11

When reading in the DMG about the Nine Hells, I got curious what Asmodeus' powers actually might be. I was assuming I would find this in the MM, but I couldn't find even a hint. The section about the devils mentions a lot about the Nine Hells and who is ruling where and so on.

But there are no stats for any of them, just stats for their vassals. And I could also see no hint of how I might modify the "common" devils to represent the Dukes nor anything else.

So is this all up to me to create the stats of well-known lore "bosses"? Or am I just overlooking some info about how to extract this from or modify common monsters to form important known ones?

nitsua60
  • 101,437
  • 26
  • 420
  • 540
Zaibis
  • 3,991
  • 7
  • 33
  • 49

2 Answers2

18

Powerful devils like Asmodeus have never been mere 'pit fiends'. Indeed, none of the Archdevils nor their Demon Lord counterparts could possibly be mapped to anything in the 5e MM.

If you absolutely must have statistics, you'll have to create them yourself at this point.

We aren't completely in the dark on how to do it. Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide offers some insight into Asmodeus' character under his description as a deity. The Rise of Tiamat presents stats for an avatar of Tiamat, and Out of the Abyss has stats for several very different Demon Lords. Asmodeus' avatar (remember Asmodeus is a Forgotten Realms deity currently) should easily be on par with Tiamat's avatar and make even Demogorgon and Orcus look weak by comparison. Don't be afraid to throw out all the stops.

If you still need ideas on what powers Asmodeus should have, then I'd recommend looking up in entry in the 3.5e Book of Vile Darkness. It cannot be mapped directly to 5e, of course, but reading through it should give you an idea of who and what Asmodeus is.

user17995
  • 5,172
  • 6
  • 36
  • 48
Brian_Drozd
  • 2,718
  • 1
  • 16
  • 22
  • Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus give stats for at least one ruler of the Nine Hells that could lend something to this answer. – David Coffron Apr 14 '20 at 18:40
-1

Deities aren't defined in any of the books because the deities themselves can't be defined

Just like any real religion, the way everyone interprets gods is different in D&D 5e as well; some are like Greek Gods, who come to earth often, make mistakes, and act mostly human, but are immortal. (This is similar to the deities that can make avatars listed in the DM Guide).

These avatars are the gods power given form, and allow gods to act on the mortal planes without seriously distorting life and and magic, and often possess some of their power, but killing them simply Inconveniences the the deity, rather than actually hurting them.

Some compare them to the Norse gods who were essentially just magic people, who could be met, beaten, and could die. (Second level of god).

As a DM, it's up to your interpretation if Asmodeus can even be defined by the rules of monsters set in the Monster Manual. For instance, Solars are comparable to the Lords of Hell. Not the Balor (or its devil equivalent) but the actual lords. However, even a Solar doesn't get close to the power of the deity that it serves, so really it's up to personal choice on how to depict the god.

KorvinStarmast
  • 143,146
  • 34
  • 471
  • 760
Nemenia
  • 3,226
  • 6
  • 26
  • 40
  • Correction: Page 92 of The Rise of Tiamat contains a stat block for Tiamat (a god). Presumably the stat block can be an indication for how to handle the stat blocks of other gods. – Robert Apr 25 '16 at 15:19
  • 3
    @Robert seeing as how killing that doesnt actually harm her in any way, I interpreted that as an avatar of her – Nemenia Apr 25 '16 at 15:22
  • Added a sub paragraph on avatars – Nemenia Apr 25 '16 at 15:27
  • 1
    This is one of those things that's been different from one edition to the next, and even from one campaign setting to the next. – GMJoe Apr 27 '16 at 00:27
  • @GMJoe yes, why? – Nemenia Apr 27 '16 at 01:03
  • 1
    @Nemenia I figured it might add support to your "the way everyone interprets gods is different in DnD as well" point. I remember reading a Dragonlance adventure that stated out one of that setting's moon gods as being only about twice the level of the player characters the adventure was aimed at, and I also remember reading the On Hallowed Ground supplement for 2e that specified gods were so powerful that even standing next to them was instantly fatal for most characters. Different authors, different settings, different design goals, different gods. – GMJoe Apr 28 '16 at 00:43
  • This would be a better answer if you explained why this otherwise perfectly plausible line of reasoning wasn't applied to e.g. 3rd edition... which did have stats for essentially every deity in essentially every setting. If it's just "well, not everyone wants deities to be killable so they left out the stats", that's not all that strong an argument: they could have been made optional to appeal to all playstyles instead of just one set. – user17995 Apr 30 '16 at 03:17
  • @TuggyNE the reasoning would be its 5e and it differs in both flavor and design to 3e, which the OP did not ask for. Should I explain the reasoning behind ADND, 4e, pathfinder, and Call of Cthulu as well? – Nemenia Apr 30 '16 at 21:44
  • @Nemenia: Anything that's called "D&D" fits under your answer's wording of "DnD". That's ... kind of obvious. If your answer claims (and it does) that this is the reasoning that "DnD" uses... well, it sure better be accurate for all editions of D&D! Otherwise, you're stating something you don't believe to be true. (Pathfinder could get a pass on a technicality, although it's so close to 3.x in philosophy it probably shouldn't; no reason to include unrelated games, though.) – user17995 Apr 30 '16 at 21:49
  • @TuggyNE for instance, i consider brian's answer improper because it recommends using a 3.5 resource for a 5e answer, and my answer is still correct because all of DnD does use different reasoning. – Nemenia Apr 30 '16 at 21:58
  • @Nemenia: This answer's reasoning, which is supposedly applicable to all editions of D&D, does not correctly explain either 3.x or 5e's actual design. 3.x took the position that all games should by default have deities with stats, which this answer says is a position that D&D does not take; 5e takes the position that deities should not be killable by providing (almost) no stats even for playstyles that would want them. That's probably why this answer is sitting at +2/-2 next to the other's +7/-0. – user17995 Apr 30 '16 at 22:11
  • This answers reasoning is correctly interpreted as, they are all different, which they are, and if that's the vote I get, I'm fine with that, especially since this is about 5e. So if you would like to suggest something constructive, rather than tell me what my answer means, then you can. Otherwise, let's stop using the comments to argue. – Nemenia Apr 30 '16 at 23:24
  • Nemenia, I think a citation from the 5e DMG's passage on deities and avatars would be handy. I think there is one but I don't have book with me. @TuggyNE The habit of statting gods goest back to original D&D Supplement 4 (1976) in which the editor (Tim Kask) pointed out that the stattting of the gods was (in part) to point out the absurdity of 40th level characters. (It was also to feed up the hunger of the player base, some of whom wanted stats for gods ...) – KorvinStarmast Feb 27 '18 at 13:26
  • @TuggyNE This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously? (4 July 1976, Tim Kask, Foreward, Eldritch Wizardry) – KorvinStarmast Feb 27 '18 at 13:28
  • @GMJoe previous edition god stuff like Dragonlance isn't a 5e answer, though your lore point is noted and generally agreed. Nemenia, I edited in "5e" to your answer since that would make it more accurate. Expanding the answer to cover all editions in a broad brush is a very far reach for this answer as presented. – KorvinStarmast Feb 27 '18 at 13:32