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

[Micah Sweet]

Then there is no problem.

I was sorta talking from my perspective. As player I don't like if the game is too easy and that there are too good and obvious solutions. But from skilled play perspective it is not satisfying to self nerf either. "Like yeah, we totally could rest and nova and there are no consequences for doing so, but if we do then the game would be too easy, so we don't." That is unsatisfying. I want the system and the GM to set the limits, and then I can try to do my best within them.

Of course, it's always possible that the players are having fun with the nova loop and 5mwd, but the GM wants something else. That's certainly where I'd fall, and it's a real problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

ALSO: The rest issue is significantly mitigated if a long rest requires 10 days (or a week or a month or a winter or something) instead of 8 hours. The overnight rest recharge is a question worth revisiting in D&D, I think: resting should be a more significant choice than just "okay, reset your character sheet for the next scene".

Unfortunately for some folks here, I feel this has to remain a table issue unless WotC can be convinced that there's money in promoting a different paradigm of rest & recovery.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course, it's always possible that the players are having fun with the nova loop and 5mwd, but the GM wants something else. That's certainly where I'd fall, and it's a real problem.

Perhaps. But then I am not sure that it is a solvable game design problem as it is just difference in preference. The GM wants the fights to be challenging, whilst the players want easy fights that allows them to feel powerful.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There's nothing in the game that I can think of that supports this position. It's an entitlement issue. As for discussing it, it's not a game I would have fun with, so I'm not going to run my game that way. I'm allowed to have fun, too. If they want to play in a game that is run that way, there are other DMs out there for that sort of game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's where I think examining monster design would help. D&D5e has legendary monsters, but the design logic behind them is opaque, there's not enough, and they're a little one-note (ie: they're the ONLY solution used regularly by 5e to handle boss encounters). Additionally, long combats get grindy, and tables don't generally love spending hours in a single fight.

It's an area sorely in need of more content and more design work.

I'd love to see 3pp tackling this issue!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps. But then I am not sure that it is a solvable game design problem as it is just difference in preference. The GM wants the fights to be challenging, whilst the players want easy fights that allows them to feel powerful.

Yup. I feel this set-up is distressing common, and the social contract combined with the official rules puts pressure on the GM to knuckle under and give up on their preferences in this matter, which leads to an unhappy GM and, ultimately IMO, a poor game.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the anecdotes of folks here have shown that your perspective on time pressure and its effects on players is not an unassailable position. Some people won't care,

Then those people accept the natural consequences of their lack of caring.

and others will take said pressure as the mark of an adversarial GM and push back outside of play.

And those people are flat out wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

I always wondered why basically all legendary monsters had three legendary resistances and actions (I think in 5.5. they vary it a bit more.) I have made several "mini-legendary" monsters by taking a tough monster and giving it a single legendary resistance and action (usually just its basic attack or sometimes spell.) It is not much, but I think it made some fights a bit more challenging at lower levels where full three action/resistance legendary might have been a bit too much.

I never really thought about doing that. It's a great idea!

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't agree. There's a time pressure if the world or the GM puts it there and the OCs care about it. That simply doesn't happen all the time.

the time pressure is all the loot, EXP and rewards getting taken by the other adventuring group who was hired by the client because they actually get up off their arses and can complete the three day job in less than a fortnight.

 

[tetrasodium]

So @tetrasodium's anecdotes about players who do not care about time pressure and think novaloop is the right way to play is something I have hard time relating to. Like the players do not care about the story? "If you rest now, the cultists will have time to open the portal and summon a demon that eats the entire village!" "We don't care, good night." Like yeah, this would be a problem, but I also don't think it is a game design problem rather than incompatible gaming tastes problem. I simply couldn't and wouldn't play with people like this.

But I think more common is that the players want to care about the story and they do not want to win by spamming the nova button, but they are not given proper reason to act otherwise by the system and the GM.

But why would they play like this if it is not fun for them? The thing is, self nerfing is not fun either. In skilled play the point is that you have problem, you have the tools, and then you try to come up with a good solution for the problem using the tools you have. And if a tool is a good one, then you use that. In this sort of approach it does not really work for the players simply choose not use the tool because it is too good. But having an obviously most powerful and correct tool destroys the playstyle as well, as then there really is no problem to solve. So this is why I think it is up to the game designers and the GM to make sure that there are no obvious shortcuts and win bottons.

The players doing it are having fun. Usually those players are
A: a warlock/hexadin/etc who gets to throw out fireball smite or whatever every round unless Eldritch blast would be more effective that round for whatever reason.
B: a monk who gets to burn through ki at rates that would make your standard OP anime protagonist blush
C: a 2014 fighter/moon druid/etc who is also in the group and probably wouldn't push for a rest so often but sure as heck doesn't see a reason to be the bad guy trying stop it when A & B are whining to the gm about needing more rests to keep up with soandso because that's how their class was designed
D: a barbarian who I think(?) gets to recover their rage when the party stops yet again
E: a sorcerer who at some point bites the bullet and multiclasses with warlock to pickup devils sight an imp Eldritch blast and some free sorcery points every time the party rests.

There might be a cleric or wizard who doesn't benefit much but recognizes that the group has one setting & that setting is nova or "I don't know what to do because I can't nova and will begrudgingly go through the motions but going to blame my lack of rest if anything goes bad".

Then those people accept the natural consequences of their lack of caring.

I never said that they don't, that's the problem. They often believe those consequences are the result of bad adventure design/bad encounter design/overly stingy gm running a meat grinder /etc.

Since those consequences are automatically blamed on the GM as the sole individual at the table for causing the failure it ultimately magnifies the bad blood and perceived slights every time those consequences pile up and snowball into more and more unpleasant ways.