I was looking through 4th edition Demons (Tanari) and Devils (Baatezu). They had quite a few more spells. Also, many could only be damaged with magic weapons. That got changed to being merely resistant to non-magic weapons for the most part in 5e.
Does anybody know why the devs decided to weaken them in this edition? Seriously, the current Demons and Devils would get slaughtered if they had to fight their older edition selves.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm doing some homebrew and want to understand how the changes between editions affect the play experience:
A) Were Devils and Demons too hard to run in combat in 4e?
B) How do the innovations in 5e's Action Economy affect the spellcasting of monsters compared to pre-5e editions?
C) Are Devils and Demons much more commonly used in 5e modules, thus the devs wanted to make them easier to kill?
D) Is there a gaming philosophy influence here? I.e. did Devils and Demons get weaker in 5e because 5e is more about "heroic PCs" and role-playing and less about combat than back in 4e?
There’s a lot of other mechanical changes between the editions. Action economy is completely different. The math is different. Things with the same name are meant to challenge characters of a different level. It‘s really hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
Im not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, just the comparison isn’t clear cut.
Abilities: Telepathy (100 feet), Fear Aura (5 feet rad.), See perfectly in darkness (basically Devil's Sight), Summon Baatezu
Spells: animate dead, charm person, dimensional anchor, doom, fly, invisbility (self), major image, suggestion, wall of ice, teleport (no error)
Actions: Sting (temp STR drain)
If you compare the two based on the non-stat portions, the 4e Bone Devil is clearly stronger. The 5e version has a general Magic Resistance, but has no spellcasting, no teleport of any kind. The vast majority of Devils and Demons in 4e had teleport. It feels like in 5e, they all got nerfed.
Everybody had weird movement options in 4e. Players, monsters, even environmental hazards. Also, there was a clearly defined progression of magic weapons: PCs would simply have the magic weapons appropriate to their level, most of the time. So I'm not sure that the weapon immunity mattered at all.
For what it's worth, the 5e one communicates a lot more clearly what it's for. This is a close-range bruiser. I assume the 4e one was given a role, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it would be. All of its options are doing different things, there's no focus. Controller, maybe??? Because it has Wall of Ice? If you stripped away everything that doesn't support the close-range bruiser role, it's actually a lot less spooky. All those spells, gone. Summon Baatezu, gone (though I believe this is still an optional feature in 5e's version). Just one attack but it's a nastier attack. We're trading Magic Resistance for Fear Aura, and idk which is better tbh.
So I'm not sure that the weapon immunity mattered at all.
We're trading Magic Resistance for Fear Aura, and idk which is better tbh.
Regarding the second point, at 5 ft, I'd say magic resistance is better. There's only like two or three classes that seriously suffer from trying to fight at stand off range rather than melee, whereas magic resistance suddenly makes it a lot harder to land all of the really powerful spells. For the first, I expect they scaled back non-magical weapon damage immunity and introduced silvered weapons to theoretically allow for DM's to run low magic campaigns where magic weapons are truly rare from the party's perspective, rather than something every weapon user is essentially required to have to fight magical beings. Granted, in practice I still find the general expectation is that the party will start picking up +1 weapons around level 5, so that did kinda fall flat. We'll see if they try to do something about that in 1D&D or if they've simply accepted that +X weapons are functionally a staple of weapon users after tier 1.
Now, regarding the shift away from spellcasting, I expect it was to diversify the fiends a bit and allow for some more straightforward options for a DM who wants a big scary fiend and doesn't want to have to keep track of spell effects. It's worth noting that a lot of the high CR fiends still have some degree of spellcasting or a magic power, particularly the devils.
For what it's worth, the 5e one communicates a lot more clearly what it's for. This is a close-range bruiser. I assume the 4e one was given a role, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it would be. All of its options are doing different things, there's no focus. Controller, maybe??? Because it has Wall of Ice? If you stripped away everything that doesn't support the close-range bruiser role, it's actually a lot less spooky. All those spells, gone. Summon Baatezu, gone (though I believe this is still an optional feature in 5e's version). Just one attack but it's a nastier attack. We're trading Magic Resistance for Fear Aura, and idk which is better tbh.
