What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

Yeah but... EKs and ATs don't prepare spells.

Clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards do. For each of these, their spellcasting ability ties into how many they can prepare. The other classes just have "spells known," which the those four have as well.

The difference with (and the advantage of) preparing spells is that a class that does so can swap out its available spells with each long rest. Bards, rangers, sorcerers, warlocks, and the various spellcasting subclasses are stuck with the spells they choose for at least an entire level, and even then by RAW they can only swap out one at a time.

---

While true, it doesn't help the situation of int not really doing anything all that meaningful compared to str/dex/con/wis or even the blessed charisma of social interaction +scorlock arcane/divine magic/melee attack/melee damage/etc options that was being discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

But only for DW. I find a lot of its advice actively harmful for the games I want to run. Different games need different approaches. One is not necessarily better than another.

---

The general advice surrounding describing fiction etc is pretty much universal to good DMs, but whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mephnick

The general advice surrounding describing fiction etc is pretty much universal to good DMs, but whatever.

---

I saw nothing in there that was any better than what's in the 4e and 5e DMGs, and a lot that was totally inapplicable. So my experience is otherwise. As a PbtA game, DW makes very strong and controlling assumptions about the nature of the setting and structure of play that pervade everything. Those assumptions do not hold for most D&D games, so assimilating those assumptions (as you'd have to do for to be a good DW GM) is actively detrimental (at worst) and irrelevant (at best) to being a good D&D DM.

Maybe not fixes per se, but the following are design assumptions I wish would have been different:

1. There are too many resources to spend between Long Rests. I wish the game was balanced instead so that one adventure day worth of encounters could roughly fit into 1 session of play. The variant resting rules don't fix that for my style of play.

2. Get rid of Bonus Actions. Yes, it gives more options, but it also makes the game more fiddly. I don't want combat to be a cerebral process of contemplating which combination of normal and bonus actions to make the turn tactically optimal, but rather quick decisions on which general action to take.

Small fixes don't bother me that much, those are easy to house rule and adjudicate at the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

1. There are too many resources to spend between Long Rests. I wish the game was balanced instead so that one adventure day worth of encounters could roughly fit into 1 session of play. The variant resting rules don't fix that for my style of play.

---

I agree that a number of things that refresh on long should be revisited to see if refreshing them on short would become unbalanced. For example, if a paladin burns a spell slot for Divine Strike, maybe that slot comes back on a short rest? Would that be too powerful? Maybe only for spell slot levels below the paladin's Charisma mod?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

2. Get rid of Bonus Actions. Yes, it gives more options, but it also makes the game more fiddly. I don't want combat to be a cerebral process of contemplating which combination of normal and bonus actions to make the turn tactically optimal, but rather quick decisions on which general action to take.

---

I'm probably in the minority but I like bonus actions (even JC said he'd remove them if he could). What I like about them is that you only get one per round, so they're self-limiting. So for example a rogue must choose between using a bonus action to hit with a second weapon, or using the bonus action to dodge. How would you model that without it getting nuts? Like "If you're wielding two light weapons and you make an attack with one with your action, you may also make an attack with the other but don't add your ability modifier to the second weapon's damage. You may not make the second attack if you [rattle off a laundry list of features that used to use your bonus action, and each of these features must do the same]."

The bonus action is just a category or a grouping of actions. Much simpler to just say "You may use your bonus action to..." and be done with it. I think people get overwhelmed by the concept of the bonus action but it's really pretty simple. Anything you do has a tag associated with it (action, bonus action, reaction) and you have three buckets in front of you labeled the same. Whenever you do something, you put it in its bucket, and a bucket can only hold one thing at a time. At the start of your turn, you empty out your buckets.

Deciding what to use my bonus action on was the only remotely interesting thing my rogue could do in combat. I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

I agree that a number of things that refresh on long should be revisited to see if refreshing them on short would become unbalanced. For example, if a paladin burns a spell slot for Divine Strike, maybe that slot comes back on a short rest? Would that be too powerful? Maybe only for spell slot levels below the paladin's Charisma mod?

