The Immortals Handbook
- Thread starter Upper_Krust
- Start date
- Status
Upper_Krust
Legend
slingbld said:
Hi Slingbld!
I'm hoping to have it sorted within the next week or two.
Be sure to check out the website if you haven't already:
immortals handbook.com
Sorry I haven't updated in a while guys (been working hard on the IH) but expect lots of stuff this weekend to make up for it.
By the way I was contemplating releasing the Bestiary pdf first (any thoughts on that idea from people?) to give people something to chew on. I suppose the general consensus would just be get everything out as quickly as possible. I would have really liked a week or two to edit/playtest the Apotheosis pdf to death. Whereas obviously the Bestiary section won't have that necessity.
Anabstercorian
First Post
Release SOMETHING! ANYTHING!
>>Well when you think about it, the visual evidence is gospel in this case, I think Wong is simply reflecting this approach.<<
There's no reason AFAICS to treat the visual evidence as gospel - after all, the script _predates_ the SFX, the SFX is merely an interpretation of the script. Wong treats SFX as if it were 'reality' and thus subject to empirical evidence, which I find rather silly in a universe where sound travels through space and starfighters behave like WW2 fighter planes. So he ignores eg statements that the ships are powered by 'fusion' reactors - as nuclear fusion isn't powerful enough for what he wants. I'm sorry but I find it all very silly, I don't think much of the SW tech manual people inventing 'hypermatter' (better than antimatter!) either - it's all fantasy so why bother?
>>D&D monsters increase at roughly x2 HD per x8 Mass/+1 size category.
Unfortunately they completely miss giving Medium size creatures 2-3 HD.
A typical human should really have 3 HD, but WotC go to extreme lengths to (wrongly) shoehorn most medium sized creatures into 1 HD.
Fine - 1/8 HD
Diminutive - 1/4 HD
Tiny - 1/2HD
Small - 1HD
Medium - 2-3 HD
Large - 4-7 HD
Huge - 8-15 HD
Gargantuan - 16-31 HD
Colossal - 32-63 HD<<
This works for HD but not Hit Points - because they increase CON as size increases! Go have a look at hit point spreads rather than HD and you'll see what I mean. In fact of course their 12' giants have many more than x8 hp of their 6' humanoids, as you say.
>>So you might say, but the Barrett round only deals 3d12 damage (or whatever), but when you think about it thats the same as a Great Wyrm Dragon biting you (before strength bonuses).<<
Consider the Great Wyrm Power Attacking w STR bonuses, that's a better comparison.
There's no reason AFAICS to treat the visual evidence as gospel - after all, the script _predates_ the SFX, the SFX is merely an interpretation of the script. Wong treats SFX as if it were 'reality' and thus subject to empirical evidence, which I find rather silly in a universe where sound travels through space and starfighters behave like WW2 fighter planes. So he ignores eg statements that the ships are powered by 'fusion' reactors - as nuclear fusion isn't powerful enough for what he wants. I'm sorry but I find it all very silly, I don't think much of the SW tech manual people inventing 'hypermatter' (better than antimatter!) either - it's all fantasy so why bother?
>>D&D monsters increase at roughly x2 HD per x8 Mass/+1 size category.
Unfortunately they completely miss giving Medium size creatures 2-3 HD.
A typical human should really have 3 HD, but WotC go to extreme lengths to (wrongly) shoehorn most medium sized creatures into 1 HD.
Fine - 1/8 HD
Diminutive - 1/4 HD
Tiny - 1/2HD
Small - 1HD
Medium - 2-3 HD
Large - 4-7 HD
Huge - 8-15 HD
Gargantuan - 16-31 HD
Colossal - 32-63 HD<<
This works for HD but not Hit Points - because they increase CON as size increases! Go have a look at hit point spreads rather than HD and you'll see what I mean.
In fact of course their 12' giants have many more than x8 hp of their 6' humanoids, as you say.>>So you might say, but the Barrett round only deals 3d12 damage (or whatever), but when you think about it thats the same as a Great Wyrm Dragon biting you (before strength bonuses).<<
Consider the Great Wyrm Power Attacking w STR bonuses, that's a better comparison.
Last edited:
Anyway, the key thing is that an 8lb bomb blast at ground zero to a 12' 1600lb humanoid should work exactly the same as a 1lb bomb blast to a 6' 200lb humanoid, or a 64lb bomb blast to a 24' 12800lb humanoid. Likewise with bombs, shells, and melee weapons - but you need to be careful use the net, not gross, stats - final damage/round given all factors, including STR bonuses, power attack, **differentials in to-hit chances** due to the way BAB increases but AC doesn't (reliably) with size, iterative attacks from high-hd, etc.
