Why are the gods' avatars stronger than the gods themselves?

[MartianPrince]

I'm speaking specifically about the content in the sourcebooks Deities & Demigods (2002), Faiths and Pantheons (2002), and Faiths & Avatars (1996). In Deities & Demigods and Faiths and Pantheons, we see the gods all seem to be between levels 30-50, with some of the stronger ones (such as Bane) who are higher. In Faiths and Pantheons, it says:


Despite this tremendous gulf between the mortal and
the divine, deities are defined in the some terms as mortals. They
have Hit Dice, character levels, and ability scores, but these are all
for higher than most mortals will ever achieve.

Okay, but then in Faiths & Avatars, we see something completely contradictory. It says:


An avatar is simply a manifestation of a deity
upon the Prime Material Plane. This manifestation is not nearly as power-
ful as a power and is merely a projection of a deity’s power to the Prime Ma-
terial Plane. An almost infinitely vast gulf of power lies between the god
and the avatar. The avatar embodies just a small portion of the god’s power.

And then we see that the avatars of many of these gods have absurdly high levels, like Bane (Level 111) and Kelemvor (Level 76).

What? How does this make any sense? In Faiths and Pantheons, Bane is at Level 65, but in Faiths & Avatars his avatar is somehow stronger, at Level 111? This is the case for many (if not all) of the Faerûnian gods: their avatars are way stronger than the gods themselves.

Can someone explain?

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'm speaking specifically about the content in the sourcebooks Deities & Demigods (2002), Faiths and Pantheons (2002), and Faiths & Avatars (1996). In Deities & Demigods and Faiths and Pantheons, we see the gods all seem to be between levels 30-50, with some of the stronger ones (such as Bane) who are higher. In Faiths and Pantheons, it says:



Okay, but then in Faiths & Avatars, we see something completely contradictory. It says:



And then we see that the avatars of many of these gods have absurdly high levels, like Bane (Level 111) and Kelemvor (Level 76).

What? How does this make any sense? In Faiths and Pantheons, Bane is at Level 65, but in Faiths & Avatars his avatar is somehow stronger, at Level 111? This is the case for many (if not all) of the Faerûnian gods: their avatars are way stronger than the gods themselves.

Can someone explain?
Faiths and Avatars was AD&D and thus used a different rule set and is irrelevant in 3.5.

[Mork]

possible reasons:

-different authors, different design, things were just retconned
-AD&D and 3th edition, are different editions. Good chance that they just rebalanced it, I have no idea what CR a kraken is in both editions, but that might also have changed.
-Faiths and Pantheons takes places after the times of troubles (according to Wikipedia), so it might be that after their excursion to the material plane the gods power levels were severely decreased because they are petulant children who couldn't handle that much power.
-after the times of troubles it was sort of confirmed that powerful mortals could become gods, so maybe the designers wanted to make it more possible for players to slay gods and become gods. The fantasy changed, so the rules had to change to make it possible.

Unless you can find the designers, choose whatever you find the most satisfying explanations.

[Crake]

Gaining levels after a certain point in earlier editions added very little to a character, and so it wasn't unfeasable to see characters and creatures above and beyond 50+. We're talking like, a few hp here and some skills there iirc. There was also no multiclassing back then, at least, not as we know it now. You couldn't just be like "oh, im gonna take an entirely new class at this level". You multiclassed from level 1, only certain classes could be multiclassed together, and it functioned more like gestalt, with the penalty of it taking much longer to level up. Oh yeah, back then different classes leveled at different rates too.

[Quertus]

Gaining levels after a certain point in earlier editions added very little to a character, and so it wasn't unfeasable to see characters and creatures above and beyond 50+. We're talking like, a few hp here and some skills there iirc. There was also no multiclassing back then, at least, not as we know it now. You couldn't just be like "oh, im gonna take an entirely new class at this level". You multiclassed from level 1, only certain classes could be multiclassed together, and it functioned more like gestalt, with the penalty of it taking much longer to level up. Oh yeah, back then different classes leveled at different rates too.

To clarify (and still oversimplify),

In 2e, as a nonhuman, you could, at 1st level, choose multiple classes, "gestalt" them, and divide your XP gained by the number of classes. (HP, for example, were "divide by number of classes", not "take the best" of 3e)

As a human, any time after 2nd level, you could choose to pick a new class, and return to 0 XP in that class. If you accessed the abilities of your old class, you earned 0 XP for that adventure. This flaw remained until your levels in your new class exceeded those of your old class. (HP, for example, were only gained on "new" levels, so a Wizard 6 / Fighter 7 had 6d4+1d10 HP)

Spellfire was, of course, a class that broke those rules.

