D&D 5E Long Rests vs Short Rests

[Stalker0]

People who have not played a wizard tend to ignore the way tiny hut actually works or their table does.

That's supposition at best. You asked for mechanical advantages of the wizard. I have provided them as RAW. You can't then look at them and say "oh well no one uses that".

But even if you don't use Hut for its nigh invincibility to mundane encounters, its still wonderful dealing with weather effects outside. Again, still a useful contribution to the exploration pillar.

If the corpse knew something in life and it feels like being truthful it and it doesn't recognize you as an enemy it might choose to give you a brief cryptic answer & get repetitive if you start delving for clarity.

Sure, a GM of course decides how much information to provide, just like a perception check and an investigation check. Doesn't mean its not exceptionally useful. Got a murder mystery on your hands, the corpse might literally be able to tell you who dun it, and certainly would have incentive to do so. Or maybe not....but the wizard at least gets to try and have that cool cinematic moment.

wrt the level 7 thing. You didn't mention the attributes other than 18 in & unless I overlooked then apparently forgot to include skills or decided to conceed that the wizard's 2 skills will not possibly provide any useful contribution?

Or perhaps I spent a good amount of time and effort creating that spell list that you practically demanded on this thread, and didn't even think about the other aspects. These kinds of statements are not arguments in good faith and are not endearing qualities, why don't we just tone down the assumptions and simply debate what is presented.

I mean if you want Wizard skills there are : Arcana - One of the most common skills used for pretty much any kind of magical anything. Find a mystical object in the woods....arcana. Find a runic barrier....arcana. Dealing with a nasty magical beast....arcana. And there is always investigation if you want to be Sherlock Holmes and handle that part of the exploration pillar. Even a rogue with expertise in only likely to match your investigation until about 9th (when they get an additional +4), unless they have a very high int, which is not my experience with 5e rogues. I've seen some 12 int rogues, but I've never seen higher in my games so far.

 

[Stalker0]

I could continue but even accounting for a couple duplications across books this "handful" is up to 190, most of them feature some combination of energy resist energy immune and/or legendary resist.

I agree that magic resistance is pretty common at higher levels.

On the other hand, most monsters don't get a lot of saving throw bonus, especially to the off saves (str, int, cha). As levels go up, casters should be targeting a monster's weak save, if your using con against a big brute your just asking to fail.

So in that context magic resistance is effectively "+5 to saves", which just helps the monster's saves to scale relatively.

Now there are certain kinds of monsters that are really "magic resistant". Devils are a good example, as they tend to have both high saves AND magic resistance.

 

[loverdrive]

I mean if you want Wizard skills there are : Arcana - One of the most common skills used for pretty much any kind of magical anything. Find a mystical object in the woods....arcana. Find a runic barrier....arcana. Dealing with a nasty magical beast....arcana.

That's kinda not how arcana works... But other than that, I agree with you.

That's quite the "handful" & a huge chunk of them also sport one or more energy resist/energy immune with a good number also having legendary resist... It's also not done.

And just I said, most of them are fiends. So if you aren't descending into Avernus, then you'll probably encounter magic resistance only a several times.

And if you are descending into Avernus or otherwise going to encounter fiends on a regular basis, any GM who isn't a moron would tell you that, and you can grab a bunch of attack roll spells and buffs instead of ones that require a save.

Damage immunities and resistances are another topic, and, yeah, I'd agree that it's overused (and absolutely underused for B/S/P)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, again, I should have said short rest like the warlock. Top end spells would still be long rest. I'm actually exploring restructuring the warlock to have the short rest slots grow in number faster but level slower (to half caster progression), but have them gain their long rest slots earlier. They'd end in the same spot at 17th, but have more slots to play with per short rest and have their higher slots be more limited.

OK. So more a hybrid Short rest/Long rest like the warlock, but with each class having the same pattern?

Sounds cool, if you can equalise it so the At-wills, Short rest, Long Rest and Utility stuff is balanced across classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A wizard can only change their spell list to different spells in their spellbook & the problem there lies in the fact that many of the spells you are alluding to are too niche, barely needed, or do something trivially handled by a character who far outpaces wizard in he combat pillar. If you think your position is as strong as your posts suggest why not post a full wizard for that average adventuring day & prove it to the people who just don't get how great wizards are like you do?

Because I'm not an idiot?

Like, I know a clearly marked trap when I see one? If you're letting someone else dictate all the terms of a test - level, length of day, nature of encounters, and they're also getting to design their own character for the test, which they're obviously going to bias the terms towards (whether they mean to or not).

And like what, only Fighters and Wizards exist now? How about Clerics, Druids, Bards, etc?

Don't forget, the people saying that there are no issues with how wizards get hit by 5e's attempts to overcompensate for 3.5's problems are the ones who said that the wizard's real strength lies in pillars other than combat.

