Using Immortals Handbook AND d20 Future

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Belzamus!

What it really comes down to for me, is that 1.) I don't want to spend money or time learning a new system when the one I use is perfect for me in every way, and 2.) I honestly don't feel that 4E could represent my setting the same way that 3.X can. Understand that I do this purely as a personal hobby, so there are no "DM rulings" for out of combat abilities; I want those right there on the character sheet alongside the more actively useful ones. Even once (if) you get your 4E material published, I don't think it'll be enough to smooth over the problems I have between 4E and my particular setting.

Plus...I really have no desire to stat up everyone *again*.

In the end, there's not that much wrong with 4E, to me, so much as I have no need for it.

My two copper pieces.

I appreciate the feedback dude. Its understandable not wanting to spend more money, especially in the current economic climate.

I can also understand why people would be reticent to learn a new system (even if it is very simple) thats a bit of a paradigm shift from previous D&D incarnations.

Statting up everyone again would be something of a chore, though would you need to stat up everyone...or just those you were actively using in the campaign I wonder?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey BrokeAndDrive dude!

Precision link strike!

Kersplooosh!

Don't ever hire me to write for comic books.

Am I to assume you are posting under the nom de plume thecasualoblivion?

...and if so, you are in favour of 4E...?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Thanks for the coments paradox42, much appreciated.

hi

Ahoy there eduar!

well my problem with 4th is no infinite levels

I would have agreed with you 5 years ago. However, it became clear that infinite level progression is far more trouble than its worth.

and only one paragon and epic path, i like more than one path for the same character,

Not sure what you mean here? There are loads of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.

and i miss stuffs like wish

You can still have wishes...if you so wish. It seems tailor made for rituals.

but 4th have awesome stuffs like AC increase with level, in 3th you need like 3 or 4 items to AC, 4th had great stuffs but for the moment i prefer 3th

like paradox say 3th==linux and 4th==mac (but recently windows, that's good)

I'd go along with that analogy.

any suggestion for increase mecha HP, in epic levels with that your mecha is disabled in one round

Material modifier would increase hit points (as well as improve AC and Damage Reduction/Hardness).

Force Fields would give you additional hit points.

I'd have to see a base mecha build to better understand the pros and cons of its design. I wonder if Wizards have some d20 future versions on their website.

Technically a Mecha should never be as good as a same mass (and same progress level) tank - although it could be more mobile.

 

[paradox42]

Nice little beastie you have there! Only things I'm wondering:

Str 40 = I don't remember the movie too much, but did he regularly throw city busses at the Terminator?

CR 17 = Erm... I dunno. He was a tough cookie, but he doesn't seem personally powerful enough to be almost as much a challenge as a balor or the tarrasque (each whom could probably survive a direct Hiroshima nuke according to Krusty's estimation). Then again, I tend to put CRs lower than most would unless there's a very good reason to. For example, I'd peg Optimus Prime to be nothing more than a CR 10-13 Huge living construct with an extraordinary ability akin to Wild Shape or a two-formed lycanthrope, and freshly-exalted Solars (not the angels, the PCs from the game Exalted) to no-level humans with an added ECL 15-20 extra stuff layered atop (template akin to divine ascension?). I mean heck, a party consisting of a wizard, cleric, druid, archivist, and a spell-to-power erudite at level 15+ is already compared to playing Exalted anyway!

I posted it really in response to Rikandur Azebol's post earlier in this thread, where he estimated it as being CR 14-16. My version obviously has several things the movie version doesn't, in particular its ability to actually absorb magical and psionic energy. Just chalk up the STR 40 as another of those- I gave it that because I didn't like the critter's damage output at lower STR scores when I did some test rolls and hypothetical combats. As for its CR, the monster only showed up in my games in two combats, but both times it worked out well against a party of 17+ level. Hint to those unaccustomed to reading between the lines: Harm doesn't deal energy damage (unless you subscribe to the notion that it deals negative energy damage), nor does it match any of the Metal Slime's immunities. And that's just one possibility.

 

[eduar]

hi

well i like the archmage and archlich epic destinies but i can't have both

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Alzrius mate!

I'd enumerate why I prefer 3.5/Pathfinder over 4E, but in all honesty I think the discussion is a waste of time, at least in this context.

I disagree...I'll explain why momentarily...

You've already decided, U_K, that 4E is objectively, factually, and provably "better" than 3.5 - you don't see that particular discussion as being a matter of opinion, but of quantifiable factors which you've calculated and found to support your conclusions.

...thats true...many factors which seem irrefutable too...

Quite simply, you've already made it clear that you're of the opinion that people who prefer 3.5 to 4E are operating from a position of ignorance, akin to people who believe the Earth is flat - they either don't know the facts that you know, or are inexplicably tied to a quaint viewpoint despite the preponderance of evidence in favor of the newer and better model of thinking (perhaps due to fear).

...there are many comments I totally understand:

- I'm happy with 3E, why should I change
- I don't want to spend more money
- Time taken to convert stuff from 3E to 4E
- I don't want to have to learn a new system
- Classes seem too rigid in design
- Many 4E books seem very stale and flavourless
- I love to tinker and toy with 3E design - you can't do that in 4E to any extent

...but equally I think there are a lot opinions that don't make sense to me.

- The classes are balanced (somehow cited as a negative)
- Superfluous elements like SLA and Feats eradicated from Monster Design
- Monster Ranks and Roles too MMORPG-ish
- Non-infinite Class Levelling
- PCs and Monsters don't use the exact same rules now
- Don't like the idea of Encounter/Daily powers, too meta-ish
- Removal of save or die mechanics

etc.

Given that, there's no purpose in having an exchange of ideas with someone who's decided that they're right before the discussion's even begun, because that's not a discussion at all - it's the other person humoring you, and it's patronizing.

I'm not patronizing anyone here. Knowledge is the goal. By reading everyones feedback on the matter on what they dislike about 4E and prefer about 3E I can better adapt my work to interest a wider range of people.

I never said to anyone, make a case for 3E and I might change from 4E back to 3E. That would be disengenuous. What I am saying is let me better understand your opinions and where appropriate I'll try and incorporate the good elements of 3E you liked into my 4E work, while isolating the poorer elements of 4E.

I apologize if this comes off as harsh, U_K, and of course if I've misrepresented you, please let me know.

Everyone's allowed to speak their minds here and be as candid as they wish amigo (obviously basic ENWorld message board rules withstanding).

That said you may have misinterpreted specifically why I was asking for feedback and discussion on the topic.

But as it stands right now, I don't care to get into a discussion about the merits of 3.5 vs. 4E on the Eternity Publishing forums, because there's no real discussion to be had.

Thats only because you know 4E rules while 3E drools!

But in all seriousness, I value peoples opinions on the matter. I want to listen to feedback such as...

- I love it when 3E does [insert reason]

or

- I hate it when 4E does [insert reason]

 

[eduar]

hi

U_K the material for godsend 3th will come later in your website?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Rikandur mate!

Wow, what philosophical dispute grew from my little comment about hating "Tome of Battle".

Who'd a thunk it.

But guys, let poor U_K like the 4ed ... after all he could be eccentric. Couldn't he ?

More mad than eccentric I say! I'm not rich enough to be eccentric.

I believe that he, and I mean by that You U_K, would easily understand the difference from Player point of view when he would be able to play 4ed Thrin from lvl 1 and 3,5 ed one.

I think that someone who has played multiple editions won't have the same reticence to try a new one as another gamer who has only known 3E - not saying that umbrella statement covers everyone here of course.

I believe that I understand his statements about ease of creation in 4ed. Critters are simple mobs in this edition.

Its easier for sure.

Not designed to challenge players with character demise, but to provide them with loot. IMO, at least it looks like that. Maybe I'm weird but I alvays tended to pretend that enemies of players were actual "people" even if it was just rabid dog.

4E is focused towards party vs. group of enemies. Thus individual enemies seem less of a threat than their 3E counterparts might seem.

But encounter threat level is often down to DM severity.

It reminds me of situation that seems to be mechanically impossible to do in 4ed:
My character, variant fighter themed after kung-fu warriors from old Chinese movies, half-dragon going by the name of Jade Flame had entered gladiator match on Graz'zt's personal coliseum. To test him the Slave Keeper send pack of rabid demon wolves after him. Fortunately I won initiative and decided to make something outrageous ... thus my PC used feats "wasted" on Intimidiate skill and terrorized poor puppies into subbmission. Luckily for me DM rolled them extremely low Will save and wolves became my fighter's followers. Slave Keeper was so "impressed" that I got to keep one wolf. Don't know why everybody back on Fearun Were so pale when I strolled with it trough my adopted home city.

Okay, as far as I see the rule-flexibility/abusability my fighter would be unable to do any of that in 4ed. Would have to slaughter the puppies ... if he would be able to do that against 20 HD nasties. For the situation to work similiarly DM would have to make "divine intervention" because as far as I understand 4ed there would be no other options for my fighter.

Sounds like a Skill Challenge in 4E.

As to the encounter itself, the demon wolves would need to be minions...assuming your character was scheduled to fight alone in the arena against a 'pack' of them.

Not to mention that I certainly wouldn't be able to create similiar fighter to one I made in 3,5 edition.

Why not?

Or later, how I would make magical template mimicking revised Paragon ? ( Take U_K's Amidah and divide all numbers by 5, remove Evil Eye and Alter Reality add slas of Hero-Deity) In 3,5 edition it was simpler ... I did some quests for Archmage being my ally and during this time he devised epic ritual spell for it.

You could very simply make the Paragon template an Epic Destiny in 4E. In fact I'd be shocked if something fairly similar didn't already exist.

I admit that I only played a little with 4ed ... have little patience for learning new system from scratch where fighters are giving me bad vibes.

