Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[Beheld]

Bottomline is you want to give the Pit Fiend the agency of a Player Character.

I prefer monsters in my games, as player or dm, to have existed and have histories goals, and to act on those. Every one of my campaigns starts with figuring out what the villains are doing, why, and what will happen without pc intervention.

So monsters should have goals, tactics, and strategies that fit them, and they probably shouldn't be found carrying a bunch of magic items that they could use but aren't like you want them to. The dmg and mm seem to agree with me. I mean, I think in the end very few people really want a game where monsters stand around in boxes waiting to be murdered.

[emeraldstreak]

The dmg and mm seem to agree with me.

Not at all. The MM has listed tactics for the Pit Fiend which you refuse to use.

[Beheld]

Not at all. The MM has listed tactics for the Pit Fiend which you refuse to use.

That's a curious allegation.

The typical Pit Fiend tactics don't say "doesn't have environmental control with Persistent Image" but they do assume he gets at least two rounds to prepare for the PCs before they even know he's there.

Hey, I wonder why that is? Could it be because he has abilities that make it exceedingly likely that he will have advance knowledge of enemies before they know he's there? But what about his stat block could trigger that?

How stupid do you want him to be? If he power word stuns from stealth, he does in fact know that it doesn't work, are you going to insist he does that again on Turn 5 even if he knows you are immune? I was going to have him Blasphemy from stealth, to similar (non)effect.

But yes, the creature with lots of SLAs not mentioned in his "typical" tactics probably uses different tactics when he's locked in a magic box that prevents him from teleporting, and has no prep time. Almost like locked in a box is an atypical circumstance dictating atypical tactics?

Hey, maybe he should, and this is crazy, also follow the other parts of his entry besides that one part, like the parts that say:

"Pit fiends are wily and resourceful fighters" or hey what about when I proposed they might fly really high up and spam fireballs, surely that's not something in their entry! "They don’t hesitate to blanket an area with fireballs"

Or what about when they see a tiny creature with a bow, presumably, they must believe this to be a DANGEROUS MELEE THREAT, because otherwise, they wouldn't even have a reason to avoid entering melee. "A pit fiend typically opens combat by using its spelllike abilities, attempting to neutralize dangerous opponents before entering melee."

Or maybe when some guy turns invisible in front of them, they are supposed to just wait until he becomes visible again, and not use ice walls, summons, or readied actions to fight back, because after all, the list says "they do these things that require seeing enemies on the first turn" so if someone goes invisible right in front of them, they stand there and do nothing waiting, like a mindless golem.

[nolongerchaos]

As cut as dry as relying on the Wish means the Pit Fiend is a threat to a Fighter only once a year.

A single Pit Fiend, perhaps, but I don't think it's really relevant to the trial. After all, the next Pit Fiend the Fighter fights? It's going to have a Wish too. And the third Pit Fiend? Fourth? Also Wish. Also also Wish. Every single MM entry Pit Fiend has access to it's one Wish per year every time it faces a PC because the MM doesn't say otherwise or provide mechanics to account for anything else, in exactly the same manner that every single Pit Fiend apparently has Cleave, Greater Cleave, etc. If arguing that changing its feats, or using it's own wealth, or having time to prepare terrain/summon allies increases the Pit Fiend's CR, surely the removal of Wish lowers it, and now the Fighter has lost the thought experiment before starting, since now it's not even fighting a CR 20 challenge.

[Beheld]

Every single MM entry Pit Fiend has access to it's one Wish per year every time it faces a PC because the MM doesn't say otherwise or provide mechanics to account for anything else, in exactly the same manner that every single Pit Fiend apparently has Cleave, Greater Cleave, etc. If arguing that changing its feats, or using it's own wealth, or having time to prepare terrain/summon allies increases the Pit Fiend's CR, surely the removal of Wish lowers it, and now the Fighter has lost the thought experiment before starting, since now it's not even fighting a CR 20 challenge.

Not that they would be totally carefree with Wish, but I could imagine most monsters with a Pit Fiend's portfolio and once a day Wish probably use it periodically to emulate some powerful divination spells, and figure out how to accomplish their goals that way.

However, it's not clear how 1/year abilities refresh. If it's a 1 year cooldown, then they probably often have no wish, but if it refreshes at a specific day of the year or whatever, then they would probably emulate divinations the day before, and thus have Wish up as an emergency normally.

