NEW Immortals Handbook - Ascension thread

[dante58701]

Not everyone is going to want super pumped ability scores and no powers to go with them.

Very lame and very limiting.

 

[Axolotl]

All the rest of the artifact rules seem to be limiting so it fits in.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi dante mate!

Not everyone is going to want super pumped ability scores and no powers to go with them.

Very lame and very limiting.

I think you are missing the point.

You can still have the abilities (or artifacts), simply that they feed from the character's ability scores.

Now I am not necessarily suggesting this is going to replace the divinity templates, but I think if I had thought of it first, it probably would have - because its a pretty good idea.

My initial goal with the Immortals Handbook was to make a viable and interesting set of immortals based rules. I think I have achieved that.

My second goal was to simplify epic gaming. To an extent I have achieved that, but at the same time I think I might have gone overboard with regards the options and powers immortals get.

To some proportion I can wash my hands of the diversity, after all, the divinity templates are no more complex than other templates, the portfolios are no more complex than the average prestige class.

But there is a part of me who really wants to boil things down to their essence.

I suppose this is the difference between what a DM wants and what a player wants.

3rd Edition is very much Player power, but less DM friendly.

But maybe this idea can ease the burden of DMs while still retaining the potential diversity for players.

Technically players won't lose anything (dependant on where you set the base ability score bonuses), but at the same time DMs will have a much easier time of it.

It also has the added benefit of solving the four artifact rule and non-artifact rule.

So to me it seems like a no lose situation.

I am still interested in hearing peoples thoughts on the matter. I value everyones feedback.

 

[Phantom Llama]

My initial reaction to the idea of giving up artefacts to boost ability scores is that it gives another means of boosting your Strength score, which means it's Virtual Size Categories o'clock.

Of course, you could already do that by taking Legendary Strength as your esoteric, so this is perhaps moot. It depends on the exact numbers.

 

[paradox42]

I think the ability score thing ignores the rather important fact that different immortal tiers get different base abilities. For example, sidereals get Cosmic String, Cosmic Toughness, and Cosmic Firmament automatically in addition to everything else, while mere deities only get Immortality and Divine Toughness. Those automatics are part and parcel of the very definition of each tier, and IMO should not go by the wayside. But how do they fit in to this ability-score-for-Ranks idea? Where do they come in to the picture?

I've been satisfied with the results using the current method, which is essentially as Ltheb detailed it. Fieari's suggestion is certainly a valid one though; the exact amount granted per artifact lost should be examined in terms of what the next lower "rank" of immortal gets so there's an effect of diminishing returns. Of course, what works for me may not necessarily work for others, particularly since I changed the scheme of divinity for my campaign to include more levels of power. Beings at the sidereal level in my scheme get a lot more abilities than those in the unchanged IH Ascension do. So for them, getting a Transcendental ability or two out of the deal isn't quite as impressive as it would be for an immortal using base Ascension rules.

EDIT: Phantom Llama also brings up a good point. Weren't we just debating the VSC problem a few weeks ago?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Phantom Llama mate!

My initial reaction to the idea of giving up artefacts to boost ability scores

Well its more a case of the reverse. Giving up ability scores to boost artifacts...for whatever difference it makes.

is that it gives another means of boosting your Strength score, which means it's Virtual Size Categories o'clock.

Assuming we kept the same CR boost and thus the ability score bonus was upped...

and/or

We allowed the divinity boost to function in tandem with Legendary Strength

and/or

We keep the Legendary [Ability Score] abilities.

Of course, you could already do that by taking Legendary Strength as your esoteric, so this is perhaps moot. It depends on the exact numbers.

The irony of course that you would have to lose ability score points to gain Legendary Strength.

But I agree it depends on the numbers. If I wanted to retain the exact same CR/ECL boost to the divinity templates then it would be a pretty large ability score jump.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy!

I think the ability score thing ignores the rather important fact that different immortal tiers get different base abilities. For example, sidereals get Cosmic String, Cosmic Toughness, and Cosmic Firmament automatically in addition to everything else, while mere deities only get Immortality and Divine Toughness. Those automatics are part and parcel of the very definition of each tier, and IMO should not go by the wayside.

