I agreed with a lot of what he was saying though I don't think full spell progression is the answer, but I've long felt the pact and eldritch blast invocations should be built into the class so when picking your invocations people feel more free to pick based on character concept and not feel forced into agonizing etc mechanically. Yes some people don't do that, but they likely play in a odd ball campaign .
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
You can maintain verisimilitude in times that don't matter. But those days rarely even need the short rest its one or two encounters that day which even with the short rests the long rest crew excels at.
Give me an example of when you think you cannot maintain verisimilitude, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
A while ago I suggested a subclass system with "bridge subclasses" - when two classes, say fighter and wizard, have the same subclass, let's call it spellblade. For spellblade features, both wizard and fighter levels count towards leveling progression. However, the biggest problem with this concept is that it would strongly emphasize certain multiclass combinations over others, and it's just a huge amount of work to make "bridge subclesses" for every multiclass combination.
Well, multiclassing is an optional rule to begin with. And WotC already tried something similar with the Mages of Strixhaven. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately doomed. And for good reason. This limited what classes could play the setting. And multiclassing means you could pick up more subclass features than normally capable. A Ftr10/Wiz10, to follow your example of a spellblade, would have six subclass features. Now you have to design at least six. And those features need to fit the rhythm of the base classes themselves.
Yes, subclasses have a rhythm to them. You can't just haphazardly throw stuff together. It's a recipe for unbalancing the game.
Ah, but the amout of subclass features is a boon to begin with. In this way, a pure fighter or wizard spellblade would have access to four features and their class capstone, while a multiclass would have access to five or six features, the last of which would offer a capstone of its own to compensate for the inaccessible late level features of pure classes. But still this doesn't do anything to address the inherent problems of this design.
Aye, I had the same thoughts about Strixhaven subclasses. Interesting ideas, but it left martials out completely.
Indeed it is. And most of his suggestions fit the consensus. Eldritch blast should be a class feature, mandatory invocations that upgrade pact boons and eldritch blast should be given automatically, and there's gotta be something to just cast spells more often.
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
A while ago I suggested a subclass system with "bridge subclasses" - when two classes, say fighter and wizard, have the same subclass, let's call it spellblade. For spellblade features, both wizard and fighter levels count towards leveling progression. However, the biggest problem with this concept is that it would strongly emphasize certain multiclass combinations over others, and it's just a huge amount of work to make "bridge subclesses" for every multiclass combination.
Well, multiclassing is an optional rule to begin with. And WotC already tried something similar with the Mages of Strixhaven. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately doomed. And for good reason. This limited what classes could play the setting. And multiclassing means you could pick up more subclass features than normally capable. A Ftr10/Wiz10, to follow your example of a spellblade, would have six subclass features. Now you have to design at least six. And those features need to fit the rhythm of the base classes themselves.
Yes, subclasses have a rhythm to them. You can't just haphazardly throw stuff together. It's a recipe for unbalancing the game.
Ah, but the amout of subclass features is a boon to begin with. In this way, a pure fighter or wizard spellblade would have access to four features and their class capstone, while a multiclass would have access to five or six features, the last of which would offer a capstone of its own to compensate for the inaccessible late level features of pure classes. But still this doesn't do anything to address the inherent problems of this design.
Aye, I had the same thoughts about Strixhaven subclasses. Interesting ideas, but it left martials out completely.
And I think anything that encourage multiclassing is a mistake.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
You can maintain verisimilitude in times that don't matter. But those days rarely even need the short rest its one or two encounters that day which even with the short rests the long rest crew excels at.
Give me an example of when you think you cannot maintain verisimilitude, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
No you can't. You can say why it works for you but it wont work for me. And your right, is wrong for most people which is why short rests classes are not working for most people.
And I think anything that encourage multiclassing is a mistake.
I... actually have to say I agree. Ideally, multiclassing is about customization and creating exactly the character you want, but in reality, it's usually used as a crutch for optimization purposes. Sorlock, hexadin, artiwizard...
I don't think it will happen, but I would like Pact Magic to work with int and not with cha (as it was in D&D Next, but finally changed in 5E).
