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

[Sword of Spirit]

5e does not support solo monsters as boss fights, unless they are Tiamat. It simply doesn't.

Take a deep breath, and realize that this is the truth.

Now, you (general you) can house rule to change it. Or you can express disapproval of that design decision, or frustration with having to change in-grained habits to start implementing it. Or you can give up on 5e in disgust.

But you must accept the truth of the way the game is designed. Based on all they put into the game, I have a hard time believing that they failed to anticipate that it would work that way. So we should consider it to be at least passively included design.

Personally, I'm of the group that has a difficult time getting out of the mind frame that I can plop down a single monster out of the book and use it as a boss. While I'm okay with it in theory usually, it seems to limit your options in practice, and just is hard to really internalize.

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 also like the way the stats we've seen go all the way to the top (a god), so there isn't likely to be a whole tier of epic monsters like in 3e. It's "bounded monstrosity". This is really important to me because the relationships of monsters to other monsters have to make sense. I don't want there to be stats for some non-unique CR 28 monsters just to give high level PCs solo's to fight. Anything at that level needs to be a unique being who really is stronger than Demogorgon but weaker than Tiamat.

So I think the basic conclusion is: 1) Remove from our minds the idea that solo BBEGs are viable threats, 2) Remove from our minds that the boss is necessarily the most powerful combatant in his group, and 3) Reinterpret the world in that light.

Yeah, easier said than done. Maybe in 15 years when us pre-5e players give some input on an issue, some knowledgeable soul with have to clarify our weird statements by explaining to the post-5e players how in the stone age monsters scaled in such a way that you could just take a single powerful monster and make it an effective boss fight for the whole party without any other monsters or carefully laid plans.

...what Challenge Rating actually means in the 5th edition game. It is not the level at which a party is meant to be able to have reasonable chances of defeating the monster - it is only the level at which the monster's defeat is nearly assured not to include any player character casualties.

That's a really cool way of phrasing it that makes the point better than the rulebooks (while still actually saying the same thing!)

 

[Valdier]

Since I'm relying on http://1-dot-encounter-planner.appspot.com/quick-monster-stats.html (I'm AFB, Away From Book), it's possible that that web app has a bug in it. Maybe it doesn't correctly implement the DMG table. If you could be more specific about how your numbers are different, we might be able to track down the discrepancy if one exists.

I can't get back to a book at the moment, but I came up with lower defensive CR's before because their hit points are way under CR'd and their AC helps, but doesn't bring it back in line.

I will have to look again when I am at my books.

 

[Valdier]

Yeah, Valdier, the reason I was questioning you is because I had run the numbers on a few monsters I'd seen cited as having incorrect CR (such as the Balor or the NPC Mage) and in each case the CR checked out as long as the math was done with the assumptions laid out in the DMG.

It's fine to say that those assumptions are bad. That's an opinion we can discuss. But saying some CRs are wrong by their own metric is a statement about facts, not opinions. It's either correct or incorrect, based on the math.

That's why I was curious about the precise math you did on the dragons, to see if you made an error.

Found the Balor stats on my phone from earlier so:

I think, if you are extremely generous with how you calculate the Fire Aura, it could be CR 19. If you don't treat it like an AOE that hits lots of people every round over and over (anyone with a ranged weapon is basically immune to it, which should be everyone)... it isn't a 19.

Defensive CR by hp: 18
AC: 19
Defensive cr? 18.5

Offensive DPR CR 12(16) (79 per round) (if I am extremely generous with the fire aura 99)
+2 for attack bonus increase
so.. 14/18

Blend the two and you have a 16/18.

But again, that is only if I am being very generous with the damage on the fire aura.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

5e does not support solo monsters as boss fights, unless they are Tiamat. It simply doesn't.

Take a deep breath, and realize that this is the truth.

Now, you (general you) can house rule to change it. Or you can express disapproval of that design decision, or frustration with having to change in-grained habits to start implementing it. Or you can give up on 5e in disgust.

But you must accept the truth of the way the game is designed. Based on all they put into the game, I have a hard time believing that they failed to anticipate that it would work that way. So we should consider it to be at least passively included design.

Personally, I'm of the group that has a difficult time getting out of the mind frame that I can plop down a single monster out of the book and use it as a boss. While I'm okay with it in theory usually, it seems to limit your options in practice, and just is hard to really internalize.

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 also like the way the stats we've seen go all the way to the top (a god), so there isn't likely to be a whole tier of epic monsters like in 3e. It's "bounded monstrosity". This is really important to me because the relationships of monsters to other monsters have to make sense. I don't want there to be stats for some non-unique CR 28 monsters just to give high level PCs solo's to fight. Anything at that level needs to be a unique being who really is stronger than Demogorgon but weaker than Tiamat.

So I think the basic conclusion is: 1) Remove from our minds the idea that solo BBEGs are viable threats, 2) Remove from our minds that the boss is necessarily the most powerful combatant in his group, and 3) Reinterpret the world in that light.

Yeah, easier said than done. Maybe in 15 years when us pre-5e players give some input on an issue, some knowledgeable soul with have to clarify our weird statements by explaining to the post-5e players how in the stone age monsters scaled in such a way that you could just take a single powerful monster and make it an effective boss fight for the whole party without any other monsters or carefully laid plans.



That's a really cool way of phrasing it that makes the point better than the rulebooks (while still actually saying the same thing!)

Those are good points. Social power > personal power--LE is the way to go in 5e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I always find very curious the claim that 5E doesn't support solo monsters as serious threats.

I often prefer to make an organization instead of an individual the major baddie of a scenario or campaign, and I think a Pit Fiend with six demonic lieutenants (say, an Erinyes, a Cornugon, a Gelugon, and a couple of Black Abishai) makes a dandy foil for the PCs, so I'm certainly not claiming that you have to have "boss fights" against solo monsters.

