are these titles worth picking up if one is planning on running a long term metacosmology game?

I'd say no, except for the celestial stats in BoED. Personally, I find that BoVD and BoED have a ridiculous and heavy-handed view on good and evil. Additionally, most of the mechanics from BoVD have been reprinted in the much greater FC:I.

What about the fiend folio, the fC1 and fc2 vs bovd?

which one of these supplement sis worht getting.

To put the other side of the picture, I find both very useful in fleshing out the alignments, although there are a couple of things in each book that you need to be careful with. Vet feats and spells before use. Other than that, well worth getting.

something questionable about the feats regarding balance?

FCI imo is the best of the lot but that's bias against FCII because I don't like the direction they took Hell though the book is still quality. FCI just has so many ideas, so many threads tying it across information through all the editions for D&D vets its a major present.

I'd say BoED is about half garbage, BoVD less so because it has some great PrCs for villains to use and some interesting monsters.

If you cosmology is your criterion measure of value, then FCI and FCII give you a lot more meat--descriptions of layers, back history of figures plus stats for their aspects, and generally more "atmosphere" for the relevant planes. The presented crunch--feats and PrCs are also directly relevant to the planes.

BoVD and BoED sort of split the difference between providing philosophy and crunch for Evil and Good players, respectively, to which planar materials are a subset. BoED does have the monopoly on statting many Good planar creatures, though, which might be a draw.

Ive always wondered with the stats for demon lords.

obvioulsy they are 'statted' in terms of there 'aspects'. And these stats dont use epic rules, because epic is optional ( i really wish they did use epic however)

but the actual demon lords/ archangles. ARe they actually gods officially? AS in, do they have devine rank, and how much more powerful would they be? (dieties and demigods is a terrible benchmark since it was realeased prior to ELH).

as far as I can tell, its up to the DM how powerful they are. I like them equal to gods in some respects, others like them to be lesser and others want them to be greater than all the gods on their plane of rulership.

It really all depends.

more specifically what i meant is do there true forms have divine rank?

more specifically what i meant is do there true forms have divine rank?

Well that depends on the sources that you're looking at. 3e doesn't have stats for their true forms, though adding divine rank to their aspects is always one option to make them stronger.

However we do know that Abyssal Lords have an ability on their home plane to affect their layer(s) of the Abyss in a similar capacity as a deity can affect a divinely morphic plane (though the archfiend's ability appears to exceed that of a deity).

Some archfiends have actively sought godhood on top of their status as archfiends, though 3e has tended to dance around the issue and not make any of them gods (because doing so would openly set the bar higher than some DMs and players would want them at), but have the capacity to grant spells to worshippers acting as a conduit to their alignment or plane which provides the clerical magic.

I'm not averse to some of them being actual gods, but I'd keep archfiend and deity status both distinct and seperate from one another. Neither deity nor archfiend is "better" than the other, but both have drawbacks and benefits to a being holding such status. It's very situational.

For the statting of archfiends, I recommend you check out Dicefreaks: community.dicefreaks.com

They've got solid material on the powers of Hell (in a 9-part PDF called "the Gates of Hell"), and they're in the process of doing the Abyss and Upper Planes. They use epic rules to very good effect.

In a manner similar to Shemeska's suggestion, the archfiends have power similar to but distinct from divinity: rather than 'gods', they are 'cosmic entities', in the same level of power but with different strengths and drawbacks.

If you want to ru a campaign that deals with the constant struggle between good and evil on a cosmic scale, then yes, I would get the books.

However...

There are a number of people on these boards who believe these books portray what WotC has written is the end all/be all of good and evil. That simply is not true.

A lot of people here ignore the numerous times it is stated in both books that Exalted and Vile characters go above and beyond standard good and evil. BoED and BoVD are not the rule. They are the exceptions. The extreme exceptions.

So if you want to deal with the exreme's of good and evil, then yes, get these books. Both have a lot of goodies for Exalted and Vile PCs and NPCs.

If you're not worrying abou the cosmic struggle between the ultimate and penultimate forces of the Holy and Unholy, then save ur money.

BTW, fiend folio is just another name for an MM like book. It in no way reflects its content, as there are plety of non-fiend and even non-evil creatures in it.

What about the fiend folio, the fC1 and fc2 vs bovd?

which one of these supplement sis worht getting.

Fiend Folio has by far some of the best monsters ever, not nessessaraly extraplanar but still, just damn good monsters

Ive always wondered with the stats for demon lords.

obvioulsy they are 'statted' in terms of there 'aspects'. And these stats dont use epic rules, because epic is optional ( i really wish they did use epic however)

but the actual demon lords/ archangles. ARe they actually gods officially? AS in, do they have devine rank, and how much more powerful would they be? (dieties and demigods is a terrible benchmark since it was realeased prior to ELH).

I would go with DV 0. Immortal, and some other nice abilities.

What about the fiend folio, the fC1 and fc2 vs bovd?

Which one of these supplements is worth getting?

FC1 is amazing.

But the actual demon lords/ archangels. Are they actually gods officially? As in, do they have divine rank, and how much more powerful would they be? (deities and demigods is a terrible benchmark since it was released prior to ELH).

D&Dg is also a terrible benchmark because they apparently didn't have any idea what god stats should be like.

Most archfiends/similar beings are not gods, but some are. Archfiend is a separate, but in some ways equivalent, status to deity. So Orcus, for example, is both an archfiend and a god. Juiblex, though, just an archfiend.

I'd say no, except for the celestial stats in BoED. Personally, I find that BoVD and BoED have a ridiculous and heavy-handed view on good and evil. Additionally, most of the mechanics from BoVD have been reprinted in the much greater FC:I.
Yes, I fear I have to say that's exactly my thought to it. The celestial creatures are the only thing really usefull in them.

something questionable about the feats regarding balance?

Not all of them. But I do have my doubts about some (off hand the one that inflicts Golden Ice on touch and Vow of Poverty come to mind)

To answer the god question, acording to BOVD none of the archfiends are gods, although Orcus is closest to getting there. He was a god once but as a diferant guy and as such reverted to himself and LOST his divinty (that last bit from TOM).

Though BoVD's stance is a total retcon of previous material. BoVD's design stance was to provide archfiends as CR 20-30ish campaign ender monsters, and regardless of their deific status prior to 3e, they were stripped of such status.

However FC:I and FC:II have done away with that stance and left no defined upper boundary for their stats, but we're unfortunately still left with that blanket retcon of the deific status of various archfiends (though their ability to grant clerical spells regardless of such status has been returned).

Prior to 3e Demogorgon, Orcus, Yeenoghu, and Baphomet were all deities as well as archfiends. Graz'zt was not, and actively avoided gaining godhood, feeling the benefits weren't worth the limitations that godhood would have forced upon him. In general some archfiends were gods, some weren't, but it didn't really matter within the politics of the lower planes and the balance of power there.

The problem with Graz'zt, though, is that he could no longer truly contest with Demogorgon or other Abyssal Lords (as they were unfortunately known as in 2ed) since he, unlike them, had clearly defined stats while his "peers" only had avatar stats.

I don't mind a distinction between cosmic entities (DF's term for planar lords and similar, non-divine but extremely powerful beings) and gods. To me, Orcus and Demogorgon may attract worshippers, but they are in no way empowered by them (other than directly feeding on their souls) or crippled by their loss. But, being extremely powerful beings that rule entire realms of infinite size and serving as supreme leaders of immortal spirits (demons), not to mention having their own portfolios, it stands to reason that the Demon Prince of the Undead and the Prince of Demons would be strong enough to stand up gods. Like Typhun and Echidna of Greek Myth: not gods, but strong enough to stand against them.

The problem with FC:II is that most of it is just material reprinted from other books. But if you don't have much information on the Nine Hells it's a fine book to buy.

A lot of people here ignore the numerous times it is stated in both books that Exalted and Vile characters go above and beyond standard good and evil. BoED and BoVD are not the rule. They are the exceptions. The extreme exceptions.


Oh I know, I just found them to be ridiculous caricatures. Good is about struggling, not the silliness of the BoED that even states that its characters are too good to function in a normal D&D environment and begs the DM to take it easy. As for the BoVD, splatter-punk does not fundamental evil make.

it seems to me that the Crs listed in all these books is a bit...off.

Given the sort of abilities and powers avaible to pcs from the ELH i dont think many of the higher cr fiends/archangels could actually come close to being a good challenge for such a group.

it seems to me that the Crs listed in all these books is a bit...off.

Given the sort of abilities and powers avaible to pcs from the ELH i dont think many of the higher cr fiends/archangels could actually come close to being a good challenge for such a group.

That's probably because the ELH is the only book to have actually taken [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] material into consideration.

BOVD was ok when it came out, and had some usable material. Most of the best material has since appeared in other books like Player's Guide to Faerun and Fiendish Codices I and II, and there's nothing about the book itself that would make me immediately recommend it.

BOED was less useful still. I didn't much care for most of the prestige classes or feats (although a few were useful), and the celestial beings are inherently less useful than their fiendish counterparts. And they certainly cram them in.

it seems to me that the Crs listed in all these books is a bit...off.

Given the sort of abilities and powers avaible to pcs from the ELH i dont think many of the higher cr fiends/archangels could actually come close to being a good challenge for such a group.

You could take the Dicefreaks approach to this and create insane, ridiculous stats for the really big movers and shakers that makes them basically impossible to challenge -- or you can just say "the gods and planar lords are too powerful to challenge", which is the same thing with less work.

You could take the Dicefreaks approach to this and create insane, ridiculous stats for the really big movers and shakers that makes them basically impossible to challenge -- or you can just say "the gods and planar lords are too powerful to challenge", which is the same thing with less work.

The point of d20 stats, at Dicefreaks or elsewhere, is not about 'what can challenge it?'. It is about representing in a numerical form, the abilities and powers of an individual.

Would you not bother to stat up a 15th level knight because the 3rd level PCs stand no chance against him? Would you not bother to use the stats for a dragon because it is currently too powerful to challenge? Just declare the PCs dead? In the same vein, not everyone stops their games at 15th or 20th level, thus stats for these entities are not only useful, they are important. Nor are they any more ridiculous than any other facet about what amounts to an adult's game of "Let's Pretend".

the celestial beings are inherently less useful than their fiendish counterparts. And they certainly cram them in.

I felt that the nonunique celestials were useful to have around, though.

The point of d20 stats, at Dicefreaks or elsewhere, is not about 'what can challenge it?'. It is about representing in a numerical form, the abilities and powers of an individual.

In other words, the point of d20 stats at Dicefreaks is tangential to the point of d20 stats in a d20 *game*, which is to *play the game*.

Would you not bother to stat up a 15th level knight because the 3rd level PCs stand no chance against him? Would you not bother to use the stats for a dragon because it is currently too powerful to challenge? Just declare the PCs dead?

Er... yes?

If I have established that the level 17 Wizard can kill the PCs with a meteor swarm without effort, I see absolutely no reason to write out the huge list of all the spells he has memorized today, given that the only important fact is that he can kill the PCs with a meteor swarm without effort. If the PCs reach the point, eventually, where they actually can and do fight the Wizard, then the Wizard gets stats. I may keep track of what the Wizard can do so I don't create a massive inconsistency like deciding the Wizard has barred the Evocation school after mentioning the meteor swarm thing.

But if I know that this campaign may never reach the point where they can fight the Wizard, then no, I do not give the Wizard fully written stats. That would be a waste of my time as a DM, because I would be spending time doing things that in no way contributed to my players' experience in play.

In the same vein, not everyone stops their games at 15th or 20th level, thus stats for these entities are not only useful, they are important.

No, they are only important if they come *into play*, which means not just reaching Epic level but reaching a level around the CR of the monster. The only reason to stat out something with CR 75 is if you actually expect players to reach ECL 75, or at least ECL 70.

Since WotC has basically confirmed, over and over again, that almost all campaigns *do* stop before level 20, this is why WotC has stopped supporting Epic.

Nor are they any more ridiculous than any other facet about what amounts to an adult's game of "Let's Pretend".

It's ridiculous, in my view, to spend a lot of time making something up for a game that you're not going to actually use in the game. Having fun together as a group *playing the game* is, in fact, less ridiculous than writing things down on pieces of paper to prove that you've worked out how the game world works "in theory".

Look, if the FCs actually bothered to wank and wank about some ridiculous CR 100 Asmodeus with abilities out the wazoo, it'd be just like BoVD -- pointless wasted pages. (Even BoVD, which pared down the CRs to be useful for the *average Epic game* -- which even then only goes up to level 30 or so -- basically wasted those pages.) WotC made a very conscious decision to only give the archfiends stats you could actually use in a regular game.

The only reason they caught flak for it as that, sure, it introduces verisimilitude issues if something flavored up as powerful as Demogorgon has stats like that. The real explanation, then, is that if Demogorgon shouldn't be so weak that a regular D&D party can kill him, then a regular D&D party should *never fight him at all* because they will die, and therefore Demogorgon *doesn't have stats*.

FC2 got it exactly right -- give stats for something the players can fight (the "aspect" of the archfiend) -- and make the "real" archfiend something hazy and horrifying in the distance that can never be fought. Not having stats at all is a much more satisfying way to make Asmodeus scary than giving him a great big huge list of SLAs and an enormous base attack bonus. Look at why the Lady of Pain has so many more fanboys than Asmodeus does. (Vampire: the Masquerade's original stat block for Caine got this exactly right -- it said nothing but "You lose".)

That's probably because the ELH is the only book to have actually taken [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] material into consideration.

That's because WotC soon figured out that no one plays [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] and that no one buys [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] and that therefore [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] is a [booming voice]FAILED PRODUCT CONCEPT[/booming voice].

Is it possible to go more than three or four months without another one of these stats vs. no stats discussions? I mean, I could understand it if these comments were coming from folks new to these and other boards, but for folks who've been here for a while, you'd think they wouldn't bother...

**sigh**

Anyway.

In other words, the point of d20 stats at Dicefreaks is tangential to the point of d20 stats in a d20 *game*, which is to *play the game*.
Nonsense. The point of d20 stats at Dicefreaks is to present a holistic foundation of play from 1st to epic levels. This includes a cohesive cosmology in which the flavor supports the mechanics. As far as we're concerned, this is what it means by "play the game."

Er... yes?

If I have established that the level 17 Wizard can kill the PCs with a meteor swarm without effort, I see absolutely no reason to write out the huge list of all the spells he has memorized today, given that the only important fact is that he can kill the PCs with a meteor swarm without effort. If the PCs reach the point, eventually, where they actually can and do fight the Wizard, then the Wizard gets stats. I may keep track of what the Wizard can do so I don't create a massive inconsistency like deciding the Wizard has barred the Evocation school after mentioning the meteor swarm thing.

But if I know that this campaign may never reach the point where they can fight the Wizard, then no, I do not give the Wizard fully written stats. That would be a waste of my time as a DM, because I would be spending time doing things that in no way contributed to my players' experience in play.
There are a number of reasons why I may want to stat a 17th level character even for a confrontation with 3rd level characters. As a DM.

For example, the 17th level character may encounter the PCs in a war. S/he may encounter the PCs traveling with other NPCs. S/he may end up encountering the PCs who, foolishly or accidently, decide to head to his abode and manage to round up allies to help them. Knowing what this 15th level character can and cannot do grounds him in a living, breathing campaign. He's not pulling crap out his butt and flinging it around off the fly. He, like the PCs, is a well-defined character within a defined cosmology. He has a place and he's treated with respect. It also respects the fact that PCs can and do sometimes put themselves in positions in which they may very well deal with something well out of their league.

Now, for you it may be a waste of time. Good for you. For Dicefreaks and others who recognize the value of this approach, it creates and supports a strong foundation for holistic campaign design.

No, they are only important if they come *into play*, which means not just reaching Epic level but reaching a level around the CR of the monster. The only reason to stat out something with CR 75 is if you actually expect players to reach ECL 75, or at least ECL 70.
No, they are as important as the campaign allows them to be. Coming into play may or may not have anything to do with it. Rather, it has to do with how broadly a DM/designer establishes his/her campaign setting. Knowing and seeing how various entities compare to each other as well as to mortals gives a sense of grounding and life to a setting and, if done well, does not rob the setting of its magic or mystery.

Since WotC has basically confirmed, over and over again, that almost all campaigns *do* stop before level 20, this is why WotC has stopped supporting Epic.
WotC has never revealed any support for this position. And epic support has, until recently, continued to appear in the various Complete texts.

It's ridiculous, in my view, to spend a lot of time making something up for a game that you're not going to actually use in the game. Having fun together as a group *playing the game* is, in fact, less ridiculous than writing things down on pieces of paper to prove that you've worked out how the game world works "in theory".
Lovely. Glad you think it's ridiculous. But, that does not mean it is any more than I may think it's ridiculous not to create stats in order to develop a living, holistic setting. Indeed, I don't think your position is ridiculous... It's just your position. In the future, rather than making statements that imply an attack, you'd be better off just recognizing that there are approaches other than your own.

Look, if the FCs actually bothered to wank and wank about some ridiculous CR 100 Asmodeus with abilities out the wazoo, it'd be just like BoVD -- pointless wasted pages. (Even BoVD, which pared down the CRs to be useful for the *average Epic game* -- which even then only goes up to level 30 or so -- basically wasted those pages.) WotC made a very conscious decision to only give the archfiends stats you could actually use in a regular game.
What constitutes a "regular game?"

The only reason they caught flak for it as that, sure, it introduces verisimilitude issues if something flavored up as powerful as Demogorgon has stats like that. The real explanation, then, is that if Demogorgon shouldn't be so weak that a regular D&D party can kill him, then a regular D&D party should *never fight him at all* because they will die, and therefore Demogorgon *doesn't have stats*.
No, Demogorgon can have stats if one has a certain design philosophy different from your own... Particularly one that does take into account "versimilitude" issues for a holistic campaign setting.

FC2 got it exactly right -- give stats for something the players can fight (the "aspect" of the archfiend) -- and make the "real" archfiend something hazy and horrifying in the distance that can never be fought. Not having stats at all is a much more satisfying way to make Asmodeus scary than giving him a great big huge list of SLAs and an enormous base attack bonus. Look at why the Lady of Pain has so many more fanboys than Asmodeus does. (Vampire: the Masquerade's original stat block for Caine got this exactly right -- it said nothing but "You lose".)
And some people think that's a cop out.

As to the Lady of Pain, she was never intended to be fought; rather, she was designed as the embodiment of flavor for Planescape. Orcus is significantly more popular than she is and he's had stats in two and half editions. And many gamers think he's not only very scary, but cool.

In the end, you're not helping yourself by attacking and denigrating others... At least without a few caveats in your arguments. I don't care nor am I offended if you don't like Dicefreaks' approach, but perhaps in the future you could at least appear to be somewhat informed about the intent behind our approach and show at least a modicum of respect. I respect your position and see no reason to suggest that it's ridiculous or stupid... At least not without some evaluation of your position.

That's because WotC soon figured out that no one plays [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] and that no one buys [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] and that therefore [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] is a [booming voice]FAILED PRODUCT CONCEPT[/booming voice].

This is because [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] never received any support by WotC other than the ELH. So, no one bought it because there was nothing to buy. Not even an adventure. As a result, the product failed.

As to the Lady of Pain, she was never intended to be fought; rather, she was designed as the embodiment of flavor for Planescape.
It's sort of why I dislike her - I know she was never intended to be fought. That's not the main issue. The crux of my issue with her is this "you lose" mentality when fighting her, no matter who fights her. She is a living Deus Ex Machina, a being that doesn't have a purpose of her own, a being whose actions are utterly based on DM fiat. That is the danger of refusing to give a being stats - such beings degenerate to "whatever, you'll lose anyway; she can do whatever she wants".

Your DM can easily provide stats for you to defeat her. I put in means to defeat her, but imc fighting her to death doesn't work.

I don't want to defeat her. I want there to be a defined power level, as well as defined abilities.

So make some up? She's meant for the DM to use as they will. In that same way the Great Old Ones of Cthullu can or cannot have stats, or playing the Old Testament rpg (Testament) with Yaweh.

So make some up? She's meant for the DM to use as they will. In that same way the Great Old Ones of Cthullu can or cannot have stats, or playing the Old Testament rpg (Testament) with Yaweh.
Do you see what I mean? It makes her completely DM fiat, without giving her a purpose. Ofcourse you can give her stats - but a DM can alter stats as well, if he wants to. The problem is that many people have a mentality of "this is the LoP, she's not supposed to be statted." Why not? Must she really be this vessel of DM fiat? Can't she have a purpose of her own in the multiverse?

Aren't all NPCs are subject to the DM's fiat? :confused:

Aren't all NPCs are subject to the DM's fiat? :confused:
Yes, but those NPCs aren't actually tossed in a cosmology. What Planescape did was put a place for DM fiat in a cosmology that was supposed to be alive. DM fiat should be above a cosmology, not inside it.

Can't she have a purpose of her own in the multiverse?

Having a statblock has absolutely nothing to do with something having or not having a purpose.

Having a statblock has absolutely nothing to do with something having or not having a purpose.
In this case, the not having a purpose is the same reason for her not having a statblock, however.

But we're derailing this thread somewhat, I think. If you'd like to argue this further (though I doubt we'll come to an agreement on this, as I believe we have exact opposite opinions on statting this kind of creatures), you're welcome to PM me.

In this case, the not having a purpose is the same reason for her not having a statblock, however.

What do you mean not having a purpose? Keeping gods and similar beings out of Sigil, manipulating the portals of Sigil, ensuring the continued existance of the city, etc... holding sway over the ultimate neutral ground on the planes isn't a purpose?

What do you mean not having a purpose? Keeping gods and similar beings out of Sigil, manipulating the portals of Sigil, ensuring the continued existance of the city, etc... holding sway over the ultimate neutral ground on the planes isn't a purpose?
Holding dominion over a city is hardly a purpose for the overgod people suggest the Lady is. I don't buy into overgods whose only purpose is to protect a single city. If it were to be about Neutral ground, I'm sure the Outlands would do fine as well.

It's sort of why I dislike her - I know she was never intended to be fought. That's not the main issue. The crux of my issue with her is this "you lose" mentality when fighting her, no matter who fights her. She is a living Deus Ex Machina, a being that doesn't have a purpose of her own, a being whose actions are utterly based on DM fiat. That is the danger of refusing to give a being stats - such beings degenerate to "whatever, you'll lose anyway; she can do whatever she wants".

This is the VIRTUE of not giving a being stats. The dm can always 'win' any fight my friend, this is a feature that i liked a ton about the lady of pain.

I can see your point, but i prefer that some things be untouchable.

Hmmm....I don't have any god or planar lord have stats, nor have I given gods a definite link to worshippers which to me seems like stats in its own way.

But I could put them in and I have scattered artifacts that could kill them, and possibly the Lady of Pain. But they all COULD have stats. You could kill Asmodeus and the game could keep going.

Note that there are no stats for any plane, nor for Eberron/Siberys/Khyber, Ao, or Krynn's High God. This is because to defeat any of these beings (if you consider planes as alive) is to make the setting so different that it bascially breaks the box and is basically an apocalypse scenario.

Plus its amazing what people come up with when they make their own stats, like the Lady of Pain as a vestige~

That's because WotC soon figured out that no one plays [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] and that no one buys [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] and that therefore [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] is a [booming voice]FAILED PRODUCT CONCEPT[/booming voice].

That might have to do with the ELH being a sub-par product. Deities and Demigods was worse. Consequently, we haven't seen anything like either one since. Because they were poor executions of good ideas, and so they didn't get much support. People who dislike epic material or stats for gods probably wouldn't buy either product anyway, but if the books were done well, they probably would have had a big enough fanbase to support more material (look at all the people who support both books anyway).

Though BoVD's stance is a total retcon of previous material. BoVD's design stance was to provide archfiends as CR 20-30ish campaign ender monsters, and regardless of their deific status prior to 3e, they were stripped of such status.


In 1e they were campaign ending monsters for 10th level PCs, this went for most gods too. Ontop of that archfiends were defined as not gods.
2e was a retconned Gods outside PC's ability to harm, as well as adding godhood to a number of the major fiends.
3e boosted the levels of the archfiends but brought them back to 1e cannon, and has stated but basically unkillable gods. Which can be called a compromise between the 2. It's quite easy to put gods where you want them with the rules.

In 1e they were campaign ending monsters for 10th level PCs, this went for most gods too. Ontop of that archfiends were defined as not gods.
And yet both Manual of the Planes and Deities and Demigods indicated that they were ranked at least as lesser gods (sometimes in their plane of existence, other times everywhere).

Epic didn't fail; it's in the SRD, and it's pretty useful. I always find it more satisfying to end the campaign around level 40 than level 20. Maybey it's all those hours logged playing video game RPGs where you're level 99 at the end.

A question.
Why is the book of exalted deeds disliked?
I think that the prestige classes, the feats and the equipment aren't that powerful or overpowered so what is the reason so many people don't like the book?

A question.
Why is the book of exalted deeds disliked?
I think that the prestige classes, the feats and the equipment aren't that powerful or overpowered so what is the reason so many people don't like the book?

Starmantle Cloak.
Retributive Amulet.
"Good" poisons that aren't evil because they only harm evil people.
Contradictions in the morality (argueing that forced conversion isn't good, then presenting a spell that does this yet have the [Good] descriptor).
Contradictions between a prestige class prereq and a feat prereq (VoP + Apostle of Peace).
The revelation of Pelor's Evil.
Badly developed Deathless.

Thank you.

and regardless of their deific status prior to 3e,

Only the Lords of Nine had any super-deity status in Planescape if I recall. (The elemental lords were gods so that's different.) Grazz't and Pazuzu were statted out, and the Baernoloths were a challenge for what? A 15th level party?

Though one can easily see the contradictions in plot there. :(

Nonsense. The point of d20 stats at Dicefreaks is to present a holistic foundation of play from 1st to epic levels. This includes a cohesive cosmology in which the flavor supports the mechanics. As far as we're concerned, this is what it means by "play the game."

It counts as "playing the game" if, y'know, you actually play up to Epic levels and actually use the stats you come up with in a game. With players.

There are a number of reasons why I may want to stat a 17th level character even for a confrontation with 3rd level characters. As a DM.

For example, the 17th level character may encounter the PCs in a war. S/he may encounter the PCs traveling with other NPCs. S/he may end up encountering the PCs who, foolishly or accidently, decide to head to his abode and manage to round up allies to help them. Knowing what this 15th level character can and cannot do grounds him in a living, breathing campaign. He's not pulling crap out his butt and flinging it around off the fly. He, like the PCs, is a well-defined character within a defined cosmology. He has a place and he's treated with respect. It also respects the fact that PCs can and do sometimes put themselves in positions in which they may very well deal with something well out of their league.

But that's just it. The "living, breathing campaign" only exists when it comes in contact with living, breathing players.

If the majority of the stat block and, by extension, the flavor and backstory are never encountered by the players, then they don't really exist. Only what actually matters in the game itself is worth spending time on.

I feel this pretty strongly, and I feel that neglecting this point is the source of a lot of pathology in the D&D world -- of creating the phenomenon where D&D is more fun to talk about than to play for a lot of people, and generally then only for the person who's talking about it as opposed to the people he's talking at.

Now, for you it may be a waste of time. Good for you. For Dicefreaks and others who recognize the value of this approach, it creates and supports a strong foundation for holistic campaign design.

No, they are as important as the campaign allows them to be. Coming into play may or may not have anything to do with it. Rather, it has to do with how broadly a DM/designer establishes his/her campaign setting. Knowing and seeing how various entities compare to each other as well as to mortals gives a sense of grounding and life to a setting and, if done well, does not rob the setting of its magic or mystery.

Only if it generates things that the players interact with. If it only exists on the page or in the DM's mind, it's meaningless.

WotC has never revealed any support for this position. And epic support has, until recently, continued to appear in the various Complete texts.

They explicitly responded that the reason the FC:I archfiends were beatable by level 20 parties was that almost no games seem to progress beyond level 20.

And what do you mean by "until recently"? I haven't seen any Epic content since two or three years ago. I would say that the line past which they stopped supporting Epic is pretty clear. It used to be de rigeur to, for instance, provide a stated set of stats for the Epic progression of any new base class -- now that doesn't exist -- the new base classes in the PHB2, for instance, have no trace of an Epic progression. (I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing any for classes that have whole new mechanics that probably should be addressed by an Epic progression if you're going to do Epic -- the martial adepts of Tome of Battle or the new forms of mages in Tome of Magic, for instance.)

Lovely. Glad you think it's ridiculous. But, that does not mean it is any more than I may think it's ridiculous not to create stats in order to develop a living, holistic setting. Indeed, I don't think your position is ridiculous... It's just your position. In the future, rather than making statements that imply an attack, you'd be better off just recognizing that there are approaches other than your own.

*shrug* I've had a lot of frustrations with D&D's culture recently, and I'm not going to be shy about pointing out things I think are, well, ridiculous. Spending hours coming up with stuff about your campaign setting or world that you can talk about in an abstract way but *does not come up in a game* is ridiculous. I think the slow morph of D&D from an actual game you play with your friends to level up and kill things and have fun to a self-indulgent worldbuilding exercise you play by yourself on message boards or in your own notebooks is a really bad thing for the game, actually, and I applaud WotC for trying to fight it. I cry a little every time I hear someone literally say that he finds coming up with big, detailed wank about his homebrew campaign setting more fun than actually running a game in it.

What constitutes a "regular game?"

A game that regular people play?

If it were empirically true that ECL 30 parties were just as common as ECL 20 parties, which were just as common as ECL 10 parties, my statement would be off-base. But it isn't, because they're not.

No, Demogorgon can have stats if one has a certain design philosophy different from your own... Particularly one that does take into account "versimilitude" issues for a holistic campaign setting.

If "holistic" means "largely exists in the DM's own head and not in actual sessions of play", and if "verisimilitude" means "issues of verisimilitude that occur mainly in the DM's own head and not in actual sessions of play", then yeah, I really am absolutely opposed to this "design philosophy". Not just in the abstract way that I don't like doing it (or, at least, find it a bad thing to do and try to *resist* the temptation to do it), but also that as a player I've seen it be one of the number one ways well-meaning DMs make the game stupid and un-fun for their players. No, I do not find it generally fun to have to ask the DM "So what the hell was all that about?" in a campaign where my character was supposedly the focus of the story, and find out that he's been spending four times as much time writing his imaginary mental campaign setting no one will ever read than actually making fun things for my character to experience.

And some people think that's a cop out.

As to the Lady of Pain, she was never intended to be fought; rather, she was designed as the embodiment of flavor for Planescape. Orcus is significantly more popular than she is and he's had stats in two and half editions. And many gamers think he's not only very scary, but cool.

How much of his cool flavor comes from just that, his flavor, and not from having his stat block? How much has his stat block ever actually mattered in an ordinary campaign?

In the end, you're not helping yourself by attacking and denigrating others... At least without a few caveats in your arguments. I don't care nor am I offended if you don't like Dicefreaks' approach, but perhaps in the future you could at least appear to be somewhat informed about the intent behind our approach and show at least a modicum of respect. I respect your position and see no reason to suggest that it's ridiculous or stupid... At least not without some evaluation of your position.

Well, look, the self-contained act of generating "worldbuilding" doesn't hurt anyone and if that's how you care to spend your sunny afternoons, who am I to judge?

However, using this as a basis for campaigns you actually play *with players* is, at least in my experience, a sure way to miss the point of playing an actual game with actual people. Every argument I've heard for why the Dicefreaks approach is superior is based on the idea that it matters more for the world to "make sense" when the DM reads it on the page than for it to be fun when the players play it in the game, and I really do hate that idea.

It counts as "playing the game" if, y'know, you actually play up to Epic levels and actually use the stats you come up with in a game. With players.
Sophistry. You're assuming that there has to be some kind of distinction between a player and a DM. A DM is a player and, in order for him/her to play the game, s/he must create a world concept... And, s/he can play alone.

But that's not the point of my approach or, by extension, Dicefreaks. Most of the gamers at DF and most of the gamers I've encountered interested in epic play are.... TAH DAH! "Players!" That is, they are not those that tend to create entire worlds or campaigns or town to run folks through, but create epic level characters for game play purposes.

But that's just it. The "living, breathing campaign" only exists when it comes in contact with living, breathing players.
So, these and other boards that explore these ideas and, in many cases, do play games to one degree or another, aren't populated by living, breathing players...?

If the majority of the stat block and, by extension, the flavor and backstory are never encountered by the players, then they don't really exist. Only what actually matters in the game itself is worth spending time on.
Nonsense. A prepared DM, a DM interested in creating a holistic, living, breathing campaign is going to flesh things out for the larger, more important aspects of his/her world often-times well before PCs are prepared to encounter them. The world in which we live, and many of the most involved "otherworlds" function in the same manner.

I feel this pretty strongly,
You don't say...

and I feel that neglecting this point is the source of a lot of pathology in the D&D world -- of creating the phenomenon where D&D is more fun to talk about than to play for a lot of people, and generally then only for the person who's talking about it as opposed to the people he's talking at.
I'm at a complete loss as to how you came to the last point, so I'm not even going to waste time attempting to punch holes through it. As to the first point, given that I doubt you've really involved yourself in these discussion or ever played, in any fashion with folks you accuse of having "more fun to talke about that to play," I don't think you have any basis for your position. Or experience. Of course, I could be wrong.

Only if it generates things that the players interact with. If it only exists on the page or in the DM's mind, it's meaningless.
:uh-huh:

So, in essence, if a new core class or PrC or magic item or whatever in any book hasn't been used at all, it's meaningless? Or, is there some magical number that needs to be determined for something in print. I happen to know that at least ten people have played DF's Dispater or fought him to date... Is this not good enough or is he now suddenly a viable, meaningful creation since players have interacted with him?

They explicitly responded that the reason the FC:I archfiends were beatable by level 20 parties was that almost no games seem to progress beyond level 20.
I still have yet to see any research or documentation to support this notion. Given that there has never been a single adventure or any real attempt beyond web enhancements to support epic material, other than minor portions in new releases, does not -- in and of itself -- mean that they've really evaluated this position.

And what do you mean by "until recently"? I haven't seen any Epic content since two or three years ago. I would say that the line past which they stopped supporting Epic is pretty clear. It used to be de rigeur to, for instance, provide a stated set of stats for the Epic progression of any new base class -- now that doesn't exist -- the new base classes in the PHB2, for instance, have no trace of an Epic progression. (I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing any for classes that have whole new mechanics that probably should be addressed by an Epic progression if you're going to do Epic -- the martial adepts of Tome of Battle or the new forms of mages in Tome of Magic, for instance.)
Well, I recall DMG2 having material. I also recall there being clearly epic characters mentioned in FCI.

*shrug* I've had a lot of frustrations with D&D's culture recently, and I'm not going to be shy about pointing out things I think are, well, ridiculous. Spending hours coming up with stuff about your campaign setting or world that you can talk about in an abstract way but *does not come up in a game* is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is that you're making these broad assumptions with no proof or support for your position.

A game that regular people play?
:| I'd love to know what "regular people" are.

If it were empirically true that ECL 30 parties were just as common as ECL 20 parties, which were just as common as ECL 10 parties, my statement would be off-base. But it isn't, because they're not.
What does this have to do with all the tea in China? Given this logic, we shouldn't print books with material over 10th level.

If "holistic" means "largely exists in the DM's own head and not in actual sessions of play", and if "verisimilitude" means "issues of verisimilitude that occur mainly in the DM's own head and not in actual sessions of play", then yeah, I really am absolutely opposed to this "design philosophy". Not just in the abstract way that I don't like doing it (or, at least, find it a bad thing to do and try to *resist* the temptation to do it), but also that as a player I've seen it be one of the number one ways well-meaning DMs make the game stupid and un-fun for their players. No, I do not find it generally fun to have to ask the DM "So what the hell was all that about?" in a campaign where my character was supposedly the focus of the story, and find out that he's been spending four times as much time writing his imaginary mental campaign setting no one will ever read than actually making fun things for my character to experience.
Again, I love the broad generalizations and assumptions you're making. By this logic, most of the R&D staff at WotC would fall into this category.

How much of his cool flavor comes from just that, his flavor, and not from having his stat block? How much has his stat block ever actually mattered in an ordinary campaign?
Much of his cool flavor is based directly upon his stat-block and/or his items in the same way a red dragon is cool because of the things it can do.

What's an ordinary campaign?

However, using this as a basis for campaigns you actually play *with players* is, at least in my experience, a sure way to miss the point of playing an actual game with actual people. Every argument I've heard for why the Dicefreaks approach is superior is based on the idea that it matters more for the world to "make sense" when the DM reads it on the page than for it to be fun when the players play it in the game, and I really do hate that idea.
Then you've never played with Dicefreaks. And, as I said before, that doesn't bother me. But you'd be best to stop making ill-informed assumptions.

dont forget hellbred

BTW, fiend folio is just another name for the best supplemental MM like book. It in no way reflects its content, as there are plety of non-fiend and even non-evil creatures in it.

Fixed

Starmantle Cloak.
Retributive Amulet.
"Good" poisons that aren't evil because they only harm evil people.
Contradictions in the morality (argueing that forced conversion isn't good, then presenting a spell that does this yet have the [Good] descriptor).
Contradictions between a prestige class prereq and a feat prereq (VoP + Apostle of Peace).
The revelation of Pelor's Evil.
Badly developed Deathless.

Words cannot express my HATRED for the retributive amulet.

Erm... what exactly is "FCI" and "FCII"?

fiendish codex :1
and fiendish codex: 2

On topic: BOVD and BOED are not products I would recommend, to be honest. Bad fluff, bad crunch, little usable stuff. Fiendish Codex I, on the other hand, is a work of art, and FCII is decent, for what I´ve heard, though I haven´t checked it out myself.

On the side discussion (that is kinda hijacking the thread, btw.): I guess I can see both sides of the discussion. I see the logic behind Dicefreaks´ work (I, for one, think that if you´re gonna make an incredibly powerful being, and give it stats, give it stats that reflect the background on said being), but I also agree that sometimes stats are not needeed. I tend to see Deities and Archdevils on a level of "don´t try" as far as their stats go. If I need stats for them, it´ll be on very particular cases where I´ll tailor their stats to my group, otherwise it´s not needed nor desired (I tend to find it a waste of space).

I think that DF stats have a lot to do with how you see the game and how you enjoy it. I think having those stats, while I might not use all of them, gives me some sense of how the cosmology interacts.

The players aren't likely to fight Dispater, but if he makes a grab from Asmo's throne I can give some indication of how long it'll take for him to be defeated. I can give vivid descriptions of his powers, of the battle, by using those stats as a supporting device.

Not only that, but you can also power these guys down depending on your campaign. Mythology is filled with stories of mortals taking on gods...and winning! Its not my cup of tea for most of the time but I find it rude to tell other people how to play their game so long as they're having fun.

I think that DF stats have a lot to do with how you see the game and how you enjoy it. I think having those stats, while I might not use all of them, gives me some sense of how the cosmology interacts.

The players aren't likely to fight Dispater, but if he makes a grab from Asmo's throne I can give some indication of how long it'll take for him to be defeated. I can give vivid descriptions of his powers, of the battle, by using those stats as a supporting device.

For my part, I find stats and measures of how much damage something does every round to be pretty pointless when players aren't involved. I mean, okay, by the stats given in BoVD, Dispater *can't* realistically take down Asmo unless something wacky and plot-related happens, and being able to make up my own wacky plot-related events seems to me more flexible and fun than making up a particular plot based on a D&D number-crunching of how to get past Asmo's DR.

Not only that, but you can also power these guys down depending on your campaign.

Powering up is easier than powering down. That's why the entry in FC:I specifically gives you guidelines for how to power up Epic versions of the archfiends if you really want to.

Mythology is filled with stories of mortals taking on gods...and winning!

Sure, and if I really want my gaming group to take on gods and win, I'll stat up some gods that a level 20 party can defeat.

Its not my cup of tea for most of the time but I find it rude to tell other people how to play their game so long as they're having fun.

Other people can do whatever they like. There was a lot of wholly inappropriate vitriol directed at WotC when FC:I came out, though, because they "powered down" the archfiends, and that's what I'm responding to -- the general philosophy that something has to have a stat block with really big numbers in it to be an impressive character, which I think WotC has done well to reject.

Other people can do whatever they like. There was a lot of wholly inappropriate vitriol directed at WotC when FC:I came out, though, because they "powered down" the archfiends, and that's what I'm responding to -- the general philosophy that something has to have a stat block with really big numbers in it to be an impressive character, which I think WotC has done well to reject.
People didn't complain because the archfiends were powered down and this made them 'less impressive characters'*. People complained because the archfiends were powered down and this made them cosmologically incoherent given the established power of baseline demons in 3.5.

It's amusing how much less furore there would have been if the editors had the aspect comment in FCI.


*Okay, some people probably did. But that's not the reasoning behind the prominent posters' distaste for it.

The players aren't likely to fight Dispater, but if he makes a grab from Asmo's throne I can give some indication of how long it'll take for him to be defeated. I can give vivid descriptions of his powers, of the battle, by using those stats as a supporting device.

But I can do the same, without them. Not to mention the fact that the stats are almost as irrelevant for a Dispater vs Amsodeus fight as they are for Dispater vs 20th level party. These guys oversee entire planes: if they go in against each other, the only stat you need to know on either side is "Knowledge: Strategy". Whether it's a full scale revolt with five or six trillion devils on each side, or a small strike force of a million or so elite fighters launching a coup d'etat, its woefully unlikely that personal single combat will feature.

Its not my cup of tea for most of the time but I find it rude to tell other people how to play their game so long as they're having fun.

It is. And if the DF people want to make stats for everything and its brother, that's fine. But I don't. I like the lower power archfiends, because they might actually be useful. But ooo the flak you catch for that. How about this: you use the DF stats that you like, I'll use the WOTC stats I like, and let's both refrain from complaining about the other version.

and that's what I'm responding to

Seems more like you've gone on rant against Dicefreaks.

But ooo the flak you catch for that. How about this: you use the DF stats that you like, I'll use the WOTC stats I like, and let's both refrain from complaining about the other version.

Deal. For what it's worth, I've also grown tired of the idea that anyone who uses the WotC stats is a munchkin blah blah blah...

I don't think the issue has anything to do with using or not using WotC statistics. The issue DF and others have with WotC's handling of planar entities (gods, outsiders, etc.) is their failure to handle the cosmology well between the stats and the flavor.

If Demogorgon was CR 33, and Lolth was CR 35, and a max HD balor was "just" CR 27 (just pulling numbers folks), I'd never complain about inconsistency or about folks preferring to use those stats for their games. It would make sense within the overarching framework (well, mostly... There could still be cosmological issues regarding divine creation and such, but I'd get over it).

I don't think the issue has anything to do with using or not using WotC statistics.

YOUR issue... maybe not. The same cannot be said of all concerned.

If Demogorgon was CR 33, and Lolth was CR 35, and a max HD balor was "just" CR 27 (just pulling numbers folks), I'd never complain about inconsistency or about folks preferring to use those stats for their games

Well, personally I just don't advance the common demons or devils much.

But the option and the reality in WotC is there (there's at least one advanced demon mentioned as an extant creature in FCI) and that's the problem.

As for others with issues about high end monsters, I can't speak for them. It's their responsibility to come in and make their positions known and clear; however, to lump Dicefreaks into that mix (and by "Dicefreaks," I don't just mean members, but those of us responsible for the site and the design philosophy) reveals a lack of research and understanding.

Hi
The problem with demon lords/archdevils is that they haven't powers to rule an infinite plane like in the first ed ( they were lesser gods on their home planes). You can give 100 HD to Demogorgon, if he can't truly (by a mystical power ) rules his realm, it's a stupid idea...
but even if dicefreak did a good job with gates of hell, I don't like the idea of monsters CR 80 or so...
For the majority of the people of a medieval setting, even a balor is a great monster unchalenged by mere mortals.
A demon lords must be like BoVD but with powers to rule his plane and his numerous thralls...
For me, the FC1 &2 are not very clear on how a lord rules/alter his home plane. in deities and demi-gods, the gods have powers to but not great fiends...
I did 2 web folio for stats of archfiends on www.dndadventure.com (epic demon lords and epic archdevils in the cratures section). I don't pretend that my work is the best but try it;)

but even if dicefreak did a good job with gates of hell, I don't like the idea of monsters CR 80 or so...
For the majority of the people of a medieval setting, even a balor is a great monster unchalenged by mere mortals.
Well, to be fair, I find this an acceptable position. The problem is that there is a lack of coherence within WotC design in this regard. If Archfiends are able to compete with the Gods, and you would like your archfiends at CR 30 or similar, that is fine. However, you must then realize that the highest advanced balor should be at around CR 25, that gods should also be around CR 30, that other fiends in general might require toning down a bit, etcetera. If you would do this, then a CR 30 Archfiend could be very well acceptable, provided you grant him the ability to manipulate his realm.

However, this requires severe alteration of other aspects of the game: if you would need to completely undo all the rules we have for divinity so far, as well as rework most fiends into being weaker, as well as arbitrarily put a limit on advancement for fiends, etcetera - then wouldn't simply altering the archfiends to be more powerful be an easier method?

Now, I see many people here object to the idea of giving something stats if the players aren't meant to fight these entities. They argue that instead of working on the campaign world, which players might not come into contact with, a DM should instead work on specific adventures aimed to please the players. Well - to me, while the story is about the player characters, the multiverse in which that story takes place is not. The multiverse responds to the actions of the player characters, but it does not revolve around them. They aren't at the centre of its attention. They are only at the centre of attention of the storyline the DM is highlighting at a given point. Other things happen in the campaign world - which might later have an impact on the player characters. Perhaps Graz'zt has managed to engage in an alliance with Lolth in order to overthrow Demogorgon - it could be interesting to see if they could ever be succesful, by looking at their stats, at such a point. Ofcourse, you could simply state "They lose." or "They win." - but isn't it far more interesting to actually be aware of their capabilities (capabilities which are reflected through statistics), rather than randomly assigning victory to either side?

Each DM has his point of view on the question. To me demon lords or devils are weakers than gods. In the rules the gods (like those in FR) are well stated. My vision is that no one hero can kill a god, but powerful entities that are intermediaries between gods and mortals can die by the hands of heroes.
I stated archdevils CR 26 (bel) to 66 (Asmo) but, they are stronger on their home plane (asmo is like a god of sort...).
Demogorgon is the prince of demons (CR 40 to me) and I give him a special power related to this fact. To me, it's not only the HD the more important but the mystical powers ( and their places in the universe) to control their home plane.
In dragon magazines the updated stats of the demon lords don't reflect their station of rulers; high HD or Base attack is not enough...

Each DM has his point of view on the question. To me demon lords or devils are weakers than gods. In the rules the gods (like those in FR) are well stated. My vision is that no one hero can kill a god, but powerful entities that are intermediaries between gods and mortals can die by the hands of heroes.
My objection to this is that in the standard cosmology, Archfiends aren't intermediaries between gods and mortals.

Demogorgon is the prince of demons (CR 40 to me) and I give him a special power related to this fact. To me, it's not only the HD the more important but the mystical powers ( and their places in the universe) to control their home plane.
Obviously the HD isn't all that's important - his powers are very essential.

In dragon magazines the updated stats of the demon lords don't reflect their station of rulers; high HD or Base attack is not enough...
I agree - though I think they are better than those presented in the Fiendish Codexes (and I believe those in the Dragon magazines could make fine aspects.)

Personally, I don't like that Apsects were tampered with to throw a bone to people who complain that archfiends aren't powerful enough. If they needed to appease the epic gamers, they should have just statted out the megapowered versions of fiends in a web supplement.

Aspects were a nice concept--a good challenge to a mid-range group that had the flavor of a battle with a god or demon, without the cosmological mayhem that would necessarily involve. The FC:II revision was inconsistent with everything that came prior in 3.X, and that's kinda lame.

If they needed to appease the epic gamers, they should have just statted out the megapowered versions of fiends in a web supplement.
Are you aware of how long it takes to create an epic statblock that suitably reflects a creature's flavor? I rather doubt Wizards will ever spend that much time in order to release it as a free product.

The FC:II revision was inconsistent with everything that came prior in 3.X, and that's kinda lame.
How so?


Aspects were a nice concept--a good challenge to a mid-range group that had the flavor of a battle with a god or demon, without the cosmological mayhem that would necessarily involve
Could someone explain the desire to fight gods or archfiends to me? I'd think that if you wanted to fight gods or archfiends, you'd not do so at a low level (such as the CR 10 aspects we've got today). Why do people find it problematic that if they want to be able to compete with gods, that they should have a very high level? Because, let's face it, if you anger a god at lower level by killing off his CR 10 aspect, he'll just send a CR 20 monster at you to slaughter you.

They argue that instead of working on the campaign world, which players might not come into contact with, a DM should instead work on specific adventures aimed to please the player

Not an accurate summary of my position. There are those who believe that you can work on a campaign world without having to get detailed game statistics for everything and its brother. I don't stat things the PCs won't interact with, but that doesn't mean I don't know who they are and what they are doing.

The multiverse responds to the actions of the player characters, but it does not revolve around them. They aren't at the centre of its attention. They are only at the centre of attention of the storyline the DM is highlighting at a given point. Other things happen in the campaign world - which might later have an impact on the player characters

This is very true. And a very important part of making a believable world. And has nothing to do with stats. You can do this with them, or without them.

Perhaps Graz'zt has managed to engage in an alliance with Lolth in order to overthrow Demogorgon - it could be interesting to see if they could ever be succesful, by looking at their stats, at such a point. Ofcourse, you could simply state "They lose." or "They win." - but isn't it far more interesting to actually be aware of their capabilities (capabilities which are reflected through statistics), rather than randomly assigning victory to either side?

It seems odd to me to be accusing someone who wants to overpower the personal abilities of fiends of thinking small, but I find I have to! What do Graz'zt's stats have to do with his ability to pull something like this off? Does your world have a hell so feeble that a confrontation between two Demon Princes and a Goddess would consist of the three of them, in a room, personally duking it out? Each of these entities rules an entire plane of existance, or more than one. A confrontation will involve armies of uncountable size, intricate politics involving subversion of enemy figures and watching your own and probably battles across the planes. And you're going to determine the result by looking at the personal stats of the three leaders? how is that less random than tossing a coin?

Does your world have a hell so feeble that a confrontation between two Demon Princes and a Goddess would consist of the three of them, in a room, personally duking it out?
Do stats only impact battle, for you? Bluff, Diplomacy, mental ability scores, Knowledge skills, unique abilities that impact the larger scale are all statistics. Does the fiend have access to spells or effects that can create a portal to the prime material plane, can he hide himself from divination effects, etcetera - all of these are part of a statblock. Statblocks aren't solely damage and attack bonuses.

What do Graz'zt's stats have to do with his ability to pull something like this off? Does your world have a hell so feeble that a confrontation between two Demon Princes and a Goddess would consist of the three of them, in a room, personally duking it out?
More sense than PCs making it through his armies and fighting him. Or making it through his cultists, demons, and others to fight his avatar.

Each of these entities rules an entire plane of existance, or more than one. A confrontation will involve armies of uncountable size, intricate politics involving subversion of enemy figures and watching your own and probably battles across the planes.
Yet, it's amazing how 10th level PCs can make it through the realm of a greater god to disrupt a demonic summit and few people bother to question this.

And you're going to determine the result by looking at the personal stats of the three leaders? how is that less random than tossing a coin?
Because it's the same approach one would use if PCs were fighting against Graz'zt. Or against a great red wyrm. Although I'm sure it depends upon the DM, I've always thought it more interesting if, in such a conflict, one could actually have such creatures fighting each other in order to determine the future of a campaign in the same manner PCs determine the future of their campaigns: 1. By making choices withouth DM-manipulation; and 2. By using the statistics to result in an ending that, while not entirely random (since it requires that rules are followed), still has an air of drama and action... particularly if the DM allows PCs to play along in such a conflict.

Do stats only impact battle, for you? Bluff, Diplomacy, mental ability scores, Knowledge skills, unique abilities that impact the larger scale are all statistics. Does the fiend have access to spells or effects that can create a portal to the prime material plane, can he hide himself from divination effects, etcetera - all of these are part of a statblock. Statblocks aren't solely damage and attack bonuses.

And this is an excellent point I should have mentioned in my own thread. A great deal of in-game character interaction has nothing to do with combat. Skills and abililty scores are often as important, if not more so, than attack bonuses in many encounters. Although in some cases stats will be so high as to be moot (maybe; few people question the high skill ranks associated with creatures like dragons or even high-end outsiders), this may not be the case on all occasions and certainly not between two similarly ranked creatures.

Do stats only impact battle, for you? Bluff, Diplomacy, mental ability scores, Knowledge skills, unique abilities that impact the larger scale are all statistics. Does the fiend have access to spells or effects that can create a portal to the prime material plane, can he hide himself from divination effects, etcetera - all of these are part of a statblock.

