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

[Dualazi]

Just wow...
Strahd is terror and refinement incarnate. He is not an armored battleship. Strahd uses cunning, intellect and charisma to get what he wants. Brute force is for the weak minded. Sometimes it is necessary to use some, that is what minions are for.

Translation: Strahd is cool until he actually tries to engage the party in combat, then he gets blown to smithereens. If this was just one poster’s experience I’d take it with a grain of salt, but there have been a plethora of testimonies here and elsewhere that Strahd is extremely fragile, and if you have the weapons he’s weak to (such as the Sun Sword) then many of those “cunning” tactics are disabled.

Strahd will target the weakest party member. He will charm, he will harass the party. He will wear them down. He will lure the heavy away from his target with illusion or lead them into deadly traps (of which the castle has a few).

Better hope team PC doesn’t make that save then, because if they do then Strahd might not have the opportunity to fade back.

The stat block of a monster is not the end of it. It is only the begining. Some monsters are as you want them, mindless brutes. Others needs skills and deviousness to be played to their full potential. Strahd is one of them. He was in the chapel but he led the party on a wild goose chase. I slew the wizard and while they were battling him, gargoyles stole the body. Then it was the cleric's turn and so on. Was it fair? Hell no! But Strahd is not fair. He plays by his rules alone. If you let such a character get into the party's trap, you play him poorly.

There is no DM that can play a character perfectly in such a way as to never have things go awry short of simply invoking DM fiat. I consider this a strength of the game, but similar to the above example, sometimes players simply resist his traps and charms. When they do so, I’d prefer the big boss of the entire campaign not fold like a house of cards, as others in this thread have attested to.

Through my play, Strahd enforced the 6 to 8 encounter per day on the little group. They died as they did not know how to manage ressources. They were young but I showed them that RPG are a thinking man's games. Not a mindless hack and slash fest. Now the young DM is putting more time in preparation and reads his MM with a lot more attention than before. He learned and his players did too.

So what you’re saying is a bunch of inexperienced and likely un-optimized players made silly tactical choices and paid for it? Shocking, that.

I’m not normally one to nitpick tone, but seriously dude, get off your high horse. D&D isn’t some master-crafted exhibition of the fine arts, it isn’t the “thinking man’s game”, and you’re not a wizened elder for capitalizing on people who don’t know better. This is a game where we crack open some drinks, eat snacks and pretend to be elves and (not)hobbits.

If you play the game as it should be. You'll find that the game is well balanced, even if you use every single options in the book. It just take a bit more preps than you might be used to.

“As it should be”, huh? I like the one-true-wayism thrown in at the last minute. To address your point though, no, there is a clear rift of what people consider balanced or not, based on any number of factors and virtually every aspect of the game has been nitpicked at some point or another on these boards, and presumably others.

More fundamentally, this isn’t even related to complaints about Strahd or 5e monsters at large, since it’s not like people are complaining that fighters in particular are putting him through the ringer, just that he getting demolished by parties in general. That has everything to do with monster design and nothing to do with whether the game is balanced or not.

 

[Uchawi]

Just wow...
Strahd is terror and refinement incarnate. He is not an armored battleship. Strahd uses cunning, intellect and charisma to get what he wants. Brute force is for the weak minded. Sometimes it is necessary to use some, that is what minions are for.

Strahd will target the weakest party member. He will charm, he will harass the party. He will wear them down. He will lure the heavy away from his target with illusion or lead them into deadly traps (of which the castle has a few).

The stat block of a monster is not the end of it. It is only the begining. Some monsters are as you want them, mindless brutes. Others needs skills and deviousness to be played to their full potential. Strahd is one of them. He was in the chapel but he led the party on a wild goose chase. I slew the wizard and while they were battling him, gargoyles stole the body. Then it was the cleric's turn and so on. Was it fair? Hell no! But Strahd is not fair. He plays by his rules alone. If you let such a character get into the party's trap, you play him poorly.

Through my play, Strahd enforced the 6 to 8 encounter per day on the little group. They died as they did not know how to manage ressources. They were young but I showed them that RPG are a thinking man's games. Not a mindless hack and slash fest. Now the young DM is putting more time in preparation and reads his MM with a lot more attention than before. He learned and his players did too.

If you play the game as it should be. You'll find that the game is well balanced, even if you use every single options in the book. It just take a bit more preps than you might be used to.