Thus returning to question at hand, here's a riddle:

Can any of You imagine such thing in 4ed mechanics ... We have elf wizard, Titanic dragon and green guy with half-sword half-spear flying mayestically over the terrified Shrie ? To make things worse wizard, who previously visited our Earth trough interdimensional gateway, put illusion on everybody to make my PC look like Lord Vader himself as Emperor Palapatine and the Dragon was disguised as "Executor".

One of the fond memories ...

Now, rule wise ... is something similiar possible for Wizards from 4ed ?

Yes and not yet. Use a ritual (or item) for the illusion.

Arguably you would need to be Level 30+ in 4E before 'Titanic' Dragons would make an appearance - my Mega-size rules. So technically you couldn't do that just yet...but then you couldn't do it from the Core 3E books either.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

@paradox42

I considered the ability to mimic form for the Mercury Golem, but with the basic golem 8 times the volume of a normal humanoid it seemed it wouldn't get much use as standard. Definately suits the T-1000-ness of the Metal Slime though.

@BrokeAndDrive

Optimus Prime only CR 10-13! Thats crazy talk mister!

Thats Iron Golem territory. I'd have Large Autobots in around CR 20, with Huge Autobots CR 26+

 

[Farealmer3]

Hi U_K

I thought 4E has tons of cool powers where 3E had relatively few.

Maybe but since there is only like one line of description before they go into the mechanics they might as well not exist. Let me use an example of two different descriptions of the same power.

4th would read like: You create a energy sphere powerful enough to destroy a planet.

3rd would read like: This power allows you to harness the power of duo dimensional physics to create a zero point energy sphere. This sphere causes matter to break down at the subatomic level and is powerful enough to destroy even an entire planet.

One's fun to read, the other isn't. Sure the one sentence descriptions(before they sink into at the tech stats of a power) allow more powers in fewer space. But they read very boring.

In my experience most high level 3E players are power gamers to some degree and thus meta fictional in their planning of characters.

Again different views you look at ths from a designer who only sees the abuse potentional. I look at it from the prespective of those inside said world. And honestly those few that get that high will probably not know all the best powers to have at that level since they didn't see the manual.

It goes back to a wizard vs fighter arguement you made in another thread. Where you said if wizards are so powerful why wouldn;'t everyone in the world end up a wizard? The same reason everyone in our world(in which education and knowledge are far more plentaful) don't become scientists. It takes years of hard study and dedication. It's easy to forget when your looking at it from a game mechanics prespective that being a wizard or a cleric comes with accual drawbacks people inside the game world wouldn't be able to overcome. Education, training, and money for spells and components. The average person wouldn't really be lucky enough to get into a DM Guide approved encounter rate either. You can't use the DM controlled environment most PC's live under and apply it to how a world would accually work.

But were they ever fun - certainly not if it happened to you.

Well nothing bad is necessarily fun if it happens to your PC. But that doesn't mean we should take monsters, traps, and other dangers out of a game because the PC's might get hurt.

Also, when the heck did 3E ever describe character abilities with anything like the same level of detail? Most classes in 3E barely had any powers, let alone flowery descriptions of said powers.

Well to be fair i am talking mostly of spells, psi, invocations, and other stuff. Obviously you can't really make a rangers immunity to natural poisons and stuff sound too many different ways.

But only being able to memorise x spells per day isn't Meta-ish?

Eh i suppose but not on the same level. Obviously for any game some metaish stuff is expected, that's not an excuse to go wild with it though(like 4th did).

Are fictional teams unbalanced, yes, but its because they have different levels of experience. Not because some classes should be more powerful than others.

Eh, i don't think thats how it works. Since there is no objective way to class anything in fiction not custom made for it you cannot really say how much a level anyone is other that well x is probably higher than y. But then you have to aks what are thier class features, what rate do they learn them, etc which is basically impossible unless the creators specifically make a rpg and stat them out.

But are you saying that a player who wants to play a Fighter cannot have as many abilities as a Wizard?

If your counting spells as abilities then no. A wizard should always have more spells that a fighter has abilities. A fighters strength is since D&D is not a video game where all the capabilities of the character are limited by the game engine. In D&D a fighter can mix up his routine. Fighters should be more about using what they have instead of needing alot of premade powers.

I don't see how having less abilities for a Fighter is a good feature?

It is, the fighter is supposed to be the basic of the basic melee class anyway. The fancy stuff should be for other classes like monks.

You don't like balance you mean.

Depends on what you mean by balance i think giving the same amount of powers that do the same amount of damage is a simplistic style of balance. You don't need either for balance. Not to mention trying that hard to balance everything and anything out just comes off as silly. A person should play a fighter cause they want to play a fighter and a wizard cause they want to play a wizard not because one has more powers than the other. It's not WotC's job to play our games for us, balance as it is should be done by the GM. It's his/her job to regulate the game and make sure players don't wreck it in the context of their world. The job just isn't about putting monsters in the PC's way after all.

This is the same line of thinking that made them make 3.5 incorporeal creatures not be able to go through objects larger than themselves. It makes no sense from an ingame prespective. And when a power is all metaish it is boring to read and breaks my suspension of disbelief.