Hercules in Deities and Demigods

[jasamcarl]

uh, Akunin

If you would have taken the time to read krusty and i's respective posts you would note that i never asserted that (interparty) balance was factor here. I was simply taking the premise that Upper Krust was working on, that balance was a neccessity, and turning it on his claims. That having been said, i agree with you to some extent...the key is intent...if you believe Wotc values balance now (probable) then there is no reason to believe they would not break with past canon or modify the particulars in order to make god mechanically viable/quantifiable. This requires an Oppurtunity cost commensurate with the value of the ability. And again, this is all raw speculation because we do not know what the Avatar ability entails....

 

[Upper_Krust]

I'll be back!

Circumstances dictate I am going to be away from the computer for almost 15 hours.

Suffice to say your points will be summarily dealt with jasamcarl!

Until then.

Take care all, and have a good Friday night!

 

[jasamcarl]

Bring It on......

I look forward to our next clash of words, uk.

 

[Akunin]

Re: uh, Akunin

If you would have taken the time to read krusty and i's respective posts

Ah! And here I was wondering what I've been doing all this time.

Your most recent posts regarding balance don't make this clear to me, though.

Previous editions had very little balance if i recall. If you maintain your assumption that God-level play will be supported in this edition, then changes will have to be made to deal with a more rigorous game theory and thus maintain balance.

That said, i'm looking forward to analysing the balance of Dieties and Demigods myself. Who knows, you might be correct which would be dumb luck but....oh well. I would also like to take a gander at the Immortal's Handbook. Maybe in your rendition you take no risks in terminology so as everyone just assumes 'Balance'.

I took this to be "balance" in the overarcing sense, since you don't specify what is being balanced, and the word was only used a few times prior to this. We know that there are going to be quantifiable rules for statting out deities, and that they have game mechanic statistics. I only hope that the rules provide information or advice for using deities who cannot be described with a stat block (I always preferred the Planescape boxed set rules for handling interactions between PCs and the gods, rather than the various other first and second edition rules).

/me shudders to think of the campaigns that will spring up where gods are treated as just more Monster Manual critters to kill and loot.

I'd actually prefer that they give us stats for Avatars of the gods (as they did in previous books) and then a run-down of the various "domains" or "portfolios" of the divinities, and a rough approximation of what they can do within their realm of influence.

That having been said, I agree with you to some extent...the key is intent...if you believe Wotc values balance now (probable) then there is no reason to believe they would not break with past canon or modify the particulars in order to make god mechanically viable/quantifiable.

Agreed. Not that I *like* the idea of statting out the gods, and I'll probably just use the stats as qualitative descriptions of the deities' relative power. At the least, we should have a good idea of the power levels for Avatars, which is what the PCs are more likely to encounter.

Unfortunately, it appears that there is more deviation from the attempted balance of the Core Rules as more rule books are released. We're seeing an escalation of the more powerful Feats and Prestige Classes that require sacrificing little to gain a great many abilities. The Core Rules had many "weak" Feats, but often those served as prerequisites for the "better' Feats. Now, we see the same "weak" Feats, but they are less desirable, because they are not a part of useful Feat chains, whereas several powerful Feats have been grafted onto existing chains or are stand-alone abilities, making them easier to acquire.

I think they *value* balance, but balance doesn't sell books, whereas "kewel powerz" do.

Epic Level Rules, by comparison to the level 1-20 materials, allow for a huge escalation of power, but from what I've seen, it's not really a game-breaker - the challenges to a party of 30th-level characters are higher, the enemies have more powerful equipment, and the power levels scale nicely. But take the jump to divine-powered characters, and any idea of "balance" should really be thrown out the window.

Providing a framework for building gods is just fine, and I am totally in agreement with that approach, but I don't think there needs to be an attempt to reconcile the power levels with normal or epic play. There's just too big a gap between the mortal and the divine.

 

[Glyfair]

Re: Once more unto the breach...

