Or perhaps "Shedim," a term for demonic entities from Jewish mysticism?
Fwiw, I considered "Shedim" as a possible replacement for tanar'ri as a specific subgroup of demons. Didn't end up going with it however (I already had some thematic hangups with the term though, given its use for corpse possessing free-spirits in Shadowrun).
Asmodeus is in fact the ruler of Hell and all devils.
What about Kytons? I'd gotten the impression that Chain Devils were Kuthite.
We've already done a lot to set up what devils and demons (and daemons and other fiends) do in Golarion, and those'll be how these guys appear in the Pathfinder Bestiary. Which is to say, they'll be handled more or less the same as they are in the MM.
Sort of.
The basic way it breaks down is like this...
James, this is great stuff. I like the chronology and the reasons behind it tying into a long tradition of D&D fiends.
Thanks for the info, Todd & James, and no problem, Gorbacz.
I had no idea that the Blood War thing went back as far as it did. In fact, I consider it a deficiency of mine that I failed to get my hands on the looseleaf Monstrous Compendium for the Outer Planes. I was under the impression that the Planescape MC was the Outer Planes compendium for 2nd Ed. I feel my chumpitude rising.
I was under the impression that the Planescape MC was the Outer Planes compendium for 2nd Ed.
To quote page 1 of the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix:
Being a Guide to the Muliplanar Creatures from a Prior Monstrous Compendium — most notably the Outer Planes Appendix (MC8) — and other Sources.
Wow (as an expression not WoW) this thing got sidetracked from where it began. The bottom line here is that the difference between devils and demons is insufficiently unique between the two. A change is in order since it seems that in many campaigns changes are being made adhoc to fill the gap.
Going with one group using the "subtle corruptors" theme of a more humanoid look with deceptive tactics while another is truly monstrous and is more bent on outright carnage and destruction would be a more realistic way to do. Two different and mutually exclusive methods of evil that would have a logical reason to fight eachother as well as the forces of good.
Wow (as an expression not WoW) this thing got sidetracked from where it began. The bottom line here is that the difference between devils and demons is insufficiently unique between the two. A change is in order since it seems that in many campaigns changes are being made adhoc to fill the gap.
Going with one group using the "subtle corruptors" theme of a more humanoid look with deceptive tactics while another is truly monstrous and is more bent on outright carnage and destruction would be a more realistic way to do. Two different and mutually exclusive methods of evil that would have a logical reason to fight eachother as well as the forces of good.
Preface: I'm on two hours of sleep, and typing this from the airport in Orlando. Still rather far from home. So pardon me any faults to be found in this post. ;)
I'll have to defer back to James' prior post where he talks about the defining themes for each of the major fiend races. They're pretty damn distinct from one another, but at the same time they're not straightjacketed into a rigid role. For instance you can have subtle demons without needing to rationalize them as somehow devil tainted. Complexity is good, and cookie cutter evil is bad.
And with thematic distinction, as I feel they already possess, what need is there to force them all to have a single, homogeneous appearance. They're not a mortal race, and they didn't evolve according to the same rules (if they evolved at all). Demons are the result of a darwinian nightmare, so virtually any form, humanoid or not, is possible. Devils tend to be the designs of Asmodeus or the archdevils, and as such while some themes of form may be there, a harsh pragmatism for function over form is likely to be found. Daemons are a combination of form dictated by mortal fears and their own self-experimentation, so all manner of forms are likely to be found, but restricted within some loose classes associated with the four archdaemons. There's firm reason for any perceived dissonance of form for all of them.
/cue rant because this is a picky point with me
Beyond that, I'm honestly perplexed by the notion that tons of people are wandering around confused about the various fiends, and having trouble using them as a result of thematic similarity or otherwise. I've never once heard that complain -never- prior to the 4e design team marching it out like a shackled Grazzt at a Stalinist show trial. ;) And even then after declarations of needing to make sweeping changes to correct a major problem that plagued people for years but never seemed to ever be raised prior to then, their changes are even more confusing. Somehow succubi must be devils because they're not rar destroy!, and God forbid you have a demon that strays from a homogeneous default. Yet at the same time they take yugoloths and make them demons, despite not fitting the demonic 4e mold very well, and certainly not fitting if you even gave a cursory glance at their characterization over the course of their history.
