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

[SkidAce]

At a lot of tables, the GM doesn't control things by anticipating the maths. The GM controls things by intervening directly, fudging dice rolls or manipulating the fictional situation.

 

[Parmandur]

Most movies, tv shows, and novels that I have viewed, employ a combination of reliable powers plus big one-off rituals. And it is very many stories, including medievalesque fantasy, contemporary magical realism, superheroes, hi tech, etcetera. Even D&D stuff relies on vague rituals to explain the nonrepeatable big magical events.

While I don't think that fits D&D as D&D, I see your poont: I would again recommend taking a look at the Stormlight RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, I think you are the only one saying that. There is a difference between pointing out reality and discussing the things thar are important in life. People are not suggestion that commercial success is the only thing matters. They are simply stating the reality that commercial success is important to a business. It is a motivating factor for a business and more so for a large one with significant financial responsibilities.

I would argue that it's WotC's highest priority, however, far and away, so it's certainly relevant.

 

[payn]

Sure, but if you are arguing from the perspective of good game mechanics, then wonky disparity between Fighter and fullcasters is dubious.

Isnt that completely represented by Black Widow and Hawkeye tho? Gandolf and the rest of the gang? Eleven and the hellfire club? Its not like this isnt present in narratives everywhere in fiction. In fact, you just convinced me that the everybody balanced is actually not common. Even chess has asymmetrical design are you saying it lacks good mechanics?

 

[Yaarel]

While I don't think that fits D&D as D&D, I see your poont: I would again recommend taking a look at the Stormlight RPG.

For me, the D&D solution is an optional short-rest spell point system, that any fullcaster class can use.

Then the D&D tables that prefer the feel of spell points, or care about balance can opt in. Tables who are fine with the Fighter/fullcasters wonky imbalance can continue the daily attrition model.

If the short-rest spell points prove to be exceedingly popular perhaps D&D 2034 can make them core.

 

[Minigiant]

In playtesting phase that preceded 2014 and 2024, some of the designer proposals were radical. It was often the survey feedback that prevented their implementation. Once everything is in place it is more difficult to significantly change, but surveys were part of how they arrived in the first place.

The original 2013 survey overrepresented and overvalued a group who were never going to buy 5e. And their touch still paints the edition.

That wont work for me because I want the adventure day attrition model. More importantly, I want those resources in the hands of the players not the GM.

I mean the easiest solution is to have different charts for spells per day..

One with lots of slots for attrition.
One with few slots for cinematics

 

[payn]

The original 2013 survey overrepresented and overvalued a group who were never going to buy 5e. And their touch still paints the edition.

If true, its rather ironic that the best selling edition ever was designed mostly by folks who dont play it.

I mean the easiest solution is to have different charts for spells per day..

One with lots of slots for attrition.
One with few slots for cinematics

It sounds like a modular solution and I agree it would be pretty sweet. Too bad those grogs pushed 5E in a design direction that blew the doors off expectations and the solution hasnt been required.

 

[Yaarel]

Isnt that completely represented by Black Widow and Hawkeye tho? Gandolf and the rest of the gang? Eleven and the hellfire club? Its not like this isnt present in narratives everywhere in fiction. In fact, you just convinced me that the everybody balanced is actually not common.

This is more like the adventuring party has player characters of different levels. Even then, tighter math makes it easier to figure out how to challenge each of the players.

Even chess has asymmetrical design are you saying it lacks good mechanics?

Each player of chess has exactly symmetric powers, except for who goes first.

In D&D, it would be like every player is a Warlock with the same choices.

 

[SkidAce]

Here's my bottom line:

1. (Good) Most of the time the players have encounters that lead up to the boss. Having gone through the attrition, the boss is usually a hard/satisfying fight.
2. (Good) They may cleverly discover a route* to bypass many of the encounters, and kick the bosses butt.
3. (Good) They might fiddle around and have more encounters than they should, making boss fight very hard or TPK.
4. (Good) When in a traveling mode, they may go nova on a random encounter, trivializing it.
5. (Good) When in travelling mode, they may go nova on a random encounter**, trivializing it, and then run into a very hard challenge.

* they spent a week in game digging a tunnel into the bad guy's fortress, sigh.
** they went full nova on a squad of mercenaries they hate, then accidently ran into a larger squad accompanied by a dragon. Beauty ehh...

 

[SkidAce]

The original 2013 survey overrepresented and overvalued a group who were never going to buy 5e. And their touch still paints the edition.

I mean the easiest solution is to have different charts for spells per day..

One with lots of slots for attrition.
One with few slots for cinematics

The first thing the players would ask is why? Why does my character have variable power?

(I am sure from my posts that it is obvious we lean towards verisimilitude slightly.)