WotC Death and Dying article

[Voss]

1202194419[/unixtime]]
Of course, we also have to consider the possibility that the final 4e system might be somewhat better than this. After all, this 3.x conversion is probably something AC pulled out of his ass while writing this column without checking too much for consistency, proportionality, or bad wording.

Pshah. They haven't done that in... well... ever. Why would they start now?

[RandomCasualty]

1202192727[/unixtime]]What??? That just makes no damn sense. Simplify the game by "adding" more rules, but not just broad rules but special case ones. Even though these types of rules will increase with each new monster manual.

Compartmentalized rules like they want for 4E does a few weird things. It leads to more convoluted cases, but it's also easier to learn. The advantage is that you can learn the system in smaller bites. It's possible to easily learn how to play a gnoll or how to play a bugbear or whatever.

It's the opposite of something like GURPS where you've got everything universalized, where a monster is a collection of core abilities, and core abilities are very rarely added. Of course, there are so many core abilities that you generally have to go flipping through the book when you want to figure out what Fragile (breakable) and digital mind actually does.

Now once you learn the entire core rules, it's actually an advantage because you can just see a monsters abilities and know what it does, without having to learn new mechanics. The problem is that it's a real bitch to learn all that stuff early on.

The D&D 4E system of compartmentalization makes it easy to learn early on, but as the game progresses, you're forced to remember lots and lots of special case mechanics.

I don't really think the 4E method is that terrible, because it does help beginning DMs out quite a bit because it's more of a learn as you go system, instead of just a pile of mandatory reading you have to know to do anything.

[Orion]

I actually liked the old "disabled" mechanic, and think that you should usually go to 0 HP before going down. Give a save or something.

[Username17]

Several things.

[*] The concept of yo-yoing into unconsciousness with healing and damage is actually fine as long as damage actually means something. You've got situations in action movies all the time where the hero is fading and has to gather his nerves or take pain killers or whatever before he can jump back into the fray. That's why for example in New Edition your hit points stop going down at zero and you can be healed back up easily.

But there has to be a price for that kind of thing. In New Edition it's that when your Hit Points hit zero you start accumulating wounds from every single thing that hits you. As far as I can tell in 4e there isn't a price at all. The inane part isn't that you can hit someone with a Phoenix Down and bring them back into the fight. The inane part is that there is no real reason to bother healing people who are near zero because there's no real cost for getting knocked out over and over again.

[*] The exception based design system they are using is well suited for a card game. Or a board game. Any situation where the actual options to all the playing pieces are fixed and limited, I might as well have those options (and only those options) on the rule cards of the specific pieces in play. It saves time.

But this is a role playing game. Ideally you're supposed to do crazy crap like ride mine carts through twisting passages while giant bats attack you. Or hold the princess of the evil hobgoblin kingdom hostage. Or whatever. Literally whatever. Your characters and the NPCs aren't fixed to a script, they can literally do anything. And it's annoying if I have to pop open the book to find an obscure grappling option when I want to hold a knife to the neck of the hobgoblin princess. But if I have to ask the resident rules lawyer where the most similar option is and I'm told that it would either be the Bug Bear Warrior's Human Shield power or the Vampire Count's Death Kiss and that both of them are in specific monster entries and not listed in the index - I'm done.

Exception based design only works if the playing pieces can't act as narrators. And in a role playing game, they can.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1202218758[/unixtime]]The inane part is that there is no real reason to bother healing people who are near zero because there's no real cost for getting knocked out over and over again.

Well, the drawback actually exists only for fighters. They drop their weapons, go prone. All stuff that matters and takes two move actions to reverse (possibly drawing AoOs depending on the rules).

But this is a role playing game. Ideally you're supposed to do crazy crap like ride mine carts through twisting passages while giant bats attack you. Or hold the princess of the evil hobgoblin kingdom hostage. Or whatever. Literally whatever. Your characters and the NPCs aren't fixed to a script, they can literally do anything. And it's annoying if I have to pop open the book to find an obscure grappling option when I want to hold a knife to the neck of the hobgoblin princess. But if I have to ask the resident rules lawyer where the most similar option is and I'm told that it would either be the Bug Bear Warrior's Human Shield power or the Vampire Count's Death Kiss and that both of them are in specific monster entries and not listed in the index - I'm done.

Well, the general idea is that you can't do some of these things unless you happen to be a bugbear or whatever. I suppose you could use a feat to gain some of these racial powers, in which case you could do some of this stuff. The idea is that they're not writing a general mechanic, they're writing a specialized mechanic. So "human shield" or whatever is only something a bugbear could do, or someone else with that ability.

