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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Formally speaking, it's more than just that. It's that the Warlock can rest after doing literally anything, whenever they like. A Warlock that spends half or more of the day resting. The examples given were not of single-encounter days, but rather single-combat days where there's 5-7 other, non-combat encounters...and the Warlock rests after literally each and every one of them as well as after the one combat encounter.

Which, again, is the sticking point. Yes, if the Warlock is allowed to short-rest 5-7 times a day, they're going to do quite well, because they may even surpass the Wizard for total spell slots (and massively so if you weight by spell level; e.g. at level 11, admittedly the point at which the rules most favor the Warlock in this comparison, 3*5*6 + 6 = 96 spell levels per day for the constantly-resting Warlock, vs only 4+6+9+12+10+6+6 = 53 spell levels per day for the Wizard, counting Arcane Recovery.) The question is: would DMs let the Warlock constantly rest? My experience, from discussing it with others who DM 5e, is emphatically no. The so-called "Coffeelock" build, which leverages the Warlock's short-rest slots to squeeze out more Sorcery Points for Sorcerer shenanigans, is met with dramatic opposition by most DMs, to the point that it makes them want to ban multiclassing entirely. It is, if anything, even more disliked than the "Hexblade dip," which is already heavily disliked for being "cheesy" etc.

So...yeah. People complain about the relative power of the Warlock in part because no, DMs do not appear to rule in such a way that the Warlock is favored. They instead tend to rule, and run games, in such a way that Warlocks (and other SR-based classes like Battle Master Fighters) are weakened and not improved. And you would be right to say, "Well if people have a problem with games being run that way, why don't they do something?" There's just not a lot that can be done, because the only solution is to choose to become a DM yourself and run it differently...and that's an awful lot of responsibility to take on solely because you want more fairness in rulings toward one particular class. Easier to just play some other class that isn't subject to such issues (or, more realistically, to just complain about the issue online, consequence-free, for basically zero effort.)

 

[Asisreo]

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.

But what would this look like in practice?

Because if the non-combat situation occurs and the warlock has the means to resolve it, why wouldn't the party spend an hour to let them get their slots back?

And I understand that there's time pressures, but are the pressures so sensitive that an hour is the difference? Every time? Isn't that narratively exhausting.

"After the combat, your party decides to trek onward. You come across a large chasm with a destroyed rope bridge, making it impossible to pass using the bridge."

Why can't the warlock just say "Hmm. I have Fly. I don't have a slot now but if we take an hour, I can get us through and you can save your spell slots, Mrs. Bard."

I mean, in order for time pressures to be sensitive to the hour, the adventures themselves would have to be strung together in sequences of "Thanks for saving the princess, I know you just got done defeating the lich yesterday, but now we need you to stop an Archdevil's plans. Also, when that's done, you'll need to March through Acheron and fight an ancient dragon." It gets to become urgent matter after urgent matter and it becomes exhausting.

 

[Asisreo]

The so-called "Coffeelock" build, which leverages the Warlock's short-rest slots to squeeze out more Sorcery Points for Sorcerer shenanigans, is met with dramatic opposition by most DMs, to the point that it makes them want to ban multiclassing entirely.

The coffeelock is different because they're stacking their spells, meaning even during an encounter, they'll never run out of slots. No matter how many times an average warlock rests, they'll always be confined to 2 spell slots in a fight.

And you would be right to say, "Well if people have a problem with games being run that way, why don't they do something?" There's just not a lot that can be done, because the only solution is to choose to become a DM yourself and run it differently...and that's an awful lot of responsibility to take on solely because you want more fairness in rulings toward one particular class.

I think a solution could be to let DM's know they shouldn't provide intentional nerfs to target classes that are already perceived as weak.

Narratively, taking a short rest makes more sense than not unless the DM has you playing "Doomsday Patrol."

 

[Xetheral]

The so-called "Coffeelock" build, which leverages the Warlock's short-rest slots to squeeze out more Sorcery Points for Sorcerer shenanigans, is met with dramatic opposition by most DMs, to the point that it makes them want to ban multiclassing entirely. It is, if anything, even more disliked than the "Hexblade dip," which is already heavily disliked for being "cheesy" etc.

I thought the defining feature of the coffeelock is that they skip long rests? Isn't the association with being caffeinated and sleep-deprived where the "coffee" part of the name comes from?

Just using short rests to stock up on sorcery points (without trying to charge up over multiple days) just seems like standard sorlock stuff to me--they're limited to lower levels spells than a pure warlock or sorcerer, but in return get some extra endurance.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But what would this look like in practice?

