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

[GobHag]

day vs 3 encounters is just a matter of how many encounters per day there should be. I agree that the 6-8 from 5e are too many

1 encounter per day is no attrition however, either you survive or you don’t, that is it

I'm using a lot of extreme words to hedge my bets towards the latter yes. I'm very much fine if a party's power is at 100%-80%-80% in those 3 encounters.

 

[Parmandur]

that was true throughout the past 50 years too and yet 1e to 4e invariably declined

They weren't running with an evergreen strategy, and during the 80s were foolish enough to split the game into two different product lines. And they didn't have Beyond in place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Having to think over a long period of time is bad gameplay on my end. Easy fights are just pacing and to feel cool using mechanics-- and moderate fight that you'll most likely succeed as long as you aren't sleeping on the wheel so to speak; Like the reddit post said, it's tiring if every fight is a skin of the teeth so having something to break it up is nice. That's why an encounter-based balancing is good in my eyes, a moderate or easy fight doesn't lead to anxiety that a later fight during the day becomes impossible or devastatingly hard.

And that the easy battle can matter that way is that makes it meaningful. I think we agree on what is happening, we merely disagree whether it is bug or a feature.

Let me turn this around on your end; Would it be good if at the end of each day, every PC tallies up the damage they took and depending on the amount they suffer maluses like a permanent decrease in stats, an addiction to a certain activity or subtance that's mechanized as a gold drain, losing access/nerfing class features(Decreased aura range, having 1 less resource like Ki or superiority dice, etc, etc) to the point that it's a genuine possibility that you'll be weaker overall at level 7 then when you were at level 1.

Well, that seems a tad harsh, but yes, I think overall principle has appeal. I think it is big flaw in 5e how it is basically impossible to suffer ailments that would not just be fixed by a good night's sleep. So lasting injuries and such certainly feels like an excellent idea to me. It also gives us another non-death defeat condition, which would be very welcome. Doesn't necessarily mean they could never be fixed, this being a magical world and all, but they should remain for a good while so that they actually have an impact.

I think a big issue with modern D&D (and apparently Pathfinder) is that how there really is very little mechanical consequences. Everything is so baby-proofed and there just is no feeling of danger and peril. Like whilst how the saves worked in the playtest might have had issues, the "ghoul surprise" as an even sounded pretty fine to me. They should be terrifying, and you should have to play smart and try avoid going to melee with them. Like I don't want to necessarily bring back level drain and frequent save or die, but the monsters could have a bit more teeth.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, praise for bounded accuracy is pretty universally praised: I would reckon the real feedback at the time was similarly positive. Even the post-5E games we are seeing now stick to it.

Bounded accuracy is a good thing, but I just think they over bounded it. In my opinion, going to +10 at 20th level would have been better. The numbers wouldn't be stretched out all that much more, and folks would feel like they were advancing more if their proficiency changed a bit more often.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Flat math is here to stay. When you look at how designs are trending, games designed after 5e have even flatter math. Draw Steel, Fabula Ultima, The Stormlight Archive Roleplaying Game, the explosion of Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark games, Year Zero Engine game, newer 2d20 games, etc. All have flatter math than 5e, some much flatter. Also, in the case Legend of the Five Rings, Warhammer - The Old World and most iterations of existing games they tend to have much flatter math than their predecessors.

Flatter math is easier to design around, easier to balance and often easier to teach to players. It's also just more resilient to a variety of situations.

The only game that really breaks the trend that comes to mind is Pathfinder Second Edition, but that is a little misleading in that it's fairly flat within the scope of play since almost all the gains in accuracy are level based and you are expected to keep play within a -4 to +4 level band of the characters.

It always feels to me that the mandatory +1/level bonus from Pathfinder Second Edition is its biggest flaw. It makes the range of monsters much more narrow that are viable as enemies, and seems to serve no further purpose. If you ignore it, what's left is basically 5E proficiencies, as you go from Trained over Expert to Master, and very, very few ways to boost your numbers otherwise.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

day vs 3 encounters is just a matter of how many encounters per day there should be. I agree that the 6-8 from 5e are too many

1 encounter per day is no attrition however, either you survive or you don’t, that is it

Unless of course the resources do not fully refresh every bloody day!

 

[Parmandur]

Bounded accuracy is a good thing, but I just think they over bounded it. In my opinion, going to +10 at 20th level would have been better. The numbers wouldn't be stretched out all that much more, and folks would feel like they were advancing more if their proficiency changed a bit more often.

I think it would have been better if Proficiency dice won out instead of a static bonus, but what can you do...?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Bounded accuracy is a good thing, but I just think they over bounded it. In my opinion, going to +10 at 20th level would have been better. The numbers wouldn't be stretched out all that much more, and folks would feel like they were advancing more if their proficiency changed a bit more often.

Yes, but then you could not have expertise doubling it, and stacking guidance/bless, bardic inspiration and couple of magic items on top of it.

But I agree with you. I would have preferred slightly bigger base bonus but less crap than can be stacked on top of it.

 

[Parmandur]

Unless of course the resources do not fully refresh every bloody day!

But thwt is the action movie-ish genre of current day D&D: the scale can be slid, but that "cinematic" style is just what is in: it is abstract lyrics an odd compromise between "everything resets in a new Encounter" and classic real attrition...but it hits that middle where a lot of people seem happy. There is attrition, but not too many longterm fiddliness.

 

[payn]

It always feels to me that the mandatory +1/level bonus from Pathfinder Second Edition is its biggest flaw. It makes the range of monsters much more narrow that are viable as enemies, and seems to serve no further purpose. If you ignore it, what's left is basically 5E proficiencies, as you go from Trained over Expert to Master, and very, very few ways to boost your numbers otherwise.

Proficiency without level is pretty nice variant. It stretches the encounter ceiling and gives the PC room to punch a little above their weight.