[Jormengand]

To be absolutely, astoundingly clear, my statement was never one about whether a tailor-made fighter with custom items who doesn't play like a real fighter in the slightest can beat a pit fiend which sticks rigidly to the tactics given in its entry because actually using its abilities would change its CR. It's about whether fighters in actual games, played by people who haven't spent years of their life playing this game and several threads building, refining, and shoring up their fighter, often retroactively when a relatively trivial way to defeat it is pointed out. This is something on which I have repeatedly been explicit.

[ColorBlindNinja]

To be absolutely, astoundingly clear, my statement was never one about whether a tailor-made fighter with custom items who doesn't play like a real fighter in the slightest can beat a pit fiend which sticks rigidly to the tactics given in its entry because actually using its abilities would change its CR. It's about whether fighters in actual games, played by people who haven't spent years of their life playing this game and several threads building, refining, and shoring up their fighter, often retroactively when a relatively trivial way to defeat it is pointed out. This is something on which I have repeatedly been explicit.

How would you envision such a Fighter would be built?

[Beheld]

How would you envision such a Fighter would be built?

He gave an example, but I'll give my own example:

Really, he would be a THF fighter with melee, not a stealth character (because in a game with rangers and rogues, no one ever decides to play a fighter to stealth), he'll probably have back up ranged tactics that aren't as good, and he will probably have some kind of significant illusion piercing and flight.

But here's an alternative standard:

Maybe the first character someone makes, before they retroactively remake it 34 times is the character the actual player in the game makes, and then, that character fares as poorly as the not retroactively remade character.

So in this case that's a stealth tiny halfling archer who gets disarmed automatically, has no greater invis consumable, and no true seeing, because they rely on detect magic instead to tell them about all those illusions!

But he has really good full attack numbers that are instantly completely negated with a single readied action.

[Anthrowhale]

To be absolutely, astoundingly clear, my statement was never one about whether a tailor-made fighter with custom items who doesn't play like a real fighter in the slightest can beat a pit fiend which sticks rigidly to the tactics given in its entry because actually using its abilities would change its CR. It's about whether fighters in actual games, played by people who haven't spent years of their life playing this game and several threads building, refining, and shoring up their fighter, often retroactively when a relatively trivial way to defeat it is pointed out. This is something on which I have repeatedly been explicit.

Some points seem relevant here.

1. I do not regard the Sniper as tailor made for the Pit Fiend, and I think there is plenty of evidence if you are willing to look. The Hide, high initiative, and ranged attacks work against a variety of high level enemies and there are significant resources invested in Dragon Bane, Axiomatic, and Cold Iron arrows which are not relevant to a Pit Fiend fight.
2. Even with the Sniper not tailor made, if it has a single long duration buff on (the GMW+5 oil), winning initiative provides an expected kill against the Pit Fiend via hasted rapid shot full attack.
3. The discussed tactics for the Pit Fiend have also evolved over time as flaws in the original tactics were pointed out.
4. I entirely agree that a Ranger can do this concept better. A Rogue seems more mixed: more damage at close range but significantly worse at ranges beyond 30'.
5. I also agree this is not a typical Fighter in a typical game, but I think part of that is because optimizers gravitate towards spellcasters while newbies pick fighters. If instead optimizers gravitated towards fighters and newbies played spellcasters it would be a rather different game. In essence, I think part of typical experience with a Fighter is about the typical Fighter player and not entirely the Fighter class.

[Lans]

My daughter got my computer wet so wife's Cell it is. Sorry

@ beheldI think the proper anology would be closer to is it possible to do a calculator scc. Or curing cancer

@Jormengand I don't think a core fighter 20 would even exist in an actual game. And the internet exists so I expect characters to be better than what you expect, and said pit pit fiends would be played by a real dm that also won't use the bestest tactics

@ general A pit fiends standard tactics should go our the window when he's in unusual circumstances or when he gets mauled.

[Rhyltran]

My daughter got my computer wet so wife's Cell it is. Sorry

@ beheldI think the proper anology would be closer to is it possible to do a calculator scc. Or curing cancer

@Jormengand I don't think a core fighter 20 would even exist in an actual game. And the internet exists so I expect characters to be better than what you expect, and said pit pit fiends would be played by a real dm that also won't use the bestest tactics

@ general A pit fiends standard tactics should go our the window when he's in unusual circumstances or when he gets mauled.

