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

[Maxperson]

Oh, yeah, some people understood the assignment, but I think a lot more didn’t, and moreover they refused to accept it when it was explained to them.

I think it was more that WotC realized that virtually nobody played the way the DMG recommended and they wanted to actually make money on the adventures they put out. So the directive was probably to ignore the DMG guidelines and make an adventure that fit the way most folks played.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not sure what you mean by this. Poisons in both the 2014 and 2024 version of 5E frequently inflict the poisoned condition, which means disadvantage on attack rolls. That is no joke.

Type E. Save vs death or due. 20 damage of you survive.

Poison condition is easy to remove. Level 4 spell 2E.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it was more that WotC realized that virtually nobody played the way the DMG recommended and they wanted to actually make money on the adventures they put out. So the directive was probably to ignore the DMG guidelines and make an adventure that fit the way most folks played.

Pretty much, yeah. Because the number of people who play modern D&D like the wargames of the 70s, where the object was to have the PCs get into nothing but fights over and over and over that possibly could kill them each and every time, had grown smaller and smaller and smaller over the decades. In our modern RPG landscape... with players having also played Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Traveler, Legend of the 5 Rings etc... more players play for the story their PCs create, rather than only being focused on the board game. So "game balance" for a crapton of tables was never an actual concern.

It didn't matter what the DMG said about number of encounters for "balance" because many tables just didn't care. We weren't here to "be challenged in combat" each and every fight... we were here for the narratives and stories and adventures our characters got into. And the designers were just the same way.

 

[Maxperson]

And for those people, the 2014 DMG offered the (admittedly poorly named) “gritty realism” variant resting rules. Short rests take 24 hours, long rests take a week. Now your “adventuring day” is spread out over a week, and you can have your one or two combats a day and still have the game balance work as intended.

That's what I ultimately ended up doing. I actually kept short rests shorter than a day since it didn't really matter with encounters spread out.

 

[Maxperson]

Pretty much, yeah. Because the number of people who play modern D&D like the wargames of the 70s, where the object was to have the PCs get into nothing but fights over and over and over that possibly could kill them each and every time, had grown smaller and smaller and smaller over the decades. In our modern RPG landscape... with players having also played Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Traveler, Legend of the 5 Rings etc... more players play for the story their PCs create, rather than only being focused on the board game. So "game balance" for a crapton of tables was never an actual concern.

It didn't matter what the DMG said about number of encounters for "balance" because many tables just didn't care. We weren't hear to "be challenged in combat" each and every fight... we were here for the narratives and stories and adventures our characters got into. And the designers were just the same way.

I don't think challenged vs. not challenged was that big of a deal. Rather I think that most groups just don't want to get into combat after combat after combat. Combat is fun, but too much of a good thing gets boring fast.

 

[Horwath]

1st: This is what happens when you do not exclusively use power players to playtest your material.

2nd: what is point of designing an encounter if at least half of PCs will not roll death saves at one point during it?
8 combats a day was a fools errand from day 1.
even if you do it, and use XP guides it will be boring and repetitive.

3rd: get rid of short rest mechanics.
AED worked in 4E because 4E was designed around AED.
5E is not, most of the time short rest classes get the short end of the stick.
In our games over 11 years of 5E, I would say that we do about half a short rest per Long rest.
maybe if Short rest was 1min long we would get more of it, but doubt it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But it's easy to make long dungeons full of random encounters that gradually drain PC resources full of character development and story!

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I use my own slightly tweaked variant of the gritty resting rules, but the fundamental issue is that the decision on long rests is something the DM should be controlling, not players. Once you do that, most of the balancing issues disappear.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it was more that WotC realized that virtually nobody played the way the DMG recommended and they wanted to actually make money on the adventures they put out. So the directive was probably to ignore the DMG guidelines and make an adventure that fit the way most folks played.

I mean, I am not sure what people are talking about when they say the official Adventures don't follow the DMG model, though...they are full of Dungeona that push a full Adventure Day, usually with a pre-baked reason the PCs can't cheese a fice minute work day. And Im5talking about recent releases, too...

 

[Parmandur]

Pretty much, yeah. Because the number of people who play modern D&D like the wargames of the 70s, where the object was to have the PCs get into nothing but fights over and over and over that possibly could kill them each and every time, had grown smaller and smaller and smaller over the decades. In our modern RPG landscape... with players having also played Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Traveler, Legend of the 5 Rings etc... more players play for the story their PCs create, rather than only being focused on the board game. So "game balance" for a crapton of tables was never an actual concern.

It didn't matter what the DMG said about number of encounters for "balance" because many tables just didn't care. We weren't here to "be challenged in combat" each and every fight... we were here for the narratives and stories and adventures our characters got into. And the designers were just the same way.

The brilliant thing about 5E is.that it works both ways...push the party as the written Adventures tend to, and it works like a charm, with excellent balance. If game balance and a challenge isn't important, then the game runs fine.

The only problem ia for people who want challenging, intense individual fights without the attrition. But I'm not sure D&D ever did that well, frankly, and WotC seems to have successfully ignored that entirely for 11 years now.