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

[Zardnaar]

Id say that the biggest problem is that the dmg section quoted by @Maxperson really only applies to tier1 PCs and breaks down as players move through tier2 into tier 3 levels.

Take the monk & warlock as the prime examples designed to enable 5mwd loops. The monk has a ki pool growing equal to its levelwhile gaining a steady flow of more & more powerful abilities that also themselves often improve. That in itself is fine at earlier levels when there are likely to be more rounds of combat than the monk could spend, but it quickly topples over once the monk has enough ki to last through an encounter or two of burning it at maximum possible speed. Monk is an issue but more as an eager enabler who stands to benefit from excessive resting

The warlock is an even bigger problem getting both spell slot level scaling equal to regular casters and tend to finish a long rest with slot numbers equaling or exceeding what regular casters have of that slot level as if they are pegged to the slot count numbers of ad&d2e/3.5 casters. In tier1 & early tier2 it's not a huge deal if they squeeze in an extra rest but by the time they start the day with 2-3 4th or 5th level slots and regain them each rest it very quickly becomes obvious how lacking GM tools are when players are still expecting
the super generous rest availability of the early levels when PCs were killing rats in the basement equivalent quests

House rules to fix the absolute failure of design and outright disdain wotc has shown towards the idea of supporting GMs on the matter because players with that video game mentality who believe they are entitled to generous short rests will simply view any meaningful infringement on rest availability through house rules as evidence of stereotypical evil/killer gm behavior
@Maxperson mechanics that support the GM in limiting excess and the advice is pointless because of the reasons described above. The rest rules themselves provide extreme support in resisting a gm who is unreasonably restrictive but when it comes to the idea of players with short rest classes having an unreasonable expectation class design wotc & the ruleset itself does not even acknowledge it as possible for the players to have an expectation of excess.

Our monk essentially has unlimited focus points in effect since level 7-9 or so. 6 attacks a round.

 

[James Gasik]

We used to have an RPG in Sweden that had an in-lore explanation for something like this. Basically, spells used a metaphysic thing called "filaments", which in D&D terms would be like threads in the weave, and more powerful spells of course used more filaments. But you couldn't just push more filaments into the spell, but because of metaphysics the different filaments needed different levels of complexity – you couldn't just push three filaments into a third degree spell, they needed to be a 1st degree, a 2nd degree, and a 3rd degree filament, because filaments of the same degree couldn't co-exist. In-game, it was mostly an explanation for why the difficulty of spellcasting increased so rapidly with additional filaments, but I always thought it was a cool explanation.

And you could easily use a similar explanation for D&D. It doesn't matter how much cantrip-quality magic power you gather, you can't use it to cast a fireball.

Earthdawn uses a similar system for some spells, which require you to weave one or more Threads to them.

 

[James Gasik]

Rests opening up "hard moves" (however you want to call it) for the DM is basically what we were all saying with our "rests have narrative consequences". Time passing, random encounters, bad guys organising: all these are DM hard moves in PbtA parlance.

I mean I get that, but it takes some work behind the scenes if you want to avoid "quantum ogres"- ie, introducing problems that they wouldn't have encountered in the first place that cannot be accounted for with what's on hand. Because there does reach a point, no matter how high the enemy is on alert, that no amount of tactics, tricks, or traps are going to make much of a difference.

Though in the case of intelligent foes, flight (taking all the loot with them) or similar "scorched earth" tactics could be on the menu. I'll have to keep that in my back pocket once my group stops exploring ancient, unexplored ruins.

"We take a rest!"

"Ok, sure. Eight hours later, you emerge into the bugbear caves to find everything is suspiciously quiet. As you continue to explore, you find no resistance whatsoever. Nothing of value can be found, and you see signs that the goblinoids left in a hurry, sometimes even leaving half-eaten meals behind."

"Wait...you mean they just left and took all the treasure?!" Cue cry of horror audible from LEO.

Ok, that's a scenario I can work with. : )

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not me. The game.

The game determined that 8 is below average for intelligence. The game determined that intelligence represents the ability to reason, recall, and mental acuity. The game determined for some silly reason that the same 8 int can cast 9th level spells.

I'm just pointing out what the game does.

The game also says that an 8 INT character is just 5% more likely to fail at an INT ability check than the average of 10-11. I think you are adding more narrative weight to the ability scores than is intended.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would kinda love to know what percentage of monster in this game have dispel magic. I'm not gonna count, but I'd assume the amount is absolutely tiny.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would kinda love to know what percentage of monster in this game have dispel magic. I'm not gonna count, but I'd assume the amount is absolutely tiny.

It is.

But they likely turn up often at least conceptually.

 

[BenjaminPey]

I mean I get that, but it takes some work behind the scenes if you want to avoid "quantum ogres"- ie, introducing problems that they wouldn't have encountered in the first place that cannot be accounted for with what's on hand. Because there does reach a point, no matter how high the enemy is on alert, that no amount of tactics, tricks, or traps are going to make much of a difference.

And that's why, in the context of DnD, as to me, I'd rather avoid linking rests to mechanical or procedural results at the rules level (though it can be very appropriate at the module level). Because some rests are supposed to be taken. Some rests are ok, some are even necessary. How can you tell them apart with a rule? So, in typical DnD fashion, there's no automatic mechanics, here, it's left open-ended, ruled by the fiction, the DM, the table, whatever. Some rests are ok, some rests will entail consequences.

 

[Autumnal]

So Tales of the Valiant has this metacurrency for the GM called Doom, which can be spent for various effects to ruin the PC's days. I'm wondering if a mechanic like that could solve the problems with rests, where each time you take a rest in an adventure, you accrue more threat/bad karma that the DM can use against you later, giving you a reason to try and avoid resting too much?

I’d go for it if the count started after N rests (like 2) per 8 hours or some such. Systems with rests designed in should let PCs do some resting without penalty. After that, fire it up.

 

[Parmandur]

I would kinda love to know what percentage of monster in this game have dispel magic. I'm not gonna count, but I'd assume the amount is absolutely tiny.

If players decide to set up a LTH right outside of an Adult Black Dragon's pirate bedroom after cutting a seathe through his crew...then that Adult Black Drsgon will have some surprises in store for them.

 

[Staffan]

Earthdawn uses a similar system for some spells, which require you to weave one or more Threads to them.

Earthdawn has threads used for spellcasting, but that's the opposite effect. In Eon, it's an explanation for why you can't just take more time to generate magic power for your spells, while in Earthdawn it is specifically a casting time mechanic.