D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[clearstream]

Even read by itself, but even more so in the context of tables that clearly suggest equivalencies* between particular numbers of easy, medium, hard, and deadly encounters, I just can't see anything here to suggest that 6-8 medium-hard encounters is preferred or recommended over some other mix.

The section on short rests does suggest, somewhat indirectly, that fewer than 3 encounters might be outside the norm.

As for class balance, you are certainly correct that the number of encounters will affect class balance. However, I see nothing in the DMG** that suggests that intended class balance is achieved at 3, 6, 8, 9, or any other particular number of encounters per day. That classes seem balanced to you at 6-8 encounters per day may be a valuable insight gained from your experience, but it is not, as far as I can tell, in the DMG as a rule, guideline or anything else.

* I am not endorsing these purported equivalencies, just pointing out that they are there.
** In this section anyway; is there something somewhere else?

Could I suggest taking a closer look at the Adventuring Day section? The XP budget is for one "adventuring day" covers 6-8 medium to hard encounters. It then states that 2-3 short rests are expected in an "adventuring day" i.e. over that number of encounters. Implicitly, the "day" ends with a long rest i.e. there is one long rest per adventuring day. Regarding class balance, those guidelines amount to a clear suggestion of the design intent, e.g. an ability that recovers on a short rest (like Warlock spell slots) will be usable 3-4x per "adventuring day" (use, rest 1, use, rest 2, use, optional rest 3, use) while one that recovers on a long rest will be usable only once (use, end of day long rest).

It's true that we have to do some work to understand the design intent, as we have to breakdown the "adventuring day" XP and realise it pays for the specified number of encounters. Take the example in the book - 3x 3rd PC, 1x 2nd PC. Their Medium is 550XP and Hard is 825XP. Their "adventuring day" XP budget is 4200XP (3x1200 + 1x600). That pays for 7 medium or 5 hard encounters. 3 deadly or 15 easy encounters would also do it. The designers don't seem concerned with playing "exactsies", but for each combination of PC levels the "adventuring day" XP pays for about the guideline number of encounters. Generally about one encounter less than the guideline (skewing the game toward the "easy" difficulty setting that appears to have been the design intent).

Anyway, the balance is writ right there.

 

[OB1]

It's a near miss, though, and seizing a little flexibility around the rules for resting is a fair solution for an Empowered DM.

I do think dealing with rests would be easier if combat interrupting rest forced you to start the rest over. As to the metric I was talking about, I'm simply saying that every combat should be interesting, not just the last one the day and that can be accomplished as well through illusion as it can through hitting the actual mechanical number required.

Stating there's an elephant doesn't have a value judgement attached, though. And there is an elephant. My biggest problem isn't really that it exists, it's that it's not acknowledged in the material. Failing to account for the elephant leads to issues, but they're not obvious issues for the most part and many DMs figure ways to paper them over or ignore them (or are lucky enough to have party compositions that reduce it's impact). I don't want an official way to deal with it either, as I agree players will game that system, but I wouldn't mind some clearer discussion of the issues and a few tips and pointers (like we've talked about in this thread) to mitigate the feature/bug.

Maybe I'm not clear on what you consider the elephant to be. I've been under the assumption that those who perceive an elephant believe that the game is critically flawed due to it and must be fixed to allow the game to function.

 

[clearstream]

I do think dealing with rests would be easier if combat interrupting rest forced you to start the rest over.

As written, they do. Only Crawford's risible interpretation varies that. Why risible? Well, he says we need one hour of combat to interrupt a long rest. At an average of 5 rounds or 30 seconds per combat, that is 120 combats. 120 combat encounters is enough to level-up from level 1 to level 10! We are invited to suppose that either the author of Long Rests was unfamiliar with D&D combat, or they were familiar but didn't really want combat to interrupt rests - in which case, why even mention them?

Or we go with the far more reasonable interpretation - which the language allows - i.e. one hour of walking, or any combat, interrupts a long rest. Making them easier to deal with as you point out.

 

[Hussar]

Ahem. There have been plenty of examples and of course it works both ways!


Which part of your world building isn't "on you"? That desert... drew itself?

