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

[kigmatzomat]

I would love to see WotC put out a 300 page book that contained all the major playstyles in it.

They just have to avoid calling it the DMG2. That didn't go well.

I still miss a DMG that was full of GM helper tables. You could whip up the political structure or population demographics of an area in 15 minutes each. That 30 minutes creates a set of creatures and a set of motives, which when combined results in a lot of setting info with minimal effort.

I loved that in the 3e DMG they had examples of all PHB classes specced out from levels 1-20 in about 6 pages. Combined with the guidance on wealth by level and functional high end NPCs fell together quickly. Tapping the leadership mechanic provided mechanical rationale for trusted minions even among inherently evil creatures (a massive boon for GMs who need some handholding when "breaking" the rules).

I was stunned at how little was in the 2014 DMG. At some point I will get the 2024 DMG to see what they added, but I suspect my 3e DMG will be my campaign design helper for another decade.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no disagreement with that...I just wanted to separate the encounters whereby the party bumps into a friendly treant or discovers a grove of burned trees (2014 DMG page 87)

D&D has a lot of upper and lower case duplicate words. The DM is a player, but not a Player. Dragons are magical creatures, not Magical creatures. You can encounter a grove of trees, but it doesn't qualify as an Encounter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't recharge after they sleep. It recharges after they sleep AND enough time has passed for that sleep to help. If the wizard wakes up from a long rest, uses all of his spell slots 10 minutes later, and then immediately sleeps for another 8 hours, nothing is replenished.

The wizard would likely know that it takes both time and sleep to regain his magic, but he wouldn't have a clue what his AC, HP, and character level are. Most mechanics are for the player.

IMO, a person can have an idea of their defenses and reflexes (AC), how refreshed and ready for action they are physically, mentally and emotionally (HP), and how well their training compares to others with a similar skill set (character level).

 

[Maxperson]

Wizards know exactly how they regain spells, as the rules explicitly state (using the Basic Rules on Beyond);

• You can regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook. When you finish a Short Rest, you can choose expended spell slots to recover.

The wizard has no idea what a spell slot is. He just knows that he can choose to regains a pool of power large enough that if he pushes, it will allow him to recast his fireball.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The wizard has no idea what a spell slot is. He just knows that he can choose to regains a pool of power large enough that if he pushes, it will allow him to recast his fireball.

Pretty sure that's just one subjective interpretation of how to translate the mechanics of spellcasting into the setting.

 

[GrimCo]

Adventuring day and number of encounters per day with number of encounters for leveling went out of the window when people stopped using XP and switched to milestone leveling. It opened up more play options and made circumventing encounters viable playstayle that didn't punish you. With xp for leveling, if you didn't fight, you didn't earn XP, no XP no level up. I remember old days when session would near the end and you see that you are 50-100xp short of level up. So we would try to cram in that extra fight just to hit that level up. Advancement switched from mechanical to narrative driven, but system was still created with that mechanical reward in mind.

 

[Maxperson]

I see two major problems with that:

1) you can see from this forum that it’s common for people to mis-understand any playstyle that is not the one they prefer, and it’s pretty much impossible to explain it to them. They just (and I have experienced this from both sides) “make no sense”. So who is going to write this book?

Designers, not forum arguers. I'm sure plenty of the designers are familiar with multiple playstyles, and those that they aren't familiar with, can be outsourced to someone who has designed products around that style of play.

It wouldn't be hard at all for a company like WotC to come up with a book like this and make it good.

2) There are as many different playstyles as there are tables, 300 pages wouldn’t even scratch the surface.

There aren't that many major playstyles. And the vast majority of the rest of just combinations of those major playstyles, which could be figured out by those players by looking at their mix of playstyles in the book and using the info there to help run it.

This is more of a a PhD thesis type project than a book for popular consumption.

I disagree. We're talking about advice and mechanical help, not obscure theory crafting.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO, a person can have an idea of their defenses and reflexes (AC)

No. They will not know that a 16 dex + mage armor is equal to chain mail, which is equal to some creature's thick AC 16 hide. They won't even be able to ballpark those as the same.

They may know that they are easy to hit, hard to hit, or somewhere in the middle, but even that won't really be saying much, since nobody is going to know their bonuses to hit or their enemy's bonus to hit, either.

, how refreshed and ready for action they are physically, mentally and emotionally (HP)

No. They may know that they are low, doing okay, or doing well, but they aren't going to know 30 out of 50, 4 out of 50, or 48 out of 50.

, and how well their training compares to others with a similar skill set (character level).

They have no basis for that to even be level, let alone which level. It could just be some shmo who is good with a sword. This is especially true in those editions where NPCs are built differently than PCs, because the PC has no way of knowing how to differentiate a PC and an NPC.

 

[Maxperson]

Pretty sure that's just one subjective interpretation of how to translate the mechanics of spellcasting into the setting.

First, it's how spells work. You put a little bit of power into magic missile, because it's a 1st level spell. You cannot put that much power into a fireball, because it's not enough power. Fireball requires a larger pool of energy to cast. However, you can force a larger pool of energy into the magic missile, making it more powerful and effective. It's all pools of energy. This isn't rocket science.

Second, it's how the game describes magic in the rules.

"A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression."

"Manipulating the fabric of magic and channeling its energy into even a simple spell is physically and mentally taxing, and higher level spells are even more so."

Let's see, magic energy that is physically and mentally taxing, with higher level spells need more of it. In other words, pools of magical energy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Designers, not forum arguers.

You realise that there is a lot of overlap between these categories? The people designing games are the same people who you find debating them on forums. I could ask for a show of hands, but I know some prefer to remain anonymous. They don't have any more special insight than you or I have.

It wouldn't be hard at all for a company like WotC to come up with a book like this and make it good.

In the same way that I could write a popular sequel to A Brief History of Time simply because I'm an Astrophysicist and educator! Again: WotC employs ordinary people, without superpowers.

There aren't that many major playstyles.

That's because there is a history of lumping vastly different things in the same box, in the same way that Dune and Star Wars are both space operas featuring desert planets.

Most of what has been written on playstyles is vastly misleading, and written in a prejudicial, "outsider's view" style.

I disagree. We're talking about advice and mechanical help, not obscure theory crafting.

Gygax had it right from the start - present the game as a series of suggestions and ideas, and players will interpret them in whatever way seems natural to them. The only mechanical help people need is to be encouraged to do whatever seems right to them.