The Runecarved Eidolon - Weird monster

[Benimoto]

So, assuming you have a standard party of fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard, what do people think would be a balanced encounter in terms of monster role (I imagine 4 equivalent level Brutes against this party in a open stadium is just asking for a TPK for the party whereas 4 artillery guys at range will make hash of the party as well).

I think the DMG will probably contain some advice similar to that in the 3.5 book Dungeonscape, where it states what types of terrain each of monster typically prefers, as well as which type of allies best support it.

Basically the advice Dungeonscape gives is to pick a role that you want to be the focus of the encounter and then add monsters and terrain to support that role.

So if you wanted your focus to be artillery, you might add soldiers or brutes to serve as blockers. If brutes were the focus, you might want some skirmishers or artillery to distract PCs, or a leader to buff them all.

I don't think there's any single answer to "what monster group is best", but it depends on the PCs, the terrain, and the individual monsters.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I'm really liking this monster too. Definitely a different take on the "lurker" role. Instead of disappearing, it just stops attacking and makes it really hard for its enemies to hit anything, until it comes out of "lurker mode" and blasts someone with divine retribution - then turns on the beacon again the next round.

Also, I think the "unless hit with Wis vs. Will" means that each specific enemy can't attack it unless they beat the eidolon's Will defense with a Wis attack. Think sanctuary from 3.5, though I think it'd make more sense to have Divine Beacon make an attack vs. Will on everyone; hit - debuff and can't attack eidolon, miss - still debuffed but can make attacks on the eidolon.

All in all, a very interesting monster, and probably a very effective support monster. -5 to attacks at level 13 is nearly all of the character's 1/2 level bonus.

 

[FadedC]

I really doubt that this is a strictly "good" creature because the runecarver eidolon in 3.5 was an extremely evil creature. It was basically an idol worshipped by a bloodthirsty cult that came alive and demanded blood sacrifice.

Of course other creatures have changed in flavor in 4E so who knows about this one.

 

[Shroomy]

I really doubt that this is a strictly "good" creature because the runecarver eidolon in 3.5 was an extremely evil creature. It was basically an idol worshipped by a bloodthirsty cult that came alive and demanded blood sacrifice.

Of course other creatures have changed in flavor in 4E so who knows about this one.

I think they are different creatures. The rogue eidolon was the 3.x insane construct (it wasn't evil per se, just psychotically chaotic neutral).