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

[Gold Roger]

This is a fine personal point. However, it also completely and utterly antithetical to the core philosophy of 3E: options, not restrictions. Thus, it can never be supported by the current core rules.

No it isn't really. While 3.X prefers options wastly, another big part of it is the creation of baselines, to support a unified modular basis for expansion. That is the function of a locking point. Not to limit the options.

Gaming behind that point is perfectly fine and should even be officially supported, but the locking point is needed to create a true baseline for power levels.

 

[Ripzerai]

No, there are really aren't. I think I and others rebutted Jester's points more than adequately.

Specifically, Mirtek pointed out that Jester's idea might make Abyssal lords unkillable, but it means that they're not going to be ruling very much on their own plane. Jester's point wasn't a workable one at all (especially if it means the balor is going to get less powerful when it takes over the layer!). And if it still means that killng Yeenoghu is no harder (or even easier!) than killing a balor, there's still a problem.

And it's still a flaw in the book, unless the book itself says that balors who kill Yeenoghu become him, and Yeenoghu or his layer have some mysterious ability to compel them into survice. Which, according to JoeGK, it doesn't. The fact that a hole can be patched doesn't mean there never was a hole.

 

[Psion]

No, there are really aren't. I think I and others rebutted Jester's points more than adequately.

You think you rebutted it adequately.

Obviously, I don't agree. Actually, I am a little surprised. That's the kind of free thinking that pervades Planescape fan lore. The kind of stuff I've seen you write yourself.

(And the metric/imperial analogy was spot-on, or I'd like to know why not).

Because, simply put, it's not that simple. As I put it in the closing sentence of the quoted post, doing so would not turn out the most broadly usable product.

No, you don't. You don't need to use Juiblex either. But if you remove balors from the game then isn't their inclusion in the MM a waste of space?

There are plenty of creatures I never use in the MM. An Ythrak is a waste of space...

But again, and this is the thing that I keep trying to get across: the book is not being written for just me. Or for you. I find the that one subset of the D&D audience expects their desires be tended to ahead of all others simply unreasonable.

It's fine if I don't use the balor. Someone will. Lots of people.

And you know this. Most of your arguments had been predicated on the idea that the Abyssal lords were at least slightly tougher than rank-and-file demons, until it was shown that this wasn't the case. Can we at least agree that they should be slightly tougher than balors are?

As already stated by me upthread, IMC demon lords will be more potent than their servants and I think this reflects historical versions of the entities better. But I also don't think I'll ever use them in that format. If I do, it's not a travesty to scale them up. I am not feeling jipped.

I'm not just talking about my game, and I feel that the approach of making scalable entities serves the audience as a whole better than the "canon proper" version would have. Which versions would join the DDG as statistics nigh useless for anything other than armchair musings about who would beat who.

Come on. Making that concession isn't going to insult anyone's home games or chosen playing style.

Rip, I'm not picking my positions on this by tossing darts at a dartboard. There are reasons that I hold the stance I do. It sounds as if they created an extremely flexible product here that addresses as wide a swath of the audience as possible in the space alotted.

 

[Giygasfan]

First, I want to say hello to everyone as this is my first post on ENWorld.


Now, on topic:


First off, I don't care what you do In your own campiagn. If you want to use a CR 1/8 Demogorgon that gets beat up by goblins, thats fine w/me. I wouldn't want to play in a campign like that and you may have a hard time finding players, but if you can, fine, I don't care.

What I find offensive is that WotC preseants ArchFiends this weak as official. That is an insult to them and thier flavor. They should be at a minimum CR 30-50ish, prefeabley higher. WotC could include weaker versions as a variant rule, but the officail versions should be that powerful. Me and my freinds play high level Epic games, and I am annoyed by the lack of support from WotC in that area. Now, as for you people who say that you couldn't use those high of stats and it's a waste of paper, either decide that you are willing to get the book anyway or don't get it at all. one solution would be to put all the Archfiends (of all the alignments) in a sepreate book so that if you don't want to waste money one high level stats you can't use, you don't have to. but since WotC isn't likely to do that, They shouldn't nerf the Archfiends becouse of some whiny people claiming that high level epic stats are a waste of paper. I consider the stats in BoVD a waste of paper, as they are way to weak. Different people use different levels of power when they play, so since WotC can't make Arch Fiends for all of them, they should just make ones that make since from a flavor perspective, which is around the power that DF puts them.

 

[Psion]

And it's still a flaw in the book, unless the book itself says that balors who kill Yeenoghu become him, and Yeenoghu or his layer have some mysterious ability to compel them into survice. Which, according to JoeGK, it doesn't. The fact that a hole can be patched doesn't mean there never was a hole.

I think you are getting a little off track here. I don't think anyone said that this was canon or in the book. It was just offered as a way to explain why those who might choose to operate in this situation might explain it. There is a substantial part of the D&D audience who don't give two figs about canon.

 

[Uder]

When did Planescape canon become D&D canon? For that matter, when did D&D get a canon?

For baseline D&D, it's all about killing things and taking their stuff. If you can get to the top of the ladder (20th level by the core), one day you can go kick in Demogorgon's door and take his stuff.

Baseline stats for the baseline game make sense to me. For those that like epic gaming, they can take the time to advance the stat blocks. Heck, most epic players I've seen (using the word loosely - the only epic gamers I know of dwell online) enjoy tinkering, adjusting and advancing.

 

[Sammael]

For baseline D&D, it's all about killing things and taking their stuff.

If this is the case, then why does the DMG2 dedicate an entire chapter to show that this is only one of a multitude of gaming styles and preferences?

 

[DaveMage]

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.

I think you may be being a bit oversensitive, and you are putting words in my mouth.

Please don't do that.


The real question I have is, will epic play be supported in any more supplements from WotC, or is a level 20 ceiling now driving design? If it is, then, as I said earlier, it may be best for all of us to adjust our expectations for the future, and expect the BBEGs of future products to be challenges for level 20 PCs and below. This would be disappointing to me, but if this is the case, I would certainly consider adjusting the XP table to slow things down a bit.

As for WotC having done surveys or what not, one thing they can do is look at continued sales (or lack thereof) of the Epic Level Handbook compared to the other products and determine the need to support the high levels.

 

[Psion]

If this is the case, then why does the DMG2 dedicate an entire chapter to show that this is only one of a multitude of gaming styles and preferences?

I agree. That's why I feel that a base set of stats plus guidelines to tweak them are the most acceptable solution.

 

[Uder]

If this is the case, then why does the DMG2 dedicate an entire chapter to show that this is only one of a multitude of gaming styles and preferences?

Dunno, man, I don't buy every book out there. I'm a DM not a collector, but DMG2 doesn't sound like a core book to me.