[3.5] Is this feat balanced? A 'Vow of Mercy'.

[Myou]

In my group we don't allow the vow feats from the BoED, but there is one that interests me, Vow of Nonviolence. Like the others there are things about it that I don't like, and really my character is about not killing, not never causing anyone to feel pain ever, so I thought that a feat based on it would be a good idea.

So, do you think this feat is balanced, and if not how could it be balanced? Should the bonus be higher? Lower?
Also, please tell me if there are any non-balance issues with it.


Vow of Mercy

Benefit:
You take a sacred vow to never kill a sentient being. The vow may be made to your deity or to a cause, such as to the cause of peace, or may be made only to yourself. The vow becomes a part of your soul, a fundamental part of who you are, and breaking it causes you great pain.

Whenever your spell, ability or attack would kill an enemy creature or drop it to less than 0 hit points you may instead choose to show mercy, adjusting your action to leave the target creature unconscious with 0 hit points (rather than disabled). The creature remains unconscious for one hour, after which point it regains 1 hit point and wakes up.

Special:
To fulfil your vow, you must not kill any creature with an intelligence score for any reason. If you intentionally break your vow, you suffer great pain, lasting one round, leaving you unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention until the end of your next turn. The only action you can take during this time is a single move action. Furthermore, you lose the benefit of this feat until you have restored the slain creature to life, performed a suitable penance and received an atonement spell.
You cannot use this feat to incapacitate a foe and then allow another creature to kill them, doing so counts as breaking your vow.
This feat cannot be replaced or retrained.


Original:

Spoiler

Show

Vow of Mercy

Prerequisites: You must expend 200 XP per effective character level in order to take this feat.

Benefit:
You take a sacred vow to never kill a sentient being. The vow may be made to your deity or to a cause, such as to the cause of peace, or may be made only to yourself. The vow becomes a part of your soul, a fundamental part of who you are, and breaking it causes you great pain.

You gain a +2 bonus to the saving throw DCs of all spells and abilities you use, as a result of your commitment and determination, and whenever your spell, ability or attack would kill an enemy creature or drop it to less than 0 hit points you may instead choose to show mercy, adjusting your action to leave the target creature unconscious with 0 hit points (rather than disabled). The creature remains unconscious for one hour, after which point it regains 1 hit point and wakes up.

Special:
To fulfil your vow, you must not kill any creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher for any reason. If you intentionally break your vow, you immediately lose a level, as if by the effect of a level drain, and suffer great pain for one minute, leaving you unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action you can take during this time is a single move action per turn. The lost level suffered as a result of breaking your vow cannot be restored, even by a Wish spell. Furthermore, you lose the benefit of this feat until you have restored the slain creature to life, performed a suitable penance and received an atonement spell.
If you have only one character level upon deliberately breaking this vow then you do not lose that level, instead you die.
If you break this vow as a result of accident of magical compulsion then you do not lose a level or die, but still suffer all other effects of breaking your vow.
The bonus to saving throw DCs that this feat provides does not stack with the Spell Focus feat. It affects only saving throw DCs, not caster level checks or other elements of a spell.
This feat cannot be replaced or retrained.

[Grumman]

It is everything a Vow feat should not be.

Most importantly, instead of aiding roleplay, it diminishes it. Like the Vow of Poverty, the benefits are designed to let you ignore the normal consequences of such a vow and the penalties for breaking your vow are so serious that you are unlikely to even be tempted to do so. This is a bad thing.

Ask yourself this: playing this character, will there ever be a point where you think, "I want to suffer a level of level drain, become useless for a minute, suffer wracking pain, waste my feat and 200*N XP, so I can kill someone despite possessing the option to incapacitate them cleanly and reliably with no danger of overdoing it and causing permanent harm by accident"? If not, your vow is no longer what matters, the Nerf bat hanging over your head like the sword of Damocles is.

[Myou]

It is everything a Vow feat should not be.

Most importantly, instead of aiding roleplay, it diminishes it. Like the Vow of Poverty, the benefits are designed to let you ignore the normal consequences of such a vow and the penalties for breaking your vow are so serious that you are unlikely to even be tempted to do so. This is a bad thing.