Hasn't that been my point all the way along? That world building doesn't actually use the mechanics? After all, you plopped that desert at that location, without any reference whatsoever to mechanics (some games actually DO have mechanics for this, but, D&D isn't one of them). Whatever the PC's find in that desert is also 100% on the DM, and, outside of a few minor issues in order to maintain some level of believability (no tigers in Africa for example and you're not likely to encounter sharks on mountain tops barring sharknadoes), the mechanics simply don't apply.

TBH for me this is such a strawman. Rests and pacing are not about only ever 3 deadly encounters per day. But for the sake of argument let's say that we impose 3 deadly encounters per day on our PCs? For some NPCs at a higher tier than the PCs, those encounters will be Easy or Medium difficulty. For other NPCs at a lower tier than the PCs, those encounters will be beyond deadly. Further, as the PCs level they would need to travel about to find that perfect trifecta of encounters, because Kobold Copse remains full of Kobolds.

Sigh. It's been the contention all the way along that 3 deadly encounters/day has too many world building implications. I'm using the example given, not defending it. Heck, I would think that 3/day would be boring as heck and I wouldn't use it. But, I wouldn't use it because it's boring, not because of some nebulous "world building" issues.

But, be that as it may, and I'll repeat this for clarity:

NPC'S NEVER HAVE ENCOUNTERS.

That you might choose to engage the mechanics here, is on you. The game certainly doesn't presume that. The game certainly doesn't presume to tell you anything about the day to day lives of NPC's. We've been over this far too many times and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. The 83 knights perished on the road without a single initiative roll. The king fell off his horse and died. Your arch mage NPC has never had an actual adventuring day in his life. He fell out of the sky at 18th level when you created him.

Ok, that little rant aside. What benefit is there to expecting DM's to spend tens or possibly hundreds of hours applying mechanics to NPC's? After all, if the expectation is believability, then you can't just do it when you feel like. You have to apply it broadly. You might gloss over some of the minor details, but, why aren't your NPC's dying like flies? After all, you are claiming that they need to actually have real encounters, as per the DMG guidelines, in order to gain levels. So, why aren't most of them dead?

After all, the whole point of this is so that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] can apply single adventure days with the real possibility of killing a PC. So, if mechanics apply to NPC's, why aren't most of your leveled NPC's dying off after a year or two?

 

[Hussar]

What I want is to raise awareness and acceptance of a "hidden" issue, overlooked or denied by many.

This only plays right into WotCs hand in that they get to keep pretending the game actually supports what they say the game is about.

When enough gamers realize there's a fundamental disconnect here we can hope WotC is forced to finally eat their own dog food and actually approach solutions.

In other words, I'm not trying to get you lot to anything.

Except one thing: collectively pressure WotC into including official solutions.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

But, what about those of us who aren't having this issue? What's in it for me for you to get what you want? To be rather blunt about it. I'm not seeing the problem. I like the pacing in 5e. I certainly don't want them forcing single adventuring days on me, nor would I want to buy modules where that's even an option. I'm perfectly content with the status quo.

Your elephant is a complete non-issue for me. Again, we go back to the whole Warlord thing. If you want a fix, then I'll tell you the same thing I got told - make it yourself or go to DM's Guild. After all, what's the difference here between you complaining about this and me complaining about Warlords? Good for the goose, good for the gander no?

 

[clearstream]

Hasn't that been my point all the way along? That world building doesn't actually use the mechanics? After all, you plopped that desert at that location, without any reference whatsoever to mechanics

I suspect we're only reiterating our divergent approaches at this point. For emphasis - my world building is recursive and open-ended, it doesn't stop at the map drawing and it sometimes starts with the mechanics. Yours - I think - is one pass and stops before any mechanics get involved. Right?

NPC'S NEVER HAVE ENCOUNTERS.

For me, that is not true, but maybe I am atypical. I usually don't roll on the tables but I do usually take into account what may be in the area and the hazard that poses to NPCs. I do allow my NPCs to have things happen to them that weren't scripted, due to that. And what I want to emphasise here is that you seem to insist that unless we're rolling on the tables we're not letting the mechanics impact our world. That isn't true.

That you might choose to engage the mechanics here, is on you. The game certainly doesn't presume that. The game certainly doesn't presume to tell you anything about the day to day lives of NPC's. We've been over this far too many times and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. The 83 knights perished on the road without a single initiative roll. The king fell off his horse and died. Your arch mage NPC has never had an actual adventuring day in his life. He fell out of the sky at 18th level when you created him.

