As we have seen lately (with the redesign of bladesinger and many of the racial features) WotC is shifting design away from short rest recharge. I am curious if that will trickle back into redesigns of class features from pre-Tasha's sources such as the druid's wild shape or Pact magic for example.
Would be shocked if it didn't. The 'Adventuring Day' of four to six heavy fights is patently unrealistic in anything but a dungeon run scenario, and actual dungeon crawls are increasingly the exception rather than the rule in modern D&D. Short rest-keyed classes like the monk and the warlock (but mostly the monk) are half-crippled by the loss of their ability to top up between encounters, or at least such is the supposition.
Would be shocked if it didn't. The 'Adventuring Day' of four to six heavy fights is patently unrealistic in anything but a dungeon run scenario, and actual dungeon crawls are increasingly the exception rather than the rule in modern D&D. Short rest-keyed classes like the monk and the warlock (but mostly the monk) are half-crippled by the loss of their ability to top up between encounters, or at least such is the supposition.
The adventuring day is not designed to be “four to six heavy fights,” it’s actually supposed to be 6-8 middling fights.
I crank them up to 3-4 heavy fights and it works rather well with 1-2 short rests per adventuring day.
Would be shocked if it didn't. The 'Adventuring Day' of four to six heavy fights is patently unrealistic in anything but a dungeon run scenario, and actual dungeon crawls are increasingly the exception rather than the rule in modern D&D. Short rest-keyed classes like the monk and the warlock (but mostly the monk) are half-crippled by the loss of their ability to top up between encounters, or at least such is the supposition.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Short rest classes get their shit back on a long rest too, so they still have just as much ability to top up between encounters as they ever have; there's no crippling going on. It's just that long rest classes also have the ability to top up between encounters, which makes them more powerful comparatively.
I will say, I'm lucky if I can even get one combat encounter between long rests, and non-combat encounters incur significantly less resource drain on the PCs. Various tables' playstyles are wildly different (and indeed, even different adventures at the same table can be wildly different), and the game doesn't provide a lot of guidance for how to adjust things to accommodate. "Gritty realism" rest rules are all well and good, but it's very disruptive (and frankly immersion-breaking) to have rests work differently depending on whether you're in "urban intrigue" mode or "dungeon crawl" mode. I don't know what the solution is.
Would be shocked if it didn't. The 'Adventuring Day' of four to six heavy fights is patently unrealistic in anything but a dungeon run scenario, and actual dungeon crawls are increasingly the exception rather than the rule in modern D&D. Short rest-keyed classes like the monk and the warlock (but mostly the monk) are half-crippled by the loss of their ability to top up between encounters, or at least such is the supposition.
The adventuring day is not designed to be “four to six heavy fights,” it’s actually supposed to be 6-8 middling fights.
I crank them up to 3-4 heavy fights and it works rather well with 1-2 short rests per adventuring day.
That is kind of the problem with attempting to "balance" class abilities around a playstyle instead of just against one another. If you just focus on balancing against each other, then they are more likely to be on par with one another regardless of playstyle. Of course there is no "true balance", but that is a whole other conversation.
Would be shocked if it didn't. The 'Adventuring Day' of four to six heavy fights is patently unrealistic in anything but a dungeon run scenario, and actual dungeon crawls are increasingly the exception rather than the rule in modern D&D. Short rest-keyed classes like the monk and the warlock (but mostly the monk) are half-crippled by the loss of their ability to top up between encounters, or at least such is the supposition.
The adventuring day is not designed to be “four to six heavy fights,” it’s actually supposed to be 6-8 middling fights.
I crank them up to 3-4 heavy fights and it works rather well with 1-2 short rests per adventuring day.
