Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 the8bitdeity Aug 03, 2009 23:43:14	Looking over divine power there is an interesting PP (Seldarine dedicate) that allows a cleric to use a short/long bow as a cleric implement. It made me think of the iconic Tira Miron from the history of the Silver Flame. It got me thinking about ranged divine characters, and how would one best model Tira Miron, or perhaps a Flame worshipper attempting to honor her. 1) I'm thinking Cleric with Paladin MC, going straight paladin is pointless due to complete lack of ranged support for paladins. 2) Tweak the Seldarine Dedicate PP to be more Mironian in nature. Keep the bow implement power Change the action point and 16th level PP feature change the powers to be more anti-demon (immortal?) in nature. Thoughts?
#2 ellorin Aug 04, 2009 3:48:29	But...unless I'm really confused, Tira Miron was a swordswoman with a famous blade, which in time was used to defeat Bel Shalor. If you want to make her a mistress of the bow go ahead of course. It's an interesting concept and that PP does seem to be appropriate for the Purified.
#3 Hellcow Aug 04, 2009 4:21:01	It is true that Tira Miron was known as a swordswoman first and foremost. The bow is an important part of the faith, but that's more in spite of Tira than because of her. I suspect that she did use the bow, but her greatest battle was using what was probably a 4E fullblade (though it could just be a greatsword). With that said, I think that a variation of the Seldarine path for SF clerics is very appropriate. I wouldn't specifically change it to target DEMONS, because the church is dedicated to fighting demons, undead, lycanthropes, aberrations, and any other form of supernatural evil. The bow is useful - at least in the old model - because you can choose your arrow to suit the target... silver for the werewolf, byeshk for the dolgaunt, holy for the undead, etc. If I were to change the Seldarine path, the first thing I'd do would be to change the damage type of the two attack powers. Radiant is obvious; they are enshrouded by the Silver Flame. This also helps with undead. The question is whether they should be radiant AND fire - or simply radiant, on the basis that while the Silver Flame may resemble fire, it's more pure spiritual energy, and a pit fiend or fire elemental shouldn't laugh it off. The other element would be the Shroud of Stars. I might change this to reflect that principle of shifting the arrows to suit the target. I'd need to do some comparison shopping with other powers for balance, but I could see a daily utility that gives a bonus to damage to powers made using the bow implement against a specific class of creature chosen when the power is used - sort of the equivalent of a 3E artificer infusing a bane weapon. Great if you're JUST fighting undead, but not as useful in a mixed group. But I think this idea of blessing the arrows to hit a specific enemy harder is more in line than a concealment power. Perhaps the arrows are fletched with couatl feathers, and when you invoke the power you call on the essence of the couatl to guide them against a specific foe.
#4 the8bitdeity Aug 04, 2009 9:34:18	Ah, my misunderstanding about Tira. Could you point me to the books that have a lot of her story in it? (I've got all the 3.5 Eberron books still) As for the paragon path, I'm going to try my hand at tweaking or overhauling it to better suit the SF. I'll try to post something once I get it done for appraisal from folks.
#5 AvonRekaes Aug 04, 2009 9:39:10	Well with the way resistances work with the errata from a while back, a double-type attack is more powerful than a single-type attack. If the Balor has Resist Fire 25 and no Radiant resist, a fire+radiant attack will do full damage, because you apply the weaker resistance to the entire attack if it has more than one damage type. If you're then attacked by an Evil angel of The Mockery with Resist Radiant 25 and no fire resist, the same fire+radiant attack will do full damage agaisnt it to, because it has no fire resist. I haven't quite worked out HOW powerful this is considered in the "hidden power-design guidlines". I'm pretty sure its not worth a [w]. I think it's a good idea for attacks channeling the silver flame to have two damage types, for the same reason the longbow was the favored weapon of the church of the silver flame: versatility. But changing a paragon path's powers to use two attack types instead of one is a definite boost in power. I'd try and make their replacement AP or 16th level ability a little less powerful when changing it for the Silver Flame.
