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

[BenjaminPey]

But if it expects at totally rested party in 5.5e, it already expected one in 5e, because the tables only have minor adjustment.

The loss of the multiplier changes things a lot, wouldn't you say? Not against single opponents in the lower levels indeed, as you noticed, but single opponents are few and far between.

 

[Distracted DM]

That's one of the reasons I have my players roll stats and give them the ability to swap one pair. You will almost never see a party that is completely dumb, uncharismatic, or whatever.

I assume you mean roll stats down the line? Yeah that's one way of doing it. On the other hand, if a group communicates and works out what everyone's playing, then they can avoid being short in such cases... but I know many players come to the table already planning to play a certain character.

 

[AnotherGuy]

To me the rules do not simulate fiction, fiction emerges from the play.

Fiction emerges from play but I can't cast my Fireball on the first round because of? Why do I need to wait till x round to cast it? That's rules messing with my fiction.

I'm all for gamist mechanics that help to inform or facilitate fiction (minion mechanic) but this mechanic limits fiction for purely gamist reasons. I'm not a fan of those types of mechanics.

Rather just say a Fireball has a casting time of x rounds. Better rule IMO.

 

[AnotherGuy]

For a magic system designed for this purpose, this is certainly something that can be answered. Perhaps combat magic is powered by the emotions generated by deadly conflict and there is no way of replicating this outside of fights to the death.

I could see this working when one attains the bloodied condition for instance - a certain level of adrenaline or desperation. But EVERY 3 rounds (12-18 seconds) of combat does not work for me as you could reach those emotions within the first round if the fight is particularly deadly...

Perhaps combat magic is provided by entertaining extraplanar entities that are attracted to bloodshed. With a bit of care, you can create fiction that supports your rules well enough for a large portion of players, at least as well as the very thin description given for spell slots in 5e.

Since FR is the core setting this would have to tie up to Mystra and the Weave etc. Like I said it's better to just say a Fireball takes x rounds to cast.

or

EDIT: There is a die rolling mechanism in place which makes x round the earliest round to engage with that level of power.

For instance, every round you channel magic you add a d6 to your Engagement to the Weave, once you hit abc you're so attuned that you're able to cast 3rd level spells. Perhaps there are magic items which boost your d6 to d8 or add a base number before you start channeling magic etc etc.

That said, I strongly expect this post to attract nit picking to "prove" these options "can't" work that I'm not really interested in.

Many of us are interested in the fiction.

Perhaps magic is just not amenable to naturalistic understanding at all and relies on principles that don't have easy real world analogues - that's what makes it magic and not physics.

I see, and to be clear the only principle that is confounding our understanding of magic is this delay which exists in combat.

 

[AnotherGuy]

They can, but probably won't since they are below average in intelligence. It's unlikely that they will think of it on their own.

The game as designed doesn't support this.
Its why at our table we immediately addressed Intelligence and all ability scores early on including benefits for odd numbered ability scores.
We went back to earlier editions where you need 10+x number in your spellcasting ability to cast spells of x spell level.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would say, it would be good advice in adventures and the DMG, if they add something like this:

For the DMG: Think about the pacing of your adventure. Does the party have time constraints? What would happen if a party takes long rests after every battle? Think about the ingame consequences and failstates that could generate. But also, if the adventure you are planning to run doesn't have time constraints and it would be contrived to find failstates for frequent long rests, you can increase the encounter difficulty to two times the deadly/high difficulty xp value.

And for adventure similiar:
"The encounters in this adventure are tuned to party that adventures cautiously and frequently takes long rest, because it is about the exploration about this mega dungeon with a lot of mindless undead, who will not act strategically to the intrusion of the party into their domain. So don't try to punish a party for often going back to base camp and rest."

Vs

"This adventure is on a time crunch. If the players don't finish it in 3 ingame days, the dragon will be sacrificed to the princess, evil unicorns will devour the lands and a puppy will be kicked. If the party takes more than two long rests, they loose the adventure. The encounters in this adventure are attuned to two long rests and should be achievable by a party, that's acts smart.
If, by bad luck or poor choices, the party is low on ressources and out of time, you can guide them to the temple of deux ex machina, where you can grant them the benefits of an additional long rest as an action for all the treasure they have accumulated so far."

Why do you think short rests deserve such a pass in service of enabling the short rest class nova loop? All such a section would do is embolden short rest class players who already feel like they should expect ultra regular short rests to fuel endless nova.

Wotc's refusal to do or say anything about excessive shortrest abuse while regularly giving a finger wag at excessive long resting over the years has actively exacerbated the problem with regular reinforcement of the bad expectation for classes being designed to need a default nova

 

[AnotherGuy]

Why do you think short rests deserve such a pass in service of enabling the short rest class nova loop? All such a section would do is embolden short rest class players who already feel like they should expect ultra regular short rests to fuel endless nova.

How many short rests do you allow in an adventuring day?

 

[Distracted DM]

How many short rests do you allow in an adventuring day?

Not OP, but I've often considered limiting them, or rather saying "You get 2/3 short rests per long." By placing a limit on SRs, you make them more valuable, and something to manage. On average, it's probably 3-4 per long rest.. but I make LRs typically take 2 uninterrupted days.

 

[M_Natas]

The loss of the multiplier changes things a lot, wouldn't you say? Not against single opponents in the lower levels indeed, as you noticed, but single opponents are few and far between.

Hrm, yes and no.
The loss of the multiplier increases a fight against 2 monsters by 50% and against 3 to 6 monsters by 100%, against 7 to 10 monsters by 250%.

But at the same time, a 200xp cr 1 creature is (according to 5.5e) equal to 4 cr 1/4 (50xp) creatures. So the ressource draining should be similiar.
I would say, that 5e just undervalued multiple monsters (like, one of them most common fixes was to ignore the multiplier).

At the same time ... I would have to build some encounters to just see that.
Okay, let's give it a go.

Level 1 Party
Bandits are 25xp each. So 4 bandits should be equal to 1 gnoll warrior (100xp).

Bandits
AC 12 --> Hitchance against +5 = 70%
HP 44 (4x11) --> adjusted HP = 62 / 15,7 per Bandit (accounting for Hitchance)
Attack +3, 5 damage x4 --> Hitchance against AC 15 = 45% --> adjusted damage 9.

Gnoll warrior
AC 15 --> Hitchance against +5 = 55%.
HP 27 --> adjusted HP= 49
Attack +4, 5 damage --> Hitchance against AC 15 = 50% --> adjusted damage 2,5
Special: Rampage once (one additional attack)

Okay, at first glance it looks like 4 bandits are harder than 1 gnoll warrior.

Now let's look at the actual fight.

Our party are 2 fighters and 2 wizards at level 1 (thats where I have the math for ready to go ).
On average a Character will do 10 damage per round of adjusted HP (accounting for hitchance).
So on average 3 bandits will be killed in round one, the last one in round two. The bandits will approximately deal 11 damage to the party (assuming every bandits could Attack each round).

The gnoll warrior will be killed in round 2. The gnoll warrior will deal approximately 7,5 damage to the party (assuming the Gnoll Warrior could attack each round and use his special ability in round 2).

The bandits have a chance, by concentrating attacks, to down on PC. The Gnoll only if he attacks a wizard.

Okay, let's take another 100xp creature - a scout.
AC 13 - Hitchance 65%
HP 16 --> adjusted 25
Attack +4, 6 damage, twice. Hitchance against AC 15 = 50%. So 6 damage per round.

Hrm. That ends worse than the Gnoll Warrior. Dies in round 1, making 6 damage.

Okay, so a 100xp encounter is no good, anyway.

Let's make it interesting.
Deadly/High encounter. 400xp budget.

Single creature ... needs to be 450xp.

Awakened tree
Ac 13 --> 65% hitchance.
HP: 59 --> adjusted 90HP.
Attack: +6 for 14 damage. - adjusted 7,7 damage.

It will take our party of 4 approximately 3 rounds to take that tree down while at the same time 1,5 party members could go down. If we account for a part member to go down in round 2, there is still a 40% Chance that the tree will go down in round 3, if not than in round 4 (not accounting for 4 damage).

Goblin rading party:
Golbin Boss + 5 Goblin Warriors = 450xp.
AC 17 (45%) & 15 (55%)
HP 21 & 10 (×5) = 47 HP & 18HP (x5) = 137 HP total.
Attacks: Boss = +4 5 damage x2, Warriors: +4 5 damage x5.

Not accounting here for advantage or.nimble escape ...
First round the Goblin raiding party makes 17,5 damage, downing at least one PC, the PCs take out 2 Goblin warriors.
Round 2: Goblins take out another 2 PC, PCs take out another Goblin Warrior ... and TPK.

Damn. Without advantage and nimble escape.

But to be fair ...
A Green Dragon Wyrmling (450xp) would also TPK our first levels party in round 1 with its poison breath.

But the problem could be Level 1, which is quite deadly.
Let's do level 4.

Level4 party

Hiigh/Deadly XP budget: 2000xp.

Single Creature: Earth Elemental (CR5, 1800xp)

AC 17 (Hitchance 50%)
HP 147, adjusted 294
Attack +8, 14 damage x2 (70 Hitchance) --> adjusted damage 9,8x2 = 20.

Puh, a slog fest. If no PC goes down, it will take 5 rounds to take out the earth elemental.
The Elemental will take out a PC every second round. Off, at least 2, even 3 PCs could go down if we assume average rolls on everything.

Now ... 4 Gricks (450xp x 4 = 1800xp)
AC 14 (65% Hitchance)
HP 54 (×4) - adjusted 83 x4 = 332 HP.
Attack: +4 for 9 and for 7 damage.16 damage, adjusted to 8 - 4 times.

Hrm equally hard. So, the PCs will struggle to take kn Grick down jn round 1, whe the gricks will take one PC down in round 1. It again would take 5 rounds to take them down if no PC goes down.
So Round 1: one PC down.
Round 2: One Grick down one PC down
Round 3: 1 Grick down.
Round 4: 1 PC down ...

Okay, that could easily be a TPK.

So at first, I would start with moderate encounters in 5.5e, then go from there and see how well the party performs. But damn, high encounters seem really to hit harder, even for rested parties.

 

[M_Natas]

Why do you think short rests deserve such a pass in service of enabling the short rest class nova loop? All such a section would do is embolden short rest class players who already feel like they should expect ultra regular short rests to fuel endless nova.

Wotc's refusal to do or say anything about excessive shortrest abuse while regularly giving a finger wag at excessive long resting over the years has actively exacerbated the problem with regular reinforcement of the bad expectation for classes being designed to need a default nova

To be fair, I'm concentrating on long rest abuse, because I haven't seen short rest abuse at my games, yet.