Immortals Handbook - Godsend

[dante58701]

Hey there dante mate!

Hey there.

Indeed.

=^.^=

I'm not.

I was more referring to people I know IRL =^.^=

Although most people I know on other forums are selling their 4.0 stuff already too. It seems enworld is more or less resistant to that common event. Perhaps they'd have a larger fan base if they re-released old editions of D&D, so that there are more options.
I wouldn't mind seeing classic OD&D again.

Unlikely.

=^.^= Don't be so sure about that. WOTC is all about marketing scams. Just watch...it will be officially discussed in a couple years. For now it's already on the table as a plan...even though they will deny it. Just like they initially denied both 3.5 and 4.0.

Well I don't know about magnificent, I'll do my best though.

Seriously, you are WAY too humble. Your 3.5 stuff is the best I come across for epic play.

Certainly the website stuff that I can use will be in there. Can't have Godzilla stats and so forth obviously. Not sure about 'personal notes'...its all personal to me.

Well...not godzilla...but certainly ULTRASAUR!!! or KAIJU!!! (mayhaps a template)

 

[dante58701]

I'll be paying close attention to what transpires over the next month or two - I haven't signed up to 4E yet. So maybe this is the answer although surely it can't be that easy...can it?

This would be a miracle!!! You certainly deal in those Krusty!!! =^.^=

Then EVERYONE could have want they want!!!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Eeexcellent!

It isn't. A quick comparison between the 3.5 Phane and Atropal (to say nothing of the Tarrasque), and the 4E version of each, is more than enough to prove that. In some ways the 4E versions are improvements, in others not, but whatever your opinion of the new stats the monsters are clearly very different beasts in the different editions. Straightforward conversion will not be possible with the majority of powerful monsters, from what I've seen- every case will need to be done individually and re-imagined.

I disagree to an extent, I think you could easily have converted the Tarrasque, Atropal and Phane to be a lot more like their 3E counterparts. The simple truth was that they didn't. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. I mean I could convert the Angels as tight as possible, but I want to tweak a few things here and there.

In fairness I think those monsters you mentioned above could have had more work done to them, but thats just me.

The level conversion chart will likely be a good base for "downgrading" between editions, but as UK admits himself, it's not often going to be a true conversion in the sense that a clear procedure of calculating changes to numbers will work.

Well I mean how easy do you want it (the conversion that is).

And for the record, I do now have the three 4E books myself, and have read through the entire PHB and up to chapter 5 of the DMG. I've also checked out the monster rules in the MM, and paged through the stats of some of the monsters I found most interesting (hence the above declarations). I do not plan to change my game to 4th Edition, and will not be purchasing any more 4th Edition books for quite some time (if ever); the game has some good ideas, but for me not enough to outweigh the bad ones. I'll probably take some of the good ideas and adapt them as best I can to my older edition game, such as skill challenges. The rest, I will discard and ignore.

Out of curiousity what are the 'bad ones'?

I did like the suggestion somebody posted on another thread, though, about taking 4E Immortals products and doing 3.5 or Pathfinder versions of them; I'd even throw my hat in the ring to do work on such conversions in fact.

There may indeed be life in the old dog yet.

 

[dante58701]

There may indeed be life in the old dog yet.

One can only hope. =^.^=

We may yet get to see all those wonderful 3.5 products you initially planned on producing.

*crosses fingers*

I'm not going to hold my breath though. I'm still expecting Godsend to be the last 3.5 book. If I get too excited about more 3.5 books too soon I might end up deflated. =O.O=

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Yea, the Atropal and the Phane are a good bit different in 4E. The core idea is still there. (Undeath incarnate and a mindwarping horror from, surprise surprise, beyond time) Its just that 4E and 3E have different ways of spelling that out. In 3E, you give the creature tons of thematically appropo spell likes and immunities and resistances. In 4E, they handwave that a bit and just say "Here's what it should be like in a fight, anything else is a 'plot power'." Neither way is better then the other, and both have their appealing and appalling qualities. 4E monsters do seem like they don't have many options, but in reality they have whatever options the DM wants to give them. Conversely, 3E monsters seem to have an encyclopedic collection of options, but usually theres only 4 that matter.

