Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary (Epic Monster Discussion)


log in or register to remove this ad

Pssthpok said:
Hey hey, UK.

Howdy Pssthpok matey! :)

Pssthpok said:
Monks, moreso than the rest; but in the end if you want to hit and deal damage, you're goign to need better numbers.

I'll take that as a no then. :p

Pssthpok said:
Until you're dealing with Uncanny Power Attack and DevCrit. :p

:D

Pssthpok said:
Only when you diverge and start talking about things like keen and fortification.

Which are inherent to the game, so its not like we are having to diverge from anything.

Pssthpok said:
One a numbers-to-numbers argument, both items are equally important in the game. I suppose if you could have things like "Invulnerability (lesser, moderate, and greater)" that soaked up resistance bonuses the way Fortification soaks up armor enhancement bonuses, then it would be a different story?

Certainly anything like that would be an improvement.

Pssthpok said:
Yeah; why can't it just be "magic bonus"? :)

How many times that caught me out I'll never know.

Pssthpok said:
Well, saying that because CoRs don't appeal to one specific genre of fantasy isn't enough to get them the axe, or at least it's not enough to say that save DCs need to be changed so that CoRs stop being so popular. D&D is it's own style of fantasy; we're not necessarily trying to play Game of Thrones or Conan when we sit down with our dice; if you want to do that you buy the campaign setting.

I'm not trying to get CoRs the axe, if simply challenging the validity of their necessity as anything more than mechanical.

Pssthpok said:
CoRs being mundane isn't enough to convict save DCs of being too high. Ability boost items are mundane, too. No one is suggesting that the reason for people wanting such boosts should be revised.

Thats because such items are not necessary, added to which they show up in mythology - so theres an precedent for their addition.

Pssthpok said:
I do my best; our game just hit the mid 30s last weekend and managed to pull together enough worship to reach Hero-deity. :)

Never really thought about it until now, but divinity is a good way to upscale the game without contrivances.
 


Upper_Krust said:
Howdy! :)


I believe thats called 'leading the witness'. :lol:
I believe that's called "dodging the question." Am I to take this as an admission of defeat? Because ideally, that little thought exercise is the very definition of roleplaying.
 

Howdy WarDragon! :)

WarDragon said:
I believe that's called "dodging the question." Am I to take this as an admission of defeat? Because ideally, that little thought exercise is the very definition of roleplaying.

The same items wouldn't exist in a real setting because the '+' is a completely arbitrary mechanic.
 

Upper_Krust said:
Howdy WarDragon! :)



The same items wouldn't exist in a real setting because the '+' is a completely arbitrary mechanic.
*sigh* Why do you insist on misinterpreting it, Krusty? A cloak of resistance does exactly that; make you more resistant to various damaging effects. Just like a +5 sword makes you better at hitting things, a headband of intellect makes you smarter, and a ring of protection or bracers of armor give you a personal force field. The numbers are simply the mechanical interpretation of something that it's perfectly reasonable for any practical-minded wizard or cleric to develop.
 

Upper_Krust said:
The same items wouldn't exist in a real setting because the '+' is a completely arbitrary mechanic.
It's easy to say the same thing of magic weapons and magic armor, which you apparently have no problem with. :) The "plus" is all in how the DM describes it; as a metagame issue it's irrelevant to how the item "actually works" in the "real world" of the game. A Cloak of Resistance is easily explained as being an item that provides a small amount of anti-magic, or helps the wearer's willpower oppose various dangers and "just magically" get luckier or tougher or stronger-willed... in other words, it does just what its name suggests, it lets the wearer "resist" dangerous things. This is no more out-of-place in a world where magic works, than a sword which "just magically" allows you to cut things better, or penetrate hides you couldn't penetrate with a mundane weapon.

Usually when I'm describing the effects of an item to my players, I explicitly state that although I'm going to use game mechanics to describe the effects so the players know what the item does, that is not how the characters themselves understand the item to work. The information the characters get is in some terms relating to them and their "real world" which is our game setting, and in translating what the characters hear to our world they become transformed into game mechanics and rules. That's how I always do it- and sure, it breaks the fourth wall briefly, but sometimes you just have to get on with the game. It's better to do things that way than to try coming up with some gobbledygook/technobabble jargon to translate the game mechanics into every time I need to give the result of an Analyze Dweomer, and have the players re-translate what I said back into game mechanics in their own minds.
 

He insists on it, unfortunately, because anything else would require him to reverse his argument against saving throw DCs and thus be forced to do some changes to Ascension.
 

Pssthpok said:
He insists on it, unfortunately, because anything else would require him to reverse his argument against saving throw DCs and thus be forced to do some changes to Ascension.

Its not a matter of reversing my argument and making some changes, both of which I have done in the past based on feedback from people on these forums (and via email) including you guys from time to time.

Its simply that I don't agree with your argument this time.
 

paradox42 said:
It's easy to say the same thing of magic weapons and magic armor, which you apparently have no problem with. :)

Thats because they have a precedent in fantasy/myth, they are optional dependant on class, they have a variety of abilities - the choice of which is tactical, they have a number of different materials.

paradox42 said:
The "plus" is all in how the DM describes it; as a metagame issue it's irrelevant to how the item "actually works" in the "real world" of the game. A Cloak of Resistance is easily explained as being an item that provides a small amount of anti-magic, or helps the wearer's willpower oppose various dangers and "just magically" get luckier or tougher or stronger-willed... in other words, it does just what its name suggests, it lets the wearer "resist" dangerous things. This is no more out-of-place in a world where magic works, than a sword which "just magically" allows you to cut things better, or penetrate hides you couldn't penetrate with a mundane weapon.

Usually when I'm describing the effects of an item to my players, I explicitly state that although I'm going to use game mechanics to describe the effects so the players know what the item does, that is not how the characters themselves understand the item to work. The information the characters get is in some terms relating to them and their "real world" which is our game setting, and in translating what the characters hear to our world they become transformed into game mechanics and rules. That's how I always do it- and sure, it breaks the fourth wall briefly, but sometimes you just have to get on with the game. It's better to do things that way than to try coming up with some gobbledygook/technobabble jargon to translate the game mechanics into every time I need to give the result of an Analyze Dweomer, and have the players re-translate what I said back into game mechanics in their own minds.

I feel we are going round in circles with this particular discussion.

Instead of forcing Cloaks of Resistance upon players, they could easily make natural save progressions higher - perhaps 2:3 levels = poor and 1 per level = good. That way you essentially get rid of this item.
 

Remove ads

Top