Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Klurichir the most powerful non unique Tanari?
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

jordanz
Senior Scribe

553 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  18:06:38  Show Profile  Visit jordanz's Homepage Send jordanz a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Just wondering....

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36781 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  18:57:03  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Do you have specific references for this guy, so that people can perhaps look them up and compare him to other tanar'ri?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

jordanz
Senior Scribe

553 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  21:28:34  Show Profile  Visit jordanz's Homepage Send jordanz a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

Edited by - jordanz on 23 Feb 2017 21:34:57
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
763 Posts

Posted - 23 Feb 2017 :  22:10:46  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North

Edited by - KanzenAU on 23 Feb 2017 22:12:25
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11703 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  02:01:16  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
so, if it has a mouth where its stomach should be..... where's the food that it eats go?

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High

Australia
31701 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  03:15:09  Show Profile Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hmmm. Klurichir sounds like an older-edition reference to a lower-level demon-lord.

It seems 3e bumped him up a little...

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
763 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  03:32:10  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High

Australia
31701 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  03:34:37  Show Profile Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  04:10:23  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 24 Feb 2017 04:10:56
Go to Top of Page

Thauramarth
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
729 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  06:07:08  Show Profile Send Thauramarth a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Kessalin
Acolyte

USA
28 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  16:23:00  Show Profile Send Kessalin a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  16:42:28  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone

Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11703 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  17:00:27  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 24 Feb 2017 :  19:08:08  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 24 Feb 2017 19:10:52
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1486 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2017 :  00:22:11  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High

Australia
31701 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2017 :  03:15:32  Show Profile Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Arivia
Great Reader

Canada
2965 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2017 :  07:19:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Saves as vampire" was replaced by turn resistance in 3e.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000