Proposal: Divine Power

First; I don't think the new Avenger MC feat is overpowered; I think the old one sucked. I didn't think it was strong enough, and if the new one weren't an option, I'd use the CD MC feat anytime I wanted to go into Avenger. Yes, it's a whole encounter, but is that really a problem? After all, a striker's job is to grind down the Solos before they take out the tank. I've seen parties with insufficient damage output and it's no fun to be in one. I think that this feat is properly balanced, but I desagree that it is a must-have. After all, on a play-by-post game, I see alot more role-playing here than the average tabletop 4E game; would you want all your characters to be avengers? I don't.

As to Domains; I'm sorry I didn't find this thread earlier - I've been looking forward to this discussion since I got my hands on the book!

Personally, I like the idea of assigning two Domains to each deity, and then a third to specific temples or religions dedicated to that deity (so that Imperial priests and priest from Daunton worshipping the same god would have slightly different opinions on their god, and his/her dictates and desires). Another possibility is that each god has three of the 'Good' domains, and then other, darker, cults swap out one or more of these for the 'evil' aspects of the gods.

As to THB's distribution, overall it looks like some good work!
Here's my thoughts, one deity at a time:

Joven; I like Civilization better than Justice myself. His demand for proper respect and courtesy gives him (I feel) the greatest claim to this domain.

Juna: I'm not so certain about protection; that's one of those domains that seems to crop up under everybody (like tyranny) simply because everybody uses those themes once in a while. Life definitely, maybe Civilization, though Family would be better (if it existed). Vengeance is perfect, of course. I wonder if we might make custom domains one day?

Lauto: Death may be a requirement, as there is no Thanatos corrolary here; but I personally like Earth, Fate, Winter (I'd hate to give Peresefa all her domains based on her trials, rather than her virtues. And winter is clearly Lauto's fault)

Netari: Again, Destruction seems to apply to most of the gods. The Greeks saw Poseidon's wrath alot, but that doesn't mean the Dauntonian's would. Greece was Zeus' territory, so Poseidon didn't always play nice there. On Atlantis (Poseidon's playground), Poseidon would have been a god of Creation, not Destruction. Speaking of Atlantis, I should write a geographical background for it, as I haven't seen one around yet. I propose Sea, Civilization, and Knowledge (Poseidon was the god of Science and the father of Atlantis). Also, lack of a 'Horse' domain leaves a spon open on his card.

Apoli: I agree that skill works better than Arcana. I also feel that Justice fits here, with the sternest of the gods. Apollo was associated with healing, which was the plague connection; I feel Poison is inappropriate for the god of doctors.

Peresefa: Poor thing! Torment and Winter because of what was done to her? I think they apply better to her Jailor; after all Torment is the domain of bringing it, not relieving it. I support Hope, though, and perhaps fate makes some sense as well?

Vulkar: Shame there's no Domain of Fire. Creation and Skill work best, though I'd avoid Earth as that's clearly Lauto's area.

Maros: Strength maybe, and War certainly. Strife if we're using 'evil' domains. It's a shame there's no Domain for 'challnge' or 'agriculture' (Life, maybe?)

Merkari: I'd replace Change with Arcana; There are few deities that really tie into magic, as the Greeks gods usually disapproved. This one though just makes sense to me, though I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe I'm just tired of magic belonging to stuffy old 'wizard' type gods and I want to see a plucky, curious 'sorcerer' god. Dunno.

Mireva: Knowledge, Skill, War. Nailed it. I agree. Four domains though, makes her more appealing than the other gods. Especially as none of them are 'evil,' and some players would shy away from those feats for flavors' sake. Civilization makes some sense, but I give that to Joven, and possibly Juna and/or Netari.

Dayna: Hmmm. No 'virgins,' 'childbirth,' or 'alternative lyfestyle' Domains? well, Wilderness works for certain, and Moon. Freedom works I guess, though I'd give it to Demeter - wait, where's Demeter? You lost a goddess!

DEMETER: Because my contrary nature requires I make an argument for this one, I suggest Freedom, Change, and either Life or Creation. Also, how can you have Persefa as a major deity and no mother for her? Who is the deity of the seasons? (BTW: I see change as representing time or seasons, and less as the involvement of curious or tempermental personalities).