What few changes 4e made to solve a problem they seem to have invented are even more schizophrenic than any perceived problems they claimed to fix. It strikes me as after the fact rationalization to a change they wanted to make in the first place for whatever reason.
|
Random Idea on giving devils more personality: Teckify them. While demons are bred or fleshwarped, many devils are extensively grafted to the point where you cant tell where the devil flesh ends and the machine begins. It doesnt have to be high-tech cyborg stuff, because the supernatural nature of devils allows them a little more latitude with their engineering.
This doesnt have to be for all devils, mind you; perhaps the original "core" of rebellious fallen angels are mostly still as they are, but later, courrupted creatures were modded by the originals. so, for example, hellhounds look like But with flames. The Ashmede devil already has this, as do a few other creatures in the Book Of Fiends.
Base devils could be changed in all sorts of ways. Beared Devils have beards made out of writhing segmented cables, and clockwork legs. the tails of Ice devils are skeletaly mehanical (think Necron Wraiths). Spined Devils...well, you can guess.
Maybe this would be more appropriate for a different, homebrewed world where this sort of tech wouldnt seem toally out there (sorry, but I liked the old-school MTG settings, so thats influenced my tastes alot). Just thought I'd drop the idea.
I understand the problems in distinguishing between the two, and all I can say is that there should be a concerted effort to make devils more "steamlined" in their presentation: clean lines, sharpness, that sort of thing.
An additional point is this: I've done high-level summoning mage, and I can tell you that Ive had alot of experience using the various outsiders. and devils feel different from demons. Demons are versatile- their abilities allow them to take on many different roles. "demons have more spell-like abilitieis than they need" is a defining characteristic. Devils, on the other hand, are specialized toward their roles. A babau could be a lone assassin, or a spy, or an advisor manipulating the head of a theives guild. A succubus can be an inflitrator, an assassin, a seductress, a spy, or a slavemaster. A beared devil can only fight as a soldier. A Ice devil is only good at battlefield manipulation. An Imp is only good at courruption. Their choices are narrower.
|
What's wrong with keeping the word "daemon" untranslated then? The same way, I suspect, one would translate made-up words like bulette or otyugh into other languages?
For germans these were some of the worst examples:
- "Daemon" is the german translation of "demon".
- "Bulette" is the german name for meat loaf. *lol* (I am serious!)
- And no, otyugh really doesn't exist in german. :p
Back to topic: James, Todd et alii: Thanks for these very informative insights! Your elaborations bring considerably more light into the matter than former articles.
Cheers,
Günther
I don't want cyberdevils to be anything even remotely resembling the norm. It doesn't seem proper, to even suggest that the Prince of Darkness's crafts aren't anything less than the height of efficiency and need to be improved by base materials.
Demons, on the other hand, will do anything. Whoever did Glabrezu, did it already.
|
|
Yeah; I've posted a similar description on these boards before, and have included it in a Pathfinder's foreword I believe.
... in the Paizo blog of March 10, 2008:
We've always kind of known what role devils and demons play in the game. In Pathfinder we'll be using the classic categories for the evil outsiders. Lawful evil outsiders are devils—these are the monsters interested in corrupting and destroying the mind. They infect faith, politics, and scholastic pursuits, and strive to turn mortals into traitors and heretics against their own nature. Chaotic evil outsiders are demons—creatures of primal destruction and ruin who have existed as long as life itself. They seek to destroy and savage the world, forces of entropy that exist to bring about the end of the world itself.
But that's just 2/3 of the equation. But what about the neutral evil fiends? They always seem to get left behind. Once you have groups out to corrupt the mind and corrupt the body... what else is left? In "Seven Days to the Grave", we've got the first new daemon to grace the Pathfinder Bestiary, the diseased leukodaemon (pictured here). We also reveal a bit more about the role of fiends in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting.
For our neutral evil fiends, the daemons, they are embodiments of death. They care little about the physical world or pleasures and torments of the flesh, nor are they particularly interested in corrupting mortal life to serve their needs or to betray its kin. Daemons have perhaps the simplest desire—to feed on the soul. In many ways, the daemons are perhaps the most dangerous of the three, since you can continue to live even if your body and mind are broken after the demons and devils are done with you. When a daemon is done with you... you're just dead.
Actually, maybe that makes the daemons the most humane of the three fiends. At least they don't torment you as much.
James Jacobs
Pathfinder Editor-in-Chief
|
|
THAT SAID: Yes, demodands are in Golarion. We've got a LOT of different categories of fiends, in fact. Several are already mentioned; demons, devils, demodands, daemons, rakshasas... there are others too, mostly based on other cultures, like oni and divs and asuras and more.
Sounds like a new Chronicles product! ;-)
Really: Many people like me are fascinated by the classical feel of older D&D editions and therefore love Pathfinder. Not all of us know all the facts from past editions, though.So if Fiendish Codex and Book of Fiends don't describe the myths adequately, if there are countless other parts of the "fiend family" not payed any closer attention to so far: Please elaborate!
I want my campaign world to feel consistent and for this reason I always felt somewhat amitious about the crowds of new monsters released in each monster compendium - nice critters, but rarely given any clear concept of how and why they got into being...
End of rant, please keep this thread growing. :-)
Cheers,
Günther
Asmodeus is in fact the ruler of Hell and all devils.What about Kytons? I'd gotten the impression that Chain Devils were Kuthite.
I just thought I'd refresh my question above. Chain Devils aren't actually 'devils' any more than a Hellhound is. Thematically, they've been linked to Zon Kuthon. Are they truly related to Asmodean devils?
Creative Director
|
I just thought I'd refresh my question above. Chain Devils aren't actually 'devils' any more than a Hellhound is. Thematically, they've been linked to Zon Kuthon. Are they truly related to Asmodean devils?Asmodeus is in fact the ruler of Hell and all devils.What about Kytons? I'd gotten the impression that Chain Devils were Kuthite.
Chain devils are absolutely associated with Zon-Kuthon. I suspect that in the Pathfinder Bestiary we might do something crazy like move them out of the devil section entirely. If they stay, I'd like to see them treated as devils.
Chain devils are absolutely associated with Zon-Kuthon. I suspect that in the Pathfinder Bestiary we might do something crazy like move them out of the devil section entirely.
Don't. They're chain devils.
Don't. They're chain devils.
They're the only monster in the 'Devil' section that isn't Baat'ezu, or if you're looking at the SRD only, doesn't have 'devil traits' like 'See in Darkness'. The Kyton is a devil exactly as much as Hellhound is.
|
Creative Director
|
Don't. They're chain devils.
Chain devils are absolutely associated with Zon-Kuthon. I suspect that in the Pathfinder Bestiary we might do something crazy like move them out of the devil section entirely.
Yup; they're actually kytons. Since they don't have devil/baatezu traits, they're not really devils... if they end up staying in the devil section, I'll probably lobby to give them those traits.
|
Do you like it more as a monster or more specifically as a Devil? I can see its potential coolness as a monster, but I don't see how it fits in with some of the others.I'm really fond of the Ice Devil, for example. A giant hominid mantis-saur with ice powers? Count me in.
They come from the 8th plane of hell, an ice plane, that's why they are Ice Devils...
I however wouldn't mind making all those "monstrous" appearances be their outer appearance, they can supress it to look human...but it requires concentration to keep their inner evil in check.
Demons being so chaotic have no ability to suppress their demonic appearance...
James, what do you think about adding that ability to devils? It would definitely allow them to corrupt the mind more easily...as any of them could them be able to assume human form.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm not too keen on letting devils all be shapechangers, for 2 reasons.
1) That makes statting them up more difficult, since you kinda have to provide a humanoid version and a monster version.
2) They haven't all been shapechangers before in previous editions. I don't want to make extensive changes to monster powers; I want to maintain them if possible.
Again, I'm perfectly fine with some devils being monstrous looking and some demons being humanoid looking. I don't see this as a problem at all.
But I ask one thing... leave the Blood War to WOTC. Come up with something else.
WotC's current design team doesn't exactly seem to care for the Blood War, based on some public comments thus far. They've more or less said that it's dead as a concept in 4e. It's a utter pity, because it was an awesome idea. :(
And don't worry. Golarion's planes have their own ideological conflicts, and perhaps strange bedfellows amongst it all. More on that to come.
Yup; they're actually kytons. Since they don't have devil/baatezu traits, they're not really devils... if they end up staying in the devil section, I'll probably lobby to give them those traits.Don't. They're chain devils.
Chain devils are absolutely associated with Zon-Kuthon. I suspect that in the Pathfinder Bestiary we might do something crazy like move them out of the devil section entirely.
I'm split on the issue.
