D&D 5E A mechanical solution to the problem with rests

[CapnZapp]

Which significantly devalues Rope Trick and Teleport over the core game.

Thank the gods for that!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[KarinsDad]

Thank the gods for that!

In the list of things that 5E designers got subpar, I tend to think that Rope Trick and Teleport are not very high on that list. I have never seen Rope Trick in play (anecdotal to be sure) and PCs do not get to level 13 in many campaigns.

There are a lot more problematic spells than those two.

 

[Hillsy7]

[As a disclaimer - I'm rather uncomfortable taking away this sort of mechanic from narrative control of the DM, and so my suggestion is very much coloured by that. Basically the DM has control of this already - its's called the story. However, I will attempt to Codify that....]

I think having XP, rests, and refreshes as a progression mechanic adds more gamification than it reduces. It also risks watering down social use powers, and player creativity - plus of course the GM would have to inform the party when they are in a social "encounter" rather than just acting socially.....

I would instead prefer to see any management of party resting rates dealt by the GM in story and word terms, rather than by XP/Levelling terms. For example, a simple threat from a DM that something will change in world terms should the players dally - perhaps this is codified to "You enter the stronghold - you have only a few hours before [insert something unpleasant permanent damage to the world]" - e.g. Before the BBEG sends his assassins out. This means they can still succeed, but there are permanent consequences to too much resting, like a King is killed and the replacement is a pal of the BBEG and turns the town against the party.

Another option would be to explicit abotu using random ecounter tables, and let the party know that some of these might be pretty crap - too many rests increases the probability that the room the rest in is actually a trap, or returning back to the inn risks mistaken identity by the guards, and some magic items being confiscated as contraband.

Also, healing potions that degrade - rest too often, they are rendered useless (depends on party make up of course), Items that when activated work for a period of time then require 8 hours of recharge, and so on......

Basically, the DM can put lots of time pressure in codified ways (If you take more than 3 short rests the Bad Guy gets to enact "a scheme" which will make your position in the world worse), without having to resort to hard limitations (You are out of refreshes for the day now...any rests recharge no powers) which promote more gamification.....

My tuppenceworth anyway....

 

[clearstream]

Are you saying that PCs only get the equivalent of two short rests and one long rest per level (until higher level) instead of per adventuring day?

Yes, but please see my clarification for you further below.

What happens if they have a few boss fights back to back?

Focusing on the XP budget per adventuring day addresses this issue. Those boss fights will be deadly, reducing the number of other encounters that day (because they consume the XP budget for it).

I'm not sure your analysis on XP is correct, regardless of designer intent. The PCs in my game sure as heck do not level up every few adventuring days.

To make that transparent, these are my steps -

1. Work out XP needed for next level by subtracting current level's XP from next level's XP (if you are level 2 going to level 3, 900-300=600 needed) - this is PHB15
2. Work out adventuring days needed by dividing the XP needed for next level by the expected XP earned for each day (if you are level 2 you need 600 and expect 600 so that = 1) - this is DMG84
3. Work out expected short and long rests by multiplying adventuring days by 2.5 and 1 respectively (so if you are level 2 going to level 3 you expect 2 short and 1 long rest) - this is also DMG84

For my first pass, I low-balled minor recoveries: I think players should gain 2 more minor recoveries at 5th level. An odd feature of the game balance is that it is faster to gain each level from 12 to 20, than from 4 to 11. From designer comments, that is intentional.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I disagree with the OP's premise. I don't think the game fundamentally designed balance around the "you will have 6-8 encounters per day, etc etc" I really think people are reading into that way more than they should be. Rather, I think they are just giving a suggestion. That typically on average, you'll probably have 6-8 encounters per day based on how the average gamer plays. But it's not a hard rule, and not how the game was designed around. Sometimes you may have only 2 much harder encounters per day with a short rest between each, or you may be a dozen easy encounters per day with no short rests at all. As far as balancing goes, the encounter builder is more important than then 6-8 encounters per day. That was just an example. And even then, the guidelines are just that: guidelines. Suggestions. Treating them as some sort of hard rule or something that the game was built around is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Blue]

First thing I want to say - I really like how you are thinking outside the box with this. I'll stay within your requests and look at this within the bounds of XP per encounter, XP only from encounters, and recommended encounters per short & long rest being correct.

