Min/Max Boards

Creative Corner => Campaign Settings and World-Building => Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) => The Great Wheel: Saga of the Planes => Topic started by: sirpercival on October 18, 2012, 09:59:21 PM

Title: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 18, 2012, 09:59:21 PM
OK, so let's start it off with this:

The epic rules suck.  Most epic options are either useless or broken, and epic challenges (including the gods and other badass beasties) are poorly optimized and not at all representative of what they're supposed to be.

So, the idea I had is this: what if we redo all of it?  Make a campaign setting which actually allows for high level and epic play in an awesome context.  I love Planescape, and it has the basis for everything I want: powerful entities, dangerous locations, incredible flavor.  Let's write it up the way it should be written.

This is an ambitious project, and I hope people will help with it.  My plan is to use Libertad's Planar Revision Project as a springboard to write up consistent fluff for the high-level denizens of each plane, and construct a true campaign setting.  At the same time, we'll make changes to the non-epic mechanics to support a set of epic and deific mechanics that keep the idea of Epic play without the broken and useless.

I've already begun on the latter part (changes to non-epic mechanics), which I will post tomorrow, after some sleep.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Prime32 on October 19, 2012, 10:02:03 AM
Saving this here, with slight tweaks.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
The first thing that needs to be fixed is magic (and its derivatives).  High level non-epic wizards can already do pretty much anything, and break the game in numerous ways, which makes it extremely difficult to (a) work out epic magic in any useful way, and (b) have epic challenges that are anything other than ridiculous numbers.

The best and most thorough way to fix this would be to rebuild the magic system from the ground up, so that epic magic progression is a natural extension of the system.  However, at that point, it's not even D&D anymore, and this project is ambitious enough without writing an entire new game system.  So, I'm going for more superficial changes.  Most of the changes to non-epic mechanics I'll be making are an attempt to regress toward the mean, which I'm setting at around tier 3.  This means weakening the tier 1 classes, and improving tier 4/5/6 classes, to get everyone into tier 2-4.

I've made a list of the problematic types of spells which need to be altered, and the changes I'll be implementing to fix them, with the goal of un-breaking high-level spellcasting:Psionics are being fixed as well:
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 11:01:56 AM
Next, we have to make changes to classes.  The high-tier classes require the most work:

For most of the low-tier classes, we can simply use homebrewed fixes or other exchanges:
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 11:13:06 AM
Logistically, my plan is this:Any issues with this?
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
This is a truly ambitious but exciting undertaking... and I can't believe I'd never looked at the PF/DSP Metamorphosis fixes. Those are awesome! Very similar to my own homebrewed fixes (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=729.0), except I  made mine all castable on other people (I don't see the need for most powerful effects to be self-only).

I'll try to help out as I can, but my time is limited.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 11:26:58 AM
Oh yes, they can be used on others.  I meant the effects.

And I'm glad you're on board in some way!  Lol.  Maybe I can use your Mindscapes stuff for the plane of dreams?
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 11:28:50 AM
Maybe I can use your Mindscapes stuff for the plane of dreams?

Absolutely. :D

For your mage/specialist casters, Robbypants' Witch (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1511.0) might fit. I think you'll be better off making separate classes with "themes" rather than trying to make one modular class. The beguiler, dread necro, and other such classes give you good examples.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 11:40:49 AM
Maybe I can use your Mindscapes stuff for the plane of dreams?

Absolutely. :D

For your mage/specialist casters, Robbypants' Witch (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1511.0) might fit. I think you'll be better off making separate classes with "themes" rather than trying to make one modular class. The beguiler, dread necro, and other such classes give you good examples.

I was thinking of  just taking Beguiler & DN as-is, and then writing the rest.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on October 19, 2012, 11:56:26 AM
Wow, those PF Metamorphosis powers are nice.

I don't really see what the Plane Shift tweak really does. Sure, planar travel isn't as easy, but it only makes more distant planes cost more castings. It doesn't really limit things, other than making them take longer.

I also don't have as much of a problem with the variable spell effect spells (Shadow Conjuration, etc.). I'd be quite happy with Wish and Miracle and friends if they dumped the "make shit up" clauses, limiting them to just existing lower level spell effects and maybe a couple of thematically appropriate extra options (like crafting magic items you can create without the time, or a mass teleport, or whatever). A lot of things that people think of can be done with existing spells anyways, so the meat of the effect stays close to what's expected. Plus, I like the idea of Swiss Army Knife spells at a higher cost than their more specific cousins (ie: spend a higher level slot for more versatility instead of more power).
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: oslecamo on October 19, 2012, 12:02:51 PM
So, the idea I had is this: what if we redo all of it?  Make a campaign setting which actually allows for high level and epic play in an awesome context.  I love Planescape, and it has the basis for everything I want: powerful entities, dangerous locations, incredible flavor.  Let's write it up the way it should be written.

