# If short rest abilities become Prof # tiimes per day?



## GMforPowergamers

So anyone that knows me on here knows I talk about how bad fighter is and how great warlock is (both mainly short rest classes) but someone just suggested an errata or change that literally just changed all short rests to Prof # per day.

My first thought was level 5 fighters with 2 attacks and 3 second winds and 3 action surge per day becoming the new '5 min work day' 
"Sorry wizard I know you have cantrips all day and half your spells slots... but I took 4 attacks 3 rounds in a row and healed myself twice now I need my 8 hours" (this is said tongue in cheek to show the issue in a funny way)

but then I thought about HD (and teh bard song of rest) can you just all prof times per day when not in combat spend and roll a HD? can a bard just always aid this wth song of rest?

then I thought about Warlocks... oh boy like I said this class is BUILT on short rests.

at 1st level you have 2 slots per day then (1 slot prof times per day) that is like other casters... then at 2nd level you double that to 4 (2 slots x2 prof) and at 5th level that goes to 6 right? and at 17th level that is 24 5th level slots?

this seems like it doesn't work. 

can someone make it work?


----------



## Tutara

Some sort of abstraction based on proficiency/day might be better as it would ensure that playing a warlock doesn’t depend on whether or not your DM and/or party lets you take a short rest regularly.

My own idea was proficiency/day you can spend a minute recharging your pact slots. So not viable in combat but quicker overall. It does tread on the level 20 ability, but the level 20 ability is rubbish.


----------



## Undrave

Bring back the 5 min short rest, but make it limited to Prof # before a long rest.

Fixed!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tutara said:


> Some sort of abstraction based on proficiency/day might be better as it would ensure that playing a warlock doesn’t depend on whether or not your DM and/or party lets you take a short rest regularly.



yeah I am sur esome people are having issues with it


Tutara said:


> My own idea was proficiency/day you can spend a minute recharging your pact slots. So not viable in combat but quicker overall. It does tread on the level 20 ability, but the level 20 ability is rubbish.



that might work... still seems VERY powerful I rarely had 6 short rests as a warlock... infact I think I never had more then 3


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Undrave said:


> Bring back the 5 min short rest, but make it limited to Prof # before a long rest.
> 
> Fixed!



now this I like.
I like this alot


----------



## MichaelSomething

Weird. I though people didn't want classes to be on the same resorce recovery system because it would make classes too samey.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

GMforPowergamers said:


> So anyone that knows me on here knows I talk about how bad fighter is and how great warlock is (both mainly short rest classes) but someone just suggested an errata or change that literally just changed all short rests to Prof # per day.
> 
> My first thought was level 5 fighters with 2 attacks and 3 second winds and 3 action surge per day becoming the new '5 min work day'
> "Sorry wizard I know you have cantrips all day and half your spells slots... but I took 4 attacks 3 rounds in a row and healed myself twice now I need my 8 hours" (this is said tongue in cheek to show the issue in a funny way)
> 
> but then I thought about HD (and teh bard song of rest) can you just all prof times per day when not in combat spend and roll a HD? can a bard just always aid this wth song of rest?
> 
> then I thought about Warlocks... oh boy like I said this class is BUILT on short rests.
> 
> at 1st level you have 2 slots per day then (1 slot prof times per day) that is like other casters... then at 2nd level you double that to 4 (2 slots x2 prof) and at 5th level that goes to 6 right? and at 17th level that is 24 5th level slots?
> 
> this seems like it doesn't work.
> 
> can someone make it work?



Changing Fighter (particularly BM) and Warlock short rest ability recharge to prof times per day probably wouldn't be excessive, as long as you don't allow everything to be used in the same fight. Even just requiring an action to refresh the abilities would reduce the nova potential and set up meaningful tactical choices.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

MichaelSomething said:


> Weird. I though people didn't want classes to be on the same resorce recovery system because it would make classes too samey.



Oh but this totally doesn't make everyone samey! We still have Vancian spellcasting, and only casters get at-wills _cantrips_.


----------



## Dausuul

MichaelSomething said:


> Weird. I though people didn't want classes to be on the same resorce recovery system because it would make classes too samey.



I don't, but I also don't like the present short rest system, because it makes short rests too hard to come by for classes that depend on them.

What I would really like would be a return to 4E-style short rests: Five minutes and done. But this would require a wholesale rewrite of the short-rest classes, who would otherwise be grossly overpowered (e.g., the 5th-level warlock who can now throw two _fireballs_ every single combat). That's almost certainly out of scope for 5.5E.

"5-minute short rests, prof bonus times/day" is a bit of a hack, but it works well and doesn't require major changes to the rest of the system. My table uses essentially this house rule (except we use a flat 2/day instead of prof bonus), and it neatly and easily brought the short-resters up to par.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> So anyone that knows me on here knows I talk about how bad fighter is and how great warlock is (both mainly short rest classes) but someone just suggested an errata or change that literally just changed all short rests to Prof # per day.
> 
> My first thought was level 5 fighters with 2 attacks and 3 second winds and 3 action surge per day becoming the new '5 min work day'
> "Sorry wizard I know you have cantrips all day and half your spells slots... but I took 4 attacks 3 rounds in a row and healed myself twice now I need my 8 hours" (this is said tongue in cheek to show the issue in a funny way)
> 
> but then I thought about HD (and teh bard song of rest) can you just all prof times per day when not in combat spend and roll a HD? can a bard just always aid this wth song of rest?
> 
> then I thought about Warlocks... oh boy like I said this class is BUILT on short rests.
> 
> at 1st level you have 2 slots per day then (1 slot prof times per day) that is like other casters... then at 2nd level you double that to 4 (2 slots x2 prof) and at 5th level that goes to 6 right? and at 17th level that is 24 5th level slots?
> 
> this seems like it doesn't work.
> 
> can someone make it work?



For some context, this change is what the Tasha's Subclass options, the Monsters of the Multiverse Race changes, and all the options in the Setting books since Ravenloft have done. The Monk and Warlock, if they went full proficiency Bonus organization, would be a significant surface level change...but not really a mathematical change from the assumed Adventure Day, which just means those Classes would no longer be swingy depending on whether they were allowed to take a nap or not.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Changing Fighter (particularly BM) and Warlock short rest ability recharge to prof times per day probably wouldn't be excessive, as long as you don't allow everything to be used in the same fight. Even just requiring an action to refresh the abilities would reduce the nova potential and set up meaningful tactical choices.



Honestly making all short rest stuff able to be recovered as an action PB/LR works fine. Probably the easiest way to go. Just note that it can be done as part of a short rest, keep short rests as a healing resource usage gate but make them shorter as the core rule with longer short rests turned into the variant, and the game runs like a dream.

Stuff like the warlock would require more specific wording otherwise, perhaps a table. 

Which is why I don't actually think we will see the end of short rests. It's doable, but pushes the game over the line into "needs conversion to work together" territory, if you get rid of short rests altogether. I don't think that _any_ significant general rules will change.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> For some context, this change is what the Tasha's Subclass options, the Monsters of the Multiverse Race changes, and all the options in the Setting books since Ravenloft have done. The Monk and Warlock, if they went full proficiency Bonus organization, would be a significant surface level change...but not really a mathematical change from the assumed Adventure Day, which just means those Classes would no longer be swingy depending on whether they were allowed to take a nap or not.



This is very true, but does require a specific variant rule for each such class. I don't think they'll go that far. 

Maybe instead, they'll say that a short rest can be done as an action, PB/LR. That way, you've got full compatibility with the PHB, no need for any conversion at all.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Honestly making all short rest stuff able to be recovered as an action PB/LR works fine. Probably the easiest way to go. Just note that it can be done as part of a short rest, keep short rests as a healing resource usage gate but make them shorter as the core rule with longer short rests turned into the variant, and the game runs like a dream.
> 
> Stuff like the warlock would require more specific wording otherwise, perhaps a table.
> 
> Which is why I don't actually think we will see the end of short rests. It's doable, but pushes the game over the line into "needs conversion to work together" territory, if you get rid of short rests altogether. I don't think that _any_ significant general rules will change.



Yeah, I think you have a point. I do think Warlocks and Monks will see some serious tinkering to make them more "tableproof" like other Classes.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is very true, but does require a specific variant rule for each such class. I don't think they'll go that far.
> 
> Maybe instead, they'll say that a short rest can be done as an action, PB/LR. That way, you've got full compatibility with the PHB, no need for any conversion at all.



I mean, we are looking at a new PHB, in all likelihood (or maybe something wild like a Neo-Rules Cyclopedia), so yeah, I am sort of expecting new write-ups of the Classes as new variant modules that are still "fully compatible" across tables if desired. But you make some good points, and we will see what goes down.


----------



## payn

MichaelSomething said:


> Weird. I though people didn't want classes to be on the same resorce recovery system because it would make classes too samey.



I really liked the change from X per day in 3E, to X per rounds in PF1. Though, I prefer having a full days worth of resources to manage as opposed to encounter power mechanics. No need for short rests in that system. 

They went ahead an added encounter powers to PF2 with short rests and its a mini game nightmare. I think I like undrave's suggestion best if you have to have variable recovery systems.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I mean, we are looking at a new PHB, in all likelihood (or maybe something wild like a Neo-Rules Cyclopedia), so yeah, I am sort of expecting new write-ups of the Classes as new variant modules that are still "fully compatible" across tables if desired. But you make some good points, and we will see what goes down.



I think that putting, eg, the Monk on a different resource recovery track entirely, would go way outside of what most people consider compatible. Especially considering the subclasses are balanced around the PHB Monk, and deleting short rests from the system would effectively make all subclasses from Tasha's or earlier non-combatible with the new presentation of the Monk. That would be....bad.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I think you have a point. I do think Warlocks and Monks will see some serious tinkering to make them more "tableproof" like other Classes.



Yeah this I agree with. I think their primary guidepost, though, will be that they work with both the new PHB _and_ the 2014 PHB. That whole, don't invalidate people's past purchases, thing. Even Volo's and Mordenkeinen's they've avoided actually invalidating. 

I really hope they go with something as elegant as allowing recovery of those resources by taking a breath after an encounter X/Day, with language similar to Star Wars Saga Edition (which they've borrowed from extensively, btw, and not just indirectly by way of 4e), rather than rewriting the resource recovery of multiple classes.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that putting, eg, the Monk on a different resource recovery track entirely, would go way outside of what most people consider compatible. Especially considering the subclasses are balanced around the PHB Monk, and deleting short rests from the system would effectively make all subclasses from Tasha's or earlier non-combatible with the new presentation of the Monk. That would be....bad.



Well, you make a good point about healing and hit Dice mechanics. But if they do keep Short Rests from that, then someone could easily show up with a Way of the Elements Monk from 2014 and play at a 2024 table next to a 2024 Monk (or Monk equivalent: I hope they reflavor them hard), and it would work. I don't think that a given module has to plug directly into another to stay compatible: Paladin Subclasses don't work with Fighters, and I would still call the different Classes fully compatible. So, at a maximal level, I could see a set of basically new Classes inserted into the same rules framework.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> Oh but this totally doesn't make everyone samey! We still have Vancian spellcasting, and only casters get at-wills _cantrips_.



imagine how pissed people would be if martial characters got at will exploits...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I really like some short time (5 min, 1 action, something between) short rest that can be taken prof times per day.

