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

Regarding bounded accuracy:

Great concept. I have some nitpicks about the execution. Things are too bounded on the enemy side; the AC and saves of the enemies could scale more. AC 22 for ancient dragon is not enough. And yeah, this lack of defences leads to inflation of the HP. Meanwhile on the player side the bounds are far too easy to break. You can still stack all sort of things for wild results. And in general, I am not sure damage and HP need to scale so fast at all. Like sure, with bounded accuracy especially, they must scale, but not this much. If they scale less it just means that the power difference between high and low level things lessens, which to me seems fine.
Bounded Accuracy isn't really broken by anything under 30: that is, -10. 20 is the new 0, going over 20/under 0 is part of the bounds.

Some more high level Monsters approaching that -10 threshold would work, but maybe not for more casual tables.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, because they are opposite experiences. One wants recovery to be difficult, with multiple encounters wearing the party down over the course of some time frame. The other wants recovery to be easy with PCs being at full offensive power in each encounter.
I still think DS! basically is the answer to this. incentivize not resting and get attrition from HP & HP recovery
 

What youre demanding is essentially they design an edition from scratch and spend years refining. What happens if playtesting reveals its completely flawed and requires dunking?
then dunk it? Why would you release it if you know it will fail?

Also, you can come up with a chassis for this without much playtesting, that part is about statistics and design, you do not randomly tweak things in hopes of getting there. Playtesting comes after that
 

So what is a drawback in that game of a fight going badly, but not so badly that you actually lose?
Drawback is, you become weaker. DS balances offence and defense with them being proportionally opposite. With more encounters you gain more victories, you can use stronger offensive abilities. But, you don't rest, so you don't get those hp back. If you rest, you are back to full health, but you don't have resources for big damage moves. In essence, you need to make decision, which is more beneficial, being able to punch harder or take harder punch.
 

Drawback is, you become weaker. DS balances offence and defense with them being proportionally opposite. With more encounters you gain more victories, you can use stronger offensive abilities. But, you don't rest, so you don't get those hp back. If you rest, you are back to full health, but you don't have resources for big damage moves. In essence, you need to make decision, which is more beneficial, being able to punch harder or take harder punch.

But that means that there is attrition! And eh, "reverse-attrition" in the form of victories that make you stronger, I guess. 🤷

In WoW this does not exit. You start each fight with full resources and it does not matter how well or badly you've done in the previous ones. This is pure encounter based model.
 

Last time they tried to kill a few Sacred Cows (4e) it created such a great outcry which probably makes them want to shy away from trying anything similar to it, or even remotely resembling that attempt ever again.
while it is true that I doubt they will make big changes again because of their 4e experience (at least not until 5e well and truly fizzles), I don’t think that this is the right takeaway

5e was a departure from what came before, it can only be seen as a return when you look at 4e only.

They have more wiggle room than they dare making use of. Just don’t change the entire design and the setting lore all at once.
 

In WoW this does not exit. You start each fight with full resources and it does not matter how well or badly you've done in the previous ones. This is pure encounter based model.
I am sure there would be no controversy if D&D were to explicitly look to WoW for inspiration. ;)

Though seriously, I would again recommend that people who wonder what a 5E with Encoujter-centeree logic would look like check out the Stormlight RPG which is hitting the FLGS in a few weeks here.
 

Except they literally haven't done what I'm talking about.

They literally don't do actual, statistical testing. If they had, the "ghoul surprise" could not happen, because they would have already known, from doing simulations, that saving throws fail far too often and need to be bolstered.

This is why I say we need ACTUAL testing, not the garbage they keep floating. 4e came closest to doing it--but didn't quite make it.

Nobody, not WotC, not TSR, not Paizo, nobody actually does TESTING. They do vague touchy-feely surveys.