This is an ambitious project, and I hope people will help with it.  My plan is to use Libertad's Planar Revision Project as a springboard to write up consistent fluff for the high-level denizens of each plane, and construct a true campaign setting. 
-Claim to want powerful entities, dangerous locations, incredible flavor.
-Starts by picking up a revision that focuses mostly in removing powerful entities(mighty ruler of Sigil? What mighty ruler of Sigil?), dangerous locations(giant yugoloth city-mecha? What giant yugoloth city-mecha?) and dulls the flavor all around to "every  outsider is actually neutral (do whatever is profitable for me now) except they have slightly diferent skin colors/dress codes and world views".

Does not compute to me. If you want the first count me in. If you want the second then I'll just show myself out.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 12:04:15 PM
I don't really see what the Plane Shift tweak really does. Sure, planar travel isn't as easy, but it only makes more distant planes cost more castings. It doesn't really limit things, other than making them take longer.
That was basically the idea: to make it slightly more difficult (and hopefully interesting) to travel the planes, especially at the earliest levels where that ability comes online. You could still do "scry and die"  tactics against creatures from other planes, but if they are distant, you're going to have to burn through more spell slots to get there. It also makes it possible to have planes which you cannot reach via Plane Shift at all, which is not currently possible without DM fiat.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 12:15:24 PM
At the very least Miracle should cost XP to replicate a spell just like Wish does.

The Plane Shift tweak is more for flavor than reducing PS's power.

So, the idea I had is this: what if we redo all of it?  Make a campaign setting which actually allows for high level and epic play in an awesome context.  I love Planescape, and it has the basis for everything I want: powerful entities, dangerous locations, incredible flavor.  Let's write it up the way it should be written.

This is an ambitious project, and I hope people will help with it.  My plan is to use Libertad's Planar Revision Project as a springboard to write up consistent fluff for the high-level denizens of each plane, and construct a true campaign setting. 
-Claim to want powerful entities, dangerous locations, incredible flavor.
-Starts by picking up a revision that focuses mostly in removing powerful entities(mighty ruler of Sigil? What mighty ruler of Sigil?), dangerous locations(giant yugoloth city-mecha? What giant yugoloth city-mecha?) and dulls the flavor all around to "every  outsider is actually neutral (do whatever is profitable for me now) except they have slightly diferent skin colors/dress codes and world views".

Does not compute to me. If you want the first count me in. If you want the second then I'll just show myself out.

As I said, I was going to use the PRP as a springboard.  Of course we'll be including the powerful entities, as you pointed out it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 12:23:39 PM
Quote
Spells which break WBL - Magic items will be decoupled from mundane wealth, so no one really cares about these.
This is not a trivial matter, mechanically or fluff-wise. Do you have an existing system in mind for this? And flavor explanation?

I remember seeing a system that basically borrowed from Incarnum a bit, in that magic items were powered by your own soul/chakra, which limited the number you could use at once as well as how powerful the effects produced from items "wielded" by you could be.

Excerpt from my  interpretation (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=729.msg69089#msg69089) of this:
(click to show/hide)


And I think the current Knowledge skill rules make no sense at all. Here is my homebrewed version:

  • The knowledge skill works as described in the PHB, except when identifying creatures we're going to use the following modifications:

    (click to show/hide)
[/list]
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on October 19, 2012, 12:51:43 PM
At the very least Miracle should cost XP to replicate a spell just like Wish does.

Perhaps yes, although I think the current 5000xp cost is too prohibitive. It's a full encounter's worth of xp (before dividing it among the party).

Perhaps something like the following:
(click to show/hide)

Edit: Phaedrus, your Knowledge example is wrong. The DC is 3, not 8 (15 - 7 - 5). So Bob actually knows a bit about the dragon's resistances and subtypes just on rote memory, and has a 15% chance of knowing about Scar personally. Fizban will know that reliably (taking 10), and Yoda should know who was invited to Scar's 21st birthday.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: oslecamo on October 19, 2012, 12:55:54 PM
As I said, I was going to use the PRP as a springboard.  Of course we'll be including the powerful entities, as you pointed out it doesn't make sense otherwise.

