Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Interesting how that new stat block somehow reminds me of my D&D mini cards. *biiiiiiig yawn*
-DM Jeff
DM Jeff, I think you hit the nail on the head. It seems like combat is being streamlined to mimic the D&D Miniatures Game, just so combat can be ended in 5 rounds. (And this may be intentional, as a marketing ploy to tie both games together. No evidence to support, but it does come to mind).
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think an encounter with one of the most powerful creatures in D&D should last a little longer than 30 seconds of in-game time (assuming a round is still ~6 seconds in 4E).
One poster indicated that most combat encounters are pretty much decided within the first 2 rounds. In my experience, this may be true at low levels or against minions and lackeys. However, the combats we engage in at 5th level and above against challenging opponents (named villains, higher CR creatures, etc) have ebbs and flows to them that keep the outcome in doubt until the final blow is struck. Attempting to streamline a combat encounter by having them end after 5 rounds would hurt combat for those of us who may share this combat experience.
After all, if you did the AoW adventure path, confronted Kyuss at the end of the path, and the combat ended after 5 rounds, how satisfied would you be as a player? I'd definitely feel a little disappointed over how easily the god-like undead being went down (or killed the party) after my PC endured all of the hardships and challenges leading up to that final confrontation.
|
|
Interesting how that new stat block somehow reminds me of my D&D mini cards.Yea, I noticed that too and that is turning me off it more then anything else. So what, when a monster gets "bloodied" does it have to make a will save or flee for the exit?
I agree. Instead of taking interesting monsters from the monster manual and making minis based on them, it's the other way around. Monsters are made for minis battle first, and being interesing and challenging creatures to encounter comes second. Why else would they use detestable practice of listing reach, speed, and range in squares instead of feet?
DDM rules and 4e D&D combat rules are being aligned together as much as possible.
That said, a direct comparison of a 3.5e monster versus a 4e monster does not appear very fruitful from my perspective as they were designed with very different design philosophies and to interact with different game systems.
Its still better than measuring speeds in inches.
Possibly for the benefit of people who use metric measurements?
When they first announced that they'd be doing distances in squares and not feet, I said the same thing. A few europeans said they'd prefer it in feet rather then squares since they could get a sense of how big something is with feet while squres was completely arbitrary. If something says "5 feet", they know that's about 1.5 meters. As long as they're use to that, no biggie. Squares however smacks of a minis game.
|
|
Why else would they use detestable practice of listing reach, speed, and range in squares instead of feet?Possibly for the benefit of people who use metric measurements?
Who usually have also translations at their fingertips.
The real problem with the new Pit Fiend, is that to me it looks stripped of his "boss creature" status. It's like a bigger thug than the rest of the fiends.
My 3.5 DM screen depicts a Pit Fiend standing on top of a mound of dead adventurers, with some characters facing it.
It's alone, even though it's not a elite creature, and it's not required to fight in a pair.
It's full of fire-based magic, but it's not a one-trick critter.
It can summon lackeys, but only if it's in the mood of letting some minion shed the blood of puny mortals. It's a great strategist and commander of troops, the ultimate tyrant who does not need companions to be effective in combat.
Its skills are good enough to make him a fearsome diplomat, a cunning expert of the arcane, a crafty artisan of tools intended for pain and damnation... and even more.
This brand new Pit Fiend maybe it's faster, easier to run, has a new trick or two upon its sleeve... but I can hardly see it as a lord of fiends.
|
|
This brand new Pit Fiend maybe it's faster, easier to run, has a new trick or two upon its sleeve... but I can hardly see it as a lord of fiends.Maybe the new fiends are all thuggish one trick ponies. The guy who can blow them up is king by default.
"In the land of the pigs, the butcher is king"
This would be one more reason to stay with 3.5 edition, at least for me.
|
DDM rules and 4e D&D combat rules are being aligned together as much as possible.
