Book of Exalted Deeds: A fundamental design philosophy shift at WotC?

[Kwyn]

These feats and powers are really only at risk for abuse in campaigns where the DM lets his players have free reign and encourages a more high powered play style.

If taken as written, it's very difficult to even play an exalted character. There are things that the average D&D party does as routine that an exalted character simply can't. Now, if your group's paladin turns a blind eye to the barbarian torturing prisoners or the group's genocidal tendencies to slay any and all goblins, including those just out of the womb, then no doubt being exalted will be little more than lip service paid to concepts like 'good' and 'righteousness'.

However, if you follow the guidelines in the book, most campaigns with exalted characters will be "exalted campaigns" meaning more than one exalted character and themese focused on changing the balance of good in the campaign world and not simply adventuring for fun and profit.

Very few of us actually play games like this. I mean who hasn't slain the orc who surrendered to "keep him from doing evil tomorrow" or justified the theft of a powerful weapon because "it can be used for the greater good in my hands".

So, if BoED is just another splatbook for your characters to select prcs and feats from, then yes, you may have a problem. If you actually use the book as intended, and more importantly, hold the players to the standards described in the book as *mandatory* for keeping exalted powers, then you shouldn't have too many issues and the book can really take a game focused on doing Good to a new level.

 

[Psion]

I remain as unimpressed by the BoED as I was the BoVD.

Most of the material that monte actually made for the BoVD is pretty decent.

The stuff other WotC staffers did like the execution rules were pretty wretched.

I'm not too fond of the demonologist and ur-priest either. But most of the book, particularly spells, domains, and templates, and some of the classes and other things like psychic venom and diseases, have been pretty useful in my game.

 

[hong]

While thumbing through the Book O' Exalted Deeds today, I noted how utterly-freekin' powerful it was. The possible abuses of Vow of Poverty have been talked about at length, but there are plenty of other feats that are over-the-top better than standard D&D feats. These include:

Nymph's Kiss, which gives you a +2 to all cha-related checks. This encompases all cha-based skills, of course, but turn attempts are affected as well, and arguably Telepathy psionic powers. This is obviously way better than a +2 to two skills feat. But wait! There's more! It also gives a +1 bonus to saves vs spells and spell-like abilities. Okaaaaay.

Next item:

Sacred Strike: When you get a sneak attack against an evil creature (not an evil outsider, just anyone evil), you roll d8s instead of d6s. Boy-howdy! As if sneak-attacking wasn't already powerful enough.

And oh yeah, your sneak attacks are considered "Good" for the purposes of overcoming damage redcution.


OK, I don't think anyone can argue that these feats are just plain better than any standard feat. And the balance? You have to be a *really* stand-up good person (and in the case of Nymph's Kiss, have a nymph girlfriend, but that's more of a D&D players wet dream than a prereq ). Anyway, my point is that WotC seems to now believe that you can give mechanics power - in some cases a lot of power, for RP restrictions. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

Meh, I think Nymph's Kiss is just plain old-fashioned broken. There are already plenty of those. Sacred Strike is powerful, but I don't think it's OTT, all things considered.

If you want an example of balancing mechanics with RP restrictions, look at Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence. You get massive benefits, but for an equally massive price. (Maybe also Vow of Poverty, but the price varies for that one, depending on your class.)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm not too fond of the demonologist and ur-priest either. But most of the book, particularly spells, domains, and templates, and some of the classes and other things like psychic venom and diseases, have been pretty useful in my game.

I don't really know who wrote what in the book. The only parts I did care for where, as you mention, the psychic venom, the diseases, and the drugs.

For the most part, for the book's promises of personal horror and the examination of evil, I found it to be flat and uninspired. Most of the "evil" was centered on cartoonish service to dark powers and pointless grotesquerie-- it reminded me of nothing quite so much as the Tzimisce Handbook d20. I don't need a handbook on splatterpunk and gross deformities, and in my opinion, there are already quite enough options for serving evil powers in D&D: Clerics of evil deities, the Blackguard, and various other PrCs spring to mind.

