D&D 5E (2024) Mike Mearls explains why your boss monsters die too easily

[Parmandur]

But what I am asking, is about a situation where the fights are still challenging, but the cost cannot be attrition. So what does this look like? No one seems to be willing to answer this.

Granted those stipulation, each fight should run a significant chance of a TPK.

 

[Yaarel]

But what I am asking, is about a situation where the fights are still challenging, but the cost cannot be attrition. So what does this look like? No one seems to be willing to answer this.

A non-attrition approach is designing class powers and combat encounters, on a per-encounter schedule (per short rest).

The 5e Warlock is already on this per-encounter schedule. The other fullcasters would similarly switch from daily (per long rest) to encounter (short rest). There is a sense of what this looks like. Likewise, I have been using the Laserllama Psion which is per short rest, alongside the Warlock. It is a more stable approach for game math.


With regard to a daily-attrition approach, I long ago switched from counting experience points, to counting the number of encounters until the next level. The "long rests" only happen at the start of each level, and once midway during the level. So the math works as intended for daily-attrition classes.

First, running away, especially if you have already taken some beating is insanely difficult in 5e. Most likely you just get killed even more easily.

There have been "wish we fled sooner" moments. But running away works fine, as long as players understand this is an option. 4e and 5e tend to assume that every combat encounter can be overcome. But old school is different. There can be times when combat isnt the solution.

And second, if effective retreat was possible, then the full-refresh encounter model would become even more unworkable, as the character could just retreat and keep retrying the encounter until they beat it.

In the event of a near-TPK and total loss of resources, then quitting the adventure and returning to the safety of home and recouping for two-weeks, can do a long-rest refresh in addition to the start and midway refreshes. But this extra refresh is a last resort and hasnt happened yet in-game.

And yes, there can be encounters that are too difficult and you should avoid them, but if that and only autowinnable encounters are an option, we do not need combat rules. Just say that if the CR is lover than the party level, the characters win and if it is higher they lose.

Warlocks dont autowin every encounter. Player tactics and monster tactics still matter.

 

[Yaarel]

So I am not actually sure it is necessary for high level casters to still have the lowest levels of slots. It results of having a lot of slots, and is also annoying to manage. I think at some point the lowest level slots should just start converting to higher level slots instead of being retained.

Switching from spell slots to spell points achieves the same effect: "the lowest level slots start converting to the higher level slots".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In general terms, slightly above 2/3 is a good success/failure rate for that dopamine rush. If one insists on an encounter-full refresh that is also a challenge, failing just under a third of the time on average (all else being equal etc) would be about right, I reckon.

Right. But if you have a 33% chance of a TPK in every fight, that's gonna be a short campaign!

One of the nice things about the full day model is that it spreads that fail/success ratio over a number of mico-moments, not really reasonable to do that in a few minutes if each Encounter is a full refresh.

Right. That's what I m trying to get at. At attrition model the characters can get beat and barely survive a third encounter and that point they might decide to abandon the mission and retreat instead of taking on the fourth encounter. So they can fail the mission without dying. Or they might risk the next encounter whilst on low resources, but that's a choice. So the attrition serves purpose, and you simply do not have this in fully encounter-based design.

Granted those stipulation, each fight should run a significant chance of a TPK.

Right. But I do not think that is desirable to most people and I don't think WotC could sell a game designed like that.

What would be yours? 0 %?

I mean I simply would not design a fully encounter based game in the first place.

I mean, is the combat supposed to be challenging without the possibility of defeat? Or is the expectation here that fights only taxes ressources, they never threaten lives? If it is what you're after, there is guidance, as the difficulty levels of encounters are built exactly around that ("will the characters die if they are low on ressources?"). You lower the difficulty. The medium difficulty is not supposed to get you a TPK with fully-rested characters.

But if the goal here is to have super tensed encounters, with razor-sharp margins even with characters at full health, without ever threatening any lives, as I said in my previous post, what kind of guidance could possibily give us that without every fights becoming super predictible? If there is tension and razor-sharp margins, there is a risk of death. It's already quite cushioned with the various healing powers and death saves of the characters, I'd say, and if it's still not enough, there is, also, an entire entry of the DM's toolbox in the last DMG about characters death, which would provide you some guidance around how to play around that, like putting death as a hard limit, or giving alternatives to death in case of defeat. I play quite a lot with kids who very much mind losing their characters, so I'm familiar with this problem, and I wouldn't say it's not addressed.

But the thin is that in fully encounter-based game this issue becomes magnified. Sure, in attrition model too, you can face death or TPK, but you can keep odds of those really low without the fights still feeling challenging as the attrition model there can be degrees of victory. You may win, but at the cost of being significantly weakened. And then you can make decisions based on that. In fully-encounter-based model this simply does not exist, so if you want things to be challenging, you need to ramp up the odds of a full defeat.

 

[Yaarel]

Granted those stipulation, each fight should run a significant chance of a TPK.

With regard to failing a combat encounter, 1 out of 3 probably sounds about right.

However, a game-ending "total" TPK: I prefer it to be theoretically possible but not actually happen during gameplay.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Switching from spell slots to spell points achieves the same effect: "the lowest level slots start converting to the higher level slots".

Yes, but there are certain advantages to the slot system. It is not necessarily desirable to have quantity directly transferable to quality.

 

[mamba]

They've already been lowered.

starting at level 11, and just barely barely, with the gap starting to widen from level 13 on up, so for levels that are mostly ignored...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A total party kill is not the only failure outcome. Just one player character dying would be enough. The rules probably don't really "support" that well right now. But once the party needs at least something like a Raise Dead (or walk into a tavern to find a trustworthy enough fellow to fight on their side), it's a serious loss.

But determining the "chance" of TPK is actually really hard, because it's not just "math" because tactical options exist. But how do you determine the likehood of players and the GM to always do the right or wrong tactical options? Will they block choke points to reduce the amount of enemies that can attack effectively, will the Wizard drop his Fireball or a Gust of Wind or Slow at the targets where it matters the most? Will the Fighter knock some oppnent down at the right time, will the Cleric move his spirits to the right place to affect or hinder the enemy's movements, will the heals hit the target that needs it right now (or should it really have been a different spell all together that would have denied an attack?).

I guess in the more challenging fights, the value for a character death or TPK should be higher than 0 % assuming that the party doesn't always do the best thing, but not by much. An adventure containing 10 fights each with a 90 % chance for no TPK in the party would still have about a 65 % chance of ending in a TPK!

 

[mamba]

And I think that sucks naughty word that a wizard can spend spell slots to be as effective as a fighter.

well, the Fighter does not get much else, while the Wizard keeps up for free and then has their spells on top. Before there at least was some attempt at balance

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, but there are certain advantages to the slot system. It is not necessarily desirable to have quantity directly transferable to quality.

If desirable, spell points can do this too. For example, the highest spell slot available can only be cast once, while all other spell point expenditures must for lower slot levels. The highest can be cast again after a short rest.