[the_tick_rules]

deities and demigods has it's own rules for avatars, it's something like half the deity level or around there. I thought of a similar situation for lords of hell. if you compare book of vile darkness asmodeus and team to their avatars in tyrants of nine hells aside from amodeus' rod being said to be inferior stat wise they are not really inferior in much respects. or maybe it's been a while and i'm remembering wrong.

[liquidformat]

Gaining levels after a certain point in earlier editions added very little to a character, and so it wasn't unfeasable to see characters and creatures above and beyond 50+. We're talking like, a few hp here and some skills there iirc. There was also no multiclassing back then, at least, not as we know it now. You couldn't just be like "oh, im gonna take an entirely new class at this level". You multiclassed from level 1, only certain classes could be multiclassed together, and it functioned more like gestalt, with the penalty of it taking much longer to level up. Oh yeah, back then different classes leveled at different rates too.

I often think 3.x could probably benefit from different classes leveling at different rates based on tier. Granted that also depends on how much the lower tier non casters abuse UMD...

[Luccan]

Faiths and Avatars was AD&D and thus used a different rule set and is irrelevant in 3.5.

This is the answer. Even crossing over from 3.0 to 3.5 might yield weird results, so I'd stick to the exact edition you're using for rules on avatars and gods. If you're not just gonna make your own rules, of course.

[Quertus]

This kinda begs the question, why did the developers think that the gods should have such different levels between systems?

If my GM said we were converting systems, and I responded by adding 50 levels, I don't think that that would fly.

So why should it here?

[Luccan]

This kinda begs the question, why did the developers think that the gods should have such different levels between systems?

If my GM said we were converting systems, and I responded by adding 50 levels, I don't think that that would fly.

So why should it here?

Well, for one thing, that's not an equivalent situation. The designers of the game deciding what the appropriate levels of powerful NPCs are between editions is not comparable to you deciding to level up your PC independent of your GM's or fellow players' input when switching systems. The former is part of designing the game, the latter would just be the player acting like a jerk.

Secondly, as Crake pointed out, after a certain point higher levels in previous editions didn't do nearly as much as in 3.X. Therefore, 3.X NPCs needed to be adjusted accordingly.

[Crake]

This kinda begs the question, why did the developers think that the gods should have such different levels between systems?

If my GM said we were converting systems, and I responded by adding 50 levels, I don't think that that would fly.

So why should it here?

You've got it backward actually. The earlier editions had more levels, so you lost levels transferring over to 3.0/3.5, not gained them. But yeah, as I said earlier, the levels are not equivalent. A level 100 ADND character is not even remotely comparable to a level 100 3.5 character, in that the 3.5 character is miles ahead in capability and power. You also don't ever expect to see a level 100 3.5 character, but level 100 ADND characters weren't all too uncommon.

[MartianPrince]

Ahhh. Thank you guys for clarifying. I get it now. So adding levels in editions pre-3e meant a lot less than it does post-3e.

Since we don't have 3e stats for deities like Shar, it could be interesting to try and convert her avatar's stats from F&A in order to get a very rough idea of how powerful she is (since I have very limited knowledge of 2e and have no idea how strong a Level 110 character is).

In fact, we know Bane's avatar is Level 111, and Shar's is 110, so that already tells us a lot. Interesting.

[Quertus]

You've got it backward actually. The earlier editions had more levels, so you lost levels transferring over to 3.0/3.5, not gained them. But yeah, as I said earlier, the levels are not equivalent. A level 100 ADND character is not even remotely comparable to a level 100 3.5 character, in that the 3.5 character is miles ahead in capability and power. You also don't ever expect to see a level 100 3.5 character, but level 100 ADND characters weren't all too uncommon.

… what?

I fear that, like with the Berenstein Bears, I've traveled to another reality or something.

In 2e, a goblin was worth 15 XP. A party of 6 would need to kill 1,000 goblins for their Wizard to reach level 2 (600 goblins for their Cleric, 800 for their Fighter).

In 3e, a goblin is CR… ⅓? A party of 6 would need to kill 60 goblins to reach level 2.

In 3e, leveling up is an order of magnitude faster than in 2e.

