[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Boron:
i think it would
1. overpower marignon which has it as starting spell and already good enough against undead / demons . the holy damage already exists in form of the holy spell smite demon this is enough .

Wouldn't overpower Marignon at all as a starting spell - it'd only make it somewhat effective against devils / demons, which one is generally not going against early in the game.


2. if it would be really so powerful it would imbalance the whole game especially if the damage would be (14+2d6 oe)x3 as caine supposes in his possibility 2 .


How would it imbalance the game? The damage is already being tripled against undead and demons, and would continue to use whatever math is currently used, simply shifting the extra damage to holy damage instead of fire.


if demons further on even couldn't get fire immunity via items it would be really unbalancing.


They'd still have fire immunity. Fireballs, etc, still have no effect on them. We're only talking about one spell that is supposed to be very effective against undead and demons.


if it is made holy damage instead demons / undeads should be given the ability to get 100% holy resistance too.
and for thematic reasons the arch demons / undead/devil pretenders should start with 50% already or even 100% .
because they are so evil and strong that they should easily find a way to protect against unimportant holy units like priests.


First - "unimportant holy units like priests" can't cast Holy Pyre. It's only fairly powerful (Fire 2) mages who can cast it. As others have said - what priests have is Smite Demon, which anything more powerful than a rodent-sized imp shrugs off already because of magic resistance.

About them being able to resist holy damage 100% - why? Can liches, vampire queens, the Prince of Death resist the 'Dust to Dust' or 'Wither Bones' spells? No. Why should devils get near invulnerability to everything more easily than various undead Pretenders?