Holy Symbols: are they God-specific? Can they be altered?

[Darth_Asparagus]

So far, a lot of arguments for having generic/changeable holy symbols. Rules-wise very sound but to me it means a lot of flavour-loss if I pick up the holy symbols of Vecna and turn it into a holy symbol of Pelor. Evil items are just so much fun.

My "rules-conform solutions":

1.) Holy symbols are rarely found. Maybe they are even the focus of a quest. (Recover the symbol of some lost cleric)

2.) Unsuitable holy items are treated simply as money (they can be reduced to residuum).

3.) Maybe a holy symbol is part of the reward that somebody pays. If it is the church itself, it would make a lot of sense. There might even be some nice history attached (the symbol of the priest that trained the character).

What do you think?

 

[kanvil]

My solution was to create a new Religion-based ritual that lets players transfer the magic from one holy symbol to another, similar to using Enchant Magic Item to resize armor. This way, when they find a holy symbol of Orcus, they just transfer the enchantment to the cleric's holy symbol of Bahamut. That makes a lot more sense to me than reconsecrating a holy symbol to a new god.

 

[AverageTable]

Let me start by saying that I completely sympathise with the issue of a PC being unable to use the holy symbols he finds unless he's permitted to alter them somehow. I myself was thinking about this just the other day and was having the same debate - "Do I make sure that every piece of equipment is of the kind the PCs need yet completely destroy the suspension of disbelief; or do I maintain versimilitude by filling treasure hoards with garbage they'll never use?"

So trust that I understand the motivation behind all the suggestions like, "Let the cleric use a free ritual to 'reconsecrate' an incompatible holy symbol and magically 'morph' it into whatever type he needs."

Yet to put things in perspective, here is exactly what you're suggesting:

DM: You find a magic sword!
Fighter: But I'm specialised in the warhammer! Is there some guy in town who can transform the sword into a warhammer?
DM: You betcha!
-----------------------------------
DM: You find a magic wand!
Wizard: But I'm specialised in the orb! Can I perform a ritual to turn the wand into an orb?
DM: Okie dokie!

The point is that all classes suffer from this issue in different ways, not just the cleric. Can a fighter use a sword even if he's specialised in the warhammer? Technically yes; but he's never going to want to since he'll probably be worse off doing so even if the sword is an objectively better weapon. In 4th Edition he might well have powers that won't work effectively unless he uses a warhammer. Some of his feats might not function at all. So you can't realistically expect him to use any different weapon. In other words, ALL the magic weapons he finds need to be warhammers in order for them to be appropriate treasure, just as the cleric requires holy symbols that match his diety.

In turn, if you're going to argue that clerics should be able to change any holy symbols they find to match whatever dieties they worship, then fighters should be able to convert any weapons they find to the type they're specialised in, wizards should be able to convert any implements they find to the type they're specialised in, and so forth.

For the record, I'm not even saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe letting fighters perform rediculous and unbelivable alterations to the weapons they find is not really a big deal. But if you're going to suggest such a thing for holy symbols, then you should realise the implications of what you're saying. It leads to a very slippery slope.

 

[Umbran]

So, you're saying your expectation, if you go to your local Christian church and ask the priest to use a swastika in his service, he won't have any problem with it at all?

Please consult The Rules - no real-world religion, no politics. Please leave what we expect from real-world priests of any stripe out of the discussion, please.

 

[Pinnacle]

DM: You find a magic sword!
Fighter: But I'm specialised in the warhammer! Is there some guy in town who can transform the sword into a warhammer?
DM: You betcha!
-----------------------------------
DM: You find a magic wand!
Wizard: But I'm specialised in the orb! Can I perform a ritual to turn the wand into an orb?
DM: Okie dokie!

The difference is that the fighter/wizard could still use the sword/wand, they just wouldn't get the extras from their specialization. If the sword/wand is good enough compared to the fighter/wizard's currect warhammer/orb, she/he might even carry both.
A bit less likely for the fighter who probably uses a shield in her other hand, but the wizard could conceivably use one in each hand, using the more powerful wand most of the time and the orb when he wants to use his specialization ability. The fighter might still carry both and may drop one and draw the other when needed until she can get a warhammer as good as her new sword.