That said, a direct comparison of a 3.5e monster versus a 4e monster does not appear very fruitful from my perspective as they were designed with very different design philosophies and to interact with different game systems.
What else to we have to compare it to? A vacuum? You keep using this argument. What would be fruitful for you? Maybe comparing it to a MMORPG since this seems designed with that in mind even to the designation of "elite".
It is clear that the designers of the game have taken the pit fiend down a notch or two making it merely an elite pull before the boss encounter in your favorite instance. Surprised a loot table were not included.
Maybe that will be posted on Thotbot soon.
|
Maybe that will be posted on Thotbot soon.
It's very interesting that folks tend to make negative comparisons between 4E and WoW.
I love World of Warcraft, and so do 11,999,999 other folks. In fact that is part of the reason I am wandering away from 3E. WoW feels like a game and 3E feels like a really boring math class. The thing that WoW lacks is real social interaction and roleplaying - though voice chat helps.
If 4E can capture some of the WoW zing and allow me to play it with a group of friends at a table with paper and pencil and miniature figures then that would be a good thing.
|
|
If 4E can capture some of the WoW zing and allow me to play it with a group of friends at a table with paper and pencil and miniature figures then that would be a good thing.
I love WoW too. I, however, don't want my tabletop experience to be like WoW with scripted encounters that only take training to achieve and are the same every time, or video game-like mechanics.
I also enjoy math and science and numbers.
|
If 4E can capture some of the WoW zing and allow me to play it with a group of friends at a table with paper and pencil and miniature figures then that would be a good thing.
I love WoW too. I, however, don't want my tabletop experience to be like WoW with scripted encounters that only take training to achieve and are the same every time, or video game-like mechanics.
I also enjoy math and science and numbers.
I'm in this boat too - I Like WoW (just bought ti Xmas eve) But I HATE the idea of timed limits to spells - If I want to be able to do something well I should be able to prepare it twice darnit!
|
|
Why else would they use detestable practice of listing reach, speed, and range in squares instead of feet?Possibly for the benefit of people who use metric measurements?Who usually have also translations at their fingertips.
The real problem with the new Pit Fiend, is that to me it looks stripped of his "boss creature" status. It's like a bigger thug than the rest of the fiends.
My 3.5 DM screen depicts a Pit Fiend standing on top of a mound of dead adventurers, with some characters facing it.
It's alone, even though it's not a elite creature, and it's not required to fight in a pair.
It's full of fire-based magic, but it's not a one-trick critter.
It can summon lackeys, but only if it's in the mood of letting some minion shed the blood of puny mortals. It's a great strategist and commander of troops, the ultimate tyrant who does not need companions to be effective in combat.
Its skills are good enough to make him a fearsome diplomat, a cunning expert of the arcane, a crafty artisan of tools intended for pain and damnation... and even more.This brand new Pit Fiend maybe it's faster, easier to run, has a new trick or two upon its sleeve... but I can hardly see it as a lord of fiends.
I agree. He isn't designed with that in mind though. Him and his identical twin are designed with the completely gamist goal of being able to last 5 rounds or so against 5 26th level PC's and do a few kewl things (like blowing up your minions) before he dies and passes on his precious exp to the PC's. The fact that his abilities don't match his status as second most powerful beign in the nine hells really isn't a consideration to the desingers. If he was designed as a solo encounter, then he might be more impressive. I don't understand why they didn't at least do that. If a pit fiend doesn't deserve to be a "solo" or "boss" monster, what does?
If I may so humbly disagree . . .
I believe the pit fiend is designed to last a bit longer than 5 rounds. I am not sure how you guys are extrapolating this out. We are not quite familiar yet with PC's damage output or striking capability against the pit fiends saves and AC.
Also, in a blog mention there was hinting that combat goes on as long as 15-20 rounds much more frequently than before -- in part to capture the essence of really fun cinematic encounters. I will scour around for the link, but I am quite sure on this.
