5.5E If short rest abilities become Prof # tiimes per day?

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
These discussions are how I learn about past, current, and future designs. I find quite a bit of value in them and also pick up new ideas for my own home rules. I agree with you that folks who make personal insults against other posters and/or designers are not helpful. Telling people to just shut up because it happens is also not helpful. My advice to both is if they don't want to participate in good faith with the discussion, its best to just not participate at all.
Well, let's not forget that I just originally posted my preference and my beliefs on their own in this thread, did not quote anyone or make any indication I was referring to or arguing against anyone else's specific point. I just said my piece. You then responded directly back to me via direct quote to discuss my preferences. Which means at that point it is now open season for me to discuss my arguments right back to you.

If you didn't like my responses or you thought I was wrong... that's cool! You don't have to. But you can't just say "Well, if you can't participate in the discussion in good faith, you shouldn't participate" because you didn't like how I responded. You don't want to discuss things... don't pull someone into a discussion by quoting them. Simple as that. I mean, had you just let me original post go without comment, who knows if I would have responded again? Quite possibly not. Might've just said my piece and then the conversation continue on.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
really... you think no one plays RAW? that no one plays adventure league?

I get that homebrew is common but come on this is nuts.

and no matter how much house ruleing I do I will still push for WotC to do it for us... just like even if I can have my brother and dad rebuild the engine of my car I don't want to HAVE to have them rebuild the engine on a new car I buy in 2024...

great thread cap... it's actually more of site cap. How many discussion can these 2 sentences end... maybe 10 on the main D&D page right now? Maybe we shouldn't have enworld discussions about anything other then house rules... I mean there is also no reason to buy the 2024 books I guess, I still have my 2e ones and I can just homebrew from 2e on.
For all the people who feel like the rules NEED to be aligned to their specific preferences for them to be happy... there is only going to probably be 1 person out there who will be truly happy. With the hundreds of thousands of rules spread throughout all the books, there will always be some amount of rules that will not align to your preferences and you will be stuck adjusting them and be unable to play "RAW". That's just the way it is. And if you play nothing but Adventurer's League and can never play home games where you can have the rules the way you want them... at that point you pretty much should get over the fact you are never going to play D&D 5E the way you want if you are "stuck" using the game as-is.

If you continually want to push back at WotC to try and get them to change their rules to match your preferences, go right ahead! No one's stopping you and that's what a large amount of threads here on the boards end up being about (despite ample evidence that says that NOTHING that get said here regarding the rules ever gets incorporated into the game in any meaningful fashion.) But don't then get mad when there are others who point out that what you're doing is seemingly to us a fruitless exercise and you aren't actually going to get what you want.

Or then again... get mad! That's cool too. You can get mad. No big deal. But just know that you getting mad that I had the audacity to state that you almost certainly are never going to get what you want and if you want to be truly happy you should probably accept that fact... is not going to stop me from saying it or make me change my mind.
 

payn

Legend
Well, let's not forget that I just originally posted my preference and my beliefs on their own in this thread, did not quote anyone or make any indication I was referring to or arguing against anyone else's specific point. I just said my piece. You then responded directly back to me via direct quote to discuss my preferences. Which means at that point it is now open season for me to discuss my arguments right back to you.

If you didn't like my responses or you thought I was wrong... that's cool! You don't have to. But you can't just say "Well, if you can't participate in the discussion in good faith, you shouldn't participate" because you didn't like how I responded. You don't want to discuss things... don't pull someone into a discussion by quoting them. Simple as that. I mean, had you just let me original post go without comment, who knows if I would have responded again? Quite possibly not. Might've just said my piece and then the conversation continue on.
Doesnt matter if I opened the door by replying to you. This is a discussion board, and you are trying to tell people not discuss things you dont like or think are a waste of time. Instead of telling me not to reply to people unless I want them to tell me to shut up, maybe you should just not reply?
 