Even in 3e, Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, hasn't reached level 100 yet. How in the name of the bifurcated tail feathers of Vectron did anyone reach level 100 in 2e?


Ahhh. Thank you guys for clarifying. I get it now. So adding levels in editions pre-3e meant a lot less than it does post-3e.

Since we don't have 3e stats for deities like Shar, it could be interesting to try and convert her avatar's stats from F&A in order to get a very rough idea of how powerful she is (since I have very limited knowledge of 2e and have no idea how strong a Level 110 character is).

In fact, we know Bane's avatar is Level 111, and Shar's is 110, so that already tells us a lot. Interesting.

Oh, you're *adding* levels in different classes? In 2e? Better to consider them an X-stalt, and call them by their highest level.

[Tzardok]

Ahhh. Thank you guys for clarifying. I get it now. So adding levels in editions pre-3e meant a lot less than it does post-3e.

Since we don't have 3e stats for deities like Shar, it could be interesting to try and convert her avatar's stats from F&A in order to get a very rough idea of how powerful she is (since I have very limited knowledge of 2e and have no idea how strong a Level 110 character is).

In fact, we know Bane's avatar is Level 111, and Shar's is 110, so that already tells us a lot. Interesting.

Shar and Bane were given stats in the 3e Faiths & Pantheons. Shar is Rogue 10/Shadowdancer 10/Assassin 10/Sorcerer 9/Shadow Adept 10. Together with her 20 Outsider Hit Dice that totals to 69 hd (which is a lot; most deities in Faiths & Pantheons and most deities in Deities & Demigods total to 60).

Bane is Fighter 15/Blackguard 10/Cleric 10/ Wizard 10/Rogue 20. That totals to 65 hd.

[RNightstalker]

I often think 3.x could probably benefit from different classes leveling at different rates based on tier. Granted that also depends on how much the lower tier non casters abuse UMD...

I think I did a thread on that a while ago. It could definitely be a good houserule, and what also comes to mind now is having LA for the different tiers.

Back to OP: Avatars aren't stronger than the deities they represent...I mean how do you flesh out the ability to grant spells to clerics that serve you? Deities themselves in this setting are beyond numerical value.

[HouseRules]

Generally speaking, each level above 10 (for full caster: 12 relative to non-spell progressions, 18 relative to spell progression) in AD&D is about 1/4 level. So to convert the levels to 3.X, subtract 10, divide by 4, add back 10; or 12 or 18 respectively by classes. Thus, spell casters have a range of 8 levels in variation to their builds.

[Lapak]

… what?

I fear that, like with the Berenstein Bears, I've traveled to another reality or something.
I mean, you're both kinda right. But only kinda.

In 3e, levels accumulate MUCH more quickly. AD&D starts requiring hundreds of thousand of XP after name level (roughly 9.) And those levels past name level added quite a lot less than the ones before, especially for non-casters, particularly if you didn't use the optional epic-equivalent rules from the DM's Option: High-Level Campaigns book. Attacks per round peak at 2 around level 13 for fighter-types, saving throws hit their base values and stop increasing, caster-based DCs aren't a thing, you're getting a small set number of hit points per level no longer adjusted by Constitution, etc. Even casters cap out around 20 when they stop getting new spell levels and slots. So giving the avatars of gods an arbitrary 60 or 70 levels wouldn't actually skew their stats much.

On the other hand, those hundreds-of-thousands of XP were a flat cost per level from that point, so it didn't ramp up the cost to infinity. And critically, XP values were flat rather than relative to one's current level, so a 30th-level AD&D character who found the Plane of Infinite Goblins Who Attack You One At A Time could continue to farm them for 15 XP a pop, while the same-level 3e character would literally never level up.

But on third hand, no, 100th-level characters were never something that was 'common', I don't think, short of people who built them that way from the jump. The overwhelming number of campaigns I was familiar with even third-hand tended to peak somewhere in the low teens at most. (Though it also would not surprise me if people did build and run ridiculously-high-level character campaigns; it strikes me very much as a "do it for the hell of it" thing that I am not going to call BadWrongFun.)

[HouseRules]

3e vs AD&D

Using Fighter XP as a base

level up to level 2 at 15x faster without xp for gp looted

requires killing 200 same level enemies in AD&D, but 13-1/3 in 3e

level up to named level at 7.5x faster without xp for gp looted

requires killing 100 same level enemies in AD&D, but 13-1/3 in 3e

level beyond named level at 15x faster without xp for gp looted

requires killing 50 same level enemies in AD&D, but 13-1/3 in 3e
because every level beyond named level is practically 1/4 level, except for spell progression
except spell progression still at 7.5x faster

[MartianPrince]

Oh, you're *adding* levels in different classes? In 2e? Better to consider them an X-stalt, and call them by their highest level.