Why not use the official fluff as a springboard? The ideas for powerful entities/locations/stuff are there, not anywhere in PRP I can see.

Also +1 to how do you intend to "fix" WBL, since that's a can of worms all by itself.

The best I've seen so far is that the  WBL table values is actually your limit of magic stuff you can use at once. You need to attune to items before using them and that takes time. Consumables  count towards your attunement limits even after you've expended them, and you recover slowly from that (so you can take a few potions per day no problem, but try to spam them and you won't be able to use any magic gear for weeks or even months as you recover)
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 01:15:12 PM
Also +1 to how do you intend to "fix" WBL, since that's a can of worms all by itself.

The best I've seen so far is that the  WBL table values is actually your limit of magic stuff you can use at once. You need to attune to items before using them and that takes time. Consumables  count towards your attunement limits even after you've expended them, and you recover slowly from that (so you can take a few potions per day no problem, but try to spam them and you won't be able to use any magic gear for weeks or even months as you recover)
Hmm... I think I like where this is going.

What if instead of needing to be attuned, and taking up a fraction of your "attunement pool" (i.e. WBL), consumables instead actually lowered your attunement pool by an amount equal to 10x their price when used? And you only recovered this "attunement pool" slowly, like 10% of your WBL per day?

So if you wanted to use a bunch of consumable items, you could, but you'd have to:

1) Leave some of your WBL unequipped to "make room" for them.
2) Your WBL would be lowered after using them by an amount equal to 10x their price (or appropriate fraction thereof for charged items).
3) If your "attunement pool" dropped below the value of your attuned items, you'd have to choose item(s) to become unattuned.

Thoughts? Problems with this?


Edit: Let's look at some examples, to see if my numbers are off.

Example 1: At 20th level, using a 9th level scroll would lower your attunement pool by 38,250 gp, which is about 5% of your total WBL. So if you went crazy and spammed 10 Gate scrolls before heading into a battle, you'd cut the value of attuned items you could use by half, and it would take 5 days for it to recover fully. So this wouldn't be a sustainable method of combat, but you could use it for the occasional "epic" battle.

Example 2: At 5th level, a mage has a wand of Fireball. Each charge costs him 2250 off his WBL to use, which is a pretty sizeable chunk of his 9000 gp total. Hmm... that might be a bit too high of a cost for him. Of course, really he shouldn't have such an item to start with (the cost is over 11,000 gp, against his 9,000 gp WBL). So maybe that's not really a problem.

Example 3: Let's instead give the 5th level Mage above a wand of Grease. 750/50*10 = 150 gp per charge off his WBL, so less than 2%. If he used it once per encounter for 5 encounters, his WBL would be lowered by 10% and would recover the next day. So this would be sustainable for him, which seems about right.

Phaedrus, your Knowledge example is wrong. The DC is 3, not 8 (15 - 7 - 5). So Bob actually knows a bit about the dragon's resistances and subtypes just on rote memory, and has a 15% chance of knowing about Scar personally. Fizban will know that reliably (taking 10), and Yoda should know who was invited to Scar's 21st birthday.
Ah crap. I forgot to actually include the -5 for familiarity... Well, I think the system as written is still OK, and definitely an improvement on the current one, which makes no sense. People remember things based on how scary they are, and how common they are. It makes no sense at all for the DC to increase as things get scarier (more hit dice). Farmers definitely know more about wolves than they do about earthworms.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: oslecamo on October 19, 2012, 01:27:39 PM
Yeah, 5th level characters shouldn't be using 3rd level wands just yet.

The problem I see with your version is that it kinda drives players for a toolbox mindset, where you hoard lots of diferent consumables and then pick the one you need at the time for trivial problem solving. You still can't spam them, but versatility on that level is power by itself (always have the right cure/divination/utility/silver bullet at hand). Instead of just a wand of grease, you have dozens of wands of 1st level spells and pull the one you need for the situation.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 01:32:04 PM
There are more pieces that I'd like to throw in here for discussion.

1) How do we make things like Poison, Curses, and Diseases relevant at high/epic level?
2) How do we make things like Skills relevant at high/epic level?

I wonder whether we should add another category of spells that need fixing to the list: party role replacers.  This would include things like Divine Power, Knock, Divine Insight, etc.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 01:34:45 PM
Yeah, 5th level characters shouldn't be using 3rd level wands just yet.

