# Demon Lords and Princes: How *Bad* Should They Be?



## Sepulchrave II (May 29, 2006)

In this thread a heated debate is raging about the CRs of the demon lords and princes as they appear in the forthcoming _Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss_. All other aspects of the new book have been ignored in light of the revelation that the CRs will be modest - in the 20-24 range.

These are among our favourite BBEGs, so it's only natural that passions run high on this subject.

I'm curious to know whether the market research conducted by WotC in this area reflects the thoughts and feelings of those of us at ENWorld (or at least those of us who are vocal and passionate about demons), or whether they really did drop the ball on this one - we represent a sizeable chunk of the community, after all.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 29, 2006)

I like how it has been done. 

However I think that if the game is build with twenty levels baseline it should stick to that baseline and be build around it. That means some other stuff should propably be lower level than it is (certain mages called elminster, ancient wyrms, balor/pit fiend).

It would also have been good if it was said the stats given where for out of lair demons and some rules/fluff had been given to draw the demon lords out and permanently banish them instead of just going "here's some stats, have fun", I guess low page count does this.

But in general I think the game should be build that it ends at 20th level (or else the base classes should have gone up to 25 level a la AE) and at that point a party should be able to beat a demon prince.


----------



## hong (May 29, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> I like how it has been done.
> 
> However I think that if the game is build with twenty levels baseline it should stick to that baseline and be build around it. That means some other stuff should propably be lower level than it is (certain mages called elminster, ancient wyrms, balor/pit fiend).
> 
> ...



 Ditto. For me the game falls apart mechanically past 20th level anyway, so that's a good endpoint to aim for.


----------



## Sammael (May 29, 2006)

I don't think that we represent a sizeable chunk of the community. But I also don't believe that WotC did any market research whatsoever regarding this topic. They worked under a set of presumptions set by the developers - which apparently differ from the writers' own presumptions (since James had more freedom in setting demon lords' CRs for the Demonomicon articles and decided to make them higher, we can guess that the lowered CRs were prescribed "from above").

As for me, I would prefer absolutely statless demon lords, with statted CR 20+ avatars. It this were not an option, my second preference would be to make their stats realistically reflect their status as incredibly powerful planar rulers, on par with the gods. This would mean Dicefreaks-style epic stats (CR 70 Orcus, CR 78 Demogorgon, etc.).


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

IMC:
CR 25-30+
lords: dr 0
princes/queens: dr 1+
avatars: cr 20+

I only ran one game over level 20, and then barely (22-23). I don't forsee the players challenging the true princes directly any time in the near future, though facing an avatar is possible.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> I don't think that we represent a sizeable chunk of the cummunity. But I also don't believe that WotC did any market research whatsoever regarding this topic.




They did a lot of market research on what levels people play their games at.


----------



## Sammael (May 29, 2006)

This is irrelevant. I haven't played in an epic game yet and I don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20. Neither do my players. What matters to us the most is verisimilitude.


----------



## Odhanan (May 29, 2006)

What a DM can do is just consider these stats in the FC to be for "Greater Aspects" instead of the "real thing", which would be unkillable unless under very specific conditions, such as a quest, as justified by the Lord's background. That's what I intend to do.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. I haven't played in an epic game yet and I don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20. Neither do my players.




To me it's not the question if people play epic level, but if people think the existance of epic levels should be part of the games core assumptions.

To me it shouldn't. Core assumption should be that the maximum level is the maximum amount of power a mortal can reach.

From then it's the question if a mortal should be able to stop a demon prince and I think the answer should be yes (would be awefully depressing otherwise and canon has enough examples of demon lord imprisoned by powerfull mages).

Epic level is an added option for those that really want it, but with that they move out of the games core assumptions.


----------



## Sammael (May 29, 2006)

Epic levels are a built-in core assumption for most settings (Greyhawk and FR being the most prominent) and have always been there (albeit they weren't called "epic" or another fancy name). Even Eberron has epic-level Lords of Dust (see recent Dragon magazine) despite its overall lower-level NPCs. Now, if three core worlds support epic play, I think that we can safely say the epic play is not really optional (as far as official materials go).

DMs are, of course, free to set the cap as low (or as high) as they desire. I am in favor of natural caps - keep playing as long as the game is fun.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. I haven't played in an epic game yet and I don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20. Neither do my players. What matters to us the most is verisimilitude.




If you never play epic games, but don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20, the stats are irrelevant to you. They provided stats that people who want stats will actually use.

Of course, we've been over this ground before. This discussion has been had in the other thread and probably not what Sep was after when he started this thread. Repeating the same point here isn't going to provide any deeper insight.


----------



## Sammael (May 29, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> If you never play epic games, but don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20, the stats are irrelevant to you.



Uh... I didn't say that I'm not going to play epic in the future. May I, mister Psion, ser?



> They provided stats that people who want stats will actually use.



This poll is trying to determine what type of stats, if any, people really want. For instance, you'll note that I want CR 20+ stats for *avatars*, and would find them useful.

EDIT: And this is my last comment for a while, I promise. It was *just as easy* to write that the CR 20-25 demon lord stats are those of their avatars, and then include a footnote that states "if your games are non-epic, feel free to use these stats as those of actual demon lords instead of their avatars." Instead, designers and developers opted to turn the Multiverse on its head and present these stats as actual demon lord stats.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (May 29, 2006)

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of people who haven't posted to the other thread, as well.   

I tried to post a poll, but unfortunately my attempts to craft it without bias took too long and it timed out on me. (If any mods feel like adding one, the options were: 1) Statless uber-evils; 2)CR 50+, a la Dicefreaks; 3)CR 35-50, tougher than Demonomicon or BoVD; 4)CR 25-35, Demonomicon and BoVD got it about right; 5)CR 20-25, the new stats in _Fiendish Codex I_).

An interesting point raised by Gold Roger and Sammael - should epic levels be a core assumption? They're in the SRD, after all.

As an aside, I thought that Eberron shied away from epic-level stuff ("lords of dust?"). Will there be an inevitable power creep in that campaign world, I wonder?


----------



## smootrk (May 29, 2006)

I havn't seen the material, but scalable seems to be the best approach in my mind.  Allows for folks to use them when & however they like, according to their tastes.


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Uh... I didn't say that I'm not going to play epic in the future. May I, mister Psion, ser?




That "you" was a heap "you". If it help, replace the word "someone". I was making no assertion about what you do beyond what you tell me, and wasn't guessing what you will do.



> This poll is trying to determine what type of stats, if any, people really want. For instance, you'll note that I want CR 20+ stats for *avatars*, and would find them useful.




Fair enough, but I wasn't responding to your post about what levels you run things. I was responding to you telling me that it's irrelevant that they researched the levels people play out. I was explaining why it's not irrelevant.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (May 29, 2006)

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> These are among our favourite BBEGs, so it's only natural that passions run high on this subject.




Mmm.


----------



## Tsillanabor (May 29, 2006)

For the first time in over 20 years of playing I feel that the game can support epic-level play. For that reason I want Demon Lords at a high CR-35-50 range, with manifestations at about the BoVD range.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Epic levels are a built-in core assumption for most settings (Greyhawk and FR being the most prominent) and have always been there (albeit they weren't called "epic" or another fancy name). Even Eberron has epic-level Lords of Dust (see recent Dragon magazine) despite its overall lower-level NPCs. Now, if three core worlds support epic play, I think that we can safely say the epic play is not really optional (as far as official materials go).
> 
> DMs are, of course, free to set the cap as low (or as high) as they desire. I am in favor of natural caps - keep playing as long as the game is fun.




Greyhawk is, outside of piazo's magazines perhaps, which, while officaial, don't define the baselines or core assumptions of the game, a dead setting, in the sense that it no longer baseline for the standarts of D&D. 

FR has always been the high power setting, with 3rd edition more than ever. You'll find an awfull lot of people that agree that NPC's such as Elminster are cheesy for them and it's also notable that all those PC's and their role in the world would still work where they level 17-20. Netheril would really be the only thing that wouldn't work without epic rules and that only because epic rules, in part, have been made to accomodate it. It's also hard to deny that FR is in any way still the base setting for D&D.

For the Lords of Dust, well, they are again from dragon, not wotc. And the Delkyr are all CR 20+. Not exactly right to accomodate epic levels, but just right to be the "final monster" to a campaign that ends at lvl 20. You could say that written up epic challenges for eberron doesn't exactly proves that eberron supports epic level play, but instead epic level play in it has to be supported from an outside source to even be viable.


Of course, I never even denied that epic level play  currently is part of the core assumptions, just that it shouldn't be. With the advent of 3rd edition D&D was to be build in a modular way that is founded on one set of core assumptions found in the core rulebooks.

That these core assumptions could be broken up by the existance of an epic ruleset outside of the core rules that now has to be taken into consideration with every new release defeats that whole concept to me.


As a small aside, looking over the whole of my planescape collection about everything caps around level 20. Oh, and while I'm not exactly a grandmaster of evaluating 2nd ed power levels and they where certainly controversial in their time as well, the stats of Grazzt and Pazurael seem about right for a 20th level party as well. Since this is a discussion relating to the same subjects planescape took on and you brought up setting I thought it worth mentioning.


----------



## paradox42 (May 29, 2006)

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of people who haven't posted to the other thread, as well.



I stayed out of that one when it became clear where the argument was headed and that it was getting ugly. Besides, several other posters were already echoing my thoughts, so no need to post.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> I tried to post a poll, but unfortunately my attempts to craft it without bias took too long and it timed out on me. (If any mods feel like adding one, the options were: 1) Statless uber-evils; 2)CR 50+, a la Dicefreaks; 3)CR 35-50, tougher than Demonomicon or BoVD; 4)CR 25-35, Demonomicon and BoVD got it about right; 5)CR 20-25, the new stats in _Fiendish Codex I_).



I was wondering why you didn't do that! It seemed an obvious thing to do with the thread title. Mods, please do consider adding a poll to this discussion. For the record, I'd vote option 2. Wimpy CR 20-25 stats are just about useless to me already; IMO even the high avatars should be the entities given in BoVD. These beings control whole planes, CRs below 25 just aren't credible.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> An interesting point raised by Gold Roger and Sammael - should epic levels be a core assumption? They're in the SRD, after all.



Seperate poll!  My answer is, "Yes, they should." People who don't want the game to go that high don't have to play that high. In fact, plenty of people end their games before level 15 now, even with the "core assumption" being a game ending at 20. So there's no rational reason not to just assume Epic rules are core and go with it, now that the rules actually do exist (and as Sep pointed out, are even in the SRD). Keeping them separate is really just a holdover from the days in 3.0 before the ELH existed.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> As an aside, I thought that Eberron shied away from epic-level stuff ("lords of dust?"). Will there be an inevitable power creep in that campaign world, I wonder?



Most likely- eventually. Give it a few years, and potentially wait for more novels and a putative 4th Edition of the game, and I think you'll see Eberron develop higher-level NPCs in its metaplot and world assumptions. It's a young world, give it time to grow.


----------



## GreyShadow (May 29, 2006)

I'd want my Demon Lords to be able to take out 4 Balors without breaking a sweat. A second lot of 4 straight after the first battle to be not quite so one sided, but still a win for the Demon Lord.

Where does that put them in the CR range? I don't know.


----------



## NexH (May 29, 2006)

I think it depends on the cosmology of the campaign: 

If you think each world has its own cosmology (IIRC this is the assumption in the Manual of the Planes), then the stats don't matter much since you can just say those are for an alternative cosmology.
If you have a myriad of different worlds sharing the same cosmology (Lords of Madness is the only 3rd edition product that I remember has this campaign view) then higher level stats for the demon lords are much more adequate to justify their continued existence.

I prefer demond lords capable of fighting gods, in the Dicefreaks's range.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2006)

GreyShadow said:
			
		

> I'd want my Demon Lords to be able to take out 4 Balors without breaking a sweat. A second lot of 4 straight after the first battle to be not quite so one sided, but still a win for the Demon Lord.




Yeah. IMHO the yardstick should be two fully-advanced Balors, plus two Mariliths, plus an army of lesser demons.

Alternately, two fully advanced Solars, plus related Celestials.

 -- N


----------



## delericho (May 29, 2006)

I felt the BoVD stats were about right. I also think that, having established that sort of power level as precedent, they should have stuck to it.

That said, stats for _anything_ above CR 25 or so are useless to me. If it cannot be reasonably faced by a group of 20th level PCs, I'll never use it.


----------



## Matafuego (May 29, 2006)

I'd vote option 2 as well.
I love what Dicefreaks did with Gates of Hell (I'd say it's one hell of a book but I fear the booing coming straight at me for the awful pun...) and I say that someone described as "being undisputed supreme ruler of hell, opposing the actions of powerful celestials and good-aligned deities" can't be anything short than CR 50+...


----------



## Shemeska (May 29, 2006)

CR 25-40 avatars, but the archfiends themselves being wholly without stats. 

If they absolutely must have stats, those stats must be equivalent to or situationally better than those of deities. Yugoloths carved Khin-Oin from the spine of a deity they killed, they also forced true deities out of active involvement in the Blood War, Prince Levistus is shrinking the size of Set's deific domain in a protracted war, and Asmodeus forced Gruumsh and Maglubiyet out of Avernus and into Acheron. 

But no... God forbid we make them higher than a CR 2X because then billy and bobby and suzy won't be able to kill them and take their stuff when they have 20th level PCs. God forbid we have stats that match the flavor text and lore. God forbid we have cosmological consistency as any sort of primary design criteria.

Pinning Archfiends at CR 19-22 or so, barely above the level of a Balor, intentionally watering them down so people can kill them easily is sad. If there's no acknowledgement that the stats are in fact intentionally watered down, or that such beings stats at that level don't accurately represent beings who are physical manifestations of their own alignments, who in many cases predate the deities, whose will warps and defines entire infinite stretches of reality, and provide mention of how to handle such rather than just having them as barely above balors with a few hit dice ... then I'm sorry but someone dropped the ball during development or editing and they've set themselves up as a metaphorical fig tree in need of a dose of withering.

When the primary, and widespread, criticism of the BoVD in that it made its archfiends too weak for the position they occupy and what they're defined as, doesn't appear to have even been a major concern, and even more so they went further in that direction, there's a serious disconnect here.

At least the stats don't represent a majority of the book, but just a small portion of it. The remainder of the book should be well written, so I have that as solace, and I still have _Faces of Evil_ when all is said and done.


----------



## The Serge (May 29, 2006)

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> An interesting point raised by Gold Roger and Sammael - should epic levels be a core assumption? They're in the SRD, after all.



Not only are they in the SRD, they're also assumed in the MM since 3.0 and in the DMG since 3.5.  Dragons and solars have always existed beyond the 20 CR realm and the current DMG offers some support for epic rules.

I keep on hearing folks make reference to WotC conducting market research on epic games and their evaluation revealing that there's not enough support for it.  I wonder how broad this research was and, more importantly, if the lack of interest is more based upon a lack of understanding/exposure to epic play and the possibilities therein or (as seems to be the assumption) a genuine lack of interest.  There is _no_ hardcopy support for epic play anywhere save WotC and WotC has done a pretty poor job with their epic line, limiting it to web enhancements and half-hearted attempts in books like BoVD and BoED (and now the FCs).  Aside from a few websites (Dicefreaks, Immortal Handbook, and a few others), there's no one really showing how well epic campaigns can work, now there should be a seamless transition from core to epic to divine rules, and how many different approaches are available.  And, since these websites aren't "official," folks have a tendancy of regarding them as not worthy of attention.

For me (and Dicefreaks by extension), the problem is a lack of cosmological sense with no epic demon princes (not necessarily lords).  Although James Jacobs did a _fantastic_ job on the previously referenced thread describing how this could work even using the anemic stats pending for FCI, I think that the ability to create a smooth transition and offering quality support for this level of game play is possible.  And really, if one assumes that the stats in FCI are for aspects/avatars (which they apparently are not), why not have stats for the aspects and stats for the real thing, thereby supporting both sides of the equation?  This was done (poorly, but nevertheless) with DDG, afterall.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (May 29, 2006)

Hmm, if I leave apart the Forgotten Realms NPCs Level inconsistencies (there is a Dracolich with CR 47 or so somewhere in Toril. He can take on Demogorgon, Grazzt and Orcus without breaking into sweat) I have to think about the Demons in the MMs and the Named Demons.
I mean Orcus rules as much through his cunning as through his power and ability to cow other Demons. This as partly due to his rod but even without his rod he has to have more personal power than most other Demons.
I mean the abyss is endless and has endless resources of Demons. There are a lot of big bad balors around. But so far Grazzt and Orcus are still on their Thrones (or back again).
It is ok for me, if the PCs kill the avatar of a Demonlord. But the real thing should be godlike on his plane and in his lair.
If Dmogorgon is travelling to the prime and the PCs happen to kill his Avatar he will be unable to travel there for 100years or so.
IMO this is a fitting end for a campaign. The PCs killed the Avatar/Aspect and saved the Prime but they and their children and childrens children and ..(you get it) made an enemy of the Demonlord.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 29, 2006)

Thank you Shemmy!  Looks like you said what I felt before I even got the chance.  Though I'm somewhere between you and dicefreaks on the power level thing.  Especially with the cosmic entity template idea that makes them equivalent to or greater than deities.  So I figure they should have stats for in case it comes up they should match the flavor.  Otherwise why don't the gods just wipe them out and take their layer?  Over at Dicefreaks one of their mods showed how using the RAW for it Kurtlemak could b**ch-slap Asmodeus around for eleven rounds then give his spear to a first level kobold and have it kill the Lord of the Nine Hells.  And that just disgusts me as an example of completely ill-thought out design.  It should all be modular but each piece is supposed to actually work in conjunction with all the others.


----------



## Shemeska (May 29, 2006)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Thank you Shemmy!  Looks like you said what I felt before I even got the chance.




I'm more interested in the flavor aspect of it all, much less so the numbers or the tactical aspect of it. Above a certain point, I see no use in overt stats, both because the beings in question can't be accurately defined by the rules at that level, and also because the system itself falls apart into math homework once the sheer amount of numbers come into play. All respect to someone that wants to do that, if that's their thing, but a 6000 HD monster is going to be a nightmare to handle the numbers for. If I'm going to fight things that powerful, I'm going to gloss over stats or not use them at all both because of inability to quantify them and the nightmare of the system overwhelming me with +'s.

Thus, give me avatars that can be honest threats to very powerful PCs. But if a PC wanders into a layer of the Abyss and up to the steps of Pale Night's castle of bone, they shouldn't roll for initiative and fight Pale Night sitting around somewhere. No. Abandon the mundane notions of orcs sitting in 5x10 rooms with a pile of treasure. No. The fabric of reality itself if going to distort around them, they'll be toyed with, and they're going to quickly realize that they're not so much fighting a single being called Pale Night, they're picking a fight with that entire layer of the Abyss itself, molded and defined by the Abyssal Lord in question who for all intents and purposes -is- her layer of the Abyss, not just the biggest monster on that layer. 

How do you fight something that can't be defined, nailed down, or accurately quantified? 

How do you kill a concept?

Use avatars or projections if you want them as big monsters serving as end bosses for typical campaigns, that works out well without twisting around and mangling them. If you want to fight the archfiend themselves, you need to approach it differently than something mundane with just a lot of hit dice, because Dorothy, you're no longer in Kansas.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> How do you fight something that can't be defined, nailed down, or accurately quantified?




How is it fighting me? Grab those parts and nail them to a wall... er, demi-plane.




			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> How do you kill a concept?




If a concept can reach out and personally try to kill me, I reserve the right to kill it right back.

... but the snarky (and therefore correct) answer is: you put out low-quality sequal that ride on the coat tails of the original until you've exhausted your fan base. Then the concept is dead.

 -- N


----------



## WmRAllen67 (May 29, 2006)

Nifft said:
			
		

> If a concept can reach out and personally try to kill me, I reserve the right to kill it right back.
> 
> ... but the snarky (and therefore correct) answer is: you put out low-quality sequal that ride on the coat tails of the original until you've exhausted your fan base. Then the concept is dead.
> 
> -- N




The "Matrix- movie theory" of fighting fiends?

I could work with that, actually-- every time someone defeat the cultists, dismisses the avatar, and generally waekens the fiend's power on the material plane, the CR of the avatars which can appear get lower and harder to summon...

For many spiritual entities IMC I use variable manifestations-- if an spirit is just out to cause trouble, it's generally fairly weak (having effects about the same as a bless/ curse or hallow/ unhallow spell, in general), but if the cultists are calling something up to send after an enemy, then you get something fairly buff...


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Nifft said:
			
		

> If a concept can reach out and personally try to kill me, I reserve the right to kill it right back.



No doubt.

I've always been of the opinion that the Archfiends *should* be killable. They aren't gods (no matter what PS made some of them), they may be powers, but they aren't gods. But then again, I realise that my opinion is not in the majority. 

I was really hoping that FCI wouldn't even have _any_ Archfiend stats as no matter how they were statted out, controversy would result. 

So far, if I were to use a Demon Prince in my game *as an enemy, to be battled and possibly slain* I know that I'd probably use various combinations of published stats. The FCI stats sound perfect for avatar stats. Sepulchrave's methods for buffing Archfiends on their home layers would be used in conjunction with greatly modified BoVD stats. The Tome of Horrors stats are really... not weak, per say, but just boring. The Dicefreaks are so high powered as to be completely useless to me.

Now, that having been said, I'd prefer to have a set of guidelines for buffing Archfiends so that DM's can work with an established baseline (maybe the FCI stats?) and make them as powerful as they want. Now, some may cry 'Boo hoo, that creates a lot of work for me the DM!' but considering that you're thinking of using the stats already, you've already invested lots of time into running these guys. No one is going to agree on how powerful they should be, hell, some don't even WANT stats for them, but for them, it's just easy enough to ignore them, well.... maybe it's not.

Apparently, FCI has some guidelines for buffing the Archfiends, but since I don't have the book, I'm not sure how extensive they are and can't really comment on them now.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 29, 2006)

Flavor has to come first, I agree.  And that how I run things I'm just saying that at a cosmological level there has to be consistency between flavor and stats.  If the flavor says it's a timeless primordial evil older than the gods and is so much a part of its layer that it essentially is the layer that's precisely how it should be said, not throwing out a flavor that speaks of timeless primordial POWER then act like 17-20th level PCs should be able to defeat it.  The entire cosmology should be built to work with each of its parts and not self-contradict.

I find myself more on the statless side than anything else.  But figure that since some people are going to want to run campaigns with characters like unto gods or gods themselves it's only fair to give them a ruleset and stats that adequately handles the whole "battle of eternity" thing.  Dicefreaks are the closest I've seen to that, I probably should get the immortals bestiary just to check it out but maybe later.


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 29, 2006)

This is an aside, but since leveling tends to get exponentially more powerful in D&D, and since WotC has learned how to properly buff up high-level creatures since MM3, it's entirely likely that a "CR 23" monster in this book resembles a CR 25-27 monster from the BoVD, and is in fact quite capable of beating a renegade Balor or two to a pulp.


----------



## Imruphel (May 29, 2006)

GreyShadow said:
			
		

> I'd want my Demon Lords to be able to take out 4 Balors without breaking a sweat. A second lot of 4 straight after the first battle to be not quite so one sided, but still a win for the Demon Lord. (snip)





Well, as the tanar'ri lords aren't immune to fire or to the explosive blast of the dying balor, I suspect it will take more than a bump in CR for a tanar'ri lord to be able to beat the balor quartet.

So, can anyone tell me why tanar'ri are immune to electricity?


----------



## DragonLancer (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. I haven't played in an epic game yet and I don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20.




Thats my view as well. Entities like Demon Princes and Devil Lords, the big bads, shouldn't be easy to defeat not even at 20th level. These creatures should be in the CR25+. They don't need to only be Epic villains if they are statted out properly.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

I'm sort of in Shemeska's camp, although I do believe such things as 'concepts' can be killed.  I believe gods can die, and mythology agrees with me.  I believe cosmic entities such as demon princes can die, and Orcus agrees with me.

To me, Shem summed it up perfectly when she was irked about bobby and suzy killing Asmodeus at 20th level and taking their stuff.  What kind of half arsed crap is that?

If "lower level CRs are needed because they are more useful to the general population of DnD", then why isn't Elminster a 20th level wizard?  Or better still, a 10th level wizard, after all, 15th level parties shouldn't feel bad because he can beat them.  If Demogorgon can't tame one lousy great wyrm, how does he keep hordes of 60HD balors from destroying him?  Or, after FC1 revises his 39HD to 27, how does he keep a couple of angry regular balors from pounding him into paste?  

Now, I can see making a non-unique creature at a variable level.  I can see why CR 70 standard demons aren't going to be very useful, and it would be better to offer ways to advance a CR 20 to that level of power.  I can see that, and accept it.

A unique creature on the other hand, should not be subject to those whims.  If you want CR 20 demons, then you should have AT LEAST CR 30 demon lords.  These are unique creatures.  Singular.  Not monsters, characters.  Elminster and Szass Tam don't have to put up with this rape of their stats, why are planar monsters always subject to it?  And for that matter, why shouldn't 20th level characters be capable of killing Grummsh, Heronious and Mystra?  After all, the 60HD stats they give in DDg and F&P are going to be very little use to most players.

In short, it is foolish.



Now, I work with Dicefreaks (I'm the mod who showed Kurtlemak giving his spear to a 1st level kobold to wack Asmodeus with) and I agree with a high level of power for demon princes and lords.  I also have my own personal thread there where I've done my images of their stats....Demogorgon is 70HD, Asmodeus is 54HD, and you can work your way down from there.  I believe the gods are killable, I believe the cosmic entities are killable, but I sure as hell don't think it should be simple.  Not 20th level simple, and not 30th level simple.  I wish to G-D that the designers of WotC's works could get that through their heads.  But of course they don't need to, when they can just keep pushing the crack and we keep buying it.


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 29, 2006)

It'll be interesting to see how the Nine Hells book handles this, since Asmodeus is a tad bit more powerful than Bel, and Bel is just an advanced Pit Fiend.


----------



## Starman (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> I wish to G-D that the designers of WotC's works could get that through their heads.  But of course they don't need to, when they can just keep pushing the crack and we keep buying it.




Well, they probably would get it through their heads if everyone's opinion was just like yours. As it is, they are trying to make the product useful to as many people as possible. As much as you or others on this thread dislike the thought of Bobby and Susie killing some Demon Lord and taking it's stuff at 20th level, other people do play like that. And who are you to judge how they have their fun? 

For my games, I intend to make the Demon Lords significantly stronger than they are in HotA. But if the stats that they have now make the book appeal to a larger group and they sell more copies, I won't begrudge them that and I will happily look forward to more books that money allows them to put out.


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> I'm sort of in Shemeska's camp, although I do believe such things as 'concepts' can be killed.  I believe gods can die, and mythology agrees with me.  I believe cosmic entities such as demon princes can die, and Orcus agrees with me.



Obviously, not everyone does, hence this whole argument.



> If "lower level CRs are needed because they are more useful to the general population of DnD", then why isn't Elminster a 20th level wizard?



Because Elminster is from FR and the FC book is a generic book. Entirely different worlds there.



> Now, I work with Dicefreaks (I'm the mod who showed Kurtlemak giving his spear to a 1st level kobold to wack Asmodeus with) and I agree with a high level of power for demon princes and lords.  I also have my own personal thread there where I've done my images of their stats....Demogorgon is 70HD, Asmodeus is 54HD, and you can work your way down from there.  I believe the gods are killable, I believe the cosmic entities are killable, but I sure as hell don't think it should be simple.



Now see, I'd be even more disappointed if we got DC style stats for these guys, because they'd be absolutely useless to me. I'm not going to run a long Epic level game because, as written, the Epic Level rules just don't work for me. Give me a sliding scale on making these guys as powerful as I want them to be, don't give me massively powerful stats that I'm never going to use.