Ask yourself this: playing this character, will there ever be a point where you think, "I want to suffer a level of level drain, become useless for a minute, suffer wracking pain, waste my feat and 200*N XP, so I can kill someone despite possessing the option to incapacitate them cleanly and reliably with no danger of overdoing it and causing permanent harm by accident"?

Ouch. Uh, ok, time to start editing. You're right that it's too restrictive.

Is this any better?

Vow of Mercy

Benefit:
You take a sacred vow to never kill a sentient being. The vow may be made to your deity or to a cause, such as to the cause of peace, or may be made only to yourself. The vow becomes a part of your soul, a fundamental part of who you are, and breaking it causes you great pain.

Whenever your spell, ability or attack would kill an enemy creature or drop it to less than 0 hit points you may instead choose to show mercy, adjusting your action to leave the target creature unconscious with 0 hit points (rather than disabled). The creature remains unconscious for one hour, after which point it regains 1 hit point and wakes up.

Special:
To fulfil your vow, you must not kill any creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher for any reason. If you intentionally break your vow, you suffer great pain, lasting one round, leaving you unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention until the end of your next turn. The only action you can take during this time is a single move action. Furthermore, you lose the benefit of this feat until you have restored the slain creature to life, performed a suitable penance and received an atonement spell.
This feat cannot be replaced or retrained.

[Prime32]

First, you should either spend the XP or take a feat, not both.

Second, "This feat cannot be replaced or retrained." seems arbitrary, as does "The bonus to saving throw DCs that this feat provides does not stack with the Spell Focus feat". If it was "Spell Focus (nonlethal)" that would be one thing, but the bonus isn't even the same size.

I would replace the negative penalties with "you are sickened for 24 hours, or until you receive an atonement spell". It's what I use in my paladin fix.


EDIT: Ninja'd by update!

[Myou]

First, you should either spend the XP or take a feat, not both.

Second, "This feat cannot be replaced or retrained." seems arbitrary, as does "The bonus to saving throw DCs that this feat provides does not stack with the Spell Focus feat". If it was "Spell Focus (nonlethal)" that would be one thing, but the bonus isn't even the same size.

I would replace the negative penalties with "you are sickened for 24 hours, or until you receive an atonement spell". It's what I use in my paladin fix.


EDIT: Ninja'd by update!

Heh, sorry about that. Grumman's response really showed up the poor design. Is the new one any better?

[Brendan]

I don't really see a bonus at all...
wouldn't a merciful weapon (2000 gp) be better?
it adds d8 damage and is nonlethal, thus giving the wielder the benefits of that feat without the penalties and another bonus.

I say give the user a bonus of some sort.

[Volkov]

Fun fact, if it has an int score it's sentient. Sapient would be everything with an int score above 2.

[Temotei]

I wouldn't use it.

As mentioned above, there needs to be a benefit to leaving them unconscious over just killing them other than fluff reasons. Plus, an hour isn't that long.

I'd say raise the duration and give an actual benefit other than doing lethal damage then suddenly knocking them out as if you were using nonlethal damage. That's not even close to worth a feat.

[Greenish]

I don't really see a bonus at all...
wouldn't a merciful weapon (2000 gp) be better?
it adds d8 damage and is nonlethal, thus giving the wielder the benefits of that feat without the penalties and another bonus.

SRD lists Merciful as +1 enchantment (with only d6 bonus damage). What version are you referring to?

[Temotei]

SRD lists Merciful as +1 enchantment (with only d6 bonus damage). What version are you referring to?

Nonlethal damage is a duplicate of this ability, essentially. That's what he meant. I'm guessing the "d8" part was just a typo or forgetfulness.

[Myou]

Thanks for the posts, everyone.

I don't really see a bonus at all...
wouldn't a merciful weapon (2000 gp) be better?
it adds d8 damage and is nonlethal, thus giving the wielder the benefits of that feat without the penalties and another bonus.

I say give the user a bonus of some sort.

