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

shoak1 · Jun 30, 2017

OB1 said:
I don't think I explained this very well, and also realized that I need a small tweak to account for failing in combat. First the revised rule.

XP Based Rest Variant
Adventurer's and monsters draw their extraordinary powers and resilience to damage directly from the Positive and Negative planes. When you defeat other NPCs and monsters, you gain some of their power as you absorb lightning-like energy from your defeated foe. In addition to tracking XP for level advancement, players also need to keep an XP Rest Count.

When you collect 1/3 and then 2/3s of your daily XP budget since your last long rest, you gain the benefit of a short rest. You can also gain this benefit from an 8 hour rest in a safe location, but doing so also resets your XP rest count to 0.
When you collect XP equal to or greater than your daily XP budget since your last long rest, you gain the benefit of a long rest. You can also gain this benefit from a 7 day rest in a safe location. Your rest count resets to 0 after either type of long rest.

Example
OB1 is a first level monk traveling alone through a forest to his grandmothers house.
OB1s daily budget is 300xp. He will receive short rest 1 when he gets 100xp, short rest 2 at 200xp, and a long rest at 300xp
On the way to grandma's house, OB1 is attacked by 2 giant rats and defeats them (50xp Medium difficult encounter)
OB1, to gain the benefit of a short rest, would need to rest for 8 hours or get in one more Medium difficulty fight. OB1 decides to press on.
Later, OB1 is attacked by a wolf and defeats it (50xp Medium difficulty encounter). At the end of the fight, OB1 immediately gains the benefit of a short rest, and can choose to spend hit die, which he does.
As OB1 approaches his grandma's house, he is attacked by an Orc! He fights valiantly and defeats it (100xp, Deadly difficulty encounter) and immediately gains the benefit of a short rest. He has no more hit die left, so he can't recover hit points.
At this point, OB1 can either press on to Grandma's, or he will need to take a week rest to regain his hit points and hit die. He decides to press on.
As he reaches grandma's house, a lone Orc is axing through the door. OB1 rushes it, and defeats it! OB1 gains the benefit of a long rest and also level's up! Way to go OB1!

Had OB1 bailed after the first Orc fight and returned home to rest, he would still have 200xp towards level advancement, but when he set off on the path again a week later, his XP Rest count would be at 0. After fighting the second Orc, he would reach level 2, but would need to take another week off to get a long rest or would now have to get to to 600 XP to get the long rest benefit (200 and 400 for short rest 1 and 2).

I like your method in some ways, but I prefer giving my players more choices. I usually put a ticking clock on them, in the form of some intel like "in 30 days the attack on the fort is coming!" So if they know they need 24 travel days to get to the fort they hope to save, they know they have 6 discretionary rests along the way IF they don't get slowed down in some way. This brings tension and challenge to each decision to rest without having it feel to forced or implausible.

ExploderWizard · Jun 30, 2017

Hussar said:
I guess I'm just a bit more of a visual learner than that.

I'd much rather the map, instead of just listing a number, actually lists the contents of the room, right on the map. The module itself might talk about strategies, have the stat blocks, or boxed text descriptions, or things like that, but, I should know all of the monsters of a dungeon just by looking at the map.

Thus, having 3 maps like this lets me instantly know who's who in the zoo without having to dig through the text of the module to figure stuff out.

I suppose that might be helpful, but again once the PCs have made contact and changed the status quo, how does a map that says 4 monsters are now in room 7 help if they have already been killed?

Corwin · Jun 30, 2017

shoak1 said:
LOL perhaps you are trying to be helpful but it seems whenever anyone doesn't like something about 5e, the wagons get circled and we get tossed dozens of variations of these suggestions:

I find it interesting the way people perceive things. You know, what with it passing through their own filters and such...

shoak1 said:
1) "If you perceive a problem, relax - just have the DM change the rule to suit your table. D and D is soooo awesome that way!" (big smile)

Yeah. What a terrible suggestion. (rolleyes)

shoak1 said:
2) "Perhaps you should try a different game more suited to your (cough) "preferences""?

Again, why is this a problem? Seems like a logical response to someone who finds a lot wrong with a particular system, or something fundamental about it that keeps causing them issues. (exasperated look)

shoak1 said:
3) "Why get worked up over something as trivial as combat or balance?" (confused look) "Don't you know D and D is an rpg, not a wargame?"

This seems like a pretty caricaturish, misrepresentation of the instances where similar was offered. But again, personal filter, and all. Do you have an example of someone saying this, in such a condescending way? (look of scornful doubt)

shoak1 said:
If you hardcore rpgers started seeing giant stat blocks and multi page encounter diagrams replacing your yummy background, history, and motivations in modules, you would be crying foul too. And odds are you wouldn't find the above 3 suggestions "helpful."

