# Hordes of the Abyss.



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

So I'm just paging through the book now.

They deliberately made the demon lords weaker.   

Something about making them more viable for 20th level play as opposed to epic play.   

They also include demon lords from Dragon, and yes, they appear to be weaker too. Lady of Fungi I think is now CR  21. 

And they reuse art like the cover from Dungeon and the old Orcus piece.

On a skim I am not happy.


----------



## glass (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> So I'm just paging through the book now.
> 
> They deliberately made the demon lords weaker.



I thought they were going to make them scalable to different CRs. Did they not do that?


glass.


----------



## Tsillanabor (May 26, 2006)

Crud-I thought the BoVD versions were too weak already myself.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> So I'm just paging through the book now.
> 
> They deliberately made the demon lords weaker.
> 
> ...




 

I hope what glass said is true, because wimpy demon lords would be a major disappointment for me.


----------



## Piratecat (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona, come give us insight! I don't _care_ that it's 5am in Seattle, we want you _now_. . .

What if I say "Erik Erik Erik"?


----------



## Piratecat (May 26, 2006)

Crap. Erik's now standing behind me in his pajamas, and he looks _pissed._


----------



## Einan (May 26, 2006)

Just Thank God he wears pajamas...

Einan


----------



## Piratecat (May 26, 2006)

If anyone makes a "Rod of Orcus" joke about now, they're _so_ getting banned. 

Ahem.

Back on topic.


----------



## Evilhalfling (May 26, 2006)

Hurah for more wimpy demon lords! 
The highest level I have ever played to, is my current 16th level game.  
Epic stats have no real use for me.  If I want unkillable Lords, I will just handwave unkillability - 
I will prolly use the stated creatures as Avatars - or due to my revised cosmology as lesser lords (which has only 6 true lords that are effectivley evil gods) - handwaving applied. 

However... 
CR 21 does seem a little low - if 2 Balors can kill it is it really a lord? 
Scalable seems like a better option, at least in dungeon it would seem to take up little space.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 26, 2006)

Depowering the demon lords (especially compared to "official" _Dragon_ versions) is extremely unexpected, but does make a certain amount of sense. People HATED _Deities and Demigods_ is part because it spent so much space on stat blocks that hardly anyone would ever use. Personally, I have no interest in running an epic campaign, and I think that I am part of the vast majority of players here. High level, yes, I'd like to do that, but nothing much above 21st level or so. 

So as much as I might enjoy gawking at a CR 36 Orcus, at the end of the day all those epic stats are useless to me.

I would have expected Paizo and WotC to be more in synch on something this. Maybe Erik or James can shed more light on to this.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

If you want underpowered demon lords, then use their "Aspect" as something to fight.

I thought the lords' CRs were well set in the BoVD.  I was hoping the new book would update the stats to 3.5, but never thought it would nerf the demon lords.  

That is so wrong!


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

The weakening of demon lords is criminal.

Reuse of BoVD Orcus art is criminal as well.

Interest--

EDIT: Hey Joe, i know you hate fluff, but what is the fluff:crunch ratio in the book? Do the stats take up so much space as to overshadow the rest of the book (a la D&DG), or are they a relatively minor part of the book (20 pages or less)?


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> However...
> CR 21 does seem a little low - if 2 Balors can kill it is it really a lord?




Exactly!  Each Demon Lord's lieutenants would turn on him so fast that there wouldn't be any demon lords!


----------



## Gold Roger (May 26, 2006)

Is there a passage that states that those are the stats are for the demon lords outside of their domain?

It certainly would make sense.

For me personaly the choice of lower CR demon lords is a good one. There's no way I'd ever play above level 20. But I might like to end a campaign with confronting a demon lord (outside of his domain). For me defeating a demon lord isn't about fighting a monster with big-o-stats at level 25. It's about getting them out of their domain, defeat the monster with big-o-stats at level 20 and make sure it doesn't return (most likely finding a way to imprison it's soul after defeating it, so it can't return home).

Leaving behind the notion of lower power demon lords, which is propably a matter of choice, some reused art isn't really a reason to damn the book.

There's still the descriptions of many layers, that we've seen are propably excellent and lots of new demons and stuff. So quickly mister JoeGKushner, give us some more info.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Leaving behind the notion of lower power demon lords, which is propably a matter of choice, some reused art isn't really a reason to damn the book.




It's a book about fiends - of course we have to damn the book!


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

Hey, I am an archdevil. Damnation is my line of business.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 26, 2006)

> Exactly! Each Demon Lord's lieutenants would turn on him so fast that there wouldn't be any demon lords!



So the demon lords must carefully play politics to keep their minions in line, just as a human lord has to. Makes sense to me. Orcus keeps his minions happy (or fearful), so that if one were to suggest to another, "Hey, you know, you and I together could easily kill the Master," the other would turn him in to Orcus. The traitor would be destroyed, the snitch would be rewarded, and Orcus retains his position.

Hasn't it been stated many times, in many sources, that the Lower Lords keep their power as much through guile as strength?

Quasqueton


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> The weakening of demon lords is criminal.
> 
> Reuse of BoVD Orcus art is criminal as well.
> 
> ...




It's not that I hate fluff. I loved Ed Greenwood's Nine Hells for example.

On the other hand...

1. I've played a long time. Hell, just mentioning Ed Greenwood's articles shows a lot of 'historical' distance in terms of RPGing.

2. My opinion on what's well written and what's not vary tremendously from others.

At the moment, I couldn't give you a fluff/crunch ratio because I don't have it with me. I was writing up my review for PHB 2 (kinda love/hate thing going there) and had the Dragon mag with zuggy in it and looked at how she is in the Abyss book. Wasn't too happy. Looked at the starting section for demon lords and got the explanation.

I'll be reading this one over the weekend and posting more thoughts on it as I go along. Lots of options for GMs to make demons more interesting but for me... 

1. Dragon has done a fantastic job of this including Seven Deadly Sins, and articles on how to use demons for different areas.

2. Role Aids did a great line of demon monster books and two fairly large source books for it's time.

3. Planescape did some fantastic stuff for Demons.

Off the top of my head, does anyone know what the name of the demon that balor's were supposed to fear? The one that keept people in the Blood War when they deserted? Was it the wolf headed thing with the snake head? If so, he also got nerfed to a CR 19.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head, does anyone know what the name of the demon that balor's were supposed to fear? The one that keept people in the Blood War when they deserted? Was it the wolf headed thing with the snake head? If so, he also got nerfed to a CR 19.




Molydeus. Sounds like.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head, does anyone know what the name of the demon that balor's were supposed to fear? The one that keept people in the Blood War when they deserted? Was it the wolf headed thing with the snake head? If so, he also got nerfed to a CR 19.




Molydeus.

Well, if I was a backstabbing incarnation of evil I'd fear a creature of my kind that is only slightly weaker. Plus, they may have a paper-scissor relationship. Again, this may tick of purists, epic level fans and demons-must-be-awesomists (which are all fine stances) it works to my advantage. I've simply got no use for super high CR badies. They are still quite awesome in general context, but usable for average Joe gamer.


----------



## Joshua Randall (May 26, 2006)

Screw the CRs; does the book have info on how to use the demon lords as catalysts for interesting adventures?


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Besides the molydeus, what other new demons appear?

What are the other two demonic races (non-tanar'ri) like?


----------



## Zarnam (May 26, 2006)

Hmmm...I now you're not supposed to spoiler stuff and such, but....I MUST ASK !! Is Vucarik or Lupercio described ?? If yes, what CR ranges they got ??  

Oh, and the CR 25 demon from Fiend Folio wasn't a *Molydeus* but *Klurichir*


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So the demon lords must carefully play politics to keep their minions in line, just as a human lord has to. Makes sense to me. Orcus keeps his minions happy (or fearful), so that if one were to suggest to another, "Hey, you know, you and I together could easily kill the Master," the other would turn him in to Orcus. The traitor would be destroyed, the snitch would be rewarded, and Orcus retains his position.
> 
> Hasn't it been stated many times, in many sources, that the Lower Lords keep their power as much through guile as strength?
> 
> Quasqueton




That's a good point, but even the "lower" lords have a CR higher than a (base) balor.  

Of course, if you use the 3.0 balor then the lower CRs are more in line.  

Which means that for my purposes, I'm probably going to use the 3.5 MM demons with the 3.0 BOVD demon lords, while those that want lower powered demon lords may do well to use the 3.0 demons in the MM with the 3.5 demon lords in Hordes of the Abyss.

What a mess!


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> Hmmm...I now you're not supposed to spoiler stuff and such, but....I MUST ASK !! Is Vucarik or Lupercio described ?? If yes, what CR ranges they got ??
> 
> Oh, and the CR 25 demon from Fiend Folio wasn't a *Molydeus* but *Klurichir*




Since he mentioned the wolf and snake head, it doesn't sound to me like anyone was talking about the (snore) Klurichir.

Sorry, I guess fiends is one place where I am rather old school*. I haven't found any of WotCs 3e fiendish additions to be that interesting, but found their ommissions and modifications vexing. Weak ultroloths? Four armed nycoloths? Bleh!**

* - Yes, I am calling 1e/2e "old school." OD&D falls under the rubric of "fossils" for me. 
** - Yes I know they fixed the former. The latter error still remains...


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Besides the molydeus, what other new demons appear?
> 
> What are the other two demonic races (non-tanar'ri) like?




It's a pretty nice list. One of my old favorites ,the goristro appears. I loved that thing since it's first apperance in Dragon under Gygax's pen. 

I'll make a note to take down some notes to better answer some of these questions.

One of the nice things is that it does include a 'master' list of demons that have appeared in varous products including the abyssal drake of the draconomicon!


----------



## glass (May 26, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> Oh, and the CR 25 demon from Fiend Folio wasn't a *Molydeus* but *Klurichir*



No, the Molydeus was from the 2e Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium Appendix, aka MC8 (and possibly other sources before that). AFAIC, it has never been printed for 3.x before.


glass.


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Weak ultroloths? Four armed nycoloths? Bleh!**
> 
> * - Yes, I am calling 1e/2e "old school." OD&D falls under the rubric of "fossils" for me.
> ** - Yes I know they fixed the former. The latter error still remains...




I'd hardly call the MMIII version "fixed".   :\


----------



## glass (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Since he mentioned the wolf and snake head, it doesn't sound to me like anyone was talking about the (snore) Klurichir.



What was wrong with the the Klurichir? I don't have FF, but when I flisked through it they looked OK to me.


glass.


----------



## Zarnam (May 26, 2006)

Whooops, sorry, didn't notice the snake head bit, my bad  

Yes Joe, I'd be soooo very much obliged if you could check those boys for me   

If you have some time though, you could also check for Verin, Lynkhab, Pale Night and Alvarez   

Thanks a lot !!


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> I'd hardly call the MMIII version "fixed".   :\




Sheesh... I head one comment off at the pass, I get another. 

At any rate, 18 HD is better'n 12 (what an insult.)

But in a way, I agree. I like the old 1e flavor text talking about them being able to summon just about anything.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> What was wrong with the the Klurichir? I don't have FF, but when I flisked through it they looked OK to me.




They looked "OK" to me, too.

But to me, if you're gonna make a demon beat out the classic Balor, the concept had be better'n "OK".  I just found them dull.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> Whooops, sorry, didn't notice the snake head bit, my bad
> 
> Yes Joe, I'd be soooo very much obliged if you could check those boys for me
> 
> ...





I know off the top of my head that Pale Night is there. She's seen as a 'mother' figure but mother of what varies depending on whose  telling the tale. Doesn't have her own plane but has a part of one of the other demon lord's plane that is left alone for what reasons no one knows.


----------



## Zarnam (May 26, 2006)

and her CR is...??


----------



## heirodule (May 26, 2006)

Are there Thrall PrCs reprinted? I don't have BoVd, so I'm hoping there will be a few included.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 26, 2006)

The nerfing is a real issue with me.  I just canceled my pre-order.


----------



## Mr.Black (May 26, 2006)

Somehow I doubt they could make the demon lords weaker or more uninspired than the demon lords from BOVD.  

How did you get your book so early?


----------



## Erik Mona (May 26, 2006)

I don't have my drafts in front of me and I didn't write the demon lord section in any event, but I'm pretty sure that the turnover had the implication that the weaker stats were for demon lords outside their home plane. Looking over the printed book, it looks like that's not the case, but I should add that there's a section on advancing the demon lords into epic levels for folks who are interested in playing that kind of challenge, and we certainly plan to continue with the higher-CR demon lords in Dragon (unless someone at WotC tells us not to).

In my campaign, the roughly CR 20 demon lords in "Hordes of the Abyss" would reflect the most powerful aspects of the demon lords outside their home layers, where they would be significantly more powerful. That said, these guys are considerably powerful. Demogorgon, for example, has 499 hit points and 27 Hit Dice, which makes him pretty damn tough. I'd argue that these stats make Demogorgon more useful to 90% of D&D campaigns, since far fewer players seem to run epic level games than seem to run psionics, and psionics fans are a tiny subset of D&D players.

If you are foolish enough to challenge Demogorgon in his lair in Gaping Maw (like, say, at the end of the Savage Tide Adventure Path), I think you can assume that he will be a good deal tougher than this. If, on the other hand, you're using him as the "big bad" in a traditional D&D campaign, a CR 30 stat block isn't entirely helpful.

--Erik Mona


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

> and we certainly plan to continue with the higher-CR demon lords in Dragon (unless someone at WotC tells us not to).




?

Why? If that's the way the official book on the demon lords is going, why would the official magazine confuse matters by not following a simliar formula, especially when latter on in your own post you note 







> If, on the other hand, you're using him as the "big bad" in a traditional D&D campaign, a CR 30 stat block isn't entirely helpful.



 ? 

Either pick the higher level CR and go with it or make it useful for the 'traditional D&D campaign'.


----------



## jester47 (May 26, 2006)

TOC us Joe!  Then we can get over the nerfing and see what other things are in there.  

I could care less about demon lord stats.  The way I see it, demon lords are quasi divine.  I would say divine rank 6.  I would say (like for Orcus) that you have three incarnation variants of a demon lord - 

Aspect - the aspect stats
Avatar - The stats presented in Hordes of the abyss
Incarnation - the stats presented in Dragon and (like in the case of Orcus) Tome of Horrors
True Being - the stats above but with divine rank 6.

The other thing is, if you don't want the demon lord to be killable, don't use the stats, or just say that killing a demon lord is like killing an concept, it will disappear for a while but eventually return.  The Demons under the demon lords know this, and so do not rebel.

Or whatever. 

I am looking forward to this book for the non demon lord demons, and assorted locations and rules for using demons.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> If, on the other hand, you're using him as the "big bad" in a traditional D&D campaign, a CR 30 stat block isn't entirely helpful.
> 
> --Erik Mona




For my group, it's very helpful.  We've played an epic campaign and Demogorgon *is* the big bad at the end.  We're fighting him in his Abysm -  I most certainly need him to be CR 30!    

I can live with the "lesser powered outside the home plane" theory, though.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Heh.

This is the other side of the "stat blocks for gods arguments."

And as someone who has often commented that the stats in DDG are so overpowered as to be useless for all but the most vanishingly rare campaign, I'd be hypocritical if I offered anything but that I rather appreciate that they got that and applied some sense here.

In Navy terms, Erik (& HoA team-members), Bravo Zulu.


----------



## smootrk (May 26, 2006)

I like having the Lords at a power level that actually allows them to be defeated by players in a normal (as in non-epic superpowered) game.  I doubt my players would ever meet those guys otherwise, so I welcome that change.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> This is the other side of the "stat blocks for gods arguments."
> 
> ...




I don't think it's the same thing.  Stat blocks for gods (except perheps demigods) put them way, way over CR 30.  I'd estimate CR 50+ easy.  

And it's not about applying "sense" so much that in BoVD they were set at a certain level.  All demons and devils *increased* in power in 3.5.  It does not make sense that the demon lords would *lose* power in 3.5.


----------



## heirodule (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Demogorgon, for example, has 499 hit points and 27 Hit Dice




That's 18.481 hp per Hit Die. Outsiders get a D8, so demogorgon has a con of 38-39, and average HP for hd. Maybe a Toughness feat somewhere in there too (Demogorgon's tough, right?)

I for one am glad to have CR 18-24 demon lords. Thanks!

If people want CR 30 ecnounters, you can always have them meet Demogorgon plus 8 Balors.

Do we have Thrall PrCs?

What we need is a "in lair template". Or maybe just a simple percentage modifyer that increases HP, to hit, AC, etc.

Then the single line in the stat block could read







> % in lair


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> And it's not about applying "sense" so much that in BoVD they were set at a certain level.  All demons and devils *increased* in power in 3.5.  It does not make sense that the demon lords would *lose* power in 3.5.




You assume a correlation. I don't think it's that simple. I am comfortable with explanations that might be a bit deeper than "demon lords are bigger badder demons."

At any rate, I consider this issue secondary to playability/utility issues.


----------



## Mr.Black (May 26, 2006)

Well at least we know that the demon lords are not the same as the ones printed in Dungeon magazine.  I'll wait to see the product before making any hasty decisions, but if I see a buff Orcus or CR 20 Jubilex I may have to bang my head against the wall until I fall unconscious.  

Thanks Joe for the info.  Is there any chance you could list the non-unique demons and their CRs, or at least some of the tannari?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Can't list anything till I get home. Don't have the book with me.

One of my biggest problems with nerfing the demon lords isn't necessarily the demon lords. It's what happens to the devils.

The devils have a lot more unique ranks and heirarchy in their field than the demons do. For demons, it's pretty much iether you're named, standard, or lunch. For devils, we have all sorts of unique individuals that fall into different camps.

If a devil lord/prince is CR 20, what's his duke or champions? CR 15? Why not use a pit fiend then?

I can see why it  was done. It's actually a good reason if we assume that any game that gets to near epic STOPs at near epic despite the epic rules you know, actually being in the DMG this time around (3.5) but for coolness.... it looks like it's up to Necromancer Games to keep Orcus tough.


----------



## Mercule (May 26, 2006)

Hmm... I preferr even the aspects of demon lords to be stronger than a mature gold dragon.  If we can have dragon CRs in the mid to high twenties, I don't see any reason to have demon lord CRs any lower than that.

Bah!  Annoying.  I'll have to look at the book, though, before I decide how much of a show-stopper that is.  In this case, I'm more looking for some fluff, along with mechanics for how/why fiends can show up on the Prime, but don't over-run it.  Glabrezu and Succubi (the tempters), especially, I'd like to know how they initiate their corruption.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Unholy crap blazing hellballs Batman!

Dude, what gives with the WEAKER demon lords? They made it sounds like they had a decent inbetween non-epic and epic, and with rules to attach in order to increase them to epic? 

Now they're WEAKER than their 3.0 versions? Weaker than even the Dragon Magazine versions? What gives? What is WotC thinking?! 

I hear it all the time "We don't pway epic wevel games blah blah blah". Yes, that is understood, boo to you who can't enjoy the awesome, anime-like, coolness of an epic game. Booooring! You can have your CR 10 Demon Lords for your games simply by taking that CR 35 or 40 creature and DOWN GRADING IT. 

It's easier to weaken a creature than to make it stronger. I am not saying one cannot increase the HD by double or triple the amount, and I don't want to go in the direction of giving them divine ranks and placing Salient Divine abilities on them. What I am saying is giving them epic abilities like "One glare and all your innards spill out failing a Fortitude DC 40 and try to choke you to death on top of that" sort of abilities. Does anyone at WotC forget their epic monster creations from the Epic Level Handbook!? THOSE are more powerful than the demon lords, for some odd reason. And ~THAT's~ what my players, (at least my players) yearn to have epic duels or legendary campaigns with in the end when they finally retire at, I dunno, 28th or 30th level.

Well, you non-epic players enjoy. I am quite sad to see that you're ruining the awesome legendary strength I want to place in my games. 

The molydeus CR 19 seems fine to me. I saw them as powerful, but not as powerful as balors. They were always second to them in 2E I believe, in power that is. 

What's with the reprints? The goristro? We have that back in Manual of the Planes along with the 3.5 Update Booklet. I hope that was the only reprint, though a reprint of the Mane, Shadow Demon, Rutterkin, Chasme, and Bar-lgura is sorely needed because those haven't been updated to 3.5 from Book of Vile Darkness.

And yes, I agree with someone else who mentioned if you want to use weaker demon lords, then use their aspects. That's what they're there for.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> It's easier to weaken a creature than to make it stronger.




No, it's not.

Even were it, I think the issue to consider is how many people would be having to change it in the first place. Fewer people use epic rules.

But, in case you missed, Erik said there are scaling notes in the rules. I think they predicted a response like this.


----------



## Delta (May 26, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> ...those that want lower powered demon lords may do well to use the 3.0 demons in the MM with the 3.5 demon lords in Hordes of the Abyss.




Exactly what occured to me. I prefer playing 3.0. I think the Epic Rules were a mistake from day one. The uber deities and demon lords, and power creep in 3.5 demons made those stats unusable.

I haven't bought a WOTC book in a few years, but this news might actually make this book highly desirable to me!


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Well, I'm buying the book regardless of nerfed demon lords.  I just hope the regular demons included match up appropriately with their MM brethren.

The only thing that peeves me a bit is the disconnect that exists between epic and non-epic play.  If WotC is designing products with the presumption that only a very small amount of people are interested in epic play - and is therefore unimportant to support - then I'm going to have to retool my games to fit newer products.  (I could stop buying the products, I suppose, but what fun is that?)

I'd probably have to re-do the XP chart to slow progression down, and that's not something my players - or I - would like to do.  We progress pretty quickly right now (we went from 10th level to epic in about 24 sessions).


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 26, 2006)

I for one am more interested in the other aspects of the book.

I'm not going to use the CR20ish demon lord stats for the actual demon lord, just an Avatar, as Avatars are supposed to clock in around CR20.

It'd be cool if WotC released a web enhancement with a "Manifest" or "Lair" template to apply to the demon lords to make them +10 CR and uber. Of course, the Paragon Creature epic template is in the SRD, so that just might work...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> hat's with the reprints? The goristro? We have that back in Manual of the Planes along with the 3.5 Update Booklet. I hope that was the only reprint, though a reprint of the *Mane*, Shadow Demon, *Rutterkin*, *Chasme*, and Bar-lgura is sorely needed because those haven't been updated to 3.5 from Book of Vile Darkness.




Not 100% sure, but the ones I bolded I'm pretty sure are in this book.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> It'd be cool if WotC released a web enhancement with a "Manifest" or "Lair" template to apply to the demon lords to make them +10 CR and uber.




Is everyone missing what Erik posted on page 1?



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> but I should add that there's a section on advancing the demon lords into epic levels for folks who are interested in playing that kind of challenge




It seems like they are making a very good effort to address all concerned.


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Is everyone missing what Erik posted on page 1?




I got that. I just have a feeling that the Scaling section is about a paragraph or two long and doesn't contain the needed info. I could, of course, be wrong.

I just finished looking over the Paragon template, and I'm liking that idea more and more as a way to upgrade the demon lords.

I hope that the demon lords are at least CR 21, though. Having them be on exactly the same level as a balor does create some logic problems, especially with demons.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Well, I'm buying the book regardless of nerfed demon lords.  I just hope the regular demons included match up appropriately with their MM brethren.
> 
> The only thing that peeves me a bit is the disconnect that exists between epic and non-epic play.  If WotC is designing products with the presumption that only a very small amount of people are interested in epic play - and is therefore unimportant to support - then I'm going to have to retool my games to fit newer products.  (I could stop buying the products, I suppose, but what fun is that?)
> 
> I'd probably have to re-do the XP chart to slow progression down, and that's not something my players - or I - would like to do.  We progress pretty quickly right now (we went from 10th level to epic in about 24 sessions).




I have noticed that as well. Epic support both in WotC books and Dragon have been significantly even less than support for psionics. Makes me wonder why they even bothered creating the epic rules? Probably should have left it at "extrapolate the XP table, gain HD, skill points, feats, bonus feats if it's a single class, extrapolate abilities" and left it at that. One page would've been enough. 

But then, there just some things you can never do at level 20, like cast a spell to shear off an entire mountain top, turn it upside and give it the ability to levitate or summon a volcano at will, or take down a monster who's buffed its AC with feats and magic items and armor so high that even a tanked up, buffed, 20th level Fighter still couldn't hit it. You couldn't do the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ability to deflect dozens of projectiles coming at you that your player wanted for his monk so bad were it not for epic rules. So the epic rules do come in handy for those situations.

I see epic rules as what my players see in the japanese anime or even in the movies and say "Why can't my guy do that in D&D?" I've been hearing that from their lips for 10 years, since high school, and it hasn't stopped. 

That's true. Why shouldn't they? Wouldn't be broken. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? Their foes have the same access.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I got that. I just have a feeling that the Scaling section is about a paragraph or two long and doesn't contain the needed info. I could, of course, be wrong.
> 
> I just finished looking over the Paragon template, and I'm liking that idea more and more as a way to upgrade the demon lords.
> 
> I hope that the demon lords are at least CR 21, though. Having them be on exactly the same level as a balor does create some logic problems, especially with demons.




The Paragon template is my all-time FAVORITE template. Talk about ubering a creature straight into epic, that bad-boy does the works!

I, too, am thinking of adding the Paragon template to all the demon princes. They are supposed to be the "highest quality demons" after all?  

When BoVD first came out, we were excited to see Asmodeus in 3E write-up. Hearing so much about him, we were wondering how powerful this guy would be. CR 50? CR 60? maybe CR 100?

Eh, when we saw CR 32, I was disappointed and my friend laughed so hard. Then he told the other guys, and Asmodeus has been a laughing stock ever since that day, with words like "Elminster's CR is higher than the Lord of all the Hells!" and such. Pretty disheartening if you ask me. They'll never take Asmodeus seriously now, until I uber him to CR 100 through HD advancement, class levels and the Paragon template, possibly even Salient Divine abilities as if he had a certain Divine Rank but doesn't receive the other quirks of having a Divine Rank.


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Speaking from personal experience, applying the paragon template to them works very well.


----------



## takasi (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> If you are foolish enough to challenge Demogorgon in his lair in Gaping Maw (like, say, at the end of the Savage Tide Adventure Path), I think you can assume that he will be a good deal tougher than this.




I find it incredibly ironic that the only planned use of a demon lord in an upcoming adventure / campaign is epic level.

Confronting a demon lord in his lair is supposed to be the climax of a campaign.  Savage Tide is the perfect example of using a high level stat lord.  Mr. Mona, how can you seriously tell people that demon lords that are a "good deal tougher" in CR aren't useful if Dungoen is using one as an example of how to build a campaign???


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Actually the real question should be this:

*How did you get your hands on this book 3 weeks in advance?*


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Actually the real question should be this:
> 
> *How did you get your hands on this book 3 weeks in advance?*




It pays to have  the chickens as your allies when seeking the fnord.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Speaking from personal experience, applying the paragon template to them works very well.




I've gotten some good mileage out of it.

But paragonning a demon prince?   If you are going to mop the floor with the PCs, just say "he mops the floor with you guys." No need to get all fancy.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> I find it incredibly ironic that the only planned use of a demon lord in an upcoming adventure / campaign is epic level.
> 
> Confronting a demon lord in his lair is supposed to be the climax of a campaign.  Savage Tide is the perfect example of using a high level stat lord.  Mr. Mona, how can you seriously tell people that demon lords that are a "good deal tougher" in CR aren't useful if Dungoen is using one as an example of how to build a campaign???




And don't forget a certain Demon Lord in the Shackled City. But at CR 23 he might be too powerful now....


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Eh, when we saw CR 32, I was disappointed and my friend laughed so hard. Then he told the other guys, and Asmodeus has been a laughing stock ever since that day, with words like "Elminster's CR is higher than the Lord of all the Hells!" and such.




Some might fault Elminster's ridiculously Mary Sue design qualities instead of Asmodeus.


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've gotten some good mileage out of it.
> 
> But paragonning a demon prince?   If you are going to mop the floor with the PCs, just say "he mops the floor with you guys." No need to get all fancy.




 

Trust me, the characters weren't that bad off, and there were six of them.  Nontheless, they did lose.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Is everyone missing what Erik posted on page 1?
> 
> It seems like they are making a very good effort to address all concerned.




It'll probably be fine.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

If it was intended for the stats to represent avatars, than that's what the book should clearly state.

Now, I am not going to go as far as to suggest I won't be buying the book - because I'd be lying  - but I am quite disappointed by this. Either give the demon lords proper stats, or no stats at all. For instance, a simple sentence such as "if encountered on his home layer in the Abyss, demon lord X has Divine Rank N, twice as many HD, and the following epic feats/divine salient abilities: yadda yadda yadda..." would have sufficed. WotC has abandoned the "must reprint all mechanics used in the book that uses them" at any rate, so I don't see any negatives to this approach.

Joe's concerns about the devils are mine as well. That's the reason for my extremely negative initial reaction. I now suspect that we'll have a whole bunch of CR 11-15 Dukes of Hell that can be easily killed by their cornugon bodyguards...

BTW, who was the book's editor? I have my suspicions of one particular person.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If it was intended for the stats to represent avatars, than that's what the book should clearly state.




Do we know that it doesn't?

Erik's already said it represents them "off their layer". Nobody's replicated the actual text on the subject, if any. Joe's said the book is not with him.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

Erik said that the statement about what those stats represents seem to be missing from the published book (even though it was in the material he turned over to the editor(s)).


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Some might fault Elminster's ridiculously Mary Sue design qualities instead of Asmodeus.




Or Dalamar. (or Rastalin)

Or Mordy (or the other eight)

Or the Seven Sisters (other Choosen. etc...)

Too many of 'em that if you're playing in a FR game, it makes no sense that they'd be anything other than the high priest of Bane's slaves. "Hey Bane, I need a hot bath! Orcus, you're up. Make sure to lotion those hands this time. I don't want no cold hands on my shoulders." (Orcus shuddering in the background...)


----------



## lkj (May 26, 2006)

I am in the camp that is a bit disappointed, though I understand the decision-- kind of. But I have one question that will clarify how useless the stats are for me. Erik mentions that there is a section describing how to advance these fellas into epic levels. Is that section a detailed rundown of what one can do or is it a quick throwaway that just talks in very broad generalities? Will it really help me advance these bad boys? 

Cheers,
AD

PS: The demon lord stats are not a make or break decision for me in terms of buying the book. It's just one small part. It's only that having high CR or easily scaleable demon lords saves me a lot of time when I need to use them.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Erik said that the statement about what those stats represents seem to be missing from the published book (even though it was in the material he turned over to the editor(s)).




Do you know what that means then!?

*Web Enhancement!*


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

lkj said:
			
		

> I am in the camp that is a bit disappointed, though I understand the decision-- kind of. But I have one question that will clarify how useless the stats are for me. Erik mentions that there is a section describing how to advance these fellas into epic levels. Is that section a detailed rundown of what one can do or is it a quick throwaway that just talks in very broad generalities? Will it really help me advance these bad boys?
> 
> Cheers,
> AD
> ...




Likewise, I second this motion here. I am still getting it, but my biggest hype was to see these guys given their proper stats, and the Dragon Magazine route was the way to go. Pazuzu was awesome and way better than his WE version of BoVD, for example.

Though, the book sold me with Molydeus so, heh.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> It pays to have  the chickens as your allies when seeking the fnord.




I'm guessing that means your source must be kept secret, no biggy. 

One day I will find my source who can get me these books so early in advance...one day...


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

Nah, that would make too much sense.

Actually, a Web Enhancement similar in scope to SKR's _Deity Do's and Don't's_ would be fantastic. The first part would present updated archfiend stats (for some archfiends), and the second part would have mechanics-free ideas on using the archfiends as statless entities. That way, everybody wins.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Though, the book sold me with Molydeus so, heh.




"You had me at Molydeus." 

- Psion "Show me the demons, baby" Ooi


----------



## sckeener (May 26, 2006)

The CR issue isn't a big deal for me.  I'm more interested in the fluff.  As a DM I'll tailor the CR to the adventure, so though having the stats already done is nice, it isn't a deal breaker for me.  I've never had players try to eliminate a demon lord....ruin his plans - yes....permanently kill....no.

I'm still looking forward to the book.

I need more details, so I can heap praise on EriK and James.   

I'd like a list of all the 14 demon lords supposed listed in the book.  I'm also interested if they did anything with nodes.  I'm an Ars Magica fan and bring regio's into my games.  Nodes help.  I'd prefer something a bit better than FR Champions of Ruin (evil node=silly)


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Likewise, I second this motion here. I am still getting it, but my biggest hype was to see these guys given their proper stats, and the Dragon Magazine route was the way to go. Pazuzu was awesome and way better than his WE version of BoVD, for example.
> 
> Though, the book sold me with Molydeus so, heh.




Pazuzu is in this book as well, also tunned down. As is Koestieche? Can never emember how to spell 'em.


----------



## RichGreen (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> "You had me at Molydeus."




Me too. Can't believe we've had to wait so long for 3.x stats!

Cheers


Richard


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

RichGreen said:
			
		

> Me too. Can't believe we've had to wait so long for 3.x stats!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> ...




The wait's not over with yet!


----------



## Erik Mona (May 26, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> I find it incredibly ironic that the only planned use of a demon lord in an upcoming adventure / campaign is epic level.
> 
> Confronting a demon lord in his lair is supposed to be the climax of a campaign.  Savage Tide is the perfect example of using a high level stat lord.  Mr. Mona, how can you seriously tell people that demon lords that are a "good deal tougher" in CR aren't useful if Dungoen is using one as an example of how to build a campaign???




Because I love lying to people and I particularly enjoy upsetting you, my sweet.

--Erik


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

As the author of the Demon Lord chapter in the book, let me explain the reasoning behind the CR 20–23 versions of these demon lords.

Presenting the demon lords at this CR level was to make them good end-of-the-campaign bad guys for a standard D&D game that goes up to 20th level. A CR 30 demon is certainly exciting to look at, but it's not as useful to the average campaign as one that's closer to CR 21. If we made them truly Epic... where do we set them? The stats in the Book of Vile Darkness pegged them over a range of CR 19 to CR 30, but what if you're playing a 40th level campaign? What if you're playing at a 100th level? It's too arbitrary to pick some CR between 20 and 100+ as a place to set these guys, since no matter where you peg them, some DMs will find them to be too powerful and others will find them to be not powerful enough. My personal preference is for demon lords in the CR 25–32 range, but I'd still use the CR 20–23 versions in my game, either as manifestations of the demon lords off lair (my preference) or as the real thing, depending on the needs and theme of the campaign in question. 

By setting their CRs at the bottom edge of the Epic CR scale (around 21–23), we establish a baseline. For DMs who want the demon lords to be more powerful, check out the start of the demon lord chapter in Hordes of The Abyss. This explains the reasoning for lowering their CR, how to utilize a demon lord in your campaign, and (perhaps most importantly) details how to advance a demon lord and to make it more powerful. For those who are curious, I more or less designed these advancement rules so that if you advance a demon to about CR 30, he'll end up being about on par with what I've been doing in the Demonomicon articles in Dragon. Sure, it takes a bit more work on the DM's part to advance Demogorgon up to 40 Hit Dice, but it's the best solution we could come up with in order to present a nice range of demon lords. And, all that said, the Hordes incarnations of the demon lords are anything but pushovers for their CRs.

As for the worries that non-demon lords are too powerful... remember again that CR is just a number. In the Monster Manual II and the Fiend Folio, some of the demon CRs are way out of wack. Compare the Klurichir from the Fiend Folio to the most recent version of the Balor in the 3.5 Monster Manual. The Balor, at CR 20, has more hit points, a better armor class, higher stats, and all around better spell-like abilities and powers than the Klurichir, despite the fact that the Fiend Folio pegs the Klurichir at CR 25. (Both have vorpal attacks, but the Klurichir's other big special attacks: Fear aura and poison, probably won't do much to high-level characters who likely have heroes' feast or similar spells in effect to protect against these attacks.) This basically boils down to the differences in 3.0 and 3.5 design theory; essentially, by the time WotC was working on 3.5, they'd realized that high-level characters are a LOT tougher than they realized. Which is why the demons in the 3.5 Monster Manual are so much tougher than their 3.0 versions (and why the updated demons like the armanite and the gorristro in Hordes of the Abyss were included... they needed to be updated). In any event, Appendix III in Hordes of the Abyss addresses this issue by revising the CRs for the Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio demons. This list puts the balor at the top at CR 20, the molydeus next at CR 19 (although he's a TOUGH CR 19), and the other demons down from there.

We intend to continue publishing Demonomicons in Dragon, and will continue to provide CR 26–32 level stat blocks for demon lords (along with expanded information about them), but we can only do these at a rate of 3 or so a year. If there's a particular demon lord you can't wait to use in your campaign, grab a copy of Hordes of the Abyss and advance your favorite demon lord on up to whatever CR you need and you're good to go.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Erik said that the statement about what those stats represents seem to be missing from the published book (even though it was in the material he turned over to the editor(s)).




That's not exactly what I said. I didn't write the section in question, so I have no idea what was turned over to the editors. I seem to remember from discussions that these stats were meant to represent them "off lair," but that's my memory, not my turnover. 

--Erik


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

takasi said:
			
		

> I find it incredibly ironic that the only planned use of a demon lord in an upcoming adventure / campaign is epic level.
> 
> Confronting a demon lord in his lair is supposed to be the climax of a campaign.  Savage Tide is the perfect example of using a high level stat lord.  Mr. Mona, how can you seriously tell people that demon lords that are a "good deal tougher" in CR aren't useful if Dungoen is using one as an example of how to build a campaign???




My advice here is to wait a  year to see how we handle the climax of Savage Tide. We've already more or less worked out how to make the climactic battle with Demogorgon in this adventure exciting, challenging, and properly deadly, but it's nowhere near ready for the curtain to be lifted yet.


----------



## lkj (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> By setting their CRs at the bottom edge of the Epic CR scale (around 21–23), we establish a baseline. For DMs who want the demon lords to be more powerful, check out the start of the demon lord chapter in Hordes of The Abyss. This explains the reasoning for lowering their CR, how to utilize a demon lord in your campaign, and (perhaps most importantly) details how to advance a demon lord and to make it more powerful. For those who are curious, I more or less designed these advancement rules so that if you advance a demon to about CR 30, he'll end up being about on par with what I've been doing in the Demonomicon articles in Dragon. Sure, it takes a bit more work on the DM's part to advance Demogorgon up to 40 Hit Dice, but it's the best solution we could come up with in order to present a nice range of demon lords. And, all that said, the Hordes incarnations of the demon lords are anything but pushovers for their CRs.




If these advancement rules are what they sound like, then I'm a happy camper. It makes a lot of sense to show the baseline and give rules for making them more powerful. In fact, I like this _better_  than just giving an uber demon. Gives me flexibility. The only thing I was afraid of was that the 'advancement' section would just be a quick paragraph that said "you can up the HD if you want. Good luck!".

At any rate, thanks for the clarification, James.

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> As for the worries that non-demon lords are too powerful... remember again that CR is just a number. In the Monster Manual II and the Fiend Folio, some of the demon CRs are way out of wack. Compare the Klurichir from the Fiend Folio to the most recent version of the Balor in the 3.5 Monster Manual. The Balor, at CR 20, has more hit points, a better armor class, higher stats, and all around better spell-like abilities and powers than the Klurichir, despite the fact that the Fiend Folio pegs the Klurichir at CR 25. (Both have vorpal attacks, but the Klurichir's other big special attacks: Fear aura and poison, probably won't do much to high-level characters who likely have heroes' feast or similar spells in effect to protect against these attacks.) This basically boils down to the differences in 3.0 and 3.5 design theory; essentially, by the time WotC was working on 3.5, they'd realized that high-level characters are a LOT tougher than they realized. Which is why the demons in the 3.5 Monster Manual are so much tougher than their 3.0 versions (and why the updated demons like the armanite and the gorristro in Hordes of the Abyss were included... they needed to be updated). In any event, Appendix III in Hordes of the Abyss addresses this issue by revising the CRs for the Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio demons. This list puts the balor at the top at CR 20, the molydeus next at CR 19 (although he's a TOUGH CR 19), and the other demons down from there.




So both the klurichir and myrmixicus are CR 19 or lower now?

I love the inclusion of the revised CR table, BTW.    



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> We intend to continue publishing Demonomicons in Dragon, and will continue to provide CR 26–32 level stat blocks for demon lords (along with expanded information about them), but we can only do these at a rate of 3 or so a year. If there's a particular demon lord you can't wait to use in your campaign, grab a copy of Hordes of the Abyss and advance your favorite demon lord on up to whatever CR you need and you're good to go.




Just to clarify, are you saying that future Demonomicons might include demon lords statted up in Fiendish Codex I?   If so, does this include those that originally appeared in BovD?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> We intend to continue publishing Demonomicons in Dragon, and will continue to provide CR 26–32 level stat blocks for demon lords (along with expanded information about them), but we can only do these at a rate of 3 or so a year. If there's a particular demon lord you can't wait to use in your campaign, grab a copy of Hordes of the Abyss and advance your favorite demon lord on up to whatever CR you need and you're good to go.




And I'm still trying to figure out why it's okay to say X and do X in one spot but then do the opposite in another OFFICIAL venue.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

Sooooo...

How many pages (out of the measley 160) are wasted on demon lord stats? Please say 20 or less...


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> We intend to continue publishing Demonomicons in Dragon, and will continue to provide CR 26–32 level stat blocks for demon lords (along with expanded information about them), but we can only do these at a rate of 3 or so a year. If there's a particular demon lord you can't wait to use in your campaign, grab a copy of Hordes of the Abyss and advance your favorite demon lord on up to whatever CR you need and you're good to go.




Is this to say we will be seeing a Demonomicon version of Graz'zt, Demogorgon, Orcus, Juiblex eventually?

And, as popular as Demonomicon is, you guys could get away with a Year of the Fiend or Demon and publish a Demonicon article per issue for a year. You'll get 12 demon princes out the way pretty quickly there.   

Wishful thinking, I know.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> We intend to continue publishing Demonomicons in Dragon, and will continue to provide CR 26–32 level stat blocks for demon lords (along with expanded information about them), but we can only do these at a rate of 3 or so a year. If there's a particular demon lord you can't wait to use in your campaign, grab a copy of Hordes of the Abyss and advance your favorite demon lord on up to whatever CR you need and you're good to go.




Aha!

So the nerfing of the demons is a nefarious plot by the staff at Paizo to sell more issues of Dragon!

Very devious....


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Another question:  Do the arrow and sorrowsworn demons from MMIII get a more "demony" name in this book?  As it stands, on a list of demons, they stick out like sore thumbs.   :\


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Aha!
> 
> So the nerfing of the demons is a nefarious plot by the staff at Paizo to sell more issues of Dragon!
> 
> Very devious....



Hasbro's bean-counters won't like this...


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> So both the klurichir and myrmixicus are CR 19 or lower now?



Yes. The Klurichir is now CR  17 and the myrmixicus is CR 18.



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, are you saying that future Demonomicons might include demon lords statted up in Fiendish Codex I?   If so, does this include those that originally appeared in BovD?



Yes.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Aha!
> 
> So the nerfing of the demons is a nefarious plot by the staff at Paizo to sell more issues of Dragon!
> 
> Very devious....




The articles in Dragon are more detailed but there is certainly a level of frustration reading X in one official book and immediately seeing Y in another official book.  :\  Especially as it's now deliberate. It's one  thing to say, "In the past we were unaware of what the power levels or demons covered would be." It's now "we see what they are and either don't agree with it or want to provide alternatives or the exact same demons."


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Yes. The Klurichir is now CR  17 and the myrmixicus is CR 18.




Interesting.   Thanks!


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Sooooo...
> 
> How many pages (out of the measley 160) are wasted on demon lord stats? Please say 20 or less...




The Demon Lord chapter is 23 pages long, but it includes far more than stats; it also includes a lot of information about their servants, enemies, and goals.

And I agree... 160 pages wasn't enough; we could easilly have written a book twice as large (although if it were twice as large, it'd not be ready for release till like 2010!).


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

Whew! I am so glad the stats aren't dominating the book.

I am really growing to hate the 160-page format. For some books (City of Splendors: Waterdeep, Fiendish Codex), it's simply not enough. I'd gladly pay the extra cash for 192 or more pages.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Whew! I am so glad the stats aren't dominating the book.
> 
> I am really growing to hate the 160-page format. For some books (City of Splendors: Waterdeep, Fiendish Codex), it's simply not enough. I'd gladly pay the extra cash for 192 or more pages.




You and me both. Part of the problem seems to be that the 192 page format went away. It's either 160 pages for $29.99 or $34.99 for 224 pages (or whatever the Tome of Magic is at it's higher price point.)


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Speaking of the Klurichir, it needs errata. 

It's description suggest it has four arms, yet it only attacks with one? It also suggested that each arm has a battleaxe and its spine attack has no range increment? Is this fixed in Hordes of the Abyss or soon be fixed?

The Full Attack progression of the demon, I assume is:

Huge +3 battleaxe +26/+21/+16/+11 melee, 3 Huge +3 battleaxes +26 melee, 2 pincers +25 melee, spines +25 ranged?

And I agree about the new page count, it's too low. I'm willing to pay for larger sized books with more info.


----------



## Piratecat (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Because I love lying to people and I particularly enjoy upsetting you, my sweet.
> 
> --Erik



Don't tell Peggy, but I think I may love you. Run away with me to Tahiti.    

Thanks for the inside scoop on the book, guys. Can't wait to see it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Because I love lying to people and I particularly enjoy upsetting you, my sweet.
> 
> --Erik




And I thought it was because you can say and do one thing for WoTC and then go around and do it's exact opposite at Piazo.

Silly me.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The articles in Dragon are more detailed but there is certainly a level of frustration reading X in one official book and immediately seeing Y in another official book.  :\  Especially as it's now deliberate. It's one  thing to say, "In the past we were unaware of what the power levels or demons covered would be." It's now "we see what they are and either don't agree with it or want to provide alternatives or the exact same demons."




I can certainly understand that frustration, but it's the only real option. D&D is about choices, and for something as singular and iconic as a demon lord, one statblock simply isn't going to cut it for the entire fan base. Some people have no use for creatures with a CR above 20, while others regularly use CRs in the 30s or 40s or higher. Others don't want stats for demon lords at all.

By providing the baseline stats at CR 20–23 and giving advancement rules, we cover everyone's needs. A demon lord's flavor, description, goals, and minions are independant of statistics, so you can use them no matter what and customize/choose what kind of power level you want for your own campaign. Again; my personal preference is for demon lords in the CR 25–32 range, and this is where the Demonomicon articles will continue to peg them.  Alternately, you can use the statistics in the Tome of Horrors if you want even more powerful demon lords. In any case, I think that the concept of what's "official" and what's not is, in some ways, an artifact from 1st edition. If it's in your campaign, it's official, I say!


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

I'll be getting it off Amazon, so, sadly, I don't expect to see it before July.

And now one question for the DDM fans out there: are any minis from the upcoming Blood War set hinted at/mentioned in the book? The blurb on WotC site says Blood War will contain minis from FC1.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Has the *Klurichir* been fixed somewhere I don't know about maybe? Surprised a Fiend Folio errata hadn't been released, especially since there was that one errata for a 3.0 bok that came out of nowhere on their website sometime back. I think it was Magic of Faerun? Or one of them, not sure which. It was 3.0 though.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Yes. The Klurichir is now CR  17 and the myrmixicus is CR 18.




CR 17 for Klurichir yet it can summon 2 Balors?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I can certainly understand that frustration, but it's the only real option. D&D is about choices, and for something as singular and iconic as a demon lord, one statblock simply isn't going to cut it for the entire fan base. Some people have no use for creatures with a CR above 20, while others regularly use CRs in the 30s or 40s or higher. Others don't want stats for demon lords at all.




So third time is the charm eh? Well, Book of Vile Darkness might not count 100% as it's 3.0.   


			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Alternately, you can use the statistics in the Tome of Horrors if you want even more powerful demon lords.



 Yeah, the Tome of Horrors has now become a haven for those who want some powerful beasties.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In any case, I think that the concept of what's "official" and what's not is, in some ways, an artifact from 1st edition. If it's in your campaign, it's official, I say!




That's very interesting James. Will Dragon and Dungeon magazine then no longer claim to be official support and no longer use the Dungeons and Dragons logo?   I mean, it's an artifact from 1st ed right? Has no real effect on what people buy or think right?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> CR 17 for Klurichir yet it can summon 2 Balors?




And remember, you don't get XP for those balors because it's built into the creature's CR.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I'll be getting it off Amazon, so, sadly, I don't expect to see it before July.
> 
> And now one question for the DDM fans out there: are any minis from the upcoming Blood War set hinted at/mentioned in the book? The blurb on WotC site says Blood War will contain minis from FC1.




$16.98 at Buy.com

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=202150076&loc=106&sp=1

10% cheaper than Amazon.com.

Gotta love 'em.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Has the *Klurichir* been fixed somewhere I don't know about maybe? Surprised a Fiend Folio errata hadn't been released, especially since there was that one errata for a 3.0 bok that came out of nowhere on their website sometime back. I think it was Magic of Faerun? Or one of them, not sure which. It was 3.0 though.




I don't think it has. We didn't update it in "Hordes" because we wanted to limit the updated demons to those that have been in the game the longest (essentially, the ones from the Book of Vile Darkness and Manual of the Planes). Demons that are completely new to 3rd edition we left alone so we could use that space to present some new demons.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> $16.98 at Buy.com
> 
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=202150076&loc=106&sp=1
> 
> ...



Actually, I hate 'em, since they don't ship to Europe.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And remember, you don't get XP for those balors because it's built into the creature's CR.




I think I will keep the CR 25 for the klurichir. I mean, it has 9 attacks, improved grab with vorpal pincers and it isn't considered grappled (and no -20 penalty to the grapple either), tons of spell-like abilities AND casts spells as a 10th-level Sorceror that it can use to both buff up before the fight and lay out PCs during. Top that with the ability to summon two CR 20 balors, the 3.5 kinds too, we're talking 17th-level PC wipe out. Heh.   Forgot it's SR of 36, that's a 19 or higher to even get a spell on it for a 17th-level caster. Better hope that caster has Spell Penetration and Greater, which only drops it to 17 and 15 respectively. Still a 75% chance of spell failure against it.

Plus it's description depicts it as a terrible demon that other demons fear or respect, a general of armies, which sounds to me like it's equal to a balor or should be stronger than one. 

As for the CR 18 myrmyxicus, heh, with 12 attacks (4 scythes, one at 4 attacks total, bite, tail, and 6 tentacles) along with its other abilities, CR 21 seems fit for me as well.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Actually, I hate 'em, since they don't ship to Europe.




My bad. I didn't realize that Venal Fortress, Gray Waste of Hades was in Europe.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> That's very interesting James. Will Dragon and Dungeon magazine then no longer claim to be official support and no longer use the Dungeons and Dragons logo?   I mean, it's an artifact from 1st ed right? Has no real effect on what people buy or think right?




HA! Well played! 

I agree that something that's "official" certainly has a major effect on what people buy and what they don't. More to the point, having the D&D logo on your product VASTLY increases sales. So in that regard, something being "official" is certainly very much NOT an artifact. The magazines are (and will continue to be) the official D&D magazines.

That doesn't mean that what's NOT "official" is in any way less viable.


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Did James's very own orlath from Dungeon #95 make the cut?

That is one cool demon.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> HA! Well played!
> 
> I agree that something that's "official" certainly has a major effect on what people buy and what they don't. More to the point, having the D&D logo on your product VASTLY increases sales. So in that regard, something being "official" is certainly very much NOT an artifact. The magazines are (and will continue to be) the official D&D magazines.
> 
> That doesn't mean that what's NOT "official" is in any way less viable.




And if we were talking about Tome of Horrors I'd agree as that's an unofficial awesome book.

But what we're talking about here are two very different approaches to statting out and detailing high powered entitites by 'official' sources and  the customers are being double dipped for it and told "well it's for lower powered campaigns" when it comes to the book and "hey, this is how it should be" by the exact same authors in the Dragon mag. 

Yeah. People wonder why I'm cynical. [Looks at title.]


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> My bad. I didn't realize that Venal Fortress, Gray Waste of Hades was in Europe.



The Balkans, to be more precise. Over here, the Astral is so thin that you can't tell where the Prime ends and where the Lower Planes begin.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I think I will keep the CR 25 for the klurichir. I mean, it has 9 attacks, improved grab with vorpal pincers and it isn't considered grappled (and no -20 penalty to the grapple either), tons of spell-like abilities AND casts spells as a 10th-level Sorceror that it can use to both buff up before the fight and lay out PCs during. Top that with the ability to summon two CR 20 balors, the 3.5 kinds too, we're talking 17th-level PC wipe out. Heh.




Fair enough. You'll probably want to bump its Constitution up by 10 points or so, in any case. And it's AC needs work.

Alternately, just cut the 2 balor bit and you're about right for a CR 17 critter. Tons of spell-like abilities don't really matter for determining a CR score, since versatility doesn't really help if a combat only lasts 3-5 rounds. It DOES send it's Level Adjustment through the roof, though.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And I thought it was because you can say and do one thing for WoTC and then go around and do it's exact opposite at Piazo.
> 
> Silly me.




Y'know, Joe, seriously, while I understand your point, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Paizo may be able to label stuff as "official," but it's still a separate entity from WotC. If Dragon and Dungeon were still House Organs, then I'd say they should keep in lockstep with what the big guy is doing. But they're not. So while they presumably can't alter the game beyond recognition, they can present their own take on certain things, like monsters.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And if we were talking about Tome of Horrors I'd agree as that's an unofficial awesome book.
> 
> But what we're talking about here are two very different approaches to statting out and detailing high powered entitites by 'official' sources and  the customers are being double dipped for it and told "well it's for lower powered campaigns" when it comes to the book and "hey, this is how it should be" by the exact same authors in the Dragon mag.
> 
> Yeah. People wonder why I'm cynical. [Looks at title.]




_Dragon_ is about options as much as it is about anything else. If there's room for variant character classes, alternate magic systems, and so on, there's certainly room for demon lords at different power levels. 

And in any event, "Hordes of the Abyss" DOES support higher CR demon lords; that's what the advancing demon lord section is all about. I guess I'm not seeing the problem here with providing different options for using iconic D&D monsters, so individual DMs can pick and choose what versions work best for their campaigns. In any event, there may be a certain level of "double dipping" between the Demonomicon articles and Hordes of the Abyss, but no  more so than when a WotC book picks up any other monster or feat or magic item or whatever from the magazines. In any case, the information in these two sources augments each other far more than it duplicates efforts; designing "Hordes of the Abyss" to support the Demonomicon articles (and vice versa) was one of our goals from the start. 

(And no... the orlath didn't make the cut. He was actually never even in the running, truth be told. Poor little guy!)


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Did James's very own orlath from Dungeon #95 make the cut?
> 
> That is one cool demon.




Yeah, it definitely was, and I believe the attack entry on that one needed work too, like the klurichir.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Y'know, Joe, seriously, while I understand your point, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Paizo may be able to label stuff as "official," but it's still a separate entity from WotC. If Dragon and Dungeon were still House Organs, then I'd say they should keep in lockstep with what the big guy is doing. But they're not. So while they presumably can't alter the game beyond recognition, they can present their own take on certain things, like monsters.




Well, it's my molehill to make into a mountain.   

I just hate being  told one thing in one source and from another source by the same people being told something else.

Don't *iss on me and tell me it's raining.

It's a double dip for the same material that doesn't even match up and it's deliberate and being defended from both ends by the same people. It makes no sense.

As G. W. B. would say, "either ya with me or again me." You can't have it both ways and not, to me at least, look like anything other than hypocrisy. If the authors said, "We don't feel that those CR's are appropriate" then I'd go, "Cool."  or if they said, "We've already got our format in place and it's working well. The fact that our monsters are stronger than those in the official book is a nice incentive for people to BUY our magagazine as well." But it's "Well, for certain campaigns..." Yeah, okay, that's why we need three versions of the same beastie when people didn't think the FIRST version was tough enough.

And I'll keep subscribing to Dragon and Dungeon because the articles are good.  I just don't want to hear that, "Well for X, we were going for that tender spot and for Y, well, that's another keetle of fish entirely."


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> And in any event, "Hordes of the Abyss" DOES support higher CR demon lords; that's what the advancing demon lord section is all about. I guess I'm not seeing the problem here with providing different options for using iconic D&D monsters, so individual DMs can pick and choose what versions work best for their campaigns.




I think you've presented the reasoning and circumstances behind the lower CRs pretty well.

I'm on board.

It's not my *preference*, but it make sense (greater number of people happy and all that).

(Although it really does increase the value of the Demonomicon articles in Dragon for me.)

Thanks, James!


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> _Dragon_ is about options as much as it is about anything else.




Uh... why weren't there any spells in the Best of Dragon compendium again? Oh right, didn't want to run against the Spell Compendium from WoTC. 



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> [
> In any event, there may be a certain level of "double dipping" between the Demonomicon articles and Hordes of the Abyss, but no  more so than when a WotC book picks up any other monster or feat or magic item or whatever from the magazines.




Yes, that's true. But now you're going ahead and going to cover monsters that are already in the Book of Vile Darkness AND this book. It's not longer unintential double dipping. You cannot claim that, "Well, we didn't know X was going to be reused for Y." You are now the ones doing the reusing.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In any case, the information in these two sources augments each other far more than it duplicates efforts; designing "Hordes of the Abyss" to support the Demonomicon articles (and vice versa) was one of our goals from the start.




And to a point, they do indeed do this well. For the record, I'm not saying that the whole of the book is bad at all. I just don't like the direction it's going. It's easily one of the better books for my needs at least.


			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> [
> (And no... the orlath didn't make the cut. He was actually never even in the running, truth be told. Poor little guy!)




Indeed. Poor little guy.


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> (And no... the orlath didn't make the cut. He was actually never even in the running, truth be told. Poor little guy!)




I bet he's turning his hateful gaze your way, creator or not.  And don't try to pull the wool over his eyes...he's got x-ray vision.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> As G. W. B. would say, "either ya with me or again me."




Somebody else said "you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time...".

I personally think it is, quite simply put, very good design. Are they dipping back into the demon pool? Yes. Did people want them to? I think news of the book was greeted pretty enthusiatically. That considered, consciously taking into account things like levels people normally play at and better yet, that it varies, is an design philosphy head-and-shoulders over that under which DDG was born.


----------



## Mercule (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Speaking from personal experience, applying the paragon template to them works very well.




Yoink!



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Do you know what that means then!?
> 
> *Web Enhancement!*




This would make me happy.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can't list anything till I get home. Don't have the book with me.
> 
> One of my biggest problems with nerfing the demon lords isn't necessarily the demon lords. It's what happens to the devils.
> 
> The devils have a lot more unique ranks and heirarchy in their field than the demons do. For demons, it's pretty much iether you're named, standard, or lunch. For devils, we have all sorts of unique individuals that fall into different camps.




I suspect you already know the answer: WotC feels no obligation to be consistent. Not that I mind that much.

I'll be very surprised if _Tyrants of the Nine Hells_ doesn't put lesser diabolic nobles at about the same challenge level as major Abyssal lords are in _Hordes of the Abyss_.



> It's actually a good reason if we assume that any game that gets to near epic STOPs at near epic despite the epic rules you know, actually being in the DMG this time around (3.5).




