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

[Tobold]

Early on in my group when we were all new, including the DM, the conversation pretty much would have gone this way except I would say "Let's make it a long rest, so I can get my uses of Rage back." Since no one could think of a good reason not to take the Long Rest we would do it. Then by barb was outshining the Fighter. We still had fun, but I can't help but think it would have been better if I hadn't been so selfish.

Thank you. This is probably the best explanation of the problem in the whole thread.

The question is not whether the 6-8 medium to hard encounters per adventuring day is a rule or a guideline. It is just a simple fact that the devs designed game balance, both in terms of players vs. monsters and in terms of class balance based on a premise of this many encounters between rests. Of course 5th edition D&D remains viable with any other resting setup or house rule. But if you run a campaign with more frequent long rests for example, certain classes are going to be overpowered and others are going to be underpowered.

It is only natural for players to push for more frequent rests if that makes their character more powerful. And it is up to the DM to deal with that request and see what the negative consequences in terms of too trivial encounters or players unhappy with their devalued class would be. Fundamentally there are three solutions that the DM can use:

1. A story-based solution where the DM basically tells the group that they can't rest when they want because of time or other constraints; that solution wears thin over time as time constraints don't work with every single story.
2. A consequence solution, where the world reacts to the group taking a rest, e.g. with the monsters using the time to defend better; that solution only solves the players vs. monsters balance issue, and doesn't help the poor fighter or warlock being constantly outshone by the frequently rested barbarian or wizard.
3. A mechanical solution where the DM changes the resting rules from the standard 8-hour long rest gives you back all resources. The DMG even lists an option like the long rest takes 7 days version. And this forum is full of proposals.

 

[clearstream]

I think that one potential flaw in this design is that there are a lot of resources used in game outside of adventuring. PCs cast spells in town to acquire information or accomplish other goals all of the time without actually adventuring and definitively gaining experience per se. Those resources get recovered automatically via normal resting, even though the actions done might not acquire a lot of experience or any experience at all. So unless the PCs can both recover and rest, it would seem like this system would be punitive to players who like to use their limited resource abilities in town without necessarily "adventuring".

That's a good point, and @FrogReaver mentioned duration abilities as well. Even if some duration abilities could use the nerf, many are fine. Obviously cantrips, rituals, skill uses, and many class features will be fine to use in town as they are not consumed by use. Spells like Animate Dead or Animal Friendship pose a problem. As I commented to @Jester David, it is possible we're overstating the actual impact so as a game designer I would advocate using the system as written first. I suspect we will find that (infrequently) the system is problematic - just as Gritty Realism from the DMG or any attempt to adjust resting is FTM. It's a poser!

D&D would be a better game IMO if it did not have a lock-in of this nature. Good rules tend to be flexible and extensible. Anyway, good points - solution needed.

 

[clearstream]

Awful, awful idea that hog-ties a game so closely to the formula that the DM has no say over their own game pacing.

Terrible...

With apologies, I had to laugh with your post It was nicely short and pithy.

Recoveries are about DM freedom. The rests system at present hog-ties a DM horribly. They either have to live with short-rest classes being outmatched by long-rest classes and/or go with all-deadly encounters or many mechanically meaningless encounters. Or they have to sweat to find ways to forestall or interrupt rests. Hours of random encounter combats when I'd rather get on with beautifully crafted, fun narrative combats? No thanks.

 

[KarinsDad]

So there's a clear downside to the spell, it creates monsters that you can't control forever...
...except that you pretty much can, by systematically casting every day. A system or ruling that monkeywrenches that kind of abuse restores the limitation, just like time pressure, linear plotting, or the OP's system restores the limitted-uses that are so easily undermined or let slide. Two birds &c..

Animate Dead bugs you as a spell? Seriously?

You call that abuse? For undead that cannot be healed, and can almost never be brought into a town. Sure, if you have murder hobo PCs and the rest of the PCs are fine with undead pets in the party, you might be able to keep replenishing your stock, but there are a lot of other spells that are more problematic than Animate Dead.

Note: We once had a player bring in a (anti-undead) Paladin PC (as DM, it was a rush to bring in a new PC and I hadn't read about his abilities) and when the PC Necromancer started bringing his pets out of a group Bag of Holding, the Paladin started attacking the pets. Good times.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Yes. The system I propose envisions that the choice to spend a recovery is always per player. They are free to take a breather without spending one. Fully integrated with D&D I believe one would end up making tweaks such as recovering exhaustion levels and gaining training days (if used) through calendar rests. Additionally, I believe there would need to be something like Arcane Recovery for abilities that are consumed by use, but that have short durations or might be used in situations that don't grant XP.

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.

There are a few different systems out there that propose something like that. I group them as "threat" systems and they work like a squashy balloon. Players push down on challenge in one place, so it swells up in another place. That doesn't work for me because I expressly want to have mechanically meaningful less-challenging encounters, as well as challenging ones, and deadly ones. I believe that offers more variety. I also want to sustain the intended balance between short and long rest replenishing abilities. Threat systems don't deliver on those desires.

 

[clearstream]

Animate Dead bugs you as a spell? Seriously?

I believe what [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is bugged by is that the spell has a duration yet through abusing rests it can be made indefinite. If you read the Animate Dead spell text allowing you to maintain up to four previously animated undead with one cast, I believe you can see that the designer intent is that the spell can be maintained indefinitely... at the cost of a spell slot.

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

I believe what [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is bugged by is that the spell has a duration yet through abusing rests it can be made indefinite.

Sorry, I still don't understand the problem. The spell could just as easily been written that the spell caster does not gain the spell slot back until all of the undead are destroyed.

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.

I have no idea what Crawford wrote, but a third level slot sounds like a cost and has a ton less chance of abuse than spells like Animate Objects (granted, a 5th level spell).

Sure, if you create the undead at night, then you could cast your third level spell before taking a long rest each night and regain the slot in the morning. On the other hand, having a Necromancer in our group multiple times, that doesn't always work out too well. For one, the Necromancer might not have a third level slot remaining, so he might have to use a higher level slot (or alternatively, he loses control of the undead). There are times when long rests are interrupted and having one fewer spell slot is still a resource drain.

Heck, Find Familiar has an indefinite duration (shy of the pet getting destroyed). I don't see anyone griping about that, but Find Familiar is a very useful spell. My Barbarian/Wizard uses his Familiar a lot to use the Help action, let alone the ton of other uses that a familiar can have. Plus unlike the undead, the Wizard can hide his familiar at any time and I'm not even sure that a Detect Magic would spot it.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

So you're fine with this "significantly devaluing" something you have never seen or used, I take it?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

[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....

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.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I would be interested if you outlined this system.

(In a new thread, of course)

Thx


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app