The Immortals Handbook

[Upper_Krust]

Hi CRGreathouse mate!

None of this bothers me.

As a non-fan of comic books, I think it's silly to have a character like Hulk who lifts 100 tons, especially when comparing him with wyrm dragons.

Well I know that when Marvel try to explain Thors strength they do so by saying his muscle density is three times normal human. Thor weighs something like 750 lbs in the MU.

Perhaps each step could be treated as a size category...x1.5, x2, x3.

My proposal was to treat D&D in a similar fashion. So that beings automatically became more 'dense' as their strength increased. We know that strength increased by wishes becomes inherant and is not nulled within Anti-magic. So therefore the wishes must be increasing muscle mass or similar.

As to what makes more sense... under the standard system, a Medium character with Str 402 (who can carry the Earth and still be under a light load) deals only 1d3+196 damage with a punch. A 12th-level barbarian could survive a hit like that, and that just doesn't work for me.

Which is why a medium character with 402 strength (under the idea I present) would deal approx: 9216d6+196 (Averaging about 32,000). So using the Low Physical Factor rules they could wipe out a continent with one punch or pulverize a planet in a round or so. Although they couldn't deal enough damage to blast a planet to smithereens because of its gravitational binding energy.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Which is why a medium character with 402 strength (under the idea I present) would deal approx: 9216d6+196 (Averaging about 32,000). So using the Low Physical Factor rules they could wipe out a continent with one punch or pulverize a planet in a round or so. Although they couldn't deal enough damage to blast a planet to smithereens because of its gravitational binding energy.

Yes, but that's a 'big' change to the rules (requires rebalancing CRs), where mine is a 'small' change to the rules.

 

[Zoatebix]

Deeds Not Words did something similar to UK's strength method - the bonus to damage escalated faster than the raw Strength bonus as Strength increased. I'll post Scott Lynch's super-strength chart later if anyone is interested.

Both U_K and CRGreathouse have valid solutions to the high-level problems with the d20 system's exponential growth model for carrying capacity. Both are trying to give high-strength characters a mechanical reason to use normal combat methods rather than the more efficient - according to the rules as written - method of dropping or throwing heavy objects to inflict damage.

However, I'm sure there's more to consider than just getting damages and lifting capacities to match up - CRG's method is valid for him because he has no need or desire to emulate comic book precendents with his high-level characters. He needs the quickest and easiest solution possibly - one that gets carrying capacities in line with the damage bonus from strength.

U_K's solution may have different parameters - maybe it's necessary to keep earth-shattering-and-lifting-strengths in a more reasonable numeric range. We know he wants some semblancy of consistancy with a wide variety of genres and media -including comic-book characters - but we don't know what other design considerations contribute to making his 9216d6-solution necessary. Nor do we know the context of that solution - do other ability scores have a similar new exponential growth aspect in his system? Are there are other aspects we haven't even thought of that make his super-high damage for tremendous strength solution stay consistent with the +.1 CR per ability score point he outlines in his CR system? Does the extra damage get factored in separately from the STR increase? Is the increase in damage merely a reccommended design parameter, or is it a necessary effect of having a high STR?

U_K seems to have hinted at an increase in character density and perhaps some kind of "virtual size category" aspect to his high-strength solution, but we don't know all of the implications of his design.

Anyways, it would benefit if both of you (and the rest of us) in this discussion if we had a clearer picture of the aims U_K's method is trying to achieve, and the context in which it is trying to achieve those aims. CRGreathouse should also feel free to comment on and correct my assumptions about his aims and the context of his high-strength method.

-George

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Yes, but that's a 'big' change to the rules (requires rebalancing CRs), where mine is a 'small' change to the rules.

It actually only affects creatures who would have greater than 26 strength at medium size. So, for instance a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon wouldn't be affected (since it only has an effective Strength of 15 as medium creatures).

eg. Str 47 (-32 Colossal Bonus) = 15.

