Diety design - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Diety design

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
kossuths_will
Sep 23, 2008 21:04:48 Hi vet DM's!

I am trying to set up a homebrew world, and I've always thought designing your own dieties was one of the more fun aspects of making your own campaign. However, with one diety in particular, I have had some rumblings from players on. The idea behind the diety was replacing radiant energy with the elemental energy type of their choice (must pick and stick with at 1st level). So they could pick either fire, cold, lightning, or thunder as their damage. The issue that came up was game balance, the player in question said with undead, there was a game balance issue. From my position, it is a wash because while the cleric may be no more useful against undead, in turn they would be more useful against creatures vulnerable to that element instead. I like the idea of the new diety, but if it will seriously mess the balance of the game up, I guess I will scrap it. But I wanted to get some opinions from some more qualified sources before I made a decision on it.

Thanks in advance for whatever advice is given, I have not played D&D in quite awhile, so maybe I'm biting off more I can chew by doing a homebrew campaign. But I figure it's either that, or buy the FG stuff, where the players will constantly know more about everything than I do :P
#2
glak2
Sep 23, 2008 22:17:21 some people have done analysis of the monsters in the MM and they have determined that radiant damage is better than untyped damage, while all of the other kinds of damage are worse than untyped damage. So doing thunder is weaker than radiant. I see three solutions:

1) Stick with radiant. Balanced but kind of dull

2) Switch to energy damage. Flavorful but weakens the clerics. Players won't be forced to pick the weaker god of course. Also, despite the fact that radiant is better, it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

3) Switch to energy damage but make up for it somehow. Perhaps you design a slightly more powerful Challenge Divinity feat for the god. It wouldn't have to be much stronger either, because most battles aren't against undead. If you fight undead 1/10 encounters but you use the channel divinity every encounter, well you can see that the character is now more powerful 90% of the time. In fact if you aren't careful every cleric will want to worship this god.
#3
athistaur
Sep 24, 2008 6:47:58 I fail to see the problem with the diety in itself.
I understand you already designed multiple deities for the same world.
I expect nobody forces the players to use the elemental deity.

While it is interesting to see that elemental type damage faces more monsters with resistance than vulnerabilities, i doubt it will hurt too much in actual gameplay(it may still hurt).
#4
Polis
Sep 24, 2008 8:50:42 I like the idea of allowing the cleric to switch radiant for elemental. It sounds like this switch might be permanent at level one.

I see no issues with allowing this switch, just tell your players that you will design encounters based around the party's abilities. If you throw incorporeal undead against them then take into account the added difficulty the group will experience due to lack of radiant damage.

Alternatively you could create a channel divinity power that allows the cleric to apply an elemental damage keyword to any attack power once per encounter. That way if the cleric has to fight a creature with vulnerability to cold the cleric can use this CD and add the cold keyword to an attack.
#5
tequila_sunrise
Sep 24, 2008 9:58:22 If there is a major deity that wields elemental energy rather than radiant energy, chances are good that your world has more element-vulnerable creatures than the typical D&D world. Maybe not, but that's for you to decide. If you do decide to modify/create monsters with elemental vulnerability, you can reassure your players that being a cleric of your homebrew deity won't be any less useful than other clerics.

TS
#6
wyld_mutation
Sep 24, 2008 11:11:59 Just change the fluff of the attacks?

Or make it "count" as radiant for weaknesses and resistances?

In future releases I'd expect some more non-undead creatures, which will make the god more of a pick.

As it stands the god as described isn't unbalanced, it's a design flaw of 4e that your get more out of radiant than other elements.
#7
Speech
Sep 24, 2008 12:16:58 I'd do one of two things:

1: Give the cleric a superior weapon proficiency as a bonus (if the players feel robbed of damage output re:radiant vulnerability) as a sort of favored weapon of their god.

2: Change how elemental damage would affect those with radiant vulnerability (i.e. cold slows them, fire dazes them etc) so even though they don't have the damage they did-they get something for the radiant vulnerability.

