MostlyHarmless42
Adventurer
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.
Last edited: