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

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

A plan is different than execution, though. We'll never know if it would actually have worked. But somebody who commits suicide rather than surrender or admit defeat can't have been a very formidable in direct combat.

I'm less concerned with the actual Hit Dice as I am the purpose of the monster. If all a Balor is is a bag of hit points that can do some fire damage to you, and might drop a character or two to 0 hit points, then it's not really much of a monster. And if it's designed "to be a challenge" then the AC/HP/Resistances are a moving target based on your campaign and party.

To me, a meaningful design approach is to consider the world as a whole, and then design abilities around what people would find terrifying. For example, a lion should be capable of killing the average person with ease. That's 90%+ of the population. A Balor should be able to destroy a significant portion of an average town if it wanted to. As written, both of them meet that criteria.

The PCs aren't "the average person," they are the exception. So the rules need to determine how much better than the average person they can be, and when that exceptional ability isn't as important. That also sets a baseline for determining what creatures may or may not be dangerous to them. The CR system may very well be flawed, in particular with recommending a single monster against a party of 4, but I think that's in part because they look primarily at the potential damage output of the creature, and whether that can kill a single "average" character within two rounds. The expectation that the creature will last at least one round, and 50% of the time or so will gain two attack sequences if it wins initiative in the first round.

The problem I have with the system as a whole isn't the amount of damage they may or may not do, nor how many rounds they'll last. It's all about whether the players/characters will fear the monster. Because of the rules, dropping to 0 hit points isn't a big deal anymore (although it is in my campaign), and just damage alone, or the amount of hit points a creature does, isn't enough either. Save or Die effects definitely did the job in 1e, but I'm not a fan of that without a chance for survival either. So it's finding a middle ground. I've tweaked the dying rules, and I have a number of effects that utilize the exhaustion track (with differing recovery speeds).

So here's an example as to how my rules thinking works.

A lion has a good chance of knocking a target prone. Because the lion is a large creature, a medium or smaller creature has disadvantage on their saving throw to be knocked prone when a 400 lb lion jumps on you. Once knocked prone, the lion has advantage on its attacks. The only thing I added is that ff it scores a critical hit, it has locked on your throat and you are suffocating must make a DC 15 + number of rounds without air Constitution saving throw or fall unconscious).

This is all based on the way a lion actually attacks a person, and the fact that no matter how good a fighter you are, if there's a lion on top of you, you'd better do something quick (or even better, have help). It doesn't change the CR since it only occurs on a critical hit (and doesn't change the damage output).

It makes for a far more deadly campaign if they aren't careful. Of course, if you're wearing mail armor in my campaign, you have resistance to piercing weapons, and if you have throat protection, you'd have advantage on your saving throws to suffocate. So armor is something that is far more useful in my campaign. But most of my players would still fear a lion simply because it could still kill them quickly regardless of their hit points.

I'd also argue that my approach is probably not what most people would want for a published game. I know there's a group of people that do enjoy it, but it's not the right design for a mass market game.

Do I think a lion in 5e is too weak? Not necessarily. As it is, the ability to knock you prone increases its chance of hitting you, and as written it has a good chance of killing any 1st level character in the first round. Even 2nd or 3rd level characters are at risk in the first 2 to 3 rounds, especially if they are alone. What's lacking in all editions, in my opinion, is the fact that a lion represents thousands of years of evolution as a top predator. Their success rate hunting is far from 100%, but once they have their prey, it's an almost 100% kill rate - especially if the prey is smaller than them. Their primary tactic (like most/all big cats) is to attempt to lock onto their prey's throat to suffocate them, or break their spinal column. I wanted their tactics to reflect that. My tweak doesn't really alter it too much, but the possibility of it is enough - and it's even better if somebody falls victim to it, even once.

But game statistics like hit points aren't enough anymore to instill fear into most players. So I utilize wounds, injuries, energy drain, and other conditions that bypass the normal hit point pool for creatures that should be terrifying. The players know this going in, and they treat things with a lot more respect because of it. Does it happen often? No. But the effects are significant, sometimes long lasting, and difficult to eliminate (including through magic) and therefore make the players approach the monsters quite differently than a standard game. Combined with using intelligent tactics where appropriate, makes combats, when they happen, much more interesting.

You know what else I think should be horrifying and terrifying? Undead. While not all undead cause it, necrotic damage in my campaign cannot be healed by natural means. It requires 3rd level magic to heal. Which inspires a lot more respect for undead in my campaign. Because they can't tell if that walking corpse is "just" a zombie or a wight.

I'm not concerned necessarily in making combat last longer because it takes more hits to kill the monster. Combat lasts longer because the players and monsters might take time to address positioning on the battlefield, retreating, and searching for opportunities to gain advantage. It's not just the monster design that does this, though, as I noted armor works differently, I don't use combat rounds, all sorts of tweaks that work together.

This isn't new for me, I did it to AD&D, 2e, 3e, and even the little bit of 4e we played.

