Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9133394" data-attributes="member: 6750235">It's because we still cannot take a long rest whenever we want.  We get one in any given 24 hour period so the only thing left is short rests.  There should not be an issue with pacing an hour into the day as opposed to a completely new day.The long rest is representative of the over night sleep.  The short rest is representative of preparing a meal, possibly checking on wound, taking a dump in the woods, etc.  It's not hard for the DM to tell the party "this looks like a good chance to have a bite to eat and take a break".  DM's have the agency in controlling rests in how they are presented.I disagree.  We have skills to cover that and a ranger might be in the party.  The idea that we need spells to cover that isn't correct.  Spells are an additional option to cover that as opposed to being required.4E used AEDU and not class abilities recovering on a short rest.  We cannot just claim 5e would work like it did in 4e given the significant differences in how the classes are designed.  It could work with the rule of only having 2 short rests available per long rest, except I don't like limiting the number of short rests that way.  I like having the potential to have 3 short rests or more depending on the nature of the adventure.  For example, forcing PC's to use up all of their HD for healing within those 2 rests is likely to leave unspent HD and reduce the effectiveness of that form of healing.  Groups that aren't using short rests for healing are wasting a huge resource IMO.Another example would be fighters.  If I'm presenting a long drawn out battle then second wind, action surge, and tactical shift are tied to those short rests and allowing more is useful for those types of days.  Fighters can make use of the HD healing I just mentioned.  Some subclass features like superiority dice, know your enemy (which can be recharged by superiority dice), or arcane charge (tied to action surge) will also benefit from those extra short rests.I think limiting the number of short rests can restrict me as a DM. No.  It's easy to limit the number of short rests by claiming only 2 can be used per day.  I think this is better as a house rule (or DMG variant rule) than a PHB rule for the reason I just mentioned above.  I don't actually see the benefit of a 5 minute short rest other than a travel-by-montage method of dealing with short rests, however.  If we limit the number of short rests 5 minutes vs 20 minutes is largely meaningless.  It seems to be short to cater to a 5MWD approach.Except that's not my experience in practice.  It's usually 1 to 3 short rests.  It's easy to take an hour in an urban or wilderness adventure.  It's harder in a dungeon but it's easier to justify a spot to eat and rest in a dungeon than it is to finish off the day and then take a long rest.The issue comes in when the DM and/or players are trying to pace themselves specifically to long rest abilities instead of pacing themselves to include short rests, getting back to a 5MWD approach where both the DM's and players are focusing on the spell casters in a meta-gamey approach instead of narrating a story based on the pace of the plot.The DM should be controlling the pace and the players should be using resources following that pace.  If the DM is doing that to include short rests then the short rests are going to exist regardless of other PC's ignoring that option....I've been mostly ignoring the discussion on survey quality after pulling away from it earlier in the thread, but I wanted to point out these comments still come from a position of lack of knowledge.  Just because we don't know how or why a percentage is selected doesn't make that selection arbitrary.  Spending page after page of speculation arguing about it when we still don't have that information is wasted time (IMO) and off topic as well.  Speculation is not fact and doesn't create some knowledge of the reasoning behind the selected percentage.  I saw some fallacy discussion thrown into the mix so I'm pointing out that the speculation is based on the presumption that flaws exist when that presumption excludes any actual knowledge of the methodology, pointing to a fallacy without demonstrating why the fallacy is accurate (such as pointing out the lack of information available in an argument of presumption) can fall under fallacy fallacy (in which the discussed topic hasn't been proven wrong just by pointing out the possibility of a logical fallacy), and Occam's Razor would imply that the survey's are working as intended until data (which you don't have) is presented to prove that they are not.Who is benefitting and how from the insistence that this flaw exists?  It certainly doesn't make any sense that WotC would benefit from using a flawed methodology in the surveys so I'm sure that if you redirected your energy to pointing out whatever flaws you see in the general comment section of those surveys then your energy might be more productive in effecting change than here in this thread.Just another 2cp.  Hope it helps.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification