Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[Florian]

As this thread fades into the background, I for one, will lament it as yet another time that everyone just sort of blanket refused to test their assumptions by seeing how the game actually functions when run.

I generally don´t play online, so I´m unavailable for testing. Besides that, I´d be available as judge for the basic setup of the encounter and a review of how it was run.

[Anthrowhale]

I generally don´t play online, so I´m unavailable for testing. Besides that, I´d be available as judge for the basic setup of the encounter and a review of how it was run.

Having Florian as a judge would be fine by me.

[Beheld]

Having Florian as a judge would be fine by me.

He literally just said that he's not available for that.

But I do appreciate how your bias detector is literally a one way street and you didn't even think for a second before saying that you'd be totally fine with literally the person who started arguing your side with Jormungad as your apparently "impartial" judge.

I have no problem letting everyone, Florian, and the entire forum, judge my running of the Pit Fiend afterword, that's the entire point, it would completely defeat my goal of actually cultivating a forum wide culture of testing assumptions to hide info after the fact. But Florian just said he wouldn't be available to run it, and you are apparently unwilling to have me run it as DM.

So at the very least what we would need from a DM is Rulings on contested issues. Agreeing to some statement about what those are and seeing if we could agree on things beforehand would therefore make things easier on the DM, and increase the chances of one appearing. So if you are serious about running a test with a neutral arbiter, you should work with me to outline these things.

For example:

1) Multiple test monsters. As I understand it your position is "one test, Pit Fiend only, Final Destination" whereas mine is "You don't know what you are facing in a regular game, so building a character for the Pit Fiend, and then only running the Pit Fiend, is pointless. I'd rather have a set of monsters, and have you face them in a random order, resetting after each fight to no consumables used, no HP spent to show what it would look like if a fighter went out on a Random adventuring day." So if we agreed to an set of monsters and an order, that would absolve the DM of a lot of work.

2) Prep time for the Monsters: Presumably you are going to be moving around and run into the Pit Fiends/Other Monsters environment where he is, but maybe the Pit Fiend also has a goal, and maybe he's spend 1 round working towards that goal and his general preparations, or maybe he's spent 3 weeks or 3 years. If we could address this, it would absolve the DM of work, and increase the likelihood of someone agreeing. I think giving the Pit Fiend a couple weeks is reasonable, primarily because the vast majority of a Pit Fiend's meaningful preparation occurs within an hour or so.

3) Treasure. The DMG provides several methods of providing treasure for enemies, I think the only one appropriate for this circumstance is "The DM (whomever they are) rolls one standard CR 20 Treasure, and without you knowing what it is, gives it to the Pit Fiend, who uses whatever he can."

4) Customization: In case this isn't clear, I am proposing that I run monsters "standard" from the MM I, in the case of Dragons, I don't agree to abide by any specific "standard" build someone else proposes from a mode in Draconomicon, or on another site, mostly because I don't actually know in advance what those "standards" look like, but since they would be Core only, I don't see how my feat or skill choices could be seen as particularly unfair, it's not like we are allowing Draconomicon. For the Pit Fiend, it would be as in the MM + Treasure, but I would not for example, swing skills around to new locations to get UMD or something like that, just use the MM Pit Fiends numbers and feat choices.

5) Costs: I would expect any DM to agree to one shot consumables costs of x5 per the DMG. From your last post about the subject, I think you may agree as well? Certainly if you did, that would let DMs know that they aren't going to make a ruling and instantly be called biased.

6) Hide Rules: I think the interpretation that you can hide while attack with a -20 penalty makes you no sense, because there is no point in the entire sniping section rules if that is the case, none the less, I'm willing to give you your full attack while hiding for -20 penalty interpretation, primarily because you have made clear that any other interpretation will result in you claiming the DM is biased and refusing, and it would be reasonable, absent me just giving you this, for any potential DM to assume I would be as unreasonable, and that therefore any DM would be accused of bias as soon as they make a ruling on this issue. But also of course, because I think your imagined certainty of always hiding is less common than you think, and you will often just not be able to hide.

