Been playing for a few years - still don't understand Warlocks

[Valmark]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I mean... To an external watcher (or at least to me) Max may have paraphrased, but those quotes do mean what he said. You were saying that the DMG says to take two period while Max was saying to take at least two- that's a pretty clear difference.

>=2 is not =2.

For what's worth, saying 'will likely need to take two short rests' seems to me that it's a probable event, but not a fixed number (what I think Max was saying).

[OldTrees1]

I mean... To an external watcher (or at least to me) Max may have paraphrased, but those quotes do mean what he said. You were saying that the DMG says to take two period while Max was saying to take at least two- that's a pretty clear difference.

>=2 is not =2.

For what's worth, saying 'will likely need to take two short rests' seems to me that it's a probable event, but not a fixed number (what I think Max was saying).

To another external watcher:
Both of them are wrong and their argument is merely restating their positions over and over. Which discouraged me from replying (so thank you).

The DMG gives a probable event, not a minimum, not a maximum, not a quota. It does not even give an expected value (an average). And that probable event could be read as 2 or 2+ since it is a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+.

[Segev]

To another external watcher:
Both of them are wrong and their argument is merely restating their positions over and over. Which discouraged me from replying (so thank you).

The DMG gives a probable event, not a minimum, not a maximum, not a quota. It does not even give an expected value (an average). And that probable event could be read as 2 or 2+ since it is a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+.

It sounds to me like you mostly restated Max's position as your own, while also stating (incorrectly, I think) that a "probable event" of needing 2 short rests is not a recommendation of providing opportunity to meet the need stated in that probable event.

It is a minimum recommended number to allow a party provided you're giving them a full "adventuring day" worth of encounters.

[schm0]

What difference do you see there? To me those quotes look far more similar to how I described them (even down to the LOL, which you did actually literally say!), which was my honest intent in writing that conversation summary, than your descriptions of the DMG text look like what it actually says. What about that summary do you disagree with? Are you saying you didn't deny it was a minimum instead of a maximum? Are you denying that you tried to laugh me off as "pedantic" instead of explaining your reasoning?

The DMG recommends two short rests per adventuring day. The idea that it doesn't is preposterous. I never said anything about it being a minimum or a maximum. The only thing I said in this regard was that the DMG doesn't say anything about a minimum, which is true. Making up things ("you denied it was a minimum"/"you said that it is a maximum") is what I take issue with, as you continue to do.

Nothing in the DMG says "only two" or "at most two" or anything implying that. It says they will "need" two, implying that you shouldn't give less (ergo, it's a minimum!) unless you know what you're doing. Exactly as I've been saying all along. You've been saying the opposite but haven't explained why.

It also says "in general" and "likely", meaning some days might have more or less, but it happens less often. Two is the standard for a typical day. {Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

To another external watcher:
Both of them are wrong and their argument is merely restating their positions over and over. Which discouraged me from replying (so thank you).

The DMG gives a probable event, not a minimum, not a maximum, not a quota. It does not even give an expected value (an average). And that probable event could be read as 2 or 2+ since it is a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+.

Since I agree with your last sentence ("a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+") I wonder where you think we disagree.

It sounds to me like you mostly restated Max's position as your own, while also stating (incorrectly, I think) that a "probable event" of needing 2 short rests is not a recommendation of providing opportunity to meet the need stated in that probable event.

It is a minimum recommended number to allow a party provided you're giving them a full "adventuring day" worth of encounters.

I agree.

I'll add, parenthetically, that short rests don't necessarily have to happen onscreen, especially unimportant ones like the lunch break you take halfway through a day of traveling, or the quiet evening downtime between reaching an inn and going to bed for the night. PC activity != player activity.

[OldTrees1]

Since I agree with your last sentence ("a need of 2 which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+") I wonder where you think we disagree.