That is a big power increase though at levels with 4 prof or higher (I assume few groups get 4 short rest or more)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Well, you make a good point about healing and hit Dice mechanics. But if they do keep Short Rests from that, then someone could easily show up with a Way of the Elements Monk from 2014 and play at a 2024 table next to a 2024 Monk (or Monk equivalent: I hope they reflavor them hard), and it would work.



Absolutely. I also hope they will reflavor the monk, but I’m not optimistic about. Especially since so many people seem to want it to lean harder into “martial artist”, and thus be less distinct from the fighter, rather than leaning into the mystical nature of the monk, encompassing all sorts of highly trained warriors who incorporate their culture’s mystic traditions into thier martial practice. 


Parmandur said:


> I don't think that a given module has to plug directly into another to stay compatible: Paladin Subclasses don't work with Fighters, and I would still call the different Classes fully compatible.



That’s a very different case from Fighter and Updated Fighter. 


Parmandur said:


> So, at a maximal level, I could see a set of basically new Classes inserted into the same rules framework.



That’s fair, but don’t you think that would upset the fan base, especially if they appear in a new PHB? Especially since they haven’t indicated at all that it’s a _new phb_ rather than a special edition reprint with errata.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Undrave said:


> Bring back the 5 min short rest, but make it limited to Prof # before a long rest.
> 
> Fixed!



This is bloody good idea. I wouldn't personally use it, but it still is.

I like my eight hour long gritty short rests, and I've been worrying that the anniversary edition will do away with short rests altogether, and I really don't want that. But your suggestion pretty much perfectly solves the issue for those who feel it needs solving, whilst not getting rid of short rests and short rest based recharges.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Absolutely. I also hope they will reflavor the monk, but I’m not optimistic about. Especially since so many people seem to want it to lean harder into “martial artist”, and thus be less distinct from the fighter, rather than leaning into the mystical nature of the monk, encompassing all sorts of highly trained warriors who incorporate their culture’s mystic traditions into thier martial practice.
> 
> That’s a very different case from Fighter and Updated Fighter.
> 
> That’s fair, but don’t you think that would upset the fan base, especially if they appear in a new PHB? Especially since they haven’t indicated at all that it’s a _new phb_ rather than a special edition reprint with errata.



I don't think they have indicated that it is a special edition with errata. The vibe they have given is "new edition collating the evolutions of the past decade." I think that's why they started talking about a full 3 years early.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Prof per day will convert the game to 5 minute work day all the time every time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> Prof per day will convert the game to 5 minute work day all the time every time.



That was my worry with prof per day action surges...even if you do prf# of 5 min short rests then the fighter will just action surge every fight and then burn a short rest then action surge...


----------



## Charlaquin

MichaelSomething said:


> Weird. I though people didn't want classes to be on the same resorce recovery system because it would make classes too samey.



People didn’t, a decade ago when the audience was primarily fans of past editions of D&D. I imagine most of those people still don’t (I know I still don’t). But we’re in the minority now.


----------



## Baron Opal II

.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I think you have a point. I do think Warlocks and Monks will see some serious tinkering to make them more "tableproof" like other Classes.



I don’t think it would take that much tinkering. Just give them an ability that lets them recover their spell slots / Ki points as a 10-minute ritual, which they can use prof bonus times per long rest.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> People didn’t, a decade ago when the audience was primarily fans of past editions of D&D. I imagine most of those people still don’t (I know I still don’t). But we’re in the minority now.



I still don't want it and I like having different rest schedules. Though I get that balancing and managing that is somewhat tricky.

But if there were to be just one rest type, I absolutely would want it to be the short rest (that refreshes some fraction of your resources) rather than long rest (which refreshes all.) Full refresh nature of the long rest makes it annoying "all or nothing" option.


----------



## Horwath

Undrave said:


> Bring back the 5 min short rest, but make it limited to Prof # before a long rest.
> 
> Fixed!



people have been saying this from start of 5E, maybe they will listen.

1hr short rest have no sense.

If you manage to make 1hr safe for rest, most of the time you can manage 8, so why not take the long rest instead.

But I believe that most stuff will be prof bonus/long rest, and short rest will be for HD spending and some recharge powers(ki pts, arcane recovery and similar)


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think it would take that much tinkering. Just give them an ability that lets them recover their spell slots / Ki points as a 10-minute ritual, which they can use prof bonus times per long rest.



1 minute ritual


----------



## Mistwell

Horwath said:


> people have been saying this from start of 5E, maybe they will listen.
> 
> 1hr short rest have no sense.
> 
> If you manage to make 1hr safe for rest, most of the time you can manage 8, so why not take the long rest instead.
> 
> But I believe that most stuff will be prof bonus/long rest, and short rest will be for HD spending and some recharge powers(ki pts, arcane recovery and similar)



And for our games I have a hard time seeing that perspective. We do a roll for wandering monsters every hour, unless you get to a location which is super secure. So we can manage a single hours, but 8 rolls for wandering monsters in a semi-secure location will almost certainly mean one or more interruptions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


> And for our games I have a hard time seeing that perspective. We do a roll for wandering monsters every hour, unless you get to a location which is super secure. So we can manage a single hours, but 8 rolls for wandering monsters in a semi-secure location will almost certainly mean one or more interruptions.



but that is only wilderness right? like you aren't rolling down the block?


----------



## NaturalZero

Changing the short rest to one hour really mucked things up, from my experience. 

Things were relatively smooth in 4e, when it was assumed that everyone would just get their encounter powers back and eventually everyone would benefit from a long rest. Now, it's common for the party to argue about whether they need a rest because you have the warlock and fighter who need to stop for an hour, the rogue who's never spent a resource, and the sorcerer who might need 8 hours to benefit at all. Structuring short rest features around a 5 minute down time was so much easier to manage at the table because the one-hour time tax was a completely non-existent factor.

The solution proposed - a feature that recovers certain powers a number of times per day equal to PB - seems like an interesting way to meet in the middle. You can essentially bring back the 5 minute power recovery without changing the base assumption of an hour short rest. One side-effect of this however, is that you're going to have less folks burning hit dice and perhaps greater reliance on the cleric's spell slots after a fight. You'd also create a situation where there's a sort of brick wall that pops up once you've recovered your allotment of features for the day. At 3rd level, for instance, once you've refreshed your features twice, the party is going to very, very strongly encouraged to immediately long rest than in the current system. You'd also have higher level parties where the fighter or monk will seem full-powered long after the wizard has run dry.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> I still don't want it and I like having different rest schedules. Though I get that balancing and managing that is somewhat tricky.
> 
> But if there were to be just one rest type, I absolutely would want it to be the short rest (that refreshes some fraction of your resources) rather than long rest (which refreshes all.) Full refresh nature of the long rest makes it annoying "all or nothing" option.



I concur!


----------



## Krachek

If you eliminate short rest recharge you eliminate all of them. 
Including Arachne recovery, channel divinity recovery, and superiority dice recovery.
but to replace them blindly by a pb Bonus per long rest may lead to a complete mess.
You redesign all classes, and thus the warlock and others may change completely.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I don't think they have indicated that it is a special edition with errata. The vibe they have given is "new edition collating the evolutions of the past decade." I think that's why they started talking about a full 3 years early.



I’ve seen nothing at all that suggests new edition.


----------



## Undrave

Crimson Longinus said:


> This is bloody good idea. I wouldn't personally use it, but it still is.
> 
> I like my eight hour long gritty short rests, and I've been worrying that the anniversary edition will do away with short rests altogether, and I really don't want that. But your suggestion pretty much perfectly solves the issue for those who feel it needs solving, whilst not getting rid of short rests and short rest based recharges.



You could keep the spending of HD on the regular Short Rest schedule if you wished and just have the recharging thing be a 'breather'. 



NaturalZero said:


> The solution proposed - a feature that recovers certain powers a number of times per day equal to PB - seems like an interesting way to meet in the middle. You can essentially bring back the 5 minute power recovery without changing the base assumption of an hour short rest. One side-effect of this however, is that you're going to have less folks burning hit dice and perhaps greater reliance on the cleric's spell slots after a fight. You'd also create a situation where there's a sort of brick wall that pops up once you've recovered your allotment of features for the day. At 3rd level, for instance, once you've refreshed your features twice, the party is going to very, very strongly encouraged to immediately long rest than in the current system. You'd also have higher level parties where the fighter or monk will seem full-powered long after the wizard has run dry.




It's something I threw out there pretty quick and dirty, so I didn't really consider EVERYTHING. Still, at 3rd level it's like getting 2 regular short rest per day, which is somewhat the expected schedule isn't it? usually after two fights. And as for high level... well the Fighter and Monk could use the boost anyway and it would make a Wizard's ability to do Rituals more valuable as it would expend their effectiveness in the day. Granted, we'd need more rituals. 

Clerics need a Ritual where participants can spend hit dice to heal each other... that would be cool.


----------



## Mistwell

GMforPowergamers said:


> but that is only wilderness right? like you aren't rolling down the block?



No. Not just wilderness. We're in the ruins of Omu in one party, and rolling every hour. We're in Waterdeep in the midst of a war with Xanathar's Guild, and rolling every hour. When we enter dungeons in either city, every hour. Rolling for wandering encounters every hour is the norm for our campaigns, except when we get to extra secure locations. Even if we use Tiny Hut, if we're not doing it in a secure location we're going to end up with a large group of challenges outside it the moment we exit.


----------



## NaturalZero

Undrave said:


> It's something I threw out there pretty quick and dirty, so I didn't really consider EVERYTHING. Still, at 3rd level it's like getting 2 regular short rest per day, which is somewhat the expected schedule isn't it? usually after two fights. And as for high level... well the Fighter and Monk could use the boost anyway and it would make a Wizard's ability to do Rituals more valuable as it would expend their effectiveness in the day. Granted, we'd need more rituals.
> 
> Clerics need a Ritual where participants can spend hit dice to heal each other... that would be cool.



I did a survey awhile back regarding the average number of combats per day and the those who said that their table averaged 3 or fewer combats per day were more than double those who said they averaged more than 3. Every other online discussion I've read regarding the number of combats that tables see lined up pretty well with those results. I'd say that across all of the tables I've played at, we average 2 fights per day and often none at all (while still blowing spells and resources). 2 refreshes per day would exactly meet the 3-combat-per-day average, so you're spot on.

When I first picked up 3.5, one thing that a realized early was that resources like the barbarian's rage that became more plentiful as levels progressed were awkwardly designed for actual games because of one emergent play reality: I saw that high level parties didn't actually engage in a greater number of combats per day than lower level ones, only higher scale ones. In theory, I like the idea of using PB to determine a recovery mechanic, but I feel that classes like the fighter, monk, and warlock are going to need a hard retune so that recovering twice per day when facing level-appropriate threats is balanced against recovering 6 times per day while likely facing the same number of challenges. It could be doable and is worth experimenting with but it's going to take some playtesting.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Absolutely. I also hope they will reflavor the monk, but I’m not optimistic about. Especially since so many people seem to want it to lean harder into “martial artist”, and thus be less distinct from the fighter, rather than leaning into the mystical nature of the monk, encompassing all sorts of highly trained warriors who incorporate their culture’s mystic traditions into thier martial practice.
> 
> That’s a very different case from Fighter and Updated Fighter.
> 
> That’s fair, but don’t you think that would upset the fan base, especially if they appear in a new PHB? Especially since they haven’t indicated at all that it’s a _new phb_ rather than a special edition reprint with errata.