EDIT: 7) Oh yeah, and you have an illegal item in the form or Bracers of Armor with bonuses. Since this a Core character except allowing reduced cost for basic bonuses in the Magic Item Compendium.

[emeraldstreak]

He literally just said that he's not available for that.

But I do appreciate how your bias detector is literally a one way street and you didn't even think for a second before saying that you'd be totally fine with literally the person who started arguing your side with Jormungad as your apparently "impartial" judge.

I have no problem letting everyone, Florian, and the entire forum, judge my running of the Pit Fiend afterword, that's the entire point, it would completely defeat my goal of actually cultivating a forum wide culture of testing assumptions to hide info after the fact. But Florian just said he wouldn't be available to run it, and you are apparently unwilling to have me run it as DM.

So at the very least what we would need from a DM is Rulings on contested issues. Agreeing to some statement about what those are and seeing if we could agree on things beforehand would therefore make things easier on the DM, and increase the chances of one appearing. So if you are serious about running a test with a neutral arbiter, you should work with me to outline these things.

For example:

1) Multiple test monsters. As I understand it your position is "one test, Pit Fiend only, Final Destination" whereas mine is "You don't know what you are facing in a regular game, so building a character for the Pit Fiend, and then only running the Pit Fiend, is pointless. I'd rather have a set of monsters, and have you face them in a random order, resetting after each fight to no consumables used, no HP spent to show what it would look like if a fighter went out on a Random adventuring day." So if we agreed to an set of monsters and an order, that would absolve the DM of a lot of work.

Fair.

2) Prep time for the Monsters: Presumably you are going to be moving around and run into the Pit Fiends/Other Monsters environment where he is, but maybe the Pit Fiend also has a goal, and maybe he's spend 1 round working towards that goal and his general preparations, or maybe he's spent 3 weeks or 3 years. If we could address this, it would absolve the DM of work, and increase the likelihood of someone agreeing. I think giving the Pit Fiend a couple weeks is reasonable, primarily because the vast majority of a Pit Fiend's meaningful preparation occurs within an hour or so.

It's not about the Fiend's background, it's about 1 lvl 20 PC Fighter facing a EL 20 encounter (or even an EL 20 that must be a single CR 20 monster). Any time you tinker with the stock Pit Fiend you turn him into something unique with its own, higher, CR.

3) Treasure. The DMG provides several methods of providing treasure for enemies, I think the only one appropriate for this circumstance is "The DM (whomever they are) rolls one standard CR 20 Treasure, and without you knowing what it is, gives it to the Pit Fiend, who uses whatever he can."

Treasure is award for PCs, not for monsters to use. Since the monster won't be using it, the most fair assessment is the average gold (which would be 80k + premium for double items).

5) Costs: I would expect any DM to agree to one shot consumables costs of x5 per the DMG. From your last post about the subject, I think you may agree as well? Certainly if you did, that would let DMs know that they aren't going to make a ruling and instantly be called biased.

No. That would directly contradict your own 1).

ten characters

[Beheld]

ten characters

1) Could you multiquote, because when you do it this way, it becomes impossible for others to quote you.

2) Re: 1 and 5. Actually they don't contradict, they are both essential. The point is not to see if a Fighter can survive a guantlet. If a compination of a Balor, Pit Fiend, Titan, 2 Nightcrawlers, and a Dragon kill the fighter, that doesn't tell us anything. An essential part is as I stated in 1) "resetting after each fight to no consumables used, no HP spent to show what it would look like if a fighter went out on a Random adventuring day." The one shot consumable rules are essential for a character that is going to fight one enemy and then reset to full. And Reseting to full is essential to a character that according to the CR system, should have a 50% chance of dying/losing against a CR 20 threat.

3) Re: 2. The stock Pit Fiend has abilities, to say that the Stock Pit Fiend using his abilities constitutes a higher CR is a mistake, the Pit Fiend is CRed based on his abilities, his ability to Greater Teleport around to find a suitable location, and further use Persistent Image to improve that location for his own purposes is part of his CR.

