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

[Yaarel]

Do we have an idea as to why designers make monsters on the easier side?

A boss is often a single powerful creature versus say four powerful player characters.

In order for the boss to be a threat, it needs to be designed as statistically equivalent to four monsters in one. Thus making attacks between each attacking character, and so on.

This ability to attack and defend multiply, helps mitigate the fact that powerful player characters are focus-firing on it.

 

[mamba]

They do have other standard detailed market research: UA specifically is, in fact, for avoiding dud choices.

well, then I hope their other market research does its job

 

[Minigiant]

Do we have an idea as to why designers make monsters on the easier side?

Because 5e was designed to make the first 5 fights easy so the last 2 are fought when tapped out

 

[Yaarel]

Because 5e was designed to make the first 5 fights easy so the last 2 are fought when tapped out

Actually, I prefer that the player characters are fully rested before a boss fight, so that everyone can really have at it.

 

[Minigiant]

5e mechanics are easier to handle and OP characters are less OP. But actual guidance is pretty crap and was much better in previous editions. I'm pretty sure that my 5e game works as well as it does is because I just imported practices and principles from older editions and other games and I am not shy to houserule.

This is because the original audience that Wizards catered to, when you attempt to give them guidance, start singing the last 30 seconds of RATM's killing In The Name.

 

[Parmandur]

well, then I hope their other market research does its job

Seems to be doing OK, based on their recent products.

I have gotten Heroes on the Borderlands, because I don't need it, but it is a striking and innovative development on a decade of feedback on their prior intro products it seems to me.

 

[Parmandur]

Actually, I prefer that the player characters are fully rested before a boss fight, so that everyone can really have at it.

Sure, going to be an unbalanced easy mode, but no reason not to if it is fun.

 

[payn]

Do we have an idea as to why designers make monsters on the easier side?

Its a complicated answer. I think folks have moved from old school survival sim where death is just a likely outcome of any particular adventure, and a more narratvist take in which the PCs are main characters of a story and if they die easily its not for the betterment of the game. The middle ground is folks still want an engaging game and challenge, but the outcome of character death needs to be less common, and the player needs more control over conditions which lead to PC death. thus, monsters teeth are a little less sharp individually.

This conversation is deceptive becasue the problem isnt boss monsters being too easy, its not following the adventure day design to bring about the right challenge level. Some folks are arguing that doing the adventure day right needs to be more clear and folks need more experience in doing it. Others, want the adventure day taken out of the game and replaced with an encounters model that places challenge into each individual combat. My take has always been that you cant meet encounters and adventure day minded folks in the middle. That is the real conflict in ideals of D&D pacing. The 5E result is a really long adventure day (6-8 encounters) which doesnt match up narratively to the adventure stories a lot of folks want to tell/experience.

 

[Maxperson]

I prefer the WotC designers consult with the majority of players when designing products. This democracy sotospeak doesnt always go my way. But the products are more robust and more players either love or can live with these products. If more players are playing then the tradition of gaming stays healthy and passes on to the next generations of gamers.

Rarely, but it seems to happen, the designers did something without consulting the community at large. For example, the decision to have all classes start subclasses at level 3 but the other subclass levels lack standardization, seems to be without community ok. I think they thought the backward compatibility was somehow more marketable. I prefer they instead listened to see what the D&D players wanted.

In the case of the Psion class, it was the community being difficult, and the designers being patient and trying figure out a way to thread the needle. The Psion class is solid, and looks fun to play.

Sometimes a design seems inevitable. There is a difficulty and will resolve in a future design. For example, the six abilities need rethinking, and the bonus of +4 needs to eliminate the score of 18. But if the majority of D&D players arent ready to let go of this archaism, then they arent ready yet. What can designers do?

The game is better when the designers are the servants of the D&D players, rather than the masters.

You can't design anywhere near an entire game by consultation and the 70% mark. It's inevitable that you will get individual things that get to the 70% mark, but when put together make both worse or are downright incompatible. There's a reason that Design by Committee is a well known bad way to design things.

For example, nobody asked if 70% liked Fighters, Rangers, etc. Those were decided upon by the designers. We only got a bit of input on particular abilities, and even then a lot of those abilities were set in stone as part of the class and we only got to influence the shape of the abilities.

Ultimately, we did FAR less to design 5e than the designers did.

 

[mamba]

Seems to be doing OK, based on their recent products.

no idea what their current sales numbers are. I was not interested in most of their recent offerings, but that means nothing to WotC