[D&D 3.5e] That New Pit Fiend

[Melriken]

2 problems here.

< snip >

Yes, I agree. I personaly almost always play wizards, and I would NEVER play a red wizard (and if I did it would me more for the circle ability then the spell power). However the objection was not that red wizards are cool, but that other people were making the clame that:

it would be possible for a nearly perfectly optimized 16th level wizard to take down Mr. Pit fiend in one round

when the wizard they are refering to is NOT pushed to the limit on the points that he is 'optimized' to. The fact of the matter is that you can build a 16th level wizard with a good chance of droping that fiend on round one. (+5 spell power, +4 greater spell focus, 8th level dicenigrate, 18 int, +6 headband, +4 level, +4 inherint (not likely, but *possible*) = 30dc, and +25 caster level check, thus the fiend needs an 11 save, and the caster needs a 7 SR check, thus 50% and 70% or a 35% chance that the fiend dies to the first spell first round)

my argument is not that you will ever see such a character, but simply that the one listed earlyer was NOT optimized, but mearly a nice solid wizard (something I would view as what an Iconic Wizard should be.)

The last time I ran a higher level game the normal encounters were CR 3-4 above the groups level, and the big fights were 6 above the party simply because no encounter at thier level even phased them, they walked over it and kept going, no one took significant damage (the fighter had 90%+ HP remaining, and none of the casters had taken damage and had most spells left)

I would peg the CR for this pit fiend at 17, possibly 18 or 16. I dont think it is something that a party of level 16 characters couldnt take out.

paladin with spirited charge, a lance, a horse, a good strength, True Strike from a ring of spell storing, power attack, and charging with rinohide armor... hmm, 16 smite, 16 power attack, 10 str, 7 (+5 holy evil outsider bane lance) 1 moral (well, +2 a lot, but +1 will do (emotion, bard singing, cleric spell, ect)) = +50 damage, weapon does 4x damage so we have 200 + 4d6 + 4 x 1d8 damage? attack bonus is +16 level - 16 power attack + 20 true strike + 2 charge + 6 cha (smite) +7 enhancement +10 str = +45 to hit
Hmm, hits on a 2, does average 232... yeah that would be a dead pit fiend
the paladin would need haste from the wizard or an item, but it is again possible for a level 16 character to kill the fiend in ONE ROUND. will you see characters like this much? NO. Do they exist? Yes.

I personaly think that the new pit fiend should be CR 17, it is a little strong at 16, but I do NOT think it should be 20, it would be a pushover again...

as to people asking what is easyer, changing the listed CR or the stats... well that depends on how the monster has been used.
Do Modules
a: say, I need a CR 16 monster, should be an evil outsider... hmm, Pit Fiend would work.
-or-
b: hmm, I need something that will chalange the party... hmm after looking at the stats of all the monsters, and runing sample combats I think that the most appropriate chalange would be a pit fiend.

well the point of the CR system is that people want to do (a) and thus for the CR to mean what it should then you need to change the stats to match the CR so that older modules are still compatable (unless they have been build assuming that the Pit Fiend was NOT CR 16, but actually the CR 14 or less that it deserved)

 

[Simulacrum]

Nope again. 2 Problems.

1. No matter how twinked out the Wiz may be (in fact it nearly dosnt matter at all) the Pit fiends chances are way better than you calculate them.
-
The fact alone that he can just use Greater Dispel on a minor whim drops your chances to get him in round 1 seriously.
In fact the Pit boy is more likely to kill your twink 16th lvl Wiz before.

And dont tell me something about buff etc. that doesnt count. The Pit boy would be buffed too then.

Only eye for an eye truly counts in such a comparision, or else you could bias the situation towards the character ad infinitum.
(yeah why not put the fiend into a cage, make him bound, blinded, and give yourself some funky artifacts just to make sure??)

The Paladin you posted is a bad joke the pit fiend is going to kill him before he knows whats happening (remember he can *fly* and teleport and throw out nasty quickened spells before you can even act and give you some major headache that will keep you from attacking him for the round--> and what not)
Sorry the new Pit Fiend is the new überking in Hell and on most prime worlds he gets lose...and no matter how twink the chars get in an eye for an eye situation YOU ARE GONNA LOSE SORE WHIMP

 

[MerricB]

Regardless of whether or not the Pit Fiend could be slain in the first round by a properly optimised party, one must also consider what happens if the Pit Fiend is the second or third encounter of the session.