----------



## Knight Otu (May 29, 2006)

I think it is a good idea to have the baseline stats be created in a way that the Demon Lords could be challengeable 'in a vacuum*' by a group that has no desire to advance beyond level 20. In theory (according to the DMG), this includes CRs from 20 to 27.
Flavor-wise, a Demon Lord (or any kind of Planar Ruler, really) should have no problems controlling his typical subjects. That may be from pure flavor, including brains ("he is the only thing that unites us against the demons next door"), physical might ("DR or not, I'll squish you puny creature into a bloody pulp"), immunity against his subjects' attacks ("sorry, Mr. Balor, but Juiblex has no head to be vorpalled off"), or a special ability allowing that control (l"ook deep into my eyes"). It should be noted, though, that creatures like balors and mariliths are not necessarily typical subjects, and not every demon lord will have such powerful demons under his control. Those demon lords might actually be weaker than these demons, holding off attacks by their rivals who do in other ways.

* Obviously, they don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in a plane full of demons, several of which are loyal to them. Regardless of whether Demogorgon is CR 30, 23, or 70, in a well-played game, one doesn't simply walk up to him and rolls initiative.


----------



## diaglo (May 29, 2006)

for me at least, a creature that gives other demons nightmares is something to be reckon with...

that said, i don't think they should have stats. i also believe in the sense of d02 they should have divine ranks.


----------



## The Serge (May 29, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> Well, they probably would get it through their heads if everyone's opinion was just like yours. As it is, they are trying to make the product useful to as many people as possible. As much as you or others on this thread dislike the thought of Bobby and Susie killing some Demon Lord and taking it's stuff at 20th level, other people do play like that. And who are you to judge how they have their fun?



What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  By and large, WotC has not made a good faith effort in offering decent support for epic or divine play.  Their attempts have been generally poor.  They have taken one side of the argument by-and-large and have not made their product especially useful to one large segment.  Now, I suppose there could be change coming in that they plan on offering some kind of support for advancing their anemic demon lords and demon princes, but given what we've seen thus far, I'm not certain that this will really offer much...



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Flavor-wise, a Demon Lord (or any kind of Planar Ruler, really) should have no problems controlling his typical subjects. That may be from pure flavor....



Flavor and mechanics should work hand-in-hand.  The mechanics are just as important as the flavor as this is a role-playing game.  I think this is one of the greatest elements in which most gamers miss out.  If this was more of a strict storytelling game, the need for internal balance with Skills, Feats, Classes, and so forth would never plays such a prominent role.  It's the reason why we have Diplomacy and Bluff and Sense Motive checks and define abilities.


----------



## Knight Otu (May 29, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Flavor and mechanics should work hand-in-hand.



Well, yes. That point may have been a bit misnamed. Part of what I meant was basically to use the Lord's mental stats as well as possible - crafting alliances that make him virtually untouchable, making promises to other demons ("follow me, and you'll wreak greater havoc than you could alone"), using his resources to award 'loyal' behaviour - basically everything that a mortal ruler would do as well to stay in power.


----------



## The Serge (May 29, 2006)

At the risk of taking this discussion into an unintended direction, what you're suggesting sounds more like a diabolical or perhaps NE attitude.  The Abyss is about physical power and the ability to use said power to cow lackeys and overcome adversaries in most situations.


----------



## Knight Otu (May 29, 2006)

I never intended those means to be the only ways of control, as you can see in my previous post. Also I tried to view the problem as broad as possible, including other kinds of planar rulers, not just Demon Lords (since those would certainly follow the same design criteria).


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> Well, they probably would get it through their heads if everyone's opinion was just like yours. As it is, they are trying to make the product useful to as many people as possible. As much as you or others on this thread dislike the thought of Bobby and Susie killing some Demon Lord and taking it's stuff at 20th level, other people do play like that. And who are you to judge how they have their fun?
> 
> For my games, I intend to make the Demon Lords significantly stronger than they are in HotA. But if the stats that they have now make the book appeal to a larger group and they sell more copies, I won't begrudge them that and I will happily look forward to more books that money allows them to put out.





I don't judge play styles, and I don't care for you suggesting that I do.  I am judging a design style, catering to a particular play style and not the others.  And from a design perspective, it is stupidity to make a specific NPC weaker so that some people can fight them.  It is a poor, short sighted concept.  I don't mind hack and slashers, I don't mind intensive role play, I don't mind those who stop their campaigns at 20th level and those that extend on to 100th level.  I'm not debating the merits of a singular playstyle.

But if Elminster is 35th level, he's 35th level.  I'm not going to lower him for my campaign because the PCs can't beat him.  I'm not going to raise him for my campaign because the PCs can beat him.  Unless the man gains some levels (and this could be throughout the campaign) he is 35th level.  I'm not obligated to change it around because of different play styles.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> > I'm sort of in Shemeska's camp, although I do believe such things as 'concepts' can be killed. I believe gods can die, and mythology agrees with me. I believe cosmic entities such as demon princes can die, and Orcus agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure that your responding to anything relevant.  Did I suggest that everyone agrees with me?  I was qualifying my support of Shemeska's ideas with my exceptions to those of hers.




> > If "lower level CRs are needed because they are more useful to the general population of DnD", then why isn't Elminster a 20th level wizard?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Right.  Crap excuse number 1.  We have a specific NPC.  That doesn't change if you are in Eberron, Forgotten Realms or regular old DnD.  If you are speaking with an NPC, say the king of some country, does his level change throughout that conversation?  If a 20th level party walks into his castle, and he was only 7th level before, should he jump up to 25th?  Generic DnD, of course.  

The thought that "FC is generic" is not an excuse for poor design concepts.



> > Now, I work with Dicefreaks (I'm the mod who showed Kurtlemak giving his spear to a 1st level kobold to wack Asmodeus with) and I agree with a high level of power for demon princes and lords. I also have my own personal thread there where I've done my images of their stats....Demogorgon is 70HD, Asmodeus is 54HD, and you can work your way down from there. I believe the gods are killable, I believe the cosmic entities are killable, but I sure as hell don't think it should be simple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'll assume you meant DF not DC.  And I'll point out again, these are specifc entities.  Not creatures but CHARACTERS.  They don't deserve to have a drop in power because your campaign wants to beat them at 16th level.  And if you think they do, why don't you hold the same opinion of Zeus?  Thor?  The tarrasque?  When someone can give me a solid reason for a CR 5 tarrasque, I'll listen to reasons for CR 19 demon lords.

I'm not saying you need the stats that DF has.  But I am saying you need to keep a proper scale.  If you have balors, which are powerful, sub-demon lord status, demons at CR 20, it stands to reason that the minimum CR of a demon lord would be CR 21.  As in, more powerful than the typical demons.  In the Abyss however, you have demons that are potentially CR 41.  (60 HD balor)  At double advancement, a marilith is CR 26, a balor is CR 30.  Something is VERY wrong with having demon lords under those levels.  

Again, these are specific NPCs.  The 'needs of your game' don't apply.  Unless you are also petitioning for a Hextor, Tiamat and Hercules that your players can beat too?


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

A demonlord needs to be strong enough to be able to defend the place he is supposed to take in the D&D multiverse.

If Demogorgon is the billions of years old most powerfull ruler in the Abyss, he has to be stronger than puny great gold wyrm who is merely 1,200 years old.


----------



## Telesk (May 29, 2006)

I like to play Bards, in fact, I like to play anemic, anorexic, halfling Bards. By the way, I like to melee in combat and jig dance. Now when I get to 3rd level and can't do sqaut in melee against an Owlbear should the next source book fix this problem?

Or what if I take leaf from the Character Optimization boards and create a character that by level 13 or something can cast epic spells, and deal uber damage? Should the next book published by wizards of the coast make it to where no one can officially do this anymore...the answer IMO is no they should not.

DnD is about custimization of your mechanical stats to fit a concept, the persona of your character or NpC, your "flavor" if you will. The rules should not bend to the morbidly weak nor the strong. The game should find a balance point in the background for Demon Lords, Hellish Generals and the big baddy's of Celestia. What is the balance from 1st edition, 2nd edition, and 3rd edition? Is it near level 20 CR, or is it much farther then that?

Many Demon Lords have RL historical roots, where they went toe to toe with gods. And god's in 3rd edition have estimated CR ranges in the low thirties to the high sixties, and Planar Lords should reflect in their statistics that they have held their thrones from over 3 editions of the game, and countless novels. I support a CR spread range equal to that of the Deity range, qausi-greater god equivalency, and in some cases they should go beyond this.

But on the other hand mortals in fiction and mythology have time and time again beaten back these beings. Some times fighters even do this, though with the class as it is I have a hard time seeing how this is done. But with epic levels, that extra section of the SRD, these feats of legend can happen. The game should better incorperate both facets of the game into a seamless transition from pre-epic to epic.

But this is just my two cents.


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Right.  Crap excuse number 1.  We have a specific NPC.  That doesn't change if you are in Eberron, Forgotten Realms or regular old DnD.



What's to say that the Demon Lord's don't have better stats in FR... oh wait, Champions of Darkness or whatever kinda nuked that idea... Well, never said they didn't screw stuff up...

However, the powerlevel of certain things changes depending upon the campaign. In one campaign, the mortal power level may scale off at around 18th level, while in another it may go as high as 40th. Eberron is a pretty low powered world. Many of the 'high level NPC's' taper off around 20th level (and one of those 20th level folks is a sentient *tree*.)

Then there's FR, with it's multitudes of high level folks running around killing 16th level kobolds. Obviously, the power level is different here. FR also has meddling gods, while Eberron has gods... that don't interfere with the daily lives of mortals. That throws another wrench into the mix.

Obviously, creatures that may not be appropriate power-level wise might fit into Eberron no problem, while creatures that have an appropriate power-level for Eberron may be ridiculously weak.



> I'll assume you meant DF not DC.



Sorry, my bad.



> And I'll point out again, these are specifc entities.  Not creatures but CHARACTERS.  They don't deserve to have a drop in power because your campaign wants to beat them at 16th level.



IF I want them to, they will be beatable at 16th level. It's my campaign. Obviously, not everyone wants that, which is why they have a base level of power with which you can advance them from.



> And if you think they do, why don't you hold the same opinion of Zeus?  Thor?  The tarrasque?



Maybe I do. Have you asked my opinion on them?



> I'm not saying you need the stats that DF has.  But I am saying you need to keep a proper scale.



A proper scale depending upon the campaign. Who's to say that I use the D&D stats? Who's to say that I don't weaken the gods too? Who's to say that I consider level 20 to be the epitome of mortal ability and progress further is impossible?



> If you have balors, which are powerful, sub-demon lord status, demons at CR 20, it stands to reason that the minimum CR of a demon lord would be CR 21.  As in, more powerful than the typical demons.  In the Abyss however, you have demons that are potentially CR 41.  (60 HD balor)  At double advancement, a marilith is CR 26, a balor is CR 30.  Something is VERY wrong with having demon lords under those levels.



Which is why I like the scalable demon lord idea. Scale them to your convenience.



> Unless you are also petitioning for a Hextor, Tiamat and Hercules that your players can beat too?



What's wrong with that?


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> What's to say that the Demon Lord's don't have better stats in FR... oh wait, Champions of Darkness or whatever kinda nuked that idea... Well, never said they didn't screw stuff up...
> 
> However, the powerlevel of certain things changes depending upon the campaign. In one campaign, the mortal power level may scale off at around 18th level, while in another it may go as high as 40th. Eberron is a pretty low powered world. Many of the 'high level NPC's' taper off around 20th level (and one of those 20th level folks is a sentient *tree*.)
> 
> ...




If that is the case, then they should be scalable from CR 1, by your own logic.


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> However, the powerlevel of certain things changes depending upon the campaign.



And that'S why they should balance the powerlevel around the core rule books. And the unique immoral rulers of the plane should be (even if it's just slightly) more powerfull than some overblown mortal lizzards.


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then they should be scalable from CR 1, by your own logic.



Well, there really is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 29, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Part of what I meant was basically to use the Lord's mental stats as well as possible - crafting alliances that make him virtually untouchable, making promises to other demons ("follow me, and you'll wreak greater havoc than you could alone"), using his resources to award 'loyal' behaviour - basically everything that a mortal ruler would do as well to stay in power.




That assumes the lords have better mental stats than any of their followers - which is probably not the case, given the power levels involved here. An _average_ marilith, for example, has 3d6+8 intelligence, or anything from 11 to 26. A marilith with the nonelite array, given intelligence as its highest trait, will have an intelligence of 21. One with the elite array might have an intelligence of 25. That's to say nothing of advanced mariliths, which _do_ exist according to the MM (with those above 48 hit dice said to be very rare, but still not nonexistent).

Even if Baphomet does happen to be smarter than anyone else within range, there's bound to be a time when the lord fails its intelligence check while a minion gets a lucky streak. 

Then the house of cards that the demon lord has built, through wit and fraud, will inevitably collapse.


----------



## Victim (May 29, 2006)

I'd prefer demon lords to be in the CR 24-28 range.  Theoretically beatable by the greatest mortals (I'm not fond of the epic rules), but not likely even without even considering the infrastructure advantages possessed by the demon lord.

I disagree that changing levels to fit play style is stupid.  Basically, power is relative to the environment.  FR's power players are so high level because the other power groups are also arbitrarily that high in level.  It's inflation, and currencies (and levels/CR are basically a currency of raw power) undergoing inflation lose value.  20 FR levels are maybe worth around half that in Eberron levels.  Instead of having 10th level guards, 20th level wizards in every town, 30+ level archmages, and CR 50 fiend lords, you can cut everything down to maintain relative power (the increased rarity of certain types of high level powers maybe actually increase the impact of the big guns) and use better (IMO) rules.  

To be fair, I wouldn't put gods too much above demon lords.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Well, there really is nothing wrong with that.





And here's the coup de grace.  Demons are scalable from CR 1.  Manes, dretch, etc.  They all exist at the lower rungs of the demon ladder.  If you want low level demon encounters, use low level demons.  If you want mid level encounters, use vrocks and hezrou.  If you want high level encounters, use marilith and balor.  And if you want high epic level encounters, you should use demon lords.


The absolute sliding scale idea doesn't work.  You can't have CR 1 great wyrms and you can't have CR 1 balors.  Or demon lords.  The flavor given to these creatures is just as important as the stats.  You can't have a description of awesome power and then ability scores of 5-9 and 2 HD.  Because if that is the case, there is no reason to bother playing the game...the game's mechanics are supposed to interpret a world, and make it come alive.  Not twist the laws of reality so that you can more comfortably play.


If DnD tells you that a Jump check DC 40 is required to jump a bridge 40 feet wide, and your players can't do that, do you just change the DC to 10?  And if you do, then WHY?  The entire system is set up with a comprehensive power level...somethings are not meant to be done before a certain level.  That's part of the fun of the game, it installs a sense of ambition.  No one (other than very young children) likes to play a game where everything is just handed to them...that's not a game, that's 'let's pretend'.  And that is certainly not what DnD was based on, in any of its incarnations.


Demon Lords need to be more powerful than balors.  Demon Princes should be more powerful than Demon Lords.  And regardless of your game, their power level shouldn't be dropped to accomodate the lowest common denominator.  There are other ways you can let your PCs at 16th level beat Demogorgon, if you want that to be possible, without ruining Demogorgon's power level....the power level of his flavor.  A few include, circumstances (Deus ex Machina) reducing his available power level, awesomely powered artifacts, high level aid, etc.  But that doesn't change that Demogorgon, who has ruled the Abyss for millenia, should have more than 27HD, should ideally pose a greater threat than a great wyrm dragon, should be a real threat.  Situational modifiers can make him available to be beaten at 5th level, if that is the playstyle you wish to have.  Not his 'standard' stats.


----------



## Mirtek (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. I haven't played in an epic game yet and I don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20. Neither do my players. What matters to us the most is verisimilitude.



That's my point too.

Exhausted messenger arrives: Good news! Demogorgon has somehow entered our world and is currently razing some cities!
Clueless bystander: What? How is this suppossed to be good news?
Annother bystander: Well, at first they feared it was a great red wyrm and that we were really in trouble. But now we can relax as it's only the prince of demons.


			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> To me it's not the question if people play epic level, but if people think the existance of epic levels should be part of the games core assumptions.



That wouldn't have to be bad, but it becomes bad when these assumption is not equally applied throughout the core game. If Demogorgon would be useless with CR higher than 23, then tell me what is a great red wyrm? By that logic it's a waste of space.


			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> From then it's the question if a mortal should be able to stop a demon prince and I think the answer should be yes (would be awefully depressing otherwise and canon has enough examples of demon lord imprisoned by powerfull mages).



Well, I actually find the idea depressing that my level 20 character and his pals is able to beat up anything they like. 

So what's the answer to the secret of the multiverse and the meaning of everything? Well, I guess the answer has to be me, seeing as we just slew the last primordial immortal ruler of the outerplanes.


Has everthing to be killable? Doesn't anybody buy supplements just for gaining new knowledge about the game world? Even if this knowledge comes down to: Yes, we suppose it's possible for a mortal to slay Demogorgon, but not at 20th level.

Yes, the stats as represented at Dicefreaks are completly useless for an ingame use (at least for me and I guess for most people), but that doesn't mean I enjoy reading them any less. They represent an logical multiverse (even if I disagree with some DF assumptions about the nature of these entities), it's a logical set up.

One of my favorite 2e supplements was _Faces of Evil_, which was basically a complete supplement without any rules. Just fluff, fluff and more fluff.


----------



## coyote6 (May 29, 2006)

I don't expect to ever run or play an Epic Level D&D campaign, so CR 30+ stats are likely to be of no particular use to me. 

Whether or not I want the PCs in a particular campaign to be able to destroy a demon lord depends on on how epic (note the lower-case) I want that campaign to be. Thus, I want either: (a) demon lord stats that ~20th-21st level PCs can challenge, for an epic campaign that culminates in the destruction of one of the Princes of the Abyss; or (b) I'm fine with no stats, because an "undestroyable" stat block can be conveyed with one word. Of course, CR 30 or 50 or 500 stats are fine for the latter purpose, too, except possibly as they take up space better (for my purposes) used for other things.

Also note that what I do or want in one campaign doesn't necessarily mean that's what I want for all time. (I just don't foresee playing to 21st+ level D&D being fun enough to be worth the effort.)


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> I don't expect to ever run or play an Epic Level D&D campaign, so CR 30+ stats are likely to be of no particular use to me.
> 
> Whether or not I want the PCs in a particular campaign to be able to destroy a demon lord depends on on how epic (note the lower-case) I want that campaign to be. Thus, I want either: (a) demon lord stats that ~20th-21st level PCs can challenge, for an epic campaign that culminates in the destruction of one of the Princes of the Abyss; or (b) I'm fine with no stats, because an "undestroyable" stat block can be conveyed with one word. Of course, CR 30 or 50 or 500 stats are fine for the latter purpose, too, except possibly as they take up space better (for my purposes) used for other things.
> 
> Also note that what I do or want in one campaign doesn't necessarily mean that's what I want for all time. (I just don't foresee playing to 21st+ level D&D being fun enough to be worth the effort.)





So....the later dragon age categories.  Wyrm, great wyrm, in a few cases even Ancient....they are worthless, right?  Or should be squeezed down into CR 21ish for you?


If you want a 20th level encounter with a demon, use a balor.  Same as you use a lesser dragon category for a lower CR.  If you want a 20th level encounter with the Prince of Demons, use an aspect of Demogorgon.  Don't cry to the multiverse that you deserve to beat him at 20th level just 'cause'.


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> So....the later dragon age categories.  Wyrm, great wyrm, in a few cases even Ancient....they are worthless, right?  Or should be squeezed down into CR 21ish for you?



From a flavor standpoint, yes.



			
				Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> And here's the coup de grace.  Demons are scalable from CR 1.  Manes, dretch, etc.  They all exist at the lower rungs of the demon ladder.  If you want low level demon encounters, use low level demons.  If you want mid level encounters, use vrocks and hezrou.  If you want high level encounters, use marilith and balor.  And if you want high epic level encounters, you should use demon lords.



True.



> The absolute sliding scale idea doesn't work.



Depends.
However, an appropriate base level must be achieved, from which the sliding scale would descend from. Now, do you have HotA? Are you reading it now? Because it seems like some of those who have the book are saying that these stats are calculated as if the Lord were off his or her lair. Others are saying, no it's not written that way.

Now, since I don't have the book, I can't really judge. However, let's go with the assumption, that these are their stats on plane or off plane. Now, if each one had a CR higher than the average Balor's, then I'd say that an appropriate 'base line' has been achieved (not accounting for the fact that CR isn't very good at power assessment). This way, the demon lords are above (not much) the 'average' Balor and can be advanced until you reach whatever power level you desire. Sure it takes work, but it's better than having stats that are _completely_ useless or having no stats at all (assuming you want stats).



> You can't have a description of awesome power and then ability scores of 5-9 and 2 HD.



Or you can be a 2e baernaloth. 



> Because if that is the case, there is no reason to bother playing the game...the game's mechanics are supposed to interpret a world, and make it come alive.  Not twist the laws of reality so that you can more comfortably play.



It's a _game_, anyone can play however they wish. If someone _really_ wants to play that way and everyone is having fun, how can you dump on their play style? I don't want to play that way, but maybe someone does. It's not bad-wrong.



> If DnD tells you that a Jump check DC 40 is required to jump a bridge 40 feet wide, and your players can't do that, do you just change the DC to 10?  And if you do, then WHY?



Not a very good comparison. 
You're comparing a mere mechanic (a Jump check) to a creature with past and flavor to it (a demon lord).



> Demon Lords need to be more powerful than balors.  Demon Princes should be more powerful than Demon Lords.  And regardless of your game, their power level shouldn't be dropped to accomodate the lowest common denominator.



Actually, it's my game, I can really do whatever I want in it, but that's really beside the point.



> There are other ways you can let your PCs at 16th level beat Demogorgon, if you want that to be possible, without ruining Demogorgon's power level....the power level of his flavor.  A few include, circumstances (Deus ex Machina) reducing his available power level, awesomely powered artifacts, high level aid, etc.  But that doesn't change that Demogorgon, who has ruled the Abyss for millenia, should have more than 27HD, should ideally pose a greater threat than a great wyrm dragon, should be a real threat.  Situational modifiers can make him available to be beaten at 5th level, if that is the playstyle you wish to have.  Not his 'standard' stats.



Nitpick, Demo doesn't rule the Abyss. 

Regardless of what I may be saying, I do agree with you that the status quo power level should be maintained. I'm just arguing that, as seen all over the internet, NO ONE AGREES ON HOW POWERFUL THEY SHOULD BE. Which is why I advocate the Advancing the Archfiends idea, using an 'appropriate' base power level established. Since I don't have the book, I don't really know if the stats would or do represent an appropriate base power level. I'll find out when I get it.


----------



## coyote6 (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> So....the later dragon age categories.  Wyrm, great wyrm, in a few cases even Ancient....they are worthless, right?  Or should be squeezed down into CR 21ish for you?




Not necessarily. A group of 21st level PCs might be able to take a great wyrm red dragon, with careful preparation.



> If you want a 20th level encounter with a demon, use a balor.




Please don't tell me what to do in my campaigns.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. A group of 21st level PCs might be able to take a great wyrm red dragon, with careful preparation.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me what to do in my campaigns.




Please don't whine and snivel when I make generalized comments or suggestions in the form of a statement.  It is immature and petty.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 29, 2006)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. A group of 21st level PCs might be able to take a great wyrm red dragon, with careful preparation.




Then a higher-CR Demogorgon _wouldn't_ be useless. Kain's point was that if a higher-CR Demogorgon is useless, so's the great wyrm. If the great wyrm's not useless, neither would Demogorgon be.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> From a flavor standpoint, yes.




Ok...so you what you are advocating is that the FLAVOR of all monsters and such be reduced to 20th level as well.  So that the powerful dragons should NOT be written as more powerful than CR 20 (with advancement allowing those who wish to play epic to use dragons in their campaigns as well)

Totally don't agree with you, but this seems to make more sense than a metagame reasoning behind reducing stats.  I think it would be difficult to create a believable world or cosmos with that design philosophy, especially when it comes to gods and such.  20 levels can't really fit EVERY thing in, not using the DnD 3.5 system.





> Depends.
> However, an appropriate base level must be achieved, from which the sliding scale would descend from. Now, do you have HotA? Are you reading it now? Because it seems like some of those who have the book are saying that these stats are calculated as if the Lord were off his or her lair. Others are saying, no it's not written that way.
> 
> Now, since I don't have the book, I can't really judge. However, let's go with the assumption, that these are their stats on plane or off plane. Now, if each one had a CR higher than the average Balor's, then I'd say that an appropriate 'base line' has been achieved (not accounting for the fact that CR isn't very good at power assessment). This way, the demon lords are above (not much) the 'average' Balor and can be advanced until you reach whatever power level you desire. Sure it takes work, but it's better than having stats that are _completely_ useless or having no stats at all (assuming you want stats).




From my understanding of the information, the stats are presented as if they were the real deal.  (And will probably be what is used at the end of the upcoming Dungeon Adventure Path with Demogorgon)  Other people, who have disagreed with the low base-line, have offered the idea that the stats only reflect an aspect of the archfiend, and that the real one would be advanced more.  That's a good idea, and I respect that.  What I don't agree with, is labeling these low baselines as the actual stats, and that IS how the book presents it.  Not as aspects, not as minor avatars, but as the real deal.




> Or you can be a 2e baernaloth.




Heh.  In 1e, Demogorgon had 200 hp.  Thor had somewhere around 300.  In 3.5 edition, Thor has 60HD, and Demogorgon doesn't even hit 30.




> It's a _game_, anyone can play however they wish. If someone _really_ wants to play that way and everyone is having fun, how can you dump on their play style? I don't want to play that way, but maybe someone does. It's not bad-wrong.




Again, I'm not dumping on play styles, I'm dumping on design styles.  If you want to play the game with a 5HD demogorgon, that's cool.  But I'd like to know how you can justify your campaign world's flavor.  Does this 5HD Demogorgon have the same history as the one from DnD?  Do 20HD balors still exist, subservient to him?  Are demons still chaotic evil and constantly challenge the rule of this being, who puts them in their place time and again?

Play style is one thing, and that differs from group to group.  But world building is the same as a story, and you can't have a half-arsed suspension of disbelief in a good book.  It is a story's job to make you believe, and an internal consistancy is needed.  Same with a cosmos, a world, a campaign setting.  If you give me a book that says a balor is CR 20, and some specimens reach CR 41, and another book saying that a demon prince rules balors, I'm going to expect something capable of pimping the CR 20s, and at the very least, holding its own against the CR 41s.  If you hand me something showing me that the demon prince is CR 19, and weaker than a balor, I'm going to ask why.  I'm going to ask for justification.  And when I know that justification is not coming, I'm going to decry the idea as half-baked.




> Not a very good comparison.
> You're comparing a mere mechanic (a Jump check) to a creature with past and flavor to it (a demon lord).




Everything tangible in the entire world is a mechanic.  Only intangibles like personality aren't covered.  An owlbear has a certain baseline.  A bear does.  A bridge.  Whether you use those mechanics to run from it, kill it, or conquer it, the mechanics are what allow you to do so.  Changing the mechanics of a Jump check is the same as changing the mechanics of a bugbear.






> Actually, it's my game, I can really do whatever I want in it, but that's really beside the point.




Even moreso, because I'm using you in a generalized sense.  When did everyone become so sensitive and tremble lipped over someone saying "you do this"?  I am speaking from a design perspective.  'You' refers to the designers.  Dry your eyes, I'm not coming over to police your games.




> Nitpick, Demo doesn't rule the Abyss.




Touche.  I could respond with "HE DOES IN MY WORLD!!!!  DON'T TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY GAME!!!!!".  But that would be hypocritical.  Abysm then.  The ruler of Abysm.




> Regardless of what I may be saying, I do agree with you that the status quo power level should be maintained. I'm just arguing that, as seen all over the internet, NO ONE AGREES ON HOW POWERFUL THEY SHOULD BE. Which is why I advocate the Advancing the Archfiends idea, using an 'appropriate' base power level established. Since I don't have the book, I don't really know if the stats would or do represent an appropriate base power level. I'll find out when I get it.




Which is why we have these delightful conversations and debates about how powerful they should be.  But that's a flavor perspective.  I'm not attacking the idea of advancing them perse.  I'm attacking the idea of suggesting that their baseline of CR 19-23 is appropriate for them in ANY cosmos where they don't get gangbanged by balors on a constant basis.


----------



## ashockney (May 29, 2006)

I'm definitely in the camp that would prefer to see CR's for demon lords scale from perhaps as low as 22 up to as high as 60. 

Using the core game as it's been presented, we have three key "levels" to the game.  Standard DnD which is from 1st - 20th level.  
Epic DnD which is from 21st - 40th level.
Immortal DnD which is from 41st - 60th level. 

I will make a few broad sweeping generalizations based upon MY personal experience:
The basic game breaks down considerably from 12th to 20th level. 
Epic DnD has flaws nearly too numerous to mention.  Surprisingly, if you whether the storm, it actually does play (with great tinkering) pretty well from 20th to 30th.  
I've never seen any material on immortal DnD presented in format that was referenceable other than "as reference", but nothing really playable as a game without a TON of work.

If this is the game, as it's been presented, demon lords should be represented broadly across this full (60 level) spectrum.  I, too, agree that the players should be able to battle a demon lord at the end of their campaign.  It would be ok, however, if this were not Demogorgon.  There should be many powerful/advanced demons, perhaps hundreds, in the CR 20 - 30 range.  One of the reasons that people should be so scared to encounter them.

I do not begrudge the authors from wanting to make "accessible" to the greater market, the concept that by 20th level or so, you're trying to take out Llolth herself, on her home plane.  This fantasy sword and sorcery adage dates back to the original GDQ series of modules, one of the first published for the game.  When your group has truly traversed the untold perils that await them in these highest levels, and bested a "named" demon queen.  It is a story they can, and should, regale other gamers with for many years to come.  

However, to make the most notable and powerful of the demon lords, all within reach of the basic game, demeans the game for any of those who desire to play the game to it's fullest.  

It is akin to making a 60th level EQ raid, killable only by the most veteran players, in groups of 60 or more, with the most powerful equipment, something that a party of 50th level characters could best.  Were EQ to do it, they would lose a significant part of their consumer base.


----------



## bastrak (May 29, 2006)

IMO Demon Princes and Devil Lords should be in the CR 25-30 range.


----------



## delericho (May 29, 2006)

In general, it's much easier to scale creatures up in power in D&D than it is to scale them down. That being the case, a relatively low CR for demon princes is more useful than a higher one.

The majority of game groups play at non-Epic levels (or Dungeon would feature Epic adventures far more often than once per year). Therefore, stats for any creature that cannot be realistically defeated by a 20th level party are useless to the majority of groups (and, yes, that does include Great Wyrm Red Dragons). Make the Demon Lords CR 30+, and they're useless to the majority of groups.

Make the Demon Lords CR 20ish, and they're a lot more use to the majority of groups (although I do think that's a bit low). But they're _also_ of use to groups who want more powerful Demon Lords - just scale them up. Advancing the creatures by 20 hit dice and/or adding a bunch of levels isn't that hard. Especially since the flavour of the abilities is already there for you, so the choices should be quite easy.


----------



## coyote6 (May 29, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Then a higher-CR Demogorgon _wouldn't_ be useless. Kain's point was that if a higher-CR Demogorgon is useless, so's the great wyrm. If the great wyrm's not useless, neither would Demogorgon be.




I said, "stats that ~20th-21st level PCs can challenge" -- notice that there are no CR values mentioned there; I certainly didn't say "CR 20-21 stats" or anything like that. I also said CR 30+ aren't very useful for me -- because I reckon that CR 30+ aren't things that level 20-21 PCs can tackle with any realistic chance of success*. A CR 27 great wyrm is not CR 30+ -- that's self-evident, isn't it? Thus, I never excluded great wyrms as possible ending villains (which would have been very silly and contradictory of me, given how I expect one of my current campaigns to end).

A battle against a CR 27 Demogorgon could very well be a viable epic ending for a campaign of mine; it would depend on the specific stats (of both the creature and the PCs), I imagine. Not all CR 27s are the same, and a group of PCs can have capabilities that make a particular threat more-or-less threatening than it would be to another group of PCs (e.g., a group with an undead-turning-optimized cleric with the Sun domain will likely find a battle against a powerful vampire or the like much easier than a group without all the turning power); IME, this effect can be stronger at higher levels.

*(Or without a lot of outside factors that favor the PCs, which would make it a lower EL encounter; perhaps I should say "EL" rather than "CR"?)


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 29, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> In general, it's much easier to scale creatures up in power in D&D than it is to scale them down. That being the case, a relatively low CR for demon princes is more useful than a higher one.
> 
> The majority of game groups play at non-Epic levels (or Dungeon would feature Epic adventures far more often than once per year). Therefore, stats for any creature that cannot be realistically defeated by a 20th level party are useless to the majority of groups (and, yes, that does include Great Wyrm Red Dragons). Make the Demon Lords CR 30+, and they're useless to the majority of groups.
> 
> Make the Demon Lords CR 20ish, and they're a lot more use to the majority of groups (although I do think that's a bit low). But they're _also_ of use to groups who want more powerful Demon Lords - just scale them up. Advancing the creatures by 20 hit dice and/or adding a bunch of levels isn't that hard. Especially since the flavour of the abilities is already there for you, so the choices should be quite easy.





But then this brings up the question, does 'use' matter?  Would you advocate that same concept be applied to gods?  Should greater gods have a CR of, oh say, 24, and then have a method where you can 'scale them up' to keep them at least a level higher than the party cleric?  What about high level NPCs like Larloch or Elminster?  Should he be CR 20 or below because he is 'no use' to the bulk of DnD games?

Great Wyrm Dragons aren't useful to games of sub-20th level, AS ADVERSARIES.  You shouldn't be basing the use of a creature though (much less a unique NPC) based on how many people's parties can roll initiative and walk away the victors.

Great Wrym Dragons should be at the CR they are at.  They ARE that powerful.  If that means that you can't use them in your games as a combat, that's ok.  They don't need to be a combat.  Not all creatures in the game exist only to convert into XP for the PCs.

Same with the demon lords, only on a higher scale.  They rule layers of the Abyss.  Entire layers that are larger than the planets that some campaigns are set on.  infinite layers, if you believe that idea.  Just because you aren't going to be able to beat them at a high level doesn't mean they should be that high level.


Everything in the world does not need to exist for the PCs to kill.  A CR that is higher than they will ever be capable of matching doesn't make the creature/entity that it is attached to useless.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 29, 2006)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> A battle against a CR 27 Demogorgon could very well be a viable epic ending for a campaign of mine; it would depend on the specific stats




Can we establish a consensus that an Abyssal Prince should be at least CR 27, then? Even among the "epic/divine creatures are useless" crowd?


----------



## coyote6 (May 29, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Please don't whine and snivel when I make generalized comments or suggestions in the form of a statement.  It is immature and petty.




<shrug> It wasn't phrased as a suggestion, IMO, and didn't seem very generalized, as it was in reply to my comment. I wasn't making generalized comments; I was responding to Sep's question *for my campaigns*, which is all I can do.

(FWIW, generally speaking, IMO, a plain balor isn't a terrific "final boss" for a party of 20th level PCs; a balor's only CR 20, so 4 level 20 PCs should be able to take out a balor without breaking too much of a sweat (20-25% of their resources, IIRC). If one could arrange to wear the PCs down a bit via previous encounters, it could work; but that can be tricky to arrange. For example, my group seems to be a bit on the conservative side in terms of when they decide to rest -- they usually don't go until they're completely out of resources (since that would leave them highly vulnerable to unexpected attacks). Also, high level PCs could have ways to refresh quickly (planes where time passes at different rates than the Prime/Abyss/wherever, wishes, etc).)


----------



## coyote6 (May 29, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Can we establish a consensus that an Abyssal Prince should be at least CR 27, then? Even among the "epic/divine creatures are useless" crowd?




A consensus? On the Internet? It's un-possible! 

For my (hypothetical) campaign ending with the PCs casting down a big bad Abyssal lord, I think I would want whatever demon lord it was to be CR 24-27, I think. 

Note that if the PCs were fighting Jubilex, Pazuzu, Socothbenoth, or whoever, that would imply that other demon lords known to be more powerful (e.g., Demogorgon, Orcus) would be even more powerful.

(Note also that I'm saying that I expect that for one campaign, Orcus would have a higher CR than he might have in another campaign I run. Those campaigns might be in the same setting, even; but I don't expect the absolute power of an demon lord to be the same. They, like the nature & power of the gods, will vary according to the needs of that particular game.)


----------



## Glyfair (May 29, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is irrelevant. I haven't played in an epic game yet and I don't think demon lords should be killable at level 20. Neither do my players. What matters to us the most is verisimilitude.



IIRC, it's been said that their plane eventually reforms these Demon Lords.  

While my preference would vary from campaign to campaign, I think with the "standard D&D assumptions" I'd like my 20th level party to be able to kill a Demon Lord at the culmination of the campaign.   However, I wouldn't want they Demon Lord to be destroyed.

For example,  I'd like ran a campaign where the party fought some giants, wandering in the underdark for a while, went to the Abyss and killed a Spider Demon goddess in her spider palace.  The players will know they defeated the threat for quite a while, until she reforms at some later time (decades, generations, centuries - whatever fits the campaign).

What my _ideal_ presentation would be to give options for the Demon Lords.  You don't need to support the DMs who want the "untouchable godlike demon lords" (since they have no use for anything but personalities).  For the DMs who want epic level challenges, you create 40 CR creatures.  For the DMs who want the Demon Lords just out of the range of 20th level characters, you give them CRs in the high 20s-low 30s.  For the DMs who want challenges for their 20th level characters you create you give versions with a CR in the 20-25 range.  Then create a version with the CR in the 10th level range.

Then you simply create a heirarchy.  The highest level is the Demon Lord.  The next level is outside his plane.  The following level is his avatar.  The lowest level is his aspect.  The DM picks the level he wants, the versions below that represent the other variations.

Unfortunately, that's not very practical unless the product is focusing only on one or two Demon Lords.  Still, I run an Eberron campaign right now, and I would find the lower ranges most useful for me.  My homebrew campaigns would vary, based on the cosmology assumptions I use.


----------



## Drowbane (May 29, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> CR 25-40 avatars, but the archfiends themselves being wholly without stats.
> 
> If they absolutely must have stats, those stats must be equivalent to or situationally better than those of deities. Yugoloths carved Khin-Oin from the spine of a deity they killed, they also forced true deities out of active involvement in the Blood War, Prince Levistus is shrinking the size of Set's deific domain in a protracted war, and Asmodeus forced Gruumsh and Maglubiyet out of Avernus and into Acheron.
> 
> ...




QFT


----------



## Tsillanabor (May 29, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> And the unique immoral rulers of the plane should be (even if it's just slightly) more powerfull than some overblown mortal lizzards.



In this context, "immoral rulers" has got to be the best typo evar.

I agree that 20th-level characters should be able to 'beat back' a demon prince-as in remove a manifestation of one from their world forever. I don't like the idea of them killing one on its home turf.

Here's an idea-how much control do demon lords have over their layer of the Abyss? If they can cause the ground to swallow up a Balor they wouldn't need a whole lot more personal power.


----------



## Lazybones (May 30, 2006)

IMC (a modified Forgotten Realms), the demon princes scale up and down with the degree of influence they wield in the cosmology of the Lower Planes. For example, in my Shackled City story hour thread the characters take on two demon princes (Adimarchus and Graz'zt). If both were full strength, and in full control of their realms, the party (just shy of 20th level in the first case, and in the low 20s in the second) should have had absolutely no chance. But in both cases, there was a long establishment period when it was made clear that both demons had fallen far (Adimarchus just escaping from his prison, and G having lost Azzagrat due to earlier events in the campaign). Even at their nadir, both are still tough foes, stronger than any of the generic "book" demons by a fair margin. 

But taking on a full-strength Prince on his own layer of the Abyss should be all but impossible for most player characters, in my view, short of the intervention of some sort of greater power. Or if you're playing a stronger epic game (levels in the high 20s and up). I've never taken a game that high so I'm not really sure about all the implications.


----------



## Taelohn (May 30, 2006)

So WotC has given us CR 19-23 demon lords.  For those that believe this to be appropriate, let me ask this:  would you also like the deities (currently creatures of roughly CR 50-70) to be reduced to the same power level?

After all, if a 20th level party should be able to destroy the princes of the Abyss, then they should be able to do the same to other evil powers like Nerull or Gruumsh.  How about Lolth?  She's traditionally been a demon princess herself (a less powerful one than the likes of Demogorgon or Orcus, at that).

Of course, it may seem funny that Heironious is less powerful than a solar, or that Mystra is less powerful than Elminster, but if we can overlook glaring plotholes like that with the demons we can overlook them here.

How's CR 25 for the Lady of Pain sound?


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Taelohn said:
			
		

> How's CR 25 for the Lady of Pain sound?




Way too high. Make her a tiefling 2nd level aristocrat/3rd level adept and say that "Sigil favors her." Then proceed to ignore plotholes like crazy. 

Or she's three ratatosks. Or a rebus created by the dabus. Or _delirium tremens_ brought on by too much razorvine wine.

Actually, you shouldn't have brought up the Lady of Pain. None of the kill-Orcus-as-soon-as-possible-or-even-before crowd cares about her.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Way too high. Make her a tiefling 2nd level aristocrat/3rd level adept and say that "Sigil favors her." Then proceed to ignore plotholes like crazy.
> 
> Or she's three ratatosks. Or a rebus created by the dabus. Or _delirium tremens_ brought on by too much razorvine wine.




She is all of that and more.

Because you see, she is the intersection of all possible realities. The lady of pain anchors each reality to existence itself.

Of course no one has ever defeated the lady of pain. If they had, their reality would unravel, and they would not be there to talk about it.

I know. A very wise cutter told me.


----------



## Glyfair (May 30, 2006)

Taelohn said:
			
		

> So WotC has given us CR 19-23 demon lords.  For those that believe this to be appropriate, let me ask this:  would you also like the deities (currently creatures of roughly CR 50-70) to be reduced to the same power level?



Put me in the "*Can* be appropriate" column.

No, I wouldn't.  Plus, the historical background says that gods should be more powerful than demon lords and princes.  The Deities and Demi-Gods major gods would have had no problem with Orcus, Asmodeus and the like. 



> How about Lolth?  She's traditionally been a demon princess herself (a less powerful one than the likes of Demogorgon or Orcus, at that).



What was the level of _Queen of the Demonweb Pits_?  You were expected to encounter and face Lolth *in her lair*.  My copy says it's for character levels 10-14.  I don't see how she could be "godlike" if 14th level characters are supposed to have a chance facing her in her lair with her minions supporting her.

Assuming characters level through the adventure, and she was a very tough encounter, CR 16-17 might be appropriate.


----------



## Taelohn (May 30, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Plus, the historical background says that gods should be more powerful than demon lords and princes. The Deities and Demi-Gods major gods would have had no problem with Orcus, Asmodeus and the like.




What historical background suggests this?  Whenever they've interacted, the planar lords have traditionally dealt with gods on equal or greater terms.  To quote a few examples mentioned in this thread:



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> Yugoloths carved Khin-Oin from the spine of a deity they killed, they also forced true deities out of active involvement in the Blood War, Prince Levistus is shrinking the size of Set's deific domain in a protracted war, and Asmodeus forced Gruumsh and Maglubiyet out of Avernus and into Acheron.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Put me in the "*Can* be appropriate" column.
> 
> No, I wouldn't.  Plus, the historical background says that gods should be more powerful than demon lords and princes.  The Deities and Demi-Gods major gods would have had no problem with Orcus, Asmodeus and the like.
> 
> ...





Keep in mind, this same Lolth was considered a god in the 1ed Deities and Demigods, along with Orcus and Demogorgon, if I remember correctly.

1ed, like I have said, had planar rulers as demi to lesser gods only slightly less powerful than the regular gods.  The one thing you could definitely count on though, is a planar lord to be more powerful than a balor.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (May 30, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> that said, i don't think they should have stats.




*gasp!* Not going with the 1E approach?    


EDIT: Answering the actual question, I like 'em at anything higher than 20, preferably lower than mid-30s for run-of-the-mill (heh) archfiends. I'm quite pleased wit the news of low (heh) CRs on these guys; it means I might actually be able to use them.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (May 30, 2006)

Lots of interesting ideas, here. I notice that some people who seldom post feel strongly enough to comment as well.

Obviously, you can't please all of the people all of the time, and there will always be dissent on this issue. There are any number of competing canons, and players' viewpoints often border on fundamentalism. That said, for me   :


1) The thing that bugs me most is consistency. I would have liked to see a level playing field drawn between the Draconomicon articles in _Dragon_, and the _Fiendish Codices_ (we can assume that Devils will recieve the same treatment?). This strikes me as pretty basic. In other words, updated (and in some cases, powered-up) BoVD stats.

2) For those who suggest that advancement lies in the hands of the DM, I agree. The problem is that hand-crafting a demon prince takes an enormous amount of time.

3) It speaks volumes about how poorly supported epic-level play in general is, and the default assumption is Lvl 20 tops. This is a shame - I run an epic-level game, and I'd like more material to draw on. But if WotC did their research - and surely they must have done - it puts me firmly in a minority camp. I don't anticipate any new supplements in this area. I guess I just have to suck it up, and do any modifications myself.

4) My resigned appeal to whoever is writing the second (or third?) _Fiendish Codex_ (James Jacobs? Erik Mona?) would be

_Please devote a respectable amount of space to ideas about how advancement can be made flavorful._ This might include notes on adding HD or class levels, new special abilities, upping SR, a revamped Paragon template (or something less extreme), divine ranks, integrated caster levels, etc. etc. Although I think accurate balance beyond CR30 is close to unattainable, I think we can ball-park it within a CR or 2.

It remains my hope that the listed CRs of all of the demon lords in FC 1 are simply inaccurate and too low. By about 6 to 8. Less work for me, that way.


----------



## Glyfair (May 30, 2006)

Taelohn said:
			
		

> What historical background suggests this?  Whenever they've interacted, the planar lords have traditionally dealt with gods on equal or greater terms.  To quote a few examples mentioned in this thread:



Game historical.  Look at _Deities & Demigods_, look at the Monster Manual & Fiend Folio.  Those "Demon Princes" were no match for the gods.  

I'd compare D&D stats, but I can't seem to find the Demon Lords stats for them (was it Eldritch Wizardry).  How did they compare to Gods, Demigods & Heroes?



			
				Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, this same Lolth was considered a god in the 1ed Deities and Demigods, along with Orcus and Demogorgon, if I remember correctly.



You do have a good point here.  However, this really isn't a discussion about the fact that Balors are too powerful in 3E


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Game historical.  Look at _Deities & Demigods_, look at the Monster Manual & Fiend Folio.  Those "Demon Princes" were no match for the gods.




They all had the powers of lesser deities in 1st edition (since 1980), and most of them were lesser deities or demigods in 2nd edition.


----------



## Sledge (May 30, 2006)

To keep on topic, having them this low makes them ineffective by the rules.  When the WEAKEST pit fiend stands a chance at usurping the demon lords, then what do the 54 hd ones do?
Dicefreaks is a good measure for me.  I'm not opposed to scaling on principal, just the insane scaling.
Scaling demon lords from 30-50 is scaling and extreme at that.  Just how much power can these cr 20ish demon lords actually wield.
Someone once told me they thought if he wanted his 1st level party fight the evil necromancer that terrorized the land, then that necromancer should be level 1 or 2.  There is no "terrorize the land" at level 1 or 2.  The same thing holds true of the bigger bads.  Anything that can tell pit fiends what to do needs to be MUCH higher in cr than the weakest pit fiend.  Especially since pit fiends reach considerably higher cr's than 20.  Especially since pit fiends can show up in groups of 4.  Why would a pit fiend not destroy a demon "lord" that is its inferior?  What exactly is the CR of a 54 HD pit fiend again?  Given that the demon lord base stats are as weak as the base stats for a non lord devil there is a problem here.


----------



## Glyfair (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> They all had the powers of lesser deities in 1st edition (since 1980), and most of them were lesser deities or demigods in 2nd edition.



True, but the actual stats didn't compare, so they still would have had their butts handed to them by 1E lesser gods.  Even some demi-gods.

IIRC, _Queen of the Demonweb_ pit gives Lolth those abilities and they characters are still expected to face her and have a chance of defeating her.


----------



## Baron Opal (May 30, 2006)

I don't have a problem with the stats as written. If I don't like them I'll scale them up with the guidelines provided. I don't expect to have PCs above 20th level, although I have my campaign scheme allows up to 30 HD / levels for outsiders. So, the 60 HD balor isn't an issue for me.

And I consider my campaign to have a high degree of internal self-consistancy, thank you.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> True, but the actual stats didn't compare, so they still would have had their butts handed to them by 1E lesser gods.  Even some demi-gods.




There's no lower limit to divine stats. Some of the published lesser gods may have been stronger - others may well have been weaker. The demon princes were at the same stratum as the gods. They _have_ to be, if they're to avoid having the gods take over their planes.


----------



## BOZ (May 30, 2006)

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> 1) The thing that bugs me most is consistency. I would have liked to see a level playing field drawn between the Draconomicon articles in _Dragon_, and the _Fiendish Codices_ (we can assume that Devils will recieve the same treatment?). This strikes me as pretty basic. In other words, updated (and in some cases, powered-up) BoVD stats.




agreed, on all counts.  i know i'm not alone in thinking that the Demonomicon/BoVD level stats should have been left as-is.  while i'm OK with the "lowering to minimum with the option to increase like crazy" concept, life would have been so much simpler if we had one set of stats, in the say CR 25-35 range that these other sources provide.

if i ever have occasion to run a combat against a demon lord, i can't see using the CR19-23 stat blocks, and i would absolutely favor the higher stat range.

and honestly, i can even dig how some books/websites have even tougher stat blocks than those, and i'd even consider using them depending on the circumstances.


----------



## Shemeska (May 30, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Game historical.  Look at _Deities & Demigods_, look at the Monster Manual & Fiend Folio.  Those "Demon Princes" were no match for the gods.




Within the in game history of the planes, there's an almost monolithic precident for true deities and archfiends largely staying out of one anothers business, and when they do come into conflict, the archfiends have tended to slap the deities around like five dollar whores. See the examples I gave earlier in the thread. Call it home field advantage, define it as you like, but the record is rather clear in the context of planar politics and affairs that the fiends have an upper hand on their own planes when dealing with deities who also inhabit those same planes.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

And another thing, for those who want to pose the "but what if there are NO 54 HD pit fiends/60HD balors?

Even if there aren't advanced fiends, you need to consider what would happen if say...FIVE balors decided to kick Demogorgon's two headed arse.  Or if a pit fiend grabbed his two buddies and a few cornugons to go curbstomp Bel.


These stats don't exist in a vacuum.  There are other things to consider, and more important for internal consistancy, than the levels of your players.  For everyone who has said they need lower level stats to kill demon princes with, have you ever thought that maybe your players just shouldn't be able to do that at their level any more than they can knock the moon out of the sky, lift mountains with their bare hands, or shoot laser beams out of their eyes?

I haven't heard a single good excuse for a CR 19 Jubilex yet.  Let alone a CR 23 Demogorgon.


----------



## Terwox (May 30, 2006)

I'm fine with lowering the CR.

I'd like to be able to run a 20th level game that ended with slaying a demon lord.

But, I'd of liked the option to run a 25th level game that ended with slaying a demon lord... I'd of far rather they simply presented power-level options rather than calling this the "new and improved stats."

I'm not too worried about the consistency of these guys being weaker -- I've never used them anyway.  It DOES seem silly to have a demon prince easily slain by a pair of Balors or a single Solar, though.

The solution is simple though... if you don't like where they're going with it, and you're sure you like the older versions better... then use the older versions!  If you have a stronger concept of what is cool for you, go with that, of course go with that!

I think a lot of people who haven't used demon lords much (like myself) will get better use out of these stats because they'll no longer be out of reach.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Terwox said:
			
		

> I'm fine with lowering the CR.
> 
> I'd like to be able to run a 20th level game that ended with slaying a demon lord.
> 
> ...





Ok, having said that, I ask, WHY?

Do you never introduce NPCs that your players can't beat?  There are no wise old men in taverns, full of magical might should they be messed with?  No brave retired paladin kings on the throne?

You admit that it is silly with solars and balors being very real and serious physical threats to the demon lords, but say that you can now get 'better use' out of them.  How is it better use when you lose the sense of prestige associated with their defeat?  Is the internal consistancy of your campaign world not important to you?

No one is saying that these weak demon lord stats will disrupt their campaign.  No one feels that "oh the book said this, I can't possibly change it".  Everyone knows about Rule 0.  That's not really helpful or pertinant here though.  What the issue is here, is how powerful should a demon lord actually be?  If you think your players should be able to challenge a demon lord at 20th level, WHY?  Do you think they should be able to challenge a paragon great wyrm dracolich at 20th level?  A demigod?  A greater god?

The concern here is not about the combat use one can make of the stats, but about the poor reflection of the supposed flavor these stats give.


----------



## delericho (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> But then this brings up the question, does 'use' matter?  Would you advocate that same concept be applied to gods?  Should greater gods have a CR of, oh say, 24, and then have a method where you can 'scale them up' to keep them at least a level higher than the party cleric?  What about high level NPCs like Larloch or Elminster?  Should he be CR 20 or below because he is 'no use' to the bulk of DnD games?




Books have finiate page-counts. Everything that goes in means that something else needs to be cut. That being the case, I think 'use' is a very important issue.

I'm not suggesting Elminster should be scaled down, the Great Wyrms should be CR 25, or that the Greater Gods should be no higher than CR 28 (which is about the limit that can be challenged by a skilled and lucky 20th level party).

What I am saying is that if these creatures are so powerful they cannot be challenged, the stats are of no use to me, so should be omitted. Just give me Elminster's class levels and CR, and I'll work up stats if I ever need them. Then, use that half-page for something else.

The stat-block for each of the gods in Deities & Demigods is more than a page in length. The same is true of the stat blocks in Faiths & Pantheons. That's an awful lot of wasted paper. (And even if I did find myself needing deity stats, it's highly unlikely that I'll ever need the stats for more than one deity, so even if I use the book, it's still a miniscule fraction of the page-count.)



> Great Wyrm Dragons aren't useful to games of sub-20th level, AS ADVERSARIES.




Unless the creature is going to be used in combat, I don't need stats, only a rough idea of what it's capable of. And if the combat does not involve the PCs, then I still don't need stats - I'll just narrate the battle between the Great Wyrm gold dragon and those six Balors, and get back to the focus of my game - what the PCs are doing.

Now, there are some cases where the PCs might be fighting alongside the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon against an army of Balors. In which case it's true that I probably do need stats. But it's such a rare occurrance that I think the space taken up by the GWGD's stats is still better used for other things - I'll just scale up a weaker dragon if and when the time comes.



> You shouldn't be basing the use of a creature though (much less a unique NPC) based on how many people's parties can roll initiative and walk away the victors.
> 
> Great Wrym Dragons should be at the CR they are at.  They ARE that powerful.  If that means that you can't use them in your games as a combat, that's ok.  They don't need to be a combat.  Not all creatures in the game exist only to convert into XP for the PCs.




But if it's not used in combat, why do you need stats? Especially for something like a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon, which should probably only exist as unique creatures anyway, so a set of stats can be considered one example at best.


----------



## fafhrd (May 30, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> But if it's not used in combat, why do you need stats? Especially for something like a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon, which should probably only exist as unique creatures anyway, so a set of stats can be considered one example at best.




For those of you who haven't read Sep's storyhour(shame on you), the vast majority of the saga involves an epic struggle against one of the big demon lords.  We rarely see the villain directly, but his hand and will are the forces driving the conflict.  The stats inform us, telling us not only of the foe's capabilities, but also the measure of its demeanor.


----------



## Matafuego (May 30, 2006)

Maybe the CR's are ok, after looking for the Solar entry in the SRD
It reads:

"Solars are puissant champions of good. Only the most powerful fiends approach their power."

Demogorgon is one of the most powerful fiends. Isn't he?


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Plus, the historical background says that gods should be more powerful than demon lords and princes.



Actually no, it doesn't say that. The background says that many of these lords and princess are true deities in their own right. Granted, none of them was higher in rank than lesser god, but they were gods nonetheless


			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> True, but the actual stats didn't compare, so they still would have had their butts handed to them by 1E lesser gods.  Even some demi-gods.



Well, Lolth had bad stats (although once she was promoted to lesser goddess status along with the rest of her archfiends that meant her hp doubled while on her homeplane), but others had the stats to mess with other demi- and lesser gods.

