Wandering Monsters: Fairest of Them All

Wandering Monsters
Fairest of Them All
By James Wyatt

Angels. Celestials. Deva. Archons. What do you think of these creatures and their roles in D&D throughout the editions? Take a look at what James has written up for celestials and answer a few questions about the material he presents, plus give us your thoughts on how to handle them in the future.

Talk about this column here.

Fairest of Them All
* CG outsider eladrins could be far ancestors of 4th eladrins (high elves) (becaus both come from feywild) and these ones would use the tittle (the short form of "eladrin blood").

* I would rather the name "aasimar" for PC race with celestial ancestors.

* The 4th Ed angels was a interesting idea, I miss others but the 4th Ed could come back with other name, like heralds, emissaries or kerykes. 

* I think a link betwen guardinals (furry celestials) and faywild could be possible. Some "fallen" guardinals could be interesting...(not necesarially evils but defender of nature too hostile to civilitation, the the red talons tribe from "Werewolf: the apocalypse"). Guardinals could be linked to werebeasts and shifters by primal power.

* One of the most interesting (for me) supervillains were the archangel Zadkiel, enemy of Ghost Rider (marvel comic).






Suriel (DC)




Asmodel (DC)


Tiffany (Spawn´s enemy from Todd McFarlane´s comics, she isn´t a fallen angel but of course she had got very much bad temperate)



* I like the crazy idea some "fallen angels" really are CG eladrins who act like infiltrators...(or betrayers to hell because now they wish redemption). Some erinyes could be one othe best examples..(what if some "redeemed" infernals are infiltrators?).

* I would like the return of "favored soul" PC class like divine equivalent to socerer. It is a archetype with a great potential if it has got the right background (divine ancestors or chosen to carry out a sacred fate).  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

4E PC eladrin are younger members of the eladrin race. Traditional celestial eladrin are just the thousand year old ones.

The plane they it on is less of an issue. If you have a Feywild plane and beings stay there for a few centuries, you become fey.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I continue to really love the Wandering Monsters columns! I think it's great that they are building monsters from first principles, using physical descriptions, behavior, and story...then building the mechanics on top of that.

These celestials are pretty awesome. I see no problem with keeping eladrin and deva as playable races, but I'm not sure if I want them as ultimate core (in the PHB1, that is). As an expansion, though, i'm happy with it.

As for "Evil Angles"....I initially voted to definitely include Evil Angels, and then I changed my mind. I think the term "Evil Angels" is the problem. Maybe "Dark Angels" is better. I know it's subtle, but the two names conjure different images in my head. I guess it's the classic Paladin vs Anti-Paladin debate. That is, if there is a good version of this monster, why can't there be an evil version? I'm okay with all flavors of Angels using the same basic template, but their implementations should be different, not just swapping keywords (good to evil, cure to inflict, etc).

All in all though, reading these story briefs really breathes life into them. I get more and more inspiration for my future campaigns with every article.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

In regards to celestials I much more prefer the 4e approach then the older versions. Note that in regards of eladrin the difference is actually semetics anyway, since in 4e they live in another plane, vary greatly in power with the mightiest being exactly like the eladrin in 3e. It is more that I prefer the "angels as servants of the gods (good or evil)" to the dozens of variants in earlier editions, especially since in the end the differences were moot. Archons, angels, guardinals, eladrin: dozens of variants of servants of good deities that all fullfill the same role. Might as well stick to one name, and make variants just as with demons and devils.
The one thing that I'm not such a big fan of is the connection between angels and Kirin/Metallics/Unicorns/Etc. I understand that they're all typically good creatures and would probably (absent complicating circumstances) help each other out, but it seems weird that if an angel's in trouble it calls a dragon, unless the angel is a servant of Bahamutt.

Dividing angels up by where they operate feels random to me and not a good use of conceptual space. I'd rather they just chuck the concept of angels divided by whether they chill on the material plane or the astral plane or whatever and divide them up by function/potency. I think that's significantly more resonant.