I don't get that people who don't want to advance the game to epic level nonetheless think their PCs should be able to off epic level threats - who think the whole campaign setting should be tailored to fit their own lack of ambition. When you set a maximum power level in the game, it seems like you should accept that there's a limit to how much the PCs are going to reasonably accomplish. If the game ends at 3rd level, probably no one's going to kill a fire giant. If it ends at 20th level, probably no one's going to be destroying the eons-old rulers of the planes.

It seems like a good end-boss for a 20th level game would be a powerful balor with a few class levels. I thought that was what balors were _for_ in 3.5 - to provide appropriate threats to 20th level characters. 

Makes sense to me.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> if they said, "We've already got our format in place and it's working well. The fact that our monsters are stronger than those in the official book is a nice incentive for people to BUY our magagazine as well."




Cripes, they can't win. If they'd said something like that, you know as well as I do that there would be a chorus of "OOOHHHH NNNOOOOSS!!! They are admitting to a naked grab for money! How dare they!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'm just not seeing the problem here. James Jacobs has explained the rationale, and given that the magazines are, again, separate entities from WotC, I don't think much more explanation is needed. Do you expect Kenzer's Kalamar stuff to stay in lockstep with WotC? It's got the official D&D logo, too, right? Just because some of the same guys doing this book are also overseeing the Dragon articles doesn't mean there has to be cross-referencing. Would it be nice? Yeah, I guess. But I think it kinda indicates that what WotC wants and what Paizo wants may not be entirely the same thing.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Cripes, they can't win. If they'd said something like that, you know as well as I do that there would be a chorus of "OOOHHHH NNNOOOOSS!!! They are admitting to a naked grab for money! How dare they!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't.




I'm not saying they can win because to me, it is a money grab. It just happens to be done up with some great articles.



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I'm just not seeing the problem here. James Jacobs has explained the rationale, and given that the magazines are, again, separate entities from WotC, I don't think much more explanation is needed. Do you expect Kenzer's Kalamar stuff to stay in lockstep with WotC? It's got the official D&D logo, too, right? Just because some of the same guys doing this book are also overseeing the Dragon articles doesn't mean there has to be cross-referencing. Would it be nice? Yeah, I guess. But I think it kinda indicates that what WotC wants and what Paizo wants may not be entirely the same thing.




I agree and if someone came out and said exactly that, "Piazo and WoTC don't see eye to eye on the power level." I'd go, "Cool." But that's not quite what's being said now is it? Probably one of the problems with you have authors of different boats mingling around the same waters. Can't talk bad or counterdict one thing because it looks bad for the 'parent' so to speak.

Just my opinion mind you.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Somebody else said "you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time...".
> 
> I personally think it is, quite simply put, very good design. Are they dipping back into the demon pool? Yes. Did people want them to? I think news of the book was greeted pretty enthusiatically. That considered, consciously taking into account things like levels people normally play at and better yet, that it varies, is an design philosphy head-and-shoulders over that under which DDG was born.




And for the book itself, it could work. But then to hit it again in Dragon with more powerful creatures invalidating the whole concept of lower powered creatures... and to hit it AFTER the book is out...


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

I personally am waiting for *JoeGKushner* to get home so he can tell us much more info.

Darn, you shoulda brought the book with ya!


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

In all fairness, James and Erik have always maintained that the Demonomicon and Fiendish Codex would have some overlap, and that the Demonomicon entries are much more in-depth than those in the FC.   Therefore, the princes from the BovD could have appeared in the Demonomicon regardless of the changes in CR.

Now if they are to appear again in _Complete Demon_, well...


----------



## Mercule (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> And in any event, "Hordes of the Abyss" DOES support higher CR demon lords; that's what the advancing demon lord section is all about.




I think the issue, here, is that some of these sorts of things have, in the past, turned out to be not exactly the soothing balm we were expecting.  We don't know exactly what you mean by "advancing demon lord section".  

It could anything from a single blurb of "You can create Epic-appropriate demon lords by adding more hit dice and special abilities," to 25 pages of detailed analysis of the impacts on play along with a feat/ability list and a sample or three demon lords advanced to four different power levels.  While I think the latter is ridiculous overkill, the former would be a (not-so-funny) joke.  We're naturally going to assume that the "section" is on the lower end of the scale, though, because we're still digesting the knee-jerk reaction to the depowered lords.


----------



## Clueless (May 26, 2006)

Erik, James, does this mean you're out from under your NDA and able to grant interviews now?


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I think the issue, here, is that some of these sorts of things have, in the past, turned out to be not exactly the soothing balm we were expecting.  We don't know exactly what you mean by "advancing demon lord section".
> 
> It could anything from a single blurb of "You can create Epic-appropriate demon lords by adding more hit dice and special abilities," to 25 pages of detailed analysis of the impacts on play along with a feat/ability list and a sample or three demon lords advanced to four different power levels.  While I think the latter is ridiculous overkill, the former would be a (not-so-funny) joke.  We're naturally going to assume that the "section" is on the lower end of the scale, though, because we're still digesting the knee-jerk reaction to the depowered lords.




Exactly what I am worried the advancement section might do, the not-so-funny joke line.  



			
				Clueless said:
			
		

> Erik, James, does this mean you're out from under your NDA and able to grant interviews now?




They're still under contract, but JoeGKushner isn't!


----------



## gizmo33 (May 26, 2006)

I don't get what the big deal is with the stat-blocks.  It's rarely the case that anything published conforms to my homebrew CR demographics anyway, sounds like this book is one of the few items that do.  (There was a time when Orcus had 120 hitpoints...)

I'm more interested in the flavor text for this book.  The size of the book concerns me, and while I would like to see an efficient rehash of "what has come before", I have a pretty extensive library of old DnD stuff and I don't need to buy it in 3E format.  I've seen thick tomes with no content and skinny modules with tons of content so I guess the page count isn't going to be the best measure there.

I'm looking forward to seeing a copy because the subject is one of my favorites in DnD and I can imagine something really cool.  However, you can't please all of the folks all of the time and I'm usually one of those folks.


----------



## DaveMage (May 26, 2006)

Clueless said:
			
		

> Erik, James, does this mean you're out from under your NDA and able to grant interviews now?




I think they just did.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 26, 2006)

The "Advancng a Demon Lord" section is about 1/3 of a page, and consists of 8 or so bullet points that add on to the more general monster advancing rules detailed at the end of the Monster Manual. It's not a HUGE section, but then again it doesn't have to be since most of the heavy lifting for advancing monsters is already done in the Monster Manual.

In any event... we're not officially out from under our NDA agreement until the book's release date (which is still a couple weeks away). For all the nitty gritty details, you'll have to await the first reviews. Once the book's available in stores I (and I assume Erik) would love to answer any questions or explain what madness struck us regarding the book. In any event... I've probably said too much about it already so it's back to the hot box for me!


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And for the book itself, it could work. But then to hit it again in Dragon with more powerful creatures invalidating the whole concept of lower powered creatures... and to hit it AFTER the book is out...




I guess I am not syncing up with you on why this is a problem.

The MM is FULL of creatures with different power levels (wraith/dread wraith, etc.). A very accomidating feature. (And yes, if you use the avatar concept, it's perfectly possible you will use both versions.)

As far as the Dragon goes, I see the Demonomicon articles as being in the same vein as Ecology articles. I don't see those as being redundant with the MM so much as a more detailed expose.


----------



## Mr.Black (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> As for the worries that non-demon lords are too powerful... remember again that CR is just a number.  In any event, Appendix III in Hordes of the Abyss addresses this issue by revising the CRs for the Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio demons. This list puts the balor at the top at CR 20, the molydeus next at CR 19 (although he's a TOUGH CR 19), and the other demons down from there.




Sir, I salute you!  Revising the CRs of the former demons from MMII and Fiend Folio is just an awesome idea that helps to keep those demons around as usable monsters.  Maybe WOTC will follow this trend in the future to eventually revise all the questionable CRs in the MMII.  

I don't worry too much about the demons being too tough.  Many times the PCs have the resources and abilities to handle just about anything.  Besides, we've seen the worst: Drowned, Adamantite Horrors, Storm elementals, Elemental Weirds, etc.  They can't be worse than these guys right?    Anyway, if they are, I say so be it.  "Fight like a demon" actually means something now.  

Klurichir is CR 17 and Myrmixicus is CR 18?  Nice!  It's  little crazy that a Klurichir can summon two Balors, but I don't think they'd ever do this for fear of Balor beatdown.  


BTW James or Erik, could you inform the people at Wizards that the Balor's damage with it's longsword is wrong in the MM3.5.  It doesn't take into account the Balor's strength.  Thanks.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Ahhh, we scared them away! No more news, till JoeG gets home at least. LOL


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> Klurichir is CR 17 and Myrmixicus is CR 18?  Nice!  It's  little crazy that a Klurichir can summon two Balors, but I don't think they'd ever do this for fear of Balor beatdown.




That's funny, because...



			
				MMII said:
			
		

> If balors do have nightmares, they can probably be attributed to the klurichirs.




Of course, they might be afraid that they'll show up late for work.


----------



## Razz (May 26, 2006)

Actually you mean it's originally posted by *Fiend Folio* not MMII


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Of course, they might be afraid that they'll show up late for work.


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Actually you mean it's originally posted by *Fiend Folio* not MMII




D'oh!   And as someone who regularly sings the praises of the FF, you'd think I'd remember that.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> D'oh!   And as someone who regularly sings the praises of the FF, you'd think I'd remember that.




It must be reflexive. You are subconsciously trying to disown the Kulichir.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 26, 2006)

Mercule said:
			
		

> the former would be a (not-so-funny) joke.



I know this is what I'm worried about.

In any case, I'm very disappointed, but I'll live (though I do think Joe's comments make little sense are are completely out of line). I already have the (higher, _proper_ ) stats in the Demonomicon articles, or the BoVD, or the ToH, so I can conceivably use the stats in FC1 as others have suggested - off-plane lords.

Lame, but no biggie. 

(And you had me at "Molydeus".)


----------



## Mr.Black (May 26, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> That's funny, because...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they might be afraid that they'll show up late for work.





I can just imagine that:  

A mighty balor stands before the howling horde of demons.  
Balor: "Now surge forth! Destroy and devour all in your path! We are HATRED! WE-"
A ringing noise comes from nowhere.  All the demons are silent.  
Marilith to the Balor:  "I think that's you."  
Balor: "I know that's me."  He pulls out a fiery cell phone and looks at the number.  "Oh great, its Klurichir again."  
Marilith: "Klurichir?  Isn't he a CR 17?"  
Balor:  (sighs).  "Yea, I don't know what I was thinking when I gave that guy my phone number."  He pushes the message box.
Klurichir:  "Dude!  Where are you!?  Listen, it's been sooooo long since we've hung out and I have these adventurers that I'd like you to meet.  I think it would be really COOL if you could drop by-." CLICK!  The Balor puts his phone away in disgust.
Marilith:  "Hmm...are you going to call him back?"  
Balor:  "@#$! no!"


----------



## Shade (May 26, 2006)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> I can just imagine that:




Fiendish Codex meets Robot Chicken.


----------



## Delta (May 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I guess I'm not seeing the problem here with providing different options for using iconic D&D monsters, so individual DMs can pick and choose what versions work best for their campaigns.




Actually, I agree that this is a problem. At the advent of 3E, the designers were talking about "game mastery"; common knowledge among players about what made D&D what it was. The "toolbox" approach breaks that down, and it ghetto-izes different playgroups into not being able to communicate with each other.

When I get a game system, I assume it paints an entire milieu for me to dive into. If it's a toolbox approach for the DM to build what they want (like, say, d20 Modern), I personally have to throw up my hands and say, "geez, I don't have the time for that".


----------



## jasamcarl (May 26, 2006)

jeez...what's with the fanboys and bloated, unusable stats?

And for the clarification, the reason why it is a good idea to keep the range between levels 1-20 is because that is where the majority of the design and balance work took place (not that I'm claiming that the game doesn't begin to break down in the high levels of this range), and where the majority of character building options are also provided. Thus, it's the most 'fun' range. Epic, besides being of ever more dubious balance, is also not as well supported in either the core rules or supplements (for good reason).

And I have the feeling that the majority of those who have a problem with this are complaining not because they intended to throw their pcs against these as is, but because they simply wanted to do some mental masturbation with those big, bloated, useless stats, and they have some hangup about having their day dreams endorsed through an 'official' source. I.e. they are the target of most of Dieties and Demigods 'crunch' (remember how some thought they were too weak?).


----------



## jasamcarl (May 26, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Actually, I agree that this is a problem. At the advent of 3E, the designers were talking about "game mastery"; common knowledge among players about what made D&D what it was. The "toolbox" approach breaks that down, and it ghetto-izes different playgroups into not being able to communicate with each other.
> 
> When I get a game system, I assume it paints an entire milieu for me to dive into. If it's a toolbox approach for the DM to build what they want (like, say, d20 Modern), I personally have to throw up my hands and say, "geez, I don't have the time for that".




Why don't you have the time for that? All you have to do is play?

DM interpretation and reinterpretation is an inevitable part of the game. As long has he acts in good faith and keeps the gameplay in rough balance, i don't see how this imposes more work for you.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> And I have the feeling that the majority of those who have a problem with this are complaining not because they intended to throw their pcs against these as is, but because they simply wanted to do some mental masturbation with those big, bloated, useless stats, and they have some hangup about having their day dreams endorsed through an 'official' source. I.e. they are the target of most of Dieties and Demigods 'crunch' (remember how some thought they were too weak?).



Quite presumptuous of you, don't you think?

Actually, my main problem with the weak archfiend stats is that someday, a young player will come to me and ask me: "Hey, can we go kill this guy? He must have some phat l00t, being a demon prince and all! Just like in Diablo III!" And I will be forced to restrain myself from doing something really nasty to that player. Because it won't be his fault.

In my games, archfiends are not "end bosses." They are not entitites you just walk up to and roll initiative. If you assault an archfiend (or paragon celestial), you die, just as if you had assaulted a deity (and no, I didn't even buy D&DG... because deities should not have stats). The only way you can even remotely harm an archfiend is through cunning and/or really, really, really powerful magic. Even then, you can only temporarily incovenience the said archfiend.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 26, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> When I get a game system, I assume it paints an entire milieu for me to dive into.




D&D does. You can still play with just the core books, no modifications. 



			
				Delta said:
			
		

> If it's a toolbox approach for the DM to build what they want (like, say, d20 Modern), I personally have to throw up my hands and say, "geez, I don't have the time for that".




If you're just a player, you don't have to worry about it. If you're a DM, they've already provided baselines stats you can use them straight from the book. Guidelines are given for those who wish to tweak them to their taste. Where's the problem?


----------



## jasamcarl (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Quite presumptuous of you, don't you think?
> 
> Actually, my main problem with the weak archfiend stats is that someday, a young player will come to me and ask me: "Hey, can we go kill this guy? He must have some phat l00t, being a demon prince and all! Just like in Diablo III!" And I will be forced to restrain myself from doing something really nasty to that player. Because it won't be his fault.
> 
> In my games, archfiends are not "end bosses." They are not entitites you just walk up to and roll initiative. If you assault an archfiend (or paragon celestial), you die, just as if you had assaulted a deity (and no, I didn't even buy D&DG... because deities should not have stats). The only way you can even remotely harm an archfiend is through cunning and/or really, really, really powerful magic. Even then, you can only temporarily incovenience the said archfiend.




Uh huh. And this kid who is digesting the stats won't come upon the advancement chart. And it will be way too difficult for you to note that that is not how it works in your game before you go into a rage about how some kid interprets some fake monster you have a weird attachment to, allowing those who would like the solid mechanical support to live in peace...


----------



## Gold Roger (May 26, 2006)

Really, Sammael, I see where your beef lies, but you've got that with any statted archfiend. They only have to ´kill more things to take a epic archfiend.

It's all about the DM. Instead of pulling my hair out I'd say: 

"Of course you can kill him. Not in his home though, he's allmighty there. But if you find a way to remove him permanently, you can try to loot his palace. There'll be others in that place though. Anyway, you're supposed to create a 1st level char right now, how'd that book get into your hands? How about your chars family has been killed by that fiend's cultist? Then you have a reason to get powerfull and kill him, like *insert kids favorite anime hero here*."


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Uh huh. And this kid who is digesting the stats won't come upon the advancement chart. And it will be way too difficult for you to note that that is not how it works
> in your game



There is such a thing as the RPGA, where you MUST run games as written by WotC. There is no room for interpretation there. No "it doesn't work that way in my world." Now, I certainly wouldn't run that kind of game. But there are a lot of people here who play at conventions and similar events where such games are run. 



> before you go into a rage about how some kid interprets some fake monster you have a weird attachment to...



Let me remind you that you are posting on a message board about D&D, a game of "play pretend" for adults. And you have a higher postcount than me. Do we want to talk about _your_ weird attachments?


----------



## Erik Mona (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> In my games, archfiends are not "end bosses." They are not entitites you just walk up to and roll initiative. If you assault an archfiend (or paragon celestial), you die, just as if you had assaulted a deity (and no, I didn't even buy D&DG... because deities should not have stats). The only way you can even remotely harm an archfiend is through cunning and/or really, really, really powerful magic. Even then, you can only temporarily incovenience the said archfiend.




That's a pretty nonstandard way of using fiends in a campaign, though, don't you think? Even Planes of Chaos gave stats for Graz'zt and Pazu--er, "Pazrael."

They certainly were fightable in 1e.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using archfiends this way, but it is perhaps unreasonable to assume that a rulebook from the game's publisher would go with this variant interpretation.

A kid could kill Demogorgon for his phat lewt back in the 70s. He would have called it something else, but the fact remains. 

--Erik


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Actually, my main problem with the weak archfiend stats is that someday, a young player will come to me and ask me: "Hey, can we go kill this guy? He must have some phat l00t, being a demon prince and all! Just like in Diablo III!"




Such a player would justify using HackMaster's Smartass Smackdown Table. Then I'd ask him if he'd like to read up on any more monster stats. Then I'd advise him to make sure to have a large stack of blank character sheets and a box of sharp pencils.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> There is such a thing as the RPGA, where you MUST run games as written by WotC. There is no room for interpretation there. No "it doesn't work that way in my world." Now, I certainly wouldn't run that kind of game. But there are a lot of people here who play at conventions and similar events where such games are run.
> 
> 
> Let me remind you that you are posting on a message board about D&D, a game of "play pretend" for adults. And you have a higher postcount than me. Do we want to talk about _your_ weird attachments?




That is an even lamer excuse. So you might have players who positivily expect to face a certain monster as written in game? And they couldn't be deterred by a simple qualifying line?

And, no, I put this game in context. I post a lot on this board, but that is as much a result of the pleasures that come with the forum itself as the game. I certainly never stated that I had to stay my hand from hitting a kid because his perception of a fake world was different than mine.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

I can see that figures of speech such as hyperbole are lost on you, so I won't waste any more.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> I can just imagine that:
> 
> A mighty balor stands before the howling horde of demons.
> Balor: "Now surge forth! Destroy and devour all in your path! We are HATRED! WE-"
> ...


----------



## jasamcarl (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I can see that figures of speech such as hyperbole are lost on you, so I won't waste any more.




'hyperbole' is all you had, because the underlying argument was nonsense.


----------



## Sammael (May 26, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> That's a pretty nonstandard way of using fiends in a campaign, though, don't you think?



It's pretty standard for early Planescape books. The later books, such as Planes of Chaos, certainly did change the stance a bit. On the other hand, there is a handful of modules which don't support the changed stance.



> They certainly were fightable in 1e.



Yes, as were the gods. This changed in 2e significantly (to the point of gods becoming statless), and I've played a lot more 2e than 1e. 



> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using archfiends this way, but it is perhaps unreasonable to assume that a rulebook from the game's publisher would go with this variant interpretation.



Which is why I didn't ask for statless archfiends. I wanted demon princes with stats that reasonably support their ability to rule their respective layers of Abyss. CR 20 demon princes do not fit their roles very well, because - let's face it - "might makes right" is the philosophy of the Abyss.



> A kid could kill Demogorgon for his phat lewt back in the 70s. He would have called it something else, but the fact remains.



I think the game has moved on quite a bit since that time.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Actually, I agree that this is a problem. At the advent of 3E, the designers were talking about "game mastery"; common knowledge among players about what made D&D what it was. The "toolbox" approach breaks that down, and it ghetto-izes different playgroups into not being able to communicate with each other.




Let me say as someone who has not been on board with this notion of that extreme of player empowerment, I am not bothered by this. You might say I am anti-bothered by this.

I make up stuff and pull stuff in from more sources than the players could possibly keep up with. This is really no different, or at least is shouldn't be. I have no sympathy for players who see the books as sort of "cheat codes" for the game.



> When I get a game system, I assume it paints an entire milieu for me to dive into. If it's a toolbox approach for the DM to build what they want (like, say, d20 Modern), I personally have to throw up my hands and say, "geez, I don't have the time for that".




So, homebrew worlds and creatures must kill you? And third party books?


----------



## jasamcarl (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> It's pretty standard for early Planescape books. The later books, such as Planes of Chaos, certainly did change the stance a bit. On the other hand, there is a handful of modules which don't support this stance.
> 
> 
> Yes, as were the gods. This changed in 2e significantly (to the point of gods becoming statless), and I've played a lot more 2e than 1e.
> ...




So that kid would just want to role up some epic characters and kill the higher level fiend, right? No contradiction there..

And if you are going to havee mechanics, they might as well be playable mechanics. The game begins to break around level 15 as is. By level 25+, that problem is even greater, not to mention most classes fail to improve their abilities significantly,and the game is already broken. The stats are there for the players beneifit, not to for some hypothetical grudge match playing out in your head between a pitfiend and archfiend.


----------



## Psion (May 26, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> In my games, archfiends are not "end bosses." They are not entitites you just walk up to and roll initiative. If you assault an archfiend (or paragon celestial), you die, just as if you had assaulted a deity (and no, I didn't even buy D&DG... because deities should not have stats).




Then I'm not seeing that _you_ need archfiend stats at all.


----------



## Sammael (May 27, 2006)

No. But what I'm saying is this (perhaps I'm not articulating this point well enough): even though I don't need stats, if you're going to do stats, do them _right_. Have them make sense in the context of the game. 

As a reminder, even H4 (Throne of Bloodstone) assumed the characters would be 100th level before duking it out with Orcus. Now, 100th level characters from that time certainly wouldn't convert to 3.x 100th level characters - but they wouldn't be level 20 either, for sure.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> No. But what I'm saying is this (perhaps I'm not articulating this point well enough): even though I don't need stats, if you're going to do stats, do them _right_. Have them make sense in the context of the game.
> 
> As a reminder, even H4 (Throne of Bloodstone) assumed the characters would be 100th level before duking it out with Orcus. Now, 100th level characters from that time certainly wouldn't convert to 3.x 100th level characters - but they wouldn't be level 20 either, for sure.




Why do you care if you are not going to use them? Are you sure that most players aren't content with hand waiving these debatable fluff contradictions and instead want mechanically usable stats?


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> As a reminder, even H4 (Throne of Bloodstone) assumed the characters would be 100th level before duking it out with Orcus. Now, 100th level characters from that time certainly wouldn't convert to 3.x 100th level characters - but they wouldn't be level 20 either, for sure.




I certainly wouldn't use Bloodstone as the basis for any assumptions to follow.

I think my central point stands. Sure, you don't want to have to do the work. But as you play things, you are _never going to have to do the work_, because for you to be comfortable, you'll place those statistics well above what the PCs could hope to muster. I think it makes perfect sense to optimize the statistics for those who are going to use it.


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> In my games, archfiends are not "end bosses." They are not entitites you just walk up to and roll initiative. If you assault an archfiend (or paragon celestial), you die, just as if you had assaulted a deity (and no, I didn't even buy D&DG... because deities should not have stats). The only way you can even remotely harm an archfiend is through cunning and/or really, really, really powerful magic. Even then, you can only temporarily incovenience the said archfiend.




Amen.

I don't like to see archfiends intentionally watered down, because by being the 'official' stats, it gives ammo for the folks who only want to see archfiends as big monsters to kill in their extraplanar dungeons. Are they the physical manifestations of chaos and evil, the embodiments of the frothing, rendered down stuff of billions of chaotic evil souls that have been devoured by the Abyss itself, metaphysical concepts taken flesh? No, they're only CR X monsters, and obviously you can kill them with a + Y weapon.

It's a worry.

But I'm not interested in the stats in the book anyways. To heck with the bloody crunch, I'm interested in the flavor text and the lore that's provided. I'm eager to see that, and I'll hold off on forming an opinion on the book till I've actually read the book myself.

My archfiends will remain god slaughtering beings without stats, thank you very much.


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I don't like to see archfiends intentionally watered down, because by being the 'official' stats, it gives ammo for the folks who only want to see archfiends as big monsters to kill in their extraplanar dungeons.




The point has already been made that the weaker stats repesent them outside of their planar layers.

Keep your eye on the ball, folks.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> It's pretty standard for early Planescape books. The later books, such as Planes of Chaos, certainly did change the stance a bit. On the other hand, there is a handful of modules which don't support the changed stance.




Ugh. I don't want to turn yet another thread into a discussion about Planescape, but...

Planes of Chaos was a very early Planescape supplement, actually. It came out in the same year as the boxed set.

It was the first and last PS supplement to provide stats for archfiends.


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2006)

*Pretty pretty yugoloth DEMANDS ANSWERS!!!!*

*flutters fiendish eyelashes*

What I want to know is:

1) Is there anything in the flavor text that gives justifications to the Abyssal Lords being able to manhandle deities, given the rather unfortunate false dichotomy between archfiends and true deities that 3e has provided us with? Ie is there material on the control Abyssal Lords have over their own layers of the Abyss?

2) Is there anything mentioned regarding the origins of the Tanar'ri, specifically tied to the Heart of Darkness mythos and the General of Gehenna.

3) Spill the beans on the two non-Tanar'ri races of CE fiends. Do they predate the arrival of the Tanar'ri in the Abyss, post date it? I'm keen to see where they went with this.

4) Pale Night: what's the dark on her relationship with the Tanar'ri, or lack thereof. Is she actually a Tanar'ri, or something... else? 

5) What is mentioned regarding Charon as a yugoloth lord, and what context is he mentioned in.

6) What sort of material is there on the Tanar'ri within the context of fighting the Blood War?


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The point has already been made that the weaker stats repesent them outside of their planar layers.
> 
> Keep your eye on the ball, folks.




Such seemingly being the intent, I'm aware of that, and I -really- appreciate that. But if it's not referenced in the book itself, for whatever reason, I don't look forward to having to cover that ground with one dimensional munchkins on the WotC boards.

If such a statement was there originally but removed during editing, it would be unfortunate.


----------



## Umbran (May 27, 2006)

_*Moderator:*
Also, folks, please keep your eye on The Rules.  Specifically, don't let the heat of the argument lead you to being insulting or snarky.  It isn't constructive.  It doesn't convince the other guy, or make your point look attractive to third parties._


----------



## Sammael (May 27, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Ugh. I don't want to turn yet another thread into a discussion about Planescape, but...
> 
> Planes of Chaos was a very early Planescape supplement, actually. It came out in the same year as the boxed set.
> 
> It was the first and last PS supplement to provide stats for archfiends.



My memory is playing tricks on me, then. Perhaps I didn't buy it until later down the line. At any rate, if one product out of the entire product line provides archfiend stats, it is debatable as to how seriously we should take that product in that regard.


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> My memory is playing tricks on me, then. Perhaps I didn't buy it until later down the line. At any rate, if one product out of the entire product line provides archfiend stats, it is debatable as to how seriously we should take that product in that regard.




But Bloodstone's fair game? 

At any rate, it sounds like we are canon-wrangling now. Sort of a wasteful excercise, AFAIAC.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 27, 2006)

I seem to remember in Dead Gods when there's the confrontation against Orcus/Tenebrous in Agathion, should the PCs be too late in destroying the wand (something really difficult to do, as one PC would likely have to sacrifice their life inorder to do that), it says he'll just simply kill the PCs unless they use some sword to delay him for 1d3 hours.  No stats there, just a mention that they'll die anyways, because he knows the Last Word and wants them dead.

I tend prefer stats for Demon Lords in the CR 25 plus range, since it seems reasonable enough for me.  I can't see epic level play going beyond 30 with me, and 25 might even be the limit.  And it's easier to advance a Demon Lord at that range of CR, if PCs somehow got beyond the 25th level range.  Yeah but I can see it could be harder working in reverse on the CR, but I personally don't think 20th level PCs should be beating any Demon Lord anyways.


Anyways here's some questions:

1) Did they try and describe anything about the Abyssal Language?  I noticed for example -lith would be something in Abyssal language for something like 'person' since there's the Marilith, Wastrilith, Bebilith and Alkilith among the demons (a few of them non-Tanar'i) with named like that.

2) Any mention of books with the true names of many demons, such the Mors Mysterium Nominum and whatever other ones there are?

3) Does the book delve into truly ancient times of the Abyss from before anyone can remember?

4) I think the only Tanar'i Demons from previous editions that haven't been covered in any 3e book has so far been the Molydeus, Bulezau and Nabassu, so are all of those ones covered?

5) Are the Ships of Chaos designed by Demons and Sigil's Doomguard faction mentioned?  What about the living Abyssal fortresses described in what I remember was a 2e Dragon Magazine article.

6) Just who are the Demon Lords described in some detail?


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 27, 2006)

Amen. I really wish that someone would just create a dump thread for this "stats for archfiends" topic.


----------



## Sammael (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> But Bloodstone's fair game?



Bloodstone's fair game when we're discussing 1e. For Duty and Deity, Dead Gods, and Fires of Dis should be fair game when we're discussing 2e. Note that all three have a slightly different approach in handling archfiends. FDaD has Graz'zt's stats, even though he doesn't appear in the adventure itself. Dead Gods has the aforementioned quote aboput Orcus/Tenebrous. Fires of Dis presents Dispater through an immensely powerful avatar.

Alright, I quit. This discussion is really going nowehere. What's done is done, I'll simply ignore the stats in FC1 and hope that the rest of the book comes through (which it really should, considering who its authors are).


----------



## Swordsage (May 27, 2006)

After reading this thread and learning that the demon lords and princes will be in the CR20-24-ish range, I too am disappointed. You see, my campaigns never last beyond a couple of sessions and I was hoping that the lords/princes would be tailored to my particular needs and so would have a CR range of 2-4. Very disappointed, just like all the other DM fans of demonic encounters. I know exactly where they are coming from.

The Swordsage


----------



## Erik Mona (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> *flutters fiendish eyelashes*
> 
> What I want to know is:
> 
> ...




I'm eager to answer all of these questions (and I've got answers for all of 'em), but I've got to wait until the book's street date. If Joe reads the book he should be able to answer most of this stuff for you.

Sorry!

--Erik


----------



## The Serge (May 27, 2006)

I am looking forward to the book just because it features fiends.  However, I am disappointed to hear the plans for the demon lords and demon princes.  For me it's an issue of internal consistency...  A balor's a CR 20 and a demon prince that runs an entire layer of The Abyss and has to stave off the interests of CE gods is barely higher than that in power...?  

Okay.

At any rate, aside from that, I suspect that the book will be pretty good.  I respect most of what Jacob, Mona, and the rest have done and will not let this gaff adversely affect my intent to buy.


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I'm eager to answer all of these questions (and I've got answers for all of 'em), but I've got to wait until the book's street date.




Tease 

I'm looking forward to seeing what angle you and James took with those particular bits of lore, among other things. I may or may not agree with the direction such things go in specific cases (though if I am, all the more better) but I'm curious nonetheless.


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I am looking forward to the book just because it features fiends.  However, I am disappointed to hear the plans for the demon lords and demon princes.  For me it's an issue of internal consistency...  A balor's a CR 20 and a demon prince that runs an entire layer of The Abyss and has to stave off the interests of CE gods is barely higher than that in power...?




Sorry to be a broken record, but people keep on missng htis point. To repeat what was said upthread again:

The base stats represent the fiend off his plane. The "real" stats of the fiend can be significantly higher.


----------



## The Serge (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Sorry to be a broken record, but people keep on missng htis point. To repeat what was said upthread again:
> 
> The base stats represent the fiend off his plane. The "real" stats of the fiend can be significantly higher.



Given the direction taken by WotC with the gods by providing full stats for their actual beings in addition to their avatars, this seems an unfortunate move nevertheless.  I'm sure the answer is that this direction will allow greater flexibility for DMs who want to create more or less powerful demon lords/princes for their own games and so forth, but it still strikes me as...  I'll leave it at that.  As I said, I'll buy it regardless.


----------



## Razz (May 27, 2006)

I am going to use the weaker stats for outside their home. You kill them outside, it's like killing a deity's avatar.

For their true stats, I'm replacing their feats with epic feats, epic equipment, applying the Paragon template and tripling their Hit Dice and using the suggestions in Hordes of the Abyss outlined within.

There, all said and done with me. I'm fine now.

Now down to the CRUNCHY material. I care less for Fluff, I can make that up. No book can ever give enough fluff for the Abyss, it's pretty much a "anything goes" sort of deal. My questions are:

1) How many PrC are there? What're the names and a little sentence on what they do?

2) How many feats? Is there a good amount for both the bad and good guys?

3) Are there any new Vile spells?

4) Tell us the new demon race, better yet, a ToC of the new monsters in the book


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Sorry to be a broken record, but people keep on missng htis point. To repeat what was said upthread again:
> 
> The base stats represent the fiend off his plane. The "real" stats of the fiend can be significantly higher.





      And that's not even counting how much of the fiend's power has to go into maintaining control over the layer in the first place.  My explanation for this for those who need one, based on bits and pieces of D&D lore I've picked up and mixed in with fiction and mythology, is that archfiends probably _could_ manifest themselves with power levels at least 5 to 10 times their 'standard' stats . . . _if_ they wanted to risk withdrawing all their power from other sources, thus leaving themselves and their planar realms open to assaults from other angles.

       Of course, for me, this is all a moot point.  I don't think much of the 'core' cosmology and view it as a bunch of cool stuff to rearrange mixed in with some stuff i'm quick to toss out, and I refuse to bow to the iron grip of Planescape canon.  Blame the latter on folks who kept insisting that Dustmen in Ravenloft should be able to waltz through half the setting.  

       Matthew L. Martin, Planar Heretic


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2006)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Blame the latter on folks who kept insisting that Dustmen in Ravenloft should be able to waltz through half the setting.




Maybe it's just me, but if I had a PC Dustie in Ravenloft, I'd intentionally make it worse off on them depending on where they were. I'd play with their head and toy with their beliefs regarding True Death... *evil cackle*


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

All the scary things in Ravenloft aren't undead...


----------



## Nightfall (May 27, 2006)

Well no but the cool scary ones are.  I mean Soth, Strahd and Azalin, they were/are pretty damn cool!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I don't like to see archfiends intentionally watered down, because by being the 'official' stats, it gives ammo for the folks who only want to see archfiends as big monsters to kill in their extraplanar dungeons.



Why does it bother you how other people play their games?


----------



## Nightfall (May 27, 2006)

Cause maybe they'll come gunning for Shemmy next!


----------



## Pants (May 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head, does anyone know what the name of the demon that balor's were supposed to fear? The one that keept people in the Blood War when they deserted? Was it the wolf headed thing with the snake head? If so, he also got nerfed to a CR 19.



The only reason Balor's 'feared' Molydei demons was because, well, back in 2e they were pretty much immune to a Balor's primary mode of attack. Only Cold-Wrought Iron and spells affected them. They actually had LESS HD than Balors back then too.

They're not physically more powerful than Balor's, (and in fact, they report directly to Balors) but... sometimes to promote the BW effort, they'd push Balor's around.

When I did my revision, I had them pegged at CR 19 too. 



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Speaking of the Klurichir, it needs errata.



Check out my Revised Klurichir if you want a truly epic version. It has a different name, but it's the same fun, vorpal chomping demon.



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> In my games, archfiends are not "end bosses." They are not entitites you just walk up to and roll initiative. If you assault an archfiend (or paragon celestial), you die, just as if you had assaulted a deity (and no, I didn't even buy D&DG... because deities should not have stats). The only way you can even remotely harm an archfiend is through cunning and/or really, really, really powerful magic. Even then, you can only temporarily incovenience the said archfiend.



Does it say anywhere in the book that you can just walk up to an Archfiend and roll initiative? Is there a 'wandering Demogorgon' table? 

I plan on ending a campaign with a nice epic battle against an Archfiend... someday.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Why does it bother you how other people play their games?



Because he plays D&D.

It's a D&D player's job to be offended when someone plays a game differently. I know I'm personally offended whenever Spelljammer gets mentioned!


----------



## Delta (May 27, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Why don't you have the time for that? All you have to do is play?
> 
> DM interpretation and reinterpretation is an inevitable part of the game. As long has he acts in good faith and keeps the gameplay in rough balance, i don't see how this imposes more work for you.




I am the DM.


----------



## Nightfall (May 27, 2006)

Delta,

If you live near the Morgantown, WV area, why don't you come over to the Mountainlair and let ME Dm.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 27, 2006)

:\

So, when's Dicefreaks hitting the hardcover? 

j/k

well, maybe.


----------



## Staffan (May 27, 2006)

As for the revised CRs for the MM2 and FF demons, is there any chance that that will show up as errata?


----------



## Banshee16 (May 27, 2006)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I seem to remember in Dead Gods when there's the confrontation against Orcus/Tenebrous in Agathion, should the PCs be too late in destroying the wand (something really difficult to do, as one PC would likely have to sacrifice their life inorder to do that), it says he'll just simply kill the PCs unless they use some sword to delay him for 1d3 hours.  No stats there, just a mention that they'll die anyways, because he knows the Last Word and wants them dead.




You're correct....I just finished running that campaign with my group earlier this year.  However, the difference is that at that point, Tenebrous was an undead *Power*, not an archfiend.  He was of a level of power greater than he had been as Orcus.  Plus, he had the "Last Word", as you mentioned, which let him destroy anything automatically.

I'm concerned about the lower stats for demon lords, as I don't see them as a monster to be beaten at the end of a dungeon.  These creatures should be epic...I mean, making them CR 21 makes them no tougher than a puny great wyrm dragon or something, right?  But they're demon lords.....the leaders of entire planes where the detritus of evil mortals passing on from the material plane, and congealing into the pure essence of evil......they're even beyond dragons...

I'm interested in knowing what else they've got in the book though.  Really looking forward to it, aside from the demon lords issue.

Banshee


----------



## Matafuego (May 27, 2006)

I am very dissapointed to hear that about the Demon Lords.
For me the problem is not making them CR 20 but instead that the rest of the world doesn't work "well" with that approach.

MadCultist: I'm going to summon Demogorgon and you'll be doomed!!!
Cleric: Just go ahead... I'l summon a Solar... any Solar... and we'll be saved (or a Gold Great Wyrm or anything good that there are many and is more powerful or just as powerful than... a Demon Lord)

Or how can something like that rule over... 10 balors? 
I know its supposed to be outside its plane but if I were them then I'd never leave my house in fear of "the good police".

As someone already said before me, if I end my campaign by level 10 (which I used to do) I can't expect my players would be beating Balors or Mariliths without SERIOUS help. Same goes for ending the campaing at level 20 and pretending to beat major demon lords.


----------



## Zarnam (May 27, 2006)

Joe ?? Joe, where art thou ??   

You still haven't answered my itty bitty question about which Demon Lords are included in the book   

My curiosity is strangling me at the very moment, so please, help save a life


----------



## GQuail (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> My archfiends will remain god slaughtering beings without stats, thank you very much.




If that's your campaign, then so be it.  But there's a difference between "in my campaign it should be like this" and what some people see to be saying (or at least implying) which is "Demon lords under this CR are /wrong/ and I can't believe these idiots didn't do them at my level!"

I agree that the Demonomicon and the Fiendish Codex having differing stats for the same thing is irritating: it does seem to send mixed messages, and with that line about "weaker stats for off plane" being missing it's going to confuse some people.  Still, I know it now, as does everyone who reads this thread, so hopefully that'll solve that problem.  ;-)

I can't fault the logic behinds Hordes of the Abyss' stat blocks.  There is a long tradition of archfiends being slayable, and referring to OOP campaign settings which had differing views doesn't change the fact that most people's D&D games probalby still treat them as they did in day 1: in theory killable, but high enough level that they're way out of the league of all but the greatest heroes  Featuring such core D&D beings at a level they can actually be used far outstrips the priority of "treating them with respect" or what have you.  

Contrary to the extolations of epic level play by some people (Razz in paticular) and the fact I quite like playing higher level games myself (my first PDF purchase was the Immortal's Handbook bestiary, and I've been known to stat out the gods of my campaign world  ) it's just a fact of life that most people don't play D&D at higher levels.  Saying how great it is to fight a CR 32 Orcus doesn't change the fact that most people here are never going to face off against anything CR32: but a CR21 becomes useable, even if it's an aspect/off-plane version/unpsionically charged/whatever version of the Amazing Unstopable Orcus!!1!!!!111!!one! some people feel must exist.  

Also, contrary to Razz's statements on the topic, it's absoutely *not* easier to weaken a monster than to strengthen it: 3.X is full of ways to increase the power level of enemies, using HD, class levels or templates, bt trying to work out what to take off to make a CR 32 a CR 24 is no fun whatsoever.

Following the mocking that stats in D&DG got from some of the same people in this thread, I think it's clear that official stats for things of this nature will never please everyone.  But I do think that aiming lower and providing hints for powering them up is a good idea: though without seeing the book I obviously can't say if they provide enough hints to my liking.  Still. I'm sure my players wouldn't mind if I decided that Pazuzu could use five levels of Rogue and the Paragon template....    

Anyway, this all seems to ignore the fact that the monster stats are a minor part of the book.  I'm quite interested to see it when it comes out,  and even if I don't like thst ats, it's what, 20 pages out of the book?  20 pages in which there's still fluff and other stuff going on as well.  To throw the book out based on that as _"ruining the awesome legendary strength I want to place in my games."_ seems more than a little melodromatic.


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

Matafuego said:
			
		

> I am very dissapointed to hear that about the Demon Lords.
> For me the problem is not making them CR 20 but instead that the rest of the world doesn't work "well" with that approach.
> 
> MadCultist: I'm going to summon Demogorgon and you'll be doomed!!!
> ...




If that's the way you feel, then _advance them in your game_. They tell you how to do so. I think the book is extremely accomodating that way. But if I want players in my game to challenge demon lords at 20th level, then that's on me. Personally, as I have said in another thread, I'll probably peg the more significant ones at 25-27 or so.

I can't see how accomodating the needs of different campaigns can be perceived as bad, unless, well, you are hung up on how other people play.


----------



## Razz (May 27, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> Also, contrary to Razz's statements on the topic, it's absoutely *not* easier to weaken a monster than to strengthen it: 3.X is full of ways to increase the power level of enemies, using HD, class levels or templates, bt trying to work out what to take off to make a CR 32 a CR 24 is no fun whatsoever.




What makes a monster unique, cool, awesome, and sometimes scary and powerful? It's their special attacks and special qualities. 

If you read the ELH's monsters, you'll notice some really mighty special attacks and qualities. Abilities you don't see monsters in any other WotC book with new monsters possess. That's what I mean by it is harder to upgrade a monster than to downgrade one. When the developers design a monster at CR 21, they give it abilities suitable against CR 21 characters. You won't see "energy drain touch attack; 5 negative levels" stuff or "40d12" breath weapons that shoot out 300 feet. Spell resistance will be mockingly low still when you upgrade a creature by HD. You can add 20 HD to a creature, that SR remains at SR X. Though, technically, I think it's assumed (though not stated anywhere how to increase SR) that the SR should increase by 1 per +1 CR. It's only assumed.

That's all I meant by it's hard to make a creature more powerful. Anyone can up their Hit Dice, but would you give a CR 20 or 21 creature the abilities Pazrael has from Demonomicon? Would a CR 21 demon lord have a 300 ft. radius of antimagic, or have a touch attack disintegrate affect at will? Not if they're CR is low, because the designers won't be thinking on such a scale. (though they should). 

Of course, nothing is stopping DMs from adding in their own special attacks and qualities to a demon lord. It's just the matter of determining the CR afterwards, however.

Personally, I think when making a creature of CR 21+, the designers should look at the ELH monsters and take their ideas from the abilities those baddies have.


----------



## Shemeska (May 27, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> If that's your campaign, then so be it.  But there's a difference between "in my campaign it should be like this" and what some people see to be saying (or at least implying) which is "Demon lords under this CR are /wrong/ and I can't believe these idiots didn't do them at my level!"




With the exception of 'Planes of Chaos', that's how they were handled over the print run of the Planescape material. That's where the planes got the majority of their detail, where the fiends themselves got the majority of their detail, and the lack of X level stat blocks didn't hamper things then. I prefer the design ideology of that material, it's not just some fluke of my own personal campaign here.

The 'long tradition' of the archfiends being slayable is pretty much 1st edition and the 1st ed nostalgia that reasserted itself with the 3e stats. I don't care for that particular way of approaching the archfiends, I feel that it cheapens them by comparison to the way they were approached during the mid to late 2e material. Others will see this differently, be it purely for childhood nostalgia, or simply wanting to have them as boss monsters in a campaign that won't reach above some level. I accept that, even if I don't share the motivations behind such an approach, but it rings a bit false to label my approach as just something from my own game without precident in DnD at large.

But the stat blocks aren't the reason I'm going to be getting the book, those things are entirely superfluous to the lore on the beings themselves and their layers that I'd like to digest and use directly or as inspiration for my own stuff. I am mildly dissappointed, and disturbed, on some level that the qualifying statements for the relatively weak stats may have been cut by one of the editors. Won't stop me from buying the book though, it's only 23 pages of the whole thing.


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> With the exception of 'Planes of Chaos', that's how they were handled over the print run of the Planescape material. That's where the planes got the majority of their detail, where the fiends themselves got the majority of their detail, and the lack of X level stat blocks didn't hamper things then. I prefer the design ideology of that material, it's not just some fluke of my own personal campaign here.




I prefer a design ideology that is accomodating to the way that many different people play to one that fixates on a singular answer or vision of canon.

The canon-fans should note that a LOT of canon research went into this book (just ask BOZ). But canon is not, and IMO should not, be the design criteria that trumps all design criteria.


----------



## BryonD (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I prefer a design ideology that is accomodating to the way that many different people play to one that fixates on a singular answer or vision of canon.
> 
> The canon-fans should note that a LOT of canon research went into this book (just ask BOZ). But canon is not, and IMO should not, be the design criteria that trumps all design criteria.



Is this coming from the same Psion that complained so much about 3.5 DR rules and devil/demon builds not fitting well with the Blood War?


As for what they've done in this book, shrug, if they really think they have cast the widest possible net, then good for them.  But it is a false argument to suggest that disappointment that the book doesn't serve to my game means that I would be opposed to supporting other people's games.  (And no, 1/3 of a page of advancement notes isn't going to clear it up)


----------



## Psion (May 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Is this coming from the same Psion that complained so much about 3.5 DR rules and devil/demon builds not fitting well with the Blood War?




I never said canon should NOT be a consideration. So let's not pin a false dichotomy on me, mkay?

If they had said that the demon lords as presented represented their actual true selves, I'd be complaining bitterly with the other folks grousing about inconsistancy with Planescape canon. But they didn't, so I'm not.


----------



## Aaron L (May 27, 2006)

My big concern is that a great wyrm red dragon shouldnt be in the same class powerwise as Demogorgon and Orcus


----------



## BryonD (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I never said canon should NOT be a consideration. So let's not pin a false dichotomy on me, mkay?



 

Dichotomy, yes.  False, no.

You made a huge deal out of not staying true to a plot element then and now you are saying that changing something much more significant than a piece of a particular story line isn't a big deal.

I can agree with you completely that this current event is not a problem.  I'd prefer otherwise, but I re-build my own stuff all the time, so what is new here?

But on multiple events, with me personally, you expressed near outrage that they had messed with the blood war.   You may not have now said that it should not be a "consideration" but there is still a vast dichotomy between now and then.  When the 3.5 DR rules were being discussed you made it abundantly clear that you felt the design ideology was wrong to not have fixated on the singular blood war aspect of canon.  Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming now.

You got more than slightly snarky with me about it then.  The about face here was notable.



> If they had said that the demon lords as presented represented their actual true selves, I'd be complaining bitterly with the other folks grousing about inconsistancy with Planescape canon. But they didn't, so I'm not.



Agreed 100%.


----------



## BryonD (May 27, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> My big concern is that a great wyrm red dragon shouldnt be in the same class powerwise as Demogorgon and Orcus




When BoVD darkness come out, I made a joke to that exact effect.
Something about a tavern girl commenting on the adventuring party getting back sooner than expected.  The party replies they thought they were going to take out a Great Wyrm, but were relieved to discover that it was just Grazzt.    


Anyway, this may actually be an improvement from BoVD.  I think it is.  
BoVD pretty much said that the Archdevils and Demon Lords simply were weaker than some prime material plane dragons.  I agree with you that this is way off.

But now, the "true" power of demon lords is a) acknowledged to be somewhere north of the book stats and b) open ended for a DM to choose.

I'd call that progress.  Maybe a bit shy of my hopes.  But certainly progress.


----------



## Pants (May 27, 2006)

Okay, now that we've gotten past the whole Archfiend fiasco... can we _please_ move onto other aspects of the book? Not that I don't mind regurgitating discussions that were old hat two years agao, but please... let's move on.

I'm very interested in seeing what kinds of creatures are in the book.
Looks like the Molydeus, Rutterkin, and Chasme are in there, but what about the others? 

What kinds of feats, spells, and PrC's are in the book?

How much room is spent on demonic anatomy, physiology, and psychology?

How much room is spent on Abyssal Lairs?


----------



## GQuail (May 27, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> That's all I meant by it's hard to make a creature more powerful. Anyone can up their Hit Dice, but would you give a CR 20 or 21 creature the abilities Pazrael has from Demonomicon? Would a CR 21 demon lord have a 300 ft. radius of antimagic, or have a touch attack disintegrate affect at will? Not if they're CR is low, because the designers won't be thinking on such a scale. (though they should).




Ah, I kinda see your logic now: there's no denying a creature created a CR 27 and a creature who started out 17 and was given NPC levels/HD upped till he hit CR 27 are not going to be the same kind of thing.   Templates can kinda fill this void, but templates suited to the kind of level you're after aren't common.

I stand by my point, however, that it's easier on the DM to try and up a monster to that kind of power than it is to try and downgrade it.  Faced with the chocie of where to stick the stats of such NPCs, I think the route that will be potentially of use to more DMs is the best one.

I haev an advantage on these kind of problems in tha tmy players aren't D&D experts: only one really has a huge history of playing the game, the others have mainly learned through me and the books I've given them to read.  This means that whil they were scared when a Demon Princess cropped up in my game, they had no idea if they were CR 12 scared, CR 24 scared or CR 48 scared.  If I was dealing with people with lots of experience in Greyhawk, Planescape or what have you, perhaps I'd get more resistance if I decided my homebrew's Orcus was only just post-epic and sub-servient to a deity of death, but my group have no canon to get hung up upon.  ;-)


----------



## Razz (May 27, 2006)

I agree, let's move on to other stuff in the book.

This might be the first time something with a D&D book went semi-wrong and I am actually dealing with it rather well. Heh. First for everything eh? But then, I never expected Hordes of the Abyss to disappoint me and it hasn't...yet.

I still hate the new PrC format. Death to the guy that made that happen. Ok, not death, a little harsh, but you need to get laid off!   

So, yeah, whatever happened to *JoeGKushner*? Been off the radar for awhile. Or probably reading that book in and out. Get back to us ASAP JOE!


----------



## GQuail (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> With the exception of 'Planes of Chaos', that's how they were handled over the print run of the Planescape material. That's where the planes got the majority of their detail, where the fiends themselves got the majority of their detail, and the lack of X level stat blocks didn't hamper things then. I prefer the design ideology of that material, it's not just some fluke of my own personal campaign here.
> 
> The 'long tradition' of the archfiends being slayable is pretty much 1st edition and the 1st ed nostalgia that reasserted itself with the 3e stats. I don't care for that particular way of approaching the archfiends, I feel that it cheapens them by comparison to the way they were approached during the mid to late 2e material. Others will see this differently, be it purely for childhood nostalgia, or simply wanting to have them as boss monsters in a campaign that won't reach above some level. I accept that, even if I don't share the motivations behind such an approach, but it rings a bit false to label my approach as just something from my own game without precident in DnD at large.




This is not the firs ttime we've all seen this viewpoint from you, of course, so I've long gone past being a little affronted of accused of being a 1st ed nostalgic when my first 1st ed purchase was last year.    There's no denying that the power of level of many creatures, not just Gods and Demon Lords, has gone all over the place across D&D, with Giants and Dragons being an obvious example between 1st and 2nd: hell, even between 3.0 and 3.5 we've seen Mummies and Ogres get something of a power kick.   Different design teams and different campaign worlds have often given us different views on the same thing.  The situation we've got here is not going to be the last time it happens: I expect by 5th Ed I'll be complaining tha tin my day, Beholders weren't all that and any fool could tell you Half-Elves didn't have much power..... ;-)

That Planescape is where the higher planes became more detailed is undeniable.  That 2nd edition did change the nature of higher powers from 1st ed is also a fact.  But that nature was quite different to what OD&D, 1st Ed and 3rd Ed have presented: a world where a demon prince is powerful, but slayable by mortal hands.  You see Planescape's opinion as a more mature evolution that avoids "Juiblex is the boss of dungeon level 12" situations: it seems that WotC see things differently.  As ever, we can change things to suit our own campaigns and visions thereof: and you can handwave away these stats if you don't want them.  Any player who comes crying that they were expecting nothing above CR 24 when they challeneged Asmodeous to a fight is a problem player, not a problem with the rules.  



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> But the stat blocks aren't the reason I'm going to be getting the book, those things are entirely superfluous to the lore on the beings themselves and their layers that I'd like to digest and use directly or as inspiration for my own stuff. I am mildly dissappointed, and disturbed, on some level that the qualifying statements for the relatively weak stats may have been cut by one of the editors. Won't stop me from buying the book though, it's only 23 pages of the whole thing.




This is, of course, the more rational train of thought we should be having.  I'm also a bit peeved that they've missed out an eplanation on why the stats are so low compared to previous iterations in 3.X, but I'm far more interested by other aspects of the book.


----------



## Tharian (May 27, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If anyone makes a "Rod of Orcus" joke about now, they're _so_ getting banned.
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> Back on topic.



I'm glad I read this far down the thread before I followed my instinct.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

*Partial Review. Revision Soon!*

So here's how my review is working out. I'm not finished yet and may revise it. I tend to hate the chapter by chapter breakdowns, but that's usually how I do it anyway.

Hordes of the Abyss
ISBN 13-978-0-7869-3919-0
Written by Ed Stark, James Jacobs, Erik Mona
Published by Wizards of the Coast
www.wizards.com/dnd
160 full color pages
$29.95

Demons are a fan favorite for gamers and have a long history in role playing games. This includes unofficial expansions in previous editions such as Mayfair’s Role Aid’s demons line and in 3.5 with Green Ronin’s Armies of the Abyss and Legions of hell which were latter combined into one book. This doesn’t count Mongoose take on it with books on Demonology or OGL variants dealing with the lower planes nor Necromancer Games take on the demon lords in Tome of Horrors series.

Of course that doesn’t touch on the official expansions from TSR to Wizards of the Coast. The old Monster Manual from 1st edition and it’s sequel, along with the numerous supplements for Planescape and even in late 3.0 products like the Book of Vile Darkness to Dragon magazine’s support, including new demonology articles. 

The book uses standard two-column format. Broken into five chapters with three appendices, the book makes good use of white space or has the illusion of it with dark red borders. Chapters are laid out towards the outside margin towards the top of the page and page numbers on the bottom outside margin.  Page count is standard for Wizards of the Coast products and with the full color and hardback format, isn’t unreasonable, but other publishers like Steve Jackson games with their larger books at full color in hardback, are catching up.

Cover art is handled by Sam Wood. Interior artists include fan favorites like William O’Connon and Wyane Reynolds among others. Interior art is fairly solid but some reuse of art lowers that value. For example, while the full color picture of Graz’zt and Iggwilv by Wayne Renolds on page 101 is fantastic, it’s the same picture that was used for the cover of Dungeon magazine #121. The terrible illustration of Orcus as some balor style demon instead of his bloated self on page 73 comes from the Book of Vile Darkness on page 137.

Cartography is handled by Jason Engle and Kyle Hunter. They provide overviews of different locations, as well as mapped out lairs and encounter spots. The difference in their styles makes it fairly easy to tell for example, that Jason Engle did the Twelve Trees on page 134 while the overview of Thanatos is probably by Kyle Hunter.

The book starts off with Demonic Lore.  Want to know how a demon dies? There’s a charming little table that you can roll a d20 on and see anything from the skin of the demon peeling away to rotting away to nothing more than a foul odor. It’s a nice little touch to showcase just how different demons are from standard creatures.

The section on the origins of demons is merely a suggestion that demons arose from the Abyss after the deities, devils, and other powers left that plane and went to others. Pretty boring stuff.

The section on physiology covers a few areas but only in brief detail. For example, demons don’t sleep and those that do breath have powerful lungs and can breath in any Material plane. They don’t need to eat, but can apparently eat limitless amounts of food and some take great enjoyment from it, especially the devouring of sacrifices. 

In terms of why demons don’t overrun the Prime campaign, not a lot of thought is given. Perhaps because, when looking under Six Truths About Demons, that the Abyss calls to them. Which doesn’t explain why when fiendish portals open that they fight to keep them open and “take steps to avoid its subsequent closure.” Of course enjoying chaos for it’s own sake might explain a little of that. 

This includes the different roles that a demon can play in a campaign. Roles include assassin, brute, corruptor, manipulator, and the overlord. Under each type include suggested demons, combat tactics, how to use these types of function in the campaign, how to fight against this type of demon and general notes. 

For example, those fighting against an assassin have to have some protections and knowledge bases in place ahead of time as the assassin isn’t a straightforward encounter. Suggestions include having friends around ala the buddy system, to capturing the assassin. Basic information that well-experienced role players will have gone far beyond. No suggestion on proper spells to select when trying to determine if you’re under such a threat, and no guides on how much such a service in and of itself might cost.

Chapter tow moves onto demons. Revisited and revised or introduced for the first time we have the following; armanite, bar-lgura, broodswarm, bulezau, chasme, dybbuk, ekolid, goristro, guecubu, lilitu, mane, molydeus, nabassu, rutterkin, sibriex and yochlol. Also included are two new subtypes, loumara and obyrith with the tanar’ri still being the most common and reprinted here for ease of use. The loumara, in addition to a wide set of immunities (acid, electricity, and fire), not only have cold resistance, but are incorporeal and can possess creatures and objects. The obyrith don’t have immunity to quite so many things, but do have resistances and fast healing in addition to appearing so freakish that they cause madness.

Monsters are described by name, physical description, game statistics, strategy and tactics, sample encounter, ecology, society, and typical treasure along with a section on lore for each creature from DC 15 to DC 44. These additional tools allow the GM to get the most bang for his buck and quickly insert the monsters into his campaign as appropriate. 

My favorite is probably the molydeus. It’s a creature I recall from the old Planescape books that was described as something even a balor would fear. With it’s dancing battle axe of vorpal and it’s numerous innate powers, while it’s not necessarily something a balor would fear, it’s CR 19 insures that all but epic levels characters will respect this demon enforcer’s authority. It was also nice to see manes and rutterkin again as those are perfect minors for lower level adventures. 

One of the things I liked least about the book is it’s take on demon lords. The book has deliberately weakened the demon lords to make them possible to fight at the end of the normal progression of the campaign. This means that a standard group of four twentieth level characters should be able to take Dagon or Pazuzu or even older favorites like Orcus.