If you want them to be they are. You can also have a good idea of roughly how powerful they are: which is probably more realistic than stats since you still miss the point. Yes, Bluff, Diplomacy, mental ability scores, Knowledge skills, unique abilities that impact the larger scale are all statistics. And it is still the case that in a confrontation between planes no single entity's level in any of these will determine the outcome, even the planar Lord's. The Lord's will have the strongest single influence, but that's "strongest single" among trillions of actors.

Frankly, even if you want to use a stat based resolution, the only stats either side possesses that will have a noticeable effect on the out come are Knowledge (Strategy) and Knowledge (politics). Once you've got those two numbers, thats all you need to know. And even then, given the huge number of variables other than the Lord's stats involved in this your stat based resolution will be no less arbritary than if you had just said Demogorgon wins... although it will have an air of objectivity.

More sense than PCs making it through his armies and fighting him. Or making it through his cultists, demons, and others to fight his avatar.

The PCs will usually encounter such beings away from their home plane, and even then they are far more likely to thwart them rather than actually defeat them mano a fiendo.

Yet, it's amazing how 10th level PCs can make it through the realm of a greater god to disrupt a demonic summit and few people bother to question this.

Count me among the few. Of course, PCs can use infiltration tactics, but even so.

Although I'm sure it depends upon the DM, I've always thought it more interesting if, in such a conflict, one could actually have such creatures fighting each other in order to determine the future of a campaign in the same manner PCs determine the future of their campaigns: 1. By making choices withouth DM-manipulation; and 2. By using the statistics to result in an ending that, while not entirely random (since it requires that rules are followed), still has an air of drama and action... particularly if the DM allows PCs to play along in such a conflict.

Indeed. As far as I'm concerned, if the PCs are not directly involved (eg if the conflict is a backdrop to the adventure rather than the main point of it) the outcome should depend on the needs of the plot, and if they are it should depend on them. In neither case do I need stats. And again, the outcome of such a conflict will not depend on the personal prowess of the main commanders except in very special circumstances. When the PCs are fighting a dragon stats are relevent, because neither they nor the dragon have a plane or two's worth of military power.

How so?

How is it inconsistent? I dunno, take a look at all the aspects that were printed prior to FC:II... Challenge ratings of 9-11, not 22-28. In other words, something that I might actually use in a game.


Could someone explain the desire to fight gods or archfiends to me? I'd think that if you wanted to fight gods or archfiends, you'd not do so at a low level (such as the CR 10 aspects we've got today). Why do people find it problematic that if they want to be able to compete with gods, that they should have a very high level? Because, let's face it, if you anger a god at lower level by killing off his CR 10 aspect, he'll just send a CR 20 monster at you to slaughter you.


Could you explain to me the apparently conflicting emotions of a desire for having stats for "epic" archfiends, and yet also a disdain for the very idea of combatting them?

But no--don't answer. I don't actually have to explain any of my preferences, nor do you yours; by definition, it's totally subjective, and no one has to justify their desires. I don't think my preference can get any simpler than what I already stated anyway--I like having the option out there. What you are suggesting seems to be a removal of options--removing archfiends and deities from having any kind of interaction with standard (sub-20th level) players other than "They win, you fail."

By the way, there doesn't appear to be any reason to suspect that a deity would be so vengeful about the death of an aspect, however--unlike an avatar, an aspect isn't a projection of their consciousness. It seems questionable if they can even speak--or if they bother to.

How is it inconsistent? I dunno, take a look at all the aspects that were printed prior to FC:II... Challenge ratings of 9-11, not 22-28. In other words, something that I might actually use in a game.

Hold it right there! The aspects presented in the Miniature Handbook are meant to be the weakest standard of an aspect. I'm not sure if it comes out and says it, but I always assumed that aspects ranged up from that power level. Aspects aren't unique, thus there can be CR 10, CR 15 and CR 25 aspects of the same being.

Furthermore, FCII specifically said that the aspects presented in that book were supposed to be a more powerful aspect that was invested with a great deal more of their progenitor's power. It stated that unlike typical aspects (of which you are referring to), only one such greater aspect can be in existance at a time. It might even be more appropriate to refer to such a creature as an avatar rather than an aspect.


Could you explain to me the apparently conflicting emotions of a desire for having stats for "epic" archfiends, and yet also a disdain for the very idea of combatting them?

:rofl:

No. I can't. In my mind, it takes a being of great power to rule the planes or be a god. Thus, if PCs want to fight such beings, they must also be of great power. However, that also goes for beings such as Drizzt and Elminster. I like knowing when the PCs need to be in awe of the old mage and when he should be asking them for help. I like knowing around which level they need to run from a dragon and at which level they don't need to bother fighting one...they can just tell it to leave and it thanks them for their mercy. Thus, stats. Not just for combat, but for interaction.

But no--don't answer. I don't actually have to explain any of my preferences, nor do you yours; by definition, it's totally subjective, and no one has to justify their desires. I don't think my preference can get any simpler than what I already stated anyway--I like having the option out there. What you are suggesting seems to be a removal of options--removing archfiends and deities from having any kind of interaction with standard (sub-20th level) players other than "They win, you fail."

Your 'options' seem remarkably similar to my own. I myself statted Asmodeus at CR 66, and Demogorgon around CR 40-50.

By the way, there doesn't appear to be any reason to suspect that a deity would be so vengeful about the death of an aspect, however--unlike an avatar, an aspect isn't a projection of their consciousness. It seems questionable if they can even speak--or if they bother to.

I think a variety of methods is called for with aspects. In one Dungeon adventure, you fight an aspect of Demogorgon that has actually taken a mind and personality of its own. I like that idea, but I also like the idea that they are mini extentions of the real thing's consciousness.

They can certainly speak however, if you take a look at the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits...there is plenty of speaking done by aspects there.


Here's just my thoughts thrown out on aspects. An aspect can be formed by the deity as a conscious thought. That aspect represents the deity and acts pretty much according to its wishes and desires, for they are the aspect's own. After the aspect carries out its purpose, it merges with the deity/archfiend/etc (Power) and the being is instantly aware of what transpired. If the aspect is slain, the Power has no way of obtaining that information. It may or may not decide to investigate the matter, depending on how important it is. If an aspect goes for a long time without remerging with its originator though, it begins to develop its own personality and own mind. It becomes an individual. It may take another name for itself. From that point on, the two are separate, although I think the Power could forcefully remerge the wayward aspect with its being.

Sort of like how in American Gods, there was Wednesday and there was Odin and the two were originally the same being but not any more.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/MeowMixR/1177671775107.jpg

My question to that is, why? What is so special about the Lady of Pain that she should be more awesome than any god anywhere, in any place. (Because that statblock doesn't differentiate by location.) That sort of power is not required to reflect her flavor.

And why is she Lawful?

Plus its amazing what people come up with when they make their own stats, like the Lady of Pain as a vestige~

That sounds interesting, care to elaborate? I'd imagine it'd qualify as an epic vestige.

Are you aware of how long it takes to create an epic statblock that suitably reflects a creature's flavor? I rather doubt Wizards will ever spend that much time in order to release it as a free product.

Or as a product that they sell, because people wouldn't buy it.

Could someone explain the desire to fight gods or archfiends to me? I'd think that if you wanted to fight gods or archfiends, you'd not do so at a low level (such as the CR 10 aspects we've got today). Why do people find it problematic that if they want to be able to compete with gods, that they should have a very high level? Because, let's face it, if you anger a god at lower level by killing off his CR 10 aspect, he'll just send a CR 20 monster at you to slaughter you.

I would myself say that the bigger the numbers get in D&D the more of a pain it is to do anything, including run combats, and therefore the idea of Epic levels and of fighting gods and archfiends on their home turf is not a really workable idea. Some people may have a higher tolerance for the spaghetti logic of Empowered Contingent this and total immunity to that and opening gates willy-nilly here and there, but I would say that WotC's statements about why they depowered the archfiends indicate I'm not in the minority here.

Half the *point* of how deities are portrayed in D&D is that they *do* have a habit of letting you get away with things without directly intervening -- that ECL 5 parties kill off EL 5 temples of Lolth and ruin some important plan Lolth had for the surrounding region without Lolth manifesting as a CR 20 avatar and killing everybody, for the same reason that Corellon didn't manifest as a CR 25 avatar and destroy the temple in the first place.

My question to that is, why? What is so special about the Lady of Pain that she should be more awesome than any god anywhere, in any place. (Because that statblock doesn't differentiate by location.) That sort of power is not required to reflect her flavor.

*shrug* This is the kind of statblock I would use for any god or cosmic power anywhere, mainly to keep a lid on what players can get up to. I *do* dislike the ridiculousness of "Well, if Asmodeus is CR 66, I can just level up to ECL 75 somehow and kill him."

Eberron's approach of "The gods may or may not really exist, and if they do exist they exist as concepts that transcend the world" appeals to me. As does "The archfiends are horrible monsters with levels of power *you will never approach* and cannot be faced directly".

I don't think the issue has anything to do with using or not using WotC statistics. The issue DF and others have with WotC's handling of planar entities (gods, outsiders, etc.) is their failure to handle the cosmology well between the stats and the flavor.

If Demogorgon was CR 33, and Lolth was CR 35, and a max HD balor was "just" CR 27 (just pulling numbers folks), I'd never complain about inconsistency or about folks preferring to use those stats for their games. It would make sense within the overarching framework (well, mostly... There could still be cosmological issues regarding divine creation and such, but I'd get over it).

I dunno. I don't have any problem with a PC being a level 15 Paladin serving a lord who's "just" a level 6 Aristocrat.

I dunno. I don't have any problem with a PC being a level 15 Paladin serving a lord who's "just" a level 6 Aristocrat.
You're actually comparing paladin behavior to demon behavior, here. I don't know, but I'd think the Balor's behavior would be rather significantly different in that regard.


Eberron's approach of "The gods may or may not really exist, and if they do exist they exist as concepts that transcend the world" appeals to me.
In a sense, it appeals to me as well. It's how the gods are in my homebrew. The thing is, this isn't the standard approach to gods in Planescape or Forgotten Realms, where they are creatures just as any other, and even speculated not to be truly divine by some philosophies in the gameworld. They deserve stats like any other creature.


I would myself say that the bigger the numbers get in D&D the more of a pain it is to do anything, including run combats, and therefore the idea of Epic levels and of fighting gods and archfiends on their home turf is not a really workable idea.
I disagree. I very much like running Epic combats at a similar (albeit slightly lower) level of power, more a level in which one would find the Dukes of Hell. For most cases, unless you can acquire significant politics, the Lords of the Nine, for example, are out of reach in any true combat. However, they can be bested in intrigue. One could succeed in hiding a certain event from Bael, from example - and his stats might be involved in checking if that works.

The players aren't likely to fight Dispater, but if he makes a grab from Asmo's throne I can give some indication of how long it'll take for him to be defeated. I can give vivid descriptions of his powers, of the battle, by using those stats as a supporting device.

Not only that, but you can also power these guys down depending on your campaign. Mythology is filled with stories of mortals taking on gods...and winning! Its not my cup of tea for most of the time but I find it rude to tell other people how to play their game so long as they're having fun.

This, btw, seems backwards to me. For one thing, it seems unnecessary to use stats to determine how things fall between two creatures who are interacting off the main stage (i.e., in front of the players.) If things are happening that the player characters are not directly participating it, then the outcome should be dictated by the needs of the story the DM is telling--not the stats.

For another, it's generally much easier to scale creatures up than it is to power them down. So why shouldn't they create these creatures with stats that are approachable by standard (again, 1-20) games, and allow the epic-minded players to scale them up as required? Especially given that most people who want epic-level beings seem to be of the opinion that players shouldn't be messing with these beings anyway!

For another, it's generally much easier to scale creatures up than it is to power them down. So why shouldn't they create these creatures with stats that are approachable by standard (again, 1-20) games, and allow the epic-minded players to scale them up as required?
Because such would be cosmologically inconsistent - a mere solar could easily take on an archfiend, then.
Furthermore, if one would take that direction, why aren't there any deity aspects of CR 20?

If things are happening that the player characters are not directly participating it, then the outcome should be dictated by the needs of the story the DM is telling--not the stats.
Stats, as a thorough outline of what a creature can and cannot do, help maintain a logical, consistent and plausible storyline.

Because such would be cosmologically inconsistent - a mere solar could easily take on an archfiend, then.

This is why, after a certain point, the "cosmology" just doesn't exist for me.

We've already had countless threads on how the D&D universe doesn't make sense because the D&D magic system would've gravely altered the nature of the economy by now, why it doesn't make economic sense that "adventurers" and "dungeons" even exist, etc.

It really doesn't matter. The world exists for the PCs to have adventures in it. Picturing the world as a real place where the relevant back-and-forth power struggles "make sense" is, in my view, a waste of time if done in anything but very broad strokes in order to add spice to the adventure. It *doesn't work* -- attempts to do so in the D&D universe always end up generating contradictions and incongruities.

Furthermore, if one would take that direction, why aren't there any deity aspects of CR 20?

There could be. Really, I think WotC is backing away from the existence of Deities and Demigods, though. When was the last time you saw actual stats for a deity and its divine rank in a publication?

WotC is going by the idea that gods should be distant symbols of power never encountered by the players, while archfiends are uber-monsters who cap a difficult campaign. It's certainly reasonable, since this is how it actually was way back in 1e anyway.

Stats, as a thorough outline of what a creature can and cannot do, help maintain a logical, consistent and plausible storyline.

Only by ensuring that you can only write stories in which everyone acts like a D&D character, which frequently make for pretty dumb stories. The D&D mechanics are a *concession* to *necessity* when it comes to storytelling, not a good framework for storytelling itself. They only exist to adjudicate what players do to the world, and should only be invoked when dealing with what players do to the world.

There could easily be deific aspects of CR 20, if the DM wanted to power them up. I was merely pointing out that Aspects that had been presented up to that point has been of a certain range of Challenge Ratings--including aspects for the previous Fiendish Codex. To present CR 20-30 beings as aspects seems like a disservice then.

Who cares if a Solar can tussle with an archfiend? Solars are exceptionally powerful beings themselves, and a number of archfiends WERE Solars or other lesser celestial beings at one point. Leadership isn't just about who has the highest CR--Even amongst evil beings.

The thing is, this isn't the standard approach to gods in Planescape or Forgotten Realms, where they are creatures just as any other, and even speculated not to be truly divine by some philosophies in the gameworld. They deserve stats like any other creature.

Indeed they do. However, in my campaign, other creatures that do not come into any sort of conflict with the PCs don't have stats either.

Because such would be cosmologically inconsistent - a mere solar could easily take on an archfiend, then

a "mere" solar? Witch, I think you have to accept the fact that we are playing different but similar games, and that the BOXDs were designed for ours, not yours. That doesn't make them bad books.

Who cares if a Solar can tussle with an archfiend? Solars are exceptionally powerful beings themselves, and a number of archfiends WERE Solars or other lesser celestial beings at one point. Leadership isn't just about who has the highest CR--Even amongst evil beings.

Actually, the only archfiend in "official" WotC material identified as a former celestial is Baalzebul (although, if you're playing FR, there's a fallen angel -- solar I believel).

As for leadership not being about the highest CR, that rationale works in some environments, not in others... And the established "official" WotC cosmology does not allow this rationale to work in the outer (or inner, really) planes.

a "mere" solar? Witch, I think you have to accept the fact that we are playing different but similar games, and that the BOXDs were designed for ours, not yours. That doesn't make them bad books.
Perhaps not, but it does make them books inconsistent with flavor across three and a half editions of cosmological material.

Perhaps not, but it does make them books inconsistent with flavor across three and a half editions of cosmological material.

Why? The only complaint I've seen about their flavour is that some of them have been tussling with gods, and their power level doesn't allow them to do that. Well, that's scarcely the worst or most difficult retcon we've had to do.

I think the main problem here is that the DF view seems to be that levels 1-20 are the learning grades, level 20 is black belt, and the real players start there. Well, that's fine, but in my campaign 1-5 is "player" 6-10 is "hero" 11-15 is "most powerful of their generation" and 16-20 is "Epic". On that scale, which seems to be far more common, the BOXD archfiends are indeed incredibly powerful, could well dominate a plane, and fit their flavour just fine. Its only if you believe that there is such a thing as a CR 66 entity in the universe that they start looking weak. CR 22 is more than mortal man can hope to achieve, even once a century. CR 18 has a reasonable chance of being more powerful than any living hero on a given continent. The word "mere" need not apply.

Actually, the only archfiend in "official" WotC material identified as a former celestial is Baalzebul.

As for leadership not being about the highest CR, that rationale works in some environments, not in others... And the established "official" WotC cosmology does not allow this rationale to work in the outer (or inner, really) planes.

Fortunately, the archfiends DO have CRs higher than almost any other beings out there.

Why? The only complaint I've seen about their flavour is that some of them have been tussling with gods, and their power level doesn't allow them to do that. Well, that's scarcely the worst or most difficult retcon we've had to do.
I'm speaking specifically about the treatment of gods and planar lords when I speak of BoED and BoVD; I'll let others get into the manner in which alignment is handled in the two books (and there's apparently quite a few people that have issues with this).

And your analysis is precisely my issue. Is it a major issue? Perhaps not to some, but it's an issue none-the-less if you're dealing with games that focus heavily on the planes and are ratcheting up in levels (> 25th). Will this affect all games? Given the comments on this and other threads, absolutely not; however, for those that do take this sort of thing seriously, it's an issue and the fact that WotC didn't take the easy, reasonable way out (which they did with FCII finally) and just say that the stats in said book are for aspects and that it's not clear how they compare with gods from a mechanical perspective. Done. WotC washes their hands of the entire situation and manages to please everyone without isolating the most vocal participants of either side.

I think the main problem here is that the DF view seems to be that levels 1-20 are the learning grades, level 20 is black belt, and the real players start there. Well, that's fine,
Well, that's wrong, although I can see how you could come to this conclusion. While there are an inordinant number of epic NPCs, monsters, and beings at DF, the designers (again, distinct from the general, very aggressive and most amusing membership) have some very clear ideas for statuses on given worlds which somewhat resembles your list below, although epic would begin at 21st level.

but in my campaign 1-5 is "player" 6-10 is "hero" 11-15 is "most powerful of their generation" and 16-20 is "Epic". On that scale, which seems to be far more common, the BOXD archfiends are indeed incredibly powerful, could well dominate a plane, and fit their flavour just fine.
No, it doesn't. Not if one looks at WotC's own historic use of these creatures. It fit the notion that they can keep gods out of their layers, that some gods have had to destroy powerful archfiends at great risk to themselves, and that -- while gods and archfiends (or archcelestials, among others, to be sure) are not the same -- they the two groups possess parallel status.

Its only if you believe that there is such a thing as a CR 66 entity in the universe that they start looking weak. CR 22 is more than mortal man can hope to achieve, even once a century. CR 18 has a reasonable chance of being more powerful than any living hero on a given continent. The word "mere" need not apply.
And I agree with most of this. Indeed, many folks at DF would agree with most of this. However, everything is relative and in a cosmology that takes into account the deeds and actions of gods and unique planar beings, a CR 18 is "mere" in the grand scheme of things, but extremely powerful in a given world. Including most worlds at Dicefreaks. We just recognize that there are thousands, if not millions, of given worlds and that they all fall under the auspcies of a cosmos with truly powerful beings. If you want cosmological sense, there's a way to accomplish this while still allowing folks to have their fights with Asmodeus or Demogorgon. Aspects fulfill this, even to the point that a DM could say there's only one aspect that can ever interfere with a given campaign setting every 1000 years or whatever. Of course, this would have made too much sense and WotC didn't bother with anything resembling this and this is one of the reasons why these debates, rather than discussions, persist.

"Cosmological sense" implies a greater deal of objectivity and authority than it really merits. Within the context of the rules and statistics that have been laid out for deities and archfiends to date (in 3.x), it isn't totally out of the question that the more powerful archfiends might be enough to give a deity pause.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of the deity stat-blocks, but taken in that context, WOTC has hardly made a huge lapse here. If there's a lapse, it isn't in "cosmological sense"; the cosmology makes as (little) sense as it ever did.

I don't begrudge DiceFreaks doing whatever they want to do; de gustibus non disputandum. But that's all it boils down to really; aesthetics.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter whether your average archfiend is CR 25 or CR 65 as long as they are on a par with the deities of the setting. Personally, I like the idea of the divine beings being challenged by mortal heros, so the gods of my setting are of much lower power (average CR of 38 or so) than those presented in DaDG. My archcelestials and archfiends are of nearly identical power levels (indeed, many of them are gods).

If I wanted to make a really philisophically unnerving world where the gods are CR 20 (which seems to be what the authors of FC1 had in mind), the archfiends would be scaled down accordingly. In a more grand scale, galaxy spanning cosmology like Planescape or Dicefreaks, I'd buff them up to an average of at least CR 50.

In short, I liked the stats in BOVD, and wished that DaDG had taken a similar stance.

Fortunately, the archfiends DO have CRs higher than almost any other beings out there.

Indeed. The fact that the FCs might be "inconsistent" with D&DG or Dragons of Faerun, with their ridiculously high CRs for deities and dragons, doesn't really bother me because I was ignoring those stupid books in the first place. Because 20+ CRs are pointless for my games or the vast majority of games I've been exposed to.

Well, that's wrong, although I can see how you could come to this conclusion. While there are an inordinant number of epic NPCs, monsters, and beings at DF, the designers (again, distinct from the general, very aggressive and most amusing membership) have some very clear ideas for statuses on given worlds which somewhat resembles your list below, although epic would begin at 21st level.

The main difference in philosophy seeming to be that they expect people to play in the 21+ epic playground, which doesn't even enter the equation in most games.

And I agree with most of this. Indeed, many folks at DF would agree with most of this. However, everything is relative and in a cosmology that takes into account the deeds and actions of gods and unique planar beings, a CR 18 is "mere" in the grand scheme of things, but extremely powerful in a given world. Including most worlds at Dicefreaks. We just recognize that there are thousands, if not millions, of given worlds and that they all fall under the auspcies of a cosmos with truly powerful beings.

This, too, is something I don't like. In my games the world is the world is the world, and the trillions and billions of endless other worlds might exist or might not, just like in real life.

The idea that the logical arc for a campaign is for characters to break the Epic barrier and start surfing the planes and making everything they did in their homeworld irrelevant as things get increasingly Cosmic and Supreme annoys the hell out of me. It's why I stopped reading Marvel Comics. People can indulge that kind of thing in their games if they want -- though I'd argue that D&D's mechanics do a very poor job of handling godlike cosmic powers -- but I'm glad WotC doesn't feel the need to shoehorn its ordinary campaign settings into a mega-cosmology anymore.

If you want cosmological sense, there's a way to accomplish this while still allowing folks to have their fights with Asmodeus or Demogorgon. Aspects fulfill this, even to the point that a DM could say there's only one aspect that can ever interfere with a given campaign setting every 1000 years or whatever. Of course, this would have made too much sense and WotC didn't bother with anything resembling this and this is one of the reasons why these debates, rather than discussions, persist.

It also makes sense to dump the mega-cosmology and make supplements that only focus on the campaign world experienced by PCs in an ordinary campaign.

Fortunately, the archfiends DO have CRs higher than almost any other beings out there.

QFT.

It's the one-up-manship of "20 isn't enough! I want 50! 60! 10,000! Turn the dials up to 11!" that annoys me.

It also makes sense to dump the mega-cosmology and make supplements that only focus on the campaign world experienced by PCs in an ordinary campaign.
Why not both?

just say that the stats in said book are for aspects and that it's not clear how they compare with gods from a mechanical perspective. Done. WotC washes their hands of the entire situation and manages to please everyone without isolating the most vocal participants of either side.

Except that in games where you want to use an archfiend as the Final Bad (and what else are they for?) some may find "of course, the culmination of your efforts was only the defeat of an aspect of the true being, nothing has REALLY changed" to be a little unsatisfying. May I suggest an alternative? perhaps WOTC could publish books that will be useful to most of the fanbase, and those who want a higher powered game could stop complaining about the fact, and find some group of dedicated individuals to produce stats that were higher and more powerful, and fit what they wanted. Then, everybody has what they want! You could post the fan created stats on a site or something. Hmmm.. wait... this idea sounds familiar...

Of course, the higherpowered stats wouldn't be "official", so the high powered fans couldn't trash the lower powered players for doing it "wrong" which seems to be much of the real point. Not that anyone on this thread is doing it, and not that it doesn't happen the other way around too I'm sure.

No, it doesn't. Not if one looks at WotC's own historic use of these creatures. It fit the notion that they can keep gods out of their layers, that some gods have had to destroy powerful archfiends at great risk to themselves, and that -- while gods and archfiends (or archcelestials, among others, to be sure) are not the same -- they the two groups possess parallel status.

Once AGAIN may I remind you that all power is not located in stats. Offices, allegiances and other influences have their place. While at present a god may not have to worry too much about an Archfiend in personal mano a mano combat, the Archfiend and his trillion strong army of fiends is a different issue.

The main difference in philosophy seeming to be that they expect people to play in the 21+ epic playground, which doesn't even enter the equation in most games.
Again, you're wrong. And you should amend your statement to say "...which doesn't even enter the equation in most games I've played."

DF doesn't expect people to play in a 21+ playground, although given the demand for this sort of development at the site, there is a great deal of focus on that level. Rather, DF wants seamless progression from core to epic to divine if that's what someone wants to play. One does not have to play or enjoy epic material to enjoy the flavor, the holistic design philosophy, or the concepts of the site.

I think I said this before, but you'd be better off not making statements without at least trying to give a semblance of research or, if you don't think you can find the answer, asking.

This, too, is something I don't like. In my games the world is the world is the world, and the trillions and billions of endless other worlds might exist or might not, just like in real life.
Nice. And DF's cosmology effortlessly could incorporate this approach (no matter how miopic I find it).

The idea that the logical arc for a campaign is for characters to break the Epic barrier and start surfing the planes and making everything they did in their homeworld irrelevant as things get increasingly Cosmic and Supreme annoys the hell out of me.
Couldn't care less if it annoys the hell out of you. What I do care about is you making another assumption about the campaign design philosophy for my site. DF allows DMs and players who want to move beyond the planes, before and during epic levels, to do so. DF also supports campaign worlds that do not.

It's why I stopped reading Marvel Comics. People can indulge that kind of thing in their games if they want -- though I'd argue that D&D's mechanics do a very poor job of handling godlike cosmic powers -- but I'm glad WotC doesn't feel the need to shoehorn its ordinary campaign settings into a mega-cosmology anymore.
Well, TSR worked just fine when it did endorse a holistic cosmology since, in most cases, the interconnections did not interfere with individual campaign worlds.

