# The Devil's in the Details: Slavicsek reveals the Pit Fiend in all its glory



## Aexalon

See it here [wizards.com].


----------



## FourthBear

Interesting, although I dislike the claim that none but the Lords of the Nine stand above the pit fiends in the Hells.  I am really hoping that they allow for the expansion of the diabolic hierarchy, allowing for a far greater "sandbox" for DMs to create their own noble devils.


----------



## Kraydak

Data!!!!

Damage/hit is *pathetic* by 3e standards.
Fiddly, short duration effects abound.   
Per encounter abilities require action points to use?  Interesting way to do it, lets you ready many per-encounter abilities but only lets you use a few.  No need to prep only the all-purpose abilites.  Whats with the recharge?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yes.

I like it a lot. Especially Irresistible Command. Also that the mace sets you on fire.

I'm a little worried that it's Auras are enormous (out to 5 squares away from it?), and 15 damage/round to all melees seems, er, excessive, but who knows how many HP characters have, and/or how easy it is for epic characters to negate that (I'm guessing it's a lot less easy than 3E).

Not giving the PCs XP for the summoned devils seems wierd unless they factor that into the XP for the Pit Fiend itself (if they do, then yeah, that's a simplification and good - otherwise it seems a tad stingy and MMORPG-esque). I wonder why it has to spend an Action Point to use Infernal Summons? To make it uninterruptible/instant or something? Recharge "4 5 6" looks interesting.

I like the tactics discussion, and the fluff is solid.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Nice!

The stat bonuses are all equal to the 3e values + lvl/2, which was one of the interpretations of the spined devil, so that's confirmed now.

I note it has the standard defences plus "Saving Throws: +2" listed, so it looks like similar rules from the miniatures are in.

"Irresistible Command" - I don't think working as this guy's personal assistant is a good career path.


----------



## IanB

It appears that "Leader" role monsters primarily do their damage by way of their followers. The pit fiend itself appears to have low damage by any standards, but 8 'free' allied devils goes a long way towards changing that I expect.

It also appears that 'plot' type abilities, such as a pit fiend granting a wish, have moved out of the stat block and into rituals. 

Also interesting is that the pit fiend is balanced as an "elite" rather than a solo monster, so presumably two of these guys would be an even match for a level 26 party.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

It's a level 26 monster. 15 damage is pretty weak.

Nice to see fiends getting magic weapons. For some reason, only celestials got the good ones.

That damage is pretty low, though. I was hoping it would get a bonus to damage like Star Wars Saga characters. (Adding +13 to the damage would keep it from being too wimpy, IMO.)

Anyway, what's up with the weird ability score order?


----------



## IanB

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Not giving the PCs XP for the summoned devils seems wierd unless they factor that into the XP for the Pit Fiend itself (if they do, then yeah, that's a simplification and good - otherwise it seems a tad stingy and MMORPG-esque).




Stingy or no, that's also how it worked in 3E, so that's not anything new per se.


----------



## Rechan

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Not giving the PCs XP for the summoned devils seems wierd unless they factor that into the XP for the Pit Fiend itself (if they do, then yeah, that's a simplification and good - otherwise it seems a tad stingy and MMORPG-esque).



3e didn't give you XP for summoned creatures, because it is assumed as part of the monster's CR. For instance, a conjurer casts a spell (a resource) that gets a monster; he's wasting his resources, and when you defeat him the monsters aren't an issue any longer.


----------



## rkanodia

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Damage/hit is *pathetic* by 3e standards.



Well, he is a leader.  Note that you don't get experience points for defeating the summoned minions - whatever a pack of its level 21/22 demons can do, that is assumed to be part of the power of the pit fiend itself.


----------



## Belphanior

His damage is 1d12+11 with the mace. Looks like my beloved dodecahedrons are still in. So this is the best 4e preview ever.


----------



## Kaodi

I wonder. If all of your ability bonuses increase by level, does that mean that you will never actually gain any increases to those abilities as you level up (other than by age, maybe)?


----------



## Rechan

His damage output may not be great, but I can see it being used against weaker foes.

I imagine that the pitfiend teleports up into the mage's face and lays only two ongoing damage effects (Mace, Poison tail) + his Aura should make the mage fold soon.


----------



## med stud

It will be interesting to see how much HP characters get in 4e. Even if a pit fiend is a leader it would be strange if it didn't do much damage if it decides to go for melee.

OTOH, the flaming aura plus the flaming weapon plus blowing up minions might be a good damage output anyway.


----------



## Belphanior

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> What's up with the weird ability score order?




Start at Strength and from there on move down. Read it like that and you get Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha.


----------



## Dragonblade

I noticed that many of the ongoing effects last until "save is made" this makes it sound like the new D&D minis rule for failed saves will be in the core rules.

Basically if you are affected by an ongoing effect (e.g. the attack roll beats your Fort, Ref, or Will Defense), you roll a d20 each round to see if you can shake it off. IRC, 11-20 and you shake off the effect and if you roll a natural 20 you shake off all ongoing effects simultaneously.

The notation that the Pit Fiend has +2 to Saves would seem to confirm this mechanic. Presumably if the Pit Fiend gets hit by an ongoing effect, it too rolls every round to see if it shakes it off. And it gets a +2 to do so. Nice.

I love this new save mechanic. It keeps players in the game even if your character gets hit by an ongoing effect. No more sitting out the whole combat because your character failed a save in the first round. And think of the excitement at the table if someone rolls a 20 and shakes off a bunch of effects at once! Awesome mechanic!


----------



## Belphanior

Universal reach for size is gone too. Note how the mace has Reach 2 but the tail doesn't. This will prevent weird things like horses biting 10' away in 3.x   

Good thing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Rechan said:
			
		

> 3e didn't give you XP for summoned creatures, because it is assumed as part of the monster's CR. For instance, a conjurer casts a spell (a resource) that gets a monster; he's wasting his resources, and when you defeat him the monsters aren't an issue any longer.




Thank you for explaining a rule I'm 100% familiar with 

If XP is just a new expression of CR, then that's cool. I just wonder if you get 18k XP for defeating this guy in any way but a big fight. No doubt the DMG will clarify.


----------



## withak

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Start at Strength and from there on move down. Read it like that and you get Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha.



That's still not the "right" order. Dex and Con have been transposed.


----------



## IanB

I still write mine Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha.


----------



## Teemu

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Universal reach for size is gone too. Note how the mace has Reach 2 but the tail doesn't. This will prevent weird things like horses biting 10' away in 3.x



Horses have a reach of 5 ft. in 3e.


----------



## pukunui

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I wonder why it has to spend an Action Point to use Infernal Summons? To make it uninterruptible/instant or something? Recharge "4 5 6" looks interesting.



My thought was that it uses the Action Point to make its summons as a "freebie" on its first turn so it can do other things as well ... meaning that perhaps the Infernal Summons would normally be the 4e equivalent of a full-round action, so by spending the Action Point to use it, he can still do other stuff. Just my initial thought upon reading that.

I agree with others that some of the mechanics a little confusing, but then we don't know all the mechanics yet. I thought it was a bit weird that both auras were written as "Aura of Fear (Fear)" and "Aura of Fire (Fire)". Seems a bit redundant but I'm sure there's a reason for it. Perhaps other creatures have auras with names that aren't exactly the same as the aura type or whatever the thing in the parentheses is.

I agree that the damage seems a bit low ... but the fact that he gets to make both his mace and his tail sting attack every round goes someway towards alleviating that, in my opinion. In fact, I find it interesting that both melee attacks are listed as standard actions, and yet the frenzy, in which he can use both melee attacks, is _also_ listed as a standard action.


----------



## shilsen

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I noticed that many of the ongoing effects last until "save is made" this makes it sound like the new D&D minis rule for failed saves will be in the core rules.
> 
> Basically if you are affected by an ongoing effect (e.g. the attack roll beats your Fort, Ref, or Will Defense), you roll a d20 each round to see if you can shake it off. IRC, 11-20 and you shake off the effect and if you roll a natural 20 you shake off all ongoing effects simultaneously.
> 
> The notation that the Pit Fiend has +2 to Saves would seem to confirm this mechanic. Presumably if the Pit Fiend gets hit by an ongoing effect, it too rolls every round to see if it shakes it off. And it gets a +2 to do so. Nice.
> 
> I love this new save mechanic. It keeps players in the game even if your character gets hit by an ongoing effect. No more sitting out the whole combat because your character failed a save in the first round. And think of the excitement at the table if someone rolls a 20 and shakes off a bunch of effects at once! Awesome mechanic!



 I didn't know about that mechanic, but I really like the sound of it. Thanks a lot for posting that detailed description, Dragonblade.


----------



## D_E

Looks like energy damage properties on weapons make *all * that damage that energy type:  Melee Flametouched Mace (standard; at-will) • Fire, Weapon
Reach 2; +31 vs. AC; *1d12+11 fire damage* plus ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).


----------



## Bishmon

I just briefly skimmed it so I don't have any thoughts, but kudos to WotC for giving us this awesome preview.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I like it a lot. Especially Irresistible Command.



Oh yeah, that one is f---ing hilarious.

I *love* how cool and flavorful and yet simple the powers are. A small change but massive in terms of gameplay.


----------



## Belphanior

Teemu said:
			
		

> Horses have a reach of 5 ft. in 3e.




Ok ok, bad example. You know what I meant though.


----------



## epochrpg

Man, Pit Fiends look an awful lot like dragonborn...


----------



## Ashardalon

I spy...


A maneuverability rating for flying.
A tiny bonus to saving throws.
An action point!
Ability descriptors and use information in the first line.  
A monster that summons, after all?  
That speaks... Supernal?
Wears a noble signet ring.  
And can grant wishes by way of ritual every 99 years, or so it seems.


----------



## rkanodia

shilsen said:
			
		

> I didn't know about that mechanic, but I really like the sound of it. Thanks a lot for posting that detailed description, Dragonblade.



To me, it seems kind of arbitrary, since it doesn't take your saving throw into account.  For instance, the flametouched mace sets you on fire and causes you to burn every round, without ever having to 'get past' your saving throw score.  But I guess you did have to fail an 'AC save' in the first place in order to get hit.  Yeah, ok, I guess I'm fine with it.  As an alternative to fixed-length durations, it seems more interesting.

On a side note, does anyone else seem to think that 4E is going to fit very well with using index cards to keep track of things?  Like, an index card saying "Flametouched.  5 fire damage per round. Save ends." or "Pit Fiend Poison. 15 poison damage per round. Weakened {here you would include a short description of Weakened}.  Save ends."  Just hand them to the affected PCs.  Since there are no durations to mark down, they would be reusable.  I dunno, maybe other people have been using index cards forever - just seems like somehow things in 4E are particularly suited to it.  Maybe it's because there are lots more 'on/offs' than 'countdowns'.


----------



## maggot

Hey, not bad.  One of the first previews of 4e that doesn't suck.

It doesn't really sound like the pit fiends I'm used to, but if you file off the serial number (or just don't care) it could make for a neat encounter.

But the damage does seem a bit low in all areas.  26rd level characters are going to have like 200+ hit points and not care about 2d6+5 damage here or d12+11 there.


----------



## D_E

The action point cost is not noted in the description of Infernal summons, plus the combat script has the Fiend using two standard actions in its first round.  Therefor, I think the action point grants the Fiend a second standard action.  

So its first round looks like:  Action Point action:  Infernal Summons, Minor Action:  Point of Terror, Standard Action:  Tactical Teleport, Move Action ->Minor Action:  Irresistible Command


----------



## Belphanior

pukunui said:
			
		

> In fact, I find it interesting that both melee attacks are listed as standard actions, and yet the frenzy, in which he can use both melee attacks, is _also_ listed as a standard action.




If he's disarmed somehow, the mace attack is lost and there's no more use for demonic frenzy really. In addition, certain pesky wizard spells might be able to temporarily disable powers such as demonic frenzy. Sounds like the perfect job for a Controller type character. Finally, unique individual Pit Fiends should be based on this vanilla template. A less martial type might still have the mace and tail but not the frenzy.

All this pure speculation of course (except the first, I'm sure disarming him will deprive him of the mace attack   ).


----------



## spunky_mutters

I'm a little disconcerted at the lack of things for him to do as the combat progresses. I found that MMV had some of the most interesting monsters I've seen in a while, and they worked great in combat, so I've been looking forward to seeing some 4e creatures.

Seeing something as far up the scale as this guy having so few real options once he's summoned his minions feels a little disappointing.

I like what's there, but I would have expected a couple more options. Oh well, it's not like I'll be dropping unmodified pit fiends on a party any time soon.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

D_E said:
			
		

> The action point cost is not noted in the description of Infernal summons, plus the combat script has the Fiend using two standard actions in its first round.  Therefor, I think the action point grants the Fiend a second standard action.
> 
> So its first round looks like:  Action Point action:  Infernal Summons, Minor Action:  Point of Terror, Standard Action:  Tactical Teleport, Move Action ->Minor Action:  Irresistible Command




Yeah, that seems like a very likely reading of it.

*Rkanodia* - I think index cards or something a little smaller would be a really good, if rather "game-y" way of handling that. Certainly I think my players would get a kick out of them.


----------



## fuindordm

Lots of interesting tidbits here!

If damage is lower, it probably means HP are lower too. I wouldn't mind stepping that back a notch. 

The tactical teleport ability is described as "recharge 4 5 6". I'm guessing this is something like SAGA, where minor (=swift?) actions can be spent to gain additional uses in the encounter.

Looks like breastplate gives you an AC of reflex+6.

Celestial has been replaced with "Supernal", probably for all kinds of critters of the Astral Plane. Still, it would make sense too if the Hells had evolved their own language.

One wish every 99 years? Well, that's probably enough to prevent abuse. I wonder if genies have a similar restriction.

Thanks, Bill!


----------



## D_E

*Action Points* 1

Unless there's a recharge mechanic for Action Points, this is kind of dumb.

On the other hand, now that I think about it there may well be a recharge mechanic for Action Points.


----------



## Ashardalon

pukunui said:
			
		

> I thought it was a bit weird that both auras were written as "Aura of Fear (Fear)" and "Aura of Fire (Fire)". Seems a bit redundant but I'm sure there's a reason for it. Perhaps other creatures have auras with names that aren't exactly the same as the aura type or whatever the thing in the parentheses is.



That would be it, I'd say. They are descriptors, and not all auras have obvious names.



			
				pukunui said:
			
		

> I agree that the damage seems a bit low ... but the fact that he gets to make both his mace and his tail sting attack every round goes someway towards alleviating that, in my opinion. In fact, I find it interesting that both melee attacks are listed as standard actions, and yet the frenzy, in which he can use both melee attacks, is _also_ listed as a standard action.



It seems a bit easy to miss, though. Maybe the frenzy should be above the standard attacks?


----------



## Belphanior

Speculation:
"recharge" abilities can be used only once per encounter, except it refreshes if the user ever rolls a certain number on his action point (which presumably can be used to add +1d6 to a defense or a d20 roll). Maybe you even roll the d6 when the point is used otherwise, such as gaining an extra standard action.

So in case of this pit fiend, using the action point has a 50-50 chance of refreshing Tactical Teleport. But... if this is true it's a little weird it only has 1 point and uses it right off the bat. Maybe action points themselves also can refresh in combat somehow?


----------



## D_E

*Alignment*:  Evil

And if the Devils aren't Lawful, it really looks like nothing is.

Unless they've ruled you can only have one alignment.


----------



## D_E

All ablility modifiers are consistent with 3.x modifier + 1/2 Level.  We already knew this, but here's more confermation.

??? Do we know how the skills are being done?


----------



## Squire James

I suppose the pit fiend may have a lawful component, just not strong enough to be considered an Alignment.  I imagine if the modrons make a return to the game, they would indeed have an Alignment of Lawful.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS

D_E said:
			
		

> All ablility modifiers are consistent with 3.x modifier + 1/2 Level.  We already knew this, but here's more confermation.
> 
> ??? Do we know how the skills are being done?




Ability mod +1/2 level +5?


----------



## Belphanior

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:
			
		

> Ability mod +1/2 level +5?



By Jove, that's it. Just like trained skills in Star Wars Saga.


----------



## frankthedm

maggot said:
			
		

> But the damage does seem a bit low in all areas.  26rd level characters are going to have like 200+ hit points and not care about 2d6+5 damage here or d12+11 there.



It adds up, and;

He is only an Elite, NOT a solo: That means he only counts for 2 of the five foes the level 26 encounter assumes.
He summons 8 mooks, clogging the battlemat something fierce.
His debuff attack can drop some poor shmuck's defenses 5 points. I bet that will matter surrounded by those 8 mooks
The battlemat is only clogged for the pit fiends foes since he can pop his own troops where needed.


----------



## Kraydak

What is keeping him from picking up a *real* (high plus) weapon (or any other source for a numerical increase for that matter... armor?) and breaking _the math_?


----------



## Aexalon

D_E said:
			
		

> ??? Do we know how the skills are being done?




Presuming that Religion ~ Knowledge (Religion), the Pit Fiend has 4 trained skills at +5 over the base attribute check: Bluff (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), & Religion (Int). Using SWSE terminology, that is. No immediately visible reason why 4 trained skills, though (base Int = +6).


----------



## pukunui

Belphanior said:
			
		

> If he's disarmed somehow, the mace attack is lost and there's no more use for demonic frenzy really. In addition, certain pesky wizard spells might be able to temporarily disable powers such as demonic frenzy. Sounds like the perfect job for a Controller type character. Finally, unique individual Pit Fiends should be based on this vanilla template. A less martial type might still have the mace and tail but not the frenzy.
> 
> All this pure speculation of course (except the first, I'm sure disarming him will deprive him of the mace attack   ).



 Good point.


----------



## D_E

Yeah, I think you're right.  I tried the same thing, but I tried to use Wis for Religion.  But Religion was a Knowledge, so it should be Int, and 19+5=24.

In Saga, skills were 1/2 level + ability mod, +5 for training +5 for focus.  So this looks to be the same system.  Only the skills with bonuses above level+score are listed.

EDIT:  Gah! Uberninja'd


----------



## Rechan

Kraydak said:
			
		

> What is keeping him from picking up a *real* (high plus) weapon (or any other source for a numerical increase for that matter... armor?) and breaking _the math_?



Probably the same thing that was keeping the 3e Balor from wielding his whip and sword. 

Nothing, but he just "comes with it".


----------



## helium3

spunky_mutters said:
			
		

> I'm a little disconcerted at the lack of things for him to do as the combat progresses.




Ahh. That sums up what I was thinking quite nicely. Cool to read the preview and see a little more of 4E, but yeah, I guess I would've expected a Baron of Hell to be able to do a bit more than summon in a bunch of mooks and start flinging them around and making them explode.


----------



## DandD

> a Baron of Hell to be able to do a bit more than summon in a bunch of mooks and start flinging them around and making them explode.



Isn't this what evil guys normally do anyway?


----------



## frankthedm

Kraydak said:
			
		

> ]
> Per encounter abilities require action points to use?



He spends the action point for an extra action. he then uses the extra action to use his ability


----------



## Intrope

rkanodia said:
			
		

> To me, it seems kind of arbitrary, since it doesn't take your saving throw into account.  For instance, the flametouched mace sets you on fire and causes you to burn every round, without ever having to 'get past' your saving throw score.  But I guess you did have to fail an 'AC save' in the first place in order to get hit.  Yeah, ok, I guess I'm fine with it.  As an alternative to fixed-length durations, it seems more interesting.
> 
> On a side note, does anyone else seem to think that 4E is going to fit very well with using index cards to keep track of things?  Like, an index card saying "Flametouched.  5 fire damage per round. Save ends." or "Pit Fiend Poison. 15 poison damage per round. Weakened {here you would include a short description of Weakened}.  Save ends."  Just hand them to the affected PCs.  Since there are no durations to mark down, they would be reusable.  I dunno, maybe other people have been using index cards forever - just seems like somehow things in 4E are particularly suited to it.  Maybe it's because there are lots more 'on/offs' than 'countdowns'.



 Oh, definitely. I've got a big pack of printable business cards (10 to a sheet) that I'll probably use just like this!

And Irresistible Command is just awesome!


----------



## D_E

Well, it's certainly simpler, but if that's the whole entry I don't like it.  

1.  As has already been noted, after his big first round he has nothing new to pull out.

2.  He has no depth.  He really has only one viable course of action:  Get into aura range (or at least Teleport range) and fling mooks around.

3.  Apparently energy resistance is much harder to come by in 4th, but if his fire attacks get negated he's got no backup plan.  Mace, Aura, and Command all do fire damage.

4.  No ranged attack.  Unless "slides" turns out to be a poor choice of words, he's got nothing that can deal damage to enemies with elevation on him.


----------



## Lord Zardoz

I will agree that the damage output for melee seems low, but I suspect the creature is built around the damage output from the ongoing effects.  Those can add up pretty quick.

I wonder if there are aspects to melee combat that we are just not seeing here that make his damage output more significant.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Anthtriel

The language entry is interesting. It seems unlikely that he would be unable to communicate to normal mortals, so I suppose Supernal is compatible with all languages?

And I find it weird that the summoning ability is considered conjuration. Unless that label encompasses more than just summoning, I don't see why they didn't use the more common term.

Finally, I don't like the sketch. I always wondered why the 3E Pit Fiend, which was supposed to be more refined and cunning than the Balor, didn't have weapons, but now that he finally got a weapon, he looks way too primitive for my tastes.

The actual abilities all look great of course, but I think that is a given. Pit Fiends seem more like solo monsters than elite to me, especially with all those summoned minions, but I can kind of see where they are coming from.


----------



## Zaukrie

Nice preview, but I gotta agree, that damage output looks really low. How does he survive and kill his opponents? What if he is caught in a teleport blocked area?


----------



## Merlin the Tuna

I'm surprised by the lack of an ability that activates when he's Bloodied.  Other than that, I like what I see.


----------



## arscott

Ashardalon said:
			
		

> I spy...
> 
> 
> That speaks... Supernal?



I imagine that speaking Supernatural is the evolution of the 100 ft. telepathy from 3e.  I'll wager that a creature that speaks supernatural can speak to and understand any intelligent creature.


----------



## Anthtriel

The skills are all 5 + Stat Mod + 1/2 level, which is exactly the Saga trained skill formula. He also has notably few skills. No Knowledge Arcana, no Diplomacy. Good for the length of the statblock, of course.


----------



## HeinorNY

I wonder where his defenses come from.
Fortitude 42, Reflex 38, Will 40 
42 - 21(CON) = 21 - 10 = 11?
38 - 20(DEX) = 18 - 10 = 8?
40 - 18(WIS) = 22 - 10 = 11?

Does he get +11, +8, +11 monstruous bonuses to his defenses? I'm terrible in reverse engineering


----------



## Greenfaun

pukunui said:
			
		

> My thought was that it uses the Action Point to make its summons as a "freebie" on its first turn so it can do other things as well ... meaning that perhaps the Infernal Summons would normally be the 4e equivalent of a full-round action, so by spending the Action Point to use it, he can still do other stuff. Just my initial thought upon reading that.




My guess is, since it takes 2 standard actions and 2 minor actions in the suggested first turn, the action point gives it a bonus standard action or even a bonus standard and a bonus minor. Need more info to be sure though. Elite monsters might just get extra actions.


----------



## Rechan

ainatan said:
			
		

> Does he get +11, +8, +11 monstruous bonuses to his defenses? I'm terrible in reverse engineering



I'll bet dollars to donuts that it has to do with him being 1) a Soldier and 2) Elite.


----------



## ThirdWizard

ainatan said:
			
		

> I wonder where his defenses come from.
> Fortitude 42, Reflex 38, Will 40
> 42 - 21(CON) = 21 - 10 = 11?
> 38 - 20(DEX) = 18 - 10 = 8?
> 40 - 18(WIS) = 22 - 10 = 11?
> 
> Does he get +11, +8, +11 monstruous bonuses to his defenses? I'm terrible in reverse engineering




21, 20, and 18 aren't ability score modifiers, they're skill check bonuses. Those should be 8, 7, and 5 respectively.

But, remember, there might not be anything to reverse engineer. Those numbers could be based from a table listing appropriate defense ranges.


----------



## Anthtriel

ainatan said:
			
		

> I wonder where his defenses come from.
> Fortitude 42, Reflex 38, Will 40
> 42 - 21(CON) = 21 - 10 = 11?
> 38 - 20(DEX) = 18 - 10 = 8?
> 40 - 18(WIS) = 22 - 10 = 11?
> 
> Does he get +11, +8, +11 monstruous bonuses to his defenses? I'm terrible in reverse engineering



Fiat perhaps, or an error? It seems pretty obvious that stat mods would factor into the defenses, which leaves us with 34 for Fortitude, 33 for Reflex and 33 for Will.



> I'll bet dollars to donuts that it has to do with him being 1) a Soldier and 2) Elite.



Soldier might add +x to Reflex and Will, and +x+1 to Fortitude I guess. Might work.


----------



## Voss

Yay! Mechanics!

Interesting.  Disappointed by the complete and utter lack of noncombat abilities, but the combat abilities are tasty.
Damage output isn't that bad.  15+ 17.5+ 14.5 + 5 +15 = 67.  It can kill something with similar hit points in about 5 rounds if all goes well.

As a note, can anyone get any of the numbers other than skills to add up in any in any way at all?  There seem to be numbers that I can't account for. 
Initiative doesn't jive for me, neither do the saves, attack bonuses, or anything else.
Perception and the other skills work just fine with 1/2 level + stat bonus +5.
But I've got about 6, 3 or 7 points outstanding for Fortitude, Reflex and Will respectively.  And what makes the will based attack 1 point off the melee attacks?


Anyhoo.
This sucker is ridiculously fast.  Double the speed of most PCs, flying and short teleports.  

irresitable command-  target *slides*: movement without opportunity attacks?
The damage for the exploding devil isn't much, however.  Amusing and potentially nasty in aggregate, especially if the other devils have already acted that round.

From what I'm getting from the tactical tips-
the action point allows it to use the ability for free (I think that it isn't even a minor action)
standard action to teleport
minor action 
and move action converted to minor action.

So, normally creatures have a standard, move and minor action in a round.


----------



## Benimoto

Yeah, his HP, damage, and of course how much he can do all seem sort of limited for a 26th level monster, but then again as some people mentioned, he is only an Elite, and will probably only be 2/5ths of an encounter.  His lack of actions is probably how 4th edition tries to make things simpler and combats faster.  And he does look pretty fun.

Things I noticed:
- No spell resistance, or damage resistance
- Teleport as a speed, low fly speed, high ground speed relative to 3rd ed.
- +22 to initiative!

Man, I am going to need a ton of miniatures in 4th edition.  Assuming that an encounter is 5 creatures of equal level, and a Pit Fiend, as an Elite, counts for two, a Pit Fiend centered encounter would need 2 Pit Fiend Minis, 1 other Epic level devil mini, 4 War Devils, 16 legion devils, and whatever else the other devil might summon.


----------



## Fifth Element

Any idea what "Saving Throws +2" refers to? If saves are passive and not rolls, calling them saving *throws* makes little sense. And +2 to what?

Conjectures?


----------



## Khaim

D_E said:
			
		

> *Action Points* 1
> 
> Unless there's a recharge mechanic for Action Points, this is kind of dumb.
> 
> On the other hand, now that I think about it there may well be a recharge mechanic for Action Points.




I doubt it. Actually, what's special is that he _has_ action points. I'm 99% sure that your standard monster does not. It does seem like he's using it for a second standard action, which is really useful. Only elites/solos will probably have action points, and I doubt PCs will have all that many either.


----------



## italianranma

D_E said:
			
		

> Well, it's certainly simpler, but if that's the whole entry I don't like it.
> 
> 1.  As has already been noted, after his big first round he has nothing new to pull out.
> 
> 2.  He has no depth.  He really has only one viable course of action:  Get into aura range (or at least Teleport range) and fling mooks around.
> 
> 3.  Apparently energy resistance is much harder to come by in 4th, but if his fire attacks get negated he's got no backup plan.  Mace, Aura, and Command all do fire damage.
> 
> *4.  No ranged attack.  Unless "slides" turns out to be a poor choice of words, he's got nothing that can deal damage to enemies with elevation on him.*




Can't say to much about the other points, but as far as no ranged attack goes he does fly and teleport, so I don't think he's necessarily helpless in that region.

As far as no non-combat mechanics, I too wondered why exactly Pit-fiends do what they do.  Their power should be reflected somewhere right?  But then again maybe the DMG will tell us to do what I finally learned the hard way:  just make it up.  I used to sweat these things when I prepared an adventure:  If the mastermind villain needed a particular mechanic, I'd pour through books until I found the right combination of classes and items that allowed him to function as I wanted.  But finally I learned not to sweat it and just make up what I needed.  If the big bad guy lived in a flying castle, I didn't worry about where he got his food and water: he just did.  It was magic.  And if the players really needed to know a reason why something was the way it was, I had them offer a suggestion, and then I'd make a secret roll (against a DV of 0) and say that they were right.


----------



## Khaim

D_E said:
			
		

> 4.  No ranged attack.  Unless "slides" turns out to be a poor choice of words, he's got nothing that can deal damage to enemies with elevation on him.



He can still fly. And teleport as a move action, it seems. But I have to agree, the lack of anything other that melee attacks and a minor (okay, major, but short-term) debuff is a bit disappointing.

Then again, 15 dmg/round just by standing there is pretty nasty.

Edit: Oops, a bit late. What's the slang for that around here?


----------



## Rechan

To those saying "No non-combat abilities", the article mentions pit fiends having a ritual to grant a Wish.


----------



## Lizard

Wait a minute.

Atrribute bonuses go up with level???

So a Str 10 wizard is stronger at level 10 than at level 1, despite being still Str 10?

That makes hellacious amounts of No Sense. Someone tell me I'm misinterpreting the other posters.


----------



## Lackhand

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Any idea what "Saving Throws +2" refers to? If saves are passive and not rolls, calling them saving *throws* makes little sense. And +2 to what?
> 
> Conjectures?




The conjecture seems to be (I appeal to popular authority!) that instead of "duration: 10 rounds", most abilities of that sort are "duration: until you pass a save" -- so he throws off effects with a 10% greater chance each round than others do.

We need to see some other high level folks, stat: It might be that his damage is a little low, but only by 10 points, giving us nice long combats with many participants.


----------



## HeinorNY

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'll bet dollars to donuts that it has to do with him being 1) a Soldier and 2) Elite.




Probably. The spined devil is a lvl 6 skirmirher and he gains +3 to his defenses, and +2 to his attacks.



> 21, 20, and 18 aren't ability score modifiers, they're skill check bonuses. Those should be 8, 7, and 5 respectively.




They are effectively skill check modifiers in SWSE, but I think in 4E there is only one progression for everything, skills, BAB and defenses = 1/2 level. It's also lot easier to generate characters this way. 
Then you just add some bonuses based on the character class or monster type, like those Defense bonuses each class get at 1st level in SWSE (Defense progresion in SWSE equals level, but in 4E it's almost certain 1/2 level. 
The same might work for BAB. 1/2 level + ability modifier + class/type bonuses. The Pit Fiend clearly doesn't have a full BAB progression, since his melee attack is 31. 31 - 11(STR) = 20 - 13(LVL) = 7(monster bonus + weapon bonus)


----------



## Khaim

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Any idea what "Saving Throws +2" refers to? If saves are passive and not rolls, calling them saving *throws* makes little sense. And +2 to what?




Discussed above, but I'll recap:

The minis rules have a system for ending persistent effects. It's basically a 50/50 shot each round (i.e. 11+ ends). Presumably the +2 is for that roll. Note that this is _only_ for ending effects that are hurting you- on fire, paralyzed, etc. Attacks and spells that would have you make a saving throw to negate (in 3e) now just target your Defense score, just like you said.


----------



## Lackhand

Lizard said:
			
		

> Wait a minute.
> 
> Atrribute bonuses go up with level???
> 
> So a Str 10 wizard is stronger at level 10 than at level 1, despite being still Str 10?
> 
> That makes hellacious amounts of No Sense. Someone tell me I'm misinterpreting the other posters.



You are 

Raw stat checks are exceeding rare, the strength check bend bars/lift gates check being the only common exception. So the current guess is that all stats are presented (for monsters & such, at least) as untrained skill modifiers, to reflect the benefits that advanced experience grant.

It does mean that raw strength checks have to be "back-figured", if such things are even used that frequently anymore.

It's just easier, or so Current Speculative Wisdom holds.

Edit: Further speculation, completely off topic: It may be that even things that were classically strength checks -- lifting boulders, toppling pillars, busting chains (or doors), and so on... are now binary, you are strong enough to do this unassisted, or you are not.
Certainly solves the "party wizard rolls a 20/party barbarian rolls a 1" conundrum. Anything skill related can be rolled for, anything that would have been a straight stat check is really more of a "compare" than a check.
There's always hacking the door down, you see; or perhaps it's just a strength modified attack (ahah! there's that 1/2 again!).


----------



## Voss

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Yeah, his HP, damage, and of course how much he can do all seem sort of limited for a 26th level monster, but then again as some people mentioned, he is only an Elite, and will probably only be 2/5ths of an encounter.  His lack of actions is probably how 4th edition tries to make things simpler and combats faster.  And he does look pretty fun.



I think most of his damage comes from his summoned minions: +4 to 8 or more attacks each round is pretty big.  He's a virtual octopus.  



> Things I noticed:
> - No spell resistance, or damage resistance



Spell resistance would be rather silly with static target numbers and rolled magic attacks.  I think the +2 saves is factored in, partially to replace that.
No DR is somewhat surprising.  Makes me think they jettisoned the concept rather than trying to fix it (again).




> - Teleport as a speed, low fly speed, high ground speed relative to 3rd ed.



They spined devil's fly speed was also pretty low by 3e standards.  I think thats going to be normal.  The speed is going to be based more on the battlemat than overland travel. 
Anyway, 60' +50' plus potentially spending the action point on the attack routine is pretty nasty.


----------



## Khaim

Lizard said:
			
		

> Wait a minute.
> 
> Atrribute bonuses go up with level???
> 
> So a Str 10 wizard is stronger at level 10 than at level 1, despite being still Str 10?
> 
> That makes hellacious amounts of No Sense. Someone tell me I'm misinterpreting the other posters.




Well, yes and no. PCs (and monsters) get a flat 1/2 level bonus to, well, everything. Skills, Fort/Ref/Will defense, attacks, and I think AC as well. Probably initiative too, although the Pit Fiend's initiative is a bit off by my numbers, but it's still in the approximate range of (3e Dex bonus + 1/2 level).

On the other hand, damage does not seem to increase. The Pit Fiend has 32 Str, which is normally a +11 bonus, and his attacks are doing 1d12+11 and 1d6+11.

So it's not that the wizard is _stronger_, exactly. It's that he's better at doing things that require strength plus skill. He's better able to punch things and have the blow land, but only because he has more experience. His punch still does the same measly damage.


Edit: All right, Lackland. You win. Now would you kindly stop preempting my posts?


----------



## StarFyre

*...*

After reading the new pit fiend profile..
*thinks*

Let the house ruling begin...



Sanjay


----------



## helium3

Rechan said:
			
		

> To those saying "No non-combat abilities", the article mentions pit fiends having a ritual to grant a Wish.




Yes, once every 99 years.

I hope the DMG or MM has rules/guidelines for how to modify monsters to make them more unique in a given encounter, or it's easy to figure out from the way the game works.

I'm not a big fan of the "each monster is exactly the same in every encounter" method of encounter design.


----------



## Rechan

Khaim said:
			
		

> So it's not that the wizard is _stronger_, exactly. It's that he's better at doing things that require strength plus skill. He's better able to punch things and have the blow land, but only because he has more experience. His punch still does the same measly damage.



So, to try and conceptualize this... The wizard is basically factoring in a BAB into an ability check.

Let's say a dex check to avoid falling on his ass while walking on some ice. 10th level Wizard has no higher dex than 1st level wizard, but 10th level Wizard, being more awesome and having dealt with pitching ship decks and walking narrow ledges, just Knows how to walk so he doesn't spill on his ass.


----------



## Rechan

helium3 said:
			
		

> I hope the DMG or MM has rules/guidelines for how to modify monsters to make them more unique in a given encounter, or it's easy to figure out from the way the game works.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the "each monster is exactly the same in every encounter" method of encounter design.



How does 3e not do this? You are given a stat block for a monster. How is that monster not "the exact same for every encounter"? 

You give them class levels. You give them unique abilities. You give them the McGuffin that does what you want.

The designers have said you can do all of the above in 4e. 

Where's the issue?


----------



## Lizard

Lackhand said:
			
		

> You are
> 
> Raw stat checks are exceeding rare, the strength check bend bars/lift gates check being the only common exception. So the current guess is that all stats are presented (for monsters & such, at least) as untrained skill modifiers, to reflect the benefits that advanced experience grant.
> 
> It does mean that raw strength checks have to be "back-figured", if such things are even used that frequently anymore.
> 
> It's just easier, or so Current Speculative Wisdom holds.




I'm still not grokking.

I thought skills were Attribute Bonus+1/2 level. But if attribute bonus goes up with level, doesn't this send untrained skill checks straight into extra-ludicrous land?

Joe the fighter, 10 Charisma. At tenth level, his bluff should +5 (1/2 level). But if his attribute bonus is ALSO 1/2 level, that makes it +10-- effectively for free. Same with every other skill. (So I guess this means that for a person with no stat bonuses, untrained skill=level)

(I mean, bad enough you auto-increase in every skill every time you go up 2 levels, but double-dipping by attribute bonus going up as well? Sigh...)

Anyway, onto the monster itself:
DAMN those damage numbers are low! If PCs have the same level of damage output, fight will last a looooong time.

One lousy AP? Sheesh.

Strength apparently doesn't add to damage -- it does 1d12+11 but has a Str bonus of +24.

Wonder what the "Noble Signet Ring" does? Bonus to social skills?

We have "Religion", not "Knowledge(Religion)".

Overall....sorry, it just ain't as scary as the 3e version, though that could be a lack of knowing the full implications of the mechanics. It's just so...sparse. It's like a stripped down stat block for the mini game, not something for a roleplaying encounter.

I remember when they posted the stat block for Tiamat during the run-up to 3e. Man...that made me drool with wonder, and think of what a terror it would be to confront her. This...meh. It's not BAD, but it's not remotely kick-ass scary. The stat block holds no sense of mystery or wonder, there's very little there that excites me and makes me want to know what it all means.

Shrug. I'd be more interested in the minions. At least new mechanics can't suffer by comparison to old ones.

(And the whole 'exploding devils' thing is such a crock...it reminds me of (bad) Hero System mechanics, where people would buy '10d6 AE Explosion, Special Effect -- I summon a devil and have him run up and explode'. It's a cheap way of making a basic attack have some flavor text, and gussying it up with 'Irresistible Command' as a name is cheesier than William Shatner film festival. Why not just have the damn thing toss some fireballs around, instead? I suppose it add a minor tactical choice -- do I let the devil attack or make it go boom? -- but it just seems, I dunno, too self-consciusly clever and self-indulgent to me. The exploding devils are actually scarier than the pit fiend itself, and that can't be good...)


----------



## Ultimatecalibur

ainatan said:
			
		

> Probably. The spined devil is a lvl 6 skirmirher and he gains +3 to his defenses, and +2 to his attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> They are effectively skill check modifiers in SWSE, but I think in 4E there is only one progression for everything, skills, BAB and defenses = 1/2 level. It's also lot easier to generate characters this way.
> Then you just add some bonuses based on the character class or monster type, like those Defense bonuses each class get at 1st level in SWSE (Defense progresion in SWSE equals level, but in 4E it's almost certain 1/2 level.
> The same might work for BAB. 1/2 level + ability modifier + class/type bonuses. The Pit Fiend clearly doesn't have a full BAB progression, since his melee attack is 31. 31 - 11(STR) = 20 - 13(LVL) = 7(monster bonus + weapon bonus)




Could the missing bonii be built monster bonii equivalent to the PCs magic equipment bonii?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Seems kind of flat to me.  For such a high level enemy it doesn't have many options.  Damage is rather low too.  But we are seeing a lot more mechanics here and I can definitely work out some patterns from it.

The fluff was uninspired.  Then again these are the same people who put dimensions on the elemental vortex and thought mere thousands of miles was incomprehensible.  Whatever else I'm sticking with the Dicefreaks version of Hell.


----------



## Green Knight

> 4. No ranged attack. Unless "slides" turns out to be a poor choice of words, he's got nothing that can deal damage to enemies with elevation on him.




He flies, so that's not really a problem. Those War Devils and Legion Devil Legionnaires probably fly, too.


----------



## Glyfair

Khaim said:
			
		

> I doubt it. Actually, what's special is that he _has_ action points. I'm 99% sure that your standard monster does not. It does seem like he's using it for a second standard action, which is really useful. Only elites/solos will probably have action points, and I doubt PCs will have all that many either.



Exactly my thought.  In earlier versions of action points they are for PCs.  NPCs typically need to take a feat to get any.


----------



## Kraydak

Rechan said:
			
		

> Probably the same thing that was keeping the 3e Balor from wielding his whip and sword.
> 
> Nothing, but he just "comes with it".




Well, the 3e Balor had a better weapon (+1 Vorpal), and 3e didn't have _the math_.  He is listed as wearing a breastplate in the fluff, but it isn't in his equipment, nor do we have an AC breakdown.  What happens if you steal or dispel his (does it even exist if it isn't in his equipment list?) breastplate?  What happens if you give him a magical one?  As a *lord of hell* he should be able to afford halfway decent stuff... and yet he has almost no combat relevant loot.  In 3e, that was ok.  You let the monsters wear their relevant loot and the power variance fell within the CR system accuracy.  The devs claim 4e does better...  It certainly is supposed to have _the math_, which would be utterly shattered by the Pit Fiend using even weak stuff.

Its a problem I've been expecting.  I was hoping there would be at least a *hint* of how the devs tried to handle it (no real confidence on my part, mind).  Sigh.


----------



## Lizard

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, to try and conceptualize this... The wizard is basically factoring in a BAB into an ability check.
> 
> Let's say a dex check to avoid falling on his ass while walking on some ice. 10th level Wizard has no higher dex than 1st level wizard, but 10th level Wizard, being more awesome and having dealt with pitching ship decks and walking narrow ledges, just Knows how to walk so he doesn't spill on his ass.




Then, and I ask this with all honesty -- why have skills at all? There are no skill points to juggle; there's no reason to worry about neglected skills or making hard choices since you'll be at least competent at absolutely everything, period. Non-combat skills are already gone. The skill system is a useless relic at this point in the evolution of the game.

Use the C&C method, and just have each character pick a 'Prime' attribute. Anything which uses that attribute is +5; everything else is exactly equal to 1/2 level+attribute bonus. Provide guidelines for what attribute covers what types of tasks -- Dex for balance, Wisdom for senses, etc.


----------



## Rechan

I still don't really understand you, Kraydak. I don't see how the Mace is different from the Vorpal Sword, all things considered. A mace that just "Bam, you're on fire now" ain't bad. How would giving him some other weapon break the math?


----------



## Voss

@Lizard-  the attribute bonus doesn't increase with level.  Thats why it doesn't make sense.

The stat bonuses are the same as they are now, which is why the damage bonus is +11.  Basically, the numbers associated with the stats are just for the skills.  Normal stat bonus + 1/2 level.  Then +5 for the 'trained' skills.


----------



## Zaukrie

I think this is an example of where "role in the actual D&D world" vs "opponent for PCs" seems to be off to me. How does he ever survive ritual combat in Hell? If there are no devils more powerful, how does he ever survive when he can't summon? While I get the 2/5 of any party vs the PCs, how does this thing dish out enough damage to anyone who doesn't take fire damage? This is what I've been worried about all along with their approach to monsters that we've been reading about. I just can't see this as being one of the 10-50 most powerful beings in Hell.


----------



## Rechan

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> How does he ever survive ritual combat in Hell?




Pit Fiend: "So you challenge me to a ritual combat."
Challenger: "Yes."
Pit Fiend: "Okay. Irresistible Command."
Challenger: _Boom_
Pit Fiend: "Anyone else feel like stepping up?"


----------



## Fifth Element

Khaim said:
			
		

> The minis rules have a system for ending persistent effects. It's basically a 50/50 shot each round (i.e. 11+ ends). Presumably the +2 is for that roll. Note that this is _only_ for ending effects that are hurting you- on fire, paralyzed, etc. Attacks and spells that would have you make a saving throw to negate (in 3e) now just target your Defense score, just like you said.



Okay, you're saying there might be a flat chance to end the effect (roll 11 or more on a d20 to end the effect). This would make sense given that there are no saving throw bonuses listed. But that seems rather simplistic, and the +2 bonus seems rather wimpy, given what the pit fiend's defences are.


----------



## Kraydak

frankthedm said:
			
		

> He spends the action point for an extra action. he then uses the extra action to use his ability




I'm willing to buy that.  On the other hand, its the first ability listed, wouldn't you use an action point action on the last ability you use that round?  Further, he is getting 2 minor actions... Maybe thats normal, or maybe as an elite he gets more actions than most people.  I do like the idea of action points as per-encounter enablers because it lets you prepare more abilities than you can actually use, letting more situational abilities see the light of day.


GAH.  Whats with the horde of fiddly small effects...  I thought they were trying to get rid of such things...  This sucker has 2 auras (and enough mobility to make presence within them not guaranteed even though they are large), both his attacks have random duration debuffs and he has a short duration debuff ability on top of that.  How is this smoother than 3e combat?


----------



## ThirdWizard

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm still not grokking.




To put it very simply:



			
				article said:
			
		

> Str 32 (+24)




+24 is his skill check for all untrained Strength skills, like Jump.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

I'd bet my bottom dollar that, if you don't want the "garden variety" Pit fiend you can tweak it to your liking.  

While the damage output seems low, I'm sure it factors in to hp allocation at that level.  It's not really fair to compare it to 3e.  It's like comparing 1e Loth to 3e PCs.  She had 65 whole hp!


----------



## Kraydak

Rechan said:
			
		

> Pit Fiend: "So you challenge me to a ritual combat."
> Challenger: "Yes."
> Pit Fiend: "Okay. Irresistible Command."
> Challenger: _Boom_
> Pit Fiend: "Anyone else feel like stepping up?"




Allied only.  The damage is pretty sad given the cost.  If the summons he has available don't trigger cool stuff when they die (possible!), the ability probably won't be used on his summons.


----------



## Simplicity

You think the damage seems low?  I just don't see that. 

15 fire damage every round just by standing there.
1d12+11 + 5 ongoing damage with mace
1d6+11 + 15 ongoing damage tail/poison (he can do both with frenzy)
2d10+5 damage in a 5x5 burst.  Using irresistible command as a minor action.

That's 63 immediate damage on average.  Plus 20 ongoing.  Plus area of effect damage to others.  Plus any damage done by his non-exploded allies which you are forced to fight "for free".  That's not small change.


----------



## FireLance

On the issue of insufficient options and low damage:

Remember that the pit fiend is an Elite, not a solo. That means there could be one for every two PCs in a standard encounter.

In addition to the pit fiend's normal attacks, he gets up to two, five, or eight other actions from his summoned allies, all of which are at +4 while he is still alive. This already adds a sginificant amount of complexity and damage to a pit fiend encounter.

The apparent lack of options and low damage may be to offset this.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Okay, you're saying there might be a flat chance to end the effect (roll 11 or more on a d20 to end the effect). This would make sense given that there are no saving throw bonuses listed. But that seems rather simplistic, and the +2 bonus seems rather wimpy, given what the pit fiend's defences are.




Okay, assuming I remember anything from my college statistics classes... Having a 50% chance per round to throw something off means an 75% chance it is gone in 2 round and an 87.5% chance of it being gone in 3. Having a 60% chance per round to throw something off means an 84% chance it is gone in 2 rounds and a 93.6% chance it is gone in 3. A +2 is _huge_!

Statisticians, check my math!


----------



## ThirdWizard

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Allied only.  The damage is pretty sad given the cost.  If the summons he has available don't trigger cool stuff when they die (possible!), the ability probably won't be used on his summons.




It's for getting use out of enemies who will just die before their next turn comes up, most likely.


----------



## Voss

It isn't terrible, but remember, thats if all those attacks hit.  If his numbers are any guide to other 26th level critters, he's hitting on a ~13+,   8+ if he can get the fear ability off.    If he hits with everything, it takes him roughly 5 rounds to take out a roughly equivalent critter.

Odds, are, however, only one of his two attacks will hit, being generous.  So more like 8 or 9 rounds, assuming of course, his enemy isn't  immune to fire.  If they are, he's totally boned, as all he has to rely on is his tail.

His minions will, I think, be his really combat ability.


----------



## JeffB

Looks pretty good to me!    Far less crazy than a 3.x version. Damage output does seem a bit low, but when you factor in the summoned allies plus his own attacks, I suspect it can and will  get pretty brutal.


----------



## Doug McCrae

D_E said:
			
		

> 4.  No ranged attack.



He's a soldier, which is a defensively oriented melee guy. Team him up with some artillery if you want a ranged threat too.


----------



## Rechan

With all this talk of the Pit Fiend not doing a lot of damage, I went back to look at the _Paladin Smite_ article.



> Binding Smite
> Paladin *27*
> Encounter • Weapon
> Standard Action
> Melee weapon
> Target: One creature
> Attack: Charisma vs. Will
> Hit: *2x[W] + Wis damage* and target cannot gain line of effect to anyone but you until the end of your next turn.



Emphasis mine. 

Here we have a 27th level Per Encounter ability that only does 2xWis+Wis damage. 

That doesn't sound like a LOT of damage, either.


----------



## Simplicity

Rechan said:
			
		

> With all this talk of the Pit Fiend not doing a lot of damage, I went back to look at the _Paladin Smite_ article.
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Here we have a 27th level Per Encounter ability that only does 2xWis+Wis damage.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a LOT of damage, either.




Actually, I think you're misreading.  It's 2xWEAPON + Wis damage.  Insert your weapon die wherever [W] is, I would guess.


----------



## Rechan

Simplicity said:
			
		

> That's 63 immediate damage on average.  Plus 20 ongoing.  Plus area of effect damage to others.  Plus any damage done by his non-exploded allies which you are forced to fight "for free".  That's not small change.



You forgot that he's an Elite. Which means he's only worth 2 monsters for an encounter - which means you could pair him up with a _second_ pitfiend, or 2 regular Level 26 monsters. That's not counting his summoned friends.


----------



## IanB

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm still not grokking.
> 
> I thought skills were Attribute Bonus+1/2 level. But if attribute bonus goes up with level, doesn't this send untrained skill checks straight into extra-ludicrous land?




No. It just means that ability checks that *aren't* skills get the same bonus as skill checks.


----------



## Rechan

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you're misreading.  It's 2xWEAPON + Wis damage.  Insert your weapon die wherever [W] is, I would guess.



Well, we have an example of a pick: d8. 

So what? 2xd8+Wisdom?


----------



## Grog

Voss said:
			
		

> It isn't terrible, but remember, thats if all those attacks hit.  If his numbers are any guide to other 26th level critters, he's hitting on a ~13+,   8+ if he can get the fear ability off.    If he hits with everything, it takes him roughly 5 rounds to take out a roughly equivalent critter.
> 
> Odds, are, however, only one of his two attacks will hit, being generous.  So more like 8 or 9 rounds, assuming of course, his enemy isn't  immune to fire.  If they are, he's totally boned, as all he has to rely on is his tail.
> 
> His minions will, I think, be his really combat ability.



Also don't forget that +Con items don't exist in 4E, so high-level PCs probably won't have quite as many hit points as you'd expect them to.


----------



## Kraydak

Rechan said:
			
		

> I still don't really understand you, Kraydak. I don't see how the Mace is different from the Vorpal Sword, all things considered. A mace that just "Bam, you're on fire now" ain't bad. How would giving him some other weapon break the math?




His mace isn't given him any bonus to hit or damage (direct, there is an indirect damage bonus with the ongoing fire effect).  It is converting his melee damage to fire which is a debuff from a normal mace if fire resistance is per-application a la 3.5 rather than per-round (given how much fire damage he is outputting, you want fire resistance badly).  Heck, if 4e energy resistance is per-application, the ongoing fire effect won't have any effect at all against prepared opponents.  To put it differently, he probably should be using a NON MAGIC, completely ORDINARY mace in place of his cool firey one.

On the other hand, a plain +4 (he *is* lvl 26) mace stands a good chance of doubling his (weapon) damage output.  More, probably.  If he is facing people with FR, he will do better with a +4 mace than Frenzying with the flaming one and tail.

Basically, _the math_ is based around d20 roll modifiers (to hit, damage, AC etc...) falling with very tight windows based on monster level.  A monster that could reasonably use and afford equipment appropriate for NPCs of his level, will have the potential to have equipment whose bonuses is larger than the window.  If so, you can give him the needed bonuses from non-gear sources and keep him from using gear somehow (immersion breaking to me at least if done in a fiat manner), or you give him gear with the appropriate bonuses.

(an amusing 3.5 version of this is barding for low level animal companions.  the base animals had natural armor that put them at the needed AC level.  putting barding on them gave them absurd armor.)


----------



## TwinBahamut

Simplicity said:
			
		

> You think the damage seems low?  I just don't see that.
> 
> 15 fire damage every round just by standing there.
> 1d12+11 + 5 ongoing damage with mace
> 1d6+11 + 15 ongoing damage tail/poison (he can do both with frenzy)
> 2d10+5 damage in a 5x5 burst.  Using irresistible command as a minor action.
> 
> That's 63 immediate damage on average.  Plus 20 ongoing.  Plus area of effect damage to others.  Plus any damage done by his non-exploded allies which you are forced to fight "for free".  That's not small change.



Exactly!

He doesn't do a lot of damage with each hit, and he doesn't have any big attacks, but he can do a lot of things to you all at once and pile on damage against a lot of foes. Considering this guy is only supposed to be 2/5ths of a single encounter, rather than a guy trying to take on the party single-handedly, I think it adds up nicely.

Also, since this guy is only 2/5ths of an encounter, having a limited set of abilities that are distinct and fun (like the awesome Irresistible Command) is a good thing. It would be an awful pain to have to juggle a pit fiend, 2 normal demons of that level, and countless minions and summon legion devil legionnaires if they all had huge ability lists.

But I really do like both the stat block and the Pit Fiend's new signature move. The latter is just great.  Getting assigned as a Pit Fiends bodyguard has to be the worst job for a devil... You might as well be called "ammo".


----------



## IanB

For those of you wondering why his tail and melee attack are defined separately but he also has a frenzy attack that uses both, it is probably because when he makes an opportunity attack, he uses the tail or the mace but not both.


----------



## Scribble

FireLance said:
			
		

> On the issue of insufficient options and low damage:
> 
> Remember that the pit fiend is an Elite, not a solo. That means there could be one for every two PCs in a standard encounter.
> 
> In addition to the pit fiend's normal attacks, he gets up to two, five, or eight other actions from his summoned allies, all of which are at +4 while he is still alive. This already adds a sginificant amount of complexity and damage to a pit fiend encounter.
> 
> The apparent lack of options and low damage may be to offset this.




I'm betting elite in addition to meaning 1 for every 2 PCs will describe monsters that routinely stand in the back and let their minions weaken the PCs before doing much of anything... (unless it involves stuff that happens through said minions... like summoning them, blowing them up, making them dance, etc...)


----------



## Destil

Rechan said:
			
		

> With all this talk of the Pit Fiend not doing a lot of damage, I went back to look at the _Paladin Smite_ article.
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Here we have a 27th level Per Encounter ability that only does 2xWis+Wis damage.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a LOT of damage, either.



I'm guessing the [W] is weapon, not wis. We still don't know how weapon damage progresses (?d6 war pick and all), so it could be a bit more than that. No idea how much, of course.


----------



## Tehnai

Well, didn't they say, at some point, they wanted combat to last a greater number of rounds? (not necessarily a longer amount of real-time)

Making things hurt less kinda does have that effect.

I'm seeing this and thinking how I could use something like it in one of my games. I especially like the lack of Full-round actions. Feels me with joy, it does!

I mean, now, teleporting to some other space, just because I can and my infernal teleportation just feels awesome, is not necessarily a bad tactical choice.

Oh yeah. And to quote Rich Burlew's Order of the Stick: Sacrificing minions: Is there any problems it can't solve?

I mean, seriously, he can blow up his minions!


----------



## Lizard

Destil said:
			
		

> I'm guessing the [W] is weapon, not wis. We still don't know how weapon damage progresses (?d6 war pick and all), so it could be a bit more than that. No idea how much, of course.




I would also assume the main purpose of the smite is the 'focus an enemy on me' power, and not damage per se.

(And why do people think suicide bomber devils are so cool? To me, it makes everything seem painfully gamey...the summoned devils aren't "really" devils, they're a special effect for an explosion power. I find it almost unbearably cheesy. Can they explode normally? If not, how does he "command" them to explode? The power isn't "Irresistible command" it's "Make Devil Go Boom", which makes one wonder why he can't make the PCs go boom instead...it's an odd sort of power that lets you make a summoned ally explode.)


----------



## kodyboy

This guy seems pathetic in comparison to a 26th level fighter/wizard/warlock.  Unless the damage capabilities of characters is massively toned down from 3e to 4e, this pit fiend is a joke!  1-12 + 11 dmg + 5 fire (or all fire?) is just pathetic in the extreme. A decent fighter of 10th level can exceed this easily.  Imagine a warlock with hideous blow, lots of strength a moderate 26th level weapon (+6 big mace perhaps) and you are looking at MUCH more damage from one hit, and the warlock probably gets more than one hit!  Of course this is all speculation as we do not know the mechanics yet and are really just guessing


----------



## nightspaladin

I think the number in the parenthesis, next to the attributes is just the skill check modifier for any related skills not listed implicitly on the skill list. If you look at his strength bonus it should be +11 be 3e standards and his damage output seems to say that. The +24 next to str is telling you he is +24 to all str skill rolls that are spelled out.

I tried this way of writing out npcs for my last 3.5 game it is is really fast and effective. PC's never cease to amaze as to what skills they force a monster to roll, that you would have never bothered to point out normally.


----------



## FireLance

kodyboy said:
			
		

> This guy seems pathetic in comparison to a 26th level fighter/wizard/warlock.  Unless the damage capabilities of characters is massively toned down from 3e to 4e, this pit fiend is a joke!  1-12 + 11 dmg + 5 fire (or all fire?) is just pathetic in the extreme. A decent fighter of 10th level can exceed this easily.  Imagine a warlock with hideous blow, lots of strength a moderate 26th level weapon (+6 big mace perhaps) and you are looking at MUCH more damage from one hit, and the warlock probably gets more than one hit!  Of course this is all speculation as we do not know the mechanics yet and are really just guessing



As mentioned, don't forget to add in the damage from the pit fiend's summoned allies. Yes, it's been mentioned that the warlock will have some summoning ability also, but we don't know how it will stack up.


----------



## kodyboy

Didn't they mention somewhere that a 20th level warlock summoned a pit fiend?  If so the "levels" seem odd.  In addition summoned buddies or not, unless they are FAR tougher than the pit fiend, they will be smacked down like bugs by 26th level characters!


----------



## Voss

Destil said:
			
		

> I'm guessing the [W] is weapon, not wis. We still don't know how weapon damage progresses (?d6 war pick and all), so it could be a bit more than that. No idea how much, of course.




No need to guess, the paladin article mentions (in the comments at the end) that the [W] is normal weapon damage, with all normal modifiers.

@Grog.  At 26th level?  I kinda expect a 26th level fighter to have 30 +26*Con mod (say, 3 or 4) + 25d10 (137.5), so around 240-260.  Maybe a bit higher CON if PCs increase 2 stats every 4 levels, like saga.


----------



## Bishmon

Lizard said:
			
		

> (And why do people think suicide bomber devils are so cool? To me, it makes everything seem painfully gamey...the summoned devils aren't "really" devils, they're a special effect for an explosion power. I find it almost unbearably cheesy. Can they explode normally? If not, how does he "command" them to explode? The power isn't "Irresistible command" it's "Make Devil Go Boom", which makes one wonder why he can't make the PCs go boom instead...it's an odd sort of power that lets you make a summoned ally explode.)



Yeah, that seemed odd to me.


----------



## FireLance

Compared with the 3e version, the pit fiend has lost:

1. Immunity to fire and poision (has resistance instead)
2. Resistance to cold and acid
3. Spell resistance
4. Damage reduction
5. Regeneration
6. Spell-like abilities such as _blasphemy_, _create undead_, _fireball_, _greater dispel magic_, _greater teleport_, _invisibility_, _magic circle against good_, _mass hold monster_, _persistent image_, _power word stun_, _unholy aura_, _meteor swarm_ (making allies explode recalls _fireball_/_meteor swarm_, though)
7. Diseased bite
8. Improved grab and constrict

In addition, the fear aura inflicts a penalty on attacks instead of making the opponent run. This is possibly another change in line with the philosophy of keeping the player in the game as much as possible.


----------



## FireLance

kodyboy said:
			
		

> Didn't they mention somewhere that a 20th level warlock summoned a pit fiend?  If so the "levels" seem odd.  In addition summoned buddies or not, unless they are FAR tougher than the pit fiend, they will be smacked down like bugs by 26th level characters!



If the "summoned creatures cannot summon other creatures" rule is still in force, a pit fiend without its allies just might still be an okay summon for a 20th level warlock.

It also isn't clear to me what the damage dealing capacities of 26th-level characters are like. The summoned devils might be able to last for a few rounds against them.


----------



## Voss

Huh.  Total control over lesser devils (even to the point of 'sploding them) seems appropriate to me.  The summoned devils are still devils, they just don't _matter_.  Its what minions are for, and since, being a more powerful devil (who is probably conjuring his personal minions), he has a tie and hold on them that he doesn't have on the PCs.  Or enemy devils, for that matter.


----------



## rkanodia

Something I just thought of regarding 'speed of play': it's true that a save every round for the firetouched mace effect takes a die roll - but then, it does a fixed amount of damage, so you don't have to roll for damage.  Combine that with the lack of a duration to keep track of, and I think it's a net win over 'Xd6 each round for Y rounds' type effects.


----------



## helium3

Rechan said:
			
		

> How does 3e not do this? You are given a stat block for a monster. How is that monster not "the exact same for every encounter"?
> 
> You give them class levels. You give them unique abilities. You give them the McGuffin that does what you want.
> 
> The designers have said you can do all of the above in 4e.
> 
> Where's the issue?




Where did they say this? I've not heard anything in any of the podcasts or read anything in any of the design and development articles that says that monsters will be mod-able beyond the existence of a table that breaks out the various monster roles and the appropriate range of values for each role at a given table.


----------



## Rolzup

I would expect that the demons that he summons will generally not be used as suicide bombers, but will be capable combatants in their own right...which he can turn into weapons when and if the PCs put them on the ropes.

Plus, it also allows a use for those lesser devils who would normally be completely irrelevant to a high-level fight.  The Fiend directs a bunch of Dretch to grapple the wizard, and then spends a few actions to immolate them and the poor caster.

How many Minor actions can be taken in a single round, if that's all you're doing?


----------



## Lizard

FireLance said:
			
		

> In addition, the fear aura inflicts a penalty on attacks instead of making the opponent run. This is possibly another change in line with the philosophy of keeping the player in the game as much as possible.




I'd call that last a Win, since there are few things more boring than a PC just running away for half the fight. The same applies to "Stunned for 3d4 turns" or what-not. Saves every round are definitely an improvement.

The other changes...less so. The creature is so...so...*specialized*. It doesn't FEEL like something which has a life outside of an encounter. (This problem is pretty much endemic to 4e. I would have something like 'Common combat abilities' and 'full abilities', the latter being additional powers to round out the beast and make them more interesting for worldbuilding and social encounters.)


----------



## ThirdWizard

helium3 said:
			
		

> Where did they say this? I've not heard anything in any of the podcasts or read anything in any of the design and development articles that says that monsters will be mod-able beyond the existence of a table that breaks out the various monster roles and the appropriate range of values for each role at a given table.




Someone from WotC (mearls?) posted that you can add class levels to monsters.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Rolzup said:
			
		

> How many Minor actions can be taken in a single round, if that's all you're doing?




The article mentions turning a Move action into a Minor action, so it seems reasonable to do so with a Standard as well, meaning 3 times if he spent all actions on that. Or, if you're feeling crazy, 4 times with an Action Point.


----------



## Reynard

FireLance said:
			
		

> Compared with the 3e version, the pit fiend has lost:
> 
> 1. Immunity to fire and poision (has resistance instead)
> 2. Resistance to cold and acid
> 3. Spell resistance
> 4. Damage reduction
> 5. Regeneration
> 6. Spell-like abilities such as _blasphemy_, _create undead_, _fireball_, _greater dispel magic_, _greater teleport_, _invisibility_, _magic circle against good_, _mass hold monster_, _persistent image_, _power word stun_, _unholy aura_, _meteor swarm_ (making allies explode recalls _fireball_/_meteor swarm_, though)
> 7. Diseased bite
> 8. Improved grab and constrict
> 
> In addition, the fear aura inflicts a penalty on attacks instead of making the opponent run. This is possibly another change in line with the philosophy of keeping the player in the game as much as possible.




In addition, the pit fiend possessed skills that allowed it to actually fill its role (not Role, but you know, job): Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate most notably.  Given that there is an intention to create social skill contests in 4E, one might have suspected a noble of hell to have some stat element related to leadership or diplomacy.

EDIT: I take it back.  After thinking about it for a minute, maybe it is better this way.  Stuff that isn't written down on a sheet or in a stat block aren't things a creature/character _*can't*_ do, they are things that remain the purview of the DM.


----------



## yipwyg42

I noticed that it does not list the save for the ongoing fire damage from the mace. Any idea how this is handled.  The poison, from the stinger, actually lists that it is fortitude based, and the number you add to the d20 roll is 29.

Just wondering


----------



## A'koss

Reynard said:
			
		

> In addition, the pit fiend possessed skills that allowed it to actually fill its role (not Role, but you know, job): Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate most notably.  Given that there is an intention to create social skill contests in 4E, one might have suspected a noble of hell to have some stat element related to leadership or diplomacy.



Remember, the Pit Fiend can still make "untrained" Diplomacy checks @ +22, nothing to sneeze at. Intimidation is going to see far more use in handling "negotiations" anyway...


----------



## Reynard

A'koss said:
			
		

> Remember, the Pit Fiend can still make "untrained" Diplomacy checks @ +22, nothing to sneeze at. Intimidation is going to see far more use in handling "negotiations" anyway...




see my edit.


----------



## helium3

Lizard said:
			
		

> And why do people think suicide bomber devils are so cool? To me, it makes everything seem painfully gamey...the summoned devils aren't "really" devils, they're a special effect for an explosion power. I find it almost unbearably cheesy. Can they explode normally? If not, how does he "command" them to explode? The power isn't "Irresistible command" it's "Make Devil Go Boom", which makes one wonder why he can't make the PCs go boom instead...it's an odd sort of power that lets you make a summoned ally explode.




The more I look at this, it sure seems like a sucky power unless there's some specific detail we don't know.

It does what, 16 points of damage on average? Aren't the PC's going to be fairly heavily warded against fire damage at the point in the encounter when flinging your nearly dead mook's makes strategic sense?


----------



## Sammael

The pit fiend is yet another bland Mearlsification. It looks and feels NOTHING like a pit fiend should (and, as a great fan of devils in D&D, I've run dozens of pit fiends over the years in my games, as both allies and adversaries, so I feel qualified to comment). 

Furthermore, the removal of unique devils/dukes of Hell from the hierarchy, and the fact that retarded legion devils and war devils (just read their entries in FCII) seem to have replaced the traditional cornugons makes me really, really sad.

Looks like I will have to house rule half of the freaking Monster Manual. And if I have to do that, I am not sure I'm going to bother in the first place.


----------



## tombowings

helium3 said:
			
		

> The more I look at this, it sure seems like a sucky power unless there's some specific detail we don't know.
> 
> It does what, 16 points of damage on average? Aren't the PC's going to be fairly heavily warded against fire damage at the point in the encounter when flinging your nearly dead mook's makes strategic sense?




Well, we know resistances are going to be far rarer than in 3.Xe. I wouldn't be surprised if they only had fire resistance 5, if any at all.


----------



## Gloombunny

yipwyg42 said:
			
		

> I noticed that it does not list the save for the ongoing fire damage from the mace. Any idea how this is handled.



Saving throws are unmodified d20 rolls.  At the beginning of your turn, you make a saving throw for each negative condition on you.  A roll of 11 or higher ends the condition, and a roll of 20 ends all negative conditions on you.  (Actually, there will probably be some conditions that aren't based on saves like that.  But in general.)  The pit fiend gets +2 to its saving throws as a special ability, which is actually a substantial bonus.  I doubt many creatures will have any saving-throw bonus at all.



> The poison, from the stinger, actually lists that it is fortitude based, and the number you add to the d20 roll is 29.



That's not a saving throw.  The stinger is an attack against AC, and if it hits it does damage and triggers an automatic attack roll against Fortitude, and if *that* succeeds then the person you hit gets poisoned.  And the poison lasts until they roll 11 or higher on the saving throw they get each turn.


I'm not keen on the thought of rolling all those d20s every turn, but I guess it's better than tracking round-countdowns and rolling damage every turn.


----------



## helium3

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Someone from WotC (mearls?) posted that you can add class levels to monsters.




*blink*

Really? What happened to the whole thing in the . . . October? . . . podcast about the monsters and classes basically having been constructed under two entirely different systems? How can you just blop a couple of class levels onto a monster if they're entirely different?

If it was so easy to do that, why were they (at that time) struggling with multi-classing?


----------



## helium3

tombowings said:
			
		

> Well, we know resistances are going to be far rarer than in 3.Xe. I wouldn't be surprised if they only had fire resistance 5, if any at all.




At 26th level?


----------



## A'koss

yipwyg42 said:
			
		

> I noticed that it does not list the save for the ongoing fire damage from the mace. Any idea how this is handled.  The poison, from the stinger, actually lists that it is fortitude based, and the number you add to the d20 roll is 29.
> 
> Just wondering



The Mace attack is against your AC (effectively doubling as your "save defense" against the fire damage) - if it hits you, you're automatically lit on fire in addition to taking the base damage. You have to roll your save to end it.

Poison always targets your fortitude so that's why it gets listed as a separate "attack". The stinger is the delivery system which is a melee attack that targets your AC.


----------



## tombowings

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Saving throws are unmodified d20 rolls.  At the beginning of your turn, you make a saving throw for each negative condition on you.  A roll of 11 or higher ends the condition, and a roll of 20 ends all negative conditions on you.  (Actually, there will probably be some conditions that aren't based on saves like that.  But in general.)  The pit fiend gets +2 to its saving throws as a special ability, which is actually a substantial bonus.  I doubt many creatures will have any saving-throw bonus at all.
> 
> 
> That's not a saving throw.  The stinger is an attack against AC, and if it hits it does damage and triggers an automatic attack roll against Fortitude, and if *that* succeeds then the person you hit gets poisoned.  And the poison lasts until they roll 11 or higher on the saving throw they get each turn.
> 
> 
> I'm not keen on the thought of rolling all those d20s every turn, but I guess it's better than tracking round-countdowns and rolling damage every turn.




Where are you getting this from? I I didn't know we heard anything about saving throws yet.


----------



## tombowings

helium3 said:
			
		

> At 26th level?




Yes, even at that high of level.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Lizard said:
			
		

> The creature is so...so...*specialized*. It doesn't FEEL like something which has a life outside of an encounter. (This problem is pretty much endemic to 4e. I would have something like 'Common combat abilities' and 'full abilities', the latter being additional powers to round out the beast and make them more interesting for worldbuilding and social encounters.)



Just make the rest of that crap up. Who cares how may ranks in Profession (Juggler) he has? Just give him whatever you feel he needs to make him fit into you worldbuilding plans. That's what I've done for years and as long as it doesn't screw up the CR it works perfectly.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Given that there is an intention to create social skill contests in 4E, one might have suspected a noble of hell to have some stat element related to leadership or diplomacy.



He's still got untrained +22 in every other skill he doesn't have Skill Training in, so I don't know what you could possibly be complaining about. Other than, you know, just complaining for the sake of whining about stuff.


***********


This looks pretty cool to me. I'm certainly not going to debate the numbers with anyone, since I haven't seen the complete 4E package any more than the rest of you have.  I'll just assume that the 4E devs are not morons and that the Dmg per round is about right, etc. etc.  I certainly like the flavor of using minions who are about to die anyway as cannon ammo.  Very Devilish.

My only complaint is that I'd like a little more clothing on the art.  Devils are supposed to be civilized after all, so I'm picturing a dude with horns and wings but still dressed well in silk and fine leathers.  Ah well, I can always sub in more preferred art.  The "hard stuff" (as Eric Noah has posted on recently) has already been done.


----------



## Wolfspider

Legion devil legionnaires?  Talk about an awkward name....


----------



## Kobold Avenger

It seems like things or number are missing.  I got the impression that 26th level characters, do +13 damage, on the basis that they're 26th level characters.  

This version of the pit fiend doesn't seem to be a match against 1 PC of that level, let alone 2.  And honestly fire damage at that level probably won't do much when PC's will have ways of having fire resistance quite easily.


----------



## helium3

tombowings said:
			
		

> Yes, even at that high of level.




Errr. Why?

So at that level I can fly, shoot bolts of electricity out of my finger, go to hell and fight the minion of an arch-duke but I can't protect myself against a pot of boiling water?

I mean, I get that this is how the system works and at a certain meta-game level no explanation is necessary. But really? I still get nasty burns when I drop a cup of tea in my lap?


----------



## Lackhand

tombowings said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this from? I I didn't know we heard anything about saving throws yet.



From the miniatures rules. It's extrapolation, but not quite jumping-to-conclusions-with-both-feet extrapolation.


----------



## Khaim

Kraydak said:
			
		

> On the other hand, a plain +4 (he *is* lvl 26) mace stands a good chance of doubling his (weapon) damage output.  More, probably.  If he is facing people with FR, he will do better with a +4 mace than Frenzying with the flaming one and tail.




Are you assuming the weapon adds to his damage? Because everything we've seen says it doesn't. The Magic Item article hinted that the "big three" are sort of meant to balance each other. You have a weapon (or implement) for attacks, armor for AC, and the neck slot for F/R/W. It all works out, _as long as weapons don't increase damage_. We know a magic weapon adds to crit damage. If it also adds to normal damage, that would be redundant.

As for DR (I assume FR is a typo), you'll note that as a level 26 demon he doesn't have any. Which is a very, very good clue that there isn't any in 4e at all. I'm pretty sure one of the designers said as much, anyways.


----------



## kodyboy

the more that I look at it the more wussy it looks. I am not impressed at all.  The artwork is quite nice, but that is to be expected.  If this is the best 4e has to offer I will be playing 3e.


----------



## Wolfspider

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> He's still got untrained +22 in every other skill he doesn't have Skill Training in, so I don't know what you could possibly be complaining about. Other than, you know, just complaining for the sake of whining about stuff.




Dear lord.  Was that comment really necessary?  I thought he had a good point.  A noble should have pretty good social skills, I would think, especially a devil who lives not by raw power but also by influence and ability to command.

Even if his untrained skill is ungodly, I'm sure there will be some trained characters who would scoff at +22.  I guess I prefer my pit fiends to have some backbone, both physically and socially....

You know, sometimes people who have a bone to pick with 4e rules and such might actually have a point....


----------



## VirtualWizard

I certainly hope characters get decent bonuses to attack.  The AC 44 Pit Fiend looks like a tough foe to strike.  Assuming a 26th level warrior type character might have the following attack bonus:

Character level (+13)
STR 24 (+7) (STR 18 + level bonuses (SAGA basis))
Magic Weapon (+5)  (This one might go higher in 4th edition)
Feats? (+3)  (Made this one up)

Attack Bonus = +28

This warrior will need to roll a 16+ to hit the Pit Fiend.  It looks to me that without a (high) bonus attack weapon, you would be lucky to hit the Pit Fiend.  Even with one, it is a real challenge.


----------



## tombowings

helium3 said:
			
		

> Errr. Why?
> 
> So at that level I can fly, shoot bolts of electricity out of my finger, go to hell and fight the minion of an arch-duke but I can't protect myself against a pot of boiling water?
> 
> I mean, I get that this is how the system works and at a certain meta-game level no explanation is necessary. But really? I still get nasty burns when I drop a cup of tea in my lap?




Well, based one the magic item article, I would say that only the "neck" slot would be available to give you fire resistance, you would have to make a choice between fire resistance and some other effect/ability.


----------



## A'koss

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> It seems like things or number are missing.  I got the impression that 26th level characters, do +13 damage, on the basis that they're 26th level characters.
> 
> This version of the pit fiend doesn't seem to be a match against 1 PC of that level, let alone 2.  And honestly fire damage at that level probably won't do much when PC's will have ways of having fire resistance quite easily.



You have to look at it from an _encounter_ POV, not just the monster on it's own. 

The Pit Fiend is spec'd as a _Leader_, not a Brute (frontliner). When you run into this guy, he's got (for example) two 26th level "Brute" Devils and a 26th level "Skirmisher" Devil running around _in addition_ to the guys he's summoning. All these guys working in tandem, *that's* what you're up against. 

Further, if I'm right, PC HPs at high levels are going to be lower than many think.


----------



## StarFyre

*...*

Sammael - my sentiments exactly..

Even with the heavily customized planar beings I used now (anything from 2e and 3e), this pit fiend doesn't fit anything in how I use the hells.

I feel sad right now. with all the house rules friends and I are discussing for 4E (since we have lots now that we all want, and the changes in 4E just aren't better for us), it almost feels like class cahnges are the only ones I really like..oh, and the racial feat stuff and paragon paths.  Seems like we'll be house ruling tons ...

Sanjay


----------



## helium3

tombowings said:
			
		

> Well, based one the magic item article, I would say that only the "neck" slot would be available to give you fire resistance, you would have to make a choice between fire resistance and some other effect/ability.




Errr. So the neither the party's "leader" or "controller" is going to be able to cast a spell that confers that resistance?


----------



## Khaim

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> It seems like things or number are missing.  I got the impression that 26th level characters, do +13 damage, on the basis that they're 26th level characters.
> 
> This version of the pit fiend doesn't seem to be a match against 1 PC of that level, let alone 2.  And honestly fire damage at that level probably won't do much when PC's will have ways of having fire resistance quite easily.




SAGA had damage that increased by level, mostly since everything was ranged and you needed a decent way to increase damage at all. D&D doesn't need that, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that your level bonus applies to damage. It does apply to just about all d20 rolls, though.

As for it not being a match for a PC... Well, I haven't seen what a 26th level PC looks like. Neither have you. But I think any single PC is going to be swarmed by summoned minions, and is going to have a tough time hacking through AC 44 with 350 HP.

Also, one of the most powerful demons around who uses fire with pretty much all his attacks is _not_ immune to fire. He has resistance 30, which is the 3e equivalent of a 2nd level spell at CL 11. In other words, the best resistance you can expect to have at 26th level is roughly what you normally got at 11th level. The PCs might have resist fire 10, but even then I doubt they all have it.


----------



## Jim DelRosso

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Dear lord.  Was that comment really necessary?  I thought he had a good point.  A noble should have pretty good social skills, I would think, especially a devil who lives not by raw power but also by influence and ability to command.
> 
> Even if his untrained skill is ungodly, I'm sure there will be some trained characters who would scoff at +22.  I guess I prefer my pit fiends to have some backbone, both physically and socially....
> 
> You know, sometimes people who have a bone to pick with 4e rules and such might actually have a point....




But he has two _great_ social skills: it's just that they're Scare People and Lie To People, while Get People To Like Me is stuck at merely "good". The dude's a twelve-foot tall bright red devil with scales, wings, fangs, and a mace the size of a Buick; I'm not seeing a disconnect here, noble or not.


----------



## Lizard

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Just make the rest of that crap up. Who cares how may ranks in Profession (Juggler) he has? Just give him whatever you feel he needs to make him fit into you worldbuilding plans. That's what I've done for years and as long as it doesn't screw up the CR it works perfectly.




So, basically, he's as good at everything as any other monster of his level is. He has no special powers to help him fulfill his role *in hell*, just his role as an opponent for the PCs. He has a bland, boring, list of a great big THREE skills. He has no mechanical existence outside his combat role. He appears to fight the PCs, then he's done. Everything about him is centered on his existence in the encounter. (I mean, he doesn't even have Planes knowledge!) ("So, Pit-dude...where do you live?" "I dunno. Don't have that skill. Let's rumble!")

His one bit of interesting text -- the once-a-century-wish -- seems to be almost an afterthought. Why once a century? Presumably, he's not going to be granting wishes to PCs, so it's not much of a balancing mechanism. To reduce the total wishes available in the world?  I dunno. Further, since there's no way (other than DM fiat) to determine if a particular Pit Fiend has already granted a wish, the century limit is kind of 'Meh'. I suppose it has some kind of mythic resonance, and 4e does need all it can get at this point.

Yes, I can "just make it up". Which leads me to ask why I'm buying a Monster Manual...or a rules set...when the kneejerk response to every complaint about missing or oversimplified information is "Dude, just make it up!"

I can make up the whole game if I had to. But I was under the apparently silly and mistaken impression WOTC wanted my money and was presumably going to sell me more than a blank sheet of paper labeled "Make it up".

(And in the Great Painful Irony department, the part we SHOULD make up -- the world -- is being spoon fed to us. Sigh.)


----------



## Hjorimir

Well as far as exploding minions go, it doesn't bother me any more than balors exploding when they die really. Maybe the summoned minions are just manifestations of hellish power in a corporeal form and the explosion is just a sudden release of said power? I'm sure a DM can come up with a clever way of explaining it.

Another thing we may want to keep in mind is that there could be general devil powers we're unaware of (lie we see in 3E's Monster Manual).

Like others, I am seriously doubting the PCs will have a lot of access to energy resistances based on what I'm seeing. I'm also happy about the lower damage output, which reminds me of AD&D numbers.

I'm a bit surprised he doesn't have any feats, but I'm fine with that really.


----------



## tombowings

helium3 said:
			
		

> Errr. So the neither the party's "leader" or "controller" is going to be able to cast a spell that confers that resistance?




Honestly, I have no idea, I'm just giving you my views on what I know about the pieces I've seen of the system. I believe the devs. know what they're doing. and the wouldn't have made the Mace attack all fire damage if resistance is very common.


----------



## helium3

A'koss said:
			
		

> You have to look at it from an _encounter_ POV, not just the monster on it's own.
> 
> The Pit Fiend is spec'd as a _Leader_, not a Brute (frontliner). When you run into this guy, he's got (for example) two 26th level "Brute" Devils and a 26th level "Skirmisher" Devil running around _in addition_ to the guys he's summoning. All these guys working in tandem, *that's* what you're up against.
> 
> Further, if I'm right, PC HPs at high levels are going to be lower than many think.




The other things I thought of was that I had heard that the new encounter paradigm was that the PC's will be at 80% of strength once they've used up all their per-day powers. So, we can't expect a single monster to do that much damage on its own, otherwise this might get screwed up.

I remember right after 4E was announced, one poster was talking about how he'd been running a Star Wars Saga Edition game and that essentially the characters could slaughter for as long as they wanted. They never really got worn down by fighting. So, maybe the Pit Fiend needs to be kinda wimpy on its own in order to allow that to happen.


----------



## Khaim

VirtualWizard said:
			
		

> I certainly hope characters get decent bonuses to attack.  The AC 44 Pit Fiend looks like a tough foe to strike.  Assuming a 26th level warrior type character might have the following attack bonus:
> 
> Character level (+13)
> STR 24 (+7) (STR 18 + level bonuses (SAGA basis))
> Magic Weapon (+5)  (This one might go higher in 4th edition)
> Feats? (+3)  (Made this one up)
> 
> Attack Bonus = +28
> 
> This warrior will need to roll a 16+ to hit the Pit Fiend.  It looks to me that without a (high) bonus attack weapon, you would be lucky to hit the Pit Fiend.  Even with one, it is a real challenge.



Huh. Well, add another few points, since a fighter-type better get at least the +3 from class, and you're right that feats etc should add some too. But yeah, he has high AC for his level.

Wait, no. The reverse-engineering suggests he has +11 Fort, +8 Ref, and +11 Will, and a total of +14 AC (some of which is probably armor). He's also got +7 to attacks. (This is comparing his listed stats to what he should have from abilities + level.) So a fighter type probably has comparable numbers: at least +10 to hit, possibly more, on top of the other stuff. Maybe less, since as a PC he's expected to have that +5 sword. Still, the numbers could easily work out, and to be honest, we don't know enough about PCs yet to tell.


----------



## helium3

tombowings said:
			
		

> Honestly, I have no idea, I'm just giving you my views on what I know about the pieces I've seen of the system. I believe the devs. know what they're doing. and the wouldn't have made the Mace attack all fire damage if resistance is very common.




