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

[Jacob Lewis]

Solving them perhaps to your satisfaction, but I can tell you 4E was no solution to me. I actually like the 5E approach and slower evolution. You can say im too safe and too grounded in tradition but at least I still want to play the game. Though, thats the rub, I could also point to a number of things id like to change and "improve" in D&D that is likely to turn away others. Imma look at the silver lining instead and see D&D as a big tent casual game as opposed to the pinnacle of RPG design.

Just to clarify, this isn’t about advocating for one edition over another, or claiming that any particular approach is superior. The larger point is that we all love the game, yet none of us can agree on what it should do or how it should work—because there’s only one system that can exist as the currently supported one. Every table has different expectations, playstyles, and priorities, and the design tries to serve all of them simultaneously. The friction here isn’t personal; it’s structural.

Claiming that one edition has “better” ideas or designs than another is just another example of this inherent incompatibility. Each edition emphasizes different trade-offs, and players’ preferences are naturally aligned with those differences. But because the system as a whole can only exist in a single, supported form at a time, debates about superiority or design quality become exercises in division rather than resolution. This is exactly why so many disagreements persist, even among fans who share a genuine love of the game—they are arguing within a framework that can never fully satisfy every perspective simultaneously.

 

[Campbell]

I personally like some attrition, but I'd like it to be meaningful sooner rather than later. While there are other features that I don't like about 3e I think it's ~3-4 fights in an adventure day represented a better balance between attrition and making the current fight feel more meaningful. I'd also like it to be more even between classes, but that's still likely a nonstarter.

 

[Charlaquin]

I personally like some attrition, but I'd like it to be meaningful sooner rather than later. While there are other features that I don't like about 3e I think it's ~3-4 fights in an adventure day represented a better balance between attrition and making the current fight feel more meaningful. I'd also like it to be more even between classes, but that's still likely a nonstarter.

I think the higher number of weaker encounters may have been a product of the goal to make encounters short. Which was a direct response to criticism of 4e combat taking way too long (a critique I do agree with, at least in early 5e. They eventually fixed the monster HP bloat problem, but by then 4e had already cemented its reputation for slow combat).

 

[mamba]

Interesting. Exactly how compatible can 5.0 encounters be with that big a difference?

most encounters aren’t hordes of weak minions, the encounters in the books are basically the same, use the new version of the monsters and chances are the encounter is at least as well balanced as the original 2014 one

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Huh? Four kobolds, 25 XP each, with a x2 multiplier for 3-5 monsters is a total of 200 XP. Four level 2 characters have an XP threshold of 400 for a Medium encounter (100 XP per PC, times 4), which means you can go up to 399 and still be within the bounds of an Easy encounter. Four kobolds is the easiest an Easy encounter can be in 5.14, but you could add a CR 1/2 monster to that encounter and only be a single XP over-budget for Easy. I’d be more inclined to go with 5 kobolds for a total of 300 XP. That’d put you smack dab in the middle of Easy.

Meanwhile, in 5.24, the advice is to go as close to the threshold as possible without going over, so 400 XP is your max for low difficulty instead of one over your max for Easy. Four gnolls does exactly hit that max.

Ah, I totally had missed that in 5.0 the budget is minimum and in 5.5. it is maximum! That certainly changes the things a bit. Though 5.5 encounter is still about twice as hard if both were to feature multiple monsters due the lack of the multiplier.

They’re CR 1/2, and guess how many CR 1/2 creatures the Xanathar’s Guide alternate encounter building rules recommend for 2nd level characters? One per PC. Like I said, the 2024 DMG encounter building rules use the same math as the Xanathar’s Guide encounter building rules, reframed to resemble the 2014 DMG encounter building rules.

Perhaps, I was only looking at the DMG rules, and if you mentioned Xanathar's previously I must have missed it.

 

[Zardnaar]

And all the while, people I play with like stories that make sense, where a good night sleep in a haunted house (or worse) is not even a possibility. They also like being challenged from time to time, so they're not constantly moving back and forth between the dungeon and the town, and when they don't want to be challenged, well, it's their game as much as mine. Why should I enforce challenges when it's not welcomed?

Keeps them on their toes?

I current group pulled a 5MWD level 7 and camped in the dungeon.

Big bads were cultist of Shar. They us

didn't (most methods of) healing in 4e burn your healing surges to function? so while most encounters are self contained ultimately they ARE grinding down your resources, as well as any dailies you burn.

4E introduced the problem of attrition based as primary means of monster design.

And the screwed it up bad enough the in effect serrated the entire MM with Monstrr Vault.

You either need to ditch that mentality entirely (pre 4E healing pick a rate between Old school and 3E) or double monster damage if players are doing 4 rounds a day.

Mearls might be exaggerating the off by a factor of 5 but new players are more burn your resources faster than older ones imho.

 

[Zardnaar]

Case in point, the 3e cure light wound wand.

Playing 3e without access to that wand (or some equivalent of it) is a NIGHT AND DAY different experience.

I cut them late 3.X and dumped the item creation feats.

Used 2E high level campaign book for crafting items.

After that main fix of 3.5 is new engine (4E one would work) and ban the worst offending spells and feats.

Had they plugged the 4E engine into 3.5 and got rid of the dumb stuff I suspect Pathfinder wouldn't be a thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

my only real exposure to 4e is here on Enworld, and honestly it sounds pretty great all around apart from a personal bugbear against tactical combat/abilities that i just struggle with.

If you play it it mostly depends on what you like.

A joke is 4E was designed for people who like pushing minis around a battlemat. If thst sounds appealing and you don't mind 45 minute combats extending to two hours at higher level it may appeal to you.

4E biggest problem was the fanbase wanted burger and fries and they served up seafood and then a vegan dish. Its a matter of taste really.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the higher number of weaker encounters may have been a product of the goal to make encounters short. Which was a direct response to criticism of 4e combat taking way too long (a critique I do agree with, at least in early 5e. They eventually fixed the monster HP bloat problem, but by then 4e had already cemented its reputation for slow combat).

Perhaps, but I think it was bizarre to assume that people want a ton of low stakes combats. You can have fast combats that are still challenging and consume significant portion fo character resources: just give the PCs less HP, spell slots and other resources. Now this makes things somewhat more swingy and risky, but given how safe everything in 5e tends to be, this probably wouldn't be a bad thing if you wouldn't take it too far.

Like in my current game the characters are on 13th level, and they are just so ludicrously resilient and have insane amount of hit points. The raging barbarian alone is more resilient than an adult red dragon. And sure at this level monsters hit harder too, but it still takes a lot of turns to carve through that HP and make them feel threatened.

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps, but I think it was bizarre to assume that people want a ton of low stakes combats. You can have fast combats that are still challenging and consume significant portion fo character resources: just give the PCs less HP, spell slots and other resources. Now this makes things somewhat more swingy and risky, but given how safe everything in 5e tends to be, this probably wouldn't be a bad thing if you wouldn't take it too far.

Like in my current game the characters are on 13th level, and they are just so ludicrously resilient and have insane amount of hit points. The raging barbarian alone is more resilient than an adult red dragon. And sure at this level monsters hit harder too, but it still takes a lot of turns to carve through that HP and make them feel threatened.

How is your barbarians wisdom save?

And what happens if they get paralyzed?

Asking for a friend.