It's always going to be a rules set tradeoff where you have to trade functionality for complexity. Even while in an RPG you could possibly do anything, the rules can't actually account for everything. Like in 3.5 you can't use people as human shields, there's just no rule for it. Now the one difference with the 4E ability is that it doesn't explain what happens when someone untrained tries to do it. Basically what this means is that the DM gets to make something up if you say you want to use someone as a human shield. Ironically, this is exactly what happened in 3.5 too, so I don't really see how the fact that the bugbear has that ability really changes the game at all. If someone other than a bugbear tries that, you're still in undefined rules land, and the DM makes something up.

Rules are always going to be a balance between GURPS, which is like a ton of rules bloat, and this 4E system, which is a bunch of unique abilities and hopefully a pretty thin base rules set. Personally the GURPS paradigm, while being really consistent and unified, is also a real pain in the ass to play with, because you're always flipping through shit.

[Crissa]

But it's easy to compartmentalize a universal system. You give the players a short list, and you give the monsters a shared list, and bang, you've less rules.

But when you want to go an add something more complex, you have a handy book where someone else has thought about it first.

The last thing I want to play is a game where the DM is always having to think shit up on the fly... They have enough on their plate playing every other character in the world.

Basically, they're designing a board game. Guess what? None of the rules-specific-to-pieces board games have ever sold as many copies as a D&D supplement.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1202252367[/unixtime]]But it's easy to compartmentalize a universal system. You give the players a short list, and you give the monsters a shared list, and bang, you've less rules.

Oh, it's easier to write it, it's just slower to play it.

PCs can have a big list of abilities that they can choose and pick. And well they do. Feats, classes, etc.

Monsters on the other hand, really are playing pieces. They don't evolve or anything. You put them on the battlefield for one combat, and then they're removed. And I just want to know how to run that monster. I don't give a shit about everything else. So lets put the owlbear rules inside the owlbear himself. And maybe owlbear grab and huge works different than octopus grab+squeeze, and that may be different from PCs grabbing people, but that's not really a big issue.

But when you want to go an add something more complex, you have a handy book where <i>someone else</i> has thought about it first.

The last thing I want to play is a game where the DM is always having to think shit up on the fly... They have enough on their plate playing <i>every other character in the world</i>.

It actually takes longer to look up something in a massive encyclopedia of rules.

You just cannot cover every single circumstance, and even if you do, it means you're constantly slowing down play to flip through combat rules searching for some obscure reference. "What if the grappler wants to take the other guy's sword and use it to stab someone else not in the grapple, turn to combat book page 154, subsection B."

I don't really want D&D to turn into GURPS or rolemaster.

The more rules you add, the more complex and hard to learn the game becomes. Lets handle the basics, casting spells, stabbing people with swords, tackling people, and so on and leave the edge cases to DM adjudication.

[CatharzGodfoot]

It's nice to have the rules for the monster right in front of you, but it's also nice to have consistent powers with consistent names so that an experienced DM can easily keep track of what a stat block means.

[Crissa]

No, it's not slower to play, unless somehow you forgot to write the damned list down.

Ugh. Basically that's what Mearls is arguing for. No reason to universalize maneuvers if you write them down for everyone!

Which is stupid. No one would have played Magic the Gathering if they had to go look up what every ability was in the guide book. They were all written down on the cards.

But because they're written down on the cards doesn't mean there can't be universal abilities!

-Crissa

[Voss]

1202246693[/unixtime]]

1202218758[/unixtime]]The inane part is that there is no real reason to bother healing people who are near zero because there's no real cost for getting knocked out over and over again.

Well, the drawback actually exists only for fighters. They drop their weapons, go prone. All stuff that matters and takes two move actions to reverse (possibly drawing AoOs depending on the rules).

Unfortunately, there is no indication that this is the case anymore in 4e. In fact, its more likely that its out, because its more complex, requires rules, and is unfun or uncool or some shit like that. The playtest example certainly doesn't mention it- she was down, up and able to hold off snakes and naga and stuff all in the same round!

Well, the general idea is that you can't do some of these things unless you happen to be a bugbear or whatever. I suppose you could use a feat to gain some of these racial powers, in which case you could do some of this stuff. The idea is that they're not writing a general mechanic, they're writing a specialized mechanic. So "human shield" or whatever is only something a bugbear could do, or someone else with that ability.

