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

Ovinomancer said:

And, you still don't actually think this through in terms of worldbuilding. Yes, it's trivially true that if I get enough defenders together (where enough is a large number), they win, often at great cost, but the issue isn't that the math works out, it's where do the enough non-adventurers come from? Enough for 3 deadly encounter units of monsters a day (or other chosen time period for long rests)

Click to expand...

Civilizations... cities, towns, villages along with alliances? I thought this was self evidentt enough that I didnt have to state it. Yes a lone or even small group of non-adventurers will be decimated by deadly encounters... but then so would a lone adventurer or small party of adventurers.

Ovinomancer said:

This doesn't actually address my point.

Click to expand...

Exactly what isnt addressed?

Ovinomancer said:

So, deadly encounter units of monster will only attack/engage/be found by adventurers far enough away from non-adventurers so that non-adventurers are always safe? You're, again, avoiding the issue I'm raising about worldbuilding.

Click to expand...

No i'm not... If they know large groups of non adventurers spell doom for them... without extenuating circumstances... why wouldnt they avoid them?

Ovinomancer said:

And, again, you don't actually address my point

Click to expand...

Seems addressed to me...

Ovinomancer said:

With this one you're almost... almost... there.

Click to expand...

Now im starting to think you dont really have a point.

Sadras said:

I agree with @Ovinomancer - To give an example @Imaro
In my HotDQ campaign the adventurers were guided by lizardmen to a long forgotten temple. Along the way they encountered all manner of creatures where some where quite dangerous/deadly. For that session I followed the 6-8 encounters model. I didn't even have to make encounters deadly for it to mess with the worldbuilding aspect of it. You see, when worldbuilding one has to account how the lizardmen and bullywugs have managed to survive in The Mere of the Dead Men when its full of crocodiles, large spiders, shambling mounds, undead or yuanti hunting parties and this is before the harsh terrain.

Click to expand...

Because they know the terrain, habitats and behavior patterns of these creatures. There are humans in the real world who survive and even thrive in conditions (Africa, Australia, the Amazon, etc.) where deadly creatures, terrain and foliage are a constant...how is that possible if this destroys "worldbuilding"?

Sadras said:

So do lizardmen and bullywugs breed relatively quickly compared to other races? Are there areas which work as safe zones (hallowed), which prohibit the undead from passing through them?...etc

Click to expand...

So it is possible for worldbuilding? I mean you've given 3 suggestions off the top of your head. The funny thing is that this is exactly the default set up for a points of light campaign... which again seems to point to it being possible to have cohesive worldbuilding with a "deadly wilds" conceit.

Sadras said:

Now when you're increasing the Deadly Encounters ratio to 3 a day, you seriously need to take into consideration how this might impact your worldbuilding.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming it isn't a consideration... what I'm saying is that it can be integrated into a cohesive world. Again our world provides plenty of examples.

EDIT: There also seems to be an assumption that a deadly encounter must involve a large number of enemies as opposed to something like a single very dangerous predator, or a stronger/more skilled member of a tribe whose actual impact on an eco-system would be much smaller... why is that?

Imaro said:

So it is possible for worldbuilding? I mean you've given 3 suggestions off the top of your head. The funny thing is that this is exactly the default set up for a points of light campaign... which again seems to point to it being possible to have cohesive worldbuilding with a "deadly wilds" conceit.

Click to expand...

I remember the players at my table made a comment about how weak the lizardmen were, so this topic has been on my mind recently. Encounter frequency as well as deadliness of encounters is now quite a large factor for my worldbuilding.

I'm not well versed with PoL, but it is easier to say areas of civilisation are safe because of technology, heroes, magic + artifacts...etc But trade routes and the less civilised areas (including that of other species such as lizardmen, goblins...etc) require some prethought/planning.
Increasing the stakes to 3 deadly encounters / day means more consideration on world-building.

Imaro said:

Civilizations... cities, towns, villages along with alliances? I thought this was self evidentt enough that I didnt have to state it. Yes a lone or even small group of non-adventurers will be decimated by deadly encounters... but then so would a lone adventurer or small party of adventurers.


Exactly what isnt addressed?

Click to expand...

So, for a party of 4 5th level adventurers, a deadly encounter with Orcs could be an Orog and a dozen orcs (about 500xp over deadly threshold of 4.4k). That mob of a baker's dozen orcs is a double deadly for 12 level 2 PCs, much less a dozen town guards. If you give the town guards a veteran to lead them (tougher than the Orog), it's still 20 guards and a veteran to match up to the xp budget of the baker's dozen of orcs. So, this is a losing proposition for civilization.

