to say that the VSC rules are an attempt to correct this flaw in D&D rules, then we go back down to basing D&D numbers on real-world physics again, however slightly- and the argument I made in my first post must then be answered on real-world physics terms. Doing otherwise simply combines apples & oranges and tries to make them all look like pears. In other words, the reasoning becomes specious.

 

[zarquin]

Fair enough, but as you've already pointed out yourself, your own rules get patently absurd at other points. The problem then becomes to find a place where it "looks good."

I agree.

Conceding the point that real-world physics has as much to do with D&D as bread has to do with the core of the sun, this then brings me back to the original point of my earlier post: the estimate of planet hit points that you've been using is far, far too low. Zarquin's number looks remarkably close to yours, so presumably zarquin's argument is much like the one you yourself use. However, since D&D is so clearly not based on real physics, then no argument that begins with real physics can be used to estimate D&D numbers with any validity. Therefore, the method which was used to arrive at a number of 720,000 hit points for an entire planet is wrong, because it used real-world physics numbers as the foundation of its argument.

My number of 720,000 was based soley off of...

You do the math...

I don't actually agree with that number, I was merely doing the math.

The better method, in this case, is to go purely by D&D rules- take the number of hit points given to a stone 10 feet thick (easily derived from the known number of 15 per inch of thickness- the result ends up being 1800) and then scale that up to planet-thickness. Using a value of 8,000 miles (approximate diameter) for Earth, that's 4,224,000 x the number given above. The number comes out to be 7,603,200,000. That's how many hit points an object made of stone that's the size of a planet has in D&D. Note that the SRD rules don't say how wide or high an object with "X hit points per inch of thickness" has; only the thickness itself matters. We have only one dimension to work with and cannot go on volume. It is, perhaps, a valid method to assume that "thickness" simply refers to the object's smallest dimension, however large its other measurements are, and this means that a sphere of stone 10 feet across would have 1800 hit points- and a sphere of stone 8,000 miles across (like a planet) has exactly the number I stated above.

Actually we do have rules for volume, the hp rules for thickness are the rules to open a 10'x10' hole in a wall, so that a 10'x10'x10' room would have 120 times the hp per inch, or in our case... 1800 HP, so as I said earlier a planet using D&D rules has 67 billion trillion hp, assuming that the planet is effectively just stone instead of iron, double the HP if you want to use an iron planet.

The 7.5Billion-15 Billion HP would just drill a 10'x10' hole through the planet.

We could also calculate it using an Earth Elemental or other monster that's made entirely of stone, and scale it up using the normal size increase rules (and the valid-within-D&D-rules paradigm that a doubling of base hit dice increases the size category by 1 step) until it's planet-sized. Doing this, we can start with a Medium Earth Elemental, average human size (4 HD, 30 hit points), and scale that up to average Earthlike planet size: Mega-Large. Doing this, we get 8,388,608 HD and a CON score that's 84 points higher (granting +42 hit points per hit die in the process), yielding an average of 415,236,096 hit points- before we take into account any Toughness, Improved Toughness, or Great Constitution feats it gets with its 2,796,203 feat slots.

See Iron Planet earlier, just realize that instead of Damage: 1,875,000d6 + 1,000,000 it does Damage: Effective Infinity, IE:

2^66666 D6

 

[Omeganian]

With a planet, you should take into account the crust to get the DR, the liquid parts as well, decide what kind of damage can be lethal to it...

 

[dante58701]

Earth Elemental sounds like a great start actually. You should start there. Planets are surpisingly fragile for their size.

 

[Omeganian]

Earth Elemental sounds like a great start actually. You should start there. Planets are surpisingly fragile for their size.

Fragile?! Look at the moon and you will see what kind of hits it took.

 

[zarquin]

Earth Elemental sounds like a great start actually. You should start there. Planets are surpisingly fragile for their size.

Don't... Just don't.

Any CR number you get from that is FAAR to high to have meaning, and will need no more than a strength of 2280 to OHKO it.

There really isn't point to any creature with more than about 25k HD, because by that point your reaching Pun-Pun and Akashic CR levels. Again... any of the Mega-Class and higher creatures are effectively just a story based creature and has no real reason to be stated up, atleast using the HD double every size catagory.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi paradox mate!

Fair enough, but as you've already pointed out yourself, your own rules get patently absurd at other points.

The point where no one of sound mind and body should be playing.

The problem then becomes to find a place where it "looks good."

I think any open-ended gaming system will break down eventually. The only way to have a balanced system would be to 'cap' certain aspects of the game like 1st/2nd Edition. Ability Scores, Attack Bonuses, Saves, Magic Items etc.