Converting between 3E and 4E is not a strait up procedure, its more of a re-write. 4E monsters need more mechanical options to survive in 3E (more immunities, spell likes, etc) and 3E monsters need to be 'focused' or they present lots of options that really won't come up in 4E. (oh yes, a demon with both Protection from good and Magic circle against good; really good choices, except usually Destruction is the best spell to cast; also, power up suites should just be built in to the stat block to save time and avoid game imbalance)

That said, as someone who is quite happy with what 4E brings to the table, I still am interested in Godsend; At the very least, it will sort of be like a preview of stuff that could find its way into 4E. It might have interesting and inspiring mechanics, and maybe some of it I could 'convert' to 4E for the time being if needed. 3E was great fun, but with 4E, combats are exciting, and as a dm, I don't feel like I am doing Trig homework all over again when I sit down to throw together some monsters. My group finds 4E is much more fun (although one of my players seems to have the '4E Curse': He has, for the past 3 sessions been unable to roll over a 5. He should go buy a lottery ticket; last fight he rolled 10 '1's. 0.o) and probably would jump on 4E Immortal's rules in a second. ("Wait, I can have all the cool Tarrasque wrestling craziness, without the math and rules headaches? Where do I sign?!?")

 

[paradox42]

In fairness I think those monsters you mentioned above could have had more work done to them, but thats just me.

The Phane certainly could have, but the removal of most time-related effects from 4E (and the lack of inclusion of a 'chronal' damage type though one could certainly add it easily enough) makes for a difficult time converting any beast that's supposed to represent corrupted time. So I can see where they had problems there. It just doesn't feel at all time-related now; it's just another damage monkey. Of course, so are the psychic creatures like the Gibbering Orb and the Mind Flayer. Goodbye, Mind Blast!

Given the removal of anything resembling energy drain from 4E, I think they did about the best they could with the Atropal- and actually the 4E version is in some ways even nastier than the original with its ability to induce ongoing damage with every attack. That's something I'd actually consider adapting into a variant 3.5 version, or a new monster based on it (perhaps a Blood Abomination since the 3.X version of ongoing damage was the Wounding weapon property). And of course, adding the "no-fly zone" to the Tarrasque to remove the easy way of defeating it was a genius move.

Out of curiousity what are the 'bad ones'?

Of things they added or changed, the forced class balance that means every single class has exactly the same number of powers usable exactly the same number of times per day- and furthermore that because they removed so many conditions and effects from the game, nearly all the powers are just ways to deal damage. This means that all the classes now feel the same; the variety is gone. This is a Bad Thing.

Another symptom of the above problem is that magic items are now forced to have exactly one effect- there is no possibility of something like the old Wand of Wonder (or Rod of Wonder to those who started with 3.X). Likewise, it is no longer possible to have a sword that is both Flaming and Thundering, or Frost and Vorpal. Each item gets one property if it gets any, no ifs ands or buts. The logic of justifying why people who can make magic items somehow never think of multitasking by combining (gasp) multiple powers into a single object, is sacrificed in the name of Game Balance.

More important to me is the removal of those conditions and effects, mentioned above; this makes the game and world a lot less interesting The loss of things like charms and dominates, the removal of creature summoning effects, and the end of energy drain or anything like an instant-death power mean that much of the fantastic nature of magic is gone too.

And in their zeal to keep the so-called "sweet spot" active at all levels of play, they removed anything resembling the old "game breakers" that so many low-level DMs complained about- with the result that Epic, for example, no longer matches its name- it doesn't feel truly epic anymore. Gone are the characters like superheroes, at high or epic levels; everybody's limited to at most a few minutes of flight per day and you need absurd amounts of resources to even Teleport (to say nothing of not being able to even do it to a destination other than a permanent Teleport Circle until 29th level). I mean, even 28th level characters would be forced to walk to their destinations. Come on! That's not epic; it barely even qualifies as mid-level in any other version of the game.

I know some people hated those things, but I was never one of them; I liked pulling out all the stops in high- and epic-level games and having characters who really did feel like near-gods. 4E feels like an effort to make the game all things to all people, which aside from being an impossible task in the first place, just plain went too far in its effects. It ended up just making the game one thing, which though it may appeal to some, does not appeal to me. I may one day play in a 4E game, perhaps a pickup or tournament at Gen Con- but I will never run one. It's not my kind of game.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Ltheb matey!

