2w ago

Former DnD designer outlines why boss fights suck in fifth edition

www.wargamer.com

Just a moment...

19 comments

The primary problem is that dnd 5e was made to be a dungeon crawler, and most people play it like a narrative driven rules light game.
Pathfinder 2e does all of this far better, sadly it lacks the pop culture awareness of D&D.
What they don't acknowledge is that the long rest problem is something of a self-inflicted wound.
No shit. Players don't actually enjoy holding onto their powers all day. They want to use their cool powers.
Some small, vocal, minority of players really enjoy the resource management game. Most people want to do cool shit every turn, not use a hand crossbow or shoot a cantrip. Spells-per-day has sucked the entire time I've played D&D, which admittedly is only 3.0 onwards. It has always caused pacing problems.
Back when D&D 5e was being playtested, its early designs openly said that the recommended number of encounters between long rests was four - or as few as two if you throw some particularly challenging fights in there.
They fucked up changing that.
There are also many other ways powers and abilities could work that aren't based on spells-per-day. D&D probably won't adopt them. The population of people in the hobby also has a survivorship bias- most people enter through D&D, so the people who stick around are mostly people who find its quirks acceptable. Who knows how many players bounced off because they looked at this system and saw "I can cast my cool spells twice? That's it?"
- thinking back to ad&d and not being able to cast fireball because SOMEONE didn't buy bat shit from the bat shit monger at the market
- Some small, vocal, minority of players really enjoy the resource management game
  Do they? I don't think I've ever heard anyone defending it. At least not with the excessive amount of combat 5e assumes. 4e handled it much better, by making a very clear differentiation between powers you're meant to use a limited number of times per encounter, ones you should only use in big combats, and the bread-and-butter powers that you can rely on all day. When all your powers are coming from the same single pool of resources that only refreshes daily, or at best with a significant 1 hour rest.
  
  I don't have any studies to back it up so I might be wrong. I wonder if anyone's done any rigorous investigation into this. An old DND group never agreed with me when I'd bring up the topic, but they might have been more "it is what it is stop rocking the boat" than an active support for the concept.
  I'm pretty sure if you went into a DND space and suggested rebalancing the game so it's not resting on (pun intended) powers per day, you'd get a lof of push back. Maybe I'll go post a poll somewhere later.
  I've also met a few players who have somehow never considered any other way things could be. I had a friend in college I tried to get to play a world of darkness game. Powers in those games are either unlimited use, or bound by a renewable resource like blood. He was like "this sounds totally broken yo".
There is also a flip side to this, DMs that let their players rest too often.
If your players are using up all their resources on the first battle or two, don't let them rest. You don't have to destroy them, but give them one more battle when they're low on resources.
Next time they'll hopefully use their resources better. If not... Do it again.
As a DM if you've miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you're about to overrun them, cut it in half.
A common "solution" I see is throwing one really really big monster at the players. This can work, but has the downside of killing players in nearly one hit, which isn't satisfying.
- I don't agree that the blame here rests on GMs "letting their players rest". It's a more fundamental issue with campaign styles not meshing with the way the system is designed. (Or more to the point: the system not being designed to be optimal for the style of campaign that the majority of the audience wants to play.) "Don't let them rest...give them one more battle" is not advice that works well very often in a strongly narratively-driven game where GMs generally avoid excessive random encounters.
- There is also a flip side to this, DMs that let their players rest too often.
  I used to play in a group where we rotated who was DM'ing every couple weeks. Two of the DMs were very generous with their rests. I didn't really like it, because that doesn't feel like D&D to me. Also as a short rest class (Warlock), it's irritating that I get my two whole spells, maybe four if we short rest, but the wizard blows his load on two fights instead of the recommended 5.
  When it was my turn, and I threw them in a longer dungeon without easy resting options, there was weeping.
  As a DM if you’ve miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you’re about to overrun them, cut it in half.
  I know people do this, but I kind of don't like it. I don't really like the HP and other stats shifting around based on gut feel. Feels like we should just write a book if we're going to fudge it.
  I prefer systems with more transparency, anyway. D&D is wacky about "how much HP does this knight have? Could be 20. Could be 200." When I was playing a nWoD game, it was nice to know that any human is probably going to have about 7 health levels.
  
  That is EXACTLY me. Two generous DMs, and me who caused weeping.
  I knew it was a change so it wasn't gauntlet after gauntlet, it was a slow introduction. As a DM you get better at planning and as players they get better at planning.
  In terms of shifting HP, sometimes it's 4 guards, sometimes it's 8. Having more token on the floor can be harder to manage, but more HP is easier to manage. And if course HP can be anything. More armor. Resistance to elements, etc. HP is just the more hidden stat.
- As a DM if you've miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you're about to overrun them, cut it in half.
  I don't really care for this advice. I see it given a lot, but in my opinion it takes agency away from the players and gives the GM even more power than usual to direct the narrative.
  
  If you're doing it all the time, then yes it's a problem and the DM should plan encounters better. However if you see a battle going wrong it's a quick and easy fix.
  If the players attack the castle, and you've said the guards are strong, but they're about to go down in one hit, beef them up.
  Especially, as it relates to the article, if you find players using all their resources and trivializing everything.

19 comments