#6 Hellcow Aug 04, 2009 10:18:43	Well with the way resistances work with the errata from a while back, a double-type attack is more powerful than a single-type attack. Ah, good. I didn't have time to check the errata, and I knew that was the original intent, but I also knew that it wasn't how the rules had come out. Yes, given that, I think it makes sense for the Silver Flame to have access to special attacks that use both radiant and fire, but there is that question of balance. Since two are clearly better than one, you can't just add the extra type to the Seldarine path as is... but as you say, it's not really worth the loss of a damage die. Though yes, this could be balanced out elsewhere in the PP.
#7 Alex_ Aug 04, 2009 10:36:11	Magical ammunition is supposed to be making a comeback in the next Adventurer's Vault book as well, so ranged weapons should be getting back some of their versatility.
#8 the8bitdeity Aug 04, 2009 12:01:38	Ah, good. I didn't have time to check the errata, and I knew that was the original intent, but I also knew that it wasn't how the rules had come out. Yes, given that, I think it makes sense for the Silver Flame to have access to special attacks that use both radiant and fire, but there is that question of balance. Since two are clearly better than one, you can't just add the extra type to the Seldarine path as is... but as you say, it's not really worth the loss of a damage die. Though yes, this could be balanced out elsewhere in the PP. Well, I'm thinking that the initial PP features would be - bow as implement - AP : "When you spend an AP for an additional action, any radiant damage is considered fire + radiant damage until the end of the turn" or something like that. not sure about the level 16 though I think I want the PP Daily Attack to have some sort of "pinning" or "trapping" concept to thematically go with the trapping of the demon. Still need to think up the Utility and the Encounter Power Plus I think I'm going to look to the "Silver Pyromancer" from "Five Nations" for some other thematic concepts.
#9 AvonRekaes Aug 04, 2009 12:43:49	I like that AP ability. I'd word it like... Radiant Flame Action: Whenever you spend an action point to gain a standard action, before the end of your next turn any divine attack you use that deals fire or radiant damage instead deals fire and radiant damage. This would give you 2 turns and possibly three attacks (1st turn: Spend an AP, then attack using both of your standard actions; 2nd turn: attack with your standard action) that you'd be able to use the ability with. The daily could inflict the Immobilized or Restrained status. As for the Silver Pyromancer, I'd be wary of using it for influence, since that PrC was about arcanists being given a splash of divine.
#10 the8bitdeity Aug 04, 2009 12:47:43	WRT the Silver Pyromancer I was referring to the usage of resource spending (turn attempts) for the ability to inflict holy styled fire damage. Good call on the AP ability, that seems reasonably fair.
#11 the8bitdeity Aug 04, 2009 13:04:24	I'm thinking prerequisite should be "Divine Class, Proficient in Longbow or shortbow, must follow the Church of the Silver Flame". Tweak the bow implement feature to allow it to function for any divine class, or is that too much. Now the question is, what do we call this new Paragon Path we're making here?
#12 the8bitdeity Aug 04, 2009 13:07:05	Oh, and how about the Level 16 feature is something like "When you attack a demon, a devil, a shapechanger, or an undead using a fire or radiant power, you can ignore cover".
#13 AvonRekaes Aug 04, 2009 14:27:39	With the compendium update, I'm able to see this PP before going home, so I can give more input Moonbeam: Change damage type to radiant. Cold is actually a more powerful damage type than Fire, since Fire resist is the most common type of resist among monsters in the game. You can call it "Radiant Shot" Shroud of Stars: Call it "Shroud of Flame" and make it activate whenever you use a divine power. Have the effect be the same. Seldarine Wrath: Keep it fire for balance reasons. Replace ongoing 10 damage and dazed with ongoing 5 and Immobilized (worse than Dazed because Dazed monsters can still give chase AND attack by charging). Call it "Bound in Flame". For the 16th level ability... I got nothin. Would probably be better to design something from the bottom up than replace the shifting thing. Maybe +2 damage vs. bloodied evil or chaotic evil targets. Not sure how to translate bonus shifting to damage. As for the prerequisites: This PP would be pretty useless for Paladins and, I think, Avengers. Those classes rely on Melee 9 rounds out of 10, and giving them the ability to use their once-in-a-blue-moon ranged implement attacks with an implement they actually have to put their melee weapons away to hold (rather than a real holy symbol) isn't much value. We can open this path up to invokers, however. As for the name.... I have a divine-archer npc in a game. I call him the Divine Arrow. Maybe something similar? Silver Arrow? EDIT: Oh, I like that 16th level ability you suggested. How bout: Righteous Aim: When attacking an evil or chaotic evil enemy with a ranged divine attack, you ignore cover and concealment, but not superior cover or total concealment.
