Miracles of Solkan

[Sword of Solkan]

If you’re playing in my 4th edition game, please stop reading.

Everyone else...

What do you think of the following house rules for Miracles of Solkan in the 4th edition game that I’m GMing? Give me a shout as to whether they sound balanced and appropriate, and whether you’d make any changes?

Miracles of Solkan:

Commination
Range: Fellowship Yards
Targets: 1
Duration: Fellowship Bonus Rounds
You loudly denounce your target as a sinner and reprobate, and call down Solkan’s judgement upon them. If your target is unrighteous in Solkan’s eyes then they gain an Ablaze Condition which cannot be removed by any means for the duration. If the GM rules that Solkan does not consider your target unrighteous then you suffer the effects instead.

Cleansing Flame: as Soulfire (Miracle of Sigmar) but Greenskins do not take the extra +2 Damage.

Avenging Blade: as Sigmar’s Fiery Hammer (Miracle of Sigmar) but your weapon must be a sword.

Ritual of Purification: as Unblemished Innocence (Miracle of Shallya), but if the Miracle is successfully cast and the Target is not a devout worshipper of the Gods of Law (as determined by the GM) then they gain 1 Ablaze Condition for each Corruption Point lost.

The Eyes of the Unrighteous Are Blind Unto Thee: as You Ain’t Seen Me Right (Miracle of Ranald ), but the caster gains 1 Sin Point if used for any other purpose than to visit Solkan’s vengeance upon the unrighteous.

Exorcism: as Daemonbane (Lore of Light), but onlookers are blinded if they are not devout worshippers of the Gods of Law (as determined by the GM) rather then if they do not possess the Arcane Magic (Light) Talent.

[Hyarion]

Overall, not bad. I like the re-use of other abilities (Soulfire/Unblemished Innocence/etc).

My only real concerns are with A) Commination (did you mean Condemnation?) seems a little OP, I might change it to say that the flames can be extinguished with another spell or by dousing with holy water or doing a stop, drop, and roll on hallowed earth.
B) I think you are overly reliant on "as determined by the GM" which is too vague. I would encourage you to come up with a way that it is more easily understood and anticipated by the players.

[Sword of Solkan]

Overall, not bad. I like the re-use of other abilities (Soulfire/Unblemished Innocence/etc).

My only real concerns are with A) Commination (did you mean Condemnation?) seems a little OP, I might change it to say that the flames can be extinguished with another spell or by dousing with holy water or doing a stop, drop, and roll on hallowed earth.
B) I think you are overly reliant on "as determined by the GM" which is too vague. I would encourage you to come up with a way that it is more easily understood and anticipated by the players.

Cheers for the feedback.

“Commination” is an old word, meaning the act of threatening divine vengeance on sinners. Guess it might be a tad obscure, but it seems particularly appropriate for Solkan!

Would you be happier with Commination with the following changes?

Commination
Range: Fellowship Yards
Targets: 1
Duration: Instant
You loudly denounce your target as a sinner and reprobate, naming their sin and calling down Solkan’s judgement upon them. (For example, “Before Mighty Solkan and the Powers of Law, I denounce you as a mutant/ thief/ murderer/ blasphemer etc.”) If your target is unrighteous in Solkan’s eyes then they gain an Ablaze Condition. For every +2 SL you may add an additional Ablaze Condition. If your target is not guilty of the sin that you accuse them of, then you suffer the effects instead.

[Hyarion]

I like that version of Commination a lot more. Powerful, evocative, thematic and easily understood by all parties. I can't wait to hear a story or two about how it went in-game!

[satakuua]

So Solkan is back, in the fourth edition?

[Sword of Solkan]

So Solkan is back, in the fourth edition?

Solkan’s not in any published materials from C7. These would be house rules.

[Orin J.]

i think adding the +2 damage mentioned in cleansing flame to chaos followers would be properly thematic, personally.

[Knight of the Lady]

If you’re playing in my 4th edition game, please stop reading.

Everyone else...

What do you think of the following house rules for Miracles of Solkan in the 4th edition game that I’m GMing? Give me a shout as to whether they sound balanced and appropriate, and whether you’d make any changes?