"Commonly known as bone devils, osyluths were skeletal baatezu that served as the police force of Hell, acting as taskmasters, disciplinarians, interrogators, and inquisitors that promoted infernal morality. Driven by hateful rage and bitter envy, they delighted in demoting the defiant and bitterly resented their superiors."
(It seems to be a mix of 3e, 5e, and Planescape lore)
So i guess you're right about the bruiser part. They seem strangely weak, though, for a creature whose job is to literally police Hell itself. I guess i should homebrew some Negative-Paladin spells to go with that role. Like Smite spells that do psychic damage or something.
I'm pretty sure he's actually talking about 3.5e. The 4th edition bone devil most certainly did not have any spells.
I'm not sure, actually. The darn book does not state which edition it is for. The main devs were Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams. Definitely not 2nd edition because it has the d20 system trademark on the back cover. Also Wizards of the Coast is clearly printed there as well.
I'm pretty sure he's actually talking about 3.5e. The 4th edition bone devil most certainly did not have any spells.
I'm not sure, actually. The darn book does not state which edition it is for. The main devs were Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams. Definitely not 2nd edition because it has the d20 system trademark on the back cover. Also Wizards of the Coast is clearly printed there as well.
d20 system trademark definitely means 3/3.5e. The 4th edition Bone Devil (Oslyugh) was somewhat less boring than the 5e version (if, on inspection, sorta broken) but didn't have any spells.
I'm pretty sure he's actually talking about 3.5e. The 4th edition bone devil most certainly did not have any spells.
I'm not sure, actually. The darn book does not state which edition it is for. The main devs were Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams. Definitely not 2nd edition because it has the d20 system trademark on the back cover. Also Wizards of the Coast is clearly printed there as well.
Pretty sure that’s 3e, then. Monte Cook was a lead writer on 3e, but had left to open his open company well before 4e came around.
I don't see why they would have gotten rid of spells like Invisibility, Fly, and Suggestion.
Then, looking at the Demon side of things, they did something really strange. They kept several spells for the CR 9 Glabrezu, but got rid of every single spell from the CR 13 Nalfeshnee even though they have the same INT score.
For comparison, the 3e MM listed the following spells for Glabrezu: burning hands, chaos hammer, charm person, confusion, death knell, deeper darkness, desecrate, detect good, dispel magic, enlarge, mirror image, reverse gravity, shatter, unholy blight, teleport without error, and power word stun.*
The 3e MM listed the following spells for Nalfeshnee: alter self, call lightning, chaos hammer, chill touch, death knell, deeper darkness, desecrate, detect magic, feeblemind, forget, greater dispelling, invisibility (self), magic circle against good, mirror image, raise dead, slow, teleport without error, unholy aura, unholy blight, and web.
* Italicized spells are not in the PHB or another 5e sourcebook that I am aware of.
Their design goals seem muddled and inconsistent. It makes no sense that a CR 13 demon would not have spellcasting when their CR 9 rival clearly does. I understand why they would get rid of spells that were weak for the CR, or felt redundant, or just did not exist in the PHB, but Detect Magic and Invisibility you would just expect most higher CR Fiends to have due to their practicality. And why let Glabrezu retain a powerful spell like Power Word Stun, and not provide anything of similar power or greater power to Nalfeshnee?
In 3.5e spells were more limited, in some ways, also. A monster who doesn't have special feats for Combat Casting is gonna have a hard time casting in melee, for example. Summoning spells are really slow, with the summoned creature only appearing the turn after you cast it, and with you being unable to move on the same turn as casting it. Attack spells were based on physical abilities, not your casting ability.
But even ignoring that: all the spells in the world wouldn't really matter if, say, you have a melee attack that hits for 300d6 force damage with a +99 to hit.
Actually they are pretty consistent, you're just looking at the wrong metrics.The top priority for 5e monsters is that they be easy to run, so each monster gets one "Thing" it can do that differentiates it from others, and everything else gets junked. For Glabrezu, the Thing is spellcasting and for Nalfeshnee the Thing is the horror aura thing. Sometimes it also gets a passive feature, usually related to the type of monster it is.
Almost all of the exceptions to this are "centerpiece" monsters that are supposed to be special and limited in the amount and circumstances where they show up. And some - most beasts for instance - don't even get a Thing. Or their Thing is attacking with their tail instead of their claws.
