• NOW LIVE! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Long Rests vs Short Rests

Would you rather have all abilities recover on a:

  • Short Rest

    Votes: 23 32.9%
  • Long Rest

    Votes: 47 67.1%

  • Total voters
    70

Asisreo

Hero
Social:

Friends, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Distort Value, Silent Image, Alter Self, Detect Thoughts, Enhance Ability, Pyrotechnics, Skywrite, Clairvoyance, Major Image, Sending, Speak with Dead, Tongues, Charm Monster, Divination, Polymorph

Exploration:

Alarm, Floating Disc, Alter Self, Augury, Darkvision, Enhance Ability, Flock of Familiars, Find Familiar, Invisibility, Levitate, Magic Mouth, Misty Step, Spider Climb, Feign Death, Gaseous form, Major Image, Nondetection, Sending, Arcane Eye, Flying, Dimension Door, Divination, Greater Invisibility, Locate Creature, Polymorph

If you think a handful of superiority die to some persuasion or investigation checks (particularly when those stats are necessarily low for fighters unless we can assume everyone has a 20 for whatever stat they wish) can best options like that, I no longer suspect you are making any attempt to argue in good faith.

Or that you do not understand the system - you get to decide which is more charitable.
The issue is that while these spells theoretically exist for a wizard, they can't know all of them at that level without DM fiat.

Which ones would you choose out of this list? Why would you believe they cause a domination of the two noncombat pillars?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
The issue is that while these spells theoretically exist for a wizard, they can't know all of them at that level without DM fiat.

Which ones would you choose out of this list? Why would you believe they cause a domination of the two noncombat pillars?
See above. The options are so good I'll happily take whatever someone thinks is the worst set, with level-caveats (one wouldn't take a level 1 spell at 7th unless they had exhausted 4th level options).

These choices are so broad and so reality bending that even the worst set is leaving a fighter in the dust.

Of course, that's just a wizard - bards, rogues, warlocks, and some clerics all have ways of doing this, too. In some cases without the use of any resources at all, and with room for those additional skills people ignore (all the persuasion in the world won't get you very far if you fail every insight check).

When mind control, flight, and teleportation are on the table, skill checks fall behind because the wizard can bypass the situation that calls for checks entirely. But, like I said - nix those and take a good look at what's left.

However even if you pick out all the rotten cherries, it's still a strong toolkit.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
Care factor?

I want to know what spells your 7th level Wizard has prepared. And your skills, stats and feats as well.

Give me the full context knowledge the party would have from the day before and we'll talk.

You'd know that's how it works if you understood the system or were arguing in good faith.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
You have based your complaints on the wizard by comparing the at-will single-target damage of a cantrip, to the martial attacks of a martial character. You have not only picked the most slanted possible metric, you have also ignored actual spellcasting - the class feature of the wizard. Even just adding the damage of one of the martial's attacks to the wizard's cantrip damage (haste spell) would have been a better representation.
If you wanted a fair comparison, even with just comparing damage numbers (since control/debuffs are hard to quantify), you have not been going about it correctly.
If you have a metric that we can use to evaluate and compare the use of utility spells, that would be extremely cool. I am not aware of one however since they are generally too situational.
Once again. Give a different one! You are going around in circles complaining that the examples of damage disparities in combat are a bad metric while making efforts to avoid admitting merit in the problems you are arguing against being an issue as you justify why you shouldn't be expected to provide support for your position. Yes buffs debuffs & controls are are "hard to quantify", however the damage disparity gives an objective metric for what kind of weight they need to pull and they fall obscenely short of doing so. Later in this very post you even admit merit to some of the reasons I've already stated they fail at doing so as justification for not supporting your position. There might be areas we agree on & areas we disagree on, but you are attemting to claim all areas being called a problem are not problems with little more than trust me to support that
I can give examples. I didn't want to get bogged down in a "well what if that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign?" situation.
The point is not "Wizards are way better than Fighters because they get this spell."
One of the positions you have been dismissing as a point lacking merit is that the niche spells are too niche & too far into coincidental corner cases for various reasons people have detailed repeatedly in this thread. if a significant chunk of what you think is the wizard's true strength is something anyone can credibly claim"what if that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign?" You have confirmed that point is not only one with merit but so true that you can't even avoid proving it while arguing against the other problems.

