-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Devil's in the Details: Slavicsek reveals the Pit Fiend in all its glory
- Thread starter Aexalon
- Start date
Wolfspider
Explorer
I really hate the wording of the explode-a-devil power. Having the minion "slide" 5 squares really makes them seem merely like pieces on a gameboard. Or maybe devil minions wear roller-blades.
Probably not actually -- the mace looks otherwise ordinary, so I'll assume (for purposes of my game, I agree that this isn't what the text says!) that the "Flametouched" is a property of the beastie, not the item.helium3 said:
Sure, it's not phrased that way, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if its treasure is a +3 Sword, I'm laying fire damage on top of that sucker.
Similarly, the companion devils bamf if defeated, or the encounter ends, according to the text... I'd assume their swag goes with them.
What does that ring do, though...?
Edit: No mention of ecology, society, encounter-styles, or treasure. Perhaps each group gets a communal writeup (so, there's a table for the Devils that lays out how they interact with each other, the treasures they're likely to have, and so on)? Or perhaps the treasure tables are in the DMG and are organized differently from that which we're used it?
Hmm. Intriguing.
May I take the time to point out that I hate, hate, hate the switch from writing distances in squares instead of feet?
(By the way, major rant warning)
Squares are an artificial game concept in order to enable some order to the combat simulation. They don't actually exist in the game world. Making "squares" the standard distance is equivalent to changing the standard unit for weight from "pound" to "turducken". It's one thing to suggest that DnD is a tactical combat simulator instead of a role playing game, but switching to squares just seems to go too far. Now, instead of knowing that something is, say, 315 feet away, I'm told that something is 63 squares away and have to actually do math to figure out what that means to my character in-game. It's a subtle way to emphasize that 4th edition has made Dungeons and Dragons from a Role Playing Game to a roleplaying GAME.
Having to do mental calculations just to translate "game-y" mechanics into an accurate description of how far away something is as my character sees it is not a move in the right direction IMNSHO.
Complaint the second: the way they write out the ability scores and then conflate the skill bonus with the ability modifier. There's no real reason to do such instead of just having a separate note that all skill checks have a +13 bonus from level. It's rather like listing the reach of a creature in the "Speed" category. Could it be marginally useful? I guess, but it's not intuitive in the least. Also, a lot of people don't necessarily know that a 32 Str is a +11 bonus, or at least don't know it off the top of their heads. It'd be nice to still write out the actual ability modifier (which is far more important than the ability score, since the score is just a device to tell you what the modifier is).
Third game mechanic complaint: "saves." Why does every debilitating ongoing effect in the game have a 50% chance of getting thrown off, regardless of level, ability scores, saves, or class? Why does the 1st level wizard with a 6 Con have the exact same chance of throwing off the poison in his veins as the level 30 Fighter with 20 Con? It also greatly reduces the ability of a player to differentiate his weaknesses from everyone else.
Another minor quibble: I don't understand the point in keeping in fear effects if the only thing they do is give everyone a -2 to hit? No save, no variable effects based on class/hit dice/ability scores. Just a flat -2 to hit for everyone. Why not just bump up the AC by 2? It's the same effect that's far easier to track and remember.
Last complaint of the night: what exactly is the point of "Pit Fiend Frenzy"? You can either spend a standard action attacking with your mace, or a standard action to attack with your stinger... or you could ignore both of those options and just take a standard action to attack with both.
Sorry, that was one big long rant.
(By the way, major rant warning)
Squares are an artificial game concept in order to enable some order to the combat simulation. They don't actually exist in the game world. Making "squares" the standard distance is equivalent to changing the standard unit for weight from "pound" to "turducken". It's one thing to suggest that DnD is a tactical combat simulator instead of a role playing game, but switching to squares just seems to go too far. Now, instead of knowing that something is, say, 315 feet away, I'm told that something is 63 squares away and have to actually do math to figure out what that means to my character in-game. It's a subtle way to emphasize that 4th edition has made Dungeons and Dragons from a Role Playing Game to a roleplaying GAME.