Feel free to disagree as you wish, I obviously have not posted any proof yet, but I will do my best to get on this in the next day or so.
|
|
I love WoW too. I, however, don't want my tabletop experience to be like WoW with scripted encounters that only take training to achieve and are the same every time, or video game-like mechanics.
I also enjoy math and science and numbers.
I don't see anything scripted. I see a suggestion for tactics. I see a block that can be read and run in short order. But I don't see anything there that is so radically different from 3.5 that makes me believe the encounters will be the same every time.
If I may so humbly disagree . . .
I believe the pit fiend is designed to last a bit longer than 5 rounds. I am not sure how you guys are extrapolating this out. We are not quite familiar yet with PC's damage output or striking capability against the pit fiends saves and AC.
Also, in a blog mention there was hinting that combat goes on as long as 15-20 rounds much more frequently than before -- in part to capture the essence of really fun cinematic encounters. I will scour around for the link, but I am quite sure on this.
Feel free to disagree as you wish, I obviously have not posted any proof yet, but I will do my best to get on this in the next day or so.
I believe it's been mentioned in several of the Designer Diaries that they're looking to make Combat go faster, although covering a wider area of map tiles. Seeing a 10 to 15 round combat seems pretty unlikely from the info we've gotten thus far.
As for this guy not being a boss monster, I too am puzzled on that choice...Pit Fiends seem like the perfect monster for the end of a high level adventure, and the entry even makes mention of that, yet he is clearly defined as a Soldier, not as a Mastermind.
Also, as far as big end of scenario encounters go, one thing I think this fella has in his favor is he can *really* overwhelm a party of adventurers. As an Elite monster, we know he counts for two PCs. So with a party of four characters, you'd be facing an encounter of two Pit Fiends. If both dredge forth 8 Legion Devil Legionnaires (that feels a little redundant to say) then you're looking at facing 18 monsters now. If you've got a party of 6 player characters (not unheard of) you'll be expected to fight three Pit Fiends, and if they each summon up the maximum possible minions you'll be looking at an encounter of 27 monsters. Each of them is swinging at a +4 bonus to hit.
Now we don't yet know much about the power of the player characters, but based upon what we've seen in prior editions, facing down 27 high level monsters, three of which are on equal footing is going to be a rough battle, particularly when as some of those monsters become badly injured (or "bloodied" as it were) they suddenly fly towards you and detonate.
Also, another important point of note: Perhaps the reason the Pit Fiend's exploding minion damage is so paltry is because the maximum isn't above his fire resistance, thus he can detonate minions next to him with no fear of damage and just keep on whaling away at the players. I don't think that point had been addressed yet.
I agree - the fact that the one cobbled together playtesting group did 3 "massive" battles in 4 hours would lead me to believe it's going to be a button-mashing-esque bloodbath. I would also like to add that even this pathetic 4E Pit Fiend is going to assume that a party that can face him would prepare for him, and have their own fire resistance - which would make the 25 points of exploding ally damage even more worthless. I don't have to rehash the whole more hit points, faster recovery side of it. And I do not like how it's listed as a soldier type even less than I like the whole "type"ing in general...
EDIT: CRAP! I had a great post, really long. I thought I hit quote because I wanted to make an addendium to it; instead I hit edit.
Ok well, here, I did some math and this is what I got.
Assumptions
5 rounds/combat X 8 activations/round (4 for PCs, 4 for NPCs) X 3 Combats/session = 120 activations/session.
120 activations/session / 4 hours/session = 30 activations/hour
That means that every 2 minutes a new activation begins. And that's with no role playing at all.
You have gained 18,000 XP for completing this task!
What do you want to do now?
1) Continue down to the next level.
2) Camp for the night.
|
|
If I may so humbly disagree . . .
I believe the pit fiend is designed to last a bit longer than 5 rounds. I am not sure how you guys are extrapolating this out. We are not quite familiar yet with PC's damage output or striking capability against the pit fiends saves and AC.