I find it very strange that the Warlocks work as Face when, in my opinion, they should work as occultists.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Their power comes from knowledge. Why would a gibbering recluse balancing on the verge of madness be the face of the party? The game has enough charisma casters as it is. Bards, sorcerers, paladins. Until artificers' release, wizard was the only intellect-based class in the game.
There is a solution, though it's pretty crude. In Pathfinder, casters had subclasses that altered their main stat. Wizard had theurgist subclass, which changed them from int to wis.
And I think anything that encourage multiclassing is a mistake.
I... actually have to say I agree. Ideally, multiclassing is about customization and creating exactly the character you want, but in reality, it's usually used as a crutch for optimization purposes. Sorlock, hexadin, artiwizard...
Maybe one possible way around it is that you have to take at least 5 consecutive levels in each class. This causes you to give up any Tier 4 benefits in the other class (so there's an actual opportunity cost involved in the multiclass), and you have to dedicate quite some time to the second class, which makes you actually think carefully about your reasons for "dipping" into it. Effectively, it turns the second class into a prestige class of sorts.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
You can maintain verisimilitude in times that don't matter. But those days rarely even need the short rest its one or two encounters that day which even with the short rests the long rest crew excels at.
Give me an example of when you think you cannot maintain verisimilitude, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
No you can't. You can say why it works for you but it wont work for me. And your right, is wrong for most people which is why short rests classes are not working for most people.
Yes, I can. If you think there is ever a circumstance where you can't have the game react to the players in a believable way, then you don't have a dynamic world. And having such a world is the responsibility of the DM. If the DM can't do it, then they're basically giving the players a cheat code. You need to look at it from the correct angle.
In both of the above examples you gave, the players choose to take a rest. And they should be free to make that choice. The DM doesn't let them take a rest; short or long. That does not mean, however, the game should pause and remain static for them to start moving again. That would break verisimilitude. As the DM, one of our jobs is to impose consequences for the actions of the players' characters. Sometimes, they plan really well and there aren't any hiccups. And other times, they screw the pooch. If you're under a time crunch, especially after springing an alarm, there should be consequences.
The first time I ran LMoP, the group took two short rests in Cragmaw Castle. They had a fight that went tougher than expected, and they kept an alarm from being raised with a quick casting of silence. It was a smart move, I was proud of them, and worthy of being rewarded. But they rested, triggered another big, even noisier fight immediately after, and took another rest afterwards. Unfortunately, they did not pursue the goblin that retreated to the kitchens to alert the others. By the time they recovered a second time and ventured through the rest of the ruins, the place was half-empty. Gundren Rockseeker, King Grol, his pet wolf, and the Black Spider's agent were all gone. Because they dragged their feet, their boss was missing. The players, to their credit, tried to follow them, but lost the trail. They were counting on rescuing Gundren to find Wave Echo Cave and get paid. Instead, they needed to regroup and come up with a plan B.
That maintains verisimilitude in the face of players taking multiple hour-long short rests in a dungeon environment. It can be done. You just need some imagination and patience.
And I think anything that encourage multiclassing is a mistake.
I... actually have to say I agree. Ideally, multiclassing is about customization and creating exactly the character you want, but in reality, it's usually used as a crutch for optimization purposes. Sorlock, hexadin, artiwizard...
I don't think that is necssary a bad thing. Optimization is not a bad thing; for some people it is half the fun as there really isn't much crunch to be had with single classing.
I don't think that is necssary a bad thing. Optimization is not a bad thing; for some people it is half the fun as there really isn't much crunch to be had with single classing.
It's just that certain multiclass combinations feel like either solutions to inherent design problems, or outright cheating. Take hexadin. One level in warlock - boom, you no longer need strength, MAD circumvented, you were already the best martial class and now you're even more powerful.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
You can maintain verisimilitude in times that don't matter. But those days rarely even need the short rest its one or two encounters that day which even with the short rests the long rest crew excels at.
Give me an example of when you think you cannot maintain verisimilitude, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
No you can't. You can say why it works for you but it wont work for me. And your right, is wrong for most people which is why short rests classes are not working for most people.
Yes, I can. If you think there is ever a circumstance where you can't have the game react to the players in a believable way, then you don't have a dynamic world. And having such a world is the responsibility of the DM. If the DM can't do it, then they're basically giving the players a cheat code. You need to look at it from the correct angle.
