A few people I want to reply to, so I'm going to use one post for everything.
Ltheb Silverfrond said:
Well, options are great, but I think it is a step in the right direction; Accommodating new DMs vs Experienced ones.
I think that's a step in the wrong direction. Catering to new DMs attracts new people, sure, but it's bad for retaining them. You only have to learn the game once, but when you do, you're then no longer "new," but experienced. At that point, having a game that's catering more towards new DM's becomes a disadvantage.
I (yesterday) intro-ed a new player to the game. Brand new. Never played before. I don't think he could run the 3.5 Pit fiend without reading it before the game began and looking up each one of it's powers.
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.
From what I can see, the Pit fiend has exactly 'enough' abilities.
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.
A new DM could quickly figure out moments after cracking open the MM to the Pit Fiend entry how it should be run.
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.
Upper_Krust said:
I think thats both a good and bad thing. For one it doesn't confuse fighting a Pit Fiend with fighting many other monsters, but at the same time I do think its at least one or two options shy on what I would strive for.
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?
I agree they should have myriad options but I do not necessarily agree they should have a lot of spell-like abilities and/or integrated levels.
One of the problems of 3E was the over abundance of utterly redundant spell-like abilities and/or integrated spells.
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. 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.
Then you fall into the trap of having monsters buffed or areas 'readied'. I think thats something much better handled via the Traps idea of 4E. Where each trap is treated as a monster. In that sense Unhallow may be a trap of sorts. An area that affects the PCs negatively.
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.
I think you want enough options so the same encounter twice won't run exactly the same way, but not so many that the encounter loses its individuality.
The 4E Pit Fiend ecounter looks like its always going to go the same way with the potential difference being the monsters summoned.
Incidently, regarding Irresistible Command, it would be a cool tactic for the Pit Fiend to use on low hit point (Bloodied) allies. That way it gets the benefit of the summons and the explosion. Though I still say the damage is a too low.
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)?
Yes but at the same time you can just use another monster to fit the different role.
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.
Khuxan said:
I have never bought a product from Eternity Publishing. I will never buy a 3.5 product from Eternity Publishing.
Um, then why are you posting here?
My friends have enough trouble doing the maths and number-crunching at level 10, let alone level 20, let alone level 30 or beyond.
Yes, but that's you. It's not the fault of the game, though a number of people seem to think it is.
I don't need a pit fiend that can create mohrgs. If I want him to have mohrgs, I will give him mohrgs. I don't need an entry for create undead clogging up his combat statblock. Likewise, I don't want to remember that he has unholy aura cast, and how that affects his stats. If he needs a +4 deflection bonus to AC, just give him one. Do we need to know how good a pit fiend is as surviving in the wilderness? How many chums he can feed by harvesting berries and catching small game?
That these things aren't relevant to you doesn't mean they aren't to someone else. How does having two words,
create undead, listing in his stat block, make it so unusable to you? If you don't use those things, that's fine, it's not like they're hurting you - a few listed SLAs and skill bonuses that you don't even use are not the cause of any problems you're having crunching numbers. But they're useful to other DMs, so I don't see any harm, and I do see the utility there.
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.
