Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 4107515" data-attributes="member: 55846">Frankly, I think the 4e Pit Fiend is about as interesting as the 3e Pit Fiend.&nbsp; Looking over the stat blocks, each has abilities the other lacks and many of the spell-like abilities the 3e Pit Fiend has aren't particularly effective in actual high-level combat.More importantly, I believe the 4e Pit Fiend is a far more useful write-up for in play use right out of the MM, since I dislike the laundry lists of spell-like abilities that require you to have all spells memorized or be flipping constantly back and forth at theoretically exciting moments between references.&nbsp; I do think that the 4e approach to monster design will mean that higher level monsters will tend to be written up with fewer options, but each option will tend to be more viable in a confrontation.&nbsp; As long as DMs use reasonable judgment extrapolating and adding to these reference stat blocks as they wish, I think it will be overall better for the game.&nbsp; If a DM really feels that all dragons should be arcane spellcasters with a dozen or so spells ready to use in combat, then they can always add them back in.&nbsp; I'm glad it looks less likely won't have to wade through lists of cantrips, 1st level spells, long lists of feats and extraneous skills while I'm trying to work out what its going to do to screw with the party the next round of combat.&nbsp; Out of combat, I have the time to extemporize and make decisions that, yeah, maybe it makes sense for this particular Pit Fiend, Duke of Black Orchids, to be a master of flower arrangement or that he really should have the ability to speak Goblin.&nbsp; I'd rather have simpler, cleaner stat blocks in combat play, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FourthBear, post: 4107515, member: 55846"] Frankly, I think the 4e Pit Fiend is about as interesting as the 3e Pit Fiend. Looking over the stat blocks, each has abilities the other lacks and many of the spell-like abilities the 3e Pit Fiend has aren't particularly effective in actual high-level combat. More importantly, I believe the 4e Pit Fiend is a far more useful write-up for in play use right out of the MM, since I dislike the laundry lists of spell-like abilities that require you to have all spells memorized or be flipping constantly back and forth at theoretically exciting moments between references. I do think that the 4e approach to monster design will mean that higher level monsters will tend to be written up with fewer options, but each option will tend to be more viable in a confrontation. As long as DMs use reasonable judgment extrapolating and adding to these reference stat blocks as they wish, I think it will be overall better for the game. If a DM really feels that all dragons should be arcane spellcasters with a dozen or so spells ready to use in combat, then they can always add them back in. I'm glad it looks less likely won't have to wade through lists of cantrips, 1st level spells, long lists of feats and extraneous skills while I'm trying to work out what its going to do to screw with the party the next round of combat. Out of combat, I have the time to extemporize and make decisions that, yeah, maybe it makes sense for this particular Pit Fiend, Duke of Black Orchids, to be a master of flower arrangement or that he really should have the ability to speak Goblin. I'd rather have simpler, cleaner stat blocks in combat play, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification