Enemy/Monster Design - Prince’s post

[grodog]

Another good piece by Prince, examining the design trends for enemies/monsters over time/editions: https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2025/11/08/on-enemy-design/

A few quick thoughts:

- high-volume (tribal) monster encounters in the wilderness seem to have dropped out after 1e (perhaps after 2e??)
- 3.x/d20 also introduced (I believe) the templates taxonomy too, which further exacerbated the proliferation of dumb monster designs, both in terms of creatures that shouldn’t have ever been templated, and the inane combo templates (half-undead, half-golem, etc.)
- NPC encounters aren’t really addressed in the post (and the excessive insanities of building high-level NPCs is what finally drove me away from 3.x BITD), but play a significant role in 0e and 1e, in both dungeon and wilderness encounters (as well as urban, of course)
- filling in missing gaps/niches for monsters is definitely part of the design process: I looked at the cleanup crew and that inspired my “messing up” crew counter monster (the dust ghost), and added another cleanup crew creature that drains casters (silver filament slime); Tony Rosten similarly created the Naamah (a greater devil) because few to none of 1e’s existing monsters alter PC alignments

I’m also curious where folks fall on the “at-will abilities” interpretation spectrum (a review in Huso’s blog at https://www.thebluebard.com/blog/high-level-play-part-2-mechanics) since I see such powers as one of the primary threats to high-level PCs—along with MR, +3 or greater weapons to hit, very high intelligence, etc.

Allan.

 

[Beoric]

Another good piece by Prince, examining the design trends for enemies/monsters over time/editions: https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2025/11/08/on-enemy-design/

A few quick thoughts:

- high-volume (tribal) monster encounters in the wilderness seem to have dropped out after 1e (perhaps after 2e??)
- 3.x/d20 also introduced (I believe) the templates taxonomy too, which further exacerbated the proliferation of dumb monster designs, both in terms of creatures that shouldn’t have ever been templated, and the inane combo templates (half-undead, half-golem, etc.)
- NPC encounters aren’t really addressed in the post (and the excessive insanities of building high-level NPCs is what finally drove me away from 3.x BITD), but play a significant role in 0e and 1e, in both dungeon and wilderness encounters (as well as urban, of course)
- filling in missing gaps/niches for monsters is definitely part of the design process: I looked at the cleanup crew and that inspired my “messing up” crew counter monster (the dust ghost), and added another cleanup crew creature that drains casters (silver filament slime); Tony Rosten similarly created the Naamah (a greater devil) because few to none of 1e’s existing monsters alter PC alignments

I’m also curious where folks fall on the “at-will abilities” interpretation spectrum (a review in Huso’s blog at https://www.thebluebard.com/blog/high-level-play-part-2-mechanics) since I see such powers as one of the primary threats to high-level PCs—along with MR, +3 or greater weapons to hit, very high intelligence, etc.

Allan.

I think it's possible that detailing monster societies was already dropping off by the FF. There was a fair amount of detail about drow, kuo-toa, and the giths, but IIRC other humanoids in the FF and MM2 didn't get much detail about their societies. I think 2e still had detail about those monsters that also had a lot of detail in 1e; I'm not sure if other monsters got as much love, although there may have been some Dark Sun monsters with cultural details added. I think by 3e this was mostly changed to detailing groups of humanoids as military units. @The1True can probably tell me if I am off-base here.

I think there is a place for templates, and I think this is something that 4e did better than 3e, largely by showing more restraint. Also, I generally try not to judge editions by their worst excesses, particularly towards the end of an edition's tenure, as long as those excesses are not mandatory elements of the game. For example, I think 3e templates such as "vampire" make a lot of sense. 4e templates had a specific function in that they are a quick convert a standard monster/NPC into an elite monster/NPC. Also, while 4e had templates like "vampire" and "lich", the majority are either templates like "bodyguard" or "demagogue" which relate to the role the monster/NPC has in the campaign, or templates that add stripped-down PC mechanics to an NPC to create instant but simplified NPCs that ostensibly belong to a PC class.