I don't understand why you don't understand that the mechanics are assumed to apply even if we don't happen to make the rolls on this occasion. Whatever is along that road is something mechanically capable of defeating 83 knights. If the king fell of his horse and died there is an explanation that doesn't contradict the game mechanics. When the arch mage falls out of the sky he can do the things the mechanics allow him to and his existence won't contradict the mechanics. DMG126 references consistent details bringing your campaign to life, and gives examples of additional mechanics to help with that.

Ok, that little rant aside. What benefit is there to expecting DM's to spend tens or possibly hundreds of hours applying mechanics to NPC's? After all, if the expectation is believability, then you can't just do it when you feel like. You have to apply it broadly. You might gloss over some of the minor details, but, why aren't your NPC's dying like flies? After all, you are claiming that they need to actually have real encounters, as per the DMG guidelines, in order to gain levels. So, why aren't most of them dead?

I spend about an hour preparing for each hour DMing. Not counting my time reading and absorbing the rules. My leveled NPCs sometimes do die off. Most don't because they exercise reasonable caution, employ reasonable defences, etc. Most of the NPCs who were ever tier 1 will not make it to tier 4. Many because their rate of advancement is too slow, and others because they retire from adventuring. Still others, because they are killed along the way. You might have seen my proposals for character-class-equivalent NPCs at each tier which assumes 1/100 at tier 1, and then an order of magnitude fewer per tier thereafter. Note also that I award XP for resolving encounters, not necessarily for killing everything. So a Noble might resolve a situation worth XP without ever fighting, but they will also be involved in actual border skirmishes, raids, etc. Usually not at the intensity of PCs exploring a dungeon.

After all, the whole point of this is so that @CapnZapp can apply single adventure days with the real possibility of killing a PC. So, if mechanics apply to NPC's, why aren't most of your leveled NPC's dying off after a year or two?

And once more for luck. An adventuring day need not equal a calendar day. One "adventuring day" could stretch over months of calendar days. They're principally about recovery of abilities. If you are using Gritty Realism from the DMG, an "adventuring day" will span roughly a minimum of 10 days.

 

[CapnZapp]

After all, the whole point of this is so that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] can apply single adventure days with the real possibility of killing a PC. So, if mechanics apply to NPC's, why aren't most of your leveled NPC's dying off after a year or two?

Since I was specifically summoned (this thread has otherwise veered into territory I'm not personally interested in, so don't hesitate to "mention" me if you feel frustrated you're not getting a reply these last weeks - I can't keep up with this thread anylonger):

My opinion is that when you boil it down, Hussar must be right - the game doesn't even begin to presume it can be used for a world simulation. It can only be used to simulate heroic journeys. Therefore "NPCs dont have encounters" must be correct, although I'd rather phrase it like: "NPCs dont have encounters unless the DM/scenario wants them to".

Re: the "whole point of this" I'd say it boils down to the following:

You can have trivial encounters and that's okay, whether they're there just as window-dressing, for verisimilitude, to allow the PCs a powertrip or whatever.

But if the game does assume 6-8 encounters for its balance to occur, it also needs to provide mechanisms to accomplish this. Dumping it all on the story (and thus the DM or adventure writer) is not acceptable (especially since few writers of published modules make any serious effort to help the DM out).

What's especially galling is how the game generously and freely hands out a truckload of "get out of jail" cards, one more ridiculously powerful than the other. Rope Trick, Teleport etc. Since they can't be allowed to have the effect they are assumed to be having (or balance goes out of the window) their only effect is to considerably increase the difficulty for the poor DM in ensuring said balance.
A secondary consideration is that they are only available to certain party compositions.

In effect, the game does its outmost to free itself from any responsibility re: upholding the balance it so clearly assumes is there. In effect, the game dumps all of the work in the lap of the DM - and then makes its best to trip him or her over at every stage of the way. The only straightforward solution that can't be trivially circumvented by spells or other powers then becomes the story angle, the "princess gets eaten in three days, please hurry!" schtick.

But not only does this get very VERY old after a while, it doesn't even do that (in 99% of published modules).

