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

[Jacob Lewis]

People keep saying that, but it simply wasn't true. I've been playing since 1983 and my first experience with PC power having to be distributed over multiple encounters per day started with 5e.

1e-3e had death effects, magic resistance to completely shut down some to most magic, damage immunities and resistances, weapon immunities that needed shut down or minimized weapon damage, save or suck spells and abilities, and more.

In those editions I could challenge a fresh party with a single encounter. There was none of this need for multiple encounters in order to challenge the party.

You’re right that earlier editions didn’t depend on the “adventuring day” model in the same way—attrition existed naturally through save-or-die effects, spell scarcity, permanent debilitation, and other forms of risk that punished carelessness long before the question of rest even came up. A fresh party could face a deadly single encounter because the system itself carried more variance and consequence.

What changed wasn’t just encounter math—it was the underlying safety net. As D&D stripped away the harsher mechanics that enforced attrition organically, it tried to replace them with pacing expectations: multiple encounters per rest, controlled recovery, and XP math that assumes a resource curve across the day. The problem is that the system doesn’t actually enforce those expectations. It relies on table culture and DM restraint to make them matter.

So when I say the “adventuring day” is a systemic issue, I don’t mean that 1e or 2e literally used the same model. I mean that modern D&D built its encounter balance around that model, then refused to give DMs the structural support needed to maintain it. Older editions didn’t need the concept because their danger curve did the work for them.

I don't know where you get this from. The books don't tell the DMs to have monsters wait patiently. This particular issue is a DM issue, not a game issue.

That’s more a comment on how the rules present the world than how any given DM runs it. The problem isn’t that DMs can’t introduce consequences or pacing—it’s that the system doesn’t teach them to. When the books present a world where time and consequence are mostly abstract, most tables treat them that way. The absence of systemic guidance becomes the guidance. That’s not a DM issue; it’s a design issue. D&D offloads structural responsibility onto the DM, then calls it flexibility.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach, and for tables that see no issue, it isn’t one. But a system built to appease everyone by keeping things open and flexible doesn’t become problem-free simply because the majority doesn’t notice the gaps. It just means those gaps are normalized. The problems remain for those who do notice—and for them, no amount of majority comfort makes the issue disappear.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So when I say the “adventuring day” is a systemic issue, I don’t mean that 1e or 2e literally used the same model. I mean that modern D&D built its encounter balance around that model, then refused to give DMs the structural support needed to maintain it. Older editions didn’t need the concept because their danger curve did the work for them.

Right. Older editions had a lot of things that were not fixed by having a good night's sleep, including the very basic loss of HP. In 5e such things are very rare, thus controlling that rest that resets basically everything and cramming stuff before the reset is crucial in a way it just wasn't back then.

A lot of people want to ditch the attrition; I say let's do the opposite, make the attrition harder to recover from!

 

[Maxperson]

Right. Older editions had a lot of things that were not fixed by having a good night's sleep, including the very basic loss of HP. In 5e such things are very rare, thus controlling that rest that resets basically everything and cramming stuff before the reset is crucial in a way it just wasn't back then.

A lot of people want to ditch the attrition; I say let's do the opposite, make the attrition harder to recover from!

When we say "ditch attrition," we mean ditch it as the focal point of the game's balance. By making resource loss harder to recover from, AND by making encounters dangerous enough that a single fight will test the mettle of the fresh party, the focal point of the game's balance shifts away from attrition over time. Attrition can and will still exist, it just won't be what encounters are balanced around.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

If we're living in the recoil from the 4e period, and D&D's the most successful it has ever been, then I think it may indicate that this recoil period is a better place for it to be. Specifically, if 4e's solution to encounter balancing alienated a part of the audience, it seems likely that part of the audience is larger than the segment of the audience that is extremely frustrated with the encounter balance 5e delivers. As payn indicated above, tight encounter balance isn't why a lot of people are playing - they're playing for the power fantasy, the fun of doing things they can't normally do, the ass kicking, the fellowship around the table, whatever else that isn't always a hard fought, balanced bout every time.

That’s a fair observation, but success doesn’t automatically validate design—it only proves the current form is marketable. The recoil from 4E wasn’t a step toward better systems; it was a retreat toward safer territory. D&D learned that ambiguity sells better than structure because it lets every table see what they want in it. That elasticity is commercially brilliant but creatively paralyzing.