I like the notion of them being linked to Zon-Kuthon, and they've never been considered proper Baatezu - they were interlopers from somewhere else as far as anyone could tell, and they existed entirely outside of the baatorian ecology of promoted souls, tangent to its power structure for the most part.
But on the other hand, it might rile some folks to change them away from being devils (baatezu or not), especially folks not as familiar with the 2e material on them as a race (which is generally where I find most of my thematic loyalty to lots of outsider races, and James is kind enough to humor me quite a bit on such topics). So maybe something along the lines of being a stolen / co-opted race, and with Lamashtu's theft of the barghest demigods, it has a precident. But one theft on Asmo's watch might in and of itself be as far as that angle needs to be taken.
*muse*
|
|
don't worry. Golarion's planes have their own ideological conflicts, and perhaps strange bedfellows amongst it all. More on that to come.
Do tell us a little Todd, just a bit to tease, you sexy plannar monkey you.
Yup; they're actually kytons. Since they don't have devil/baatezu traits, they're not really devils... if they end up staying in the devil section, I'll probably lobby to give them those traits.Don't. They're chain devils.
Chain devils are absolutely associated with Zon-Kuthon. I suspect that in the Pathfinder Bestiary we might do something crazy like move them out of the devil section entirelyI'm split on the issue.
I like the notion of them being linked to Zon-Kuthon, and they've never been considered proper Baatezu - they were interlopers from somewhere else as far as anyone could tell, and they existed entirely outside of the baatorian ecology of promoted souls, tangent to its power structure for the most part.
Using 1 st and 2 ed as inspiration, maybe the kytons can be a special subset of fiends akin to how the abashai were servitors of Tiamat.
|
I like the Chain-Devils serving Zon-Kuthon as he is a LE deity.
I think it makes sense that different races of devils and demons can choose to serve different deities. As a general rule the Chain-Devils serve Zon-Kuthon, but some do serve Asmodeus. Just as most other devils follow Asmodeus, some few also follow other LE deities.
I would deemphasize the role race plays in evil outsiders and play up the race as Devils and Demons with race being secondary, at best. I would also not add more generic outsiders than exist already, and instead concentrate on unique outsiders.
For example, Pin Head... a rather unique devil if you ask me. This is the place to really gather up and promote the fear of the fiends. Unique individual fiends will do more to promote the evil horror of their kind than throwing generic monster-like creatures at PCs that just happen to be demons.
In our last campaign we had a chain devil following us. But it was not just a chain devil, it was unique in its name and appearance and its manners. It was modeled upon the chain devil but went far beyond the MM description. And we were terrified of the thing.
Also, I would to see demons and devils deemphasized and more attention paid to Daemons. Now these are unique fiends. Mortal souls corrupted to evil and returning to devour the souls of other mortals! This is such a fantastic idea and should be explored heavily. Demons and devils have been done ad nauseum. Let's see some REAL evil... let's see more Daemons.
But on the other hand, it might rile some folks to change them away from being devils (baatezu or not), especially folks not as familiar with the 2e material on them as a race (which is generally where I find most of my thematic loyalty to lots of outsider races, and James is kind enough to humor me quite a bit on such topics). So maybe something along the lines of being a stolen / co-opted race, and with Lamashtu's theft of the barghest demigods, it has a precident. But one theft on Asmo's watch might in and of itself be as far as that angle needs to be taken.
Given my love of Planescape, I would prefer the kyton being a race of servants created by Zon-Kuthon. They may be called chain devils by some, but they are not true devils. So, I vote for pulling them out of the devils and listing them as kyton (with some flavor text refering to them as chain devils).
I would prefer the kyton being a race of servants created by Zon-Kuthon.
Or allied with whatever force created Zon-Kuthon from Shelyn's brother.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Yeah Kytons being called Chain Devils really isn't much different than Sahuagin being called Sea Devils even though they're not even Outsiders. I'm down with them not being "devils."
I'm also down with more Unique demons and devils and such. I was always a fan of Kerzit and being bound to the Tome.
--Vrocknrolla!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Rip baby, you're preaching to the choir here...
I know all about Kytons and Jangling Hiter. Unfortunately Paizo can't ues all the juicy planar goodness that the 30 years of the D&D crockpot stewed up. If we could yoink all that wonderful flavor from under the nogoodniks at WotC I would be on it like a Vrock on squad of Barbazu, but <sniffle> we can't.