If you look in 1e _Temple of Elemental Evil_ you see that Zuggtmoy has the stats to challenge Iuz or St. Cuthberth


----------



## orangefruitbat (May 30, 2006)

*1E Scripture*

Lolth should have 66 HP, and Tiamat should be slain by 48 HP of damage to the body. Anything else is heresy.


----------



## diaglo (May 30, 2006)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> *gasp!* Not going with the 1E approach?




it is a poor imitation of the real thing.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 30, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Within the in game history of the planes, there's an almost monolithic precident for true deities and archfiends largely staying out of one anothers business, and when they do come into conflict, the archfiends have tended to slap the deities around like five dollar whores. See the examples I gave earlier in the thread. Call it home field advantage, define it as you like, but the record is rather clear in the context of planar politics and affairs that the fiends have an upper hand on their own planes when dealing with deities who also inhabit those same planes.



Simply untrue on all counts. The 1e situation was as follows:

1) Deities had better stats that archfiends. So did solars. (Rip, you can talk about theoretical lower limits to divine stats all you want, but the fact is that there IS a theoretical lower limit. It's represented by Lolth.)

2) EGG and Ed Greenwood proposed moving the goblin, orc, and kobold pantheons out of the Nine Hells in order to avoid the question of "why don't these deities rule the Hells themselves?", NOT because of some in-game story reason that the archfiends had kicked them out.

3) As to "slapping the deities around":



> _Yugoloths carved Khin-Oin from the spine of a deity they killed,_



How many yugoloths? And what power of deity? It's not like the yugoloth race couldn't field a force capable of taking down a true god, whatever the stats for the top yugoloth bosses are.


> _ they also forced true deities out of active involvement in the Blood War, _



Never heard of this. Chapter and verse, please.


> _Prince Levistus is shrinking the size of Set's deific domain in a protracted war,_



That's Dicefreaks canon, AFAICT. I don't see any evidence for it in WotC material.


> _and Asmodeus forced Gruumsh and Maglubiyet out of Avernus and into Acheron._



Again, chapter and verse. Planes of Law rather clearly states that the goblin pantheon is "long established on Acheron," while the orcish pantheon has moved from Gehenna to the Hells to Acheron. That doesn't imply Asmodeus forcing Gruumsh to do _anything._

Certainly, both the 1e MotP and Planes of Chaos note that not many deities settle in the Abyss because "few deities wish to contend with the upstart demon life that inhabits the plane." That hardly sounds like getting slapped around to me.

Personally, I can see it going any number of ways. However, I tend to want to give my archfiends good reason to desire deific ascension and to be something apart from true deities (as "canon" clearly suggests). So, I use the following approach. 

1) On their home planes, they're treated as having a divine rank of sorts ("cosmic rank": Thanks, Serge, Kain, and  all the 'Freaks!) that allows them to control their planes in a manner analogous to that of true deities. On and off their home planes, they have the ability to resist salient divine abilities and deific powers in a manner appropriate to their relative cosmic rank. 

2) In general, the personal power of the archfiends IMC ranges from the mid-20s (the Dukes of Hell and lesser demon lords) to around 50 (the mightiest demon princes). That puts them within the reach of pit fiends, balors, and high-level PCs at the low end, and on par with lesser deities at the high end (and, in any case, Lolth, Demogorgon, etc. are effectively deities anyway). My reasons for this are:

a) I don't use HD-advanced fiends. A pit fiend is a pit fiend is a pit fiend; that's the nature of Law. (Balors may vary by a few HD, as well as in size, aspect, and various powers, but that's the nature of Chaos, and they don't always vary _upward_.) 

b) I prefer the approach taken in Ed Greenwood's 1e Nine Hells piece, in which there are clearly various rivalries and power plays going on at all levels of the diabolic hierarchy. If the Lords of the Nine are greater powers compared to the pit fiends at the lower end of the nobility, there's hardly the possibility of any power struggle. I prefer a situation in which pit fiends and balors form the lower end of the diabolical/demonic nobility (as they did in 1e), and there's a relatively linear progression upward from there.

c) Lesser power status is plenty. Combined with control over the Hosts of the Hells or the hordes of the Abyss, devious politicking, and the "home field advantage," this would allow the archfiends to hold their demesnes in the face of the deities without just putting them right on par with the greater deities, which is something I don't want since deities and archfiends serve different roles IMC. The Hells are expected to tremble at Bane's or Mystra's approach. 

As to "slaying archfiends and taking their stuff," one could easily make the same argument with statted deities. A campaign that's geared around treating Demogorgon like a big monster with no agenda other than a fencing dummy's can equally be played with Zeus; he's got hit points and Armor Class and everything. That said, I do like archfiends to be within the grasp of fighting for epic-level PCs, with the true deities slightly less so. My PCs/NPCs are unlikely to ever get past 30th level (although I do play past 20th), so while they might be able to face down a Duke of Hell or outfox a demon lord, they still won't be able to take on a demonic paradigm like Demogorgon or a master manipulator like Dispater without divine help.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

My closure on the argument:

Some things are seriously out of wack and proportion, but the demonlords aren't the problem, they are simply the point where the problem becomes apparent.

The actual problem is that there is no real unified measuring stick for power in D&D as is, which, in the light of 3.X design philosophy of modularity and unified guidelines, is a huge failing.

The proponents of epic level play may not like it, but epic level play could never be that measuring stick. Epic level play is per definition without limit, it is the very principle of breaking the actual power limit of the game for the fun of it. For every epic power user power levels are defined differently.

That means the game has to use it's natural power level as core assumption of power levels. In 3.X that's level twenty. If we use level twenty as *standart assumption* power level, we have to define if we want beatable archexemplars (archfiends, celestial paragons, Slaadlords, Primus) and indeed even gods. I say yes we do. I mean, this is the game of "kill things and take their stuff" as much as every other game. If don't play it that way (and I don't) and think demon princes and such should be unapproachable by mortals, you don't need stats.

So Billy and Sue can kill demogorgon for his phat loot, so what? Let them have some good high school fun. Does that lessen your enjoyment of your own game, where you don't have Billy and Sue, or perhaps five years older Billy and Sue that have by then "risen above such"?

I don't think the FC1 aproach is perfect. A mortal shouldn't just go up to a archfiend and slay him, I would have loved to see rules for actually defeating archfiends, which, while still taking a battle, should be more about binding and imprisoning them.

The true failing is that some power levels are way out of proportion (true dragons, balor). It's the consequence of lacking guidelines for power level, a truly sad thing.

Again, I know that fans of epic level may not like this. I know Shemmeska plays an epic Sigil (the original isn't really epic. Yeah, the factols are level twenty and the duke has even been munchkinned to 19/20, but these guys are pretty much holding the most powerfull positions mortals can get, they are epic in almost every sense of the word, but by original, still at the limit of mortal power),  Spulchrave is well known for his excellent epic level play  and I can certainly simpathise with Razz's love for Naruto/Bleach like "real ultimate power" as a fan of those manga myself. But it just can't be the guideline, for a guideline needs limits. If you break the limit, don't wonder that you're out of limit.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Please don't whine and snivel when I make generalized comments or suggestions in the form of a statement.  It is immature and petty.




_*Moderator:*

Kain, please tone it down. In The Rules we use around here, #1 is "Keep it civil".  We ask you to be polite, even if you find what other people say less than pleasing._


----------



## jodyjohnson (May 30, 2006)

I'd like to see what was done with the Demon Lords' CR be an indicator for what could be done with the entire upper end of the Core CR scale.

Since many campaigns start to implode when they get into the teens maybe the iconic base stats should be lower CR while allowing for advanced hit dice and class levels for tougher versions.

I dislike the fact that the campaign will break up before Balors, Maraliths, and even Nalfeshnee become appropriate foes much less having a custom advanced and levelled version.

For me the issue isn't that the Demon Lords are too weak but that the other creatures start their progression too high.

Sounds kind of 1e, I know, but maybe the cool creatures should be more appropriate to where the fun is (closer to 8-13 level).  (Not that levels 14+ aren't fun but usually my group is ready to move on if they've actually played through all of those levels over the course of 2 years).


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> How many yugoloths? And what power of deity? It's not like the yugoloth race couldn't field a force capable of taking down a true god, whatever the stats for the top yugoloth bosses are. Never heard of this. Chapter and verse, please.



Wel I don't believe that the loths killed this deity, at very least not directly. I guess, if the deity was truly slain by the yugoloths, it's the deity that they slowly killed at the dawn of the blood war by slaying her mortal followers. Or they simply stole the spine from the astral plane.


			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> That's Dicefreaks canon, AFAICT. I don't see any evidence for it in WotC material.



No, that's planescape canon, DF just adaopted it from PS


			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> 1) Deities had better stats that archfiends. So did solars. (Rip, you can talk about theoretical lower limits to divine stats all you want, but the fact is that there IS a theoretical lower limit. It's represented by Lolth.)



Well, some had worse stats than some deities, other had equal stats than some deities. Yet all archfiends were considered lesser gods.


			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> 2) EGG and Ed Greenwood proposed moving the goblin, orc, and kobold pantheons out of the Nine Hells in order to avoid the question of "why don't these deities rule the Hells themselves?", NOT because of some in-game story reason that the archfiends had kicked them out.



Correct, after this OOC change there were some ingame rumors that the LotN were responsible, but it was never mentioned as a fact. And even if they were responsible, that could have been the work of 9 lesser gods using the right circumstances.

I never liked the "archfiends need to be able to slap the gods around however they like to". But that still doesn't mean that the truth why Asmodeus is hiding in the darkness of Nessus should be because he is afraid of the hellfire wyrms outside


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> How many yugoloths? And what power of deity? It's not like the yugoloth race couldn't field a force capable of taking down a true god, whatever the stats for the top yugoloth bosses are.




Knowing the Yugoloths, this is just as likely to be screed.

One thing I really appreciated about Faces of Evil, probably the last "definitive" work on fiends as a whole, is that while it fuelled you with lots of ideas, it came across from an angle of a mortal sage in a setting in which the premise was that anything about yugoloths (or well, any fiends, but especially yugoloths) was just as likely to be true or false. So it was a book that it was safe to let your players get snippets of without having to worry about whether anything it said out of necessity and obesience to canon would invalidate the GMs game.

That said, the spine of a god thing is sort of cool... I think it would be a fun thing to plot out an adventure around how this really happened. And again, knowing the yugoloths, the entire event would not be something that is forcasted in CRs or stat blocks, but very sly trickery.


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

Sounds pretty good to me.  Most of them have absolute hordes of underlings and I have next to no interest in epic gaming, so CR 25 puts them well out of the reach of players, right where they should be.

Beyond that it doesn't really matter at all.  They're more like plot elements that creatures made to be attacked.  They could give them all ability scores of 3 for all I care.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

I like my archfiends, celestial paragons, etc. in the CR 25+ range.

I like the dukes, viceroys, etc. in the low to mid 20 range.

If I need one to challenge my players at a lower-CR, I'll use an aspect or proxy.


----------



## reanjr (May 30, 2006)

Sledge said:
			
		

> To keep on topic, having them this low makes them ineffective by the rules.  When the WEAKEST pit fiend stands a chance at usurping the demon lords, then what do the 54 hd ones do?
> Dicefreaks is a good measure for me.  I'm not opposed to scaling on principal, just the insane scaling.
> Scaling demon lords from 30-50 is scaling and extreme at that.  Just how much power can these cr 20ish demon lords actually wield.
> Someone once told me they thought if he wanted his 1st level party fight the evil necromancer that terrorized the land, then that necromancer should be level 1 or 2.  There is no "terrorize the land" at level 1 or 2.  The same thing holds true of the bigger bads.  Anything that can tell pit fiends what to do needs to be MUCH higher in cr than the weakest pit fiend.  Especially since pit fiends reach considerably higher cr's than 20.  Especially since pit fiends can show up in groups of 4.  Why would a pit fiend not destroy a demon "lord" that is its inferior?  What exactly is the CR of a 54 HD pit fiend again?  Given that the demon lord base stats are as weak as the base stats for a non lord devil there is a problem here.




This all mounts down to the question of why the PCs don't kill all the 10th level aritocrat kings and topple the kingdoms.  Comparing celestial rank with CR/HD/level/etc. is a pretty worthless comparison.  I could drop a 5th level goblin in as an arch villain for my 10th level PCs no problem.  A 2nd level necromancer can certainly terrorize the land without problem.  The yugoloths can probably have a god killed and certainly have some political sway over many of the them.  Demon princes are not going to be able to be assaulted by pit fiends.


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> This all mounts down to the question of why the PCs don't kill all the 10th level aritocrat kings and topple the kingdoms.



Mostly because: 

a) They're not evil
b) There are laws against this

Neither of this prevents them from doing it in the Abyss. And it even often happens on prime material world when some bandits ride into a remote border village, slay the officials of the town and set themselves as the new rulers (usually leading to an adventure for the PCs to drive them out)


----------



## Largomad (May 30, 2006)

My answer to the  OP  is that I take the CRs given as some kind of avatars with similar mechanics to those of gods.
In this particular light, I consider the given ranges most appropiate for the taste of my game but if I had to use them as the "real" powers perhaps I will feel them a bit on the lower end.
Frakly the fact that some creatures of monster manual I (if I recall correctly one of the variety of the nighshadows )  range  near the level of power named demon princes sounds wrong to me.


----------



## Vuron (May 30, 2006)

Personally I see the heavy duty named princes and lords as the equivalent of a fully advanced Balor + special abilities for flavor. In thier home plane they likely have additional powers that make them the equivalent of some demigods (Divine Ranking 1-5).

However they lack that power outside of thier homeplane(s) and most likely thier sanctum sanctorum. Thus if you are an extremely powerful archmage like Zagyg or Iggwilv you can summon and bind a demon prince to the prime material and force thier service but to truly defeat them you have to beard the beast in it's own den.

Permanent defeat would require chipping away at the artifacts and places of power on Azzgarat or Abyssm that the Demon Prince uses to mimic true divine strength. One of Graz'zt's sources of power might be a demonic cage that holds a fully advanced Solar Proxy of one of the gods of  the campaign. Graz'zt might use that imprisoned solar to siphon off a fraction of the divine power of the solar's master. The throneroom of orcus might be at the center of a vast design channeling necromantic energy from the plane itself.

This would explain why Demon Princes can be bound by mortals yet they seem relatively eternal. This would also explain why the Demon Princes struggle against each other without success and why Orcus could reclaim his plane from an usurper as the usurper lacked the attunement to the nexuses of power on the plane.

In this sort of system you could defeat a demon prince like Demogorgon even without using epic level characters by chipping away at the pillars that support him. By summoning and binding his balor and Marlith servants you limit his ability to exert his power. By making raids on his sites of power you reduce the divine (abyssal) strength he's able to assert. Finally if you manage to reduce enough of his support structure you could show up in his sanctum sanctorum with a full load of allies, cohort, gated creatures, and likely the aid of another demon prince and you could slay demogorgon.

Of course that just means that either a PC has to step into the void and become inevitably corrupted or another demon prince claims the plane.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> _*Moderator:*
> 
> Kain, please tone it down. In The Rules we use around here, #1 is "Keep it civil".  We ask you to be polite, even if you find what other people say less than pleasing._





I said 'please'.....would the conotations of 'complain' be better than snivel?


----------



## Agent Oracle (May 30, 2006)

How the logic works on this one:

 I am A Demon Prince, i am slightly stronger than all other demons,  and my father is VERY strong.

 I am A Balor. I am almost as strong as a demon prince, but were I to attack one directly, I would most certainly loose without backup.

 we are a hoarde of lesser demons.  If a Balor were to attack the demon prince, and we were to side with the Balor, he would win... of course, in the process, that prince would probably kill many of us, and the balor would probably be very weak, which would allow the Celestials to come in and kill us all...  

 Not to mention that my dad would probably kill you all anyway for disobeying my commands

:Rolleyes: We Think we are happy with the existing power situation in this plane of torment.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 30, 2006)

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *It speaks volumes about how poorly supported epic-level play in general is, and the default assumption is Lvl 20 tops.* This is a shame - I run an epic-level game, and I'd like more material to draw on. But if WotC did their research - and surely they must have done - it puts me firmly in a minority camp. I don't anticipate any new supplements in this area. I guess I just have to suck it up, and do any modifications myself.



(emphasis mine)

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say (all of the above).


----------



## Agent Oracle (May 30, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Mostly because:
> 
> a) They're not evil
> b) There are laws against this
> ...




oddly, the Devils (from Baator) are all lawful, which means they adhere to SOME kind of code and / or heirarchy, maybe it's like when Arthur yanked the sword from the stone... anyone could have run up and killed the young boy who was proclaimed king, but a sense of lawful respect kept them from doing it.

That said, i'd hate to rule the devils... i don't want to be known ad The Master of Baator.


----------



## The Serge (May 30, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> 1) Deities had better stats that archfiends. So did solars. (Rip, you can talk about theoretical lower limits to divine stats all you want, but the fact is that there IS a theoretical lower limit. It's represented by Lolth.)



Yes, solars did.  And some deities did.  However, this does not discount the fact that the archfiends were still considered as lesser gods in 1ed.



> 2) EGG and Ed Greenwood proposed moving the goblin, orc, and kobold pantheons out of the Nine Hells in order to avoid the question of "why don't these deities rule the Hells themselves?", NOT because of some in-game story reason that the archfiends had kicked them out.



However, there was a development in 2ed that suggested that the Lords of the Nine, perhaps just one, forced the orcish pantheon out of Hell (_DRAGON Magazine_ 223).  _On Hallowed Ground_ continued this theory:



> Chant is the Lords of the Nine could even give the rope to the true powers of the plane -- but they choose not to, out of deference.  If it's true, the lords are remarkably tolerant.  If it's a peel, they've got a remarkably good propaganda machine, because Baator's deities show _no inkling of challenging the lords._



_emphasis mine_



> Never heard of this. Chapter and verse, please.
> That's Dicefreaks canon, AFAICT. I don't see any evidence for it in WotC material.



Actually, this was adapted from and expanded upon Planescape canon.  It's in Planes of Law and in _On Hallowed Ground_ and in _DRAGON Magazine_ 223.  And the texts imply that Set is on the defensive in this contest.



> Again, chapter and verse. Planes of Law rather clearly states that the goblin pantheon is "long established on Acheron," while the orcish pantheon has moved from Gehenna to the Hells to Acheron. That doesn't imply Asmodeus forcing Gruumsh to do _anything._



The reference to Asmodeus specifically, AFAICT, happened more or less simultaneously with my earliest Dicefreaks work and with the official PS website.  However, it was never clearly said that Asmodeus did anything, but that perhaps one of the Lords.



> Certainly, both the 1e MotP and Planes of Chaos note that not many deities settle in the Abyss because "few deities wish to contend with the upstart demon life that inhabits the plane." That hardly sounds like getting slapped around to me.



If they were so powerful, they wouldn't worry about "upstart demon life."  If I'm unhappy with mosquitos, I set things up to kill them or at least encourage them to move elsewhere.



> 1) On their home planes, they're treated as having a divine rank of sorts ("cosmic rank": Thanks, Serge, Kain, and  all the 'Freaks!) that allows them to control their planes in a manner analogous to that of true deities. On and off their home planes, they have the ability to resist salient divine abilities and deific powers in a manner appropriate to their relative cosmic rank.



You're welcome!  



> As to "slaying archfiends and taking their stuff," one could easily make the same argument with statted deities. A campaign that's geared around treating Demogorgon like a big monster with no agenda other than a fencing dummy's can equally be played with Zeus; he's got hit points and Armor Class and everything. That said, I do like archfiends to be within the grasp of fighting for epic-level PCs, with the true deities slightly less so. My PCs/NPCs are unlikely to ever get past 30th level (although I do play past 20th), so while they might be able to face down a Duke of Hell or outfox a demon lord, they still won't be able to take on a demonic paradigm like Demogorgon or a master manipulator like Dispater without divine help.



This is essentiallly the position that DF takes ratcheted up a few levels.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 30, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Yes, solars did.  And some deities did.  However, this does not discount the fact that the archfiends were still considered as lesser gods in 1ed.
> 
> 
> However, there was a development in 2ed that suggested that the Lords of the Nine, perhaps just one, forced the orcish pantheon out of Hell (_DRAGON Magazine_ 223).  _On Hallowed Ground_ continued this theory:



Of course, these are phrased as rumor. And I'd _expect_ the baatezu high-ups to have a superb propaganda machine.


> _Actually, this was adapted from and expanded upon Planescape canon.  It's in Planes of Law and in On Hallowed Ground and in DRAGON Magazine 223.  And the texts imply that Set is on the defensive in this contest._



I only see this in Dragon 223 (I don't own OHG). Where is it in Planes of Law?


> _If they were so powerful, they wouldn't worry about "upstart demon life."  If I'm unhappy with mosquitos, I set things up to kill them or at least encourage them to move elsewhere._



Tell that to my girlfriend's family at their lake house. We just have to wear a centimeter-thick layer of repellent at all times...


----------



## Mirtek (May 30, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> oddly, the Devils (from Baator) are all lawful, which means they adhere to SOME kind of code and / or heirarchy, maybe it's like when Arthur yanked the sword from the stone... anyone could have run up and killed the young boy who was proclaimed king, but a sense of lawful respect kept them from doing it.



And I agree that such rulers could work in Baator. But never in the Abyss


			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> Actually, this was adapted from and expanded upon Planescape canon.  It's in Planes of Law and in _On Hallowed Ground_ and in _DRAGON Magazine_ 223.  And the texts imply that Set is on the defensive in this contest.



Not sure about _Planes of Law_, bur Dragon 223 didn't sound as if Set were denfensive, neither did _On Hallowed Grounds_.


----------



## The Serge (May 30, 2006)

From Phantom Lama of Dicefreaks.  He figured that it would be best to revamp Mystra to make her more appealing to standard games since so many people don't play beyond 20th level and may want to fight her.



> *Mystra *
> Wizard 20
> Medium Outsider (Extraplanar)
> *Hit Dice:* 20d4 + 40 (90 hp)
> ...




Another 'freak felt that this was a poor decision as she is a goddess, but Phaedros set him straight...



			
				Phaedros the Wise 'Freak said:
			
		

> Ramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We are doing all we can at Dicefreaks to support the anemi--- err --- more standard demon prince and lord builds.  We hope this helps.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> However, it was never clearly said that Asmodeus did anything, but that perhaps one of the Lords.




Probably not Asmodeus. It was most likely _Bel_, the least of the Nine, who drove both the orcish and goblin pantheons out of his layer single-handedly.

He doesn't need high combat statistics to do this, though, just the power to eject divine realms out of his layer.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 30, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> And I agree that such rulers could work in Baator. But never in the Abyss.



Of course, there's lots of room in the Abyss, which makes it a different kind of situation. The situation sketched out in 1e implied a confused collection of greater demons (nalfeshnee to balor), unique demons (lords and princes), and powers, all making bits and pieces of the Infinite Layers their own according to a mix of personal power, rivals' interests, and circumstance. 


> _Not sure about Planes of Law, bur Dragon 223 didn't sound as if Set were denfensive, neither did On Hallowed Grounds._



Darnit, still can't find a reference to this in PoL! 


			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> This is essentiallly the position that DF takes ratcheted up a few levels.



And a fine job indeed you've done with it!

To come back to the OT: It seems to me that the designers of HotA really had one major goal in mind: Give the archfiends a set of base stats that makes them usable as end bosses for a campaign that does not require use of epic-level rules. A number of other posters have suggested an approach for the archfiends that is *not* geared toward this goal, but instead toward internal campaign consistency vis-a-vis interaction with other fiends and deities. It seems that on that basis, you could really have anything from low-epic to unstattable.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Probably not Asmodeus. It was most likely _Bel_, the least of the Nine, who drove both the orcish and goblin pantheons out of his layer single-handedly.
> 
> He doesn't need high combat statistics to do this, though, just the power to eject divine realms out of his layer.





Except that the Orcs and Goblins were already gone before Bel took over from Zariel, if I remember my history right.  Maybe even before Tiamat stepped down.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> From Phantom Lama of Dicefreaks.  He figured that it would be best to revamp Mystra to make her more appealing to standard games since so many people don't play beyond 20th level and may want to fight her.




I know this is suposed to be an angry joke and stuff, but: In the unlikely case that I ever DMed a non-homebrew setting and in the even more unlikely case that setting would be the FR, I'd reduce all those epic honchos to sub epic levels (really, there isn't anything about them that would demand of them to have more ability than the ability to cast 9th level) and that Mystra would make a decent avatar (maybe some extras to ramp her CR up to 23) in the even far more unlikely case I had her as opponent for my PC's. Of course, all that not to kill her and take her stuff, but with a good plot reason and implementation.

Really, some people have to get rid of that anger. It's sad that 3.5 stats are inconsistent as they are, but it's not the end of good gaming. (especially all those people that already have their own stats, prooving that they don't need official stats one way or the other).


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Except that the Orcs and Goblins were already gone before Bel took over from Zariel, if I remember my history right.  Maybe even before Tiamat stepped down.




I'm not sure. Bel took over "thousands of years ago," according to Dragon #223. The orcish exodus feels contemporaneous, if not more recent, especially since they were in Hell as recently as _Monster Mythology_ (they seem to have gone back and forth in official products before Planescape stabilized them in Acheron).

Deities & Demigods put them in the Hells, I presume Avernus because that's the nearest one to Gehenna and Acheron.

Gygax and Greenwood retconned them out of the Hells.

Manual of the Planes put them in Acheron. This is 1st edition, and thus before the "Reckoning" in-game. Eons ago.

Monster Mythology put them back in the Hells. This was after the Outer Planes Appendix, and thus post-Reckoning. The Dark Eight, in this era, were in charge.

Planescape put them back in Acheron. Planescape was hazy about who ruled Avernus, for a time claiming Bel was only a warlord working for the unnamed Lord of the First, but later revealed that Bel had his master imprisoned and had been running the show himself for millennia.

So, assuming publishing date affects the way the planes work in-game, the orcish exodus might have been slightly before, slightly after, contemporaneous or quite a bit after Bel's ascension. Or _Monster Mythology_ could just be written off as a mistake, but I'd rather rationalize it.

Tiamat's reign was retconned out of existence. The idea of a dragon in a baatezu's position bothers me, anyway. I don't always support retcons, but this one feels like they fixed a problem.

Dragon #75 said that Tiamat only ruled as far as she could reach, anyway, saying that Avernus was mostly wilderness outside Tiamat's control. This fits the idea that the true ruler of the layer was someone else.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> I know this is suposed to be an angry joke and stuff, but: In the unlikely case that I ever DMed a non-homebrew setting and in the even more unlikely case that setting would be the FR, I'd reduce all those epic honchos to sub epic levels (really, there isn't anything about them that would demand of them to have more ability than the ability to cast 9th level) and that Mystra would make a decent avatar (maybe some extras to ramp her CR up to 23) in the even far more unlikely case I had her as opponent for my PC's. Of course, all that not to kill her and take her stuff, but with a good plot reason and implementation.
> 
> Really, some people have to get rid of that anger. It's sad that 3.5 stats are inconsistent as they are, but it's not the end of good gaming. (especially all those people that already have their own stats, prooving that they don't need official stats one way or the other).





I'm not feeling the anger here, and I read the guy's original post.

See, people have a right to be irked at a lack of internal consistancy, if that is one of the things that is important to them about the game.  I don't think he's going to go climb a water tower over the crap-stats, he's making a point.  If all powerful creatures in the game need to be no more than 20th level challenges, gods, dragons and everything else needs to come sliding down the totem pole.


----------



## Sammael (May 30, 2006)

Eh, that Mystra is nowhere near CR 21. She's about CR 16, and that's being generous. 

Of course, I am basing this off the redspawn arcaniss precedent in MM4 and the subsequent WotC R&D comments which finally officially confirmed that NPC level should not, in fact, be equal to their CR. I am not sure what the xact formula is, but I'm pretty sure a party of 4 16th level characters could take her down in a couple of rounds. Heck, a 16th level rogue alone with appropriate feats and magical protections could probably kill her in the surprise round.

But that's how it should be, right? I mean, we don't want to disappoint our players who want to kill Mystra and take her stuff when we arbitrarily decide to end the campaign around level 12 or so because we're scared of running higher-level games. We'll just let them give it a shot and them mumble how the game "falls apart after level 10."


