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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
In the early game, spells faced tremendous limitations on their use. You had to be standing upright, with both hands free, not moving, concentrating, with all the components at hand, speak loudly enough to be clearly heard, be able to hear what you were saying (deafness carried a chance of spell failure), and if you cast in melee, you were (though there were two different, contradictory rules for it), likely to be attacked in the act of casting, and, if hit, the spell failed and the memory of it was lost. Spells that required concentration had most the same requirements as concentration when casting, and said concentration was automatically broken by any damage, at all (and potentially other things as well).
3e softened all that: you only needed one hand and the ability to speak and feats could eliminate those requirements, could be crouching behind cover or even prone, and/or moving including riding a fast-moving mount, material components were consolidated into the spell component pouch, concentration allowed a check that you could buff up the wazoo, you could also use concentration to avoid an AoO, but being hit by said AoO only caused you to lose the spell if you failed another concentration check, a concentration check could even allow you to cast while grappled. (3e also made save DCs scale with slot level, while simultaneously making some saves worse for most characters, but that's not strictly-speaking a relaxed limitation, nor would more slots or metamagic or liberal item creation be).
4e further simplified and softened limitations on casting, let's say 'net' - for instance, AoOs could no longer be avoided with a concentration check, which would seem like tightening a restriction, but, AoOs were only provoked by Range & Area spells, which were no different, in that, from all other range/area attacks. So it was a limitation, but not only on spells, nor on all spells. Concentration checks were no longer required, if you were hit while casting your spells still went off if you were still able (alive, not stunned or anything), again, just like any other attack. Concentration as a duration was changed to 'Sustain,' which required an action, usually minor, sometimes even Standard. You still needed just one hand & the ability to speak, you could be under any condition that didn't actually prevent you from taking the required action type and still cast. Components were further consolidated into implements. Rituals were broken out and no longer used the same resource pool as attacks. (Of course, there were far fewer slots, and they were locked-in, even wizards, who could prepare, had very limited selection and couldn't take the same spell 'twice,' and spells were far less powerful. But those are less strictly limitations.)
5e further softened the limitations on casting, though it did increase the overall complexity some: You still need only one hand, can consolidate material components down to a 'focus,' and can cast in any circumstance or condition that doesn't deny you the required action type. Spells provoke no AoO. Sustain was returned to Concentration, required only for a select few spells, took no action at all, and could be maintained with a check even when damaged. (And of course, spells powered up and slots far more numerous - and all casters are freak'n spontaneous, which is huge.)
Preach it, brother!!!

Casting time is another thing that's changed - before 3e spells took a certain amount of time to cast, during which the caster was much more vulnerable to attack (in effect, using the equivalent of 3e's "surprised" AC) and if damaged - or even jostled, a spell could be interrupted without damaging the caster - during this time the spell and corresponding slot was lost. Starting with 3e spells are cast as an action, thus somewhat instantaneously and much harder to interrupt.

Never mind the to-me-ridiculous RAW in 5e that makes it possible to interrupt your own spell to cast another spell then resume and resolve your original spell! As in:

Caster starts casting, foe responds with counterspell, caster stops original spell to counterspell the foe's counterspell, caster then resumes and completes original casting.

Lan-"the main balancer that holds high-level wizards in check in 1e is their fragility, as proven yet again in the session I ran the other night"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
[sblock="Imaro, again..."]
You do realize if you don't want 4e to become the topic of discussion in 5e threads you could... oh I don't know... stop bringing it up. Of course then you couldn't cry edition war when anyone disagrees with your views now could you...
I was talking with Lanefan about the many attempted, and mostly failed, balancing mechanisms of the classic game, and we got to the severe limitations spell casting faced back in the day. He made a point about balancing very powerful spells with very severe casting limitations, and used 3e as an example of how taking away one side of that equation breaks the game:

