The Devil's in the Details: Slavicsek reveals the Pit Fiend in all its glory

[Lizard]

The important thing to remember is what a monster level doesn't mean. It's doesn't mean in any way that the monster has equivalent abilities to a PC of a certain level. It means that it would make for a challenging opponent (whether the context is combat, social or whatever). A monster that has had class levels added is under no constraints to have to take the appropriate level of gear. In fact, I don't think it would be very good design for it to gain all of the various non-class specific abilities in the class description. If you generate a Fire Giant cleric, why should that cleric be automatically superior in combat to the other Fire Giants, as it would be in 4e? The presumption is that the stats for a Fire Giant represent the training and experience and hereditary ability common to Fire Giants. A Fire Giant cleric would presumably get that (or even possibly less) and the clerical training. I would suggest that the preferred suggestion in most cases is to add level appropriate class abilities and not to add unwanted items or increases in stats.

And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Agreed.

We are only looking at 2/5's of an encounter! There may be another Pit Fiend, and a 26th level single (1:1) monster (I forgot the 4e descriptor for this) or possibly 2 or more 26th level regulars (like beefed up Ice Devils) and a single 25th level wizard who's soul has been sold to this pit fiend.

In these cases, the Pit Fiend encounter becomes VERY unpredictable.

actually it is 2/4 of an encounter.

I am relative sure that 5 vs 4 was no mistake. I see it that way: a level 26 monster is as strong as a LVL 26 char. (you could use PCs as enemies if desired) Thus, 4(5) vs 4(5) would be an even match (50-50) having one extra PC should tip the tide of battle in favour of the PCs.

 

[Jinete]

And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.

Why uncool? The way I see it, clerics mostly heal and buff, and occasionaly kick undead a@@. If I give the fire giant 'sorta kinda clerical powers' he's a cleric as far as I'm concerned.

And it will (hopefully) take a whole lot less time than it takes to add cleric levels in 3.5.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And if 4e lets us 'swap out' Fire Giant levels for cleric levels, cool. If its solution is some sort of ultra-cheesy 'give it sorta kinda clerical powers' ala the hobgoblin pseudo-casters in MMV, not cool.

actually, both approaches should be available:

swapping: for the fire giant bbeg

give some abilities: for the standard encounters...

I run an old ADnD (in DnD 3.5) adventure where enemies are derro savants... the first were converted to real sorcerers... the next to sorcerors with fewer spells... the last with all the spells mentioned for ADnD without chaning anything. (other than obvious things like hp and AC and thac0) That worked best for them.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Some people have commented about the plainness of the default pit fiend. This and a review of the magic item slot article got me thinking. Secondary slot magical items grant characters new combat options without causing the system to break, the same could be potentially true for monsters. Giving a Pitfiend a couple secondary slot magical items may just be the you need o do to customize him. You want to give him the option to unleash a line of electricity? Give him Vambraces of Lightning Blast. Maybe that noble signet ring is not just a signet ring but a Horned Ring of the Devil Lord.

P.S. All magical items name in this post were made up, if they do appear in the future the names are purely chance.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What would the threads be about, in that case? They'd all basically read like "Wow, that's so cool!! I love this!!" with a couple of "Here's a neat synergy I figured out for an encounter with a Pit Fiend and a Black Pudding with enough wizard levels to boost it to 26th level."

It would be speculation, interpretation, ideas about how we plan on running pit fiends, thoughts on the back story and how to weave them into campaigns, and other very useful things like that. I think the first few pages of discussion where fun, and that's without anybody complaining about anything. People don't have to complain for interesting and useful discussion to take place. Are 3e discussions where nobody complains about the rules worthless tirades about how awesome 3e is? :\

 

[Intrope]

actually it is 2/4 of an encounter.

I am relative sure that 5 vs 4 was no mistake. I see it that way: a level 26 monster is as strong as a LVL 26 char. (you could use PCs as enemies if desired) Thus, 4(5) vs 4(5) would be an even match (50-50) having one extra PC should tip the tide of battle in favour of the PCs.

I went back and listened to the Monsters!^3 podcast, and I don't think its a hard-and-fast thing. In some of his encounters, he uses 4 slots, and in some 5. They even mention (in the Dispater's Fortress example) not wanting 5 due to the difficulty.

