Aldarc
Legend
Is this a trick question? Obviously wizards are.Who's looking forward to the return of the five minute adventuring day?
Is this a trick question? Obviously wizards are.Who's looking forward to the return of the five minute adventuring day?
You have to balance around some assumption, and because of all those variables you mention, a rough estimate is the best assumption they can reasonably hope to get.
I agree.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.
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.I think giving more and better advice is more likely than re-balancing the entire system, which is a major development project that would end with something more like a full-on 6e. I don't think what they've said bout the revised books indicates that level of effort or intended results.
But, you're free to disagree with all that.
Why would I do that? I meant the rest of you don't see it this way, nothing more. And discussing is not a bad thing.
Don't always wasn't my suggestion.No, I don't always follow the XP budgets but what makes sense for the situation; no, I'm not complaining in any thread about rests; and no, I don't think 5e is easy mode.
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.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.