D&D 5E (2014) Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[Jaelommiss]

I'm really surprised that sharpshooters can be considered a problem. Per DMG 246-247, a wooden object (such as a bow) has 15 AC and 1d4 or 2d4 HP*. Even a magic bow** only has resistance to damage (DMG 141) with no changes to AC or HP. If it is possible for the monsters to get even one attack it is extremely likely that the sharpshooter is going to find themselves at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage until they can resupply.

A CR 1/4 Goblin has a 50% chance to hit with its shortbow, with a 66.67% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP bow on a hit. One out of three goblin arrows will (on average) be sufficient to put a stop to a character's ranged support unless they have a magic bow.

A CR 5 Hill Giant has a 70% chance to hit with a rock, with a 100% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP bow on a hit, and a 99.60% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP magic bow that resists the damage on a hit.

A CR 13 Storm Giant only misses on a 1, and can't fail to break a magic bow on a hit.

Given that PCs are remarkably resilient in 5e, why are intelligent monsters wasting time trying to kill them when they can get nearly as effective results by breaking the PCs' equipment instead?



* Using the guidelines for Tiny objects, since the thickness of a bow is more important than its length in this case
** Excluding artifacts

 

[Celtavian]

I'm really surprised that sharpshooters can be considered a problem. Per DMG 246-247, a wooden object (such as a bow) has 15 AC and 1d4 or 2d4 HP*. Even a magic bow** only has resistance to damage (DMG 141) with no changes to AC or HP. If it is possible for the monsters to get even one attack it is extremely likely that the sharpshooter is going to find themselves at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage until they can resupply.

A CR 1/4 Goblin has a 50% chance to hit with its shortbow, with a 66.67% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP bow on a hit. One out of three goblin arrows will (on average) be sufficient to put a stop to a character's ranged support unless they have a magic bow.

A CR 5 Hill Giant has a 70% chance to hit with a rock, with a 100% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP bow on a hit, and a 99.60% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP magic bow that resists the damage on a hit.

A CR 13 Storm Giant only misses on a 1, and can't fail to break a magic bow on a hit.

Given that PCs are remarkably resilient in 5e, why are intelligent monsters wasting time trying to kill them when they can get nearly as effective results by breaking the PCs' equipment instead?



* Using the guidelines for Tiny objects, since the thickness of a bow is more important than its length in this case
** Excluding artifacts

Sure, it can be done and it isn't hard. If you take away their capabilities, then they don't have fun. When you're addressing a problem in the game, you want to address the rule so that the player can still have fun doing their schtick and the DM can still challenge the players as a group effectively and no one overshadows anyone by such a large margin that they're not having fun. You can take away an ability from anyone. I don't think that's a great way to handle it. That's why I don't sunder weapons. It's not fun, especially if you're using this as a common DM tactic. Your players would be wondering why they're bothering to make characters with weapons. If you plan to sunder a weapon, make it meaningful and give the player some way to get back in the fight like finding a magic sword or bow laying about. Otherwise, you're making a very unexciting experience for your players.

 

[MostlyDm]

There's plenty of big stupid brutes in the MM already.

The specific complaint here is that the Marilith is given the stats of a big stupid brute.

Some times its okay for the designer to do the job, instead of relying on the DM to do it for him. Some monsters should be given tools. The expectation here was that the Marilith would be one of them.

But the sad truth is that the MM exhibits very few showcases of the designers really having understood high level play. There's simply too many naively designed high-level monsters.

The tarrasque-killing wizard-on-a-bike is definitely an absurd example, but the lack of even the most cursory analysis of the environment a party projects around it that any monster has to get through in order to present a challenge is telling.

That monsters have true sight and blind sense and teleport and "spell resistance" isn't by accident. These things are there because without them, a monster is helpless against a half-competent high-level party.

So offering up CR 15ish monsters that can be shut down in three different ways none of which are particularly taxing is simply what's professionally known as...

not good enough

Even RAW, Tarrasque can throw an "improvised weapon" (rock, house, whatever) and is almost guaranteed to kill the wizard on a bike in a single hit. I had this discussion with Hemlock a couple months ago.

Still, he shouldn't have to.

I tend to assume the creature blocks are somewhat streamlined for simplicity. Not to beat a dead horse, but it's super easy to add ranged attacks to any monster.

