D&D 5E 'daily' Powers/leveling breaking immersion?

[Raith5]

Agree. I have been playing a lot of non D&D games the past year or so I have come to realise that the dailies/spells per day thing is pretty much just a D&D thing. Many games dont have it for any characters and there one less level of meta gaming as a result.

But as others have noted this is gamist thing that makes the game easier and rewards the strategic aspect of D&D that is one of the things that makes it successful. So in order to be practical I would certainly support shorter short rests (an hour is absurd) and Id like so see further mechanisms that reward pushing on.

One level of meta gaming id like to see removed is the difference between short rest vs long rest PCs - but given the travails of 4e on this issue I wont be holding my breath.

 

[Campbell]

Long and short rest cool downs for martial abilities are bothersome to me. Less bothersome than boring fighters, but still bothersome. I do not see a way around them in Fifth Edition which is primarily an attrition based game. Pathfinder Second Edition gets rid of them, but it is just not as focused on attrition and has an action economy that can provide other hooks for more interesting fighters. It's not fair to make a comparison between the two.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Long and short rest cool downs for martial abilities are bothersome to me.

Why?

 

[Campbell]

Why?

I can deal with it, but ideally the decisions I make as a player directly corresponds to what is happening in the fiction. I mean I get all the arguments. I used to make them. I would just rather play a game where at will abilities were better and more interesting, but Fifth Edition is not that game on like a structural level.

 

[Blue]

The issue is that these limits are a well known part of the fiction. A caster knows in-game they can only get off so many spells of a particular level. Unlike in the real world where an athlete may try to push on, a barbarian knows for a fact that that can only rage twice before sleeping. It is a hard and fast, observably, repeatable fact.

So the problem is thaqt you are wrongly trying apply the real world as the physics and logic of the world. Just like a high level barbarian knows he can take multiple chops in the stomache with a great axe without falling or being impared, they also know they can only rage four times - this is their reality. Trying to map our reality onto it, where a "daily power" isn't part of our physical world, is just as wrong as saying no spells work. In their world spells work, you can rage a set number times per day, and water is wet.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The issue is that these limits are a well known part of the fiction. A caster knows in-game they can only get off so many spells of a particular level. Unlike in the real world where an athlete may try to push on, a barbarian knows for a fact that that can only rage twice before sleeping. It is a hard and fast, observably, repeatable fact.

So the problem is thaqt you are wrongly trying apply the real world as the physics and logic of the world. Just like a high level barbarian knows he can take multiple chops in the stomache with a great axe without falling or being impared, they also know they can only rage four times - this is their reality. Trying to map our reality onto it, where a "daily power" isn't part of our physical world, is just as wrong as saying no spells work. In their world spells work, you can rage a set number times per day, and water is wet.

I get it but it makes me shudder.

"Hey we need to hire a mercenary when we assault the fortress"

I will never say, in character,

"Let's try to hire a Barbarian because we need to someone who can soak damage"

soaking damage isn't a 'thing' in my fiction. And neither are barbarians - unless there is a group called barbarians by another group who considers themselves as 'more civilized'. As a DM, I try to separate meta terms from the narrative. "We need to find someone who is 'experienced and has a reputation of being 'tough as nails'. I never feel the need to tell the players what class they are hiring. If they're looking for a spellcaster, it might be easier to guess that the guy with the book might be a wizard.

That said, I get that that people have 'limited reserves' and that they need breaks and, overall, people know their limits but, on the other hand, I feel there should be some in-game knowledge before a character says, "yeah, maybe going in there will be too dangerous." Otherwise, it's just me thinking, "I need another level". My character has no idea what 'levels' are and if the fiction doesn't inform my character's decisions, then there's no reason to delay an action based on 'what level am I'.

In the end, I asked my DM to refrain from commenting, out of character, about the adventure itself. The little comments like, "oh, I didn't think you'd get here so soon!" or "I changed this part of the module".

I just don't need to hear it. I'd rather in-game foreshadowing. I think that may be part of what was influencing me. I don't mind discussing this stuff, after the fact, as a debrief of the game, though. Taking rests can be jarring as well as well but it's way easier to justify a character's limits. And, overall, I think I may just be overthinking it. I think I was Trying to predict the flow of the game on the meta-level. Which is a stupid thing to do. I just need to play the game.

Edit: just to clarify: this wasn't a DM problem but I did ask him to help me with my personal issue regarding the topic.

 

[dave2008]

I can deal with it, but ideally the decisions I make as a player directly corresponds to what is happening in the fiction. I mean I get all the arguments. I used to make them. I would just rather play a game where at will abilities were better and more interesting, but Fifth Edition is not that game on like a structural level.

IDK, from our discussions in the PF forums I think the structure of PF2e is to unrealistic (by that I mean it can't tell the stories I want and breaks my immersion) for my personal taste (still willing to give it a try though), but I am hopeful I can apply house rules that make it more my taste, just as I do for 5e (but different rules for a different game of course).

 

[dave2008]

That said, I get that that people have 'limited reserves' and that they need breaks and, overall, people know their limits but, on the other hand, I feel there should be some in-game knowledge before a character says, "yeah, maybe going in there will be too dangerous." Otherwise, it's just me thinking, "I need another level".

Why would you think that way? Why isn't there in game knowledge? IMO, that is not a game issue. Heck, in 5e level is less important than previous editions and much less important than in 4e & PF2e. IMO, that is a DM and/or player issue. If you as a player can't separate the game from the meta, their is not a lot anyone can do for you. If the DM isn't providing in-game knowledge to help you with your immersion that is on them (partially - some groups don't need this).

It seems to me you need to find a DM that is more your style and try to find a space to separate your meta knowledge from the fiction of the game. That meta-knowledge is going to be tough I think. If your thinking about level in 5e, your going to have play a different that doesn't use level advancement to break you out of that. 5e is the least level dependent version of D&D (including PF1 & PF2) there is IMO.

 

[auburn2]

I'm having a weird issue playing D&D lately. Our group gets presented with various in-game problems and I, sometimes, say to myself, "I would like to go do 'x' but I don't think we are high enough level, maybe we should do 'Y' instead, first" I think this, even though it makes no sense, in game.

This was never a problem for me in 3.5, even as a spellcaster but - I took a break from D&D for almost a decade and came back to it from games that don't have 'daily' powers. You pick your abilities and you can just do them.

Every time I think, 'oh maybe I should take a short rest to regain my ability' it takes me out of character in an annoying way. "I only have 1 rage left, maybe we shouldn't go and kill those minions in room (a) and, instead fight the boss in room (b) because we don't have time for a Long Rest. The decisions are often metagame decisions and not character decisions. The DM sometimes hints at things being a 'side quest' etc... or 'I wasn't expecting you guys to get here so soon' probably is doing a bit also. I dunno.

Is this an issue with other people? Is there a reason why I'm feeling it now and didn't really have an issue with it in 3.5?

I think the game is poorly designed if it presents you with those quandries. I am DMing a party and for the most part it is not up to them when to take a short rest, not unless they do a full on retreat from the adventure area back to civilization or a camp sight or whatever and come back later (which presents obastacles of its own).

Usually they short rest when they can, but if I just broke into the palace and the fight at the gate went harder than it should have, it is unreasonable to think "Oh I will just short rest here in the great hall while the whole palace is in a state of alarm" .... Same in a dungeon, there are areas in a dungeon you can be reasonably safe resting but the room between the boss's room and the common room is not that place when you just took out the guard post.

To be honest one of the most memorable adventures I have had is when I didn't let my characters rest. They were working with an Undead Revanent as he hunted down five of his enemies and he wasn't about to slow down. They wanted to rest and pleaded with him to do that, in the end they went because they wanted the treasure he promised. They walked into the last encounter of the 5 completely out of abilities and spells. The encounter was designed to be easier than it would have otherwise been, but it took some serious gaming to figure out how to fight these guys when your Paladin enters the battle with 7 hit points and no smites, the Barbarian is at 3 levels of exhaustion and the spell casters only have cantrips. Lucky for them, eldritch blast is endless.

 

[Blue]

I get it but it makes me shudder.

"Hey we need to hire a mercenary when we assault the fortress"

I will never say, in character,

"Let's try to hire a Barbarian because we need to someone who can soak damage"

soaking damage isn't a 'thing' in my fiction. And neither are barbarians - unless there is a group called barbarians by another group who considers themselves as 'more civilized'. As a DM, I try to separate meta terms from the narrative. "We need to find someone who is 'experienced and has a reputation of being 'tough as nails'. I never feel the need to tell the players what class they are hiring. If they're looking for a spellcaster, it might be easier to guess that the guy with the book might be a wizard.

I didn't say that the classes were known. They might be, or NPCs can be exception based and classes are just a meta way to represent one flavor of them to the players that are roughly balanced together.

That said, just as the fact that soem individual might have a holy aura that helps you from getting scared, the knowledge that there are some out there who can take innumerable cuts against their bare skin and still laugh and fight would be known.

In the real world, there are those on certain drugs (PCP?) who feel no pain and stay up long after others would drop. This is something you (in a generic sense) could know - if you do know is a different story. Knowing the same thing sung about the tribesmen from the North might tell you that if they are among those you are looking to hire, they might be remarkably well suited to help out.

That said, I get that that people have 'limited reserves' and that they need breaks and, overall, people know their limits but, on the other hand, I feel there should be some in-game knowledge before a character says, "yeah, maybe going in there will be too dangerous." Otherwise, it's just me thinking, "I need another level". My character has no idea what 'levels' are and if the fiction doesn't inform my character's decisions, then there's no reason to delay an action based on 'what level am I'.

Sure, level is less observable. Some may still deduce it - like an academy of wizards who notice that at the time wizards learn the second circle of magic, they always have the same number of slots of 1st and 2nd level. Or not, with the exception based I was mentioning before. But even there that's not the same as also understanding the CR system.

On the other hand, it's sheer folly to say that you can't estimate your ability. "Hmm, that dragon is too tough for us" is an easy choice. Open up a random picture of a gathering on the internet and figure out who you personally think you could take in a fight. You can make assessments even though you personally do not know "the numbers" behind your abilities.

In the end, I asked my DM to refrain from commenting, out of character, about the adventure itself. The little comments like, "oh, I didn't think you'd get here so soon!" or "I changed this part of the module".

I just don't need to hear it. I'd rather in-game foreshadowing. I think that may be part of what was influencing me. I don't mind discussing this stuff, after the fact, as a debrief of the game, though. Taking rests can be jarring as well as well but it's way easier to justify a character's limits. And, overall, I think I may just be overthinking it. I think I was Trying to predict the flow of the game on the meta-level. Which is a stupid thing to do. I just need to play the game.

Edit: just to clarify: this wasn't a DM problem but I did ask him to help me with my personal issue regarding the topic.

That sounds good. You saw a place where you were having less fun and asked someone to help with it. That's mature, thumbs up.