Aldarc
Legend
Is this a trick question? Obviously wizards are.
D&D 5E (2014) 5e Revision: Re-Balancing and Combats per Day?
- Thread starter Aldarc
- Start date
Which is part of why I think advice is more likely than rebalance - because if they rebalance, they're moving to a new assumption, and that won't fit everyone's play pattern either. They may find a new balance point that is closer to more people, but there's a big question as to whether it would fit enough people to be worth the design effort involved.
Plus, getting it right without a whole lot of playtesting is questionable.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I think they might change the length of a short rest to something, er, short and maybe limit you to two a day, but that's the most I'd expect.
The 6-8 thing is just too baked in, and you need to invalidate stuff they don't want to invalidate to fix it.
What they might well do is give better/clearer instructions about encounter building and expected encounters and they might shift up the difficulty expectation and down the number of encounters expectation, but it won't be actual math changes, just recommendations.
Also D&D being "ez mode" isn't a flaw for most groups, I suspect, further meaning changes will be minimal.
The 6-8 thing is just too baked in, and you need to invalidate stuff they don't want to invalidate to fix it.
What they might well do is give better/clearer instructions about encounter building and expected encounters and they might shift up the difficulty expectation and down the number of encounters expectation, but it won't be actual math changes, just recommendations.
Also D&D being "ez mode" isn't a flaw for most groups, I suspect, further meaning changes will be minimal.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I keep seeing people referring to any of these changes as being "large-scale." But they don't have to be.
It wouldn't be too hard to switch most (though not all) short-rest-based resources to being long-rest-based ones. Those that can only be used once a day (like Arcane Recovery) are probably fine, because most groups do take at least one short rest a day. Channel Divinity and many things of its nature are fine too.
The two main sticking points are going to be Warlocks and Battle Masters. The Warlock is deeply tied to the short-rest system, and I don't see a simple way forward to fix that without...making it just another caster. Perhaps they could have a certain number of daily "recharge all slots" benefits? Unclear on that one. Battle Masters have a different problem: giving them an appropriate number of maneuvers so they don't flare out at the start of the day and then have nothing in the tank, without it seeming (to reference back to Osgood's post) like "two breaks and a lunch" type mandated limits. One option would be to give fewer dice but to grant all of them when rolling initiative, e.g. perhaps "you get a number of Expertise Dice equal to your Proficiency bonus at the start of each combat." That's still not going to quite match things (it would advance more slowly but likely give more total dice), so again I'm not comfortable just emphatically endorsing it.
Apart from those two things though, switching most classes to the "PB per day" rather than "X per short rest" system would solve many of the problems without requiring any meaningful change to the overall system. It would even still be compatible with the "original 5e" versions, since ultimately the two should end up in essentially the same place, just one is more front-loaded than the other.
As for the "five-minute adventuring day," we're already there. That's the problem. Rests are already being primarily dictated, and primarily favorable, to people who get most of their benefits right at the start and who want to rest frequently to get them back. At least with these updates it should be possible to get the classes lagging behind back on the same page as everyone else.
It wouldn't be too hard to switch most (though not all) short-rest-based resources to being long-rest-based ones. Those that can only be used once a day (like Arcane Recovery) are probably fine, because most groups do take at least one short rest a day. Channel Divinity and many things of its nature are fine too.
The two main sticking points are going to be Warlocks and Battle Masters. The Warlock is deeply tied to the short-rest system, and I don't see a simple way forward to fix that without...making it just another caster. Perhaps they could have a certain number of daily "recharge all slots" benefits? Unclear on that one. Battle Masters have a different problem: giving them an appropriate number of maneuvers so they don't flare out at the start of the day and then have nothing in the tank, without it seeming (to reference back to Osgood's post) like "two breaks and a lunch" type mandated limits. One option would be to give fewer dice but to grant all of them when rolling initiative, e.g. perhaps "you get a number of Expertise Dice equal to your Proficiency bonus at the start of each combat." That's still not going to quite match things (it would advance more slowly but likely give more total dice), so again I'm not comfortable just emphatically endorsing it.
Apart from those two things though, switching most classes to the "PB per day" rather than "X per short rest" system would solve many of the problems without requiring any meaningful change to the overall system. It would even still be compatible with the "original 5e" versions, since ultimately the two should end up in essentially the same place, just one is more front-loaded than the other.
As for the "five-minute adventuring day," we're already there. That's the problem. Rests are already being primarily dictated, and primarily favorable, to people who get most of their benefits right at the start and who want to rest frequently to get them back. At least with these updates it should be possible to get the classes lagging behind back on the same page as everyone else.
Fanaelialae
Legend
I agree.
I think that Battlemaster could be converted to be fully/mostly long rest based with a little work, and that would solve its issues. I don't see SR recovery as being a necessary part of its identity.
I think one way to solve the Warlock issue is to simply front load it more while reducing its recovery, since SR recovery is more strongly tied to what distinguishes their style of magic.