I expect both you and schm0 to agree with my sentence, because like the DMG, I expect it reads differently to each of you. That seems to be the root of the argument you two are having. (I disagree with the argument)

To schm0, they see the "a need of 2" which recommends having 2 short rests per day.
To you, you see "which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+" which recommends having 2+ short rests per day.
To Segev, they saw "a need which can be satisfied" which does not necessitate a recommendation. (and then disagreed with that reading)

@Segev
I suspect the authors had an expected number of short rests but also expected the number to vary based on the day. Including days where the PCs get fewer rests than they probably need for a full adventuring day. Those kind of days would lead to more retreats. Although I am mostly basing this on the DMG focusing on the need rather than the supply. So there is still a recommendation but made with softer language to imply deviation could occur.

[Segev]

Deviation certainly could occur, but actually forcing no short rests (or exactly one) in a day would not only be hard, but would be something the DM would have to and should have to deliberately plan for. (Honestly, I think the reason for the note on "need 2 short rests" is more to tell the DM that after they get that many he should start thinking about whether he's pushing them too hard or not hard enough if they feel they have the need AND leisure to take more.)

I'm honestly somewhat surprised they balanced 5e with short rests as things that happen after multiple encounters by design. If you break down their recommendations, an expected standard day has about 2 encounters followed by either a short or long rest. Sometimes, 3 encounters before a rest might happen, but it should be VERY rare that PCs need a short rest after just one encounter.

However, even with an hour required for the rest, player behavior is going to tend towards wanting to replenish resources, so they're very likely to look for a chance to take a short rest if they've used up ANY resources that one can replenish. And if they can find a short rest spot after 2 encounters but not 1...well, why?

If they have rope trick or Leomund's tiny hut, they only need 10 minutes, tops, to set up a reasonably safe place for an hour's rest.

All of which is to say, I wonder if they'd have done better in designing the game with the expectation that, most of the time, player characters will take a short rest after EVERY fight. Make "short rest" powers the equivalent power level of 4e's Encounter Powers. That's roughly the niche they already fill, anyway. Shorten "short rest" to 10 minutes, 30 tops.

I'm not a fan of 4e, mind, but at least the notion that the party takes a breather after every combat is sensible, and lines up with likely player behaviors.

That said, making warlock spells replenish with just 10 minutes of rest might be too much. In the end, it would take a thorough overhaul (at least a true 5.5 edition, if not something to be reserved for consideration in 6e) to make it work NOW, but it is an interesting design choice.

[MaxWilson]

I expect both you and schm0 to agree with my sentence, because like the DMG, I expect it reads differently to each of you. That seems to be the root of the argument you two are having. (I disagree with the argument)

To schm0, they see the "a need of 2" which recommends having 2 short rests per day.
To you, you see "which can be satisfied by a supply of 2+" which recommends having 2+ short rests per day.
To Segev, they saw "a need which can be satisfied" which does not necessitate a recommendation. (and then disagreed with that reading)

@Segev
I suspect the authors had an expected number of short rests but also expected the number to vary based on the day. Including days where the PCs get fewer rests than they probably need for a full adventuring day. Those kind of days would lead to more retreats. Although I am mostly basing this on the DMG focusing on the need rather than the supply. So there is still a recommendation but made with softer language to imply deviation could occur.

I don't yet feel like you've answered the question about where you think you and I disagree, because while you attribute opinions to me, schm0, and Segev, you don't describe your own. BTW your description of my opinion isn't quite right but it's hard for me to tell if the difference is important without knowing what yours is. Mine is that the DMG never recommends restricting the number of short rests; schm0 points to the DMG text as proof, but that proof fails upon inspection; no other proof has been offered.

To borrow Segev's example: if a party in a dungeon crawl has a wizard who knows Rope Trick, and after a fight the wizard often tends to cast Rope Trick so that the Moon Druid can regain wildshape / warlock can regain spells / fighter can regain Action Surge, and if it's normal as a result for the party to have four or five short rests in ten hours of dungeon crawling before returning to the surface, would you OldTrees1 say that the DM is violating DMG guidance? If your answer is Yes then we disagree, if No we don't.

All of which is to say, I wonder if they'd have done better in designing the game with the expectation that, most of the time, player characters will take a short rest after EVERY fight. Make "short rest" powers the equivalent power level of 4e's Encounter Powers. That's roughly the niche they already fill, anyway. Shorten "short rest" to 10 minutes, 30 tops.

