# Fiendish Codex II next month--Any scoop/rumors/etc.?



## Shade (Nov 9, 2006)

I haven't seen much on this book lately and was just curious if I'd missed any scoops.

I'm aware of the hellfire engine and pleasure devil in a recent Dungeon adventure, but beyond that, I've seen no other sneak peaks.


----------



## johnnype (Nov 9, 2006)

I'm curious as well. I assume they will go with the same CR20 stats they used in FCI which I'm not too happy about but it can't be helped at this point. I'll but it regardless and pray WotC has the wisdom to print FCIII.


----------



## Knight Otu (Nov 9, 2006)

I suppose we'll hear more tomorrow or on Monday, when a new Previews for ... is due. And of course, more in December, where it will likely be the featured product.


----------



## Razz (Nov 10, 2006)

johnnype said:
			
		

> I'm curious as well. I assume they will go with the same CR20 stats they used in FCI which I'm not too happy about but it can't be helped at this point. I'll but it regardless and pray WotC has the wisdom to print FCIII.




That's what I am worried about. See, it really wasn't that bad with FCI because we had _Demonomicon _ from *Dragon Magazine* to look forward to if we wanted better stats for the demon lords. But we don't have an alternative source for the 9 Lords of Hell. We're going to be stuck using the 3.0 BoVD versions if we want better Archdevils. Unless Paizo surprises the hell out of us. (no pun intended)

Then again, maybe they will present two different stats for the archdevils considering there's only 9, with room leftover to do a higher CR version? Who knows. I just hope for the best, though.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> That's what I am worried about. See, it really wasn't that bad with FCI because we had _Demonomicon _ from *Dragon Magazine* to look forward to if we wanted better stats for the demon lords.




The problem is that you've got Pit Fiends at the top of the orthodox Baatezu heirarchy, but then beyond them you have the various dukes and other ranks of Baatezu nobility, and beyond them you have the Lords of the 9. So we're either going to get CR 18ish dukes of hell, and low CR 20 Lords of the 9, or the Baatezu nobility are going to be more appropriately powered and then lightyears more powerful than the corresponding Abyssal Lords.

It's a conundrum to be certain. Blarg.  :\


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 10, 2006)

I'm hoping that the dukes and lords are calculated along a similar measuring stick as the demon lords in FC I. I do expect them to be more powerful individually than a specific demon lord, but I want them to be on the same metric, if you will. That way when I adjust the demon lords I know to adjust the devilish lords similarly. It will be quite a mess if I have to adjust different entities differing amounts dependant on which book they were in and the current level of public outcry.


----------



## Pants (Nov 10, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> That's what I am worried about. See, it really wasn't that bad with FCI because we had _Demonomicon _ from *Dragon Magazine* to look forward to if we wanted better stats for the demon lords.



*OR* you could've advanced them yourself.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> *OR* you could've advanced them yourself.



Sure, except isn't that part of what we'd be paying *them* to do, i.e., by buying the book they put together?

Besides, the advancement methods given in the core rules hardly do these kinds of cases justice. In fact, they tend to fail dismally.

There are other methods out there, for sure. Still though, not everyone knows about them, or likes them if they do know about them. Which can leave one with a rather poor bunch of alternatives, even not including leaving the lords of the nine as the ludicrously pathetic beings they might be statted out to be.

I hope something is done to remedy that problem this time round, I really do.


They're epic beings, guys. For ***'s sake, make them epic.


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 10, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Sure, except isn't that part of what we'd be paying *them* to do, i.e., by buying the book they put together?
> 
> Besides, the advancement methods given in the core rules hardly do these kinds of cases justice. In fact, they tend to fail dismally.
> 
> ...




Uhm, you don't exactly have to use the bog-standard core rules advancement.  The Fiendish Codex I specifically says that these are the minimally-powered versions and provides quite good advancement guidelines for demon lords beyond simply adding Hit Dice (pages 57-58).  Personally, I love that approach - it's the best of both worlds, since you have the demon lords as (very tough) capstone opponents for a nonepic career and solid advancement suggestions for the crazy-go-nuts epic crowd.  I hope they do the same thing for the devil princes, myself, though perhaps the Lords of the Nine should average 1-3 CRs higher than the demon lords, for reasons already noted.  I think the 23-27 as a base range for them (the devils) is darn near perfect, with the additional advancement guidelines they provide.

Personally, I'll be quite irritated if they waste page space with multiple stat blocks for the devil lords at different levels, and especially annoyed if the devil lords are on a totally different scale than that already established for the "standard" versions of the demons.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I hope something is done to remedy that problem this time round, I really do.
> 
> 
> They're epic beings, guys. For ***'s sake, make them epic.




As some others have said - regardless of your opinion on whether the CR bracket they were put into in Fiendish Codex was correct or not, are you seriously suggesting that the two companion volumes of the Fiendish Codex series should have their uber-bads in a totally different scale?  I would rather have two sets of comparable monsters in the same CR bracket (even if' it's not my personal preference for them) than in wildly different ones.

It's like suggesting that Dragons aren't powerful enough in core rules, so MM2 does Crystal Dragons a good 10 CRs above at each age category.  Now you've got a disparity which wasn't there before, and /neither/ side of the "how powerful should Dragons be?" debate will be happy because both have to deal with "wrong" Dragon CRs!

End of the day, I'm quite looking forward to the book, and the Archdevil stats aren't the big draw for me - but then I'm not as big a canon buff as some other people, so I'm perhaps just not seeing "the big picture".  I suspect we'll see similar ideas for advanving them to higher levels as is FC1, which is the best you can hope for: and it's a hell of a lot easier for people who want them bigger to do that than for people who want them smaller to reverse engineer them, IMX.  And hey, perhaps some of the whinging on this board will make Dragon consider a companion piece of the Demonomicon for higher level versions of Mephistopheles et al?...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2006)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Uhm, you don't exactly have to use the bog-standard core rules advancement.  The Fiendish Codex I specifically says that these are the minimally-powered versions and provides quite good advancement guidelines for demon lords beyond simply adding Hit Dice (pages 57-58).  Personally, I love that approach - it's the best of both worlds, since you have the demon lords as (very tough) capstone opponents for a nonepic career and solid advancement suggestions for the crazy-go-nuts epic crowd.



Uhm, I don't like the rules given there either, so I didn't seriously consider them as a contender. And "crazy-go-nuts"? Yeesh. Check out a pit fiend. Check out a "Lord of the Nine", or Solar for that matter. 'Nuff said.





			
				GQuail said:
			
		

> It's like suggesting that Dragons aren't powerful enough in core rules



Ah, no. No, it really isn't. Please reconsider that statement, in terms of factuality.




> And hey, perhaps some of the whinging on this board will make Dragon consider a companion piece of the Demonomicon for higher level versions of Mephistopheles et al?...



Perhaps some of that will. Perhaps too, some of the legitimate criticism levelled at game designers for certain rather poor design decisions *might* have some effect on future products (i.e., not FCII.) It's a slim chance, I know. Still.

I realise the second Fiendish Codex will be as flawed as the first in this rather startling way. Nonetheless, I will still buy the blinking thing , because there will be enough in it of use to me; I have no doubt of that at all. That, and the writers of it are RPG writers I respect, generally speaking.

So, if you like, consider my two posts in this thread just another person venting on just another topic on just another message board. You wouldn't be too far off the mark, anyway.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Ah, no. No, it really isn't. Please reconsider that statement, in terms of factuality.





Why is it incorrect?  Just because it's not about the actual case where you think the power levels are wrong, and it's thusly _totally different_?  ;-)  

But seriously: there are people who think the stats as provided do the job, and otehrs who think they aren't anywhere near as "epic" as they should be, and the proposition that the second book in the set should radically ratchet up the power level sounds like the worst thing that one could do.  Change the word "demon lords" to "dragons", "Golems", "Arch-Devils", "Whatever The People Who Rule The CG Side Of The Great WHeel Are Called", - You can pick whatever example makes you feel better, but it comes down to the same thing.  ONe book in a series lists a set of creatures at a power level, and the next book gives creatures who /should/ be comparable.  

If specifically unique creatures, then the Forgotten Realms is full of high level characters who might fit the bill.  Does Elminster need to be higher level than Drizz't?  If one gets knocked down ten levels in the next edition of the campaign, does the other have to retain his "rightful" place when he gets printed afterwards?    And should the sourcebooks come with suggested higher level stats for people who wish to play more potent games?  

I loved the Fiendish Codex, but the demon lord stat blocks weren't a big deal for me.  I would be a bit unhappy if I was told each Lord's pagecount went up by one to include a stat-block that was the same but higher level, so that both sides of the "should they be epic?" argument were satiated by the book, at the loss of any of the material in the planar guide.  And I think the reasoning behind making them pre-epic but expandable to epic is valid enough for it to be the bigger stat blocks that get chucked.  YMMV, and clearly does.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Perhaps some of that will. Perhaps too, some of the legitimate criticism levelled at game designers for certain rather poor design decisions *might* have some effect on future products (i.e., not FCII.) It's a slim chance, I know. Still.
> 
> I realise the second Fiendish Codex will be as flawed as the first in this rather startling way.




This language here seems a bit, um, melodramatic.  This "startling flaw" doesn't bother me in the slightest, and in fact seems to be a conscious decision that differs from your interpretation rather than a "mistake" per se.  But again, I'm not a big junkie of past edition canon (specifically, I know nothing of Planescape) so perhaps it's not bugging me as much for that reason. (If they ever do a Transformers RPG where Optimus Prime's power elvel is wrong, though, I'll be all over them.  ;-)



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, I will still buy the blinking thing , because there will be enough in it of use to me; I have no doubt of that at all. That, and the writers of it are RPG writers I respect, generally speaking.
> 
> So, if you like, consider my two posts in this thread just another person venting on just another topic on just another message board. You wouldn't be too far off the mark, anyway.




Well, at the end of the day, they're guaranteed two sales from both you and me, so I guess they win.  ;-)


----------



## glass (Nov 10, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> Why is it incorrect?  Just because it's not about the actual case where you think the power levels are wrong, and it's thusly _totally different_?  ;-)



I am not Aus_Snow, but IMO it is totally different because the problem with the abyssal lords is not that they are too weak in and of themselves. It is that they are two weak to rule over hordes of millions of demons, _some of whom are massively stronger than they are_.

But that ship has sadly already sailed. In some ways, it is both more and less of a problem for FCII because of the hierarchy.

EDIT: But yeah, I bought FCI and will almost certainly buy FCII, so that's three sales.

EDIT 2: Sorry for contributing to this thread going off-topic. Hopefully, now that we actually have some previews to talk about, we can leave arguing about the power levels until we actually have the books...  


glass.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> Why is it incorrect?  Just because it's not about the actual case where you think the power levels are wrong, and it's thusly _totally different_?  ;-)



Eh, it's all just opinion, I know.




> This language here seems a bit, um, melodramatic.



Ha. That's probably because it was!  I was venting, as I admitted later in that post. A little short on rationality on the first round of it, too. 




> (If they ever do a Transformers RPG where Optimus Prime's power elvel is wrong, though, I'll be all over them.  ;-)



Heh. Now there, I wouldn't be fussed either way. But I respect your dedication.




> Well, at the end of the day, they're guaranteed two sales from both you and me, so I guess they win.  ;-)



They do. Curses! And I thought I'd avoided the web of their subtle machinations. Woe is me.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> I am not Aus_Snow, but IMO it is totally different because the problem with the abyssal lords is not that they are too weak in and of themselves. It is that they are two weak to rule over hordes of millions of demons, _some of whom are massively stronger than they are_.
> 
> But that ship has sadly already sailed. In some ways, it is both more and less of a problem for FCII because of the hierarchy.




Yeah, I know some people will find it easier to accept that Devils might serve less powerful masters due to various political machinations, whereas they really didn't get why all these Pit Fiends do what Orcus tells them to.  ;-)

But that's more "why I think the power level is wrong" than what I was talking about, nor what Aus_Snow semeed to mean in his first post, which was about "solving the problem": which I took to mean "doing stats more powerful".  There my original point kicks in: that doing the two books at notably different power levels isn't really a solution so much as an added complication that would make no-one happy.

I suspect this is going to be the power level they stick with for this series, assuming a FC III or more ever materialises.  If we ever get more Epic Insights or even a new epic book, though, Iwouldn't be too surprised if they considered giving them a Level 21+overhaul.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Curses! And I thought I'd avoided the web of their subtle machinations. Woe is me.




We could quit *any time we want*, of course...


----------



## smootrk (Nov 10, 2006)

I like the scaled down versions now (after I had a good look at the FC1).  The lower starting points helps me to be able to fashion the fiends into whatever power-level that I might find a use for them.  Much easier to scale up by adding material, than to scale down these guys.  That, with the wonderful insight gained from the Dragon magazine articles helps even more.

So Cheers on the scaled down fiends.  Cannot wait to see the Devils (and then the Yugoloths (crosses fingers) - Anthraxus rules).  Maybe a series of Cestial Codexs is in their minds too.


----------



## Psion (Nov 10, 2006)

Oy, this argument again?



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Sure, except isn't that part of what we'd be paying *them* to do, i.e., by buying the book they put together?




And deliver you stats that will almost never get used because adventuring at 30th level is in the significant minority.

Many of those who want the stats to be CR 30+ (I've heard 75+ in some quarters) have also gone on record as saying that they never intend for PCs to be a challenge to the archfiends. These people don't need stats and for them, stats other than the CR line is a waste of space.

So, what should we be paying them to do? Writing stats for the people who actually use them.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Oy, this argument again?



Heh, yeah. I'll be surprised if it ever truly ends, prior to 4e coming out. . . or perhaps prior to 4e's answer to these books coming out. . . maybe not even then! 




> [. . .] stats that will almost never get used because adventuring at 30th level is in the significant minority.



Sometimes I wonder which way round that goes. Is it rather, that a number of people choose not to play epic because true support for those levels just isn't there, officially (i.e., from WotC)?




> So, what should we be paying them to do? Writing stats for the people who actually use them.



Well, given that I am knowingly a bit opinionated on this (and some other topics) , I have no hesitation in reiterating previous assessments: these kinds of power levels for demon princes, lords of the nine and suchlike, are laughably inappropriate. But hey, it is opinion, as I've already said at least twice. I'm entitled to it, as others are to theirs.

In the end, it's all good, so long as it works for those playing or running the game, and as long as everyone involved has fun with it. 

And hey, I'll still enjoy the second one, as I do enjoy the first one. There will be some great content in FCII, I'm nearly certain. I'm actually looking forward to buying it still, despite the irritation with both (assumed in one case) that I'm pretty sure I've mentioned.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> And deliver you stats that will almost never get used because adventuring at 30th level is in the significant minority.




Whatever the stats are, so long as there's a firm notation that the stats probably best represent avatars or projections, it's not a big issue. I just wouldn't care for anything along the lines of: Baalzebul is CR 22, he's just a big monster, PCs can kill him like an ogre with some extra hit dice.

Present some watered down stats comparable to those of the Abyssal Lords in FC:I to satisfy DMs wanting to use them in some capacity as BBEGs to fight, but just add some flavor text to stress that those stats won't work for all people, and that in the context of the flavor/lore that those beings have (godkilling tyrants etc), you'll need to either boost the stats, or just use the stats as avatars (my preferred case here, as I don't have the actual beings themselves in their true forms statted IMCs).

But in any event, Archdevil stats are the absolute rockbottom lowest thing on my list of things I want out of the book. So while I've got concerns about the presentation, I'll be more keenly looking at other aspects of the book certainly, and I've got high expectations.


----------



## Razz (Nov 10, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> *OR* you could've advanced them yourself.




Sure you can upgrade SR, HD, skills, feats and all that. Anyone can do that.

What no one can really do is grant them new special attacks and special qualities properly. Take note of the SA and SQ differences between the Demon Lords in FCI and the Demon Lords in Demonomicon. You'll note the lower CR ones have SA and SQ missing. Good example would be Graz'zt, who's missing his ability to use any magic device at will and Pazuzu's abilities are missing too in the lower CR one.

The biggest factor in making a creature unique are it's SA and SQ. Those are the driving points of a creature in battle, something that makes players go "Oooh..." Heck, prime example would be on the D&D Website when they were doing that Make-A-Monster article and it ended up being an aberration with ties to fey creatures with whacky abilities.

Case in point, we can turn the tables around: _People can decrease a creature's power as easily as they say we can upgrade it's power._ Lower HD, lower SR, patch up the skills, take out some feats...at least you won't lose the SA and SQ, and if you want them out just omit them with a thought.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Sure you can upgrade SR, HD, skills, feats and all that. Anyone can do that.
> 
> What no one can really do is grant them new special attacks and special qualities properly. Take note of the SA and SQ differences between the Demon Lords in FCI and the Demon Lords in Demonomicon. You'll note the lower CR ones have SA and SQ missing. Good example would be Graz'zt, who's missing his ability to use any magic device at will and Pazuzu's abilities are missing too in the lower CR one.
> 
> ...




I won't deny that the advancement process of a creature merely makes its current powers more powerful than give it unique new ones (although the advancement rules in Fiendish Codex kind of touch upon this) but the insistence that making a monster weaker is equal to or easier than making it harder just does not compute to me, and implying that producting CR 30+ stats for demon lords that say "you can alter them if you want it easier" is in anyway comparable to CR 20 stats saying "you can advance them with HD or class level if you want them harder" doesn't seem paticularly realistic.