Rather than trying to tie 4e Devas or 4e Eladrin to earlier-edition things that happen to share their names, I'd just rename them rather than trying to shoehorn in a connection. Speaking on behalf of every 4e fan, which is totally something it's my place to do, I'd rather see the concepts just called other things rather than some wonky hybrid solution. Same with elemental archons. I think they're awesome, but if the name is needed elsewhere, just rename them something entirely different. If celestial archons are a thing, elemental archons aren't really a type of archon and don't need a name that suggests a relationship; they can just have a different name. As a 4e fan, I'm much more concerned about as many cool things being in the game as possible is as cool a form as possible than having as many random pointless shoutouts as possible. Chuck the names, keep the ideas. I, at least, would rather have it that way.

I'd also background archons, eladrin and guardinals. They're far less resonant than angels and in many cases not nearly as cool. If I were completely in charge, I'd dumpster guardinals, roll the better archon designs into angel designs, and recycle eladrin as fey things (which most of them basically already are), but that's probably not happening.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I like the Astral domains from 4E much more than the Alignment based planes presented here, but I'm not really bothered because I can just use what I want no matter what is presented in the book.  I think part of the reason is that I don't like the whole "Evil constantly fights Evil, but Good is friends with all Good".  I just find it a little boring.

I have always liked the names Deva, Planetar, and Solar, and so I am happy to see them brought back for Angels.  I also like the idea of using 4E Angel "titles" to describe specific Deva's based on their particular mission.  I very much prefer the artistic angle that 4E took for Angels, in which they are much more Astral beings than humans with wings.  I think it emphasizes their majestic mystery very nicely; when you meet one it is instantly clear that this thing isn't just a person.

I think the grocery list of immunities, resistances, and powers is too much.  It should be included in a sidebar (because I am sure other people do like it), but I think it just raises the complexity too much for too little payoff.  And when the weapons they use are just copies of weapons the PCs can get it really lowers the mystery factor.  If you encounter an angel, there should be a sense of awe, which you don't really have if you just say, "Oh, don't worry, they just use Defending Greatswords."

I like the idea of Angels serving all the gods (and Devils being cursed Angels, but that is another story).  Not only does it make sense to me that all gods would have their emissaries, but it also increases the usefulness of the Angel in most D&D campaigns.  Lastly, the evil gods often have very cool flavor, and I can picture their Angels looking very cool too.  Then again, the idea of Fallen Angels is also really cool, but there is no reason the two ideas can't both exist.  I can easily picture a world in which each god has their own Angels, and at the same time those Angels are not perfect.  They have their own thoughts and motivations, and it is possible for them to betray their masters and defect.  Both good Angels turned to evil and evil Angels turned to good make for very interesting NPCs.

I really like elemental Archons, and so I am glad to hear that they will most likely be a part of D&D Next.  I don't even care if they need to share the name "archon".
1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight. Second, I don't think world-building belongs in an at all.

That said, I like the 4E approach to all of it. Things in the feywild were Good, but Dangerous. They'd attack you.

All Gods had their own servants "Angels" even the evil ones. It kept Gods on a different area than demons or devils.

I don't like Great-wheeling the design, where we need to have some CR 20 creature of every alignment.

Last, the 4E monsters were fun to play with. In previous games, if an angel showed up, it was narrative - we didn't fight it. There was no point to having a stat-block. In my 4E campaign, Angels had a combat function coupled with a good narrative.

An angel of justice might try to smite the PCs for their lack of it. You might all be "good" but there was a potential for conflict.

For whatever reason, previous incarnations of angels were wasted ink to me. And I never bothered at all with Celestial Archons.
The name Archon for me has been firmly cemented to the concept presented in Starcraft.  It's hard to accept much of anything else as being nearly as cool.

POWER OVERWHELMING
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight. Second, I don't think world-building belongs in an at all.

That said, I like the 4E approach to all of it. Things in the feywild were Good, but Dangerous. They'd attack you.

