Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8453689" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Er...they actually do though?I fear I no longer remember the specific video, but it was published IIRC a bit before Tasha's released. Jeremy Crawford explicitly discussed that there is a problem in 5e's design concerning resting and resources--or, rather, a problem between the designer-expected rate of using these things and the actual-play rate of using them. They expected players to take long days with multiple short rests...and actual play doesn't bear that out. This causes some classes, like Warlock (which was explicitly called out) to fall behind, while other classes like Wizard pull ahead, because their resources don't have to stretch as far.While they have not explicitly drawn a connection to it (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), it is generally accepted in the community that this is why, roughly starting with Tasha's or a bit before, you see zero or almost zero uses-per-short-rest features, and a total or almost total shift to Proficiency-bonus-per-long-rest features. Because the latter is totally divorced from the party's rate of taking short rests, it provides a uniform quantity of resources regardless of whether players favor few or many rests.Like...this really is an actual design fault actually admitted by one of the primary designers when 5e was being worked on, and arguably the lead designer still at the company after Mearls left.</blockquote>