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

[Ilbranteloth]

5e is all about bounded accuracy. Does that make monsters easier to kill? Obviously the answer is yes. Can the DM compensate? Obviously the answer is yes. Does 5E provide the building blocks to build in complexity by using a mechanic like CR? The answer is no, because monster CR is all over the board. It is the latter part that bugs me the most in regards to having to do all the work as a DM to make monster interesting. In my opinion, that is the price you pay when the design focus is simplicity. The way I dealt with it in the past is play a more complex game. If I had my druthers I would like a game that was between 5E and Pathfinder.

Agreed. And in addition to bounded accuracy, the game is based on the premise that failure is not fun. Thus, things are skewed toward the success end of the spectrum for the PCs. One of the reasons I've found that bumping up the DC for everything by 5 points is a much better fit for my view of the way the game world should work.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

I get you but what I want from my games is different than what I want from fiction. I want to be able to have a solo foe challenge the entire party.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I guess I'll just chalk that up to pop cultural drift, then. Clearly, the original Ravenloft designers were not drawing from Blade or Castlevania.

But we're all on board with balors needing to be tougher, right? A balor should be able to take a high-level party in open combat?

I think part of the problem is also a misinterpretation of the original design approach. Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood have both commented that the challenge of monsters, certain spell levels, and levels of NPCs were all set with the expectation that they should be significantly higher than the PCs so they couldn't be easily destroyed. Of course, once they were of a given level, the expectation is that the PCs could gain them as well.

When 2e was released, there were a number of monsters specifically targeted to make them much more challenging, dragons being one of them. When demons and devils were added back, they were more fearsome too. Again, as 2e/2.5e continued, character capabilities caught up and eventually surpassed these. And that continued throughout every edition.

Combined with the fact that many players are fans of other genres, like superheroes, or mediums, like video games, etc., the game took a decided shift away from a more "realistic" approach to a heroic (sometimes superheroic) direction. Ironically, while 2e was creeping in that direction, BECMI was going full steam toward the Immortal set where it was expected that characters could one day become gods. They were often disdained by the AD&D crowd. But I think 3e (combined with the constant power creep of both 2e and the Forgotten Realms) moved toward that direction anyway.

As for the Balor? They were pretty fearsome in 1e, but their biggest defense was the ability to gate in additional demons. They could gate in a glabrezu (80%) or a nalfeshnee (20%). There was a 70% chance in a given round that they would do so, and this was in addition to their attacks. There was no limit to how many times they could attempt to gate in more help. If they didn't gate in more demons, their most likely magical attack was to use a Symbol spell (fear, discord, sleep or stunning). Again, at will.

Otherwise they were 8+8 Hit Dice (8th level monster with +1 Con modifier), with an attack that did 1d12+1 damage, or their whip that did 2d6 to 4d6 damage because they made their ring of fire and dragged you into it with the whip, the damage depending on which of the 6 Balor you met. So no, not that tough. It was all about the minions. Oh, they did have psionics too, if you used that.

AC was -2, or plate with a +4 shield. Once again, I think ACs have been lowered too much for my taste. Also, magical weapons only.

Again, things changed in later editions, as did expectations. Answering your question also requires a definition of "high level party."

For my tastes, all fiends are underpowered, but more importantly, they aren't fiendish enough. Devils in my campaign tend to operate by deceit rather than open combat. Because of the way I handle fiendish access to the material plane, their initial goal is always to find a loophole or method to remain in the material plane. Their goal is always the same - corrupt as many souls as possible to send to the Hells after death. That grants them power in the Hells. Devils killed on the material plane lose standing in the Hells. So they avoid open combat if possible.

Demons, on the other hand, are a source of sheer destruction. So they are looking to cause the most pain and suffering as possible in the short amount of time they are present, or attempt to possess something or someone. They thrive off of the suffering itself, and gain power in the Abyss from it. Mere destruction or killing isn't sufficient - it must be as horrendous and horrifying as possible. Unless somebody voluntarily gives them some means of staying on the material plane, their visit it (thankfully) short. It can be extended indefinitely by possessing something or someone, but they have little patience for extended waiting around. Possession is usually among their most effective approaches, for the average person, seeing a loved one so afflicted feeds a demon constantly, and it's often a means of driving others to horrible acts of evil which will further feed its hunger for chaos and destruction.

