D&D 5E We have a Legends and Lore this week

[Blackwarder]

I think this is a terrible idea. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense. People can get a good night's rest when camping or in a cave. What do you think our ancestors did, before there were houses and beds to sleep in? But more importantly, it's a terrible idea from a game design perspective. First level characters can have single digit hp, making them extremely fragile. Now they might end up being stuck with half of that, until they can get back to town. So you can have wizards or rogues with as few as 3 HP after resting. Sure, they can get magical healing, but this is also a terrible idea for that reason. Since characters can't recover more than half of their hp from resting in a dungeon, the cleric (or other healer) is going to have to spend his healing resources first thing in the morning healing everyone from yesterday's injuries.

I just been thinking on it and IMO it's a great idea, but's thats just my playstyle preference I guess. You don't like it, than just change it but as a base rule I think it's a good one, especially for the core game.

Warder

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think this is a terrible idea. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense. People can get a good night's rest when camping or in a cave. What do you think our ancestors did, before there were houses and beds to sleep in? But more importantly, it's a terrible idea from a game design perspective. First level characters can have single digit hp, making them extremely fragile. Now they might end up being stuck with half of that, until they can get back to town. So you can have wizards or rogues with as few as 3 HP after resting. Sure, they can get magical healing, but this is also a terrible idea for that reason. Since characters can't recover more than half of their hp from resting in a dungeon, the cleric (or other healer) is going to have to spend his healing resources first thing in the morning healing everyone from yesterday's injuries.

It's funny, I had an equal and opposite reaction to that passage: I think you shouldn't be able to rest in the dungeon at all. "We're in a hostile environment full of evil things that want to kill us. Luckily, we've spiked the door shut, so we should be perfectly safe while we lie on hard stone for 8 hours right next to a heap of monster corpses that didn't smell very good even when they were alive. We'll feel much better in the morning."

It is weird, though, that Mearls wrote this part. He talks about rest-healing being slow and taking multiple days, so how would you rest back to full HP in a dungeon anyway? Spend a week underground?

Edit: I guess what he means is that your first night of rest (anywhere) can bring you back to half, but the only way to get above that is to spend a few more days in a safe place.

As for your point, Falling Icicle:

1. If a level 1 character is somehow in a situation where they have to rest but are unable to return to town, they have bigger things to worry about than a few HP.
2. One of the conceits of the tier system is that you're not a fully capable adventurer until level 3. Level 1 characters are supposed to have easy introductory adventures. For experienced gamers who want stronger characters, this means you'll start at level 3, with 3 levels' worth of HP. I'm not sure if this was the main purpose of the tier system, but it's a nice benefit.

 

[delericho]

Sure, they can get magical healing, but this is also a terrible idea for that reason. Since characters can't recover more than half of their hp from resting in a dungeon, the cleric (or other healer) is going to have to spend his healing resources first thing in the morning healing everyone from yesterday's injuries.

Yep, the half hit points limit needs to apply to magical healing as well (or, at least, spellcaster healing - potions and/or scrolls could be exempt I suppose). Otherwise, not only is the Cleric stuck in healbot mode, as you suggest, but the PCs will also spend the next day sitting around until the Cleric can replenish his spells again.

They could well be trading the 15 minute adventuring day for a 15 minute adventuring week.

But otherwise I actually like the idea - it's quite similar to some house rules I've been considering (but never quite implemented) for some time.

 

[GX.Sigma]

They could well be trading the 15 minute adventuring day for a 15 minute adventuring week.

But making it a week gives you incentive to not make it a 15 minute work day. A week is long enough that you can't just go to town, rest, and go back to the adventure. If you go back to town before accomplishing your goal, you're pretty much admitting defeat.

 

[Cyberen]

Excellent L&L !
I love the fact Mearls is spending so much time defusing the incoming Flak *before* presenting the default option (having a default option is a necessity if you want to max out the playability of the game out of the (red) box).
Week after week, I am also getting a feeling the Wandering Monsters column is adopting the right angle for this edition. Good !
Concerning genre-defining dials in the game, recovery is certainly one (defensive capabilities, aka HP are important, but offensive recovery is also genre-defining). They should also consider XP rewards : you are definitely not playing the same game if your main XP income is loot or combat (or whatever).

 

[delericho]

But making it a week gives you incentive to not make it a 15 minute work day. A week is long enough that you can't just go to town, rest, and go back to the adventure. If you go back to town before accomplishing your goal, you're pretty much admitting defeat.

Perhaps. I fear, though, that the same players who adopt the 15mAD approach will seamlessly adjust. After all, their logic remains the same: there's no cost to the players in doing so, but a potentially nasty consequence for going on at less than 100%.

And although the DM is free to rule that they've therefore failed in their goal, I fear they'll just shrug, declare that this game sucks, and demand that the DM "fix it".

 

[GX.Sigma]

Perhaps. I fear, though, that the same players who adopt the 15mAD approach will seamlessly adjust. After all, their logic remains the same: there's no cost to the players in doing so, but a potentially nasty consequence for going on at less than 100%.

And although the DM is free to rule that they've therefore failed in their goal, I fear they'll just shrug, declare that this game sucks, and demand that the DM "fix it".

I think that such a group (if it ever existed) has bigger problems than resting rules.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like what i read. Options to scale how fast HP really recover and other alternatives such as lingering wounds is what i expect from a modular system such as D&D Next.

 

[delericho]

I think that such a group (if it ever existed) has bigger problems than resting rules.

Perhaps.

I have faced such a group, once, though they weren't quite so pathological - they made camp in the wilderness, having taken some wounds and used most of their spells. During the night, they faced a random encounter, meaning they lost a few more hit points and used up some of their spells (and, it being 3e, the Clerics thus used up some of their spell slots from the next day). As a consequence of which, they insisted on staying put for a full day and night, so they didn't have to proceed while wounded and low on spells.

After that, I always made sure they had easy access to a wand of cure light wounds. It's a horrible piece of equipment, and a bad fix for the issue, and something I'm not at all sorry to see go... except that giving them that easy access made the game flow much more smoothly, because I didn't have to constantly fight their wish not to proceed at less than 100%. (Well, sort of. At least one of the players in that group also had a near-pathological opposition to using up disposable resources. He considered it a waste to use up the wand when they had a perfectly good Cleric who could heal any and all damage if just given time. Sometimes, you just can't win. )

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Crossposted:

Whilst I do want rules that recognise there is a difference between resting in a ditch and resting in the Three Old Kegs, I don't think that a fixed limit on how healthy you feel the next day is the right way about this. No matter how awful the conditions you sleep in, excepting the most extreme, you'll always feel better after resting than if you hadn't.

Rather than setting a barrier beyond which you cannot heal, the conditions should change the rate of recovery, and maybe even your condition should change your rate of recovery. So, as a suggestion for the most basic (and gritty) of rules, the party can rest in a poor, average or good environment; in a poor environment you don't recover any hp but you do get spells and such, in an average environment you recover 1hp/level and in a good environment you recover 2hp/level. A nice tweak to this would be to recover an additional 1hp/level if you are at less than half your maximum hp (bloodied) - this is a far better rule than the fixed limit beyond which you can't heal. Under these rules I would make casual dungeon resting a poor environment, cosy dungeon and wilderness resting average, and top notch campsite and town resting good.

If you're at the more heroic end of things, you can still apply similar rules. In a poor environment you get back only 1/4 of your HP or up to half max, whichever is better, in an average environment that can be 1/2 your HP or 3/4 max, and a good environment can be all your HP no matter what.