All Gods had their own servants "Angels" even the evil ones. It kept Gods on a different area than demons or devils.

I don't like Great-wheeling the design, where we need to have some CR 20 creature of every alignment.

Last, the 4E monsters were fun to play with. In previous games, if an angel showed up, it was narrative - we didn't fight it. There was no point to having a stat-block. In my 4E campaign, Angels had a combat function coupled with a good narrative.

An angel of justice might try to smite the PCs for their lack of it. You might all be "good" but there was a potential for conflict.

For whatever reason, previous incarnations of angels were wasted ink to me. And I never bothered at all with Celestial Archons.

Maybe your group wouldn't fight them, but it doesn't mean someone else's wouldn't. Or better yet, the Angel comes to help your party...ok, how? what are his stats?

The monsters make up the world. It's in the name of the game (hint, it's the second D). Without all the different flavors of monsters in the game, it really wouldn't be classic D&D. We need to know more about monsters than just their stats. What are their motivations? What do they look like? How do they perceive different races? Without these things, you might as well be fighting a bunch of faceless combat things. It's not called "Dungeons and Level 20 Flying Monsters"

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight.

Not all encounters need to be combat. Sometimes the party will encounter Something that they might interact with that would require the DM to have some stats handy.

Also, an evil party might encounter good creatures in a combat situation. Even celestial beings.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I went with all the 4e stuff as my preference.  Although I think 1e and 2e AD&D are my favorite versions of the rules the World Axis cosmology makes more sense than anything I have seen previously in D&D.  I don't want dog headed angels, and I want to see high elves at least originate from the Feywild, and elemental archons remain as more interesting versions of the more generic elementals.  I also don't think angels have to be good.  The etymological meaning of the word is from the greek angelos "messenger, envoy, one that announces."  Nowhere is any mention of good present in the greek word which is used to translate the hebrew mal'akh "messenger (of Jehovah)," which also makes no mention of good except as it is understood that God is good and his servants must be.  In a world where there are many gods of differing alignments it makes sense that their messengers...angels...would be of similar alignment as the deity themselves.
Most of the time, interacting with high level celestial beings and requiring their stat blocks, is a corner case. (Argument from anecdote).

You just don't see these guys all the time and need full MM entries on their motivations, ecology, organization, etc. When you meet one, it does what the DM wants it to do.

I think an angel entry ought to be "faceless flying creature - level 20" with a side bar about re-skinning to fit your plot.

Anything else is taking pages away from monsters I'd actually use (argument for personal preference).

I've argued opinion only - my logic on this issue is limited, because this is inherently a matter of taste.

(I do, however, absolutely respect others' opinions on taste, even while I disagree).
It's nice to see that the Solar has arrows of slaying again.


1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight.

Not all encounters need to be combat. Sometimes the party will encounter Something that they might interact with that would require the DM to have some stats handy.

Also, an evil party might encounter good creatures in a combat situation. Even celestial beings.


Also, it's not impossible to use NPCs from the Monster Manual in combat but not have the PCs fighting them.  They can be allied, and to use them for that purpose they need to have stats.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I would like celestial creatures could be allies, under extroardinary exceptional circusmtances of course.

* Could the "favored soul" PC class be renamed "exalted", "herald" or "imbued"?

 When high elves die.... do they become petitioner in the afterlife... and later do they involve to eladrin outsider eladrin? 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

They all have magic resistance and resist weapon damage unless the weapon is magical.


Why is "magic" being treated as a keyword? Take your average magic item, like a dreamcatcher. It's a stick bent into circle and tied up with strings. It has no enchantments to make it sharper, no magics to make it burst into flame, it's not any sturdier than a normal stick, it isn't holy or demonic. It would break the first time you hit anything with it. Its only magic is to ward off bad dreams. There is no good reason this flimsy stick should deal extra damage against angels - yet because it has the "magic" keyword, it penetrates the angel's resistance when used as an improvised weapon.