I do get that these "solutions" may be complicated and not exactly equal, but it all comes down to how much you want the fluff to to balance with the mechanics of the game.

Be well
Speech
#8
wyld_mutation
Sep 24, 2008 12:37:29 As I said: As the MM gets expanded Radiant will begin to go down in value and Non-Radiant will begin to go up.

There is a massive Glut of Undead monsters in the MM.

However, if in a campaign you were never to run an Undead creature (hard but possible) the value of Radiant damage would reduce considerably, and the relative value of Elemental damages would increase.

Changing the damage type of the Cleric's attacks won;t really hurt balance any more than having a Warlord instead.
#9
Neutronium_Dragon
Sep 24, 2008 17:14:11 Rather than mucking around with the base class, why not provide Channel Divinity feats for the god that allow the cleric to substitute an energy type for radiant damage?
#10
Proin
Sep 24, 2008 17:40:46 or, if you don't mind them a little more powerful you could make it dual-typed damage, e.g. radiant AND cold.
#11
kossuths_will
Sep 24, 2008 21:04:21
I like the idea of allowing the cleric to switch radiant for elemental. It sounds like this switch might be permanent at level one.

I see no issues with allowing this switch, just tell your players that you will design encounters based around the party's abilities. If you throw incorporeal undead against them then take into account the added difficulty the group will experience due to lack of radiant damage.

Alternatively you could create a channel divinity power that allows the cleric to apply an elemental damage keyword to any attack power once per encounter. That way if the cleric has to fight a creature with vulnerability to cold the cleric can use this CD and add the cold keyword to an attack.