For all the people who feel like the rules NEED to be aligned to their specific preferences for them to be happy... there is only going to probably be 1 person out there who will be truly happy. With the hundreds of thousands of rules spread throughout all the books, there will always be some amount of rules that will not align to your preferences and you will be stuck adjusting them and be unable to play "RAW". That's just the way it is. And if you play nothing but Adventurer's League and can never play home games where you can have the rules the way you want them... at that point you pretty much should get over the fact you are never going to play D&D 5E the way you want if you are "stuck" using the game as-is.

If you continually want to push back at WotC to try and get them to change their rules to match your preferences, go right ahead! No one's stopping you and that's what a large amount of threads here on the boards end up being about (despite ample evidence that says that NOTHING that get said here regarding the rules ever gets incorporated into the game in any meaningful fashion.) But don't then get mad when there are others who point out that what you're doing is seemingly to us a fruitless exercise and you aren't actually going to get what you want.

Or then again... get mad! That's cool too. You can get mad. No big deal. But just know that you getting mad that I had the audacity to state that you almost certainly are never going to get what you want and if you want to be truly happy you should probably accept that fact... is not going to stop me from saying it or make me change my mind.
I actually agree with you. WotC isn't going to change tracks based on anything said on ENWorld or any other site.

However, I also think people have the right to be irritated when the game moves away from a version they liked toward one they don't. Especially if they've been pretty happy for a while and the unwanted changes come rapidly. Even more especially if others in their community ooh and ah over changes you can't stand.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I truly think D&D works better if Attrition or Nova are tied to Defense over Offense.

The wizard should be free to use their fireball as they see fit.

You quit when you HP, HD, Healing Surges, and Potions run out.
But then you get into people objecting to siloization, and wanting the option to make their character all offense or all defense.

There’s no easy answer, there’s only tweaking all these factors to maximize acceptance and minimize kvetching.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
But then you get into people objecting to siloization, and wanting the option to make their character all offense or all defense.

There’s no easy answer, there’s only tweaking all these factors to maximize acceptance and minimize kvetching.

Well they can still go all Offense or all Defense with spells/maneuvers, etc.

The meter is just on HP and HD/HS. Because that's what the DM can control and tie to the Nova-Attrition scale.
 

Staffan

Legend
I really liked the change from X per day in 3E, to X per rounds in PF1. Though, I prefer having a full days worth of resources to manage as opposed to encounter power mechanics. No need for short rests in that system.
That was one of my least favorite changes in PF1 for both the classes it affected, though for different reasons.

Barbarian: No. Rage should not be a spigot you can turn on and off as needed. Once you see red, red it is until your foes are gone.

Bard: A horrible nerf. 3.5 bards can use bardic music 1/day/level. For most uses, a single use covers a whole situation. Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics works for 5 rounds after you stop performing (so the whole battle in most cases), Inspire Competence would help for checks taking up to 2 minutes, Fascinate could distract folks for as long as needed, and Song of Freedom would let you cast break enchantment, one of the most powerful anti-condition spells in the game for a single use of bardic music. But in PF, each round you do a bard thing costs one of your 4+Cha+2/level rounds per day. You want to boost your allies in a four-round fight? That's four rounds. You want to help your rogue buddy take 20 on opening a lock? Well, there goes 20 rounds. Each round you want to keep someone fascinated is one round gone (not to mention that the save now uses a normal formula instead of the bard's likely ridiculous Perform check). And Song of Freedom is gone, replaced with the anemic Soothing Performance, mimicking a mass cure serious wounds instead of break enchantment and costing four rounds of performance. Blech.
 

kapars

Explorer
If we interpret the recent Sage Advice video as a trend maybe we are heading to Long Rests only and then abilities that require hit dice. You can essentially exert yourself for extra uses of an ability by spending hit dice but it comes at the cost of healing they would provide. There would therefore be no short rest longer than the actions to expend the hit dice to recover HP, Ki, Manuever Dice etc. Characters would de-power because of this but would be buffed again by free feats at levels 1 and 4.

