The (new) Immortals Handbook Thread

[Kavon]

Hey U_K :3

Just a little observation (since I'm a bit sceptical about the permanent damage bit too XP)

That means that given infinite possibilities, permanent damage eventually becomes possible. The only question is how powerful is it. Once we have that worked out, we can assign it to an appropriate monster.

Isn't this a bit like the one where God creates something so heavy nothing in existance could lift it (the permanent damage), but God does it anyway because he/she/it can do everything (infinite possibilities)?

If anything should be possible, then it should also be possible to somehow undo permanent damage, though doing that might be really hard and such.

As in, if something can do permanent damage upon someone, something else should be able to undo it in some way (monster A makes the HP 'go away' and monster B undo's what something else did to someone at one time which brings back the HP from its awayness, or whatever )


Anyway, good to see some progress in the Beastiary
Which one is coming next?

 

[Alzrius]

Hey U_K,

I just wanted to throw my two cents in. As a generality, I kind of look askance on permanent hit point damage also, but find permanent death easier to deal with.

For me, it's a question of what seems fair to the players. Hit points are, relatively speaking, difficult to earn, and when earned a few in number. Losing them in what could be a fairly casual encounter (relatively speaking of course!) seems like it's taking away what the PC's have worked so long so hard for. What's worse is that it can neuter a character rather badly; imagine if someone got wounded down to 3 hp before the monster was slain...would that character be fit for many more high-level games?

A contrast here is permanent level loss, which previous editions of the game had; however, that arguement fals apart since the current version of the game made it easier to avoid those (and there were always restoration spells).

Permanent death, on the other hand, has much more of a "you knew it was a risk, and took it anyway" feel (which is what I think you're going for with permanent damage). For one thing, permanent death isn't as immediate a threat as permanent damage, since you can always quit the field and heal up - the threat of losing your character is there, but it's remote enough to be thrilling and not terrifying (or worse, driving away your players with a sense of unfairness). Likewise, permanent death has a sense of rightness to it because that's how death really works...in a way it's almost a relief to get away from how easy it is to resurrect a character in D&D. The same isn't said for injuries (since D&D doesn't approximate lost limbs and such).

That said, I don't really care if the Bestiary has creatures that do permanent damage, as I trust how you'll do things (it helps that you're adding a way to heal it anyway), and can still see instances where I'd use them on my PC's.

 

[S'mon]

I do get the point of permanent damage. Big event in a campaign where the players have to do a dangerous task that needs doing, knowing that it will be a major risk. However the lower damage means it won't be a risk fighting the creature, just fighting anything else afterwards.

As far as I understand it U_K's CR system is about assigning an appropriate XP award for the challenge, not for assessing likelihood of victory - two different things which 3e conflates, often to detrimental results IMO. Eg the permanent-damage beast may be an appropriate threat for PCs 5 levels below its listed CR but is worth more XP because it's so nasty.

I can see a case for creatures like this being listed with the lower CR but a x5 XP award. Dragons should probably have been done like that in 3e also, as written their CRs are generally too low to provide appropriate XP for beating them.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there, U_K.

Heya mate!

Well, we're fit to disagree here, mate. I don't know what sky "x5" fell out of, but I don't think it's enough.

Well I got the idea from the ELH (Epic Spell System), where to make a permanent effect the modifier is x5.

When tested this seemed to make sense. If you increase the modifier by more than that (for example x10) then the monster becomes pretty much irrelevant for its Challenge Rating, it will never be able to hit the opponent, so that renders the idea useless.

On average a Titan does 41 damage. For the same Challenge Rating we could have it deal 8 points of permanent damage instead. That is a massive step down, but then again as you note permanent damage is powerful. If we gave the Titan 41 permanent damage per average blow, then that would be the equivalent of a Titan dealing 205 points of normal damage per blow.

Yes. Very much so. It seems too arbitrary an ability to be measured mechanically. I know that you used your better judgment on the matter, but I'm not convinced there's any solution to a permanent damage ability.

See above.

I am. As a DM and a player, this ability concerns me very much.

Hopefully I can help illuminate your path to logic.

Show me. I might quit complaining if I can see the hows and whys of this.

I'll consider it.

This is a matter of opinion, and gauged on an arbitrary multiplier that might not fit the bill. How much playtesting has been done on this?

