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

[Bae'zel]

Ugh this thread has cemented my distaste for adhering RAW to the CR system. I’ll never use it more than as a vague guideline. If giving short bows to goblins is “cheesing the system” then to hell with the system. That’s utterly preposterous.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ugh this thread has cemented my distaste for adhering RAW to the CR system. I’ll never use it more than as a vague guideline. If giving short bows to goblins is “cheesing the system” then to hell with the system. That’s utterly preposterous.

It is totally a sort of change one can make and I would make and have made. But one also needs to understand that especially in open terrain where the goblins can spread out this will make the goblin horde significantly more dangerous than the CR would indicate.

 

[Scott Christian]

My stance is still that, regardless of whether or not you feel it's easy to mess with LTH (and similar magic) in your game, you shouldn't have to take those steps in the first place. If WotC wanted to force players to conserve resources and not rest whenever they wanted to, giving them tools that could, in fact, let them rest whenever they wanted to is crazy.

I understand your point. The counterpoint is it doesn't let them rest "whenever they want." Again, if you are playing Warhammer, you're correct. But you are not. There is a narrative drive that sometimes stops them from resting in LTH. There are enemies that sometimes stop them from resting in LTH. There are tactical repercussions that sometimes stop them from resting in LTH.

There are three things that stop them from resting whenever they want. Three. And when they can use LTH, good for them. It's a great spell to keep oozes, carrion crawlers, environmental effects, etc. away.

It's exhausting because one side refuses to acknowledge any of the three areas that limit the spell.

Narrative? "I know a table that doesn't respond to that."
Enemies have magic? "I've seen a game where none of the monsters have spells."
Tactical repercussions? "I've seen a table where there are only 30 goblins. No boss. No reinforcements."

Again, those tables above are not playing the game of D&D. They are playing a tactical combat game, and they are correct, the spell is overpowered for a table like that. But let's not pretend that is how the average table runs.

 

[Minigiant]

Narrative? "I know a table that doesn't respond to that."
Enemies have magic? "I've seen a game where none of the monsters have spells."
Tactical repercussions? "I've seen a table where there are only 30 goblins. No boss. No reinforcements."

I'm the one who brought it up and I dressed it when I brought it up.

The way DND describes most of its monsters for the first half of the game for the first three editions* and the first half of the fifth edition is that the majority are idiotic primitive warriors or non-combatives who have no connections for reinforcement of where they are where they can get reinforcements in quick time frame of a long rest

So when the majority of players encountered these monsters using the default assumption of them or a custom world by the DM it is highly likely they are assuming that the monsters have:

little to no magic
little to no tech
little to no reinforcement.

The main thing that makes hobgoblins special is that there are highly organized with war machines, architecture, smithing, engineering and regiments of spellcasters.

Then you go from hobgoblins to all the way to fire giants before you get somebody else with a brain.

That's why I don't really like default D&D lore because the monsters are too dumb and tactless for dungeons with several encounters to make sense. That's why I love cultists because cultists could summon reinforcements, hold up in the wild or shadows, and are organized.

*in older editions, casters recovered fully slowly and everyone healed slower. But they monty hauled consumables

 

[tetrasodium]

I understand your point. The counterpoint is it doesn't let them rest "whenever they want." Again, if you are playing Warhammer, you're correct. But you are not. There is a narrative drive that sometimes stops them from resting in LTH. There are enemies that sometimes stop them from resting in LTH. There are tactical repercussions that sometimes stop them from resting in LTH.

There are three things that stop them from resting whenever they want. Three. And when they can use LTH, good for them. It's a great spell to keep oozes, carrion crawlers, environmental effects, etc. away.

It's exhausting because one side refuses to acknowledge any of the three areas that limit the spell.

Narrative? "I know a table that doesn't respond to that."
Enemies have magic? "I've seen a game where none of the monsters have spells."
Tactical repercussions? "I've seen a table where there are only 30 goblins. No boss. No reinforcements."

Again, those tables above are not playing the game of D&D. They are playing a tactical combat game, and they are correct, the spell is overpowered for a table like that. But let's not pretend that is how the average table runs.

Yes and that side is the one defending 5e design choices that removed or designed against d&d elements that would otherwise have given the GM tools that would have made those narrative tactical and extremely nebulous "magical" consequences to come later into a credible concern for players choosing to rest rest often . Instead we are treated to an endless string of ignore that and learn2gm basic gm advice that in many cases has only really been relevant to the lowest levels of play where players lack enough nova punch for rest early rest often to really matter.

The trouble stems from d&d having two sides of the GM screen with different needs, 5e was almost exclusively designed for one side of that screen and bringing in players familiar with dogs from video games was one of the big goals. If needed tools are lacking for one side of the screen it pretty much requires the other side to agree on some level for the other side to homebrew or rule of cool in some kind of substitute & players have no incentive to compromise on what they view as an overreaching nerf.


Don't take my word for it, mearls talks at length about various aspects of it over and over again in this questing beast interview from a few months ago. Normally I'd link to a particular timestamp in the interview but I'm not doing that for two reasons. Firstly is the goal of bringing in players who know rpgs from video games comes up so frequently and in so many topics through the interview it's hard to choose any single one as more relevant than the others. Secondly is part of why the gm can't force the house rule/rule of cool changes through without players agreeing... In the interview he talks about "players" or "playing" many many times but not once do GMs DMs or running the game come up. Sure it's possible to say that the GM falls under a term like "player" if you define it loosely enough within the context of ttrpgs, but players (with PCs) who are new to ttrpgs &coming from video game rpg backgrounds do not have that loosely defined sense of the term because the gm is not "playing" like they are & is simply running it but running the game is an equal among many that lacks any particular power to the point that wotc has spent over a decade failing to support or even acknowledge the gm as distinct from "players". The result of any disagreement often winds up being similar to three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for lunch by vote.

Spoiler

The closest he comes to talking about those in the GM/dm role running the game is a single reference to "users" in a context that really says nothing about who they are or recognizing that their needs are different from those of "players"