Flipping through my MM the other day got me thinking, which would win in a fight? One on one...
They're both CR 20, and they both have pretty similar ability scores, nice skill bonuses and heaps of spells/spell-like abilities. I'm leaning towards the Pit Fiend personally, but that's just my opinion.
(I was also wondering how the Balor can weigh upwards of 2 tons ((I forget the exact weight, don't have MM handy)), while the Pit Fiend only weighs 800 lbs. or so... They're both 12 ft tall and take up the same space; it's not like there's a substancial size difference. Does chaos weigh more than law or something? Joking on that last one... <.< )
Just curious...
-Kurocyn
Thought a balor is huge and a pit fiend is large. My MM is about 5 feet away but I'm too lazy to check.
Nope, they're both large. I think it's just a mistake (maybe the 4,500 lbs is for bebiliths, as "more than two tons"); both should be about 800 lbs.
Well we just did a battle between the two.
And it turns out that the balor gets raped. Horribly. Mainly the damage reduction and the regeneration is what makes the pit fiend the stronger.
So yeah, there you have it.(Balor never stood a chance)
Balor never stood a chance
As it should be. Pit Fiends are simply one of the coolest entries in the Monster Manual (and always have been) :)
IMHO
If both are 12 ft tall reducing them to a height of 6 ft would require a reduction to 1/8 weight (.5*.5*.5) because there is a reduction in 3 dimensions. This would make the 800 lb pit fiend weigh 100 lbs, impossibly thin. The balor would weigh 750 lbs, closer to what one would expect considering the wings, and increased mulscularity. After all, even being 6ft tall their strengths would be 27 and 29 respectively.
I was also wondering how the Balor can weigh upwards of 2 tons ((I forget the exact weight, don't have MM handy)), while the Pit Fiend only weighs 800 lbs. or so... They're both 12 ft tall and take up the same space; it's not like there's a substancial size difference. Does chaos weigh more than law or something? Joking on that last one... <.< )
Just curious...
-Kurocyn
Simply put, a pit fiend is a more efficient creature. I believe the FC II goes into their physiology - iirc devils lack many internal organs - they simply don't need them. And they know how to get every ounce of efficiency out of their own bodies...
But then the Balor blows up with its death throes and takes the pit fiend down with it.
Pound for pound, I think devils have always had a slight edge over demons. Probably to compensate for the fact that there are fewer of them than demons. Even from 1 ed. the pit fiend would beat a balor hands down. Besides, the Dave A. Trampier illustration is still one of the best pics of a pit fiend I've ever seen!
But I like Balors more.... :(
Why doesn't the balors sword attack deal 2d6+13 damage? The sword is +1 and the balor has a +12 str modifier. But in the MM it is listed as 2d6+8. The whip should deal 1d3+7 by my figures too.
Just wondering if the writers mistakenly calculated the balors damage as if it had a str score ten points lower or I'm missing something obvious.
The SRD has corrected stats for a balor's attack line.
But I like Balors more.... :(The balor only needs to confirm one natural 20 with that greatsword and its all over...
Except, not really. The Balor's weapon is neither silver nor good aligned, and it would need to be both to bypass the Pit Fiend's regeneration. That's a large part of the reason that the Balor will lose, every time: at most, he can keep the thing and drag it to someone who's better suited to destroying baatezu.
Except, not really. The Balor's weapon is neither silver nor good aligned, and it would need to be both to bypass the Pit Fiend's regeneration. That's a large part of the reason that the Balor will lose, every time: at most, he can keep the thing and drag it to someone who's better suited to destroying baatezu.But I like Balors more.... :(The balor only needs to confirm one natural 20 with that greatsword and its all over...
Does Regeneration or DR negate the vorpal ability?
The Balor has quickened telekenisis. So can he use that ability to attack with his whip using the spell like ability to weild it while two handing his sword?
If the Balor can't find a way to bypass the Pit Fiends regeneration I have a hard time seeing it winning. And from a roleplaying aspect I think the Balor being less likely to withdrawl from a loosing battle and less likely to use or stick to sound tactics is doubly screwed againsts the calm and calculating demeanor of a Pit Fiend.
