| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... cool for us, and not them, of course. ;)
I was discussing with somebody the way that Pathfinder 2e does weaknesses the other day, and I flipped through the fiends to explain that weaknesses could be trait-based and not only based on damage type (weakness holy is a good example of this imo), and afterwards I continued to flip through them because I wanted to remind myself of their resistances, and I was reminded of something that kinda irked me when we got Monster Core.
"Why is it that only Demons have special vulnerabilities out of the three main fiends (demon, daemon, devil)? And, for that matter, why DON'T demons really have any resistances?"
For those unaware, all but three listed demons have a special "vulnerability" tied closely to the sin that formed that demon's larva into what it is. The classic example is the Succubus's "Rejection Vulnerability", where anybody who succeeds a save against their mental effects or when they fail their Embrace ability or any Request, they take 2d6 mental damage, as their entire purpose of corrupting others through their lusts is being left unsatisfied. The three demons that don't have one (or something akin to it, in the dretch pusk's and quasit's case): The balor, the katpaskir, and the vrolikai. Notably, the katpaskir is a demon that debuted in an AP, but the same AP also debuted a different demon - the ghalzarokh - that DOES have a vulnerability.
I chalk these demons up as being "the best of the best" and as such an exception proving the rule. Vrolikai, in particular, are created when a powerful demon has devoured so many souls that the individual desires that each have are all drowned out in the slurry of sin, meaning that no one desire is strong enough to show a weakness. The other two were written under the OGL as well, but even most of the pre-mastered demons had this unique thing, so it's definitely not a Remaster phenomena.
Now, that's not to say that devils and daemons don't have some theming in this area. Devils have a blanket immunity to fire and nearly all (if not all) of them have a blanket resistance to physical damage from non-silver sources and poison. Daemons have a blanket immunity to death effects, and individual daemons sometimes have immunity to effects related to the type of life-ending that they represent (e.g. agradaemons are immune to fire, astradaemons immune to void). But the only one that really comes close to being so flavorful on an individual fiend level is the phistophilus (contract devil), with its "Ward Contract" immunity.
Devils and daemons are fiends that are very often portrayed just as strongly-tied to what they represent as demons are. So why don't they also have "specific" banes or resistances? And for that matter, why are pretty much all plane-affiliated celestials even less fleshed-out in this manner?
Demons are the min-maxers of the outer planes. The other types go for a more balanced build.
I do dislike that most demons lack Resistances (or Fast Healing) because that reflects on the terrors of the Abyss. There's planar acclimation, sure, but if one reflects on the Worldwound or classic Abyssal adventures, there are a lot of active threats too that would destroy demons through attrition. Yes, I can solve this myself, but it feels like an oversight.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think broadly its a design choice to distinguish how the tactical 'feel' of fighting them is different
Demons generally have more hit points than daemons or devils of similar Levels. But if you know and can exploit their weakness this balances that out - it encourages characters exploiting their knowledge of the foes and taking clever actions.
While you could certainly argue as to why demons specifically were chosen for this approach over the other two main fiend types , I think there's value in having one family of monsters treated differently this way.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Why is it that only Demons have special vulnerabilities out of the three main fiends (demon, daemon, devil)?
I think the reason for that is found in the creature creation guidelines, found in GM Core 162. It seems that page wasn't featured on Archives of Nethys somehow.
Basically, each creature trait brings with it certain design expectations. For demons, it's that they'll have a sin vulnerability and a sin ability. For daemons, it's a "death ability" themed to the kind of death they represent. For devils it's an "infernal hierarchy ability" that has to do with what role they play in hell.
Same with celestials; angels all have an aura, archons have a virtue ability, and azatas have a freedom ability.
I kinda like that design methodology myself, at least in theory. But the demon sin vulnerability does seem like it comes into actual play more often than for example devil hierarchy abilities.
Interesting - I've never seen this Trait guideline before (though it was on p. 126)
It's interesting that only demons seem to get both a special weakness AND a special ability based on the thing they represent. Devils' infernal hierarchy abilities also tend to be things akin to Commander's Aura - which, while fitting, feels a little thin comparatively.
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of this is a deliberate attempt to try to define our fiends on their own terms, rather than as they relate to each other. Forced symmetry (in which like groups—say, devils, demons, and daemons) have interchangeable themes and guidelines erodes their identity and makes it less plausible why they're different types of fiends in the first place. Especially now that we're no longer using alignment, and the "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic evil" vibe is no longer appropriate, this method I think not only makes all fiends more interesting as separate families of monsters, but makes them stronger, narratively, and helps to separate their roles in adventures in more interesting ways. Especially since the alignment based separations led to misunderstandings and kinda annoying assumptions (like: Demons can't work together, or Devils can't trick you, or the whole Blood War thing overall which was never a part of Pathfinder to begin with but it's hard to get out from under the D&D shadow when we were already so deep in the OGL traditions.)