There's zero CR adjustment for ranged attacks. So if ranged parties are that big of a problem, the cheap (in multiple senses of the word) and easy fix is to give monsters ranged attacks to match their melee ones.

So instead of the Tarrasque throwing an improvised rock, he gets Rock Throw as an ability with like 150/450 range and as much damage as his bite or claws, usable however many times his normal melee attacks are used. Or whatever.

I haven't personally encountered such ranged-cheese that I've felt this was specifically necessary. But it doesn't exactly seem like an insurmountable problem to me.

 

[MostlyDm]

Sure, it can be done and it isn't hard. If you take away their capabilities, then they don't have fun. When you're addressing a problem in the game, you want to address the rule so that the player can still have fun doing their schtick and the DM can still challenge the players as a group effectively and no one overshadows anyone by such a large margin that they're not having fun. You can take away an ability from anyone. I don't think that's a great way to handle it. That's why I don't sunder weapons. It's not fun, especially if you're using this as a common DM tactic. Your players would be wondering why they're bothering to make characters with weapons. If you plan to sunder a weapon, make it meaningful and give the player some way to get back in the fight like finding a magic sword or bow laying about. Otherwise, you're making a very unexciting experience for your players.

We approach the game from a very different design space.

If I have a party that is priding itself on using optimal tactics and obliterating overwhelming threats and generally being soulless killing machines, I would have the monsters try to fight back in the most efficient way possible. I'm not going to leave something as basic as destroying a wooden bow off the table.

And note: If a sharpshooter is really this vulnerable to lockdown, is he really using an optimal strategy in the first place?

Especially if we're looking at this from the meta perspective exemplified by things like "monsters should probably be running from PCs." Why wouldn't monsters use the rules to their advantage?

On the flip side, if the players want to go on a fun romp and focus more on the story, with big dumb brutes and sickly mages and the like, then I'll probably accommodate them. And perhaps I won't break their bows.

But in general your perspective seems very alien to me. You live in a place where the DM is always wrong and the players are always right. If the players use cheese, that's a sign of player skill and optimization. If the DM uses cheese, that's denying player fun. The rules should support optimized players out of the gate, and provide challenges, but not deny any of their abilities.

It's a tall order, and not one that makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Lord Twig]

And adding that would have made it a way above deadly fight according to the encounter building guidelines against six level 10 PCs. But I did that anyway.

It was a demonic warband She had four hezrou, four vrocks, and six chasme with her. Party ignored her troops and annihilated her first. Rest of the demons were like orcs after she was gone. Bladesinger spent his time dancing around them causing them to use AoOs while he laughed at them. A few banishment spells thinned them out. Hammer fell on them after that.

The problem is that melee is fairly low value in 5E, especially at higher levels. It's always been very easy to control and destroy melee creatures without spell support in every edition of D&D as you gain levels. In a game like 5E where mobility is very high, it's even easier to destroy melee creatures with ranged attacks while moving. You literally have to put them in situations like Flamestrike did where they start off on top of you. But really, how often can you do that? Every time? 50% of the time? 25% of the time? I at least had them in an environment where they started only 120 feet from each other since it was a roving warband and they were in darkness both could see only 120 feet apart. When power on power met, the PCs had more power due to spellcasting support. That's why I think a marilith and balor should be designed as though they will be the spellcasting support for a demonic warband rather than as more powerful melee demons. Demonic warbands need casting support to withstand parties.

Ignored troops? Interesting. No specifics, just that they ignored them. So none of their attacks were effective? Four DC 14 Con saves and no one was stunned? No one was poisoned by spores? No attacks hit at all?

The party could only see 120', but the Marilith didn't move back 40' or 80' to be 160' or 200' away while her troops closed in? Then she could pop back in with her 120 teleport in addition to her 40' move.

"A few banishment spells"? As in the 4th level spell? That is a considerable expenditure of resources for 10th level casters. Of course this was probably the only encounter for the day, right?

And the marilith didn't have any scouts out? Quasits are CR1 and can be invisible all day. Why wouldn't she have any with her? Have a few quasits find the party and report back. Have a couple Hezrou round a corner in front of the PCs. When they attack they "realize" they are out gunned and run away around a corner or something (or are corners unusual environments?). When the party gives chase they are ambushed by the rest of the warband. If the party doesn't give chase just wait to attack them when they sleep. Or really anytime when they can get close without a 120' featureless kill zone between them and the party.

And why where they attacking a hard to hit Bladesinger? Are you really telling me that 15 demons were unable to close on any spell caster at all? Or the sharpshooter archer? Really?

So the master tactical genius Marilith charged the party in a strait line while taking fire. Even then they should all close on the party in two rounds even with the party retreating as they fired. They took out 15 demons in two rounds? With bounded accuracy there is no way that every character in the party had ACs so high that none of the demons could hit them.

You see? This is why those like myself find it hard to believe that you can't challenge a high level party. Even if they are "optimized".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm really surprised that sharpshooters can be considered a problem. Per DMG 246-247, a wooden object (such as a bow) has 15 AC and 1d4 or 2d4 HP*. Even a magic bow** only has resistance to damage (DMG 141) with no changes to AC or HP. If it is possible for the monsters to get even one attack it is extremely likely that the sharpshooter is going to find themselves at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage until they can resupply.

A CR 1/4 Goblin has a 50% chance to hit with its shortbow, with a 66.67% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP bow on a hit. One out of three goblin arrows will (on average) be sufficient to put a stop to a character's ranged support unless they have a magic bow.

A CR 5 Hill Giant has a 70% chance to hit with a rock, with a 100% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP bow on a hit, and a 99.60% chance of breaking a 5 (2d4) HP magic bow that resists the damage on a hit.

A CR 13 Storm Giant only misses on a 1, and can't fail to break a magic bow on a hit.

Given that PCs are remarkably resilient in 5e, why are intelligent monsters wasting time trying to kill them when they can get nearly as effective results by breaking the PCs' equipment instead?



* Using the guidelines for Tiny objects, since the thickness of a bow is more important than its length in this case
** Excluding artifacts

If you introduce this precedent, that you can destroy weapons and objects while creatures are using them, you will live to regret it. It will distort your game beyond recognition and utterly ensure spellcaster dominance.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ignored troops? Interesting. No specifics, just that they ignored them. So none of their attacks were effective? Four DC 14 Con saves and no one was stunned? No one was poisoned by spores? No attacks hit at all?

The party could only see 120', but the Marilith didn't move back 40' or 80' to be 160' or 200' away while her troops closed in? Then she could pop back in with her 120 teleport in addition to her 40' move.

"A few banishment spells"? As in the 4th level spell? That is a considerable expenditure of resources for 10th level casters. Of course this was probably the only encounter for the day, right?

And the marilith didn't have any scouts out? Quasits are CR1 and can be invisible all day. Why wouldn't she have any with her? Have a few quasits find the party and report back. Have a couple Hezrou round a corner in front of the PCs. When they attack they "realize" they are out gunned and run away around a corner or something (or are corners unusual environments?). When the party gives chase they are ambushed by the rest of the warband. If the party doesn't give chase just wait to attack them when they sleep. Or really anytime when they can get close without a 120' featureless kill zone between them and the party.

And why where they attacking a hard to hit Bladesinger? Are you really telling me that 15 demons were unable to close on any spell caster at all? Or the sharpshooter archer? Really?

So the master tactical genius Marilith charged the party in a strait line while taking fire. Even then they should all close on the party in two rounds even with the party retreating as they fired. They took out 15 demons in two rounds? With bounded accuracy there is no way that every character in the party had ACs so high that none of the demons could hit them.

You see? This is why those like myself find it hard to believe that you can't challenge a high level party. Even if they are "optimized".

Indeed. I guarantee I could run this exact same encounter (well... using the exact same monsters anyway) against the exact same party of 6 x 10th level PCS and crush them.

The only thing I would change would be the encounter environment and the tactics used by the demons.

Weirldy Celtivan seems to be able to play (and implicitly advocate the existence of) 'highly optimised souless killing machines' for PCs; yet when DMing actual soulless killing machines in an army of demons, totally refuses to optimise them despite being in total control of the encounter placing and environment as DM.

For starters I'd probably use a 60' x 60' room. Demons are summoned into room once PCs enter. Door locks behind them trapping PC's in room. No chasme just to make it less of an absurd encounter. Roll initiative.

Vrock 1 screeches, Vrock 2 uses spores, Vrocks 3 and 4 fly to the archer, surround him and proceed to start to rip his face off. They alternate this in repeat turns (screeching, spores and 2 making attacks) until theyre all out of screeches.

