Dicefreaks d20 Community

That didn't make a lick of sense to me, but whatever. Enjoy your monkey demons.

Ryu Hayabusa wrote:

The Serge wrote:While we all need to hear things you don't necessary like, aside from the asakku story (which really is creepy as all hell), is there anything here folks DO like and want to see more of?

I like how they have a much more potent full attack routine now. With four swords, three whips, two wings and a gore they're really terrifying in melee and makes that a more viable choice than flinging it's good spell-likes and summons out from afar. I also really like how you provided a way to improve the balor's death burst. Those are both good improvements and make the monster better to use. I really approve of upgrading Core material like that.

I second my approval of this. Always seemed wierd that the biggest brute of a demon, armed with two awesome weapons, would be best served by being a telekinetic/implosion sniper.

Palindrome wrote:

One question, though: With it's innate weaponry, what happens to it's weapons if it's disarmed or it's weapons otherwise survive it's demise? Is this meant to be a built in way to discourage PCs from looting a balor's signature weapons?

If it's disarmed, then as a free action, the balor could (and probably would) recall them afterwards assuming that some other being wasn't wielding them at the time. I would answer the second question as saying that this is more of an expression of the idea that a balor's weapons are incarnations of its destructive prowess.

Does this mean that it can't recall them if they're being wielded by someone else? Because the ability doesn't say that. Far as I can tell, it can recall them right out of the other guy's hands.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Warps and ravages might indeed grant a balor a freezing body, but there is no good reason to tie the immunity to the energy damage dealt by the body. What possible benefit does a correlation between those provide?

Uhhhh, it makes a lot of sense for a demon that is on fire all the time to be immune to fire, just as it makes sense for a demon that is covered in acid all the time to be immune to acid.

Wintermute wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:Warps and ravages might indeed grant a balor a freezing body, but there is no good reason to tie the immunity to the energy damage dealt by the body. What possible benefit does a correlation between those provide?

Uhhhh, it makes a lot of sense for a demon that is on fire all the time to be immune to fire, just as it makes sense for a demon that is covered in acid all the time to be immune to acid.

Explain yourself and stop thinking that your lack of imagination in the matter means that it is self apparent to everyone.

If the balor's aura does not damage its body, what does it need to concern itself with immunity to fire from elsewhere? What law of the universe or of game design does this violate?

Wintermute wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:Warps and ravages might indeed grant a balor a freezing body, but there is no good reason to tie the immunity to the energy damage dealt by the body. What possible benefit does a correlation between those provide?

Uhhhh, it makes a lot of sense for a demon that is on fire all the time to be immune to fire, just as it makes sense for a demon that is covered in acid all the time to be immune to acid.

Exactly. Which is why they shouldn't always be. Chaos isn't supposed to make sense. That's why it's called Chaos.

CHAOS =\= NONSENSE

Kain Darkwind wrote:I've never said it was sometimes not a fiery demon, I said it was not always a fire demon. Was the nuance lost?

Warps and ravages might indeed grant a balor a freezing body, but there is no good reason to tie the immunity to the energy damage dealt by the body. What possible benefit does a correlation between those provide?

Intuitive sense. It seems bizarre and illogical than you can fairly easily burn a monster that spends its entire life wreathed in rather intense flames, and that the same monster would be utterly unfazed by say lightning or cold. While a spellcaster can whip up a temporary spell that envelops themself in damaging effects that they aren't resistant to, it is simply a very basic intuition that a monster who lives in fire needs to be highly resistant or immune to said fire. Being consistent about this also allows players to make use of their own common sense in attempting to use energy attacks on the monster, which rewards at least a bit of thinking rather than blasting thoughtlessly. Being inconsistent on it is an annoying difference for the sake of difference.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Explain yourself and stop thinking that your lack of imagination in the matter means that it is self apparent to everyone.

It is on fire. Fire burns. If it is not resistant to fire, it will burn to death. This is not rocket science.

If the balor's aura does not damage its body, what does it need to concern itself with immunity to fire from elsewhere? What law of the universe or of game design does this violate?

Oooooooooh, it would have helped immensely to know that the aura does not damage the balor. I'd assumed it was because it was fire and the balor was immune to fire.

Wintermute wrote:

Kain Darkwind wrote:If the balor's aura does not damage its body, what does it need to concern itself with immunity to fire from elsewhere? What law of the universe or of game design does this violate?

Oooooooooh, it would have helped immensely to know that the aura does not damage the balor. I'd assumed it was because it was fire and the balor was immune to fire.

Okay, not that I'm disagreeing with the idea it makes intuitive sense (separate from the idea that mortal intuition should apply to the Abyss), but you just fail, dude. The ability flat out says it never burns the balor, regardless of what it's immune to.

MythMage wrote:CHAOS =\= NONSENSE

QFT... Although I don't agree with your later position, MM.

