GVDammerung said:Can't say.
But you are in gross error in imagining that what is being considered is "arbitrary interpretations of fluff," the fluff in the case of demon princes goes to very core of the concept of a demon prince. Or do you have your PC encounter "Ten hit dice, that does 1d10 damage per round" etc. I doubt it. You have them encounter a described monster. Why? Because the description, the details of the monster beyond the stats, matter. So too, even more so, with demon princes.
And you again are grossly in error when you assume such is "mostly irrelevant." Again, you have your PCs encounter "15 Hit Dice?" No. You do not, I'll wager. The details are far from irrelevant. Indeed, they help form the basis of much of the appeal of D&D, its mythology. Again, this is particularly true of demon princes, which are not just jumped up monsters, but the pinnacle of evil given form.
The attempt at an antiseptic, clinical "just the rules" approach flounders when considering D&D archetypes like the demon princes. Feats? Okay. PrCs? Maybe. Demon princes?
No way.
Read the quote again. I was specifically referring to the fluff interpretations taken up in this thread. Not 'fluff' in general, but interpretations of a very narrow generic brand of fluff. Did this book cast a dumb spell on this thread?