why no epic levels for dieties?????

[Xeriar]

Re: Re: Re: ECL's and CR's

And I take offense to the idea that you know their system that they created from scratch better than they do, but hey, you go right along thinking that.

Of course, UK, I think it's been firmly established that you and I are diametrically opposed in all things, and that I only exist to make your life more difficult.

Ah, it's been so long since I've had a nemesis...

*all in good fun, of course*

For what it's worth, I think both Upper Krust and WotC have some pretty absurd power/rules interpretations

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there Henry!

I NEVER plan to use the Deities and Demigods; I DO plan to use the Epic Level Handbook. How's that for a case example?

Two points:

Firstly you realise that some people DO want to use Deities in their campaigns

Secondly, you mention you DO want to use the Epic Level Handbook.

In both instances proper Challenge Ratings are required, otherwise there is no point even using CR!

Clearly the '1 CR per Level' rule breaks down at about 20.

If you continue using that flawed mantra you will only end up hamstringing the campaign.

Why? Because I do not need rules for gods in my home-brew campaigns. Gods cannot be challenged through physical means in my campaign - only intellectual ones.

Thats fair enough - every campaign is free to treat deities as they see fit!

However, I have two known NPC's running around in my world that at 66th level (using 1E D&D rules). Using the progression of the old spell progression charts, they could cast around 10 to 12 spells of each level per day. I would enjoy working these characters up for Epic levels, just to see what they look like under 3E, although they do not appear in active roles in the campaign any longer.

If you ever wanted to physically use 66th-level NPCs they are about equal to CR 36.

Which means they are the equivalent of 4 x 48th-level characters or 16 x 36th-level characters.

Are there any more Epic individuals running around in my campaign? I'm not saying, because the players will have to find out on their own...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Re: ECL's and CR's

Hello Isawa mate!

And I take offense to the idea that you know their system that they created from scratch better than they do,

I see immediately, instead of trying to discuss the possible flaws and merits of my system you just start with ad hominem implications.

but hey, you go right along thinking that.

Its not a matter of thinking it - its simply a point of fact. All of which can be corroborated by evidence.

Feel free to discuss my ECL/CR system at your leisure. Like I said I welcome any and all feedback.

Of course, UK, I think it's been firmly established that you and I are diametrically opposed in all things, and that I only exist to make your life more difficult.

You are ever the Dr McCoy to my Mr Spock.

"I'm a doctor Jim, not a debator!"

Ah, it's been so long since I've had a nemesis...

*all in good fun, of course*

Not sure if its fair though, I don't get any experience for beating you! Those darn CR rules...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: ECL's and CR's

Hi Xeriar!

For what it's worth, I think both Upper Krust and WotC have some pretty absurd power/rules interpretations

Don't take any of that 'Alternative HP Solution' thread too seriously (just a lot of brainstorming and thinking out loud).

However, the Challenge Rating article in Asgard magazine is finished material! I'll stack the contents of that article up against ANY scrutiny!

 

[Devall2000]

From what I've seen, the gods don't have too much to worry about from epic level PC's. Hell, the gods will be quite aware of the PCs' intentions before the PCs' have the first inkling that they will attempt to challenge the gods.

It would be cool if the books used the same system. i don't deny that. However, I don't see any problem with the way they did it. IT works.

-Jamie

 

[Xeriar]

Re: Re: ECL's and CR's

Hi Xeriar!

Don't take any of that 'Alternative HP Solution' thread too seriously (just a lot of brainstorming and thinking out loud).

Had to do with some of your comments on the Deities and Demigods book and your upcoming Immortal's Handbook, actually.

One that stood out the most were your claim that Salient Abilities should not bypass an antimagic field (unbalanced SDA's ought to be balanced, no need to toss a perfectly valid rule for something like that).

The other was where you assigned progressively more powerful gods (God of a universe of a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, is still measured with Divine Ranks.) a linear progression.

In my opinion, such rules are not applicable to anything that could rule over a galaxy, much less a universe, much less a multiverse, much less a metaverse... Each of these is a trillionfold increase in scale, at each step. Divine rules should not apply.

However, the Challenge Rating article in Asgard magazine is finished material! I'll stack the contents of that article up against ANY scrutiny!

Here's mine:

A 2nd-level character approximately represents a +100% power increase over a 1st-level character. However a 21st-level character only represents a +5% increase over a 20th-level character, and a 101st-level character is a mere jump of +1% over a 100th-level character.

A level does not represent a consistent increase - this is true. Your approach here is correct, but your scale is not.

A second level character is significantly more than 100% more powerful than a first level. Their hit points alone go up 100%, their attack chance improves by 5%, their wealth increases dramatically, etc.

2nd level is where most stories should begin, actually. The 1st-2nd is really a prologue, where the character comes into his own and becomes a hero.