Intuitive sense. It seems bizarre and illogical than you can fairly easily burn a monster that spends its entire life wreathed in rather intense flames, and that the same monster would be utterly unfazed by say lightning or cold. While a spellcaster can whip up a temporary spell that envelops themself in damaging effects that they aren't resistant to, it is simply a very basic intuition that a monster who lives in fire needs to be highly resistant or immune to said fire. Being consistent about this also allows players to make use of their own common sense in attempting to use energy attacks on the monster, which rewards at least a bit of thinking rather than blasting thoughtlessly. Being inconsistent on it is an annoying difference for the sake of difference.

The sake of difference has nothing to do with it. Rather, it's similar to some creatures having venomous bites but not being immune to other creatures with similar venom. Just because a balor is wreathed in flames doesn't mean it's automatically immune to flames other than its own. And I think it's good for players to be exposed to things that challenge their notions. This has nothing to do with being rewarded and, if anything, it encourages players never to judge a book by its cover.

And balors don't live in fire... They live throughout The Abyss which has many other environs other than flammable ones.

Wintermute wrote:It is on fire. Fire burns. If it is not resistant to fire, it will burn to death. This is not rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science. In fact, it's not science at all. The balor is a supernatural entity and does exist within the bounds of science. Just because it's on fire, one generated by its own supernatural being (which is a metaphor for its anger, not to an intimate tie to the element itself) doesn't necessarily mean that its immune to fire.

Oooooooooh, it would have helped immensely to know that the aura does not damage the balor. I'd assumed it was because it was fire and the balor was immune to fire.

... You're kidding, right? Cause, I've never assumed that balors have been immune to fire just because they're covered in it. In fact, in three editions, I never made that assumption and, guess what, in three editions they weren't immune to fire... Heck, wasn't it mentioned that their own flames didn't harm them in at least one edition? (They became immune in 3.5 because folks with limited imaginations influenced WotC designers... The same folks that encouraged them to reduce the number of SLAs demons and devils had.)

The Serge wrote:No, it's not rocket science. In fact, it's not science at all. The balor is a supernatural entity and does exist within the bounds of science. Just because it's on fire, one generated by its own supernatural being (which is a metaphor for its anger, not to an intimate tie to the element itself) doesn't necessarily mean that its immune to fire.

I dislike "it's magic" as an excuse for things that make no sense, especially when those things could be changed to make sense pretty easily, but it's not exactly the end of the world.

... You're kidding, right? Cause, I've never assumed that balors have been immune to fire just because they're covered in it. In fact, in three editions, I never made that assumption and, guess what, in three editions they weren't immune to fire... Heck, wasn't it mentioned that their own flames didn't harm them in at least one edition? (They became immune in 3.5 because folks with limited imaginations influenced WotC designers... The same folks that encouraged them to reduce the number of SLAs demons and devils had.)

Yeah, that was just a lack of reading comprehension on my part.

It makes sense to me that it need not be flame immune despite manifesting it's rage as both radiative and controled fire, but for some reason it does jar a little for it to have a random immunity that doesn't default to fire. I don't actually know why it does jar, but it's a little irrational that it does.

Anywho, good job.

Wintermute wrote:I dislike "it's magic" as an excuse for things that make no sense, especially when those things could be changed to make sense pretty easily, but it's not exactly the end of the world.

I dislike "it doesn't make sense" as an excuse to stick to tired and boring design, without pushing any limitations. Even more so when dealing with creatures of myriad chaos. A cold immune creature with a fire aura isn't even a stretch to my mind, but some folks do in fact, seem to feel it is the end of the world.

I may think it's counterintuitive, but I don't think it's the end of the world. In fact, I don't really think it's a serious issue. It's just mildly annoying, and I would personally prefer that the immunity match the aura.

MythMage wrote:I may think it's counterintuitive, but I don't think it's the end of the world. In fact, I don't really think it's a serious issue. It's just mildly annoying, and I would personally prefer that the immunity match the aura.

The beauty of the system is that you can ensure that always takes place for your balors.

MythMage wrote:I may think it's counterintuitive, but I don't think it's the end of the world. In fact, I don't really think it's a serious issue. It's just mildly annoying, and I would personally prefer that the immunity match the aura.

This is basically how I feel.

Personally, I don't mind, though I'd have preferred it to be Unholy damage that just looked like(or was 50%) fire. Some poisonous animals aren't even entirely immune to their own poison if it gets in their bloodstream, much less the poison of others.

It's a reasonable guess, but IC, thats the role of a knowledge check, so your players don't make the obvious connection that burning critter = immune to fire like many knowledge check results.