Yeah, thats the stupid part. There are eleventy-two thousand strong humanoids running around the game world, and out of all of them, only a specific type of bugbear can use people as human shields? Fuck that- that isn't a specialized mechanic. Its a feat for anyone who cares enough about grappling.

[Talisman]

I don't have a problem with monsters having unique attacks or unique abilities, or even being able to do certain things better than non-monsters. A "Meat Shield Bugbear" could certainly be better at using human shields than another creature. And things like that should be called out in the critter's description.

HOWEVER, if a human-shaped monster (bugbear) can do something that's physically feasible for a PC (hold a hostage in front of him), the rules for such should fit fluidly in with the standard grappling/wrestling/whatevthehellever rules. The manhugger bugbear might get a bonus, or be able to do it faster, or something; and it's a peculiar enough ability that I can see it not being covered under the general rules. But since it's feasible for PCs, PCs should be able to do it.

Or you could just play a manhugger bugbear...oh; wait. Monsters aren't built like PCs. Scratch that idea.

[RandomCasualty]

1202260141[/unixtime]]
Yeah, thats the stupid part. There are eleventy-two thousand strong humanoids running around the game world, and out of all of them, only a specific type of bugbear can use people as human shields? Fuck that- that isn't a specialized mechanic. Its a feat for anyone who cares enough about grappling.

Only monsters don't have feats, they have abilities.

The PCs and monster rules are entirely schismed, such that PC rules are universalized and monster rules are compartmentalized.

[Voss]

1202261698[/unixtime]]
Only monsters don't have feats, they have abilities.

The PCs and monster rules are entirely schismed, such that PC rules are universalized and monster rules are compartmentalized.

Yes, I know. Its another questionable design decision, since while specific abilities are separate, they're still both using the same base rules. Everybody has BAB and Defenses and everyone rolls a d20 to hit. And skills. And initiative. And everybody crits, but monsters don't get some of the bonuses to crits that PCs do. And some monster powers will be really similar, but not exactly the same, as PC powers.

So it isn't entirely schismed. Its more 40% schismed, and not even in a consistent way. Everybody takes hit point damage, but what happens at 0 diverges. Unless you don't want it to. But a pit fiend and a 26th level rogue will make a bluff check in the exact same way.

So, again... really stupid.

[Username17]

Remember that you can get every single advantage of specialized rules for each creature by cut-and-pasting relevent universal rules into the specific monster description. Then you don't have to go book flipping but you can still master the system.

It's seriously just incredibly lazy writing to do it the way Mearls is doing it.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1202270415[/unixtime]]Remember that you can get every single advantage of specialized rules for each creature by cut-and-pasting relevent universal rules into the specific monster description. Then you don't have to go book flipping but you can still master the system.

Well, it depends on how often they repeat the same ability. If only two or three monsters in the game have one ability, ti's probably not worth putting it in the monster manual glossary. If it's something like improved grab where you've got dozens of monsters that have it, then they're better off with the copy/paste approach.

I haven' really seen how the 4E MM abilities vary, so I really don't know if it's a good idea or not. But if creatures all have unique stuff, there's really no point writing it twice, because then you have an enormous rules glossary and you never really need to look stuff up anyway, because bulette explosive unburrowing is a unique ability just to bulettes.

I tend to think based on what they said about monsters that things will go this way, because they're trying to make monster battles all have themes and such. So there's zombie dogs that have their jaws fall off and whatever, and no other monster does that. And that's kinda cool because it gives you a bunch of surprises. Most 3.5 monsters were so dull and unoriginal. No unique abilities, bland and tasteless.

If done right, I think 4E monsters could come out really well. Probably the only thing to come out well... but hoepfully it'll work out somewhat.

[Username17]

I haven' really seen how the 4E MM abilities vary, so I really don't know if it's a good idea or not. But if creatures all have unique stuff, there's really no point writing it twice, because then you have an enormous rules glossary and you never really need to look stuff up anyway, because bulette explosive unburrowing is a unique ability just to bulettes.

But the Bulette's explosive burrowing should be the same as the Purple Worm explosive burrowing. The fact that it isn't is my primary objection to 4e. Because the burrowing attack power of the various tunneling monsters is different and unique in every case, the game as a whole has no learning curve.

Two things should happen when you see a monster entry:

• You should have the rules that you need in the monster entry. The fire breath should not tell you that "it follows the rules for breath weapons (DMG p. XX), it should have a little box with the breath weapon rules.
  