Level Up's Adept is in many ways a reflavored monk.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve seen nothing at all that suggests new edition.



Spelled out as such, no. Probably? Yes.


----------



## Undrave

NaturalZero said:


> I did a survey awhile back regarding the average number of combats per day and the those who said that their table averaged 3 or fewer combats per day were more than double those who said they averaged more than 3. Every other online discussion I've read regarding the number of combats that tables see lined up pretty well with those results. I'd say that across all of the tables I've played at, we average 2 fights per day and often none at all (while still blowing spells and resources). 2 refreshes per day would exactly meet the 3-combat-per-day average, so you're spot on.
> 
> When I first picked up 3.5, one thing that a realized early was that resources like the barbarian's rage that became more plentiful as levels progressed were awkwardly designed for actual games because of one emergent play reality: I saw that high level parties didn't actually engage in a greater number of combats per day than lower level ones, only higher scale ones. In theory, I like the idea of using PB to determine a recovery mechanic, but I feel that classes like the fighter, monk, and warlock are going to need a hard retune so that recovering twice per day when facing level-appropriate threats is balanced against recovering 6 times per day while likely facing the same number of challenges. It could be doable and is worth experimenting with but it's going to take some playtesting.



Then again, if they don't get into more combat per day it doesn't really change anything if they get extra recharges then, because they're not gonna be able to use them mid-fights. It would just mean that they can push themselves more than normal if the situation calls for it.


----------



## Minigiant

Vaalingrade said:


> Prof per day will convert the game to 5 minute work day all the time every time.



That's the intention i think.

I think WOTC realize via surveys that the majority of groups do not run 24 hour crawls with 2-3 one hour breaks that somehow have a time crunch. So the default rest periods don't work if played straight.

X times equal to Prof is the simple hack.


----------



## James Gasik

Parmandur said:


> Spelled out as such, no. Probably? Yes.



I thought the redesigned races in Monsters of the Multiverse was a pretty strong indicator myself.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Minigiant said:


> That's the intention i think.
> 
> I think WOTC realize via surveys that the majority of groups do not run 24 hour crawls with 2-3 one hour breaks that somehow have a time crunch. So the default rest periods don't work if played straight.
> 
> X times equal to Prof is the simple hack.



Or we could give up on the legacy attrition-based design and go per-encounter.


----------



## Parmandur

James Gasik said:


> I thought the redesigned races in Monsters of the Multiverse was a pretty strong indicator myself.



For me, it's less the Races and more the Monster stats being entirely rewritten. Suggest they will want to do the same for Core Monsters.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> For me, it's less the Races and more the Monster stats being entirely rewritten. Suggest they will want to do the same for Core Monsters.



I'm sure they'll redesign the core races too, don't worry.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I am honestly surprised myself. I think that what I have realized, from the Setting variants and this Dragonlance test, the issue for me and the people I've gamed with is pretty much presentation. I know there are some neat Feats in the book, but I've seen very clever people glaze over looking at the list as presented and move on with just upping their abilities. Now, if Criminal comes with the powers of Dungeon Delver (for example), it has narrative context that grounds it in character story, and if that leads to a small selection of story relevant options that makes a very different case.



Ah, okay. It's like a lot of people experienced with 4e powers. For those of us that didn't have our eyes glaze over, it was very clear just how different and impactful on gameplay different powers were. For others, it was a thousand iterations of small bits of text in the same formatting that they were expected to read and understand well enough to choose between, and they basically noped out of the whole affair.


Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up's Adept is in many ways a reflavored monk.



Kinda, but with all the mysticism taken out IIRC, which to me completely eradicates any point in having the class.


Parmandur said:


> Spelled out as such, no. Probably? Yes.



I completely disagree.


Parmandur said:


> For me, it's less the Races and more the Monster stats being entirely rewritten. Suggest they will want to do the same for Core Monsters.



Of course, why wouldn't they if they think its a better design. But "redo the core books with stuff refitted to use the improved designs they've come up with over a decade" is not a new edition. It's just a "best-of" reprint of the core books.


Micah Sweet said:


> I'm sure they'll redesign the core races too, don't worry.



Sure they will. Without making a new edition.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Vaalingrade said:


> Or we could give up on the legacy attrition-based design and go per-encounter.



No, thanks anyway.

That said, one thing I mentioned in some "If I governed D&D's next edition" thread is to look at how classes would work with short and long rests. That is, how would they balance if they only had short rests, and only long rests? That would at least be a step towards satisfying people who want all their abilities per encounter and those who desire more strategic planning.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ah, okay. It's like a lot of people experienced with 4e powers. For those of us that didn't have our eyes glaze over, it was very clear just how different and impactful on gameplay different powers were. For others, it was a thousand iterations of small bits of text in the same formatting that they were expected to read and understand well enough to choose between, and they basically noped out of the whole affair.



I was kind of in the middle on 4E Powers there. I understood the idea, and got it, but in practice I did not enjoy parsing the options and making anything out of it. But, yeah, that's about the run of it.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I completely disagree.



I suspect we might be operating on some different definitions.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Of course, why wouldn't they if they think its a better design. *But "redo the core books with stuff refitted to use the improved designs they've come up with over a decade" is not a new edition*. It's just a "best-of" reprint of the core books.



And there it is. In most of publishing, board games and TTRPGs outside of D&D included, that is pretty much the definition of an "Edition." D&D has a history of abusing the term, though, so they may not want to use a loaded term, I'll admit. So I would consider a completely compatible overhaul based on consolidation of the previous ten years of options and development a "new Edition" _de facto_ whether they designate it as 6E _ de jure_ or not.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> Or we could give up on the legacy attrition-based design and go per-encounter.



I'd rather not. 

Long days should feel different. Adventures where there's no time to properly rest, or nowhere safe to rest, should feel different. 

I'd rather add Extended Rests (require a safe place where you can take your guard down and be genuinely comfortable) as the only way to immediately get _everything_ restored, and keep Long and Short rests. 

I'd be fine with most class abilities becoming short rest, or with some types of abilities being one and some the other, regardless of class, but I'm also fine with the asymmetry of 5e. 

What I mean by the above, btw, is something like:

All class features that aren't at-will are per encounter, all spells are per day (i'd still let the warlock break this but it would be via infusions and boons), everyone regains HP as written now, racial abilities are generally short rest, etc, and per encounter abilites would just refresh when an encounter ends and doesn't immediately lead into another encounter. Fighters don't need to be on the same resource recovery track as wizards. They just need to contribute in fun ways to all three pillars, and have a both super simple and complex options.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I was kind of in the middle on 4E Powers there. I understood the idea, and got it, but in practice I did not enjoy parsing the options and making anything out of it. But, yeah, that's about the run of it.



As much as I loved 4e, and still look back to it for inspiration quite a lot, I preferred essentials/e+ 4e to PHB1 4e, for much the same reason. I can pick executioner, and I'm only picking my daily poisons from there, or I can pick Hunter or Scout, and I'm mostly just picking utility powers and wilderness knacks. Having every single damn thing be a dropdown with 100+ options is exhausting.


Parmandur said:


> I suspect we might be operating on some different definitions.
> 
> And there it is. In most of publishing, board games and TTRPGs outside of D&D included, that is pretty much the definition of an "Edition." D&D has a history of abusing the term, though, so they may not want to use a loaded term, I'll admit. So I would consider a completely compatible overhaul based on consolidation of the previous ten years of options and development a "new Edition" _de facto_ whether they designate it as 6E _ de jure_ or not.



If discussing DnD, I'm going to use the definition that the game has historically used. 

DnD "edition" is more like "version", where in board games it more often just means "update with patch fixes and errata". 

Whatever term you want to use, 2024 isn't going to see a new version of dnd that isn't 5e. It's going to be fully compatible, meaning you can use post 2024 subclasses with 2014 classes, what a feat is won't change, general rules won't change, the big rules expansion books _at the very least_ will be wholly playable alongside and in the same character as the 2024 core books and post anniversary expansions to the game. 

No conversion required. 

Could I be proven wrong? Sure! Anything could happen. They could secretly have already built a revolutionary new version of DND that makes 4e seem traditional, too, but I doubt it. I've seen no evidence, anywhere, that I'm likely to be wrong, though.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> As much as I loved 4e, and still look back to it for inspiration quite a lot, I preferred essentials/e+ 4e to PHB1 4e, for much the same reason. I can pick executioner, and I'm only picking my daily poisons from there, or I can pick Hunter or Scout, and I'm mostly just picking utility powers and wilderness knacks. Having every single damn thing be a dropdown with 100+ options is exhausting.



At a certain point, it becomes a question of why not just go full point buy system?


doctorbadwolf said:


> If discussing DnD, I'm going to use the definition that the game has historically used.



That the problem, I don't think that's consistent, either.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Whatever term you want to use, 2024 isn't going to see a new version of dnd that isn't 5e. It's going to be fully compatible



I agree there, but I'm not so certain what the precise lines are for the designers.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ah, okay. It's like a lot of people experienced with 4e powers. For those of us that didn't have our eyes glaze over, it was very clear just how different and impactful on gameplay different powers were. For others, it was a thousand iterations of small bits of text in the same formatting that they were expected to read and understand well enough to choose between, and they basically noped out of the whole affair.
> 
> Kinda, but with all the mysticism taken out IIRC, which to me completely eradicates any point in having the class.
> 
> I completely disagree.
> 
> Of course, why wouldn't they if they think its a better design. But "redo the core books with stuff refitted to use the improved designs they've come up with over a decade" is not a new edition. It's just a "best-of" reprint of the core books.
> 
> Sure they will. Without making a new edition.



Its exactly the same thing that 2e and 3.5 did.  How is that not a new edition?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Its exactly the same thing that 2e and 3.5 did.  How is that not a new edition?



WotC sort of screwed up the terminology by insisting on making an Edition change something as utterly drastic as 2E > 3E, 3E > 4E, or 4E > 5E while pretending that 3.5 didn't "count" as a full Edition.


----------



## pnewman

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is very true, but does require a specific variant rule for each such class. I don't think they'll go that far.
> 
> Maybe instead, they'll say that a short rest can be done as an action, PB/LR. That way, you've got full compatibility with the PHB, no need for any conversion at all.



So every monster can take "Short Rest" as their action any turn, roll all the hit dice they want, and suddenly have lots more hit points? That would *really *increase the grind factor of combat. OTOH it would also nerf OP spellcasters, since they would now need to burn through more spell slots to keep up their current monster killing abilities.


----------



## Horwath

pnewman said:


> So every monster can take "Short Rest" as their action any turn, roll all the hit dice they want, and suddenly have lots more hit points? That would *really *increase the grind factor of combat. OTOH it would also nerf OP spellcasters, since thy would now need to burn through more spell slots to keep up their current monster killing abilities.



Action would be too fast.

maybe an option that you can, on start of your turn, you can chose to be incapacitated for 3 turns. after that you gain benefits of short rest.


----------



## NaturalZero

Horwath said:


> Action would be too fast.
> 
> maybe an option that you can, on start of your turn, you can chose to be incapacitated for 3 turns. after that you gain benefits of short rest.



I mean, 5 minutes of rest worked really well in 4e. Too long to do in combat but short enough to not mess up pacing.


