Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8354252" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah, I probably should've mentioned this. This is another one that is....complicated. I, personally, think the 5e designers made a serious error by making short rests be an hour long. I think they thought it was much more thematic to make them be long, and vastly underestimated player reluctance to spend an hour on a short rest (which does little to nothing for several classes, mostly spellcasters). Like, I completely grant that the structure came from 4e, but that one &quot;small&quot; change (twelve times the duration!!) has enormous knock-on effects. That Crawford has openly admitted that people aren't using short rests as much as intended is, IMO, proof positive that they were merely copying the superficial structure, not the spirit of the rule.That's more or less what I tried to articulate with my post: that a bunch of stuff in 5e is merely a nod to 4e and no more. Then people, usually ones who weren't 4e fans to begin with (and often specifically 4e anti-fans), take those nods as though they were faithful translations, and thus get deeply confused when someone else (e.g. myself, a 4e fan) challenges the idea that 5e draws all that heavily on 4e.I've seen tweets where people straight-up say things like &quot;there's so much more 4e under the hood,&quot; and the problem is...there isn't. There's so much 4e only on the hood, but if you crack it open, it's either extremely different, or some change or changes that were made to adapt it have pulled it completely out of the spirit of the rules 5e &quot;nodded&quot; to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8354252, member: 6790260"] Yeah, I probably should've mentioned this. This is another one that is....complicated. I, personally, think the 5e designers made a serious error by making short rests be an hour long. I think they thought it was much more thematic to make them be long, and vastly underestimated player reluctance to spend an hour on a short rest (which does little to nothing for several classes, [I]mostly spellcasters[/I]). Like, I completely grant that the [I]structure[/I] came from 4e, but that one "small" change (twelve times the duration!!) has enormous knock-on effects. That Crawford has openly admitted that people aren't using short rests as much as intended is, IMO, proof positive that they were merely copying the superficial structure, not the spirit of the rule. That's more or less what I tried to articulate with my post: that a bunch of stuff in 5e is [I]merely[/I] a nod to 4e and no more. Then people, [I]usually[/I] ones who weren't 4e fans to begin with (and often specifically 4e anti-fans), take those nods as though they were faithful translations, and thus get deeply confused when someone else (e.g. myself, a 4e fan) challenges the idea that 5e draws all that heavily on 4e. I've seen tweets where people straight-up say things like "there's so much more 4e under the hood," and the problem is...there isn't. There's so much 4e [I]only on[/I] the hood, but if you crack it open, it's either extremely different, or some change or changes that were made to adapt it have pulled it completely out of the spirit of the rules 5e "nodded" to. [/QUOTE]

Verification