Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9124498" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'm not being disingenuous at all? Like, WTF? A battlemaster fighter, 5th level, has the following abilities. Fighting Style - Either passive, or recharges on Short Rest (Superior Technique) Second Wind - Recharge on a short restAction Surge - Recharge on a short restSuperiority dice - Recharge on a short rest (varies by subclass)Extra Attack - PassiveThat is, at WORST, 60% of their abilities working on a short rest recharge. And before accusations of this being unique to the Battlemaster, this is also true of the Arcane Archer, partially the Psi Warrior, Partially the Rune Knight, And of those it isn't true of, partially the Psi warrior, partially the Rune Knight, The Echo Knight, The Eldritch Knight, Cavalier, Samurai they recover their level 3 ability on a LONG rest. Which is still 40% of their abilities being short rest dependent. Now, I AGREE that the monk and the Warlock have it WORSE than the fighter. But I don't think it is a stretch to say that a fighter without second wind, action surge, and their subclass abilities is feeling the pinch in regard to things they can do.Yes? Which is why I said that was a good idea? Welcome to my discussion I guess? By giving those classes that currently never desire a short rest a reason to desire a short rest, then those classes that currently desire them have a stronger argument for taking them. Unless you plan on making every single class not get anything back on a short rest, then this is the better direction to go. Like the fighter, if the barbarian looks at a short rest and says "hey, that's actually useful for me too" then the rest of the situation becomes smoother.Uh huh. I get that. But right now? Right now that is a problem that hits tables differently depending on class choice. A table with a current Rogue, Barbarian, Wizard and Cleric is impacted FAR differently than a table with a Fighter, Warlock, Moon Druid and Artificer. But, the designers absolutely cannot affect the nature of the settings people homebrew or their campaigns. They can't. What they CAN do is change the classes. And if every class has a reason to short rest, then yes this becomes a greater issue for that group that was previously playing an all long rest party, but it becomes easier for a group witha  mix, like a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Warlock.Unless you play in a dungeon where due to abilities, DM, and other aspects of the particular table you find getting a short rest is far easier. Or you are playing in a city game where the only time you rest is either a long rest or none at all, because every encounter is either short or a highly rushed timed event where taking the time to rest is impractical. You are absolutely correct that one of the challenges with Short Rests is that the specific table and adventure design greatly impacts how easy they are to take. Where you seem to be missing my point is you seem to think this was an issue that only affected two classes in the entire game, and that if we just gave them non-rest recovery options we could get rid of short rests entirely and solve the problem. But that isn't how it works. A Battlemaster fighter wants short rests, because without them they very quickly have lost every single subclass ability they have. A sword's bard is going to really want short rests, because their playstyle ends up being very dependent on Bardic dice which come back on a short rest. Moon Druid's wildshape. Artificers and their subclass abilities. All of it is still going to cause short rest problems. But, if those problems are more universally distributed, then it becomes less "this class shouldn't be played in this style of campaign" and more of "we need to figure out how we will address short rests in our game" Which is a far more streamlined approach, especially since Crawford stated Short Rests are not being discontinued.</blockquote>

Verification