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

[Micah Sweet]

Not bothered, haven’t noticed any problems. Having learned to play on 1st edition, I never payed any attention to CR when planning encounters in any case. And I don’t think my players would enjoy a more difficult game.

Yeah, that would (and occasionally does) frustrate me. I want to run a somewhat (fantasy) realistic game where challenges exist and might get you if you're not careful, or lucky. Cakewalks bore me from either side of the screen.

 

[Maxperson]

The fact that defenders of the status quo have so regularly shifted to 8 hrs long rests & long rest classes while defending the dusk recovery cycle design that short rest nova loop classes exist in is pretty solid evidence of a serious problem. That breakdown of incentives becomes even more extreme now that the defense has shifted to @Maxperson's assertion that the problem should be solved using tools like telling the long rest class cleric & long rest class paladin that they have been shifted to being oathbreaker paladin and death domain cleric for not taking on the role of fun police at the table to stop the warlock/monk/maybe fighter+"sure why not moon druid/barbarian/etc from excessively short resting.

At least the meme worthy no win morality choices paladins occasionally faced under old school enforced absolute morality Lawful Good chains were generally a consequence of choices made by the players of those classes. It's absurd to even humor the idea of punishing Dave & Cindy because Alice &Bob are certain that their classes are designed to expect excessively regular short rests to fuel nova loops as the default state they were designed for when Dave and Cindy barely even benefit from those rests. Max has put forward such an extreme and toxic solution that even fans of the most arbitrary of OSR games are likely to cry foul at the idea of such a punishment for Dave & Cindy while Alice and Bob are reaping such huge rewards from those rests. I refuse to even pretend that the idea is workable until such point that wotc comes out explicitly describing those two subclasses as intended for the GM to use as punishment of long rest clerics and long rest paladins who don't fun police their short rest class party members into line. St least then I could be the reasonable one when I do some horrible to short rest classes.

That's some politician level of word twisting there. I never said anything about "should" with Oathbreaker, and I never mentioned the death domain cleric.

You asked for an example of a mechanical consequence, so I provided two. You've blatantly twisted the first beyond belief at this point, and you refuse to respond to the second.

As for what should or should not be done, that's entirely based on the circumstances of what is happening in any given game, not a discussion on a forum. Jesus man.

 

[BenjaminPey]

If I may sum up my understanding and related questions about some of the (numerous) things said in this thread:

. The game is not suited to "nova players".
=> Indeed. 2014 was aimed at veteran players with a tendency towards old school dungeoneering, where rests are not easy and fights numerous. The 2024 edition recognized that and cranked up the monsters and the encounters guidelines accordingly.

. But if you crank up the difficulty too much, the game is too deadly! There's no button to find the perfect macth-up.
=> Indeed. Because the perfect match-up is very context-dependent and a tool will only goes this far before being way too complex to use. See the three tables and not-so-hidden guidelines in the DMG14, which are apparently already too complex for a vast majority of players.
=> And what is a perfect match-up? What is a perfect win-to-lose ratio? Are we sure there is some objective value to assign, here? I'm not sure what the "high" difficulty in 5E24 gives us, but I'd say it's around a 80/20 win/lose ratio. Is it too deadly? Not deadly enough? I don't know. Seems right to me.
=> This 80/20 ratio I experimented is certainly linked to the fact my players aren't expert tacticians devoted to this particular game since several decades. Apparently, some here can chain 5 high difficulty fights cranked up to eleven without a sweatr. Fine. But is it a bad thing? Should CR be calibrated around newish players or around this kind of uber-experts? Is there even a good answer, here?

. The perfect ratio is a tensed fight where the good side win at the end.
=> Ok, sure, but if there's a way to tell how a fight will end just by looking at numbers at the beginning of the fight, then there's not much game left, is it? If the outcomes are that predictable, what is the point?
80/20 seems kinda right, to me. And it's taking nova into account, at least casual players nova-ing. For veterans, I guess cranking the CR up a notch is not some kind of insurmountable problem?

. It's hard to enforce resting limits.
=> I don't think so, to be honest. Narrative constraints are easy and free. Time, place, random encounters, values, heroics. Social constraints too. Rythm, open discussion about personal preferences, calibrating between all players.
I do think it's hard to push players towards modes of playing that they don't like, though. And if they don't like their characters pushed to their limits, well, why should they be? There are here to have fun. Maybe they took Tiny Hut as a spell precisely because they would like to play fully-rested most of the time. Let them. If they don't find this fun in the end, well, maybe suggest they swap this spell?

