D&D 5E Chains of Asmodeus: Official 286-Page Nine Hells Book & Adventure Released!

For Extra Life, the children's hospital charity, Wizards of the Coast just released Chains of Asmodeus on DMsGuild in PDF format. Written by James Ohlen and Adrian Tchaikovsky, this book includes an adventure for levels 11-20, stat blocks for Asmodeus and the other archdevils, a corruption mechanic, and more.

Arcanum Worlds Presents: Chains of Asmodeus
Chains of Asmodeus is a 286-page source book and adventure for the Nine Hells written by legendary game designer James Ohlen (Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Dragon Age: Origins) and award-winning author Adrian Tchaikovsky (Children of Time, The Tiger and the Wolf, The Doors of Eden). This book is beautifully illustrated with haunting art from Sergei Sarichev, Sergey Musin, Julian Calle, Sebastion Kowoll, Paul Adams, Luis Lasahido, and the Aaron Sims Company.

Travel through the Nine Hells to save your soul in this tome that includes:

• 50+ High Challenge Monsters
• Stat Blocks for Asmodeus, Lord of the Nine, and all major Archdevils
• 20+ Infernal Magic Items
• New Item Corruption Mechanic
• Details on all Layers of the Nine Hells, with Beautifully Illustrated Maps created by John Stevenson
• A Fiendish Adventure for Levels 11-20

The book includes full stat blocks for Asmodeus (CR30), Beelzebub, Belial, Dispater, Fierna, Glasya, Levistus, Mammon, Mephistopheles, and more including Bel, Zariel, and a ton of monsters and NPCs.

You can pick it up for $29.99 on DMsGuild.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He didn't say it was simplicity for simplicities sake. Do you even know what your talking about in this case? Have you compared the statblocks?

I have seen MMM-style statblocks, yes. I liked the equipped gear and spellcasting options creatures used to have, and consider losing these in the new format a negative, a simplification without value to me.

 

[Irlo]

Yeah. That the entirety of the problem. They only care about money.

Much like the folks in charge of TSR back in the day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Much like the folks in charge of TSR back in the day.

But to results that were much more favorable to my preferences.

 

[dave2008]

I have seen MMM-style statblocks, yes. I liked the equipped gear and spellcasting options creatures used to have, and consider losing these in the new format a negative, a simplification without value to me.

That is fine if it is a negative for you; however, that does not mean it is simplification with the only purpose being simplification. Why can you not accept the possibility that you simply don't like the changes despite that there are valid reasons for them? That doesn't mean you have to like them.

As an example:
In the new statblock designs they are removing long lists of slot based spellcasting and going with a more curated list + including described powers. This gives you what you need to run the monster in the statblock - no looking up required (conceptually at least). That is moving closer to the 4e monster design, which a lot of people hail as the best D&D monster designs.

So you may not like the change (I am not 100% behind it myself), but there is a perfectly valid reason for it: to make the monsters easier to play at the table. Whether they achieve that is aTBD.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is fine if it is a negative for you; however, that does not mean it is simplification with the only purpose being simplification. Why can you not accept the possibility that you simply don't like the changes despite that there are valid reasons for them? That doesn't mean you have to like them.

As an example:
In the new statblock designs they are removing long lists of slot based spellcasting and going with a more curated list + including described powers. This gives you what you need to run the monster in the statblock - no looking up required (conceptually at least). That is moving closer to the 4e monster design, which a lot of people hail as the best D&D monster designs.

So you may not like the change (I am not 100% behind it myself), but there is a perfectly valid reason for it: to make the monsters easier to play at the table. Whether they achieve that is aTBD.

Fair enough. I don't like it, and I don't think it is helpful. I never found 5e monsters hard to run, and consider the loss of nuance and the feeling that the creature is part of the world not worth any gain made for "ease of use".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That is fine if it is a negative for you; however, that does not mean it is simplification with the only purpose being simplification. Why can you not accept the possibility that you simply don't like the changes despite that there are valid reasons for them? That doesn't mean you have to like them.

As an example:
In the new statblock designs they are removing long lists of slot based spellcasting and going with a more curated list + including described powers. This gives you what you need to run the monster in the statblock - no looking up required (conceptually at least). That is moving closer to the 4e monster design, which a lot of people hail as the best D&D monster designs.

So you may not like the change (I am not 100% behind it myself), but there is a perfectly valid reason for it: to make the monsters easier to play at the table. Whether they achieve that is aTBD.

I personally prefer the new style. I like monsters to be stat block complete at the table. That is, I do not have to lookup anything outside the statblock. It is not as bad with a VTT.
I also do not see the point of a monster that will last 3 or 4 rounds having nine or ten spells to cast in combat.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

As much as a like the tactical choices as a DM of upcasting spells, not having to juggle spell slots while tracking everything else is a win for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I personally prefer the new style. I like monsters to be stat block complete at the table. That is, I do not have to lookup anything outside the statblock. It is not as bad with a VTT.
I also do not see the point of a monster that will last 3 or 4 rounds having nine or ten spells to cast in combat.

So it can make decisions on what resource to use, just like the PCs do? Simplifying the statblocks makes the creature less a creature that exists in the setting (very important to me), and more a rules widget.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As much as a like the tactical choices as a DM of upcasting spells, not having to juggle spell slots while tracking everything else is a win for me.

I guess I just don't see running combat in 5e as being so complicated that we needed to simplify the monsters. Level Up doesn't do this, and their monsters are the best I've seen in 5e.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Deleted