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

[Zardnaar]

I fugred out my own explanation why bosses die too easily.

Because there is no scenario in which focusing fire on the boss is not the optimal strategy.

What's the best solution to fight involving serious enviromental hazard? Focus fire on the boss so he won't punch you while you avoid the hazard.

Ticking clock to some big thing? Focus fire on the boss because they're either crucial to the ticking clock going off or the thing preventing you from stopping it.

Minions? Focus fire on the boss, who is more dangerous, you can round up small fry later.

Hostages? Focus fire on the boss before he gives order to get them killed.

boss uses trickery and disappearances or shifting enviroment to stay out of sight? Every time they are in sight....focus fire on the boss.

And this is not an issue that can be fixed in this game, not by people designing adventure modules. Because the only solution I found to not have PCs focus fire is to have at least one player have a personally tailored incentive to do something else, one drawing from their character's backstory and motivation. That is the only way to keep players away from optimal strategy of focusing fire on the boss.

Encounter design. Some bosses don't deal that much damage.

Say they have 10 low CR mooks. Archers perhaps. 2 or 3 attacks each maybe hunters mark

That's a lot of damage incoming vs some bosses.

 

[mamba]

No offense, but you are missing something: initiating a combat does disrupt a Long Rest.

ah, I see, I am looking at different rules than you do

Googled it and used the link, which is from 2014 rules

Adventuring

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

The full text is

“A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character's total number of them (minimum of one die). For example, if a character has eight Hit Dice, he or she can regain four spent Hit Dice upon finishing a long rest.

A character can't benefit from more than one long rest in a 24-hour period, and a character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of the rest to gain its benefits.”

You used the 2024 ones as far as I can tell

EDIT: and the interpretation of whether the 1 hour is limited to walking only or applying to all items in the list

 

[QuentinGeorge]

How did you tweak it?

It's mostly about being flexible about giving "bonus" rests, and the balance between short rest and long rest. Basically, though, the players are never able to long rest whenever they want, even short rests should have some opportunity cost.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Lots of food for thought here. But one question that I have:

How does a DM be more strict about the rate of Long Rests without seeming too controlling or antagonistic towards the players?

I can tell you that players are always disappointed at best, frustrated at worst, the few times that I've explained to them that "it's too dangerous to take a long rest here; you can make camp, but you won't get the benefits of a Long Rest right now".

EDIT: I've tried to explain in a "metagame" way to the players during session zero that long rests will not be possible inside of a "dungeon environment". But that's never been well received, or they've found work arounds (spells and magic items that let them long rest anywhere that they damn well please).

This is how you do it.

 

[Parmandur]

and the interpretation of whether the 1 hour is limited to walking only or applying to all items in the list

Yeah, it seems lookomg around there ia a lot of controversy about how to interpret this, and Crawford even clarified the more lenient interpretation I guess...the 2024 rules are actually far more clear and more lenient still than I would prefer if people are trying to cheese the system by "playing optimally".

Still, it is easier to have the opposition to the players "play optimally" if cheese is an issue.

 

[John Lloyd1]

I don't understand why so many people seem to expect an adventure should last a single session. There's nothing wrong with an "adventuring day" taking 2-4 sessions.

I run Friday night tables at a LFGS. I am lucky to get the same players 2 weeks in a row.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Encounter design. Some bosses don't deal that much damage.

Say they have 10 low CR mooks. Archers perhaps. 2 or 3 attacks each maybe hunters mark

That's a lot of damage incoming vs some bosses.

Solution: Focus fire on the boss, who is likely the commander or doing something important. Once boss falls, small fries may run away.

I once had Boss performing ritual on a rock in the middle of lava lake. PCs entered the map from nearby cave entrance. Booss wasn't paying them attention at all, not attacking whatsoever. His minions? 4-5 fire mages, flying on demons, plus as many meele guys. Mages threw wall of fire at PCs, summonned fire elementals, begun throwing fireballs. Huge Damage. Very much designed to have the players realize they need to take these guys down or will burn to the crisp before facing the boss.

PCs still beelined to the boss, who wasn't even attacking the party yet, ignoring all of them. Unleashed their best attacks immediatelly, by end of round I am already in backup transformation into stornger form. That one lasted two rounds.

The only player who didn't do that? One who had a personal goal on the same map and focused entierly on it.

Also, 2-3 attacks with hunter's mark is something but it is NOT a low CR creature.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Lots of food for thought here. But one question that I have:

How does a DM be more strict about the rate of Long Rests without seeming too controlling or antagonistic towards the players?

I can tell you that players are always disappointed at best, frustrated at worst, the few times that I've explained to them that "it's too dangerous to take a long rest here; you can make camp, but you won't get the benefits of a Long Rest right now".

EDIT: I've tried to explain in a "metagame" way to the players during session zero that long rests will not be possible inside of a "dungeon environment". But that's never been well received, or they've found work arounds (spells and magic items that let them long rest anywhere that they damn well please).

In 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide it is written you can only take a long rest if your party a) reached their daily XP budget of defeated encounters b)24 hours of in-game time have passed since last one.

 

[The Sigil]

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.

What's the quote? "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it"? (Upton Sinclair)

 

[tetrasodium]

This is how you do it.


View attachment 419214

No. Wotc published a mechanic that encourages a no win toxic mindset that the GM lacks the tools to feel supported while addressing it. The fact that it took a former wotc employee to stop saying they didn't design a certain number of encounters & such rather than simply admit the obvious math needed for this thread only shows how badly wotc has undercut GM's faced with players encouraged to adopt that mindset...

Spoiler: example of toxic

This player(Bob) reached out to me at the request of a second(Andy) who rage quit after simply being told no to a rest before a time sensitive quest after a single one round encounter

If you are looking at the 13 minutes of timestamps scratching your head about that last line. I ended the previous session with "That's probably for the best" and told the players supporting him to find another GM when Andy threatened to leave over not getting the rest they wanted.