Giving creatures a weakness to magic weapons confers an ability to magic items that the designers never intended. It is better to give those creatures a weakness to the effects of magic, rather than the magic itself. If you want your angels to have a weakness to demonic swords or something, make demonic swords that deal unholy damage. Don't accidentally give them a weakness to dreamcatchers.

(Edit: Yeah, that has no real bearing on angels in particular. It's just a peeve of mine.) 

One of the best things I've read yet about 5th Ed,  just when I was getting a bit disillusioned, what with the last packet, this has perked my interest way back up, all the monsters are as they should be, and loving the abilities and spells mentioned for the different monsters.

Next, bring on Modrons, Rilmani and Slaad!

You could already start building them now (with the info he gave us), that's the great thing about 5th Ed for me so far, ease of conversion (I have already done the modrons).
Of course angels can be dark, evil, fallen etc... there is Malkazid

 http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Malkizid

 

They all have magic resistance and resist weapon damage unless the weapon is magical.


Why is "magic" being treated as a keyword? Take your average magic item, like a dreamcatcher. It's a stick bent into circle and tied up with strings. It has no enchantments to make it sharper, no magics to make it burst into flame, it's not any sturdier than a normal stick, it isn't holy or demonic. It would break the first time you hit anything with it. Its only magic is to ward off bad dreams. There is no good reason this flimsy stick should deal extra damage against angels - yet because it has the "magic" keyword, it penetrates the angel's resistance when used as an improvised weapon.


Giving creatures a weakness to magic weapons confers an ability to magic items that the designers never intended. It is better to give those creatures a weakness to the effects of magic, rather than the magic itself. If you want your angels to have a weakness to demonic swords or something, make demonic swords that deal unholy damage. Don't accidentally give them a weakness to dreamcatchers.

(Edit: Yeah, that has no real bearing on angels in particular. It's just a peeve of mine.) 


That it's difficult to damage many powerful creatures with mundane weapons goes back to older editions. I don't know if it's an attempt to model something in particular or if it's a weird gating mechanism or something, but like a lot of things it just goes back to some random old rule.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Magic resistance and resistance to nonmagical weapons is already in 5th Ed.
Angels are hallow, they enforce the will and power of their keepers, as with their alignment. 

The difference between a good Angel and an evil, is simply who they serve.  The be "fallen" simply means they have changed masters.

∴ "Virtus junxit, mors non separabit." 

I'm inclined toward keeping Angels in their "Servants of the Gods" roles from 4e, as long as their lore is cleaned up and clarified so that they can be used as more than just "moar fitin".

However,

I'd also want to keep the Guardianals, Eladrin, and Archons in the game as they were prior to 4e. Celestial beings that work for the cause of good, rather than any particular deity; and each with their own way of doing it (that may occasionally come in to conflict with the others. Because Good doesn't always mean nice)  
The name Archon for me has been firmly cemented to the concept presented in Starcraft.  It's hard to accept much of anything else as being nearly as cool.

POWER OVERWHELMING



You get +1 internets.
My two copper.
I was noticing that this article was as a tad general on the pontential relationship to divine eneties. I would like to see some general stuff so that I could crearte some realistic strife between different kinds of celestials on other god like beings in D&D.

on the 4e Archons you should mention the posibility of elementals that look like all sorts of natural creatures. (If you were wondering where this thought came from, I was thinking about the 4e archons and more general elementals and my brain thought hell hounds.)(brain in a meaninglees attempt to create other animalistic elemetal creatures thought up rocktapus and beryljays)
Over all, not too bad. Once again it's good to see movement back towards classic D&D creatures and the classic nine alignment system. Archons, guardinals, and eladrin as manifestations of LG, NG, and CG, and then angels/aasimon as servitors not of an alignment in specific, but servitors of the good deities.

This having been said, as far as deific servitors go, I would retain angels as servitors of the good gods, but I would also utilize unique servitors for various gods, especially so for those that wouldn't fit well with having good aligned angels. Even for good aligned gods, I wouldn't restrict their servitors to being exclusively angels.

