Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 890388" data-attributes="member: 3854">OK, they have proved to me that what I feared after seeing the pit fiend is going to be true. When the pit fiend's stats were shown last year there was debate over whether it was an example of the extent the revision would change all creatures. Some said the pit fiend was getting special attention and alterations because it was a special creature not living up to its credits (as the biggest badass of Hell).See this thread on the revised pit fiend: <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=38997" target="_blank">http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=38997</a>Now I've seen 3 creature listings from the revision -- the pit fiend, mummy, and now barbed devil. All three have had major revisions and power-ups. They were not simply brought into compliance with the rules. They were not simply rewritten to clear up understandability of their stats. They were drastically changed. That is not the right way to do a revision that will be backwards compatible.So they needed a devil creature for the CR 11 range? How about two barbed devils (EL 10)? How about a cornugon (CR 10)? How about the DM add a few class levels? Changing all the creatures' stats in what is billed as a moderate revision invalidates all previously published material. Suddenly, published adventures with encounters with pit fiends, mummies, and barbed devils (and presumedly with any other creature) have ELs badly out of whack. Now the great "end" battle in Lord of the Iron Fortress is not EL 19, but something like EL 24 (for level 15-16 PCs).WotC: Stop changing and powering up the fricking monsters! Revise them to match the rules, and to clear up their stats. But don't remake them!This is wrong, wrong, wrong for a "backwards-compatible" revision.Quasqueton</blockquote>

Verification