Is that what you're supposed to do? I don't know much about 2e.

[Crake]

But on third hand, no, 100th-level characters were never something that was 'common', I don't think, short of people who built them that way from the jump. The overwhelming number of campaigns I was familiar with even third-hand tended to peak somewhere in the low teens at most. (Though it also would not surprise me if people did build and run ridiculously-high-level character campaigns; it strikes me very much as a "do it for the hell of it" thing that I am not going to call BadWrongFun.)

To be fair, I didn't say a level 100 character was common, but rather not so uncommon as to the idea that you would never see one in the same way that you would likely never see a level 100 3.x character, at least one that naturally leveled to that point.

[Lapak]

To be fair, I didn't say a level 100 character was common, but rather not so uncommon as to the idea that you would never see one in the same way that you would likely never see a level 100 3.x character, at least one that naturally leveled to that point.Point taken. Though I'll say that I've never heard of an AD&D character being naturally leveled to 100 either, so I'm not sure that they even rise to that level. :smallbiggrin:

[Khedrac]

Point taken. Though I'll say that I've never heard of an AD&D character being naturally leveled to 100 either, so I'm not sure that they even rise to that level. :smallbiggrin:

Module H4 had a set of level 100 pre-gen characters...

I agree that I don't think many got layed up that far, bu I think some games did reach silly levels even though most remained low level.

[Quertus]

Is that what you're supposed to do? I don't know much about 2e.

I don't know that there's a "supposed to", but…

Your saves are "best", not "added" -> gestalt

Your HP are "first", not added -> worse than gestalt.

Your attack bonus equivalent (THAC0) is "best", not "added" -> gestalt.

So I'd say x-stalt gestalt math for level is probably best for communicating with a "mixed" crowd.


To be fair, I didn't say a level 100 character was common, but rather not so uncommon as to the idea that you would never see one in the same way that you would likely never see a level 100 3.x character, at least one that naturally leveled to that point.

That's… kinda the point I was responding to, yeah. *Maybe* some day I'll actually do my "3e time test"; if I do, **maybe** I'll follow it up with a 2e time test, but… 2e levels seem much, much slower, both by math and IME.

I just cannot imagine mortals legitimately reaching level 100 in the kinds of 2e campaigns I've been in, without an *amazingly* dedicated and long-term group. That type of group would make me quite jealous. Playing the same character nonstop for that many decades? I'm getting goose bumps just thinking about it.

Anybody care to share their highest "1-X" that they've actually played in 2e? I've only got 1-17, and 3 to low epic, outside of characters that ascended to godhood, IIRC.


Module H4 had a set of level 100 pre-gen characters...

I agree that I don't think many got layed up that far, bu I think some games did reach silly levels even though most remained low level.

Well… :smallredface: Quertus has a post-Epic daughter - does that count?

IIRC, H4 also leaned heavily on "level 100 really isn't any better than level 20" and "destroy their stuff", so there really wasn't much value in trying to level under that mindset.

[Crake]

Point taken. Though I'll say that I've never heard of an AD&D character being naturally leveled to 100 either, so I'm not sure that they even rise to that level. :smallbiggrin:

Okay, well, maybe not like, level 100, but i have heard of characters with several dozens of levels, like, 50-80ish.


That's… kinda the point I was responding to, yeah. *Maybe* some day I'll actually do my "3e time test"; if I do, **maybe** I'll follow it up with a 2e time test, but… 2e levels seem much, much slower, both by math and IME.

I just cannot imagine mortals legitimately reaching level 100 in the kinds of 2e campaigns I've been in, without an *amazingly* dedicated and long-term group. That type of group would make me quite jealous. Playing the same character nonstop for that many decades? I'm getting goose bumps just thinking about it.

Anybody care to share their highest "1-X" that they've actually played in 2e? I've only got 1-17, and 3 to low epic, outside of characters that ascended to godhood, IIRC.

As was noted earlier in the thread though, xp-to-level in 2e plateaus, and the sources of xp remain consistent, while the opposite is not true in 3.x, where xp-to-level infinitely increases, while sources of xp diminish

[Zancloufer]

Another interesting thing about D&D 2e is that all stats capped at 25. Ofc stats at 20+ had much better scaling than lower level stats, and their 3.x counterparts, but even so there was a hard cap on numbers due to things like Saving throws and to hit (THAC0) counting down to one, instead of increasing theoretically forever.