As far as throwing a bone to fans of the 4e "archons" and "eladrin", that's a tough question since for the archons, 4e removed the classic archons from the game and recycled their name for a completely different monster. That's awkward to say the least. It's probably best to bring back classic LG archons and bring the 4e "archons" back with a completely different name, and no connection to the original and future archons. Eladrin likewise, since the classic exemplars of CG don't really match well except on the surface perhaps with the various tropes encapsulated by fey legends, and except for 4e making them into different creatures more or less, they've never been associated with fey. They shared a home plane with the elven gods/the seldarine, but elves haven't ever really been fey in D&D either. But, that aside, I did appreciate the -idea- of 4e promoting the fey and a faerie plane, just not the implimentation of it in all cases (such as recycling eladrin out of their original, classic context and role).

So while it's probably best for the game's acceptance to bring back the classic CG eladrin celestials, it's probably a good idea to also have a faerie plane (though to be fair, there was already a seelie and unseelie court in 2e, and an optional faerie demiplane in 3e as well). I'd include it, but possibly make it an optional inclusion (I'd probably use it, similar to the First World in Pathfinder), while also bringing back the CG Eladrin of Arborea (and leaving any connection between the true fey, eladrin celestials, and mortal elves as entirely speculation).
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
on the 4e Archons you should mention the posibility of elementals that look like all sorts of natural creatures.



I'd suggest the designers take a look at 2e's animentals from the PSMCIII (really the whole book is pretty amazing for ideas on the elemental planes).
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
"Unlike demons and devils, angels can't be summoned to the Material Plane. They travel there only at the pleasure of a deity, and movanic devas are the angels most often chosen for that purpose. Five main types of angels exist: three varieties of deva used as agents on specific planar regions (movanic devas on the Material Plane, monadic devas on the Ethereal and Inner Planes, and astral devas on the Lower Planes), planetars, and the mighty solars."

Its almost like they don't bother to read their own previous editions. In epic 3.xE Clerics got spells that could summon Solars and Planetars to do their bidding. There are other mistakes in the article, but I'm not going to bother pointing them out.

Suffice it to say each time they get something wrong like this, I lose more and more confidence in their skills...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I like the Astral domains from 4E much more than the Alignment based planes presented here, but I'm not really bothered because I can just use what I want no matter what is presented in the book.  I think part of the reason is that I don't like the whole "Evil constantly fights Evil, but Good is friends with all Good".  I just find it a little boring.

I have always liked the names Deva, Planetar, and Solar, and so I am happy to see them brought back for Angels.  I also like the idea of using 4E Angel "titles" to describe specific Deva's based on their particular mission.  I very much prefer the artistic angle that 4E took for Angels, in which they are much more Astral beings than humans with wings.  I think it emphasizes their majestic mystery very nicely; when you meet one it is instantly clear that this thing isn't just a person.

I think the grocery list of immunities, resistances, and powers is too much.  It should be included in a sidebar (because I am sure other people do like it), but I think it just raises the complexity too much for too little payoff.  And when the weapons they use are just copies of weapons the PCs can get it really lowers the mystery factor.  If you encounter an angel, there should be a sense of awe, which you don't really have if you just say, "Oh, don't worry, they just use Defending Greatswords."

I like the idea of Angels serving all the gods (and Devils being cursed Angels, but that is another story).  Not only does it make sense to me that all gods would have their emissaries, but it also increases the usefulness of the Angel in most D&D campaigns.  Lastly, the evil gods often have very cool flavor, and I can picture their Angels looking very cool too.  Then again, the idea of Fallen Angels is also really cool, but there is no reason the two ideas can't both exist.  I can easily picture a world in which each god has their own Angels, and at the same time those Angels are not perfect.  They have their own thoughts and motivations, and it is possible for them to betray their masters and defect.  Both good Angels turned to evil and evil Angels turned to good make for very interesting NPCs.

I really like elemental Archons, and so I am glad to hear that they will most likely be a part of D&D Next.  I don't even care if they need to share the name "archon".



