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

[jmartkdr2]

Sure, but it could certainly tie to a fairly common story point. Helping NPC factions defend themselves.

Could be, but isn't necessarily.

Can also use it to create choke points in many places that PC's can fall back to if they notice a strong force moving toward them. I could find tons of uses for fairly quickly creating minumum of 60ft long 10ft tall walls.

Assuming the story included defending a place. And for it to be a story-driven point, it's not enough that defense is a good idea, it needs to be a story (or at least roleplaying) point.

 

[Stoutstien]

How so? In effect, they give you an extra spell known, which increases your versatility. And whether you cast Bane or Arms of Hadar, the spell slot consumed would be gone until the next long rest anyways.

Bane is a good first-level spell on the warlock's list. Probably one of, if not THE, best. It's a great debuffing spell that targets an ability score that's uncommon especially for the lower level threats you'll face when you take it.

And by no means are you stuck with it on higher levels, you're free and encouraged to swap it out with more fitting high-level invocations later on.

The power of an extra spell known has a strong relationship with the number of spell slots you have available to potential spend and your original spell availability count. It's not like warlocks are suffering with lack of good options for most of the spell levels they get and due to how they cast all of their spells are compared at the same slot level. Bane is a commonly underrated spell but it doesn't really upcast well because rarely with you have that many targets in range that the debuff is worth the action and concentration costs. let alone 50% of your spell slot pool until lv 10. I'm not even sure it's worth it if was one of the at will options. it would have to match the other low level ones like silent image. which is extremely flexible even with the inconvenience of concentration.

so if a warlock is planning to go longer without recovery then why would they double down on that limited pool when they have some of the best at will options in the game?

 

[tetrasodium]

Presumably, the enemy in a combat isn't going to wait for you to take a nap so you can fireball them again. How many fireballs per fight is relevant, and not unlimited.

Which is also true for LR classes, for what it's worth.

Fireball is 8d6 plus an extra1d6 for each level above third. For a warlock those extra d6's are free.

Spoiler: bit of math

• Level 5 warlock has 2 3rd level slots each dealing 8d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with a fireball avg28
  • Eldritch blast at this level is probably 1d10+3+knockback or1d10+4+knockback times two each round avg 17-19
• avg Level 7 they have 2 4th level slots each dealing 9d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with fireball avg 31.5 This is the point where EB outdoes a third level spell.
• Level 9 warlock has 2 5th level slots each dealing 10d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with a fireball avg35
  • Eldritch blast at this level is probably 1d10+4+knockback or1d10+5+knockback times two each round avg 19-21
• Level 11 they have 3 4th level slots each dealing 11d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with fireball avg 38.5
  • Eldritch blast at this level is almost certainly 1d10+5+knockback times 3 each round avg 31.5 for an at will attack with damage on par to a 4th level spell slot consuming fireball making "but the wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer/etc have lower level slots too" a bit empty because their at will attack does not compound their int/wis/cha as dice scale on cantrips & with few exceptions doesn't even add it once.

d&d is a team/group game so almost always there are going to be 1-3 other players contributing alongside the warlock.

• The warlock can drop a fireball round1 just before/after the rest of the group takes a turn doing something
• repeat on round two
• repeat on round three or drop an eldritch blast that is quickly on par with a third or fourth level spell depending on how much you weight the knockback & force damage.
• round 4+ eldritch blast with the rest of the party doing their thing.

Combat will rarely last more than 3-4 rounds & a no time pressure situation like ye "olde treasure map" presents doesn't prevent the players from sating "ok lets go back/cast tiny hut & take a short rest" before seeking out another fight. The players can do that because they are not fighting in the battle of helms deep and the o5e design trivializes or outright obliviates risks that might prevent a short rest character from making an effort to short rest every fight or two

 

[FrogReaver]

Fireball is 8d6 plus an extra1d6 for each level above third. For a warlock those extra d6's are free.

