D&D 5E Succubus Warlock with Familiar...

[MostlyHarmless42]

As someone who regularly adds classes to monsters, and custom builds monsters and then adds standard or modified classes to them, I completely disagree with several of your points.

First off: building monsters and building classes on to them is great practice. Several of the classed monsters I've created I know far better than any monster in the book. I could run some of them right now, without even looking at my notes.
Second: Who cares if the players notice? The goal is to change how the fight plays out, not to tip the players off to the fact that the Orc in front of them has 6 fighter levels.
Third: upping damage is almost entirely the point, as 5E is terribly soft with all of their monsters.
Fourth: why would you want your "boss" to not risk a TPK? Isn't that the point of a boss fight? To require additional skill and guts and coordination above and beyond your casual encounters? If the "boss fight" is no risk of a TPK, what's the point really? Is it even a boss?

Now, for the record, I run doubleplus deadly games. Every encounter runs the risk of on average, 2 people dropping and 1 person dying. The world is scary and dangerous and the players avoid that by being smart, not by killing everything in the path.

First, this is a forum dedicated to running tabletop games, one heavily skewed towards munchkinry, powergaming, and fiddly bits, and is in no way indicative of the majority opinion of the players who play d&d. I wish to provide for him an opposing opinion as it is unlikely he will hear it otherwise. Perhaps I was a bit blanket statement in my phrasing, but I never said don't do it, merely that it was ill advised. The reason this is the case is not because it does not work, but because it causes a couple concerns. First, it tunnel visions the DM into a mindset of monster design that this monster *must* have 'x' ability because "that's what class y gets". This is bad because it stifles creativity. Why shouldn't my monster have second wind just because they aren't a fighter? Why would my ooze need multiple skill proficiencies just because I wanted to have sneak attack? It creates unnecessary bloat in the statblocks.

Second, and more important, giving a monster a class level adjusts all of the monsters stats, not just it's offense or defense, meaning when you stick to just adding class levels without properly tweaking the dials of the monster according to the charts like you should it can result in monsters which are wildly stronger or weaker than intended. It is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer for what could have often been better handled by adjusted with a screwdriver. I bring this up because the original poster seems like a newer DM (if this is inaccurate, forgive me), and I want to make sure he understands the implications of just tacking on class levels, particularly as not all classes are equal from a challenge rating perspective. It is not as simple as adding one CR per level added, as one can add far more levels of fighter without much concern, but the moment you give a creature the ability to cast wizard spells is a moment when they can now, fly, turn invisible, fireball, or summon other monsters, all things which drastically alter the fight dynamic and make the monster more difficult to run.

For the record, a good boss encounter should be a potential tpk. The key word is *potential*. Not every group has the same build or skillet in players. Another part of making a fun boss encounter is ensuring the boss actually survives past 1 round. For example, I'd sooner give the succubus legendary actions to attack, charm, or cast a warlock cantrip over a few levels of warlock any day, as it will make it far deadlier and more memorable. Legendary actions are also something adding class levels would never get you, while taking the fine tuning approach could. As is damage resistances, special senses, minions that a pc warlock could not gain, or using alternative hit dice for health. There's a reason, for example why the lich has d8 and damage resistances instead of the normal d6 of a wizard.

I also do agree that out of adding any classes, warlock is a good choice. They do make great villains, and their casting system is simpler. I also could accomplish the same by just giving them so many levels of casting like a warlock (based on the intended offensive CR I want), and a couple invocations that thematically make sense, just like how they did in Volos guide for the warlocks and literally every other non-adventure league monster.

To provide a bit more background on my succubus, she's one of the main villains behind the scenes in my adventure, and at first she's pursuing her plan and isn't even aware of the party. Depending on how many clues they uncover and how they might inadvertently help or hurt another competing faction, she might not even engage the party directly- mostly she'll have her imp watching the party while she pursues her own agenda. In any case, I haven't buffed her HP much, because she has so many ways to escape from the party (charm, ethereal, expeditious retreat and command), and every reason to avoid a stand-up fight.

The thing the party needs to worry about is the thing she's trying to summon

.

It sounds like to me if most of her interaction will be with the party through indirect means, you may consider using a Night Hag instead of a Succubus as the base monster, or alternatively giving the succubus the night hag dreams stuff (or the night hag charm) from their statblock, so she has a way to interact with the players through their dreams. Really mess with them and have fun. There is also another higher level spell that allows one to project an image of themselves to a location and interact with it, though I can't remember if warlocks get it offhand (see why I prefer to do the other route?). I like the idea conceptually though, and wish you luck. Definitely look into whatever final encounter you have with her either giving her legendary actions, minions (what self respecting succubus has no harem?), or both. I wish you luck.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I tend toward adding feats rather than class levels to monsters, as it gives most of what I want, but the odd berserker 3 orc does pretty well for a minor boss.