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I'm not sure. Bel took over "thousands of years ago," according to Dragon #223. The orcish exodus feels contemporaneous, if not more recent, especially since they were in Hell as recently as _Monster Mythology_ (they seem to have gone back and forth in official products before Planescape stabilized them in Acheron).
> 
> Tiamat's reign was retconned out of existence. The idea of a dragon in a baatezu's position bothers me, anyway. I don't always support retcons, but this one feels like they fixed a problem.
> 
> Dragon #75 said that Tiamat only ruled as far as she could reach, anyway, saying that Avernus was mostly wilderness outside Tiamat's control. This fits the idea that the true ruler of the layer was someone else.





Where was it retconned, Rip?  And do you support hags in a baatezu's position?


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Where was it retconned, Rip?  And do you support hags in a baatezu's position?




Dragon #223 said something along the lines of "The Lord of the First, contrary to popular belief, was not Tiamat." You could read that as, "Tiamat gave her post to Zariel," but it makes me uneasy to put a dragon in a job so integral to the baatezu hierarchy. Tiamat does as she's always done, breeding with her consorts, ruling evil dragonkind, plotting to increase her influence over the Material Plane, and guarding the portal to Dis. She has as many abishai and other troops as she needs to fulfill the last duty, but she never ruled the entire layer (and 1e never really claimed she did).

And no, I don't. The Hag-Countess was explicitly a baatezu as recently as _Guide to Hell_, and I prefer her that way. Baalzebul, though a former archon, is also a baatezu by now.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Dragon #223 said something along the lines of "The Lord of the First, contrary to popular belief, was not Tiamat."
> 
> And no, I don't. The Hag-Countess was explicitly a baatezu as recently as _Guide to Hell_, and I prefer her that way. Baalzebul, though a former archon, is also a baatezu by now.





Ah.  Well, it is good that she is not a Lord of the Nine anymore anyways, or she'd have to be reduced to a CR 19-22 ish.  However, since she is a dragon-god, she should probably be weaker than the most powerful dragons....CR 24 sounds about right for her.  Otherwise she's useless.  I'm still not sure what I'll do if I want my 3rd level players to get her horde though.  Maybe she should be CR 1 for me, and have a scalable advancement for you fanboys who want uber 1337 dragons.  That way you can have your CR 3 billion wastes of space, and I can have the real Tiamat in my game.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> I'm not feeling the anger here, and I read the guy's original post.
> 
> See, people have a right to be irked at a lack of internal consistancy, if that is one of the things that is important to them about the game.  I don't think he's going to go climb a water tower over the crap-stats, he's making a point.  If all powerful creatures in the game need to be no more than 20th level challenges, gods, dragons and everything else needs to come sliding down the totem pole.




In that case he's making my point: The game has to be put into a certain parameter all around. But I don't see a CR 6x monsters dicefreak agreeing with my non-epic position.

I feel a bit irked about a lack of internal consistency from a system that was build for internal consistence based on guidelines, but I see it simply as a problem of the game as whole. However, personal attacks and quite a bit of snarkiness where slung around in considerable amount, which for me constitutes more than being rightfully irked, but feels more like misdirected anger.

Again, I restate myself: Puting things within the limits of twenty level play is not artificially limiting, rather extending your own game behind the games core limit is artificial, so I don't think anyone should wonder if he doesn't find much official support for that move.

I think current D&D at level 11-20 constitutes for quite an epic experience already. If people want to go further than that, it's ok with me. But don't force the rest of the comunity with you into the unlimited hard to pin down reaches of your personal style. 

That many people argue at once for downpinned archdemon stats and on the other hand for a playstyle that has no defined limits and measurements seems nonsential to me.


----------



## Nebulous (May 30, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> Ditto. For me the game falls apart mechanically past 20th level anyway, so that's a good endpoint to aim for.




I think the game starts to really far apart at 15th and beyond. I think the CR's for the fiendish lords are just fine.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> In that case he's making my point: The game has to be put into a certain parameter all around. *But I don't see a CR 6x monsters dicefreak agreeing with my non-epic position.*
> 
> I feel a bit irked about a lack of internal consistency from a system that was build for internal consistence based on guidelines, but I see it simply as a problem of the game as whole. However, personal attacks and quite a bit of snarkiness where slung around in considerable amount, which for me constitutes more than being rightfully irked, but feels more like misdirected anger.
> 
> ...






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.  


But that is not the world shown to me with the Monster Manual 3.5.  The world shown to me by the MM is a world where level 20 adventurers are powerful entities in their own right, but not world stomping invincible beings of godly power.  The world shown to me by the MM has a CR 20 top tier regular demon called the balor.  The world shown to me by the MM has a variety of challenges, and by no means are level 20 characters the top of the heap.  

In the world shown to me by the Monster Manual, demon princes can't survive, can't make SENSE at the power level suggested by Hordes of the Abyss.  They would even have issues with the power level in the Book of Vile Darkness.  Because even if there are no advanced balors, or dragons with more HD than the great wyrms of the MM3.5, you still have issues like...8 balors.  Or in the case of Hordes, 2 balors.  If it is a stretch for the Prince of Demons to squash a balor, or even a worrisome fight, then that just doesn't make sense.  Not to me.  I don't see how one can be the almighty Prince of Demons or King of All Hell for untold eons, if there are goddess-romping archwizards who have twice the HD, or even full grown dragons who can tear a hole in your reign.


----------



## DaveMage (May 30, 2006)

I've been playing in epic levels for a while now, and the game hasn't broken down at all for us.  For those who've had it break down, perhaps you need a better DM.  (Or one with more time to plan his or her games.)

As I said in the other thread, I would have liked the Princes and Lords to be consistent with the way they were presented in the BoVD, but updated to 3.5.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I've been playing in epic levels for a while now, and the game hasn't broken down at all for us.  For those who've had it break down, perhaps you need a better DM.  (Or one with more time to plan his or her games.)




You know, I really resent this sort of rhetoric. It pretty much boils down to "if you don't enjoy the way we like to play, you are incompetant." No, I just don't enjoy some aspect of play at that levels. It's not whether it's doable; it's whether it's enjoyable.


----------



## The Serge (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> You know, I really resent this sort of rhetoric. It pretty much boils down to "if you don't enjoy the way we like to play, you are incompetant." No, I just don't enjoy some aspect of play at that levels. It's not whether it's doable; it's whether it's enjoyable.



No, that's not what he's saying.  What he's responding to is everyone making a "statement of fact" that games breakdown after a certain level (I've read as low as 12 recently).  I'm not seeing folks say, "The games I've played break down at suchandsuch level," just "The game breaks down."  These folks aren't defending their preference to play low to mid-ranged games, they're claiming that higher level and epic games don't work.  That's just as bad as the attack you seem to be suggesting was made... Which is not what I read at all.

It's been my observation that most folks who do not like epic games or feel that they fall apart at a certain level have either never played them or have played them infrequently...  Or, and I've seen this, haven't played them in the proper environment (underprepared DM, underprepared players, or whatever else you want to call it).  Most.  I know that there are those who just like lower level games and that's fine, but I rarely see this as simply as when folks start digging for answers, it's one of the two issues I illustrated.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> In the world shown to me by the Monster Manual, demon princes can't survive, can't make SENSE at the power level suggested by Hordes of the Abyss.  They would even have issues with the power level in the Book of Vile Darkness.  Because even if there are no advanced balors, or dragons with more HD than the great wyrms of the MM3.5, you still have issues like...8 balors.  Or in the case of Hordes, 2 balors.  If it is a stretch for the Prince of Demons to squash a balor, or even a worrisome fight, then that just doesn't make sense.  Not to me.  I don't see how one can be the almighty Prince of Demons or King of All Hell for untold eons, if there are goddess-romping archwizards who have twice the HD, or even full grown dragons who can tear a hole in your reign.




Aye.



			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> I feel a bit irked about a lack of internal consistency from a system that was build for internal consistence based on guidelines, but I see it simply as a problem of the game as whole.




But I simply don't think it's worth the big outcry. It's a problem that has to be fixed somewhere down the line.

The solution found may be questionable, but nothing more.

Beside, why please the dicefreaks and Planescapists that are all very adapt at comming up with their own stuff and indeed have done so, while ignoring the avarage gamer, who wants no epic gaming. Is your game hurt because Bobby and Sue can kill demogorgon and take his stuff. Or when I power down Grazzt with some plot devices, so my players can fight him at the end of our three years campaign that has just reached level 20?

Bottom line for me is that all this certainly is no reason to attack other playstyles or posters and get all worked up.

I don't like being called an asskisser because I defend a certain position, or get put into a certain playstyle only because I'm against a certain position and then being insulted for that playstyle (that isn't even mine). There have been some harsh generalisations that I don't think where necessary or civil.


----------



## The Serge (May 30, 2006)

When Not Keeping It Real Goes Wrong!

For those curious to why there is an outcry for a balanced, internally consistent cosmology, we humbly present the following exploration of how the King of All Hell, Asmodeus the legendary Lord of the Nine, fares against the pathetic god of kobolds, Special K himself, Kurtulmak.  Some of the following may disturb some readers.  Viewer discretion is advised...

Battle Epica: Asmodeus vs. Kurtulmak


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> No, that's not what he's saying.  What he's responding to is everyone making a "statement of fact" that games breakdown after a certain level (I've read as low as 12 recently).  I'm not seeing folks say, "The games I've played break down at suchandsuch level," just "The game breaks down."




You are going to have a hard time convincing me of that.

I don't agree that the game breaks down at 12th level. IME, that sounds like an apt description of 1e and 2e. 3e freed me from that and lets me run players higher. I am currently running a 16th level game now and have run games into epic levels.

But...



> These folks aren't defending their preference to play low to mid-ranged games, they're claiming that higher level and epic games don't work.  That's just as bad as the attack you seem to be suggesting was made... Which is not what I read at all.




Not at all. I think they are wrong, but they weren't using similar derogatory charaterizations for those who didn't share their preferences.

It's not the stance that higher level games are playable that I am taking exception to. It's the way it was done.


----------



## The Serge (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Beside, why please the dicefreaks and Planescapists that are all very adapt at comming up with their own stuff and indeed have done so, while ignoring the avarage gamer, who wants no epic gaming. Is your game hurt because Bobby and Sue can kill demogorgon and take his stuff. Or when I power down Grazzt with some plot devices, so my players can fight him at the end of our three years campaign that has just reached level 20?



No, my game isn't hurt...  But then, neither would your game be hurt if WotC took the time to develop an internally consistent cosmology and placed the various archfiends and other planar lords in a more appropriate position.  

As for this idea that the average gamer doesn't want to play epic games, how would the average gamer know?  From what I've seen, most gamers who claim a disinterest in epic games have _never_ played one to know if it would be appealing or even know if it works.  WotC has done a pathetic job in offering any support for epic gaming, often siting the lack of customer interest in the concept...  It's a catch-22: if you don't offer the product, people won't play and since people aren't playing, they're not offering the product.  This attitude just feeds on itself.



> Bottom line for me is that all this certainly is no reason to attack other playstyles or posters and get all worked up.



I haven't seen anyone attacking anyone else's playstyle.  What's occuring here is folks asking for a reasonable explanation for some of the positions here.  



> I don't like being called an asskisser because I defend a certain position, or get put into a certain playstyle only because I'm against a certain position and then being insulted for that playstyle (that isn't even mine). There have been some harsh generalisations that I don't think where necessary or civil.



Who called you "an asskisser?"  And I don't believe that anyone is making harsh generalizations...  On either side of the debate.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> But I simply don't think it's worth the big outcry.




This is _not_ a big outcry. This is very, very minor by Internet message board standards.

Things that have generated a bigger outcry include:

- Giving the Lady of Pain a LN alignment in the _Planar Handbook_.
- The concept of _Planar Touchstones_.
- Stats for deities.
- The phrase "Chant is, Oerth is dying." 
- Halfling hairy feet, or the lack thereof.
- Gnomish noses.
- Female dwarf beards.
- Interpretation of the native outsider subtype. 
- Epic guardsmen in Union.
- Gruumsh's alignment
- 3.5 edition weapon resistances
- The assassin PrC's spell list.
- The 3e revision of githzerai.
- Communities of mortals living in the planes.
- "Lizardfolk" versus "Lizard men." 
- Pronouns.
- The revision of the Forgotten Realms cosmology.
- Dinosaurs and technology in Eberron. 
- Whether or not Takhisis is the same as Tiamat.
- Whether or not Elminster is a Mary Sue character.

The flare-up over demon princes' CRs barely qualifies as a whimper in the scheme of things, let alone an outcry. 

The reaction really is as minor as you think it should be.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

> But that is not the world shown to me with the Monster Manual 3.5. The world shown to me by the MM is a world where level 20 adventurers are powerful entities in their own right, but not world stomping invincible beings of godly power. The world shown to me by the MM has a CR 20 top tier regular demon called the balor. The world shown to me by the MM has a variety of challenges, and by no means are level 20 characters the top of the heap.




Herein lies the problem. You fundamentally do not understand the positions of those who think differently than you. Repeating the same assertion over and over again for every post in these two threads is not going to change it, because those who do not agree with you are operating under different assumptions than you.

And here it is: AFAIAC, _the MM does not show me a world. It gives me a toolbox._ If you think back, recall that the 3.0 MM had all the high end fiends weaker. They were up-sized for 3.5 because the design team thought it would better support play through 20 levels. It was a mechanical and gameplay consideration, not a canon one.

If you look at my post answering the OP, for the purposes of my game, I see archfiends in the uper 20s and 30s CRs. And I think canon supports that as well. And I think the fact the demonomicon articles putting fiends in the CR 30 range should show that the CR20 range was not a canon decision, but a toolkit one. Why? Most players don't play high enough for those stats to ever be used in play. The set of stats that would actually get used are most likely to be the ones printed, or close to them. Not the ones that reflect canon.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> And here it is: AFAIAC, _the MM does not show me a world. It gives me a toolbox._




That's fine, but the tools in the MM are all calibrated based on the Metric system while the tools in the FC1 are still using Imperial measures.

If the 3.0 MM, with its weaker balors, was still in print that'd be one thing, but it's not. Using the FC1 archfiends straight out of the box requires that you either still have a copy of the 3.0 MM or you're prepared to do the work to depower the 3.5 fiends. If you want to use the 3.5 balor as it is, and you want a consistent game, you're going to want to increase the power of the FC1 archfiends accordingly - and that requires some work, or that you buy some magazines in addition the hardcover book you've just purchased.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to base all your basic tools on the same measuring scale.


----------



## The Serge (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Herein lies the problem. You fundamentally do not understand the positions of those who think differently than you. Repeating the same assertion over and over again for every post in these two threads is not going to change it, because those who do not agree with you are operating under different assumptions than you.



Psion, the claim you're making is applicable to both sides of this debate.  There are plenty of folks who like these anemic stats who will have been supporting them repeatedly in two different threads.  



> And here it is: AFAIAC, _the MM does not show me a world. It gives me a toolbox._ If you think back, recall that the 3.0 MM had all the high end fiends weaker. They were up-sized for 3.5 because the design team thought it would better support play through 20 levels. It was a mechanical and gameplay consideration, not a canon one.



You don't think it was a canonical decision as well?  2ed stats for the pit fiend, balor, solar, and ultroloth were at the high end of the stat spread to support their cosmic statures.  All were just below the rungs of true individual power.  The increase in power may well have been partly a mechanical and gameplay issue, but I disagree that it was strictly due to these at the expense of canon.



> If you look at my post answering the OP, for the purposes of my game, I see archfiends in the uper 20s and 30s CRs. And I think canon supports that as well.



Canon also supports (and with greater strength, I contend) the archfiends being essentially on par with at least demigods, if not lesser gods.  As for the pending stats in FCI, the decision is clearly canon or else they wouldn't have bothered printing them in the first place.  While 3ed is about options, it still remains clear that stats taken from the various texts are intended to serve as official.  These stats appear in most official WotC material and even in third party texts if they're SRD.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> That's fine, but the tools in the MM are all calibrated based on the Metric system while the tools in the FC1 are still using Imperial measures.




A bare juxtaposition does not a valid analogy make. See the sig...



> If the 3.0 MM, with its weaker balors, was still in print that'd be one thing, but it's not.




I wasn't trying to suggest anyone do that. When I spoke of the 3.0 MM, I was trying to glean insight into why the books are written the way that they are and why, given this, it's a poor idea to pin canon on them.



> Using the FC1 archfiends straight out of the box requires that you either still have a copy of the 3.0 MM or you're prepared to do the work to depower the 3.5 fiends.




I don't see that necessarily being the case at all.

As Jester47 so brilliantly pointed out in the other thread, there are plenty of ways to use fiends as is and consistently explain them. (For that matter I don't really have to use a balor at all.)



> It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to base all your basic tools on the same measuring scale.




When it gives you stats that most people won't actually use in play, then the virtue of doing so comes immediately into question.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> You don't think it was a canonical decision as well?




I do not.



> The increase in power may well have been partly a mechanical and gameplay issue, but I disagree that it was strictly due to these at the expense of canon.




Well, it didn't have to be "at the expense of canon". But I don't see any canonical thrust that would have motivated such a decision.



> Canon also supports (and with greater strength, I contend) the archfiends being essentially on par with at least demigods, if not lesser gods.




That's fine. If you want statistics consistent with prior incarnations of the beings, I recommend you check out the Demonomicon articles or use the provided guidelines. I'm not suggesting that historical orcus was only a smidgen mightier than a balor (lolth on the other hand...)

I'm saying versions of these demons lords that conform to historical versions better would be used less, precisely BECAUSE they have the power of lesser deities.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> No, my game isn't hurt...  But then, neither would your game be hurt if WotC took the time to develop an internally consistent cosmology and placed the various archfiends and other planar lords in a more appropriate position.




No, my game propably wouldn't have been hurt. With my preference for slow advancement it would take years till I had a game from level 1 to 20. Before that it propably takes years before I could get such a game and then I'm not sure there would be a demon prince in that game. 

I'm more about defending the underlying phillosophy I see in the decision rather than the actual gaming impact. I'm also not 100% satisfied with the path taken.

However, what would have been a consistent cosmology solution for one, wouldn't have been for another, and most people clamoring for it already have their own solution. So why not satisfy the others?



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> As for this idea that the average gamer doesn't want to play epic games, how would the average gamer know?  From what I've seen, most gamers who claim a disinterest in epic games have _never_ played one to know if it would be appealing or even know if it works.  WotC has done a pathetic job in offering any support for epic gaming, often siting the lack of customer interest in the concept...  It's a catch-22: if you don't offer the product, people won't play and since people aren't playing, they're not offering the product.  This attitude just feeds on itself.




Well, I've never played epic, haven't even read much of epic rules.

For one, many people simply aren't interested in over the top gameply, while others don't like all the number crunching. But I'm not one of those and these people have a problem with D&D anyway.

So what's my problem with epic? I think the game should have, in general core sense, a locking point. A point where you've done it all. Been there, done that, have all the power a mortal can take. If people want to remove that point for their homegame I'm cool with that. But I belief that for both generaly design principle and for personal expectation there should be a level cap in the core assumptions.

My point here is: Would we have all that hassle now, had the game been build for 20 (or 25 or 30) level play in the first place. The lack of a professional complete definition of powerlevels all build into the core mechanism of game is what annoys me.

Hell (teh he), since current D&D obviously doesn't work that way and I'm not exactly for being adamant in one's position for the lone sake that it's my position, you and some others may even have convinced me that I should propably try it one day or another. But I still maintain that a game should be build in a way that it can be played "start to finish" within it's natural boundries and premise.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> I haven't seen anyone attacking anyone else's playstyle.  What's occuring here is folks asking for a reasonable explanation for some of the positions here.
> 
> Who called you "an asskisser?"  And I don't believe that anyone is making harsh generalizations...  On either side of the debate.




Ironically I generalised when complaining about generalising attacks. I'm sorry for that and would like to appologise.

The generalizing attacks where in the other thread. One poster was especially of fault of this, though I don't want a personal war or somesuch and intentionally didn't call names. The asskisser comment was actually made after the mods had already called people on their behavior. Maybe it's already deleted by now.


----------



## Sammael (May 30, 2006)

> I think the game should have, in general core sense, a locking point.



This is a fine personal point. However, it also completely and utterly antithetical to the core philosophy of 3E: *options, not restrictions*. Thus, it can never be supported by the current core rules.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> there are plenty of ways to use fiends as is and consistently explain them.




No, there are really aren't. I think I and others rebutted Jester's points more than adequately. The dissonance in power scale between the MM and FC1 is as obvious as it is indefensible, and repeating the same assertations over and over again doesn't change that.

(And the metric/imperial analogy was spot-on, or I'd like to know why not).



> (For that matter I don't really have to use a balor at all.)




No, you don't. You don't need to use Juiblex either. But if you remove balors from the game then isn't their inclusion in the MM a waste of space? If you can only use one or the other, then _one_ of them is a waste.

But I think that's a bad argument. Both books, as you keep reminding us, are books of options. In a rational design, that would be an excellent reason to use epic-level demon lords as the base assumption - so people would have the _option_ to use them if they wanted. And then provide rules for scaling them up even further.

But basing the MM on one set of assumptions and the FC1 on another is just weird. Again, my analogy was _perfect_.



> When it gives you stats that most people won't actually use in play, then the virtue of doing so comes immediately into question.




Of course, I'd rather they used the space on describing new Abyssal layers than on stats for Yeenoghu. But if they're going to include stats, I'd rather they were at least consistent with Core Book 3. 

The idea that "most people won't actually use" them is dubious. If the price of making them "usable" is to make them so weak that killing Yeenoghu is no more an accomplishment than killing one of his balor servitors would be, then the price is too high. It makes Yeenoghu superfluous to the game. The minimum level at which Yeenoghu is "usable" is the level at which he's distinguishable from his own servants.

Kain's analogy - making a great wyrm as powerful as a very old dragon - is also apt. Why not just use a very old dragon? 

And you _know_ this. Most of your arguments had been predicated on the idea that the Abyssal lords were at least _slightly_ tougher than rank-and-file demons, until it was shown that this wasn't the case. Can we at least agree that they should be _slightly_ tougher than balors are? 

Come on. Making that concession isn't going to insult anyone's home games or chosen playing style. The book could have perfectly well started the scale at CR 21 and brought Demogorgon up to CR 27 without requiring epic play to make them usable.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is a fine personal point. However, it also completely and utterly antithetical to the core philosophy of 3E: *options, not restrictions*. Thus, it can never be supported by the current core rules.




No it isn't really. While 3.X prefers options wastly, another big part of it is *the creation of baselines*, to support a unified modular basis for expansion. That is the function of a locking point. Not to limit the options.

Gaming behind that point is perfectly fine and should even be officially supported, but the locking point is needed to create a true baseline for power levels.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, there are really aren't. I think I and others rebutted Jester's points more than adequately.




Specifically, Mirtek pointed out that Jester's idea might make Abyssal lords unkillable, but it means that they're not going to be ruling very much on their own plane. Jester's point wasn't a workable one at all (especially if it means the balor is going to get _less_ powerful when it takes over the layer!). And if it _still_ means that killng Yeenoghu is no harder (or even easier!) than killing a balor, there's still a problem.

And it's still a flaw in the book, unless the book itself says that balors who kill Yeenoghu become him, and Yeenoghu or his layer have some mysterious ability to compel them into survice. Which, according to JoeGK, it doesn't. The fact that a hole can be patched doesn't mean there never was a hole.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, there are really aren't. I think I and others rebutted Jester's points more than adequately.




You think you rebutted it adequately.

Obviously, I don't agree. Actually, I am a little surprised. That's the kind of free thinking that pervades Planescape fan lore. The kind of stuff I've seen you write yourself.



> (And the metric/imperial analogy was spot-on, or I'd like to know why not).




Because, simply put, it's not that simple. As I put it in the closing sentence of the quoted post, doing so would not turn out the most broadly usable product.



> No, you don't. You don't need to use Juiblex either. But if you remove balors from the game then isn't their inclusion in the MM a waste of space?




There are plenty of creatures I never use in the MM. An Ythrak is a waste of space...

But again, and this is the thing that I keep trying to get across: the book is not being written for just me. Or for you. I find the that one subset of the D&D audience expects their desires be tended to ahead of all others simply unreasonable. 

It's fine if I don't use the balor. Someone will. Lots of people.



> And you _know_ this. Most of your arguments had been predicated on the idea that the Abyssal lords were at least _slightly_ tougher than rank-and-file demons, until it was shown that this wasn't the case. Can we at least agree that they should be _slightly_ tougher than balors are?




As already stated by me upthread, IMC demon lords will be more potent than their servants and I think this reflects historical versions of the entities better. But I also don't think I'll ever use them in that format. If I do, it's not a travesty to scale them up. I am not feeling jipped.

I'm not just talking about my game, and I feel that the approach of making scalable entities serves the audience as a whole better than the "canon proper" version would have. Which versions would join the DDG as statistics nigh useless for anything other than armchair musings about who would beat who.



> Come on. Making that concession isn't going to insult anyone's home games or chosen playing style.




Rip, I'm not picking my positions on this by tossing darts at a dartboard. There are reasons that I hold the stance I do. It sounds as if they created an extremely flexible product here that addresses as wide a swath of the audience as possible in the space alotted.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 30, 2006)

First, I want to say hello to everyone as this is my first post on ENWorld. 


Now, on topic:


First off, I don't care what you do In your own campiagn. If you want to use a CR 1/8 Demogorgon that gets beat up by goblins, thats fine w/me. I wouldn't want to play in a campign like that and you may have a hard time finding players, but if you can, fine, I don't care. 

What I find offensive is that WotC preseants ArchFiends this weak as official. That is an insult to them and thier flavor. They should be at a minimum CR 30-50ish, prefeabley higher. WotC could include weaker versions as a variant rule, but the officail versions should be that powerful. Me and my freinds play high level Epic games, and I am annoyed by the lack of support from WotC in that area. Now, as for you people who say that you couldn't use those high of stats and it's a waste of paper, either decide that you are willing to get the book anyway or don't get it at all. one solution would be to put all the Archfiends (of all the alignments) in a sepreate book so that if you don't want to waste money one high level stats you can't use, you don't have to. but since WotC isn't likely to do that, They shouldn't nerf the Archfiends becouse of some whiny people claiming that high level epic stats are a waste of paper. I consider the stats in BoVD a waste of paper, as they are way to weak. Different people use different levels of power when they play, so since WotC can't make Arch Fiends for all of them, they should just make ones that make since from a flavor perspective, which is around the power that DF puts them.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> And it's still a flaw in the book, unless the book itself says that balors who kill Yeenoghu become him, and Yeenoghu or his layer have some mysterious ability to compel them into survice. Which, according to JoeGK, it doesn't. The fact that a hole can be patched doesn't mean there never was a hole.




I think you are getting a little off track here. I don't think anyone said that this was canon or in the book. It was just offered as a way to explain why those who might choose to operate in this situation might explain it. There is a substantial part of the D&D audience who don't give two figs about canon.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

When did Planescape canon become D&D canon? For that matter, when did D&D get a canon?

For baseline D&D, it's all about killing things and taking their stuff. If you can get to the top of the ladder (20th level by the core), one day you can go kick in Demogorgon's door and take his stuff.

Baseline stats for the baseline game make sense to me. For those that like epic gaming, they can take the time to advance the stat blocks. Heck, most epic players I've seen (using the word loosely - the only epic gamers I know of dwell online) enjoy tinkering, adjusting and advancing.


----------



## Sammael (May 30, 2006)

> For baseline D&D, it's all about killing things and taking their stuff.



If this is the case, then why does the DMG2 dedicate an entire chapter to show that this is only one of a multitude of gaming styles and preferences?


----------



## DaveMage (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> You know, I really resent this sort of rhetoric. It pretty much boils down to "if you don't enjoy the way we like to play, you are incompetant." No, I just don't enjoy some aspect of play at that levels. It's not whether it's doable; it's whether it's enjoyable.




I think you may be being a bit oversensitive, and you are putting words in my mouth.

Please don't do that.


The real question I have is, will epic play be supported in any more supplements from WotC, or is a level 20 ceiling now driving design?  If it is, then, as I said earlier, it may be best for all of us to adjust our expectations for the future, and expect the BBEGs of future products to be challenges for level 20 PCs and below.  This would be disappointing to me, but if this is the case, I would certainly consider adjusting the XP table to slow things down a bit.