Fair enough. I guess we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## helium3

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> I'm a bit surprised he doesn't have any feats, but I'm fine with that really.




The designers specifically stated that monsters wouldn't have feats.

At least, I think they did. In one of the podcasts . . .

. . . but maybe I'm just imagining things.


----------



## Kraydak

Khaim said:
			
		

> Are you assuming the weapon adds to his damage? Because everything we've seen says it doesn't. The Magic Item article hinted that the "big three" are sort of meant to balance each other. You have a weapon (or implement) for attacks, armor for AC, and the neck slot for F/R/W. It all works out, _as long as weapons don't increase damage_. We know a magic weapon adds to crit damage. If it also adds to normal damage, that would be redundant.




The recent magic item article strongly suggests that it is +to hit/+to damage.  However, most of the boost comes from the +hit.



> As for DR (I assume FR is a typo), you'll note that as a level 26 demon he doesn't have any. Which is a very, very good clue that there isn't any in 4e at all. I'm pretty sure one of the designers said as much, anyways.




Against a foe with mere FR 5 (you are going up against a freaking fire devil, be prepared), his mace does a pathetic d12+6, with no ongoing effect.  Now, if you were a highly intelligent, wise and presumably wealthy devil lord with a massive overload of fire based damage abilities, what weapon would you choose?  Something that is *useless* against people ready for you, or something that ignores defenses against fire *and* does more damage even against people without fire protection to boot?

If you are wearing armor (is he? if not, why not?), wouldn't you invest in the very best?  Same with the neck slot.  But, given his equipment list, he appears to be virtually flat broke.  He should sell his mace and buy something actually useful.  But wait, that wouldn't be *thematic*, and it would imperil *the math*!  If he actually is using the gear, why can't I steal it or dispel it during the fight, or loot it after?  If is isn't, WHY OH WHY isn't he?!    

(again, in 3e, without the math being a central selling point, this wasn't as important.  And even then, lots of monsters were statted up with appropriate power-level armor and weapons)


----------



## Khaim

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yes, I can "just make it up". Which leads me to ask why I'm buying a Monster Manual...or a rules set...when the kneejerk response to every complaint about missing or oversimplified information is "Dude, just make it up!"




Well, *I'm* going to buy it for the mechanics and the ability to run a game quickly without spending a lot of time on such things. It's a lot easier to make up things about what a Pit Fiend does when he's off camera that it is to "wing it" when the PCs suddenly decide to attack him.


----------



## kodyboy

If I wanted to play a video game I would.......why are they trying to make D&D into one?


----------



## helium3

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, basically, he's as good at everything as any other monster of his level is. He has no special powers to help him fulfill his role *in hell*, just his role as an opponent for the PCs. He has a bland, boring, list of a great big THREE skills. He has no mechanical existence outside his combat role. He appears to fight the PCs, then he's done. Everything about him is centered on his existence in the encounter. (I mean, he doesn't even have Planes knowledge!) ("So, Pit-dude...where do you live?" "I dunno. Don't have that skill. Let's rumble!")




I wouldn't get so bent out of shape about the skills. My hunch is that they're doing something pretty different with skills and they don't want to reveal too much yet. Those probably aren't even the skills he'll have when the MM is printed.


----------



## Khaim

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The recent magic item article strongly suggests that it is +to hit/+to damage.  However, most of the boost comes from the +hit.



You might be right; I'll have to reread it. Memory says you're wrong, but mine is terrible.


			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Against a foe with mere FR 5 (you are going up against a freaking fire devil, be prepared), his mace does a pathetic d12+6, with no ongoing effect.  Now, if you were a highly intelligent, wise and presumably wealthy devil lord with a massive overload of fire based damage abilities, what weapon would you choose?  Something that is *useless* against people ready for you, or something that ignores defenses against fire *and* does more damage even against people without fire protection to boot?
> 
> If you are wearing armor (is he? if not, why not?), wouldn't you invest in the very best?  Same with the neck slot.  But, given his equipment list, he appears to be virtually flat broke.  He should sell his mace and buy something actually useful.  But wait, that wouldn't be *thematic*, and it would imperil *the math*!  If he actually is using the gear, why can't I steal it or dispel it during the fight, or loot it after?  If is isn't, WHY OH WHY isn't he?!
> 
> (again, in 3e, without the math being a central selling point, this wasn't as important.  And even then, lots of monsters were statted up with appropriate power-level armor and weapons)



Well, your attitude towards _the math_ aside, you make a good point. He is rather one-dimensional, and his total lack of magic gear is sort of odd. I know they're reducing reliance on magic items, but he's a 26th level demon lord, he should have _something_.


----------



## Lizard

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Legion devil legionnaires?  Talk about an awkward name....




Pitchfork Kid, Seduction Lass, Flame Boy, Torture Teen...


----------



## Voss

Khaim said:
			
		

> SAGA had damage that increased by level, mostly since everything was ranged and you needed a decent way to increase damage at all. D&D doesn't need that, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that your level bonus applies to damage. It does apply to just about all d20 rolls, though.




Actually, bonus damage based on level is in for PCs.  Its mentioned in the paladin smites article.


> In binding smite you can see an example of how the effect of a smite goes up with level, while the numbers in their base form seem similar when not taking into account the accuracy and *damage boosts that merely gaining levels* (and having better weapons) affords




So just from the two smites that we know he has access to, and his normal attacks, I think (if it works like saga and is a half damage bonus), a paladins damage output could look like this (assuming reasonable starting stats, 14-16 in strength, wisdom and charisma)
round 1: at least 40 (smite)  [2d8 +13x2+3x2]+3
round 2: at least 40 (smite#2)
and then around 20 or so from then on. [d8+13+3]

Probably more depending on how weapon damage works, exactly.  whether there is power attack, magic item bonuses are hit and damage, assorted miscellaneous bonuses, etc.


----------



## Lackhand

kodyboy said:
			
		

> If I wanted to play a video game I would.......why are they trying to make D&D into one?



More to the point, if they were trying, don't you think they'd be succeeding at it?

I'm glad you're here to play D&D, like we all are. I can't wait to see the heroes that are ready to take this thing on!


----------



## helium3

Khaim said:
			
		

> You might be right; I'll have to reread it. Memory says you're wrong, but mine is terrible.
> 
> Well, your attitude towards _the math_ aside, you make a good point. He is rather one-dimensional, and his total lack of magic gear is sort of odd. I know they're reducing reliance on magic items, but he's a 26th level demon lord, he should have _something_.




Having gear of any sort becomes a problem if its expected that the players are going to be killing 50+ monsters (10 of which are pit fiends) in a single day of adventuring.

As it stands, the party will get 10 of those flame-touched maces plus whatever's on the other 3 X 10 devils, plus all the summoned monsters.

Oh wait, maybe that's why they explode . . .


----------



## JoelF

I'm surprized no one mentioned that the Point of Terror is a fear affect which gives a -5 to all defenses.  I'm having trouble seeing how being scared, even REALLY scared, would affect your fort defense.  I get that if you're scared you don't defend against physical attacks and don't dodge as quick, and your mental strength (Will) would be weaker, but how does being scared make your more vulnerable to poison?


----------



## Dausuul

Hmm.  Anyone else notice that he can grant a mortal's wish, yet we have specifically been told the _wish_ spell was removed?

Apparently that's an honest-to-god, genie-in-the-bottle, "your wish is my command" wish...


----------



## helium3

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Anyone else notice that he can grant a mortal's wish, yet we have specifically been told the _wish_ spell was removed?
> 
> Apparently that's an honest-to-god, genie-in-the-bottle, "your wish is my command" wish...




3.5 Wish could be used in that way, it was just really dangerous because the RAW essentially told the DM to find a way to pervert the wish in a way that sucked for the players.


----------



## Wolfspider

I really hate the wording of the explode-a-devil power.  Having the minion "slide" 5 squares really makes them seem merely like pieces on a gameboard.  Or maybe devil minions wear roller-blades.


----------



## Lackhand

helium3 said:
			
		

> Having gear of any sort becomes a problem if its expected that the players are going to be killing 50+ monsters (10 of which are pit fiends) in a single day of adventuring.
> 
> As it stands, the party stands to get 10 of those flametouched maces as it is, plus whatever's on the other three devils and the ones that are summoned.



Probably _not_ actually -- the mace looks otherwise ordinary, so I'll assume (for purposes of my game, I agree that this isn't what the text says!) that the "Flametouched" is a property of the beastie, not the item.

Sure, it's not phrased that way, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if its treasure is a _+3 Sword_, I'm laying fire damage on top of that sucker.

Similarly, the companion devils bamf if defeated, or the encounter ends, according to the text... I'd assume their swag goes with them.

What does that _ring_ do, though...?

Edit: No mention of ecology, society, encounter-styles, or treasure. Perhaps each group gets a communal writeup (so, there's a table for the Devils that lays out how they interact with each other, the treasures they're likely to have, and so on)? Or perhaps the treasure tables are in the DMG and are organized differently from that which we're used it?

Hmm. Intriguing.


----------



## Hejdun

May I take the time to point out that I hate, _hate_, _*hate*_ the switch from writing distances in squares instead of feet?  

(By the way, major rant warning)

Squares are an artificial game concept in order to enable some order to the combat simulation.  They don't actually exist in the game world.  Making "squares" the standard distance is equivalent to changing the standard unit for weight from "pound" to "turducken".  It's one thing to suggest that DnD is a tactical combat simulator instead of a role playing game, but switching to squares just seems to go too far.  Now, instead of knowing that something is, say, 315 feet away, I'm told that something is 63 squares away and have to actually do math to figure out what that means to my character in-game.  It's a subtle way to emphasize that 4th edition has made Dungeons and Dragons from a Role Playing Game to a roleplaying *GAME*.

Having to do mental calculations just to translate "game-y" mechanics into an accurate description of how far away something is as my character sees it is *not* a move in the right direction IMNSHO.

Complaint the second: the way they write out the ability scores and then conflate the skill bonus with the ability modifier.  There's no real reason to do such instead of just having a separate note that all skill checks have a +13 bonus from level.  It's rather like listing the reach of a creature in the "Speed" category.  Could it be marginally useful?  I guess, but it's not intuitive in the least.  Also, a lot of people don't necessarily know that a 32 Str is a +11 bonus, or at least don't know it off the top of their heads.  It'd be nice to still write out the actual ability modifier (which is far more important than the ability score, since the score is just a device to tell you what the modifier is).

Third game mechanic complaint: "saves."  Why does _every debilitating ongoing effect in the game_ have a 50% chance of getting thrown off, regardless of level, ability scores, saves, or class?  Why does the 1st level wizard with a 6 Con have the _exact same chance_ of throwing off the poison in his veins as the level 30 Fighter with 20 Con?  It also greatly reduces the ability of a player to differentiate his weaknesses from everyone else.

Another minor quibble: I don't understand the point in keeping in fear effects if the only thing they do is give everyone a -2 to hit?  No save, no variable effects based on class/hit dice/ability scores.  Just a flat -2 to hit for everyone.  Why not just bump up the AC by 2?  It's the same effect that's far easier to track and remember.

Last complaint of the night: what exactly is the point of "Pit Fiend Frenzy"?  You can either spend a standard action attacking with your mace, or a standard action to attack with your stinger... or you could ignore both of those options and just take a standard action to attack with both.

Sorry, that was one big long rant.


----------



## Lizard

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm surprized no one mentioned that the Point of Terror is a fear affect which gives a -5 to all defenses.  I'm having trouble seeing how being scared, even REALLY scared, would affect your fort defense.  I get that if you're scared you don't defend against physical attacks and don't dodge as quick, and your mental strength (Will) would be weaker, but how does being scared make your more vulnerable to poison?




Less willing to fight it off? 

Reverse placebo effect? ("I'm gonna die I'm gonna die the poison will kill me I'm gonna die...")


----------



## Dausuul

A further note on gear: I'm pretty sure the answer to "Why doesn't he have uber magic gear?" is to simply give him whatever gear you like, then _assume it's already been factored into his stats_.  Quick and easy.

And I don't know about anyone else, but in my games, "Irresistible Command" is being renamed to "You Have Failed Me For The Last Time."


----------



## Kraydak

Khaim said:
			
		

> ...
> Well, your attitude towards _the math_ aside, you make a good point. He is rather one-dimensional, and his total lack of magic gear is sort of odd. I know they're reducing reliance on magic items, but he's a 26th level demon lord, he should have _something_.




Amusingly, _the math_ is perhaps the one aspect of 4e that I'm 100% behind.  I view it much like the unification of the xp tables going from 2e to 3e: a massive improvement of the behind-the-scenes mechanics that opens up huge areas of development space (then, multi-classing, here, high level play).  Perhaps unfortunately then, I appear to be in agreement with WotC in feeling that "kill-them-and-take-their-stuff" is fairly core to DnD, and requirement magic items.  Magic items, in turn, makes it hard to get _the math_ working for NPCs who could reasonably get and use magic items.  I'd be a lot happier with an explicit (it may still exist, we have no evidence to the contrary) NPC wealth table (with appropriate primary items), and *all* potential item using NPC/monsters assumed to have gear from that table (included in the freaking stat block, of course).  Deviations would then be in the upwards power direction and explicitly stated as a power in the stat block.  Of course, this makes keeping PC wealth bounded hard.

There is no easy way out, but a naked except for a dreadfully poorly chosen item that will frequently be worse than its non-magical counterpart Devil *Lord* probably isn't the best option.


----------



## Voss

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Anyone else notice that he can grant a mortal's wish, yet we have specifically been told the _wish_ spell was removed?
> 
> Apparently that's an honest-to-god, genie-in-the-bottle, "your wish is my command" wish...




Well, to be fair its just a rumour in a knowledge check.   But I like the idea of non-mechanical wishes. With fun little side effects, rather than just snap your fingers, wish is fulfilled kinda thing.  For example, you find the ritual, say the words, and conjure up the pit fiend to grant you a wish.
"Build me a castle", you say.
"Yes, master", it replies, and promptly enslaves the nearby dwarven village and works them to death building your lovely summer home.  Which is good, because you are going to need it after he goes home and leaves all these angry dwarves sitting around.



On the Fire Resistance subject.  We know that PCs have at least some access to fire resistance.  Remember all the way back in the Red Dragon article?  When the beast scoured away the wizard's fire resistance?  Yep.  In.  Or at least it was, some months back.


----------



## Lizard

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I really hate the wording of the explode-a-devil power.  Having the minion "slide" 5 squares really makes them seem merely like pieces on a gameboard.  Or maybe devil minions wear roller-blades.




"Slide" seems to be five-foot-step on steroids; I think it means "A move that doesn't provoke an AOO". So an exploding devil can move 25 feet (probably in a straight line, i'm guess that's part of a 'slide') and go 'boom'.


----------



## kodyboy

More to the point, if they were trying, don't you think they'd be succeeding at it?

It certainly looks like they are succeeding to me at making D&D into a video game!

I'm glad you're here to play D&D, like we all are. I can't wait to see the heroes that are ready to take this thing on!

10th level adventures?


----------



## Nahat Anoj

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm surprized no one mentioned that the Point of Terror is a fear affect which gives a -5 to all defenses.  I'm having trouble seeing how being scared, even REALLY scared, would affect your fort defense.  I get that if you're scared you don't defend against physical attacks and don't dodge as quick, and your mental strength (Will) would be weaker, but how does being scared make your more vulnerable to poison?



All I can manage is that being in an heightened state of awareness (ie, fear) can compromise your immune system, making you more susceptible to a variety of ailments.


----------



## Lackhand

Hejdun said:
			
		

> May I take the time to point out that I hate, _hate_, _*hate*_ the switch from writing distances in squares instead of feet?
> 
> (By the way, major rant warning)
> 
> Squares are an artificial game concept in order to enable some order to the combat simulation.  They don't actually exist in the game world.  Making "squares" the standard distance is equivalent to changing the standard unit for weight from "pound" to "turducken".  It's one thing to suggest that DnD is a tactical combat simulator instead of a role playing game, but switching to squares just seems to go too far.  Now, instead of knowing that something is, say, 315 feet away, I'm told that something is 63 squares away and have to actually do math to figure out what that means to my character in-game.  It's a subtle way to emphasize that 4th edition has made Dungeons and Dragons from a Role Playing Game to a roleplaying *GAME*.
> 
> Having to do mental calculations just to translate "game-y" mechanics into an accurate description of how far away something is as my character sees it is *not* a move in the right direction IMNSHO.



Fair enough.


			
				Hejdun said:
			
		

> Complaint the second: the way they write out the ability scores and then conflate the skill bonus with the ability modifier.  There's no real reason to do such instead of just having a separate note that all skill checks have a +13 bonus from level.  It's rather like listing the reach of a creature in the "Speed" category.  Could it be marginally useful?  I guess, but it's not intuitive in the least.  Also, a lot of people don't necessarily know that a 32 Str is a +11 bonus, or at least don't know it off the top of their heads.  It'd be nice to still write out the actual ability modifier (which is far more important than the ability score, since the score is just a device to tell you what the modifier is).



I really think that this is just inertia, force of habit. I think that if you try to provide some examples where you just want the raw stat, you'll quickly discover you usually will want this 4E score instead. The sole exception I can think of is raw strength checks, and I already posted my guess on that upthread.


			
				Hejdun said:
			
		

> Third game mechanic complaint: "saves."  Why does _every debilitating ongoing effect in the game_ have a 50% chance of getting thrown off, regardless of level, ability scores, saves, or class?  Why does the 1st level wizard with a 6 Con have the _exact same chance_ of throwing off the poison in his veins as the level 30 Fighter with 20 Con?  It also greatly reduces the ability of a player to differentiate his weaknesses from everyone else.



Hmm. Fair enough. That first level wizard has a much higher chance of contracting the poison in the first place, of course. It's also possible that there's a difference between the miniatures mechanic and the RPG mechanic, but it doesn't really bother me: Before, the special effect might last for 1d6 rounds, now it lasts for (time it takes to beat the 50% chance). Some might also target fort, but it seems unnecessarily punitive for poison to do that: contracting it is con based, and hit points are con based... it's just cruel!


			
				Hejdun said:
			
		

> Another minor quibble: I don't understand the point in keeping in fear effects if the only thing they do is give everyone a -2 to hit?  No save, no variable effects based on class/hit dice/ability scores.  Just a flat -2 to hit for everyone.  Why not just bump up the AC by 2?  It's the same effect that's far easier to track and remember.



Betting pool that paladins can gain immunity to fear? 


			
				Hejdun said:
			
		

> Last complaint of the night: what exactly is the point of "Pit Fiend Frenzy"?  You can either spend a standard action attacking with your mace, or a standard action to attack with your stinger... or you could ignore both of those options and just take a standard action to attack with both.
> 
> Sorry, that was one big long rant.



Guess: Opportunity Attacks can only be taken with Weapons, or other rules systems that interact only with weapons (such as disarm).


----------



## Badkarmaboy

Sammael said:
			
		

> The pit fiend is yet another bland Mearlsification. It looks and feels NOTHING like a pit fiend should (and, as a great fan of devils in D&D, I've run dozens of pit fiends over the years in my games, as both allies and adversaries, so I feel qualified to comment).
> 
> Furthermore, the removal of unique devils/dukes of Hell from the hierarchy, and the fact that retarded legion devils and war devils (just read their entries in FCII) seem to have replaced the traditional cornugons makes me really, really sad.
> 
> Looks like I will have to house rule half of the freaking Monster Manual. And if I have to do that, I am not sure I'm going to bother in the first place.




Where are you getting that the unique dukes and devils are gone?  They're mentioned in W&M.  So are Cornugons (or was it Malebranche?).


----------



## Hjorimir

Voss said:
			
		

> On the Fire Resistance subject.  We know that PCs have at least some access to fire resistance.  Remember all the way back in the Red Dragon article?  When the beast scoured away the wizard's fire resistance?  Yep.  In.  Or at least it was, some months back.



Oh, good memory there! Perhaps all resistances can fail when assaulted? What I mean to say is maybe the failing resistance isn't an aspect of the dragon breath, but an aspect of resistance itself? That would make the pit fiend's low fire damage more understandable. Sure, you ignored the fire...this round; let's see if it hold up next round.

Yes? No?

Edit: The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. It would keep a higher level of drama in the game without the certainty of resistance spells.


----------



## Wolfspider

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Where are you getting that the unique dukes and devils are gone?  They're mentioned in W&M.  So are Cornugons (or was it Malebranche?).




The article states:  "Nobles of the Nine Hells, pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils. Only the archdevils known as the Lords of the Nine stand higher than the pit fiends."

If dukes of the hells do exist, that means that the pit fiends all outrank them, which doesn't make them seem very special to me at all.  In this case, they would occupy quite a different niche than the dukes of earlier editions (big surprise there).

So they may be in 4e, but they would be pointless.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, basically, he's as good at everything as any other monster of his level is. He has no special powers to help him fulfill his role *in hell*, just his role as an opponent for the PCs. He has a bland, boring, list of a great big THREE skills. He has no mechanical existence outside his combat role. He appears to fight the PCs, then he's done. Everything about him is centered on his existence in the encounter. (I mean, he doesn't even have Planes knowledge!) ("So, Pit-dude...where do you live?" "I dunno. Don't have that skill. Let's rumble!")
> 
> His one bit of interesting text -- the once-a-century-wish -- seems to be almost an afterthought. Why once a century? Presumably, he's not going to be granting wishes to PCs, so it's not much of a balancing mechanism. To reduce the total wishes available in the world?  I dunno. Further, since there's no way (other than DM fiat) to determine if a particular Pit Fiend has already granted a wish, the century limit is kind of 'Meh'. I suppose it has some kind of mythic resonance, and 4e does need all it can get at this point.
> 
> Yes, I can "just make it up". Which leads me to ask why I'm buying a Monster Manual...or a rules set...when the kneejerk response to every complaint about missing or oversimplified information is "Dude, just make it up!"
> 
> I can make up the whole game if I had to. But I was under the apparently silly and mistaken impression WOTC wanted my money and was presumably going to sell me more than a blank sheet of paper labeled "Make it up".
> 
> (And in the Great Painful Irony department, the part we SHOULD make up -- the world -- is being spoon fed to us. Sigh.)




FWIW, The thing I want out of the MM (or any monster description) is what the damn thing can do in a fight.  Any social skills I can give it as I feel appropriate to suit the situation.  I dislike the 3.x method of allocating skill points and trying to hook up classes to get the skills I want.  I've found that my ability to improvise was hindered in 3.5 due to the rule set.  This seems to be more my speed.  

Also, I like the detail being fed into the world, it gives me something to work with.  Different strokes for different folks I suppose.


----------



## Relique du Madde

Lizard said:
			
		

> "Slide" seems to be five-foot-step on steroids; I think it means "A move that doesn't provoke an AOO". So an exploding devil can move 25 feet (probably in a straight line, i'm guess that's part of a 'slide') and go 'boom'.




Since it already mentions that Pit Fiends can teliport, why not just say the pit fiend teleports a devil up to 5 square (25 feet) away and causes it to explode?  As is that power seems almost like its based on telekinesis, and almost Dragon Ball Z ish.


----------



## helium3

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Oh, good memory there! Perhaps all resistances can fail when assaulted? What I mean to say is maybe the failing resistance isn't an aspect of the dragon breath, but an aspect of resistance itself? That would make the pit fiend's low fire damage more understandable. Sure, you ignored the fire...this round; let's see if it hold up next round.
> 
> Yes? No?
> 
> Edit: The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. It would keep a higher level of drama in the game without the certainty of resistance spells.




Well, they could have just combine protection from energy with energy resistance. Essentially, it protects for a certain amount of damager per round that has a maximum and it can only protect your from a certain total amount of damage.

Basically, it's 3.5 stoneskin, only for fire. That would even make the exploding devils make more sense. The devil could start chucking minions and specific PC's he wants to wear down the fire resistance of. You know, like mages that'll start having to make concentration checks once they start getting hit by the fire aura.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The article states:  "Nobles of the Nine Hells, pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils. Only the archdevils known as the Lords of the Nine stand higher than the pit fiends."
> 
> If dukes of the hells do exist, that means that the pit fiends all outrank them, which doesn't make them seem very special to me at all.  In this case, they would occupy quite a different niche than the dukes of earlier editions (big surprise there).
> 
> So they may be in 4e, but they would be pointless.




Well, given that they are described as "the undisputed lords of the baatezu" in the 3.5 MM and there are unique devils, I think they might make an appearance.  

Also, while the mechanics were 3.5, there was an article in D&DI that talked about some unique devils.  I recall that those articles were meant to support 3.5 and tie in to 4e when it came out.  

I could be wrong.


----------



## helium3

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The article states:  "Nobles of the Nine Hells, pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils. Only the archdevils known as the Lords of the Nine stand higher than the pit fiends."
> 
> If dukes of the hells do exist, that means that the pit fiends all outrank them, which doesn't make them seem very special to me at all.  In this case, they would occupy quite a different niche than the dukes of earlier editions (big surprise there).
> 
> So they may be in 4e, but they would be pointless.




Ehh. So it says that. Big deal. Just slap some class levels on the pit fiend and "voila!!" instant duke of hell.

Assuming, of course, that one can just "slap levels on monsters."


----------



## Burr

Pit Fiend Defenses Extrapolation:

*Fort = Con *2 + Level* = 8 * 2 + 26 = 42
*Ref = Int * 2 + Level* = 6 * 2 + 26 = 38
*Will = Wis + Cha + Level* = 5 + 9 + 26 = 40
*AC = Dex * 2 + Level + Net Armors and Penalties* = 7 * 2 + 26 + 4 = 44

(Edit: This is assuming the 1/2 level isn't considered part of the ability modifier.  I actually expect it might be.  Then it would just be Con * 2, Int * 2, etc.)


----------



## Sir Brennen

Burr said:
			
		

> Pit Fiend Defenses Extrapolation:
> 
> *Fort = Con *2 + Level* = 8 * 2 + 26 = 42
> *Ref = Int * 2 + Level* = 6 * 2 + 26 = 38
> *Will = Wis + Cha + Level* = 5 + 9 + 26 = 40
> *AC = Dex * 2 + Level + Net Armors and Penalties* = 7 * 2 + 26 + 4 = 44



The *2 Stat mods for what... being "Soldier" type? Elite? Leader?


----------



## humble minion

Odd little setting implication of this: for any non-pit-fiend devil, it's a distinct _disadvantage_ to be fighting on the same side as a pit fiend, because he can blow you up at any time and you have no chance of resisting it.  In fact, it a fight starts to go badly then such a devil would be entirely justified in deserting and running away before it gets exploded - although then of course it would be in all sorts of trouble if the pit fiend managed to survive and seek vengeance.  And it would HAVE to, or risk being seen as weak by its remaining underlings.  This is all in character, I suppose - the pit fiends have a measure of control over devildom due to fear, but mutiny stirs constantly under the surface.

It begs the larger question though - there's an awful lot of mention in the stat block of 'enemies' and 'allies', and these labels have very distinct game-mechanical effects (some of which are a little odd - a reason for allies being immune to the Aura of Fire is hard to visualise, to say the least).  But there's all sorts of shades of gray between 'ally' and 'enemy' that this system might have problems with.  Temporary 'enemy-of-my-enemy' alliances like the entire final third of Savage Tide?  Spies who are, unknown to the pit fiend, pretending to be allies?  Genuine allies under the mental control of enemies?  There'll have to be a ruling on all of these or the whole business will be a mess.  It could very plausibly could be the 'Alignment Wars' of 4e, even...


----------



## Burr

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> The *2 Stat mods for what... being "Soldier" type? Elite? Leader?




For being anything I would expect.  Consider the +29 Fortitude poison it uses.  For a PC to make that check, they'd also have to have fairly large Defenses.  Ultimately, the *2 is necessary so they can add Charisma and Wisdom to get Will without throwing everything else out of balance.


----------



## Lackhand

easiest way: Anyone you are aware of, you may choose to designate as an ally. Everyone else is a foe, though someone who you specifically choose to recognize as an ally remains so, even if you lose specific track of them.

The aura of flame threw me for a bit. I *think*, barring forthcoming explicative flavor from another quarter, that my explanation for it will be the same as my explanation for the ally explosion: The pit fiend is a marshall of Hell, and a bearer of its mightiest weapon, the balefire. His touch leaves lingering flame, his presence sears flesh, and his minions burn with his unholy inspiration.

Yes? Yes. He _is_ the Eye of Fear and Flame, isn't he just!


----------



## Ycore Rixle

*Bit of a rant here...*

Is anyone else bothered by the poor writing? For example, in the first paragraph, we find that "... pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils." Then two paragraphs later, we learn, "... pit fiends command vast numbers of lesser devils." Um, duh, I just read that.

And how about those "legion devil legionnaires," as Wolf Spider pointed out? Awkward.

And the pit fiend "wears an ornate breastplate decorated with evil symbols and runes." Oh, really, the big nasty devil has _evil _ symbols? I'm shocked because in my last 3.5e game the pit fiends all had Barney embroidered on their chests. Not to mention that I'm really glad I'm clear on the fact that the breastplate has symbols _and _ runes. 

We also have this gem: "Penetrating the defenses of a pit fiend's castle and destroying the mighty devil in its own demesne is a deed of truly epic proportions." Even if we accept that penetrating and destroying should be considered a single deed and thus agree numerically with the singular verb (and I can agree to that - it's just a little awkward), why do I need to be told that a Pit Fiend Level 26 Elite Soldier (Leader) is a "mighty" devil? Gosh, I might have confused him with all those weak and pathetic Level 26 Elite Soldiers (Leaders) from the Nine Hells. And: "truly epic proportions"? Truly epic? Not just a little epic, or somewhat epic, but truly epic? Are they sure?

Sigh. I'm still looking forward to 4th edition. I'm just tired of bad writing.


----------



## Thundershield

Seems this thread is beating a few dead horses, so I'll try to voice a few new questions:

*1.* What is the range of his Infernal Summons? Can he conjure his allies from several miles away? Doubtfully. But if not, what is the range on it?

*2.* When he uses Irresistible Command, how does the devil in question slide those 5 squares? Does it freeze up and literally slide across the ground as if there suddenly was a layer of grease under it? Does the Pit Fiend teleport it there? Is it telekinetically hurled at the enemy, screaming as flames burst from its orifices?

Just a few things that puzzle me, and a bit of description as to how the less obvious abilities act out would be nice. Makes it a little easier to describe what happens in the heat of battle.


----------



## humble minion

Lackhand said:
			
		

> easiest way: Anyone you are aware of, you may choose to designate as an ally. Everyone else is a foe, though someone who you specifically choose to recognize as an ally remains so, even if you lose specific track of them.




Wouldn't work in the pit fiend case.  He'd just be able to happily designate any devil in existence as an 'ally' and then kill it as a minor action with no defense possible.  Not good news for rival pit fiends (or the Lords of Hell for that matter!) if that were the case...

'Ally' and 'enemy' have to be a two-way street.


----------



## D_E

Finally responding to a couple of things from upthread (way, way upthread):

First, the problem with the fly speed is the clumsy manuverablity, plus having to work in 3D.  So while he *can * fly up to fight, I'd prefer if he didn't *have * to, for reasons of simplicity (buzzword, much?).  Having a decent ranged attack removes most of the 3D, swerving like a drunken butterfly manuvering that he'd otherwise have to do to get into melee range.

The 1 Action Point thing:  If there's no recharge mechanic, then their strategy write up is something that a Pit Fiend can only use once before the DM has to hand wave it.  Plus, you have the naritive problem that a being just below the Lords of Hell blows his one an only Action Point the instant he catchs sight of the PCs.  Hellish assasination attempts, off screen battles, whatever it is, he gets through it with that Action Point in reserve, but as soon as he sees a PC he fires it off?

And finally:  Yes, he is an Elite, but his fluff says he's only got ~12 alied peers.  So you shouldn't have two Pit Fiends show up in the same encounter unless you really mean it.  Likewise, pretty much anything in hell should be < Level 26, otherwise you have to ask why the Pit Fiends in charge.

EDIT: Oh, the more stuff I have to make up, the more likely it is I'll make a mistake and do something unbalancing.  One of the things I'm paying WotC to do is playtest.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Thundershield said:
			
		

> *1.* What is the range of his Infernal Summons? Can he conjure his allies from several miles away? Doubtfully. But if not, what is the range on it?



As this is pretty much the old "gate" ability of infernals, I'd guess that range isn't a factor, as long as it's on the same plane. Maybe not even then.

My question, though - if a pit fiend summons his allies, then ports away behind a closed gate while they occupy the heroes, when he's found in the bowels of the castle later and his "per encounter" ability ready again... is he summoning the same allies or new ones?



> *2.* When he uses Irresistible Command, how does the devil in question slide those 5 squares?



"Slide" probably has a specific mechanical meaning in the game, possibly avoiding OA's, but also possibly countered by some classes' abilities (hence why it's not simply just a teleport.)


----------



## Burr

humble_minion, consider an 'ally' as someone who agrees that they are your ally.  Whether or not they are correct doesn't matter.  You can effect them because they trust you.  Spies don't complicate the situation, since a) they can forgo any defense they want, and b) the other characters agree that the spy is their ally.  In effect, it's as if they _are_ allies until the pivotal moment of betrayal or discovery comes.

A Pit Fiend presumeably summons only lower-level devils who already agree they are allies.  (Of course, any DM is free to let the Pit Fiend be mistaken.)  An allied lower-level devil targetted with the Irresistable Command may very well wish they _hadn't_ been allied with the Pit Fiend, but by then it's too late... the command ain't called irresistable for nothing.

This sort of no-save, ally-targetting command wouldn't make a good class ability, since it would be a mess if one player could target another player with an irresistable command.  But in a context limited to NPC monsters, it's just fine.  Monsters don't get to complain about unfair gameplay.


----------



## Voss

D_E said:
			
		

> The 1 Action Point thing:  If there's no recharge mechanic, then their strategy write up is something that a Pit Fiend can only use once before the DM has to hand wave it.  Plus, you have the naritive problem that a being just below the Lords of Hell blows his one an only Action Point the instant he catchs sight of the PCs.  Hellish assasination attempts, off screen battles, whatever it is, he gets through it with that Action Point in reserve, but as soon as he sees a PC he fires it off?




Unfortunately, the 4e design premise is centered around the idea that only combat with the PCs matter.  Which is why he has no non-combat abilities (yeah, token skills) whatsoever.  He can't even go home if he get conjured up by some pesky wizard.  Heck.  If you put him inside a box with 50' thick walls, he can't get out.  



> And finally:  Yes, he is an Elite, but his fluff says he's only got ~12 alied peers.  So you shouldn't have two Pit Fiends show up in the same encounter unless you really mean it.  Likewise, pretty much anything in hell should be < Level 26, otherwise you have to ask why the Pit Fiends in charge.




Yes.  And if you do really mean it, the first thing that happens is 16 minions with an additional +4 to hit show.  It gets kinda freaky, both in all the stuff you have to keep track of, and how much damage the minions can do, particularly if they have attacks that target For, Wil or Ref, because the pit fiends can have them attacking at essentially +9.  That almost certainly overcompensates for their lower BAB for being 5 levels lower, so they're actually a serious threat, especially given how many there are.  Unless the PCs are utterly ridiculous in power level, that almost seems like a good chance of TPK.


----------



## Voss

Burr said:
			
		

> humble_minion, consider an 'ally' as someone who agrees that they are your ally.  Whether or not they are correct doesn't matter.  You can effect them because they trust you.




Ugh.  Who qualifies as an ally has to be very, very well defined (which it isn't in 3rd).
1- You should never be your own ally.  Common English usage makes that an inherently stupid concept unless you actually have multiple personalities.  Would 'affects allies and you' be that much harder to write?  because it clears up half the ambiguity.

2- It has to encompass all the cases in the following fight correctly, and assign the bonuses

Enemy #1  Obvious enemy
Enemy #2  Has just been _dominated_ by one of your allies, and you are unaware of that
Enemy #3  Is actually a shapeshifted infiltrator that is indifferent to you, but an enemy of #1.
Ally A  Obvious ally
Ally B   Is invisible, and you are unaware of his presence.
Ally C   Has been dominated by the enemy, and you know it.
Ally D   Has been dominated by the enemy, and you don't know it.
Ally E   Doesn't consider himself an ally, but is fighting alongside you anyway for his own reasons.
& Yourself

I'm sure there are cases I'm not thinking of at the moment, but ally has to be defined in a consistent way such that, after reading it, you know which of all of those cases actually get the bonus.

And then you get into the other cases, like some of the Book of 9 Swords manuevers, where they have to be in a certain radius and hear you.  Just for added fun.


----------



## Aazenius

I'm going back to some of the older post - the ones that felt the new Pit Fiend didn't do as much damage as the 3e version. I think the reason is this - Bloodied. If your character has 350 hit points (and it's doing an average of 60 to 65 damage per round) it only takes around 3 rounds before that character is taking penalties on their Attacks/AC, and things only get worse from there. Eventually you're attacks may suffer so bad you can't hit an AC of 44. Something to ponder.


----------



## Hjorimir

Attack Bonus of +31...

Str (+11) plus Dex (+7) plus 1/2 level (+13) = +31?

Is this WotC's compromise on the debate of Str vs Dex for attacks?


----------



## Voss

Aazenius said:
			
		

> I'm going back to some of the older post - the ones that felt the new Pit Fiend didn't do as much damage as the 3e version. I think the reason is this - Bloodied. If your character has 350 hit points (and it's doing an average of 60 to 65 damage per round) it only takes around 3 rounds before that character is taking penalties on their Attacks/AC, and things only get worse from there. Eventually you're attacks may suffer so bad you can't hit an AC of 44. Something to ponder.




Wait, there are penalties for being Bloodied?  Where was this?


----------



## Grog

Burr said:
			
		

> A Pit Fiend presumeably summons only lower-level devils who already agree they are allies.  (Of course, any DM is free to let the Pit Fiend be mistaken.)  An allied lower-level devil targetted with the Irresistable Command may very well wish they _hadn't_ been allied with the Pit Fiend, but by then it's too late... the command ain't called irresistable for nothing.



But since most every devil in the hells probably knows about the Irresistible Command ability, why would any devil ever agree to allow a Pit Fiend to designate him as an ally, knowing he'll just get blown up and instantly killed?

The more I think about Irresistible Command, the more it seems like a very poorly thought-out ability, both from a flavor standpoint and a mechanics standpoint (16 average damage at the cost of a 21st or 22nd level ally? Said ally could probably do more than that in just one round, especially with the Pit Fiend giving him a +4 bonus to hit).


----------



## Hjorimir

Do we have access to any other monster write-up with stats? Please provide a link if you can.

Thanks.


----------



## Zsig

Just to throw some more options for the people doing the math:


Consider he's of Large size
Consider his level lies between 21-30 which means Epic tier, so, for instance, his attack bonus derived from Class could be +2 (x2 for Paragon, and x3 for Epic), for a total of +6 to attack bonus, and who knows what else could get the same treatment.
(yes, i made up those numbers)


----------



## Burr

Grog said:
			
		

> But since most every devil in the hells probably knows about the Irresistible Command ability, why would any devil ever agree to allow a Pit Fiend to designate him as an ally, knowing he'll just get blown up and instantly killed?



There are only a dozen or so Pit Fiends, and there are probably more low-level devils than you could count in a millenium.  The benefits of alliance probably far outweigh the risk of being a casualty of war.


----------



## Voss

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Do we have access to any other monster write-up with stats? Please provide a link if you can.
> 
> Thanks.





Yeah, the spined devil 
http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/monstestat.jpg

The top card is the 4e card.


----------



## Hjorimir

Voss said:
			
		

> Yeah, the spined devil
> http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/monstestat.jpg
> 
> The top card is the 4e card.



Well darn, that sinks my math on attack bonuses. Thanks for the help, Voss.


----------



## nightspaladin

I can't believe that people are complaining that the Pit Fiend does have skills outside of combat. He has all of them at +18 or better. He has a +22 Diplomacy. That's the equivalent of a 15th level human bard with a 18 Cha. Pretty good for a 12 foot tall horned devil. 

As Hell's Generals, i suspect much of their persuasion is in the form of coercion. They are less Gen Colin Powell and more George Patton. They bark orders and they are obeyed because of the eminent threat of swift violence behind every word . And this is reflected in the Intimidate Skill training.

Overall, I like the design. The powers are easy to manage, and it is clear that these are the relevant powers. The part about the Wish infers that they have other powers at their disposal outside of combat, at the DMs discretion. And that's how it should be.


----------



## Nathan P. Mahney

Regarding the complaint further upthread that the Pit Fiend doesn't have any trained knowledge of the Planes...

I'd say that it's likely Religion encompasses this.  The Gods live on the Planes, and lumping these two Knowledge skills into one is a logical move.

This is easily the best preview since the Elf, and I like it.  It's flavorful, and for a 26th level monster it seems pretty easy to run.  And I love the little touches, like the signet ring.


----------



## jeffh

Nathan P. Mahney said:
			
		

> Regarding the complaint further upthread that the Pit Fiend doesn't have any trained knowledge of the Planes...
> 
> I'd say that it's likely Religion encompasses this.



I'd say it's *dead certain* that Religion accomplishes this. _Read to the *end *of the article_, people!


----------



## frankthedm

> Grog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since most every devil in the hells probably knows about the Irresistible Command ability, why would any devil ever agree to allow a Pit Fiend to designate him as an ally, knowing he'll just get blown up and instantly killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is more of a "Asmodeus [the DM] decreed you serve this pit fiend. If he judges you unworthy, you are gone." As a devil you don't want to be his 'ally', but you got no choice in the matter. The devil the PCs summoned or a devil under a rival's pit fiends command is not explodable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I think about Irresistible Command, the more it seems like a very poorly thought-out ability, both from a flavor standpoint and a mechanics standpoint (16 average damage at the cost of a 21st or 22nd level ally? Said ally could probably do more than that in just one round, especially with the Pit Fiend giving him a +4 bonus to hit).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm, the ability lets the pit fiend detonate any devil 'ally'. Imps and lemures can also be used as _bl_ammo
Click to expand...


----------



## Voss

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> I can't believe that people are complaining that the Pit Fiend does have skills outside of combat. He has all of them at +18 or better. He has a +22 Diplomacy. That's the equivalent of a 15th level human bard with a 18 Cha. Pretty good for a 12 foot tall horned devil.




Well, that isn't actually the complaint.  At least, it isn't mine.  He has no non-combat *abilities*.  Teleport, create undead, invisibility,  magic circle, all that stuff.  Poof. Gone.  He's an immortal being with nothing to do when he isn't killing people.  