It's difficult to measure what 'hidden benefits' are, and how potent they can be, but while hit points do follow the reduced power gain pattern you mention, everything else (save damage) does not.

Because, although an additional +1 bonus does not seem like much at 1,000th level, it is still a 5% bonus to strike something when it really matters. Because chances are, if it doesn't matter, it's not worth the time to fight.

The same goes for skill checks and saving throws, and even wealth when it comes down with it. The whole system becomes moot in short order.

---

I think the progression starts at 125% at 1st-2nd level, then slowly crawls down to 25%. Different classes, feat selections, and well, pretty much -everything- throw this off pretty badly. A party of three or more cooperating players is getting more bang for their buck, so to speak.

Ultimately, d20 just breaks down and dies and the numbers you talk about in your article - there is no more point, really.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: ECL's and CR's

Hi Xeriar!

Had to do with some of your comments on the Deities and Demigods book and your upcoming Immortal's Handbook, actually.

Oh, okay, sure fire away!

One that stood out the most were your claim that Salient Abilities should not bypass an antimagic field (unbalanced SDA's ought to be balanced, no need to toss a perfectly valid rule for something like that).

Not sure if you caught the whole discussion though obviously the pretext is that the Immortals Handbook concentrates on Deity PCs (and still keeping the campaign challenging)...

Essentially SDAs need to be explained as either SU (supernatural) or EX (extraordinary). With obviously SU abilities not functioning within Anti-Magic.

Generally I have found those that assign bonuses are EX; those that have an external effect SU. I have a listing of such in the IH.

If you are going to allow Deity PCs you don't want to make them utterly invulnerable to non-deities (otherwise you are going to totally limit your options).

The other was where you assigned progressively more powerful gods (God of a universe of a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, is still measured with Divine Ranks.) a linear progression.

I have mentioned many times that beyond a certain level such measurements of power are arbitrary and meaningless.

However they still serve a purpose. On a cosmic scale players should note that there is always something more powerful than themselves.

In my opinion, such rules are not applicable to anything that could rule over a galaxy, much less a universe, much less a multiverse, much less a metaverse...

I agree. They were for non-practical applications though. Merely an excercise in waxing philosophically.

I have always been a big fan of the Marvel Universe cosmology. They generally draw the line* at something that could destroy a Star (in and of its own power) - The Living Tribunal in this case.

*With one or two exceptions.

However, they have an excellent scaling (similar to Divine Classes - Demigod, Lesser God etc.) whereupon the beings on the next rung of the power ladder will never be defeated by their lessers except under extreme conditions.

What this means is that it should be possible (but not very likely) for lesser beings to challenge and defeat more powerful ones. Essentially you want the next rung on the ladder less than CR+8 to facilitate interaction.

Each of these is a trillionfold increase in scale, at each step. Divine rules should not apply.

True. Which was why my scale was actually based on power capable of destroying (and by extension creating) such cosmic locales.

A level does not represent a consistent increase - this is true.

Thank you.

Your approach here is correct, but your scale is not.

We had a mathematical formula that worked the scale out perfectly, but for the sake of simplicity we adopted the scale we did.

A second level character is significantly more than 100% more powerful than a first level. Their hit points alone go up 100%, their attack chance improves by 5%, their wealth increases dramatically, etc.

2nd level is where most stories should begin, actually. The 1st-2nd is really a prologue, where the character comes into his own and becomes a hero.

It's difficult to measure what 'hidden benefits' are, and how potent they can be, but while hit points do follow the reduced power gain pattern you mention, everything else (save damage) does not.

Because, although an additional +1 bonus does not seem like much at 1,000th level, it is still a 5% bonus to strike something when it really matters. Because chances are, if it doesn't matter, it's not worth the time to fight.

The actual scale itself is less important than the fact that there should be a scale!

Challenge Rating itself is not an exact science after all. Though I think the article goes some way to simplifying CR (above or below CR20).

The main dilemma with Challenge Ratings is not getting them right...its to not get them wrong!

I think the progression starts at 125% at 1st-2nd level, then slowly crawls down to 25%. Different classes, feat selections, and well, pretty much -everything- throw this off pretty badly. A party of three or more cooperating players is getting more bang for their buck, so to speak.

The same goes for skill checks and saving throws, and even wealth when it comes down with it. The whole system becomes moot in short order.

Thats why the article allows a lot of flexibility, with regards ECL.

Ultimately, d20 just breaks down and dies and the numbers you talk about in your article - there is no more point, really.

I don't agree! All power is relative.

Epic and Immortal Campaigns can still be balanced and challenging - the article allows the CR mechanic (and by extension Experience Points) to function at any level.

Is it perfect? I would say its as perfect as anything in 3rd Ed!