Same as in many other places, 5e supposes that by limiting monster rules and mechanics, the DM has more bandwidth to differentiate the monsters through presentation and roleplay instead. Or to allow new DMs to get through an encounter without poring through spell lists for every other monster.
As for CR comparisons, you have to understand that CR is calculated in a way that ignores a lot of stuff. The formula has to do with its defenses and the damage it can do. The Nalfeeshnee has higher AC and HP than the Glabrezu and hits harder. Yes Glabrezu gets PWS, but since that does 0 damage it is mostly discounted in the formula (this is also why pixies can be 1/4 CR despite having the 4th level spell polymorph - it technically does no damage). Just in general it's all very vague and fuzzy and results in CR not really meaning much.
Personally I like a little more crunch to my monsters, but I homebrew pretty much everything at this point so I just use official stuff as starting points.
In 3.5e spells were more limited, in some ways, also. A monster who doesn't have special feats for Combat Casting is gonna have a hard time casting in melee, for example. Summoning spells are really slow, with the summoned creature only appearing the turn after you cast it, and with you being unable to move on the same turn as casting it. Attack spells were based on physical abilities, not your casting ability.
But even ignoring that: all the spells in the world wouldn't really matter if, say, you have a melee attack that hits for 300d6 force damage with a +99 to hit.
Hmmm. Oh, I did not notice that 5e Bone Devils have flight as a movement speed. I guess that solves the issue of the fly spell. Nobody mentioned that but i was scratching my head about why they would get rid of such an essential movement spell to deal with flying PCs.
I absolutely get why they would get rid of summoning spells in the stat block. Weak undead or duplicates of the monster you're already running are easy to drop into a combat at DM discrestion. My main concern is that a true Devil/Baatezu that is supposed to embody Lawful Evil feels more like "Evil Pegasus with scorpion tail" than a true Devil. If you look at the folklore about "the Devil", there's usually an emphasis on adherence to the letter of the pact made with a mortal, manipulation of mortal to think they are getting what they want, and then suffering to those who can't outsmart the Devil. What they've done is to turn most 5e devils into bruisers, even when they have the INT stat for strategy and tactics. By removing all the spells from most non-Archdevils, they've actually reduced the flavor of the monster.
Actually they are pretty consistent, you're just looking at the wrong metrics.The top priority for 5e monsters is that they be easy to run, so each monster gets one "Thing" it can do that differentiates it from others, and everything else gets junked. For Glabrezu, the Thing is spellcasting and for Nalfeshnee the Thing is the horror aura thing. Sometimes it also gets a passive feature, usually related to the type of monster it is.
Almost all of the exceptions to this are "centerpiece" monsters that are supposed to be special and limited in the amount and circumstances where they show up. And some - most beasts for instance - don't even get a Thing. Or their Thing is attacking with their tail instead of their claws.
Same as in many other places, 5e supposes that by limiting monster rules and mechanics, the DM has more bandwidth to differentiate the monsters through presentation and roleplay instead. Or to allow new DMs to get through an encounter without poring through spell lists for every other monster.
As for CR comparisons, you have to understand that CR is calculated in a way that ignores a lot of stuff. The formula has to do with its defenses and the damage it can do. The Nalfeeshnee has higher AC and HP than the Glabrezu and hits harder. Yes Glabrezu gets PWS, but since that does 0 damage it is mostly discounted in the formula (this is also why pixies can be 1/4 CR despite having the 4th level spell polymorph - it technically does no damage). Just in general it's all very vague and fuzzy and results in CR not really meaning much.
Personally I like a little more crunch to my monsters, but I homebrew pretty much everything at this point so I just use official stuff as starting points.
Oh, I understand the steamlining design goal. I'm pretty well opposed to much of it. Even comparing the MToF demon lords to the MPMoM demon lords, the latter have less spells. This is silly because demon lords should be the very definition of "centerpiece monster." Some streamlining is occasionally useful, but this feels like overkill.
I referenced CR because it's a simple number. I know that it's highly imperfect as metric. The point being that if a weaker Demon has spellcasting, why shouldn't a stronger Demon also not get some spellcasting. If you look at the lore from 3e, Nalfeshnee are the creatures that judge the souls damned to the Abyss. They are like judges in county court or something. That's real power over the destinies of souls. Instead, what we get in 5e is "flying scary pig demon that hit hard" that, despite an INT of 19, has zero spellcasting ability and therefore poorly adapts to party tactics on the fly. This is precisely what I mean by streamlining being injurious to lore. You get no intimation from the description or stat block that Nalfeshnee is a judge of souls, that this is not just some dumb brute who fights like most Beasts would (albeit a beast with Magic Resistance).