The 3.5 Pit Fiend is affected, but doesn't need changed since WotC already upped them sufficiently.

eg. Str 37 (-8 Large Bonus) = 29

Therefore a Pit Fiend would be considered 2 size categories above medium for the purposes of base damage dice.

 

[Zoatebix]

Therefore a Pit Fiend would be considered 2 size categories above medium for the purposes of base damage dice.

If I had waited a just a few minutes more to start editing my post, I would have had more information! Damn my impatience ...

 

[CRGreathouse]

It actually only affects creatures who would have greater than 26 strength at medium size. So, for instance a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon wouldn't be affected (since it only has an effective Strength of 15 as medium creatures).

eg. Str 47 (-32 Colossal Bonus) = 15.

The 3.5 Pit Fiend is affected, but doesn't need changed since WotC already upped them sufficiently.

eg. Str 37 (-8 Large Bonus) = 29

Therefore a Pit Fiend would be considered 2 size categories above medium for the purposes of base damage dice.

So does this make Strength more valuable than your standard CR formula would have them, or is this benefit 'free' as it were?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Zoatebix mate !

Deeds Not Words did something similar to UK's strength method.

They say great minds think alike.

I'll post it later if anyone's interested.

Sure...or even the link?

Perhaps this discussion would go better if UK could explain his design need to have a medium-sized earth-lifting character with the more "approachable" STR score of 402, rather than whatever much more difficult to obain strength CRG's method requires.

The way I see it, you both have valid solutions to the problems D&D's exponential carrying capacity scaling and the linear scaling of damage versus strength, especialy the incongruities of at higher levels. However, I'm sure there's more to consider than just getting damages and lifting capacities to match up - CRG's method is valid for him because he doesn't want to emulate comic book characters and he has no need for earth-lifting characters. He just wants the characters to have a reason to fight rather than drop heavy objects on their enemies, and he wants to do it without affecting anything else.

Exactly. As I notioned previously, CRG's method is ideal for High Physical Factor games whereas my own is more suitable (in my humble opinion) for Low Physical factor (Comic Book Style) campaigns.

U_K's solution may have different parameters - maybe it's necessary to keep earth-shattering-and-lifting-strengths in a more reasonable range. We know he wants some consistancy with comic-book characters, but we don't know what other design considerations he has that make his 9216d6 solution necessary,

...actually looking over my chart I should have said 4096d*

*initial dice depending on the type of attack.

One of the reasons for my idea is to bring more involvement to combat at epic levels. Rolling the dice should mean something, and its diminished when the bonuses massively outstrip the dice. A glance over D&Dg (even before they make Greater Gods do maximum damage anyway) and the bonuses vastly outstrip the base damage (thats before factoring power attack, or adding epic feats or items).

Another factor was that of density, first really mentioned in D&Dg - specifically Thors Hammer Mjolnir weighing in at 2 Tons and dealing 4d8 base damage (though that should actually be 3d8 at that weight WotC ). If mass via size deals more damage, then so must mass via density. Therefore if a deity has strength capable of wielding a weapon 8 times heavier (for example) then you have the potential to up the damage using exotic superdense materials.

A third factor is to beef up physical attacks slightly. A cursory glance over at the WotC boards and you will see that most of the power gamers take spellcasting builds over warrior builds. I also showed in the CR/EL document that there was a clear discrepancy between most of the spellcasting classes and the warrior classes.

Fourthly, this goes on to explain a number of irregular WotC base damages, which they used to make some high/epic level monsters more challenging.

Lastly, I always prefer the fantastical to the mundane, so I'd rather have Thor rip the huge steel door off its hinges than have to knock and wait for the resident giant to open it.

nor do we know the context of that solution - do other ability scores have a similar new exponential growth aspect in his system?

I'm considering it, but any other such ideas would be totally optional whereas this idea I see as generic.

Are there are other aspects we haven't even thought of that make his STR solution stay consistent with the +.1 CR per ability score point he outlines in his CR system? Does the extra damage get factored in separately from the STR increase?

