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

[The Crimson Binome]

Maybe Internet posters will "expect people to reference it" for Internet discussions, but that's not real gaming, that's just the Internet.

For the purposes of internet discussion, can we say that we don't really have stats for demon lords, since they aren't in a core book that everyone is expected to have read?

If we say that a Balor makes sense as it is, based on information in a book that most people haven't read, is that fair treatment of the topic at hand? I mean, shouldn't it be judged on its own merits, of which everyone is aware, rather than accounting for outside context that is only known to a minority?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For the purposes of internet discussion, can we say that we don't really have stats for demon lords, since they aren't in a core book that everyone is expected to have read?

Which "we"? Inclusive or exclusive?

I have stats for demon lords in Out of the Abyss. I'm not super happy with them, because aside from Orcus they're all strategically pretty weak and non-magical, and I don't buy any of those stat blocks as plausible warlock patrons. But I do have those stats, and when someone refers to 5E Demogorgon or 5E Grazz't I know what they're referring to, and both of them are clearly more powerful than a Balor.

If we say that a Balor makes sense as it is, based on information in a book that most people haven't read, is that fair treatment of the topic at hand? I mean, shouldn't it be judged on its own merits, of which everyone is aware, rather than accounting for outside context that is only known to a minority?

If you're trying to put material in context, it makes sense to use as much of the context as you have. If you're trying to compare WotC Balors to WotC demon lords, then you might as well refer to OOTA. If you're trying to compare Dave2008 balors to Dave2008 demon lords, you might as well read the whole Epic Monsters thread.

If you want information on WotC demon lords and you don't own OOTA, you could ask for details on those demon lords you're interested in. I'll tell you right now that Orcus is interesting because he gets to permanently create some large amount of undead per day (300 HP worth? my book is only thirty feet away but my cat is sitting on my legs and I don't feel like disturbing her) and they are his permanent servants--so even though he's not that impressive personally, he's a huge strategic threat that can flood the world with liches and dracoliches and death knights given time.

 

[Celtavian]

For the purposes of internet discussion, can we say that we don't really have stats for demon lords, since they aren't in a core book that everyone is expected to have read?

If we say that a Balor makes sense as it is, based on information in a book that most people haven't read, is that fair treatment of the topic at hand? I mean, shouldn't it be judged on its own merits, of which everyone is aware, rather than accounting for outside context that is only known to a minority?

Out of the Abyss is an official source. If you want stats for demon lords designed by WotC, you buy that book.

 

[Barolo]

Play Strahd as Strahd? Is that some kind of worthless riddle?

Not a riddle. The module itself suggests how Strahd was planned to be played. I think it all goes down to expectations. If one expects him to be a brute or a straight-up front-line solo, then he is really disappointing. Not only by the stats, but by the description given to him in the module too.

But if someone expects him to be cunning, deceitful and, through these characteristics, deadly, then he is totally awesome. I really prefer an enemy whose numbers aren`t inflated, but who has interesting tactics, and winning is usually achievable through clever counter-tactics, through player decisions, not through optimized character building or a lucky streak (though these can always help!).

(...)

Stradh is a worthless final enemy but there is another element, the lair actions, another thing that has been discussed in this thread and they come with their own problems. The first problem is that lair actions are only available in a determinate place, an inherent problem of that design, they can bring a lack of consistency and a vast difference of danger for the players depending on where they find their enemy. Luckily the players will fight Strahd in his castle, OK, he will not suck so bad.
In this case we have another problem, Strahd can be unkillable using the lair power of passing through solid walls, floor or celing in combination with his legendary action of move without OA and legendary saves. An easy tactic, move, action, player's action, legendary action move through wall, regenerate, repeat next round. Unless a player can deliver more damage than Strahds HPs in 1 action he can not die, he can also wait a day if his legendary saves or HPs are down, he is immortal and doesn't lack time, good luck killing him.