Negative side effects of spells (e.g. aging) and other limitations on casting were quite good at reining in casters at least to some extent. Simple way to tell this is to look what happened when those brakes were taken off in 3e...
I expanded on that, making the point that removing the strict restrictions worked when combined with reining in spells:

They failed because they were a baroque collection of contavailing mechanisms, not because some of them weren't genuinely limiting... ;)
They were very limiting, but then spells were very powerful, it was too extreme a scheme. 3e greatly reduced the limitations, modestly reduced the power of some spells (made others more powerful, and made SoD spells more powerful by making saves suck and DCs scale). The result was overwhelming. 4e didn't put back those traditional limitations, but neatly balanced things, by bringing spells and maneuvers into line. 5e put spells back in a superior position, but still didn't put back the old limitations.

Where the classic game tried for balance and failed, 5e aimed for the feel of that imbalance and succeded.
Now, I mentioned 3e, 4e, & 5e in the context of a discussion of the classic game relative to 5e.

You seized on one sentence, and threw down the Edition War Gauntlet:

I see this assertion by 4e fans often but my experience with the game pointed to a totally different conclusion, when it cam to versatility and breadth of utility... magic was still king in 4e. Rituals along with the spells a wizard or cleric got still allowed them to do things a fighter could only dream of. Sure in 4e he was the king of combat (DPR, maneuvers, etc.), but arguably he's still the king of combat in 5e as well (DPR, maneuvers, etc.).

EDIT: To clarify I don't consider having an equal number of fiddly bits equal to achieving balance... especially if said fiddly bits don't have the same breadth and utility. 500 ways to kill something is still... 500 ways to kill something and not the ability to levitate or turn invisible.

Now, I admit my part in taking that gauntlet up, and, on my posts, I'm trying to keep it light, and keeping it under a cut out of courtesy to those (almost everyone, I assume) who don't need to hear it all again. We could even take it to PM, if you like. [/sblock]

Not exactly on-topic:

Casting time is another thing that's changed - before 3e spells took a certain amount of time to cast, during which the caster was much more vulnerable to attack (in effect, using the equivalent of 3e's "surprised" AC) and if damaged - or even jostled, a spell could be interrupted without damaging the caster - during this time the spell and corresponding slot was lost. Starting with 3e spells are cast as an action, thus somewhat instantaneously and much harder to interrupt.
I vaguely alluded to that in 'easy to interrupt,' and the two different 1e DMG rules for doing so. ;)

I suppose casting times could be a solid addition to Mearls's 'Greyhawk'-misnomer Initiative system.

Edit: oh, wait, 3e /did/ have full-round casting-time spells, and swift-action casting &c, and 4e had & 5e still has spells that take different actions to cast. Then there're rituals, with very long casting times. So it's not completely gone, though it's much less restrictive than it was.

Never mind the to-me-ridiculous RAW in 5e that makes it possible to interrupt your own spell to cast another spell then resume and resolve your original spell!
That slipped right by me.

Lan-"the main balancer that holds high-level wizards in check in 1e is their fragility, as proven yet again in the session I ran the other night"-efan
Heh. The tremendous power you'll have at 18th level is balanced by the fact you died at 1st. ;P
 
Last edited:

Obryn

Hero
Negative side effects of spells (e.g. aging) and other limitations on casting were quite good at reining in casters at least to some extent. Simple way to tell this is to look what happened when those brakes were taken off in 3e...
The problem, IMO, with AD&D's limits on casting - material components, extreme time to recover spells, etc. - was that it was often balance through tedium. And anything that took that much table-time to juggle and micromanage would naturally just fall by the wayside. (Oh, and I didn't see any price lists for material components until some Forgotten Realms supplement in 2e.)