To quote the DMG pg. 48 under 'Single Monster Encounters': "If your Monster uses spells or magic items, prepare additional statistics blocks that show the impact of ability enhancers and other defensive spells and effects, depending on how much warning the monster has of the party's approach it may have all sorts of additional defenses"

4) Re: 3. The DMG seems to disagree with you in addition to the above quote about single monsters using magic items: Pg. 51: "When generating an encounter dealing with monsters away from their lair, remember that a creature only takes what it can easily carry with it" "Example: [irrelevant description of leaving lair] Each gnoll has a smattering of coins and gems on its person. The leader has the masterwork Greatsword from the group's hoard and uses it in battle." Pg. 54 about custom treasures: "When you do so, spend no more than half the treasure value for the encounter on items that might be used up during the encounter." Why, if the monster can't use treasure, would this be a thing? Treasure is part of monster CR.

[emeraldstreak]

1) Could you multiquote, because when you do it this way, it becomes impossible for others to quote you.

2) Re: 1 and 5. Actually they don't contradict, they are both essential. The point is not to see if a Fighter can survive a guantlet. If a compination of a Balor, Pit Fiend, Titan, 2 Nightcrawlers, and a Dragon kill the fighter, that doesn't tell us anything. An essential part is as I stated in 1) "resetting after each fight to no consumables used, no HP spent to show what it would look like if a fighter went out on a Random adventuring day." The one shot consumable rules are essential for a character that is going to fight one enemy and then reset to full. And Reseting to full is essential to a character that according to the CR system, should have a 50% chance of dying/losing against a CR 20 threat.

3) Re: 2. The stock Pit Fiend has abilities, to say that the Stock Pit Fiend using his abilities constitutes a higher CR is a mistake, the Pit Fiend is CRed based on his abilities, his ability to Greater Teleport around to find a suitable location, and further use Persistent Image to improve that location for his own purposes is part of his CR.

To quote the DMG pg. 48 under 'Single Monster Encounters': "If your Monster uses spells or magic items, prepare additional statistics blocks that show the impact of ability enhancers and other defensive spells and effects, depending on how much warning the monster has of the party's approach it may have all sorts of additional defenses"

4) Re: 3. The DMG seems to disagree with you in addition to the above quote about single monsters using magic items: Pg. 51: "When generating an encounter dealing with monsters away from their lair, remember that a creature only takes what it can easily carry with it" "Example: [irrelevant description of leaving lair] Each gnoll has a smattering of coins and gems on its person. The leader has the masterwork Greatsword from the group's hoard and uses it in battle." Pg. 54 about custom treasures: "When you do so, spend no more than half the treasure value for the encounter on items that might be used up during the encounter." Why, if the monster can't use treasure, would this be a thing? Treasure is part of monster CR.

The DMG also states encounters are meant for a party of 4-5 adventurers, not one.

The initial claim was about a stock Pit Fiend, not a prepared Pit Fiend, not a Pit Fiend who got lucky with treasure rolls, no special costs, none of these; and in return the Pit Fiend faced just one opponent with the baseline XP and gold for lvl 20 PC - not a party, not a theoretical solo Fighter who made it through 20 levels amassing the treasures of a whole party.

[logic_error]

The DMG also states encounters are meant for a party of 4-5 adventurers, not one.

The initial claim was about a stock Pit Fiend, not a prepared Pit Fiend, not a Pit Fiend who got lucky with treasure rolls, no special costs, none of these; and in return the Pit Fiend faced just one opponent with the baseline XP and gold for lvl 20 PC - not a party, not a theoretical solo Fighter who made it through 20 levels amassing the treasures of a whole party.

Because Pit Fiends are roaming around like chumps in a setting.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because Pit Fiends are roaming around like chumps in a setting.

They are kind of underwhelming for CR 20 monster.

[Zanos]

Because Pit Fiends are roaming around like chumps in a setting.

Solitary is one of their example organizations, so yeah.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Solitary is one of their example organizations, so yeah.

But why? Aren't they supposed to be generals and leaders?

[Psyren]

But why? Aren't they supposed to be generals and leaders?