To further this point, the group of orcs that can furnish 3 of those 13 orc encounters a day is massive. Your patrolling more than 40 orcs a day, more like over 200 orcs on patrol (because it defies possibility that the orcs are only sending out patrols that happen to catch PC parties in their territory), and, even given the send out half of their number daily on patrol, that's a mob of 400 orcs, with orogs, warchiefs, and Eye's mixed in. This isn't even borrowing what should be there in Volo's more advanced orc templates. If that mob goes WAAAAUGH!!!, towns can't stand, and small cities are going to at least be heavily raided before fend them off.

Yet, this mob of orcs is in one place to provide sufficiently powerful encounters for a group of beginning Tier II heroes for a day or three. If I continue to populate my world this way, civilization will not be able to stand, or will be pushed back into heavily fortified stronghold cities, which then invites other worldbuilding questions. The idea of pushing 3 deadly a day on adventurers distorts even a passing attempt to justify the world that exists to support it.

That's what's not addressed -- that actual point about world building. Handwaiving "But civilization, duh" doesn't cut it.

No i'm not... If they know large groups of non adventurers spell doom for them... without extenuating circumstances... why wouldnt they avoid them?



Seems addressed to me...

Click to expand...

But, as above, they don't spell doom. Sure, there's the ever cited '200 archers can kill a dragon easy', but that's the single enemy issue -- those aren't the threat. It's the 'can 200 archers kill 2000 orcs?' Because that's the comparison you need to look at. The bad guys don't just come in singleton units, most come in mobs. As above, a deadly encounter for 4 5th level heroes is 1 clay golem or 2 flesh golems. Not too much trouble for 4 heros with magic and magical weapons, but impossible for normal troops to defeat (due to being immune to their weapons). Or lycanthropes, a few werewolves can wreak havoc on a town with near impunity. These are the deadly monster unit groups that challenge 5th level PCs and yet non-adventurers are almost entirely helpless against. They're also things that often appear in town based adventures. If I'm scaling my world to be deadly to the exceptionally, where, exactly, do the normals fit in? And the answer isn't 'cities' because there's no justification for cities even existing in a world of 10th level heros fighting deadly encounter units of orcs (that's 30, btw). That orc encounter is trivial for the heroes absent serious environmental challenges, but 30 orcs will do for most town militas.

Now im starting to think you dont really have a point.

Click to expand...

I was hoping you'd catch on, but you seem insistent on handwaiving my points away. What you're so close to getting is that I can't have the safe woods AND provide dangerous, deadly encounter units. Which means anywhere there are such woods, I can't use the suggestion of 3 a day. And, as above, such dangerous woods can't be near a village or small town without causing trouble, which goes right back into my worldbuilding point -- if I want both kinds of woods and I want the 3 a day solution, my worldbuilding must be heavily distorted so that all of the adventure is far, far away from the civilization. Or I only have fortress strongholds for towns. Either way, to do 3 a day as an all the time solution requires significant worldbuilding adjustments.

Imaro said:

Because they know the terrain, habitats and behavior patterns of these creatures. There are humans in the real world who survive and even thrive in conditions (Africa, Australia, the Amazon, etc.) where deadly creatures, terrain and foliage are a constant...how is that possible if this destroys "worldbuilding"?



So it is possible for worldbuilding? I mean you've given 3 suggestions off the top of your head. The funny thing is that this is exactly the default set up for a points of light campaign... which again seems to point to it being possible to have cohesive worldbuilding with a "deadly wilds" conceit.



I'm not claiming it isn't a consideration... what I'm saying is that it can be integrated into a cohesive world. Again our world provides plenty of examples.

EDIT: There also seems to be an assumption that a deadly encounter must involve a large number of enemies as opposed to something like a single very dangerous predator, or a stronger/more skilled member of a tribe whose actual impact on an eco-system would be much smaller... why is that?

Click to expand...

We, uh, don't have giant spiders and giant crocodiles and giant snakes and stirges in the real world. Also, those areas of the real world that have significant natural challenges also have very low population densities. Yes, you'll find scattered villages, but, then, it's rather hard to pull 3 deadly encounters of lizardmen a day from scattered villages.

Ovinomancer said:

So, for a party of 4 5th level adventurers, a deadly encounter with Orcs could be an Orog and a dozen orcs (about 500xp over deadly threshold of 4.4k). That mob of a baker's dozen orcs is a double deadly for 12 level 2 PCs, much less a dozen town guards. If you give the town guards a veteran to lead them (tougher than the Orog), it's still 20 guards and a veteran to match up to the xp budget of the baker's dozen of orcs. So, this is a losing proposition for civilization.

To further this point, the group of orcs that can furnish 3 of those 13 orc encounters a day is massive. Your patrolling more than 40 orcs a day, more like over 200 orcs on patrol (because it defies possibility that the orcs are only sending out patrols that happen to catch PC parties in their territory), and, even given the send out half of their number daily on patrol, that's a mob of 400 orcs, with orogs, warchiefs, and Eye's mixed in. This isn't even borrowing what should be there in Volo's more advanced orc templates. If that mob goes WAAAAUGH!!!, towns can't stand, and small cities are going to at least be heavily raided before fend them off.

Yet, this mob of orcs is in one place to provide sufficiently powerful encounters for a group of beginning Tier II heroes for a day or three. If I continue to populate my world this way, civilization will not be able to stand, or will be pushed back into heavily fortified stronghold cities, which then invites other worldbuilding questions. The idea of pushing 3 deadly a day on adventurers distorts even a passing attempt to justify the world that exists to support it.

That's what's not addressed -- that actual point about world building. Handwaiving "But civilization, duh" doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

Ok first off... dont these civilizations have basic defenses...fortifications...walls...archers?? I mean in a world based on the tropes of D&D (and even in our real world with no mosters) this was just common sense.

Second are you saying every day of their lives outside of being in a city or civilized area a deadly group of monsters attacks adventurers? Thats just absurd. If you choose to make every single day of travel an all out life or death battle... I've literally never experienced this in a game... some days traveling through the wilderness are dangerous yes... but the majority are uneventful (combat wise) with the purpose of providing color, exploration/social opportunities and/or a chance for inter-party roleplay.

Another point...why is the assumption massive numbers of low cr creatures as opposed to a larger CR predator or a smaller number of more skilled/stronger humanoid? I get it tends to skew things towards your particular issues, but then the question becomes why do it?

Finally im not sure a CR comparrison really proves anything here.

Ovinomancer said:

But, as above, they don't spell doom. Sure, there's the ever cited '200 archers can kill a dragon easy', but that's the single enemy issue -- those aren't the threat. It's the 'can 200 archers kill 2000 orcs?' Because that's the comparison you need to look at. The bad guys don't just come in singleton units, most come in mobs. As above, a deadly encounter for 4 5th level heroes is 1 clay golem or 2 flesh golems. Not too much trouble for 4 heros with magic and magical weapons, but impossible for normal troops to defeat (due to being immune to their weapons). Or lycanthropes, a few werewolves can wreak havoc on a town with near impunity. These are the deadly monster unit groups that challenge 5th level PCs and yet non-adventurers are almost entirely helpless against. They're also things that often appear in town based adventures. If I'm scaling my world to be deadly to the exceptionally, where, exactly, do the normals fit in? And the answer isn't 'cities' because there's no justification for cities even existing in a world of 10th level heros fighting deadly encounter units of orcs (that's 30, btw). That orc encounter is trivial for the heroes absent serious environmental challenges, but 30 orcs will do for most town militas.

Click to expand...

You seem to be wrestling with some assumptions Im not sure really make sense... like the threat must be 2000 orcs vs. A single apex predator...why? Or better yet a much smaller tribe of higher CR Orcs? You're choosing to create a problem the claiming "worldbuilding did it" when you're the one building the world. You are creating absurd expectations... combat everyday...any time you're not in a civilized area and then complaining it causes a problem when again the real problem is no world is like that.

As for cities not existing... again a silly assumption along with one where golems and lycanthropes attack towns and cities en masse yet no silver weapons are to be found and no adventurers are ever hired to defeat them.

Ovinomancer said:

I was hoping you'd catch on, but you seem insistent on handwaiving my points away. What you're so close to getting is that I can't have the safe woods AND provide dangerous, deadly encounter units. Which means anywhere there are such woods, I can't use the suggestion of 3 a day. And, as above, such dangerous woods can't be near a village or small town without causing trouble, which goes right back into my worldbuilding point -- if I want both kinds of woods and I want the 3 a day solution, my worldbuilding must be heavily distorted so that all of the adventure is far, far away from the civilization. Or I only have fortress strongholds for towns. Either way, to do 3 a day as an all the time solution requires significant worldbuilding adjustments.