Yea, the Atropal and the Phane are a good bit different in 4E. The core idea is still there. (Undeath incarnate and a mindwarping horror from, surprise surprise, beyond time) Its just that 4E and 3E have different ways of spelling that out. In 3E, you give the creature tons of thematically appropo spell likes and immunities and resistances. In 4E, they handwave that a bit and just say "Here's what it should be like in a fight, anything else is a 'plot power'." Neither way is better then the other, and both have their appealing and appalling qualities. 4E monsters do seem like they don't have many options, but in reality they have whatever options the DM wants to give them. Conversely, 3E monsters seem to have an encyclopedic collection of options, but usually theres only 4 that matter.

Exactly, which means there is an almost insane (at epic) level of superfluity in 3E's design. Something that 4E diminishes to the extent that monsters are now about their special powers, ie. what makes them special and unique, rather than simply a laundry list of feats and spell-like abilities that a hundred other monsters share.

Converting between 3E and 4E is not a strait up procedure, its more of a re-write. 4E monsters need more mechanical options to survive in 3E (more immunities, spell likes, etc) and 3E monsters need to be 'focused' or they present lots of options that really won't come up in 4E. (oh yes, a demon with both Protection from good and Magic circle against good; really good choices, except usually Destruction is the best spell to cast; also, power up suites should just be built in to the stat block to save time and avoid game imbalance)

Agree again, but I think my Monster Design Parameter document gives you loads of guidelines for filling in the meat and potatoes stuff for 3.5 monsters.

That said, as someone who is quite happy with what 4E brings to the table, I still am interested in Godsend; At the very least, it will sort of be like a preview of stuff that could find its way into 4E. It might have interesting and inspiring mechanics, and maybe some of it I could 'convert' to 4E for the time being if needed.

For some of the 4E stuff I was thinking of making it (where possible) function for 3E and 4E. So I imagine there will be some overlap where my rules transcend whichever system is in place.

3E was great fun, but with 4E, combats are exciting, and as a dm, I don't feel like I am doing Trig homework all over again when I sit down to throw together some monsters.

You think thats tricky try writing a 3E epic book sometime. Its like 10% creativity and 90% math. 4E flips that round so its more like 90% creativity and 10% math.

My group finds 4E is much more fun (although one of my players seems to have the '4E Curse': He has, for the past 3 sessions been unable to roll over a 5. He should go buy a lottery ticket; last fight he rolled 10 '1's. 0.o) and probably would jump on 4E Immortal's rules in a second. ("Wait, I can have all the cool Tarrasque wrestling craziness, without the math and rules headaches? Where do I sign?!?")

Ten '1's...ouch. Hes not a Warlock by any chance...that would be cursed.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey paradox42!

The Phane certainly could have, but the removal of most time-related effects from 4E (and the lack of inclusion of a 'chronal' damage type though one could certainly add it easily enough) makes for a difficult time converting any beast that's supposed to represent corrupted time. So I can see where they had problems there. It just doesn't feel at all time-related now; it's just another damage monkey.

What the hootin' heck was Chronal Damage anyway. Tachyon what!? *Pimp slaps a passing Trekkie*. Honestly, it never really made sense to me (holds hand up for just going along with it). If chronal damage is anything then it should be repeating damage. 4E already has repeating damage built in as standard...of course the designers fail to equate that with the Phane, but to be honest they were probably too busy playing with Kobolds and Orcs to put as much thought into the epic stuff...and thats why I'm here anyway.

Of course, so are the psychic creatures like the Gibbering Orb and the Mind Flayer. Goodbye, Mind Blast!

Given the problems of Stun, not necessarily a bad thing.

Given the removal of anything resembling energy drain from 4E, I think they did about the best they could with the Atropal- and actually the 4E version is in some ways even nastier than the original with its ability to induce ongoing damage with every attack. That's something I'd actually consider adapting into a variant 3.5 version, or a new monster based on it (perhaps a Blood Abomination since the 3.X version of ongoing damage was the Wounding weapon property). And of course, adding the "no-fly zone" to the Tarrasque to remove the easy way of defeating it was a genius move.

I sort of wish they had kept the whole progeny of the gods thing for the Abominations, minor point, but one that rankles.

Of things they added or changed, the forced class balance that means every single class has exactly the same number of powers usable exactly the same number of times per day- and furthermore that because they removed so many conditions and effects from the game, nearly all the powers are just ways to deal damage. This means that all the classes now feel the same; the variety is gone. This is a Bad Thing.