In Baator, absolutely. But the MM doesn't assume you encounter them in Baator, because they have (extraplanar) subtype in their statblock, so whatever reason led them to the Material could have isolated them too.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In Baator, absolutely. But the MM doesn't assume you encounter them in Baator, because they have (extraplanar) subtype in their statblock, so whatever reason led them to the Material could have isolated them too.

Seems odd they would leave the Nine Hells without back up, but I guess there could have been an accident or something.

[Zanos]

Seems odd they would leave the Nine Hells without back up, but I guess there could have been an accident or something.

Transporting creatures from the lower planes to the material is somewhat difficult.

I mean in general yes a Pit Fiend is a lord of hell and has many allies and servants, but much the same could be said of any level 20 adventurer, so eh.

[logic_error]

Transporting creatures from the lower planes to the material is somewhat difficult.

I mean in general yes a Pit Fiend is a lord of hell and has many allies and servants, but much the same could be said of any level 20 adventurer, so eh.

Arguable. ~Level 20 Adventures are a rare breed that unless they are LG Paladin types would not be roaming around randomly without a mission.

[Zanos]

Arguable. ~Level 20 Adventures are a rare breed that unless they are LG Paladin types would not be roaming around randomly without a mission.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The entire scenario is contrived; in a "real" combat between two imaginary super-beings, they would both have backup, so a pit fiend "normally" having minions is moot.

[DEMON]

A crazy, epic level spellcaster decided it would be amusing to pit a well renowned fighter against a devilish monster of immense power and warped them both into an arena to fight against each other for his, and his guests, amusement...

[Florian]

Or it´s just another saturday night in a pub in Sigil.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Or it´s just another saturday night in a pub in Sigil.

Pit Fiend, Fighter bar brawl FTW!

[logic_error]

The chief problem with all this is that the PF's job description reads that he is a leader/general of demons right below the highest order (dukes).

[Florian]

There´s no "chief problem". The PF is an entry in a MM/B, intended to be a boss type encounter and just exist to be killed for XP and looted afterwards. This is a test scenario, no simulation of the love life and habitat of the adorable pink pit fiend.

[Beheld]

The DMG also states encounters are meant for a party of 4-5 adventurers, not one.

The initial claim was about a stock Pit Fiend, not a prepared Pit Fiend, not a Pit Fiend who got lucky with treasure rolls, no special costs, none of these; and in return the Pit Fiend faced just one opponent with the baseline XP and gold for lvl 20 PC - not a party, not a theoretical solo Fighter who made it through 20 levels amassing the treasures of a whole party.

The DMG has rules for parties of any size, including one. A stock Pit Fiend is a prepared Pit Fiend. Stock Pit Fiends are not arbitrarily confined to whatever location you make up, because they have Greater Teleport at will, a stock Pit Fiend has an area with Persistent Images, because it has Persistent Image at will. A Stock Pit Fiend has Unholy Aura up, because it has it at will.

And just since you also seemed to express it in there, a level 20 PC with the baseline XP for a level 20 PC still has to pay 5 times as much for consumables in a one shot, that's why the one shot rules specifically say that.

Solitary is one of their example organizations, so yeah.

I agree, I have no problem with the Pit Fiend "being alone" but fundamentally, the idea that a creature with Greater Teleport at will and Persistent Image at will isn't allowed to have an enviroment at least moderately suitable to it is basically just rejecting the concept of recognizing monsters as things that operate in the world at all, and fails to test the relevant parts of adventuring that are the main issues with fighters.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The DMG has rules for parties of any size, including one. A stock Pit Fiend is a prepared Pit Fiend. Stock Pit Fiends are not arbitrarily confined to whatever location you make up, because they have Greater Teleport at will, a stock Pit Fiend has an area with Persistent Images, because it has Persistent Image at will. A Stock Pit Fiend has Unholy Aura up, because it has it at will.

And just since you also seemed to express it in there, a level 20 PC with the baseline XP for a level 20 PC still has to pay 5 times as much for consumables in a one shot, that's why the one shot rules specifically say that.