I agree that NPC encounters are an important aspect of the game, not least because there is so much variety among them. However, building NPCs using the same mechanics as building PCs adds a lot of unnecessary complexity, particularly for spellcasters, but also because of the addition of magic items to the mix. This is something I think 4e and 5e get right, because they use different, simpler mechanics for building NPCs.

Filling missing gaps is definitely part of my design process.

As a smooth-brained retard without a dad,* I'm not going to comment much on the Bard's discussion of the use of at-will abilities, except to say that, with respect to dragons in particular, I always thought that the rule that dragons would use their breath weapon 50% of the time meant that they could use their breath weapon OR claw/claw/bite in a round, but not both.

[*Given the amount of time I think Prince likely spends communicating with 4e players, which is to say "none", I can't help thinking that I might be living rent-free in his head.]

 

[The1True]

3.x/d20 also introduced (I believe) the templates taxonomy too, which further exacerbated the proliferation of dumb monster designs

Aw, this makes me sad. Templates are awesome for putting a spin on the ordinary to wrong-foot your players. Particularly in locations with a relatively homogenous monster population. Skeletal and Zombie templates allow you to create sentient skeletons and zombies with character levels who may actually interact with the PCs. The lich template lets you fiddle around with the lich's character level and loadout more easily as well as scale him to the challenge. Half troll allows you to BRING BACK THE THOUL!!! etc. etc. Instead of creating a New Monster entry and cluttering up a third or forth (or fifth!) Monster Manual crapped up with variations of goblins and orcs, templates and character levels let you upgrade the base monster.

the excessive insanities of building high-level NPCs is what finally drove me away from 3.x

That's fair. Although building them is fun (except spellcasters), it's running the page-long stat block in real time that I've started to truly loathe. To be really fair though, I was perusing one of my old high-level 2e adventures the other day, and those stat blocks were pretty fucked up as well...

I think there is a place for templates, and I think this is something that 4e did better than 3e

Gonna disagree with you there. I think the 4e started right in with multiple redundant entries for base monster variations (Goblin skirmisher/bruiser/etc) rather than presenting a framework for templates or character levels. Or maybe that's what you're saying?

As a smooth-brained retard without a dad

Yeah, I find myself frequently enjoying/agreeing with his posts and then being disappointed by the unneccesary dunking on vulnerable minorities. I get it, it was briefly dangerous and cool to be a contrarion in an internet aflame with blue-haired lynch mobs. That time has very much passed.

 

[Beoric]

Aw, this makes me sad. Templates are awesome for putting a spin on the ordinary to wrong-foot your players. Particularly in locations with a relatively homogenous monster population. Skeletal and Zombie templates allow you to create sentient skeletons and zombies with character levels who may actually interact with the PCs. The lich template lets you fiddle around with the lich's character level and loadout more easily as well as scale him to the challenge. Half troll allows you to BRING BACK THE THOUL!!! etc. etc. Instead of creating a New Monster entry and cluttering up a third or forth (or fifth!) Monster Manual crapped up with variations of goblins and orcs, templates and character levels let you upgrade the base monster.

What you are saying is that templates are good for

- filling in missing gaps/niches for monsters is definitely part of the design process:

Re: templates

Gonna disagree with you there. I think the 4e started right in with multiple redundant entries for base monster variations (Goblin skirmisher/bruiser/etc) rather than presenting a framework for templates or character levels. Or maybe that's what you're saying?

That is what I am saying. Take your goblin skirmisher, apply a "ranger" template, and you have an instant goblin ranger, who feels like a goblin and a ranger. And is a rough analog for a PC ranger of the same level (I think this was accidental, but that's how it works out).

Or apply a "demagogue" template to a cultist controller, and a "battle champion" template to a cultist brute, and you have an instant BBEG and lieutenant.

Yeah, I find myself frequently enjoying/agreeing with his posts and then being disappointed by the unneccesary dunking on vulnerable minorities. I get it, it was briefly dangerous and cool to be a contrarion in an internet aflame with blue-haired lynch mobs. That time has very much passed.