Well I think you have to weigh that up with what went before. Most of the 3E core classes were unbalanced and boring.

I honestly don't think they have removed that many conditions, instead I think basically they have boiled things down to their essence - especially with regards ability damage (which was a complete nightmare to legislate for). Now we have the likes of:

Weakness (instead of Str damage)
Disease (Con damage)
Immobilized, Slowed, (Dex damage)
Dominated (Intelligence damage)
Confused (Wis Damage)
Marked (Charisma Damage)

Were there any conditions missing now that were not ability damage related - other than the obvious Energy Drain which is subsumed into Weakness?

Another symptom of the above problem is that magic items are now forced to have exactly one effect- there is no possibility of something like the old Wand of Wonder (or Rod of Wonder to those who started with 3.X).

I see no reason why there could not be a Wand of Wonder with multiple effects randomly rolled from a table.

Also you might want to take a look at the Artifacts section in the DMG, all the artifacts have multiple abilities.

Likewise, it is no longer possible to have a sword that is both Flaming and Thundering, or Frost and Vorpal. Each item gets one property if it gets any, no ifs ands or buts. The logic of justifying why people who can make magic items somehow never think of multitasking by combining (gasp) multiple powers into a single object, is sacrificed in the name of Game Balance.

Well again, theres nothing to say you can't ever have such an item (See artifacts for one thing*), although personally I think they should be in the minority because when you can apply multiple weapon powers to any magic item it sort of makes them less special. Also lets be totally honest, in epic 3E play (and I am thinking more along the lines of immortal play here) the stacking of weapon and armour powers was borderline ridiculous it was so out of control. It was almost as bad as buffing.

*The Axe of the Dwarvish Lords is technically a +5 thundering, giantslaying returning greataxe.

More important to me is the removal of those conditions and effects, mentioned above; this makes the game and world a lot less interesting The loss of things like charms and dominates, the removal of creature summoning effects, and the end of energy drain or anything like an instant-death power mean that much of the fantastic nature of magic is gone too.

1. Domination (ie. Charm) is still there. See page 277 PHB.
2. Creature Summoning will be introduced at a later date. Its like criticising 4E for having no Bards, Barbarians and Druids when we know fine right that such classes will show up in the PHB 2.
3. Energy Drain was such a messy, messy power that I'm glad its gone. Weakness is a much cleaner and fairer condition.
4. Instant Death was problematic, although I should point out that (a) Orcus has a Death Touch that kills with no save, (b) Bodaks have a Death Gaze that kills with a failed save and (c) Other monsters condition track powers that kill with multiple failed saves.

And in their zeal to keep the so-called "sweet spot" active at all levels of play, they removed anything resembling the old "game breakers" that so many low-level DMs complained about- with the result that Epic, for example, no longer matches its name- it doesn't feel truly epic anymore. Gone are the characters like superheroes, at high or epic levels; everybody's limited to at most a few minutes of flight per day and you need absurd amounts of resources to even Teleport (to say nothing of not being able to even do it to a destination other than a permanent Teleport Circle until 29th level). I mean, even 28th level characters would be forced to walk to their destinations. Come on! That's not epic; it barely even qualifies as mid-level in any other version of the game.

So what you are saying is that the true "epic" will be my immortal level rules...as it always was.

That said, the whole 28th-level characters have to walk to their destination thing could be construed as a more epic journey than "We Teleport".

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings.
by J.R.R.Tolkein (after playing 3E D&D)

Chapter One, Page One.

Frodo: "Gandalf, can you teleport us to Mount Doom."
Gandalf: "No problem." *Wink*
*Frodo drops ring in the Volcano* *Wink* *They arrive home safe and sound and Middle Earth was saved from the evil Sauron*

The End.

I know some people hated those things, but I was never one of them; I liked pulling out all the stops in high- and epic-level games and having characters who really did feel like near-gods. 4E feels like an effort to make the game all things to all people, which aside from being an impossible task in the first place, just plain went too far in its effects. It ended up just making the game one thing, which though it may appeal to some, does not appeal to me. I may one day play in a 4E game, perhaps a pickup or tournament at Gen Con- but I will never run one. It's not my kind of game.

I think the majority of your criticisms are unfounded (see above).