I was more thinking options. Unfortunately 5.5 was designed without any.

But 5.5 encounter difficulty is designed around fully-rested characters, so there would be not much of a point, here. Besides, the DMG14 is still there, isn't it?

 

[Maxperson]

What I was saying is that the GM does, in fact, need to apply pressure for there to be pressure. The way D&D--especially 5e, but all editions--is designed, it has to be the GM providing pressure, because the players functionally cannot pressure themselves, as they have no ability to articulate anything proactively, their behavior is inherently reactive. (Even in the most sandboxy sandbox!)

Even in a D&D played to relax, judicious application of pressure is appropriate. Otherwise, you could never ever have any challenge connected to any kind of time limit--because that would be some amount of pressure at some point, and thus unacceptable.

So I've imagined all the times my players pressured themselves into moving on, because it was possible there would be some sort of consequence that they came up with on their own? All of those times never happened?

 

[Parmandur]

So I've imagined all the times my players pressured themselves into moving on, because it was possible there would be some sort of consequence that they came up with on their own? All of those times never happened?

But...but...how could mere players bring themselves to do anything suboptimally‽

My experience is that my friends and family barely make rational decisions when playing, let alone optimal in any game sense. Very human decisions, though, usually flowing coherently out of the narrative and their characters. Barely any pressure needed, just saying "if something isn't done about [the BBEg] in [timeframr] then [puppies will die]" is more than enough.

 

[James Gasik]

So I've imagined all the times my players pressured themselves into moving on, because it was possible there would be some sort of consequence that they came up with on their own? All of those times never happened?

This sort of thing can happen. Last year, I was playing in a megadungeon (The Scarlet Citadel by Kobold Press). Multiple times the party discussed pulling out and performing some downtime activity or even visiting the nearest major city to purchase better gear and supplies. I kept pointing out that we knew that there was a group of individuals up to No Good in the dungeon, and maybe we shouldn't let them have too much time to continue doing No Good. There were groans (especially from our Ranger, who really, really, really wanted a pair of magical short swords!), but they eventually conceded.

The DM did react to our character's actions twice, when dealing with the Trollkin bandits. The first time, we returned to find they had reinforced their defenses and trapped some of the entrances to their lair. The second time, they attacked the nearby village in retaliation, forcing us to defend it.

When the adventure was over, the DM confided in me that the main reason he did this was because my character kept reminding that there should be consequences- there was apparently some troubleshooting advice in the adventure, but by and large, he expected us to take our time with it, rather than constantly throw ourselves into the unknown. He'd never stated we were on a clock, I'd apparently done that all by myself because my character felt that was the most logical outcome.

But it turned out that the dungeon had been largely unexplored for months before we arrived, and it would take the forces of Really Bad some time to enact their No Good. We could have traveled to the city of Zobek to spend our hard-earned loot and been fine! If anything, our actions accelerated the timeline, and got us into several battles we weren't prepared for!

It didn't help that some of the large setpiece battles really did think we'd be fully rested, and we usually were not.

So yes, players can pace themselves- sometimes to their own detriment, lol.

 

[Minigiant]

All this talk of pressure and rest alternatives because people refuse to have fewer spells per day.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's some politician level of word twisting there. I never said anything about "should" with Oathbreaker, and I never mentioned the death domain cleric.

You asked for an example of a mechanical consequence, so I provided two. You've blatantly twisted the first beyond belief at this point, and you refuse to respond to the second.

As for what should or should not be done, that's entirely based on the circumstances of what is happening in any given game, not a discussion on a forum. Jesus man.

No it's what you actually suggested because I've been talking about short rest nova loops and you keep quoting me ignoring that particular detail while inserting long rest stuff to defend the dual rest/recovery cycle short rest class design in a long rest attrition adventuring day based game

 

[Micah Sweet]

All this talk of pressure and rest alternatives because people refuse to have fewer spells per day.

Casters like casting spells. Why should they be ok with casting fewer of them?

 

[Maxperson]

“Challenge” is not the purpose of playing. The purpose is to give people who hate small talk something to fill empty air in a social situation.

A lot of people play for the social situation and to be challenged. For many it is very enjoyable to meet and overcome challenge and adversity.

It is incorrect to remove challenge from the purpose of play, because there are many purposes for playing D&D. It's perfectly fine for you and your group not to like to be challenged and just play for the social aspect, but it's not okay for you to deny that other people play to be challenged.