This, right here, is just more evidence that my suggestion of a more fitting system/edition may be apropos. Take a moment to look at what you just wrote. Seriously, read it from a neutral reader position. Can't you see that you've basically just leveled criticisms on the system itself, and the direction the devs decided to go in, more so than the people you think you are chastising? And then you get yourself all into a lather because someone dared to suggest not all systems are designed with every playstyle preference as a focus? And that maybe some systems are better suited for groups who like, "giant stat blocks and multi page encounter diagrams" in their modules in lieu of "yummy background, history, and motivations"? You don't see that? I guarantee you there is a system/edition out there much more suited for you. The fact that someone, daring to help you realize that is being insulting, is more on you than them. (frustrated sigh)

shoak1 said:
"Gee why you getting so worked up over the module lacking something as silly and trivial as the history of the region? Just make it up yourself if you find it so important, or go find a more fluffy game that might be better suited to your preferences - I hear 5e was totally rpgish, you might start there (helpful smile)."

"I can't believe that module wasted so many pages on history of the region! Doesn't the writer realize a lot of DMs make it up themselves because they use their own homebrew setting? Or that their campaigns have a lot of changes from the assumed baseline narrative? I mean, my PCs killed Duke Sinisterpants of Shadyrealm six months ago in another adventure. And this module dares to tell me he is a pivotal character? That's stoopid!" (what-else-you-got?-smirk)

hawkeyefan · Jun 30, 2017

shoak1 said:
I don't divorce the game from the story - my stories are integral to the game. But like millions of Americans who go to watch movies or theater, my players are quite content with the story being written by someone else, as long as they can act in it and have a role in deciding the outcome. Believe it or not, many players PREFER not to do any heavy lifting story-wise or direction wise and just enjoy the game. Those approaching D and D from a purist rpg angle on the other hand, have the attitude that the players should dictate the story, or at least should have a major role in it.

But I mean story as the DM can determine it, not the players. You claim there is no way to limit the players' ability to have their characters rest, you claim there are no time constraints to compel players to have their characters push forward. My point is that this is where the DM should step in. The DM can and should be taking what's in the book and using it to create the results he wants.

So, to use Curse of Strahd, for example, what if Strahd kidnaps Ireena? Surely this is offered as a possibility in the book. How would it affect your players? Would they still be lollygagging about and resting in between every fight, or would they feel compelled to try and rescue Ireena?

What if the wolves of the Barovian wilds don't outright attack a PC camp, but instead they harry it all night long, just enough to prevent the PCs from gaining a long rest? Surely it is possible to come up with this course of action based on what's in the books, no?

shoak1 said:
LOL perhaps you are trying to be helpful but it seems whenever anyone doesn't like something about 5e, the wagons get circled and we get tossed dozens of variations of these suggestions:

1) "If you perceive a problem, relax - just have the DM change the rule to suit your table. D and D is soooo awesome that way!" (big smile)
2) "Perhaps you should try a different game more suited to your (cough) "preferences""?
3) "Why get worked up over something as trivial as combat or balance?" (confused look) "Don't you know D and D is an rpg, not a wargame?"

If you hardcore rpgers started seeing giant stat blocks and multi page encounter diagrams replacing your yummy background, history, and motivations in modules, you would be crying foul too. And odds are you wouldn't find the above 3 suggestions "helpful."
"Gee why you getting so worked up over the module lacking something as silly and trivial as the history of the region? Just make it up yourself if you find it so important, or go find a more fluffy game that might be better suited to your preferences - I hear 5e was totally rpgish, you might start there (helpful smile)."

Well, you've expressed a problem, so people offer solutions. It's a valid response to a complaint. It really doesn't have anything to do with preferred style of play, no matter how much you try to force this "gamist vs. RPGer" angle.

"I think X is broken..." is very often followed by "Well have you tried to fix it by Y?"

OB1 · Jun 30, 2017

shoak1 said:
I like your method in some ways, but I prefer giving my players more choices. I usually put a ticking clock on them, in the form of some intel like "in 30 days the attack on the fort is coming!" So if they know they need 24 travel days to get to the fort they hope to save, they know they have 6 discretionary rests along the way IF they don't get slowed down in some way. This brings tension and challenge to each decision to rest without having it feel to forced or implausible.

Agreed, that is the best way. I offered this alternate as a way to alleviate the issues you find in the WOTC APs in a way that fits your criteria of not having DMs decide things on the fly. This is a completely neutral way of enforcing the game's mechanics.

One last note, I should have mentioned that when tracking Rest XP, you should be using the Adjusted XP for the encounter, not the Monster XP (you still use that for leveling).

shoak1 · Jun 30, 2017

"Hey bud my players are tearing thru yet another module, what should I do? They rest-encounter-rest all the time - is that really allowed?"
"Shhhhh!!!! Come closer kid!"
[comes closer] "Uhhh what's the matter?"
"I just don't want the rpgers hearing you - they get very testy when you start throwing the b word around."
"How can anyone be against balance in the game?"
"Kid, its not that they are against balance (lets call it The Elephant as a code name), its just that they care about it so little that they would rather the module include a few extra paragraphs on the long history of the region that waste any time on something like The Elephant."
"So what should I do?"
"Find a way to limit rest that ties into the story, or make something up if you have to"
"But shouldn't the module designer do that? I mean its crucial for balance right?"
"Shhhh!!!!! What did I tell you kid?!?!? Don't draw attention to the Elephant!!!!!! Now look, an rpger is coming over!!!"
"What's going on here? Did I hear you have a problem with Balance in The RPG Game?"
"Heh heh no sir, we were laughing about how some combat freaks were saying balance sucks........." "Buuuuuut like every good rpger, we know everything wrong with the game - .... errr excuse me sir, everything percieved wrong with the game at a particular table - can and should be fixed with the DM wand...."
"Good! Excellent, Fan 1446765, now move along!"

