Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
I don't disagree about having codified "normal rules". Defaults are important. To be honest, I do tend to run the rules (as opposed to the content such as monsters, worlds, items, etc) pretty close to stock. 5e's core resolution system actually works (for my purposes) pretty darn well used straight up. I was more talking about that extra content.

And I'd be a bit more lax with the "decent reason" thing--it's very acceptable, for me, to hear "no, because the setting's aesthetics make it awkward" or "no, because it'd involve a lot of extra work during play".
No arguments from me.


Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
If you actually want a different game that could still be D&D, 6e could've had you covered.
He he, I think my broad point is that either 6E will look like a weird rehash of previous editions or be something which barely resembles D&D. I think there is still space for other games PF2 being a good example of something a bit different, but even PF2 isn't that different from the D&D canon.

1. Explicitly modular/sliding scale versions of different rules. You keep Short and Long Rests, for example, and the mechanical impact of each is the same, but rather than telling us "Short Rest = 1 Hour, Long Res = 8 Hours" you say that the length of time each takes is up to the DM. And you offer some guidelines ("Gritty" = 8 hour SR, 1 week LR, "Low Fantasy" = X and Y, "Heroic Fantasy = A and B" etc). You could do the same with Racial features, various class features, etc. A sliding scale with a few different stopping points. So then every game, every campaign, as part of its Session 0, would include "We're doing High Fantasy Rests, Gritty Magic Features, Low Fantasy Martial Features." And the language isn't "This is what the rule is but you can do whatever you want." The language is "These are all equally valid options depending on what kind of game you want to play."
This is an example of something I had considered. What if you had 'simple rules', 'medium rules' and 'advanced rules' where each was more strictly codified. I.e. you specified if you were playing an advanced game and thus things became crunchier as a consequence.

RE: Short rests

I think the basic important arguments here are:
#1: DMs confecting reasons to deny rests is lame and should only happen with a specific purpose in mind (in the same way putting people in a desert has a specific purpose in mind - water scarcity). It sounds almost like people are confecting rest-denial as a form of ad-hoc balancing which sounds terribad (either as the game is badly designed or just pointless malice on the parts of the DM).
#2: Any class that is structurally SR dependent (Monks, Warlocks) is problematic at tables which don't Short Rest (never been at one of those myself).

Honestly, I dislike LR classes. From a purely 'game mechanic' stance, 'Nova-ing' is a logical strategy (even it makes you a kind of crappy player). If the DM then punishes players for Nova-ing by denying rests, they are kind of being a crappy DM. The whole dynamic basically encourages crappy play or quite severe curtailing of player agency (i.e. static adventuring days).

I would be inclined to push the resource management towards: Passives like Cantrips/Weapon attacks are enough to 'just win' a difficult encounter. SR abilities are designed to be nova'd every encounter which will make difficult encounters 'not difficult' but not easy. LR abilities are 'clutch' abilities designed to get players out of a pinch and aren't really expected to be used at all, especially in easy encounters.

I was kind of annoyed when I first played a druid and the 'get spells back' was once per LR. I mean... what is the point? One extra conditional spell per day? Seems kind of lame.