D&D 5E Getting rid of the short rest: The answer to Linear Fighter vs Quadratic Wizard?

I don't like short rests, except perhaps for regaining hit points. I thought during the playtest that it was the short 5 minutes part of the rest that bugged me, but now I know that it is having some party members short rest dependent and some long rest dependent.

Right now I just have characters x2 all uses of short rest powers. This is covered at character level up, so no one even has to worry abut short vs long rest at the table. The party can still "short rest" and use HD. It keeps things simple.

My solution.

Twice per long rest, you can skip your turn to take a short rear. Even mid battle, or if your unconscious (you must spend at least 1 HD if you are unconscious).

Some time I might try this. It changes the rest mechanic rather than the characters, but could lead to some interesting situations. Fighters might have fun being down for the count one moment, and action surging the next.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Soundly disagree. It matters who does the cool thing. The party is not some homogeneous blob, despite what the apologists for 3E caster creep want to pretend.

Or I guess if it really doesnt matter, lets remove all utility from casters. Hey, if you just succeed as a group, why does it matter if the wizard contributes? Let the fighter and rogue solve everything and they can deal a few d8 damage with firebolt. Look... everyone helped!

If you're going to be like this don't bother responding.
 


I appreciate the feedback from everyone. I'm still not sure where I stand in this matter. It started as an interesting thought experiment, grew into me once more tweaking some house rules, and now I'm kind of back to wondering if its worth it or even achieves what I'm setting out to accomplish.

I'm leaning more towards after 2 encounters characters are automatically considered to have a short rest, as suggested by [MENTION=53980]Fanaelialae[/MENTION].

I also like the idea proposed by [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] in theory. But in my experience, having a round go by where you are not active as a character in some way is boring. Especially if you have a new group that is slow to act on their turn or a larger group, causing it to take a long time to get back around to you. Similarly, I've noticed in my game experience it is exceedingly rare to use the dodge action (in fact, I don't think I've been at a table that has used it yet) because focus on defense is boring. If I were to implement the idea, I might instead have it done as a free action, but there would be a cost associated with it. Maybe 1/4 of your hit dice or something. That way a character does not have to sacrifice an action and can continue to feel like they are contributing and active in the combat.

As for [MENTION=6785438]Warmaster Horus[/MENTION] I have a counter to that point. What ability or power does a fighter, rogue, or barbarian get that can in some way equate to meteor Swarm, Shapechange, or Wish? I'm not trying to be contentious mind you, but genuinely curious how others see the classes line up balance wise. I recognize the argument that non-caster classes can do their abilities and powers more often, allowing them to do roughly equal damage over time to what casters can do in a round or two. But is that in fact accurate? And even if that is true, given that 5e combats are only supposed to go to about 5 rounds tops, is that even relevant? And also, what about those utility spells casters have access to? What do non-caster classes get in response to those things to create a semblance of balance? I recognize my perspective may be limited, I may be asking the wrong questions, or I may be focusing on the wrong things. 5e certainly has made casters vs non-caster more on par with one another, but I still have a visceral or intuitive sense that casters still have the advantage. And I'm really not sure if it is even something that can be addressed.

Also, while I think [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION] could have phrased his thoughts in a way a bit more conducive to discussing these ideas, I agree that the spotlight does matter. Each character should be able to have a relatively equal share of the spotlight. While the entire party does benefit from a wizard casting Water Walk, there is something to be said about being the one to solve the problem the party is encountering. And each class should have relatively equal opportunity to be the one to bring about the solution or contribute to the resolution of the problem or obstacle.
 

I'm really glad you bring this up. From my perspective, every edition bring with it innovations worth considering, and problems inherent to that system. Despite all the problems of 4e, it had some really great ideas. One might argue that the 5e cantrips developed out of the at-will abilities of 4e. Also, since Matthew Colville is such a hot topic right now (I definitely backed his new Kickstarter), I think it is worthwhile to bring up his video arguing that adding elements of 4e into your game can improve it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not a 4ehater, I enjoyed many of its innovations, especially monster/NPC design. I was merely pointing out that a significant portion of the player base had problems with the at-will, per encounter, and daily paradigm of 4e abilities and they would probably not relish a return of such, even in a more mild form. This, of course, has no baring on your game and your table (unless some these objectors are in your game), but could influence a more generally applicable House Rule here on EnWorld.


These are all worthwhile considerations. But it still creates this artificial idea that a person skilled enough to do something has a limit of how many times they can do it. Now this might not be everyone's take, I get that. But with magic and spells, it makes sense that you have a limited well of energy you can draw from. But if you consider classes with abilities such as the Battlemaster, how is it that they could swing a sword all day long but not be able to attempt their maneuvers with some semblance of that kind of consistency. Having per encounter abilities helps reduce that issue.

