D&D 5E Long Rest is a Problem

[ExploderWizard]

That's the Oberoni fallacy in action; claiming that a problem isn't a problem if the end-user is capable of fixing it.

Every edition of D&D ever published is one big Oberoni fallacy. The game was always intended to be what a particular group of players wanted to make of it. This notion of there being an objectively correct mechanical presentation and that anything else constitutes a "problem" is baffling.

These "problems" cease to exist when people take control of the games they play instead of expecting a company to do all their imagining for them.

 

[darjr]

Every D&D adventure ever has had to assume you're at full hit points after every long rest.

I think that's demonstrably not true, for instance the Against the Slavers adventure A4 STARTS with the PC's as prisoners after a big battle from the previous A3 adventure without gear or spells or any decent rest.

 

[darjr]

Every edition of D&D ever published is one big Oberoni fallacy. The game was always intended to be what a particular group of players wanted to make of it. This notion of there being an objectively correct mechanical presentation and that anything else constitutes a "problem" is baffling.

These "problems" cease to exist when people take control of the games they play instead of expecting a company to do all their imagining for them.

while I agree with the first part, I only agree to a certain degree. The rules do influence play. They also influence what kinds of things get published for the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The rules do influence play.

Of course. Since they can be tailored for your group I would say that the group has more influence over play than the rules. In short, the rules have as much influence as you give them.

They also influence what kinds of things get published for the game.

Yes. If what is being published for a game isn't to your taste then look for your product elsewhere. The market today is wonderful. I have found more cool stuff for my games either free, or at a fairly low cost from small press publishers for the past several years. Not that I mind spending on my hobby but if what I want happens to be cheaper AND better than the slick overproduced expensive stuff, so much the better.

It is a great time to be a gamer. There are so many offerings and options out there that it isn't worth the hassle to get bent out of shape because a single publisher isn't cranking out exactly what I want.

 

[darjr]

Well sure, I can look elsewhere. However the playtest is an invitation to tell WotC what I'd prefer and what I'd purchase from them. This isn't me lamenting that D&D isn't my kind of game, it's me telling folks what I'd like and hopefully maybe WotC will hear, maybe, I'm hoping.

But I do agree that it is a great time to be a gamer. There ARE a ton of great choices for games out there.

 

[Bagpuss]

At worse, they make an equal amount of nonsense. So, the baseline should be set at what's best for the game. Which is what all my arguments have been - it's best for the game to have at least some chance you won't be at full hit points, for the reasons I stated above (past adventure utility, future adventures, common experience for players, ability to house rule in both directions rather than just one, etc..). These are all, "best for the game" arguments rather than "what models lingering injuries best" arguments.

On a best for the game argument it is much easier to plan encounters if you know what resources players go into it with. If every party has a reset of resources after a fixed period then you have the same base line to start from. If you don't have that then you rarely can predict what hit points a party will face any encounter on, so they become that much harder to balance.

The day before one party might have breezed the previous encounters and be on full hit points, but another party could have had real trouble and be on less than half even after 8 hours. It makes adventure writing a pain.

Compare that with the current situation where both parties will be on full hit points, so it is much easier to plan for.

 

[keterys]

I think that's demonstrably not true, for instance the Against the Slavers adventure A4 STARTS with the PC's as prisoners after a big battle from the previous A3 adventure without gear or spells or any decent rest.

And does it let you take a long rest during the adventure, not expecting the cleric to heal people up?

Or does it have things in it to influence the PC's ability to rest up, so that they can't just randomly take time off in the middle of the adventure to reset?

Because: "Adventure stipulates PCs did not just have a long rest" sounds like it's proving my point, not yours.

 

[darjr]

And does it let you take a long rest during the adventure, not expecting the cleric to heal people up?

Yes, I think so, I believe you can sleep as a slave. I don't believe your PC can pray for spells.

 

[the Jester]

Every D&D adventure ever has had to assume you're at full hit points after every long rest.

I disagree. Someone mentioned A4, above, where you start out stripped of gear and spells. There are also some adventures with timelines that encourage the pcs to move on even if not fully healed (e.g. Red Hand of Doom), because the bad guys are proactive.

To those who are maintaining that not healing completely after every long rest just means the pcs rest for several days, IME that's true pretty rarely; in every edition prior to 4e, most days in the middle of an adventure, at least some of the pcs in my campaign started off down some hps or spells. Back in the 2e and earlier days, it was common for high-level pcs to start the day down 10 or 20 hps each if they were elbow-deep in an adventure; sometimes the cleric would wait to use most of his healing spells, because you never knew who might end up needing it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To those who are maintaining that not healing completely after every long rest just means the pcs rest for several days, IME that's true pretty rarely; in every edition prior to 4e, most days in the middle of an adventure, at least some of the pcs in my campaign started off down some hps or spells. Back in the 2e and earlier days, it was common for high-level pcs to start the day down 10 or 20 hps each if they were elbow-deep in an adventure; sometimes the cleric would wait to use most of his healing spells, because you never knew who might end up needing it.

I agree this happened but the game was different back then. 2e monsters super easy to beat the vast majority of the time. Starting the day down 20 hp didn't really matter if you had 50 and only expected to take 10 damage that day. Most of our 2e fights ended with the PCs taking no damage at all. A large number of them started and ended with the words "I cast fireball".

I've almost never seen a 3e party start the day with less than full hp, they could use their wands or their excess spells to heal before they went to sleep. Sometimes someone would say "I'm only down 10, it's not worth wasting a spell". But for the most part everyone was full.

However, if the PCs ever ran into a situation in 3e where they were completely out of spells and had no wands, they would just rest another night. Going into battle without full hitpoints was considered to be suicide.