Having said that, I think that one facet of the current system that is missing is that in the theoretical 6-8 encounter per long rest with short rests every 1/3 of the way (as per the DM), there is an implied gap of no rests. This allows DMs to create tension based on resource depletion - running low on spells, HPs, features, etc. It's just one way to create tension, but one in common usage.

13th Age is a d20 game that shares a lot of philosophy and DNA with 5e. They also unhooked their equivalent of a long rest from the narrative, but in order to keep the gaps it only comes after 4 combat encounters. The DM can give it early if the encounters are harder, and the characters can take one early but they will suffer a campaign setback if they do so.

Basing rests on number of encounters, or to be closer to what you were doing, based on encounter XP, would give the same number of rests (short and long) as you are proposing, but gives back the tension control of running low on resources. So a short rest could happen every certain amount of XP and a long rest at three times that. Renaming them to take out the word "rest" to help divorce it from the narrative would probably be helpful.

This gives the same results as what you suggested but paces it evenly over the whole level.

 

[mflayermonk]

1. You should probably create another thread for opinions on if this is good or bad, because people will constantly post about it (as has happened in the past).

2. I've tread this ground, with the same math. The game was fine and had no problems. The main sticking point came down to spend rests as a party or spend rests individually.

3. After doing this, I built a system where PC rests earn the DM spending points for more monsters, reset at the midpoint and beginning of the level. I secretly recorded countermeasures the PCs could take to deprive monsters of this bonus xp. That system worked pretty well.

 

[jgsugden]

I still find the level of disclosure on this topic to be ridiculous. This is the type of thing the DM can adjust on the fly and move beyond without wasting time delving into fine details on the rules.

There are a million aspects to D&D that you can hyperfocus on and note potential problems. They're inevitable in such a game with such broad mechanics. DON'T. DO. IT. Admiral Ackbar will tell you why you shouldn't.

I play in a lot of games. They're quite varied in style and approach to encounter building. Some tend to have only one combat per adventuring day for half the encounters we face, while others never have less than 4 encounters before a short rest and never more than one short rest before a long rest (NEVER). Despite this wide array of approaches, the game has not suffered because they use one set of resting rules. You're much better off spending time crafting a great story for the game than worrying about details like resting rules. If the only encounter in an adventuring day is an easy one, make it a fun and interesting encounter and it still results in a great game - even if it doesn't pose a life and death risk to the PCs. If you have 8 encounters per LR with a SR after the 5th... just make sure they're all fun and don't exceed the recommendations in the DMG by too much. As long as they're fun, you won't have a problem.

 

[goatmeal]

Assuming the math from your table is correct, I think you are still short changing the PCs. (1.5 at level 4 for example)

I think the best option is to let the story dictate the game balance the DM wants (as has been mentioned). If the PCs are going too slowly there are consequences: interrupted rests at lower levels and failure to complete all aspects of the quest at higher levels (they stop the BBEG, but not before he kills the NPC they were trying to rescue).

 

[clearstream]

I disagree with the OP's premise. I don't think the game fundamentally designed balance around the "you will have 6-8 encounters per day, etc etc" I really think people are reading into that way more than they should be. Rather, I think they are just giving a suggestion. That typically on average, you'll probably have 6-8 encounters per day based on how the average gamer plays. But it's not a hard rule, and not how the game was designed around. Sometimes you may have only 2 much harder encounters per day with a short rest between each, or you may be a dozen easy encounters per day with no short rests at all. As far as balancing goes, the encounter builder is more important than then 6-8 encounters per day. That was just an example.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, as your examples are literally included in my premise. The RAW reads that "If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer." The encounter tables then adjust for that. So as the examples you picked don't support your critique, can you think of any examples that do support it?

And even then, the guidelines are just that: guidelines. Suggestions. Treating them as some sort of hard rule or something that the game was built around is fundamentally flawed.

How does being a guideline stop something from being an important part of game balance?