--I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri
Here's a question for Todd (or anyone else who can answer):
If the old Piscodaemon become the Piscoloth (last seen in 3e's Fiend Folio), can anyone tell me what became of the Hydroloth in 3e - and where to find stats for it?
And are there stats anywhere for Baernaloths in 3.x?
|
I'm also down with more Unique demons and devils and such. I was always a fan of Kerzit and being bound to the Tome.
--Vrocknrolla!
Me too! I'm a big fan of Orcus - he was always my favorite!!! I dont know if he is owned by WotC or if Necromancer Games has rights to him or what; but Orcus needs to be an important Demon Lord
Throughout the 3rd edition Adventure Paths, (SC, AoW, and ST), I kept hoping that the next AP would be about him - since each one was a different old school demon lord.....
Robert
Here's a question for Todd (or anyone else who can answer):
If the old Piscodaemon become the Piscoloth (last seen in 3e's Fiend Folio), can anyone tell me what became of the Hydroloth in 3e - and where to find stats for it?
And are there stats anywhere for Baernaloths in 3.x?
There were never 3.x stats for either of them in anything by WotC. However the Hydroloth/Hydrodaemon has 3e stats in the first Tome of Horrors by Necromancer Games.
And lord, you'd probably never get anyone to agree on baern stats for 3.x. Because I would have started by tossing out the 2e stats entirely. ;)
Here's a question for Todd (or anyone else who can answer):
If the old Piscodaemon become the Piscoloth (last seen in 3e's Fiend Folio), can anyone tell me what became of the Hydroloth in 3e - and where to find stats for it?
And are there stats anywhere for Baernaloths in 3.x?
There were never 3.x stats for either of them in anything by WotC. However the Hydroloth/Hydrodaemon has 3e stats in the first Tome of Horrors by Necromancer Games.
And lord, you'd probably never get anyone to agree on baern stats for 3.x. Because I would have started by tossing out the 2e stats entirely. ;)
Thanks for pointing me at Tome of Horrors. I must track down a copy sometime, or buy the 3.5 .pdf instead!
As for the baerns - I suspected as much.
So, question for Todd or anyone else: since all the old stuff is available on Drivethru, which products are the best primers on all things fiendish for D&D? Which ones have baernoloths? And if the writeups about the baernoloths aren't very good, why?
Is there anyplace that has the info online?
I dont know if he is owned by WotC or if Necromancer Games has rights to him or what; but Orcus needs to be an important Demon Lord
The name Orcus can´t be copyrighted per se, as it is the name of an Roman death god (or rather, a certain aspect of the underworld god Pluto or Dis Pater). I don´t know how much of the image protrayed in AD&D is original or borrowed from antique sources, so some parts of this might be original enough to be protected.
Stefan
The nine levels of hell given in the game since 1e have their source in Dantes "Divina Commedia" and the later receptions of his description of the nine circles of (christian) hell. These references are part of the games´ tradition and should be kept. Following that, the distinction between devils and other evil outsiders should be left intact.
This in turn necessitates some correlation between mortal existence and hell (and its citizens). While the game obviously moved away from a purely christian model and Dantes "description", without mortals to corrupt, devils don´t have much to do, they don´t even need to exist.
I like the idea that demons are based on some primeval evil older than mankind, and that the devils are quite different from that. The Cthulhu references are a cool idea, even if this mythos is perhaps better represented by CN/E alignment - they are not so much evil but just alien and uncaring towards mankind.
So, basically, leave the evils outsiders much as they are.
(And don´t call any creature bulette, as Guennarr pointed out, it is the German word for the meatball in a hamburger... I always used land shark.)
Stefan
So, question for Todd or anyone else: since all the old stuff is available on Drivethru, which products are the best primers on all things fiendish for D&D? Which ones have baernoloths? And if the writeups about the baernoloths aren't very good, why?
Is there anyplace that has the info online?
Bueller? Bueller?
The nine levels of hell given in the game since 1e have their source in Dantes "Divina Commedia" and the later receptions of his description of the nine circles of (christian) hell. These references are part of the games´ tradition and should be kept. Following that, the distinction between devils and other evil outsiders should be left intact.
Yup, no worries, they are. You can find the names of the layers of hell and their lords in the pathfinder Campaign Setting, with more details to follow next year with Book of the Damned Vol I.