Spoiler: bit of math

• Level 5 warlock has 2 3rd level slots each dealing 8d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with a fireball avg28
  • Eldritch blast at this level is probably 1d10+3+knockback or1d10+4+knockback times two each round avg 17-19
• avg Level 7 they have 2 4th level slots each dealing 9d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with fireball avg 31.5 This is the point where EB outdoes a third level spell.
• Level 9 warlock has 2 5th level slots each dealing 10d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with a fireball avg35
  • Eldritch blast at this level is probably 1d10+4+knockback or1d10+5+knockback times two each round avg 19-21
• Level 11 they have 3 4th level slots each dealing 11d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with fireball avg 38.5
  • Eldritch blast at this level is almost certainly 1d10+5+knockback times 3 each round avg 31.5 for an at will attack with damage on par to a 4th level spell slot consuming fireball making "but the wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer/etc have lower level slots too" a bit empty because their at will attack does not compound their int/wis/cha as dice scale on cantrips & with few exceptions doesn't even add it once.

d&d is a team/group game so almost always there are going to be 1-3 other players contributing alongside the warlock.

• The warlock can drop a fireball round1 just before/after the rest of the group takes a turn doing something
• repeat on round two
• repeat on round three or drop an eldritch blast that is quickly on par with a third or fourth level spell depending on how much you weight the knockback & force damage.
• round 4+ eldritch blast with the rest of the party doing their thing.

Combat will rarely last more than 3-4 rounds & a no time pressure situation like ye "olde treasure map" presents doesn't prevent the players from sating "ok lets go back/cast tiny hut & take a short rest" before seeking out another fight. The players can do that because they are not fighting in the battle of helms deep and the o5e design trivializes or outright obliviates risks that might prevent a short rest character from making an effort to short rest every fight or two

Doesn’t the same argument apply to long rests in the ye olde treasure map games? No reason for the wizard not to be at full power as with no time constraint they can just long rest. Seems like the same reasoning that leads to 5MWD

 

[Asisreo]

It's not like warlocks are suffering with lack of good options for most of the spell levels they get and due to how they cast all of their spells are compared at the same slot level.

They kinda are...especially at 9th-level with a total of 6 possible spell choices including their subclass. Warlocks have the smallest full caster spell list by large margin.

Bane is a commonly underrated spell but it doesn't really upcast well because rarely with you have that many targets in range that the debuff is worth the action and concentration costs.

Yes, which is why you switch it out when it's usefulness has subsided. You could replace it with Bestow Curse, though you'd probably replace that sometime mid-to-late tier 3 when saving throw spells have limited uses.

By level 11+, you're relying on your Mystic Arcanum for long-rest powerful abilities so, again assuming you'll be in situations with one combat, your 6th+ Level spells and 3 extra 5th-level slots should last the whole fight.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Fireball is 8d6 plus an extra1d6 for each level above third. For a warlock those extra d6's are free.

Spoiler: bit of math

• Level 5 warlock has 2 3rd level slots each dealing 8d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with a fireball avg28
  • Eldritch blast at this level is probably 1d10+3+knockback or1d10+4+knockback times two each round avg 17-19
• avg Level 7 they have 2 4th level slots each dealing 9d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with fireball avg 31.5 This is the point where EB outdoes a third level spell.
• Level 9 warlock has 2 5th level slots each dealing 10d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with a fireball avg35
  • Eldritch blast at this level is probably 1d10+4+knockback or1d10+5+knockback times two each round avg 19-21
• Level 11 they have 3 4th level slots each dealing 11d6 to a 20 foot radius sphere with fireball avg 38.5
  • Eldritch blast at this level is almost certainly 1d10+5+knockback times 3 each round avg 31.5 for an at will attack with damage on par to a 4th level spell slot consuming fireball making "but the wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer/etc have lower level slots too" a bit empty because their at will attack does not compound their int/wis/cha as dice scale on cantrips & with few exceptions doesn't even add it once.

d&d is a team/group game so almost always there are going to be 1-3 other players contributing alongside the warlock.

• The warlock can drop a fireball round1 just before/after the rest of the group takes a turn doing something
• repeat on round two
• repeat on round three or drop an eldritch blast that is quickly on par with a third or fourth level spell depending on how much you weight the knockback & force damage.
• round 4+ eldritch blast with the rest of the party doing their thing.

