Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7180723" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Understandable, concentration was part of casting for so much of the game's history. The same concept did double-duty as both a restriction on casting and a determinant of duration. In 4e, casting was restricted only by action type, and rituals didn't much interact with combat mechanics, while the duration went to 'save ends' (pioneered in 3.5), and 'sustain' actions. 5e brought back the name concentration, to replace 'sustain' and removed the action cost, and also brought back concentration for rituals, even though they'd likely be used out of combat. Putting it back for casting in general seems like an obvious variant - as does adding back many other restrictions on prep/memorization & casting. </p><p></p><p> Many reactions, like a Shield spell or Counterspell or OA, need to happen /before/ the triggering event is 'resolved' (ie completed & the results applies), or they do nothing. You can't take an OA after someone has actually moved out of your melee reach, you can't counterspell a fireball that's already blown you up, and while a Shield spell would stay up for any subsequent attacks, there'd be a lot less point to it if it couldn't stop the triggering attack. </p><p></p><p>Resolving reactions in FIFO order would make any reaction after the first useless, it'd be simpler to just rule that you can't take Reactions on your turn and that you can't take Reactions to Reactions.</p><p></p><p> That's the point, yes, that 5e DMs are generally given latitude and tools to customize the game to their liking. In the case of the 6-8 Encounter/day guideline, the aren't as clearly given that latitude when it comes to the duration, requirements, and timing of rests, the duration & timing of which, in particular, are spelled out unequivocally, with DMG 'modules' only giving equally exact alternatives. </p><p></p><p>That's still no more a problem than it is for a GM in any system - including systems like 3.5 & 4e that received a lot of flack for 'not supporting' this or that style or pushing 'Player Entitlement' or whatever.</p><p></p><p>So, I'm mainly advocating (as so often seems to be the case) "you're the DM, you fix it," but, in this case, I'm having to advocate going beyond the rules & modules and guidance presented, and just overriding explicit rules, rather than ruling on more flexible (vague) ones. </p><p></p><p>I also (reluctantly) have to be with Zapp on this one: that WotC really should go ahead and toss an AL-legal module or UA or something (something between a tweet and a formal errata in weight) that doesn't change the way short & long rests work by default, but leaves the final ruling on how long they take and whether they're possible with the DM, explicitly.</p><p></p><p> To be fair, the threads are probably trying to have the conversation, and all being shut down with that same rush-to-exclusion.</p><p></p><p> Fine, don't 'be the change...' ;P</p><p></p><p> Well, 2-3. The guideline is 6-8 medium-hard, and 2-3 short rests between long rests, it's less clear on encounters/short rest. So, that's a nice alternative, precisely, if not intuitively (& in 'natural language'), stated. But I don't buy that it's the 'real' guideline, even if it might well be a better, ultimately more usable one.</p><p></p><p>I suppose there's also an implied number of rounds between those short rests, since the 'paradigm' is balancing at-will vs short-rest vs daily resources all against eachother, not just the last two, but difficulty should mostly map to that.</p><p></p><p>A number of encounters is just a lot more intuitive and easier to remember. But, yes, the whole point of the thread is that it could have been presented better. Whether that's more flexibly, or less so. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p> OK, I can see how rulings on rests could be appropriate, with the post-apocalyptic desert setting and the survival themes...</p><p></p><p> Even more so! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>(Full disclosure: I've yet to see an 'exhaustion' mechanic in D&D that I don't loathe.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Ding! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p> I agree that's the best way, and, in so much of the rest of 5e, it clearly sets that expectation. Rests, per my above comments to Hussar, not so much. </p><p></p><p>It sounds silly to say we need to raise 'Awareness' of the 5MWD issue, since awareness has got to virtually unanimous - maybe we need to overcome some 'Denial' - but since the presentation of 5e didn't go the full DM-Empowerment press in this area, it's good to raise Awareness that even in those rare, seemingly blessed cases where 5e presents clear, explicit RAW, it's still the DM's privilege and duty to toss them to the winds and just make rulings. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p> Nod. You've used rulings in the area to get across the feel of an alien world, and it's dangers. Well done. Since the 6-8 encounter/day guideline is more about keeping the corresponding encounter guidelines usable, and classes balanced, a DM might also want to follow it for those reasons, which could mean a much more arbitrary approach, depending on how much he's willing to warp his campaign around those considerations...</p><p></p><p> DM Empowerment is the 'one fix' that lets everyone implement their own fix. 5e encourages it very well in other areas, starting with basic resolution. It's odd it reverts to a 3e style fixed numbers and explicit rules in this one, relatively critical (to class balance & encounter difficulty - I know that the former is anathema to certain D&D de-facto traditions, and the latter /needs/ to be swingy for the CaW style) area.