Click to expand...

Why would the woods, roads, etc. Near major civilizations not be "safe" or relatively safe? At that point you dont use the deadly encounters because it shouldnt be there but this goes back to your assumption that combats shoyld be happening all the time and everywhere that isnt a city, town or village.

Ovinomancer said:

We, uh, don't have giant spiders and giant crocodiles and giant snakes and stirges in the real world. Also, those areas of the real world that have significant natural challenges also have very low population densities. Yes, you'll find scattered villages, but, then, it's rather hard to pull 3 deadly encounters of lizardmen a day from scattered villages.

Click to expand...

Define "giant" because at least as they are defined in the MM.... We have all of those except stirges.

And no its not hard...increase the CR of the lizardmen and use less of them.

Imaro said:

Define "giant" because at least as they are defined in the MM.... We have all of those except stirges.

And no its not hard...increase the CR of the lizardmen and use less of them.

Click to expand...

This talk of weak lizardmen trying to survive in a world of monsters brought to mind all the cute little rabbits I see running wild around my town full of cats, dogs and coyotes. It surprises me they've lasted so long.

Ovinomancer said:

These are great points, but they don't consider the worldbuilding aspect this requires. If monsters come in deadly encounter units, why aren't they wreaking havoc on the non-adventurers? If the non-adventures can handle the deadly encounter units of monsters, why adventure? The solution set here works, mechanically, and does the job, but it requires me to stretch my game past where I am comfortable on the explaining why encounters are so deadly. Occasionally, yes, this works, but it doesn't work as a default, meaning that many times while trying to present a believable worlds it doesn't work out.

The Dark Deadly Woods of Danger, sure. The Normal Woods of Everyday Travelling, not so much.

Again, I do very much appreciate the point your making, and it's something that I've internalized for some time without being explicit about in my games. I vary encounters a lot. But, then, I also don't pay much attention to the daily XP counter. But I also have a bit of a sandbox, which means I'm not always (often?) in control of the pacing. To offset this, I will vary the 'win conditions' for encounters so that killing everything isn't always sufficient to win. This also addresses the issue by reducing the need/use of being in peak condition for a fight. But, all of that said, what we're talking about here is really some advanced DMing technique -- system mastery to understand how encounter math works and game pacing options and setting encounters where killing isn't winning. All work to make resting less of an issue, but none of them are present in published adventures and it requires considerable work to put them in. As someone running SKT right now (my first module in almost a decade), I'm making a lot of planned and on the fly changes to address some of the pacing issues present in the game (they have sections way to slow and some way too fast). That's not easy nor immediately apparent. If I didn't spend a few hours a session, it'd be a hot mess.

So, I guess my point is that yours is a good suggestion, and useful, and should go in the toolbox, but it doesn't solve the issue by itself. And it doesn't address published adventures. The designers of the game are largely unconcerned about this issue. That may, or may not, be an issue for individuals. It's one for me, and I have to put in work to fix it. Which defeats one of the points of published adventures.

Click to expand...

Agree with just about everything here. But to answer your questions first, the reason why an area is a deadly woods of danger is because of the threat level in it, whereas in the normal woods of everyday travel, the threat level is low or contained by outside forces. I wouldn't expect it to be challenging for my PCs to travel through the normal woods of everyday travel, and if they encounter a threat, it's probably one they can handle easily but that may hint of greater challenges slightly off the road.

My point was only that there is a mechanical solution available per the rules if you are worried about wanting every adventuring day to be a challenging one. I don't worry about that personally, I have some that are challenging and some that are easy. Sometimes I throw in a quick encounter to break up sessions heavy in exploration and social pillars. And because I vary things, the players can't be sure in any encounter that there isn't another one coming right after, and tend not to nova. If they try to rest in dangerous areas, I put a high probability of something bad happening during the rest. I tend to combine the provided mechanical solutions in the DMG with story solutions that make narrative sense to get the pace I want.

The best purely mechanical solution to ensuring that every combat counts is though the application of either Encounter Points required for rest or possibly through the purchase of potions or the need to go to special temples to recharge abilities and receive the "rest" benefit. Personally, I prefer to accomplish those goals through smart world building and good story, and will change APs to fit, but think it would be great for WOTC to include a simple and elegant solution for those wishing to ensure that each combat matters for those who prefer to play that way.

