D&D 5E Is Xanathars The New UA? AKA A Munchkins Book

[Maxperson]

Yes so how is that not about disincentivizing unsecured rests (and that was what we were discussing - resting in an unsecure place, not rests in general)?

Attempting a rest and hoping for no wandering monster is much better than guaranteeing yourself no resources back. The only time that isn't the case is if you've invaded an army barracks or something and the chances of an wandering monster are so high as to be guaranteed, and that's a circumstance issue, not a wandering monster issue.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Envy me too then, as my group has not figured out a way for any wandering monster, to, at a bare minimum, screw up your rest.

Until you have a Leomund's Hut. That changes things dramatically. Level 5 is a game-changer in so many ways.

Don't forget that Leomund's Hut is a third level spell and automatically dies to Dispel Magic. I believe there is a at least 1 Demon with Dispel Magic at will, or the wandering "monsters" could have a caster among them. My players don't rely on Leomund's Tiny Bunker to exclusively get them through the night.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Don't forget that Leomund's Hut is a third level spell and automatically dies to Dispel Magic. I believe there is a at least 1 Demon with Dispel Magic at will, or the wandering "monsters" could have a caster among them. My players don't rely on Leomund's Tiny Bunker to exclusively get them through the night.

Why would I forget that? You could also dimension door or Thunderstep inside, or use an antimagic field.

That said, the protection that a Leomund's Tiny Hut provides considering it is a 3rd level ritual is next level. Everytime a DM encounters it for the first time, it's always the same. "What save do they have to make to enter? There's no save? How much damage do the walls take before they are destroyed? They can't take damage? Let me read that..."

Just to put it in perspective, consider what % of creatures in the MM could do anything to circumvent a Leomund's Hut. Is it 5%? Can't be more than that.

 

[Ganymede81]

I run a High Elf Storm Herald, so the book isn't just for munchkins.

 

[Mistwell]

Attempting a rest and hoping for no wandering monster is much better than guaranteeing yourself no resources back.

That's not the proposition however. The proposition is resting in an unsecured place versus retreating to a more secured place, at the cost of the ground given up in that retreat will likely be re-taken by the foes.

 

[FieserMoep]

Your issue is with Munchkins, not with Options.
There is always a way to maximize, murderhobo stuff and disrupt the table.
If you don't want that, avoid the player type, not the book.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not the proposition however. The proposition is resting in an unsecured place versus retreating to a more secured place, at the cost of the ground given up in that retreat will likely be re-taken by the foes.

Circumstances could change this, but I would usually risk the rest in that situation. You're generally less likely to hit a wandering monster than the territory be retaken. All retreat does is use up the same resources to get to the same place and put you in the same situation again. At least resting in the unsecured place gives you a good chance to progress.

 

[Mistwell]

Circumstances could change this, but I would usually risk the rest in that situation. You're generally less likely to hit a wandering monster than the territory be retaken. All retreat does is use up the same resources to get to the same place and put you in the same situation again. At least resting in the unsecured place gives you a good chance to progress.

Well these are the decisions parties make when allocating resources. It might work out, and it might end in disaster if you're caught without those resources you spent prior to the rest. My point is, this is a real check on resting. It shouldn't be dismissed. This is one primary purpose of wandering monsters and it belongs in any analysis of rests resetting resources in 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your issue is with Munchkins, not with Options.
There is always a way to maximize, murderhobo stuff and disrupt the table.
If you don't want that, avoid the player type, not the book.

Its mostly theory crafting some of my players over the years are a bit power gamey but they also tend to do it on less powerful stuff like 3/.5 Bards and Rogues. The worst builds I have seen were probably in 3.0 with a cleric archer, Incantrix and Shadow Adept at a real game and a crit build of 12+ on the d20 roll Paladin. In 5E were saw the -5/+10 builds, light cleric, lore bard, crossbow expert and PAM builds 1st 6 months but had theory crafted the warlock abuse etc. Currently its a champion dual wielding fighter, Gemini, Arcane Cleric and a lore bard and gonna ban the healing spirit spell.

In 3.5 maybe a PHB type Druid with natural spell played with a player who thought he was allowed to take half an hour to select the perfect summons, when I told him this was a problem he argued he will do things in his own time. My response was "sure buy your own MM" you''re not using mine and took it off him which solved that issue nicely. He did still summon but he kept it simple after that (dire bears, wolves etc basically summoning form memory). He was also cheap some of my players at the time would go and buy a MM just to annoy me.

 

[Maxperson]

Well these are the decisions parties make when allocating resources. It might work out, and it might end in disaster if you're caught without those resources you spent prior to the rest. My point is, this is a real check on resting. It shouldn't be dismissed. This is one primary purpose of wandering monsters and it belongs in any analysis of rests resetting resources in 5e.

I agree with this. It's something you consider for sure and it shouldn't be dismissed. I just think that it's something to be weighed in the pros and cons of whatever situation you are in, not necessarily a deterrent against resting.