Howdy Alzrius matey!
You don't think that's expecting a lot from someone who never played the game before? I'm sorry, but if the person had never played D&D at all, of course he's going to need to look up the pit fiend's powers - he's going to need to look up everything. That's not a very good yardstick to use, methinks.
The difference is that in 4E he only has to look up the monster entry in the Monster Manual, In 3.5 he has to look up the monster entry in the Monster Manual and the Players Handbook (for spell-like abilities AND feats). Then factor in the possibility a monster might be using feats and spells from different sources (Book of Vile Darkness, Epic Level Handbook etc.). Throw in an additional layer of complexity for Dragons in that you have to choose all their feats to begin. Add in the further potential of Integrated Class Features and before you know it you are swamped.
I don't want my high/epic-level monsters to have "enough" options; I want them to have "a lot" of them. This guy is going to fight the exact same way every single time the PCs fight a pit fiend unless the DM tailors the monster.
The question seems to be do you want:
a) All monsters to be unique but have a small list of options.
b) All monsters to share myriad similarities but have a wide range of options.
Even assuming that's true (which I don't think it is), I still see that as an example of the experienced people being disenfranchised so as to cater to the new people - which is ultimately a losing proposition, because new players eventually becomes experienced players, but the reverse isn't true.
From what little we can glean at this point it looks like 4E has FAR more tactical depth than 3.5 ever did, particularly with the martial classes.
I agree that monsters should be unique from other monsters. But I don't think denying them spell-like abilities and/or spellcasting in favor of a couple of individualized combat powers is necessarily the way to do it. Would it really detract from the 4E pit fiend if it had some spell-like abilities in addition to the listed powers we saw?
Yes. When you fight a Pit Fiend (or a Dragon, or whatever) I want that fight to be unique, not the same as when you were fighting ten other encounters where either monsters or NPCs all had access to the same spells or spell-like abilities.
That said, I think we are all in agreement its at least one or two options shy of what we would like, but we still don't know what benefits those summoned devils will bring.
This may just be my bias, but monsters of such a high power seem to be inherently magical, to a degree, and this is reflected in having the ability to use a number of magical effects - they have more magical might on which to draw. What spells/spell-like abilities they have is where the differences are introduced (of course, unique powers help more, but the point is still a valid one).
It's the fact that such spells/SLAs are so ubiquitous are what people seem to dislike. If the spell-like abilities were of spells that mortals couldn't cast, then that'd be something else altogether.
The term spell-like abilities seems to generalise abilities. Making them universal rather than unique.
Irregardless, this pit fiend has five relatively minor active powers - one of which can only be used once - giving it virtually no ability to even change how it fights.
By my calculations, after the first round (summons) the Pit Fiend has two different choices for each of its actions that round (standard, move and minor). But thinking more about it, there are few monsters have more than that discounting spell-like abilities...and thats going by my own monsters in the Epic Bestiary - where I was already pushing the 4E mantra of trying to give each monster a suite of unique abilities.
I don't see the problem with buffed monsters or readied areas. That just makes sense from an in-game point of view. It's another layer of tactics, which I think are what make the higher levels so much more interesting. Did the monster buff itself and lay magical traps, or did you catch it by surprise? Should you try to dispel it's protective spells, or go for a damage-dealing spell instead? These are the sorts of things that make high-level play so much fun, otherwise there's very little difference between it and the low levels.
The problem is that buffing or readied areas are not tactics, they are a strategy. A tactic is making a choice. Asking a fighter if he wants Bulls Strength or not isn't a tactical choice, because the Fighter will always want it.
You are always going to buff and ready an area if possible. So if you are buffing and the monsters are also buffing where the hecks the benefit to buffing. Its a totally unnecessary layer of math.
I agree with you here, I just think that, if the only difference is the summoned monsters it brings forth, the pit fiend will quickly become dull and boring - particularly since the summoned monsters don't matter much, since they're just there to be blown up. How quickly will the PCs catch on to such tactics and make sure to avoid them in the future (or, heck, even during the very first fight)?
Well you could argue that the 3.5 Pit Fiend is already so close to other monsters that its already dull and boring when used in the greater context. At least this way you have an encounter with a Pit Fiend thats going to be unique. Two Pit Fiends may fight the same, but at least a Pit Fiend won't fight the same as numerous other monsters.
Also take into account that we are likely to see far more monsters per page in the new Monster Manual (because each entry is uncluttered with the same repeating spell-like abilities and other blandness).
I'd rather get more mileage out of one monster; when the PCs can use divinations and knowledge checks to clue in about what they'll be facing, I don't want them to instantly know what "kind" of combatant each monster is, and know to adjust themselves accordingly, all from knowing just what it is.
In that respect how is 4E any different from 3.5? Except that in 3.5 by 'knowing' who you are fighting you can specifically buff to defeat it thus neutering the threat.
Finally, the idea that you can "just give him" whatever else you want the pit fiend to have works much easier in reverse. Just delete what you don't want him to have. Adding something is more work, because relevant questions of where it comes from, how it works, etc. are there, and can be brought to the fore (e.g. can it be dispelled, and if so is it then gone, or does it return for after 1d4 rounds if it's an item, etc).
Monsters are like trees - they have branches (options) and if there's too many, it's easy to cut them down; it's much harder to add more in when there's too few.
In 3.5 too many monsters have the exact same branches though.