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hi Anabstercorian mate!
I thought that would be the answer - I appreciate the fervour dude!
Anabstercorian said:
I thought that would be the answer - I appreciate the fervour dude!
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hey S'mon!
...and I have to say on this point I agree with him. I have found myself having the exact same argument on some comics boards a few months back (specifically about whether 'comic book' Odin could destroy a planet or not).
In my opinion the visual evidence trumps the verbal or written evidence - even the script. If the script contradicts the visual evidence then thats certainly something to be addressed. However where the script is ambiguous (in determining the power of a Star Destroyers weapons for example) then the visual evidence is indeed gospel.
Well fusion does not automatically state nuclear fusion, also the Star Wars galaxy is technologically multi-millenia* advanced from our own - so the idea that they would still be using nuclear fusion is a bit of a stretch.
*IIRC they colonised their galaxy 25,000 years prior to the time of the movies.
Thats certainly your prerogative.
Right up there with Quantum Torpedoes (in that they are more efficient than Anti-matter).
Why don't you ask Wong on his website?
Personally I think its both interesting and fascinating.
By +4 points (+2 bonus) per size category. Its not a massive leap.
Assuming Con 11 for Medium sized creatures, using d8s for the example.
3 HD Medium = 13 hp
6 HD Large = 37 hp
12 HD Huge = 102 hp
24 HD Gargantuan = 252 hp
48 HD Colossal = 600 hp
Not quite the x8 you theorised, although I see below you are mistakenly using the Humanoid vs. (True) Giant relationship.
Just have - there they are outlined above.
Foe two very good reasons, the Hit Dice for (true) Giants is artificially inflated*, and secondly the Hit Dice for many medium sized creatures is artificially reduced (to 1 HD).
*Compare an Ogre or Troll to a Hill Giant for instance!
So does that mean you believe the Barrett should deal damage equal to a 80 ft. Dragon biting you?
S'mon said:
...and I have to say on this point I agree with him. I have found myself having the exact same argument on some comics boards a few months back (specifically about whether 'comic book' Odin could destroy a planet or not).
In my opinion the visual evidence trumps the verbal or written evidence - even the script. If the script contradicts the visual evidence then thats certainly something to be addressed. However where the script is ambiguous (in determining the power of a Star Destroyers weapons for example) then the visual evidence is indeed gospel.
S'mon said:
Well fusion does not automatically state nuclear fusion, also the Star Wars galaxy is technologically multi-millenia* advanced from our own - so the idea that they would still be using nuclear fusion is a bit of a stretch.
*IIRC they colonised their galaxy 25,000 years prior to the time of the movies.
S'mon said:
Thats certainly your prerogative.
S'mon said:
Right up there with Quantum Torpedoes (in that they are more efficient than Anti-matter).
S'mon said:
Why don't you ask Wong on his website?
Personally I think its both interesting and fascinating.
S'mon said:
By +4 points (+2 bonus) per size category. Its not a massive leap.
Assuming Con 11 for Medium sized creatures, using d8s for the example.
3 HD Medium = 13 hp
6 HD Large = 37 hp
12 HD Huge = 102 hp
24 HD Gargantuan = 252 hp
48 HD Colossal = 600 hp
Not quite the x8 you theorised, although I see below you are mistakenly using the Humanoid vs. (True) Giant relationship.
S'mon said:Go have a look at hit point spreads rather than HD and you'll see what I mean.
Just have - there they are outlined above.
S'mon said:
Foe two very good reasons, the Hit Dice for (true) Giants is artificially inflated*, and secondly the Hit Dice for many medium sized creatures is artificially reduced (to 1 HD).
*Compare an Ogre or Troll to a Hill Giant for instance!
S'mon said:
So does that mean you believe the Barrett should deal damage equal to a 80 ft. Dragon biting you?
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hello again!
I agree, which is why I proffer both comic book (low physical factor) and realistic (high physical factor) versions.
However, in looking at both versions, the former is ultimately the more playable of the two.
Although I know you love the latter so that those Powered Armour 4th-level Fighters can start sticking it to the deity characters with those auto-grenade launchers.
S'mon said:
I agree, which is why I proffer both comic book (low physical factor) and realistic (high physical factor) versions.
However, in looking at both versions, the former is ultimately the more playable of the two.