I'm not a fan of 4e, mind, but at least the notion that the party takes a breather after every combat is sensible, and lines up with likely player behaviors.

That said, making warlock spells replenish with just 10 minutes of rest might be too much. In the end, it would take a thorough overhaul (at least a true 5.5 edition, if not something to be reserved for consideration in 6e) to make it work NOW, but it is an interesting design choice.

You can achieve a similar result just by running 2-3 Hard/Deadly encounters with short rests allowed whenever they fit the narrative, including between those encounters. For narrative reasons and because of real world time constraints, 1-3 harder fights is already a popular playstyle for those who want to reserve time for activities other than combat. (The alternative, having a single game day span multiple games, can work but has issues to solve including lack of closure per session and potential disruption if a player misses a session.)

[OldTrees1]

Deviation certainly could occur, but actually forcing no short rests (or exactly one) in a day would not only be hard, but would be something the DM would have to and should have to deliberately plan for. (Honestly, I think the reason for the note on "need 2 short rests" is more to tell the DM that after they get that many he should start thinking about whether he's pushing them too hard or not hard enough if they feel they have the need AND leisure to take more.)

Agreed

I'm honestly somewhat surprised they balanced 5e with short rests as things that happen after multiple encounters by design. If you break down their recommendations, an expected standard day has about 2 encounters followed by either a short or long rest. Sometimes, 3 encounters before a rest might happen, but it should be VERY rare that PCs need a short rest after just one encounter.

However, even with an hour required for the rest, player behavior is going to tend towards wanting to replenish resources, so they're very likely to look for a chance to take a short rest if they've used up ANY resources that one can replenish. And if they can find a short rest spot after 2 encounters but not 1...well, why?

I think this was due to the attempt to improve verisimilitude with short rests being a "mealtime" excuse rather than an "initiative was rolled" gameplay trigger. However you are right that players will tend to rest more than strictly necessary.

However you are right that modeling the short rest as a 10m breather and expecting one between every encounter (allowing for deviation) would have worked better.

That said, making warlock spells replenish with just 10 minutes of rest might be too much. In the end, it would take a thorough overhaul (at least a true 5.5 edition, if not something to be reserved for consideration in 6e) to make it work NOW, but it is an interesting design choice.

If the short rest is only 10m of rest, then I suggest returning to the at-will casting partial caster Warlocks. But that would be a consideration for 6E at the earliest. 5E already has Warlocks switch from Pact Magic to Mystic Arcanum, so I don't expect 5E can handle a self consistent Warlock design.



Personally I like the design pattern of low resources but high base capability for proactive abilities. If you have recuperation abilities require daily resources then you will still wear down the party over the day, but they will have less incentive to rest constantly.

I don't yet feel like you've answered the question about where you think you and I disagree, because while you attribute opinions to me, schm0, and Segev, you don't describe your own. BTW your description of my opinion isn't quite right but it's hard for me to tell if the difference is important without knowing what yours is. Mine is that the DMG never recommends restricting the number of short rests; schm0 points to the DMG text as proof, but that proof fails upon inspection; no other proof has been offered.

Quick clarifications:
1) I did state my opinion. The full sentence is my opinion of what the DMG says.
2) I did not describe your opinion. I guessed at how you read my sentence. My guesses mirrored how you and schm0 are arguing about 2 vs 2+.
3) Segev had a minor critique based on how they read my sentence. We clarified and addressed that.

Answer:
I disagree with the "talking past each other" argumentation style. You are reading the same sentence slightly differently, and are using that sentence as evidence to try to convince the other person. After a few loops that becomes "talking past each other" and causes critiques like "pedantic".

[ad_hoc]

10th is not mid-way. It is almost the end of the game for most tables. By adventuring day count it is far along too. Experience to level drops drastically after level 11. The longest levels are all 5-10.

Combat encounters are designed to take 3 rounds. So casting a big spell then spending 'the rest of the right casting cantrips' just means 2 rounds of cantrips for the default assumption of the game.