I mean, I'm not suggesting that 4e players are a targeted group requiring protection. But yeah, he does sometimes go there with actual minorities, in a forum where nobody's going to call him out, and if they do (I can vouch from experience), well, he controls the comment section. That and the (I think very plausible) stories regarding his use of sockpuppets are just kind of gutless.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Re. Templates:

Good as a baseline and for guys who are too nervous to fuck around with stat balance, but I've personally never found them useful beyond inspiration for new encounters. But then, I do all my DMing freestyle, so converting everything into a template is a bit antithetical to that. I've always found it easier to crib major ideas (say, vampiric blood drinking and conditional health regeneration) and then eyeball the stats to suit the party's level ("hmm, AC 16, 75hp, and 2d8 necrotic damage looks to be the right amount for these guys").

That being said, I do lament losing the templates in newer editions. I think overall they did more good than harm. While not a tool I used much, at the very least they made you think deeply about encounter balance and design.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

think it's possible that detailing monster societies was already dropping off by the FF. There was a fair amount of detail about drow, kuo-toa, and the giths, but IIRC other humanoids in the FF and MM2 didn't get much detail about their societies. I think 2e still had detail about those monsters that also had a lot of detail in 1e; I'm not sure if other monsters got as much love, although there may have been some Dark Sun monsters with cultural details added. I think by 3e this was mostly changed to detailing groups of humanoids as military units. @The1True can probably tell me if I am off-base here.

Not quite military units, but definitely more emphasis on tactics and society (which did not drop off after the FF, but was rather just omitted in that period). Virtually every MM entry since 3E details "how" you should play monsters, both in combat and in the game world, which is a mixed blessing IMHO (good for novice DMs and the unimaginative, constricting for veterans and those with established settings).

 

[Beoric]

Not quite military units, but definitely more emphasis on tactics and society (which did not drop off after the FF, but was rather just omitted in that period). Virtually every MM entry since 3E details "how" you should play monsters, both in combat and in the game world, which is a mixed blessing IMHO (good for novice DMs and the unimaginative, constricting for veterans and those with established settings).

Re: descriptions of military units, this is the sort of thing I was thinking about, from the Hobgoblin entry in the 3.5 MM1:

Organization: Gang (4–9), band (10–100 plus 50 noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults and 1 leader of 4th–6th level), warband (10–24), or tribe (30–300 plus 50 noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th–8th level, 2–4 dire wolves, and 1–4 ogres or 1–2 trolls)

And here is the Orc entry:

Organization: Gang (2–4), squad (11–20 plus 2 3rd-level sergeants and 1 leader of 3rd–6th level), or band (30–100 plus 150% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 10 adults, 5 5th-level lieutenants, and 3 7th-level captains)

I don't generally find the 3e descriptions of humanoid societies to particularly compelling, although the orc one is quite good.

 

[The Heretic]

Hmm, the question of Prince is a dangerous one to bring up in this messageboard, since it could easily devolve into political nonsense.

I'll just say that, strangely enough given that I am super-Woke, I haven't had a problem with Prince. It took a while to get to that point, but eventually I realized he was taking the world from a different point of view, not that much different from the Objectivists that I occasionally interact with (troll). Prince has stated several times he keeps his blog super edgy to keep the bluehaired witch hunt mafia away, and I think another piece might have to do with neurodivergence. Like Objectivists, Prince is more of a thinker than a feeler. To him, the Woke seem like poseurs. Would they really be that up in arms about a bigoted comment if they are not part of the target minority? "They must be doing it to virtue signal." I think we can agree here that yes, people who are not the target of the slur can still be offended by it. Hmm, that's probably too far into the political side of things, I hope this doesn't devolve into nonsense.

As a smooth-brained retard without a dad,*

Lol. When I read that I thought to myself "Good thing Beoric doesn't read Prince's blog, he would be pissed!" Doh!

Re: descriptions of military units, this is the sort of thing I was thinking about, from the Hobgoblin entry in the 3.5 MM1:
<snip>

IMO these don't seem too dissimilar from the MM 1e entries. Didn't those have entries for random groups vs a village or settlement? The 3.x version seems to be more granular, trying to point to different groupings the party might encounter (with an unspoken nod to EL).