Yup. I mean, even with just two hard combat encounters per day a short rest is already going to be useful quite often (and not unrealistic - I would expect any group out in the wilds getting bloodied a bit by something that goes bump in the night to treat their wounds, take stock of the situation and take a breather). Short rests can reasonably be expected to be available if you really need them - losing an hour is not insignificant, but usually not problematic either. Long rests on the other hand can often be made somewhat undesireable by the DM: rations come into play or foraging adds even more time to the long rest, there may be time constraints on the adventure, long rests typically only allow a single PC to take a watch at a time (whereas during a short rest everyone can keep an eye out for trouble) and if the long rest is interrupted you lose the benefits. You take long rests because you have to, you take short rests because you can; you can expect to be able to use a short rest ability when you need it and likely get to top it up again before you need it again, while on the other hand if you use a long rest ability you should probably expect to be without for the next encounter unless you're sure you'll be able to get that long rest really soon. That difference is more than enough for short rest classes to have a meaningful advantage even when combat encounters are less frequent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That hasn't been my experience, or the experience of anyone I've played with/talked to directly about their play. Short rests are often seen as wasteful and disruptive, especially because many classes gain nothing but the ability to burn hit dice on a short rest. It's often a case of 'we could take a short rest, sure - or you could put on your man pants, deal without your stupid overly-limited short rest keyed shit for another few hours, and finish the ******* job so we can get a nice, proper long rest and everybody can get their shit back instead of just you."
Is that the wrong way of looking at it? Quite possibly. But it's what I've seen over and over and over, amongst several play groups. Long rests are intrinsically desireable because of Wolverine Super Regen; short rests are an emergency stopgap you only ever make use of if you absolutely have to because only about half-ish of any given party is going to really benefit from short rests. The sorcerer who's played cautiously and avoided taking serious damage has never really been okay with letting the beat-to-shit monk and the Needs-Food-Badly fighter sit around for an hour getting their shit back; that sorcerer's gonna call them out for being jerks, even if all the damage they took and all the bodies they blocked are why that sorcerer is relatively unwounded.
Pardon for not being my homework before posting, but is it really presumed the adventuring day is all fights, or more broadly construed encounters. Outside the aforementioned dungeon crawl or a war zone or maybe a gladiatorial arena tourney ... 4-6 fights is quite a demand (and even in a war, most time spent in a war is boring and getting into combat every day let alone every few hours is rare, but I accept we're talking fantasy and not necessarily "realism").
So what I'm asking is the 'presumptive adventuring day' that violent challenge filled or is it more presumptive that encounters "things that happen" occur over the day. I want to say it's the latter but the problem being D&D as written doesn't give alternatives to combat scenarios much attention outside of traps ... environmental hazards get some attention but it's scattered (though the Wilderness Adventure DM's screen I'm told does some work in that category that punches way above what you'd expect for a DM's screen).
Moving character features to long rest resets as opposed to short rest reclaims seems to me to be an attempt for simpler, consistent rules. Not everyone uses D&D Beyond character sheets that puts the factors largely on autopilot. So there could be a desire to just make some common assumptions of getting features back after a long rest, as opposed to game pause to scrutinize character sheets and manuals to review a varied "who gets what." A dispersion of traits over short and long rest is a nuance many players appreciate, but being mindful that this game is skewed for age 12 or so, and possibly skewing downward based on marketing surveys, I could see an impetus of reducing the number of "if ... then (unless you're this class, then)" rules statements.
Of course reducing that logic complexity would likely require the affected classes to have those features revisited in terms of # of uses prior to long rest or the power of that use. Inspiration to me seems a little weak without the short rest recoup.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That hasn't been my experience, or the experience of anyone I've played with/talked to directly about their play. Short rests are often seen as wasteful and disruptive, especially because many classes gain nothing but the ability to burn hit dice on a short rest. It's often a case of 'we could take a short rest, sure - or you could put on your man pants, deal without your stupid overly-limited short rest keyed shit for another few hours, and finish the ******* job so we can get a nice, proper long rest and everybody can get their shit back instead of just you."
That tells me two things:
Those “long rest” PCs weren’t taking enough damage per fight, meaning those were only “middling” fights and not actually “heavy” ones.*
Those people you’ve played with before are ********.
*(If those fights had been heavy enough, those PCs’ players would have been begging for short rests too just to spend hit dice. If more than half of the PCs finish the adventuring day with more than half of their Hit Dice unspent then the DM needs to ovary-up and lay some smacketh downeth.)