---

I like that there are different SR and LR dependent classes, that's nice. What I would like to see, is take a LR class like maybe Wizard and halve their number of spell slots per LR. Then balance other classes accordingly, expecting maybe 1-4 encounters and 1-2 SR per day. That's more feasable to get through in 1 session IME. Then it's much easier to pace the game such that only SR are taken at the table, LR happens between sessions, independent of heroic or gritty time scale. I want players to feel the consequence of wasting or saving their resources for later in the adventure day. That is diminished when you take several weeks break real time in the middle of it.

Quote:

---

The bonus action is just a category or a grouping of actions. Much simpler to just say "You may use your bonus action to..." and be done with it. I think people get overwhelmed by the concept of the bonus action but it's really pretty simple. Anything you do has a tag associated with it (action, bonus action, reaction) and you have three buckets in front of you labeled the same. Whenever you do something, you put it in its bucket, and a bucket can only hold one thing at a time. At the start of your turn, you empty out your buckets.

---

In theory bonus actions are neat, but in practise I find it becomes quite fiddly. "I want to do this, now which combination of actions is more optimal for achieving that" or "I want to take this main action, now for my bonus action, let me look over all my spells to see if there are any bonus actions ones I want to cast". Removing BA surely reduces the granularity of actions, but it also makes the decisions much simpler and faster. Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

---

If you don't want tactical combat, D&D might not be your best option. There are lots of games that do narrative resolutions much better. Losing that would irritate a lot of my players quite strongly, as well as many others that I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

I like that there are different SR and LR dependent classes, that's nice. What I would like to see, is take a LR class like maybe Wizard and halve their number of spell slots per LR. Then balance other classes accordingly, expecting maybe 1-4 encounters and 1-2 SR per day. That's more feasable to get through in 1 session IME. Then it's much easier to pace the game such that only SR are taken at the table, LR happens between sessions, independent of heroic or gritty time scale. I want players to feel the consequence of wasting or saving their resources for later in the adventure day. That is diminished when you take several weeks break real time in the middle of it.

---

Well, there's this for wizards:

Quote:

---

Arcane Recovery

You have learned to regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook. Once per day when you finish a short rest, you can choose expended spell slots to recover. The spell slots can have a combined level that is equal to or less than half your wizard level (rounded up), and none of the slots can be 6th level or higher.

For example, if you’re a 4th-level wizard, you can recover up to two levels worth of spell slots. You can recover either a 2nd-level spell slot or two 1st-level spell slots.

---

They get this right out of the gate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

In theory bonus actions are neat, but in practise I find it becomes quite fiddly. "I want to do this, now which combination of actions is more optimal for achieving that" or "I want to take this main action, now for my bonus action, let me look over all my spells to see if there are any bonus actions ones I want to cast". Removing BA surely reduces the granularity of actions, but it also makes the decisions much simpler and faster. Which I think is better, because I mainly want a quick narrative resolution of the combat, and not really a tactical puzzle to solve.

---

So you're for removing not just the bonus action as a term, but as a function entirely? No more offhand attacking or bonus action spells?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morty

Deciding what to use my bonus action on was the only remotely interesting thing my rogue could do in combat. I'm not sure why anyone would want to get rid of that.

---

Agreed... And from a mechanical view, the action economy is the entire chassis of the depth of the game.

As an observation, I find that I have to be very careful in contributing to this subject, because the things I would personally "fix" (note the scare quotes) when looking at D&D would often make the system fundamentally less D&D for those who actively enjoy it, who find it a good fit. I think it's better at that point to find another system. If someone doesn't like levels, or classes, or the particular action economy, or Vancian casting, or linear single-die resolution (ie, the d20), then they should keep an open mind to the possibility that this system simply isn't for them. Rather than trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole...