  
• The rules should be similar to other rules in the game. Once you've run a couple monsters with breath weapons, you should be able to skim the breath weapon rules box because you already know how it works.

I should not have to know the rules backwards and forwards to run the monsters out of the book, but I should be able to know the rules backwards and forwards and have that matter for running the monsters out of the book.

Mike Mearls adopted the first goal by rejecting the second. And there was absolutely no reaon he couldn't have both. It's sloppy and insulting to the reader.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

True that. And as K wrote recently, both monsters and players would then pick those abilities, such as Explosive Burrowing, when it becomes level-appropriate.
The more referencing to a shared pool of pre-made abilities is done, the less little special-incidence smears of special rules clog monster and class descriptions.

[Crissa]

I, as a player, shouldn't have to reach over the DM's shoulder and say, 'you read the entry wrong, this creature is different.' If the poison rules are unique for all critters, that doesn't mean the DM is going to be less like to screw up the poison damage, it means they'll be more likely.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1202272924[/unixtime]]
I should not have to know the rules backwards and forwards to run the monsters out of the book, but I should be able to know the rules backwards and forwards and have that matter for running the monsters out of the book.

Mike Mearls adopted the first goal by rejecting the second. And there was absolutely no reaon he couldn't have both. It's sloppy and insulting to the reader.

Actually, we don't know yet if this is the case. It's very possible that all breath weapons tend to use the same general mechanics.

Likely something like (standard action, 1/encounter): create area effect vs reflex defense. Half damage on failed attack.

Now, I bet common stuff like incorporeality and undead immunities will still be inherited stuff, but the idea is to minimize the stuff in the glossary. If you can fit the entire thing in the monster description anyway, there's really no need to do anything else. Why bother having a glossary if there's nothing to really look up.

And you can do unified mechanics by just making them the same, though really I'm not sure what part of a breath weapon would even be the same. Some creatures you may want to be able to have a fast breath weapon as a minor action, some you may want to be able ot use it more frequently. Of course, damage type and attack bonus will vary, and some may have side effects. So really,what mechanics do you even need to have be consistent? About the only universal truth of breath weapons is that they all start their areas at the creature breathing them. So you don't need to put that little bit in the glossary so you can inherit it for all breath weapons. It's a waste of people's time and it hides an obscure rule that might as well just be in the monster description or get its own modifier to area.

Personally I'd like to see that kind of inheritance go away, that's what made the polymorph mechanics almost impossible to understand. Everything was fucking inherited. "Polymorph any object is like polymorph which is like alter self, except they do this extra"

Seriously, just write out what the damn thing does, and if it takes half the fucking page, then it's too complicated and needs to be simplified.

Inheritance should be used only when you absolutely have to use it. Like when you've got a ton of incorporeal creatures then incorporeal obviously should be some kind of global mechanic. But if just two creatures have a burrowing explosion mechanic, then just have it be the same for those two and that's it. Don't bother adding explosive burrow for people to inherit from.

And as K wrote recently, both monsters and players would then pick those abilities, such as Explosive Burrowing, when it becomes level-appropriate.
The more referencing to a shared pool of pre-made abilities is done, the less little special-incidence smears of special rules clog monster and class descriptions.

This is a great idea in theory. but the problem is that it's GURPS all over again. It's a massive tome of abilities and mechanics and anytime you want to know what something does, you've got to look it up. I mean it all sounds great, until you actually try to run GURPS, then you realize that it's better to actually have the shit simple and there for you, instead of a bunch of stuff in a glossary.

[Voss]

1202272487[/unixtime]] And that's kinda cool because it gives you a bunch of surprises. Most 3.5 monsters were so dull and unoriginal. No unique abilities, bland and tasteless.

You know, I think this is where my disconnect with Wizards is. Monsters don't need to have the 'Speshul Powaz' to be interesting. The circumstances of the encounter and the people at the table make an encounter interesting. A few wacky abilities here and there can liven things up a bit, but the array of (for example) freezing zombies, fast zombie dogs, poison zombies, bog-standard zombies, regenerating zombies and whatever else other flavor of zombie is just ridiculous.

They certainly don't need this crap with the bugbear. The humanoid races aren't interesting because there are roughly 50 of them at this point, slightly different but all claiming the same design space. If you had 3-5, you could make them unique and interesting without piles of crappy random special rules.

But, even if their approach appeals to some people, I see a few problems.
1- players read the MM. This isn't avoidable, but it does mean that things aren't going to be a surprise.

