but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).
And then along came Dragon Magazine and did by presenting their true forms and even a strict CR limit of (I think) 36 for the reigning prince of demons true form.
There was also an allusion toward the end of 3.5 that Asmodeus may be an Uber-deity on the same level as Ao (FR), or better. In any case, I am in favour of monster supplements particularly if they do an environment series. Why can't I get some aquatic creatures up in here?
It originally came from a late 2e book 'Guide to Hell', and while that particular notion conflicted quite heavily with a bunch of detailed stuff on the history of the 9 Hells before and since, they gave it a nod as a rumor/legend in the 3e MotP in case anyone wanted to run with it.
Even while GtH clearly stated that he was a greater deity.
In one case, Set of the Egyptian pantheon came into conflict with Prince Levistus the Lord of Stygia in Hell, and by force of will, Levistus actually causes a contraction of Set's divine domain (2e).
Yet the conflict was far from being resolved and the victor uncertain.
Other archfiends appear able to simply ignore deific power when on their home plane, even within those deities' divine domains, with one example being the archdemon Pale Night able to teleport within Lolth's divine domain, in the presence of Lolth's aspect who seemed confused and horrified since Lolth had previously restricted teleportation ability within that portion of her domain (3.5).
Which AFAIK is the only example and that it confused and horrified the aspect isn't written there. And the whole adventure was crap anyway, all depends on the PCs killing a certain low-level aspect on Lolth on her home realm to prevent it from reading something while the real full-powered Lolth is basically just sitting next door and could take over her aspect's role with ease.
"Oh, you slew my envoy aspect? Oh well *DIE* and now I just read it myself"
but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).
And then came Dragon Magazine and did by presenting their true forms and even a strict CR limit of (I think) 36 for the reigning prince of demons true form.
Quite, including the Apocrypha in the last print issue.
I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).
:D
Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.
Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?
It's a style preference for how gods and god-like entities are portrayed within the game, and how mortals interact with them. Give them outright stats and they're no different than an orc, just with bigger numbers - it's the difference between a campaign atmosphere of wonder and mystery and one that's an A-Z fight through the monster manual and then on to the gods as even bigger monsters.
D&D as a whole has handled the issue in a rather scattered, back and forth way. 1e gave them stats, 2e didn't (with very slender exception), and 3e was a mixed bag (with books of god stats -Erik Mona's comments on having to write out all of those numbers is amusing to say the least- but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).
As far as design on this issue, I'm pretty solidly in the Colin McComb camp of thought (2e Planescape guy, among tons of other things), presenting archfiends as effectively gods at least within their own native realms, and thus being beyond stats. If Pale Night the mother of demons -just to pick out one archfiend- predates every mortal and every god in the multiverse, and represents the concept of malevolent chaos made manifest, how do you give stats to a concept? How do you roll initiative versus the color blue? Etc. I think giving them numbers ruins the atmosphere and makes them not fantastic, but morbidly prosaic.
By not defining the upper bound of such entities, you give the freedom to set them as powerful as you wish within the bounds of each individual campaign. You want them to carbonize PCs of any level, they can do so with a thought. You want PCs to kill them and take their stuff? If that's your playstyle, you can define them as such. But it's a sufficiently polemic concept within D&D, with the game having waffled back and forth every edition, that the game probably shouldn't embrace defined stats, and leave that up to each DM.
I suppose. I prefer to use those gods and godlike beings as engame beings. Deicide, or the equivalent, is my favorite, even only way to end a campaign. And I prefer that the game designers creat the stats for me. Trying to come up with them is, to say the least, problematic. I want to challenge the PCs, not assured oblivion or easy as pie. The designers know better than me what to do with the numbers for that.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
I'm on board for a yugolothonomicon (or to tie in with in-game lore on the topic, just call it the Book of Keeping for a nifty 2e/3e reference).
:D
Just keep stats for archfiends as their avatars only and I'm cool with it all.
Do you have an inherent aversion to killing archfiends, archfey, demon lords, gods and other powerful near immortals?
It's a style preference for how gods and god-like entities are portrayed within the game, and how mortals interact with them. Give them outright stats and they're no different than an orc, just with bigger numbers - it's the difference between a campaign atmosphere of wonder and mystery and one that's an A-Z fight through the monster manual and then on to the gods as even bigger monsters.
D&D as a whole has handled the issue in a rather scattered, back and forth way. 1e gave them stats, 2e didn't (with very slender exception), and 3e was a mixed bag (with books of god stats -Erik Mona's comments on having to write out all of those numbers is amusing to say the least- but also books like Fiendish Codex I that presented archfiend stats, but had them being those of avatars and not defining the upper bound of their true forms).
As far as design on this issue, I'm pretty solidly in the Colin McComb camp of thought (2e Planescape guy, among tons of other things), presenting archfiends as effectively gods at least within their own native realms, and thus being beyond stats. If Pale Night the mother of demons -just to pick out one archfiend- predates every mortal and every god in the multiverse, and represents the concept of malevolent chaos made manifest, how do you give stats to a concept? How do you roll initiative versus the color blue? Etc. I think giving them numbers ruins the atmosphere and makes them not fantastic, but morbidly prosaic.
By not defining the upper bound of such entities, you give the freedom to set them as powerful as you wish within the bounds of each individual campaign. You want them to carbonize PCs of any level, they can do so with a thought. You want PCs to kill them and take their stuff? If that's your playstyle, you can define them as such. But it's a sufficiently polemic concept within D&D, with the game having waffled back and forth every edition, that the game probably shouldn't embrace defined stats, and leave that up to each DM.
I suppose. I prefer to use those gods and godlike beings as engame beings. Deicide, or the equivalent, is my favorite, even only way to end a campaign. And I prefer that the game designers creat the stats for me. Trying to come up with them is, to say the least, problematic. I want to challenge the PCs, not assured oblivion or easy as pie. The designers know better than me what to do with the numbers for that.
Personally, I'd rather get something that gave me examples and a toolkit for making my own, the Elder Evils book offered some of that back in 3.5 and I used it once or twice during hte course of a few of my games.
