D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[discosoc]

I haven't done this yet, but I'm close to just limited short rests to 2 per long rest. Any more than that won't provide any mechanical benefit. It still doesn't solve the problems that come with all the ways players have to trivialize the "adventure" aspect of the game (ambushes, food resources, scouting, etc), but it would stop some of the cheese that players tend to aim for.

 

[Mistwell]

The spiel, btw, is "just add time constraints through your story". But that's just dishonest - it's not part of either the rules or its supplements...* The rules never enforce any attrition.

* In fact, the rules bend over backwards making attrition as unenforceable as possible. It's practically impossible to interrupt a short rest. There are spells that trivialize the danger of a particular location (everything from Goodberry to Magnicifient Mansion via Rope Trick).

DMG, page 83, "Multipart Encounters"

DMG, page 84, bottom of page under "Short Rests".

DMG, page 85, "Random Encounters" particularly sub-section "Create Urgency" and "Drain Character Resources" and also under "Triggering Random Encounters" page 85-86.

 

[ExploderWizard]

DMG, page 83, "Multipart Encounters"

DMG, page 84, bottom of page under "Short Rests".

DMG, page 85, "Random Encounters" particularly sub-section "Create Urgency" and "Drain Character Resources" and also under "Triggering Random Encounters" page 85-86.

Yeah but the DMG doesn't send a little gnome to your game and implement it for you!!

 

[Corwin]

I haven't done this yet, but I'm close to just limited short rests to 2 per long rest. Any more than that won't provide any mechanical benefit. It still doesn't solve the problems that come with all the ways players have to trivialize the "adventure" aspect of the game (ambushes, food resources, scouting, etc), but it would stop some of the cheese that players tend to aim for.

One of the DMs I play with has been doing this for a while now. It gets regulated at the table a bit more rigidly than I feel is necessary in some instances, but it works okay.

 

[jasper]

DMG, page 83, "Multipart Encounters"

DMG, page 84, bottom of page under "Short Rests".

DMG, page 85, "Random Encounters" particularly sub-section "Create Urgency" and "Drain Character Resources" and also under "Triggering Random Encounters" page 85-86.

HOW DARE YOU QUOTE THE DMG AND GIVE PAGE NUMBERS!. That is Inconceivable! We shall meet on the duel field after a long rest!

 

[Cyrinishad]

DMG, page 83, "Multipart Encounters"

DMG, page 84, bottom of page under "Short Rests".

DMG, page 85, "Random Encounters" particularly sub-section "Create Urgency" and "Drain Character Resources" and also under "Triggering Random Encounters" page 85-86.

+1 to this... Mistwell laid the Rules references out pretty succinctly. So, despite CapnZapp's claims to the contrary, the rules laid out in the DMG address the issue directly...

 

[CapnZapp]

I have to hand it to you, Capn... you're trying your hardest to get other people to do your work for you so you don't have to. Which, if you can pull it off, more props to you.

Yes, this is correct - if by "other people" you mean WotC, the company I pay money to do the work so I don't have to.

But hey, if you keep asking for things that don't exist, maybe eventually someone WILL do your work for you and give you a working prototype of what you want. You just might have to... wait a while... for that to occur.

The only way to call WotC on how they try to eat the cake and have it too (=to get away with making an assumption while off-loading all the work required to make it true on DMs) is to raise awareness among their customers.

 

[CapnZapp]

The innovations introduced in 4e and to a large extent carried over into 5e were designed with the purpose and intention of largely doing away with the attrition model that D&D had theoretically relied upon in the 1e, 2e, and 3e eras.

It is therefore rather ridiculous to not acknowledge that and act like nothing has changed, and that challenging the players through attrition - always a difficult proposition - is now somehow supported by the system. It's not. It's deliberately deprecated by the system. Instead, in 4e and 5e, the idea is largely that you can reliably predict how many resources the party will have going into an encounter, and balance each encounter on that assumption.

Thank you for being honest.

Assuming you are correct, it would be a breath of fresh air if WotC went ahead and confessed they aren't really supporting d20 or backwards compatability.

Though you do not actually answer my question. You simply explain what the "idea" is. Essentially, you just repeat the assumption.

 

[CapnZapp]

During the playtest phase it became pretty obvious that there was no resting mechanic that would satisfy everyone. So sure enough, not everyone is satisfied. IMO, if you don't like the PHB rules, and you don't like any of the DMG alternatives, then make up house rules that you do like.

Fault the game if it makes you feel better, but at least be aware that if the game was designed to make you happy, there'd be a bunch of other people complaining.

The relevant question isn't about the resting mechanic. It's about the encounter assumption.

Was this playtested? That is, did the playtest provide feedback on the 6-8 encounter/2 short rest adventuring day assumption?

 

[CapnZapp]

As for the Official published supplements, they are supposed to to be somewhat easy.
They are meant for use with the Adventurers league

No they aren't.