The Immortals Handbook

[CRGreathouse]

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.

What is the difference between low/high physical factors for worlds without modern technology?

 

[S'mon]

What is the difference between low/high physical factors for worlds without modern technology?

According to 1e Manual of the Planes, in a low physical-factor world chemical reactions won't occur so readily; most obvious case is that in a low-PF fantasy world gunpowder will be impossible, as may be many other
(al)chemical reactions; the workings of the human body may obey different physical laws and many forms of technological progress may be impossible. I'd also suggest that low PFs may explain the unrealistically low damages given for siege weapons like ballistae & catapults in D&D, as well as d20 Modern's low damage ratings for heavy weapons.

 

[CRGreathouse]

According to 1e Manual of the Planes, in a low physical-factor world chemical reactions won't occur so readily; most obvious case is that in a low-PF fantasy world gunpowder will be impossible, as may be many other
(al)chemical reactions; the workings of the human body may obey different physical laws and many forms of technological progress may be impossible. I'd also suggest that low PFs may explain the unrealistically low damages given for siege weapons like ballistae & catapults in D&D, as well as d20 Modern's low damage ratings for heavy weapons.

So when you get down to it, it's just the siege weapons -- the other things (gunpowder, advanced technologies, d20 Modern heavy weapons) don't apply to low-tech worlds.

Now in 3.5, the ballista is just a scaled-up crossbow, following the standard rules for scaling weapons. Given this, do you disagree with the crossbow damage, the scaling, or something else that affects the damage of the ballista?

 

[Dark Wolf 97]

S'mon,

I'd be interested in your ideas for siege weapon damage, mainly because my upcoming campaign will be war/mass battle heavy, and I always thought that the siege weapons seemed a little puny. I used the Warcraft d20 siege weapons which are a little better.

U_K!,

I would definatly take the Beastiary first, although I'll take anything now.

Later

 

[Zoatebix]

I know all about trying to get things perfect. Take the time to edit and playtest, but give yourself a personal deadline. And I'd love to see the Beastiary, if you're ready to give us something to chew on.

 

[Anubis]

Well, UK already knows what I think. I say skip the PDFs, finish the whole damn thing, and release the print version.

It already sucks that I have to use Deities & Demigods for the final boss of the current saga of my campaign. :\

 

[Zoatebix]

I say skip the PDFs, finish the whole damn thing, and release the print version.

That wouldn't be bad either!

 

[-Eä-]

I know all about trying to get things perfect. Take the time to edit and playtest, but give yourself a personal deadline. And I'd love to see the Beastiary, if you're ready to give us something to chew on.

I usually don't comment on release dates and so on, but this time I will.

Even if you are a perfectionist and want everything to be perfect, you should release the first PDF as soon as possible. If it isn't finishet - concentrate all your efforts on getting that single PDF finished and put it on the marked. There will be imperfections that you have overlooked - there always are. However, we, the customers, will help you get rid of most imperfections before the print release. It works good for technological gadgets and should work as good for WPS.

Try to picture yourself in the situation: "The deadline is tomorrow! What shall I do!?" - it usually does the trick for me.

Also, there are probably many people here that could (and probably would like to) help, so that the product will get finished earlier (and that for free). Why not use that enthusiasm to speed up the progress? It would certainly please the customers.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon,

I'd be interested in your ideas for siege weapon damage, mainly because my upcoming campaign will be war/mass battle heavy, and I always thought that the siege weapons seemed a little puny. I used the Warcraft d20 siege weapons which are a little better.

Well, here's my rules for Arbalests, taking the D&D 'Heavy' crossbow (with its awesome 5.5 average damage!) as a base:

Arbalests
A progressive development of the heavy winch crossbow, Arbalests are restricted to military use only and may not be sold to private citizens, though they are occasionally available on the black market at considerable cost.

Light arbalest - the heaviest missile weapon that can be fired without a support, the light arbalest has a draw weight around 200lbs and takes 2 rounds to load by winch. They do 2d10 damage, with a range increment of 120'. They ignore 5 points of target armour.

Medium arbalest - the medium arbalest requires a light support 'foot' to fire from; although a strong man can carry both arbalest & support they are thus impractical as a skirmish weapon. The medium arbalest has a 300lb draw weight and does 3d10 damage, ignoring 8 points of target armour. They take 3 rounds to reload.

Heavy Arbalest - also known as the Siege Crossbow, this weapon is more a light ballista than a crossbow, it requires a heavy support 'foot' which requires its own bearer and is usually crewed by a two-man team on the battlefield. The heavy arbalest can easily kill a charging warhorse with a single shot. The heavy arbalest has a 400lb draw weight and does 4d10 damage, ignoring 10 points of target armour. It takes 4 rounds to reload.

The 'Heavy Arbalest' is a reasonable light ballista, a heavier ballista of the will-go-through-six-men variety would have roughly twice the above stats - 8d10 or 4d20 damage, ignore 20 points of armour, take 8 rounds to load, and need a four-man crew. This would be something like the ballistae used vs the Red Dragons in 'Reign of Fire'; averaging around 44 damage it will reliably kill a heavy warhorse but you'd need a whole cluster of them if you wanted to bring down a large D&D red dragon.

Checking my annotated DMG I see I give a Heavy Catapult 20d6 damage and a light catapult 10d6 damage. The DMG 'heavy catapulkt' is an onager-type, a counter-weighted Trebuchet would throw a far larger mass and do far more damage on a hit but none of these weapons are likely to hit any but static targets; you could fire a rock at an infantry formation and maybe splat 1d6 soldiers but 'grapeshot' attacks are likely to be far more effective. If you want to work out detailed stats you can base catapult damage roughly off the D&D rule of thumb that a man-size mass, around 200 lb (maybe a bit less) falling 10' takes (and receives) 1d6 damage, up to 20d6 at 200' (effective terminal velocity).

I suggest roughly that a 100lb mass should do 10d6 on a hit, 200lb 20d6, and so on, but U_K disagrees with my finding that energy & mass is proportional to hit points & damage in D&D. If you look at the classic line of Gygaxian humanoids orcs/hobgoblins-gnolls-bugbears-ogres-trolls you find that hit points do scale linearly with mass; giants have about twice as many hp as they should though. Likewise dragon and other 'animal' hp seem to scale fairly linearly although hit dice don't.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

Thanks for the responses and kick up the pants.

By the way I added a brief update to the website.

Also let me apologise for not finishing off the Godzilla/King Ghidorah stats as yet. I am deliberating over both their breath weapons and I haven't decided whats for the best.