As for fiends getting warlock powers, I figure that is the boss fiend giving them a bonus (Bob, that was some fine torture you put on those gnomes, but I used up all my promotions for the month, so here are some extra powers--maybe next month I can move you up to being a barbed devil). 5e succubi don't really have any "advanced forms" to elevate to (not being proper devils or demons), so that is a good payment for them.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

As someone who has gone up and down the "monster creation" charts since the MM was released they absolutely confound me. They are some of the most inscrutable monster creation and adjustment rules I have ever read. I can guarantee much more regular and much more reliable results by adding class levels than by ever following those charts. But to my other point: those charts still produce weak monsters.

And of course as always: the solution to "how weak or strong did I make this?" is to playtest it. Roll up a party and have them fight your monster. It's not terribly hard, make minor adjustments as necessary.

The chart is fairly self explanatory and allow more freedom once you understand them. Within those rules are suggestions for nearly every ability in the game for monsters and how they effect the power level of a monster, and they have clear cut guidelines for gauging your own. Again, you are more than welcome to give monsters class levels, just realize that a) it will restrict you, and b) player classes have higher damage output and lower respective health than most monsters. The tankiest of pcs is STILL a glass cannon compared to a "tanky" monster of a relative similar strength. This is deliberately done because a monster's only job is to take hits and deplete party resources before dying. Preferably, they will do this in an interesting way.

I agree that one can always playtest a monster to figure out how strong they are. As to your claims of weak monsters based on the chart, we cannot say that definitively. A number of factors influence how strong a monster is in play, even dice luck aside. First, his party may not all be min maxed or optimized, and even they are, they may not be metagamers or strategically minded. Additionally, we lack context of when and where these encounters will take place, or the party composition. There is a big difference between the first encounter of the day and the eighth. The chart assumes multiple encounters each day even at deadly difficulty, and if he is doing his job right a boss encounter shouldn't be the first fight of the day, especially with a creature who can literally harass them practically unhindered to keep then from resting. Ethereal is a POWERFUL tool when used appropriately, as is flight. If they lack ranged characters or magic capable of dealing with it, even a normal succubus could be a real hassle.

Good encounter design if far more important than anything else. If you want proof, I point you to tucker's kobolds as an example of good encounter design with "weak" monsters. That said, a DM is more than welcome to increase the difficulty past Deadly. I can and do typically do so. I've found for my group and play style typically Deadly x2 does the trick, then again, I usually run 2-3 encounters a day and only about 2 of the 5 players are what I would call optimized. Your milage may vary, as will any other DM. Got munchkins? Race the party xp cap one level. Less than the suggested encounters per day? Raise it another. Are you too lazy to use good tactics thst fight? One more! The trick is to realize the chart us itself guidelines. Only he will be able to tell if something is too strong or weak, best advice we can give him is to make sure he knows all the tools at his disposal.

I tend toward adding feats rather than class levels to monsters, as it gives most of what I want, but the odd berserker 3 orc does pretty well for a minor boss.

As for fiends getting warlock powers, I figure that is the boss fiend giving them a bonus (Bob, that was some fine torture you put on those gnomes, but I used up all my promotions for the month, so here are some extra powers--maybe next month I can move you up to being a barbed devil). 5e succubi don't really have any "advanced forms" to elevate to (not being proper devils or demons), so that is a good payment for them.

Feats are a great way to adjust monsters as well, either prepared or especially on the fly midsession for minibosses. I do see that humorous situation as being a perfectly good explanation as well. Perhaps the person she's trying to summon is her patron then? Or a queen of the succubi? It's fine either way and up to the DM, just merely things to consider. The boss as described sounds more like a Tiefling than a fiend narratively soeaking, but I can understand why he'd want her to have charm, flight, and ethereal abilities because they make for a cool boss, so giving her them just sort of makes her a Succubus anyway. Cabrion or Night Hag are other good options as well.

"...and you promised me a promotion five gnomes, three centaur, and a rather lecherous mindflayer ago! I'm starting to think you just enjoy having me sworn my soul to you for power!"

 

[Sunseeker]

First, this is a forum dedicated to running tabletop games, one heavily skewed towards munchkinry, powergaming, and fiddly bits, and is in no way indicative of the majority opinion of the players who play d&d. I wish to provide for him an opposing opinion as it is unlikely he will hear it otherwise. Perhaps I was a bit blanket statement in my phrasing, but I never said don't do it, merely that it was ill advised. The reason this is the case is not because it does not work, but because it causes a couple concerns. First, it tunnel visions the DM into a mindset of monster design that this monster *must* have 'x' ability because "that's what class y gets". This is bad because it stifles creativity. Why shouldn't my monster have second wind just because they aren't a fighter? Why would my ooze need multiple skill proficiencies just because I wanted to have sneak attack? It creates unnecessary bloat in the statblocks.

Well okay sure that's great and all, but adding classes provides a reasonable framework for an expected outcome. If you add sorcerer levels to an Orc, you're going to end up with an Orc...who plays like a sorcerer. While adding individual features may create a more unique outcome, it's a much more subtle process, and one that, frankly, is more likely to produce unpredictable results since you are combining features without a framework to balance their application.