As for WotC having done surveys or what not, one thing they can do is look at continued sales (or lack thereof) of the Epic Level Handbook compared to the other products and determine the need to support the high levels.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If this is the case, then why does the DMG2 dedicate an entire chapter to show that this is only one of a multitude of gaming styles and preferences?




I agree. That's why I feel that a base set of stats plus guidelines to tweak them are the most acceptable solution.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If this is the case, then why does the DMG2 dedicate an entire chapter to show that this is only one of a multitude of gaming styles and preferences?




Dunno, man, I don't buy every book out there. I'm a DM not a collector, but DMG2 doesn't sound like a core book to me.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> That's the kind of free thinking that pervades Planescape fan lore. The kind of stuff I've seen you write yourself.




It's not the "free thinking" I have a problem with. I'm fine with the idea that those demons who kill their lords become them - that's kind of a cool idea.

What I object to is trying to use that idea as a justification for making an Abyssal lord _less_ powerful than the guy he used to be before his transformation.

A true free thinker wouldn't bind his awesome idea to something so nonsensical. 

I'm surprised at you. You once created a website devoted to improving fiends, so I _know_ you don't like the new ultrawimpy models any more than I do. So why waste so much personal time and effort defending an idea you don't even like? 



> Because, simply put, it's not that simple. As I put it in the closing sentence of the quoted post, doing so would not turn out the most broadly usable product.




It _is_ that simple. A product that's not directly compatible with the core books is less usable than one that's compatible. They could move everything up by 2 CR without hurting the Epic-is-bad crowd one bit. 



> An Ythrak is a waste of space...




Heh. We agree there.



> I find the that one subset of the D&D audience expects their desires be tended to ahead of all others simply unreasonable.




That's not what's happening, though. This isn't about those of us who'd rather the demon lords were all lesser deities, or even about those of us who'd like them to be around CR 30. One subset of the D&D audience expects that a modicrum of common sense be applied in a context where it wouldn't hurt its usefulness for anyone.

Others think that's absolutely _outrageous_, and are willing to spend pages and pages telling us so, without saying why.



> There are reasons that I hold the stance I do.




You haven't given any yet. What's so bad about a CR 21-26 range, going from slightly better than a balor to equivalent to a great wyrm red dragon? I think that'd be ridiculous, but at least it wouldn't blatantly contradict the _average_ stats in the MM. And it'd still be appropriate for non-epic games. 

Or they could have included a few demon-weakening artifacts, allowing sub-epic campaigns to confront still higher-level foes. 

That's free thinking.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> When did Planescape canon become D&D canon? For that matter, when did D&D get a canon?




When it went into print in an official product and wasn't refuted by a later product.

D&D has always had canon.  Without it, we'd have no commonality between our campaigns and experiences.   Illithids, rust monsters, Bigby, fireball...it's all canon, and is what defines D&D.


----------



## heirodule (May 30, 2006)

I don't know if anyone has made this kind of point yet, so I'll make it.

It seems to me that the issue where background on the demons says they've kicked out deities, or they rule 1000s of demons, but, if CR 22, can be easily beaten by a few hundred demons they rule, or clearly, beaten by dieties could be addressed thusly:

outsiders have a seperate power rating for abilities they have that are a reflection of their status as metaphysical entities that distinguish between their physical(and magical etc) power and their 'psychic/mythopoeic/deific power')

A demon lord doesn't rule 1000 demons because he can hit better than them or has more HP. He has some hold over them that is UNRELATED to that, and that aspect of their power is sublimated in the game rules which focus on PCs doing things with them.

A king can rule a kingdom without having to beat everyone in the kingdom. 

And demon lords should be able to kick our dieties by powers that are on a different 'plane' of reality than the 'mundane' reality of hitting with swords, spells, etc. It would be best if all this was quantifyable in a game sense. It might be best to put in terms of another game entirely

When the PCs fight the devil, you use D&D rules. When the demons fight the devils, use Chess to resolve the fight.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> When it went into print in an official product and wasn't refuted by a later product.
> 
> D&D has always had canon.  Without it, we'd have no commonality between our campaigns and experiences.   Illithids, rust monsters, Bigby, fireball...it's all canon, and is what defines D&D.



Maybe I'm not clear exactly on what canon means then. I'm talking about backstory, and D&D does not have one. Or rather it shouldn't, especially not Planescape's in any case.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 30, 2006)

There is more to D&D than just the RAW.  There is a mythology spread throughout the D&D rules that many enjoy following.  Part of that mythology is demons as uber-villains.  If the stats belie or call this into question, as they are part of the reading, that undercuts the mythology, particularly if there is no in game reason given for the change.  The uber is no longer so uber and with no explaination within the game, even if there is a purely rules explaination.  The end result is less pleasure in the mythology.  The approach taken in depowering the demons as it has been thus far explained is rules centered and ignores what many find adds to the D&D experience as much - considering and interacting with the mythology in more than a casual way that considers only the RAW.  To paraphrase, for me, "Its the mythology, stupid!"


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the issue where background on the demons says they've kicked out deities, or they rule 1000s of demons, but, if CR 22, can be easily beaten by a few hundred demons they rule, or clearly, beaten by dieties...




Taking your quote out of context here, sorry... but it seems to me that the issue is people are taking this Spelljammer/Planescape idea that everyone's campaign exists in some unified metacampaign way too far.

These were marketing decisions made by TSR, and they have no place in the game.

When I run Planescape, there's a prime plane called Greyhawk you can go to. Yet, when I run Greyhawk, there's no such thing as Sigil and Oerth truly is the center of the universe... and when I run a homebrew there usually isn't even a Blood War or discrete CE/LE divisions between fiends. I've yet to have a brain explode at my table.


----------



## Psion (May 30, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It's not the "free thinking" I have a problem with. I'm fine with the idea that those demons who kill their lords become them - that's kind of a cool idea.
> 
> What I object to is trying to use that idea as a justification for making an Abyssal lord _less_ powerful than the guy he used to be before his transformation.
> 
> A true free thinker wouldn't bind his awesome idea to something so nonsensical.




That it's nonsensical is entirely your determination. Someone else might like something different.



> I'm surprised at you. You once created a website devoted to improving fiends,




Heh. There's a blast from the past. But no reason to be surprised, really. It shows I thought tweaking demons to your taste had merit from a young age. 

Looking back I found this quip from my old website interesting.



			
				My Old Planescape Website said:
			
		

> Paragon fiends tend to be planar lords or gods in thier own rights, though that doesn't mean it can't happen (a villain I made before the advent of High Level Campaigns was a demigod--the cambion offspring of Grazzt called "Paralite"; he was essentially a cambion paragon.)




Over in the other thread, someone was incredulous about the idea of 60 HD balors that would challenge Demon lords. Here you can see that I batted around the idea of demons that had not diverged significantly from their base species being effectively abyssal lords a long time ago.



> so I _know_ you don't like the new ultrawimpy models any more than I do. So why waste so much personal time and effort defending an idea you don't even like?




Because I feel that more of the audience is served better that way, and tweaking demon lords to the power level I feel appropriate to them is not objectionable to me.

But I feel like I am repeating myself.



> It _is_ that simple. A product that's not directly compatible with the core books is less usable than one that's compatible. They could move everything up by 2 CR without hurting the Epic-is-bad crowd one bit.




I could see increasing the CRs by 2 as a starting point. But I certainly don't see it as anything to get upset about. My versions are going to be a lot more than 2 higher. And if someone else has a use for demon lords with CR < 20, good for them.



> That's not what's happening, though.




Our stances differ there, then. I have seen people call it "offensive" and "wrong." I've seen people fixate on the fact that the CRs weren't where they wanted them, despite the fact they are scalable.



> You haven't given any yet.




Oh come now. We've batted this back and forth for a few posts. You may not agree with my positions, but to imply that I have not offered any is... well let's just say I'm too baffled by such an assertion to be incensed about it.



> What's so bad about a CR 21-26 range, going from slightly better than a balor to equivalent to a great wyrm red dragon?




Nothing. But as they have given you the tools to scale it (I'll decide when I get the book if they are _adequate_ tools), I am not precisely seeing the problem. If that's where I want the CR of the demon lords, that's where I'll put it. Someone who wants to run the demon lord as a final challenge for their 20 level campaign might not put it there.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm not clear exactly on what canon means then. I'm talking about backstory, and D&D does not have one. Or rather it shouldn't, especially not Planescape's in any case.




Perhaps GVDammerung's term of "mythology" better serves this idea.  D&D has always had a backstory.   The demon princes have always fought each other.  Tiamat has always opposed Bahamut.   Mind flayers have always been the ones who enslaved the gith, who became the githyanki and githzerai.   Without this mythology, D&D might as well just have monster books with random tables to roll on until you have the right collection of stats and abilities to challenge your party, and you provide all the flavor.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> The approach taken in depowering the demons as it has been thus far explained is rules centered and ignores what many find adds to the D&D experience as much - considering and interacting with the mythology in more than a casual way that considers only the RAW.



It's a good counter to the way 2e overpowered some of the best monsters in the game to the point where they were no longer useful... outside of the part of the game that takes place on a comfy armchair. They took the critters from those of us who play the game and gave them to the people who read the game.

We want them back, and it looks like we got them.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Perhaps GVDammerung's term of "mythology" better serves this idea.  D&D has always had a backstory.   The demon princes have always fought each other.  Tiamat has always opposed Bahamut.   Mind flayers have always been the ones who enslaved the gith, who became the githyanki and githzerai.   Without this mythology, D&D might as well just have monster books with random tables to roll on until you have the right collection of stats and abilities to challenge your party, and you provide all the flavor.



Those are all great ideas to be used at the DM's discretion. Especially the random table one.


----------



## Coriat (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> That it's nonsensical is entirely your determination. Someone else might like something different.




It's _not_ entirely his determination. How the heck are CR 19-23 demon lords supposed to do the sort of things that they have been shown to do in Dnd - compete with gods, rule lesser demons through might and physical intimidation, and survive countless eons in the most violent plane in the multiverse? Please give me an answer to that.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Those are all great ideas to be used at the DM's discretion. Especially the random table one.




Sure the DM can use anything he wants at his discretion.  He can give a wizard fighter bonus feats at every level if he wants, but that doesn't refute the need for a common ground in the flavor and rules for the game to maintain some sort of cohesive whole.

If the 3E Monster Manual had changed the illithids to lawful good protectors of forests, and said that the gith were spawned by legal battles with the modrons, you wouldn't have been a little upset?


----------



## Shemeska (May 30, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Never heard of this. Chapter and verse, please.




Others already gave references to the other point that I raised, as all of it was firmly established in the planar mythology. The point about the fiends forcing the deities to collectively withdraw from active involvement in the Blood War, I don't believe anyone referenced yet, so I'll provide.

'Hellbound: The Blood War' - see 'The Dark of the War - A DM's Guide' page 13

It's a very good book, one of the better 2e ones, and the most detailed look at the topic in print.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> That it's nonsensical is entirely your determination. Someone else might like something different.




But they'd be wrong. I say that not out of arrogance, but this argument has gone on for quite some time now and no one's managed to say why it isn't nonsensical as it is.



> Here you can see that I batted around the idea of demons that had not diverged significantly from their base species being effectively abyssal lords a long time ago.




I don't have a problem with that. Even Planescape had some Abyssal layers ruled by balors, and I think characters like Red Shroud or the Marquisse of Sorrow ought to be nearly lordly in power. Some nonunique rulers might even be stronger than some unique ones. 

But the _iconic_ rulers of the Abyss - Demogorgon, Orcus, and Graz'zt as the greatest three - they ought to be special.



> I could see increasing the CRs by 2 as a starting point. But I certainly don't see it as anything to get upset about. My versions are going to be a lot more than 2 higher. And if someone else has a use for demon lords with CR < 20, good for them.




I don't remember any complaints about the _Book of Vile Darkness_ archfiends being too strong. This is a new-coined issue, a problem created where none existed before. Nobody would mind if the demon lords were all CR 21+, and a lot of bitterness would be mollified. That's why I'm so bewildered at the intensity of the opposition here. _Juiblex at CR 21? How outrageous! That would make him useless in my game!_




> You may not agree with my positions, but to imply that I have not offered any is... well let's just say I'm too baffled by such an assertion to be incensed about it.




You've said a lot of stuff, but you haven't offered any reason for making them less or equal in power to balors other than "It can be rationalized, it can be scaled, I don't see what the big deal is."

It's _not_ a big deal, it _can_ be scaled, and it can possibly even be rationalized (anything's possible). That doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it's something that's necessary to serve the broadest possible audience. It actually unnecessarily _narrows_ the audience.  Add four hit dice to every demon ruler and not only would the "Epic Go Home" group still be content, but a lot of other people would be happier as well.


----------



## Shemeska (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm not clear exactly on what canon means then. I'm talking about backstory, and D&D does not have one. Or rather it shouldn't, especially not Planescape's in any case.




No one is preventing you from ignoring the development of a common and underlying DnD mythology. If you'd like to plug your ears, hum to yourself and chant that Planescape doesn't exist, go ahead if that's your thing. But regardless, for the rest of the world, and for DnD itself, that material forms the gaming equivalent of DnD's pre-3e planar Septuagint. 

If it vexes you so much that DnD has expanded and further detailed a lot of things over time, then go ahead and exclude it entirely from your own games and stick with what bits you like, I won't push congressional legislation to prevent you from doing so, but keep in mind that it does exist as a majority of the base material defining all things planar and fiendish in DnD.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> No one is preventing you from ignoring the development of a common and underlying DnD mythology. If you'd like to plug your ears, hum to yourself and chant that Planescape doesn't exist, go ahead if that's your thing. But regardless, for the rest of the world, and for DnD itself, that material forms the gaming equivalent of DnD's pre-3e planar Septuagint.
> 
> If it vexes you so much that DnD has expanded and further detailed a lot of things since its early years, then go ahead and exclude it entirely from your own games, I won't push congressional legislation to prevent you from doing so, but keep in mind that it does exist as a majority of the base material defining all things planar and fiendish in DnD.




Condescend much?


----------



## GVDammerung (May 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> The demon princes have always fought each other.  Tiamat has always opposed Bahamut.   Mind flayers have always been the ones who enslaved the gith, who became the githyanki and githzerai.   Without this mythology, D&D might as well just have monster books with random tables to roll on until you have the right collection of stats and abilities to challenge your party, and you provide all the flavor.






			
				Uder said:
			
		

> Those are all great ideas to be used at the DM's discretion. Especially the random table one.




They are more than mere "ideas."  They, and similar story elements, motivate much of the enjoyment of the game.  

When githyanki hates githzerai and githzerai hates githyanki and both hate mindflayers, who hate them back, it is the D&D follow on to elves disliking dwarves, dwarves disliking elves and both hating orcs, who hate then back.  I doubt anyone can reasonably say that fantasy is not richer for the latter and I posit D&D is richer for both.

Its not just the RAW.  D&D has its own mythology.  This is perhaps easiest to see in monster entries that give more than just stats (we could add PrC descriptions in 3.5 certainly).  If it was just the RAW, monsters would need little more than stats.  They have more and all those little bits of extraneous information in the descriptions, along with more fullsome discussions of similar "fluff" elsewhere create a D&D mythology that adds greatly to the appeal of the game.  

That Grazzt, Orcus and Demogorgon are not drinking buddies is important and matters to many players, who would be nonplussed at the least if suddenly those three were revealed as drinking buddies.  By the same token, when these three are described as powerful but then revealed to have stats that do not comport with these descriptions, there is some understandable and well taken consternation, particularly when no in game explanation is offered, only a RAW explaination. 

Uder, you sell the game short.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Sure the DM can use anything he wants at his discretion.  He can give a wizard fighter bonus feats at every level if he wants, but that doesn't refute the need for a common ground in the flavor and rules for the game to maintain some sort of cohesive whole.
> 
> If the 3E Monster Manual had changed the illithids to lawful good protectors of forests, and said that the gith were spawned by legal battles with the modrons, you wouldn't have been a little upset?




There is no need for the game to have a cohesive back story. That's what campaign settings and creative DMs are there for.

Returning demon princes (and hopefully archdevils) to their kickable status is very far from the strawmen you present.


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> There is no need for the game to have a cohesive back story. That's what campaign settings and creative DMs are there for.




That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I'd never have gotten sucked into this game if the core rulebooks hadn't presented such a rich mythology/backstory.



			
				Uder said:
			
		

> Returning demon princes (and hopefully archdevils) to their kickable status is very far from the strawmen you present.




They did have a "kickable" status in their BoVD/Demonomicon forms, but still made sense as the rulers of their plane.   They weren't exactly easy pickings in 1E, and they definitely could take a balor (or type VI demon, if you prefer).


----------



## Ripzerai (May 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I'd never have gotten sucked into this game if the core rulebooks hadn't presented such a rich mythology/backstory.




Yes! You and GV Dammerung are right, of course. The _rules themselves_ aren't going to attract new players. Nobody says, "I really love D&D because it's so much fun to add bonuses to a d20 roll." They like the _fantasy_ of it, and the rules serve that.

A creative DM can indeed create his own fantastic backstory, but that only goes as far as that DM. A _communal_ story attracts fans to the game in general, not just the one group.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> It's a good counter to the way 2e overpowered some of the best monsters in the game to the point where they were no longer useful... outside of the part of the game that takes place on a comfy armchair.




A good deal of D&D takes place, proverbally, in "a comfy armchair."  DMs read far more than they use in a great many cases, and probably consider more than that.  That is part of the appeal of D&D to the DM, imagining the possibilities and choosing which to make real for the players and how to do so.  Players well consider their characters, at least most do in my experience.  D&D is an immersive experience for many and part of that immersion is thinking about the game even when not yet playing.  And part of what makes the "armchair" aspects of D&D so appealing is the game's mythology as it enriches what would otherwise be a much drier experience.  I think you sell the game short again to dismiss its "armchair" aspect so out of hand.  

Indeed, part of what makes D&D appeal to more people than some other fantasy games is, in part I believe, its rich mythology.  In part, it saves DMs time, but equally it draws the reader in more than a more bare bones "just the Rules" approach.  Indeed, some games are little more than "good" mythology - Call of Cthulthu, VtM.  D&D hits a nice balance.  Respect that balance.  Respect the "armchair!"


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Herein lies the problem. *You fundamentally do not understand the positions of those who think differently than you.* Repeating the same assertion over and over again for every post in these two threads is not going to change it, because those who do not agree with you are operating under different assumptions than you.




Gosh golly gee, you are right!  That must be why I am _asking the other side to explain their position while explaining my own_.  And I have yet to hear a solid reason for a base line demon lord that is under a balor's CR.  I'm beginning to think that there actually isn't one.  And I've read all the posts in the two threads on the matter, including yours.  I've heard the idea that stats higher than what is presented in FC are worthless because players can't beat them.  I've heard the idea that the entire cosmos should be reset to lower levels all around.  I've yet to hear how the current cosmos works with the current stats.  And I'd like to hear it.  Saying I won't understand is running away from the matter at hand.  Give me your explanation if it is different and better than the other ones I've heard.  If I don't agree with someone's explanation, I'll say so.  What I'm concerned about with this farce is that there has been no explanation other than the lame one of "so we could make them playable by everyone"  No one has said that the gods need to be lowered to those levels.  No one has said that great wyrms need to be lowered.  (Well, a few people did, and that's fine, but that's still a change to the cosmos for the sake of compatibility...just in the opposite direction of mine)





> And here it is: AFAIAC, _the MM does not show me a world. It gives me a toolbox._ If you think back, recall that the 3.0 MM had all the high end fiends weaker. They were up-sized for 3.5 because the design team thought it would better support play through 20 levels. It was a mechanical and gameplay consideration, not a canon one.
> 
> If you look at my post answering the OP, for the purposes of my game, I see archfiends in the uper 20s and 30s CRs. And I think canon supports that as well. And I think the fact the demonomicon articles putting fiends in the CR 30 range should show that the CR20 range was not a canon decision, but a toolkit one. Why? Most players don't play high enough for those stats to ever be used in play. The set of stats that would actually get used are most likely to be the ones printed, or close to them. Not the ones that reflect canon.





Right.  And I heard that.  What I'm saying, is that putting a baseline that low (HD 20-27) is foolishness.  We can debate whether or not Demogorgon should be CR 30 or CR 50, but I think everyone agrees he should be significantly more powerful than a balor, no matter what, right?  And poor Jubilex should be too.

It's not about making it a toolkit decision.  You can do that and still maintain cohesion throughout the material.  For instance, dragons.  Need a weak dragon?  Wyrmling.  Need a powerful one?  Adult.  Need an epic one?  Great Wyrm.  Need an even more powerful epic one?  Advancement table.

The demon lords had something like that as well.  Aspects.  If you wanted a mid to high level challenge with a demon prince, you could use an aspect.  Base line were CR 9-11, if I remember correctly.  They could have presented aspects, clearly stated as such, for the CR 20-23 crowd.  The fact that they didn't implies that they do not consider demon princes more powerful than great wyrms.  Despite the flavor, despite the history, despite the common sense that says "balors < demon princes", they chose to go a different route.  A route that makes no cosmological sense.  A route which has not been adequately explained without metagame concepts by its defenders.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 30, 2006)

> I've yet to hear how the current cosmos works with the current stats.



Well, add the two sentences:

"Demon lords can control their own layer at will. This sets their power even over that of a god(who is limited to his divine realm) while on a layer they control."

Raises the question why one sentence was cut from the FC1 for space reasons (because, as far as I know something along that line was handed in), but works for me.


----------



## Uder (May 30, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> A good deal of D&D takes place, proverbally, in "a comfy armchair."  DMs read far more than they use in a great many cases, and probably consider more than that.  That is part of the appeal of D&D to the DM, imagining the possibilities and choosing which to make real for the players and how to do so.



Nothing wrong with that at all. I've been DMing enough to wear out several armchairs. I was referring to those that never ever play, just read, and yet still insist on dictating how the stats should be presented, if at all.

Back to the basic topic... presenting baseline monsters is good for the game, since the rules make it easy to advance them to fit your campaign. The sadist in me also likes it because it stirs up people who play the message-board game, yet never sit on either side of a game screen.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 30, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Returning demon princes (and hopefully archdevils) to their kickable status is very far from the strawmen you present.




As Shade notes, they never lost "kickable" status; it was rather a matter of how and by whom.  What has been done here, apparently, it to make them easily "kickable."  Or reasonably "kickable" by a 20th Level party, if you prefer.  I might see that if there were no such thing as a campaign, if every progression to 20th level occurred in isolation.  They do not.

In published settings, one campaign follows the next.  So if party No. 1 kicks Demogorgon, he is kicked when party No. 2 comes along.  That degrades the metatext of that setting.

In a home brew, most DMs I know do not create a new homebrew everytime they start new characters.  Their homebrews build over time and many character archs, so the same dynamic is in effect.  Once Demogorgon is kicked, he is kicked, degrading the metatext.

And once Demogorgon, Grazzt and Orcus are each kicked, each by a different party?  The Abyss just lost a huge and major dynamic that animates the whole.  The game is poorer.

Kickable need not, and should not, mean easily kicked.  Kicking a demon prince should not be something any party, even a 20th level one, calmly contemplates, let alone sees as a reasonable possibility.  I agree that demon princes should, by some measurre, be kickable.  I do not believe they should ever be easily, reasonably or predictably kickable.

Demon princes represent the pinnacle of evil given form.  Consider that for a moment.  

And what does a 20th level part represent?  The pinnacle of anything other than character advancement?  No.  

So, the pinnacle of evil incarnate should be kickable by any group that has managed to obtain 20th level (with all the magic that emplies)?  No.  Not unless one is a hopeless power gamer and/or PC egotist.

Special.  Demon princes are, by defination, special among their kind, even unique.  20th Level PCs are not, not to the same degree, among their kind.  They are exceptional, perhaps, but the next campaign will see another set rise to an equal level.  They are not then as special, and certainly not unique.  When you consider that the PCs embody no metaphysical archetype, they are even less special and far from unique.

The idea of easily, reasonably or demonstrably kickable demon princes then completely falls apart.  Demon princes should be kickable only under conditions or circumstances that fully meet their role in the D&D cosmology.  Not as just another big monster.  Demon princes should never been seen as just bigger monsters.  While not deities, neither are they overgrown umberhulks.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 30, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Well, add the two sentences:
> 
> "Demon lords can control their own layer at will. This sets their power even over that of a god(who is limited to his divine realm) while on a layer they control."
> 
> Raises the question why one sentence was cut from the FC1 for space reasons (because, as far as I know something along that line was handed in), but works for me.




You can click my Demogorgon in my sig to see how it can be handled as well, but that's not REALLY the point here.  If you have to make changes either to the cosmos or to the demon lords in order for them to make sense, then by definition they don't make sense as they are.  Whether those changes are reducing balors back to 13HD, adding planar control to the archfiends or advancing Demogorgon to CR 45 is not the point....the baseline offering doesn't make sense.

If WotC gave us Strength 10 for ogres, and Strength 16 for orcs, are we out of line to say that ogres have traditionally been stronger than orcs and therefore the stats don't make sense?  It's the same thing.  Stats don't make sense without changes are stats that don't make sense.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> As Shade notes, they never lost "kickable" status; it was rather a matter of how and by whom.



Not true at all. 2nd edition came along and told us we were roleplayers, munchkings, etc. and childish for wanting to beat up these wonderful things that only game designers should be able to play with.

I'm glad to see these critters moved closer to the default ceiling of power in D&D.



> Demon princes should be kickable only under conditions or circumstances that fully meet their role in the D&D cosmology.  Not as just another big monster.  Demon princes should never been seen as just bigger monsters.  While not deities, neither are they overgrown umberhulks.



Planescape fluff is where this idea arose, and outside of Planescape (or any other campaign setting where it's necessary to define the status quo) I'd rather see this idea stepped on and removed from the game.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 31, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> If WotC gave us Strength 10 for ogres, and Strength 16 for orcs, are we out of line to say that ogres have traditionally been stronger than orcs and therefore the stats don't make sense?  It's the same thing.  Stats don't make sense without changes are stats that don't make sense.




Orcs and ogres aren't metaphysical beeings that live in a metaphysical realm. An archfiends layer control for me isn't part of his stats, just like "worships Grumsh" isn't part of an orcs stats for me. It's flavor. I don't need rules or stats that tell me "demogorgon can kill all demons under his rule at will". If you're on demogorgons layer and challenge him you die in a horrible way no mortal can resist. I don't need stats for that.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Gosh golly gee, you are right!  That must be why I am _asking the other side to explain their position while explaining my own_.  And I have yet to hear a solid reason for a base line demon lord that is under a balor's CR.



Perhaps that demon lord is weaker in tactical combat than a balor? Maybe CR doesn't rate comparative powers between monsters but general challenge when used for figuring XP?

Or, maybe, just maybe, the already not-very-granular CR system breaks down at high levels and creatures with vastly different capabilities have to share a short range of numbers?


----------



## GVDammerung (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> I was referring to those that never ever play, just read, and yet still insist on dictating how the stats should be presented, if at all. .




Not sure how we would suss these folks out.  And I'm especially not sure their opinions should not be fully considered. Imagining they understand what they choose to read, I think their opinions would be legitimate and worthy of consideration.  But anon.



			
				Uder said:
			
		

> Back to the basic topic... presenting baseline monsters is good for the game, since the rules make it easy to advance them to fit your campaign.




I might feel somewhat differently if there were better guidelines to do this but 8 bullet points?  I am dubious.  As a DM I like less work, not more, when dealing with stats.  Which gets us back to a point I think you may be tacitly conceding here - demon princes, however you get them there, should be the biggest and baddest, fitting their historic role in the mythology and their status as the physical embodiment of the pinnacle of evil.




			
				Uder said:
			
		

> The sadist in me also likes it because it stirs up people who play the message-board game, yet never sit on either side of a game screen.




Now, there you go again.  Unless you are peeking in windows, you have no way to know who actually plays or DMs and who just reads.  And you are discounting readers out of hand.  See my first comment immediately above.  You are implying that anyone who is concerned is not a "real" player or DM, yet there is no possible way you can substantiate this.  It is then a slur on those who take issue with the approach, more generally.  Name calling by subtler means.