I believe the hardest part to address for iconic monsters like Strahd is from a historical reference when considering different editions of D&D and how vampires are represented mechanically. Using that reference, 4E and 5E versions appear to be weak sauce.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Isn't that the point, though? You shouldn't need or want to play him like Strahd, if playing him like Strahd means that he slinks around in the shadows and only attacks when you're trying to sleep. Because an enemy who does that is lame, and not awesome, and we want Strahd to appear awesome.

I recall this same conversation going on, with dragons, a while back - how a big red dragon can't even burn down a small city, because the archers will kill it before it can even kill a hundred peasants, with the counter being that the dragon is way too smart to ever attack a city head-on.

So you're saying that all monsters should be played like dragons, capable of devastating straightforward force?

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having different types of monsters?

Strahd certainly should be smart and crafty and predatory, not brutish and overwhelming.

This still does not change the basic fact that a regular party (not superminmaxed but not carebear either) absolutely demolishes Strahd as written, and how disappoint this is.

Which gets us to the bottom line. Why not simply accept that the stat block isn't good enough?

Because that is not true. Not universally true, anyway. There are just as many anecdotes of DMs devastating parties with Strahd as there are of the opposite. You choose to ignore those examples in favor of those that match your conclusion. Stop doing that. You don't speak for everyone.

Strahd was brutal to my players. Run with the exact stat block in the book. Absolutely brutal. And I would say it is because of how I ran him.

I mean, I don't even get your argument at this point. A statblock is nothing but numbers and words. It can't do anything without the DM. This isn't a video game. The DM is required to think by default.

You just prefer the DM only have to think a little bit? I don't get this.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just wow...
Strahd is terror and refinement incarnate. He is not an armored battleship. Strahd uses cunning, intellect and charisma to get what he wants. Brute force is for the weak minded. Sometimes it is necessary to use some, that is what minions are for.

Translation: Strahd is cool until he actually tries to engage the party in combat, then he gets blown to smithereens. If this was just one poster’s experience I’d take it with a grain of salt, but there have been a plethora of testimonies here and elsewhere that Strahd is extremely fragile, and if you have the weapons he’s weak to (such as the Sun Sword) then many of those “cunning” tactics are disabled.

There is no need for me to respond to Helldritch, since you have already done so very well.

Bottom line is: a 10th level player character is also an incredibly lethal hunter. If played by a veteran gamer is not impressed by BS talk about how dangerous and ancient a monster is. Put up or shut up.

This boils down to: does your Strahd play by the rules of the game or not? If he does, he's toast.

Which is the entire point of the complaint.

I'm glad you had a good time when you played the adventure, Helldritch. Nobody is trying to deny you your experiences. But for the love of the dark powers, stop trying to defend the stat block as it's written on the page, Helldritch. We're not talking about what an inventive DM can do here - we're just talking about the stat block.

 

[CapnZapp]

“As it should be”, huh? I like the one-true-wayism thrown in at the last minute.

Yes, this is very disappointing. A small but vocal handful of posters making the frustratingly illogical defense of WotC's weak monster design by bringing everything into the discussion just to not have to admit the stat blocks could have been better, stronger, scooter.

I will probably never understand what drives these people. It's almost like as if they cannot play the game if they have to concede it is less than perfect.

I'm not like that. I love 5E. I just wish its weaknesses were fixed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This boils down to: does your Strahd play by the rules of the game or not? If he does, he's toast.

Not mine. I ran him exactly as he appears in the book. I had my party of 5 level 9 PCs and Rictavio down to a near TPK before they finally managed to drive him off.

So why do you think it worked for me and not for others?

Yes, this is very disappointing. A small but vocal handful of posters making the frustratingly illogical defense of WotC's weak monster design by bringing everything into the discussion just to not have to admit the stat blocks could have been better, stronger, scooter.

I will probably never understand what drives these people. It's almost like as if they cannot play the game if they have to concede it is less than perfect.

I'm not like that. I love 5E. I just wish its weaknesses were fixed.

You reply to a post that criticizes someone's opinion as being "one true wayism" and then do that exact thing in your post.

Those of us who are defending Strahd's stats are not illogical. Stop being condescending.

If you find that he is too weak for your players, by all means do whatever you need to in order to make him threatening. Take the Terrasque statblock and slap the name Strahd on it for all I care. Whatever it takes for your group to have fun.

However, you must accept that just as the system and its design is open to criticism, so is your opinion of it. So when you insist that your opinion of the statblock is true across the board, then expect folks like me to assert that is not the case based on our own experiences.

