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

[Don Durito]

Early editions had a lot of guard rails in place to curtail the power of casters. Expensive spell components to stop powerful spells being spammed; castings times that would make spells disrupt able; randomized spell learnings; high lethality making getting access to higher level spells difficult; magic items tables that favored fighters, d4 hit dice for the wizard; no limitless cantrips; different leveling rates for classes; etc.

Later editions removed those guard rails, not understanding their purpose.

Most of those things are vastly overrated and often rely on rules that people threw out for very good reasons.

But in any case it's not caster/martial disparity I was referring to specifically (which is a topic that mostly bores me these days). It's the idea that, because 5e recommends a set number of encounters a day, it's very tightly designed around an appropriate number of encounters and that somehow earlier editions, because they gave no guidelines, weren't.

It's always been the case that if you didn't have sufficient number of encounters the wizard would nova. Spells have always been intended to be a somewhat scare resource and the game has always worked better when there was pressure on the decision making about when they're best used.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's the idea that, because 5e recommends a set number of encounters a day, it's very tightly designed around an appropriate number of encounters and that somehow earlier editions, because they gave no guidelines, weren't.

It's always been the case that if you didn't have sufficient number of encounters the wizard would nova. Spells have always been intended to be a somewhat scare resource and the game has always worked better when there was pressure on the decision making about when they're best used.

One side effect of early editions lacking encounter guidelines was that the spellcasters had no idea how many encounters they might potentially face in a day. Sure, you could nova if you knew you would only have one fight in the day, or if you were terrified to the point that running out of spells was less dangerous than letting the current opponent stay alive for another few minutes; but everything was a calculated risk.

Uncertainty is as important as sheer volume of encounters when it comes to keeping the spellcasters conservative.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Early editions had a lot of guard rails in place to curtail the power of casters. Expensive spell components to stop powerful spells being spammed; castings times that would make spells disrupt able; randomized spell learnings; high lethality making getting access to higher level spells difficult; magic items tables that favored fighters, d4 hit dice for the wizard; no limitless cantrips; different leveling rates for classes; etc.

Later editions removed those guard rails, not understanding their purpose.

Well, the problem was, they didn't really work...

Spell Components - too hard to track, players would stock up on a bit of it, and then nobody had the time and energy to really keep track of them very well. Now and then a DM would invoke the rule, but it gradually became a kind of arsehat move, except for some 'ritualistic' type spells with excessively costly components where allowing it to just go ahead with no cost would break the game (or be inconvenient to the DM that day).

Casting Times - given the incredible byzantine complexity of the system for determining what happened when in D&D (there's a full flow chart for combat resolution floating around somewhere, it is a DENSE 8 page document!!!!) this was basically stillborn. Most DMs IME simply went with a crude "If someone hits you before your side gets its turn, your spell is ruined" version. That isn't NOTHING, but it did mean that even powerful high level spells were pretty usable. Besides, things like Stone Skin, Mage Armor, Mirror Image, Invisibility, Flying/Levitation, and Haste were all quite effective counters (assuming that the big fighter and wall of hirelings in front of you didn't suffice). Many of these things were available in magic item form, all you needed was one of them to drastically reduce interruptions.

Other casting restrictions - There were statements in various places in the rules that casters must be motionless, perfectly stable, etc. and some Gygax advice to basically beat down casters with this rule. Yet at the same time there were ample examples of casters firing spells from horseback, etc. So take these things with a big dose of salt. Again, DMs might suddenly decide to hose you with these rules, but it was usually kinda peeing on the player's parade to do so unless the situation was really VERY dubious.

Spell Availability - In all the groups I played in, this was not a HUGE factor much of the time. There were usually several 'wizard' type casters around, they would regularly exchange spells. NPC groups which LACKED such a caster were usually canon fodder, so they appeared fairly regularly, and their books became our books as well. Any established party would soon have a library containing the majority of useful low level spells, which would be gifted onto every new PC or NPC member. High level spells could be a bit more problematic, but if you've spent years adventuring and transcribing most scrolls, and have a high INT, which all high level casters pretty much did, then you could always fork out some time and money to research a spell if it was REALLY seriously worth having for some reason.

The upshot being, in most practical play (I ran and played in dozens of AD&D campaigns between 1977 and 1997 or so and played several high level wizards) these restrictions were more of a kind of game you played with the DM where you came up with various ploys and strategems which largely obviated them. The few times you couldn't avoid some issue, money or spell casting would very likely provide a workaround.

