D&D (2024) Limiting Short Rests to 2x/day

[Dausuul]

Rests should be as frequent and take just as much time as the narrative can stand, all stop. There really shouldn't be a set amount of time they take. The play pattern should be as follows:

Player: man, we're a bit beat up, and the Monk could use more ki. DM, can we rest?"

DM: hm. You encountered a few decent places you could rest in, but there's no guarantee you'll be undetected.

Player: Ok, let's go for it.

OR

DM: sure, that's fine, by the time you finish searching the room, you can spend your Hit Dice and the Monk gets her ki back.

Even if the players use things like Rope Trick, the environment doesn't stop because the players do. If there are patrols or wandering foes, then rests can be tricky. If there's a time table, rests can be tricky.

If there's nothing going on around you though, rest away!

I think this is the approach a lot of tables take, even if not explicitly. And that's why the problem exists: This method erases the distinction between short and long rests. It's usually pretty simple to establish narratively whether it is safe to stop for a while, but is it a "long while" or a "short while?" Who knows?

That's why I want the short rest reduced to the point that stopping for a while isn't a consideration. Then it's back to a simple narrative question:

• Can you find a safe place to hole up for a while? You get a long rest.
• Can't find a place to hole up, but there's nothing trying to kill you right this instant? You get a short rest.
• Something is trying to kill you right this instant? No rest. Also, roll initiative.

 

[NaturalZero]

the 5min short rest is the problem the 1h SR tried fixing…

What exactly was the problem?

Clearly, it wasn't a problem of quick short rest recovery being too powerful since one of the biggest complaints about 4e was that combats took too long because PCs didn't deal enough damage. If 5 minute recovery of powers wasn't too powerful, what exactly was the 1 hour short rest supposed to fix?

 

[mamba]

What exactly was the problem?

Clearly, it wasn't a problem of quick short rest recovery being too powerful since one of the biggest complaints about 4e was that combats took too long because PCs didn't deal enough damage. If 5 minute recovery of powers wasn't too powerful, what exactly was the 1 hour short rest supposed to fix?

that you got too much of your powers back after each combat, because taking a SR after every single one was the obvious thing to do with such a short duration.

This is not dependent on how long combat took, the long combat was another 4e problem.

 

[Horwath]

that you got too much of your powers back after each combat, because taking a SR after every single one was the obvious thing to do with such a short duration.

This is not dependent on how long combat took, the long combat was another 4e problem.

what big powers are in 5e the problem?
warlock spell slots?
then fix that.

Monks ki is not the problem, and battlemasters maneuvers are also not the problem.
HD healing is still limited in total by long rest.

 

[James Gasik]

You really don't see any problems with a warlock having 6x4th level spells at level 6... 6x 5th level spells at level 9.. 9x5th level spells at level 11?

How about the half dozen fireballs it would grant at level 5?

If we assume that 2 SR's per diem is what's intended, then this is exactly how the Warlock is intended to work. I honestly preferred the "half caster+" playtest Warlock, but people really love their Pact Magic and the promise of "unlimited power" as long as you can SR.

Honestly, I hate the Warlock's design simply because of this; if you have no short rests, you have to rely on Eldritch Blast spam with a depressingly few spell slots to use on a given day, which some people might enjoy, but I find incredibly boring.

If you have one short rest, it gets a little better. If you have too many short rests*, it can become a nightmare.

*the exact number of short rests obviously varies from table to table.

Now one of the things the game promises is that you don't need to bring people who can cast cure spells to a game. So a party that needs to heal has to short rest often. Which suddenly makes SR classes really strong.

But if you have strong mitigation and ample healing resources, to the point you never need to spend hit dice, then SR classes are incredibly lackluster- even if the Warlock can survive on EB spam, and the Battlemaster is still a Fighter without Superiority Dice, the Monk is basically unable to do much of anything without ki points, as almost all of their class features are fueled by this resource.

The whole idea that this is balanced remotely is ridiculous on it's face. The power of a class shouldn't be based on how often you need to (or are allowed to) nap in order to keep adventuring.

I mean, this is our paradigm in a nutshell:

-no short rests, parties reliant on Hit Dice can only tackle a very small number of encounters. Warlocks are mid, Monks are terrible.

-one short rest, parties reliant on Hit Dice can handle twice as many encounters as before*. Warlocks are slightly above par, Monks are still sub par.

-two short rests, parties reliant on Hit Dice can probably hit the benchmark for 6-8 encounters*. Warlocks are very good, Monks are mid.

-three short rests, nothing really changes with healing since you are limited by Hit Dice*. Warlocks are best class, Monks might actually be decent.

*if the Healer Feat is allowed/taken by the party, and they have ample healer's kits, or alternately, a large healing potion budget, or the party has multiple Fighters (for Second Wind), this can change dramatically. As feats are optional, wealth is DM controlled, and party makeup malleable, I don't assume any of these are in play by default.

Meanwhile, you have to somehow justify in the game how the party can just take an hour to screw off in a dungeon or other dangerous area, or while their enemies keep on doing their thing while doing so. I mean, what, does everyone take their union mandated breaks at the same time?

It's lousy design from both a gamist and simulationist perspective. So yeah, I'd much rather cut out the middle man in order to keep the game rolling even if it makes some characters overpowered- I can always ban Warlocks if this manages to make them better than Wizards.

TLDR; one-hour breaks are terrible and hard to justify. The game requires them to function, even if not every party requires them. Some classes require them to be playable, other classes are broken if there are too many. And some of the strongest classes barely care if they have them at all, as long as they have hit points to work with. This design is untenable, but the entire game is built around it, and it's not going anywhere.

