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


log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
1. Wizard is iconic.
2. Wizard is almost purely long rest so makes a better comparison for short rest vs long rest benefits.

Is your point that you think a sorlock is better than a warlock and maybe even a wizard?
My mistake on the attribution, but yes about the poor choices. There seems to be efforts to compare warlock at the absolute worst condition to a wizard with a quantum spellbook & quantum spellprep at their best to show that the real problem is that poor warlocks are deprived of vital resources too often rather than that it's too burdensome on the gm to manage them. Either way the design is a trainwreck.

fireball is "iconic" but a quantum wizard is not & comparisons should try to stick to the classes actually in o5e :D
 

Do you really think that if it was that difficult, and if support was really needed, we would have seen an explosion of players and therefore DM like we did ? Certainly not. Once more, if you stop imposing constraints from previous editions on 5e, it's a way simpler but still really efficient game for roleplaying and storytelling.
Given the enormous and enduring popularity of 3e and its descendants (e.g. PF1e), juxtaposed against the frank and open admission from the designers that the system is really really broken to a degree that cannot be fixed in place and must be replaced, I think it is quite fair to say that whether a system is well-designed (as in, the rules avoid causing problems during use) and whether it is popular are two completely unrelated questions. (I can no longer find the blogpost where they said it, but one of the PF2e designers--IIRC Jason Bulmahn or Mark Seifter--effectively said "we had to design new rules because we couldn't fix PF1e without making it incompatible, and we couldn't put off fixing it any longer.")

You can have a really popular thing that is also really not very well-made. In fact, I would say gaming in specific has been quite prone to that. EverQuest was THE mega-popular MMO before WoW. Yet it was actively player-hostile in many ways and a number of its design decisions are baffling today (like having the possibility of completely losing all your equipment due to a random in-game event, such as an avalanche, that puts your body in an inaccessible location. My dad had to deal with that and eventually managed to persuade a GM that this was stupid and shouldn't cost him equipment he spent literal months crafting.)
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
The spells cast during downtime? Like, how many spell slots did you use during two weeks of rest where nothing happened?

Does anyone track spell slots during downtime?
Do you guys not track spell slots?

Wouldn't the wizard's and Sorcerers be very strong if they can cast their spells willy-nilly?

And by track, I don't necessarily mean going by downtime one day at a time, I just mean verifying that what they want to do is possible.

Sorta like "tracking" gold. Except it replenishes every day.

Also, stuff does happen during downtime, right? Like personal stuff where a personal rival to a character appears or the sick family member's conditions are getting worse. I can't imagine making adventuring hooks without them outside of the initial beginner adventure.

So, if I was a warlock and I said "I'm going to keep communications with the party as well as the patron everyday by casting Dream overnight then I'll constantly work on crafting a material component for Scrying so that I can monitor what my rival is doing." Would you just say no? I can't think of a reason why something like this wouldn't be powerful, impactful, and still RAW.

And by powerful, I don't mean overpowered. there's tradeoffs to this, but surely it's helpful before the adventure truly kicks off, right?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
IMO.

Long rests vs at will classes never really balanced very well either. Instead you needed the players as a group to to buy in to continuing on their adventure unless they have a good reason not to. The decision would look something like this - do we feel the party has enough resources (hp, spells, etc) to continue going without TPK or too serious a chance of PC death. Yes - keep pushing on. No, then fall back to a safe location and rest.

If players adopted a decision process of something like, continue on if possible. If not, then ask whether we continue on if we short rest and if so we short rest but if not we long rest. It's just getting players to buy into this decision process.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
[Nothing of any value]
And you see (or not, unfortunately, see just after) the problem right there. I exhort you to let go of local technical solutions because they are pointless in the big picture, to try and find global opportunities for fun for all the players in all domains of the game (and not only combat balance and technical efficiency) and the only reading that you have is wanting to "calibrate" the game, again technically and for balance. You seem absolutely unable to enjoy a game which is not technically calibrated and balanced. To each his own, and I don't disparage your tastes in terms of TTRPG, the only thing I'm saying is that trying that "calibration" whether locally or globally in 5e is totally pointless, the global approach will not work because all the basis are unbalanced, which is also why doing it locally is also pointless (even if you correct one, it will not work because the other local situations and in particular the classes are not particularly balanced). You would have to redesign the system from the bottom up, which is where my advice is to turn to editions which did it way better from the ground up like 4e (it has other consequences as it's not a perfect world, there are compromises everywhere) but if it's what you are looking for, it's a way better solution, as it will simply not work in 5e.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
But is anyone here asking for exact/precise balance? Or just something that works much better than the crappy short rest/long rest system that we have?