It also makes sense to dump the mega-cosmology and make supplements that only focus on the campaign world experienced by PCs in an ordinary campaign.
What's an ordinary game? And how/why can't a "mega-cosmology" work with a focused campaign world?

Except that in games where you want to use an archfiend as the Final Bad (and what else are they for?) some may find "of course, the culmination of your efforts was only the defeat of an aspect of the true being, nothing has REALLY changed" to be a little unsatisfying.
Nonsense.

This depends entirely on the approach. If we go with the general tone these recent conversations have taken (particularly ArcTan's comments), there is no larger cosmology out there... Folding that into a DF framework, the world is cut off from the cosmology and entry into such a world by an archfiend's aspect might as well be the real thing. Something is indeed changed: with the destruction of the aspect, the archfiend is dead on that given world and the PCs, who aren't hopping planes to begin with, don't know any better.

May I suggest an alternative? perhaps WOTC could publish books that will be useful to most of the fanbase,
This... notion has yet to be supported by any empirical evidence.

and those who want a higher powered game could stop complaining about the fact, and find some group of dedicated individuals to produce stats that were higher and more powerful, and fit what they wanted. Then, everybody has what they want! You could post the fan created stats on a site or something. Hmmm.. wait... this idea sounds familiar...

Of course, the higherpowered stats wouldn't be "official", so the high powered fans couldn't trash the lower powered players for doing it "wrong" which seems to be much of the real point. Not that anyone on this thread is doing it, and not that it doesn't happen the other way around too I'm sure.[quote]
Or WotC could just stick to aspects and avatars, which they pretty much got right in FCII (for all its other issues), which allows all participants to get what they want. Folks that want the aspects to be the real thing have it, those that think they're just aspects get what they want and can expand their stats up, and WotC doesn't take an "official" stance on anything of this sort since it just supports the notion that they have no idea what they're doing when it comes to dealing with levels >15.

[quote]Once AGAIN may I remind you that all power is not located in stats. Offices, allegiances and other influences have their place. While at present a god may not have to worry too much about an Archfiend in personal mano a mano combat, the Archfiend and his trillion strong army of fiends is a different issue.
Once again, let me remind you that this perspective may very well applicable in certain, mortal environments, but not necessarily elsewhere. I'll also remind you that a trillion-strong army of fiends isn't a threat to a greater god who can just annihilate that, not to mention summon its own outsiders to deal with them.

Except that in games where you want to use an archfiend as the Final Bad (and what else are they for?) some may find "of course, the culmination of your efforts was only the defeat of an aspect of the true being, nothing has REALLY changed" to be a little unsatisfying.
Allow me to paraphrase that: "My characters want to be able to influence the entire multiverse significantly, while actually being only level 15." It doesn't work that way. Either your influence is far more limited (and perhaps killing a Pit Fiend which shadow-ruling an empire is a campaign-spanning quest), or you play at higher level. You don't destroy a tank with a sword. You don't kill an archfiend with level 15 characters.


Once AGAIN may I remind you that all power is not located in stats. Offices, allegiances and other influences have their place. While at present a god may not have to worry too much about an Archfiend in personal mano a mano combat, the Archfiend and his trillion strong army of fiends is a different issue.
Why is the trillion strong army following the archfiend, if the deity has a similar alignment and enough power to topple the archfiend? (Particularly in the case of Chaotic Evil beings)

Allow me to paraphrase that: "My characters want to be able to influence the entire multiverse significantly, while actually being only level 15." It doesn't work that way.

Yes it does. When the scale is 1-20 with the occasional unique being ranging to the giddy heights of 25, a party of four or five level 15s are a serious force.

you play at higher level. You don't destroy a tank with a sword. You don't kill an archfiend with level 15 characters.

If I said this line, it would be true. YOU play at higher level. YOU don't kill an archfiend with level 15 characters (well, level 15 is pushing it even in my games. But if the GM sets the world scale so that level 15 is at the top, theres no reason why you can't). I'LL do it if I want to thanks.

Each GM sets their own power scale. I've played in campaigns where level 10 was the ultimate. But most people seem to play a 1-20 campaign, and the archfiends are pitched accordingly.

Why is the trillion strong army following the archfiend, if the deity has a similar alignment and enough power to topple the archfiend?

The deity doesn't have sufficient power to topple the archfiend. At this scale, personal stats and "power" are almost completely divorced from each other. And if the archfiend couldn't compel the plane's loyalty by one means or another, he'd have been overthrown centuries ago.

And of course, if the deity can break that loyalty and build up their own powerbase... well then they can overthrow the fiend. Some planes are indeed ruled by Gods.

The deity doesn't have sufficient power to topple the archfiend.
According to who...? WotC's material outright states otherwise.

At this scale, personal stats and "power" are almost completely divorced from each other. And if the archfiend couldn't compel the plane's loyalty by one means or another, he'd have been overthrown centuries ago.
According to who...? WotC material doesn't seem to support this.

And of course, if the deity can break that loyalty and build up their own powerbase... well then they can overthrow the fiend. Some planes are indeed ruled by Gods.
Given this argument, there shouldn't be any demon lords or princes of note in The Abyss, but CE gods since a single CE god is stronger than the greatest demon prince and has the power and political skills to draw support from planar inhabitants.

The deity doesn't have sufficient power to topple the archfiend. At this scale, personal stats and "power" are almost completely divorced from each other.

Nope. That might be true in real world politics (or even in-game mortal politics), but in the lower planes, might makes right. If you aren't the most personally powerful entity on your abyssal layer, you will not be able to rule it.

According to who...? WotC's material outright states otherwise.

A broad look at the material would suggest that they're roughly on equal standing overall, with each having their own advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. Evil gods aren't exemplars of the lower planes though, the archfiends are, and thankfully recent material has only presented avatar/aspect stats so we can avoid future rounds of the 'but special K can beat Asmo' arguments. :)

According to who...? WotC material doesn't seem to support this.

'Faces of Evil' says it outright, and layers of the Abyss have been known to consume unworthy claimants.

since a single CE god is stronger than the greatest demon prince and has the power and political skills to draw support from planar inhabitants.

[deja vu]According to who...?[/deja vu ...deja vu] ;)

A broad look at the material would suggest that they're roughly on equal standing overall, with each having their own advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. Evil gods aren't exemplars of the lower planes though, the archfiends are, and thankfully recent material has only presented avatar/aspect stats so we can avoid future rounds of the 'but special K can beat Asmo' arguments. :)
No, it does not. Official material does not suggest anything of the sort, not even the stats (which are pretty good) from the Demonomicon articles. If WotC has indeed stepped away from DDG, gods remain entirely unstatted with the exception of a few aspects here and there (like Tiamat's in RHoD), while we do have official stats for the demon princes in the Demonomicon (and, oddly, aspects for the archdevils in FCII). There is still an imbalance between the two in "official" WotC material, although it is no longer as severe.

'Faces of Evil' says it outright, and layers of the Abyss have been known to consume unworthy claimants.
WotC, not TSR. Does anything of this sort exist in WotC material (I would expect you of all people to know this off the top of your head).


[deja vu]According to who...?[/deja vu ...deja vu] ;)
According to what we continue to see in WotC material, including the very recent Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. It's stated emphatically that Lolth is stronger than any of the demon princes and that they're afraid to offend her and thereby risk destruction. Of course, this is immediately countered by the fact that Demogorgon and Zuggtmoy end up attacking her later on... :rolleyes: And this backs up the continued problem WotC has with achieving a cohesive cosmology, or even decent suggestions for why these imbalances exist.

Why not both?

...Because there's a limited amount of space in a book?

I don't think I'm the only one who's miffed by the fact that D&DG wastes about 80% of its pagespace on information that's *only* useful to people who are running level 30-40+ Epic campaigns, and as a consequence leaves out the majority of the stuff that someone who was interested in religions and gods as a general thing for mortal campaigns might want to know. (I don't really care about how many HP Zeus has, as opposed to what his cult is like, how he's seen by most worshippers of different deities, what sorts of rituals are conducted in his name, how a devout worshipper of his might react to certain moral or ethical dilemmas, etc.)

Faiths of Eberron was much more useful than any other list-of-gods book in 3.5e primarily because Eberron gods don't have stats and we don't have to waste time on their stat block, and can instead talk about what the gods are and do in the *world*.

Allow me to paraphrase that: "My characters want to be able to influence the entire multiverse significantly, while actually being only level 15." It doesn't work that way. Either your influence is far more limited (and perhaps killing a Pit Fiend which shadow-ruling an empire is a campaign-spanning quest), or you play at higher level. You don't destroy a tank with a sword. You don't kill an archfiend with level 15 characters.

Let me paraphrase an annoying trope that's often been used in this thread:

It doesn't work that way IN YOUR CAMPAIGN.

However, if I want it to work that way in my campaign, I don't see the problem.

The *real* problem is that WotC's competence is being badmouthed and their editing decisions being questioned simply because WotC is being realistic about what the majority of their readers want, which is *not* a "coherent cosmology" that supports levelling up into the stratosphere, but a *fun game* that can be played within a reasonable scale of levels (where, yes, a level 20 character can kill anything in the multiverse given enough effort, with the exception of things that are specifically designed to never be killed).

Nope. That might be true in real world politics (or even in-game mortal politics), but in the lower planes, might makes right. If you aren't the most personally powerful entity on your abyssal layer, you will not be able to rule it.

...In your campaign.

...Because there's a limited amount of space in a book?

I don't think I'm the only one who's miffed by the fact that D&DG wastes about 80% of its pagespace on information that's *only* useful to people who are running level 30-40+ Epic campaigns, and as a consequence leaves out the majority of the stuff that someone who was interested in religions and gods as a general thing for mortal campaigns might want to know. (I don't really care about how many HP Zeus has, as opposed to what his cult is like, how he's seen by most worshippers of different deities, what sorts of rituals are conducted in his name, how a devout worshipper of his might react to certain moral or ethical dilemmas, etc.)

Faiths of Eberron was much more useful than any other list-of-gods book in 3.5e primarily because Eberron gods don't have stats and we don't have to waste time on their stat block, and can instead talk about what the gods are and do in the *world*.

Seconded.

I like having stats for gods because it allows for consistancy in their power levels and answers questions about how they would be likely to fair against one another, not to mention there might be the odd epic party who wants to fight one.

However, information about their dogma and worshippers is generally a million times more useful.

...In your campaign.

I thought that was generally accepted as the rule of thumb, particularly for the chaotic evil planes.

I'm going to agree with ArcTan on that. The stats in DDG were space filler, nothing more. I also have no strong desire to see a lot of god statblocks but would rather see some information on special powers singular to that god that take the place of statblocks.

Statting out 1-3 gods from each pantheon, and perhaps some stats for archetypal gods (god of thieves, god of death, etc) would be enough.

That said, what I want to see in publication and what I enjoy free online are two different things. To each their own.:)

Couldn't care less if it annoys the hell out of you. What I do care about is you making another assumption about the campaign design philosophy for my site. DF allows DMs and players who want to move beyond the planes, before and during epic levels, to do so. DF also supports campaign worlds that do not.

Which is fine. Except that let's be honest here -- DF's only real beef with the existing D&D books is the 21+ playground, not the real world of levels 1-20. The fact that DF's e-books are all about the archfiends and celestials and barely reference who's king of where on what Prime world at all speaks to this, doesn't it? The *criticism* of core D&D around which DF is based seems to simply be that core D&D doesn't do Epic godslaying planewalking well enough. If you have an example of something DF has done to correct the "cosmology" of life on a typical Prime world, I'd like to see it, 'cause I can't think of any. (And that's not to say there isn't a lot that could use correcting about D&D's "It's like medieval Europe but with fireballs" approach.)

I don't mind that people like their CR 77 statblocks and their intricate Guides to Hell. I do mind people saying that WotC has somehow "dropped the ball" or "failed" or whatever by failing to include something that was never a good part of the game in the first place and doesn't add anything to a typical game. D&D has no more responsibility to tell you how you can grow up into a level 35 character who can fight and kill demigods than it does to tell you how you can wake up in modern Earth and learn to fire a machine gun.

And yes, I do object to the fanboyishness with which this seeps back onto the boards, with people talking about how "awesome" it is that the numbers in their campaigns have more digits than the numbers in everyone else's campaign because they're killing demigods instead of orcs.

Well, TSR worked just fine when it did endorse a holistic cosmology since, in most cases, the interconnections did not interfere with individual campaign worlds.

Oh, c'mon, as though TSR's attempts at defining levels of deific power and the way being an archfiend actually worked and such weren't just as haphazard -- and just as clearly defined for the sake of the game rather than the sake of a "coherent cosmology" -- as WotC's?

What's an ordinary game? And how/why can't a "mega-cosmology" work with a focused campaign world?

An ordinary game is one that starts somewhere around level 1 and ends somewhere around level 20, or hits a subset of those levels. You can tell because the ordinary rules that come with the core books you buy don't have rules for what happens after level 20, which is this special thing called "Epic" you have to buy a special book that no one likes in order to play.

And the deal with the mega-cosmology is the same as with everything else -- there's a limited amount of time and space a game can cover, and adding one aspect will always detract from another. Good design is as much about subtraction as addition.

The *real* problem is that WotC's competence is being badmouthed and their editing decisions being questioned simply because WotC is being realistic about what the majority of their readers want, which is *not* a "coherent cosmology" that supports levelling up into the stratosphere, but a *fun game* that can be played within a reasonable scale of levels (where, yes, a level 20 character can kill anything in the multiverse given enough effort, with the exception of things that are specifically designed to never be killed).
I have no idea what WotC knows about the "majority of their readers" (and, given your arguments to date, I find the use of that last word interesting) since there's never been anything published that proves this to be the case. And, even if it is, it's almost universally accepted that the fundamental approach with epic and divine material was flawed from the get-go, limiting its application and use even by folks who incorporate epic progression into their games. So, I don't know that it can be objectively stated that WotC's being "realistic" about their customers' interests in this regard.

As for the rest of this, a fun game is as achievable at epic levels. What is reasonable is not determined by WotC or by anyone else, but by the various players, in particular if there are quality rules to support a variety of approaches seamlessly. Which WotC has not done.

I'm going to agree with ArcTan on that. The stats in DDG were space filler, nothing more. I also have no strong desire to see a lot of god statblocks but would rather see some information on special powers singular to that god that take the place of statblocks.

Statting out 1-3 gods from each pantheon, and perhaps some stats for archetypal gods (god of thieves, god of death, etc) would be enough.
Oddly, I have no issue with this assessment (although I do find it telling that ArcTan has no issue pointing out a lack of competence on WotC's part in this arena... One he disagrees with). The manner in which DDG was handled has largely been considered poor to most gamers in part due to the questionable handling of rules, the lack of epic integration (its penultimate failing IMO), and the poor focus on using gods in a game. However, I don't think the point to DDG was ever to be using cults or religions in a game; a book on divine worship, like Complete Divine, could do that. But I do recognize and respect the attitudes folks have regarding DDG's execution and agree with much of it.

However, I don't think the point to DDG was ever to be using cults or religions in a game; a book on divine worship, like Complete Divine, could do that. But I do recognize and respect the attitudes folks have regarding DDG's execution and agree with much of it.

So what do you feel the point of DDG was in that case? A look at playing divine beings? I suppose that may have been their idea. :confused:

Which is fine. Except that let's be honest here -- DF's only real beef with the existing D&D books is the 21+ playground, not the real world of levels 1-20.
Beef? I wouldn't use that word. Rather, I would say that DF is spending time filling in and... fixing a gap WotC created with its epic and divine rules.

And what's this continued reference to "real world of levels?"

The fact that DF's e-books are all about the archfiends and celestials and barely reference who's king of where on what Prime world at all speaks to this, doesn't it?
Uhhh... No, it doesn't.

There are only two "web books" at Dicefreaks, The Gates of Hell and The Godspell Campaign Setting. The former includes creatures from CR 2 to CR 81 (Asmodeus); the latter includes creatures from CR 4 (I think) to CR 22. And it focuses specifically on core-rules, with steady progression hinted at beyond 20th level. It focuses on history, it focuses on local personalities, and spells. If we weren't down for the moment :( I'd post a link, but given that you continue to reveal that you've long since made up your mind about what DF does, I don't know that you'd bother to read it.

Incidentally, there are other projects at DF that focus on core rules material in addition to epic... Our Fairie project comes to mind. And Horrors of The Abyss will likewise offer a spread of CRs, advice, and so forth.

The *criticism* of core D&D around which DF is based seems to simply be that core D&D doesn't do Epic godslaying planewalking well enough.
Given the three and half editions of D&D and the flavor out there, it doesn't. If the flavor didn't take such hardlines about the acts of gods, the power of the outer planes, and the machinations of archfiends -- and how all of these things surpass most mortals -- these conversations wouldn't be happening.

If you have an example of something DF has done to correct the "cosmology" of life on a typical Prime world, I'd like to see it, 'cause I can't think of any. (And that's not to say there isn't a lot that could use correcting about D&D's "It's like medieval Europe but with fireballs" approach.)
These things are discussed almost every day and some of it finds its way into our texts! TGSC, for example, addresses the flaw with the DR of X/magic and how it makes no sense, for example. We've worked in fighters, created new feats, and so forth. I don't want this to turn into a sales pitch for DF, but I can say that many of things you're questioning have been done and continue to be done. As I've said before, I have no illusions that DF is known for its epic work, but that's not the only focus for the site, but it is what has drawn almost two thousand people to sign up... Clearly, there is a base of folks interested in epic and divine and, aside from Upper Krust, we're the only people doing anything about it (I don't include the folks at Planewalker largely because their approach strips stats from the creatures we do stat).

I don't mind that people like their CR 77 statblocks and their intricate Guides to Hell. I do mind people saying that WotC has somehow "dropped the ball" or "failed" or whatever by failing to include something that was never a good part of the game in the first place and doesn't add anything to a typical game.
Here we go again with these broad statements that are nevertheless miopic.

WotC has dropped the ball... Or, if they haven't, they have not done a good job in showcasing that they haven't. WotC did not incorporate epic and divine rules well into the existing rules set, nor did they weave the two concepts together well. These two factors severely soured many folks from this kind of gaming. It also didn't help matters that a lot of people associate epic play and playing as gods (which I typically don't advocate) as powergaming and munchkinism, which was exacerbated by WotC's fumbling with epic and divine rules (as they were).

And I disagree vociferously with it "never being a good part of the game." As you've grown fond of saying, that may be the case in "your campaign," but that does not mean it's the case in every campaign. And it certainly adds something to the typical game depending on how responsibly it's applied. And that's been WotC's failing: divine and epic rules were never applied well and, rather than try to fix it, WotC backed off, siting lack of support from gamers when it's just as likely that gamers didn't support epic and divine because it was executed poorly in the first place.

D&D has no more responsibility to tell you how you can grow up into a level 35 character who can fight and kill demigods than it does to tell you how you can wake up in modern Earth and learn to fire a machine gun.
Nonsense. Furthermore, you're wrong. WotC is responsible for supporting is various gaming sectors. The fact that there's so much activity on the epic boards reveals that folks want and are interested in epic material. The fact that there have been epic characters since 1ed (when 10th was the benchmark despite Mordenkainen and Elminster breaking 20th level) reveals that WotC needed to support epic material in order to support their own concepts.

And yes, I do object to the fanboyishness with which this seeps back onto the boards, with people talking about how "awesome" it is that the numbers in their campaigns have more digits than the numbers in everyone else's campaign because they're killing demigods instead of orcs.
The same kind of attitude seeps into levels 1 -- 20; it is not unique to epic gamers.

Oh, c'mon, as though TSR's attempts at defining levels of deific power and the way being an archfiend actually worked and such weren't just as haphazard -- and just as clearly defined for the sake of the game rather than the sake of a "coherent cosmology" -- as WotC's?
No, they weren't as haphazard as what we've experienced with WotC. It doesn't mean that the approach was perfect or that I agreed with it, but it was faaaar more consistent that what we've been dealing with at WotC.

"Wait, archfiends aren't gods but there are no stats for them (DDG); archfiends are epic, but don't use epic rules (BoVD); archfiends are not epic and they top out at CR 23 (FC I [and yes, that's what we have there originally despite folks trying to suggest that this was not the intent; it's what was published and WotC hasn't sent out any errata to my knowledge]); archfiends may be a little epic and they may or may not have stats, even though they can have strong aspects (FCII)."

At least with Planescape, the vast majority had avatars and the actual creature could never be encountered by mortals.

An ordinary game is one that starts somewhere around level 1 and ends somewhere around level 20, or hits a subset of those levels. You can tell because the ordinary rules that come with the core books you buy don't have rules for what happens after level 20, which is this special thing called "Epic" you have to buy a special book that no one likes in order to play.
Assuming you're correct, and you're not, Which by extension means that anything beyond the core rule books isn't part of your ordinary game.

In any event, there's support in the 3.5 core rulebooks for epic progression. So I suppose it's ordinary now...?

And the deal with the mega-cosmology is the same as with everything else -- there's a limited amount of time and space a game can cover, and adding one aspect will always detract from another. Good design is as much about subtraction as addition.
Yes, good design is as much about subtraction as addition. This has nothing to do whatsoever with whether one incorporates epic and divine rules into a given game.

No, it does not. Official material does not suggest anything of the sort, not even the stats (which are pretty good) from the Demonomicon articles. If WotC has indeed stepped away from DDG, gods remain entirely unstatted with the exception of a few aspects here and there (like Tiamat's in RHoD), while we do have official stats for the demon princes in the Demonomicon (and, oddly, aspects for the archdevils in FCII).

Come now...

That it's an editing error that they aren't explicitely called aspects in FC:I should be wholly obvious to anyone familiar with the authors' statements and intentions in writing that section of the book. Had it been deliberate on the part of the developers to make them true stats rather than aspects/avatars, then it seems bizarre that FC:II prompty was allowed to make archdevil aspects rather than stats.


WotC, not TSR. Does anything of this sort exist in WotC material (I would expect you of all people to know this off the top of your head).

I meant WotC when I said WotC. 'Faces of Evil' was published in Sep 1997 by Wizards of the Coast, after their purchase of TSR.



According to what we continue to see in WotC material, including the very recent Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. It's stated emphatically that Lolth is stronger than any of the demon princes and that they're afraid to offend her and thereby risk destruction. Of course, this is immediately countered by the fact that Demogorgon and Zuggtmoy end up attacking her later on... :rolleyes: And this backs up the continued problem WotC has with achieving a cohesive cosmology, or even decent suggestions for why these imbalances exist.

WotC has waffled on the topic. They still from time to time seem to kowtow to the 'archfiends as big monsters' crowd and a 1e design aesthetic, and other times adhere to a more 2e'esque 'archfiends as primal personifications of evil that make gods wet their pants'.

They've only got aspects present, inside Lolth's deific domain. A greater god would be on their tiptoes with an avatar in the same situation. The point you're trying to make isn't born out by that example at all, especially given later statements about various archfiends attacking Lolth.

I rather like EttDWP noting that Pale Night was capable of teleporting within Lolth's deific domain, despite Lolth's prohibition. Completely flaunting the power of a god within that deity's own domain... that's something above and beyond what even another god might reasonably pull off. That little bit was poetic.

I whole heartedly agree here, DF is not just epic material, I infact yesterday started statting a Vampire using the advanced Vampire creation rules I found on DF and have several months ago used their advanced templates to create a Lich and also a Deathknight.
So that alone already gave me a helluva useful resource for advanced undead creation, I love the normal templates, but sometimes I have to adapt them to fit a special scheme without adding lots of char levels or "cheating" it into their stat block, both of those would unbalance them but DF came up with ways I can use these typical nemesis undead and tailor them appropriately it a balanced way.

So what do you feel the point of DDG was in that case? A look at playing divine beings? I suppose that may have been their idea. :confused:
Well, for starters, it was not a book for PCs. If you recall, back in 3.0, the books were effectively color coded: bronze for players and DMs, red for monsters, and blue for DMs. DDG was a blue book and was geared towards incorporating divine beings into game play for encounters with PCs. I suppose a DM could also use this to help his PCs play gods, but I don't think this was the point.

The book was intended to help a DM design a cosmology (which I think it did a decent job for newbie DMs) and create stats. Then, in homage to two previous editions, it presented stats for them. And WotC did something I still applaud them for, although they did it poorly in the end: they created stats to satisfy everyone. For PS fans and those who want unstoppable gods, some of the SDAs did not allow a save for mortals no matter their power; yet, for those who wanted stats, you could actually run a god. The problem WotC ran into is that there was a lack of scaling between core to epic to divine and the rules, as written, did not allow for interaction between divine beings in the event that folks wanted to play them... Furthermore, the stats did not always make sense relative to the flavor. Corellon probably should have taken off Gruumsh's head rather than just an eye in their battle since Gruumsh could be affected by his various SDAs despite also being a Greater God since his DvR was three points lower.

Now, I do think that WotC probably would have been better off limiting the number of pantheons. Greek, Egyptian, and Norse with no more than 12 gods a piece. This would have, perhaps, allowed more space for incorporating churches and cults into the mix... But, recall that WotC and 3.0 has been far more about numbers and rules than flavor than TSR. This is a trend that has continued to this day. There was plenty of advice in that book, but when compared to the amount of rules and the fact that a single divine statblock is double an NPCs, it stands to reason that there's more rules going on... although I don't think that the ratio was much different from that in other DM-style guides (like the wonderful Book of Challenges).

Well, for starters, it was not a book for PCs. If you recall, back in 3.0, the books were effectively color coded: bronze for players and DMs, red for monsters, and blue for DMs. DDG was a blue book and was geared towards incorporating divine beings into game play for encounters with PCs. I suppose a DM could also use this to help his PCs play gods, but I don't think this was the point.

Oh, they still had a really long chapter on how to handle deific ascension in your game and how to run campaigns for deific characters. I was annoyed by that. (Not only because running a campaign for deific characters is something I have no interest in doing, but because the mechanics given in D&DG aren't really useful for any of the scenarios presented in that advice chapter -- deities, as you point out, don't *have* any decent rules for what they do to each other, so most of your fun as a deific character comes from blasting armies of mortals to shreds effortlessly with SDAs, which gets old pretty quick.)

Now, I do think that WotC probably would have been better off limiting the number of pantheons. Greek, Egyptian, and Norse with no more than 12 gods a piece. This would have, perhaps, allowed more space for incorporating churches and cults into the mix... But, recall that WotC and 3.0 has been far more about numbers and rules than flavor than TSR. This is a trend that has continued to this day. There was plenty of advice in that book, but when compared to the amount of rules and the fact that a single divine statblock is double an NPCs, it stands to reason that there's more rules going on... although I don't think that the ratio was much different from that in other DM-style guides (like the wonderful Book of Challenges).