I was disappointed in the 3.x MM entries too, after coming in after 2nd edition. I also disliked some of the art compared to 2E. The Kuo Toa comes to mind. The piece in the Monstrous Manual takes the piscine nature of the Kuo Toa to the forefront. I liked that. The 3.x version wasn't as evocative, just a squishy, mushy maybe eel-shaped generic humanoid.

The Heretic

 

[The Heretic]

I’m also curious where folks fall on the “at-will abilities” interpretation spectrum (a review in Huso’s blog at https://www.thebluebard.com/blog/high-level-play-part-2-mechanics) since I see such powers as one of the primary threats to high-level PCs—along with MR, +3 or greater weapons to hit, very high intelligence, etc.

Allan.

I haven't had a chance to review that blog post (and it looks a bit dense so it might take awhile to read)---by 'at-will abilities' do you mean the idea that they can be cast multiple times per day (without limit) or do you mean the idea that 'at-will' would be like a free action in later editions, i.e. the monster 'wills' it to happen and it occurs in 0 segments (therefore being unable to be disrupted?).

Come to think of it, my writing is rather dense too, isn't it?

The Heretic

 

[DangerousPuhson]

To him, the Woke seem like poseurs. Would they really be that up in arms about a bigoted comment if they are not part of the target minority? "They must be doing it to virtue signal." I think we can agree here that yes, people who are not the target of the slur can still be offended by it.

What his type fail to recognize is that even if a person isn't part of the marginalized group, they may still have close ones who are part of the group, or at the very least have a healthy respect for the hardships of those groups. I have a few gay friends/family but am not myself gay. I have a few mentally-disadvantaged friends but am myself not neurodivergent (or "retarded", as he petulantly puts it). It's not virtue-signaling to speak up on behalf of others, and attacking with terms like "virtue signaling" is a telltale sign of someone who doesn't grasp human empathy; either as one who can't understand that other people matter, or worse, one who doesn't care that other people matter.

When you act the way he does towards marginalized groups, it's very telling of who you are as a person. It's like seeing someone who treats waitstaff poorly for no other reason than to make themselves feel big. The presence or absence of empathy is basically the one distilled trait that most separates the classical definitions of "good" or "evil", and by throwing around slurs without consideration it demonstrates that you cannot or will not empathize, and therefore that you are either too immature to know better, or that you literally skew towards a definitive "evil". And I think it goes without saying that evil is bad (duh), and that evil people should be called out for the good of everyone. So for that reason I dub Prince an evil piece of shit, because he has yet to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Beoric]

I haven't had a chance to review that blog post (and it looks a bit dense so it might take awhile to read)---by 'at-will abilities' do you mean the idea that they can be cast multiple times per day (without limit) or do you mean the idea that 'at-will' would be like a free action in later editions, i.e. the monster 'wills' it to happen and it occurs in 0 segments (therefore being unable to be disrupted?).

Come to think of it, my writing is rather dense too, isn't it?

The Heretic

He definitely means it can be cast multiple times per day. He may also mean it takes 0-1 segments, as IIRC his examples include rounds where the monster gets to use his full attack routine and a special ability.

IMO these don't seem too dissimilar from the MM 1e entries. Didn't those have entries for random groups vs a village or settlement? The 3.x version seems to be more granular, trying to point to different groupings the party might encounter (with an unspoken nod to EL).

The 1e MM1 entries vary in how vertical or horizontal the hierarchy might be, and in how powerful "officer" types are, both for random groups and for settlements. They also get specific about the roles of elite monsters, so top leaders often have bodyguards (which tells you something about the society), mid level leaders may have weaker bodyguards, or adjutants, and minor leaders might have no support. A lot of the differences are quite subtle, but I usually find the 1e settlement descriptions to be more interesting

Lol. When I read that I thought to myself "Good thing Beoric doesn't read Prince's blog, he would be pissed!" Doh!

I usually don't, but the topic interested me.