There is a pre-existing system for increasing monster power - 3E even had several ways of doing this, be it HD, class levels or templates.  (Those who wish more powerful monsters could possibly look at giving them Divine Rank, whcih would also give them access to some funky powers.)  People who wish to make things more powerful have options available to them; peopel who wish to make them _weaker_ have no pre-existing options apart from a couple of pretty specific temples, IIRC.  A monster provided at CR 30 would, as Psion said, simply not get used: one that's Cr 20 can be modded up so even the the ECL 70 party can still get something out of it.

Still, I'll concede that advanced monsters and a mosnter made at that CR can often vary greatly in the nature of their powers.  One cannot just throw HD infinitely on a CR 3 monster and expect it will be an equal challange to an ECL 20 party as a out of the book CR 20 monster would be: and putting 5 levels of Cleric on Orcus or whatever does not really add a huge amount to his output.  At epic level, the CR system rea;y does start to go a bit wobbly IMHO and you really do have to test out monsters more thouroughly to check their CR truly reflects their power.  Just, unlike you, I think that should remain a task for the epic-level minority and material directly aimed at them, not the Fiendish Codexes.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> But in any event, Archdevil stats are the absolute rockbottom lowest thing on my list of things I want out of the book. So while I've got concerns about the presentation, I'll be more keenly looking at other aspects of the book certainly, and I've got high expectations.




Yeah, I know I', not helping this thread by warbling on this topic,but I do wnat to chime in againa nd say that I'm also really looking forward to it, and that if it's anything like the last one the stats will not be a major part of the book regardles.


----------



## Pants (Nov 10, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Sure, except isn't that part of what we'd be paying *them* to do, i.e., by buying the book they put together?



Except no one seems to agree on *what the power level should be.* Remember that big discussion back then?


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 10, 2006)

I'm not convinced that the FC2 archfiends will be on the same power level as the FC1 archfiends. A lot of the discussion here is predicated on that.

Besides the fact that WotC products aren't always consistent with one another, why shouldn't Asmodeus be substantially stronger than Demogorgon? After all, there are hundreds of Abyssal lords, and only nine rulers of the Nine Hells.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Except no one seems to agree on *what the power level should be.* Remember that big discussion back then?



Oh yes. I remember.  

In fact, I also remember that there has not been even *one* persuasive argument as to why the power levels should be so incredibly low (incredibly, given what these _necessarily uber-powerful _beings are meant to be/represent/rule over etc.)

The most popular line of thought seem to be: "That's how they are. Deal."

Which is fine by me, btw. I know that's how they are, and I have dealt. But acceptance of the reality of a situation doesn't automatically negate any issues therein.

I still think there is a problem with power levels in D&D products, currently. Epic-level shouldn't be the alleged 'crazy-go-nuts' territory that inspires fear, loathing or simply ridicule. It should be as vaild as 1-20. Perhaps WotC could produce an Epic line, some day. Maybe next ed. Just to keep me and all the other crazies happy, or something.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 10, 2006)

So no one knows anything about the product? Too bad, I was hoping the length of the thread meant someone knew something.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 10, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced that the FC2 archfiends will be on the same power level as the FC1 archfiends. A lot of the discussion here is predicated on that.
> 
> Besides the fact that WotC products aren't always consistent with one another, why shouldn't Asmodeus be substantially stronger than Demogorgon? After all, there are hundreds of Abyssal lords, and only nine rulers of the Nine Hells.




Well the Hell only has 9 little sissy levels.  Not the 666+ levels of the Abyss.


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 10, 2006)

OK. The poster asked for info about the book, and the old advancement argument flared up from the ashes again. Not to say that it isn't a fair argument, if conducted courteously, but this isn't the thread for it.

Please keep _this_ thread focused on a discussion of the book, and please feel free to start a new thread about CRs. Better yet: please resurrect an old thread and keep flogging away. We had enough of them when FC1 came out!


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 10, 2006)

EDIT:  Aargh, that be what I be gettin' for typin' while a Mod be typin'.  *kerfloosh*

Certainly I still think that whatever baseline power level they've established they should stick to, with some adjustment for the "tons of demon lords, only 9 devil princes" thing and the fact that Asmodeus may or may not be one of the progenitors of the multiverse, if I'm remembering my 2e lore correctly.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 10, 2006)

Uh, d00d. Much as I'd love (?) to go another round here, check out the post above yours. I'm not trying to be dismissive, or rude by saying so, but a mod did just step in and kind of suggest that the discussion go elsewhere, if anywhere..And, mod or not, they're probably right too, IMO.

For my part in all that, apologies all round - and particularly to the OP. I should've simply kept my mouth shut, so to speak.

Peace, out.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2006)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Aus_Snow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2006)

I'm actually curious to see how FC:II handles previous Lords of the 9 who have since been deposed and exiled, or outright killed like Zariel (imprisoned as Bel's midnight snack), Geryon (dead), Moloch (good question, given the events of Apocalypse Stone), and perhaps even some previously undescribed Lot9.

I hunger for Nubberibos and a detailing of the lifecycle/caste system of Ancient Baatorians. If the book has this, any criticism of any other part of the book will be completely forgiven.


----------



## Psion (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Personally I'm hoping there's more mystery than any attempt at presenting a hard truth like GtH attempted to do, though sprinkling enough allusions to relevant material from various Planescape sources, maybe GtH, and new material.




Yep. I like ideas. I don't like "canon that means that your campaign, if you have any ideas as a DM, necessarily departs from." 2e Guide to Hell vexed me greatly. (At the same time, I found one aspect of 2e's canon amusing, and sort of wished they would have flowed with it for 3e metasetting purposes...)


----------



## Psion (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I hunger for Nubberibos and a detailing of the lifecycle/caste system of Ancient Baatorians. If the book has this, any criticism of any other part of the book will be completely forgiven.




On this area, I'm torn. I have my own ideas about ancient baatorians (well not entirely my own... I borrowed extensively from discussions on the old PSML.) While I've never taken the initiative to update my old ancient baatorians to 3e, I'll probably be mildly annoyed at first if their ideas stomp on mine. (And then I'll eventually get over it, and either morph what's in FC II to my liking, chuck it, or if it's cool, totally forget about my take.)


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 10, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Uh, d00d. Much as I'd love (?) to go another round here, check out the post above yours. I'm not trying to be dismissive, or rude by saying so, but a mod did just step in and kind of suggest that the discussion go elsewhere, if anywhere..And, mod or not, they're probably right too, IMO.
> 
> For my part in all that, apologies all round - and particularly to the OP. I should've simply kept my mouth shut, so to speak.
> 
> Peace, out.




Hmm...  I was typing my post while Eridanis was typing his, and didn't notice that he'd posted before me.  Easily fixed.


----------



## countgray (Nov 10, 2006)

I am all about the lore.  I couldn't care less about the stats. I crave this book because I wan't to know the history of Hell, the reckoning and what lords have lost out to others. I want to learn how Triel fell.  I wan't to know the secrets of Asmodeus, is he really a titanic serpent coiled around the deepest crevices of Nessus?  I want to discover the mystery of the ancient Baatorians.  I want to know about contracts for souls.  I want to learn about the devils' relations with the layers and planes adjacent. I want maps of all the layers and cities. I want cool new fiends to encounter.  I want to understand Baatezu politics.  I want to hear about the Blood War.

All these things and more I hope to find inside!


----------



## Kelleris (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> 2e 'Guide to Hell' claimed he was a primal LN being corrupted by evil, and spawned the Baatezu as a side effect of his fall. That book largely danced around the entire idea of the Ancient Baatorians.
> 
> Other 2e sources had the Baatezu (and Tanar'ri) as the side effects of the yugoloth/Baernaloth creation mythos, who displaced the Ancient Baatorians after being driven/herded into Baator. The Lords of the 9 don't appear till after this sequence of events, and the ultimate origin of any of the Lot9 including Asmo is left intentionally a mystery though with several potential origin natures for them given.
> 
> 3.5 danced between giving the GtH idea as a rumor and ignoring entirely. The Fiendish Codex I confirmed the Baernaloth creation mythos, or rather a twist of it, as being accurate. It stated that the Baern/loths  created the Obyriths and Ancient Baatorians; presumably the legend was remolded for political purposes in later periods. This opens up to potential to use both the Baernaloth creation mythos and the GtH stuff as well with only a little jostling of stuff.





Hmm, that's morbidly confusing.  I had no idea the Guide to Hell contradicted other 2e sources.  Urgh.  Is that a common trend for these materials?  I didn't realize the Fiendish Codesx authors had to codify and clean up the old sources as well as simply compiling and updating them...


----------



## Shade (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm actually curious to see how FC:II handles previous Lords of the 9 who have since been deposed and exiled, or outright killed like Zariel (imprisoned as Bel's midnight snack), Geryon (dead), Moloch (good question, given the events of Apocalypse Stone), and perhaps even some previously undescribed Lot9.
> 
> I hunger for Nubberibos and a detailing of the lifecycle/caste system of Ancient Baatorians. If the book has this, any criticism of any other part of the book will be completely forgiven.




Indeed.  I'd love to see the ancient baatorians given the obyrith treatment, and wouldn't mind a devil equivalent of the loumaras.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 10, 2006)

How was Geryon killed?  In A Paladin In Hell? In my game he is still master of his plane but I'm curious.


----------



## GQuail (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm actually curious to see how FC:II handles previous Lords of the 9 who have since been deposed and exiled, or outright killed like Zariel (imprisoned as Bel's midnight snack), Geryon (dead), Moloch (good question, given the events of Apocalypse Stone), and perhaps even some previously undescribed Lot9.
> 
> I hunger for Nubberibos and a detailing of the lifecycle/caste system of Ancient Baatorians. If the book has this, any criticism of any other part of the book will be completely forgiven.




All sounds good to me.  As others have said, the Fiendish Codex expanded out the Demon pantheon, so I'd like to see some info on other sub-groups of LE in here.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 10, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> How was Geryon killed?  In A Paladin In Hell? In my game he is still master of his plane but I'm curious.




_A Paladin in Hell_ gave the PCs an opportunity to kill him, but left the ending open. The adventure was deadly enough that it was unlikely.

He was still alive as of the _Book of Vile Darkness_ web enhancement, no longer in power but still dwelling in Stygia.

_Tome of Magic_ finally established he was dead. Asmodeus killed him after his failure in _A Paladin in Hell_, or something. I think it was a bad decision, but someone thought he'd make a good vestige.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Indeed.  I'd love to see the ancient baatorians given the obyrith treatment, and wouldn't mind a devil equivalent of the loumaras.




Honestly, I think it'd be kinda cool if the Ancient Baatorians (in all their tentacled, light eating glory) are actually a distinct race from the things that are said to swim beneath the surface of Minauros.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 10, 2006)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Hmm, that's morbidly confusing.  I had no idea the Guide to Hell contradicted other 2e sources.




At least so far as Asmodeus and the prehistory of Baator is concerned it pretty much trampled roughshod over a number of the earlier 2e sources. It made brief mention of the other stuff, but dismissed it with a statement along the lines of 'but that's not true at all, because everyone knows yugoloths lie'. And since the Ancient Baatorians don't mesh well with its history, it glosses over them heavily when they're alluded to. That said, I tend to view GtH as being some combination of diabolic propaganda and brilliant revisionist history with virtually no basis in fact (like much of the Baatezu's ideas on history).

Beyond some of those wacky, pseudo-Zoarastrian claims though, the book did do well in its fleshing out of the Reckoning which it incorporated from Paladin in Hell. I'll grant the book that. It's not without its good points, just some of it I hope is either stepped back from, muddied in myth and legend to the point of obscurity, or re-envisioned to make it gel with lower planar prehistory from other sources.


----------



## James Jacobs (Nov 10, 2006)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Hmm, that's morbidly confusing.  I had no idea the Guide to Hell contradicted other 2e sources.  Urgh.  Is that a common trend for these materials?  I didn't realize the Fiendish Codesx authors had to codify and clean up the old sources as well as simply compiling and updating them...




Yeah... there was a LOT of contradicting material out there about the Abyss; part of what Erik and I tried to do with FC1 was figure out how to tie it all together in a way that annoyed the least amount of fans (which, of course, included us!). Part of the problem is, of course, the fact that during 2nd edition, the concept of demons and devils went through some pretty major changes, and then when the pendulum swung back near the end of 2E it didn't quite land where it started. Lolth transforming from minor demon lord to big-time goddess is perhaps the best example of this, but there were countless others to sort out and explain. It was fun... but it was also really hard and nerve-wracking.


----------



## Shade (Nov 10, 2006)

James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Yeah... there was a LOT of contradicting material out there about the Abyss; part of what Erik and I tried to do with FC1 was figure out how to tie it all together in a way that annoyed the least amount of fans (which, of course, included us!). Part of the problem is, of course, the fact that during 2nd edition, the concept of demons and devils went through some pretty major changes, and then when the pendulum swung back near the end of 2E it didn't quite land where it started. Lolth transforming from minor demon lord to big-time goddess is perhaps the best example of this, but there were countless others to sort out and explain. It was fun... but it was also really hard and nerve-wracking.




Well, you guys sure did a fine job of reconciling all of it.  Good work!


----------



## Psion (Nov 10, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> At least so far as Asmodeus and the prehistory of Baator is concerned it pretty much trampled roughshod over a number of the earlier 2e sources. It made brief mention of the other stuff, but dismissed it with a statement along the lines of 'but that's not true at all, because everyone knows yugoloths lie'.




You gotta admit, the major resources on fiends (being Faces of Evil and Hellbound) did leave a lot open to interpretation in that manner. And that's what I like about it.

But while I can't blame GtH for playing that card, I can blame it for not following suit and still leaving things open to interpretation.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 11, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Oy, this argument again?



Hey when archfiends are involved, it always comes up.  I'm still irate with the way FR treats Archfiends after all the crap Orcus got dished on. I want to see him get some payback for that.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Nov 11, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Hey when archfiends are involved, it always comes up.  I'm still irate with the way FR treats Archfiends after all the crap Orcus got dished on. I want to see him get some payback for that.



...how did I know that you'd mention Orcus, even though this is a topic on devils? I must be some sort of savant. 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 12, 2006)

Demi,

Nah not that just I'm an Orcus fan...and he fights devils too!


----------



## BOZ (Nov 13, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Oy, this argument again?




shoot, that's what i said.  i was hoping to hear more speculation on the actual flavor-type content of the book, not more argument on stats.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm actually curious to see how FC:II handles previous Lords of the 9 who have since been deposed and exiled, or outright killed like Zariel (imprisoned as Bel's midnight snack), Geryon (dead), Moloch (good question, given the events of Apocalypse Stone), and perhaps even some previously undescribed Lot9.




yeah, me too!    and maybe they'll give the Hag Countess her first name back.  



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Yeah... there was a LOT of contradicting material out there about the Abyss; part of what Erik and I tried to do with FC1 was figure out how to tie it all together in a way that annoyed the least amount of fans (which, of course, included us!). Part of the problem is, of course, the fact that during 2nd edition, the concept of demons and devils went through some pretty major changes, and then when the pendulum swung back near the end of 2E it didn't quite land where it started. Lolth transforming from minor demon lord to big-time goddess is perhaps the best example of this, but there were countless others to sort out and explain. It was fun... but it was also really hard and nerve-wracking.




and, as Erik has pointed out, the demons were probably a heck of a lot easier than the devils, by comparison.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 13, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> yeah, me too!    and maybe they'll give the Hag Countess her first name back.




FC:II - How Malagard got her Groove Back!


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 13, 2006)

Shemmy LOL

Personally I wish she's just a) accept the change to Baaztu and b) have her name be Lilith. 

I mean is there something wrong with that?


----------



## BOZ (Nov 13, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> FC:II - How Malagard got her Groove Back!




nice.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 13, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> and maybe they'll give the Hag Countess her first name back.




I hope they don't. Giving her the same name as Baalzebul's capital city was always awkward.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 13, 2006)

hmm, good point - maybe that's why they nixed it.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 14, 2006)

Good point Rip.

Me I hope she changes her name and appearance to Lilith. There just aren't enough good Liliths in D&D these days. Well in Hell anyway.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 14, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> hmm, good point - maybe that's why they nixed it.




I assume it was. Of course, BoVD establishes that she was Moloch's lover, so it wouldn't be at all strange to say her name was Lilith (Moloch's consort in 1e), as Green Ronin did. Robert Schwalb already took that tack in _The Unholy Warrior's Handbook_. If they _don't_ use that angle, they have a "love" triangle on their hands.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 14, 2006)

I've heard that since most games only get to 7th-10th level, that the devil lords will be CR 12 will notes on how to increase their CR for those playing higher levels.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 14, 2006)

Joe,

What did someone drop a cyncial tablet in your coffee today?  

Rip,

God I hope RJ does that. That was one of the reason I adored Legions of Hell/Book of Fiends and GR's cosmology.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I've heard that since most games only get to 7th-10th level, that the devil lords will be CR 12 will notes on how to increase their CR for those playing higher levels.




/me points to Eradanis' post on page 1.

tsk tsk!


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 14, 2006)

LOL  Yeah well I think someone dumped some cynic pills in Joe's coffee Psion.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 15, 2006)

what, more than usual?