Corwin · Jun 30, 2017

(yawn) You're just further reassuring me that 5e isn't for you. Evidently hyperbolic complaining is, though. So keep doing what you're doing, I guess. (shrug)

Soul Stigma · Jun 30, 2017

Corwin said:
(yawn) You're just further reassuring me that 5e isn't for you. Evidently hyperbolic complaining is, though. So keep doing what you're doing, I guess. (shrug)

Board games perhaps.

Tony Vargas · Jun 30, 2017

shoak1 said:
1) "If you perceive a problem, relax - just have the DM change the rule to suit your table. D and D is soooo awesome that way!" (big smile)

Yeah, I get there can be some loading in that kind of advice. 'Perceive a problem,' indeed.

Fine. To be fair, let's acknowledge that D&D has never been perfect - heck it's rarely ever been playable without a little work and was probably saved from being the worst RPG in history by games like Spawn of Fshawn and FATAL - so, yeah, it has actual, real problems. Always has, always will. Maybe not all of them are 'perceived' by everyone (nor perceived in the same way), but for those who do notice them, solutions (or even mere acknowledgement) are more valuable than denials.

That said, as facile and condescending as it may be, "the DM should fix that" is a solution, at least, a general path to a solution. In more specific cases it'd be "the DM should fix that by doing A/(b)/c/lmnop..."

In the case of the resting elephant (which, apparently, we can't just let lie), a solution, which even the OP acknowledges as a solution IIRC, is for the DM to vary the availability of rests and the time needed to complete them to match the nominal-balance elephant-cadence of 5e to the pacing of the campaign, instead of distorting the campaign with arbitrary time-pressure and GM-force and other perfectly legitimate, but broadly-despised techniques of "Illusionism" (also a valid solution IMHO, but not the kind you nor the OP are looking for).

2) "Perhaps you should try a different game more suited to your (cough) "preferences""?

Completely out of line. If you could play the way you liked in even one past edition of D&D, it's fair to expect to be able to bang 5e into a similar enough shape to get it to work in the same style. That's not just the 'big tent' goal, that's /why there's a 5e at all/, because other WotC eds didn't deliver on the styles of the classic game.

3) "Why get worked up over something as trivial as combat or balance?" (confused look) "Don't you know D and D is an rpg, not a wargame?"

Inevitable and meaningless. Just as much so as it was back when it was the Role v Roll debate on UseNet.

shoak1 · Jun 30, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
Yeah, I get there can be some loading in that kind of advice. 'Perceive a problem,' indeed.
Fine. To be fair, let's acknowledge that D&D has never been perfect - heck it's rarely ever been playable without a little work and was probably saved from being the worst RPG in history by games like Spawn of Fshawn and FATAL - so, yeah, it has actual, real problems. Always has, always will. Maybe not all of them are 'perceived' by everyone (nor perceived in the same way), but for those who do notice them, solutions (or even mere acknowledgement) are more valuable than denials.

That said, as facile and condescending as it may be, "the DM should fix that" is a solution, at least, a general path to a solution. In more specific cases it'd be "the DM should fix that by doing A/(b)/c/lmnop..."

In the case of the resting elephant (which, apparently, we can't just let lie), a solution, which even the OP acknowledges as a solution IIRC, is for the DM to vary the availability of rests and the time needed to complete them to match the nominal-balance elephant-cadence of 5e to the pacing of the campaign, instead of distorting the campaign with arbitrary time-pressure and GM-force and other perfectly legitimate, but broadly-despised techniques of "Illusionism" (also a valid solution IMHO, but not the kind you nor the OP are looking for).

Completely out of line. If you could play the way you liked in even one past edition of D&D, it's fair to expect to be able to bang 5e into a similar enough shape to get it to work in the same style. That's not just the 'big tent' goal, that's /why there's a 5e at all/, because other WotC eds didn't deliver on the styles of the classic game.

Inevitable and meaningless. Just as much so as it was back when it was the Role v Roll debate on UseNet.

Thanks for understanding. It would just be nice to be able to post problems and look for solutions (or at least have the complaint seen and heard) rather than be deluged every time with lectures re those 3 "solutions." While many of those offering those solutions may be well-intended, it often serves to drown out the complaint in an overwhelming way, making it an ordeal not worth going through much of the time.

Understanding that many of us don't want to change games, or have the DM always fix things, or play in less Gamist fashion would go a long way toward bridging the gap between the styles.

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

shoak1

Banned

ExploderWizard

Hero

Corwin

Explorer

hawkeyefan

Legend

OB1

Jedi Master

shoak1

Banned

Corwin

Explorer

Soul Stigma

First Post

Tony Vargas

Legend

shoak1

Banned

Similar Threads