Something weird about aspects

[Jack99]

Okay, so I was looking at some of the powerful monsters of 4e, and their aspects.

Orcus, a level 33 solo brute, can produce a level 24 elite aspect.
Yeenoghu, a level 28 solo skirmisher, can produce a level 22 elite aspect.
Baphomet, a level ?? solo brute?, can produce a level 22 elite aspect.
Tiamat, a level 35 solo brute, can produce a level 17 elite aspect.

So, is it just me or should Tiamat, who is a goddess, not be able to make a "better" aspect than demon princes?

Or maybe not. Anyone has some thoughts on this matter?

 

[NexH]

According to the D&DI Compendium, the Aspect of Tiamat is a level 17 Solo Brute, not Elite, so I guess that covers the level disparity somewhat.
There are a few reasons that may explain why it is Solo and not Elite, and, precisely, one of them is that, were it Elite, it would need to be higher level than 24, which in most cases might put it too close (chronologically in the campaign) to the battle with Tiamat herself.

 

[Shroomy]

According to the D&DI Compendium, the Aspect of Tiamat is a level 17 Solo Brute, not Elite, so I guess that covers the level disparity somewhat.
There are a few reasons that may explain why it is Solo and not Elite, and, precisely, one of them is that, were it Elite, it would need to be higher level than 24, which in most cases might put it too close (chronologically in the campaign) to the battle with Tiamat herself.

I just reviewed the stats for Tiamat's aspect and she's a really nasty Level 17 Solo. Even though the level of an aspect is essentially arbitrary (though I wonder if a divine aspect will always be a solo creature), I suspect your line of reasoning is correct; luckily, if you want a stronger aspect, a Level 23 version is almost trivial to create.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So, is it just me or should Tiamat, who is a goddess, not be able to make a "better" aspect than demon princes?

And perhaps she can. Don't mistake the aspects listed for the only aspects a given god/demon prince/whatever can create.

 

[Jack99]

According to the D&DI Compendium, the Aspect of Tiamat is a level 17 Solo Brute, not Elite, so I guess that covers the level disparity somewhat.
There are a few reasons that may explain why it is Solo and not Elite, and, precisely, one of them is that, were it Elite, it would need to be higher level than 24, which in most cases might put it too close (chronologically in the campaign) to the battle with Tiamat herself.

Yeah, I knew it was a solo, I just wrote the wrong thing. But there is a long way already from 17 solo to 35 solo. I mean, you could probably fight it already around level 15 or 16 (the aspect) while the real Tiamat couldn't be fought anytime before 30. I see no reason why they couldn't have made it say 22 or 24 solo. Which would put it to be encountered at the same time as other aspects.

I just reviewed the stats for Tiamat's aspect and she's a really nasty Level 17 Solo. Even though the level of an aspect is essentially arbitrary (though I wonder if a divine aspect will always be a solo creature), I suspect your line of reasoning is correct; luckily, if you want a stronger aspect, a Level 23 version is almost trivial to create.

I know. Or at least a level 22, if we stick to the designers' advice, and not modify by more than 5 levels.

And perhaps she can. Don't mistake the aspects listed for the only aspects a given god/demon prince/whatever can create.

Of course not. I just expected some more continuity in the first batch of created aspects, and then leave it up to DM's if they wanted to change. I didn't expect me to have to change it's levels to make sense (at least in my world). You know I am a big fan, Ari, but do you not think that it's a bit early to encounter and be able to handle aspects of Tiamat in the mid-paragon levels?

 

[Phaezen]

And perhaps she can. Don't mistake the aspects listed for the only aspects a given god/demon prince/whatever can create.

This is what was thinking. I could see powerfull beings being able to make multiple aspects, but having to split thier power between each, so the more you have, the less powerfull each one is.

Could make for an interesting campaign where the party has to destroy various aspects of a god, but as they destroy each aspect, the others will become more powerfull.

Phaezen

 

[Dire Bare]

Okay, so I was looking at some of the powerful monsters of 4e, and their aspects.

Orcus, a level 33 solo brute, can produce a level 24 elite aspect.
Yeenoghu, a level 28 solo skirmisher, can produce a level 22 elite aspect.
Baphomet, a level ?? solo brute?, can produce a level 22 elite aspect.
Tiamat, a level 35 solo brute, can produce a level 17 elite aspect.

So, is it just me or should Tiamat, who is a goddess, not be able to make a "better" aspect than demon princes?

Or maybe not. Anyone has some thoughts on this matter?

When aspects were first introduced in the 3rd edition Miniatures Handbook, they were all equally of the same level, around CR 10 if I recall. As more aspects were published in WotC books and Dungeon/Dragon magazines, their levels, or CRs, were all over the place. You even had a few deities (or near deities) with multiple aspects at different levels.

By the time 3rd edition ended and 4th began, it was pretty clearly established that the level of the aspect could be just about anything . . . whatever the specific adventure called for . . .

Looks like they are simply sticking with that rather sensible practice in 4e.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Of course not. I just expected some more continuity in the first batch of created aspects, and then leave it up to DM's if they wanted to change. I didn't expect me to have to change it's levels to make sense (at least in my world). You know I am a big fan, Ari, but do you not think that it's a bit early to encounter and be able to handle aspects of Tiamat in the mid-paragon levels?

Well, had I written the Tiamat entry, I'd probably have gone for a higher level myself, yeah. I don't think it's wrong to happen at paragon, necessarily--I can see some uses for it--but epic would make more sense to me.

But hey, not my section, and I wasn't asked.

 

[Jack99]

Well, had I written the Tiamat entry, I'd probably have gone for a higher level myself, yeah. I don't think it's wrong to happen at paragon, necessarily--I can see some uses for it--but epic would make more sense to me.

But hey, not my section, and I wasn't asked.

Fair enough. I did post in the hope of it was your doing, so that I could get an "official" explanation.

 

[Shroomy]

I know. Or at least a level 22, if we stick to the designers' advice, and not modify by more than 5 levels.

Man, was I having trouble with basic arithmetic last night!