Another implementation has class resources go away and you have PB uses then hit dice.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
If we interpret the recent Sage Advice video as a trend maybe we are heading to Long Rests only and then abilities that require hit dice.
Sigh.

I was having high hopes with the UA with the feats at first level. Now this.

One step forward, two steps back, directly into wanging your head on a light fixture, tripping down the stairs and landing face first into a litter box.
 

I'm sure they'll redesign the core races too, don't worry.
I mean, technically speaking they already have. It's half the reason we got Chromatic, Metallic, and Gem Dragonborn.

The other half, depending on who you ask, is either "awful bloat to fill up the unnecessary dragon book with more options," or "WotC FINALLY recognizing how crappy dragonborn were in the PHB, and also their growing popularity despite how weak they are, and giving them a well-deserved tune-up."

Which side you're on mostly depends on how you feel about new options, dragons in general, and dragonborn specifically.
 

I mean, technically speaking they already have. It's half the reason we got Chromatic, Metallic, and Gem Dragonborn.

The other half, depending on who you ask, is either "awful bloat to fill up the unnecessary dragon book with more options," or "WotC FINALLY recognizing how crappy dragonborn were in the PHB, and also their growing popularity despite how weak they are, and giving them a well-deserved tune-up."

Which side you're on mostly depends on how you feel about new options, dragons in general, and dragonborn specifically.
I like new options. I'm mostly neutral about dragons (it depends on the context). I'm vaguely positive on dragonborn as a race, mostly due to the hilarious portrayal of one by a good friend of mine back when 4th ed came out. His name was Jason Dragonbourne, and it went on from there as you might expect.
 

For all the people who feel like the rules NEED to be aligned to their specific preferences for them to be happy... there is only going to probably be 1 person out there who will be truly happy.
so we shouldn't talk about what we want? why be on enworld then?
With the hundreds of thousands of rules spread throughout all the books, there will always be some amount of rules that will not align to your preferences and you will be stuck adjusting them and be unable to play "RAW". That's just the way it is. And if you play nothing but Adventurer's League and can never play home games where you can have the rules the way you want them... at that point you pretty much should get over the fact you are never going to play D&D 5E the way you want if you are "stuck" using the game as-is.
again... what is the point of telling people not to talk preferences?
If you continually want to push back at WotC to try and get them to change their rules to match your preferences, go right ahead!
I mean I only really started when they announced they were making changes for 2024... so that people can talk about it.
But just know that you getting mad that I had the audacity to state that you almost certainly are never going to get what you want
even though we can show how online chater changed the game atleast twice?!
 

I actually agree with you. WotC isn't going to change tracks based on anything said on ENWorld or any other site.

However, I also think people have the right to be irritated when the game moves away from a version they liked toward one they don't. Especially if they've been pretty happy for a while and the unwanted changes come rapidly. Even more especially if others in their community ooh and ah over changes you can't stand.
I don't really think someone is going to go "Oh GMforpowergamers posted this on enworld, lets talk about it at the next meeting"

However when threads like this are on the front page and responded to alot, can get people talking. when people are talking (here, on other sites, on tic tok on redit and at stores, at conventions) sooner or later either directly or indirectly this WILL get back to WOtC...
 

I like new options. I'm mostly neutral about dragons (it depends on the context). I'm vaguely positive on dragonborn as a race, mostly due to the hilarious portrayal of one by a good friend of mine back when 4th ed came out. His name was Jason Dragonbourne, and it went on from there as you might expect.
Oh my God, that sounds amazing.