Miracles of Solkan:

Commination
Range: Fellowship Yards
Targets: 1
Duration: Fellowship Bonus Rounds
You loudly denounce your target as a sinner and reprobate, and call down Solkan’s judgement upon them. If your target is unrighteous in Solkan’s eyes then they gain an Ablaze Condition which cannot be removed by any means for the duration. If the GM rules that Solkan does not consider your target unrighteous then you suffer the effects instead.

I think that its mostly good but one thing stuck out to me, as I've marked in the text. Personally I think that this is to vague and to much down onto personal fiat. Some mechanical or clear line would make more sense here to me. Like maybe if they've got this much Corruption, or if they are priests of Solkan and so on.

The problem I see is that with this kind of loose determination for the subject of the effect is that it can degenerate into a "I think..." vs "But I think..." argument without any clear mechanic to refeer to by the player or GM about who is affected or not. I think that it would be good to either add a clear guideline for who is affect or what Solkan considers to be righteous and not.

I know for example that I personally don't have a clue about what Solkan thinks or does not think is righteous and so I couldn't use this power in my game. Now, if everyone in your game is totally down with the Solkan lore you can ignore my comments, but this is the "problems" that I see with it.

[Totsuzenheni Yukimi]

@Knight of the Lady

Did you see Sword of Solkan's reply to Hyarion above? ( http://windsofchaos.com/forum/viewtopic ... p=779#p772 )

[Orin J.]

The problem I see is that with this kind of loose determination for the subject of the effect is that it can degenerate into a "I think..." vs "But I think..."

unless you've done something terribly wrong with explaining things to your group, it should be understood that what the god decides is the dominion of the GM and second guessing it is second guessing their god. anyone arguing should be shut down pretty much instantly by saying "i'm the GM and i say what your god thinks" and then handing out corruption or sin or something. i like docking XP more than that, but i don't generally care about the group leveling at pace, or evenly.

[Sword of Solkan]

i think adding the +2 damage mentioned in cleansing flame to chaos followers would be properly thematic, personally.

That's a good suggestion, but it's already included in Soulfire (the Miracle of Sigmar that I adapted).

[Sword of Solkan]

The problem I see is that with this kind of loose determination for the subject of the effect is that it can degenerate into a "I think..." vs "But I think..."

unless you've done something terribly wrong with explaining things to your group, it should be understood that what the god decides is the dominion of the GM and second guessing it is second guessing their god. anyone arguing should be shut down pretty much instantly by saying "i'm the GM and i say what your god thinks" and then handing out corruption or sin or something. i like docking XP more than that, but i don't generally care about the group leveling at pace, or evenly.

That was broadly my thinking as well: Solkan's an NPC under the GM's control, and it's down to the GM to determine how Solkan responds to things. As @totsuzenhemi has mentioned, I've now tweaked Commination to be less subjective.

[Knight of the Lady]

@Knight of the Lady

Did you see Sword of Solkan's reply to Hyarion above? ( http://windsofchaos.com/forum/viewtopic ... p=779#p772 )

I didn't in my first read, but I have now.

The problem I see is that with this kind of loose determination for the subject of the effect is that it can degenerate into a "I think..." vs "But I think..."

unless you've done something terribly wrong with explaining things to your group, it should be understood that what the god decides is the dominion of the GM and second guessing it is second guessing their god. anyone arguing should be shut down pretty much instantly by saying "i'm the GM and i say what your god thinks" and then handing out corruption or sin or something. i like docking XP more than that, but i don't generally care about the group leveling at pace, or evenly.

That was broadly my thinking as well: Solkan's an NPC under the GM's control, and it's down to the GM to determine how Solkan responds to things. As @totsuzenhemi has mentioned, I've now tweaked Commination to be less subjective.

Well, I'll be happy to agree that the new version is much clearer. So that would fullfill what I asked for.

[Orin J.]

i think adding the +2 damage mentioned in cleansing flame to chaos followers would be properly thematic, personally.

That's a good suggestion, but it's already included in Soulfire (the Miracle of Sigmar that I adapted).

ah, didn't bother checking the book. maybe skaven then, it'd be a shame to make solkan's version outright weaker than sigmar's. they're certainly chaotic enough to offend him, and the only adventure i know centered around solkan involves them.

[KarlFranzImperius]

Don't know much about 4e's miracles just yet, but I'd have Cleansing Flame deal double (+4) damage to Daemons.