A strange thing since the other official source of these demon lords statistics, Dragon magazine, is going a different route and will continue to go that route of more powerful demon lords, nor that many people thought that the demon lords as they first appeared in the Book of Vile Darkness were underpowered to begin with. 

I can understand the reasoning. There’s a difference between being awed by how powerful a creature is an actually using it, but in the end, for me, it just doesn’t make sense and it’s not a change I like, and it’s not a direction I like. Why have epic rules in the core book, Dungeon Master’s Guide, if they’re not going to be supported? It also goes against the fact that the standard demons and devils were upgraded in the transition to 3.5. So the lesser are upgraded and the princes are downgraded?

Another problem with this approach is that it makes the demon lords very similar in power levels all about. In the “good old days” (god I’m old!) there were noticeable differences between the demon lords and it showed in their game stats. Now there’s very little difference in the power spread.

I know, someone will point out the quarter page on improving the demon lords and go, “See, they are supporting your campaign”, but that’s weak at best. Thankfully, it is true that it’s easier to augment a creature than depower it so I’ll be taking that advice or simply using a third part resource like Tome of Horrors when I need a demon lord to actually you know, be more powerful than a balor.

For those still looking for a weaker version, there is going to be a web update on the Wizards website that provides aspects of the demon lords that should be useful for lower powered campaigns.

Demon lords covered are as follows; Baphomet (CR 20), Dagon (CR 22), Demogorgon (CR 23), Fraz-Urb’luu (CR 21), Graz’zt (CR 22), Jubilex (CR 19), Kostchtchie (CR 21), Malcanthet (CR 21), Obox-ob (CR 22), Orcus (CR 22), Pale Night (CR21), Pazuzu (CR 22), Yeenoghu (CR 20), and Zuggtmoy (CR 21).

Demons start off with name, then an italic description of the creature. Game stats are presented in the new style. Lore for each creature is included which ranges from knowledge checks DC 20 to DC 35. Strategy and tactics covers basic combat formulas and each section ends with servants, enemies, and goals. Each entry is rather short and those seeking further information should check for the Dragon magazine articles featuring each demon. 

Afterwards, we move onto chapter four, Trafficking With Demons. It’s a section for players and game masters and points out appropriate PrCs as well as introducing new feats and spells. One of the first character roles mentioned is Demon Hunter. Those more interested in such information should hunt down Goodman Game’s Demon Hunter’s Handbook.

Other roles include demon master, demon summoner or demon worshipper. Because, you know if you didn’t put the word demon in front of it in a book about demons, people would become confused. Those former roles are generally better for an evil or ‘vile’ campaign. 

While the book doesn’t include any new PrCs, it does not which ones are appropriate and what source they come from. It covers recent books like the Fiendbinder from Tome of Magic as well as older books like the Book of Vile Darkness for the Thrall. It’s a short section and well, a fairly obvious one. There’s no “Wow!” factor in reading that one role a player might take is a demon hunter, especially when it mentions a demon hunting PrC like the Knight of the Chalice as from it’s very background, it’s an obvious choice. It’s a good cross-promotion bit for those who may not have those books but for those who do, merely a reminder.

Some of the feats include abyssal heritor feats and vile feats. The former are not necessarily evil, but do reflect the chaotic nature of the Abyss and are a result of the mingling of the Abyss and Prime planes mingling. The latter on the other hand, are only available to character who are evil and intelligence and often come with their own costs and are granted by higher powers such as a demon lord. 

Many of the heritor feats grow in power if you have more than heritor feat. For example, Claws of the Beast inflicts an extra +1 profane bonus to damage that inclurases by 1 for every two heritor feats you have. The vile feats range from knowing Dark Speech, which effects listeners depending on their alignment and level, to a ‘sacrifice’ feat, Evil Brand, that in and of itself is actually less useful than a normal feat, but is necessary to chain up to higher feats. Evil Brand provides a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against evil creatures, a similar bonus to other +2 to two skill feats with a limit. But because of that you can gain Demonic Conduit that increases the DC’s of your spells against lawful and good targets. Useful but still limited. Good for those casters who want to showcase their ‘evil’ nature.

Spells are arranged by class and in alphabetical order. For sorcerers and wizards, they also include division by school. Domains are also included as follows; corruption, demonic, entropy, fury, ooze, and temptation.

Spells vary in utility and level from enhancing your senses such as the 7th level Fiendish Clarity that grants you darkvision and allows you to see in margical darkness and see invisible and detect good, to the 3rd level blackguard spell, demon wings where you can fly at your land speed.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I'm very interested in seeing what kinds of creatures are in the book.
> Looks like the Molydeus, Rutterkin, and Chasme are in there, but what about the others?



 Answered in partial review.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> What kinds of feats, spells, and PrC's are in the book?



 No PrCs. Feats include Vile and Heritor feats. Spells range in variety but some new Domains.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> How much room is spent on demonic anatomy, physiology, and psychology?



 Not much.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> How much room is spent on Abyssal Lairs?




A little more. We get several examples. One thing I'm not up to is that Lolth is presented as still being in the Abyss. I thought her whole thing became a seperate plane?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> *flutters fiendish eyelashes*
> 
> 1) Is there anything in the flavor text that gives justifications to the Abyssal Lords being able to manhandle deities, given the rather unfortunate false dichotomy between archfiends and true deities that 3e has provided us with? Ie is there material on the control Abyssal Lords have over their own layers of the Abyss?




That the abyss favors them. They have personality and charm. It also notes that the Abyss can respawn an abyssall lord. Very wishy washy in my opnion.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> 2) Is there anything mentioned regarding the origins of the Tanar'ri, specifically tied to the Heart of Darkness mythos and the General of Gehenna.




"If Ahm is correct, demons manifest as extensions of chaos and evil left in the Abyss after the deities, devils and other powers had "ascended" to other palnes. Some notes towards the back when dealing with the history of the Abyss and good old Queen of Chaos and Miska the Wolf-Spider, the first "Prince of Demons." The old denizens, the obyriths, are pretty much dead and dying. Very similiar to the race from Green Ronin's book. The Loumaras on the other hand are newcomes that are "the byproduct of the plane's attempt to digest the fitful last dreams of a dying pathenon of evil gods." Good writing there! Perfect for Exalted!



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> 3) Spill the beans on the two non-Tanar'ri races of CE fiends. Do they predate the arrival of the Tanar'ri in the Abyss, post date it? I'm keen to see where they went with this.



 The obyriths created the tanar'ri but the loumaras are new.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> 4) Pale Night: what's the dark on her relationship with the Tanar'ri, or lack thereof. Is she actually a Tanar'ri, or something... else?



 "Pale Night is an enigma." An obrith who was ancient even during that race's reign on the Abyss. She lives on Baphomet's lair, the 600th level.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> 5) What is mentioned regarding Charon as a yugoloth lord, and what context is he mentioned in.



 Still reading over it, but I may have missed him entirely as I don't recall seeing him mentioned. Let me check the index. Oh wait... no index.   



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> 6) What sort of material is there on the Tanar'ri within the context of fighting the Blood War?




Not much. They fight the blood war, each other, and serve the demon princes. Very glossed over. But at 160 pages, how else could it be?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The point has already been made that the weaker stats repesent them outside of their planar layers.
> 
> Keep your eye on the ball, folks.




Unless I'm missing it, the book doesn't actually say that. It notes that "Characters are most likely to face a demon lord on its home layer of the Abyss." This doesn't grant it any inherent abilities but does give it "home court" advantage as many of the Abyss mini-planes are not safe for mortals. It also notes that they are never alone.

So yeah, those weak stats do NOT rerpesent them outside their lairs, but represents them as they are.


----------



## Zarnam (May 27, 2006)

Hello again Joe, some questions for you, please   

1. Do we get PrC Thralls of Dagon/Obox-ob/Pale Night/Malcanthet ??
2. Is there any mention of Vucarik of Chains, Lupercio, Alvarez ??
3. Is there a mention of Dwiergus, the Chrysalis Lord ??   
4. Any evil artifacts ??

Thanks !!


----------



## arntof (May 27, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> , I don't look forward to having to cover that ground with one dimensional munchkins on the WotC boards.




*feels hurt*


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> Hello again Joe, some questions for you, please
> 
> 1. Do we get PrC Thralls of Dagon/Obox-ob/Pale Night/Malcanthet ??
> 2. Is there any mention of Vucarik of Chains, Lupercio, Alvarez ??
> ...




No PrCs at all.

They're mentioned on the appendix 1, lords of the abyss.

Evil artifacts?  The Black Scrolls of Ahm. Not necessarily 'evil' per say though.


----------



## Zarnam (May 27, 2006)

By saying "mentioned" I presume something like : "Vucarik of Chains, abyssal lord"


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Name, title, concerns, layer. They also have notes. d for deceased, f for female, 0 for obyrith. A - indicates that they don't actually have a laryer of the abyss.


----------



## Sammael (May 27, 2006)

I just read the whole review.

Er... so there is no description of the Abyss or its layers whatsoever in the book?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not up to is that Lolth is presented as still being in the Abyss. I thought her whole thing became a seperate plane?




Only in a Forgotten Realms product, and therefore only in the FR cosmology. Core books are not beholden to FR-specific books.


----------



## Zarnam (May 27, 2006)

> Name, title, concerns, layer. They also have notes. d for deceased, f for female, 0 for obyrith. A - indicates that they don't actually have a laryer of the abyss.




Hmmmm....    that's really better than I expected


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I just read the whole review.
> 
> Er... so there is no description of the Abyss or its layers whatsoever in the book?




That part of the review hasn't been written yet.   

Just figured I'd get what I had up to give people something to digest.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Only in a Forgotten Realms product, and therefore only in the FR cosmology. Core books are not beholden to FR-specific books.




That actually confuses me more.

So now we'll have a Forgotten Realms Lolth and a 'D&D' spider goddess?

It's the whole Tiamat vs Dragonlance all over again!


----------



## Sammael (May 27, 2006)

Ah. So it's either in chapter 5 or one of the appendices.

BTW, now that we're getting a full-fledged review, can we expect Erik and James to comment again?  It's not as if book contents are secret anymore.


----------



## Sammael (May 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> So now we'll have a Forgotten Realms Lolth and a 'D&D' spider goddess?



Sort of (see below). Blame SKR. 



> It's the whole Tiamat vs Dragonlance all over again!



Actually, in all fairness, that's what they tried to avoid with the new cosmology. The philosophy is this: as far as FR is concerned, there is only one entity named Lolth, she lives on the plane called the Demonweb Pits, and she is only concerned with Toril. Any other variant of this deity doesn't exist in the FR cosmology. FR Abyss is not the same as the Great Wheel Abyss. Great Wheel Abyss does not exist in FR cosmology.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Chapter 1: Demonic Lore
The black scrolls
The origins of demons
Physiology
Basic functions
Dissection of a Dretch
Demonic Life Cycles

Demons on the Material Plane
Getter There (or Here)

Demons ROles
The Assassin
The Brute
The Corruptor
The Manipulator
The Overlord
Demonic Possession
Possed Creatures
Possed Objects


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Sort of (see below). Blame SKR.
> 
> 
> Actually, in all fairness, that's what they tried to avoid with the new cosmology. The philosophy is this: as far as FR is concerned, there is only one entity named Lolth, she lives on the plane called the Demonweb Pits, and she is only concerned with Toril. Any other variant of this deity doesn't exist in the FR cosmology. FR Abyss is not the same as the Great Wheel Abyss. Great Wheel Abyss does not exist in FR cosmology.




Isn't that kinda the same with Dragonlance though? It's not like Tiamak and Takhisis both exist on the DL setting.

And Lolth's plane here is still called the Demonweb so I don't exactly see where the confusion is being avoided.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 27, 2006)

Chapter 5, which I assume Joe hasn't digested yet (since he hardly mentioned it in his review) covers the Abyss in pretty great detail. In fact, that chapter (and the lists in the appendices) represents my contribution to the book. I'd guess it's something like 50 pages.

--Erik


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Isn't that kinda the same with Dragonlance though? It's not like Tiamak and Takhisis both exist on the DL setting.
> 
> And Lolth's plane here is still called the Demonweb so I don't exactly see where the confusion is being avoided.




It's quite easy to avoid confusion, IMO.

Anything it says about Lolth in a brown or blue book is core. Anything it says about Lolth in an off-white book is FR.   

As long as folks don't assume a correlation or an interconnection, there's no problem.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 27, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> My big concern is that a great wyrm red dragon shouldnt be in the same class powerwise as Demogorgon and Orcus




Yeah, I know. It should be more powerful.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's quite easy to avoid confusion, IMO.
> 
> Anything it says about Lolth in a brown or blue book is core. Anything it says about Lolth in an off-white book is FR.
> 
> As long as folks don't assume a correlation or an interconnection, there's no problem.




SO I shouldn't use the yochlol from this book despite the many apperances these 'handmaidens' make in the FR fiction line?


----------



## Razz (May 27, 2006)

Bah they rewrote the Possession Rules again!? It was done before in Fiend Folio as demon PrC. I hope it's similar to the BoVD. Too many different rules for possession is going to confuse people.

I noticed a lot of it is reprinted from BoVD. While I don't mind the updated monsters from BoVD, seeing reprinted spells from BoVD is rather lame. 

And NO NEW PRESTIGE CLASSES?! Awww!!! WTH?! I feel there just wasn't enough demon-type or demon-hunting PrC. Lame, super lame!

I have a feeling half of this is BoVD revised or something.

What do they say about advancing the demon lords? Can you tell us what they are?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 27, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> SO I shouldn't use the yochlol from this book despite the many apperances these 'handmaidens' make in the FR fiction line?




I didn't say you couldn't make connections. I said one shouldn't _assume_ an interconnection.

But then, I was never bothered by the "Is Takhisis Tiamat or isn't she?" deal, either. I'm quite happy with the idea that the D&D worlds are, for the most part, seperate and distinct.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 27, 2006)

This book presents the base Outsider stats.

But once I start adding class levels, this stuff goes through the epic roof. 

Though, honestly, I think this is just a good case to be made for a revamp of the epic rules....


----------



## RichGreen (May 27, 2006)

Hi,

Joe -- thanks for posting your unfinished review. I'm not too bothered by the demon prince CR scandal, so I'm really looking forward to this book!

Cheers


Richard


----------



## BryonD (May 27, 2006)

Thanks Joe.

Honestly, it sounds like a decent book.  Maybe my dreams of another Draconomicon have gone down in flames, but it still sounds like it will be a worthwhile purchase.  Which is what WotC wants to hear, right?      (besides, it isn't like anyone else is putting up a fight for my RPG dollar these days)

Seriously, it does sound like it will be a good book.


----------



## Mr.Black (May 27, 2006)

Thanks for the review Joe, really interesting stuff on the new types of demons and the status of the demon lords.  

1. Could you post the CRs of the non-unique demons?

2. In the back there is supposed to be a CR revision appendix of the demons from Fiend Folio and MM II.  Any chance you could post the CRs of the Klurichir, Myrmixicus, Alkilith, Kelvezu, Jarilith, and Jovoc?   

Thank you so very much.


----------



## Beowolf (May 27, 2006)

this is just an idea to all thoses who dont like the epic cr demons and such, but just cause your pcs arnt strong enoung to take on a demon lord by themselves dosent mean it cant be done and that the stats for the deamon are useless. pcs can get help from other higher level charachters and monsters, or mabye some sort of special magic item that will greatly help defeating the demon or limiting some of its most deadly powers. who ever said that pcs cant find some celestials willing to help them kill a demon lord? sure you cant take him on cause your group of 4 18th lvl pcs dont stand a chance but what about a group of 4 18th lvl pcs , an assortment of higherlevel npcs, some top notch celestials, a metalic wyrm or two and a holy artifact from the local grand temple? demon lords never fight alone they got their own retuine to fight along side them. pcs just have to think the same way, cant beat him one on one but you can when you take him on with your own army.

sure the combat and stats will be a nightmare  but epic already does that anyway


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 28, 2006)

I take it there's no mention of the Abbot-Dolor or whatever that race of Demons that Grazz't was supposed to be? 

Even though I'm sure it was only mentioned in the Gord novels...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 28, 2006)

I remember the real reason why Balors feared the Molydeus was because the Molydeus sort of had some sort of "Diplomatic Immunity" across the Abyss.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 28, 2006)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I take it there's no mention of the Abbot-Dolor or whatever that race of Demons that Grazz't was supposed to be?
> 
> Even though I'm sure it was only mentioned in the Gord novels...




      They can't use stuff from the Gord novels--the later ones, at least.  Those were published by New Infinities Productions, and thus the rights to them remain outside WotC's purview.

     Matthew L. Martin


----------



## Shemeska (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> "If Ahm is correct, demons manifest as extensions of chaos and evil left in the Abyss after the deities, devils and other powers had "ascended" to other palnes.




If that's presented as fact rather than legend and theory, that's a pretty gigantic deviation from any of the prior origin myths of the Tanar'ri. The notion of the Tanar'ri being the byproducts of yugoloth purification at the direction of the Baernaloths (intentional or not) was pretty firmly established. Plus, the idea of deities being there before the Tanar'ri is just bizarre (and contradictory to the Blood War timeline in Hellbound).

Though if this new theory is presented as the Tanar'ri take on their own origins, I'm fine with that, it's racial propaganda, and an interesting take on things. Theories biased by self promotion are cool, and are more important when you're embroiled in something like the Blood War. But if it's intended to rewrite the material from Hellbound, Faces of Evil, etc, not so cool. I'll have to read the section myself to really say for sure.

Of course if FC:I and FC:II both have their own biased origin legends, tilted to favor their specific planes' inhabitants, that's cool. Tanar'ri histories tend to be nonexistant or nonsensical, and Baatezu histories tend to be political propaganda and historical revisionism taken to its furthest extremes. The 'loths have the oldest histories, and apparently the most comprehensive ones, but they don't like to share and what has leaked out they tend to not comment on, and when they do... hard to trust them at face value given what they are.



> Some notes towards the back when dealing with the history of the Abyss and good old Queen of Chaos and Miska the Wolf-Spider, the first "Prince of Demons." The old denizens, the obyriths, are pretty much dead and dying. Very similiar to the race from Green Ronin's book. The Loumaras on the other hand are newcomes that are "the byproduct of the plane's attempt to digest the fitful last dreams of a dying pathenon of evil gods." Good writing there! Perfect for Exalted!




Does it address the Queen of Chaos as not being from the Abyss? (I generally hold the QoC and Miska as pure, unadulterated cheese, but hopefully the book can redeem them somewhat. I'll have to read it over though to see if I like the angle it takes with them or not).

The Obyriths and Loumaras I like. I tentatively like them a lot.

Among the abyssal lords, Pale Night is probably the one that snags my attention the most, and FC:I placing her explicitely as one of the Obyriths was a nice touch that links very well with her writeup in FoE. Kudos on that addition to the lore of the Abyss.


----------



## Shemeska (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> So yeah, those weak stats do NOT rerpesent them outside their lairs, but represents them as they are.




That's... unfortunate.

*cough*

But getting beyond that, some more questions:

On layer 377, the Plains of Galenshu, is there any mention of the now obliterated civilization of the Varrangoin that was alluded to in Planes of Chaos?

Are Bebeliths mentioned at all?

Are the Ships of Chaos mentioned during the discussion of the layer of Twelve Trees?

Is the bloodline between Grazzt, Vucarik, and Lupercio described or elaborated upon (with Pale Night being their mother)?


----------



## Mercule (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> the quarter page on improving the demon lords




So... Joke, it is, then.

If you're being literal with a quarter page (half column?), then anyone who points that out to those unhappy about the demon prince treatment isn't being helpful, they're mocking.

Edit:  If they did, somehow, manage to cram something worthwhile into such a small space, I'll willingly eat crow.


----------



## heirodule (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> While the book doesn’t include any new PrCs, it does not which ones are appropriate and what source they come from. It covers recent books like the Fiendbinder from Tome of Magic as well as older books like the Book of Vile Darkness for the Thrall.




Arrgh. I don't want to buy the BoVD (esp since the demons are all reprinted now), and I wanted this book to reprint the thrall PrCs (and update for 3.5)


----------



## MadMaxim (May 28, 2006)

I must admit that my interest in the book has somewhat cooled down after I saw all this (mainly the weaker demon lords), but I'll probably still get it. We can't have too much information on demons after all. And thanks for the review so far, Joe. It's proving to be rather enlightning.


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

Posted on Dicefreaks in reaction to the new CRs of the demon lords:


> Juiblex: Cower, mortal! I am Jubilex, and the doom of thy world is at hand!
> Cleric: There is only one recourse now! Oh heavens, I cry out to thee for aid! _Miracle!_
> Some Random Solar: *busts in through the ceiling with awesome slo-mo and smoke effects* The Heavens heed your call, good mortal! Direct me unto the evil that it might be des_oh crap, Jubilex!_
> Juiblex: Oh crap, a Solar!
> ...




heheh.    just had to share that...

I don't personally care much about what CRs the various demon lords are set at, though I do have to wonder why any would be considered less of a challenge than a lowly-by-comparison balor?  Even outside of its realm?  I thought they were just fine as they were and I don't understand the lowering.

But, eh, like I said, that's not the part that bothers me about the CRs given in Joe's review.  I do like the explanation of, say, having these stat blocks as the minimum for the given lords, and upgradable using a special table in the book.  In fact, I say, genius.  The part that gets me is that we have intentionally alternate stat blocks between this new book, and previous (in some cases, very recent) sources.  Why do we need that?  Initially, I had reservations at all that lords featured in the Demonomicon articles even needed to have stat blocks in a new book already, but James Jacobs' assertions that all the iconic lords should be statted in the book brought me around.  Still... Why not have just the stat blocks in one place, instead of having two blocks that in different places that disagree with one another?  I can't see the logic in that.

Still, in the end, I can live with whatever happens.  Like many others have said in this thread, it's not going to stop me from buying the book just because I don't agree with what was done and why.    If you want tougher demon lords, you always have the ToH1, and if you want 'em tougher than that, you have Dicefreaks.

As for the Klurchir, folks need to keep one thing in mind.  When the Balor was first redesigned for 3.0 the MM, it had a measly 13-HD and was a CR 18 creature.  So yes, making a 20-HD, CR 25 critter makes sense, and would seem to be able to scare the piss out of a balor.  However, shortly after the printing of the Fiend Folio, we have the 3.5 MM - in which our good ol' Balor went up to 20 in both HD and CR.  Suddenly, the Klurchir as written doesn't seem so tough, at least to the bumped-up balor.  You have two choices - either keep the Klurchir as-is and lower its CR, or raise its stats to make the CR and description accurate.  Since the FC1 crew wasn't going to be working with the Klurchir, lowering the CR seemed like the right choice.

As for the "all archfiends in 2E didn't have stats, except for Graz'zt and Pazzy, which doesn't fit in with anything else anyway" well... here's my take on that.  it's not that all archfiends were beyond stats.  The *gods* were beyond stats.  Yes, archfiends were considered Powers, but I'm fairly sure that I saw in the definition of the term "Powers" that not all Powers were actually gods.  In 2E, Demogorgon, Juiblex, Yeenoghu, Baphomet, and Kostchtchie became (at least until archdemons were reintroduced in BoVD) gods.  Thus, they did not have stats.  Who did have stats?  Graz'zt, and Pazzy (that nickname covers both versions of his name, heh), who were *never*, as I understand it, considered gods or even placed on the same level as gods.  You could counter that by saying Fraz-Urb’luu, Pale Night, Zuggtmoy, and the Abyssal Lords introduced in Planescape never got statted out, making Graz and Paz the deviations from the norm.  I say... the designers just never got around to giving them stats.  Perhaps they wanted to devote the space to other things.  Perhaps they figured Graz and Paz were enough.  Perhaps they thought some folks would balk at the idea of having any more Abyssal lords with game stats.  Or maybe, as some around here seem to think, the designers decided that having stats for Graz and Paz in the first place was a mistake they didn't want to repeat.  I don't know.  I wasn't working for TSR.    when I look at archdemons, I think of them on about the same tier of power as altraloths, archomentals, and slaad lords.  And all of those guys, plus Graz and Paz, did have game stats, in 2E.  now that Demo, Juib, Yeen, Baph, and Kost have been de-godded, they have stat blocks.  As far as I see it, all is right with the world again.

Time for me to re-read this thread again, and find some other posts to make comments to.


----------



## Razz (May 28, 2006)

The desginers said there's a 1/3 of a page info on upgrading the demon lords to epic level. What're they? They said it was bullet styled.


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> The "Advancng a Demon Lord" section is about 1/3 of a page, and consists of 8 or so bullet points that add on to the more general monster advancing rules detailed at the end of the Monster Manual. It's not a HUGE section, but then again it doesn't have to be since most of the heavy lifting for advancing monsters is already done in the Monster Manual.




was this what you were looking for Razz?


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And they reuse art like the cover from Dungeon and the old Orcus piece.




I'll agree, this is not exactly cool.  Not terrible, but not cool either.  Perhaps the designers submitted these pieces in the art order as samples of what to do, and the art department got lazy, saying, "hey, these are perfectly good pieces, why do new ones?"  well, except for the BoVD orcus - what's up with that?    fat slobby orcus is da man!  Yeenoghu and Juiblex in BoVD were OK, but at least they did not reuse the Demogorgon from that book.    what actual percentage of the book's art is recycled?



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I haven't found any of WotCs 3e fiendish additions to be that interesting, but found their ommissions and modifications vexing. Weak ultroloths? Four armed nycoloths?




with any luck, maybe they will hire you on as a consultant for FC3. 



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> One of the nice things is that it does include a 'master' list of demons that have appeared in varous products including the abyssal drake of the draconomicon!




kickass!    how long is this list?  like as in, percentage of a page?  it's in the appendix i'm assuming?  that's one of the cool things that the folks around here helped contribute to.  



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I know off the top of my head that Pale Night is there. She's seen as a 'mother' figure but mother of what varies depending on whose  telling the tale.




Faces of Evil: The Fiends, page 61:

"The _Mors Mysterium Nominum_ book says she is also the mother of Graz'zt, Lupercio, and Vucarik of Chains."

This is the only quote I'm aware of, linking Pale Night as the mother of any specific demons.  OK, a reference book makes a possibly dubious claim, but especially when you are talking about shifty ol' demons, this does not necessarily make it a true fact.  I like the way she's presented in FC1.  



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> It's easier to weaken a creature than to make it stronger.




no... it simply isn't.  the MM has a whole chapter dedicated to increasing a creature's power level.  it says nothing at all about making a creature weaker, so if you want to do that, it's DIY.



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Because I love lying to people and I particularly enjoy upsetting you, my sweet.




eh heh heh heh heh heh!    if you won't have Piratecat, i could make myself available!   



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Another question:  Do the arrow and sorrowsworn demons from MMIII get a more "demony" name in this book?  As it stands, on a list of demons, they stick out like sore thumbs.   :\




good question, old pal.  those names are very off-putting for me as well.  



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> And now one question for the DDM fans out there: are any minis from the upcoming Blood War set hinted at/mentioned in the book? The blurb on WotC site says Blood War will contain minis from FC1.




another good question!  it would be so neato keen to have some demon lord minis.  



			
				Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It seems like a good end-boss for a 20th level game would be a powerful balor with a few class levels. I thought that was what balors were _for_ in 3.5 - to provide appropriate threats to 20th level characters.
> 
> Makes sense to me.




actually, i'll agree with you there.  balors were ramped up quite a bit to make them basically the toughest non-unique demons on the block (as well they should be).  it seems to make sense that even the lowliest of demon lords should have notably more power.  but oh well, to each his own.  



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Now if they are to appear again in _Complete Demon_, well...




if that ever comes to be, it better damn well be a sequel to FC1 instead of yet another rehashing... 



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> As a reminder, even H4 (Throne of Bloodstone) assumed the characters would be 100th level before duking it out with Orcus. Now, 100th level characters from that time certainly wouldn't convert to 3.x 100th level characters - but they wouldn't be level 20 either, for sure.




just to pick nits...   as i understand it, H4 did not expect or require PCs to be 100th level, just that the module was able to *accommodate* 100th level PCs.  i think you did have to be a minimum of 20th level though.  i speak from ignorance and hearsay though, as i have not read the module through.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> 5) What is mentioned regarding Charon as a yugoloth lord, and what context is he mentioned in.




IIRC, i think Erik suggested that he was only mentioned incidentally as a note for the River Styx, that he was the best navigator or something.  i don't expect Joe to find it easily, as it is probably a sentence or two at most, and fairly obscure.



			
				Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I seem to remember in Dead Gods when there's the confrontation against Orcus/Tenebrous in Agathion, should the PCs be too late in destroying the wand (something really difficult to do, as one PC would likely have to sacrifice their life inorder to do that), it says he'll just simply kill the PCs unless they use some sword to delay him for 1d3 hours.  No stats there, just a mention that they'll die anyways, because he knows the Last Word and wants them dead.




yep, the Last Word is some powerful s---.    i mean, it killed a few gods, plus a lesser archomental and Primus, among others no doubt.  what mortal, no matter how powerful, is going to stand up against something as devastating as that?



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> The canon-fans should note that a LOT of canon research went into this book (just ask BOZ). But canon is not, and IMO should not, be the design criteria that trumps all design criteria.




why thank you, Alan.     and i'll agree with your second sentence as well.

i'd like to think that our research made an impact in the book, and from Erik and James' comments as we posted more and more bits of info, i can only assume that it did.  especially upon hearing that there would be in the appendix a list of all known demon lords, and all known Abyssal layers (IIRC).

speaking of which, oh, Joe!!  

any hints on which demon lords, besides the main 14, were given mention and further info in the book?  James said something like 80 - could you get us at least a partial list when you have the time?  

and could you see if you have the chance to list which Abyssal layers are described?


now, to get back to finishing on re-reading the rest of the thread...


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

OK, i've spent enough time on this thread for now... 



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Revisited and revised or introduced for the first time we have the following; armanite, bar-lgura, broodswarm, bulezau, chasme, dybbuk, ekolid, goristro, guecubu, lilitu, mane, molydeus, nabassu, rutterkin, sibriex and yochlol.




glad to see all the demons from BoVD (except the babau who is in the 3.5 MM, and the shadow demon who i never really considered to be part of the demons despite the name), as well as the armanite and goristro from MotP and yochlol getting an official 3.5 update.  and of course, like everyone else, glad to see the molydeus finally joining 3E.    i can understand seeing the bulezau and nabassu being reprinted here, as hardcovers have a tendency to get more use than magazines for many folks.  i'm assuming that the others (broodswarm, dybbuk, ekolid, guecubu, lilitu, and sibriex) are new?

does the book have stats for any non-demon monsters?  does the index of all printed demons have info on all Abyssal inhabitants, or just demons?



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Name, title, concerns, layer. They also have notes. d for deceased, f for female, 0 for obyrith. A - indicates that they don't actually have a laryer of the abyss.




how many names from that list would you be willing to reproduce?   

for one thing, i wanted to write a Wikipedia stub for Obox-ob, but i know nothing about him other than his name.  i added ones for Malcanthet and Dagon today, and all the other 14 main lords already had one.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 28, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> However, shortly after the printing of the Fiend Folio, we have the 3.5 MM - in which our good ol' Balor went up to 20 in both HD and CR.




The fiends in the _Fiend Folio_ were designed with that in mind. The FF is _almost_ a 3.5 edition book, with the exception of how weapon resistances work. I tend to call it "D&D 3.4." 



> when I look at archdemons, I think of them on about the same tier of power as altraloths, archomentals, and slaad lords.




I don't think it has anything to do with edition or even product line, but only the preferences of the individual designers. Lester Smith and Wolfgang Baur evidently thought it would be a good idea to provide stats for a few Abyssal lords, for those campaigns that got high enough level to challenge them. Ed Bonny thought that statting altraloths and slaad lords would make for a good couple of Dragon Magazine articles. And we know Monte Cook likes stats for archomentals. Colin McComb, on the other hand, made much of the godlike status of the planar lords, and treated them as beyond the ken of game statistics in _On Hallowed Ground_, _Hellbound_, _Faces of Evil_, _Planes of Conflict_, _Planes of Law_, and Dragon #223.


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

so, in other words, the left hand either didn't know or simply didn't care what the right hand was doing?  

sounds like not much has changed...


----------



## Sammael (May 28, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> The fiends in the _Fiend Folio_ were designed with that in mind. The FF is _almost_ a 3.5 edition book, with the exception of how weapon resistances work. I tend to call it "D&D 3.4."



It wouldn't be the first (or the last) time that lack of communication within WotC resulted in contradicting material. Hell, half the time after the writers turn over their stuff to the editors, the editors mangle it horribly without ever bothering to even notify - much less consult with - the writers. So we end up with stuff that is completely opposite from what the writers intended  it to be.


----------



## Kyanus Ren (May 28, 2006)

*Demonomicon Artilces vs. Fiendish Codex 1*

With the knowledge that FC1's Demon Lords will be powered down from their counterparts in the Dragon Articles, will we ever get to see treatment of Grazzt, Orcus and Demogorgon in the pages of Dragon?  I must say, the power levels in Dragon and the amount of information there is perfect.  I would be deeply disappointed to see the 3 most famous demon lords (And my favorites) get less treatment than some lesser known ones.  So hopefully they will be appearing in the not too distant future.  

Erik or James, any chance to comment?


----------



## glass (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> It pays to have  the chickens as your allies when seeking the fnord.



When seeking the what? That sentance just stops....  


glass.


----------



## Imruphel (May 28, 2006)

Does it explain why tanar'ri are immune to electricity?

I'm still wondering about that since 2E. It seems to have been a random design decision (like most things relating to the design of the tanar'ri) but was wondering whether it had been explained.


----------



## Delta (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> That actually confuses me more.
> So now we'll have a Forgotten Realms Lolth and a 'D&D' spider goddess?
> It's the whole Tiamat vs Dragonlance all over again!




I expect that someday WOTC (might be years in the future) will decide they need a "Crisis on Infinite Planes" to collapse everything back down to to one D&D cosmology, for the sake of brand identity.


----------



## arntof (May 28, 2006)

The articles in Dragon are great, so I really hope Jacobs will make some about the big three(at least Graz`zt).

The power levels there are quite perfect.


----------



## Staffan (May 28, 2006)

I hope not. I like to keep different settings different. If you're going to connect the different settings, do so through the phlogiston, not the astral plane.


----------



## Aaron L (May 28, 2006)

Or, even better yet, dont ever, ever, ever mention the phlogiston again!


----------



## Razz (May 28, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> no... it simply isn't.  the MM has a whole chapter dedicated to increasing a creature's power level.  it says nothing at all about making a creature weaker, so if you want to do that, it's DIY




Ah, alas, you missed my explanation on post #207 on one major reason why upgrading is harder than downgrading. Downgrading is a simple process of lowering the HD and SR, whereas raising the HD to upgrade is not enough. #207 explains it pretty thoroughly, but I'll hint that it has to do with the demon lords special attacks and qualities compared to the power of ELH monsters.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Ah, alas, you missed my explanation on post #207 on one major reason why upgrading is harder than downgrading. Downgrading is a simple process of lowering the HD and SR, whereas raising the HD to upgrade is not enough. #207 explains it pretty thoroughly, but I'll hint that it has to do with the demon lords special attacks and qualities compared to the power of ELH monsters.




I read your earlier post, I'm just not sure I find it entirely persuasive. Yeah, adding special abilities and then assigning a CR is a pain, though books like the Monster's Handbook make the process a lot easier. But regressing a monster involves a lot more than just subtracting HD and SR -- there's skills, feats, ability increases, etc to consider. Just the thought of having to recalculate skill points for a high level outsider makes me grind my teeth. (Do epic synergy bonus kick in at 20, 23 or 24 ranks? blagh.) Adding monster features is almost always easier in 3e than subtracting. But this is all YMMV.

But you are right that there's a glaring hole in the existing rules, one that the third party publishers could fill nicely. I've often thought it would be very cool to have a book that gave rules for advancing a fiend from lowly ranks all the way to the upper echelons. Something like Sean Reynold's Anger of Angels, a toolkit with lots of feats and prestige classes designed to customize fiends with unique abilities. 

Here are a few ideas I've had for prestige classes for such a book:

A class that lets a demon metamorphose into the next most powerful demonic race. A vrock can use this to become a hezru, or a marillith could become a balor.
A 5-10 level prestige class that lets a normal fiend become a unique creature with a true name, a unique form, and maybe a suite of customized spell-like abilties.
An epic prestige classe that lets a unique fiend become a fiendish lord, collecting more specialized abilties. Maybe at the end of this class they are able to forge soul items.
Finally, an epic class for fiendish princes, creatures who control a large planar territory like an abyssal layer. Levels in this class grant increasing control over the nature of the environment.


----------



## Sammael (May 28, 2006)

See _Gates of Hell_ by Dicefreaks for various infernal templates (Duke of Hell, Arch-Devil, Lord of the Nine). I know they also have similar templates for demon lords (ending with the Demiurge one, IIRC), but I don't know what their state of completeness is.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 28, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> See _Gates of Hell_ by Dicefreaks for various infernal templates (Duke of Hell, Arch-Devil, Lord of the Nine). I know they also have similar templates for demon lords (ending with the Demiurge one, IIRC), but I don't know what their state of completeness is.




Awesome! I hadn't heard of that product.


----------



## zakon (May 28, 2006)

It's Out???

Must Buy Must Buy Must Buy Must Buy Must Buy


----------



## Sammael (May 28, 2006)

*double post*


----------



## Sammael (May 28, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Awesome! I hadn't heard of that product.



Well, technically, I don't know if I'd call it a "product." It's a series of free PDFs produced by the Dicefreaks council. But they are better written then a lot of "commercial" PDFs. and I think they're going to compete in the ENnies this year. 

Gates of Hell board (links to finished PDFs are stickied in a thread).

Horrors of the Abyss stuff so far, including the Demon Lord, Demon Prince, and Demiurge templates.


----------



## The Serge (May 28, 2006)

Well, I believe that most Dicefreaks will be buying this book even though as a community we're disappointed with the direction WotC has taken.  

What's ironic for us is that we never intended on waiting this long to release our treatise on The Abyss, _Horrors of The Abyss_.  It's been in the works for about four years ever since the three original templates were drafted shortly after the original diabolical templates were drafted.  So, we expect that folks are going to draw inaccurate parallels between our HoTA and WotC's HotA.

That said, and as others have pointed out, folks have the ability to create their own version of these creatures and DF has taken pains to create planar archetypes as equivalent to, but different from, gods.  So, take Sammael's link above and you'll see (very) preliminary material on some of the better known demon princes and lords including a sexual predator Graz'zt, an Orcus you'll love to hate, and a Demogorgon that will make Zeus, Odin, and other greater gods have nightmares.  And, if you don't want your planar lords equal to gods, but at least within a reasonable power-level compared to the demons and devils as stated in 3.5 MM, Kain Darkwind -- one of our chief designers -- created his own version of the planar lords.

In the end, I'm sure that there will be material in WotC's latest work on the planes that can be salvaged and I don't think it's a total lost.  I do hope (and I admit that I've not read Joe's review yet... Want to be a little surprised and hopeful after some of the disappointing news) that there is at least a new, accurate, and (gods help us) _cool_ picture of Demogorgon, the _true_ Prince of Demons (sorry, Nightfall, but Orcus is not Demogorgon  ).


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 28, 2006)

*Semi-Complete Review*

Still has to go through some more editing of course.

Don't have the book with me right now and it'll probably be a day or two before I'm back online so hopefully the latter part of the review with all the planes detailed will provide some info.

Hordes of the Abyss
ISBN 13-978-0-7869-3919-0
Written by Ed Stark, James Jacobs, Erik Mona
Published by Wizards of the Coast
www.wizards.com/dnd
160 full color pages
$29.95

Demons are a fan favorite for gamers and have a long history in role playing games. This includes unofficial expansions in previous editions such as Mayfair’s Role Aid’s demons line and in 3.5 with Green Ronin’s Armies of the Abyss and Legions of hell which were latter combined into one book. This doesn’t count Mongoose take on it with books on Demonology or OGL variants dealing with the lower planes nor Necromancer Games take on the demon lords in Tome of Horrors series.

Of course that doesn’t touch on the official expansions from TSR to Wizards of the Coast. The old Monster Manual from 1st edition and it’s sequel, along with the numerous supplements for Planescape and even in late 3.0 products like the Book of Vile Darkness to Dragon magazine’s support, including new demonology articles. 

The book uses standard two-column format. Broken into five chapters with three appendices, the book makes good use of white space or has the illusion of it with dark red borders. Chapters are laid out towards the outside margin towards the top of the page and page numbers on the bottom outside margin.  Page count is standard for Wizards of the Coast products and with the full color and hardback format, isn’t unreasonable, but other publishers like Steve Jackson games with their larger books at full color in hardback, are catching up.

Cover art is handled by Sam Wood. Interior artists include fan favorites like William O’Connon and Wyane Reynolds among others. Interior art is fairly solid but some reuse of art lowers that value. For example, while the full color picture of Graz’zt and Iggwilv by Wayne Renolds on page 101 is fantastic, it’s the same picture that was used for the cover of Dungeon magazine #121. The terrible illustration of Orcus as some balor style demon instead of his bloated self on page 73 comes from the Book of Vile Darkness on page 137.

Cartography is handled by Jason Engle and Kyle Hunter. They provide overviews of different locations, as well as mapped out lairs and encounter spots. The difference in their styles makes it fairly easy to tell for example, that Jason Engle did the Twelve Trees on page 134 while the overview of Thanatos is probably by Kyle Hunter.

The book starts off with Demonic Lore.  Want to know how a demon dies? There’s a charming little table that you can roll a d20 on and see anything from the skin of the demon peeling away to rotting away to nothing more than a foul odor. It’s a nice little touch to showcase just how different demons are from standard creatures.

The section on the origins of demons is merely a suggestion that demons arose from the Abyss after the deities, devils, and other powers left that plane and went to others. Pretty boring stuff.

The section on physiology covers a few areas but only in brief detail. For example, demons don’t sleep and those that do breath have powerful lungs and can breath in any Material plane. They don’t need to eat, but can apparently eat limitless amounts of food and some take great enjoyment from it, especially the devouring of sacrifices. 

In terms of why demons don’t overrun the Prime campaign, not a lot of thought is given. Perhaps because, when looking under Six Truths About Demons, that the Abyss calls to them. Which doesn’t explain why when fiendish portals open that they fight to keep them open and “take steps to avoid its subsequent closure.” Of course enjoying chaos for it’s own sake might explain a little of that. 

This includes the different roles that a demon can play in a campaign. Roles include assassin, brute, corruptor, manipulator, and the overlord. Under each type include suggested demons, combat tactics, how to use these types of function in the campaign, how to fight against this type of demon and general notes. 

For example, those fighting against an assassin have to have some protections and knowledge bases in place ahead of time as the assassin isn’t a straightforward encounter. Suggestions include having friends around ala the buddy system, to capturing the assassin. Basic information that well-experienced role players will have gone far beyond. No suggestion on proper spells to select when trying to determine if you’re under such a threat, and no guides on how much such a service in and of itself might cost.

Chapter tow moves onto demons. Revisited and revised or introduced for the first time we have the following; armanite, bar-lgura, broodswarm, bulezau, chasme, dybbuk, ekolid, goristro, guecubu, lilitu, mane, molydeus, nabassu, rutterkin, sibriex and yochlol. Also included are two new subtypes, loumara and obyrith with the tanar’ri still being the most common and reprinted here for ease of use. The loumara, in addition to a wide set of immunities (acid, electricity, and fire), not only have cold resistance, but are incorporeal and can possess creatures and objects. The obyrith don’t have immunity to quite so many things, but do have resistances and fast healing in addition to appearing so freakish that they cause madness.

Monsters are described by name, physical description, game statistics, strategy and tactics, sample encounter, ecology, society, and typical treasure along with a section on lore for each creature from DC 15 to DC 44. These additional tools allow the GM to get the most bang for his buck and quickly insert the monsters into his campaign as appropriate. 

My favorite is probably the molydeus. It’s a creature I recall from the old Planescape books that was described as something even a balor would fear. With it’s dancing battle axe of vorpal and it’s numerous innate powers, while it’s not necessarily something a balor would fear, it’s CR 19 insures that all but epic levels characters will respect this demon enforcer’s authority. It was also nice to see manes and rutterkin again as those are perfect minors for lower level adventures. 

One of the things I liked least about the book is it’s take on demon lords. The book has deliberately weakened the demon lords to make them possible to fight at the end of the normal progression of the campaign. This means that a standard group of four twentieth level characters should be able to take Dagon or Pazuzu or even older favorites like Orcus.

A strange thing since the other official source of these demon lords statistics, Dragon magazine, is going a different route and will continue to go that route of more powerful demon lords, nor that many people thought that the demon lords as they first appeared in the Book of Vile Darkness were underpowered to begin with. 

I can understand the reasoning. There’s a difference between being awed by how powerful a creature is an actually using it, but in the end, for me, it just doesn’t make sense and it’s not a change I like, and it’s not a direction I like. Why have epic rules in the core book, Dungeon Master’s Guide, if they’re not going to be supported? It also goes against the fact that the standard demons and devils were upgraded in the transition to 3.5. So the lesser are upgraded and the princes are downgraded?

Another problem with this approach is that it makes the demon lords very similar in power levels all about. In the “good old days” (god I’m old!) there were noticeable differences between the demon lords and it showed in their game stats. Now there’s very little difference in the power spread.

I know, someone will point out the quarter page on improving the demon lords and go, “See, they are supporting your campaign”, but that’s weak at best. Thankfully, it is true that it’s easier to augment a creature than depower it so I’ll be taking that advice or simply using a third part resource like Tome of Horrors when I need a demon lord to actually you know, be more powerful than a balor.

For those still looking for a weaker version, there is going to be a web update on the Wizards website that provides aspects of the demon lords that should be useful for lower powered campaigns.

Demon lords covered are as follows; Baphomet (CR 20), Dagon (CR 22), Demogorgon (CR 23), Fraz-Urb’luu (CR 21), Graz’zt (CR 22), Jubilex (CR 19), Kostchtchie (CR 21), Malcanthet (CR 21), Obox-ob (CR 22), Orcus (CR 22), Pale Night (CR21), Pazuzu (CR 22), Yeenoghu (CR 20), and Zuggtmoy (CR 21).

Demons start off with name, then an italic description of the creature. Game stats are presented in the new style. Lore for each creature is included which ranges from knowledge checks DC 20 to DC 35. Strategy and tactics covers basic combat formulas and each section ends with servants, enemies, and goals. Each entry is rather short and those seeking further information should check for the Dragon magazine articles featuring each demon. 

Afterwards, we move onto chapter four, Trafficking With Demons. It’s a section for players and game masters and points out appropriate PrCs as well as introducing new feats and spells. One of the first character roles mentioned is Demon Hunter. Those more interested in such information should hunt down Goodman Game’s Demon Hunter’s Handbook.

Other roles include demon master, demon summoner or demon worshipper. Because, you know if you didn’t put the word demon in front of it in a book about demons, people would become confused. Those former roles are generally better for an evil or ‘vile’ campaign. 

While the book doesn’t include any new PrCs, it does not which ones are appropriate and what source they come from. It covers recent books like the Fiendbinder from Tome of Magic as well as older books like the Book of Vile Darkness for the Thrall. It’s a short section and well, a fairly obvious one. There’s no “Wow!” factor in reading that one role a player might take is a demon hunter, especially when it mentions a demon hunting PrC like the Knight of the Chalice as from it’s very background, it’s an obvious choice. It’s a good cross-promotion bit for those who may not have those books but for those who do, merely a reminder.

Some of the feats include abyssal heritor feats and vile feats. The former are not necessarily evil, but do reflect the chaotic nature of the Abyss and are a result of the mingling of the Abyss and Prime planes mingling. The latter on the other hand, are only available to character who are evil and intelligence and often come with their own costs and are granted by higher powers such as a demon lord. 

Many of the heritor feats grow in power if you have more than heritor feat. For example, Claws of the Beast inflicts an extra +1 profane bonus to damage that inclurases by 1 for every two heritor feats you have. The vile feats range from knowing Dark Speech, which effects listeners depending on their alignment and level, to a ‘sacrifice’ feat, Evil Brand, that in and of itself is actually less useful than a normal feat, but is necessary to chain up to higher feats. Evil Brand provides a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against evil creatures, a similar bonus to other +2 to two skill feats with a limit. But because of that you can gain Demonic Conduit that increases the DC’s of your spells against lawful and good targets. Useful but still limited. Good for those casters who want to showcase their ‘evil’ nature.

Spells are arranged by class and in alphabetical order. For sorcerers and wizards, they also include division by school. Domains are also included as follows; corruption, demonic, entropy, fury, ooze, and temptation.

Spells vary in utility and level from enhancing your senses such as the 7th level Fiendish Clarity that grants you darkvision and allows you to see in margical darkness and see invisible and detect good, to the 3rd level blackguard spell, demon wings where you can fly at your land speed. 

For those who need a grounding or organization to get the most out of their play, or GMs looking for more evil, the organization The Black Cult of Ahm should fit the bill. While not a PrC, it does have an entry requirement. This organization studies demons. Members come from various ethos and alignments and depending on the branch, the Cult may wind up helping or hindering the characters.

Information includes how the cult fits into the campaign setting, different DC checks for players to seek out knowledge of them from DC 15 to DC 30, brief ideas on how to adapt them for a campaign, and two sample encounters so the GM can use them right away.

In addition to the cult itself, we have the Black Scrolls of Ahm. This is not one item, but rather the collected works of Tulket nor Ahm whose explorations of the Abyss were written down in the Black Scrolls. These scrolls provide a knowledge bonus to knowledge planes checks and have different rules for providing higher bonuses depending on how many different scrolls the character has. In addition, each scroll has a cumulative change of summoning a fiend associated with the scroll. Said fiend’s job is to steal and destroy the scroll as demons don’t want knowledge of their plane out in the open. To count that, the books can teleport away using either planeshift or teleport. Doing so resets the cumulative percentage chance.

The Black Scrolls provide a different way of handling an artifact and the different write ups from the Abyssal Mundus to the Rubric of Tulket no Ahm provide several different options for the GM to add to his campaign. If nothing else, they act as good bargaining chips when dealing with the Black Cult of Ahm.

Chapter five, Into the Abyss, provides details on the Abyss. One of the interesting things is that reading through it, it almost reads a little like the section on Shiggarreb, a qlippoth lord from Green Ronin’s Book of Fiends. 

Shiggarreb and her followed used the primordial stuff of chaos to create and destroy… they continued their mad experiments until hosts of ghaeles brought the qlippoth civilization tumbling down. Compare this to “Faerie Queen Morwel…ordered her ghaele knight legions to launch a devastating raid upon the Plain of Inifnite Portals.” 

Shiggarreb then becomes a good replacement for The Queen of Chaos and the qlippoths of Book of Fiends make good substitutes for  the obyriths. 

Denizens of the abyss covers the basics; tanar’ri, obyriths, loumaras, mortals petitioners and deities. Under mortals, brief mention is made of various Planescape fan favorite factions like the Dustmen and the Doomguard. The obyrith’s are the ancient Prerequisite:-tanar’ri race and the loumaras are the new breed. In some ways, as they are “the fitful last dreasm of a dying pantheon of evil gods”, they could even be related to something far off like the Dark Plea from Malhavoc or the Far Realm as those far off entities dream deep and disturbing dreams. The tie into madness when seeing the loumaras can help cement any such connection a GM makes. 

The different areas of the Abyss each include details on how to move about them, as well as various encounter tables. For example, if upon the Abyssian Ocrean, you may encounter tiefling pirates or while traveling the River Styx, have to fight off a Chaos beast. A nod is given to the fan favorite Charon, “a godlike yugoloth” who doesn’t both his passengers but a few of the boatmen do indeed seek the lives and treasures of their passengers. For those who want big ships, the book includes mention of the Ships of Chaos, “titanic magical vessels”. 

One of the nice things about the book is how many ‘winks’ it provides to fans of the older material such as including the Infinite Staircase and the River Styx. These little bits help tie the various editions together and provide good reason to break out the old Planescape material when looking for ways to get more details for game use. 

Those looking for other ways to traverse the outer planes might want to check out the Book of Eldritch Might III and it’s Nexus, a location that ties into various other settings. It could quite easily be used as a center point to link the different layers of the Abyss together.

The Abyss is certainly not standard traveling and has it’s own unique hazards and terrain features. These include things like viper trees that can attack those who come to close or memory fog, which causes confusion in those who dwell in it overlong. 

The majority of this section though, deals with layer descriptions. Layers start off with name, layer number, ruler, traits, background with planar traits detailed, denizens, locales, encounters, and adventure hooks. This often includes overland maps and a specific map of a location.

Included are the following planes with leader; Pazunia (Pazuzu), Azzagrat (Graz’zt), Demonweb (Lolth), Thanatos (Orcus), The Grand Abyss (none, contested), Twelvetrees (none), The Iron Wastes (Kostchtchie), The Wells of Darkness (unclaimed), The Gaping Maw (Demogorgon), Hollow’s Heart (Fraz-Urb’luu), Shedaklah (Juiblex and Zuggtmoy), Yeenoghu’s Realm (Yeenoghu), Androlynne (Pale Night), Shendilavri (Malcanthet), and The Endless Maze (Baphomet).

To take a closer look, the Demonweb is the 66th layer, ruled by Lolth with no gravity outside Lolth’s web and is infinite. Here, evil or chaotic spells work as if the caster was twice his normal level. Web spells are twice their normal area of effect. Spider climb lasts twice as long. Summoning spells summon vermin.

Touches like this make each layer a custom fit for it’s ruler and often pits some advantage in the ruler’s hands.  In terms of denizens, Lolth has Eclavdra as her chief diplomat and mortal ruler of her organization as well as Gethshuq, a powerful bebilith who announces Lolth’s coming to the Materal Plane. Others like Laveth, one of Lolth’s children, seek to take the Demonweb for their own.

In terms of locales, the map shows the Demonweb overview. This includes different portals including connections to Istivin, the Ship of Lolth, the Labyrinith of Arachne and others. 

One of the nice things about the planes detailed is that some of the lend themselves to adventuring easily. A high level party that owes a debt to the Court of Stars of fey creatures in general may be called upon to fight in Androlynne where trapped eladrins from the war that destroyed the obyrith struggle for survival. On the other hand, the players may have to seek out a prisoner in one of the Wells of Darkness. Perhaps a GM using Tome of Magic decides that some of the vestiges that a player calls upon are located here and they want out.

Appendix I: Lords of the Abyss, provides a breakdown of different demon lords with name, title, concerns, and layer. This includes those detailed here, as well as those mentioned in previous books, but not detailed. For example, Rhyxali is the Queen of Shadow Demons on layer 49, Shaddonon. 

Appendix II, Layers of the Abyss, provides a breakdown on over fifty layers with layer number, common name and ruler. This includes if the plane is contested or has no ruler. 

Appendix III is an index of demons with the demons listed in alphabetical order, includes their category (demon, tanar’ri, loumara, or obyrith), and source. They’ve done a good job of getting even minor entries like the abyssal drake from the Draconomicon, but don’t touch any of the various Dragon magazines. It also includes a breakdown of demons by CR, which revises the CR listing. Without a listing of appropriate game mechanic changes to the creatures proper though, some of the changes seem odd. The klurichir can summon balors but is now weaker than them. Some type of web supplement would be great here. 

My biggest problem with the book is the strength ratings of the demon lords.  Despite that, the demon lords are usable as is and will probably now see more use than they would have from the Book of Vile Darkness. In addition, those lazy and wanting more powerful game stats can still use the Book of Vile Darkness, the Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games or the various articles that are still running in Dragon Magazine.

The writing is evocative and brings forth different ideas quickly. While a lot of material has its origins in different material and perhaps even different companies books (Book of Fiends I’m eyeing you), it all seems to fit together well. The biggest problem isn’t in the quality of the content, but in the amount of it. At 160 pages, it’s impossible to do the Abyss justice when covering the politics, entities, layers, and potential adventurers. This could easily have been the first book of the Abyss as opposed to the first Fiendish Codex. Some may cry that there are no prestige classes here but as the new format eats so much space, I’m thankful that no PrCs are included.

If you’re game demands official 3.5 updates to demon lords and their minions and you want new subtypes of demons and more adventure seeds than you can shake a stick at, Hordes of the Abyss is for you.


----------



## Imruphel (May 28, 2006)

Thanks for posting your review. I presume that you will give it a score of 4?

It sounds like an interesting product notwithstanding the strange design decision with respect to the CRs.


----------



## Sammael (May 28, 2006)

Chapter 5 sounds fantastic indeed and probably worth the cover price alone. 

Now, about those mini hints: are there any?!?


----------



## James Jacobs (May 28, 2006)

Kyanus Ren said:
			
		

> With the knowledge that FC1's Demon Lords will be powered down from their counterparts in the Dragon Articles, will we ever get to see treatment of Grazzt, Orcus and Demogorgon in the pages of Dragon?  I must say, the power levels in Dragon and the amount of information there is perfect.  I would be deeply disappointed to see the 3 most famous demon lords (And my favorites) get less treatment than some lesser known ones.  So hopefully they will be appearing in the not too distant future.
> 
> Erik or James, any chance to comment?




The Demonomicon articles will continue to run in _Dragon_, more or less in the same format as they have been. For those seeking tougher, CR 25+ versions of the demon lords, this is where they'll be detailed. It's of course too early to reveal who's going to get the treatment in the future (or even who's next in the series) but demon lords like Demogorgon, Orcus, and Graz'zt are certainly in the running for Demonomicon articles.


----------



## Zarnam (May 28, 2006)

James, if you're still here, could you tell me one thing about the future Demonomicons - I know it's kind of a spoiler question, but I would be vary grateful for answering it    - will the "power limit" or better "CR" of the most powerful demon exceed 30 ?? Another form of this question is - will Demogorgon keep his 30 CR ??

Thanks !!


----------



## James Jacobs (May 28, 2006)

Zarnam said:
			
		

> James, if you're still here, could you tell me one thing about the future Demonomicons - I know it's kind of a spoiler question, but I would be vary grateful for answering it    - will the "power limit" or better "CR" of the most powerful demon exceed 30 ?? Another form of this question is - will Demogorgon keep his 30 CR ??
> 
> Thanks !!




The Demonomicon demon stat blocks will hover around CR 24 to CR 32 or thereabouts. Some might go lower, some higher. In other words, if I do a Demogorgon Demonomicon, his CR may or may not be changing. It's too early to say.


----------



## Nightfall (May 28, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I do hope (and I admit that I've not read Joe's review yet... Want to be a little surprised and hopeful after some of the disappointing news) that there is at least a new, accurate, and (gods help us) _cool_ picture of Demogorgon, the _true_ Prince of Demons (sorry, Nightfall, but Orcus is not Demogorgon  ).




Yeah well Demogorgon isn't Orcus either.  Anyway you heretics worship what you want, we all know who rules the Undead.  

*is hearted by the fact Orcus might yet get a Demononmicon Article* Still wish they'd use a different art piece. The Graz'zt one is fine. But Orcus needs better art.


----------



## RichGreen (May 28, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Or, even better yet, dont ever, ever, ever mention the phlogiston again!




Phlogiston! Phlogiston! Phlogiston!  

I loved Spelljammer (although I agree that crystal spheres and the phlogiston were a bit silly. Oh, and the dohwar were too).