Combat will rarely last more than 3-4 rounds & a no time pressure situation like ye "olde treasure map" presents doesn't prevent the players from sating "ok lets go back/cast tiny hut & take a short rest" before seeking out another fight. The players can do that because they are not fighting in the battle of helms deep and the o5e design trivializes or outright obliviates risks that might prevent a short rest character from making an effort to short rest every fight or two

I don't see your point. How does this translate to "there is no limit on how many spells a warlock can cast, unlike wizards who can only cast a few spells per day?"

Unless your argument is: one fight per day benefits warlocks as much as wizards, in which case I'd need a lot more evidence to make me believe all of my experience has been an outlier.

Or, put another way: how does this compare to a sorcerer optimized for fireballs? Accounting for quickened spells and elemental affinity and maybe flames of Phlegethos to squeeze out a couple more points of damage... is that way behind the warlock?

 

[tetrasodium]

Doesn’t the same argument apply to long rests in the ye olde treasure map games? No reason for the wizard not to be at full power as with no time constraint they can just long rest. Seems like the same reasoning that leads to 5MWD

That goes back to the initial problem. Narratively it's difficult for the gm to constantly come up with excuses for why a short rest is a bad idea & prove the threat has teeth if the players give it the finger without an extremely tight doomclock because they only last an hour & basically everyone is going to remain conscious. With a long rest however pretty much the entire group is going to enter a state of helplessness & is going to need to doff armor for long enough that mere chance encounters could be a serious concern in ways that don't apply to short rests. If the players are in some kind of hellscape like eberron's demon wastes/xendriik, Athas's anywhere, or many of the less hospitable planes it's easy for those risks to be serious ones at any level & at low levels even a pack of wolves or something could be a serious threat if the gm plays for keeps. The rest system is a trainwreck on both fronts but when it comes to short rest classes that wreck is even more notable.

@jmartkdr2 that also answers your "how does this translate to..." question

 

[FrogReaver]

That goes back to the initial problem. Narratively it's difficult for the gm to constantly come up with excuses for why a short rest is a bad idea & prove the threat has teeth if the players give it the finger without an extremely tight doomclock because they only last an hour & basically everyone is going to remain conscious. With a long rest however pretty much the entire group is going to enter a state of helplessness & is going to need to doff armor for long enough that mere chance encounters could be a serious concern in ways that don't apply to short rests. If the players are in some kind of hellscape like eberron's demon wastes/xendriik, Athas's anywhere, or many of the less hospitable planes it's easy for those risks to be serious ones at any level & at low levels even a pack of wolves or something could be a serious threat if the gm plays for keeps. The rest system is a trainwreck on both fronts but when it comes to short rest classes that wreck is even more notable.

@jmartkdr2 that also answers your "how does this translate to..." question

IME almost anytime we have wanted a short rest we could have take a long rest instead. We don’t typically do that though because we police our own resting.

But I’m not seeing a compelling reason why a long rest with watches/alarms/tiny huts can’t be achieved almost anytime you have an hour to short rest and why it would be significantly more ‘unsafe’ than a short rest.

 

[Stoutstien]

They kinda are...especially at 9th-level with a total of 6 possible spell choices including their subclass. Warlocks have the smallest full caster spell list by large margin.

Yes, which is why you switch it out when it's usefulness has subsided. You could replace it with Bestow Curse, though you'd probably replace that sometime mid-to-late tier 3 when saving throw spells have limited uses.

By level 11+, you're relying on your Mystic Arcanum for long-rest powerful abilities so, again assuming you'll be in situations with one combat, your 6th+ Level spells and 3 extra 5th-level slots should last the whole fight.

Warlocks are not full casters in the sense that they don't match description that we've given to that group of player options. Sure they get access to up to 9th level spells but they go about it and it completely unique fashion which is why the comparison the wizards is always going to fall short. They're always the poster child in any discussion about short rest mechanics because of how they can take advantage of one hour rituals or rest casting but they're also so complicated in how they interact with their double subclass and invocation combinations you'll never get it a clear picture unless you were just looking at party that was solely made up of warlocks which is a very devastating thing to deal with as a DM.

If you like bane go for it but it's a hard sell for me for basically four different resources into a spell that only really shines if too many what ifs line up.