Truth be told, even Anthrow's fighter, which isn't the best fighter mind you is quite a bit stronger than the average D&D group. I've said this multiple times on these forums and have run into people who DM in groups and have DMed for years who have never visited these forums or min/max forums who think the PC's in my campaign are overpowered and could solo their entire groups. That includes the martials in my groups. People here have a very low idea anymore what actual D&D pathfinder/D&D groups are like. I do think Jormen, for the most part, plays in such groups. He show cased a fighter that by his own admittance is the kind of fighters that show up in his groups and people here laughed at it. I'm not mocking Jormen or his group but he does make a point in what we consider "Normal" isn't what other groups consider normal.

Likewise, most D&D groups play the monsters by the book and don't play them to their absolute highest ability. This is more in tune on how monsters are played:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/tt/20050809a

A ubercharger would have ended a Balor played in this manner on round 1. Even if he was only level 16. Anthrow's fighter would also do just fine here.

[Beheld]

Truth be told, even Anthrow's fighter, which isn't the best fighter mind you is quite a bit stronger than the average D&D group. I've said this multiple times on these forums and have run into people who DM in groups and have DMed for years who have never visited these forums or min/max forums who think the PC's in my campaign are overpowered and could solo their entire groups. That includes the martials in my groups. People here have a very low idea anymore what actual D&D pathfinder/D&D groups are like. I do think Jormen, for the most part, plays in such groups. He show cased a fighter that by his own admittance is the kind of fighters that show up in his groups and people here laughed at it. I'm not mocking Jormen or his group but he does make a point in what we consider "Normal" isn't what other groups consider normal.

Likewise, most D&D groups play the monsters by the book and don't play them to their absolute highest ability. This is more in tune on how monsters are played:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/tt/20050809a

A ubercharger would have ended a Balor played in this manner on round 1. Even if he was only level 16. Anthrow's fighter would also do just fine here.

I think that's a somewhat poor example, in that it literally starts with outlining that they fought this Balor before, and knew his location. That is not a particularly common occurrence. And in fact, I'd much more like to see what happened the first time (it sounds like the answer is, got firestormed, couldn't accomplish much, some died, ran away.)

"the surviving members of the earlier expedition knew about the terrible power of the balor's fire stormspell-like ability"

Which is related to my point, that for the most part, you don't have advance notice when you fight things (losing and coming back, of course you do).

[Rhyltran]

I think that's a somewhat poor example, in that it literally starts with outlining that they fought this Balor before, and knew his location. That is not a particularly common occurrence. And in fact, I'd much more like to see what happened the first time (it sounds like the answer is, got firestormed, couldn't accomplish much, ran away.)

It's not the same balor.

"This was the second time the heroes had faced a balor."

"wizard's death before the rest of the PCs could flee. This time around, the PCs knew that their fate rested solidly in the hands of another balor"

Key words are "A" and "Another."

Also the wording implies the Balor invaded them this time. They didn't take the fight to the Balor.

"it that had claimed control of the demonic transport that was to take them deep into the Nine Hells."

[Beheld]

It's not the same balor.

"This was the second time the heroes had faced a balor."

"wizard's death before the rest of the PCs could flee. This time around, the PCs knew that their fate rested solidly in the hands of another balor"

Key words are "A" and "Another."

Also the wording implies the Balor invaded them this time. They didn't take the fight to the Balor.

"it that had claimed control of the demonic transport that was to take them deep into the Nine Hells."

While that is a distinction without a difference, in that preknowledge you are fighting a balor, and preknowledge of what a Balor is are identical if Balor's are identical, I then refer to:

"it that had claimed control of the demonic transport that was to take them deep into the Nine Hells." How did they find this out without previous interaction with the Balor?

EDIT: they buffed up and then teleported to the transport, that isn't it invading, that is them taking the fight to it.

[Rhyltran]

While that is a distinction without a difference, in that preknowledge you are fighting a balor, and preknowledge of what a Balor is are identical if Balor's are identical, I then refer to:

"it that had claimed control of the demonic transport that was to take them deep into the Nine Hells." How did they find this out without previous interaction with the Balor?

We don't know but the wording is clear it isn't the same Balor as the one before. Maybe someone told them the transport was taken over? Maybe the marilith they routed a day earlier told them that her master is a Balor? Not enough information. Note that the Balor had watched the fight but didn't participate itself until the fight was over. My point is that the balor did not make the most optimal choices. Even after watching his opponents the round before.

The wizard was archery focused using true strike. Definitely not an optimized wizard by any sense of the word. I'm not sure by level 20 if that wizard could even solo a balor.

My other point is that even at level 16, an ubercharger would have ended a fight against a Balor played this matter by the end of round 1. This is what would happen with most normal DM's and you put our optimization in their games.