The cleric can't use her new holy symbol at all if it's not for the right deity--plus, if it's a captured symbol of an evil god, a good cleric probably doesn't want to sell it so that a different evil cleric can buy and use it (although disenchanting it is still an option).

Not that I completely disagree with what you're saying, but the cleric is hurt more by it than others (plus a weapon is useful if any of several PCs use it, as is a wand).

 

[azarias]

I think this last point is key. The Fighter/Wizard etc can use the inappropriate implements they find, but lose their specialisations.

By contrast, the Cleric cannot use a symbol at all, if you play by the only pointer in the book.

Conversely, a Cleric who can reconsecrate any symbol at no cost is gaining an advantage over the other classes.

I came into this thread thinking that Clerics should be able to reconsecrate pretty quickly, at no cost. Now I'm not so sure. I think, now, that the best ideas are those which create something like the situations the other classes are faced with - some kind of middle ground.

Having base symbol plusses as deity-specific, but special functions as general use, is pretty good. That allows a Cleric to gain from a decent symbol of another god, but not gain the full monty.

 

[Ginnel]

Having base symbol plusses as deity-specific, but special functions as general use, is pretty good. That allows a Cleric to gain from a decent symbol of another god, but not gain the full monty.

I think the other way around would be better the Full+ of the symbol works for any cleric but the special function wouldn't, unless it was transfered across to your own symbol in a ritual that costs 10% of base price of the item.
There would also be fluff/in character consequences of using another deities symbols, maybe people would be a bit suspicious as to why a devout man would be using another clerics symbol or they could be in awe if using his Gods divine enemy's symbol.

Also I haven't read up on this but can a cleric just wear as many symbols as s/he wishes? and choose a different one each attack?

 

[AverageTable]

The difference is that the fighter/wizard could still use the sword/wand, they just wouldn't get the extras from their specialization.

Well you'll note that I already mentioned this point in my previous post. The issue is that I don't think it actually has much relevance. Being able to use a piece of equipment doesn't count for much if the character would never want to use it and would almost always be disadvantaged by doing so.

Here's a sharper example:

Suppose our fighter has the one-handed weapon talent, is specialised in the warhammer with powers and feats to match, and always carries a shield.

In the dragon's hoard, the fighter finds a kick-ass... glaive.

Can the fighter use the glaive? Sure. He's certainly capable of wielding it and making attacks with it, if that's what you mean. But then again, so is the party's wizard. So ask yourself, why isn't the wizard going to start swinging that glaive in combat? The answer, of course, is that the glaive is completely incompatible with the wizard's talents, specialities, and strengths. The wizard could use the glaive; but since he'll be much more effective using what he already has (i.e. his spells), why would he ever bother?

The same goes for the fighter. If he starts using that glaive he's going to lose the benefit of his weapon talent, many of his warhammer-focused powers will be neutered, and his warhammer-focused feats won't function at all. He'll also lack any of the powers or feats that would help make the glaive effective, since he's never had reason to take any of them. Not to mention that he'll have to go without his shield, thereby losing its AC and Reflex bonuses as well as whatever special benefits the shield might have granted. Long story short: he's never going to use that glaive. He'll be much better off just using the old warhammer that he already has. Because the warhammer plays to his strengths, he's much more effective using it than a weapon contrary to his talents. And because he's never going to use the glaive, it becomes nothing more than garbage treasure.

Treasure a character is not going to want to use and can't use without serious disadvantage is no better than treasure he can't use at all. Whether or not he technically can use the glaive is pretty much irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, he's basically in the very same boat as a cleric who finds an incompatible holy symbol.

 

[AverageTable]

I came into this thread thinking that Clerics should be able to reconsecrate pretty quickly, at no cost. Now I'm not so sure. I think, now, that the best ideas are those which create something like the situations the other classes are faced with - some kind of middle ground.

