PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Holy Powers: How Alignment Got Its Groove Back



Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-09, 11:31 PM
I like alignment to be more than a 1-2 letter note; so I came up with this idea:

If a Good PC wants to really stick it to Evil-doers, he can learn holy powers the same way that any character learns regular powers. Holy powers are nothing more than regular powers with the Holy keyword. Powers with the Holy keyword work better against Evil foes (+2 attack), but not so well against Unaligned foes (-2 attack) and poorly against Good foes (-6 attack). Now, this keyword is balanced on the assumption that PCs will fight roughly even numbers of Evil and non-Evil foes. In a campaign where PCs fight Evil foes exclusively, holy powers become no-brainer choices.

(For my purposes, Evil = E/CE and Good = G/LG.)

TS

Draz74
2009-01-09, 11:43 PM
Stick a [4e] tag in your subject line ...

Thanatos 51-50
2009-01-10, 12:28 AM
How about something like:

FEAT:
Holy Charge
Heroic Tier
Requirement: Good or Lawful Good Alignment

Effect: Select one power you know, this power gains the Holy Keyword and gains a +2 to hit creatures of an Evil or Chaotic Evil alignment and a -6 to hit Good or Lawful Good creatures.
Against Unaligned foes, this power suffers a -2 to attack rolls.
Special:
A creature which changes to Unaligned, Evil or Chaotic Evil alignment looses access to this feat's benefits until they atone. The power in question looses the HOLY Keyword, but otherwise functions normally.
You may se;ect this feat multiple times, each time, it applies to a seperate power.
If you re-train the power associated with this feat, the power replacing the re-trained power gains the Holy keyword.

Lappy9000
2009-01-10, 01:09 AM
I apologize, but I thought this thread was a re-invention of the Axis of Funk for 4th edition.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-10, 02:42 AM
How about something like:
I'd really rather not force players to blow feats on powers that aren't inherently advantageous.


I apologize, but I thought this thread was a re-invention of the Axis of Funk for 4th edition.
Is that like the fashion world's Axis of Evil?

TS

Zeful
2009-01-10, 03:04 AM
I apologize, but I thought this thread was a re-invention of the Axis of Funk for 4th edition.

I take it Garra's the head then?

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-12, 03:31 PM
Here is a different idea:

Smite Evil [Heroic]
Prerequisite: Good alignment
Benefit: You gain the Smite Evil power.

Smite Evil Feat Power
You channel universal righteous fury to scour wickedness from the world.
Encounter
Free Action Personal
Special: You must be Good to use this power.
Effect: Choose one target. The next time you hit that target during this encounter, it takes an additional 1 damage per tier if it is Evil.
Special: You must take the Smite Evil feat to use this power.

Righteous Wrath [Paragon]
Prerequisite: Good alignment
Benefit: Add “Additionally, you gain a +2 bonus to your next attack roll against that target if it is Evil.” to the Effect entry of Smite Evil.

No Rest for the Wicked [Epic]
Prerequisite: Good alignment
Benefit: Add “Additionally, that target takes a -2 penalty to defenses until the end of your next turn if it is Evil.” to the Effect entry of Smite Evil.

There is no Smite Good because:
1. It would discourage players from playing Good PCs.
2. Evil PCs have other advantages available to them.
3. Evil PCs fight non-good foes more often than Good ones, so very few villains would opt for Smite Good anyway.

Vic_Sage
2009-01-12, 05:12 PM
There is no Smite Good because:
1. It would discourage players from playing Good PCs.
2. Evil PCs have other advantages available to them.
3. Evil PCs fight non-good foes more often than Good ones, so very few villains would opt for Smite Good anyway.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever, especially the second and third points.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-12, 09:20 PM
What exactly doesn't make sense? Evil characters can pull all kinds of dirty tricks and abuse people to attain their goals. Many Good characters seek out Evil-doers, but only rare Evil [and insane] characters seek out Good-doers.

TS

Shades of Gray
2009-01-12, 09:43 PM
Furthermore, another group of evil-doers is often the problem. For example, In City of Villains (where one plays a super villain), 90% of the enemies are gangsters/villains, because they are encroaching on Arachnos (Super Mafia) territory/Arachnos wants to encroach on their territory.

Vic_Sage
2009-01-13, 02:32 AM
What exactly doesn't make sense? Evil characters can pull all kinds of dirty tricks and abuse people to attain their goals.
Give me some mechanical examples and not just RP ones. And ones that only evil characters can do.



