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

[CapnZapp]

I don't understand the question.

I guess if you're asking why the published *adventures* don't acknowledge that aspect of the rules to your satisfaction

That is the question, yes. (And not just to my satisfaction, thank you very much)

the answer *is* change the adventure, or use a different adventure. I know that's not the answer you want, but that is the answer -ts not a rules issue, it's a GMing technique issue.

I guess I am less accepting of how the official adventures doesn't support a core assumption of the game. Of course, changing the adventure fixes the problem. That does not change the fact that the adventures needed fixing in the first place, and right out of the box to boot.

But the question is why the game contains such an assumption and why the official supplements does next to nothing to support it.

 

[CapnZapp]

+1 to this... Mistwell laid the Rules references out pretty succinctly. So, despite CapnZapp's claims to the contrary, the rules laid out in the DMG address the issue directly...

This addresses adventure creation. I'm talking about published adventures.

You're missing the entire point of this thread by a mile

 

[Azzy]

This addresses adventure creation. I'm talking about published adventures.

So, you believe that the adventures should rehash what the DMG has to say?

 

[Mistwell]

This addresses adventure creation. I'm talking about published adventures.

I quoted the relevant portion of your post I was addressing. And that portion was not talking about published adventures, but the rules themselves. You were pretty clear that you had two points, and they were that 1) the published adventures don't support X, and 2) the rules don't support X. So I quoted you the second point about the rules you appear to have missed. And now you're saying you didn't mention that second point about rules, despite my quoting you directly? And you're doing it in response to someone quoting my response to you, rather than directly to me?'

You're missing the entire point of this thread by a mile

Oh no, you just punted one of the two points you were making when someone actually addressed that point. I can start to address your other point next, but first I wanted to establish your rules point was incorrect.

So now that we have addressed that the rules do in fact directly deal with this issue in the DMG, which adventure are you referring to that does not support this issue?

Tell you what, I happen to have Princes of the Apocalypse handy, so let's start there.

Once the PCs are done in town the first adventure starts on page 29, which references the DMG chapter 5 (that's the section I was quoting above), and then page 30. Not coincidentally, page 30 starts with "Random Encounters" and calls for four random encounter checks each day (and some of them are quite difficult). And how do you know when a Random Encounter is supposed to happen relative to where the adventurers are at? DMG Chapter 5, starting with page 85, Random Encounters, "Create Urgency" and "Drain Character Resources" followed by "Triggering Random Encounters" which specifies, for example, that the characters have stopped for a short or long rest.

The adventure is peppered with references to checking for random encounters throughout, adjusting the check frequency accordingly. For example, page 54, "Random Encounters. Characters lingering in the castle yard are likely to encounter various denizens of Rivergard going about their business. Check for random encounters once per 5 minutes during the day or once per 15 minutes at night." Similarly on page 68 in the Mines "Check for random encounters once per hour. "

Later the adventure sets up a series of special counterattacks. Starting on page 76, "If the characters try to camp in any of the four temples while its elemental prophet is still alive, the prophet gathers reinforcements and sends them to attack the intruding party...Likewise, it isn’t safe to camp in a cleared Haunted Keep. The elemental prophets divine the characters’ location and send forces to harass the party. Small bands of cult raiders and mercenaries roam the Sumber Hills, so it’s a simple matter to order one such group to attack the characters at one of the Haunted Keeps. (See the “Random Encounters” section in chapter 2.)" It further describes additional retaliation, "As the party continues the assault on cult strongholds in Tyar-Besil, the elemental prophets look for ways to hit back hard, using their devastation orbs. The timing of these retaliatory encounters coincides with the party’s progress in overcoming the four temple complexes." Then further on that same page under "Reckless Hate" there is another rest-interrupting attack, "While the characters rest, trouble arrives on their doorstep." The next page, under "Warning" describes another interrupted sleep.

It gets worse from there. Page 82 has random encounter checks every 10 minutes. Page 85 has a random encounter every time the characters travel the main connecting path; not a random encounter check, but a guaranteed random encounter every single time. Page 86 has further hourly checks, page 93 has a random encounter on a roll of 1-6 on a d20 every time the characters pass through that area, page 101 has the same but on a 1-8, page 124 has a disrupting environmental effect on a roll of 11-20, page 128 has random encounter checks every 10 minutes, Page 135 every 30 minutes, Page 138 specifies a room specifically for a random encounter, Page 142 has random encounter checks every 30 minutes, etc..

And none of this even tries to count the number of intentional multi-part encounters.

So yes, when you use the DMG rules (which the adventure references) on how to use the random encounters the adventure references and the time frames and types and frequency of checks the adventure references, you should not be finding much issue with this problem using this published adventure. The rules address the issue, and the publish adventure uses those rules to address the issue.

The better question at that point is why is your DM not using those tools the rules and the adventure supplies to address this issue? Are you guys just never encountering multi-part encounters and random encounters while resting like the rules and the published adventure provide for?

 

[guachi]

Curious to know how this is working out in play for your group, and if you've encountered any pitfalls with any of the classes. I really don't care much for short rests. and was thinkng of having a recharge by spending an action a couple of times per day, but I am beginning to think that just getting rid of short rest altogether (except for the use of healing dice) would be far simpler and less annoying. I am just not sure yet how much extra the uses of the short rest powers need to be increased to be in the Goldilocks zone.

I haven't noticed problems or issues. It matters, of course, what classes you have. The original party was Rogue, Paladin, Ranger x2, Sorcerer, Druid. Not much short resting there. The Rogue changed to Monk and one of the Rangers changed to a Fighter so I eventually got more short rest mechanics to deal with.