I was less pissed than bemused. Like, it might sound edgy and provocative, but he's saying it to a friendly audience, in a forum that he controls. It would be more imaginative if he used an insult that actually draws on how 4e works, or is at least purported to work, as opposed to just using generic edginess. It's the same as the insults he uses to describe the Artpunk crowd, they aren't really clever, they are often comparisons to some minority group (indirectly showing his bigotry, since he thinks suggesting membership in that group is an insult), and he only makes them in a place where he feels safe.

Also, I'm pretty sure he used a sock puppet to insult me in Bryce's comment section a couple of posts ago. Prince can dish it out with canned insults, but he can't take it.

 

[The Heretic]

He definitely means it can be cast multiple times per day. He may also mean it takes 0-1 segments, as IIRC his examples include rounds where the monster gets to use his full attack routine and a special ability.

I never really thought about it until I read an editorial in Dragon that was introducing the new Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium. The author was using examples from play where the Marilith was using at will abilities, cast instantaneously, that made her almost unstoppable. That was the gist with the planar monsters, they were supposed to be almost impossibly hard threats. I was actually a little disappointed that they nerfed this so completely with 3.x.

 

[The Heretic]

Oops, pressed the wrong button, I wasn't done yet.

The 1e MM1 entries vary in how vertical or horizontal the hierarchy might be, and in how powerful "officer" types are, both for random groups and for settlements. They also get specific about the roles of elite monsters, so top leaders often have bodyguards (which tells you something about the society), mid level leaders may have weaker bodyguards, or adjutants, and minor leaders might have no support. A lot of the differences are quite subtle, but I usually find the 1e settlement descriptions to be more interesting

The 1e test was certainly more extensive, and more interesting. They were made the humanoids more three dimensional. The applied setting, too. I was always a little fascinated by the Elf write-up, and what it said (and didn't say) about the Drow. Even the write-ups for the Drow and Kuo-Toa in D1-2 were excellent. I carried on the implied history of the Drow and the Kuo Toa into my own campaign, making them the followers of gods that lost the divine war and fled underground.

I was less pissed than bemused. Like, it might sound edgy and provocative, but he's saying it to a friendly audience, in a forum that he controls. It would be more imaginative if he used an insult that actually draws on how 4e works, or is at least purported to work, as opposed to just using generic edginess. It's the same as the insults he uses to describe the Artpunk crowd, they aren't really clever, they are often comparisons to some minority group (indirectly showing his bigotry, since he thinks suggesting membership in that group is an insult), and he only makes them in a place where he feels safe.

I think that's the right way to take it. Edginess that is more at home in the earlier 2000's, akin to South Park Republicans. Don't take it too seriously. I'll stop here since this is veering too close to political territory. Oh yeah, YMMV. If you want nothing to do with Prince that's your choice, I'm certainly fine with it and won't push for interaction. I simply see things differently.

Also, I'm pretty sure he used a sock puppet to insult me in Bryce's comment section a couple of posts ago. Prince can dish it out with canned insults, but he can't take it.

I've challenged him too on that, lol. "Prince, are you sure this isn't you, it sure sounds like you!"

The Heretic

 

[The1True]

I was actually a little disappointed that they nerfed this so completely with 3.x.

What the actual fuck are you talking about, lol ! Devils and Demons in particular got WAY nastier in 3e. You used to be able to take on Type I-III demons at single digit levels, but these bastards are mid-hard CR's now. I offer the Cornugon (Horned Devil) as a solid example. That 35 AC is a -15 AC for you grogs out there... Glabrezu (Type III) are also awful. There's no way you'd be able to take on the demon hordes seen in H4 Throne of Bloodstone in 3.5e.
Spell-like abilities are the least of your worries for most of these guys, but admittedly, they do require an action to cast and can be counterspelled. That said, most of these guys do have Free Action abilities that they can perform on top of their regular combat actions.

 

[The1True]

I think my issue with the older editions is the dozens of new monster entries for humans. Like a pirate has different stats from a beduin or a gladiator. Stop it.

They do this for elves and orcs and all the other demihumans and humanoids. Jesus christ. Just apply some character or NPC levels; at worst maybe a template or racial variant if there's some environmental factors. None of that should require space at the end of the book or a new entry in the latest Creature Compendium. Just bake it into the stat block and move on.

