D&D 5E (2024) The Price of a Soul (Lich Path problems)

Nicholas Reed said:

Atheists go straight to Asmodeus in Nessus for him to consume (confirmed in continuity by Chains of Asmodeus).

Click to expand...

How exactly are they defining atheists in this context? Does it include everyone who dies without making an active decision to worship one of the gods?
Or is there a 'default' god that people who never had the choice go to, and you have to specifically choose to be an atheist on the Forgotten Realms?

M.L. Martin said:

That originally came from the 2E Guide to Hell, but I'm surprised anyone would keep it in continuity a quarter-century later, after all the angst over Faerun's Wall of the Faithless. That's also the source that made Asmodeus one of the primal pre-divine entities of the cosmos, and I don't think that's been retained.

Click to expand...

Depending upon the above question, the Wall of the Faithless is one of the darkest concepts in any game setting, (and I am including Warhammer 40,00 in that list). As soon as you think about it for a moment, it is truly horrific.

Kobold Stew said:

I am not talking about BG3. Maybe we should stick to D&D and the UA, and not bring in a videogame.

Here, there is no choice: with this feat, at level 4 (well before you are a lich, and you need not become one), any use of Soul Siphon creates damage to the humanoid opponent on a level that is not paralleled anywhere else in the D&D, and is, for all intents and purposes, irrevocable. The designers aren't leaving it up to the table, or up to the player, as they could do, but they are giving a power at 4th level that necessarily does more enduring violence than any other effect in the game (it's not even an attack).

Click to expand...

There's always a choice. You can choose just to not use the feat. Or ignore that part of the flavor of the feat. Or re-write the flavor of the feat. In other words... the player and DM need to actually think about the campaign world they are making and that the character is in... and then roleplay out what happens when any bits of these flavor things occur within the text and decide how true these bits of flavor are for their own campaign.

Look, I know that there are a multitude of players who think that if something appears in a book then it's 100% true and fact within every single D&D game that gets played, because in their opinion the books are there to say everything is 'RAW' in every way, shape, and form. But I'm sorry... I think that is a ridiculous way to interpret this game and WotC should be under no obligation to write material under the yoke of that belief.

If you don't like the flavor of these Lich abilities... that's absolutely fine. And if you wish to tell them that when the survey comes out, that's 100% what you should be doing., because that's the kind of opinions on game ideas that these playtests are looking for. You'd be doing a disservice if you didn't tell them how you feel about what they gave you. But just remember this is merely your opinion on what this UA has given us and how nailed down these things mean to your game, my game, others' game, and the game as a whole. And at some point we all have to accept that these books that WotC makes are going to include things written in them that we don't agree with, and thus we are going to have to "white out" those things from our games ourselves. We can't and should not rely on WotC to produce the perfect book for our tastes. Sometimes we actually have to do a little bit of the legwork ourselves.

And that doesn't mean the game is flawed or that the designers are bad or any of that nonsense... it just means that these types of game books should not be taken as literal tomes of fact. They are idea generators. Nothing more. They give us ideas for the roleplaying game we wish to run or play a character in, and then we make everything up as we play.

So if destroying souls is this easy one would expect the enemies to use it against the PCs to prevent the pesky adventurers from constantly resurrecting.

DEFCON 1 said:

There's always a choice. You can choose just to not use the feat. Or ignore that part of the flavor of the feat. Or re-write the flavor of the feat.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine) Based on this, you'd think I was talking exclusively about the flavour of the feat. I'm not, as we discussed upthread. My concern is with the implications I see in specific mechanics that have been proposed in what is at present only a UA. Yes, this is going to inform my feedback, and maybe, for those for whom this discussion is persuasive, it will inform theirs. That's why the thread was started.

Much of your post appears to put words in my mouth (er, onto my fingertips), which -- please let me assure you -- seem completely alien to me.