On the skill side.  Maybe a 3e bard.  But a 15th level bard with an 18 Charisma would come in at a grand total of 7+4+5 (+16) on his trained skills.  

Except for trained skills, he has the exact same skill bonuses that anyone else of that level would have with those stats.  Maybe they'd train a different set of 4 skills.  But really, he's using any skill with more or less the same proficiency as anyone else who could be viably compared to him.  Unless they have some large bonuses he doesn't, its just a random die roll.


----------



## hero4hire

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Data!!!!
> 
> Damage/hit is *pathetic* by 3e standards.




Seems like it can add up overall. If you are in melee with it
15 flame per round
1d12+11 and 1d6+11 with its attacks, potential for ongoing 15 poison damage and 5 fire damage 

an opponent may just be eating 60-70 damage a round.


----------



## Peter LaCara

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, that isn't actually the complaint.  At least, it isn't mine.  He has no non-combat *abilities*.  Teleport, create undead, invisibility,  magic circle, all that stuff.  Poof. Gone.  He's an immortal being with nothing to do when he isn't killing people.
> 
> On the skill side.  Maybe a 3e bard.  But a 15th level bard with an 18 Charisma would come in at a grand total of 7+4+5 (+16) on his trained skills.
> 
> Except for trained skills, he has the exact same skill bonuses that anyone else of that level would have with those stats.  Maybe they'd train a different set of 4 skills.  But really, he's using any skill with more or less the same proficiency as anyone else who could be viably compared to him.  Unless they have some large bonuses he doesn't, its just a random die roll.



He does, in fact, have teleport. Longer range teleport is a ritual. Create undead is almost certainly going to be a ritual, as is anything involving a magic circle. Invisibility is a combat power, but one that he doesn't have. I would wager that there's going to be a ton of stuff like this in the DMG. In fact, haven't we read something to that effect in one blog or another by this point?

Also, I find it interesting to compare the Pit Lord's damage against the Spined Devil. I suppose that's the difference between a Soldier (Leader) and a Skirmisher. Assuming the Spined Devil's damage hasn't drastically been toned down, of course.

Finally, I bet most 26th level monsters aren't going to have a freaking Charisma of 28, so there's your social monster right there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

On Fire Resistance: Wasn't there an article or blog post (or was it R&C) that resistance works a little different: If something beats your resistance at all, you take the full damage? 

For "teaming up the Pit Fiend": I'd assume aside from the summoned monter (that are part of his level/XP value), you will pair him with some level 26 Minions to get the 100 % of the expected level 26 challenge...


----------



## JosephK

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, that isn't actually the complaint.  At least, it isn't mine.  He has no non-combat *abilities*.  Teleport, create undead, invisibility,  magic circle, all that stuff.  Poof. Gone.  He's an immortal being with nothing to do when he isn't killing people.
> 
> On the skill side.  Maybe a 3e bard.  But a 15th level bard with an 18 Charisma would come in at a grand total of 7+4+5 (+16) on his trained skills.
> 
> Except for trained skills, he has the exact same skill bonuses that anyone else of that level would have with those stats.  Maybe they'd train a different set of 4 skills.  But really, he's using any skill with more or less the same proficiency as anyone else who could be viably compared to him.  Unless they have some large bonuses he doesn't, its just a random die roll.





Well, if the skills work like thet do in SAGA, they're kinda different now (which I believe was hinted at somewhere).. That he has the skills on his write-up means alot in itself. For example, you can do a jump check for distance with acrobatics untrained (whether it's on your sheet or not), but if you actually have the skill chosen, you get special options. Like jump up from prone as a free action, tumble to avoid AOOs and so forth.. Having a skill on the list means more than just rolling to succeed.. That's what you do with untrained skills. 

I'm guessing it could be similar with diplomacy and bluff and intimidate.. Probably some combat oriented stuff in there too though. 

Tbh, I'm kinda liking they're not putting "stuff he does in his leisure time" on the write-ups.. I assume it means we can just fill in the blanks if we want. He might be ritualisticly sacrificing all day long, or building his armies. As to how he controls other devils? I assume much in the same way a king would control men  accumulation of power in all its forms


----------



## Gort

hero4hire said:
			
		

> Seems like it can add up overall. If you are in melee with it
> 15 flame per round
> 1d12+11 and 1d6+11 with its attacks, potential for ongoing 15 poison damage and 5 fire damage
> 
> an opponent may just be eating 60-70 damage a round.



Also, keep in mind that +constitution items are gone, and that healing is mostly an unknown quantity. This isn't high-level 3rd ed, where a monster had to do 150+ points of damage to outpace the _heal_ spell the cleric was casting every round. If you only have 250 hitpoints to start with, and can only reasonably get 100 more in the entire fight taking 35-70 points a round sounds pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## Lizard

Just a side comment on how 4e is better for free form, low planning, DMs.

That's me. My 'adventures' are usually a bare handful of scrawled notes along the lines of "The PCs go to town. There's some kind of problem, like orcs. They do something about it. I think I want a gelatinous cube in there somewhere. The end." The one thing I *do* prep is characters, so I have a toolbox of things to pull out. I'm never sure how the PCs and the characters will interact or who will be popping up in a given adventure, so I make sure to have a lot of 'em. If I have an overarching plot for a campaign, I will have some BBEGs written up, and have all sorts of things happen which, unknown to the PCs at the time, are manifestations of said bad guy's powers, minions, influence, etc. Seemingly minor NPCs become major ones when the PCs take a liking to them, so I need to know what they can do beyond "hit people". Etc. (And having everyone be good at everything because every skill goes up with level is dull, dull, dull, dull. And did I mention that it's dull?)

4e seems very hostile to this playstyle. For one thing, everything is 'encounter' driven, and encounters need to be heavily set up in advance. I can't just grab 2 CR-appropriate monsters and toss them at the PCs, I need to decide how much XP an encounter "should" be worth, then be sure to add in Interesting Terrain (TM), I must determine when the encounter "begins" and "ends" (difficult when combat and talk intersperse regularly -- if you fight a monster, then stop and parely, then start fighting again, is that one encounter or three? What happens when another NPC walks into the action?), etc. It's not easy for me to distinguish Orc A from Orc B when they don't have skills or feats to swap out. Adding class levels is alleged to be possible, but we've seen nothing on how it will actually work. 

In short, I run a world -- not a chain of 'encounters', and building everything from player abilities to monster stats around the idea that the game is constructed out of encounters is very unfriendly to my way of doing things. Maybe if I tried running a game, it would become more intuitive over time, but right now, it's just Not The Way I Do Things.


----------



## Lizard

Gort said:
			
		

> Also, keep in mind that +constitution items are gone, and that healing is mostly an unknown quantity. This isn't high-level 3rd ed, where a monster had to do 150+ points of damage to outpace the _heal_ spell the cleric was casting every round. If you only have 250 hitpoints to start with, and can only reasonably get 100 more in the entire fight taking 35-70 points a round sounds pretty reasonable to me.




Actually, from what we've seen, there's a lot MORE healing in 4e. Heal spells are at-will or per-encounter, so they never run out, and you don't need to stop hitting the monster to heal an ally. Warlords heal. Paladins can heal by smiting. Everyone has Second Wind to auto-heal themselves. Etc.


----------



## nightspaladin

Lizard said:
			
		

> Just a side comment on how 4e is better for free form, low planning, DMs.
> 
> That's me. My 'adventures' are usually a bare handful of scrawled notes along the lines of "The PCs go to town. There's some kind of problem, like orcs. They do something about it. I think I want a gelatinous cube in there somewhere. The end." The one thing I *do* prep is characters, so I have a toolbox of things to pull out. I'm never sure how the PCs and the characters will interact or who will be popping up in a given adventure, so I make sure to have a lot of 'em. If I have an overarching plot for a campaign, I will have some BBEGs written up, and have all sorts of things happen which, unknown to the PCs at the time, are manifestations of said bad guy's powers, minions, influence, etc. Seemingly minor NPCs become major ones when the PCs take a liking to them, so I need to know what they can do beyond "hit people". Etc. (And having everyone be good at everything because every skill goes up with level is dull, dull, dull, dull. And did I mention that it's dull?)
> 
> 4e seems very hostile to this playstyle. For one thing, everything is 'encounter' driven, and encounters need to be heavily set up in advance. I can't just grab 2 CR-appropriate monsters and toss them at the PCs, I need to decide how much XP an encounter "should" be worth, then be sure to add in Interesting Terrain (TM), I must determine when the encounter "begins" and "ends" (difficult when combat and talk intersperse regularly -- if you fight a monster, then stop and parely, then start fighting again, is that one encounter or three? What happens when another NPC walks into the action?), etc. It's not easy for me to distinguish Orc A from Orc B when they don't have skills or feats to swap out. Adding class levels is alleged to be possible, but we've seen nothing on how it will actually work.
> 
> In short, I run a world -- not a chain of 'encounters', and building everything from player abilities to monster stats around the idea that the game is constructed out of encounters is very unfriendly to my way of doing things. Maybe if I tried running a game, it would become more intuitive over time, but right now, it's just Not The Way I Do Things.





I think the trick with 4e for this style of playing is going to be just learning to decide what is an encounter and call it that on the fly. You don't need to plan out all the events, just when  something new happens, call it an encounter in your head. Think of them as scenes of a play or movie, when a new ones happens just say in your DM thoughts, "ok this is a new scene". It may take a little getting used to and I am sure that there will be times where it seems the scene is changing so fast that the per encounter powers seem more like at will, but with a little practice it will become second nature


----------



## Lizard

nightspaladin said:
			
		

> I think the trick with 4e for this style of playing is going to be just learning to decide what is an encounter and call it that on the fly. You don't need to plan out all the events, just when  something new happens, call it an encounter in your head. Think of them as scenes of a play or movie, when a new ones happens just say in your DM thoughts, "ok this is a new scene". It may take a little getting used to and I am sure that there will be times where it seems the scene is changing so fast that the per encounter powers seem more like at will, but with a little practice it will become second nature




You may be correct. We'll have to see. I know White Wolf works like this, with 'per scene' powers, but I've never run a game of it. In the WW games I've played, it is often the case where we have to ask "Is the scene over yet?" to determine if a power works.

As another example, in a recent game, I had my character turned invisible for a period of 8 minutes. That gave him a ticking clock to do some tasks and not be discovered, and it added a great deal of tension. If, as I presume, invisibility in 4e is "per encounter", it's hard to see how to model that.


----------



## Anthtriel

Voss said:
			
		

> Well, that isn't actually the complaint.  At least, it isn't mine.  He has no non-combat *abilities*.  Teleport, create undead, invisibility,  magic circle, all that stuff.  Poof. Gone.  He's an immortal being with nothing to do when he isn't killing people.



We already know 4E's philosophy: Present anything combat-related in the stat box.

Then let the DM make up whatever he likes the monster to do out of combat, maybe give him some ideas in the description text. The idea behind that is that combat is usually the most difficult part to judge as a DM, especially in D&D. You can easily see that by the fact that most rules are somehow related to combat. Ruling non-combat by pure fiat works well for me, ruling combat by pure fiat needs a very good group and a very good DM. And even then it can go wrong. 

On the positive side, monsters in 4E will (most likely) be easier to run and take up less space in the books, so you have more monsters and of higher quality in combat.
On the negative side, you don't have much guidelines for monsters outside of combat. This is easy for DMs like me who tend to make up stuff wherever they go. It can be problematic if you are not used to that style of DMing, because the burden of making sure that everything is halfway consistent is placed on you, whereas 3E placed it on the system itself.

So if you belong to the group that rules by fiat, the 4E approach to monsters is great. I genuienly love it, as it suits me perfectly. Same for the group which hacks and slashes its way through everything and only needs monsters x at place y to slay them. The more you rely on rules to guide you outside of combat however, the more problematic it is. From what I have seen, if you are adverse to making stuff up as you go, 4E might well be inferior to 3E for you.

edit: Thinking about it, the social challenges proposed would actually help you in that case. I know that I strongly dislike them, and that they are pretty high on my list to rule away, second only to Half-Elves, I think.



> Actually, from what we've seen, there's a lot MORE healing in 4e. Heal spells are at-will or per-encounter, so they never run out, and you don't need to stop hitting the monster to heal an ally. Warlords heal. Paladins can heal by smiting. Everyone has Second Wind to auto-heal themselves. Etc.



There will be more sources of healing, but we don't know how much damage they will heal. The per will heals cannot be higher than the damage dealt in the usual attack, otherwise combats could take forever.


----------



## DaveMage

I'm not seeing anything from this preview to port to my 3.5 game.   

Anyone staying with 3.5 see anything interesting that I may have missed?


----------



## Lenaianel

Voss said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the 4e design premise is centered around the idea that only combat with the PCs matter.  Which is why he has no non-combat abilities (yeah, token skills) whatsoever.  He can't even go home if he get conjured up by some pesky wizard.  Heck.  If you put him inside a box with 50' thick walls, he can't get out.





His Arch devil patron would probably know he's in that box and may summon his follower to give him proper punishment for his failure


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lizard said:
			
		

> Just a side comment on how 4e is better for free form, low planning, DMs.
> 
> That's me. My 'adventures' are usually a bare handful of scrawled notes along the lines of "The PCs go to town. There's some kind of problem, like orcs. They do something about it. I think I want a gelatinous cube in there somewhere. The end." The one thing I *do* prep is characters, so I have a toolbox of things to pull out. I'm never sure how the PCs and the characters will interact or who will be popping up in a given adventure, so I make sure to have a lot of 'em. If I have an overarching plot for a campaign, I will have some BBEGs written up, and have all sorts of things happen which, unknown to the PCs at the time, are manifestations of said bad guy's powers, minions, influence, etc. Seemingly minor NPCs become major ones when the PCs take a liking to them, so I need to know what they can do beyond "hit people". Etc. (And having everyone be good at everything because every skill goes up with level is dull, dull, dull, dull. And did I mention that it's dull?)
> 
> 4e seems very hostile to this playstyle. For one thing, everything is 'encounter' driven, and encounters need to be heavily set up in advance. I can't just grab 2 CR-appropriate monsters and toss them at the PCs, I need to decide how much XP an encounter "should" be worth,



This part I disagree with. It is not very different selecting 2 "level-appropriate" monsters or 2 CR-appropriate monsters. Especially with Minions, Regulars, Elites and Solo monsters you should be able to do this very quick. Possibly,y ou don't even look at the monster description, instead just flip to the guidelines and pick the appropriate numbers. (One designer/developer blog posts describes a major part of an adventure fighting spiders with web without having the actual precise monster stats prewritten, just using the internal design guidelines instead.)
then be sure to add in Interesting Terrain (TM), 
[/quote]
That's entirely optional. But if you happen to be in an interesting locale, some rules/guideliens how to take advantage of it is a lot easier then having to guesswork everything about it.


> I must determine when the encounter "begins" and "ends" (difficult when combat and talk intersperse regularly -- if you fight a monster, then stop and parely, then start fighting again, is that one encounter or three? What happens when another NPC walks into the action?), etc. It's not easy for me to distinguish Orc A from Orc B when they don't have skills or feats to swap out. Adding class levels is alleged to be possible, but we've seen nothing on how it will actually work.



 I think a point in the stat block saying "monster role/level" will give you a lot better pointer then searching for Weapon Focus (Axe) or Weapon Focus (Bow) in the feat section.

I hope that the core rules will come with a nice explaination of how to adjucate what constitutes an encounter. But even then, I don't find your example particularly difficult.
Your example constitutes on encounter, people just switch from throwing darts and stabbing at each other to talking and then back again to the stabbing part. An NPC entering the fray doesn't change anything here. 

Now, if the combattants flee, and find each other again in an entirely different situation, that would constitute two encounters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing anything from this preview to port to my 3.5 game.
> 
> Anyone staying with 3.5 see anything interesting that I may have missed?



Not staying with 3.5, but the monster doesn't seem to have anything that couldn't be used in a 3.5 (aside from obvious things like no CR, HD or skill points). You could use the base premise to make Pit Fiends that are easier to run. Or add it as a new type of devil. 
You might consider to "re-use" some of his special abilities, "Irresistable Command" could be an interesting ability for that purpose.


----------



## Lenaianel

Considering how it's easy for a pit fiend to move (teleport 10 as a move action) or move his allies (tactical teleport and irresistible command), what i would like to know is does the pit fiend need to have a line of effect available to use Irresistible Command or tactical Teleport?

The paladin's Binding smite could be very useful if the answer is yes. It would be difficult for defenders to do their job otherwise.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin

Kraydak said:
			
		

> What is keeping him from picking up a *real* (high plus) weapon (or any other source for a numerical increase for that matter... armor?) and breaking _the math_?




I think I know the awaswer: Maybe it is so that you don't get a friggin awsome +5 weapon each time you beat something powerful at high levels.


----------



## HeinorNY

Yeah, go bears!


----------



## SlyFlourish

*Two pit fiends fighting?*

If you had two pit-fiends fighting, could they kill eachother? It would appear they are immune to almost all of their own attacks.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Voss said:
			
		

> Heck.  If you put him inside a box with 50' thick walls, he can't get out.



Except you know, clawing his way out.  He is an immortal Devil.  Man is he gonna be pissed.


----------



## Belphanior

Voss said:
			
		

> Heck. If you put him inside a box with 50' thick walls, he can't get out.




Sounds rather like a certain shadow-and-flame monstrosity from Tolkien, until the dwarves dug too deep and let him out.

And anyway it's not even true per se. If he can use rituals he can still teleport, scry, create undead, grant a wish once every 99 years, and all sorts of funky things.


----------



## Lackhand

Also, that is one hell of a box. I'd rule he shouldn't be able to get out.

50' thick? Really? Ew!


----------



## Khaim

mshea said:
			
		

> If you had two pit-fiends fighting, could they kill eachother? It would appear they are immune to almost all of their own attacks.




Assuming, of course, they won't summon minions. Which may or may not be reasonable, depending on why they're fighting.

Even so, it's possible that resistances work more like SAGA's shields than 3e's resistances. That is, enough damage in a short enough time can punch through and slowly deplete your fire resistance. Between the 15 automatic fire and the d12+11 from his mace, getting 30+ fire damage in a round isn't hard: he just has to hit. Oh, and his tail does normal damage, and while his resistance might hold off the ongoing 15 poison forever, it won't help against being weakened. I think.

At least they don't have DR 15/Good. _That_ made inter-demon fights just silly.


----------



## Simon Atavax

IanB said:
			
		

> I still write mine Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha.




Amen to that, brother.  Amen to that.

What are you kids looking at? Get off our lawn!


----------



## zoroaster100

So does a monster's damage in 4th edition have nothing to do with their Strength score any more?  Is it just an amount that is determined by the monster's designer to be the appropriate amount of damage the monster should do, while the Strength is determined independently just in case Strength is relevant for some other reason, such as opposed Strength checks, etc.?


----------



## Lackhand

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> So does a monster's damage in 4th edition have nothing to do with their Strength score any more?  Is it just an amount that is determined by the monster's designer to be the appropriate amount of damage the monster should do, while the Strength is determined independently just in case Strength is relevant for some other reason, such as opposed Strength checks, etc.?



Its damage is still determined by its strength -- 1d12 + 11 is (die for a large mace? Huh.) + (strength bonus for a strength of 32).

The number you see next to the strength score is its strength for purposes of skill-y things: climb checks, swim checks, maybe grapple checks or bullrush attempts. It's silly to break the "+11" out there because it will be needed so much less frequently than the bonus to skills.

Edit: Not as silly as still listing the "32" though -- it's not a problem for values over 10, where the "div 2, round down, subtract 5" rule is flawless; under 10, I always find myself having to doublecheck by counting by 2s down from nine. Just my fatal flaw, I guess!


----------



## Knight Otu

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> So does a monster's damage in 4th edition have nothing to do with their Strength score any more?  Is it just an amount that is determined by the monster's designer to be the appropriate amount of damage the monster should do, while the Strength is determined independently just in case Strength is relevant for some other reason, such as opposed Strength checks, etc.?



The clean (without the level bonus) Strength bonus is +11, so no, the Strength bonus is apparently still factored into damage.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

One thing that I think is hinted at: weapons will only use one dice for damage. A large mace is basically a maul for a normal character, so we're probably looking at d6 for simple one handed weapons, d8 for decent one handed weapons, d10 for simple two handed weapons and awesome one handed weapons, d12 for full on two handed weapons.


----------



## Khaim

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> One thing that I think is hinted at: weapons will only use one dice for damage. A large mace is basically a maul for a normal character, so we're probably looking at d6 for simple one handed weapons, d8 for decent one handed weapons, d10 for simple two handed weapons and awesome one handed weapons, d12 for full on two handed weapons.



I've been thinking the same thing. Although now I wonder: what if the pit fiend was using a 2-hand weapon?


----------



## Hussar

A thought on the slide ability:

Possibly it's termed "slide" because you need line of effect?  It's not really a teleport, but, you move from point A to point B instantly, so long as you have line of effect?


----------



## Sir Brennen

Khaim said:
			
		

> Even so, it's possible that resistances work more like SAGA's shields than 3e's resistances. That is, enough damage in a short enough time can punch through and slowly deplete your fire resistance. Between the 15 automatic fire and the d12+11 from his mace, getting 30+ fire damage in a round isn't hard: he just has to hit.



I can't see tracking _total_ fire damage in a round (especially across all attacks from all the PCs) separate from all other damage being a very smooth mechanic. Makes much more sense that it's per attack. Also, I wouldn't like it if, as the SAGA shields, once Fire Resistance takes X damage, it's simply gone for the rest of the encounter.


----------



## Tharen the Damned

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing anything from this preview to port to my 3.5 game.
> 
> Anyone staying with 3.5 see anything interesting that I may have missed?




Nope, the 4th Pitfiend is soooo boring! It is slightly more intriguing than a Goblin Adept.

And this Monster, this Pit Fiend, is the elite of Hell?
This is from the Monster emons & Devils article:


> Devils work to gain influence in the cosmos, especially among mortals in the world. They eagerly respond to any summons and readily form cleverly worded pacts. They plan and build to meet their needs, making and using all sorts of devices, tools, and weapons. A devil might be supernaturally potent, and it might possess incredible magic items, but its greatest assets are its shrewdly calculating mind and eternal patience. Devils want to impose a sort of order -- specifically theirs -- on the cosmos.




Huh? Where are the devices and tools beside the Mace? Incredible magic Items? My A@@!

Where is ANY mechanical implication that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?

As for the "low damage output". Two Pit Fiends duelling against each other, just using their melee abilities will take an average of 30 rounds to kill each other.

This does not look good to me!


----------



## Lizard

Hussar said:
			
		

> A thought on the slide ability:
> 
> Possibly it's termed "slide" because you need line of effect?  It's not really a teleport, but, you move from point A to point B instantly, so long as you have line of effect?




This fits with the elf ability to make a '2 square slide'. I suspect everyone will be able to make a '1 square slide', the 4e version of the 5 foot step.


----------



## Just Another User

Rechan said:
			
		

> So, to try and conceptualize this... The wizard is basically factoring in a BAB into an ability check.
> 
> Let's say a dex check to avoid falling on his ass while walking on some ice. 10th level Wizard has no higher dex than 1st level wizard, but 10th level Wizard, being more awesome and having dealt with pitching ship decks and walking narrow ledges, just Knows how to walk so he doesn't spill on his ass.




But, of course, being the ice you walk on at 10 level  more slippery than the ice you walk on at 1st level, you will have the same chances to slip and fall at 1st and at 10th level.


----------



## Lizard

Just Another User said:
			
		

> But, of course, being the ice you walk on at 10 level  more slippery than the ice you walk on at 1st level, you will have the same chances to slip and fall at 1st and at 10th level.




It's magic extraplanar ice.

Actually, that's kind of cool.

Er...no pun intended. Really!


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Khaim said:
			
		

> I've been thinking the same thing. Although now I wonder: what if the pit fiend was using a 2-hand weapon?




Oh er, how about you just start adding a flat bonus past d12? Or perhaps 4e has delicious d14s!


----------



## AllisterH

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> I can't see tracking _total_ fire damage in a round (especially across all attacks from all the PCs) separate from all other damage being a very smooth mechanic. Makes much more sense that it's per attack. Also, I wouldn't like it if, as the SAGA shields, once Fire Resistance takes X damage, it's simply gone for the rest of the encounter.




If it is like SAGA, then it is per attack and it wouldn't be as gone as quickly as that. For example, if it does follow the Shield Rating rules, our pit fiend has fire resistance 30. Which means that you need to do more than 30 pts of damage to eve affect it and if you do, the resistance drops b 5. 

A nice mechanic I think. Reason being that if you are a fire specialist you're not totally hosed yet at the same time, if you have fire resist 10, it does provide a benefit that you will notice.


----------



## Koewn

Lizard said:
			
		

> (And why do people think suicide bomber devils are so cool? To me, it makes everything seem painfully gamey...the summoned devils aren't "really" devils, they're a special effect for an explosion power. I find it almost unbearably cheesy.)




I reconciled it in my mind by changing it from "devil explodes; dies" to "devil violently plane shifts back to Hell; in his wake, some of the fires of that infernal plane blow back out onto the Prime".

Like that flame out you get opening a door in a fire...er..Backdraft! That's the word I'm looking for.

Koewn


----------



## FireLance

Looking through the pit fiend's abilities again, it seems like it's more Soldier than Leader as it doesn't have many Leader-type abilities: just the teleporting (which admittedly can be quite nasty in itself though it does use up a standard action), and the allied devil exploding. In addition, I personally think it would be nicer if Irresistable Command could be used as an immediate reaction to an allied devil going below 0 hp, which turns it into something that gives its lower-level allies a "last gasp" attack instead of just being a "blow up my minions" ability.


----------



## Stogoe

Nearly everything has been said in this monster of a thread, but I just wanted to say I absolutely love having teleport as a movement type.  That is amazingly awesome.

EDIT:  I just had a thought.  The Pit Fiend Frenzy ability is likely an example of how an Elite monster keeps up with 5 PCs - it gets two standard actions 'squeezed' into one.


----------



## Just Another User

A thing I found interesting is that the aura of fire only affects *enemies* in his range, I can understand the aura of fear doing that, and if the pit fiend's side count only devils is probably irrelevant becasue they have probably resist fire 15 or more, but I didn't thought that a fire aura would be so selective with his targets. What if the P.F. have some non devil allies? or what if I can, someway, remove its or its allies fire resistance? (I hire one of those red dragons great wyrms, the ones that can burn a fire elemental to a crisp, for example). There are little things like this that ruin 4e for me.


----------



## jasin

JoelF said:
			
		

> I'm surprized no one mentioned that the Point of Terror is a fear affect which gives a -5 to all defenses.  I'm having trouble seeing how being scared, even REALLY scared, would affect your fort defense.  I get that if you're scared you don't defend against physical attacks and don't dodge as quick, and your mental strength (Will) would be weaker, but how does being scared make your more vulnerable to poison?



Did this ever bother you in 3E?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Nope, the 4th Pitfiend is soooo boring! It is slightly more intriguing than a Goblin Adept.
> 
> And this Monster, this Pit Fiend, is the elite of Hell?
> This is from the Monster emons & Devils article:
> 
> 
> Huh? Where are the devices and tools beside the Mace? Incredible magic Items? My A@@!
> 
> Where is ANY mechanical implication that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?
> 
> As for the "low damage output". Two Pit Fiends duelling against each other, just using their melee abilities will take an average of 30 rounds to kill each other.
> 
> This does not look good to me!



Well, Dwarves are often said to be good crafters and smiths, but strangely enough, the 3.5 MM doesn't list "Artisan Tools" or "Anvil and Hammer" as equipment for the Dwarf. 

Though off course that just "proves" that 3.x made the same mistake as 4E, by not describing 100 % of the abilities and items a certain creature uses.


----------



## Lackhand

FireLance said:
			
		

> Looking through the pit fiend's abilities again, it seems like it's more Soldier than Leader as it doesn't have many Leader-type abilities: just the teleporting (which admittedly can be quite nasty in itself though it does use up a standard action), and the allied devil exploding. In addition, I personally think it would be nicer if Irresistable Command could be used as an immediate reaction to an allied devil going below 0 hp, which turns it into something that gives its lower-level allies a "last gasp" attack instead of just being a "blow up my minions" ability.



Also its +4 to summoned creatures and a few nice debuffs.
And the fact that it always brings a crowd to a party.

It occurs to me that, still, no loot pictured: it may be that (random speculation) all humanoids at a certain tech level (say, all humanoids without the 'savage' descriptor, or all eternal humanoids + humanoids with class levels) get to use the NPC charts for wealth. That'd mean that big, red, and ugly there would get some significant boost in which tricks he could pull.
He probably wouldn't get to use too many Instruments, as his weapon and armor are already tied up, and his wings would get in the way of a cloak.

Hmm.


----------



## FourthBear

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Huh? Where are the devices and tools beside the Mace? Incredible magic Items? My A@@!
> 
> Where is ANY mechanical implication that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?



Do you actually think that you'll be able to capture even a fraction of the devices and tools possibly available to a Pit Fiend in a standard combat block?  That's for the DM to devise for a particular encounter.  Do we really want to give *every* Pit Fiend in existence a list of devices and tools available to them?  'Cause that's the result of over-specifying in your standard stat block.

As to the social implications, this is a stat block with the primary use in combat encounters.  It does have Bluff, Intimidate and Relgiion skills noted, so it is incorrect to say that is has no mechanical implications for social interaction.  How many more social skills do you want in this stat block (which, again, would result in giving those as standard to *every* Pit Fiend)?


----------



## Fifth Element

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'll just assume that the 4E devs are not morons



Words to live by. Though such an assumption would certainly reduce the number of threads in the 4E forum...


----------



## The Crippler

Ah, so this is where the real discussion is.  The news item only has a page and a half of discussion! 

I think that this monster is a wuss, a chump, a loser and worst of all, boring for the DM to run.  At 26th level, a monster should be able to do more then just one of 3 possible options.  He should have choices that are interesting!  Instead, he sits back and... blows up his own minions?  I can't imagine him lasting too long in combat, since his damage-dealing just does not seem too impressive.  Remember, HPs are going UP in 4th Ed. and there are going to be a lot more sources of healing.  A lot of people are saying that it's because you should now expect to face a number of foes all at the same time.  Well, that doesn't make sense to me.  Am I supposed to assume that the PCs will be fighting five of these guys at once?  That's not streamlining combat -that's turning the game into Gauntlet.  

Here's what's really worrying me.  I'm not impressed with this design and that says to me that, once again, high-level play design has not been given the attention it deserves.  Do you remember how the 3rd edition Pit Fiend was a chump?  Then, when 3.5 came out they beefed him up significantly.  The designers realized that they had erred on the side of caution by too large a margin.  Players don't want pushover monsters when you're talking about the iconics.  They want a tough, memorable fight.  This guy may be tough (lots of HP)... but I'm not so sure about memorable.


----------



## Grazzt

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The article states:  "Nobles of the Nine Hells, pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils. Only the archdevils known as the Lords of the Nine stand higher than the pit fiends."
> 
> If dukes of the hells do exist, that means that the pit fiends all outrank them, which doesn't make them seem very special to me at all.  In this case, they would occupy quite a different niche than the dukes of earlier editions (big surprise there).
> 
> So they may be in 4e, but they would be pointless.




End of the article mentions this:

"Well-known pit fiends include Baalzephon, one of the powerful circle of pit fiends known as the Dark Eight; Gazra, who governs the city of Abriymoch in Phlegethos, the Fourth Hell; and Baalberith, the major-domo of the palace of Asmodeus."


Maybe all the dukes are now just pit fiends? If so, not a fan. 

Baalzephon was mentioned in the 1e MM2 (beginning of the devils section where it lists a lot of the uniques), Prime Minister of Dis, and Baalberith (same book), Major Domo for Asmodeus. Dont recall seeing their stats anywhere in 1e and I dont think they were in Dragon 75 or 76 (Ed Greenwood's articles on the Nine Hells), but most dukes weren't pit fiends (except Hutijin)


----------



## DaveMage

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You might consider to "re-use" some of his special abilities, "Irresistable Command" could be an interesting ability for that purpose.




Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about the pit fiend using allies as bombs.

I think I'd just prefer a fireball, although the flavor is...interesting.  Seems more of a demon's tactic, though, to sacrifice your own allies, but I'm probably thinking in non-4E terms there.


----------



## Grazzt

The Crippler said:
			
		

> This guy may be tough (lots of HP)... but I'm not so sure about memorable.




It'll be memorable- he can blow up his minions   (yeah- not a fan of that idea myself)


----------



## DaveMage

Grazzt said:
			
		

> It'll be memorable- he can blow up his minions   (yeah- not a fan of that idea myself)




Think of the potential, though!

All he needs is a wand of charm (or somesuch) to make a PC an ally, then blow him up!

Heck, everyone will be looking for that magic item that grants the same power the pit fiend has.  It'll be a new schtick.  Charm & Blow!


----------



## rkanodia

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Think of the potential, though!
> 
> All he needs is a wand of charm (or somesuch) to make a PC an ally, then blow him up!
> 
> Heck, everyone will be looking for that magic item that grants the same power the pit fiend has.  It'll be a new schtick.  Charm & Blow!



Irresistible Command only works on an allied _devil_.  So now he'll need a Wand of Polymorph to go with it


----------



## Grazzt

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Think of the potential, though!
> 
> All he needs is a wand of charm (or somesuch) to make a PC an ally, then blow him up!
> 
> Heck, everyone will be looking for that magic item that grants the same power the pit fiend has.  It'll be a new schtick.  Charm & Blow!




Good point Dave. Blowing up charmed allies works. Might have to try that one. And yeah- Charm and Blow for sure


----------



## Fifth Element

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Is anyone else bothered by the poor writing?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Sigh. I'm still looking forward to 4th edition. I'm just tired of bad writing.



Are we really at the point of examining each adjective used to determine whether it was _really_ necessary?

This is an excellent bit of preview they've given us, and all we can do is complain about a few specific phrases?


----------



## Brig

The Crippler said:
			
		

> Ah, so this is where the real discussion is.  The news item only has a page and a half of discussion!
> 
> I think that this monster is a wuss, a chump, a loser and worst of all, boring for the DM to run.  At 26th level, a monster should be able to do more then just one of 3 possible options.  He should have choices that are interesting!  Instead, he sits back and... blows up his own minions?  I can't imagine him lasting too long in combat, since his damage-dealing just does not seem too impressive.  Remember, HPs are going UP in 4th Ed. and there are going to be a lot more sources of healing.  A lot of people are saying that it's because you should now expect to face a number of foes all at the same time.  Well, that doesn't make sense to me.  Am I supposed to assume that the PCs will be fighting five of these guys at once?  That's not streamlining combat -that's turning the game into Gauntlet.




Your should not be facing a numbe rof pit fiends but he should have allies in addition to his summoned devils. He is considered an elite (leader) monster so there should be other monsters to fill other roles in the combat. One of his more powerful and memorable abilities is to move two of his allies around the battlefield axhibiting an interesting battlefield control aspect to the pit fiend.  I also would not underestimate the use of this battlefield control.  I can think of numerous interesting tactis to use with him that should give PCs a satisfying encounter (though I do not know exactly what 26th level PCs will look like and I could change my opinion). Color me impressed and excited by this preview.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing anything from this preview to port to my 3.5 game.
> 
> Anyone staying with 3.5 see anything interesting that I may have missed?



Nope, in fact I see several things I really don't like.  Especially the complete 2d-ness of the Pit Fiend.


----------



## Hjorimir

The Crippler said:
			
		

> Ah, so this is where the real discussion is.  The news item only has a page and a half of discussion!
> 
> I think that this monster is a wuss, a chump, a loser and worst of all, boring for the DM to run.  At 26th level, a monster should be able to do more then just one of 3 possible options.  He should have choices that are interesting!  Instead, he sits back and... blows up his own minions?  I can't imagine him lasting too long in combat, since his damage-dealing just does not seem too impressive.  Remember, HPs are going UP in 4th Ed. and there are going to be a lot more sources of healing.  A lot of people are saying that it's because you should now expect to face a number of foes all at the same time.  Well, that doesn't make sense to me.  Am I supposed to assume that the PCs will be fighting five of these guys at once?  That's not streamlining combat -that's turning the game into Gauntlet.



HPs are going up...at 1st level. Overall, without benefit of +CON items, I'm betting you'll see a decrease in HPs overall. The pit fiend is listed as an Elite monster, which means he is 2 of the 4 monsters assumed against a group of 5 characters (I think). So, you can add in another pit fiend or a couple of others as you desire.



			
				The Crippler said:
			
		

> Here's what's really worrying me.  I'm not impressed with this design and that says to me that, once again, high-level play design has not been given the attention it deserves.  Do you remember how the 3rd edition Pit Fiend was a chump?  Then, when 3.5 came out they beefed him up significantly.  The designers realized that they had erred on the side of caution by too large a margin.  Players don't want pushover monsters when you're talking about the iconics.  They want a tough, memorable fight.  This guy may be tough (lots of HP)... but I'm not so sure about memorable.



I just don't think we know nearly enough to know how tough a pit fiend really is. I do know this, though: When you insert something meant to be an iconic, memorable battle in you game, do you choose a monster that represents an EL equal to that of the group or do you put in something above them? I know that I go above them if I want to really challenge them with something memorable.


----------



## Lizard

So if someone disarms the pit fiend, how much damage does he do with his claws?

Since has a fire aura, do his claw attacks also do fire damage, on top of the aura?

Or can he not make any claw attacks, since they're not listed. Slam? Generic Unarmed?

How much of his armor bonus is the breastplate he's supposed to be wearing, and how much is his thick demonic hide? Someone can Sunder that armor, after all.

Or are these questions, somehow, not relevant to combat, and thus don't need to be in the stat block?

The massive wall-o-numbers which is the 3x stat block does more than tell you their ranks in Profession (Juggling). It gives you data to deal with what happens when what the beasties walks in with isn't there anymore and the combat is still going on. I know that touch AC is now Reflex Defense, and that Armor Class is Reflex+Armor Bonus, but there's no breakdown of where that armor bonus comes from. And, YES, it matters, in real-world play in the "preferred" style of monster-whompin'. 

(Or is there now no disarm, no sunder, no armor-destroying spells or effects, etc? Is the mace not "real", but some kind of construct the Pit Fiend can reform at will? The latter is possible, and saves the problem of collecting the mace after he's dead, but it ought to be explicit if so.)


----------



## Geron Raveneye

What amuses me in this thread is the number of people insisting that the ability of the Pit Fiend to summon allies (and in fact, as an elite monster, should be USED as if it was designed with allies in mind) is an asset, and a great idea...while looking back at the Rakshasa/Ogre Mage "redesign" discussions, I see plenty of posters who scoffed at and ridiculed the idea that the CR of either monster was set with their _charmed_ allies and cronies in mind. Really funny that.  Seems an edition change can simply polish old ideas and make them palatable all of a sudden.


----------



## Lackhand

If someone can sunder that armor, they're using house rules.

Someone could totally fling a rust monster in his face, though, channeling some alternate-dimension, magical-beast-wrangling Belkar.


----------



## Lackhand

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> What amuses me in this thread is the number of people insisting that the ability of the Pit Fiend to summon allies (and in fact, as an elite monster, should be USED as if it was designed with allies in mind) is an asset, and a great idea...while looking back at the Rakshasa/Ogre Mage "redesign" discussions, I see plenty of posters who scoffed at and ridiculed the idea that the CR of either monster was set with their _charmed_ allies and cronies in mind. Really funny that.  Seems an edition change can simply polish old ideas and make them palatable all of a sudden.



I'd have agreed with that notion if there were a handy list of what those companions might have been in the stat block or writeup. 

there is a madness to my method.


----------



## Lord Zack

My major problem with these stats is that the pit fiend only has one choice each round: does he use irresistible command or point of terror? He doesn't have a choice of using frenzy or something else or any other choices. I know they're trying to make monsters easier to run, but I think this goes a bit too far.


----------



## Lizard

Lackhand said:
			
		

> If someone can sunder that armor, they're using house rules.




How so? Seriously, I'm asking without sarcasm or rancor.

In 3e, it's based on Armor bonus*5. We don't know what the AB is, but it's somewhere between his Reflex Defense and his Armor Defense. Given the damage output of a level 26 character, and the fact there's almost certainly some kind of Sundering Talent Tree (as it's the kind of fun, dramatic, thing you see in a lot of high fantasy and the 3e *doesn't* do well, making it a perfect 'target' for improvement in 4e), I do not see why the breastplate can't be sundered. Certainly, there's nothing in the writeup which says "The Pit Fiend wears an unsunderable breastplate and has his mace crazy-glued to his hand".


----------



## Lackhand

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder said:
			
		

> Sunder
> 
> You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)
> Step 1
> 
> Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder. (If you have the Improved Sunder feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making the attempt.)
> Step 2
> 
> Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.
> Step 3
> 
> Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield.
> 
> If you fail the sunder attempt, you don’t deal any damage.
> Sundering a Carried or Worn Object
> 
> You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. *You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. *




Man, I'm gonna miss the ability to do that (spit out the relevant text) in 4e.


----------



## Quantarum

Fear is more than a psychological effect, it also causes a variety of physiological effects. When your heart is beating faster blood born toxins spread faster. Intense fear can cause nausea, shaking and even death due to stress on the cardiovascular system. -2 seems reasonable to me.
  I hope this example is a baseline pitfiend, with no bells or whistles and that the actual MM entry encourages and lists powers to make particular fiends unique. Maybe one can flamestrike once per encounter while another can cloak his minions in various illusions. The example is fairly vanilla, but I believe the MM will be full of sprinkles and syrups to make every encounter non-standard. (May have carried the ice cream metaphor too far.)
  Don't much care for the drawing, I'm pretty fond of the old pitfiend design. Glad I got two of the minis.    

-Q.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lizard said:
			
		

> So if someone disarms the pit fiend, how much damage does he do with his claws?
> 
> Since has a fire aura, do his claw attacks also do fire damage, on top of the aura?
> 
> Or can he not make any claw attacks, since they're not listed. Slam? Generic Unarmed?
> 
> How much of his armor bonus is the breastplate he's supposed to be wearing, and how much is his thick demonic hide? Someone can Sunder that armor, after all.
> 
> Or are these questions, somehow, not relevant to combat, and thus don't need to be in the stat block?
> 
> The massive wall-o-numbers which is the 3x stat block does more than tell you their ranks in Profession (Juggling). It gives you data to deal with what happens when what the beasties walks in with isn't there anymore and the combat is still going on. I know that touch AC is now Reflex Defense, and that Armor Class is Reflex+Armor Bonus, but there's no breakdown of where that armor bonus comes from. And, YES, it matters, in real-world play in the "preferred" style of monster-whompin'.
> 
> (Or is there now no disarm, no sunder, no armor-destroying spells or effects, etc? Is the mace not "real", but some kind of construct the Pit Fiend can reform at will? The latter is possible, and saves the problem of collecting the mace after he's dead, but it ought to be explicit if so.)




