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

[dave2008]

Our table must be more self managing.

That is your answer. Many of the issues brought up by CapnZapp and others on these forum's are just not issues for my group. Generally, we don't have an issue with the encounter guidelines, short or long rests, weak monsters, caster supremacy, etc., etc. Most, if not all, of the issues are subjective and dependent on how a particular group plays the game.

That being said, I can recognize the potential problems and how others are having issues. Thus I enjoy the discussions and solutions to the problems that my group is not experiencing.

 

[Hillsy7]

Sounds reasonable.

Now, if just this was codified enough so every adventure writer got that memo...

In other words, this might work for your home campaign but it does nothing for official published adventures.

The DMG is far far too weak at stipulating that this is outright necessary. It simply is not the standard.

You're right you could codify "story beats", but this is not done.

Firstly - the table of rests to level is not done - we are imagining solutions......so all options should be on the table.....

I would say this - there's a metric tonne of stuff in the PHB and DMG that isn't codified that affects "balanced play" both in terms of character development, "poweredness", gameplay opportunity, etc etc.....This is also a memo every adventure writer didn't get, and basically it gets folded in over time into the GMs experience and then - as you say - gets translated into home campaigns. I would say this is a feature of D&D, not a bug....

Now the issues arising from rest rates and 'recovery' I would posit are not blinding obvious to new games or players. I would again wager that egregious gameplay optimisation (e.g taking a long rest after every room in a dungeon as an extreme example so the level 3 Cleric can recharge) is going to either a) be so blindingly ridiculous the DM will knock it on the head early on by just pointing out it's a dungeon, not a hotel, or b) be self regulated by players wanting to move on who don't need the rest - e.g. The Rogue character, or just an eager player.

Therefore, I therefore argue that by the time this resting problem is clearly affecting gameplay, the GM is going to be in a position to start applying more.....imaginative solutions to the problem. Something as simple as having the Ogre from the next room stop waiting for the party to come to him, and goes to the party while they are trying to plug the Warlock into his cosmic power pack.....

Now - this may not be optimal design from a "Cover all bases" point of view. And lets face it, we all have our prejudices, biases and bugbears we like to scratch. But I would say that if the OP is looking for a codified solution, I would suggest a better way to solve the problem and retain GM control of the narrative would be half a page of story based solutions rather than a hard table that punishes players for taking risks by reducing their effectiveness (You can no longer restore HP until you level up - best hide at the back Barbarian man, though of course without you we might not survive the fight....nevermind, eh?).

Again, however, this is my personal preference - many players would probably prefer a rigid rest-to-level system rather than a narrative one, regardless of how well codified either is

 

[Tony Vargas]

Animate Dead bugs you as a spell?

It was one of your examples, you focused on it.

You call that abuse?

Systematically using-recharging-using an ability, indefinitely, even when not adventuring, is a red flag. Most abilities don't get (ab)used that way.

If you ignore Crawford's unsagacious advice, the cost of maintaining Animate Dead is per RAI one 3rd level spell slot. Maybe that is enough of a cost. If you follow Crawford's advice, the spell has no cost at all.

Many spells have no cost but the slot to cast them. Outside of time pressure of some sort, that's no cost, at all.

It's an obvious downside to an n/day limitation, but one we're so accustomed to, it's easy to lose sight of.

 

[clearstream]

It's an obvious downside to an n/day limitation, but one we're so accustomed to, it's easy to lose sight of.

I should be clear that I'm not in love with trivially avoided downsides. And agree that systematically abusing abilities that way can become a problem.

 

[clearstream]

I would say that if the OP is looking for a codified solution, I would suggest a better way to solve the problem and retain GM control of the narrative would be half a page of story based solutions rather than a hard table that punishes players for taking risks by reducing their effectiveness (You can no longer restore HP until you level up - best hide at the back Barbarian man, though of course without you we might not survive the fight....nevermind, eh?).

I appreciated your post overall, but I feel the reasoning contains some problems. Let's say that due to our story-based solutions, rests matter. If rests really matter, then our Barbarian has the same problems as they would under a mechanical solution. They can't rest.

What I believe you might be saying is you prefer a system under which attrition can be suspended when it is inconvenient. A DM can suspend any rule or guideline that becomes inconvenient, but if we do suspend attrition whenever it puts a squeeze on one of our players, then non-deadly encounters become mechanically meaningless. Which in part is the problem we're trying to solve. Another part of the problem is that if our barbarian knows that - when it comes down to it - we'll allow a rest, they gain a free pass to abuse their class features and over-shadow other characters. The game shouldn't be engineered that way.

