D&D 5E (2014) Aren't Short Rest classes *better* in "story-based" games rather than dungeon crawls?

[Asisreo]

Very much this here. In fact IME I have often seen players forget entirely (even if the warlock is nagging) to take short rests when they have a chance, and plow forward with plenty of unfortunate consequences as a result. So although I like the idea of a rule limiting how many short rests they can take (I prefer gritty mechanical options anyway), in reality I don't really see the short rest impact my campaigns much, as the players often can't stop themselves from squandering precious moments to rest.

I feel like sometimes giving a reminder not just of taking a short rest, but also what it does can help.

Like, the DM saying "Oh, did you want to attune to the item? You'd need to take a short rest."

Or the cleric saying "Well, instead of using my slots and Potions, let's take a short rest."

Or the wizard saying "While I cast Find Familiar, everyone else might want to take a short rest."

Or the bard saying "If we short rest now, I'll use my Song of Rest to heal us more."

Really, as long as someone provides an obvious benefit for a short rest that isn't "So I can be better than you all" most parties won't refuse a free breather.

 

[Mordhau]

I really like the Short Rest = 5 minutes maximum two.

Because then the Warlock player just marks off a short rest quietly and the game keeps going.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I really like the Short Rest = 5 minutes maximum two.

Because then the Warlock player just marks off a short rest quietly and the game keeps going.

I like 5 min short rests max 2, because you can narratively force it so you can't rest once in a while for a change of pace if you really want to -- back to back encounters, extreme time pressure.

Another is you get short rest abilities x 3 (and sometimes can only spend up to 1/3 in a single encounter). Short resting is only for healing. So Fighter BM gets 12 superiority dice a long rest.

Takes away some Tactical element of the 1 hr rest, but in practice I never found this to work like it was probably intended, and you still have the healing element.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. Short rests as implemented in 5e

• fail to accomplish what they intended to accomplish
• fail to have any redeeming emergent properties
• make the game much more difficult for a DM to manage
• are easy to have totally screw players with short rest focused classes (they pit the players desire of not wanting to be the butthole against what is mechanically a good solution for their character)

IMO, short rests are one of the biggest epic fails of all 5e. How the heck weren't these things playtested more thouroughly.

 

[Lyxen]

IMO. Short rests as implemented in 5e

• fail to accomplish what they intended to accomplish
• fail to have any redeeming emergent properties
• make the game much more difficult for a DM to manage
• are easy to have totally screw players with short rest focused classes (they pit the players desire of not wanting to be the butthole against what is mechanically a good solution for their character)

IMO, short rests are one of the biggest epic fails of all 5e. How the heck weren't these things playtested more thouroughly.

Yeah, right, imagine us playing with short rests for 7+ years and having fun with the game including how rests work for us, we certainly must be epic failures too.

Sorry, but that level of criticism is totally absurd. 5e was playtested, more thoroughly than any other edition of D&D, and the fact that it did not result in a game you like does not change the fact that it resulted in the most popular edition of D&D ever, and by a huge margin. Deal with and either be constructive or go play something else.

Like most things in the game, they work well enough if no-one tries to distort the framework to extremes to try and gain some sort of technical advantage, like resting after every fight or never resting at all, which are all stupid narratively anyway and easily controlled by the DM.

 

[Asisreo]

As a DM, I don't control short rests or really the "flow" of the game. Well, I do, but it's circumstantial rather than forceful.

For example, I'm going to run a dungeon this Sunday with the theme of the elemental and transitive planes leaking throughout the structure.

Random encounters are rolled every 10 minutes, with a roll of 18 or higher meaning that a random encounter occurs. The random encounter table ranges from a swarm of bats, a swarm of mephits, a note carried through the wind, a patrol, and elementals, amongst other things.

This means if the players short rest anywhere, there's a 62% chance a random encounter will occur at any point. Though, the random encounter could simply be the note. Or a character who doesn't need to short rest could solo the patrol and the others don't have to worry. But there's still a chance the enemy might be able to get through any barricades and start combat.

So its a balance that lies onto the players. There's definitely enough encounters throughout that even a rogue or Ranger will want to short rest to preserve their health.

 

[Stoutstien]

Yeah, right, imagine us playing with short rests for 7+ years and having fun with the game including how rests work for us, we certainly must be epic failures too.

Sorry, but that level of criticism is totally absurd. 5e was playtested, more thoroughly than any other edition of D&D, and the fact that it did not result in a game you like does not change the fact that it resulted in the most popular edition of D&D ever, and by a huge margin. Deal with and either be constructive or go play something else.

