Let's be honest with ourselves here. Short Rest features (and the Adventuring Day) have been problematic for 5e since it's inception. Most people DO NOT like the Adventuring days. It fundamentally feels clunky and can be difficult to implement. Parties are also inherently adverse to short rests as long rests are usually given preference due to being beneficial to everyone. Furthermore short rest features have a greater capacity of being 'wasted,' as players typically do not know WHEN they will be taking short rests leading to situations where either the player uses the feature and has no short rests, or saves the resource only to get a short rest. Removing short rest features allows for the game designers to make sure all classes can adequately participate in a game without forcing arbitrary restrictions on Dming styles.
In the middle of the dungeon, players will just set up camp with a spell hut or something similar, and just long rest.
Those spells need revisions or removal, (preferably revision to not allow successive castings, i.e. at least a period of 16 in-game hours to pass between castings), and short rests should be buffed up so that all casters get SOME form or spell recovery (though not full), and all players SOME healing (though not all), and the restoration of a few martial abilities (a few discipline points, or rage points or spell slots up to a third of your maximum allowance rounded up), and 2 short rests maximum within a day.
Short rests being more useful and long rests restricted would go far in creating more strategic usage of both long and short rests and provide at least a little more challenge to the players
While I like the idea, WOTC isn't significantly scaling back class power to compensate for 1 encounter days. There's no way spellcasters should be keeping their quadratic spell scaling at all with a 1 encounter day system. Spells of 7th-9th level shouldn't even exist in 1 encounter days without significant limitations so they can't be used everyday.
And no, if One D&D wants to be a 1 encounter/day system, it can't just somehow buff non-full-casters to caster level. Caster power level in those kinds of environments are just way too much for DMs to typically handle. The 1 encounter/day game style many groups fall into since the balance of the adventuring day isn't apparent to new DMs often makes caster power level so high games rarely go past level 7. ---------------------------------- Now I agree with the pros spoken, and if WOTC would significantly scale back power level for long rest based classes (which they won't do), then I totally agree with this idea. If D&D is moving towards a 1 fight/rest situation, then the next iteration of D&D should be built upon those ideas, but right now it doesn't seem like it at all. The current "long-rest-ification" of classes doesn't really help with the problems 1fight/long rest environments bring, especially for DMs
While I like the idea, WOTC isn't significantly scaling back class power to compensate for 1 encounter days. There's no way spellcasters should be keeping their quadratic spell scaling at all with a 1 encounter day system. Spells of 7th-9th level shouldn't even exist in 1 encounter days without significant limitations so they can't be used everyday.
And no, if One D&D wants to be a 1 encounter/day system, it can't just somehow buff non-full-casters to caster level. Caster power level in those kinds of environments are just way too much for DMs to typically handle. The 1 encounter/day game style many groups fall into since the balance of the adventuring day isn't apparent to new DMs often makes caster power level so high games rarely go past level 7. ---------------------------------- Now I agree with the pros spoken, and if WOTC would significantly scale back power level for long rest based classes (which they won't do), then I totally agree with this idea. If D&D is moving towards a 1 fight/rest situation, then the next iteration of D&D should be built upon those ideas, but right now it doesn't seem like it at all. The current "long-rest-ification" of classes doesn't really help with the problems 1fight/long rest environments bring, especially for DMs
The thing is casters aren't necessarily quadratic. It's really a matter of key spells being overpowered and simply existing where they shouldn't. And most of that is because they are iconic spells: Wish. Power Word Kill/Heal (which bards now get? WTF?). True Polymorph.
Wish needs to go, PWK needs to keep its restrictions, Polymorph spells should only affect willing participants. A lot of those big 7-9 spells are supposed to have multiple components and take weeks of ritual to cast. If DM's and players can't handle them, then remove them from the game. They shouldn't figure into combat action economy anyhow.
The one encounter a day fits better for some things, and not for others. If you're in a dungeon, you'll probably have multiple encounters in a day, but out in the wild, one per day seems reasonable, if not excessive.
I think better short rests will make it an easier pill to swallow when you tell players they can't get their 8 hour rest after just having an 8 hour rest.
In defense of the 1 encounter a day/ long rest, unless they're dungeon crawling or exploring a lair with multiple rooms and multiple encounters, typically a play session is some role play an a combat session followed by a little bit more role play to set up the next session. Long rests fit that style (again, dungeon crawling is separate).