Challenge Ratings generally seem too low if they're the first encounter of the day... however, when the party has used up some of its resources, then things get interesting.

Cheers!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

when the wizard they are refering to is NOT pushed to the limit on the points that he is 'optimized' to. The fact of the matter is that you can build a 16th level wizard with a good chance of droping that fiend on round one. (+5 spell power, +4 greater spell focus, 8th level dicenigrate, 18 int, +6 headband, +4 level, +4 inherint (not likely, but *possible*) = 30dc, and +25 caster level check, thus the fiend needs an 11 save, and the caster needs a 7 SR check, thus 50% and 70% or a 35% chance that the fiend dies to the first spell first round)

Too bad I don't know how to do big red blinking fonts. It is utterly irrelevant to the Pit Fiend's CR that a hyper-optimized Red Wizard can get a 35% chance of dropping him in the first round. At all levels, optimized characters using save or die spells have a chance of taking down much more powerful foes in one round. That's what Save or Die spells are for.

An optimized 11th level Necromancer has a good chance of taking down a generic 20th level wizard with a Finger of Death in round 1. That doesn't make the 20th level wizard CR 11.

An optimized 3rd level cleric has a reasonable chance of taking down a generic 12th level fighter (+5 cloak, Iron Will=Will save +11; the cleric's DC can easily be 19 (16 wisdom, greater spell focus) yielding the exact same chance as the Red Wizard has for a round 1 kill) in round 1 with a hold person. That doesn't make the fighter CR 3.

The wizard example has never proved anything and never will.

my argument is not that you will ever see such a character, but simply that the one listed earlyer was NOT optimized, but mearly a nice solid wizard (something I would view as what an Iconic Wizard should be.)

[Sarcasm on]Hmm. Iconic wizards should all start out with 18 int, a 16+ dex, spell focus, greater spell focus, spell penetration, greater spell penetration, have the highest level int item they can afford and have 2 wishes or a +2 Tome by level 16? Oh yeah, and he also carries around a heightened disintegrate.

Let me guess, you're expecting that the default stat generation for 3.5 e to be all 18s?[/Sarcasm Off]

Other than the fact that there are a lot of people who like playing D&D at power levels where their characters aren't guaranteed to (and probably won't have) a single 18, the argument is flawed when it comes to challenge ratings because it assumes that the character is perfectly optimized for the situation. Why not an Evoker with an Empowered Otiluke's Freezing Sphere or an empowered, maximized Sonically Substituted Fireball? That wizard is also optimized. Will we assume that wizard when you want to know the EL of thirty eighth level fighters supported by an 11th level wizard and a 10th level cleric? Because if we can, those fighters won't last very long. On the other hand, our save or die optimized wizard is going to be at a significant disadvantage.

The last time I ran a higher level game the normal encounters were CR 3-4 above the groups level, and the big fights were 6 above the party simply because no encounter at thier level even phased them, they walked over it and kept going, no one took significant damage (the fighter had 90%+ HP remaining, and none of the casters had taken damage and had most spells left)

That was "the last time" you ran a high level campaign. What happened the time before that? Was there a time before that? Do you fudge your die rolls? Do you use save or die monster abilities? Do you coup de grace players? What kind of stats did you let the PCs start with (If you ask me, more than 32 point equivalent is worth at least ECL +1)? Are your players better tacticians than you are?

Anecdotes are not evidence. Unless there are a lot of people with demonstrated skill and experience DMing who keep a handle on PC power levels who have this problem I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that your PCs had it easy because high end CRs are underestimated. There are plenty of other explanations of the evidence available.

I would peg the CR for this pit fiend at 17, possibly 18 or 16. I dont think it is something that a party of level 16 characters couldnt take out.

Let me see, defeating a monster of the PC's level should take up 20% of the PCs resources. . . . So if it's CR 16 then a party of 16 level characters shouldn't have much problem taking it out should they?

I personaly think that the new pit fiend should be CR 17, it is a little strong at 16, but I do NOT think it should be 20, it would be a pushover again...

Doesn't "uses up 20% of the party's resources" sound like a pushover to you? Tough encounters are supposed to be higher than the PC's level or come at the end of a series of encounters (which should either use up things like the heightened disintegrate or the fighter's hit points or the clerics (healing) spells).