And therefore, you must accept that the "weaknesses" of the system are largely a matter of preference, and therefore, "fixes" for the "weaknesses" will necessarily vary according to those preferences.

Therefore, there is no one way to "fix" things, so the best way to approach it is to allow DMs to fix whatever problems they find themselves. Do you follow that logic?

I mean...if they did what you are asking, wouldn't us "illogical folks" then clamor for a fix to the problem of monsters being too tough or overly complex? What would you say to us then?

 

[Helldritch]

So what you’re saying is a bunch of inexperienced and likely un-optimized players made silly tactical choices and paid for it? Shocking, that.

I’m not normally one to nitpick tone, but seriously dude, get off your high horse. D&D isn’t some master-crafted exhibition of the fine arts, it isn’t the “thinking man’s game”, and you’re not a wizened elder for capitalizing on people who don’t know better. This is a game where we crack open some drinks, eat snacks and pretend to be elves and (not)hobbits.

What is young for you? 13? 15?
They were in their mid 20s. The DM might have been nearer his 30s than the others. They were not inexperienced. Here is why I had put the "young" qualifier:"I am 46 (near 47) and everything under 40 is young for me". Everything under 20 years of RPG is young... No they were not a bunch of kiddo without any experience. You just assumed that and took it for granted. They were good players and that is why they toasted Strahd the first time.

I would never have killed a teenage group just to show off my skills. They were "mature" players but their DM was a bit like you. He was only considering the stat block and not using a monster as a player would.

“As it should be”, huh? I like the one-true-wayism thrown in at the last minute. To address your point though, no, there is a clear rift of what people consider balanced or not, based on any number of factors and virtually every aspect of the game has been nitpicked at some point or another on these boards, and presumably others.

More fundamentally, this isn’t even related to complaints about Strahd or 5e monsters at large, since it’s not like people are complaining that fighters in particular are putting him through the ringer, just that he getting demolished by parties in general. That has everything to do with monster design and nothing to do with whether the game is balanced or not.

Unfortunately for you, there are some ways to play a monster like Strahd that are better than the others. Strahd will throw everything he can at the party. He will not fight fair. He will not put himself at risk for the sake of it. He must be forced to do it. Most group that said they easily killed Strahd in my area would've been shut down at my table. I talked with most of their DM and when the discussion was finished, guess what? The DM had played by the stat block only...

5ed is a bit of a carebear edition for the players. Min/maxing is quite easy in this edition. On the other hand, it is quite the reverse for the DM as he/she will have to think and prepare a lot more than what we got used to in 4ed. 3.x and PF might seem more "complicated" or "refined" but they're not. In the end you'll see that it's just added math over added math...

5ed is a lot more like AD&D where some group were killing gods by the scores while others were struggling with a "simple" Balor. 5ed is versatile enough to let you play gritty grinding or high fantasy where only one man can nearly stop an army by himself.

You want to talk the stat block? Ok, let's talk about it. D&D is not a simple stat block game. Try a wargame for that. In wargames everything is balanced. You can't climb a wall unless it is in the rules. A tank is a tank. For any sides. A plane is a plane whatever the player. A klingon D9 will still be a D9 wheter it faces an Enterprise C or an Excelsior class. In a wargame everything is fixed. Not so in D&D. A fighter will not always be like the other fighter. There is bound to be differences. A DM might not favor that type of ennemy while another will play it. If you want a stat block game, go to a wargame like Axis and Allies or Attack wing (both game I really like) or even Monopoly.

Defending WoTC does not blind me to the weaknesses of the game. It has some. I do modify some monsters if I want a change of pace and do the 5mwd (which is not very often as I hate the 5mwd. Then a solo monster will have to be adjusted on the way up. You have a group of 6 (Like me, but I have two)? Then you will have to modify a lot more than with a group of 5 or even 3. The game assumes 4 players. Anything higher or lower creates some imbalance just like in any other edition but on a greater scaling. This means more work for the DMs.

You want monsters stat block? Create some and share them with us. I will be happy to look at them. I might even use them if the work is inspiring. Again, check Dave2008 post on epic monsters. It is truly epic and will be worth your time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Better hope team PC doesn’t make that save then, because if they do then Strahd might not have the opportunity to fade back.