In 99% of modules where there is a world-ending threat, it is incredibly vague, with nothing even resembling a detailed timeline, and often with no real assumption that the heroes can fail. Unless the DM decides to play hardball, you'd think the heroes can simply chicken race the scenario and call its bluff.

"So we didn't reach the dragon in three days, instead preferring to abuse the game's mechanics to trivialize every encounter and make sure we never are in any real danger. Now, is the princess still alive?"

Yes. "Okay, thought so. Now let us see if we can drop the dragon in a single round, considering how we are fully rested and with all our resources available."

No. "Oh well, can't win every time. At least we didn't risk our lives by pressing on when we could rest instead. And oh, if the princess' soul wants to return the living, we're okay with using part of the dragon hoard to pay for her resurrection. We think it's fair to part with 10% of the treasure in return for avoiding 90% of the danger."

It's so intellectually dishonest. It's the elephant in the room.

Do note I am not trying to change the way you lot play your game. Yes, that means YOU.

All I want is for the rulebooks to
a) acknowledge the issue... yes, getting heroes to take 8 encounters in a day can be bloody difficult, and how it doesn't suit some players at all to have several individually-trivial encounters instead of a single one offering a good challenge
b) accept some responsibility... a good game offers mechanical support for play groups where players aren't interested in voluntary buy-in into 6-8 encounters as a gentleman's agreement.
c) offering optional variants... that take the load off of the DMs shoulders. First and foremost by not having the PHB unconditionally give out the most generous and least restricted resting scheme so players take that for granted.

Then add support for:
c1) empowering DMs and scenarios to use variable rest frequencies for one and the same heroes
c2) specifically and explicitly allow the "you can't expect to gain any benefits from resting, except at areas clearly designated as safe" variant. Preferably in a sidebar right there in the PHB, so no player can claim it's just "an evil DM" trying to prevent players from taking the rest the rules clearly allow them
c3) add an encounter point system (as described in another thread), or at the very least Jonathan Tweet's (I believe it was) simple suggestion "you can't take a short rest until you've had two encounters, and you can't take a long rest until you've had two short rests"

Note I said optional variants - you don't have to use any of this unless you want to.

 

[CapnZapp]

Your elephant is a complete non-issue for me. Again, we go back to the whole Warlord thing. If you want a fix, then I'll tell you the same thing I got told - make it yourself or go to DM's Guild. After all, what's the difference here between you complaining about this and me complaining about Warlords? Good for the goose, good for the gander no?

Why do you assume I want to "solve" warlords by dismissing them to the DM's Guild ghetto?

But more importantly, I must respectfully disagree with your comparison.

You're talking about a single class option. I'm talking about a system-endemic issue that is affecting the whole of the game at its most fundamental level. In this thread I challenge the most basic of assumptions regarding the D&D game.

I am sorry if I disappoint, but I cannot say the lack of a Warlord class qualifies for the same Elephant status. Sure it is unfortunate we don't have a cool Warlord class, but then again, I could say the same about the Sorcerer class (and I did say it about the Ranger before that got fixed). But no matter how sympathetic I may be to your plight I must conclude it is not nearly the same fundamental issue as the one I started this thread for.

Best Regards,
Zapp

 

[clearstream]

My opinion is that when you boil it down, Hussar must be right - the game doesn't even begin to presume it can be used for a world simulation. It can only be used to simulate heroic journeys. Therefore "NPCs dont have encounters" must be correct, although I'd rather phrase it like: "NPCs dont have encounters unless the DM/scenario wants them to".

Why does D&D need to be a world simulation for its mechanics to impact world-building? Its mechanics are felt all through the shaping of each D&D world or to put it another way, show me a distinctly D&D world in which the mechanics don't play a large role in shaping that world. Could I suggest looking at some real examples of worlds and reflecting on all the places mechanics run through them. One tiny example - Wood Elves in Faerun can usually out run Lightfoot Halflings... because mechanics. Each time 100 knights ride out and 17 return, the mechanics tell us they weren't massacred by a single kobold, unless that kobold is Pun-Pun. The encounter tables for the region, and other similar guidelines, give us hints as to what happened.

What I believe is happening and possibly shaping your opinion is whether you understand D&D as linear or dynamic. All linear narratives - stories and scripts - can be accused of acausality. Event A doesn't cause event B, there is only a seeming of a relationship impsed by the author. Dynamic narratives - games - are causal. Event A causes event B because there is a dynamic that connects them. Hussar seems to take a resolutely linear approach.