This is taking it a bit away from the balor's flames- although I am of agreement with veekie that it being 50% unholy would be flavorful and cool- but, I had a question about the Asakku. I enjoyed the flavor, and it seems powerful and interesting for its CR which is a good thing. The thing I thought funny was the bonus to exorcism. I haven't actually seen rules for exorcism, and I don't remember it being part of core. I tried rereading TGoH thinking it might be there but I don't believe it was. What rules is Dicefreaks using for possession and exorcism? It sounds like it could be an interesting aspect of the rules. I suppose if it were me, I would make it an aspect of the ability to channel positive energy.

Cerindil wrote:This is taking it a bit away from the balor's flames- although I am of agreement with veekie that it being 50% unholy would be flavorful and cool- but, I had a question about the Asakku. I enjoyed the flavor, and it seems powerful and interesting for its CR which is a good thing.

Thanks.

The thing I thought funny was the bonus to exorcism. I haven't actually seen rules for exorcism, and I don't remember it being part of core. I tried rereading TGoH thinking it might be there but I don't believe it was. What rules is Dicefreaks using for possession and exorcism? It sounds like it could be an interesting aspect of the rules. I suppose if it were me, I would make it an aspect of the ability to channel positive energy.

Good question. I would answer it by saying that there are basically two sets of possession rules that are in play. We agreed early on that demons would have a great interest in possession. Some demons (and there are hints as to which) are specialist possessors like the asakku and target particular aspects of The Mortal Coil based on elements of the mortal psyche, and could best be compared to specialist predators in the real world. These have specific rules in their stats that explain what they can and cannot do.

Other demons take up possession more or less 'independently', and not as elements of their inherent nature, but elements of their growth into more malevolent beings. These would have levels in the Fiend of Possession PrC detailed in Fiend Folio.

As far as exorcism is concerned, the idea of channeling positive energy being connected to it is an interesting one, and will be explored further when rules and chapters concerning weapons against the demonic are released.

Interesting. I have the Fiend Folio at home, I'll have to check that out. My reason for suggesting channeling positive energy is that it kind of fits the theme in my mind... hold holy symbol to the victim's body, demon lashes out and may or may not leave the body. Clerics in 3.5 rolled for the maximum HD they could affect in turning undead, the Asakku's ability could be essentially turn resistance. I picture this as essentially "Turn Possessor." Alternately, in Pathfinder's system (which I like better) Asakku have a +4 profane bonus to their will save to prevent them from fleeing (which would make them also leave the body of the one they are possessing.) Even if they fail, they still would do damage to the creature, which I also think is flavorful.

E.G.
Father Elias holds his holy symbol to the man's chest. As he chants to his god, the fiend howls in pain, and small wisps of smoke roll out from under the image of Pelor. Although the demon is hurt, his will is strong. He refuses to let go of his victim, and responds by causing his victim to convulse violently.

I think this might be something not everyone should specifically be able to do. In our world there are generally specific faith healers or priests known for their ability to exorcise. In D&D this should be a feat or domain power. Possibly both. There is already an ability which makes it possible to turn/rebuke outsiders (This is the epic feat Planar Turning in the SRD, but if possession becomes common at CR 16, hopefully something a little easier to access could be inserted.)

Clerics with the right domains have also long had the ability to turn/rebuke various types of elementals.

In my mind, having it as a part of an existing subsystem is generally better than having another subsystem that clerics (or whoever is judged as having the ability to perform exorcisms) have to tack on to their character sheet.

There's also the Sacred Exorcist class from Complete Divine. It uses the SE's class level and charisma modifier against an opposed DC composed of the possessing creature's HD+charisma modifier.

Making it function simply through channeled positive energy only makes sense if the possessing spirit is hurt by positive energy normally, which fiends are not. That's why the sacred exorcist has to use a separate ability to excise possessing creatures. I could certainly see a [divine] feat allowing one to use channel energy to exercise possessing outsiders. However, the standard means of getting rid of a possessing fiend should be dismissal or banishment, not positive energy.

Note that there are also fairly good rules for possession in the Eberron Campaign Setting.

Note that there are also feats that allow one to turn outsiders at a non-epic level in Pathfinder. No doubt the man had such.

Also, please keep in mind that stories are not meant to be shackled in chains to the rules system. Most of the great novels from DnD are not written as if the protagonist were a specifically statted entity, with rules based limitations on what they may and may not do. Many of the rules we have came from a cool idea in a novel that was then translated into mechanics.

I think the Knight of the Chalice also uses a 'Turn Outsider' ability -which converted to PF, I imagine, would be an upgrade to or free acquisition of the feat that Kain talked about that allows you to channel energy in a way that smites/damages evil outsiders (thus, changing it from positive energy to an energy harmful to the fiends).

Thus, it seems like the PF rules already allow what Cerendil suggested (which is a good suggestion).

After considerable deliberation on the subject with me, myself, and I, we have concluded that balors being on fire as a manifestation of some baseless anger yet not always immune to fire is not as horrifically stupid as the parties mentioned initially implied.