D&D 5E Have the designers lost interest in short rests?

[The Crimson Binome]

If a DM says PHB classes and subclasses are fine, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the adventuring day to be balanced with those classes in mind.

Right. The question is why the DM would automatically allow every class and sub-class in the whole book, without properly considering whether they were ready to handle them.

 

[ph0rk]

Right. The question is why the DM would automatically allow every class and sub-class in the whole book, without properly considering whether they were ready to handle them.

Because they assume a premium market leader ttrpg doesn’t take the same prep work as a DIY indie ttrpg?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Because they assume a premium market leader ttrpg doesn’t take the same prep work as a DIY indie ttrpg?

That sounds like they didn't read the DMG for this edition, or that they might have been coming into it with assumptions from a previous edition which no longer applied.

 

[ph0rk]

That sounds like they didn't read the DMG for this edition, or that they might have been coming into it with assumptions from a previous edition which no longer applied.

If the secret to adventure day and class balance is buried in a paragraph in the DMG, that’s a design problem.

 

[tetrasodium]

The DM doesn't have to actually hack or re-balance anything, unless/until they are comfortable with their ability to do so. All they have to do is stick with the content they're comfortable with, and be willing to say no when players try to go outside of that. There is no issue with short rests using the four classes and sub-classes in the Basic Rules document, after all; that's a problem that you choose to opt into.

Right now, it looks like the real problem is with players who feel entitled to use every class in the books, regardless of whether the DM is prepared for it. Or I guess the problem might be with DMs, who don't realize that they have complete control over what's available in their own games, and who may be under the mistaken impression that they should allow everything without fully understanding it first.

Your position requires accepting that there is one true way to play d&d and all other ways deviating from very specific campaign style are badwrongfun despite being perfectly acceptable in previous versions... Such a position underscores just how much of a critical & inexcusable design flaw that should never have made it past the early internal spitballing of ideas if it were the case.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your position requires accepting that there is one true way to play d&d and all other ways deviating from very specific campaign style are badwrongfun despite being perfectly acceptable in previous versions... Such a position underscores just how much of a critical & inexcusable design flaw that should never have made it past the early internal spitballing of ideas if it were the case.

Not in this thread, no. Try me again in a thread about meta-gaming.

My position here allows for any number of ways to play D&D. It just places responsibility on the DM for deciding what will be fun at their table, as the designers intended.

 

[Dausuul]

The DM doesn't have to actually hack or re-balance anything, unless/until they are comfortable with their ability to do so. All they have to do is stick with the content they're comfortable with, and be willing to say no when players try to go outside of that. There is no issue with short rests using the four classes and sub-classes in the Basic Rules document, after all; that's a problem that you choose to opt into.

Right now, it looks like the real problem is with players who feel entitled to use every class in the books, regardless of whether the DM is prepared for it. Or I guess the problem might be with DMs, who don't realize that they have complete control over what's available in their own games, and who may be under the mistaken impression that they should allow everything without fully understanding it first.

What?!?

It is utterly unreasonable to expect a typical DM to decide to rip whole classes out of the Player's Handbook before they even start the game! Warlocks aren't even marked as "optional" or "variant," they're part of the core package. You suggest sticking with the "basic" classes, but how is a DM reading the PHB supposed to know that some of the classes are "basic" and others are not? They're all presented the same.

All core content should play well out of the box and should accommodate common playstyles while doing so. If it does not, that is a design failure, not the fault of the DM who quite reasonably assumes that the game works as written.

 

[Charlaquin]

Short rest classes were kind of a sop to 4E players.

I don’t agree. I mean, I guess the Warlock is, with its functional AEDU mechanics, but short rest recovery mechanics in general seemed to me to be for the anti-4e crowd who were opposed to martial classes with daily powers.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don’t agree. I mean, I guess the Warlock is, with its functional AEDU mechanics, but short rest recovery mechanics in general seemed to me to be for the anti-4e crowd who were opposed to martial classes with daily powers.

Perhaps. I don't think they play nice togather so can see one going bye bye in 6E. Won't be long rest anyway.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

All core content should play well out of the box and should accommodate common playstyles while doing so. If it does not, that is a design failure, not the fault of the DM who quite reasonably assumes that the game works as written.

That's a perfectly reasonable position, honestly. It's kind of weird that the designers didn't go with that, and that they only bothered to explain themselves in the DMG.

On the other hand, it's far from the only questionable design decision in the game. That's just the price of over-reaching and trying to play the middle, instead of making all their assumptions clear up front and limiting themselves to that.