</p><p></p><p>To sound like Zapp for a moment, what it looks like is that 5e presents as being 'for everyone,' as intended, including having guidance for those who value class balance and want to be able to use encounter guidelines with some confidence, but then intentionally undermines that guidance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7180723, member: 996"] Understandable, concentration was part of casting for so much of the game's history. The same concept did double-duty as both a restriction on casting and a determinant of duration. In 4e, casting was restricted only by action type, and rituals didn't much interact with combat mechanics, while the duration went to 'save ends' (pioneered in 3.5), and 'sustain' actions. 5e brought back the name concentration, to replace 'sustain' and removed the action cost, and also brought back concentration for rituals, even though they'd likely be used out of combat. Putting it back for casting in general seems like an obvious variant - as does adding back many other restrictions on prep/memorization & casting. Many reactions, like a Shield spell or Counterspell or OA, need to happen /before/ the triggering event is 'resolved' (ie completed & the results applies), or they do nothing. You can't take an OA after someone has actually moved out of your melee reach, you can't counterspell a fireball that's already blown you up, and while a Shield spell would stay up for any subsequent attacks, there'd be a lot less point to it if it couldn't stop the triggering attack. Resolving reactions in FIFO order would make any reaction after the first useless, it'd be simpler to just rule that you can't take Reactions on your turn and that you can't take Reactions to Reactions. That's the point, yes, that 5e DMs are generally given latitude and tools to customize the game to their liking. In the case of the 6-8 Encounter/day guideline, the aren't as clearly given that latitude when it comes to the duration, requirements, and timing of rests, the duration & timing of which, in particular, are spelled out unequivocally, with DMG 'modules' only giving equally exact alternatives. That's still no more a problem than it is for a GM in any system - including systems like 3.5 & 4e that received a lot of flack for 'not supporting' this or that style or pushing 'Player Entitlement' or whatever. So, I'm mainly advocating (as so often seems to be the case) "you're the DM, you fix it," but, in this case, I'm having to advocate going beyond the rules & modules and guidance presented, and just overriding explicit rules, rather than ruling on more flexible (vague) ones. I also (reluctantly) have to be with Zapp on this one: that WotC really should go ahead and toss an AL-legal module or UA or something (something between a tweet and a formal errata in weight) that doesn't change the way short & long rests work by default, but leaves the final ruling on how long they take and whether they're possible with the DM, explicitly. To be fair, the threads are probably trying to have the conversation, and all being shut down with that same rush-to-exclusion. Fine, don't 'be the change...' ;P Well, 2-3. The guideline is 6-8 medium-hard, and 2-3 short rests between long rests, it's less clear on encounters/short rest. So, that's a nice alternative, precisely, if not intuitively (& in 'natural language'), stated. But I don't buy that it's the 'real' guideline, even if it might well be a better, ultimately more usable one. I suppose there's also an implied number of rounds between those short rests, since the 'paradigm' is balancing at-will vs short-rest vs daily resources all against eachother, not just the last two, but difficulty should mostly map to that. A number of encounters is just a lot more intuitive and easier to remember. But, yes, the whole point of the thread is that it could have been presented better. Whether that's more flexibly, or less so. ;) OK, I can see how rulings on rests could be appropriate, with the post-apocalyptic desert setting and the survival themes... Even more so! :) (Full disclosure: I've yet to see an 'exhaustion' mechanic in D&D that I don't loathe.) Ding! :) I agree that's the best way, and, in so much of the rest of 5e, it clearly sets that expectation. Rests, per my above comments to Hussar, not so much. It sounds silly to say we need to raise 'Awareness' of the 5MWD issue, since awareness has got to virtually unanimous - maybe we need to overcome some 'Denial' - but since the presentation of 5e didn't go the full DM-Empowerment press in this area, it's good to raise Awareness that even in those rare, seemingly blessed cases where 5e presents clear, explicit RAW, it's still the DM's privilege and duty to toss them to the winds and just make rulings. ;) Nod. You've used rulings in the area to get across the feel of an alien world, and it's dangers. Well done. Since the 6-8 encounter/day guideline is more about keeping the corresponding encounter guidelines usable, and classes balanced, a DM might also want to follow it for those reasons, which could mean a much more arbitrary approach, depending on how much he's willing to warp his campaign around those considerations... DM Empowerment is the 'one fix' that lets everyone implement their own fix. 5e encourages it very well in other areas, starting with basic resolution. It's odd it reverts to a 3e style fixed numbers and explicit rules in this one, relatively critical (to class balance & encounter difficulty - I know that the former is anathema to certain D&D de-facto traditions, and the latter /needs/ to be swingy for the CaW style) area. To sound like Zapp for a moment, what it looks like is that 5e presents as being 'for everyone,' as intended, including having guidance for those who value class balance and want to be able to use encounter guidelines with some confidence, but then intentionally undermines that guidance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
Top