Even the final limits of restriction, good saves and magic resistance, were something you could handle. All that was required was enough cleverness to devise a way to INDIRECTLY attack your enemy. The most basic simply ploy was dropping a Wall of Iron on them, which doesn't allow for MR/Saves! Stone to Mud and Dispel Magic could often be employed in similar ways, but even a Magic Missile arranged to trigger a collapse or something like that was a perfectly nice solution. Once I even recall handing the bad guy a cursed wand! lol.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There seem to be two arguments as to why spellcasters aren't necessary,

The first assumes that adventures are designed by the GM, with the basic trajectory of action decided in advance, so that the GM will make sure, via the design plus downstream adjudication, that any party of whatever composition can travel along the pre-planned trajectory.

The second assumes that players will establish wants and needs for their characters commensurate to their capabilities - so if the PCs can't teleport, or send instantaneous telepathic messages, or travel to other planes, etc, then the players will reconcile themselves to doing other things.

The second seems largely tautological. The first is a very specific assumption about the approach to play which is certainly not true for me.

I agree with this post and wish I was able to express my ideas so succinctly.

The second point is either circular, or not a good thing. That is, it either assumes that players always choose character options knowing everything they'll ever want to do, and thus will never be unhappy with anything they are able to do thereafter...or it assumes that players will make do with whatever they're allowed to do even if that means not having the adventures they've come to want since making those decisions. The circular argument is not going to apply to the vast majority of groups, where initial character choices are not at all made with a plan for the full spectrum of possible adventures but purely because they sound like interesting ideas (or because someone got bitten by the inspiration bug and can't stop thinking about this one specific thing). And the second point is literally players settling for not having the fun they'd really like to have, because their character doesn't let them do the things they'd really rather do. Either the argument is inapplicable (in most cases) or totally valid...and describing a bad thing!

The first is simply not how a very significant number of people play. I have never planned out adventures nearly this thoroughly. I don't run APs (though I might do so someday), I write my own content, and I always make sure to keep it light-touch. Because my plans very rarely survive contact with the players. They focus super hard on things I expect to be minor notes, they take eight months to handle something I expected to be a fun three- or four-week trek turning it into a massive and awe-inspiring victory instead of a cool villain-of-the-week deal. Or they ignore a plotline dangled before them for two years! It's all so difficult to predict that I just don't bother--or, rather, I prepare many different avenues and keep myself flexible for the times they decide to pick "none of the above." Which, in fairness, has resulted in multiple fun adventures that I have then woven into the grander story of this world! So it's not like they're breaking anything. But I can't possibly ensure any kind of "pre-planned trajectory," I can at best decide that certain events will happen whether the party intercedes or not, and let the party figure out how they wish to address this.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect every DM to railroad--even if it is only soft-touch railroading!--the group so that things always happen "just as planned." And I certainly don't think it's reasonable to demand that players consider all possible pathways they're giving up because they chose to play a Fighter instead of a Paladin.

 

[Weiley31]

I have no probs, in regards towards Descent Into Avernus, having the Shield of The Hidden Lord provide a magic wielder the ability to "overcome" the Fire Immunity of Devils and Demons or whatever other Energy immunity. It is supposed to be the "tenth" Archdevil so it should have some special perks to that position.

 

[pemerton]

It's always been the case that if you didn't have sufficient number of encounters the wizard would nova. Spells have always been intended to be a somewhat scare resource and the game has always worked better when there was pressure on the decision making about when they're best used.

One side effect of early editions lacking encounter guidelines was that the spellcasters had no idea how many encounters they might potentially face in a day. Sure, you could nova if you knew you would only have one fight in the day, or if you were terrified to the point that running out of spells was less dangerous than letting the current opponent stay alive for another few minutes; but everything was a calculated risk.

Uncertainty is as important as sheer volume of encounters when it comes to keeping the spellcasters conservative.

I'm not @AbdulAlhazred, and am happy to be corrected if I'm getting things wrong. That said:

(1) The versatility that AbdulAlhazred is talking about is not particularly about "encounters" or "fights" per day. To borrow a phrase from p 18 of Gygax's PHB, it's about how to "most successfully meet the challenges which [the game] poses". Everything from architectural challenges (locked doors, high walls) to environmental/geographical challenges (far distances, stormy seas) to social challenges (angry mobs, reluctant informants) to economic challenges (limited supplies, unique but powerful artefacts), etc. My experience of high-level AD&D, and of high level Rolemaster (which resemble AD&D in this respect) is that spellcasters dominate in respect of this sort of versatility. And often that's not just because of in-fiction considerations, but because of mechanical or system considerations.