I like the idea too, thanks...those are both good ideas (as are all of the replies in this thread, thanks). So I guess for the most part I have 1 of 2 options, either make them choose an element at 1st level for good, and have all radiant damage substituted with that elemental type, or have the channel divinity power, and allow them to substitute any element for radiant for an attack. I like both ideas, but am leaning toward the channel divinity idea, simply because while new, doesn't change things too much in terms of the cleric vs. undead thing.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kossuths_will Sep 23, 2008 21:04:48	Hi vet DM's! I am trying to set up a homebrew world, and I've always thought designing your own dieties was one of the more fun aspects of making your own campaign. However, with one diety in particular, I have had some rumblings from players on. The idea behind the diety was replacing radiant energy with the elemental energy type of their choice (must pick and stick with at 1st level). So they could pick either fire, cold, lightning, or thunder as their damage. The issue that came up was game balance, the player in question said with undead, there was a game balance issue. From my position, it is a wash because while the cleric may be no more useful against undead, in turn they would be more useful against creatures vulnerable to that element instead. I like the idea of the new diety, but if it will seriously mess the balance of the game up, I guess I will scrap it. But I wanted to get some opinions from some more qualified sources before I made a decision on it. Thanks in advance for whatever advice is given, I have not played D&D in quite awhile, so maybe I'm biting off more I can chew by doing a homebrew campaign. But I figure it's either that, or buy the FG stuff, where the players will constantly know more about everything than I do :P
#2 glak2 Sep 23, 2008 22:17:21	some people have done analysis of the monsters in the MM and they have determined that radiant damage is better than untyped damage, while all of the other kinds of damage are worse than untyped damage. So doing thunder is weaker than radiant. I see three solutions: 1) Stick with radiant. Balanced but kind of dull 2) Switch to energy damage. Flavorful but weakens the clerics. Players won't be forced to pick the weaker god of course. Also, despite the fact that radiant is better, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. 3) Switch to energy damage but make up for it somehow. Perhaps you design a slightly more powerful Challenge Divinity feat for the god. It wouldn't have to be much stronger either, because most battles aren't against undead. If you fight undead 1/10 encounters but you use the channel divinity every encounter, well you can see that the character is now more powerful 90% of the time. In fact if you aren't careful every cleric will want to worship this god.
#3 athistaur Sep 24, 2008 6:47:58	I fail to see the problem with the diety in itself. I understand you already designed multiple deities for the same world. I expect nobody forces the players to use the elemental deity. While it is interesting to see that elemental type damage faces more monsters with resistance than vulnerabilities, i doubt it will hurt too much in actual gameplay(it may still hurt).
#4 Polis Sep 24, 2008 8:50:42	I like the idea of allowing the cleric to switch radiant for elemental. It sounds like this switch might be permanent at level one. I see no issues with allowing this switch, just tell your players that you will design encounters based around the party's abilities. If you throw incorporeal undead against them then take into account the added difficulty the group will experience due to lack of radiant damage. Alternatively you could create a channel divinity power that allows the cleric to apply an elemental damage keyword to any attack power once per encounter. That way if the cleric has to fight a creature with vulnerability to cold the cleric can use this CD and add the cold keyword to an attack.
#5 tequila_sunrise Sep 24, 2008 9:58:22	If there is a major deity that wields elemental energy rather than radiant energy, chances are good that your world has more element-vulnerable creatures than the typical D&D world. Maybe not, but that's for you to decide. If you do decide to modify/create monsters with elemental vulnerability, you can reassure your players that being a cleric of your homebrew deity won't be any less useful than other clerics. TS
#6 wyld_mutation Sep 24, 2008 11:11:59	Just change the fluff of the attacks? Or make it "count" as radiant for weaknesses and resistances? In future releases I'd expect some more non-undead creatures, which will make the god more of a pick. As it stands the god as described isn't unbalanced, it's a design flaw of 4e that your get more out of radiant than other elements.
#7 Speech Sep 24, 2008 12:16:58	I'd do one of two things: 1: Give the cleric a superior weapon proficiency as a bonus (if the players feel robbed of damage output re:radiant vulnerability) as a sort of favored weapon of their god. 2: Change how elemental damage would affect those with radiant vulnerability (i.e. cold slows them, fire dazes them etc) so even though they don't have the damage they did-they get something for the radiant vulnerability. I do get that these "solutions" may be complicated and not exactly equal, but it all comes down to how much you want the fluff to to balance with the mechanics of the game. Be well Speech
#8 wyld_mutation Sep 24, 2008 12:37:29	As I said: As the MM gets expanded Radiant will begin to go down in value and Non-Radiant will begin to go up. There is a massive Glut of Undead monsters in the MM. However, if in a campaign you were never to run an Undead creature (hard but possible) the value of Radiant damage would reduce considerably, and the relative value of Elemental damages would increase. Changing the damage type of the Cleric's attacks won;t really hurt balance any more than having a Warlord instead.
#9 Neutronium_Dragon Sep 24, 2008 17:14:11	Rather than mucking around with the base class, why not provide Channel Divinity feats for the god that allow the cleric to substitute an energy type for radiant damage?
#10 Proin Sep 24, 2008 17:40:46	or, if you don't mind them a little more powerful you could make it dual-typed damage, e.g. radiant AND cold.
#11 kossuths_will Sep 24, 2008 21:04:21	I like the idea of allowing the cleric to switch radiant for elemental. It sounds like this switch might be permanent at level one. I see no issues with allowing this switch, just tell your players that you will design encounters based around the party's abilities. If you throw incorporeal undead against them then take into account the added difficulty the group will experience due to lack of radiant damage. Alternatively you could create a channel divinity power that allows the cleric to apply an elemental damage keyword to any attack power once per encounter. That way if the cleric has to fight a creature with vulnerability to cold the cleric can use this CD and add the cold keyword to an attack. I like the idea too, thanks...those are both good ideas (as are all of the replies in this thread, thanks). So I guess for the most part I have 1 of 2 options, either make them choose an element at 1st level for good, and have all radiant damage substituted with that elemental type, or have the channel divinity power, and allow them to substitute any element for radiant for an attack. I like both ideas, but am leaning toward the channel divinity idea, simply because while new, doesn't change things too much in terms of the cleric vs. undead thing.