D&D 5E Short Rest Poll

[Ichneumon]

Ever since 4th Edition became a thing, adventurers have been able to stop mid-excursion to powder their noses and recover some of those precious hit points. Previously, it was assumed a break of about five to ten minutes followed each combat, but this was for catching one's breath and cleaning equipment. Hit point recovery only happened by bugging the cleric. These days, PC groups can choose points to stop and rest, getting back hit points and other resource types.

Since the short rest is an important part of the 5e healing puzzle, let's hear what people think about its place in the game. Assume that the actual recovery mechanic - hit dice, healing surges, fixed rate recovery, or a poke in the eye - is the same in all cases.

 

[Balesir]

I voted for 5 minutes as an answer "as good as any", but actually I don't think it matters a ha'pence worth. Game time is not real time - if a "short rest" takes an hour, it's not as if the players of the game need to spend 60 minutes twiddling their thumbs. It really is a case of "adjust to suit", I think. Call a "short rest" any length of time you like to suit your game, your imagination and your personal predilictions - it's all good.

Modern wargames have been wise to this for a while. A "move" or "bound" of play is of no fixed "real world" duration. What is important is the flow of initiative between participants - the subjective flow of time - rather than the objective flow of time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I said 10mins but I think 15 or 20 is better. The truth is 5mins is too short and an hour is too long

 

[Minigiant]

I am closer to a half hour to hour. It is enough time to patch up wounds, let your limbs take a rest, releave oneself, calm your mind, or even take a refresher nap. A lunch break. Five minutes is too short. Your heavy is still pounding and the weaker adventurers would not have caught their breath yet.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I really dislike the "5 minute rest" in dungeons. Somebody fighting should be easily audible pretty darned far away. Metal striking metal is really really loud. Premade adventures with dungeons often assume you can rest between encounters, especially in 4e, but from a simulationist view it makes no sense. (From a gamist view, it makes perfect sense).

In the 4e campaign I am currently running, I am often running one big encounter per adventuring day (instead of 3-5). The monsters will typically not appear all at once, and if there is a short lull in the action, I usually let the PC's get something back, for instance an encounter power and the possibility of spending a healing surge.

I think 5e's 1-hour rest would make perfect sense with some similar in-between mechanics as the one I use above, or maybe just work straight up because the base mechanic isn't the AEDU of 4e. (More A+D, little E)

 

[Rhenny]

The 1 hour rest is growing on me and my players. It certainly makes them think and make a very conscious decision to rest. If time is an issue, my players don't rest anymore. I've had many sessions where they keep on going through the entire session because they are afraid to stop. (In one game, they were trying to find a big bad guy who they thought might escape if they spent too much time, and in another game they alerted guards, one ran away, so they were not sure if the runaway was going to bring reinforcements - they also realized that the place they were going to, a noble's manor home, was under siege).

That said, I voted other. I think the same thoughtfulness could be achieved with a 20 or 30 min rest, and I like how the 20 or 30 min rest fits into the narrative better. I don't really like the 5 min rest idea. It is too automatic and becomes almost default/assumption after each encounter.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I really dislike the "5 minute rest" in dungeons. Somebody fighting should be easily audible pretty darned far away. Metal striking metal is really really loud. Premade adventures with dungeons often assume you can rest between encounters, especially in 4e, but from a simulationist view it makes no sense. (From a gamist view, it makes perfect sense).

I think that's a problem with dungeons, not rules. Keep on the Shadowfell was a particularly bad offender. Rooms were right beside each other. Perhaps you were supposed to fight all the hobgoblins at once, but somehow I doubt it. The encounters didn't seem built that way. IMO, a better dungeon would have more widely-spaced rooms or "zones of control". Perhaps the entire orc zone is one big encounter, of the level +4 variety, but split up into chunks of "weak" encounters. PCs using lots of Stealth or other good tactics could potentially wipe out several encounters without expending much in the way of resources. Of course, that probably means you used your best powers and have little to face the boss with, so maybe you should fight slowly and steadily instead.

I like 5 minute rests because 4e rituals are about that long (usually 10 minutes to cast), so often there's competition between resting and rituals. Since rituals cost resources, PCs usually rest first and then prepare rituals.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like the 1 hour short rest. Shorter than a long rest, but long enought to not be necessarily be taken after every encounter, it involve some decisions sometimes.

 

[Kinak]

It depends a lot on whether they're supposed to be scarce. If you're supposed to have a rest between every fight (possibly even waves of the same fight), a short duration is better... maybe as short as a minute.

On the other hand, if short rests result in regaining a lot of resources, as long as an hour might be appropriate so you need to figure out where to rest in a tense situation.

That said, I'm more concerned about the length of long rests. Short rests can vary a lot without it giving me too many problems.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think that's a problem with dungeons, not rules. Keep on the Shadowfell was a particularly bad offender. Rooms were right beside each other. Perhaps you were supposed to fight all the hobgoblins at once, but somehow I doubt it. The encounters didn't seem built that way. IMO, a better dungeon would have more widely-spaced rooms or "zones of control". Perhaps the entire orc zone is one big encounter, of the level +4 variety, but split up into chunks of "weak" encounters. PCs using lots of Stealth or other good tactics could potentially wipe out several encounters without expending much in the way of resources.

If you don't have lots of doors in your dungeon, I think a fight is audible at up to a couple hundred feet. Designing around that would make the dungeons, well, not dungeons as we know them.

As you say, when designing dungeons, it makes a lot more sense to create a big area with multiple, connected rooms and monsters. If the PC's just pushes in the "front gates" gives them one big, long encounter, while a bit of sneakyness might give them several small encounters.

It would then also make sense to have the monsters in varying levels of alertness. If you haven't done anything yet, maybe half would be sleeping/resting without armor and take some time to get ready.

Creating adventures using techniques like this to create dungeons would end up leaving quite a lot more up to the DM, as the area has to react appropriatly to the PC's strategy, which often cannot be forseen. You would get less set-piece battles which I am guessing is quite ok for 5e.

As mentioned above, with 5 minute rests, it's often assumed the PC's will take a rest between rooms/encounters in 4e, while if we get 1 hour rests, I think the assumption will be quite different.