Hezrou 1-3 target any 1 obvious spellcaster, surround this PC and proceed to wail on them.

Hezrou 4 uses the Help action to aid the Marilith.

The Marilith advances and makes 7 attacks all on the same PC. She starts with the tail at +9 [with advantage from the Hezrous help action]. This should hit, restraining the target (so her six follow up sword attacks get advantage). If a PC drops at any point duing these 7 attacks (all at advantage), she wails on them a few more times till they fail 3 death saves 'because demon'.

 

[Celtavian]

We approach the game from a very different design space.

If I have a party that is priding itself on using optimal tactics and obliterating overwhelming threats and generally being soulless killing machines, I would have the monsters try to fight back in the most efficient way possible. I'm not going to leave something as basic as destroying a wooden bow off the table.

And note: If a sharpshooter is really this vulnerable to lockdown, is he really using an optimal strategy in the first place?

Especially if we're looking at this from the meta perspective exemplified by things like "monsters should probably be running from PCs." Why wouldn't monsters use the rules to their advantage?

On the flip side, if the players want to go on a fun romp and focus more on the story, with big dumb brutes and sickly mages and the like, then I'll probably accommodate them. And perhaps I won't break their bows.

But in general your perspective seems very alien to me. You live in a place where the DM is always wrong and the players are always right. If the players use cheese, that's a sign of player skill and optimization. If the DM uses cheese, that's denying player fun. The rules should support optimized players out of the gate, and provide challenges, but not deny any of their abilities.

It's a tall order, and not one that makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm still wondering how you get all of that from my statements because I don't think sundering weapons. I didn't do it in 3E either. I tried it a few times and it creates a very bad experience for the players. Everyone is playing this game first for fun. If you're making weapon sundering a standard part of your arsenal, you're going to have very unhappy players not because they're always right, but because sundering their rare magical sword over and over and over again because it is so easy isn't fun for them.

It's much easier to find out what ability is causing a noticeable balance discrepancy and reduce it to something that is of a similar power level to other abilities. That in no way means anything you stated. It means one ability is vastly more powerful than other options and is overshadowing the capabilities of other players, causing imbalance problems in the base against player versus environment, and needs to be fixed by some means other than removing the ability to fire a bow. I have never said firing a bow is a problem. It's the overall benefits of Sharpshooter that is the problem.

 

[MostlyDm]

I'm still wondering how you get all of that from my statements because I don't think sundering weapons. I didn't do it in 3E either. I tried it a few times and it creates a very bad experience for the players. Everyone is playing this game first for fun. If you're making weapon sundering a standard part of your arsenal, you're going to have very unhappy players not because they're always right, but because sundering their rare magical sword over and over and over again because it is so easy isn't fun for them.

It's much easier to find out what ability is causing a noticeable balance discrepancy and reduce it to something that is of a similar power level to other abilities. That in no way means anything you stated. It means one ability is vastly more powerful than other options and is overshadowing the capabilities of other players, causing imbalance problems in the base against player versus environment, and needs to be fixed by some means other than removing the ability to fire a bow. I have never said firing a bow is a problem. It's the overall benefits of Sharpshooter that is the problem.

I've never actually sundered a wielded weapon in 5e. I was mostly playing devils advocate there. I agree with Hemlock that it would open a Pandora's box.

But it's the particulars of *your* reasoning, focused on player fun, that I'm curious about. Do you have the same attitude towards, say, rust monsters?

I absolutely hated the 4e "when a rust monster destroys your magic weapon, it leaves behind the magical residue used for item enchantment rituals, in exactly the gp value of the item destroyed." Totally defeats the purpose of the creature.

When I play with new-to-the game kids, I will usually handle them somewhat gently and perhaps avoid destroying their magic weapon with a rust monster. At least at first.

But when I play with veterans, especially the kinds of people that might optimize, I don't expect them to quit or have their fun invalidated just because they lost an in game resource like a magic sword. Any more than I expected them to get upset when experiencing any other kind of adversity.

Adversity and loss happens. It's one of the things that makes the game exciting. My players aren't mad when they lose a PC, either, nor do they always do every conceivable thing to avoid it. It seems, from your previous statements, your players are happy to refuse to engage in the game if they are concerned they might be at risk of losing something.

What's the point of optimizing if you aren't going to go all in and have fun, even when you get embroiled in something beyond your capabilities?

