The (new) Immortals Handbook Thread

[Zoatebix]

Hey U_K-
Since the Challenge Ratings threads are all long dead, I figured I throw this question over here:

How would you rate a creature ability that gave a luck (or similar easy-to-stack) bonus to all attacks, saves, and checks - like a stone of good luck as a supernatural or extraordinary abilitiy?

I'm thinking that (since a luck/insight/whatever) bonus to attack is worth .125 per plus one, and that bonuses to saving throws would probably be rated similarly, that an "of good luck" creature ability would be between .35 and .5 CR per +1 bonus, depending on how important a bonus to all ability and skill checks is to the mix.
-George

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey CRGreathouse matey!

For the sun, that's all there is to say.

For the moons, though, they are actually divine entities of themselves -- intermediate deities, functioning as lesser deities during their slumber. That would probably make a difference for the purpose of disintigrating them....

Absolutely!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey S'mon!

Considering it was me that invented the term I'll regard mine as the 'real thing', cheers.

I thought Coca Cola invented the term 'the real thing'...but I guess you learn something new every day.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey U_K-

Hi Zoatebix mate!

Since the Challenge Ratings threads are all long dead, I figured I throw this question over here:

How would you rate a creature ability that gave a luck (or similar easy-to-stack) bonus to all attacks, saves, and checks - like a stone of good luck as a supernatural or extraordinary abilitiy?

I'm thinking that (since a luck/insight/whatever) bonus to attack is worth .125 per plus one, and that bonuses to saving throws would probably be rated similarly, that an "of good luck" creature ability would be between .35 and .5 CR per +1 bonus, depending on how important a bonus to all ability and skill checks is to the mix.

Spot on.

 

[Zoatebix]

Thanks!

After putting some more though into this, I'm going to refrain from defining a general, 'stone of good luck'-type bonus in terms of a CR factor. Instead I'll break it into its constituent parts on a per-creature basis. For "checks" I'll use the "non-level or HD-tied" skill guideline and calculate the total factor as if the creature had a bonus to every skill that's usable untrained and every skill listed in its description.

 

[CRGreathouse]

How would you rate a creature ability that gave a luck (or similar easy-to-stack) bonus to all attacks, saves, and checks - like a stone of good luck as a supernatural or extraordinary abilitiy?

I'm thinking that (since a luck/insight/whatever) bonus to attack is worth .125 per plus one, and that bonuses to saving throws would probably be rated similarly, that an "of good luck" creature ability would be between .35 and .5 CR per +1 bonus, depending on how important a bonus to all ability and skill checks is to the mix.

I'd think between .3 and .4, probably between .3 and .35. Bonuses to ability and skill checks are worth a lot less than to saves and attacks, but they still have value. Most of the skill bonuses are wasted (since the creature's bonus still won't be high enough to be valuable) but it won't be entirely gone.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

I'd think between .3 and .4, probably between .3 and .35. Bonuses to ability and skill checks are worth a lot less than to saves and attacks, but they still have value. Most of the skill bonuses are wasted (since the creature's bonus still won't be high enough to be valuable) but it won't be entirely gone.

Looking at pg. 285 of the DMG (v.3.5) it appears a luck bonus (to AC) is bonus squared x 2500 GP. Compared to Bonus squared x 2000 GP for natural armour. Hence the +25%.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Looking at pg. 285 of the DMG (v.3.5) it appears a luck bonus (to AC) is bonus squared x 2500 GP. Compared to Bonus squared x 2000 GP for natural armour. Hence the +25%.

I'm comparing a luck bonus to attack and saves to a luck bonus to skills and ability checks, not a __ bonus to skill checks to a luck bonus to skill checks.

 

[Sledge]

S'mon I highly doubt you invented the term 'overgod' as it is nothing new in the last 20 years. I'm sure you could fine references to it going back at least 60 years and potentially centuries.

 

[Kerrick]

Any arbitration is derived wholly from the the spells within the core rules. In fact to be totally honest, EVERY part of this addendum to epic magic (if you will), is derived from the players handbook. All I have done is change one single, solitary sentence or principle of the players handbook and from that everything else falls into place. I could tell you what it is but I hate to ruin surprises.

I've been pondering this statement the last couple days... See, no offense, but I don't much care about new monsters - I'm not a DM, so I don't use them, and as a game designer, they're not really my forte, so they hold little interest for me. Magic, and specifically spells, is my thing, and thus your projected addendum is of great interest to me. Since you say that everything came from the PHB, it's obviously not based on the ELH system. Once I made that raalization, it almost clicked for me, but not quite - it's like trying to remember a name that's hovering just out of reach of your consciousness.

I'm curious, though (and hopefully you can answer this question): is your epic spell system merely an extension of the existing one, where you can simply make spells of 10th, 15th, 30th level, or are there some hard and fast rules like you did for CRs? I know with my level-based system, I still have to decide what level the spell will be in the first place before I can tweak everything to fit into place properly (and even then it sometimes doesn't quite happen the way I'd like). I'm really interested to see how your system could handle earthwrack, or some of the other spells that I couldn't recreate.