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

[tetrasodium]

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.

You seem to be misusing the word "intended." With the context of your position laid out over the last few posts. A more fitting word would be something like "demand" "require" "force" & so on. It's ok that wotc messed up, nobody is saying that wotc needs to be perfect, just that there should be fixes for very real problems & that those fixes should read like someone took the time to understand the problem they are trying to address unlike the variant rest mechanics in the dmg. So far we are around 7 years past the playtest start & almost 6 years past the release date with TCoE looking like it might include some targeted fixes starting to rectify the problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Eh, I think they play together fine.

 

[Don Durito]

I don't really want to go back to a game where everything is long rest.

I've realised I don't particular enjoy that level of resource management. It's one reason I somewhat like the Fighter in 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't really want to go back to a game where everything is long rest.

I've realised I don't particular enjoy that level of resource management. It's one reason I somewhat like the Fighter in 5e.

It's not guranteed but yeah.

If most people aren't playing the way you intended do you go with how they're doing it or what you want.

I could be wrong but yeah I don't think 6-8 encounters is being used as intended.

 

[Don Durito]

It's not guranteed but yeah.

If most people aren't playing the way you intended do you go with how they're doing it or what you want.

I could be wrong but yeah I don't think 6-8 encounters is being used as intended.

Oh I don't disagree. I think if the designers were to put out a 6E right now there'd be no short rests.

Of course by the time an actual 6E comes out thinks might look different - but right now? - I think that's what they'd do.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You seem to be misusing the word "intended." With the context of your position laid out over the last few posts. A more fitting word would be something like "demand" "require" "force" & so on.

That's the thing, though. They really aren't demanding, requiring, or forcing you to play in a certain way. They're just saying, if you do want to play in some other way, then you'll need to tweak some of the other rules.

And yes, it's a major cop out that they don't tell anyone how to tweak those rules to achieve any other playstyle; but that's still not the same thing as mechanically requiring a specific playstyle, with the intent that every rule be followed to the letter (as with 4E, and it's famous "everything is core" policy, for example).

 

[ph0rk]

They're just saying, if you do want to play in some other way, then you'll need to tweak some of the other rules.

They aren't saying anything; they're leaving it to the players to figure out.

Both the PHB and DMG need a top level section on rests and resources; something this important for class balance need to be highlighted, not the sort of thing new players need to absorb the entirety of both books to grasp.

 

[Asisreo]

I'd hate to be on the D&D design team, because in this thread there is so much disdain for the team's competency in general and, to me, it feels like leaps in conclusions.

This discussion basically reads "The DMG requires you to stick to this pattern of encounters. This pattern of encounters is unreasonable. The designers didn't properly inform the players of this encounter design therefore the designers are incompetent."

But, considering the actual paragraph the DMG discusses, don't you think this might be jumping to conclusions. I've already discussed this with some posters that are present but, in short, the paragraph doesn't even read like the encounter pattern is a necessity. Even the Adventuring Day Exp section doesn't seem like it says its required.

So why, exactly, do we think it is? Is it because these days have worked out optimally every single time for us? Or is it because we find it hard to structure a game with no real guidance on how many encounters you actually are expected to have?

 

[tetrasodium]

That's the thing, though. They really aren't demanding, requiring, or forcing you to play in a certain way. They're just saying, if you do want to play in some other way, then you'll need to tweak some of the other rules.

And yes, it's a major cop out that they don't tell anyone how to tweak those rules to achieve any other playstyle; but that's still not the same thing as mechanically requiring a specific playstyle, with the intent that every rule be followed to the letter (as with 4E, and it's famous "everything is core" policy, for example).

That's like saying the pinto was a great car that wasn't putting anyone's life at risk as long as they didn't use the blinker & if they wanted to use the blinker it just requires the car owner perform some tweaks to the wiring harness.... It's also the definition of require.

Spoiler: require

Furthermore there is too much evidence that shows wotc new unrestricted short rest recovery was problematic

Spoiler: for example

and yet the sane person in the room involved with those to classes allowed someone to do

Spoiler: this

Your earlier "That's just the price of over-reaching" could apply as a mistake if one wanted to be generous, but the lack of errata or even UA level ACFs calls into question the validity of such a mistake being anything but "deliberate". Not only that, with the recent sage advice 2.6 update frm wotc missing this it calls into question if they originally made the errata because of an actual mistake being noticed or if it was grudgingly issued because some munchkin's hand got forced & nobody was looking now.

edit: @Asisreo if only "The DMG requires you to stick to this pattern of encounters. This pattern of encounters is unreasonable. The designers didn't properly inform the players of this encounter design" were the worst of it. The rest of this post is a good example of the much broader problem, following the rwequired "pattern" doesn't solve the festering problem so much as disguise it in a costume & replace it with a different problem.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They aren't saying anything; they're leaving it to the players to figure out.

They are saying that you can change the length of rests as you feel appropriate, and that the DM shouldn't include content (classes, races, spells, or especially feats) in their world that they don't explicitly choose. While that doesn't give much to go by, it still provides strong contrast to 4E, where "everything was core" and mucking about with sub-systems would cause the whole thing to collapse like a house of cards.