What some of us are saying is that it's pointless to redesign the resting system because the technical elements (To me, they are not flaws, as balance is not something that I'm expecting, sue me, I started with way older editions which were everything but balanced) that unbalance it are not in that sub-system but in all the 5e subsystems, starting with the classes. Because these are not balanced, but are still varied (which was for me one of the major flaw of 4e, the uniformity of at will/encounter/daily across classes), you will never be able to design a balanced resting system, that's all.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Given the enormous and enduring popularity of 3e and its descendants (e.g. PF1e)

Huh, no. The other explanation is that PF1 was only popular because 3.5 crashed down and the 4e alternative was unpalatable (for many reasons that are way beyond the scope of this thread). And this is easily proven by the rapid death of PF1 as soon as 5e came in, and the fact that PF2 never took of.

juxtaposed against the frank and open admission from the designers that the system is really really broken to a degree that cannot be fixed in place and must be replaced

Where does this come from ?

I think it is quite fair to say that whether a system is well-designed (as in, the rules avoid causing problems during use) and whether it is popular are two completely unrelated questions. (I can no longer find the blogpost where they said it, but one of the PF2e designers--IIRC Jason Bulmahn or Mark Seifter--effectively said "we had to design new rules because we couldn't fix PF1e without making it incompatible, and we couldn't put off fixing it any longer.")

Oh so you are talking about THOSE designers, those of PF ?

Anyhow, the main problem is that your definition of well-designed (as in, the rules avoid causing problems during use) is not a commonly accepted one either. For me, quality is whether it satisfies the customer, nothing more, nothing less. And in that respect, 5e has a aaayyyway higher level of quality than all previous editions including PF, as a proof it satisfies very well way more customers. Previous editions is what is referred to as gold-plating, over-design which in the end hampers customers satisfaction by being over-complicated. Android vs. Apple is a very good example of this as well.

And despite what you may be thinking, it's way more difficult to achieve something simple and extremely usable than to achieve something extremely complex. I don't know if you've tried it personally, but I've tried it in engineering for decades and only achieved it a few times.

You can have a really popular thing that is also really not very well-made. In fact, I would say gaming in specific has been quite prone to that. EverQuest was THE mega-popular MMO before WoW. Yet it was actively player-hostile in many ways and a number of its design decisions are baffling today (like having the possibility of completely losing all your equipment due to a random in-game event, such as an avalanche, that puts your body in an inaccessible location. My dad had to deal with that and eventually managed to persuade a GM that this was stupid and shouldn't cost him equipment he spent literal months crafting.)

And yet, it was extremely well made for its time, groundbreaking in some way even if it was not perfect. Nobody says 5e is perfect, but it is of way higher quality than systems like PF2 which very few people even want to read, much less play.
 

And yet, it was extremely well made for its time, groundbreaking in some way even if it was not perfect. Nobody says 5e is perfect, but it is of way higher quality than systems like PF2 which very few people even want to read, much less play.
"Well made" only because there were literally no alternatives, which you had literally just dismissed as being a reason to ignore Pathfinder's popularity.

Yeah, I'm done here.
 

Huh, no. The other explanation is that PF1 was only popular because 3.5 crashed down and the 4e alternative was unpalatable (for many reasons that are way beyond the scope of this thread). And this is easily proven by the rapid death of PF1 as soon as 5e came in, and the fact that PF2 never took of.



Where does this come from ?



Oh so you are talking about THOSE designers, those of PF ?