For example:

DEFCON 1 said:

Look, I know that there are a multitude of players who think that if something appears in a book then it's 100% true and fact within every single D&D game that gets played, because in their opinion the books are there to say everything is 'RAW' in every way, shape, and form. But I'm sorry... I think that is a ridiculous way to interpret this game and WotC should be under no obligation to write material under the yoke of that belief.

Click to expand...

I do not see myself among the multitude of players that you describe. We agree that that approach would be ridiculous, and I am less confident than you that such individuals exist in multitudes. WOTC is not under the yoke you suggest that such people want, nor do I intend to put them under one.

DEFCON 1 said:

And that doesn't mean the game is flawed or that the designers are bad or any of that nonsense... it just means that these types of game books should not be taken as literal tomes of fact.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine). These are some pretty extreme views you appear to be attributing to me here, and they do not reflect what I have said or what I believe, of course. I'm talking about the wording of a proposed feat in a UA; nothing more.

Kobold Stew said:

(emphasis mine) Based on this, you'd think I was talking exclusively about the flavour of the feat. I'm not, as we discussed upthread. My concern is with the implications I see in specific mechanics that have been proposed in what is at present only a UA. Yes, this is going to inform my feedback, and maybe, for those for whom this discussion is persuasive, it will inform theirs. That's why the thread was started.

Much of your post appears to put words in my mouth (er, onto my fingertips), which -- please let me assure you -- seem completely alien to me.

For example:

I do not see myself among the multitude of players that you describe. We agree that that approach would be ridiculous, and I am less confident than you that such individuals exist in multitudes. WOTC is not under the yoke you suggest that such people want, nor do I intend to put them under one.


(emphasis mine). These are some pretty extreme views you appear to be attributing to me here, and they do not reflect what I have said or what I believe, of course. I'm talking about the wording of a proposed feat in a UA; nothing more.

Click to expand...

I'd say that the parts of your initial post that you purposely bolded seemed to indicate you thought that the UA was more than just a few word choice issues. You seemed pretty adamant that there was something deeper at play with this UA, especially when you commented that parts of this path were "unquestionably evil'.

I don't know how you expected people to take your comments, but I took them at face value. That this feat path was a massive issue. If it actually isn't, and it's merely some alternate word choices and editing that you think this needs... then you probably should do some editing to your initial post to tone down your rhetoric.

Or not. You don't have to if you don't want to. But then you'll just have to accept that some other people are going to think your rhetoric is a bit overblown.

I'm not going to repeat points I've already made for you. I have certainly learned what constitutes overblown rhetoric.

Crimson Longinus said:

So if destroying souls is this easy one would expect the enemies to use it against the PCs to prevent the pesky adventurers from constantly resurrecting.

Click to expand...

It has been discussed before that assassins need to have some way to block resurrection.

But this ain’t easy to get - NPCs don’t get feats.

And, of course, whilst you only need four PC class levels to qualify for this, you might want to hold off, lest the being who was expecting those souls sends an agent to ask where they are. Non-mechanical fluff has non-mechanical consequences.

Cap'n Kobold said:

Depending upon the above question, the Wall of the Faithless is one of the darkest concepts in any game setting, (and I am including Warhammer 40,00 in that list). As soon as you think about it for a moment, it is truly horrific.

Click to expand...

NB, from the text for the magic item Blackrazor:

Devour Soul. Whenever you use it to reduce a creature to 0 hit points, the sword slays the creature and devours its soul, unless it is a construct or an undead. A creature whose soul has been devoured by Blackrazor can be restored to life only by a Wish spell.

When it devours a soul, Blackrazor grants you temporary hit points equal to the slain creature's hit point maximum. These hit points fade after 24 hours. As long as these temporary hit points last and you keep Blackrazor in hand, you have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks.

Click to expand...

-DMG

Doing evil acts for power should be easy. That’s what makes be heroic worthwhile. Have you never watched Star Wars?

Frankly I have zero problem with this for an evil character. Then again I wouldn’t allow evil characters in a regular campaign they are saved for a specifically evil one.

I definitely don’t want the ability retuned to be diet-evil. Suitable for edglords but an expected option in a regular game.