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

[tetrasodium]

Okay? This is about PCs knowing the mechanics vs. some vague or not so vague pattern that might or might have a bunch of different possible answers for why it happens.

You tell us, those questions are not relevant to the problem or original scenario.

Which is it and why does it matter when the original scenario happens at the table

Players: we hunker down and take a long rest

Gm: you can only do that once every 24 hours and it hasn't been long enough to take another

Players: okayyyyy... so we setup camp and finish our long rest tomorrow after 24 hours pass

What I said applies to 5e. The PCs know that once in a 24 hour period they can rest and recover magic. Nothing says that they know why that happens. It could be that the mystical moon frogs don't allow magic to come back to someone more frequently than that.

They have the correlation, but the causation could be any number of things. The PCs do not know the game mechanics. They only know the fiction. The game mechanics are for the players of the game.

. You crossed the wires on who is saying what. Nobody. Particularly cares why the recovery can happen after resting 8 hours once every 24 hours. The issue is " okayyyyy... so we setup camp and finish our long rest tomorrow after 24 hours pass"

Almost all the time.

Here's a situation. Your PCs have just snuck into the mansion of the local Mayor, who you guys suspect of being a local cult leader. You kill 6 cultists in the entryway to the mansion and hear movement beyond coming towards you. You rolled poorly and are down about 40% of your resources, so you decide to leave and rest for 24 hours before coming back to the mansion.

What is going to happen at the mansion while you are resting?

Channeling that same batch of players again that bold but can be answered as follows: "well I know the gm won't sacrifice the campaign over this and don't think this will make them walk away mid session so it doesn't really matter but you can be 1000% certain more of the group will roll up short rest PCs next game or next swordbush ASAP if I don't like it"

If the results are bad for the world then those players will look at it as an unwinnable scenario where they were punished because the gm runs a crapsack world where the PCs never had a chance. If it happens repeatedly even after players switch to short rest nova build PCs it will eventually kill the campaign with players blaming the gm.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

What bad faith? The rules is that you can not benefit of more than one long rest within 24 hours, meaning that you can benefit from another after it. Like that is literal purpose and function of the rule, it is not some outlandish exploit!

Reaidng the rule and then going "so here is my 100% legal epxloit" is bad faith reading to me. You read not to understand, but to find weaknesses to exploit.

Oh, so now you are houseruling?

If you keep screaming how your bad faith interpretation of the rules is correct, then I will reject that bad faith interpretation.

Ok. What does your houseruled rest rules say? It also is generally more polite to inform players of houserules beforehand, instead of springing them on them to block their action declarations.

One day, after learning how adventuring day works and that I was running it wrong, said to my players "turns out you can only take long rest every 24 hours or after you do enough encounters to meet daily XP Budget*, I will be enforcing it from now". And we proceeded normally, nobody asked about it since. I am begining to think you are scared of conversation with your players.

* - I was wrong about that bit but I like it.

It is in some cases. Like here. You are literally arbitrarily blocking their action declaration for no reason besides them not doing what you want. And what are you even saying "no" to here?

I am tellign them I won't allow rules exploit. I am making rulings in case of murky rules all the time and at my table I enforce that if player disagrees with my ruling, they can talk to me about it AFTER the session, not during. This is exactly that example.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. We'll be chilling in Leomund's bunker. Besides, I don't think it is plausible for random encounters to be everywhere. But it admittedly is a good tool in certain situations.

I don't use Leomund's Bunker in my 5e, but yeah, pretty much.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is IMO a decent way to generate pressure, especially when the in-setting circumstances don't do that job already. But even that isn't plausible in every circumstance.

Nah. We'll be chilling in Leomund's bunker. Besides, I don't think it is plausible for random encounters to be everywhere. But it admittedly is a good tool in certain situations.

Random encounters don’t have to just be wandering monsters. Any complication you want to be able to occur at repeated but unpredictable intervals can go on a random encounter table.

 

[Maxperson]

It sounds to me like you're saying real world example shouldn't carry any weight at all in this discussion. Am I reading you correctly? Obviously I disagree, but that's a fair opinion.

@bedir than admitted that he didn't have scores(the numbers). I've never argued that PCs wouldn't have a good idea of their capabilities. Only that they don't have the exact mechanics and numbers behind their capabilities. Mechanics are for players, not PCs.

Then I've argued that there will almost always be some sort of time pressure, because the PCs can't know what sort of preparations are being made or not being made, whether the bodies they left in the storeroom will be discovered or not, etc. There will be pressures created by the players/PCs themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

Plausibility of specific unknowns is a factor. My scenario is less likely to result in negatives from taking a rest than yours, but both can happen in D&D.

What scenario?

 

[Maxperson]

No, they're just arguing that taking action that exploits that knowledge as a PC inevitably makes you a jerk, to my reading.

Some are. Not all of us.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Reaidng the rule and then going "so here is my 100% legal epxloit" is bad faith reading to me. You read not to understand, but to find weaknesses to exploit.

If you keep screaming how your bad faith interpretation of the rules is correct, then I will reject that bad faith interpretation.

One day, after learning how adventuring day works and that I was running it wrong, said to my players "turns out you can only take long rest every 24 hours or after you do enough encounters to meet daily XP Budget*, I will be enforcing it from now". And we proceeded normally, nobody asked about it since. I am begining to think you are scared of conversation with your players.

* - I was wrong about that bit but I like it.

I am tellign them I won't allow rules exploit. I am making rulings in case of murky rules all the time and at my table I enforce that if player disagrees with my ruling, they can talk to me about it AFTER the session, not during. This is exactly that example.

The rules about resting aren't exactly "murky" IMO, but you have every right make your own houserules at your table, so long as the players are on board (and it sounds like they are).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't use Leomund's Bunker in my 5e, but yeah, pretty much.

Me neither and I think its existence is a serious design flaw. It is crazy to first tie the whole game balance to there being this and that amount of encounters between rests and telling the GM that they should aim for this, and then just hand the PCs an easy tool for taking the rests whenever. Like why would you do that? It's sabotaging you own design!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What scenario?

The tomb full of undead. Far less likely to generate time pressure on its own than your count's mansion scenario