These very arguments were brought to bear, repeatedly, against the 4e methodology you are proposing in this thread. Why can the martial characters only do this once per encounter? Once per day? etc. etc. It is similar with using hit dice and myriad other mechanics in the game, down to proposals in the thread: using milestones, spending your turn to get a short rest, and others. I guess we all have our tipping points, but at the end of the day this is game and some gamest constructs are necessary for smooth play.

Also, what are people's thoughts about the higher level spells? Would people mind or have reservations about effectively making them more geared to once per session abilities rather than once per day?

I would not be inclined to go this way, all things being equal. While some higher level spells open up new utility and wonders, there are plenty of stinkers. Now if one was significantly modify the game to make it more gritty and low magic, etc., then that would be something to consider, along with many other things.
 
Last edited:

I know, I know. Just hear me out. Also bear with me. I'm gonna start this out a bit meandering, but I am getting to a point. Trust me.

So today my mind was wandering a bit, and I got to thinking about 4e and how they did their powers in categories of at-will, per encounter, and per day. As my mind does as it wanders, I also began thinking about short rest, long rest, and the so-called 6-8 encounter adventuring day.

Now, on this forum I have heard a great deal about how 5e is balanced around the 6-8 encounter adventuring day, with 2 short rests in between capped off by a long rest. Now, white wall theory crafting, that's great. But is that how D&D is actually played? In my experience, it is not. While the games I have played in have had periods where resource management was important, more often than not myself or my players have had ample time for long rests. This gives greater advantage to classes and builds whose abilities refresh on a long rest than those with short rest refresh. Now while I do not have very good familiarity with most of the official modules that have been released, I am preparing to run Curse of Strahd. And based on what I have seen, outside of Castle Ravenloft perhaps, and maybe Death House (both fairly enclosed dungeon-esque places), you aren't going to get the 6-8 encounters per day unless you roll often for random encounters. And while play styles vary, I see combat as not being a highlight of D&D or the reason to play, but more as a driver of the story. And if combats are happening frequently with little connection to the story, it makes combat overall less impactful from my perspective (YMMV).

It has also been my experience that not everyone really knows what constitutes a short rest. I have been in games where a short rest was considered 4 hours, and were seldom actually used. Thus my fighter/warlock would be super low on any resources, while the wizard and cleric characters had plenty of things left to fling around.

So I got to wondering, what if we got rid of the short rest? We would then alter existing abilities that refresh on a short rest to instead become encounter abilities similar to 4e.

So what would be the potential consequences?

1) Short rest powers would need to be reduced in number to allow for balance, since these were initially meant to be used over 2-3 encounters. Therefore, I would reduce the number of uses by half rounded up. This would include Superiority Dice, Inspiration Dice, Ki points, and Pact Magic to just name a few things.

2) This would allow martial characters to no longer have the sense of an artificial limit per rest how often they can do something. Instead, they will always have at least one use every encounter.

3) This would make certain abilities irrelevant, such as the bard's capstone ability, and the Battlemaster's ability to have at least one Superiority Die when initiative is rolled. These abilities would need to be replaced or adjusted (possibly allow one additional use per encounter).

4) What value do Hit Die have in a system where there are no short rests? I have an idea for that. Perhaps as a minute long action (making it a non-combat ability and representing bandaging yourself or recentering your focus), you could spend Hit Dice. They get replaced as normal (# = 1/2 your level per long rest). A similar approach could be used for a wizard's Arcane Recovery ability.

5) How does one capture non-combat encounters? This is probably the most tricky of the bunch. I'm not sure there is really a good answer that doesn't revolve around DM Fiat to determine whether something outside of combat consists of an encounter or how long that encounter goes.

There may be other consequences, but these are the ones I see.

Now, one of the things addressed by this is helping short rest characters (such as largely martial characters) get a bit of a power bump. This relates to another issue I have frequently heard argued on the boards of the linear fighter versus the quadratic wizard. So I was thinking, perhaps if we look at an adjustment to certain long rest abilities, we can reduce the power of higher level magic uses to bring everyone more in line of relative power balance.

My thought is that any spell of 6th level or higher does not automatically recharge on a long rest. The reason being that if a single game session has multiple long rests, a magic user of sufficient level could cast multiple 8th or 9th level spells. The problem with this is that spells above 6th level really do tend to "break" the game. They grant access to powers that dwarf many of the abilities that non-spellcasters can achieve. In a single round, meteor swarm can out damage even the best built fighter, especially when considering the range.

So my proposal is that for spells of 6th level or higher, they recharge on a long rest + one session. What does that mean or even look like? Well, say you have a wizard that casts meteor swarm in a session. They've used their 9th level spell slot. During that session, the wizard gets a rest in. Great! But, he doesn't yet get back that spell slot. He must wait until the next session to use that spell slot again.

