D&D 4E The 4e Pit Fiend Revisited

[mmu1]

In 4e, you can rest assured that nearly every 5th level monster is very close to the same power and you can be reasonably certain how much of a challenge it will be.

The only way to make sure every "5th level" monster is very close to the same power level is to make monsters a lot more uniform than they are now.

Which, admittedly, is what it looks like they're doing. Hence, the "meh" Pit Fiend. And the Phane. And... well, just about everything, really.

The mistake 3E made was not the way monsters were designed (well, mostly, anyway) - it was the introduction of CR guidelines that tried to oversimplify a complex system and didn't work. The solution would have been to write better guidelines for DMs, not to dumb monsters down to the point where they actually can be shoehorned into categories like "Level 5 Controller".

Of course, it wouldn't be a solution acceptable for the people who just want to be able to look into a book, pick out 5 monsters with levels equal to that of a party, and have a guranteed "balanced" encounter that they can run without having even read the monster stats beforehand... but I freely admit to not understanding that mindset.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's worked for me. What it doesn't do is take the risk out of encounter design; it always possible to cobble together something where the CRs are supposedly right but the encounter goes wobbly for other reasons.

It works in some cases. It doesn't in others. It is good as a rough guideline. However, if you don't know where it doesn't work, it can trick you into killing off your PCs without wanting to.

4e will not be different in this regard; the numbers will be closer, so hit/AC won't be a huge issue, but with exception-based design in action, you can't be sure at all what will happen. It won't take long for someone to cobble together 3rd level parties that can take down a pit fiend.

I've seen the PHB. That likely won't happen. Just taking the example characters and the released information I can probably explain why.

Attacks are entirely based off your stats with bonuses from your weapons and you add half your level.

Rogues have dex based attacks, Fighters have str based attacks.

Now, let's say both the Rogue and the Fighter put an 18 into their primary stat. They use a weapon with the same bonus(say, 3) and are the same level. Let's say 1.

Both of them have +7 to hit. Neither of them can hit a Pit Fiend except on a natural 20. If they both managed to get a +1 weapon, they still couldn't hit the Pit Fiend. And that's really it. If you up them both 2 levels, you could add a +1 bonus to hit from their level. They still can't hit the Pit Fiend.

And because of the way that the game is designed, you can be assured that no one in the group, no matter what options they choose will be any better at hitting the Pit Fiend.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The only way to make sure every "5th level" monster is very close to the same power level is to make monsters a lot more uniform than they are now.

Which, admittedly, is what it looks like they're doing. Hence, the "meh" Pit Fiend. And the Phane. And... well, just about everything, really.

So, congrats. You don't like the 4e philosophy, which is pretty much "make better tools for DMs, make the math work, make life easier for the DM, make the game easy to leave for new players."

Monsters are a LOT more uniform. PCs are a LOT more uniform. The game is much easier to plan for as a DM. It requires almost 0 prep time because of how easy it is. Even if you don't plan in advance, players almost never throw you a complete curveball and ruin your adventure.

The mistake 3E made was not the way monsters were designed (well, mostly, anyway) - it was the introduction of CR guidelines that tried to oversimplify a complex system and didn't work. The solution would have been to write better guidelines for DMs, not to dumb monsters down to the point where they actually can be shoehorned into categories like "Level 5 Controller".

And that's the point. The CR guidelines ARE simplified. And yet, most people I know barely understand them or DON'T understand them.

Then again. What guidelines could you possibly right that worked well in a game where two monsters of approximately the same difficulty in general either die in one round without hitting or kill the entire party without taking damage based purely on the character creation choices of the PC?

Which is also why monster design is part of the problem. Without CR, is a creature with 100 hitpoints with a Reflex Save of 7, an AC of 45, a touch AC of 8, with +35 to hit for 4d6+35, with 4 attacks per round a good challenge for a 15th level party? Or is it better as a 10th level encounter?

I'll give you a hint. Against a well made 10th level party with a couple of sorcerers, warmages, or wizards, it is dead in first round before it attacks. Against a party of 15th level fighters, they will lose badly.