One benefit of eliminating short rest class features and making short rests only 5-15 minutes (for expending HD to regain HP) is that it's easier to design encounters. I don't have to care if/when players can rest an hour to regain resources. I can make a single encounter in a day harder and the short rest folks can still shine. The frontline fighter can be an Action Hero heroic chewing through two Action Surges or two Second Winds.

Adventuring Day design (or balance) for encounters devolves to determining whether the encounters are going to be in quick sequence/waves or spaced out (which is the usual). If the PCs can lightly search a room, loot bodies, and gather their stuff up they can rest. This is far easier than determining whether they can rest a full hour.

It's easy to switch from "Dungeon Time" to "Wilderness Time" with no short rests. "Dungeon Time" is where the PCs can go to a dungeon and get back to relative safety and comfort. That equals eight hours of rest for one long rest. "Wilderness Time" is where encounters might be spread out while the PCs trek cross country. You can extend a long rest to four days or a full week (Specifically 4 or 7 eight-hour rests). Whatever.

The game assumes 2 short rests per day and, therefore, a maximum of 3x short rest abilities per day. I only gave them 2x uses of short rest mechanics as I think in reality it's unlikely all PCs would be at zero short rest abilities when they actually took a short rest. In addition, converting short rest abilities to 2x per long rest adds a great deal of flexibility and encourages more use of the abilities as the PC knows precisely how many uses they have.

With everyone operating on a long rest, the only debate is about HP, and since rests are 5-15 minutes it's trivial. Basically, if you short rest for HP after an encounter you don't get to loot, search, cast detection spells (barring the party spending a seriously long time doing the aforementioned).

I love having gotten rid of short rests for class features.

EDIT: I don't find short rests of an hour and short rest class mechanics meaningfully engage me as a DM or the players in any of the three pillars of the game in a way I find interesting. It's not as interesting as interesting as camping for a night and it basically involves the PCs doing nothing. Short Resting is anti-gaming, IMO.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The only way to call WotC on how they try to eat the cake and have it too (=to get away with making an assumption while off-loading all the work required to make it true on DMs) is to raise awareness among their customers.

If you spent half as much time creating the rules you wanted so that the game was usable to you as you do continually "calling out" WotC for not doing it here on EN World, you'd have yourself a nice and happier little game by now.

 

[jaelis]

The relevant question isn't about the resting mechanic. It's about the encounter assumption.

Hmm, it seems to me that encounter pacing and rest mechanics are two sides of the same coin, but at any rate, my point still stands: they designed an open-ended system with some middle-of-the-road resting mechanics, and let people do what they want with it.

Was this playtested? That is, did the playtest provide feedback on the 6-8 encounter/2 short rest adventuring day assumption?

Don't really know how to answer that, since there are no explicit encounter pacing rules like that, nor were there in the playtest.

Actually, I know what you're thinking of, the advice that a typical party can handle 6-8 encounters per day. I guess though that you are reading that as proscriptive (ie, you should be making that happen), but I think it is intended as descriptive (do what you want, but that's a reasonable ballpark for how much you can expect them to handle).

As a description, what is there to playtest? It is either correct or not. Even that will depend very much on your encounters, but it seems like a reasonable place to start from. If it isn't correct for your group, you'll want to adapt. Is it that you think it is way off base in general?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Assuming you are correct, it would be a breath of fresh air if WotC went ahead and confessed they aren't really supporting d20 or backwards compatability.

During the 4E era I would agree with you. With all the offerings at D&D classics we have so much old school goodness available.

 

[OB1]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - If you stop thinking of these design decisions as problems, and instead focus on using them as tools, you can start to use them to accomplish what you want.

I'm not sure it takes any more work, just a different approach and way to think about things. I know I've mentioned this before, but I basically run my games in two modes.

Exploration Phase - Heavy on Social and Exploration pillars, light on combat. Purpose is for PCs to decide on what mission to take on next and develop a plan on how to attack it. Combat, when it happens, tends to be on the easier side, because resource attrition is not a designed part of this phase. What combat does typically do is provide the players insights into the types of threats they may be facing on the mission they are exploring while the Social and Exploration pillars provide ways to mitigate challenges or encounters they may face in the mission phase.

Mission Phase - Heavy on combat, light on Social and Exploration. In this phase the players have decided to "make their move" on their current objective, and are opposed by environment, monsters and enemies. The path to their objective consists of encounters that total more than the recommended daily XP budget, possibly by a substantial margin depending on the specific mission. Reaching their goal requires a combination of average luck and the ability to avoid some encounters along the way. A secondary objective (such as raiding a treasure room guarded by a deadly foe) may have to be abandoned depending on how well they have fared in earlier encounters. Short rests tend to lead to escalating complications (and here I found newfound and welcome advice from Angry) while long rests will almost always cause either immediate failure of the objective or make the objective unobtainable for the present time.

Of course, I'll also throw in an unexpected Mission Phase in the middle of exploration just to shake things up. The party comes across something that needs to be done now and can either choose to take it or not.

As for published adventures, they aren't designed to kill PCs, they are designed to create a fun and memorable story, exactly what WOTC says the game is supposed to do. If you want challenge here, try creating a party using roll 3d6 in order as a way to provide a unique challenge.

 

[Satyrn]

i've been running LMoP, ToD and SKT and not once has the rest mechanic been mentioned. The room in LMoP is described as being securable (with the implication that it can be used to long rest).

I've read the other books (with exception of PotA) and I've not once (in my memory) seen resting called out in any special way (or really in any way).

But it seems we are at loggerheads so we should probably leave it there

Doesn't OotA mention rests in relation to the drow chasing the party?