Also, in a blog mention there was hinting that combat goes on as long as 15-20 rounds much more frequently than before -- in part to capture the essence of really fun cinematic encounters. I will scour around for the link, but I am quite sure on this.
Feel free to disagree as you wish, I obviously have not posted any proof yet, but I will do my best to get on this in the next day or so.
Lasting for 5 rounds isn't based on any math I've done, it's based on a comment that has been said at least once by the designers. They basically said monsters were only going to be "on stage" for about 5 rounds so they should have about five cool things to do before they die. I believe they even said that 4E monsters are designed around this philosphy.
You have gained 18,000 XP for completing this task!
What do you want to do now?
1) Continue down to the next level.
2) Camp for the night.
If I stop at an inn or major city, will I earn double XP into the next level?
EDIT: CRAP! I had a great post, really long. I thought I hit quote because I wanted to make an addendium to it; instead I hit edit.
Ok well, here, I did some math and this is what I got.
Assumptions
No role playing at all, just combat
Average combat is 5 rounds long (since that was a design philosophy of MMV, and with all the "playtesting" books like Bo9S, I believe that MMV was also a playtest book)
4 players, 4 monsters (since this is a stated design philsophy of 4E)
Using the minis game-term Activation for convenience sake. 5 rounds/combat X 8 activations/round (4 for PCs, 4 for NPCs) X 3 Combats/session = 120 activations/session.
120 activations/session / 4 hours/session = 30 activations/hour
That means that every 2 minutes a new activation begins. And that's with no role playing at all.
DMcCoy, last I heard they upped the number of characters to 5. If this is accurate it might throw the numbers off a bit.
DMcCoy, last I heard they upped the number of characters to 5. If this is accurate it might throw the numbers off a bit.
Alright, 5 it is then... Reworking the numbers:
37.5 activations per hour comes to a new activation starting every 1 minute and 36 seconds.I hope nobody had to go to the bathroom in that 4 hours or else players would have to hurry up and decide quickly what they're going to do.
I love World of Warcraft, and so do 11,999,999 other folks. In fact that is part of the reason I am wandering away from 3E. WoW feels like a game and 3E feels like a really boring math class.
Aha! YOU are the new target demographic for D&D. Congratulations: the field is yours, and it really may then be time for the old guys (read: in their '30's) who used to play 1st edition (and can't even boot up a video game) to be put out to pasture in favor of a dynamic new market segment. The video game mentality is the now.
That's fine; most of the dinosaurs (the ones you're surprised to see viewing this change as a negative thing) seem to be happy to stay in the Jurassic with their 3e. Looks more and more like I'll stay there as one of them; I don't "hot synch" or "MySpace" or "WOW" or "RTOFLOL" (whatever that last one is), nor do I really want a game that resembles any of these. If you do, more power to you; evidently you've got it. I'm glad, actually, that Hasbro hasn't actually missed their target group the way we fossils are griping they have.
I truly do hope the new game gives you as much enjoyment as its old namesake gave us. Happy gaming!
I believe it's been mentioned in several of the Designer Diaries that they're looking to make Combat go faster, although covering a wider area of map tiles. Seeing a 10 to 15 round combat seems pretty unlikely from the info we've gotten thus far.
What I meant was that combat lasts a bit longer (in rounds/actions), but the rounds move quicker and more smoothly than before so that the combat goes quicker than 3.5 (in actual minutes played). At least that is how I read everything they've put out.
Again, I could have sworn there was a blog to this effect -- I suppose I should provide a link for that though.
Aha! YOU are the new target demographic for D&D.
Kirth, please, tone down that kind of talk.
|
|
I love World of Warcraft, and so do 11,999,999 other folks. In fact that is part of the reason I am wandering away from 3E. WoW feels like a game and 3E feels like a really boring math class.Aha! YOU are the new target demographic for D&D. Congratulations: the field is yours, and it really may then be time for the old guys (read: in their '30's) who used to play 1st edition (and can't even boot up a video game) to be put out to pasture in favor of a dynamic new market segment. The video game mentality is the now.