The difference, of course, being that the deities in D&DG didn't make a reasonable challenge even for most Epic PCs (if you assume most Epic PCs are levelling up from level 20 and are thus more likely to be level 30 than level 50). You had info that was only useful if you were going to be some sort of level 60 godslaying mortal with an artifact sword going off to kill St. Cuthbert, and was of no real use for, say, running a god as an NPC who appears in visions and such. Or portraying the god as an object of worship.

Come now...
I'm here. :)

That it's an editing error that they aren't explicitely called aspects in FC:I should be wholly obvious to anyone familiar with the authors' statements and intentions in writing that section of the book. Had it been deliberate on the part of the developers to make them true stats rather than aspects/avatars, then it seems bizarre that FC:II prompty was allowed to make archdevil aspects rather than stats.
An author's statement, when not supported by some official errata from the publisher, is just that: an author's statement. Don't get me wrong: I respect and applaud the work Erik Mona and James Jacob did on FCI and the various Demonomicon articles (even if I disagree with the approach), but their intent was not honored or did not come to fruition for whatever reason.

As for something being "bizarre," we both know that this is often par for the course with WotC where the planes are concerned.

I meant WotC when I said WotC. 'Faces of Evil' was published in Sep 1997 by Wizards of the Coast, after their purchase of TSR.
If you say so (don't have my books handy to verify); however, I will clarify: When I speak of WotC in this context, I speak of 3ed, whether 3.0 or 3.5. Given that, my statement still stands.

WotC has waffled on the topic.
You think?

They still from time to time seem to kowtow to the 'archfiends as big monsters' crowd and a 1e design aesthetic, and other times adhere to a more 2e'esque 'archfiends as primal personifications of evil that make gods wet their pants'.
Well, let's get something straight here: both archfiends and gods fit into a very similar "1e design aesthetic;" we see very little of the gods being treated this way in 3ed. And the only time we see "archfiends as primal personifications of evil that make gods wet their pants" in when certain designers get involved. I see far more of the former than the latter.

They've only got aspects present, inside Lolth's deific domain. A greater god would be on their tiptoes with an avatar in the same situation. The point you're trying to make isn't born out by that example at all, especially given later statements about various archfiends attacking Lolth.
No, my point is made: WotC continues to have a poor grasp on how it uses gods and planar beings.

I rather like EttDWP noting that Pale Night was capable of teleporting within Lolth's deific domain, despite Lolth's prohibition. Completely flaunting the power of a god within that deity's own domain... that's something above and beyond what even another god might reasonably pull off. That little bit was poetic.
I also liked that section. Hell, I actually like the module. It does not change my position that it handled gods and archfiends poorly.

That it's an editing error that they aren't explicitely called aspects in FC:I should be wholly obvious to anyone familiar with the authors' statements and intentions in writing that section of the book.
Editing error? The fact that it wasn't the author's intent does not mean that it wasn't WotC's intent. I see it as very plausible that a WotC editor removed that line - and reentered it later in FC2, when he noticed the incredible amount of protest on the boards.


If I said this line, it would be true. YOU play at higher level. YOU don't kill an archfiend with level 15 characters (well, level 15 is pushing it even in my games. But if the GM sets the world scale so that level 15 is at the top, theres no reason why you can't). I'LL do it if I want to thanks.

Each GM sets their own power scale. I've played in campaigns where level 10 was the ultimate. But most people seem to play a 1-20 campaign, and the archfiends are pitched accordingly.


Let me paraphrase an annoying trope that's often been used in this thread:

It doesn't work that way IN YOUR CAMPAIGN.

However, if I want it to work that way in my campaign, I don't see the problem.

The *real* problem is that WotC's competence is being badmouthed and their editing decisions being questioned simply because WotC is being realistic about what the majority of their readers want, which is *not* a "coherent cosmology" that supports levelling up into the stratosphere, but a *fun game* that can be played within a reasonable scale of levels (where, yes, a level 20 character can kill anything in the multiverse given enough effort, with the exception of things that are specifically designed to never be killed).
Both of you seem to fail to see our issue with WotC archfiend stats.

It is not "their numbers are too low." Our issue with those stats is: "their numbers are too low in relation to deities and ordinary fiends". The cosmology does not make sense. With stats such as these from the FC1, Juiblex would be outmaneuvered or outright killed by a mere Balor. With stats from BoVD, Kurtulmak would rule Hell in Asmodeus' stead. And no - political power isn't going to avoid that, because Kurtulmak is divine, and he can merely teleport right next to Asmodeus, slaughtering him in one hit, before any fiend can do anything.

Our planar approach to designing is focused on high numbers, yes. Not because high numbers are "awesome". Not because we want to go to eleven. No, we design archfiends with high numbers because it has them makes sense with regards to their underlings and their equals. It allows them not to be utterly underpowered compared to a god, or barely stronger than a balor. Certainly, you could fit all D&D in 20 levels, if you wanted to. But a Balor would need to be brought down to about CR 15, if you wanted to have Demorgorgon at CR 19. Kurtulmak would need to be brought down to CR 17 if you wanted Asmodeus at CR 18. What is the easiest (but not easy) way to have a cosmology make sense? Restat all common monsters, or restat a small amount of leading figures? It seems simple to me.

ArcTan, I think you've misread these guys a bit. I don't seriously think that they're into the high-CR archfiends because they're into playing epic games, or that they are sitting around behind their keyboards bragging about how high their Asmodeus is.

No, the real beef they have is that WOTC ignores Planescape. Not out of spite; WOTC has perfectly good reasons for what it does, and it seems to do just fine for itself as a company. But I think it galls people that their pet setting is not only no longer supported, but is not given its due respect, and that WOTC does not even bother to attempt to make current D&D match Planescape except when it feels like it.

My interpretation is simply: Deal with it. We're going on a decade of 3.X D&D. The tools to run a 3.X game are there, if you are inclined to play in the Planescape setting. But WOTC isn't under any obligation to make things line up with Planescape, a dead product. The planes are as cohesive as they need to be for most gamers--and I shouldn't need to remind anyone that the planes were not exactly 100%"consistent" in previous editions of D&D either.

I truly love sarcasm. Especially when it's applied in an attempt show a degree of awareness. And fails miserably.

ArcTan, I think you've misread these guys a bit. I don't seriously think that they're into the high-CR archfiends because they're into playing epic games, or that they are sitting around behind their keyboards bragging about how high their Asmodeus is.
At least you're right here.

No, the real beef they have is that WOTC ignores Planescape.

:uh-huh:

Uhhhh... No. Dicefreaks does not have a "beef" with WotC because WotC ignores Planescape. Although PS was my favorite campaign setting, there are a number of significant and fundamental differences between PS's approach and DF's approach, stats for gods and god-like beings being one of them.

Divine stats and Planescape have little, if anything, to do with each other.

No, the real beef they have is that WOTC ignores Planescape. Not out of spite; WOTC has perfectly good reasons for what it does, and it seems to do just fine for itself as a company. But I think it galls people that their pet setting is not only no longer supported, but is not given its due respect, and that WOTC does not even bother to attempt to make current D&D match Planescape except when it feels like it.

Whil this is partially some of the problem, it's not the critical issue. The biggest problem is that WotC has made a cosmology that doesn't make sense so that they can market to what they percieve as player preference (specifically, they believe that players don't want epic play).

I disagree that players aren't interested in epic play, but that players were so put off by the poorly designed ELH and DDG that they would not like to play beyond 20th until those are revised (and a lucrative revision that would be).


My interpretation is simply: Deal with it. We're going on a decade of 3.X D&D. The tools to run a 3.X game are there, if you are inclined to play in the Planescape setting. But WOTC isn't under any obligation to make things line up with Planescape, a dead product. The planes are as cohesive as they need to be for most gamers--and I shouldn't need to remind anyone that the planes were not exactly 100%"consistent" in previous editions of D&D either.

While you are correct that while WotC isn't under any obligation to do so, they can and should try to market to the preferences of their players.

By disregarding Planescape and other previous works, WotC is not only creating a cosmology that doesn't make sense, they are also alienating veteran fans who have played for years. It should be noted that those same players are typcially now in college or the workforce, and those that still play have significantly more disposable income to spend on D&D than most younger players who started with 3.X.

I can think of at least one prominent DF member involved with design who has used the phrase "Planescape is dead, thank God."

While you are correct that while WotC isn't under any obligation to do so, they can and should try to market to the preferences of their players.


I think it's a mistake to think that WotC doesn't do that.

And ok, great. I don't actually know much about DiceFreaks, except that what I've seen failed to pique my interest. My "these guys" was a very broad generalization. What I know is that the thread is laced with examples that the cosmology is "inconsistent", which only makes sense to me if we are harkening back to old editions of the game. Because internally, 3.X is about as consistent as I could ask for it to be.

As far as old editions go, they get a big fat "who cares" from me.

I think it's a mistake to think that WotC doesn't do that.

And ok, great. I don't actually know much about DiceFreaks, except that what I've seen failed to pique my interest. My "these guys" was a very broad generalization. What I know is that the thread is laced with examples that the cosmology is "inconsistent", which only makes sense to me if we are harkening back to old editions of the game. Because internally, 3.X is about as consistent as I could ask for it to be.

As far as old editions go, they get a big fat "who cares" from me.

You are welcome to visit DiceFreaks when the site is up, you'd realise that many members have already forgotten old editions and are moving on to chart their own territory.

The reason why DiceFreaks has some feelings for Planescape is because it offers not only a holistic view of the cosmology, but places a pecking order precise enough to make sense of everything.

We at DiceFreaks are not trying to revive Planescape and certaintly not using Planescape as an example to point out the mistakes in consistency. We prefer to look at it in black and white, without any setting backdrop, and try as hard as we can to objectively compare each creature against each other to see if it makes sense as far as the food chain/web is concerned.

And furthermore, DiceFreaks is not about spawning epic material that can split worlds with a breath and mudhole a god with impunity. We just provide a framework where the truly powerful are reflected as truly powerful, and no more and no less.

To further support what my peers have mentioned about epic support. WotC has axed Dragon and Dungeon, despite the overall love and support for the magazines. This is very telling about how they treat or even value their customers. The epic support didn't fail, the company just didn't want to do it for some reasons of their own. They murdered the market as easily as they murdered two endearing magazine lines.

I've actually played in a campaign in which the goal was to slay Asmodeus, most of the campaign was focused around fulfilling a prophecy which conclusion was his death. We had to skip merrily along the multiverse chased by hordes of Powers know what and surviving mostly through guile and trickery. In the end we only destroyed Asmodeus because of the sheer force of fate acting against him.

This all may seem like digression but what i'm trying to say is that this is all subjective, you can change their stats to fit the world you're running and what needs to be done to tell the story. In my world for example gods are merely mortals who have figured out loopholes in reality and gave themselves obscene amounts of power by bending the rules of reality to their advantage. Clerics gain spells because the gods whispe to them how certain loopholes work. This goes against the material presented by the majority of sources provided to me by WoTC, but do I care? Hell no, I wanted my world this way and screw any rules that tell me I cannot do otherwise. Rule 0 says I can do this, and if in your campaign you decide to recreate The Catcher in ther Rye as a musical and force all characters to take max ranks in perform, you can because that's what you want the system to do because we ar enot slaves to the rules, they are slaves to us.

Firstly I would like to make clear that I do NOT wish to be associated with the general Dice Freaks bashing. They have their preferences, they have put a lot of high quality work into realising those preferences, and more power to them.

According to who...? WotC's material outright states otherwise.

If it does, it isn't because of its stats.

According to who...? WotC material doesn't seem to support this.

I refer you to the Hag Countess.

Given this argument, there shouldn't be any demon lords or princes of note in The Abyss, but CE gods since a single CE god is stronger than the greatest demon prince and has the power and political skills to draw support from planar inhabitants.

Clearly they do not have the power or political skills (or possibly interest) to do so, otherwise they would have.

Nope. That might be true in real world politics (or even in-game mortal politics), but in the lower planes, might makes right. If you aren't the most personally powerful entity on your abyssal layer, you will not be able to rule it.

Unless you can convince enough other powerful entities that it is in their interests to support you. This MUST be how it works: even the DF versions of archfiends are far to weak to rule an entire plane solely by personal power. Each Archfiend sits at the top of a web of alliances, fealties, blackmails, intimidations and other connections, and when you are trying to unseat one, you are confronting all of these.

With stats such as these from the FC1, Juiblex would be outmaneuvered or outright killed by a mere Balor.

I am not talking about, and indeed do not possess, the FC1. I am talking about the BOXDs as per the thread title.

With stats from BoVD, Kurtulmak would rule Hell in Asmodeus' stead. And no - political power isn't going to avoid that, because Kurtulmak is divine, and he can merely teleport right next to Asmodeus, slaughtering him in one hit, before any fiend can do anything.

At which point every archfiend in Hell will simultaneously realise that Kurtulmak could do exactly the same to him, and realise that the only way to stop a deific takeover of hell would be to squash him NOW. Kurtulmak vs the Nine Hells. Result: Kobolds need a new deity.

But a Balor would need to be brought down to about CR 15, if you wanted to have Demorgorgon at CR 19. Kurtulmak would need to be brought down to CR 17 if you wanted Asmodeus at CR 18

I don't want Demogorgon at 19. I want him at about late 20s to 30. That puts him as a terrible enemy, but one that might be takeable with the right preparation.

I don't want Demogorgon at 19. I want him at about late 20s to 30. That puts him as a terrible enemy, but one that might be takeable with the right preparation.
But why should he be "takeable" by an adventuring party? It is an entity that has existed in the multiverse for millennia, one of the very foundations of evil - why should an adventuring group be able to take him out, when hundreds upon hundreds of groups have already tried and died?

At which point every archfiend in Hell will simultaneously realise that Kurtulmak could do exactly the same to him, and realise that the only way to stop a deific takeover of hell would be to squash him NOW. Kurtulmak vs the Nine Hells. Result: Kobolds need a new deity.

Why would they rise up? After all, Kurtulmak would never do the same to them - he's already their master (as Asmodeus was).


Unless you can convince enough other powerful entities that it is in their interests to support you. This MUST be how it works: even the DF versions of archfiends are far to weak to rule an entire plane solely by personal power. Each Archfiend sits at the top of a web of alliances, fealties, blackmails, intimidations and other connections, and when you are trying to unseat one, you are confronting all of these.

I wholeheartedly agree - though a being needs the power to support and uphold these webs of alliances, fealties, blackmails, intimidations and other connections.


Clearly they do not have the power or political skills (or possibly interest) to do so, otherwise they would have.
Though I don't have D&Dg on hand, I'm fairly certain that deities have higher mental scores than archfiends as well. They also have sufficient power, by official stats. The only thing remaining is interest - which, granted, is not a bad reason.

But why should he be "takeable" by an adventuring party? It is an entity that has existed in the multiverse for millennia, one of the very foundations of evil - why should an adventuring group be able to take him out, when hundreds upon hundreds of groups have already tried and died?

Because your adventuring group is the first group in millennia to have reached level 20? (It's no dumber than your group being the first group in millennia to have reached level 30, or 50, or whatever.) Because of Destiny?

Because it's fun?

It's not that I think there's a rule that Asmodeus has to be "takeable". I just don't see what the point would be of statting him up otherwise.

To further support what my peers have mentioned about epic support. WotC has axed Dragon and Dungeon, despite the overall love and support for the magazines. This is very telling about how they treat or even value their customers. The epic support didn't fail, the company just didn't want to do it for some reasons of their own. They murdered the market as easily as they murdered two endearing magazine lines.

Dragon and Dungeon had a combined subscriber base of what, about 30,000? How much is that compared to their total customer base?

Yes, the way they've been handling this has been terrible, PR-wise, especially the anxiety they've been generating over what will replace the magazines. Still. If the magazines had had as much "love and support" as people are claiming -- i.e. more than a tiny fraction of players had actually been subscribers -- they'd've been making enough profit that WotC wouldn't've dared touch them.

The boards are not a good benchmark for this kind of thing. It's *easy* for a bunch of upset people to start trumpeting how upset they are on the boards and get a torrent of support following them. If getting tons of praise on the boards meant anything, then there would be no such thing as an unsuccessful product, ever, because they've all had rabid fans ("Incarnum is the best thing to ever happen to D&D ever!!!").

It wasn't just the way D&DG and the ELH were "handled" that was bad. The books themselves were bad, the rules unusable, the concept hokey. I'm not saying the idea of a character who has a number higher than 20 written on his character sheet is always unusable, but nearly everything associated with the idea of "Epic" in D&D -- sudden jump in power after level 20, assumption of freeform magic rules, plots based on multiverse-spanning crises and killing gods and such -- it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me doubtful that you could sell a product based on that that didn't suck and didn't annoy 90% of the DMs and players who tried to run it.

Whatever. Maybe Dicefreaks is the magic bullet that makes having thirty contingent spells on while writing up a new Epic spell that will summon all the gods in all the pantheons to you so you can eat them and steal their portfolios a fun idea. I don't really care. The main thing is that I have very strong subjective reasons to believe WotC when they say most people don't like Epic, because my reaction is exactly the same as the reaction they describe -- my investment in the game goes down sharply as the mechanical complexity goes up, level 20 seems like a natural end to the game for me, and I've rarely if ever seen any story or game reason to extend a game to 20+ levels instead of ending it and starting a new one. WotC is *talking about me* when they say people don't like Epic, and I'm actually pretty convinced from my real-life experiences with the game that I'm not in the minority here.

Because your adventuring group is the first group in millennia to have reached level 20? (It's no dumber than your group being the first group in millennia to have reached level 30, or 50, or whatever.)
My question goes the same for level 50. I don't think Asmodeus should be "takeable" in any case, unless the Overlord wills it to happen. (Or, in more canon terms, unless Hell itself wants it to happen.)
We have offered the reasons of statting him up beyond being "takeable" already. Namely, you know his options. "Ah, he can do X, Y, and Z all over Hell - good to know. Ah, he can see A, B and C across Hell, and D, E and F beyond Hell?" This allows him to interact without straight combat.

But why should he be "takeable" by an adventuring party? It is an entity that has existed in the multiverse for millennia, one of the very foundations of evil - why should an adventuring group be able to take him out, when hundreds upon hundreds of groups have already tried and died?

Because that's what epic adventure is all about.

Of course, you may prefer to have a background where he in fact isn't takeable. Fine. But then he doesn't need stats.

Why would they rise up? After all, Kurtulmak would never do the same to them - he's already their master (as Asmodeus was).

Asmodeus was Lord of Hell. As such, he was the most powerful archfiend. However, each Archfiend had their own powerbase, and Asmodeus had to operate with that in mind. An entity that can bypass the powerbase poses a far more serious threat to Archfiend independence than Asmodeus ever did.

I wholeheartedly agree - though a being needs the power to support and uphold these webs of alliances, fealties, blackmails, intimidations and other connections.

And the archfiends do.

Though I don't have D&Dg on hand, I'm fairly certain that deities have higher mental scores than archfiends as well. They also have sufficient power, by official stats.

Mental scores, or total skill in politics? And stats schmats: they don't have the backing. No deity has an entire plane worth of servitors, and thats not even accounting for the resources they commit to the Prime; which seems to be more important to them than the outer planes in many cases.

Namely, you know his options. "Ah, he can do X, Y, and Z all over Hell - good to know. Ah, he can see A, B and C across Hell, and D, E and F beyond Hell?"

You don't need stats for this. All you need is GM decision.

All you need is GM decision.
What's the point of going to use a nondetection effect on Hell, if the GM just says "his scrying passes", or of trying to sneak, if it's all up to ad hoc decision by the GM as well? I firmly believe in the style of "The world has fixed stats at any given moment. If the players roll a Hide check, and get a 29, then the NPC with a 21 Spot check doesn't see them." While this may seem obvious, the same should be true of cosmic entities such as Asmodeus. His statistics should be fixed, so that interaction is determined, not left up to random decisions by the DM. If the players' nondetection effect to resist Asmodeus' scrying has caster level 20, and Asmodeus has a +30 bonus but rolls a 4, then he does not see them. If he rolls a 5, he does see them. Stats allow meaningful interaction between given entities, whether or not you truly enter combat.

Mental scores, or total skill in politics? And stats schmats: they don't have the backing. No deity has an entire plane worth of servitors,
In WotC canon, neither does an Archfiend. If you are speaking of Layers, I give you Lolth - she has the entire layer worth of servitors.

and thats not even accounting for the resources they commit to the Prime; which seems to be more important to them than the outer planes in many cases.
Granted.


Asmodeus was Lord of Hell. As such, he was the most powerful archfiend. However, each Archfiend had their own powerbase, and Asmodeus had to operate with that in mind. An entity that can bypass the powerbase poses a far more serious threat to Archfiend independence than Asmodeus ever did.
And what exactly would they do about it, given the fact that said God might have Divine Splendor as a SDA?

It wasn't just the way D&DG and the ELH were "handled" that was bad. The books themselves were bad, the rules unusable, the concept hokey. I'm not saying the idea of a character who has a number higher than 20 written on his character sheet is always unusable, but nearly everything associated with the idea of "Epic" in D&D -- sudden jump in power after level 20, assumption of freeform magic rules, plots based on multiverse-spanning crises and killing gods and such -- it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me doubtful that you could sell a product based on that that didn't suck and didn't annoy 90% of the DMs and players who tried to run it.

Whatever. Maybe Dicefreaks is the magic bullet that makes having thirty contingent spells on while writing up a new Epic spell that will summon all the gods in all the pantheons to you so you can eat them and steal their portfolios a fun idea. I don't really care. The main thing is that I have very strong subjective reasons to believe WotC when they say most people don't like Epic, because my reaction is exactly the same as the reaction they describe -- my investment in the game goes down sharply as the mechanical complexity goes up, level 20 seems like a natural end to the game for me, and I've rarely if ever seen any story or game reason to extend a game to 20+ levels instead of ending it and starting a new one. WotC is *talking about me* when they say people don't like Epic, and I'm actually pretty convinced from my real-life experiences with the game that I'm not in the minority here.

If the books provided by the company blows monkey chunks are you willing to consign the untapped potential of epic play to the incinerator just because you don't like it?

Was the fact that you've seen monstrosities spawned that could do things that slaps the spirit of the rules in the face dishearten you from even considering the possibility that if D&DG and ELH were done better things would have been considerably better?

Or is it the unwillingness to run with huge numbers a justification to stagnate a possibility of upping the ante in the game? Would an adult really need to squat down and use his pinkie against an unruly teenager just so that the kid can pick a fight of an appropriate CR?

Forgive me if I am not sounding as neutral and as logical as I wish I could. But not liking large numbers does not justify a dislike for Epic. Sure the numbers may seem overwhelming, but Epic is about expanding possibilities. Epic is about empowering players to new potential. Epic is about enabling players to be in a bigger stage than just the material plane and a few planar trips.

DiceFreaks, as Serge and Witch has said, is about gently easing the epic proportions of the game into a non-epic game. It is about enabling a comfortable transition from powerful to flavorful powerful. It is about have power with common sense and responsibility. The bad taste in your mouth when monstrosities like Pun-Pun and others are the exact same things that we at DiceFreaks feel that is misleading on how Epic should be seen. It is also giving Epic a bad name.

Number crunching is not a major goal. We don't get off bringing in huge numbers. DiceFreaks has about as much non-epic material as its epic material, and perhaps even more. There is much more discussion about base classes, non-epic prestige classes and feats than epic spells, and the discussions bear much fruit to make pre-epic that much more fun and logical.

DiceFreaks is proud of the Gates of Hell, but it is never in our intention to turn it into a badass number fiat. The numbers are high, but that's because that is what they should be mechanically capable of to make sense of their importance in the cosmology as a whole.

Your arguments are valid ArcTan, and I respect you for such a civil discourse. I hope you understand what DiceFreaks intends with Epic material, and hope I have at least done a little to shed some of that bad impression you seem to have against the Epic that DiceFreaks is trying to offer to the gaming community free of charge, only out of our loving gaming hearts.

If the players' nondetection effect to resist Asmodeus' scrying has caster level 20, and Asmodeus has a +30 bonus but rolls a 4, then he does not see them. If he rolls a 5, he does see them. Stats allow meaningful interaction between given entities, whether or not you truly enter combat.

You are trying to have it both ways. Is Asmodeus weak enough that a party of PCs has a meaningful chance of opposing him, or not? If he is, then the WOTC published stats are available. If he isn't, then if you come to his notice and he tries to scry you it works. Or if it doesn't, its because of an external factor, not your PC's efforts. That factor is built into the world by the GM, and its function does not depend on stats. You are quite right that stats allow meaningful interaction between entities whether or not you try to enter combat, but they do so only if meaningful interaction is credible. If Asmodeus is CR 78 (or whatever) there is no point in statting him, because the point of stats is to enable meaningful interaction, and at CR 78 there is no chance of that, stats or no. Unless, that is, you are playing with a group of PCs who can operate at that level, which I and most people are not.

In WotC canon, neither does an Archfiend. If you are speaking of Layers, I give you Lolth - she has the entire layer worth of servitors.

Layers, yes indeed. Actually, I had Lolth already. As you will no doubt be aware, I have never claimed that deities can never seize control of layers, just that they don't necessarily win, even with "higher stats"

And what exactly would they do about it, given the fact that said God might have Divine Splendor as a SDA?

As I understand it, Divine Splendour affects mortals, so Fiends would be immune. They might also consider calling in a few favours from other deities, who might well view a rival in charge of the main servitor recruitment ground with alarm. However, if Kurtulmak has the power and backing to put down the other Archfiends, then indeed welcome to the new Lord of Hell. Given that he hasn't done this, I suspect he hasn't the power or the will.

To further support what my peers have mentioned about epic support. WotC has axed Dragon and Dungeon, despite the overall love and support for the magazines. This is very telling about how they treat or even value their customers. The epic support didn't fail, the company just didn't want to do it for some reasons of their own. They murdered the market as easily as they murdered two endearing magazine lines.

"murder", hah.

Now hold on a second. "Reasons of their own?" What reasons could they have, other than to expand sales of Dungeons & Dragons material? And how do they do that without.... well, creating stuff they think that the majority of customers want? If you're upset that WOTC isn't catering to you, fair enough. It's not fair at all to accuse WOTC of bad faith for it though. There's no cabal to destroy all that is noble and good in D&D; just people doing what they is best.