Warlocks are magical powerhouses. The trade off is that they don't have many spells for non combat encounters and don't have as much choice in combat.

[MaxWilson]

Quick clarifications:
1) I did state my opinion. The full sentence is my opinion of what the DMG says.
2) I did not describe your opinion. I guessed at how you read my sentence. My guesses mirrored how you and schm0 are arguing about 2 vs 2+.
3) Segev had a minor critique based on how they read my sentence. We clarified and addressed that.

Answer:
I disagree with the "talking past each other" argumentation style. You are reading the same sentence slightly differently, and are using that sentence as evidence to try to convince the other person. After a few loops that becomes "talking past each other" and causes critiques like "pedantic".

Sigh. I still don't feel like you've clarified your position, despite my good faith attempts to request clarification, and I still don't know if you consider Rope Trick legitimate or illegitimate, but forget it. You don't have to answer again. Apparently I wouldn't understand your meaning even if you did.

[OldTrees1]

Sigh. I still don't feel like you've clarified your position, despite my good faith attempts to request clarification, and I still don't know if you consider Rope Trick legitimate or illegitimate, but forget it. You don't have to answer again. Apparently I wouldn't understand your meaning even if you did.

I apologize for not being able to sufficiently clarify. Thank you for the good faith attempt and the understanding.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread re-opened.

[Man_Over_Game]

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

I've had tables where we didn't have a single Short Rest for the first three levels.

This wouldn't be an issue if every class had a similar dependency on Short/Long Rests. Ironically, this is one of the few things that 4e did right, so it feels like a big step backwards, and I look forward to seeing how they address it in the future.

[KorvinStarmast]

To borrow Segev's example: if a party in a dungeon crawl has a wizard who knows Rope Trick, and after a fight the wizard often tends to cast Rope Trick so that the Moon Druid can regain wildshape / warlock can regain spells / fighter can regain Action Surge, and if it's normal as a result for the party to have four or five short rests in ten hours of dungeon crawling before returning to the surface, would you OldTrees1 say that the DM is violating DMG guidance? If your answer is Yes then we disagree, if No we don't.

Clever parties will try that, if the wizard player exploits their ritual casting ability. But, when the dungeon/adventure has a ticking clock, doing this will come with a cost, to include the cost of mission failure. But it's a legit thing to do.

You can achieve a similar result just by running 2-3 Hard/Deadly encounters with short rests allowed whenever they fit the narrative, including between those encounters. For narrative reasons and because of real world time constraints, 1-3 harder fights is already a popular playstyle for those who want to reserve time for activities other than combat.

We do a lot of this in one of our campaigns due to DM prep time limitations.

(The alternative, having a single game day span multiple games, can work but has issues to solve including lack of closure per session and potential disruption if a player misses a session.)

Those issues can arise regardless of an adventure day spanning multiple sessions.
And "lack of closure per session" is glass half empty.
"We ended on a good cliffhanger!" is the glass half full.
One of my groups like a good cliffhanger some times, and 'closed the deal' at other times.

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

I think you are being unduly reductionist. You can create a grittier realism without adding Optional Rules in the DMG by how you apportion opportunities for rest. Some of this is pacing based, some of it is characters learning the system based, and some is turning up the difficulty dial now and again ... it's a dial you can turn up or down as a DM without resorting to optional rules. It's not just 'narrative opinion"

I've had tables where we didn't have a single Short Rest for the first three levels.

Yeah, we've run into that and as I got more experienced in the game I am not shy about calling out the DM for not grasping that. I specifically point to the Fighter, Monk getting screwed over on their recharge, as well as the clerics not recharging Channel Divinity.

This wouldn't be an issue if every class had a similar dependency on Short/Long Rests.

Yeah, it's an odd juxtaposition; where they chose to make something a long or short rest recharge, or a "as many times as your Wis/Int/Cha modifier ...

[Snails]

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

Agreed. Such was a very unwise design choice.

That there are important Long Rest refreshing resources is just an unavoidable Sacred Cow of D&D. DMs have to consider that factor however they want, and then leave it to the players to deal with how this plays out.

