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

[EzekielRaiden]

in running AL games twice a week precovid I eventually gave up on trying to force that because I was literally the only gm (of like 6 regulars) who was doing it that way. The logic given was that unlike something like peerless skill that says that reckless attack is the barbarian dropping form & defense to make sure it hits even if it was iffy.

I think it's stupid, but both ways fall under "when you make your first attack on a turn" while only one would fit "before you make your first attack on a turn"

Whether or not it's AL play, if DMs are re-framing the Advantage mechanic via houserules DM adjudications that make it substantially more powerful, that's not my fault or concern. I'm running with the clear message of the rules text. The fluff can say whatever it likes.

 

[tetrasodium]

Whether or not it's AL play, if DMs are re-framing the Advantage mechanic via houserules DM adjudications that make it substantially more powerful, that's not my fault or concern. I'm running with the clear message of the rules text. The fluff can say whatever it likes.

the fact that it's even possible to do that is a result of a deliberate choice wotc made to poorly present the rules with "natural language" rather than something with more precision like prior editions.

 

[Quartz]

Okay, but again, making two attack rolls is always better than making one attack roll with advantage. Like, we agree that this is mathematically correct, yes?

Thanks for doing the maths. As the fights gets longer the tide turns to the Barbarian. Add in a third fight and it's overwhelmingly in favour of the RA Barbarian. But your maths show that extending Action Surge is entirely reasonable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thanks for doing the maths. As the fights gets longer the tide turns to the Barbarian. Add in a third fight and it's overwhelmingly in favour of the RA Barbarian. But your maths show that extending Action Surge is entirely reasonable.

Sure, but that requires that the Fighter never get any more than 3 rounds per SR. Yours scales up with proficiency, so by the time we hit 11th level, the Fighter is getting 4 rounds of double attacks while the Barbarian gets...one additional die when they crit. With your further suggestion to shift the "two uses per short rest" of Action Surge down to level 13 or 14, this would mean the Fighter can now (effectively) Action Surge for every round (5 rounds is a long 5e combat) of most combats (it should be rare to have more than 2 combats go by without a short rest). The Barbarian's only way of catching up is thus by getting the extra crit dice from Brutal Critical, but that's far and away not enough to keep up.

11th level numbers
Base damage increases for both characters; I will assume (though I did not before) that both characters have invested their two ASIs into Strength, giving both of them the max Strength of 20. Again, not assuming any magic weapons. Fighter base damage is now 12.33 per hit and 19.33 per crit, while Barbarian is 11.5 per hit (15.5 when raging) and 24.5 per crit (28.5 while raging).
Champ dmg per combat (w/4 rounds AS): 24*(.55*12.33+.1*19.33) = 209.148
Barb dmg per combat (w/Rage & RA): 8*(.78*15.5+.0975*28.5) = 118.95

Champ dmg per combat (no AS): 12*(.55*12.33+.1*19.33) = 104.574
Barb dmg per combat (only RA): 8*(.78*11.5+.0975*24.5) = 90.87

Even going two extra rounds without the Champ having Action Surge but the Barb still having Rage, will not even come close to making up the difference--and a six-round combat would be shockingly long for 5e as I am given to understand things.
Champ dmg per combat (4 rnds AS, 2 norm): 30*(.55*12.33+.1*19.33) = 261.453
Barb dmg per combat (6 rounds Rage & RA): 12*(.78*15.5+.0975*28.5) = 178.425

Crunching the numbers here (setting a floor of 4 rounds, plus X additional rounds for each side and solving for X) indicates that you would need 29 combat rounds in order for the Barbarian to merely catch up--except that Rage doesn't even last that long! Another way of saying this is, those 29 combat rounds could be split up over multiple combats....but that means every use of (4-round-long) Action Surge is equivalent to 3 daily uses of Rage. The Barbarian only has at most 6 uses before max level. Sure, the Fighter's damage output is more highly concentrated within those four rounds, but nova tactics are generally understood to be the better choice anyway.

Once you get two uses per short rest it's over. The Fighter wins, hands down, all the time, by enormous margins--hundreds of damage dealt. By that point, they're getting two five-round chunks of double actions per short rest, meaning most combats they'll have double actions the entire fight. The Barbarian simply cannot keep up. Doing the math at level 13 or 14 (when you propose to make the 2 Action Surges per SR) would simply reveal just how thoroughly outclassed the Barbarian is, and (by implication) every other melee damage-dealing class.

And this is with the Champion, well known to be the weakest Fighter subclass.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

the fact that it's even possible to do that is a result of a deliberate choice wotc made to poorly present the rules with "natural language" rather than something with more precision like prior editions.

I agree there are times when the natural language of 5e makes rules fuzzy. I don't think rolling with advantage is one of those times, though:

"Sometimes a special ability or spell tells you that you have advantage or disadvantage on an ability check, a saving throw, or an attack roll. When that happens, you roll a second d20 when you make the roll." PHB p 173

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the fact that it's even possible to do that is a result of a deliberate choice wotc made to poorly present the rules with "natural language" rather than something with more precision like prior editions.