Yes, regeneration effectively negates the vorpal ability. Well, the head still comes off. But, you can cut the head off a troll or pit fiend or any other thing with regeneration, and it will just grow back, I believe. But, would this also apply to a wound delt with a +1 vorpal holy silver greatsword, I wonder? My gut inclination is "Yes."
I declare the initial topic dead, and rededicate this thread to the above issue!
Edit- Oh, and, no, damage reduction does not negate a vorpal weapon.
Yes, regeneration effectively negates the vorpal ability. Well, the head still comes off. But, you can cut the head off a troll or pit fiend or any other thing with regeneration, and it will just grow back, I believe. But, would this also apply to a wound delt with a +1 vorpal holy silver greatsword, I wonder? My gut inclination is "Yes."
Er, no. A holy silver weapon bypasses a pit fiend's regeneration; damage from it is lethal and not regenerated. So that would work fine on a pit fiend. Unless I'm missreading you here...
But would it kill the devil? A creature with regeneration can survive without its head, at least for a while (this is not really touched on much in the RAW). I agree that the head of the pit fiend would be severed, but I'm not sure that would be lethal. Unless that happened to be the final blow of "lethal" damage that did the beast in. But if it wasn't, and it isn't lethal, (because if either of the former assumptions are wrong, the following is irrelevant), would the pit fiend go on living with no head? Or would it proceed to grow back, possibly just slower?
But would it kill the devil?
Since it would be lethal damage, I would be very inclined to say yes. I really can't see good reasoning to rule any other way.
|
I think this is a fundamental flaw in the design of devils and demons in 3rd edition. Most devils have regeneration that is overcome by good aligned weapons and spells etc. Demons have no way of bypassing that component of regeneration, thus Demons can't fatally injure most Devils in 3rd edition. Because of that aspect of how it is written, Devils should be dominating the Blood War because Demons just can't fatally injure the more powerful varietys. The vorpal quality will not kill the Pit Fiend unless it is done with a weapon that deals lethal damage to the Pit Fiend to begin with. So the Balor has no way of actually injuring the Pit Fiend because none of it's spells or weapons can overcome the Pit Fiends regeneration. All the Balor can do is knock the Pit Fiend unconscious over and over. This is true for any Demon fighting any Devil with regeneration that is only overcome by good aligned weapons and spells.
I think this is a major problem in how Demons and Devils are designed in D&D 3.5 because Demons for the most part can't hurt Devils (due to their regeneration) but Devils have no problem hurting Demons (because Demons have DR and sometimes fast healing but no ability that automatically turns any non good aligned damage to nonlethal damage no matter the source).
Cool, the Pit Fiend won... That's the way I would imagine it. Just seems more powerful.
-Kurocyn
But would it kill the devil? A creature with regeneration can survive without its head,
Not if the wound that severs it is lethal damage. Lethal damage does not regenerate so the head would not grow back.
My simple fix for the DR/type issue--change the type to "cold iron and lawful" or "silver and chaotic." If you want to preserve the "good" aspect, then go with something like "cold iron and lawful or cold iron and good." I'd probably do the same for archons and eladrin to keep them "even" with the fiends. This builds on the identity of the demons/devils as not just heavily associated to Evil, but also to their specific alignment (which is one of the bases of the Blood War anyway).
But would it kill the devil? A creature with regeneration can survive without its head,Not if the wound that severs it is lethal damage. Lethal damage does not regenerate so the head would not grow back.
How long would it take to kill it, though? If it were not a weapon capable of bypassing the regeneration, the head would still be severed, but would then just grow back. So the loss of a head, for any amount of time, isn't justification to kill such a being. Unless it can only survive X minutes/hours/whatever without its head, in which case, that should be pinned down.
How long would it take to kill it, though? If it were not a weapon capable of bypassing the regeneration, the head would still be severed, but would then just grow back. So the loss of a head, for any amount of time, isn't justification to kill such a being. Unless it can only survive X minutes/hours/whatever without its head, in which case, that should be pinned down.