What would have been better, IMO, is if they had optional spell lists in a different colored font or separate text block to add to monsters that had innate spellcasting in 3e. That way, DMs who are uncomfortable with complex combat know to ignore the complex stuff, but retain the knowledge for DMs who are more comfortable running spellcasters. We shouldn't have to buy a 2e or 3e sourcebook to get some idea of what kind of spells and abilities to add to our homebrew Demons and Devils. Demons and Devils that PCs expect to encounter in Tier 2+ should feel like personifications of malevolence and destruction, not just in a "roll dice and hope they don't crit" way but also in a ways that actively disrupt the tactics of PCs. Mobility spells like Dimension Door and stealth spells like Invisibility are enormously useful in that regard in that they allow enemies to completely bypass the "tanks" of the party to go after the squishier people in the backrow not to mention the fun things DMs can do to set up traps triggered by enemies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was looking through 4th edition Demons (Tanari) and Devils (Baatezu). They had quite a few more spells. Also, many could only be damaged with magic weapons. That got changed to being merely resistant to non-magic weapons for the most part in 5e.
Does anybody know why the devs decided to weaken them in this edition? Seriously, the current Demons and Devils would get slaughtered if they had to fight their older edition selves.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm doing some homebrew and want to understand how the changes between editions affect the play experience:
A) Were Devils and Demons too hard to run in combat in 4e?
B) How do the innovations in 5e's Action Economy affect the spellcasting of monsters compared to pre-5e editions?
C) Are Devils and Demons much more commonly used in 5e modules, thus the devs wanted to make them easier to kill?
D) Is there a gaming philosophy influence here? I.e. did Devils and Demons get weaker in 5e because 5e is more about "heroic PCs" and role-playing and less about combat than back in 4e?
There’s a lot of other mechanical changes between the editions. Action economy is completely different. The math is different. Things with the same name are meant to challenge characters of a different level. It‘s really hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
Im not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, just the comparison isn’t clear cut.
I'm well aware that comparing hit points and AC, the raw math aspects isn't fair. What I'm curious about is the lack of spells and abilities.
For a comparison example:
5e Bone Devil:
Immunities: Fire and Poison
Resistances: Cold; bludgeon, slash, pierce from non-magical, non-silver weapons
Abilities: Telepathy 120 feet, Devil's Sight, Magic Resistance
Actions: Multiattack, Sting (inflicts Poisoned)
4e Osyluth (Bone Devil):
Immunities: Fire and Poison, non-magic weapons
Resistances: Cold and Acid; damage reduction
Abilities: Telepathy (100 feet), Fear Aura (5 feet rad.), See perfectly in darkness (basically Devil's Sight), Summon Baatezu
Spells: animate dead, charm person, dimensional anchor, doom, fly, invisbility (self), major image, suggestion, wall of ice, teleport (no error)
Actions: Sting (temp STR drain)
If you compare the two based on the non-stat portions, the 4e Bone Devil is clearly stronger. The 5e version has a general Magic Resistance, but has no spellcasting, no teleport of any kind. The vast majority of Devils and Demons in 4e had teleport. It feels like in 5e, they all got nerfed.
Everybody had weird movement options in 4e. Players, monsters, even environmental hazards. Also, there was a clearly defined progression of magic weapons: PCs would simply have the magic weapons appropriate to their level, most of the time. So I'm not sure that the weapon immunity mattered at all.
For what it's worth, the 5e one communicates a lot more clearly what it's for. This is a close-range bruiser. I assume the 4e one was given a role, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it would be. All of its options are doing different things, there's no focus. Controller, maybe??? Because it has Wall of Ice? If you stripped away everything that doesn't support the close-range bruiser role, it's actually a lot less spooky. All those spells, gone. Summon Baatezu, gone (though I believe this is still an optional feature in 5e's version). Just one attack but it's a nastier attack. We're trading Magic Resistance for Fear Aura, and idk which is better tbh.
