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

[Maxperson]

Not realky. Coukd very DM takeout. Eldritch Knight 5. Wizard 15 with pre cast foresight via scroll. Technically a gish more like CR12 archmage

This supports what I'm saying. You can't tell level. Could be lots of things. All you can tell is that the person is skilled enough to attack twice, not what level or class the person might be.

 

[Maxperson]

For me, if a new group misreads a spell THAT badly (missing that it's a 1 minute casting time), I will prompt them. "That has a minute casting time, you sure about this?" Last time this came up (Can't remember the spell but it was something with a minute casting time) - the player realized had made a mistake and did something else.

Me, too. The spellcaster isn't going to make that mistake. That's why the only part I'm concerned with in this discussion the announcement afterwards by the players that the spell is a bad one.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm breaking this up because it doesn't make sense to me a whole.

I think its the DM's fault because 1) I have never had the 5 MWD with any group, and the reason is that the world moves and responds while they rest when it's appropriate for the circumstances, and 2) I have played in games where the 5 MWD happened, it it was because the DM just froze things and didn't have the world respond like I do.

I very firmly believe the 5 MWD is a DM issue, not a player issue.

I don't understand this. With what I've said there is no nova loop or campaign collapse inherent in it anywhere. There is some small potential for a TPK due to prep that happens if the players leave and rest, but it's very rare for things to go that badly.

Where are you getting nova loops and campaign destruction from?

Its a DM and player issue maybe playstyle.

Video games as well. Theres nothing explicit in the rules saying NO DON'T DO THIS.

Experienced DM xan easily counter it but its not the dominant playstyle anymore.

Even worse players have been trained to expect easy mode.

 

[Maxperson]

They decided it's not their playstyle. My players woudl rather end fights quickly and I guess tactics tiny hut is good forjsut aren't their style. I still think insulting their intelligence for disagreeing with "the meta" like Longinus did is uncalled for and rude.

It's great for resting safely. It's also good for situations like you need to search a room in a dangerous area, but it will take a lot of time and the enemies are searching the area for you. Cast it to keep the door shot and block the entry into the room even if the door opens, and you can search for a loooooong time while the enemy just sits there. Or cast it and lure the enemy to you to start the fight. The advantage then will help end those fights faster.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's weird that so many people are caught up in the rest cycle without taking the time to examine monster design.

If you want a "boss monster," it clearly needs to have different rules than a regular monster. 4e understood this OK. 5e Legendaries get at this, but have a problem in that there aren't that many of them and they aren't at every level (including lower levels where folks still want a "boss monster" experience). It's also not clear - especially to newbies - how to turn a regular monster into a Legendary (are there different hp targets? how should l design a legendary action?)

Using a tougher monster doesn't in and of itself really solve the problem, since the larger hp pool also comes with higher damage that makes attack rounds more binary.

If we assume that players are just going to alpha strike, and that if we want a powerful boss monster, we have to accept that alpha strike...that means we need to take that into account when we want a climactic encounter (and we can still have lesser encounters that don't NEED an alpha strike, or that are OK if they are largely neutralized by a group doing a alpha strike since they weren't mean to be "boss" encounters anyway).

What would one encounter that was the size of 2 or 3 normal encounters look like? How can we avoid grind and tedium and keep the table time reasonable in that situation? Can we make a boss monster wizard feel "fragile" without having them die in the first round?

That sounds more interesting to me than flattening the variety in PC abilities.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm breaking this up because it doesn't make sense to me a whole.

I think its the DM's fault because 1) I have never had the 5 MWD with any group, and the reason is that the world moves and responds while they rest when it's appropriate for the circumstances, and 2) I have played in games where the 5 MWD happened, it it was because the DM just froze things and didn't have the world respond like I do.

I very firmly believe the 5 MWD is a DM issue, not a player issue.

I don't understand this. With what I've said there is no nova loop or campaign collapse inherent in it anywhere. There is some small potential for a TPK due to prep that happens if the players leave and rest, but it's very rare for things to go that badly.

Where are you getting nova loops and campaign destruction from?

Then the problem causing a breakdown in this discussion is one on your part where you cannot envision a scenario where players feel like they are entitled to nova regularly as good and intended behavior even as far as needed to discuss it. More than that, you seem unwilling to even imagine looking through that lense of imagination at a scenario where the players have made that decision and shape your responses through that lense. Rather than twisting what was actually said in knots to hastily assign blame.

Heck I even posted some screen grabs of a discord exchange with a former player hoping to convince me to return to running a nova loop campaign while accusing me of being "afraid of losing"" earlier. Eventually you've reinterpreted posts you are responding to after stacking so many revisions that you are responding entirely to something of your own creation and expressing frustration when attempts are made to correct responses to things not said.

If there is something that is not clear or needs further explanation for you to grok it without having seen it then maybe try asking for clarification rather filling in whatever might be needed to make it make sense then responding to that creation of your own.

 

[Umbran]

Are your players stupid?

Mod note:
You just asked that insulting question on a board on which Rule #1 is, "Keep it civil."

So, maybe you don't want folks wondering who is, or is not, using their brains to best effect, hm?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is there to telegraph is the PCs decide to leave 6 dead cultist bodies lying in a room at a mansion cultists live at? They already know that it's a bad idea and will be highly likely that the situation will be altered before they return a day later. I don't think I should be obligated to make it even more obvious to them.

For me, telegraphing is for things that they couldn't possibly know. If they are in a mountain pass and there's a medusa in a cave ahead, there will be animal, monster and/or humanoid statues around to telegraph it.

I'm not into gotchas, but I'm also not into hand holding the players. It's their job to know that if they fireball the front door of the palace and then run away for 24 hours, bad stuff is happening behind them.

Yeah, I don't think there is a disagreement here. If you leave dead corpses into place where their comrades are likely find them no additional telegraphing is needed: the implications are obvious.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The comment didn't have to do with misreading a spell. It happens. They tried to cast a spell in combat and didn't realize it took a minute. What seems to be less than stellar decision making is in declaring it to be a useless spell because it wasn't useful for being cast while in combat. That spell has many amazing uses. It's a top tier spell.

Yeah, this is more what I meant. To be briefly confused is normal, to never realise what the spell actually does is rather more perplexing.

For me, if a new group misreads a spell THAT badly (missing that it's a 1 minute casting time), I will prompt them. "That has a minute casting time, you sure about this?" Last time this came up (Can't remember the spell but it was something with a minute casting time) - the player realized had made a mistake and did something else.

And definitely this. Though of course not all GMs remember every spell either. I sure don't*.

(*However, before running 5e I did read every bloody spell and altered or banned those I deemed to be problematic and Leomund's hut was the first on that list.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I assure you, the rule was written to ensure that PCs will not spam long rest but keep adventuring. Demainding the whole party does nothing to wait 24 hours just so they can have long rest after slightest sign of resistance, is exploiting blind spot in the rule and it breaks verisimilitude because it demands to pretend the player characters aren't heroes who willingly go on adventures in the name of completely out of unvierse "optimal play performance". You are going directly against the spirit of the rule to use its blind spot to do what the rule was written to prevent, spamming long rest. If preventign that is railroading, then call me Transformable Thomas.


Considering what Longinus just wrote and I respond to above, I am apparently not allowed to make houserules at my table without being judged by not adhering to his bad faith, exploit friendly interpretation of the rules, even if my players are all ok with it. So you can stop saying that, it is clearly not even accepted as truth among people arguing the same point as you.

It is possible to disagree with someone's opinion and choices, even strenuously, while still respecting their right to make those choices. Otherwise folks can't really discuss different perspectives.