Second, and more important, giving a monster a class level adjusts all of the monsters stats, not just it's offense or defense, meaning when you stick to just adding class levels without properly tweaking the dials of the monster according to the charts like you should it can result in monsters which are wildly stronger or weaker than intended.

As someone who has gone up and down the "monster creation" charts since the MM was released they absolutely confound me. They are some of the most inscrutable monster creation and adjustment rules I have ever read. I can guarantee much more regular and much more reliable results by adding class levels than by ever following those charts. But to my other point: those charts still produce weak monsters.

And of course as always: the solution to "how weak or strong did I make this?" is to playtest it. Roll up a party and have them fight your monster. It's not terribly hard, make minor adjustments as necessary.

It is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer for what could have often been better handled by adjusted with a screwdriver. I bring this up because the original poster seems like a newer DM (if this is inaccurate, forgive me), and I want to make sure he understands the implications of just tacking on class levels, particularly as not all classes are equal from a challenge rating perspective. It is not as simple as adding one CR per level added, as one can add far more levels of fighter without much concern, but the moment you give a creature the ability to cast wizard spells is a moment when they can now, fly, turn invisible, fireball, or summon other monsters, all things which drastically alter the fight dynamic and make the monster more difficult to run.

CR is an absolutely ridiculous measure. It always has been, and it always will be. It should never have been re-included in 5E. Yes, class levels are not exactly 1-for-1, I never suggested they were. I suggested that adding levels is simple and added that it provides are reliable framework. Just willy-nilly adding the abilities you want to a monster is frankly, much more likely to get unpredictable results.

For the record, a good boss encounter should be a potential tpk. The key word is *potential*. Not every group has the same build or skillet in players. Another part of making a fun boss encounter is ensuring the boss actually survives past 1 round. For example, I'd sooner give the succubus legendary actions to attack, charm, or cast a warlock cantrip over a few levels of warlock any day, as it will make it far deadlier and more memorable. Legendary actions are also something adding class levels would never get you, while taking the fine tuning approach could. As is damage resistances, special senses, minions that a pc warlock could not gain, or using alternative hit dice for health. There's a reason, for example why the lich has d8 and damage resistances instead of the normal d6 of a wizard.

Yes, you can get different results by adding different non-class elements. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

A boss is likely to require something special, and I agree with this and I have often done so. But class levels provide a reliable, simple framework. Each has its benefits and it is, IMO easier to add levels and features, then remove the features you don't want, and replace them with non-class features you prefer.

 

[Grumbleputty]

... First, it tunnel visions the DM into a mindset of monster design that this monster *must* have 'x' ability because "that's what class y gets". This is bad because it stifles creativity.

...point well taken- that's exactly the trap I was falling into.

... I bring this up because the original poster seems like a newer DM (if this is inaccurate, forgive me).

Partly true. Devoted player and DM since 1981, getting back in after a decade-long break. I'm admittedly rusty, and I've got some bad habits from 1st edition I still need to shake.

It sounds like to me if most of her interaction will be with the party through indirect means, you may consider using a Night Hag instead of a Succubus as the base monster,

That's an excellent suggestion! This thread has been a great resource- it's forced me to really think through some assumptions I was making.

 

[schnee]

I think that sort of opponent is *fantastic*, for the right players. Because it's exceedingly dangerous, and has the potential for some amazing role-play.

Those of us who are old school remember D3 Vault of the Drow, which is a *very* high level Underdark hex crawl. One of the iconic encounters is when the party stumbles into what looks like a garden, with a statue of a beautiful woman on a pedestal; the statue is actually a Succubus, who's spending the entire time silently using ESP to learn who they are and Charm as many party members as she can, while her husband, a Drow Vampire, hangs out hidden as a shape changed rat and waits to spring the ambush.

Remember, this is AD&D, so she can have several castings run simultaneously.

If you look at the raw numbers, neither one of them is a big deal, versus an entire team of 10-14th level characters.

I saw this encounter WRECK a party.

They turned against each other, and almost killed each other before enough Dispel Magics finally 'stuck' and they got momentum. After it was said and done, they limped away to hide for several days to recover.

If your players are awesome enough to roll with it when they're charmed or hit with a Suggestion, it'll be great fun. Just make sure not to have other opponents, or else you'll risk a TPK.

 

[MarkB]

You're the DM. You're telling a good story. Ask yourself, "Does this ability make for a good story if I used it?"

If so, go for it. Personally, it sounds interesting to me, but I'd want to augment the scenario to figure out how the succubus 'seduces' someone through the familiar. I'd also be careful to consider what type of familiar made sense for this and perhaps would not go for the imp/quasit route as they make less sense in this scenario of seduction.

You could spin it as the imp essentially describing how attractive and desireable she is. Which would make the imp a pimp, I guess.