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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is exactly what I wish for WotC to do!

No, it clearly isn't - because what I am talking about that you (altered and) quoted is using the tools WotC has already provided - not a new book that does the entirely easy work for you, and is entirely not worth actually making given that the majority of the customer base appear clearly lacking in desire to pay WotC to do nothing more than give monsters a few feats and magic items that DMs already have access to.

And I didn't blame DMs for stack block deficiencies; it's rude to put words in my mouth so I'll ask you not to do that. What I did was blame DMs for creating their own problems and refusing to do anything, even obvious things that take next to no effort, to solve those problems.

If using feats and/or magic items for just the PCs makes monsters too easy, give the monsters some feats and/or magic items too. You don't have to have WotC officially publish a guide telling you which items and feats to choose for your player characters, so why do you insist that you need such a thing for your monsters?

 

[CapnZapp]

What in the world are you talking about?

The antagonist in a slasher movie typically has a ubiquitous presence. He can show up anywhere at any time, especially when one of the protagonists is alone, and he will take advantage of the situation and murder them to death. Even when he doesn't show up, the very fact that he could ratchets up the tension in any situation where the protagonists are at a temporary disadvantage (e.g. isolated and in the dark).

Am I to assume that you feel that the antagonist in a slasher movie is acting like a frightened weakling?

No, you are to assume I'm not talking about slasher movies.

I want my Strahd to play the part of a classic vampire movie, not some blood-drenched horror-porn flick.

You don't have to agree to this desire of mine, but I would like your agreement in that the Strahd detailed in the book doesn't stand a chance of fulfilling that role given its weak stats.

But we're getting off track. The track is that the designers does not seem aware of what a well-engineered team of players can accomplish with only the resources given to them by the PHB.

That worries me.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, it clearly isn't - because what I am talking about that you (altered and) quoted is using the tools WotC has already provided - not a new book that does the entirely easy work for you, and is entirely not worth actually making given that the majority of the customer base appear clearly lacking in desire to pay WotC to do nothing more than give monsters a few feats and magic items that DMs already have access to.

No, you are claiming it is easy and I can do the work myself.

I am saying it is hard and that I want to pay WotC for it.

Now: who is more likely correct. You, who doesn't want it and only post to dismiss any difficulties? Or I, who clearly want it, have thought long and hard about doing it myself, and concluded it's too much work to do myself?

What about that is so hard for you to understand and more importantly, accept? Huh?

Moreover, you have never accepted one important facet: that "officialness" is a quality of its own. Having a official product means many eyes on the rules, and lots of discussion. To me, that would be very valuable all by itself.

Now, the reason you always ignore this bit, I assume, is because what you don't want to admit Aaron, is that your only real argument here is that you don't want this product to exist. You don't have any real reasons that sound fancy and objective like the "it's genuinely impossible" swill you try to make us believe. If you just said "I'm not interested in that" that would be completely acceptable, but for some reason you follow me around, and everytime I suggest a rules expansion, you try to shoot that idea down in ways that make it sound like my ideas are unworkable somehow.

I'm tired of it. Just say the only thing I can respect: that you don't want it, and that you don't want the game to go in that direction. Your personal opinion, that carries exactly as much weight as mine.

If you're not interested in such a product, simply don't buy it Aaron; don't argue why I shouldn't get my wish in ways that make it sound like objective fact. It's just smokescreens.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You don't have to agree to this desire of mine, but I would like your agreement in that the Strahd detailed in the book doesn't stand a chance of fulfilling that role given its weak stats.

Sigh. Goodbye, CapnZapp.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I want my Strahd to play the part of a classic vampire movie, not some blood-drenched horror-porn flick.

You don't have to agree to this desire of mine, but I would like your agreement in that the Strahd detailed in the book doesn't stand a chance of fulfilling that role given its weak stats.

This is effectively it for Strahd - I tried having a 'Vampire Wedding' event that the players got invited to, and he couldn't stay alive long enough to flee on his second action. Weak. I describe it here.

