D&D 5E D&D Unboxing Starter Set Video is on Youtube

[DDNFan]

That's pretty, well, bad advice IMHO. I can see lots of players simply shrugging and responding with "We'll quit being boring as soon as Joe Fighter finishes healing."

Better advice would be "Use the wandering monsters tables religiously."

If the DM did that to us, we'd probably quit on the spot. We aren't dumb, and can see when we're being railroaded into a course of action. That isn't why we play a game of D&D. The players choose what their characters do. If the DM wants, he can put in a house rule, sure, but then we're back to the fact that the default, Basic D&D game has an exploitable short rest issue in the most basic class of the game, and people are telling us to ignore it or play around it instead of telling the devs to fix it.

 

[DDNFan]

Hey, I'm down with the DM being a judge. It's part of her job. However, if this is something that all the designers didn't intend and if they all think it's the wrong way to use it... well, that indicates a failure in design to me. Clearly, the DM can patch it, or say "stop it," but that doesn't excuse a badly-written rule.


Frankly, I don't think it's a problem at all, since I'll be going with faster healing in general. I just think a rule should be designed to match its intent, and if this wasn't intended, then it shouldn't be written like it is.

I don't normally agree with you, but you are right of course.

The only thing I'd add is that Second Wind used to match its intent much more closely when it gave Temp HP, even though it was absurd that it cost an action to use it and was useable voluntarily instead of as a reaction to some kind of stress, like avoiding incoming enemy attacks.

The simulationist version of this ability is just flat out better in every possible way. No reason to limit short rest chaining when temp HPs run out after 5 minutes.

 

[Cybit]

If the DM did that to us, we'd probably quit on the spot. We aren't dumb, and can see when we're being railroaded into a course of action. That isn't why we play a game of D&D. The players choose what their characters do. If the DM wants, he can put in a house rule, sure, but then we're back to the fact that the default, Basic D&D game has an exploitable short rest issue in the most basic class of the game, and people are telling us to ignore it or play around it instead of telling the devs to fix it.

Wait, so if you were camped out in the forest for hours, waiting for the fighter to heal, and the DM decided to roll wandering monsters, you would all quit over that?

The players do get to choose what to do; but the DM decides the consequences for doing so. You sit in a forest for 3 hours, things in the forest might come find you (especially if you have a dwarf, cuz dwarves are stinky).

EDIT: Note that for the sake of consistency, I'm probably going to have some kind of "Max short rests in a day" rule, but that's because I like the similar rule long rests have. Also, I have found making second wind use a HD teaches the concept of HD to newer players much more effectively, so also doing that. But, still, this is very much a case of "theory != in-game actual behavior" from what I can tell.

 

[JonWake]

I cannot state it any better than Monte Cook.
"Now the people who'd say this are awful." Exactly. This is the sort of second guessing, look out of lawyers and loopholes kind of design I just don't want to do anymore. The epiphany actually came to me in the middle of a panel at a convention. Someone was asking a ty question about some crazy loophole that no one I'd ever let in a game would consider and I said, "I don't want to design games for s anymore." It was supposed to be one of the defining hallmarks of 5e, but I don't know if that happened. But it is basically where the philosophy for the Numenera rules came from.

 

[DDNFan]

Wait, so if you were camped out in the forest for hours, waiting for the fighter to heal, and the DM decided to roll wandering monsters, you would all quit over that?

No, but if he only ever rolled for monsters the second we tried to rest 61 minutes (or 1 minute into our second short rest), we'd catch on pretty quick as it would be obvious why he was doing it. My DM is reasonable and largely of old school simulationist bent, and he wouldn't do that, though he has gotten angry with us when we bicker about what to do next, and suddenly we are surprised! Ha.

But no, if he wants to houserule the game he can, and I would be the first to encourage it. That, however, doesn't let the actual developers off the hook, because this is broken and needs fixing. You can't expect every DM to have to use the wandering monster table as a weapon to avoid dealing with the fact that it never occurred to the designers of the game to not give unlimited healing to the fighter on a short rest. It's totally facepalm worthy.

Even if it takes a year before the errata are out, this will get fixed. They can't tell DMs to railroad PCs to avoid short rests in an official FAQ and expect to be taken seriously. And instead of adding in a new rule that governs the activities or time one must do (which would be trivial to overcome, probably), they should just fix the root of the problem instead. The healing provided by Second Wind needs to be limited in some way, and adding the word "temporary" in front of HP is the path of least resistance.

 

[DDNFan]

I cannot state it any better than Monte Cook.
"Now the people who'd say this are awful." Exactly. This is the sort of second guessing, look out of lawyers and loopholes kind of design I just don't want to do anymore. The epiphany actually came to me in the middle of a panel at a convention. Someone was asking a ty question about some crazy loophole that no one I'd ever let in a game would consider and I said, "I don't want to design games for s anymore." It was supposed to be one of the defining hallmarks of 5e, but I don't know if that happened. But it is basically where the philosophy for the Numenera rules came from.

Taking two short rests in a row is a "crazy loophole" now? LOL

Hyperbole. Monte Cook's opinions are a non starter, he quit the D&D team and will have rules lawyers in his own game too one day, if he's lucky enough for it to take off to the point where people care enough about it to play it with that much passion.

 

[Maliki67]

Nope.

From How to Play:

Short Rest
A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long,
during which you catch your breath,
eat, drink, and clean and bind wounds.

Where on earth do you get the impression that you there can't be two consecutive periods of downtime, concatenated one shortly after another?

It certainly isn't in the rules as written. If it is, tell us how long exactly it is until you can take another short rest after the first one, because that is a pertinent rules tidbit which would affect many tables. You can't, because there is no such rule.

Where is it written that short rests can be strung together? (No where)

As I read it the short rest does not end, until you go do something. A minimum of 1 hour, to me means that it takes you an hour to bind your wounds, catch your breath etc. After that hour there is no benefit from sitting there, you have done all that you can do to recover.

Now if you do all this and start down the trail, and a club wielding ogre starts smacking the party around, then I have no trouble with another short rest right away.

A real life example to me, would be your in an accident, get a broken arm and some cuts and bruises. You go to the ER, the doctor sets your arm, stitches up cuts and cleans up up bruises. Once he is done that, sitting in the ER any longer doesn't doesn't do any good, there is nothing more he can do for you.

 

[drjones]

If the DM did that to us, we'd probably quit on the spot.

Sounds like they would be well rid of you.

 

[Bugleyman]

In this case, giving fighters free regeneration without having the guts to call it what it is.

Only that is the exact opposite of what I suggested a few posts up. But don't let that slow you down.

Also, how does posting on a message board -- either way -- demonstrate "guts?" The Internet is not, in fact, SERIOUS BUSINESS.

 

[MerricB]

My thought is that the designers saw an unintended consequence to the rule, then actively decided that it did not matter.. If changing the wording, or making the rule more complicated, might have other unintended consequences, or create a barrier to entry, there would be no reason to change it.

Mike said that the play-testers preferred it as healing. (It was temporary hit points for a while in the public playtest). I can also see that it's easier for new players as healing.

This is one of those elements that I'm sure will be changed by experienced DMs to better fit their world, but actually plays pretty well most of the time.

Cheers!