In both of the above examples you gave, the players choose to take a rest. And they should be free to make that choice. The DM doesn't let them take a rest; short or long. That does not mean, however, the game should pause and remain static for them to start moving again. That would break verisimilitude. As the DM, one of our jobs is to impose consequences for the actions of the players' characters. Sometimes, they plan really well and there aren't any hiccups. And other times, they screw the pooch. If you're under a time crunch, especially after springing an alarm, there should be consequences.
The first time I ran LMoP, the group took two short rests in Cragmaw Castle. They had a fight that went tougher than expected, and they kept an alarm from being raised with a quick casting of silence. It was a smart move, I was proud of them, and worthy of being rewarded. But they rested, triggered another big, even noisier fight immediately after, and took another rest afterwards. Unfortunately, they did not pursue the goblin that retreated to the kitchens to alert the others. By the time they recovered a second time and ventured through the rest of the ruins, the place was half-empty. Gundren Rockseeker, King Grol, his pet wolf, and the Black Spider's agent were all gone. Because they dragged their feet, their boss was missing. The players, to their credit, tried to follow them, but lost the trail. They were counting on rescuing Gundren to find Wave Echo Cave and get paid. Instead, they needed to regroup and come up with a plan B.
That maintains verisimilitude in the face of players taking multiple hour-long short rests in a dungeon environment. It can be done. You just need some imagination and patience.
No what you showed was exactly what I was saying. They either could not get the short rest as it was interrupted or the short rest hamstrung them by their target fleeing which motivates the party to not take short rests. Which screws over short rest classes, hence why people in large numbers have a problem with how short rest classes work.
No what you showed was exactly what I was saying. They either could not get the short rest as it was interrupted or the short rest hamstrung them by their target fleeing which motivates the party to not take short rests. Which screws over short rest classes, hence why people in large numbers have a problem with how short rest classes work.
You can't be serious. Your argument was predicated on verisimilitude, not convenience. Stop moving goal posts and stay on topic. If their decisions lead to things not going according to plan, the plan can change. This isn't a bad thing. Tension creates drama. That's Storytelling 101. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you want to remove that.
Let's remove short rests from the equation. If you stay in one place for too long in a dungeon, you're going to encounter a wandering monster. Heck, that can happen while moving room to room. Whether a short rest is interrupted is immaterial. If the party spends 30 minutes searching a room, and that's really easy to do, they could encounter one and be no worse for wear. And if you're on a time crunch, then everyone feels that crunch. There is no such thing as "short rest classes," so do yourself a favor and rid yourself of regressive attitude. If anyone is tapped out, then they chose to spend those resources. That still doesn't mean they're helpless. Nobody is. The big limiting factor is, and always will be, hit points. And everyone has those.
Everything, ultimately, comes down to choices and consequences. If anyone gets screwed over, it's because they did it to themselves.
I don't think that is necssary a bad thing. Optimization is not a bad thing; for some people it is half the fun as there really isn't much crunch to be had with single classing.
It's just that certain multiclass combinations feel like either solutions to inherent design problems, or outright cheating. Take hexadin. One level in warlock - boom, you no longer need strength, MAD circumvented, you were already the best martial class and now you're even more powerful.
Yes, you are stronger but not by an absurd amount. A single class paladin is still going to be able to keep up with you. There are going to be stronger options, there is no getting around that, but as long as the disparity isn't massive like it was in 3.5E, it isn't really of an issue. Any disparity is within an acceptable margin.
Anyone else find it a little curious that the people talk about wanting to rework are the classes that people enjoy playing in the current iteration of the game?
You almost never see people brigading for druid reworks, even though it's a class surveys and charts consistently indicate is one of the least successful classes in terms of getting people to actually play them. But fighters and warlocks? Classes that actually work well and are consistently shown to be reasonably popular? Burn them to the ground.
Some of the suggestions about consolidating options, or folding seemingly 'mandatory' picks into the baseline of the class seem reasonable, but I can't for the life of me wrap my head around all the various suggestions that amount to making the Warlock more like the Wizard.
Anyone else find it a little curious that the people talk about wanting to rework are the classes that people enjoy playing in the current iteration of the game?