I agree, I have no problem with the Pit Fiend "being alone" but fundamentally, the idea that a creature with Greater Teleport at will and Persistent Image at will isn't allowed to have an enviroment at least moderately suitable to it is basically just rejecting the concept of recognizing monsters as things that operate in the world at all, and fails to test the relevant parts of adventuring that are the main issues with fighters.

You're looking to test Fighter VS Pit Fiend in a more organic environment, right?

[Anthrowhale]

He literally just said that he's not available for that.

Perhaps I misinterpreted:

...I´d be available as judge for the basic setup of the encounter and a review of how it was run.

Florian can clarify.

... "impartial" judge.

I never made such a claim.

1) Multiple test monsters.

I'll do this only if you concede that a core Fighter 20 can handle a Pit Fiend. Without that concession the outcome is in doubt and should be resolved first. After you clearly concede that, we can discuss which encounters to randomize over.

2) Prep time for the Monsters: Presumably you are going to be moving around and run into the Pit Fiends/Other Monsters environment where he is, but maybe the Pit Fiend also has a goal, and maybe he's spend 1 round working towards that goal and his general preparations, or maybe he's spent 3 weeks or 3 years. If we could address this, it would absolve the DM of work, and increase the likelihood of someone agreeing. I think giving the Pit Fiend a couple weeks is reasonable, primarily because the vast majority of a Pit Fiend's meaningful preparation occurs within an hour or so.

The only reasonable encounter is one where neither the Fighter nor the Pit Fiend are "at home" where presumably the balance of power would naturally shift. The exact details would be determined by a DM.

3) Treasure. The DMG provides several methods of providing treasure for enemies, I think the only one appropriate for this circumstance is "The DM (whomever they are) rolls one standard CR 20 Treasure, and without you knowing what it is, gives it to the Pit Fiend, who uses whatever he can."

The misbalance of information is an absolute no-no---I've been very explicit about the fighter 20, so you must be explicit as well. Whether or not the Pit Fiend gets random treasure... For a stock Pit Fiend no. For a second challenge involving a "more realistic" scenario with a distribution over monsters, that seems fine.

4) Customization: In case this isn't clear, I am proposing that I run monsters "standard" from the MM I, in the case of Dragons, I don't agree to abide by any specific "standard" build someone else proposes from a mode in Draconomicon, or on another site, mostly because I don't actually know in advance what those "standards" look like, but since they would be Core only, I don't see how my feat or skill choices could be seen as particularly unfair, it's not like we are allowing Draconomicon. For the Pit Fiend, it would be as in the MM + Treasure, but I would not for example, swing skills around to new locations to get UMD or something like that, just use the MM Pit Fiends numbers and feat choices.

No. I think we all understand that optimization in core can go a significant ways. We either agree on a fully specified source or the monster is not allowed.

5) Costs: I would expect any DM to agree to one shot consumables costs of x5 per the DMG. From your last post about the subject, I think you may agree as well? Certainly if you did, that would let DMs know that they aren't going to make a ruling and instantly be called biased.

I think the question is: was the original challenge made with one-shot rules in mind? I suspect not, but that's a DM determination I could live with.

6) Hide Rules: I think the interpretation that you can hide while attack with a -20 penalty makes you no sense, because there is no point in the entire sniping section rules if that is the case, none the less, I'm willing to give you your full attack while hiding for -20 penalty interpretation...

That's....not the rules. When sniping you can make "one ranged attack", not a full attack. I've said this many times before, but I strongly advise reading the rules.

EDIT: 7) Oh yeah, and you have an illegal item in the form or Bracers of Armor with bonuses. Since this a Core character except allowing reduced cost for basic bonuses in the Magic Item Compendium.

Reduced costs for basic bonuses and bracers of armor with bonuses are both examples of custom item rules that have been "clarified" as standard rules in other sources. They both stay.

[Beheld]

I'll do this only if you concede that a core Fighter 20 can handle a Pit Fiend. Without that concession the outcome is in doubt and should be resolved first. After you clearly concede that, we can discuss which encounters to randomize over.

I can build a Core Fighter 20 that can handle a Pit Fiend. You didn't. But the point is in fact to show how high level play actually works, not to stroke your ego.