But it simply isn't true that you can't have individually-fearsome opponents in 5E. Even something as simple as a 5th level Goblin Shadow Monk can be a terrifying foe for a 5th level party; at higher levels there are Ancient Red Shadow Dragons (spellcasting variant, or just add Dragon Sorcerer levels) which are probably overkill against any party played by normal players. In between there is Strahd, whom we've already discussed.

It is pretty much a fact that a monster needs to have both intelligence and spellcasting or something very much like it in order to be a credible solo threat; but that's fine, since "evil wizard" is a far stronger trope in fantasy than "evil general." In fact, the whole reason the Tarrasque is derided ("what's the lowest level at which you can kill the Tarrasque?") is because it lacks the mobility, intelligence, and proactive attitude which characterizes evil wizards like Korel the Necromancer and Necrophilius the Grave and Vecna and Borys of Ebe.

 

[MostlyDm]

Found the Balor stats on my phone from earlier so:

I think, if you are extremely generous with how you calculate the Fire Aura, it could be CR 19. If you don't treat it like an AOE that hits lots of people every round over and over (anyone with a ranged weapon is basically immune to it, which should be everyone)... it isn't a 19.

Defensive CR by hp: 18
AC: 19
Defensive cr? 18.5

Offensive DPR CR 12(16) (79 per round) (if I am extremely generous with the fire aura 99)
+2 for attack bonus increase
so.. 14/18

Blend the two and you have a 16/18.

But again, that is only if I am being very generous with the damage on the fire aura.

You don't need to be generous with anything. The rules for determining CR clearly state how AOE abilities like the fire aura and death burst are calculated.

Away from book right now, so I will post again when I can give you some page numbers to ensure your calculations are accurate.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

"Cloverfielding" the Tarrasque does make a big difference: what are those things falling off the Tarrasque? Wait, they can fly?*

* I stole that part from Godzilla 1985.

 

[Valdier]

You don't need to be generous with anything. The rules for determining CR clearly state how AOE abilities like the fire aura and death burst are calculated.

Away from book right now, so I will post again when I can give you some page numbers to ensure your calculations are accurate.

And there in lies the generosity portion. Calling their melee exclusive fire aura an AOE attack and treating it as such is being very generous. Their death burst wouldn't count because it doesn't happen once in every three rounds (per the examples of the DMG), it is only semi-sustained damage. With all of the groups I have run games for, it would be rare to see two PC's standing in melee with a damage aura, or seeing the balor ever catch more than one person with that. Hence, I wouldn't count it as an AOE attack (something that regularly catches 2 or more people per use).

 

[dco]

So does Dracula frontally assault a crucifix-wielding Van Helsing in the town square at noon? No. He strikes where and when he has the advantage.

You complain that he's too easy to kill then grouse about methods that that make him effective and hard to kill. His mobility using Legendary Actions, especially in Castle Ravenloft, large regen capabilities and the ability to Charm party members into attacking others, make him dangerous and hard to counter.

Van Helsing also strikes when he has the advantage and he is a normal human being. On the other hand players are very powerful not the blood bags of movies, they can be as stealthy, cunning, strong, etc as Stradh.
If what makes Stradh effective is running away and attacking players later when they are alone perhaps wiping their asses he is a loser, the worst villain ever.

 

[MostlyDm]

And there in lies the generosity portion. Calling their melee exclusive fire aura an AOE attack and treating it as such is being very generous. Their death burst wouldn't count because it doesn't happen once in every three rounds (per the examples of the DMG), it is only semi-sustained damage. With all of the groups I have run games for, it would be rare to see two PC's standing in melee with a damage aura, or seeing the balor ever catch more than one person with that. Hence, I wouldn't count it as an AOE attack (something that regularly catches 2 or more people per use).

I think you're mostly right about the fire aura, I still haven't had time to crunch the numbers to compare. I'll try to spitball it out right now, but I'm still away from book so bear with me as I use open resources online.

Key point: you are wrong about Death Burst, it still factors into the DPR calculation. It spikes one round of the 3-round calculation. It's AOE is 30 ft radius around the Balor. If you look at AOE adjudication in the DMG, I think this means they are assuming that the AOE hits all 4 party members for 70 damage.

So, 70x4=280, plus his normal DPR which is I think 56 (assume just a single person in fire aura, hitting once, so two pings. And then his two attacks), plus two more instances of his normal DPR (fire aura, attacks), 280+56+56+56=448, which gives us 448/3=149 DPR average.

I'm still away from book. But punching just his HP, AC, and the damage calculations above into http://1-dot-encounter-planner.appspot.com/quick-monster-stats.html gives me a CR 18 monster. Not counting his immunities, resistances, and magic resistance, which probably nudges his defensive CR up one more point, putting him to CR 19.

So yeah, fire aura only assumes 2 hits per round, per the example in the DMG calculation instructions (As I recall, they literally use Balor as an example.)

It's the death burst that inflates his CR massively, as Hemlock said. The Balor, as written, is a scary looking Gas Spore.

Which, if you want the death burst, is required for it to be consistent with the way CR is determined. If you didn't do it this way, and you ignored the Death Burst and made him CR 12 or whatever, then the casual DM and his casual party could inadvertently end up with a TPK when they all got hit in the death burst after being whittled down during the fight.

Personally, I don't mind killing party members, and I prefer Balors to be scary, so if I ever run a Balor I'll make him a lot tougher, and telegraph to the party that he's gonna explode when he dies, and if they die in the explosion, that's on them. But speccing out the monster that way would go against the existing design philosophies that 5e uses for CR, monsters, DM guidance, etc. So I don't mind that much that they followed their math correctly, and ended up with an oddly balanced Balor.