The problem isn’t that players enjoy power fantasy or relaxed balance—those are legitimate play goals. The problem is that the system can’t commit to any of them without alienating someone else. It’s built to be interpreted rather than defined. When everything is optional, the foundation stops evolving. You get continuity of brand, not continuity of design. So yes, the recoil era may be more successful—but it’s also the point where D&D stopped solving old problems and started learning to live with them.

 

[Charlaquin]

For example in 5.0 easy encounter for four level two characters would be four kobolds, in 5.5 it would be four gnolls. I would say that this is a pretty steep increase in difficulty!

Huh? Four kobolds, 25 XP each, with a x2 multiplier for 3-5 monsters is a total of 200 XP. Four level 2 characters have an XP threshold of 400 for a Medium encounter (100 XP per PC, times 4), which means you can go up to 399 and still be within the bounds of an Easy encounter. Four kobolds is the easiest an Easy encounter can be in 5.14, but you could add a CR 1/2 monster to that encounter and only be a single XP over-budget for Easy. I’d be more inclined to go with 5 kobolds for a total of 300 XP. That’d put you smack dab in the middle of Easy.

Meanwhile, in 5.24, the advice is to go as close to the threshold as possible without going over, so 400 XP is your max for low difficulty instead of one over your max for Easy. Four gnolls does exactly hit that max. They’re CR 1/2, and guess how many CR 1/2 creatures the Xanathar’s Guide alternate encounter building rules recommend for 2nd level characters? One per PC. Like I said, the 2024 DMG encounter building rules use the same math as the Xanathar’s Guide encounter building rules, reframed to resemble the 2014 DMG encounter building rules.

 

[Parmandur]

I think perhaps diluted might be a better word than muddied. 3e took the 2e systems and expanded them. Relatively few proficiencies became a lot of skills with a lot of skill points. Spellcasters got more spell slots and spell levels for non-magic users were expanded to 9. Many more spells were out there. The dangers were present, but there were ways to mitigate them if you had advance warning. Energy drain was there, but now you not only got a saving throw, you got TWO! And so on.

That said, 3e is still my favorite edition of the game.

That's fair, and I loved 3E while playing it: it ia the second to last edition I would choose to play today, though.

 

[payn]

That’s a fair observation, but success doesn’t automatically validate design—it only proves the current form is marketable. The recoil from 4E wasn’t a step toward better systems; it was a retreat toward safer territory. D&D learned that ambiguity sells better than structure because it lets every table see what they want in it. That elasticity is commercially brilliant but creatively paralyzing.

The problem isn’t that players enjoy power fantasy or relaxed balance—those are legitimate play goals. The problem is that the system can’t commit to any of them without alienating someone else. It’s built to be interpreted rather than defined. When everything is optional, the foundation stops evolving. You get continuity of brand, not continuity of design. So yes, the recoil era may be more successful—but it’s also the point where D&D stopped solving old problems and started learning to live with them.

Solving them perhaps to your satisfaction, but I can tell you 4E was no solution to me. I actually like the 5E approach and slower evolution. You can say im too safe and too grounded in tradition but at least I still want to play the game. Though, thats the rub, I could also point to a number of things id like to change and "improve" in D&D that is likely to turn away others. Imma look at the silver lining instead and see D&D as a big tent casual game as opposed to the pinnacle of RPG design.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I too have seen far more than one group do it, often with a dramatic sigh and rolling of the eyes as the group piles on agreeing with the course of action. Perhaps your own experience with players outside your personal social group of players is not as broad as you think & could stand to be widened before deciding with such certainty what "anyone" would do

But that is still really weird and borderline That Guy behavior. Play with people who want to actually play, if this is such a big issue for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that is still really weird and borderline That Guy behavior. Play with people who want to actually play, if this is such a big issue for you.

Yeah, I kick my friends and family out of my games all the time, because their ability to read the rules and interpret the most efficient way to accomplish a task is apparently their fault, and not an issue with design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that is still really weird and borderline That Guy behavior. Play with people who want to actually play, if this is such a big issue for you.

How is it TFG behaviour? If there is no particular time pressure, and the characters know that waiting one more day heals all their wounds, replenishes all their magic and powers, why would they not do that before wading into a dangerous situation? Are they suicidal?