Baking such important refreshes into the Short Rest of the Warlock (and Monk) is adding a division within the party that is totally unnecessary. That the Warlock is the king of cantrip spamming is a fine schtick. There is no logical necessity to also tie the Warlock so strongly to the Short Rest. I get that there is a kind of thematic consistency in doing both, but it was still not necessary and causes hassles for little gain.

[OldTrees1]

Baking such important refreshes into the Short Rest of the Warlock (and Monk) is adding a division within the party that is totally unnecessary. That the Warlock is the king of cantrip spamming is a fine schtick. There is no logical necessity to also tie the Warlock so strongly to the Short Rest. I get that there is a kind of thematic consistency in doing both, but it was still not necessary and causes hassles for little gain.

Well, you can't tie Warlock to Long Rest, and WotC did not try to fully port in the at-will Warlocks in 5E.

[MaxWilson]

Clever parties will try that, if the wizard player exploits their ritual casting ability. But, when the dungeon/adventure has a ticking clock, doing this will come with a cost, to include the cost of mission failure. But it's a legit thing to do.

Note BTW that Rope Trick isn't a ritual. I'm sure you were thinking of Leomund's Tiny Hut instead, which I would point out is neither as stealthy as Rope Trick (encourages monsters to notice you and get reinforcements) nor explicitly immune to damage like Wall of Force.

As a DM I'll remark that when I have a ticking clock, such as a rival group of Tomb Raiders chasing the same treasure as the PCs, it's more common for the clock to be measured in days ("sometime tomorrow") than hours ("ninety minutes from now,") partly because tracking hours is a pain. Therefore fitting in short rests is much easier than long rests.

[Sorinth]

Need or not, it seems really silly that they'd tie such a major balance fulcrum on what's essentially a narrative opinion.

I've had tables where we didn't have a single Short Rest for the first three levels.

This wouldn't be an issue if every class had a similar dependency on Short/Long Rests. Ironically, this is one of the few things that 4e did right, so it feels like a big step backwards, and I look forward to seeing how they address it in the future.

I didn't play 4e, but wasn't one of the complaints that the classes were too samey?

Asymmetric resting requirements is one way to make the classes feel and play differently. Right off the bat I don't think the classes need to be perfectly balanced in combat, but even ignoring that having the balance between SR/LR come from a variety of adventuring days. Having days where there is only one big combat and the LR classes go nova and dominate, and then also having other days where there is little to no rest and the SR or resourceless classes will shine and carry the team.

[Man_Over_Game]

I didn't play 4e, but wasn't one of the complaints that the classes were too samey?

Asymmetric resting requirements is one way to make the classes feel and play differently. Right off the bat I don't think the classes need to be perfectly balanced in combat, but even ignoring that having the balance between SR/LR come from a variety of adventuring days. Having days where there is only one big combat and the LR classes go nova and dominate, and then also having other days where there is little to no rest and the SR or resourceless classes will shine and carry the team.

The Same-iness stemmed mostly from a lack of diversity in how the powers functioned, not in how they recharged.

For instance, the Fighter's powers were all things like "Hit this guy, gain X AC", or "Hit this guy, push him 5 feet". Then when you have a Wizard power that lasers someone and pushes them back 5 feet, you start to wonder how it's any different from the Fighter.

Given, those are some specific examples, but you get the idea. And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough". It didn't integrate RP with your powers very well, I can definitely confirm that, but the fact that everyone had At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Powers was the last thing that anyone who actually played it cared about. If anything, the organized structure made it easy to identify how each class played without any ambiguity, so everything plays exactly how you want it to.

[Segev]

A while back, somebody did a youtube video (that I am not going to be able to find in the time I have available right now) that discussed really, really old-school dungeon crawling rules for one of the earliest editions of D&D. I think adapting those to whatever edition you currently play (e.g. 5e) and encouraging WotC to perhaps develop them into any future editions would serve the game well.