In 99% of modules where there is a world-ending threat, it is incredibly vague, with nothing even resembling a detailed timeline, and often with no real assumption that the heroes can fail. Unless the DM decides to play hardball, you'd think the heroes can simply chicken race the scenario and call its bluff.

"So we didn't reach the dragon in three days, instead preferring to abuse the game's mechanics to trivialize every encounter and make sure we never are in any real danger. Now, is the princess still alive?"

Yes. "Okay, thought so. Now let us see if we can drop the dragon in a single round, considering how we are fully rested and with all our resources available."

No. "Oh well, can't win every time. At least we didn't risk our lives by pressing on when we could rest instead. And oh, if the princess' soul wants to return the living, we're okay with using part of the dragon hoard to pay for her resurrection. We think it's fair to part with 10% of the treasure in return for avoiding 90% of the danger."

It's so intellectually dishonest. It's the elephant in the room.

Nicely put. I admire 5e for it's sophisticated, streamlined design, but it is burdened with disingenuous rulings. Things swept under the carpet or ruled according to a party line, rather than attention to sustaining good gameplay.

All I want is for the rulebooks to
a) acknowledge the issue... yes, getting heroes to take 8 encounters in a day can be bloody difficult, and how it doesn't suit some players at all to have several individually-trivial encounters instead of a single one offering a good challenge
b) accept some responsibility... a good game offers mechanical support for play groups where players aren't interested in voluntary buy-in into 6-8 encounters as a gentleman's agreement.
c) offering optional variants... that take the load off of the DMs shoulders. First and foremost by not having the PHB unconditionally give out the most generous and least restricted resting scheme so players take that for granted.

Then add support for:
c1) empowering DMs and scenarios to use variable rest frequencies for one and the same heroes
c2) specifically and explicitly allow the "you can't expect to gain any benefits from resting, except at areas clearly designated as safe" variant. Preferably in a sidebar right there in the PHB, so no player can claim it's just "an evil DM" trying to prevent players from taking the rest the rules clearly allow them
c3) add an encounter point system (as described in another thread), or at the very least Jonathan Tweet's (I believe it was) simple suggestion "you can't take a short rest until you've had two encounters, and you can't take a long rest until you've had two short rests"

Note I said optional variants - you don't have to use any of this unless you want to.

Also well put. I don't think they even really need to add an EP system. Supporting the DM with sidebars and "official" frequency modulation would likely do. However, there is some work in even that. For example, if you go to Gritty Realism, what happens about recovery of exhaustion? That's not hard to solve... but it should be solved by the paid designers.

 

[Maxperson]

NPC'S NEVER HAVE ENCOUNTERS.

That you might choose to engage the mechanics here, is on you. The game certainly doesn't presume that. The game certainly doesn't presume to tell you anything about the day to day lives of NPC's. We've been over this far too many times and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. The 83 knights perished on the road without a single initiative roll. The king fell off his horse and died. Your arch mage NPC has never had an actual adventuring day in his life. He fell out of the sky at 18th level when you created him.

Of course they have encounters. Have you read any D&D novels? Drizzt encountered hook horrors, orcs, giants, assassins, and many more creatures. That's how he gained his levels. The same with Elminster. All of those other high level NPCs also had their encounters in order to level up to where they are at. Unless one of them has some special origin where a god created him at 18th level, none of them fell out of the sky at that level.

Ok, that little rant aside. What benefit is there to expecting DM's to spend tens or possibly hundreds of hours applying mechanics to NPC's? After all, if the expectation is believability, then you can't just do it when you feel like. You have to apply it broadly. You might gloss over some of the minor details, but, why aren't your NPC's dying like flies? After all, you are claiming that they need to actually have real encounters, as per the DMG guidelines, in order to gain levels. So, why aren't most of them dead?

Most of them are. The high level ones are the few that survived to reach that point.

After all, the whole point of this is so that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] can apply single adventure days with the real possibility of killing a PC. So, if mechanics apply to NPC's, why aren't most of your leveled NPC's dying off after a year or two?

Again, they have been. You just don't usually hear about those NPCs.