----------



## paradox42 (Nov 15, 2006)

Chalk up another vote for naming the Hag Countess Lilith. I think the name fits quite well, assuming she can take a beautiful form now and again (honestly I don't recall whether previous versions of her could). Presumably she has _Polymorph_ os some new PHB2-compatible equivalent of it; perhaps that could be used for such an effect.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 15, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Personally I wish she's just a) accept the change to Baaztu




The BoVD said she was an actual Night Hag, though LE rather than NE. As such I think it gives a really good opportunity to ask 'why is she in Baator in the first place?'. Really, given her power what's the story behind her ideological seperation from the rest of her sisters? Is she in Baator by her own choice? I figure she might be there as a pawn of Cegilune seeking to weasle into the politics of the Baatezu, or perhaps she was exiled by Cegilune and her rise to power is only part of a ploy to eventually usurp the position of her former ruler.

Personally, I ended up using in my own campaign that Malagard/The Hag Countess was originally in Baator in self-imposed exile, being the sole survivor of the cabal of Night Hags who were responsible for the elevation of the Yugoloth Lord Xenghara 'the Angel of Desolation'. Following the end of his contractual obligation to the hags who had engineered his transition to a unique form he smiled and butchered them, but for whatever reason Malagard survived and fled into Baator, forever deprived of any chance to return home, given the unique 'loth's connection to the Waste perhaps allowing him to know exactly where she and her sisters were on the plane at any given time. [I also played with the idea that the hags had toyed with his memories, crafting an entirely new personality and set of memories for the 'loth, and it was out of rage, despair and self-doubt that he killed them].

I'd like to see how Schwalb and co. handle the Hag Countess and her unique status among the other Lords of the 9 being that she never was a true child of Baator (not that the Baatezu are either, mind you), yet she has managed to rule over an entire layer.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 15, 2006)

Shem,

Yeah well true baazetu or no, I think if a guy like Pazuzu and Pale Night can change sides (so to speak) it would be nice for the "lady" Lilith to do the same.  

Boz,

With Joe it's hard to say...but I'm feeling a yes coming on.  

Paradox,

She's a freaking Lord of the Nine! If she can't shapechange, she's certainly not going to be much good at keeping her hold on the 7th Circle.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 15, 2006)

well, you've certainly got me more intrigued about Hag Countess/Lilith/Malagard now.


----------



## rjs (Nov 15, 2006)

I can't say anything, naturally, but I will tell you that Herr Laws and I came up with a way to take care of the Hag Countess. To be honest, I haven't seen the manuscript in almost a year, so I'm just as eager to see this beast as you are.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 15, 2006)

LOL, nice.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2006)

rjs said:
			
		

> I can't say anything, naturally, but I will tell you that Herr Laws and I came up with a way to take care of the Hag Countess. To be honest, I haven't seen the manuscript in almost a year, so I'm just as eager to see this beast as you are.




Take care of her eh? To quote the Goon comic, "Knife to the eye!"   


For those not reading the Goon, that was  during the crossover with Hellboy delivered by the sidekick to a flying squid.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 17, 2006)

Joe,

Nice!  I like Hellboy.

RJ,

Wow this makes me want the book even more! I hope she's not dead but if she is...oh well. More power for Moloch!


----------



## joshhg (Nov 17, 2006)

Well, according to November Previews, we can confirm a number of new feats, four new prestige classes, one new race, new devils, the ability to customize old devils, and more.

Well, I'm not too happy about the new prestige classes, but as I don't expect anything like the Black Cult of Amn in this one, that's ten and a half pages that can be used. I just wish there was a bit less crunch then what is apparent.

But who knows, I may be suprised. Either way, I'm sure I'll like it.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 17, 2006)

All I care about is the fluff. The crunch matters little since it didn't bother me that much about the lack of it in Hordes of the Abyss.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 17, 2006)

Here are the November Previews.

Some comments on the excerpt:



> Demonic invasions into Baator have never gotten farther than this layer, primarily because powerful magic inherent in the plane prevents demons from teleporting to any layer lower than one that they currently control.




This makes sense to me, in general, but I think they failed to consider that Stygia is exposed to all the other lower planes via the River Styx. So demons can invade that layer without needing to teleport.



> Reporting directly to Bel are the formidable pit fiend generals known as the Dark Eight.




This is the reverse of prior canon, where Bel reported to the Dark Eight rather than the other way around. The idea was that he owed the Dark Eight for his support in his coup against his predecessor, and Asmodeus tolerated his ascension with the understanding that he would continue to fulfill his prior duties leading troops in Dagos' ministry. This keeps him too busy to cause Asmodeus any trouble.



> Each of these generals commands the forces contributed by one layer of the Nine Hells.




At least in prior canon, this was true during the Reckoning, but hasn't been the case for thousands of years. Of the Eight, only Dagos continues to be anything like a general, and he commands all the legions of Baator, not just those on one layer. The others are in Malsheem heading vast C.S. Lewis-inspired infernal ministries, which is far more interesting.



> When his final plans fall into place, Asmodeus intends to punish his former masters of the celestial sphere for daring to look down upon the foot soldiers who did all the dirty work




So does this book give Asmodeus a firm, objective backstory? And it's something to do with him being banished from the celestial realm? How dreary.

Based on the little that's been revealed so far, I think I may skip this book.


----------



## glass (Nov 17, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I've heard that since most games only get to 7th-10th level, that the devil lords will be CR 12 will notes on how to increase their CR for those playing higher levels.



You're a bad, bad man!   



glass.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 17, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Here are the November Previews.
> 
> So does this book give Asmodeus a firm, objective backstory? And it's something to do with him being banished from the celestial realm? How dreary.
> 
> Based on the little that's been revealed so far, I think I may skip this book.




i wouldn't quite make such a judgement just yet, though i would agree that this last part in particular sounds troubling.

although i never liked the GtH version of Asmodeus, i like it a whole lot better than making him a former celestial (or even the former servant of celestials).


----------



## sckeener (Nov 17, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> i wouldn't quite make such a judgement just yet, though i would agree that this last part in particular sounds troubling.
> 
> although i never liked the GtH version of Asmodeus, i like it a whole lot better than making him a former celestial (or even the former servant of celestials).




I think I am going to be sick.  I've gone from must buy to browse at store....

I wonder if it is too late to change my x-mas list.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 17, 2006)

it never was a must-by for me, but let's just say my critical eye is going to be more cautious than it would have been otherwise...


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 17, 2006)

See, I thought the previews made me more likely to buy, if it is possibel to go from yes, for sure to a higher level of yes for sure.

I don't generally like the Judeo Christian influence on D&D as D&D is polytheistic (churches shaped like crosses never made sense to me in D&D for example), but I like the concept of fallen celestials quite a bit.


----------



## sckeener (Nov 17, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> it never was a must-by for me, but let's just say my critical eye is going to be more cautious than it would have been otherwise...





I'm still hopeful, but I've got a more critical eye now too.  Considering how much I liked T&A ,  I'll remain hopeful since Robert J. Schwalb is involved.

but this turn in events is making my stomach do flips.


----------



## rjs (Nov 17, 2006)

Hey hey, have a little faith kids  I just received the book and I gave it a good long look. I wrote half of it (nearly all the crunch), so I'm naturally biased, but I'm really, really pleased. Robin did really good work on the nature of the devils, the layers, and he nailed the tone. Now I say this knowing that I could never please everyone, but I think you'll be happy with the result. My tongue is still clamped to my desk, so I can't say much, but I hope you give this a look before you draw too many conclusions. And if not, I guess I'll just have to sacrifice yet another baby vegetable on my altar of evil...


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 17, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I don't generally like the Judeo Christian influence on D&D as D&D is polytheistic (churches shaped like crosses never made sense to me in D&D for example), but I like the concept of fallen celestials quite a bit.




I like fallen celestials too, but Hell already has one - Baalzebul, who was formally the archon Triel. Green Ronin's material made Belial and Moloch fallen celestials too, which makes sense as the three are allies. 

Doing that to Asmodeus, the most enigmatic and shadowy or the lords, presumedly above the native vs. fallen celestial squabble the lesser members of the Nine are obsessed with, is a step too far, in my opinion. It's fine as a rumor, but making it an objective fact, and the basis for his flavor, destroys what was interesting about the character.

I haven't written the book off entirely yet, and I might well purchase it. I'm okay with retcons when I happen to like them, but the few I've seen hinted at so far (severely nerfing the Dark Eight and Asmodeus both) have really turned me off.

If the lesser-known diabolic nobles are presented in such a way as to make them very interesting, that could make up for the nerfing of Asmodeus and the Eight (who I can always return to their previous glory myself).

I do like how the Blood War was handled in the excerpt in general. It seems to be better than, yet complementary to, the section on the war in _Fiendish Codex I_. I like that they made it a very big deal, stressed that the nobles are mostly above it, and still tied it firmly into the still-ongoing greater conflict between Chaos and Law. FC1, in contrast, nerfed both the Blood War and the modern Law-Chaos conflict.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 17, 2006)

That could be true. I'm not sure how much it matters to any game I will ever run, however, where Asmodeus came from, when I really think about it.

I do think that how they handle the Blood War could have an effect. I really, really enjoyed FCI, and if FCII approaches that I'll be thrilled.

I greatly enjoyed the work by Green Ronin in this area - I really need to find the 3.5 version.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 17, 2006)

On second thought, I think I'm missing the bigger picture here. The salient point in the preview isn't that Asmodeus is a fallen celestial or a big snake or whatever, but that he's a _communist_ who led a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It happens that they decided that the bourgeoisie was the celestials, but it could just as easily be the Ancient Baatorians or another snake.

This might actually be an interesting approach.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 19, 2006)

Rob,

Don't worry about sacrifices. I'll do it for you.   I owe you that for some the great books you did as well as the first in the Bleeding Edge line for GR. (And Thieves World. Loved, loved, LOVED Thieves World.  ) Like I said before I just want the good fluff...and I think you and Robin will do that just fine.


----------



## The Serge (Nov 19, 2006)

While I plan on buying this book (it _is_, after all, about devils), I am already having some misgivings based upon the excerpts posted at WotC.  

As rip already mentioned, the retcon with the Dark Eight (or, perhaps there will be a story element to explain the change) is dull.  There was more dramatic tension with having the Dark Eight essentially autonomous (answering only to Asmodeus, and then only occasionally) with Bel's responsibilities to the Blood War based upon his location (as the Lord of Avernus) and his own past (which may still force him to serve the Dark Eight's plans).  

Additionally, the implication that Asmodeus may be a fallen celestial of some type is not particularly original if we still have Baalzebul as a fallen archon.  

As for the stats, historically demons were mechanically stronger than devils.  If you compare the stats of the arch-devils in MMI with the demon princes in the same text, you'll find that Demogorgon is physically mightier than Asmodeus.  If you compare most of the "common fiends" in the Planescape, you'll find that demons are the strongest, yugoloths fill in the middle, and devils are the weakest.  Things were blurry with the "lordly" types; many of the abyssal lords were lesser gods while the Lords of the Nine weren't clearly gods, but did generate avatars (according to _DRAGON Magazine 223_) that paralleled the powers of avatars generated by greater gods.  It wasn't until 3ed that we started to see a bit of reverse with the power levels with pit fiends clearly capable of taking down a balor 65% of the time (and with ultroloths relegated, idiotically, to being no match for either head CE or LE fiend).

I honestly have no idea what they're going to do with the stats in FCII.  If they go the  route parallel to FCI, we run into even more significant problems than that book in that there is no real spread of power beyond the pit fiend and before Bel (assuming he's still the weakest of the Nine) in which to fill your Dukes of Hell (assuming they still have them).  I have to agree with Shemeska: the best option would have been to suggest that the stats in FCI (and if they're of similar design philosophy, those in FCII) are for avatars/aspects (I'd make the sidebar for advancement as the alternative for those that want those, or similar, stats as the option/variant).

If we go another route and they're similar in power to those in BoVD (which still doesn't really please me), hopefully they'll take advantage of real epic rules...  This would put them roughly on par with the demon princes and demon lords in _DRAGON_.

In any event, yes, I suspect that we'll have very similar debates to those we had with FCI once again.


----------



## The Serge (Nov 19, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> On second thought, I think I'm missing the bigger picture here. The salient point in the preview isn't that Asmodeus is a fallen celestial or a big snake or whatever, but that he's a _communist_ who led a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It happens that they decided that the bourgeoisie was the celestials, but it could just as easily be the Ancient Baatorians or another snake.
> 
> This might actually be an interesting approach.



This crossed my mind when I read it, but I doubt it largely because of the reference to "masters of the celestial sphere."  It sounds more like they've taken some of the traditions related to Abaddon/Apollyon (and others) that he was placed in Hell to oversee the devils/ancient Baatorians and that he became corrupted.  This doesn't mean, however, that he was a celestial...  He may have been a big snake or whatever, but the clear "masters" statement is what gets my attention.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 21, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Considering how much I liked T&A




oh, i like T&A, too.    oh wait, you meant A&T...


----------



## BOZ (Nov 21, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> On second thought, I think I'm missing the bigger picture here. The salient point in the preview isn't that Asmodeus is a fallen celestial or a big snake or whatever, but that he's a _communist_ who led a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. It happens that they decided that the bourgeoisie was the celestials, but it could just as easily be the Ancient Baatorians or another snake.
> 
> This might actually be an interesting approach.




actually... that is.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 21, 2006)

Well it certainly beats him being a whiney hippie with no social agenda.  

Serge,

Hey if you don't like it, you and the guys at Dicefreaks have your own Hellish things to play with.


----------



## mearls (Nov 21, 2006)

I was really puzzled by this thread, until I finally grokked the following quote from the preview:

"When his final plans fall into place, Asmodeus intends to punish his former masters of the celestial sphere for daring to look down upon the foot soldiers who did all the dirty work. "

Replace "celestial" with "divine" and you have the back story that FC II lays out. The story casts Asmodeus as a servant of ALL the gods (good, evil, lawful, chaotic), not just the good ones. It then goes from there...

It's funny, because in the context of the chapter the real meaning is clear, but in a preview it's easy to see that "celestial" would refer to celestial creatures, not the more general meaning.

I can't remember if the book puts forth Asmodeus as a one-time lawful good celestial, but the story of his rise to power is, IMO, much more interesting than a simple fall from grace. Asmodeus never falls; he's far too smart for that. If anything, he turns the tables on the the gods.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 21, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification, Mike Mearls. 

I would still rather they spoke in terms of multiple possibilities, various rumors and so on, leaving it for the individual DMs to choose which one they like better. Fiendish Codex I did that very well, drawing from a variety of fictitious sources (so the Demonomicon of Iggwilv said one thing and the Black Scrolls of Ahm said something different). Giving Asmodeus a single, objective origin is limiting in comparison.


----------



## joshhg (Nov 21, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> Replace "celestial" with "divine" and you have the back story that FC II lays out. The story casts Asmodeus as a servant of ALL the gods (good, evil, lawful, chaotic), not just the good ones. It then goes from there...



Whow. I never even thought of the gods as celestial, even though it never said outsiders specificly. That's a nice twist.



> I can't remember if the book puts forth Asmodeus as a one-time lawful good celestial, but the story of his rise to power is, IMO, much more interesting than a simple fall from grace. Asmodeus never falls; he's far too smart for that. If anything, he turns the tables on the the gods.



That sounds about like the head of LE I know (or ponder about, as there is little on hard facts at this second)
You should fix that. *Wink, wink, nudge, nudge*
Josh


----------



## Agamemnon (Nov 21, 2006)

As someone who was writing a very ambitious NWN mod about a millennia-long Asmodeus vs Lucifer grudge match for the control of the Hells, I'm definitely going to buy this one..


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 21, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> Replace "celestial" with "divine" and you have the back story that FC II lays out. The story casts Asmodeus as a servant of ALL the gods (good, evil, lawful, chaotic), not just the good ones. It then goes from there...




Well hmm, then Asmodeus is -incredibly- young compared to the oldest of the fiends then. Hmm.

I'll have to see where the book goes with this in the context of lower planar prehistory.


----------



## Psion (Nov 21, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Well hmm, then Asmodeus is -incredibly- young compared to the oldest of the fiends then. Hmm.




That should work well with the Necromancer Games Tome of Horrors fans, which suggests that he was not the first king of hell, as it were.

That said, I still dislike anything that makes Asmodeus into any sort of super-god. I'm _cautious_ about my expectations at this point.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Nov 21, 2006)

smootrk said:
			
		

> I like the scaled down versions now (after I had a good look at the FC1).  The lower starting points helps me to be able to fashion the fiends into whatever power-level that I might find a use for them.  Much easier to scale up by adding material, than to scale down these guys.  That, with the wonderful insight gained from the Dragon magazine articles helps even more.
> 
> So Cheers on the scaled down fiends.  Cannot wait to see the Devils (and then the Yugoloths (crosses fingers) - Anthraxus rules).  Maybe a series of Cestial Codexs is in their minds too.




I'm pretty much with you on this one.  I reacted much like Aus_Snow at first when I got FCI but upon further reflection I relized a couple of things 
1) I have never had a game last into epic levels (ie beyond 18th)
2) I advancement rules in the FCI are actually better than the advancement rules in the MM 
3) Dragon magazine continues to put out those Demonomicron articles and they are freaking awesome.

Ok that was 3 things but I'll still get the FCII and I loved the first one.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 21, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> I was really puzzled by this thread, until I finally grokked the following quote from the preview:
> 
> "When his final plans fall into place, Asmodeus intends to punish his former masters of the celestial sphere for daring to look down upon the foot soldiers who did all the dirty work. "
> 
> ...




that's reassuring.    in 3E, there are a lot of terms that now mean something very specific (sorceror, arcane, etc) which used to be in general use.  words like "celestial" are easily associated with angels and the like now moreso than they once were.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 22, 2006)

Psion,

Admit it, you just want to send your PCs to Infernus and make them quake at the power of Lucifier.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 24, 2006)

I went in to my LGS today, and what did I see on the shelf? Yes, Fiendish Codex II - Tyrants of the Nine Hells. They even had a 20% discount on everything, so I decided to buy it. 

