|
An hour-long short rest doesn't even have an old school excuse. The Basic set rules in 1981 had short rests be one turn, or ten minutes.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Yeah i'd say 15 minutes of non-combat should qualify as short rest. if a player did something extremely draining, like push a car up a hill i might say he still needs to take a breather, but by and large this should simply be a not-in-combat-get-things-back encounter refresh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
They went from smoke break to lunch hour. Verisimilitude!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
A hero in a fantasy story or movie wouldn't need fifteen minutes to recover between fight scenes. I'd go with the amount of time it takes an athlete to go from sprinting heart-rate to normal again. Or better still, disconnect it from being a numerical value of time entirely. If your GM says "and you get a moment to catch your breath" you get a short rest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
^^^ that's basically what I'm getting at, you've dropped out of combat and begin exploring discussing your next step, boom "15min" have passed.moths posted:They went from smoke break to lunch hour. Verisimilitude! Ironically the Long Rest allows for more activity than the Short Rest does. You can walk for 59min 59sec on a Long Rest, but a Short Rest requires you only eat, drink, read, or tend wounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
The really damning thing is that it COULD make sense as a time-sensitive decision making thing where you are in a dungeon and must conserve your resources or ask yourself whether it's time to retreat using your hastily scribbled map, with the possibility of the denizens being more reinforced next time you enter. Nothing whatsoever about 5e's design actually emphasizes any of that as a point of gameplay. D&D hasn't emphasized it since the eighties, and actively moved away from it in the nineties while keeping all of its trappings. If the game were designed for it it would make sense, but as it is it's as much of a useless non-gameplay enabling throwback as Encumbrance was in 4e, and for mostly the same reasons. Nothing about this game is designed with any kind of actual play in mind. There is no heed paid to how people are actually playing the game, and play is treated as more or less a happy accident that sometimes results from D&D rules which of course can be adjusted on the fly because the core game has no idea what the gently caress it's trying to accomplish so you might as well not pretend that any of it is coherent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:The really damning thing is that it COULD make sense as a time-sensitive decision making thing where you are in a dungeon and must conserve your resources or ask yourself whether it's time to retreat using your hastily scribbled map, with the possibility of the denizens being more reinforced next time you enter. I feel like the first thing is something decent DM's do anyway, but I get what you're saying and it's true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
moths posted:They went from smoke break to lunch hour. Verisimilitude! IT IS A BABY GAME FOR BABIES, RECESS LASTS AN HOUR
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Short rests would come into play when attacked in the middle of the night, interrupting the long rest. My dm does this all the time to keep casters low on spells.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Short rests would come into play when attacked in the middle of the night, interrupting the long rest. My dm does this all the time to keep casters low on spells. Then get ready for thousands of rounds of combat! By the rules, it takes a full hour of interruption to disrupt a long rest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Then get ready for thousands of rounds of combat! By the rules, it takes a full hour of interruption to disrupt a long rest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
If you have to hide in the janitor's closet of the castle you are invading for a full hour in order to use your encounter power, it's not an encounter power, it's a daily. No one out adventuring is going to take an hour between every combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:IT IS A BABY GAME FOR BABIES, RECESS LASTS AN HOUR the box clearly says 12+, NOT FOR BABIES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rph3cZn-7z4 Mormon Star Wars posted:If you have to hide in the janitor's closet of the castle you are invading for a full hour in order to use your encounter power, it's not an encounter power, it's a daily. No one out adventuring is going to take an hour between every combat. Actually you should just start a stopwatch while asking the DM questions about the interiors of the room, the plot, roleplaying with your other party members, and then go "ANNNNND TIME!" once the 1 hour rolls around and you reset your abilities, as you look at the dm w/ a  grin.
Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
It'd be a lot cleaner if you could just take a single short rest per day, and would incidentally eliminate complaints about second wind or whatever drat thing. That's actually a neat way to break up resources into daily and quasidaily, I think, and it already applies to the most important kind of resource since a wizard's short rest spell recharge is 1/day. It's a good idea to allow a high level wizard to cast two level 9 spells per day but only 1 in a given encounter, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:A hero in a fantasy story or movie wouldn't need fifteen minutes to recover between fight scenes. You've sort of stumbled onto the major point of contention here. In 4E the designers acknowledged that characters in D&D aren't gritty mud-farmers, they're action heroes. They're John McClane in Die Hard. The idea that D&D characters are a cut above goes all the way back to when the title for a level 1 Fighter was "Veteran" and it went up from there to, I think, "Superhero." But 4E, either through intentional design or happy accident, came up with a system that more closely emulated the sort of thing you'd see in an action movie or a fantasy novel than previous editions. Each combat was intended to be the sort of thing that saw players using multiple tricks and exploits at their disposal, players would take hits, get bloodied, maybe even go down, but then rally, get back up, and finish things off. Then there'd be a break in the action to catch your breath, patch your wounds (which have about as much debilitating effect on a D&D character as the ubiquitous bullet to the shoulder does to an action movie protagonist), have a bit of banter, and then back you go into the adventure. The term gets overused a lot but 4E is in many ways a very cinematic game. And naturally the sorts of people you would expect to hated the poo poo out of this for all the reasons you'd expect them to. D&D characters aren't supposed to be action heroes, realism, verisimilitude, 4E characters are invincible superheroes from level 1, WoW, etc. So if you're making a new D&D specifically designed to try and win that crowd back you can't under any circumstances have things like five-minute short rests that blatantly spoil the illusion of realism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
One of the best edit: fantasy fictional representations of badass martial character is Michael from Dresden (also Dresden himself to an extent). Michael is a Paladin really, but he doesn't cast any spells, instead his awesome is fueled by faith and he pulls of mundane feats in extraordinary ways that even Badass Longcoat Wizard Dresden can't (like fighting off hordes of dark fairies). Furthermore at any given time in those books the characters need about a weeks intesive care in the hospital, but they keep pushing forward and kicking rear end. But 3 minutes of fighting? Better rest up for an hour. You're a hero, can't get too crazy. treeboy fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
treeboy posted:One of the best edit: fantasy fictional representations of badass martial character is Michael from Dresden (also Dresden himself to an extent). Michael is a Paladin really, but he doesn't cast any spells, instead his awesome is fueled by faith and he pulls of mundane feats in extraordinary ways that even Badass Longcoat Wizard Dresden can't (like fighting off hordes of dark fairies). Furthermore at any given time in those books the characters need about a weeks intesive care in the hospital, but they keep pushing forward and kicking rear end. Or Murphy, who's just a normal human cop who beats vampire rear end all day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Or Murphy, who's just a normal human cop who beats vampire rear end all day. i was gonna say murphy but she's *too* normal. She really can't take a hit like the other characters can and is actually probably more inline with where D&D martial characters in reality are: exceptional normal humans
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i was gonna say murphy but she's *too* normal. She really can't take a hit like the other characters can and is actually probably more inline with where D&D martial characters in reality are: exceptional normal humans So she's a fighter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:So she's a fighter? So that's what "good people" means...
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Much of the contention I've seen with 4e was about how the abilities and powers up to entire classes looked or felt too samey, though I think that may be as a result of the mechanical transparency of everything where two things that are technically and effectively different appear similar or identical. Unfortunately, I've not had much live play with 4e to accurately make such assessments given my swearing off of most things D&D and d20.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Much of the contention I've seen with 4e was about how the abilities and powers up to entire classes looked or felt too samey, though I think that may be as a result of the mechanical transparency of everything where two things that are technically and effectively different appear similar or identical. It's the second one. Like, yes, you can find plenty of powers and exploits that are some variation of "hit a guy and shove him a square," fine, but in any sense but the most superficial you're not going to mistake playing a Monk for a Fighter for a Bard for a Warlord for a Wizard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Every class in TF2 plays the same, it's the same moving around with a small list of weapons for each one. Edit: Non-sarcastic answer, it's the latter. I'll even give an example! Take the Fighter and the Swordmage. Now, both classes not only have the same general mechanics of AEDU, they're even the same type of character (defender). But how do the actually play? The fighter wants to be in your face, and once she's in your face, you will never get rid of her. Try to move around her? That's a beatin'. Try to attack her friends? That's a beatin'. Try to charge through her? That's a beatin', AND you fail your charge. And every single one of those beatin's end with you knocked off your rear end and thrown away for your troubles. The swordmage wants to be nowhere near you. He isn't some buff burly warrior with great armor who's punching you for daring to exist in their vicinity, he's some pasty-rear end nerd. So the swordmage casts down an arcane enchantment on you to weaken your blows and then sets about using that same arcane trickery to mess up anyone trying to hurt his besties. You thought you were stabbing his cleric friend, but then you got teleported and stabbed that other orc instead. Mechanically speaking, the fighter wants to be the center of attention because she's a whirlwind of death and denial. The swordmage is the opposite - he wants to lurk outside on the edges, swooping in to punish enemies who attack his buddies, or making them swoop around instead. That's not even going into the multitude of different fighter types, to boot! ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
This 'all the powers feeeel the same' complaint is doubly hilarious when you consider that pre-4e how dissimilar an archer fighter, a ranger and a shortbow rogue were in combat (or more broadly speaking, any two full-attack spamming martials). At least in 5e they make a half-hearted attempt to differentiate them somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Interview with Mearls here where he talks about rests:quote:Will we see any incarnation of the “at will/encounter/daily” power system from fourth edition? I thought it was innovative, and was one of my favorite parts of that system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