Of course, when one system is so much of the market, it's sometimes easy to miss that there are other options, or to be frustrated by the lack of opportunity to use systems that better suit one's tastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy

As an observation, I find that I have to be very careful in contributing to this subject, because the things I would personally "fix" (note the scare quotes) when looking at D&D would often make the system fundamentally less D&D for those who actively enjoy it, who find it a good fit. I think it's better at that point to find another system. If someone doesn't like levels, or classes, or the particular action economy, or Vancian casting, or linear single-die resolution (ie, the d20), then they should keep an open mind to the possibility that this system simply isn't for them. Rather than trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole...

---

Maybe try to think of it as "5e tries to be X. Are there parts of 5e that don't work well for a game that tries to be X? Are there parts of 5e that actually work against the game being X?"

So instead of just it being opinions on what D&D should be, it's ways to tighten up 5e to make it more internally consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

Maybe try to think of it as "5e tries to be X. Are there parts of 5e that don't work well for a game that tries to be X? Are there parts of 5e that actually work against the game being X?"

So instead of just it being opinions on what D&D should be, it's ways to tighten up 5e to make it more internally consistent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy

As an observation, I find that I have to be very careful in contributing to this subject, because the things I would personally "fix" (note the scare quotes) when looking at D&D would often make the system fundamentally less D&D for those who actively enjoy it, who find it a good fit. I think it's better at that point to find another system. If someone doesn't like levels, or classes, or the particular action economy, or Vancian casting, or linear single-die resolution (ie, the d20), then they should keep an open mind to the possibility that this system simply isn't for them. Rather than trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole...

Of course, when one system is so much of the market, it's sometimes easy to miss that there are other options, or to be frustrated by the lack of opportunity to use systems that better suit one's tastes.

---

But to echo Max_Killjoy here, one of the biggest things 5e tries to do is be a best-parts version of all the previous editions combined, with some new glue and paint. So making something less recognizable as D&D (which for me is about classes/levels, spell-slot-based casting, 6 ability scores and basic resolution using a d20 + modifiers) is exactly contrary to what it's trying to do.

You can "fix" a compact car by replacing it with a semi truck. But you don't have the same car you started with by any stretch of the imagination. It fits different needs entirely. Same with a lot of the "fixes" I've seen here (and in other such threads). They throw out the baby, the bathwater, and the entire bathroom, when they'd get what they wanted much simpler by starting with a different base. All while destroying the things that a lot of people (myself included) most prize about 5e. From my perspective, if someone "fixed" my car by giving me a muscle car or a motorcycle, I'd be strongly peeved. Even if the new vehicle was much more expensive and fancy. Sure, my car needs some work. The headliner sags, the driver's side sun visor is broken, and the rack and pinion leaks a bit. But those are fixes. Not a complete alteration into something alien. And that's the magnitude of what I'm seeing (some) people suggest here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skylivedk

Agreed... And from a mechanical view, the action economy is the entire chassis of the depth of the game.

---

Being fair, nine times out of ten the best use of the bonus action was to run and hide so I could shoot at an advantage. But that was better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

If you don't want tactical combat, D&D might not be your best option. There are lots of games that do narrative resolutions much better. Losing that would irritate a lot of my players quite strongly, as well as many others that I know.

---

Well, yes and no. There's a healthy balance to be made. Personally, I want some tactical combat, but would prefer if it was shifted a little to the lighter side. There can still be plenty to consider in the tactical sphere (movement, which type of action to take, who to target, spell selection, terrain etc), you just make the decisions faster instead of it bogging down to a chess game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

They get this right out of the gate.

---

Sorry, I don't see what that adds. It's fine that Wizards has some SR resources, but I would prefer all full casters to have less spell slots per LR. (and then have LR more frequently, i.e. before every session instead of every other session)

Quote:

---

So you're for removing not just the bonus action as a term, but as a function entirely? No more offhand attacking or bonus action spells?