Perhaps they are wrong. But strangely, I think they probably have a better picture of what customers want than any of us.

Forgive me if I am not sounding as neutral and as logical as I wish I could. But not liking large numbers does not justify a dislike for Epic. Sure the numbers may seem overwhelming, but Epic is about expanding possibilities. Epic is about empowering players to new potential. Epic is about enabling players to be in a bigger stage than just the material plane and a few planar trips.

Epic is about taking a mathematical construct that was designed and tested for numbers of a certain scale and trying to plug in a bunch of numbers that are too high, and then find crude patches for the ways this makes the system stop making sense. (The whole deal with 1-for-1, 3/4 and 1/2 BAB no longer working in Epic is just one example.)

I don't really want to get into a back-and-forth with specific examples of this or that here, but I don't think there's any real controversy about saying that the game system WotC made with D&D 3.5 is a game system that exists between level 1 and level 20, and that trying to scale the numbers up higher than that means, effectively, figuring out a way to write a new system (everything from figuring out what a "level 10" spell should be like to figuring out how to deal with Fighter vs. Cleric vs. Wizard BAB), and that plugging the first system into the second one will have noticeable seams.

If you're okay with that, fine by me. I don't particularly want it in my games. I don't see a need for D&D to let me play a god any more than I see a need for D&D to let me play an ordinary commoner who goes to work every day and doesn't fight. D&D is about adventurers, and really just isn't intended to simulate the levels of power that go on below or above what adventurers do.

DiceFreaks, as Serge and Witch has said, is about gently easing the epic proportions of the game into a non-epic game. It is about enabling a comfortable transition from powerful to flavorful powerful. It is about have power with common sense and responsibility. The bad taste in your mouth when monstrosities like Pun-Pun and others are the exact same things that we at DiceFreaks feel that is misleading on how Epic should be seen. It is also giving Epic a bad name.

Pun-Pun isn't exactly "Epic" -- he is, after all, a level 4 character -- and isn't what I mean by problems with Epic. I'm not talking about not liking the capacity for obviously silly exploits -- I don't like the concept of "Boom! You're level 21 and have entered a brave new world of totally open-ended mechanics!", period.

Your arguments are valid ArcTan, and I respect you for such a civil discourse. I hope you understand what DiceFreaks intends with Epic material, and hope I have at least done a little to shed some of that bad impression you seem to have against the Epic that DiceFreaks is trying to offer to the gaming community free of charge, only out of our loving gaming hearts.

I never meant to directly attack Dicefreaks or the people at the site for doing something they like. I am trying to make the point that I think the game is improved when WotC does focus on the game as played by the majority of players -- and the game as played as a game -- and that I'd rather not see WotC go down the route of cosmology-building with books like D&DG -- and that I'm glad the Fiendish Codices were mostly about monsters that people can fight in a level 1-level 20 adventure and said comparatively little about the Big Cosmic Stuff compared to A Guide to Hell. It is nice that Dicefreaks creates material like that for people who want to read it, and for free, to boot. It's also nice that the books being sold for consumption by most of the general public have a different focus.

"murder", hah.

Now hold on a second. "Reasons of their own?" What reasons could they have, other than to expand sales of Dungeons & Dragons material? And how do they do that without.... well, creating stuff they think that the majority of customers want? If you're upset that WOTC isn't catering to you, fair enough. It's not fair at all to accuse WOTC of bad faith for it though. There's no cabal to destroy all that is noble and good in D&D; just people doing what they is best.

Perhaps they are wrong. But strangely, I think they probably have a better picture of what customers want than any of us.

Right back at you :D

If this is perceived as unjustified whining on my part because you believe WotC is doing the right thing and I'm just an insignificant portion of the people who love Dragon and Dungeon.

Then why is the D&DG and ELH such a failure if you believe WotC probably have a better picture of what customers want?

Could I not complain and wish that WotC had not done what they did to D&DG and ELH and wish to find an alternative to that? Would I then be rebuffed as a number cruncher because of my desire to incorporate into my games a bigger stage to showcase my players in?

You are trying to have it both ways. Is Asmodeus weak enough that a party of PCs has a meaningful chance of opposing him, or not? If he is, then the WOTC published stats are available. If he isn't, then if you come to his notice and he tries to scry you it works. Or if it doesn't, its because of an external factor, not your PC's efforts. That factor is built into the world by the GM, and its function does not depend on stats. You are quite right that stats allow meaningful interaction between entities whether or not you try to enter combat, but they do so only if meaningful interaction is credible. If Asmodeus is CR 78 (or whatever) there is no point in statting him, because the point of stats is to enable meaningful interaction, and at CR 78 there is no chance of that, stats or no. Unless, that is, you are playing with a group of PCs who can operate at that level, which I and most people are not.



Layers, yes indeed. Actually, I had Lolth already. As you will no doubt be aware, I have never claimed that deities can never seize control of layers, just that they don't necessarily win, even with "higher stats"

The funny thing is that WotC's rules for deities are specifically designed to destroy this effect. Deities don't fail on natural 1s, deities can, depending on their rank, always Take 10 or always Take 20, and deities get huge bonuses to all their checks that already put them out of the range of things mortals can oppose (barring exploits), so yes, if a level 20 Wizard runs into Apollo, the *effect* is going to be that Apollo does whatever the hell he wants and the Wizard can't really stop him, and all these cool mechanics that enable that effect are going to be invisible to the player anyway.

There are edge cases and exceptions, sure, but the main impression I got from reading D&DG was that the stats were carefully designed to become an invisible black box of omnipotence to any non-Epic character -- or *at least* to any character less than level 17 -- and so the stats ended up being almost gratuitously pointless.

I never meant to directly attack Dicefreaks or the people at the site for doing something they like. I am trying to make the point that I think the game is improved when WotC does focus on the game as played by the majority of players -- and the game as played as a game -- and that I'd rather not see WotC go down the route of cosmology-building with books like D&DG -- and that I'm glad the Fiendish Codices were mostly about monsters that people can fight in a level 1-level 20 adventure and said comparatively little about the Big Cosmic Stuff compared to A Guide to Hell. It is nice that Dicefreaks creates material like that for people who want to read it, and for free, to boot. It's also nice that the books being sold for consumption by most of the general public have a different focus.

There is nothing more to discuss between you and me. I believe I have trashed out what I want to say about something I like and maybe some other people would prefer not to deal with. So I guess this concludes the discussion between you and me.

Thanks. :D

But why should he be "takeable" by an adventuring party? It is an entity that has existed in the multiverse for millennia, one of the very foundations of evil - why should an adventuring group be able to take him out, when hundreds upon hundreds of groups have already tried and died?

Sure. There's a venerable tradition in D&D of fiend-slaying.

This is what's really galling about the argument. Not that you guys like playing in a different way--again, no accounting for tastes--but that you seem to want to stop other groups from playing that way.

It's a lot more useful for WOTC to produce stats for people who might use them, than to produce stats intended not to be used--or intended to dissuade people from using them at least.

If this is perceived as unjustified whining on my part because you believe WotC is doing the right thing and I'm just an insignificant portion of the people who love Dragon and Dungeon.

many people love it. But...

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php

I'm going to bring up a question here, which might sound strange to people at first, but might become clearer later on.

At which point do you people think, does a creature become unstattable, or at which point should it no longer be statted?

Is it at the pit fiend who has been advanced a few hit dice? Or if you added a few class levels to him? Perhaps you added a template to him, as well (and he has become a Duke of Hell). Can this still be statted? (Around CR ~30-35, here)
Now, what if you add more class levels, and a more powerful template, and make the creature an Archdevil? (~CR 50) Can this still be statted?


The issue I have here is - a Duke of Hell isn't that powerful when compared to the most powerful mortals (we at Dicefreaks limit mortals to 50 class levels, at the most - and that's an extremely rare occurence.) It is, then, qualified to be used in a game as an antagonist to players, and hence, worthy of being statted. Now, we also play games in which we play Dukes of Hell, and meet some weaker Archdevils - which are, although vastly more powerful, not entirely out of the league of a Duke of Hell. Now, within the hierarchy of power of the Archdevils, one might be able to take a Lord of the Nine. Now, each of these steps can meaningfully interact with other, closer steps. However, if skipping multiple steps, there will be a vast power difference. At which should the statting stop, then?

many people love it. But...

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php

For the record, I have only a few Dragon and Dungeon issues. I don't buy them regularly but I value the articles when I do come across them.

I'm just using the magazine's stoppage as an example.

At which point do you people think, does a creature become unstattable, or at which point should it no longer be statted?

At the point at which it cannot meaningfully interact with the PCs.

Thats up and down, as well. If I had a 20th level PC group and they were fighting basic level Goblins, I wouldn't bother statting them up either.

However, if skipping multiple steps, there will be a vast power difference. At which should the statting stop, then?

You should stat creatures if the PCs will meet or interact with them, and if there is doubt about the outcome when they do.

You should stat creatures if the PCs will meet or interact with them, and if there is doubt about the outcome when they do.
Given the fact that I've used Duke of Hell stats in a game, I know people used Archdevil stats in a game, and I'm also currently running a challenge (which isn't purely numerical) that involves using Lord of the Nine stats in a campaign - I don't think there's any question on whether they're used.

I really don't want this to be a discussion about Dicefreaks. This thread was never about Dicefreaks until our material was accused of being "ridiculous." So, unless there's a direct reference to Dicefreaks from here on out, let's avoid discussing us as a community. I wouldn't long tolerate a discussion about WotC at DF, for good or ill.

I think the question of WotC stats is not just one of PC interaction but also the plausibility of a game world. If Asmo is just the servant aka accountant ;) of the Hellish gods, they should say so. If he's absolute master of Hell, then there should be stats that reflect this or no stats at all.

I personally don't like the idea of PCs being so heroic that they are messianic figures. A personal preference mind you, but one I am willing to bet at least some players share.

Given the fact that I've used Duke of Hell stats in a game, I know people used Archdevil stats in a game, and I'm also currently running a challenge (which isn't purely numerical) that involves using Lord of the Nine stats in a campaign - I don't think there's any question on whether they're used.

But by whom?

I, and everyone I know, and the vast majority of people whose style I know about, run campaigns using the basic rules: levels between 1 and 20. Actually, we rarely if ever reach 20. As such, the stats for Lords of the Nine in BOVD are perfectly okay, if a little overpowered. They are far more powerful than any PC will ever dream of being, but not so much that you can't use their weaker spots, and if you can shut down some of their abilities (artifact, true name, whatever) they become beatable. This is exactly what I want from them.

Okay, so you play ultra high powered games where a CR 30 is a speedbump for the real players. Well, then the BOXD stats are too weak for what you need. Use different ones. No one is stopping you. But remember three things.

1) The Archfiends in BOVD are not "too weak" or "poorly designed". They are designed for a style of campaign where lvl 20 is the ultimate. If you are considering 50 the ultimate, they will be too weak. That is because you have moved the goalposts.

2) In your campaign, nothing is too powerful not to need stats. Well that's fine but for 99% of my playing time I just don't give a flying toss what the exact abilities of a CR30 beastie are. I never ever give a monkey's backside what a CR80 thingy can do. They are too powerful for my PCs, to the degree that even their weakest areas blow my PCs away 100% of the time. If they do something, it just works. Stats are pointless.

3) One more time: the fact that the BOXD archfiends don't fit your campaign is not a problem with the sourcebooks. Your campaign is an unusal one. The decision to make the things they statted in these books low enough power that they are useful in a 1-20 campaign was absolutely right. For most of the campaigns out there, entities higher than CR 35 at the absolute outside are irrelevant and pointless. They will never interact with the game except as deus ex machina, and stating them is a waste of page space.

If you want to run a different campaign, do so. Good luck and have fun. I think you're mad to try it using d20 (which I find begins to fall apart at level 12... God help us when we get to 50) but hey, if you're having fun, go to it!

Just don't complain when you have to alter the sourcebooks

I just took a look into the Warcraft RPG books. The Demon Lords all have CRs of about 70, with many NPCs of level 50 or more and almost all of them far above 30.

My question to that is, why? What is so special about the Lady of Pain that she should be more awesome than any god anywhere, in any place. (Because that statblock doesn't differentiate by location.) That sort of power is not required to reflect her flavor.

And why is she Lawful?

The designers of Planescape specifically stated that they wanted her to be a mystery.

And from a gaming perspective, she would have to be in the Nigh-to-or-at-Uber diety level in order for her to do what she can do: Block all direct divine influence from the place (Zeus just can't stroll in, avatar, aspect, proxy or otherwise, and celestials and fiends HAVE to get along while they're there). I heard that Vecna once got in there, but a lot of people had an uproar over that....I don't mind, since Vecna is the god of secrets, so ergo he might know of some way to flout the rules.

The other thing that makes her unstatable is her feat of killing the god Aoskar ....and all of his clerics....anywhere, at once. That's an uber-diety, if you ask me....(or....look at the evidence:embarrass ....)

I'm going to bring up a question here, which might sound strange to people at first, but might become clearer later on.

At which point do you people think, does a creature become unstattable, or at which point should it no longer be statted?

When a level 20 character can no longer meaningfully oppose him.

Is it at the pit fiend who has been advanced a few hit dice? Or if you added a few class levels to him? Perhaps you added a template to him, as well (and he has become a Duke of Hell). Can this still be statted? (Around CR ~30-35, here)

Yeah, see, before that point.

Now, what if you add more class levels, and a more powerful template, and make the creature an Archdevil? (~CR 50) Can this still be statted?

The issue I have here is - a Duke of Hell isn't that powerful when compared to the most powerful mortals (we at Dicefreaks limit mortals to 50 class levels, at the most - and that's an extremely rare occurence.) It is, then, qualified to be used in a game as an antagonist to players, and hence, worthy of being statted.

Well, I limit mortals to 20 levels, and therefore a CR 24-25 monster is the most that could be worthy of being statted.

Now, we also play games in which we play Dukes of Hell, and meet some weaker Archdevils - which are, although vastly more powerful, not entirely out of the league of a Duke of Hell.

Well, I don't do that.

Now, within the hierarchy of power of the Archdevils, one might be able to take a Lord of the Nine. Now, each of these steps can meaningfully interact with other, closer steps. However, if skipping multiple steps, there will be a vast power difference. At which should the statting stop, then?

I as a DM treat the upper echelons of power the same way the players and PCs view them -- mysterious, unknowable, treacherous. The Reckoning of Hell is a known historical event with known repercussions, but the sorts of powers that were actually invoked in such a titanic battle are beyond any mortal's comprehension -- including mine. I as the DM can only tell you what happened, not why or how.

Well, I limit mortals to 20 levels, and therefore a CR 24-25 monster is the most that could be worthy of being statted.


So Great Red/Gold Wyrms just don't exist? And more to the point, the elder dragons that do exist are more powerful than archfiend planar lords? Elminster and Mordenkainen....make believe? Most of FR....silly munchkin land?

I have to agree with Kain. Since D&D already suports beings above CR 20+ and it can be asumed that planar lords are usually stronger than material plane beings (due to an more agresive enviroment, longer lifetimes, more active life cycles), it makes sense for strong planar lords.

I do not understand the 20 level limit. Why should a hero forced to stop at an artificial point? MAybe it is possible to build a campaign so it ends with an epic climax, with all the party sacrificing themselves to save the world or something like that. But barring that, why does it need to stop at level 20? There are more thing to learn out there, infinite planes to explore, kingdoms waiting to be forged by the hand of a single epic warrior...

I'm not a fan of the epic system. It lacks continuity with the non-epic system and the spell system is another way for casters to beat warrior-types. But a system to keep advancing above 20th level is still needed. Because there must not be a limit to what an hero can do.

At which point every archfiend in Hell will simultaneously realise that Kurtulmak could do exactly the same to him, and realise that the only way to stop a deific takeover of hell would be to squash him NOW. Kurtulmak vs the Nine Hells. Result: Kobolds need a new deity.

How? How are the archdevils, who are supposed to be weaker than Asmodeus, going to hurt a being that easily defeated the king of Hell, all without taking a single point of damage?

And if the archdevils try to get a more powerful LE deity to take care of the oversized kobold, how are they going to keep that deity from assuming the throne of Hell?

Because at present, nothing in Hell can actually harm a deity, either by not being able to penetrate their DR, or just not being able to hit them.

Which means, currently the existing stats for both deities and archfiends do not support any flavor regarding the deities playing it safe against the archfiends, as the latter are not a threat beyond what their followers can do to the vastly smaller planar forces of the deities. And given that deities see for miles, and can attack at ranges beyond most everything else out there, the deity can likely keep it's servants safe, while still killing the archfiend.

Just how does that make for a consistent cosmology?

Just how does that make for a consistent cosmology?

It doesn't. Solution, nerf gods.

But why should he be "takeable" by an adventuring party? It is an entity that has existed in the multiverse for millennia, one of the very foundations of evil - why should an adventuring group be able to take him out, when hundreds upon hundreds of groups have already tried and died?

Because there better than all those groups who tried, that is there nature. There PCs. Given enough time a stronger group will come along than the previous groups, one strong enough to defeat the demon lord. That time is now, that group is the PCs.

Then why is the D&DG and ELH such a failure if you believe WotC probably have a better picture of what customers want?

Could I not complain and wish that WotC had not done what they did to D&DG and ELH and wish to find an alternative to that? Would I then be rebuffed as a number cruncher because of my desire to incorporate into my games a bigger stage to showcase my players in?

Huh? I don't even know what you're getting at.

I guess you're saying that the reason that ELH and D&DG failed is not because they were undesirable subject matters, but because WOTC executed them totally incompetently, and that people are in fact clamoring for epic material and god stats.

This seems extremely implausible. But tell you what. If WOTC collapses in the next year due to sheer business incompetence, I'll buy you a drink.

This seems extremely implausible. But tell you what. If WOTC collapses in the next year due to sheer business incompetence, I'll buy you a drink.

You're on. :pint:

Though I think its worth mentioning that DDG was Wizards first attempt at trying to incoporate a formal method for deity stats into a product that was an attempt to revisit the 1e DDG. One (or two or ten) failure(s) doesn't mean the whole company is going under.

This seems extremely implausible. But tell you what. If WOTC collapses in the next year due to sheer business incompetence, I'll buy you a drink.

If D&D went under it wouldn't hurt WotC that much. Shouldn't you be saying D&D is discontinued?

It doesn't. Solution, nerf gods.

Even if you do nerf gods, you still have to increase the power of the planar lords. As it stands, they are barely stronger than individual commanders (a balor, for instance) out of their armies of millions, and are absolute crap compared to many denizens of the material plane.

It would be simpler to bring the planar lords up to an approrpiate level of power instead. Given the choice between nerfing almost everything powerful (gods, NPCs, and powerful dragons included) or strengthening the planar lords, which seems more appropriate?


Because there better than all those groups who tried, that is there nature. There PCs. Given enough time a stronger group will come along than the previous groups, one strong enough to defeat the demon lord. That time is now, that group is the PCs.

It would depend on the PCs in question. Campaign settings have already given us incredibly powerful NPCs like Mordenkainen and Elminster, capable of things far beyond 20th level PCs. Even they know their place in the face of powerful beings like the gods and planar lords. If the PCs are truly that powerful (ECL 50+) then sure, but otherwise, they should be looking to be annihilated.

Even if you do nerf gods, you still have to increase the power of the planar lords. As it stands, they are barely stronger than individual commanders (a balor, for instance) out of their armies of millions, and are absolute crap compared to many denizens of the material plane.

It would be simpler to bring the planar lords up to an approrpiate level of power instead. Given the choice between nerfing almost everything powerful (gods, NPCs, and powerful dragons included) or strengthening the planar lords, which seems more appropriate?

Lolth had 66hp in 1E. I think makeing gods and demon lords CR24-30 is perfectly acceptable considering they were scantly lvl10 before 2Es failure of god handling.

So what if the lord of a lair is only 32 times as strong as a pitfiend...Wait that sounds highly reasonable. A CR30 asmodeus is 32 times as strong as a CR20 pit fiend. That sounds like a way better deal than say our leaders have with there generals.

If the PCs are truly that powerful (ECL 50+) then sure, but otherwise, they should be looking to be annihilated.

D&D is based on a set of assumptions.
4 encounters per day.
Approriete gear.
The campaign will go from 1-20.

Notice the last one? Good. I like epic and all, but it's not an assumed part of the game.

How? How are the archdevils, who are supposed to be weaker than Asmodeus, going to hurt a being that easily defeated the king of Hell, all without taking a single point of damage?

I refer you once again to their trillions strong army.

Because at present, nothing in Hell can actually harm a deity, either by not being able to penetrate their DR, or just not being able to hit them.

1,000,000,000,000,000/20 is 50,000,000,000,000 nat 20s per round. I'm assuming a reasonable supply of ranged weapons, and that the vast bulk of Hell's forces will be engaged with divine minions, slaughtering clerics and followers and so on. Alternatively, you might pick say 100 champions and have each of them with 10,000,000,000,000 followers doing "Aid Another" actions.

Needless to say, at no point will the Archdevils be within strike range of the deity, or within sense range of him or any of his (rapidly diminshing number of) temples.

I refer you once again to their trillions strong army.
I refer you to Divine Splendor.

1,000,000,000,000,000/20 is 50,000,000,000,000 nat 20s per round.
Damage reduction will negate that.

and that the vast bulk of Hell's forces will be engaged with divine minions, slaughtering clerics and followers and so on.
Other deities and Celestials wouldn't tolerate a slaughterfest on the Prime and intervene. Alternatively, you might pick say 100 champions and have each of them with 10,000,000,000,000 followers doing "Aid Another" actions.


As I recall it, Aid Another requires you to be adjacent. I don't see 10,000,000,000,000 followers as being adjacent to 100 champions.

Needless to say, at no point will the Archdevils be within strike range of the deity, or within sense range of him or any of his (rapidly diminshing number of) temples.
The diety's sense range is 18 miles. He can teleport to where the Archdevil is. He can use a Divine Blast to kill him from 18 miles. Etcetera.

I like epic and all, but it's not an assumed part of the game.
Actually, Epic is in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and as such, Core material.

If D&D went under it wouldn't hurt WotC that much. Shouldn't you be saying D&D is discontinued?

I'm not particularly worried about either happening. But whatever suits you!

I refer you to Divine Splendor.

I refer you the fact that Fiends aren't mortals, that few deities have the "Supreme" portfolio and those that do probably DO rule layers, and that it only has a rdius of 180'

Damage reduction will negate that.

Like hell it will (;) ) DR 30/epic? A first level barbarian with a greataxe can get more than 30 damage on a crit. (2,500,000,000,000 confirmed crits per round...)

Other deities and Celestials wouldn't tolerate a slaughterfest on the Prime and intervene

They won't tolerate a takeover of Hell either. If we're allowed outside intervention this debate is over before it starts: any deity that tries it will be squashed by the others.

As I recall it, Aid Another requires you to be adjacent. I don't see 10,000,000,000,000 followers as being adjacent to 100 champions.

You'd have trouble getting volunteers for the champions anyway. Stick with the massed volleys then.

The diety's sense range is 18 miles. He can teleport to where the Archdevil is. He can use a Divine Blast to kill him from 18 miles. Etcetera.

The Arch devils have nine entire layers to hide in. Eighteen poxy miles? even if they're at the back of their army they'll be further away than that. And he can teleport to where the archdevil is if the archdevil is daft enough to let the deity know where he is. Then again, and Archdevil that stupid was overthrown millennia ago.

A first level barbarian with a greataxe can get more than 30 damage on a crit.
You were assuming ranged weapons.

Also, fiends could easily be considered mortals for purposes of Divine Splendor, given the fact that they're not deific (which, in my opinion, is what the authors of D&Dg intended with "mortal".)

apologies for the premature posting by the way.

You were assuming ranged weapons.

Arrows are still x3 crit multipliers. They only need to average 11 damage. And that's ignoring any elemental effects they might add. Elemental resistance is per round, not per attack...

Elemental resistance is per round, not per attack...
This would be incorrect (although admittedly, there's contractions in the rules on this.)

Also, arrows need to be within range.

Other deities and Celestials wouldn't tolerate a slaughterfest on the Prime and intervene.

Without getting into the argument at large (and I agree with neither person here really, because I don't believe in statting the true forms of gods or archfiends), let me make one point:

Tolerate it or not, the fiends have in the past engaged in a more subtle but wide scale effort on the prime material, and killed a god that way by starving them of belief. Much earlier in planar history as well, there are indications of multiple "slaughterfests" on the prime, leading to a relative cessation of deific interference in the Blood War and the internal politics of the fiends. Plus, there are worlds that have been overrun by Blood War spillovers, deific/celestial intolerance or not, so even if rare or mitigated by such forces, it has happened before. Whether the current game rules easily explain such happening is really irrelevant.

A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.

Also, arrows need to be within range.

That's okay, Devils can fly. Gravity is your friend :)

Anyway, even then you are looking at lets see... longbow range is base 100 so max is 1000. Range penalty is irrelevant since we're looking for nat 20s anyway. We don't want to be within 180', say 200' for safety, so that's 800 squares we can stand in. That's just one line. A 1000 yard radius circle has an area of 3,142,000 square yards. Less the bit we don't want to stand in (125,680 sq yrds) that's 3,016,320 combatants in range. Thats still 752,540 confirmed criticals per turn. Ouch.

Actually, of course, it will be more than that because many devils can fly, so we can make a sphere instead of a circle, but then we have to account for space left for the arrows to actually fly. I think 752,540 crits from the best bows Hell can furnish will pretty much do the job. And, of course, most Devils can greater teleport self at will and they are all superbly disciplined, so there won't be any problem setting this up. And they can do this every round.

Actually, in the second round they can start using iterative attacks and rapid shot...

Without getting into the argument at large (and I agree with neither person here really, because I don't believe in statting the true forms of gods or archfiends),

Well, neither do I. I dislike the whole idea of statting gods or divine abilities, and for that matter I profoundly dislike the "deities fuelled by belief" thing as well. But you have to work from RAW... and this is amusing in its absurdity, don't you think? :P

What is the argument about again?

So here's how I see this - the situation for the gods is not going to be the same for every campaign. I've played games where we were strong enough to threaten worlds, and others where a single carrion crawler took us out. Once I let players take machine guns into the Abyss for kicks.

All of them were fun. Really, stats or no stats or worshipper dependency all depends on the plot. To me, if my players can take on gods simply by leveling up, it feels like railroading/handholding to me. I know some of you will say its the other way around, that if the game has beings interacting in the system but outside its boundaries that's railroading.