Anyway, back on topic -- shame that we don't get a new "fat, bloated Orcus" picture. I don't like the BoVD image either. 

What CR do you think the klurichir really is now that the balor has been toughened up ? I quite like them, although not as much as the  myrmixicus. Used this in an epic campaign where the PCs had to sneak into Abysm and retrieve the Sceptre of Good from one of Demogorgon's vaults. 

Cheers


Richard


----------



## zoroaster100 (May 28, 2006)

My personal preference is for demon lords to have CRs of 24 to 30 or so, so that a party of 21st to 22nd level can just barely hope to defeat one if the players are prepared and do everything right (and maybe have a strong ally or two).  Having said that, the rest of the book sounds pretty useful.  I'm looking forward to it.  And I'm very glad that Dragon will continue to put out Demonomicon articles about the major demon lords with higher stats and more detailed info.


----------



## danir (May 28, 2006)

Aarrrgh, 
I want this books, but demon lords CR's of 20-23... I don't care about not using all the stuff in the book, but this is just.. bad. and no new edition until 4th.
I mean, putting the lords at 22-26 area would still have enabled 18th-20th level ppl to kill some lords, and even the strongest if they are smart. and it would have been a challange. cause CR20 is just not a biggie for 20th level characters.

Shame.
Please, at FC2 nudge up the CR's by a couple of ranks...


----------



## Baron Opal (May 28, 2006)

I'd be willing to gamble that we will have a Demogorgon Demononomicon article in about 12-15 months. Coincidentally, probably around the end of the next AP...


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Ah, alas, you missed my explanation on post #207 on one major reason why upgrading is harder than downgrading. Downgrading is a simple process of lowering the HD and SR, whereas raising the HD to upgrade is not enough. #207 explains it pretty thoroughly, but I'll hint that it has to do with the demon lords special attacks and qualities compared to the power of ELH monsters.




i didn't miss it.  i just couldn't, in good conscience, agree with it.    it's not at all harder to give a weaker monster a SA or SQ which an ELH or Demonomicon monster has - just give it to them.    harder to create one?  perhaps so, but only as limited by one's imagination.  in a lot of ways, it is harder to make a monster weaker, because if you have a really powerful unique SA, how to you depower that and still keep the spirit of the monster alive?  if you want to make a monster more powerful, all you need to do is add more power.  



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> Want to be a little surprised and hopeful after some of the disappointing news) that there is at least a new, accurate, and (gods help us) _cool_ picture of Demogorgon, the _true_ Prince of Demons (sorry, Nightfall, but Orcus is not Demogorgon  ).




well keep hope alive, my brother.    as i understand it, you have at least one thing to be happy about.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Included are the following planes with leader; Pazunia (Pazuzu), Azzagrat (Graz’zt), Demonweb (Lolth), Thanatos (Orcus), The Grand Abyss (none, contested), Twelvetrees (none), The Iron Wastes (Kostchtchie), The Wells of Darkness (unclaimed), The Gaping Maw (Demogorgon), Hollow’s Heart (Fraz-Urb’luu), Shedaklah (Juiblex and Zuggtmoy), Yeenoghu’s Realm (Yeenoghu), Androlynne (Pale Night), Shendilavri (Malcanthet), and The Endless Maze (Baphomet).




Cool, 15 layers is probably more than enough given the overall pagecount.    that, and we have the full list in the appendix.  Compare to this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyss_(plane)



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Appendix I: Lords of the Abyss, provides a breakdown of different demon lords with name, title, concerns, and layer. This includes those detailed here, as well as those mentioned in previous books, but not detailed. For example, Rhyxali is the Queen of Shadow Demons on layer 49, Shaddonon.




Good deal.    let me change the question I asked earlier.  Does this appendix contain the majority of the lords listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_lord_(Dungeons_&_Dragons) ?  any omissions?  Any new lords not on that wiki list?



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> The Demonomicon demon stat blocks will hover around CR 24 to CR 32 or thereabouts. Some might go lower, some higher. In other words, if I do a Demogorgon Demonomicon, his CR may or may not be changing. It's too early to say.




well, that is refreshing news.    i wouldn't be at all upset if Demogorgon, Orcus, and Graz'zt waited until 2007 to get their coverage, as it would be nice to see some neglected lords get their days in the sun first.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 28, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The Iron Wastes (Kostchtchie)




I might be ignorant to the many different pieces of information in all the official and unofficial demon lore (Dragon Mag, D&D - all versions,Planescape, Book of Fiends, DiceFreaks, etc) but I thought it was *The Icy Wastes* or *The Ice Wastes*.


----------



## BOZ (May 28, 2006)

could be an alternate name?


----------



## Erik Mona (May 28, 2006)

A lot of these places have lot of different names. Kostchtchie's layer is alternately called the Icy Wastes and the Iron Wastes in existing material. I thought "Iron" sounded cooler, so there we have it.

Demogorgon wins the award for most official names for the same layer, giving us Gaping Maw, The Brine Flats, and Abysm, depending on which source you're talking about. I went with Gaping Maw, but used the other two names for locations within the layer (I think Abysm was alway meant to be his palace name, but they got it wrong in the 3e Manual of the Planes).

--Erik


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> You're correct....I just finished running that campaign with my group earlier this year.  However, the difference is that at that point, Tenebrous was an undead *Power*, not an archfiend.  He was of a level of power greater than he had been as Orcus.



Actually no, in 2e Orcus was a lesser god. As Tenebrous he was lesser in power than he had been as Orcus. 

I am bothered by the low stats for archfiends too. Yes, I think working fluff is more important than usefull crunch. If ordinary balors can grow up to 60 HD, then the so called "Prince of Demons" has to be able to cow such a 60 HD balor into submission or he won't be holding his title for long.


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I prefer a design ideology that is accomodating to the way that many different people play



While that is a valid point, where is this supposed to end? Why should a player ever be forced to play something as uncool as a cleric instead of just being the deity himself? If Demogorgon can't be more than CR 27, what about the 20th level fighter that wants to slay the god of war? Shouldn't the god of war be made CR 27 too?

It's only really starts to get ugly if these stats simply can not match with the place these entities are supposed to hold. In _Champions of Ruin_ they made none of the _Elder Eternal Evils_ of Toril higher than CR 2X (IIRC). That can work, but in this case it requires that anything else on this world is below them in power (with the PC as grand heroes of the world being the execption and the ones to finally slay the EEEs). But if you can't turn a rock on this world without finding a level CR 35 NPC underneath, it just get's laughable to see this "doom of the world" creatures


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> My big concern is that a great wyrm red dragon shouldnt be in the same class powerwise as Demogorgon and Orcus



That's the point: If Demogorgon is not too weak, than many other creatures are just too strong


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> If they had said that the demon lords as presented represented their actual true selves, I'd be complaining bitterly with the other folks grousing about inconsistancy with Planescape canon. But they didn't, so I'm not.



As far as I have understood the earlier posts, the line that these stats only represent them outside their homereals has, for whatever reasons, not appeared in this book. So these are the stats for their true selfs.

And "they didn't write these are the stats of their true selfs, so these aren't the stats for their true selfs" is no argument.

The PHB didn't write "a first level fighter can not fly at a speed of 60 feet per round and with perfect maneuverability". So does this mean that my first level fighter actually can fly at a speed of 60 feet per round and with perfect maneuverability?


----------



## Kyanus Ren (May 29, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> The Demonomicon articles will continue to run in _Dragon_, more or less in the same format as they have been. For those seeking tougher, CR 25+ versions of the demon lords, this is where they'll be detailed. It's of course too early to reveal who's going to get the treatment in the future (or even who's next in the series) but demon lords like Demogorgon, Orcus, and Graz'zt are certainly in the running for Demonomicon articles.




Good news then!  Thanks for the reply.  That way, with just a little patience, we can all have the best of both worlds.  Looking forward to this book and future Dragon Magzine articles.  Here's to hoping that James and Erik dont leave Dragon any time soon!


----------



## James Jacobs (May 29, 2006)

Bringing up the advancement rules for demons (such as those 60-HD balors) is an excellent reason NOT to peg down the demon lords at static CR or power levels. Although I'd assume that 60-HD balors are rare, the _Monster Manual_ infers that they do exist, so it makes sense that the demon lords should be beyond such monsters. This is, in my view, an argument that demon lords shouldn't have stat blocks at all.

Also; what makes a good demon lord stat block in one campaign fails in another. In the Forgotten Realms, there are numerous NPCs and mosnters with Epic CR scores; in this campaign, it makes sense to have the demon lords be around CR 30 or higher. In Eberron, where there aren't as many high or epic-level creatures running around (yet), demon lords at the CRs listed in Fiendish Codex might be the way to go. In Greyhawk, they should probably fall somewhere between these two extremes. We could have included stats for all three power levels for all 14 demon lords, but that would have taken up a LOT more room. Since space was such an issue in this book, we had to choose which version of a demon lord's stats to present.

Essentially, demon lords have an infinite advancement. If there are 60 Hit Die balors in your campaign world and you want the demon lords to be able to push them around, by all means advance them all by 60 hit dice as well (which basically increases their CR scores by 60 as well, although at this point the concept of CR kind of becomes meaningless, I think).

For those who wish to place demon lords on the same footing as deities (which makes a LOT of sense, as they do control vast, often infinite, regions of the multiverse), I recomend that you use the stat blocks in Chapter Three of the Fiendish Codex as powerful aspects or avatars of the demon lord in question. This way, you can even have your PCs encounter multiple aspects of a demon lord at once. Leave the actual demon lords themselves as creatures that mortals cannot hope to face in combat and survive.

No matter how you want to use demon lords in your campaign, remember that the sections about each demon lord's appearance, personality, goals, and tactics should be useful to you; this information exists apart from their stats. And of course, Chapter Five of the book gives you a LOT more information about many of them as well (in the context of the various Abyssal layers they control).

In any event, fans of the Adventure Paths we've been doing in _Dungeon_ who are nervous about how the demon lords will be handled in the latter adventures in Savage Tide (our third Adventure Path, scheduled to start in issue #139) needn't worry about demon lords being used simply as monsters to fight (or even being creatures you can defeat).


----------



## Nightfall (May 29, 2006)

That last paragraph assures me then I'll be extremely pleased with Savage Tide.  Thanks James!


----------



## DaveMage (May 29, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Bringing up the advancement rules for demons (such as those 60-HD balors) is an excellent reason NOT to peg down the demon lords at static CR or power levels. Although I'd assume that 60-HD balors are rare, the _Monster Manual_ infers that they do exist, so it makes sense that the demon lords should be beyond such monsters. This is, in my view, an argument that demon lords shouldn't have stat blocks at all.




Yeah, but honestly, I think the 60-HD balor is a design flaw of the balor, rather than something the demon lords should be based on.  It may have been better design to cap the advancement of non-lord demons (and devils) at 30 or 40 HD in the MM 3.5 (since the lords had been defined in the BoVD).


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Bringing up the advancement rules for demons (such as those 60-HD balors) is an excellent reason NOT to peg down the demon lords at static CR or power levels. Although I'd assume that 60-HD balors are rare, the _Monster Manual_ infers that they do exist, so it makes sense that the demon lords should be beyond such monsters. This is, in my view, an argument that demon lords shouldn't have stat blocks at all.




There seems to be quite a gulf between this reasoning and CR21-23 presented in the book.

Did the complaints post BoVD even come up in design discussions?

Does the statement regarding higher stats for demon lords on their home planes actually exist in the book?  Could you offer a page number?  Because if the word that it isn't really there is correct, then this is a bad thing.  I don't care about canon myself.  But I do really care about where the bar is being set for D&D products.  

Demon lords do not have infinite advancement.  One pit fiend may have double the HD of a standard pit fiend, but Orcus is Orcus.  Sure, I can ignore your product and make Orcus be whatever I want (and if I'm doing that why is it I'm buying the book again?  And don't tell me about the fluff.  I don't pay people to play the game for me)  I can also ignore the MM and make goblins be whatever I want.  But it is going to run against the grain when I try to use other D&D stuff involving goblins.

Saying we should replace what you wrote with our own stuff isn't a real strong sales pitch.


----------



## Starman (May 29, 2006)

For those who want a higher powered Graz'zt, one can be found here in the Rogue's Gallery for Sepulchrave's fantastic Tales of Wyre story hour. He stats the Demon Lord at CR 30 and notes that on his home plane, Azzagrat, he is considered to have a divine rank of 1. There are also many other demons and creatures of an epic nature statted out in that thread, so check it out.


----------



## zoroaster100 (May 29, 2006)

After reading all the posts, and some further thought, I am now convinced the decision to use low stats for the demon lords was a mistake. I'm still interested in the book, but despite of the section on stats, not because of it.  I would have preferred that those pages got used for more "fluff" detail on demon lords, other layers, or more types of regular demons, etc.  I am still looking forward to the other parts of the book, but I think the lords should be statted with at least CR 23 and higher to ensure they are stronger than the CR 20 balor.  I am relieved, however, that I can look forward to stronger demon lords in the Savage Tide adventure path and in the Demonomicon articles.  Since I'm a Dungeon and Dragon magazine subscriber, that takes the sting out of the one part of the Fiendish Codex that may not be quite what I hoped.  But the rest sound very useful and interesting.


----------



## Nightfall (May 29, 2006)

In case anyone is curious, the Table of Contents for Hordes is up on WotC.com. FC:Hordes of the Abyss ToC


----------



## fafhrd (May 29, 2006)

What a shame.  Thanks for the heads up, Joe.  I guess I can hope that Dragon Compendium II will be the real repository for the Arch Demons.  _preorder cancelled._


----------



## Razz (May 29, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> It's only really starts to get ugly if these stats simply can not match with the place these entities are supposed to hold. In _Champions of Ruin_ they made none of the _Elder Eternal Evils_ of Toril higher than CR 2X (IIRC).




Oh please, stop, my mind can't take it---auughh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't ever remind me again how those FR Designers turned into slushy-brained 'tards when creating the EEEs. That was HORRIBLE! Such an outcry in the FR-community was ripped open wide when that happened. Those beings are supposed to make the deities quiver...yet an average group of 19th or 20th level characters can make mince meat out of them and serve them to Elminster for breakfast.....

Such disgusting design on the EEE. Did everyone forget about the EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK MONSTERS?! Those are legendary, deity-nightmarish, creatures!


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Such disgusting design on the EEE. Did everyone forget about the EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK MONSTERS?! Those are legendary, deity-nightmarish, creatures!



Like I said: I would not be so bad if they were at least at the top of the food chains. CR 28 doesn't sound like a "doom of the world creature" but if no other creature on this world has such a high CR it still works. What's really worse with the EEE was that they weren't even the highest CR creatures in their supplement. That's what I can not understand at all. 

If the designers say "Kezef has to be CR 24 because with a higher CR he would be useless for most campaigns" then that's OK, I might disagree but it's a fair reason that I can't understand.

But if the very same supplement also has a CR 3X evil lich, then I just can't understand it. A Kezef with CR > 2X would be too powerfull for the PCs, but a lich with CR 3X is fine? If 3X is fine, then Kezef should have been 3X and this lich should have been 2X (wow, a 2,000 year old lichking *yawn* how impressive, considering that Kezef is merely a god hunting nightmare dog older than the world itself)

And that's the problem with the demonlords. If a great gold wyrm is CR 26, a demonlord should at least be CR 26+.

So if the demonlords are not too weak, the other creatures are too strong or the D&D multiverse just makes no sense at all.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> While that is a valid point, where is this supposed to end? Why should a player ever be forced to play something as uncool as a cleric instead of just being the deity himself?




What the heck is that supposed to mean?



> If Demogorgon can't be more than CR 27, what about the 20th level fighter that wants to slay the god of war? Shouldn't the god of war be made CR 27 too?




The DM has control of what level campaigns he wants to run and thus control over the CR of any entities he wants the PC to face (or not face) in play.



> It's only really starts to get ugly if these stats simply can not match with the place these entities are supposed to hold.




Er, why can't they, again?



> That's the point: If Demogorgon is not too weak, than many other creatures are just too strong




Again, that does not follow. They deliberately made the starting point of all the demon lords above the starting point of any of the rank-and-file demons. If you have the ability to stengthen the rank-and-file demons for the purposes of your campaigns, then you have the ability to control the lords as well.

You control the horizontal and the vertical...



> As far as I have understood the earlier posts, the line that these stats only represent them outside their homereals has, for whatever reasons, not appeared in this book. So these are the stats for their true selfs.




Leaving aside for the moment that the authors have shown up here and said otherwise, so this is an editorial omission if true: The book explicitly provides you with means to extend them. What are the enhanced stats supposed to represent? Demogorgon's and orcus' older brothers that drop by every once in a while to give them wedgies? No, I don't think so. The "true selves" are what the DM wants them to be. Which is as it should be.

Sorry, I find this conclusion entirely illogical as well.



> And "they didn't write these are the stats of their true selfs, so these aren't the stats for their true selfs" is no argument.




If they provided no means to extend them, I might agree. But since they did, I must insist you are incorrect.



> The PHB didn't write "a first level fighter can not fly at a speed of 60 feet per round and with perfect maneuverability". So does this mean that my first level fighter actually can fly at a speed of 60 feet per round and with perfect maneuverability?




That's an entirely false analogy. Leaving aside that it could be a first level air elemental fighter with the information you have given me, a first level fighter is a game mechanical qualification.


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Er, why can't they, again?



Because a demonlord weaker than a balor won't be a demonlord for a long time, 


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Again, that does not follow. They deliberately made the starting point of all the demon lords above the starting point of any of the rank-and-file demons.



But the problem isn't only with demons, but with the total picture including all creatures in D&D. Why would a LG CR26 great gold wyrm suffer the existance of a CR 22 demonlord? He would have annihilated this paragon of evil long ago.


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> If you have the ability to stengthen the rank-and-file demons for the purposes of your campaigns, then you have the ability to control the lords as well.



I can rewrite whatever I want, but that doesn't change the fact that the stats as written make no sense at all. Demogorgon as he's officially stated in D&D is not able to hold the place he's officially supposed to have in D&D. 

There is only one Demogorgon and he's stated as he's stated in the FC and at the same time there are 40 HD balors in D&D, even if you do not play epic level games, a 20th level caster can call a 40 HD balor with a _Gate_ spell. These creatures are assumed to exist in the same standard D&D that has the CR 27 Demogorgon. So how will a 27 HD Prince of Demons impress a 40 HD Balor?


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Leaving aside for the moment that the authors have shown up here and said otherwise, so this is an editorial omission if true:



Actually the authors said: _"Looking over the printed book, it looks like that's not the case"_ and _"That's not exactly what I said. I didn't write the section in question, so I have no idea what was turned over to the editors. I seem to remember from discussions that these stats were meant to represent them "off lair," but that's my memory, not my turnover"_


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Because a demonlord weaker than a balor won't be a demonlord for a long time,




If a demon lord is weaker than a balor, it is because the DM made the Balor stronger and failed to do so with the lord. Again, you control the horizontal, and the vertical.



> But the problem isn't only with demons, but with the total picture including all creatures in D&D. Why would a LG CR26 great gold wyrm suffer the existance of a CR 22 demonlord? He would have annihilated this paragon of evil long ago.




So, any gold dragon that has enough wisdom to have survived to great wyrm age is going to charge off the a demon infested abyss to take out the demon. Sorry, AFAIAC, arguments based on second guessing the motivations of creatures, especially one this shallow, are really easy to talk around. I could come up with reasons why a gold dragon wouldn't do this all day.

In the end, the DM is still in charge of this, just like he's in charge of the CRs. If this bothers you, up the CR to the level that makes sense for your sense of logic and self-consistency.



> I can rewrite whatever I want, but that doesn't change the fact that the stats as written make no sense at all. Demogorgon as he's officially stated in D&D is not able to hold the place he's officially supposed to have in D&D.




Actually it does change that. Because the existence of the extension rules means that you can't peg it as a particular CR.



> There is only one Demogorgon and he's stated as he's stated in the FC and at the same time there are 40 HD balors in D&D, even if you do not play epic level games, a 20th level caster can call a 40 HD balor with a _Gate_ spell. These creatures are assumed to exist in the same standard D&D that has the CR 27 Demogorgon. So how will a 27 HD Prince of Demons impress a 40 HD Balor?




First off, HD =/= CR.

Second, where does the assumption lie that if you use 40 HD balors that Demogorgon is only 27 HD? As far as I can see, that assumption lies with you. So I'll agree that setup does not seem right to me. But it's your assumption that is illogical.



> Actually the authors said: _"Looking over the printed book, it looks like that's not the case"_ and _"That's not exactly what I said. I didn't write the section in question, so I have no idea what was turned over to the editors. I seem to remember from discussions that these stats were meant to represent them "off lair," but that's my memory, not my turnover"_




So, just blithely ingoring all the stuff that James Jacobs wrote on this very page about you controlling the power of demons and deliberately not pegging the power of demon lords?


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> If a demon lord is weaker than a balor, it is because the DM made the Balor stronger and failed to do so with the lord. Again, you control the horizontal, and the vertical.




That is all well and good.
But a design choice that works poorly with your own game still reduces the value of the product to you.
And the implication of where the bar may be now set for D&D in general is discouraging.

If it all comes down to DM control and obligation to tweak things then there is no reason to ever express discontent with any product.  After all, you are free to modify the CW Samurai for your games.  Does that make it stop being a disappointment to you?

I've built my own stats for stuff in the past and I'll continue to do so in the future.  So nothing lost.  
But this sounded like a potentially great book and the more I hear the more it sounds as if the ball was dropped.


----------



## Derringer (May 29, 2006)

*Question for a Tiefling Beguiler*

Hello All,

I am actually anxious to see if this book will have anything interesting I can use with the Tiefling Beguiler I will be using in the next campaign, which we will be starting up shortly.  I am not planning on playing him as a horrible evil guy....just a little questionable (in fact probably high on the good scale when it comes to someone with an abyssal bloodline).

Thus far from the review, it would appear that the Heritor feats might fit in nicely.  Can you tell us a little more about some of them?

Thanks!


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That is all well and good.
> But a design choice that works poorly with your own game still reduces the value of the product to you.




The product is not being written for just one person. I think that the approach they have makes it far more usable to a preponderance of games than it would have if the stats were placed where the disgruntled posters in this thread would have it. If I only ever run campaigns to level 20, it's more usable than a CR 30 set of stats to me. If I run campaigns on into the epic and want demon lords to be literally divine, I can use these stats as avatars as the group is on their way up the levels.



> And the implication of where the bar may be now set for D&D in general is discouraging.




That level 20 (or before) is a practical limit for most folks? I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It's the audience driving that, not the publisher.



> If it all comes down to DM control and obligation to tweak things then there is no reason to ever express discontent with any product.  After all, you are free to modify the CW Samurai for your games.  Does that make it stop being a disappointment to you?




No. But it's sure cute when you pretend to understand my stance better than I do.

This product is flexible. It lets you scale the demon lords as you wish. That not all DMs have the same expectations to power level caps can't be helped.

CW Samurai I dislike precisely because it is inflexible and could be done as a fighter with a new feat chain. For HoTA to fall into the same ballpark, they would have had to ignore previous incarnations of demon lords that essentially worked right the first time and statted out the demon lords as advanced balors.


----------



## BryonD (May 29, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The product is not being written for just one person. I think that the approach they have makes it far more usable to a preponderance of games than it would have if the stats were placed where the disgruntled posters in this thread would have it. If I only ever run campaigns to level 20, it's more usable than a CR 30 set of stats to me. If I run campaigns on into the epic and want demon lords to be literally divine, I can use these stats as avatars as the group is on their way up the levels.



Fine, but I'm talking about whether or not the book appeals to me.
I've already agreed multiple times that different stats may be used as the DM sees fit.  There is plenty of space between "literally divine" and lower CR than a Solar.



> That level 20 (or before) is a practical limit for most folks? I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It's the audience driving that, not the publisher.



No.  That L20 (pratical limit or not) is suddenly on the same par as a demon lord.  This is a change and it does not imply good things for future development nor does it support a system consistency.  

You said that you would be complaining as well if this was supposed to be their true selves and not just on other planes.  Well, it has been stated that this is in fact the case.  Have you changed you mind since you made that statement?  

I assure you that if further clarification comes along and it IS in there, then that will go a long way to improve my view of the product.  



> No. But it's sure cute when you pretend to understand my stance better than I do.



I was kinda hoping for a slightest less absurd response.
If turning around your points on you means that I'm claiming to understand your stance better than you do, then clearly you must be saying that you understand mine better when you use those points against me.  

No?  Of course not.  It would be absurd for me to claim such and it was absurd of you to do so.



> This product is flexible. It lets you scale the demon lords as you wish. That not all DMs have the same expectations to power level caps can't be helped.
> 
> CW Samurai I dislike precisely because it is inflexible and could be done as a fighter with a new feat chain. For HoTA to fall into the same ballpark, they would have had to ignore previous incarnations of demon lords that essentially worked right the first time and statted out the demon lords as advanced balors.



Ah, but you have also commented on the issue that a perfectly good samurai was displaced by the CW samurai, which is now the default D&D samurai.  Does the same not apply now to demon lords?  I can make Orcus be whatever I want.  But for future WotC products, modules, whatever, this is THE Orcus of D&D.  

I agree with you that the various power level expectations of DMs can not be helped. 
Do you think there are DMs out there who actually want an official standard solar to be more powerful than official Orcus on his home plane?  Because if the audience drove this choice then that must be the audience.


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Yeah, but honestly, I think the 60-HD balor is a design flaw of the balor, rather than something the demon lords should be based on.  It may have been better design to cap the advancement of non-lord demons (and devils) at 30 or 40 HD in the MM 3.5 (since the lords had been defined in the BoVD).



I'm figuring that, looking at example advancements of other critters in the MM, a 60 HD Balor would be a unique creature with unique capabilities. Notice how some other advanced creatures have different abilities granted to them, who's to say that a 60 HD Balor wouldn't be the Lord of some part of the Abyss?


----------



## The Serge (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I'm figuring that, looking at example advancements of other critters in the MM, a 60 HD Balor would be a unique creature with unique capabilities. Notice how some other advanced creatures have different abilities granted to them, who's to say that a 60 HD Balor wouldn't be the Lord of some part of the Abyss?



Then don't call it a balor.

And which ones have real unique abilities...?


----------



## jasamcarl (May 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Fine, but I'm talking about whether or not the book appeals to me.
> I've already agreed multiple times that different stats may be used as the DM sees fit.  There is plenty of space between "literally divine" and lower CR than a Solar.
> 
> 
> ...




Uh, yes, because I bet the majority of the audience is only interested in usable stats and is creative enough to come up with fluff consistency themselves, as oppossed to many of the fanboys in this thread.

This is perhaps the dumbest reaction to any product I've ever read on this forum.


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Then don't call it a balor.



Who said you had to?



> And which ones have real unique abilities...?



Dreadwraith - Lifesense.


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Uh, yes, because I bet the majority of the audience is only interested in usable stats and is creative enough to come up with fluff consistency themselves, as oppossed to many of the fanboys in this thread.



So give me fluff consistency that explains how these demonlords are able to rule in an environment where there are thousands of creatures more powerfull than them.

How does a CR 19 demonlord rule over hundreds of balors? How does a CR 20 archdevil impress all these hellfire wyrms?


----------



## Ripzerai (May 29, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Again, that does not follow. They deliberately made the starting point of all the demon lords above the starting point of any of the rank-and-file demons.




Unfortunately, they didn't. Juiblex is CR 19, Baphomet is CR 20, and Yeenoghu is CR 20, so two of them are at about the same threat level as a balor and one of them is less threatening.

Granted, CR isn't an absolute measure of who can defeat whom, but from what we know about their raw CR it looks like at least three unique fiends, rulers of vast territories in the Abyss, are at about the same level as the rank-and-file demons.



> The product is not being written for just one person.




No, it's apparently been written for people whose campaigns are more about having wild, nonsensical fun than being self-consistent. And that's fine - that's a valid approach. But when people point out that there's dissonance there, that the Abyss as written doesn't really make sense now, they're not wrong. 

The product seems to be aimed at the subset of people who not only stop their campaigns at 20th level, but who nonetheless think their PCs ought to be able to take on threats that, in a campaign where logic was an issue, they would have no chance against.

I am _not_ in any way denigrating the beer-and-prezels crowd. I'm well aware that it's a _game_ and not necessarily "serious" epic fantasy. But the point that this is, indeed, _not_ consistent with a serious game is still valid.

A mortal king keeps his powerful knights in line because they respect his right to rule, or know that the king's other followers respect the king's right to rule more than they do that of the knights. Demons are, by definition, chaotic creatures who care nothing for the rule of law. 

A CR 23 Demogorgon, sharing a layer with non-unique balors and so forth (and what happened to Demogorgon's advanced marilith bodyguards, or Severik the balor fighter 10?) isn't a ruler anymore; he's a mascot at best. The other demons keep him around because they think he's lucky - as long as his luck holds out. Or they respect him because he's old and wise and reminds them of their rich history. They come to him when they have problems, and if he gives them good advice they say, "Thank you, great lord. Once again, you have shown why we don't bother to kill you." But he doesn't rule. If he has an off day and gives bad advice, they kill him. They're a plane full of homocidal megalomaniacs prone to childish fits of rage, what do you expect? There's only one of him, and he's surrounded by enemies - even his closest allies are sharks waiting for a sign of weakness. What's the worst that can happen if he dies? Anarchy? They're demons; anarchy only stimulates them. 

I can see some Abyssal lords - I'm thinking mainly of Graz'zt - keeping their troops in line through sheer charisma and intellect, but the traditional way differences are settled in the Abyss is through bullying and intimidation. The Abyss is a Darwinian nightmare realm, and survival of the fittest is the rule its denizens adhere to the most.


----------



## jester47 (May 29, 2006)

Possession, I want to know about the possession rules, Joe, you never covered that in your review.  How does it work?  Previous possession rules have been lame.  

Also, is there a shadow demon in there?  I loved the sheer violence of the 3.0 shadowdemon, do we get new stats (and maybe a new name because I did not see them in the TOC?)

CR 20 demonlords are just fine for me as I don't go into epic levels.  There are all sorts of creative ways to keep other demons out of the seats of the demon princes.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 29, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> There are all sorts of creative ways to keep other demons out of the seats of the demon princes.




Such as?


----------



## DaveMage (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I'm figuring that, looking at example advancements of other critters in the MM, a 60 HD Balor would be a unique creature with unique capabilities. Notice how some other advanced creatures have different abilities granted to them, who's to say that a 60 HD Balor wouldn't be the Lord of some part of the Abyss?




Good point.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 29, 2006)

So why isn't the 60 HD balor the "Prince of Demons?" In an Abyss where some of the rulers are CR 45 balors and some of them are CR 23 Demogorgon or CR 19 Juiblex, I would expect Demogorgon and Juiblex not to have much renown or importance in their plane compared to the _real_ lords of the Abyss. 

You end up with a situation where, yeah, your 20th level PCs can kill Demogorgon, but who really cares? Killing an advanced balor, now, _that_ would be an impressive feat! 

There's a balancing act to maintain, I think. Yeah, you want your 20th level PCs to be able to do amazing things at the climax of your campaign, but if you have to water down the stats of the end-villain for this to happen, their deeds are no longer amazing. And that defeats the whole point, doesn't it? The Abyss goes on as it always did, since no one important was killed.


----------



## Delta (May 29, 2006)

*Question to James*

Mr. Jacobs, I'm very curious about the following. Putting entirely aside the issue of what CR demon lords _should_ be... how do you correlate the stats and abilities with a particular CR?

Do you do combat playtests for HOTA and/or the Dragon articles? If so, how extensive?


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> So why isn't the 60 HD balor the "Prince of Demons?" In an Abyss where some of the rulers are CR 45 balors and some of them are CR 23 Demogorgon or CR 19 Juiblex, I would expect Demogorgon and Juiblex not to have much renown or importance in their plane compared to the _real_ lords of the Abyss.
> 
> You end up with a situation where, yeah, your 20th level PCs can kill Demogorgon, but who really cares? Killing an advanced balor, now, _that_ would be an impressive feat!
> 
> There's a balancing act to maintain, I think. Yeah, you want your 20th level PCs to be able to do amazing things at the climax of your campaign, but if you have to water down the stats of the end-villain for this to happen, their deeds are no longer amazing. And that defeats the whole point, doesn't it? The Abyss goes on as it always did, since no one important was killed.



That's all true, which is why every DM has to maintain a sense of logical balance for their own campaigns. If 60 HD Balors exist, then perhaps the level of power needs to be altered. If Archfiends can be killed, can Gods as well?


----------



## Aaron L (May 29, 2006)

RichGreen said:
			
		

> Phlogiston! Phlogiston! Phlogiston!
> 
> I loved Spelljammer (although I agree that crystal spheres and the phlogiston were a bit silly. Oh, and the dohwar were too).
> 
> ...




Risking going off topic: I liked Spelljammer too, but crystal spheres and phlogiston made me gag.


----------



## Aaron L (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> That's all true, which is why every DM has to maintain a sense of logical balance for their own campaigns. If 60 HD Balors exist, then perhaps the level of power needs to be altered. If Archfiends can be killed, can Gods as well?





Of course they can


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Of course they can



Then the Deities & Demigods power levels need to be altered to fit with the rest of the campaign then.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 29, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Mr. Jacobs, I'm very curious about the following. Putting entirely aside the issue of what CR demon lords _should_ be... how do you correlate the stats and abilities with a particular CR?
> 
> Do you do combat playtests for HOTA and/or the Dragon articles? If so, how extensive?




When I'm designing or evaluating a new monster, I start by comparing it to existing creatures (preferably those in the Monster Manual, since they've had the most "test driving"). For working on _Dungeon_ I have a handy chart that takes the average hit points, AC, attack rolls, damage, saving throws, and special ability save DCs for all the monsters in the Monster Manual; this gives me a good idea of what a generic monster of any CR from 1 to 20 should be able to do. If his AC is low, his hit points or DR should be high. If his average damage is high, his base attack should be low. But for the most part, I try hard to make sure that the numbers are all in line with the averages, more or less.

For work on the Fiendish Codex, I extended these tables up to CR 23, but the proceedure remains the same.

There's also a good deal of common sense and art invovled in assigning a CR. If a creature's about as tough as a bugbear but it can summon CR 6 creatures, it's either got to be a higher CR than its base stats would suggest, or its base stats need to be bumped up. In cases like this, I prefer to bump up the creature's base stats.

Of course, once you start going past CR 20, it gets really difficult to peg a creature's CR. At high level play, PCs (and monsters) tend to have a LOT of abilities that can end a combat instantly with a poor roll of the dice. Death effects, petrification, and the like that increase this random factor are never good for PCs; monsters that have such attacks should probably be a little higher CRd than their stats would otherwise say, but then you have a monster that relies more on luck than design to hold its own.

I generally don't do much playtesting of monsters, since the generic stats they're all based on have already been playtested more than enough. When I'm doing something that deviates far from the norm, I'll test it out on my unsuspecting Saturday players, though... poor guys!


----------



## Sammael (May 29, 2006)

Never mind... my reply was too snarky towards James.


----------



## MacDuff_1969 (May 29, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The section on the origins of demons is merely a suggestion that demons arose from the Abyss after the deities, devils, and other powers left that plane and went to others. Pretty boring stuff.




On the contrary, I applaud this hook!

In fact, I will go so far (regardless of its popularity among boardmembers) to say that FC2 should echo this line and leave the current racial factions of CE/NE/LE as the current manifestations of their realms.

Said differently, for me, Chaos embodies that metaphorically murky, dangerous time/place from which we all draw our nightmares. Also, chaos is that which preceeds not only civilization, but also the taming of the environment and ultimately the codification of laws (regardless of where you end up on the alignment wheel).

Also, by leaving the origin of all 3 species undefined it mitigates the overarching power problem (even if it is only a conceptually inferred problem) given to the yugoloths with their: 1-baern benefactors, 2-power bases on 3 sets of the 5 most evil planes on the great wheel, 3-permanent numbers regardless of attrition, and 4-ability to pull the strings ultimately in the bloodwar (which leaves the other two fiendish races as their patsies).

Lastly, I don't see this or any origin myth/story as the bottom line, but for me it is certainly better than one that is just a form of racial propoganda.

Said differently, the yugoloths may have the longest recorded histories in the lower planes but only likely due to them never having been the object of the demons/devils long-term ire (forcing it to be torn from their hands by their arch-rivals) or consumed by infighting among their own powers/lords.

Long live rumor, innuendo and even racial propoganda ... as long as it allows for gaming diversity and balance among the alignments.


----------



## Shemeska (May 29, 2006)

MacDuff_1969 said:
			
		

> On the contrary, I applaud this hook!
> 
> In fact, I will go so far (regardless of its popularity among boardmembers) to say that FC2 should echo this line and leave the current racial factions of CE/NE/LE as the current manifestations of their realms.
> 
> ...




If there's at least a mention to the Heart of Darkness mythos, even if just as one competing legend, then I'm fine with it. Competing, contradictory legends, all of whom might be correct in some manner is fine with me. Planescape was filled with that sort of delicious, richly mythical material. I just don't want a firm new answer to toss out the previous lore, precisely because the prior lore was so rich.

I like hazy origin stories.

I wrote up my own variation of the Baernaloths creating the Tanar'ri out of the metaphysical waste of the purification of the yugoloths, portraying the pre-Tanar'ri denizens of the Abyss watching as the skies opened, boiling with a rain of larvae who matured and mutated, turning into the first Tanar'ri before they even hit the ground like a gnashing, screaming rain, hungry above all else.

If the ideas tossed out in the FC:I on Tanar'ri origin are still hazy, and don't attempt to just blanket contradict the Baern mythos, I can work with them too. I can find a delicious irony if the Baernaloths took their children and showed them the Abyss, opened their eyes and showed them the newborne Tanar'ri, telling them "We created them, and we give them to you to manipulate. Do well, and in time we shall let you control them directly as we are capable of. Show yourselves worthy as our firstborn, our chosen heralds of the Waste, and we will share our power and our secrets with you." 

But what if they had neglected to tell the Yugoloths the truth, what if the Yugoloths had accepted the word of their parents and creators as gospel, never suspecting that the Baernaloths would have lied to them? What if they had shown them the newly forming Tanar'ri, a young race of the Abyss, but neglected to inform the Yugoloths of the older denizens that had come before those demons. The Baernaloths would smile amongst themselves, cackling, empowered by the notion of having perverted truth amongst even their own 'favored' creations, promising them much, promising them everything if only they would obey, if only they could prove themselves worthy. 

The Yugoloths, eager little perversions of morality taken flesh, they complied, building and embracing a virtual religion with themselves as supplicants and messiahs all at once to the godhead of the Baernaloths, looking for truths and secrets and powers that in truth, would never be theirs and would never have been given to them in the first place. They too were simply rats in the experiment of Evil, rats in their own little maze, taking their notes and observations, never realizing they were subjects rather than anything of any importance in the grand scale of the multiverse. In the end, not power, not importance, not meaning nor purpose, but only loss and misery were all that could be handed to them from the empty, diseased hands of their makers.


Hazy origin myths allow me to pick and play with subjective little 'what if' truths. I can have the 'loths as the ultimate masters of the lower planes, or simply victims themselves. Give me hazy origin myths that compete with one another, and give me ones that don't try to rewrite what we already know from the 2e material.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 29, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> So give me fluff consistency that explains how these demonlords are able to rule in an environment where there are thousands of creatures more powerfull than them.
> 
> How does a CR 19 demonlord rule over hundreds of balors? How does a CR 20 archdevil impress all these hellfire wyrms?




There is this thing called politics...there is this thing called tradition..and there are various other factors that influence real societies but which many of the self-described champion's of 'logic' and 'consistency' prefer not to think about. 

Ex: Stalin was not superman, yet he ruled over an state with tens and hundreds of millions of people.

Some people have a pretty silly, reductionist notion of 'power'.


----------



## BronzeGolem (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I'm figuring that, looking at example advancements of other critters in the MM, a 60 HD Balor would be a unique creature with unique capabilities. Notice how some other advanced creatures have different abilities granted to them, who's to say that a 60 HD Balor wouldn't be the Lord of some part of the Abyss?




In addition to the point that The Serge made, a 60 HD Balor when compared to the stats that are provided in Hordes of the Abyss would not only be a Lord, it'd be quite likely to overwhelm a lot of other Lords if the stats in Hordes represent their Aspects. 

I'll look at the book when it comes out, so the numbers might be better or worse when I actually see them. With that being said, Erik Mona wrote earlier:




> In my campaign, the roughly CR 20 demon lords in "Hordes of the Abyss" would reflect the most powerful aspects of the demon lords outside their home layers, where they would be significantly more powerful. That said, these guys are considerably powerful. Demogorgon, for example, has 499 hit points and 27 Hit Dice, which makes him pretty damn tough. I'd argue that these stats make Demogorgon more useful to 90% of D&D campaigns, since far fewer players seem to run epic level games than seem to run psionics, and psionics fans are a tiny subset of D&D players.




In comparison, a 60 HD Balor, assuming that you don’t increase the SR as HD increases or the use of any epic rules whatsoever, has 990 hp (also using assumption 2-meaning that the Con isn't actually higher). Assuming equal strength between Demogorgon and the 60 HD Balor, the 60 HD will have their most powerful attack at +70 or so, while Demogorgon will have it's most powerful attack at around +42 (not compensating for Demogorgon’s size, or whether it might have weapon focus feats, but even so, they wouldn’t overcome entirely the size penalties). Accordingly, the 60 HD Balor is likely to do a lot more damage to Demogorgon, even keeping in mind that the Balor probably won’t be able to penetrate Demogorgon’s DR.

Then, there’s the matter of the saves. 

Assuming there aren’t any ‘no saves available’ qualities on the part of Demogorgon, also assuming that Demogorgon had a Charisma of 40, the saving throw DC for Demogorgon’s special qualities would be 10+13 (1/2 HD) +15 (Cha modifier) =38. A 60 HD Balor, in comparison, will have saving throws of Fort +44 Ref +38 Will +39, even using the assumptions that:

1) The 60 HD Balor didn’t buy Great Fortitude or any of the analogous feats (which it probably would).

2) The 60 HD Balor didn’t spend any of the ability points it would get from standard advancement.

This means that the 60 HD Balor is capable of passing every single save against whatever Demogorgon does. For spells, the issue is worse.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think that downgrading Demogorgon (or for that matter, downgrading everything else to make sure they can't overwhelm a lower-power Demogorgon) really solves the problem.


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> There is this thing called politics...there is this thing called tradition..and there are various other factors that influence real societies but which many of the self-described champion's of 'logic' and 'consistency' prefer not to think about.
> 
> Ex: Stalin was not superman, yet he ruled over an state with tens and hundreds of millions of people.
> 
> Some people have a pretty silly, reductionist notion of 'power'.



The sowjet union wasn't the abyss, it's citizen weren't demons.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You said that you would be complaining as well if this was supposed to be their true selves and not just on other planes. Well, it has been stated that this is in fact the case.




Joe said "he didn't see it".
Erik has said that was the intention.

That does not equate to that "in fact being the case" until someone gets a chance to better scrutinize it. If it is, the contributors to the book have already shared their intentions and it's an editorial omission.



> I was kinda hoping for a slightest less absurd response.
> If turning around your points on you means that I'm claiming to understand your stance better than you do, then clearly you must be saying that you understand mine better when you use those points against me.




Whatever, Byron. You are digging up positions on unrelated topics in an attempt to demonstrate some manner of inconsistency. I am not doing the same to you.



> Ah, but you have also commented on the issue that a perfectly good samurai was displaced by the CW samurai, which is now the default D&D samurai.  Does the same not apply now to demon lords?




I've already said why I do not see the situations in the least bit equivalent. If you are just going to repeat your questions and try to pick apart my viewpoint from every angle, this is going to be a long thread. If you have a long enough memory to recall the CW threads, then you should also know that I'm not a "pick my opinion at random and back justify it" sort of guy. If I like -- or don't like -- something, there is usually a reason.


----------



## Delta (May 29, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> When I'm designing or evaluating a new monster, I start by comparing it to existing creatures...




James, thanks so much! I've been acutely curious about what happens "behind the curtain" on these kinds of projects.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, it's apparently been written for people whose campaigns are more about having wild, nonsensical fun than being self-consistent. And that's fine - that's a valid approach. But when people point out that there's dissonance there, that the Abyss as written doesn't really make sense now, they're not wrong.




You are making it out as if this is a canonical statement. James Jacobs has already made the point that the point was to not to peg the CRs of the demon lords. The Dragons are also official content too, and feature demon lords in the CR 30 range. The point is not to make a canonical reference, but to make the statistics usable to a wide variety of games.


----------



## BryonD (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Joe said "he didn't see it".
> Erik has said that was the intention.



Agreed and I certainly hope it turns out that I am the one wrong here.  I will be quite happy to be wrong.  But it seems designer intent doesn't always end up between the covers.



> That does not equate to that "in fact being the case" until someone gets a chance to better scrutinize it. If it is, the contributors to the book have already shared their intentions and it's an editorial omission.



As I said, I hope I am wrong.



> Whatever, Byron. You are digging up positions on unrelated topics in an attempt to demonstrate some manner of inconsistency. I am not doing the same to you.
> 
> 
> I've already said why I do not see the situations in the least bit equivalent. If you are just going to repeat your questions and try to pick apart my viewpoint from every angle, this is going to be a long thread. If you have a long enough memory to recall the CW threads, then you should also know that I'm not a "pick my opinion at random and back justify it" sort of guy. If I like -- or don't like -- something, there is usually a reason.



I haven't repeated questions other than to provide specific responses.

I don't care about the inconsitency so much as the critical comments towards others for holding the same kind of opinion on this issue that you hold on others.  

Some very good reasons for having a concern for this issue have been presented.  Reasons that have not been adequately answered.  Are you actually infering that this is something special about you that needs to be called out as different than others?
I'm not certain who you are trying to imply is picking opinions at random and back justifying.  I don't know of anyone in this thread doing that.  

Honestly, I'd really rather talk about the pros and cons of the issue at hand.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The Dragons are also official content too, and feature demon lords in the CR 30 range. The point is not to make a canonical reference, but to make the statistics usable to a wide variety of games.




Right. And in those games where Baphomet is only CR 20, what I said applies - that would be the subgroup that cares more about having wild, ludicrous, yet comparatively low-level fun than creating a self-consistent setting. And that's what the default is now; that's part of the advertising for the book, that what's in this book supercedes everything previous as far as the official version of the game goes.

I don't think there is a "canon" in core D&D, as (like you said) the various books and magazines contradict one another all the time. The githyanki in the _Planar Handbook_ are "eons" old and the millennium-old Lich-Queen is 150th in her line; in _Lords of Madness_ they're less than 2000 years old and this can't possibly be true unless the average reign of a Vlaakith is less than 7 years; in Dungeon #100 the lich-queen is killed, while she's still around everywhere else. And it's all "official," but there's no canon in the sense of a consistent storyline.

There isn't a "canon," but in many cases there's a default. D&D doesn't have a canonical cosmology, but it has a default one. There's no canonical pantheon for the game, but there's a core pantheon for the sake of an example. The lords of the Abyss may not have a canonical CR, but Baphomet's default CR is 20 and if you want it to be different you're either going to have to buy an issue of Dragon or do some math homework. 

And I'm saying that when people say the default CRs supplied in this particular book don't make the Abyss a very consistent place, they're not wrong. They're all about the same level as rank-and-file unadvanced balors, two of them equal to balors and one even less, in a plane full of anarchic bullies with anger management problems. Even the most devout anti-epic DMs might well have problems with their players maintaining suspension of disbelief. 

So I'm not saying it's "canon," but I'm saying that _if you accept that Baphomet is CR 20_ and you accept that balors are also CR 20, then you have a situation where Baphomet is continually threatened by his own minions, who (as demons) don't really understand the concept of loyalty, only ever-shifting situational ethics (or the utter lack thereof). As a mortal ruler he might be okay, but as a demon he's in bad trouble.



> Erik has said that was the intention.




He said it was _his_ intention, and what he thought might have been his fellow designer's intention, but that he didn't write that part of the book and wasn't sure. From what JoeGK said, the book states bluntly that the Abyssal rulers are rarely encountered outside of the Abyss. 

In other words, Erik's not the designer of that part of the book, and he seems to have been mistaken.

This discussion has become very narrowly focused on this one issue, when it's a comparatively tiny part of the book, and that's wrong. But it _is_ a real issue, a real inconsistency in the default version of the game.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I haven't repeated questions other than to provide specific responses.
> 
> I don't care about the inconsitency so much as the critical comments towards others for holding the same kind of opinion on this issue that you hold on others.




And I've already stated why I see the issues as different. The only answer I have to this is to repeat what I said a few posts ago.



> I'm not certain who you are trying to imply is picking opinions at random and back justifying.  I don't know of anyone in this thread doing that.




I wasn't acusing anyone in this thread of that, though I know enough. I was bringing it up because that seems to be the accusation you are levelling at me. I feel as if we have been members of this forum together for long enough that you should know me better.



> Honestly, I'd really rather talk about the pros and cons of the issue at hand.




Then do so. CW Samurai is not an issue at hand.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Right. And in those games where Baphomet is only CR 20, what I said applies - that would be the subgroup that cares more about having wild, ludicrous, yet comparatively low-level fun than creating a self-consistent setting.




I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush. Whether someone is interested in making a self consistant setting and whether they want to engage in epic level play are two entirely different considerations.



> I don't think there is a "canon" in core D&D, as (like you said) the various books and magazines contradict one another all the time.




I am glad we essentially agree on the issue. I could see some more consistency in the canon of the metasetting. But as it is, I don't perceive this is a canonical claim at all.



> This discussion has become very narrowly focused on this one issue, when it's a comparatively tiny part of the book, and that's wrong. But it _is_ a real issue, a real inconsistency in the default version of the game.




Whether you want to call it canon or a default, as James has said, "pegging" the CR of a lord is not the intention. It's only low because the way things in D&D work is to start with the base and work upwards. (What would be inconsistant is to provide a strong, and less broadly usable, default and "shave off") I beleive this is a mechanics/utility issue and I think its a mistake to read more into it than that.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Whether someone is interested in making a self consistant setting and whether they want to engage in epic level play are two entirely different considerations.




Indeed they are. In fact, one could be relatively consistent if, as was suggested by someone else earlier, one decided to use the 3.0 demons with the 3.5 default demon lords (and ignored the issue of gods sharing the same cosmology).

But using the 3.5 CR 20 balor with the 3.5 CR 20 Baphomet is inconsistent. If that's not an issue in a particular campaign, that's fine. If that _is_ an issue, it's something to keep in mind.



> I could see some more consistency in the canon of the metasetting.




I'm not even sure there is a metasetting at this point. Obstensibly, it's Oerth and the Great Wheel, but that isn't always true. Someone from Wizards stated outright that Oerth is no longer the campaign's default setting - some recent books, like the _DMG II_, have used it, but others, like _Complete Adventurer_, exist in a hazily-defined otherworld of completely generic names.

Toril and Eberron have canons. The D&D metasetting, I'd argue, does not, and I'd argue further that it's meaningless to even use the word "canon" when discussing core or generic D&D. It's simply a pile of options; occasionally, a proper noun will appear more than once, sometimes even in more than one book. But that's more in the order of in-jokes than canon.



> "pegging" the CR of a lord is not the intention.




Doesn't matter; I didn't say it was, and that's unimportant to the substance of my argument. Regardless of what Mr. Jacobs intended, there's a number next to each of those stat blocks, and a sizable percentage of people responding to this thread intend to use that number in their games, and are in fact quite vocal about their passionate desire to do so.

My analysis, admittedly uneducated, is that those people have games where consistency isn't as important to them as the ability to have their PCs fight named demons of balor-like strength in straight combat. And that's fine. But I think that's what's going on.


----------



## BronzeGolem (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush. Whether someone is interested in making a self consistant setting and whether they want to engage in epic level play are two entirely different considerations.




No, they're not entirely different considerations because on the subject of Abyssal Lords, they interrelate.

In the 3rd edition _Manual of the Planes_, it says that Orcus-as-Tenebrous killed the Illithid deity Maanzecorian. How could he have done that the way deities are described in 3rd ed, and with the stats that he's been provided? For that matter, shouldn't Orcus have stayed dead once Kiaransalee killed him?

In, I think, a previous Dragon magazine, Demogorgon was credited with creating the first Death Knight. How could he have done this if he has a lower Spellcraft than, say, Mordenkainen?

As far as Abyssal Lords are concerned, they need to have an amount of power sufficient to match the flavor...otherwise, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Considering the magnitude of their achievements, I'd say that logically implies that they're epic.



> Whether you want to call it canon or a default, as James has said, "pegging" the CR of a lord is not the intention. It's only low because the way things in D&D work is to start with the base and work upwards. (What would be inconsistant is to provide a strong, and less broadly usable, default and "shave off") I beleive this is a mechanics/utility issue and I think its a mistake to read more into it than that.




Starting with a base and working upwards, though, makes perfect sense when you're dealing with average creatures. Again, when dealing with creatures that in order to 'make sense' ought to have certain unique qualities, I would say instead that it makes more sense to start with a creature that's maximally powered and then lower it through decreasing HD, ability scores, weakening their special abilities, rather than having to think of the special abilities as they advance, or as you want to make them more powerful.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

BronzeGolem said:
			
		

> In the 3rd edition _Manual of the Planes_, it says that Orcus-as-Tenebrous killed the Illithid deity Maanzecorian. How could he have done that the way deities are described in 3rd ed, and with the stats that he's been provided?




Tenebrous had a unique plot McGuffin - the Last Word, part of the primal grammar of the universe, which destroys anything that hears it spoken aloud - even the gods. Tenebrous, then, didn't need to have better stats in that particular case.

And _Tome of Magic_ says that Tenebrous and Orcus aren't exactly the same being.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> And _Tome of Magic_ says that Tenebrous and Orcus aren't exactly the same being.




Well, not anymore they're not. They were at the time of some of the events in question.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, not anymore they're not. They were at the time of some of the events in question.




Well, and he/they might have had different stats at the time of some of the events in question; Tenebrous was a _god_ at the time, albeit not much of one.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

BronzeGolem said:
			
		

> In the 3rd edition _Manual of the Planes_, it says that Orcus-as-Tenebrous killed the Illithid deity Maanzecorian. How could he have done that the way deities are described in 3rd ed, and with the stats that he's been provided?




Either you haven't read Dead Gods or you are hoping nobody else has.

Orcus killed Maanzecorian (and other deities) with the Last Word. The current orcus does not have the last word. If he did, I doubt that his CR would be the same. This is an "author fiat" thing that should demonstrate how petty obsessing over CR is.



> For that matter, shouldn't Orcus have stayed dead once Kiaransalee killed him?




By the operative laws in _Dead Gods_, yes, and Tenebrous was a fluke as stated.

That has zero bearing on this.



> In, I think, a previous Dragon magazine, Demogorgon was credited with creating the first Death Knight. How could he have done this if he has a lower Spellcraft than, say, Mordenkainen?




What's the spellcraft requirement for creating death knights?

Don't bother looking; there isn't one.

That's because this, like innumerable other factors, are not modeled directly by the mechanics. Perhaps Demogorgon being able to create death knights could only be done by a demon lord. Perhaps if Mordenkainen had a reason to, he could create a death knight. Perhaps the truth is Demogorgon had nothing to do with it. You make it out as if this is the inevitable conclusion. It is not. You are the GM. You control the horizontal and the vertical.

If you are persisting as a D&D fan with the beleif that there should be some grand unified consistent canon, you are in for a life of disappointment. Where such bodies of creative works do exist, they are controlled by single creators or commitees. No such commitee exists for D&D. It's all up to authors and developers of given products to hammer things out. Different designers have different conclusions, and some don't make canon their top priority.

This book has an impressive amount of canonical research behind it and would you look at the grousing.

As for the priority bit. Yeah, I could see how that would be disappointing to someone who likes a nice consistant canon when their priorities get sidelined. But you know what? I think they made the right decision.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The book starts off with Demonic Lore.  Want to know how a demon dies? There’s a charming little table that you can roll a d20 on and see anything from the skin of the demon peeling away to rotting away to nothing more than a foul odor. It’s a nice little touch to showcase just how different demons are from standard creatures.




Cool! I'd like to see equivalent tables for celestials, rilmani, and slaadi.



> The section on the origins of demons is merely a suggestion that demons arose from the Abyss after the deities, devils, and other powers left that plane and went to others. Pretty boring stuff.




Wait, so they're implying: 

1. Deities and devils originated in the Abyss,
2. it wasn't good enough for them,
3. and demons originated from the garbage they left behind? 

How ignominious.



> that the Abyss calls to them




"When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you; when you call to the abyss, the abyss also calls to you."



> Roles include assassin, brute, corruptor, manipulator, and the overlord.




At least that'll help mitigate the chaos = stupid or unthinking stereotype. 



> While the book doesn’t include any new PrCs




Good! We have plenty of those. 



> the collected works of Tulket nor Ahm




Is the whole book assumed to be, game mechanics excepted, from Ahm's point of view, then? 



> Shiggarreb then becomes a good replacement for The Queen of Chaos and the qlippoths of Book of Fiends make good substitutes for  the obyriths.




Replacement or addition; I suspect the qlippoth described in _Book of Fiends_ and _The Unholy Warriors' Handbook_ would work well as additional breeds of obyriths. 

The Shiggarreb/Queen of Chaos connection blows my mind. They look nothing alike (Shiggarreb is a giant spider thing (and one of the reasons I think of bebeliths as the ghosts of qlippoth slain by the tanar'ri), while the Queen looks more like Ursula the Sea-Witch from _The Little Mermaid_) but it makes perfect sense.

Or you could use them both as two seperate qlippoth lords. 



> Pazunia (Pazuzu)




If they're claiming that Pazuzu rules the Plain of Infinite Portals, I will vomit uncontrollably all over the book.

It'll be just like _The Exorcist_; Pazuzu would be pleased.

But I will be upset.



> Laveth, one of Lolth’s children




Interesting reference. I wouldn't have thought they'd have included that one.



> as the new format eats so much space, I’m thankful that no PrCs are included.




Me too. Those who want to waste space on yet more PrCs are wastrels and profligates.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> If you are persisting as a D&D fan with the beleif that there should be some grand unified consistent canon, you are in for a life of disappointment.




       This is true and wise counsel indeed.

       And it's doubly true if you think that grand unified consistent canon should be identical to Planescape, to the old 1st Edition articles, or to any other prior source.

      Matthew L. Martin


----------



## ericlboyd (May 30, 2006)

FWIW, I think comparing an advanced 60 HD balor to Demogorgon is a false comparison.

There are rules for advancing balors to 60 HD, for campaigns that need that kind of advancement. However there's nothing to say that there are 60 HD balors.

Even though Demogorgon is unique, there are rules for advancing demon lords. Therefore, if advanced balors exist in your campaign, then advanced demon lords probably do to.

In other words, if Demogorgon is CR 23 and a balor is CR 20, then Demogorgon probably retains the same advantage in a given campaign over the most advanced balor around. Now, you could argue that Demogorgon should be CR 32 vs. a balor is CR 20, but even in that case, both probably are either advanced or not.

--Eric


----------



## Nightfall (May 30, 2006)

Eric,

In an unrelated note, how is Dragons of Faerun coming along? 

*is staying quite neutral in this since he's waiting to judge the book for himself*


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

I like that demon lords and princes are put back in their place... as *one* of the toughest monsters in the DMs arsenal.


----------



## ericlboyd (May 30, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Eric,
> 
> In an unrelated note, how is Dragons of Faerun coming along?




