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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

The rules don't support it well now and in a no attrition model they would support it even less. Because once the party has access to revivify or similar, in attritionless model casting it cannot have cost. So one character dying has no cost as they can be brought back without a cost.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

All this talk of pressure and rest alternatives because people refuse to have fewer spells per day.

A variation could be to import a Draw Steel-fication where higher level spells are unlocked for post-initiative casting after a certain number of rounds have passed. Could use tiers of play to base the rate?

 

[Scott Christian]

This means you need to specifically concoct enemies that would take such actions. Like some random encounter dire owlbear is not going to do that. It invalidates a huge section of enemies. It simply is a terrible spell that goes against the core idea of the encounter balance design. It should have never been included in its current form and it makes seriously consider the competence of the designers that it was retained in 5.5.

No, you don't need to specifically concoct enemies. Many enemies re just smart enough to do this. If you are talking about carrion crawlers, owlbears, or a T-rex, then great. The spell did what it was intended to do - keep the party safe while resting. That is the beauty of the spell. It works well in some situations and doesn't work well in others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I mean this is now a hybrid of spell slot and point system, which I necessarily do not find terribly elegant. And of course once you start adding similar limitations to the second highest slot as they are pretty powerful too, it gets even closer to slots. I think if one wants to use spellpoints, then I think it is just the best to accept that transferability quantity to quality happens.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A variation could be to import a Draw Steel-fication where higher level spells are unlocked for post-initiative casting after a certain number of rounds have passed. Could use tiers of play to base the rate?

What does this represent in the fiction? What is the caster actually doing to charge up these spells? Can they do it out of combat too, and if not, why not?

 

[Maxperson]

Instead of trying to bring back attrition, what's the best way to challenge a party that do just want to be at full HP and slots the entire time?

Hit them with an encounter 6-10 CR higher than their level and hope that they don't TPK. There's a pretty narrow line between, "This encounter can survive a PC nova and dish back" and, "This encounter can survive a nova and dish back more than you guys can take."

 

[Maxperson]

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

Why?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

No offense, the reason no one can answer is because it is not an exact formula. Much like those that believe their damage per round calculations are accurate, they're not. There are too many variables to calculate. Way too many; from party composition to level to enemies to environmental conditions. Way too many.

But if you insist on a percentage, how about 100% there is always a chance.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, you don't need to specifically concoct enemies. Many enemies re just smart enough to do this. If you are talking about carrion crawlers, owlbears, or a T-rex, then great. The spell did what it was intended to do - keep the party safe while resting. That is the beauty of the spell. It works well in some situations and doesn't work well in others.

No, a third level spell should just not let you ignore significant portion of the game's encounters and charge up all your powers. And of course even if the enemies would take some action to strengthen their position outside the bubble, that strengthening is unlikely to be more than what the characters have strengthened themselves by resting!

 

[Yaarel]

I mean this is now a hybrid of spell slot and point system, which I necessarily do not find terribly elegant. And of course once you start adding similar limitations to the second highest slot as they are pretty powerful too, it gets even closer to slots. I think if one wants to use spellpoints, then I think it is just the best to accept that transferability quantity to quality happens.

I avoid the restriction of highest versus lower slot levels, because it is less simple than straightforward spell point spending.

But if distinguishing "quantity from quality" matters, then the complication is worth it. The need to rest after going all out with ones greatest power exertion possible, makes enough narrative sense.