Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 4653257" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey all! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />May have to curtail the ambition of the forthcoming angels feature within the new 4E Gods & Monsters pdf.Not only is the sheer volume of stuff ridiculous, but I sort of get the impression a large slice of it may not get used and basically just be 'for fun'.If you take a look at the 3E Epic Bestiary I did, you might think I had a fairly good understanding of the angelic hierarchy. You'd be wrong. This new hierarchy just totally blows it out of the water...or should that be out of the aether. Case in point, you may remember the Cherubim, well they are only halfway up the new table...and I should point out its a DOUBLE table with both common types AND esoteric orders of Angels with entries so obscure you Gustav Davidson won't have heard of them.Okay, so whats the problem? Well, there seems to be a LOT of angelic stuff above Metatron and he's a Level 60 Solo Soldier! I was sort of only planning on taking PCs to about Level 60, and even assuming a ceiling limit for the monsters of about Level 65, I still have 20 planned stat blocks above that! Technically none of the other planned hierarchies (Umbrals, Inevitables, Intelligibles, Pseudonaturals, Elementars) really extend much past the Level 60 mark...although obviously I'd have one or two ridiculous entries in each volume...but I wan't thinking of having 20 in the first third of the first volume!Is anyone interested in seeing this stuff statted (Its going to be some crazy 4E beyond Neutronium Golem to the nth power madness) even though its probably never going to get used? Or should I just concentrate on the lower level stuff (which is also brilliant - just not as crazy)?</blockquote>

Verification