Many Good characters seek out Evil-doers, but only rare Evil [and insane] characters seek out Good-doers.
TS
....That makes even less sense. So all evil characters that go against good guys are insane? I take it guys like Magneto and Dr. Doom are total loons.

KKL
2009-01-14, 02:06 AM
What exactly doesn't make sense? Evil characters can pull all kinds of dirty tricks and abuse people to attain their goals.

What says that Good characters can't do the same?

Agrippa
2009-01-14, 02:36 AM
What says that Good characters can't do the same?

Because truly Good characters, not merely self-righteous ones, have standards of conduct and treatment of others. Screwing over people who haven't seriously harmed others is Evil, regardless of intention. Manipulating people is acceptable if its for the greater good, but sacrificing them against their will isn't, at best its Neutral. Those of Good alignment view people as people. Those of Evil alignment view people, themselves included at times, as things to be used.

"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." Granny Weatherwax

Vic_Sage
2009-01-14, 03:09 AM
Once again none of that matters seeing how none of that is a real mechanical advantage.

hamishspence
2009-01-14, 09:10 AM
the "evil doesn't seek out Good doers" is, I think, intended to refer to

"evil doesn't usually seek out Good-doers to destroy solely because of the Good they are doing"

As in, they aren't "To Reign in Hell" types.

indeed some evildoers may believe themselves to be good and confine themselves and their attentions to destroying evil- its their brutal methods and willingness to sacrifice innocents in the process "Better 1000 innocent people die than 1 demon-cultist escape" that makes them Evil.

Others may focus on their own wellbeing, taking a "live and let live" approach to the Doers of Good, and maybe even seeing them as neccessary to produce the wealth and prosperity they can prey on.

But actively seeking out Good in the fashion of the worst kind of paladin stereotype "Arrrgh! it detects as Good! Kill it!" is an extreme rarity.

AgentPaper
2009-01-14, 09:20 AM
You don't get "Smite Good" to help you when you attack good people for no good reason, though it does help that. More likely you get it so that when those good people eventually come knocking down your door, you can defend yourself from them better.

Still, I don't like seeing alignment have blatant mechanical effects like this. It just cheapens alignment in general and makes it another tool to make yourself more effective. "I would be good...but I get +1 str from evil and that helps me more than the +1 wis from good. Maybe if I rolled a druid I'd be good..."

hamishspence
2009-01-14, 09:28 AM
given the amount of "ends justify means" argument, I think 3.5 doing acts as "Evil, but Good guys can do them, they just won't stay good long" is an improvement on:

"this act cannot be carried out by a good character"

There are a set of feats that cannot be taken by non-evil characters, but thats not quite the same thing.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-14, 10:14 AM
Give me some mechanical examples and not just RP ones. And ones that only evil characters can do.
There are no mechanical advantages that Evil PCs get like "I get +1 for being Good but +2 for being Evil." But Evil characters can pull things like the good ol' "coerse/lure your foe into a bad situation by threatening their loved ones and/or innocent bystanders" trick.


....That makes even less sense. So all evil characters that go against good guys are insane? I take it guys like Magneto and Dr. Doom are total loons.
What hamishspense said.

TS

Vic_Sage
2009-01-14, 01:34 PM
There are no mechanical advantages that Evil PCs get like "I get +1 for being Good but +2 for being Evil." But Evil characters can pull things like the good ol' "coerse/lure your foe into a bad situation by threatening their loved ones and/or innocent bystanders" trick.
TS
Then why are you giving Good characters a mechanical advantage and not evil?

Meek
2009-01-14, 02:56 PM
I am really, really against the idea of adding alignment-tied mechanics back into 4th Edition. I think the biggest mistake of this edition was leaving alignment in at all, it should have just been exorcised or used only to classify monsters and gods (which is about all the good it ever does anyway).

That being said, if you REALLY want to go about this, make it go both ways. The presence of a Smite Good feat discourages nothing, because NPCs don't have feats. The standard NPC, by the rules in the DMG, has no feats, and those NPCs that do have feats are extremely rare and should be unique. You'd have to be really paranoid to have this thing discourage you from making a good PC.

At the same time, it's really awkward to implement. The easy way out is to make it a feat without a power (because for a Daily power, what you're giving out is hideously weak) that just grants a feat bonus to damage against evil guys, but then it pretty much trumps the other "+1 per tier damage" feats that are limited only to energy types. I think the best way to do this would be to allow a player to swap (see the latest Dhampyr article in DDI for an example) one of his powers for a Smite power that is on the same level of power as real daily powers would be. For example, being a stance would really help that power out, and then after that, being comparable to other combat stances such as a Fighter's or Swordmage's.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-15, 07:26 PM
Then why are you giving Good characters a mechanical advantage and not evil?
Because Good vs. Evil isn't just a White Team vs. Black team situation. Different ideals and attitudes (or lack thereof); different capabilities. And again, because Evil has advantages which are arguably better than any measly bonuses that Good can have.


