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

[Zardnaar]

They don't have to know anything about previous editions to feel like they are short on resources relative to long rest classes at tables that don't take or allow for many short rests.

That's because they're not paying attention to the actual encounter guidelines.

The guidelines are stupid imho and have been since 3E when they introduced them.

To much variety for one size fits all. Not a major problem if you're an experienced DM.

 

[Dausuul]

If the balance issue is significant enough to interfere with the campaign, then wouldn't it necessarily be significant enough for the DM to take notice?

Probably. Eventually. In the meantime, you've suffered a degraded play experience for X sessions, and if the DM is not very experienced, X may be large. And then the DM may not correctly identify the cause of the problem, or may not come up with a workable solution.

I don't think it's wise to expect DMs to be rules-hackers or to manage balance between classes. Most DMs are not good at these things, and they shouldn't have to be. If the rules do not smoothly accommodate modes of play that are common at many, many tables, that is a problem for the designers to address.

The alternative resting schemes presented in the DMG seem like a nod to that, but they are not well-thought-out; a lot of spell durations are predicated on the assumption that you get a long rest every 24 hours. And they don't address the needs of groups who like nightly long rests but struggle with getting their short rests in. The "5-minute short rests, capped at 2/day" house rule solves the problem neatly and simply, and I have yet to discover any down sides. If it doesn't become the official default in the next edition, I hope it is at least presented as an optional variant.

 

[Zardnaar]

Probably. Eventually. In the meantime, you've suffered a degraded play experience for X sessions, and if the DM is not very experienced, X may be large. And then the DM may not correctly identify the cause of the problem, or may not come up with a workable solution.

I don't think it's wise to expect DMs to be rules-hackers or to manage balance between classes. Most DMs are not good at these things, and they shouldn't have to be. If the rules do not smoothly accommodate modes of play that are common at many, many tables, that is a problem for the designers to address.

The alternative resting schemes presented in the DMG seem like a nod to that, but they are not well-thought-out; a lot of spell durations are predicated on the assumption that you get a long rest every 24 hours. And they don't address the needs of groups who like nightly long rests but struggle with getting their short rests in. The "5-minute short rests, capped at 2/day" house rule solves the problem neatly and simply, and I have yet to discover any down sides.

It's a better solution than most, you could even reduce short rests to 1 minute a'la Star Wars Saga.

I wouldn't object to shirt rest classes going bye bye in 6E and wouldn't be surprised to see that happen.

Encounter rules back to 3E 4/day would be an improvement.

Never going to work right imho.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's because they're not paying attention to the actual encounter guidelines.

The guidelines are stupid imho and have been since 3E when they introduced them.

To much variety for one size fits all. Not a major problem if you're an experienced DM.

If the guidelines are stupid, then we need to stop designing things that assume the guidelines are applied.

Which means we need to stop designing classes that work "all day long" vs classes that leverage "X per day" resources. It literally is that simple. Either every class needs to have daily resources, or every class needs to not use daily resources. Nothing else will actually deliver on D&D's promise, whether explicitly stated or simply implied, of being a cooperative (player characters are all on a team together) and symmetric (every player is given equal opportunity to play) game. If D&D is going to be an asymmetric game, it should bill itself as such and stop the ridiculous pretense of being symmetric; if the game is actually Casters & Caddies or Fizzlers & Fighters or whatever, it should be honest about that rather than parading around this blatant falsehood that it offers an equal-opportunity experience when it manifestly doesn't.

 

[ph0rk]

The "5-minute short rests, capped at 2/day"

This is cool because not every character needs to take one, so with such a short rest period folks can take them or not as they choose.

Casters & Caddies

That made whiskey come out my nose.

 

[Don Durito]

If the guidelines are stupid, then we need to stop designing things that assume the guidelines are applied.

Which means we need to stop designing classes that work "all day long" vs classes that leverage "X per day" resources. It literally is that simple. Either every class needs to have daily resources, or every class needs to not use daily resources. Nothing else will actually deliver on D&D's promise, whether explicitly stated or simply implied, of being a cooperative (player characters are all on a team together) and symmetric (every player is given equal opportunity to play) game. If D&D is going to be an asymmetric game, it should bill itself as such and stop the ridiculous pretense of being symmetric; if the game is actually Casters & Caddies or Fizzlers & Fighters or whatever, it should be honest about that rather than parading around this blatant falsehood that it offers an equal-opportunity experience when it manifestly doesn't.

It's not even just that. There's a difference also between abilties that are X times a long rest, but basically once per combat (such as Bladesong or Barbarian Rage) and abilities that can be done round after round (such as smites or most spells) and blown in no time at all for for maximum effect.

The only way to really make the once a day nova not viable, is either have only encounter powers, only long rest powers that are encounter long, or to possbily mix the two.

 

[cbwjm]

That's because they're not paying attention to the actual encounter guidelines.

The guidelines are stupid imho and have been since 3E when they introduced them.

To much variety for one size fits all. Not a major problem if you're an experienced DM.

I think it was my second or third session that I decided to throw out the encounter guidelines and started to create adhoc encounters. I think for 1 encounter I just decided that the party could hadn't 1 orc for each PC plus a couple more and it worked fine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Probably. Eventually. In the meantime, you've suffered a degraded play experience for X sessions, and if the DM is not very experienced, X may be large. And then the DM may not correctly identify the cause of the problem, or may not come up with a workable solution.

I don't think it's wise to expect DMs to be rules-hackers or to manage balance between classes. Most DMs are not good at these things, and they shouldn't have to be. If the rules do not smoothly accommodate modes of play that are common at many, many tables, that is a problem for the designers to address.

The DM doesn't have to actually hack or re-balance anything, unless/until they are comfortable with their ability to do so. All they have to do is stick with the content they're comfortable with, and be willing to say no when players try to go outside of that. There is no issue with short rests using the four classes and sub-classes in the Basic Rules document, after all; that's a problem that you choose to opt into.

Right now, it looks like the real problem is with players who feel entitled to use every class in the books, regardless of whether the DM is prepared for it. Or I guess the problem might be with DMs, who don't realize that they have complete control over what's available in their own games, and who may be under the mistaken impression that they should allow everything without fully understanding it first.

 

[ph0rk]

Right now, it looks like the real problem is with players who feel entitled to use every class in the books,

If a DM says PHB classes and subclasses are fine, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the adventuring day to be balanced with those classes in mind.

It isn’t like Battlemasters are from some obscure splatbook.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it was my second or third session that I decided to throw out the encounter guidelines and started to create adhoc encounters. I think for 1 encounter I just decided that the party could hadn't 1 orc for each PC plus a couple more and it worked fine.

That's pretty much what I do. One mook per PC with an extra 1-2.

Dial down if you use higher CR stuff.

If single beastie up to double CR almost.