Although some of your concerns are not supported by the rules of 3.x, you have some really good points. An improvement from 3.0 to 3.5 was that touch AC, and BAB was listed, to cover those situations where it could be relevant. But maybe we have all informations needed in this block, but we just don´t know yet. This is what i hope.

A listing for a claw attack would be nice however.

Two things worth to mention:

1."Rituals":
since a pit fiend can make a ritual to grant a wish, it could be safe to assume that somewhere in the GENERAL DEVIL description or on the GENERAL MONSTER description there are some parts about monsters beeing able to perform rituals.

2."Bad writing":
The setup of the article is like an article in a newspaper. The first two lines are a very short version of what is coming in the rest. So if you are browsing through the monster entries, you only need to read those two lines to know if it is worthwile to read further. SO this is actually "good writing".


----------



## Lizard

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Man, I'm gonna miss the ability to do that (spit out the relevant text) in 4e.




Huh.

So...sunder is basically useless? No wonder I've never seen anyone use it...

Not sure why I can split someone's sword, shield, or other "worn object" in half, but not their armor...makes precious little sense. Oh well, you're right -- it would require house rules.


----------



## Just Another User

Grog said:
			
		

> But since most every devil in the hells probably knows about the Irresistible Command ability, why would any devil ever agree to allow a Pit Fiend to designate him as an ally, knowing he'll just get blown up and instantly killed?




Because they are devils and devils, even without alignemnts, are still lawful.


----------



## Thaumaturge

I, for one, welcome our new Pit Fiend overlords.


You know, because it's page 10 and it hadn't been said yet. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Lizard

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> 1."Rituals":
> since a pit fiend can make a ritual to grant a wish, it could be safe to assume that somewhere in the GENERAL DEVIL description or on the GENERAL MONSTER description there are some parts about monsters beeing able to perform rituals.




This would nicely resolve my concern about no balanced, defined, way to add non-combat powers. If we have something like "Devils know one ritual per point of int bonus over 10" (or whatever) as a rule, that makes things Much Better Indeed.


----------



## Tharen the Damned

DaveMage said:
			
		

> All he needs is a wand of charm (or somesuch) to make a PC an ally, then blow him up!




You are still thinking in 3rd edition terms! We do not know if 1) Wnads as they were still are and b) Charm is Charm as it was.   

Me, thinking in 3rd edition Terms: A Pit Fiend Vampire! 1) Dominate 2) Slide 3) Boom there goes the Fighter...

EDIT: Won't be possible in 4th: because PC death is not fun!


----------



## frankthedm

Lizard said:
			
		

> Huh.
> 
> So...sunder is basically useless?



No, it is not. It can break weapopns, shields and just about any item other than armor. It does not have the use you thought it had, but in no way does that make sunder useless.

Now the fact the system encourages players to scrounge for every GP possible does make sunder undesirable for PCs. But NPCs with DR will find the feat very usefull if they do not have the Int for improved disarm.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Where is ANY *mechanical implication* that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?




(emphasis mine)

Do you really need one? The design attitude seems to be that the only thing they have to do for DMs is balance the combat stats of a monster. Everything else can be safely left to the DM's imagination.

As someone who is entirely comfortable figuring out all sorts of non-combat abilities and uses for a Pit Fiend, but not very good at balancing the math of combat, this is fine.

I agree they could use more fluff to get the ol' imagination going, give some suggestions, but just because something isn't in a stat block doesn't mean it isn't in your campaign.

EDIT: I should mention that "how much damage do his claws do?" is the kind of question I actually want in a stat block, as well...


----------



## Dragonblade

Lizard said:
			
		

> How so? Seriously, I'm asking without sarcasm or rancor.
> 
> In 3e, it's based on Armor bonus*5. We don't know what the AB is, but it's somewhere between his Reflex Defense and his Armor Defense. Given the damage output of a level 26 character, and the fact there's almost certainly some kind of Sundering Talent Tree (as it's the kind of fun, dramatic, thing you see in a lot of high fantasy and the 3e *doesn't* do well, making it a perfect 'target' for improvement in 4e), I do not see why the breastplate can't be sundered. Certainly, there's nothing in the writeup which says "The Pit Fiend wears an unsunderable breastplate and has his mace crazy-glued to his hand".




You can't sunder armor under current rules. Besides sunder is a broken mechanic anyway and should be gone. PCs never want to use it because it ruins their chance to get items from their opponents. But monsters can use it willy-nilly to destroy PC items.

Its like 1e days where Drow weapons disintegrated so that the PCs could never get them. Its an unfun mechanic that exists to screw players over and should be removed from the game.


----------



## Dragonblade

This write up is fantastic. As far as the Pit Fiend not having "social" abilities, who cares?

It was always just junk cluttering up the stat block before. As a DM I only need a stat block to serve one purpose: run the monster in a fight against PCs. Everything else the monster does I can just make up. In fact, as a DM who likes to run games on the fly with little prep, this is preferred.

Running improv games under 3.5 rules is a nightmare. Its the reason I no longer DM homebrew and only run canned adventures. 4e looks like it will be HUGE improvement over 3e in ease of DMing. And that is a very good thing.


----------



## Voss

Lizard said:
			
		

> This would nicely resolve my concern about no balanced, defined, way to add non-combat powers. If we have something like "Devils know one ritual per point of int bonus over 10" (or whatever) as a rule, that makes things Much Better Indeed.




Thats if his assumption that monsters will just have access to rituals is indeed true.  Nothing has actually indicated this, since pretty much everything on monsters has been focus solely on combat.


----------



## Professor Phobos

If anywhere in the 4th edition rules there is a statement like: "Monsters cannot use rituals." I will not buy the game either. And if I had already bought the game, I'd ignore that rule so aggressively it would retroactively vanish from the printing through the sheer force of my will.

But I suspect somewhere in the DMG there'll be something like, "Be sure to give your monsters any rituals you deem appropriate!"


----------



## Grog

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Where is ANY mechanical implication that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?



Where was such an implication in 1E? There weren't any, and yet I had no problem using all sorts of monsters as social encounters for my players.


----------



## Grog

The Crippler said:
			
		

> Remember, HPs are going UP in 4th Ed.



If you have concrete information to this effect, please post it.

Otherwise, I think you're off in your assumption. There won't be +Con items in 4E, so high level hit points could very well be lower than they were in 3E.


----------



## Bishmon

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> As a DM I only need a stat block to serve one purpose: run the monster in a fight against PCs. Everything else the monster does I can just make up.



Couldn't you do that anyway? I mean, if that out-of-combat stuff was there, couldn't you just ignore it and make it up yourself? 

What I'm saying is, if you're a DM who likes to make that stuff up, I don't really see how examples of that stuff being in the stat block will hinder you. But if you're a DM who doesn't like to make that stuff up, or isn't familiar enough with the monster to do so, I can absolutely see how that stuff not being in the stat block would hurt you.


----------



## Lord Zack

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> This write up is fantastic. As far as the Pit Fiend not having "social" abilities, who cares?
> 
> It was always just junk cluttering up the stat block before. As a DM I only need a stat block to serve one purpose: run the monster in a fight against PCs. Everything else the monster does I can just make up. In fact, as a DM who likes to run games on the fly with little prep, this is preferred.
> 
> Running improv games under 3.5 rules is a nightmare. Its the reason I no longer DM homebrew and only run canned adventures. 4e looks like it will be HUGE improvement over 3e in ease of DMing. And that is a very good thing.




So you're PCs never ever talk to anything?


----------



## Professor Phobos

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So you're PCs never ever talk to anything?




That wouldn't be what he said at all, and clearly a deliberate misreading on your part.


----------



## Rechan

helium3 said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Really? What happened to the whole thing in the . . . October? . . . podcast about the monsters and classes basically having been constructed under two entirely different systems? How can you just blop a couple of class levels onto a monster if they're entirely different?
> 
> If it was so easy to do that, why were they (at that time) struggling with multi-classing?



Yes, REALLY. 

Mearls has said that monsters Can Take Class Levels because, and I quote, "That's just too fun not to do."


----------



## Rechan

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Couldn't you do that anyway? I mean, if that out-of-combat stuff was there, couldn't you just ignore it and make it up yourself?



Then the stuff in the statblock is _in the way_. 

Three lines is much easier to navigate than twelve, etc.


----------



## rkanodia

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So you're PCs never ever talk to anything?



Straw Man argument, and the Pit Fiend has a 'Languages' block anyway.  Looks like you can Fail twice as a standard action.


----------



## Lord Zack

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> That wouldn't be what he said at all, and clearly a deliberate misreading on your part.






> As a DM I only need a stat block to serve one purpose: run the monster in a fight against PCs.




I don't know, how else do you interpret that?


----------



## frankthedm

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Its like 1e days where Drow weapons disintegrated so that the PCs could never get them. Its an unfun mechanic that exists to screw players over and should be removed from the game.



It exists so the Drow can provide the challenge they need to and to give a solid reason why the drow stay where they are at.


----------



## Bishmon

Rechan said:
			
		

> Then the stuff in the statblock is _in the way_.
> 
> Three lines is much easier to navigate than twelve, etc.



Then seperate it.

Seriously, have the barebones combat statblock. And then have a smaller block of recommended out-of-combat abilities. DMs that like to make that stuff up can just ignore the smaller block (especially if it's merely 'recommended'), and DMs that don't like to make that stuff at least have something to go on. And none of it gets in the way of the combat statblock.


----------



## Dragonblade

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Couldn't you do that anyway? I mean, if that out-of-combat stuff was there, couldn't you just ignore it and make it up yourself?
> 
> What I'm saying is, if you're a DM who likes to make that stuff up, I don't really see how examples of that stuff being in the stat block will hinder you. But if you're a DM who doesn't like to make that stuff up, or isn't familiar enough with the monster to do so, I can absolutely see how that stuff not being in the stat block would hurt you.




Sure fair enough. Then if they did have a social section, I would prefer it segregated from their combat abilities so I don't have to read through umpteen million spell-like abilities and try to decide if that is something the monster would do in combat, or if its just there for flavor.

Of course, I can deconstruct a complex stat block at my leisure, but I miss the days when I can crack open the MM and just run a monster on the fly without having to stop the game while I look up a bunch of different abilities. As long as they maintain that ease of play then I'm not opposed to adding a social section to a stat block.


----------



## Dragonblade

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So you're PCs never ever talk to anything?




Sure they do. But I don't need "social" stats for that. As a DM, I can make all that stuff up as needed. Thats easy.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> I don't know, how else do you interpret that?




By reading the sentence that comes next?



			
				Dude I agree with said:
			
		

> Everything else the monster does I can just make up.




I mean, you're really just being disingenuous here. It's not honest. You should stop.

EDIT: I should mention that a divided stat block is a perfectly acceptable compromise, as above.


----------



## Rechan

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> I don't know, how else do you interpret that?



That the _stat block_ is only for combat?

He didn't say "I only need monsters for one thing: combat". He said _stat block_. Where the _stats of the monster_ live.


----------



## Lord Zack

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Sure they do. But I don't need "social" stats for that. As a DM, I can make all that stuff up as needed. Thats easy.




So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.


----------



## Just Another User

Grazzt said:
			
		

> It'll be memorable- he can blow up his minions   (yeah- not a fan of that idea myself)



Honestly, I think it is a stupid ability, more fitting for a video game than a RPG (and I don't mean Diablo or WoW, I mean Super Mario).


----------



## Zsig

Have anyone figured out the "Recharge 4 5 6" already?

I'm with the impression it's something like this:

"On the beginning of your turn, roll a d6. On a result of 4 5 or 6, the ability recharges."

Other monsters' special attacks could have a better or worse chance, say, Dragon's Breath Weapon (Recharge 5 6), which would then replace the "once every 1d4 turns". 

Since it's a pain to keep track of turns, i don't think that that would be a bad idea.

If it's already been figured out before, sorry.

On another topic,
About the difficulty of the Pit Fiend himself, as many other people already pointed out, keep in mind that he's not a solo monster, but that doesn't mean he's not a boss type guy. More like a general. So on a given 26th encounter, would have him ("2/5") plus his soldiers ("3"), OR minions ("6") ... and that's not counting up the other mooks he can summon. So yeah, pretty nasty.


----------



## Reynard

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> As far as the Pit Fiend not having "social" abilities, who cares?...
> As a DM I only need a stat block to serve one purpose: run the monster in a fight against PCs.




Except in 4E there is a defined, almost "combat like" scoial interaction system.  if we were talking 1E here where in-character negotiations between PCs and NPCs were in fact out-of-character negatiations between the player(s) and DM (a system i prefer byt the way) this would be perfectly viable.  that's not the case.  Because there is a back and forth, almost tactical aspect to the forthcoming social interactions rules, creatures with whom the PCs might have social interaction need social abilities in their stat blocks.  Essentially, it is just another kind of combat.


----------



## Benimoto

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.



The Pit Fiend's skill list includes both Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, and if we're making any correct assumptions about skills, his Diplomacy skill is going to just be his modified Charasma check, +22.

So if the social interaction system is dependent on those scores, we're all set.  If it's not, then we have not idea is the stat block includes the relevant info.  I'm going to assume that it does, since assuming the designers "just forgot" is stretching it.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Reynard said:
			
		

> Except in 4E there is a defined, almost "combat like" scoial interaction system.




Is there really? I didn't know that.


----------



## Dragonblade

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.




This a good point. I haven't seen their social encounter system, but if additional social stats are needed to run a monster in that system, then I would hope that would be something the designers include in a statblock. It may already be there in the stat bonuses and we just don't know what we are looking at.


----------



## Fifth Element

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> I don't know, how else do you interpret that?



You read it _in the context of the entire post_. Not in isolation.


----------



## Benimoto

Zsig said:
			
		

> Have anyone figured out the "Recharge 4 5 6" already?
> 
> I'm with the impression it's something like this:
> 
> "On the beginning of your turn, roll a d6. On a result of 4 5 or 6, the ability recharges."
> 
> Other monsters' special attacks could have a better or worse chance, say, Dragon's Breath Weapon (Recharge 5 6), which would then replace the "once every 1d4 turns".
> 
> Since it's a pain to keep track of turns, i don't think that that would be a bad idea.
> 
> If it's already been figured out before, sorry.



I'm curious about that myself.  In the D&D minis rules, the rechargeable special abilities recharge when some tactical condition is met, like "recharge when an adjacent enemy becomes bloodied", "recharge when this creature takes damage", "recharge when there are two or more enemies adjacent".  It's possible that "4 5 6" could refer to a chart of those possibilities.  Alternately it could be, as you suggest, a die roll and all the tactical stuff is just be the minis game's way of making things more tactical.

EDIT: Another idea is that the Pit Fiend's "Action Points 1" might mean 1 action point die a round, and if he ever rolls a 4 5 or 6 on it, his teleport gets recharged.  A little weird, but we're just brainstorming here.


----------



## Grazzt

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think it is a stupid ability, more fitting for a video game than a RPG (and I don't mean Diablo or WoW, I mean Super Mario).




Agreed. Should my group ever encounter a 4e pit fiend it will be house-ruled not to have the 'explode your allies' ability (unless of course, as mentioned above, it can charm or polymorph the PCs into allies and then blow them up).


----------



## Remathilis

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.




In 3.5
Balance +10, Bluff +29, Climb +34, Concentration +29, Diplomacy +10, Disguise +29 (+31 acting), Hide +25, Intimidate +31, Jump +40, Knowledge (arcana) +29, Knowledge (nature) +10, Knowledge (the planes) +29, Knowledge (religion) +29, Listen +29, Move Silently +29, Search +29, Spellcraft +31, Spot +29, Survival +8 (+10 on other planes, +10 when tracking), Tumble +31

in 4.0
Skills Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24
Str 32 (+24) Dex 24 (+20) Wis 20 (+18) Con 27 (+21) Int 22 (+19) Cha 28 (+22) 

So:
Balance +10/+20
Bluff: +29/+27
Climb +34/+24 (really, it can teleport and has wings, but I digress)
Concentration +29/+21
Diplomacy*: +10/+22
Disguise*: +29/+22
Hide* +25/+20
Intimidate +31/+27
Jump +40/+24 (see climb)
Knowledge (arcana) +29/+19
Knowledge (nature) +10/+19
Knowledge (the planes)* +29/+24** 
Knowledge (religion) +29/+24
Listen* +29/+18
Move Silently* +29/+20 
Search* +29/+19
Spellcraft* +31/+19
Spot* +29/+19
Survival +8/+18
Tumble* +31/+20

* This skill is getting merged with another somewhere down the line in 4e.
** Uses his religion skill, since planar knowledge seems to be religion-based


----------



## Just Another User

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats if his assumption that monsters will just have access to rituals is indeed true.  Nothing has actually indicated this, since pretty much everything on monsters has been focus solely on combat.



Somewhere it was mentioned that devils use rituals for long range teleportaion and in this same article is said that pit fiends use rituals to concede wishes, and in a FR article were mentioned rituals using nagas. I think it is out of discussion that some monsters can use rituals, the only problem is which ones.

but speaking of things monsters can and cannot do, does the pit fiend get the extra dice of damage on a critical from its magic mace? I'd like to get an answer about that.


----------



## neceros

kodyboy said:
			
		

> If I wanted to play a video game I would.......why are they trying to make D&D into one?



They aren't.

There have been quite a few irritating comments so far, so I'm gonna say this to everyone and not target one point of view.

The developers are opening the system up for DMs to do what they like. They are not restricting people to playing monsters the way they think it should be done. This is evident from the lack of entries regarding day to day life. That sort of information shouldn't exist in a mechanics book, since it's frivolous in a combat related encounter.

Those details are left for the DM to make up. Why does that upset people? Do you want Wizards to tell you how to run everything in your game? Most people I see writing on here are complaining that they are restricting you too much with their minor setting and back stories.

Read between the lines.

Personally, this monster entry looks great. Concise abilities that are easy to pick out during combat. Powerful in melee, smart enough to use tactics. Summons to help him with bad PCs and teleport and fly at will. He's very tactical, as a Leader should be.


If you want your pitfiends to run a circus in his off time or lounge around and do nothing, then that's up to you. The devs are allowing you that freedom because it's your game.


----------



## GoLu

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think it is a stupid ability, more fitting for a video game than a RPG (and I don't mean Diablo or WoW, I mean Super Mario).




Come to think of it, it _was_ a Diablo ability.  Remember the expansion to Diablo 2 where you had those taskmaster guys with the whips (like Shenk the Overseer) who would turn the generic local grunt demons into these bloated sprinting things that would hurl themselves at you and then blow up in your face?


----------



## rkanodia

Zsig said:
			
		

> Have anyone figured out the "Recharge 4 5 6" already?
> 
> I'm with the impression it's something like this:
> 
> "On the beginning of your turn, roll a d6. On a result of 4 5 or 6, the ability recharges."
> 
> Other monsters' special attacks could have a better or worse chance, say, Dragon's Breath Weapon (Recharge 5 6), which would then replace the "once every 1d4 turns".
> 
> Since it's a pain to keep track of turns, i don't think that that would be a bad idea.
> 
> If it's already been figured out before, sorry.



Sounds plausible.  If you're right, then I think it's rather revealing that it says "Recharge 4 5 6" rather than "Recharge 4".  It would mean that higher isn't necessarily better - for instance, a monster could have one ability with 'Recharge 3 4', and another with 'Recharge 5 6', meaning that he can't get them both back on the same turn.


----------



## med stud

When I read the blow-your-allys-up ability I got this thought: Asmodeus has made the pit fiends to his direct underlings. When he did that he also gave them absolute authority over the other devils, even to the point of destroying them at will. That's the reason why they are number 2 in the hierarchy.

You could find a devil that would cover a continent and still it would follow the pit fiends commands to the letter.

That's where their power comes from; not from being able to one-shot angels or wielding +5 equipment.

Besides, two pit fiends in one encounter looks like it can be Hell on Earth (he he). Two auras dealing 15 damage per round, lots of summoned devils and teleportations all over the battle field.


----------



## BryonD

neceros said:
			
		

> The developers are opening the system up for DMs to do what they like. They are not restricting people to playing monsters the way they think it should be done. This is evident from the lack of entries regarding day to day life. That sort of information shouldn't exist in a mechanics book, since it's frivolous in a combat related encounter.
> 
> Those details are left for the DM to make up.



According to WotC this is exactly the opposite of what they are doing.  Mearls flat out stated in one of the podcasts that prior editions required a really good DM and that now 4E will help carry the weight.  

And they have removed a lot of combat options.  It is far from just out of combat stuff that is gone.  This Pit Fiend is vastly more predictable in combat.  Just like video game monsters.


----------



## Lord Zack

Remathilis said:
			
		

> In 3.5
> Balance +10, Bluff +29, Climb +34, Concentration +29, Diplomacy +10, Disguise +29 (+31 acting), Hide +25, Intimidate +31, Jump +40, Knowledge (arcana) +29, Knowledge (nature) +10, Knowledge (the planes) +29, Knowledge (religion) +29, Listen +29, Move Silently +29, Search +29, Spellcraft +31, Spot +29, Survival +8 (+10 on other planes, +10 when tracking), Tumble +31
> 
> in 4.0
> Skills Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24
> Str 32 (+24) Dex 24 (+20) Wis 20 (+18) Con 27 (+21) Int 22 (+19) Cha 28 (+22)
> 
> So:
> Balance +10/+20
> Bluff: +29/+27
> Climb +34/+24 (really, it can teleport and has wings, but I digress)
> Concentration +29/+21
> Diplomacy*: +10/+22
> Disguise*: +29/+22
> Hide* +25/+20
> Intimidate +31/+27
> Jump +40/+24 (see climb)
> Knowledge (arcana) +29/+19
> Knowledge (nature) +10/+19
> Knowledge (the planes)* +29/+24**
> Knowledge (religion) +29/+24
> Listen* +29/+18
> Move Silently* +29/+20
> Search* +29/+19
> Spellcraft* +31/+19
> Spot* +29/+19
> Survival +8/+18
> Tumble* +31/+20
> 
> * This skill is getting merged with another somewhere down the line in 4e.
> ** Uses his religion skill, since planar knowledge seems to be religion-based




That's a very good point. But I'm kinda worried that they're losing stuff like create undead and persistant image that are useful out side of combat. And it's one thing to say that the DM can just make it up, but players tend to get annoyed if DM make stuff up willy nilly. What's the difference between making up an attack method mid combat because you feel the moinster should have it and having a monster create an illusion of itself that that the PCs will spend resources fighting or whatever? Not much to me.


----------



## med stud

BryonD said:
			
		

> According to WotC this is exactly the opposite of what they are doing.  Mearls flat out stated in one of the podcasts that prior editions required a really good DM and that now 4E will help carry the weight.
> 
> And they have removed a lot of combat options.  It is far from just out of combat stuff that is gone.  This Pit Fiend is vastly more predictable in combat.  Just like video game monsters.



Really, an old school pit fiend would be pretty predictable as well. As a monster has a life span of about 4 rounds in a standard combat it's options are limited. I can't imagine a pit fiend casting animate dead or the like in a serious combat.

There are lots of ways to be unpredictable with long spell lists etc but there are few ways to be unpredictable in a sane way.


----------



## Zsig

Just Another User said:
			
		

> but speaking of things monsters can and cannot do, does the pit fiend get the extra dice of damage on a critical from its magic mace? I'd like to get an answer about that.




From what we learned so far, only +X weapons adds up damage on critical hits, though, there's nothing on the Pit Fiend's stats that implies his weapon is +1 or better.

That's weird cuz it leads me to believe that now magic weapons could have a magical property without first having a minimum +1 on it (which is good IMO).


...or not, and monsters each receive their own specific weapons that doesn't work out like the ones the players have/use, and have their own rules written on the monster stats.


----------



## Just Another User

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Agreed. Should my group ever encounter a 4e pit fiend it will be house-ruled not to have the 'explode your allies' ability (unless of course, as mentioned above, it can charm or polymorph the PCs into allies and then blow them up).




Actually what bother me more is the "slide" part, i'm not really sure why.


----------



## med stud

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> That's a very good point. But I'm kinda worried that they're losing stuff like create undead and persistant image that are useful out side of combat. And it's one thing to say that the DM can just make it up, but players tend to get annoyed if DM make stuff up willy nilly. What's the difference between making up an attack method mid combat because you feel the moinster should have it and having a monster create an illusion of itself that that the PCs will spend resources fighting or whatever? Not much to me.



Personally I consider it a failure if my players can predict my BBEGs . If the players get annoyed because they can't metagame with their knowledge of the MM there is something wrong IMO...


----------



## BryonD

med stud said:
			
		

> Really, an old school pit fiend would be pretty predictable as well. As a monster has a life span of about 4 rounds in a standard combat it's options are limited. I can't imagine a pit fiend casting animate dead or the like in a serious combat.
> 
> There are lots of ways to be unpredictable with long spell lists etc but there are few ways to be unpredictable in a sane way.



That is not my experience.  

Even if you assume a poorly played Pit Fiend stands toe-to-toe and goes down in 4 rounds (a really bad assumption), at least it won't replay almost exactly the same the next time.


----------



## frankthedm

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Agreed. Should my group ever encounter a 4e pit fiend it will be house-ruled not to have the 'explode your allies' ability (unless of course, as mentioned above, it can charm or polymorph the PCs into allies and then blow them up).



That ablility has a fair amout of use IMHO. Getting the weak or debuffed out of melee and opening up charges for other, meaner allies, when the teleport ally is still recharging. Also it allows a DM who is burning out/crashing to reduce the amount of minis he has to mess around with  . 

I like the Pit fiend able to use lesser devels as if pawns on a chessboard. Hopefully I was not the only ones thinking his summons are pawns and rooks.


----------



## Shroomy

So, I'm assuming that a "slide" is movement that does not provoke opportunity attacks, which would make sense, since you don't want your bomb to be killed before it gets a chance to explode.

I have to say, exploding allies and the auras makes large groupings of PCs very dangerous.


----------



## Benimoto

frankthedm said:
			
		

> That ablility has a fair amout of use IMHO. Getting the weak or debuffed out of melee and opening up charges for other, meaner allies, when the teleport ally is still recharging. Also it allows a DM who is burning out/crashing to reduce the amount of minis he has to mess around with  .
> 
> I like the Pit fiend able to use lesser devels as if pawns on a chessboard. Hopefully I was not the only ones thinking his summons are pawns and rooks.



I agree.  I haven't read Worlds and Monsters yet, but aren't the Devils immortal fearless beings to whom death is a mere temporary inconvenience?  The Pit Fiend himself is a "Large immortal humanoid".  What's the good of a lawful evil hierarchy if you can't treat creatures lower on the scale than you as literal cannon fodder.  And for all we know, following the orders of a Pit Fiend to death might be something that devils actually clamor for.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.




Well, seeing as how it's, like, a role-playing game and all, he and his group might be planning to, ya know, role-play.  As opposed to rolling Diplomacy checks as if it were just another type of combat.


----------



## Lord Zack

Simon Atavax said:
			
		

> Well, seeing as how it's, like, a role-playing game and all, he and his group might be planning to, ya know, role-play.  As opposed to rolling Diplomacy checks as if it were just another type of combat.




Talking in character is not what role playing means.


----------



## Hjorimir

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> Talking in character is not what role playing means.



Slippery slope there, Zack. Role-playing means a lot of different things to people around here.


----------



## Rechan

I'm curious. To those who think the Pit Fiend's exploding allies thing is stupid:

Did you also think the exploding Balor was stupid?

One detonates devils, one detonates upon death. Not a lot of difference.


----------



## Lord Zack

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Slippery slope there, Zack. Role-playing means a lot of different things to people around here.




Well thats not what it means to me. Besides, a system for determining success in a non-combat encounter and talking in character are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I just noticed, that ridiculous amounts of natural armor for creatures seems to be gone. This means that touching high level mosters is not as easy as stealing a candy from a 5 year old. (ref is just 6 lower than AC, this could either be his breastplate (not mentioned in the equippment list, not seen on the picture) or his natural armor of a  small value or a combination.

Actually, i would like to see some reasoning behind the values. Calculating everything back could be a pain, and it would help as guidelines to make own monsters. (maybe we got a somewhat reduced block to not show all mechanics and let us do some guesswork, and in the final writeup we get more)


----------



## Wolfspider

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm curious. To those who think the Pit Fiend's exploding allies thing is stupid:
> 
> Did you also think the exploding Balor was stupid?
> 
> One detonates devils, one detonates upon death. Not a lot of difference.




Quite a bit of difference, actually--but I'm sure that you know that.

A creature exploding upon death, striking out at its enemies in a death fury, is common to fantasy literature and makes quite a bit of sense considering that the balor is a source of intense, demonic fire.

Causing one of your allies to do the electric slide across the battlefield and then go kablooey all of its enemies seems silly to me and a lot of other folks, but many also seem fine with it.  Different strokes and all that.

In any case, your argument here is really a straw man.  (Yes, another one.)  Maybe people DO think that the balor exploding is stupid.  Maybe not.  But that's not the argument here.  The 4e pit field in all of its snorey is.

Bringing up the v3.5 is just a smokescreen (which may makes sense considering all the exploding devils around here).


----------



## Hjorimir

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I just noticed, that ridiculous amounts of natural armor for creatures seems to be gone. This means that touching high level mosters is not as easy as stealing a candy from a 5 year old. (ref is just 6 lower than AC, this could either be his breastplate (not mentioned in the equippment list, not seen on the picture) or his natural armor of a  small value or a combination.
> 
> Actually, i would like to see some reasoning behind the values. Calculating everything back could be a pain, and it would help as guidelines to make own monsters. (maybe we got a somewhat reduced block to not show all mechanics and let us do some guesswork, and in the final writeup we get more)



Keep in mind that monsters are not built (i.e. calculated) like PCs are. Heck, we don't even know if there is a true algorithm or just a chart that "feels" right to the devs.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Are we really at the point of examining each adjective used to determine whether it was _really_ necessary?
> 
> This is an excellent bit of preview they've given us, and all we can do is complain about a few specific phrases?




Yes, we are at that point. The writing isn't just slightly bad. It's bad. Those mistakes would be corrected in a high school paper. 

The bad writing is unfortunately part of a trend. Not a terrible, dismal, or unstoppable trend, but an irksome one. I want to call attention to it so that I can read about my favorite game (and I am defintiely buying and reading 4e) without being jarred out of immersion by high school mistakes.

Is writing the most important part of a game? No, I agree it's not. The game can still be a lot of fun with bad writing. But it would be even better with good writing.


----------



## Wolfspider

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I agree.  I haven't read Worlds and Monsters yet, but aren't the Devils immortal fearless beings to whom death is a mere temporary inconvenience?  The Pit Fiend himself is a "Large immortal humanoid".  What's the good of a lawful evil hierarchy if you can't treat creatures lower on the scale than you as literal cannon fodder.  And for all we know, following the orders of a Pit Fiend to death might be something that devils actually clamor for.




Well, if this is the case, why can't devils simply blow themselves up at will, kind of like infernal suicide bombers?  Why does it take them being ordered by a superior?  If their so hot for exploding, why do they have to be coerced into doing it?

It just seems like a very strange set up to me.


----------



## Rechan

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> In any case, your argument here is really a straw man.  (Yes, another one.)  Maybe people DO think that the balor exploding is stupid.  Maybe not.  But that's not the argument here.  The 4e pit field in all of its snorey is.
> 
> Bringing up the v3.5 is just a smokescreen (which may makes sense considering all the exploding devils around here).



Um, what? 

2e balors exploded.

And, yes, that's _what I'm asking_: DO people think the exploding balor is stupid? Because _I_ don't see much of a difference between the two; they both are pretty video-gamey to me, and I've never seen it presented in a movie or fiction where monsters blow up when killed. You do.

You need to not throw "Straw Man" around just to dismiss something you dislike.


----------



## jeffh

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Slippery slope there, Zack. Role-playing means a lot of different things to people around here.



First of all, I don't think "slippery slope" means what you think it means. But that aside, one doesn't become immune to criticism for how they use a word or phrase just because they say "it means something different to me". Some of those definitions are more useful than others and a few are flat-out wrong. It's _not _an entirely subjective matter.


----------



## Rallek

I've been a bit skeptical of 4e since I heard the announcement, and WoTC saying "cool" about 30 times with every crumb of information released also increased my general pessimism... I've never seen _anything_ that actually was cool that had to be sold that hard. (<--- using a bit of hyperbole there, so no flames needed)


That being said I'm not sure what I expected from 4e in terms of a powerful Devil... but I know I expected better than this. Even with lowered expectations, I found this disappointing.


----------



## Benimoto

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I just noticed, that ridiculous amounts of natural armor for creatures seems to be gone. This means that touching high level mosters is not as easy as stealing a candy from a 5 year old. (ref is just 6 lower than AC, this could either be his breastplate (not mentioned in the equippment list, not seen on the picture) or his natural armor of a  small value or a combination.
> 
> Actually, i would like to see some reasoning behind the values. Calculating everything back could be a pain, and it would help as guidelines to make own monsters. (maybe we got a somewhat reduced block to not show all mechanics and let us do some guesswork, and in the final writeup we get more)



I miss the reasoning behind values such as the AC as well.  It occurs to me that there may not even be a breakdown.  Instead, the designers looked at some chart or formula and decided that a 44 AC fit the creature by level and role.

To some extent, I'd like that to be the case.  I mean, certainly a problem in the 3.5 system is when you take some sort of creature with a high AC for its CR and then slap +4 full plate barding on it.  No technical CR increase, but it's got an AC way disproportionate to its challenge rating.  It makes sense from an in-game perspective that some villian would want his pet creature to be as tough as possible, but it throws certain game aspects way out of whack.  I wouldn't mind seeing that gone.


----------



## Hjorimir

jeffh said:
			
		

> First of all, I don't think "slippery slope" means what you think it means. But that aside, one doesn't become immune to criticism for how they use a word or phrase just because they say "it means something different to me". Some of those definitions are more useful than others and a few are flat-out wrong. It's _not _an entirely subjective matter.



I'm pretty darn sure I know what a slippery slope is. I was trying to be helpful because I've seen some rathare explosive arguments on what and what doesn't constitute role-playing (like is WoW really a role-playing game). We got a pretty good thread going here and I'm hoping it continues. 'dats all.


----------



## Stogoe

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Yes, we are at that point. The writing isn't just slightly bad. It's bad. Those mistakes would be corrected in a high school paper.
> 
> The bad writing is unfortunately part of a trend. Not a terrible, dismal, or unstoppable trend, but an irksome one. I want to call attention to it so that I can read about my favorite game (and I am defintiely buying and reading 4e) without being jarred out of immersion by high school mistakes.
> 
> Is writing the most important part of a game? No, I agree it's not. The game can still be a lot of fun with bad writing. But it would be even better with good writing.




Oh, good.  Literary snobbery.  I love that ever so much more than grognardian edition-snobbery.  Sheesh.  

And 'cool'?  What is people's problem with that word?  I really don't get it.  Is it the inherent optimism in the word?  You don't like that the designers are excited about their game?  You guys are weird beyond belief.


And in my mind, it's not the legionnaires the Pit Fiend is turning into kamikaze fireballs, it's the hundred plus screeching imps that circle and twitter above the battlefield.


----------



## Lizard

Benimoto said:
			
		

> To some extent, I'd like that to be the case.  I mean, certainly a problem in the 3.5 system is when you take some sort of creature with a high AC for its CR and then slap +4 full plate barding on it.  No technical CR increase, but it's got an AC way disproportionate to its challenge rating.  It makes sense from an in-game perspective that some villian would want his pet creature to be as tough as possible, but it throws certain game aspects way out of whack.  I wouldn't mind seeing that gone.




I agree with this -- in 3x, when I take some bugbears and put them in full plate with masterwork greataxes, they are MUCH more deadly than a CR 2 creature should be, but the CR system makes no allowances for equipment -- just added levels. What I'd *wanted* to see from 4e would be a system which worked this in -- for example, perhaps a "well equipped" option, which gave me (Monster Level*200) gold pieces to spend on shiny toys and raised XP value by 10%. (All numbers 100% pulled from ass) Given the normalizations of equipment costs in 4e, this would be easy to do. 

However, it seems the design method in 4e is "You want a 3rd level Soldier. Here's min and max damage ranges. What kind of weapon it carries is 100% flavor text and doesn't directly impact the stats -- rather, you should adjust the stats to 'fit' the weapon it's carrying."

Might NOT be the case, but, it is seeming that way.


----------



## Benimoto

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Well, if this is the case, why can't devils simply blow themselves up at will, kind of like infernal suicide bombers?  Why does it take them being ordered by a superior?  If their so hot for exploding, why do they have to be coerced into doing it?
> 
> It just seems like a very strange set up to me.



I agree, but that's mostly because of the presentation.  I mean it's presented as a command, but it's clearly some sort of power similar to a spell.  It's even got the Fire keyword, though also somewhat strangely, it has the Charm keyword as well.  Similar to your question, why can't they just slide around all the time, if it's some sort of superior, immediate movement?

I agree that the fluff is somewhat inadequate here, but the crunch seems fun enough to keep me interested.


----------



## ShinRyuuBR

Can't actually read the whole topic anytime in the near future, so I'll drop some cents...



> The notation that the Pit Fiend has +2 to Saves would seem to confirm this mechanic. Presumably if the Pit Fiend gets hit by an ongoing effect, it too rolls every round to see if it shakes it off. And it gets a +2 to do so. Nice.




I expect the +2 to come from being either an elite monster or an epic tier one: +0 for heroic, +1 for paragon, +2 for epic.



> My guess is, since it takes 2 standard actions and 2 minor actions in the suggested first turn, the action point gives it a bonus standard action or even a bonus standard and a bonus minor. Need more info to be sure though. Elite monsters might just get extra actions.




With the action point, he takes 2 standard actions and 2 minor actions; without it, he could take 2 minor actions only if he trades one for a move action. Thus, I submit the action point actually DOUBLES your number of actions in the round.



> In fact, I find it interesting that both melee attacks are listed as standard actions, and yet the frenzy, in which he can use both melee attacks, is also listed as a standard action.




Note that tail can only be used at range 1, while the mace can be used at range 2. Its possible that both can only be used in a frenzy at range 1.



> The tactical teleport ability is described as "recharge 4 5 6". I'm guessing this is something like SAGA, where minor (=swift?) actions can be spent to gain additional uses in the encounter.




Might be a d6 roll with a 50% chance of recharging. Which would be weird since concealment and saving throws are d% in nature but use d20.



> Celestial has been replaced with "Supernal", probably for all kinds of critters of the Astral Plane. Still, it would make sense too if the Hells had evolved their own language.




Would be Infernal, not Celestial.

Edit:
Seems that Fort 52 = 2x +21 (Con), Ref 38 = +20 (Dex) +18 (Wis) and Will 40 = +18 (Wis) +22 (Cha). Though, this does not correspond to the spined devil, which would have all defenses at 10 while they are at 18.


----------



## DaveMage

I dunno - if I'm a devil and I'm summoned by a pit fiend, I think I immediately declare that I'm not that pit fiend's _*ally*_.


----------



## Rallek

Stogoe -

My problem with the developers constant use of the word "cool" is this; they're the developers, they developed whatever it is I'm about to read/hear about. I'm going into that assuming that they like it. I doubt that they're going to say, "This mechanic sucks.... it's really lame how we did this, but none of us could think of anything better, and we kind of want 4e to be terrible, so we did it this way." They made it, they kept it, is it a stretch to believe that they like it? "Cool", in its pop-culture sense, is just an adjective denoting something that the speaker likes, and I already assume that they like it.


Beyond that, I'm about to read/listen to whatever it is that they have to say. If it really is cool, after I've finished reading/hearing about it I'll probably think something along the lines of, "hmmm... that seems pretty cool.", and if I don't think it's cool the developers assuring me that it is many many times is not going to change my mind. If they want to try and convince me that I'm mistaken, and it is cool after all, then they can do that by giving me some more information on it, or perhaps expanding the context of their example, not just by parroting "cool cool cool" at me.


Lately it's been more restrained, and I am glad of that. I can't speak for anyone else, but that is _my_ "problem with that word", at least in the context of WoTC and 4e.


----------



## Rechan

As a sidenote: you don't see much fluff in the description of their abilities. It's just "This is the action, this is the effect."


----------



## Rallek

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I agree, but that's mostly because of the presentation.  I mean it's presented as a command, but it's clearly some sort of power similar to a spell.  It's even got the Fire keyword, though also somewhat strangely, it has the Charm keyword as well.  Similar to your question, why can't they just slide around all the time, if it's some sort of superior, immediate movement?
> 
> I agree that the fluff is somewhat inadequate here, but the crunch seems fun enough to keep me interested.






The Pit Fiend is a Leader, much like the Warlord as I understand it. Thus the allied devils need the Pit Fiend's command to explode much like a PC needs the warlord to yell "feather me yon oaf" in order to immediately gain a ranged attack. 


It's the special magic of leaderiness or whatever. In one instance it makes devils explode, in the other it generates free and immediate attack actions. Leaderiness is mysterious indeed.


----------



## mrswing

Rallek said:
			
		

> It's the special magic of leaderiness or whatever. In one instance it makes devils explode, in the other it generates free and immediate attack actions. Leaderiness is mysterious indeed.




That clinches it. I want a PC class which can force party members to slide across the battlefield and explode them amidst their enemies NOW!


----------



## Kraydak

Stogoe said:
			
		

> ...
> And 'cool'?  What is people's problem with that word?  I really don't get it.  Is it the inherent optimism in the word?  You don't like that the designers are excited about their game?  You guys are weird beyond belief.




The developers' overuse of "cool" triggers my BS alarms.  They are selling *to fans*.  They should be able to let the crunch (very very little leaked beyond this article) sell itself.  If you are going to artificially hype your product anyways, drop the silly statements about how non-primary magic items aren't important.  A sample item we have heard about is a freaking Flying Carpet, which means that there will be people who CANNOT FLY without "optional" magic items.  If flight is reasonably available, it is NOT optional.  Too many blatantly absurd comments + fake sounding propaganda=dubious customers + very picky analysis of anything substantive you put out.


----------



## Zsig

Rallek said:
			
		

> Leaderiness is mysterious indeed.




