D&D 5E (2014) Have the designers lost interest in short rests?

Because the point of resoure management is pacing.

And the most natural form of pacing is per game session.

If you have a big button that says "Be awesome", then you want to press it. If you never get to press it, it loses its lustre.

You have to balance awesomeness vs frequency. That, at the heart of it, is where the balance point really is.
Right, so I think it could be in different places depending on the tone and style of play, and the desires and goals of the participants. OTOH I tend to agree that people would like to have a 'moment' in each session. This would at least indicate that some level of refresh at the session rate would be a decent idea. At least one where its frequency is aligned to the session.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Frankly nothing about this rule is going to make your game “gritty” or give a sense of “realism”

What it will do is demolish interclass balance between long rest & short rest classes making short rest classes much better & long rest ones feeling a bit crippled. On top of that you wind up breaking many spells & class abilities to the point where they are useless or not worth the new now much higher cost.

No, that's not true at all in the absence of other variables (ease of taking a week off, encounter frequency).

If you're getting 0-2 encounters per short rest (Day) and having 0-3 days of encounters between long rests (Weeks off) then you're actually hitting the median.

A Party that spends several days travelling to a Bandit camp, having a random encounter on day 2, two more random encounters on day 4, then dealing with the Bandits on day 7 (a patrol of Bandits, and then assaulting the main camp) and then finally dealing with another random encounter on the way home, and then long resting, have had 6 encounters and 3 short rests in between long rests.

It's not that much different from doing all of that in a single dungeon level, over the course of a single day (barring spell durations for things like Hex, Hunters Mark and Mage armor).
 

my experience with battlemasters is pretty similar except that the best option is almost always to choose commander's strike, point at the rogue, & say "pikachu I choose you" because the other options are really not that great, The a5e maneuvers look really impressive by xomparison.

Precise strike to land a SS/ GWM hit. Tripping strike to knock them prone for advantage for everyone if you would have hit anyway.

Rogues get a lot out of Riposte as well.
 

Allow me to clarify what I mean by "balance." Ultimately, the game is not about mechanical balance, but about the endless amount of player choices.<snip>However, there is another type of balance which is distinctly non-mechanical called inter-player balance which ensures each player will not feel as if their decisions matter less than another player's.<snip>In this way, I believe 5e is balanced. Its balanced with inter-player dynamics in mind rather than by a mechanical, structured adventure. This balance can't be given as a ruleset because it would have to predict when the cleric can heal and when the wizard can teleport. This ruins the whole point of the game, Player Choice.
1: Mechanical balance enables your "inter-player" balance by ensuring that, when the rules ARE quantifiable, those quantities are (statistically) close enough to comparable that what matters is what the player values, not whether the player chose the powerful option.
2: 5e is emphatically not balanced this way. There are enormously more tools available to the Cleric, Druid, Wizard, or Bard than to the Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, or Rogue. The first group can tell reality how to behave, in various ways. The second group either rarely or never does that. How is that "inter-player balance"?

It's also unnecessary. The DMG says 6-8 encounters of medium difficulty. It has started driving me batty when people start quoting "6-8" like it's holy writ, when that just plain is not what the book says anywhere, and anyone could look it up for themselves.
See, I'm not even considering difficulty at all when I talk about that. I considered number of attacks made, because that's where you can actually evaluate the benefit of the Champion's "crit-chance-only" damage boost vs. BM maneuvers or Paladin smites. In order to hit the necessary average number of attacks made, you need a certain minimum number of combat rounds. Since 5e combats very rarely last more than 4-5 rounds (and, as I have been assured by people in this very thread such as Mr. Alhazred, usually a 4-round combat is long for 5e), there's only a limited number of attacks that a Fighter at various levels can potentially make. The numbers work out pretty well (centers and standard deviations actually line up) when it's just over 7 combats a day at around 3-4 rounds per combat. I'd have to crunch all the numbers again to get you something more precise than that, but it DID work out.

So: the numbers aren't at all wedded to the difficulty level. They're wedded to the combat length, which (in theory) should be more than capable of subsuming the varying difficulty amounts. If anything, the difficulty numbers favor (long-rest) spellcasters! (Low-difficulty combats mean spells can be banked for later; high-difficulty combats will involve higher ACs in general, but saving throws are far more constrained than AC/HP.)

My actual play experience at a tabletop (rather than forums) says that you can get away with as few as two--the only real no-no is letting the PC's go into a big climactic encounter with their alpha strike potential fully loaded. Even then, a "single" encounter can become two through having enemies show up in waves, or having a monster that transforms into a scarier form when the first stage is "killed".
Does this actually mean a Champion Fighter's crit chance matters enough to keep up with a Battlemaster blowing all their stuff each combat? Because at (say) level 12, a BM is theoretically getting 5d10 bonus damage to each of those combats. That's going to be only slightly worse than getting a crit with a d12 heavy weapon (the strongest option for Champions); 10% of the Champion's attacks at this level will be crits, so that means we need (say) 4 crits over the course of each combat at a rate of 0.1 crits per attack, for a rough average of 4/.1 = 40 attacks rolled per combat. You have three attack rolls per Attack action, plus an additional three per combat with Action Surge, so we want 40/(3N+3)<1 in order to get the Champion at least in the ballpark of the right numbers. That works out to (just over) 12 rounds per combat. Somehow, I don't quite think you're going to be hitting 12 rounds for each of these combats...admittedly, I ballparked these numbers, but even if I've over-estimated by a lot, you're still looking at 10+ rounds per combat to get the Champion to the same place as the Battlemaster.