----------



## Coriat (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with that at all. I've been DMing enough to wear out several armchairs. I was referring to those that never ever play, just read, and yet still insist on dictating how the stats should be presented, if at all.
> 
> Back to the basic topic... presenting baseline monsters is good for the game, since the rules make it easy to advance them to fit your campaign. The sadist in me also likes it because it stirs up people who play the message-board game, yet never sit on either side of a game screen.




People such as whom? This seems like an attack, but I'm not quite sure who it's directed at. Just 'people who disagree with me' in general?


----------



## GVDammerung (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Planescape fluff is where this idea arose, and outside of Planescape (or any other campaign setting where it's necessary to define the status quo) I'd rather see this idea stepped on and removed from the game.




Not even.  The idea that deities and powerful extra planar entities are not just jumped up monsters has been around, in one guise or another, since practically the beginning.  It has been a consistent source of debate.  It is not just a function of Planescape.

Planescape did not originate the mythology of the Great Wheel.  That has been around practically forever.  You give Planescape too much credit if you demonize it for inventing the idea that gods and powerful extra planar entities are not just jumped up monsters.

The cliche of the munchkin PC slaying gods and wondering how much he can get for Thor's hammer etc. has been around and decried for ages.  Some aspects of 2E were seemingly in direct response to such, and while there may have been a move too far in some directions, the overall theory was sound - PCs don't just walk up to Thor and demand his hammer, nor Orcus and his wand, "or else."  Not even 20th level PCs.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> But they'd be wrong. I say that not out of arrogance, but this argument has gone on for quite some time now and no one's managed to say why it isn't nonsensical as it is.




Contrariwise, you have not offered anything that demonstrates it to be nonsensical in anything but a subjective way.

Cutting to the chase here: your view is subjective.



> You've said a lot of stuff, but you haven't offered any reason for making them less or equal in power to balors other than "It can be rationalized, it can be scaled, I don't see what the big deal is."




Well, you put it rather mockingly, but that is really the sum of it. That you don't find it compelling does not make it "not a reason."

I'll add (again) that I don't necessarily think that it's desirable that they be less powerful than Balors. I think it's desirable as a starting point they should be in striking distance of a 20th level party.

I would not have made the choice myself to put any of them on lesser footing than a balor. But I think that on the scale we have here, it's not anything to get upset about. It would take minimal tweaking to put them over a balor, and even if you don't, I see it as perfectly within reason that a being that is only 1 CR less than his mightiest servant could rule that servant through guile and treachery, or other more exotic means. I would not find the same scenario plausible if the demon lord was 5, 10, or more CR less than the balor.



> It's _not_ a big deal, it _can_ be scaled, and it can possibly even be rationalized (anything's possible). That doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it's something that's necessary to serve the broadest possible audience. It actually unnecessarily _narrows_ the audience.




If you are just quibbling over 2 CR, I think you are make a moutain out of a molehill. At any rate, as I already pointed out, I could see that raising their CR by 2 across the board would probably be a good thing.

Setting aside that last 2 CR, I must renew my insistence that putting them within striking distance of a level 20 party makes it usable by the broadest audience possible. Epic level is only played by a small subset of the D&D audience, and the higher the CR expectation you have for demon lords, the more likely that you fall into the "mortals should never be able to challenge demon lords" camp, making their combat statistics, again, useless for anything other than armchair musings.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> "Demon lords can control their own layer at will. This sets their power even over that of a god(who is limited to his divine realm) while on a layer they control."




I would be fine with that, actually, but those who actually want to fight them there might not be.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

> I might feel somewhat differently if there were better guidelines to do this but 8 bullet points?  I am dubious.  As a DM I like less work, not more, when dealing with stats.  Which gets us back to a point I think you may be tacitly conceding here - demon princes, however you get them there, should be the biggest and baddest, fitting their historic role in the mythology and their status as the physical embodiment of the pinnacle of evil.



It's easier to take something and make it tougher than it is to scale it down, under the current rules. Here's a secret for those that enjoy the DM's side of things: it's also pretty fun.

...and I'm not conceding anything. First off, that would be bad message-board form, and second, I think their place in the scheme of things should be decided by the DM.



> Now, there you go again.  Unless you are peeking in windows, you have no way to know who actually plays or DMs and who just reads.  And you are discounting readers out of hand.  See my first comment immediately above.  You are implying that anyone who is concerned is not a "real" player or DM, yet there is no possible way you can substantiate this.  It is then a slur on those who take issue with the approach, more generally.  Name calling by subtler means.



Well, yeah, I'm not a mind-reader. I do conce... I do agr... err, I do think it's unfair to paint a large group with a single brush, just because I don't like how they affect the game. I don't think readers-who-don't-play should be catered to though, since I don't believe they bring new gamers into the hobby.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I would be fine with that, actually, but those who actually want to fight them there might not be.




Yes and people that would actually demand their right to kill demon princes on their own layer would find little purchase in either of our games and be send to greener pastures. 

By the way, Eric just confirmed in the q&a thread that the book mentions multiple times that demon lords have godlike control over their layer (as do various other official sources anyway, as far as I remember).


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Coriat said:
			
		

> People such as whom? This seems like an attack, but I'm not quite sure who it's directed at. Just 'people who disagree with me' in general?



If they weren't so cowardly, they'd step forward and defend themselves. 

J/K.

I'm not singling anyone out. I'm assuming that such people exist, because I've talked to them both IRL and online. It seems like they had someone on the inside for most of the life of 2e.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily think that it's desirable that they be less powerful than Balors. I think it's desirable as a starting point they should be in striking distance of a 20th level party.




Right. So we don't disagree. _Nobody_ disagrees, which is what makes this whole debate so preposterous. That is, nobody who's posted here thinks they should be less powerful than balors. Yet you - and a number of other people - act very critical and slighted when I point out that that's the case. I'm trying to inflict my subjective viewpoint on other gamers. 

But _nobody disagrees with me_. The best I've heard is maybe the Abyssal lords have all sorts of magical powers the books don't mention. That's fine - maybe they also have all sorts of hit dice the books don't mention. But I'm not talking about all the wonderful changes you can make. I'm talking about the books, as they are. I'm saying they're illogical. Because they are, objectively. 

_And you don't actually disagree_. So why do you keep disagreeing? 



> I would not have made the choice myself




Of course you wouldn't. None of us would have. 



> it's not anything to get upset about.




That's beside the point. So many people keep retreating to that. Who cares if it's worth getting upset about or not? My emotions, which you aren't privy to, aren't germane to the subject at all. _Does it make sense_? 

Maybe we'll worry about whether I'm upset or not later.



> I think you are make a moutain out of a molehill.




Perhaps so. Not the point. 



> I must renew my insistence...




If you want. I'm happy to keep the argument tightly focused on one issue at a time.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 31, 2006)

Apologies, because I haven't read all five pages of arguing.

I've only popped in to state that I would love the chance, at the end of a 20th-level campaign, to travel down to the bottom of the Abyss and put a hurt on Orcus.  In fact, I was part of a year-long campaign that presumably would end with just that and was excited as heck, but we wound up not finishing.

Taking a game from 1 to 20 is a long road, even with 3.x levels of experience awarded.  You're looking at a couple years, most likely.  At that point, I'd love a final battle with Demogorgon, Dispater, or Azmodeus, before ending the campaign and moving on to something else.  And that's assuming I'm fortunate enough to participate in such a long-lasting campaign.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Nobody disagrees, which is what makes this whole debate so preposterous. That is, nobody who's posted here thinks they should be less powerful than balors. Yet you - and a number of other people - act very critical and slighted when I point out that that's the case.




I'll post on my own account only. I guess the debate got so long winded that I just threw all people on one side into the same camp altogether. I appologize for that, though I guess it really is hard to avoid in a debate like this.

Demon princes should be, in some way, higher powered than other demonst, but still in striking distance of a demon prince of layer. That's my personal position and I guess I'm not alone with it. 

But many people claim a demon prince shouldn't be killable at 20th level, either because "he's not just another monster" (neither is any 20th level NPC, but those are still killable.) or because they want to defend epic level play.

Why do I keep defending an approach where some demon lords are lower than a balor? Well, for one there's the whole godpower on layer story, that renders much of the discussion moot to me.

Then, only Jubilex is really lower than a balor, and I don't care for the slimebag, he's just a bunch of demonic goo that controls half a layer filled with only minor demons.

For the others, the lowered CR may have been an overkill. A CR 25 Demon lord is still killable, so the lowest could well have been 22 or somesuch.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I've only popped in to state that I would love the chance, at the end of a 20th-level campaign, to travel down to the bottom of the Abyss and put a hurt on Orcus.



Now the rules support your preferences. Buy the book for your DM.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Right. So we don't disagree. _Nobody_ disagrees, which is what makes this whole debate so preposterous. That is, nobody who's posted here thinks they should be less powerful than balors. Yet you - and a number of other people - act very critical and slighted when I point out that that's the case. I'm trying to inflict my subjective viewpoint on other gamers.




Now, now. We had not put a fine enough point on it to make that distinction until 2 posts ago - and then, I had to repeat to you last post. So let's not be pointing fingers.

Many critics in this debate have been harshly and sarcastically critical of the mere notion that demon lords be given baseline statistics in striking distance of 20. That's where I've been staking my tent.

But again, just because I would not have done it myself, it's not that I beleive that CR is significant enough an indicator that I think 1 less CR makes it implausible that a lord would rule over a balor.



> But _nobody disagrees with me_. The best I've heard is maybe the Abyssal lords have all sorts of magical powers the books don't mention.




FWIW, Erik say that the book does say that:



			
				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."




Which resonates with my thoughts on what it means to be an abyssal lord. And sort of sweeps all this silly "why wouldn't a balor kill him" stuff aside.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Right. So we don't disagree. _Nobody_ disagrees, which is what makes this whole debate so preposterous. That is, nobody who's posted here thinks they should be less powerful than balors.



How do you know they're less powerful than balors? Just because they have a lower CR?

If they all have _power word kill balor_, or whatever, how would that affect their CR, which is largely used to base how much of a challenge something is against average PCs?

I'm not sure if Juiblex is going to be less powerful than a balor, but even so, in 1e a Type VI could've taken Juiblex with a little sweat.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Which resonates with my thoughts on what it means to be an abyssal lord. And sort of sweeps all this silly "why wouldn't a balor kill him" stuff aside.




If their control over their layers is great enough to prevent any demonic challenger from taking them on, it also prevents 20th level parties from doing the same thing.

Which sort of contradicts the whole point in making them CR 20 to begin with.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> If they all have _power word kill balor_, or whatever




That's a big 'if.' I'll reserve judgement for a later date when you aren't making stuff up.



> in 1e a Type VI could've taken Juiblex with a little sweat.




Hardly. Not if Juiblex get all the lesser god powers the _Manual of the Planes_ ascribed to it.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> If their control over their layers is great enough to prevent any demonic challenger from taking them on, it also prevents 20th level parties from doing the same thing.
> 
> Which sort of contradicts the whole point in making them CR 20 to begin with.




To fight them out of lair. This makes fighting a demon prince a true challenge to begin with, because you have to draw him out and then fight him in a way that neutralizes him permanently, so he can't simply reform.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> That's a big 'if.' I'll reserve judgement for a later date when you aren't making stuff up.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly. Not if Juiblex get all the lesser god powers the _Manual of the Planes_ ascribed to it.



Isn't that sort of like advancing a monster?

Straight out of the books, a 1e Type VI could hold its own against most of the princes, if they were allowed the capricious luxury of dice.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Isn't that sort of like advancing a monster?




Not at all. It doesn't require recalculating his skill points, ability scores, and feats, for one thing. Or his caster level or any of the other things hit dice might affect. It's just adding a bunch of spell-like abilities.

And it was official, not presented as an option.


----------



## The Serge (May 31, 2006)

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."



By the RAW, this means very little (and if it did, it would mean that the CRs are too low to begin with) without further explanation.

Without a clear indication of the demon lord/prince's "divine power," this control could mean something as minor as making it smell like odur all the time and giving everything a greenish tint.  Big.  Deal.  At best, the demon prince can make it unbearably cold or unbearably hot...  Which will not do _anything_ to affect most true demons (balors, mariliths, et. al), much less rival demon lords or gods.  The greatest extent of power, the ability to affect magic traits and travel into and out of the Astral Plane and so forth, all requires at least lesser god if not intermediate god power.  Hell, a god could just cast Hand of Death and kill the demon prince without even having to enter its realm.

Now, let's assume that there's more to this than Mona is saying and that there are some clear guidelines.  This begs two questions...  Are the CRs of any value whatsoever with this in mind (NO) and why not just build them in a manner comparable to gods rather than just hand this paltry handmedown?  

And getting back to this whole CR thing...  While CR was never initially conceived as a comparison between two monsters, it is often a decent indicator of relative power.  For example, a solar is both one of the strongest beings in the MM and possesses one of the highest CRs.  It can take down virtually any creature with a lower CR (including a tarrasque) and the few creatures strong enough to defeat it possess higher CRs (pretty much just great wyrm dragons with the proper spell selection).  

From an internal cosmology and consistency, it stands to reason that a demon lord would not only have a higher CR than a balor, but would also be stronger than the balor.  It also stands to reason that if it has the ability to snub it nose at gods, its CR should somehow reflect this.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> If their control over their layers is great enough to prevent any demonic challenger from taking them on, it also prevents 20th level parties from doing the same thing.
> 
> Which sort of contradicts the whole point in making them CR 20 to begin with.




Or not. It could represent an avatar. You could be running a jazzed up Dead Gods where the party will confront orcus and he's lost control of his layer. You could be running the fantasy equivalent of "the emperor has made a critical error and the time to strike is now."


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> By the RAW, this means very little (and if it did, it would mean that the CRs are too low to begin with)




He's right, you know. Unless control over a divinely morphic plane means _Alter Reality_ at will, it's not that big of a deal.

Well, actually, if it has the powers a greater deity has in its realm, there are some interesting things you might have it do - localized _reverse gravity_ or transforming the air into fire, perhaps, depending on whether or not it can fine-tune its power to affect small areas or whether it has to affect the whole layer at once.

And then it's not CR 20. 



			
				psion said:
			
		

> It could represent an avatar.




Well, yes. If it's just an avatar or aspect, there's not really a problem. The discussion assumes that the creature represents its true form.


> You could be running a jazzed up Dead Gods where the party will confront orcus and he's lost control of his layer.




That could be interesting, although that would only make a great difference if the divinely morphic power is _very_ dramatic, as above.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> By the RAW, this means very little (and if it did, it would mean that the CRs are too low to begin with) without further explanation.




Huh?

You realize that "divinely morphic" quality is part of the standard planar characteristics which are in the RAW.

Admitedly, it's not too er, mechanically precise. But the verbage certainly doesn't make it sound negligible.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Admitedly, it's not too er, mechanically precise. But the verbage certainly doesn't make it sound negligible.




Actually, it is fairly precise. And a lot of it depends on the demon's effective divine rank.


----------



## The Serge (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> You realize that "divinely morphic" quality is part of the standard planar characteristics which are in the RAW.
> 
> Admitedly, it's not too er, mechanically precise. But the verbage certainly doesn't make it sound negligible.



And what precisely would this power grant that I didn't mention in my thread....?  Will it defend them against gods?  Other demonic interlopers?  Balors?


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Actually, it is fairly precise. And a lot of it depends on the demon's effective divine rank.




Good catch... I was only looking in the planes section.

There you go Serge... look at Rip's link.

As for it being "reflected in the CR" - no, because it only counts on their layer per the quoted text by Erik.


----------



## The Serge (May 31, 2006)

Yeah, I was looking at this...  In the DDG.  It doesn't do squat for them in defending themselves against similarly powered creatures.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 31, 2006)

> Now maybe we can get a version of Mask that will actually be scared of Kezef again!



Cool! A 10th-level Masks!  I'm gonna kill me the god of Murder!


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> There is more to D&D than just the RAW.  There is a mythology spread throughout the D&D rules that many enjoy following.  Part of that mythology is demons as uber-villains.  If the stats belie or call this into question, as they are part of the reading, that undercuts the mythology, particularly if there is no in game reason given for the change.  The uber is no longer so uber and with no explaination within the game, even if there is a purely rules explaination.  The end result is less pleasure in the mythology.  The approach taken in depowering the demons as it has been thus far explained is rules centered and ignores what many find adds to the D&D experience as much - considering and interacting with the mythology in more than a casual way that considers only the RAW.  To paraphrase, for me, "Its the mythology, stupid!"




The term I've seen for this is metasetting.

But the metasetting is not stable. Things like the "gith-gith-ith hate" triangle are pretty basic and consistent, but details vary. Like the aforementioned changes in the history and power of the Githyanki queen. There comes a time where, if you are plugging into the metasetting, you have to decide what's worth using in your game and what is not, and which of various contradictory versions apply.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> When githyanki hates githzerai and githzerai hates githyanki and both hate mindflayers, who hate them back, it is the D&D follow on to elves disliking dwarves, dwarves disliking elves and both hating orcs, who hate then back.  I doubt anyone can reasonably say that fantasy is not richer for the latter and I posit D&D is richer for both.




There's nothing wrong with D&D that couldn't be solved by banning wizards.


Hong "and paladins" Ooi


----------



## hong (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The term I've seen for this is metasetting.




I would now say that I've never metasetting I didn't like, but that would be a lie.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> But the metasetting is not stable. Things like the "gith-gith-ith hate" triangle are pretty basic and consistent, but details vary. Like the aforementioned changes in the history and power of the Githyanki queen. There comes a time where, if you are plugging into the metasetting, you have to decide what's worth using in your game and what is not, and which of various contradictory versions apply.




Absolutely.  That does not, however, excuse or sanction a willy-nilly approach to the metasetting.  Ideally, we would have a fair consistency, perhaps not excluding varying interpretations, but at least trying to rationalize or explain them within the metasetting.  And it will always be a case of whose ox is boring gored at the moment.

In the present case, we have a rather largish departure from historic treatments and no metasetting explaination provided.  We are asked, essentially, to accept the change and act like "it has always been that way."  This approach has been tried before (memorably with Dark Sun and the Realms) and always fails, and always draws the ire of those invested in the particulars. Wotc should literally have known better.  The response is as predictable as it is natural.  The "why" looms large for those invested.  "Because we say so or think it best" by itself is not a sufficient answer.

We will all live, of course.  The book will still do well.  Parts of it will, however, be largely useless to or ignored or be regarded as a "project" by many.  That this involves the demon princes is, IMO, a shame.  D&D's mythology just took a hit and lost an opportunity to one degree or another.

It could be worse.  In Greyhawk, the goddess WeeJas has undergone 6 distinct unexplained redefinations until her stats are now all but meaningless. I would hate to see the demon princes be treated so cavalierly or start to go down that road.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Not at all. It doesn't require recalculating his skill points, ability scores, and feats, for one thing. Or his caster level or any of the other things hit dice might affect. It's just adding a bunch of spell-like abilities.



Since Juiblex didn't have skill points, ability scores or feats in 1e, that would be difficult.

So anyway... taking a monster and adding power to it in one system is not at all like taking a monster and adding power to it in another system? I begin to see where you're coming from.



> And it was official, not presented as an option.



It was optional. Trust me.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Since Juiblex didn't have skill points, ability scores or feats in 1e, that would be difficult.




Exactly. So it was quite a different experience.



> So anyway... taking a monster and adding power to it in one system is not at all like taking a monster and adding power to it in another system?




No, for the reasons I gave. It took absolutely no effort in the older system, and takes quite a lot of effort in the present system. And it was an "official" rule change in the older system, while here it's, "If you want, you can spend an hour or so calculating skill points and end up with a stronger monster." 

Which is quite irrelevant, because I'm arguing narrowly about how I feel about the by-the-book version in the present day.



> It was optional. Trust me.




No more so than Juiblex's base stats. If everything is optional (and, of course, it is) your point becomes meaningless. Not that referencing a set of stats from the '70s (which immediately changed in 1980) is a very meaningful point in any case.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No more so than Juiblex's base stats. If everything is optional (and, of course, it is) your point becomes meaningless. Not that referencing a set of stats from the '70s (which immediately changed in 1980) is a very meaningful point in any case.



It was optional because the added powers were presented in a non-core book that came out 8 years (not in '80, but in '85 or '86 IIRC) after the original official stats.

Manual of the Planes added a lot of great stuff for the DM to use. Taking the demon princes out of the DM's stable of monsters and putting them into the DM's plot device pasture was not great stuff.

As for the whole deal, this thread, the other and the dozens yet to come, it's done. It's in the can. WotC has erred on the side of fun and playability, which warms my heart. I'm glad they've reversed direction on this in favor of providing info that is usable at the table. A few self-proclaimed experts are less so now*, but oh well.

*As an aside, somewhere yesterday I actually saw someone bemoaning the fact that this would interfere with their "education" of the "kiddies" on the message boards... woah! There's someone who takes their place in the message-board game seriously!


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> It was optional because the added powers were presented in a non-core book that came out 8 years (not in '80, but in '85 or '86 IIRC) after the original official stats.




The "core" terminology is a new invention. 

And that was just one example, anyway. _Deities & Demigods_ also added a bunch of powers that would turn the tides of battle between a god and just about any non-god. 

Of course, _everything_ is optional, but if you believe Gygax's introduction to the book, "Deities & Demigods is an indispensible part of the whole of AD&D. Do not fall into the error of regarding it as a supplement. It is integral to Dungeon Mastering a true AD&D campaign."

Some of what _Deities & Demigods_ gave Juiblex include the ability to cast _Command_ instantaneously and at will, with no saving throw, and to cast _Gate_, _Geas_, and _Quest_, to teleport without error at will, and a host of undefined powers to be used as the DM saw fit, including possibly the power to teleport _anyone else_ anywhere, without error, at will. 

And all that back in 1980.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> The "core" terminology is a new invention.



The word, yes, but not the idea. Back then we called it "We only use book a,b,c, with a little of x,y, and z".



> Of course, _everything_ is optional, but if you believe Gygax's introduction to the book, "Deities & Demigods is an indispensible part of the whole of AD&D. Do not fall into the error of regarding it as a supplement. It is integral to Dungeon Mastering a true AD&D campaign."



And EGG is very well known for the soft sell... weren't you supposed to only use official hexagon paper, or you weren't truly playing AD&D?  

Turn the page to find "...everything contained within this book is guidelines, not rules. DDG is an aid for the DM, not instructions. We would not presume to tell a Dungeon Master how to set up his or her campaign's religious system."

So yeah, I guess we can agree they had their cake and ate it too.

Really, though, if he considered the addition of such powers to demon lords and archdevils so indispensible, why not include them for the big bads included in Monster Manual II? Perhaps then, as now, unassailable badguys didn't prove popular with the player base. I'm not psychic, so I have to wonder if they were popular with EGG himself or those in his circle of players. Certainly adding such powers to these beings makes the deeds of Zagyg, Erac's Cousin, Robilar and others seem impossible... at least if they truly did occur at the table and weren't "dressed up" for publication.

And yes, later in DDG they suggest adding a short list of generic deific powers to many monsters in the MM and Fiend Folio, but off the top of my head the idea wasn't followed through in any other books until the Manual of the Planes (where the caveat is given that these divine abilities should only work on the devils' or demons' home planes). Why do you suppose the idea was dropped until after EGG had left the fold?


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> In the present case, we have a rather largish departure from historic treatments and no metasetting explaination provided.




Once again, the problem is that people are taking the CRs as metasetting gospel.

Given that the demonomicon articles are pegging the demon lords in the CR28-32 range and scaling guidelines explicitly exist in the book, I think that's a mistake of thinking.

The metasetting part is the fluff. The stats are tools.



> We are asked, essentially, to accept the change and act like "it has always been that way."




No. You are being asked to do YOUR setting YOUR way and accept that different people do their campaign differently.


----------



## BogusMagus (May 31, 2006)

Hi guys,

Some people has already said similar stuff, but can I join the fun?

Forget about Balor for a moment. Let’s presume 20th Level is the max, and no character exists beyond that level. Let’s say PC should have a chance to defeat a Demon Lord at the end of the campaign.

Isn’t CR19-23, still bit low?

Assuming the CR system works as stated in DMG;
A 4-men party of 20th levels should be able to defeat EL20 easily.
An equivalent EL is 24, right?

An 8-men party should have a chance against EL26, right?

So, wouldn’t CR24-26+, be more appropriate for this purpose?

Assuming they are killable opponents, they are at least suppose to be “super-bosses” of the campaign/world, aren’t they?
So give the PC’s some cheesy help. An artifact, or even one per character. Celestial buddies. It’s the climax of the campaign, the fight of century, right?
Or is it suppose to be just a routine, the opponent of the day?

(BTW, my preference would be: Demon Lords to be Deity-equivalent, at least on their home turf. And their Aspects/Avatars/Manifestations on other Planes, defeatable.)


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

BogusMagus said:
			
		

> Forget about Balor for a moment. Let’s presume 20th Level is the max, and no character exists beyond that level. Let’s say PC should have a chance to defeat a Demon Lord at the end of the campaign.
> 
> Isn’t CR19-23, still bit low?
> 
> ...




See, this would at least be slightly sensible, and WotC wouldn't want that. next up, they'll be remaking the tarrsque as CR5 so people who "don't like high level play" can use it. 

I still mantain they should be DF level of power. I've had fun campiagns at that power level before. most of the PCs were gods or god level strength, but that only added to the roleplaying as while as power level. If you want your PCs to take on Orcus, make them god strength, you can still have a good campaign.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

BogusMagus said:
			
		

> Hi guys,
> 
> Some people has already said similar stuff, but can I join the fun?
> 
> ...




Yes, you are absolutely correct.   At CR 20, the archfiend should only tap about 20% of a standard party of four's resources.  They can then proceed to tne next rooms and drop a few more.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Yes, you are absolutely correct.   At CR 20, the archfiend should only tap about 20% of a standard party of four's resources.  They can then proceed to tne next rooms and drop a few more.




As has already been quoted, the intention was that the demon lord not be encountered alone. With a proper entourage, an EL 24 is likely. (IME, singular big baddies don't tend to be as effective or balanced an encounter as groups, especially at these levels.)

But if you don't like it, use the provided guidelines to tweak it up. Stop making out as if you are stuck using the baseline version. You aren't.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> As has already been quoted, the intention was that the demon lord not be encountered alone. With a proper entourage, an EL 24 is likely. (IME, singular big baddies don't tend to be as effective or balanced an encounter as groups, especially at these levels.)
> 
> But if you don't like it, use the provided guidelines to tweak it up. Stop making out as if you are stuck using the baseline version. You aren't.






I'm not worried about stats for my campaign, I have DF for that. It just offends my that WotC would make the officail versions this weak. Why couldn't they have made Demogorgon CR 90 with rules for deadvancing him? and belive me, It's not that much harder to deadvance.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Giygasfan said:
			
		

> Why couldn't they have made Demogorgon CR 90 with rules for deadvancing him?




Because the CR 90 rules would almost literally be used by nobody.



> and belive me, It's not that much harder to deadvance.




No, sorry, I do not beleive you. Even in character design programs, there are admonitions that "regressing characters" is error prone. In a statistics block, things like how many skill ranks a creature has are not shown. You have to reverse engineer what it has to take things away. When adding things you... just have to add things.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Because the CR 90 rules would almost literally be used by nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry, I do not beleive you. Even in character design programs, there are admonitions that "regressing characters" is error prone. In a statistics block, things like how many skill ranks a creature has are not shown. You have to reverse engineer what it has to take things away. When adding things you... just have to add things.






Most of the people I game with would use those stats. most of the gamers i know do uberEpic games quite often, so I doubt that almost no one would use them. just becouse you don't know any epic gamers doesn't mean there aren't any.  

As for deadvancing, just look up what type of HD it has to get skill points. I honestly don't see how its that hard, I don't have trouble with it.


----------



## Mirtek (May 31, 2006)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> By the way, Eric just confirmed in the q&a thread that the book mentions multiple times that demon lords have godlike control over their layer (as do various other official sources anyway, as far as I remember).



Mentioning that in the fluff text is fine, but if it#s not an ability written in their stat blocks they simply do not have these abilities.


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> The metasetting part is the fluff. The stats are tools.