So, question for Todd or anyone else: since all the old stuff is available on Drivethru, which products are the best primers on all things fiendish for D&D? Which ones have baernoloths? And if the writeups about the baernoloths aren't very good, why?
Is there anyplace that has the info online?
Faces of Evil: The Fiends
Hellbound: The Blood WarPlanes of Conflict
The flavor text, history, and general fluff for the baernaloths are amazing. The stats however just don't match what they're capable of in the in-game history, and so you can either junk the stats, or try to rationalize that in various ways (it only represents baern who have lost most of their original power to apathy, or they're simply amazing liars with no special powers whatsoever, etc).
The one time I put full stats on a baernaloth (already weakened by being in the inner planes) the fight took several hours and was almost a TPK versus level 28-30 PCs. It was damn memorable however. One named Tarsikus ibn Methkultesh the Flesh Render (IIRC) in the crumbling ruins of Vecna's former deific domain in the quasielemental plane of ash.
As far as info online, not really. But the pdfs of the books I mentioned are cheap, and if you're just interested in some (mostly non-canon) fluff, I've written a number of stories about specific baernaloths. Most of them are over on the Chronicles section on Planewalker.com if you're curious.
Thanks Todd! [Teleport to DriveThruRPG.com]
I get the feeling I'm not as enthused about Daemons in Pathfinder as I ought to be for a couple of reasons:
1) The name. I'm pretty sure Daemon is pronounced like Demon, though I suppose I can differ them by pronouncing it Day-mon instead of Dee-mon, which is outside of actual traditional linguistic stuff for the word. I really miss Yugoloth. That was the one fiendish rename that I thought really really worked. Still, not a huge deal.
2) My favorite Daemons, the Ultraloths, Aranoloths, and those... tongueoloths, are closed content. It is worth noting, the Tome of Horrors does reference Ultradaemons and Arcanodaemons, even though they aren't statted in the book.
On the other hand, those Leukodaemons are pretty darn awesome.
I get the feeling I'm not as enthused about Daemons in Pathfinder as I ought to be for a couple of reasons:
1) The name. I'm pretty sure Daemon is pronounced like Demon, though I suppose I can differ them by pronouncing it Day-mon instead of Dee-mon, which is outside of actual traditional linguistic stuff for the word. I really miss Yugoloth. That was the one fiendish rename that I thought really really worked. Still, not a huge deal.
2) My favorite Daemons, the Ultraloths, Aranoloths, and those... tongueoloths, are closed content. It is worth noting, the Tome of Horrors does reference Ultradaemons and Arcanodaemons, even though they aren't statted in the book.
On the other hand, those Leukodaemons are pretty darn awesome.
1) The real world 'daemon' was indeed pronounced the same as demon. However I've always pronounced the D&D daemon as day-mon, even if it flaunts traditional linguistic stuff. I also believe that an early source during 1e pronounced it that way as well (contradicting 4e's Worlds and Monsters that it had always been pronounced as demon).
That said, I always preferred yugoloth in a major way, and couldn't stand daemon till very recently when I got to play around with Golarion's NE fiends, and wasn't able to use 'loth. Hopefully I can make some boiling, poisoned, soul-damning lemonade with what I was given. ;)
2) And yeah, I adored the arcanaloths and ultroloths too. -Alot-. But it's WotC's IP even if they have absolutely no intention of using them at all for their PoL cosmology in 4e (which is a real shame).
Hopefully I can make the four deacon castes in Abbadon interesting enough to make you forget about the lack of those three fiends. I think you'll find their spiritual successors however among the stuff I've got planned for The Great Beyond, including a different spin on the demodands/gehreleths. You'll also likely see some game use of them in Colin's module out next year as well (which is looking freaking awesome).
I'm around as big a 'loth fanboy as you'll find, so I'm hoping that if I can get myself jazzed up about a replacement for them, I can likewise get other folks excited as well. I'll be just about begging for feedback once stuff comes out next year. Though you might see something daemonic prior to then too, if a bit subtle on the reference, if it survived editing on the Osirion book. ;)
|
|
The one time I put full stats on a baernaloth (already weakened by being in the inner planes) the fight took several hours and was almost a TPK versus level 28-30 PCs. One named Tarsikus ibn Methkultesh the Flesh Render (IIRC) in the crumbling ruins of Vecna's former deific domain in the quasielemental plane of ash.
.. and if you're just interested in some (mostly non-canon) fluff, I've written a number of stories about specific baernaloths. Most of them are over on the Chronicles section on Planewalker.com if you're curious.
Holy story hour Batman ! To the Planewalker.com site !
I'd be interested in seeing the stats for that there baernoloth that you used.
I'd be interested in seeing the stats for that there baernoloth that you used.
Here you go. Just keep in mind I don't really follow the rules by the letter for my own games. The stats likely don't follow 3e or 3.x as closely as they should, but it worked for my purposes. And it was also written around three or four years ago. Hopefully I've gotten better since then. :)
“Don’t take us back there.” The one apprentice mage whimpered. “The world is bleeding, the ether is screaming in the night, and it is our fault… please…”
Methikus sar Telmuril - The Flesh Sculptor, the Sanguine Weaver, the Lord of Corporeal Terrors
Init: +16 (+8 dex, +8 supreme initiative)
AC (+20 nat, +15 def,
Reach: 15ft
Speed: 90ft, fly 100ft (perfect)
Attack: 2 Claws + 57, Bite +54
Damage: Claws 1d20 +23 (18-20/x2), Bite 1d20 +28 (19-20x3); Rend (if both claws hit) 2d8 +35.
Fort (+17) +30 = 47
Reflex (+10) +25 = 35
Will (+10) +20 = 30
Str 57 (+23)
Dex 30 (+10)
Con 45 (+17)
Int 53 (+21)
Wis 31 (+10)
Cha 45 (+17)
Special: Immunity to acid, cold, flame, poison, disease. Resistant to lightning 20, resistant to sonic 20. Immune to divine damage. Double damage from holy. Immune to energy drain. Immune to compulsions, charms, mind affecting spells.
DR: 20/-, 35/6+ or holy weapon.
SR: 40
Fast Healing: 35
Spell Absorption: if spell fails to breach SR, the spell is transcribed on the body of the Baern, taking form as runes carved into his skin that he may unleash back as a free action the next turn, or consume to heal itself.
Regeneration: Only holy and energy damage is real, all other is subdual.
Special Abilities: May turn ethereal as a free action.
Rage: May rage as a Barbarian of it’s HD…
Diseased Touch (Any hit from the Baern will cause the victim to contract a random disease, DC 35 fort, no incubation period), Wounding Touch (All damage from the Baern is considered to be wounding for 1 pt of damage, cumulative)
Feat: Power attack, Weapon Focus (claw), Improved Crit (claw), Improved Crit (claw), Blinding Speed (epic feat), Spell Focus (necro), Spell Focus (Trans), Greater Spell Focus (necro), Greater Spell Focus (Trans), Epic Spell Focus (Necro), Epic Spell focus (Trans). Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Epic Spell Penetration. Eschew Material Componants. Ignore Material Componants.
Spellcasting: Casts as a Necromancer/Transmuter double specialist of his Hit Dice. Cannot cast Enchantment/Divination/Illusion.
Archetypal Form(Ex): Immune to baleful polymorphs or other shapeshifting spells. Non Baern cannot take upon themselves the form of a Baern.
Living Nightmare(Ex): A Baern is immune to mind affecting spells, and any attempt to read their mind or enter into psionic combat with a Baern in any way can have catastrophic effects upon the bold fool who attempts it. They must make a Will save DC 45 or become permanently insane (wish or miracle will cure) and drained of 4d6 wis.
Harrow the Flesh(Su): In a 30ft radius around the Baern, no wounds will heal naturally except its own, and all magical healing must break the Baern’s SR.
Burn the Blood(Su): With his gaze may set the internal body fluids of a victim to a near boil, 15d6 damage per round, fort save DC 40 for half. [Transmutation effect]
Sanguine Descent(Su): May teleport or dimension door anywhere on the same plane by erupting explosively from the body of a living, mortal victim. Death is instantaneous. No save because this is a plot device for the campaign.
And details on this particular fiend: http://www.planewalker.com/060629/methikus-sar-telmuril-the-flesh-sculptor- baernaloth-the-demented-6-13
Just be aware that it's so very much NSFW on a violence level alone. It's somewhat disturbing near the end for some folks, at least from the feedback I got from it. And again, it has been a few years since I wrote it.
Wow. Infernals be darned.
Link fu. Monkey style. bbeg baernaloth