Players really don't care about "how many spell slots were expended by this character than mine" or "how much damage this character does than mine." They really care about how many highlight moments this character gets rather than them.

So a DM's job is to balance the highlights between each player's moments, not to balance with a measured mechanism.
I agree that the specifics of who spent what resources aren't something that prominently stands out in a player's mind. But, again, how does the Fighter--who cannot even in principle do something like "force a locked door open" or "fly over the Pit of Despair" or "force an enemy to speak the truth"--get access to the same number or quality of "highlight moments" as the Wizard? The Wizard can always roleplay for highlight moments just as much as the Fighter can, so unless the Wizard chooses not to roleplay for them (which is not something I would ever expect of any player), the game's design appears to get in the way of your "inter-player" balance.

It NEVER ceases to amaze me how all this fiddling and faddling goes on, but the results are always inevitably just a covert return to something closer to A/E/D/U.
"The mind knows not what the tongue wants," as Dr. Moskowitz puts it. Aesthetic, or rather meta-aesthetic, concerns put before at-play experience. And people accuse 4e fans of being "white room" types!

Well, of course they want players to see the game as better than it actually is. That doesn't cost them anything.
Okay, but you had specifically said, "D&D 5E is a poorly-designed game, which tries to hide its bad design through poorly-designed optional rules." Now you're saying that there's a lot more than just the optional rules--there's a whole layer of obfuscation (intentional or not) from its designers as well.

People complained about the universal resource mechanic feeling too same-y, but the real issue was always with giving Encounter and Daily abilities to martial classes. That's the part which "didn't feel like D&D anymore" and should have been fixed.
Okay. How can it be "fixed" while ensuring that you're not just resurrecting the exact problem that E/D martial powers were meant to solve, namely, giving equal mechanical support for "highlight moments" as compared to non-martial classes?

Try asking your DM to let your Action Surge last a number of rounds equal to your Proficiency Bonus. And change your manoeuvres if they're not working for you.
Errr...so...give an enormous house-rule boost? Isn't this admitting that there is a problem to be fixed if you're asking for a huge no-cost powerup for your class...?

If you have a big button that says "Be awesome", then you want to press it. If you never get to press it, it loses its lustre. You have to balance awesomeness vs frequency. That, at the heart of it, is where the balance point really is.
Completely agreed. Just wanted to highlight it specifically.

Not just once or twice, but have classes that rely on short rests consistently afflicted your games?
Well, I've only played in...I believe four 5e campaigns. Every single one of them had at least one session negatively impacted by the long-rest-based classes overperforming and then wanting to rest sooner, while the short-rest-based (or non-rest-based, that is, Rogue) would have preferred to continue going and have some time to shine. Does that count?
 

my experience with battlemasters is pretty similar except that the best option is almost always to choose commander's strike, point at the rogue, & say "pikachu I choose you" because the other options are really not that great, The a5e maneuvers look really impressive by xomparison.
Yeah, I can see what they were aiming at with the Battlemaster. It WORKS, but it is hard to imagine not being pretty bored by level 12 or so! My basic 'attack twice with claws' is much like a 4e fighter at-will, just without any rider, so less variety. Or I can choose to make only one attack and use the 'bonus' for something else, though I lack real options there outside of Second Wind. Dropping on a maneuver is pretty almost like a 4e encounter power. Lobbing in Action Surge gets you into 'daily territory' damage-wise, but there's still basically only a very mild rider for the maneuver. I want more. Not that I want more EFFECTIVENESS, I just want options, and the ability to "do something crazy" that doesn't involve convincing the DM to let me get away with something far-fetched.
 


1: Mechanical balance enables your "inter-player" balance by ensuring that, when the rules ARE quantifiable, those quantities are (statistically) close enough to comparable that what matters is what the player values, not whether the player chose the powerful option.
2: 5e is emphatically not balanced this way. There are enormously more tools available to the Cleric, Druid, Wizard, or Bard than to the Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, or Rogue. The first group can tell reality how to behave, in various ways. The second group either rarely or never does that. How is that "inter-player balance"?
See, I believe mechanical balance is also SPEAKING TO DESIGNERS. This is an area where the design was VERY effective in 4e. Over time, even though some new things were introduced, and certain design elements shifted a bit in significance, the game held to a consistent standard of equivalence. In fact there was, arguably, ANTI-CREEP in some respects (OK, the e-Wizard kinda breaks it, but not badly). This is because the design language of 4e is VERY VERY clear to designers. The danger with a game like 5e is that over time new guys come along, they have a somewhat different perspective and they want to 'innovate', but if they don't have that design language, the game will get muddier and muddier over time. Its a downhill trajectory.
 


It's not that much of a boost, and the Fighter class sorely needs the help.
Getting to take an extra action for even 4 (consecutive) rounds per short rest is a pretty big change. That will nearly double the Fighter's damage output. I'm pretty sure, "Let me double my damage output for one whole fight per short rest (and two at high level)" is a big stonkin' change.

I don't deny the Fighter needs help. I just don't think this is the way to do it.
 

Getting to take an extra action for even 4 (consecutive) rounds per short rest is a pretty big change. That will nearly double the Fighter's damage output. I'm pretty sure, "Let me double my damage output for one whole fight per short rest (and two at high level)" is a big stonkin' change.

It's comparable with the Barbarian attacking with advantage during Rage. Highly dependent on the target's AC, of course. And it lasts nowhere near as long. And heaven forfend that the Fighter be - gasp - a better fighter than any other class. And you still only get one Action Surge per short rest, when the Action Surge is useful for many things outside combat.
 

Remove ads

Top