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

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Generally speaking, end-boss super-villains should be capable of holding their own in a straight-forward fight, because end-boss battles usually take that form. And if they can't fight, then it's weird that they found their way into the position of Big Bad in the first place, (although I suppose a vampire does have ways around that).

I'm not opposed to the idea of a different sort of villain, who doesn't work that way, but it would be pretty anti-climactic for the players if they didn't get their big boss battle eventually. And it's kind of weird to put that archetype onto the boss vampire, when vampires are especially well-known for being nigh-indestructible and for punching people across the room. It's weird when the boss of a particular monster type subverts the standard traits of that monster, instead of taking those traits up to eleven.

 

[Celtavian]

As a person that played the original Ravenloft, Strahd being able to survive a concentrated attack by a party is not his game, it wasn't in nearly any edition he was made for. Once you got past all Strahd's tricks and magical defenses, he was fairly easy to kill. Even in movies and literature vampires can be fairly easy to kill once you know how to do it. They have too many weaknesses and parties aren't commoners with man-made weapons. Their fantasy heroes with magic at their disposal. It's just not the same as the literature vampires were drawn from.

I expect dragons and king demons or devils like balors or pitfiends to be able to go toe to toe with parties, but master vampires need to watch their step against fantasy parties. Wizards are usually very much a match for vampires in a lot of fiction. I'm ok with that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I guess I'll just chalk that up to pop cultural drift, then. Clearly, the original Ravenloft designers were not drawing from Blade or Castlevania.

But we're all on board with balors needing to be tougher, right? A balor should be able to take a high-level party in open combat?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But we're all on board with balors needing to be tougher, right? A balor should be able to take a high-level party in open combat?

Yes, a Balor is one of the few monsters that I'd definitely boost not just the magic but also the stats. I'd like it to be about equal to a Pit Fiend in physical terms, which probably requires boosting its offense by around 100%. If a Pit Fiend fought a Balor to the death I'd want to be unsure which one would win.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Generally speaking, end-boss super-villains should be capable of holding their own in a straight-forward fight, because end-boss battles usually take that form. And if they can't fight, then it's weird that they found their way into the position of Big Bad in the first place, (although I suppose a vampire does have ways around that).

That is a definite option for an end boss battle. However I do not think that its the only option. Its good for creatures like Demons and other might-makes-right creatures where the party will dismantle the organisation as they fight their way in, often get a long rest, and then go confront the BBEG as it makes its last stand alone.
For something like that, you want a creature capable of endangering some party members in a solo fight.

For a situation like CoS however, where Strahd rules over his minions through personal authority and supernatural influence, he doesn't have to be able to outfight all of his minions at once. Moreover, the final confrontation with Strahd is unlikely to occur with a fully-rested party facing Strahd alone unless Strahd has seriously goofed, or the party has seriously out-thought him. The climactic big-boss battle is more likely to be the desperate party on low resources after fighting their way to the site of the final confrontation against Strahd and allies.
Strahd is generally capable of holding his own against a party in that kind of fight.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a different sort of villain, who doesn't work that way, but it would be pretty anti-climactic for the players if they didn't get their big boss battle eventually. And it's kind of weird to put that archetype onto the boss vampire, when vampires are especially well-known for being nigh-indestructible and for punching people across the room. It's weird when the boss of a particular monster type subverts the standard traits of that monster, instead of taking those traits up to eleven.

Not at all weird. Vampires are indeed known to be nigh-indestructible - but with severe weaknesses. It would be weirder, I believe, to have a vampire laughing off sunlight and radiant damage from the magical sword prophesied to destroy them.
CoS doesn't subvert the standard traits of that monster type at all: it enhances both Strahd's vampire traits of indestructibility and his vampire weaknesses to very specific things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I guess I'll just chalk that up to pop cultural drift, then. Clearly, the original Ravenloft designers were not drawing from Blade or Castlevania.

But we're all on board with balors needing to be tougher, right? A balor should be able to take a high-level party in open combat?

I think it will vary by game and by group for sure. So I think that the way it was designed was meant to be a kind of "base" version.

I wouldn't be surprised at all for many groups to see the need to boost the Balor a bit in order to make them a tough solo boss monster.

My point throughout this discussion is that I think that the WotC design team wisely left such alterations up to individual DMs, because opinions on which monsters are weak and how best to toughen them up will vary so much.

If they had made the Balor a little tougher from the start, I would't have minded, though.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If they had made the Balor a little tougher from the start, I would't have minded, though.

I might have, unless that "little tougher" also meant a higher CR. If a party isn't careful as-is, a balor might just take out the party's "squishy" by dying - while it's own death is nothing more than a speed-bump for it, since it is just sent home rather than actually killed.

 

[Uchawi]

I am curious is this all boils down to the base argument or whether PCs and monsters should share the same mechanics, and if those mechanics should increase in complexity based on level. If there was anything 5E could change for the better it would be to build everything from the same building blocks. Otherwise if you have complex PCs and simple monsters it tends to get boring, or if you have monsters with arbitrary abilities like legendary actions and there is no PC equivalent, then the PCs become boring. Or at least you start to make comparisons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I might have, unless that "little tougher" also meant a higher CR. If a party isn't careful as-is, a balor might just take out the party's "squishy" by dying - while it's own death is nothing more than a speed-bump for it, since it is just sent home rather than actually killed.

True...the death explosion can be devastating. And I don't think the Balor is a slouch, by any means. But against an entire party...especially proficient players who have minmaxed their characters...I think they at least need Legendary Actions to balance things out.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...especially proficient players who have minmaxed their characters...I think they at least need Legendary Actions to balance things out.

I agree. Minmaxed PCs need minmaxed monsters, unless the group are okay with "I did everything I could to be as devastating in combat as possible" meaning combat isn't as challenging as it would be with a less focused build.