And for spell interruption, it was awesome in theory. In practice ... did you know the AD&D rules never actually spell out how casting time affects your initiative? Seriously; you can find people who add it to the d6 roll - more on this in a minute - and other tables who just use casting time as initiative. (And when you add it to the d6 roll, you're tracking segment by segment, which may very well put you somewhere in the middle of the next round ... and the rules never really tell you what to do then, either - do you roll initiative? if so how does it work? Really, AD&D initiative is a mess and a half which is why so many tables used the simple BX/BECMI rules for it until 2e's release. I used it as close to BtB as I could when I ran a Temple of Elemental Evil campaign a few years back, and it was even clunkier than weapon-vs-AC.)

So anyway! I am not surprised at all that this stuff didn't quite make it intact into 2e or 3e, because I doubt most AD&D tables used them as-is.
 

Hussar

Legend
Clearly that's not the case, since 3e, for instance was very much the opposite - RAW-not-RAI.

Maybe 'rulings not rules' was tossed out because it sounded catchier than 'rules that require rulings' or 'rulings take priority over rules?' IDK.

To use the example of the 3.x diplomancer, again, the DCs were fixed, the DM still got to use some judgement in setting the initial attitude of the target, but he wasn't invited to judge success/failure up-front, as in 5e. The former is an example of RAW-uber-alles, the latter rulings-not-rules.

Both have a foundation in the rules, themselves (and examples from the rules that contradict them), but they manifest in the attitudes of those playing (and dissecting) the game.

5e could have just put a Rule 0 in the PH somewhere like 3.x did and claimed to be DM-Empowering on the strength of one sentence, but it went much further than that.

But, again, you're focusing on one very specific example. DC's for virtually everything else (outside of a couple - Acrobatics to dodge, and wasn't the Concentration check fixed?) scaled and could be changed quite easily.

5e DC's are fixed within a VERY narrow range. Sure, you have all the empowerment you want, so long as you stay within a 10 point range on a d20+bonuses check. Almost all checks in 5e should be within 10-20 DC. How is that really any more empowering than 4e's scaling by levels checks or 3e's infinitely scaling checks?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Heh. The tremendous power you'll have at 18th level is balanced by the fact ...
... that any area effect damage reasonably scaled to level might put you down even on a made save, never mind a failed one.

Simple math - wizard gain d4 h.p. per level until 11th or so, after which it's a flat 1 h.p. per level if memory serves. Yet fireballs, lightning bolts, and the like just keep tacking on d6/level for every level of the caster.

So a MU-18 will have, on average, (2.5 x 11) 28 + (1 x 7) 7 = 35 h.p. An 18-dice blast will average (3.5 x 18) 63 points of damage; save for half gives 31 or 32 depending how a table handles rounding, and that takes a big chunk out of 35. If the MU has already been hurt by something, or if the damage roll is a bit above average, wizard needs help badly. :)

Obryn said:
The problem, IMO, with AD&D's limits on casting - material components, extreme time to recover spells, etc. - was that it was often balance through tedium.
Some of the limits were like that. Others were more elegant, I point again to interruptions.

And anything that took that much table-time to juggle and micromanage would naturally just fall by the wayside. (Oh, and I didn't see any price lists for material components until some Forgotten Realms supplement in 2e.)
Yeah, we only ever really worried about components that had a listed price in the spell write-up e.g. the 100 g.p. pearl for Identify, unless for some reason a wizard had been stripped of possessions. The 3e idea of the components pouch for non-costed components is good for this...until the pouch gets destroyed... :)

And for spell interruption, it was awesome in theory. In practice ... did you know the AD&D rules never actually spell out how casting time affects your initiative?
I believe it's in there somewhere, but hard both to find and to understand. What really messes it up is that while most things run on a 6-segment round spellcasting uses a 10-segment round, which either means casting uses longer rounds or the timing is all thrown off.

[sblock="Initiative discussion"]
Seriously; you can find people who add it to the d6 roll - more on this in a minute - and other tables who just use casting time as initiative.