An example concerning travel, derived from actual play experience: imagine a group of PCs whose home base is a nice, safe palace at the heart of civilisation; and whose current activity is exploring a mysterious ruin many hundreds of miles away. There is no in-fiction reason why non-spellcasters could not undertake this task: they could assemble a team of mercenaries (for safety), porters and labourers and technical specialists (to help with the travel and exploration), etc. In fact, in my current Classic Traveller game the PCs are doing exactly this! (Of course having a starship helps with the transportation aspect of the challenge.)

But think about this from the system point of view: the need to undertake the hiring, undertake the travel, the encounter checks involved, the logistics of managing the records of supplies, hireling pay, etc. Think about the prospects that any part of this can mean that the focus of play shifts from the exploration to something else - be that a random encounter, a disloyal hireling, or some other distraction - for hours or even sessions of play. And then contrast that with the system requirements for getting everyone from home base to mysterious ruin via Teleport Without Error.

Move Earth and Disintegrate compared to digging; Charm Person compared to a mundane interrogation or seduction attempt; Detect Magic compared to engaging a sage or a bard; etc, etc. At nearly every point the system makes play easier for casters even if, within the fiction, it would be feasible for non-casters to achieve the goal in question.

Of course that's before we get to goals, like cross-planar travel or conjuring up the spirits of the dead or forging rings of power, which in the fiction are unattainable without magic.

(2) In his PHB, under the heading "Successful Adventures", Gygax emphasises the importance for players of planning their dungeon expedition. This includes advice on mapping, on managing time spent and noise made in the dungeon, etc. Part of this of course involves making calculations about spell load (which he discusses) and spell use (which he doesn't discuss). It's not possible to know exactly how many encounters will occur on the way through the dungeon to room X, because they're on a randomised clock, but likelihoods can be calculated with a bit of a buffer being built in.

This sort of planning-oriented approach can be adopted in a wide range of play contexts beyond dungeoneering (I know this from experience - I've seen it done).

In this sort of play, casters aren't "holding back" because they don't know what's coming next. Rather, the whole point is to get the caster, spell load-out largely intact, to place/situation X, where they then deliver the spell or spells that will solve the problem. The caster is essentially the "mission specialist" while the non-casters are the transport and security personnel who make sure the mission specialist is delivered intact and good-to-go.

Which goes right back to the versatility point. The issue isn't solely or even mostly about "nova damage" - though that can also be a consideration for class balance. It's about which PCs are crucial and which are peripheral.

There are approaches to play which depart considerably from this special ops/mission-specialist/planning-oriented style. But once playing in those other ways, the whole system of spell load-outs and resource management starts to seem unnecessary and a distraction.

 

[Don Durito]

Well yes. But I didn't need to say that, because that also hasn't changed.

 

[delph]

tl:dr

Short rest classes made more sense when you have shortrest - night sleeping, longrest - week resting...
I play one campaign with this setting right now. And I want to play Cleric, but morning the day we've starting this campaign I'v got conclusion that celestial warlock will do better work, then cleric... but too late for change.

 

[Dausuul]

Early editions had a lot of guard rails in place to curtail the power of casters. Expensive spell components to stop powerful spells being spammed; castings times that would make spells disrupt able; randomized spell learnings; high lethality making getting access to higher level spells difficult; magic items tables that favored fighters, d4 hit dice for the wizard; no limitless cantrips; different leveling rates for classes; etc.

Later editions removed those guard rails, not understanding their purpose.

It wasn't "later editions," it was one later edition: 3E. That was the edition that junked the guardrails and didn't install anything else in their place. 3E was the apex of caster supremacy. (It was not the beginning of it, though; as @AbdulAlhazred points out, many of the "guardrail" mechanics failed in actual practice. Wizards caused plenty of DM headaches in the 2E games I played.)

4E, of course, used a whole different system and was balanced to a fault. 5E did not restore AD&D's guardrail mechanics, but it installed other ones: Widespread concentration requirements, effects scaling by spell slot instead of by caster level, removal of bonus spells for high stats, sharply curtailed "save-or-lose" spells, and Legendary Resistance for boss fights.

 

[Charlaquin]

It wasn't "later editions," it was one later edition: 3E. That was the edition that junked the guardrails and didn't install anything else in their place. 3E was the apex of caster supremacy. (It was not the beginning of it, though; as @AbdulAlhazred points out, many of the "guardrail" mechanics failed in actual practice. Wizards caused plenty of DM headaches in the 2E games I played.)

4E, of course, used a whole different system and was balanced to a fault. 5E did not restore AD&D's guardrail mechanics, but it installed other ones: Widespread concentration requirements, effects scaling by spell slot instead of by caster level, removal of bonus spells for high stats, sharply curtailed "save-or-lose" spells, and Legendary Resistance for boss fights.

Much more effective guardrails in my opinion, though they still don’t prevent casters from outshining non-casters in the late game.