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

[Maxperson]

My giant alligator got clobbered by an upcast Inflict Wounds that crit.

There was much rejoicing/sadness that day.

I didn't say that they did nothing!!!

I've just found that by and large, casting a 5th level spell is going to be more effective than upcasting a 1st level spell to 5th level.

 

[delericho]

It would be simple to do so.

Treat the game like a game. Stop worrying about verisimilitude.

Rest Update: You cannot take a long rest until you've had ~20 rounds of combat.

Done.

It's probably not a good idea to simply forbid resting until the requisite number of rounds are complete - a few bad rounds could lead to the party desperately needing a rest and not being able to get one.

In general, a better approach would be to apply consequences such that taking the rest isn't the optimal approach - either the monsters get reinforcements, or they advance their plans so are harder to beat, or maybe there's a multiplier to the XP award that increments each time an encounter is completed but resets on a rest, or maybe characters have some powers that charge up as time goes on. Or some combination of these (and a bunch of other things).

Basically, the question "should we take a rest" should ideally never have a single correct answer.

 

[tetrasodium]

It could explain things better, but there is actually a definition in the 5.0 DMG:
Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.

It should be noted that the characters in question are often assumed to be 18 int 8 con barbarian glass cannon "blaster builds along with other deliberately inept PC's like true strike &mage armor clad wizards averse to using the shield spell but certain they should be the 2 player party tank

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One of the things I notice: Most measures against 15 minute adventuring days or 5 minute nova loops also affect more "reasonable" play. What do you know if the party really exhausted some resources and don't think they can risk more fights?

Who gives the players a guarantee that the GM has designed a dungeon or scenario that it has exactly the x encounters that the players can handle, and not spend one more? Maybe they had encounters the GM hasn't originally planned (with all those random wandering monsters, or because the players wanted to try something), or the GM has miscalculated, or the GM actually intended for them to be able to rest without risking failure.
But how would the players, or the characters now? After they lobbed their last fireball against the Hobgoblin unit defending the courtyard, they definitely know they are out of fireballs, don't they? But do they know there are only two more encounters that can be done without another fireball? If they don't, wouldn't they have to consider the risks of the enemy shoring up defenses or rallying support against them vs. rushing in exhausted and weakened by the previous fights? Maybe the necromancer gets his evil sacrifice done and summons a bunch of extra undead. But the party being dead won't stop him, either.

The Goblins bribing some Ogres to aid them might be a nasty surprise - but with two fireballs and full hit points, maybe that's actually less of a risk than fighting a bunch of Goblins without them? This becomes more pronounced as you grow in levels, even, because the difference between "spent" and "Not spent" increases considerably.

Attrition also works both ways - the enemy troops have been thinned out, too. Maybe they can get more troops, but maybe they can't, while you did in fact gain resources by resting. Comparing perhaps to going back to town to acquire some hirelings or ask the local militia for help for a Raid against the Goblins terrorizing the town.

----

Basically, balancing the game for "adventuring day" puts also a lot of onus on the GM to adhere to it, reducing their freedom in how to build his adventures or campaign, or accept that the game will be imbalanced for certain classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mearls is working on his own game right now and since that started he has been highly vocal against WotC. Not that what he has been saying is wrong, but the way he has been saying it has been inflated and even sometimes pretty hyperbolic. That makes this "admission" suspect from the get go.

Did WotC make a design mistake with 5e's encounter balance? Yes. Is it their fault if people ignore the stated design and run the game incorrectly? No. WotC made the mistake of designing in the balance in a way that a lot of people don't like, but people are responsible for their own choices. That makes their CHOICE to run the game contrary to the design intent their fault, not WotC's.

Not admitting to it and trying to fix it for nearly a decade is their fault though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say that they did nothing!!!

I've just found that by and large, casting a 5th level spell is going to be more effective than upcasting a 1st level spell to 5th level.

Unless there isn't a 5th level that does what the upcast 1st level one does.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure...but is it that necessarily enough to be a problem WotC feels they need to solve on the product level? They can't please everyone, and if most people playing on easy mode are having fun and buying...well...

I would say that “easy mode” was the secret sauce that made 5e so attractive to casual gamers. They wouldn’t have taken up D&D if they were dying on a regular basis.

Sure, hardcore gamers are going to grumble about it, but commercially they don’t really matter (and if they are really as hardcore as they think they are they should be capable of fixing it themselves).

 

[Parmandur]

I would say that “easy mode” was the secret sauce that made 5e so attractive to casual gamers. They wouldn’t have taken up D&D if they were dying on a regular basis.

Sure, hardcore gamers are going to grumble about it, but commercially they don’t really matter (and if they are really as hardcore as they think they are they should be capable of fixing it themselves).

Well, this exactly: I don't think WotC views it as a problem if people play D&D and have fun even if encounters are easy and the Classes aren't pushed by DMs equally. Customers having fun are satisfied customers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, this exactly: I don't think WotC views it as a problem if people play D&D and have fun even if encounters are easy and the Classes aren't pushed by DMs equally. Customers having fun are satisfied customers.

Serendipity. The game proved easier than the designers originally intended, and that was popular, so everyone kept quiet about it.

 

[nevin]

It's probably not a good idea to simply forbid resting until the requisite number of rounds are complete - a few bad rounds could lead to the party desperately needing a rest and not being able to get one.

In general, a better approach would be to apply consequences such that taking the rest isn't the optimal approach - either the monsters get reinforcements, or they advance their plans so are harder to beat, or maybe there's a multiplier to the XP award that increments each time an encounter is completed but resets on a rest, or maybe characters have some powers that charge up as time goes on. Or some combination of these (and a bunch of other things).

Basically, the question "should we take a rest" should ideally never have a single correct answer.

I agree. Dozens of modifications to spell

So daily and weekly abilities. Just like with 5e gritty rests...

Long and short rest have always been a solution in search of a problem