That's fine; most of the dinosaurs (the ones you're surprised to see viewing this change as a negative thing) seem to be happy to stay in the Jurassic with their 3e. Looks more and more like I'll stay there as one of them; I don't "hot synch" or "MySpace" or "WOW" or "RTOFLOL" (whatever that last one is), nor do I really want a game that resembles any of these. If you do, more power to you; evidently you've got it. I'm glad, actually, that Hasbro hasn't actually missed their target group the way we fossils are griping they have.
I truly do hope the new game gives you as much enjoyment as its old namesake gave us. Happy gaming!
Dude. I am 40. I started playing D&D in 1976. I have a MySpace and a Facebook page. I love WoW.
Why do you see these as being incompatible?
Really! Talk about bitter beer face! :)
- Barrow Wight: I wouldn't call it a "button-mashing-esque-bloodfest" anymore than I'd say Dungeons and Dragons Online resembles 3.5 edition D&D. I don't foresee sweeping changes to the game, I think instead we'll see a lot of little changes which will add up to a faster game. Not rolling to confirm criticals for instance, is one less die roll needed, and one thing which can make play a little faster. There's been some mention of removing fire resistance, but I don't recall the specifics.
Also, you seem to be really pushing this comparison between 4e and MMO's. Does it really seem to you that they're so alike? I can see similarities certainly, but at the same time there's a lot of differences here which you seem focused on ignoring to make your point.
- DMcCoy: The only problem we have with the numbers right now is we don't know what type of enemies the group is facing. While it seems evident that it'd be 5 players to 5 enemies, the Development and Design articles have indicated it isn't always so. An encounter hazard can take the place of one or more monsters, and the monsters themselves may be elite or minions, thus halving or doubling their numbers respectively.
I find myself doubting that the group did absolutely no role-playing either, or that everyone needed the full alloted time you gave them. What can that mean? Faster completion of a turn, perhaps?
The MMV and the Complete Mage were test books for 4E.
- Kirth: There's a useful term in debate and discussion called "Ad hominem." If you happen to be passingly unfamiliar with it, it's a tactic where you attack a person as opposed to their arguement. It's really both poor form and also not particularly productive to the discussion. Whether Crosswiredmind (whom for some reason I always thought was named CrossMiredWind) has a facebook or not or any of the other crap you spat out is moot. You're weighing in on neither 4e or on the Pit Fiend; so either keep up with the conversation and ditch the personal attacks on people, or keep quiet. Either or, it was poor form.
- Kirth: There's a useful term in debate and discussion called "Ad hominem." If you happen to be passingly unfamiliar with it, it's a tactic where you attack a person as opposed to their arguement. It's really both poor form and also not particularly productive to the discussion. Whether Crosswiredmind (whom for some reason I always thought was named CrossMiredWind) has a facebook or not or any of the other crap you spat out is moot. You're weighing in on neither 4e or on the Pit Fiend; so either keep up with the conversation and ditch the personal attacks on people, or keep quiet. Either...
No one was attacking, least of all I. A number of people (myself included) had commented that the new pit fiend in particular seemed like a video game character. Crosswiredmind said that was a good thing; I expressed pleasure that he thought so--that maybe WotC is actually more shrewd in their marketing than I'd given them credit for. In essence, I was complimenting them, and him.
My post was in no way sarcastic; if it seemed so to you, you were mistaken. Just because I personally am a Luddite and lack a blog (or any of the other examples), doesn't mean that others should follow that example--then all progress would stop--and that would be a BAD thing, not a good one. So please, pretty please, before you assume I'm arguing, and then proceed to scold me and then lecture me on the etiquette thereof, at least have the class to consider that just maybe somebody was being serious for once.