 

[The Heretic]

What the actual fuck are you talking about, lol ! Devils and Demons in particular got WAY nastier in 3e. You used to be able to take on Type I-III demons at single digit levels, but these bastards are mid-hard CR's now. I offer the Cornugon (Horned Devil) as a solid example. That 35 AC is a -15 AC for you grogs out there... Glabrezu (Type III) are also awful. There's no way you'd be able to take on the demon hordes seen in H4 Throne of Bloodstone in 3.5e.
Spell-like abilities are the least of your worries for most of these guys, but admittedly, they do require an action to cast and can be counterspelled. That said, most of these guys do have Free Action abilities that they can perform on top of their regular combat actions.

It's hard to compare 3.x monsters to monsters from older versions due to the power creep. My problem was that if you matched the demon or devil with the EL of the party, often times they'd end up getting roflstomped. Then again, by those levels things start to break down quickly. I ran a campaign that ended at level 17 because three of the four members of the group went off to grad school in Physics. Trying to challenge their characters was impossible. One of the nastier traps I came up with was a Living Blasphemy at the bottom of a hidden pit drop. No problem for them. The wizard would always cast her mass fly spell at the beginning of their exploration so there was no chance they'd fall into the pit and get hit with the Blasphemy spell effects.

If the spells of high CR outsiders where quickened, they would have been much more likely to get some of their cooler abilities used before the end of combat. As it was, they were probably dead in 2-3 rounds.


The Heretic

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Trying to challenge their characters was impossible. One of the nastier traps I came up with was a Living Blasphemy at the bottom of a hidden pit drop. No problem for them. The wizard would always cast her mass fly spell at the beginning of their exploration so there was no chance they'd fall into the pit and get hit with the Blasphemy spell effects.

This is where post-prep DM adjustments come into effect. Fly nullifying your encounters? "Whoa, I didn't know oozes could fly!" "Oh no, it's radiating some kind of antimagic field!" "Look out, it's brought reinforcements!", etc. So long as you don't blindside the party with something totally unfair that they aren't equipped to handle, all is good. And to be clear, I'm not talking about nerfing anything here. It's not the same as negating their abilities with anti-turning amulets or whatever; what I'm talking about is dynamic encounters subject to change over the course of the battle.

Also, yeah, demons/devils could get quite tough in 3e. There's a range of them (so DMs can throw them at parties regardless of the level), and those ranges went all the way up to match level20+ parties. If you threw a higher-than-expected CR at your group (either purposefully or accidentally), it can easily end in a TPK. High level ones are just balls of superpowers, it gets a little nuts.

 

[The Heretic]

This is where post-prep DM adjustments come into effect. Fly nullifying your encounters? "Whoa, I didn't know oozes could fly!" "Oh no, it's radiating some kind of antimagic field!" "Look out, it's brought reinforcements!", etc. So long as you don't blindside the party with something totally unfair that they aren't equipped to handle, all is good. And to be clear, I'm not talking about nerfing anything here. It's not the same as negating their abilities with anti-turning amulets or whatever; what I'm talking about is dynamic encounters subject to change over the course of the battle.

Though those are possibilities, I think they're starting to border on the antagonistic DM/quantum ogre problem. The scene was a temple assault on a drow temple, and the pit traps were placed as an impediment/neutralizer on the route to the drow. If the PCs ended their turn flying over one of the pits I could have had the drow high priestess use dispel magic, but given how fast they could fly with that spell, I never had the opportunity.

I think I'll probably rebuild this encounter for a mid-level party. The original concept was that at least one of the frontline PCs would fall into the trap, be dazed by the ooze, and then stuck there until retrieved by other party members. IIRC Blasphemy does not allow for a saving throw so the PC(s) who fell in were stuck without intervention. A less powerful version for a party level 7-9 might use a Living Hold Person spell or something like that. I checked the monster description and it's hard to tell if the ooze is meant to do damage to targets they have engulfed (they're main attack is a slam attack). @Beoric since these monsters were created for the Eberron setting you probably have more insight into their uses and abilities. If a living spell was at the bottom of a pit trap (filling the entire area of the pit) and they were automatically engulfed, would they take slam damage automatically each subsequent round they're stuck in the ooze? The 3.5 text for the spell makes it sound like this wouldn't happen.

