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

[SkidAce]

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.

Same here.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The thing is, it's not even suboptimal. If the goal is to rescue the princess, stopping to rest and let her die is about the least optimal choice you could make. Optimization is not just about combat.

 

[Maxperson]

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

No. You don't get to tell me what I suggested. You asked for examples of a mechanical consequence, and the only thing I "suggested" was that here is an example of one possible mechanical consequence.

By the way, why are you fighting so hard to avoid responding to the second possible mechanical consequence I brought up? Is it because you can't attack it in the same way as your Strawman about Oathbreaker?

 

[SkidAce]

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

They've already been lowered.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

I think that the problem is to some degree less a matter of how many than how flexible they have become under 5e's neo vancian prep. If you look at the old slot progression tables in past editions casters tended to have more total spell slots at just about every level and a tighter spell selection for each level of slot since 3-6 N level slots need to hold N level spells but in 5e they can simpy upcast any A-S tier equal or lower level spell while the prep slots gained with those N level spell slots get devoted to preparing a wider selection of higher level spells to slot into whatever higher level slots the PC has.

Simply giving us a variant that rolls casters back to ad&d2e or 3.x class specific style slot progression & slot recovery with vancian prep would probably solve a lot for tables where the gm is then able to say "because of how you guys kept doing x last campaign/adventure we will be using this set of variant rules going forward" without needing to hear " man... You & your house rules I just want to play d&d, not whatever this is"

 

[tetrasodium]

They've already been lowered.
View attachment 420032View attachment 420033

Looks like we were making similar points at the same time. Although the trouble is that shifting from vancian prep to 5e's flexible neovancian prep results in a wildly expanded array of available spells and slots on any given turn.

 

[SkidAce]

Looks like we were making similar points at the same time. Although the trouble is that shifting from vancian prep to 5e's flexible neovancian prep results in a wildly expanded array of available spells and slots on any given turn.

Definately raises versatility.

Less spells overall though. I like it, no need to reduce castings.

 

[tetrasodium]

Definately raises versatility.

Less spells overall though. I like it, no need to reduce castings.

I wouldn't agree with that bolded bit because of how it actually played at the table. Classes either fell into one of two buckets. Either they had far more spells they could choose from while doing prep (ie wizard and cleric due to spell book and how divine prep worked) or they were like sorcerer with more slots but a much more limited selection of spells known on top of a more limited selection of spells they could choose to know.

At the end of the adventuring day (especially as levels advanced) both types tendes to have a bunch of unused slots. Spells known classes likely had some unused lower level spell slots just because they lacked the spell versatility to fill them with a more niche spell that could have been useful outside of combat or because they chose more powerful higher level nukes during the combats where they cast spell(s). Prepared casters might have something like the cleric's ability to sub in cure spells on the fly but that only goes as far as hp might be needed and both prepared casters were likely to have a bunch of uncast prepared spells if any level simply because they prepared some niche spell like n+1 lesser restoration n+1 web spells or whatever and didn't need as many as they thought would be needed

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Definately raises versatility.

Less spells overall though. I like it, no need to reduce castings.

But there are now endless cantrips, which scale with levels. In older editions if a caster wanted to do something useful, they had to burn a spell slot. This is not the case any more.

 

[Parmandur]

But there are now endless cantrips, which scale with levels. In older editions if a caster wanted to do something useful, they had to burn a spell slot. This is not the case any more.

But a Cantrip is just as useful as swinging a sword...ao of they want to contribute something more in the moment than the Fighter, they have to spend a Slot. Hence the important of keeping up the narrative pace, if a challenge is desired.