Is the goal just to curb stomp monsters and hoard magic items? To what end?

 

[Celtavian]

Ignored troops? Interesting. No specifics, just that they ignored them. So none of their attacks were effective? Four DC 14 Con saves and no one was stunned? No one was poisoned by spores? No attacks hit at all?

The archer ignored the troops and the ranged Eldritch Blast devilsight guy.

The party could only see 120', but the Marilith didn't move back 40' or 80' to be 160' or 200' away while her troops closed in? Then she could pop back in with her 120 teleport in addition to her 40' move.

No. She was leading the band and had been crushing humanoids. She decided to move forward to attack with her troops.

"A few banishment spells"? As in the 4th level spell? That is a considerable expenditure of resources for 10th level casters. Of course this was probably the only encounter for the day, right?

Two fifth level spells and a 4th level spell. The party is six members. They have 6 fifth level spells and 9 4th level spells. Three spells eliminated four targets fairly quickly thinning the group. They still had 4 5th level spells and 8 4th level spells.

And the marilith didn't have any scouts out? Quasits are CR1 and can be invisible all day. Why wouldn't she have any with her? Have a few quasits find the party and report back. Have a couple Hezrou round a corner in front of the PCs. When they attack they "realize" they are out gunned and run away around a corner or something (or are corners unusual environments?). When the party gives chase they are ambushed by the rest of the warband. If the party doesn't give chase just wait to attack them when they sleep. Or really anytime when they can get close without a 120' featureless kill zone between them and the party.

She had six Shadow Demon scouts out. The party spotted them. They ran. The party moved back in the other direction, hid, and ambushed the shadow demons using pass without trace. It's very hard to ambush groups with players with high Wisdom, the Observation feat, and double proficiency bonus on their Perception. Have all of those things in the group, it's extremely hard to ambush them. Most of the group is drow and one Devilsight player with 120 foot darkvision. So they can match what the opponent can see. Even invisibility is not a guarantee of success against them. If they hear something, they will cast see invisibility and annihilate it.

This is something I find strange as well. Do you not play with characters that build to notice things? Every single party I've played with has had double proficiency bonus Stealthy scouts and double proficiency bonus Perception. Every one of them. If I want them to not notice something, I have to make it up. Which I've started doing on occasion. This adventure is about testing demons out of the book to see how they do. I'll start modifying them after I get a feel for them.

And why where they attacking a hard to hit Bladesinger? Are you really telling me that 15 demons were unable to close on any spell caster at all? Or the sharpshooter archer? Really?

Because he was running by them provoking AoOs from them and does substantial damage with his whip. If someone was hitting you for a bunch of damage, might you not try to attack him? The bladesinger is a paladin2 /bladesinger 8. So he has a lot of smites and Booming Blade is surprisingly effective with a whip. That was an interesting tactic to see given I didn't think much of Booming Blade or the Bladesinger class. My eyes have been opened.

They closed on them after the marilith was dead. They did some damage. At that point it was, meh damage in my opinion. Chasme don't have great hit rolls so a few shield spells.

So the master tactical genius Marilith charged the party in a strait line while taking fire. Even then they should all close on the party in two rounds even with the party retreating as they fired. They took out 15 demons in two rounds? With bounded accuracy there is no way that every character in the party had ACs so high that none of the demons could hit them.

The master tactical genius went forward with her demons in front of her looking to do some damage. They were providing her with cover as she closed. She figured she could leave with her teleport. So I'll give you an exact sequence.

The cleric cast bless on the paladin/warlock, paladin/bladesinger, and ranger/fighter (Notice lots of multiclassing and paladins...we might have to try a campaign without multiclassing). So the opening round the archer beats the Marilith on initiative and the cleric beats the sharpshooter (due to the Alertness feat, he has a high initiative modifier).

So the Sharpshooter with his magic bow (+2 bow) and bless fires all attacks at the marilith. He moves forward 30 feet to hunter's mark. We are using Unearthed Arcana material. So he has Close Quarters Combat and Archery Style (fighter/ranger) and is a Deep Stalekr ranger (1 extra attack on the first round of combat). He Action Surges and unloads five Sharpshooter arrows at her. Attack bonus +4 prof +5 dex +2 bow +1 Close quarters fighting +2 archery style -5 sharpshooter +1d4 bless. Each attack is +9 +1d4. He hits four of five attacks. He does 1d8+1d6+17 per attack. So he did 100 or so in round one of her 180 points. As you know cover and distance don't much matter to a Sharpshooter.

