[BoVD] Vile Damage...

[tauton_ikhnos]

Well, Vile damage seduced our wizard PC to the dark side, way back when. He was nuking enemies left and right. When the Paladin finally found out what was going on, and used his detect evil ability, we ended up geeking the wizard, but not before he did us for half our hit points in vile damage.

...which made the trip back OUT of the Underdark a lot of fun. Especially since he was the party teleporter. But, really, we figured he was evil, he'd have left us there to rot anyway, so we were basically screwed either way.

After we got back, we hired a new wizard, and the paladin got really paranoid about his "morning detec..prayers". We also started a vile caster witch hunt, backed by the church, and killed about thirty or so high level casters, some of whom had probably only dabbled in it, but most of whom were seriously studying dire magics.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I solved this problem (not that my players stuck around in the campaign long enough to find out) by saying that there are lots of old, abandoned holy sites with Hallows still active, even in the middle of evil territory. Graveyards are also often Hallowed. Evil folks or creatures regularly use these areas for vile damage healing.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Celtavian, what's with the vendetta against Monte? It's not like this is the be-all, end-all oversight. Sheesh...

 

[ruleslawyer]

In core D&D, there are two basic _damage_ types: normal and nonlethal. Vile just adds another type to the list. This is not particularly new; witness White Wolf's bashing/lethal/aggravated damage types, for example. If that was the extent of it, "vile" damage would be fine; it puts a bit of spice into the game, and opens up the possibility of using it as a mechanic for all sorts of things that DR is currently used for. What's not so fine is the flavour text and rules that tie it to being inflicted only by eeeevil bad guys who do eeeevil things to their victims.

Why not, hong? Vile damage is awfully hard to come by (really, the only way to inflict significant amounts of it is with Violate Spell or Vile Smite) and its rarity means that the flavor bit makes some sense.

As far as vile damage affecting evil creatures: [HOUSE RULES ALERT] IMC, it just doesn't. One of the perks of being evil is that you're unaffected by vile or unholy damage, just as good creatures are unaffected by holy or sanctified damage. Just makes more sense to me from a narrative perspective.

 

[hong]

Why not, hong? Vile damage is awfully hard to come by (really, the only way to inflict significant amounts of it is with Violate Spell or Vile Smite) and its rarity means that the flavor bit makes some sense.

As far as vile damage affecting evil creatures: [HOUSE RULES ALERT] IMC, it just doesn't. One of the perks of being evil is that you're unaffected by vile or unholy damage, just as good creatures are unaffected by holy or sanctified damage. Just makes more sense to me from a narrative perspective.

Notice your house rule.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Celtavian, what's with the vendetta against Monte? It's not like this is the be-all, end-all oversight. Sheesh...

It's not really a vendetta. I like alot of Monte's modules and some of his rules. I think he is a very creative game designer when it comes to flavor and rule design.

But Monte always seems to create at least a few things that make you go "Monte, what were you thinking?". Because of this, I shy a bit away from his products due to certain things within them that are vastly imbalanced and require house rules, often requiring me to end up in an argument with my players. I don't like ending up in arguments with my players because a game designer decided to create something that is vastly overpowered. A previous creation of his that I had a problem with was the Madness domain. Not only did I not enjoy being on the receiving end of spells cast by NPC priests with the Madness domain, I did not like being DM of a PC with the Madness domain.

Now I have a problem with vile damage and a few of the Prc's in the Book of Vile Darkness for the same reason. They are troublesome both as a DM and a player of an evil group. Monte is one of the few game designers that seems to do this fairly often. Other prominent game designers such as Andy Collins and Sean Reynolds seem to err on the side of underpowered from my experience. Monte often errs on the side of overpowered.

Just my 2 cents. I don't have a vendetta against Monte, I'm just wary of books and modules he designs for the above stated reasons.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Notice your house rule.

?

Are you saying that my house rule flags a problem with vile damage, or something else?

 

[Gizzard]

But the vile damage isn't another slice, is it? I don't have my books with me, but I was under the impression that vile damage was also fire damage, or whatever.

Hrm, I think you are right. On cursory reading I interpreted it as being a new slice, but looking more closely at Violate Spell I seem to have been wrong. Oops. Now my Tangent is extra-Tangential. ;-)

 

[Elric]

Unfortunately for the good guys, keeping your soul has no distinct advantages. Things like vile damage really aren't a problem for NPCs- the PCs care far more about living past the fight that they are in because the PCs, and not the NPCs, expect to win. Of course, the rules change when the PCs aren't involved in a combat (behind the scenes). Then some group of NPCs has to win.

As a tangent, since there are no BoeD topics right now and I'd like to update my VoP monk before my next game session, if anyone could post the VoP benefits you get from going from level 12-level 15 (ie. exalted strike increases by X, natural armor increases by Y...), that would be much appreciated. Thanks.