What you point out here as a problem, I see as an awesome feature. He is the master of his domain. Luring him out somehow in order to weaken him is a valid option. This opens the field of play wider. I imagine running this adventure several times with different groups and each one handling the situation in so many different ways exactly because there are all those nice elements to be taken into account. Again, it just seems to boil down to preferences and expectations.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Is that canon? Or official? Or whatever the term for it is?

It's a bit weird if they include important general-use information in a published adventure, and then expect people to reference it. I mean, most people don't use published adventures.

I have the vague (and second hand) impression that WotC eventually plans to put the AP monsters in their own book, but if they are waiting to get 300 pages worth of them, it could be a while.

I am trying to keep a list of current official monsters, spells, classes, etc. on the first page of http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?491069-5e-Lists-of-Monsters-Spells-Races-Feats-Etc. It also includes the Tome of Beasts and 5th Edition Foes, but those are easy to edition out (the file is Excel).

 

[Gwarok]

It's not really that they are weak, but they do seem a bit bland, Balors in particular. Ultraloths actually seem pretty weak, although their gaze is quite effective if the PC's aren't immune, but I don't see them as brawlers types more the general in the rear directing the action. I definitely up Balors a bit though, as is they are essentially just hack and slash brutes, and I like to think they have a bit more magic and options to them. But fortunately, I am DM, I can do whatever I want with them.

 

[Helldritch]

Ok... let's analyse both.

Pit Fiend. Role: Tactician that leads legions of devil.
They can go in hand to hand but they won't unless it is absolutely necessary. They are not brute. They are aristocrate that lead and make tactical decisions on the battlefield.

Balor. Role: Brute designed to go in the battlefield and wreck havoc. They lead demonic armies through fear and violence. They do not use tactics. They just stomp, trample and slash the opposition. It is the Marilith's role to make tactics.

In single combat, the pit fiend will pulverize the Balor. Fire damage is irrelevent as both are imune to fire. Both have and AC of 19 and both have +14 on their attack so they will hit each other with a meager roll of 5. The balor (2 attacks) barely does 49 dmg whereas the pit fiend (4 attacks) will do 79. 262 hp for the Balor vs 300hp for the pit fiend. The pit fiend clearly wins.

But are they weak? No.
Are they suitable for solo boss fight? Yep, with some tweaking.
Unfortunately, both monsters will rarely be alone. Pitfiends will be with lesser devils while the balor will be with hezrous and vroks (remember that in the abyss, hezrou and vrocks, along with the dretches, are the majority of the foot soldiers).

All that to say that they are not supposed to be BBEG. It is not their role. Hell has the Arch Dukes and the Abyss has the Lords these are your BBEG. Balors and Pit fiends can be BBEG if you play them appropriately and use the standard array of encounters (6 to 8); the 5mwd is to be avoided at all cost unless you tweak them in some fashion so that they become suitable for a 5mwd encounter type.

 

[dco]

Option #3: players do something clever.

For example, if they have found the Sunsword, they can keep the Sunsword hidden, perhaps by casting a Seeming spell that scrambles all the PCs' appearances to make the burly fighters look like scrawny wizards and vice versa. Then they go looking for Strahd, and when Strahd attacks a scrawny wizard (really a burly fighter, hopefully one with the Sunsword), the scrawny wizard (burly fighter) whips out the sunsword and grapples Strahd (probably pins him prone too), with Strahd making his checks at disadvantage because of sunlight. Uh-oh, now he can't use his legendary action to escape because his speed is zero, and his attacks are at disadvantage! Another PC now casts Wall of Force around Strahd + front-liner PCs in a force bubble that will keep him from escaping. Now the front liners fight Strahd, at advantage, and he is slamming them as hard as he can with his Legendary actions but... to no avail. And Strahd dies.

And the players feel awesome, because Strahd died, but not easily. They won!

Some people like to win because they are smart and skilled players. Others like to win because their PCs have high stats. Strahd is better for the former kind of group because the latter kind of player will just get frustrated at losing.