A high level (20+) fighter with Weapon Mastery, 25 Str a +6 Weapon and maxed out weapon mastery would have a equivalent of +36 to hit and deal about 1d10+27 16-20x2 crit with a long sword up to three times per round. Other than getting literal BS weapons/artifacts (or playing something like Throne of Bhaal where they handed out actual epic level abilities) even the strongest beat sticks had trouble hitting enemies for over 200 damage a round with crits. Though on the flip side I do remember getting the ToB exclusive NPC party member to over 300 HP by level 40, though that did requires cheesing the Deck of Many, so it's not like HP was super high either.

[Max Caysey]

Ahhh. Thank you guys for clarifying. I get it now. So adding levels in editions pre-3e meant a lot less than it does post-3e.

Since we don't have 3e stats for deities like Shar, it could be interesting to try and convert her avatar's stats from F&A in order to get a very rough idea of how powerful she is (since I have very limited knowledge of 2e and have no idea how strong a Level 110 character is).

In fact, we know Bane's avatar is Level 111, and Shar's is 110, so that already tells us a lot. Interesting.

Faith and pantheons contains stats for shar!

[Crake]

Another interesting thing about D&D 2e is that all stats capped at 25. Ofc stats at 20+ had much better scaling than lower level stats, and their 3.x counterparts, but even so there was a hard cap on numbers due to things like Saving throws and to hit (THAC0) counting down to one, instead of increasing theoretically forever.

A high level (20+) fighter with Weapon Mastery, 25 Str a +6 Weapon and maxed out weapon mastery would have a equivalent of +36 to hit and deal about 1d10+27 16-20x2 crit with a long sword up to three times per round. Other than getting literal BS weapons/artifacts (or playing something like Throne of Bhaal where they handed out actual epic level abilities) even the strongest beat sticks had trouble hitting enemies for over 200 damage a round with crits. Though on the flip side I do remember getting the ToB exclusive NPC party member to over 300 HP by level 40, though that did requires cheesing the Deck of Many, so it's not like HP was super high either.

Yah, the HP inflation in 3.x was real, 2e had far lower hp numbers, which actually meant that regular ol' blasting spells were far stronger, but so was 1d10+27 damage, which in 3e sounds painfully average. 5e got even worse in this regard really, where big monsters are primarily just defined by having excessive HP pools to make them stick around longer.

[Max Caysey]

I often think 3.x could probably benefit from different classes leveling at different rates based on tier. Granted that also depends on how much the lower tier non casters abuse UMD...

UMD should not even exist! How lame is it that a level 1 commoner can cast level 9 spells from scrolls!!!

[Crake]

UMD should not even exist! How lame is it that a level 1 commoner can cast level 9 spells from scrolls!!!

Not sure how easily a level 1 commoner could reach DC37 UMD for casting a CL17 scroll, and a DC34 UMD check to emulate having a 19 in an ability score

[Nifft]

To be fair, I didn't say a level 100 character was common, but rather not so uncommon as to the idea that you would never see one in the same way that you would likely never see a level 100 3.x character, at least one that naturally leveled to that point.

I've never seen a naturally leveled character reach level 100 in any edition.

From the Red Box to the Zoom maps, not seen even once.


Honestly, how many characters have you seen break 3 digits, which you personally know were only leveled naturally?

[Crake]

I've never seen a naturally leveled character reach level 100 in any edition.

From the Red Box to the Zoom maps, not seen even once.


Honestly, how many characters have you seen break 3 digits, which you personally know were only leveled naturally?

I answered this a little further down, none in any edition that broke 3 digits, but in 2e i know of a few who got several dozen levels, up in the 50-80 bracket (was rather spread out due to class differences, and not everyone playing in every campaign)

As an aside, in 2e, a level 40 and a level 60 player can, for the most part, play side by side on a relatively even playing field, so it was more common to see people continue playing the same character between multiple campaigns, because not only did xp-to-level plateau, so did character power. In a 3.5 campaign though, not only are level 40 and level 60 characters significantly different in power level, it also gets harder and harder to keep leveling said characters, but the characters also keep exponentially growing in power as they continue to rack up more and more class abilities, and synergise said abilities in powerful ways.