EDIT: also, with the 1/3 spell slots that I suggest, 1/3 rounded down means even at level 20 the highest slot a short rest will give you is a single 5th level slot.
In the middle of the dungeon, players will just set up camp with a spell hut or something similar, and just long rest.
Those spells need revisions or removal, (preferably revision to not allow successive castings, i.e. at least a period of 16 in-game hours to pass between castings), and short rests should be buffed up so that all casters get SOME form or spell recovery (though not full), and all players SOME healing (though not all), and the restoration of a few martial abilities (a few discipline points, or rage points or spell slots up to a third of your maximum allowance rounded up), and 2 short rests maximum within a day.
Short rests being more useful and long rests restricted would go far in creating more strategic usage of both long and short rests and provide at least a little more challenge to the players
Hmm, I agree that spells like Tiny Hut need to be rethought. Those spells make rest in a dangerous place trivial.
What I don't agree with is making all casters have Arcane Recovery-like features. I actually agree with the OP that Short Rest features should be removed or limited. I like Short Rest as a narrative element. They are the perfect excuse for the characters to have a moment of calm, and get to know each other better. However, I don't like them as a mechanical element, since they practically eliminate resource management as an element of the game. And it also creates bad habits in the players, since they know that they can jump headlong into an even match because later they can make a short rest and nothing has happened here.
As DM I try to make short rest very difficult for my players. But there are so many ways to make them safe, it's hard to make them difficult. That takes a lot of emotion out of the game, like so many other things in 5e. And it doesn't look like they're going to be fixed in 5e revised either. On the contrary, it seems that they want to aggravate those problems.
The one encounter a day fits better for some things, and not for others. If you're in a dungeon, you'll probably have multiple encounters in a day, but out in the wild, one per day seems reasonable, if not excessive.
I think better short rests will make it an easier pill to swallow when you tell players they can't get their 8 hour rest after just having an 8 hour rest.
1) Travel in the wild is not meant to be a challenge after level 5 or so. Normal wild animals are generally CR 2 or lower, and there are minimal terrain challenges on the normal material plane. Just montage it as a DM and skip to the party arriving at their destination, besides travel through the wild is generally always the same so it would get boring fast if you played through it all the time.
2) That is already RAW, you cannot have more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period.
The one encounter a day fits better for some things, and not for others. If you're in a dungeon, you'll probably have multiple encounters in a day, but out in the wild, one per day seems reasonable, if not excessive.
I think better short rests will make it an easier pill to swallow when you tell players they can't get their 8 hour rest after just having an 8 hour rest.
1) Travel in the wild is not meant to be a challenge after level 5 or so. Normal wild animals are generally CR 2 or lower, and there are minimal terrain challenges on the normal material plane. Just montage it as a DM and skip to the party arriving at their destination, besides travel through the wild is generally always the same so it would get boring fast if you played through it all the time.
2) That is already RAW, you cannot have more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period.
1. That's not my point. My point is that long vs. short is irrelevant for the most part unless you are dungeon crawling.
2. It gets disregarded. Players rioting isn't the greatest thing, and generally the abuse is more often to happen at the lowest levels when resources are at their scarcest. Short rests being a bit more appealing will make the abuses less often and lower level play more palatable. Because nobody likes being the level 1 wizard that has ONE spell and a bunch of nigh useless cantrips and can be taken out with a single hit.
As you progress, you get more resources, and then your point 1 comes into play.
The one encounter a day fits better for some things, and not for others. If you're in a dungeon, you'll probably have multiple encounters in a day, but out in the wild, one per day seems reasonable, if not excessive.
I think better short rests will make it an easier pill to swallow when you tell players they can't get their 8 hour rest after just having an 8 hour rest.
1) Travel in the wild is not meant to be a challenge after level 5 or so. Normal wild animals are generally CR 2 or lower, and there are minimal terrain challenges on the normal material plane. Just montage it as a DM and skip to the party arriving at their destination, besides travel through the wild is generally always the same so it would get boring fast if you played through it all the time.
2) That is already RAW, you cannot have more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period.
1. That's not my point. My point is that long vs. short is irrelevant for the most part unless you are dungeon crawling.
2. It gets disregarded. Players rioting isn't the greatest thing, and generally the abuse is more often to happen at the lowest levels when resources are at their scarcest. Short rests being a bit more appealing will make the abuses less often and lower level play more palatable. Because nobody likes being the level 1 wizard that has ONE spell and a bunch of nigh useless cantrips and can be taken out with a single hit.