That being said, if you REALLY want to go about this, make it go both ways. The presence of a Smite Good feat discourages nothing, because NPCs don't have feats. The standard NPC, by the rules in the DMG, has no feats, and those NPCs that do have feats are extremely rare and should be unique. You'd have to be really paranoid to have this thing discourage you from making a good PC.
You're right, most NPCs don't have feats. But if PCs have access to Smite Evil via whatever mechanic, it's a safe assumption that certain NPCs might have similar abilities. I agree that it takes a paranoid player to be discouraged from playing Good characters because of a Smite Good mechanic, but some players are paranoid. This fact combined with Evil's different goals (see my response to Vic_Sage) makes Smite Good an unappealing option for me as a DM.


At the same time, it's really awkward to implement. The easy way out is to make it a feat without a power (because for a Daily power, what you're giving out is hideously weak) that just grants a feat bonus to damage against evil guys, but then it pretty much trumps the other "+1 per tier damage" feats that are limited only to energy types. I think the best way to do this would be to allow a player to swap (see the latest Dhampyr article in DDI for an example) one of his powers for a Smite power that is on the same level of power as real daily powers would be. For example, being a stance would really help that power out, and then after that, being comparable to other combat stances such as a Fighter's or Swordmage's.
I realize that Smite Evil is incredibly weak as a daily power; that's intentional, because all it costs is a feat. My first impulse was actually the same as yours; a feat to grant a feat bonus to damage vs. Evil targets. It would work, but it would require the DM to constantly remember to alter damage coming from certain PCs based on monster alignment and frankly I think it would be too appealing to players. If Smite Evil was a constant bonus I think players would all just take that feat and ignore all the more interesting [albeit marginally] feats. I could be wrong though.

TS

Thane of Fife
2009-01-15, 08:10 PM
I realize that Smite Evil is incredibly weak as a daily power; that's intentional, because all it costs is a feat. My first impulse was actually the same as yours; a feat to grant a feat bonus to damage vs. Evil targets. It would work, but it would require the DM to constantly remember to alter damage coming from certain PCs based on monster alignment and frankly I think it would be too appealing to players. If Smite Evil was a constant bonus I think players would all just take that feat and ignore all the more interesting [albeit marginally] feats. I could be wrong though.

I don't know if this would work, but could you make it so that taking the feat allowed the PC to designate x powers as Holy (i.e. He could change, say, 2 of his powers to have the Holy keyword, and thus do extra damage against evil types)?

You could, perhaps, allow the feat to be taken multiple times, or allow the modified powers to be changed at level up, or whatever.

Meek
2009-01-15, 08:10 PM
I would point you again to the Dhampyr article in DDI. A Dhampyr can trade his class powers at certain levels, by taking the appropriate feats, for latent Dhampyr racial abilities. All it takes is the bloodline feat that turns you into a Dhampyr, and then taking the other feats to get the other powers to swap.

What you can do is make a starting feat – perhaps flavored like the Book of Exalted Deeds vows? – that grant an appropriate benefit and open the way for the rest. Next, with this feat as a prerequisite, create a number of feats that let players trade their class powers for appropriate, equally balanced (neither too weak nor too strong) powers with the flavor and mechanics you desire.

It seems like a cleaner way to do it than "Here's this feat, it gives you a daily power that sucks." If you make 3 powers, an encounter, utility and daily, then your do-gooder PC can use his exalted powers more often and to greater effect.

JerryMcJerrison
2009-01-16, 12:08 AM
Then why are you giving Good characters a mechanical advantage and not evil?

I think you're being a bit melodramatic about this. TS doesn't like the idea of Smite Good. Cool, that's great for him. It's not like he's the sole authority on whether or not such a thing can exist. If you want something like Smite Good, go ahead and make it yourself. It's certainly easy enough, just take TS's Smite Evil and swap all instances of "Evil" for "Good". Voila, Everyone is happy. Although, you might want to be careful about taking it, I've heard talk that it's pretty weak.