But let's face it, it all depends on the story the DM is trying to invoke. One can argue that the game is being ruined by going in one direction or another, but I doubt any of us have the sales figures to take that beyond personal opinion. As such, if nothing, I can applaud WotC for trying to satisfy as many divergent groups as possible.

As a big fan of Shemeska's story hour, I know that gods free from worshipper dependency and able to kick fiendish buttocks would ruin the plot of her game. On the other hand, taking away from the majesty of the gods as creators and inspirations of magic, knowledge, war, etc would take away from most of my games.

Horror and Higher Power based roleplaying rely on statless beings to invoke a sense of helplessness/humility. Epic games to the level of Grecian or Hindu heroes means mortals are essentially destined to beat gods, and in the latter gods are largely custodians of reality (aka the Illusion for some believers) rather than its masters.

Now, on with making some dead horse pate! ;)

What is the argument about again?

Does the fact that an Archfiends personal stats are too low to take on a deity cause a problem with the cosomology. Witch says yes, because it means all planes and layers should be ruled by deities not Archfiends, I say no because power can come in forms other than stats: in this case political and military resources.

:warning... biased bit:

Witch appears to be under the impression that a fight between two entites with such vast resources at their disposal as an Archfiend or a deity would be resolved by a single combat between the two. I am pointing out that unimaginably vast armies of fiends do have an impact...

A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.
Refer to your PHB page 312. I already mentioned there were contradictions in the rules.

Anyway, even then you are looking at lets see... longbow range is base 100 so max is 1000. Range penalty is irrelevant since we're looking for nat 20s anyway. We don't want to be within 180', say 200' for safety, so that's 800 squares we can stand in. That's just one line. A 1000 yard radius circle has an area of 3,142,000 square yards. Less the bit we don't want to stand in (125,680 sq yrds) that's 3,016,320 combatants in range. Thats still 752,540 confirmed criticals per turn. Ouch.
Meet Infinite Deflection. Or Epic Spells with the Reflect seed.


Actually, of course, it will be more than that because many devils can fly, so we can make a sphere instead of a circle, but then we have to account for space left for the arrows to actually fly. I think 752,540 crits from the best bows Hell can furnish will pretty much do the job. And, of course, most Devils can greater teleport self at will and they are all superbly disciplined, so there won't be any problem setting this up. And they can do this every round.
Deities can disable teleportation in their realm for everyone but themselves.

Actually, in the second round they can start using iterative attacks and rapid shot...

Won't make the difference with Infinite Deflection.



Witch appears to be under the impression that a fight between two entites with such vast resources at their disposal as an Archfiend or a deity would be resolved by a single combat between the two. I am pointing out that unimaginably vast armies of fiends do have an impact...
The thing is, those vast armies of fiends are unlikely to be following Demogorgon if some deity could squish Demogorgon personally - they'd follow the deity, because he's more likely to beat them.

Whether the current game rules easily explain such happening is really irrelevant.
No, it's not. It's a reflection of the inability for WotC to establish rules that support the flavor.

I refer you once again to their trillions strong army.

I refer you to the SDAs Divine Shield, Divine Blast, Mass Divine Shield, and Mass Divine Blast.


1,000,000,000,000,000/20 is 50,000,000,000,000 nat 20s per round. I'm assuming a reasonable supply of ranged weapons, and that the vast bulk of Hell's forces will be engaged with divine minions, slaughtering clerics and followers and so on. Alternatively, you might pick say 100 champions and have each of them with 10,000,000,000,000 followers doing "Aid Another" actions.

Two words: Energy Storm.

This simple SDA completely negates all ranged attacks at the deity, or anything within it's area of effect.

Needless to say, at no point will the Archdevils be within strike range of the deity, or within sense range of him or any of his (rapidly diminshing number of) temples.

How so? If a deity teleports into Dis, right next to Dispater's tower without warning, how is the Archdevil going to play keep away?

You're counterpoints seem to be based on the assumption that the deity has made it stupidly obvious that he's attempting to attack a planar lord. However I don't think deities with their (usually) high Int and Wis scores are that ignorant.

If a deity wants to replace Asmodeus, he's going to either send a minion into Nessus, likely not aware of the deity's plan, and when within sight of the King of Hell, the minion will utter his deity's name, allowing the deity to see (and thus travel directly to) the spot where Hell's ruler is at present (after using abilities to make sure that Asmodeus is actually there).

Then the deity easily proceeds to kill the King of Hell, and assumes the throne of Hell, using it's power to stifle any retaliatory attempts by the other Lords.

I'm curious as to why people think consistency is even such an important aspect of the planes. The outer planes are not the same as the material plane; they're a product of belief and thought. Time and space obey different laws, and it may very well be that completely inconsistent things exist in the planes in a way that they don't in the material plane--much less reality.

I'm curious as to why people think consistency is even such an important aspect of the planes. The outer planes are not the same as the material plane; they're a product of belief and thought. Time and space obey different laws, and it may very well be that completely inconsistent things exist in the planes in a way that they don't in the material plane--much less reality.
You're right. It's amazing that folks are trying to use mortal armies, strategy, and troop numbers as a basis for political and military strength in the outer planes...

kintire,

I'm sorry, but you're stratagy is far too contrived for it to have any real chance of working. Even if we grant that this arch-fiend can mobilize and deploy a quadrillion fiends at a moments notice, you're still making a ton of assumptions. Like, that they know exactly where Kurtulmak is. That he hasn't put any kind of dimensional barrier up to keep them out (he has Alter Reality; he can cast any spell up to 9th level with no XP cost as a standard action). That, for whatever reason, he is actually at a location barren enough to actually be able to hold this enormous number of fiends (have you thought about the volume actually occupied by that many fiends?). That, despite this huge press of numbers, they all somehow have line of sight to him. Not all devils can fly, and not all of the devils that can will be able to fit directly above him, which is the only place range won't come into play. If they are all sitting in a line right above him then they really should be shooting at each other. Sorry, but most fiends aren't that smart (not to mention can't fly). There's just no way even the Baatezu could coordinate a quadrillion-man assault on a single entity at a moment's notice with any sort of appreciable efficiency. And of course, the biggest problem with all this is that you seem to be assuming that he just stands there and has no buffs and does nothing to defend himself.

One of the easiest, most effective defenses for a deity is to have an AMF up all the time. That goes a long way to negating the chances of even the oddball critical hit getting through their DR. Alter Reality gives Kurtulmak Wish at will, with no XP cost. All he needs is one action and he's pretty much immune to arrows. He might even have them all getting thrown back at the army. Of course, Kurtulmak has Divine Grace (or whatever the super initiative thing is), so he gets that action, even if he's somehow surprised. Or he could just teleport. Good luck recoordinating a quadrillion fiends at a moments notice. You do realize that the vast majority of them probably wouldn't even find out he'd moved for at least several hours, if not days (or weeks; those numbers are so far beyond anything like real-world logistics that it is pretty hard to estimate how long it would take to disseminate information to them all). Sorry, this army would be the most spectacular failure the lower planes had ever seen. It would be even more sad than when the Celestials tried to invade the Grey Waste.

As for actually killing the Archfiend... well, what exactly is it going to do to hide from him? I would imagine that between Alter Reality and his other powers it shouldn't be too hard for him to divine the guys location. Then he just has to teleport there, which is no problem. Then he just hits the fiend once (Annihilating Strike is actually pretty nasty). I'm not really sure the Archfiend could actually do much to prevent it, although I'm certainly not a master of either SDAs or even all the spells in the Player's Handbook (let alone the bazillion splat books out there). Still, divine powers get through most conventional defenses.

BTW, D&DG specifically mentions somewhere that, for the purposes of SDAs and god powers and such, a mortal is defined as anything that does not have a divine rank. By default the Archfiends don't have divine ranks in BoVD, so they would be fully susceptible to anything that works on "mortals."

I'm not saying this is how it should be, but this is the system WotC set up when they published D&DG and the BoVD.

So Great Red/Gold Wyrms just don't exist?

If you come across one, it's either been nerfed or its stats fall into the "does whatever the hell it wants" category. If I'm going to put a Great Wyrm in the game it'll probably fall into the latter category.

This is my only point -- you have beings who *either* do whatever the hell they want, or are beings the PCs could fight and kill. I don't see the point of stats that won't exist in the actual arena of PC combat, because that's what stats are for.

And more to the point, the elder dragons that do exist are more powerful than archfiend planar lords?

It depends. If it's the kind of game where archfiends are killable, then so are Great Wyrms. If not, then archfiends and Great Wyrms both fall into the "No stats, you lose" category, and neither will be appearing on-camera much.

Elminster and Mordenkainen....make believe?

If I were to use Elminster or Mordenkainen or a similar super-archmage character, yes, they would either be nerfed to the level where a fight with them would mean something -- *or* they would have no stats at all because you'd never fight them. I think the latter makes the most sense for Mordenkainen's status in Greyhawk, honestly. I don't really care about Elminster.

Most of FR....silly munchkin land?

Well, yes. That's why I don't like FR much and don't run games in it. I was one of the gamers who migrated to Eberron because the sheer Epic-ness of FR had made it intolerably stupid to me.

You're right. It's amazing that folks are trying to use mortal armies, strategy, and troop numbers as a basis for political and military strength in the outer planes...

Yeah.

Honestly, in my campaigns if the gods or the archfiends come up at all, they rule the planes because they do. That's what they *are*. It's inherent to their nature. Talking about nonsense like how many HP they have or how many times per day they can use an SLA cheapens that. They simply exist, their rulership of the planes is a fact, and any more information than that will never be given to or comprehended by mortal PCs.

You're right. It's amazing that folks are trying to use mortal armies, strategy, and troop numbers as a basis for political and military strength in the outer planes...

It's not an argument I was making. But in any case, what I'm getting at is that these beings, gods and fiends, only need to be somewhat consistent in how they act to the players, not each other. I don't have a problem with the idea that there might be something that makes gods more individually powerful than archfiends, yet unable to assail the fiends in their home planes.

After all, most material worlds don't have gods marching around going to war either; realistically, they could and should be doing that. But they don't. There's no consistent rule mechanic that explains why. It's not really all that important though.

It's not an argument I was making. But in any case, what I'm getting at is that these beings, gods and fiends, only need to be somewhat consistent in how they act to the players, not each other. I don't have a problem with the idea that there might be something that makes gods more individually powerful than archfiends, yet unable to assail the fiends in their home planes.

After all, most material worlds don't have gods marching around going to war either; realistically, they could and should be doing that. But they don't. There's no consistent rule mechanic that explains why. It's not really all that important though.

Exactly; the reason I shrug off all this stuff about "consistent cosmology" is that, if the real-life mythologies about gods and demons tell us anything, it's that half the point of immortal supernatural beings is that they *don't* make sense from a human perspective.

Exactly; the reason I shrug off all this stuff about "consistent cosmology" is that, if the real-life mythologies about gods and demons tell us anything, it's that half the point of immortal supernatural beings is that they *don't* make sense from a human perspective.

Yeah, but having "doesn't make any frikkin' sense" as one of the defining points of your cosmology is lame, as well as poor world-building.

I want tools to play games, not build worlds.

I want tools to play games, not build worlds.

Is there some reason that one precludes the other? That is what I don't get. If some people can play perfectly fun games that never go above 10th level in a world that was supposedly designed for 1-20th level play, why can't people play perfectly fun games that never go above 20th level in a world designed for 1-50th level play?

Designing a cosmology that makes sense doesn't mean 'stripping the fun and sense of accomplishment from the PCs'. Not in my mind anyways. You should be able to have both.


By the way, whoever said "solution: nerf gods" is great.

I think part of the complaint of inconsistent cosmologies is that the world feels less real and that makes roleplaying in such a world (or cosmology) less fun.

Not everyone is going to care, but I personally have a hard time enjoying inconsistency in a cosmology if I'm playing a serious game.

Yeah, but having "doesn't make any frikkin' sense" as one of the defining points of your cosmology is lame, as well as poor world-building.

It depends. I find being mysterious and distant far from lame. I think it's very lame when Asmodeus turns out to be another monster-thwacking PC with class levels and abilities who got his position by being uber. I think it's kind of cool if he's just *there*, and his conflicts with other entities distant and impossible to undertand, y'know, the way gods and demons often are in real religions.

If by "not making sense" I meant "dances around with a lampshade on his head" or "purposely acts self-destructively", you might have a point. But all I mean is "You don't know what his stats are, why he's in charge, how he got to be in charge, or what his wars involve. Only that they happen."

I think part of the complaint of inconsistent cosmologies is that the world feels less real and that makes roleplaying in such a world (or cosmology) less fun.

Not everyone is going to care, but I personally have a hard time enjoying inconsistency in a cosmology if I'm playing a serious game.

On the other hand, "inconsistent" is different from ill-defined. I'm actually very annoyed by players who want to know the prehistory of the world stretching back to the very creation of the universe before they'll play in it. Do their characters know about that crap? Or care? *We* don't know about the origins of our own universe in detail in real life, nor do most people care that much about it as they go about their business. Why are we so all-fired excited about the Cosmos-Building crap in fantasy games?

Seriously, the fact that every third-rate D&D-clone fantasy world has to have some half-baked creation myth about how Twenty-Three Titans battled against the Hordes of Hyperspace and annihilated this and smote that and rent the other thing in twain *for fifty friggin' pages* before we get to the actual world with elves and orcs and things -- it really ticks me off. And it seems endemic to the fantasy-geek world.

On the other hand, "inconsistent" is different from ill-defined.

I agree. I enjoyed a lot of games where the characters were just 1st level PCs who knew little to nothing about the larger world.

However, I think there is something to be said for knowing your characters don't have to retire at level 20, that there is more fun waiting at 21+ with well defined rules. Something to look forward to I suppose.

Its not always going to come up, and in my gaming life it has yet to, but I like the idea that should I ever need to play out an encounter of cosmic proportions those DF stats are waiting for me.

it really ticks me off. And it seems endemic to the fantasy-geek world.

Why would this be such a cause for anger? :confused:

I think of my world-building and world-flavoring as cohesive but in some ways separate from my games. Especially when I have little to no time to play, I enjoy going online and still participating in the hobby - I suspect a lot of people are in my boat.

*We* don't know about the origins of our own universe in detail in real life, nor do most people care that much about it as they go about their business.
If we assume that 1 current origin story of the earth is correct (possibly, it's none), from science, religion, or any other method, then there are hundreds upon hundreds of purely false hypotheses which were entirely made up. All because people have a need to know about the origins of life: people care. It makes them feel secure.

Seriously, the fact that every third-rate D&D-clone fantasy world has to have some half-baked creation myth about how Twenty-Three Titans battled against the Hordes of Hyperspace and annihilated this and smote that and rent the other thing in twain *for fifty friggin' pages* before we get to the actual world with elves and orcs and things -- it really ticks me off. And it seems endemic to the fantasy-geek world.

The same thing happens in every mythology. The mistake gamers make is to assume that the origin story is now spontaneously an absolute fact.

Is there some reason that one precludes the other? That is what I don't get. If some people can play perfectly fun games that never go above 10th level in a world that was supposedly designed for 1-20th level play, why can't people play perfectly fun games that never go above 20th level in a world designed for 1-50th level play?


Wrong question. The question WOTC would have to answer is, "Why make the world designed for 1-50th level play if people are normally only playing 1-20?" There apparently is no good reason to. The only thing that would suggest otherwise is the word of some people on a message board.

WOTC clearly has a strategy for their D&D line, and that strategy seems to be doing ok. I certainly have few complaints about the books they've been putting out.

World-building, btw, is a hobby that is separate from gaming. WOTC makes gaming products, not world-building products.

Wrong question. The question WOTC would have to answer is, "Why make the world designed for 1-50th level play if people are normally only playing 1-20?" There apparently is no good reason to. The only thing that would suggest otherwise is the word of some people on a message board.

You are assuming the fact. How do you know that people are "normally only playing 1-20"? Is your word more important than everyone else's?

Here's why I think people are interested in epic: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=397116

Where is your evidence to the contrary?

World-building, btw, is a hobby that is separate from gaming. WOTC makes gaming products, not world-building products.

Unless, for some crazy reason, someone was playing in those worlds....;)

Wrong question. The question WOTC would have to answer is, "Why make the world designed for 1-50th level play if people are normally only playing 1-20?" There apparently is no good reason to.
It depends really on many things. For example the warcraft setting for D&D has big players all at levels around 40 to 80. When the world is designed to focus on combat and leveling up very fast, so why not? If you have a world that is designed for focusing on the idea, that the players are just normal people who struggle with not going down in the sceems of the powerfull, than a range of 1-10 might be fitting. A world designed to lead crusades to hell and smack the demon lords around, would likely even be best for characters of level 30 to 40.
With D&D Wizards is publishing are ruleset, not a world. Worlds are published as Forgotten Realms and Faerûn and you may notice that these books are drastically different inside, and it's not just the color of the paper. ;)
Also, if you look at the right places, you'll notice that the rulebooks actually highly promote world-building and there are very few references to specific worlds, even those also published by Wizards.

I am workking on my world Akarion since I finished school. That's three and a half years now, and I can't really say that I think one could make a book about world-creation. There are some general guidelines I could give, but no real masterplan or a cheklist how to do it.

You are assuming the fact. How do you know that people are "normally only playing 1-20"? Is your word more important than everyone else's?

Here's why I think people are interested in epic: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=397116

Where is your evidence to the contrary?

...Wow. A petition. On a message board. Good job.

If I went to the right places and spent enough time building it up I could probably get just as many names asking for WotC to publish a book on cat food.

Unless, for some crazy reason, someone was playing in those worlds....;)

The problem is that if you like building the world for its own sake rather than as a backdrop for a game you're probably not going to make it an ideal place to play. And if you're that interested in building it you're going to be doing it to the detriment of time you'd spend actually making up stuff for a *game*.

When everyone is worldbuilding, no one is playing. I've seen it happen many times.

If everyone is having fun I fail to see the problem. I admit to having spent 3 days making characters for a near-godlike game we played for like 3 hours, but those were a fun three days.

Maybe I'm missing some larger issue? :confused:

Honestly I see what you're getting at with stats for gods and other beings that can smash the PCs with mere thinking. It can feel like its just a waste of time to stat those guys out, and I used to believe that completely and its still my preference not to use stats. But at the same time I can see the idea that a cosmology should make sense, that even if the PCs don't have any clue as to what is going on the players feel like the world is believable. For some, that may mean stats for gods.

I think another reason for stats is that it makes the PCs feel like everyone is a player in the world, even the NPCs. The idea that even the DM can't be certain of cosmic battles, that those beings are interacting in a manner similar to their PCs but on a cosmic scale, can also increase the believability of things and make it feel more like a living, breathing world than something the DM is pulling out of his keister...

It can also make it fun for the DM. I see it has its uses, and that for those who feel the PCs are stars of the cosmology and its Chosen Ones those stats might even come into play as the PCs gain more and more power.

I also think Wizards should at least make some content in their web initiative to deal with epic and maybe even divine games done right to better see how interested people are in it.

I think a problem is, that all these books make many things appear as if they are basics of the game, but are in fact much more special variant rules. In a "standard"-game by the Core-Books, you have a level range of level 1 to 20, where almost everyone in the world is level 1 or 2 and even elite soldiers are just level 4 to 6. If you make it to level 8, you're technically allready in the league of super-heroes with super-powers. I think a good example for level 20 is Gandalf vs. Balrog/Balor. When you manage it to get to level 20, you have a 50:50 chance to win a battle against these guys.
Epic D&D is a totally different game, you usally just don't see it. There are dozens of NPCs with levels over 20 or even 30 in the FRCS and there are always some 22+ creatures in the monster manuals, that create the image, that level 20 characters are just the average guys. They may be in an epic campaign, but not in a "standard" campaign. Both ways work, but not at the same time, and that's a fact, that these books never mention. It becomes meaningless if you play the game the Diablo-style, but in a roleplaying-campaign, many things seem to make no sense, because they don't do and never were meant to. There's nothing silly about making rules and stats for everything, but it would be silly to use it all at the same time.

^ great, great post.:)

...Wow. A petition. On a message board. Good job.

If I went to the right places and spent enough time building it up I could probably get just as many names asking for WotC to publish a book on cat food.

Nope. This is where you regress to spewing crap. Bluemage55 shows that a lot of people want more epic. You respond by saying these people are what? Don't count? And yet you (and everyone else who has said "no one likes epic" or "normal players don't like epic" or anything of that sort) have yet to show evidence to the contrary.

Then you make some completely ridiculous statement about cat food. Which you won't be backing up because you can't back it up.

Epic might not be as big of a deal as psionics, but I bet it is bigger than martial maneuvers, incarnum and the tome of magic classes. And like was mentioned, epic is in the DMG. It is core now.

Doing epic right doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't play epic. Doing epic wrong hurts everyone who does play epic, and doesn't help anyone who doesn't play epic.

How then do you justify the 'screw you guys' attitude towards a group of gamers?



When everyone is worldbuilding, no one is playing. I've seen it happen many times.

Right. Tell that to Gygax, Greenwood, Baker, Cook, Williams and everyone else who creates campaign settings. Just because worldbuilding has crushed your little corner of the roleplaying world (and somehow, I can't believe that since you obviously love to play and I imagine would do so regardless of other people) doesn't mean that it works that way for everyone.

Me, I'm a player. And I like reading about a cohesive cosmology, but I'd rather be playing over DMing any day of the week. So I do understand where you are coming from...it doesn't matter if the DM has figured out the exact number of spells per day the great wyrm dragon has when I'm 5th level and just wish he'd get on with the game. But I don't find your solution (ignore it) to be the best idea for that. You can have worldbuilding right alongside streamlined and engaging play.

More importantly, a larger market exists of 'people who can buy and read the rulebooks' than of 'people who can buy and read and use the rulebooks', simply by the logic of inclusion. Thus, by marketing to people who will buy something (moreso than to people who will use something) WotC benefits.

Nope. This is where you regress to spewing crap. Bluemage55 shows that a lot of people want more epic. You respond by saying these people are what? Don't count? And yet you (and everyone else who has said "no one likes epic" or "normal players don't like epic" or anything of that sort) have yet to show evidence to the contrary.

Then you make some completely ridiculous statement about cat food. Which you won't be backing up because you can't back it up.

There are petitions on the Internet about everything. A petition only proves that those specific people on the petition care about what the petition is about. It's not any kind of random sample that proves anything about the population in general. That's all I meant.

Right. Tell that to Gygax, Greenwood, Baker, Cook, Williams and everyone else who creates campaign settings. Just because worldbuilding has crushed your little corner of the roleplaying world (and somehow, I can't believe that since you obviously love to play and I imagine would do so regardless of other people) doesn't mean that it works that way for everyone.

Me, I'm a player. And I like reading about a cohesive cosmology, but I'd rather be playing over DMing any day of the week. So I do understand where you are coming from...it doesn't matter if the DM has figured out the exact number of spells per day the great wyrm dragon has when I'm 5th level and just wish he'd get on with the game. But I don't find your solution (ignore it) to be the best idea for that. You can have worldbuilding right alongside streamlined and engaging play.

However, if I have to make a decision about what I'm going to spend time on, spending more time worldbuilding and less time running the game makes everyone have less fun. The amount of time you can spend worldbuilding is unlimited -- you *never* run out of tiny little things to define about the world -- so yes, it's easy for worldbuilding to spin out of control and take away from the actual fun of the game.

When a company makes campaign settings, you bet that the designers talk a lot about what makes the setting worth publishing for people to play in before they decide what to write about.

More importantly, a larger market exists of 'people who can buy and read the rulebooks' than of 'people who can buy and read and use the rulebooks', simply by the logic of inclusion. Thus, by marketing to people who will buy something (moreso than to people who will use something) WotC benefits.

But there's a *choice*. Books that are there more just to be read are going to be harder to use than books that are there designed to be used.

I'm now curious how many world builders are out there...I hate to say it but I think my and my cousins fall into that category. We have more fun designing the game than playing it...probably because they aren't into roleplaying. My other friends I used to play with before I moved were more into the role thing...

<raises hand> I'm a world builder and writer. However, I've been told that I'm great at DMing, role-playing, and story telling. To me, world-building can be used for either the purposes of writing one's own little world or for the purpose of allowing others to explore said world. I prefer the latter (unless I end up published, in which case I'll prefer the former).

That said, I think I've made my position clear and it's obvious (and not altogether unexpected) that minds here aren't going to change despite the fact that quite a few folks who do play epic can recognize the position that those that don't take... I've seen very little from the other side to offer any allowances (you know who you are).

Wrong question. The question WOTC would have to answer is, "Why make the world designed for 1-50th level play if people are normally only playing 1-20?" There apparently is no good reason to. The only thing that would suggest otherwise is the word of some people on a message board.

You're looking at it the wrong way. People "normally" play between 1-20 because that's what the charts in the PHB go to. If they went from 1-15 or 1-25 or even 1-50 people would "usually" play in that range.

You're looking at it the wrong way. People "normally" play between 1-20 because that's what the charts in the PHB go to. If they went from 1-15 or 1-25 or even 1-50 people would "usually" play in that range.

That doesn't really make sense, and it still begs the question--why 1-50? By your logic, a game that runs from level 1-1000 is just as valid and useful as 1-20, so why not?

I think your logic is fairly specious; There are in fact some pretty good reasons not to run epic games--namely, that the game works best in the low-to-mid-levels, and that most of the classic D&D opponents operate in that level range. I don't think that players are merely sheep who would play whatever game they were provided.

In any case however, the burden of proof doesn't really lie upon me to prove that there aren't epic gamers chomping at the bit out there. It's upon the epic gamers to prove their own existence beyond "Me and a few of my buddies like playing this way." Large-scale internet petitions are only modestly impressive and convincing; picketing outside WOTC headquarters would be much moreso.

It's upon the epic gamers to prove their own existence beyond "Me and a few of my buddies like playing this way."
There're people out there for whom developing Epic material is their only job, and they get by. That is already proof of some significant epic community.

I'm not saying that there are no people who play epic games. I'm just saying that there aren't enough people who do it to make WOTC cater to them. There are probably diehard Birthright fans out there, but it doesn't make business sense for WOTC to support a Birthright campaign setting.

This is all I'm saying; not that epic players are bad or silly--just that WOTC probably has reasons for not supporting that style of play. They are not simply trying to spite a certain type of player, and I suspect they are not simply so dense that they are ignoring people.

For those people who want epic play, the fan-community probably satisfies the need of that community sufficiently.

There is a demand for epic play. That is a fact. Otherwise, why there are sites wholly dedicated to epic play, yet none dedicated to Incarnum, binding and other systems?