When I look at the 5e design as is, it's pretty consistent. It's designed to be less deadly. I see comments in threads that insist 0 hp is not dying, is just unconscious. That it's better to wait until somebody is at 0 hit points to heal them, then before. Complaints that monsters are too easy to kill, and that traps are not effective. That's by design. I don't know what figure they are shooting for, but I think there is an design approach that at least 60% of parties should be able to complete a given AP successfully. Possibly more. The risks of a high level monster lasting more than two or three rounds is pretty high. In most cases, somebody would likely die (well, be knocked unconscious at 0 hp). You regain everything each night during a rest, and gods forbid that you have to waste a spell slot on a utility spell. No, they are rituals now. It's not a question of one thing like solo monsters or BBEGs. The game is designed to be easier. I guess it's better than the revolving door of resurrection of 3e/3.5e, but not much.

But I also don't have any illusions that they are going to design more to my approach. Why? Because sales have pretty much shown that they have a successful design. That's not to say they won't change it, or modify things, since it's pretty clear that they are publishing a new variation of the ranger. And the new dying and resurrection rules that will be in ToA are, I think, in part a response to those that want things a bit more deadly. I'm interested in what other rules they might have, if any.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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 was mostly talking about Dracula from Castlevania. I know virtually nothing about his appearances in book, film, or stage.

To contrast, the only time I've ever seen Cthulhu do anything was in the original story, where he was a chump. He's an iconic villain who doesn't actually do anything. People like to play him up as some horrible thing, but the full account of his misdeeds in the original story is to give people bad dreams before being woken up and sent immediately back to sleep.

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?

Maybe it's a limitation of the genre, but anytime you build up to a climactic encounter and it doesn't deliver, it's a disappointment. It's probably easier to have a meaningful non-combat villain in a genre that isn't about punching monsters.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I was mostly talking about Dracula from Castlevania. I know virtually nothing about his appearances in book, film, or stage.

And I don't know anything about Castlevania.

It's from the original book. Naturally it's a great resource for running a vampire. While your opinion that Cthulhu is a chump, and by extension the original Dracula due to similar circumstances, is certainly not the usual assessment of either of those stories. But then neither of them were specifically about killing the monster, although that occurred in both.

Of course in a video game, the criteria is different, in part because of the limitations of the medium (and probably the expectations of the players).

Maybe it's a limitation of the genre, but anytime you build up to a climactic encounter and it doesn't deliver, it's a disappointment. It's probably easier to have a meaningful non-combat villain in a genre that isn't about punching monsters.

Well I build up to climactic encounters all the time, and they don't always require combat, and from what I can tell they definitely don't disappoint. Maybe it's easier to build up to a meaningful combat encounter for some, but not for me. In part because I rarely design a "combat" encounter. Combat is always possible, and sometimes quite likely, but almost never a requirement. More importantly, attempting to design a dramatically climactic encounter is something I find incredibly difficult, because it presumes that you know how the combat will progress. And if there's one thing I've learned over several decades is that I can never predict what the players will do.

And that seems to be exactly the problem here. The expectation is that either the DM or the adventure designer has designed a proper climactic combat encounter, and due to the players, the DM, or even the luck of the die, it doesn't meet expectations. It's much easier to design a big reveal than to rely on the combat.

As you might surmise from my earlier posts, too, the big villains tend to escape a lot. So the fact that they find a way to finally get him is far more exciting to them than exactly how they did it. And it usually involves a lot more work, use of their skills, and time to get to that very point. So it's the payoff of several sessions (or even years) of work than a single fight. Once they get them in that position, they often already know the outcome - because they've succeeded in getting to that point. It doesn't mean there won't be a combat, and it might be a challenging combat. But the combat itself isn't the climax.

As the DM I can control information, I can control the villain, and their organization. I can't control the outcome of an encounter, especially a combat. So I don't rely on the outcome of an encounter to deliver a climax in the narrative (and I actually control very little of the narrative too, that's primarily the domain of the character's decisions and actions). Encounters will provide their own climax and excitement naturally. Finally defeating a major villain is often a surprise to me as much as it is to the players, because like I said, they always do things I don't expect.

It has the benefit of avoiding another of the things that I see people complain about - what happens if the PCs kill the BBEG too soon? In CoS they should meet Strahd many times. The chances they'll actually kill him early on is slim, but not impossible. As a published adventure, CoS has to risk that possibility, but for my home campaign that's never a factor. If they manage to kill somebody important, then great for them. The world moves on, and so does the character's story.



***Spoiler Alert for Tomb of Horrors***





Are you aware that in the original Tomb of Horrors you can gain all of the treasure without actually fighting Acererak? That's right. Once you get past everything, if you simply ignore the ghosty thing, and don't touch him, you can take all of the treasure and just walk out. I've only seen a couple of groups figure that out, and they still talk about it as one of the greatest surprises and endings ever because it was entirely paying attention and smart thinking on their part. The fact that they didn't have to fight the "BBEG" and beat him is what they consider their best moment playing.