Although I know you love the latter so that those Powered Armour 4th-level Fighters can start sticking it to the deity characters with those auto-grenade launchers.
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Upper_Krust said:
Yep, I'm with the consensus -- get it out ASAP. I guess I'd slightly prefer Apotheosis first, but really I'll take whatever you have.
>>In my opinion the visual evidence trumps the verbal or written evidence - even the script. If the script contradicts the visual evidence then thats certainly something to be addressed. However where the script is ambiguous (in determining the power of a Star Destroyers weapons for example) then the visual evidence is indeed gospel.<<
This seems a purely arbitrary decision, though. It makes sense when examining real-world phenomena to rate direct empirical evidence higher than secondary accounts. Movies, however, are not the real world. And inasmuch as the Star Wars universe obeys consistent physical laws they are clearly **different from our own**! As are the laws of the Trekverse, of course.
>>Well fusion does not automatically state nuclear fusion, also the Star Wars galaxy is technologically multi-millenia* advanced from our own - so the idea that they would still be using nuclear fusion is a bit of a stretch.
*IIRC they colonised their galaxy 25,000 years prior to the time of the movies.<<
I think Wong himself addresses this fallacy - 'newer' does not necessarily mean 'better in every way'. In any case much Star Wars technology appears from the on-screen evidence to be distinctly inferior to modern day technology; SW weapons tech especially from the visual evidence is distinctly unimpressive, with its short ranges and low payloads compared to what you'd expect from real-world weapons. A modern nuclear destroyer or sub can launch dozens of nuclear missiles each with dozens of megaton-yield warheads in under a minute, yet Star Wars ships act like WW2 battleships and aircraft carriers firing weapons at very short (for space) ranges that then cause unimpressive little explosions* on enemy shields (Trek is the same), far less than you'd get from even low-yield nukes. Lucas modelled SW space combat on WW2 naval combat, nothing wrong with that but there's no plausible way to extrapolate from today's tech to reach that point.
*Except when it comes to blowing up planets. Planets in science-fantasy are amazingly fragile.
BTW you are aware that the antimatter/matter reaction is a 100% matter-to-energy conversion and thus is the most powerful energy reaction possible according to the laws of physics, right? Anything more powerful in mass-yield terms is thus flatly impossible according to the physical laws of our own universe, and can reasonably be classed as fantasy or as obeying different physical laws from those of our own universe. SW of course never claims to represent 'our' universe (hence The Force!), only Trek does that (sometimes); which for me makes Trek's own sillynesses a lot more unsatisfying.
This seems a purely arbitrary decision, though. It makes sense when examining real-world phenomena to rate direct empirical evidence higher than secondary accounts. Movies, however, are not the real world. And inasmuch as the Star Wars universe obeys consistent physical laws they are clearly **different from our own**! As are the laws of the Trekverse, of course.
>>Well fusion does not automatically state nuclear fusion, also the Star Wars galaxy is technologically multi-millenia* advanced from our own - so the idea that they would still be using nuclear fusion is a bit of a stretch.
*IIRC they colonised their galaxy 25,000 years prior to the time of the movies.<<
I think Wong himself addresses this fallacy - 'newer' does not necessarily mean 'better in every way'. In any case much Star Wars technology appears from the on-screen evidence to be distinctly inferior to modern day technology; SW weapons tech especially from the visual evidence is distinctly unimpressive, with its short ranges and low payloads compared to what you'd expect from real-world weapons. A modern nuclear destroyer or sub can launch dozens of nuclear missiles each with dozens of megaton-yield warheads in under a minute, yet Star Wars ships act like WW2 battleships and aircraft carriers firing weapons at very short (for space) ranges that then cause unimpressive little explosions* on enemy shields (Trek is the same), far less than you'd get from even low-yield nukes. Lucas modelled SW space combat on WW2 naval combat, nothing wrong with that but there's no plausible way to extrapolate from today's tech to reach that point.
*Except when it comes to blowing up planets. Planets in science-fantasy are amazingly fragile.
BTW you are aware that the antimatter/matter reaction is a 100% matter-to-energy conversion and thus is the most powerful energy reaction possible according to the laws of physics, right? Anything more powerful in mass-yield terms is thus flatly impossible according to the physical laws of our own universe, and can reasonably be classed as fantasy or as obeying different physical laws from those of our own universe. SW of course never claims to represent 'our' universe (hence The Force!), only Trek does that (sometimes); which for me makes Trek's own sillynesses a lot more unsatisfying.
- Status
Similar Threads
