D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Tony Vargas]

. Any speculation as to the point of it? Where is the value in denying DMs the obvious tool for interrupting long rests!?

Like the other rules (including player resources like Rope Trick, snd the staggeringly powered-up Tiny Hut) around resting, it does seem at odds with 5e's DM Empowerment and classic-feel imperatives.

Unless we acknowledge that a player-driven 5MWD is part of that classic feel? The DM is still Empowered to dial up encounters to make them challenging even to a full-rested party. The 6-8 encounter guideline is then, presumably there for DMs who wish to impose it in a more linear style of campaign. For those running a sandbox and/or rewarding old-school skilled play/strategy/CaW, the issues the guidelines are meant to address - class imbalance and, particularly, encounter difficulty - are of no concern, or even desirable.

 

[shoak1]

It's kinda weird how it's still going 3 years in, even though the 5e rules are not that different from the 4e errata that cleared it up less than a year into that edition. I get that WotC has been more 'hands off' with regard to rules errata since Essentials, and 5e DMs are all empowered...

The incomplete, scattershot, and sometimes jarringly imbalanced 5e ruleset project was clearly overseen by a right brainer Big Story Big DM (errr "Empowered" DM) hippie, so not surprising the errata would follow the same course of slow and tortured logic, right?

(Steve turtles up waiting for the barrage of counterstrikes from label-hater hippies)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The incomplete, scattershot, and sometimes jarringly imbalanced 5e ruleset project was clearly overseen by a right brainer Big Story Big DM (errr "Empowered" DM) hippie,

I know we come off as old around here (50 feels pretty old to me), but we're none of us Archie Bunker...
;P

so not surprising the errata would follow the same course of slow and tortured logic, right?

Lack of errata is consistent with the rulings-not-rules and make-the-game-your-own rubrics. If we could count on the errata (let alone the rules in the first place) we wouldn't need rulings as often, and there'd be a temptation to wait for errata rather than making a ruling or authoring a variant.
That would undermine DM Empowerment, which isn't just a goal for its own sake, but the mechanism through which 5e is adaptable to a range of styles - including the one you're using it for, you're just having to work harder at it..

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, people keep going on and on about this "rulings not rules" thing, but, really? How often do you actually have to make a ruling on something not covered in the mechanics? We've been playing pretty regularly for the past few years and it's come up very, very rarely.

Outside of something like stealth, how often are you actually making a ruling and not referencing the rules? 5e is not exactly a rules light system.

I always took the "rulings not rules" thing to mean that DM's were empowered to change the rules. Not, there are no rules here, so, make up your own. This isn't 1e where it's largely rules absent outside of certain areas. 5e has rules that cover the majority of situations. What 5e doesn't do is worry about the corner cases. IOW, it's "Here are rules that cover 90% of the things that will come up at your table. For the other 10%, use your own judgement".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know, people keep going on and on about this "rulings not rules" thing, but, really? How often do you actually have to make a ruling on something not covered in the mechanics? .

Only when the players do stuff. You rule success or failure or set a DC.

 

[Imaro]

Only when the players do stuff. You rule success or failure or set a DC.

Isn't this what we had to do in 3e, 3.5, and 4e? And while technically they didn't use DC's... isn't this for all practical purposes what DM's also did in earlier editions as well (attribute checks with DM ruled modifiers, Thief skills with DM ruled modifiers and so on)?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Isn't this what we had to do in 3e, 3.5, and 4e?

No. 3e has fixed or calculated DCs for many tasks, and while 4e had far fewer, it at least provided level-based guidelines and the structure of Skill Challenges. A player in either edition could declare a skill use, with a good idea - even certainty - of the DC.

The DM always had the option of overriding or ignoring the rules, of course, but he wasn't Empowered in the way 5e has managed.

And while technically they didn't use DC's... isn't this for all practical purposes what DM's also did in earlier editions as well

Outside of the occasional 'special' ability, yes.
That's kinda the point. The DM was Empowered in the TSR era in ways WotC has only really delivered with 5e. Rule 0 notwithstanding. It's not just a matter of what the DM can do (whatever he wants, in any edition), but of the expectations it creates in players.

 

[Imaro]

No. 3e has fixed or calculated DCs for many tasks, and while 4e had far fewer, it at least provided level-based guidelines and the structure of Skill Challenges.

5e provides all of this (though admittedly not as in depth as 3.x) except for skill challenges

A player in either edition could declare a skill use, with a good idea - even certainty - of the DC.

Thats because that information was in the PHB while in 5e that information is in the DMG. Its usually those who havent actually read it that exaggerate the rulings aspect.

The DM always had the option of overriding or ignoring the rules, of course, but he wasn't Empowered in the way 5e has managed.

But thats not because of a lack of rules... its an aspect of presentation and placement of the rules.

Outside of the occasional 'special' ability, yes.
That's kinda the point. The DM was Empowered in the TSR era in ways WotC has only really delivered with 5e. Rule 0 notwithstanding. It's not just a matter of what the DM can do (whatever he wants, in any edition), but of the expectations it creates in players.

So its about setting expectations as opposed to lack of rules?? If thats your argument I dont disagree.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta go with Imaro here. DCs are pretty fixed in 5e. And with bounded accuracy the dc's are pretty solidly within a given range.

You could argue that a 3e or 4e DM had greater power here she now there were no caps on skill dc's

 

[Tony Vargas]

I gotta go with Imaro here. DCs are pretty fixed in 5e. And with bounded accuracy the dc's are pretty solidly within a given range.

Bounuses are bounded, so the range of meaningful DCs is limited, once you get to setting a DC, that is. By the time a DC comes into it, the DMs already made one ruling, in calling for the check at all.

So, yeah, rulings not rules.