Angels: Reloaded

[demonslayerelf]

I am back, people! This one was a doozy... But I hope it works well.

Here it is! (http://docs.google.com/presentation/d/151LjHMdMdbb-uRVPgeq6ORMRCDokLOWcAN12uzPomKs/edit?usp=sharing)


(And to be clear... This is a creature. I've been rewriting the Monster Manual.)
Feedback is always appreciated.

[khadgar567]

okay whats the idea of using power point presentation where simple word doc can be more understand able.
and whats the edition you are working( is this your first time making presentations by the way

[demonslayerelf]

Not a fan of word document.
That's about it, really. Also it's easier to separate categories.

And no... This is not my first time making a presentation.

[GalacticAxekick]

I agree that you should reconsider format. Even if you stick to powerpoint, consider a larger font, clearer headers (bold, underlined, perhaps enlarged), and maybe larger left & right margins and/or using two columns. You'll notice that D&D style documents always follow these principles (https://68.media.tumblr.com/daec38ec9356801ae24f83fd737d4996/tumblr_o17sxoprC31ukgbqco1_1280.jpg) to keep information dense and avoid straining the eyes. As your work is now, it's very uncomfortable to read and critique. Smaller details like misused semicolons and capitals contribute.

Moving on, your angels seem to have elements of race and class, which makes them both overpowered compared to other races (because they basically get to have two classes at once) and awkward fits any classes whose features they already possess (Lay on Hands, spellcasting, etc). If angels can't take classes, part of the balance issue is solved, but (A) you need to treat these features like class features and divide them by level and (B) be aware that player choice in snuffed. 5e is strongly against conflating background, class and race in order to allow a maximum range of character concepts.

Looking at some stand-out features:

"Hit Die: As per size" makes no sense. 5e hit dice are determined by your class levels, not size.
The alignment based AC is too powerful. 10 + ability + ability is fine, but you're added AC equal to half the number of hit dice. 5e is adamantly against numerical bonuses like this because they result in untouchable ACs/DCs and unmissable attacks, such as 20th level angel with 30 AC (high than any dragon or the terrasque, untouchable by anyone without a +10 modifier).
"Speed: 30, +10 for each size above medium" doesn't mean anything, since all your angels have no stated size. A fly speed of three times this is too powerful for a player race.
"Celestial Spellcasting" looks like allows low level angels to cast extremely high level spells, if they have even just a handful of points per day. This spell system needs to be constrained so higher level spells are acquired later, and casting above 9th level is totally unacceptable.
Giving angels and improved version of Lay On Hands makes them strictly better than Paladin, and is a clear indicator and poor balance.

[demonslayerelf]

(The other reason for not doing it like that is because I have absolutely no clue how to go about doing that. I'm not a genius, I'm just a guy.)

And I guess I need to clear this up right now... This isn't a player race. I've been redoing the Monster Manual. (If this were a player race, it would kinda defeat the purpose of me doing this... It's so DMs have more powerful, more complex creatures to use.)

But now onto the actual critiques;
The Hit Dice ARE based on size, actually. Page 7 of the Monster Manual.

I have absolutely no clue where you're getting an AC bonus of half their Hit Dice... It's +1 for every 10 they have in nearly every case.(The Axiomatic and the True Neutral being the exceptions.) In essence, it's a +3 at 30 Hit Dice.

Angels can be literally any size... How big do you want your Angels to be? Huge? 30+10+10, 50 Foot Walking Speed.

Well, Celestial Spellcasting has a limit. You can only use 1/3 of the Divinity Points, at absolute most. Meaning the best Celestial Spellcaster, an Angel of the Arcana Domain, needs 25 Hit Dice before even touching a 9th level spell. And on the topic of a 10th level spell... What exactly is the problem? Like, I get it's powerful, but with no 10th level spells to cast, it basically means doing an additional bit of damage, or hitting one more creature with a spell...

An Angel being better than a Paladin in using a Divine method of healing is bad?

[GalacticAxekick]

(The other reason for not doing it like that is because I have absolutely no clue how to go about doing that. I'm not a genius, I'm just a guy.) You don't need to be a genius. A Google doc in 12 point font, bold/large/underlined titles, bulleted lists of of features and boom.

You could also use Homebrewery to produce 5e style monster manual entries.


And I guess I need to clear this up right now... This isn't a player race. I've been redoing the Monster Manual. (If this were a player race, it would kinda defeat the purpose of me doing this... It's so DMs have more powerful, more complex creatures to use.)This might be worth adding to the original post and thread title.

It's especially confusing because monsters in 5e are always described with specific ability scores, hit dice, attacks, spells and speeds. Because you described all of these in terms of how they're acquired at climbing levels, it really looks like you're writing a PC.

I'd write rigid stat blocks for each type of angel so they're ready-made monsters like all others, and then I'd write an appendix of how to fiddle with those blocks to make a lower/higher level angel, change size/abilities/weapons/spells and so on.


But now onto the actual critiques;
The Hit Dice ARE based on size, actually. Page 7 of the Monster Manual.For monsters, which you did not indicate these were.


I have absolutely no clue where you're getting an AC bonus of half their Hit Dice... It's +1 for every 10 they have in nearly every case.(The Axiomatic and the True Neutral being the exceptions.) In essence, it's a +3 at 30 Hit Dice.My error.


Angels can be literally any size... How big do you want your Angels to be? Huge? 30+10+10, 50 Foot Walking Speed.As monsters, sure. It'd help of you indicated that they were.