Crosswiredmind, I salute your progressiveness. It's rare for a person of your years to embrace new things as readily as you seem to, which is the reason I misjudged your age. I assumed incompatibility because I love old-style D&D, never thought of it as a math class, and I can't stand video games. Naturally your experience is different; I intend no disrespect to you. On the contrary--I fully understand that I would be better served by following more of your example, but lack the temperament.
DMcCoy, Bryon, in all candor, I am curious now as to why you both immediately concluded I was being a sarcastic jerk--am I always that way? Or are feelings about the new edition/new monster so strong that it's impossible to compliment someone who has a different opinion on the matter than one's own?
Honestly, my post was meant to be cordial, and seemed so to me, and if anyone read it without being predisposed to assume it was nasty, well, they might agree with me...
DMcCoy, Bryon, in all candor, I am curious now as to why you both immediately concluded I was being a sarcastic jerk--am I always that way? Or are feelings about the new edition/new monster so strong that it's impossible to compliment someone who has a different opinion on the matter than one's own?
Honestly, my post was meant to be cordial, and seemed so to me, and if anyone read it without being predisposed to assume it was nasty, well, they might agree with me...
Honestly the post read very sarcastically. Were that not your intent, fair enough, it simply seemed like it was coming across very aggressively. As for whether you're always that way, I wouldn't know.
As for my feelings on the new edition, they aren't so overpoweringly strong that I feel the need to brandish torches and howl about anyone attacking anyone else. Simply seemed like it was attempting to dig into him as opposed to his argument, the discussion or the creature being dealt with, and so I felt the need to say something.
Chalk it up to a lack of tone on the internet on that one then, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting.
Honestly the post read very sarcastically. Were that not your intent, fair enough, it simply seemed like it was coming across very aggressively. Chalk it up to a lack of tone on the internet on that one then, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting.
Yeah, I went back and read it with the mind-set of "whatever this post says is gonna be rude," and I can maybe see it that way. But any sarcasm you thought to detect was a bit of disparagement towards myself and the other dinosaurs (a backhand compliment towards crosswiredmind, et al.), and I'd hoped it would read that way as well (like I said, it did to me). Next time just try and give a fellow the benefit of the doubt--feel free to ask if you aren't sure--and we'll all get along together famously, with no need for Lisa to threaten us with eternal banishment from the Paizo boards (a fate worse than death for people on either side of any argument!). In any case, thanks for your reply.
Anyway, my point was that maybe I've been looking at this pit fiend the wrong way. The fact that it's video-gamy might be exactly what WotC is shooting for, and might be exactly what the majority of consumers are looking for. Just because I personally can't stand it doesn't mean it's bad marketing.
|
|
Crosswiredmind, I salute your progressiveness. It's rare for a person of your years to embrace new things as readily as you seem to, which is the reason I misjudged your age. I assumed incompatibility because I love old-style D&D, never thought of it as a math class, and I can't stand video games. Naturally your experience is different; I intend no disrespect to you. On the contrary--I fully understand that I would be better served by following more of your example, but lack the temperament.
No worries. It's all good.
Honestly the post read very sarcastically. Were that not your intent, fair enough, it simply seemed like it was coming across very aggressively. Chalk it up to a lack of tone on the internet on that one then, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting.Yeah, I went back and read it with the mind-set of "whatever this post says is gonna be rude," and I can maybe see it that way. But any sarcasm you thought to detect was a bit of disparagement towards myself and the other dinosaurs...
Die Dinosaur Die!!!
:-)
Die Dinosaur Die!!!
Maybe instead of sending you that last adventure, I should've given the baddie an extra level of rogue and a cohort, and "kindly" offered to DM you through it...
Die Dinosaur Die!!!Maybe instead of sending you that last adventure, I should've given the baddie an extra level of rogue and a cohort, and "kindly" offered to DM you through it...
Ha! Awesome! I need to read it! I suck! I've been so friggin busy this week. Will tackle it this weekend my man. Thanks again for sending it to me!