A key component of these rules - whose echoes are visible in 1e AD&D, since I caught myself saying, "Oh, THAT'S why my first PHB talked about turns being ten rounds long!" and similar things - was the notion that dungeon exploration took place in 10-minute "turns." Each turn, each player could move their movement speed while being assumed to carefully be searching for traps and such, and could do one dungeon exploration action, such as looking for traps, secret doors, or treasure, or disarming a trap, or trying to listen at a door to see if there are monsters on the other side, etc.

This ties in very nicely to the ritual casting time in 5e: "cast a ritual spell" as a dungeon-exploration-turn action would make a lot of sense. This would make tracking time passing easier, because you take 10 minutes per turn, and do one "thing" per turn. You could even have combat + cleanup take "one turn," with whatever body-searching etc. you do being assumed to fill out the rest of the turn (since most fights take less than 1 minute).

Under a well-structured paradigm like this, a short rest taking 10 turns would be tied in nicely with the rest of the time-keeping, allowing you to determine what monsters are doing for those 10 turns if needs be, and also tracking time passage to a fine enough degree for ticking clocks to be relevant without being overwhelming bookkeeping.

Edit to add:

And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough".

Speaking as one of those players, I agree. 4e probably was a perfectly fine and well-balanced fantasy combat simulator that may even have had decent dungeon-crawling rules, but if so, it was a perfectly fine fantasy combat simulator that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.

I think it would have done better at attracting then-3e players if it had not been billed as "D&D." Admittedly, that would have undermined the big advantage it had of NAME RECOGNITION. Which cannot be underestimated when it comes to analyzing what success it DID have.

(Then again, Pathfinder was the strongest competitor D&D ever faced, without the name recognition, because the gameplay attracted at least half the fan base by just being able to unofficially bill itself as 3.75 edition D&D.)

[Man_Over_Game]

Edit to add:

Speaking as one of those players, I agree. 4e probably was a perfectly fine and well-balanced fantasy combat simulator that may even have had decent dungeon-crawling rules, but if so, it was a perfectly fine fantasy combat simulator that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.

I think it would have done better at attracting then-3e players if it had not been billed as "D&D." Admittedly, that would have undermined the big advantage it had of NAME RECOGNITION. Which cannot be underestimated when it comes to analyzing what success it DID have.

(Then again, Pathfinder was the strongest competitor D&D ever faced, without the name recognition, because the gameplay attracted at least half the fan base by just being able to unofficially bill itself as 3.75 edition D&D.)

You know, it would have done really well as a DnD side-game. "DnD: Champions of Whatever" woulda been a great way to keep it tied to the franchise without people making expectations about it in comparison to prior editions. It certainly doesn't feel like classic DnD, it feels more like the best fantasy chess you've ever played.

[MaxWilson]

Given, those are some specific examples, but you get the idea. And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough".

How many sessions should they have taken before making up their minds?

I regret spending even two sessions (and a few hours of Internet research) on 4E. Several years later I finally had the game theory knowledge to articulate WHY I hated it so much, but at the time all I knew was that it felt too unrealistic, and too asymmetric between players and monsters. (Partly the DM's fault for doubling monster damage and halving monster HP, but also 4E's fault for pushing a mentality of "PCs and monsters don't have to play by the same rules" which made what he did a common recommendation by DMs in his circles.)

Simulationism is part of (A)D&D's DNA, mixed with gamism, and 4E doesn't cater to simulationism.

[Segev]

You know, it would have done really well as a DnD side-game. "DnD: Champions of Whatever" woulda been a great way to keep it tied to the franchise without people making expectations about it in comparison to prior editions. It certainly doesn't feel like classic DnD, it feels more like the best fantasy chess you've ever played.

While they weren't perfect translations of 4e, the box set "Hero Quest" style adventures they released during 4e's heyday were obviously strongly influenced by the very "fantasy chess" structure of 4e (as you aptly put it). And I quite liked those.

So yes, I agree: it would have been great as some sort of supplement or side-game. Heck, it would STILL be great as such a thing if they wanted to release a variant now.

[MaxWilson]

You know, it would have done really well as a DnD side-game. "DnD: Champions of Whatever" woulda been a great way to keep it tied to the franchise without people making expectations about it in comparison to prior editions. It certainly doesn't feel like classic DnD, it feels more like the best fantasy chess you've ever played.