 

[Simulacrum]

Word Elder!
I really cant understand why people always expect to be on top of everything. I like the Pit fiends status of near invincibility.
In a balanced 1 on 1 situation truly eye for an eye the pit fiends is going to say: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! (*insider gag*)

 

[Leopold]

Here's the kicker i have. The new revised info basically makes all the monster books, monster creation books, etc invalid.

Now before i start hearing rule 0, and "You don't have to use them!" or "convert them yourself!" flames. I want people to honestly sit down and look at what is being done to the monster process and layout.


No longer is it easy to say "Baatzu traits" and have it mean one thing. No doubt if devils and demons get a rework then so probably will celestials. DR is another key rework here no longer will it all be the same now it's going to vary unless there is a standarad setup and maintained. Your golem's might not have the uber 50/+3 anymore so this changes many things in many books (Tome of Horrors, Monster Handbook, Creature Catalog, etc.)

The purpose of the OGL is to establish a standard and stick to it. Now that this standard is getting reworked we are going to be stuck with a few scenarios.

1. The companies will work like mad and give us web errata on how their monsters will now look and work.

2. The companies will do nothing.

3. The companies will rework the monsters and put out revised books.

2 of the 3 scenarios will cost companies time and money to do. It won't be easy doing this to convert thousands of monsters over to the new system. This will take time. 2 of the 3 are a lose for the DM's/Players as they will either have no material or they will have to flip between printed pages and new pages. Only 1 of the 3 is a lose/lose for everyone as that means that they won't be doing anything to 'fix' the new problem.


I like having a revision of the rules, sure it's great, but seriously this is going to be a PIA for everyone unless they either adopt the new system fully and convert by hand or just ignore the system and stick with the original. Going 50/50 may present some problems but that will remain to be seen.

I only hope and pray companies are looking into this and planning to revise their work and their products with the new system coming into place as per the OGL/D20STL

 

[Melriken]

Too bad I don't know how to do big red blinking fonts. It is utterly irrelevant to the Pit Fiend's CR that a hyper-optimized Red Wizard can get a 35% chance of dropping him in the first round. At all levels, optimized characters using save or die spells have a chance of taking down much more powerful foes in one round. That's what Save or Die spells are for.

Much better argument. No, the Wizard really doesnt prove anything, building one character of each class that could kill the pit fiend alone with around 50% success might, but I really dont feel like it, and am not familiar enough with all the classes to do it easily. And even if I did do it, it would only prove that the Fiend was CR 16 in power gaming, not in standard play.

[Sarcasm on]Hmm. Iconic wizards should all start out with 18 int, a 16+ dex, spell focus, greater spell focus, spell penetration, greater spell penetration, have the highest level int item they can afford and have 2 wishes or a +2 Tome by level 16? Oh yeah, and he also carries around a heightened disintegrate.

Let me guess, you're expecting that the default stat generation for 3.5 e to be all 18s?[/Sarcasm Off]

Actually I think that Iconic Wizards should have 16+int, 12+ dex, spell focus, spell penetration, one or two metamagic feats (like Highten spell, empower, or extend spell), have a decent to good Int bonus item, and at some point use wish to raise thier int.

do I think all wizards need greater focus/pen? no.
Do I think that the Iconic wizard Must have greater focus/pen? No.
Do I think that it would be reasonable for the Iconic Wizard to have one of the two? Yes.
Do I think it would be reasonable for the Iconic Wizard to have Both? Yes, but only at high levels (say 18~20?)

What I originaly ment was that the Iconic wizard should be fairly focused on spell casting, but be able to cast all the spells (ie not a specialist wizard). I think that most of the wizards feats should be stuff like meta-magic feats or spell focus/spell penetration feats. I do not like the fact that the iconic wizard has a bunch of item creation feats. I personaly think that scribe scroll and possibly ONE more would be more than enough. But then that is me. I was not trying to argue that the wizard stated above should be the Iconic wizard, and I appoligize for that misunderstanding.

That was "the last time" you ran a high level campaign. What happened the time before that? Was there a time before that? Do you fudge your die rolls? Do you use save or die monster abilities? Do you coup de grace players? What kind of stats did you let the PCs start with (If you ask me, more than 32 point equivalent is worth at least ECL +1)? Are your players better tacticians than you are?

