The Immortals Handbook

[CRGreathouse]

I don't (as yet) have that supplement - though I am of course interested in the material.

Franky though I don't jive with this whole Divine Rank 0 glass ceiling for Demon Lords, Archdevils or in this case ArchAngels. I can see why Sean designed them that way (for non-epic material) but frankly it does nothing for me and I dislike this whole 'powerful outsiders automatically serve the gods' baloney which you are forced to instigate as a result.

I don't mind Sean's take, because (as he says in AoA) you can just add lots of class levels.

While I've read over Anger of Angels, I can't yet recommend it as I haven't used too much of it in my campaign. We're testing out one of the races now with a PC angel (a grigori).

My interpretation isn't exactly your standard 'D&D' Asmodeus anyway.

I'm certain that yours will be much more interesting, and much better statted. Unfortunately, IMNSHO, this says less about you and more about WotC....

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi CR matey!

I don't mind Sean's take, because (as he says in AoA) you can just add lots of class levels.

Does he attempt to present any sort of Angelic cosmology not beholden to 'gods' though?

While I've read over Anger of Angels, I can't yet recommend it as I haven't used too much of it in my campaign. We're testing out one of the races now with a PC angel (a grigori).

Looking at my take on the Grigori they ended up a bit more like the Marvel Watchers than I had wanted, but it all fits very nicely.

Another potential interesting PC race are the Lerneans.

Both have been a bit of a bugger to rate effectively (you'll see what I mean eventually).

I'm certain that yours will be much more interesting, and much better statted. Unfortunately, IMNSHO, this says less about you and more about WotC....

Well I'll still take that as a compliment.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Does he attempt to present any sort of Angelic cosmology not beholden to 'gods' though?

AoA presents two types of angels: "bound" angels (servants of a particular god) and "free" angels (not servants of any god).

 

[Alzrius]

AoA presents two types of angels: "bound" angels (servants of a particular god) and "free" angels (not servants of any god).

To be perfectly fair, Sean's design for Anger of Angels was around Judeo-Christian mythology; that there is one supreme deity that made everything, angels included. So it's kind of hard for the product to present a deity-free hierarchy. It does try somewhat, however, having some means for other gods to exist (mostly evil ones), and why angels (and devils) wouldn't serve any particular deity.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi guys!

Indirectly I use the one god approach myself. For me the problem is one of scale, which is something Sean Reynolds doesn't really have to address when hes specifically catering for a non-epic/immortal campaign. He could just say his one god is a Greater Deity DvR 20 or even an Overgod and leave it at that.

Whereas as I look at it and see that a Solar is 'this' powerful and the Supreme Being is 'that' powerful, then ask yourself what exists in between.

You might be able to get away with the Angels as written (and leave it at that) if your one God was merely a Greater Power and you only used the one deity. However D&D is generally polytheistic with multiple Greater Gods and one such God couldn't have created multiple deities as powerful as itself (or even close to that power).

Also researching the Angels you will find many of the descriptions and powers truly epic in scale, so its a stretch to dumb them down in power so much.

 

[CRGreathouse]

For me the problem is one of scale, which is something Sean Reynolds doesn't really have to address when hes specifically catering for a non-epic/immortal campaign. He could just say his one god is a Greater Deity DvR 20 or even an Overgod and leave it at that.

Whereas as I look at it and see that a Solar is 'this' powerful and the Supreme Being is 'that' powerful, then ask yourself what exists in between.

Sean assumes the typical polytheistic D&D-style pantheon, even while working off of source material that is monotheistic. There are many references to "the gods" throught AoA.

He isn't writing a gods sourcebook, though, and makes no attempts to quantify the power of the gods themselves -- nor should he, as it is well beyond the scope of his work.

Also researching the Angels you will find many of the descriptions and powers truly epic in scale, so its a stretch to dumb them down in power so much.

Care to drop some quick examples? Frankly, I don't see how this 'proves' anything; the angels could simply have enough class levels to have taken a feat/class/prestige class/etc. that grants any abilty you care to name.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Something about them setting the stars and planets in the firmament and their orbits, I think.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Sean assumes the typical polytheistic D&D-style pantheon, even while working off of source material that is monotheistic. There are many references to "the gods" throught AoA.

He isn't writing a gods sourcebook, though, and makes no attempts to quantify the power of the gods themselves -- nor should he, as it is well beyond the scope of his work.

Indeed, which is why I would never criticise such a product for what it is.

I simply iterated that it does nothing for epic/immortal campaigns which the higher angelic ranks easily belong to. Therefore Sean (and I am sure he would admit it) dumbed them down for effectively non-epic campaigns.

Care to drop some quick examples?

Well I don't need to. If you own AoA read the Metatron entry which (if its the same as the preview on Monte's site?) relates some of the more esoteric aspects of the angels; though Sean covers this up with "but this may be because of some unusual perception-confusing ability he possesses".

Frankly, I don't see how this 'proves' anything;

Well it proves that he reduced the angels in power to fit within the constraints of a non-epic campaign. Whereas I am trying to do justice to the esoteric descriptions.

No big deal though, both approaches are valid, who is to say that Angels are one thing and not the other.

the angels could simply have enough class levels to have taken a feat/class/prestige class/etc. that grants any ability you care to name.

Any ability 'I' care to mention...I think not my friend.

How about Omnipotence?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Any ability 'I' care to mention...I think not my friend.

How about Omnipotence?

I think that "feat/class/prestige class/etc." can easily include divine/cosmic/omnific gifts, turning your comment right back around.

 

[Alzrius]

Indirectly I use the one god approach myself. For me the problem is one of scale, which is something Sean Reynolds doesn't really have to address when hes specifically catering for a non-epic/immortal campaign. He could just say his one god is a Greater Deity DvR 20 or even an Overgod and leave it at that.

As CRGreathouse said, Sean doesn't try to quantify other gods against God, but he makes some (somewhat) ambiguous notes about them. One of the most interesting parts of the book, for me, was when he talked about where evil gods came from. "Evil gods appeared, either forming themselves out of the darkness of Hell, splintering into independence from dark thoughts from God himself, or visiting from other realms." The idea that God was unable to stop himself from making evil gods, or that said evil gods came from some place beyond God's reach, is very interesting to me, as it seems to indicate limits on an otherwise limitless power.