She was pretty much neutered in the opening round. 80 hit points against a six man party is absolutely nothing and will disappear quite quickly. I could have had her run and leave. That was the only way she was going to survive. I figured she would want to try to and hammer a character, so she advanced teleporting to the archer. And she did some damage to him and he had to use a shield spell. He's a ranger/fighter Eldritch Knight. But by round two she took hits from the warlock/paladin/sorcerer using eldritch blast[/.I] with hex. The bladesinger smote her a couple of times with his whip. I think the archer hammered her with two attacks only hitting with one that round. She was down to 10 hit points by round 3 or some trivial amount. I figured she knew she was heading back to the Abyss and decided to go out swinging.

After she was dead, the other creatures were cleaned up. They did some damage. Maybe one or two players missed a sickness save for a round from the hezrou. Almost my whole group has good Con saves and big bonuses from the two paladin auras.

You see? This is why those like myself find it hard to believe that you can't challenge a high level party. Even if they are "optimized".

I find it hard to believe you're having an easy time challenging an optimized party. My players are using multiclass plentifully. Charisma-based classes synergize in an amazing fashion in 5E. The weak classes are strength-based classes and my players avoid them. Barbarians and non-magic using melee fighters are avoided. Non-magic using rogues are avoided. Strong feats are Resilient Con, Sharpshooter, and at least one character with Alertness or Observation. Expertise is used for Perception and Stealth for scouting. You ensure you have these things in you're group and you maintain a power advantage over the enemy that is nearly insurmountable.

Your chances of ambushing them are minimal. They have consistently high damage with abilities like eldritch blast and Sharpshooter while having powerful nova abilities with the paladin multiclassers. I have three paladin multiclasses in this group. The main complaint I'm getting at the moment from my players is that they feel like they're playing the same classes over and over again. I tell them, "You are." The power band is very narrow in 5E and they have already determined the power abilities and the power tactics in 5E. They have determined what to avoid like being in melee too much. In a game where mobile ranged attacking is by default amazing, they tend to avoid meleeing.

As a DM I can match their capabilities here and there, and that is what I do, but stuff out of the box doesn't work very well. I need to modify it to deal with the capabilities of the party. I'll do it more now that I've had some time to see higher level 5E in action from the DM side. I'm seeing all the problem abilities in these first two high level campaigns. I'll run this one to 20 with boons. I'm building my house rules document right now to adjust some things. Sharpshooter is the main feat I'm reducing.

The fight was the second fight of the day. The first one was the six shadow demon scouts they ambushed. That didn't use up much resources. They are traveling right now. So they only get a few encounters a day. Soon they'll be walking into Baphomet's maze. I've taken some measures to limit resource recovery, so they have to preserve more than they've been doing. Though they still aren't using much in terms of resources due.

Let me see if I can remember. In that deadly fight, they used:
2 5th level banishes
1 4th level banish
1 1st level bless
1 3rd level haste with 3 sorcery points to twin it (cast on bladesinger and sharpshooter)
1 1st level hunter's mark (I think this dropped after he was attacked by the marilth)
1 1st level hex warlock slot

I don't think they cast much else. Just absorbed the hit points, fell back down the tunnel to a relatively safe location, and took a short rest to recover some hit points at a safe location after defeating the warband.

Don't get me wrong. They took some damage. More than a few characters lost half their hit points by the end of the fight. The marilith wasn't as interesting as the 3E/Pathfinder marilith tactically. The lack of spellcasting to support her demonic troops really made her limited. Sure, she could have fell back and waited for the party to use resources thinning her group, but the result would have been the same with six players unloading on her. That wouldn't have went any better than one unloading everything on her in round 1. 180 hit points to 5E characters is not much. If you don't have ranged capabilities against a party that can see you 120 feet away, you don't have much you can do.

The Pathfinder marilith could blade barrier, telekinesis, project image, fly, and had an unholy aura that substantially boosted her defenses. The 5E marilith has none of this. Just one teleport that takes her action. Her tactical capabilities are vastly inferior to the 3E marilith, yet the PCs tactical abilities are not reduced by the same margin. Why is the 5E marilith just a melee monster? Who made that decision?