What I did first was convert all the 10-segment casting times into their nearest 6-segment equivalents, to synch up the round and segment lengths and clear up that mess.
(And when you add it to the d6 roll, you're tracking segment by segment, which may very well put you somewhere in the middle of the next round ... and the rules never really tell you what to do then, either - do you roll initiative?
We re-roll individually each round anyway, and everything happens segment-by-segment. So, if your initiative is 2 to start a 3-segment spell you'll resolve on 5 of next round, and roll d4 for that round's initiative.
Really, AD&D initiative is a mess and a half
Staunch 1e defender that I am in other ways, I'm in full agreement with you here. :) We came up with our own system ages ago, some of which I've noted here, and it seems to work well enough about 99% of the time. [/sblock]

Lanefan
 

Obryn

Hero
Yeah, we only ever really worried about components that had a listed price in the spell write-up e.g. the 100 g.p. pearl for Identify, unless for some reason a wizard had been stripped of possessions. The 3e idea of the components pouch for non-costed components is good for this...until the pouch gets destroyed... :)
Yeah, I am pretty sure that's what most people did. And yet I am pretty sure it was intended as a balancing mechanism anyways. :)

I had a 2e DM who had me micromanage my wizard's spell components. I needed to buy, like, paper cones and freaking sand. Instead of grabbing sand from somewhere and folding a cone out of paper. Because it was specially purified, you see. (He also wanted us to track XP to the thousandths of a point. I am pretty sure he was an actuary at our local like-a-good-neighbor insurance behemoth, so...)

I believe it's in there somewhere, but hard both to find and to understand. What really messes it up is that while most things run on a 6-segment round spellcasting uses a 10-segment round, which either means casting uses longer rounds or the timing is all thrown off.
You'd think so - but it's actually nowhere. Not that I ever found, and not that anyone on Dragonsfoot could point me at. Even the example of play is no help; IIRC it has a dude casting a Fireball and it puts him in the round's order in a place ... but never tells you what segment he's acting on. If you find it, let me know :)

Staunch 1e defender that I am in other ways, I'm in full agreement with you here. :) We came up with our own system ages ago, some of which I've noted here, and it seems to work well enough about 99% of the time.
Yeah, I have much love for AD&D 1e myself (it's in 3rd place for me after 4e and BECMI/RC), so please don't construe this as me dumping on it. I grew up on it, after all. It has its warts, but it was still a blast to return to.
 

Hussar

Legend
... that any area effect damage reasonably scaled to level might put you down even on a made save, never mind a failed one.

Simple math - wizard gain d4 h.p. per level until 11th or so, after which it's a flat 1 h.p. per level if memory serves. Yet fireballs, lightning bolts, and the like just keep tacking on d6/level for every level of the caster.

So a MU-18 will have, on average, (2.5 x 11) 28 + (1 x 7) 7 = 35 h.p. An 18-dice blast will average (3.5 x 18) 63 points of damage; save for half gives 31 or 32 depending how a table handles rounding, and that takes a big chunk out of 35. If the MU has already been hurt by something, or if the damage roll is a bit above average, wizard needs help badly. :)
/snip

Kinda sorta though. By that level, the 18th level MU is dripping with so many magic items, that the odds that he isn't at least resistant to that lightning damage is pretty small. Rings of Fire Resistance, Robe of the Arch Magi (whee, magic resistance!), and a boat load of other goodies are there for the taking. And, let's be honest here, an 18th level PC Magic User is probably on his third page of magic items. :D

-------

Rolling this back around to the Elephant in the Room though. I'm running a Hexploration adventure right now. I expect the PC's to spend weeks, if not a couple of months, exploring an area, searching for a lost temple. So, this is precisely the type of scenario where the Elephant in the Room is a problem, right? Typically single encounter days and all that.

Thing is, I sorted that. I have the following:

  • An extensive random encounter list
  • Random encounters are 1 in 10, rolled 6 per day.
  • If an encounter is indicated, I roll a d6-2. That is the number of subsequent encounters keyed off the first one. So, any encounter has a 33% chance of being a single encounter, and a 66% chance of triggering 1-4 additional encounters.
  • I roll 5d20 for each subsequent encounter. That's the number of minutes between encounters. Possible to get a short rest, but, unlikely. We'll usually have 2 encounters before the party can short rest.