Is that the wrong way of looking at it? Quite possibly. But it's what I've seen over and over and over, amongst several play groups. Long rests are intrinsically desireable because of Wolverine Super Regen; short rests are an emergency stopgap you only ever make use of if you absolutely have to because only about half-ish of any given party is going to really benefit from short rests. The sorcerer who's played cautiously and avoided taking serious damage has never really been okay with letting the beat-to-shit monk and the Needs-Food-Badly fighter sit around for an hour getting their shit back; that sorcerer's gonna call them out for being jerks, even if all the damage they took and all the bodies they blocked are why that sorcerer is relatively unwounded.
That confirms both of those two things (especially the second one).
Is that the wrong way of looking at it? Quite possibly. But it's what I've seen over and over and over, amongst several play groups.
Being the norm doesn't make it any less wrong. So many video game players save up their one-use items forever because they "might need it more later", but that's objectively and demonstrably not the best way to go about things whether 1%, 50% or 95% of players do it. "Thousands of players can't all be wrong" is nonsense.
There's stuff that's designed to be used whenever it's useful, and there's stuff that's designed to be used when it's a clutch moment. That design remains the same whether players can tell the difference or not°.
° edit for fairness: and whether players choose to follow it or not
So many video game players save up their one-use items forever because they "might need it more later", but that's objectively and demonstrably not the best way to go about things...
They should just change the names to something that invokes "not so good rest" and "really good rest". Then the association with a "day" is gone and the DM is free to have a bunch of encounters occur over the course of a week or month, with the players only getting the opportunity to get a 'really good rest' at intervals that line up with how the system was designed.
They should just change the names to something that invokes "not so good rest" and "really good rest". Then the association with a "day" is gone and the DM is free to have a bunch of encounters occur over the course of a week or month, with the players only getting the opportunity to get a 'really good rest' at intervals that line up with how the system was designed.
That's the answer. In my upcoming game, you can only long rest at a shrine. They exist throughout the world and are imbued with holy magic or whatever. You can short rest each night. That's the plan anyway.
It's funny, there's this unspoken assumption at every table I've played at, that vehicles (boats, wagons, infernal war machines) are basically moving rest spots for everyone besides the driver. I wonder if that's intentional.
It's funny, there's this unspoken assumption at every table I've played at, that vehicles (boats, wagons, infernal war machines) are basically moving rest spots for everyone besides the driver. I wonder if that's intentional.
Definitely a holdover from earlier games, and then taken to the extreme in modern gaming to include video games.
I think there has to be a balance between what currently exists and what should exist in either 5.5 or 6th. Realistically, the main difference between Long and Short is spells. Lots of spell like abilities recharge on a short, but then Spells only recharge fully on a long. Some classes of course have some sort of "Pearl of Power" type ability to get some of their spell slots back, from Arcane Recovery to Class Feature Variants Channel Divinity to of course Warlock getting all of them because of how Warlocks work.
That being said, It'd be interesting to see how these games are ACTUALLY played in playtest. I feel like these groups are so power gamey that is why a lot of abilities just get ultra "restricted". Spellcaster are powerful and they are going to be powerful because that's just how spells work, but the second a lot of martials or half casters get some really neat and interesting abilities in UA, they get pounded into oblivion.
So many video game players save up their one-use items forever because they "might need it more later", but that's objectively and demonstrably not the best way to go about things...
*shifts nervously*
Hey, I'm guilty of it too sometimes. No shame at all. Play the way you want, and that goes for D&D too. As long as you're having fun, there's no reason whatsoever why you can't deviate from the standard or not buy into the intended design in every way. My point is that that doesn't invalidate that standard and that design, however. Single-use items have their use in a game and the frequency with which they can be acquired or the number of them you can get have been considered in function of those who will use them optimally as well as those who need them more simply because they're not very good at the game. Increasing or decreasing that would change the difficulty for everyone except those who refrain from using them unless absolutely necessary. Same with short rests in D&D: if parties choose not to use them as often as they could that's fine, but to manage some semblance of balance standard it's important that they exist and that they try to hit the sweet spot between being not being convenient enough and being overly gratuitous. Players can do what they want with it, but there has to be a standard, a norm of sorts. Even if literally nobody ever actually hits that standard, the game needs to have one.
That's the answer. In my upcoming game, you can only long rest at a shrine. They exist throughout the world and are imbued with holy magic or whatever. You can short rest each night. That's the plan anyway.