Yeah, that would have been fine. It feels very boardgamey, so marketing it as a board game would avoid enraging those expecting a different experience.

[Sorinth]

The Same-iness stemmed mostly from a lack of diversity in how the powers functioned, not in how they recharged.

For instance, the Fighter's powers were all things like "Hit this guy, gain X AC", or "Hit this guy, push him 5 feet". Then when you have a Wizard power that lasers someone and pushes them back 5 feet, you start to wonder how it's any different from the Fighter.

Given, those are some specific examples, but you get the idea. And having actually enjoyed 4e and listened to people talk about it for years, you'll find that most people who talk bad about it are the ones who never played more than 2 sessions because it wasn't "DnD enough". It didn't integrate RP with your powers very well, I can definitely confirm that, but the fact that everyone had At-Will, Encounter, and Daily Powers was the last thing that anyone who actually played it cared about. If anything, the organized structure made it easy to identify how each class played without any ambiguity, so everything plays exactly how you want it to.

Just a note that lack of diversity is why asymmetric resting actually helps. If one character can Fireball twice per short rest, and another can do it 6 times per long rest they will naturally end up feeling and playing differently even though the ability is identical.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just a note that lack of diversity is why asymmetric resting actually helps. If one character can Fireball twice per short rest, and another can do it 6 times per long rest they will naturally end up feeling and playing differently even though the ability is identical.

I mean, do they though?

I feel like I wouldn't care if I had a Fiend Warlock or an Evocation Wizard or a Fire Draconic Sorcerer. Same job, slightly different stats. Outside of the Wizard casting a few more walls, I would just mentally classify them as all doing the same thing. Kinda like a melee Samurai vs. a Barbarian. Sure, one takes more of this kind of damage, and another has better access to these kinds of spells, but...is that what's going to matter most of the time?

The big problem I have, though, is that the asymmetric resting isn't more beneficial than it is detrimental.

From another perspective: "If I am cold, I can burn my house to stay warm". It solves the problem, and the solution is now a worse problem.

[Sorinth]

I mean, do they though?

I feel like I wouldn't care if I had a Fiend Warlock or an Evocation Wizard or a Fire Draconic Sorcerer. Same job, slightly different stats. Outside of the Wizard casting a few more walls, I would just mentally classify them as all doing the same thing. Kinda like a melee Samurai vs. a Barbarian. Sure, one takes more of this kind of damage, and another has better access to these kinds of spells, but...is that what's going to matter most of the time?

The big problem I have, though, is that the asymmetric resting isn't more beneficial than it is detrimental.

From another perspective: "If I am cold, I can burn my house to stay warm". It solves the problem, and the solution is now a worse problem.

I guess it depends how obvious the rest schedule is. If it's always predictable then you're probably right, but when it's not they are going to feel different.


What's the bigger problem? That depending on how frequent SR are the different classes are more/less balanced? That doesn't really sound like a problem to me.

[Man_Over_Game]

I guess it depends how obvious the rest schedule is. If it's always predictable then you're probably right, but when it's not they are going to feel different.


What's the bigger problem? That depending on how frequent SR are the different classes are more/less balanced? That doesn't really sound like a problem to me.

But if your rest management does make the classes fairly well balanced, wouldn't that also cut down on diversity, since each of those classes are getting roughly equivalent value?

From my perspective, you can save the DM and the players some hassle by cutting out differences in rest recharging (which will cut down on diversity), or you balance the Short Rest features with the Long Rest features so that everyone's doing roughly the same amount of contribution and casting the same number of Fireballs (which also cuts down on diversity).

As of now, we're caught in a weird system of Diversity = Imbalance, which I think is kinda dumb. Save everyone the hassle, use the simplest solution.


As an aside, why would a Fighter feel less interesting just because he has more Long Rest powers? A Bard and a Wizard can solve some of the same problems with their full-casting, but they still don't feel redundant against each other as long as they communicate. I feel like I'm defending a problem that people talk about but nobody has ever actually had to deal with. "Eh, I expect it plays terribly, so why bother trying?"