The Challenge Rating system was playtested extensively so that I wouldn't have to playtest every monster.

Can't wait to see them.

Well, maybe a little. Still, the idea that this ability can be balanced is wholly a matter of philosophy--something you and I seem to disagree on.

I think it is balanced both mechanically and philosophically. You yourself mention below that it could work provided the challenge rating is balanced.

Well, the primary difference here is that the player would have to completely lose to suffer the effect, not merely exchange some blows before he realizes his career is about to end, win or lose.

I don't think so. I think you would realise the grip of entropy immediately for what it was, especially since the wounds are not conventional at all, the areas struck disappear entirely. Also, even if you didn't know what the monster was capable of (one of the first rules of 'the Art of War' remember) you would darn well know about it a second time.

It was a suggestion meant primarily as emphasis to my position.

Permanent death is not better than permanent damage. Temporary death is not that much of a frightening prospect for epic players.

Not at all, because none of these beasties cause permanent damage.

My point was to illustrate that against certain monsters you employ different tactics, especially when the monsters are notably powerful in one area.

I'd rather suffer such a loss by being killed and, say, losing a point of Con even with a true res

But why is that prefeable though!? When the principle is the same!

-- something so common in an epic game that the fear will be there.

The fact that resurrection is so common and constitution so prevailant means they will not be afraid of it, and the loss is a paltry one at epic level.

Epic characters do die, and they more often than not get a true res to being them back flawlessly. Remove this ability and they'll be scared, I'm sure.

No epic character is going to be fearful of losing a paltry 1 level (or 2 points of constitution) at epic level from resurrection. Also people have seen energy drain and ability drain before, these are not fresh ideas.

I work in a huge (HUUUGE) gaming store in Orlando and have paged through some of the worst OGL texts in Creation. I've also seen real quality work. Depending on the CRs of these creatures, it's one or the other and I am leaning towards the latter right now.

So you're admitting it will be balanced if the challenge rating is right!?

Naturally. I hope I haven't come across as too bitter or heated over this. I want to make my stance perfectly clear and hope to illuminate my path of logic.

I know mate, you seemed not unlike a concerned parent.

At least they'd have to die (i.e. "lose unequivocally") first.

That could mean only a single roll of the dice though. Fortitude save vs. death etc.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

Impeesa, VERY good point. If a character fights these, they will certainly suffer a reduction in power that would demand some sort of alteration of their CR/ECL. Am I mistaken in this, UK?

Technically I think you could impose -1 ECL for every accruement of permanent damage equal to the characters level.

So for every 30 points of permanent damage a 30th-level character was 'carrying' they would be effectively -1 CR/ECL.

Of course once they go up in level this modifier could be reduced or disappear altogether.

The loss of 60 hit points would be a severe handicap for a 20th-level character, but not that great a burden for a 70th-level character.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Sledge mate!

Okay I think I am getting the problem with the whole CR and permanent damage issue. Permanent damage is no more risky in that combat than Vile damage.

Well thats dependant upon circumstances, but I suppose its a fair enough appraisal.

The fight is not harder with permanent than with Vile. The only difference is that permanent damage is given a higher CR so an appropriate CR creature doing permanent damage will not be as tough as a normal encounter.

Exactly.

Permanent damage instead penalizes the characters for the next combat.

It has that property too.

All in all this seems a little confused, but what if the characters are also using temporary HP? They basically can ignore permanent damage then? Or are temporary HP suddenly useless?

As written, temporary hit points would be effected last (rather than first), by permanent damage.

It may even be that the only thing keeping a character alive is its magic spells/items.

Darth Vader: "Help me take this mask off."
Luke Skywalker: "But you'll die."
Darth Vader: "Nothing can stop that now."

I do get the point of permanent damage. Big event in a campaign where the players have to do a dangerous task that needs doing, knowing that it will be a major risk.

Yep.

However the lower damage means it won't be a risk fighting the creature, just fighting anything else afterwards.

Deends on your tactics and your relative challenge ratings. You could destroy it without getting hit or get mauled by it and lose lots of hit points.

The DM might use the monsters as cannon fodder (if the parties CRs are notably higher), or the DM might use such a monster as the BBEG in which case it could be dealing 'normal' levels of permanent damage.