Because if the non-combat situation occurs and the warlock has the means to resolve it, why wouldn't the party spend an hour to let them get their slots back?

And I understand that there's time pressures, but are the pressures so sensitive that an hour is the difference? Every time? Isn't that narratively exhausting.

To me, it comes down to the decision or assumption that a particular class is always at top form for each encounter and that others are not. These encounters can be combative or obstacles. Theoretically wizards need to husband their resources whereas warlocks do not.

This is why I think having an hour for a short rest is important. Sure, we will assume that the warlock will be at top form for each encounter. But, that means there's only going to be about four encounters during the entire day because the warlock is always communing with their patron. Constant recharges consume time. If short rests take 5 minutes then you are giving a massive power boost to the warlock by removing an opportunity cost. Resource management is a part of the game. Yes, the warlock can mini-nova often but at the cost of slowing overall progress.

 

[Li Shenron]

• make the game much more difficult for a DM to manage

I think this is a bummer. What exactly do you want to manage? The "pacing"? What makes so many DMs so sure that their own "carefully planned" pacing is better than the pacing that simply results from the mix of players decisions, npc/monster reactions, and dice rolls results? The players can choose to stop or continue, the story and situation either allows it or not, sometimes they get it badly wrong and fail a quest. I refuse to set any pacing or a preset number of combat encounters, and I do not have any difficulty in managing the game, whatever the rests are made available by the ruleset I am using.

 

[bedir than]

npc/monster reactions

carefully planned pacing uses exactly the thing which you suggest is outside of the DM's control

 

[Stoutstien]

I think this is a bummer. What exactly do you want to manage? The "pacing"? What makes so many DMs so sure that their own "carefully planned" pacing is better than the pacing that simply results from the mix of players decisions, npc/monster reactions, and dice rolls results? The players can choose to stop or continue, the story and situation either allows it or not, sometimes they get it badly wrong and fail a quest. I refuse to set any pacing or a preset number of combat encounters, and I do not have any difficulty in managing the game, whatever the rests are made available by the ruleset I am using.

Because without some baseline to judge it all off of they're basically gambling with no idea of the odds. If taking X short rests increase the odds of failing a quest or otherwise prevent reaching the goal they have to be aware of that fact to make an informed decision. So you need some form of baseline for pacing to even see if the goal is achievable and to give value for those dice rolls and/or reactions from the NPCs/ game world.
If you roll to see if a short rest is interrupted or not that's a pacing element as is any form of time restriction for the completion of a quest. Having an outline for pacing for an arc in a campaign is not about limiting players options but empowering their choices. Choices are only meaningful if there's risk involved and risks are only meaningful if you're at least vaguely aware of them.

There's a few different schools of thought of how much planning and thought you put into this pacing schedule but you have to have one even if you are coming up with it on the fly. It's the same reason you can't just grab NPC stat blocks and throw them in an encounter and hope it comes out all right without having a vague understanding of what the party's capabilities are even if it's just roughly what level they are.

It's almost like they need to include some guidance to help DMs decide how and when to adjust it.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Why are you talking about sorlocks when my post was comparing a wizard to a warlock?

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.

In general it's not even the power equivalent of a level 3 slot fireball (even in tier 4).

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.

*Only a single warlock subclass can even take fireball (or maybe it's 2 now with Genie.) So no, that's not something in general that a warlock can do.

Even more importantly, we are talking about a single combat day. The wizard is casting 2 level 5 fireballs and a level 4 one (or likely better spell) while still being able to shield/absorb elements/counterspell every turn.

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.

The benefit of gaining higher spell levels is being able to cast higher leveled spells with those slots. Which is why looking at what the slot grants a fireball cast with it isn't nearly as important as looking at what other spell could be cast with that slot. For example, a level 5 wall of force is going to be much better than a level 5 fireball in many scenarios.

 

[FrogReaver]

One very flawed assumption I see coming up again and again in these discussions is that you will have used all your resources when you rest. So a Warlock will rest with 0 slots remaining. A wizard will rest with no slots remaining.

In practice, a wizard starts thinking about rest when he gets around 1/3 of his slots remaining. Likewise a warlock would typically want to rest when ending an encounter with half or fewer slots remaining.

The point here is that it's not safe to assume a warlock gains 2+ slots with every short rest. He may only be gaining a single slot. Which may mean that in reality a warlock player only gets 2-3 more slots out of 2 short rests instead of a whole 4 slots. (exact numbers change a little with level).