If the devils are how monsters will be....I am so happy

[Lackhand]

Agreed.

And, I was kinda annoyed by how much room the new stat block took to do the equivalent of 'claw/claw/bite'.

This is probably largely my background, but the new stat block reads like a system requirements document. It looks like something you'd send a developer who needed to know how to code monster behavior and powers. It doesn't look like a PnP stat block. Notice how most of the powers are written in jargon to a degree which exceeds even the normally high jargon quotient you'd expect in a stat block: 'aura 5', 'close burst 2', 'Ranged...', etc.

I think that that is largely your background. The game has always had jargon, and I remind everyone once again that in 1st edition, everything was listed in inches. All we've done is remove the word "inch" from those square designations; there is indeed some jargon there, but that's normal and healthy. No excess encountered.

One thing I noted is that the pit fiend has lost some pretty significant abilities: create undead, invisibility, dispel magic, mass hold monster, persistant image, meteor swarm, power word (stun), and regeneration. Some of those abilities are irrelevant to combat and maybe some are problimatic, and I do understand the argument 'Well, off stage, the pit fiend can do anything the DM wants it to do', but I do think something is lost conceptually if the monster loses abilities like 'create undead', 'invisibility', 'greater dispel magic', and 'persistant image'. Basically, this stat block tells me that the Pit Fiend is there to be killed by PC's so that they can take his stuff. Which, if I'm a computer programmer is basically all I need to know. Afterall, anything that isn't combat is going to be run as a cut scene using narrator fiat anyway.

Yeah. At first, I was all "pshh, yeah, whatever." to that loss, but thinking it over, I think they cut maybe one or two abilities too many. I think my problem is different than yours, in that I'd have wanted a mechanic that let it command foes to take actions for it (say, intimidate vs will?) in addition to everything it already has, and then have called it quits.

I really don't think 'create undead' is the same kind of ability as 'invisibility' or 'dispel magic', though; create undead is most useful exactly for its offscreen uses, but invisibility and dispel magic are both primarily on-screen.

My guess is that they rely on the gear that a pit fiend packs to make up for its missing neat abilities (to avoid DM information overload)-- after all, by the time you encounter them, a ring of invisibility sounds like pretty reasonable treasure. Still, one more interesting and tactical ability probably wouldn't have broken the bank.

Anyway, it sounds like combat is going to be fun (assuming I'd ever play 4e), and I do like that they improved the ratio of hitpoints to damage to make combats last longer, but otherwise I feel like something is missing.

(Incidently, I'm getting really tired of hearing how great it is to be running 4-5 massive combats a session with multiple opponents, as if somehow this is a new thing. Did people really never do that in 3E? I used to host an open table night at a local game store, and often get 4-7 combats into 3-4 hours of play - plus time for character creation, exposition, and allocating experience points. And that was with 'non-expert' players.)

I can't do it. I get in maybe 2 interesting combats a night (4-5 hours), if I'm lucky. I really never did it in 3E

 

[Doug McCrae]

Notice how most of the powers are written in jargon to a degree which exceeds even the normally high jargon quotient you'd expect in a stat block: 'aura 5', 'close burst 2', 'Ranged...', etc.

SLAs used to be 100% jargon. To know what meteor swarm, persistent image, greater dispel magic, etc meant you had to look up another source.

Aura 5 and so forth look exactly like many other rpgs. For example an attack in HERO might read - 'EB 12d6 AP Explosion Reduced END OIF Active Cost 135pts Real Cost 90pts'. Which is an excellent way of doing things when effects are repeated. It's a waste of space to repeat text when it isn't necessary, there should only be full text for the unique flavourful powers that make the monster what it is, like the death-slide explosion. It looks like 4e is being really smart here.

PS They haven't made a computer game out of HERO that I'm aware of.

 

[Scribble]

We know create undead is a ritual. We know Pit Fiends can perform at least one ritual (wish...) maybe it's safe to assume they can perform others? Perhaps once we see the full devil write up we'll see more into how they perform rituals.

 

[Zarithar]

I really do dig the new pit fiend artwork. Other than that, I have no real opinion!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

PS They haven't made a computer game out of HERO that I'm aware of.

Hmm. If we translate that to D&D, does this mean there will not be a 4E Baldur's Gate 3 or Neverwinter Nights 3? Noooooo!

 

[Mighty Veil]

I'm with those who say that less page flipping and quicker prep time is first.

You have to like any monster who's big bad ability involves conjuring minions so he can blow them up later.

On that note: I'm not a fan of Planescape or 2e's changes to devils and demons and the blood war. But for those who are... Just imagine now a pit fiend general in combat. Sending legion after legions towards the enemy. And those legions getting blown up. Had this idea been around for 1e Realms. It might not of been the ruins of Myth Drannor but the waste land of.

 

[Celebrim]

And those legions getting blown up. Had this idea been around for 1e Realms. It might not of been the ruins of Myth Drannor but the waste land of.

Eh. I'm not impressed. I do like that they've finally realized that incarnate lawful beings ought to be lawful, but the attack itself is sort of silly.

Let's suppose that your Pit Fiend general sends 15 Legions of his best troops into the fray, and then orders them to self-destruct in a frenzy of diabolic destruction!

According to the rules, he'll lay waste to just about a square mile of ground. And by 'lay waste', I mean that lightly built structures will be destroyed. You average mortared stone or brick buildings, larger trees, etc. will survive.

And actually, even that much is bending the rules to achieve my 'narrativist' goal. Strictly as written, straw cottages would be uneffected if a 100 Legions of devils blew up at the Pit Fiend's command.

But, since we are doing away with simulationism and we don't need it anymore, go to town with your fantasy of apocalyptic conflict whether the rules support it or not.

 

[Thundershield]

And actually, even that much is bending the rules to achieve my 'narrativist' goal. Strictly as written, straw cottages would be uneffected if a 100 Legions of devils blew up at the Pit Fiend's command.

But, since we are doing away with simulationism and we don't need it anymore, go to town with your fantasy of apocalyptic conflict whether the rules support it or not.

Certainly depends on how resilient a straw cottage is in 4E, and what fire would do to it, no?

Let's see how it looks once we get the big picture and not make assumptions.

 

[Sphyre]

I'm inclined to agree. I'm not at all intimidated by the "small" numbers as compared to 3.5. I think the system has been worked out so that one shots from a single monster killing someone is going to be rare, if at all possible.

I love the fact that monsters don't have feats. No cross referencing is awesome.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Anything that can cut down on incessant page-flipping is a god-send.

True.

Quick, what's the difference between Shaken and Sickened?

I shouldn't have to memorize the condition summary in order to be able to function as the DM.