---

Basically, you would have to design the game from a totally new design space paradigm. Which is why I said it wasn't really a fix, but a design assumption I wish had been different. I guess Mearls has opinions on how to do it. You could have offhand attacking as a general option ("Attack with both weapons, something something balanced with normal attacking") or it could be an ability ("when taking the attack action, you get an extra attack with your offhand"). You can't achieve everything the same as you can with BA, and you need to be more careful to not stack things. I think it's easier for most people to choose one option from a slightly longer list, than to choose two options from two slightly smaller lists. Depends on the players, but I also find combat flows more smoothly when it's one decision/action per player per turn. I want to continually switch the spotlight as fast as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

Well, yes and no. There's a healthy balance to be made. Personally, I want some tactical combat, but would prefer if it was shifted a little to the lighter side. There can still be plenty to consider in the tactical sphere (movement, which type of action to take, who to target, spell selection, terrain etc), you just make the decisions faster instead of it bogging down to a chess game.

---

I personally don't see it bogging down to a chess game. Mainly because I don't play with challenge-focused gamers--there's very little (if any) focus on being "mechanically optimal" or even "tactically optimal." But I (and the other more mechanically-minded players) appreciate the optional depth available. YMMV depending on the background and interests of the players involved.

Is the present version the best possible? No. But removing them wholesale would require tearing out lots of things and rebalancing from the ground up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

But to echo Max_Killjoy here, one of the biggest things 5e tries to do is be a best-parts version of all the previous editions combined, with some new glue and paint. So making something less recognizable as D&D (which for me is about classes/levels, spell-slot-based casting, 6 ability scores and basic resolution using a d20 + modifiers) is exactly contrary to what it's trying to do.

You can "fix" a compact car by replacing it with a semi truck. But you don't have the same car you started with by any stretch of the imagination. It fits different needs entirely. Same with a lot of the "fixes" I've seen here (and in other such threads). They throw out the baby, the bathwater, and the entire bathroom, when they'd get what they wanted much simpler by starting with a different base. All while destroying the things that a lot of people (myself included) most prize about 5e. From my perspective, if someone "fixed" my car by giving me a muscle car or a motorcycle, I'd be strongly peeved. Even if the new vehicle was much more expensive and fancy. Sure, my car needs some work. The headliner sags, the driver's side sun visor is broken, and the rack and pinion leaks a bit. But those are fixes. Not a complete alteration into something alien. And that's the magnitude of what I'm seeing (some) people suggest here.

---

I'm not 100% sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but I think we're saying much of the same thing. If your goal is to have an efficient, safe car, then you can reasonably "fix" it without destroying its identity by finding things that make it inefficient and unsafe and adjusting them toward your goal. I agree, you don't fix X by making it not-X, you fix X by trying to make it as X as it can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

Sorry, I don't see what that adds. It's fine that Wizards has some SR resources, but I would prefer all full casters to have less spell slots per LR. (and then have LR more frequently, i.e. before every session instead of every other session)

---

I would agree that it might be nice for all full spellcasters to have some mechanism of recouping at least some slots after a short rest. But most have some level of spell management. Bards, clerics, druids, and wizards all get Ritual Casting, so they can cast certain spells as much as they want outside of combat. Sorcerers get sorcery points that can be cashed in for more slots. Wizards get that Arcane Recovery which is fairly potent.

I get what you're saying. At the same time I wonder if that's not a good space for magic item features. D&D 5e really likes magic items to have interesting features that aren't just + bonuses everywhere. A necklace or headband or whatever that has a feature that lets you select a small number of slots that can restore after a short rest is actually an interesting idea. I may have to use that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I personally don't see it bogging down to a chess game. Mainly because I don't play with challenge-focused gamers--there's very little (if any) focus on being "mechanically optimal" or even "tactically optimal." But I (and the other more mechanically-minded players) appreciate the optional depth available. YMMV depending on the background and interests of the players involved.

---

I don't think my group is that challenged focus either. At least, they don't build characters around that, or play very competetively. But they want to fully utilize their abilities when it's their turn, so it goes more like this "for my action I want to __! Now I also have a bonus action to spend, let me look through my options and see what I could do. ......" It feels a bit dissociated, "I want to do something in the fiction, let's solve a puzzle on how to achieve that mechanically". Instead of that being a 1-to-1 decision.