I have DMed 2 games at what I would consider high levels (16+) The both times I felt that I had to send more firepower at the players then the CR would suggest. The DMG says that they should fight about 4 encounters at thier CR a day. I was using 6 to 8 encounters at or above thier level every day and taking away about half to three quarters of the groups resources.

I have played in three more high level games with someone who I think is a highly experienced DM, in one of those games he used monsters +2 CR above us, and for XP calculations treated them as CR 2 below what they are listed as. In the second game he gave the monsters significant stat bonuses (+4~10 per stat to each of 3~5 stats) and still complained that the monsters didnt seem strong enough. and that was on advanced monsters as well as normal ones. In the third game he gave all monsters with decent intelegence magic items as NPCs, and declared that the items were bound to those creatures and could not be looted or used by anyone else. This was on top of the treasure for the monster. (yes the monster used its treasure)

Do I fudge die rolls? nope... well I did one time, but it wasnt a high level game and it was to help the monsters.

Do I save or die players? Yes, do I coup de Graes players? When the opertunity comes up, usually it doesn't.

players start with a point buy, 25-32 points depending on the different games...

are my players better tactitions then me? No, I really dont think so

Anecdotes are not evidence. Unless there are a lot of people with demonstrated skill and experience DMing who keep a handle on PC power levels who have this problem I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that your PCs had it easy because high end CRs are underestimated. There are plenty of other explanations of the evidence available.

exactly what I was trying to provide, someone else had said much the same, I was adding my testimony to his... and waiting for others to do the same.

Let me see, defeating a monster of the PC's level should take up 20% of the PCs resources. . . . So if it's CR 16 then a party of 16 level characters shouldn't have much problem taking it out should they?

Doesn't "uses up 20% of the party's resources" sound like a pushover to you? Tough encounters are supposed to be higher than the PC's level or come at the end of a series of encounters (which should either use up things like the heightened disintegrate or the fighter's hit points or the clerics (healing) spells).

No, 20% of your resources is not a pushover, a pushover is something that can't hit the characters without a natural 20, and the characters hit with natural 2s. A push over is something that the fighter can kill by himself, and lose less then 10% of his HP. 20% of your resources is something that you actually had to work together to kill without it hurting you too much. 20% of your resources is almost everything that one character has.
20% of the party's resources is 80% of one characters resources, not the figher taking damage that is 80% of the wizards HP, the wizard using spells equal to 80% of the fighters daily alotment, or the rogue sneeking up behind something, and leaving it so close to death that the wizard is able to hit it with his staff and kill it before it gets a turn.


All in all I think that the arguments about how re-working the DR system will invalidate much of the third party monster books is a great argument. I can only hope that the new DMG, or MM talks about what changes to make to the old DR to bring it into the new system... of course you could just leave it alone as long as it only requires a magical +... I mean the big change is to make things that require silver actually require silver. The Fiend's changed to make it more interesting, and if you feel like changing the DR on 3rd party monsters similarly then do it... take 50% of the DR, and drop +1 from the over come, and add a material to it. leaving atleast +1 behind.

People hate change, but then how interesting would life be without change?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It has decent save DCs - alas, my PCs have kick-butt saving throws, since I just love that Hold Monster spell. D'oh!

 

[takyris]

Just as a completely random side note, let me state firmly that if "Quicken Spell-Like Ability" doesn't get some serious limitations or pre-reqs in it, it's gonna revolutionize the game. I thought I'd take a cue from the 3.5E Pit Fiend while trying to keep my Pit Fiend book legal, so I swapped Improved Initiative for Quicken Spell-Like Ability.

Yes, it was stupid. One battle, multiple dead PCs, and fifteen rounds of Quickened Blasphemy later, I realize that. Had the party prepared exhaustively for the fight by giving everyone in the group Protection from Fire, Spell Immunity: Fireball and Wall of Fire, Haste, Spell Resistance, and Magic Circle Against Evil, it would have been a bloodbath. As it was, SR27 versus the 3.0E Pit Fiend's 17th-level caster ability meant that on a 10 or higher on the SR roll, a given PC lost his next turn to Dazedness.

On the other hand, the party's rogue finally got to use one of his Thunderstones. On himself. He voluntarily failed his save and is now deafened...

-Tacky

 

[Celebrim]

I thought you couldn't quicken the same spell like ability twice in the same day?