The main issue they both have is that getting to the material plane is very difficult. So they each want to maximize their stay. So if a Balor can immolate a group of people upon its death, knowing that a death by fire is terrifying, painful and horrifying, it will benefit upon its return to the abyss with a growth in power if that's all it can manage to do.

Meeting a Balor in the Abyss on the other hand...heh, heh. That's an entirely different story. The MM stats don't begin to cover that.

As you can see, my concerns with monster design in D&D has far less to do with the stats, and much more to do with the concept.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Here are 2 features that will make a lot of boss monsters tougher:

Living Demiplane: A monster with this feature has an aura of 20 feet. Attacks, spells, or magical affects that originate outside of the aura have no effect on the monster. If the monster is teleported/banished against its will, all creatures inside the aura must make a DC 20 dexterity save or be teleported/banished with the monster. This affect is in place regardless of whether the teleporting/banishing magic was limited by either number or type of creature.

Fiendish Intellect: Each creature attacking a monster with this feature for the first time compares its intelligence score against the monster's. If the creature's score is less, the monster knows the type of the creature, if it has a class (and what class), spells known, and current hit points. If the creature has less intelligence than the monster, and it carries any magical items, it will take 1d20 necrotic damage the first time it attempts to use each item. If a creature has less intelligence than the monster and it attempts to summon any other creature, it must roll a D20. On a roll of 10 or less, the summoned creatures are hostile to the creature that attempted the summoning. If the monster's intelligence score is 5 or more points higher than the creatures, the roll is made with disadvantage.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

To me, the difference between and good villain and a bad villain is that a good villain can always back up their ploys when they need to. Like say Dracula has hordes of minions, and he's impossible to pin down because he has easy ways to escape, but if you actually corner him and there's no way out -- you should still be in for the fight of your life, because this is Dracula, and he eats heroes for breakfast.

Did you ever read The Call of Cthulhu? Do you remember how tense and dramatic the buildup to his awakening was? Do you remember how quickly he went down, like a chump, and how he's been the laughingstock of the entire genre ever since? Cthulhu is a prime example of a bad horror villain. He's a joke, and that's how he will always be remembered.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I am curious is this all boils down to the base argument or whether PCs and monsters should share the same mechanics, and if those mechanics should increase in complexity based on level. If there was anything 5E could change for the better it would be to build everything from the same building blocks. Otherwise if you have complex PCs and simple monsters it tends to get boring, or if you have monsters with arbitrary abilities like legendary actions and there is no PC equivalent, then the PCs become boring. Or at least you start to make comparisons.

Well, I certainly think there are a lot of monsters that would have benefitted from templates instead of straight stats. Many undead to start.

One thing 3e (and 4e) did well is to provide more tools for modifying monsters.

I don't have any issue with legendary actions in regards to PCs. The Round/Turn model combined with Action Economy pretty much requires something like lair and legendary actions to alter the normal model. Although since I've entirely eliminated rounds in my combat the legendary and lair actions simply become other actions they can take.

Having said that, they could have built them off of a bonus action/reaction model, and allowed more of each to higher level monsters (and also, potentially, higher level characters). Or they could just have a multiattack that allows all of those attacks. The main problem with that approach is that their entire turn is taken at the same time, instead of spread throughout the round. So for the solo monsters to work at all, it's pretty much needed. Also, 5e continues the model of fewer monsters in an encounter and a single initiative roll for all of them. So lair and legendary actions are a way to address the fact that the monsters all have the same initiative count.

While I appreciate the idea of monsters and NPCs using the same basic system as characters, most of the time it's too much and too complex. Having said that, it's not too difficult to come up with a few "standard" builds for different levels of different classes to add some additional abilities to them, particularly NPCs. The problem that usually arises with such a system, is that the DM has to be as proficient in using the different character abilities as the players. So simplified versions are often easier to manage.

That's not to say it can't be done. My players don't find my monsters boring, simple or otherwise, though. The approach used in VGtM (even if I don't like their particular content) to address common tactics is usually sufficient.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

The British did come up with a plan to kill Hitler but abandoned it because it might actually prolong the war.

The encounter rules in 5E do not really work, a lot of CR 10-15 critters are really fore level 7-10 PCs. People have expectations of higher CR stuff due to 3E presumably but you probably want to assume a more 1E mentality where a Balor had 8+8 hit dice.