The problem I see with your version is that it kinda drives players for a toolbox mindset, where you hoard lots of diferent consumables and then pick the one you need at the time for trivial problem solving. You still can't spam them, but versatility on that level is power by itself (always have the right cure/divination/utility/silver bullet at hand). Instead of just a wand of grease, you have dozens of wands of 1st level spells and pull the one you need for the situation.
True... maybe they should still need to be attuned AND lower your WBL pool when actually consumed...
There are more pieces that I'd like to throw in here for discussion.

1) How do we make things like Poison, Curses, and Diseases relevant at high/epic level?
2) How do we make things like Skills relevant at high/epic level?

I wonder whether we should add another category of spells that need fixing to the list: party role replacers.  This would include things like Divine Power, Knock, Divine Insight, etc.
1) Make Epic versions of them, which require Epic solutions. :P
2) This is more difficult... and really just shows how crappy the current skill system is overall, and how problematic it is that there is a "magical" solution that basically replaces/trumps almost all of the mundane skills.

So I guess a start for #2 would be invent more (and better) Epic usages of skills which can do really extraordinary things (like walk on air with Balance, etc), and get rid of/modify the spells that make skills obsolete (Knock, etc). Perhaps a negative consequence of the first part is that you might be able to reproduce these Epic skill usages with a non-epic character...

This again gets into another system problem: there are too many damned bonus types, making it very possible to kick yourself off the random number generator entirely. If we're rewriting things, we should definitely address this from the beginning: no bullshit bonuses. There should only be 2 or 3 bonus types, period, and none of them stack with themselves.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 01:36:50 PM
In terms of fixing WBL, when I wrote that I immediately thought of your houserules, phae. ;)  However, I think it can get messy at high levels with consumables, as we're discovering in this work-through.

The fundamental question is, should consumables and permanent items have different tracks, or compete for the same track?  The former has the advantage of ease of design, since we don't have to come up with one method which manages both versions; the latter has the advantage of being more balanced.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 01:42:09 PM
Why not use the official fluff as a springboard? The ideas for powerful entities/locations/stuff are there, not anywhere in PRP I can see.
The official fluff comes nowhere near the amount of the original Planescape material, and is more of a tacked-on addition than a setting in and of itself, which is what I'm going for.  Granted, the PRP stuff is nowhere near complete as well, but we're going to be rewriting stuff anyway. 

I think we're on the same page, but talking at cross purposes, so let me try and clarify.  My thought was essentially that this project would add all the high-level fluff and opponents, using inspiration and stuff from Planescape and other official stuff, not that the PRP fluff is the be-all end-all of the planes.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: oslecamo on October 19, 2012, 01:44:01 PM
There are more pieces that I'd like to throw in here for discussion.

1) How do we make things like Poison, Curses, and Diseases relevant at high/epic level?
2) How do we make things like Skills relevant at high/epic level?
1)Remove immunities. Replace them with high save bonus against that kind of effect and "don't auto-fail on a natural 1 against this". Some diseases are so virulent they can affect even undeads and constructs.
2)What I've been doing so far is making new effects based on your skill ranks. However if you ask me, skills by themselves should not be special. Skills backed up by the right feats/class abilities should be special. A rogue should be awesome at hiding-the rogue should not be awesome just because they get hide as a class skill, since that means everybody else with hide as a class skill suddenly stealths as well as the rogue.

I wonder whether we should add another category of spells that need fixing to the list: party role replacers.  This would include things like Divine Power, Knock, Divine Insight, etc.
Kill them with fire and call it a day. It's not like spellcasters don't have a bazillion other spells to play with.

True... maybe they should still need to be attuned AND lower your WBL pool when actually consumed...
Agreed.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 01:46:51 PM
I'd rather not just go through and axe spells if I can help it...
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on October 19, 2012, 01:50:12 PM
There are more pieces that I'd like to throw in here for discussion.

1) How do we make things like Poison, Curses, and Diseases relevant at high/epic level?

I had some higher level diseases and Contagion spells on the old boards. I'll root around and see if I still have them on my computer. They're in the old 1001 ideas thread, regardless.

Quote
2) How do we make things like Skills relevant at high/epic level?

I wonder whether we should add another category of spells that need fixing to the list: party role replacers.  This would include things like Divine Power, Knock, Divine Insight, etc.