Regarding the second point, at 5 ft, I'd say magic resistance is better. There's only like two or three classes that seriously suffer from trying to fight at stand off range rather than melee, whereas magic resistance suddenly makes it a lot harder to land all of the really powerful spells. For the first, I expect they scaled back non-magical weapon damage immunity and introduced silvered weapons to theoretically allow for DM's to run low magic campaigns where magic weapons are truly rare from the party's perspective, rather than something every weapon user is essentially required to have to fight magical beings. Granted, in practice I still find the general expectation is that the party will start picking up +1 weapons around level 5, so that did kinda fall flat. We'll see if they try to do something about that in 1D&D or if they've simply accepted that +X weapons are functionally a staple of weapon users after tier 1.
Now, regarding the shift away from spellcasting, I expect it was to diversify the fiends a bit and allow for some more straightforward options for a DM who wants a big scary fiend and doesn't want to have to keep track of spell effects. It's worth noting that a lot of the high CR fiends still have some degree of spellcasting or a magic power, particularly the devils.
This text comes from a Forgotten Realms wiki:
"Commonly known as bone devils, osyluths were skeletal baatezu that served as the police force of Hell, acting as taskmasters, disciplinarians, interrogators, and inquisitors that promoted infernal morality. Driven by hateful rage and bitter envy, they delighted in demoting the defiant and bitterly resented their superiors."
(It seems to be a mix of 3e, 5e, and Planescape lore)
So i guess you're right about the bruiser part. They seem strangely weak, though, for a creature whose job is to literally police Hell itself. I guess i should homebrew some Negative-Paladin spells to go with that role. Like Smite spells that do psychic damage or something.
I'm pretty sure he's actually talking about 3.5e. The 4th edition bone devil most certainly did not have any spells.
I'm not sure, actually. The darn book does not state which edition it is for. The main devs were Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams. Definitely not 2nd edition because it has the d20 system trademark on the back cover. Also Wizards of the Coast is clearly printed there as well.
d20 system trademark definitely means 3/3.5e. The 4th edition Bone Devil (Oslyugh) was somewhat less boring than the 5e version (if, on inspection, sorta broken) but didn't have any spells.
Pretty sure that’s 3e, then. Monte Cook was a lead writer on 3e, but had left to open his open company well before 4e came around.
I don't see why they would have gotten rid of spells like Invisibility, Fly, and Suggestion.
Then, looking at the Demon side of things, they did something really strange. They kept several spells for the CR 9 Glabrezu, but got rid of every single spell from the CR 13 Nalfeshnee even though they have the same INT score.
For comparison, the 3e MM listed the following spells for Glabrezu: burning hands, chaos hammer, charm person, confusion, death knell, deeper darkness, desecrate, detect good, dispel magic, enlarge, mirror image, reverse gravity, shatter, unholy blight, teleport without error, and power word stun.*
The 3e MM listed the following spells for Nalfeshnee: alter self, call lightning, chaos hammer, chill touch, death knell, deeper darkness, desecrate, detect magic, feeblemind, forget, greater dispelling, invisibility (self), magic circle against good, mirror image, raise dead, slow, teleport without error, unholy aura, unholy blight, and web.
* Italicized spells are not in the PHB or another 5e sourcebook that I am aware of.
Their design goals seem muddled and inconsistent. It makes no sense that a CR 13 demon would not have spellcasting when their CR 9 rival clearly does. I understand why they would get rid of spells that were weak for the CR, or felt redundant, or just did not exist in the PHB, but Detect Magic and Invisibility you would just expect most higher CR Fiends to have due to their practicality. And why let Glabrezu retain a powerful spell like Power Word Stun, and not provide anything of similar power or greater power to Nalfeshnee?
Because they don't just have spells...?
In 3.5e spells were more limited, in some ways, also. A monster who doesn't have special feats for Combat Casting is gonna have a hard time casting in melee, for example. Summoning spells are really slow, with the summoned creature only appearing the turn after you cast it, and with you being unable to move on the same turn as casting it. Attack spells were based on physical abilities, not your casting ability.
But even ignoring that: all the spells in the world wouldn't really matter if, say, you have a melee attack that hits for 300d6 force damage with a +99 to hit.
I would note that high CR creatures in general got weaker in 5e, because that was kind of the point of bounded accuracy.
