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

[Aus_Snow]

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.

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]

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.

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. ;-)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Oy, this argument again?

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]

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]

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.