The only SRD creature I know of with a specified "reattach in X time or die" feature is the ogre mage. Several creatures (tarrasque, tendriculous, troll) list specific "regrow in X time" rules (the ogre mage is a "reattach takes X time" with special rules for vital organs/head), but many others (angels, devils (except kytons), phthisic, uvuudaum) do not. For these, the Special Ability rules "Creatures with regeneration can regrow lost portions of their bodies and can reattach severed limbs or body parts. Severed parts die if they are not reattached." and "An attack that can cause instant death only threatens the creature with death if it is delivered by weapons that deal it lethal damage." are in effect.
With nothing to go on for the devils as for how fast they regrow, I'll simply use the statement from the kyton "A chain devil that loses a piece of its body regrows it in 2d6×10 minutes. Holding the severed member against the stump enables it to reattach instantly." for the lesser versions and perhaps 1d6 minutes for the pit fiend (matches a tendriculous).
If a pit fiend is beheaded by a weapon that can cause it lethal damage, it dies. If it is beheaded by a weapon that doesn't cause lethal damage, it is Blinded and Deafened, as I don't see anything listed stating they gain senses from some other source. So, the beheaded pit fiend is still alive, but is going to have a heck of a time against the balor for several minutes (in which time a pit fiend is going to greater teleport away until it regrows a head, I'd think).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So, the beheaded pit fiend is still alive, but is going to have a heck of a time against the balor for several minutes (in which time a pit fiend is going to greater teleport away until it regrows a head, I'd think).
Aha, but if I'm not mistaken, spell-like abilities still have verbal components. Verbal components would be rather difficult to complete without a head.
No, spell-like abilities have no components, other than wierd ones like warlock invocations. Aside from that, however, no components, so the pit fiend could still teleport away.
I think that clears up my confusion, then! The +1 holy vorpal silver greatsword slays the pit fiend instantly if its vorpal property works, although any other decapitation is only an annoyance to the fiend.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
No, spell-like abilities have no components, other than wierd ones like warlock invocations. Aside from that, however, no components, so the pit fiend could still teleport away.
Not meaning to threadjack, just clarification on this:
What makes a spell-like ability different from a supernatural ability then? Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity and supernatural ones don't? I know that neither functions in an antimagic field but I'm just curious as to what sets the two apart if spell-like abilities don't have components. I always thought that the difference was that spell-like abilities functioned exactly like spells (except that they didn't need material components) and that supernatural abilities just happened.
What makes a spell-like ability different from a supernatural ability then? Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity and supernatural ones don't? I know that neither functions in an antimagic field but I'm just curious as to what sets the two apart if spell-like abilities don't have components. I always thought that the difference was that spell-like abilities functioned exactly like spells (except that they didn't need material components) and that supernatural abilities just happened.
See the following. Two big differences, supernatural abilities are not subject to SR or dispel magic.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:
Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit.
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is:
10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature’s Cha modifier.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.
Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:
10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).
Spell-like abilities are subject to Spell Resistance. Supernatural abilities aren't.
Spell-like abilities mimic spells. Supernatural ones don't have to (but they can).
Spell-like provoke Attacks of Opportunity just like spells, and require Concentration checks to maintain in the same fashion that spells do. Supernatural abilities do not provoke AoO's and do not require Concentration checks in any circumstance.
I think that's it.
EDIT- Beaten to the punch! I knew it would happen. :)
Heh, we're bouncin' around like pinballs today!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Spell-like provoke Attacks of Opportunity just like spells, and require Concentration checks to maintain in the same fashion that spells do. Supernatural abilities do not provoke AoO's and do not require Concentration checks in any circumstance.
So, if there are no components involved, what exactly is a creature DOING that provokes an AoO when it uses its spell-like ability? When a character readies an action to disrupt a spell-like ability, what visual cue is there that such an action is being attempted? That's what never made sense to me.