Actually they are pretty consistent, you're just looking at the wrong metrics.The top priority for 5e monsters is that they be easy to run, so each monster gets one "Thing" it can do that differentiates it from others, and everything else gets junked. For Glabrezu, the Thing is spellcasting and for Nalfeshnee the Thing is the horror aura thing. Sometimes it also gets a passive feature, usually related to the type of monster it is.
Almost all of the exceptions to this are "centerpiece" monsters that are supposed to be special and limited in the amount and circumstances where they show up. And some - most beasts for instance - don't even get a Thing. Or their Thing is attacking with their tail instead of their claws.
Same as in many other places, 5e supposes that by limiting monster rules and mechanics, the DM has more bandwidth to differentiate the monsters through presentation and roleplay instead. Or to allow new DMs to get through an encounter without poring through spell lists for every other monster.
As for CR comparisons, you have to understand that CR is calculated in a way that ignores a lot of stuff. The formula has to do with its defenses and the damage it can do. The Nalfeeshnee has higher AC and HP than the Glabrezu and hits harder. Yes Glabrezu gets PWS, but since that does 0 damage it is mostly discounted in the formula (this is also why pixies can be 1/4 CR despite having the 4th level spell polymorph - it technically does no damage). Just in general it's all very vague and fuzzy and results in CR not really meaning much.
Personally I like a little more crunch to my monsters, but I homebrew pretty much everything at this point so I just use official stuff as starting points.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Hmmm. Oh, I did not notice that 5e Bone Devils have flight as a movement speed. I guess that solves the issue of the fly spell. Nobody mentioned that but i was scratching my head about why they would get rid of such an essential movement spell to deal with flying PCs.
I absolutely get why they would get rid of summoning spells in the stat block. Weak undead or duplicates of the monster you're already running are easy to drop into a combat at DM discrestion. My main concern is that a true Devil/Baatezu that is supposed to embody Lawful Evil feels more like "Evil Pegasus with scorpion tail" than a true Devil. If you look at the folklore about "the Devil", there's usually an emphasis on adherence to the letter of the pact made with a mortal, manipulation of mortal to think they are getting what they want, and then suffering to those who can't outsmart the Devil. What they've done is to turn most 5e devils into bruisers, even when they have the INT stat for strategy and tactics. By removing all the spells from most non-Archdevils, they've actually reduced the flavor of the monster.
Oh, I understand the steamlining design goal. I'm pretty well opposed to much of it. Even comparing the MToF demon lords to the MPMoM demon lords, the latter have less spells. This is silly because demon lords should be the very definition of "centerpiece monster." Some streamlining is occasionally useful, but this feels like overkill.
I referenced CR because it's a simple number. I know that it's highly imperfect as metric. The point being that if a weaker Demon has spellcasting, why shouldn't a stronger Demon also not get some spellcasting. If you look at the lore from 3e, Nalfeshnee are the creatures that judge the souls damned to the Abyss. They are like judges in county court or something. That's real power over the destinies of souls. Instead, what we get in 5e is "flying scary pig demon that hit hard" that, despite an INT of 19, has zero spellcasting ability and therefore poorly adapts to party tactics on the fly. This is precisely what I mean by streamlining being injurious to lore. You get no intimation from the description or stat block that Nalfeshnee is a judge of souls, that this is not just some dumb brute who fights like most Beasts would (albeit a beast with Magic Resistance).
What would have been better, IMO, is if they had optional spell lists in a different colored font or separate text block to add to monsters that had innate spellcasting in 3e. That way, DMs who are uncomfortable with complex combat know to ignore the complex stuff, but retain the knowledge for DMs who are more comfortable running spellcasters. We shouldn't have to buy a 2e or 3e sourcebook to get some idea of what kind of spells and abilities to add to our homebrew Demons and Devils. Demons and Devils that PCs expect to encounter in Tier 2+ should feel like personifications of malevolence and destruction, not just in a "roll dice and hope they don't crit" way but also in a ways that actively disrupt the tactics of PCs. Mobility spells like Dimension Door and stealth spells like Invisibility are enormously useful in that regard in that they allow enemies to completely bypass the "tanks" of the party to go after the squishier people in the backrow not to mention the fun things DMs can do to set up traps triggered by enemies.