Pit Fiend Defenses Explained

[Lord Zardoz]

As I recall, there has been some effort into reducing the need for having everything add up. There is a very good chance that the AC is what it is simply because that is what it needed to be.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Maybe I'm misguided, but my memory of the Podcast is that monsters don't have any sort of formulae, but rather a set of charts by role and level that give you a range of what is acceptable....

Your memory and my memory match up.. but as a data geek for a living I would say that John Snows simple formula is much better.. you only need a table that shows mods for roles and types which you can toss into an application and generate a 'balanced' monster by selecting four options: Level, Role {skirmisher...}, Type {Solo, Elite..}, Racial {like Chr to saves}.

Much better than a huge spreadsheet of numbers to cross check.

 

[evillives]

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.

Precedent may not be an issue. If WoTC is really gunning for a fast system for the DM to use with monsters, they may have taken a route similar to what I laid out. Granted, your take on it doesn't exactly dwaddle either....

 

[JohnSnow]

Your memory and my memory match up.. but as a data geek for a living I would say that John Snows simple formula is much better.. you only need a table that shows mods for roles and types which you can toss into an application and generate a 'balanced' monster by selecting four options: Level, Role {skirmisher...}, Type {Solo, Elite..}, Racial {like Chr to saves}.

Much better than a huge spreadsheet of numbers to cross check.

Quite honestly, I'd bet on "both."

In other words, I imagine there will be a table to check for the appropriate "range" (based on level, role, and type).

I also imagine the DMG might also say something like "these numbers can be derived for most monsters by using the following formula" and providing a very simple one similar to the one I suggested.

I was trying to use the Pit Fiend to infer what we can guess about the formulae that will guide PC construction. From Races and Classes, we know that one such formula is +1/2 levels to AC, attacks, and defenses. We can assume there will be class "kickers" similar to the ones in SAGA to differentiate, say, the melee attack bonus of a 1st-level fighter from that of a 1st-level wizard.

 

[HeinorNY]

Precedent may not be an issue. If WoTC is really gunning for a fast system for the DM to use with monsters, they may have taken a route similar to what I laid out. Granted, your take on it doesn't exactly dwaddle either....

AC is not STR based. AC is probably now Reflex Defense plus armor bonus. "Probably" because there may be bonuses that are added to Ref that may not be added to AC, like some magical bonus to Defenses only.

"In 4th Edition, when a creature only needs to touch you to deliver an attack, it targets your Reflex."
Because Reflex is your AC minus the armor bonus or the touch AC back in 3.5.

If for some unthinkable reason AC becomes STR based, then any rogue could have a "touch AC" better than an armored AC, which makes no sense. It would be harder to touch his skin with my sword than cutting his skins with it.


Regarding monster creation, It's much easier to come up with 6 ability scores for your monster, assign the modifers with the added 1/2 level, derive all other number from that since BAB, defenses and skills follow the same progression, and then add some flat bonuses to each number, like +X to BAB for being a soldier, +X to Ref for being a roguish monster, +5 to skills that the monster find useful, etc. It's really fast and easy.
It is formulaic character creation, but it's far different than calculating Skill points and number of feats depending on Hit Dice, the BAB depending on character type, and OMG I've never used these rules anyway...

 

[mach1.9pants]

Maybe I'm misguided, but my memory of the Podcast is that monsters don't have any sort of formulae, but rather a set of charts by role and level that give you a range of what is acceptable.

So for a pit fiend, you would go to the Elite table, find the "Soldier" column (which means you're emphasizing defense over damage output) and slide down to level 26, and find that it says you should have HP in the range of 320 to 350, AC in the range of 40-45, and so on. (These are made up numbers, of course.)

You then decide that this guy is supposed to be really scary, so you give him top-end HP and near-maximum AC, etc etc.

There's no math behind picking a 44 instead of a 42 or whatever, other than just what feels right and falls in the proper range of values.

I hope this is right....
And this too...

Quite honestly, I'd bet on "both."

In other words, I imagine there will be a table to check for the appropriate "range" (based on level, role, and type).

I also imagine the DMG might also say something like "these numbers can be derived for most monsters by using the following formula" and providing a very simple one similar to the one I suggested.

 

[evillives]

AC is not STR based.

I've mostly conceded on that one. The idea popped in my head this afternoon with all of the finesse of a 10# sledge.

That line about precedent got me thinking about the other side of the assumption I made when I was running the numbers. I assumed a flat base 20 for the calculation of the tier's DCs to make the numbers work, which had a side-effect of making base monster entry very simple--no need to worry about nat armor or equipment. Guess we will see how serious WoTC is about making the DMs job easier come the end of February.

Regarding monster creation, [using SAGA-derived formula] It's really fast and easy.

Hearty agreement on that.