Having base symbol plusses as deity-specific, but special functions as general use, is pretty good. That allows a Cleric to gain from a decent symbol of another god, but not gain the full monty.

I agree that this idea is probably better. If you don't want an incompatible holy symbol to be completely useless to a cleric, then it's probably better to treat it as technically usable but effectively crappy (like a fighter with an inoptimal weapon), rather than simply letting him turn a holy symbol of Lloth into one of Pelor with a quick, half-assed prayer.

Exactly what the limitations of using an incompatible holy symbol should be, however, would a question requiring further thought.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

But if we're going to start talking about using incompatible symbols without somehow miraculously "changing" them, then we raise a whole new problem.

The real issue with incompatible holy symbols is that, from any sort of roleplaying perspective, the mere notion of a cleric using the symbol of a god other than his own, particularly one opposed to his own, is downright rediculous.

Clerics aren't merely "guys who like gods", they're people who have built their entire lives around their faith and have pledged to dedicate and devote those lives to the worship and service of one deity (or possibly a few related and compatible deities). In other words, no cleric remotely worthy of the title is going to look at a holy symbol of another god, no matter how powerful a treasure it may be, and wonder "How can I get away with using this?". The idea of actually using another god's holy symbol won't even cross his mind. It would be akin to a Rabbi choosing to carry a Christian cross, or the worshippers at an Islamic mosque deciding to decorate the place with crazy, new-age Wiccan paraphenalia. The mere notion is blasphemous in the extreme.

Mind you that this is, of course, a roleplaying issue only and not a mechanical one. But if you're playing anything more than a kick-in-the-door, beer-and-pretzel game, then how a cleric might use an incompatible holy symbol is a question that shouldn't even come up, because no one should even suggest the idea.

 

[silentounce]

I think the solution is rather simple and what I plan to do. When you include a holy symbol as treasure, but it is not a symbol of a deity that anyone in the party can use, or will potentially use later via multiclassing or adding of new PCs. Just don't count it as a magic item. Count it as treasure at 1/5th the value of the item. Essentially, that's what it is. You don't need to add any rituals, etc. If you want to award your cleric with a holy symbol he can use have it be one of his own faith. Roleplaying wise this could be more interesting, perhaps after defeating an enemy cleric he finds a pouch containing various holy symbols, not all of them magical of course. They are trophies that the enemy cleric takes. Maybe you can have it be tradition that clerics in the world carve their mark/rune onto their symbol, or perhaps it appears there by divine power when they wield it. This way, the party discovers the magical holy symbol your party's cleric finds belonged to an ancient hero or mentor as mentioned earlier. Or perhaps an old friend that trained/studied with the cleric, etc. Magic items are rare so maybe the description of it alone is unique and the cleric would recognize it (with a Religion check) as belonging to one of the above. There are a lot of different possibilities.

Anyway, my point is, when you include magic items that no one in the party can use you shouldn't count them as a magic item in the parcel system, but only as treasure, otherwise the characters will fall behind the power curve, which is necessary to maintain due to game balance. Granted, I'm just saying this as it appears to be 4e design philosophy. I'm not making any arguments for/against verisimilitude. This is a game balance issue. It also appears there are very few magic items in 4e that are totally unusable, so this shouldn't come up often.

The DM is the one who decides what treasure goes where, right? I understand this question originated from a published adventure, in fact, I was trying to come up for a solution myself.

What I'm going to do in this instance is just what I suggest. I'm going to have a collection of good holy symbols that the bad guys have been keeping as trophies, not many, mind you. The evil cleric will still have his own magically symbol, but it will be unusable by the cleric. He can decide what he wishes to do with it. Bless it and then destroy it, take it to his church, etc. I'll deduct its value from treasure given elsewhere.


Btw, the treasure outlay in the published adventure we are talking about actually falls short of what should be given out according to the DMG, especially when it comes to magic items. I added in a bit myself. Make a list of the magic items and treasure handed out if you don't believe me.