Like most things in the game, they work well enough if no-one tries to distort the framework to extremes to try and gain some sort of technical advantage, like resting after every fight or never resting at all, which are all stupid narratively anyway and easily controlled by the DM.

Most of which are irrelevant to those criticisms? The popularity and fun of this edition isn't a byproduct of it's resource recovery system.

Resting/ resource recovery is janky in 5e and was drastically changed 10+ times before releasing so the playtest wasn't that extensive for it's final form. If I recall it saw less than 5 months of feed back and during that time we had no baseline to work with so most tables treated Sfs them like healing surges and did give them out just about equal to the number of encounters.

It's wasn't even implemented as a balancing mechanic so regardless of how easy it is for DMs to control resting it isn't useful out of content of individual tables and/or campaigns. 5e wasn't designed to be balanced but most have found enough to make it work. I would consider that a pretty big flaw.

 

[Lyxen]

Most of which are irrelevant to those criticisms? The popularity and fun of this edition isn't a byproduct of it's resource recovery system.

My answer was about the playtesting. As for the recovery, it is a huge part of the fun since it governs when you get to use your cool powers. So I happen to find it extremely relevant.

Resting/ resource recovery is janky in 5e and was drastically changed 10+ times before releasing so the playtest wasn't that extensive for it's final form. If I recall it saw less than 5 months of feed back and during that time we had no baseline to work with so most tables treated Sfs them like healing surges and did give them out just about equal to the number of encounters.

And that is still waaaaaaayyyyy more than any other edition.

It's wasn't even implemented as a balancing mechanic so regardless of how easy it is for DMs to control resting it isn't useful out of content of individual tables and/or campaigns. 5e wasn't designed to be balanced but most have found enough to make it work. I would consider that a pretty big flaw.

What, it's a pretty big flaw that most have found enough to make it work and extremely successful ? Once more, as you point out, 5e is not designed to be balanced or optimised, and the role of the DM has been reinforced for exactly these reasons. It's only a flaw if you absolutely want to push the game technically to obtain technical advantages, and for sure, it it's what you're after, other editions are better suited to this. It just happens that they too have flaws, which prevented people in general from enjoying it as much.

 

[Stoutstien]

No it's flawed in general but most never see it because they don't run it as the rules present it. So it's not a issue from a play standpoint rather one about design. It's poor form to dump more work on the DMs and declare it a successful idea. The biggest hurdle 5e has is the player/DM gating and stuff like this reinforces it.

When discussions move to looking at TTRPGs elements in a critical manner those who have made it work and enjoy it tend to take it as a affront on them personally. We need to be able to have frank conversations about things that may not be broken but flawed for the sake of positive growth. Positive attitudes are nice but nice without honestly are just as deprimental as a negative one with honestly.

 

[Lyxen]

No it's flawed in general but most never see it because they don't run it as the rules present it.

Wrong. You are the one seeing an imaginary flaw because you insist on running the game according to strict rules when these same rules tell you that they don't matter. It's inconsistent to try and adhere 100% to the written rules while ignoring the spirit in which they were written, you are trying to judge these rules by the spirit of entirely different sets of rules.

So it's not a issue from a play standpoint rather one about design. It's poor form to dump more work on the DMs and declare it a successful idea. The biggest hurdle 5e has is the player/DM gating and stuff like this reinforces it.

And that is your perspective, not the one of their authors and the millions playing it successfully. The failure of previous editions to recognise the fact that too many interlocking rules are contrary to the openness of the game was what made them less successful, because the hurdle was way higher to try and ingest massive rulesets that, in the end always asked more questions than what they thought they solved.

When discussions move to looking at TTRPGs elements in a critical manner those who have made it work and enjoy it tend to take it as a affront on them personally. We need to be able to have frank conversations about things that may not be broken but flawed for the sake of positive growth. Positive attitudes are nice but nice without honestly are just as deprimental as a negative one with honestly.

And I'm being totally honest when I'm telling you that you are being totally inconsistent on your bases for argument, which makes the criticism not only totally useless but completely missing its mark. By its very design, 5e recognised that a DM is not only needed, but at the core of playing the game, and by making the job easier for him by not burdening him with an immense and complex ruleset. This is certainly part of what made the game so successful. Your "solution" of creating more rules to "help" the DM has been tried before, and with less success, because it actually does not help the DM run a successful game, and it goes contrary to the very spirit of 5e, openness, simplicity and reliance on a DM. You don't wish to improve 5e, you wish it to be a different game, based on different paradigms, it's a completely different perspective.