----------



## James Gasik

NaturalZero said:


> I mean, 5 minutes of rest worked really well in 4e. Too long to do in combat but short enough to not mess up pacing.



Yeah I mean, it went off the assumption that people stop, look around, bind wounds, etc. between encounters.

Although if you actually do run into multiple encounters back to back in 4e, you're probably going to die.  Had that happen twice, the first time was a very long slog with several characters near death.  The second was a TPK.

Basically, 4e assumes you have no reason to hold back using Encounter powers.  So you don't.  Which can cause serious havoc if they aren't allowed to refresh.

And if you conserve encounter abilities "just in case", battles go longer than they really should.  It's a real Catch 22.  

The only way around it is to agree with the players they will always get their encounter powers back, which might bother some people's immersion.

Personally, what I would have done is just say encounter powers refresh whenever you roll initiative, and the purpose of resting is to recover hit points.


----------



## Horwath

James Gasik said:


> Yeah I mean, it went off the assumption that people stop, look around, bind wounds, etc. between encounters.
> 
> Although if you actually do run into multiple encounters back to back in 4e, you're probably going to die.  Had that happen twice, the first time was a very long slog with several characters near death.  The second was a TPK.
> 
> Basically, 4e assumes you have no reason to hold back using Encounter powers.  So you don't.  Which can cause serious havoc if they aren't allowed to refresh.
> 
> And if you conserve encounter abilities "just in case", battles go longer than they really should.  It's a real Catch 22.
> 
> The only way around it is to agree with the players they will always get their encounter powers back, which might bother some people's immersion.
> 
> Personally, what I would have done is just say encounter powers refresh whenever you roll initiative, and the purpose of resting is to recover hit points.



Well, 5 min rests or similar time were a thing in most battles in non-modern world.

You could only be in melee combat of shield phalanx for a minute or so before your combat capability falls of drastically.

That's why they had(if they had enough soldiers) front line rotations in battles.

Try to shoot a bow that you can barely draw full length. then try it 10 times. You'll need a breather of couple of minutes.


----------



## NaturalZero

James Gasik said:


> Basically, 4e assumes you have no reason to hold back using Encounter powers.  So you don't.  Which can cause serious havoc if they aren't allowed to refresh.
> 
> And if you conserve encounter abilities "just in case", battles go longer than they really should.  It's a real Catch 22.



I see this all the time in 5e too though, with people using powers under the assumption that they'll get a short rest and then getting vetoed by party members without short rest recovery who don't want to stop. It's a point of party friction that didn't exist in 4e and becomes a potential issue in 5e without any compelling upside.



James Gasik said:


> The only way around it is to agree with the players they will always get their encounter powers back, which might bother some people's immersion.



I'm not sure how it's an immersion issue. If your magic power regenerates in 5 minutes or an hour, is one magic power thing more believable than the other? Why it would be more immersive for the fighter to take an hour to recovery the ability to trip someone, versus a 5 minute breather?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> Or we could give up on the legacy attrition-based design and go per-encounter.



No thanks. Without attrition only mechanical stakes in any battle are death or nothing. And once you get resurrection magic, TPK or nothing. 
I really, really don't want that.


----------



## Minigiant

Vaalingrade said:


> Or we could give up on the legacy attrition-based design and go per-encounter.





Baron Opal II said:


> No, thanks anyway.
> 
> That said, one thing I mentioned in some "If I governed D&D's next edition" thread is to look at how classes would work with short and long rests. That is, how would they balance if they only had short rests, and only long rests? That would at least be a step towards satisfying people who want all their abilities per encounter and those who desire more strategic planning.





doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd rather not.
> 
> Long days should feel different. Adventures where there's no time to properly rest, or nowhere safe to rest, should feel different.
> 
> I'd rather add Extended Rests (require a safe place where you can take your guard down and be genuinely comfortable) as the only way to immediately get _everything_ restored, and keep Long and Short rests.
> 
> I'd be fine with most class abilities becoming short rest, or with some types of abilities being one and some the other, regardless of class, but I'm also fine with the asymmetry of 5e.
> 
> What I mean by the above, btw, is something like:
> 
> All class features that aren't at-will are per encounter, all spells are per day (i'd still let the warlock break this but it would be via infusions and boons), everyone regains HP as written now, racial abilities are generally short rest, etc, and per encounter abilites would just refresh when an encounter ends and doesn't immediately lead into another encounter. Fighters don't need to be on the same resource recovery track as wizards. They just need to contribute in fun ways to all three pillars, and have a both super simple and complex options.




I hope for when we actually get to6th edition, the game goes to a 3 types of rest model (short, long, extended) and offers a rest variants in the PHB and DMG. This way groups can choose

So for a Wizard, *Cantrips and Signature Spells* would be *At Will*, *Arcane Recovery* would be *Short Rest*, *Level 1-5 Spells* would be *Long Rest*, and *Level 6-9 Spells and Magic Formulas* would be *Extended Rest* .

A Warlock would get *Least, Lesser, Greater, *and* Dark *Invocations again each would run on the different schedule.


Rest ModelAt Will (Greens)Short Rest (Reds)Long Rest (Blues)Extended Rest (Blacks)EpicAt will2 * Prof Mod rest per ERProf Mod per ER8 hoursHeroicAt will5 minutes1 hour8 hoursGritty5 minutes1 hour8 hours3 daysExtra Gritty1 hour8 hours1 week4 weeks


----------



## Seramus

I'm going to sit in my corner and wave my little "I *♡* encounter powers" flag.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Warlock gets a "commune with patron" ability prof bonus times per day, that lets them get their spell slots back.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Crimson Longinus said:


> No thanks. Without attrition only mechanical stakes in any battle are death or nothing.



As opposed to death or nothing in the next fight on. The problem with the attrition model is if the party blow their resources in one battle, they are left unable to survive the next one. Unless the can take a rest. And if they can take a rest they can take a rest after every battle.

Attrition never really worked. Even back in 1st edition is was just a case of slogging back to town when you ran out of resources, then slogging back to the dungeon again.


----------



## Horwath

many spells could be made to be at-will/encounter(short rest)/daily(long rest) recharge power.

or have 5min/8hrs recharge time on spell slots.

I.E.
you spend your 3rd level slot on fireball.

8hr recharge: 8d6, 20ft radius
5min recharge: 5d6, 10ft radius
at-will: 3d6, 5ft radius

Cure wounds:
8hr recharge: 1d12 per spell level
5min recharge: 1d4 per spell level
at-will heals to max total HP of 1HP per level.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Paul Farquhar said:


> As opposed to death or nothing in the next fight on. The problem with the attrition model is if the party blow their resources in one battle, they are left unable to survive the next one. Unless the can take a rest. And if they can take a rest they can take a rest after every battle.
> 
> Attrition never really worked. Even back in 1st edition is was just a case of slogging back to town when you ran out of resources, then slogging back to the dungeon again.



Then we must conclude that the game simply cannot be made to work. If you don't want want there to be significant change of death in every battle (and most people don't) it means that PCs simply will win every fight and then are exactly at the same condition at the end of it than in the beginning. So why are we rolling dice and wasting time on thing where the conclusion is not in doubt?

At least in attrition model resources are at risk, and you need to consider the things in more strategic scale. And yes, in that case your 'defeat condition' could be that you conclude that you cannot move on have to retreat to rest. And of course that passage of time should have some consequences, otherwise it doesn't matter. The game could offer better advice on how to build such consequences though, it does rather bad job at it.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Paul Farquhar said:


> The problem with the attrition model is if the party blow their resources in one battle, they are left unable to survive the next one.
> 
> Attrition never really worked. Even back in 1st edition is was just a case of slogging back to town when you ran out of resources, then slogging back to the dungeon again.



Then don't nova in the first encounter. Problem solved.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Seramus said:


> I'm going to sit in my corner and wave my little "I *♡* encounter powers" flag.



It's funny- looking at the Binders from Tome of Magic, being able to do something once every 10 minutes or an hour is fine. Once per encounter irritates me. I suppose I can live with one class being able to do 3-5 things throughout the day, where another class could do 10-12 things per day.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Paul Farquhar said:


> As opposed to death or nothing in the next fight on. The problem with the attrition model is if the party blow their resources in one battle, they are left unable to survive the next one. Unless the can take a rest. And if they can take a rest they can take a rest after every battle.
> 
> Attrition never really worked. Even back in 1st edition is was just a case of slogging back to town when you ran out of resources, then slogging back to the dungeon again.



Attrition has never worked because neither TSR nor WotC bothered to integrate a fatigue system to the character's abilities (resources). That is always left to the tinkerers.

Until they do, the system will always be half-baked and the resting mechanic rubbish (IMO).


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> As much as I loved 4e, and still look back to it for inspiration quite a lot, I preferred essentials/e+ 4e to PHB1 4e, for much the same reason. I can pick executioner, and I'm only picking my daily poisons from there, or I can pick Hunter or Scout, and I'm mostly just picking utility powers and wilderness knacks. Having every single damn thing be a dropdown with 100+ options is exhausting.
> If discussing DnD, I'm going to use the definition that the game has historically used.



Overall I think Essentials had the best model in D&D so far. If not for it being a half edition, ignoring the rest of the edition, and coming late: it would have made the best core for a system with a few Tweeks.


Define a core of 3-4 types of "powers" by time.
Give Power Types a designation. (Cantrips, Sneak attack, and Stances are At Will, Channel Divinity, Backstab, Power Strikes, and Challenges are Encounter. Spells and Prayers are "Daily"
Shift time constraints away from Offensive Ability to Health and Recovery and balance Powers to be used in One Encounter Day Burst, 10 Encounters Day Attrition, and Anything Between.
Give classes the powers that the majority of the community agrees on.  
Allow groups to choose their own resting model knowing that warriors, rogues, priests, and mages can ALL nova or grind. A level 1 wizard can nova their 2 Spells, a level 1 fighter can nova their 3 Strikes, a level 1 monk can spend their 3 Ki, and a 1 level cleric can nova the 1 spell and 1 Channel Divinity for one big fight and it's all more or less balanced.


----------



## Horwath

AnotherGuy said:


> Attrition has never worked because neither TSR nor WotC bothered to integrate a fatigue system to the character's abilities (resources). That is always left to the tinkerers.
> 
> Until they do, the system will always be half-baked and the resting mechanic rubbish (IMO).



In the end it does not matter what mechanics are there.

WOTC can only make short and long rests somewhat more desierable.

Or make official adventures that are hard-coded with short/long rest tempo.

Otherwise, it depends on DM, and mostly players preference.
If players decide that they will take a long rest, players will take a long rest. Rest of the world be damned.
Now, it's up to DM will they blow up the whole campaign on adjust it to players preference, with sometimes random interrupts of rests to spice it up a little.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Baron Opal II said:


> Then don't nova in the first encounter. Problem solved.



This is a game with random dice rolls. If things go pear shaped due to simple bad luck the party may have to blow their resources in order to survive.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Crimson Longinus said:


> Then we must conclude that the game simply cannot be made to work.



Viewed as a competitive combat game, true.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Paul Farquhar said:


> Viewed as a competitive combat game, true.



That of course is not all that D&D is, but it is an aspect a lot of people expect from it so it should be able to function as one.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Horwath said:


> In the end it does not matter what mechanics are there.