What if the player uses the spell slot, but does not get a rest before the end of the session? I'll be honest, there's a couple of ways this could go, and I'm not sure where I stand on the fence. One way would be that if the wizard gets a long rest in the next session, then they get their 9th level spell slot back. The other way could be that the wizard gets a rest, and must wait until the next session to get their 9th level slot back (effectively meaning they had a whole game session where they did not have access to their 9th level spell slot).

My reasoning for this approach is to limit really big spells to not just once per day, but once per game session, or maybe less if using one of the possible examples/interpretations above.

I know this creates a big change to the game. And I know that my perspective is limited and full of blind spots. So that's why I'm throwing this out to the community with the following questions:

1) Is this adjustment reasonable?

2) What potential impacts/consequences have I not considered or foreseen?

3) Does this actually accomplish what I'm attempting to do (eliminate short rests in a reasonable fashion while reducing linear fighter vs quadratic wizard issues)?

I've thought on this some more. Your suggestion will work for some tables but not all.

Tying ability recharge to the end of a session is a bit strange as not every session can end at a "good stopping point".

Personally I would suggest going with a scene and chapter structure and just granting the benefits of a short rest at the start of a scene and granting the benefits of a long rest at the start of a chapter. The DM determines what constitutes the beginning and end of a scene and the beginning and end of a chapter. If the players feel too weak they can give up on their objectives for a scene or a chapter and move on to the next, taking whatever consequences failing their objectives might entail.

This allows the DM to sync rest recovery to the story that's going on in the game. It still "allows" players to take a rest at anytime, but it does so with more obvious ramifications.
 


I don't think spellcasters need even more high level spell slots.

What I'm proposing would in effect give spellcasters fewer high level spell slots. Instead of having them replenish on a rest (and thus potentially having multiple opportunities to cast high level spells) they would be limited to casting high level spell slots only once per session, regardless of how often they are resting. But I'm not sure how popular this approach would be or if it even really addresses the issues I see in 5e.
 

I also like the idea proposed by [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] in theory. But in my experience, having a round go by where you are not active as a character in some way is boring.
"Roll a bunch of HD to heal yourself, and recharge some features" is still doing something. About the same as "cast cure wounds on yourself." Definatly more active than just rolling a death save.
Most of the time it's still done between combats. With one used early, and the other held onto in case of emergency.

But feel free to experiment. I've gone back and forth on letting people move, dodge, or disengage that turn. I might go back to dodge, possibly standing up. I'm often tempted to hit a prone, low HP PC that is giving me advantage.

For a more gritter style, you don't need to allow it when unconscious. Though I've found people generally like having an emergency self-heal, as it lets them take more risks and pull off some heroic moves every now and then. And when your really dead, your can't complain it was just because you rolled a 1 on your death save, or that you where the cleric. IMO, simply slowing down the rest rates work fine. Long rests are a week in town, vs camping for a night.

Let me know which one works for you.
 

...

As for @Warmaster Horus I have a counter to that point. What ability or power does a fighter, rogue, or barbarian get that can in some way equate to meteor Swarm, Shapechange, or Wish? I'm not trying to be contentious mind you, but genuinely curious how others see the classes line up balance wise. I recognize the argument that non-caster classes can do their abilities and powers more often, allowing them to do roughly equal damage over time to what casters can do in a round or two. But is that in fact accurate? And even if that is true, given that 5e combats are only supposed to go to about 5 rounds tops, is that even relevant? And also, what about those utility spells casters have access to? What do non-caster classes get in response to those things to create a semblance of balance? I recognize my perspective may be limited, I may be asking the wrong questions, or I may be focusing on the wrong things. 5e certainly has made casters vs non-caster more on par with one another, but I still have a visceral or intuitive sense that casters still have the advantage. And I'm really not sure if it is even something that can be addressed.
...

Have you played much high level 5e? Yeah, battles go fast. And your average opponent has something called Legendary Resistance. That means as a spellcaster you spend a turn or two trying to burn those away before you bring out the Meteor Swarm, which may still be saved against or Counterspelled. Of course during that time the 20th level GWM fighter has had 16 opportunities to hit the BBG (4 attacks over two turns with an Action Surge each turn) for an average of 25hp an attack that connects, say 75% do, doing 300hp non-savable damage.

As for 'utility spells', well Concentration takes the wind out of those to a big degree. You can have ONE utility spell running in most situations and then burn spell slots with damaging spells, 1 per turn, that do typically less damage than the damage being doled out by the martial characters.

In practice I just don't see the spell casting uber-race outshining their mundane counterparts. Do they sometimes? Sure, some spells are just the thing to save the day, as they should be. But just as often the monk gets in a Quivering Palm or a paladin triggers a massive Smite or a frenzied barbarian is able to resist the mind-bending spell that has beguiled the rest of the party.
 

Remove ads

Top