For example, imagine that their SR spell slots are doubled, but they only recover 1/4 their total slots on a SR. As a result, you have a more front loaded Warlock that is on par with the PHB Warlock on any day that contains 2 SRs. Of course, these numbers are all based upon the current encounter guidelines.
One could certainly run both this hypothetical 5.5 Warlock and a 5.0 Warlock in the same campaign with essentially full compatibility. The 5.5 Warlock will outperform the 5.0 Warlock on shorter days, but I don't think that would make them incompatible by any stretch of the imagination.
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I mean, the Warlock could have double their Pact Magic slot allotment per day and that would be pretty good. Add to that their 1/day Arcanums and their at-will magic and its pretty much on par with the other casters.
The Battlemaster/Psi-Warrior could have either double their die number or go back to the ''diminishing'' usage die we saw in the first ''psi die'' UA for a more at-will feel.
As for Monks, my go to idea would be to have them Focus as a bonus action (as if concentrating on a spell) and being able to do things for free while concentrating (step of the wind, frex) or spending that Focus (losing concentration) for a special effect (flurry of blows). Or just give them 2x their Ki point pool.
The Battlemaster/Psi-Warrior could have either double their die number or go back to the ''diminishing'' usage die we saw in the first ''psi die'' UA for a more at-will feel.
As for Monks, my go to idea would be to have them Focus as a bonus action (as if concentrating on a spell) and being able to do things for free while concentrating (step of the wind, frex) or spending that Focus (losing concentration) for a special effect (flurry of blows). Or just give them 2x their Ki point pool.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Thank you for the permission! I shall relish it. And I don't think it's more likely, because they could have already done that myriad ways. I think it's pretty certain they will not be doing either.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
jgsugden
Legend
This topic has been address hundreds of times on these boards. If you want a thorough discussion, look those up. Nothing has changed.
However, here are the highlights you should pay attention to if you want to run the type of quality game I enjoy running as a DM, and I enjoy playing in as a player.
1.) If every battle is a high risk life and death struggle, your PCs do not seem to be heroes - they seem to be doormats for the DM to manipulate. Most DMs that resort to most encounters being deadly tend to be the same ones fudging dice to prevent deaths. This results in a very lackluster experience for players where they feel like they're beat up and then saved from their own stupidity by the DM.
2.) If threat of death is the only way you know how to challenge your PCs, you're running a very bland game. A lot of encounters I run are easy, moderate and hard - meaning no real chance of death per the DMG outside of ridiculous bad luck or horrible errors in judgment. However, there is always something at stake, and there are a lot of times when the PCs, despite being the overwlemingly more powerful force in the encounter, fail to achieve an objective - and when they do it advances the story instead of ending the game.
3.) Encourage players to not approach the game as a strategy game, but instead as a storytelling game. If they're making plans around short resting and long resting optimization, the story is not driving them. Consider adding time pressures to your adventures that encourage players to push deeper into their resources.
In my experience, most of the DMs that I've had the opportunity to play under that complain about the 6 to 8 encounters between LR, the "ease" of combats that are less than deadly, etc... tend to build their adventures similarly. Every encounter is at least hard, and most of them are deadly. They then allow PCs to rest after every 2nd or 3rd encounter. This creates a less interesting cycle of difficult encounters.
They designed 5E to run a certain way. People don't run the game that way, and then complain it doesn't work. It boggles my mind that is is still taking place after so long.
However, here are the highlights you should pay attention to if you want to run the type of quality game I enjoy running as a DM, and I enjoy playing in as a player.
1.) If every battle is a high risk life and death struggle, your PCs do not seem to be heroes - they seem to be doormats for the DM to manipulate. Most DMs that resort to most encounters being deadly tend to be the same ones fudging dice to prevent deaths. This results in a very lackluster experience for players where they feel like they're beat up and then saved from their own stupidity by the DM.
2.) If threat of death is the only way you know how to challenge your PCs, you're running a very bland game. A lot of encounters I run are easy, moderate and hard - meaning no real chance of death per the DMG outside of ridiculous bad luck or horrible errors in judgment. However, there is always something at stake, and there are a lot of times when the PCs, despite being the overwlemingly more powerful force in the encounter, fail to achieve an objective - and when they do it advances the story instead of ending the game.
3.) Encourage players to not approach the game as a strategy game, but instead as a storytelling game. If they're making plans around short resting and long resting optimization, the story is not driving them. Consider adding time pressures to your adventures that encourage players to push deeper into their resources.
In my experience, most of the DMs that I've had the opportunity to play under that complain about the 6 to 8 encounters between LR, the "ease" of combats that are less than deadly, etc... tend to build their adventures similarly. Every encounter is at least hard, and most of them are deadly. They then allow PCs to rest after every 2nd or 3rd encounter. This creates a less interesting cycle of difficult encounters.
They designed 5E to run a certain way. People don't run the game that way, and then complain it doesn't work. It boggles my mind that is is still taking place after so long.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I largely agree with the rest of your post, but in the case of what I'm quoting here, I can't agree. Players can both be making decisions based on their resource optimization and on what produces an exciting, memorable story. These things need not be mutually exclusive.
Similar Threads