Back to the topic at hand I think the only real way to truly address the risk that forms between the two major types of research recovery is to get rid of most the short rest ones. At the same time I don't think they need to be shipped over the long rest. I think they should actually go the other direction. So instead of having a dump and rest style of recovery you could have small units of time that allow them to recover small units of resources. You can actually make these small units of time incompatible with short rest to prevent stacking them. Take months for example they have this nice pool of resources that allows them to do a lot of cool things but the only way to recover it is to fully top it off during a rest. What if instead of that they had a feature that allowed them to cover a certain amount of Ki if they spend that time meditating.

 

[tetrasodium]

IME almost anytime we have wanted a short rest we could have take a long rest instead. We don’t typically do that though because we police our own resting.

But I’m not seeing a compelling reason why a long rest with watches/alarms/tiny huts can’t be achieved almost anytime you have an hour to short rest and why it would be significantly more ‘unsafe’ than a short rest.

when the players hole up for an hour in a closet or whatever you almost need video game style patrols and spawn points globally for the players to be found and for their opponents to react. When players hole up somewhere for an entire night there is time for someone to notice, that person to tell someone in charge, & that person in charge to send a bunch of reinforcements to deal with it or just do something like pull up stakes & vacate along with everything of notable value.

 

[FrogReaver]

when the players hole up for an hour in a closet or whatever you almost need video game style patrols and spawn points globally for the players to be found and for their opponents to react. When players hole up somewhere for an entire night there is time for someone to notice, that person to tell someone in charge, & that person in charge to send a bunch of reinforcements to deal with it or just do something like pull up stakes & vacate along with everything of notable value.

If it's safe enough to rest for 1 hour then it's often safe enough to rest for 8 hours. The DM has to try really hard to come up with fictoinal scenarios such that the players can rest 1 hour with minimal consequences if the rest 8 hours they face major consequences. It's the demand on the DM to come up with such fictional scenarios to get short rests to 'work' that's the problem.

The better solution is player self policing resting and it's the same exact solution that has been being used forever when it comes to long resting.

 

[tetrasodium]

If it's safe enough to rest for 1 hour then it's often safe enough to rest for 8 hours. The DM has to try really hard to come up with fictoinal scenarios such that the players can rest 1 hour with minimal consequences if the rest 8 hours they face major consequences. It's the demand on the DM to come up with such fictional scenarios to get short rests to 'work' that's the problem.

The better solution is player self policing resting and it's the same exact solution that has been being used forever when it comes to long resting.

I don't disagree on the first part, it's abhorrently unchecked munchkinesque design, the difference is that 8 hours has 8 times as much time for opponents to prepare. It's the difference between "wow, they gathered up all these people/they cleared out all of that during a lunchbreak" and "yea.. 8 hours is a while, I've loaded a whole house of stuff into a uhaul with minimal help in less that's fair I guess/yea It makes sense that they could gather all of this in 8 hours".

That "better solution" is awful though & illustrates just how bad theo5e design is here. I've seen numerous ttrpgs that include guidance on doing that kind of sportsmanship type thing directed at the players & the gm with crunch analysis on how to balance the needs or how different styles will influence things. o5e by contrast has barely any sportsmanship type guidance & crunch analysis.

 

[Baron Opal II]

If it's safe enough to rest for 1 hour then it's often safe enough to rest for 8 hours. The DM has to try really hard to come up with fictoinal scenarios such that the players can rest 1 hour with minimal consequences if the rest 8 hours they face major consequences. It's the demand on the DM to come up with such fictional scenarios to get short rests to 'work' that's the problem.

The better solution is player self policing resting and it's the same exact solution that has been being used forever when it comes to long resting.

You imply that you can take an 8 hr rest at the start of the day. Is that allowed these days?

 

[FrogReaver]

You imply that you can take an 8 hr rest at the start of the day. Is that allowed these days?

...No, I imply you can wait till the next day because in most fictional positioning what happens in an hour and in 8 hours just isn't enough of a difference to matter

 

[FrogReaver]

That "better solution" is awful though & illustrates just how bad theo5e design is here. I've seen numerous ttrpgs that include guidance on doing that kind of sportsmanship type thing directed at the players & the gm with crunch analysis on how to balance the needs or how different styles will influence things. o5e by contrast has barely any sportsmanship type guidance & crunch analysis.

