NEW Immortals Handbook - Ascension thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think, for the sake of simplicity, that a cost multiplier be used for now. X1.5 sounds good to me because the math comes out nice and even, and if included in Ascension, it would take less space to explain that then to institute a complex drawback system. (Or even to spell out guidelines) Perhaps in Grimoire an additional mechanic for artifact drawbacks be proposed, and that either system could be used interchangeably. Don't want a drawback? Pay through the nose in equivalent bonus. Want power, at bargain deals? Take a crazy drawback for the artifact, like 'only works on tuesday' :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dante58701

Banned
Banned
This should be done for Portfolios too. There should also be a way to take Opposed Portfolios without having to be a friggin Elder One.

How does one bypass that silly little rule??? I really need to know.
 

mercucio

First Post
By ignoring it. I have no problems combining Skill & Luck or Knowledge & Secrets. There exist mythological archetypes for both combinations, as well as other normally opposed Portfolios in Ascension.
 

Pssthpok

First Post
I agree; some portfolio oppositions and affiliations (Skill and Dexterity, for instance) make almost no sense whatsoever. You learn to cut the fat; no offense, UK. :)
 

Hey mercucio mate! :)

mercucio said:
No, we're not giving you mixed signals. We said straight out that their should be an increased cost for having esoterics on artifacts, like 1.33 or 1.5. Requiring a drawback is cumbersome and only complicates the game unnecessarily. While I suppose one could take a drawback to negate the cost multiplier for placing esoterics on an artifact, forcing players to have a drawback is pain for them and the DM. Also, even with a cost multiplier players should probally still be limited to 1 esoteric ability per artifact.

Any limitation or multiplier (which does seem far more complicated) seem really arbitrary, whereas the drawback is not on;ly logical, but easy to apply.

Yes I know drawbacks are as much a pain to immortals as artifacts are to mortals...but thats sort of the point of esoteric abilities they are not something to be taken lightly.

At any rate this is going in as an optional rule, albeit one I do currently advocate.
 

Phantom Llama

First Post
mercucio said:
By ignoring it. I have no problems combining Skill & Luck or Knowledge & Secrets.
Or Art and Crafts, or Magic and Science, or Thunder and Winter.

Not to mention dualist deities that rule both ends of an issue. The opposed portfolio business is possibly the prime example of shoehorning in the IH. Like many other things* people with any sense should just ignore it as soon as it gets in the way.

On the subject of Skill and Luck, if Euthanasia wins the tournament she won't be able to benefit from the Amidah template's key ability since she doesn't recieve luck bonuses. Although it is amusing how her opposed portfolio has indeed been the thing that's spoiled her time the most so far.

*Minimum size, a good number of prerequisites.

EDIT:
Any limitation or multiplier (which does seem far more complicated) seem really arbitrary, whereas the drawback is not on;ly logical, but easy to apply.
I'm not seeing how the drawback is more 'logical' than a cost multiplier.

The multiplier is also far easier to apply, since you just pay extra for it and then you're done, rather than hunting around for the drawback that will fit your character and/or have minimal impact. Someone so imbecilic that they can't even multiply a small even number by 1.5 is not equipped to play an immortal-level game of D&D. If nothing else they should have a calculator on hand anyway to do all the tedious arithmetic.
 
Last edited:

Hiya mate! :)

Pssthpok said:
I agree; some portfolio oppositions and affiliations (Skill and Dexterity, for instance) make almost no sense whatsoever. You learn to cut the fat; no offense, UK. :)

That would be Luck and Dexterity, not Skill and Dexterity. Skill IS Dexterity. Luck is acting without Skill.

I am happy enough for some to ignore these things, because I know many others will gain the benefit of them, also I think they are good for creating nemesis types.
 

Pssthpok

First Post
Hey, UK.
I said "affiliations" not "oppositions"; i.e. I don't think Skill necessarily has anything to do with Dexterity, but your portfolios force that affiliation, an affiliation I chose to ignore. In short Skill ISN'T Dexterity, not necessarily. Skill might be Intelligence, or any other of a myriad possible factors.
 

Phantom Llama

First Post
Upper_Krust said:
I am happy enough for some to ignore these things, because I know many others will gain the benefit of them, also I think they are good for creating nemesis types.
There is no benefit to them. The oppositions that make sense are also obvious, so they will be used for nemeses anyway.

I edited my above post BTW.

EDIT (again!):
Skill IS Dexterity.
Only in the sense that you've duct-taped them together. I can think of several skills that require little to no dexterity.
 

mercucio

First Post
Phantom Llama said:
[QOUTE=Upper Krust]Skill IS Dexterity.[/QOUTE]

Only in the sense that you've duct-taped them together. I can think of several skills that require little to no dexterity.
Certainly programming requires no great degree of Dexterity, nor does drawing, calligraphy, sewing, carpentry, masonry, ect.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top