Dinosaurs Never Die!
The problem with the write up is this simple. The classic villain who summons a Pit Fiend is an evil Conjurer or Enchanter.
So he conjures up a Pit Fiend. Great. Now his ally is a pit fiend. He charms a couple members of the party. Then he uses his mighty magics (Remember the levels we're talking about here) and turns the nearest PC into a Nupperibo.
BOOM! The PC DIES.
Lather, rinse repeat.
|
|
The problem with the write up is this simple. The classic villain who summons a Pit Fiend is an evil Conjurer or Enchanter.
So he conjures up a Pit Fiend. Great. Now his ally is a pit fiend. He charms a couple members of the party. Then he uses his mighty magics (Remember the levels we're talking about here) and turns the nearest PC into a Nupperibo.
BOOM! The PC DIES.
Lather, rinse repeat.
I do not see that at all. How exactly - mechanically - does that happen?
The problem with the write up is this simple. The classic villain who summons a Pit Fiend is an evil Conjurer or Enchanter.
So he conjures up a Pit Fiend. Great. Now his ally is a pit fiend. He charms a couple members of the party. Then he uses his mighty magics (Remember the levels we're talking about here) and turns the nearest PC into a Nupperibo.
BOOM! The PC DIES.
Lather, rinse repeat.
taken directly from the pit fiend block
"Ranged Irresistible Command (minor 1/round; at-will) • Charm, Fire
Range 10; affects one allied devil of lower level than the pit fiend; the target immediately slides up to 5 squares and explodes, dealing 2d10+5 fire damage to all creatures in a close burst 2. The exploding devil is destroyed."
What you are describing cannot happen.
|
|
Presumably you carefully misread Baleful Polymorph to allow it to transform people into devils. Although given the large number of spells around there might well be one which allows you to polymorph other people into outsiders, though I can't think of one.
My understanding is that polymorph spells of any flavor are gone and will not appear in 4E.
My understanding is that polymorph spells of any flavor are gone and will not appear in 4E.
Because being polymorphed into a lizard against one's will unfun. Just ask Vaarsuvius.
It also limits your spell list.
Presumably you carefully misread Baleful Polymorph to allow it to transform people into devils. Although given the large number of spells around there might well be one which allows you to polymorph other people into outsiders, though I can't think of one.I do not see that at all. How exactly - mechanically - does that happen?The problem with the write up is this simple. The classic villain who summons a Pit Fiend is an evil Conjurer or Enchanter.
So he conjures up a Pit Fiend. Great. Now his ally is a pit fiend. He charms a couple members of the party. Then he uses his mighty magics (Remember the levels we're talking about here) and turns the nearest PC into a Nupperibo.
BOOM! The PC DIES.
Lather, rinse repeat.
Who said anything about Baleful Polymorph? These creatures are powerful enough to cast spells like Polymorph Any Object and Dominate Monster. Now, in 3.5, this tactic could never work, because the PC would get a saving throw. But in 4.0, the wizard overcomes your resistance score, and boom, it's over.
Technically, the wizard could, using Polymorph Any Object, turn any amount of ground, chairs, or other furniture into allied devils.Eventually, he'd run out of floor space, but you know, that's okay, because Pit Fiends can fly.
My understanding is that polymorph spells of any flavor are gone and will not appear in 4E.
That's my understanding too...I thought that transformative spells would be like the ones found in the Spell Compendium, where you can transform into a specific creature, or the ones in FCII where you assume some of the traits of a particular devil.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Now, in 3.5, this tactic could never work, because the PC would get a saving throw. But in 4.0, the wizard overcomes your resistance score, and boom, it's over.
You do understand that saving throws and resistance scores are the exact same mechanic, it's just that the person who rolls the die has changed, right? Or, to paraphrase, in 3.5, the wizard casts a spell and you fail your save, and boom, it's over. I don't see how changing who rolls the die changes the effect...