Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9780480" data-attributes="member: 93670">I think that bolded bit is really central to the root  of the problem.  You can see how obviously responsible it is by looking at how often people defending the system provided gm toolset available drift back to 8hr long rest & long rest classes while 1hr short rests  & short rest classes come up over & over again on the other side of the discussion.Every edition prior to 5e had PCs on the same rest/recovery schedule & it resulted in a scenario where players quickly noticed that excessive resting could result in the GM simply adjusting encounters a bit  in ways that impacted everyone pretty much equally.  That shared pain made it feel like solid logic to pay some heed when the GM said "resting here would be a bad idea because [reason]" no matter how flimsy or contrived they personally feel [reason] is as a risk even if they all felt the shared pain in different ways (higher tohit higher saves higher damage etc).With 5e though the idea that the party was all in it together when it came to resting went out the window & some classes got a full recovery option that could really only be limited when time pressure got cranked to active pursuit levels certain to cause burnout & other problems over timeThe fact that defenders of the status quo have so regularly shifted to 8 hrs  long rests & long rest classes while defending the dusk recovery cycle design that short rest nova loop classes exist in is pretty solid evidence of a serious problem.   That breakdown of incentives becomes even more extreme now that the defense has shifted to [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER]'s assertion that the problem should be solved using tools like telling the long rest class cleric & long rest class paladin that they have been shifted to being oathbreaker paladin and death domain cleric for not taking on the role of fun police at the table to stop the warlock/monk/maybe fighter+"sure why not moon druid/barbarian/etc from excessively short resting.  At least the meme worthy no win morality choices paladins occasionally faced under old school enforced absolute morality Lawful Good chains were generally a consequence of choices made by the players of those classes.  It's absurd to even humor the idea of punishing Dave & Cindy because Alice &Bob are certain that their classes are designed to expect excessively regular short rests to fuel nova loops as the default state they were designed for when Dave and Cindy barely even benefit from those rests. Max has put forward such an extreme and toxic solution that even fans of the most arbitrary of OSR  games are likely to cry foul at the idea of such a punishment for Dave & Cindy while Alice and Bob are reaping such huge rewards from those rests.  I refuse to even pretend that the idea is workable until such point that wotc comes out explicitly describing those two subclasses as intended for the GM to use as punishment of long rest clerics and long rest paladins who don't fun police their short rest class party members into line.  St least then I could be the reasonable one when I do some horrible to short rest classes.</blockquote>

Verification