So, I have it in front of me, and I'm ready to answer questions. I haven't read it yet, just skimmed through it on the way home on the bus, but I like so far what I'm seeing. (But I must admit, that I know nothing about devils in th old editions, so I wouldn't notice any changes in canon - or really care about them.)

I understand that the book isn't supposed to be sold yet, but I have seen threads like this in the past, and I assume that no forum rules are broken by talking about it.


----------



## Pants (Nov 24, 2006)

I'm gonna gank the first questions:

1) Are the Lords of the Nine given stats? If so, are they similar in power to the demon lord stats in FCI?

2) What monsters are in the book?

3) What prestige classes are in the book?


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 24, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> 1) Are the Lords of the Nine given stats? If so, are they similar in power to the demon lord stats in FCI?




Sort of. The book gives you only stats for aspects of the nine archdevils, where each archdevil can only have one aspect in existence at one time. The ral statistics aren't given. The explanation for this is that these would vary depending on the nature of the campaign. there are some guidelines how to evolv them int ot true epic creature like in FC1. 

The CRs are the following: 

Aspect of Bel, Lord of the First - CR 20
Aspect of Dispater, Lord of the Second - CR 21
Aspect of Mammon, Lord of the Third - CR 21
Aspect of Belial, Lord of the Fourth - CR 21
Aspect of Fierna, Lord of the Fourth - CR 19 (This layer has two lords.)
Aspect of Levistus, Lord of the Fifth - CR 21
Aspect of Glasya, Lord of the Sixth - CR 22
Aspect of Baalzebul, Lord of the Seventh - CR 23
Aspect of Mephistoheles, Lord of the Eighth - CR 24
Aspect of Asmodeus, Lord of the Ninth - CR 27




> 2) What monsters are in the book?




There are 17 new devils and 1 construct (Hellfire Engine)

3) What prestige classes are in the book?[/QUOTE]

There are four prestige classes: 

a) Hellbreaker  Thieves who specialize in infiltrating infernal strongholds and relieving them of their treasure. 
b) Hellfire Warlock  Warlocks who use hellfire, a dangerous energy found only in the Nine Hells.
c) Hellreaver  Good warriors who fight devils ang bet bonuses against them. 
d) Soulgard  Mostly clerics or paladins who try to save good souls who have been tricked by devils in to servitude. (Or something like that.)


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 24, 2006)

What's the word on the ancient baatorians?  Do they make an appearance in the book?

How has Asmodeus' backstory been addressed (especially compared to earlier version of his origins)?


(You lucky dog - looking forward to this one a lot!)


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 24, 2006)

The new monsters are:

Abishai (white, black, green, blue, and red) - CR 4-8 - Servants of Tiamat
Amnizu - CR 7 - Guardian devils who oversee traffic through the gates of hell. 
Assassin Devil (Dogai) - CR 11 - Skilled killers. 
Ayperobos Swarm - CR 12 - A swarm of Diminutive devils.
Harvester Devil (Falxugon) - CR 7 - Seductive schemers.
Hellfire Engine - CR 19 - Artillery used in the Blood War.
Kalabon - CR 1/2 - Devils spawned from the carcass of the Hag Countess.
Legion Devil (merregon) - CR 3 - Hell's weakest food soldiers. 
Malebranche - CR 14 - Devils who serve other, more intelligent devils.
Narzugon - CR 5 - Elite cavalry of the baatezu.
Nupperibo - CR 2 - Tormented devils, ho have been demoted by their masters. 
Orthon - CR 8 - Foot soldiers in Hell's armies.
Paeliryon - CR 18 - Crafty baatezu that manage vast spy networks across the planes.
Pain Devil (Excruciarch) - CR 7 - Diabolical torturers. 
Pleasure Devil (Brachina) - CR 11 - Hell's version of the succubus. 
Spined Devil (Spinagon) - CR 4 - Small fiends, sometimes used as spys by the archdevils. 
Steel Devil (Bueroza) - CR 6 - Soldier in the Blood War. 
Xerfilstyx - CR 15 - Terrifying devils living in the River Styx.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 24, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> What's the word on the ancient baatorians?  Do they make an appearance in the book?




I haven't found anything about them yet. But I don't now what they are, so maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. 



> How has Asmodeus' backstory been addressed (especially compared to earlier version of his origins)?




The book starts with a preface about The Pact Primeval. It is told as a myth, and the possibility is left open that it might not be really true. 

At the beginning of time there was first chaos, then law. The gods of law created angels to help them in the fight against chaos, Asmodeus was the most powerful of them. As time went by Asmodeus and some of the other angels began to take on some of the traits of their enemies, and the lawful gods and the other angels wanted to get rid of them, but since they broke no laws, they could not do this.  

Then the gods started to create worlds and mortals, but they saw, that some of their creations started to lean towards the demons and chaos. Asmodeus explained to the gods, that the mortals will only follow the law, if they will have to fear punishment, and Asmodeus and his followers persuaded the gods to introduce punishment for the sinners after death. This was then adminstered by the (soon to be) devils. When the gods saw what was done to the sinners they were terrified, but there was nothing they could do against it, since they had agreed to introduce punishment before. But they agreed to take on Asmodeus' offer to relocate to Baator,  "a than bleak and featureless plain". But first Asmodeus persuaded the gods to sign the Pact Primeval, which specified the boundaries of Hell and the rules of the transmission of wicked souls. 

Mephistopheles and Dispater are mentioned as companions of Asmodeus, as are erinyes. 

Later on, in the Chapter about Layer Nine, we learn that the deities physically cast him out of the upper realms. He still suffers from the wounds he took when falling through the rock and soil of Baator.


----------



## Shellman (Nov 24, 2006)

Well,

    I am personally looking forward to FCII, flawed or not! I've been disappointed with the lack of attention the Lords of Nine have gotten through most of the different MM's up to present. I am up for as much depraved, vile darkness wotc can drum up from the Lords of Nine. 

    Of course this just comes from my groups campaigns where demons always seem to be the BBEG or the instrument of destruction some Villian drums up to use against us.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 24, 2006)

I have to go sleep now, but I'll be glad to answer all questions in the morning.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 24, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> The book starts with a preface about The Pact Primeval. It is told as a myth, and the possibility is left open that it might not be really true.
> 
> At the beginning of time there was first chaos, then law. The gods of law created angels to help them in the fight against chaos, Asmodeus was the most powerful of them. As time went by Asmodeus and some of the other angels began to take on some of the traits of their enemies, and the lawful gods and the other angels wanted to get rid of them, but since they broke no laws, they could not do this.
> 
> Then the gods started to create worlds and mortals, but they saw, that some of their creations started to lean towards the demons and chaos. Asmodeus explained to the gods, that the mortals will only follow the law, if they will have to fear punishment, and Asmodeus and his followers persuaded the gods to introduce punishment for the sinners after death. This was then adminstered by the (soon to be) devils. When the gods saw what was done to the sinners they were terrified, but there was nothing they could do against it, since they had agreed to introduce punishment before. But they agreed to take on Asmodeus' offer to relocate to Baator,  "a than bleak and featureless plain". But first Asmodeus persuaded the gods to sign the Pact Primeval, which specified the boundaries of Hell and the rules of the transmission of wicked souls.




Well... wow... that's a whole lot of diabolic propaganda. But it doesn't directly contradict any of the known prehistory of the lower planes, and seems to omit any history before the existance of deities. At least it's told as a myth.

This is good on one level, in that it doesn't radically contradict the material in FC:I, Faces of Evil, or Hellbound, but it doesn't from what you've said seem to go out of its way to tie into them either (such as discussion of the Ancient Baatorians, the Baernaloth creation myth, etc).

And Malagard is dead. Hmm.

I'm not sure how to respond to that yet. I'll have to know more details first.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 24, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> I have to go selep now, but I'll be glad to answer all questions in the morning.




For the morning: 

Any mention of the Ancient Baatorians (the original inhabitants of Baator that existed prior to the arrival of the Baatezu)?

Any mention of the Ancient Baatorians and their cities locked in the ice of Cania?

Any mention of an origin story for the Kytons of Jangling Hiter?

Any details on where the Baatezu came from originally?

Any detail on Zariel, former Lord of the 1st?

Any mention of alternate origin myths besides the one you mentioned above?


----------



## Pants (Nov 24, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Well... wow... that's a whole lot of diabolic propaganda.



Sounds like a 'loth wrote it.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 24, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Sounds like a 'loth wrote it.




*chuckle* Hehehe, my version would have been something along the lines of the following, though I have a thing for Rip's version he wrote a while back as well.



> He watched the Fall with a mixture of detached fascination. The Archons had suffered greatly, the Ancient Baatorians even more so, and for once their actions were not even prompted by the machinations of the Baern but by pride and zeal. He did not put it out of possibility that one of his brother/sisters had played a hand in goading them though. He hadn’t caused it, but he was reaping the benefits of it nonetheless, and conquest by triumph or default, it mattered little in the end.
> 
> Weakened by circumstance, he played his hand and gave Baator a new king, a new throne, its very own prisoner in a mask of iron to whittle away eternity in a cage of self wrought importance. Baator had subjects, servants, children, slaves, cogs, willing tools, plowshares it would seek to hammer into swords if given the chance, all of them raging against the perversion of their own nature against themselves.
> 
> In the end it was delicious. The plane itself rebelled under his feet in rage. If he deigned to step upon its soil, its soul, it trembled like the citizens of a great city before their mad emperor, hated and feared, respected and loathed all at once. The infection in its soil, in its soul, it ran deep. So rooted in was it that not even the Styx could erase the memory entirely.


----------



## The Serge (Nov 25, 2006)

Assuming this isn't a hoax (the book's not supposed to be available until sometime in December), my thoughts are as follows.

Glasya as the Lord of the Sixth:  Nice.  Probably an attempt to reflect Lilith a bit better.

Still don't care for the "myth."  It's far too close to the JCI fall myths and it ties the devils too closely to the upper planes...  However, I do greatly appreciate the fact that they made the stats in the book for aspects rather than for the actual Lords.  At least the editors got it right in this release.  

I'll have to check with my store tomorrow to see if they received the book...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 25, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Glasya as the Lord of the Sixth:  Nice.  Probably an attempt to reflect Lilith a bit better.



Meh. Ain't no Lilith like Lilith.


The book seems interesting so far though, from what has been presented here.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Nov 25, 2006)

What are the odds of a Hungarian gaming store getting a D&D product before a US gaming store?   


Assuming that the information is not a hoax, at least it looks like they've learnt from previous efforts and made them aspects of the Lords rather than the Lords themselves.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> For the morning:
> Any mention of the Ancient Baatorians (the original inhabitants of Baator that existed prior to the arrival of the Baatezu)?




I haven't found any mention of the Ancient Baatorians (yet). Generaly there is no history section besides the creation myth I already mentioned, although there might be some mention of earlier times in the writeups of the individual layers, I haven't read them yet.  



> Any mention of the Ancient Baatorians and their cities locked in the ice of Cania?




A city named Kintyre is mentioned which is buried deep in ice, but Mephistopheles has recently ordered to excavate it, since he believes that there are secrets there which would aid his research in hellfire. No mention of Ancient Baatorians though. 



> Any mention of an origin story for the Kytons of Jangling Hiter?




Jangling Hiter is mentioned, but not the origin of the kytons. 



> Any details on where the Baatezu came from originally?




The myth at the beginning says that at least some of them are fallen angels (Asmodeus, Dispater, Mephitopheels, erinyes), where angels aren't necessarily good. The way I understand it, lemures are created from the tormented souls who come to Hell after their death, and if they are lucky, sooner or later they get promoted to more powerful status. So that's probably where most of the devils come from. Baalzebul is a former archon named Triel. "Asmodeus and most of the other archdevils came to Baator early in its history, when the lines between good and evil were first being drawn, but Baalzebul is a more recent arival". 



> Any detail on Zariel, former Lord of the 1st?




He is mentioned as the former ruler of the layer, replaced by Bel. In a sidebar it is written that "legend has it that the fireballs that detonate across Avernus in a seemingly random pattern are generated by Zariel, a trapped former archduke from whom Bel parasitically draws his power."  



> Any mention of alternate origin myths besides the one you mentioned above?




Can't find any.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Assuming this isn't a hoax (the book's not supposed to be available until sometime in December), my thoughts are as follows.




It's no hoax. 



> Glasya as the Lord of the Sixth:  Nice.  Probably an attempt to reflect Lilith a bit better.




A Lilith is mentioned as Second Consort of Baalzebul, Lord of Maladomini, the seventh layer. She (he?) is a unique devil.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

Amiel said:
			
		

> What are the odds of a Hungarian gaming store getting a D&D product before a US gaming store?




I was surprised myself.

The way I understand it, shops actually often recieve books before the actual street date, but they aren't supposed to sell them before it. I'm not surprised my LGS doesn't care about things like that.


----------



## DK (Nov 25, 2006)

Anythings about hell's Dukes? Stats?


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

DK said:
			
		

> Anythings about hell's Dukes? Stats?




No stats for the dukes of Hell. The description of every layer mentions the dukes living there.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

I just saw that there are two aditional monsters in addition to the devils I already mentioned: 

Worm of Minauros - Gargantuan magical beast - CR 15
Hell Louse (Malbolge) - Large vermin - CR 3


----------



## Razz (Nov 25, 2006)

What the? 

Why're almost half of the "new" monsters repeats? Yet we didn't get a fix on the Klurichir in FCI? They were updated by the 3.5 Update Booklet that you can download on the website...what gives?

A couple needed updating badly, like the Paelyrion, but the Spinagon, Narzugon, Xerfilstyx, Amnizu, and Abishai were fine the way they were. 

*sigh*


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 25, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> I haven't found any mention of the Ancient Baatorians (yet). Generaly there is no history section besides the creation myth I already mentioned, although there might be some mention of earlier times in the writeups of the individual layers, I haven't read them yet.




That's incredibly disappointing.



> A city named Kintyre is mentioned which is buried deep in ice, but Mephistopheles has recently ordered to excavate it, since he believes that there are secrets there which would aid his research in hellfire. No mention of Ancient Baatorians though.




Pretty much the same exact rumor that we've seen in the 3e MotP, 2e Guide to Hell, and not as much as we saw from Planescape. No mention of the Ancients? Man, that's a wasted opportunity.




> Jangling Hiter is mentioned, but not the origin of the kytons.




Meh. I take it there's also no mention of the maturing nupperibo/ancient baatorian locked away in the tower of Panos Qytel there in that city by its kyton ruler? If not, again a big disappointment.




> The myth at the beginning says that at least some of them are fallen angels (Asmodeus, Dispater, Mephitopheels, erinyes), where angels aren't necessarily good. The way I understand it, lemures are created from the tormented souls who come to Hell after their death, and if they are lucky, sooner or later they get promoted to more powerful status. So that's probably where most of the devils come from.




Color me uninspired. But at least it doesn't directly contradict material from other sources that we know aren't (entirely) diabolic myth. But the erinyes as fallen angels is just a lame 3.5 thing.



> He is mentioned as the former ruler of the layer, replaced by Bel. In a sidebar it is written that "legend has it that the fireballs that detonate across Avernus in a seemingly random pattern are generated by Zariel, a trapped former archduke from whom Bel parasitically draws his power."




That's a shame. They don't go into any further detail than the MotP or GtH did? Meh.

And "He"? Zariel was female. Did they actually shift her gender around, or were you just using 'he' as a generic pronoun?

...


Perhaps I'm just spoiled by the likes of _Fiendish Codex I_ or _Faces of Evil_. But from what you've said, the book really is underwhelming me. So many things that seem to just have been inexplicably not addressed despite being an undercurrent through most of the more detailed source material.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 25, 2006)

Does the entry on Nupperibos at least detail that they're actually the least form of Ancient Baatorians, that the Baatezu tend to round them up and kill them in order to then warp their essence into lemures?


----------



## Psion (Nov 25, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Does the entry on Nupperibos at least detail that they're actually the least form of Ancient Baatorians, that the Baatezu tend to round them up and kill them in order to then warp their essence into lemures?




Saying that they are demoted devils sounds like they weren't saying that.


----------



## Psion (Nov 25, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> That's incredibly disappointing.




I don't think so. I think the ancient baatorians are a great opportunity for DMs to flesh out their own universe. I hate being spoon fed every little detail of the cosmology.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 25, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think so. I think the ancient baatorians are a great opportunity for DMs to flesh out their own universe. I hate being spoon fed every little detail of the cosmology.




But so far they don't even appear to be mentioned in the book. That's worrying. You don't have to go into detail to say that they existed, to just hint and drop rumors etc (like how FC:I presented multiple prehistory myths on the Abyss, including some that linked back to a twist upon the Baernaloth legends, etc).


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

> And "He"? Zariel was female. Did they actually shift her gender around, or were you just using 'he' as a generic pronoun?




No, but book doesn't call her either he or she, and since her title was "archduke", i  just assumed that he was male. 



> Does the entry on Nupperibos at least detail that they're actually the least form of Ancient Baatorians, that the Baatezu tend to round them up and kill them in order to then warp their essence into lemures?




In the book nupperibos are outsider native to the Nine Hells of Baator, and the tormented forms of a devil that had failed its master, and has been transformed into a pathetic, weak creature. They are blind and deaf, but have blindsight 30 ft. They are used as soldiers in the Blood War, but also as beasts of burden or slave labor. They are almost mindless. 

No Ancient Baatorians are mentioned in their description.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 25, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> In the book nupperibos are outsider native to the Nine Hells of Baator, and the tormented forms of a devil that had failed its master, and has been transformed into a pathetic, weak creature. They are blind and deaf, but have blindsight 30 ft. They are used as soldiers in the Blood War, but also as beasts of burden or slave labor. They are almost mindless.
> 
> No Ancient Baatorians are mentioned in their description.




*sigh*


----------



## Agamemnon (Nov 25, 2006)

Oh bollocks.

That sounds disappointing, like someone's taken all the intriguing side plots away from our favorite Infernal denizens.

What next? Declaring A'kin's alignment out loud in FC3? (thankfully, I don't think we're in danger there)


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 25, 2006)

Well, dang. Ever since I had to sell all of my Planescape stuff and I heard that the FC series was coming I was hoping that I would not have the need to re-aquire the collection. Looks like I need to hit up eBay for the Law boxed set, at least.

Still, even so, I'll reserve final judgement until I peruse it in the game store. It's not an auto-buy anymore, however.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Nov 25, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> I just saw that there are two aditional monsters in addition to the devils I already mentioned:
> 
> Worm of Minauros - Gargantuan magical beast - CR 15
> Hell Louse (Malbolge) - Large vermin - CR 3




You just happened to "just see" these two monsters did you? 

Somehow I doubt the authencity of your claims when you mention a gargantuan worm of Minauros and the hell louse.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Nov 25, 2006)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Well, dang. Ever since I had to sell all of my Planescape stuff[...]




 You sold your Planescape collection?! Say it isn't so!


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

Amiel said:
			
		

> You just happened to "just see" these two monsters did you?
> 
> Somehow I doubt the authencity of your claims when you mention a gargantuan worm of Minauros and the hell louse.




These two monsters appear in the description of the layer of Minauros and Malbolge respectively, not in the "monster chapter", that's why I didn't see them when I was writing up the list of monsters found in the book.

I hope you'll have the decency to come back with a "sorry" when it turns out that everything I say about the book is true.


----------



## Taelohn (Nov 25, 2006)

What's the art like?  Do we get new illustrations for the Lords of the Nine, or are they Book of Vile Darkness reprints?  (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030126a)


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 25, 2006)

Taelohn said:
			
		

> What's the art like?  Do we get new illustrations for the Lords of the Nine, or are they Book of Vile Darkness reprints?  (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20030126a)




I'd say that there are good pictures, but probably nothing outstanding. Going by your link the illustrations are no reprints from the BoVD (although the archdevils obviously look similar).


----------



## The Serge (Nov 26, 2006)

From what you've shared, this doesn't sound all that... interesting.  It seems as if the authors, judging from what you wrote, took a number of huge steps backwards.

I wonder if it's against the rules for some of the freelance writers not to take the time to do some research on the material from previous editions.  Although there are plenty of things I despise with FCI, it was a great book because the authors took the time to do research on the material that preceded their material while adding new concepts... even if they end up contradicting or sidelining earlier ideas.  This does not, based upon what we're seeing here, appear to be the case and that's very troublesome.

I like the idea that DMs can go in and make some adjustments to published material; however, I also think it's important for the designers to pay attention to work that preceded them and ultimately allowed them to write the stuff they end up with.  Now, if there's more to all of this than meets the eye when I get the book, perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised, but so far it looks like I'm going to be disappointed.


----------



## arntof (Nov 26, 2006)

How does it describe the layers?
How much space does each of them get in the book?

Stygia?


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

arntof said:
			
		

> How does it describe the layers?
> How much space does each of them get in the book?
> 
> Stygia?




A total of 44 pages for the nine layers, on average 5 pages per layer. Not really much. Stygia is 5,25 pages.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 26, 2006)

Is anything said about previous Lords of the 9 who held control of some of the layers previous to the already known Lords?

Is there anything about the ruins beneath Mammon's current capital city in Minauros?

What is said about the ultimate fate of Moloch?


----------



## Baron Opal (Nov 26, 2006)

Amiel said:
			
		

> You sold your Planescape collection?! Say it isn't so!




'Fraid so. A complete collection minus adventures. The four boxed sets, Astral plane, Inner planes, Hellbound... bunch of other stuff. The only thing I kept was The Planewalker's Handbook as it was a nice capsule review of everything. 

It paid a month's rent at University, however, and that's what I needed at the time.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 26, 2006)

I like the idea of the hag countess being dead, but Glasya shouldn't be a lord.  At least I'd prefer one of the previous cast out lords, or a raised archduke.

At this point it seems being a lord of one of the layers of the abyss is a safer job than being a lord of the nine.

Apparently the kocrachon either got renamed or not updated.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 26, 2006)

Wycen said:
			
		

> Apparently the kocrachon either got renamed or not updated.




It does seem bizarre that there's a new 'torture devil' introduced in the book when that role is already and explicitely filled by the Kocrachon.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Is anything said about previous Lords of the 9 who held control of some of the layers previous to the already known Lords?




Zariel is mentioned several times, a Geryion in the description of Stygia, and als the (now dead) Hag Countess for Malbolge. But the text never goes into detail (only when describing the death of the Hag Countess). 



> Is there anything about the ruins beneath Mammon's current capital city in Minauros?




Two cities on the layer Minauros are detailed: The Sinking City and Jangling Hiter, but none are named the capital of Mammon and none have ruins below them described. What would the capital be? a City named Minauros City is shown on a map, but not mentioned in the description of the layer.  



> What is said about the ultimate fate of Moloch?




I haven't found anything about him yet. Which layer did he rule?


----------



## Agamemnon (Nov 26, 2006)

"Minauros City"? Sheeee-eesh.

I am disappointed more and more.


----------



## RichGreen (Nov 26, 2006)

Wycen said:
			
		

> Apparently the kocrachon either got renamed or not updated.




Well, they've pretty much dropped gelugon, kyton, cornugon etc in favour of ice devil, chain devil, horned devil.... What does the picture of the torture devil look like? Does it have a very long thin beaky nose?

44 pages of description for the layers sounds like a lot more than we got in Planes of Law or the Guide to Hell, particularly with current font sizes vs 2e products.

I'm really looking forward to this book, but I agree it's a shame that there are so many reprints of 3.0 devils.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## arntof (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks for being here, morbiczer.

How detailed are the ambitions/histories of the various lords? Does it take up much space?

What is the main focus of the book? The monster section?

How did the Hag die?


----------



## RichGreen (Nov 26, 2006)

arntof said:
			
		

> Thanks for being here, morbiczer.
> 
> How did the Hag die?




And does the book mention Geryon?


Cheers


Richard


----------



## Razz (Nov 26, 2006)

This is what you get by squeezing everything into a compact 160-page book. Especially if the topic is about something as infinite and diverse as demons and devils...

Yet a subrace of evil elves gets an extra 74 pages (total 224) to their name...sad.

74 pages could've covered what in FCII? More info on the layers, a few Dukes of Hell, one more PrC, few more spells and feats, few more unique denizens of the Nine Hells, etc...

*sigh*

I miss pre-3.5 already...3.0 had the chunky books (and a few 3.5 ones did when it first started)


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

RichGreen said:
			
		

> What does the picture of the torture devil look like? Does it have a very long thin beaky nose?



There is no "torture devil", just a pain devil also called excruciarch. It has no picture (only two of the devils in the monster section have no picture), but its description rules out it having a long thin nose. (A black spiked mask covers their faces, only showing their eyes.)



> How detailed are the ambitions/histories of the various lords? Does it take up much space?



About half a page.  



> What is the main focus of the book? The monster section?



Chapter 1: All about Devils  7-32
  The Economy of Hell
  Promotion and DEmotion
  Soul Harvesting
  The Blood War
  Devils as Monsters
  Devils and Demons
  A DM's Guide to Demons
  Mortals and Devils
  Corrupt Acts

Chapter 2: The Nine Hells 33-76
Each layer has its on section, built up as follows:
  Lord of the Layer
  Important Locations
  Divine Realms (if there are any)
  Encounters on the Layer

Chapter 3: Game Rules 77-106
  New Race: Hellbred (When someone dies, and repents his sins in the moment of death, they can become helbred. They don't go to either Heaven or Hell. They fight against evil in Hell, and some will find final salvation and ascend to celestial planes, but most fail. The concept doesn't impress me much.
  New Feats: 27 Feats, inculding divine feats and a new type, devil-touched feats.
  Prestige Classes
  New Spells: 21 spells, including 15 Investiture spells, which give you some aspects of a devil, but you become fatigued for a minute when the spell runs out. 

Chapter 4: Devils 107-138 (monster section)

Chapter 5: The Lords of the Nine 141-158

I'd say that the main focus of the book is the soultrade, that's what powers the entire Hell, getting more and more souls is what motivates the devils (and achieving promotion). 



> How did the Hag die?



Basically out of thin air she started to grow to really-really giant size, "some force" (Asmodeus?) was using her to transform the entire layer. Her head became a fortress, her ribs mountains, her inner organs a twisting maze below the surface, etc. She basically fused with the layer. When this process was over Glasya appeared to take over the rule.



> And does the book mention Geryon?



He is mentioned as the former ruler of Stygia, but no further details are given. There is also a Magical Location called Pillar of Geryon on Stygia. 



> This is what you get by squeezing everything into a compact 160-page book.



Yeah, it's a shame that these are limited to 160 pages, while the drow get much more pages. this book could hev used some more detail in plays (especially in the description of the layers IMO. Those seem really short.)


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 26, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> There is no "torture devil", just a pain devil also called excruciarch. It has no picture (only two of the devils in the monster section have no picture), but its description rules out it having a long thin nose. (A black spiked mask covers their faces, only showing their eyes.)




Sounds like one of the guys in Slipknot... and still we already had the Kocrachon.




> Chapter 2: The Nine Hells 33-76
> Each layer has its on section, built up as follows:
> Lord of the Layer
> Important Locations
> ...




What divine realms are mentioned? Specifically are Set and Sekolah's domains in Stygia detailed? Or, as I'm sadly guessing, are only 'core/greyhawk/generic' deities given mention (unlike FC:I that in its way of being awesome actually used non-core deities from the source material when it was relevant to the topic)?





> Chapter 3: Game Rules 77-106
> New Race: Hellbred (When someone dies, and repents his sins in the moment of death, they can become helbred. They don't go to either Heaven or Hell. They fight against evil in Hell, and some will find final salvation and ascend to celestial planes, but most fail. The concept doesn't impress me much.




This is D&D, not pseudo-Milton. There is no Heaven/Hell dichotomy. There is no monolithic notion of sin or salvation. Hellbred make no sense whatsoever in the 4 alignment axis system of D&D.




> He is mentioned as the former ruler of Stygia, but no further details are given. There is also a Magical Location called Pillar of Geryon on Stygia.




No further mention than that? *sigh*


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

1. Actually the word "Heaven" is not used. 

2. The realms of Set and Sekolah are mentioned, the first gets like three paragraphs, the second one and a half. 

(Seeing your reaction, I maybe should stop posting about the book, or WotC will sue me for destroying their sales   More seriously, I might get some details wrong when I summarize parts of the book, english is not my native languague. So best reverse final judgement till you see it yourself.)


----------



## arntof (Nov 26, 2006)

Focusing on the soultrade sounds very right for this book

Are there other Divine Realms apart from Set and Sekolahs?


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 26, 2006)

Just edited a previous post. Please keep it civil, and keep our board rules in mind while posting. Thanks!


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

Kurtulmak, Tiamat, Hecate, and something called God Street in Dis, where apparently lots of minor LE gods house.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 26, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> 1. Actually the word "Heaven" is not used.




Ok, very cool.



> 2. The realms of Set and Sekolah are mentioned, the first gets like three paragraphs, the second one and a half.




*genuine smile* Apparently my opinions are being flighty this morning, but this makes me quite happy. It's like getting a Christmas present you didn't expect after getting a bunch of socks and last years video games up to that point. This is very nice and I applaud the authors for the guts to follow in FC:I's footsteps, and also to WotC for removing the creative restrictions that held such things down up till recently.

As far as locations in the layers, is 'The Garden' mentioned on Avernus? The City of Man, and the City of Diplomacy on deeper layers (layer 7 IIRC)?

And is the history of the Dark 8 detailed, and are the ministries run by its members fleshed out at all?


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 26, 2006)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> Just edited a previous post. Please keep it civil, and keep our board rules in mind while posting. Thanks!




That was offensive?  :\


----------



## arntof (Nov 26, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Kurtulmak, Tiamat, Hecate, and something called God Street in Dis, where apparently lots of minor LE gods house.





God Street? At first this seemed to me like a crazy idea, but I can see great potential in it after considering it for a while. Can you elaborate on this? I am sure Dis can be great to read about.

Nice that these restrictions are lifted, yes.

And I am sure Shemeska did not want anyone up on a cross


----------



## Davelozzi (Nov 26, 2006)

I think this book sounds pretty cool and am surprised by the overwhelming negativity on this thread, and by amount of posts by people who don't even believe morbiczer that he has the book.

Anyhow, I look forward to picking it up when funds allow and checking it out for myself.


----------



## Pants (Nov 26, 2006)

Davelozzi said:
			
		

> I think this book sounds pretty cool and am surprised by the overwhelming negativity on this thread, and by amount of posts by people who don't even believe morbiczer that he has the book.



Most of the negativity seems to be directed at the fact that these little snippets seem to indicate that the book won't cover EVERYTHING about Hell, especially the Ancient Baatorians. I would've liked to see more about them, especially since FCI introduced the proto-demon obyriths.

But, I'll wait and see. The book still looks pretty cool, if not as cool as FCI.


----------



## RichGreen (Nov 26, 2006)

Davelozzi said:
			
		

> I think this book sounds pretty cool and am surprised by the overwhelming negativity on this thread, and by amount of posts by people who don't even believe morbiczer that he has the book.
> 
> Anyhow, I look forward to picking it up when funds allow and checking it out for myself.




I think it sounds pretty cool too. Like FC1, the book will probably contain more info on devils and the Nine Hells than any single previous book. Guide to Hell and the Baator book in Planes of Law are both slim volumes.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> As far as locations in the layers, is 'The Garden' mentioned on Avernus? The City of Man, and the City of Diplomacy on deeper layers (layer 7 IIRC)?



No, no, and no. But on layer 7 (Maladomini) there is a place called Offalion, which is a reconstruction of a city of the Material Planes, where devils learn the ways of men. There is also a city called Grenpoli on the same layer, where all sort of violence is forbidden, and where devils can meet for diplomacy without having to fear a fight. Are these the two cities you are looking for? 



> And is the history of the Dark 8 detailed, and are the ministries run by its members fleshed out at all?



No real history given. The eight members are named, and a sentence or two about what each of them does, not more. 



			
				arntof said:
			
		

> God Street? At first this seemed to me like a crazy idea, but I can see great potential in it after considering it for a while. Can you elaborate on this? I am sure Dis can be great to read about.



Basicaly when a new LE deity is created (either because some great hero starts to get worshipped or even some none existing entity attracts enough worshipers), than the new deity appears on God Street, and he immediatly starts out to construct his own realm on God Street. There are lots and lots of gods here, only gods which have followers on many worlds have their own realms on one of the layers. The write-up suggests that unique LE deities from homebrew settings would "live" here. God Street seems to be infinitely long. Only divine casters can get there unless through divine intervention, even they have to make a DC 20 caster level check.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 26, 2006)

Okay, I'll be out of town for three days, so I won't be able to post until then here.


----------



## RichGreen (Nov 26, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll be out of town for three days, so I won't be able to post until then here.




Thanks for all the info!


Richard


----------



## Ash Mantle (Nov 26, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> These two monsters appear in the description of the layer of Minauros and Malbolge respectively, not in the "monster chapter", that's why I didn't see them when I was writing up the list of monsters found in the book.




Indeed, but they would have been mentioned in the contents, right?   



> I hope you'll have the decency to come back with a "sorry" when it turns out that everything I say about the book is true.




I'll reserve the right until I actually see it, until then what you say may or may not be truthful; this is only logical  . 

I'm surprised why the authors haven't refuted your claims though.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 26, 2006)

Amiel said:
			
		

> Indeed, but they would have been mentioned in the contents, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe because he's telling the truth?  Quit being so rude.


----------



## arntof (Nov 26, 2006)

I think the book sounds very nice, actually..in case I came across as negative.

"Basically when a new LE deity is created (either because some great hero starts to get worshipped or even some none existing entity attracts enough worshipers), than the new deity appears on God Street, and he immediatly starts out to construct his own realm on God Street. There are lots and lots of gods here, only gods which have followers on many worlds have their own realms on one of the layers. The write-up suggests that unique LE deities from homebrew settings would "live" here. God Street seems to be infinitely long. Only divine casters can get there unless through divine intervention, even they have to make a DC 20 caster level check."

This section just sounds great


----------



## Razz (Nov 27, 2006)

Darn, no mention of the Garden...

I liked that location the first time I read about it in _Planes of Law_ boxed set.. My plan with it back in 2E Planescape was to make it the "Lost Garden of Eden" type of location. I had an idea based off of Genesis about the Garden being once a paradise lost thanks to the sins of mankind and the location kept in Avernus so they could never return to it. But it still maintained it's divine power, hence one reason why the devils steered clear from it.

Pretty cool background I had sketched up for it. Still could use it, but I was hoping they would've elaborated more on the Garden.