Who is saying that? I'm not saying that. And this whole nonsense about "overcompensating for 3.5's problems" is just laughable. You've provided zero evidence that full casters are weak in 5E, and I've played 5E for years, and so the idea that full casters are weak is just silly joke. It's not even basically plausible. This is like the stuff that people were trying to claim when PF1 first came out and there were claims that the nerfs to a few spells had made full casters "too weak" and certainly solved LFQW.

You still haven't even been able to substantiate your extremely funny QF claims. Your own math deeply undermined them.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree that magic resistance is pretty common at higher levels.

That's a problem because the disparity continues to expand at high levels. It makes for a situation where a handicap is applied to the least valued contribution. The problem is not the magic resistance alone, it's in the whole energy
By resist/immune alongside a resistance wotc rogues out of their way to urge generosity and trivisl cost to remove in multiple publications.

That's supposition at best. You asked for mechanical advantages of the wizard. I have provided them as RAW. You can't then look at them and say "oh well no one uses that".

But even if you don't use Hut for its nigh invincibility to mundane encounters, its still wonderful dealing with weather effects outside. Again, still a useful contribution to the exploration pillar.

Your later point about good faith discussion is a good one related to this. Good faith discussion takes two & one side of the discussion wants to stick to hypothetical edge case situations that assume the wizard has the spell available and has it prepared when any given edge case comes up while dismissing the fact that those niche cases are too niche reliably to be prepared for because they could come up. The level7 build was an attempt @Flamestrike made to push things out of the realm of quantum hypotheticals.

There was also the part where I explained why your assessment of the spell was somewhat in conflict with RAW . Even if we say for discussion that it's "wonderful dealing with weather effects outside." The problem still remains that such situation are ones created to make it useful and are not very common as the party needs to be resting outside where there is bad weather that the gm pretty much declares is a problem. That is not the reason why wizards are basically forced to use one of their 2/level choices on it like fighters are basically forced to take one of a handful of powerful feats though. That reason is so when attacked during a rest the rest of the party can use it as s bunker while the wizard stays in place not doing anything or just goes to get pizza if it looks like its going to be s long fight. Yes it makes the fighter and rogue feel awesome at that point. Even the cleric sorcerer warlock & so on can step out to cast &step back in feeling safe. The wizard however is just given an extreme dose of just how much the rest of the party is carrying them when the fight that probably didn't need the bunker ends with finishing the long rest to recover any spent abilities along with the ho that would have been lost if the bunker were not there. There is someone getting a "Cool cinematic moment" when all of those things align, but it's not the wizard. Rest person is anything it the guy who says "I stay inside the dome to keep it active and ready an action to cast a cantrip if something gets inside" round after round until the fight ends and everyone who did stuff during the fight finishes their recovery & gets back the hitpoints they might have lost if not for the tiny hut.

Or perhaps I spent a good amount of time and effort creating that spell list that you practically demanded on this thread, and didn't even think about the other aspects. These kinds of statements are not arguments in good faith and are not endearing qualities, why don't we just tone down the assumptions and simply debate what is presented.

I mean if you want Wizard skills there are : Arcana - One of the most common skills used for pretty much any kind of magical anything. Find a mystical object in the woods....arcana. Find a runic barrier....arcana. Dealing with a nasty magical beast....arcana. And there is always investigation if you want to be Sherlock Holmes and handle that part of the exploration pillar. Even a rogue with expertise in only likely to match your investigation until about 9th (when they get an additional +4), unless they have a very high int, which is not my experience with 5e rogues. I've seen some 12 int rogues, but I've never seen higher in my games so far.

I appreciate the effort but I phrased nothing your omissions in the build like that to make sure there was no confusion when @Flamestrike posts the adventure if the spell list turns out to be too niche or the wrong niche. Given that the adventure is already written having it change isn't a concern.

Because I'm not an idiot?

Like, I know a clearly marked trap when I see one? If you're letting someone else dictate all the terms of a test - level, length of day, nature of encounters, and they're also getting to design their own character for the test, which they're obviously going to bias the terms towards (whether they mean to or not).

So you refuse to provide a build for an adventure because you are worried it won't be useful for an adventure written two days ago? Even if we say that is a reasonable assumption to make for purposes of discussion can you explain how a PC wizard is going to be better prepared with knowledge & foresight needed to preplan so all the niche edge case spells you keep alluding to are available in their spellbook & prepared when those edge cases come up? Are you worried that doing so might result in demonstrate evidence supportign the problem of too many spells that are too niche for too minor an effect even though you've been saying it's not an issue? Are you claiming that anyone playing a wizard is setting themselves up for a trap or an idiot?

And like what, only Fighters and Wizards exist now? How about Clerics, Druids, Bards, etc?