The easy solution to that quagmire of a"situation" you want to avoid is admitting merit of that problem & moving on to what you feel is a strength. Doing that might look like this "Yea there are too many spells that are too niche to justify the state of everything else given limitations on spells gained/prepared but I still think this other issue is being overblown because yadayadayada". It's not about what class is better or worse, the problem being argued is that wizard is not good enough to justify the state of a wide array of things repeatedly brought up in this thread.
It is "A wizard with a generalised loadout can bypass some challenges that would otherwise give the mundane classes a chance to shine, particularly with the way many groups (and some WotC adventures) play."
But for example, there are multiple spells allowing bypass of a physical obstacle that would otherwise require athletics checks: Levitate, Spider climb, Fly, assorted teleports.
Likewise social obstacles can be overcome by a number of different spells, either by achieving the aim without needing to go through the obstacle in the first place, or spells like Disguise self, charm person, suggestion, alter self, invisibility etc.
The problem there is that it comes with significant opportunity cost in combat while those "mundane classes" are better at both combat and those other pillars. The spells you allude to are so niche &impossible to predict a need for that those mundane classes will generally just do them rather than waiting for the wizard to take a long rest so the wizard has "some chance to shine". You've said that the wizard's crown is not in combat and are moving on to add that the wizard shouldn't expect to shine in the other two pillars either but once again refuse to give specifics that would allow discussion.
OK. What do you think would be needed to be done to buffing, debuffing and control spells to bring them up to scratch?
Concentration is massively overused. Magic resistance is massively overused. Legendary resistance is massively overused Spells have excessive saves freely given even after the target fails the initial save or nothing happens save. Spells are dramatically undertuned lest they trod on some poor "mundane class" "chance to shine". The solution needs to correct that collective overcompensation trying to thwart the problems of old editions in a meaningful fashion
Spells like Web, Hold Person, Hypnotic pattern, Banishment, wall spells etc are already thought of as pretty good.
Concentration is a mechanic designed to "throttle" spell slot usage a little and prevent the 5MWday that caused so many issues in 3.5 for example. What would be a better alternative? Or just keep the mechanic but remove it from selected spells?
That is literally one of the problems. Wotc didn't stop there, they also went on to downtune the spells themselves to counter the 3.5 problems of those spells on their own then went on to build monsters to thwart the problems of 3.5. Then went on to raise the bar on martials to counter other problems of 3.5. Everything combines into a giant overcompensation.

Four spells & a vague category of spells is not a class & those spells fall far short of bridging the contribution gap as you yourself all but admit by roping in generally vague & nonspecific niche spells that might maybe shine unless "that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign". We can't have this discussion while relying on a build hiding behind the quantum ogre to be all things at all times & draw upon any possible spell in any possible situation. We especially can't do that because you refuse to admit there is merit in any of the problems being raised while failing to provide support for your position that the problems being raised are entirely without merit.
But you aren't. You've just picked a single metric (single target damage) to compare, despite the fact that it is the area where the wizard is second weakest (after healing) and the fighter is one of the best. If you had picked almost any other metric, the wizard would have come out significantly ahead of the fighter.
Its like deciding what vehicle would be best for your family, and using only the max speed as a metric to decide between an estate and a motorcycle.
I & others have asked you repeatedly to give us some other metric that you feel shows the wizard's real domain of greatness whatever you think that is. The only requirement is that you need to actually support it without foisting support of your position onto those you disagree with or an implied "trust me". Stop complaining you don't like the metric or don't feel it's fair to your position & give a new one that supports itself. The one you choose doesn't even need to prove all problems nonproblems as long as you simply admit x and/or y are still a problem while showing what you think is the true domain of strength for the wizard

OK. What level is this party that your wizard is so underperforming in, what are the other characters, and what sort of length adventuring day is the usual for your group? What is your group's/DM's preferred style of play?


For that particular statement, I don't need to: its right there in the base class features. Even without any of their spells, rituals, etc, the base starting wizard has an array of ability scores, four proficiencies, and a background feature. That is what the base starting fighter has all the time.

Because on days with no/little combat, (for example city investigation and intrigue or travel through safer areas) with a little ingenuity and a varied spell list, you can generally find some way to be useful. The fighter doesn't get to swap their extra attack out for expertise in a few skills on a daily basis.
And when its time to go down into the dungeon, the wizard just switches to their combat-heavy loadout.