I had been hoping for something more mature-- such as ideas on why people become evil, especially in service to what began as good causes. I wanted to see some measure of how far a character might slip, and the consequences thereof.

My main problem with the Book of Exalted Deeds is that it is, as billed, the counterpart to the Book of Vile Darkness. There's a good amount of space devoted to celestial hierarchies, and new kewl p0werz for Good characters, but no real discussion of what makes people Good, or what might make them so especially good that they stand out above other heroes.

It was the Dudley Do-Right to the BoVD's Snidely Whiplash, in a game that is already pretty heavily biased towards clear-cut, melodramatic conflict between good and evil.

 

[BryonD]

That's not balancing any more that only letting characters with great stats play super-fighters in 1e was balancing. It does give the GM control, but once granted, it doesn't make the feats balanced.

I agree.

I'll give WotC a very very tiny blip of credit that they appear to be trying to promote heroic play. But bribery with what amounts to free power is a bad call. And ultimately they are breaking one of the cardinal rules: "Don't balance power with roleplaying".

[I am not implying that there is anything wrong with anti-heroic play]

 

[Psion]

I had been hoping for something more mature-- such as ideas on why people become evil, especially in service to what began as good causes. I wanted to see some measure of how far a character might slip, and the consequences thereof.

Perhaps I am just old and set in my ways, but I find material that tells me how to run a game sort of useless. Give me ideas, yes. But on the alignment banter, I don't find either book productive, helpful, or inspiring.

To me, the BoVD starts once you hit the chapter where it talks about things like sacrifice rules, etc. Everyting before that is (useless) fluff AFAIAC.

 

[Hardhead]

Perhaps I am just old and set in my ways, but I find material that tells me how to run a game sort of useless. Give me ideas, yes. But on the alignment banter, I don't find either book productive, helpful, or inspiring.

To me, the BoVD starts once you hit the chapter where it talks about things like sacrifice rules, etc. Everyting before that is (useless) fluff AFAIAC.

I, too, found the BoVD to be very useful. The sacrifice rules were great. The spells and feats and domains were all pretty much balanced. The Book of Exalted Deeds is just the opposite. I *might* buy it. But probably I won't.


- Z a c h

 

[TiQuinn]

I think a big part of the problem is that PCs only receive so many feats. Yet the list of possible feats out there is ever growing. The catch is that many feats, though not necessarily broken, are more powerful and more desirable than others. So even if you have a book filled with new feats to pick and choose from, players are still going to take Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Cleave, etc. for their fighters, and Wizards are still going to take Combat Casting, Item Creation feats, etc. At least, this is what I've noticed. I can bring a new book with all new feats to the table, but the actual feats selected varies only slightly. Perhaps WotC designers saw this also and therefore cranked up the power on some of these other feats so that the selection process isn't so straightforward and predictable.

 

[Hardhead]

I forgot to mention in the original post that Nymph's Kiss also gives you an additonal skill point every level. Whooo!

IF you're 10th level, that means an extra... 5 points damage on a sneak attack on average. Which still doesn't work on evil undead and such. Don't worry too much about that.

You don't think that's a lot? Weapon Specialization only works on one weapon, and only grants a +2 to damage. A 10th level rogue with TWF (and what rogue doesn't?) gets three attacks per round, that's 15 extra damage per round. Quite a lot, IMO.

 

[TiQuinn]

You don't think that's a lot? Weapon Specialization only works on one weapon, and only grants a +2 to damage. A 10th level rogue with TWF (and what rogue doesn't?) gets three attacks per round, that's 15 extra damage per round. Quite a lot, IMO.

Oh, I definitely think it's a lot, at least as far as Nymph's kiss goes. The other I'm not as wary about. Most of the issues I've had with rogues come from pairing the class with some pretty insane PrCs.