Pit Fiend Defenses Explained

[TerraDave]

Uh, John, what we did was just as "real", and strength still fits as well any "real" thing you just did.

 

[Patlin]

I think 4e monster design will be more art than science, and I'm not sure you can reverse engineer art. There will probably be some default assumptions, such as "a typical AC for a level 26 leader is X." However, the designer might set the AC at X + or -5 depending on how hard he wants the monster to be to hit. An artistic choice of low hp and high AC or vice versa seems like the style they are going for.

 

[Dausuul]

Do you think you thoughts also apply to the Pit Fiend's skill checks?

I suspect the skills do actually follow the PC formula; I note that Bluff and Intimidate are both equal to one-half level plus ability modifier plus 5, which is exactly what a trained PC would have under the SWSE system. If Religion is an Int-based skill (which seems reasonable, since it presumably killed Knowledge [Religion] and took its stuff), then it, too, follows the formula.

I wonder how that ties into the new social encounter rules. Seems like the "calculate from level and role" approach ought to apply there too... but maybe not.

 

[HeinorNY]

I think 4e monster design will be more art than science, and I'm not sure you can reverse engineer art. There will probably be some default assumptions, such as "a typical AC for a level 26 leader is X." However, the designer might set the AC at X + or -5 depending on how hard he wants the monster to be to hit. An artistic choice of low hp and high AC or vice versa seems like the style they are going for.

Ugly Brute
Level 10 soldier
STR 24 (+12)
CON 20 (+10)
DEX 12 (+6)
INT 6 (+3)
WIS 14 (+7)
CHA 6 (+3)

HP: 105 (10.5 x 10)
Bloodied: 52

Initiative: +6
Attack +15 (6+1/2lvl+soldier bonus) follows attack vs. Fort enemy is pushed back 1 square.
Damage: Great axe 1d12 + 14 (STR mod x 2)
AC: 21 (+5 chainmail)
FOR 23 REF 16 WILL 17 (soldier's +3 bonus to Fortitude)
Skills: Spot +12

Done in 7 minutes, using science.

EDIT: And I did it the wrong way. If you assign abillity scores with their modifiers+1/2 lvl first, it's even faster.

 

[JohnSnow]

Uh, John, what we did was just as "real", and strength still fits as well any "real" thing you just did.

A +10 MISC. bonus doesn't even try to account for all the numbers. Nor does a +3 MISC. bonus on the Spined Devil.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that Strength bonus would add to AC. There is every reason to believe that DEX does (that's how it works in 3E).

"Reverse Engineering," the way I see it, is mathematical extrapolation based on using known values and methods, then "backing out" the assumed quantities in a consistent fashion. One should attempt to avoid wild speculation that how things work has thoroughly changed if there's another valid explanation.

My system accounts for the difference between the Spined Devil and the Pit Fiend using nothing more than the differences in their CHA bonus (a notion made "plausible" by Paladin "divine grace" and similar abilities) and no Defense "Kicker" (not counting AC) that's higher than +3 (a value that, I should point out, can be achieved by PCs acquiring a Prestige Class in Star Wars Saga Edition).

I grant that my method for computing AC is a bit more "hand-wavey." But I still assume it's based on the same things that go into calculating it in Third Edition. There are no wild assumptions (like suddenly deciding Strength adjusts AC) just to make the math work.

By the way, a simple +1 Breastplate would provides an AC bonus of +6. But since I don't know if the Pit Fiend has natural armor, I thought that the specifics of the extra +6 were too hard to work out.

I'm not saying that the numbers were arrived at in this way, but it's an interesting thought experiment about how they might be justified.

 

[evillives]

"Reverse Engineering," the way I see it, is mathematical extrapolation based on using known values and methods, then "backing out" the assumed quantities in a consistent fashion. One should attempt to avoid wild speculation that how things work has thoroughly changed if there's another valid explanation.

Ah, but in this case, my wild speculation led you down a profitable avenue of exploration. Sorry, I was feeling a bit snitty earlier.

I'm not saying that the numbers were arrived at in this way, but it's an interesting thought experiment about how they might be justified.

Actually, once you pointed out the CHA bonus, I immediately thought of the archfiends from Book of Vile Darkness, and with that in place, the numbers fell very smoothly. Nice work.

 

[TerraDave]

John S,

You have a "margin of error" on every defense. The +10 isn't random, its based on how AC currently works (and is the replacement for rolling a d20 for saves). The +3 was a constant that just poped right out, across every defense. A constant is very different then +1 here, +2 there, ect. And AC tied to strength is valid speculation. Its a proxy for encumbrance of armor, and the build (and hide) of the creature.

I mean, of course we don't know, but its not like you just don't know less then we do.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

John S,

I mean, of course we don't know, but its not like you just don't know less then we do.

Yes, actually he does just not know less than you do. He's been over the wall, remember. CORN!

 

[Irda Ranger]

I also agree. From what I can see, the whole idea of the 4E monster design paradigm is to get away from "bottom-up" construction (in which you start with the basic stats like Hit Dice and ability scores, and then build up to the combat stats by way of a lot of elaborate formulae), and shift to "top-down" construction (in which you start with the combat stats you want the monster to have, and don't worry about how you got there).

This is my understanding as well. I don't think you can reverse engineer 4E monsters. There's just a few pages of charts and modifiers somewhere, and you're done. That's exactly how it was described recently when one of the designers described his process for creating new monsters. Once he picked what "signature moves" the monster had he just plugged in the numbers for role and level.

 

[JohnSnow]

John S,

You have a "margin of error" on every defense. The +10 isn't random, its based on how AC currently works (and is the replacement for rolling a d20 for saves). The +3 was a constant that just poped right out, across every defense. A constant is very different then +1 here, +2 there, ect. And AC tied to strength is valid speculation. Its a proxy for encumbrance of armor, and the build (and hide) of the creature.

I mean, of course we don't know, but its not like you just don't know less then we do.

You sure?

Yes, there's a certain "margin of error" in my numbers. But I couldn't get the Pit Fiend even close without finding around another +10. Given the Paladin's "divine grace," a Charisma bonus to defenses made sense to me as something a devil might get. And, as I said, the Paladin's "divine grace" provides a precedent.

My "+1 here, +2 there" and "+3 someplace else." is similarly based on a precedent. That precedent, in this case, is the Star Wars Saga Edition. In SAGA, characters get "kickers" to their defenses of between +0 and +2 (for base classes), or ones as high as +3 (for Prestige Classes). Those vary from class to class, with each class having specialties. No class gets +2 to all three. IIRC, Jedi get a +1 to every defense. If I had my SAGA book handy, I'd give you a better example. I'll get back to you on that. Suffice to say that a 10th-level SAGA character might have defense values of FORT 23, REF 21, WILL 22 (without factoring in stat bonuses or equipment). One difference should be noted: SAGA increases defenses by +1/level, not +1/2 levels as Fourth Edition does.

By contrast, deriving an AC bonus from Str, while it can be justified, is a totally new concept that lacks precedent. Because of that, I find it less than convincing.