Who is saying that? I'm not saying that. And this whole nonsense about "overcompensating for 3.5's problems" is just laughable. You've provided zero evidence that full casters are weak in 5E, and I've played 5E for years, and so the idea that full casters are weak is just silly joke. It's not even basically plausible. This is like the stuff that people were trying to claim when PF1 first came out and there were claims that the nerfs to a few spells had made full casters "too weak" and certainly solved LFQW.

You still haven't even been able to substantiate your extremely funny QF claims. Your own math deeply undermined them.

Those classes make a more difficult statistical comparison with too many bits that need assumptions to be made. Fighter has simple math & due to oversimplification basically one job (hit things). Fighter does that job very well & any other areas they can contribute to like the warlord inspired GWM build with one extra feat someone posted a few pages back is an extra cherry on top.

The bolded statement that I provided "zero evidence" is flatly untrue. I've provided extensive number crunching & comparison in the thread including a google spreadsheet with even more. You and others dismissed that as not relevant to the wizard's strength. Sure if you say so, far be it from me to dictate what the wizard's true strength is though. Maybe your right & there is some style of wizard build that only you & a couple others can see, but we can't discuss that with quantum builds & endless hypothetical edge cases that as someone phrased it earlier risks running into leads to spell selections that might not come up in the campaign. I'd be perfectly happy if the evidence I provided was shown to be irrelevant due to some new & revolutionary style of wizard building, but that's a revolutionary breakthrough that takes more than edge cases, hypotheticals, & contrivances so you need to show it.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a problem because the disparity continues to expand at high levels. It makes for a situation where a handicap is applied to the least valued contribution. The problem is not the magic resistance alone, it's in the whole energy
By resist/immune alongside a resistance wotc rogues out of their way to urge generosity and trivisl cost to remove in multiple publications.


Your later point about good faith discussion is a good one related to this. Good faith discussion takes two & one side of the discussion wants to stick to hypothetical edge case situations that assume the wizard has the spell available and has it prepared when any given edge case comes up while dismissing the fact that those niche cases are too niche reliably to be prepared for because they could come up. The level7 build was an attempt @Flamestrike made to push things out of the realm of quantum hypotheticals.

There was also the part where I explained why your assessment of the spell was somewhat in conflict with RAW . Even if we say for discussion that it's "wonderful dealing with weather effects outside." The problem still remains that such situation are ones created to make it useful and are not very common as the party needs to be resting outside where there is bad weather that the gm pretty much declares is a problem. That is not the reason why wizards are basically forced to use one of their 2/level choices on it like fighters are basically forced to take one of a handful of powerful feats though. That reason is so when attacked during a rest the rest of the party can use it as s bunker while the wizard stays in place not doing anything or just goes to get pizza if it looks like its going to be s long fight. Yes it makes the fighter and rogue feel awesome at that point. Even the cleric sorcerer warlock & so on can step out to cast &step back in feeling safe. The wizard however is just given an extreme dose of just how much the rest of the party is carrying them when the fight that probably didn't need the bunker ends with finishing the long rest to recover any spent abilities along with the ho that would have been lost if the bunker were not there. There is someone getting a "Cool cinematic moment" when all of those things align, but it's not the wizard. Rest person is anything it the guy who says "I stay inside the dome to keep it active and ready an action to cast a cantrip if something gets inside" round after round until the fight ends and everyone who did stuff during the fight finishes their recovery & gets back the hitpoints they might have lost if not for the tiny hut.



I appreciate the effort but I phrased nothing your omissions in the build like that to make sure there was no confusion when @Flamestrike posts the adventure if the spell list turns out to be too niche or the wrong niche. Given that the adventure is already written having it change isn't a concern.

So you refuse to provide a build for an adventure because you are worried it won't be useful for an adventure written two days ago? Even if we say that is a reasonable assumption to make for purposes of discussion can you explain how a PC wizard is going to be better prepared with knowledge & foresight needed to preplan so all the niche edge case spells you keep alluding to are available in their spellbook & prepared when those edge cases come up? Are you worried that doing so might result in demonstrate evidence supportign the problem of too many spells that are too niche for too minor an effect even though you've been saying it's not an issue? Are you claiming that anyone playing a wizard is setting themselves up for a trap or an idiot?



Those classes make a more difficult statistical comparison with too many bits that need assumptions to be made. Fighter has simple math & due to oversimplification basically one job (hit things). Fighter does that job very well & any other areas they can contribute to like the warlord inspired GWM build with one extra feat someone posted a few pages back is an extra cherry on top.