I noticed this back in 2014 but more or less got accused of playing the game wrong when I pointed it out on the forums.

 

[Uchawi]

You are playing the game wrong! Just kidding.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

To me, the difference between and good villain and a bad villain is that a good villain can always back up their ploys when they need to. Like say Dracula has hordes of minions, and he's impossible to pin down because he has easy ways to escape, but if you actually corner him and there's no way out -- you should still be in for the fight of your life, because this is Dracula, and he eats heroes for breakfast.

Did you ever read The Call of Cthulhu? Do you remember how tense and dramatic the buildup to his awakening was? Do you remember how quickly he went down, like a chump, and how he's been the laughingstock of the entire genre ever since? Cthulhu is a prime example of a bad horror villain. He's a joke, and that's how he will always be remembered.

And Dracula died relatively quickly, only killing Quincy with a knife if I recall. It was the death of Quincy that takes center stage, not Dracula. They attack him when he's being taken off a ship in his coffin.

I also don't recall Cthulhu being considered a joke, and the mythos has only increased in popularity and acclaim over time. The Telegraph picked him as the 26th best villain of all time. It's a pretty common trope I think in literature, that what we fear is often greater than the reality.

I don't disagree that something like a vampire should be terrifying. In my campaigns, energy drain is a terrifying ability, you permanently gain a level of exhaustion, and that's enough to do it. I mix in a bit of the movie variety of the Vampire Lestat in terms of abilities (primarily the speed - they can use their reaction to avoid an attack it can see and dash without provoking opportunity attacks).

The real fear, I think, in something like a vampire, though, is not knowing how to kill it. The horror is what the vampire is. The fear is that you don't know how to stop it or kill it (and originally sunlight didn't kill Dracula). Since there are more ways to kill a vampire in D&D, it isn't as fearful. Since everybody knows what those ways are, it's not as much of a challenge. One way to alter that challenge is to make them stronger. I'd prefer to change their weaknesses and/or make them smart(er).

That's kind of the same concept behind the Tarrasque (Godzilla) or King Kong. The creature is too impervious to destruction by normal means, so a weakness must be discovered and exploited. But that's against the D&D design mantra now. Not to mention, the weaknesses are already known, so the story doesn't exist unless the DM changes the weakness.

The majority of the Bond villains can't do anything special once they are cornered. Of course, they are just people, not monsters. Exceptions? I can't think of any offhand. We know Vader and Palpatine could eventually be killed, there are only two Sith, and so many have died before. The end of Star Wars is a great example, actually, of a climactic battle without a BBEG. Empire Strikes Back obviously has the fight with Vader, but Luke was barely trained at that point and didn't stand a chance. Return of the Jedi sort of did, but it was Vader that ended it, I don't think Luke was powerful enough yet. And ultimately, it wasn't about destroying Palpatine, since that would have been accomplished anyway when the Star Destroyer was destroyed - it was about saving Vader. Luke would have been satisfied at that point just to take Vader with him and come to get Palpatine later.

Ultimately I think the problem with the BBEG design (outside of a video game) is that D&D has too many variables. The CR system (or anything similar) can only give a rough estimate of how difficult a given creature will be against a party of a given level. As others have pointed out, when you add optional rules like feats into the mix, the balance is thrown off with the original calculations, and even the state of the party - do they meet it just after a long rest, or at the end of a day?

That doesn't mean it can't be done, although the designers probably have a different opinion of the tools and guidance they've provided compared to many here. I certainly don't mind an occasional BBEG that is a difficult fight in one on many combat, but to make that the defining feature of a "good" villain seems a bit restrictive, no?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I think it came from arcade games. However, an arcade game boss is typically designed to pancake you the first few times you encounter him, until you learn his tricks. You normally can't do that in an RPG without a time travel or save/reload mechanism, so it doesn't really make sense to emulate arcade game tropes via "boss fights." Most arcade game players would be disappointed if they always best the boss the first time they fought him--but modern RPGers seem to expect it, judging by published modules and forum discussions.

Modern RPGers are wimps in that regard. It's more fun to run a campaign without "boss fights" at all than one where the big boss is designed to lose every time. That's not a boss--that's a chump.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app