My contribution to Dragons of Faerun has been done for months. Of late I've written two adventures for Dungeon and have begun work on a new project.

--Eric


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

MM said:
			
		

> This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of the creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found). The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.)




In other words, balors of over 60 HD are extremely rare, and balors of exactly 60 HD are less rare.


----------



## BOZ (May 30, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> In case anyone is curious, the Table of Contents for Hordes is up on WotC.com. FC:Hordes of the Abyss ToC




Thanks!  

While I'm not a big fan of appealing to the lowest common denominator, I can at least see part of the wisdom in making the demon lords at the absolute minimum level needed to make them more powerful than a balor, and providing the option to make them tougher.  (Can we reasonably assume that a CR19 Juiblex will always lose to a CR20 balor in a fight?  We haven't actually even seen the stat blocks yet, you know...)  Challenge Rating is, and always has been, an estimate of relative power of a creature, not any kind of an absolute.  In fact, they are often estimated poorly!  In fact, many designers do not agree on how to assign a CR!  You may build what you think is a well-designed, very tough CR10 creature that will lose to a certain CR7 creature nearly every time!

When it comes to the demon lords, people will make them as powerful as they want, anyway.  Some will be satisfied to keep them at the suggested levels in FC1.  Some like them a bit tougher and take the BoVD/Demonomicon stats.  Some like them tougher than that, and would take something from say Tome of Horrors I or what we have on the Creature Catalog site.  Some like them even tougher than that, and take from Dicefreaks or homebrew their own freakishly powerful demon lord stat blocks.  Some like them even tougher than that, and say they are beyond stats as we know them.  _Any one set of stat blocks in a book is not an absolute that all people will use._  The stat blocks in FC1 are not, and will not be the final word for these uber-beings, anyway.  Somewhere, someone, sometime along the line, in 5-10-15 years, there will be another edition of D&D, or just another book, and a totally different stat block will be printed.  Ideas are and will be re-hashed all the time.  Why are people getting so damned upset about what one book says about one little aspect of one little thing?  Good god, Mona and Jacobs are out to destroy your lives, and all the whining about it isn't going to save you, so just calm down and take it.    If you don't like the book, don't buy it.  If you don't like that aspect of the book, don't use it.  Like a number of other folks around here, I don't run epic games, so demon lords are only interesting to me academically, and it's not the end of my life if they don't reach a certain powerful level, and it shouldn't be the end of yours either.
[/rant]  sorry.  



			
				ericlboyd said:
			
		

> FWIW, I think comparing an advanced 60 HD balor to Demogorgon is a false comparison.
> 
> There are rules for advancing balors to 60 HD, for campaigns that need that kind of advancement. However there's nothing to say that there are 60 HD balors.
> 
> ...




QFT, seriously.

This theoretical 60-HD balor sure is causing some trouble!    If you have 60-HD balors running around, and the most powerful of demon lords is a mere CR 23, then your campaign has some serious issues.    As others have stated, if you would allow a balor to get that powerful, then as the DM you owe it to the internal consistency of your own campaign to make sure the Abyssal lords are much, much tougher, if not simply beyond stat blocks.

Another argument would be, why would a wise demon lord even allow a balor to get that tough?  A non-lord demon that tough represents a serious threat to any and all demon lords.  Let's say you use the BoVD stats.  A CR 32 Demogorgon would get worried about any balor that got tougher than, say, 30-HD.  He would watch that balor, and destroy him at any sign of him getting too tough, I'd think.  The complacency of allowing a balor to get to 60-HD, regardless of the power level of the demon lords respectively, is grossly incompetent, and the lords deserve whatever fate this uber-balor metes out to them.


----------



## Nightfall (May 30, 2006)

Eric,

Any chance you could confirm or deny this new project being a FR product?

Boz,

Welcome.


----------



## BOZ (May 30, 2006)

OK, anyway, enough about the CR stuff.  We're really not getting anywhere.  I've been in a ranting mood though.  

What is the deal for Obox-ob?  He's the only one of the big 14 that I really know nothing about.  What is he the demon lord of?  What # layer of the Abyss does he live on?  Give me a sentence or two, at least.


----------



## Nightfall (May 30, 2006)

And I thought I was the only one a smid annoyed by the constant bickering...

*again saves that for his own rants*


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> Can we reasonably assume that a CR19 Juiblex will always lose to a CR20 balor in a fight?




Of course not. Can we assume he'll always reliably win, against multiple challengers, over a period of centuries? Sooner or later, he's going down. Probably sooner.

And it's not even that his rule over Shedelakh is destined to be nasty, brutish, and short. It's the idea that they've taken a _demon prince_, one of the crowning adversaries in D&D since the '70s, and made it weaker than a Type VI Demon. 

Don't get me wrong - I understand the temptation to stick up for someone who looks like they're being picked on. Poor Erik and James! They worked so hard on this weighty tome, the book they were born to write, and look at all the sniping over this petty little meaningless issue! 

And it _is_, as many have said, a comparatively small thing. It's a tiny, tiny part of the book. But this is the Internet, and until we have something more meaty to chew on, we _will_ chew on it. And I think the designers understand that.

But you know what? The apologists are causing more trouble than the complainers. Because you know full well how disingenuous your arguments are. You know as well as anyone how silly the idea of a CR 19 Juiblex or a CR 20 Yeenoghu is. You know there's no cogent defense that can be made for it. Yet you proceed to add more fuel to the fire, which would have otherwise died down long ago. 



> Why are people getting so damned upset about what one book says about one little aspect of one little thing?  Good god, Mona and Jacobs are out to destroy your lives, and all the whining about it isn't going to save you, so just calm down and take it.




Why are _you_ people getting so damned upset over a little whining on the Internet? Good god, we're going to destroy Mona's and Jacobs' lives because we'd rather that, if the issue of power level is so contentious, they'd decided to err a little closer to common sense. 

This little tirade of yours is completely unreasonable. The Internet _will_ spawn complaints, and the ones so far have been perfectly civil. So calm down and take it; the designers in question seem to be taking it fine. I'm sure _they're_ aware that when we say we think it's a small issue, we mean what we say, even if you're not.



> If you don't like the book, don't buy it.




If you don't want to read nerds complaining about things, don't log on to the Internet. That's what it was designed for; it was hoped that if nuclear war arrived, nerds would still have a way to critique popular culture. 



> Another argument would be, why would a wise demon lord even allow a balor to get that tough?




Oh, good grief. You'll defend to the death anything _Fiendish Codex I_ says, but you won't defend the _Monster Manual_?

The Abyss is full of out-of-the-way places, places even CR 23 Abyssal lords fear, for balors to wait and grow. An infinite number of them, in fact. 

The MM says advanced balors _do_ exist. FF1 says advanced Abyssal lords _might_ exist. That's dissonance. 

Dissonance. That's the whole complaint, and it's not a harsh one. Erik Mona and James Jacobs are grownups and don't need you to protect them. Our opinions aren't hurting anybody.


----------



## BOZ (May 30, 2006)

why you throw chip?  go back and re-read some of my posts.  in no way am i happy about the CR change.  my panties are just not in a bunch over it.

(they're fitting very snugly, thank you very much).


----------



## Piratecat (May 30, 2006)

*Time to stop the bickering, folks.* Yes, even if you have a _really_ clever retort lined up, and even if you feel like the aggrieved party. We'd like the thread to stay on topic, without the arguments.

Although gamers often feel strongly about their demon lords, it's an easy topic to discuss without taking personal offense. So please don't -- and don't try to argue with anyone that does.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2006)

Personally, I can't wait to see the CR 19-22 stat blocks for the demon lords. Now, I agree that in any campaign I run, the demon lords are going to be advanced. I won't use the stat blocks as written.

_For them_.

But damned if they won't make for some excellent demon adversaries in their own right. A name change, a slight tweak in description, and bingo. Got a brand new baddie for most campaigns, _and_ the option to advance them if I ever have the need to use a "real" demon lord.

(Plus, of course, there's always the aspect/avatar option, which I can also see myself using pretty frequently. But that's already been covered.)


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Sigh. Fine.


----------



## Piratecat (May 30, 2006)

Boz, Rip, see my warning above. You have five minutes to edit and/or remove your posts.

EDIT: thank you, both of you. 

Back to the thread!


----------



## Sammael (May 30, 2006)

Well, the designers aren't going to talk about the book anymore until its street date, Joe seems to have lost interest, and you just enforced self-censorship (which is a sure sign that most people aren't going to bother with the conversation anymore)... you might as well lock it now.


----------



## Baron Opal (May 30, 2006)

Nevermind...


----------



## MerricB (May 30, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Personally, I can't wait to see the CR 19-22 stat blocks for the demon lords. Now, I agree that in any campaign I run, the demon lords are going to be advanced. I won't use the stat blocks as written.
> 
> _For them_.
> 
> ...




My campaigns still cleave somewhat to the old 1e view of advancement: anything over 12th is very high. Indeed, in the 6 years I've been DMing 3e, 15th level is the highest anyone has achieved, although I hope to break that in both my homebrew Ulek campaign and in the AoW campaign.

For such campaigns, CR "around 20" is great for demon lords. It satisfies my view of where they should be. But, I'll happily advance them if its required.

Cheers!


----------



## Shemeska (May 30, 2006)

This has gone in an interesting cycle I'll admit.

We start with a flurry of kneejerk dislike, then move to a bunch of more detailed complaints/constructive criticism, and now we come to the period of nerd fights between various factions of complainers and butt kissing apologists.

I'll give praise and do my own fair share of kissing ass, but I won't do so for things I can't honestly see much valid rationale for and which I seriously find a slew of flaws within at multiple levels of its conception. When I have the book and I'm having multiple fiendgasms over the fluff, the plot hooks, the details of various layers, believe me I'll give praise when praise is due. Christ, give it time and you'll see me go giddy over the stuff in the majority of the book I'm sure. 

But in the meantime, when the majority of what we have to chew on, as Rip made a nice analogy with, are CRs of archfiends that make the BoVD stats look like an improvement, of course I'll complain on topics that I feel warrant such criticism.


----------



## Nightfall (May 30, 2006)

Or if you're like me, wait and see what the art is like and if it sucks, I'll say so.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Or if you're like me, wait and see what the art is like and if it sucks, I'll say so.




You will accept the tutu Wayne Reynolds drew on Orcus and you will _like_ it. That shade of pink totally suits his winter complexion.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Well, this thread has been quite informative.  Perhaps I should have started with Shemmy's recent summary and saved myself an hour.

Since I'm arguing where demons and their lords should be on the other thread, I'll not bother the folks here with common sense.

From what I've seen, I'm going to appriciate the new stat blocks for the standard demons.  I will sneer at the hobbled demon lords, and promptly consider them aspects at best.  As I do the BoVD versions.  I'll definitely be hyped about the Abyssal layers, and hopefully everything else will be interesting and useful as well.  Slightly nervous about possession mechanics...seems to me that there are too many floating around.  I'd like an update and perhaps expansion on Dark Speech, although I realize that wouldn't be a demon specific thing.  

All in all, I'm hoping for this to be better than Lords of Madness and expecting it to be slightly worse than Libre Mortis.  I do wish they would have made it longer though.


----------



## Sammael (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> All in all, I'm hoping for this to be better than Lords of Madness and expecting it to be slightly worse than Libre Mortis.  I do wish they would have made it longer though.



Surely, you got the two mixed up?


----------



## Shemeska (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> I do wish they would have made it longer though.




Regardless of anything else, I think that we can -all- agree on this particular point.


----------



## Piratecat (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> You will accept the tutu Wayne Reynolds drew on Orcus and you will _like_ it. That shade of pink totally suits his winter complexion.



Bull. Orcus is _so_ an autumn.  

All I know is that like some other people, whether or not I use the low stats for the actual demon lords (and I probably won't, having an epic lvl game), I'll yoink them and just change the name and appearance to provide new, unique demons. This is a fantastic resource for me.


----------



## Sledge (May 30, 2006)

Perhaps the demon lords section just needs a little editing to say "substitute demon lords".  Then just change the names so we get the following event:
Fighter 20 Bob: Through this door is the dread demon lord of the undead, Orcus!!!!!!
Wizard 20 Bill: Indeed let us destroy him!
Cleric 20 Ben: Let us purify this land!
Rogue 20 Barry: This isn't a land so much as a layer of the abyss you know.
Bob, Bill, and Ben: Just get that door opened safely!
Barry: All right.
Doors open and beyond lies a truly foul creature beyond all description.
Ben: At last Orcus you meet your death!
Creature beyond all description: Sorry chaps, but Orcus had to step out for a real challenge.  I'm his cousin Dorcus.  He left me in charge in case some mortals decided to stop by for lunch.

Seriously though while I find the given CR's to just be ludicrous (they aren't even at the high end for encounters at 20th level.) I'm hoping that I can get some use out of them.  I just wish they had simply presented them as a bunch of new advanced demons.

Edit: and while I wrote up this fascinating little post PC just jumped in and made my final statement for me.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Surely, you got the two mixed up?




Because I use so much necromancy in my design and games as a player and DM, I found Libre Mortis of better use to me than LoM.  However, both books could have used about 30-100 more pages.  LoM had some great flavor, but it was a little weak on the stats/mechanics.  To keep this on topic, an Elder Brain is now tougher/tough as Demogorgon.  LM was lacking on flavor, but I've got plenty of that already for undead.  The PrCs, new monsters, feats, etc....all serve me better than stuff in LoM.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 30, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> ... When I have the book and I'm having multiple fiendgasms over the fluff...




There's an image for ya.      Go Shemmy!

On topic:  I'll wait to see it before I make any judgements.  It's funny how we (me included) get all up in arms without reading a single word or seeing a single page.

My goodness -- all these opposed opinons about CRs and canon and default monsters and such just fortifies what I already believe.  In my game, the demons have CRs of what ever I want them to have and if I decide that Demogorgon has CR32 then great for me!  I could care less what he has in relation to the other demons because in one game if I am playing low-level, low-magic adventuring similar to Midnight, having CR20 demons are good.  I want to play epic then they'd be CR 50. And in each case they would be correct, canon, and default for my game.

I read reviews and even make online purchase decisions based upon the review and the reviewer, but this much anticipated book needs me to make personal judgement.  I prefer my Demon Lords in the CR 2x-3x range and I'll be using the write-ups in Dragon for that, but the stats for other demons, and the fluff are what I want from this book.  

Oh and the flunch too. That's the crunch that is really just fluff for me.  Mechanics that generate great ideas even if I never actually use the mechanic. (mostly like Su, Ex, and Sp abilities, or feat ideas that sound awesome, but the crunch doesn't work right for me).


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

ericlboyd said:
			
		

> There are rules for advancing balors to 60 HD, for campaigns that need that kind of advancement. However there's nothing to say that there are 60 HD balors.



What about the _Gate_ spell and the "call up to twice as many HD as the caster" part?

If I can call 40 HD outsiders, that means that they are assumed to exist in D&D.


			
				BOZ said:
			
		

> If you have 60-HD balors running around, and the most powerful of demon lords is a mere CR 23, then your campaign has some serious issues. As others have stated, if you would allow a balor to get that powerful, then as the DM you owe it to the internal consistency of your own campaign to make sure the Abyssal lords are much, much tougher, if not simply beyond stat blocks.



And that's what FC is misserably failing to do, it's not even setting a internal consistency just with the core rules.


			
				BOZ said:
			
		

> Another argument would be, why would a wise demon lord even allow a balor to get that tough? A non-lord demon that tough represents a serious threat to any and all demon lords. Let's say you use the BoVD stats. A CR 32 Demogorgon would get worried about any balor that got tougher than, say, 30-HD. He would watch that balor, and destroy him at any sign of him getting too tough, I'd think. The complacency of allowing a balor to get to 60-HD, regardless of the power level of the demon lords respectively, is grossly incompetent, and the lords deserve whatever fate this uber-balor metes out to them.



And how will the demonlord, with his written stats, ever be able to notice such a balor until the day he comes to destroy him?

We're talking about an infinite number of balors, spread among an infinite number of infinite layers. Which ability from their statblock gives them to power to watch all of them? Do they even have any ability in their stat blocks to merely watch their own layers?


----------



## jasamcarl (May 30, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> The sowjet union wasn't the abyss, it's citizen weren't demons.




This isn't a retort. A lot of things aren't the soviet union. That doesn't mean they can't share a some of the same thematic features, especially when they are wholly the product of my imagination.


----------



## Razz (May 30, 2006)

Yeah I am interested on page 57, the "Making Epic Demon Lords" section. I would like to know what the entries state, James Jacobs said it was an extension to the Monster Manual rules for upgrading monsters.

That is, if JoeGKushner is still lending us info on it. Hopefully?  :\


----------



## DaveMage (May 30, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> Another argument would be, why would a wise demon lord even allow a balor to get that tough?  A non-lord demon that tough represents a serious threat to any and all demon lords.  Let's say you use the BoVD stats.  A CR 32 Demogorgon would get worried about any balor that got tougher than, say, 30-HD.  He would watch that balor, and destroy him at any sign of him getting too tough, I'd think.  The complacency of allowing a balor to get to 60-HD, regardless of the power level of the demon lords respectively, is grossly incompetent, and the lords deserve whatever fate this uber-balor metes out to them.




I like the way Pants put it.  Who's to say that there *aren't* 60-HD balors with their own realms?  The Abyss is infinite and Demogorgon (or any Demon lord) is not divine (or even if you do play that they're divine, they are not omnicient).  Maybe they don't know every demon in existance.

I'm happier now.    

(Although I still don't like the demon lord nerfing.      )


----------



## Aaron L (May 30, 2006)

Wow, yeah, we can gate in and command Asmodeus at 18th level now!


----------



## jester47 (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> If you are persisting as a D&D fan with the beleif that there should be some grand unified consistent canon, you are in for a life of disappointment.




QFT.

This is sigworthy, and will be added.

And those who know me know I am not fickle with my sig.


----------



## jester47 (May 30, 2006)

Now could someone please answer my question about the SHADOWDEMON AND THE POSSESSION RULES? 

Thx.


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> This isn't a retort. A lot of things aren't the soviet union. That doesn't mean they can't share a some of the same thematic features, especially when they are wholly the product of my imagination.



But the Abyss is simply not one of the places sharing these features. The Abyss one of the most archetypically "might makes right" places in the multiverse. There's no loyally among demons. Either Demogorgon can cow a balor into doing his will or the balor would just walk away (best case) or attack (worst case).

Humans might serve a leader that is weaker than themselves for many different reasons, but almost none of these reason apply to fiends.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Now could someone please answer my question about the SHADOWDEMON AND THE POSSESSION RULES?




Joe started a Q&A thread. Might wanna ask there.


----------



## orangefruitbat (May 30, 2006)

Well, I guess you have to know a 40 HD outsider before you can summon it. That's going to require a Knowledge (Planes) check with a DC of 50. Certainly possible, but you better start studying.

Much easier to summon 2 20 HD creatures.



			
				Mirtek said:
			
		

> What about the _Gate_ spell and the "call up to twice as many HD as the caster" part?
> 
> If I can call 40 HD outsiders, that means that they are assumed to exist in D&D.
> 
> ...


----------



## jester47 (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> jester47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is pretty easy.  The thing I had in my mind was somthing where when a demon prince is deposed the deposer starts off as himself, but eventually turns into the demon prince he just deposed.  The universe needs orcus, so the demon that just deposed orcus becomes orcus.  At firs it looks like an identity crisis, and thats what the balor thought it might be, but that second identity gets stronger, and his head starts to get more goatlike, but he figures, "who cares, after all, I took Orcus' place why can't I BE Orcus."  He gets fatter, and more goat like, and then to his horror, he realises that he is not himself.  Soon the deposing balor is just a memory.  After seeing this happen a couple of times most demons won't raise a hand against the princes because they do not want to loose their own identity.  

Imagine a cocky balor taking down juiblex only to slowly melt into the a jibbering and jabbering mad lord of oozes.  As the process begins, his likes start to change, little things first, then more knowledge than he ever knew, then a new second personality that slowly takes over from the first.  He seeks to escape, to adbicate his new throne, he seeks to have anyone replace him, they all bow to him and refuse.  Feeling his slowly disolving mind and sense of self, he is filled with utter fear as his new minions start to refer to him as Lord Juiblex.  Juiblex sits in power once more.  

Use what you need! 
Its all good baby!


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

While that good be used as a good reason why they're slain every 14 days (although in the infinite chaos of the Abyss they would certainly still be slain every 14 day as there would always be someone thinking of him as able to stay himself after the takeover), that still doesn't explain why they can rule. The balor might not slay him, but he wouldn't serve him either


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head, does anyone know what the name of the demon that balor's were supposed to fear? The one that keept people in the Blood War when they deserted? Was it the wolf headed thing with the snake head? If so, he also got nerfed to a CR 19.




Molydeus.  And that sounds exactly right.  Balors are CR 20 and molydei were always a bit weaker.


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'd probably have to re-do the XP chart to slow progression down, and that's not something my players - or I - would like to do.  We progress pretty quickly right now (we went from 10th level to epic in about 24 sessions).




Does anyone remember way before the ELH, Wizards provided a preview of where they thought they were going with the epic rules?  The idea was that after 20th level, progression would greatly slow down.  Each level, instead of getting all the benefits of a level increase (hp, attack bonus, spells, feats, skills, etc.) you would pick one (so you'd gain 10 hp, or learn 2 feats, etc.)

It sounded great and the ELH was a HUGE disappoint to me once I found out they drastically changed their focus (most likely due to players wanting to twink their characters to extremes).  I actually created my own epic rules based on this concept after I saw that the ELH was so drastically flawed in concept.

I remember they had a preview of a sorcerer done at like three different epic levels.  Does anyone know what happened to this or where to find it?  My google-fu is failing me and I can't find it on Wizards's site.


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Or Dalamar. (or Rastalin)
> 
> Or Mordy (or the other eight)
> 
> ...




Actually, I think the highest Raistlin has ever been officially statted is 20.  Dalamar at like 18.  Dragonlance has always done well at keeping the really powerful NPCs within the core RAW.  Under current edition, Laurana, for example, was 16th level before she died and she is probably the most powerful of the main Chronicles group outside of Raistlin and Goldmoon.  Dalamar is listed as 17th and Palin is 18th at the height of their power.  Unfortunately, Raistlin is starting his career in one sourcebook and dead by the next, so I don't have his stats, but 20 would be max as 3e DL doesn't use epic levels.  And he killed a god.

Anyway, this exemplifies how, IMO, NPCs and monsters should be designed.  If you don't scale everything else wildly, 20th level IS extraordinarily powerful.  CR 24 is almost untouchable.


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I suspect you already know the answer: WotC feels no obligation to be consistent. Not that I mind that much.
> 
> I'll be very surprised if _Tyrants of the Nine Hells_ doesn't put lesser diabolic nobles at about the same challenge level as major Abyssal lords are in _Hordes of the Abyss_.
> 
> ...




Depends on what you feel is epic though.  Conan, for example, is firmly in the realm of non-epic, but demonic deities are present and intended to be fought.  Many people like the idea of epic stories and combats but find the Epic Level Handbook to be designed for something else entirely (for instance BESM style anime-fu).

In short, 20th level should be able to be epic if I want it to.


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Depends on what you feel is epic though.  Conan, for example, is firmly in the realm of non-epic, but demonic deities are present and intended to be fought.



And translated to D&D these guys would be balors that got bored with the daily live in the Abyss and created a cult around them on the material plane.

Either that, or if the setting is aimed at CR20 deities as the top of the food chain (until 20th level players arise to slay them and take their stuff    ) then I bet this setting doesn't also contain dozends of creatures that are supposed to be weaker than these demon-deities but actually are stronger


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> That's a pretty nonstandard way of using fiends in a campaign, though, don't you think? Even Planes of Chaos gave stats for Graz'zt and Pazu--er, "Pazrael."
> 
> They certainly were fightable in 1e.
> 
> ...




I think it is probably alot more standard than you think.  Especially among the Planescape crowd.


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Risking going off topic: I liked Spelljammer too, but crystal spheres and phlogiston made me gag.




I must quickly point out (despite being off topic) that this had perfectly reasonable (real-life) historical reasons.


----------



## Taelohn (May 30, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Actually, I think the highest Raistlin has ever been officially statted is 20. Dalamar at like 18. Dragonlance has always done well at keeping the really powerful NPCs within the core RAW. Under current edition, Laurana, for example, was 16th level before she died and she is probably the most powerful of the main Chronicles group outside of Raistlin and Goldmoon. Dalamar is listed as 17th and Palin is 18th at the height of their power. Unfortunately, Raistlin is starting his career in one sourcebook and dead by the next, so I don't have his stats, but 20 would be max as 3e DL doesn't use epic levels. And he killed a god.




Official 3E/v3.5 Dragonlance _does_ use epic levels - Fistandantilus was statted at 23rd level and Raistlin was statted at 27th level.  See _Towers of High Sorcery_ and _Legends of the Twins_, respectively.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2006)

The sooner the idea of there being a "standard" way of handling cosmology design issues in D&D takes a long walk off a short pier, the happier I'll be.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> The sooner the idea of there being a "standard" way of handling cosmology design issues in D&D takes a long walk off a short pier, the happier I'll be.





So you've got absolutely no issues with a creature that SHOULD be more powerful than another, being weaker?  And we're not talking Remorhaz vs Frost Worm here.  We're talking about something that is the equivilent of making Great Wyrm Dragons weaker than say...Very Old Dragons.  It doesn't make sense.  And even if your games desire to kill such beings at the end of 20th level....it still does not make sense, unless brought about through unique and in-game circumstances.


----------



## MacDuff_1969 (May 30, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The section on the origins of demons is merely a suggestion that demons arose from the Abyss after the deities, devils, and other powers left that plane and went to others. Pretty boring stuff.






			
				Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Wait, so they're implying:
> 
> 1. Deities and devils originated in the Abyss,
> 2. it wasn't good enough for them,
> ...




I see this origin theory as being one where everything is spawned out of primordial chaos ... and those that couldn't stand the heat got out of the kitchen.  Said differently, it has nothing to do with the Abyss/Limbo/Arborea being not good enough for those that left to find environs more suited to their natures (they simply could not prosper in that environment).

It seems possible that the demons (or their ancestors) expelled the yugoloths/devils by virtue of their inherent advantages in a realm that is as chaotically bent as the abyss and where they often form spontaneously. I can only imagine the frustration of ambitious baatezu or evil gods (who aren't CE) trying to establish a realm when the abyss by its very nature is fighting you!

In the end, it appears to be a triumph of demonkind and a form of proof of their inherent superiority in one of the least hospitable places in the multiverse.


----------



## D'karr (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> So you've got absolutely no issues with a creature that SHOULD be more powerful than another, being weaker?  And we're not talking Remorhaz vs Frost Worm here.  We're talking about something that is the equivilent of making Great Wyrm Dragons weaker than say...Very Old Dragons.  It doesn't make sense.  And even if your games desire to kill such beings at the end of 20th level....it still does not make sense, unless brought about through unique and in-game circumstances.




The problem stems from using the CR system as an absolute.  CR is very objective.  I've seen creatures of CR X get completely creamed by a party of CR X-4.  On the other hand I've seen some creatures of CR X be a complete TPK for parties of CR X+4.  

Hanging the proverbial hat on CR is what produces that problem.

And suspension of disbelief is provided entirely by the DM.  Player's need not ever know the stats the DM is working with.

CR is a metagame mechanic.  If a DM wants to challenge a party of (4) 20th level characters he will have to adjust, like he would have to adjust when challenging a party of (4) 3rd level characters.  CR is not an exact or even consistent science.

Furthermore it might vary considerably from campaign to campaign.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

D'karr said:
			
		

> The problem stems from using the CR system as an absolute.  CR is very objective.  I've seen creatures of CR X get completely creamed by a party of CR X-4.  On the other hand I've seen some creatures of CR X be a complete TPK for parties of CR X+4.
> 
> Hanging the proverbial hat on CR is what produces that problem.
> 
> ...




Gosh, you are right, but I didn't mention CR at all in my post.  i'm quite aware of CR inconsistancies....pit fiends can kill balors 99% of the time.  However, I said "more powerful"  Making Jubilex CR 19 suggests to me (based off the fact that Demogorgon is CR 23 with 27HD, balors are CR 20 with 20 HD, and CR=+2HD for outsiders) that he may in fact, have less or equal HD to a balor.  He is 'less powerful' than balors.  And for everyone who feels that this is ok, or even worse, a GOOD THING, I'm asking what sense does it make?  Wyrmlings are less powerful than Adult Dragons.  Cornugons are less powerful than pit fiends.  And demon lords should be more powerful than regular demons.  It's really that simple.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 30, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> For such campaigns, CR "around 20" is great for demon lords. It satisfies my view of where they should be.




Mine is one of those campaigns too.  

Some posts make a good point though - there is a problem when "common" demons have CRs in the high-teens - which is inconsistent IMO with how they would be interpreted with "old school" demographics.


----------



## gizmo33 (May 30, 2006)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Fighter 20 Bob: Through this door is the dread demon lord of the undead, Orcus!!!!!!




I know this was meant to be somewhat amusing, but the underlying theme here is that somehow level 20 characters are throw-away characters (which explains why people think Conan must be epic), and thus there's something wrong with a party of 20th level characters making short work of a lone demon-lord.  Is there?

Maybe it's old-fashioned to believe that the life and prestige of a 20th level character should be different than a 3rd level character.  I think once you can cast a Wish spell, it's not so crazy of an idea to think that a party of 4 people like you could make short work of a lone demon-prince.


----------



## Coriat (May 30, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I know this was meant to be somewhat amusing, but the underlying theme here is that somehow level 20 characters are throw-away characters (which explains why people think Conan must be epic), and thus there's something wrong with a party of 20th level characters making short work of a lone demon-lord.  Is there?




For me it's relative scale. Demon princes compete with the gods. That doesn't work if the gods are CR 60 and they are CR 20. Demon princes have survived for countless millenia in the Abyss, probably one of the most dangerous places in the planes. That doesn't work if a pair of the infinite number of balors the Abyss spawns can get together and slap them around. Demon princes marshal armies of lesser demons, generally through sheer intimidation. That doesn't work if a half-dozen of the mariliths in those armies can team up and take down the being enslaving them (since a demon is almost certain to resent being conscripted by a demon prince)



> Maybe it's old-fashioned to believe that the life and prestige of a 20th level character should be different than a 3rd level character.  I think once you can cast a Wish spell, it's not so crazy of an idea to think that a party of 4 people like you could make short work of a lone demon-prince.




What's so shoddy about a balor? A single balor has the power to devastate entire kingdoms of the mortal world if it goes unchecked. The folks who slay it will probably be remembered as heroes for generations. Or, a pit fiend can cast wish too. It's all a matter of how you handle it - just because there are more pit fiends out there doesn't mean that the defeat of a pit fiend on one world has to be less memorable for the inhabitants.

You don't like epic level campaigns, that's fine. That, to me, means that the 20th level party's defeat of the terrible Trismegistus, a balor who led an invading army of demons, is going to be the subject of the epic poems 2000 years down the line. I really don't see why the demon lords must be brought to the party's level when there are *already* perfectly fine fiendish threats for a 20th level party to face.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Coriat said:
			
		

> You don't like epic level campaigns, that's fine. That, to me, means that the 20th level party's defeat of the terrible Trismegistus, a balor who led an invading army of demons, is going to be the subject of the epic poems 2000 years down the line. I really don't see why the demon lords must be brought to the party's level when there are *already* perfectly fine fiendish threats for a 20th level party to face.




Exactly! A balor - with appropriately powerful henchmen, magic items, allies, and intelligence, all the things people assume Abyssal lords have - is a perfectly good "epic" foe for 20th level parties to defeat at the end of a long and dangerous quest. There's no shame in defeating Trismegistus the Balor General; even Conan would approve. When you feel you need to leap directly from Trismegistus the CR 20 Balor to Baphomet the CR 20 Demon Prince, I see a disconnect. Baphomet should have a number of unique servitors who put balors to shame, and he should, in turn, put _them_ to shame. Of course challengers will from time to time show up that provide a credible threat to him, but if the _average_ Type VI demon is such a credible threat, he has a problem.

If Baphomet is no more powerful than the balor, the balor is just as glorious and epic a threat. every bit as worthy a target. The only difference is, Baphomet has more power than he can plausibly hold in his Darwinian nightmare realm.

The game was designed - has always been designed - to provide a hierarchy of foes. First you fight goblins and then you fight hobgoblins, then you fight bugbears. Then ogres, then hill giants, then fire giants. Then demons, then archdemons, then Abyssal lords, then Abyssal princes. When balors and Abyssal lords are approximately equal (again, acknowledging the lack of precision in CRs), it sets the precedent that _nothing_ should be so powerful that 20th level parties can't take it on, which is silly. So demigods are no more powerful than balors? Greater gods are no more powerful than demigods? Why should the entire multiverse flatline just because your PCs do?


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Exactly! A balor - with appropriately powerful henchmen, magic items, allies, and intelligence, all the things people assume Abyssal lords have - is a perfectly good "epic" foe for 20th level parties to defeat at the end of a long and dangerous quest. There's no shame in defeating Trismegistus the Balor General; even Conan would approve. When you feel you need to leap directly from Trismegistus the CR 20 Balor to Baphomet the CR 20 Demon Prince, I see a disconnect. Baphomet should have a number of unique servitors who put balors to shame, and he should, in turn, put _them_ to shame. Of course challengers will from time to time show up that provide a credible threat to him, but if the _average_ Type VI demon is such a credible threat, he has a problem.
> 
> If Baphomet is no more powerful than the balor, the balor is just as glorious and epic a threat. every bit as worthy a target. The only difference is, Baphomet has more power than he can plausibly hold in his Darwinian nightmare realm.
> 
> The game was designed - has always been designed - to provide a hierarchy of foes. First you fight goblins and then you fight hobgoblins, then you fight bugbears. Then ogres, then hill giants, then fire giants. Then demons, then archdemons, then Abyssal lords, then Abyssal princes. When balors and Abyssal lords are approximately equal (again, acknowledging the lack of precision in CRs), it sets the precedent that _nothing_ should be so powerful that 20th level parties can't take it on, which is silly. So demigods are no more powerful than balors? Greater gods are no more powerful than demigods? Why should the entire multiverse flatline just because your PCs do?




However, that makes us wonder, is the failure really having CR 20 Demon Princes or is it the fact that we have CR20 Balor in the first place?

Should epic level play be a requirement or an option.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Should epic level play be a requirement or an option.




The fact that it is included in the 3.5 _Dungeon Masters Guide_, and isn't listed as a variant, would seem to support the former.

If epic play is such a niche market, why was it included in the DMG?   If WotC's market research indicated it was so unpopular, why add it to one of the core books, when it was not core before?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> However, that makes us wonder, is the failure really having CR 20 Demon Princes or is it the fact that we have CR20 Balor in the first place?
> 
> Should epic level play be a requirement or an option.




Since there are several monsters in the core Monster Manual that go past 20 CR...

And since epic rules are included in the core Dungeon Master's Guide...

I'm not really seeing the question.

That's like should cleave be optional or a requirement for fighters with two handed swords?


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> However, that makes us wonder, is the failure really having CR 20 Demon Princes or is it the fact that we have CR20 Balor in the first place?
> 
> Should epic level play be a requirement or an option.




Every creature a DM uses is an option.  I don't suggest every using them all.  One of the problems with dumbing everything down to 20th level is that you reduce the use of Epic Handbook by not suppling options for epic play.

I'm with the boat of people who say Demon Lords should be more powerful than that.  These are cosmic forces and should stand head and shoulders above the troops and field generals.  They rule by fear and intimidation, having them weaker or just barely stronger than the troops they lead just doesn't make sense.

Then there is the fact that these entities have power struggles with gods.  Yet, even at the best stats seen to date, a god only has to blink to wipe them all away.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 30, 2006)

The alternative is to use them like Super Villains!

Orcus
Demogorgon
Dagon
Pale Night
Grazz't

When these five demon lords come together as the League of Villains, it's up to the players to take them on in a cosmic chest match!

Be here next week, same bat time, same bat channel when Iuz, 1st edition Zeus, and 2nd edition pre-god Vecna team up together to challenge their fates by creating 4th edition  before Wizards of the Coast. can the player's stop them!


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

Well, I've asked *should* epic level play be a requirement. It seems at the moment it is more than it isn't, but is in some weird twilight zone of gaming.

My problem with epic levels isn't it's gameplay-yes, I've never played or even looked much at it. My problem with it is that it is limitless and thus no good basis for evaluating power levels in a RPG. But D&D as is, is build around guidelines, so is there a total disregard of baselines here? If there was, the whole confusion could have been averted.


----------



## jester47 (May 30, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> While that good be used as a good reason why they're slain every 14 days (although in the infinite chaos of the Abyss they would certainly still be slain every 14 day as there would always be someone thinking of him as able to stay himself after the takeover), that still doesn't explain why they can rule. The balor might not slay him, but he wouldn't serve him either




Well, I think it would be because of the plane.  You could say that the demon lord is the manifestation of his layers of the abyss.  I would say that demons know this, and thus they feel compelled to obey.  I see it like the CR 23 Orcus or whatever is the interface where the layer/layers of the abyss let their will be known.  No one wants to take on Orcus on his home layer because they don't want to fight an entire layer.  It is said in the PS material that the demonlords have complete control of thier layers and they bend to their will, so this would make sense that the demon lords are avatars of the layers themselves.  

This works just as well as my previous example and could work with it or independant of it.  And that is the truth, that the demon lord's body alone in an empty box is CR @21+, but the question is one of environment- they literally control the plane.  So to take them on would be to fight the plane.  Even the 60HD Balor does not have that type of arsenal.  You don't need God Mode when you have unlimited respawn.


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 30, 2006)

I kinda see both sides here.

On the one hand, putting the demon lords where they can be fought by 20th level parties is a pretty good idea from a gameplay perspective. It allows the statblocks to be useful, as opposed to a Dicefreaks CR "insane" that pretty much just reiterates their unkillability. And killing a demon lord IS a pretty neat end to your average campaign.

On the other hand, demon lords ARE incredibly powerful, and should not be on the same power level as a Balor, Pit Fiend, or Solar. If they have built-in ways to kick a balor's face in, then it's not so big a deal, but as long as a Balor can tear apart Jubilex, it's a little lame.

Me, I'm going to use the statblocks as avatars, and either slap the Paragon template on the "real" fiend or simply have it statless. But I wish the statblocks in Hordes had been presented as avatars, and not as something a Solar could take down by itself.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Should epic level play be a requirement or an option.




It's an option. You have the option to stop at 20th level, with 20th level foes like balors. Or you can continue on, and fight foes provided for higher levels.


----------



## Nightfall (May 30, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The alternative is to use them like Super Villains!
> 
> Orcus
> Demogorgon
> ...




Orcus kills at chess.


----------



## D'karr (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Gosh, you are right, but I didn't mention CR at all in my post.  i'm quite aware of CR inconsistancies....pit fiends can kill balors 99% of the time.  However, I said "more powerful"  Making Jubilex CR 19 suggests to me (based off the fact that Demogorgon is CR 23 with 27HD, balors are CR 20 with 20 HD, and CR=+2HD for outsiders) that he may in fact, have less or equal HD to a balor.  He is 'less powerful' than balors.  And for everyone who feels that this is ok, or even worse, a GOOD THING, I'm asking what sense does it make?  Wyrmlings are less powerful than Adult Dragons.  Cornugons are less powerful than pit fiends.  And demon lords should be more powerful than regular demons.  It's really that simple.




Only if you equate power with CR.  Power in that context can be attributed to many things.  The leader of a nation does not have to be the guy that can single handedly kill everyone of his  subjects.  Looking at CR in that context then makes it an arms race between creatures.

Each of the Demon Lords has power more on the political sense, even if they are not the most powerful physically.


----------



## jester47 (May 30, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Every creature a DM uses is an option.  I don't suggest every using them all.  One of the problems with dumbing everything down to 20th level is that you reduce the use of Epic Handbook by not suppling options for epic play.




1. "dumbing" down is a bad term.  It implies that the only reason one would not use the ELH is because one was not smart enough.
2. Limiting your level advancement at 20 is completely reasonable as the ELH really kind of sucks.  
3. My opinions of course.


----------



## jester47 (May 30, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> I'm with the boat of people who say Demon Lords should be more powerful than that.  These are cosmic forces and should stand head and shoulders above the troops and field generals.  They rule by fear and intimidation, having them weaker or just barely stronger than the troops they lead just doesn't make sense.



See post #414







> Then there is the fact that these entities have power struggles with gods.  Yet, even at the best stats seen to date, a god only has to blink to wipe them all away.




4. DaDg along with PoF are the other two books in my "will never use it" trilogy.


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> It is said in the PS material that the demonlords have complete control of thier layers and they bend to their will, so this would make sense that the demon lords are avatars of the layers themselves.  .



Yes, but in 3.5e they no longer have all these abilities, they have what their statblocks give them and nothing more. That we have to try to invent additional factors just prove that the stats as written don't work


			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> However, that makes us wonder, is the failure really having CR 20 Demon Princes or is it the fact that we have CR20 Balor in the first place?



What I allready said: If the demonlords aren't too weak, everything in the MM is too strong:

*Kain Darkwind:* _"You'd be surprised then. If you have CR 12, 13HD balors, then your PCs are true planar terrors at level 15. If you have CR 18 great wyrms and phoenixes, and CR 17 titans and solars, then yes. Demon Lords at CR 19-23 doesn't bother me so much. I'm not saying that everyone has to play epic games...I'm saying the cosmos should make sense. If Level 20 is the world shattering level you suggest it is, then by all means have the planar rulers right up there."_


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> This is pretty easy.  The thing I had in my mind was somthing where when a demon prince is deposed the deposer starts off as himself, but eventually turns into the demon prince he just deposed.  The universe needs orcus, so the demon that just deposed orcus becomes orcus.  At firs it looks like an identity crisis, and thats what the balor thought it might be, but that second identity gets stronger, and his head starts to get more goatlike, but he figures, "who cares, after all, I took Orcus' place why can't I BE Orcus."  He gets fatter, and more goat like, and then to his horror, he realises that he is not himself.  Soon the deposing balor is just a memory.  After seeing this happen a couple of times most demons won't raise a hand against the princes because they do not want to loose their own identity.
> 
> Imagine a cocky balor taking down juiblex only to slowly melt into the a jibbering and jabbering mad lord of oozes.  As the process begins, his likes start to change, little things first, then more knowledge than he ever knew, then a new second personality that slowly takes over from the first.  He seeks to escape, to adbicate his new throne, he seeks to have anyone replace him, they all bow to him and refuse.  Feeling his slowly disolving mind and sense of self, he is filled with utter fear as his new minions start to refer to him as Lord Juiblex.  Juiblex sits in power once more.
> 
> ...




Dude. That's awesome!

In fact, I could see how a twist of this would explain some of the mysteries behind dead gods.


----------



## Garnfellow (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Dude. That's awesome!
> 
> In fact, I could see how a twist of this would explain some of the mysteries behind dead gods.




Indeed. This little gem is the payoff for slogging through the entire thread.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Dude. That's awesome!
> 
> In fact, I could see how a twist of this would explain some of the mysteries behind dead gods.




Ever read Black Easter and the Day After Judgment by James Blish?



Spoiler



In these books, set in the modern day, God disappears. There is literally Hell on Earth. Armageddon occurs. At the end, Satan himself makes a very surprising appearance - the Throne of Heaven cannot remain unoccupied, so the former highest angel has to ascened to fill it! In effect, the implication is that God disappeared so as to force Satan to reform, which he does, big time.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 30, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But the Abyss is simply not one of the places sharing these features. The Abyss one of the most archetypically "might makes right" places in the multiverse. There's no loyally among demons. Either Demogorgon can cow a balor into doing his will or the balor would just walk away (best case) or attack (worst case).
> 
> Humans might serve a leader that is weaker than themselves for many different reasons, but almost none of these reason apply to fiends.




B.S. This would imply that there is no chance of any type of political alliance. There is this thing called 'enlightened self-interest' that does not require long term, consciouse loyalty, simply short term expediency. Might makes right, but 'might' does not have to be personal might. This can even apply to a 'chaotic' society. Its the perpetual application of force from top down that deters any change, as oppossed to a loyalty to the system in the abstract.

I don't see how this is any less valid an interpretation of a fictional society than the one you layed out. If I wanted to be even geekier in a public forum, I could note that I prefer the notion of the leadership of my archtypicaly CE race to be overthrown on a relativly constant basis on an aesthetic level, to make the chaotic have more punch.

Either way, if I wanted stats, I would have them.

And yes, some stripped down epic rules are in the core rules, but they are in the DMG (as oppossed to the phb) for a reason, namely, because they aren't particularly balanced or well supported and most games simply don't last that long. Nor does Wotc have to provide that 'support' just because they are in the core rules. If every optional rule was required to be 'supported' in that sense, I'm pretty sure the company would go bankrupt.

Good design descision. Smarter than most of the posts in this forum.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

Yes, the epic level rules are in the DMG, not the PHB.  As are prestige classes, magic items, and environment.

Since prestige classes are in nearly every supplement, I don't think it's a far stretch to think that some epic material should be as well.

Whether you like it or not, the RAW do not stop the game at 20th level.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> B.S. (...)
> Good design descision. Smarter than most of the posts in this forum.




Dude. I am totally on your side in this one (let's not get back into the ELH arguments), but you might want to express your viewpoints a bit less... caustically. We've already had a mod visit in this thread, and if you are interested in seeing the discussion continue and not seeing the thread close, it's probably not a good idea to fan flames.


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> B.S. This would imply that there is no chance of any type of political alliance.



Without sufficient personal power there is none, that's right. Without the power to make others obey you, you won't be able to ever reach a place where you can start to offer political alliances.


			
				jasamcarl There is this thing called 'enlightened self-interest' that does not require long term said:
			
		

> Short term expendiency works, well, only a short term. The weak archfiends can't build empires on this that last for tens of thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 30, 2006)

A mod has visted the thread again - remember guys, self-moderation is really helpful for everyone. It would be a shame to close the thread, but that is likely to happen if we don't see more civil behaviour.

We have been keeping a special eye out for persistant offenders, so please don't do it again (and if you think you have been slighted... as of this post, just drop it, OK?

Many thanks


----------



## luke_twigger (May 30, 2006)

For some reason the debate about appropriate CRs for the various demon lords, ancient dragons, etc just makes me think of Spinal Tap "but this goes to 11" 

I don't see why a demon lord necessarily has to be "more powerful" (as measured on a CR scale) than its underlings, even in as chaotic a hierarchy as hell. In the same way that a 20th level human Barbarian is "more powerful" than a 17th level human Wizard and would obviously win in a straight fight if all you're comparing is melee attacks and HP - but of course it should never come to a straight fight, not when you consider the crazy 9th level spells the Wizard has available.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 30, 2006)

luke_twigger said:
			
		

> I don't see why a demon lord necessarily has to be "more powerful" (as measured on a CR scale) than its underlings, even in as chaotic a hierarchy as hell.




It's anti-climatic. You just expect the BBEG to be bigger and badder than his minions.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> B.S. This would imply that there is no chance of any type of political alliance.




No, it doesn't. You seem to be assuming that Baphomet is capable of making alliances, but a balor isn't.

Both are equally capable of 'enlightened self-interest,' so then we're back to comparing CRs again.



> Might makes right, but 'might' does not have to be personal might.




It does in the Abyss. Why should Graz'zt bother to ally himself with Baphomet if a balor of equal might makes a better offer?


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It does in the Abyss. Why should Graz'zt bother to ally himself with Baphomet if a balor of equal might makes a better offer?



Better question: Why even bother listening to the offer if he can just slay him and take all his stuff anyway?


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. You seem to be assuming that Baphomet is capable of making alliances, but a balor isn't.




To me, the fact that one is a demon lord and the other isn't suggests just that. (And I'm think this is more of a matter of treachery, culling secrets, and blackmail than anything a mortal would call a political alliance, but the point remains.)


----------



## luke_twigger (May 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It's anti-climatic. You just expect the BBEG to be bigger and badder than his minions.



If the PCs first defeat the BBEG's bodyguard (Bbn20) will they really feel cheated and robbed when they later face the BBEG (Wiz17)? Not if they're having to contend with 9th level spells being thrown their way. And in any case why should the players ever learn exactly what CRs any of their foes are?

My point was that making a simple comparison Balor CR20 > Jubilex CR19 isn't necessarily the best measure of "power". Determining CR is an inexact science at best.

Plus pretty much nobody on this thread knows exactly what stats, powers and special abilities CR19 Jubilex has been given. So all the arguments that he's "less powerful" than a Balor are all based on a single CR value.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

luke_twigger said:
			
		

> Plus pretty much nobody on this thread knows exactly what stats, powers and special abilities CR19 Jubilex has been given. So all the arguments that he's "less powerful" than a Balor are all based on a single CR value.




But that is the measurement used to compare the power of monsters.   If a group of four 19th-level characters can defeat Juiblex, but can't defeat a balor, then the balor *must * be more powerful.


----------



## luke_twigger (May 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> But that is the measurement used to compare the power of monsters.   If a group of four 19th-level characters can defeat Juiblex, but can't defeat a balor, then the balor *must * be more powerful.



What if a group of four 19th-level characters can defeat a Bbn20, but can't defeat a Wiz17, then the Wiz17 *must* be more powerful?


----------



## GVDammerung (May 30, 2006)

Late joining the thread and catching up but I think something is being grotesquely missed here.

I am disappointed to hear that the demon princes are being powered down because it effects the MYTHOLOGY of the game.  Say it with me - the MYTHOLOGY of the game.

D&D is in the first instance a game to be played and one can boot about this rule or that, this approach or that.  It also presents a story line, a mythology.  Most often this is seen in specific settings but divorced from settings (Planescape now being a dead setting like so many) The Great Wheel is its own mythology, always has been, and the lower planes are perhaps its richest source of myth.  

When a powerful extra-planar entities stats are done over, particularly if inconsistently or with no in game explanation, the mythology is damaged.  The hero/villain is suddenly less so and for no apparent reason.  Canon is no longer as canonical.

For those who enjoy reading about and tracking the mythology of the game, depowering with no in game reason, is just bad design, even if it might be justified in terms of pure mechanics.  D&D for many is not just the mechanics of the RAW.  It is the mytholgy and the story.  Its the read not the rules.  So even if you never play the beastie and just read about it, depowering is an issue.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

luke_twigger said:
			
		

> What if a group of four 19th-level characters can defeat a Bbn20, but can't defeat a Wiz17, then the Wiz17 *must* be more powerful?




Yes, as far as the PCs know. And they're the ones for whom "anti-climatic" is an issue.


----------



## Nightfall (May 30, 2006)

*does like the idea that the "throne" of Orcus could convert a balor into the next Orcus* It certainly has the benefit of Orcus coming back even after "dying."


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Late joining the thread and catching up but I think something is being grotesquely missed here.
> 
> I am disappointed to hear that the demon princes are being powered down because it effects the MYTHOLOGY of the game.  Say it with me - the MYTHOLOGY of the game.




I agree with you, but most people here won't, so I've been arguing primarily in _their_ terms. The new power levels fail under strictly utilitarian grounds as much as they fail as story elements. 

Baphomet as no more powerful than a balor is as anticlimatic as it is improbable. And yes, it contradicts the mythology the game has had from day one, but I think it's more important for a lot of people that it makes for a poorer RPG experience.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

luke_twigger said:
			
		

> What if a group of four 19th-level characters can defeat a Bbn20, but can't defeat a Wiz17, then the Wiz17 *must* be more powerful?




Yes, by the only measurement we have available.

I'm not defending the CR system as always on target, and I've seen plenty of support that single races with class levels don't present a reliable challenge, but we're talking about monsters.   I think it is safe to say that a balor is always a greater threat than a cornugon.

And I think that the authors of this book have a pretty good grasp on monster design and assigning appropriate CRs, so if they say one creature is CR 19 an another is CR 20, I'm confident that the CR 20 monster is more powerful.


----------



## luke_twigger (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Yes, as far as the PCs know. And they're the ones for whom "anti-climatic" is an issue.



Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here?

If the PCs beat a minion and then lose to the BBEG how is that anti-climatic?

Anti-climatic would be barely ekeing out a victory over the minion and then stomping all over the BBEG.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

luke_twigger said:
			
		

> If the PCs beat a minion and then lose to the BBEG how is that anti-climatic?




It isn't. But if that happens, it means the CR is wrong, because - from the PCs point of view - the wizard is stronger.

Assuming the CRs are right, Baphomet isn't going to be much stronger than his minion, so the PCs could have a great deal of trouble fighting his minion yet defeat Baphomet rather easily, depending on how the dice go and depending on what they've saved up for the final fight.

Anti-climatic.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but most people here won't, so I've been arguing primarily in _their_ terms. The new power levels fail under strictly utilitarian grounds as much as they fail as story elements.
> 
> Baphomet as no more powerful than a balor is as anticlimatic as it is improbable. And yes, it contradicts the mythology the game has had from day one, but I think it's more important for a lot of people that it makes for a poorer RPG experience.




Story is first.  Rules are secondary.  For what good are the best rules if they do not fascilitate the story, as no one plays the RAW to be playing the RAW and that alone.  

Much of the story of D&D is wrapped up in the planes.  Little Erik Mona did not grow up loving the planes by accident or because the RAW of the time thrilled his little heart.  The planes have been and are one of the most consistently cool and fascinating aspects of D&D and have permeated every edition.  Many the player who has never encountered a demon prince, and DM who has never run one, still follows their developments.  Why?  Not because of the RAW.  Because of their story or myth.  And this story or myth has been largely perpetuated in the RAW.  Until now.

What does depowering demons do?  At best, as offered as explaination, it works for the RAW.  For the story or myth?  It does nothing.  Worse actually.  It undercuts the story and myth built up over decades.  And worse yet it does so without explanation within the mythology.

I can actually sympathize with the depower fans from a RAW standpoint, to a point, but from a perspective of the collective D&D mythology, as I presently understand things, this is hack work.


----------



## Coriat (May 30, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> And people who had a chance to preview the book says it consist of 1/3 page and merely a few "points not to forget".
> 
> I even think such additional information is needed at all. This book shows their official stats, and if I want to advance I already know how to do that. I can add class levels (PHB) or more monster HD (MM), what's this tiny section really supposed to tell me that I don't already know?



[/quote]

Oh no... is this true? Can someone confirm this (or deny it... please deny it)? I was hoping for some cool, unique advancements like advancing a dragon's age category... I seriously hope it isn't some half-assed job of 'don't forget to increase the BAB when you add an outsider hit die'. I knew that already.

On another issue... well I hate to self-quote. But nobody from the 'other side' of the debate gave a response, and I am really interested to know.



			
				Coriat said:
			
		

> What's so shoddy about a balor? A single balor has the power to devastate entire kingdoms of the mortal world if it goes unchecked. The folks who slay it will probably be remembered as heroes for generations. Or, a pit fiend can cast wish too. It's all a matter of how you handle it - just because there are more pit fiends out there doesn't mean that the defeat of a pit fiend on one world has to be less memorable for the inhabitants.
> 
> You don't like epic level campaigns, that's fine. That, to me, means that the 20th level party's defeat of the terrible Trismegistus, a balor who led an invading army of demons, is going to be the subject of the epic poems 2000 years down the line. I really don't see why the demon lords must be brought to the party's level when there are *already* perfectly fine fiendish threats for a 20th level party to face.




Now as Ripzerai pointed out, it seems to me that having the Demon Lords be lesser challenges than nonunique demons really takes some of the prestige out of defeating them. It just isn't as cool to brag about killing Juiblex to your college of wizards when another archwizard gets up and says,



> Juiblex? Juiblex? Punk. I just killed a _balor_.




and everyone starts oohing and ahhing because that's a more difficult feat. 

I could see making the demon lords CR 20-ish if that 'cr bracket' was unfilled. But with a demon already filling it, isn't it sort of redundant? There's already a badass demon to fight at level 20, and I don't see what's so bad about it that you need to depower 20 more to that level.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

What good does the mythology of tough demon princes when only ever the epic playing minority encounters them in combat? The demon princes are most likely a bit high on their power/CR ratio.

I remember killing demogorgon in the BG2 game. What for? Mostly the xp. Still, that guy was an awesome and unique opponent and when I came about him learning to play and master D&D I immediatly made a connection with the D&D mythos.

I'm a great fan of the D&D mythos. I use planescape and spelljammer in my homebrew games. But I want to play with the mythos.

The real greatness of the D&D mythos is not the nice pictures and stories, but the stories people tell each other how they appeared in each others game. In each of that stories the personalities of the monsters where the same as where their rough ability outlines and appearance. But player x met Grazzt bound in a archmages crypt and bargained with him at third level, player y killed him when he was in his "kill things and take their stuff phase" and got killed by him when he said the name trice and the DM was a jerk, while player z had him as BBEG in his great metaplot campaign where he fought his projection at level 20 to prevent him from invading his world and draining the great cave of souls.

Just like mindflayers can be alien meances, world invaders, elder evils, spelljammers, great overlords or just little weels in a greater scheeme and the Gith queen has propably died many times, in many different ways, the demon princes and their mythos is mutable.

And what is everybody hung up over the lowest CR archfiend anyway? Jubilex is a big chump of disgusting slime with few servants anyway, isn't he? Isn't that guy the joke of the abyss anyway?

Add in only one line, either "controls abyssal layers" or "away from home" and things get reasonable quickly. Getting hung up about one or two sentences missing (we're not even 100% sure they are missing) is a bit much.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Yes, the epic level rules are in the DMG, not the PHB.  As are prestige classes, magic items, and environment.
> 
> Since prestige classes are in nearly every supplement, I don't think it's a far stretch to think that some epic material should be as well.
> 
> Whether you like it or not, the RAW do not stop the game at 20th level.




Uh no. Magic items and prestige classes are in the dmg because they are conceptually suppossed to be part of the dm's responsibility in game; the dm hands out magic items and creates a fluff reason for prcs to be in place. Epic rules, on the other hand, tie directly into the core character creation and advancement that is typically left to players; the only reason its not is because it is in fact not a 'core' part of the experience.

While its true that prcs are given more support than epic material, i'd argue that is because they support the balanced level range that most players actually see, and not the (relativily) unbalanced level 20+ that no player expects to see. Magic items aren't even comparable, and you should know that. 'Optional' rules can be supported, but to expect any and all of them to be so is ridiculous.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 31, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Without sufficient personal power there is none, that's right. Without the power to make others obey you, you won't be able to ever reach a place where you can start to offer political alliances.
> 
> Short term expendiency works, well, only a short term. The weak archfiends can't build empires on this that last for tens of thousand years.
> 
> ...




Except, they do have the power to compel many, as indicated by the fact that their cr is higher than any other fiend in the the mm (assuming everything in the core rules is in this generic setting, an assumption which is irrelevant to most groups i bet). There is this thing called a snowball effect that doesn't require a phd in IR to understand, i.e. the timing of an alliance is important. If these fiends established an alliance early enough, it would grow on its own strength so as to overwhelm an inherently more powerful opposition that could not create that alliance. Do you want some historical examples.

And you obviously didn't understand my point earlier. If one powerful fiend can create coherence out of chaos, then there is not reason why a less powerful fiend can a more immediate hierarchy, which would then snowball down to the lower levels, deterring rebellion from those immediatly above. There is not need for an 'abstract' order, national loyalties or the like. This hierarchy would be beyond single human agency; a fully natural and immediate outcome of brutish, 'chaotic' tendencies.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 31, 2006)

Oh no... is this true? Can someone confirm this (or deny it... please deny it)? I was hoping for some cool, unique advancements like advancing a dragon's age category... I seriously hope it isn't some half-assed job of 'don't forget to increase the BAB when you add an outsider hit die'. I knew that already.