We found classes built and balanced around encounter powers used their encounter powers every encounter. So stopped them from doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Interview with Mearls here where he talks about rests: This pretty much confirm that Mearls never actually played 4e. (Unless I'm misreading his gross misunderstanding of Encounter powers.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Much of the contention I've seen with 4e was about how the abilities and powers up to entire classes looked or felt too samey, though I think that may be as a result of the mechanical transparency of everything where two things that are technically and effectively different appear similar or identical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
The only time I've really played older styled DnD was Pathfinder. We found the "everything feels the same" problem applied to that game far more than 4e. We had a few players from our usual 4e group involved. One was an ranger whose turns were basically "I shoot at it". Sometimes they could put a narrative/mechanical flourish on it. "I climb up on this thing and... I shoot at it!" with a very exciting small bonus! To me, it felt like playing an essentials character. (Which I actually currently do in our 4e campaign, but I don't think everyone would want to do that) The thing is, when I hear people criticising 4e for being too restrictive I feel they should be playing Fate or Cortex or World or one of the really open narrative systems, but instead I see a desire for more things to be defined and set in stone which, surely, achieves the opposite of what they claim to want. (Theres still plenty of room in 4e to go off book and improvise. We do it all the time!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Much of the contention I've seen with 4e was about how the abilities and powers up to entire classes looked or felt too samey, though I think that may be as a result of the mechanical transparency of everything where two things that are technically and effectively different appear similar or identical. part of it too, no joke, is a messaging problem. All of the classes had their abilities presented in the same format, and generally leveled up very similarly (two-at wills, an encounter, a daily, then a utility, then another encounter, etc). The classes played incredibly differently but "look the same on paper" (and i mean quite literally looked the same) This lead to the misapprehension that "all the classes are the same" when realistically they're quite different. It also lead to this bizarre notion of "powers = video games" "oh i used my cooldown! better wait till night fight when i can use it again!" and all the stupidity that accompanied that. Even some of the guys I play 3.5 with (i'm hoping we'll at least switch to 5e) that's their chief complaint "OH HERE ARE MY POWERS THIS IS ALL I CAN DO" At which point I mention how 90% of the time his 3.5 barbarian only makes melee basic attacks, sometimes while enraged or with a power attack. edit: also hilariously he later admitted he only played one or two sessions of 4e...with someone else's character. treeboy fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
The gently caress, any other competent designer typically playtests the poo poo out of their game to see if it works on a mechanical standpoint and to make sure it plays the way it's intended to feel as well. How do you design a multi million dollar game and play it twice. It's your god drat full time job. That's like Steve jobs going "oh yeah I kind of used an iPod once whatever no big deal".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:The gently caress, any other competent designer typically playtests the poo poo out of their game to see if it works on a mechanical standpoint and to make sure it plays the way it's intended to feel as well. How do you design a multi million dollar game and play it twice. It's your god drat full time job. That's like Steve jobs going "oh yeah I kind of used an iPod once whatever no big deal". are you responding to my post? im just talking about a buddy of mine who kinda typifies 4e hate, not Mearls
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
treeboy posted:are you responding to my post? im just talking about a buddy of mine who kinda typifies 4e hate, not Mearls To be fair, given Mearls' recent history, it's hard to tell them apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Interview with Mearls here where he talks about rests: I've noticed that there are a bunch of things people complain about from 5e where my initial response is to go "wait, but there are actually good reasons to do that design decision", but then I look at 5e and they in no way take advantage of those reasons. There's a big problem with encounter powers--as long as they're like at-wills but better you're pretty much always going to want to start fights with them unless they're designed to always be situational (granted, even just an AoE is situational to some degree). If your encounter is just like your at-will but stronger, though, you're always going to want to use it first to get the momentum of the fight swinging your way/to avoid not being able to use it if the combat ends too quickly. That's boring and risks sucking tactical choice from the game. 5e seems to be getting rid of encounter powers and replacing them with. . .something awkward. It makes the per-rest powers more interesting, since they really are a resource that you have reasons both to and not-to use, but the one-hour break is just such an obnoxious period of time that it just turns it into a 'will the DM let us get away with this' fiat-fest more than anything else. I think something like 'spend a [daily resource/healing surge] to regain all encounter powers during a 10 minute rest' would be a good middle ground, but obviously the 5e designers thought otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I'm sure Mearls played a lot of 4e and hated every second of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I think something like 'spend a [daily resource/healing surge] to regain all encounter powers during a 10 minute rest' would be a good middle ground, but obviously the 5e designers thought otherwise. This is basically how it works in the game I did up, which Error 404 and I are hacking for the July contest. Perhaps more importantly, it's made into a character resource rather than a party resource.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
If you have encounter powers then you might be tempted to do something other than a basic attack, and who wants that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Like, the most charitable response is "Players really love and appreciate the "encounter" powers when DMs allow players to have them!" Funny how he doesn't talk about pushing groups so hard they don't regain their daily powers...
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Gort posted:If you have encounter powers then you might be tempted to do something other than a basic attack, and who wants that? I once grabbed a replica sword and swung it in a downward motion, but dislocated my shoulder. Doing that stuff is pretty much the epitome of the humanely possible, I don't want some superhero poo poo in my rpg, no sirrah. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Well I poked Mearls on Twitter and Got this Regarding short rests: "What happens when you interrupt a short rest - lose benefit only if interruption is 10+ minutes in total during the hour" So it's a little better now I guess (Plus the expected Responses about 5 min rests being a module in the DMG)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 18:55
|
|