Well, the creature just has to "focus" and "concentrate" to pull up the powers, which means he drops his guard and provokes the AoO. The only clue would be an intent stare or perhaps the beginnings of the swirl of mystical energies, depending on the situation. It's kind of up to the DM to sort that one out, though now that I think of it, it's something that he should try to make clear to his players to avoid confusion.
We ran a playtest between a balor and a pit fiend over at Circvs Maximvs. The results were less than spectacular, and predicated on one of them getting a critical hit before the other one.
In other words, it proved why the Blood War rages on incessantly, and why armies numbering in the thousands are needed to gain any advantage in it. :)
|
|
We ran a playtest between a balor and a pit fiend over at Circvs Maximvs. The results were less than spectacular, and predicated on one of them getting a critical hit before the other one.
In other words, it proved why the Blood War rages on incessantly, and why armies numbering in the thousands are needed to gain any advantage in it. :)
It doesn't matter whether one criticals or not. Balors can't deal lethal damage to a Pit Fiend. They have no spell like ability, supernatural ability, or weapon (natural or otherwise) that can overcome the Pit Fiends regeneration. Every time the Pit Fiend hits the Balor, he takes lethal damage albeit reduced by DR etc. Every time a Balor hits a Pit Fiend, the damage is subdual damage, because all damage that a Balor can deal is instantly turned to subdual damage against the Pit Fiend because of the inability to overcome the regeneration. This is true for any Demon fighting any Devil that has regeneration requiring a good alignment component to overcome it. Unless you assume that every Balor is running around with a Holy Sword or something just for when they fight devils. This is why regeneration doesn't make sense as written for devils. It needs to be written in such a way that Demons have some way to overcome it.
this thread prompted me to create my first module in neverwinter nights 2, "demon battle".
in the map there is a balor a pit fiend and the player (who spawns behind a tree).
the two big badies fight to the death.
pit fiend wins every time. (three sims)
|
You have the right answer -- the Devil wins -- but for the wrong reasons. It's not about stats it's about alignment. CE SUCKS! It is crap. CE and CN are meaningful only for stupid masses of grunts. There should be a rule in D&D, any CE or CN PC or NPC can not have an INT score higher than 7. This makes it much more fathomable.
Long reign Lawful aligned entities.
BTW, the Fiendish Codex from Hell mentions that Devils are more powerful and much smarter than Demons but there are just so many more Demons that the Blood War continuously rages.
-W. E. Ray
Looks like someone has Tanar'ri envy.... (Joking! :P)
I like all fiends, but I say "Go Demons!"
It doesn't matter whether one criticals or not. Balors can't deal lethal damage to a Pit Fiend. They have no spell like ability, supernatural ability, or weapon (natural or otherwise) that can overcome the Pit Fiends regeneration.
We became acutely aware of that fact during playtest. While the balor can only do nonlethal, the criticals can stack to the point where the pit fiend backs off. *shrug*
We also have found that summoning a marilith who carries a silvered longsword and having said marilith cast align weapon before giving it to the balor works as well. :)
|
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but my understanding of regeneration (from the description in the MM) is that you can batter a creature with regeneration into unconciousness and then perform a coup de grace. I don't think in those instances whether the weapon does "lethal" or non-lethal damage is the issue for this coup de grace. So a demon could kill a devil with regeneration, though it would be a bit tricky with the DR and the regeneration.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but my understanding of regeneration (from the description in the MM) is that you can batter a creature with regeneration into unconciousness and then perform a coup de grace. I don't think in those instances whether the weapon does "lethal" or non-lethal damage is the issue for this coup de grace. So a demon could kill a devil with regeneration, though it would be a bit tricky with the DR and the regeneration.
Yup, you can still whack a regenerating creature into submission, and then kill it with a sharp pointy object ;>
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but my understanding of regeneration (from the description in the MM) is that you can batter a creature with regeneration into unconciousness and then perform a coup de grace. I don't think in those instances whether the weapon does "lethal" or non-lethal damage is the issue for this coup de grace. So a demon could kill a devil with regeneration, though it would be a bit tricky with the DR and the regeneration.