Reminds me of the Warforged character I considered making for a 13th Age game (but there wasn't room for me to join). Warforged Wizard, Dodec O'Hedron, second youngest of a set of siblings (the youngest being the very-recent Eikos O'Hedron).
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
even though we can show how online chatter changed the game at least twice?!
Good point. In 2015 people here on EN World were demanding WotC produce classic campaign settings other than Forgotten Realms, and sure enough WotC has listened! I guess it's true that a broken watch is still right every seven years. ;)
 

Good point. In 2015 people here on EN World were demanding WotC produce classic campaign settings other than Forgotten Realms, and sure enough WotC has listened! I guess it's true that a broken watch is still right every seven years. ;)
more then that... you could see back in 2006 the major caster issue that was fixed in 4e, in 4e you could see the 'it's not real d&D and everyone is magic' that got snapped back for 5e (maybe even the complaints about a simple fighter leading to the slayer and knight options) and you can see the call for other settings, and that spelljammer it self was high on the list.

Again I don't think that someone said "Hey enworld has a thread about it we need to call a developer meeting" I think that when people are talking here it spills out into other places too, including the surveys. WotC may not ever even look here (although I do believe we have devs with accounts here) but they don't have to. They just need to hear the same things we are.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
That was one of my least favorite changes in PF1 for both the classes it affected, though for different reasons.

Barbarian: No. Rage should not be a spigot you can turn on and off as needed. Once you see red, red it is until your foes are gone.

Bard: A horrible nerf. 3.5 bards can use bardic music 1/day/level. For most uses, a single use covers a whole situation. Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics works for 5 rounds after you stop performing (so the whole battle in most cases), Inspire Competence would help for checks taking up to 2 minutes, Fascinate could distract folks for as long as needed, and Song of Freedom would let you cast break enchantment, one of the most powerful anti-condition spells in the game for a single use of bardic music. But in PF, each round you do a bard thing costs one of your 4+Cha+2/level rounds per day. You want to boost your allies in a four-round fight? That's four rounds. You want to help your rogue buddy take 20 on opening a lock? Well, there goes 20 rounds. Each round you want to keep someone fascinated is one round gone (not to mention that the save now uses a normal formula instead of the bard's likely ridiculous Perform check). And Song of Freedom is gone, replaced with the anemic Soothing Performance, mimicking a mass cure serious wounds instead of break enchantment and costing four rounds of performance. Blech.
Rages per round, I thought, worked pretty well. And if you let it lapse before the fight was over, it was self-penalizing due to fatigue. The reason it worked as well as it did was because it was a combat-oriented feature and combat was already measured in rounds.

But I think you're right that the bard's shift to a per-round basis didn't work as well. It might have worked OK for inspire courage, but it sucked for virtually everything else.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I played a Bard in Pathfinder 1e, and worried that I might not have enough Performance rounds, I took a Feat that gave me a few extra rounds when I stopped a Performance (Lingering Performance). The weird part is, I never needed it!

I don't know if we should have faced more combats per game day than we did, but if anecdotal evidence means anything, it worked out ok for me.

Curiously, my Bloodrager had much more problems with his rage rounds- often I had to "waste" rounds because to conserve them meant I had to take fatigue penalties, so there really wasn't any advantage.

At higher levels, of course, you can find ways around that penalty, which I know annoyed some ("rage cycling") but I never got to that point.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I played a Bard in Pathfinder 1e, and worried that I might not have enough Performance rounds, I took a Feat that gave me a few extra rounds when I stopped a Performance (Lingering Performance). The weird part is, I never needed it!

I don't know if we should have faced more combats per game day than we did, but if anecdotal evidence means anything, it worked out ok for me.

Curiously, my Bloodrager had much more problems with his rage rounds- often I had to "waste" rounds because to conserve them meant I had to take fatigue penalties, so there really wasn't any advantage.

At higher levels, of course, you can find ways around that penalty, which I know annoyed some ("rage cycling") but I never got to that point.
Bards in 3/Finder are loaded with abilities that are either useless (countersong) or are so effective that if you can't ruin lives in three rounds with them, you have greatly miscalculated how bards work.

This is why bards were said to suck in 3/Finder even though they were actually crazy powerful, because no one understood what control was back then and thought the only point was taking down enemies when bards can just flick the 'off' switch on combats.= with anything with a mind.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top