Opening doors is not a party role. At least, not a dedicated party role. Its something everyone can do, whether by casting spells to open the door, casting spells to bypass the door, using lockpicks to pick the door, using picks to pick the wall, or using boots to bust the door.

On a related note, I wouldn't worry too hard about skills. It would be nice to make them relevant at all levels, but unlike class features, anyone can do skills (just some better than others). Sort of like how anyone can do attack rolls (just some better than others).

Now, that said, I once went through the PHB, pulled out most of the spells that completely replace skills, and wrote up some quick, fairly standardized replacements that had similar results but using actual skill rules. Again, it should be in the old 1001 ideas thread on BG.

2)What I've been doing so far is making new effects based on your skill ranks. However if you ask me, skills by themselves should not be special. Skills backed up by the right feats/class abilities should be special. A rogue should be awesome at hiding-the rogue should not be awesome just because they get hide as a class skill, since that means everybody else with hide as a class skill suddenly stealths as well as the rogue.

Seconded.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 01:52:34 PM
1)Remove immunities. Replace them with high save bonus against that kind of effect and "don't auto-fail on a natural 1 against this". Some diseases are so virulent they can affect even undeads and constructs.
I don't really like this... Perhaps change any immunity granted by an effect not based on type to be just a huge bonus and no auto-fail on 1s, but I think type-based immunities make sense. If there is a disease so virulent it can affect undead, then it should be a specific thing (named ghouls-bane or something), not a general rule making all undead potentially vulnerable to all diseases...

However, this gets into yet another problem I have with the core rules, which may seem somewhat contradictory to what I wrote above, but hear me out...

The way some types work is just stupid. Why do ghouls and vampires not actually need to feed (all undead do not need to eat)? Why are vampires immune to crits, and all mind-affecting things (they have minds, and a physiology. they still need their heart)? Likewise, not all constructs are mindless (and hence shouldn't all be immune to all Mind-Affecting), nor should all of them be immune to crits (break a critical gear, or kill its "brain", and it should die). As much as I know Oslecamo hates a lot of Frank and K's stuff, I do have to push for their alternate subtypes for Undead (Dark-minded and Unliving), which remove a lot of the type-based immunities. I'd also like to see subtypes like these used/developed for constructs, plants, and vermin where it makes sense (i.e. intelligent constructs shouldn't be immune to all Mind-Affecting things).
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
I agree about making more subtypes for this stuff, though I have to say I don't like the way Frank & K did it either.  The way they assigned the abilities makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: oslecamo on October 19, 2012, 02:02:40 PM
1)Remove immunities. Replace them with high save bonus against that kind of effect and "don't auto-fail on a natural 1 against this". Some diseases are so virulent they can affect even undeads and constructs.
I don't really like this... Perhaps change any immunity granted by an effect not based on type to be just a huge bonus and no auto-fail on 1s, but I think type-based immunities make sense. If there is a disease so virulent it can affect undead, then it should be a specific thing (named ghouls-bane or something), not a general rule making all undead potentially vulnerable to all diseases...
It wouldn't really make all undeads vulnerable to everything, since most diseases have fixed DCs and those are pretty low.

However, this gets into yet another problem I have with the core rules, which may seem somewhat contradictory to what I wrote above, but hear me out...

The way some types work is just stupid. Why do ghouls and vampires not actually need to feed (all undead do not need to eat)?
That's why they're evil. They crave fresh flesh/blood, but don't actually need it to survive (as pointed out in Libris Mortis). It just gives them kicks.

Why are vampires immune to crits, and all mind-affecting things (they have minds, and a physiology. they still need their heart)? Likewise, not all constructs are mindless (and hence shouldn't all be immune to all Mind-Affecting), nor should all of them be immune to crits (break a critical gear, or kill its "brain", and it should die). As much as I know Oslecamo hates a lot of Frank and K's stuff, I do have to push for their alternate subtypes for Undead (Dark-minded and Unliving), which remove a lot of the type-based immunities. I'd also like to see subtypes like these used/developed for constructs, plants, and vermin where it makes sense (i.e. intelligent constructs shouldn't be immune to all Mind-Affecting things).
I'm against this, because then we notice it we'll have a bazillion diferent subtypes, and then we have to deal with all the effects that care about subtypes, and it's a whole load of paperwork that could've been evaded with just making vampires actual living beings (can you really call yourself an undead when you've been stripped out of pretty much all actual undead traits?) that gain a bunch of standard feats like Iron Will for free if you still insist they totally have a complete phisiology.