Hey, to be fair - daemons all DO share an immunity to death effects, which is thematic. Doesn't really stop an embodiment of apocalypse to be faced with death again, after all.
Forced symmetry (in which like groups—say, devils, demons, and daemons) have interchangeable themes and guidelines erodes their identity and makes it less plausible why they're different types of fiends in the first place. Especially now that we're no longer using alignment, and the "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic evil" vibe is no longer appropriate, this method I think not only makes all fiends more interesting as separate families of monsters, but makes them stronger, narratively, and helps to separate their roles in adventures in more interesting ways...
This is an interesting point, and one I hadn't considered in this way. While it's tempting to still relate the "major" fiends with one-another due to their previous placement in the cosmological alignment boxes, after that cull they now have the freedom to grow, overlap, and separate however they want. Hell (heh), even calling them the "major" fiends is moreso a byproduct of that lingering labelling from my end - qlippoths are arguably just as an important part of the Outer Rifts as demons are, considering their history with the plane and their conflict with the demons (who invaded their home), daemons (who created demons), and mortals (who birth demons by existing). Thank you for this response, James; it was quite enlightening.
All that being said though, I do still feel that, as individual creatures, demons still feel - in a mechanical/ludonarrative sense - as though they stand out a lot more than most of the daemons or devils. The Sin Vulnerabilities (and their associated abilities) make them quite interesting foes to do research on in-game to find their "bane", as it were. And it feels both rewarding and narratively satisfying to know these tidbits of info as a party.
For devils' credit: orts, nessari, and the phistophilus all knock it out of the park in terms of being unique devils that show off the "hierarchical tyranny" of Hell very well while still remaining interesting singular creatures. I can only hope that future fiends follow in their footsteps!
All that being said though, I do still feel that, as individual creatures, demons still feel - in a mechanical/ludonarrative sense - as though they stand out a lot more than most of the daemons or devils.[...]
I think this speaks to something a bit more fundamental.
When we play games, we are always seeking rob the present moment of its novelty by applying previously learned lessons to simplify/"solve" the current encounter. Even when we are not fully "optimizing the fun out of the game" we are still always seeking to frame the present novelty in the context of what we have learned. That's just normal cognition.
.
Ttrpgs are usually bad at dealing with this "auto anti novelty" issue when it comes to mechanics, and the genre typically relies on RP & non-numeric interactions to be their endless font of novelty.
There is just too much a need for consistency in things like rules and statistics for novel player actions to be combat-relevant. So instead, the main tactic for designers is to make the interactions of these statistics within any context complex enough to allow for continued pseudo-novelty in the form of "how do I get back to my old reliable?" type problem solving. The "escape the foe's unique gimmick, and then it's the same-old, same-old" routine (not intrinsically bad! Just anti-novelty)
This doesn't really work due to the player-sided initiation of actions, and how much opportunity cost is associated with things like class feats and spell slots. You simply are going to take what you *understand to be useful* based on your prior knowledge of how the systems work instead of risking your at-level class feats on things that are novel and strange.
Player actions are just bound & limited by how they interact with the statistical system, so even if an interaction appears complex, it's all mathematically rather simplistic under the hood for the sake of being a non-computer game.
Restated: the mathematically simple requirement for a d20 game has a seriously negative consequence of players being more able to *know* the math and "what works" more than they can in other games. It's a infohazard that drastically cuts into player novelty.
.
But, at the same time, the ttrpg is the one place where weird abilities/effects can simply be written down in a sentence or two, and then they exist. No art assets nor bug-tested programming required.
The design-bible entry for demons having a sin power & sin weakness imo beautifully takes advantage of this perk of ttrpgs by making demons have a unique & simple interaction with those inescapable statistics (doing HP damage via Weakness), while uniting that interaction with a *completely arbitrary* and statistically unbound *interaction* with the players' actions.
.
Mechanically speaking, the "demons are known to have one weird trick" is peak ttrpg design. Keeping it foe-specific is the perfect place for those mini-moments to happen without their novelty-fun being lost/"solved" via repetition.
The design idea understands it's own genre limitations perfectly, and leans into it's pros to subvert a foundational con. Injecting mechanistically meaningful novelty that is downright foe-specific (and perfectly thematic/ story harmonious).