 

[Jester David]

How does your criticism here take effect, mechanically? Rest are tied to levels and levels are tied to encounters. The first couple of levels take about 1 adventuring day worth of encounters (so 2-3 short and 1 long rest). The next ten take about 2 adventuring days worth of encounters. The last several take about 1 and half adventuring days. So the chart ramps then is fairly flat (hence gaining more at level 5).

Most I don't see the casual majority of most gamers recalling that very easily. They'd need to check.
And changing the rate of rest that has become comfortable halfway through a campaign would be unpleasant. Suddenly, when they expected two rests, they get one. I can easily imagine someone at every table forgetting.

Do you foresee that players will refuse to rest when a colleague wants to, because they don't want to expend any recoveries? (Note that they can rest with their colleague without spending recoveries, so you're assuming they just object to stopping!) A table with two entries (2 minor 1 major, 4 minor 2 major) is within the abilities of gamers to recall without looking it up, don't you think?

I think there's already pressure and objections against resting, with some pushing to continue adventuring.

It'll make those slightly easier, if player milk their recoveries for maximum value. That feels like a far cry from "won't work"?

Right. The whole game gets easier and the benefits of the system are lost. It doesn't do it's intended function. Hence "won't work".

Good points worth raising. I considered the bad luck aspect against practical experience and believe that it makes very little difference to the rest situation. Percentually, players fail very few encounters and giving them greater control over rests will likely make the rests they do take more effective.

There's a range of success beyond just "succeed" and "fail". For players, "failure" is more often taking that critical hit or using one more spell than planned or failing that easy saving throw. Anything that burns through more resources than expected.

Exhaustion has to be tweaked both for the Gritty Realism option in the DMG, and for this system. It needs to be recovered from resting 8 hours or more (and whether or not a recovery is spent). That's one problem you quickly discover when you use Gritty Realism in a campaign that has a lot of overland travel!

Which is the point of that campaign. It's not meant to be tweaked: it's meant to be harder. The Gritty Realism option was encouraged for use with little combat. As it says in the book:
"It's a good option for campaigns that emphasise intrigue, politics, and interactions among other PCs, and in which combat is rare".

Bad luck (unexpected damage, rolling poorly etc) is fine. Reflecting and looking at my notes from years of campaigns, I honestly believe that your concern here is overstated. In the worst case, deaths and TPKs, the affected characters can't benefit from rests.
Several people have raised a criticism of the "what about when encounters vary in number or danger?" kind. More dangerous encounters grant more XP, so the system naturally adjusts itself by bringing next level closer.

I'd suggest playtesting this houserule first. Try it with scene or chapter from a published adventure, some homebrew, and a couple different types of story.

 

[Hillsy7]

I appreciated your post overall, but I feel the reasoning contains some problems. Let's say that due to our story-based solutions, rests matter. If rests really matter, then our Barbarian has the same problems as they would under a mechanical solution. They can't rest.

What I believe you might be saying is you prefer a system under which attrition can be suspended when it is inconvenient. A DM can suspend any rule or guideline that becomes inconvenient, but if we do suspend attrition whenever it puts a squeeze on one of our players, then non-deadly encounters become mechanically meaningless. Which in part is the problem we're trying to solve. Another part of the problem is that if our barbarian knows that - when it comes down to it - we'll allow a rest, they gain a free pass to abuse their class features and over-shadow other characters. The game shouldn't be engineered that way.

Nope. Nothing of the sort.

In my first post I said: I would instead prefer to see any management of party resting rates dealt by the GM in story and world terms, rather than by XP/Levelling terms. Namely that if you want to limit resting for whatever reason, make it tied to story/world limitations rather than a hard rule of 'x' rests per level. The situation above involved 2 specific situations with "hard rule" vs Story Rule, which is why perhaps it seems unclear....

Basically point 1 is that with a story focus, you have the flexibility to reward a player who potentially does something, say, sub-optimal in HP terms, but awesome in narrative roleplay terms. I'm thinking of Matt Mercer talking about grappling a wyvern while crawling down a cliff and trying to ride it, instead of just hitting it with an axe. He barely survived, the wyvern didn't, but with a hard rule, he's now at 3 HP and is now hindered by resource managment. A more narrative approach would flex any rest constraints basically allow an additional quick rest, because Damn! that was cool.....