Given that it is epic I doubt it will really be permanent, but I also think that creatures like this had better have a note in the writeup stating that they are just intended to be low risk encounters that weaken the party long term. In some games this can be a great thing to have the party weakened. Restoration would require an actual quest or something, not just a planehop etc etc.

...or even time travel*.

*Note this isn't the 'get out clause' presented in the Bestiary.

 

[Baronovan]

Well I got the idea from the ELH (Epic Spell System), where to make a permanent effect the modifier is x5.

When tested this seemed to make sense. If you increase the modifier by more than that (for example x10) then the monster becomes pretty much irrelevant for its Challenge Rating, it will never be able to hit the opponent, so that renders the idea useless.

On average a Titan does 41 damage. For the same Challenge Rating we could have it deal 8 points of permanent damage instead. That is a massive step down, but then again as you note permanent damage is powerful. If we gave the Titan 41 permanent damage per average blow, then that would be the equivalent of a Titan dealing 205 points of normal damage per blow.

Well, going to the epic spell system is your first mistake. And frankly, there's no way that a titan hitting for 205 normal damage is the same as him hitting you for 41 points of perma-damage, or any other such ratio. Consider that, if a PC takes 41 or 8 points of permanent damage, that's 41 or 8 points of damage that every encounter from there on out gets to "deal" to that PC "for free" -- they don't have to exert any effort because those HP (formerly part of a character's hard-earned build) are now "gone." That is the crux of my argument against the philosophy that such an ability can ever be balanced. You (not necessarily YOU) cannot predict the weight of every encounter from that point on and factor it into the perma-damage creature's CR. It's just not happening.

See above.

Back atchya.

Hopefully I can help illuminate your path to logic.

Good try, but my argument still stands.

I'll consider it.

noldor@danbrijbag.com

The Challenge Rating system was playtested extensively so that I wouldn't have to playtest every monster.

As a semi-avid coder here and there, I understand this principle, but I don't think testing a numeric generically is going to suffice. This monster tips the balance of every encounter that takes place after its own. Very... very hard to predict how this abiity will affect a PC down the road.

I think it is balanced both mechanically and philosophically. You yourself mention below that it could work provided the challenge rating is balanced.

"Could", but most likely will not. See above.

Permanent death is not better than permanent damage. Temporary death is not that much of a frightening prospect for epic players.

Maybe not on paper, but for everyone sitting at the table with their hard-earned builds... Again, knowing the risk in one encounter or not is almost irrelevant here, as this beast messes up ALL your future encounters.

But why is that prefeable though!? When the principle is the same!

Because the PC must really lose to suffer this defeat. Give the beastie nasty damage and have it "take" a point of Con from anyone it kills. They come back weaker, but it's a more understandable set of circumstances.

The fact that resurrection is so common and constitution so prevailant means they will not be afraid of it, and the loss is a paltry one at epic level.

I disagree. Given that resurrection is over-common, removing the ability to do so "flawlessly" brings back the doubtful application of such magic. It'd be like dropping the cleric back to using raise dead instead. Beyond that, a 70th-level character who was on an even Con will lose 70 hp permanently from such an ability, but again only if they die. I think it "balances" better considering the effort some people can put into a character by then.

No epic character is going to be fearful of losing a paltry 1 level (or 2 points of constitution) at epic level from resurrection. Also people have seen energy drain and ability drain before, these are not fresh ideas.

I disagree. See my example above. Beyond that, energy drain can be fixed using restoration spells. This ability, by default, cannot be cured at all. There's a vast difference.

So you're admitting it will be balanced if the challenge rating is right!?

Hehehehe... sorta. Even then, see my above examples for reasons why this ability cannot ever be balanced.

That could mean only a single roll of the dice though. Fortitude save vs. death etc.

As per D&D. Massive damage saves affect a game from level 1 on up. The destruction spell has the same effect on anyone it affects, level 1 or 100. Even in the case of high saves, the autofail is "nature at work" in D&D.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey U_K :3

Hi Kavon mate!

Just a little observation (since I'm a bit sceptical about the permanent damage bit too XP)

I think I posted on that just a moment ago.

Isn't this a bit like the one where God creates something so heavy nothing in existance could lift it (the permanent damage), but God does it anyway because he/she/it can do everything (infinite possibilities)?

No. You are thinking about paradoxes.