Anyhow, the main problem is that your definition of well-designed (as in, the rules avoid causing problems during use) is not a commonly accepted one either. For me, quality is whether it satisfies the customer, nothing more, nothing less. And in that respect, 5e has a aaayyyway higher level of quality than all previous editions including PF, as a proof it satisfies very well way more customers. Previous editions is what is referred to as gold-plating, over-design which in the end hampers customers satisfaction by being over-complicated. Android vs. Apple is a very good example of this as well.

And despite what you may be thinking, it's way more difficult to achieve something simple and extremely usable than to achieve something extremely complex. I don't know if you've tried it personally, but I've tried it in engineering for decades and only achieved it a few times.



And yet, it was extremely well made for its time, groundbreaking in some way even if it was not perfect. Nobody says 5e is perfect, but it is of way higher quality than systems like PF2 which very few people even want to read, much less play.
What are you talking about? Pathfinder 2e has a much shorter lifespan than 5e and is already wormed up to being the second most popular system used which is impressive for any system. Not to mention the majority of 5e popularity has nothing to do with the system but their ability to capitalize on multimedia and social media thanks to having the backing of a large corporation backing it. It's system is the most compatible with entertainment based on streaming or podcasting the gameplay due to its quick action resolution. That was not an unintentional in design. They saw a huge potential market and they capitalize on it.

The levels of sales for one to be considered a success isn't directly comparable to the other. Either company is going to release much hard data on their sales because they don't have to but I doubt Paizo is at any risk of going under because the one true system has been created.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
"Well made" only because there were literally no alternatives, which you had literally just dismissed as being a reason to ignore Pathfinder's popularity.

Actually, there were alternatives, everquest might have been the first 3D (and Ultima Online was really successful before), but asheron's call came right after in the same year, and the next generation came in less than 2 years later. So no comparison here.
 


Lyxen

Great Old One
What are you talking about? Pathfinder 2e has a much shorter lifespan than 5e and is already wormed up to being the second most popular system used which is impressive for any system.

And remind how far it is in terms of popularity ? And no, it's not impressive at all, 5e put D&D back in first place in what, months ?

Not to mention the majority of 5e popularity has nothing to do with the system but their ability to capitalize on multimedia and social media thanks to having the backing of a large corporation backing it.

There is exactly zero proof of this. For me, in addition to the inherent quality of the game (today, if something is of low quality, it's shot down immediately by popular social media anyway, and whatever a corporation might do counts for nothing) the main difference is in the social media and the fact that D&D is incredibly more accessible, again an incredible inherent asset. That makes starting is way easier, and it's much easier to have shows like Critical Role showing good stories rather than honestly extremely long boring hours just managing one combat (I'm not saying that it's inherently boring, people who like spending hours in combat in a TTRPG obviously don't find it boring, but it's really boring to watch when you're not the one playing it).

It's system is the most compatible with entertainment based on streaming or podcasting the gameplay due to its quick action resolution. That was not an unintentional in design. They saw a huge potential market and they capitalize on it.

Yes, this is what you call quality, satisfying the customers. If 5e had been really a poor game, then it would not have worked that well.

The levels of sales for one to be considered a success isn't directly comparable to the other. Either company is going to release much hard data on their sales because they don't have to but I doubt Paizo is at any risk of going under because the one true system has been created.

Who is speaking about "one true system" here ? Certainly not me.
 

Yea I'm done.

For those who actually want to run good games with player engagement that is beyond the surface then I suggest finding ways to use the rest system, or lack thereof, as a place where you can add reward as much as place for potential loss. Party decides to push on with half resources instead of resting? adding some extra exp on those encounters is quick and dirty but is always available.
 

The question: Why does a single combat favor the wizard?

Let's assume the warlock does not use up slots until the combat starts. They resolve the combat, then the warlock can rest and cast their highest level spells again, continuing the story progression without having to wait anywhere from 8 to 16 hours before they can cast their high-level spells again.
That is assuming the warlock has the right spell for the job. Both the wizard’s much larger repertoire and the fact that they prepare more spells per day means that they are much more likely to impact the combat.