The SRD Speaks:
A regenerating creature that has been rendered unconscious through nonlethal damage can be killed with a coup de grace. The attack cannot be of a type that automatically converts to nonlethal damage.
Emphasis mine.
Thus my whole thing about cutting off a troll's head as an example. That has actually happened as an attempted coup de grace in one of my games, but unless it is delivered with acid or fire damage simultaneously, it doesn't matter.
Another question: When striking a creature, such as a troll, that has regeneration broken only by an energy type, does all the damage dealt from, say, a +1 flaming longsword count as breaking the regeneration, or only the fire damage?
Another question: When striking a creature, such as a troll, that has regeneration broken only by an energy type, does all the damage dealt from, say, a +1 flaming longsword count as breaking the regeneration, or only the fire damage?
For this, we've got the following rules (using the troll as an example):
Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away. The creature’s description includes the details.
and
Fire and acid deal normal damage to a troll. If a troll loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 3d6 minutes. The creature can reattach the severed member instantly by holding it to the stump.
and
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon is of two types, the damage it deals is not half one type and half another; all of it is both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage from such a weapon.
and finally
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.
From these, I'd rule that vs. a troll, the fire (or acid) damage (one attack form) from an enchanted weapon would be lethal, while the "standard" damage (say, slashing from a longsword; a second attack form) would be nonlethal. My thinking here is based on spells like meteor swarm (which deals bludgeoning plus fire damage) where a creature might take the bludgeoning damage, but not the fire damage (or vice versa). And also, the flaming description notes the damage as "extra" so a longsword would deal 1d8 Slashing plus 1d6 Fire damage. This is different from the morningstar dealing 1d8 bludgeoning and piercing (the morningstar would fall under the "damage it deals is not half one type and half another" rule above).
Now, for a cinematic effect I'd rule that a troll limb (or other body part) severed by a weapon dealing slashing and fire damage couldn't be reattached, as the wound is cauterized. The troll in this case would have to regrow the limb. Of course, the only way this will happen (outside a character with a vorpal sword) is if a DM has house rules (which I do) that allow body parts to be targeted for specific damage...
EDIT: Oh, and bringing us back around to the pit fiend...a holy silver weapon differs from, say, a flaming weapon in relation to regeneration as the holy enhancement deals extra damage but also makes the weapon's standard damage aligned to good. So in this case a holy silver longsword would deal 1d8 slashing and silver and good damage plus 2d6 points of damage against all of evil alignment. Though the holy enhancement description doesn't specifically state such, I'd rule that this extra 2d6 damage is of the same type dealt by the weapon (in this case slashing/silver/good) but I can see some DM's nitpicking to say this 2d6 is not both silver and good-aligned for purposes related to regeneration.
A holy weapon is imbued with holy power. This power makes the weapon good-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all of evil alignment.
A couple of things Pit Fiend gets another advantage with proper choice of feats namely Improved Disarm. Vorpal sword isn't so great when Pit Fiend rips it from the Balors grip then turns around and cuts off the demons head with it. Also on the weight thing: the Pit Fiends weight seems more realistic than the Balors; remember both of these creatures can FLY without magic; to do that you NEED to be very light for your size; to use a real life example; even the largest pterosaur that ever lived (Quetzalcoatlus at the moment; wingspan 12-15 m-40-50 ft) weighted only a few hundred pounds and it was quite a strong flyer similarly the largest ever bird Argentavis had a 6-8 m or 19-28 ft wingspan and weighted only a couple hundred pounds at most and was about 3.5 m (11 ft) beak to tail and 1.8 to 2 m (6 to 6 and a half ft) tall and it was apparently hawk or eagle like-not weak. This has bugged me about all sorts of flying creatures in D&D and indeed many land living creatures in D&D as well: the weight descriptions are WAAAAAYYYYYYYY too high. Dire Lion 1800 pounds I don't think so! 650-700 tops for the length presented in the MM.
My opinion Demons vs Devils: Victory to the Baatezu and death to all Demon filth.
Demons versus devils? I hear yugoloths laughing all the way to the bank...
Am I all alone in my love of the tanar'ri? :(