On another issue... well I hate to self-quote. But nobody from the 'other side' of the debate gave a response, and I am really interested to know.



Now as Ripzerai pointed out, it seems to me that having the Demon Lords be lesser challenges than nonunique demons really takes some of the prestige out of defeating them. It just isn't as cool to brag about killing Juiblex to your college of wizards when another archwizard gets up and says,



and everyone starts oohing and ahhing because that's a more difficult feat. 

I could see making the demon lords CR 20-ish if that 'cr bracket' was unfilled. But with a demon already filling it, isn't it sort of redundant? There's already a badass demon to fight at level 20, and I don't see what's so bad about it that you need to depower 20 more to that level.[/QUOTE]

I must have missed the 20+ CR core demons. And where is it stated that there are advanced balors or what not.

And I don't even know why i'm arguing over arbitrary interpreations of fluff, which is mostly irrelevant to most people's games. The fact is these mechanics are usable.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 31, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> What good does the mythology of tough demon princes when only ever the epic playing minority encounters them in combat?  . . .
> 
> I'm a great fan of the D&D mythos. I use planescape and spelljammer in my homebrew games. But I want to play with the mythos.
> 
> The real greatness of the D&D mythos is not the nice pictures and stories, but the stories people tell each other how they appeared in each others game.




I cannot and will not defend D&D "epic level" rules.  IMO, they suck.  And I agree that PCs should, by some means or measure, be able to fight and win against a demon prince.

But whether I like it or not, the 3.5 rules are what they are in terms of levels and the rules for those levels.  Under those rules, demon princes, if they are to maintain their traditional roles in D&D are "epic."  I suppose some alternate system might have been presented just for demon princes, applying the paragon template has been suggested earlier, but absent such, the demon princes needed to be "epically" defined to maintain a consistent and fully meaningful mythology.  The result, as I understand it, now underrcuts the mythology and in those terms raises a number of questions to which no answer in the mythology is even attempted - the most pressing being "Why the demotion?"  This is like saying "superman can't fly" but offering no explaination.

Does this mean epic presentation would be unplayable to vast numbers of players?  No.  Epic characters/rules mesh with non-epic characters/rules.  Imperfectly?  No argument.  But they are not mutually exclusive.  There is then no rationale for not presenting the epic versions.  No players would be disenfranchised.  The demon prines would just be harder kills and that is appropriate, IMO.

If the argument is, however, that demon princes should be killable by 20th level PCs, that is a different argument and I think that argument falls apart merely stating it.  Demon princes are not just another monster, a bigger badder umberhulk, they are the pinnacle of evil given physical form.  20th level characters are just 20th level characters.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Coriat said:
			
		

> Oh no... is this true? Can someone confirm this (or deny it... please deny it)?
> I was hoping for some cool, unique advancements like advancing a dragon's age category... I seriously hope it isn't some half-assed job of 'don't forget to increase the BAB when you add an outsider hit die'. I knew that already.




Upthread, James Jacobs said that the reason that there wasn't a whole lot was precisely was because most of this was already covered in the monster manual. What's there is above and beyond that.

I'll see if I can find it... if someone else finds it first, they can post it.

Edit: Here it is:



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> The "Advancng a Demon Lord" section is about 1/3 of a page, and consists of 8 or so bullet points that add on to the more general monster advancing rules detailed at the end of the Monster Manual. It's not a HUGE section, but then again it doesn't have to be since most of the heavy lifting for advancing monsters is already done in the Monster Manual.


----------



## Coriat (May 31, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> I must have missed the 20+ CR core demons. And where is it stated that there are advanced balors or what not.




Balor. CR 20 unadvanced. Check your monster manual under 'demon' 

In case you are wondering, there are an infinite number of them hanging out in the Abyss.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 31, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> And I don't even know why i'm arguing over arbitrary interpreations of fluff, which is mostly irrelevant to most people's games.




Can't say.  

But you are in gross error in imagining that what is being considered is "arbitrary interpretations of fluff,"  the fluff in the case of demon princes goes to very core of the concept of a demon prince.  Or do you have your PC encounter "Ten hit dice, that does 1d10 damage per round" etc. I doubt it.  You have them encounter a described monster.  Why?  Because the description, the details of the monster beyond the stats, matter.  So too, even more so, with demon princes.

And you again are grossly in error when you assume such is "mostly irrelevant."  Again, you have your PCs encounter "15 Hit Dice?"  No.  You do not, I'll wager.  The details are far from irrelevant.  Indeed, they help form the basis of much of the appeal of D&D, its mythology.  Again, this is particularly true of demon princes, which are not just jumped up monsters, but the pinnacle of evil given form.

The attempt at an antiseptic, clinical "just the rules" approach flounders when considering D&D archetypes like the demon princes.  Feats?  Okay.  PrCs?  Maybe.  Demon princes?
No way.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 31, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> 1. "dumbing" down is a bad term. It implies that the only reason one would not use the ELH is because one was not smart enough.
> 2. Limiting your level advancement at 20 is completely reasonable as the ELH really kind of sucks..




1. If you know no slight was intended, then why even bring something up like that but to create contaversy.
2. Indeed your opinion as you sugest in your 3.  I have problems with it and spent my time tooling it to some extent, but it's there, it should be supported.




			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> 4. DaDg along with PoF are the other two books in my "will never use it" trilogy.



Again,this is fine for your campaing but you aren't the only person buying the products and playing the game.  There are already tuns of creatures, NPCs, and other chalenges if you only want to play to 20th level.  But when it comes to the one area in which epic support would be most welcome, they dumb them down the baddies instead.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Little Erik Mona did not grow up loving the planes by accident or because the RAW of the time thrilled his little heart.




To be clear, Little Erik Mona didn't write the section in question.

--Erik


----------



## arntof (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but most people here won't,




Rip, I have to say I have agreed with every single word you have written in this thread.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 31, 2006)

For what it's worth; my personal preference for demon lord stat blocks is in the 24–32 range (as they're presented in the _Demonomicon_ articles in _Dragon_). In hindsight, it would have probably have been better to omit stat blocks for demon lords entirely from the book, but that would have done a great disservice to those DMs who want to use them as monsters to fight. Demon lords can serve as BBEGs of any CR or as undefeatable forces. The fact that they rule entire realms and layers on the Abyss tells me that they're tougher than the rank & file demons that otherwise dwell there (on up to and including balors), which is why I prefer to see their stats at a higher level.

Nonetheless... the book's first purpose was to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and that meant that we had to start the demon lord stat blocks at a baseline of about 20, since the vast majority of D&D players don't utilize the Epic level rules. Since space in the book was a concern, I wasn't able to do an exhaustive treatment of how to advance the demon lord statblocks from their baselines up to whatever level suits the needs of your campaign; the section that IS in the book makes it as clear as possible that you SHOULD use the statblocks given as something to build upon.

I don't think that stat blocks for CR 20–23 demon lords is going to ruin them as viable villains in the D&D game, especially when the rest of the book makes it clear that they are the baddest of the bad on the Abyss (flavor-wise, at least). After all, the demon lords survived the whole "de-demoning" that D&D went through in the dark days of pre-Planescape 2nd Edition. And as GVDammerung put it so well several posts back: "Story is first. Rules are secondary." There's more flavor and story in _Hordes of the Abyss_ than there is rules crunch—sure, the rules provide stats for relatively weak demon lords (although their actual stats are in fact rather tough; they're certainly no pushovers for a party of 20th level characters), but if you (like me) need stats for tougher demon lords, the tools are all there for you to build them to your exact needs. Barring that, keep an eye on _Dragon_ for those Demonomicon articles (if you like your demon lords at CR 24–32, that is)—I'll keep writing them as long as the good editors at _Dragon_ let me. _Tome of Horrors_ is also an excelent resource if you want demon stat blocks that are even more powerful than that.

My advice to those who are disapointed with the demon lord stat blocks in the book: use them as avatars for the demon lords when they wish to work their evils off-plane, and either use the tougher stat blocks from _Book of Vile Darkness_ or the _Demonomicon_ articles for them when they're encountered on the Abyss. That's what I'll be doing in my own campaigns, and it's how we'll likely be handling things in any demon lord-associated adventrues that will be appearing in _Dungeon_.


----------



## IanB (May 31, 2006)

There's an awful lot of "should" being thrown around in this thread. "Should" is an entirely subjective notion when it comes to this sort of thing.

Let's take our CR 19 friend Juiblex as an example. People are saying that he "should" be able to beat up a balor.

But... why?

Does anyone actually want his nasty ooze plane? Does he necessarily have any balors in his service?

It seems entirely possible that his plane, to put it bluntly, sucks so bad that noone else wants it, and he might just not be powerful enough to have balors working for him.

That's not a problem to me.

The basic thing is to remember that whatever you think the balance of power of creatures "should" be, it has nothing to do with what the next guy in line thinks it "should" be.

In my game, there aren't infinite numbers of balors running around any more than there are infinite layers of the abyss, or infinite numbers of solars. A solar may well be as powerful as a demon lord, but that doesn't mean they'll be able to just waltz into the abyss and start knocking them off. There are a lot of extenuating circumstances - alliances, planar effects, magical artifacts, deities and their interests, etc. - that stop the planes from devolving into one giant slugfest.

So, I've described just one possible game world in which lower CR demon lords can exist and function normally. It is not stretching the imagination to realize that there are thousands of other perfectly valid campaign ideas and settings where the same thing might be true.

So let's get away from "should," shall we? The only person who really cares what your idea of "should" is, is you. (Using the generic "you" of course, this isn't directed at anyone in particular.)

Incidentally, I think if you go back and look at your dusty old 1E monster manuals, you'll notice that Juiblex wasn't all that, even then - and our old friend the type VI demon was practically a pushover. Times change!


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

*thinks he should keep running SL games no matter what* And what the hell, more Demon Princes.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

IanB said:
			
		

> Does anyone actually want his nasty ooze plane?




Zuggtmoy does. She can probably count on help from her ally Iuz, too. 



> It seems entirely possible that his plane, to put it bluntly, sucks so bad that noone else wants it




A new ruler might well be able to turn it into something completely different, depending on how radical the power of an Abyssal Lord over its divinely morphic layer is. If they have the powers of a greater deity, they can change the elements of the layer entirely, turning a cavern full of slime into a brilliant blue sky filled with solid pink clouds.


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

Erstwhile ally, Rip. It's not like Iuz doesn't have his moods...


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 31, 2006)

Okay, this is quoted, verbatim, from Erik Mona in one of the other threads.



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> The book mentions that demon lords control their layers more or less at will several times. The layers have the "divinely morphic" trait from the MotP, and for these purposes the demon princes who control a layer qualify as "divine."
> 
> --Erik




So even if you assume the demon lords use the stat blocks given in the books, rather than advancing them, they _still_ have a major advantage over any potential rivals.


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

Yeah well it would help if we had an idea if they had any DvR or not. I mean in FR, Orcus and the rest don't have any DvR and aren't considered "divine". Something I'm against.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah well it would help if we had an idea if they had any DvR or not. I mean in FR, Orcus and the rest don't have any DvR and aren't considered "divine". Something I'm against.




I think we know they don't have any DvR. If they did, they wouldn't be CR 20.

They might, however, have _effective_ DvR for the purposes of planar control.

If they don't, then they only have the powers that demigods have over their realms, which allow for some dramatic special effects but really aren't going to give them any substantial advantage against opponents.



			
				SDR said:
			
		

> Within this area, the deity can set any temperature that is normal for the plane where the realm is located (for the Material Plane, any temperature from -20ºF to 120ºF), and fill the area with scents and sounds as the deity sees fit. Sounds can be no louder than one hundred humans could make, but not intelligible speech or harmful sound. The deity’s ability to create scents is similar. A demigod or lesser deity can erect buildings and alter the landscape, but must do so through its own labor, through magic, or through its divine powers.




That's it.


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

Yeah but MAYBE if we believe REALLY hard enough...they get it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Story is first.  Rules are secondary.  For what good are the best rules if they do not fascilitate the story, as no one plays the RAW to be playing the RAW and that alone.




I agree with you whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, in my experience, this is not true.  There are those that chase the idea of Pun-pun with glee and in my opinion, these are playing RAW and that alone.  That is why there are forums where people come up with uber characters.



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> This is pretty easy. The thing I had in my mind was somthing where when a demon prince is deposed the deposer starts off as himself, but eventually turns into the demon prince he just deposed. The universe needs orcus, so the demon that just deposed orcus becomes orcus. At firs it looks like an identity crisis, and thats what the balor thought it might be, but that second identity gets stronger, and his head starts to get more goatlike, but he figures, "who cares, after all, I took Orcus' place why can't I BE Orcus." He gets fatter, and more goat like, and then to his horror, he realises that he is not himself. Soon the deposing balor is just a memory. After seeing this happen a couple of times most demons won't raise a hand against the princes because they do not want to loose their own identity.
> 
> Imagine a cocky balor taking down juiblex only to slowly melt into the a jibbering and jabbering mad lord of oozes. As the process begins, his likes start to change, little things first, then more knowledge than he ever knew, then a new second personality that slowly takes over from the first. He seeks to escape, to adbicate his new throne, he seeks to have anyone replace him, they all bow to him and refuse. Feeling his slowly disolving mind and sense of self, he is filled with utter fear as his new minions start to refer to him as Lord Juiblex. Juiblex sits in power once more.




Dude, that's awesome. (With full Beavis and Butthead intonement) I am going to use this for sure.  See, it's ideas like this, combined with Erik's comment about demon lords controlling their layers more or less at will that make the CR debate less important for me.  If the Demon has CR20 "stats" yet has control over it's plane with divine morph, then there is great reason why the CR40/50/60 balor can't just kill him and be done with it.  He'd never get to him in the first place. (At least that is how I would adjudicate it. -- Even if the SRD only says you can make things smell differently, I would say this extends to erecting barriers, molding the landscape to their whim, and manipulating the elements of the plane at will.)

Anyway, a web enhancement that clarifies the early assertion that the CR and stats are only when encountered off-plane will stop a lot of this discussion in it's tracks.


----------



## The Serge (May 31, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So even if you assume the demon lords use the stat blocks given in the books, rather than advancing them, they _still_ have a major advantage over any potential rivals.



No they don't.  They get to make their layers smell bad have look nasty...  Unless they have an effective rank of a greater power, they don't get to do much.  And even if they do, there's nothing stopping any god with access to the more fearsome SDAs from pimping the demon lord in question inside it's layer, much less from a distance.  Not to mention other demon lords or even balors.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 31, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> No they don't.  They get to make their layers smell bad have look nasty...  Unless they have an effective rank of a greater power, they don't get to do much.  And even if they do, there's nothing stopping any god with access to the more fearsome SDAs from pimping the demon lord in question inside it's layer, much less from a distance.  Not to mention other demon lords or even balors.




I don't particularly care if, by the RAW, a god can take down a demon prince. Regardless of what Planescape said, I've never seen them as equals. I'm talking about Juiblex as written vs. some upstart balrog as written.


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

RAW, though Ari, if that's the case then how do you explain Kiaranselee rise in power after the death of Orcus OR her being afraid of Orcus IF she's a god and he's not.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't particularly care if, by the RAW, a god can take down a demon prince. Regardless of what Planescape said, I've never seen them as equals. I'm talking about Juiblex as written vs. some upstart balrog as written.




Let me reiterate what a DvR 1 god can do in its realm:

- Change the temperature, within limits. So Kostchtchie can make it an arctic wasteland, and Azazel can make it a scalding desert. Because it's the Abyss, it's also plausible that this power could allow Alzrius to make his layer a fiery inferno. They could also, if they chose, reverse this, so Kostchtchie could make his realm a scalding desert or a fiery inferno. If he wanted. 

This power could make things very unpleasant for mortal adventurerers, but isn't going to help against balors a whole lot. 

- The demon lord can also fill the realm with scents and sounds, but they can't be harmful to anyone, and they can't be intelligible.

And that's it. That's all the power does. 

If the demon lord has a greater effective DvR, it might be able to do something more impressive. But we don't yet know if that's the case.


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

yeah well it would be nice if they could do more than that, like bar gods from their realms.  It should be that simple.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> yeah well it would be nice if they could do more than that, like bar gods from their realms.  It should be that simple.




They could if they had an effective DvR of 6 or higher (as they did in 1e and 2e).


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> And that's it. That's all the power does.




Yeah. It's lame.

I like the vibe of the planar description better.

I see an Abyssal Lord having more sway than that. Rule 0 powers - activate...


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah. It's lame.
> 
> I like the vibe of the planar description better.
> 
> I see an Abyssal Lord having more sway than that. Rule 0 powers - activate...




And that was my point too.


----------



## Nightfall (May 31, 2006)

Agreed, Rule 0.5 activate! Form of Dicefreaks!  

Well I honestly think that the big Three should, otherwise what's the point?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 31, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> RAW, though Ari, if that's the case then how do you explain Kiaranselee rise in power after the death of Orcus OR her being afraid of Orcus IF she's a god and he's not.




A: I don't. AFAIAC, the interactions of gods in 2nd edition don't need to be explained by the RAW, since they weren't statted for that edition.

B: Kiaransalee hasn't been statted for 3E. Who's to say how much power she has now? She could be a fairly week demigod under the current system for all we know.

C: All of this assumes that the stat blocks given in _Hordes of the Abyss_ represent the "true" demon lords. As has been reiterated time and again, this represents them at their bare weakest minimum. If one is going to insist that a D&D canon exists, why can't one also assume that in the Greyhawk or FR cosmologies--as opposed to the "generic world that's not quite Greyhawk" cosmology of the core rules--includes tougher/advanced variants of the demon lords? After all, it's not like Elminster is possible by the core rules, or even the epic RAW, yet he clearly exists in a "canon" setting.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 31, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> My advice to those who are disapointed with the demon lord stat blocks in the book: use them as avatars for the demon lords when they wish to work their evils off-plane, and either use the tougher stat blocks from _Book of Vile Darkness_ or the _Demonomicon_ articles for them when they're encountered on the Abyss. That's what I'll be doing in my own campaigns, and it's how we'll likely be handling things in any demon lord-associated adventrues that will be appearing in _Dungeon_.




Practically speaking, from what I am understanding, something very like this is how I intend to handle the situation - the stats will represent a proportional manefestation of the demon prince in question.  I've been playing since OD&D so improvising around or in lieu of "official" rulings is no big thing.  That's really not wherein the issue lies for me, as I can kluge till the cows come home, but rather in how the mythology is impacted.  Post-Hordes, when discussing the demon princes, there will now likely be an inevitable wrangle over the place of the demon lords in the grand scheme of things given their revised stat blocks and no "official" explaination for the change.  To those of us interested in those aspects of D&D where such things matter, or in the mythology more generally, a can of worms has been opened.  To those so interested, this is very like a new class, feat or PrC being "unbalanced" is to those obsessed about those sorts things.  A question then of whose ox, PrC or mythology is being gored.  By no means does the demon prince CR issue "ruin" the book but it does take something of the bud off the rose as the demon princes are a big part of things.

NB EM- I know you didn't write the section Erik, you were a convenient example of the principle, however.  What drew you to the demons way back when was, I suspect, the mythology, the back story, not the mechanics, illustrating the point of how the mythology matters and forms part of D&D's appeal, at least as much as the rules themselves, IMO.  Unless of course, you love stat blocks, which from your moaning about doing the deific stats in that FR book you cowrote, I doubt.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> So you've got absolutely no issues with a creature that SHOULD be more powerful than another, being weaker?  And we're not talking Remorhaz vs Frost Worm here.  We're talking about something that is the equivilent of making Great Wyrm Dragons weaker than say...Very Old Dragons.  It doesn't make sense.




Making sense is overrated.

Stop thinking.


----------



## BryonD (May 31, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> My advice to those who are disapointed with the demon lord stat blocks in the book: use them as avatars for the demon lords when they wish to work their evils off-plane, and either use the tougher stat blocks from _Book of Vile Darkness_ or the _Demonomicon_ articles for them when they're encountered on the Abyss. That's what I'll be doing in my own campaigns, and it's how we'll likely be handling things in any demon lord-associated adventrues that will be appearing in _Dungeon_.




I'm not worried about this book messing up MY game.  It can't.

But now I'm forced to put my game at variance with the "official" D&D Solar > Orcus dynamic.
Which means I can pretty much significantly discount future worthwhile support.

If the majority of gamers really do want Orcus weaker than Solars, then I'm in the minority and you did the right thing.  I can't recall anyone ever suggesting such an idea.  

I am encouraged that you are suggesting Dungeon will run counter to this current.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Can't say.
> 
> But you are in gross error in imagining that what is being considered is "arbitrary interpretations of fluff,"  the fluff in the case of demon princes goes to very core of the concept of a demon prince.  Or do you have your PC encounter "Ten hit dice, that does 1d10 damage per round" etc. I doubt it.  You have them encounter a described monster.  Why?  Because the description, the details of the monster beyond the stats, matter.  So too, even more so, with demon princes.
> 
> ...




Read the quote again. I was specifically referring to the fluff interpretations taken up in this thread. Not 'fluff' in general, but interpretations of a very narrow generic brand of fluff. Did this book cast a dumb spell on this thread?


----------



## jasamcarl (May 31, 2006)

Coriat said:
			
		

> Balor. CR 20 unadvanced. Check your monster manual under 'demon'
> 
> In case you are wondering, there are an infinite number of them hanging out in the Abyss.




And they are more powerful than any of the 'demon lords' presented in the book under discussion? Perhaps >20 would have made the point clearer, but still. Think more.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Read the quote again. I was specifically referring to the fluff interpretations taken up in this thread. Not 'fluff' in general, but interpretations of a very narrow generic brand of fluff. Did this book cast a dumb spell on this thread?




See post #429.  Are you begging to get banned?


----------



## Erik Mona (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> NB EM- I know you didn't write the section Erik, you were a convenient example of the principle, however.  What drew you to the demons way back when was, I suspect, the mythology, the back story, not the mechanics, illustrating the point of how the mythology matters and forms part of D&D's appeal, at least as much as the rules themselves, IMO.  Unless of course, you love stat blocks, which from your moaning about doing the deific stats in that FR book you cowrote, I doubt.




And you are absolutely right, of course.

--Erik


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Practically speaking, from what I am understanding, something very like this is how I intend to handle the situation - the stats will represent a proportional manefestation of the demon prince in question.  I've been playing since OD&D so improvising around or in lieu of "official" rulings is no big thing.




And this is almost identical for me. But...



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> That's really not wherein the issue lies for me, as I can kluge till the cows come home, but rather in how the mythology is impacted.  Post-Hordes, when discussing the demon princes, there will now likely be an inevitable wrangle over the place of the demon lords in the grand scheme of things given their revised stat blocks and no "official" explaination for the change.  To those of us interested in those aspects of D&D where such things matter, or in the mythology more generally, a can of worms has been opened.  To those so interested, this is very like a new class, feat or PrC being "unbalanced" is to those obsessed about those sorts things.  A question then of whose ox, PrC or mythology is being gored.  By no means does the demon prince CR issue "ruin" the book but it does take something of the bud off the rose as the demon princes are a big part of things.




I only half agree with  you here.  I do not feel as if the revised stat blocks reflect a demon lord's place in the grand scheme of things.  Stat blocks don't accurately represent (for me) other intangible aspects to rulership: politics, history, your deeds, your allegiances.  How does a CR20 balor know what the CR of a demon lord is?  I am sure that I will be given some argument or explanation as to how this meta game information become known, but seriously, unless Hordes is dismissing all the history played out in 1e, 2e, 3e canon how can a Balor in is right mind not _perceive_ a higher CR for his demon lord ruler?  History, politics, deeds, allegiances.  This is where fluff becomes pseudo-crunch (without all the crunchy sound).  It just doesn't have any game mechanical associations, but it most certainly has viability in game.  

I am not that learned in the timelines, but I am sure that Shemmy or Boz or any number of Enworlders can give numerous examples of events in demon-lore where a Demon Prince did something that would scare the bejeezuz out of a balor enoght that they never try to band together to overthrow him.   How's that for a run-on sentence.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> How does a CR20 balor know what the CR of a demon lord is?




"The Emperor Has No Clothes" is not a good way to run the Abyss. I suspect one of his minions would eventually notice that he's the only one of them that never casually gets into fights with his inferiors, that he backs down in situations where any other demon would have arrogantly shown his muscle.

A horde of demons is like a wolf pack, every member constantly weighing the others, subtly testing their strength as they strive for dominance. There are many ways to do this without immediate danger to oneself.

Look at human children for a good example: they constantly test authority figures, misbehaving just a little bit until they learn what the boundaries are. Demons are much the same way, showing more and more unruliness, just enough to get smacked down but not enough to be worth killing.

But the Fraud King of the Abyss never smacks his greatest minions down. He _can't_, because he might not win. He can't order his other minions to do it for him either - they wouldn't respect him. That's not what demons _do_. They rule by strength, and relying on the strength of others is a sign of weakness.

So they test him, more and more. Soon they start disobeying commands outright. Then, when still there is no punishment forthcoming, they start smacking him around.

A hush falls over the assembled court. Everyone moves aside to watch the fight ensue, leaving the floor open to their ruler and his challenger. The monarch can't back down now. So they fight. Maybe one wins, maybe the other does. They're more or less of equal power, after all.

And now, one way or another, everyone who watched knows exactly how tough their monarch is. They know the challenger's strength; it was a powerful servant in the court, and it got there by showing its dominance, constantly smacking around those around it. Everyone knows how tough the challenger was, and by comparison they know their monarch's strength.

So even if the demon monarch won the challenge, he lost. The curtains fell from the Great Oz. The monarch wasn't some all-powerful godlike figure at all, but a mere mortal like themselves. They saw him bleed. They saw him pant in exhaustion toward the end of the fight. They saw how close he came to death. 

More challenges come. And more. Demons come from outside the realm, attracted to the scent of weakness, of opportunity. 

Eventually, the monarch falls. Probably sooner rather than later.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 31, 2006)

I hope that your argument was meant to address my WHOLE post and not just a single line. 

But taking my entire argument into consideration, this is exactly what I was stating.  That other non-statistical meta-game elements have kept the lesser demons in check all these many many millenia.  If you can find instances in D&D canon where a known demon prince identified and codified by an official source has been overthrown by a lessor typed demon in the manner described above, then I will concede.  

I just haven't seen it yet.


----------



## BogusMagus (May 31, 2006)

*Chapter 3: Demon Lords*

(There’s about 3/4 page of text before the actual description/stats of the lords begin.)

“The most powerful demons are the demon lords. These individuals are unique demons that can command entire layers of the Abyss and function almost as deities. They can project physical manifestations onto the Astral Plane, and form there infiltrate other planes without placing themselves in danger of being slain. -snip-

*Fighting Demon Lords*
-snip-
These high Challenge Ratings are based on the demon lords’ abilities and also supported by couple of assumptions:
(1) Characters are most likely to face a demon lords on its home layers of the Abyss.-snip-
(2) A demon lords should never be encountered alone. -snip-

*Demon Lord Aspects*
-snip-
Sample demon lord aspects are presented in the FC1: HotA web enhancement on the WotC website.”


----------



## BogusMagus (May 31, 2006)

*Making Epic Demon Lords*
(I don’t feel like writing out these words for words, but I will try not to leave out anything.)
* Advance lord’s HD by an amount appropriate for your campaign’s needs. The lord BAB, saves, skills, feats, ability scores should increase as an Outsider.
* CR increase by 1 for every HD added.
* Add “epic” to DR requirement.
* New SR = CR+13
* Ability scores all increase 2 for every 5HD added.
* Gain Spell-like abilities (at will): Blasphemy (or Word of Chaos for obyrith.), Plane Shift, Shapechange, Unholy Aura. Feel free to add more, but remember not to over do it.
* Increase Caster level for Spell-like abilities by 1 for every 2 HD added. Remember this can overpower certain abilities.
* Feel free to add one or two new special actions or special qualities. eg.) Fraz-Urb’luu might gain Mordenkainen’s Disjunction by touch. Kostchtchie might gain a Cold breath weapon.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 31, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> B: Kiaransalee hasn't been statted for 3E. Who's to say how much power she has now? She could be a fairly week demigod under the current system for all we know.



She was statted in City of the Spider Queen web enhancement IIRC.


----------



## GQuail (May 31, 2006)

BogusMagus said:
			
		

> *Making Epic Demon Lords*
> (I don’t feel like writing out these words for words, but I will try not to leave out anything.)
> * Advance lord’s HD by an amount appropriate for your campaign’s needs. The lord BAB, saves, skills, feats, ability scores should increase as an Outsider.
> * CR increase by 1 for every HD added.
> ...




This actually sounds pretty serviceable to me.  Sure, it's still a bit bare bones, but to those who complained that expanding a non-epic monster wouldn't make it as hardcore as a full epic monster, the suggestions for spell like abilities etc is at least a hint in the right direction.  Without seeing the full text we can't be sure quite how much detial it goes in, but it is acknowledging that you change a lot more than just HD when you make them bigger.

If you're playing a campaign that high level, aren't you already spending a lot of work on this sort of thing anyway?  If you're already making 30th level NPC wizards, or advancing a Dragon to be a challenge to your ECL 29 group, or making Paragon Slaadi to populate your epic level Limbo fortress.... then surely this is the same thing, increasing power levels from core material to match your game?

I agree that work like that is dull, but if you're playing an epic level game, you either get desensitized to it or you play something else.  ;-)


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> If you're playing a campaign that high level, aren't you already spending a lot of work on this sort of thing anyway?  If you're already making 30th level NPC wizards, or advancing a Dragon to be a challenge to your ECL 29 group, or making Paragon Slaadi to populate your epic level Limbo fortress.... then surely this is the same thing, increasing power levels from core material to match your game?




That's what I was thinking. This is pretty much a cakewalk compared to major NPCs I stat up every session.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 31, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> She was statted in City of the Spider Queen web enhancement IIRC.




Well, that was Forgotten Realms, and Forgotten Realms isn't 'core' cannon right Mouse?


----------



## Mirtek (May 31, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> If these fiends established an alliance early enough, it would grow on its own strength so as to overwhelm an inherently more powerful opposition that could not create that alliance. Do you want some historical examples.



So have historical examples of alliances among demons?    Historical RL examples don't work here, you can't apply human minds to the denizens of the abyss. They're not just a bunch of CE guys, they are CE that has taken bodies.

Just see here. This "pack of wolves" example is exactly what it would eventually come down to, that's where your "natural order" would fall apart (or at least where weak rulers won't be able to rule for centuries and more)


			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Nonetheless... the book's first purpose was to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and that meant that we had to start the demon lord stat blocks at a baseline of about 20, since the vast majority of D&D players don't utilize the Epic level rules.



But wouldn't the better question not be: How many people do not utilize the epic level rules and yet still insist on being able to slay the demonlords?

I don't play epic level games, yet I also don't want to be able kill the demonlords at my non-epic l. It's like someone said in one of these threads "no one who plays only up to 5th level complains that he can't slay a firegiant" (or something like this).

By chosing not to play epic I am also chosing not to slay gods and archfiends. And seeing archfiends that aren't much tougher than our 20th level party is just a disappointin sight

It takes away all the awe and wonder of the metasetting, it's not cool to slay Baphomet if he's barely more powerfull than a balor.


----------



## Umbran (May 31, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> But wouldn't the better question not be: How many people do not utilize the epic level rules and yet still insist on being able to slay the demonlords?




I'd imagine quite a few.  Slaying a demon lord sounds like just the sort of thing to be used to cap off a campaign that wasn't going to go on into epic levels.


----------



## WarDragon (Jun 1, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'd imagine quite a few.  Slaying a demon lord sounds like just the sort of thing to be used to cap off a campaign that wasn't going to go on into epic levels.



No.  It.  Doesn't.  We are talking about things that rule entire, infinite layers of the most hostile plane of existance in the D&D multiverse.  Beings whose flavor would have us believe that they range from demigod-like power, to making Zeus and Odin wet themselves.  At the very least, they should be able to defeat a fully advanced Balor, rather than have a risk of losing to a regular one.  Any 20th level PCs that attack a demon lord in a cosmos that makes sense should get their souls eaten before they have a chance to roll initiative.  Either that, or 20th level PCs should themselves make pantheon heads quiver in their divine boots, which raises a whole new set of problems and inconsistencies.

Bottom line: the demon lord stats in this book, including their half-assed "Epic advancement rules" make me sad.


----------



## bolen (Jun 1, 2006)

Is this book out yet?


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 1, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> So have historical examples of alliances among demons?    Historical RL examples don't work here, you can't apply human minds to the denizens of the abyss. They're not just a bunch of CE guys, they are CE that has taken bodies.
> 
> Just see here. This "pack of wolves" example is exactly what it would eventually come down to, that's where your "natural order" would fall apart (or at least where weak rulers won't be able to rule for centuries and more)
> 
> ...




Uh, that's your silly assumption. There is no reason why i couldn't equally claim that a demon lord can't simply order his other minions to put down a rebellion; you define CE by a constant testing of physical strength, i do so as an eternally selfish struggle of survival, in which case no one would organize or speak up. This culture of strength would never undermine a lord because there is not culture to begin with, just raw power and deterrence.

And under those assumptions, the basics of political science could most certainly work. I 

And please stop asserting what a demon is or isn't, especially when you oppurtunistically claim that some inspiration for a vaguely defined fictional universe (my historical ones) aren't as valid as your equally arbitrary b.s. The question was can a dm create there own fluff explanation for killable boss demons. It should have been obvious that it was, but I guess some of us are not as blessed with imagination.


----------



## BronzeGolem (Jun 1, 2006)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Uh, that's your silly assumption.




No, that's not a silly assumption at all.



> There is no reason why i couldn't equally claim that a demon lord can't simply order his other minions to put down a rebellion; you define CE by a constant testing of physical strength, i do so as an eternally selfish struggle of survival, in which case no one would organize or speak up. This culture of strength would never undermine a lord because there is not culture to begin with, just raw power and deterrence.




For LE this makes sense, since Lawful Evil allows for the possibility of loyalty.

For Demons with lesser power (say, succubi and below), this makes sense.

But your "demon lord will just order their minions to put down a rebellion" just doesn't make sense otherwise. The only reason why they'd follow the demon lord in the first place is because it's powerful enough to compel them to either outright or by scaring them into it, and more powerful than other demon lords that might treat them even worse. If they don't think that the demon lord can quash all resistance on it's own, then the demons under it are likely to either hold back or switch sides if they think that the challenger is likely to win, because if they don't support the challenger, the challenger will then punish them for it.

Do you see either the raw power or deterrence necessary to create this kind of obedience from what you've seen so far on this thread? So far-although I haven't seen the full stats yet-I haven't.

Quite frankly, it sort of sounds like you'd wish that there was no flavor with demons or demon lords at all and you'd just rather have a bunch of stats and a physical description.


----------



## Delta (Jun 1, 2006)

WarDragon said:
			
		

> No.  It.  Doesn't.  We are talking about things that rule entire, infinite layers of the most hostile plane of existance in the D&D multiverse... Any 20th level PCs that attack a demon lord in a cosmos that makes sense should get their souls eaten before they have a chance to roll initiative.




Most famous D&D adventure of all time: GDQ1-7. Ends with a party of 10th-14th level wiping out Lolth, Demon Queen of Spiders and Lesser Goddess, on her own plane. 

That's, like, the crown jewel of D&D mythology.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

BronzeGolem said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, it sort of sounds like you'd wish that there was no flavor with demons or demon lords at all and you'd just rather have a bunch of stats and a physical description.




Why would anyone want a physical description? All DMs worth their salt can easily make up their own descriptions.

I think the main problem is the name, "Demon lord." It sounds impressive... lordly. And demonic. Get rid of the name and you get rid of the whiners who think they know what demon lords should be and how they should act. A simple serial number more than suffices. Are you telling me that Creature #2014398 shouldn't be CR 20? They should remove all names and include only blocks of stats, with no description, names, or any other features that would allow us to tell one from the other. Their abilities should be labeled things like "attack sequence A" or "defense mode B." That's all a really creative DM needs.

_Complete Psion_ is a good start in this direction.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Ends with a party of 10th-14th level wiping out Lolth, Demon Queen of Spiders and Lesser Goddess, on her own plane.




I argue that "Name Level" characters, as they were known at the time, were the equivalent of today's epic characters. In both cases, that's the point at which the rules change somewhat - characters stop gaining hit dice, for example. Demihumans often stopped advancing entirely. They represent the upper extremes of their respective game systems.


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

WarDragon said:
			
		

> No.  It.  Doesn't.  We are talking about things that rule entire, infinite layers of the most hostile plane of existance in the D&D multiverse.  Beings whose flavor would have us believe that they range from demigod-like power, to making Zeus and Odin wet themselves.  At the very least, they should be able to defeat a fully advanced Balor, rather than have a risk of losing to a regular one.  Any 20th level PCs that attack a demon lord in a cosmos that makes sense should get their souls eaten before they have a chance to roll initiative.  Either that, or 20th level PCs should themselves make pantheon heads quiver in their divine boots, which raises a whole new set of problems and inconsistencies.
> 
> Bottom line: the demon lord stats in this book, including their half-assed "Epic advancement rules" make me sad.



Great first post! Let me guess... DiceFreak?

This, to me, is the damage Planescape did to the D&D game. A cosmos full of hostile forces the PCs can never hope to assail. I love me some Lovecraft, but man, that style gets depressing in a game about beating monsters and taking stuff.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I argue that "Name Level" characters, as they were known at the time, were the equivalent of today's epic characters. In both cases, that's the point at which the rules change somewhat - characters stop gaining hit dice, for example. Demihumans often stopped advancing entirely. They represent the upper extremes of their respective game systems.




I couldn't disagree more strongly. "Name level" evoked a _few_ changes, but it still made use of the general core system. Name level characters, while rare and powerful, weren't the gods among men as epic characters more.

Most important, you could achieve name level within the standard rules, without having to tack on an additional, entirely seperate system that the book states is fully optional.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 1, 2006)

Even on a symbolic, as opposed to mechanical, level, "name level" didn't equate to the sort of power implied by the epic rules. A great many rulers and worthies of the various settings and modules were of name level. Heck, a fighter _had_ to reach name level before he could build a fort or gather followers. "Name" level was just that--the point at which the characters had developed a true name for themselves, a reputation on which they could build.

Rare? Powerful? Absolutely. But not even remotely equatable to the epic rules in 3E, at least not in any campaign or setting I've ever heard of.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Even on a symbolic, as opposed to mechanical, level, "name level" didn't equate to the sort of power implied by the epic rules.




Heh. You could kill Lolth. And balors, even.



> A great many rulers and worthies of the various settings and modules were of name level.




A fair number are epic, too, though admittedly there isn't a one-to-one relationship (except in Union).



> But not even remotely equatable to the epic rules in 3E, at least not in any campaign or setting I've ever heard of.




I throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick. But I think you may be interpreting this too literally. They're analogous, not the same.


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

Juiblex is up at WotC:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060601b&page=1

Edit: and it looks like a CR20 Balor can't even damage "him". More correctly, it looks like a fight between Juiblex and nearly any powerful demon would be a stalemate.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick. But I think you may be interpreting this too literally. They're analogous, not the same.




I may, in fact, have taken it too literally. Sorry about that.

But I still don't feel it's an apt analogy. "Name" level was something achievable by mere mortals. It didn't represent a dramatic shift in the nature of the game, either IC or OOC.

The epic rules as presented in 3E represent an entirely different direction to the game than what the PCs have experienced before. They just don't serve the same purpose in any meaningful way.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Juiblex is up at WotC:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060601b&page=1
> 
> Edit: and it looks like a CR20 Balor can't even damage "him". More correctly, it looks like a fight between Juiblex and nearly any powerful demon would be a stalemate.



 Not quite--Juiblex can barely damage the Balor and the Balor can barely damage Juiblex, unless Juiblex engulfs the Balor, in which case the Balor is still basically immune to Juiblex's Constrict, but Juiblex is only very weakly fire resistant and will eventually die to the Balor's 6d6 Flaming Body damage.  

Out of melee, the Balor has a 55% chance to penetrate Juiblex's SR, and his spells have *much* higher DCs than Juiblex's, so Juiblex dies 5% of the time to the Implosion right away.  Fire Storm is 55% likely to damage Juiblex, and 55% of the 55% will be for full damage (the other 45% is half thanks to a successful Reflex save).  Juiblex has a better chance to penetrate the Balor's SR 28, barely, but his DCs are so awful that the Balor always saves except on a 1 except for Symbol of Insanity, which he saves against on a 2 (and has all the usual Symbol restrictions).  Plus Juiblex does not have any instant kill spells anyway.

So basically, Juiblex cannot win.  The Balor probably won't win before Juiblex Greater Teleports away, but otherwise, he has the edge.  Also, he will eventually implode Juiblex if he flies in and tries it every day.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 1, 2006)

To be fair, though, the reason Jubilex stays the (partial) ruler of his plane is because nobody else wants it. Unlike most of the other demon lords, he doesn't have balors serving under him(just oozes and some hezrous) and it's unlikely one would really want to take over as ruler of oozes.

I mean, they're oozes. Any Balor worth his salt is going to focus on the demon lord with a harem of succubi instead.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> To be fair, though, the reason Jubilex stays the (partial) ruler of his plane is because nobody else wants it.




It's just real estate. The new ruler of the plane can change it into a fiery inferno, or a desert, or an ocean. There are lots of options, even with only demigod-level power over its realm.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> To be fair, though, the reason Jubilex stays the (partial) ruler of his plane is because nobody else wants it. Unlike most of the other demon lords, he doesn't have balors serving under him(just oozes and some hezrous) and it's unlikely one would really want to take over as ruler of oozes.
> 
> I mean, they're oozes. Any Balor worth his salt is going to focus on the demon lord with a harem of succubi instead.



 According to the Wizards website:



			
				Juiblex Preview said:
			
		

> Juiblex shares the 222nd layer of the Abyss with Zuggtmoy, the Lady of Fungi. The two demons have a long history of conflict and war, with Juiblex's constant attempts to surge upward into Zuggtmoy's holdings a constant source of contention between the two. Other demons despise and loathe Juiblex, yet most see him as a faceless menace that poses a threat only to those foolish enough to stand in front of him, and they wisely choose to leave him alone.




Of course, with the level of strength described, it isn't really wise to leave him alone.  I mean, his main power is engulfing, and most demons, even weaker ones, aren't going to take much or any damage from that.  An enterprising Marilith could take him out with careful use of her Blade Barrier spell that she gets at will.  A CR 11 Retriever or 3 would win even more easily.  They are immune to all of Juiblex's spells due to Construct Traits, and they can kite him with the 12d6 fire ray for 11 or 32 damage each per shot (depending on the save).  And Juiblex is not immune to the petrification beam either.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It's just real estate. The new ruler of the plane can change it into a fiery inferno, or a desert, or an ocean. There are lots of options, even with only demigod-level power over its realm.




Like Rystil says, then you've still got Zuggtmoy to deal with before you can remake the plane. Why bother? There are plenty of less-disgusting places in the Abyss, amusing as that notion is.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Like Rystil says, then you've still got Zuggtmoy to deal with before you can remake the plane.




No, I don't think so. I suspect both Zuggtmoy and Juiblex have divine-level control over their respective realms.

Once you turn Juiblex's half into an ocean of fire, those annoying oozes won't be much of a problem.


----------



## Baron Opal (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It's just real estate. The new ruler of the plane can change it into a fiery inferno, or a desert, or an ocean. There are lots of options, even with only demigod-level power over its realm.




I don't think that's quite accurate. I seem to remember in the 1st ed. Manual of the Planes the mention that there were some layers of the Abyss so hostile that no demon could survive there to rule. There is a underlying theme to each layer. While a demon lord can certainly modify the plane to their desires, I don't believe that a balor that manages to swim through 50' deep black puddings and ochre jellies to actually kill Jubilex is getting anything worth bragging about.

So, Jubliex's layer might be shiftable to something like the Brine Flats, but a pyroclastic miasma might be out of range.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> So, Jubliex's layer might be shiftable to something like the Brine Flats, but a pyroclastic miasma might be out of range.





Not by the RAW, it's not. A god can alter the temperature of its realm to anything within the normal range of the plane. In the Abyss, I'd say the combustion point is included in that.

Juiblex's realm is oozey caverns because Juiblex likes it that way. 

Now, if Juiblex failed a will save and was devoured by its own realm, the layer itself might start liking it that way. In that case, it would be a matter of the new lord contesting its will directly against the layer's before it could get the realm to do what it wanted. 

But that's me speculating. By the RAW, I don't think there'd be a problem.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so. I suspect both Zuggtmoy and Juiblex have divine-level control over their respective realms.
> 
> Once you turn Juiblex's half into an ocean of fire, those annoying oozes won't be much of a problem.




Eh. If you're going to arbitrarily throw away part of the already-arcane rules we're trying to use to describe this, the whole exercise just ventures -even deeper- into intellectual masturbation territory, and we're pretty deep already.

I'd prefer Jubilex at a higher CR, but given that his realm is basically just Lots n' Lots of Slime, I think the 'ick' factor + lack of complete control over his layer is enough of a reason to keep any renegade balors looking for a realm out.

Now, Orcus and Demogorgon won't be able to use that excuse...


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I don't think that's quite accurate. I seem to remember in the 1st ed. Manual of the Planes the mention that there were some layers of the Abyss so hostile that no demon could survive there to rule. There is a underlying theme to each layer.




That's 'cause each lord gives their layer a theme. Those layers who devour their own lords get stronger and deadlier, and they become harder for future lords to tame. So eventually, yes, some may get too hostile for even demons to survive.

At least if you believe _Armies of the Abyss_ - and it sounds like _Hordes of the Abyss_ is using the same backstory - originally there was only one layer in the Abyss. Each new layer is created by an Abyssal lord who manages to tear a part of a previous layer loose. So every layer was once defined by a demonic personality, even if it's now independent.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Eh. If you're going to arbitrarily throw away part of the already-arcane rules we're trying to use to describe this,




It's not arbitrary. The rules say that each Abyssal lord controls its territory like a god would. Juiblex and Zuggtmoy are Abyssal lords. If they didn't have territory they could control at a divine level, they wouldn't _be_ Abyssal lords; they'd just be powerful demons.


----------



## Seeten (Jun 1, 2006)

Juiblex is comical. You know, overall I don't really care one way or the other, and I'll never buy this book, even though I do really love Succubi, and I wouldn't mind having more flavor on them, but they ruined Tieflings by just...I dont even know what, making them the only +1 LA race that I wouldnt play at +0 LA, and then worse, Juiblex should be killable with those stats at what, level 13?

Lol. A Balor would laugh at this punk.

But, he's advanceable, and I think any DM with a RAW style cosmos will advance him quite a bit. For DM's with their own cosmology, who want to run campaigns where you kill Juiblex at 13, Orcus at 15, and Demogorgon at 18, I think these stats are great.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Anyway, surely it's better for an ambitious demon to rule half a layer than no realm at all. You've got to start _somewhere_.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jun 1, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> For DM's with their own cosmology, who want to run campaigns where you kill Juiblex at 13, Orcus at 15, and Demogorgon at 18, I think these stats are great.




Nethack d20?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Juiblex is comical. You know, overall I don't really care one way or the other, and I'll never buy this book, even though I do really love Succubi, and I wouldn't mind having more flavor on them, but they ruined Tieflings by just...I dont even know what, making them the only +1 LA race that I wouldnt play at +0 LA, and then worse, Juiblex should be killable with those stats at what, level 13?
> 
> Lol. A Balor would laugh at this punk.
> 
> But, he's advanceable, and I think any DM with a RAW style cosmos will advance him quite a bit. For DM's with their own cosmology, who want to run campaigns where you kill Juiblex at 13, Orcus at 15, and Demogorgon at 18, I think these stats are great.



 Level 13?  Hmm...at much lower levels, magic is out of the question due to high SR.  However, since he only has normal Combat Expertise and not ICE,anything that can Fly faster than his at-will Fly SLA (So Fly speed 70 or better) that has a bow with the appropriate arrows and the Fell Shot feat can kill Juiblex (or at least harass Juiblex unharmed until Juiblex runs away) if it can avoid his SLAs (and the DCs are laughably low).

Find a weak race that has that kind of Fly speed, give it at least +5 BAB, arm it with the appropriate arrows and a Cloak of Resistance or other save-enhancing gear, and you have the next Juiblex-slayer.  Remember that Juiblex doesn't have Regeneration, Fast-Healing, or a healing power, so sooner or later, Juiblex is going to die off.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> At least if you believe _Armies of the Abyss_ - and it sounds like _Hordes of the Abyss_ is using the same backstory - originally there was only one layer in the Abyss. Each new layer is created by an Abyssal lord who manages to tear a part of a previous layer loose. So every layer was once defined by a demonic personality, even if it's now independent.




I'm surprised I wrote that in "Armies of the Abyss" (I think they added some stuff for "Book of Fiends"), but I suppose it's possible. "Hordes of the Abyss" presumes that the layers have always existed, or at least existed to be explored and discovered by the obyriths and the early tanar'ri. Lots still remain to be discovered and tamed, of course, and I would like to think it's possible to tear off part of one layer to make another, but the book doesn't explicitly say so, and it especially doesn't say that the Abyss ever consisted of a single layer.

--Erik


----------



## fafhrd (Jun 1, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> For what it's worth; my personal preference for demon lord stat blocks is in the 24–32 range (as they're presented in the _Demonomicon_ articles in _Dragon_). In hindsight, it would have probably have been better to omit stat blocks for demon lords entirely from the book, but that would have done a great disservice to those DMs who want to use them as monsters to fight. Demon lords can serve as BBEGs of any CR or as undefeatable forces. The fact that they rule entire realms and layers on the Abyss tells me that they're tougher than the rank & file demons that otherwise dwell there (on up to and including balors), which is why I prefer to see their stats at a higher level.
> 
> Nonetheless... the book's first purpose was to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and that meant that we had to start the demon lord stat blocks at a baseline of about 20, since the vast majority of D&D players don't utilize the Epic level rules. Since space in the book was a concern, I wasn't able to do an exhaustive treatment of how to advance the demon lord statblocks from their baselines up to whatever level suits the needs of your campaign; the section that IS in the book makes it as clear as possible that you SHOULD use the statblocks given as something to build upon.
> 
> ...





James, I wanted to say, you are one classy guy.  I think the weak demon lords were a mistake and a missed opportunity, but collectively we've likely already spent more time ruminating on the nuances of the issue then you ever could have.  In spite of all the resulting strife, you've been reasonable and patient through and through.  You're a credit to the industry.  Thanks.


----------



## BOZ (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want a physical description? All DMs worth their salt can easily make up their own descriptions.
> 
> I think the main problem is the name, "Demon lord." It sounds impressive... lordly. And demonic. Get rid of the name and you get rid of the whiners who think they know what demon lords should be and how they should act. A simple serial number more than suffices. Are you telling me that Creature #2014398 shouldn't be CR 20? They should remove all names and include only blocks of stats, with no description, names, or any other features that would allow us to tell one from the other. Their abilities should be labeled things like "attack sequence A" or "defense mode B." That's all a really creative DM needs.




brilliant.


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 1, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> This is pretty easy.  The thing I had in my mind was somthing where when a demon prince is deposed the deposer starts off as himself, but eventually turns into the demon prince he just deposed.  The universe needs orcus, so the demon that just deposed orcus becomes orcus.  At firs it looks like an identity crisis, and thats what the balor thought it might be, but that second identity gets stronger, and his head starts to get more goatlike, but he figures, "who cares, after all, I took Orcus' place why can't I BE Orcus."  He gets fatter, and more goat like, and then to his horror, he realises that he is not himself.  Soon the deposing balor is just a memory.  After seeing this happen a couple of times most demons won't raise a hand against the princes because they do not want to loose their own identity.
> 
> Imagine a cocky balor taking down juiblex only to slowly melt into the a jibbering and jabbering mad lord of oozes.  As the process begins, his likes start to change, little things first, then more knowledge than he ever knew, then a new second personality that slowly takes over from the first.  He seeks to escape, to adbicate his new throne, he seeks to have anyone replace him, they all bow to him and refuse.  Feeling his slowly disolving mind and sense of self, he is filled with utter fear as his new minions start to refer to him as Lord Juiblex.  Juiblex sits in power once more.
> 
> ...




I know Im late to reply to this, but let me add that this is awesome.


Almost makes me not care about the fairly weak demon lords.


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Not quite--Juiblex can barely damage the Balor and the Balor can barely damage Juiblex, unless Juiblex engulfs the Balor, in which case the Balor is still basically immune to Juiblex's Constrict, but Juiblex is only very weakly fire resistant and will eventually die to the Balor's 6d6 Flaming Body damage.
> 
> Out of melee, the Balor has a 55% chance to penetrate Juiblex's SR, and his spells have *much* higher DCs than Juiblex's, so Juiblex dies 5% of the time to the Implosion right away. Fire Storm is 55% likely to damage Juiblex, and 55% of the 55% will be for full damage (the other 45% is half thanks to a successful Reflex save). Juiblex has a better chance to penetrate the Balor's SR 28, barely, but his DCs are so awful that the Balor always saves except on a 1 except for Symbol of Insanity, which he saves against on a 2 (and has all the usual Symbol restrictions). Plus Juiblex does not have any instant kill spells anyway.
> 
> So basically, Juiblex cannot win. The Balor probably won't win before Juiblex Greater Teleports away, but otherwise, he has the edge. Also, he will eventually implode Juiblex if he flies in and tries it every day.




Overall good analysis... for some reason I just blanked out on the fire storm, which does give the Balor an impressive "opening move". Big J has a fair chance of stopping implosion by readying to counterspell, but that assumes Juiblex has initiative and is willing to forego dispelling summons.

Juiblex could suffocate a Balor faster than it could burn him up, but only if the Balor was foolish enough not to use hit-and-run grapples. BTW, it looks like Juiblex's grapple check is off by 4, unless for some bizarre reason he doesn't qualify for a stability bonus? EDIT: Whoops, no, Juiblex can't engulf the Balor, too big.

The Balor can hurt Juiblex in melee, thanks to the fire damage. Until he fails to roll a 13 or better on a Ref save and loses his weapons that is. He'd be a fool to get into melee though, those Improved Critical slams could be unpredictable.

Grasping at straws... since the engulf smothers creatures, would it damp the Balor's fiery aura enough for the green slime spew to take hold? EDIT: Whoops, no, Juiblex can't engulf the Balor, too big.

It looks like fire is Big J's weakness, with only 10 points of resistance... if I were him (ick) I'd make sure to spend most, no all, of my time mostly submerged in acid where all lines of sight were likewise submerged. I'd say he should stay underwater (underacid?), but for some reason he still needs to breathe.

So yeah, one-on-one suicidal death match it looks like the balor can win.

As for the retriever and marilith mentioned in your other post? No. They've got to do way too much damage (or hope for Jubes to roll 1's in the case of the retriever) while J is whomping on them *and* spewing green slime as a free action every other round (2d6/round damage per patch. Marilith takes that *and* 1d6 Con each round per patch, no save. Both are large enough to sport several patches). Marilith needs Reflex saves of 18 to save her blades each time she wants to do a full attack - her slams are better choices, but still she's going to be dissolving away. Blade Barrier isn't too handy against a critter with greater teleport and greater dispel, although it could be used to root him out for someone else to attack if he was phase doored.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

Even if he saves against the Retrievers, he still takes 11 Damage per Retriever per Fire Ray.  With 3 Retrievers, that's 10% of his health each time the three of them fire even on successful saves.  Also, note that his Reflex save is much worse than the Fort save (although he does need to roll a 1 to be petrified).  Overall, Juiblex vs 3 Retrievers, the expected values of damage and saving throw rolls place Juiblex dead or petrified before the 3 Retrievers are finished off unless Juiblex flees.  And remember, unlike Juiblex, the Retrievers have Fast Healing.

As for the Marilith--Juiblex never gets to attack her because unlike every other powerful demon, he doesn't have True Seeing, so he's going to be hitting on Projected Images.  She attacks by placing the Blade Barrier on Juiblex himself.  She gets through his SR on a 14 or higher and he saves for half on a 9 or above.  But he still takes a bundle of pure force damage.  After the initial round, she could care less if he escapes from it--it is used for direct damage rather than obstruction


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Even if he saves against the Retrievers, he still takes 11 Damage per Retriever per Fire Ray.  With 3 Retrievers, that's 10% of his health each time the three of them fire even on successful saves.  Also, note that his Reflex save is much worse than the Fort save (although he does need to roll a 1 to be petrified).  Overall, Juiblex vs 3 Retrievers, the expected values of damage and saving throw rolls place Juiblex dead or petrified before the 3 Retrievers are finished off unless Juiblex flees.  And remember, unlike Juiblex, the Retrievers have Fast Healing.



Err, 10% of his hit points every four rounds doesn't seem like that much, especially when he's getting off two free blasts of slime for each cycle in addition to his slams. He's immune to the other two rays, and each ray can only be used once every 4 rounds. Meanwhile, their melee attacks are sliding right off of him... he's as immune to crits as they are.

If he's using the trick of staying mostly submerged, he's also going to be ignoring most of their ray damage (a ray attack with a Reflex save? What's up with that?) The nice thing about retrievers is their nature precludes them from choosing the battlefield...

That petrification attack is troubling, but hopefully he'd be smart enough to just phase door and start summoning.



> As for the Marilith--Juiblex never gets to attack her because unlike every other powerful demon, he doesn't have True Seeing, so he's going to be hitting on Projected Images.  She attacks by placing the Blade Barrier on Juiblex himself.  She gets through his SR on a 14 or higher and he saves for half on a 9 or above.  But he still takes a bundle of pure force damage.  After the initial round, she could care less if he escapes from it--it is used for direct damage rather than obstruction



Ooh, good point on the Project Image. Too bad he's got blindsight.

If you save against a directly targeted BB you take *no* damage, if it gets past spell resistance.

With one patch of slime on her she'll be dead from Con damage in 9 rounds on average (d6/round, no save, no spell resistance), without even considering the beating he'll be laying down on her.

Overall, he looks good to me. I wish he had a couple more spell-like abilities that "played well" with his unhallow (and since he doesn't interact with his clergy, it's unlikely he'd have the most useful effects - death ward, protection from fire or dimensional anchor), that he didn't need to breathe, and that oozes immunity to polymorph extended to petrification, but otherwise they did a bang-up job on him.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

The retrievers aren't going to be meleeing him.  They're going to be scattering about at their greater movement speed until they need to shoot him with their rays.  He will never get a full round of melee, and they don't have Con to lose.  On average, they may lose one or two of their number, but Juiblex goes down.

For the Marilith, Blindsight doesn't negate illusions, and it doesn't matter--she just needs to get off the Blade Barrier and leave before he can find her, and this is the case whether he realises the illusion or not.  Forgot about the Blade Barrier negation for targetted attacks, but she has a decent chance of hitting him for over 15% of his health each time she tries it.  If he somehow finds her and uses his green slime, she just needs to bring along a fiery or freezing sword among her six and burn or freeze it off--she won't take damage.


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> They're going to be scattering about at their greater movement speed.



Since when is 50 greater than 60? He can cast fly, and they can't dispel it.

I really can't see unintelligent solitary constructs using pack tactics anyway.

Try again?



> For the Marilith, Blindsight doesn't negate illusions



You can't detect intangibles with blindsight. Project Image creates an intangible image. One of the few weaknesses of blindsight is a strength in this case.