In fact here in GITP we occasionally get threads like "Warblades are broken. I can't balance around this warblade!" and "How do you stop an ubercharger??" We know how to balance around these characters but there are a large number of DM's who quite literally can't.

[Beheld]

My other point is that even at level 16, an ubercharger would have ended a fight against a Balor played this matter by the end of round 1. This is what would happen with most normal DM's and you put our optimization in their games.

A level 16 Ubercharger, and his entire party, would be permanently dazed locked until they were murdered. Because they didn't have advance knowledge to cast Spell Immunity: Blasphemy. Being able to kill a Balor in one round is basically a requirement.

In fact here in GITP we occasionally get threads like "Warblades are broken. I can't balance around this warblade!" and "How do you stop an ubercharger??" We know how to balance around these characters but there are a large number of DM's who quite literally can't.

Uberchargers are basically impossible to balance around in a way that is fun, but that's unique to uberchargers.

[Rhyltran]

A level 16 Ubercharger, and his entire party, would be permanently dazed locked until they were murdered. Because they didn't have advance knowledge to cast Blasphemy.



Uberchargers are basically impossible to balance around in a way that is fun, but that's unique to uberchargers.

The group wasn't daze locked. Not to mention he used blasphemy on round 2. There wouldn't have been a round two.

You claim they wouldn't have advanced knowledge.. why not? Clearly the ubercharger would replace the barbarian in this scenario.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The group wasn't daze locked. Not to mention he used blasphemy on round 2. There wouldn't have been a round two.

You claim they wouldn't have advanced knowledge.. why not? Clearly the ubercharger would replace the barbarian in this scenario.

Charging is all well and good, unless there happens to be stray bush between you and your target...

[Rhyltran]

Charging is all well and good, unless there happens to be stray bush between you and your target...

There's ways around that but that's also not relevant to my point.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There's ways around that but that's also not relevant to my point.

It's really easy to shut down a charge.

You need line of sight in addition to a lack of difficult terrain.

[Rhyltran]

It's really easy to shut down a charge.

You need line of sight in addition to a lack of difficult terrain.

For an optimized uber charger difficult terrain and line of sight aren't that important. Boots of the battle charger alone negate a lot of these issues. They're not the only way to get around such issues. I mean, seriously, it's not that much of a problem. There are ways to handle uber chargers but there are quite a few ways to negate the detrimental effects.

Again, none of these are relevant for the scenario above. Plus we're ignoring my main point. We can remove the charger for Anthrow's fighter. He'll still be dealing more damage than the rest of the party (even at level 17.) and if the barbarian player was instead playing Anthrow's fighter I doubt he'll feel like he's not contributing. I doubt the rest of the party will feel that way either.

Sometimes the guy who's sole purpose is to lay down the hurt is relevant solely because he can lay down the hurt.

[ColorBlindNinja]

For an optimized uber charger difficult terrain and line of sight aren't that important. Boots of the battle charger alone negate a lot of these issues. They're not the only way to get around such issues. I mean, seriously, it's not that much of a problem. There are ways to handle uber chargers but there are quite a few ways to negate the detrimental effects.

How are you getting around the need for line of sight?

Pit Fiends can summon Bone Devils that can cast Wall of Ice.

Again, none of these are relevant for the scenario above. Plus we're ignoring my main point. We can remove the charger for Anthrow's fighter. He'll still be dealing more damage than the rest of the party (even at level 17.) and if the barbarian player was instead playing Anthrow's fighter I doubt he'll feel like he's not contributing. I doubt the rest of the party will feel that way either.

So how does that help if the Balor casts Blasphemy?

Sometimes the guy who's sole purpose is to lay down the hurt is relevant solely because he can lay down the hurt.

Sometimes that guy can't even find, let alone attack his target.

[Rhyltran]

How are you getting around the need for line of sight?

Pit Fiends can summon Bone Devils that can cast Wall of Ice.



So how does that help if the Balor casts Blasphemy?



Sometimes that guy can't even find, let alone attack his target.

Getting around the object blocking your line of sight.

There were no pit fiends in the scenario I used as an example.

Spell immunity.

Not relevant in this debate.

[Beheld]

The group wasn't daze locked. Not to mention he used blasphemy on round 2. There wouldn't have been a round two.

You claim they wouldn't have advanced knowledge.. why not? Clearly the ubercharger would replace the barbarian in this scenario.

The group wasn't daze locked because they had advance knowledge of the exact specific enemy, and had the chance to prepare by casting Spell Immunity. Not, as I previously indicated, the way things usually work for most groups and most fights.

