Demon Lords and Princes: How *Bad* Should They Be?

[Kain Darkwind]

Dragon #223 said something along the lines of "The Lord of the First, contrary to popular belief, was not Tiamat."

And no, I don't. The Hag-Countess was explicitly a baatezu as recently as Guide to Hell, and I prefer her that way. Baalzebul, though a former archon, is also a baatezu by now.

Ah. Well, it is good that she is not a Lord of the Nine anymore anyways, or she'd have to be reduced to a CR 19-22 ish. However, since she is a dragon-god, she should probably be weaker than the most powerful dragons....CR 24 sounds about right for her. Otherwise she's useless. I'm still not sure what I'll do if I want my 3rd level players to get her horde though. Maybe she should be CR 1 for me, and have a scalable advancement for you fanboys who want uber 1337 dragons. That way you can have your CR 3 billion wastes of space, and I can have the real Tiamat in my game.

 

[Gold Roger]

I'm not feeling the anger here, and I read the guy's original post.

See, people have a right to be irked at a lack of internal consistancy, if that is one of the things that is important to them about the game. I don't think he's going to go climb a water tower over the crap-stats, he's making a point. If all powerful creatures in the game need to be no more than 20th level challenges, gods, dragons and everything else needs to come sliding down the totem pole.

In that case he's making my point: The game has to be put into a certain parameter all around. But I don't see a CR 6x monsters dicefreak agreeing with my non-epic position.

I feel a bit irked about a lack of internal consistency from a system that was build for internal consistence based on guidelines, but I see it simply as a problem of the game as whole. However, personal attacks and quite a bit of snarkiness where slung around in considerable amount, which for me constitutes more than being rightfully irked, but feels more like misdirected anger.

Again, I restate myself: Puting things within the limits of twenty level play is not artificially limiting, rather extending your own game behind the games core limit is artificial, so I don't think anyone should wonder if he doesn't find much official support for that move.

I think current D&D at level 11-20 constitutes for quite an epic experience already. If people want to go further than that, it's ok with me. But don't force the rest of the comunity with you into the unlimited hard to pin down reaches of your personal style.

That many people argue at once for downpinned archdemon stats and on the other hand for a playstyle that has no defined limits and measurements seems nonsential to me.

 

[Nebulous]

Ditto. For me the game falls apart mechanically past 20th level anyway, so that's a good endpoint to aim for.

I think the game starts to really far apart at 15th and beyond. I think the CR's for the fiendish lords are just fine.

 

[Kain Darkwind]

In that case he's making my point: The game has to be put into a certain parameter all around. But I don't see a CR 6x monsters dicefreak agreeing with my non-epic position.

I feel a bit irked about a lack of internal consistency from a system that was build for internal consistence based on guidelines, but I see it simply as a problem of the game as whole. However, personal attacks and quite a bit of snarkiness where slung around in considerable amount, which for me constitutes more than being rightfully irked, but feels more like misdirected anger.

Again, I restate myself: Puting things within the limits of twenty level play is not artificially limiting, rather extending your own game behind the games core limit is artificial, so I don't think anyone should wonder if he doesn't find much official support for that move.

I think current D&D at level 11-20 constitutes for quite an epic experience already. If people want to go further than that, it's ok with me. But don't force the rest of the comunity with you into the unlimited hard to pin down reaches of your personal style.

That many people argue at once for downpinned archdemon stats and on the other hand for a playstyle that has no defined limits and measurements seems nonsential to me.

You'd be surprised then. If you have CR 12, 13HD balors, then your PCs are true planar terrors at level 15. If you have CR 18 great wyrms and phoenixes, and CR 17 titans and solars, then yes. Demon Lords at CR 19-23 doesn't bother me so much. I'm not saying that everyone has to play epic games...I'm saying the cosmos should make sense. If Level 20 is the world shattering level you suggest it is, then by all means have the planar rulers right up there.


But that is not the world shown to me with the Monster Manual 3.5. The world shown to me by the MM is a world where level 20 adventurers are powerful entities in their own right, but not world stomping invincible beings of godly power. The world shown to me by the MM has a CR 20 top tier regular demon called the balor. The world shown to me by the MM has a variety of challenges, and by no means are level 20 characters the top of the heap.

In the world shown to me by the Monster Manual, demon princes can't survive, can't make SENSE at the power level suggested by Hordes of the Abyss. They would even have issues with the power level in the Book of Vile Darkness. Because even if there are no advanced balors, or dragons with more HD than the great wyrms of the MM3.5, you still have issues like...8 balors. Or in the case of Hordes, 2 balors. If it is a stretch for the Prince of Demons to squash a balor, or even a worrisome fight, then that just doesn't make sense. Not to me. I don't see how one can be the almighty Prince of Demons or King of All Hell for untold eons, if there are goddess-romping archwizards who have twice the HD, or even full grown dragons who can tear a hole in your reign.