Well, originally it had a bonus to save DCs but stricter penalites for breaking it, but a Grumman said, it impeded roleplaying.

But you think even as it is now it should give a penalty?

Fun fact, if it has an int score it's sentient. Sapient would be everything with an int score above 2.

Fun fact, WoTC don't get to define sentience and assign it a numerical value.

I wouldn't use it.

As mentioned above, there needs to be a benefit to leaving them unconscious over just killing them other than fluff reasons. Plus, an hour isn't that long.

I'd say raise the duration and give an actual benefit other than doing lethal damage then suddenly knocking them out as if you were using nonlethal damage. That's not even close to worth a feat.

Well, the idea is it lets you knock a guy out with stuff like Finger of Death, but you still think it should have a bonus?
+1 to your save DCs? Or should it be something else entirely?

SRD lists Merciful as +1 enchantment (with only d6 bonus damage). What version are you referring to?

Hah, I didn't notice that until you pointed it out.

[Temotei]

Thanks for the posts, everyone.



Well, originally it had a bonus to save DCs but stricter penalites for breaking it, but a Grumman said, it impeded roleplaying.

But you think even as it is now it should give a penalty?



Fun fact, WoTC don't get to define sentience and assign it a numerical value.



Well, the idea is it lets you knock a guy out with stuff like Finger of Death, but you still think it should have a bonus?
+1 to your save DCs? Or should it be something else entirely?



Hah, I didn't notice that until you pointed it out.

Giving +1 DC's wouldn't really be a benefit to everyone. How about something defensive? After doing it, you gain a +x bonus to y. That would fit with the flavor a bit more than "you're better at destroying things when you're not destructive."

[Myou]

Giving +1 DC's wouldn't really be a benefit to everyone. How about something defensive? After doing it, you gain a +x bonus to y. That would fit with the flavor a bit more than "you're better at destroying things when you're not destructive."

Like a bonus each time you don't kill someone? Better word that carefully.

But more seriously, I think I'd rather it be a static effect rather than requiring you to track it. But what effect I'm not sure.

[Greenish]

Fun fact, WoTC don't get to define sentience and assign it a numerical value.

Insofar as it is a game term, then yes, within the context of the game, they get to define it as they wish. If you're homebrewing something, you should use the terms of the game, instead of arbitrarily redefining them. (Unless you want to homebrew, say, a setting where all animals are mindless [and thus immune to mind affecting effects.])

[Myou]

Insofar as it is a game term, then yes, within the context of the game, they get to define it as they wish. If you're homebrewing something, you should use the terms of the game, instead of arbitrarily redefining them. (Unless you want to homebrew, say, a setting where all animals are mindless [and thus immune to mind affecting effects.])

Well they say anything with 1-2 int has animal intelligence. So 3 is the borderline for sentience, no?

[Grumman]

As mentioned above, there needs to be a benefit to leaving them unconscious over just killing them other than fluff reasons. Plus, an hour isn't that long.

That's the opposite to what I said, actually. In the original version the benefit of leaving them unconscious (or rather, the cost of killing them) was so high that leaving them unconscious wasn't a meaningful choice, just something you'd do by default to avoid screwing yourself over.

The new version is better, but still not compatible with how I envision sacred vows. Then again, the official ones aren't either, so you shouldn't take that to heart.

[Greenish]

Well they say anything with 1-2 int has animal intelligence. So 3 is the borderline for sentience, no?

In game terms, it's the borderline for "Sapience". Anything with an int score is "Sentient" (as in non-mindless).

This is not an argument of semantics, but of specific game terms.

[Temotei]

Well they say anything with 1-2 int has animal intelligence. So 3 is the borderline for sentience, no?

No.

[Cuaqchi]

Sentience is the ability to think. All animals can think and as such any creature with an Int score is sentient.

Sapiance is the ability to reason and plan. Although certain animals portray these qualities for most it is instinctual and not sapiant. Int 3+ is sapiance which is what all great apes (Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimpanzee, etc.) should have.

[Greenish]

Sentience is the ability to think. All animals can think and as such any creature with an Int score is sentient.

