Talk:Liber Demonica (3.5e Sourcebook)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedFavor.png Leziad favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
Now that a well written sourcebook. The fluff is in line with DnD settings (can be reflavored for other settings) and the rules are nicely written and coherent. The sourcebook has many good-looking image (thanks to internet artist everyone and fair use!).

It balance level is in line on what I would expect for an archdemon or a regular demon, has nice homebrew monsters and many character options.

Minor Suggestion(s)

If I may offer? Remove the "The" in the demon entries. It seems too repetitive. Great work so far, though, guys. :) --Silver Tongue 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the vote of confidence! Second, apologies for the (very) belated response. Thirdly, consider it done, and it will be implemented within 24 hours of this post. - MisterSinister 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuff Left to Do[edit]

Right, so Cid and I have decided that we want to finish this before it hits its first birthday on November 17th, 2011. This is a big task, but it's an achievable task. To help up move things along, and hopefully to get some more contributors in on this work, we've made a list of 'things to do'. These are roughly in order of urgency and/or complexity, and will be crossed off the list as they are completed.

As ever, any and all help will be appreciated.

  • Adding the possession rules for all demons that can do it.
  • Finish Demogorgon (Completed as of April 18, 2013)
  • Finish Pale Night
  • Finish mechanics for Graz'zt
  • Finish mechanics and fluff for Orcus
  • Complete invocation list for Abyssal Warlock
  • Complete Ravaged classes (now done)
  • Complete demon weapons and edit them into a more MIC-compliant format
  • Write rules for evil phenomena
  • Write the remaining variant tieflings
  • Add variant spells and replace the entries appropriately
  • Add all the planes that each lord lives on
  • A huge edit pass to clear up inconsistencies, bad flavour text, etc.

There might well be more than this, but this is all that I could find on an initial pass. I hope that people will help us finish this work - you'll have our eternal gratitude, as well as spot on the contributor section, for doing this. I'd like to thank anyone who wants to contribute in advance - it means a lot to me, and I'm sure Cid would agree. - MisterSinister 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Write rules for evil phenomena
  • Add variant spells and replace the entries appropriately
What did you have in mind for these? - Tarkisflux Talk 03:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The first of these is basically 'bad shit that happens when lots of demons show up in one place'. It's a chart, with a bunch of modifiers, that determine if the weather starts going insane, if day-night patterns get disrupted, if trees set on fire, etc. Basically, it's meant to show that demonic invasions seriously screw with reality, and makes it easy for GMs to do that.
The second is basically making wish, miracle and suchlike conform to Tome standards, removing XP costs from spells that have them, and also writing up planar binding and planar ally into something that doesn't shatter the game in half quite so much (again, according to Tome standards). - MisterSinister 03:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Question for you; Since you all aren't doing much, would you mind if I finished the Demon lords? -(Shady) 4-13-13
In the interests of being a total control freak and showing that we have not been totally stagnant on this, I insist that stuff be cleared with MisterSinister, myself, or one of the admins on this Wiki to ensure that the contribution meets the standards of power and theme laid out by the current publication. Not only that, but we also have working drafts of how we envision the demon lords here, here, and here (for Orcus, Grazzt, and Demogorgon, respectively). I feel I should also warn you that my standards are fairly high, which is the primary reason this has taken so long in the first place. Plus, Demogorgon is close enough to being done (and done by me, making it of personal interest) that I would like to continue it myself. That having all been established, you are welcome to try and tackle them, but I think it may be best to not edit the main pages just yet until we have something that we can agree upon. - TG Cid (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You have also spurred me to complete Demogorgon. For that, I thank you. - TG Cid (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ravaged of X Classes[edit]

Design intent on the Scion of X abilities. Was it intentional that they have the top level spell 1/day, the next 3/day, and the rest at-will? If so, how come? That seems a pretty fast advancement schedule, and like they'd be throwing down some pretty serious stuff at the high end. - Tarkisflux Talk 04:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It IS a fast schedule, but at the same time, I don't consider it that far out-of-line, as the abilities themselves are useful, but relatively minor. Is there something in particular that bothers you? - MisterSinister 21:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It's granting something very close to expert sphere access on the first level, and those spells aren't trivial boosts. But it's not granting it consistently. If you have any spellcaster levels you lose that access, and get new spells on your class list. They might be at a lower spell level than you previously had them, but you're still spending slots on them instead of getting them as bonus abilities. That's not a big deal for a 1/day ability, and only sort of a big deal for a 3/day ability, but unlimited castings of something relevant I care about missing out on. If I was a ravaged by abaddon spellcaster, I'd be kinda annoyed that I didn't get to spam power word stun at 15th level, but the guy with the sword can. I'd especially be annoyed if he was already playing wizard level classes. It also falls down for partial or delayed casters, the few that there are, since they lose both the full spell access and the bonus castings. I think giving 1/day to everyone, with an upgrade to 3/day after 4-6 levels, on top of adding the spells at the relevant spell levels to a caster's list works out as both more fair and better balanced to wizard. - Tarkisflux Talk 00:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it does cripple the benefits this gives to sword-users, but I think you make fair points. Since the classes are all phrased in a similar manner, would a bot edit to this effect be possible? - MisterSinister 21:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really. There's supposed to be a way to use variables with ReplaceText that would allow for it, but I've never been able to get it to work. Since each class uses it's title in there, it'll need to be manually edited. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Progress Makes a Successful Hide Check![edit]