Quote:

---

Is the present version the best possible? No. But removing them wholesale would require tearing out lots of things and rebalancing from the ground up.

---

That's for sure. Which is why I don't bother do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

I would agree that it might be nice for all full spellcasters to have some mechanism of recouping at least some slots after a short rest.

---

That's not what I'm trying to express at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

That's not what I'm trying to express at all...

---

Ok then, I'm totally lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

Ok then, I'm totally lost.

---

Pelle is saying that they're looking for a natural system that punishes/rewards players for their decisions in the current session, rather than waiting to punish reward the player several weeks later.

For instance, right after a Long Rest, you have everything you need available, and you can just spend it however you want. You play through 4 or so fights, and you didn't pace yourself properly, but this session was a blast because you were reckless and overpowered. Session ends.

Two weeks later, players rejoin, and now that player is feeling the struggle of only being able to provide cantrips. A recent Short Rest helps, but not enough to matter, and so they're limited to the next few fights of doing nothing. At this point, there's not much the player can do but wait to be useful at the next Long Rest, and feels like the game is rigged because they're no longer having fun.

That two weeks time creates a disassociation with the player's decision making, where the decisions of last session don't matter as much as what is happening in the current session, when in reality, blowing your highest level spell slots immediately after a Long Rest at the end of a session will severely bite you in the ass in your next session.

In the same kind of idea, you don't punish children or pets days after they make their mistake. You have to teach them what's wrong immediately after they've occurred the offense, otherwise, they'll blame their problems on something else (thinking they're bad for just existing, or just blame you for being a bad person).

Adults are smarter than animals and older than children, but we're not that much different. Pelle wants to tie in these parts of the psyche to the flow of the game, to make it more enjoyable and less frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelle

I don't think my group is that challenged focus either. At least, they don't build characters around that, or play very competetively. But they want to fully utilize their abilities when it's their turn, so it goes more like this "for my action I want to __! Now I also have a bonus action to spend, let me look through my options and see what I could do. ......" It feels a bit dissociated, "I want to do something in the fiction, let's solve a puzzle on how to achieve that mechanically". Instead of that being a 1-to-1 decision.

---

I guess I've just never seen that personally except when connected to highly "competitive" players who are playing non-standard builds. The basic builds don't put much reliance on maximizing your bonus actions at all. I have players mostly just tell me what they do (in fiction) and then I fill in the mechanical bits or tell them that doing that is not possible due to <rule X>. Heck, half the time I have to remind them that they can take an action as well as a bonus action (usually going something like

P: I want to X [bonus action spell or homebrewed dragonborn breath weapon, usually].
Me: OK, if you do that you can also [cast a cantrip, take an action, etc]. What do you want to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisBasken

I'm not 100% sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but I think we're saying much of the same thing. If your goal is to have an efficient, safe car, then you can reasonably "fix" it without destroying its identity by finding things that make it inefficient and unsafe and adjusting them toward your goal. I agree, you don't fix X by making it not-X, you fix X by trying to make it as X as it can be.

---

From your post I wasn't sure which side you were taking. I think we're in agreement on this point (with possibly the usual disagreement as to exactly the value of X, but that's normal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game

Pelle is saying that they're looking for a natural system that punishes/rewards players for their decisions in the current session, rather than waiting to punish reward the player several weeks later.

For instance, right after a Long Rest, you have everything you need available, and you can just spend it however you want. You play through 4 or so fights, and you didn't pace yourself properly, but this session was a blast because you were reckless and overpowered. Session ends.

Two weeks later, players rejoin, and now that player is feeling the struggle of only being able to provide cantrips. A recent Short Rest helps, but not enough to matter, and so they're limited to the next few fights of doing nothing. At this point, there's not much the player can do but wait to be useful at the next Long Rest, and feels like the game is rigged because they're no longer having fun.