Yes. And if the stats don't match the fluff the metasetting falls apart


----------



## BronzeGolem (May 31, 2006)

Giygasfan said:
			
		

> Most of the people I game with would use those stats. most of the gamers i know do uberEpic games quite often, so I doubt that almost no one would use them. just becouse you don't know any epic gamers doesn't mean there aren't any.
> 
> As for deadvancing, just look up what type of HD it has to get skill points. I honestly don't see how its that hard, I don't have trouble with it.




I partially agree (it's a bit harder to get skill points than this, since the Int of the creature also factors into it, and the degree to which it's reduced), but I think your general point is valid.

Additionally, if deadvancing is being put forth as an error prone process, how much more error-prone is it, or might it be, to advance a unique creature that ought to have unique qualities (or improve the ones it already has)?


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Giygasfan said:
			
		

> Most of the people I game with would use those stats. most of the gamers i know do uberEpic games quite often, so I doubt that almost no one would use them.




I've done epic levels before. Epic in the ballpark of CR90 is another kettle of fish entirely.



> just becouse you don't know any epic gamers doesn't mean there aren't any.




Sure. But it's in the minority. You don't sell a product by catering to a small minority. You do what you can in the space you have. And they've done that. They've provided a baseline in reach of the plurality of the audience, and provided scaling notes to keep it usable to those who want it to be more challenging.



> As for deadvancing, just look up what type of HD it has to get skill points. I honestly don't see how its that hard, I don't have trouble with it.




Figuring how many skill points is just the beginning of the battle. How do you know that you have done it right? The stat block does not let you know what levels the character took intelligence bonuses at. I usually fail liberal here and assume that any bonuses to intelligence happened early, but still, that's an added step of complication and second guessing that I would not have to have gone through.

Then I have to reverse engineer the skill modifiers into ranks and bonuses to make sure I am not going into the negatives on any skill ranks, or to see if any synergy modifiers go away.

And then, the advancement notes talk about adding spell like and other abilities. Which are the right ones to shave off?

Finally, that you have no trouble de-advancing thing is a good skill to have if you have truly mastered it. I would think that if you could de-advance, you could advance it. If you find mechanical manipulation no big deal, then why are you making all this fuss.

And let's get back to the real point here. If you want, and will actually make use of CR 90 statistics, you are in the minority. It makes no sense to cater to just you, or to primarily you. Far more people would have to be doing work to lower it to the low 20s range than the amount of people who will be doing the work to raise it to the CR90 range.

And, on another point, a CR90 creature would have a much larger statistic block, with more special abilities, skills, and feats. The creature would take up even more pages in a book that already suffers from page crunch.

You are asking WotC to deliver a book to you that meets your exact needs at the expense of a much larger segment of the audience. That's unreasonable.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Yes. And if the stats don't match the fluff the metasetting falls apart




The stats are meant to be manipulated. If you think that it doesn't fit your vision of the metasetting, change them. Quit acting like the stats are precisely the singular official representation of the creatures. That's not the intention and the authors have already amplified that.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've done epic levels before. Epic in the ballpark of CR90 is another kettle of fish entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Look, Psion, you & I obviosly don't see eye to eye on this and aren't going to anytime soon. therfore I'm just going to stop arguing w/you becouse I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine. We both have different on what WotC "should" have done.


----------



## el-remmen (May 31, 2006)

Space considerations aside, why not do something similar to Amber Diceless in its presentations of the main characters of the novels?  

That is, two or three versions of different power levels and possible abilities based on story and legend. . 

So you could have (for example): 

Demogorgon - Lovecraftian Abomination from Beyond the Stars version (CR 50)
Demogorgon - Liege of the Death Knights version (CR 30)
Demogorgon - Demon Lord of Apes version (CR 25)


----------



## Starman (May 31, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Space considerations aside, why not do something similar to Amber Diceless in its presentations of the main characters of the novels?
> 
> That is, two or three versions of different power levels and possible abilities based on story and legend. .
> 
> ...




I think that would be an ideal solution but, as you mentioned space is a consideration. I'm sure time is another. Statting up creatures of that level is time consuming. The other problem is that there would still be complaining. Someone would be unhappy that they didn't get the CR 47 (or the CR 163 or whatever) version of Demogorgon that they wanted.


----------



## BronzeGolem (May 31, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> I think that would be an ideal solution but, as you mentioned space is a consideration. I'm sure time is another. Statting up creatures of that level is time consuming. The other problem is that there would still be complaining. Someone would be unhappy that they didn't get the CR 47 (or the CR 163 or whatever) version of Demogorgon that they wanted.




Actually, I wouldn't be particularly dissatisfied with that. At least one statted version of Demogorgon in that view would be capable of "holding its own" against all comers, much less what would happen if Demogorgon went up against a deity. My problem is with the idea of a CR 2X Demogorgon as a base (much less a CR 19 Juiblex), and then making how I envision Demogorgon and other Demon Lords basically marginal at the expense, as GVDammerung stated it, of the story.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 31, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Space considerations aside, why not do something similar to Amber Diceless in its presentations of the main characters of the novels?
> 
> That is, two or three versions of different power levels and possible abilities based on story and legend. .
> 
> ...



That would have added pages to this uber slim tome!  Come on! $30 for 160 pages.  If anyone hasn't noticed, the WotC books have been maintaining price while losing page count.  This is what I call hidden inflation.  Not only that, there has been a big drop in the quality of what is being presented to us.  If WotC were ever trying to cash in, the time seem to be now.

If they would have increased the price by $10 and added 50 pages, I would be happy to pick it up if they did something like above.  As it is I passing on it now.  They money will go toward something good, like Ptolus.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Space considerations aside, why not do something similar to Amber Diceless in its presentations of the main characters of the novels?
> 
> That is, two or three versions of different power levels and possible abilities based on story and legend. .
> 
> ...





this would be a great Idea, although I would make the CRs more spread out. 

Something like:


Demogorgon - Powerful demon Lord (CR 25)

Demogorgon - Prince of Demons (CR 45)

Demgorgon - eternal corrupter, ravager of worlds, the Demiurge. (CR 90)

that way, those who want their level 20 party to fight him could (with a little prep). Those who want him Demigod level and possible beatable by the strongest of mortals could use him. And those, like me, who want him capable af beating down most gods can also use him.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> That would have added pages to this uber slim tome!  Come on! $30 for 160 pages.  If anyone hasn't noticed, the WotC books have been maintaining price while losing page count.




Yep.

Stuff has already been discussed that had to be culled from the book as it is.


----------



## Starman (May 31, 2006)

BronzeGolem said:
			
		

> Actually, I wouldn't be particularly dissatisfied with that.




Trust me. Someone would.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

BogusMagus said:
			
		

> Hi guys,
> 
> Some people has already said similar stuff, but can I join the fun?
> 
> ...




If it's the climax of such a campaign, with those specific circumstances, it seems like your DM might have fun spending an hour advancing the final boss to customize him to the challenge of the players.

Also, when you factor in the demon's retinue (he's not in a room just holding a pie, right?), the game provides the tools to make a fun encounter at an appropriate EL.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Mentioning that in the fluff text is fine, but if it#s not an ability written in their stat blocks they simply do not have these abilities.
> 
> Yes. And if the stats don't match the fluff the metasetting falls apart



Let it fall.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Let it fall.




You do realize that if there wasn't a metasetting, there wouldn't be any demon lords and no Fiendish Codex, right?


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> You do realize that if there wasn't a metasetting, there wouldn't be any demon lords and no Fiendish Codex, right?




I've not noticed my books crumbling... or my campaign... with the publication of this book.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Giygasfan said:
			
		

> I'm not worried about stats for my campaign, I have DF for that. It just offends my that WotC would make the officail versions this weak. Why couldn't they have made Demogorgon CR 90 with rules for deadvancing him? and belive me, It's not that much harder to deadvance.



So you wouldn't use whatever stats they would present anyway, but you want to make him useless for 99%* of the players out there? I... I... I just said something to my screen that Eric's gramma wouldn't approve.


* granted, I made this number up. It's probably closer to 98.66%


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've not noticed my books crumbling... or my campaign... with the publication of this book.




I was replying to Uder's opinion that the metasetting is unimportant, not the impact of this one element on the metasetting.

The entire book is metasetting....it doesn't take place in Greyhawk, the Realms, or Eberron.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I've not noticed my books crumbling... or my campaign... with the publication of this book.




What shade is trying to say is that if everyone had Uder's philosophy, then there wouldn't be any Demon Princes to argue about. there wouldn't be any flavor at all. there would just be stats, becouse "the DMs can make up their own flavor". well, I for one, say (censored) to that.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

Giygasfan said:
			
		

> What shade is trying to say is that if everyone had Uder's philosophy, then there wouldn't be any Demon Princes to argue about. there wouldn't be any flavor at all. there would just be stats, becouse "the DMs can make up their own flavor". well, I for one, say (censored) to that.




Thank you.  Words are beginning to fail me in this tired debate.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> You do realize that if there wasn't a metasetting, there wouldn't be any demon lords and no Fiendish Codex, right?



There isn't a metasetting. There are bits of sometimes contradictory flavor thrown in to fire your imagination. The idea that it is binding in any way on anyone's campaign is _abhorrent _to me. Seeing this flavor referred to as RAW is a _travesty_.

Well, maybe I don't feel that strongly, but seeing someone _offended _that Demogorgon isn't CR90 has got me waxing hyperbolic.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> There isn't a metasetting. There are bits of sometimes contradictory flavor thrown in to fire your imagination. The idea that it is binding in any way on anyone's campaign is _abhorrent _to me. Seeing this flavor referred to as RAW is a _travesty_.
> 
> Well, maybe I don't feel that strongly, but seeing someone _offended _that Demogorgon isn't CR90 has got me waxing hyperbolic.




That _is _ a metasetting, like it or not.  If it is just random chunks of flavor not linked in any way, it serves no purpose.  The Great Wheel is a metasetting; it doesn't exist in any of the currently supported campaign settings.

I am definitely not suggesting that you have to use any or all of it, just like I'm not insisting you use a warlock or psion.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> So you wouldn't use whatever stats they would present anyway, but you want to make him useless for 99%* of the players out there? I... I... I just said something to my screen that Eric's gramma wouldn't approve.
> 
> 
> * granted, I made this number up. It's probably closer to 98.66%



If there were 3 versions at different points of power I wouldn't mind.  Hell, if there was a version in a book of CR40 and I know my player's/character's would never nead, I wouldn't mind.  I do mind nerfing very much though.  I would rather have these beings be something I'm more than likely never going up against than just another ho-hum encounter.


----------



## Psion (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> I was replying to Uder's opinion that the metasetting is unimportant, not the impact of this one element on the metasetting.
> 
> The entire book is metasetting....it doesn't take place in Greyhawk, the Realms, or Eberron.




I suspect that he was needling Mirtek a bit. The metasetting is not going to "fall". My lions are not going to sleep with lambs and my githyanki are still going to hate illithids in the morning.

The metasetting will change, shift, and be inconsistant. It always has. Formians became boss in mechanus. The demi and quasi elemental planes disappeared. The astral plane expanded to encompass the entirety of the multiverse and the ethereal plane shrunk to become only next door to the prime. (All these are quite a bit more concrete and irrefutable effect on metasetting that giving GMs demons that are tweakable.)

Yet we are still enjoying a book on the metasetting based on assumptions that date back to Eldritch Wizardry.

The metasetting is in no danger of "falling".


----------



## Seeten (May 31, 2006)

So how about those Yankees? (No, not the Githyanki's...*sigh*)


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> That _is _ a metasetting, like it or not.  If it is just random chunks of flavor not linked in any way, it serves no purpose.  The Great Wheel is a metasetting; it doesn't exist in any of the currently supported campaign settings.
> 
> I am definitely not suggesting that you have to use any or all of it, just like I'm not insisting you use a warlock or psion.




Hmmm, since we're talking about food (Mmmm, chunks of flaaaaavor) try this: Go to your kitchen and pick a handful/pinch/dollop/whatever of your favorite foods. Put them in a broth, and make some metasoup. What's that? Steak & Ice Cream Swiss Chocolate Waffle soup is terrible? That's metasoup for ya.

I entirely disagree that unrelated chunks of flavor serve no purpose. First, they give people who play the game away from the table something to puzzle over and try to form a metasetting out of     Second, they are inspiring to those who like to build their own worlds.

The metasetting you imply (Planescape with the numbers filed off, every campaign exists in the same multiverse, every pantheon that ever existed, etc) has led to beings that can only be represented by rules that aren't fun to play.

It sounds like they did the sensible thing. Archfiends are the best big bads in the game, and now we get them at levels that don't require juryrigged rules to use at the table. For those that enjoy statting out monsters, a baseline is provided... remember alt.rangers? Now we've got alt.archfiends... more fun for everyone!


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

<has "qwerty" imprinted on forehead>

Most of the flavor in this book is the metasetting, is the Great Wheel.  Use what you'd like, but don't pretend that it is something that it isn't.   The "little chunks of flavor" you reference is something like "Like succubi, glabrezu tempt victims into ruin, but they lure their prey with power or wealth rather than passion."  Describing how the demons link to their peers, the various planes of the Abyss, the Queen of Chaos, the devils, the eladrins...this is metasetting.  This is the bulk of the book.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> <has "qwerty" imprinted on forehead>



You're too close to it. Back off, or get a better light.

I'm talking about the keyboard. Yep, that's it.


----------



## Kain Darkwind (May 31, 2006)

Just to be perfectly clear, Dicefreaks does not have a CR 90 Demogorgon either.  

The concern raised over this issue isn't about whether the fiends should be CR 25-30, or CR 30-50, or CR 50+.  All of those number spreads are beyond the 'standard game' cap of 20.  CR 25-30 are capable of being taken down through some careful planning of the PCs, perhaps a little campaign help as well.  They still fit in the 'standard' game.  The other spreads are clearly epic.  And the differences between them are one of taste.

This is a concern with having demon princes on an equal or even lesser level than the demons they are supposed to rule.  The usage of these stats in a 'real game' that doesn't go to epic can be a valid concern, but at CR 25-30, the concern is no more than that of using a great wyrm dragon in such a game.  It can be done.  Not even with that much work.

Putting the demon lords at CR 19-23 makes them not "challenging culminations of a 20th level campaign" but "easily won fights at 20th level"  And including an entourage is no excuse for the low levels.

When you have a creature that is supposed to rule demons (forget about concerning the gods, or ruling entire layers/planes) then you should make a person believe that they can rule demons.  After all, if you have a 5th level necromancer, no one is going to believe that they can rule over an army of thousands of undead.  A 17th level lich necromancer on the other hand, could very well accomplish such a feat.  If you have a dragon terrorizing a country, it shouldn't be a CR 2 wyrmling.  Stats should reflect flavor.  And when angry balors can take you out on an 'off day', you will have problems being their ruler.

That's what doesn't make sense here.  On a greater level than 'demon princes and gods clash together, and either can come out the victor'.  People can and do disagree about whether demon princes should challenge the gods.  That's where the CR 25-30 vs CR 50+ comes in.  Those are the matters of opinion.  There is no 'opinion' about demon lords that suggests they should be defeated by an angry balor, or even a irritated maralith.  There is no baseline that suggests a CR 23 demon lord makes sense, let along a CR 19.

No one is mad about being allowed to advance demon lords from a certain base.  They are mad about having that base not make a single wit of sense.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> There is no 'opinion' about demon lords that suggests they should be defeated by an angry balor, or even a irritated maralith.




Nice handwave. I believe it should be possible (but hard)... if a demon lord was ever stupid enough to get into a one-on-one fight with a balor on the PMP.


----------



## Coriat (May 31, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Nice handwave. I believe it should be possible (but hard)... if a demon lord was ever stupid enough to get into a one-on-one fight with a balor on the PMP.




Maybe he should have said no sensible opinion  

Putting kidding aside, though, it does not make sense that they have survived for millenia of intimidating and enslaving lesser demons if those demons can kill them pretty easily (after all, what's a hard fight for one balor is an easy fight for two... and balors have _summon balor_)


----------



## hexgrid (May 31, 2006)

Coriat said:
			
		

> Maybe he should have said no sensible opinion
> 
> Putting kidding aside, though, it does not make sense that they have survived for millenia of intimidating and enslaving lesser demons if those demons can kill them pretty easily (after all, what's a hard fight for one balor is an easy fight for two... and balors have _summon balor_)




But seeing as how balors go up to 60HD, and there's an infinite number of them, it doesn't seem like a demon lord of _any_ CR would be safe...

Maybe the real problem here is with the CR of balors, not the CR of demon lords.


----------



## Giygasfan (May 31, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> Just to be perfectly clear, Dicefreaks does not have a CR 90 Demogorgon either.





I didn't mean to say they did, I just put that in as a CR that would be Greater god strength. CR 75, or 80, or 85 would be just as well.


----------



## hexgrid (May 31, 2006)

Kain Darkwind said:
			
		

> And including an entourage is no excuse for the low levels.




It is too an excuse, and based on the idea of providing reasonable challenges for 20th level characters, it's a perfectly reasonable one. 

Unless you're running an orc and pie scenario, the demon lord is nearly guaranteed to have an entourage. Its CR needs to take this into account.


----------



## JustaPlayer (May 31, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> But seeing as how balors go up to 60HD, and there's an infinite number of them, it doesn't seem like a demon lord of _any_ CR would be safe...
> 
> Maybe the real problem here is with the CR of balors, not the CR of demon lords.



No, I see no problem with that balor.  I think the problem is that they delibrately took something that should be just out of reach and made it just another MOB.


----------



## Shade (May 31, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> It is too an excuse, and based on the idea of providing reasonable challenges for 20th level characters, it's a perfectly reasonable one.
> 
> Unless you're running an orc and pie scenario, the demon lord is nearly guaranteed to have an entourage. Its CR needs to take this into account.




Not necessarilly.  You can run them as a separate encounter only after their minions were slain.  One of those "kill are the guards and then proceed to the leader, who has spent the whole time preparing himself".  Most of them have hefty summoning abilities, which are factored into their own CR, and thus don't increase the EL.   Of course, if those summoning powers have been lessened now, this argument loses weight.


----------



## Ripzerai (May 31, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Maybe the real problem here is with the CR of balors, not the CR of demon lords.




Ignore advanced balors, then. Get me some demon lords who can, at their base hit dice, reliably destroy _unadvanced_ balors. 

That means start them at least at CR 21. 

If that's too much to ask, then why are there no complaints about how hard Demogorgon is to kill? Cripes, he's CR 23! With his entourage and other assets, only the epic munchkins have a chance against him!  He's useless in my game! 

Heck, they could have put them all at CR 21. Because flavor and the history of the game doesn't matter, right? So why not make them all equally powerful? That would have been so much more useful in a non-epic game than this ridiculous CR 23 business. If you want Demogorgon to be tougher than Juiblex, you can advance him yourself.


----------



## Toras (May 31, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> It is too an excuse, and based on the idea of providing reasonable challenges for 20th level characters, it's a perfectly reasonable one.
> 
> Unless you're running an orc and pie scenario, the demon lord is nearly guaranteed to have an entourage. Its CR needs to take this into account.




Even if you freeze your character's level at 20, I would not characterize assaulting a Demon Lord within his realm (where his entourage will primarily exist) as a 'reasonable challenge'.  It should be an awe inspiring task, the likes of which would shatter a lesser person to attempt.  An awesome battle the scope and depth of which would defy description.  The sky should be shrowded by winged angels and flying demons, locked in combat more terrible than can be imagined.

The characters should be in the thick of it, their hard one allies and stalwart friends holding the way to the Demon Lord's seat of power.  Noble men and Celestial falling around them, they charge forth, having gathered the greatest strength that their kind has to offer.  Eldritch magics long thought lost to forgotten empires fire forth, and the touch of a deity invested within his chosen echo through the din.  

The fight to the chamber should be dangerous, frot with peril beyond hope.   The character's navigate their way through should be perilous, possible only by unsurpassed wits and writings a damned soul found while upon the quest.  When they arrive, it is a battle of most grave consequences from which some if not all of them might never return.  But in the end, they stand triumphant by their own hand or slain in the persuit.  

That's why the CR and the lack luster stats stick so heavily in my craw.  The battle should be at the very edge of possibility for the party, success possible only with a tremendous amount of prep and effort.  When they are done, it should be as if the jaws of hell itself snapped shut, close enough to feel its passing.  It should be the crowning achievement of a rich and diverse game rather than another Boss at the End of the Level, before you fight Diablo or getting the powerup.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 31, 2006)

One thing to keep in mind as well is the fact that very few people have actually seen the statblocks for the demon lords. Can a CR 23 creature reasonably hope to beat a CR 20 one? Easilly. Taking the CR 23 Demogorgon statblock as an example, he'll automaticaly hit the balor with every one of his 8 attacks (unless he rolls a natural 1, of course, and those attacks will be dealing significant Constitution drain and level drain), whereas the balor's best attack has only a 40% chance of hitting (and it goes down from there). The CR 23 Demogorgon should have little to no problem killing balors, even if they gang up on him in groups of 2 or 3.

If your game features advanced balors, you should also feature equally advanced demon lords at the very least, so this argument is spurious at best.

Again, my personal taste for demon lords is at the levels they're appearing in the Demonomicon articles in _Dragon_, but the baseline stat blocks that appear in Fiendish Codex are NOT wimpy stat blocks.


----------



## Uder (May 31, 2006)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Unless you're running an orc and pie scenario, the demon lord is nearly guaranteed to have an entourage. Its CR needs to take this into account.



Erm, that's not what CR is for. CR is for determining xp awards of individual critters.



			
				Ripzerai said:
			
		

> If that's too much to ask, then why are there no complaints about how hard Demogorgon is to kill? Cripes, he's CR 23! With his entourage and other assets, only the epic munchkins have a chance against him! He's useless in my game!



Depends on what the stats look like. He's worth a lot of xp, that's for sure. With characters of level 18-19, there's no telling what can happen, even when the by-the-book EL starts pushing 30.

For a capped out party at 20th level, the equipment guidelines break down. If they've been adventuring for a while since hitting the cap, they may have very good gear.



			
				Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Heck, they could have put them all at CR 21. Because flavor and the history of the game doesn't matter, right? So why not make them all equally powerful? That would have been so much more useful in a non-epic game than this ridiculous CR 23 business. If you want Demogorgon to be tougher than Juiblex, you can advance him yourself.




 CR19+ sounds like a good xp award to me. Have you got a point, or is it all sarcasm from this point out?


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Have you got a point




You didn't catch it? Look harder.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 1, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> One thing to keep in mind as well is the fact that very few people have actually seen the statblocks for the demon lords. Can a CR 23 creature reasonably hope to beat a CR 20 one? Easilly. Taking the CR 23 Demogorgon statblock as an example, he'll automaticaly hit the balor with every one of his 8 attacks (unless he rolls a natural 1, of course, and those attacks will be dealing significant Constitution drain and level drain), whereas the balor's best attack has only a 40% chance of hitting (and it goes down from there). The CR 23 Demogorgon should have little to no problem killing balors, even if they gang up on him in groups of 2 or 3.
> 
> If your game features advanced balors, you should also feature equally advanced demon lords at the very least, so this argument is spurious at best.
> 
> Again, my personal taste for demon lords is at the levels they're appearing in the Demonomicon articles in _Dragon_, but the baseline stat blocks that appear in Fiendish Codex are NOT wimpy stat blocks.




Are you saying that the CRs may be wrong?  (not an new concept there)
Or are you simply pointing out that a CR23 creature is expected to easily defeat a CR20 creature in a one on one?


----------



## BryonD (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The metasetting is in no danger of "falling".



That is absolutely true.

It is much more likely that the metasetting will continue to evolve and change, but will steamroll onward and leave this concept in the gutter.
Which is too bad. (the book, not that the metasetting will move on beyond it)


----------



## Psion (Jun 1, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That is absolutely true.
> 
> It is much more likely that the metasetting will continue to evolve and change, but will steamroll onward and leave this concept in the gutter.




So, am I supposed to disagree with this notion?

Because I don't. The stats aren't supposed to be a metasetting alteration. In a month, this thread will be forgotten. Well, by most of us at least.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 1, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the CRs may be wrong?  (not an new concept there)
> Or are you simply pointing out that a CR23 creature is expected to easily defeat a CR20 creature in a one on one?



It should be kept in mind that CR is not a good measure of power - it is a measure of how much of a challenge a creature is to a typical party of four. If someone really wanted, they could have a CR 12 demon lord that simply has the ability to dominate non-lord demons, no save allowed (ignoring how bad of a design that would be). Of course, it *is* a rough measure of power, but by no mean an exact one (who would win in a battle between a balor and a tarrasque, assuming that indefinite unconciousness also counts as a win?).

Just for the record, I still feel that the demon lords could be extended out to CR 27 without breaking the idea that they can be challenged by non-epic parties.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jun 1, 2006)

Uder said:
			
		

> Really, though, if he considered the addition of such powers to demon lords and archdevils so indispensible, why not include them for the big bads included in Monster Manual II?




My guess is, because Gygax assumed they were plenty powerful enough to squash mere mortals in anything he regarded as a reasonable campaign. Considering the levels most campaigns got to - including Gygax's own - those demons were epic creatures for the time.

The primary reason to give them the power of gods is if gods themselves had stats - which they probably wouldn't, unless one had _Deities & Demigods_. Because Gygax did recognize that it was important for the sake of campaign consistency for Asmodeus not to be easily bullied around by Hextor. 

Graz'zt, in Gygax's writings, drove a demigod (Raxivort) from his plane and sired a demigod himself. It's clear what power level he thought his demon princes should be at.

Now, naturally, you may disagree and do what you want in your own campaign. But don't look for Gygax to back you up on this one.



> Certainly adding such powers to these beings makes the deeds of Zagyg, Erac's Cousin, Robilar and others seem impossible...




Guh? Zagyg wasn't a PC, he was a deus ex machina - and everything he did broke the rules. Erac's Cousin got treated like a little toy by Fraz'urb-luu; Robilar wisely fled when confronted by Iuz, and didn't dare try to engage Zuggtmoy.

_Isle of the Ape_ doesn't even let you fight _Iggwilv_. And he's been very critical about Q1. Gods and demon lords definitely were deus ex machinas in his campaign, not foes.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 1, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> So, am I supposed to disagree with this notion?



 

No.  I'm just say what I think.  Agreement or disagreement last time doesn't chnage that.



> Because I don't. The stats aren't supposed to be a metasetting alteration.



I really did not expect you would.  



> In a month, this thread will be forgotten.
> Well, by most of us at least.



It's a curse.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 1, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> It should be kept in mind that CR is not a good measure of power - it is a measure of how much of a challenge a creature is to a typical party of four.




Tell it to the party of four Balors.



> If someone really wanted, they could have a CR 12 demon lord that simply has the ability to dominate non-lord demons, no save allowed (ignoring how bad of a design that would be). Of course, it *is* a rough measure of power, but by no mean an exact one (who would win in a battle between a balor and a tarrasque, assuming that indefinite unconciousness also counts as a win?).



Of course.
But (a) that isn't in this book and (b) I don't believe (IMHO) that there are a great majority of people who desire anything approaching this.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 1, 2006)

I just chime in to say that each of us makes her own assumptions. Too many assumptions, and we don't even easily accept how others are playing with very different assumptions and still having a lot of fun.

Our games never even 20th level, and when we reach level 15th we feel like we're on the top of the (known) world in power. A balrog with 18 CR is already sort of a demon lord for us, as it takes an entire campaign usually to be able to challenge it. We've never fought against the oldest dragons in the MM, but we never felt like we were missing fun because we were fighting "only" huge or gargantuan dragons   

This is just to say that there are some groups (us) which don't even reach 20th level for our own reasons (practical, not theoretical). Everything published with a CR higher than 24-25 at best is something we'll probably never use, at least for many more years. Everything lower makes us potential buyers of the book.

I think that all of us have the habit of thinking that everything published by WotC is RULE, that we can choose not to use something but if we use it it must be as they published it. Well we don't play for WotC, we play for ourselves! I am *glad* if WotC publishes the same thing in 2 or more versions (such as these Demon Lords, you can still use the BoVD stronger versions with some adjustments if you want them 3.5), and it's up to us to choose which. Furthermore, it's always easier to advance something rather than downgrade it.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jun 1, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Tell it to the party of four Balors.



What's the ECL of a Balor?  28?  35?

CR /= ECL


----------