The only reasonable encounter is one where neither the Fighter nor the Pit Fiend are "at home" where presumably the balance of power would naturally shift. The exact details would be determined by a DM.

That's not actually how D&D works. The monsters are almost always at home, and the PCs are almost always invading. It's not always a picture perfect home, but it's not called Arena's and Dragons, and for the Pit Fiend in particular that is basically non functional.

The misbalance of information is an absolute no-no---I've been very explicit about the fighter 20, so you must be explicit as well.

Your character doesn't have the ability to know that information. I'm certainly not going to be target dispelling a specific ring of the 3 because I know the one on your neck is FoM. So if your entire strategy of invisiblity is negated by a potion rolled up, why should you have advance knowledge of that?

Whether or not the Pit Fiend gets random treasure... For a stock Pit Fiend no.

A stock Pit Fiend has treasure, those are the rules. I mean, I could just declare that your archer isn't allowed to shoot, or have feats, that would make the same amount of sense.

No. I think we all understand that optimization in core can go a significant ways. We either agree on a fully specified source or the monster is not allowed.

That's... pretty absurd. You are going to complain about Dragons having listen ranks and taking flyby attack instead of toughness? Really? Even though they are not presented with feats, so you can't even say "a stock Dragon takes toughness 20 times!"

That's....not the rules. When sniping you can make "one ranged attack", not a full attack. I've said this many times before, but I strongly advise reading the rules.

Your entire claim that you can attack while hiding requires interpreting a completely different sentence of the hide description not in the sniping section as a "rule" that allows you to hide while attacking, since the sniping rules do not allow you to hide during attacking.

If you can hide during attacking from the previous rule, then there is no reason to snipe, and you'd be a fool to do so. If you acknowledge that isn't a rule about hiding during an attack, then sniping doesn't allow you to hide during an attack, it lets you hide again after an attack.

Reduced costs for basic bonuses and bracers of armor with bonuses are both examples of custom item rules that have been "clarified" as standard rules in other sources. They both stay.

I mean, and Hitler and FDR were both leaders of countries during WWII, but one of them is from 3.5, and is not a clarification, it's a change. And the other is from 3.0, and is not a clarification, it's a change, which has since been overruled.

[logic_error]

There´s no "chief problem". The PF is an entry in a MM/B, intended to be a boss type encounter and just exist to be killed for XP and looted afterwards. This is a test scenario, no simulation of the love life and habitat of the adorable pink pit fiend.

I dislike this attitude in my games. But whatever floats your boat.

[Zanos]

17 pages in? Yeah, we were about overdue for Godwin's law.

[Anthrowhale]

I can build a Core Fighter 20 that can handle a Pit Fiend. You didn't.

That simplifies things: stock Pit Fiend only.

That's not actually how D&D works. The monsters are almost always at home, and the PCs are almost always invading. It's not always a picture perfect home, but it's not called Arena's and Dragons, and for the Pit Fiend in particular that is basically non functional.

The DMG is pretty clear that encounter level goes up when there is a significant home court advantage. I don't think we should move to a Fighter 21, so let's not do that.

Your character doesn't have the ability to know that information.

The Pit Fiend does not have the ability to know the fighter either and yet you do, and I have no expectation that you'll be able to separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

A stock Pit Fiend has treasure, those are the rules. I mean, I could just declare that your archer isn't allowed to shoot, or have feats, that would make the same amount of sense.

If you want a specified quantity of treasure value sitting somewhere that seems fine but when you pick specific treasure it is no longer 'stock'.

That's... pretty absurd. You are going to complain about Dragons having listen ranks and taking flyby attack instead of toughness? Really? Even though they are not presented with feats, so you can't even say "a stock Dragon takes toughness 20 times!"

None of the dragons in the Draconomicon take toughness 20 times. But this is irrelevant, because we are only doing a stock pit fiend.

Your entire claim that you can attack while hiding requires interpreting a completely different sentence of the hide description not in the sniping section as a "rule" that allows you to hide while attacking, since the sniping rules do not allow you to hide during attacking.