A bunch of this stuff really isn't hard to do. You just need to actually do testing, which means putting things through rigorous situations. It means actually DOING "white room theory" because you are literally in the white room, the design place before the rubber hits the road.
Would all that testing result in a game that would make WotC even more money, enough to compensate for the time lost to development? Becsuse if not there's no way they would do it. And they would have to be pretty sure it would increase profits, because they've been shown to be pretty risk-averse IMO. And said profit increases wouldn't happen in the short term even if they happened at all, which means the whole thing is IMO a no-go.
 
Last edited:

Flat math is here to stay. When you look at how designs are trending, games designed after 5e have even flatter math. Draw Steel, Fabula Ultima, The Stormlight Archive Roleplaying Game, the explosion of Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark games, Year Zero Engine game, newer 2d20 games, etc. All have flatter math than 5e, some much flatter. Also, in the case Legend of the Five Rings, Warhammer - The Old World and most iterations of existing games they tend to have much flatter math than their predecessors.

Flatter math is easier to design around, easier to balance and often easier to teach to players. It's also just more resilient to a variety of situations.

The only game that really breaks the trend that comes to mind is Pathfinder Second Edition, but that is a little misleading in that it's fairly flat within the scope of play since almost all the gains in accuracy are level based and you are expected to keep play within a -4 to +4 level band of the characters.
 

So what is a drawback in that game of a fight going badly, but not so badly that you actually lose? And how is power use limited outside of combat? Are they spells, can they be cast infinitely? What do the recoveries do? What do the victories do?
Abilities meant for use outside of combat can either be used at will or have some built-in limitation. For example, a Void Elementalist always has the ability A Beyonding Of Vision, which lets them see invisible things, detect illusions, and see and understand magic auras. That's just a thing they can do, and they can also share this vision with others in limited ways. Starting at 3rd level (out of 10), they gain the ability Distance is only a Memory, which lets them open a two-way portal to any place where they have previously been, when completing a Respite. This portal lasts for one hour or until dismissed. This is limited in that it's only once per respite, and has to be done as you finish the respite – it's a thing you do to start your adventure, not end it.

Abilities that require heroic resources are generally limited out of combat to being used once until you get a Victory or take a Respite (long rest). Victories are normally gained through winning an encounter (possibly gaining two if it was particularly tough). You can also gain Victories for completing successful Negotiations or Montages (a shared effort for the whole party to accomplish some larger goal through completing discrete tasks – for example, the overall goal might be "get to the ruins of Thox'allor" and the party might be accomplishing that by Acquire Provisions in town, Recruit a Guide, Finding your Way, Overcome some obstacle, Avoid an enemy, and so on, each of which requires a skill check).

Heroic resources are accrued in combat. Starting characters get either 2 or 1d3 per round depending on class, and all classes also have some additional regeneration from things that happen. For example, Furies (~barbarians with a possible touch of druidic shapechange) get bonus resources for taking damage. Censors (~paladins) get bonus resources for Judging targets and dueling them. Elementalists get bonus resources when people nearby take elemental damage. And so on. Most of these bonus resources are limited to 1/round.

For each Victory you have, you start each encounter with one additional Heroic resource. Taking a respite (~long rest, must be in a safe location and takes at least 24 hours, allows for certain downtime-style activities) turns your Victories into XP and resets your Recoveries to their max and recovers all your Stamina/hp. The idea is to create a tension between Heroically Carrying On, which makes you stronger because of your Victories but is riskier because of spent Recoveries, or Cautiously Retreating to Safety to reset.

Recoveries are basically 4e-style healing surges: spending one heals you for a third of your max Stamina (hp). You can spend one as a maneuver (~bonus action) unless you are dying, or someone else who's adjacent can spend one main action to Heal you which lets you spend a recovery as well. Certain classes (Troubadours, Tacticians, and especially Conduits) have abilities that allow others to spend recoveries, and Censors can spend their own recoveries to heal allies. The drawback to a fight going badly would be that you spend more recoveries than you should – so it impairs your long-term endurance, but not your short-term offense.
 

Remove ads

Top