Dude. He's got legendary actions for mobility, legendary resistances, high stats, magic, and the ability to move through walls as a lair action. In what scenario do you envision Strahd "not being able to fade back"?

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are so many different angles to this discussion, but I'm trying to relate this to my game and I wonder about a few different things.

First of all, WoTC created a major problem for itself with the optional rules. Multiclassing, Feats, and Magical Items are optional, they are not necessarily included in any calculation being made in the MM.

No one is going to deny that a party that is highly optimized using those rules is vastly more powerful than an optimized party that does not use those rules, but what WoTC didn't account for, for whatever reason, seems to be that a large portion of their fanbase, even ther own design team, want to use those rules all the time. They are essentially standard, but the Monsters were not designed with those rules thought of as standard, because if they did they would all be much more difficult for the people who are playing the game without any of the bells and whistles.


Here's another thing I'm not sure what to do with, and it may be more my experience at the table than anything else. It becomes incredibly easy for monsters and players to meet in the middle and stay there. Drawing a dramatic environment is hard, and copying one from a sheet of paper onto my mat is hard, and I'd assume I'd find doing Theater of the Mind with a complicated environment would be nightmarish. However, that mobility and use of cover makes things much harder, and I think the designers counted on that happening a little more than they realized.

But I've never seen a lot done with the lines of battle. It tends to start in one place, and stay there. Part of that has been my monster selection, they tend to encounter swarms of enemies that aren't very bright, I choose those enemies though because I would destroy the party with intelligent enemies that use cover and attack from multiple angles. In just this last battle I had one player spend 4-5 turns making perception checks to try and see an enemy that teleported away (an NPC who I had planned on running away, because he's a trap man and hunter, not a fight to the death knight) while the battle raged on behind them, then the heavies (a druid shaped into a Cave Bear, a barbarian and a swashbuckler) ran to one end of the field, leaving the squishy ranger and wizard with no cover from the enemy. The enemies were stupid, but not that stupid, and they turned back and nearly killed the two players in one round. And these were CR 1/2 creatures against a level 10 party, with a single (turns out) CR 10 beast in the back.

I'm going to end up with a TPK at this rate, because my players don't seem to operate at squad level tactics. They weren't doing as bad as they sometimes do with this fight, but they are hunting a high level wizard and fighting his twisted creations, with the aforementioned hunter and a vampire they aren't even aware of yet.


My point, some of the monsters don't meet our expectations. Sometimes like the Balor, I think it is bad design, with things like Strahd, I think it is an issue with expectations and genre transference. He is a beast of destruction to 3rd level characters I imagine, but as players get more powerful they are supposed to be able to survive and go toe to toe with someone who can wipe out a platoon of bog-standard guards by themselves. Could he have been made more powerful, of course, should he have been? No idea, seems to be a debate. But there is also at work here the difference in players. My players are powerfully optimized individually (to a degree, wizard is new and a pacifist), so I need to adjust monsters soemtimes to fit the story, keep them feeling like they are in danger, but their tactics and style of optimization is more geared towards single target damage. It is not uncommon for us to see 30-50 damage in a single attack or turn, but only against 1 creature at a time, so a mob is incredibly dangerous for them. I have a lot of rogues and high dex characters, so fireballs and lightning bolts get laughed at, but a cloud of poisonous gas cripples them because most of them have low con or strength.

If I played a squad of enemies incredibly well, I can do a lot of damage, but if I just wipe the floor with my players, it would make the semester seem like a waste. We could potentially throw together new characters, but the game is over in May, and no one really wants to see a TPK. So, monsters vary in dangerousness, and players vary in strength, and sometimes one group wants more of a challenge, while another group has a DM holding back for fear of destroying a party that isn't working well.

And WoTC has to thread that needle. They have to design monsters and encounters that can work for all groups, when the groups vary so widely that even here on the forums of a gaming site, we've got perhaps 4 or 5 different levels and expectations. It is a tall order, and despite my agreement that I would rather WoTC do the work than myself needing to, I imagine it is many times easier for an experienced high-level group to increase the difficulty of the game than it is a low-level group who has yet to develop the tactics and procedures to weaken monsters that were designed to take many times the punishment they can dish out.

 

[Helldritch]

[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION]
Essentialy, you say that the monsters are as hard as you want them to be. Fine with me.

You have to work your encounters to suit your players. Perfectly fine by me. That is what should be done.
You don't simply take the monster out of the MM and play them. You think of how to adapt and play them for your group. That is what the DM job is.