You are mistaken. The correct interpretation of the rules is to consider them all in a manner so that they are all validly applicable.

If you can hide during attacking from the previous rule, then there is no reason to snipe, and you'd be a fool to do so. If you acknowledge that isn't a rule about hiding during an attack, then sniping doesn't allow you to hide during an attack, it lets you hide again after an attack.

The sniping rules are about how you hide while attacking. Altogether the rules specify that you can make one ranged attack from range 10 or more feet and must make a hide check as a move action with a -20 penalty to remain hiding. Nowhere in the sniping rules does it say that you are revealed and then hide again and this interpretation is directly contradicted by sentence 4 of Hide.

I mean, and Hitler ...

That's a pretty blunt admission of failure.

[Beheld]

The DMG is pretty clear that encounter level goes up when there is a significant home court advantage. I don't think we should move to a Fighter 21, so let's not do that.

The DMG is way more clear that a monster casting spells is not "significant home court advantage" if we were fighting on the plane of fire, that would be one thing, but "you walk into a dungeon, since you are walking therefore automatically everything has to be lower CR" is not in the rules.

If you want a specified quantity of treasure value sitting somewhere that seems fine but when you pick specific treasure it is no longer 'stock'.

If you play any monster without treasure (aside from the ones that specifically say they get none), that isn't stock. The stock rules have, in the entry, a statement about treasure. A Pit Fiend without "Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items" is not stock.

You are mistaken. The correct interpretation of the rules is to consider them all in a manner so that they are all validly applicable.

Yes, and the two ways to do that are:

1) You can't hide while attacking, because the sniping rules don't say you can, and the other rule is a general summary of penalties, not a specific rule statement.

or

2) You can hide while attacking, because that's apparently a rule in sentence 2, so you can just hide while making a full attack action and get off all your attacks.

Those are the two valid ways to interpret the rules so they are all validly applicable.

That's a pretty blunt admission of failure.

I too like to edit people's arguments out of their quotes when I'm lying about the rules to try to get custom 3.0 splatbook items into it because my character can't compete in core.

[Florian]

I dislike this attitude in my games. But whatever floats your boat.

That´s not so much to do with what´s floating my boat, but that up to now we´ve all avoided talking about setting, game style and circumstances.
Hell can be very different, depending on we talk 3E Greyhawk, actual 4E/5E Forgotten Realms, AD&D Planescape or other variations like Rokugan.
It could also come up as a random encounter in a high-level Mega Dungeon, be a fixture on a Hex Crawl map, part of the backstory in Cheliax or simple there to showcase the weirdness of Sigil.
So, either we all begin to be very specific on what we mean, or we try to avoid drift.

@Beheld:

The same holds true for you, too. A lot of the high-level encounter tactics examples you´ve mentioned across several discussions seem to share the same underlying assumptions, but without specifying what they are made for, there will be no agreement of them being universally acceptable.
And no, please don´t say DMG/Raw, as that uses Greyhawk as a model and breaks down when you change that. (For ex., "I teleport home" would mean nothing for a Oni no Piteru Fiendo in Rokugan, as Hell is a place on earth there, possibly a short walk over there *points left*)

[logic_error]

That´s not so much to do with what´s floating my boat, but that up to now we´ve all avoided talking about setting, game style and circumstances.
Hell can be very different, depending on we talk 3E Greyhawk, actual 4E/5E Forgotten Realms, AD&D Planescape or other variations like Rokugan.
It could also come up as a random encounter in a high-level Mega Dungeon, be a fixture on a Hex Crawl map, part of the backstory in Cheliax or simple there to showcase the weirdness of Sigil.
So, either we all begin to be very specific on what we mean, or we try to avoid drift.

Just so that we are clear, I feel this entire discussion is a mistake. It began with Jormengand making a claim that Level 20 fighter could not defeat a Pit fiend and was liberally interpreted as an optimised fighter against a stock pit fiend played as a mannequin. What I am sure of, is that the OP really meant a Pit Fiend played like a Pit fiend. If you look at my post history in this thread this is precisely what I have adhered to. With that in mind, this entire exercise to my eyes is a strawman.