2- for all the special abilities, I doubt the monsters will be interesting. Take the pit fiend.
Upper tier monster and his tactics boil down to: summon minions on round one.
Rounds 2+: curse people, hit people, and maybe force a minion to move and explode. Maybe teleport some minions instead of attacking. Thats it. After round two, it defaults to debuff and smack. Debuff and smack, over and over. This isn't a bearded devil or other minion where this sort of behavior would be reasonably acceptable. This is one of the Captains of the Armies of Hell, Direct Servant to One of the Nine, and General of an Infernal Legion. He's a small step below a Name and Title, and all he can do is try to weaken your defenses, smack you in the face and pray you don't have fire resistance.

Sad, sad, sad. Mike makes fail.

[Crissa]

Inheritance isn't the failure point, RC.

Not writing down the damn specifics is the failure point.

Mearls is solving the fact that things weren't written down - not by writing it down, but by making unique abilities for every monster.

I don't want everything to work uniquely. It makes things slow down because the DM has to dig out the monster entry each time he wants to know how it works. There's no building upon previous knowledge knowing that when one monster uses a person as a human shield, that's how all monsters who end up using people as human shields might work.

It means less customized settings. Because no one will know what is a balanced ability is. No one knows what level an ability is for.

There will be no frozen blink dogs until they release some because there is no freezing ability to tack onto a blink dog. No blink cats because no blink ability to put on cats. And no blink dogs or cloaks until they print blink dogs and then separately print the PC version of blink because we won't have a blink ability to put on them.

That's dumb. Once you have a blink ability, it should be a matter of tacking it onto someone or something. But we won't have that. Blink dogs will work different than blink rings or cloaks because Mearls said so and no other reason.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1202277556[/unixtime]]
You know, I think this is where my disconnect with Wizards is. Monsters don't need to have the 'Speshul Powaz' to be interesting. The circumstances of the encounter and the people at the table make an encounter interesting.

Well yeah, the pit fiend was horrible, but mostly because it didn't have any interesting powers. About the only memorable thing it had was tossing other devils for fire damage. The rest was just standard attacks and summoning. And unless you can continually summon stuff, summoning 1/encounter is basically just an ability equivalent to your DM just putting the fucking monsters there in the first place.

But special powers do make interesting monsters that people remember. Think about it. Would trolls be half as interesting if they didn't regenerate? How about mind flayers, mind blasting and ripping out people's brains? Beholders and their multiple eye rays? A medusa's petrifying gaze?

Aside from base humanoids, which are really just to say fighting classed NPCs, a monster generally needs something interesting. For classed humanoids, they might as well just not have real stats at all, because all their real power comes from the classes, not from their race. A hobgoblin fighter 6 isn't going to be much different than a bugbear fighter 6, to the point that we probably shouldn't even care stat wise which is which and save that for the roleplaying side of it.

Half the reason most of the early WotC MMs was purely made of fail was because all the monsters were damn boring. It was a bunch of regurgitated shit, where you had stuff that was like another monster only with different bonuses, or some other crap. The game was full of stupid melee monsters that either just went up and claw/claw/bite or used improved grab and grappled you. And I had my fill. Lets have a monster with a fresh tactical concept besides rush in and claw/claw/bite. Unified mechanics are nice and all, but fuckballs, that shit is boring.

I like things with unique abilities, it makes them more interesting to fight.

And under this system, some monsters end up being lame. But it's a reasonable compromise to spare us another fucking hill giant clone with a greatsword, large size and a big strength score who runs up and full attacks all day long and throws rocks. I really don't need 25 different monsters that do the exact same thing only with different numbers.

[RandomCasualty]

1202279963[/unixtime]]
I don't want everything to work uniquely. It makes things slow down because the DM has to dig out the monster entry each time he wants to know how it works.

Not sure what the problem is here. The DM has already dug out the monster specifics to know the monsters numbers anyway, otherwise he couldn't run it.

It means less customized settings. Because no one will know what is a balanced ability is. No one knows what level an ability is for.

The 3.5 system didn't do any better at balancing shit, nor does GURPS. Just because everything works the same doesn't mean you're anywhere close to determining how potent it might be in an individual battle. 3.5 and GURPS just have more rules, but not any more guarantee of balance. In the end assigning a CR is just eyeballing it anyway. So why not just make the whole thing eyeballing.

