Talk:Celestial Creature: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "In my opinion, the smite ability should work just like the paladin's. Namely, it should be applicable to any creature the celestial creature deems in opposition to its vows or...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In my opinion, the smite ability should work just like the paladin's. Namely, it should be applicable to any creature the celestial creature deems in opposition to its vows or goals, not just those of evil alignment. This makes this template much more useful in non-evil campaigns, and actually creates some interesting story elements, since a presumably-good party could find themselves in opposition to a presumably-good foe. | In my opinion, the smite ability should work just like the paladin's. Namely, it should be applicable to any creature the celestial creature deems in opposition to its vows or goals, not just those of evil alignment. This makes this template much more useful in non-evil campaigns, and actually creates some interesting story elements, since a presumably-good party could find themselves in opposition to a presumably-good foe. | ||
yeah, i though about that for all six of these smite patterns, but i waffled about how much more work that would require from an already busy GM, and whether that should collapse it down to three patterns, which would need renamed, etc. I eventually decided to just stick with the six patters, but i'd be open to popping in a sentence in them all that allows any/all of them to target based on a vow, if the GM wants | |||
Is it more work to say "the attack basically works if the GM wants it to" than "it only works if the target has an evil alignment"? I don't get that. As written, this is nearly always useless to GMs, and highly useful to players to add on to summons. It also undoes the "get rid of alignment-based damage" pass that we did a couple of years ago. And squishing down 6 patterns to 3 is always a good thing, IMO. | |||
Latest revision as of 01:45, 1 February 2021
In my opinion, the smite ability should work just like the paladin's. Namely, it should be applicable to any creature the celestial creature deems in opposition to its vows or goals, not just those of evil alignment. This makes this template much more useful in non-evil campaigns, and actually creates some interesting story elements, since a presumably-good party could find themselves in opposition to a presumably-good foe.
yeah, i though about that for all six of these smite patterns, but i waffled about how much more work that would require from an already busy GM, and whether that should collapse it down to three patterns, which would need renamed, etc. I eventually decided to just stick with the six patters, but i'd be open to popping in a sentence in them all that allows any/all of them to target based on a vow, if the GM wants
Is it more work to say "the attack basically works if the GM wants it to" than "it only works if the target has an evil alignment"? I don't get that. As written, this is nearly always useless to GMs, and highly useful to players to add on to summons. It also undoes the "get rid of alignment-based damage" pass that we did a couple of years ago. And squishing down 6 patterns to 3 is always a good thing, IMO.