----------



## sciborg2 (Nov 27, 2006)

This God Street thing sounds sort of weird, but also cool in some respects. It just feels that a lot of this stuff you're telling us if very different than what we'd expect. This is why people like myself don't want to believe you have the book....not to accuse, merely to say that we'd just rather not believe this is the product that is coming down the pipeline in a few days...


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 27, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> No, no, and no. But on layer 7 (Maladomini) there is a place called Offalion, which is a reconstruction of a city of the Material Planes, where devils learn the ways of men. There is also a city called Grenpoli on the same layer, where all sort of violence is forbidden, and where devils can meet for diplomacy without having to fear a fight. Are these the two cities you are looking for?




Yes, they are. Grenpoli is the City of Diplomacy, and Offalion sounds like the City of Man. So it has a name, now; that's cool.

I'm completely convinced you have the book, by the way. 



> No real history given. The eight members are named, and a sentence or two about what each of them does, not more.




Oh, but each of them has a different task? Baalzephon is in charge of supply, and Dagos in the marshal of the hosts, and Furcas is in charge of mortal affairs? 

I actually think Gods Street is a pretty awesome idea. I'm glad they're making use of the paeliryon. The nupperibos are handled correctly, minus the connection to the ancient Baatorians.

The bizarre living fortress they've made of the Hag is pretty cool, too.  I didn't really like the idea of a night hag ruling a layer of Baator, but I love the idea of a surrealistic castle made from the still-living body of a night hag. And she can still be tied to the altraloths, as Shemmy suggested. And Lilith is still in the Hells, so really nothing is lost. Making Glasya a Lord of the Nine is better than _Guide to Hell_ making her the ruler of the erinyes (they don't need another ruler).

I'm satisfied.

Not mentioning the ancient Baatorians at all (except for the ambiguous mention of Kintyre) is an opportunity wasted. DMs can't decide how to use them in their campaign if they've never heard of them at all. 

Because the "angels" the baatezu are descended from are not, and apparently never were good, and apparently even precede the forces of Good and Evil, I'm okay with it. They're not 
"aasimon" - angels in the Monster Manual sense - but something much older, something like the angels in this myth:



			
				The Mimir said:
			
		

> I'll state my belief that the angels were not a pure force of goodness as they have often been portrayed (by the churches of good powers, naturally!); they were simply the first planeborne race of all. Their spirits were unsullied by worries of moral or ethical issues -- vice and sin, as such, had not been invented, so their behaviour was not good by choice, as they had no alternative but to behave in the way they were intended to behave. Without 'evil', as such, there simply cannot be 'good'.




When Fiendish Codex II refers to "gods," I think it's talking about extremely primal beings who helped define the planes before they had even begun to form. These are not the "powers" that Hellbound introduces relatively late in the timeline, but the raw progenitors of Law, the equivalents of the baernaloths (who are the progenitors of Evil). This is what the Fiendish Codex I meant, anyway.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 27, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Yes, they are. Grenpoli is the City of Diplomacy, and Offalion sounds like the City of Man. So it has a name, now; that's cool.




Indeed, and it's a nice touch there.



> Oh, but each of them has a different task? Baalzephon is in charge of supply, and Dagos in the marshal of the hosts, and Furcas is in charge of mortal affairs?




It'd be a shame if the Dark 8 weren't elaborated upon, given that they have more direct influence over the rank and file Baatezu than do any of the Lords of the 9.



> I actually think Gods Street is a pretty awesome idea.




I'll reserve judgement till I read about it, but the idea has potential.



> The bizarre living fortress they've made of the Hag is pretty cool, too.  I didn't really like the idea of a night hag ruling a layer of Baator, but I love the idea of a surrealistic castle made from the still-living body of a night hag.




When you kill off a Lord of the 9, that's one of the more impressive ways of doing so. I heartily approve.



> Not mentioning the ancient Baatorians at all (except for the ambiguous mention of Kintyre) is an opportunity wasted. DMs can't decide how to use them in their campaign if they've never heard of them at all.




It'll be a shame if they're entirely avoided in the book, but given that Kintyre etc are there, apparently as large unknowns to the Lord of the 8th, there's the implication of things there that are older than the Baatezu, which still preserves the mystery and the insinuations.



> When Fiendish Codex II refers to "gods," I think it's talking about extremely primal beings who helped define the planes before they had even begun to form. These are not the "powers" that Hellbound introduces relatively late in the timeline, but the raw progenitors of Law, the equivalents of the baernaloths (who are the progenitors of Evil). This is what the Fiendish Codex I meant, anyway.




If it's phrased in that way, with Asmo et al as lawful servitors of primordial entities of Law at the dawn of the planes, then I'll buy it, and I'll savor it because it would fit with the idea of the meeting and mixing of the primal alignments, with Asmo etc being corrupted by the expanding influence of evil, but perhaps them later stamping out the Ancient Baatorians who were more Evil touched by Law than the other way around. But if it's talking about Asmo et al as fallen angels who served gods worshipped and empowered by mortals (aka all the current generation of gods), it comes off poorly and I'm inclined to believe much of the mythology is more myth than fact.

We'll see how the book words it exactly. Hopefully the wait will go quickly.


----------



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

You know the primordial existence of Law and Chaos (but not Good and Evil) suddenly makes the Blood War make a lot more sense.

Law and Chaos were fighting before there were Archons or Eladrin.

Yeah, I'm digging it.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 27, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You know the primordial existence of Law and Chaos (but not Good and Evil) suddenly makes the Blood War make a lot more sense.
> 
> Law and Chaos were fighting before there were Archons or Eladrin.
> 
> Yeah, I'm digging it.




Good and Evil existed as well actually.

The Obyriths in the Abyss predate mortal life yes, but they themselves aren't purely Chaos, they're a mix of primordial Chaos and Evil, and both of those concepts and their representatives came first in their pure forms. The theory goes that the pure alignments sprung into being first (LN, CN, NE, NG, N), then slowly mixed and the other alignments followed, along with the beings that represent them. FC:I even makes mention of the primordial NE fiends that appear to have had a hand in the creation (intentional or not) of the Obyriths and their Ancient Baatorian counterparts.

NG was around, but we really don't know anything about it's early form. We also know that something predated the Eladrin on Arborea, but again we know very little about the race, even what they truly looked like.

And as for Law and Chaos existing before Archons and Eladrins: The Archons are one of the absolute youngest outsider races, given that they develop exclusively from mortal petitioners. The Eladrin don't develop directly from petitioners, but we don't know their exact timeframe of development, only that they were around at least at the point in time to largely decimate the Obyriths shortly before the Tanar'ri took over the Abyss.


----------



## Shade (Nov 27, 2006)

Catching up on this thread....

Calling the archdevils' stats "aspects"...bravo!

Killing off the Hag Countess and replacing with Glasya...I like it.

No furthering of the ancient baatorians description/history...bummer.

The monsters chapter looks interesting.  I'm glad to see the inclusion of quite a few new devils to help shore up the ranks.   I do find it odd that the BoVD devils were'nt selected for update, as they were in FC1.

A couple questions for morbiczer when he returns:   Does FCII contain a table of notable Hells personages similar to FC1's table of demon lords?   Quite a few names were dropped in Ed Greenwood's Nine Hells articles, so I could see a reason for such a list.   Second question:  Is there a compiled CR table for devils as in FC1?   Does it alter the CR of any devils not included in the book, and does it name-drop any devils from future sources (as FC1 did with the nashrou and deathdrinker)?


----------



## BOZ (Nov 28, 2006)

seconding everything shade said.  

i'm still on the fence - need to see an actual copy, then check to see how many pennies i have in my penny jar.


----------



## Razz (Nov 28, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> seconding everything shade said.
> 
> i'm still on the fence - need to see an actual copy, then check to see how many pennies i have in my penny jar.




I've noticed "Donation Web Pages" work well these days. Set up a "D&D Book Donation".  You might get lucky.  

Heck, if people donate to a freakin' smashmyps3.com then I am sure some will donate for you to get more D&D books. Don't miss out!


----------



## GQuail (Nov 28, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Calling the archdevils' stats "aspects"...bravo!




This is indeed good news.  Much of the stats kerfuffle the first time around seemed to be caused by this line getting omitted: I suspect it was pushed for definite inclusion this time to save the geek world a heart condition.  

This is probably the D&D book I'm most looking forward too for the next few months.  I can only hope, being closer to HUngary than the US is, that I get it before you guys.... ;-)


----------



## Razz (Nov 29, 2006)

How'd this get buried down here? 

Please tell us more about the book. What're the feats? Can you give us a summary of a few of the new spells? Tell us about some of the monsters.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 29, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Oh, but each of them [the Dark Eight] has a different task? Baalzephon is in charge of supply, and Dagos in the marshal of the hosts, and Furcas is in charge of mortal affairs?



No, only things like Pearza is obsessed with magic and interested in Mephistopheles' hellfire or that Baalzephon is the only surviving founding member of the Dark Eight, all other are replacements or replacments of replacements of replacements... 



> The nupperibos are handled correctly, minus the connection to the ancient Baatorians.



Since the Ancient Baatorians were completly left out, they could have hardly connected the nupperibos to them. 



> The bizarre living fortress they've made of the Hag is pretty cool, too.



Actually its more that the Hag completly fused with layer (I might have explained this misleadingly earlier.) But Glasya uses the imense skull of the Hag Countess as her fortress, so the Hag = fortress is not totally wrong. 



			
				Shade said:
			
		

> Does FCII contain a table of notable Hells personages similar to FC1's table of demon lords? Quite a few names were dropped in Ed Greenwood's Nine Hells articles, so I could see a reason for such a list.



Do you mean Appendix I of FCI, titled Lords of the Abyss? There is no such table, but the description of every layer contains a subsection called "Dukes of <name of layer>" which lists some of the unique devils (not only dukes) living on that layer, together with a realy short description (like "Focalur, a unique devil, serves as Mammon's ever-loyal seneschal").



> Second question: Is there a compiled CR table for devils as in FC1? Does it alter the CR of any devils not included in the book, and does it name-drop any devils from future sources (as FC1 did with the nashrou and deathdrinker)?



there is a devils-by-CR list in the Appendix, and it says that "the CR's indicated for devils listed here are official changes to more accurately reflect the challenge they provide in high-level play". But sorry, I don't know which have changed. Maybe I'll have the time tomorrow to check this out. 

I don't think that any new devils named. There is another devils-by-book-they appeared-in list, and it looks as if the content of the two lists are the same. 



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> Please tell us more about the book. What're the feats? Can you give us a summary of a few of the new spells? Tell us about some of the monsters.




Okay, I'm really tired, so I give you one feat, one spell, and one monster. 

*Devil's Tongue *[Devil-Touched]
Prerquisites: Cha 15, Devil's Favor (An "entry feat" to all other devil-touched feats. It gives a small bonus (+2 on an attack, save, or check), which you can use a number of times per day equal to the devil-touched feats you have.)
You can speak to an opponent, if he fails a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your HD + your Cha modifier), he becomes dazed for 1 round, and is rendered flat-footed. You can use this a number of times per day equal to the devil-touched feats you have.

*Investiture of the Pit Fiend*
Transmutation [Evil, Investiture]
Clr 9, Sor/Wiz 9
A living creature takes up some of the characteristics of a pit fiend for 1 min/ caster lvl. He grows wings, and can fly, is immune to poisons and gains fire resistance 20. In addition he takes up on of three aspects (targets choice, can change every round):
_Aspect of Tyranny_: Claw attacks at BAB equal its HD.
_Aspect of Pestilence_: Creatures within 10 ft must succeed on a Fortitude save on the spell's DC or take 2 points of Str damage. 
_Aspect of Terror_: creatures within 10 ft must succeed on a Will save or become frightened for 2 rounds. 
The target becomes fatigued for 1 minute when the spell runs out. 

There are similar investiture spells for many devils, although those don't have different aspects. The effects of different investiture spells stack. 

*Malebranche* CR14 (I hope this is a new monster, at least google doesn't seem to know it)
This devil is an expert flier, it probably looks a little bit as a gargoyle (but it is Huge). They have a fear aura, and regeneration 8. They are described as netural bullies, who like to push around smaller creatures, but "simper and mewl around their betters". After they are created (or promoted from a lesser form) they go through a brutal training program, which makes them fanatically loyal to greater baatezu. They do everything they are ordered to. Occasionally they serve as steeds to other devils. They fight either with a +1 cold iron ranseur, or with their claws.


----------



## BronzeGolem (Nov 29, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> *Malebranche* CR14 (I hope this is a new monster, at least google doesn't seem to know it)
> This devil is an expert flier, it probably looks a little bit as a gargoyle (but it is Huge). They have a fear aura, and regeneration 8. They are described as netural bullies, who like to push around smaller creatures, but "simper and mewl around their betters". After they are created (or promoted from a lesser form) they go through a brutal training program, which makes them fanatically loyal to greater baatezu. They do everything they are ordered to. Occasionally they serve as steeds to other devils. They fight either with a +1 cold iron ranseur, or with their claws.




The malebranche isn't new. It was previously given stats in Monster Manual II 3rd ed and (perhaps) earlier although I don't remember that clearly.


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 29, 2006)

BronzeGolem said:
			
		

> The malebranche isn't new. It was previously given stats in Monster Manual II 3rd ed and (perhaps) earlier although I don't remember that clearly.




Damn, okay, if someone can tell me which monster is new (see the list of monsters I posted earlier), I'll write about it then.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 30, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> No, only things like Pearza is obsessed with magic and interested in Mephistopheles' hellfire or that Baalzephon is the only surviving founding member of the Dark Eight, all other are replacements or replacments of replacements of replacements...




Better than nothing. In 2e, Furcas was also an original member of the Eight. Has he recently died?



> *Malebranche* CR14 (I hope this is a new monster, at least google doesn't seem to know it)




No, it originally appeared in the 3.0 _Monster Manual II_.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 30, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Damn, okay, if someone can tell me which monster is new (see the list of monsters I posted earlier), I'll write about it then.




These are new:

Assassin Devil (Dogai) - CR 11 - Skilled killers.
Ayperobos Swarm - CR 12 - A swarm of Diminutive devils.
Harvester Devil (Falxugon) - CR 7 - Seductive schemers.
Hellfire Engine - CR 19 - Artillery used in the Blood War.
Kalabon - CR 1/2 - Devils spawned from the carcass of the Hag Countess.
Legion Devil (merregon) - CR 3 - Hell's weakest food soldiers.
Orthon - CR 8 - Foot soldiers in Hell's armies.
Pain Devil (Excruciarch) - CR 7 - Diabolical torturers.
Steel Devil (Bueroza) - CR 6 - Soldier in the Blood War.
Worm of Minauros
Hell Louse


----------



## Wycen (Nov 30, 2006)

Malebranche is also the 1E horned devil (evil branche).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2006)

Amiel said:
			
		

> Indeed, but they would have been mentioned in the contents, right?



The two extra feats at the back of Complete Arcane weren't mentioned anywhere else in the book. WotC has a history of slipping in content like this.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2006)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Devil's Favor (An "entry feat" to all other devil-touched feats. It gives a small bonus (+2 on an attack, save, or check), which you can use a number of times per day equal to the devil-touched feats you have.)



Hmmm. I can see the argument for doing it this way, but I wish these feats had worked off the devil feat from BoVD. I can see wanting to create characters that have a BoVD prestige class and also these feats, but will have that particular Vile feat taking up a slot.

Still, it wouldn't be a big change to replace one feat with the other.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 30, 2006)

Wycen said:
			
		

> Malebranche is also the 1E horned devil (evil branche).




The 1e horned devil is the 2e/3e Cornugon.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 30, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> The 1e horned devil is the 2e/3e Cornugon.




Yes and this fact irks me.  The FC 2 would have been the perfect place to explain the connection or "confusion" between malebranche-horned devil-cornugon, but I doubt it did.  And it's probably only important to those of us who post in this thread


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 30, 2006)

Wycen said:
			
		

> Yes and this fact irks me.  The FC 2 would have been the perfect place to explain the connection or "confusion" between malebranche-horned devil-cornugon, but I doubt it did.  And it's probably only important to those of us who post in this thread




I'm guessing that whoever wrote the malebranche for the 3e MMII must have remembered the Horned Devil (subtitled Malebranche as an alternate name) back in 1e, but not known that it was renamed the Cornugon in 2e and had already appeared under that name in the 3e MM already.


----------



## dargoth3 (Nov 30, 2006)

Morbiczer


Is there any mention of the Mystra's (Forgotten realms goddess of magic) incursion into the 1st lay of hell or the death of several "Arch devil children" in FC2?


----------



## morbiczer (Nov 30, 2006)

dargoth3 said:
			
		

> Morbiczer
> 
> 
> Is there any mention of the Mystra's (Forgotten realms goddess of magic) incursion into the 1st lay of hell or the death of several "Arch devil children" in FC2?




I don't have the book here (I'm at work) but I'm sure there is no Mystra and I can't remmber any dead archdevil children.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 30, 2006)

Out of curiousity, is Takhisis mentioned anywhere as one of the deities having a divine domain in Baator? If so she'd be on Avernus.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 30, 2006)

Sounds interesting.  Too bad though there isn't a Demonomicon for the Arch-Devils.  I'll have to buy this and the FC I for X-mas presents for myself.


----------



## Shade (Nov 30, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that whoever wrote the malebranche for the 3e MMII must have remembered the Horned Devil (subtitled Malebranche as an alternate name) back in 1e, but not known that it was renamed the Cornugon in 2e and had already appeared under that name in the 3e MM already.