I'd rather see a trait they get that turns any weapon they pick up into +1d10 flaming +1d8 holy weapons or something...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think part of the reason is that I don't like the whole "Evil constantly fights Evil, but Good is friends with all Good".  I just find it a little boring.



I would suggest taking a look at either the 2e presentation of the topic, where the celestials are very much divided upon the Chaos/Law axis, but unlike fiends avoid open conflict. The celestials' relationship to one another is presented as complex and nuanced, and hopefully 5e will take some cues from it. Similarly, Pathfinder hews close to that style, but with more conflict between all of the various alignments, not a monolithic CE versus LE (such as major conflicts between CE versus CN, CN versus LN, CG versus LE, etc).
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
I think part of the reason is that I don't like the whole "Evil constantly fights Evil, but Good is friends with all Good".  I just find it a little boring.



I would suggest taking a look at either the 2e presentation of the topic, where the celestials are very much divided upon the Chaos/Law axis, but unlike fiends avoid open conflict. The celestials' relationship to one another is presented as complex and nuanced, and hopefully 5e will take some cues from it. Similarly, Pathfinder hews close to that style, but with more conflict between all of the various alignments, not a monolithic CE versus LE (such as major conflicts between CE versus CN, CN versus LN, CG versus LE, etc).

Meh, I'm just really not interested in alignment based conflicts. 

Please don't be offended if you really like them.  It just isn't for me.  As I've said before, I don't even mind if it becomes the core cosmology in D&D Next.  I've got enough 4E material to help me make my own cosmology.

They need an article (or a playtest packet), preferably with some surveys, that expounds on their intentional handling of the cosmology/cosmogony in 5e.

Otherwise, most discussions of planar races are rendered fairly moot, imho.
I'm still hoping for a vague and generalized cosmology.  Shove the World Axis stuff to a PoL book and Great Wheel to Planescape, please!  I'd rather a generic template with settings to pop over it.  That way, less chance of shoehorning like in 3e and 4e.  Plus, I'd rather have fey plane as option instead of core, but that's just me.  Anyway, the lacking of Aasimar make me sad.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
Anyway, the lacking of Aasimar make me sad.




They still might be in, maybe under planetouched (along with tieflings and all the others, I hope), they are not on the same level as proper celestials, and are a PC race. 

This having been said, as far as deific servitors go, I would retain angels as servitors of the good gods, but I would also utilize unique servitors for various gods, especially so for those that wouldn't fit well with having good aligned angels. Even for good aligned gods, I wouldn't restrict their servitors to being exclusively angels.



Yeah, were not Maruts servants of the gods?

This having been said, as far as deific servitors go, I would retain angels as servitors of the good gods, but I would also utilize unique servitors for various gods, especially so for those that wouldn't fit well with having good aligned angels. Even for good aligned gods, I wouldn't restrict their servitors to being exclusively angels.



Yeah, were not Maruts servants of the gods?



Originally servitors of Rudra in 2e, and later to other gods of Law. That evolved a bit in 3.x where they became one of a collective group of inevitables, which for various reasons ended up being portrayed as the primary representatives of LN, rather than the modrons (though modrons were referenced and appeared later on). But the 3.x inevitables were still servitors of the abstract principle of Law, rather than just various lawful gods. Similarly in Pathfinder, the inevitables were created by the primary LN outsiders, axiomites, as servitors.
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
A indirect way to summon celestial could be possible. If a spellcaster makes a epic fail...he would suffer a effect like scroll mishaps (do you rebember the paradox from "Mage: the Ascesion" and "Mage: the socerer crusade?"). That mistake what has offended some deity could cause a celestial creature were summoned to punish the offender.

PCs could use some special power to favor that posibility. (it would be like using a mobile or a phone to call police). 

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

A indirect way to summon celestial could be possible. If a spellcaster makes a epic fail...he would suffer a effect like scroll mishaps (do you rebember the paradox from "Mage: the Ascesion" and "Mage: the socerer crusade?"). That mistake what has offended some deity could cause a celestial creature were summoned to punish the offender.