That is entirely fair, but denigrating a class because you don't like playing to its strengths really isn't.
If it helps, I've found spell cards quite useful rather that just a list according to spell level. That way you can have smaller, separate piles for out of combat spells, concentration spells, and combat spells. - There can be some crossover but it really reduces the potential information/option overload.


But you're not expressing your opinion of the class (until now). You're claiming that it is an objectively bad class because it can't match the Fighter in single-target damage and does not have much better utility.
"I don't like Wizards because I find them too fiddly" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.
"Wizards are bad at utility and their rituals are almost useless" is a statement that conflicts with a lot of our experiences, and so people are going to expect you to be able to back that up with actual facts.
Is this a joke? Both wizard and fighter include the words "Choose two skills from:" Stop complaining that the problems being raised are because people aren't looking at the wizard's strengths & post a build showing what you think it's strengths are. Keep in mind that the wizard only has so many spells in their spellbook & can't simply pick whatever spells from their class spell list to swap between combat social exploration etc days like you seem to be suggesting now. Which assortment would you choose to support your position given the limits of how many spells a wizard gains & wotc's lack of effort in providing guidance telling GMs they "will want to be generous" with scrolls/spellbooks/etc like they did with magic weapons . Why do you make those choices & how do they support your position that all of the problems resulting in an undertuned wizard class as a whole?
 


ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
Stop complaining that the problems being raised are because people aren't looking at the wizard's strengths & post a build showing what you think it's strengths are. Keep in mind that the wizard only has so many spells in their spellbook & can't simply pick whatever spells from their class spell list to swap between combat social exploration etc days like you seem to be suggesting now.

The very setup here (blank slate make a spell loadout, then you get to design the encounter to foil the spell load out) is not how wizards work.

If that level of DM fiat is in play, than any social or exploration ability check (proficient, expertise, or otherwise) is just as likely to fail because the DC can be unobtainable by that same degree of DM fiat - or structured to require alternate checks (investigation/perception, insight/deception/persuasion). A fighter can't have but a passable check for two of these, and encounters that require the others will be a challenge - superiority die or no.

Structuring the comparison in this way is either deliberately doing so to disadvantage the wizard or is constructed in ignorance of how wizards work and the game is generally played.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Social:

Friends, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Distort Value, Silent Image, Alter Self, Detect Thoughts, Enhance Ability, Pyrotechnics, Skywrite, Clairvoyance, Major Image, Sending, Speak with Dead, Tongues, Charm Monster, Divination, Polymorph

Exploration:

Alarm, Floating Disc, Alter Self, Augury, Darkvision, Enhance Ability, Flock of Familiars, Find Familiar, Invisibility, Levitate, Magic Mouth, Misty Step, Spider Climb, Feign Death, Gaseous form, Major Image, Nondetection, Sending, Arcane Eye, Flying, Dimension Door, Divination, Greater Invisibility, Locate Creature, Polymorph

If you think a handful of superiority die to some persuasion or investigation checks (particularly when those stats are necessarily low for fighters unless we can assume everyone has a 20 for whatever stat they wish) can best options like that, I no longer suspect you are making any attempt to argue in good faith.

Or that you do not understand the system - you get to decide which is more charitable.
  1. Friends,
  2. Comprehend Languages,
  3. Disguise Self,
  4. Distort Value,
  5. Silent Image,
  6. Alter Self,
  7. Detect Thoughts,
  8. Enhance Ability,
  9. Pyrotechnics,
  10. Skywrite,
  11. Clairvoyance,
  12. Major Image,
  13. Sending,
  14. Speak with Dead,
  15. Tongues,
  16. Charm Monster,
  17. Divination,
  18. Polymorph,
  19. Alarm,
  20. Floating Disc,
  21. Alter Self,
  22. Augury,
  23. Darkvision,
  24. Enhance Ability,
  25. Flock of Familiars,
  26. Find Familiar,
  27. Invisibility,
  28. Levitate,
  29. Magic Mouth,
  30. Misty Step,
  31. Spider Climb,
  32. Feign Death,
  33. Gaseous form,
  34. Major Image,
  35. Nondetection,
  36. Sending,
  37. Arcane Eye,
  38. Flying,
  39. Dimension Door,
  40. Divination,
  41. Greater Invisibility,
  42. Locate Creature,
  43. Polymorph
Most of which are not ritual spells, Wizards start with 7 spells & gain 2 per level. That will take until level 17 just to gather in the spellbook and you have included what looks like zero buff debuff control or even damage spells. do you not know how wizards work? You all but explicitly state that the wizard is dead weight being carried by the party with this silly spell list.

