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

[bedir than]

Resting is only defined based on when it's completed. Which the game doesn't support because it is an action resolution system.

How does the game not support gaining the benefits of resting at the end of a rest?

 

[FrogReaver]

if the warlock uses all his slots the question of what level they are is critical to the comparison because they also have (1d10+5+ [5 foot knockback])*2 3 or even 4 & that amounts to a pretty high level at will spell.

Why does your at will option even matter in a single encounter day, especially if it isn't anywhere near comparable to a fireball which the wizard from level 7 on has enough slots to use 1 every turn in a single encounter day.

When you factor in that the sorcerer who took two levels of warlock to gain a shortrest boost adding that same +5 to fireball or whatever also has that same 1d10+d+knockback*2 3 or 4 it raises the question of why the wizard is even in the comparison rather than the sorlock who traded one high level spell slot for pact magic an invisible familiar & agonizing repelling blast

It's not just the slot he's trading. He's giving up his highest level spell, the slot, 2 sorcery points, possibly an additional metamagic known/ASI/subclass feature. All of which is a significant trade in a single encounter day where action economy is more important than at will options.

 

[Stoutstien]

How does the game not support gaining the benefits of resting at the end of a rest?

Because it has no start until it ends. So things like inspiring leader or using HD which have a set parameters on use after rests are completed are in conflict with the natural flow of what rests are.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because it has no start until it ends. So things like inspiring leader or using HD which have a set parameters on use after rests are completed are in conflict with the natural flow of what rests are.

I get where you are coming from but I don't agree. Getting a reward after a duration of doing something is fairly common and in all other instances it's handled exactly like 5e does short rests. You list the activities that must be done for the duration and the reward for completing that task. The implication always being if you don't complete the task you don't get the prize.

 

[Marandahir]

I think it make sense to do 3 short rests a day.

8 hours long rest, hour of morning prep (breakfast), 3 hours march, 1st short rest, 3 hours march, double length short rest (lunch), 2 hours march, 3rd short rest, 2 hours march, hour of evening prep (dinner), sleep.

8/1/3/1/3/2/2/1/2/1

light activity can be included in the long rest, so that's why I only gave an hour for morning and evening meal. But I could see it break down a bit differently too.

In any case, I think 3 short rests makes sense. Combat would slot into any of these march periods, but usually I'd place them close to the end of a march when we'd be approaching a short rest anyway. But for variety, they might be tighter together with longer marches between rest-breaks.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why does your at will option even matter in a single encounter day, especially if it isn't anywhere near comparable to a fireball which the wizard from level 7 on has enough slots to use 1 every turn in a single encounter day.

if the warlock/sorlock still has slots to burn then the initial condition of "he has no slots" is not a problem that supports the problem for the character as was indicated. The powerful at will ability is relevant because that is what they use when they are in that condition & that at will ability scales to be the equivalent of a very high level spell. If the wizard uses all of his slots by trying to keep up with a warlock burning three 5th level fireballs every three rounds before convincing the group that they should refuse to take another step without taking another short rest that wizard is a long rest away from recovery. If a sorclock does similar they are recovering sorcery points each short rest and have repelling agonizing blast pegged to character level.

It's not just the slot he's trading. He's giving up his highest level spell, the slot, 2 sorcery points, possibly an additional metamagic known/ASI/subclass feature. All of which is a significant trade in a single encounter day where action economy is more important than at will options.

Most of my o5e campaigns run into the low to mid teens, bad design in spells when a handful of generally low level spells are "overtuned" to function as much higher level spells it doesn't really matter if a fireball is 6th level fireball that adds charisma to damage 1d8 less than a 7th level fireball that does not add an ability mod. The impact of gaining spell slots at a higher level is drastically minimized by a different design choice though, that choice is how the rate of spell slot acquisition slows at 7 9 &11 compounding each time across further levels to repress what should be a strength of long rest classes in a way that dramatically benefits short rest classes who don't really lose much as a result.

 

[Asisreo]

That assumes the warlock can just rest after every encounter, which is inconsistent across tables. In some games they absolutely can, in other games they cannot.

That's true. But that's also The assumption. The one-combat day assumes that after the combat, another one won't occur until the next day.

Otherwise, that wizard/sorcerer/Paladin will have significantly less resources as well.

 

[Stoutstien]

I get where you are coming from but I don't agree. Getting a reward after a duration of doing something is fairly common and in all other instances it's handled exactly like 5e does short rests. You list the activities that must be done for the duration and the reward for completing that task. The implication always being if you don't complete the task you don't get the prize.

Fair but in most cases the decision to start the process usually has some active element(s). Most tables add a rest button for the lack of a better term to give players a reference point.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's true. But that's also The assumption. The one-combat day assumes that after the combat, another one won't occur until the next day.

Otherwise, that wizard/sorcerer/Paladin will have significantly less resources as well.

OP was talking about having multiple encounters but only one fight theoretically helping short-rest classes.

The conversation drifted to one encounter a day, which weakens short-rest classes relative to long rest classes.

In my experience of actual practice, having more than one fight in a day often enough that players never assume they can blow all their spell slots right away is enough for this to be a minor issue. To the point where "the warlock seems underpowered" is just as likely to be because their invocations aren't useful in the encounters the dm is providing is likely to be a bigger factor than the number of short rests.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not necessarily, it can also be a series of shorter fights, like in a chase, or the culmination of a siege, or whatever you have in your story. And these, with or without short rests, everything is possible, and trying to force things according to a technical pattern because it would be either advantageous or prescribed by rules is exactly why it was not done in 5e, it would be contrary to the openness of the system.

I do not mean for anyone to force things into a technical pattern.

I am just stating, there are classes that shine a bit more than others when there is only one combat encounter per long rest. There are classes that shine a bit more than others when there are three or four combat encounters (w/ short rests) per long rest.

What a DM does, in most cases I have seen, is make the long rest/encounter number vary, mostly according to the context of the story.