So no reaching a shrine means no regaining of spell slots?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This whole discussion is a huge reason why I wish a DM could customize what happens when players in their campaign hit the Long Rest button, instead of it being just a permanently always-on Wolverine Super Regeneration button. Implement Slow Natural Healing, perhaps even implement some means of slowing down spell slot regeneration. Get players to start making decisions about what to use where, instead of "I'm going to cast literally every single spell I have in the first fight I find myself in without exception, and then I'm going to complain until I get a long rest."
5e was built as a resource management and attrition game. Long rests have no god damned business punching you back up to 100% for free.
This whole discussion is a huge reason why I wish a DM could customize what happens when players in their campaign hit the Long Rest button, instead of it being just a permanently always-on Wolverine Super Regeneration button.
They can. Just not in DDB, or not without a bunch of shenanigans in the tool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The short rest being 1 hour is "whack" to say the least. From a RP perspective, I've set it to 5 minutes. There is no way you could take a short rest in a large dungeon on floor level 3 after whacking 2/3rds of it and rest 1 hour, either you'd be discovered of the dungeon would have fled leaving the party with no treasure.
This whole discussion is a huge reason why I wish a DM could customize what happens when players in their campaign hit the Long Rest button, instead of it being just a permanently always-on Wolverine Super Regeneration button.
They can. Just not in DDB, or not without a bunch of shenanigans in the tool.
I really...really...
REALLY
...hate...
When people make posts like this here.
This is the D&D Beyond user forum. The base assumption in this place is that anybody you're talking to is here because they use and are invested in the tools. Could I impose whatever rules my table and I agreed on without issue using dead-tree documents? Of course! WE DON'T DO THAT THOUGH. My group is scattered across the continental United States, the online digital tools are the only way/reason any of us get to play. Anything that's difficult to do in the digital tool is ergo difficult to do period for me, mine, and anyone else in the position we're in. The whole entire-ass purpose of being here is the digital tools.
I need to put it in my signature or something - "If your answer to a problem on DDB is "that's only a problem if you're using the digital character sheet", your answer is wrong and bad and you should feel bad about it." I sure as shit didn't spend hundreds of dollars on virtual books on this website to then transcribe everything onto the mutilated corpse of a tree and have no reasonable way to play with all my friends online.
Jeesh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As we have seen lately (with the redesign of bladesinger and many of the racial features) WotC is shifting design away from short rest recharge. I am curious if that will trickle back into redesigns of class features from pre-Tasha's sources such as the druid's wild shape or Pact magic for example.
Would be shocked if it didn't. The 'Adventuring Day' of four to six heavy fights is patently unrealistic in anything but a dungeon run scenario, and actual dungeon crawls are increasingly the exception rather than the rule in modern D&D. Short rest-keyed classes like the monk and the warlock (but mostly the monk) are half-crippled by the loss of their ability to top up between encounters, or at least such is the supposition.
Please do not contact or message me.
The adventuring day is not designed to be “four to six heavy fights,” it’s actually supposed to be 6-8 middling fights.
I crank them up to 3-4 heavy fights and it works rather well with 1-2 short rests per adventuring day.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Short rest classes get their shit back on a long rest too, so they still have just as much ability to top up between encounters as they ever have; there's no crippling going on. It's just that long rest classes also have the ability to top up between encounters, which makes them more powerful comparatively.
I will say, I'm lucky if I can even get one combat encounter between long rests, and non-combat encounters incur significantly less resource drain on the PCs. Various tables' playstyles are wildly different (and indeed, even different adventures at the same table can be wildly different), and the game doesn't provide a lot of guidance for how to adjust things to accommodate. "Gritty realism" rest rules are all well and good, but it's very disruptive (and frankly immersion-breaking) to have rests work differently depending on whether you're in "urban intrigue" mode or "dungeon crawl" mode. I don't know what the solution is.