I for one still hate with a burning passion 4e's "we auto-die when hit by a natural 20(headshot!), which means the living cannot be headshoted" zombies.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on October 19, 2012, 02:08:33 PM
Here we are, found my diseases and skill tweaks.

Diseases
(click to show/hide)

Skills
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 02:40:58 PM
I'm against this, because then we notice it we'll have a bazillion diferent subtypes, and then we have to deal with all the effects that care about subtypes, and it's a whole load of paperwork that could've been evaded with just making vampires actual living beings
We really only need two, I think: versions of Dark-Minded and Unliving that can be applied to anything, and which basically just make them not immune to Mind Affecting, and vulnerable to crits (and maybe tweak a few other things). Making up two subtypes is a lot easier than rewriting every monster that is screwed up because of the type rule blanket immunities that make no sense.

It wouldn't really make all undeads vulnerable to everything, since most diseases have fixed DCs and those are pretty low.
It would make them vulnerable to anything they don't pass with a 1 on their saving throw, which is a lot given their sucky Fortitude saves. Any bonus given to compensate for this would have to be quite large, like +15 or something.

That's why they're evil. They crave fresh flesh/blood, but don't actually need it to survive (as pointed out in Libris Mortis). It just gives them kicks.
And I hate that. That's not what all the stories about them say. The rules just flat-out contradict all the fiction, which sucks. Those Libris Mortis rules were badly written patch jobs to cover it up. We can do better (at least a bit).
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: oslecamo on October 19, 2012, 02:52:04 PM
I'm against this, because then we notice it we'll have a bazillion diferent subtypes, and then we have to deal with all the effects that care about subtypes, and it's a whole load of paperwork that could've been evaded with just making vampires actual living beings
We really only need two, I think: versions of Dark-Minded and Unliving that can be applied to anything, and which basically just make them not immune to Mind Affecting, and vulnerable to crits (and maybe tweak a few other things). Making up two subtypes is a lot easier than rewriting every monster that is screwed up because of the type rule blanket immunities that make no sense.
Every monster? Vampire is a single monster. And as demonstrated by Alucard from the Hellsing manga, they've been known to have all the blanket immunities indeed.


It would make them vulnerable to anything they don't pass with a 1 on their saving throw, which is a lot given their sucky Fortitude saves. Any bonus given to compensate for this would have to be quite large, like +15 or something.
So be it.

And I hate that. That's not what all the stories about them say. The rules just flat-out contradict all the fiction, which sucks.

Last time I checked, pretty much every fiction with ghouls/vampires has them go over massive periods of time whitout anything to "eat" and that doesn't stop them from jumping upon the part of heroes and messing up their day.

Really, what was the last time you heard of a vampire/ghoul starving to death? Because one of the basis of undead apocalypses is that those things don't die naturally and even if they consumed most of the world population, they're coming for more. Those zombie ghoul hordes don't have anything more to eat, yet they force the heroes to hole in until they find a way out or get eaten. Ghouls/vampires have never been defeated by starvation.

Heck, in the marvel zombies parallel universe the story ends with the undead heroes actually learning to control their hunger.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 03:08:20 PM
What if immunity granted you, not only a large bonus to saves, but also a flat failure chance (like 50% or something)?
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 03:11:53 PM
Really, what was the last time you heard of a vampire/ghoul starving to death?
The vampires in Anne Rice's books do go into a state of torpor if they don't eat, but yes you have a point... I don't remember any of them ever starving to death, in any story... although the threat did seem to exist. They just always managed to find something to eat, what with their being supernatural monsters and all. :P I do think that they are driven insane in some stories if they are deprived of their "food", though.

Every monster? Vampire is a single monster.
As far as the Mind-Affecting immunity, that's not just a single monster. There are lots of creatures in D&D which have minds, but which are somehow inexplicably immune to all things that would affect their minds, just due to their type. I do not buy all the justifications for why this is (alien mindset, etc). Is the mind of a once-human lich really more alien than that of a mindflayer? Hell no. And yet the first is somehow immune to all mind-influencing effects, while the latter is perfectly vulnerable to them.