I think I'm in the majority on this one, but I actually like the malebranche as a separate devil from the cornugon.  I'd like to think that it wasn't a case of confusion, but more one of "hey, that was a cool sounding name for a devil, why not give it another go?"


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 30, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> I think I'm in the majority on this one, but I actually like the malebranche as a separate devil from the cornugon.  I'd like to think that it wasn't a case of confusion, but more one of "hey, that was a cool sounding name for a devil, why not give it another go?"




Oh certainly. Even if a cool idea originates from a goof or a mistake, it's still a cool idea (and it might have been an intentional thing, who knows). I like the 3e MMII malebranche, and it stands on its own as a seperate baatezu caste, both thematically and in terms of utility in a game. 

I've used them quite a bit (when my PCs made the mistake of getting on the bad side of Corin and his particular Ministry).


----------



## Shade (Nov 30, 2006)

Speaking of goofs, I noticed I said I was in the majority, when I meant minority.    

I advanced one to 42 HD as a guardian for a particularly powerful pit fiend's citadel.  It nearly decimated the party, who was actually right on target for its CR at the time.   Good times.


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 30, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that whoever wrote the malebranche for the 3e MMII must have remembered the Horned Devil (subtitled Malebranche as an alternate name) back in 1e, but not known that it was renamed the Cornugon in 2e and had already appeared under that name in the 3e MM already.




I think it was deliberate, actually. "Malebranche" was a perfectly good name that was going unused (because cornugons were just cornugons), so they invented a new caste to fit it. 

I like the 3e malebranche, and I'm quite satisfied with the compromise.


----------



## dargoth3 (Dec 1, 2006)

WOTC have posted the ToC up on the Website

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061201a

Anyone know what a Hellbred is?

Sounds like some sort of Planetouched (Going purely off the name)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 1, 2006)

dargoth3 said:
			
		

> WOTC have posted the ToC up on the Website
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061201a
> 
> ...



Morbiczer described it earlier:


			
				Morbiczer said:
			
		

> New Race: Hellbred (When someone dies, and repents his sins in the moment of death, they can become helbred. They don't go to either Heaven or Hell. They fight against evil in Hell, and some will find final salvation and ascend to celestial planes, but most fail. The concept doesn't impress me much.)


----------



## dargoth3 (Dec 2, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Morbiczer described it earlier:






Ah thanks

Any idea what the Investiture spells do?


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 2, 2006)

I imagine they invest a character with qualities of the devil in the spell title.


----------



## dargoth3 (Dec 2, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I imagine they invest a character with qualities of the devil in the spell title.




Isnt that what Fiendform does?


----------



## morbiczer (Dec 2, 2006)

dargoth3 said:
			
		

> Ah thanks
> 
> Any idea what the Investiture spells do?




Again, I wrote about this earlier. 

This give you some benefits relating to the actual devil after which the spell is named. I think all of them run 1 round/level, and after they run out, the recipient is fatigued for one minute. Benefits form different investiture spells stack, but not those from multiple castings of the same investiture spell.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 2, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> I've noticed "Donation Web Pages" work well these days. Set up a "D&D Book Donation".  You might get lucky.
> 
> Heck, if people donate to a freakin' smashmyps3.com then I am sure some will donate for you to get more D&D books. Don't miss out!




bah, i don't need charity, just a better paying job or a less expensive family.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 2, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Out of curiousity, is Takhisis mentioned anywhere as one of the deities having a divine domain in Baator? If so she'd be on Avernus.




after having seen the ToC, it certainly seems that they used Tiamat, but not Takhisis.  not a surprise in the least.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 2, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> after having seen the ToC, it certainly seems that they used Tiamat, but not Takhisis.  not a surprise in the least.




      Three reasons come to mind:

      1.  DL fans and authors haven't been that fond of mixing the core cosmology with DL.

      2.  Tahkisis is dead.  

      3.  If you go by what I've gathered of their latest portrayals, the DL deities would all cluster on Acheron, Mechanus, and Arcadia.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 2, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> after having seen the ToC, it certainly seems that they used Tiamat, but not Takhisis.  not a surprise in the least.




I just figured that since FC:I included Dragonlance gods, and Torillian gods, on top of the Greyhawk and real-world historical pantheons, that FC:II might follow the same path and include Takhisis's domain on Avernus (much to the expected lament of some DL folks).

There aren't any exclusively single-sphere FR gods in Baator anyway, so no problem there, and FC:II included the historical pantheons so I'm very happy. I was also hoping to see DL included, but I can't win all the time.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 2, 2006)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Three reasons come to mind:
> 
> 1.  DL fans and authors haven't been that fond of mixing the core cosmology with DL.



Krynn = clueless primes^n 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> 2.  Tahkisis is dead.




Yeah, that would make a difference... I'd read the book, but I'd forgotten about that. Whoops. And that I suppose is a way out for the authors to avoid having to make a decision as to whether to keep that particular DL deity in the Great Wheel were she'd been since 1e, at the risk of cheesing off some DL folks who seem to have never wanted her there for the past few decades.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 2, 2006)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> If you go by what I've gathered of their latest portrayals, the DL deities would all cluster on Acheron, Mechanus, and Arcadia.



That would make an interesting spread for a pantheon. You'd end up with a lot tighter religious imagery, for one thing.


----------



## Pants (Dec 3, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> after having seen the ToC, it certainly seems that they used Tiamat, but not Takhisis.  not a surprise in the least.



Takhisis = Tiamat, previous canon screwups notwithstanding.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 4, 2006)

keep in mind that unless i'm not remembering correctly, the DL and FR references in FC1 don't extend beyond those listed in the appendices in the back...


----------



## Pants (Dec 4, 2006)

BOZ said:
			
		

> keep in mind that unless i'm not remembering correctly, the DL and FR references in FC1 don't extend beyond those listed in the appendices in the back...



Well....

Kiaransalee is primarily a FR Goddess correct? She's mentioned in the Demonweb Pits and Thanatos entry. I know that in MotP she was referred to only as a 'drow goddess of death' or something.

That's the only real instance that I know of, but I feel as if I'm forgetting something...


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2006)

Though technically she was also in Greyhawk at one point. I'm just glad Orcus kicked her to the curb like the little slattern vengeance crazed cow she is. Good riddance! 

In any case, I am interested to see why Glayza got this layer. I mean it's okay they got rid of the night hag. But Glazya?! That made no sense to me.

Shem,

You concur with me on that or you think it's okay?


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 4, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Kiaransalee is primarily a FR Goddess correct?




No, she's primarily (as in, originally) a generic goddess. She didn't appear in the FR book _Drow of the Underdark_, but appeared later on (and for the first time) in the generic book _Monster Mythology_. _Dead Gods_ cemented her place on Oerth and the Vault of the Drow there, but she didn't take on a major role in the Forgotten Realms until _City of the Spider Queen_ (although she did appear in _Demihuman Deities_). She also showed up in the _Living Greyhawk Journal_ article about the Vault of the Drow.

So, anyway, she's not any more a FR goddess than Sehanine Moonbow or Hanali Celanil, or for that matter Lolth.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2006)

Rip,

That was my understanding too. (Hey us Orcus historians do need to get our facts straight IF we want to start tearing the hearts of our enemies out. Right?)  

In any event, I'm glad she's out of Orcus' hair. Now he just needs to get Demogorgon, Graz'zt and the rest in line too.


----------



## Pants (Dec 4, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> No, she's primarily (as in, originally) a generic goddess. She didn't appear in the FR book _Drow of the Underdark_, but appeared later on (and for the first time) in the generic book _Monster Mythology_. _Dead Gods_ cemented her place on Oerth and the Vault of the Drow there, but she didn't take on a major role in the Forgotten Realms until _City of the Spider Queen_ (although she did appear in _Demihuman Deities_). She also showed up in the _Living Greyhawk Journal_ article about the Vault of the Drow.
> 
> So, anyway, she's not any more a FR goddess than Sehanine Moonbow or Hanali Celanil, or for that matter Lolth.



Ah okay. I can't remember seeing her mentioned in any (if any) generic 3e sources until now (Fiend Folio aside).


----------



## BOZ (Dec 4, 2006)

that probably has a lot to do with the fact that most generic 3E books don't mention racial gods outside the Moradin/Corellon/Garl/Yondalla/Lolth "main guy" thing.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 5, 2006)

Boz is right. Unless it's "core" to the PHB, the other books barely mention it/her.


----------



## Shade (Dec 5, 2006)

Designer Interview is up.

I like this:



			
				Wizards said:
			
		

> Then there's Tiamat, former ruler of Hell's first layer; has she regained her throne?






			
				RJS said:
			
		

> Tiamat is an interesting case. Since she's a goddess, and having been discussed at great length in several other sourcebooks, we didn't spend a lot of time on her. Bel kept his seat and he's still having trouble with the other archdevils (they don't trust him since he double-crossed his predecessor). He's brokered a deal with Tiamat to gain use of the abishai, though what the goddess of chromatic gains in exchange remains a mystery. Propped up by her favor and that of the Dark Eight, Bel's place seems secure... for now.




That helps explain how Bel can fend off other pit fiends.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 5, 2006)

cool!  i'll have to look at that when i get home.


----------



## RichGreen (Dec 5, 2006)

Shade said:
			
		

> Designer Interview is up.




Just read it. It's an interesting article that explains why some 1e & 2e canon was left out or changed.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## sckeener (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm not impressed with Robin Laws...I'm sure Robin is a good writer, but I didn't like the tone of the comments...I got the feeling that Robin was writing for the goody-goody law PCs who just want to hack and slash....

I wanted more mythos....and leaving out the Ancient Baatorians was wrong.....a couple of lines were all that were needed....


----------



## Psion (Dec 5, 2006)

The interview sounds pretty good to me. Robert Schwalb is an author I generally trust and it sounds to me like he took the right approach.

Moat of the stuff I don't like are mainly references or tie ins to other current D&D products I don't like.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 5, 2006)

Any specific ones Psion?

*also is a fan of RJ's* He does stellar work.


----------



## Psion (Dec 5, 2006)

Warlock, Tome of Magic.


----------



## RichGreen (Dec 5, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I'm not impressed with Robin Laws...I'm sure Robin is a good writer, but I didn't like the tone of the comments...I got the feeling that Robin was writing for the goody-goody law PCs who just want to hack and slash....
> 
> I wanted more mythos....and leaving out the Ancient Baatorians was wrong.....a couple of lines were all that were needed....




I'm a big fan of Robin Laws -- he has written some excellent RPG books over the years (Feng Shui, Over the Edge, Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering etc). I think this will be  good book.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 6, 2006)

Psion,

See I don't mind the tie in for Warlock. (Considering its background I'd like to see it expanded). But I do see your point regarding Tome of Magic. (I mean Shadow casting in the Nine Hells? Just doesn't make sense nor does binding either.)


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2006)

Excerpts are up.

I've changed my mind and WILL be buying this.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 8, 2006)

> Assassin devils are native to the Nine Hells of Baator.The first of their kind were mere shadows of vaguely sentient, malicious will. Asmodeus ordered these creatures collected, melted in a pit of fire, and their essences reforged into assassin devils.




So they _do_ mention Ancient Baatorians!


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 8, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> So they _do_ mention Ancient Baatorians!




*grin*

Even if Schwalb and Laws didn't directly talk about them in the book, I think there's plenty of room to see them by implication, such as that description of the Dogai, and heck just the fact that Kintyre is described as being in the ice of Cania.


----------



## Shade (Dec 8, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> So they _do_ mention Ancient Baatorians!




Sweeeeeeeeet.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 8, 2006)

dargoth3 said:
			
		

> Anyone know what a Hellbred is?





I bet it's what they use for the buns on Stench Kow hamburgers!


Er... sorry...




Do they have stats for Stench Kine in 3E?


----------



## Shade (Dec 8, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I bet it's what they use for the buns on Stench Kow hamburgers!




 

It also goes well with deviled eggs.


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 8, 2006)

> Do they have stats for Stench Kine in 3E?



Yes.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 8, 2006)

I'm feeling cautiously optimistic in regard to this book. The fact that they have "real" names for the devils (instead of just "X devil") is a good sign. I also like the fact that Glasya has taken over Malbolge from The Hag Countess (aka Malagard), since I never really thought she was baatezu enough for the role. I hope there's at least a mention, however small, of Grand Duke Moloch though, since the last we saw of him (that I recall offhand) was in _The Apocalypse Stone_, where his final status (e.g. if he survived) was nebulous.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 8, 2006)

Investiture spells -- freaking brilliant! I have been looking for a D&D mechanic like this ever since I read some o-l-d WD articles on RuneQuest demons.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 8, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> And that I suppose is a way out for the authors to avoid having to make a decision as to whether to keep that particular DL deity in the Great Wheel were she'd been since 1e, at the risk of cheesing off some DL folks who seem to have never wanted her there for the past few decades.




From a Dragonlance point of view, Takhisis and Tiamat are not the same.  So Takhisis has resided in Krynn's Abyss (not to be confused with the Great Wheel Abyss) since day one (_Tales of the Lance_ notwithstanding).  Tiamat, who Takhisis was modeled after, has resided in the 1st level of the Nine Hells, as seen in _H4 Throne of Bloodstone_.

As for the so-called Dragonlance deities in FC 1, that is in actuality powerful entities who were so enamored with the true majesty of Dragonlance's gods that they took their names for themselves.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  

BTW, that Hellfire Warlock looks sweet!  Who did the art?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 8, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> From a Dragonlance point of view, Takhisis and Tiamat are not the same.  So Takhisis has resided in Krynn's Abyss (not to be confused with the Great Wheel Abyss) since day one (_Tales of the Lance_ notwithstanding).




   Although they combined her with Tiamat and moved her to the Nine Hells on day two (1E Manual of the Planes).    


> As for the so-called Dragonlance deities in FC 1, that is in actuality powerful entities who were so enamored with the true majesty of Dragonlance's gods that they took their names for themselves.  Yeah, that's the ticket.




     Nah, they're the DL deities--just not from the DL that the novels and current game products take place on.  If the xD&D cosmology can have at least two distinct Orcuses and Demogorgons (1E vs. BD&D Immortals sets), then I expect there's room for at least two different Krynns, one in the D&D multiverse and one outside it.  

    Matthew L. Martin


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 9, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> From a Dragonlance point of view, Takhisis and Tiamat are not the same.  So Takhisis has resided in Krynn's Abyss (not to be confused with the Great Wheel Abyss) since day one (_Tales of the Lance_ notwithstanding).  Tiamat, who Takhisis was modeled after, has resided in the 1st level of the Nine Hells, as seen in _H4 Throne of Bloodstone_.
> 
> As for the so-called Dragonlance deities in FC 1, that is in actuality powerful entities who were so enamored with the true majesty of Dragonlance's gods that they took their names for themselves.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> BTW, that Hellfire Warlock looks sweet!  Who did the art?




Planescape addressed all of this I thought   Doesn't Takhisis live in a domain called The Abyss, that exists in the middle of Baator?

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 9, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> BTW, that Hellfire Warlock looks sweet!  Who did the art?




Am I mistaken, or does the Hellfire Warlock do his regular eldritch blast damage, *+2d6 per hellfire warlock lvl*????

That would seem to imply that if he's a Warlock 10/Hellfire Warlock 10, by lvl 20, his blast is doing somewhere upwards of 24d6 or 25d6....but at the cost of a constitution point.

Is that true?

Banshee


----------



## clarkvalentine (Dec 9, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Planescape addressed all of this I thought




From Planescape's point of view, that's possible - I'm not terribly familiar with it. As far as Dragonlance is concerned, its world and cosmology exists apart from the Great Wheel, despite what any previous supplement may claim.

People who like Soth in Ravenloft have him there, people who like Takhisis == Tiamat can have that, and Chemosh can be CE and live wherever the FC says he does. DL can ignore that all it wants for its own purposes, and do what it wants with its own pantheon and cosmology. It's a great compromise.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 9, 2006)

clarkvalentine said:
			
		

> Chemosh can be CE and live wherever the FC says he does.




Chemosh is lawful evil in all editions of the game. Not all gods match the alignment of the plane in which they dwell.

Takhisis' realm in Baator is called Abthalom.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 9, 2006)

clarkvalentine said:
			
		

> People who like Soth in Ravenloft have him there, people who like Takhisis == Tiamat can have that, and Chemosh can be CE and live wherever the FC says he does. DL can ignore that all it wants for its own purposes, and do what it wants with its own pantheon and cosmology. It's a great compromise.




Agreed and agreed, Clark.  

(And please note my earlier comments are all in good fun.)

I'm a fan of both Dragonlance and Spelljammer.  When I play Dragonlance, it has a separate cosmology.  When I play Spelljammer, Dragonlance is connected.  And yes, I do believe that Takhisis equals Tiamat, Paladine equals Bahamut, and Soth went to Ravenloft.  At the same time, I keep campaign worlds separate these days.  

So that's my self-contradictory answer for the day.  Join us next week, for another exciting upisode of Huh---wha...?


----------



## Immak Antunel (Dec 9, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> BTW, that Hellfire Warlock looks sweet!  Who did the art?




That's gotta be Baxa. He's one of the more distinctive of current DnD artists.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 9, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Am I mistaken, or does the Hellfire Warlock do his regular eldritch blast damage, *+2d6 per hellfire warlock lvl*????
> 
> That would seem to imply that if he's a Warlock 10/Hellfire Warlock 10, by lvl 20, his blast is doing somewhere upwards of 24d6 or 25d6....but at the cost of a constitution point.
> 
> Is that true?