So mysterious that, aparently, not all Leaders are going to be healers/have healing abilities... (well, at least the Pit Fiend is not a healer as i could see)


----------



## Khaim

Zsig said:
			
		

> So mysterious that, aparently, not all Leaders are going to be healers/have healing abilities... (well, at least the Pit Fiend is not a healer as i could see)




Well, an exploded minion has full HP. Does that count?


----------



## Just Another User

Lizard said:
			
		

> However, it seems the design method in 4e is "You want a 3rd level Soldier. Here's min and max damage ranges. What kind of weapon it carries is 100% flavor text and doesn't directly impact the stats -- rather, you should adjust the stats to 'fit' the weapon it's carrying."
> 
> Might NOT be the case, but, it is seeming that way.



My impression is very similiar, something like, a monster of x level with Y role will have this attack, that defence and those saving throws/defences, etc, etc, then if you give it the psecial ability web is a giant spider, if you give it regeneration is a troll and if you give petrification is a gorgon/medusa, all the rest is just flavour/fluff. Not exactly like this, of course, but something of this kind.


----------



## Rallek

Khaim said:
			
		

> Well, an exploded minion has full HP. Does that count?





Good question... hmmm. Judges?

...

My completely fictional panel of judges says, "Yes, yes it does."


Good enough for me.


----------



## Remathilis

mrswing said:
			
		

> That clinches it. I want a PC class which can force party members to slide across the battlefield and explode them amidst their enemies NOW!




That's doable in 3.5 now.

Benign Transportation (sor/wiz1, SC) 
Death Throes on Ally (Sor/wiz5, SC)
Finger of Death on Ally (sor/wiz7, PHB)

Make sure your ally is someone with a weak fort save (I suggest the rogue).


----------



## Kraydak

Just Another User said:
			
		

> My impression is very similiar, something like, a monster of x level with Y role will have this attack, that defence and those saving throws/defences, etc, etc, then if you give it the psecial ability web is a giant spider, if you give it regeneration is a troll and if you give petrification is a gorgon/medusa, all the rest is just flavour/fluff. Not exactly like this, of course, but something of this kind.




My impression too, and I hate it.  It strips all the tactical options that previously existed like Dispel Magic, Disarm, Sunder, Rusting Grasp, Theft, Calm Emotions etc...


----------



## frankthedm

Khaim said:
			
		

> Well, an exploded minion has full HP. Does that count?



The pit fiend sees to it a fresh devil enters melee. The wounded devil goes *boom!*, the fresh devil takes his place. Similar results, fewer bodies.

Attached below is a medium victim for those who plan to measure distance in 4e rather than have fireboxes replacing fireballs.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Agreed. Should my group ever encounter a 4e pit fiend it will be house-ruled not to have the 'explode your allies' ability (unless of course, as mentioned above, it can charm or polymorph the PCs into allies and then blow them up).



The ability doesn't seem silly to me. You just use it on your wounded. Like FrankDM said.

Crazy villains offing their minions happen all the time. I wouldn't expect it to happen much in a serious campaign, but fiends are almost literally stereotypes of evil.


----------



## LEHaskell

Oooo, ooo, let me try:

A creature bursting in a fit of pique like an over-ripe watermelon seems silly and video-gamey to me.

A lord of hell, calling on his infernal and irrefutable control of lesser devils, hurls a minion at his foes and detonates the unholy energy binding it to him in a maelstrom of hellfire -- that's an ability right out a great action film; "You have failed me for the last time, Admiral."

Spinning something as lame doesn't make it lame -- it just makes a lame argument.

Now, I happen to love both mechanics -- though I think the Irresistible Command is very thematic.  Lords of Hell should have no concern for their minions well-being -- only their own. Actually, now that I think of it, exploding yourself seems more like a demonic tactic -- causing as much destruction and taking out as many foes as possible.  Devils strike me more as the kind to run from a losing fight in order to regroup and fight another day.







			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Quite a bit of difference, actually--but I'm sure that you know that.
> 
> A creature exploding upon death, striking out at its enemies in a death fury, is common to fantasy literature and makes quite a bit of sense considering that the balor is a source of intense, demonic fire.
> 
> Causing one of your allies to do the electric slide across the battlefield and then go kablooey all of its enemies seems silly to me and a lot of other folks, but many also seem fine with it.  Different strokes and all that.
> 
> In any case, your argument here is really a straw man.  (Yes, another one.)  Maybe people DO think that the balor exploding is stupid.  Maybe not.  But that's not the argument here.  The 4e pit field in all of its snorey is.
> 
> Bringing up the v3.5 is just a smokescreen (which may makes sense considering all the exploding devils around here).


----------



## Mirtek

Rechan said:
			
		

> Here we have a 27th level Per Encounter ability that only does 2xWis+Wis damage.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a LOT of damage, either.



2x[Weapon]


			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Well, we have an example of a pick: d8.
> 
> So what? 2xd8+Wisdom?



Some people expect that weapon damage will rise with your level (to replace the lost full attack).

So a level 27 paladin could do like 4d8+Str+pluses with a pick, so the smite could do 8d8+2xStr+2xpluses+Wis 

We will know when we see it, but 1d12+11 really sounds not ver impressive at the moment.


----------



## Just Another User

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> The ability doesn't seem silly to me. You just use it on your wounded. Like FrankDM said.
> 
> Crazy villains offing their minions happen all the time. I wouldn't expect it to happen much in a serious campaign, but fiends are almost literally stereotypes of evil.




Then add that you can use it only on Bloodied devil and I'm sold, But as I told what really bother me is the slide.


actually I have an idea, make it an automatic action, I don't know what is the 4e term but in practice, once for round, even outside the PF turn,when an allied devil get bloodied the pit fiend can use its special ability to make it blow up, or else on his turn  can use it on an already bloodied devil to make it blow up. I don't know you, but I'd have liked this version much more than the actual one..


----------



## LEHaskell

Shroomy said:
			
		

> So, I'm assuming that a "slide" is movement that does not provoke opportunity attacks, which would make sense, since you don't want your bomb to be killed before it gets a chance to explode.
> 
> I have to say, exploding allies and the auras makes large groupings of PCs very dangerous.





I suspect that "slide" is a key word for straight-line movement where you physically occupy each intermediate square -- that is, unlike teleport, your movement can be blocked by terrain or creatures.  In this instance, it's like telekinesis.  I'm not sure about the provoking, though I can't see why it WOULDN'T provoke -- though with the "ally bomb", I'm not sure it would make any difference whether he arrived at the target dead or alive. ;-)


----------



## Just Another User

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I agree that the fluff is somewhat inadequate here, but the crunch seems fun enough to keep me interested.




But for how long? because I think this power could be fun the first or second time you use it, but already at the fourth -fifth time (and I don't mean the fifth combat) I'd start to get bored by it, either as a player or a GM. Generally I have the same impression with all the at will/per encounter powers we have heard of, I'm the only one that think that a 1st level wizard, with just 3 things/powers to use, will get boring to use pretty quickly (and I'm afraid that to compensate they will make levelling even faster so you get more toys/powers to play with before you get bored) , magic missile at will will be still cool when you've cast your 20th magic missile for the day? My guess is that for the preparation of 5e there will be many complains that "playing a wizard at low level is boring because there is not enough things to do". At least something will remain the same between editions


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that monsters are not built (i.e. calculated) like PCs are. Heck, we don't even know if there is a true algorithm or just a chart that "feels" right to the devs.




I don´t have a problem if stats are made up. Indeed I feel its better if they are. But if stats are made up, you can easily make up stats for his hide and his armor. He has a tough hide deflecting magic and weapons alike granting +6 defense and a breast plate (+6 AC)

making up a monster like this: A brute in full plate, Hp 5, AC 11 makes no sense at all.

its not necessary, but for some monsters it could be convenient.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Then add that you can use it only on Bloodied devil and I'm sold,




Yeah, I agree with you on that 



> But as I told what really bother me is the slide.




I figured it was telekinetically picking the minion up and dragging it (or blasting it through the air with magic). It would provoke AoOs.

Doesn't the pit fiend have the option to teleport allies intead? This suggests to me the slide is physical.



> actually I have an idea, make it an automatic action, I don't know what is the 4e term but in practice, once for round, even outside the PF turn,when an allied devil get bloodied the pit fiend can use its special ability to make it blow up, or else on his turn  can use it on an already bloodied devil to make it blow up. I don't know you, but I'd have liked this version much more than the actual one..




Same here.


----------



## AllisterH

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> So why can't you do that for combat? It seems a bit silly that they're putting in a system for resolving social encounters and yet apparently not considering that monsters might participate in those social encounters.




Wouldn't social encounters be run via the skill system? It looks like a pit fiend from just being a level 26 creature PLUS its natural stats is going to be one hell of a social encounter to overcome.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Generally I have the same impression with all the at will/per encounter powers we have heard of, I'm the only one that think that a 1st level wizard, with just 3 things/powers to use, will get boring to use pretty quickly (and I'm afraid that to compensate they will make levelling even faster so you get more toys/powers to play with before you get bored)




I really hope rituals make up for this, and I even hope there are possibilities to ready different combat spells for the day as at will, per encounter and per day slots.

---> learn as many spells as you can afford, ready a certain amount of spells per day. This would be my ideal wizard.


----------



## Fifth Element

Rallek said:
			
		

> If it really is cool, after I've finished reading/hearing about it I'll probably think something along the lines of, "hmmm... that seems pretty cool.", and if I don't think it's cool the developers assuring me that it is many many times is not going to change my mind.



Hold on, it's okay for you to call something cool, but it's not okay for the designers/developers to do the same?

If they think something's cool (which, as you point out, is quite likely since they wouldn't use it if they didn't), why shouldn't they call it cool?

Are you implying that they are only calling things cool in order to convince people it's true? Maybe it's just the best word to describe how they feel about the thing.


----------



## Wolfspider

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Oh, good.  Literary snobbery.  I love that ever so much more than grognardian edition-snobbery.  Sheesh.




I don't see this as literary snobbery, mainly because I don't consider game books to be literature?  Do you?

I also don't see anything wrong with wanting rule books to be written well.  Would you prefer if they were written poorly?

Of course, what's well-written and what's not is a whole other can of wyrms....


----------



## Rallek

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Hold on, it's okay for you to call something cool, but it's not okay for the designers/developers to do the same?
> 
> If they think something's cool (which, as you point out, is quite likely since they wouldn't use it if they didn't), why shouldn't they call it cool?
> 
> Are you implying that they are only calling things cool in order to convince people it's true? Maybe it's just the best word to describe how they feel about the thing.





I'm not implying it, I'm outright saying it; If the designers feel the need to tell me how "cool" the mechanic/fluff/monster is, rather than just telling me about it and letting its coolness become apparent than yes, I feel it is less "the best word to describe it" and more "propaganda". 

That aside, if they occasionally said something along the lines of, "oh, this bit about the new flummox here is exceptionally cool" I might be inclined to give it an extra look, but when everything is cool, multiple times, it begins to grate.


So to recap; 
Designers saying one particular thing amongst many being presented is "cool" = acceptable AND potentially useful.
Designers saying everything is "cool" = assumed and therefore redundant.
Designers saying everything is "cool" multiple times = just plain weak


All in my opinion, of course.


----------



## frankthedm

Well, here is How D&D minis will be handling sliding in 4E.







Of course that leaves the question 'can the pit fiend Airburst devils over the party?'


----------



## helium3

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, REALLY.
> 
> Mearls has said that monsters Can Take Class Levels because, and I quote, "That's just too fun not to do."




Where did he say that? I guess there's a new design and development article that I need to read. Is it in there?


----------



## frankthedm

helium3 said:
			
		

> Where did he say that? I guess there's a new design and development article that I need to read. Is it in there?



IIRC he said it a _while_ back. It might of been a podcast or a board post, but Mearls has mentioned that already.


----------



## Fifth Element

Rallek said:
			
		

> All in my opinion, of course.



On this point, at least, we can agree.


----------



## helium3

frankthedm said:
			
		

> IIRC he said it a _while_ back. It might of been a podcast or a board post, but Mearls has mentioned that already.




Okay. I listened to the October podcast (which is the one on monsters) back in October so it's been a while. I tried to listen to it again yesterday and it was more difficult than the last time for some reason.

I still don't see how you can just slap levels onto a monster if they're built using two different systems. But, maybe that's just because I don't understand the magic of 4E.


----------



## Rechan

helium3 said:
			
		

> Where did he say that? I guess there's a new design and development article that I need to read. Is it in there?




Matthew Sernett:



> "We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).
> 
> Third edition gives the illusion of fairness by giving you formulas to rely on, but you can use all the formulas perfectly and easily end up with an unfair or unfun monster. Advancing monsters by hit dice is a great example. Depending on its type and ability scores, the CR raise you give it according to the formulas might work out okay, but just as often the monster ends up too tough for its CR or too weak.
> 
> CR is often just a shot in the dark. We usually get it right, but I'm betting you can think of some critters that are way out of their weight class.
> 
> For each level of play we're devising a range of numbers for monsters that provide fairness and fun. Those numbers are based on what the PCs bring to the fight in terms of their potency and defenses, and upon the general role in the fight a monster is likely to be in.
> 
> Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.
> 
> Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there *by adding a class*, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."


----------



## FourthBear

I'll note that I do recall a forum post that Mearls noted that you can indeed add class levels onto a monster.  Frankly, looking at the Pit Fiend stats, I can't see anything at all to prevent it.  Monsters have ability scores, defenses, skills and pretty much everything that a class could add to.  If classes are like they were in 3e and primarily additive, you should just be able to add on the class abilities and skills as appropriate.  It might be a bit clumsy, as in 3e, but I see nothing that should prevent it.


----------



## Just Another User

Rallek said:
			
		

> So to recap;
> Designers saying one particular thing amongst many being presented is "cool" = acceptable AND potentially useful.
> Designers saying everything is "cool" = assumed and therefore redundant.
> Designers saying everything is "cool" multiple times = just plain weak
> 
> 
> All in my opinion, of course.




"being cool is like being a lady, if you have to say you are it, you are not"  (Paraphrased from something that I don't really remember now.  )


----------



## helium3

> Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."




Thanks for the quote.

So basically, if my monster is a controller I can add levels of wizard to it, and as long as the final numbers are in the range of those for a controller monster of the level I'm shooting for, there won't be any problems?

It's an interesting idea and I'm real curious to see how it works in practice.


----------



## The Crippler

I am reading the Pit Fiend`s ability to detonate minions as only applying to the devils he has currently summoned.  

Irresistible command affects one allied devil of lower level than the pit fiend

Infernal Summons conjures a group of devil *allies*. 

It could be an obtuse interpretation, but the reason why I think ally might be specific to his summoned devils is that perhaps the ability to simply detonate any random Imp and make it do as much damage as say an Ice Devil is a tad askew.  Look at the Pit Fiends summoning choices:
8 legion devil legionnaires (level 21), or 
2 war devils (level 22), or 
1 war devil (level 22) and 4 legion devil legionnaires (level 21)

There`s nothing that`s altogether a pushover there.  Otherwise, give him the ability to summon 3d12 Imps and then start dropping smart bombs all over the place.


----------



## Just Another User

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Well, here is How D&D minis will be handling sliding in 4E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that leaves the question 'can the pit fiend Airburst devils over the party?'



Thank you for the image, actually my question is "can the PF slide a devil without making it blow up? and if not (like it is probable) why?"


----------



## FourthBear

helium3 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the quote.
> 
> So basically, if my monster is a controller I can add levels of wizard to it, and as long as the final numbers are in the range of those for a controller monster of the level I'm shooting for, there won't be any problems?
> 
> It's an interesting idea and I'm real curious to see how it works in practice.



Could be.  It depends on how the various wizard powers depend on class level.  If it works like 3e, adding three levels of wizard will only result in a creature with 1st and 2nd level spells as a 3rd level caster.  There's the possibility suggested by the Book of Nine Swords where you add half of your non-class levels to your class level to determine power.  And if you add enough class levels to equal its monster level, you've probably just added tons of hit points, attack bonuses, defense increases and other things that will bump its power up significantly, just as it would if you did it in 3e.  

If the monster is low leveled this may not be a problem.  But if you're trying to create a Fire Giant cleric through this, it could get silly (as it was with a number of the classed fire giants in one of the recent WotC enemy books).  I wouldn't really add actual class levels to a high leveled monster, I would simply add the appropriate class abilties and just use the monster's level to determine effect.


----------



## Just Another User

A thing I just noticed, it have just 350hp, I mean no "26d13+117" or something, just 350, I wonder if it is just for simpicity of if the concept of hit dice got dropped.


----------



## Rechan

I imagine that giving a monster class levels might function the same way as multi-classing. You know, the "Fighter Training" or "Wizard training".


----------



## Doug McCrae

LEHaskell said:
			
		

> A lord of hell, calling on his infernal and irrefutable control of lesser devils, hurls a minion at his foes and detonates the unholy energy binding it to him in a maelstrom of hellfire -- that's an ability right out a great action film; "You have failed me for the last time, Admiral."



Yes! It feels very cinematic to me. The quick slide, the expression on the minion's face.

And this is a big change which hasn't been discussed at all yet. D&D has never been cinematic before. Eberron is, and changes the rules somewhat in an attempt to support this. But prior to 4e the core rules have never been cinematic in the way that James Bond 007, Star Wars, Feng Shui and 7th Sea are.


----------



## FireLance

Just Another User said:
			
		

> actually I have an idea, make it an automatic action, I don't know what is the 4e term but in practice, once for round, even outside the PF turn,when an allied devil get bloodied the pit fiend can use its special ability to make it blow up, or else on his turn  can use it on an already bloodied devil to make it blow up. I don't know you, but I'd have liked this version much more than the actual one..



I'd also prefer it if it was something like the 3e immediate action (maybe it will be called a "reaction" in 4e?) that could be used whenever a lower-level allied devil is dropped to below 0 hp. That makes it more like the pit fiend is giving its minions a last gasp attack.


----------



## Khaim

Just Another User said:
			
		

> A thing I just noticed, it have just 350hp, I mean no "26d13+117" or something, just 350, I wonder if it is just for simpicity of if the concept of hit dice got dropped.




He is listed as level 26, which would just replace any instances of HD.

Hmm...

350 - 26 * 8 Con = 350 - 208 = 142 = 5 * 26 + 12

So if we assume Con adds to HP the same way, it looks like he has 5 hp/level plus a 12hp bonus. That, or d10 HD = 5.5 hp/level with a bit of a rounding error.


----------



## Lord Sessadore

Just Another User said:
			
		

> A thing I just noticed, it have just 350hp, I mean no "26d13+117" or something, just 350, I wonder if it is just for simpicity of if the concept of hit dice got dropped.




They have implied several times that HD are just plain gone.  Not sure if this means rolling a die to get your new hp is gone, or if HD-based effects are gone, or both.  

I believe there's one such mention in the October podcast.  

~LS


----------



## FourthBear

I strongly suspect that Hit Dice are gone because you do not roll for hit points.  You assign it based on what you think the creature's design needs.  The DMG will likely have ranges for suggested values for a monster of a given level, type (bruiser, leader, skirmisher, et cetera) and role (minion, normal, elite or soldier).  If you don't like anything in that range, pick another one with the foreknowledge that you may be assigning a number that could result in a monster that isn't an appropriate challenge for its level.  You use the level, not hit dice, to consult for many calculated default values.  I also suspect the DMG will suggest what kinds of powers are appropriate for a given level (with DMs being able to draw outside the lines when they choose).


----------



## mmu1

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Oh, good.  Literary snobbery.  I love that ever so much more than grognardian edition-snobbery.  Sheesh.




http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=2951


----------



## Fifth Element

mmu1 said:
			
		

> http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=2951



Not sure that helps the argument. The books are not written for professional writers. They are written for the general gaming public. I'm not too concerned if a professional writer finds fault with some of the writing, since I read it and didn't have any problems with it.


----------



## Lizard

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Not sure that helps the argument. The books are not written for professional writers. They are written for the general gaming public. I'm not too concerned if a professional writer finds fault with some of the writing, since I read it and didn't have any problems with it.




There is so much wrong here, I don't know where to begin...

"This bridge wasn't built for professional engineers, it was built for the general public. I'm not too concerned if some professional engineer finds fault with some of the structure, I'm going to drive over it anyway..."

The, uhm, whole point of *professional* writers is that they are *professional* and...

Oh, never mind. My "pointless argument sense" is tingling.


----------



## Fifth Element

Lizard said:
			
		

> There is so much wrong here, I don't know where to begin...
> 
> "This bridge wasn't built for professional engineers, it was built for the general public. I'm not too concerned if some professional engineer finds fault with some of the structure, I'm going to drive over it anyway..."



Yes, because lives hang in the balance of the grammar in 4E...whether a bridge stays up is a matter of physics, whereas writing is a matter of taste...etc, etc...

I believe that professional writers read things with a different eye than the general populace. They notice things that most people do not.


----------



## Traycor

Anyone notice the Bluff and Intimidate skills?

I had thought those would be "deception" and "persuasion"(intimidate, diplomacy)


----------



## ShinRyuuBR

> So mysterious that, aparently, not all Leaders are going to be healers/have healing abilities... (well, at least the Pit Fiend is not a healer as i could see)




Don't forget the pit fiend has 2 roles: he is a Level 26 Elite *Soldier (Leader)*. His leader role is probably secondary.


----------



## Traycor

> 8 *legion* devil *legionnaires* (level 21), or




I found this a little bit funny. I half expected the next line to read:

"2 war devil *warriors* (level 22), or"


----------



## Lord Sessadore

> 8 legion devil legionnaires (level 21), or






			
				Traycor said:
			
		

> I found this a little bit funny. I half expected the next line to read:
> "2 war devil *warriors* (level 22), or"




Well... maybe there's legion devil centurions or commanders or something....

~LS


----------



## frankthedm

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> They have implied several times that HD are just plain gone.  Not sure if this means rolling a die to get your new hp is gone, or if HD-based effects are gone, or both.



Well, if you mean "HD-based effects"  that screw harder the more levels you have, yes, those are thankfully _gone._ Poison does you damage per round, based on the creature, not CON damage that costs you MORE hp the higher level you are.


----------



## Philodendron

*A thought on writing quality...*



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Yes, because lives hang in the balance of the grammar in 4E...whether a bridge stays up is a matter of physics, whereas writing is a matter of taste...etc, etc...
> 
> I believe that professional writers read things with a different eye than the general populace. They notice things that most people do not.




First, I'm not taking issue with Fifth Element's comment quoted above, it's just a convenient jumping off point.

To my point...  One of the things about DnD is that it captures the imagination.  Some times, its a picture or an image - the cover of the original PH, the Balrog in the LOTR movies, different visuals for different people, no doubt.  Some times it's the vocabulary - not only does the vorpal sword have a cool effect, it's a great word!  And sometimes, it's the language - some of the evocative descriptions in Ravenloft and Bilbo's riddling with Smaug the Magnificent, just to name two very different.

If I see DnD artwork that, to me, seems amaturish and clumsy, I think it's an opportunity lost to tap into the imaginitive well of inspiration.  So surely it's just as valid, if someone spots a use of language that is clunky and uninspiring, to hope for something better and more professional in that realm, too.


----------



## Fifth Element

Philodendron said:
			
		

> If I see DnD artwork that, to me, seems amaturish and clumsy, I think it's an opportunity lost to tap into the imaginitive well of inspiration.  So surely it's just as valid, if someone spots a use of language that is clunky and uninspiring, to hope for something better and more professional in that realm, too.



Oh, indeed. But most of the complaints that started this thing have nothing to do with obviously clumsy wording. They are very nitpicky little points. For instance:



> Is anyone else bothered by the poor writing? For example, in the first paragraph, we find that "... pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils." Then two paragraphs later, we learn, "... pit fiends command vast numbers of lesser devils." Um, duh, I just read that.



Nitpicking a repetition. There's nothing inherently wrong with repeating important points.



> And the pit fiend "wears an ornate breastplate decorated with evil symbols and runes." Oh, really, the big nasty devil has evil symbols? I'm shocked because in my last 3.5e game the pit fiends all had Barney embroidered on their chests. Not to mention that I'm really glad I'm clear on the fact that the breastplate has symbols and runes.



Setting aside the snarkiness in this comment, how else are they supposed to communicate that the breastplate has symbols and runes without stating it? Are we supposed to guess? And using adjectives for emphasis is fine. They could have just said symbols, sure, but there's nothing wrong with emphasizing the evil.



> We also have this gem: "Penetrating the defenses of a pit fiend's castle and destroying the mighty devil in its own demesne is a deed of truly epic proportions." Even if we accept that penetrating and destroying should be considered a single deed and thus agree numerically with the singular verb (and I can agree to that - it's just a little awkward), why do I need to be told that a Pit Fiend Level 26 Elite Soldier (Leader) is a "mighty" devil? Gosh, I might have confused him with all those weak and pathetic Level 26 Elite Soldiers (Leaders) from the Nine Hells. And: "truly epic proportions"? Truly epic? Not just a little epic, or somewhat epic, but truly epic? Are they sure?



Nitpicking on whether the act above is a single deed or multiple deeds, nitpicking on an adjective used to emphasize that the devil is, in fact, mighty. Nitpicking the adverb used to emphasize the epic-ness of the deed(s). These complaints are just snarky nitpicks.

I certainly agree that plainly bad writing would be a terrible thing for 4E. But the nitpicks above are plainly and simply a matter of taste. You're right to call it art, and there is no right and wrong in art. Many masterpieces admired by art critics are boring and inconsequential to the general public. The most popular movies are often reviled by movie critics. Tastes differ greatly between people.

Things that stick out to some people as bad writing will be completely irrelevant and inconsequential to the great majority. Deleting all those adjectives, on the other hand, could lead to dry and boring prose, of which 3E suffered.


----------



## Kraydak

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I'll note that I do recall a forum post that Mearls noted that you can indeed add class levels onto a monster.  Frankly, looking at the Pit Fiend stats, I can't see anything at all to prevent it.  Monsters have ability scores, defenses, skills and pretty much everything that a class could add to.  If classes are like they were in 3e and primarily additive, you should just be able to add on the class abilities and skills as appropriate.  It might be a bit clumsy, as in 3e, but I see nothing that should prevent it.




I hate to harp on about gear, but it does pose an issue with giving monsters PC classes.  Gear is factored into PC class abilities.  We can see from the Pit Fiend example that gear tends not to be factored into even those monsters which could reasonably use gear (and in fact are described as wearing it?!).  So to keep the PC class levels appropriately powered, you either have to give monsters arbitrary bonuses (to make up for the lack of gear) or absurdly weak gear i.e. a Pit Fiend with 2 levels of wizard wearing lvl 2 wizard gear.  Giving arbitrary bonuses works, sort of.  It is *more powerful* than bonuses from gear though (gear is vulnerable to attack.  magical gear is extra-vulnerable through Dispel effects), and poses questions with shape-change magics (In human form, I get a bonus from using a magic sword.  In demon form, capable of wielding a sword, no bonus.  Huh??).  If the Pit Fiend picks up a level of Fighter, he should probably get some armor proficiencies (he might already have some, they aren't listed).  If so, he might want to wear armor (neat thought!).  Unfortunately, while he *is* described as wearing a breastplate, we don't know the stats of said BP.  Which makes making use of the (theoretical) armor proficiencies... hard.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Setting aside the snarkiness in this comment, how else are they supposed to communicate that the breastplate has symbols and runes without stating it? Are we supposed to guess? And using adjectives for emphasis is fine. They could have just said symbols, sure, but there's nothing wrong with emphasizing the evil.




Well, I am sorry about the snarkiness. I think my frustration with bad writing got the best of me. At least I remembered to label it a "rant." 

But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing. Avoiding unnecessary adjectives - and they almost all are - is another accepted rule. Voltaire said, "The adjective is the enemy of the noun." There are tons of other quotes out there along the same lines, like Stephen King saying that the road to hell is paved with adverbs. My comments are far from personal preferences. There are real, accepted rules of style that are being violated in the RPG industry all the time.

I shouldn't pick on WOTC exclusively. Let's look at Paizo. Before we do, though, let me be clear: I think there are great designers and writers at Paizo and WOTC. I just think their writing could be even better. Now, my example. Here's the first sentence of Paizo's "Rise of the Runelords" free player's guide: "Scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards and reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages, only in the past few hundred years have the steps of civilized men again trod the wondrous and mysterious lands of Varisia." That's a doosie of a misplaced modifier. It's saying that the "steps of civilized men" are "scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards." It's also saying that those same steps are "reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages." That's not what it means, but it's what it says. It's bad writing.

Again, I don't think writing is the most important part of a game product. Game design is. Writing is a part of it, though, and it can be better than what we sometimes see.


----------



## helium3

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Well, I am sorry about the snarkiness. I think my frustration with bad writing got the best of me. At least I remembered to label it a "rant."
> 
> But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing. Avoiding unnecessary adjectives - and they almost all are - is another accepted rule. Voltaire said, "The adjective is the enemy of the noun." There are tons of other quotes out there along the same lines, like Stephen King saying that the road to hell is paved with adverbs. My comments are far from personal preferences. There are real, accepted rules of style that are being violated in the RPG industry all the time.
> 
> I shouldn't pick on WOTC exclusively. Let's look at Paizo. Before we do, though, let me be clear: I think there are great designers and writers at Paizo and WOTC. I just think their writing could be even better. Now, my example. Here's the first sentence of Paizo's "Rise of the Runelords" free player's guide: "Scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards and reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages, only in the past few hundred years have the steps of civilized men again trod the wondrous and mysterious lands of Varisia." That's a doosie of a misplaced modifier. It's saying that the "steps of civilized men" are "scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards." It's also saying that those same steps are "reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages." That's not what it means, but it's what it says. It's bad writing.
> 
> Again, I don't think writing is the most important part of a game product. Game design is. Writing is a part of it, though, and it can be better than what we sometimes see.




The problem you're describing is one of overly florid writing. Purple prose, even. I suffer from it all the time. It's not bad writing. It's bad editing.


----------



## Counterspin

Kraydak - PC presumption is that gear gives +1/4 level bonus to hit, defenses, and AC.  Just give the monster gear or a flat bonus that equals this for their class level.  Easy.


----------



## Najo

helium3 said:
			
		

> The problem you're describing is one of overly florid writing. Purple prose, even. I suffer from it all the time. It's not bad writing. It's bad editing.




Editors tighten up good writing and make it better. I would say it is bad writing and bad editing. The writer should clean it up as much as possible before it ends up on the editors desk. I guess that is what happens if you pay per submitted word as opposed to actual printed.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> That's a very good point. But I'm kinda worried that they're losing stuff like create undead and persistant image that are useful out side of combat. And it's one thing to say that the DM can just make it up, but players tend to get annoyed if DM make stuff up willy nilly.



As a DM, you're making up stuff all the time. The whole adventure plot is entirely made up, it doesn't stand in any rule-book.

Players only get annoyed if things are obviously made up during an encounter to defeat a sensible tactic the DM hasn't expected. Or if abilities are added that obviously make a monster more powerful, without the DM accounting for it sensibly and increasing CR or EL. (And the later is only because I am also a DM and see this as a bad style if it's done without consent of the players. I don't mind the DM upping a few encounters if it's obvious they wouldn't challenge us anyway...)

That's the kind of things I'd hate. 
I don't care if a Pit Fiend summons elementals in his free time, or creates illusionary walls in his castle. It's not as giving a Wizard a spell like "Animate Dead" really explains where he got all the money to maintain his army of Undeads (is this within the NPC wealth guidelines?). 

I would want "Persistant Imagel" in a Pit Fiends stat block if the DM claims that a trap using one of these illusionary floors isn't worth any XP because the Pit Fiend did it (because it is really only factored into his level/XP if it's accounted for in his stat block).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Where is ANY mechanical implication that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?



In the stat block, under skills. Intimidate +27 and Bluff +27. Wisdom based skill modifier +18, Charisma based skill modifier +22. Sounds good enough.

Assuming 1/2 level bonus to all skills, a starting ability score of 18 and a +1 bonus to charisma every 4 levels (leading to Charisma 24), and a +5 bonus for trained skill and another +5 for skill focus (Starwars Saga edition "modifiers"9, this leads us with a +30 for a heavily focused 4E character of equal level to the Balor. This guy probably has a good chance of screwing the devil over and escaping hell. 

A less specialised character (say, charisma 14, no stat bumps, and only skill training) would give us a +20. 
This guy might not get so well out of a deal with the devil, but he might at least keep his soul (if he gets his other parts of the contract right).

An entirely untrained character with charisma of 10 would off course only have a +13 and would probably accidently sell his soul to the devil if he asks for more than the time or directions to the next torture chamber...


----------



## Prodigal_Sun

Why do so many people have problems with the exploding minions?

It is a fantasy game, use your imagination to come up with reasons for it to work! For example the minions are under a contract (sold their soul, very devilish kind of thing to do), are promised glory, power, ... for sacrificing themselves, are just so scared of the damn thing (IRRESISTIBLE command), Hell he could just fling them at his enemies using telekinesis. 

I would like to add that kamikaze's and suicide bombers exist in the real world too, is it so hard to believe a devil could not rationally take such an action? This makes me wonder what the placeholder name for this ability was "I promise you 40 virgins"?

I think this Pit fiend will make some interesting encounters, the high hit points are probably due to his elite status taking two slots, he summons minions buffs them, positions them (some could be striker demons, placed in flanking positions for massive damage), explodes them in the wizards face, debuffing someone to be massively ganged by his minions,... . He is giving a party a lot of though decisions, eliminate his minions first, or try to take the pit fiend out as fast as possible whatever the cost? 

For those who argue the pit fiend became more predictable, I share your pain but I think the KISS principle is more important. Also the variety of Pit fiends encounter will also depend on his teammates and the tactical interaction between them. 

just my two cp


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing.




think about this:



> Inverted-Pyramid Style of Writing
> 
> Traditionally, when you write, you start with a 'foundation' and gradually build to a conclusion in a pyramid style. You might write an essay or article using the following structure:
> Problem statement
> Related work
> Methodology
> Results
> Conclusions
> 
> Journalists, on the other-hand, use an inverted pyramid style. They generally start with the main conclusion and get progressively more detailed, like so:
> Conclusion
> Supporting information
> Background and technical details
> 
> Since Web users typically scan text, it is important to position main points at the beginning of the article, then go into more detail as needed.




http://www.great-web-design-tips.com/web-usability/87.html

I still think for the monster manual its the right approach.


----------



## Wolfspider

Prodigal_Sun said:
			
		

> Why do so many people have problems with the exploding minions?




If I were you, I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out WHY people have a problem with this (to me, ridiculous) combat tactic.  People obviously do have a problem with it, and that's what matters.[/quote]



> I would like to add that kamikaze's and suicide bombers exist in the real world too, is it so hard to believe a devil could not rationally take such an action? This makes me wonder what the placeholder name for this ability was "I promise you 40 virgins"?




I think your comparison here skirts a little too close to real world politics.  I also find it mildly distasteful.


----------



## skullking

Khaim said:
			
		

> He is listed as level 26, which would just replace any instances of HD.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> 350 - 26 * 8 Con = 350 - 208 = 142 = 5 * 26 + 12
> 
> So if we assume Con adds to HP the same way, it looks like he has 5 hp/level plus a 12hp bonus. That, or d10 HD = 5.5 hp/level with a bit of a rounding error.




If you assume 3 hit dice at 'first level' you get:

28 x 4.5 (d4) = 126
con bonus of 8 x 28 =224
126 + 224 = 350


----------



## Stogoe

> Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing.




No, it's not, and if you think so, you've been misled.  Repetition helps people remember information.  In a game rulebook, getting people to recall information they've read is one of the most important goals.


----------



## zoroaster100

I don't have a problem with the Irresistible Command ability to blow up minions for this monster.  After all, devils are supposed to be the supernatural exemplars of evil law.  It's not hard to imagine that they have sold their souls and thereby subjected themselves to utter abuse by their overlords.  Besides, they probably get 'reborn' in hell shortly thereafter (even if shortly means a few years or centuries, which is nothing to an immortal).


----------



## Forgefly

In regards to the social abilities of the Pit Fiend, I was struck by the 



> As the lords, barons, viziers, and generals of the Nine Hells, pit fiends rarely confront adventurers in person. They are the progenitors of devilish schemes, and they step in only when important plans go awry or when great plots reach fruition




Which suggest that the Pit Fiend's social interactions are completed by other devils (read newly devilish succubus) This Pit Fiend has an entire army of devils to accomplish it's out of combat needs possibly including high level wizards warlock clerics  who have sold their souls to the devils.  I am not sure it matters if the Pit Fiend himself can perform the rituals in the same way a human king doesn't need to perform the rituals to have the rituals benefit him.

In regards to the Irresistible Command, It tells us the explosion destroys the allied devil, but what happens to an immortal devil when he is destroyed.  It is possible this is only a temporary inconvenience to the devils.  

If a Pit Fiend Teleports away from combat for 5 rounds and returns with more non summoned minions does he get to summon again?  If this is true a Pit Fiend who is already described as a general or baron can dump an entire army of devils on the PC's using his Teleport and Frenzy to take out leaders and strikers, his minions to tie up the Defenders,  and his Irresistable Command to make life miserable for the Controllers.  All of this is possible without extra items and quite possibly irrespective of PC power levels.

Factor in a Fiendishly difficult Trap/Environment and the PC's won't have enough actions to keep up.


----------



## Reaper Steve

Pardon me for not wading through 15 pages before making an injection...

I have no problem with Irresistible Command, I just don't think it should be used by default.
Certainly level 21 legion devil legionaries and level 22 war devils can dish out more damage over the course of a fight than a one-time explosion for 2d10+5.

Now, I think it's a great thing to use, especially if that devil is about to be killed anyway, or if you absolutely have to do damage to an otherwise unreachable PC, but the writeup comes across as if the sole purpose of the summoning is to provide ammo for the Irresistible Command. The tactics even dictate doing this on the Pit Fiend's first turn. I'd let the devils do the dirty work before blowing them up.


----------



## Eridanis

Please keep real-world politics and religion out of this discussion.


----------



## Wolfspider

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with the Irresistible Command ability to blow up minions for this monster.  After all, devils are supposed to be the supernatural exemplars of evil law.  It's not hard to imagine that they have sold their souls and thereby subjected themselves to utter abuse by their overlords.  Besides, they probably get 'reborn' in hell shortly thereafter (even if shortly means a few years or centuries, which is nothing to an immortal).




See, to me this entire thing seems very chaotic and not very like devils at all.  I guess I have too much of a pre-4e mindset to embrace these new "improved" pit fiends and their weird tactics.

EDIT:  I just realized that in some posts I've even been saying "balor" instead of pit fiend.  In my mind, the new pit fiend just seems so demonic instead of devilish.


----------



## Prodigal_Sun

Eridanis said:
			
		

> Please keep real-world politics and religion out of this discussion.




I'm sorry I didn't have the intention to talk about world politics or religion, I just wanted to illustrate that maybe the "irresistible command" power was not so far fetched/silly/videogamey as many accused it to be.


----------



## helium3

Najo said:
			
		

> Editors tighten up good writing and make it better. I would say it is bad writing and bad editing. The writer should clean it up as much as possible before it ends up on the editors desk. I guess that is what happens if you pay per submitted word as opposed to actual printed.




See, I guess I'm a bit more forgiving here, being someone that would love to eventually do some freelance writing.

I definitely agree that it's not the best writing, but I can also see that the writer is attempting to generate a feeling of grand and epic scope. I see that a lot in fantasy RPG writing. Perhaps because, deep down, many freelance RPG writers really want to be fantasy writers.

I know that freelance writers get paid by the word, but It's difficult to imagine that a freelance writer would deliberately submit poorly written material just to make extra money. But then, I'm projecting my own personal ethics onto other people and maybe that's not such a great idea.


----------



## helium3

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It's not as giving a Wizard a spell like "Animate Dead" really explains where he got all the money to maintain his army of Undeads (is this within the NPC wealth guidelines?).




The whole point of the changes they're making to encounter and adventure prep in 4E is to make everything easier for DM's to set-up and run. From my experience, the part of set-up that's the most time consuming is, by no stretch of the imagination, dealing with the NPC wealth rules. Putting together a more specialized  creature from levels or advancement isn't that tough once you've got a routine, but doing the accounting to make sure it doesn't have "too much stuff" is a real chore because of all the multi-book page flipping required.



> I would want "Persistant Imagel" in a Pit Fiends stat block if the DM claims that a trap using one of these illusionary floors isn't worth any XP because the Pit Fiend did it (because it is really only factored into his level/XP if it's accounted for in his stat block).




And it's the idea that every nit-picky little bit of XP needs to be accounted for that first led to an extreme over-codification of the rules in 3E. And now, that excessive complexity is leading to the creation of an overly simplified version in the form of 4E.

Maybe the real issue here is that XP accrual needs to be decoupled from the slaying of individual monsters.


----------



## Shroomy

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> See, to me this entire thing seems very chaotic and not very like devils at all.  I guess I have too much of a pre-4e mindset to embrace these new "improved" pit fiends and their weird tactics.
> 
> EDIT:  I just realized that in some posts I've even been saying "balor" instead of pit fiend.  In my mind, the new pit fiend just seems so demonic instead of devilish.




The pit fiend can now force people around the battle field via teleportation or compulsion, and it can get them to involuntarily end their existence at its whim.  Its the ultimate expression of an evil leader who has little or no regard for his underlings.

One question, what is the difference between the 4e pit fiend causing some cannon fodder to explode for damage or the 3.5e pit fiend sending some relatively low CR devils on a one-round suicide mission against 20th level PCs?


----------



## helium3

Prodigal_Sun said:
			
		

> For those who argue the pit fiend became more predictable, I share your pain but I think the KISS principle is more important. Also the variety of Pit fiends encounter will also depend on his teammates and the tactical interaction between them.




*nod*

If the rules support a great deal of flexibility in the sorts of things I can team the Pit Fiend up with this will go a long way towards fixing this problem. Something else that would help would be if it were fairly obvious how I could modify the sorts of creatures that the Pit Fiend can summon.

The only part I don't understand right now, and maybe this will be clarified by a future preview or in the Monster Manual, is what I do if I want the party to face off against a single pit fiend in the traditional "you've defeated my minions and now you must deal with me" sense.

That's sort of implied in the flavor of the preview and also likely the genesis of "Irresistible Command", but isn't the Pit Fiend technically no more powerful than any of the other creatures he's teamed up with in the encounter?


----------



## catsclaw227

Geez.... I just waded through 15 pages of this stuff.   



