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

[EzekielRaiden]

Mearls helped design 5e and he crunches the numbers.

Interesting that Johnathan Tweet chime in about timing with rests changes the balance which is out of the designers hands. Why not make a control part of the design? Like in the One Ring?

https://bsky.app/profile/mearls.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3m2pjmp526c2h

Oh. My. God.

This is precisely and exactly what I've been arguing as a flaw in 5e's design since before it was even CALLED 5e.

Twelve years now, I've been told I'm crazy. Hateful. Biased. "White room"ing. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Now it's literally coming straight from the horse's mouth. Will folks retract any of that? Hell no!

 

[Clint_L]

5e was coming off the heels of 4e, which was much more of a tactical combat game, and I think some of that expectation was still baked in. But instead we got the rise of actual play shows that emphasize story and RP, where combats are relatively rare and consequential. Plus, 5e is not that great at tactical combat (it's not bad, but IMO it's not a highlight of the system). So a lot of factors conspired to make combat much less of a factor in a typical game, leading to the situation Mearls describes.

I still struggle to balance combat in 5e - I'm not terrible, but I'm awe when I see how well someone like Matt Mercer does it. And since the 2024 update, I'm still adjusting to how damn much DPR a melee-heavy party (like the one in my home game) can put out.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh. My. God.

This is precisely and exactly what I've been arguing as a flaw in 5e's design since before it was even CALLED 5e.

Twelve years now, I've been told I'm crazy. Hateful. Biased. "White room"ing. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Now it's literally coming straight from the horse's mouth. Will folks retract any of that? Hell no!

I didn't think you were crazy.

4E has a similar problem to 5E though.

The problem is modern design and the differences between casuals and hard core players. ENworld mostly consists of hard core players.

Every edition has its usual mob of cheer leaders who claim its flawless. Ironically 3.5 lacked that cheerleader mob. ENworlds its mostly 1-3 posters and theyre more relentless optimism.

I suspect im be of the few here who's run 5.5 alot. I also suspect im one of the few who has run AD&D material last year or so and 5.5 and 5.0.

To top that off I've been buying and rereading 3.5 and Pathfinder material. Hell I even looked at OD&D. Hell read Shadowdark as well.

Modern D&D has removed a lot of the things that made older D&D play fast. All of them including 5.0 are more complexity.

You want cover every corner from a design PoV. Even 4E can't fix things if players are doing the 4 round adventuring day (1-2 encounters) regardless of what the rules say. 4E had 70+ pages of errata to try and make it work.

Either you have to roll with it, design a new edition or design a game that dumps the entire D&D paradigm. The latter option will probably tank harder than the T-72.

If I designed 6E if you wanted to fix this without making a new OSR game I'm looking at concepts from 3.5, 4E and 5.5. You coukd do it commercial success idk. It would be a simpler game than 3.0-5.5 with elements of OSR. Alot less hit point bloat a'la 4E to 5.5. 3.5 level hp, scaling saves monsters would regain elements stripped from them since 3.5. Parts of 4E may make it in with monster design (eg boss monsters).

Assuming you wanted a D&D game. Rebuilt from ground up could be done dumping dailies entire and going in completely different direction.

Everything from 3.0 onwards would be up for getting scrapped except ascending numbers. I don't have the exact idea of perfect game but the problem is modern design and the complexity/simple slider.

 

[Parmandur]

5e was coming off the heels of 4e, which was much more of a tactical combat game, and I think some of that expectation was still baked in. But instead we got the rise of actual play shows that emphasize story and RP, where combats are relatively rare and consequential. Plus, 5e is not that great at tactical combat (it's not bad, but IMO it's not a highlight of the system). So a lot of factors conspired to make combat much less of a factor in a typical game, leading to the situation Mearls describes.

I still struggle to balance combat in 5e - I'm not terrible, but I'm awe when I see how well someone like Matt Mercer does it. And since the 2024 update, I'm still adjusting to how damn much DPR a melee-heavy party (like the one in my home game) can put out.

I love Matt Mercer, but his skill isn't in balancing combat...it is usually in using his powers of presentation to trick his players into thinking their characters are in danger...they very rarely are by the numbers, but he makes them feel the thrill. And 5E ia good for providing a cakewalk thar can feel adventurous.

 

[Scribe]

The next obvious question is: would 5E be as wildly popular if the majority of referees got this right? That is to say, if 5E wasn't played as an alpha-strike cakewalk by the majority of tables, would it have become as popular as it is?

I'd argue no, but I went to the gym and ran errands so I'm not sure how behind I am on this thread now.

 

[Minigiant]

I’m guessing you meant this facetiously, but this is genuinely good advice for running 5e. I mean, knowing that the system expects you to do 6-8 combats of about 3 rounds each every day, it should be easy as a DM to count the rounds in a combat, and after 3, start actively looking for if one side or the other gets the upper-hand, and as soon as that happens, transition out of combat, potentially into a chase if need be.

Facetious?

That's my basic DM advice for adventure planning.

Create an encounter
Record who's winning at the end of round two
Look for an out on turn three.
Repeat 4 to 7 more times depending on recovery equipment.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, a fight against 4 basic goblins in a non-descript room feels more like a waste of time. Just make a few rolls and the fight is over

That's why you don't have just fout goblins in the room.

You have seven goblins and a ballista.

Once four goblin die they can't reload and fire the ballista and the goblins run.
If they don't kill for goblins in three rounds, someone is gonna be dead.

Easy out in turn 4.

 

[commandercrud]

Only 20?

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh. My. God.

This is precisely and exactly what I've been arguing as a flaw in 5e's design since before it was even CALLED 5e.

Twelve years now, I've been told I'm crazy. Hateful. Biased. "White room"ing. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Now it's literally coming straight from the horse's mouth. Will folks retract any of that? Hell no!

I mean, I think I’ve been on the same page as you regarding the analysis of how the combat is designed. I just think it’s a good design that people refuse to engage with on its own terms, rather than an inherently flawed design that they should have known better about.

 

[Charlaquin]

I love Matt Mercer, but his skill isn't in balancing combat...it is usually in using his powers of presentation to trick his players into thinking their characters are in danger...they very rarely are by the numbers, but he makes them feel the thrill. And 5E ia good for providing a cakewalk thar can feel adventurous.

Yeah, I will say one of 5e’s strengths is that it can make players feel like their characters are in great danger, even when their victory is basically assured.