I think we can have a fair idea of most.

Automatic Metamagic; Extra Domain; Free Move; Gust of Wind (revealed); Supreme Initiative.

Any Salient Ability with the Divine prefix (almost certainly) uses the Divine Rank in some manner.

eg. Divine Weapon Focus - I'll bet my right nut gives a BAB bonus for that weapon equal to Divine Rank.

So therefore if we know at least some of the Salient Divine Abilities we can gauge the measure of the rest.

My personal take on the "Divine X" abilities is not that they require a Divine Rank of zero or better to take. I don't think any of them get better as your divine rank does. After all, no normal feats have a progression based on your level. They all are all or nothing abilites.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[Berandor]

So waht if the DDG book had a preface stating the following:
Avatars:
A deity can have one avatar for every 5 points of divine rank she has. The avatar is in existance at all times, but it can only exist for 1 day on the material plane before having to return to the outer planes for at least one day.
Note that all avatars have half the original deity's hit points.

You cannot know that, can you?

Berandor

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Re: Re: uh, Akunin

/me shudders to think of the campaigns that will spring up where gods are treated as just more Monster Manual critters to kill and loot.

Rev up the Way-Back Machine Mr. Peabody, we're headin' to 1e! Ah yes, I remember it well...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Lets get ready to RUMBLE!.

Hi jasamcarl!

Previous editions had very little balance if i recall.

If you are refering to how deities were treated then 1st Ed. was as balanced as the rules themselves. 2nd Ed. eschewed balance by making the deities virtually omnipotent (and therefore irrelevant with regards allowing tangible interaction).

If you maintain your assumption that God-level play will be supported in this edition,

Its not an assumption. Ed Stark (WotC); whose actually in charge of both Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook projects informed me (and the rest of the WotC Message Boards) that D&Dg would cater for Deity PCs, though it wouldn't be the focus of the book.

then changes will have to be made to deal with a more rigorous game theory and thus maintain balance.

Obviously WotC have already thought of this, which is why we can presume the Salient Divine Abilities are roughly balanced (as much as such thiings can be balanced).

To that creation of avatars might actually come at a 'cost' appropriate to its benefits

Its certainly plausible, but not given the current evidence.

You yourself said that the Avatar ABILITY looks broken...

True, if my speculation is accurate. Which was my position all along.

I am certainly willing to concede my speculation may be misplaced, in fact I hope I am wrong!

then you turn on that position

Lets just hold it there.

Feel free to quote me but don't start paraphrasing and putting words in my mouth.

and say that any possible cost (some potential candidates of which i have layed out) would more or less 'shaft' this ability.

Your point was that the 'Avatar' ability could hinder the deity.

I already conceded that it could be limited in scope (though we have no such evidence yet) but I went on to add that this in no way effects my mechanical or philosophical argument.

Do you actually believe in a sound mechanical basis for dieties or do you not?

Of course. Its the only way to allow them to fairly interact.

You have committed both a slippery slope fallacy as well as a circular one (Is the Avatar ability broken? Yes, because Gods are meant to be balanced. I know Gods are meant to be balanced because they include an Avatar ability.)

Again your paraphrasing rather than quoting and using ad hominem attacks when clearly you should be addressing my arguments, which I have conceded all along are speculative based on the current evidence.

Your also adjoining my two arguments which I have always clearly divorced by labelling them 'mechanical' and 'philosophical'.

'Mechanically' the ability to create something more powerful than yourself in and of your own power is broken. Based on current evidence we can hypothesise (this to be the case) and subsequently speculate - but at no point did I draw conclusions.

'Philosophically' I always believed Avatars would be better served as 'middle-men' between Mortals and Deities. WotC don't seem to have gone this route which is fair enough in itself, but I would argue does not promote interaction - which is one of the primary reasons for having stats in the first place.

I am infact the optomist because i am not willing to jump to wild conclusions

Hardly 'wild' since I have clearly labelled my evidence from the beginning.

With regards you being the optimist - you are certainly seeing windmills and imagining they might be giants - I'll give you that!

conscerning Wotc's incompetence

One (hypothesised) mistake (and another point I don't philosophically agree with personally) within such a vast body of mechanics hardly denotes incompetence; again you put words in my mouth.

through a specious analysis of a STAT BLOCK

Speculative, not specious.

which by its nature does not include explanations of QUALATATIVE ABILITIES,

Many of which we do know, others we can guess and overall are capable of gauging the 'typical' measure of the abilities.

because it, as the term 'stat' indicates includes mostly quantitative data. Can you look at a new skill in a characters skill list and just surmise the dcs and situations with which they are paired? Of course not.

Irrelevant analogy. Again you are discussing what we don't know, whereas I am discussing what we do know.

You might have a reasonable chance of coming to plausible explanations to those Salient Abilities which relate directly back to feats (especially if their effects are shown in the stat block itself), but you make automatic assumptions about the word 'Avatar' and its balance (assuming that is even an issue)

We can already discern (approx.) 75% of the revealed Salient Divine Abilities. Its hardly a great leap of faith to assume WotC would want the rest 'roughly' balanced.

by alluding to prior editions of dieties books (at least 2e) which never intended balance.

To speculate that multiple Avatars might be possible. Not to confirm the point.

Contradiction after Contradiction.

Not when your only evidence is paraphrasing hyperbole!

If I wan't having fun here I would have ignored your opening salvo.

The only valid point you have made is that we don't yet know all the facts so my criticisms are speculative - which I have attested to all along! None of which affects my 'mechanical' or 'philosophical' arguments!

...have you something new to add?

That said, i'm looking forward to analysing the balance of Dieties and Demigods myself.

Yep, it should be a great book!

The 1st Ed. book is probably my favourite of all time, I am hoping it will soon be knocked into second place!

Who knows, you might be correct which would be dumb luck but....oh well.

I would have thought deductive reasoning would be more appropriate.

I would also like to take a gander at the Immortal's Handbook.

Thanks! I appreciate the interest!

Maybe in your rendition you take no risks in terminology so as everyone just assumes 'Balance'. I wonder what that magic word would be.

I look forward to all feedback.

If you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them in the IH thread (or via email).

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I have to admit, I completely do not understand the consept of Avatars

In 2e, when Gods weren't allowed to have stats, and were depicted as formless ideas without true physical manifestations, I could understand the need for Avatars to give stats to.

I understood it, but I didn't agree with it. I just droped the whole arbitrary idea and gave the stats and physical manifestation to the god itself.

With 3e returning to stated gods with true physical forms I am once again confused as to why we need avatars. Why does the god need a second set of stats? If a god needs to be in 2 places at once, ok, that's what gods do. 2 places, 5 places, 200 places, whatever. They don't need an avatar form to pull it off.

I sersiously hope that D&Dg has a No Avatar option or at least a really good explination of why we need them other than just an arbitrary hold over from previous editions.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Akunin mate!

Balance should never enter into the equation when dealing with the distinction between the mortal and the divine.

I agreed with your other comments though I thought I should point out that WotC members working on D&Dg/ELH have stated that at some point Epic characters exceed Deities in power - though up to now they haven't revealed exactly what they think that distinction should be.

In my estimation it obviously hinges around Divine Rank. While obviously not an accurate comparative Divine Rank must be roughly comparable to a multiple of Epic Levels - for the purpose of determining Challenge Rating.

I proffered +2 Epic Levels is roughly equivalent to +1 Divine Rank (though I forgot to include Divine Rank 0 in my equations) but that is just a best guess at the moment.

eg. Hercules = 40 levels + Divine Rank 5 (treated as 6) could equate to 52 levels.

If you were to assume it was 1 Divine Rank = +3 Levels!?

eg. Hercules = 40 levels + Divine Rank 5 (treated as 6) could equate to 58 levels.

etc.