That is kind of the problem with attempting to "balance" class abilities around a playstyle instead of just against one another. If you just focus on balancing against each other, then they are more likely to be on par with one another regardless of playstyle. Of course there is no "true balance", but that is a whole other conversation.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yup. I mean, even with just two hard combat encounters per day a short rest is already going to be useful quite often (and not unrealistic - I would expect any group out in the wilds getting bloodied a bit by something that goes bump in the night to treat their wounds, take stock of the situation and take a breather). Short rests can reasonably be expected to be available if you really need them - losing an hour is not insignificant, but usually not problematic either. Long rests on the other hand can often be made somewhat undesireable by the DM: rations come into play or foraging adds even more time to the long rest, there may be time constraints on the adventure, long rests typically only allow a single PC to take a watch at a time (whereas during a short rest everyone can keep an eye out for trouble) and if the long rest is interrupted you lose the benefits. You take long rests because you have to, you take short rests because you can; you can expect to be able to use a short rest ability when you need it and likely get to top it up again before you need it again, while on the other hand if you use a long rest ability you should probably expect to be without for the next encounter unless you're sure you'll be able to get that long rest really soon. That difference is more than enough for short rest classes to have a meaningful advantage even when combat encounters are less frequent.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That hasn't been my experience, or the experience of anyone I've played with/talked to directly about their play. Short rests are often seen as wasteful and disruptive, especially because many classes gain nothing but the ability to burn hit dice on a short rest. It's often a case of 'we could take a short rest, sure - or you could put on your man pants, deal without your stupid overly-limited short rest keyed shit for another few hours, and finish the ******* job so we can get a nice, proper long rest and everybody can get their shit back instead of just you."
Is that the wrong way of looking at it? Quite possibly. But it's what I've seen over and over and over, amongst several play groups. Long rests are intrinsically desireable because of Wolverine Super Regen; short rests are an emergency stopgap you only ever make use of if you absolutely have to because only about half-ish of any given party is going to really benefit from short rests. The sorcerer who's played cautiously and avoided taking serious damage has never really been okay with letting the beat-to-shit monk and the Needs-Food-Badly fighter sit around for an hour getting their shit back; that sorcerer's gonna call them out for being jerks, even if all the damage they took and all the bodies they blocked are why that sorcerer is relatively unwounded.
Please do not contact or message me.
Pardon for not being my homework before posting, but is it really presumed the adventuring day is all fights, or more broadly construed encounters. Outside the aforementioned dungeon crawl or a war zone or maybe a gladiatorial arena tourney ... 4-6 fights is quite a demand (and even in a war, most time spent in a war is boring and getting into combat every day let alone every few hours is rare, but I accept we're talking fantasy and not necessarily "realism").
So what I'm asking is the 'presumptive adventuring day' that violent challenge filled or is it more presumptive that encounters "things that happen" occur over the day. I want to say it's the latter but the problem being D&D as written doesn't give alternatives to combat scenarios much attention outside of traps ... environmental hazards get some attention but it's scattered (though the Wilderness Adventure DM's screen I'm told does some work in that category that punches way above what you'd expect for a DM's screen).
Moving character features to long rest resets as opposed to short rest reclaims seems to me to be an attempt for simpler, consistent rules. Not everyone uses D&D Beyond character sheets that puts the factors largely on autopilot. So there could be a desire to just make some common assumptions of getting features back after a long rest, as opposed to game pause to scrutinize character sheets and manuals to review a varied "who gets what." A dispersion of traits over short and long rest is a nuance many players appreciate, but being mindful that this game is skewed for age 12 or so, and possibly skewing downward based on marketing surveys, I could see an impetus of reducing the number of "if ... then (unless you're this class, then)" rules statements.
Of course reducing that logic complexity would likely require the affected classes to have those features revisited in terms of # of uses prior to long rest or the power of that use. Inspiration to me seems a little weak without the short rest recoup.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That tells me two things:
**(If those fights had been heavy enough, those PCs’ players would have been begging for short rests too just to spend hit dice. If more than half of the PCs finish the adventuring day with more than half of their Hit Dice unspent then the DM needs to ovary-up and lay some smacketh downeth.)That confirms both of those two things (especially the second one).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Being the norm doesn't make it any less wrong. So many video game players save up their one-use items forever because they "might need it more later", but that's objectively and demonstrably not the best way to go about things whether 1%, 50% or 95% of players do it. "Thousands of players can't all be wrong" is nonsense.
There's stuff that's designed to be used whenever it's useful, and there's stuff that's designed to be used when it's a clutch moment. That design remains the same whether players can tell the difference or not°.