The very setup here (blank slate make a spell loadout, then you get to design the encounter to foil the spell load out) is not how wizards work.

If that level of DM fiat is in play, than any social or exploration ability check (proficient, expertise, or otherwise) is just as likely to fail because the DC can be unobtainable by that same degree of DM fiat - or structured to require alternate checks (investigation/perception, insight/deception/persuasion). A fighter can't have but a passable check for two of these, and encounters that require the others will be a challenge - superiority die or no.

Structuring the comparison in this way is either deliberately doing so to disadvantage the wizard or is constructed in ignorance of how wizards work and the game is generally played.

You miss the problem. People are saying wizards are undertuned for various reasons including the fact that there is no quantum spellbook & quantum prepped list option to meet an adventuring day as a player rather than a time traveling deity who knows the session ahead of time You and others are saying they are not. It's on you to show an example wizard that proves them wrong or start admitting which of the problems hold merit. If you can't do that without expecting wizards to show up with a white room build designed for the specific white room being run every session you have proven that at least some of the complaints have merit as one of them is that there are too many spells that are too niche given the limits on spells gained & spells prepped

You get to show whatever build & rules legal spell list you think demonstrates the strength of a wizard. Do. it.
 

Give me the full context knowledge the party would have from the day before and we'll talk.
You're chilling in town with the party BM Fighter, Life Cleric, Thief Rogue and Valor Bard, spending loot and having a good time, after a successful prior adventure, assisting the Clerics church on random errands. You're fully healed, own a ring of protection and bracers of armor, and have a spare 500gp on hand.

The campaign meta is AL rules, and you tend to hit mainly dungeons and similar, dealing with roughly 6 encounters and 2 short rests (median) between long rests on most occasions, with a DM that doesn't let you nova or exploit the 5MWD.

He's reduced the short rests down to 5 minutes, but you cant take more than 2 per long rest.

You're a 7th level Wizard.

Aaand Go. Stats, feats, skills, race, background and spell load out please.
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
Consider changing how rests work in general. For my campaigns I have 3 different types of rests.

1) Short Rest. 5 minutes, recover short rest abilities, expend hit dice.
2) Long Rest. 8 hours, recover long rest abilities and Proficiency Bonus in hit dice, expend hit dice.
3) Full Rest. 3 days or more in a town or other safe haven. Recover all hit dice, hit points, and abilities.
Interesting approach! I've considered going with 5 minute short rests and 8 hour long rests, but the Warlock class always gives me pause. Do you make additional changes to the Warlock class to account for 5 minute short rests?

For clarity, the problem I see with 5 minute short rests is that a Warlock with utility spells can spam them out of combat. For example, a Genie Warlock with Stone Shape can tunnel through rock at up to 250 cubic feet every 5 minutes--that's enough to redesign an entire dungeon in hours. A Great Old One Warlock with Sending can basically have text-message-pace conversations with anyone in the world, any time they aren't in combat. And any Warlock with Suggestion will have it available out-of-combat in almost every social encounter with an NPC.

And Sorlocks are worse, as 5 minute rests give them practically unlimited spell slots, even without coffeelock shenanigans. (For example, an Elf Sorcerer 5/Warlock 3 after a 4-hour long rest can, while waiting for the rest of the party to finish their 8-hour rest, stockpile 31 3rd level sorcerer slots over 48 short rests. They don't need to skip long rests like a coffeelock--they can instead build up new huge reserves each day.)

I could switch Warlocks to long-rest casting, but that seems like too much of a nerf in the other direction. I like Warlocks being able to use utility spells out of combat on an hourly basis, it's just that every 5 minutes is way too much.
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
The campaign meta is AL rules, and you tend to hit mainly dungeons and similar, dealing with roughly 6 encounters and 2 short rests (median) between long rests on most occasions, with a DM that doesn't let you nova or exploit the 5MWD.

He's reduced the short rests down to 5 minutes, but you cant take more than 2 per long rest.
Quick note: under AL rules the DM can't change the resting mechanics.
 



tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Source?

