log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Is 5e "Easy Mode?"

Sadras

Hero
I refer you to my previous answer.
You are welcome to rule it any which way you want. Myself I changed the entire rest and recovery system tying it to the exhuastion track.

I take issue when someone argues on the side that 5e is NOT easy mode claiming one HAS to rest in a city or otherwise kill ALL vermin in a forest. THOSE are not the rules of 5e. That is not arguing from an honest account of 5e.

You cannot argue 5e is not easy mode when you are challenging with homebrewery.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Is there an erata on this or are we going on what should be the case?
I do remember seeing this thread here.
I'm going to note that the wording is ambiguous. It says:

"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting Spells, or similar Adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

As written, the hour may be modifying the entire list, or just the walking. Darned English ambiguous structure!

I think the intent is, "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, or similar Adventuring activity, or an hour of walking..."

So, please stop telling them they are not playing by RAW here - as is frequently the case, RAW is not worded clearly, and is open to interpretation.
 

Sadras

Hero
I'm going to note that the wording is ambiguous. It says:

"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting Spells, or similar Adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

As written, the hour may be modifying the entire list, or just the walking. Darned English ambiguous structure!

I think the intent is, "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, of similar Adventuring activity, or an hour of walking..."

So, please stop telling them they are not playing by RAW here - as is frequently the case, RAW is not worded clearly, and is open to interpretation.
Disagree.
As it could it have been stated as "If the rest is interrupted by fighting, casting, a period of strenuous activity at least 1 hour of walking or similar adventuring activity..."
 
Last edited:

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
Maybe I just played with different people/expectations. Basically most combats went something like: "Oh **** we're all going to die". Then the caster would go and leave a big giant smoking crater somehow.

But I totally get that different people want different things. No game could ever work for everyone.
Grain of salt, personal anecdote and all, but 5e high level does play pretty differently than high-level AD&D. My game's been at tier 3 for about a year now, and most combats that actually get dragged out (my party is pretty good at figuring out non-combat ways to circumvent encounters) tend to be won by the martials.

The casters tend to shape the encounter by their choice of spells at the beginning, then the battle moves into "shut down the casters" mode with a lot of counterspelling and dispels, and the martial pressure is what actually breaks the encounter open.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
If I were to interrupt a rest while in a dangerous locale then I think it would look something like a series of small skirmishes and ambushes over the course of an hour or so. Enemies attack and then scurry back into the darkness. Give chase? Well that's going to pull you into their ambush or they ransack the camp while you're distracted. Maybe the enemy starts a brush fire and you have to fight the fire or pack up camp.

There are any number of ways to interrupt the rest cycle. If nothing else just house rule that camping in dangerous wilderness area isn't very peaceful enough to qualify.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Disagree.
As it could it have been stated as "If the rest is interrupted by fighting, casting, a period of strenuous activity at least 1 hour of walking or similar adventuring activity..."
Well, of course you disagree - it gets in the way of your interpretation.

That the grammatical construction is ambiguous, though, is not really a matter of opinion. It is absolutely true that this construction can be validly be read in two different ways in English- you choose one or the other, based on context and your guess at author's intent.

RAW is often ambiguous. The writers were human. In 5e, they specifically, (and, iirc, explicitly) chose natural language (which leans to ambiguity) over technical language construction (which leans toward eliminating ambiguity). It is really rather important that we recognize when the writing has multiple interpretations, because if your argument hinges on one very specific reading of one rule... it isn't a particularly strong argument.
 

Sadras

Hero
Well, of course you disagree - it gets in the way of your interpretation.

That the grammatical construction is ambiguous, though, is not really a matter of opinion. It is absolutely true that this construction can be validly be read in two different ways in English- you choose one or the other, based on context and your guess at author's intent.

RAW is often ambiguous. The writers were human. In 5e, they specifically, (and, iirc, explicitly) chose natural language (which leans to ambiguity) over technical language construction (which leans toward eliminating ambiguity). It is really rather important that we recognize when the writing has multiple interpretations, because if your argument hinges on one very specific reading of one rule... it isn't a particularly strong argument.
Here is the argument from the other side and the one you insist on defending: One cast's a cantrip and one's long rest is interrupted.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Here is the argument from the other side and the one you insist on defending: One cast's a cantrip and one's long rest is interrupted.
And if you want a tougher interpretation of what breaks a long rest, then that sounds like exactly the kind of interpretation you'd want... and be supported by the rules.
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I'd really like encounters to be balanced more around the individual encounter. Removing as many daily resources as possible, and having spells, combat manoeuvres etc all function like Tome of Battle in 3.5, or force powers in SWSE; per encounter abilities.
That would be my preferred direction as well... but we have a reversion instead.
 

tetrasodium

Adventurer
Have you actually run a game and experienced balance issues from not running 6-8 encounters?
Yes... that was the reason I & others have mentioned it as a problem that occurs when you actually do things like use the crude & imprecise tools left in 5e to just make it harder or shift the encounter numbers.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
I'd really like encounters to be balanced more around the individual encounter. Removing as many daily resources as possible, and having spells, combat manoeuvres etc all function like Tome of Battle in 3.5, or force powers in SWSE; per encounter abilities.