I factor damage seperately as you know. The value for manufactured super-dense exotic materials would be accounted for in their price.

Is the increase in damage merely a reccommended design parameter, or is it a necessary effect of having a high STR?

Well, WotC already incorporate most of the changes I am suggesting (when they don't completely mess up a monster that is - as with the Xixecal), but as ever they don't like to explain things, whereas I do.

I would make it a necessity for natural weaponry and optional for manufactured weaponry.

U_K seems to have hinted at an increase in character density and perhaps a "virtual size category" aspect to his STR solution, but we don't know all of the implications of his design.

See above.

Anyways, this discussion would benefit if we knew where both of your were coming from. I'll edit this post for brevity and clarity later - sorry, I'm in a rush!

I hope I have made my position clear? If not feel free to ask me questions on it.

 

[Zoatebix]

I hope I have made my position clear? If not feel free to ask me questions on it.

All clear, thank you! I can definately see the merits and logic of your strength parameters now, and I think that any confusion CRGreathouse or anyone else may have had about where your huge damage numbers were coming from (and how the CR system would accommodate them) will be dispelled.

Here's Scott Lynch's take on super-strength:

Super-Strength and Super-Damage
Although having superhuman Strength does not improve the
standard Strength ability modifier (applied to Swim checks,
Climb checks, raw Strength checks, and the like) beyond normal,
it does improve a character’s melee damage bonus with
each additional point. Examine the table above, and you will
see the listed Super-Damage bonus for each Strength score.
Use this in place of the character’s usual Strength modifier
when dealing damage and only when dealing damage.
For example, a character with a Strength score of 30 has a
Strength modifier of +10, but he has a Super-Damage bonus
of +18. A character with a Strength score of 40 has a Strength
modifier of +15, but he has a Super-Damage bonus of +50.
A super-strong character may elect to “pull” his melee
attacks, dealing his ordinary Strength modifier as bonus damage
rather than his full Super-Damage bonus. This is often
necessary to avoid killing ordinary opponents outright with a
single blow. A player must state that his character is pulling a
blow before rolling to hit. A super-strong character may deal
subdual melee damage only if he pulls his blow.

He also gives a dice you can roll instead of the flat super-damage bonuses, but I'd need to reprint the whole chart to show you that. It's not an easily derivable method, and it doesn't strive to be compatable or consistant with other d20 sources because DNW is a game unto itself.
-George

 

[historian]

Hey Krust!

Well the power of the Supreme Being depends on how high you advance your campaign. So there is no real set value, as I recall that above estimate was based on a ceiling limit of 72 dimensions for Time Lords, but of course you could technically have as little or as many as you wished or even no Time Lords at all so its flexible.

That's an elegant approach to the megaverse.

Is the relatioinship between Supreme Being CR and number of dimensions linear or does it track otherwise?

BTW -- I like the strength "fixes" that have been proposed by you and CRG (and strength damage bonuses needed to be "fixed"). I'm going to be scrolling back a bit to see if I can catch the solutions from the ground up.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi guys!

I think I have already answered your question (CRGreathouse) in my previous post, if not let me know and I'll go over it again.

All clear, thank you! I can definately see the merits and logic of your strength parameters now, and I think that any confusion CRGreathouse or anyone else may have had about where your huge damage numbers were coming from (and how the CR system would accommodate them) will be dispelled.

I hope so.

Here's Scott Lynch's take on super-strength:

*SNIP*

I just don't understand the rationale behind his figures? It seems arbitrary rather than logical...?

He also gives a dice you can roll instead of the flat super-damage bonuses, but I'd need to reprint the whole chart to show you that.

Yeah I was going to say just having a larger flat bonus would be self-defeating.

It's not an easily derivable method, and it doesn't strive to be compatable or consistant with other d20 sources because DNW is a game unto itself.

If theres no logic behind his method then I cannot see any benefit in using it.