 

[DaveMage]

I've been playing in epic levels for a while now, and the game hasn't broken down at all for us. For those who've had it break down, perhaps you need a better DM. (Or one with more time to plan his or her games.)

As I said in the other thread, I would have liked the Princes and Lords to be consistent with the way they were presented in the BoVD, but updated to 3.5.

 

[Psion]

I've been playing in epic levels for a while now, and the game hasn't broken down at all for us. For those who've had it break down, perhaps you need a better DM. (Or one with more time to plan his or her games.)

You know, I really resent this sort of rhetoric. It pretty much boils down to "if you don't enjoy the way we like to play, you are incompetant." No, I just don't enjoy some aspect of play at that levels. It's not whether it's doable; it's whether it's enjoyable.

 

[The Serge]

You know, I really resent this sort of rhetoric. It pretty much boils down to "if you don't enjoy the way we like to play, you are incompetant." No, I just don't enjoy some aspect of play at that levels. It's not whether it's doable; it's whether it's enjoyable.

No, that's not what he's saying. What he's responding to is everyone making a "statement of fact" that games breakdown after a certain level (I've read as low as 12 recently). I'm not seeing folks say, "The games I've played break down at suchandsuch level," just "The game breaks down." These folks aren't defending their preference to play low to mid-ranged games, they're claiming that higher level and epic games don't work. That's just as bad as the attack you seem to be suggesting was made... Which is not what I read at all.

It's been my observation that most folks who do not like epic games or feel that they fall apart at a certain level have either never played them or have played them infrequently... Or, and I've seen this, haven't played them in the proper environment (underprepared DM, underprepared players, or whatever else you want to call it). Most. I know that there are those who just like lower level games and that's fine, but I rarely see this as simply as when folks start digging for answers, it's one of the two issues I illustrated.

 

[Gold Roger]

In the world shown to me by the Monster Manual, demon princes can't survive, can't make SENSE at the power level suggested by Hordes of the Abyss. They would even have issues with the power level in the Book of Vile Darkness. Because even if there are no advanced balors, or dragons with more HD than the great wyrms of the MM3.5, you still have issues like...8 balors. Or in the case of Hordes, 2 balors. If it is a stretch for the Prince of Demons to squash a balor, or even a worrisome fight, then that just doesn't make sense. Not to me. I don't see how one can be the almighty Prince of Demons or King of All Hell for untold eons, if there are goddess-romping archwizards who have twice the HD, or even full grown dragons who can tear a hole in your reign.

Aye.

I feel a bit irked about a lack of internal consistency from a system that was build for internal consistence based on guidelines, but I see it simply as a problem of the game as whole.

But I simply don't think it's worth the big outcry. It's a problem that has to be fixed somewhere down the line.

The solution found may be questionable, but nothing more.

Beside, why please the dicefreaks and Planescapists that are all very adapt at comming up with their own stuff and indeed have done so, while ignoring the avarage gamer, who wants no epic gaming. Is your game hurt because Bobby and Sue can kill demogorgon and take his stuff. Or when I power down Grazzt with some plot devices, so my players can fight him at the end of our three years campaign that has just reached level 20?

Bottom line for me is that all this certainly is no reason to attack other playstyles or posters and get all worked up.

I don't like being called an asskisser because I defend a certain position, or get put into a certain playstyle only because I'm against a certain position and then being insulted for that playstyle (that isn't even mine). There have been some harsh generalisations that I don't think where necessary or civil.

 

[The Serge]

When Not Keeping It Real Goes Wrong!

For those curious to why there is an outcry for a balanced, internally consistent cosmology, we humbly present the following exploration of how the King of All Hell, Asmodeus the legendary Lord of the Nine, fares against the pathetic god of kobolds, Special K himself, Kurtulmak. Some of the following may disturb some readers. Viewer discretion is advised...

Battle Epica: Asmodeus vs. Kurtulmak

 

[Psion]

No, that's not what he's saying. What he's responding to is everyone making a "statement of fact" that games breakdown after a certain level (I've read as low as 12 recently). I'm not seeing folks say, "The games I've played break down at suchandsuch level," just "The game breaks down."

You are going to have a hard time convincing me of that.

I don't agree that the game breaks down at 12th level. IME, that sounds like an apt description of 1e and 2e. 3e freed me from that and lets me run players higher. I am currently running a 16th level game now and have run games into epic levels.

But...

These folks aren't defending their preference to play low to mid-ranged games, they're claiming that higher level and epic games don't work. That's just as bad as the attack you seem to be suggesting was made... Which is not what I read at all.

Not at all. I think they are wrong, but they weren't using similar derogatory charaterizations for those who didn't share their preferences.

It's not the stance that higher level games are playable that I am taking exception to. It's the way it was done.