Most games do not accomode epic characters easily. That is another fact. So what? the planes are infinite. If the 35 level archmage, who can make reality beg with a word wants to keep growing in power, somewhere, in some lace, there are still spells to learn, power to tap, foes to defeat.

Lets see why a cap is somewhat silly. Imagine a party with both a 20 level fighter and a 10 level fighter/10 level rogue. Both are friends and they constantly sparr together. Once both reach level 20, the fighter starts to really train his friend. Teaching everything he knows. But, for some reason, the rogue can not become a better warrior. How can that make sense?

I think in fact, you really need a "theoreticaly" infinite level progression, but for most campaigns and settings, you need to establish a "practically" finite level range.
For example, when you design a setting and make it, that there are currently only 18 mortals known to have reached epic status and they all have levels of 21 to 24, and the Lords of the lower planes all have levels in the range of 22 to 28, and there are no creatures known to be more powerfull then them, then having level 36 player characters just doesn't make any sense.
Those few epic mortals are also in most cases more or less immortal archmages, having reached this power in houndreds or thousands of years, then even in a 10 year campaign, it would still seem to completely silly to have the PCs reach level 18 or 20. In such a setting or campaign, you should call it a successfull game and stop it at level 16 or so.

I agree with that point. I do not advocate an infinite system. But I do not see the need to stop the game at level 20. It is a game about heroes, and one of the definitive marks of heroes is surpassing themselves. So setting a limit bugs me.

Evidently, if someone's playing epic, that means the world is epic (or supports epic NPCs and monsters) A party of level 20 characters in Eberron does not make sense because the setting is about low-level play. But in Faerun they would fit just fine.

Even if they are practical caps on any given branch on knowledge (for example, there is only so much magic that can be known at one time), that still allows a character to branch into other fields. If in a given world 20 levels of wizard is limit of what human can comprehend of arcane magic, maybe then it is time to start to learn how to fight, track, pray or sneak around. As I said, surpassing oneself.

And for the planar lords, it is silly to keep them at comparative low level. They must be powerful, both to their impossibly long lifespan, active life and constant threath. If Asmodeus can be taken down by a couple of pit fiends, he would already been overthrown. If Juiblex can be defeated by a Balor (and he can. I've seen a round-by-round analysis of the fight) then he would already be destroyed. Those are demon and devil lords, the greatest incarnations of evil, they can not build their power based on loyalty or friendship and hope to last. If they can be killed or betrayed, they will be. Only by being the smartest, strongest and more powerful among fiends they manage to keep their possition. Balors do not obey out of respect of authority, as far as I know.

Even keeping them statless is better to see them as not powerful enough.

I admit I find the charge that fiends "must" be powerful because of their long lives. My impression is that the lifespan of a fiend doesn't have much impact at all on its power. Advancement through experience is the kind of thing that mortals do; fiends and gods operate differently.

Gods obviously derive power from concepts that are of direct interest to mortals--war, love, death, fertility, the worldly elements, etc. They don't go adventuring, nor do they sit around training their bodies and minds; rather, they spend their days concentrating on their domains and enhancing their visibility and power in the material world.

Fiends and other outsiders derive power from more fundamental forces. Elementals derive their power from the elemental planes, and the fiends and other outer planars derive power from the underlying philosophical concepts of the universe. Mortals rarely worship these forces directly; they are too concrete (elemental) or too abstract (Good/Evil/Law/Chaos). That's where the gods fill in.

Gods and mortals alike are mostly interested in the affairs of the material plane; that's where their power comes from (in different fashions). Gods can become extremely powerful off the prayers of mortals, but they're also vulnerable to their fickle whims. Thus, the power of gods, like the power of mortals, can change and shift drastically over time. Fiends and other outsiders are linked to much more fundamental and less volatile forces. The powers of the elements and alignments are roughly balanced, and there are rarely large shifts in the balance of power--such a shift would have enormous impact on the entire multiverse.

As a result, fiends and other outsiders have very stable power bases, but also very static ones. The Abyss or the Nine Hells might exist much as they have for millennia, with very little change. Certainly, the Abyss might be filled with churning chaos, and demons might rise and fall constantly, but the ultimate net outcome is the same--a demon somewhere falls, another somewhere else rises. There may be spikes and valleys in the power, unlike the more rigidly regimented Lawful planes, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing.

Individual fiends, therefore, rarely rise significantly in power or wisdom. They don't have the weaknesses of gods--their power isn't tied to the whims of mortals, and they can't be killed (permanently anyway) when on excursions to other planes. But ultimately they grow in power very slowly, scheming for millenia with very little change. A dretch that exists for two thousand years is still just a dretch. Fiends don't adventure or gain levels for power very much; When power changes occur, it is either clearly a clearly defined ascension or demotion (for lawful beings) or more random chance and luck (for chaotic beings). Some of the planar beings covet the individual power of deities, but pursuing the status of deity also means making themselves more vulnerable.

Deities meanwhile might find the planar denizens useful, but it's not really worth their while to spend too much time trying to dominate the planes. Their power resides on the material plane, and Outsiders are ultimately some of their most useful tools (and dangerous enemies) on the material plane. It doesn't do to go trying to conquer fiends--there is just little to gain.

And mortals, meanwhile, are not tied to any outside power in their lives. For as long as they remain alive and in the material plane, they can gather as much power as they possibly can--even to rival the most powerful beings in the multiverse--but they only have their lifespan to achieve it in.

That's just my take on how these things have worked.

That doesn't really make sense, and it still begs the question--why 1-50? By your logic, a game that runs from level 1-1000 is just as valid and useful as 1-20, so why not?

No reason. It's all arbitrary, that was the point.

I think your logic is fairly specious; There are in fact some pretty good reasons not to run epic games--namely, that the game works best in the low-to-mid-levels, and that most of the classic D&D opponents operate in that level range.

I'm inclined to agree. However, the fact that high-level D&D doesn't work terribly well doesn't mean that it can't.

That's just my take on how these things have worked.

That was a fairly decent assessment, and in general I'd be inclined to agree with it.

I think there would be more demand for epic if it had been done better. Instead it was kinda half thought out (progression) to WTF where they thinking (current epic magic rules). and that unfortunately soured many peoples opinions on it, I know I was one for a long while.

My first copy of D&D back in the day had classes going 1-36, with magic users costing more to level. Demi humans where their own class, that went by letters. All this proves rules change and evolve to suit developers individual ideals. I think epic's day will be back in the sun shine, and hopefully done correctly. If wizard does not do it, then thankfully hard working people like Kain, Serge and Witch and many others are there filling in, correcting, and creating.

If you do not like epic, no one is holding a vorpal blade to your neck demanding you run or play in the setting. I don't care really for Oriental adventures stuff and discourage it, I don't however stalk threads bashing OA and picking fights, its different strokes for different folks. Remember at the end of the day, we all put our d20's away and are still geeks :) Preferring a 1-20 setting does not make one more or less of a gamer then does 1-50+ setting.

For outsider power, I beg to differ. There are classed outsiders out there and several such beings (especially some planar lords) are actively working to develop and grow in power. Just as example, the BoVD Mephistopheles has recently increased his power by developing Hellfire.

Outsiders, unlike dragons or other long-lived races, are usually active. MOst erynies are usually busy corrupting mortals, for example. And demons are usually fighting all the time, too. They pick up experience and even if they are slow to learn, they are still able to grow and adapt. Or be killed in the process.

Devils get promoted based on their sucess in their previous state. That's why there aren't 15 level gelugons...because when an ice devil show that level of skill, he is turned into a pit fiend and his memories erased. A temporary loss of power, but that enables said pit fiend to train and recover his skills, having a better base power level. Demons who grow in power also may mutate into a different type, too. The mortality rate in the outer planes is also quite high, so it is a matter of survival of the fittest what creates the stronger breeds of fiends.

And, as I said, demon lords and archdevils need to be top dogs to stay in power. So they need to be substantialy stronger than what a normal powerful fiend can hope to beat. Remember that the MM version of monsters are the weakest possible specimen. A pit fiend alone could have up to +9 extra points on each ability score (due to above-average rolls and use of Wish to boost his stats), plus better gear or a more effective feat selection. And that is without increasing HD or adding class levels, which its not impossible for a particulary dedicated fiend.

Meet Infinite Deflection. Or Epic Spells with the Reflect seed.

Epic is broken: we all know that.

Deities can disable teleportation in their realm for everyone but themselves.

"The Nine Hells" is not his Realm: even if he wins.

Won't make the difference with Infinite Deflection.

Once we're talking Epic, anyone can cheese.

The thing is, those vast armies of fiends are unlikely to be following Demogorgon if some deity could squish Demogorgon personally

We're in the nine hells having suqashed Asmodeus. In the Abyss, it would be harder to arrange a counterattack: and indeed some layers are ruled by deities. But simple self interest will rally support.

I refer you to the SDAs Divine Shield, Divine Blast, Mass Divine Shield, and Mass Divine Blast

The shields won't cut it, and the blasts will hardly make a dent.

Two words: Energy Storm.

Well, we'll have to use ray or ranged touch spells instead.

Incidentally, may I point out that SDAs are limited, and associated with portfolios? you seem to be cheerfully assuming the deity will have all of them!

How so? If a deity teleports into Dis, right next to Dispater's tower without warning, how is the Archdevil going to play keep away?

You're counterpoints seem to be based on the assumption that the deity has made it stupidly obvious that he's attempting to attack a planar lord

Its based on the precondition, which you seem to have missed, that the deity has already done exactly this to Asmodeus. That's quite enough to warn the others that somethings' up!

You're right. It's amazing that folks are trying to use mortal armies, strategy, and troop numbers as a basis for political and military strength in the outer planes...

Well, the Blood War works in recognisable military terms. In any case i) I am far from entirely serious, and ii) If its absurd to use military strategy, it is laughably ridiculous to use personal attack bonus and hit points! Which is my real point.

I don't propose to argue the "war in Hell" any more. Its no doubt getting tedious, and it seems to have made it's point!

If everyone is having fun I fail to see the problem. I admit to having spent 3 days making characters for a near-godlike game we played for like 3 hours, but those were a fun three days.

Maybe I'm missing some larger issue?

That's fine. The issue is that those people who like to run up the stats for everything and to have games at high epic levels have a tendency, and it isn't universal, to belittle those who don't; and more commonly the sourcebooks that support those who don't. If you enjoy making stats for uber beings then more power to you: no enjoyable minute is a wasted minute. The problems arise if you try to claim that making those stats is a better way than not, or at extremes the One True Way.

<raises hand> I'm a world builder and writer. However, I've been told that I'm great at DMing, role-playing, and story telling. To me, world-building can be used for either the purposes of writing one's own little world or for the purpose of allowing others to explore said world. I prefer the latter (unless I end up published, in which case I'll prefer the former).

I am also a worldbuilder, and can relate very closely to this point of view. I also get very irritated when I am told that the worlds I build are "incoherent", "don't work", "don't fit the lore", "make no sense", that the assumptions I base them on are wrong and that books I use, successfully, to build them are rubbish.

that minds here aren't going to change despite the fact that quite a few folks who do play epic can recognize the position that those that don't take... I've seen very little from the other side to offer any allowances (you know who you are).

Quite a few folks can: and many more cannot. I've never suggested that you can't play epic. I've suggested that you are fighting the DnD system to do it, and that you'd be far better off using another that can handle that level of play, but by all means do it. However, it has been suggested many time that I am wrong not to, and many times in this thread that I'm wrong to pitch my worlds accordingly.

Epic is broken: we all know that.

Non-Epic is broken. Take a look at the CO boards and see the wide variety of non-epic broken builds.

However, smart DMs who errata broken rules (whether in epic or non-epic) take care of that.

Further, there is nothing to suggest that Infinite Deflection is broken, not when Wind Wall does the same 20 levels prior. Ranged attacks suck in D&D. That's part of the game design (the designers have mentioned that it would not be fantasy heroism if D&D characters fought like modern day armies). Infinite Deflection does not change the balance of the game.

Non-Epic is broken. Take a look at the CO boards and see the wide variety of non-epic broken builds.

Any system can be broken if you try to break it, which is what the CO people try to do. Most of those broken builds are quite openly test builds pointing out a system quirk, with no intention that they be actually played.

Mind you, non-Epic IS broken, that just isn't why. However, if the system is already creaking by level 20, which it is, that doesn't exactly encourage me to take it further!

not when Wind Wall does the same 20 levels prior

Wind Wall can be dispelled: Infinite Deflection cannot.

Wind Wall can be dispelled: Infinite Deflection cannot.

Wind Wall is available at 5th level to many spellcasters with a relevant ability score of 13 or more.

Infinite Deflection isn't available until 21st level at the least and required Dex 25, other feats, and one open hand.

Is it not logical that a 21st-level ability be better than a 5th-level ability?

Is it not logical that a 21st-level ability be better than a 5th-level ability?

Irelevant. It is undesireable that any ability should completely shut down any character's entire attack options, with nothing at all they can do about it. Wind Wall is static, has finite duration (in fact, quite short) and can be dispelled. Infinite deflection is essentially "you're a ranger who took the missile path? a Scout/Fighter/etc who specialises in ranged combat? You might want to read a book for this entire encounter: nothing for you here".

And yes, I am aware that its not the only one. They all suck. This sucks too.

Then make an epic feat which allows you to avoid the effects of Infinite Deflection.

Then make an epic feat which allows you to avoid the effects of Infinite Deflection.

Why am I paying for the Epic level handbook if I have to balance the whole thing myself? Some people enjoy this. I don't. My alternative is "don't play epic" which is a perfectly legitimate one.

It's not a perfectly legitimate reason to state "Wizards shouldn't design Epic", however. Which is (although I haven't been keeping track who said what) what some of you have been advocating.

For outsider power, I beg to differ. There are classed outsiders out there and several such beings (especially some planar lords) are actively working to develop and grow in power. Just as example, the BoVD Mephistopheles has recently increased his power by developing Hellfire.

Outsiders, unlike dragons or other long-lived races, are usually active. MOst erynies are usually busy corrupting mortals, for example. And demons are usually fighting all the time, too. They pick up experience and even if they are slow to learn, they are still able to grow and adapt. Or be killed in the process.

Of course they do things. My point wasn't that these beings are frozen in time; it is that their changes happen at a glacial pace compared to those of mortal beings. The plots of fiends take place over many years, and they only get more complicated and more lengthy as you go up the chain. Imps and Succubi might spend an entire mortal lifetime corrupting just a few people; the plots of a Balor or Pit Fiend may very well taken millennia to play out.

Dragons may be long-lived, but they are still mortals. They eat, breathe, drink, sleep, and die like any other mortal--just on a much longer timeframe. But even dragons are closer to humans than outsiders; outsiders are not born of mortal parents, but brought forth more or less wholly formed. They don't have mortal needs, and their lives can end only through violence. They aren't taught by parents; their behaviors are pretty much instinctual; they are defined by their form. They're totally alien.


Devils get promoted based on their sucess in their previous state...mortality rate in the outer planes is also quite high, so it is a matter of survival of the fittest what creates the stronger breeds of fiends.


Yes, yes. None of which I contradicted. But who says that that means that fiends gain in power quickly? Fiends are constantly being replaced. The high mortality rate might simply mean that very few fiends ever have time to truly advance and get more powerful. A pit fiend dies, it's replaced by some lower being, which is in turn replaced by another. But the souls keep coming even as the fiends keep dying.

And, as I said, demon lords and archdevils need to be top dogs to stay in power. So they need to be substantialy stronger than what a normal powerful fiend can hope to beat. Remember that the MM version of monsters are the weakest possible specimen. A pit fiend alone could have up to +9 extra points on each ability score (due to above-average rolls and use of Wish to boost his stats), plus better gear or a more effective feat selection. And that is without increasing HD or adding class levels, which its not impossible for a particulary dedicated fiend.

But who says that most pit fiends do that? I wound think that pit fiends that showed too much ambition would be quickly put in their place by a commanding prince--or by the other pit fiends. After all, in most Evil societies, there is always someone ahead of you trying to keep you back, and everyone behind you trying to pull you back down. Fiendish society makes no effort to be fair, and is often going to be its own worst enemy.

A pit fiend that somehow managed to leap those hurtles and gain that much in power WOULD be a threat to the fiendish lords. Maybe it's not perfectly consistent with some previous version of D&D, but I think it's sufficiently consistent internally--as consistent as it needs to be.

Irelevant. It is undesireable that any ability should completely shut down any character's entire attack options, with nothing at all they can do about it. Wind Wall is static, has finite duration (in fact, quite short) and can be dispelled. Infinite deflection is essentially "you're a ranger who took the missile path? a Scout/Fighter/etc who specialises in ranged combat? You might want to read a book for this entire encounter: nothing for you here".


You're arguing from your own opinion, rather than that supported by WotC. WotC has never tried to make immunities undesirable.

Infinite Deflection shutting down ranged attacks is no more problematic than heavy fortification shutting down sneak attacks, or a ring of freedom of movement shutting down grapplers, etc. There is also the fact that there are certain monster characters or transformational prestige classes that can grant immunities as well. Is following a specific build to gain immunity to ranged attacks any more unfair then taking Green Star Adept to get immunity to critical hits?

Note also that Infinite Deflection may be immune to dispelling, but most humanoid characters will be achieving the Dex 25 via gloves of dexterity (at least early on), which can be dispelled, robbing the character of their deflection. Likewise, ability damage can be utilized to shut down the feat.

Fiendish society makes no effort to be fair, and is often going to be its own worst enemy.

If that were the case, I have a hard time believing the Abyss can't produce enough fiends to take down this heirarchy in 9-H ruled by CR 30ish Lords o' Nine...

Maybe it's not perfectly consistent with some previous version of D&D, but I think it's sufficiently consistent internally--as consistent as it needs to be.

Given the plans of these archfiends supposedly threaten worlds, I'd say it stretches believability even in 3e they are so weak....unless of course they are merely pawns/servants/pets of gods, I'm willing to go with that....

Why would Abyssal society be any more efficient than the Diabolical society? They just are inefficient in different extremes. I'm just saying Lawful Evil society is rigid, stifling, and unfair; devils would not allowed to grow to their full potential, because they're constantly being watched and monitored by everyone else.

Abyssal society has no one limiting the rise of fiends, especially if you're Demogorgon. So he should conceivably level up until he is capable of driving baatezu off of Carceri and likely Hades since what we've seen of ultroloth stats in 3e is laughable...

Even if your campaign world is the only world, I find it hard to believe that beings that have lived for millennia will get taken down by some 20th level party of do-gooders. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, like driving them off their layer of rulership or somesuch.

There is a demand for epic play. That is a fact. Otherwise, why there are sites wholly dedicated to epic play, yet none dedicated to Incarnum, binding and other systems?

Because Epic is an older concept than Incarnum or the ToM classes, and a much less specific one? Lots of people think the idea of "taking D&D to the next level" sounds a lot of fun in the abstract, even if -- especially if -- they haven't actually tried to do it in a game yet. (One of the annoying habits of D&D players is constantly dreaming about how awesome their characters will be one day, even if the DM has no intention of running the game for ten years so they can reach level 50.)

Lets see why a cap is somewhat silly. Imagine a party with both a 20 level fighter and a 10 level fighter/10 level rogue. Both are friends and they constantly sparr together. Once both reach level 20, the fighter starts to really train his friend. Teaching everything he knows. But, for some reason, the rogue can not become a better warrior. How can that make sense?

Tons of things about D&D don't make sense. The whole idea of classes and levels already doesn't make sense. They exist as a way to simplify the architecture of the game, that's all. So using them in a way that breaks that architecture because it "makes sense" is self-defeating.

I am also a worldbuilder, and can relate very closely to this point of view. I also get very irritated when I am told that the worlds I build are "incoherent", "don't work", "don't fit the lore", "make no sense", that the assumptions I base them on are wrong and that books I use, successfully, to build them are rubbish.

Yeah. At the end of the day, I don't like the "coherent cosmology" stuff because it limits *both* gameplay *and* worldbuilding -- it enables the annoying Comic Book Guy-style disruptions of "That makes no sense!" and "That violates canon!" and "That's an inconsistency!" which doesn't actually make anything more fun for anyone.

Abyssal society has no one limiting the rise of fiends, especially if you're Demogorgon. So he should conceivably level up until he is capable of driving baatezu off of Carceri and likely Hades since what we've seen of ultroloth stats in 3e is laughable...

Demogorgon's check isn't so much other demons, as the fact that he's totally insane. If that's not a big impediment to furthering his power, I don't know what is. Juibliex is a slime who doesn't care about anything. Grazz't is very intelligent, but frequently gets in over his head.

My point is that the planar powers tend to achieve an equilibrium by their very nature. Chaotic beings lack the patience, foresight, sanity, and/or collaberative spirit to succeed and better themselves. Lawful beings tend to the other extreme, stifling and controlling themselves and others to the point of stagnation.

Good beings are similarly impeded, but more by their own virtue--good creatures by nature are checked by their mercy and general respect for other beings, and their self-sacrificing natures, and are generally less interested in seeking power for its own sake.

It's not a perfectly legitimate reason to state "Wizards shouldn't design Epic", however. Which is (although I haven't been keeping track who said what) what some of you have been advocating.

With respect, you should try and keep track. I haven't said this, and don't agree with it (although I think they should have done a better job). So now you've been arguing with me by attacking a position I don't hold? What am I supposed to do with that?

You're arguing from your own opinion, rather than that supported by WotC. WotC has never tried to make immunities undesirable.

Actually, total immunity to entire PCs is usually avoided, or correctable.

Because Epic is an older concept than Incarnum or the ToM classes, and a much less specific one? Lots of people think the idea of "taking D&D to the next level" sounds a lot of fun in the abstract, even if -- especially if -- they haven't actually tried to do it in a game yet. (One of the annoying habits of D&D players is constantly dreaming about how awesome their characters will be one day, even if the DM has no intention of running the game for ten years so they can reach level 50.)
Why is annoying to imagine a character reaching awesome levels of power? That has nothing to do with Epic per se. There are DMs who stop playing at level 12 because they think characters are already too awesome to be challenged. Others like to start at that level. And most players want their character to be powerful, planning and picturing the goals he will archieve one day. That is an integral part of the game, the feeling of growth and sense of changing the world.

Tons of things about D&D don't make sense. The whole idea of classes and levels already doesn't make sense. They exist as a way to simplify the architecture of the game, that's all. So using them in a way that breaks that architecture because it "makes sense" is self-defeating.
Because a lot of things do not make sense, that does not means that another one shouldn'. If fighter 20 is an abstract way of saying "inmensily skilled figther" and level 10 is just "very good fighter", that still does not exclude that the 20th level can train the 10th level until both have the same level of skill.

Yeah. At the end of the day, I don't like the "coherent cosmology" stuff because it limits *both* gameplay *and* worldbuilding -- it enables the annoying Comic Book Guy-style disruptions of "That makes no sense!" and "That violates canon!" and "That's an inconsistency!" which doesn't actually make anything more fun for anyone.
A cosmology that is coherent makes the gaming experience more enjoyable and inmersing, and helps suspend disbelief. A good fantasy or sci-fi novel includes fictional systems that are coherent within the cosmology of the setting and make it more enjoyable. the same goes for D&D. There is no need to say that Faerun works like Earth. If you say that the world is a flat discus with six moons orbiting the edge, each one sustented by a different deity, that's fine (in fact, that it is how it works in my campaign setting), but if you say that, it is stablished and shouldn't be changed on a whim.

A coherent cosmology also helps define the feel of the campaign. In Eberron, magic is comonplace. So, they have magic trains and mage-bred animals. In Ravenloft, magic is extremely rare and frightening, so wizards are burned at the stake by fearful mobs. Those are examples of consistency.

My point is that the planar powers tend to achieve an equilibrium by their very nature. Chaotic beings lack the patience, foresight, sanity, and/or collaberative spirit to succeed and better themselves. Lawful beings tend to the other extreme, stifling and controlling themselves and others to the point of stagnation.
Why everyone thinks fiends are so ineficient? Demons are constantly pursuing their interests. If you consider eternity as your lifespan, they indeed may only dedicate a few days at a time to any one interest, but eventually they may pick it up again. And chaotic evil does not means dumb. A demon knows that it is his best interest to pick up powerful abilities. A marilith knows that it pays to learn how to wield swords better than the average.

The same goes for devils. They have a complex chain of command and an enourmous burocracy, but they are frightfully effective at what they do (that's why they have managed to hold Avernus against the demons, even when heavily outnumbered). A devil is logical, focused, disciplined and part of a chain of command that rewards skill and harshly punishes incompetence.

And celestials are not slowed down by their own goodness (virtue is not a burden). They choose not to act too opely in the blood war and in the material plane because Good dictates that enslaving population and imposse moralty on them would only be a form of lawful evil tyranny. They work indirectly but they have quite more influence that what is often belived, usually by adding and sponsoring mortal heroes.

For the unique demons: Demogorgon state of mind actually pushes it to seek new ways to bring chaos and death. He may be insane, but he is also an incredible genius, having created several types of demons. He is capable of thinking and planing, even leading a war against two powerful foes at a time, while managing a growing cult on the Prime Material Plane. Grazzt is one of the smartest demons of the Abyss, perfectly able to make long-term plans and long alliances. Juiblex, slime or not slime, is stilll imbued with cosmic energy, so he should be stronger than your average balor.

And celestials are not slowed down by their own goodness (virtue is not a burden). They choose not to act too openly in the blood war...

because they tried that, once. A million archons descended into the Lower Planes to wipe out the fiends once and for all. The baatezu and tanar'ri stopped fighting, briefly, to annihilate their mutual foe. Less than a hundred archons returned to Celestia.

War and genocide empowers fiends, not celestials. Celestials cannot hope to grow strong from "civil war" like the Blood War. The Blood War is largely a manifestation of intolerance that is Evil's nature dealing with Order and Chaos dividing them. Note that Limbo and Mechanus are not in open war.

But I still note that tanar'ri gain a sense of unity and purpose from the war, and baatezu are forced to become more adaptive and creative in dealing with demon hordes. It can easily be seen that the fiendish races truly benefit from the Blood War in many ways, not the least of which is the mortals and immortals ensared in hoping to outwit the fiends in conflict.

Why is annoying to imagine a character reaching awesome levels of power? That has nothing to do with Epic per se. There are DMs who stop playing at level 12 because they think characters are already too awesome to be challenged. Others like to start at that level. And most players want their character to be powerful, planning and picturing the goals he will archieve one day. That is an integral part of the game, the feeling of growth and sense of changing the world.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather have people be focused on the game they're playing right now than daydreaming about games that may be run someday in the future, and I've been quite frustrated at the degree to which D&D becomes about what you can do next level instead of what you're playing right now.