I disagree. Mechanics matter all (if not most) of the time in D&D.
Be it for resting or otherwise.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> This is a game with random dice rolls. If things go pear shaped due to simple bad luck the party may have to blow their resources in order to survive.



I truly think D&D works better if Attrition or Nova are tied to Defense over Offense.

The wizard should be free to use their fireball as they see fit. 

You quit when you HP, HD, Healing Surges, and Potions run out.


----------



## John R Davis

I quite like the idea of 
Short / day = #Prof bonus ( or maybe 1+(Half Prof bonus)
AND.
Short rest = 5 minutes only.


----------



## AnotherGuy

John R Davis said:


> I quite like the idea of
> Short / day = #Prof bonus ( or maybe 1+(Half Prof bonus)
> AND.
> Short rest = 5 minutes only.




1 + 2 = 3, therefore rounded down (rounded up) = 1 (2)
1 + 3 = 4, therefore = 2
1 + 4 = 5, therefore rounded down (rounded up) = 2 (3)
1 + 5 = 6, therefore = 3
1 + 6 = 7, therefore rounded down (rounded up) = 3 (4)

I'd go with rounded up.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Paul Farquhar said:


> This is a game with random dice rolls. If things go pear shaped due to simple bad luck the party may have to blow their resources in order to survive.



Yes, obviously. Bad luck happens but not every time. Building a game where bad luck becomes irrelevant because you can always nova is poor design. Or, at least, makes random dice rolls irrelevant. The game isn't exciting if you can't lose.


----------



## Baron Opal II

AnotherGuy said:


> Attrition has never worked because neither TSR nor WotC bothered to integrate a fatigue system to the character's abilities (resources). That is always left to the tinkerers.
> 
> Until they do, the system will always be half-baked and the resting mechanic rubbish (IMO).



HP? Exhaustion? How do you find those inadequate?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Baron Opal II said:


> Yes, obviously. Bad luck happens but not every time. Building a game where bad luck becomes irrelevant because you can always nova is poor design. Or, at least, makes random dice rolls irrelevant. The game isn't exciting if you can't lose.



I don't think a game where bad luck = you lose would be very popular.

The problem is, if you allow for bad luck not to leave you aboard the Kobayashi Maru without the cheat code, then you also allow the players to nova then rest.

One option, not really mentioned yet, is DM scorn for excessive resting/praise for continuing without resting.

Or, if you prefer something more crunchy, build it into an honour/reputation system.


----------



## kapars

Just to relate experience I play a Monk on a  Westmarches server and with 3 encounters per short rest or no short rest it’s impossible to keep up with classes that can use Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master well because those abilities are just always on while my Ki runs out after one fight at level 5 if I’m trying to keep up with the contribution they’re making. Then I just become a squishy martial that can make an extra scimitar strength  unarmed attack as a bonus action and move 10ft further. It is hard to convince long rest based classes to even take a short rest because they’re not sweating at that point cause they are fueling of this set of feats instead of their resource limited class abilities. The only hope is usually that there is a Warlock or someone with a Warlock dip since their spells are considered respectable enough to warrant a short rest. No one is stopping for flurry of blows to recharge.


----------



## Horwath

kapars said:


> Just to relate experience I play a Monk on a  Westmarches server and with 3 encounters per short rest or no short rest it’s impossible to keep up with classes that can use Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master well because those abilities are just always on while my Ki runs out after one fight at level 5 if I’m trying to keep up with the contribution they’re making. Then I just become a squishy martial that can make an extra scimitar strength  unarmed attack as a bonus action and move 10ft further. It is hard to convince long rest based classes to even take a short rest because they’re not sweating at that point cause they are fueling of this set of feats instead of their resource limited class abilities. The only hope is usually that there is a Warlock or someone with a Warlock dip since their spells are considered respectable enough to warrant a short rest. No one is stopping for flurry of blows to recharge.



that is not problem with short/long rest.

That is the problem that monk is THE worst class in 5E.

But, having a short rest after every combat would go a long way to raise the monk out of the F tier.


----------



## nevin

Dausuul said:


> I don't, but I also don't like the present short rest system, because it makes short rests too hard to come by for classes that depend on them.
> 
> What I would really like would be a return to 4E-style short rests: Five minutes and done. But this would require a wholesale rewrite of the short-rest classes, who would otherwise be grossly overpowered (e.g., the 5th-level warlock who can now throw two _fireballs_ every single combat). That's almost certainly out of scope for 5.5E.
> 
> "5-minute short rests, prof bonus times/day" is a bit of a hack, but it works well and doesn't require major changes to the rest of the system. My table uses essentially this house rule (except we use a flat 2/day instead of prof bonus), and it neatly and easily brought the short-resters up to par.



so just ignore the short rest system, plan your adventuring day around party resources.  Though if the party is going to spend an actual whole day adventuring regularly you may have to pitch attunement and just let them use magic items.  Especially for warriors and other classes without spells.


----------



## James Gasik

NaturalZero said:


> I see this all the time in 5e too though, with people using powers under the assumption that they'll get a short rest and then getting vetoed by party members without short rest recovery who don't want to stop. It's a point of party friction that didn't exist in 4e and becomes a potential issue in 5e without any compelling upside.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how it's an immersion issue. If your magic power regenerates in 5 minutes or an hour, is one magic power thing more believable than the other? Why it would be more immersive for the fighter to take an hour to recovery the ability to trip someone, versus a 5 minute breather?



I don't know, I guess maybe it isn't?  I just could see someone feeling it's kind of arbitrary?  But you're right, any length of time would be.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I don't care what the rules end up being because no matter what they are... I'm going to find a better way to run them for myself and will house rule the new system in.

Needing the books to print exactly the rules I want for every single thing is a bane to happiness.  Go into every book with the assumption that you are going to make the rules your own is what opens everything up and you lose this anchor around your neck that constantly wants to drag you down.

Playing RAW is dumb in my opinion.  It's a decision merely there to keep a person constantly unhappy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Baron Opal II said:


> HP? Exhaustion? How do you find those inadequate?



well I am not who you asked, a great example is attack rolls and cantrips.

If I am a hexblade blade warlock with 98hp, but I am half way through the day (I have already spent 3 of my 12HD, been healed alot) I am currently after a fight down 10 17hp... so I have 81pt of damage... and 10 of it I wont be able to get back with out a restoration (undead attack) and I am down 4pts of str (from 14 to 10) from a shadow... I am REALLY beat up... heck it might have been 5 hours since my last nights sleep and 2 hours since my last hour off... but we come across a locked door.  

If I say "If I used eldritch blast 50 times on the door for 150d10+600 force damage can I just knock it down... 1) I have no negatives for being so hurt and tired to the attack or damage and 2) I am no more fatigue for having just spent 300 seconds strait (5 minutes) useing that abity.  If instead I make 100 sword attacks with my cool magic special metal sword it is still 300 seconds (5 minutes) of constant swinging of my sword (or axe or hammer) but still I am at no negative (even the str damage doesn't matter I USE  Cha to hit and damage) and it doesn't tire me at all.

now in my games we would RP the tired with something like "Wow really worked up a swet can I sit for a minute, get a drink" but really imagine you in real life with a slight injury swinging a weapon for 1 minute...

so 


Baron Opal II said:


> HP? Exhaustion? How do you find those inadequate?



because they do not really show fatigue or exhaustion without house rules.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Baron Opal II said:


> HP? Exhaustion? How do you find those inadequate?



The exhaustion track is inadequate in that it is not integrated with your resources.
There is no rule for a caster or fighter pushing themselves further beyond their normal capabilities.

If HD are like inner reserves which you can use to 2nd wind, then surely that should tie to your exhaustion track. If you are exhausted your HD should drop to 0. And if they are providing you a 2nd wind of sorts why can you not expend them to cast spells or perform combat maneuvers...etc

The integration of it all is lacking and that lazy design bleeds then into the rest mechanic.
You'd think after 40+ years they'd have done something about it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

kapars said:


> Just to relate experience I play a Monk on a  Westmarches server and with 3 encounters per short rest or no short rest it’s impossible to keep up with classes that can use Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master well because those abilities are just always on while my Ki runs out after one fight at level 5 if I’m trying to keep up with the contribution they’re making. Then I just become a squishy martial that can make an extra scimitar strength  unarmed attack as a bonus action and move 10ft further. It is hard to convince long rest based classes to even take a short rest because they’re not sweating at that point cause they are fueling of this set of feats instead of their resource limited class abilities. The only hope is usually that there is a Warlock or someone with a Warlock dip since their spells are considered respectable enough to warrant a short rest. No one is stopping for flurry of blows to recharge.



Yes, back one of the early 5e games I ran we had a warlock (great old/chain) a Wizard (necromaner) and a Monk (I think he was open hand) and 2 clerics (one multi into paladin) and we found that it didn't matter if we took an hour off after every fight or not, the monk just could not keep up after a while.

over the years we have had A LOT of warlocks, and even in sessions/in game days with few to no short rests they can hold up (although they of course do better the more short rests you have)

in the last campaign I PCed we had a Barbarian/Cleric a Druid and my Warlock (by time we hit 20 I had also taken 3 levels of sorcerer) and an NPC fighter/paliden and on a day with a lot of short rests I was the MVP (although the barbarian cleric could out damage me 9 out of 10 encounters that and taking hits was all he had on me on those days) on a day with 0 short rests I still out performed the fighter/pal and was on par with the other two.


----------



## kapars

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yes, back one of the early 5e games I ran we had a warlock (great old/chain) a Wizard (necromaner) and a Monk (I think he was open hand) and 2 clerics (one multi into paladin) and we found that it didn't matter if we took an hour off after every fight or not, the monk just could not keep up after a while.
> 
> over the years we have had A LOT of warlocks, and even in sessions/in game days with few to no short rests they can hold up (although they of course do better the more short rests you have)
> 
> in the last campaign I PCed we had a Barbarian/Cleric a Druid and my Warlock (by time we hit 20 I had also taken 3 levels of sorcerer) and an NPC fighter/paliden and on a day with a lot of short rests I was the MVP (although the barbarian cleric could out damage me 9 out of 10 encounters that and taking hits was all he had on me on those days) on a day with 0 short rests I still out performed the fighter/pal and was on par with the other two.



Then it sounds like the Monk abilities should be tuned so that the most powerful ones allow the Monk to replicate the effect of the Warlock spells at that level with 2-3 options for at-will abilities like the Warlock has with invocations. We clearly have two models for short rest based classes, one works well and the other struggles.


----------



## payn

DEFCON 1 said:


> I don't care what the rules end up being because no matter what they are... I'm going to find a better way to run them for myself and will house rule the new system in.
> 
> Needing the books to print exactly the rules I want for every single thing is a bane to happiness.  Go into every book with the assumption that you are going to make the rules your own is what opens everything up and you lose this anchor around your neck that constantly wants to drag you down.
> 
> Playing RAW is dumb in my opinion.  It's a decision merely there to keep a person constantly unhappy.



Sure, but isnt it nice when you dont have to rewrite the rules? This is a fine position one can have, but a very Oberoni answer to this discussion.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

kapars said:


> Then it sounds like the Monk abilities should be tuned so that the most powerful ones allow the Monk to replicate the effect of the Warlock spells at that level with 2-3 options for at-will abilities like the Warlock has with invocations. We clearly have two models for short rest based classes, one works well and the other struggles.



I think (and I know I get told I am wrong alot) most classes should work off the warlock frame...