 

[NaturalZero]

that you got too much of your powers back after each combat, because taking a SR after every single one was the obvious thing to do with such a short duration.

This is not dependent on how long combat took, the long combat was another 4e problem.

Why is having any number of powers a problem though, if having them doesn't actually make you too powerful compared to encounters? It's clearly not a power or balance issue if combats still took too long.

 

[NaturalZero]

HD healing is still limited in total by long rest.

And this is potentially the most elegant way to make things work. Regardless of whether we have short rest powers, long rest powers, 5 minute or 1 hour whatever, the most effective way to make sure all of the classes are balanced around some kind of daily resource management is make daily healing a universally limited resource. Having spells require the recipient use a limited resource that runs out of the course of the day is solid mechanic for balancing long rest and short rest classes against each other.

 

[tetrasodium]

If we assume that 2 SR's per diem is what's intended, then this is exactly how the Warlock is intended to work. I honestly preferred the "half caster+" playtest Warlock, but people really love their Pact Magic and the promise of "unlimited power" as long as you can SR.

Honestly, I hate the Warlock's design simply because of this; if you have no short rests, you have to rely on Eldritch Blast spam with a depressingly few spell slots to use on a given day, which some people might enjoy, but I find incredibly boring.

If you have one short rest, it gets a little better. If you have too many short rests*, it can become a nightmare.

*the exact number of short rests obviously varies from table to table.

Now one of the things the game promises is that you don't need to bring people who can cast cure spells to a game. So a party that needs to heal has to short rest often. Which suddenly makes SR classes really strong.

But if you have strong mitigation and ample healing resources, to the point you never need to spend hit dice, then SR classes are incredibly lackluster- even if the Warlock can survive on EB spam, and the Battlemaster is still a Fighter without Superiority Dice, the Monk is basically unable to do much of anything without ki points, as almost all of their class features are fueled by this resource.

The whole idea that this is balanced remotely is ridiculous on it's face. The power of a class shouldn't be based on how often you need to (or are allowed to) nap in order to keep adventuring.

I mean, this is our paradigm in a nutshell:

-no short rests, parties reliant on Hit Dice can only tackle a very small number of encounters. Warlocks are mid, Monks are terrible.

-one short rest, parties reliant on Hit Dice can handle twice as many encounters as before*. Warlocks are slightly above par, Monks are still sub par.

-two short rests, parties reliant on Hit Dice can probably hit the benchmark for 6-8 encounters*. Warlocks are very good, Monks are mid.

-three short rests, nothing really changes with healing since you are limited by Hit Dice*. Warlocks are best class, Monks might actually be decent.

*if the Healer Feat is allowed/taken by the party, and they have ample healer's kits, or alternately, a large healing potion budget, or the party has multiple Fighters (for Second Wind), this can change dramatically. As feats are optional, wealth is DM controlled, and party makeup malleable, I don't assume any of these are in play by default.

Meanwhile, you have to somehow justify in the game how the party can just take an hour to screw off in a dungeon or other dangerous area, or while their enemies keep on doing their thing while doing so. I mean, what, does everyone take their union mandated breaks at the same time?

It's lousy design from both a gamist and simulationist perspective. So yeah, I'd much rather cut out the middle man in order to keep the game rolling even if it makes some characters overpowered- I can always ban Warlocks if this manages to make them better than Wizards.

TLDR; one-hour breaks are terrible and hard to justify. The game requires them to function, even if not every party requires them. Some classes require them to be playable, other classes are broken if there are too many. And some of the strongest classes barely care if they have them at all, as long as they have hit points to work with. This design is untenable, but the entire game is built around it, and it's not going anywhere.

That's pretty much just admitting that short rest class design is broken AF and that everything criticism against it is so valid that the design itself is entirely indefensible without resorting to a programming tire swing meme about working as designed. It's also why wotc expecting the GM to handle it instead of redesigning the SR classes id completely unreasonable of them.

 

[James Gasik]

That's pretty much just admitting that short rest class design is broken AF and that everything criticism against it is so valid that the design itself is entirely indefensible without resorting to a programming tire swing meme about working as designed. It's also why wotc expecting the GM to handle it instead of redesigning the SR classes id completely unreasonable of them.

I mean...that's pretty much true, right? 5e isn't properly balanced, many of it's fans will state that this is either a feature or that it's a great thing that the DM can fine tune balance for their own tables. It makes it hard to discuss the game in general with others because each table is different, and each DM handles (or doesn't) the system in their own way.

There is no amount of short rests that is balanced for every party. Some require 1. Some require 2. Some require 3. A party of, say, 2 Battlemasters and two Celestial Warlocks, with no limit on how many rests they can take, can practically adventure forever.

Meanwhile, an all-Monk party might have to short rest every 2 encounters. A party of 4 Clerics might never have to short rest at all.

And yet, we're told that 5e isn't a game where you need a specific class composition to play. That any four dudes can tackle 6-8 encounters between long rests with (presumably) 2 short rests.* And with no assumption of how many resources the party has at the beginning of each encounter (other than, I assume most of their hit points), no assumption of a particular accuracy or AC, only "how much damage can they do" and "how much damage can they take".

There's no way you can make a game able to run out of the box in this fashion. It is absolutely on the Dungeon Master to make this work.

*Assuming this is actually the metric used by internal design, of course.

 

[Horwath]

That's pretty much just admitting that short rest class design is broken AF and that everything criticism against it is so valid that the design itself is entirely indefensible without resorting to a programming tire swing meme about working as designed. It's also why wotc expecting the GM to handle it instead of redesigning the SR classes id completely unreasonable of them.

personally I would be happy to see Short rest getting the ax completely as it is obvious that they will never going to balance it as intended.