Imaro said:

Ok first off... dont these civilizations have basic defenses...fortifications...walls...archers?? I mean in a world based on the tropes of D&D (and even in our real world with no mosters) this was just common sense.

Click to expand...

Right, so then you agree this has worldbuilding implications. How many villages in modules have you seen with palisade walls? How many towns with stone walls?

Second are you saying every day of their lives outside of being in a city or civilized area a deadly group of monsters attacks adventurers? Thats just absurd. If you choose to make every single day of travel an all out life or death battle... I've literally never experienced this in a game... some days traveling through the wilderness are dangerous yes... but the majority are uneventful (combat wise) with the purpose of providing color, exploration/social opportunities and/or a chance for inter-party roleplay.

Click to expand...

Of course it's absurd -- that's the point. If I'm applying maximum deadly encounters per day to my adventurers so that they're challenged, then that area is stupid dangerous for non-adventures.

Another point...why is the assumption massive numbers of low cr creatures as opposed to a larger CR predator or a smaller number of more skilled/stronger humanoid? I get it tends to skew things towards your particular issues, but then the question becomes why do it?

Click to expand...

Because a believable world isn't filled with dragons as a common threat? I mean, sure, I could pack in a few beholders and a storm giant or two, but that strains credulity far more than a warband of orcs, don't you think?

Finally im not sure a CR comparrison really proves anything here.

Click to expand...

Okay, hang on. We started with the assumption that 3 deadly encounter units of monsters per day was a sound mechanical solution to the resting issue. And it is. But how do I determine what a deadly encounter is? Using the CR system. So, and follow closely here, I then point out that having that many deadly encounter units running around has some worldbuilding implications. To illustrate, I arbitrarily pick the beginning of Tier II (because it's a common level achieved by most games) and look at what deadly encounters are for that group. I do this with, you guessed it, the CR system, because that's how I find out what a deadly encounter is.

You seem to be wrestling with some assumptions Im not sure really make sense... like the threat must be 2000 orcs vs. A single apex predator...why? Or better yet a much smaller tribe of higher CR Orcs? You're choosing to create a problem the claiming "worldbuilding did it" when you're the one building the world. You are creating absurd expectations... combat everyday...any time you're not in a civilized area and then complaining it causes a problem when again the real problem is no world is like that.

Click to expand...

Sure, because a group of 150 warchiefs is much more believable from a worldbuilding standpoint. I think you're dodging and moving goalposts so much that you've completely forgotten the core point of my statement: the 3 deadly encounters a day solution to resting has serious worldbuilding implications. I think you've lost this because you're increasingly dwelling on red herrings and sidetracks and, when you get to the end of many of them, offer world building advice on how you can make that work. Which is, wait for it, exactly what I said has to happen. Towns have to have walls and dedicated defense forces. You end up with points of light as a campaign concept. Etc., Etc. When you aren't offering worldbuilding advice, you're ignoring any sense of worldbuilding and saying 'just use higher level orcs,' which ignores why there are all of these grouped higher level orcs instead of lots of regular orcs, or 'why are you using low CR monsters, use higher CR monsters,' which has it's own set of issues that I pointed out above.

As for cities not existing... again a silly assumption along with one where golems and lycanthropes attack towns and cities en masse yet no silver weapons are to be found and no adventurers are ever hired to defeat them.

Click to expand...

Have you even paid attention to the ridiculous prices for silver weapons in the PH? Who the hell besides adventurers have these? Maybe a handful in a decent sized town, who's owners probably aren't a match for werewolves even armed with silver? And that ignores any real attempt to actually price what a silvered weapon should cost (much more) and the fact that it would be nearly useless as a weapon after a few swings. So, even ignoring realism to stick to game mechanics, comparing the cost of a silvered weapon to what the average townsfolk makes a day and how much living expenses cost and you end up with very, very few, owned by weirdos. Or you're postulating a professional army that provides equipment via taxation, and, if you follow that, you're spending a lot of taxes on werewolves attacking. Doesn't really work out buying silver swords for the militia at a cost that could pay the militia for a few years.

Why would the woods, roads, etc. Near major civilizations not be "safe" or relatively safe? At that point you dont use the deadly encounters because it shouldnt be there but this goes back to your assumption that combats shoyld be happening all the time and everywhere that isnt a city, town or village.

Click to expand...

So, then, you're backing off of the 3 deadly encounter units of monsters as a mechanical solution to the resting issue because it affects world building? Interesting point, I'll have to give it some thought.