#14 Hellcow Aug 05, 2009 9:43:32	EDIT: Oh, I like that 16th level ability you suggested. How bout: Righteous Aim: When attacking an evil or chaotic evil enemy with a ranged divine attack, you ignore cover and concealment, but not superior cover or total concealment. I'm of two minds with the "Evil" thing. On the one hand, it's more versatile than tying it to a specific creature type. For example, quori aren't devils, demons, shapechangers, or undead... but I'd expect the Silver Flame to protect the innocent from them. On the other hand, I like the move away from anything directly associated with alignment. In 3E Eberron, at least "Evil" meant many things. King X may be working for peace but be willing to torture and murder to attain this greater good. Thus, he is evil. But should you get a bonus to hit him? In my mind, the SF is really about dealing with supernatural evil - not for targeting a specific form of human psychology. And you also get weird metagame potential. "OK, I'm attacking him and I see he's got cover. So is he evil?" Sure, the DM could just say "Roll the die and I'll tell you if it hits" without revealing if cover is an issue, but in a game where you are trying to keep things morally gray, I'm just as glad to have alignment-targeting effects largely off of the table. A strange option would be to have it target immortal, undead, or shapechangers. This catches radiant idols, quori, and angels tied to evil forces as well as true devils and demons... with the weird twist that it also allows you to fight couatl and angels aligned with GOOD forces, but it comes back to whether you judge "evil" by alignment or by action - whether the PP should be able to defend the innocent from an angel whose alignment is "good" should it be menacing the innocent. The problem is that none of this gets rakshasa. They aren't technically immortal or shapeshifters, despite the fact that the more powerful members of the Lords of Dust are both shapeshifters and literally immortal. Going after "evil" would get them... I'm just not crazy about it.
#15 the8bitdeity Aug 05, 2009 12:44:13	I'm not a big fan of targeting "evil or chaotic evil". If you look at the Exorcist of the Silver Flame PP it affects a laundry list of enemies, but not based on alignment. Instead it states: "a demon, a devil, a shapechanger, or an undead". Probably a better means to use, but as Hellcow points out still doesn't target Rakshasa. In fact it seems as if Rakshasa have lost any special keyword in 4E. They're simply "medium natural humanoid". That's unfortunate.
#16 AvonRekaes Aug 05, 2009 14:00:55	I was really just basing it on the Righteous weapon. Its magic item daily power has increased potency againt evil and chaotic evil targets. So if you wanted to wreck a "morally grey" campaign, you could just get a righteous weapon with or without "Righteous Aim". "I use my Righteous Weapon daily power on him. Is he stunned for longer?" And righteous weapons can be obtained as early as 5th level with the treasure parcel system. Also the laundry list bothers me. As a DM I feel like if a player takes a PP with a specific type of target he's good against, I HAVE to make adventures with those targets or risk making him feel useless. Plus you inevitably end up with weird cases like you pointed out with the Rakshasa. "Wait, I CAN'T use my best ability against the enemy my entire religion is based around opposing?" Also, with Righteous Aim, just because a "Silver Arrow" can shoot an arrowhead into a corrupt money-laundering priest's forehead even while he's cowering behind his desk doesn't mean he should. Good doesn't mean right, and evil doesn't mean wrong. Just like we used to tell 3e paladins not to smite the evil barkeep that waters down ale. This "paragon" of virtue in the eyes of the Silver Flame would also be expected to show just as much compasion as anyone else. There's nothing really stopping a 1st level Avenger of the Flame from using his Oath of Emnity on unaligned bandits only stealing for sustanance and then cutting them down with divine attacks. Nothing except his own beliefs and compassion.
