D&D 5E Martials v Casters...I still don't *get* it.

[Oofta]

You mean Chapter 8 of the DMG, where they don't discuss long vs short rests at all?

Or the rest variants section in Chapter 9, where they do not discuss the ratio of long to short rests, or the impact changing that may have on game balance?

If you're going to be snarky, check the text first.

Why? This is such a dumb argument. But yes, I really should have instead said "Gee, like a whole book dedicated to how to run the game like a Dungeon Master's Guide"? Is that better?

No game can work for every style. Compromises and assumptions will always have to be made. The DM will always have to customize the game to suit their needs with a system as malleable as 5E. They tried to make a system that was more "bulletproof" with 4E and it didn't work.

Instead of complaining that the system doesn't work, maybe look at the person running the game and ask "how can I make this game work better". Instead of just rejecting all advice on how other people have addressed the perceived issue, try a few options yourself. Start a dialog and thread on what worked for you and what didn't. Maybe the answer is that you can't make D&D work for you. Maybe you should find a different system. But it works for me, it obviously works for a lot of people. There is no such thing as a perfect game, but there is "good enough". D&D 5E is "good enough".

I just get tired of people saying "they should have addressed my specific issue in language written exclusively for me in the words that I best understand." They repeatedly state that you to make the game my own. That, to me, is a strength of the game and not a weakness.

I believe he is referring to Chapter 3 of the DMG under the subheader "Short Rests". Its a quick sentence or so about how many short rests a party will generally need over the course of a full adventure day. Of course, the subsection about what entails a full adventure day is immediately above that.

Nah, I was just being snarky for the most part. You do have to read and understand multiple pages in the DMG. Being a DM will never be simple, there is only so much advice that would be useful. Could the DMG be better? Of course! There's always room for improvement.

 

[Asisreo]

Where in that section does it discuss the impacts of deviating from the standard ratio of short to long rests?

Its not explicitly mentioned, but there is something that sorta implies it in the Multipart Encounter section.

A party can’t benefit from a short rest between parts of a multipart encounter, so they won’t be able to spend Hit Dice to regain hit points or recover any abilities that require a short rest to regain. As a rule, if the adjusted XP value for the monsters in a multipart encounter is higher than one-third of the party’s expected XP total for the adventuring day (see “The Adventuring Day,” below), the encounter is going to be tougher than the sum of its parts.

 

[ph0rk]

Why? This is such a dumb argument. But yes, I really should have instead said "Gee, like a whole book dedicated to how to run the game like a Dungeon Master's Guide"? Is that better?

A whole book where they don’t discuss this critical aspect of game balance.

Classes having varying allotments of short and long rest resources is somewhat new to 5e (I didn’t play 4e, but I understand everyone had at will, encounter, and daily powers).

The number and frequency of short rests matters a great deal to some classes, and nearly not at all to others. This is a major balance issue that should have been addressed.

 

[Sithlord]

A whole book where they don’t discuss this critical aspect of game balance.

Classes having varying allotments of short and long rest resources is somewhat new to 5e (I didn’t play 4e, but I understand everyone had at will, encounter, and daily powers).

The number and frequency of short rests matters a great deal to some classes, and nearly not at all to others. This is a major balance issue that should have been addressed.

Just wing it. And then add a chance for a few random encounters. You’ll catch on. It’s easy. Only takes practice.

 

[ph0rk]

Just winging game balance is how 3e ended up like it did.

 

[Sithlord]

Just winging game balance is how 3e ended up like it did.

If u think that about 3E stay far away from pre 3E and most every other game in the industry. It’s up the the GM to figure out balance. There is no simple formula for these things without having a very tight straight jacket. You may try what 13th age does. Just have all short rest abilities come back after each encounter. And have daily abilities come back every 4 encounters. Very straight forward and meta. But it gets the work done. Or try something in between.

 

[Undrave]

Why? This is such a dumb argument. But yes, I really should have instead said "Gee, like a whole book dedicated to how to run the game like a Dungeon Master's Guide"? Is that better?

No game can work for every style. Compromises and assumptions will always have to be made. The DM will always have to customize the game to suit their needs with a system as malleable as 5E. They tried to make a system that was more "bulletproof" with 4E and it didn't work.

Instead of complaining that the system doesn't work, maybe look at the person running the game and ask "how can I make this game work better". Instead of just rejecting all advice on how other people have addressed the perceived issue, try a few options yourself. Start a dialog and thread on what worked for you and what didn't. Maybe the answer is that you can't make D&D work for you. Maybe you should find a different system. But it works for me, it obviously works for a lot of people. There is no such thing as a perfect game, but there is "good enough". D&D 5E is "good enough".

I just get tired of people saying "they should have addressed my specific issue in language written exclusively for me in the words that I best understand." They repeatedly state that you to make the game my own. That, to me, is a strength of the game and not a weakness.

To me it just sounds like they the designer failed to express what kind of expectation they built the game on. Yeah yeah yeah any DM can run the game how they want and how appropriate it is to them and their group... it's all cute and dandy "Rulings not rule" and all that rainbow stuff... but they didn't build the damn thing out of improv and thin air, there's some kind of design intent! If you communicate the design intent, and breaking point to look for, it's WAY easier for a DM to modulate things to their liking with confidence!

 

[Asisreo]

To me it just sounds like they the designer failed to express what kind of expectation they built the game on. Yeah yeah yeah any DM can run the game how they want and how appropriate it is to them and their group... it's all cute and dandy "Rulings not rule" and all that rainbow stuff... but they didn't build the damn thing out of improv and thin air, there's some kind of design intent! If you communicate the design intent, and breaking point to look for, it's WAY easier for a DM to modulate things to their liking with confidence!

Agreed. The actually communication between designer and customer is awful in this edition. I think guidance is best, but they definitely left too much for the DM to just figure out.

I think, though, they were being lazy and hoping the internet itself would give good enough guidance for adventure design that they didn't need to really give out too much themselves. In my opinion, that backfired.

 

[Oofta]

To me it just sounds like they the designer failed to express what kind of expectation they built the game on. Yeah yeah yeah any DM can run the game how they want and how appropriate it is to them and their group... it's all cute and dandy "Rulings not rule" and all that rainbow stuff... but they didn't build the damn thing out of improv and thin air, there's some kind of design intent! If you communicate the design intent, and breaking point to look for, it's WAY easier for a DM to modulate things to their liking with confidence!

You mean things like?

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.​

​

Or the text that follows that talks about using a standard XP budget?

I mean, it's not "thou shalt have ..." but that's kind of the point of 5E. You need to do what makes sense to you and what works best for your group. As the DMG also states:

What’s the right way to run a campaign? That depends on your play style and the motivations of your players. Consider your players’ tastes, your strengths as a DM, table rules (discussed in part 3), and the type of game you want to run.​

​

As always, they could have done better. You can always do better. Fortunately there is a ton of advice on forums, blog posts and other social media that has tons of advice.

 

[ph0rk]

If u think that about 3E stay far away from pre 3E and most every other game in the industry.

I've played every edition but 4e.

Just winging balance is not, at all, what we should expect from the premier system in tabletop RPGs. And it is quite clear if you dig into discussions people have about the game. Short rest heavy classes in particular result in people grousing because their tables don't have many short rests and/or they have 5 minute adventuring days where the long rest casters can unload with no reservations. The very creator of this thread has argued as much.

Resource attrition that works differently for different classes needs to be spelled out, neatly and cleanly, in both the DMG and the PHB. It could take a few sentences in the DMG and as little text as "this is a primarily short rest class/subclass" in the PHB and supplements.

They didn't do it.