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

[OB1]

Well, 2-3. The guideline is 6-8 medium-hard, and 2-3 short rests between long rests, it's less clear on encounters/short rest. So, that's a nice alternative, precisely, if not intuitively (& in 'natural language'), stated. But I don't buy that it's the 'real' guideline, even if it might well be a better, ultimately more usable one.

I suppose there's also an implied number of rounds between those short rests, since the 'paradigm' is balancing at-will vs short-rest vs daily resources all against eachother, not just the last two, but difficulty should mostly map to that.

A number of encounters is just a lot more intuitive and easier to remember. But, yes, the whole point of the thread is that it could have been presented better. Whether that's more flexibly, or less so.

Agreed that the language gets in the way of the rule. If you look at the Daily Encounter EP guidelines and compare to the Encounter Difficulty guidelines, its plain to see the way it's built.

3 Deadly encounters get your Daily XP Budget, as does 6 Hard, 9 Medium and 18 Easy.

If you make the possibility of random encounters while resting always of the Deadly sort, you begin to solve the problem, because you aren't gaining anything by resting when you face a deadly encounter and can put real strain on the party if it get's behind this curve.

And all of that is by RAW. It's there in the book, but everyone see's the anecdote about 6-8 and forgets about what the tables are saying. The 6-8 piece of advice is there for newer players and DMs who may not be able to handle Deadly encounters on a regular basis. For skilled players and DMs, and for higher level PCs, Deadly should be the defacto encounter difficulty and using that when traveling or in a dungeon puts serious pressure on the players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Agreed that the language gets in the way of the rule. If you look at the Daily Encounter EP guidelines and compare to the Encounter Difficulty guidelines, its plain to see the way it's built.

I don't doubt (and am not going to check up on) the accuracy of your reverse-engineering, I just don't see it as being as relevant in the context of 5e as I might have in 3.x...

3 Deadly encounters get your Daily XP Budget, as does 6 Hard, 9 Medium and 18 Easy.

So, sure, '6 hard encounters (or the exp equivalent) between long rests' might have been clearer. It certainly would have been more exact. It might also have seemed to encourage no deviation...

And all of that is by RAW. It's there in the book, but everyone see's the anecdote about 6-8 and forgets about what the tables are saying.

The 6-8 piece is also right there in the book, not an anecdote.
But, calling anything in 5e 'RAW' in the sense we used it in the 3.5 era is probably inappropriate given it's design philosophy - not just 'rulings not rules,' but the choice of natural language over jargon, and of mixing fluff & crunch without clear demarcation.

The 6-8 piece of advice is there for newer players and DMs who may not be able to handle Deadly encounters on a regular basis. For skilled players and DMs, and for higher level PCs, Deadly should be the defacto encounter difficulty and using that when traveling or in a dungeon puts serious pressure on the players.

And that's not stated anywhere in the books.

I think it's also putting the cart before the horse, a little. Pacing impacts the effectiveness of the encounter design guidelines, a 'Deadly' encounter is not so deadly if it's the sole encounter of the day, if it follows 8 moderate encounters, it might be quite deadly, indeed.

If you make the possibility of random encounters while resting always of the Deadly sort, you begin to solve the problem, because you aren't gaining anything by resting when you face a deadly encounter and can put real strain on the party if it get's behind this curve.

I don't think that does help, at all. If you know you might risk a deadly encounter by resting, you'll need to factor that in to rest frequency: always rest while you still have the resources to handle a deadly encounter.

I think a 6 man party is a huge change from a 4 man party.

With a party of 4, you either have to kind of fill each of the "classic" four roles, or risk foregoing one of those roles in order to really focus on one. So you can get rid of a highly skilled character like a Rogue in order to add another damage dealer, and so on.

Rogues can deal pretty good damage, and, thanks to backgrounds & BA, skills can be pretty well covered by a party almost regardless of composition.

But if you can simply add another damage dealer without sacrificing a skill class or a caster or healer....then you've significantly altered the core assumptions, I think. My players have 6 PCs among 4 players, and the extra PCs are not always with them. During those times, I've noticed a huge difference in how encounters play out.

There's also just the simple fact that, under BA, numbers tell heavily, so two more on your side is two more, is more than 50% better...

I'm not crazy about the exhaustion rules either, and rarely use them except in real edge cases. But I thought they would be suitable to evoke the feel I wanted while the PCs are on Athas.

Certainly. I just thought I should admit my bias.

Why not? The DMG gives suggestions for alterations to the rest mechanic, the same as they do for many other game elements.