There will be no frozen blink dogs until they release some because there is no freezing ability to tack onto a blink dog. No blink cats because no blink ability to put on cats. And no blink dogs or cloaks until they print blink dogs and then separately print the PC version of blink because we won't have a blink ability to put on them.

Wtf are you talking about? Your DM can either invent his own blink ability or copy paste from the blink dog. Does it matter that you copy/paste from a monster entry instead of a glossary? Seriously, Who gives a fuck. It's a monster and you can give it whatever you want. It doesn't obey rules for creation like PCs do. That's the whole concept behind 4E monster creation. It basically says you don't need some crazy WotC approved template or what not to just slap together a new monster.

That's dumb. Once you have a blink ability, it should be a matter of tacking it onto someone or something. But we won't have that. Blink dogs will work different than blink rings or cloaks because Mearls said so and no other reason.

You want special tags, like teleportation movement or something. That's mostly for countering abilities, because you want things that prevent teleportation or shield you from mind control or whatever.

Status conditions also have to be defined, so people know how to remove paralysis or cure somebody who got petrified. It's also not a good idea to have to flip through a monster entry to figure out how to cure something. That's one big mistake 2nd edition made. If something continues past the battle it should be some relatively global mechanic. But what happens during the battle can just be something the monster does.

But why every dimensional blink ability has to work the same way is beyond me. There's really no point in defining too many constant abilities, because you'll want to fine tune how often it can blink, how far and how fast as part of the monster itself, based on its other abilities.

We found out that the old 3.5 templates just didn't work. Designing add-ons that supposedly work on any creature just failed. Miserably.

[Voss]

1202280470[/unixtime]]
Well yeah, the pit fiend was horrible,

mostly because it was a Lord of Hell that is just a combat brute.

But special powers do make interesting monsters that people remember. Think about it. Would trolls be half as interesting if they didn't regenerate?

More, honestly. Base 'em off Norse myth and make them flavorful, rather than just another claw/claw/biter with a weird coup de grace requirement.

How about mind flayers, mind blasting and ripping out people's brains? Beholders and their multiple eye rays? A medusa's petrifying gaze?

Yay! 31 flavors of save or die. Failing that save sure is memorable...

Half the reason most of the early WotC MMs was purely made of fail was because all the monsters were damn boring.

Hmm. The ones that got to me were all the weird-ass shit that suddenly appeared in 3e. The cat who's flesh peeled back off its skull, the weird-ass aberrations that don't have any point. Sonic flying thing, acid-squirting thing, etc.

I like things with unique abilities, it makes them more interesting to fight.

Maybe once. After that, its reach into the golf bag and pull out the appropriate weapon/spell/macguffin, and wade through it like everything else.

And under this system, some monsters end up being lame. But it's a reasonable compromise to spare us another fucking hill giant clone with a greatsword, large size and a big strength score who runs up and full attacks all day long and throws rocks. I really don't need 25 different monsters that do the exact same thing only with different numbers.

True, that isn't a solution. But I don't think the random array of weird one-offs is a solution either. Does it matter if you're being taken out of the fight by a mind blast, a web, or whatever weird shit they insert next? Its just a change in flavor text, which defense is being attacked, and a different attack bonus. The real effect is close enough to not matter.

[RandomCasualty]

1202281630[/unixtime]]

I like things with unique abilities, it makes them more interesting to fight.

Maybe once. After that, its reach into the golf bag and pull out the appropriate weapon/spell/macguffin, and wade through it like everything else.

Nah. Mind flayers are easily usable again and again. I'm not talking about a pure puzzle monster that's vulnerable to just one thing. I'm talking about new abilities that make for an increased tactical challenge.

True, that isn't a solution. But I don't think the random array of weird one-offs is a solution either. Does it matter if you're being taken out of the fight by a mind blast, a web, or whatever weird shit they insert next? Its just a change in flavor text, which defense is being attacked, and a different attack bonus. The real effect is close enough to not matter.

Well it matters if there's ways you counter it. For instance, against a medusa you get the tactical choice of closing your eyes, using a mirror, that sort of thing. And that's cool.

Agianst a mind flayer, the fact that it affects a cone may lead you to try to spread out.

But yeah, I like monsters with new original abilities. Stuff that modifies the battle field, or does something else that's otherwise cool or interesting. Monster roles contribute to this.

I think one of the main things that sucks about the pit fiend is that he has no real role. He summons stuff and then he just turns into a brute. he's supposed to be some kind of leader, but he doesn't actually lead or anything. Instead he just sacrifices his men to do some attack that's weaker than a fireball.