D&D 5E When Fiends Attack: Are Balors, Pit Fiends and Ultraloths too weak?

[Barolo]

I don't know anywhere where it says that, but maybe I'm overlooking something.

Polymorph certainly seems to feel that level and CR are interchangeable though.

I really thought I read it somewhere in the DMG, but now that you mentioned polymorph, there is a real chance my mind is playing tricks on me. Unfortunately I won't be able to clarify myself right now, as my books are 15000 km away.

Sure, absolutely. "Medium" fights are a slaughter, like beating up on a kindergartner. The monsters are typically outnumbered and outgunned. The only justification for so-called "Medium" fights to occur is if the monsters think they're dealing with a bunch of standard humans, not actually realizing that it's a whole band of high-level humans. Even there, the realistic reaction is for the monsters to bail out of the fight as soon as they realize what they're dealing with, e.g. after a Fireball gets thrown and another human fells two orcs with two swipes of his axe.

One of the biggest reasons I hate "Medium" fights is that after low levels, it's really hard to make them make sense from an in-world perspective. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to explain why fourteen Umber Hulks and their Neogi masters (including an 8th level wizard) don't knuckle under to a mere four humans--that makes it a good encounter from a story perspective, but it's also quadruple-Deadly or higher. Ditto for a squad of eight giants, or a drow war-party. So I just embrace quadruple-Deadly+.

Sounds like fun to me.

Possibly. Or possibly the solo monster was run poorly. I like spellcasting dragons, but even the base dragon can be a lot more scary if you use it to its full potential as a hunter. (See: discussion on Strahd, earlier in this thread.)

Yes, I was following that closely, and I acknowledge Strahd is a formidable opponent that will probably crush all but the most patient and resourceful 10th level parties. Anyhow, Strahd is CR 15. It seems to me this also suggests solo monsters should be chosen from a CR range higher than the adventuring group.

That makes the dragon take a lot longer than three rounds though, and it assumes some narrative importance; some people don't seem to like that. They want a straightforward fight with a big brute; these people are the ones who tend to be most disappointed with solo creatures, especially if their players have a high nova potential from paladin smiting or similar. (Sometimes these DMs get disappointed in how quickly their demons/dragons died to a PC nova, without contemplating the cost of that nova to the PCs.)

I find it interesting here in the forums that several people mention fights being very short. It is definitely not my experience. On that fight against the old white dragon in the last chapter of HotDQ, the party I was DMing for had to play a very narrow cat and mouse fight, them being the mice crawling through narrow tunnels and trying to squish some advantage in order to engage, while being chased by the dragon. The fact that the dragon had blindsight made it all very scary to them, as the dragon could usually anticipate their position and preempt his offence. The fight not only took several rounds, it actually was interrupted twice, with each side retreating to try to recover and set a different strategy. In the end, they didn't even kill the beast, but left him with so low HPs that he absolutely had to drop the fight. The heroes themselves were not in their best shapes, with HPs in the single digits for almost everyone, they suffered no casualties, but it was almost a TPK at the same time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I find it interesting here in the forums that several people mention fights being very short. It is definitely not my experience. On that fight against the old white dragon in the last chapter of HotDQ, the party I was DMing for had to play a very narrow cat and mouse fight, them being the mice crawling through narrow tunnels and trying to squish some advantage in order to engage, while being chased by the dragon. The fact that the dragon had blindsight made it all very scary to them, as the dragon could usually anticipate their position and preempt his offence. The fight not only took several rounds, it actually was interrupted twice, with each side retreating to try to recover and set a different strategy. In the end, they didn't even kill the beast, but left him with so low HPs that he absolutely had to drop the fight. The heroes themselves were not in their best shapes, with HPs in the single digits for almost everyone, they suffered no casualties, but it was almost a TPK at the same time.

Conflicts at my table vary in length between very short (in rounds or table time or both) and several hours long.

Most fights only have two to five rounds of (three or four) PCs (and occasionally NPCs) and monsters actively making attack rolls, though. The rest of the time is maneuvering, and sometimes intimatidation/negotiation/denoument. Tougher fights (the aforementioned quadruple-deadly+) sometimes have nine or ten rounds of attack rolls, I think.

Honestly though I'm not entirely sure what the pattern is. I can think of evenly-matched fights that were over in three rounds (1 3rd level PC + 6 0th-level NPCs vs. 8 pirates), and other evenly-matched fights (1st level Barbarian vs. an Ogre) that went on for nine or ten rounds. I think the longer fights had a lower ratio of damage-to-HP, which obviously makes perfect sense.

 

[Helldritch]

Most of my fights fall in the same round range. 2-5.
But hard to deadly usually last 5 to 10 and sometimes higher depending on the type of fight/opponents.
The shortest fight are usually with lone brute types. From what I see in this forum, that is the normality.

I do wish that some fights with lone brutes could last longer. But I guess that without some heavy modifications it can't be. Unless the CR of the creature is way higher than that of the PC usually handle.

 

[Axaya Hartly]

Definitely a bit late to this discussion but w/e I'll throw this out there; I think the MM is fine, in fact I think that nearly all the creatures in the MM are fine the way they are.

I use them as templates though, but I like that they can be used as is as well. What I mean by templates is that I add classes to some creatures. So like a Pit Fiend is a bad dude no matter what, but give him a lair action or legendary actions and some fighter champion abilities or the meteor spell and he's now capable of being a threat even to other Pit Fiends.

While monsters do play by the same rules as players when I get into the creatures that are effectively demi-gods I think it's okay to goof around a bit.

But my point isn't exactly what I like to do it's that I think the MM is really quickly adjustable which I think may have been the point.

A Pit Fiend in the MM is essentially a 0 level hero among other Pit Fiends.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would have preferred a MM where Pit Fiends and other "generals" and "world destroyers" got enough tricks up their sleeve that any mid-level party would and should lose (unless story dictates otherwise, of course).

And to do so by simply standing there, exercising their powers.

Any time the DM spends hours on prep to set up a particularly devious encounter, sure, that allows him to get away with middling monsters that still are hard on the heroes. But we should not have to do that.

A Balor should be so supremely powerful that it doesn't need a clever DM. It certainly should not need minions. It should just be very very difficult on its lonesome, even when it simply stands there basking in glory.

D&D just doesn't feel right if every BBEG needs minions to do its dirty work. 5th edition really really REALLY needs a "solo monster upgrade pack".

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

My group is now all 10th level, solo monsters in the CR13-15 range are a joke really unless they have a run of bad luck. But I have 6 players and even one more attack with the low AC values really blows things up. If the party gets a little luck or a smite/sneak attack crit things tend to end very quickly. It is a problem I have with 5e, most encounters are pushovers or near TPK.

Edit: If you are using a no feat, no magic items I'm sure a lot of monsters will be a lot more dangerous. I wonder how many groups actually run 5e like that though?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I find it interesting here in the forums that several people mention fights being very short. It is definitely not my experience. On that fight against the old white dragon in the last chapter of HotDQ, the party I was DMing for had to play a very narrow cat and mouse fight, them being the mice crawling through narrow tunnels and trying to squish some advantage in order to engage, while being chased by the dragon. The fact that the dragon had blindsight made it all very scary to them, as the dragon could usually anticipate their position and preempt his offence. The fight not only took several rounds, it actually was interrupted twice, with each side retreating to try to recover and set a different strategy. In the end, they didn't even kill the beast, but left him with so low HPs that he absolutely had to drop the fight. The heroes themselves were not in their best shapes, with HPs in the single digits for almost everyone, they suffered no casualties, but it was almost a TPK at the same time.

I think that the reason most find fights very short is that most DMs don't utilize tactics like that. Much like the standard approach for any encounter with combat is that the monsters don't flee.