2 subclasses 1 at 1st 1 at 3rd and mix and match creates variable builds
a group of powers/abilities you can pick to learn that you can use so many times per short rest (like there spells) that scale to level 9.
a group of power/abilities you can always use that scale at 5/11/15/17 like there cantrips
AND
a list of special class spesfic mini feats that can add power/abilities to the above or enhance one you already have like there invocations
at higher levels give them more game breaking story altering power abilities they can pick 1 of every other level that are only useable 1/long rest like there 6th-9th level spells


I want monk and fighter and rogue rebuilt useing that idea at least


----------



## Vaalingrade

Baron Opal II said:


> HP? Exhaustion? How do you find those inadequate?



The thing no one can a agree on what they even are and the Death Spiral?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> The thing no one can a agree on what they even are and the Death Spiral?



it's simple... every time you take damage some portion is meat coming off... even when it is from a psychic blast... and you have broken bones and muscle pulls from damage but non of that meat coming off or bones breaking or pulls in muscles impeads you in anyway.

or so I have been told cause 'realism'


----------



## Parmandur

Baron Opal II said:


> Then don't nova in the first encounter. Problem solved.



And provide narrative consequences, if needed.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> Its exactly the same thing that 2e and 3.5 did.  How is that not a new edition?



3.5 rewrote the entire system. It’s my least favorite edition of D&D , so I don’t recall details, but I’m fairly certain it changed general rules not just adjusting some classes, but it also had _major_ revisions to several classes, not just tweaks to fix pain points, and it was presented as a new, replacement, edition, regardless of what wotc said in public about it.  




Minigiant said:


> Overall I think Essentials had the best model in D&D so far. If not for it being a half edition, ignoring the rest of the edition, and coming late: it would have made the best core for a system with a few Tweeks.
> 
> 
> Define a core of 3-4 types of "powers" by time.
> Give Power Types a designation. (Cantrips, Sneak attack, and Stances are At Will, Channel Divinity, Backstab, Power Strikes, and Challenges are Encounter. Spells and Prayers are "Daily"
> Shift time constraints away from Offensive Ability to Health and Recovery and balance Powers to be used in One Encounter Day Burst, 10 Encounters Day Attrition, and Anything Between.
> Give classes the powers that the majority of the community agrees on.
> Allow groups to choose their own resting model knowing that warriors, rogues, priests, and mages can ALL nova or grind. A level 1 wizard can nova their 2 Spells, a level 1 fighter can nova their 3 Strikes, a level 1 monk can spend their 3 Ki, and a 1 level cleric can nova the 1 spell and 1 Channel Divinity for one big fight and it's all more or less balanced.



If you think essentials was anything more than a new set of options within an edition, I guess I can see why you’d also think that 2024 will see a “new/half edition.


----------



## Undrave

Parmandur said:


> WotC sort of screwed up the terminology by insisting on making an Edition change something as utterly drastic as 2E > 3E, 3E > 4E, or 4E > 5E while pretending that 3.5 didn't "count" as a full Edition.



Or Essentials!


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Parmandur said:


> And provide narrative consequences, if needed.



You would be surprised how many players would respond to "if you rest now you will lose a point of Reputation", even if Reputation didn't do anything.


----------



## Parmandur

Paul Farquhar said:


> You would be surprised how many players would respond to "if you rest now you will lose a point of Reputation", even if Reputation didn't do anything.



I really wouldn't.  Brownie points are weirdly motivating.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Vaalingrade said:


> The thing no one can a agree on what they even are and the Death Spiral?



Well, I know what they are for my games, but point taken.



AnotherGuy said:


> The exhaustion track is inadequate in that it is not integrated with your resources.
> There is no rule for a caster or fighter pushing themselves further beyond their normal capabilities.



True.



GMforPowergamers said:


> 1) I have no negatives for being so hurt and tired to the attack or damage and 2) I am no more fatigue for having just spent 300 seconds strait (5 minutes) useing that abity.  If instead I make 100 sword attacks with my cool magic special metal sword it is still 300 seconds (5 minutes) of constant swinging of my sword (or axe or hammer) but still I am at no negative (even the str damage doesn't matter I USE  Cha to hit and damage) and it doesn't tire me at all.



Yes, that bugs me a bit, too.



Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't think a game where bad luck = you lose would be very popular.
> 
> The problem is, if you allow for bad luck not to leave you aboard the Kobayashi Maru without the cheat code, then you also allow the players to nova then rest.



It's not either / or...

Okay, that clarifies things for me on y'all's positions. Thanks!


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Parmandur said:


> I really wouldn't.  Brownie points are weirdly motivating.



Every teacher's secret weapon.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> You would be surprised how many players would respond to "if you rest now you will lose a point of Reputation", even if Reputation didn't do anything.



I have seen people shame others with "what are you a wuss?" so yeah I can see it


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I really wouldn't.  Brownie points are weirdly motivating.



back in my 20's I worked in a min wage job and the bosses used to give us little index cards for our cubicals that they would put red silver and gold stars on if we did something 'above and beyond' most people loved it... I hated it and used to take down my card no matter how full it was. (I don't want to brag, I would like compensation)

I got a promotion and lead my own team (and a good raise). So I went out and bought some gift cards to local fast food, gas stations and stores in the mall... nothing huge but like $10 each.  Instead of just giving the dumb stars every time you got 5 stars you could trade them for a gift card... my team ROCKETED to the top of every metric and everyone wanted to be on it... so after like 2 weeks I started taking the best performing people from other teams (with my managers approval) and all the other team leads HATED me for it.

someone even started writing "I'm an adult I work for money not stickers" on there index card and that took all over the office. I had other team leads telling me I was ruining there raises becuse I was useing my own money... they tried to give 'dress down days' and 'extra 5 min breaks' but all I did was give my team full time dress down as long as when corporate came they dressed nice... I didn't make many friends for that either.


----------



## Undrave

kapars said:


> Just to relate experience I play a Monk on a  Westmarches server and with 3 encounters per short rest or no short rest it’s impossible to keep up with classes that can use Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master well because those abilities are just always on while my Ki runs out after one fight at level 5 if I’m trying to keep up with the contribution they’re making. Then I just become a squishy martial that can make an extra scimitar strength  unarmed attack as a bonus action and move 10ft further. It is hard to convince long rest based classes to even take a short rest because they’re not sweating at that point cause they are fueling of this set of feats instead of their resource limited class abilities. The only hope is usually that there is a Warlock or someone with a Warlock dip since their spells are considered respectable enough to warrant a short rest. No one is stopping for flurry of blows to recharge.



The Monk is just bad


----------



## Eric V

Crimson Longinus said:


> No thanks. Without attrition only mechanical stakes in any battle are death or nothing. And once you get resurrection magic, TPK or nothing.
> I really, really don't want that.



There can still be attrition, though.  For example, in 4e there was healing surges and Daily abilities, but they still had encounter abilities too (a guarantee to be able to do something cool every combat).


----------



## kapars

Undrave said:


> The Monk is just bad



I’m doing things to compensate with magic items and a Cleric dip helps but yes on my play experience I have fun with the RP and flavor but yes it is more of a struggle than playing Barbarian or Paladin which are my other 5e experiences. It’s a challenge but it kind of breaks my heart to call it bad. I cannot argue against you though. Let’s see how the next few levels go.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Eric V said:


> There can still be attrition, though.  For example, in 4e there was healing surges and Daily abilities, but they still had encounter abilities too (a guarantee to be able to do something cool every combat).



yeah a mix is the way to go.

the 5e warlock has
at will
encounter/short rest
long rest
always on

abilities... the encounter/short rest ones are even a pool you can draw from (so I know 6 encounter abilities but can use any combo of them twice per rest)

it is the closest to the 4e AEDU model, and I love it


----------



## DEFCON 1

payn said:


> Sure, but isnt it nice when you dont have to rewrite the rules? This is a fine position one can have, but a very Oberoni answer to this discussion.



No.

Because not a single one of us will EVER not have to re-write the rules to get what we want.  There are millions of players all of whom want and play and need different things.  So if at any point you go into these discussions with all the grand ideas on how to work things out so that you get exactly what you want... 1) you are wasting your time, and 2) you are fooling yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.

In my opinion it is much, much better for every person to go into any upcoming release knowing full well and accepting full well that we ain't going to get what we might want and that we will NEED to make our own rule changes to do so.  Because without accepting that ultimate truth... we instead just end up with entire threads and boards of people whining and complaining and insulting every single designer, fellow player, rule, book, and anything else connected to the game.  It is irritating, it is toxic, and it is completely unnecessary.

You are aren't going to get what you want.  You will NEVER get what you want.  Not in its entirety.  So just do yourself and the rest of us a favor and stop thinking that you actually will with just the right convincing argument of how your rule tweak will solve the problem if only everyone else smartened up and listened to you.


----------



## payn

DEFCON 1 said:


> No.
> 
> Because not a single one of us will EVER not have to re-write the rules to get what we want.  There are millions of players all of whom want and play and need different things.  So if at any point you go into these discussions with all the grand ideas on how to work things out so that you get exactly what you want... 1) you are wasting your time, and 2) you are fooling yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.
> 
> In my opinion it is much, much better for every person to go into any upcoming release knowing full well and accepting full well that we ain't going to get what we might want and that we will NEED to make our own rule changes to do so.  Because without accepting that ultimate truth... we instead just end up with entire threads and boards of people whining and complaining and insulting every single designer, fellow player, rule, book, and anything else connected to the game.  It is irritating, it is toxic, and it is completely unnecessary.
> 
> You are aren't going to get what you want.  You will NEVER get what you want.  Not in its entirety.  So just do yourself and the rest of us a favor and stop thinking that you actually will with just the right convincing argument of how your rule tweak will solve the problem if only everyone else smartened up and listened to you.



These discussions are how I learn about past, current, and future designs. I find quite a bit of value in them and also pick up new ideas for my own home rules. I agree with you that folks who make personal insults against other posters and/or designers are not helpful. Telling people to just shut up because it happens is also not helpful. My advice to both is if they don't want to participate in good faith with the discussion, its best to just not participate at all.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> No.
> 
> Because not a single one of us will EVER not have to re-write the rules to get what we want.



really... you think no one plays RAW? that no one plays adventure league? 

I get that homebrew is common but come on this is nuts.


DEFCON 1 said:


> There are millions of players all of whom want and play and need different things.  So if at any point you go into these discussions with all the grand ideas on how to work things out so that you get exactly what you want... 1) you are wasting your time, and 2) you are fooling yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.



and no matter how much house ruleing I do I will still push for WotC to do it for us... just like even if I can have my brother and dad rebuild the engine of my car I don't want to HAVE to have them rebuild the engine on a new car I buy in 2024...


DEFCON 1 said:


> You are aren't going to get what you want.  You will NEVER get what you want.



great thread cap... it's actually more of site cap. How many discussion can these 2 sentences end... maybe 10 on the main D&D page right now?  Maybe we shouldn't have enworld discussions about anything other then house rules... I mean there is also no reason to buy the 2024 books I guess, I still have my 2e ones and I can just homebrew from 2e on.


----------



## Undrave

kapars said:


> I’m doing things to compensate with magic items and a Cleric dip helps but yes on my play experience I have fun with the RP and flavor but yes it is more of a struggle than playing Barbarian or Paladin which are my other 5e experiences. It’s a challenge but it kind of breaks my heart to call it bad. I cannot argue against you though. Let’s see how the next few levels go.