PCs could use some special power to favor that posibility. (it would be like using a mobile or a phone to call police). 

 


What I got from that is that Celestials could never be summoned unwillingly, unlike demons and devils. Rituals might exist, but it's up to the celestial being contacted to answer the request. But again, my interpretation.
My two copper.
1st, I don't see the point in including creatures in an MM that you wouldn't actually fight. Second, I don't think world-building belongs in an at all. That said, I like the 4E approach to all of it. Things in the feywild were Good, but Dangerous. They'd attack you. All Gods had their own servants "Angels" even the evil ones. It kept Gods on a different area than demons or devils. I don't like Great-wheeling the design, where we need to have some CR 20 creature of every alignment. Last, the 4E monsters were fun to play with. In previous games, if an angel showed up, it was narrative - we didn't fight it. There was no point to having a stat-block. In my 4E campaign, Angels had a combat function coupled with a good narrative. An angel of justice might try to smite the PCs for their lack of it. You might all be "good" but there was a potential for conflict. For whatever reason, previous incarnations of angels were wasted ink to me. And I never bothered at all with Celestial Archons.



I thought that was a big problem with 4e actually; reducing every monster in the book to something that is meant to be a combat obstacle.  The years of D&D fluff were changed simply because of the idea that if something could not be fought it had no purpose.

It was one of the reasons I rejected 4e.  There are plenty of groups that need statistics for good monsters for various different reasons.  The monster Manual is an important tool for world building, not just combat.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Most of the time, interacting with high level celestial beings and requiring their stat blocks, is a corner case. (Argument from anecdote). You just don't see these guys all the time and need full MM entries on their motivations, ecology, organization, etc. When you meet one, it does what the DM wants it to do. I think an angel entry ought to be "faceless flying creature - level 20" with a side bar about re-skinning to fit your plot. Anything else is taking pages away from monsters I'd actually use (argument for personal preference). I've argued opinion only - my logic on this issue is limited, because this is inherently a matter of taste. (I do, however, absolutely respect others' opinions on taste, even while I disagree).



There are plenty of people that would use angels though. 

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Over all, not too bad. Once again it's good to see movement back towards classic D&D creatures and the classic nine alignment system. Archons, guardinals, and eladrin as manifestations of LG, NG, and CG, and then angels/aasimon as servitors not of an alignment in specific, but servitors of the good deities.

This having been said, as far as deific servitors go, I would retain angels as servitors of the good gods, but I would also utilize unique servitors for various gods, especially so for those that wouldn't fit well with having good aligned angels. Even for good aligned gods, I wouldn't restrict their servitors to being exclusively angels.

As far as throwing a bone to fans of the 4e "archons" and "eladrin", that's a tough question since for the archons, 4e removed the classic archons from the game and recycled their name for a completely different monster. That's awkward to say the least. It's probably best to bring back classic LG archons and bring the 4e "archons" back with a completely different name, and no connection to the original and future archons. Eladrin likewise, since the classic exemplars of CG don't really match well except on the surface perhaps with the various tropes encapsulated by fey legends, and except for 4e making them into different creatures more or less, they've never been associated with fey. They shared a home plane with the elven gods/the seldarine, but elves haven't ever really been fey in D&D either. But, that aside, I did appreciate the -idea- of 4e promoting the fey and a faerie plane, just not the implimentation of it in all cases (such as recycling eladrin out of their original, classic context and role).

So while it's probably best for the game's acceptance to bring back the classic CG eladrin celestials, it's probably a good idea to also have a faerie plane (though to be fair, there was already a seelie and unseelie court in 2e, and an optional faerie demiplane in 3e as well). I'd include it, but possibly make it an optional inclusion (I'd probably use it, similar to the First World in Pathfinder), while also bringing back the CG Eladrin of Arborea (and leaving any connection between the true fey, eladrin celestials, and mortal elves as entirely speculation).




+1000 to this


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Sign In to post comments