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

[Sacrosanct]

Again, I disagree with your premise. The range of a magic missile isn't really a guideline. It's presented as a mechanical rule. Encounter building is a guideline, and they emphasize it as such, whereas they do not such thing with something like a spell description. There is a difference, and it's important. Which goes back to me saying you're taking those guidelines too literally and reading way too much into them. So if this discussion goes nowhere, it's only because you're treating suggestions as the same level of literalness as hard rules. Flawed basic premise.

*Edit* I just pulled up my DMG and looked to support my position. For one, right in the introduction, the DMG tells you that the PHB is rules, and the DMG is a guide to help you as the DM "adjudicate the rules", and to "give advice" on how to run the game. Also in the introduction it says right up front to tailor your adventures to fit the players' styles. Then in the encounter section itself, it's littered with phrases like "might", "may", and "likely". Then of course, the title of the book is called Dungeon Master's Guide. So clearly there is a distinction between something like a spell description or how a class feature works, and how encounter guidelines are just that--guidelines you may adjust as needed or desired.

 

[Jester David]

The first problem with tying rests to levels is that the number of adventuring "days" between adventures varies. So you'd need to have the rules change at different level tiers.
Making it simple like "you have two long rests and 5 short rests each level" just means at low levels and high levels you can still rest whenever you want. Having to consult a table is awkward, and mandates everyone be the same level.

It won't work with the published adventures though, because those have story based levelling. So you have fewer encounters per level.
It also won't work well with any campaign that uses quest experience, or awards experience for bypassing encounters without combat.

It has the usual flaws with any system that firmly limits the number of rests based on an arbitrary criteria (number of encounters, amount of xp gained, time adventured, or, in this case, level): it's not reactive to the story and bad luck with the party

What happens when someone gets poisoned, turned to stone, cursed, diseased and the party needs to rest to prepare different spells?
What happen when they take a bunch of damage from the environment? Or traps? End up exhausted after travelling through the jungle?
What happens when the party takes and unexpected amount of damage in a fight, when the DM rolls well and the players roll poorly?
What happens when the party accidentally triggers two combat encounters at once and gets badly hurt?

If the rules make no allowances for the party to rest earlier than expected, then they risk being forced into a situation where they have to continue to adventure at significantly reduced power and risk a TPK, ending the campaign.

 

[mflayermonk]

If the rules make no allowances for the party to rest earlier than expected, then they risk being forced into a situation where they have to continue to adventure at significantly reduced power and risk a TPK, ending the campaign.

I think PCs are much more resourceful than you are giving them credit for.

 

[Jester David]

I think PCs are much more resourceful than you are giving them credit for.

Sometimes.
When they're down a party member because someone was turned to stone, or failed a save against a banshee, or was hit by a intellect devoured, or any of the myriad nasty effects in the game, then being "resourceful" only gets you so far.

The game isn't always fair. Sometimes you get knocked off a cliff and take a crazy amount of falling damage. Sometimes the positioning in the fight gets funky and all the enemies focus fire on one character.

Yeah, *maybe* they can survive that one or two more fights to hit the arbitrary goalpost chosen by a hard rule. But maybe they can't. And the penalty for failure is steep.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Kinda the point: the core game makes them far too valuable - potentially game-breaking, really.

But, you still need to be able to take a rest to spend the point, if I understand the proposed system correctly, so the spells would still be useful, just not systematically abuseable.

What do you do if the players foolishly waste their recoveries early in the level with little effect and find themselves having still half a level to go with no more resources, spell slots, or hit points available?

Mandatory retirement. They get that sinking feeling that their luck is running out, and just settle down and open the inn where the new party meets to start their first adventure.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Ok, so I have another few questions. You mentioned that if a rest gets interrupted, the recovery is not lost.

So, how long does a recovery last? Is it the same amount of time like short and long rests?

One PC can recover while other PCs are not recovering, correct? So, couldn't you run into a situation where: Encounter 1, PC1 recovery, Encounter 2, PC2 recovery, Encounter 3, PC3 recovery?

In other words, when the players view it narratively as the party holing up in a room, they either wait until a majority of PCs need a short (or long rest), or they just take a rest when it is imperative that just one or two PCs absolutely need a rest (e.g. if one PC is on low hit points and they don't want to cast spells or use potions). With your system, is everyone resting just because one PC takes a recovery? Or is there no actual rest involved? Or alternatively, are the other PCs going off and doing something else while one recovers?