That two weeks time creates a disassociation with the player's decision making, where the decisions of last session don't matter as much as what is happening in the current session, when in reality, blowing your highest level spell slots immediately after a Long Rest at the end of a session will severely bite you in the ass in your next session.

In the same kind of idea, you don't punish children or pets days after they make their mistake. You have to teach them what's wrong immediately after they've occurred the offense, otherwise, they'll blame their problems on something else (thinking they're bad for just existing, or just blame you for being a bad person).

Adults are smarter than animals and older than children, but we're not that much different. Pelle wants to tie in these parts of the psyche to the flow of the game, to make it more enjoyable and less frustrating.

---

So I'm even more lost because that's exactly what I thought Pelle was saying.

Although I do disagree with the contention that long rests don't happen at the table and only happen between sessions (assuming I'm interpreting that right). I never have my players take a long rest between sessions, it always happens at the table. I end sessions on cliffhangers whenever possible. But maybe that's just me.

But if Pelle is saying what you're describing, then it basically boils down to "it would be nice if full casters could cast more frequently and/or more reliably recover slots with a short rest," which is why I was pointing out the various ways full casters can either do just that or otherwise manage their castings.

Pelle, maybe you could provide some specific examples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xetheral

The problem isn't that there remain ambiguous or inconsistent cases after logically applying all the RAI from the tweets. The problem is that the wording regarding melee/ranged weapons/attacks requires that much parsing (and reading Twitter) in the first place. I frequently DM for new players who don't have any experience with TTRPGs, and when they read the PHB, they don't realize on their own that (e.g.) "an attack with a melee weapon" is not the same thing as a "melee weapon attack". It comes across as unnecessarily nuanced and jargony and regularly annoys my players, even after they get used to it. We get past it by commiserating with each other over the apparent absurdity (and by me resolving most misunderstandings in the players' favor).



Interestingly, I don't interpret the use of the word "fix" as having the same pejorative context that you do. When a poster describes a problem they are experiencing at their table (and that I don't experience at mine) and expresses a need to "fix" that problem, I don't see that as suggesting that I'm doing anything wrong.

To the extent that other posters share my more-neutral interpretation of "fix", posts in this thread may not be intended as an attack on your (or anyone else's) playstyle.

---

To the "fix it" point, I think Unoriginal was moreso observing that the OP addressed this in a way to make it seem like the game itself needs "fixing" and not issues at one specific table or the other. I get that the OP is more nuanced than that, but it seems implied there and in the other comments that 5e just has a bunch of "broken" things that need a universal change at every table. But at my table, and maybe Unoriginal's as well as many other's, I haven't run into most if any of these problems with the exception of an imperfectly balanced game, which is always going to happen.


And as far as reading the rules goes, maybe we just run in different circles and DM in different ways. Most of the players I play with don't know the rules even 1/4 as well as I do. I actually find that helpful because they don't try to min/max to death or abuse wording. They just tell me what they want to do and I tell them if/how they can do it. If they ever read a spell or ability and mistake a "melee weapon attack " for an "attack with a melee weapon" then I just let them know about the relevant "rule interaction." I think it's incredibly rare for those two phrases to actually matter though isn't it? I can only think of things like when you throw a dagger it becomes a "thrown weapon" so "attack with melee weapon" no longer applies. But neither would a "melee weapon attack," so most of the time I don't think the parsing is needed.

I don't know. Maybe there are actually dozens of instances where it's really confusing and really really important to distinguish between the two. I haven't heard of or encountered specific examples yet though since 5e was released. If you have any I'd be interested in hearing them.