° edit for fairness: and whether players choose to follow it or not
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
*shifts nervously*
They should just change the names to something that invokes "not so good rest" and "really good rest". Then the association with a "day" is gone and the DM is free to have a bunch of encounters occur over the course of a week or month, with the players only getting the opportunity to get a 'really good rest' at intervals that line up with how the system was designed.
That's the answer. In my upcoming game, you can only long rest at a shrine. They exist throughout the world and are imbued with holy magic or whatever. You can short rest each night. That's the plan anyway.
It's funny, there's this unspoken assumption at every table I've played at, that vehicles (boats, wagons, infernal war machines) are basically moving rest spots for everyone besides the driver. I wonder if that's intentional.
Definitely a holdover from earlier games, and then taken to the extreme in modern gaming to include video games.
I think there has to be a balance between what currently exists and what should exist in either 5.5 or 6th. Realistically, the main difference between Long and Short is spells. Lots of spell like abilities recharge on a short, but then Spells only recharge fully on a long. Some classes of course have some sort of "Pearl of Power" type ability to get some of their spell slots back, from Arcane Recovery to Class Feature Variants Channel Divinity to of course Warlock getting all of them because of how Warlocks work.
That being said, It'd be interesting to see how these games are ACTUALLY played in playtest. I feel like these groups are so power gamey that is why a lot of abilities just get ultra "restricted". Spellcaster are powerful and they are going to be powerful because that's just how spells work, but the second a lot of martials or half casters get some really neat and interesting abilities in UA, they get pounded into oblivion.
Hey, I'm guilty of it too sometimes. No shame at all. Play the way you want, and that goes for D&D too. As long as you're having fun, there's no reason whatsoever why you can't deviate from the standard or not buy into the intended design in every way. My point is that that doesn't invalidate that standard and that design, however. Single-use items have their use in a game and the frequency with which they can be acquired or the number of them you can get have been considered in function of those who will use them optimally as well as those who need them more simply because they're not very good at the game. Increasing or decreasing that would change the difficulty for everyone except those who refrain from using them unless absolutely necessary. Same with short rests in D&D: if parties choose not to use them as often as they could that's fine, but to manage some semblance of balance standard it's important that they exist and that they try to hit the sweet spot between being not being convenient enough and being overly gratuitous. Players can do what they want with it, but there has to be a standard, a norm of sorts. Even if literally nobody ever actually hits that standard, the game needs to have one.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So no reaching a shrine means no regaining of spell slots?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This whole discussion is a huge reason why I wish a DM could customize what happens when players in their campaign hit the Long Rest button, instead of it being just a permanently always-on Wolverine Super Regeneration button. Implement Slow Natural Healing, perhaps even implement some means of slowing down spell slot regeneration. Get players to start making decisions about what to use where, instead of "I'm going to cast literally every single spell I have in the first fight I find myself in without exception, and then I'm going to complain until I get a long rest."
5e was built as a resource management and attrition game. Long rests have no god damned business punching you back up to 100% for free.
Please do not contact or message me.
They can. Just not in DDB, or not without a bunch of shenanigans in the tool.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The short rest being 1 hour is "whack" to say the least. From a RP perspective, I've set it to 5 minutes. There is no way you could take a short rest in a large dungeon on floor level 3 after whacking 2/3rds of it and rest 1 hour, either you'd be discovered of the dungeon would have fled leaving the party with no treasure.
I really...really...
REALLY
...hate...
When people make posts like this here.
This is the D&D Beyond user forum. The base assumption in this place is that anybody you're talking to is here because they use and are invested in the tools. Could I impose whatever rules my table and I agreed on without issue using dead-tree documents? Of course! WE DON'T DO THAT THOUGH. My group is scattered across the continental United States, the online digital tools are the only way/reason any of us get to play. Anything that's difficult to do in the digital tool is ergo difficult to do period for me, mine, and anyone else in the position we're in. The whole entire-ass purpose of being here is the digital tools.
I need to put it in my signature or something - "If your answer to a problem on DDB is "that's only a problem if you're using the digital character sheet", your answer is wrong and bad and you should feel bad about it." I sure as shit didn't spend hundreds of dollars on virtual books on this website to then transcribe everything onto the mutilated corpse of a tree and have no reasonable way to play with all my friends online.
Jeesh.
Please do not contact or message me.