Vena: Love, (I agree Life is not appropriate, but not because it's similar - personally, I'd love to play a cleric of Life and Love. But because I think Life belongs to Juna and DEMETER.

Hecate: I don't think this addition was really neccessary, as one of the best things (IMO) about L4W's gods was the idea that all of them have darker sides; therefore there was no need for 'evil' deities. If you want to add a dark influence, I suggest Thanatos (death - like the one with the black robe and the scythe).

Anyway - I intended this post to be my two cents, but it's more like a buck and a half. Sorry it's so wordy. Looking forward to discussing the details!

So if the encounter-long Oath multiclass feat is balanced, why did they errata the encounter-long Hunter's Quarry feat? Is Hunter's Quarry stronger than Oath of Enmity? I thought it was weaker...

Personally, I do thing Hunter's quarry is stronger, at least as a MC feat. But it may be a matter of whether the feat is taken on a normal character, vs on a build designed to take advantage of a specific feat/ability; in which case I suppose OoE is likely more effective.

What if we were to make it so that HotF only allowed one additional roll per round? Yes it would be encounter long, but only against one specific enemy, and the MC'ing character would only be able to roll one extra d20 on ONE attack per round, so at max, with a two-weapon wielder, they would only be able to roll 1 set of 2d20 and take highest instead of ALL of their many attacks. That makes it good, but not insane. Also, it gives a reason to take the OTHER MC feat as well. Do I want 1 extra d20 per round against this guy for the whole encounter, or do I want 2d20 per attack roll for an entire round?

However you cut it, it's too strong. The old one is incredibly strong already, if used properly (that is, in a nova turn).
Why am I always the most strict one here? :uh-oh:

Again, to me, it's not that HotF is all that uber broken... I suppose with certain builds and powers it might approach that, but let's assume we don't have abusive exploitive players that would take advantage.

To me, it's just that no other multiclass power grants use of a class feature for longer than a round(*). None! Even Student of the Sword, which grants only a measly +1 to attack, only applies to your next attack, not even until the end of next round. And the one case where a feat did potentially apply until end of encounter, the original Warrior of the Wild, got changed.

When something is so completely different than all the other examples of its type, I feel that pretty much means it's "not balanced", by definition. "Broken"? Maybe, maybe not. But "balanced"? No.

* - That's even true of "Bravo", contrary to what was stated earlier in the thread. The +2 to attack and damage you get from it only lasts until the end of your next turn. The creature remains your "prey" until the end of the encounter but that just triggers other effects. "Bravo" is not a true multiclass feat anyway. It doesn't grant you access to another class, it's one of those pseudo-multiclass feats like Garrote Training.

*Edit* I should also add again, I'm not too concerned about it, because I believe that WotC will end up addressing this before Divine Power is eligible here. In my home game I'll likely ban it for the time being, though.

I will echo my earlier statements and agree with Ata. I feel as an Avenger my PC has suddenly become a second rate striker with no unique feature, when I could re-build him as a barbarian or ranger and MC as an avenger, just play up that side, and be more effective than my own class. I can't rage, I don't get two strikes or hunter's quarry, nor sneak attack, nor static bonus damage on area effects, or curse damage, so my ability hinges on the Oath and now it's easily cherry-picked by one feat.

Like I said, to me it actually destroys the avenger class...

One other thought, in my non-pbP game, there is an avenger. More often than not, I think he ends up using Oath only against one target per encounter, and I'm not talking fights against a solo. It just works out that way. When he does end up Oathing multiple targets, it's generally not more than two, and the second target might be only for a round or two during mop-up.

(the exceptions are if there are bunch of minions.)

This backs up what what renau1g is saying... in practice, a pure avenger only Oaths a single target per encounter, or nearly so, IME.

Good point there. I had not thought of that. I've never seen an avenger in action and always thought they'd be teaming up with a rogue or fighter to take down a baddie sooner and thus be able to oath another guy.

If that is the case(usually only oathing one enemy during the encounter), then I think the feat is overpowered too.

Now my own experience is limited to PbP with the Avenger, but in the two fights (well one really, the other one was a slaughter), I oathed one guy and teaming up with our brutal rogue, we took him down, but there was only one enemy left after that and it's really more mop up now...