Even if that weren't true, the first thing Juiblex is going to do is disbelieve the illusion, needing a 3.



> If he somehow finds her and uses his green slime, she just needs to bring along a fiery or freezing sword among her six and burn or freeze it off--she won't take damage.



Mariliths are know for their tactical genius, right? Relying on weapons against this guy doesn't seem smart. Every time he hits she has to roll for all of her gear. While she's taking that action to scrape or burn off the green slime (likely ruining her weapons) he's able to get on her and dequip her. The round after he slimes her again.

BTW, she only gets 1d4 *random* magic weapons by default...and if she gets choice of gear, I'm assuming he would as well. That opens a whole new can of worms.

Honestly, the Marilith's best tactic is to stay home and convince a Balor to do it. Oh, and of course hope he either wins or dies trying.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

He's not going to get into melee range against the Marilith.  Just because he can see through the Project Image does not mean that it can't still be used as the source of the Blade Barrier.  Mariliths are known for tactical genius, as you said.  It would take a blunder for Juiblex to actually find the real Marilith if she uses Project Image correctly.  As to the 'intangible' thing--the Blindsight entry does not state this.

[SBLOCK=Blindsight]Some creatures have blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination of such senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such sense may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This ability makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can’t see ethereal creatures and must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description. 

The creature usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability. Unless noted otherwise, blindsight is continuous, and the creature need do nothing to use it. Some forms of blindsight, however, must be triggered as a free action. If so, this is noted in the creature’s description. If a creature must trigger its blindsight ability, the creature gains the benefits of blindsight only during its turn. 

Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight. 
Blindsight does not subject a creature to gaze attacks (even though darkvision does). 
Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures using blindsight. 
Deafening attacks thwart blindsight if it relies on hearing. 
Blindsight works underwater but not in a vacuum. 
Blindsight negates displacement and blur effects. [/SBLOCK]


As for the Retrievers, 60 is greater than 50, but it isn't enough to let him keep up with a fully retreating retriever unless he uses Greater Teleport (in which case he gets no attacks) because the Fly spell does not allow running.  There is no reason to believe that a Retriever trio cannot be commanded to use just such tactics against Juiblex.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 1, 2006)

Everyone eveluating Jubilex may want to keep in mind that demons may not be particularly loyal, but I guess J could at least count on one hezrou and a huge amount of mindless but loyal oozes. I also maintain that a demon lords control of his layers includes more than smell and temperature (at the very least we don't know how far it amounts).


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2006)

Darth Maul could take them all, with Chuck Norris a close second.


Hong "the USS Enterprise wouldn't even make third" Ooi


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Everyone eveluating Jubilex may want to keep in mind that demons may not be particularly loyal, but I guess J could at least count on one hezrou and a huge amount of mindless but loyal oozes. I also maintain that a demon lords control of his layers includes more than smell and temperature (at the very least we don't know how far it amounts).




He was basing that on what the divine material has to say about powers on their home planes. It _IS_ pretty weak and will receive liberal application of rule 0 IMC.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> He was basing that on what the divine material has to say about powers on their home planes. It _IS_ pretty weak and will receive liberal application of rule 0 IMC.




What it said about a certain rank, but we don't know if it is ranked in the book and if, where. And, yeah, if that's really true it will be zero'ed by this DM as well.


Anyway, my point on Jubilex of course brings another factor into the whole Demon Prince power debate: Demon Princes have nondemonic servants, be it constructs, cultists, slimes, undead etc. A Balor on the other hand is a solitary force.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Most famous D&D adventure of all time: GDQ1-7. Ends with a party of 10th-14th level wiping out Lolth, Demon Queen of Spiders and Lesser Goddess, on her own plane.
> 
> That's, like, the crown jewel of D&D mythology.



I would like to point out that Lolth at the time was "just" the Demon Queen of Spiders, and not a goddess at that time. i.e. she was a demon lord.  I would also like to note that there really wasn't some kind of system for creating or measuring relative power levels back then.  Heck by 15th level you could beat every monster ever put out.  I don't know about you but being able to beat everything there is just doesn't strike me as fun, and could be a major reason the game capped of even then.  My thinking is, at 20th level you should not be able to beat everything.

I'm not a dice freaker per se, but I do think that if your story says creature x fights god y and wins, then creature x should reflect that in his stats.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> I would like to point out that Lolth at the time was "just" the Demon Queen of Spiders, and not a goddess at that time. i.e. she was a demon lord.




Is my memory failing me or did Q1 not have a blurb repeating the standard deity abilities from the 1e DDG?


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2006)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> James, I wanted to say, you are one classy guy.  I think the weak demon lords were a mistake and a missed opportunity, but collectively we've likely already spent more time ruminating on the nuances of the issue then you ever could have.  In spite of all the resulting strife, you've been reasonable and patient through and through.  You're a credit to the industry.  Thanks.




Ditto.  James is one of the shining stars in the industry, and a class act to boot.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> I would like to point out that Lolth at the time was "just" the Demon Queen of Spiders, and not a goddess at that time. i.e. she was a demon lord.  I would also like to note that there really wasn't some kind of system for creating or measuring relative power levels back then.  Heck by 15th level you could beat every monster ever put out.  I don't know about you but being able to beat everything there is just doesn't strike me as fun, and could be a major reason the game capped of even then.  My thinking is, at 20th level you should not be able to beat everything.




Considering that the game caps out at lvl 20 for so many people tells me that by then it should very well be possible to beat everything that should be beatable at that level. Sadly (and I mean that in honest) that damages the playstyle of those that prefer epic play, but it is quite a minority. Why should a minority drag everyone else along.


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> Darth Maul could take them all, with Chuck Norris a close second.




Chuck Norris already took them.  Jubi used to be Vin Diesel, before a single roundhouse kick oozified him.

Chuck Norris's beard rules all of the prime numbered planes of the Abyss.


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Is my memory failing me or did Q1 not have a blurb repeating the standard deity abilities from the 1e DDG?



IIRC QotDWP was released just prior to the first DDG grating the archfiends their lesser god status. Otherweise Lotlh would have had 132 hp instead 66


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Considering that the game caps out at lvl 20 for so many people tells me that by then it should very well be possible to beat everything that should be beatable at that level. Sadly (and I mean that in honest) that damages the playstyle of those that prefer epic play, but it is quite a minority. Why should a minority drag everyone else along.




Pretending epic-level play doesn't exist, and the game truly does cap at 20th level, why should you be able to beat everything?   Where's the fun in that?  If your character can defeat every entity in the universe at 20th level, what's the point, really?  Why isn't your character simply granted deity status and be done with it?

If there aren't threats beyond the PC's power, where's the sense of danger?


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Pretending epic-level play doesn't exist, and the game truly does cap at 20th level, why should you be able to beat everything?




Because someone wants something different out of gaming than you.

That said, I wouldn't precisely assume that those who want to stop at 20 are the sorts of folks who want to defeat everything. That's another mischaracterization or failure to comprehend those who don't play your way.

One demon lord is not everything. Shackled city features a 1-20 quest culminating in defeating a demon lord. But that's not everything. The same party would get their posteriors handed them by Baphomet or Pazuzu. And if you think Shackled City is absent a sense of danger, I know a few threads I could show you that might convince you otherwise.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 1, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Most famous D&D adventure of all time: GDQ1-7. Ends with a party of 10th-14th level wiping out Lolth, Demon Queen of Spiders and Lesser Goddess, on her own plane.
> 
> That's, like, the crown jewel of D&D mythology.




Little Lolth wasn't quite a goddess back then. Just some punk with -10 AC and 66 hit points.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Shackled city features a 1-20 quest culminating in defeating a demon lord. But that's not everything. The same party would get their posteriors handed them by demogorgon or orcus..




Not now. That demon lord is I believe CR 23, easily surpassing Orcus and Demogorgon from the current official 3.5 source. (Now when the Dragon articles come out to double dip on us that, it may be a differnet story.)


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Because someone wants something different out of gaming than you.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't precisely assume that those who want to stop at 20 are the sorts of folks who want to defeat everything. That's another mischaracterization or failure to comprehend those who don't play your way.




Psion, you've got to stop taking my quotes out of context.    

Once again, I was replying to Gold Roger, who implied that you should be able to beat everything at 20th level.  I never said anything indicating that I think that all folks who stop at 20th level feel this way.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Is my memory failing me or did Q1 not have a blurb repeating the standard deity abilities from the 1e DDG?



May or my not have, I haven't looked at it in a long while, but it is very safe to say she didn't have the kind of stats even close to any being in DDG.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Considering that the game caps out at lvl 20 for so many people tells me that by then it should very well be possible to beat everything that should be beatable at that level. Sadly (and I mean that in honest) that damages the playstyle of those that prefer epic play, but it is quite a minority. Why should a minority drag everyone else along.



Leaving epic out of this.  I'm sorry but I don't buy D&D as some kind of video game where you can beat everything sorry.  It's a fantasy World, not meatal gear or mario v10.7.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> May or my not have, I haven't looked at it in a long while, but it is very safe to say she didn't have the kind of stats even close to any being in DDG.




That much I know. But what I am getting at is the "standard divine abilities" that were in the front of the DDG.

(Yeah, her stats weren't that impressive. We punked her...)


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not now. That demon lord is I believe CR 23, easily surpassing Orcus and Demogorgon from the current official 3.5 source.




Those are just stats. Just because I play Shackled city doesn't mean that I would choose (and it would have to be a deliberate choice) to use the base stats as-is. And HotA doesn't ask me to. It provides explicit tools to scale them to my pleasure. Quit acting so helpless.



> (Now when the Dragon articles come out to double dip on us that, it may be a differnet story.)




So, I'm to beleive that until an article is published, the official take I should be abiding by chages the moment an article is published? Sorry, I think that sort of canon-slavery-mindset is not conducive to good gaming, and I refuse to base my arguments around it.

As an aside, I find this double-dipping snark quite insulting to the author. It's as if you are implying that the rest of the articles had nothing to add of value. Are all ecology articles also "double dipping?" That's ridiculous.

If it makes you feel better, I'll go edit my post to take this into account, as it is totally sidestepping the point. Just because I might use one CR20 demon lord does not mean I am under any obligation to use any other demon lord at CR20. The only reason I would do so would be because it fit the needs of my campaign as conceived. I am not shackled and bound to using all, some, or any of the demon stats without modification as presented.


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> He's not going to get into melee range against the Marilith.  Just because he can see through the Project Image does not mean that it can't still be used as the source of the Blade Barrier.  Mariliths are known for tactical genius, as you said.  It would take a blunder for Juiblex to actually find the real Marilith if she uses Project Image correctly.



Read the spell. The second she loses line of effect to the image, even momentarily, it's gone. She doesn't have the invisibility she needs to take full advantage of the ability. But that's beside the point...



> As to the 'intangible' thing--the Blindsight entry does not state this.



You may have to read for comprehension. Project Image is "intangible". What else is intangible? Ethereal creatures. Can creatures with Blindsight detect ethereal creatures? Why not?



> As for the Retrievers, 60 is greater than 50, but it isn't enough to let him keep up with a fully retreating retriever unless he uses Greater Teleport (in which case he gets no attacks) because the Fly spell does not allow running.  There is no reason to believe that a Retriever trio cannot be commanded to use just such tactics against Juiblex.



That's what retrievers do I guess, run from the thing they've been sent to retrieve. 

C'mon, you're completely ignoring the nature of the beast in order to "win" the message-board game? 

What leads you to believe retrievers can use pack tactics and receive support from others of their kind? Unintelligent (Int -). Solitary. Y'know, I'm not fond of the metasetting idea, but I'm not all the way over into Rip's "Creature #161289" camp either.

Faced with such an odd metagaming variation of the beastie, and given Juiblex's intelligence, I would assume he would withdraw into a phase door, summon an alkilith, and send it forth in gaseous form to lock those pesky critters down in walls of ice.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> That much I know. But what I am getting at is the "standard divine abilities" that were in the front of the DDG.
> 
> (Yeah, her stats weren't that impressive. We punked her...)



Yeah, it was sad really, after everything, the culmination just seemed very anti climatic.
If I was to do it as an adventure path today it would be a sweet 1-30 path.  
1-10 decent
11-20 Against the giants
21-30 Demon Web

Of course it would still be anti climatic because she would be statted as a CR21 demon.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Yeah, it was sad really, after everything, the culmination just seemed very anti climatic.
> If I was to do it as an adventure path today it would be a sweet 1-30 path.
> 1-10 decent
> 11-20 Against the giants
> 21-30 Demon Web




Being a drow lubber - and if I was paying heed to the original modules - I'd put giants first.

1-10 (Campaigning of your choice. Or, say, slavelords)
11-15 - Giants
15-25 - Descent
25-30 - Queen of the Demonwebs



> Of course it would still be anti climatic because she would be statted as a CR21 demon.




Cute. But no.

I wouldn't be using the DDG statistics either. But there's no reason that I would be compelled to use a CR21 stat set for that. I'd use a stat set appropriate for the campaign.

It's a simple principle, really. Too bad so many experienced gamers don't seem to get it.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> So, I'm to beleive that until an article is published, the official take I should be abiding by chages the moment an article is published? Sorry, I think that sort of canon-slavery-mindset is not conducive to good gaming, and I refuse to base my arguments around it.



I guess you have never had that guy in the group, you know him, his name is Rules Lawyer.  Well, regardless of how you treat your game, Mr. RL can be very annoying.  As a DM, I really don't want to deal with RL because I tweaked Orcus to the power level the authors suggest he should already be at.

Frankly I find it quite insulting that they say, we statted them here but he should really be up hear, you do the work.  If I did ALL the work, why the heck would I even buy books with monster in the first place?  I can just make my own right.  It's for the combo of fluff & stats.

Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine last night who absolutely hates epic play.  He said to me, "You know I hate epic play but damn they should have done the demon lords as epic."


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Being a drow lubber - and if I was paying heed to the original modules - I'd put drow first.



Oops you're right, for some reason I typed them in backwards.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be using the DDG statistics either. But there's no reason that I would be compelled to use a CR21 stat set for that. I'd use a stat set appropriate for the campaign.
> 
> It's a simple principle, really. Too bad so many experienced gamers don't seem to get it.



No, she wouldn't be a deity as she wasn't in the original.  CR21 was just to be cute.  But let me asked you, if someone publishe an adventure like that, wouldn't you miff you if the put her at 21?


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> I guess you have never had that guy in the group, you know him, his name is Rules Lawyer.  Well, regardless of how you treat your game, Mr. RL can be very annoying.  As a DM, I really don't want to deal with RL because I tweaked Orcus to the power level the authors suggest he should already be at.




I think mister RL would not last long in our group. As I said upthread, one thing I won't abide is the attitude that a player is entitled to face or know the stats of particular opponents just because it's in a book. That goes beyond rules-lawyerism and straight on into what might be called Synnibarism.

If I have to explain that:
[sblock]Synnibar was a game that had such lovely rules that basically said "these are the rules, if the dm deviates from them, he is cheating, and your characters get to ignore it and get some lovely consolation prizes."[/sblock]

That said, assuming he had redeeming qualities, I'd point mister RL to the section on scaling demon lords as I see fit.



> Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine last night who absolutely hates epic play.  He said to me, "You know I hate epic play but damn they should have done the demon lords as epic."




And to repeat myself, people who don't want epic gaming but want epic demon lords _don't need stats for demon lords_. Stats that never get used are... well, useless. I said it when DDG came out (now there was a book worth getting worked up over), I'll say it now.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Oops you're right, for some reason I typed them in backwards.




That's okay... I put my response in backwards. I'd put GIANTS first. Sigh.



> No, she wouldn't be a deity as she wasn't in the original.  CR21 was just to be cute.




I caught that.



> But let me asked you, if someone publishe an adventure like that, wouldn't you miff you if the put her at 21?




Of course. But you perceive, that would be a situation in which I think the sort of outrage I am seeing here would be justified.


----------



## sckeener (Jun 1, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Pretending epic-level play doesn't exist, and the game truly does cap at 20th level, why should you be able to beat everything?   Where's the fun in that?  If your character can defeat every entity in the universe at 20th level, what's the point, really?  Why isn't your character simply granted deity status and be done with it?
> 
> If there aren't threats beyond the PC's power, where's the sense of danger?




You can't save everyone no matter how powerful the pc....

Unless the pc is insane, he probably cares about someone or something.  There are always ways of making fun in a game besides combat....that is if you can get your hands on the enemy at that level.  Personally I think most high level enemies are difficult simply because they can run away to fight another day....


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 1, 2006)

Uder, you seem to be misunderstanding again on all three counts, but I don't want to derail this thread any further.  If you'd like to start a new thread on this, I'll be glad to join you there.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I'm surprised I wrote that in "Armies of the Abyss" (I think they added some stuff for "Book of Fiends"), but I suppose it's possible. "Hordes of the Abyss" presumes that the layers have always existed, or at least existed to be explored and discovered by the obyriths and the early tanar'ri. Lots still remain to be discovered and tamed, of course, and I would like to think it's possible to tear off part of one layer to make another, but the book doesn't explicitly say so, and it especially doesn't say that the Abyss ever consisted of a single layer.




I may have read into it a bit. It says the qlippoth dominated the Abyss and ruled the first layer of the Abyss and all of the tanar'ri. From how I read it, it seemed like the first layer was all there was, at least everything that was important.

I guess what I was thinking was that, since the book said the eladrins only invaded the first layer - one 666th of the whole - their genocide couldn't have been as thorough as they seem to have expected it to be. I mean, going in there trying to exterminate the plane's ruling species and not advancing beyond Pazunia? Logically, then, the other layers must not have existed.

Rereading that, it says the tanar'ri fled to deeper layers after the eladrin-led genocide, so I guess there were some. I assumed they were new-created, but it doesn't seem to have said so specifically.

All right, I concede. I seem to have made that up.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Leaving epic out of this.  I'm sorry but I don't buy D&D as some kind of video game where you can beat everything sorry.  It's a fantasy World, not meatal gear or mario v10.7.




Nor do I. 

I never claimed everything should be beatable. But in some manner demon lords should be beatable at the pinacle of mortal power and for me and many others that's 20th level.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Nor do I.
> 
> I never claimed everything should be beatable. But in some manner demon lords should be beatable at the pinacle of mortal power and for me and many others that's 20th level.



So what you are saying is, "I only play to 20th level so I want to beat everything.  It's not enought that there are a billion and one creature out there for me to go against.  I want these ones.  Oh, a btw to hell with those guys why want any kind of epic support, they have 10 or so things to fight."  Correct me if this assumption is wrong.

Yes they give you some suggestions for how the creatures should look, but come now.... that really isn't support is it.

I could suggest that if you want to fight Orcus at 20th level, take a balor, slap a wand on him and call him Orcus.
[Edit] The point there being do you really need another statistical write up for a creature who's basic power level and abilities have been covered a couple hundred times?


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> IIRC QotDWP was released just prior to the first DDG grating the archfiends their lesser god status. Otherweise Lotlh would have had 132 hp instead 66




No, the rule about hit points doubling in a god's home plane wasn't introduced until 1987 with the _Manual of the Planes_. _Deities & Demigods_ didn't explicitly give a deity any greater powers at home - it just said:

_"All creatures are more powerful in their own territory, so it should be next to impossible for anything except another deity to slay a deity on its own plane - and direct confrontation between deities is *extremely* rare. Should mere characters be so brazen as to challenge a deity on its home plane, they should be dealt with severely, the god bringing to bear all the powers that the being has."_ - DDG, page 11. 

But yes, _Deities & Demigods_ was released _after_ Q1, since it references Q1 within it.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is, "I only play to 20th level so I want to beat everything.  It's not enought that there are a billion and one creature out there for me to go against.  I want these ones.  Oh, a btw to hell with those guys why want any kind of epic support, they have 10 or so things to fight."  Correct me if this assumption is wrong.




Yes, that's indeed the rude, snarky and egocentric version of what I said. Lacking the point that I repeatetly say that I sorry for those that like epic gameplay, but think that they have to understand that, as things stand, they are a minority playing more a variant system rather simply advanced levels of D&D. I may even try epic level someday, but as a variant system, not part of the base system.

It's not the stats that interest me. There's more critters out there. It's exactly the mythology that interests me in using these guys.

If I thought I was a minority with my position I'd just suck it up, but as far as I know, the majority of D&D players tops out it's games at 20th level max.


----------



## Delta (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Is my memory failing me or did Q1 not have a blurb repeating the standard deity abilities from the 1e DDG?




Totally correct. Dungeon Module Q1, (c) 1980, p. 32:



> As a lesser goddess, Lolth has certain attributes common to all divine beings... etc. etc.




All demon lords were lesser gods at that time. (see 1st Ed. DDG).


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> It's not the stats that interest me. There's more critters out there. It's exactly the mythology that interests me in using these guys.



I have so say then like before, you can use any ol' stats that are around that level and take the rest of the fluff from any epic version.  The problem as I see it is that this is a place that the epic rules had a place they could shine.

Yes, epic play is the minority but that doesn't mean there should be 0 support.  By that analisis there should be no other role play systems as they are the minority.

Whether they are the monority or not, the conversation on these boards suggest that there is enough of a base out there that there should be support.  Not asking for much, just a few pages or so maybe up to 10 pages which is the minority of a book.


----------



## Uder (Jun 1, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Uder, you seem to be misunderstanding again on all three counts, but I don't want to derail this thread any further.  If you'd like to start a new thread on this, I'll be glad to join you there.



No thanks. I've got a pretty good idea where it would go (in circles).


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 1, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, the rule about hit points doubling in a god's home plane wasn't introduced until 1987 with the _Manual of the Planes_. _Deities & Demigods_ didn't explicitly give a deity any greater powers at home - it just said:
> 
> _"All creatures are more powerful in their own territory, so it should be next to impossible for anything except another deity to slay a deity on its own plane - and direct confrontation between deities is *extremely* rare. Should mere characters be so brazen as to challenge a deity on its home plane, they should be dealt with severely, the god bringing to bear all the powers that the being has."_ - DDG, page 11.
> 
> But yes, _Deities & Demigods_ was released _after_ Q1, since it references Q1 within it.




Ah, that's why


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> I have so say then like before, you can use any ol' stats that are around that level and take the rest of the fluff from any epic version.  The problem as I see it is that this is a place that the epic rules had a place they could shine.
> 
> Yes, epic play is the minority but that doesn't mean there should be 0 support.  By that analisis there should be no other role play systems as they are the minority.
> 
> Whether they are the monority or not, the conversation on these boards suggest that there is enough of a base out there that there should be support.  Not asking for much, just a few pages or so maybe up to 10 pages which is the minority of a book.




There should be support. But it shouldn't overshadow the support for the major game/playstyle. 

I should have stated I'm not simply interested in stats. I'm interested in the specific stats of the specific demon princes. They are unique after all.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> The problem as I see it is that this is a place that the epic rules had a place they could shine.




This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? 

Continuity and plausibility are red herrings, because this can easily be compensated for in each DM's campaign. The real issue is that epic fans were expecting epic support in HotA, but instead feel like the demon lords have been stolen away from them.


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> This is the crux of the issue, isn't it?
> 
> Continuity and plausibility are red herrings, because this can easily be compensated for in each DM's campaign. The real issue is that epic fans were expecting epic support in HotA, but instead feel like the demon lords have been stolen away from them.




The continuity and plausibility are far bigger issues for me.

FWIW, the Book of Vile Darkness, which had 'em pegged much higher, never mentions the epic rules (as far as I can tell skimming through it), nor do they have any of the benefits the creatures of ELH possess.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 1, 2006)

One thing to keep in mind is that a CR 20 creature should use 20% of a level 20 party's resources. A party, especially with some forethought and knowledge of what is to come, can take on a CR much higher than that.

So even a CR 23 creature isn't _that_ hard for a level 20 party to take. Especially if they know they're going to be fighting a demon lord. And, really, who should run into a random demon lord and beat it? You don't happen upon a demon lord, so you're ready with your Outsider bane weapons and demon lord slaying tactics.

Yes, he's going to have lieutenants and servants and mooks all about, and the PCs will be weakened on their way to him, presumably. But, that's still your average end boss encounter, not the culmination of a campaign that killing a demon lord should be. The odds are still in the PCs' favor with this setup.

I think it would be possible to make the top tier demon lords a non-epic CR 28-30 and still have them beatable to a non-epic party bent on killing a demon lord. They'd suffer heavy casualties, but it would be possible and would work better for both camps.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> The continuity and plausibility are far bigger issues for me.
> 
> FWIW, the Book of Vile Darkness, which had 'em pegged much higher, never mentions the epic rules (as far as I can tell skimming through it), nor do they have any of the benefits the creatures of ELH possess.



Epic is mentioned in the book I think but WotC didn't want to go the route of wanting people to need ELH to play the game.  That is pretty fair back then.  The only thing is this can't be used as an excuse at this time because you can get the rules for free.

Even if you don't want to play Epic characters and such.  Feat's and Epic spells (perfeably new ones) would work well for the beings.

If the CRs were in the 30s you could just as well form planer alliances or something of you want to fight them at level 20.

Ever hear of the alliance of elves and men?  At that point you should be able to mobilize huge armies.

Anyway if a Balor is a Balrog, and trust me…. It is.  If the balrog is CR20 should Souran be CR19?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 1, 2006)

Coriat said:
			
		

> On another issue... well I hate to self-quote. But nobody from the 'other side' of the debate gave a response, and I am really interested to know.




I'm not on the other side of this debate entirely.  I agree with you about the Balor vs. Demon Lord issue - mostly.  However, I'm not 100% clear that Balors would/should serve Demon Lords in the 3E conception.  The Balrog in Tolkien (the literary equivalent to the balor) was a demi-god, and probably comparable to a demon-prince IMC.  In original DnD, there were only 6 of them - so your example of comparing the bragging rights of the slayer of Juiblex vs. slayer of a Balor is making some assumptions that wouldn't hold up from that perspective.  The slayer of the balor would probably have bragging rights equal to the slayer of Juiblex.  

I would think a cap on the powers of a demon lord/prince would be 24/28 if you're using core/non-epic rules and you think that such creatures ought to be challenged by the most powerful mortals (or immortal monks) in the campaign.  CR 19 is actually equal to a pair of marilinths or more lesser demons, so I think it's sufficient to rule a horde of lesser creatures - especially considering home-field advantage.  I guess it depends on what the DM thinks abyssal demographics ought to be.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Epic is mentioned in the book I think but WotC didn't want to go the route of wanting people to need ELH to play the game.  That is pretty fair back then.  The only thing is this can't be used as an excuse at this time because you can get the rules for free.




I'm not thinking that they sould necessarily avoid using epic elements (after all, if you look at demonomicon, you will see James has a habit of listing epic feats like Dark Speech, then providing alternates), but I don't think that's much of a case in favor of putting epic or psionics in every book*, as not much of the base D&D audience even know what the SRD is.


* - Not that I would mind that... that would be cool.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm not thinking that they sould necessarily avoid using epic elements (after all, if you look at demonomicon, you will see James has a habit of listing epic feats like Dark Speech, then providing alternates), but I don't think that's much of a case in favor of putting epic or psionics in every book*, as not much of the base D&D audience even know what the SRD is.



I agree with the statement to a point.  If people want psionics there is an old setting they should be on WotCs arse about and thats Dark Sun, which as I recall went to level 30 progession so would also be good for a little epic.  No doubt though, this is where psionics would shine.

I understand that epic is used less than Psionics too.  But.... would it kill to devote a few pages in a tome such as Hordes?

On another note in 4e I would love for psionics to be in the core books.  They have been around since 1e and I'm tired of them being the red headed step child.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 1, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> And, really, who should run into a random demon lord and beat it?




Why not any 20th level party?  Who keeps the demon lords from taking over the Prime?



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Yes, he's going to have lieutenants and servants and mooks all about, and the PCs will be weakened on their way to him, presumably. But, that's still your average end boss encounter, not the culmination of a campaign that killing a demon lord should be. The odds are still in the PCs' favor with this setup.




What setup though?  There's too much left open to question here.  Sure, if your "end boss encounter" is a 30x30 room in a dungeon, then the demon lord is in trouble.  If the party has to slog it's way through dozens of EL 20 encounters, then it's not a sure thing at all (especially if the demon lord just doesn't sit there going "mwahaha" waiting for the PCs to arrive).  

There could be some reason, after all, why the demon lord lives in the Abyss and not on the Prime.  That reason could be all those other EL 20 encounters of his servants.  And even outside of the Abyss, the demon lord would be vulnerable only to fairly unlikely alliances of ultra-high level adventurers.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think it would be possible to make the top tier demon lords a non-epic CR 28-30 and still have them beatable to a non-epic party bent on killing a demon lord.




Yes, in a 30x30 room on the Prime Material plane.  But IMO there are too many variables (and there should be many) if you're designing their abyssal lair (an interesting one).  The demon lords could be designed so that a stalemate exists - both sides supreme on their home turf.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 1, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Why not any 20th level party?  Who keeps the demon lords from taking over the Prime?




I think either you misunderstand or we're in complete disagreement on a fundamental level. A party who isn't expecting to fight a demon lord has no business defeating it. This is so fundamental to my philosophy that I'm not sure how to explain it. Putting demogorgon on a random encounter table and rolling 00 on a d100 sending him after the PCs expecting them to take him down with whatever they've got randomly prepped should result in a TPK.

Why? I guess because he's special and unique. An encounter with a demon lord should never be "Demogorgon jumps out from behind a pillar! Roll initiative." If for some reason a demon lord takes the party by surprise, he should be powerful enough to win. The same generally goes for dragons in D&D. If you run up against a great wyrm red dragon withour prep, you're most likely dead dead dead.

Higher levels simply involve a lot of preparation, be it divination or something more mundane. There are so many options available to PCs at that level that a _demon lord_ shouldn't be something that catches them by surprise. "I had no idea Demogorgon hated me!" just isn't something I would ever want to hear come out of a PC's mouth. Especially followed by "So then we killed him after he ambushed us."

Now, I'm going to hope that my clarification shows that we're in agreement here. If not, what's your position on the matter?



> What setup though?  There's too much left open to question here.  Sure, if your "end boss encounter" is a 30x30 room in a dungeon, then the demon lord is in trouble.  If the party has to slog it's way through dozens of EL 20 encounters, then it's not a sure thing at all (especially if the demon lord just doesn't sit there going "mwahaha" waiting for the PCs to arrive).
> 
> There could be some reason, after all, why the demon lord lives in the Abyss and not on the Prime.  That reason could be all those other EL 20 encounters of his servants.  And even outside of the Abyss, the demon lord would be vulnerable only to fairly unlikely alliances of ultra-high level adventurers.




I'm wondering what that has to do with anything I wrote above. I'm in favor of Demogorgon being a freakin' CR 50 Epic level threat capable of devistating cities with a mere glance, and I'm trying to find a compromise with people who think that a group of level 20s should be able to kill hm. 

My contention is that a group of level 20s can kill a CR 20 without much fear of death. 

So where does a 30x30 foot room come into play here? What the heck does that have to do with _anything_? A non-epic CR 28 creature is killable by PCs. If upper tier demon lords were placed in that range, then they would still be able to be used by people who want to use them as end bosses, and it would satisfy the people who want them to be much stronger than the Type VI demon.

By the way, by non-epic I mean not taking into consideration epic rules much as the great wyrm red dragon doesn't take into consideration epic rules in its CR. There's really a great difference between a great wyrm red dragon and equivalent CRed creatures in the ELH.

The point is that for 20 levels the PCs have been doing the thing where they fight mooks, lieutentants, and other such minions as they make their way to the BBEG then fight the BBEG in his lair. The BBEG is usually 2-3 CR higher than them, and the PCs prevail and win fame and glory.

Well, the demon lord is 0-3 CR higher than them, has minions, lieutenants, and minions that the PCs have to fight through to get to him and so and and so forth. If he were 8-10 CR higher, though, with proper prepriation the PCs could make it to him and kill him, but they would suffer heavy losses in the final battle, it would be and end all be all for the people who want to kill demon lords, a battle of epic proportions even if the game isn't Epic.

High level PCs can do amazing things. Don't underestemate them.



> Yes, in a 30x30 room on the Prime Material plane.  But IMO there are too many variables (and there should be many) if you're designing their abyssal lair (an interesting one).  The demon lords could be designed so that a stalemate exists - both sides supreme on their home turf.




There's that 30x30 foot room again. Who cares if its 30x30 foot or an endless plain of screaming demons 100 miles deep? I'm talking about the fact that level 20 PCs won't find a CR 23 demon _in and of itself_ as all that difficult. You can make anything with a setup that makes the encounter more difficult. A demon lord should be dangerous on its own _and_ have a layer of horror between it and the PCs.


EDIT: Summary - Placing the CR at 19-23 so that they would be beatable end bosses was unnessary. If that was the goal, I believe they could have been 24-30 and still attained the desired results.


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> you will see James has a habit of listing epic feats like Dark Speech, then providing alternates).



Actually _Dark Speech_ is completly non-epic. It's from BoVD and can be taken at app. 6th level (requirements are just base will save of +5 and Int/Cha at least 15).

I don't even think it makes any sense that demonlords take this feat at all, as Dark Speech is supposed to be the powerfull vile language invented by the evil gods and archfiends. The feat is supposed to represent mortals who happened to pick up the ability of smattering a few minor parts of this language and because of these are able to mimic a mere shadow of the power these words have if used by the archfiends and evil gods. That's what the feat text says, so it's actually very strange that the archfiends need to take up a feat just to be able to smatter a few broken words of the language they themselve have created and supposedly mastered in a way that put the feeble effects created by mortals with these feat to shame.


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Actually _Dark Speech_ is completly non-epic. It's from BoVD




You're right. My bad. My point was that it's fairly trivial in most cases to sprinkle in a little flavor from non-core books, and provide core alternates.



> That's what the feat text says, so it's actually very strange that the archfiends need to take up a feat just to be able to smatter a few broken words of the language they themselve have created and supposedly mastered in a way that put the feeble effects created by mortals with these feat to shame.




Eh, whatever. I don't see this as being any different than any other aspect of character generation. If you make a character who was supposed to be a farmer, you spend skill ranks on that profession skill. Feats, skills, etc., represent what you are.

Not that it would hurt my feelings to give the feat to all demon lords as a bonus feat.


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 2, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Eh, whatever. I don't see this as being any different than any other aspect of character generation. If you make a character who was supposed to be a farmer, you spend skill ranks on that profession skill. Feats, skills, etc., represent what you are.
> 
> Not that it would hurt my feelings to give the feat to all demon lords as a bonus feat.



The problem is that you aren't really able to use _Dark Speech_ with the feat. This feat represents to ability to smatter a few broken words to invoke a few minor powers that pale before the real application of this language.

An archfiend with the feat can't speak Dark Speech.


----------



## glass (Jun 2, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Most famous D&D adventure of all time: GDQ1-7. Ends with a party of 10th-14th level wiping out Lolth, Demon Queen of Spiders and Lesser Goddess, on her own plane.
> 
> That's, like, the crown jewel of D&D mythology.



14th level 1e character. A very different proposition from 14th (or arguably, even 20th) level 3e characters.


glass.


----------



## Razz (Jun 2, 2006)

I wonder if the debates would've lessened or heightened were the CR of the Demon Princes, say, CR 50-60? Heh.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 2, 2006)

I think this thread has pretty much run it's course.  Just about everything that could be said has been said.  It's time to let this dog lie.  There is no need to try to start it from a different angle.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 2, 2006)

Hey James! 

I'm still looking forward to the book, despite not really liking the direction things have went (with regards the Demon Lords). I don't take issue with the stats themselves (I know you are simply pandering to the mass market). 

However, although I understand the reasoning behind such changes, I totally disagree with them. In my eyes they are:

1. Unnecessary (since I'll explain below how to do detail such beings properly).
2. Unwarranted (since demons in the Monster Manual now run the gamut of CR's 1-20, you have non-epic campaigns already catered for).
3. Disrespectful (to both epic gamers and the actual 'spirit' of the monsters themselves).
4. Redundant (You now have the Demon Lords representing the same challenges as Marilith and Balors).
5. Nonsensical (no matter what way you spin it, theres no way you can use those stats to logically explain their positions and longevity).

So consider this an argument, not against the book itself, but on your reasons for doing Demon Lords the way you did.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> As the author of the Demon Lord chapter in the book, let me explain the reasoning behind the CR 20–23 versions of these demon lords.
> 
> Presenting the demon lords at this CR level was to make them good end-of-the-campaign bad guys for a standard D&D game that goes up to 20th level.




The first question being why? 

If a Balor is already CR 20 whats the big whoop-de-doo of having Demon Lords 'x', 'y' and 'z' at CR 19, 20 and 21? 

If anything surely its anti-climatic, it cheapens the Demon Lords and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that such beings could be commanding thousands if not millions of demons or ruling their layers for more than a few weeks before a wandering Balor/Pit Fiend/non-epic PC Party/or Elminster kills and/or supplants one of them.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> A CR 30 demon is certainly exciting to look at, but it's not as useful to the average campaign as one that's closer to CR 21.




Okay, but *why* should these beings be CR 20-21? Do 14th-level PC groups not have enough monsters to fight between the CR 6-22 range that you felt compelled to dumb such beings down. Do Monster Manuals I, II, III and the Fiend Folio starve groups of these levels, no of course not.

Using your 'logic', you could bring in a CR 22 Tiamat with a 'yeah but shes more useful to the average campaign this way'. Despite the fact that she is supposed to represent the queen of evil dragonkind.

Just because something is more useful to more people at a lower CR doesn't mean everything *should* be de-powered to fit within those parameters. Its just a lame excuse.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> If we made them truly Epic... where do we set them?




At about CR 21-30 (Lords), 31-40 (Princes) and 41-60 (Monarchs).

Avatars come in at about half this CR 10-15/16-20/21-30. This way you have the "I want them to be useful for non-epic gamers to use as BBEG's" crowd sorted.

Aspects come in at about half Avatar power. CR 5-7/8-10/11-15. This way even lower level parties can get a taste of fighting Orcus.

*Worst case scenario* this method adds 1 extra page per Demon Lord entry.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> The stats in the Book of Vile Darkness pegged them over a range of CR 19 to CR 30, but what if you're playing a 40th level campaign?




See above.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> What if you're playing at a 100th level?




By that stage you will be beyond the Demon Princes and likely battling some cosmic entities.

Just like you don't say, what happens to all the Owlbears when your PCs are 20th-level...nothing happens to them - they are still (CR 4) owlbears. You don't panic and scribble over the owlbear entry in the Monster Manual. You simply use monsters with a more appropriate CR for your current group.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> It's too arbitrary to pick some CR between 20 and 100+ as a place to set these guys, since no matter where you peg them, some DMs will find them to be too powerful and others will find them to be not powerful enough.




I disagree. Its about respecting the relative power of the Demon Lords/Princes and making their positions believable.

The HotA Demogorgon may be afraid to walk the 'streets' of Abysm at night for fear of being mugged by a gang of drunken Nalfeshnee. 



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> My personal preference is for demon lords in the CR 25–32 range, but I'd still use the CR 20–23 versions in my game, either as manifestations of the demon lords off lair (my preference) or as the real thing, depending on the needs and theme of the campaign in question.




I have no qualms with everyone having their own preference. I do have qualms with you trying to justify your decisions. How can CR 19 Juiblex be millenia old and command thousands if not millions of demons!? 'It' can't - its as simple as that.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> By setting their CRs at the bottom edge of the Epic CR scale (around 21–23), we establish a baseline. For DMs who want the demon lords to be more powerful, check out the start of the demon lord chapter in Hordes of The Abyss. This explains the reasoning for lowering their CR, how to utilize a demon lord in your campaign, and (perhaps most importantly) details how to advance a demon lord and to make it more powerful.




I see it more to do with having the power of the demon lords make sense than making them more powerful for the sake of it.

The HotA Demon Lords, don't make a heck of a lot of sense to me (and judging by this boards reaction - quite a few other people too).



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> For those who are curious, I more or less designed these advancement rules so that if you advance a demon to about CR 30, he'll end up being about on par with what I've been doing in the Demonomicon articles in Dragon. Sure, it takes a bit more work on the DM's part to advance Demogorgon up to 40 Hit Dice, *but it's the best solution we could come up with* in order to present a nice range of demon lords. And, all that said, the Hordes incarnations of the demon lords are anything but pushovers for their CRs.




I don't think its good enough, and I can't agree there is a 'nice range' when they all pretty much cover the same CR ground.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> As for the worries that non-demon lords are too powerful... remember again that CR is just a number.




...which corresponds to roughly how powerful such beings are. So that when we contrast a Balor to Juiblex we ponder why the weaker one is a planar ruler and why he/she/it has existed for thousands of years without being killed by a wandering Balor, party of 20th-level Heroes, Elminster, a dragon (almost any will do), or a random encounter in the Abyss, etc.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In the Monster Manual II and the Fiend Folio, some of the demon CRs are way out of wack.




Certainly after 3.5 they were.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Compare the Klurichir from the Fiend Folio to the most recent version of the Balor in the 3.5 Monster Manual. The Balor, at CR 20, has more hit points, a better armor class, higher stats, and all around better spell-like abilities and powers than the Klurichir, despite the fact that the Fiend Folio pegs the Klurichir at CR 25. (Both have vorpal attacks, but the Klurichir's other big special attacks: Fear aura and poison, probably won't do much to high-level characters who likely have heroes' feast or similar spells in effect to protect against these attacks.) This basically boils down to the differences in 3.0 and 3.5 design theory; essentially, by the time WotC was working on 3.5, they'd realized that high-level characters are a LOT tougher than they realized. Which is why the demons in the 3.5 Monster Manual are so much tougher than their 3.0 versions (and why the updated demons like the armanite and the gorristro in Hordes of the Abyss were included... they needed to be updated). In any event, Appendix III in Hordes of the Abyss addresses this issue by revising the CRs for the Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio demons. This list puts the balor at the top at CR 20, the molydeus next at CR 19 (although he's a TOUGH CR 19), and the other demons down from there.




Theres an incongruity in the statement that the 3.0 demons needed to be made tougher yet the 3.0 Demon Lords needed to be downgraded. Ironically the 3.0 demons actually now make more sense when juxtaposed with the HotA Demon Lords.

Now you have a situation where demons like the Balor, Marilith and Klurichir are pretty much filling the same role as Orcus, Juiblex and Kostchtchie, which, to me is just a wasted opportunity.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> We intend to continue publishing Demonomicons in Dragon, and will continue to provide CR 26–32 level stat blocks for demon lords (along with expanded information about them), but we can only do these at a rate of 3 or so a year. If there's a particular demon lord you can't wait to use in your campaign, grab a copy of Hordes of the Abyss and advance your favorite demon lord on up to whatever CR you need and you're good to go.




I have enjoyed all the Demonomicon articles to date, and found them interesting, so don't see my position as an indictment of your writing, however when it comes to your design of the demon lords I can't help but be disappointed.


----------



## Clueless (Jun 2, 2006)

Did you consider that maybe his editor *told* him to do it that way? The man signing the paycheck is always the one with the final word. I think James has made his opinion on the matter clear so I see no reason to blame him for it - you may want to send your analysis to the editor of the work.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I wonder if the debates would've lessened or heightened were the CR of the Demon Princes, say, CR 50-60? Heh.




Well, you might have gotten something from me to the tune of "is this the DDG all over again..."


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 2, 2006)

Hello again! 



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Bringing up the advancement rules for demons (such as those 60-HD balors) is an excellent reason NOT to peg down the demon lords at static CR or power levels. Although I'd assume that 60-HD balors are rare, the _Monster Manual_ infers that they do exist, so it makes sense that the demon lords should be beyond such monsters. This is, in my view, an argument that demon lords shouldn't have stat blocks at all.




Totally wrong.

You simply tie Balor (or any type of demon for that matter) advancement into the hierarchy itself. Therefore a 21-30 HD Balor would be a Demon Lord, a 31-40 HD Balor would be a Demon Prince and so forth.

Its possible that some of the existing Demon Lords are in fact advanced Demons that have garnered power beyond mere Hit Dice' as they advanced. Pazuzu could be an advanced Vrock, Orcus could be an advanced Nalfeshnee etc. The more power they gain the more the Abyss itself would corrupt and mutate them into something different.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Also; what makes a good demon lord stat block in one campaign fails in another.




I disagree. Thats like saying what makes a good dragon in one campaign fails in another.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In the Forgotten Realms, there are numerous NPCs and mosnters with Epic CR scores; in this campaign, it makes sense to have the demon lords be around CR 30 or higher. In Eberron, where there aren't as many high or epic-level creatures running around (yet), demon lords at the CRs listed in Fiendish Codex might be the way to go. In Greyhawk, they should probably fall somewhere between these two extremes.




You only face problems like that when you design the Demon Lords to all cover the same small patch of CR's. Which, unfortunately, is exactly what you did.

Whereas if you design them to cover a larger spectrum of CR's you never face these issues because the Eberrron people can fight Juiblex, Kostchtchie, the Greyhawk heroes can battle with Baphomet and Yeenoghu, and the top Realms people can pit themselves against Orcus and Demogorgon.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> We could have included stats for all three power levels for all 14 demon lords, but that would have taken up a LOT more room. Since space was such an issue in this book, we had to choose which version of a demon lord's stats to present.




I estimate that it would have taken 1 extra page (per Demon Lord) to detail the Demon lords manifestation, their avatar and their aspect, with no extra art necessary.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Essentially, demon lords have an infinite advancement. If there are 60 Hit Die balors in your campaign world and you want the demon lords to be able to push them around, by all means advance them all by 60 hit dice as well (which basically increases their CR scores by 60 as well, although at this point the concept of CR kind of becomes meaningless, I think).




Thats because the official Encounter Level rules are rubbish, and start to disintigrate at epic levels.

Once someone at WotC wakes up about it, they will realise that the equation ECL x2 = EL +4 (and by extension ECL x1.5 = EL +2) works at *any* level.



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> For those who wish to place demon lords on the same footing as deities (which makes a LOT of sense, as they do control vast, often infinite, regions of the multiverse),




Of course it makes a lot of sense, thats how you should have done it in the first place.   



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Leave the actual demon lords themselves as creatures that mortals cannot hope to face in combat and survive.




By mortal I presume you mean non-epic mortal. 



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> No matter how you want to use demon lords in your campaign, remember that the sections about each demon lord's appearance, personality, goals, and tactics should be useful to you; this information exists apart from their stats. And of course, Chapter Five of the book gives you a LOT more information about many of them as well (in the context of the various Abyssal layers they control).




Absolutely, thats why I am buying it. 



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In any event, fans of the Adventure Paths we've been doing in _Dungeon_ who are nervous about how the demon lords will be handled in the latter adventures in Savage Tide (our third Adventure Path, scheduled to start in issue #139) needn't worry about demon lords being used simply as monsters to fight (or even being creatures you can defeat).




Saying things like that is only going to make me nervous about how the Demon Lords will be handled.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Also; what makes a good demon lord stat block in one campaign fails in another.






			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I disagree. Thats like saying what makes a good dragon in one campaign fails in another.




 

Seriously, dude, we all have reasons for our particular preferences. But I think the continued existence of this thread show undeniable proof that what James said is right. If everyone agreed on what made good demon lord stats, we wouldn't be having this debate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 2, 2006)

Hey there! 



			
				Clueless said:
			
		

> Did you consider that maybe his editor *told* him to do it that way? The man signing the paycheck is always the one with the final word. I think James has made his opinion on the matter clear so I see no reason to blame him for it - you may want to send your analysis to the editor of the work.




Well its certainly possible, but it was James I saw on ENWorld trying to defend his position, not his editor.

...and to be honest the excuse of "I was just following orders" doesn't get anyone out of jail.

That said, I'm not attacking James personally. I'm attacking the reasoning behind how the Demon Lords turned out the way they did.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 2, 2006)

Hey Psion! 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Seriously, dude, we all have reasons for our particular preferences. But I think the continued existence of this thread show undeniable proof that what James said is right. If everyone agreed on what made good demon lord stats, we wouldn't be having this debate.




I don't see it as a subjective point at all. Its totally objective, the stats just have to make sense, simple at that.

Beyond that you can have manifestation, avatar and aspect stats taking up very little extra space, which means everybody is happy.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Psion!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think done right, 2 extra high-end stat blocks for each demon lord would take up "very little space".

But even if I were to grant you that, you do realize that as is, they had to cut things to fit it into the new painfully constricted 160 page format, right?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 2, 2006)

Hello again Psion! 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think done right, 2 extra high-end stat blocks for each demon lord would take up "very little space".




I was talking about one high-end (Manifestation), one low end (Aspect), and I stand by the worst case scenario one extra page per entry (assuming you are using core rulebook font sizes).

I'd rather have 12 Demon Lords done properly than 15 half-baked.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> But even if I were to grant you that,




You don't have to grant me anything, I flat out state it as a fact, because thats the way I handle it in my book.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> you do realize that as is, they had to cut things to fit it into the new painfully constricted 160 page format, right?




The idea that they had to cut things so they would have the space to reprint/recycle material from other books just makes my brain boggle.   

A page restriction which, by itself makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Obviously you have page targets but are they honestly saying that the wheels would fall off WotC if this book had been 176 pages instead of 160!? I find that hard to believe.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 2, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Seriously, dude, we all have reasons for our particular preferences. But I think the continued existence of this thread show undeniable proof that what James said is right. If everyone agreed on what made good demon lord stats, we wouldn't be having this debate.



This is certainly true.  But I don't believe it resolves the issue at hand.

I think that you could get one hundred different takes on Jubilex from one hundred different people and not one of them would state that Jubilex was less powerful than a standard Balor.  

Besides, since everyone keeps saying how easy it is to advance creatures (a true statement), would it not have cast a much wider net to offer something higher up (or no stats at all) and then suggest adding 3 or 4 HD and XYZ special abilities to a Balor or other demon of your choice to create a lower 20s CR Demon Lord?  That would offer the kill Orcus at L20 crowd something without messing with the Orcus should be <some big number> badder than a Balor or Solar crowd.

There was the opportunity for win-win here.  It was missed.  Badly.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 2, 2006)

What would really suck is if FC2 has CR30-42 Arch Devils.  THAT would make the FC line unforgivable...


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> There was the opportunity for win-win here.  It was missed.  Badly.




The win-win scenario was presented, at least the best it could be in the space they had.

It was rejected by those with unreasonable expectations.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 2, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> What would really suck is if FC2 has CR30-42 Arch Devils.  THAT would make the FC line unforgivable...





But entertaining.

Heck, at this rate, maybe I'll have to lie about getting it early and be all outraged.

"And I can't believe the about face they did on the CR of the Arch Devils. I mean, what type of game is then when a Duke can take out a demon prince?"


----------



## jester47 (Jun 2, 2006)

I say we lock the thread at post #666 just for the heck of it...


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 2, 2006)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I say we lock the thread at post #666 just for the heck of it...




Seconded.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 2, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The win-win scenario was presented, at least the best it could be in the space they had.
> 
> It was rejected by those with unreasonable expectations.



Yeah, like people who want any kind of true epic support.  All you unreasonable people.  Suck it up.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 2, 2006)

I've skimmed the thread, and I don't think my question (for someone in charge, obviously) was answered: will the revised CRs for the FF and MM2 demons be uploaded to the website as errata, or is the only way to get them to buy this book?


----------



## Uder (Jun 2, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I've skimmed the thread, and I don't think my question (for someone in charge, obviously) was answered: will the revised CRs for the FF and MM2 demons be uploaded to the website as errata, or is the only way to get them to buy this book?



They're right here:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2859923&postcount=40


----------



## Razz (Jun 2, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Yes, that's indeed the rude, snarky and egocentric version of what I said. Lacking the point that I repeatetly say that I sorry for those that like epic gameplay, but think that they have to understand that, as things stand, they are a minority playing more a variant system rather simply advanced levels of D&D. I may even try epic level someday, but as a variant system, not part of the base system.
> 
> It's not the stats that interest me. There's more critters out there. It's exactly the mythology that interests me in using these guys.
> 
> If I thought I was a minority with my position I'd just suck it up, but as far as I know, the majority of D&D players tops out it's games at 20th level max.




So what you're saying is, we should all not bother purchasing any D&D books that's not covered as "core" or "popular" because they're never going to get the support they deserve.

Why, then, does WotC bother wasting their time with stuff like new classes, Epic Level Handbook, Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic if the stuff is never going to expand? They should concentrate on expanding the core material then, correct?


----------



## Razz (Jun 2, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> High level PCs can do amazing things. Don't underestemate them.




Tell me about it. I have a player with a Paladin/Fighter/Cavalier at 20th level that can do 300+ damage on a single charge attack with like a +45 or more attack bonus to that charge due to a combination of Paladin spells, special mount abilities and feats, and the Unstoppable Charge ability of the Cavalier PrC. A critical hit would skyrocket that to 450+ damage. The guy can take down a great wyrm red dragon in 2 charges, thanks to his 80 ft. speed phrenic dire wolf mount.

That's just ONE character in the group...there's 3 others that are all pretty powerful in their own right.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 2, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The win-win scenario was presented, at least the best it could be in the space they had.
> 
> It was rejected by those with unreasonable expectations.




Obviously the key words there are "as best it could be in the space they had".

But I even disagree with that.
The alternative I presented could have covered a range of options in the space that currently is used to present the emasculated demon lords.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, we should all not bother purchasing any D&D books that's not covered as "core" or "popular" because they're never going to get the support they deserve.
> 
> Why, then, does WotC bother wasting their time with stuff like new classes, Epic Level Handbook, Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic if the stuff is never going to expand? They should concentrate on expanding the core material then, correct?




Good question. The most likely answer is "because you are going to use it."

That said, I was rather surprised to see the Marshall supported in PHB II. But I don't think there has been an absolute dearth of epic or psionic support. New sourcebooks frequently include new psionic powers and classes even, and new epic feats and class expansions.

If you want support, I do think you are taking your chances with books like Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic, though. They don't quite have the pedigree of some of the other material, and unless there is a lot of fan demand, WotC doesn't have much reason to support it.

I think this is the sort of issue the d20 license was meant to address. Back in the 2e days, they couldn't green light a book publication (or re-publication) unless the brand manager was convinced 5000 copies would sell; it might be more. So niche titles, even commonly requested ones, are often passed by. But you get a smaller publisher with fewer fixed costs for whom a smaller print is practical, and they can do something for it.

Of course, the theory does not quite meet the practice on this on several counts.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 2, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, we should all not bother purchasing any D&D books that's not covered as "core" or "popular" because they're never going to get the support they deserve.
> 
> Why, then, does WotC bother wasting their time with stuff like new classes, Epic Level Handbook, Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic if the stuff is never going to expand? They should concentrate on expanding the core material then, correct?




There's a difference of support and requirement. 

For example Mind Flayers are baseline monsters that are basic to the game. They are psionic, yet don't require the psionic rules, though there is an alternative to use them psionic.

Demon Princes are as basic to the "D&D mythology" as Mind flayers. They are epic in scope. Does that mean I should be required to use epic rules if I want to use them. Nope, by precedence it means the basic stats are there for 20 level play and the option of using them with epic is given

The niches shouldn't be ignored, but the priority should lie with the masses.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 2, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> The niches shouldn't be ignored, but the priority should lie with the masses.



Prior to this issue I have never heard the slightest hint that "the masses" wanted Demon Lords to be on par with Balors and less powerful than Solars.
I still do not believe that "the masses" wish this to be the case.

I can certainly understand that most games do not go epic and therefore actively providing epic stats would not serve a large number of people.  But there are already stats available for CR20 demons.  If you want Demon Lords in this range, it is easy to modify the existing CR appropriate demons.  

But whether your game stops at level 5, 12, 18, 22, or 50, I just do not believe that Jubilex being inferior to a standard Balor is a good thing or remotely in tune with the wishes of "the masses".


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 2, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Prior to this issue I have never heard the slightest hint that "the masses" wanted Demon Lords to be on par with Balors and less powerful than Solars.
> I still do not believe that "the masses" wish this to be the case.
> 
> I can certainly understand that most games do not go epic and therefore actively providing epic stats would not serve a large number of people.  But there are already stats available for CR20 demons.  If you want Demon Lords in this range, it is easy to modify the existing CR appropriate demons.
> ...




Just that I wasn't arguing for the eventual execution of the principle but the principle that demon lords should be within striking distance of 20th level itself.

The actual power level that we now have is an entirely different story. While I don't have a problem with it (imc demon lord is a purely nominal notion, every demon worth his salt would never bow to any lord, imho), I have no idea if I'm with the masses on that.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But whether your game stops at level 5, 12, 18, 22, or 50, I just do not believe that Jubilex being inferior to a standard Balor is a good thing or remotely in tune with the wishes of "the masses".




As I stated to rip earlier, I don't think Jubilex should be weaker than a balor either.

But since modification guidelines are in place, I really see nothing to get annoyed about. I could add the changes in minutes, on a yellow sticky, in my book. Nor do I see this CR as some metasetting assertion of relative capability. It's purely one of mechanical convenience made to serve as many people as practical. I've already seen two excellent scenarios that would support such an arrangement.


----------



## cildarith (Jun 2, 2006)

Perhaps the Type 6 Dem, er... Balor is the problem here?

In 1E: 8 HD (Edit: and only 6 of them exist)
In 2E: 13 HD (I think)
In 3.0: 13 HD
In 3.5: 20 HD??? Why the power creep?


----------



## Uder (Jun 2, 2006)

cildarith said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Type 6 Dem, er... Balor is the problem here?
> 
> In 1E: 8 HD (Edit: and only 6 of them exist)
> In 2E: 13 HD (I think)
> ...



No kidding. I'm worried that in the next edition balors will be yet another critter removed from the average DMs arsenal.



			
				cildarith said:
			
		

> In 1E: 8 HD (Edit: and only 6 of them exist)



In my mind, there were more than 6. MMI had flavor text suggesting there were only six, while MMII had flavor text suggesting there were more. As a DM you had to decide which flavor you liked best. What a novel concept.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 2, 2006)

cildarith said:
			
		

> In 3.5: 20 HD??? Why the power creep?




Because they retooled the game to better support play at levels 1-20. In 1e, there were few if any monsters worthy of the attention of a 20th level party. One of the design criteria of 3e was to make it so PCs could more smoothly advance all the way to level 20 (so, for example, PC HD continue increasing). In 3.5, they realized that balors, with only 13 HD, didn't last long enough in combat to use all their interesting abilities. So they redefined them to be higher-level opponents. Now, at last, the game "finishes" at level 20 with a terrible demon caste in a dramatic clash against beings of utter evil. 

Doing so set an implicit lower limit to what demon lords should be, as demon lords are the obvious opponents to fight _after_ you're done with balors. 

You're right: if they hadn't retooled the balor (and, with it, other fiends, creating a smooth progression of fiend-bashing up to 20th level), most of this debate wouldn't be happening. But they _did_, for reasons which were pretty sound. And, acknowledging that this has happened, it's silly - even ridiculous - to say that demon lords should _also_ be level 20 opponents.

It's not even primarily about whether or not demon lords can reasonably hold their thrones against balor challengers. It's about putting demon lords where they've always been - above Type VI demons in power. 

Do demon princes have bodyguards, allies, armies, and fortresses? Of course they do. But so do balors.

Is it anything to get worked up about? Of course not. Is it anything anyone should get worked up about in defending it? Of course not. It's an issue as indefensible as it is insignificant. It's hypocritical to waste dozens of posts telling people what a minor point it is - when you post that often on the subject, you're implicitly lending it credibility. You're saying that defending it is as big a deal to you as attacking it is to others. 