#17 the8bitdeity Aug 05, 2009 14:09:09	I like your reasoning AvonRekaes, I think I went with the laundry list because I wanted to follow the pattern that's already been established in actual print material for Silver Flame. That said, perhaps doing so creates to much "cross coverage" between the PPs. Also I have to lobby for Rakshasa to actually be categorized in some sort of category. I realize we don't need types like 3E, but it seems too generic for Rakshasa to be "natural medium humanoids". EDIT: also why they don't have a weakness to piercing is lost to me. Or something similar. Maybe 1/enc they are vulnerable to prevent abuse. I'd ad-hoc that if I ran an encounter with one.
#18 AvonRekaes Aug 05, 2009 14:52:54	Well piercing isn't a type of damage anymore. Phsyical damage is now just physical damage. If you want a houserule, why not "Vulnerable 5 (or whatever) to ranged weapon attacks"
#19 Hellcow Aug 05, 2009 15:31:38	I was really just basing it on the Righteous weapon. Its magic item daily power has increased potency againt evil and chaotic evil targets. So if you wanted to wreck a "morally grey" campaign, you could just get a righteous weapon with or without "Righteous Aim".. Right. I'm saying that I hated holy weapons in 3E for precisely this reason. I was happy to have them gone in 4E (with the holy avenger being entirely non-alignment specific) and unhappy to see them return in AV. Likewise, I was glad to see paladins lose detect evil, and to have their smiting no longer tied to alignment. You also had the weird case of a evil priest of the Silver Flame who BELIEVES he is acting for the greater good, who then gets fried by his own holy word. In my campaign, alignment is simply too gray for this to be an effective form of targeting. So I wouldn't do it. If you're running a game in which good and evil are more black and white, go for it. But I'd avoid it in mine... just as I don't personally use righteous weapons. As for rakshasa, I'd likely just houserule them to be affected by anything that targets "demons". They are children of khyber and the most numerous forces of the Age of Demons, after all.
#20 the8bitdeity Aug 05, 2009 15:45:51	I have to say all this talk is temping me to propose a Dragon article for Silver Flame powers / PP. Similar to the one they did for TWF rangers recently. Focus on powers intended as ranged for clerics with this Paragon Path we're discussing.
#21 Hellcow Aug 05, 2009 15:57:07	Also, with Righteous Aim, just because a "Silver Arrow" can shoot an arrowhead into a corrupt money-laundering priest's forehead even while he's cowering behind his desk doesn't mean he should. Good doesn't mean right, and evil doesn't mean wrong. Just like we used to tell 3e paladins not to smite the evil barkeep that waters down ale. Right. But my point is, why can he do it? If evil doesn't mean wrong, why does he have a power that specifically helps him kill "evil" creatures, and that won't help him if he has to deal with a "good" person whose actions are serving a greater evil? The Silver Flame is dedicated to protecting the innocent from supernatural evil... and in this, "evil" isn't supposed to mean "creatures of evil alignment". Human evil is supposed to be combated with compassion and guidance. So why do I have a power that specifically allows me to shoot that evil human barkeep? I like the fact that a paladin's smite no longer specifically targets people of a certain alignment. He draws the Flame to his blade. He fights for the righteous cause - and if his cause ISN'T righteous (like attacking a lycanthrope who isn't actually doing anything evil), it works exactly the same way as if he was attacking an evil one. The power isn't based on morals. In the case of the basic paladin attacks, it's simply "You are a vessel for the Flame; it's up to you to use your powers in a righteous way." In the case of the exorcist, it's specifically calling out the fact that you are supposed to use your powers to face supernatural threats. The omission of rakshasa is an obvious flaw; I'd houserule it. Anyhow, I understand your point of "If the PC takes the path, I'm pressured to put demons and undead in." Which is why I wouldn't actually make any of the attacks themselves limited to those. But personally, if I really think there won't be any demons or undead in the campaign, what I'd personally do is explain this to the PC and see what he wants to do. My assumption would be that if there's a Silver Flame PC in the party who wants this path, that he WANTS to be a champion fighting demons and undead - and that's the issue. If I'm going to be doing a gritty all-mundane Sharn politics game, I'd want to have that clear with him and try to help him find a path we'll both be happy with. Anyhow, different strokes and all that. I do understand your frustration with the list; I simply don't like alignment targeting effects in Eberron.