That's just me though probably.
It's not just you, but it's definitely not me. I can see how balancing things around the encounter level makes game design easier - but it also elevates the constructs of the game that enhance game play at the expense of simulating a setting or genre. And that just jars the hell out of me with RPGs. It undermines my sensation of playing a character with a character's perspective and enhances my sense of playing a pawn on the board.

I recognize that there are some abilities that can orient themselves really well around an encounter but there are others that I feel don't and I really bristle at trying to push them to that level.
 

jmartkdr2

Explorer
That would be my preferred direction as well... but we have a reversion instead.
What I'd really love is a fantasy rpg with no 'daily' or even 'once per encounter/X minutes" resources. Have a primary limit not rooted in attrition, like "you may only have one active spell at a time." So if you want to cast fireball - you have to give up mirror image. Or whatever kinds of spells the game/setting uses.

Obviously such a game would play very differently than DnD, however.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
What I'd really love is a fantasy rpg with no 'daily' or even 'once per encounter/X minutes" resources. Have a primary limit not rooted in attrition, like "you may only have one active spell at a time." So if you want to cast fireball - you have to give up mirror image. Or whatever kinds of spells the game/setting uses.

Obviously such a game would play very differently than DnD, however.
Wouldn't spell points come close to that? Or maybe not. :)

A lot of fantasy is more flexible. It's not that you can't cast fireball and mirror image, it's just that they each cost a certain amount of power and that power (however it's explained) is a limited resource.

I played with that a bit in an edition long ago and far away that had an option for spell points. Basically you had a mana pool and if you were really desperate you could always spend HP.

It guess it might make the 15 minute work day even worse for some people, and I get that spell slots are a balancing factor and simplification. It just never sat well with me is all.
 

tetrasodium

Adventurer
.
What I'd really love is a fantasy rpg with no 'daily' or even 'once per encounter/X minutes" resources. Have a primary limit not rooted in attrition, like "you may only have one active spell at a time." So if you want to cast fireball - you have to give up mirror image. Or whatever kinds of spells the game/setting uses.

Obviously such a game would play very differently than DnD, however.
That would produce problems of its own. If you look at the concentration mechanic & how it moves a bunch of spells that were formerly pretty decent staple things consuming spell slots into things that are never cast because it's not $betterSpell. Such a change would basically either remove any buff spells from consideration or require them to be extremely powerful. Rather than someone who reacts to the situation & casts the spells needed casters would become a dispenser of spells that make the party able to meet the "you must be this tall to ride" bar.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
. Have a primary limit not rooted in attrition, like "you may only have one active spell at a time."
That could be a point system where you allocated attention to things and you were always using immediate resources changeable as soon as your next round. Its all effectively an action economy system.
 

FrozenNorth

Adventurer
I disagree that 5e is “easy mode” because I feel the question is meaningless.

What some people mean when they say that 5e is easy-mode is that 5e is easier than AD&D all else being equal.

To me, it is the all else being equal that is meaningless. All else is not equal and can never be equal.

Take GM Jim and GM Bob. If GM Jim runs both a AD&D campaign and a 5e campaign, Jim’s two campaigns will probably resemble each other more (including in difficulty) than Jim and Bob’s campaign.

To give a specific example, my teenaged AD&D campaign ended at 9th level with one character who was a Titan and one who had a sentient artifact that was subservient to him. They also had like 1 million gp. So far, nothing like that has happened in any 5e game I have run. 😀
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Here is the argument from the other side and the one you insist on defending: One cast's a cantrip and one's long rest is interrupted.
Yep. This seems to you more nonsensical than saying you need an entire hour of combat, to break a rest, when no darned combat we ever run takes an hour in-game-time?

Though, honestly, my basic point isn't that one reading is superior to the other. My basic point is that the RAW technically supports both the very permissive, and very strict versions of what breaks a rest, which makes pointing to long rests as RAW support for Easy or Hard a weak proposition.

Or, we can be... maybe more sensible and remember this is the "rulings not rules" edition, and take the language to be... suggestive, rather than proscriptive. So, mayb ethe GM will allow cantrips. Or rituals. Or some spell-casting outside of combat...
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
To give a specific example, my teenaged AD&D campaign ended at 9th level with one character who was a Titan and one who had a sentient artifact that was subservient to him. They also had like 1 million gp.
At least they didn't have a pet dragon that had been "subdued". They called it Timmy. :rolleyes:
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top