D&D (2024) Limiting Short Rests to 2x/day

[Vaalingrade]

He's right. Like almost everything else D&D 5e loads it onto the DM based on events in the game world. I'd just call it a situation rather than a story.

It says you can change the rules and slyly moves all responsibility from the designers' shoulders in a stunt that absolutely wouldn't fly without D&D's baked in flawed culture, but the actual rules are presented as like... actual rules. You can't just excuse bad rule by saying 'well you don't actually have to use them'; they're still bad rules.

 

[NaturalZero]

You can't just excuse bad rule by saying 'well you don't actually have to use them'; they're still bad rules.

The Oberoni Fallacy.

 

[Scott Christian]

I see... You lost track of what was said in the post you quoted when you made your claims to the contrary in 243. Being asked for rules supporting that claim does not obliviate what you quoted while making the claim

I didn't lose track of anything. I have made the same claim since the beginning of my posts. What you want is for someone to give you a rule so you can play a semantic game with it, and try to make it prove your point.

Nothing in 5e's rules pins resting to the GM or gives control over them via the needs of "story".

The problem is, it does. Inside the DM's Guide, the section describing how a DM might create encounters, and then detailing "Character Objectives" for said encounters does exactly that. Half of the character objectives listed are time based. And being time based, they are subject to the story. Stopping a Ritual, Taking Out a Single Target (before they get away), Sneaking In, Running the Gauntlet, Protecting an NPC or Object - all of these can dictate short/long rests. And they do so based on how the DM has created the scenario. And that is way more influential on class balance than declaring a class doesn't get a feat back during a short rest.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The Oberoni Fallacy.

Indeed. I was there when he coined it.

It is disheartening that the fallacy is still thriving so many years later.

 

[tetrasodium]

I didn't lose track of anything. I have made the same claim since the beginning of my posts. What you want is for someone to give you a rule so you can play a semantic game with it, and try to make it prove your point.

The problem is, it does. Inside the DM's Guide, the section describing how a DM might create encounters, and then detailing "Character Objectives" for said encounters does exactly that. Half of the character objectives listed are time based. And being time based, they are subject to the story. Stopping a Ritual, Taking Out a Single Target (before they get away), Sneaking In, Running the Gauntlet, Protecting an NPC or Object - all of these can dictate short/long rests. And they do so based on how the DM has created the scenario. And that is way more influential on class balance than declaring a class doesn't get a feat back during a short rest.

It's not semantic games, all of the things you are vaguely gesturing towards only work if the players want to care about it more than they want to force a rest & the rules provide the GM no assistance if they don't . In the fact of resting rules designed to ensure players can rest anywhere any time in just about any conditions shy of on "you are on fire" or similar with the expectation of successfully completing a rest if persistent unless the GM invokes fiat to shut it down.

You are pointing all over the DMG but not actually quoting any of the actual rules you are referencing as a thing supporting the GM in directly pinning resting to the needs of story when the rules for resting themselves are dedicated to thwarting any hurdle shy of fiat coming down with a hard no.

With that second quote it's almost like the rest of the post posed a problem when it's the central point of disagreement "If anything the rules are actively hostile to the GM making any effort shy of "because I'm the GM fiat" to limit rests. I don't choose that word hostile by chance either, the rest mechanics have so many layers dedicated to ensuring that there is no bar too low in order to begin a rest and that any disruption shy of rocks fall can simply be ignored by taking another rest".

 

[James Gasik]

Indeed. I was there when he coined it.

It is disheartening that the fallacy is still thriving so many years later.

Do Not Cite the Deep Magic to me...

 

[Scott Christian]

It's not semantic games, all of the things you are vaguely gesturing towards only work if the players want to care about it more than they want to force a rest & the rules provide the GM no assistance if they don't . In the fact of resting rules designed to ensure players can rest anywhere any time in just about any conditions shy of on "you are on fire" or similar with the expectation of successfully completing a rest if persistent unless the GM invokes fiat to shut it down.

You are pointing all over the DMG but not actually quoting any of the actual rules you are referencing as a thing supporting the GM in directly pinning resting to the needs of story when the rules for resting themselves are dedicated to thwarting any hurdle shy of fiat coming down with a hard no.

With that second quote it's almost like the rest of the post posed a problem when it's the central point of disagreement "If anything the rules are actively hostile to the GM making any effort shy of "because I'm the GM fiat" to limit rests. I don't choose that word hostile by chance either, the rest mechanics have so many layers dedicated to ensuring that there is no bar too low in order to begin a rest and that any disruption shy of rocks fall can simply be ignored by taking another rest".

What is vague about my gesturing? There is no vagueness. Open the DM's Guide to "Creating Encounters," and then read the subsection "Player Objectives." Read the objectives. Nothing is vague about it, other than I didn't forcibly quote an entire page of the DM's Guide.

Honestly, the point you make is similar to someone that critiques writing they don't like. They pull a few sentences from here or there in a book that has thousands of sentences, and then say: "See how it's not clear. See how poorly it's worded." Meanwhile, the entire concept of the writing is lost.

The players can choose to rest, yet if the DM has done any work, or if they use any logic, or if they are running something already built, that is what dictates the rest - the story. Not DM fiat.

 

[tetrasodium]

What is vague about my gesturing? There is no vagueness. Open the DM's Guide to "Creating Encounters," and then read the subsection "Player Objectives." Read the objectives. Nothing is vague about it, other than I didn't forcibly quote an entire page of the DM's Guide.

Honestly, the point you make is similar to someone that critiques writing they don't like. They pull a few sentences from here or there in a book that has thousands of sentences, and then say: "See how it's not clear. See how poorly it's worded." Meanwhile, the entire concept of the writing is lost.

The players can choose to rest, yet if the DM has done any work, or if they use any logic, or if they are running something already built, that is what dictates the rest - the story. Not DM fiat.

That provides nothing support against the system's hostility. Quote the relevant rules and mechanics.

 

[Horwath]

Classes are designed to balance, roughly, at 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest "days" - if they're designed to balance, at all.

I prefer Deadly+, short rest, Deadly+, long rest.