As you progress, you get more resources, and then your point 1 comes into play.
1. My point is that at higher levels the only time you should be doing combat / using abilities is when dungeon crawling. One-off random encounters in a day is bad game design and generally not very interesting for players. Any 'quest' should involve multiple stages / encounters whether you are making your way through the sewers, ruins, or robbing someone's house, or making your way through a battlefield to kill the BBEG, or making your way to the lair of a monster.
2. Just like in Monopoly there is nothing a game designer can do to stop people ignoring the rules and making the game less fun for themselves.
1. My point is that at higher levels the only time you should be doing combat / using abilities is when dungeon crawling. One-off random encounters in a day is bad game design and generally not very interesting for players. Any 'quest' should involve multiple stages / encounters whether you are making your way through the sewers, ruins, or robbing someone's house, or making your way through a battlefield to kill the BBEG, or making your way to the lair of a monster.
2. Just like in Monopoly there is nothing a game designer can do to stop people ignoring the rules and making the game less fun for themselves.
I don't think people are ignoring the rules to make it "less fun" for themselves, but to remove a difficulty that they have issues overcoming. As a game designer that's a case of seeing how your consumers interact with the game and adjusting it accordingly. That's debatably even more important than asking them for feedback. (feedback can give you access to larger sample sizes but at the cost of getting laundry lists of wants and desires, but observational data will get you input on the things they aren't reporting, and cuts down on the "wants" in the data).
There's an optional rule in the DMG called 'Gritty Realism', where a short rest is 8 hours, and a long rest is a weak. This could fit (some) one-encounter-per-day campaigns without actually being gritty (or realistic).
1. My point is that at higher levels the only time you should be doing combat / using abilities is when dungeon crawling. One-off random encounters in a day is bad game design and generally not very interesting for players. Any 'quest' should involve multiple stages / encounters whether you are making your way through the sewers, ruins, or robbing someone's house, or making your way through a battlefield to kill the BBEG, or making your way to the lair of a monster.
2. Just like in Monopoly there is nothing a game designer can do to stop people ignoring the rules and making the game less fun for themselves.
I don't think people are ignoring the rules to make it "less fun" for themselves, but to remove a difficulty that they have issues overcoming. As a game designer that's a case of seeing how your consumers interact with the game and adjusting it accordingly. That's debatably even more important than asking them for feedback. (feedback can give you access to larger sample sizes but at the cost of getting laundry lists of wants and desires, but observational data will get you input on the things they aren't reporting, and cuts down on the "wants" in the data).
But whatever....
Then the game designers should just make all spellslots recharge on a SR because people playing spellcasters (and paladins) are the ones who demand long rests after each and every encounter because they spent 1 or 2 high level slots.
Likewise in Monopoly people add the $500 free parking bonus all the time to remove the difficulty of managing their money, but as a result the game lasts forever and becomes less about strategy than about luck which they then go on to complain about. This is a lesson in human psychology for you: "Giving people exactly what they want generally doesn't make them happy, because people are really bad at knowing what actually makes them happy. Because if this was not the case everyone would be happy already because they would just go out and do the thing that they know will make them happy."
I think the way this creates a problem at tables is partly because of CR... the CR of a monster is calculated assuming that you're having at least 5 resource-draining encounters in a day. The classes themselves are designed with this in mind... Martials are extremely weak compared to casters if you're playing a game with just a single encounter per day... but when you've got 5 or 6, suddenly their higher HP and ability to reliably output damage without needing resources makes them the MVPs.
I think that, similar to how there are optional rules for stuff like "Gritty Realism", One DnD should include optional rules to facilitate the many, many tables in the world that just do the single-encounter adventuring day. I don't know off the top of my head just what those rules should be, but even just something letting DMs know that they need to use higher CR monsters in that situation would be helpful... I mean, they also need to get better at calculating CR, since it is pretty famously unreliable as-is, but that's a whole other discussion.
Then the game designers should just make all spellslots recharge on a SR because people playing spellcasters (and paladins) are the ones who demand long rests after each and every encounter because they spent 1 or 2 high level slots.
I agree, though I was arguing for a recharge that's not THAT much. I think a third is fine..