There is no way to predict how well it will do against any given party unless you know the members of that party in advance. Which works well for home game adventures with DMs that have lots of time to prepare. It sucks for those with no time to prepare or those writing convention adventures.

Of course, it wouldn't be a solution acceptable for the people who just want to be able to look into a book, pick out 5 monsters with levels equal to that of a party, and have a guranteed "balanced" encounter that they can run without having even read the monster stats beforehand... but I freely admit to not understanding that mindset.

The mindset is pretty simple. I'm in the midst of helping to plan 2 3rd Ed adventures, 2 4th Ed adventures, plus adventures for my 2 homes games. I'm preparing a adventure to run for a convention in a month. I have deadlines for adventures that I need to turn in.

On top of that I have work, and non-D&D stuff to do.

So, if I have an hour to come up with my adventure(and that's rather optimistic) for my next week session(and that's an hour total to think of things, read through books for ideas, and write it all down)then I want to spend most of that coming up with the storyline for the adventure.

Say I come up with a plot like: "Goblins attack the town the PCs are in. The PCs fight some goblins then they discover that a farmer has been kidnapped by some other goblins on the other side of town. The PCs will likely chase after them. They will reach the cave the goblins live in. There are traps in the cave and the PCs eventually get to the chief and they kill him right before he sacrifices the farmer to his dark gods."

Then I want to be able to open up the Monster Manual, look to the goblin section and be able to say "I want to have a battle with goblins. What goblins work well together and would be fun to fight without killing my PCs off?" And I can. I just point at 5 goblins and run the encounter. Directly out of the MM with no changes.

I don't have to pull out the PHB, look up a class, add the abilities of a class to the stats in the MM, then do the same thing again for a second creature, then a third one, and so on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The only way to make sure every "5th level" monster is very close to the same power level is to make monsters a lot more uniform than they are now.

Where you see uniformity, I see consistency. You can look at the "base statistics" and can make a reasonable guess if two monsters are in the same level.

And a Phane and a Pit Fiend look very dissimilar to me. They have totally different powers, and will play very different in combat.

Heck, Kobold Skirmishers and Kobold Dragonshields already play very differently (and that I know from actual playtests).

Off course, 4E will also be helped by the fact that, most of the time, you'll combine monsters (and possibly traps) to make encounters, and this will also increase the "feeled" variety a lot.

A small change like removing "firing into melee" penalties or reducing the cover bonus means that you can do "crazy" stuff (for a dungeon) like combining archers and melee fighters in an encounter. Even with insane numbers of the latter (thanks to Minions), without "mishaps" like shooting allies or being totally unable to hit at all.

 

[the Jester]

Which isn't what playtests have found. Playtests have found that lvl 8 4e (standard) monsters are, in 3e terms, CR4ish, as one would expect.

Who makes this comparison, and how?

Put another way, if a level 8 standard 4e monster is CR 4 in 3e, how many xp is it worth in 1e?

Apples and oranges.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i like it with one exception: irresistible command is resistable if the target devil is unwilling...

 

[mmu1]

The mindset is pretty simple. I'm in the midst of helping to plan 2 3rd Ed adventures, 2 4th Ed adventures, plus adventures for my 2 homes games. I'm preparing a adventure to run for a convention in a month. I have deadlines for adventures that I need to turn in.

On top of that I have work, and non-D&D stuff to do.

So.... Because you don't have enough time you've taken on more responsibilities than you have time for, you'll settle for cookie-cutter filler?

 

[DandD]

D&D 3.X is very very time-consuming just for preparations only. D&D 4th edition already has rules for how to modify monsters. We saw the excerpt last week. So, nope, no cookie-cutter filler for you.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's easy to have great 3e encounters!

Step 1: Open the Monster Manual.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

So.... Because you don't have enough time you've taken on more responsibilities than you have time for, you'll settle for cookie-cutter filler?

I'll settle for 4e because it is made of awesome.

 

[mmu1]

It's easy to have great 3e encounters!

Step 1: Open the Monster Manual.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

I'll settle for 4e because it is made of awesome.

Just FYI, Step 2 is "Think".