Back on topic: I see that, generally speaking, people are happy to have monsters be fightable at low levels, but they don't like that it might be easy. I wonder if one way to handle that is to go back to the AD&D 'only +5 weapons can hurt this' idea; maybe not that directly, but something similar. So the Balor's stats stay unchanged, but only the God's Chosen or something can actually damage it. Thus when the players go into the Abyss and slay five, it is still impressive, because literally nobody else could have done it.

 

[Dualazi]

If using feats and/or magic items for just the PCs makes monsters too easy, give the monsters some feats and/or magic items too. You don't have to have WotC officially publish a guide telling you which items and feats to choose for your player characters, so why do you insist that you need such a thing for your monsters?

Just gonna jump in and say I think that feats/spells and whatnot are a serviceable way of adding potency to a monster, throwing items on monsters already deemed to be under-performing sounds the start of a monty haul campaign, doubly so for 5e where magic items aren't assumed. You could try and keep them from players by disintegrating when the monster dies, but I consider this a cheap cop-out and would be infuriating to most of the people I've played with outside of very specific circumstances.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sigh. Goodbye, CapnZapp.

You may not care for it, but this actually touches upon a central issue with stats.

Specifically, dismissing complaints about the stats with the argument "just play the monster smarter".

I can play a goblin smart or stupid, but that's beside the issue. What's in the stat block is what I can see and what I can criticise. Just changing a single number like "Int 11" to "Int 21" makes no difference, or rather, no more difference than changing hp or dex from 11 to 21.

If Strahd only works if run as a slasher antagonist, I require the book to contain specific advice on how to make it so. This might then deflect criticism about any percieved weakness, since it would give advice that makes up for those weaknesses: "Strahd never attacks when all PCs can bring their most potent attacks to bear against him". Perhaps the text tells him to make fly-by attacks through the walls, and discusses how he will react when the players (inevitably) start setting up readied actions. And so on and so on.

Of course, this would then open up the book instead to criticism about the intended genre. Some players might enjoy playing the Castle as a teenage horror show, where PCs wander off on their own, take inexplicable showers or whatever. I'm certain Strahd's stats are sufficient to win against typical slasher victims.

Other groups, of course, would balk at this. They would never split the party. They want to feel like a well-tuned SWAT team that never lets emotions get in the way of optimal damage output. More John Carpenter's Vampires, winching out vampires into the sun to die, than Freddie Kruger. And Strahd doesn't stand a chance against these guys. As others have stated already, he could be dead after his first and only round.

(Myself, I don't want either of these two genres - I'm (much) more of a traditionalist myself. Hammer House all the way. But I digress)

But none of it is actually in the book. That is why it is irrelevant as an argument against the criticism of the stat block.

If the book doesn't say the stat block is not meant to be used against certain ways to play the game, you can't dismiss the criticism from that angle.

What you are saying is really "Strahd's stats are only appropriate for certain ways to run the adventure". Fine, but then THAT should be open for discussion and criticism.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No, you are claiming it is easy and I can do the work myself.

I am saying it is hard and that I want to pay WotC for it.

Now: who is more likely correct. You, who doesn't want it and only post to dismiss any difficulties? Or I, who clearly want it, have thought long and hard about doing it myself, and concluded it's too much work to do myself?

To be honest, it isn't a matter of "correct," but if I were to gauge who knows the difficult of a thing more accurately between a person that has done the thing and a person that refuses to even attempt the thing, I know who I'd pick.

What about that is so hard for you to understand and more importantly, accept? Huh?

I accept your opinion that there are problems. I genuinely want you to find solutions to them. I cannot help that, as a result of that genuine want, I end up butting heads with you a bit because you refuse to realize how ridiculous it is that you expect WotC to ever make a second attempt at things they have already tried to provide you, and that you expect that second effort will somehow be satisfactory to you despite that what they think of as their best effort (that being the one they went with first) isn't at all satisfactory.

Moreover, you have never accepted one important facet: that "officialness" is a quality of its own. Having a official product means many eyes on the rules, and lots of discussion. To me, that would be very valuable all by itself.

I don't believe that "officialness" has any weight to you at all. If it did, I expect you would be a lot more forgiving of the official rules. And I know for a fact that "official" is in no way a guarantee of satisfaction. I personally prioritize the latter, and am completely confused that you appear to prioritize the former.

Now, the reason you always ignore this bit, I assume, is because what you don't want to admit Aaron, is that your only real argument here is that you don't want this product to exist.

I do not at all care what products do or do not exist.

I care about helping any gamer that isn't having an absolutely stellar gaming experience in any way I can - such as by trying to help them come to terms with the fact that a particular product is likely not to come at all, and even if it does come will not necessarily be what they wanted it to be, so refocusing on an actually attainable goal will be the most likely path to having an absolutely stellar gaming experience.

Your personal opinion, that carries exactly as much weight as mine.

I am glad to see that you also think our opinions carry equal weight. I wish that were more apparent in your general posting style and phrasing choices, because usually you look like you are saying that literally every gamer is eventually going to realize that your preferred way is the objectively best way to play, and that those of us who have different opinions are inherently inferior to you in intelligence and/or game skill/experience.

...don't argue why I shouldn't get my wish in ways that make it sound like objective fact. It's just smokescreens.

The "smokescreen" here is you falsely assessing my statements as arguments why you shouldn't get what you want. All I have said to you is that to get what you want, which I absolutely hope you do, you are barking up the wrong tree because you are demanding it be delivered to you in the way that is least likely to ever actually happen.

When I say "you can do that for yourself" I am not saying "You shouldn't want that" or "You shouldn't be allowed to have that," I am just saying "Waiting on someone to do that for you is more heart-ache than it is worth."

 

[CapnZapp]

I accept your opinion that there are problems. I genuinely want you to find solutions to them. I cannot help that, as a result of that genuine want, I end up butting heads with you a bit because you refuse to realize how ridiculous it is that you expect WotC to ever make a second attempt at things they have already tried to provide you, and that you expect that second effort will somehow be satisfactory to you despite that what they think of as their best effort (that being the one they went with first) isn't at all satisfactory.

Sorry but I don't see you as genuine at all.

Take magic item creation and pricing as an example. I've started at least one thread you helped destroy.

Telling me what I need and that I should make do with the pigswill WotC has published so far in this area is only engineered to enrage me.

When I say "you can do that for yourself" I am not saying "You shouldn't want that" or "You shouldn't be allowed to have that," I am just saying "Waiting on someone to do that for you is more heart-ache than it is worth."

Absolutely not.

Take the heartening news that MMearls & Co is producing a book that will offer more support for those of us who want to buy magic items, for example

Pricing and selling magic items based on utility (and not rarity) was a huge part of 3rd edition, and as I have been saying all this time: until WotC supports a play style that does not care for downtime, and yet offers an outlet for all that gold you get from making random rolls on the treasure tables, the game:
1) is not complete in itself
2) does not fulfil the promise of offering support for past editions

But all of this is beside the issue.

What you just said, "Waiting on someone to do that for you is more heart-ache than it is worth" is okay, if you qualify it with "according to me" (since I disagree - I'd much rather wait for WotC to officially support it).

But in any regards, it's a far cry from saying "it's genuinely impossible".

Nothing genuine or impossible about it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...throwing items on monsters already deemed to be under-performing sounds the start of a monty haul campaign, doubly so for 5e where magic items aren't assumed.

Of course issues could arise, but that is why I would advocate that all the items found by the characters be first used against them by monsters. And there is the interesting, in my opinion, limiter that takes some of the steam out of the Monty Haul style of campaign - attunement. Each item recovered from a monster isn't as much of a power boost to the party if a sizeable number of them require attunement, and since the intention of including magic items on the monsters is to significantly boost their power and the significantly powerful magic items require attunement, it kind of works out (or at least works better than it would in other versions of D&D).

You could try and keep them from players by disintegrating when the monster dies, but I consider this a cheap cop-out and would be infuriating to most of the people I've played with outside of very specific circumstances.

Yeah, I would advise against that approach as well - either give the monster permanent items that the party can use once they defeat it, or boost the monsters by giving them expendable magical items so that the reason the party can't gain them after defeating the monster becomes that they didn't manage to prevent said usage (i.e. the party all saw the wand in the monster's hand and no one disarmed it, so the monster burned through all the charges it could, and maybe the wand turned to dust as a result), or that it makes sense the monster didn't have more (such as potions or scrolls).