Now, the justification for this is that most of the random encounters are beasts and whatnot. Combat is noisy and leaves lots of blood around, attracting scavengers and other predators. It is possible, although extremely unlikely, to have 24 encounters in a single day, but, more likely will be 5-6.

There problem solved. The party turtles after each encounter with a Rope Trick? Congratulations, you just wasted an entire day of exploration. Great if you want to spend a couple of years tracking through the wilderness, but, at some point, they are going to give up on that.

The resolution here to the Elephant in the Room, is not mechanical. It's easiest to resolve in adventure design.
 

Al'Kelhar

Adventurer
The resolution here to the Elephant in the Room, is not mechanical. It's easiest to resolve in adventure design.

Amen to that, brother. Said many times over the past 87 pages. The Elephant in the Room is nothing more than a Windmill-Giant.

don-quixote-illustration.jpg

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
As valid a ruling as any, I suppose.
Prima facie we should concede meaning to all the words in a rule. To do otherwise is less justified. Thus Long Rest has a long list of requisites
  • our character must sleep or read, talk, eat, or stand watch for up to 2 hours
  • our character mustn't stand watch for more than 2 hours
  • our character mustn't walk for an hour or more
  • our character mustn't fight or cast spells
  • our character mustn't engage in adventuring activity similar to walking for an hour or more, or fighting or casting spells
If we think the first item makes the others redundant then we are lead to suspect that they carry additional import. So we need to reflect on that. We can first question the allegation of redundancy. Could I walk for an hour or more while talking? I could, so that is not redundant. Concretely, none of the items are truly redundant as given I am doing one of sleeping, reading, talking, eating or watching, I could also be walking, fighting or casting spells. So one approach is to say they are not redundant.

We can additionally or alternatively observe that there are things a character must do to enter and sustain a state of rest, and things they may do that interrupt and reset it. The latter list is extended without limitation by the words "similar adventuring activity". Taken as a whole, we should conclude that the list of musts provides examples of "light activity" also without limitation. We're told that rest is "downtime" which is a key word for certain activities. Thus we should probably feel that we can feed our pet hamster or train in calligraphy, without interrupting our rest.

The words appear to work together reasonably well, and I would say that applying all the words is a more valid approach than applying only some of them which errs toward cherry-picking.

Or you could just cut it and similar spells, or return it to it's traditional functionality of protection from the environment, not would-be attackers.
I agree with you. Cutting it would avoid any unforeseen issues with shortening it or altering its functionality. I really intended "simpler than varying any more foundational rules. My first intuition was to cut it, but I realised I didn't need to as I use 24 hour long rests, not 8. Which is why I suggested shorten it, for those using 8.

Yep, it's not that there's no latitude there, at all, just that there could have been some with the time requirements.
Yes! It is kind of mysterious to me that Leomund's Tiny Hut is worded to exacerbate problems with the game that we know WotC's designers were certainly aware of! Taken together with Crawford's perverse rulings on the subject I wonder if there isn't a split in the designers' camp?
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
There problem solved. The party turtles after each encounter with a Rope Trick? Congratulations, you just wasted an entire day of exploration. Great if you want to spend a couple of years tracking through the wilderness, but, at some point, they are going to give up on that.
Yet that is my problem with it, as a DM I don't want to waste all that time at the table.

The resolution here to the Elephant in the Room, is not mechanical. It's easiest to resolve in adventure design.
Which stands in frank contradiction to the fact you just outlined the mechanics you use to solve it! Shared rules are there in part to proactively resolve issues that all DMs are likely to encounter in their games; or to put that another way, to communicate resilient solutions to those problems to everyone. While I would agree that we don't know the ideal solution to this issue today, we do know a number of mitigating rules for play and WotC's design efforts should buttress rather than undermine those rules.
 

Remove ads

Top