[D&D 3.5e] That New Pit Fiend

[Quasqueton]

i think the point about backward compatability is that previous products will not be completely unusable. sure, they're going to require tinkering to conform to the new rules set. if you don't want to use the new rules, you can just use older products as is and with the old rules books. you can keep your game exactly as it is and make full use of products published prior to the rules revision. however, any new products [post rules-revision] will not be compatable with your old rules books. the issue isn't so much "you don't have to use the new rules" but "if you want to make use of new products, you will need the new rules".

Isn't this like going from AD&D2 to D&D3? So D&D3.5 is more a new edition than a revision?

Concerning the pit fiend: was it broken or inaccurate according to the rules? If not, why make the major changes?

The major thing that is bugging me here is that these changes weren't necessary. Has anyone complained that the pit fiend needed these changes?

Quasqueton

 

[GravyFingerz]

This new pit fiend kicks arse! Hell yeah!

 

[Deadguy]

The major thing that is bugging me here is that these changes weren't necessary. Has anyone complained that the pit fiend needed these changes?

My suspicion? Yes. Like I say, the Pit Fiend is an archetypal monster against whhcih many, many PCs have been sent. I shouldn't be surprised that at least some of the change is as a result of the feedback from these encounters. The rest, of course, is the consequential changes from the rules tidying and reorganisation.

 

[Alzrius]

Isn't this like going from AD&D2 to D&D3? So D&D3.5 is more a new edition than a revision?

A new edition would mean that the same actions have new mechanics to revise them. This is just changing some terms and clarifying meaning, but not totally re-inventing the wheel. It is exactly what the designers told us, just a revision, not a new edition.

Concerning the pit fiend: was it broken or inaccurate according to the rules? If not, why make the major changes?

The major thing that is bugging me here is that these changes weren't necessary. Has anyone complained that the pit fiend needed these changes?

Point taken, but when you get down to it, none of the changes were "necessary". We've been playing 3E for over two years now, and while some things were imperfect, it was still a viable system. Nothing is being changed out of necessity, but simply because the changes can make the game better.

In the case of the pit fiend, according to the rules nothing was broken in its stats, but there's more than just rules to look for. There is the intent of the monster. It's my opinion that pit fiends should be stronger than just CR 16, and given that assumption (which seems to be the one the revision team had in mind when rewriting this monster), this new pit fiend is a very good thing.

I didn't expect the monsters to be revised to the level that we've seen with this pit fiend, but so far, while I have concerns, I haven't seen anything that gives me any real cause to complain.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Isn't this like going from AD&D2 to D&D3? So D&D3.5 is more a new edition than a revision?

Concerning the pit fiend: was it broken or inaccurate according to the rules? If not, why make the major changes?

The major thing that is bugging me here is that these changes weren't necessary. Has anyone complained that the pit fiend needed these changes?

Quasqueton

To be honest, I thought the Pit Fiend was a wuss. This new souped up Pit Fiend is exactly what I wanted. Well, not exactly, but he is more powerful.

 

[Mortaneus]

I don't mind in the slightest if they buff the Pit Fiend up. They were WAY too wussy before. The best they could do was teleport and boom. They sucked in close. Now, however....

What does worry me, though, is what OTHER changes have they made to creatures?

Also, if the pit fiend is this nasty, what did they do to the Balor???

 

[smetzger]

The modification of the Pit Fiend in and of itself is not that big a deal.

Butt...

If many monsters are modified to the extent the Pit Fiend has been, I will not be happy.

 

[jgbrowning]

A new edition would mean that the same actions have new mechanics to revise them. This is just changing some terms and clarifying meaning, but not totally re-inventing the wheel. It is exactly what the designers told us, just a revision, not a new edition.

But only if you believe that a "revision" requires new mechanics. If i remember properly, ADnD2 wasn't that much different than ADnD1. (could be wrong here, been a long time) at least right when it came out.

Personally, their definition is lacking. By their defintion you could change every single statistic for every single monster, making kobolds CR20's and dragons CR1's and not have a revision.

There's a lot more to "revision" than just changing mechanics Which btw, they've done... see DR changes? that's a mechanic change. I guess they'll just have to "revise" their definition of "revise" to mean "only core mechanics changing means a revision"

Their saying that this is not a revision is a bold faced lie. Its a revision. It may not be as big a revision as 2E to 3E, but its a revision.


joe b.

 

[Epametheus]

Hmmm...

On one hand, Pit Fiends becoming beefier is cool. They were way too frail for infernal generals. Also, note that it would require Greater Planar Binding or Greater Planar Ally to summon a Pit Fiend now.

Maybe vrocks won't suck anymore...

On the other hand, I'd rather not have to buy copies of books I already own... But it'll probably bite me in the ass if I don't, which is kinda annoying.

 

[Alzrius]

But only if you believe that a "revision" requires new mechanics. If i remember properly, ADnD2 wasn't that much different than ADnD1. (could be wrong here, been a long time) at least right when it came out.

Personally, their definition is lacking. By their defintion you could change every single statistic for every single monster, making kobolds CR20's and dragons CR1's and not have a revision.

There's a lot more to "revision" than just changing mechanics Which btw, they've done... see DR changes? that's a mechanic change. I guess they'll just have to "revise" their definition of "revise" to mean "only core mechanics changing means a revision"

Their saying that this is not a revision is a bold faced lie. Its a revision. It may not be as big a revision as 2E to 3E, but its a revision.

Jb, you misunderstood me, though from reading my own quote, I might have been a bit unclear.

I never said this wasn't a revision, since it obviously is. What I meant was that things were being reassigned and reinterpreted, but new mechanics for things were not being created, hence, while a revision, it was not a new edition of the D&D game. Its 3.5E, not 4E. That's what I meant.