You almost never see people brigading for druid reworks, even though it's a class surveys and charts consistently indicate is one of the least successful classes in terms of getting people to actually play them. But fighters and warlocks? Classes that actually work well and are consistently shown to be reasonably popular? Burn them to the ground.
Some of the suggestions about consolidating options, or folding seemingly 'mandatory' picks into the baseline of the class seem reasonable, but I can't for the life of me wrap my head around all the various suggestions that amount to making the Warlock more like the Wizard.
Druid is fairly well-designed and powerful. It's just that not everyone wants to play a forest hermit or animal-loving hippie. More people like the idea of an edgy dark occultist or a master of the blade, but when they start actually playing the classes, they stumble across problems.
"Trust me everyone secretly hates their warlock" just does not feel like an especially compelling argument. The numbers just do not seem to bear that out and it does not seem to make sense to significantly change the class.
Streamlining it to clean up some bad/mandatory options? Absolutely. But when people start talking about breaking EB or getting rid of short rest mechanics it seems a bit silly when those are parts of the draw of the class.
"Trust me everyone secretly hates their warlock" just does not feel like an especially compelling argument. The numbers just do not seem to bear that out and it does not seem to make sense to significantly change the class.
Streamlining it to clean up some bad/mandatory options? Absolutely. But when people start talking about breaking EB or getting rid of short rest mechanics it seems a bit silly when those are parts of the draw of the class.
Spamming eldritch blast all the time with not much else to do and asking for short rest every five minutes is exactly two main problems of warlock)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agreed with a lot of what he was saying though I don't think full spell progression is the answer, but I've long felt the pact and eldritch blast invocations should be built into the class so when picking your invocations people feel more free to pick based on character concept and not feel forced into agonizing etc mechanically. Yes some people don't do that, but they likely play in a odd ball campaign .
Give me an example of when you think you cannot maintain verisimilitude, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
Ah, but the amout of subclass features is a boon to begin with. In this way, a pure fighter or wizard spellblade would have access to four features and their class capstone, while a multiclass would have access to five or six features, the last of which would offer a capstone of its own to compensate for the inaccessible late level features of pure classes. But still this doesn't do anything to address the inherent problems of this design.
Aye, I had the same thoughts about Strixhaven subclasses. Interesting ideas, but it left martials out completely.
Indeed it is. And most of his suggestions fit the consensus. Eldritch blast should be a class feature, mandatory invocations that upgrade pact boons and eldritch blast should be given automatically, and there's gotta be something to just cast spells more often.
And I think anything that encourage multiclassing is a mistake.
No you can't. You can say why it works for you but it wont work for me. And your right, is wrong for most people which is why short rests classes are not working for most people.
I... actually have to say I agree. Ideally, multiclassing is about customization and creating exactly the character you want, but in reality, it's usually used as a crutch for optimization purposes. Sorlock, hexadin, artiwizard...
I don't think it will happen, but I would like Pact Magic to work with int and not with cha (as it was in D&D Next, but finally changed in 5E).
I find it very strange that the Warlocks work as Face when, in my opinion, they should work as occultists.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Their power comes from knowledge. Why would a gibbering recluse balancing on the verge of madness be the face of the party? The game has enough charisma casters as it is. Bards, sorcerers, paladins. Until artificers' release, wizard was the only intellect-based class in the game.
There is a solution, though it's pretty crude. In Pathfinder, casters had subclasses that altered their main stat. Wizard had theurgist subclass, which changed them from int to wis.
Maybe one possible way around it is that you have to take at least 5 consecutive levels in each class. This causes you to give up any Tier 4 benefits in the other class (so there's an actual opportunity cost involved in the multiclass), and you have to dedicate quite some time to the second class, which makes you actually think carefully about your reasons for "dipping" into it. Effectively, it turns the second class into a prestige class of sorts.
Yes, I can. If you think there is ever a circumstance where you can't have the game react to the players in a believable way, then you don't have a dynamic world. And having such a world is the responsibility of the DM. If the DM can't do it, then they're basically giving the players a cheat code. You need to look at it from the correct angle.
In both of the above examples you gave, the players choose to take a rest. And they should be free to make that choice. The DM doesn't let them take a rest; short or long. That does not mean, however, the game should pause and remain static for them to start moving again. That would break verisimilitude. As the DM, one of our jobs is to impose consequences for the actions of the players' characters. Sometimes, they plan really well and there aren't any hiccups. And other times, they screw the pooch. If you're under a time crunch, especially after springing an alarm, there should be consequences.