Ok, then lets assume the DM handwaves short rests, but only does it twice, being a total hardass on more than that.
AL loosened up on using the optional/variant rules a bit & gave a little freedom with making thematically similar changes to the adventures at some point in the ALDMG. In the case of those rest mechanics changes it's probably on the line & could go either way but is something you could control even without saying x minutes instead of hour/hours so it probablyfits squarely in the realm of what little gm discretion AL allows
 

AL loosened up on using the optional/variant rules a bit & gave a little freedom with making thematically similar changes to the adventures at some point in the ALDMG. In the case of those rest mechanics changes it's probably on the line & could go either way but is something you could control even without saying x minutes instead of hour/hours so it probablyfits squarely in the realm of what little gm discretion AL allows
Yeah but the DM is still free in AL to handwave a short rest, or alternatively go 'nope, it didn't work, here are some 'random' monsters instead, and stop trying to 5MWD this session'
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
Source?

Ok, then lets assume the DM handwaves short rests, but only does it twice, being a total hardass on more than that.
Adventurer's League Dungeon Master's Guide v9.1, page 2. The DM can change the content of the adventure, but the DM can't implement new rules.
 

Adventurer's League Dungeon Master's Guide v9.1, page 2. The DM can change the content of the adventure, but the DM can't implement new rules.
Ok then, whatever, I can still handwave a rest (it worked) or have unexpected 'random' encounters or whatever I want interrupt short rests (it didnt work).

As a strong hint, dont try for more than two. Nasty things have been happening to those that do. And for the record, Im very permissive with those first two. Any after that, bad things tend to happen.
 

If you have a metric that we can use to evaluate and compare the use of utility spells, that would be extremely cool. I am not aware of one however since they are generally too situational.
Once again. Give a different one! You are going around in circles complaining that the examples of damage disparities in combat are a bad metric while making efforts to avoid admitting merit in the problems you are arguing against being an issue as you justify why you shouldn't be expected to provide support for your position. Yes buffs debuffs & controls are are "hard to quantify", however the damage disparity gives an objective metric for what kind of weight they need to pull and they fall obscenely short of doing so. Later in this very post you even admit merit to some of the reasons I've already stated they fail at doing so as justification for not supporting your position. There might be areas we agree on & areas we disagree on, but you are attemting to claim all areas being called a problem are not problems with little more than trust me to support that
Well, since I can't think of one, and you can't think of one, how about Control effects? Damage?

One of the positions you have been dismissing as a point lacking merit is that the niche spells are too niche & too far into coincidental corner cases for various reasons people have detailed repeatedly in this thread. if a significant chunk of what you think is the wizard's true strength is something anyone can credibly claim"what if that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign?" You have confirmed that point is not only one with merit but so true that you can't even avoid proving it while arguing against the other problems.
Not a personal attack, but I do have a feeling that the sort of situations that fairly commonly come up in my assorted games may not be ones that come up in yours or Asisreo's.

Concentration is massively overused. Magic resistance is massively overused. Legendary resistance is massively overused Spells have excessive saves freely given even after the target fails the initial save or nothing happens save. Spells are dramatically undertuned lest they trod on some poor "mundane class" "chance to shine". The solution needs to correct that collective overcompensation trying to thwart the problems of old editions in a meaningful fashion
OK.
How?
How would you adjust the current mechanics of Legendary Resistance, ongoing saves etc, without returning to the bad old days when a wizard could simply remove the BBEG with a single failed save?

Four spells & a vague category of spells is not a class & those spells fall far short of bridging the contribution gap as you yourself all but admit by roping in generally vague & nonspecific niche spells that might maybe shine unless "that situation just doesn't come up in the campaign". We can't have this discussion while relying on a build hiding behind the quantum ogre to be all things at all times & draw upon any possible spell in any possible situation. We especially can't do that because you refuse to admit there is merit in any of the problems being raised while failing to provide support for your position that the problems being raised are entirely without merit.

I & others have asked you repeatedly to give us some other metric that you feel shows the wizard's real domain of greatness whatever you think that is. The only requirement is that you need to actually support it without foisting support of your position onto those you disagree with or an implied "trust me". Stop complaining you don't like the metric or don't feel it's fair to your position & give a new one that supports itself. The one you choose doesn't even need to prove all problems nonproblems as long as you simply admit x and/or y are still a problem while showing what you think is the true domain of strength for the wizard
If you want to stick with combat, how about comparing control options? Or damage?
Is this a joke? Both wizard and fighter include the words "Choose two skills from:"
Nope. No joke. You are stating precisely my point: Even when you take away all of the various spell options for being a primary caster with the best rituals of all the classes, the base wizard still has it as good as the base fighter does at their best.

Stop complaining that the problems being raised are because people aren't looking at the wizard's strengths & post a build showing what you think it's strengths are. Keep in mind that the wizard only has so many spells in their spellbook & can't simply pick whatever spells from their class spell list to swap between combat social exploration etc days like you seem to be suggesting now. Which assortment would you choose to support your position given the limits of how many spells a wizard gains & wotc's lack of effort in providing guidance telling GMs they "will want to be generous" with scrolls/spellbooks/etc like they did with magic weapons . Why do you make those choices & how do they support your position that all of the problems resulting in an undertuned wizard class as a whole?
OK. What level is this party that your wizard is so underperforming in, what are the other characters, and what sort of length adventuring day is the usual for your group? What is your group's/DM's preferred style of play?
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Well, since I can't think of one, and you can't think of one, how about Control effects? Damage?


Not a personal attack, but I do have a feeling that the sort of situations that fairly commonly come up in my assorted games may not be ones that come up in yours or Asisreo's.


OK.
How?
How would you adjust the current mechanics of Legendary Resistance, ongoing saves etc, without returning to the bad old days when a wizard could simply remove the BBEG with a single failed save?


If you want to stick with combat, how about comparing control options? Or damage?

Nope. No joke. You are stating precisely my point: Even when you take away all of the various spell options for being a primary caster with the best rituals of all the classes, the base wizard still has it as good as the base fighter does at their best.
If your so certain make a wizard meeting @Flamestrike's 7th level start here. here's what the player knows after finishing their last adventure. Each wizard is in a different group because a class needs to stand on its own rather than depend on duplication of that class to meet the bar of usefulness set by other classes that don't need to double up. Pull it out of the realm of quantum spellbook & quantum prepped list

as to that bold part, if you outright state that you think part of a wizard's strength is "four proficiencies" & come back from being corrected with the actual number with that without providing any support for the position you are taking other than yet another long list of questions not providing any details supporting you it calls into question if you are attempting to engage in good faith discussion or not
 

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
Ok then, whatever, I can still handwave a rest (it worked) or have unexpected 'random' encounters or whatever I want interrupt short rests (it didnt work).

As a strong hint, dont try for more than two. Nasty things have been happening to those that do. And for the record, Im very permissive with those first two. Any after that, bad things tend to happen.
An AL DM is allowed to introduce new encounters if (and only if) they "maintain the spirit of the adventure". If, after reading the published adventure being run, the DM can honestly say that they think it's within the spirit of the published adventure to add a random encounter every 59 minutes when party's activity level is low enough to qualify as a short rest, that would be within the AL rules.

However, since the PCs have to wait 16 hours after finishing a long rest to start the next short (Edit: long) rest, that means you're hounding them with random encounters up to 16 hours a day, every day. I am not familiar with any of the published adventures where I would consider adding that many random encounters to be "maintaining the spirit of the adventure".

Also, keep in mind that the first couple short rests a party (or an individual character) gets in an adventuring day may happen to be before the first combat encounter, especially if the day starts in a safe area like a village or city. By interrupting every subsequent short rest, on such days you're effectively denying the party any short rest resource recovery.
 
Last edited:

as to that bold part, if you outright state that you think part of a wizard's strength is "four proficiencies"
I haven't stated the "array of ability scores, four proficiencies, and a background feature" as a strength of the wizard. Just that it is what both characters get as a baseline.
(I'm ignoring the tool, instrument, or language proficiencies, but it could be argued these don't often come into use much).

& come back from being corrected with the actual number with that without providing any support for the position you are taking other than yet another long list of questions not providing any details supporting you it calls into question if you are attempting to engage in good faith discussion or not
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain?

You're after level 7 spell loadout? I think this is the one one of the wizards in the group used at that level:
Cantrips Mold Earth, Shape Water, Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp,
Level 1 Tasha's Caustic Brew, Shield, Mage armour, Comprehend Languages, Detect Magic, Identify, Find Familiar, Magic Missile
Level 2 Suggestion, Levitate, Invisibility, Hold Person
Level 3 Fireball, Haste, Summon Undead, Water Breathing
Level 4 Dimension Door, Wall of Fire.
 
Last edited:

Awfully Cheerful Engine!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top