#22 the8bitdeity Aug 05, 2009 16:00:53	Anyhow, I understand your point of "If the PC takes the path, I'm pressured to put demons and undead in." Which is why I wouldn't actually make any of the attacks themselves limited to those. But personally, if I really think there won't be any demons or undead in the campaign, what I'd personally do is explain this to the PC and see what he wants to do. My assumption would be that if there's a Silver Flame PC in the party who wants this path, that he WANTS to be a champion fighting demons and undead - and that's the issue. If I'm going to be doing a gritty all-mundane Sharn politics game, I'd want to have that clear with him and try to help him find a path we'll both be happy with. I agree 100% Keith. Monte Cook talked about that in a recent interview. The covenant of DM and Players making a campaign that mutually meets their needs. It's within the player's responsibility to make a character for the campaign. A lot of DMs fall in love with the big reveal, but I personally think there is enough generalities and hopefully enough maturity on both side of the screen to say "no, this character won't be much fun in this game". That said if EVERYONE at the table wants to make characters that won't fit the campaign, it's up to the DM to change the story.
#23 Hellcow Aug 05, 2009 16:09:51	That said if EVERYONE at the table wants to make characters that won't fit the campaign, it's up to the DM to change the story. Yes - or say "I'm sorry, guys, but this really isn't a game I want to run" (which I've actually done once, when it became clear that my players and I enjoyed a very different style of story). I see gaming as a collaborative story. I have ideas about what I want to do, but I want to work with my PCs and make sure I know what they enjoy, what's going to engage them, and so on. If I'm doing the Sharn politics game, I won't tell them "OK, and the big villain at the end will be a group of organic warforged secretly created by Merrix to serve as hosts for a new generation of Dreaming Dark." But I would tell them "It's going to be city based. There's going to be a lot of intrigue, so make sure you have skills or abilities that will help you out of combat. It's going to be pretty dark." If my player says "I want to play a paladin who becomes the next Tira Miron," I'd start by saying "Well, this campaign is focused in Sharn. Are you interested in trying to clean up the church there? There's going to be a lot of morally grey situations - can you handle that?" I'd then consider if I could work in the Lords of Dust, Bel Shalor, or another Overlord into the storyline - if I could keep the plot I had, but find a way to work in elements that play to the story he wants to be a part of. So I've got the story I want to tell. But I'll try to find a way to adapt it to the story the party wants to be a part of, too. That's actually my main problem with writing adventures for publication. I like to base my plots around the PCs. When I'm creating something that has to work for ANY group of PCs, it's harder to have that same intensity of story.
#24 the8bitdeity Aug 05, 2009 16:17:49	Player driven games can be some of the most rewarding, but admittedly are some of the most challenging to run. Event / Locale driven games are far easier on the DM (like published adventures), but I find not as rewarding. Anyways, getting tangental.
#25 AvonRekaes Aug 05, 2009 22:52:07	I totally agree there. I basically have my PCs drive the story, even if they don't realize it. Anyway, going back to the Righteous Aim issue, I can see your point. It's probably just the nostalgia in me (Paladin was my favorite 3e class and I loved being a force of objective Good fighting objective Evil. Even in Eberron. When discussing Good and Evil in Eberron, I always said "there's near-infinite shades of grey, but there's still pure white and pure black at the ends.") If we do a laundry list, I'd probably stick with immortals, aberrants, demons (not all elementals), undead, and "rakshasa". I don't think it'd be too far-fetched just to add "rakshasa" in there. I think the way monster stat blocks work in 4e is that a monster would have to either have his "species" in his monster name, or added after his relevant keywords. Like... "Zarask, Medium Natural Humanoid, rakshasa" Actually, perfect example! ECG, pg 31: Durastoran, the Wyrmbreaker: Medium natural humanoid, rakshasa So we could even consider adding the rakshasa to the exorcist's laundry list as errata if someone famous enough, infernal enough, and bovine enough lets someone know about it. :P