I agree. Those would remain, but some may need rebalanced.

But how do they fit in to this ability-score-for-Ranks idea? Where do they come in to the picture?

As I mentioned previously, some features of the divinity template would remain - key spell-like abilities for instance.

What I probably would do (if I was instigating this idea*) is remove the divine bonuses to all rolls, but I am not sure thats a great idea (it would mean retconning the Bestiary which I have no inclination to do). Basically you would retain all inherant powers but lose all bonuses except ability scores (and natural armour 1/4 HD - which I consider natural anyway) - which would be increased. You could then 'buy' different abilities or use artifacts by expending your ability scores.

*At this point its an optional idea or something that will fit in another set of rules I am working on.

I've been satisfied with the results using the current method, which is essentially as Ltheb detailed it. Fieari's suggestion is certainly a valid one though; the exact amount granted per artifact lost should be examined in terms of what the next lower "rank" of immortal gets so there's an effect of diminishing returns. Of course, what works for me may not necessarily work for others, particularly since I changed the scheme of divinity for my campaign to include more levels of power. Beings at the sidereal level in my scheme get a lot more abilities than those in the unchanged IH Ascension do. So for them, getting a Transcendental ability or two out of the deal isn't quite as impressive as it would be for an immortal using base Ascension rules.

You do like your complexity though (as you have previously admitted).

Regardless, any system would be scalable, as you say you give more abilities to your sidereals, therefore all you would need to do would be to give them proportionately more ability scores per divinity template.

EDIT: Phantom Llama also brings up a good point. Weren't we just debating the VSC problem a few weeks ago?

I think Legendary Strength is a much bigger bugbear to the system than VSCs, its just so exploitable by competant min/maxers.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I don't think theres a correct answer to this one; It depends on the kind of game run - How much weight is put on the material vs the personal.
Meaning - Is having a power intrinsic to you more potent than one from an item (which is much more easily lost)?

IMHO, losing an item to gain an intrinsic power should be a net loss of total power. Not a big loss, but one that in the long run, will clear. I think I suggested once just going with 1/2 original artifact power. IE: If you were allowed bracer's of armor 20, perhaps you could instead have a 'natural' 10 armor bonus.

I don't know what you get when you plug numbers like that, but it seems fair.

 

[dante58701]

Why would anyone want to change the templates, it's a bit late in the game for that. Not to mention they are fine the way they are.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Ltheb matey!

I don't think theres a correct answer to this one; It depends on the kind of game run - How much weight is put on the material vs the personal.
Meaning - Is having a power intrinsic to you more potent than one from an item (which is much more easily lost)?

IMHO, losing an item to gain an intrinsic power should be a net loss of total power. Not a big loss, but one that in the long run, will clear. I think I suggested once just going with 1/2 original artifact power. IE: If you were allowed bracer's of armor 20, perhaps you could instead have a 'natural' 10 armor bonus.

I don't know what you get when you plug numbers like that, but it seems fair.

Its a weird situation. But I agree that inherant power cannot be as great as artifact power, simply because it would render artifacts obsolete.

In 1st Edition one of the main advantages of artifacts (over normal magic items) was in terms of the high base damage they dealt. This alone could easily be replicated within monsters possessing no artifacts simply by upping their base damage.

In 3rd Edition thats not so straightforward because artifacts can have myriad different powers that are well beyond mundane magic items.

So while having loads of magic items still probably made the same impact in 1st Edition up to a point, once you had that Staff of the Magi, Vorpal Sword or +4 Full Platemail, there was not much more you could do. So the power of artifacts plateau'd (as did ability scores and saving throws).

Now you have a situation whereby there is no limitations and everything can scale. Which is creating a bit of a gulf between those with artifacts and those without.

Version 6 is suggesting that a character with full equipment is equal to three similar characters without equipment*.

*Naturally lack of equipment hurts spellcasters less than martial types.