It's clever to stop the combo for obvious reasons, but then we are back to he dies fast and perhaps in a ridiculous way without harming the player characters as you've described.
Clever but not easy, players need a spellcaster with wall of force prepared because Strahd can automatically escape a grab with shapechange, and the vampire can try to make him lose concentration. A group's victory under the circumstance they have the tools to stop the combo doesn't change a bad design, for one victory there could be countless defeats with awful and anticlimatic fights.

 

[MostlyDm]

It's clever to stop the combo for obvious reasons, but then we are back to he dies fast and perhaps in a ridiculous way without harming the player characters as you've described.
Clever but not easy, players need a spellcaster with wall of force prepared because Strahd can automatically escape a grab with shapechange, and the vampire can try to make him lose concentration. A group's victory under the circumstance they have the tools to stop the combo doesn't change a bad design, for one victory there could be countless defeats with awful and anticlimatic fights.

I'm not convinced that you're right about a fight with Strahd being anticlimactic.

But, also... anticlimactic does not equal awful. "Anticlimactic" fights with "boss" enemies can actually be great fun in an RPG.

A story my players still tell, from a D&D3.5 Colonial-themed Swords & Muskets game, was fundamentally anticlimactic. The party was on the run from a savage tribe of native Ogres, holed up in a small fort on the frontier. The ogres were assembling at the treeline. A few shots were fired by the defenders, before the ogres initiated an impromptu parley calling for the release of a prisoner the party had taken. In short order it was clear parley was going nowhere, and I described the ogre tribal chief as he emerged from the trees. He was going to give an ominous short speech and then send his ogres forth in force to smash the walls.

One of the party, a mute semi-retired bandit, decided at that moment to pop up and take a shot from his double-barreled flintlock. I told him it would be a long shot, but of course he was welcome to roll the attack.

He rolled a crit, an insanely effective one, and blew off the top of the ogre chief's head. The ogres freaked and backed off, and the big battle that we were building to completely fizzled out.

I won't deny I found it a little frustrating, as I'd sunk some time into designing that ogre. He had druid levels!

But the party was laughing their butts off, and very pleased. The ogre tribe eventually regrouped, and came after them even harder. But in that moment, it was fundamentally anticlimactic. And a lot of fun.

It can cut both ways, too. In the same game, when a PC Dragon Shaman/Monk charged into close combat with renowned bandit lord Bloody Blake, she expected to get into a ferocious melee. Instead, he pulled out the minor artifact gun that gave him his moniker and shot her dead. The player wasn't too pleased with that outcome, and it probably felt pretty anticlimactic... but they eventually got Blake.

Anticlimax isn't really the enemy. If anything, I think it's sometimes necessary for a world to maintain verisimilitude. Sometimes the party fights their way through the Necromancer's defenders and burst into his laboratory for their epic confrontation... only to find that the necromancer buggered off twenty minutes ago when he heard them start their assault.

Edited to fix a typo.

 

[dco]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you think the grappling rules are cheesey and broken, don't use them. Find another clever way to beat Strahd despite his mobility and his legendary resistances. I can think of three off the top of my head that don't involve grappling.

The point is that, hopefully, when faced with a strong enemy using a strong tactic you don't just give up and throw your dice at the DM and walk out. Hopefully you at least come up with a plan in-character and execute it. You're into roleplaying; this argument should appeal to you. Die hard!

Grapple rules are ok, the problem is the monster manual.
When I see the players can grapple bears easily I lose the interest, some will like it but for me it only shows the worst design of monsters I've seen in a long time. For example from the first 30 monsters only 1 has athletics or acrobatics, it's worse, a lot of them don't have any skill or lack saves. The problem of designing the monsters and characters in different ways, here it is, a lot of monsters are not much more than blood bags with a standard attack.

If players don't see how to counter an enemy or can't do it because of their character choices running is a good alternative, at least better than dying, no?

I'm not convinced that you're right about a fight with Strahd being anticlimactic.

But, also... anticlimactic does not equal awful. "Anticlimactic" fights with "boss" enemies can actually be great fun in an RPG.

The players won't have fun if they die or have to run from the last fight because an awful power limits most or all their options in combat.