No, because it's only a three level prestige class.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Wereserpent (Dec 10, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Agreed and agreed, Clark.
> 
> (And please note my earlier comments are all in good fun.)
> 
> ...




Even if I did run an SJ game I would keep the Cosmologies separate.  The Dragonlance Deities are too good(or evil, or neutral) for all those deities in the Great Wheel.


----------



## clarkvalentine (Dec 10, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Chemosh is lawful evil in all editions of the game.




Not sure I'm understanding - all editions of Planescape? He's NE in Dragonlance's view of things.    

Not that it really matters, as long as whatever setting rules you're using are consistent.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 10, 2006)

clarkvalentine said:
			
		

> Not sure I'm understanding - all editions of Planescape? He's NE in Dragonlance's view of things.




He was Lawful Evil in both _Dragonlance Adventures_ and in the Planescape sourcebook _On Hallowed Ground_. Where is he described as NE?


----------



## clarkvalentine (Dec 10, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> Where is he described as NE?




_Dragonlance Campaign Setting_ for 3.5, and also in _Holy Orders of the Stars_ (the divine caster handbook for DL 3.5) from Sovereign Press.

Like I said before, though, it's really a minor point, as there's no real necessity for multiverse/Great Wheel fans and DL purists to use the same information.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 10, 2006)

clarkvalentine said:
			
		

> Like I said before, though, it's really a minor point, as there's no real necessity for multiverse/Great Wheel fans and DL purists to use the same information.




True enough, but the bizarre part is that it contradicts the _specifically Dragonlance_ material from 1st edition. They're not required to be consistent with Planescape, Spelljammer, or Ravenloft, but you'd think they'd be consistent at least with stuff from their own setting.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 10, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> True enough, but the bizarre part is that it contradicts the _specifically Dragonlance_ material from 1st edition. They're not required to be consistent with Planescape, Spelljammer, or Ravenloft, but you'd think they'd be consistent at least with stuff from their own setting.



 : :\ :  

  You've never been a Dragonlance fan, have you?    

   Matthew L. Martin, Ex-DL Fan


----------



## Wereserpent (Dec 10, 2006)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> True enough, but the bizarre part is that it contradicts the _specifically Dragonlance_ material from 1st edition. They're not required to be consistent with Planescape, Spelljammer, or Ravenloft, but you'd think they'd be consistent at least with stuff from their own setting.




Welcome to Dragonlance my friend. 

Newer material also overrides older material, so he is NE.  A much more fitting alignment IMO, if you have read the Dark Disciple series you will know what I mean.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 11, 2006)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Welcome to Dragonlance my friend.
> 
> Newer material also overrides older material, so he is NE.  A much more fitting alignment IMO, if you have read the Dark Disciple series you will know what I mean.




Right.

We changed a number of the alignments from their 1e/2e representations for 3e.

Sirrion is now CN, was N
Shinare is LN, was N
Lunitari is LN, was N
Chemosh is NE, was LE
Mishakal is NG, was LG
Branchala is CG, was NG
Majere is LG, was NG

Stuff like that. 

If Dragonlance is the only setting that now contradicts its 1st or 2nd edition edition, I will be incredibly surprised.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Dec 11, 2006)

About the Kocrachon:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/FC2_Gallery/101491.jpg

(from FCII Gallery)

Is this in the book?


----------



## morbiczer (Dec 11, 2006)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> About the Kocrachon:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/FC2_Gallery/101491.jpg
> 
> ...




No, it isn't in my copy. And I don't recognize some of the other pictures either. I'd say that the gallery includes pictures for stuff which was cut from the book.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 11, 2006)

cross-posted from the WotC boards, which i got to first:



			
				RJS said:
			
		

> In my sections, I looked at a lot of materials, including the 1st edition Monster Manuals and Manual of the Planes, the Ed Greenwood articles in Dragon Magazine, Faces of the Fiends, Planes of Law and the rest of the Planescape setting sourcebooks, as well as the current materials that cover the Hells.




YAY!!!!!!!!!   



			
				RJS said:
			
		

> One thing that we did not cover were the Ancient Baatorians. At some level, we assumed that the baatezu eliminated rival elements to reinforce their monolithic control of the Nine Hells. Through misinformation and propaganda, anything other than the baatezu has been relegated to something lesser. It doesn't matter if it's true or not; it's true to the baatezu, and their word is law.




well, there, you have that...


----------



## BOZ (Dec 11, 2006)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> If Dragonlance is the only setting that now contradicts its 1st or 2nd edition edition, I will be incredibly surprised.




heh... QFT.  point well taken.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

*keeps to the fact that at least Cam writes good Dragonlance books* 

Anyway I got FC II. Wasn't as impressed as I initially hoped but...eh. I consider this a decent purchase...and it wasn't my money anyway!   *cheers for birthdays...sort of*


----------



## BOZ (Dec 12, 2006)

LOL  right on.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

Boz,

Hey I always try to look on the bright side of something even when it's not as good as I had originally thought. Helps a good bit too with D&D purchases of late.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 12, 2006)

So... is this new ruler of Malboge something new for this book, or has it got roots somewhere that I'm not aware of?


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

J-dawg,

Glasya is hardly a newbie unlike the previous Lady of the 6th. She's the daughter of none other than Asmodeus himself. I'm reasonable sure BoVD mentioned her in Asmody's write up, but other than that and some 2nd edition materials that I can't recall, that's the extent of my knowledge.

Glasya was kind of the "wild child" of the Arch fiends. While she wasn't in tune with her father's wishes, she was, however, completely his kid. She enjoyed seducing paladins (I believe some where in the hundreds) and then turning them and/or torturing them for fun. She was pretty much the opposite of Fierna, as she was by far way more intelligent than most female devils, and certainly could play the game in the Arch Fiend court with the best of them. 

That's about all I recall off hand when it comes to Glasya. Probably better off getting Shemmy to come in and explain it better. I mean he is a fiend after all.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 12, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> So... is this new ruler of Malboge something new for this book, or has it got roots somewhere that I'm not aware of?




Glasya first appeared in Dragon #75 and was published in the 1e Monster Manual II. She got a lot of detail in _Guide to Hell_ and a small stat block and description in the _Book of Vile Darkness_ as one of Asmodeus' minions (next to Martinet). She also played a part in an adventure in Dungeon #25. 

She's appeared in every incarnation of the Hells except Planescape's.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 13, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> What is said about the ultimate fate of Moloch?




Moloch is mentioned in the list of noble baatezu currently exiled in Avernus. Amon the Wolf is there, too. 

So he's apparently still alive. My guess is it was only an aspect the PCs encountered in _The Apocalypse Stone_. That would make sense; there was no need to manifest in his true form there when an aspect would do just as well.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 13, 2006)

That would be my guess too Rip. 

*is glad Rip helped him out with Glasya* I knew she didn't appear in PS but I was curious/forgetful how far back into 2nd/1st edition she existed.


----------



## Ripzerai (Dec 13, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *is glad Rip helped him out with Glasya* I knew she didn't appear in PS but I was curious/forgetful how far back into 2nd/1st edition she existed.




She actually was mentioned in Planescape - she gets a brief shout-out on page 30 of _Faces of Evil: The Fiends_, where she's described as the consort of the Lord of Minauros.

So she's appeared in every incarnation of the Nine Hells.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 13, 2006)

My bad then. though admittedly Rip, it's been a while since I looked at Faces of Evil. Or Hellbound either.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 13, 2006)

I think it's kinda funny that the authors of these various books keep advancing a timeline and shift around the leadership of Hell.  Since 1e, there have been an awful lot of Lords of the Xth circles.

Of course, if you also have _Book of Fiends/Legions of Hell_ then you've got yet more options for Hellish leadership.


----------



## Psion (Dec 13, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Of course, if you also have _Book of Fiends/Legions of Hell_ then you've got yet more options for Hellish leadership.




Tome of Horrors has some too. Even an alternate or deposed ruler of Hell.

Yeah, but I lurve Legions of Hell. Good chance that anything herein that contradicts it will get knocked aside by me.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 13, 2006)

Heh. Yeah, forgot about those too.  All of those options lead me inevitably towards a less structured approach to the lower planes, that can accomodate vast courts of fiendish nobles of various stripes jockeying for position with each other.


----------



## Psion (Dec 13, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Heh. Yeah, forgot about those too.  All of those options lead me inevitably towards a less structured approach to the lower planes, that can accomodate vast courts of fiendish nobles of various stripes jockeying for position with each other.




Sort of the same here, but a different angle. I have multiple hells. More room for all the baddies to co-exist (or not co-exist... you get my meaning.)


----------



## Shade (Dec 13, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I think it's kinda funny that the authors of these various books keep advancing a timeline and shift around the leadership of Hell.  Since 1e, there have been an awful lot of Lords of the Xth circles.
> 
> Of course, if you also have _Book of Fiends/Legions of Hell_ then you've got yet more options for Hellish leadership.




I think this is the main reason that demons have eclipsed devils in popularity over the years.  The infinite nature of the Abyss allows a designer/DM to more easily create a new ruler and just drop it in.   I know that's one of the main reasons I prefer demons.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 13, 2006)

Their motivations--and therefore the amount of forethought needed to "successfully" run them--are also a lot simpler and easier for a lot of DMs to grok, I'd imagine.

I don't actually have much interest in the law/chaos axis of alignment so I tend to lump the fiends together and see their "type"--baatezu, tanar'ri, or even oni, demodand, yugoloth, obiryth, or "other"--heck, I'll even throw stuff like efreet and slaadi in there--as not very important, and my versions of the lower planes tend to feature all of the fiends much more on the same page about basic motivations and whatnot.  I prefer to see archdevils and demon princes alike as the heads of lower planes "city states" each with their own Machiavellian courts of nobles and retainers, and each making and breaking alliances with each other all over the place.

I suppose in many ways, that is more like the Abyss than Hell, but like I said; the law/chaos axis of alignment doesn't interest me very much.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 14, 2006)

Well chaos interests me because a) Orcus wouldn't settle for being a lord of Hell. He want it all. and b) fiends and outsiders are two different things. While Slaadi can be considered "fiendish" the fact is all they care about is themselves and maybe an agenda or two. Fiends, on the other hand, in general, like to commit acts of evil. Chaos/law fiends, it's all the same. Evil is still a definable trait among them. Lumping all the outsiders together just seems wrong.

While Psion can and does have multiple hells, I'm sure he'd be the first to admit "Slaadi don't belong in Hell." At least I hope not. 

Don't get me wrong, I love Legions of Hell, Book of Fiends AND Tome of Horror Arch Devils. I just accept the fact that sometimes Hell changes in ways I don't expect. Advancing the time line or no. Also the fact, if some of the arch devils didn't fall, the PCs would be mad if it didn't have some occurrence, especially thanks to them.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 15, 2006)

having changes in hell makes sense, but making sense out of all the changes is the challenge.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 15, 2006)

This is true Boz. I have hard enough time changing my underwear!  Okay maybe not that hard but still!


----------



## Evilhalfling (Dec 26, 2006)

any new comments from people who got this for X-mas?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 26, 2006)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> any new comments from people who got this for X-mas?



Not yet - it hasn't arrived yet, but when it does, I'll post my thoughts. . . whatever they might be. 

Looking forward to it getting here, I must admit. Along with some other Christmas goodies.


----------



## Pants (Dec 26, 2006)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> any new comments from people who got this for X-mas?



Haven't read through it all yet.

First impressions:
Not a big fan of the converted monsters. The amnizu, in particular, feels decidedly 'unfinished.' Its regeneration is not given a detailed description, its SLA's have been pared down A LOT. I'm all for streamlining and cutting out redundant (or useless) SLA's, but this kinda went too far.

The updated abishai are good though they still got gipped with a crummy picture (seems to be a recurring trend throughout editions). 

The Narzugon lost its cool gaze attack. The xerfilstyx, in particular, lost some of its cooler (albeit fairly annoying to deal with) abilities.

The writeup on the River Styx mentions that the memory loss isn't permanent. I always thought it was, but I may be wrong.

The table for devil advancement fails to mention where some of the new devils fit into the advancement. I'm not sure if this was intentional having just flipped through the chapter, but it's worth noting if other people want to correct me.

The Pact Primeval part is kinda blah, but if viewed primarily as JUST baatorian propaganda it's actually kinda cool then. 

The part on devilish pacts is pretty cool.

The overall flavor text is really good, especially the writeups on the layers of Hell.

The malebranche and nupperibo pictures are fantastic! Bel looks much cooler now too. Otoh, Levistus has the worst picture evar. 

No Ancient Baatorians 

Just first impressions, more thoughts as I delve deeper.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 26, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> The writeup on the River Styx mentions that the memory loss isn't permanent. I always thought it was, but I may be wrong.




Previous descriptions had it being permenant upon direct exposure/immersion or ingestion, and it handicaps the river to have it be otherwise IMO. Though in theory the memories could be recovered since they tended to eventually sediment on the bottom of the river in physical form like pebbles or tiny pearls (that hydroloths among others tended to collect and hoard).


----------



## Pants (Dec 26, 2006)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Previous descriptions had it being permenant upon direct exposure/immersion or ingestion, and it handicaps the river to have it be otherwise IMO.



I believe full exposure was reduced to a number of days, IIRC.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 26, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Haven't read through it all yet.
> 
> First impressions:
> Not a big fan of the converted monsters. The amnizu, in particular, feels decidedly 'unfinished.' Its regeneration is not given a detailed description, its SLA's have been pared down A LOT. I'm all for streamlining and cutting out redundant (or useless) SLA's, but this kinda went too far.
> ...





Does it seem like they cut a lot of things down to, more or less, just what they do in ten rounds of combat?


----------



## Pants (Dec 26, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Does it seem like they cut a lot of things down to, more or less, just what they do in ten rounds of combat?



Probably, but, IMO, there's a sweet spot between cutting out the chaff and cutting EVERYTHING down to 'is this usable in a sample 3 round combat?' That's one of the problems I had with the Mearls ogre mage (a creature that seriously needed an overhaul.... just not in that way). Some abilities SHOULD remain to keep the flavor of the creature.

I don't think that FCII hit that sweet spot.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 27, 2006)

*Statblock Format Changes*

Looking over the new monster section, I noticed that WotC continues to tinker with the new statblock format. But in my mind the format has taken a huge step backwards with this latest iteration  . . . There is now an "SA" line that appears before SQ, and is just a regurgitation of information supplied in the Special Actions, Attack Options, and Spell-Like Abilities lines. Seems like a complete waste of precious space, offering little benefit.

Also, there don't seem to be any parenthetical notes with the special ability listings with DCs, attack bonuses, and so forth -- for example, breath weapon (DC 21), trample (2d6+12), etc. I find these very helpful in play and would like to see them return.

And shouldn't most (all?) of these devils have the aligned strike (evil, lawful) attack option, as seen in the MMIV?

I still don't like having Strategies and Tactics, Sample Encounters, Ecology, Society, Typical Treasure and so on as standard passages for EVERY entry. For some monsters, yes please -- go nuts. But too many times these sections read like filler text. Less really can be more.

For my money, the current Paizo incarnation as seen in Dungeon seems to be much better that the last few changes from WotC -- maybe the designers need to stop futzing with the format? The utter inconstancy with little incremental improvement is getting to be a real detriment.


----------



## Pants (Dec 27, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> For my money, the current Paizo incarnation as seen in Dungeon seems to be much better that the last few changes from WotC -- maybe the designers need to stop futzing with the format? The utter inconstancy with little incremental improvement is getting to be a real detriment.



I'm sure it's more people not knowing exactly how to format them yet. The formating on the new stablock is a big pain, I've been using it for several months now and I still get hung up on some things. But yes, it is annoying.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 27, 2006)

Fiendish Codex 2 was my favorite D&D book of the year, on flavor text alone. Until I got to the Monsters chapter. 

Don't get me wrong, there's some great stuff in there. Lots of innovative mechanics (like the legion devils, which share a hit point total for all the devils in the troop, or the harvester devil having a permanent sanctuary up), but the conversions left something to be desired. Like the aminzu. Lost feeblemind, lost real fireballs... and the summon baatezu isn't even described! Plenty of stuff that got cut out of the book was mentioned elsewhere - the ronwe devil as an example of lateral promotion, harvester devils wielding soul-trapping scythes.

The book obviously got some last minute editing (a suspicion confirmed by the Design and Development article), but it apparently needed just a little bit more...

Demiurge out.


----------



## Psion (Dec 27, 2006)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, there's some great stuff in there. Lots of innovative mechanics (like the legion devils, which share a hit point total for all the devils in the troop, or the harvester devil having a permanent sanctuary up), but the conversions left something to be desired.




This seems to be a trend for 3.5 -- nerf the SLAs of Outsiders. If you compare 3.5 outsider stats to pre-3.5 even in the MM, you'll see that someone left their spell like abilities back in the netherworld.

In other news, I find myself liking third party fiends more every day.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 29, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I believe full exposure was reduced to a number of days, IIRC.




lame.


----------



## Shade (Jan 10, 2007)

If the designers are still checking this thread, can you answer this?

The amnizu lists summon baatezu in its stat block, but doesn't list the ability in the text.  In MMII, it had the following:

Summon Baatezu (Sp): Once per day, an amnizu can attempt to summon 1d3 advespas or 1 amnizu with a 50% chance of success. 

Was this intended to be dropped, and if not, were you intending to keep it the same?  

I'm guessing it got accidentally cut when the advespa was dropped, and probably would have been replaced with bearded devils.


----------