Is this project going anywhere? I was really interested in this, and I would be willing to offer some help if you need it.

Currently, the answer is 'something of a no'. Thus, help is welcome if you could give it. Fact is, both Cid and I need to get off our collective asses and get something done, and a contributor would be welcome. What did you want to do? - MisterSinister 18:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I could add details for my own abyssal layer if you want.
Feel free. This is MisterSinister being too lazy to log in. - 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yo, dawg. I heard you wanted help[edit]

I'm interested in finishing up those variant tielfings, if you're OK with that. I get the progression necessary, but where can I find the necessary fluff for each of those names? --YouLostMe 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluff would be found in the eponymous creature entries found in the sourcebook. It might be minimal at times, but the motives of individual species or whatever don't always have to be relevant so don't feel pressured to go apeshit with fluff text. Secondly, while we are asking for help with this we want to remain consistent with our quality across the entire project. So we'll be judging on a pretty high standard in accordance with what we (that being MS and I, primarily) think is write for the book. It's our brainchild, after all. - TG Cid 00:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What Cid said, essentially. We're mostly concerned mainly with the crunch quality - fluff is secondary. - MisterSinister 03:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Warlock evocations[edit]

First, grats, amazing job! Second, there's a huge lack of evocations for warlock class... so... i'd suggest to use the effects of warlocks invocations found in dnd books and just change the context, will be more easy to fill up with dozens of new evocations... Cya bro! and again, Amazing job this book!

Thanks for the kind words - much appreciated. The reason I haven't used warlock invocations is twofold - first-off, I don't rifle through other people's garbage. Secondly, WotC have shown that they do stupid things regarding their content being pirated, and I don't want to encourage them. - MisterSinister 22:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Understood, was just a suggestion to find ideas for new invocations, not using the same words found there... srry for the misunderstood.
Cause the class has none dark and just one dire invocations... causing troubles for people wanting to play with this class...
oh, and is up to you, but don't u think the "never misses" of Itharius' Unerring Strike's a bit overpower?
perhaps if change that for a normal attack with just "ignores all cover and concealment" would be more balanced... ;)
1d6 damage per level against enemies that you still have to target isn't that crazy, especially given that it pretty much takes the meaningful part of your turn to use it. It's a Very High level class and a greater invocation, which probably isn't any more powerful than most of the other invocations it offers. It's only pwn-worthy when measured against WotC invocations, and the WotC warlock is more of a High level class than a Very High so it's understandable that they would seem subpar. - TG Cid 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The shortage of invocations is a problem that I will address promptly, however. - MisterSinister 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying that an attack without the d20 roll looses its fun, the fun of a player taking 1 and blow himself or take two 20 and ::::confirm to make a hit kill on the target... I know that the class isn't overpower, that some builds can do hundred d6 plus.
Just without the random result of a d20, the expectation and emotion will be fairy less... =/
Give it +20 to attack, but don't take away the 1 or 20 from the attack... =)
There's something sort of satisfying about making an action in D&D and not asking the DM whether it succeeds. --Foxwarrior 03:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Arguments from the given basis, while possibly reasonable for some, are not the foundation of design decisions that I am willing to take. You're quite welcome to write your own version of the abyssal warlock that does the same thing, but as far as mine is concerned, I'm gonna keep things simple and avoid rolls for the sake of rolls. - MisterSinister 06:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Why are F&K listed as contributors to this work? I don't recall them pitching anything for it or batting any ideas around. - Tarkisflux Talk 03:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We pretty much listed anyone whose work was featured in the sourcebook as a contributor. Since we used Frank & K's tasha's tomb tainting, the credit came along. - TG Cid (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think using someone's work counts as making them a contributor. And since I have a confused guy on TGD asking what Frank and K did with the project, I think listing them, or anyone, for that reason alone is unhelpful if not actively misleading. - Tarkisflux Talk 04:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Given that everyone else listed here is a wiki user and has contributed in more ways with idea pitching and such, I think they can stay and we can scratch Frank & K if it is deemed necessary. - TG Cid (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)