Note that "animal" here is a game term too. It refers to creatures with the type "Animal", not to everything that is actually an animal. Bats and rats, for example, are animals in the everyday sense of the word, but not in game terms.

Oops, confusing myself here.

[Myou]

That's the opposite to what I said, actually. In the original version the benefit of leaving them unconscious (or rather, the cost of killing them) was so high that leaving them unconscious wasn't a meaningful choice, just something you'd do by default to avoid screwing yourself over.

The new version is better, but still not compatible with how I envision sacred vows. Then again, the official ones aren't either, so you shouldn't take that to heart.

Well, if you have any ideas you think it could use go ahead. ^^

No.

Well, "characterized ... consciousness.", I wouldn't say animals are concious, but anyway, thi is a silly debate if WoTC actually did give thier own definition. I don't remember ever seeing it, but I'll take the word of those who are saying so.

[Temotei]

Well, if you have any ideas you think it could use go ahead. ^^



Well, "characterized ... consciousness.", I wouldn't say animals are concious, but anyway, thi is a silly debate if WoTC actually did give thier own definition. I don't remember ever seeing it, but I'll take the word of those who are saying so.

. <-- Click.

[Myou]

. <-- Click.

Well, like I said, I see no need to debate this. To me animals don't meet the criteria listed there in your link, but in the game it doen't matter. it's not worth getting annoyed over.

[Greenish]

Well, "characterized ... consciousness.", I wouldn't say animals are concious, but anyway, thi is a silly debate if WoTC actually did give thier own definition. I don't remember ever seeing it, but I'll take the word of those who are saying so.

Hmm, browsing SRD, you can find a lot of references of "sentient" in the sense of being non-mindless, ie. having an int score, but I didn't find sapience used to denote having 3+ int, so that may be an asspull. To my defence, it's closing on 3am. and I've had a few beers.

[Temotei]

Well, like I said, I see no need to debate this. To me animals don't meet the criteria listed there in your link, but in the game it doen't matter. it's not worth getting annoyed over.

I'm not annoyed. My dictionary.com is a waste of time. I prefer reading the dictionary. I just can't take a picture of the dictionary and post it on here though. Too much work.

[Myou]

Hmm, browsing SRD, you can find a lot of references of "sentient" in the sense of being non-mindless, ie. having an int score, but I didn't find sapience used to denote having 3+ int, so that may be an asspull. To my defence, it's closing on 3am. and I've had a few beers.

Well, it's not really important, the text makes it clear that for the purposes of the feat it's 3+.

I'm not annoyed. My dictionary.com is a waste of time. I prefer reading the dictionary. I just can't take a picture of the dictionary and post it on here though. Too much work.

Don't worry about it - it's really not worth debating at 1 am.

[Devils_Advocate]

To me animals don't meet the criteria listed there in your link

This is a bit like saying "To me, the Earth is flat". There are obvious differences between e.g. a blind dog and a seeing one; the latter plainly has awareness of its environment that the former lacks. Dogs clearly sense things, develop perceptions based on what they sense, and then act based on their perceptions, just as human beings do. Why else would they have the complex brains, eyes, etc. that they do?

You could say that animals are just automatons, but you could say the same thing about humans. Denying animal sentience in particular makes about as much sense as solipsism in general, for pretty much all of the same reasons.

Now, other animals aren't as smart as humans, except arguably for a few species like dolphins, but intelligence is not the same thing as consciousness. That's sort of the point here.

but in the game it doen't matter.

Sure it does, with regard to mechanical consequences for moral choices, which is the sort of thing that you're discussing here. Cruelty to animals is Evil in D&D 3.5. You may think that non-human animals are not conscious in real life (which, again, makes about as much sense as thinking that humans aren't conscious), but in the d20 system they are objectively thinking beings with souls. This is sort of significant.

[Pandaren]

So theoretically, you could INT drain down to 2- and then kill the bastard?

[Temotei]

So theoretically, you could INT drain down to 2- and then kill the bastard?

I thought it stopped at 0.

[Pandaren]

I thought it stopped at 0.

2- as in 2 or less, not -2, there is a mondo difference.