Excerpts: Angels

[AllisterH]

This is very disappointing. The story and the concept are just not doing it for me. It seems like they've bent over backwards just to provide an excuse for these to be used against players arbitrarily, and in doing so have sacrificed good story-telling. I don't like the way they've handled this at all, which just means more work for me.

Is the whole MM going to be like this? Are all story-related npcs going to be crushed into concepts that don't fit, like square pegs in a round hole, just so that every creature in the MM can be pitted against the characters at any time?

Its not a difficult concept. Angels vs. Demons. Got it?

I actually like the fluff behind the change.

Angels vs Demons makes sense when there is only good deities. Once you introduce evil deities, you do raise the question of "Who serves the evil deities" and in previous editions, this was devils and demons.

For example, the Temple guardian for Bane can't just be cultists and priests since the Temple of Pelor not only has that but also angels protecting it.

re: Angel's fall
I don't think Asmodeus was an actual angel though. The Devils execrpt cagely sidesteps the issue by simply saying he was a Divine Servant and the leader of a similar group of servants. They were cursed (presumably by all the other gods) into their new forms.

 

[Fobok]

I don't really like the mercenary approach either, but I *do* like the fact that they serve all gods. Easy enough to change for when I DM and in other games I can live with it.

I really like the new look too. With the angels that are the true messengers, I'd give them an illusion ability so, say, angels of a good deity could look more human and relatable.

 

[DandD]

Might work somehow, still, doesn't feel that good, but that's because of the implied problems with angels basically being astral mercenaries.

I prefer them to be astral robots, like they were alluded to in Worlds & Monsters, and when they went into Robot-Rebellion-mode and murdered their god, he managed to push the omega switch that tainted the rebelling hordes into the fearsome devils that now rule themselves in the prison dimension called the Nine Hells (of Baator?).
Would have made a little bit more sense, and would be more fitting, thematically.

Oh well, can't have a winner always. I'm just more concerned now if the mechanics aren't worded too badly. I hate it when a product needs an errata two days after it's on the shelf. Reeks like bad work for me. Sure hope it doesn't happen.

 

[Sojorn]

With the angels that are the true messengers, I'd give them an illusion ability so, say, angels of a good deity could look more human and relatable.

Just have them shout "FEAR NOT!" when they show up.

That'll put everyone at ease I'm sure.

 

[hong]

Hmm?

I thought devas and solars were created by the planes themselves and NOT the deities. The only thing 4E did I thought was switch their birthplace from the Upper Realms to the Astral?

What previous edition book revealed that angels were created by the gods?

Not vis-a-vis previous editions, but rather what was in W&M.

Like I said before:

Looks like they reconcepted angels at some point between Worlds & Monsters and the finished product:

No halos here—these are beings created by the gods for a purpose, rather than anthropomorphic images of comfort and purity.

They most often serve the gods, so some believe that the gods created them. In reality, angels are powerful astral beings who appeared during the first moments of the creation of the Astral Sea.

 

[FadedC]

This is very disappointing. The story and the concept are just not doing it for me. It seems like they've bent over backwards just to provide an excuse for these to be used against players arbitrarily, and in doing so have sacrificed good story-telling. I don't like the way they've handled this at all, which just means more work for me.

Is the whole MM going to be like this? Are all story-related npcs going to be crushed into concepts that don't fit, like square pegs in a round hole, just so that every creature in the MM can be pitted against the characters at any time?

Its not a difficult concept. Angels vs. Demons. Got it?

The fact that it's such an incredibly simplistic concept does not necesarily mean it's good storytelling. In fact often more complicated things make for better stories.

 

[AllisterH]

Oh well, can't have a winner always. I'm just more concerned now if the mechanics aren't worded too badly. I hate it when a product needs an errata two days after it's on the shelf. Reeks like bad work for me. Sure hope it doesn't happen.

I don't think WOTC will actually errata this. Same reason why the Succubus Tactics won't be errata.

The reason why is that in both cases, the actual wording isn't WRONG. It's sub-optimal. (which is a big difference). There's nothing in the rules that says you actually have to do ANYTHING with a standard action gained from an action point.

For example, if I used an action point and then said, "I'm doing nothing", there's nothing in the rules that says I can't do this. Sure, it's a very sub-optimal choice but it isn't actually forbidden per se.

Same thing here. Spend an action point isn't necessary but there's nothing in the rules that says, "you can't spend an action point even if you don't need it". Similarly, the succubus tactics are not the best way to user her powers (makes more sense to kiss an allied companion IMO) but there's nothing in the rules that actually stop the succubus from doing what the tactis says to do.

WOTC is somewhat infamous for this even on the M:TG side (there was a M:TG demo a few years back where they had "Teach a player the steps in the M:TG round" and the demo actually had the player playing their land in the 2nd main phase. Technically, there's nothing saying you HAVE to play lands in the 1st main phase an that you can't do that but you'd be hardpressed to find ANYONE that would agree this was a good teaching strategy).

 

[AverageCitizen]

Angels vs Demons makes sense when there is only good deities. Once you introduce evil deities, you do raise the question of "Who serves the evil deities" and in previous editions, this was devils and demons.

Yeah. Why did we change that?

Previously, if you wanted an epic intraplanar conflict in your campaign, the good gods sent angels (people with wings, celestial beings, etc.) and the bad god sent devils/demons (Monsters with wings, sharp teeth, red skin, etc.)

Now, on both sides of the conflict, you have these "angels" who're more like a cross between the protoss, a genie, and a dove. Oh, and an element.

So why is this better?

 

[Fieari]

I'm in favor. This allows the angels to be used in a wider variety of roles. You can still have your good holy nice angels fighting against demons. Pelor's angels are likely like this. But you can also have an evil priest summon an angel of death to slaughter an enemy's kingdom-- your own-- and you need to stop it. For a dramatic twist, possibly by summoning a devil and making a bargain, which will go wrong afterwards...

The possibilities have not been reduced. They've been expanded. You can still use angels EXACTLY the same way you have in the past. But now, they offer clearer opportunities to be used elsewise. And yes, you could have always used angels like this, but the flavor given and the rules highly suggested against it. Now, the rules and flavor are far clearer about allowing wider uses.

YES. THIS IS GOOD.

 

[Korgoth]

What I also don't get is that Angels are resistant to "radiant damage" - that's the kind of damage Paladins do, right? If so, isn't there some connection between radiant and good?

I think they totally missed the boat here.