Point 2 is that a more narrative approach allows a 3rd option when faced with a tough decision: facing the BBEG with your Barbarian at half HP, you can fight, not fight, or rest and pray there arent' any consequences for dallying. With a hard Rest-to-Level rule, there is no option 3. It's Fight or go back to town and buy potions. Couching it in narrative terms ("The clock is ticking!") allows for consequences of choices, rather than making it a binary yes or no. It also means you as a GM can allow things to move forward even when the party have.....kinda failed.

This isn't a situation of GM vs Players, this is the GM laying out a challenge and using time/resource constraint (resting) to modify what "Success or Failure" looks like

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope. Nothing of the sort.

In my first post I said: I would instead prefer to see any management of party resting rates dealt by the GM in story and world terms, rather than by XP/Levelling terms. Namely that if you want to limit resting for whatever reason, make it tied to story/world limitations rather than a hard rule of 'x' rests per level. The situation above involved 2 specific situations with "hard rule" vs Story Rule, which is why perhaps it seems unclear....

Basically point 1 is that with a story focus, you have the flexibility to reward a player who potentially does something, say, sub-optimal in HP terms, but awesome in narrative roleplay terms. I'm thinking of Matt Mercer talking about grappling a wyvern while crawling down a cliff and trying to ride it, instead of just hitting it with an axe. He barely survived, the wyvern didn't, but with a hard rule, he's now at 3 HP and is now hindered by resource managment. A more narrative approach would flex any rest constraints basically allow an additional quick rest, because Damn! that was cool.....

Point 2 is that a more narrative approach allows a 3rd option when faced with a tough decision: facing the BBEG with your Barbarian at half HP, you can fight, not fight, or rest and pray there arent' any consequences for dallying. With a hard Rest-to-Level rule, there is no option 3. It's Fight or go back to town and buy potions. Couching it in narrative terms ("The clock is ticking!") allows for consequences of choices, rather than making it a binary yes or no. It also means you as a GM can allow things to move forward even when the party have.....kinda failed.

This isn't a situation of GM vs Players, this is the GM laying out a challenge and using time/resource constraint (resting) to modify what "Success or Failure" looks like

I honestly don't think I'd enjoy a game where rests happened outside of what is making sense in the game world. It would absolutely destroy the verisimilitude for me to have rests occur for any metagaming purpose. Doesn't matter how many resources you have, doesn't matter how many encounters you've had, doesn't matter your level. PCs dictate when they want to rest, and whatever is happening in the game world dictates if that's successful or not. And as you mention, some of the most memorable adventures where when the PCs were out of resources but resting wasn't an option, and they overcame the odds anyway. That brings a good tension to the adventure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope. Nothing of the sort.

Seems exactly of the sort. 'Story based' just means the players are free to distort game balance (collect system mastery rewards) and punch down encounter difficulties, whether it's by pushing a mechanical button like a spell or gaming the DM.

Note that there's really no such thing as a 'hard rule' when the DM is making up said rule to try to improve his campaign. The idea in the OP does leave it open to the DM to deny recoveries, if the players don't meet the rest requirements, so, on that side, all the same flexibility (still not as much flexibility as the DM should have, IMHO) to apply time pressure is there. The door could easily be opened to extra recoveries, as well. The recovery mechanic just gives players something to work with, a resource-management trade-off, rather than always having an incentive to maximize available resources in addition to managing them within a day or encounter (or single-encounter day; or, as came up, systematically abuse such resources over days of downtime).

 

[Hillsy7]

Seems exactly of the sort. 'Story based' just means the players are free to distort game balance (collect system mastery rewards) and punch down encounter difficulties, whether it's by pushing a mechanical button like a spell or gaming the DM.

Gaming the DM? That's a new one......

"We rest."
"Again?"
"Yeah, I need more rages."
"The clock is ticking, you know"
*Waves hand* "The clock isn't ticking for half an hour"
"....yeah it is. And The summoning will be done in about...ooo.....five minutes"
*Waves hand again* "You won't summon anything"
"Yeah I will, and the demon is going to destroy your home village First.....Polymorphed as you."
*Stares at hand* "Why aren't you working?!"