			
				Forgefly said:
			
		

> In regards to the Irresistible Command, It tells us the explosion destroys the allied devil, but what happens to an immortal devil when he is destroyed.  It is possible this is only a temporary inconvenience to the devils.



This is my thought as well.  If a devil is immortal, it's not a big deal if it goes up in a fiery explosion.  It may be a glorious sacrifice to their Pit Fiend overlord.

So, it's possible that the Irresistable Command enables or activates a death throe ability of a devil.  The Pit Fiend then hurtles them to their demise, and the devil goes up in a blaze of glory for thier fiendish master.

I imagine this could be a desireable thing. They do this enough times, and they can elevate in stature. "You've served me well, imp.  Go now to remake yourself and join my Barbazu army."  Slide.... boom.  Imp is now promoted to Bearded Devil.


----------



## helium3

Shroomy said:
			
		

> The pit fiend can now force people around the battle field via teleportation or compulsion, and it can get them to involuntarily end their existence at its whim.  Its the ultimate expression of an evil leader who has little or no regard for his underlings.
> 
> One question, what is the difference between the 4e pit fiend causing some cannon fodder to explode for damage or the 3.5e pit fiend sending some relatively low CR devils on a one-round suicide mission against 20th level PCs?




Well sure, if the Infernal Summons could be recharged and had an option for very low level monsters that have no chance of hurting the PC's. It's difficult to tell if this is what the "eight legion devil legionnaires" option is without knowing more about them.


----------



## Dragonblade

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If I were you, I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out WHY people have a problem with this (to me, ridiculous) combat tactic.  People obviously do have a problem with it, and that's what matters.




No, a few people on EN World have a problem with it. But a few people on EN World always seem to have a problem with everything involving 4e.

The exploding minion tactic is fine. I also think its interesting in a way that simply sending low level devils at the PCs is not. Like someone posted earlier, sending minions forth to blow themselves up is much better than summoning some minor devil the PCs will simply kill in a round anyway. It also drives home the fanatical and evil nature of devils in general.


----------



## catsclaw227

Prodigal_Sun said:
			
		

> For those who argue the pit fiend became more predictable, I share your pain but I think the KISS principle is more important. Also the variety of Pit fiends encounter will also depend on his teammates and the tactical interaction between them.



Agreed.

We are only looking at 2/5's of an encounter!  There may be another Pit Fiend, and a 26th level single (1:1) monster (I forgot the 4e descriptor for this) or possibly 2 or more 26th level regulars (like beefed up Ice Devils) and a single 25th level wizard who's soul has been sold to this pit fiend.

In these cases, the Pit Fiend encounter becomes VERY unpredictable.


----------



## Shroomy

helium3 said:
			
		

> Well sure, if the Infernal Summons could be recharged and had an option for very low level monsters that have no chance of hurting the PC's. It's difficult to tell if this is what the "eight legion devil legionnaires" option is without knowing more about them.




I totally agree with you here.  How good is a 21st level monster versus 26th level PCs?  If they can only do around 25 points of damage per round and will die in 1-2 rounds anyways, and the pit fiend has 7 more minions to work with, blowing one up may not be that bad of an idea.


----------



## Shroomy

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> We are only looking at 2/5's of an encounter!  There may be another Pit Fiend, and a 26th level single (1:1) monster (I forgot the 4e descriptor for this) or possibly 2 or more 26th level regulars (like beefed up Ice Devils) and a single 25th level wizard who's soul has been sold to this pit fiend.
> 
> In these cases, the Pit Fiend encounter becomes VERY unpredictable.




I'm salivating at the idea of adding synergistic classes like warlord to the pit fiend!


----------



## Kunimatyu

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you here.  How good is a 21st level monster versus 26th level PCs?  If they can only do around 25 points of damage per round and will die in 1-2 rounds anyways, and the pit fiend has 7 more minions to work with, blowing one up may not be that bad of an idea.




Legion Devils(in FC2) don't work that way -- they have a communal pool of hitpoints, and to kill one you have to kill them all. Functionally, it's a super-monster that just happens to have 8 actions instead of one.

IMO, Legion Devils were the best thing to come out of FC2 -- they're the first devil that actually works like a devil should, and I'm very happy to see the Pit Fiend using advanced versions of them.


----------



## Shroomy

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Legion Devils(in FC2) don't work that way -- they have a communal pool of hitpoints, and to kill one you have to kill them all. Functionally, it's a super-monster that just happens to have 8 actions instead of one.
> 
> IMO, Legion Devils were the best thing to come out of FC2 -- they're the first devil that actually works like a devil should, and I'm very happy to see the Pit Fiend using advanced versions of them.




I'm at my fiancee's house, so when I go home tonight, I will have to break out my copy of the FC2 and read up on these things.


----------



## Khaim

helium3 said:
			
		

> The only part I don't understand right now, and maybe this will be clarified by a future preview or in the Monster Manual, is what I do if I want the party to face off against a single pit fiend in the traditional "you've defeated my minions and now you must deal with me" sense.




Make them do it at level 24 instead of 26. I'm not sure exactly how well a single higher-level monster translates into the normal set of equal-level monsters, but I'm sure you could do it. Heck, if you throw it at them at level 23 then the summons are an encounter unto themselves!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Howdy FireLance! 



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> I'd also prefer it if it was something like the 3e immediate action (maybe it will be called a "reaction" in 4e?) that could be used whenever a lower-level allied devil is dropped to below 0 hp. That makes it more like the pit fiend is giving its minions a last gasp attack.




Thats a terrible idea because it takes away the tactical element of using _Irresistible Command_. Specifically when and where to use it.

This new Pit Fiend has some interesting decisions with Tactical Teleport and Irresistible Command. However I do think it is at least one or two options short of what I was hoping for. It looks interesting for an encounter, but perhaps not multiple encounters. That said it is only supposed to be 2/5ths of an encounter.

I am also one of those people bewildered by its pretty feeble attack capabilities. While many people have commented that hit points may be lower in 4E (debateable and excluding the fact that healing seems far more prevailant), and also that its a Leader and thus its role may not be predominantly melee based (also bogus since its listed role is Soldier, not to mention it wields a weapon).

Its attacks seem (individually at least) far too weak. Now clearly its only a Level 26 Elite Monster once you factor in those summoned allies. Without them it may be closer to Level 20. Secondly, while its abilities are individually weak, they probably tote up to a relatively tidy amount. Though this assumes Fire Resistance is scarce, or at least much less prevailant than we are used to.

Its dearth of magic items is also particularly glaring considering its relative status.

Still I think the good outweighs the bad.


----------



## Wolfspider

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> IMO, Legion Devils were the best thing to come out of FC2 -- they're the first devil that actually works like a devil should, and I'm very happy to see the Pit Fiend using advanced versions of them.




And apparently blowing up his prized minions as well.


----------



## tomtill

Lizard said:
			
		

> And why do people think suicide bomber devils are so cool? To me, it makes everything seem painfully gamey...the summoned devils aren't "really" devils, they're a special effect for an explosion power. I find it almost unbearably cheesy. Can they explode normally? If not, how does he "command" them to explode? The power isn't "Irresistible command" it's "Make Devil Go Boom", which makes one wonder why he can't make the PCs go boom instead...it's an odd sort of power that lets you make a summoned ally explode.)




A devil's ally may refer to a special binding relationship between the pit fiend and the minion, such as between a radiant idol and his cultists, that allows supernatural manipulations. This is also in keeping with the devil theme of binding pacts and bargains. Consider also the immortal aspect of a devil; perhaps on reforming it becomes a devil higher in the hierarchy, and thus welcomes the chance to prove its worth. Although devils, not demons, these are still creatures of fire residing within the Nine Hells. Neither their psychology nor their physiology must necessarily fit humanoid mortal (non-devil) preconceptions. Exploding an ally, willing or not, doesn't seem far fetched to me.


----------



## Wolfspider

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> No, a few people on EN World have a problem with it. But a few people on EN World always seem to have a problem with everything involving 4e.




OK.


----------



## Intrope

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I'm at my fiancee's house, so when I go home tonight, I will have to break out my copy of the FC2 and read up on these things.



 If you could post a summary description of them when you get a chance, that would help; I've never even seen a copy of FC2, much less read it!


----------



## frankthedm

IIRC they have a big Hellboy like arm they use as a shield.


----------



## Dragonblade

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> OK.




Sorry man. Didn't mean to be snarky. But its like every thread someone has to find something wrong.

I think if WotC ever gives us a preview that everyone likes we better check the thermostat in hell.


----------



## FourthBear

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I hate to harp on about gear, but it does pose an issue with giving monsters PC classes.  Gear is factored into PC class abilities.



Yes, and I feel sure that when the DMG (or Monster Manual) gives ranges for the various stats that make for an appropriate challenge at a certain level, they will be assuming that the final numbers include all relevant bonuses.  I believe that long term buffs will be going the way of the dodo, so for any real increases during a combat encounter are expected to come from the opponent's actions during the rounds of combat.  

The important thing to remember is what a monster level doesn't mean.  It's doesn't mean in any way that the monster has equivalent abilities to a PC of a certain level.  It means that it would make for a challenging opponent (whether the context is combat, social or whatever).  A monster that has had class levels added is under no constraints to have to take the appropriate level of gear.  In fact, I don't think it would be very good design for it to gain all of the various non-class specific abilities in the class description.  If you generate a Fire Giant cleric, why should that cleric be automatically superior in combat to the other Fire Giants, as it would be in 4e?  The presumption is that the stats for a Fire Giant represent the training and experience and hereditary ability common to Fire Giants.  A Fire Giant cleric would presumably get that (or even possibly less) and the clerical training.  I would suggest that the preferred suggestion in most cases is to add level appropriate class abilities and not to add unwanted items or increases in stats.


----------



## helium3

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Sorry man. Didn't mean to be snarky. But its like every thread someone has to find something wrong.
> 
> I think if WotC ever gives us a preview that everyone likes we better check the thermostat in hell.




It's not the snark that's the problem, it's that the logical conclusion of your statement is that anyone who has a negative opinion about an aspect of 4E is somehow unreasonable and shouldn't participate in threads.

What would the threads be about, in that case? They'd all basically read like "Wow, that's so cool!! I love this!!" with a couple of "Here's a neat synergy I figured out for an encounter with a Pit Fiend and a Black Pudding with enough wizard levels to boost it to 26th level."


----------



## Lizard

FourthBear said:
			
		

> The important thing to remember is what a monster level doesn't mean.  It's doesn't mean in any way that the monster has equivalent abilities to a PC of a certain level.  It means that it would make for a challenging opponent (whether the context is combat, social or whatever).  A monster that has had class levels added is under no constraints to have to take the appropriate level of gear.  In fact, I don't think it would be very good design for it to gain all of the various non-class specific abilities in the class description.  If you generate a Fire Giant cleric, why should that cleric be automatically superior in combat to the other Fire Giants, as it would be in 4e?  The presumption is that the stats for a Fire Giant represent the training and experience and hereditary ability common to Fire Giants.  A Fire Giant cleric would presumably get that (or even possibly less) and the clerical training.  I would suggest that the preferred suggestion in most cases is to add level appropriate class abilities and not to add unwanted items or increases in stats.




And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> We are only looking at 2/5's of an encounter!  There may be another Pit Fiend, and a 26th level single (1:1) monster (I forgot the 4e descriptor for this) or possibly 2 or more 26th level regulars (like beefed up Ice Devils) and a single 25th level wizard who's soul has been sold to this pit fiend.
> 
> In these cases, the Pit Fiend encounter becomes VERY unpredictable.




actually it is 2/4 of an encounter.

I am relative sure that 5 vs 4 was no mistake. I see it that way: a level 26 monster is as strong as a LVL 26 char. (you could use PCs as enemies if desired) Thus, 4(5) vs 4(5) would be an even match (50-50) having one extra PC should tip the tide of battle in favour of the PCs.


----------



## Jinete

Lizard said:
			
		

> And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.




Why uncool? The way I see it, clerics mostly heal and buff, and occasionaly kick undead a@@. If I give the fire giant 'sorta kinda clerical powers' he's a cleric as far as I'm concerned. 

And it will (hopefully) take a whole lot less time than it takes to add cleric levels in 3.5.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Lizard said:
			
		

> And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.




actually, both approaches should be available:

swapping: for the fire giant bbeg

give some abilities: for the standard encounters...

I run an old ADnD (in DnD 3.5) adventure where enemies are derro savants... the first were converted to real sorcerers... the next to sorcerors with fewer spells... the last with all the spells mentioned for ADnD without chaning anything. (other than obvious things like hp and AC and thac0) That worked best for them.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur

Some people have commented about the plainness of the default pit fiend. This and a review of the magic item slot article got me thinking. Secondary slot magical items grant characters new combat options without causing the system to break, the same could be potentially true for monsters. Giving a Pitfiend a couple secondary slot magical items may just be the you need o do to customize him. You want to give him the option to unleash a line of electricity? Give him _Vambraces of  Lightning Blast._ Maybe that noble signet ring is not just a signet ring but a _Horned Ring of the Devil Lord._ 

P.S. All magical items name in this post were made up, if they do appear in the future the names are purely chance.


----------



## ThirdWizard

helium3 said:
			
		

> What would the threads be about, in that case? They'd all basically read like "Wow, that's so cool!! I love this!!" with a couple of "Here's a neat synergy I figured out for an encounter with a Pit Fiend and a Black Pudding with enough wizard levels to boost it to 26th level."




It would be speculation, interpretation, ideas about how we plan on running pit fiends, thoughts on the back story and how to weave them into campaigns, and other very useful things like that. I think the first few pages of discussion where fun, and that's without anybody complaining about anything. People don't have to complain for interesting and useful discussion to take place. Are 3e discussions where nobody complains about the rules worthless tirades about how awesome 3e is? :\


----------



## Intrope

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> actually it is 2/4 of an encounter.
> 
> I am relative sure that 5 vs 4 was no mistake. I see it that way: a level 26 monster is as strong as a LVL 26 char. (you could use PCs as enemies if desired) Thus, 4(5) vs 4(5) would be an even match (50-50) having one extra PC should tip the tide of battle in favour of the PCs.



 I went back and listened to the Monsters!^3 podcast, and I don't think its a hard-and-fast thing. In some of his encounters, he uses 4 slots, and in some 5. They even mention (in the Dispater's Fortress example) not wanting 5 due to the difficulty. 

The breakdown:
12th level in Underdark: Settled on 4 slots (Ghost Controller, Human Death Knight Elite Soldier, Runecarved Eidolon Lurker (Leader)) but considered 5 (Ghost + 2 Death Knights)

8th level in Forest: Settled on 5 slots (Owlbear Elite Brute, Quickling Runner Skirmisher, Satyr Piper Controller, Werewolf (didn't give type--probably Brute))

3rd level guarding Caravan: 4 slots (2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, 1 Hobgoblin Archer, 1 Hobgoblin Hexer Controller)

15th level teleported to Dispater's Fortress: 4 slots, rejected 5 for difficutly (4 Legion Devil Minions--apparently 2 slots; 1 Bone Devil Controller; 1 Eye of Flame Artillery).

I think that the actual encounter guideline will be 4-5 slots. Admittedly, I would have prefered a 1-per-PC rule, but it looks like it'll be close to that anyway.


----------



## Dragonblade

helium3 said:
			
		

> It's not the snark that's the problem, it's that the logical conclusion of your statement is that anyone who has a negative opinion about an aspect of 4E is somehow unreasonable and shouldn't participate in threads.




Fair enough. But I do think that some of the opinions are unreasonable. For example, complaining that +X swords are still in the game. Of course they are still in the game. D&D would no longer be D&D without +X swords. Its like complaining that a new Star Wars movie still has Jedi in it.

So when I have to wade through complaints that I feel are unreasonable, it makes me less tolerant of other complaints that are reasonable.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Intrope said:
			
		

> I went back and listened to the Monsters!^3 podcast, and I don't think its a hard-and-fast thing. In some of his encounters, he uses 4 slots, and in some 5. They even mention (in the Dispater's Fortress example) not wanting 5 due to the difficulty.
> 
> The breakdown:
> 12th level in Underdark: Settled on 4 slots (Ghost Controller, Human Death Knight Elite Soldier, Runecarved Eidolon Lurker (Leader)) but considered 5 (Ghost + 2 Death Knights)
> 
> 8th level in Forest: Settled on 5 slots (Owlbear Elite Brute, Quickling Runner Skirmisher, Satyr Piper Controller, Werewolf (didn't give type--probably Brute))
> 
> 3rd level guarding Caravan: 4 slots (2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, 1 Hobgoblin Archer, 1 Hobgoblin Hexer Controller)
> 
> 15th level teleported to Dispater's Fortress: 4 slots, rejected 5 for difficutly (4 Legion Devil Minions--apparently 2 slots; 1 Bone Devil Controller; 1 Eye of Flame Artillery).
> 
> I think that the actual encounter guideline will be 4-5 slots. Admittedly, I would have prefered a 1-per-PC rule, but it looks like it'll be close to that anyway.




I still think 5 vs 4 is the standard for a fight which the PCs usually win without losses. A system where 1 PC vs 1 Monster of the same Level usually wins, begins to fail if you replace the monster by a PC class. 

What I hope is, that monsters will work as solo monsters, even if they are not, but just some Levels higher...  and fights vs 20 monsters of lower level should also work...

otherwise it could really get annoying... (hmmh i need a single monster/what should I add to make the fight fair/help, i need mooks of apropriate level...)


----------



## A'koss

Intrope said:
			
		

> I went back and listened to the Monsters!^3 podcast, and I don't think its a hard-and-fast thing. In some of his encounters, he uses 4 slots, and in some 5. They even mention (in the Dispater's Fortress example) not wanting 5 due to the difficulty.
> 
> The breakdown:
> 12th level in Underdark: Settled on 4 slots (Ghost Controller, Human Death Knight Elite Soldier, Runecarved Eidolon Lurker (Leader)) but considered 5 (Ghost + 2 Death Knights)
> 
> 8th level in Forest: Settled on 5 slots (Owlbear Elite Brute, Quickling Runner Skirmisher, Satyr Piper Controller, Werewolf (didn't give type--probably Brute))
> 
> 3rd level guarding Caravan: 4 slots (2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, 1 Hobgoblin Archer, 1 Hobgoblin Hexer Controller)
> 
> 15th level teleported to Dispater's Fortress: 4 slots, rejected 5 for difficutly (4 Legion Devil Minions--apparently 2 slots; 1 Bone Devil Controller; 1 Eye of Flame Artillery).
> 
> I think that the actual encounter guideline will be 4-5 slots. Admittedly, I would have prefered a 1-per-PC rule, but it looks like it'll be close to that anyway.



As I recall, the reason why some of those fights were just 4 slots was due to some of the monsters they were throwing together were higher than the party level. 

The game is still geared for 1 standard monster per PC for a level appropriate encounter. It really is a departure from the 3e mentality of encounter design which I can see some people are struggling to get their heads around. Few monsters are an island of their own anymore, and most encounters you're now thinking in terms of building a *team* to challenge the PCs.
Eg. Just the right mix of leader(s), brute(s), skirmisher(s), controller(s), elite(s), standard(s), minion(s), etc.


----------



## Fifth Element

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing. Avoiding unnecessary adjectives - and they almost all are - is another accepted rule. Voltaire said, "The adjective is the enemy of the noun." There are tons of other quotes out there along the same lines, like Stephen King saying that the road to hell is paved with adverbs. My comments are far from personal preferences. There are real, accepted rules of style that are being violated in the RPG industry all the time.



I will grant that that example from Paizo is a heck of a sentence. They probably tried to do too much with it. And that sentence should probably have been edited more harshly - but then again, maybe that's the style they were going for?

But when you talk about accepted rules of style - accepted by who? Saying that there is a single accepted set of rules for style is ridiculous. If the WotC editors establish their own rules of style to be used in 4E, those are the only rules of style that matter.

You may not like it, but you cannot claim any degree of objectivity here. Regardless of how many big names agree with you - I'm sure I could dredge up some big-name authors who love adjectives if I tried. But this is all about style, which is inherently subjective. Using adjectives to modify nouns is correct in English grammar. Saying that using adjectives violates some rule of style is...I don't know...wonky?

I'm not a professional writer, but I took my share of English courses in university, and I certainly don't recall learning about these universal "rules of style" you posit.

And I apologize to everyone else for the thread derail.


----------



## catsclaw227

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> actually it is 2/4 of an encounter.
> 
> I am relative sure that 5 vs 4 was no mistake. I see it that way: a level 26 monster is as strong as a LVL 26 char. (you could use PCs as enemies if desired) Thus, 4(5) vs 4(5) would be an even match (50-50) having one extra PC should tip the tide of battle in favour of the PCs.




Whether it's 2/4ths or 2/5ths, what I am trying to say is that the Pit Fiend is not a complete encounter in itself, and therefore there will be some very interesting synergies that will make the encounter more interesting.  Looking at the Pit Fiend in a vacuum is not as relevant as when it's paired up with it's buddies.  i.e. As far as encounters go, the whole will be much greater than the sum of it's parts.


----------



## catsclaw227

helium3 said:
			
		

> It's not the snark that's the problem, it's that the logical conclusion of your statement is that anyone who has a negative opinion about an aspect of 4E is somehow unreasonable and shouldn't participate in threads.



I don't want to put words in his mouth, but in my interpretation of what he said, it seems like there are some posters that snark and bash 4e in EVERY thread.  In some cases,  rehashing their same ol' tired story as to why they don't like 4e and will never play it, and in other cases, looking to find fault with nitpicks or with some element they hate, just to make themselves heard in the thread.  

Note: It goes for both anti-4e'ers and pro-4e'ers.

Mostly, for me, it's tiring to hear the same posters coming into a 4e thread to bash some new mechanic or fluff just for the sake of bashing it.  Especially when they have made it clear in other threads that they will never buy or play 4e.


----------



## FourthBear

Lizard said:
			
		

> And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.



I do not regard adding cleric powers to a Fire Giant to be "ultra-cheesy" in any way whatsoever.  It is a hundred time more elegant and less cheesy than the tortured and contrived methods that had to be used in previous editions.  I simply cannot forget the various Giant high priests I've seen in 3e adventures with 3-5 levels of cleric, because every time the designer added a cleric level, saving throws, BAB and hitpoints all increased.  If you want to somehow feel balance is kept, you could always lower the melee attack bonus and any remove any special melee attacks from the Fire Giant description before you added the cleric levels.

Even the yuan-ti fell into this, since their CR effectively rendered them a mid-level fighter by the 3e rules.  I firmly believe that taking the Yuan-ti and giving it cleric spells would not only be easier, it would be much better design than trying to link all abilities to the system designed to generate PCs.  I realize that some DMs love to play around with those 3e monster creation and customization rules, but every time I see one of those stat-block abominations I've got to chuckle.  All that to give a monster a few interesting abilities?

In any case, I would suspect that the Training feats announced could be used for monster customization.  Of course, if the monster doesn't have any feats in its stat block, you'll have to add them in so you can subtract them for balance reasons, i suppose.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Kraydak said:
			
		

> His mace isn't given him any bonus to hit or damage (direct, there is an indirect damage bonus with the ongoing fire effect).  It is converting his melee damage to fire which is a debuff from a normal mace if fire resistance is per-application a la 3.5 rather than per-round (given how much fire damage he is outputting, you want fire resistance badly).  Heck, if 4e energy resistance is per-application, the ongoing fire effect won't have any effect at all against prepared opponents.  To put it differently, he probably should be using a NON MAGIC, completely ORDINARY mace in place of his cool firey one.
> 
> On the other hand, a plain +4 (he *is* lvl 26) mace stands a good chance of doubling his (weapon) damage output.  More, probably.  If he is facing people with FR, he will do better with a +4 mace than Frenzying with the flaming one and tail.




You may be making an invalid assumption here though. The mace damage might be considered Fire AND weapon, and only if you are resistant to BOTH those things will you be ignoring the damage.

So Fred with fire resistance still takes the 1d12+11 damage (but doesn't catch fire). Ghosty mcGhost who doesn't take any weapon damage still takes 1d12+11 fire damage from a blow.

That seems a more likely assumption to me than your assumption that the damage is entirely Fire and can be entirely absorbed by fire resistance.

Cheers


----------



## Voss

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You may be making an invalid assumption here though. The mace damage might be considered Fire AND weapon, and only if you are resistant to BOTH those things will you be ignoring the damage.
> 
> So Fred with fire resistance still takes the 1d12+11 damage (but doesn't catch fire). Ghosty mcGhost who doesn't take any weapon damage still takes 1d12+11 fire damage from a blow.
> 
> That seems a more likely assumption to me than your assumption that the damage is entirely Fire and can be entirely absorbed by fire resistance.
> 
> Cheers




Uh.  Maybe I'm being obtuse, but there is nothing at all in the mace attack description that even vaguely suggests that it does anything but fire damage.  
The mace attack is specifically defined as fire damage.  Nothing at all indicates normal weapon damage.  And isn't part of the point of these new and simplified 4e stat blocks that all the info you need be available to you immediately?

And... thats really it. It says 'fire damage' and not 'fire and normal damage' (how would that be split up, anyway?).   So... it does fire damage.  I can't see how Kraydak is making an assumption at all.


----------



## GoLu

Ampersand said:
			
		

> Melee Flametouched Mace (standard; at-will) • Fire, Weapon
> Reach 2; +31 vs. AC; 1d12+11 fire damage plus ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).





			
				Voss said:
			
		

> And... thats really it. It says 'fire damage' and not 'fire and normal damage' (how would that be split up, anyway?).   So... it does fire damage.  I can't see how Kraydak is making an assumption at all.




While it's true that the weapon does "1d12+11 fire damage", it's tagged as "Fire, Weapon".  Whatever that means.  Plane Sailing's theory was that it did both types of damage for purposes of resisting it, kinda like how a 3.5e morningstar works with its bludgeoning and piercing damage.


----------



## Lizard

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I do not regard adding cleric powers to a Fire Giant to be "ultra-cheesy" in any way whatsoever.  It is a hundred time more elegant and less cheesy than the tortured and contrived methods that had to be used in previous editions.  I simply cannot forget the various Giant high priests I've seen in 3e adventures with 3-5 levels of cleric, because every time the designer added a cleric level, saving throws, BAB and hitpoints all increased.  If you want to somehow feel balance is kept, you could always lower the melee attack bonus and any remove any special melee attacks from the Fire Giant description before you added the cleric levels.




It's cheesy because:
a)If you play a fire giant cleric, you won't be built that way. At all. Ditto any other monster race. 
b)Players might well want to know how they can get 'just the cool powers' like the faux-cleric they just fought.
c)It's hard to work out interactions between pseudo-caster powers and adding class levels, which we know WILL be possible in 4e.
d)It's a cheap, lazy, shortcut to design. It's saying, "Well, wizards do what...cast fireballs, right? So we'll give this hobgoblin a few extra hit dice and say he can cast a 5d6 fireball 3/day, and, uh, let's see, mage armor 1/day, on himself. Presto! Hobgoblin wizard!"

I mean, I can see the appeal as a freelancer. I could fill a huge book with all sorts of pseudo-classed monsters while doing very little work besides thinking up the idea and some basic playtesting. (Based on my work on Mongoose's monster book, thinking up a cool (IMHO) monster takes about 1/4th as long as statting it out 3x style. Or is that the point?)


----------



## Lizard

Voss said:
			
		

> Uh.  Maybe I'm being obtuse, but there is nothing at all in the mace attack description that even vaguely suggests that it does anything but fire damage.




Y'know, a mace that's ALL FIRE -- literally fire shaped into a mace-y form -- is really pretty cool. 

NPI.


----------



## FireLance

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Thats a terrible idea because it takes away the tactical element of using _Irresistible Command_. Specifically when and where to use it.



There is still an element of tactics involved: using _Irresistable Command_ as an immediate action means that the pit fiend won't have a spare (or additional) minor action to use Point of Terror on its turn. So, whenever a minion dies, the decision will be between blowing it up now, or lowering an(other) opponent's defences on its turn.


----------



## catsclaw227

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I do not regard adding cleric powers to a Fire Giant to be "ultra-cheesy" in any way whatsoever.  It is a hundred time more elegant and less cheesy than the tortured and contrived methods that had to be used in previous editions.  I simply cannot forget the various Giant high priests I've seen in 3e adventures with 3-5 levels of cleric, because every time the designer added a cleric level, saving throws, BAB and hitpoints all increased.  If you want to somehow feel balance is kept, you could always lower the melee attack bonus and any remove any special melee attacks from the Fire Giant description before you added the cleric levels.



I am thinking that we can take a cue from Bo9S about how powers are handled by "adding" levels of cleric (or wizard, etc).  If you add a single cleric level, it's possible that 1/2 all other levels are added to the cleric to determine its power level. so a 26th level Pit Fiend with 1 cleric level might make it 14 level with regards to the kinds of powers it can use (and spells).  I could be wrong though...


----------



## FireLance

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You may be making an invalid assumption here though. The mace damage might be considered Fire AND weapon, and only if you are resistant to BOTH those things will you be ignoring the damage.
> 
> So Fred with fire resistance still takes the 1d12+11 damage (but doesn't catch fire). Ghosty mcGhost who doesn't take any weapon damage still takes 1d12+11 fire damage from a blow.
> 
> That seems a more likely assumption to me than your assumption that the damage is entirely Fire and can be entirely absorbed by fire resistance.



Interesting interpretation. I think you may be right.


----------



## catsclaw227

GoLu said:
			
		

> While it's true that the weapon does "1d12+11 fire damage", it's tagged as "Fire, Weapon".  Whatever that means.  Plane Sailing's theory was that it did both types of damage for purposes of resisting it, kinda like how a 3.5e morningstar works with its bludgeoning and piercing damage.



Bingo.


----------



## Wolfspider

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But I do think that some of the opinions are unreasonable. For example, complaining that +X swords are still in the game. Of course they are still in the game. D&D would no longer be D&D without +X swords. Its like complaining that a new Star Wars movie still has Jedi in it.
> 
> So when I have to wade through complaints that I feel are unreasonable, it makes me less tolerant of other complaints that are reasonable.




Why is the +whatever sword a sacred cow that can't be slaughtered while other things that have been around for decades (gnomes, alignment) can freely be slaughtered?

I think that the unreasonable complaint you cite is quite reasonable in this light.


----------



## Dausuul

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Why is the +whatever sword a sacred cow that can't be slaughtered while other things that have been around for decades (gnomes, alignment) can freely be slaughtered?
> 
> I think that the unreasonable complaint you cite is quite reasonable in this light.




I agree, frankly--I've wanted to see the +X item gone since the days of second edition.  But I suppose the sacred beef processing plant can only handle so many carcasses at once.  Maybe 5E will see the end of them.


----------



## Shroomy

Intrope said:
			
		

> If you could post a summary description of them when you get a chance, that would help; I've never even seen a copy of FC2, much less read it!




In 3.5e, Legion Devils are a type of low-level foot soldier (CR 3), but I can see that they have traits of 4e development because they are designed to work together as a group.  For instance:

*All the legion devils within 100 feet of each other, combine and share hit points.
*All the legion devils use the highest saving throw if more than one is targeted by an effect.
*They essentially  have a hive mind against mind-affecting effects (all fail or all succeed at the saving throw).
*For every legion devil within 60 feet, each legion devils gains a +4 bonus to their attack roll.
*A legion devil can teleport to a space next to another legion devil within 100 feet.

They also have big left arms that provide a shield bonus and bash attack, as well as the ability to summon more legion devils.  This makes me wonder what a 4e level 21 version will be like!


----------



## Voss

They (legion devils) are badly written and way under-CRed.  If there are more than 2 of them, they pretty much hit automatically (+4/devil) and unless you hit them with save or dies, they keep going and going and going.

Hopefully, they are completely re-written for 4e, because the 3e version is either 1 or 2 that are mere speedbumps, or large groups that are total TPKs.


----------



## Shroomy

I thought that the +4 to hit/devil thing was way wonky when I read it too.


----------



## Peter LaCara

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's cheesy because:
> a)If you play a fire giant cleric, you won't be built that way. At all. Ditto any other monster race.




Yeah. So what?



> b)Players might well want to know how they can get 'just the cool powers' like the faux-cleric they just fought.




You don't tell the players that. They never need to know. I guarantee they won't be able to tell the difference if you don't tell them.



> c)It's hard to work out interactions between pseudo-caster powers and adding class levels, which we know WILL be possible in 4e.
> d)It's a cheap, lazy, shortcut to design. It's saying, "Well, wizards do what...cast fireballs, right? So we'll give this hobgoblin a few extra hit dice and say he can cast a 5d6 fireball 3/day, and, uh, let's see, mage armor 1/day, on himself. Presto! Hobgoblin wizard!"




I honestly don't see anything wrong with that.



> I mean, I can see the appeal as a freelancer.




I see the appeal as a friggin' DM.



> I could fill a huge book with all sorts of pseudo-classed monsters while doing very little work besides thinking up the idea and some basic playtesting. (Based on my work on Mongoose's monster book, thinking up a cool (IMHO) monster takes about 1/4th as long as statting it out 3x style. Or is that the point?)


----------



## Voss

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> You don't tell the players that. They never need to know. I guarantee they won't be able to tell the difference if you don't tell them.
> .




Maybe the newbies won't.  The experienced players will blink in unison and tell you you're playing it wrong.

You don't really think that experienced gamers don't read the DMG and MM, do you?


----------



## pemerton

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's cheesy because:
> a)If you play a fire giant cleric, you won't be built that way. At all. Ditto any other monster race.



Tell me,  what sort of being is a 3E Fire Giant with no class levels? And why are there no humans with no class levels? (My players want to know why they can't play such beings.)

Whatever the answer to this question, I now ask: where is the rule that says there can't also be such beings who have (let's say) Cleric spells as if it were a cleric of half its hit dice, for a (I'll guestimate here) +2 CR.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> b)Players might well want to know how they can get 'just the cool powers' like the faux-cleric they just fought.



Presumably it can be given an ECL as per the guidelines in Savage Species.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> c)It's hard to work out interactions between pseudo-caster powers and adding class levels, which we know WILL be possible in 4e.



My guess is that after you add your Cross-Training feat or your caster levels, you look at the new numbers and abilities and work out a level from that.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> d)It's a cheap, lazy, shortcut to design. It's saying, "Well, wizards do what...cast fireballs, right? So we'll give this hobgoblin a few extra hit dice and say he can cast a 5d6 fireball 3/day, and, uh, let's see, mage armor 1/day, on himself. Presto! Hobgoblin wizard!"



Assuming that I CR the monster properly (or, in 4e, work out its level) this looks like effective design. If it's cheap and lazy, so much the better.

I don't understand why the NPC build rules have to correspond in any way to the PC build rules, nor why either has to correspond to any actual ingame process that a creature goes through between being born and dying.



> (Based on my work on Mongoose's monster book, thinking up a cool (IMHO) monster takes about 1/4th as long as statting it out 3x style. Or is that the point?)



Is this meant to be a good thing about 3E?


----------



## Peter LaCara

Voss said:
			
		

> Maybe the newbies won't.  The experienced players will blink in unison and tell you you're playing it wrong.
> 
> You don't really think that experienced gamers don't read the DMG and MM, do you?



Well, unless you're rolling in the open and telling the players exactly what numbers the monster has, it's doubtful that they'll be able to reverse engineer their stats in the middle of the game.

And if by some miracle they do figure it out and complain, then I give them the finger, tell them that I'm the GM and I wear the viking hat.


----------



## AllisterH

Voss said:
			
		

> Maybe the newbies won't.  The experienced players will blink in unison and tell you you're playing it wrong.
> 
> You don't really think that experienced gamers don't read the DMG and MM, do you?




Wouldn't experienced players also be the ones most likely to know that the DMG encourages the DM to well, make up stuff on the spot?


----------



## Voss

Does it?  As far as I've heard, you're encouraged to use the simple stat blocks as written because its so much easier.  

Plus, most experienced players I've gamed with are wildly uncomfortable with GMs making stuff up on the spot.  Arbitrarium tends to aimed like a gun, right at their characters...

just like Peter is talking about.  GMs that give them the finger and declare 'Because I said so' tend not to make for a fun and enjoyable game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Voss said:
			
		

> Does it?  As far as I've heard, you're encouraged to use the simple stat blocks as written because its so much easier.
> 
> Plus, most experienced players I've gamed with are wildly uncomfortable with GMs making stuff up on the spot.  Arbitrarium tends to aimed like a gun, right at their characters...



There are different kinds of Arbitraryness.

If a DM decides that a Dragons lair is protected by undeads, the players won't object just because he doesn't have the spells to create that undead. But they might object if a Dire Bear suddenly casts Fireball at them in the middle of combat. The first thing is not much more than adding a story element, the second looks like trying to screw over the players.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's cheesy because:
> a)If you play a fire giant cleric, you won't be built that way. At all. Ditto any other monster race.



Of course not, there's no reason for a monster to go through that rigamarole, they just need to feel similar.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> b)Players might well want to know how they can get 'just the cool powers' like the faux-cleric they just fought.



You can, it's called "Cleric training", of course, being a main character, you have a bunch of other abilities too. If you mean those specific powers, most of them will have analogues, others can just be handwaved as "you don't have access to that", it worked in 2e. The idea in 3.x that most monsters had access to exactly the same arbitrarily chosen effects that any PC could use was a Bad Thing, IMO, one that limited imagination and broke verisimilitude.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> c)It's hard to work out interactions between pseudo-caster powers and adding class levels, which we know WILL be possible in 4e.



It is? really? You've seen those rules have you?


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> d)It's a cheap, lazy, shortcut to design. It's saying, "Well, wizards do what...cast fireballs, right? So we'll give this hobgoblin a few extra hit dice and say he can cast a 5d6 fireball 3/day, and, uh, let's see, mage armor 1/day, on himself. Presto! Hobgoblin wizard!"



It's not lazy, it's efficient, it gets the same work done for less effort, if you do your work in 7 hours, another guy does pretty much the same in 4 hours, who's your boss going to call lazy? Sure, it's possible to lose details, but we're going to have to see whether or not that ends up the case, aren't we?


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I mean, I can see the appeal as a freelancer. I could fill a huge book with all sorts of pseudo-classed monsters while doing very little work besides thinking up the idea and some basic playtesting. (Based on my work on Mongoose's monster book, thinking up a cool (IMHO) monster takes about 1/4th as long as statting it out 3x style. Or is that the point?)



Umn, YES? that would be part of the point, it means as a _non-paid_ GM, if I think up a cool monster ability I can just throw it together, this is a _good thing_.

Oh yeah, and the outcomes tend to come out more balanced too, since you can just take balanced numbers and throw some abilities on them, as opposed to throw it together and try to figure out it's CR.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> There are different kinds of Arbitraryness.
> 
> If a DM decides that a Dragons lair is protected by undeads, the players won't object just because he doesn't have the spells to create that undead. But they might object if a Dire Bear suddenly casts Fireball at them in the middle of combat. The first thing is not much more than adding a story element, the second looks like trying to screw over the players.




The dire bear just was a high Level druid using wild shape and natural spell.

The whole Adventure is arbitrary, if not bought. and bought Adventures usually fail if you they don´t allow the DM to adjust encounters on the fly.

But usually they have guidelines for such adjustments and even some to modify the xp. If thats covered with MM and DMG it will be very nice.

And don´t think in 3.5 Monsters were never modified on the fly. (Saving throws too low against that party, swap power attack with iron will etc...)


----------



## Intrope

Shroomy said:
			
		

> In 3.5e, Legion Devils are a type of low-level foot soldier (CR 3), but I can see that they have traits of 4e development because they are designed to work together as a group.  For instance:
> 
> *All the legion devils within 100 feet of each other, combine and share hit points.
> *All the legion devils use the highest saving throw if more than one is targeted by an effect.
> *They essentially  have a hive mind against mind-affecting effects (all fail or all succeed at the saving throw).
> *For every legion devil within 60 feet, each legion devils gains a +4 bonus to their attack roll.
> *A legion devil can teleport to a space next to another legion devil within 100 feet.
> 
> They also have big left arms that provide a shield bonus and bash attack, as well as the ability to summon more legion devils.  This makes me wonder what a 4e level 21 version will be like!



 Hey, thanks Shroomy!

Man, that's a weird devil. Would the 'hive mind' effect mean the Pit Fiend could blow them all up at once? Ka-Blammo! 

And yah, I'm thinking that they'll look rather different in 4e; +4 _per devil_ is nuts!


----------



## Lizard

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> You can, it's called "Cleric training", of course, being a main character, you have a bunch of other abilities too. If you mean those specific powers, most of them will have analogues, others can just be handwaved as "you don't have access to that", it worked in 2e. The idea in 3.x that most monsters had access to exactly the same arbitrarily chosen effects that any PC could use was a Bad Thing, IMO, one that limited imagination and broke verisimilitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, we see things annoy me that don't annoy anyone else, it seems. Going back to the 2e based "Give a monster some random pseudo-powers and call it a new monster" hits all my buttons wrong. To the rest of y'all, it's the pinnacle of Perfect Game Design. No idea why they changed it in 3e...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is? really? You've seen those rules have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Mearls has said that adding class levels to monsters is "too fun not to do", and I've beaten over the head with this quote every time I've complained about the oversimplification of monsters. So, yeah, classed monsters will still be in, and then we've got the fun of dealing with bolting PC classes onto creatures designed using a wholly different system. (As opposed to bolting them on to creatures just designed with weird classes...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not lazy, it's efficient, it gets the same work done for less effort, if you do your work in 7 hours, another guy does pretty much the same in 4 hours, who's your boss going to call lazy? Sure, it's possible to lose details, but we're going to have to see whether or not that ends up the case, aren't we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't do the same work. It's handing the fire giant a sign reading "Klerik" and giving him a few scrolls of Cure Serious Wounds. Really, you could do the same mechanically with a few ranks of Use Magic Device and a wand. Does your pseudo-cleric know the PCs are coming? Doesn't matter, he can't pick appropriate spells for the upcoming battle, because he doesn't HAVE spells, he has a handful of 'cleric like' powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umn, YES? that would be part of the point, it means as a _non-paid_ GM, if I think up a cool monster ability I can just throw it together, this is a _good thing_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You always good. To reverse the usual whine, there was never anything in 3e which prevented you from saying "This fire giant was blessed by the gods and granted the power to cast CSW 3/day. I decided that made him worth +1 CR."
> 
> Which is better: Having a complex system you can choose to ignore, or NOT having a system when you need it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, and the outcomes tend to come out more balanced too, since you can just take balanced numbers and throw some abilities on them, as opposed to throw it together and try to figure out it's CR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm...unless those abilities have some kind of balancing factor, the above statement makes no sense. A kobold who breathes fire for 6d6 damage is worth more XP than a kobold who doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> The dire bear just was a high Level druid using wild shape and natural spell.