The irony is, I don't think it's that big a deal to anyone. But this is the internet, and message board arguments can swell up in subjective importance.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 2, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> In my mind, there were more than 6. MMI had flavor text suggesting there were only six, while MMII had flavor text suggesting there were more. As a DM you had to decide which flavor you liked best. What a novel concept.




There's also mention that there are 24 Solar but more may exist. At a quick glance the Solar in the 1st ed MM2 is also superior to at least Kostchie and Fraz-Ur'luu in many ways and at the very least their equal . Stronger Solar are obviously no new "crime".


----------



## BryonD (Jun 2, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> As I stated to rip earlier, I don't think Jubilex should be weaker than a balor either.
> 
> But since modification guidelines are in place, I really see nothing to get annoyed about. I could add the changes in minutes, on a yellow sticky, in my book.



And I'm completely with you here.

But, on the other hand, I can have Jubilex in my own notes in minutes WITHOUT buying WotC's book.  So that kinda cancel's out of the conversation on the merits of this product.  

It is not required that complaints about the book translate to damage to my game.



> Nor do I see this CR as some metasetting assertion of relative capability. It's purely one of mechanical convenience made to serve as many people as practical. I've already seen two excellent scenarios that would support such an arrangement.




I simply disagree that it can meet the standards of versimiltude.  Could a CR23 demon lord aquire power over many CR20+ demons?  Certainly.  Could one maintain such a position for years, much less centuries or eons?  I don't buy it.  And they are asking me to buy this for not one but for ALL the demon lords.  All this without the 60HD balor angle.  Or even just 25HD balors.  

And I still don't see any evidence that this in truth serves as many people as practical. 
Suggestions for advancing balors into demon lords would serve everyone who wants low CR demon lords and allow for supporting the higher power ideas of them at the same time.  Serving everyone the book currently serves PLUS other who want more seems to be a better capture of "as many people as practical" to me.  The way they have done it the ~CR20 crowd has two options and the higher level people have zero official options.

And I also think our ability to advance them is at least partly a red herring.  The official power level has been adjusted.  Thus, the expectation of future support is pretty well crushed.  An no, I'm not claiming any right to that support.  But I consider reasonable to express complaint when WotC goes out of their way to re-write not just canon but fundamental mythology expectations inherent to the game, and does so in such a way as to actively exclude a portion the fan base.

Does a Level 20 Thrall of Jubilex even really make sense anymore?  Without bending over backward to rationalize it?  Do you kill Jubilex and then fight his "thrall" as the climactic encounter????     Or is Jubilex the downhill coast once you're past the "thrall"?    

And, honestly, I also think the target audience they are servicing here is, far and away, less likely to care.  The people who play higher level are vastly more likely to use demon lords than the people who play lower level.  I'm certain that there is some small fraction that is right in the zone for this.  But the arguement against supporting the minority over the majority has already been made by those favoring this approach.  Of the people who actually use demon lords, I feel quite confident that the clear majority would prefer more powerful demon lords.

I don't think they should change the mechanics of meteor swarm to satisfy the people who play up to L12 if the people playing L20 like it as is.  I don't think they should nerf demon lords to satisfy people who don't play anti-demon lords games if the people who do play them like it as is.  (Particularly when there are already L20 appropriate demons.)


----------



## cildarith (Jun 2, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> There's also mention that there are 24 Solar but more may exist. At a quick glance the Solar in the 1st ed MM2 is also superior to at least Kostchie and Fraz-Ur'luu in many ways and at the very least their equal . Stronger Solar are obviously no new "crime".




True enough.  The solar (and even the planetar) in 1E were extremely powerful, nearly on par with demon princes and lords, respectively.

Since the advent of 2E (which greatly increased the power of giants, dragons, and some of the demons and devils) there seems to have been a constant "tinkering" with the power levels of this relatively small subset of the creatures of the D&D milieu and while these changes may be well reasoned, the implementation, to my eye, has been done piecemeal and without much real thought to the impact of these changes on the rest of the system or even to each other.

Originally, the more powerful non-unique demons, Nalfeshnee, Marilith, Balor, etc. were roughly equivalent to the most ancient of dragons, while Tiamat and Bahamut were on par with the Demon Lords/Princes and Arch-devils.  This parity is now completely out of whack, and I suspect that this is what folks are finding most offensive about the recent changes.

I'm not sure where exactly I come down on this issue; I _really_ like the idea of Demon Lords/Arch-devils being barely within reach of 20th level characters, but the inconsistency this introduces is somewhat annoying as well.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And I still don't see any evidence that this in truth serves as many people as practical.




Well, that's their gamble to make... but I don't think they made the decision in ignorance.



> And I also think our ability to advance them is at least partly a red herring.




I think that your persistant ignoring the advancement tools is a red herring.



> The official power level has been adjusted.




No, it has not.

The official power level is "CR 20(+/-)-infinity". The official power level is wide open. It's obvious that the epic scaling notes are not there to create demogorgon's big brother and orucs' mother.

Recent Demonomicon articles have pegged demon lords at CRs 28-32, and James has stated this is likely to continue. If you want to peg something as official, use that. As is, if you choose to interperet the statistics as some sort of metasetting canon when the content of the flavor text (the real canon) says something different is nothing more than willfully choosing to be annoyed.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 3, 2006)

Hm, a thought:

Everyone keeps talking about Demon Lords having to have power over demons. But is that even true?

Could even a CR90 really succeed in the challenge of herding cats that is controlling demons? Would they even want to do that, or care? If they did, would they still have the time to do anything else? Would they still be CE if they did?

There's a reason for every demon prince having a huge host of nondemonic servants, isn't there? (Kostchie: White dragons and frost giants, Juiblex: Oozes, Grazzt: Lamia & co, Orcus: Undead, Baphomet: Minotaurs, Dagon: Kraken & co, pazurael: harpies & co, demogorgon is the king of weird servant creatures, etc)

Frazz-Urb'loo is the only one of the top of my head without servants, and he's a loner anyway, isn't he?

Really, I'd view a demon prince like a self proclaimed bandit king. The bandit king has his small band, but no real power over any other bandits. But many bandits will use the bandit kings name for their own devices and not every bandit wants to be bandit king. Over the time the name of the bandit king rises into to terrible hights and strikes fear at it's mention. I'd say most demons don't care much about "their lords" and the demon princes care little about "their subjects".

The demon princes aren't leaders. There's no such thing to demons. They are special demons and many of them have taken a special interest in the multiverse outside of the abyss. They are figureheads to the outside, those that care for such prestige, while most demons remain uninterested of views others may have of them. A demon may serve his lord nominally, while in fact he simply chooses to life on a layer that suits him. A vrock on demogorgons layer may invoke his name to "validate" the toll he takes of those passing him, while a summoned Nalfashnee may invoke Orcus' name to strike fear into the hearts of those pesky mortals. But not every powerfull demon seeks a name for himself that others may seek him and identify him as an opponent.

In the end *there can be no authority among the embodyments of CE*

Gods are driven out of the abyss, not because of the demon lords awesome power, but because the constant harrasment their realms suffer from disrespectfull demons. Of course these demons scream the name of "their lord", who themself stay elusive. The god decides living in abyss is to much hassle and the legacy lives on, that tells of powerfull demon princes...

Canon? Maybe, I know little about planar canon behind what suits the needs of my game, but it certainly sounds right to me.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 3, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, that's their gamble to make... but I don't think they made the decision in ignorance.



ok



> I think that your persistant ignoring the advancement tools is a red herring.



hmm, that would be hard to do since I am not ignoring it. (though you seem to have completely ignored several of my points)



> No, it has not.



Yes, it has.



> The official power level is "CR 20+/- - infinity". The official power level is wide open.
> 
> Recent Demonomicon articles have pegged demon lords at CRs 28-32, and James has stated this is likely to continue. If you want to peg something as official, use that. As is, if you choose to interperet the statistics as some sort of metasetting canon when the content of the flavor text (the real canon) is nothing more than willfully choosing to be annoyed.




Care to give me an over/under on the time until the next WoTC (not Pazio) product that will support a power level for demon lords beyond the default presented here?  How much cash are you willing to lose to me?  I certainly hope they come to an understanding that they dropped the ball here and fix it.  But barring that unlikely development, the official demon lord power level stops at ~CR23.  A 1/3 page guide on how to turn up the volume in your home game does not lead to the conclusion that WotC will support bigger, badder versions of Orcus.

I really don't care about canon at all.  I tried to express that this goes beyond that in my prior post.  These entities are power benchmarks that have spanned the history of D&D.  You can completely re-write canon and not change anything in power levels.  This is all about setting the bar.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 3, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Care to give me an over/under on the time until the next WoTC (not Pazio) product that will support a power level for demon lords beyond the default presented here?




Dungeon and Dragon magazines are officially licensed products that go through a rigorous approval process. Their contents are 100% official D&D.

Just sayin'.

--Erik


----------



## Psion (Jun 3, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Care to give me an over/under on the time until the next WoTC (not Pazio)




Omitting Paizo, eh? I supposed you'd ask me if I wanted to split my tens in blackjack, too?

I don't think that it's safe to ignore Demonomicon any more than it's safe to ingore the scaling. If you go on chopping out every reference or tool that will make the game in the image you want it, I really don't have any sympathy for you if you are left with a game you don't want. 

But lets be serious here. People who are serious planes/demon fans are not going to be chucking their dragons issues with the demonomicons in the trash. They are going to be on the top shelf. Your constructed stacked-deck wager has no real bearing on the issue at hand.



> product that will support a power level for demon lords beyond the default presented here?




What is "supports" supposed to mean in this context? Because from what I see, it "supports" any power level from the base around 20 to... as far as you want to extend it.

Edit: But really. I am trying to express why I think this is a good thing, but it just keeps escalating. I think those who have ears have heard. I really don't want to make this personal, and from the tone of you last post, it sounds like it's headed that way.

Perhaps we could just agree to disagree? I think you are missing out, but I can't make you like it.

As for me, after the travesty that was DDG, I feel that the actual-play oriented nature of this book is a good thing.


----------



## Zoatebix (Jun 3, 2006)

*waaay off topic*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> "You had me at Molydeus."
> 
> - Psion "Show me the demons, baby" Ooi




Whoa!  I though Psion's last name was Kohler!  Are he and Hong long lost brothers or is there something even stranger afoot?


----------



## Psion (Jun 3, 2006)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Whoa!  I though Psion's last name was Kohler!  Are he and Hong long lost brothers or is there something even stranger afoot?




Just a wierd in-joke "wink wink" sort of thing. Don't mind me. 

Edit: Though some Aussies tell me there is a published economics reporter by my name in Oz. Maybe in some parallel dimension...


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 3, 2006)

On a somewhat different tanget, all this Abyssal talk got me to pull out my copy of Green Ronin's _Book of Fiends_ and take another look at the Armies of the Abyss section. I haven't done much planar stuff for a while, so that book has just been sitting on my shelf for quite a while.

Holy crap, I had forgetten just how much deeply cool stuff is in that book. Just some sick, fantastic, and fantastically sick ideas all through that section. The whole qlippoth backstory is fiendishly inspired. I suspect Hordes of the Abyss and the Book of Fiends, side by side, will make a demonic goulash of great and terrible power. I can't wait.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 3, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Just some sick, fantastic, and fantastically sick ideas all through that section.




I agree.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 3, 2006)

smootrk said:
			
		

> I like having the Lords at a power level that actually allows them to be defeated by players in a normal (as in non-epic superpowered) game.  I doubt my players would ever meet those guys otherwise, so I welcome that change.




Guess this is my story arc predelictions kicking in, but if these guys are supposed to be constant icns of evil, I don't want them defeated ion a normal game. They rule layers of dark realms, ruling millions of critters that make the typical player look like an picnic ant in need squashing. PLayers shouldn't stand a chance against them unless the campaign is geared in that direction.


----------



## Seeten (Jun 3, 2006)

My effort to help the thread hit 666.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 3, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think that your persistant ignoring the advancement tools is a red herring.



Personally I find the few lines giving quite insulting.  Increase HD, Skills, Feats, make powers.  It doesn't take even a lawn mower mechanic to figure this out.

How about some mechanical examples of some powers you might add to a CR35 or above demon lord.  Hell, give an example with a new epic spell or two.

With these beings here and the acknowledgement by the authors that they think these beings should be epic it's beyond insulting.

I haven't seen the book but I'm sure a spell or two could have been cut here, a dozen or so feets there and come up with 3-5 pages of material for epic use.

Who really needs just another feat?  I love the suckers but there are really only so many out of the billion or so in print that I'll ever be able to use in my life time.  Same goes with spells, heck they just released a spell compendium.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 3, 2006)

Thoughts on Epic.  Are there any real numbers that Wizards has on the amount of players out there play epic.  1%? 2%?  If it's 2%, would it really be a crime to insert maybe 2% or 3 pages of epic material in a book such ast this?  I'm not asking for epic support in every product but certainly a couple pages in a book here or there isn't going to destroy the buy factor of a book for your base 1-20 level players.


----------



## megamania (Jun 3, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> My effort to help the thread hit 666.




Should we time it for Tuesday 6/06/06


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 3, 2006)

Or at least get it closer.


----------



## Delta (Jun 3, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Dungeon and Dragon magazines are officially licensed products that go through a rigorous approval process. Their contents are 100% official D&D. Just sayin'.




Erik, I love your work and the support to Greyhawk you've given over the years. However, this is simply nonsensical. 

So Demogorgon is officially CR 22 _and_ officially CR 30 _and_ officially up to the DM to decide for his campaign? Normally, I understand the word "official" to mean "conforming to set usage, procedure, or discipline" (Meriam-Webster's). What does "official" even mean when used in this way (other than as marketing talisman)?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 3, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> some Aussies tell me there is a published economics reporter by my name in Oz.



Huh. Thought I saw you on TV just the other day.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 3, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> So Demogorgon is officially CR 22 _and_ officially CR 30 _and_ officially up to the DM to decide for his campaign? Normally, I understand the word "official" to mean "conforming to set usage, procedure, or discipline" (Meriam-Webster's). What does "official" even mean when used in this way (other than as marketing talisman)?




It means "recognized by WotC as a D&D product." Any other meaning, honestly, is one the fans put on it.

Yes, Demogorgon is officially CR 22 _and_ CR 30 _and_ up for the DM to decide. This whole argument is based on the notion that something in the game can be _truly_ X, and anything that's not X--even if technically allowable by a sub-rule--isn't "official."

Demogorgon is a demon prince. He's as powerful as you want to make him. WotC (partially through Paizo) has provided, or will provide, multiple different versions of him. There is no Aristotelien ideal of D&D in which Demogorgon's "real" CR is given. His CR is whatever the DM wants it to be, and the various _official_ D&D sources have provided for multiple possibilities.

IOW, don't consider the CR 23 Demogorgon the "real" one. Consider it the bare minimum that he should likely be, with the advancement rules--or the other sources, like the BoVD or the hypothetical future Dragon article--representing possible other iterations.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 3, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Demogorgon is a demon prince. He's as powerful as you want to make him. WotC (partially through Paizo) has provided, or will provide, multiple different versions of him. There is no Aristotelien ideal of D&D in which Demogorgon's "real" CR is given. His CR is whatever the DM wants it to be, and the various _official_ D&D sources have provided for multiple possibilities.




This is my feeling as well.  All "official" sources are correct and I believe this kind of diversity is intentional - to cater to the varied GMs and players of D&D.   I feel that wildly contradictory fluff is more damaging to the canon of the game that stats.  I am even OK with hazy planar and creation theories, but game statistics that vary from source to source are not necessarily trumping each other.  Stats seem to be the one thing that can vary from game to game and still be D&D.  Low Level games, High Level games, Epic games -- all are D&D.  And GMs that house rule various aspects -- still D&D.

Varied stats are simply different ways of looking at the same element of the game for GMs and players that have varied tastes in their games' power levels.


----------



## orangefruitbat (Jun 3, 2006)

In the Eternal Champion novels by Michael Moorck, the power of the Lords of Chaos and Law varied considerably from world to world. In some places, Arioch wa the big bad, and others, was much weaker than the other lords of chaos.

Why should the DnD embodiments of chaos be static either?




			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yes, Demogorgon is officially CR 22 _and_ CR 30 _and_ up for the DM to decide. This whole argument is based on the notion that something in the game can be _truly_ X, and anything that's not X--even if technically allowable by a sub-rule--isn't "official."


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 3, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think that your persistant ignoring the advancement tools is a red herring.



And I think that claiming that these tools are anything new or special at all. Presenting them as a solution or even a selling point is bogus.

Every single creature in every single book in 3.X was scaleable and could be advanced. The tools are in the PHD and MM. Claiming that these is some new special otions for the demonlords is just wrong, and the 1/3 page in FC1 just seems like a filler.

See MM? Great, I would have never thought of that myself.

How to calculate CR/SR/CL? Well, that's handy but also nothing that really justifies claiming to be something new to make scalebale demonlords, could be done just as well without this clues. Also these clues aren't really the best. 1 HD = 1 CR? Will quickly make them too weak for their CR. Same with the CL progressing. Making it 1 for every 2 HD doesn't make the abilities overpowered, it will make them useless, as they will quickly become unable to beat any SR at all (not even their own). 

+2 ability points for every 5 HD? Why? What about the +1 for every 4 HD that's standard in D&D and followed by every single creature? Seems a little like "hm, we just need annother point, any point" and also important: Is this supposed to replace the +1 every 4 HD or to be added on top on this?

All in all: The demonlords are not in  the least more or less scaleable than any other D&D creature in any other D&D supplemt. A goblin in MM or Elminster in FRCS can be scaled just as well as these demonlords. It's no "new solution" to the CR argument it's just a hint toward something that is already there since the beginning and the try to make it look like something new created for this book


----------



## Psion (Jun 3, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> And I think that claiming that these tools are anything new or special at all.




Then why all the teeth gnashing when you know you have total control over their power?

Of course why has already been spelled out by Ari:



> It means "recognized by WotC as a D&D product." Any other meaning, honestly, is one the fans put on it.




You've decided that any set of stats in print represents some statement by the authors about the "normative definition" of the demon lords power. I can't help but feel that those who are fundamentally unhappy on this point are so because they are attaching their own significance here.

I can't stop you from doing so. But I think it unwise to do so.



			
				Mirtek said:
			
		

> Every single creature in every single book in 3.X was scaleable and could be advanced.




Of course. Ignoring that the advancement notes go beyond the MM in discussing special abilities and raising ability. But you are missing a fundamental point here that I keep hammering on. Unlike most creatures in the MM, _Demon lords are unique creatures_. The mere existence of these rules should show that the base statistics should not be taken as an "officially endorsed sole power level" of the demon lords, as their power level is explicitly intented to be scaled to the GMs needs. The authors have further clarified that pegging the power of the demon lords was not their intent. Yet you still insist that is what it represents.


----------



## Razz (Jun 3, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> And I think that claiming that these tools are anything new or special at all. Presenting them as a solution or even a selling point is bogus.
> 
> Every single creature in every single book in 3.X was scaleable and could be advanced. The tools are in the PHD and MM. Claiming that these is some new special otions for the demonlords is just wrong, and the 1/3 page in FC1 just seems like a filler.
> 
> ...




Where'd you get this info? Do you have the book? I've been asking forever what the page says about advancing these guys and no answer from anyone as of yet.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 3, 2006)

The advancement was definitely posted in one of the three threads on FC1.


----------



## Delta (Jun 3, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It means "recognized by WotC as a D&D product." Any other meaning, honestly, is one the fans put on it.




I'd like to hear that from a WOTC source. If the fans all magically misunderstand how that mark is being used, then it indicates nonstandard usage of the word, and it should be clarified.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 3, 2006)

Psion, at this point I'm not talking about the power levels of the lords in and of themselves.  If they truely wanted them to be scaleable to epic, which I can understand, they should have thrown us a couple epic bones.  A new spell, power, feat or 2 or 3.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 3, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear that from a WOTC source. If the fans all magically misunderstand how that mark is being used, then it indicates nonstandard usage of the word, and it should be clarified.




All fans? Speak for yourself, we have no demographics to back that up.

I have no problem understanding the officiallity that way. And unless mearls or eric drop in, mosferatu is the best person to talk about it anyway (as a freelancer that has by now often worked for wizards).


----------



## Seeten (Jun 3, 2006)

On a quick note, this will irk players far more than DM's, because players cannot arbitrarily advance Demon Lords, only watch in horror as by default cr 22 demogorgons show up.

For DM's, who cares? You control your game. For players? Any new canon liable to be adopted by all DM's because it has a WotC stamp on it? Much more frustrating, and all a player can do is vote with his feet, ie, cut off his nose to spite his face, and stop rping with his group.

Many DM's are religious about using all WotC material 'as is'. We all know this.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 3, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> They're right here:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2859923&postcount=40



Thank you!


----------



## Uder (Jun 4, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> On a quick note, this will irk players far more than DM's, because players cannot arbitrarily advance Demon Lords, only watch in horror as by default cr 22 demogorgons show up.



Rules Lawyers and other players that memorize the books have bigger things to worry about in my game


----------



## Razz (Jun 4, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> The advancement was definitely posted in one of the three threads on FC1.




Could you per chance direct me to the thread?


----------



## GQuail (Jun 4, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Could you per chance direct me to the thread?




I don't have search function active (the Great Board Erasure leaves me still a measly registered user) but I know for a fact it was this thread, as I replied to itL and a key phrase that might find it was that they all gained Blasphemy at will, "(or Word of Chaos for obyrith.)"  A Google search turns up this thread and the sentence but it's not linking to the right post: so it looks like you're going to have to look the old fashioned way.


----------



## arntof (Jun 4, 2006)

* Advance lord’s HD by an amount appropriate for your campaign’s needs. The lord BAB, saves, skills, feats, ability scores should increase as an Outsider. 
* CR increase by 1 for every HD added. 
* Add “epic” to DR requirement. 
* New SR = CR+13 
* Ability scores all increase 2 for every 5HD added. 
* Gain Spell-like abilities (at will): Blasphemy (or Word of Chaos for obyrith.), Plane Shift, Shapechan ge, Unholy Aura. Feel free to add more, but remember not to over do it. 
* Increase Caster level for Spell-like abilities by 1 for every 2 HD added. Remember this can overpower certain abilities. 
* Feel free to add one or two new special actions or special qualities. eg.) Fraz-Urb’luu might gain Mordenkainen’s Disjunction by touch. Kostchtchie might gain a Cold breath weapon. 

Fighting Demon Lords: 
These high Challenge Ratings are based on the demon lords’ abilities and also supported by couple of assumptions: 
(1) Characters are most likely to face a demon lords on its home layers of the Abyss. 
(2) A demon lords should never be encountered alone.


----------



## yipwyg (Jun 5, 2006)

All of this talk about how low the demon lords CR has gotten me thinking about how I would handle this in my campaign.  I am basing my decision based on devils though not demons.  The reason being that in my new campaign I am working on, devils are a factor.  I believe due to the low CR demon lords, that the Arch-devil's will have the same treatment.

Here it goes

Back in the 2nd edition days it was mentioned that there was a group of 8 pit fiends called The Dark Eight.  These pit fiends were the most powerful ones in hell.  I think that in 2nd edition that they got max hit points and some other things.  In 3.5 they provide methods to advance the base creature.  So in my campaign the Dark Eight would have the following.

Huge Size, 54 HD (648 hit points), CR 38

This gives me a base line for when I advance the Arch Devils.  I think that Asmodeous should be more powerful than the Dark Eight, maybe not by much but he should be of higher CR.

This should also be done for Demon Princes, they control planes they should be the most powerful things on the plane besides Gods.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 5, 2006)

yipwig: If you want your work done for you, you may wish to check out the following site:

http://community.dicefreaks.com/

The pdf-format _Gates of Hell_ has detailed writeups (including stat blocks) for the Dark Eight, the Dukes of Hell, the archdevils (who are sort of a "middle tier" between the Dukes of Hell and Lords of the Nine) and the Lords of the Nine. The Dark Eight hover around CR 35 or so, the Dukes of Hell in the high 30s, the archdevils from about 40-60, and the LotN in the 60s.


----------



## Shade (Jun 5, 2006)

12 posts to lockdown...


----------



## yipwyg (Jun 5, 2006)

WOW!!! just checked on some of that book at dicefreaks.  Why are they not selling that?


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 5, 2006)

yipwyg said:
			
		

> WOW!!! just checked on some of that book at dicefreaks.  Why are they not selling that?



It's chalked full of IP.  It's one thing for fans to do write ups on IP, another entirely to sell it.

Edit: errrrr, PI.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 6, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> yipwig: If you want your work done for you, you may wish to check out the following site:




Outside of the fact that this really isn't a thread to be pimping this in it's probably worth noting that it also deviates considerably from the standard histories and identities of the various archfiends in a number of cases. The flavor isn't bad, I can't say that, but it's not at all on the same page on a good many things with how it tries to reinvent some concepts, changes names of creatures, renames species of fiends, and some other fundamental alterations from the canonical vision of the lower planes. 

Overall it's inspired homebrew, some of which I appreciate and some of which I don't care for, but when it discusses the Abyss or the 9 Hells of Baator it's not really talking about the same lower planes as I often am given how far it alters some things. Keep in mind guys on DF, I think it's a bit of an awkward disservice, and a bit misleading, to push it on half the planar threads that have been popping up lately.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 6, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Outside of the fact that this really isn't a thread to be pimping this in it's probably worth noting that it also deviates considerably from the standard histories and identities of the various archfiends in a number of cases. The flavor isn't bad, I can't say that, but it's not at all on the same page on a good many things with how it tries to reinvent some concepts, changes names of creatures, renames species of fiends, and some other fundamental alterations from the canonical vision of the lower planes.
> 
> Overall it's inspired homebrew, some of which I appreciate, some of which I don't care for, but it's not talking about the same lower planes as I often am given how far it alters some things. Keep in mind guys on DF, I think it's a bit of an awkward disservice to push it on half the planar threads that have been popping lately.



I find it ironic that you think I'm "pimping" DF, Shemeska, especially if you read my other posts on this topic. I'm simply trying to sidestep the usual complaining that goes on about a lack of archfiend stats of x CR, and to help out a poster who's looking for stats in a particular CR range . My point is that if people want stats at higher CRs than in HoTA, there are places to get them, including BoVD, the Demonomicon, and DF.

As for "canon": I think, as I've said before, that any notion of "canon" sits on pretty unstable grounds. People who go on about "canon" tend to pick their own version of precedent and label it thusly. Talking about what the powers of the archfiends "historically" are involves trying to reconcile a lot of contradictory information, AND to try to try to treat as hard game information what is presented as nothing more than rumor and conjecture. I understand that you have set yourself up as a guardian of what you've decided constitutes the "history" and "canon" of the lower planes and archfiends, but you're talking about a body of information that's changed several times over two previous editions and includes everything from archfiend stats at the roughly CR 15-equivalent range (Graz'zt and Pazrael in Planes of Chaos) to some "greater than gods" allusions (Dragon 223).


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 6, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I find it ironic that you think I'm "pimping" DF, Shemeska, especially if you read my other posts on this topic.




It's mostly bleed over from some guy (who was banned on DF) who was obnoxiously spamming the WotC boards with the same link for a while recently (and only spamming the link, without actually contributing to the threads in question). Regardless, back to the thread itself.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 6, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> IMy point is that if people want stats at higher CRs than in HoTA, there are places to get them, including BoVD, the Demonomicon, and DF.



IOW, can we talk about something on this thread other than stats for demon lords? HotA certainly must have _some_ other content. Spells? Possession rules? New Abyssal layers?


----------



## Pants (Jun 6, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Outside of the fact that this really isn't a thread to be pimping this in it's probably worth noting that it also deviates considerably from the standard histories and identities of the various archfiends in a number of cases. The flavor isn't bad, I can't say that, but it's not at all on the same page on a good many things with how it tries to reinvent some concepts, changes names of creatures, renames species of fiends, and some other fundamental alterations from the canonical vision of the lower planes.



People say the same things about PS/2e  [/low blow]


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 6, 2006)

Doing my part to bring the thread to the magic number....

A question for Erik: How closely do the obyriths and qlippoth match? Can I just use the two words as interchangeable terms for the same race of beings? 'Cause I really like me some Armies of the Abyss . . .


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2006)

Well better start now.

So Hordes of the abyss....how hordey can it really be with only 666 layers?


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2006)

And another thing, 

If Demorgogon and Orcus both fall into the Hollow Heart, will Frazzy get around to finding his staff?


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2006)

Third thing,

So these infinite layers, are they like onions or more like cholocate cake?


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2006)

And #666

*ORCUS RULES!!! *


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 6, 2006)

I win.

Edit: DAMN IT!!!


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2006)

Nope.

I did.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 6, 2006)

Ah, but the Mouse had the 666th reply -- so who really won?

(Besides, the mistranslation means that Gold Roger was the winner 50-odd posts ago.)


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2006)

Uhm no check your post. I got 666 on this thread. Goldy just got some weird number.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 6, 2006)

I'll also point out that Gold Roger had post #616, and the earliest source of the Apocalypse of John with the relevant passage, gives the mark of the beast as 616, not 666. The latter appears to be a very early copy error


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 6, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'll also point out that Gold Roger had post #616




I would say he won, then, except he posted on 06/02/06 - a day late!


----------



## BOZ (Jun 7, 2006)

this thread needs more antichrist.

oh, damien!


----------



## gfunk (Jun 7, 2006)

I realize I'm a day late and a dollar short with this thread but I wanted to add to the chorus of those who thanked James Jacobs.  Though I am somewhat pained to see the Demon Lords weakened, I accept, understand and agree with your argument that pinning them at lower CRs works better for the vast majority of campaigns -- including mine.

We are finishing off Age of Worms now and I eagerly look forward to tangling w/ Demogorgon in the near future.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 7, 2006)

Should be a cake walk after defeating Dragotha.

Ok, ok.  I'm not bitter about it.  I just thought it was funny.  Nod and walk away. Nod and walk away.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 7, 2006)

Yeah well we can hope Demogorgon at least has a better CR rating than Dragotha. At least he should be.  

But man Age of Worms = dead by many, many bodies.


----------



## bing (Jun 7, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Outside of the fact that this really isn't a thread to be pimping this in it's probably worth noting that it also deviates considerably from the standard histories and identities of the various archfiends in a number of cases. The flavor isn't bad, I can't say that, but it's not at all on the same page on a good many things with how it tries to reinvent some concepts, changes names of creatures, renames species of fiends, and some other fundamental alterations from the canonical vision of the lower planes.
> 
> Overall it's inspired homebrew, some of which I appreciate and some of which I don't care for, but when it discusses the Abyss or the 9 Hells of Baator it's not really talking about the same lower planes as I often am given how far it alters some things. Keep in mind guys on DF, I think it's a bit of an awkward disservice, and a bit misleading, to push it on half the planar threads that have been popping up lately.




The fine folks at dicefreeks seem to lean more toward Gygaxian Cosmology as cannon from the later Gord the Rogue novels were many of the demon lords were main characters in the books.


----------



## James Jacobs (Jun 7, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah well we can hope Demogorgon at least has a better CR rating than Dragotha. At least he should be.
> 
> But man Age of Worms = dead by many, many bodies.




You can expect Savage Tide to follow a similar "power arc" to Age of Worms or Shackled City. In other words, Demogorgon will be too tough for a 20th level party to walk up to and have a hope of defeating, just like Dragotha or Kyuss were in Age of Worms. Defeating Demogorgon, in other words, isn't something that happens in one adventure...


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 7, 2006)

Incidentally, James, I just got my first look at the book.

Beautiful job! You guys have really excelled on this one!


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 7, 2006)

Hey, James.  You guys ever think about doing a write-up on the single coolest thing to come from the cartoon?  Demodragon as a demon lord would be cool.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 7, 2006)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> A question for Erik: How closely do the obyriths and qlippoth match? Can I just use the two words as interchangeable terms for the same race of beings? 'Cause I really like me some Armies of the Abyss . . .




They are slightly different applications of the same concept, which is to say a pre-tanar'ri demonic race. In my own campaigns, I will most likely make them the same race.

--Erik


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 8, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> You can expect Savage Tide to follow a similar "power arc" to Age of Worms or Shackled City. In other words, Demogorgon will be too tough for a 20th level party to walk up to and have a hope of defeating, just like Dragotha or Kyuss were in Age of Worms. Defeating Demogorgon, in other words, isn't something that happens in one adventure...




BTW, I haven't ran the adventure, but those fights (edit: vs Dragotha & Kyuss) -- the way they were setup & handled -- are things of beauty.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 8, 2006)

After reading and considering, I think I can summerize my thoughts.  Examining the dumbing down of demons, four difficulties immediately present themselves:

1)	Absolute value and consistency.  Demons have had their absolute power or CR reduced in Fiendish Codex Vol. 1 Hordes of the Abyss.  This reduction is absolute, without respect to how much any individual has been reduced. By one measure, it is fair to say that the cachet associated with demons as Big Bads has been lessened; the are less Big and less Bad.  More importantly, there is no meta-setting explanation for why demons are suddenly less powerful - they just are.  This is an issue as between editions but also an issue even within just the current edition.  There is now an unexplained inconsistency that sees demons suddenly less powerful.  Such an inconsistency effecting such iconic creatures needlessly throws a spanner into the meta-setting.  Of course, some may rationalize it all away with - “We’ll just assume it always was that way” - which however intellectually vacuous may not be an issue, unless you have been using the demon princes at their former power levels, in which case your game now has need for adjustment.

2)	Comparative power in 3rd Edition.  In the 3X version of the game, it takes much less time to progress from 1st Level to 20th Level.  Indeed, the 3rd edition concept of the “adventure path” thrives on seeing characters rise from 1st to 20th Level in a series of 12 to 14 adventures.   A 20th Level character is then not the achievement or rarity it was in earlier editions.  It is more commonplace and demons, reduced to being suitable opponents for  20th level characters to defeat, are rendered more commonplace in turn.  This runs exactly contrary to how demons have been used and have developed within the D&D mythology heretofore.  Demons, as presented, are no more tough than an appropriately advanced monster or player character.  Demons place in the D&D mythology as opponents for player characters has been redefined to make them less special.

3)	The illogic of lower power demon princes.  Reducing the power of the demon princes creates internal inconsistencies when the Abyss is considered.  Demon princes are now not that much more powerful than the creatures who they allegedly command and who allegedly fear them.  Indeed, a number of other denizens of the Abyss are now intellectually on a par with the demon princes and more powerful, yet we are asked to believe that, without explanation,  the demon princes somehow hold onto their positions and keep more powerful, equally powerful and nearly as powerful minions in check.  Are demon princes now politicians among their own kind, ruling not through raw power and fear, but by coalition building and alliances among their chaotic evil fellows?   Juiblex stumping for votes?  Demogorgon proposing a ballot initiative?  Grazzt invoking Roberts Rules of Order?  The notion of lesser powered demon princes behaving in this way runs in the face of the prior mythology and is absurd on its face.  By way of specific example, consider the Klurichir demon from the 3X Fiend Folio, CR 25, said to prey on weaker demons and to be tactically brilliant.  Yeenoghu, picking a demon prince, is CR 20.  Yeenoghu would be seen as weak by a Klurichir type.  If the first Klurichir didn’t vanquish Yeenoghu, then the second, or the third, or the fourth, for Klurichir are not unique individuals but demons types.  They will keep coming.  Yeenoghu is toast at a lower CR, unless there is a good explanation.  There is none offered in Fiendish Codex Vol. 1.

4)	Planar mechanics.  Demons are the physical embodiment of metaphysical evil and demon princes are the greatest such embodiments.  Demons are not just another race, like elves or orcs or even githyanki or mindflayers.  They embody all that is quintessentially evil.  They are evil given form.  What are the 20th level characters who may now reasonably contemplate killing a demon prince?  They embody what metaphysical principle?  None.  They represent what?  The successful accumulation of experience, treasure and the acquisition of magic items.  And this alone qualifies them to take down the purest manifestation of a metaphysical concept such as evil?  There is no logic to this.  What is more, allowing 20th level characters to destroy the physical embodiment of metaphysical evil denigrates the very notion of metaphysical evil.  It ain’t so bad if a 20th level character, having risen to that station in 12 to 14 adventures, following an “adventure path,” can put down an evil that has supposedly held all in fear for millennia.  It simply makes no sense.

Of course, individuals can house rule matters in their home games but such is irrelevant to the presentation as given, as The Rules As Written (RAW).  The RAW of Fiendish Codex Vol. 1 is poorly thought out, inconsistent, illogical and without explanation undermines some of the greatest mythology in D&D.  Such can be dismissed only by those who either have no appreciation for the planes as they have been developed in D&D or are Wotc apologists or are simply being contrary, refusing to note the state of the emperor’s new clothes.  YMMV   

The commonly espoused rational that “no one plays epic and most games end at 20th level” in no way addresses the harm done to the D&D mythology and in no way addresses the above issues.  It merely creates a justification based on the perception that most players and Dms would find lower powered demon princes “more useful.”  Of course, this ignores the fact that heretofore demon princes have been found so interesting by so many  and “useful” precisely because they presented the challenge that has now been reduced.

Further complicating matters, the very same authors who wrote the Fiendish Codex Vol. 1, when confronted on the issue of lesser powered demon princes, opine that Dungeon and Dragon will continue to present demon princes as more powerful entities. While a sop, this method of proceeding creates further inconsistencies within the meta-setting.

I would like to have individual(s) responsible for the decision to lower the CR of the demon princes step forward and demonstrate the courage of their convictions, even if they can offer no rebuttal worthy of the name.  Who decided that the CRs should be lowered?


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2006)

Dear D&D mythology,

Please accept our apologies for harming you. Have a beer on us.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 8, 2006)

hong, if you're collecting them, take a laugh point.


----------



## James Jacobs (Jun 8, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I would like to have individual(s) responsible for the decision to lower the CR of the demon princes step forward and demonstrate the courage of their convictions, even if they can offer no rebuttal worthy of the name.  Who decided that the CRs should be lowered?




I already have on one of these threads. The Demon Lord chapter was my chapter, although my original concept was that the CR 20-23 demon lords should represent manifestations of the demon lords when they aren't on their home planes in their lairs. Somewhere along the way, that concept ended up not being stated explicitly in the book.

In any event, I feel that on these many threads I've explained the reasoning behind setting the demon lords at the minimum of what their CR scores should be, since it's easier to advance creatures from a baseline. Also, as clearly evidenced by these threads, everyone has a different idea as to how powerful a demon lord should be. Clearly, the majority of D&D fans think their power should be higher than CR 20-23. For what it's worth, I agree, which is why I've been (and shall continue to) write the Demonomicon articles for _Dragon_.

Had there been more room in the book (my only real complaint; it should have been as big as _Draconomicon_) it would have been great to do two stat blocks for the demon lords; one at CR 20 or so, and one at CR 30 or so. Alas, there was no room. So those CR 30 demon lords (along with vastly expanded flavor text for them) will have to continue appearing in _Dragon_ at the rate of every few months.

I'm sorry you (and many others) were disapointed with the direction we took with the demon lord stat blocks, and I'm not sure I can explain the decision any more clearly than this. In any event, the lower stat blocks take up a relatively small portion of the book, so even if you choose to go with tougher demon lords (or as many prefer, without assigning them stats at all) the vast majority of the book is still perfectly usable.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 8, 2006)

James!  Give me some Demodragon love in Dragon.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jun 8, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I already have on one of these threads. The Demon Lord chapter was my chapter, although my original concept was that the CR 20-23 demon lords should represent manifestations of the demon lords when they aren't on their home planes in their lairs. Somewhere along the way, that concept ended up not being stated explicitly in the book.
> 
> In any event, I feel that on these many threads I've explained the reasoning behind setting the demon lords at the minimum of what their CR scores should be, since it's easier to advance creatures from a baseline. Also, as clearly evidenced by these threads, everyone has a different idea as to how powerful a demon lord should be. Clearly, the majority of D&D fans think their power should be higher than CR 20-23. For what it's worth, I agree, which is why I've been (and shall continue to) write the Demonomicon articles for _Dragon_.
> 
> ...




My apologies as I somehow missed the mea culpa earlier.  I appreciate the forthright declaration even if my mind still boggles.  And, of course, the faux pas only effects the demon lords chapter (which is saying something by itself nonetheless) and the rest of the book remains unaffected.  Out of respect for those Demonomicon articles, I can't think of much else there is to say other than "go forth and sin no more."  ::shakes head::


----------



## BOZ (Jun 9, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> James!  Give me some Demodragon love in Dragon.




James clearly has influence on Dragon, but i don't know how much real control he has over it.  

maybe you could ask him to put Demodragon in Dungeon, the way Warduke has.


----------



## sckeener (Jun 9, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I'm sorry you (and many others) were disapointed with the direction we took with the demon lord stat blocks




James,


I will only be disappointed if the articles in Dragon stop.  

As a side note, I'd also like to see some cross pollination and have some minor Demon Lord described in detail in a Dungeon Adventure.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 9, 2006)

If the could somehow be some stuff on Dukes of Hell and such, that would be cool.  I know it wouldn't be a Demonomicon at that point though.


----------



## BOZ (Jun 10, 2006)

we'll see whether or not such a thing is even needed after FC2 comes out!

can you wait 6 more months?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 10, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> we'll see whether or not such a thing is even needed after FC2 comes out!
> 
> can you wait 6 more months?



 I think there is a high probability that people who want to see the reasonably CR-ed dukes of Hell (with on their home plane stats like we see in the awesome Demonomicon articles) will still be waiting after FC2.  That said, it is possible that WotC will surprise me and allow the higher CRs, but methinks that the high sales from FC1 that should be attributed to the authors' excellent excellent work _despite_ the demon lord CRs may be attributed to success _because_ of the CRs, with us messageboard folks as outliers.  That said, as long as WotC is convinced that FC2 is a must-print book, I'll still be happy


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jun 11, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> maybe you could ask him to put Demodragon in Dungeon, the way Warduke has.




Personally, I think Demodragon was just Venger transmorgrifying Demogorgon with two dragons.  

Heh, Toon Disney should have that episode on in maybe a few months.  ;-)


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jun 11, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think there is a high probability that people who want to see the reasonably CR-ed dukes of Hell (with on their home plane stats like we see in the awesome Demonomicon articles) will still be waiting after FC2.  That said, it is possible that WotC will surprise me and allow the higher CRs, but methinks that the high sales from FC1 that should be attributed to the authors' excellent excellent work _despite_ the demon lord CRs may be attributed to success _because_ of the CRs, with us messageboard folks as outliers.  That said, as long as WotC is convinced that FC2 is a must-print book, I'll still be happy




I would agree with this, and will add my hopes for a FC3 - featuring Yugoloths, (gelreths and night hags as minor chapters) I will buy the this one, take a careful look at the 2nd, and send more requests for the third.


----------



## Shade (Jun 12, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think there is a high probability that people who want to see the reasonably CR-ed dukes of Hell (with on their home plane stats like we see in the awesome Demonomicon articles) will still be waiting after FC2.  That said, it is possible that WotC will surprise me and allow the higher CRs, but methinks that the high sales from FC1 that should be attributed to the authors' excellent excellent work _despite_ the demon lord CRs may be attributed to success _because_ of the CRs, with us messageboard folks as outliers.  That said, as long as WotC is convinced that FC2 is a must-print book, I'll still be happy




Keep in mind that FC2 is probably already finished, so most likely it will use the same format.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 12, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that FC2 is probably already finished, so most likely it will use the same format.



 Yup, that's what I figure.  And even if it wasn't already finished, I'd think they would stick to the same format either for consistency's sake or because a few ENWorlders aren't enough to change the minds of those behind the curtains, even if Erik and James have been quite gracious in listening to all our comments here.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 12, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I'd think they would stick to the same format




Since different teams wrote the two books, that assumes there was some sort of editorial oversight demanding consistency. I don't know if that's a valid assumption.

You can't make Bel weaker than a pit fiend the way you can make Juiblex weaker than a balor (arguing that he's not going to face anything tougher than an alkilith), so there's definitely going to be a narrower range if they insist on making Asmodeus CR 23. Put Glasya and Martinet into the equation (at minimum), as well as paeliryons, and I think they're going to have to set the bar higher.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 12, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Since different teams wrote the two books, that assumes there was some sort of editorial oversight demanding consistency. I don't know if that's a valid assumption.
> 
> You can't make Bel weaker than a pit fiend the way you can make Juiblex weaker than a balor (arguing that he's not going to face anything tougher than an alkilith), so there's definitely going to be a narrower range if they insist on making Asmodeus CR 23. Put Glasya and Martinet into the equation (at minimum), as well as paeliryons, and I think they're going to have to set the bar higher.



 I think the idea is to claim that the stats in the book represent an off-the-plane version of the entity involved though.  James has been kind enough to tell us that several times for the demon lords.

That said--you needn't argue with me that the CR is too weak to make any sense, particularly with Baator.  I'm on your side (You may have seen my Juiblex vs Balor / Marilith analysis earlier upthread).

As for the different teams, we know that James likes to write the CRs higher for the demonomicon articles higher than the ones in FC1, so it would seem that the decision for the CRs came from a level higher.  Admittedly, it is true that it is possible that the higher level is not involved with FC2, but I'd doubt it.  WotC is nothing if not consistent when they decide on new policies (like the new PrC format with the extra tidbits).


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 12, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> As for the different teams, we know that James likes to write the CRs higher for the demonomicon articles higher than the ones in FC1, so it would seem that the decision for the CRs came from a level higher.  Admittedly, it is true that it is possible that the higher level is not involved with FC2, but I'd doubt it.  WotC is nothing if not consistent when they decide on new policies (like the new PrC format with the extra tidbits).




It seems that the "aspects" idea was James' and Erik's idea, and the editors took it out. 

To be clear, you _really_ think they're going to make Bel the Pit Fiend weaker than a pit fiend?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 12, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It seems that the "aspects" idea was James' and Erik's idea, and the editors took it out.
> 
> To be clear, you _really_ think they're going to make Bel the Pit Fiend weaker than a pit fiend?



 Did they really take that out completely?  I thought they just imply it now instead of flat-out telling you.  Either way, I think they will probably keep the Lords of the Nine in the same range as the Demon Lords, 19-23.  Since there aren't any Lords of the Nine who are quite as low on the totem pole as Juiblex is among Demon Lords, they will probably err on the 21-23 side, with nothing at 19.  Thus, Bel won't be weaker than a pit fiend, but he won't be enough stronger to make sense.

Now they could surprise me in a happy way and switch to Demonomicon CRs, and they might also surprise me in a gut-wrenchingly terrible way by making Bel CR 19 and flat-out stating that these are the real Lords of the Nine, not manifestations, but I doubt it.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 12, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Did they really take that out completely?  I thought they just imply it now instead of flat-out telling you.




I thought it was taken out completely, but I'll have to see the book to say for sure.



> they will probably err on the 21-23 side, with nothing at 19.




That's possible. If they assume that Bel doesn't have any stronger-than-pit fiend followers (so Amducius and Malphas are gone), that Martinet (and other diabolic nobles) is as strong or stronger than Bel, and that Glasya is just a glorified erinyes, they might be able to cram everything into that range.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 12, 2006)

> I thought it was taken out completely, but I'll have to see the book to say for sure.




I'm hoping it is still there.  Clearly the clause is at least present in the backs of the minds of the designers, even if the editor took it out in an unusual move.  If we're lucky, it may even be addressed specifically eventually.



> That's possible. If they assume that Bel doesn't have any stronger-than-pit fiend followers (so Amducius and Malphas are gone), that Martinet (and other diabolic nobles) is as strong or stronger than Bel, and that Glasya is just a glorified erinyes, they might be able to cram everything into that range.




I think, considering the Demon Lords, that they would be willing to do so.  But they don't have to worry about balors because everyone hates balors for being too lawful, right?


----------



## bowbe (Jun 23, 2006)

It's all about the mini's hahahahah!


----------



## glass (Jun 23, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> In any event, I feel that on these many threads I've explained the reasoning behind setting the demon lords at the minimum of what their CR scores should be, since it's easier to advance creatures from a baseline. Also, as clearly evidenced by these threads, everyone has a different idea as to how powerful a demon lord should be. Clearly, the majority of D&D fans think their power should be higher than CR 20-23. For what it's worth, I agree, which is why I've been (and shall continue to) write the Demonomicon articles for _Dragon_.



Sorry to keep harping on this, but I've been wanting to ask a question for a while and since the issue has been brought up again...

The rationale for the lower CR demon lords is that at the lower CRs they can be used as a climatic encounter for a standard (20 level) game, correct? What do you say to the comment that CR19 or 20 encounters are not suitable climaxes to a campaign, but walkovers for 20th level characters?

If this has been adressed, my apologies, but I haven't seen it. Anyway, keep up the good work with the Demonomicon articles!


glass.


----------



## GQuail (Jun 23, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Sorry to keep harping on this, but I've been wanting to ask a question for a while and since the issue has been brought up again...
> 
> The rationale for the lower CR demon lords is that at the lower CRs they can be used as a climatic encounter for a standard (20 level) game, correct? What do you say to the comment that CR19 or 20 encounters are not suitable climaxes to a campaign, but walkovers for 20th level characters?




There's some logic to that: though of course, the demon lords aren't all sitting at 19 or 20, only the weaker ones.  Still, a CR 20 encounter for a 20th elvel group is average, not epic-end-of-years-play.

I personally would be unlikely to use a Demon Lord in single encounter, and the book does mention some of their higher level lieutenants: So that could easilly kick the EL of the encounter up a few notches until it felt more like a "final encounter" than a "Oh, look, a big thing with wings, I wonder what gear it's carrying?" The start of the archfiends section does explicitly say "these villains are not expected to be caught alone ina  random dungeon, but in their lairs with back-up".


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 23, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> The start of the archfiends section does explicitly say "these villains are not expected to be caught alone ina  random dungeon, but in their lairs with back-up".



You know that is one of the lines in the book that annoys me.  There are a few more.  While on here the authors say that these write ups were meant to be Prime Material versions of the entities in question.  Nowhere in the book does it even come close to making that clear.  Instead we have quotes throughout the book along the lines of the one above.

Makes me think that those are home plane stats from the way it reads.

Edit: Now you combine that line with one from the very first paragraph from the book that says something to the lines of _from this day forward this will be the definitive sorce on demons_ it sound like they reconned them to the lower CRs.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jun 23, 2006)

A campaign could have a human king statted as a third level aristocrat- his champion might be a 10th level fighter, and he might have a 7th level wizard as an advisor.  This wouldn't be totally impossible.  

Granted, it requires some suspension of disbelief to imagine an analogous situation in the abyss or the hells (where someone better placed in the hierarchy is weaker than a subordinate) but it is conceivable.

It seems that a CR 20 encounter is better as the climax to a 14th level campaign than a 20th level campaign.  As noted previously, a CR 20 encounter should be routine for a 20th level party.

I suppose adding sufficient backup would make it more challenging, but I think the final encounter of a level 20 adventure should involve a significantly higher CR monster.  Not a CR 21 monster with some goons.


----------



## GQuail (Jun 23, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I think the final encounter of a level 20 adventure should involve a significantly higher CR monster.  Not a CR 21 monster with some goons.




It's a matter of DM tastes, I guess.  I play with a large group (8 players) and in play I often find a single tough monster there to be far more swingy than a group of monsters: so I'd rather have a CR 21 beastie with six CR 18 bodyguards than a single CR 24 as a 20th level finale.

For me, a big dude + backup is easy enough to convert into an appropriate final encounter: storming the throneroom of Orcus and having to carve your way through his elite guard while he stands on his throne hurling spells at you, or dealing with Pazuzu and his cronies divebombing you as you try to escape to the portal with your stolen artifact.

But it's a matter of preference, of course: those who wish a single big nasty demon prince to go on a rampage vs their party could advance them to suit.


----------



## GQuail (Jun 23, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> While on here the authors say that these write ups were meant to be Prime Material versions of the entities in question.  Nowhere in the book does it even come close to making that clear.  Instead we have quotes throughout the book along the lines of the one above.
> 
> Makes me think that those are home plane stats from the way it reads.




It was made clear in the first few pages of this thread that the book is /supposed/ to say this, but doesn't: that it was written by Erik & James, but at some point down the editing line it got cut.  Which is a shame, since this one line would have prevented most of this thread, I'll wager.  :-(  In it's absence, the best you can do is use the book on the understanding that it's supposed to say that.



			
				JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Now you combine that line with one from the very first paragraph from the book that says something to the lines of _from this day forward this will be the definitive sorce on demons_ it sound like they reconned them to the lower CRs.




Basically, it says that this book is going to be the source that all other fiendish topics will refer to: so if a new Dragon article or published adventure or whatever refers to Orcus, this is where it will direct you to go.   That's not an unreasonable thing to say: what would the point be in a sourcebook on a topic otherwise?


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 23, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> A campaign could have a human king statted as a third level aristocrat- his champion might be a 10th level fighter, and he might have a 7th level wizard as an advisor.  This wouldn't be totally impossible.
> 
> Granted, it requires some suspension of disbelief to imagine an analogous situation in the abyss or the hells (where someone better placed in the hierarchy is weaker than a subordinate) but it is conceivable.



While I think it would be conceivable in Hell, I don't think it would in the Abyss.  Hell is ruled by law.  In the Abyss, without the rule of law, I just don't see weaker being ruling greater ones.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 23, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> It was made clear in the first few pages of this thread that the book is /supposed/ to say this, but doesn't: that it was written by Erik & James, but at some point down the editing line it got cut.  Which is a shame, since this one line would have prevented most of this thread, I'll wager.  :-(  In it's absence, the best you can do is use the book on the understanding that it's supposed to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, it says that this book is going to be the source that all other fiendish topics will refer to: so if a new Dragon article or published adventure or whatever refers to Orcus, this is where it will direct you to go.   That's not an unreasonable thing to say: what would the point be in a sourcebook on a topic otherwise?



Maybe it was "supposed" to say that.  And I believe Erik wrote it.  But for whatever reason it was removed.  Now the book reads that these guys are almost always encountered on their layers, by the way here are their stats, oh and this is the source we will base all future WotC books on.  

Edit: You can feel free to edit them, but these are the official versions.

I know alot of people don't see the problem with "offical" but the thing that buggs someone like me is that I want things to be plausable.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 23, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> While I think it would be conceivable in Hell, I don't think it would in the Abyss.  Hell is ruled by law.  In the Abyss, without the rule of law, I just don't see weaker being ruling greater ones.




I can see it happening very rarely, when a very clever and charismatic demon controls a stupid-but-powerful demon (as is the case with V'aughrosfl), but shouldn't be the _norm_ in the Abyss. Maybe Graz'zt is less powerful than some of his minions, like the big goristro, but Demogorgon and Orcus rule by might as well as intelligence.

It would be very disappointing and profoundly unlikely if _every_ demon lord was a fraud, which is what people are really arguing here. A 7th level human wizard serves his 1st level aristocrat monarch because he respects the rule of law or because the other citizens in the nation do - there are established procedures for inheritance, and even if the wizard were to kill the aristocrat he wouldn't inherit the throne. But in the Abyss, there are no such procedures, and the only options are force or trickery.

And it wasn't the intention of the authors of _Hordes of the Abyss_ that they be frauds or weaker than their minions in any way.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 23, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Maybe it was "supposed" to say that.  And I believe Erik wrote it.  But for whatever reason it was removed.  Now the book reads that these guys are almost always encountered on their layers, by the way here are their stats, oh and this is the source we will base all future WotC books on.
> 
> Edit: You can feel free to edit them, but these are the official versions.
> 
> I know alot of people don't see the problem with "offical" but the thing that buggs someone like me is that I want things to be plausable.




To be clear, I wrote Chapter 5 and the first two appendices. Other than treating the stats in FC1 as powerful avatars in my own campaign, I have no dog in this particular hunt.

All I can say is that there is plenty of other dicussion fodder in the book besides this issue, which I think has been pretty well covered in the previous dozen or so pages of this thread. 

--Erik


----------



## Shade (Jun 23, 2006)

Here's a discussion topic.    

How about a pronunciation guide for the new stuff within?   Earlier in one of these threads you confirmed OH-ber-iths and loo-MAR-uhs.  

How do the authors pronounce...
Dybbuk
Ekolid
Guecubu
Sibriex
?

This should help alleviate the "sounds like cow/sounds like row" arguments years from now.


----------



## JustaPlayer (Jun 23, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> To be clear, I wrote Chapter 5 and the first two appendices. Other than treating the stats in FC1 as powerful avatars in my own campaign, I have no dog in this particular hunt.
> 
> All I can say is that there is plenty of other dicussion fodder in the book besides this issue, which I think has been pretty well covered in the previous dozen or so pages of this thread.
> 
> --Erik



Erik, I just want to be clear that I think you had everything written like you say.  I just think said lines were removed because someone over your head said something along the lines of.... Well, they can't be just earthly representations of them because that won't feel as "Epic" as defeating the real thing.  And thus they removed your lines.  I love the way they are turning out in _Dragon_ for sure though.


----------



## johnnype (Jun 23, 2006)

I know Fiendish Codex II is probably going to print by now but it would be nice if they "fixed" the CR issue given the fact that we will NOT see alternate stats in Dragon magazine for a very long time (if ever). The Demonimicon articles cover demons not devils. It would also be nice to have just one book with wimpy stats instead of two (or three if they go ahead with Codex III).

Just my two cents.


----------



## James Jacobs (Jun 24, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> How do the authors pronounce...



I say:

Dybbuk: DI-book (short 'I', like in "fin" or "shin", this is based on a real-world mythological creature from Hebrew/Jewish tradition, so it's already got a pronounciation out there)

Ekolid: EK-o-lid (this one I made up, and that's how I say it; rhymes with "Heck-oh-lid")

Sibriex: SIB-ree-ex (I made this one up too. Rhymes with RIB-glee-hex)

Guecubu: This one's the tricky one. Like the Dybbuk, this monster's based on a real-world mythological monster (they're evil spirits from Chili). I found its pronounciation online at one point while I was writing it up, and it's fun to say. Alas, I can't find it today. The first syllable starts in the back of your throat, like you're about to spit. The "G" is a soft sound.  I guess the best way to write it down would be: 

WHE-koo-boo


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 24, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Erik, I just want to be clear that I think you had everything written like you say.  I just think said lines were removed because someone over your head said something along the lines of.... Well, they can't be just earthly representations of them because that won't feel as "Epic" as defeating the real thing.  And thus they removed your lines.  I love the way they are turning out in _Dragon_ for sure though.




I don't want to sound like I'm belaboring a point, here, but I did not write the section on the demon lords, so the line in question was not written by me. My stuff had nothing to do with aspects or avatars or what have you.

Not sure why it's important to me to make this clear, but there you have it.

--Erik

PS: Thanks for the kind words on Dragon!


----------



## BOZ (Jun 24, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Sorry to keep harping on this




it would be too much to let sleeping dogs lie, would it?


----------



## glass (Jun 24, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> it would be too much to let sleeping dogs lie, would it?



I let the dogs lie while they were sleeping, but since they had been woken again anyway, I asked the question that had been bugging me.


glass.


----------



## Shade (Jun 26, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> I say:
> 
> Dybbuk: DI-book (short 'I', like in "fin" or "shin", this is based on a real-world mythological creature from Hebrew/Jewish tradition, so it's already got a pronounciation out there)
> 
> ...




Thanks!  I was _waaay _ off on dybbuk.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 30, 2006)

*settles for mispronouncations* But thanks anyway James. 

*waits for FC II now...and the announcement of FC III*


----------