The bolded statement that I provided "zero evidence" is flatly untrue. I've provided extensive number crunching & comparison in the thread including a google spreadsheet with even more. You and others dismissed that as not relevant to the wizard's strength. Sure if you say so, far be it from me to dictate what the wizard's true strength is though. Maybe your right & there is some style of wizard build that only you & a couple others can see, but we can't discuss that with quantum builds & endless hypothetical edge cases that as someone phrased it earlier risks running into leads to spell selections that might not come up in the campaign. I'd be perfectly happy if the evidence I provided was shown to be irrelevant due to some new & revolutionary style of wizard building, but that's a revolutionary breakthrough that takes more than edge cases, hypotheticals, & contrivances so you need to show it.

I think you are a little to focused on damage as the primary point of comparison - when what wizards do best is stuff other than damage.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you are a little to focused on damage as the primary point of comparison - when what wizards do best is stuff other than damage.

Quite the opposite. It is a simple point of comparison with an objective metric in the form of how large one set of math is compared to another set. The point is not that wizards need to do more damage. I agree that the wizard's primary role is generally not damage, but that primary role needs to justify the combination of damage disparity and design elements trying to individually compensate for problems of past editions. Not. The justification itself needs to work within the constraints of the class itself though so hypothetical edge cases & contrived situations involving "what if this happens and that spell is prepared but nobody in the party can just solve it in other ways without using a spell slot or waiting for the wizard to prepare the spell after a long rest".

I even brought up things likebuff/debuff/control spells but those are almost universally saddled with excessive saves & overused concentration on a resource (spell slot) burning limit stacked alongside the no resource consuming damage disparity. That comparison & associated problem itself is problematic because I'm told it should be ignored & the wizard should not expect to be notable in the combat pillar itself de to how they "dominate" in social & exploration. Given social & exploration pillars are a smaller chunk of nearly any campaign compared to the combat pillar & generally even something limited to a small fraction of sessions the wizard probably needs to clearly dominate to such an extreme degree that they come close to just not being an option for the party without a wizard... a few edge case hypotheticals does not accomplish that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Quite the opposite. It is a simple point of comparison with an objective metric in the form of how large one set of math is compared to another set. The point is not that wizards need to do more damage. I agree that the wizard's primary role is generally not damage, but that primary role needs to justify the combination of damage disparity and design elements trying to individually compensate for problems of past editions. Not. The justification itself needs to work within the constraints of the class itself though so hypothetical edge cases & contrived situations involving "what if this happens and that spell is prepared but nobody in the party can just solve it in other ways without using a spell slot or waiting for the wizard to prepare the spell after a long rest".

I even brought up things likebuff/debuff/control spells but those are almost universally saddled with excessive saves & overused concentration on a resource (spell slot) burning limit stacked alongside the no resource consuming damage disparity. That comparison & associated problem itself is problematic because I'm told it should be ignored & the wizard should not expect to be notable in the combat pillar itself de to how they "dominate" in social & exploration. Given social & exploration pillars are a smaller chunk of nearly any campaign compared to the combat pillar & generally even something limited to a small fraction of sessions the wizard probably needs to clearly dominate to such an extreme degree that they come close to just not being an option for the party without a wizard... a few edge case hypotheticals does not accomplish that.

Wizards quite often dominate the combat pillar though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So you refuse to provide a build for an adventure because you are worried it won't be useful for an adventure written two days ago?

Is it in the thread? I missed it if so. But I don't agree with the basic principle that I should agree with the terms set by an inherently severely biased party lol. Maybe I've worked at a law firm too long.

I've provided extensive number crunching & comparison in the thread including a google spreadsheet with even more. You and others dismissed that as not relevant to the wizard's strength.

That's a misunderstanding of what I'm saying, because you're confusing my argument with those of other people. I've dismissed it as literally showing the opposite of what you think it does - it demonstrates "Quadratic Fighter" is false. I maintain that you've provided zero evidence that supports your claims - if you want to be semantic and say you've provided evidence, regardless of whether it supports your claims, I agree lol.

Those classes make a more difficult statistical comparison with too many bits that need assumptions to be made. Fighter has simple math & due to oversimplification basically one job (hit things). Fighter does that job very well & any other areas they can contribute to like the warlord inspired GWM build with one extra feat someone posted a few pages back is an extra cherry on top.

That's one subclass of Fighter out of over a dozen. And not even a single other one could even come close to that. The vast majority are terrible out-of-combat even when they have lore/style that suggests they shouldn't be.

As I said, what that proved is that BM should be the basic way Fighters work.

Wizards quite often dominate the combat pillar though.

Yeah, this is what is confusing me with @tetrasodium's entire approach. He seems to be saying Wizards blow in 5E and are weak and so on, but like, I've played 5E for years and years now. Wizards rock, in combat and out. And until literally this year, 2021, there was no way for a Fighter to even arguably compete. The entire build we were given relies on two Tasha's abilities which just weren't there before (I guess they were in the UA, so maybe 2020 first appeared? Or was it very late 2019?). One specific subclass too. I've seen Fighters try, but even valiant efforts aren't as successful.