Fireball is not a Druid spell.  



> The whole Adventure is arbitrary, if not bought. and bought Adventures usually fail if you they don´t allow the DM to adjust encounters on the fly.



I don't know whether this actually fits to the point adressed here - there are types of arbitrariness that players can accept easily, and some they won't.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Howdy FireLance! 



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> There is still an element of tactics involved: using _Irresistable Command_ as an immediate action means that the pit fiend won't have a spare (or additional) minor action to use Point of Terror on its turn. So, whenever a minion dies, the decision will be between blowing it up now, or lowering an(other) opponent's defences on its turn.




You are still removing the tactical ability to choose when its going to be used. Also you are giving PCs the ability to know when such an attack will take place. Going that far you may as well make it explode on death like a Balor.


----------



## FireLance

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> You are still removing the tactical ability to choose when its going to be used. Also you are giving PCs the ability to know when such an attack will take place. Going that far you may as well make it explode on death like a Balor.



Well, I don't see why it can't have both options: either exploding an ally on its turn as a minor action, or doing so as a reaction to its dropping below 0 hp.


----------



## Upper_Krust

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, I don't see why it can't have both options: either exploding an ally on its turn as a minor action, or doing so as a reaction to its dropping below 0 hp.




Simply because you can't have your cake and eat it.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Does anyone actually understand the mechanics of its Attack Roll of +31 yet?

Is it some sort of 1/2 Level + 1/4 level (rounded up*) + strength bonus

*To represent the inferred magical items bonuses PCs will have at that stage? Hence the reason its not added to the mace (so the tail gets the mechanical benefit too)?


----------



## Plane Sailing

I notice that it has an initiative check of +22.

This seems to suggest that Initiative might be a skill check like it is in SWSE.


----------



## Dausuul

Voss said:
			
		

> Maybe the newbies won't.  The experienced players will blink in unison and tell you you're playing it wrong.
> 
> You don't really think that experienced gamers don't read the DMG and MM, do you?




Any player in my games who expects to know a monster's stats chapter and verse, just on account of having read the MM, is in for a rude awakening.  I find it takes a lot of the fun out of a fight when you can be totally certain what you're going to be up against, and the most exciting battles are those where the monster pulls out some totally unexpected ability and slams the PCs with it.

Ideally, the ability should "feel" natural to the monster.  For example, a mind flayer might be able to create illusions, or a balor could cast _wall of fire_ as a swift action.  A mind flayer that threw fireballs, or a balor that sucked out your brain, wouldn't work as well.

One shouldn't do this with every fight, of course.  Generally these "special features" belong on boss monsters rather than grunts.  But there's no reason why one should be required to go through the 3E process of justifying each mod.


----------



## Peter LaCara

Voss said:
			
		

> Does it?  As far as I've heard, you're encouraged to use the simple stat blocks as written because its so much easier.
> 
> Plus, most experienced players I've gamed with are wildly uncomfortable with GMs making stuff up on the spot.  Arbitrarium tends to aimed like a gun, right at their characters...
> 
> just like Peter is talking about.  GMs that give them the finger and declare 'Because I said so' tend not to make for a fun and enjoyable game.



I dunno, man. My players have all had a lot of fun so far. But then again, I've been completely up front about the fact that I wing stuff and play fast and loose with the rules sometimes.

Lemme put it this way: When I run World of Darkness stuff, I don't build every NPC using the character creation rules and tracking each xp meticulously. I think, "Oh, this guy's a cop. He should have Firearms 3. This guy's a lightning spirit, so he should have some sort of bolt attack." Why on earth shouldn't I be able to do the same thing for D&D?

And for the record, I have never once had to invoke the Viking Hat rule, because my players are all reasonable human beings. It's just there in case someone ever did complain. Haven't had to use it yet.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Voss said:
			
		

> Maybe the newbies won't.  The experienced players will blink in unison and tell you you're playing it wrong.
> 
> You don't really think that experienced gamers don't read the DMG and MM, do you?




If a player tells me that, they can walk away from my table and never return. Monsters are mine to make and break.

Of course, every experienced player I have not only expects me to wing things, but appreciates it. Especially since I say "yes" to them, with few exceptions.


----------



## helium3

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Fireball is not a Druid spell.




Fine. Then it was a celestial dire bear that had fireball as a spell like ability. There's absolutely no reason it can't happen if the DM wants it to.

On the other hand, if it's too weird and unexpected and the DM puts no thought into why a celestial dire bear has fireball as a SLA, than yeah it causes problems for the players in terms of their ability to suspend disbelief.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I notice that it has an initiative check of +22.
> 
> This seems to suggest that Initiative might be a skill check like it is in SWSE.




I believe that was confirmed some time ago - at least I remember reading it.  It might even have been in the 4E videos playing at Gencon.


----------



## helium3

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's cheesy because:
> a)If you play a fire giant cleric, you won't be built that way. At all. Ditto any other monster race.




Except of course for that whole section in the back of the MM about how to give monsters spell like abilities and special abilities and then how to estimate their CR.

It's really pretty simply. What's the monster's base CR? What CR would it have if I gave it the correct number of levels of cleric? Now, how much of the "oomph" of that extra CR comes from the extra hit dice and how much comes from the spells? Hmm. It's gonna have to be somewhere in between the two numbers and an easy answer would just be "the average."


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> 
> Does anyone actually understand the mechanics of its Attack Roll of +31 yet?
> 
> Is it some sort of 1/2 Level + 1/4 level (rounded up*) + strength bonus
> 
> *To represent the inferred magical items bonuses PCs will have at that stage? Hence the reason its not added to the mace (so the tail gets the mechanical benefit too)?




I think we know that all PC's have a BAB of 1/2 level, so you have +13, then +11 for strength.  That leaves +7 left.  It's been implied that BAB's are modified once by a set amount at 1st level; ie, the Soldier class may get a +4 to their BAB.  Might this go up again at Paragon and Epic levels?  I don't know.  It's also possible that "flame-touched mace" means something specific in terms of bonuses - like a 1E Vorpal Blade, perhaps it always is a +3 weapon?  

Just throwing out ideas...


----------



## Dausuul

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I think we know that all PC's have a BAB of 1/2 level, so you have +13, then +11 for strength.  That leaves +7 left.  It's been implied that BAB's are modified once by a set amount at 1st level; ie, the Soldier class may get a +4 to their BAB.  Might this go up again at Paragon and Epic levels?  I don't know.  It's also possible that "flame-touched mace" means something specific in terms of bonuses - like a 1E Vorpal Blade, perhaps it always is a +3 weapon?
> 
> Just throwing out ideas...




I'm pretty sure it's just +31 to attack, with no underlying formula.  Remember, the 4E method of monster generation is to pick the level and give it appropriate attack bonus, damage, AC, and so forth for a monster of that level.  The designers are no longer required to "justify" those numbers by way of elaborate formulas as in 3E.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure it's just +31 to attack, with no underlying formula.  Remember, the 4E method of monster generation is to pick the level and give it appropriate attack bonus, damage, AC, and so forth for a monster of that level.  The designers are no longer required to "justify" those numbers by way of elaborate formulas as in 3E.




Mouseferatu has implied that just because there are guidelines for broad areas doesn't mean that there aren't underlying formulas - however I would be interested to learn more...  I think I'll dash over to the other thread and ask..!


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure it's just +31 to attack, with no underlying formula.  Remember, the 4E method of monster generation is to pick the level and give it appropriate attack bonus, damage, AC, and so forth for a monster of that level.  The designers are no longer required to "justify" those numbers by way of elaborate formulas as in 3E.




Ugg. I want formulas to jive both with players and monsters. Although I can see the appeal as a 1st edition purist, I need some sort of logic to apply when creating my own monsters.


----------



## Dausuul

Moniker said:
			
		

> Ugg. I want formulas to jive both with players and monsters. Although I can see the appeal as a 1st edition purist, I need some sort of logic to apply when creating my own monsters.




*shrug* To me, the logic is still there, it's just that it's being applied to the output instead of the inputs.  A 26th-level Soldier should have an attack bonus of +31.  How you get there is no longer important.  (Compare this to 3E, where you could end up with a huge range of different attack values for a CR 26 monster, depending on which elaborate process you followed to get to that CR.)


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Dausuul said:
			
		

> *shrug* To me, the logic is still there, it's just that it's being applied to the output instead of the inputs.  A 26th-level Soldier should have an attack bonus of +31.  How you get there is no longer important.  (Compare this to 3E, where you could end up with a huge range of different attack values for a CR 26 monster, depending on which elaborate process you followed to get to that CR.)





Ahh, now I follow you. So you would apply half level, plus Strength or relevant ability score plsu the bonus given by the monster's role perhaps?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Fireball is not a Druid spell.




of course that druid has a feat which allows him to throw fireballs... i am sure ther is one anywhere...




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I don't know whether this actually fits to the point adressed here - there are types of arbitrariness that players can accept easily, and some they won't.




yes, but I can make up a monster with any classes from any book. If I just want a certain spell, I have to make it stronger than i wanted. Then I can give it magical items from any books and place it in such favourable terrain that the counter is on a difficulty setting I like.

And seriously, the CR of monster Levels + class levels doesn´t fit at all if you mix caster Levels with giant Levels. It even doesn´t work that well if you have a LVL 13 Mind flayer cleric vs 3 average equipped but well prepared LVL 11 chars... It doesn´t survive two rounds of combat..

The only unfair thing I can see is changing a monster during battle... but preparing a little bit that it poses a challenge... thats ok.

And usually you don´t have to do any changes if players don´t use meta game knowledge to equipp and find the best tactics against such monsters. If players find weaknesses of monsters in-game, be sure don´t change them until monsters know that players know them, and then you still need a good explanation...


----------



## Dausuul

Moniker said:
			
		

> Ahh, now I follow you. So you would apply half level, plus Strength or relevant ability score plsu the bonus given by the monster's role perhaps?




No, what I'm getting at is that the goal is to produce +31 for a 26th-level monster.  That value is not arbitrary--it's calculated to produce an exciting battle against the typical 26th-level party.  But the calculation is much more likely to be something like "monster level plus 5," not "Hit Dice divided by this plus Strength modifier times that plus one-half class level plus special modifier for monsters whose names start with P."


----------



## Burr

As to formulas, here are some best guesses so far.  While individual formulas may be controversial, I haven't yet figured out a system that works better for both Pit Fiend and Spined Devil without relying on unprecedented, arbitrary bonuses (although, I'll admit, I'm only vaguely familiar with SWSE).

Note: these equations all assume an Ability Modifier is calculated the same as in 3.5.  I'm 99% certain that is the case, since alternate methods cause weird anomalies when applied to one monster or the other.  For example, if the Pit Fiend had a +14 Str, then it would be a weird that his melee damage bonus is only 11.  It makes far more sense that he has +11 Str.

Anyhow...

*Initiative:  Cha + 1/2 Level*
Pit Fiend: 9 + 13 = 22
Spined Devil: 2 + 3 = 5

*Perception:  Wis + 1/2 Level + (Trained?)*
Pit Fiend: 5 + 13 + (5?) = 23
Spined Devil: 2 + 3 + (0?) = 5

*Skills:  Ability + 1/2 Level + Trained*
Pit Fiend:
.....Bluff: 9 + 13 + 5 = 27
.....Intimidate: 9 + 13 + 5 = 27
.....Religion: 6 + 13 + 5 = 24
Spined Devil:
.....Spot: 2 + 3 + 5 = 10


*Melee attack: Str + Dex + 1/2 Level*
Pit Fiend: 11 + 7 + 13 = 31
Spined Devil: 4 + 2 + 3 = 9
*Melee damage: Str*
Pit Fiend: 11 = 11
Spined Devil: 4 = 4
*Ranged damage: Dex*
Spined Devil 2 = 2
*Poison attack: Con + Con + 1/2 Level*
Pit Fiend: 8 + 8 + 13 = 29
*Fear attack: Con + Cha + 1/2 Level*
Pit Fiend: 8 + 9 + 13 = 30

(I tried to figure out the Spined Devil's Spine Rain ranged attack.  The problem is, in the old card it's listed as "+9 Dex vs. Ref"; whereas, in the new card it's listed at "+8 vs. DEF (Ref)".  The +9 could have been Str + Dex + 1/2 Level, just like a melee attack against AC.  But where is that +8 coming from?  It could be Dex + Level, or it could be Dex Check + 1/2 Level, or it could even be Str + Str.  None of those make much sense if we assume the other attack or save formulas are correct.  They seem to be following an Ability + Ability + 1/2 Level method now.)


*Fort: 11 + Con + Con + 1/2 Level + Saving Throw*
Pit Fiend: 11 + 8 + 8 + 13 + 2 = 42
Spined Devil: 11 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 18
*Ref: 11 + Int + Int + 1/2 Level + Saving Throw*
Pit Fiend: 11 + 6 + 6 + 13 + 2 = 38
Spined Devil: 11 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 18
*Will: 11 + Wis + Cha + 1/2 Level + Saving Throw*
Pit Fiend: 11 + 5 + 9 + 13 + 2 = 40
Spined Devil = 11 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 0 = 18
*AC: 11 + Dex + Dex + 1/2 Level + (Net Armor and Penalties?)*
Pit Fiend: 11 + 7 + 7 + 13 + (6?) = 44
Spined Devil: 11 + 2 + 2 + 3 + (2?) = 20

(The 11 balances the aggressor's d20 roll, such that the aggressor wins a tie.)

-ALTERNATIVELY-
*Ref: 11 + Dex + Int + 1/2 Level + Saving Throw + (Size Modifier?)* 
Pit Fiend: 11 + 7 + 6 + 13 + 2 + (-1?) = 38
Spined Devil: 11 + 2 + 2 + 6 + 0 + (0?) = 18
*AC: Ref + (Armor?)*
Pit Fiend: 38 + (4?) = 44
Spined Devil: 18 + (2?) = 20

(Of course, we don't know what armor bonus, if any, or dex penalties, if any, are given by the Pit Fiend's breastplate or the Spined Devil's spines or whatever.  So AC may be impossible to verify before the release date.  Reflex should become clearer after the next monster preview.)


*HP:  [(Con + d10 average) * Level] rounded down to the nearest 5.*
Pit Fiend: (8 + 5.5) * 26 = 351 -> 350
Spined Devil: (2 + 5.5) * 6 = 45 -> 45

(This formula is almost certainly wrong.  Although the Spined Devil has 45 hp in the updated minis card, it most likely has 47 hp before rounding, given the info from the older card.  In any case, the correct formula is difficult to figure out without knowing how hp varies with monster type, role, or rank.  We need more monster previews with stats.)


----------



## FourthBear

It seems to be there will be several ways you can customize monsters in 4e.  Note that I'm not using hypothetical language below because it makes for clumsy writing.  I don't have any special knowledge of the actual system.

1)  The DM uses the guidelines in the DMG or MM and adjusts the numbers and special abilities as seen fit.  The guidelines recommend the range of values for a type of monster (e.g. 9th level elite bruiser) and its recommended that you fiddle with them within that range.  There will be a section that gives guidance on what kind of special abilities (movement, attacks, defenses and miscellaneous) are appropriate for an opponent of that level.  There will be discussions on what kind of power builds are problematic.  The advantages are obvious: speed of design and no built-in restrictions that cause the final result to drift away from the DM's concept.  It also will presumably grant more time deciding on the more memorable special abilities and less time calculating things like skill points and making sure you've got the exact right number of feats.

2)  The DM uses the Monster Manual examples as a starting point and adds class levels to the monster.  This should be possible as it is in 3e, assuming that class levels are primarily additive in nature.  The issues with this are manifold: the class levels in the PH advance statistics in many ways beyond class abilities, so you will be adding hit dice, attack bonuses, skills, feats, talents and many other features.  It also requires a fair amount of work, about the same as in 3e.  This will also result in monsters with high starting base levels to be problematic to add class levels to, since they already have large built in values to be added to.  It probably won't be *hard* to add 10 levels of cleric onto a 10th level Giant, but you're going to get a result that won't be anywhere near 10th level in challenge.

3)  The DM uses the Monster Manual and works to "trade in" monster levels for class levels.  The process would involve recalculating all of the appropriate stats for the monster with some lower level (consulting the guideline tables).  So you might decide to recalculate the 10th level giant as a 1st level opponent.  Then you go about the process in step 2 of adding class levels as appropriate.  So you would end up roughly with a 1st level giant/10th level cleric.  This will be even more effort than option 2 (it would be even more so if you tried the same thing in 3e by substracting hit dice and all of the abilities related to those hit dice).  

4)  If the monster has the right type and level of ability, you can simply swap it one for one with another option.  So if a monster has an appropriate feat, you could trade it in for a Cleric trading feat.  However, this depends on that monster having as many things to trade as you want to add, which is probably unlikely if you want to add full class abilities.

In the end, I suspect that option 1 is still the best option.  The difficulty is that unless we restrict hit dice (for previous editions) or monster levels (in 4e) to closely match the levels in the PC generation process (which will greatly complilcate the creation of all future monsters), trading out levels is unlikely to do a good job of resulting a good final result.  For myself, the question is a pragmatic one: how much result do I get for how much effort.  If we look at the above methods, I feel reasonably confident that for most monster builds, the difference in play between using option 1 and the other options will be small.  And, frankly, I think most of those differences will be detrimental to the final result (unneeded options bloating the stat block, accidental synergies leading to numbers that are outside the reasonable challenge range and such).


----------



## grimslade

I like the new Pit Fiend. It could use a few more options for variety but the abilities given are appropriate. 

On Irresistible Command: The Pit Fiend can summon a cadre of fanatically loyal devils to serve him like a diabolical secret service. Instead of taking a bullet for him, at his command, they run screaming, heedless of attacks against them (slide: movement with no Opp. Attks in any direction) and sacrifice themselves in an explosion of hellfire. It seems like a very regimented loyal lawful evil thing to do. 'Yes my Lord Pazuzu! At once! <boom>'

On low damage per round: I have some concerns with this. From other previews level 26 PCs seem to be doing more damage individually than this guy. The minions add to the damage but I will need to see the rest of the rule set to judge.

The stat block looks lean and mean. It should be a breeze to use with only a little prep.


----------



## Dausuul

grimslade said:
			
		

> On low damage per round: I have some concerns with this. From other previews level 26 PCs seem to be doing more damage individually than this guy. The minions add to the damage but I will need to see the rest of the rule set to judge.




Keep in mind that monsters typically have higher hit points but lower damage output than comparable PCs.  I doubt a 26th-level PC will have anywhere near 350 hit points.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that monsters typically have higher hit points but lower damage output than comparable PCs.  I doubt a 26th-level PC will have anywhere near 350 hit points.




Unless they plan to do something funky to classes, right now it's entirely possible that a 26th level epic Fighter could have more than 350 HP.

That's assuming the fighter has rolled 10 HP a level and has an 18 Constitution:

260 HP base
104  w/+4 Con bonus across 26 levels
Heck, that's not including Toughness as the Fighter bonus feat over several levels.


----------



## Fifth Element

Moniker said:
			
		

> Unless they plan to do something funky to classes, right now it's entirely possible that a 26th level epic Fighter could have more than 350 HP.
> 
> That's assuming the fighter has rolled 10 HP a level and has an 18 Constitution:
> 
> 260 HP base
> 104  w/+4 Con bonus across 26 levels
> Heck, that's not including Toughness as the Fighter bonus feat over several levels.



Okay, what if we don't assume the fighter rolls 10 hp per level, since it is _incredibly_ unlikely to do so for 25 levels (max at 1st)?


----------



## Peter LaCara

Moniker said:
			
		

> Unless they plan to do something funky to classes, right now it's entirely possible that a 26th level epic Fighter could have more than 350 HP.
> 
> That's assuming the fighter has rolled 10 HP a level and has an 18 Constitution:
> 
> 260 HP base
> 104  w/+4 Con bonus across 26 levels
> Heck, that's not including Toughness as the Fighter bonus feat over several levels.



I'm going out on a limb, but I'm betting rolled HP are going away. Still, I'm betting a fighter at around that level is going to have 200-250ish HP. Considering that the fighter's going to have to deal with the Pit Fiend's aura, 8 summoned friends, and his three other lvl 26 bodyguards, I'm betting he's going to need them.


----------



## A'koss

Moniker said:
			
		

> Unless they plan to do something funky to classes, right now it's entirely possible that a 26th level epic Fighter could have more than 350 HP.
> 
> That's assuming the fighter has rolled 10 HP a level and has an 18 Constitution:
> 
> 260 HP base
> 104  w/+4 Con bonus across 26 levels
> Heck, that's not including Toughness as the Fighter bonus feat over several levels.



If the new 4e DDM stat cards are anything to go by, classes start with high hit points, but gain only a middling amount per level after that (Fighters seem to gain about ~5 HP/level after 1st). They are quite a bit less than 3e at higher levels, and more compressed between the classes.


----------



## Scribble

grimslade said:
			
		

> Instead of taking a bullet for him, at his command, they run screaming, heedless of attacks against them (slide: movement with no Opp. Attks in any direction) and sacrifice themselves in an explosion of hellfire. It seems like a very regimented loyal lawful evil thing to do. 'Yes my Lord Pazuzu! At once! <boom>




Heh... the vision in my head, is the pit fiend smiling devilishly (hah!) pointing... Then a look of utter terror entering the poor minion devil's eyes while it screams and claws the at floor to no avail... "wait wait master n- nooooo" <booom!>


----------



## Just Another User

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, I don't see why it can't have both options: either exploding an ally on its turn as a minor action, or doing so as a reaction to its dropping below 0 hp.




I stil say make it blow up when it is bloodied, either on the PF turn or as an immediate action the moment the devil go bloodied, as long as it is just one for round. This add at least two kind of tactical choices

for the pit fiend, keep around a minion that is still able to fight (and to keep the PCs busy so they are don't attack him) or blow it up to hurt its enemies

and for the players, try to hit the devils from a distance and/or kill them ASAP bringing them from bloodied to dead before the pit fiend had a chance to blow them up. Because from what we know between the slide the burst and the no save it seems to be really hard for the pcs to defend themselves against these kamidevil (of course there is still a lot we don't know), this way there is something they could do.


also you get rid of that stupid slide.


----------



## Dausuul

Moniker said:
			
		

> Unless they plan to do something funky to classes, right now it's entirely possible that a 26th level epic Fighter could have more than 350 HP.
> 
> That's assuming the fighter has rolled 10 HP a level and has an 18 Constitution:
> 
> 260 HP base
> 104  w/+4 Con bonus across 26 levels
> Heck, that's not including Toughness as the Fighter bonus feat over several levels.




The odds of a 26th-level fighter rolling all 10s for hit points are 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Hardly a good basis for argument.

Let's try the _average_ hit point roll of 5.5 per level beyond first, and a more reasonable Con score of 16 (remember there are no stat-boosting items in 4E).  Total is 147.5 base hit points, plus 78 for Constitution, equals 225.5 hit points.  And that's for a fighter with a very solid Con score.

Not that it really matters, since 4E will almost certainly use a different system for calculating hit points.


----------



## Stormtalon

Scribble said:
			
		

> Heh... the vision in my head, is the pit fiend smiling devilishly (hah!) pointing... Then a look of utter terror entering the poor minion devil's eyes while it screams and claws the at floor to no avail... "wait wait master n- nooooo" <booom!>




Actually, I'm sort of imagining something like the final scenes of Time Bandits, when Evil is blowing up his minions and they're all relishing the thought.  Except the one he turned into a sheepdog, which blew up with a rather plainitive howl, iirc....


----------



## I'm A Banana

I like this, in general. All it's missing, for my purposes, is a *For The PC's* entry, for how to use this thing when it's on your side, but if Warlocks can summon them, perhaps that's good enonugh for me.  




> Assuming that I CR the monster properly (or, in 4e, work out its level) this looks like effective design. If it's cheap and lazy, so much the better.
> 
> I don't understand why the NPC build rules have to correspond in any way to the PC build rules, nor why either has to correspond to any actual ingame process that a creature goes through between being born and dying.




For a lot of people, this breaks verisimiltude.

The idea is that in the world, a Wizard looks like X. X, in D&D's case, is a character class.

If a Wizard looks like X, then all wizards should look like X. X should be designed for use with both PC's and monsters in mind.

However, 4e may decide that a Wizard looks like X if it's a PC, Y if it's a monster, Z if it's a villain, and have DM's juggle three different definitions of what a "Wizard" is in the game world. 

This isn't inherently a terrible thing, because it lets you design X for PC use, Y for use in overlaying a monster, and Z for use in building a humanoid villain, and makes sure that all of them accomplish the goal of the Wizard enough to make it believable (fireballs and magic missiles and all). 

However, it comes with a cost, and that cost is the fact that the Gnoll Wizard uses different rules than the Fire Giant Wizard, who uses different rules than the Halfling Wizard, who uses different rules than the hireling Wizard the PC's rented out at the local adventuring guild, who looks different than the Evil Wizard they are all fighting (even the Gnoll and the Fire Giant, who got recruited by the PC's halfway through the adventure, and, accordingly, changed what rules they operate under). 

They're all called Wizards, and they're all supposed to represent the same thing in the game world (some nerd with a spellbook and a wand), but they use a different rule for each version because, possibly according to 4e's logic, the rules to make a PC Wizard wouldn't make a very good Fire Giant Wizard, because they're trying for different purposes. And if all you want a Wizard to do is shoot fireballs and magic missiles, and that's all any of these Wizards have in common, why not end the confusion dividing them up into different rules silos with different terms to make them truly different?

Somewhere between the outcry against "Simulationism!" and the hyperbolic example I had above, there's a comfortable middle ground that can hit both sides pretty well. 

It's the question of "Do we design one Wizard that works well in a vast multitude of scenarios, knowing that someday, someone, somewhere, will come up with a scenario where it doesn't work?" (where the logic of 3e would have us headed in 4e) or "Do we design a variety of things we call Wizards that do different things depending upon where we put them, but share some broad similarities?"

Personally, I'd recommend using both approaches where it makes sense to use them. Thus, you have one "as-universal-as-possible" Wizard rule that you use to make Wizards in as many basic circumstances as you can theorize, and then, when you run into an area where it *doesn't* work, you alter the name a little and fluff it up a little and make a new rule for it.

4e seems to be embracing the latter approach even when the former approach would probably work just fine, whereas 3e definately focused on the former to the exclusion of the latter until late in the edition.


----------



## Incenjucar

I think that just says that "wizard" is the wrong term to use when describing a spell-casting monster who has not taken levels of wizard.


----------



## D.Shaffer

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd recommend using both approaches where it makes sense to use them. Thus, you have one "as-universal-as-possible" Wizard rule that you use to make Wizards in as many basic circumstances as you can theorize, and then, when you run into an area where it *doesn't* work, you alter the name a little and fluff it up a little and make a new rule for it.
> 
> 4e seems to be embracing the latter approach even when the former approach would probably work just fine, whereas 3e definately focused on the former to the exclusion of the latter until late in the edition.



Considering they've mentioned that monsters can still take class levels, isnt this essentially what they've done?  For the more generic wizard monsters, you can just toss on a couple class levels.  In other cases, when they're not really 'wizards' but fulfill a similar role, you can make tailored role monsters.  You could also combine both for unique creatures.  I really dont see the dichotomy there that you seem to be implying.


----------



## Lizard

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Considering they've mentioned that monsters can still take class levels, isnt this essentially what they've done?  For the more generic wizard monsters, you can just toss on a couple class levels.  In other cases, when they're not really 'wizards' but fulfill a similar role, you can make tailored role monsters.  You could also combine both for unique creatures.  I really dont see the dichotomy there that you seem to be implying.




Here is my problem, and again, we go back to the Hobgoblins in MMV as the likely prototype.

It's VERY likely for hobgoblin PCs to exist. They're normal humanoids with an interesting culture.

I cannot wrap my mind around telling a player, "Well, you can be a hobgoblin wizard, but you can't be a Hobgoblin Warcaster" (Unless, presumably, you start as one and eat the +3 ECL, making you a 7th level character with 4 hit dice and 2nd level spells). OK, I can wrap my mind around it, but it's irksome, foolish, and serves no good purpose. 

"NPC only" classes, or pseudo-class-builds, offend my sensibilities. They remind me of some of the worst features of AD&D 1e. (3e NPC classes CAN betaken by players, they're just weak...). The Warcaster's abilities aren't innate, like a Dryad's, so it's not a matter of building them Savage Species style. They'd be better done by being a hobgoblin-only PrC, or as a set of 'replacement levels' for hobgoblin wizards, or any other mechanic which is based on the same rules concepts that PCs are based on. (There might be such mechanics 'hidden' in the warcaster, but, if so, why not reveal them in an appendix so DMs have the tools to make similar creatures without pure handwaving? At least 4e presumably does this.)


----------



## Imban

Lizard said:
			
		

> Here is my problem, and again, we go back to the Hobgoblins in MMV as the likely prototype.
> 
> It's VERY likely for hobgoblin PCs to exist. They're normal humanoids with an interesting culture.
> 
> I cannot wrap my mind around telling a player, "Well, you can be a hobgoblin wizard, but you can't be a Hobgoblin Warcaster" (Unless, presumably, you start as one and eat the +3 ECL, making you a 7th level character with 4 hit dice and 2nd level spells). OK, I can wrap my mind around it, but it's irksome, foolish, and serves no good purpose.
> 
> "NPC only" classes, or pseudo-class-builds, offend my sensibilities. They remind me of some of the worst features of AD&D 1e. (3e NPC classes CAN betaken by players, they're just weak...). The Warcaster's abilities aren't innate, like a Dryad's, so it's not a matter of building them Savage Species style. They'd be better done by being a hobgoblin-only PrC, or as a set of 'replacement levels' for hobgoblin wizards, or any other mechanic which is based on the same rules concepts that PCs are based on. (There might be such mechanics 'hidden' in the warcaster, but, if so, why not reveal them in an appendix so DMs have the tools to make similar creatures without pure handwaving? At least 4e presumably does this.)




Hm. See, I tend to have pretty much your exact viewpoint on stuff, but having played around with writing a few of these, they work really well in play for quick-play combat monsters. Basically, I took Death Slaadi, and pumped up their Hit Dice and a few stats and such to what I felt would be appropriate for 25th-level monsters, and gave them the ability to cast a maximized Maw of Chaos with Intelligence added to damage at will, called them "Death Slaad Storms", and moved on to designing the rest of that encounter. As it turns out? It worked really well.

Now, can a PC Death Slaad be a Death Slaad Storm? Well, no. No they can't. But that didn't bother me, because the mechanical ways in which a Death Slaad Storm was superior to or different from a Death Slaad warmage were the direct result of being solely intended for a 4-round combat encounter. (I mean, over 4 rounds, a Death Slaad warmage would have a Sudden Maximize use, assumedly a Rod of Greater Maximize Spell, and something like 6 9th-level spells per day? So "maximized Maw of Chaos + Intelligence at will" was effectively the same thing.) If I had intended for the Storm to be a recurring NPC or recruitable by the party or playable as a PC, I would not have statted it in that fashion.

However, I likewise hated the Hobgoblins in MM5, because of essentially all the reasons you stated. Monsters statted like that, especially "classed" monsters, don't give me options, and present that trimmed, combat-only statblock as the one mechanical truth. In this way, I feel that a designer, who's being paid to do this and doesn't have the knowledge to tell how people will be inspired to use his creations, is obliged to make them as generally useful as possible. DMs do it for fun and are in just the right place to know when expanded rules are needed.

(By the way, statblock advice I wish I could have given someone back in 2000 when 3.0 was new? *Bold* SLAs or spellbook spells that are worth a monster or NPC's time of day in a 5-round death match, and underline SLAs or spellbook spells that monsters or NPCs should pre-buff themselves with. I *liked* having monsters who could bring to bear a wide variety of spell effects, many useless for combat? But honestly, a quick reference to tell me "these are the spells that actually kill things" is the least you could do.)


----------



## Lizard

Imban said:
			
		

> Hm. See, I tend to have pretty much your exact viewpoint on stuff, but having played around with writing a few of these, they work really well in play for quick-play combat monsters. Basically, I took Death Slaadi, and pumped up their Hit Dice and a few stats and such to what I felt would be appropriate for 25th-level monsters, and gave them the ability to cast a maximized Maw of Chaos with Intelligence added to damage at will, called them "Death Slaad Storms", and moved on to designing the rest of that encounter. As it turns out? It worked really well.
> 
> Now, can a PC Death Slaad be a Death Slaad Storm? Well, no. No they can't. But that didn't bother me, because the mechanical ways in which a Death Slaad Storm was superior to or different from a Death Slaad warmage were the direct result of being solely intended for a 4-round combat encounter. (I mean, over 4 rounds, a Death Slaad warmage would have a Sudden Maximize use, assumedly a Rod of Greater Maximize Spell, and something like 6 9th-level spells per day? So "maximized Maw of Chaos + Intelligence at will" was effectively the same thing.) If I had intended for the Storm to be a recurring NPC or recruitable by the party or playable as a PC, I would not have statted it in that fashion.




A lot of it comes down to preference. Weird Alien Critters, esp. things like Slaads, might well give rise to odd mutations. A Death Storm is born a Death Storm; end of story. But when you say "Hobgoblin warcasters are the result of intense training", and the PC says "I want me some of that training!" and the DM has to say "Uh...no. Can't work. Take your wizard levels and LIKE them!", I have issues. (And if you say, "OK, suck down the ECL, if that's what you want", how do you then "upgrade" them to WarSouls?)

I admit we're talking taste here. And I know a lot of people don't hug themselves in glee over mountains-o-crunch the way I do. I'd be happy if someone said, "Well, there's a lot of Warcaster-like stuff in the 4e MM. But you know what? We didn't just pull it all out of our asses, and we've got 10 pages of rules for that, just for crunch-happy DMs, that will be posted on Gleemax once the book is released, so you can see how everything breaks down in ways you can use to build NPCs or PCs. Those who don't have crunchgasms can just fake it using the MM as a guideline."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lizard said:
			
		

> Those who don't have crunchgasms can just fake it using the MM as a guideline."



Faking crunchgasms sounds so... womanish... 


Spoiler



Sorry Grandma


----------



## Imban

Lizard said:
			
		

> A lot of it comes down to preference. Weird Alien Critters, esp. things like Slaads, might well give rise to odd mutations. A Death Storm is born a Death Storm; end of story. But when you say "Hobgoblin warcasters are the result of intense training", and the PC says "I want me some of that training!" and the DM has to say "Uh...no. Can't work. Take your wizard levels and LIKE them!", I have issues. (And if you say, "OK, suck down the ECL, if that's what you want", how do you then "upgrade" them to WarSouls?)




Oh, no, I was assuming that Death Slaad Storms were the result of intense training. I just whipped up that statblock on the fly because "can cast Maw of Chaos and add Intelligence to its damage at will" was actually an honest rough approximation of what they would be if they were PC-trained. (And in that situation, I'd really just say "Well, okay, you can roll another character who's a Death Slaad gestalted with Warmage if you really want.", since we were playing an epic-level gestalt campaign at the time anyway.)



> I admit we're talking taste here. And I know a lot of people don't hug themselves in glee over mountains-o-crunch the way I do. I'd be happy if someone said, "Well, there's a lot of Warcaster-like stuff in the 4e MM. But you know what? We didn't just pull it all out of our asses, and we've got 10 pages of rules for that, just for crunch-happy DMs, that will be posted on Gleemax once the book is released, so you can see how everything breaks down in ways you can use to build NPCs or PCs. Those who don't have crunchgasms can just fake it using the MM as a guideline."




I'd be really happy with that, too, since I also hug myself over mountains of crunch. I just see the ad hoc assigning of class or class-like abilities to monsters as a very useful DMing tool, especially when you're creating what you know are "trash mobs" - things that have no real existence before they met the party and will end their existence eighteen to twenty-four seconds later at the hands of the party. For actual rules writing by designers, I'm of the opinion that one man's trash mob is another's NPC ally is another's villain is another's player race, and thus I'd like to have the information I need for all of those.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Teleport as Movement Type:

This implies it's a move action for the devil to teleport. (Will it provoke AoOs?)

What happens if he uses this movement type for overland-travel? Does he remateiralize every 10 squares? Or does he just state how long/fast he wants to travel and the appears in the distance he wanted to be?

If it's the rematerializing, I am totally considering a house rule that allowed him teleporting longer distance at something like half "speed", but any distance. 
The "blinking" teleportation move doesn't fit my idea of an over-land travelling pit fiend.

But it totally fits my imagination of a Blink Dog or Displacer Beast!


----------



## med stud

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Teleport as Movement Type:
> 
> This implies it's a move action for the devil to teleport. (Will it provoke AoOs?)
> 
> What happens if he uses this movement type for overland-travel? Does he remateiralize every 10 squares? Or does he just state how long/fast he wants to travel and the appears in the distance he wanted to be?
> 
> If it's the rematerializing, I am totally considering a house rule that allowed him teleporting longer distance at something like half "speed", but any distance.
> The "blinking" teleportation move doesn't fit my idea of an over-land travelling pit fiend.
> 
> But it totally fits my imagination of a Blink Dog or Displacer Beast!



I guess a pit fiend would use some kind of ritual for cross country travel. Possibly by entering Hell and going back to the Prime material using a portal from there.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Howdy med stud! 



			
				med stud said:
			
		

> I guess a pit fiend would use some kind of ritual for cross country travel. Possibly by entering Hell and going back to the Prime material using a portal from there.




Maybe they have Teleport Circles or Permanent Gates in Hell. 

The idea that every demon or devil can teleport and many can plane shift takes away from the classic "We have to destroy the portal to stop the [insert threat] coming through." 

In Hell (or wherever) where the devils have centuries if not millenia to establish and defend these portals then it makes sense every devil fortress (or immortal's divine realm) will have a "Gate Room" not to get too Stargate-y.

So while it may be a ritual to create the portal in the first place I don't think it will require a ritual everytime you want to use one.


----------



## Just Another User

med stud said:
			
		

> I guess a pit fiend would use some kind of ritual for cross country travel. Possibly by entering Hell and going back to the Prime material using a portal from there.



Uh, wait, weren't devils supposed to be _prisoners_ in Hell? Can they just teleport out when they want?


----------



## med stud

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Uh, wait, weren't devils supposed to be _prisoners_ in Hell? Can they just teleport out when they want?



If a pit fiend has gotten access to the Prime material plane I suppose things get hairy pretty fast, yes. I don't think they can cross over at will, I speculated on how pit fiends did cross country travel. Since flying and tele- jumping seems to bit a bit under such a powerful devil's dignity I thought about the gate- idea.

How they do it officially, I have no idea about.


----------



## med stud

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Howdy med stud!
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they have Teleport Circles or Permanent Gates in Hell.
> 
> The idea that every demon or devil can teleport and many can plane shift takes away from the classic "We have to destroy the portal to stop the [insert threat] coming through."
> 
> In Hell (or wherever) where the devils have centuries if not millenia to establish and defend these portals then it makes sense every devil fortress (or immortal's divine realm) will have a "Gate Room" not to get too Stargate-y.
> 
> So while it may be a ritual to create the portal in the first place I don't think it will require a ritual everytime you want to use one.



After answering Just Another User I got to think about this a bit more. It would make sense if it took serious magic to conjure a pit fiend to the Prime material plane. Within a plane I think they are capable of cross country teleportation but between the planes it probably is much more difficult.

OTOH, when making adventures for level 26, a gate directly from Hell might be a good intrigue like you suggested.


----------



## Dausuul

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Teleport as Movement Type:
> 
> This implies it's a move action for the devil to teleport. (Will it provoke AoOs?)
> 
> What happens if he uses this movement type for overland-travel? Does he remateiralize every 10 squares? Or does he just state how long/fast he wants to travel and the appears in the distance he wanted to be?
> 
> If it's the rematerializing, I am totally considering a house rule that allowed him teleporting longer distance at something like half "speed", but any distance.
> The "blinking" teleportation move doesn't fit my idea of an over-land travelling pit fiend.
> 
> But it totally fits my imagination of a Blink Dog or Displacer Beast!




I would interpret pit fiend teleportation as the fiend dissolving into smoke and flame, to reconstitute itself fifty feet away.  If the fiend were travelling a long distance using its teleport movement, it would look like a cloud of smoke and embers rolling across the land.


----------



## Stalker0

Moniker said:
			
		

> Ahh, now I follow you. So you would apply half level, plus Strength or relevant ability score plsu the bonus given by the monster's role perhaps?




No, instead what you would do is look at some other 26th level monsters, see what that bonus is, and then right it down for your new monster, with perhaps a +/- 2 in order to make it more or less offensive.


This is actually what engineers often do (being an engineer, I do this a lot). For many things, we don't have strict theoretical formulas to determine properties. Instead, we have tables of values that have calculated through experimentation and experience.

So in this case you would look at the table of "26th level monsters". Get a feel for what kind of AC, saves, and attacks they should have, and then create your own monster from there. In the long run it should be a lot faster without being a slave to the formulas.

While in general I greatly enjoyed the formula approach of 3e when I wanted to create my own monsters or customize. However I sympathize with the problem static formulas cause. Dnd stretches over such a large power level any formula is likely to break down. So from the perspective of creating better fitted monsters to fit a certain level party, then I'm all for dumping the formulas.


----------



## FourthBear

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Uh, wait, weren't devils supposed to be _prisoners_ in Hell? Can they just teleport out when they want?



Since the players are going to be opposing devils, I'm thinking that they can actually break out for a time when summoned.  So the stereotypical plot would be: foolish mortal makes a bargain with a devil for power, the whole things blows up in his face and devils are released into the world.  The PCs must intervene to prevent things from getting even worse.

My guess is that devils outside the Hells are vulnerable to being banished back there.  So until they can release Asmodeus, they can never be sure that they are truly free, even if they are currently on the outside.  That's the way I'd write it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I would interpret pit fiend teleportation as the fiend dissolving into smoke and flame, to reconstitute itself fifty feet away.  If the fiend were travelling a long distance using its teleport movement, it would look like a cloud of smoke and embers rolling across the land.



QFA (Quoted for Awesomeness)


----------



## Emil

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Since the players are going to be opposing devils, I'm thinking that they can actually break out for a time when summoned.




While I think your idea is actually more interesting, I think the developers were also keeping in mind the possibility of the characters traveling to the hells directly. Bringing the fight to the doorstep, so to speak.


----------