Likewise in Monopoly people add the $500 free parking bonus all the time to remove the difficulty of managing their money, but as a result the game lasts forever and becomes less about strategy than about luck which they then go on to complain about. This is a lesson in human psychology for you: "Giving people exactly what they want generally doesn't make them happy, because people are really bad at knowing what actually makes them happy. Because if this was not the case everyone would be happy already because they would just go out and do the thing that they know will make them happy."
Jesus. $500? We do only fifty. It's not that game breaking then but it's a nice bonus. I don't disagree that people want game breaking, and yet, if they got it, it would be absolutely miserable. They get tired of their characters around level 10-ish anyhow.
But there's a difference between game breaking and trying to disuade players from "playing it wrong" and that's where I'm at.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's be honest with ourselves here. Short Rest features (and the Adventuring Day) have been problematic for 5e since it's inception. Most people DO NOT like the Adventuring days. It fundamentally feels clunky and can be difficult to implement. Parties are also inherently adverse to short rests as long rests are usually given preference due to being beneficial to everyone. Furthermore short rest features have a greater capacity of being 'wasted,' as players typically do not know WHEN they will be taking short rests leading to situations where either the player uses the feature and has no short rests, or saves the resource only to get a short rest. Removing short rest features allows for the game designers to make sure all classes can adequately participate in a game without forcing arbitrary restrictions on Dming styles.
I disagree. Long rests tend to be abused.
In the middle of the dungeon, players will just set up camp with a spell hut or something similar, and just long rest.
Those spells need revisions or removal, (preferably revision to not allow successive castings, i.e. at least a period of 16 in-game hours to pass between castings), and short rests should be buffed up so that all casters get SOME form or spell recovery (though not full), and all players SOME healing (though not all), and the restoration of a few martial abilities (a few discipline points, or rage points or spell slots up to a third of your maximum allowance rounded up), and 2 short rests maximum within a day.
Short rests being more useful and long rests restricted would go far in creating more strategic usage of both long and short rests and provide at least a little more challenge to the players
While I like the idea, WOTC isn't significantly scaling back class power to compensate for 1 encounter days.
There's no way spellcasters should be keeping their quadratic spell scaling at all with a 1 encounter day system. Spells of 7th-9th level shouldn't even exist in 1 encounter days without significant limitations so they can't be used everyday.
And no, if One D&D wants to be a 1 encounter/day system, it can't just somehow buff non-full-casters to caster level. Caster power level in those kinds of environments are just way too much for DMs to typically handle. The 1 encounter/day game style many groups fall into since the balance of the adventuring day isn't apparent to new DMs often makes caster power level so high games rarely go past level 7.
----------------------------------
Now I agree with the pros spoken, and if WOTC would significantly scale back power level for long rest based classes (which they won't do), then I totally agree with this idea. If D&D is moving towards a 1 fight/rest situation, then the next iteration of D&D should be built upon those ideas, but right now it doesn't seem like it at all. The current "long-rest-ification" of classes doesn't really help with the problems 1fight/long rest environments bring, especially for DMs
The thing is casters aren't necessarily quadratic. It's really a matter of key spells being overpowered and simply existing where they shouldn't. And most of that is because they are iconic spells: Wish. Power Word Kill/Heal (which bards now get? WTF?). True Polymorph.
Wish needs to go, PWK needs to keep its restrictions, Polymorph spells should only affect willing participants. A lot of those big 7-9 spells are supposed to have multiple components and take weeks of ritual to cast. If DM's and players can't handle them, then remove them from the game. They shouldn't figure into combat action economy anyhow.
The one encounter a day fits better for some things, and not for others. If you're in a dungeon, you'll probably have multiple encounters in a day, but out in the wild, one per day seems reasonable, if not excessive.
I think better short rests will make it an easier pill to swallow when you tell players they can't get their 8 hour rest after just having an 8 hour rest.
In defense of the 1 encounter a day/ long rest, unless they're dungeon crawling or exploring a lair with multiple rooms and multiple encounters, typically a play session is some role play an a combat session followed by a little bit more role play to set up the next session. Long rests fit that style (again, dungeon crawling is separate).
EDIT: also, with the 1/3 spell slots that I suggest, 1/3 rounded down means even at level 20 the highest slot a short rest will give you is a single 5th level slot.
Hmm, I agree that spells like Tiny Hut need to be rethought. Those spells make rest in a dangerous place trivial.
What I don't agree with is making all casters have Arcane Recovery-like features. I actually agree with the OP that Short Rest features should be removed or limited. I like Short Rest as a narrative element. They are the perfect excuse for the characters to have a moment of calm, and get to know each other better. However, I don't like them as a mechanical element, since they practically eliminate resource management as an element of the game. And it also creates bad habits in the players, since they know that they can jump headlong into an even match because later they can make a short rest and nothing has happened here.
As DM I try to make short rest very difficult for my players. But there are so many ways to make them safe, it's hard to make them difficult. That takes a lot of emotion out of the game, like so many other things in 5e. And it doesn't look like they're going to be fixed in 5e revised either. On the contrary, it seems that they want to aggravate those problems.
1) Travel in the wild is not meant to be a challenge after level 5 or so. Normal wild animals are generally CR 2 or lower, and there are minimal terrain challenges on the normal material plane. Just montage it as a DM and skip to the party arriving at their destination, besides travel through the wild is generally always the same so it would get boring fast if you played through it all the time.
2) That is already RAW, you cannot have more than 1 long rest per 24 hour period.
1. That's not my point. My point is that long vs. short is irrelevant for the most part unless you are dungeon crawling.
2. It gets disregarded. Players rioting isn't the greatest thing, and generally the abuse is more often to happen at the lowest levels when resources are at their scarcest. Short rests being a bit more appealing will make the abuses less often and lower level play more palatable. Because nobody likes being the level 1 wizard that has ONE spell and a bunch of nigh useless cantrips and can be taken out with a single hit.
As you progress, you get more resources, and then your point 1 comes into play.
1. My point is that at higher levels the only time you should be doing combat / using abilities is when dungeon crawling. One-off random encounters in a day is bad game design and generally not very interesting for players. Any 'quest' should involve multiple stages / encounters whether you are making your way through the sewers, ruins, or robbing someone's house, or making your way through a battlefield to kill the BBEG, or making your way to the lair of a monster.
2. Just like in Monopoly there is nothing a game designer can do to stop people ignoring the rules and making the game less fun for themselves.
I don't think people are ignoring the rules to make it "less fun" for themselves, but to remove a difficulty that they have issues overcoming. As a game designer that's a case of seeing how your consumers interact with the game and adjusting it accordingly. That's debatably even more important than asking them for feedback. (feedback can give you access to larger sample sizes but at the cost of getting laundry lists of wants and desires, but observational data will get you input on the things they aren't reporting, and cuts down on the "wants" in the data).
But whatever....
There's an optional rule in the DMG called 'Gritty Realism', where a short rest is 8 hours, and a long rest is a weak. This could fit (some) one-encounter-per-day campaigns without actually being gritty (or realistic).
Then the game designers should just make all spellslots recharge on a SR because people playing spellcasters (and paladins) are the ones who demand long rests after each and every encounter because they spent 1 or 2 high level slots.
Likewise in Monopoly people add the $500 free parking bonus all the time to remove the difficulty of managing their money, but as a result the game lasts forever and becomes less about strategy than about luck which they then go on to complain about. This is a lesson in human psychology for you: "Giving people exactly what they want generally doesn't make them happy, because people are really bad at knowing what actually makes them happy. Because if this was not the case everyone would be happy already because they would just go out and do the thing that they know will make them happy."
I think the way this creates a problem at tables is partly because of CR... the CR of a monster is calculated assuming that you're having at least 5 resource-draining encounters in a day. The classes themselves are designed with this in mind... Martials are extremely weak compared to casters if you're playing a game with just a single encounter per day... but when you've got 5 or 6, suddenly their higher HP and ability to reliably output damage without needing resources makes them the MVPs.
I think that, similar to how there are optional rules for stuff like "Gritty Realism", One DnD should include optional rules to facilitate the many, many tables in the world that just do the single-encounter adventuring day. I don't know off the top of my head just what those rules should be, but even just something letting DMs know that they need to use higher CR monsters in that situation would be helpful... I mean, they also need to get better at calculating CR, since it is pretty famously unreliable as-is, but that's a whole other discussion.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I agree, though I was arguing for a recharge that's not THAT much. I think a third is fine..
Jesus. $500? We do only fifty. It's not that game breaking then but it's a nice bonus. I don't disagree that people want game breaking, and yet, if they got it, it would be absolutely miserable. They get tired of their characters around level 10-ish anyhow.
But there's a difference between game breaking and trying to disuade players from "playing it wrong" and that's where I'm at.