| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 18:06:38
Just wondering.... |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Feb 2017 : 07:19:42
"Saves as vampire" was replaced by turn resistance in 3e. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Feb 2017 : 03:15:32
In core 3e D&D, you're probably right. Though I'm hardly amongst the "rules-folk-in-the-know."
But I do KNOW that the 'saves as vampire' was presented in White Wolf's 3e update-material for RAVENLOFT. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 25 Feb 2017 : 00:22:11
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I liked it by type - it was simpler and just more efficient to wrap rules around.
I always felt they should have done the same with undead (in older editions), instead of having the cumbersome, "saves as vampire", or "Turns as wight". Having things 'tiered' that way also makes it easier to use banish/control/summon spells.
Last I checked, "saves as vampire" doesn't exist in 3e. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 19:08:08
Exactly.
For example, what can a Sorcerer summon? Type# = spell casting level (so you can't summon a type X without some type of help). Monster/companion summons works the same way.
What can a cleric turn? Tier# = cleric spell casting level
Control undead of banish fiend? Cleric spell lev. - 2.
They started using CR for all of that, but I think its clunkier. I can understand why - some creatures might have certain abilities that make them harder to defeat). In the good old days, it was up to the DM to determine 'threat level', and by dumbing that aspect down, we wound up with a lot of DMs who weren't worthy of the mantle, who didn't know how to create encounters PCs didn't just wade through. For example, and old-school DM might notice the a party is munching through the baddies too easily, and suddenly, kobold reinforcements arrive! (but not enough to overwhelm - merely 'challenge'). Or if a party starts having way more trouble than they should be (and it not a 'critical encounter'), we could just decide the bandits had a few less HP than they should have (maybe they ran into another group earlier). I think the CR concept is nice as a guideline, but I think too many people took it as the 'end all, be all' of encounters, and thats just not so. D&D is about having fun first, which requires hundreds of micro-adjustments on-the-fly. A lot of 3e+ DMs didn't get a chance to get their feet wet in this regard.
I guess my point this time is, sometimes you can create too many rules to govern every situation, when simplicity works better to 'train' a DM how to handle certain situations themselves. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 17:00:27
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I liked it by type - it was simpler and just more efficient to wrap rules around.
I always felt they should have done the same with undead (in older editions), instead of having the cumbersome, "saves as vampire", or "Turns as wight". Having things 'tiered' that way also makes it easier to use banish/control/summon spells.
That is a damn good design point (the thing about undead). It would work well for a lot of summonable/controllable things. Elementals as well. Could even be useful with nature summoning things like fey to say that certain fey are equatable to a certain tier. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 16:42:28
I liked it by type - it was simpler and just more efficient to wrap rules around.
I always felt they should have done the same with undead (in older editions), instead of having the cumbersome, "saves as vampire", or "Turns as wight". Having things 'tiered' that way also makes it easier to use banish/control/summon spells. |
| Kessalin |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 16:23:00
In 3.0, when the Klurichir appeared in the Fiend Folio at CR 25, yes it was the most powerful non-unique tanar'ri. With the 3.5 update the demons were upgraded significantly and the CR listed for the klurichir in Fiendish Codex 1 (17) is what the authors thought it should be, as written. Personally I'd rewrite it to be suitably epic if I were going to use it, especially in light of the fact that it can automatically summon two balors (CR 20 each in 3.5) once a day. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 06:07:08
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Fiends are one of my 'weak' spots. 
Wasn't 'Balor' a type? I think there was 6 of them, no? Or am I getting him confused with Pit Fiends? (just looked it up - 1e says there are only 6, but 2e says that "there are 24 known to exist").
And I only just now realized I misunderstood the question (I thought the OP was looking for unique, non-arch demons). My bad.
Still, '6' isn't unique, but its pretty damn close. Of course, thats out-dated data anyway. Shows you how long its been since I used a fiend in my games.
Balor is a type now ( and has been since 2nd edition brought back demons as tanar'ri) but in AD&D 1E (the DMG, I think) six " Type VI" demons were named - Balor was one, as was Drizzt's BFF Errtu. While they all had the flamin' hot aura, lghtning sword, and whip (and no resemblance to Tolkien's balrog, no sirree), Type x demon was intended in OD&D to be a power level rather than a specifically statted sub-species. For instance, Dragon #13 featured a generation table by Type. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 04:10:23
Fiends are one of my 'weak' spots.
Wasn't 'Balor' a type? I think there was 6 of them, no? Or am I getting him confused with Pit Fiends? (just looked it up - 1e says there are only 6, but 2e says that "there are 24 known to exist").
And I only just now realized I misunderstood the question (I thought the OP was looking for unique, non-arch demons). My bad.
Still, '6' isn't unique, but its pretty damn close. Of course, thats out-dated data anyway. Shows you how long its been since I used a fiend in my games. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 03:34:37
Ah, okay. Might be wrong on the reference to the older lore myself.
Thinking on this a little further, I may have mixed up Klurichir with another similarly named demon lord from past lore. |
| KanzenAU |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 03:32:10
The Fiendish Codex notes that it's a revised CR based on the expected challenge the demon's original stat block might have been - I'm not sure if it even got an actual stat block in 3.5. So, I'd take its Fiendish Codex CR with a big ol' grain of salt. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 03:15:09
Hmmm. Klurichir sounds like an older-edition reference to a lower-level demon-lord.
It seems 3e bumped him up a little... |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 02:01:16
so, if it has a mouth where its stomach should be..... where's the food that it eats go? |
| KanzenAU |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 22:10:46
There's a list of tanar'ri by CR in the Fiendish Codex from 3e. The top section of it is:
CR 16: goristro
CR 17: klurichir, marilith, sorrowsworn
CR 18: deathdrinker, myrmyxicus
CR 19: molydeus
CR 20: balor
Hope that helps.
Edit: Not that combat strength is the ultimate measure of "power", but I thought this might be of interest to you. Don't know much about them, myself. |
| jordanz |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 21:28:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Do you have specific references for this guy, so that people can perhaps look them up and compare him to other tanar'ri?
Sorry Yes http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Klurichir |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 18:57:03
Do you have specific references for this guy, so that people can perhaps look them up and compare him to other tanar'ri? |