The lack of advice is awful.

But, when you think about long rests, it's really the only thing that consistently allows long rests to work as well - especially since many games have moved beyond the dungeon environment. I think short rests have made this 'issue' more apparent - mostly because they are newer and less ingrained.

 

[Xetheral]

IME almost anytime we have wanted a short rest we could have take a long rest instead. We don’t typically do that though because we police our own resting.

My experience differs sharply. A short rest is pretty easily available any time that the party doesn't have an imminent deadline. The total time cost is low, or even almost zero if the party just stops for their next meal earlier than originally intended. Moving lunch up a couple hours, for example, doesn't change how much the party can get done in a day.

By contrast, spending 9-23 hours for a long rest (depending on the remaining time before the party is eligible to take another long rest) slows the party strategically. If everything they do takes significantly longer thanks to stopping early for long rests, they won't accomplish nearly as much.

I suspect the difference in our experiences may come down to how many active quests/opportunities/goals/priorities the PCs are pursuing simultaneously. In my campaigns it tends to be half a dozen or more at any given time, which creates background time pressure. Even if none of those priorities have an explicit doomclock, time spent on one priority is time not spent on the others, and (almost) none of them are so static that they'll wait around unchanged for the PCs to eventually get around to them.

 

[FrogReaver]

My experience differs sharply. A short rest is pretty easily available any time that the party doesn't have an imminent deadline. The total time cost is low, or even almost zero if the party just stops for their next meal earlier than originally intended. Moving lunch up a couple hours, for example, doesn't change how much the party can get done in a day.

By contrast, spending 9-23 hours for a long rest (depending on the remaining time before the party is eligible to take another long rest) slows the party strategically. If everything they do takes significantly longer thanks to stopping early for long rests, they won't accomplish nearly as much.

I suspect the difference in our experiences may come down to how many active quests/opportunities/goals/priorities the PCs are pursuing simultaneously. In my campaigns it tends to be half a dozen or more at any given time, which creates background time pressure. Even if none of those priorities have an explicit doomclock, time spent on one priority is time not spent on the others, and (almost) none of them are so static that they'll wait around unchanged for the PCs to eventually get around to them.

I think that’s a great point. Though it sounds like you agree that the PCs are being pressured quite a bit -‘the world doesn’t wait around on them’.

Which is one of the things I’ve said. Games with that kind of pressure consistently being applied behave quite differently.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that’s a great point. Though it sounds like you agree that the PCs are being pressured quite a bit -‘the world doesn’t wait around on them’.

Which is one of the things I’ve said. Games with that kind of pressure consistently being applied behave quite differently.

The world doesn't, but it's not like a crpg where you have x amount of quests that you can do because those are the ones coded in the game. If the players don't deal with a particular problem that npc bob has npcbob might have a different problem later or npcalice might step in down the road when bob moves on. Even if npcalice is salty with the PCs for not solving it when npcbob was in charge she or some other npc is going to find something for them to do rather than the gm just saying "sorry guys all the quests are completed or in a state they can no longer be completed."

 

[Baron Opal II]

...No, I imply you can wait till the next day because in most fictional positioning what happens in an hour and in 8 hours just isn't enough of a difference to matter

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Asisreo]

I think that’s a great point. Though it sounds like you agree that the PCs are being pressured quite a bit -‘the world doesn’t wait around on them’.

Which is one of the things I’ve said. Games with that kind of pressure consistently being applied behave quite differently.

Though, I think the reality is that while players will want to be quick with pressure applied, they'll also want to preserve some form of caution while proceeding.

So while a wizard can use their highest-level slots to cast a spell and rest to get them back, the warlock can do so in an eighth or even a twenty-fourth of the time. Sure, it's still time expended, but it's significantly less.

I think parties naturally try to form a balance rather than leaning completely on "As fast and reckless as possible" or "as careful and slow as possible." So, if a party knows the module uses time-based random encounters, they'll rather take the chance of resting for an hour and hopefully have nothing happen than resting eight and being surprised that the dungeon includes incorporeal enemies anyways.