If anything should be possible, then it should also be possible to somehow undo permanent damage, though doing that might be really hard and such.

Absolutely. However to 'undo' the effects of entropy you would have to be a Time Lord. So thats not really a viable option for epic campaigns.

The optional ideas I had (in effect the cheats) were that a wish/miracle might restore 1 hp (definately incurring a loss of 5000 XP). Or that a god with the Healing portfolio who also had more Hit Dice than the monster who caused the damage in the first place could heal you with a miracle (again 5000 XP loss, but this time the damage restored would be equal to its divine bonus, rather than a single hit point).

As in, if something can do permanent damage upon someone, something else should be able to undo it in some way (monster A makes the HP 'go away' and monster B undo's what something else did to someone at one time which brings back the HP from its awayness, or whatever )

True, however entropy is essentially nothingness, inertia. There is nothing to legitamately restore! Which is why you should really have to be beyond the power of the first one of entropy to overcome it.

Anyway, good to see some progress in the Beastiary
Which one is coming next?

- Bestiary (Preview)
- Bestiary
- Apotheosis

 

[S'mon]

In 1e let Wishes add hit points, up to the maximum a character could have rolled, so that's a potential way around permanent damage - in fact with 3e I'd probably let a real 5000 XP Wish give +1 hp/level*, 350 XP Limited Wish +1 hp.

*Before you ask, Craig, I know your Thrinians are loaded down with confetti-like Rings of Wishes from 1e modules. Those are only giving +1hp tops. >

I tend to see a permanent-damage creature NOT AS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE FIGHTING. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp. Maybe it's a 3e thing. In 1e Legends & Lore, Death gets 10 attacks/round, auto-kill on a hit, no save. So... don't fight him. It's still worth statting such creatures, and there are ways to beat them - dead magic zones, spells etc. Don't see it as an "orc with bigger numbers" waiting in a dungeon for PCs to find & kill.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey U_K,

Hey Alzrius mate!

I just wanted to throw my two cents in. As a generality, I kind of look askance on permanent hit point damage also, but find permanent death easier to deal with.

I had to look askance up in the dictionary, curse you.

For me, it's a question of what seems fair to the players. Hit points are, relatively speaking, difficult to earn,

They are not 'that' difficult to earn.

and when earned a few in number. Losing them in what could be a fairly casual encounter (relatively speaking of course!)

If a CR 30 epic monster (for example) is a casual encounter, then PCs will have lots of hit points to lose.

seems like it's taking away what the PC's have worked so long so hard for.

Players will fear the loss of all thats important to them, loss of equipment/wealth, loss of worshippers (resulting in a loss of divine power) or even the loss of hit points, etc.

Such things can be replaced, but not restored.

What's worse is that it can neuter a character rather badly; imagine if someone got wounded down to 3 hp before the monster was slain...would that character be fit for many more high-level games?

Obviously if you lose a large percentage of hit points in this manner then you are buggered. Similarly with permanent death.

A contrast here is permanent level loss, which previous editions of the game had; however, that arguement fals apart since the current version of the game made it easier to avoid those (and there were always restoration spells).

Negative energy can be countered by positive energy. However nothingness can only be 'negated' by somethingness. The only way to reverse having nothing is by gaining something, in effect levelling up (or increasing constitution). You cannot restore whats not there, only replace. In a way its not permanent hit point damage, but permanent hit point drain/loss.

Permanent death, on the other hand, has much more of a "you knew it was a risk, and took it anyway" feel (which is what I think you're going for with permanent damage). For one thing, permanent death isn't as immediate a threat as permanent damage, since you can always quit the field and heal up - the threat of losing your character is there, but it's remote enough to be thrilling and not terrifying (or worse, driving away your players with a sense of unfairness).

If thats likely to be the case use the options presented for restoration.

Likewise, permanent death has a sense of rightness to it because that's how death really works...

Exactly. Thats how death works, this is how annihilation works. Two different things.

in a way it's almost a relief to get away from how easy it is to resurrect a character in D&D. The same isn't said for injuries (since D&D doesn't approximate lost limbs and such).

Indeed.

That said, I don't really care if the Bestiary has creatures that do permanent damage, as I trust how you'll do things (it helps that you're adding a way to heal it anyway), and can still see instances where I'd use them on my PC's.