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

[Kraydak]

I'll note that I do recall a forum post that Mearls noted that you can indeed add class levels onto a monster. Frankly, looking at the Pit Fiend stats, I can't see anything at all to prevent it. Monsters have ability scores, defenses, skills and pretty much everything that a class could add to. If classes are like they were in 3e and primarily additive, you should just be able to add on the class abilities and skills as appropriate. It might be a bit clumsy, as in 3e, but I see nothing that should prevent it.

I hate to harp on about gear, but it does pose an issue with giving monsters PC classes. Gear is factored into PC class abilities. We can see from the Pit Fiend example that gear tends not to be factored into even those monsters which could reasonably use gear (and in fact are described as wearing it?!). So to keep the PC class levels appropriately powered, you either have to give monsters arbitrary bonuses (to make up for the lack of gear) or absurdly weak gear i.e. a Pit Fiend with 2 levels of wizard wearing lvl 2 wizard gear. Giving arbitrary bonuses works, sort of. It is *more powerful* than bonuses from gear though (gear is vulnerable to attack. magical gear is extra-vulnerable through Dispel effects), and poses questions with shape-change magics (In human form, I get a bonus from using a magic sword. In demon form, capable of wielding a sword, no bonus. Huh??). If the Pit Fiend picks up a level of Fighter, he should probably get some armor proficiencies (he might already have some, they aren't listed). If so, he might want to wear armor (neat thought!). Unfortunately, while he *is* described as wearing a breastplate, we don't know the stats of said BP. Which makes making use of the (theoretical) armor proficiencies... hard.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Setting aside the snarkiness in this comment, how else are they supposed to communicate that the breastplate has symbols and runes without stating it? Are we supposed to guess? And using adjectives for emphasis is fine. They could have just said symbols, sure, but there's nothing wrong with emphasizing the evil.

Well, I am sorry about the snarkiness. I think my frustration with bad writing got the best of me. At least I remembered to label it a "rant."

But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing. Avoiding unnecessary adjectives - and they almost all are - is another accepted rule. Voltaire said, "The adjective is the enemy of the noun." There are tons of other quotes out there along the same lines, like Stephen King saying that the road to hell is paved with adverbs. My comments are far from personal preferences. There are real, accepted rules of style that are being violated in the RPG industry all the time.

I shouldn't pick on WOTC exclusively. Let's look at Paizo. Before we do, though, let me be clear: I think there are great designers and writers at Paizo and WOTC. I just think their writing could be even better. Now, my example. Here's the first sentence of Paizo's "Rise of the Runelords" free player's guide: "Scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards and reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages, only in the past few hundred years have the steps of civilized men again trod the wondrous and mysterious lands of Varisia." That's a doosie of a misplaced modifier. It's saying that the "steps of civilized men" are "scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards." It's also saying that those same steps are "reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages." That's not what it means, but it's what it says. It's bad writing.

Again, I don't think writing is the most important part of a game product. Game design is. Writing is a part of it, though, and it can be better than what we sometimes see.

 

[helium3]

Well, I am sorry about the snarkiness. I think my frustration with bad writing got the best of me. At least I remembered to label it a "rant."

But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing. Avoiding unnecessary adjectives - and they almost all are - is another accepted rule. Voltaire said, "The adjective is the enemy of the noun." There are tons of other quotes out there along the same lines, like Stephen King saying that the road to hell is paved with adverbs. My comments are far from personal preferences. There are real, accepted rules of style that are being violated in the RPG industry all the time.

I shouldn't pick on WOTC exclusively. Let's look at Paizo. Before we do, though, let me be clear: I think there are great designers and writers at Paizo and WOTC. I just think their writing could be even better. Now, my example. Here's the first sentence of Paizo's "Rise of the Runelords" free player's guide: "Scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards and reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages, only in the past few hundred years have the steps of civilized men again trod the wondrous and mysterious lands of Varisia." That's a doosie of a misplaced modifier. It's saying that the "steps of civilized men" are "scarred by the depravity of ancient wizards." It's also saying that those same steps are "reclaimed by a wilderness of beasts and savages." That's not what it means, but it's what it says. It's bad writing.

Again, I don't think writing is the most important part of a game product. Game design is. Writing is a part of it, though, and it can be better than what we sometimes see.

The problem you're describing is one of overly florid writing. Purple prose, even. I suffer from it all the time. It's not bad writing. It's bad editing.

 

[Counterspin]

Kraydak - PC presumption is that gear gives +1/4 level bonus to hit, defenses, and AC. Just give the monster gear or a flat bonus that equals this for their class level. Easy.

 

[Najo]

The problem you're describing is one of overly florid writing. Purple prose, even. I suffer from it all the time. It's not bad writing. It's bad editing.

