Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

[Grover Cleaveland]

Stats for demon princes would be by far the least useful part of the book for me, and the first thing I'd like to see go if space is an issue.

Many people seem to like seeing full combat stats for the lords of the planes, but just as many object to the non-epic, non-deific level at which they're currently held. The result is an online population divided into fiercely opposed camps - the ones who like demon princes their non-epic PCs might have a chance at, the ones who like to see them take full advantage of the epic rules and be the logical conclusion to an epic-level campaign, and those who prefer planar lords who are equal to the gods themselves (as they were, more or less, in 1st and 2nd edition), able to defend their strongholds from divine interference, make pacts with gods as equals, and punish deities who neglect to give them the proper respect. These various camps seem to be so irreconcilable that the best solution seems to be to let fans stat them or not stat them as they please, and concentrating on giving interesting story hooks and flavor.

That goes for Dragon, too.

 

[bastrak]

Personally I'd like to see all the popular Demon Lords and Princes fully statted out for 3.5 for epic level play in this book. As I recall just about all of them in BoVD were CR20+ and mostly around the mid 20's. I'd either like them made tougher or the CR kept about the same.

I'd agree with Razz that they should be powerful enough to prove a challenge to PCs, yet not entirely deific.

 

[Shemeska]

I'd agree with Razz that they should be powerful enough to prove a challenge to PCs, yet not entirely deific.

And just to agree with Grover / Rip, a lot of us, myself included, can't stand to see such beings stated up like video game 'boss monsters' below the level of gods. Some of them predate the deities.

Honestly I prefer them unstatted. The stats too often don't accurately reflect their flavor and in game history.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't want full stats on them as that will take up 2 pages per, and that space could be used on cool new planes and new demons that ar CR 5-15 (the level most play at, I believe) and on cool flavor about how demons interact with each other, with devils, with mortals. Partial stats with a web enhancement - that sounds good.

 

[BOZ]

well, despite the very-vocal minority, i like the Demonomicon articles (can't wait to get the new issue, with Zuggs), and hope to see (and contribute!) more of the same.

 

[Shemeska]

well, despite the very-vocal minority, i like the Demonomicon articles (can't wait to get the new issue, with Zuggs), and hope to see (and contribute!) more of the same.

I like the Demonicon, I think it's one of the best parts of Dragon magazine in years. Hell it's been fraggin awesome so far. I hope to see more and I'd love to contribute. I just don't feel the stats have been handled properly, but it's not the fault of the writers at all since they simply have to toe the line that 3e has taken with them already in previous publications such as the BoVD. If I got a chance to write an article in the series that's the same standard I'd have to use, regardless of if I agree with it or not. Jacobs and company can't be faulted in the least for having to go with the 3e convention, I'm just saying I'd have preferred a lack of stats in the first place in this edition.

And how do you know for certain that it's only a "very-vocal minority" that feels that way about the stats? Because they don't agree with you? It's probably about equal between the three various camps who weigh in on the topic. I prefer unstatted demon lords, some people would prefer them statted up with full ELH rules and able to take down 3e type deities, while others want just big monsters in a CR 20ish range.

 

[Pants]

well, despite the very-vocal minority, i like the Demonomicon articles (can't wait to get the new issue, with Zuggs), and hope to see (and contribute!) more of the same.

I agree, they're the best articles that Dragon has had in a loooong time.

In fact, even if I don't always agree with the stats, they at least provide me with ideas should I ever want to stat them up myself.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I like the Demonicon, I think it's one of the best parts of Dragon magazine in years. Hell it's been fraggin awesome so far. I hope to see more and I'd love to contribute. I just don't feel the stats have been handled properly, but it's not the fault of the writers at all since they simply have to toe the line that 3e has taken with them already in previous publications such as the BoVD. If I got a chance to write an article in the series that's the same standard I'd have to use, regardless of if I agree with it or not. Jacobs and company can't be faulted in the least for having to go with the 3e convention, I'm just saying I'd have preferred a lack of stats in the first place in this edition.

And how do you know for certain that it's only a "very-vocal minority" that feels that way about the stats? Because they don't agree with you? It's probably about equal between the three various camps who weigh in on the topic. I prefer unstatted demon lords, some people would prefer them statted up with full ELH rules and able to take down 3e type deities, while others want just big monsters in a CR 20ish range.

I think he just meant that the majority of people are really enjoying the Demonomicon articles, whether or not they like the way the stats are being handled.

I know I can be counted in that majority--those are some great articles!

 

[Dr. Harry]

well, despite the very-vocal minority, i like the Demonomicon articles (can't wait to get the new issue, with Zuggs), and hope to see (and contribute!) more of the same.

How do you know it is a minority? I really like the Dragon articles, even with stats, but I don't want 1.5 - 2 pages per demon lord in the hardcover of numbers I'm never going to use.

 

[Erik Mona]

Honestly, the Demonomicon articles are so long that space isn't an issue one way or another.

--Erik