Having to do mental calculations just to translate "game-y" mechanics into an accurate description of how far away something is as my character sees it is not a move in the right direction IMNSHO.
Complaint the second: the way they write out the ability scores and then conflate the skill bonus with the ability modifier. There's no real reason to do such instead of just having a separate note that all skill checks have a +13 bonus from level. It's rather like listing the reach of a creature in the "Speed" category. Could it be marginally useful? I guess, but it's not intuitive in the least. Also, a lot of people don't necessarily know that a 32 Str is a +11 bonus, or at least don't know it off the top of their heads. It'd be nice to still write out the actual ability modifier (which is far more important than the ability score, since the score is just a device to tell you what the modifier is).
Third game mechanic complaint: "saves." Why does every debilitating ongoing effect in the game have a 50% chance of getting thrown off, regardless of level, ability scores, saves, or class? Why does the 1st level wizard with a 6 Con have the exact same chance of throwing off the poison in his veins as the level 30 Fighter with 20 Con? It also greatly reduces the ability of a player to differentiate his weaknesses from everyone else.
Another minor quibble: I don't understand the point in keeping in fear effects if the only thing they do is give everyone a -2 to hit? No save, no variable effects based on class/hit dice/ability scores. Just a flat -2 to hit for everyone. Why not just bump up the AC by 2? It's the same effect that's far easier to track and remember.
Last complaint of the night: what exactly is the point of "Pit Fiend Frenzy"? You can either spend a standard action attacking with your mace, or a standard action to attack with your stinger... or you could ignore both of those options and just take a standard action to attack with both.
Sorry, that was one big long rant.
A further note on gear: I'm pretty sure the answer to "Why doesn't he have uber magic gear?" is to simply give him whatever gear you like, then assume it's already been factored into his stats. Quick and easy.
And I don't know about anyone else, but in my games, "Irresistible Command" is being renamed to "You Have Failed Me For The Last Time."
And I don't know about anyone else, but in my games, "Irresistible Command" is being renamed to "You Have Failed Me For The Last Time."
Khaim said:
Amusingly, the math is perhaps the one aspect of 4e that I'm 100% behind. I view it much like the unification of the xp tables going from 2e to 3e: a massive improvement of the behind-the-scenes mechanics that opens up huge areas of development space (then, multi-classing, here, high level play). Perhaps unfortunately then, I appear to be in agreement with WotC in feeling that "kill-them-and-take-their-stuff" is fairly core to DnD, and requirement magic items. Magic items, in turn, makes it hard to get the math working for NPCs who could reasonably get and use magic items. I'd be a lot happier with an explicit (it may still exist, we have no evidence to the contrary) NPC wealth table (with appropriate primary items), and *all* potential item using NPC/monsters assumed to have gear from that table (included in the freaking stat block, of course). Deviations would then be in the upwards power direction and explicitly stated as a power in the stat block. Of course, this makes keeping PC wealth bounded hard.
There is no easy way out, but a naked except for a dreadfully poorly chosen item that will frequently be worse than its non-magical counterpart Devil *Lord* probably isn't the best option.
Dausuul said:
Well, to be fair its just a rumour in a knowledge check. But I like the idea of non-mechanical wishes. With fun little side effects, rather than just snap your fingers, wish is fulfilled kinda thing. For example, you find the ritual, say the words, and conjure up the pit fiend to grant you a wish.
"Build me a castle", you say.
"Yes, master", it replies, and promptly enslaves the nearby dwarven village and works them to death building your lovely summer home. Which is good, because you are going to need it after he goes home and leaves all these angry dwarves sitting around.
On the Fire Resistance subject. We know that PCs have at least some access to fire resistance. Remember all the way back in the Red Dragon article? When the beast scoured away the wizard's fire resistance? Yep. In. Or at least it was, some months back.
Similar Threads
