Sorry about that... for some reason i was thinking there would only be two books the FRCG and the FRPG... i completely forgot about the FRMM, so yeah my bad.
Level 33 "Solo Primordial"?
- Thread starter doctorhook
- Start date
Sorry about that... for some reason i was thinking there would only be two books the FRCG and the FRPG... i completely forgot about the FRMM, so yeah my bad.
I'm not sure you've forgotten about anything. WILL there be a Monster Manual for FR? I sure hope not.
As far as I know, no. Three books and out, and the three are Player's Guide, Campaign Setting, and an adventure. Unique monsters would probably be in the CS, if you ask me, since it's the DM tool.
They aren't primordials. They're demon lords. The primordials were the creator beings and something like the ultimate elementals, as I understand it.
Many demonlords are nothing but primordials who have settled in the Abyss after it's creation.
See page 52 in the Monster Manual, the following demon lords are primordials: Demogorgon, Baphomet, Orcus
Dragon Magazine issze 364 adds annother primordial to the list: Yeenoghu (see page 7 under "Yeenoghu lore")
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
Not quite. They were primordials, but they were twisted, changed, and corrupted by the creation of the Abyss. They're not true primordials anymore.
That's like saying that Lolth isn't a goddess anymore and Tharizdun isn't a god anymore. They are tainted by evil, sure, but they're also still the cosmic powers they used to be.
Rorn's write up isn't any fundamentally different from Orcus' and Yeenoghu's except having accidently(?) written "primordial" as his monster role instead of brute, artillery, whatever
whether or not this is an error, I do believe it is a mistake. One of the bonuses of 4th is the well-defined combat roles make encounter building easy. You can raise or lower the level and swap out monsters and the encounter should run comprably, if not the same. Difficulty is in the encounter and estimated by level. Adding in a whole new monster type, one with all-around super stats for its level, seems like a bad move to me.
Edit: Furthermore, it goes against the intended transparency of 4e. They just dumped a new monster role on us with nary a sidebar to explain it. Without a peek behind the curtain, we're back to the 3e days of "dragons are stronger for their CR because it's assumed your party knows what they're up against."
Edit: Furthermore, it goes against the intended transparency of 4e. They just dumped a new monster role on us with nary a sidebar to explain it. Without a peek behind the curtain, we're back to the 3e days of "dragons are stronger for their CR because it's assumed your party knows what they're up against."
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
I don't think that's necessarily true. Depending on how warped they were by the energies of the Abyss, they could well be entirely different--or even weaker (or stronger)--entities.
I'd agree with you if I thought that doing it that way automatically meant that "primordial" was a stronger creature type. It may simply be different enough that making it its own type becomes an efficient shorthand.
I'm just guessing at all of this. I don't know anything in particular about the primordials. I'm just saying that I think it's premature to assume that it's either an error or a mistake (so to speak).
Similar Threads