Is the goal of your system to prevent PCs from taking multiple short rests in the middle of a delve? If so, I see where the recovery system would limit the total number of rests per PC over a given time frame (i.e. a level), but it doesn't seem to address the actual goal. PCs would still take a bunch of recoveries when they absolutely want to, it's just not called short rests. And they still seem to have the same average numbers of rests.

I must be missing something.

 

[KarinsDad]

Kinda the point: the core game makes them far too valuable - potentially game-breaking, really.

But, you still need to be able to take a rest to spend the point, if I understand the proposed system correctly, so the spells would still be useful, just not systematically abuseable.

Yeah, I don't see the difference (I must not yet understand his system).

First off, Rope Trick has not gotten used ever at our table, so I don't understand the abuse you talk of. Tiny Hut has been used maybe 3 or 4 times, but although one Wizard learned Rope Trick, it has never been used.

As for Teleport, do Wizards really use a 7th level slot, take a rest in town, get the 7th level slot back, and then use another Teleport to go back to the dungeon (at level 13 or higher)?

Ok, so the rest was safe. The Wizard is not only out his 7th level slot, but he is also out his Arcane Recovery and his chance to get back to the dungeon is not 100%. It seems like a high price to pay for a short rest when he could just cast Rope Trick or Tiny Hut instead.


On the subject of Rope Trick and Tiny Hut, a significant purpose of those spells is to hole up. By design of the game designers. So, if these are problem spells at ones table, just get rid of them instead of creating an entire new rest system.

Like I said, I must not understand this system. It seems to be a solution looking for a problem instead of the other way around.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On the subject of Rope Trick and Tiny Hut, a significant purpose of those spells is to hole up. By design of the game designers.

Yep, in that sense they are part of the issue this system seeks to resolve. Getting rid of them is only a partial 'solution,' though, as there are plenty of way to finagle 'too many' rests in an adventuring day, spells like those are just push-button ways of doing so.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yep, in that sense they are part of the issue this system seeks to resolve. Getting rid of them is only a partial 'solution,' though, as there are plenty of way to finagle 'too many' rests in an adventuring day, spells like those are just push-button ways of doing so.

Ok, so players at some tables are finagling in too many rests in an adventuring day? Err, how? Is this a Warlock thing? Cause I haven't seen it at our table, even when we had 3 multiclassed Warlocks at the same time. None of our players really push for rests unless they are both out of most of their "short rest recovered" abilities and they are somewhat low on hit points.

Yes, I see where this system will reduce the total number of "recoveries" between levels so it will reduce the overall number of rests, but won't the issue of "we recover in the middle of the dungeon" replace "we rest in the middle of the dungeon"? When a PC is at 5 hit points out of 60, the player is still going to try to get those back with a recovery.

Sorry, I still must be missing something.


Our table must be more self managing. If only one player wants to take a rest, he's told to hang out in the back and the party moves forward. Or possibly they'll give him a few potions or minor spells if he is bloodied. It's typically only if half or more of the players want to rest does the party actually rest. And with the entire game concept of it being the primary way to heal and with there being so many abilities that recover on a short rest, the game is designed for PCs to take short rests. I must not just see the abuse that you speak of at my table. Course, we have 6 PCs at the moment, so a larger group can shift roles around a bit more.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, I disagree with your premise. The range of a magic missile isn't really a guideline. It's presented as a mechanical rule. Encounter building is a guideline, and they emphasize it as such, whereas they do not such thing with something like a spell description. There is a difference, and it's important. Which goes back to me saying you're taking those guidelines too literally and reading way too much into them. So if this discussion goes nowhere, it's only because you're treating suggestions as the same level of literalness as hard rules. Flawed basic premise.

*Edit* I just pulled up my DMG and looked to support my position. For one, right in the introduction, the DMG tells you that the PHB is rules, and the DMG is a guide to help you as the DM "adjudicate the rules", and to "give advice" on how to run the game. Also in the introduction it says right up front to tailor your adventures to fit the players' styles. Then in the encounter section itself, it's littered with phrases like "might", "may", and "likely". Then of course, the title of the book is called Dungeon Master's Guide. So clearly there is a distinction between something like a spell description or how a class feature works, and how encounter guidelines are just that--guidelines you may adjust as needed or desired.

Actually, you just proved the opposite of what you wanted to prove.

If the PHB is rules and resting is solely within the rules (with the exception of variant resting rules in the DMG), then it is obviously within the purview of the DM to change those resting rules. In fact, since the DMG does have variant resting rules, it's implied that not all DMs would want to use the same resting rules.

Or are you claiming that the DM cannot make house rules?