I got a Shadow Monk and I think he's cool, but I'm in a part with a Paladin, a Barbarian and a Warlock and I have no idea what I bring to that table except some teleportation. My damage is always bad, I take one hit and I have to run away, and nothing I ever want to stun seems to fail  their saving throw. I feel like a gimped Rogue most of the time really.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Sure, game will get houseruled and people should be willing to customise a bit if they want to optimise their fun. But there also is a point when it becomes just easier to get another game or write one from scratch than pay to WotC. 

With the rest issue I'm really worried about moving more and more things into the long rest, as I feel that is the wrong direction. I can fiddle with conditions and lengths of the rests, that's easy, but if they remove short rests and/or short rests abilities then building that back would be a pretty colossal effort.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> You would be surprised how many players would respond to "if you rest now you will lose a point of Reputation", even if Reputation didn't do anything.



In a Wrestling based Setting I got to use once, ending the day at more that 50% HP without defeat a rival is a HEEL move. 

The gods boo you.


----------



## Kinematics

I'd go for a 10 minute short rest rather than 5 minutes, because of the way the time interacts with other mechanics. In particular:

1) What you can do during a short rest. EG: Casting a ritual spell (takes 10 minutes) or certain other spells such as Prayer of Healing (10 minute cast time), which is reasonable to want to do during a short rest.  A 1 hour short rest allows casting something like Resurrection, though I feel that is out of scope of a short rest action.

2) Whether you can use effects that were initiated before the short rest, after the short rest. A 1 hour short rest means any spell effect of 1 hour or less is guaranteed to have expired (for example: Pass Without Trace, Invisibility). A 10 minute short rest would allow those effects to still be active, but 10 minute duration effects would have expired (for example: Fly). A 5 minute short rest would allow 10 minute effects to still potentially be useful after the short rest.

My feeling is that 1 hour duration effects should still be useful after a short rest. I don't particularly feel that 10 minute duration effects _need_ to still be useful after a short rest, so the 5 minute break seems unnecessarily short.

Between the above factors, then, 10 minutes feels like a reasonable short rest time.  15 minutes would also give roughly the same effect. It's mostly just a matter of what sort of break times fit your mental idea of a "break". (5 minute break; 10 minute break; 15 minute break)  And apropos of nothing, it also gives a complementary meaning to "Take 10".

However, yes, making short rests actually short does increase the feasibility of just spamming short rests to recover abilities.  A 1 hour short rest makes it difficult to meaningfully get more than a couple per day if you want to get other things done. A 10 minute short rest is something you can take every hour without significant drawbacks, meaning you could have 10 short rests a day and barely notice.

Limiting the number of times you can use that to recover abilities may help keep things in check. Scaling with proficiency bonus, and getting the ability to restore your short rest abilities more times per day as you level up feels appropriate. If we go by Level Up's math, that's pretty much on par with the expected number of medium encounters a party could expect to handle per day: Tier 1 has +2 prof, and gets 2 medium encounters per day; Tier 2 has +3 to +4 prof, and gets 4 medium encounters per day; Tier 3 had +4 to +5 prof, and gets 6 medium encounters per day; and Tier 4 has +6 prof, and gets 8 medium encounters per day.

Of course this does imply that you should expect to get enough short rests that you can pretty much always have a short rest before a (medium or harder) fight, meaning short rest jobs should always be running at 100%. Is that desirable?  I'm not really sure, but I don't find an immediate reason to reject the idea.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Crimson Longinus said:


> Then we must conclude that the game simply cannot be made to work. If you don't want want there to be significant change of death in every battle (and most people don't) it means that PCs simply will win every fight and then are exactly at the same condition at the end of it than in the beginning. So why are we rolling dice and wasting time on thing where the conclusion is not in doubt?
> 
> At least in attrition model resources are at risk, and you need to consider the things in more strategic scale. And yes, in that case your 'defeat condition' could be that you conclude that you cannot move on have to retreat to rest. And of course that passage of time should have some consequences, otherwise it doesn't matter. The game could offer better advice on how to build such consequences though, it does rather bad job at it.



Why do you assume that death is the only possible long term negative consequence other than attrition? Possibly because in D&D it is - which is why I prefer grittier games like Fate, Blades in the Dark, or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and actual gritty games like Apocalypse World, GURPS or WFRP. In all of them there are consequences other than death that are lasting and to be avoided but aren't simple attrition where your hit points go down or your spells get exhausted. (And before the old school fans pop up they are both risks in every encounter and a lot more interesting than the simple math changes provided by level drain or reversals of rewards of rust monsters).

The problem isn't that the game can't be made to work. It's that D&D chooses not to do anything interesting, instead sticking with the computer game model of hit points being consequence free (because computer games took it from D&D in the first place).


----------



## Minigiant

Neonchameleon said:


> Why do you assume that death is the only possible long term negative consequence other than attrition? Possibly because in D&D it is - which is why I prefer grittier games like Fate, Blades in the Dark, or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and actual gritty games like Apocalypse World, GURPS or WFRP. In all of them there are consequences other than death that are lasting and to be avoided but aren't simple attrition where your hit points go down or your spells get exhausted. (And before the old school fans pop up they are both risks in every encounter and a lot more interesting than the simple math changes provided by level drain or reversals of rewards of rust monsters).
> 
> The problem isn't that the game can't be made to work. It's that D&D chooses not to do anything interesting, instead sticking with the computer game model of hit points being consequence free (because computer games took it from D&D in the first place).




The issue is Dungeons and Dragons, by it's name, has to work in a moderately length dungeon crawl out the box. Most games with "consequences" lose that option or the option to go longer as the consequences tend to "spiral".

Few games with meaningful consequences or wounds aviod death spirals or suicidal adventures. Often because they aren't focused on having that experience work in the game.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> Why do you assume that death is the only possible long term negative consequence other than attrition? Possibly because in D&D it is - which is why I prefer grittier games like Fate, Blades in the Dark, or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and actual gritty games like Apocalypse World, GURPS or WFRP. In all of them there are consequences other than death that are lasting and to be avoided but aren't simple attrition where your hit points go down or your spells get exhausted. (And before the old school fans pop up they are both risks in every encounter and a lot more interesting than the simple math changes provided by level drain or reversals of rewards of rust monsters).
> 
> The problem isn't that the game can't be made to work. It's that D&D chooses not to do anything interesting, instead sticking with the computer game model of hit points being consequence free (because computer games took it from D&D in the first place).



Most of those games are too narrative for me to stomach.  I'd rather mod D&D to work the way I like.


----------



## DEFCON 1

payn said:


> These discussions are how I learn about past, current, and future designs. I find quite a bit of value in them and also pick up new ideas for my own home rules. I agree with you that folks who make personal insults against other posters and/or designers are not helpful. Telling people to just shut up because it happens is also not helpful. My advice to both is if they don't want to participate in good faith with the discussion, its best to just not participate at all.



Well, let's not forget that I just originally posted my preference and my beliefs on their own in this thread, did not quote anyone or make any indication I was referring to or arguing against anyone else's specific point.  I just said my piece.  _You_ then responded directly back to me via direct quote to discuss my preferences.  Which means at that point it is now open season for me to discuss my arguments right back to you.

If you didn't like my responses or you thought I was wrong... that's cool!  You don't have to.  But you _can't _just say "Well, if you can't participate in the discussion in good faith, you shouldn't participate" because you didn't like how I responded.  You don't want to discuss things... don't pull someone into a discussion by quoting them.  Simple as that.  I mean, had you just let me original post go without comment, who knows if I would have responded again?  Quite possibly not.  Might've just said my piece and then the conversation continue on.


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> really... you think no one plays RAW? that no one plays adventure league?
> 
> I get that homebrew is common but come on this is nuts.
> 
> and no matter how much house ruleing I do I will still push for WotC to do it for us... just like even if I can have my brother and dad rebuild the engine of my car I don't want to HAVE to have them rebuild the engine on a new car I buy in 2024...
> 
> great thread cap... it's actually more of site cap. How many discussion can these 2 sentences end... maybe 10 on the main D&D page right now?  Maybe we shouldn't have enworld discussions about anything other then house rules... I mean there is also no reason to buy the 2024 books I guess, I still have my 2e ones and I can just homebrew from 2e on.



For all the people who feel like the rules NEED to be aligned to their specific preferences for them to be happy... there is only going to probably be 1 person out there who will be truly happy. With the hundreds of thousands of rules spread throughout all the books, there will always be some amount of rules that will not align to your preferences and you will be stuck adjusting them and be unable to play "RAW".  That's just the way it is.  And if you play _nothing but_ Adventurer's League and can never play home games where you can have the rules the way you want them... at that point you pretty much should get over the fact you are never going to play D&D 5E the way you want if you are "stuck" using the game as-is.

If you continually want to push back at WotC to try and get them to change their rules to match your preferences, go right ahead!  No one's stopping you and that's what a large amount of threads here on the boards end up being about (despite ample evidence that says that NOTHING that get said here regarding the rules ever gets incorporated into the game in any meaningful fashion.)  But don't then get mad when there are others who point out that what you're doing is seemingly to us a fruitless exercise and you aren't actually going to get what you want.

Or then again... get mad!  That's cool too.  You can get mad.  No big deal.  But just know that you getting mad that I had the audacity to state that you almost certainly are never going to get what you want and if you want to be truly happy you should probably accept that fact... is not going to stop me from saying it or make me change my mind.


----------



## payn

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, let's not forget that I just originally posted my preference and my beliefs on their own in this thread, did not quote anyone or make any indication I was referring to or arguing against anyone else's specific point.  I just said my piece.  _You_ then responded directly back to me via direct quote to discuss my preferences.  Which means at that point it is now open season for me to discuss my arguments right back to you.
> 
> If you didn't like my responses or you thought I was wrong... that's cool!  You don't have to.  But you _can't _just say "Well, if you can't participate in the discussion in good faith, you shouldn't participate" because you didn't like how I responded.  You don't want to discuss things... don't pull someone into a discussion by quoting them.  Simple as that.  I mean, had you just let me original post go without comment, who knows if I would have responded again?  Quite possibly not.  Might've just said my piece and then the conversation continue on.



Doesnt matter if I opened the door by replying to you. This is a discussion board, and you are trying to tell people not discuss things you dont like or think are a waste of time. Instead of telling me not to reply to people unless I want them to tell me to shut up, maybe you should just not reply?


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> For all the people who feel like the rules NEED to be aligned to their specific preferences for them to be happy... there is only going to probably be 1 person out there who will be truly happy. With the hundreds of thousands of rules spread throughout all the books, there will always be some amount of rules that will not align to your preferences and you will be stuck adjusting them and be unable to play "RAW".  That's just the way it is.  And if you play _nothing but_ Adventurer's League and can never play home games where you can have the rules the way you want them... at that point you pretty much should get over the fact you are never going to play D&D 5E the way you want if you are "stuck" using the game as-is.
> 
> If you continually want to push back at WotC to try and get them to change their rules to match your preferences, go right ahead!  No one's stopping you and that's what a large amount of threads here on the boards end up being about (despite ample evidence that says that NOTHING that get said here regarding the rules ever gets incorporated into the game in any meaningful fashion.)  But don't then get mad when there are others who point out that what you're doing is seemingly to us a fruitless exercise and you aren't actually going to get what you want.
> 
> Or then again... get mad!  That's cool too.  You can get mad.  No big deal.  But just know that you getting mad that I had the audacity to state that you almost certainly are never going to get what you want and if you want to be truly happy you should probably accept that fact... is not going to stop me from saying it or make me change my mind.