Incidentally, with the 5e demilich stats along with the fact that you can't interrupt spellcasting in 5e, this possibility is completely gone in the TotYP edition, unless you have a DM that only plays what is written (it's the exact text from the original) and doesn't make Acererak attack as soon as the PCs enter the room. There's a pretty big disconnect in using only the original text, since there isn't anything that tells them when he should attack (only when he uses the trap the soul ability).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

my party of 5 9th level PCs went to hell. the final encounter was 1 pit fiend (steve) 6 Bearded devils 2 Barbed devils 1 Eryin 950 hp on the field and it took 2 sessions and 2 PCs died, but they won... the 2 characters were brought back (reincarnate) and now we have a cool story.

So, the fact that 2 PCs have above average items (although really the rangers vorpral sword didn't crit the entire encounter so it was just a +3 off hand weapon) and the mage thought quick and sealed the pitfiend in a wall of force dome, or it would have been a tpk.

 

[Eltab]

Who runs a Balor standing face to face(more likely surrounded) by the heroes?
Creatures are weak or boring based upon the DM running them.

Tangent:

When my Tiamat group went up against Arauthator, I max'ed out all his variable stats, upped him to an Ancient White Dragon (instead of Adult White or whatever he was) and planned out three turns of blitzkreig to mess up the party's usual plans. He had reach attacks so I planned to fly/hover about 15 feet off the ground. I used Frightful Presence while above the center of the group, so the Frightened PCs had to scatter individually. Of course he targeted anybody with a ranged capability first. I usually (but not always) remembered to use his Legendary Actions.

The party killed him in the end - but I had half the group making Death Saves after about three rounds. Their comeback lasted about another three rounds. (In-game total: one minute! )
The whole battle took three and a half hours of real time.

For all intents and purposes, it was the climax of the campaign. (I had to bow out of DM'ing a few weeks later and the campaign went on permanent hiatus.)

If I were sending a Balor or whatever as the BBEG of the campaign arc, I would do similarly with him, too.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

my party of 5 9th level PCs went to hell. the final encounter was 1 pit fiend (steve) 6 Bearded devils 2 Barbed devils 1 Eryin 950 hp on the field and it took 2 sessions and 2 PCs died, but they won... the 2 characters were brought back (reincarnate) and now we have a cool story.

So, the fact that 2 PCs have above average items (although really the rangers vorpral sword didn't crit the entire encounter so it was just a +3 off hand weapon) and the mage thought quick and sealed the pitfiend in a wall of force dome, or it would have been a tpk.

If my memory is right, in ADnD we also fought balors and pitfiends at those levels. As a climax battle for a well rested party that is more than ok.

 

[dave2008]

To contrast, the only time I've ever seen Cthulhu do anything was in the original story, where he was a chump. He's an iconic villain who doesn't actually do anything. People like to play him up as some horrible thing, but the full account of his misdeeds in the original story is to give people bad dreams before being woken up and sent immediately back to sleep.

First, I want to state that I too think Cthulhu is a bit overblown by most fans; however, that is not all it did in Call of Cthulhu. When it was awoken it killed everyone from the ship except one (eating some if I remember correctly), gets rammed by the multi-ton ship, and regenerates damage from the attack.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

(In-game total: one minute! )
The whole battle took three and a half hours of real time.

One of my biggest problems with the combat system. We've ruled that a combat takes at least 15 minutes of in-game time, and the in-game combat action is sort of like the highlights.

 

[CapnZapp]

Incidentally, with the 5e demilich stats along with the fact that you can't interrupt spellcasting in 5e, this possibility is completely gone in the TotYP edition, unless you have a DM that only plays what is written (it's the exact text from the original) and doesn't make Acererak attack as soon as the PCs enter the room. There's a pretty big disconnect in using only the original text, since there isn't anything that tells them when he should attack (only when he uses the trap the soul ability).

It was a while since I read that section, but my recollection is that this idea is intact - don't disturb the lich, the lich doesn't disturb you?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It was a while since I read that section, but my recollection is that this idea is intact - don't disturb the lich, the lich doesn't disturb you?

Just in case - more spoilers for Tomb of Horrors....


Exactly. Although since you could interrupt spellcasting in 1e, when the ghosty thing looks like it's going to cast a spell, your immediately reaction is to attack it to disrupt whatever spell it looks like it's casting. Once you do 50 points of damage to it, then it turns into a ghost that can attack you. It was reinforced/hinted to by an earlier encounter that does the same thing. The problem with it, is that in 5e, after the first round it's clear that it can't do anything at all to you. It still just looks like it's casting a spell, but never does.

...actually, looking at TftYP now, it doesn't mention the fake spellcasting, it just advances threateningly. Which means there is even less chance that the PCs will keep attacking it after the 1st round. Of course, it's entirely possible that they'll do 50 hp of damage in the first round, so at least it's not totally wasted.

I'll have to dig up the original to see if it's there. It's still in the description of the false crypt, although rewritten to look like it's readying a spell.

More importantly, even though the text in TftYP is the same as the original, the stats in the MM are for a monster that can just attack like any other monster. While the text is still the same, I can't imagine most DMs not being confused as to when Acererak should start using his other attacks, his lair actions, or legendary actions. It has all of these abilities, and the expectation is that he'll use them.