 

[paradox42]

Well I think you have to weigh that up with what went before. Most of the 3E core classes were unbalanced and boring.

Unbalanced, debatable; boring, definitely not. Variety is the spice of life, and the variety is now gone. Therefore, 4E is bland and unappetizing.

Disease (Con damage)

Incorrect. Disease now works nothing like CON damage, in fact it works more like real diseases do- which is a good thing. I like the way 4E handles disease, and I think combined with 3.X's version could make for some really interesting times. The disease track idea is one I applaud, and plan to use in my own game if an opportunity ever comes up (difficult now that the PCs are all gods, but hey- maybe new game someday).

Immobilized, Slowed, (Dex damage)

DEX damage properly encompasses much more than mere speed reduction. Incorrect assessment.

Dominated (Intelligence damage)

Slower thinking and inability to learn != being under another entity's control. Incorrect assessment.

Marked (Charisma Damage)

I have no idea how you came up with this association, but admittedly CHA damage is the toughest to equate to anything except maybe damage to one's appearance.

Were there any conditions missing now that were not ability damage related - other than the obvious Energy Drain which is subsumed into Weakness?

Yes. But I'm not here to argue with you; there is no argument you can make which will make me "see the light" and switch. You asked me to list the Bad Ideas, and I did so in my previous post- the fact that you apparently don't consider most of them to be Bad ideas is irrelevant to me. My opinions were based on careful consideration of what I like in a role-playing game, and why 4E doesn't have it.

Also you might want to take a look at the Artifacts section in the DMG, all the artifacts have multiple abilities.

Irrelevant. Artifacts carry extra baggage and are not "magic items" in the sense of other magic items. Artifacts are special, that's why they're classified with different rules and a different term.

1. Domination (ie. Charm) is still there. See page 277 PHB.

Granted, though it's absurdly difficult to do now. This means it's essentially the same as teleportation in the new edition. I was wrong to list it as missing- it's just greatly reduced.

2. Creature Summoning will be introduced at a later date. Its like criticising 4E for having no Bards, Barbarians and Druids when we know fine right that such classes will show up in the PHB 2.

We have to wait for that book, so for now and the next 8-9 months it's missing. It's not currently part of the core rules.

4. Instant Death was problematic, although I should point out that (a) Orcus has a Death Touch that kills with no save,

Not quite. He reduces the victim to 0 hit points on a hit. 0 hit points != death, nor even unconsciousness for that matter- there are ways to stay active at 0.

(b) Bodaks have a Death Gaze that kills with a failed save and (c) Other monsters condition track powers that kill with multiple failed saves.

Neither of which properly constitutes instant death, though I suppose it could be seen as similar to the cute little "countdown" attacks certain Final Fantasy monsters use. I always was amused by those, even when they got to be annoying.

So what you are saying is that the true "epic" will be my immortal level rules...as it always was.

No, this wasn't about you, it was about WotC butchering the term "epic" and trying to make it something it isn't. However, if your new IH rules will bring true Epic back to the game, then I say more power to you and good luck!

That said, the whole 28th-level characters have to walk to their destination thing could be construed as a more epic journey than "We Teleport".

OOOH no it can't! It merely showcases the characters' lack of growth and lack of new ability. It is properly construed as "pathetic." I say this in comparison to prior editions of the game, wherein even a 10th-level party could bypass things that 28th-level characters in 4E cannot.

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings.
by J.R.R.Tolkein (after playing 3E D&D)

Chapter One, Page One.

Frodo: "Gandalf, can you teleport us to Mount Doom."
Gandalf: "No problem." *Wink*
*Frodo drops ring in the Volcano* *Wink* *They arrive home safe and sound and Middle Earth was saved from the evil Sauron*

The End.

Rejected wholeheartedly! LotR had no high-level characters in it at all, except perhaps Gandalf. Nobody else in the whole trilogy even approached the power level of a 9th-level character in 3rd Edition D&D. LotR might constitute a long campaign, but it does not in any valid way illustrate what the word "Epic" means in every edition of D&D prior to 4th Edition.

I think the majority of your criticisms are unfounded (see above).

It is perfectly fair for you to think so. However, as stated above, your arguments are irrelevant. My opinion is made and given. 4th Edition is not my game and not something I plan to use except to mine the occasional good ideas for use with earlier editions.

 

[dante58701]

=O.O= This is an interesting debate. =O.O=