Sidenote: I almost never check Twitter or Sage Advice for rules (certainly never during a game session), but that's mostly because there's rarely ever a large disagreement about how the rules should work in the games I play in. I can think of the discussion on Leomund's Tiny Hut having a floor, but that's really it. Even my DM often asks me at the table how I would typically rule on a situation if it were my game, and we just work through it quickly to get back into the RP.

how about making all the short rest ability be at will except for short rest abilities that would break the world that stays short rest based.(such as short rest abilities that creates lakes but a short rest ability which create ten liters of water is not world breaking even if it is very useful and short rest fabricate is the kind of thing that would get limited)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noob

how about making all the short rest ability be at will except for short rest abilities that would break the world that stays short rest based.(such as short rest abilities that creates lakes but a short rest ability which create ten liters of water is not world breaking even if it is very useful and short rest fabricate is the kind of thing that would get limited)

---

So a monk can stunning strike, step of the wind, and flurry of blows every single attack? Yeah, no.

Roberts is on point. Almost all of the games I was a player in had no changes to any rules and they were usually fun, and a good DM can usually make a ruling on the spot.



For example: Several weapons are better or worse, with disassociated costs (like how the Trident is so bad as a martial weapon). On top of that, the game allows us to "reflavor" things into any direction we want, so there's nothing stopping us from reflavoring a Short Sword into a Scimitar, except for the fact that a Scimitar already exists (at 2.5x the cost of a Short Sword).

So either Reflavoring is broken, and "customizing" parts of your character should come at an extra cost (to maintain balance with the weapons), or the weapons need fixing (to maintain balance with the existing option to reflavor them).

That's one direct example, and most people would just say "ignore it", which is the same kind of solution of kicking dirt under the rug. It might not be relevant if you ignore it, but that still doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

So a monk can stunning strike, step of the wind, and flurry of blows every single attack? Yeah, no.

---

Sorry to get pedantic, but you can't Step of the Wind and use a Bonus Action attack in the same turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game

Sorry to get pedantic, but you can't Step of the Wind and use a Bonus Action attack in the same turn.

---

True. But not having ki point limits would make 4e monks broken once they get fireball--at will fireballs. Or all their other abilities.

As for short rests in general, my preferred solution (since I run more cinematic games) is something like this:

You get 2 short rest tokens at the end of each long rest. As long as you have a few minutes to rest out of combat (or anything else with significant time pressure), you can spend one for the benefits of a short rest.

That, or I've given a "short-rest-in-a-can" potion in-game. Drink it over a minute of uninterrupted time and you have a short rest. These are given out when the quest-giver knows they're on a deadline. Here, they can stock up if they don't need the second rest and use one later (to give incentives to be sparing with resources).

I'm also quite open about "now would be a good time to take a short rest" comments, depending on the group in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

True. But not having ki point limits would make 4e monks broken once they get fireball--at will fireballs. Or all their other abilities.

As for short rests in general, my preferred solution (since I run more cinematic games) is something like this:

You get 2 short rest tokens at the end of each long rest. As long as you have a few minutes to rest out of combat (or anything else with significant time pressure), you can spend one for the benefits of a short rest.

That, or I've given a "short-rest-in-a-can" potion in-game. Drink it over a minute of uninterrupted time and you have a short rest. These are given out when the quest-giver knows they're on a deadline. Here, they can stock up if they don't need the second rest and use one later (to give incentives to be sparing with resources).

I'm also quite open about "now would be a good time to take a short rest" comments, depending on the group in question.

---

One solution I've been wanting to implement was a variant on the Gritty variants on rests.
Short Rests are 4 hours, a Long Rest is 24 hours.

To compensate for the fact that rests may not be available for when players may need to fight, I want to implement Ley Lines, which shorten the time it takes to rest when resting in one of these locations, and you can simply "feel" these locations, even without any magical experience. Ley Lines cut the time for a rest by 80%, making a Short Rest about 45 minutes, and making a Long Rest about 4 hours. Most Ley Lines are within dungeons, as many people in power seek to use this resource, but the Ley Lines shift slightly each year, making it difficult to plan a specific room or building to their use.

As a result, an entire dungeon can be built with a Ley Line point in the center, but several centuries later, the Ley Line point may be focused in the dungeon's latrine or some other unfortunate location that may not make sense.

This solves the problem of players having both too many rests and too few, with the decision being at my discretion to fine tune.