Also, yeah, demons/devils could get quite tough in 3e. There's a range of them (so DMs can throw them at parties regardless of the level), and those ranges went all the way up to match level20+ parties. If you threw a higher-than-expected CR at your group (either purposefully or accidentally), it can easily end in a TPK. High level ones are just balls of superpowers, it gets a little nuts.

It depends on your group too though. CR at higher levels was very untrustworthy. With the right equipment, spells, and preparation even the high level demons and devils could end up being squished quickly. The group that went up against that Living Blasphemy was very intelligent and made good use of all of their abilities. The group went on to a version of the demonweb pits to extract their hobgoblin rogue cohort (he succumbed to a monster that threw Deck of Many Things cards; he was hit with the one where you are imprisoned by an unknown entity and I decided he was snatched up by Lolth). It ended up being epic but it was hard to even make those encounters challenging. The spell effect modifications for the Abyss weren't as extensive as they were in Q1. Giving the demons quickened spells would've made them more of a challenge.


The Heretic

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Though those are possibilities, I think they're starting to border on the antagonistic DM/quantum ogre problem.

Not necessarily, only when viewed through the omniscient, metagaming lens of the DM. As far as the players are concerned, monsters can surprise you with their abilities. There's nothing antagonistic about having your Living Blasphemy climb out of the pit, or extend a pseudopod and pull someone down into it, or cast a Counterspell. Yes, if you look at Living Blasphemy in the manual you'll see they can't do that - but then, that's through the DM lens of omniscience/metagame. In play, it's supposed to be an "oh shit" moment, not a "ugh, c'mon on DM, why?" moment. It's only the latter to someone who knows that Living Blasphemies aren't supposed to do that (which is straight-up metagaming, unless their character is somehow an in-world expert on Living Blasphemies or something).

The idea is that it improves the combat in some way. Killing something that can't fight back is boring (which is just as egregious a sin as antagonistic play, IMHO), and it's not like the PCs learned Mass Fly specifically for this eventuality. If they encountered it, stepped back to plan, and then used Fly to circumvent, sure I'd just let them get by it. But if they just nullify your encounter with no thought using a spell they already had on hand... well, that's when I'd "evolve" the encounter to make things more interesting.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It depends on your group too though. CR at higher levels was very untrustworthy. With the right equipment, spells, and preparation even the high level demons and devils could end up being squished quickly. The group that went up against that Living Blasphemy was very intelligent and made good use of all of their abilities. The group went on to a version of the demonweb pits to extract their hobgoblin rogue cohort (he succumbed to a monster that threw Deck of Many Things cards; he was hit with the one where you are imprisoned by an unknown entity and I decided he was snatched up by Lolth). It ended up being epic but it was hard to even make those encounters challenging.

That's the thing though - it wasn't challenging because your players were being smart about things (i.e. how you're supposed to play the game). They can deal with high-level devils because they're trying to deal with them, which is just good gaming. A party caught unprepared would very likely have a different outcome. But that's what D&D is: making smart choices to overcome obstacles.

At it's base, making an encounter harder or easier (or too hard/easy) is merely a matter of tweaking numbers - more hp, higher AC, more damage. If you want to up that game, you tweak with abilities and resistances and such. Again, as with your Living Blasphemy, it's only considered unfair/antagonistic if the party is metagaming and knows that a Pit Fiend is supposed to have 150hp and not 200hp or whatever. But as the DM, you control the world; it is shaped at your whim. Pit Fiend hp is whatever you say it is (regardless of any manual), and that's just how it goes. If the party has an issue with that, it's is easy as saying "this guy was a Pit Fiend Veteran" or whatever excuse you need. If you feel guilty about it, you can always give the players a bigger XP/GP reward for beating it... good loot always takes the sting out of things.