The first time I ran LMoP, the group took two short rests in Cragmaw Castle. They had a fight that went tougher than expected, and they kept an alarm from being raised with a quick casting of silence. It was a smart move, I was proud of them, and worthy of being rewarded. But they rested, triggered another big, even noisier fight immediately after, and took another rest afterwards. Unfortunately, they did not pursue the goblin that retreated to the kitchens to alert the others. By the time they recovered a second time and ventured through the rest of the ruins, the place was half-empty. Gundren Rockseeker, King Grol, his pet wolf, and the Black Spider's agent were all gone. Because they dragged their feet, their boss was missing. The players, to their credit, tried to follow them, but lost the trail. They were counting on rescuing Gundren to find Wave Echo Cave and get paid. Instead, they needed to regroup and come up with a plan B.
That maintains verisimilitude in the face of players taking multiple hour-long short rests in a dungeon environment. It can be done. You just need some imagination and patience.
I don't think that is necssary a bad thing. Optimization is not a bad thing; for some people it is half the fun as there really isn't much crunch to be had with single classing.
It's just that certain multiclass combinations feel like either solutions to inherent design problems, or outright cheating. Take hexadin. One level in warlock - boom, you no longer need strength, MAD circumvented, you were already the best martial class and now you're even more powerful.
No what you showed was exactly what I was saying. They either could not get the short rest as it was interrupted or the short rest hamstrung them by their target fleeing which motivates the party to not take short rests. Which screws over short rest classes, hence why people in large numbers have a problem with how short rest classes work.
You can't be serious. Your argument was predicated on verisimilitude, not convenience. Stop moving goal posts and stay on topic. If their decisions lead to things not going according to plan, the plan can change. This isn't a bad thing. Tension creates drama. That's Storytelling 101. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you want to remove that.
Let's remove short rests from the equation. If you stay in one place for too long in a dungeon, you're going to encounter a wandering monster. Heck, that can happen while moving room to room. Whether a short rest is interrupted is immaterial. If the party spends 30 minutes searching a room, and that's really easy to do, they could encounter one and be no worse for wear. And if you're on a time crunch, then everyone feels that crunch. There is no such thing as "short rest classes," so do yourself a favor and rid yourself of regressive attitude. If anyone is tapped out, then they chose to spend those resources. That still doesn't mean they're helpless. Nobody is. The big limiting factor is, and always will be, hit points. And everyone has those.
Everything, ultimately, comes down to choices and consequences. If anyone gets screwed over, it's because they did it to themselves.
Yes, you are stronger but not by an absurd amount. A single class paladin is still going to be able to keep up with you. There are going to be stronger options, there is no getting around that, but as long as the disparity isn't massive like it was in 3.5E, it isn't really of an issue. Any disparity is within an acceptable margin.
Anyone else find it a little curious that the people talk about wanting to rework are the classes that people enjoy playing in the current iteration of the game?
You almost never see people brigading for druid reworks, even though it's a class surveys and charts consistently indicate is one of the least successful classes in terms of getting people to actually play them. But fighters and warlocks? Classes that actually work well and are consistently shown to be reasonably popular? Burn them to the ground.
Some of the suggestions about consolidating options, or folding seemingly 'mandatory' picks into the baseline of the class seem reasonable, but I can't for the life of me wrap my head around all the various suggestions that amount to making the Warlock more like the Wizard.
Druid is fairly well-designed and powerful. It's just that not everyone wants to play a forest hermit or animal-loving hippie. More people like the idea of an edgy dark occultist or a master of the blade, but when they start actually playing the classes, they stumble across problems.
"Trust me everyone secretly hates their warlock" just does not feel like an especially compelling argument. The numbers just do not seem to bear that out and it does not seem to make sense to significantly change the class.
Streamlining it to clean up some bad/mandatory options? Absolutely. But when people start talking about breaking EB or getting rid of short rest mechanics it seems a bit silly when those are parts of the draw of the class.
Spamming eldritch blast all the time with not much else to do and asking for short rest every five minutes is exactly two main problems of warlock)