I'm not sure I recall any straight combat in 5e even reaching 10 rounds. I've modified the rules enough that they last a lot longer, but are still enjoyable. Essentially because it's things more along what you describe with the white dragon. It's not just "the monster attacks, the character's attack" routine, and it ends because the monsters or the characters flee quite frequently. Which also means that under many circumstances, they have to deal with a given threat more than once.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

IMC monsters try to flee, but unless they teleport or fly the party monk just runs them down and wails on them.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The best way to handle it, in my opinion, is probably to realize that since the world works that way, and few BBEGs think they can stand alone against a group of heroic champions, they simply don't plan to get themselves into such situations. This means playing smart, using minions, tactical retreats, etc. And if you really think about it...how often does a solo BBEG stand up against a whole group of heroes in fiction? Generally they are more than a match for one or two heroes...but a whole party of them? You just don't see that. Partly because heroic fiction rarely has a party 5 characters wailing on a solo BBEG; which is probably because that is substantially less interesting than a party trying to fight their way through hordes of minions and the top lieutenant to get to the BBEG in the first place.

Heck, 5e goes further. The BBEG isn't even necessarily the toughest guy in his organization! The muscle bound lieutenant or fireball flinging sorcerer might have a higher CR than their boss. You almost never see that in recent D&D editions. That in and of itself is a major thing to get used to. The boss isn't necessarily the strongest guy in the group.

I think that you've probably hit the nail on the head as to why the BBEG was never really a thing in my campaigns. In fiction or the real world, you rarely fight the BBEG directly. If you do, it's almost always under their terms.

How do you end WWII in Europe quickly? Kill Hitler. Except that it couldn't be done. Or at least nobody figured out a way to do it.

The Bond villains? Also rarely a direct fight between Bond and them until the end. And it's their technology and minions that are there to protect the villain. If the Bond villains need to learn anything, it's to remember that they stayed alive for the first 3/4 of the movie by not confronting Bond directly.

Villains - real villains - like Capone or other mob bosses for example, are very, very hard to get to directly. Oh sure, you might get a chance to talk to them directly, but in a place and time of their choosing, making it virtually impossible for you to do anything and escape if you succeeded. It took three movies to get to Vader directly, and in the end it was Vader that destroyed the emperor, not Luke. He wouldn't have succeeded had he simply tried to kill Vader and Palpatine. And in a world with monsters and magic, such bosses would leverage those too, or at least make sure they are protected against them.

Even Sauron couldn't be destroyed directly. I don't know if it was video games, or what that started steering gamers toward the idea that there is a BBEG to beat at the end of every adventure. Certainly a lot of published adventures had that, but not quite in the same manner as we saw later on.

Personally, I prefer the idea of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., or in the Realms, the Zhentarim, where you know you can't defeat the entire organization, much less Manshoon and/of Fzoul. You could only hope to foil the organization's latest local plans. Yes, there are bigger guys in charge, but if they are really intelligent enough to be that important, they will also have escape plans. If you actually do get through all of their defenses and minions and corner them where they can't escape, it's the final victory that's the climax, not simply another combat to kill them.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Isn't that the point, though? You shouldn't need or want to play him like Strahd, if playing him like Strahd means that he slinks around in the shadows and only attacks when you're trying to sleep. Because an enemy who does that is lame, and not awesome, and we want Strahd to appear awesome.

We do?

My daughter's currently favorite movies are the Alien franchise, and slinking around in the shadows is almost exclusively what they do, and almost always attack individual targets. The scenes where there are multiple people with multiple xenomorphs is where the aliens get slaughtered. Thrillers and horror are almost entirely built upon the idea of the monster in the shadows that attacks when you are alone and least (most) expect it.

To me, BBEGs - at least intelligent ones - are the BBEG specifically because they are smart enough to know when to run - when not to attack. Most of the greatest villains rarely did their own fighting, and never when it wasn't assured that they would win. They almost never play the odds, and the time when they are ultimately destroyed is when they underestimate the hero.