D&D 5E Every Fight a Nova: Consequences and Considerations

[Helldritch]

Had the designers of 5ed had been as clear as @Flamestrike about short and long rest mechanics/implications they would not have to change anything in 5.5. The fact that they forgot to explain it correctly led to the problems we see/hear about on this forum and others.

It's not an accident that I limit short rests to two. We did our simulations and reached the same conclusions at the onset of 5ed. I really wish it had been better explained and hard coded into the game:"A character can only benefit from 2 short rests maximum per long rests." Just doing that would have saved a lot of trouble for a lot of tables.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Had the designers of 5ed had been as clear as @Flamestrike about short and long rest mechanics/implications they would not have to change anything in 5.5. The fact that they forgot to explain it correctly led to the problems we see/hear about on this forum and others.

It's not an accident that I limit short rests to two. We did our simulations and reached the same conclusions at the onset of 5ed. I really wish it had been better explained and hard coded into the game:"A character can only benefit from 2 short rests maximum per long rests." Just doing that would have saved a lot of trouble for a lot of tables.

Having some days with more short rests isn't any more of an issue than the occasional day with only 1 (or very rarely none.)
You could have the rules state "You must have two short rests a day. No more. No less." However that would limit adventure design.
Better to allow flexibility and just give a guideline of short rests/day.

 

[Mort]

Having some days with more short rests isn't any more of an issue than the occasional day with only 1 (or very rarely none.)
You could have the rules state "You must have two short rests a day. No more. No less." However that would limit adventure design.
Better to allow flexibility and just give a guideline of short rests/day.

Nothing wrong with variance, but that's not the statement being made.

More to do with the fact that the designers seem to have designed for two short rests between a long rest, being the "norm" but didn't spell it out as such.

This is one issue I have with the 5e DMG. They don't generally explain their reasoning or numbers, and when they do it's pretty scattered. Which makes it that much more difficult to assess impact of any changes (such as allowing many more rests or limiting rests) until you've fully seen it in play.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it goes deeper than just needing to be better explained & hard coded. The fact that things like arcane/divine/natural recovery all have a 1/long rest while things like Ki/Pact magic slots/action surge/etc are all any short rest per long gives the feeling that there were some conflicting visions or design plans as different classes were created. Then there's all the times that wotc folks have said that things like social interactions traps & so on count as one of the 6-8 when introduced at the table.

The level of control needed for the 6-8 with 2 short/long & classes on one of two rest cycles really only works I consistently enough to be anything but a headache for the gm to fight n a situation like a hard coded video game where every element & basically all of the options at any given time can be tested & controlled to where gameplay mirrors the whiteroom.

 

[Mort]

I think it goes deeper than just needing to be better explained & hard coded. The fact that things like arcane/divine/natural recovery all have a 1/long rest while things like Ki/Pact magic slots/action surge/etc are all any short rest per long gives the feeling that there were some conflicting visions or design plans as different classes were created. Then there's all the times that wotc folks have said that things like social interactions traps & so on count as one of the 6-8 when introduced at the table.

The level of control needed for the 6-8 with 2 short/long & classes on one of two rest cycles really only works I consistently enough to be anything but a headache for the gm to fight n a situation like a hard coded video game where every element & basically all of the options at any given time can be tested & controlled to where gameplay mirrors the whiteroom.

I don't disagree, but at least revealing the thinking and math allows DMs to go into it anticipating issues rather than running into them blind and wondering why the issues are happening.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nothing wrong with variance, but that's not the statement being made.

More to do with the fact that the designers seem to have designed for two short rests between a long rest, being the "norm" but didn't spell it out as such.

This is one issue I have with the 5e DMG. They don't generally explain their reasoning or numbers, and when they do it's pretty scattered. Which makes it that much more difficult to assess impact of any changes (such as allowing many more rests or limiting rests) until you've fully seen it in play.

I’ve always thought the designed for short rests was more like 1.5.

 

[Cruentus]

I think it goes deeper than just needing to be better explained & hard coded. The fact that things like arcane/divine/natural recovery all have a 1/long rest while things like Ki/Pact magic slots/action surge/etc are all any short rest per long gives the feeling that there were some conflicting visions or design plans as different classes were created. Then there's all the times that wotc folks have said that things like social interactions traps & so on count as one of the 6-8 when introduced at the table.

The level of control needed for the 6-8 with 2 short/long & classes on one of two rest cycles really only works I consistently enough to be anything but a headache for the gm to fight n a situation like a hard coded video game where every element & basically all of the options at any given time can be tested & controlled to where gameplay mirrors the whiteroom.

Highlighted the problem with how they explained (or didn't explain) their thinking. If the whole point of "encounters" is to drain resources, then having social encounters doesn't do that, unless for some reason the party is casting maybe one spell (Charm? Zone of Truth? Similar?), but how often would that happen? And traps can be overcome by mundane means (the entire point of the Rogue class), unless said trap requires the casting of Dispel Magic, or some other specific spell counter. It would be ridiculous as a DM to have to then include social and trap encounters that somehow required use of magical resources EVERY DAY. And then tack on another 4-6 combat encounters. Its just dumb on the surface. Wait, I take that back. It can work in a megadungeon setting, where clearing rooms is the approach, but makes no sense in any way in outdoor or urban, or other settings.

 

[Helldritch]

Having some days with more short rests isn't any more of an issue than the occasional day with only 1 (or very rarely none.)
You could have the rules state "You must have two short rests a day. No more. No less." However that would limit adventure design.
Better to allow flexibility and just give a guideline of short rests/day.

A guideline can be change to suite your taste. But no guideline leaves you in the dark as to what you should do. And when you do it wrong and wonder why it is so, then you come on the forums and learn that the base expectation was "x" and not what you were doing.

Sometimes you do not care because it was working fine anyways, and other times, your campaign was hard to balance because you did not know. In all cases, a clear stated design intent is better than no rules at all. At least when there is a rule, you know why something does not work if you bypass it. Without a rule, if something goes wrong, it can be hard to find out why. Especially if you have little to no experience. You can not imagine how many people asked my why I was limiting short rests to two and and long rests to one per 24h and when they learned, they were both surprised and relieved to see that the very reasons some classes were way better were exactly the amount of short rests vs ĺlong rests.

@Flamestrike is right on spit with his analysis and conclusions.

 

[Flamestrike]

Highlighted the problem with how they explained (or didn't explain) their thinking. If the whole point of "encounters" is to drain resources, then having social encounters doesn't do that,

It can do (but not to the same extent as many other types of encounter). Bardic inspiration dice, using Inspiration gained normally, possible spell use, etc.

And of course there are those social encounters, that if failed, lead to resource expenditure (trigger a combat encounter, or make life more difficult down the line).