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

[Crimson Longinus]

Those of us on the "attrition is bad" side aren't actually saying attrition is bad. We're saying that the game math balancing encounters around attrition is bad. 1e didn't balance encounters around attrition, yet it still had attrition. The importance of that attrition depended on how the DM ran his game.

You might be saying that. Some are definitely saying that "attrition is bad" and want full (or at least almost full) refresh for every encounter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. Meaning that it's up to the DM, really.

In my game it's the minimum allowed time between rests. Is it satisfactory to do it that way? No, not really. But it's better than 1) shoving 6-8 encounters into a 24 period in order to preserve game balance, or 2) letting the PCs walk down easy street to 20th level.

It's the lesser of 3 evils.

I'd rather just run looser, ala the TSR editions and the games inspired by them. Have what the PCs experience in the world derive from setting logic rather than relative challenge, and let the players make their own choices (through their PCs) whether to push on or find a safe haven in which to rest and recover (taking a logical amount of time of course) and deal with whatever consequences in the setting that brings. IMO challenge should be much more organic and setting-based than any CR system I've seen would try to dictate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd rather just run looser, ala the TSR editions and the games inspired by them. Have what the PCs experience in the world derive from setting logic rather than relative challenge, and let the players make their own choices (through their PCs) whether to push on or find a safe haven in which to rest and recover (taking a logical amount of time of course) and deal with whatever consequences in the setting that brings. IMO challenge should be much more organic and setting-based than any CR system I've seen would try to dictate.

Sure, but "full refresh for each day" is a bad fit for that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but "full refresh for each day" is a bad fit for that.

Oh yes, which is why I avoid it whenever I can in my games.

 

[Parmandur]

Famously, the game that everyone house rules, as the official rules are terrible*.


*Since it was originally intended as an anti-capitalist parable, it was never meant to be fun.

So, just like D&D for the past 51 years...?

Though yes, you raise the point that Monopoly is still successful despite massively flawed and questionable rules.

 

[Maxperson]

You might be saying that. Some are definitely saying that "attrition is bad" and want full (or at least almost full) refresh for every encounter.

Yes, but for the most part they are failing to recognize that attrition is still there in some form, even if it's minor. I'm sure they don't allow PCs to just walk forever without ever sleeping or even resting. I'm sure they don't allow unlimited casting of spells without tracking some sort of resource(spell points, slots, etc.). I'm sure the PCs aren't immune to hit point loss.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd rather just run looser, ala the TSR editions and the games inspired by them. Have what the PCs experience in the world derive from setting logic rather than relative challenge, and let the players make their own choices (through their PCs) whether to push on or find a safe haven in which to rest and recover (taking a logical amount of time of course) and deal with whatever consequences in the setting that brings. IMO challenge should be much more organic and setting-based than any CR system I've seen would try to dictate.

That's fair. For me, though, the improvements to the game present in 3e-5e outweigh the negative here. Even with these issues, the game is still very much better in my opinion.

 

[GobHag]

I mean, casters are like half of the classes. And does HP recover after every encounter in PF2? Everyone has HP.



I literally do not get the point. If the outcome is not in question and no resources are risked, then there is no need to roll the dice, let alone draw battlemap and take out the tokens. Just stop wasting everyone's time and skip directly to "How do you want to do this?" and let the players just describe how they awesomely beat the foes.



Quelle horreur! Having to think about when to use your spells!

1. Practically yes. The medicine skill and per-encounter powers like Lay On Hands means that post-battle healing is cheap(and in battle healing is powerful to balance out swingy damage can be in PF2). And the fact that half of the classes are very attrition based while the other doesn't is exactly why there's a lot of commotion over caster designs.

2. The reason some people do 'useless' combat is because PF2 combat is fun even outside of per-day/longterm resource management thinking--one plays PF2 to fight; thinking of action economy, positioning, small-scale resource management... those are a hundred times more exciting than rationing health and spells over the day.

3.Yes. Horrific, mengenaskan, kohutav, and a hundred other terms. I'm thankful that pathfinder now at least has a 3pp alternative for vancian in magic+.

 

[GobHag]

Yes, but for the most part they are failing to recognize that attrition is still there in some form, even if it's minor. I'm sure they don't allow PCs to just walk forever without ever sleeping or even resting. I'm sure they don't allow unlimited casting of spells without tracking some sort of resource(spell points, slots, etc.). I'm sure the PCs aren't immune to hit point loss.

Yeah my specific bugbear is that I detest 'per-day' kind of attrition, I prefer a more intense 'attrition' that happens in one to three encounters.

Edit: I do however prefer glossing over travel to the point that your first example is moot, and my preferred alternate casting system is a build up style over an encounter so your second example is also misleading.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah my specific bugbear is that I detest 'per-day' kind of attrition, I prefer a more intense 'attrition' that happens in one to three encounters.

While that's not my cup of tea, that's understandable. My point is still that attrition is present, so it's not that you are anti-attrition, but rather that you are anti-certain kinds of attrition and/or basing encounter balance around long term attrition like 5e did.

You're still in the same camp as I am, just farther over towards the edge.