mamba
Legend
well, have you ever fought a dragon then?
D&D (2024) How long should a Short rest be in 5E(2024)?
MockingBird
Hero
But you can relate to how taxing combat is right? Adrenaline dump is a hell of a thing. Fighting is stressful on the body. 5 mins wouldn't be enough time to lower the blood pressure, catch your breath and calm your body back to 100% ability for the next stressful combat.
Yes. Has this been unclear to anyone?
Vaalingrade
Legend
My local game store has a bearded dragon I get to pet rather often. I'm also not a super-buff orc.well, have you ever fought a dragon then?
All of this real-world talk is moot and pointless because we're talking about fantasy heroes in a fantasy story.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Again, I'm also in the suckful real world that I'm playing D&D not to be beholden to.
That reminds me of a fun little bit of fluff built into something I read recently about a wererat. In it a combat instructor type was talking to untrained warriors and had this to say.
across you'll all agree that all cheese is tasty and there is joy in sampling a new variety. But more importantly, we need many types of highly specialized cheese to concoct the best Snacks for our warriors. Many races create their own types of snacks. Humans call them potions, the Spider Tribes eat the fermented organs of other creatures, dwarves have their alcohol, while elves prefer jams made from magical fruit.""
Said story
Said story
I had shared the quote with my group over discord so was able to get it but don't recall what chapter. Racial specific "$potions" could be fun
Vaalingrade
Legend
That'd be Long rests. You know, sad wizard nappytime.I agree, death to short rests
Here's why I don't like it when a game attempts to balance things across some mythical "average adventuring day": it reminds me of Britannia.
Britannia is a boardgame in which you will be playing a sequence of various tribes/peoples invading Britain, from 43 AD (Romans) to 1066 (Normans). It is meant for four players, each of which plays several invaders over the course of the game. At various points in the game you will get points depending on how much you've conquered. One of the players will, of course, play the Romans. The Romans score a buttload of points in the early game, and then that player will score very few points over the rest of the game until the last round or two when they also get to play the Norwegians. This causes an effect where it's hard to tell how you're doing, because just because the guy playing the Romans has way more points than anyone else at the end of round 5 it doesn't mean that he's actually doing well. This, to me, is bad game design.
Similarly, in an attrition-based system the main impact of taking a crit or something is not so much "Damn, now I'm in trouble" as it is "Ouch, that's going to cost a big spell to heal." Most fights are not dangerous in themselves, as they're only there to sandbag you into spending resources. This, to me, is boring. I want fighting encounters to actually pose a danger in themselves, not just as a matter of "Oh, this encounter went poorly, it cost you 20% of your resources instead of the 15% it was supposed to."
I want the encounter itself to be the main unit of adventure design, and for that to work you need encounter-based resources. It's fine if there are some daily resources to represent digging deep, but the majority of the cool stuff you can do should either be at will or refresh on an encounter basis.
Britannia is a boardgame in which you will be playing a sequence of various tribes/peoples invading Britain, from 43 AD (Romans) to 1066 (Normans). It is meant for four players, each of which plays several invaders over the course of the game. At various points in the game you will get points depending on how much you've conquered. One of the players will, of course, play the Romans. The Romans score a buttload of points in the early game, and then that player will score very few points over the rest of the game until the last round or two when they also get to play the Norwegians. This causes an effect where it's hard to tell how you're doing, because just because the guy playing the Romans has way more points than anyone else at the end of round 5 it doesn't mean that he's actually doing well. This, to me, is bad game design.
Similarly, in an attrition-based system the main impact of taking a crit or something is not so much "Damn, now I'm in trouble" as it is "Ouch, that's going to cost a big spell to heal." Most fights are not dangerous in themselves, as they're only there to sandbag you into spending resources. This, to me, is boring. I want fighting encounters to actually pose a danger in themselves, not just as a matter of "Oh, this encounter went poorly, it cost you 20% of your resources instead of the 15% it was supposed to."
I want the encounter itself to be the main unit of adventure design, and for that to work you need encounter-based resources. It's fine if there are some daily resources to represent digging deep, but the majority of the cool stuff you can do should either be at will or refresh on an encounter basis.
MockingBird
Hero
Fair enough
Similar Threads