Conceding the point that real-world physics has as much to do with D&D as bread has to do with the core of the sun, this then brings me back to the original point of my earlier post: the estimate of planet hit points that you've been using is far, far too low. Zarquin's number looks remarkably close to yours, so presumably zarquin's argument is much like the one you yourself use. However, since D&D is so clearly not based on real physics, then no argument that begins with real physics can be used to estimate D&D numbers with any validity. Therefore, the method which was used to arrive at a number of 720,000 hit points for an entire planet is wrong, because it used real-world physics numbers as the foundation of its argument.

I disagree.

We know in D&D that increasing a monsters mass by x64 enables it to do double damage.

The better method, in this case, is to go purely by D&D rules- take the number of hit points given to a stone 10 feet thick (easily derived from the known number of 15 per inch of thickness- the result ends up being 1800) and then scale that up to planet-thickness. Using a value of 8,000 miles (approximate diameter) for Earth, that's 4,224,000 x the number given above. The number comes out to be 7,603,200,000. That's how many hit points an object made of stone that's the size of a planet has in D&D. Note that the SRD rules don't say how wide or high an object with "X hit points per inch of thickness" has; only the thickness itself matters. We have only one dimension to work with and cannot go on volume. It is, perhaps, a valid method to assume that "thickness" simply refers to the object's smallest dimension, however large its other measurements are, and this means that a sphere of stone 10 feet across would have 1800 hit points- and a sphere of stone 8,000 miles across (like a planet) has exactly the number I stated above.

The whole thing hinges on x64 mass/energy = x2 damage.

The Wall based rules you quoted from the DMG operate on the same principles as a falling block of masonry.

Which brings us back to the argument about a 1 ton block dealing 20d6 damage and a 200 ton dragon dealing 4d8 damage.

They can't both be right. Therefore we must change the one which requires the least amount of work. Since revising damage for every monster in every book would take far too long, the obvious solution is to change the hit points for objects.

Unfortunately, logically, the material hit point rules actually make more sense, but changing the damage rules for monsters so derails d20 that you really don't want to even attempt it.

...then again, you might be able to rework the rules by quodrupling damage each size category but only letting monsters make 2/3 (then 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 etc.) as many attacks.

e.g. A Hill Giant would deal 4d10+str from a Greatclub, but not attack every third round.

e.g. A Storm Giant would deal 32d6+str from its Greatsword, but only attack every other round.

e.g. A Mountain Giant would deal 256d10+str from a Greatclub, but only attack once every four rounds.

Just thinking out loud. Needs work.

We could also calculate it using an Earth Elemental or other monster that's made entirely of stone, and scale it up using the normal size increase rules (and the valid-within-D&D-rules paradigm that a doubling of base hit dice increases the size category by 1 step) until it's planet-sized. Doing this, we can start with a Medium Earth Elemental, average human size (4 HD, 30 hit points), and scale that up to average Earthlike planet size: Mega-Large. Doing this, we get 8,388,608 HD and a CON score that's 84 points higher (granting +42 hit points per hit die in the process), yielding an average of 415,236,096 hit points- before we take into account any Toughness, Improved Toughness, or Great Constitution feats it gets with its 2,796,203 feat slots.

Whatever effects you have that deal with cosmic-scale events like destroying a planet have to be dealing damage of that order or more to be even remotely believeable.

Believeable by the material hit point rules, but unacceptable by the damage rules.

If you want to say that the VSC rules are an attempt to correct this flaw in D&D rules, then we go back down to basing D&D numbers on real-world physics again, however slightly- and the argument I made in my first post must then be answered on real-world physics terms. Doing otherwise simply combines apples & oranges and tries to make them all look like pears. In other words, the reasoning becomes specious.

I have always based the numbers on real world physics.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the rules for damage and the rules for material hit points simply don't gel in the official rules.

By the official rules, a monster that could lift Mount Everest would take 6 or 7 blows to knock down a 5ft. thick wall of unworked stone!

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Physics in D&D. What a wacky subject. Since any given game is going to have only the amount of physics it's DM wants it to have, then its a good bet that there isn't a "right" answer.

How many hitpoints should a planet have? Heck, depends on what the DM defines HP as. If hitpoints represent the overall bodily health and "toughness" of a planet might have tens of thousands or more. (depending on what formula your DM wants to use)

That said, perhaps the best bet is just not to use a formula at all but simply to assign logical numbers for the hitpoints of a planet. Just give a planet as many hitpoints as needed to survive everything up to the amount of damage you think a planet should be able to take in 1 shot.
U_K's "60k" basis in the bestiary seemed about right to me. By the time you can do 60k damage, the foes you fight will be a lot more dangerous. (Like Anomalies) (Besides, for the most part, planets are a non-combatant, with the exception of beings like Algol)