The breakdown:
12th level in Underdark: Settled on 4 slots (Ghost Controller, Human Death Knight Elite Soldier, Runecarved Eidolon Lurker (Leader)) but considered 5 (Ghost + 2 Death Knights)

8th level in Forest: Settled on 5 slots (Owlbear Elite Brute, Quickling Runner Skirmisher, Satyr Piper Controller, Werewolf (didn't give type--probably Brute))

3rd level guarding Caravan: 4 slots (2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, 1 Hobgoblin Archer, 1 Hobgoblin Hexer Controller)

15th level teleported to Dispater's Fortress: 4 slots, rejected 5 for difficutly (4 Legion Devil Minions--apparently 2 slots; 1 Bone Devil Controller; 1 Eye of Flame Artillery).

I think that the actual encounter guideline will be 4-5 slots. Admittedly, I would have prefered a 1-per-PC rule, but it looks like it'll be close to that anyway.

 

[Dragonblade]

It's not the snark that's the problem, it's that the logical conclusion of your statement is that anyone who has a negative opinion about an aspect of 4E is somehow unreasonable and shouldn't participate in threads.

Fair enough. But I do think that some of the opinions are unreasonable. For example, complaining that +X swords are still in the game. Of course they are still in the game. D&D would no longer be D&D without +X swords. Its like complaining that a new Star Wars movie still has Jedi in it.

So when I have to wade through complaints that I feel are unreasonable, it makes me less tolerant of other complaints that are reasonable.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I went back and listened to the Monsters!^3 podcast, and I don't think its a hard-and-fast thing. In some of his encounters, he uses 4 slots, and in some 5. They even mention (in the Dispater's Fortress example) not wanting 5 due to the difficulty.

The breakdown:
12th level in Underdark: Settled on 4 slots (Ghost Controller, Human Death Knight Elite Soldier, Runecarved Eidolon Lurker (Leader)) but considered 5 (Ghost + 2 Death Knights)

8th level in Forest: Settled on 5 slots (Owlbear Elite Brute, Quickling Runner Skirmisher, Satyr Piper Controller, Werewolf (didn't give type--probably Brute))

3rd level guarding Caravan: 4 slots (2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, 1 Hobgoblin Archer, 1 Hobgoblin Hexer Controller)

15th level teleported to Dispater's Fortress: 4 slots, rejected 5 for difficutly (4 Legion Devil Minions--apparently 2 slots; 1 Bone Devil Controller; 1 Eye of Flame Artillery).

I think that the actual encounter guideline will be 4-5 slots. Admittedly, I would have prefered a 1-per-PC rule, but it looks like it'll be close to that anyway.

I still think 5 vs 4 is the standard for a fight which the PCs usually win without losses. A system where 1 PC vs 1 Monster of the same Level usually wins, begins to fail if you replace the monster by a PC class.

What I hope is, that monsters will work as solo monsters, even if they are not, but just some Levels higher... and fights vs 20 monsters of lower level should also work...

otherwise it could really get annoying... (hmmh i need a single monster/what should I add to make the fight fair/help, i need mooks of apropriate level...)

 

[A'koss]

I went back and listened to the Monsters!^3 podcast, and I don't think its a hard-and-fast thing. In some of his encounters, he uses 4 slots, and in some 5. They even mention (in the Dispater's Fortress example) not wanting 5 due to the difficulty.

The breakdown:
12th level in Underdark: Settled on 4 slots (Ghost Controller, Human Death Knight Elite Soldier, Runecarved Eidolon Lurker (Leader)) but considered 5 (Ghost + 2 Death Knights)

8th level in Forest: Settled on 5 slots (Owlbear Elite Brute, Quickling Runner Skirmisher, Satyr Piper Controller, Werewolf (didn't give type--probably Brute))

3rd level guarding Caravan: 4 slots (2 Hobgoblin Soldiers, 1 Hobgoblin Archer, 1 Hobgoblin Hexer Controller)

15th level teleported to Dispater's Fortress: 4 slots, rejected 5 for difficutly (4 Legion Devil Minions--apparently 2 slots; 1 Bone Devil Controller; 1 Eye of Flame Artillery).

I think that the actual encounter guideline will be 4-5 slots. Admittedly, I would have prefered a 1-per-PC rule, but it looks like it'll be close to that anyway.

As I recall, the reason why some of those fights were just 4 slots was due to some of the monsters they were throwing together were higher than the party level.

The game is still geared for 1 standard monster per PC for a level appropriate encounter. It really is a departure from the 3e mentality of encounter design which I can see some people are struggling to get their heads around. Few monsters are an island of their own anymore, and most encounters you're now thinking in terms of building a *team* to challenge the PCs.
Eg. Just the right mix of leader(s), brute(s), skirmisher(s), controller(s), elite(s), standard(s), minion(s), etc.