Immortals Handbook - Godsend

[Kerrick]

Probably because they don't make for tough challenges.

Yeah, probably. But, it's not just fat people I'm talking about here. See below.

I think an easy way to do it would be to create a 'Fat' Template, rather than rewrite the VSC rules. Within which you could negate the effects of VSCs.

I think the VSC rules are flawed, but fixing them wouldn't take much work. See, VSCs should be based solely on a creature's size, not its strength. As strength increases, a creature gains muscle mass and weighs more - so immense strength is already factored into a creature's weight.

Let's take the dire bear as an example: it's 12 feet long (Large) and weighs around 4 tons (Huge). Its strength (31) isn't enough to grant it a VSC, but its size is. This also accounts for its greater-than-normal HD (12); by my calculations, the max for a Large animal is 8, but a Huge animal starts at 4: 8 + 4 = 12.

The same principle applies to the dire tiger (though it should have around 10 HD, not 16) and a couple of the dinosaurs.

 

[Alzrius]

I think there are a number of things that still need work.

Given that I'm not privy to your underpining math, I'm not sure how much help I'll be able to provide in regards to the mathematical correctness of the document (notwithstanding checking examples). Most of what I've found so far is stylistic errors.

By the way, I haven't received anything after v.6, so maybe hotmail is having a problem again.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Given that I'm not privy to your underpining math, I'm not sure how much help I'll be able to provide in regards to the mathematical correctness of the document (notwithstanding checking examples). Most of what I've found so far is stylistic errors.

Don't worry about the math - I'll sort that out myself.

By the way, I haven't received anything after v.6, so maybe hotmail is having a problem again.

No, my fault. Been working the past 3 nights (and again tonight), long shifts make it really difficult to get anything done between the time when I wake up and go to work.

However, I am off for a week after tonight, so give me a day to recover and I'll be back with another email.

Kerrick mate I'll get back to you tomorrow.

 

[Kerrick]

Kerrick mate I'll get back to you tomorrow.

No worries. If you're interested, I'll share some insights I've gained regarding monster creation also.

 

[Sulacu]

Ooo, a Godsend sample is out? I wanna see!

 

[Kerrick]

Ha, I wish. Alzrius is doing the editing - that's the only reason he's got a copy. Hopefully, though, this means we'll be seeing it soon.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Ha, I wish. Alzrius is doing the editing - that's the only reason he's got a copy. Hopefully, though, this means we'll be seeing it soon.

I don't want to dash anyone's hopes but Godsend is still a good way from completion, however, I will throw together a few more of the files, try and make them a bit more presentable and send them to Alzrius over the weekend (or early next week).

At this stage the main problem with Godsend is, ironically, going to be the Gods themselves. I'm so long out of 3.5 that its looking like a foreign language. Looking at some of the entries and just groaning about the sheer amount of feats, skill points and divine abilities.

Still..I'll get there in the end...I used to be good at this stuff.

Incidently, anyone pick up from the thread in General Discussion titled "Paizo killed High Level 3E" or something like that. Turns out Paizo's Adventure paths are going no higher than 15th-level using their own revised Pathfinder system because even they believe above that its too unwieldy! So much for Pathfinder being a benefit to epic gaming...as I predicted.

 

[Evilmonkeygod]

Hey UK, that's quite unfair of you. Pathfinder isn't even finished yet, and you already are claiming it'll fail at high level/epic play. They've been actively working on trying to make high level play workable, responding to fans and using their input, which is more than i can say for WotC and 4e.

 

[Kerrick]

I don't want to dash anyone's hopes but Godsend is still a good way from completion, however, I will throw together a few more of the files, try and make them a bit more presentable and send them to Alzrius over the weekend (or early next week).

Can we at least get v6? Please? Pretty please? I've been holding off on my monster conversions for a couple months now (though most of them are already done; I just have to check against the new values and convert to ECLs, which is the biggest part). I could just post everything with CRs and go over them again later, but I'd rather do it all once and be done with it.

At this stage the main problem with Godsend is, ironically, going to be the Gods themselves. I'm so long out of 3.5 that its looking like a foreign language. Looking at some of the entries and just groaning about the sheer amount of feats, skill points and divine abilities.

If all else fails, Toughness is good for taking up multiple feat slots.

Incidently, anyone pick up from the thread in General Discussion titled "Paizo killed High Level 3E" or something like that. Turns out Paizo's Adventure paths are going no higher than 15th-level using their own revised Pathfinder system because even they believe above that its too unwieldy! So much for Pathfinder being a benefit to epic gaming...as I predicted.

Heh, little surprise.

Hey UK, that's quite unfair of you. Pathfinder isn't even finished yet, and you already are claiming it'll fail at high level/epic play. They've been actively working on trying to make high level play workable, responding to fans and using their input, which is more than i can say for WotC and 4e.

Actually, he's right. I've been reading the Paizo forums since shortly after the first Alpha was released; they tossed around the idea of doing high-level play, but they got very few ideas from the fanbase, and it's apparent that they dropped it. Really, fixing high-level play to be more balanced and streamlined requires a lot more adjustments to the core system than they're willing to make.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey UK,

Howdy Evilmonkeygod dude!

that's quite unfair of you. Pathfinder isn't even finished yet, and you already are claiming it'll fail at high level/epic play.

Let me just be clear exactly what I am stating.

Firstly, that Pathfinder will be of little or no consequence to epic games and thusly do nothing to improve epic/immortal 3E games ~ which is where my concerns exist.

Secondly, that (according to James Jacobs in the thread I mentioned*) Pathfinder adventure paths will no longer go to 20th-level because the system has been found too unwieldy at those levels. Prompting someone in the thread to say "So Pathfinder's solution to high-level gaming is not to play it."

* http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252097-3-5-high-level-woes-paizos-hand.html

Post #70

There are a lot of good points and excellent observations in this thread... many of which were the same good points and excellent observations that led us at Paizo to choose to limit Pathfinder's adventure paths to the 1st–14th level band, or thereabouts.

Post #73

So Pathfinder solution to High level play is not to play it?

The problem with revising 3E (IMO) is that there are too many fundamental problems inherent to the system. So many in fact, that you may as well rebuild the whole thing from scratch - which is what 4E does.

They've been actively working on trying to make high level play workable, responding to fans and using their input,

Their definition of high-level play is probably about 11-15th level.

which is more than i can say for WotC and 4e.

4th Edition works at all levels, so they don't need further input to make it more 'workable'. However, I am sure they do listen to feedback and do a lot of playtesting.