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

[GVDammerung]

It's a good counter to the way 2e overpowered some of the best monsters in the game to the point where they were no longer useful... outside of the part of the game that takes place on a comfy armchair.

A good deal of D&D takes place, proverbally, in "a comfy armchair." DMs read far more than they use in a great many cases, and probably consider more than that. That is part of the appeal of D&D to the DM, imagining the possibilities and choosing which to make real for the players and how to do so. Players well consider their characters, at least most do in my experience. D&D is an immersive experience for many and part of that immersion is thinking about the game even when not yet playing. And part of what makes the "armchair" aspects of D&D so appealing is the game's mythology as it enriches what would otherwise be a much drier experience. I think you sell the game short again to dismiss its "armchair" aspect so out of hand.

Indeed, part of what makes D&D appeal to more people than some other fantasy games is, in part I believe, its rich mythology. In part, it saves DMs time, but equally it draws the reader in more than a more bare bones "just the Rules" approach. Indeed, some games are little more than "good" mythology - Call of Cthulthu, VtM. D&D hits a nice balance. Respect that balance. Respect the "armchair!"

 

[Kain Darkwind]

Herein lies the problem. You fundamentally do not understand the positions of those who think differently than you. Repeating the same assertion over and over again for every post in these two threads is not going to change it, because those who do not agree with you are operating under different assumptions than you.

Gosh golly gee, you are right! That must be why I am asking the other side to explain their position while explaining my own. And I have yet to hear a solid reason for a base line demon lord that is under a balor's CR. I'm beginning to think that there actually isn't one. And I've read all the posts in the two threads on the matter, including yours. I've heard the idea that stats higher than what is presented in FC are worthless because players can't beat them. I've heard the idea that the entire cosmos should be reset to lower levels all around. I've yet to hear how the current cosmos works with the current stats. And I'd like to hear it. Saying I won't understand is running away from the matter at hand. Give me your explanation if it is different and better than the other ones I've heard. If I don't agree with someone's explanation, I'll say so. What I'm concerned about with this farce is that there has been no explanation other than the lame one of "so we could make them playable by everyone" No one has said that the gods need to be lowered to those levels. No one has said that great wyrms need to be lowered. (Well, a few people did, and that's fine, but that's still a change to the cosmos for the sake of compatibility...just in the opposite direction of mine)

And here it is: AFAIAC, the MM does not show me a world. It gives me a toolbox. If you think back, recall that the 3.0 MM had all the high end fiends weaker. They were up-sized for 3.5 because the design team thought it would better support play through 20 levels. It was a mechanical and gameplay consideration, not a canon one.

If you look at my post answering the OP, for the purposes of my game, I see archfiends in the uper 20s and 30s CRs. And I think canon supports that as well. And I think the fact the demonomicon articles putting fiends in the CR 30 range should show that the CR20 range was not a canon decision, but a toolkit one. Why? Most players don't play high enough for those stats to ever be used in play. The set of stats that would actually get used are most likely to be the ones printed, or close to them. Not the ones that reflect canon.

Right. And I heard that. What I'm saying, is that putting a baseline that low (HD 20-27) is foolishness. We can debate whether or not Demogorgon should be CR 30 or CR 50, but I think everyone agrees he should be significantly more powerful than a balor, no matter what, right? And poor Jubilex should be too.

It's not about making it a toolkit decision. You can do that and still maintain cohesion throughout the material. For instance, dragons. Need a weak dragon? Wyrmling. Need a powerful one? Adult. Need an epic one? Great Wyrm. Need an even more powerful epic one? Advancement table.

The demon lords had something like that as well. Aspects. If you wanted a mid to high level challenge with a demon prince, you could use an aspect. Base line were CR 9-11, if I remember correctly. They could have presented aspects, clearly stated as such, for the CR 20-23 crowd. The fact that they didn't implies that they do not consider demon princes more powerful than great wyrms. Despite the flavor, despite the history, despite the common sense that says "balors < demon princes", they chose to go a different route. A route that makes no cosmological sense. A route which has not been adequately explained without metagame concepts by its defenders.

 

[Gold Roger]

I've yet to hear how the current cosmos works with the current stats.

Well, add the two sentences:

"Demon lords can control their own layer at will. This sets their power even over that of a god(who is limited to his divine realm) while on a layer they control."

Raises the question why one sentence was cut from the FC1 for space reasons (because, as far as I know something along that line was handed in), but works for me.

 

[Uder]

A good deal of D&D takes place, proverbally, in "a comfy armchair." DMs read far more than they use in a great many cases, and probably consider more than that. That is part of the appeal of D&D to the DM, imagining the possibilities and choosing which to make real for the players and how to do so.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I've been DMing enough to wear out several armchairs. I was referring to those that never ever play, just read, and yet still insist on dictating how the stats should be presented, if at all.

Back to the basic topic... presenting baseline monsters is good for the game, since the rules make it easy to advance them to fit your campaign. The sadist in me also likes it because it stirs up people who play the message-board game, yet never sit on either side of a game screen.

 

[GVDammerung]

Returning demon princes (and hopefully archdevils) to their kickable status is very far from the strawmen you present.

As Shade notes, they never lost "kickable" status; it was rather a matter of how and by whom. What has been done here, apparently, it to make them easily "kickable." Or reasonably "kickable" by a 20th Level party, if you prefer. I might see that if there were no such thing as a campaign, if every progression to 20th level occurred in isolation. They do not.

In published settings, one campaign follows the next. So if party No. 1 kicks Demogorgon, he is kicked when party No. 2 comes along. That degrades the metatext of that setting.

In a home brew, most DMs I know do not create a new homebrew everytime they start new characters. Their homebrews build over time and many character archs, so the same dynamic is in effect. Once Demogorgon is kicked, he is kicked, degrading the metatext.

And once Demogorgon, Grazzt and Orcus are each kicked, each by a different party? The Abyss just lost a huge and major dynamic that animates the whole. The game is poorer.

Kickable need not, and should not, mean easily kicked. Kicking a demon prince should not be something any party, even a 20th level one, calmly contemplates, let alone sees as a reasonable possibility. I agree that demon princes should, by some measurre, be kickable. I do not believe they should ever be easily, reasonably or predictably kickable.

Demon princes represent the pinnacle of evil given form. Consider that for a moment.

And what does a 20th level part represent? The pinnacle of anything other than character advancement? No.

So, the pinnacle of evil incarnate should be kickable by any group that has managed to obtain 20th level (with all the magic that emplies)? No. Not unless one is a hopeless power gamer and/or PC egotist.

Special. Demon princes are, by defination, special among their kind, even unique. 20th Level PCs are not, not to the same degree, among their kind. They are exceptional, perhaps, but the next campaign will see another set rise to an equal level. They are not then as special, and certainly not unique. When you consider that the PCs embody no metaphysical archetype, they are even less special and far from unique.

The idea of easily, reasonably or demonstrably kickable demon princes then completely falls apart. Demon princes should be kickable only under conditions or circumstances that fully meet their role in the D&D cosmology. Not as just another big monster. Demon princes should never been seen as just bigger monsters. While not deities, neither are they overgrown umberhulks.

 

[Kain Darkwind]

Well, add the two sentences:

"Demon lords can control their own layer at will. This sets their power even over that of a god(who is limited to his divine realm) while on a layer they control."

Raises the question why one sentence was cut from the FC1 for space reasons (because, as far as I know something along that line was handed in), but works for me.

You can click my Demogorgon in my sig to see how it can be handled as well, but that's not REALLY the point here. If you have to make changes either to the cosmos or to the demon lords in order for them to make sense, then by definition they don't make sense as they are. Whether those changes are reducing balors back to 13HD, adding planar control to the archfiends or advancing Demogorgon to CR 45 is not the point....the baseline offering doesn't make sense.

If WotC gave us Strength 10 for ogres, and Strength 16 for orcs, are we out of line to say that ogres have traditionally been stronger than orcs and therefore the stats don't make sense? It's the same thing. Stats don't make sense without changes are stats that don't make sense.

 

[Uder]

As Shade notes, they never lost "kickable" status; it was rather a matter of how and by whom.

Not true at all. 2nd edition came along and told us we were roleplayers, munchkings, etc. and childish for wanting to beat up these wonderful things that only game designers should be able to play with.

I'm glad to see these critters moved closer to the default ceiling of power in D&D.

Demon princes should be kickable only under conditions or circumstances that fully meet their role in the D&D cosmology. Not as just another big monster. Demon princes should never been seen as just bigger monsters. While not deities, neither are they overgrown umberhulks.

Planescape fluff is where this idea arose, and outside of Planescape (or any other campaign setting where it's necessary to define the status quo) I'd rather see this idea stepped on and removed from the game.

 

[Gold Roger]

If WotC gave us Strength 10 for ogres, and Strength 16 for orcs, are we out of line to say that ogres have traditionally been stronger than orcs and therefore the stats don't make sense? It's the same thing. Stats don't make sense without changes are stats that don't make sense.

Orcs and ogres aren't metaphysical beeings that live in a metaphysical realm. An archfiends layer control for me isn't part of his stats, just like "worships Grumsh" isn't part of an orcs stats for me. It's flavor. I don't need rules or stats that tell me "demogorgon can kill all demons under his rule at will". If you're on demogorgons layer and challenge him you die in a horrible way no mortal can resist. I don't need stats for that.

 

[Uder]

Gosh golly gee, you are right! That must be why I am asking the other side to explain their position while explaining my own. And I have yet to hear a solid reason for a base line demon lord that is under a balor's CR.

Perhaps that demon lord is weaker in tactical combat than a balor? Maybe CR doesn't rate comparative powers between monsters but general challenge when used for figuring XP?

Or, maybe, just maybe, the already not-very-granular CR system breaks down at high levels and creatures with vastly different capabilities have to share a short range of numbers?

 

[GVDammerung]

I was referring to those that never ever play, just read, and yet still insist on dictating how the stats should be presented, if at all. .

Not sure how we would suss these folks out. And I'm especially not sure their opinions should not be fully considered. Imagining they understand what they choose to read, I think their opinions would be legitimate and worthy of consideration. But anon.

Back to the basic topic... presenting baseline monsters is good for the game, since the rules make it easy to advance them to fit your campaign.

I might feel somewhat differently if there were better guidelines to do this but 8 bullet points? I am dubious. As a DM I like less work, not more, when dealing with stats. Which gets us back to a point I think you may be tacitly conceding here - demon princes, however you get them there, should be the biggest and baddest, fitting their historic role in the mythology and their status as the physical embodiment of the pinnacle of evil.

The sadist in me also likes it because it stirs up people who play the message-board game, yet never sit on either side of a game screen.

Now, there you go again. Unless you are peeking in windows, you have no way to know who actually plays or DMs and who just reads. And you are discounting readers out of hand. See my first comment immediately above. You are implying that anyone who is concerned is not a "real" player or DM, yet there is no possible way you can substantiate this. It is then a slur on those who take issue with the approach, more generally. Name calling by subtler means.