There's no indication that a single PC was able to charge the balor in the air and hit him for any damage at any point between "Round 1" and "Round 2" If your Ubercharger isn't in range to charge, can't fly to charge, or can't charge for some other reason, then you progress to round 2, and the total party lock.

[Rhyltran]

The group wasn't daze locked because they had advance knowledge of the exact specific enemy, and had the chance to prepare by casting Spell Immunity. Not, as I previously indicated, the way things usually work for most groups and most fights.

There's no indication that a single PC was able to charge the balor in the air and hit him for any damage at any point between "Round 1" and "Round 2" If your Ubercharger isn't in range to charge, can't fly to charge, or can't charge for some other reason, then you progress to round 2, and the total party lock.

Party wasn't locked. They had spell immunity. Try again and stick to the scenario. Plus if the party was locked this doesn't hurt the argument for the fighter. Know why? The wizard is included in that. This would be a party problem not a fighter problem. Regardless, in this scenario, the fighter would have contributed as much as the other PC's. Thanks to the wizard's knowledge check they knew what the balor was capable of, thanks to the spell immunity, they didn't get locked, thanks to the fighter's damage the balor died before it could contribute significant damage.

Even without replacing the fighter the writer noted that the barbarian was a key player in this scenario. Doesn't sound like anyone finds the martial useless and a Fighter easily could have replaced the barbarian. An optimized one even more so.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Getting around the object blocking your line of sight.

That wastes time.

There were no pit fiends in the scenario I used as an example.

Pit Fiends are the entire point of the thread.

Spell immunity.

How would you know to cast that, and what would you do if no one in your party was capable of using it?

Not relevant in this debate.

What do you mean by that?

[Rhyltran]

That wastes time.



Pit Fiends are the entire point of the thread.



How would you know to cast that, and what would you do if no one in your party was capable of using it?



What do you mean by that?

Stick to the scenario.

As for that wastes time? Depending on the distance it doesn't with boots of the battle charger. Flight can also negate obstacles as can air walk.

My argument is that most DM's don't DM anywhere near the level of us playgrounders nor can they handle the optimization that most playgrounders use. That our definition of fighters do fine in most campaigns. In fact, our definition of optimized fighters would outright break most campaigns.

So can a fighter beat a pit fiend? Can a fighter beat a balor? Absolutely. It depends on the DM, the scenario, the situation at hand, and how the balor/pit fiend are played. This makes most of this debate absolutely irrelevant because in the end it comes down to schrodinger's fighters vs Schrodinger's pit fiends/balors. Real games have real players with real party make ups which makes the real scenarios and situations unpredictable.

Just like there's real wizards and real sorcerers who will lose to "real" balors and pit fiends. In fact, with the way some of the people in here DM there are real parties who, even at max level, would get completely crushed by the pit fiends/balors that we talk about in these threads. Regardless of them being at level 20.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Stick to the scenario.

As for that wastes time? Depending on the distance it doesn't with boots of the battle charger. Flight can also negate obstacles as can air walk.

My argument is that most DM's don't DM anywhere near the level of us playgrounders nor can they handle the optimization that most playgrounders use. That our definition of fighters do fine in most campaigns. In fact, our definition of optimized fighters would outright break most campaigns.

So can a fighter beat a pit fiend? Can a fighter beat a balor? Absolutely. It depends on the DM, the scenario, the situation at hand, and how the balor/pit fiend are played. This makes most of this debate absolutely irrelevant because in the end it comes down to schrodinger's fighters vs Schrodinger's pit fiends/balors. Real games have real players with real party make ups which makes the real scenarios and situations unpredictable.

Just like there's real wizards and real sorcerers who will lose to "real" balors and pit fiends. In fact, with the way some of the people in here DM there are real parties who, even at max level, would get completely crushed by the pit fiends/balors that we talk about in these threads. Regardless of them being at level 20.

Ok, build a Core only Fighter that can beat a Pit Fiend/Balor.

[Rhyltran]

Ok, build a Core only Fighter that can beat a Pit Fiend/Balor.

Whoosh. Right over your head. Any optimized fighter can beat a balor or pit fiend. It all depends on the scenario, the dm, the balor or pit fiend's tactics, the fighter's build, what is done to prep whether the balor/pit fiend are caught off guard whether nor not the fighter has the right buffs or support. These are variables we don't have outside of real games.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Whoosh. Right over your head.

Talk is cheap, you can't just assert your point and expect people to take you seriously.

Not to mention your scenario is incredibly contrived.