What if immunity granted you, not only a large bonus to saves, but also a flat failure chance (like 50% or something)?
I don't think that any creature with a mind should even have a bonus to Mind-Affecting effects, unless it is specifically part of their write-up somehow.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Prime32 on October 19, 2012, 03:15:28 PM
I'm against this, because then we notice it we'll have a bazillion diferent subtypes, and then we have to deal with all the effects that care about subtypes, and it's a whole load of paperwork that could've been evaded with just making vampires actual living beings
We really only need two, I think: versions of Dark-Minded and Unliving that can be applied to anything, and which basically just make them not immune to Mind Affecting, and vulnerable to crits (and maybe tweak a few other things). Making up two subtypes is a lot easier than rewriting every monster that is screwed up because of the type rule blanket immunities that make no sense.
Wouldn't it be easier to add subtypes that grant immunities? That way the name of the subtype could explain where the immunity comes from. Most Oozes should have the type Aberration (amorphous, mindless) or something.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 03:17:48 PM
I'm against this, because then we notice it we'll have a bazillion diferent subtypes, and then we have to deal with all the effects that care about subtypes, and it's a whole load of paperwork that could've been evaded with just making vampires actual living beings
We really only need two, I think: versions of Dark-Minded and Unliving that can be applied to anything, and which basically just make them not immune to Mind Affecting, and vulnerable to crits (and maybe tweak a few other things). Making up two subtypes is a lot easier than rewriting every monster that is screwed up because of the type rule blanket immunities that make no sense.
Wouldn't it be easier to add subtypes that grant immunities? That way the name of the subtype could explain where the immunity comes from. Most Oozes should have the type Aberration (amorphous, mindless) or something.
Hmm... You'd have to go and rewrite the creature types (to remove immunities, etc), but yes this could work, and is a better alternative to adding subtypes which remove them.

So remove the Mind-Affecting immunity parts of the construct, vermin, and undead types, then create a Mindless subtype, and say it applies to any creature which does not have an Int score?





Edit: Totally unrelated awesome idea I had for how to get floating islands/castles/etc which seems to fit thematically with what you're going for here ("epic" stuff) (from here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51080)):   
Quote
Have them be the tops of mountains/buttes that actually mostly exist in another plane (the Ethereal?). The "floating" parts are just what happens to exist on the Prime. They could even move relative to the Prime if their primary plane moves relative to the Prime, but their motion would be pretty much immutable. Trying to stop one would be as difficult as trying to move a "normal" mountain.

This would let you have "floating" castles and stuff, but not rocks that you could craft into flying suits of armor or use as ships.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 19, 2012, 05:02:13 PM
The other way to have floating things is to make them superconductors.  Then they keep the same height in the magnetic field that they had when they began superconducting.  They would dip and rise with fluctuations in the field, and could be moved relatively easily laterally.

BTW I just saw your edit about too many bonus types.  While I agree, I'm afraid of scope creep beyond the monumental task we've already set ourselves...
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: phaedrusxy on October 19, 2012, 08:02:56 PM
The other way to have floating things is to make them superconductors.  Then they keep the same height in the magnetic field that they had when they began superconducting.  They would dip and rise with fluctuations in the field, and could be moved relatively easily laterally.
I heard a catgirl scream somewhere in the distance...

Quote
BTW I just saw your edit about too many bonus types.  While I agree, I'm afraid of scope creep beyond the monumental task we've already set ourselves...
Bah, why? Just make something that overwrites everything that grants a bonus.

Rules text: There are only 3 bonus types: Enhancement, Morale(?), and Racial (or whatever). If something says it is a type other than one of those, convert it to Enhancement.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on October 21, 2012, 12:00:56 AM
Or untyped...
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Prime32 on November 28, 2012, 06:27:43 PM
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on May 02, 2013, 07:36:51 PM
We need to get going on this, because I had a campaign idea.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on August 22, 2013, 01:56:01 PM
OK, two more epic seeds: creation and force.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on August 11, 2014, 09:34:14 PM
I'm having trouble finding the rules for spic spellcasting. I can't seem to find where how refinement works is defined, nor anything about how often you can cast them (the feats read as being at-will, but that doesn't sound right).
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on August 12, 2014, 12:04:16 AM
I'm having trouble finding the rules for spic spellcasting. I can't seem to find where how refinement works is defined,
"Special: You may select this feat multiple times, each time choosing either a new epic spell, or attaining another refinement on a spell you already know."

Quote
nor anything about how often you can cast them (the feats read as being at-will, but that doesn't sound right).
"Epic spells are cast just as normal spells, subject to the specific details given below; you may cast epic spells any number of times per day."