Well, Celestial Spellcasting has a limit. You can only use 1/3 of the Divinity Points, at absolute most. Meaning the best Celestial Spellcaster, an Angel of the Arcana Domain, needs 25 Hit Dice before even touching a 9th level spell. And on the topic of a 10th level spell... What exactly is the problem? Like, I get it's powerful, but with no 10th level spells to cast, it basically means doing an additional bit of damage, or hitting one more creature with a spell... My mistake.


An Angel being better than a Paladin in using a Divine method of healing is bad?If its a monster, no. As a playable race, yes, because it makes the Paladin class redundant and actively discourages angels from taking it (both mechanically and thematically troubling).

[demonslayerelf]

You don't need to be a genius. A Google doc in 12 point font, bold/large/underlined titles, bulleted lists of of features and boom.

You could also use Homebrewery to produce 5e style monster manual entries.
Quick Problem. That's for a static creature. Doing it how I am, it's not that simple.(And I'll just explain below why I'm doing this.)


This might be worth adding to the original post and thread title.

It's especially confusing because monsters in 5e are always described with specific ability scores, hit dice, attacks, spells and speeds. Because you described all of these in terms of how they're acquired at climbing levels, it really looks like you're writing a PC.

I'd write rigid stat blocks for each type of angel so they're ready-made monsters like all others, and then I'd write an appendix of how to fiddle with those blocks to make a lower/higher level angel, change size/abilities/weapons/spells and so on.


I'm doing all of these(Because this is the 6th creature I've done now) to specifically avoid the rigid stat blocks, and to give creatures more abilities.
I don't want to start a debate, I'm not baiting, or anything like that, but here's the thing; I hate fifth edition monsters.
In my experience, they are boring and weak, have very few options in combat, and just generally have very little merit. I hate it when monsters can go with just the little stat block, or just have standard spellcasting, or innate spells. It's so... Bland. Using a monster more than once is even more pointless; Who wants to fight the same dragon five times when all the differences can be summed up as "Instead of Fire, it has Acid!"(Although it's ironic in my saying that, as I haven't done Dragons yet.)

[GalacticAxekick]

This is a fair goal, but I think you're making it more difficult than it needs to be.

Instead of a totally new system for specifying a creature's stats, why not write a class table for angels?

A DM could build an angel as easily as they could build a PC, choosing level, ability scores and features for the desired result.

Along with the table you could include some samples built using it, similar to traditional monster manual entries.

[demonslayerelf]

This is a fair goal, but I think you're making it more difficult than it needs to be.

Instead of a totally new system for specifying a creature's stats, why not write a class table for angels?

A DM could build an angel as easily as they could build a PC, choosing level, ability scores and features for the desired result.

Along with the table you could include some samples built using it, similar to traditional monster manual entries.

I had considered that when I reloaded Vampires(That being the first one I did), but then I realized a problem.
If they were just a class, maybe with a bit of subclassing, the end result is the exact same as it is now.

Using Dragons again; A 12th level Dragon of the "Red Dragon Subclass" would be the exact same as a 12th level Dragon of the "Black Dragon Subclass," but with Fire instead of Acid.
Albeit, Angels are pretty close to this anyway. It's basically the "Angel Class" with two Subclasses.(And Celestial Spellcasting, so it wouldn't just be "Also they're a 12th level Cleric/Warlock.") I feel like I mixed it up enough for them to be both interesting and varied enough to not be a bore to fight(With or against).

[GalacticAxekick]

I had considered that when I reloaded Vampires(That being the first one I did), but then I realized a problem.

If they were just a class, maybe with a bit of subclassing, the end result is the exact same as it is now.

Using Dragons again; A 12th level Dragon of the "Red Dragon Subclass" would be the exact same as a 12th level Dragon of the "Black Dragon Subclass," but with Fire instead of Acid.You seem to be saying a class system would work because it wouldn't provide the right diversity of features, but that's only because you yourself haven't come with a subclass feature behind "is red, breaths fire".

Level 1 offers everything the weakest dragon should gave: size, speeds, breath, resistance, senses and such as flexible, depending heavily on subrace, natural armour and natural weapons.

These are both their class and race features.

Level 2 offers

Level 3 offers subclass. Off the top of my head, Heroslayer (pinning, throwing, otherwise micromanaging adventurers) Siege Monster (AoE and brute force to raze forests, walls, crowds) and Hoarder (lair actions and defensive manoeuvres to protect spaces and objects).

Level 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 19 offer ASIs, as with Fighters

Level 5 offers Extra Attack and bite

Level 7 offers subclass utility features (Slayer might get social powers to speak with adventurers, Siege might get primal senses, Hoard might get the skills to finely manipulate small objects, tread softly and even stealth)

Level 9 offers resistances to nonmagical physical damages

Level 10 offers subclass features expanding on the first

Level 11 offers Legendary Resistance

Level 13 Extra Attack and tail

Level 15 offers subclass features

Level 17 Legendary Actions

Level 18 subclass features

Level 20 offers their capstone: maybe an improved breath weapon.

And of course, they'd be free to multiclass for spells, martial abilities and such.

[demonslayerelf]

Well it seems that you're better at this than I am.
At the same time, I'm not so sure what I've been doing is so different... Angels aren't the best example, and neither are Devils(If you've seen those), but for Dragons, I would basically just say "Base Dragon," and also they have their specific methods of murder, or whatever, which would each be basically it's own entire class.(I can't think as fast as you can, obviously, because I still don't know what I would do for them, exactly.)


Basically, it's not so much that I don't think it would work. I just couldn't really see how it worked with Angels, Vampires, or Devils, so I've done this.