Editors tighten up good writing and make it better. I would say it is bad writing and bad editing. The writer should clean it up as much as possible before it ends up on the editors desk. I guess that is what happens if you pay per submitted word as opposed to actual printed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's a very good point. But I'm kinda worried that they're losing stuff like create undead and persistant image that are useful out side of combat. And it's one thing to say that the DM can just make it up, but players tend to get annoyed if DM make stuff up willy nilly.

As a DM, you're making up stuff all the time. The whole adventure plot is entirely made up, it doesn't stand in any rule-book.

Players only get annoyed if things are obviously made up during an encounter to defeat a sensible tactic the DM hasn't expected. Or if abilities are added that obviously make a monster more powerful, without the DM accounting for it sensibly and increasing CR or EL. (And the later is only because I am also a DM and see this as a bad style if it's done without consent of the players. I don't mind the DM upping a few encounters if it's obvious they wouldn't challenge us anyway...)

That's the kind of things I'd hate.
I don't care if a Pit Fiend summons elementals in his free time, or creates illusionary walls in his castle. It's not as giving a Wizard a spell like "Animate Dead" really explains where he got all the money to maintain his army of Undeads (is this within the NPC wealth guidelines?).

I would want "Persistant Imagel" in a Pit Fiends stat block if the DM claims that a trap using one of these illusionary floors isn't worth any XP because the Pit Fiend did it (because it is really only factored into his level/XP if it's accounted for in his stat block).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Where is ANY mechanical implication that the Pit Fiend cn be a social encounter instead of being another speed bump for the PCs?

In the stat block, under skills. Intimidate +27 and Bluff +27. Wisdom based skill modifier +18, Charisma based skill modifier +22. Sounds good enough.

Assuming 1/2 level bonus to all skills, a starting ability score of 18 and a +1 bonus to charisma every 4 levels (leading to Charisma 24), and a +5 bonus for trained skill and another +5 for skill focus (Starwars Saga edition "modifiers"9, this leads us with a +30 for a heavily focused 4E character of equal level to the Balor. This guy probably has a good chance of screwing the devil over and escaping hell.

A less specialised character (say, charisma 14, no stat bumps, and only skill training) would give us a +20.
This guy might not get so well out of a deal with the devil, but he might at least keep his soul (if he gets his other parts of the contract right).

An entirely untrained character with charisma of 10 would off course only have a +13 and would probably accidently sell his soul to the devil if he asks for more than the time or directions to the next torture chamber...

 

[Prodigal_Sun]

Why do so many people have problems with the exploding minions?

It is a fantasy game, use your imagination to come up with reasons for it to work! For example the minions are under a contract (sold their soul, very devilish kind of thing to do), are promised glory, power, ... for sacrificing themselves, are just so scared of the damn thing (IRRESISTIBLE command), Hell he could just fling them at his enemies using telekinesis.

I would like to add that kamikaze's and suicide bombers exist in the real world too, is it so hard to believe a devil could not rationally take such an action? This makes me wonder what the placeholder name for this ability was "I promise you 40 virgins"?

I think this Pit fiend will make some interesting encounters, the high hit points are probably due to his elite status taking two slots, he summons minions buffs them, positions them (some could be striker demons, placed in flanking positions for massive damage), explodes them in the wizards face, debuffing someone to be massively ganged by his minions,... . He is giving a party a lot of though decisions, eliminate his minions first, or try to take the pit fiend out as fast as possible whatever the cost?

For those who argue the pit fiend became more predictable, I share your pain but I think the KISS principle is more important. Also the variety of Pit fiends encounter will also depend on his teammates and the tactical interaction between them.

just my two cp

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But those aren't nitpicks. Avoiding redundancy is an accepted rule of writing.

think about this:

Inverted-Pyramid Style of Writing

Traditionally, when you write, you start with a 'foundation' and gradually build to a conclusion in a pyramid style. You might write an essay or article using the following structure:
Problem statement
Related work
Methodology
Results
Conclusions

Journalists, on the other-hand, use an inverted pyramid style. They generally start with the main conclusion and get progressively more detailed, like so:
Conclusion
Supporting information
Background and technical details

Since Web users typically scan text, it is important to position main points at the beginning of the article, then go into more detail as needed.

http://www.great-web-design-tips.com/web-usability/87.html

I still think for the monster manual its the right approach.

 

[Wolfspider]

Why do so many people have problems with the exploding minions?

If I were you, I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out WHY people have a problem with this (to me, ridiculous) combat tactic. People obviously do have a problem with it, and that's what matters.[/quote]

I would like to add that kamikaze's and suicide bombers exist in the real world too, is it so hard to believe a devil could not rationally take such an action? This makes me wonder what the placeholder name for this ability was "I promise you 40 virgins"?

I think your comparison here skirts a little too close to real world politics. I also find it mildly distasteful.