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

[Zardnaar]

AEDU is dead and buried. There's elements of it in 5E but yeah they're not going to do it again even if it's logical.

If you were doing a new game from the ground up eg 13th age it's one approach

Failed are to much of a D&D sacredcow to move away from and they don't really work on a few classes eg fighter. Unless they're spells like Eldritch Knight.

 

[Charlaquin]

AEDUbis dead and buried. There's elements of it in 5E but yeah they're not going to do it again even if it's logical.

Except the 5e warlock is basically AEDU just not explained clearly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except the 5e warlock is basically AEDU just not explained clearly.

Closest thing to it. They're not going to make it universal and you can do the warlock without AEDU.

 

[Charlaquin]

Closest thing to it. They're not going to make it universal and you can do the warlock without AEDU.

Of course they’re not going to make the warlock’s structure universal, the other classes exist and have different structures. Point is, your assertion that AEDU is dead in 5e is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[Don Durito]

I would rather they go the reverse and transfer more recoveries from Long Rests to Short Rests, but in a more limited fashion. For example, here's a start on spellcasting:

Did that. It's still on the first page

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course they’re not going to make the warlock’s structure universal, the other classes exist and have different structures. Point is, your assertion that AEDU is dead in 5e is demonstrably incorrect.

Kinda dead in the warlock as well.

It depends how you build the warlock but it can be built something similar.

I don't think AEDU is the problem but the 4E implementation of it.

But yeah the Warlock sucks (it doesn't) makes sense if they're not getting two short rests.

I've noticed new 5E players are more fire and forget often running out of juice by the 3rd combat which would make Monks suck as well.

 

[Asisreo]

It's also a level where everyone is squishy as heck & that 120ft range eldritch blast at a level where even PCs who have longbow proficiency are very likely to not actually own a long bow.

Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers can get a longbow from their starting equipment.

Characters at level 1 are so fragile & tight on resources that it's almost impossible to do much with the spotlight before the party hits level 2, limiting the analysis to first level doesn't change things for warlock it just shelves the problem in an irrelevant forgettable niche.

My point isn't necessarily about warlocks, its just an example that I could use for any class. You are correct that level 1 is fragile and going up in power provides more spotlight opportunities, which actually helps my point.

The first level example was to isolate and simplify a specific example. Another example at extremely high levels could be fighters vs rogues. They both have unique qualities that guide the DM into knowing what a high-level spotlight for each character could look like.

 

[Don Durito]

If there's one thing that I think that the evolution of 5e has shown, with the fact that it's brought back more design elements from 4e over the course of it's life that were supposed deal breakers it's that:

1) The issues with 4E were never about Fighters getting dailies or any of that - it was about presentation, complexity or marketing.
or
2) If those were real issues for people, 5e didn't bring those people back anyway, as no one's complaining about it now.

The more experience I have with 5E the more it seems like:

• Some weird hybrid of 3E and 4E hacked to play more like an OSR game.
• Which is then hacked (mostly unwittinginly) by people who want to use it to play 13th Age without the narrative elements.

Really if you were to take 13th Age, expand the utility spell function a bit, hack in a basic skill system that people were more comfortable with (which is practically already there) de-emphasise the Icons and make them more optional, and add an optional experience point system you'd probably have the ideal game for how most people, as far as I can see, actually want to play D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've noticed new 5E players are more fire and forget often running out of juice by the 3rd combat which would make Monks suck as well.

Interesting. My experience has been the opposite - new players seem to be afraid to spend any of their limited-use abilities, regardless of what kind of rest they recover on. They just spam at-wills all day, only spending spell slots to heal or to nova in obviously climactic battles.

 

[Zardnaar]

If there's one thing that I think that the evolution of 5e has shown, with the fact that it's brought but back more design elements from 4e over the course of it's life that were supposed deal breakers it's that:

1) The issues with 4E were never about Fighters getting dailies or any of that - it was about presentation, complexity or marketing.
or
2) If those were real issues for people, 5e didn't bring those people back anyway, as no one's complaining about it now.

The more experience I have with 5E the more it seems like:

• Some weird hybrid of 3E and 4E hacked to play more like an OSR game.
• Which is then hacked (mostly unwittinginly) by people who want to use it to play 13th Age without the narrative elements.

Really if you were to take 13th Age, expand the utility spell function a bit, hack in a basic skill system that people were more comfortable with (which is practically already there) de-emphasise the Icons and make them more optional, and add an optional experience point system you'd probably have the ideal game for how most people, as far as I can see, actually want to play D&D.

It's not to inaccurate. 5E isn't an OSR game but a 3E/4E hybrid with OSR elements.

Pre 5E I used 4E engine and designed my own classes to power a 2E/3E hybrid.