I actually agree with you.  WotC isn't going to change tracks based on anything said on ENWorld or any other site.

However, I also think people have the right to be irritated when the game moves away from a version they liked toward one they don't. Especially if they've been pretty happy for a while and the unwanted changes come rapidly.  Even more especially if others in their community ooh and ah over changes you can't stand.


----------



## TwoSix

Minigiant said:


> I truly think D&D works better if Attrition or Nova are tied to Defense over Offense.
> 
> The wizard should be free to use their fireball as they see fit.
> 
> You quit when you HP, HD, Healing Surges, and Potions run out.



But then you get into people objecting to siloization, and wanting the option to make their character all offense or all defense. 

There’s no easy answer, there’s only tweaking all these factors to maximize acceptance and minimize kvetching.


----------



## Minigiant

TwoSix said:


> But then you get into people objecting to siloization, and wanting the option to make their character all offense or all defense.
> 
> There’s no easy answer, there’s only tweaking all these factors to maximize acceptance and minimize kvetching.




Well they can still go all Offense or all Defense with spells/maneuvers, etc.

The meter is just on HP and HD/HS. Because that's what the DM can control and tie to the Nova-Attrition scale.


----------



## Staffan

payn said:


> I really liked the change from X per day in 3E, to X per rounds in PF1. Though, I prefer having a full days worth of resources to manage as opposed to encounter power mechanics. No need for short rests in that system.



That was one of my least favorite changes in PF1 for both the classes it affected, though for different reasons.

Barbarian: No. Rage should not be a spigot you can turn on and off as needed. Once you see red, red it is until your foes are gone.

Bard: A horrible nerf. 3.5 bards can use bardic music 1/day/level. For most uses, a single use covers a whole situation. Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics works for 5 rounds after you stop performing (so the whole battle in most cases), Inspire Competence would help for checks taking up to 2 minutes, Fascinate could distract folks for as long as needed, and Song of Freedom would let you cast _break enchantment_, one of the most powerful anti-condition spells in the game for a single use of bardic music. But in PF, each round you do a bard thing costs one of your 4+Cha+2/level rounds per day. You want to boost your allies in a four-round fight? That's four rounds. You want to help your rogue buddy take 20 on opening a lock? Well, there goes 20 rounds. Each round you want to keep someone fascinated is one round gone (not to mention that the save now uses a normal formula instead of the bard's likely ridiculous Perform check). And Song of Freedom is gone, replaced with the anemic Soothing Performance, mimicking a _mass cure serious wounds_ instead of _break enchantment_ and costing four rounds of performance. Blech.


----------



## kapars

If we interpret the recent Sage Advice video as a trend maybe we are heading to Long Rests only and then abilities that require hit dice. You can essentially exert yourself for extra uses of an ability by spending hit dice but it comes at the cost of healing they would provide. There would therefore be no short rest longer than the actions to expend the hit dice to recover HP, Ki, Manuever Dice etc. Characters would de-power because of this but would be buffed again by free feats at levels 1 and 4. 

Another implementation has class resources go away and you have PB uses then hit dice.


----------



## Vaalingrade

kapars said:


> If we interpret the recent Sage Advice video as a trend maybe we are heading to Long Rests only and then abilities that require hit dice.



Sigh.

I was having high hopes with the UA with the feats at first level. Now this.

One step forward, two steps back, directly into wanging your head on a light fixture, tripping down the stairs and landing face first into a litter box.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm sure they'll redesign the core races too, don't worry.



I mean, technically speaking they already _have_. It's half the reason we got Chromatic, Metallic, and Gem Dragonborn.

The other half, depending on who you ask, is either "awful bloat to fill up the unnecessary dragon book with more options," or "WotC FINALLY recognizing how crappy dragonborn were in the PHB, and also their growing popularity despite how weak they are, and giving them a well-deserved tune-up."

Which side you're on mostly depends on how you feel about new options, dragons in general, and dragonborn specifically.


----------



## Micah Sweet

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean, technically speaking they already _have_. It's half the reason we got Chromatic, Metallic, and Gem Dragonborn.
> 
> The other half, depending on who you ask, is either "awful bloat to fill up the unnecessary dragon book with more options," or "WotC FINALLY recognizing how crappy dragonborn were in the PHB, and also their growing popularity despite how weak they are, and giving them a well-deserved tune-up."
> 
> Which side you're on mostly depends on how you feel about new options, dragons in general, and dragonborn specifically.



I like new options.  I'm mostly neutral about dragons (it depends on the context).  I'm vaguely positive on dragonborn as a race, mostly due to the hilarious portrayal of one by a good friend of mine back when 4th ed came out.  His name was Jason Dragonbourne, and it went on from there as you might expect.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> For all the people who feel like the rules NEED to be aligned to their specific preferences for them to be happy... there is only going to probably be 1 person out there who will be truly happy.



so we shouldn't talk about what we want? why be on enworld then?


DEFCON 1 said:


> With the hundreds of thousands of rules spread throughout all the books, there will always be some amount of rules that will not align to your preferences and you will be stuck adjusting them and be unable to play "RAW".  That's just the way it is.  And if you play _nothing but_ Adventurer's League and can never play home games where you can have the rules the way you want them... at that point you pretty much should get over the fact you are never going to play D&D 5E the way you want if you are "stuck" using the game as-is.



again... what is the point of telling people not to talk preferences? 


DEFCON 1 said:


> If you continually want to push back at WotC to try and get them to change their rules to match your preferences, go right ahead!



I mean I only really started when they announced they were making changes for 2024... so that people can talk about it. 


DEFCON 1 said:


> But just know that you getting mad that I had the audacity to state that you almost certainly are never going to get what you want



even though we can show how online chater changed the game atleast twice?!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I actually agree with you.  WotC isn't going to change tracks based on anything said on ENWorld or any other site.
> 
> However, I also think people have the right to be irritated when the game moves away from a version they liked toward one they don't. Especially if they've been pretty happy for a while and the unwanted changes come rapidly.  Even more especially if others in their community ooh and ah over changes you can't stand.



I don't really think someone is going to go "Oh GMforpowergamers posted this on enworld, lets talk about it at the next meeting"

However when threads like this are on the front page and responded to alot, can get people talking. when people are talking (here, on other sites, on tic tok on redit and at stores, at conventions) sooner or later either directly or indirectly this WILL get back to WOtC...


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Micah Sweet said:


> I like new options.  I'm mostly neutral about dragons (it depends on the context).  I'm vaguely positive on dragonborn as a race, mostly due to the hilarious portrayal of one by a good friend of mine back when 4th ed came out.  His name was Jason Dragonbourne, and it went on from there as you might expect.



Oh my God, that sounds _amazing_.

Reminds me of the Warforged character I considered making for a 13th Age game (but there wasn't room for me to join). Warforged Wizard, Dodec O'Hedron, second youngest of a set of siblings (the youngest being the very-recent Eikos O'Hedron).


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> even though we can show how online chatter changed the game at least twice?!



Good point.  In 2015 people here on EN World were demanding WotC produce classic campaign settings other than Forgotten Realms, and sure enough WotC has listened!  I guess it's true that a broken watch is still right every seven years.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> Good point.  In 2015 people here on EN World were demanding WotC produce classic campaign settings other than Forgotten Realms, and sure enough WotC has listened!  I guess it's true that a broken watch is still right every seven years.



more then that... you could see back in 2006 the major caster issue that was fixed in 4e, in 4e you could see the 'it's not real d&D and everyone is magic' that got snapped back for 5e (maybe even the complaints about a simple fighter leading to the slayer and knight options) and you can see the call for other settings, and that spelljammer it self was high on the list.

Again I don't think that someone said "Hey enworld has a thread about it we need to call a developer meeting" I think that when people are talking here it spills out into other places too, including the surveys. WotC may not ever even look here (although I do believe we have devs with accounts here) but they don't have to. They just need to hear the same things we are.


----------



## billd91

Staffan said:


> That was one of my least favorite changes in PF1 for both the classes it affected, though for different reasons.
> 
> Barbarian: No. Rage should not be a spigot you can turn on and off as needed. Once you see red, red it is until your foes are gone.
> 
> Bard: A horrible nerf. 3.5 bards can use bardic music 1/day/level. For most uses, a single use covers a whole situation. Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics works for 5 rounds after you stop performing (so the whole battle in most cases), Inspire Competence would help for checks taking up to 2 minutes, Fascinate could distract folks for as long as needed, and Song of Freedom would let you cast _break enchantment_, one of the most powerful anti-condition spells in the game for a single use of bardic music. But in PF, each round you do a bard thing costs one of your 4+Cha+2/level rounds per day. You want to boost your allies in a four-round fight? That's four rounds. You want to help your rogue buddy take 20 on opening a lock? Well, there goes 20 rounds. Each round you want to keep someone fascinated is one round gone (not to mention that the save now uses a normal formula instead of the bard's likely ridiculous Perform check). And Song of Freedom is gone, replaced with the anemic Soothing Performance, mimicking a _mass cure serious wounds_ instead of _break enchantment_ and costing four rounds of performance. Blech.



Rages per round, I thought, worked pretty well. And if you let it lapse before the fight was over, it was self-penalizing due to fatigue. The reason it worked as well as it did was because it was a combat-oriented feature and combat was already measured in rounds. 

But I think you're right that the bard's shift to a per-round basis didn't work as well. It might have worked OK for inspire courage, but it sucked for virtually everything else.


----------



## James Gasik

I played a Bard in Pathfinder 1e, and worried that I might not have enough Performance rounds, I took a Feat that gave me a few extra rounds when I stopped a Performance (Lingering Performance). The weird part is, I never needed it!

I don't know if we should have faced more combats per game day than we did, but if anecdotal evidence means anything, it worked out ok for me.

Curiously, my Bloodrager had much more problems with his rage rounds- often I had to "waste" rounds because to conserve them meant I had to take fatigue penalties, so there really wasn't any advantage.

At higher levels, of course, you can find ways around that penalty, which I know annoyed some ("rage cycling") but I never got to that point.


----------



## Vaalingrade

James Gasik said:


> I played a Bard in Pathfinder 1e, and worried that I might not have enough Performance rounds, I took a Feat that gave me a few extra rounds when I stopped a Performance (Lingering Performance). The weird part is, I never needed it!
> 
> I don't know if we should have faced more combats per game day than we did, but if anecdotal evidence means anything, it worked out ok for me.
> 
> Curiously, my Bloodrager had much more problems with his rage rounds- often I had to "waste" rounds because to conserve them meant I had to take fatigue penalties, so there really wasn't any advantage.
> 
> At higher levels, of course, you can find ways around that penalty, which I know annoyed some ("rage cycling") but I never got to that point.



Bards in 3/Finder are loaded with abilities that are either useless (countersong) or are so effective that if you can't ruin lives in three rounds with them, you have greatly miscalculated how bards work.

This is why bards were said to suck in 3/Finder even though they were actually crazy powerful, because no one understood what control was back then and thought the only point was taking down enemies when bards can just flick the 'off' switch on combats.= with anything with a mind.


----------