And that’s not even speaking of non-combat challenges where versatility is an even greater advantage.
 

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.
What would this assumption look like in practice? The DM telling the players that for a part of the campaign, there will only be one encounter per day?

I think the more realistic assumption is the one where the situation suggests that there will be one encounter per day (such as a long journey), but there is no guarantee that that is the case.

Having run the latter type quite often, my experience is that the warlock will leave something in reserve. This is the case even in a one-encounter day where the DM may stagger the arrival of the monsters so the characters may blow their big guns before the end of the encounter.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
Also, I see the wizard brought up often and I believe that I may have mentioned them as well, but upon reflection I think the wizard is irrelevant.

The wizard isn't a warlock replacement or vice-versa. Their playstyles and approaches to adventures are too different to be properly compared.

Even a warlock can be completely different considering their decision points. I have no problem creating a warlock with a focus only on combat while another can be purely focused on exploration and another purely social. And I can mix in-between. Heck, even combat-focused Warlocks can vary considerably.

A wizard, no matter what they choose, is best as a generalist. No matter how specialized they try to be, they either hurt their own strengths or become generalists anyways.

So in a one-combat day, a wizard may or may not have the necessary spells to decimate the encounter, but a combat-focused warlock is more reliable when the wizard doesn't have an answer, quite like a martial.

In contrast, a wizard may or may not have the necessary slots to solve an out-of-combat encounter, but a utility warlock can either do it more efficiently at-will, like using Disguise Self or Levitate, or do things a wizard couldn't possibly do like Gaze of Two Minds or summon Imps/Faeries/Psuedodragons as familiars.

So my point is: even on those days, a warlock is stronger with less combat encounters rather than more even without their rest patterns because even if they can't guarantee their short rests, they can guarantee they'll be in situations where their at-will utility can be useful.
 

Do you guys not track spell slots?
Only on days with encounters
Wouldn't the wizard's and Sorcerers be very strong if they can cast their spells willy-nilly?
Who's letting them?
And by track, I don't necessarily mean going by downtime one day at a time, I just mean verifying that what they want to do is possible.
Well sure, the fighter doesn't suddenly get casting. But they can still do a bunch of downtime stuff.
Sorta like "tracking" gold. Except it replenishes every day.

Also, stuff does happen during downtime, right? Like personal stuff where a personal rival to a character appears or the sick family member's conditions are getting worse. I can't imagine making adventuring hooks without them outside of the initial beginner adventure.
If there are challenges being overcome, then it's not downtime.
So, if I was a warlock and I said "I'm going to keep communications with the party as well as the patron everyday by casting Dream overnight then I'll constantly work on crafting a material component for Scrying so that I can monitor what my rival is doing." Would you just say no? I can't think of a reason why something like this wouldn't be powerful, impactful, and still RAW.
Yeah, that would be fine. But I'd let a wizard with sending do the same.
And by powerful, I don't mean overpowered. there's tradeoffs to this, but surely it's helpful before the adventure truly kicks off, right?
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
If there are challenges being overcome, then it's not downtime.
Whoa, what? Do the individual characters' conflicts get treated as full adventures? Or is everything mundane and calm before the adventure?
Yeah, that would be fine. But I'd let a wizard with sending do the same.
That's what I mean by "letting the wizard cast willy-nilly. If they have the slots, that's fine. But if they're level 5, the warlock can sending pretty much indefinitely during downtime but the wizard can only do it twice a day.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Only on days with encounters

Who's letting them?

Well sure, the fighter doesn't suddenly get casting. But they can still do a bunch of downtime stuff.

If there are challenges being overcome, then it's not downtime.

Yeah, that would be fine. But I'd let a wizard with sending do the same.
The example came up in discussion of always needing extremely tight doom clocks to restrict short rests. Do all of your PC side plots also come with doom clocks as strict as the last five world ending apocalypse engines, or do short rest classes just pinky swear not to short rest every fight or two just because there isn't a doomclock attached to "filler" side plots that don't involve the end of the world?
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top