It does, and those modules are presented as alternatives you might flip on or off for a whole campaign. Imagine if, say, the default rules were all DCs are 15, and there were modules in the DMG that gave you the option of setting all DCs to 10 or 20, instead. That's not quite the same thing as "... the DM sets the DC..."

Perhaps. I would say that "undermine" is too strong a term. I think they create the basic mechanic, but don't at all times require that all other aspects of the game must rigidly adhere to and fit with that basic mechanic, knowing it will work for most, and those who find an issue with it have the ability to alter it until it works for them.

No RPG can actually require rigid adherence to its mechanics, and any GM can reach beyond the rules of any RPG. 5e is exceptional in providing DM Empowerment not by merely relying on those facts, nor even by actively encouraging it, but by presenting rules that naturally call for DM judgement as a matter of course.

Some aspects of the game do that more successfully or overtly than others. Since pacing (forcing or deviating from the elephant's 6-8 encounter guidelines), is such a powerful tool, the rules for resting should have been farther over on the invoking-DM-judgement side, like the core resolution mechanic is.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I have 6 players so its constant. Suddenly a CR13-14 monster is far less of a challenge than before and honestly it kind of makes solo monsters a joke in a lot of cases. I like the idea of lower AC so you don't need insane attack scores to hit and lower level PC aren't in a situation where they cannot hit outside a nat 20. But at the same time it makes a lot of solo monsters a pushover. I've been giving most solo monsters max HP and it helps a little bit. They ran into Graz'zt and to be honest if they hadn't ran thinking they were going to all die I think they may have been able to take him down. They had lost one PC but I think they could have taken him down only loosing 2-3 PC at 9th level with a bit of luck, which was with them that night. They were banging out saves and rolling hot and my dice luck was not there. He was at like 30% HP when they finally fled.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Rogues can deal pretty good damage, and, thanks to backgrounds & BA, skills can be pretty well covered by a party almost regardless of composition.

There's also just the simple fact that, under BA, numbers tell heavily, so two more on your side is two more, is more than 50% better...

Yeah, this is all true. My example was admittedly basic, but I kind of meant it to be. Certainly there are multiple classes that fit each of the traditional niches for the most part. My point being not having to sacrifice any of those niches to double up on one or two others is a big difference.

It does, and those modules are presented as alternatives you might flip on or off for a whole campaign. Imagine if, say, the default rules were all DCs are 15, and there were modules in the DMG that gave you the option of setting all DCs to 10 or 20, instead. That's not quite the same thing as "... the DM sets the DC..."

Sure, that's valid. But I'd say you've created a false equivalency there. I think that variation of DC is a given, so making such a change in design there would be more severe than with rests.

No RPG can actually require rigid adherence to its mechanics, and any GM can reach beyond the rules of any RPG. 5e is exceptional in providing DM Empowerment not by merely relying on those facts, nor even by actively encouraging it, but by presenting rules that naturally call for DM judgement as a matter of course.

Exactly.

Some aspects of the game do that more successfully or overtly than others. Since pacing (forcing or deviating from the elephant's 6-8 encounter guidelines), is such a powerful tool, the rules for resting should have been farther over on the invoking-DM-judgement side, like the core resolution mechanic is.

See, I kind of see the Rest Mechanic as being heavily influenced by DM judgment. From what I read on these boards, this varies greatly from game to game, but in our game, my players don't say they take a rest, they ask if it is possible. Almost any instance is one where I have to decide if their request is possible. Long Rests are a little more standardized in that they can only occur once per day, and have other requirements to be met, but even then, there is often a judgement call, especially when the players decide to try and rest in an area that may be a high danger area.

I have 6 players so its constant. Suddenly a CR13-14 monster is far less of a challenge than before and honestly it kind of makes solo monsters a joke in a lot of cases. I like the idea of lower AC so you don't need insane attack scores to hit and lower level PC aren't in a situation where they cannot hit outside a nat 20. But at the same time it makes a lot of solo monsters a pushover. I've been giving most solo monsters max HP and it helps a little bit. They ran into Graz'zt and to be honest if they hadn't ran thinking they were going to all die I think they may have been able to take him down. They had lost one PC but I think they could have taken him down only loosing 2-3 PC at 9th level with a bit of luck, which was with them that night. They were banging out saves and rolling hot and my dice luck was not there. He was at like 30% HP when they finally fled.