From the Epic Spellcasting writeup.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on August 12, 2014, 11:52:13 AM
I'd suggest splitting off the refinement to another feat so it's clearer (one feat to learn the spells, one feat to add refinement to a known spell). It would be like how it is now, but you'd have two different feats instead of the same feat twice doing different things.

So epic spells are at will, then?

Also, what about the save DC? There's no generalized formula, although every spell with a save seems to be 10 + 1/2 CL + primary casting score. However, since epic spells aren't tied to class, which primary casting score? Both for multiclass characters, and for characters in classes that use different scores for different spellcasting aspects (such as Favored Soul).

Edit: Obscure - Acting Below Notice says "your spellcasting ability score", not "your primary spellcasting ability score".
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on August 12, 2014, 12:13:51 PM
I'd suggest splitting off the refinement to another feat so it's clearer (one feat to learn the spells, one feat to add refinement to a known spell). It would be like how it is now, but you'd have two different feats instead of the same feat twice doing different things.
Done.

Quote
So epic spells are at will, then?
Indeed.

Quote
Also, what about the save DC? There's no generalized formula, although every spell with a save seems to be 10 + 1/2 CL + primary casting score. However, since epic spells aren't tied to class, which primary casting score? Both for multiclass characters, and for characters in classes that use different scores for different spellcasting aspects (such as Favored Soul).

Edit: Obscure - Acting Below Notice says "your spellcasting ability score", not "your primary spellcasting ability score".
Clarified.

I also posted the Awareness sphere.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on August 12, 2014, 12:48:05 PM
Refined Spellcasting should say non-apex epic spell.

I'm not sure being at will works with all epic spells. Abundant Animus, at the very least, makes you all but unkillable. It also doesn't mesh with how non-epic spells use slots.
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on August 12, 2014, 02:58:06 PM
Refined Spellcasting should say non-apex epic spell.
Fixed.

Quote
I'm not sure being at will works with all epic spells. Abundant Animus, at the very least, makes you all but unkillable. It also doesn't mesh with how non-epic spells use slots.
Hm.  I'm not sure how to handle slots, though, and I'd rather stay away from per-day in general... but if we did per-day, you could have one epic slot (usable for any spell you know) for each of the four feats that you take...? I mean, with Abundant Animus, you have to use an immediate action so it's not like you'll be able to cast unlimited of them in a round... also if you use it on yourself you lose your equipment unless you have a lot of refinement on it...

I dunno. What would you suggest?
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Garryl on August 12, 2014, 03:52:43 PM
It doesn't help that there are so many ways of dealing with spell knowledge and slots from all the different spellcasting classes. It might be interesting to have a number of different epic spellcasting feats that each require a different sort of basic spellcasting and give you access in a similar method. Just spitballing here, but... (Tweak numbers as needed, of course.)

Example:
Spontaneous Epic Spellcasting: Gain knowledge of 2 non-apex epic spells and 3 spontaneous epic spell slots. (Favored Soul, Sorcerer, etc.)
Prepared Epic Spellcasting: Gain knowledge of 4 non-apex epic spells and 2 prepared epic spell slots. (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc.)
Retrieved Epic Spellcasting: Gain knowledge of 4 non-apex epic spells and 3 retrieved epic spell slots with 1 epic spell retrieved. (Spirit Shaman)
Extra Epic Spell: Learn 1 more non-apex epic spell.
Extra Epic Slot: Gain 1 more epic spell slot of a type you have.
Extra Epic Retrieval: Retrieve 1 more epic spell at a time.
Refined Spellcasting: Add a degree of refinement to chosen non-apex epic spell.
Apex Spellcasting: Learn an apex epic spell.
Apex Refinement: Add a degree of refinement to chosen apex epic spell.

Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on August 13, 2014, 05:31:54 AM
I do like this, actually... except that having so many different feats seems really unwieldy... hm.

EDIT: Wait, this is Great Wheel. There's only spontaneous spellcasting (prep is available for everyone as an option for fast metamagic).
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: Nanshork on July 24, 2017, 06:33:10 PM
sirp, you've been pimping this project out recently.  What's the chances of it getting finished?
Title: Re: Intro, Discussion, & Brainstorming
Post by: sirpercival on July 24, 2017, 07:16:46 PM
sirp, you've been pimping this project out recently.  What's the chances of it getting finished?
Well it's farther from being finished than most of my other projects... but I do want to work more on it. I just have many things to work on :) I definitely intend to finish it eventually... especially if I get contributions from other people.