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

[Micah Sweet]

Me neither and I think its existence is a serious design flaw. It is crazy to first tie the whole game balance to there being this and that amount of encounters between rests and telling the GM that they should aim for this, and then just hand the PCs an easy tool for taking the rests whenever. Like why would you do that? It's sabotaging you own design!

I suspect it's because players really like it, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Random encounters don’t have to just be wandering monsters. Any complication you want to be able to occur at repeated but unpredictable intervals can go on a random encounter table.

Excellent point. I use similarly broad tables in my Level Up game.

 

[tetrasodium]

We're talking about the game, not real world special forces. We're talking about whether PCs will know their mechanical numbers(HPs, levels, etc.) or not.

A PC can know what he can do, but he won't know the damage numbers behind it, his exact bonuses to hit, etc. The mechanics are for the players, not the PCs.

Going to help you out here. People introduced relevant real world personal experience because the bad rule was defended on being too video gamelike if PCs had a grasp on the resting mechanics well enough to engage in rest>nova>repeat loops
It's self contradictory to cite realism to make a bizarre interpretation of the rules and simultaneously dismiss real world experience supporting a reasonable action through the same realism being invoked

 

[bedir than]

@bedir than admitted that he didn't have scores(the numbers). I've never argued that PCs wouldn't have a good idea of their capabilities. Only that they don't have the exact mechanics and numbers behind their capabilities. Mechanics are for players, not PCs.

Then I've argued that there will almost always be some sort of time pressure, because the PCs can't know what sort of preparations are being made or not being made, whether the bodies they left in the storeroom will be discovered or not, etc. There will be pressures created by the players/PCs themselves.

Again, you misrepresent what I said.
But we did in fact have fitness numbers. We had learning numbers. We had numbers of education and language learning.
I said they weren't attributes. I didn't say there weren't numbers.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I agree time pressure can be a factor often, but since it doesn't have to be, and there are plenty of plausible scenarios where it isn't, I don't believe that assuming it is a logical choice to make.

I do beleive in most of these there is sitll time pressure. If not the dungeon itself then from PCs or the world, no settign exists in a vaccum.

There’s always time pressure if you roll for random encounters at regular intervals. Just saying.

That is one of the options as well.

Nah. We'll be chilling in Leomund's bunker. Besides, I don't think it is plausible for random encounters to be everywhere. But it admittedly is a good tool in certain situations.

I don't use Leomund's Bunker in my 5e, but yeah, pretty much.

Leomund's Tiny Hut has casting time of 1 minute. First and last time my players tried to use it was in the middle of combat with Strahd. One of Strahd's Brides beat the Bard casting it unconcious in thrid round of combat. My players decided this spell is worthless and never used it again.

 

[Maxperson]

You tell us, those questions are not relevant to the problem or original scenario.

Which is it and why does it matter when the original scenario happens at the table

Players: we hunker down and take a long rest

Gm: you can only do that once every 24 hours and it hasn't been long enough to take another

Players: okayyyyy... so we setup camp and finish our long rest tomorrow after 24 hours pass

This is not the issue. Of course you can try to wait for that. I say try, because wandering monsters are often a thing and chance can disrupt it.

The issue is whether there's a time pressure or not, and there almost always is.

You crossed the wires on who is saying what. Nobody. Particularly cares why the recovery can happen after resting 8 hours once every 24 hours. The issue is " okayyyyy... so we setup camp and finish our long rest tomorrow after 24 hours pass"

Some people have been arguing that PCs know the mechanics because they can see what happens in the game world.

Channeling that same batch of players again that bold but can be answered as follows: "well I know the gm won't sacrifice the campaign over this and don't think this will make them walk away mid season so it doesn't really matter but you can be 1000% certain more of the group will roll up short rest PCs next game or next swordbush ASAP if I don't like it"

I won't sacrifice or save the campaign over it. If the group rests and lets the cultists prepare to the point where they can't win, that's their fault, not mine. It's my job to have the world react to what the PCs do or don't do as the case may be. It may very well be that the cultists are unable to prepare much in the way of defense. Or they may. I'd have to know the specifics of the cultists and that location to make an actual call.

And rolling up only short rest PCs has other consequences. Long rest abilities are generally more powerful, which is why they aren't short rest abilities.

It really makes no matter to me. The world is going to react to what the players do or don't do, regardless of party make-up. I couldn't care less which classes they pick.

If the results are bad for the world then those players will look at it as an unwinnable scenario where they were punished because the gm runs a crapsack world where the PCs never had a chance. If it happens repeatedly even after players switch to short rest nova build PCs it will eventually kill the campaign with players blaming the gm.

If the players look at consequences of their actions as punishments, they are too self-entitled for me to want to continue to play with. I'm not going to freeze the world so that a group of self-entitled players can have consequence free long rests whenever they want them.

DM: "You finish the fight and are exhausted. Most of your resources are gone, but you still have some fight in you. You hear from beyond the next door the BBEG's voice..."

Players interrupting: "We take a long rest right here."

(24 hours later)

DM: ...say, "I know you are out there, come through the door and let's be done with this!"

Sorry, I'm not going to just freeze things so that the players can always be at 100%.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sorry, I'm not going to just freeze things so that they players can always be at 100%.

Same

 

[Maxperson]

The tomb full of undead. Far less likely to generate time pressure on its own than your count's mansion scenario

Of course it would. Or do you think that no intelligent undead exist and could/would be controlling many of the mindless ones the PCs are encountering? The players aren't going to know that there isn't a lich necromancer controlling things. They aren't going to know what orders the mindless undead were left with(if any).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Reaidng the rule and then going "so here is my 100% legal epxloit" is bad faith reading to me. You read not to understand, but to find weaknesses to exploit.

How on Earth is it an exploit? It like saying that as the rule says that you can take only one bonus action per turn, taking an another bonus action on the next turn is an exploit? Like what?

If you keep screaming how your bad faith interpretation of the rules is correct, then I will reject that bad faith interpretation.

One day, after learning how adventuring day works and that I was running it wrong, said to my players "turns out you can only take long rest every 24 hours or after you do enough encounters to meet daily XP Budget*, I will be enforcing it from now". And we proceeded normally, nobody asked about it since. I am begining to think you are scared of conversation with your players.

* - I was wrong about that bit but I like it.

Yes, you can do that. I don't think it is a good houserule as it shatters verisimilitude and has weird incentives, but your game, so sure.

I am tellign them I won't allow rules exploit. I am making rulings in case of murky rules all the time and at my table I enforce that if player disagrees with my ruling, they can talk to me about it AFTER the session, not during. This is exactly that example.

There is no exploit and the rules are not murky, You are inventing houserules on spot to block action declarations that would not align with your railroad. I don't think this is ideal.

 

[Parmandur]

Again, you misrepresent what I said.
But we did in fact have fitness numbers. We had learning numbers. We had numbers of education and language learning.
I said they weren't attributes. I didn't say there weren't numbers.

I mean, there is a pretty direct cultural link between military quantification of this stuff and early wargaming, hence to D&D.