No. The wording is clear. You cant get advantage on a roll after you rolled...

Edit: also the berserker fighter is always underrated. Immunity vs charm or being frightened is highly desireable.
I think Tasha's guide could have helped the berserker by adding a feature to ignore exhaustion while raging. Probably missed a chance there as with the sorcerer spell lists.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree there are times when the natural language of 5e makes rules fuzzy. I don't think rolling with advantage is one of those times, though:

I don't either, but it makes for an extremely weak argument when both work linguistically as written & is something completely foreseeable. That sort of cross indexed footnote like the one you note or the one that makes it so 1 level of warlock doesn't really make 19 levels of some other caster recover slots on a short rest too is exactly the sort of thing the whole natural language boondoggle was supposed to prevent too.

 

[Quartz]

And this is with the Champion, well known to be the weakest Fighter subclass.

The Champion is supposed to be the best at pure combat and the simplest to play. I think you've missed that both classes can get attacks on their Reactions and Bonus Actions. These are not affected by Action Surge, but are affected by Fighting Styles, Reckless Attack, and Rage. This doubles the Barbarian's damage.

Let's take your 11th level numbers, both getting 8 extra attacks (Reaction & Bonus) over the 4 rounds:

Champ dmg per combat (w/4 rounds AS): 32*(.55*12.33+.1*19.33) = 278.86
Barb dmg per combat (w/Rage & RA): 16*(.78*15.5+.0975*28.5) = 237.9

Clearly favours the Champion. The Champion is supposed to be the best at combat.

Champ dmg per combat (no AS): 20*(.55*12.33+.1*19.33) = 174.29
Barb dmg per combat (only RA): 16*(.78*11.5+.0975*24.5) = 181.74

The Barbarian is better, and does even better as the combat goes on.

Let's rerun those numbers against a higher-AC foe. Say both need a 15+ to hit.

Champ dmg per combat (w/4 rounds AS): 32*(.30*12.33+.1*19.33) = 180.224
Barb dmg per combat (w/Rage & RA): 16*(.51*15.5+.0975*28.5) = 170.94

The Barbarian is not so far off the Champion.

Champ dmg per combat (no AS): 20*(.30*12.33+.1*19.33) = 112.64
Barb dmg per combat (only RA): 16*(.51*11.5+.0975*24.5) = 132.06

The Barbarian is pulling way ahead, doing one extra round's worth of the Champion's damage.

So let's take two average encounters where the Fighter does not use Action Surge and the Barbarian only Reckless Attack, and one boss fight where all are used:

Fighter: 2x 174.29 + 1x 180.224 = 528.804
Barbarian: 2x 181.74 + 1x 170.94 = 534.42

The Barbarian is very slightly ahead!

And we're pre-supposing that the Fighter uses Action Surge for dealing damage when it has many uses out of that: extra movement is the obvious one (remember that the Barbarian has Fast Movement), but there are many other uses. Remember that Action Surge gives you an extra Action, not only an extra Attack Action. I've been over this in other threads and this point has consistently failed to register.

Watch what happens when the Fighter does not use her Action Surge for combat. Maybe it was used to get out of a trap or save a comrade. For fairness the Barbarian has also no Rages left.

Fighter: 2x 174.29 + 1x 112.64 = 461.22
Barbarian: 2x 181.74 + 1x 170.94 = 534.42

The Fighter is way behind. I put it to you that using non-nova class features the Fighter should be a better fighter than the other fighting classes.

TLDR: A multiple-round Action Surge is well-balanced.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't either, but it makes for an extremely weak argument when both work linguistically as written & is something completely foreseeable. That sort of cross indexed footnote like the one you note or the one that makes it so 1 level of warlock doesn't really make 19 levels of some other caster recover slots on a short rest too is exactly the sort of thing the whole natural language boondoggle was supposed to prevent too.

I gotta say I disagree with you on this one. The plainest and most natural reading is that you decide to RA and then you roll both dice. This is backed up, as @UngeheuerLich says, by the general advantage rolling rule. It is also backed up by the narrative logic which is offered for the action, which is attacking with total abandon and disregard for your own safety (evinced by the penalty to defense you get in return). I don't see how you could narratively explain that you "kinda maybe made a reckless attack, but only if the regular attack wasn't going to succeed." The other DMs in your AL may do it how they do it, and maybe that's helping make the barbarian reasonably effective, but it plainly is not what the person authoring the rule thought they were saying. If I was asked to make a ruling on what was 'RAW', I'd have to veto any notion of rolling extra dice after the fact, hands down. Again, I don't have an issue with people running games the other way, that's cool, just more of a tweak to the rules IMHO.

 

[Don Durito]

I don't either, but it makes for an extremely weak argument when both work linguistically as written & is something completely foreseeable. That sort of cross indexed footnote like the one you note or the one that makes it so 1 level of warlock doesn't really make 19 levels of some other caster recover slots on a short rest too is exactly the sort of thing the whole natural language boondoggle was supposed to prevent too.

Natural language was only ever going to work by deprecating the very idea of RAW. Stuff like Sage Advice, errata and Adventurer’s League pull against it.