My only "yes and" / "do it better for pf3e" would be for Demons as a group to have GM guidance where RK cannot directly reveal the weakness mechanistically, and can instead only reveal and explain the sin & behaviors of the demon family, to preserve the mini-puzzle.
(and or to have the more generic demons have a short table of possibilities for the sake of pseudo individuality / RNG among multiples of the same species)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the reason Demons feel more fleshed out in Pathfinder is several of the major designers for Pathfinder find them the most interesting. (I'm looking at you James!).
Just off the top of my head there are now 3 APs that have strong Demon themes: Second Darkness, Wrath of the Righteous, and Spore War. If I remember correctly all the Runelord campaigns also have strong Demon tie-ins.
Where are the Devil or Deamon APs? Where is the Velstracs or Sahkils?
As we get more adventures that center these types of monsters, we will get a more well rounded view of them as we have for Demons.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. I've found demons to be the most interesting of the fiends ever since I first looked at the Monster Manual for AD&D back in the early 80s and was inspired by the wide range of appearances and abilities they had, the fact that Demogorgon had the most HP in the game, and by the fact that, unlike devils, they looked truly monstrous rather than "guy with goatee." That sort of inspiration has never left me, and as creative director, that influence has 100% been part of why there's a strong demon presence in the setting.
If you're including previous editions, I'd say Council of Thieves, Hell's Vengenace, Hell's Rebels, off the top of my head, count as devil Adventure Paths.
And Stolen Fate splits the theme, giving one book each to Devils, Demons, and Daemons.
Sahkils featuring strongly in an Adventure Path? Interesting! Funny you should mention that but...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where are the Devil or Deamon APs? Where is the Velstracs or Sahkils?
...I thought any AP that even remotely involved Cheliax automatically involved Devils.
That's the thing. They are Cheliax APs, while they have Devils in them, they're not really Devil APs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing. They are Cheliax APs, while they have Devils in them, they're not really Devil APs.
Where are the Devil or Deamon APs? Where is the Velstracs or Sahkils?
...I thought any AP that even remotely involved Cheliax automatically involved Devils.
I don't know. HR is about Cheliax (well, Ravounel), but is also specifically about deals with various devils. You also have to go to Hell in the final chapter. I'd say that counts.
Would there be interest in expanding devils and deamons if someone who was as inspired as you are for demons put forth ideas?
I find hearing your bias interesting. Not in a negative way, would that everything could have the person most passionate about that thing working on it, and that everything had a person that loved it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would there be interest in expanding devils and deamons if someone who was as inspired as you are for demons put forth ideas?
I find hearing your bias interesting. Not in a negative way, would that everything could have the person most passionate about that thing working on it, and that everything had a person that loved it.
Well... my buddy Wes Schneider worked side by side with me for the first several years of Adventure Path development, and he's as into devils as I am to demons. And I feel like what he's done with devils for Pathfinder IS interesting, and that helped me to focus on the demon side. Teamwork!
We've already done a LOT of work expanding on these creatuers too, with the various Books of the Damned, Planar Adventures, Hell Revisited, Demons Revisited, etc. Lots of lore from the 1E days to delve into.
Personally, I DO feel like devils (thanks to Wes) have as interesting a place as demons, narratively speaking. And also daemons, in their role of nihilistic eaters of souls.
Devils want to control.
Daemons want to consume.
Demons want to corrupt.
Those are three really strong narrative things to explore when it comes to fiends, so I feel that, narratively, they're doing a great job already.
We'll continue to expand and explore all three, plus all the other categories of fiends, going forward. AND make up some new ones too along the way. I don't feel like we haven't started to do this, but have been doing it all along.
Divs also have special weaknesses, including: Secrets, Lies, Beauty, and The Color Red.
Yeah, all the Div weaknesses are extremely cool - they feel like some Peak Folklore Nonsense, and I mean that as a sincere compliment. I am curious to see more interesting hierarchy abilities for Devils - I was kinda hoping coarti would have some sort of "Superior's Voice" ability, where they act as a very literal mouthpiece for whichever higher-rank devil they are couriering messages for, but oh well.
|
|
As a "spectator" I like the differentiation between fiends, and I totally see the point of avoiding forced symmetry.
But in actual play, the demon weaknesses are the ones I've enjoyed the most. It's something you as a player can try to do something with, which is a bit different from an ability the monster has that you try to endure as best you an. So there's a bit more initiative/agency involved for the players with demon weaknesses.
I don't have much interest in fiends, but like others have said, more ways for players to interact with them in the form of researching weaknesses, true names, behaviors, etc to really drive story and combat interaction is great.