Reluctance
2009-01-16, 12:56 AM
Meek: The downside to a multiclass-esque option is that you'd either need to create at least four different ability chains so you could have a holy character of any given role, or else just have a huge pool o' powers a'la the spellscarred. Either option creates significant extra work. On the other hand, an option similar to TS's would be relatively easy to implement. I for one happen to be a fan of simplicity.

TS: If anything, I'd make the core Smite Evil power an encounter one. One damage per tier (plus whatever weaknesses you can hit or resistances you can avoid by adding radiant) is not going to break an encounter. The higher tier effects will be nice, but if you're sinking three feats for a situationally useful ability, it doesn't sound that bad.

The other thing that stands out to me, though, is a little ironic. One bonus damage per tier is a nice ability for strikers and especially controllers. Alone, it's kind of meh for leaders and defenders. The later levels will be nice for those roles as well, but I wonder about the flavor when the rogue or wizard will have more use for it than the paladin.

Asbestos
2009-01-16, 01:31 AM
I think you're being a bit melodramatic about this. TS doesn't like the idea of Smite Good. Cool, that's great for him. It's not like he's the sole authority on whether or not such a thing can exist. If you want something like Smite Good, go ahead and make it yourself. It's certainly easy enough, just take TS's Smite Evil and swap all instances of "Evil" for "Good". Voila, Everyone is happy. Although, you might want to be careful about taking it, I've heard talk that it's pretty weak.

I think that TS doesn't like Smite Good because its probably more situational that Smite Evil. That and I can't name a single 'Good' monster in the MM (not that this isn't incredibly easy to change with houserules)

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-16, 12:02 PM
I don't know if this would work, but could you make it so that taking the feat allowed the PC to designate x powers as Holy (i.e. He could change, say, 2 of his powers to have the Holy keyword, and thus do extra damage against evil types)?
That could work, though now that I'm working with Smite Evil as a feat, I feel loathe to tie it down to any given power(s).


I think you're being a bit melodramatic about this. TS doesn't like the idea of Smite Good. Cool, that's great for him. It's not like he's the sole authority on whether or not such a thing can exist. If you want something like Smite Good, go ahead and make it yourself. It's certainly easy enough, just take TS's Smite Evil and swap all instances of "Evil" for "Good". Voila, Everyone is happy. Although, you might want to be careful about taking it, I've heard talk that it's pretty weak.
Yeah, this. If I thought I knew what was best for everyone's game, I'd be ranting about how the game sucks and isn't really D&D anymore without alignment mechanics. But I don't, so go ahead with Smite Good if you want.


Meek: The downside to a multiclass-esque option is that you'd either need to create at least four different ability chains so you could have a holy character of any given role, or else just have a huge pool o' powers a'la the spellscarred. Either option creates significant extra work. On the other hand, an option similar to TS's would be relatively easy to implement. I for one happen to be a fan of simplicity.
Me too.


TS: If anything, I'd make the core Smite Evil power an encounter one. One damage per tier (plus whatever weaknesses you can hit or resistances you can avoid by adding radiant) is not going to break an encounter. The higher tier effects will be nice, but if you're sinking three feats for a situationally useful ability, it doesn't sound that bad.
This would be my preference to make Smite Evil more appealing to players. I'm just worried that it'll be too good for the cost of a feat, and that everyone will write Good on their character sheet just to get it. Ah well, I can always edit it after player feedback.


The other thing that stands out to me, though, is a little ironic. One bonus damage per tier is a nice ability for strikers and especially controllers. Alone, it's kind of meh for leaders and defenders. The later levels will be nice for those roles as well, but I wonder about the flavor when the rogue or wizard will have more use for it than the paladin.
That's a good point. I'll have to think about that.

TS

Mando Knight
2009-01-16, 01:49 PM
This would be my preference to make Smite Evil more appealing to players. I'm just worried that it'll be too good for the cost of a feat, and that everyone will write Good on their character sheet just to get it. Ah well, I can always edit it after player feedback.

Well, since it was based off of an old Paladin mechanic... make it a Channel Divinity feat? Those are all Encounter powers with an additional restriction: only one CD power per encounter... and only those with CD in the first place can use it... and won't be overpowered compared to Pelor's Radiance...

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-17, 11:08 AM
Okay, edited the rule text so that Smite is now single target only.


Well, since it was based off of an old Paladin mechanic... make it a Channel Divinity feat? Those are all Encounter powers with an additional restriction: only one CD power per encounter... and only those with CD in the first place can use it... and won't be overpowered compared to Pelor's Radiance...
I treat fluff as completely optional, and I hate restricting the Good Guy option from any classes. (Yes, even warlocks.)

TS