I get that. I've found solo monsters, even when bolstered by legendary actions and lair actions, struggle to stand up to a party. The larger the party, the harder that struggle. Throwing even a few underling types into the mix really helps. For Graz'zt, I'd likely add in a Succubus or two, and then like a Glabrezu. Seems like he'd always have an entourage of some sort. Those three additional creatures would make the encounter much much deadlier, but since the party fled anyway, that shouldn't have been too big a deal. They'd just have to flee earlier!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't like the idea that one of the most powerful creatures in existence needed help to fight a mid level party of 6 characters. Granted with a couple blown saves things could have been totally different. One encounter isn't a strong data point.

 

[Hussar]

He is only making that assumption for the purpose of this thread. This thread is about providing a solution to an assumed problem. If you don't see it has a problem, then the best thing to do is either not participate in the thread; or, put aside your view and look at the issue for the OP's perspective. This tread is for solving an issue, not debating whether or not the issue exists. Is that really so hard to understand?

But, that's not really true. All possible solutions, save WotC coming out with an official rules change, have been rejected out of hand. Nothing short of WotC completely rewriting the PHB, Monster Manual and the encounter guidelines is acceptable.

So, no, this is very much NOT about providing a solution to an assumed problem.

 

[OB1]

So, sure, '6 hard encounters (or the exp equivalent) between long rests' might have been clearer. It certainly would have been more exact. It might also have seemed to encourage no deviation...

The 6-8 piece is also right there in the book, not an anecdote.

The full text of the 6-8 piece goes something like "a rested party will typically be able to handle 6 to 8 medium/hard encounters before needing a long rest." It's an EXAMPLE of how to apply the rules for Daily Encounter XP, not a rule itself, and therefore anecdotal.

But, calling anything in 5e 'RAW' in the sense we used it in the 3.5 era is probably inappropriate given it's design philosophy - not just 'rulings not rules,' but the choice of natural language over jargon, and of mixing fluff & crunch without clear demarcation.

By RAW I simply meant that the actual rules written in the book allow for between a 3 and 18 encounter day.

I think it's also putting the cart before the horse, a little. Pacing impacts the effectiveness of the encounter design guidelines, a 'Deadly' encounter is not so deadly if it's the sole encounter of the day, if it follows 8 moderate encounters, it might be quite deadly, indeed.

I don't think that does help, at all. If you know you might risk a deadly encounter by resting, you'll need to factor that in to rest frequency: always rest while you still have the resources to handle a deadly encounter...

Who is talking about a deadly encounter as the sole encounter? As for factoring rest frequency...

Let's say your exploring a forest, have a deadly encounter, and now need a short rest. So you stop for an hour but are accosted before the end of the rest with another deadly encounter (since you are obviously in a dangerous location). You are now at a disadvantage because you don't have the rest you should for such an encounter.

Let's say you survive that and rest again and have another deadly encounter. Now you are twice disadvantaged and you still haven't gone any further in the forest. You short rest again, and this time make it, but now are in need of a long rest. But it's still 13 hours before you can benefit from that again, so rather than wait around for the next deadly monster in these woods to find you, you press on slowly with stealth.

Finally you've moved through the forest and think you are in a safer place to rest for the night, so you do, but midway through you are interrupted by a Hard fight. Well, because you are over your Daily XP budget already, this fight now becomes much more dangerous than it would have been if you hadn't had 3 Deadly fights before it.

Since pacing (forcing or deviating from the elephant's 6-8 encounter guidelines), is such a powerful tool, the rules for resting should have been farther over on the invoking-DM-judgement side, like the core resolution mechanic is.

6-8 medium/hard encounter example. The actual rule in the DMG provides 3-18 daily encounter guidelines.

 

[Imaro]

6-8 medium/hard encounter example. The actual rule in the DMG provides 3-18 daily encounter guidelines.

This!! I've tried to articulate this in other threads, though I don't think I explained it as thoroughly or as well as you did.

 

[OB1]

This!! I've tried to articulate this in other threads, though I don't think I explained it as thoroughly or as well as you did.

I've been trying to simplify this argument for a while. The misuse of the 6-8 medium/hard encounter line from the DMG has really worked its way into conventional knowledge in a bad way and is skewing conversations because of it.

 

[CapnZapp]

But, that's not really true. All possible solutions, save WotC coming out with an official rules change, have been rejected out of hand. Nothing short of WotC completely rewriting the PHB, Monster Manual and the encounter guidelines is acceptable.

So, no, this is very much NOT about providing a solution to an assumed problem.

This thread is mainly about increasing awareness of a huge discrepancy between what the design presupposes and what the game actually provides.

I think it is a huge success in this regard. You sticking your head in the sand does not change that.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app