D&D 5E How has 5e solved the Wand of CLW problem?

[CapnZapp]

That I don't like, that is. That is the source of all the arguing.

I still wait for the edition that doesn't go for the One solution, and instead offers a menu and specifically empowers adventures to say which one is used in that particular story!

 

[Aribar]

I've read about DMs changing the way Short and Long Rests work, adapting rules from different story games, that may be a solution. They don't link the benefits of resting to actual hour or eight hour long time periods in the campaign. Instead, at any time players can choose to take a Short Rest or Long Rest and it takes however much time as it fits the narrative. Typically they limit it to something like 3-4 Short Rests between Long Rests, if the party chooses to take a Long Rest, then bad things can happen. It puts the pacing in the player's hands while preventing them from just resting all the time with no repercussions.

So if the party's racing to find a cure to a zombie plague threatening a major city, they could be traveling to an ancient temple of healing a week away. Maybe they make good time and don't run into many encounters, so they don't need to rest much. However, then they take a side quest that forces them to use up their Short Rests; maybe a small village is beseiged by orcs also looking for the cure? They take some Short Rests representing a second wind between waves of orcs, and in the end have to take a Long Rest after repelling the attack. Well, since they took a Long Rest, things get worse. Maybe that horde size grows or ghouls are now seen in the mix. Maybe orc agents found the temple and it will now be a race not only against time but an opposing group. Maybe future Long Rests mean the city's begun to be attacked or the orcs stole the item they needed.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you Aribar. However, your case is one with a clear timeline.

The thing is any solution the DMG happens to decide on ought to work for very different scenarios as well. Such as

A. Wilderness hexcrawling. "Here is the valley of Doom. Go enter it and return when you are fully laden with loot!"
An example where the whole point is the lack of any story-driven time restrictions. This does not mean the game can't restrict your resources (such as hit points and spells).

B. Dungeon Bashing. "Clear out the Kobold Hive! Do it quickly, or all remaining kobolds will gather into one force - a fight you can't win!"

C. City Intrigue. "Your aim is to gather evidence against Countess Bathory. Doing so will entail going to many banquets and blackmailing many prominent citizens!"

D. Desert Trek. "Crossing the Mirage Desert will take months!"

All these adventures have very differing needs as to pacing and resource management.

But they all should be runnable using the same ruleset of D&D. Which, as we agree, runs optimally on 5-8 encounters per long rest.

And in one and the same campaign. No switching out the DMG in between sessions!



I'm arguing the obvious solution is for the DMG to simply state how the D&D engine runs best - what the designer expectations are.

Then:

D. Assuming there will "only" be 5-8 monsters to encounter in the whole desert, state that no long rests will be possible in the desert at all. There are two oasis, and each will afford benefits equivalent to a short rest.

C. In this case, the rhythm of social and combat encounters can be impossible to predict. Perhaps your employer Mr Darcy hands you three special cards allowing you complete safety at a safe house. Meaning there will be no more than three long rests or your mission will be exposed/a failure.

B. This is what the game handles per default. You would think. Me, I would say it needs 5 minute short rests and 1 hour long rests, but still, the option is in the DMG. Point is, this is the only scenario for which the DMG is sufficient!

A. I would say that unless the Valley is so full of monsters you can hardly move between random encounters, you will have to abandon the resource management minigame and make every battle individually challenging. OR, you can boldly say that for this scenario you simply need 5+ encounters or you simply won't get any benefits from taking a long rest. An abstraction, sure, but one that allows the adventure to work as a GAME as well as a story.




Obviously, many gamers are happy to ignore the expectation of 5-8 encounters. And that's fine. But also beside the point - my argument is that D&D isn't helping me uphold the 5-8 encounter balance that means I can have "easy" encounters that aren't made completely trivial and meaningless (from a challenge perspective - the story angle is something else).

 

[delericho]

Isn't the best way to do that to specific some set of events that occur on a Short Rest and some set on a Long Rest?

For example, taking a Short Rest could trigger a Wandering Monster check, increase the Alert Level of the complex, drain some PC resource, or whatever; the Long Rest could given the bad guys Reinforcements, let them build new Fortifications, could Advance the Doomsday Clock, or whatever.

Even better, those events don't need to be fixed for all scenarios - this seems something that would be ideal for any given adventure (or even part of an adventure) to specify accordingly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I despised needing CLW wands. I was happy they chose a narrative method for hit point recovery in 5E.

In what way is tapping your wounded with magic sticks not part of a narrative? I mean, it may seem like a silly, contrary-to-genre narrative, but it's not like it's just hand-waved or anything.

The problem is how this doesn't work for all narratives.

For some stories, healing up full just because you got a night's sleep will mess with pacing or challenge.

To this many say "so choose one of the optional DMG rules then"

But this, or any singular suggestion, misses the point.

Which is: you want rules that support different pacing during different times, often within the same campaign!

No matter what the rules say it will be a bad fit for many adventures.
.

Unfortunately, having a game able to handle varied pacing in spite of fixed rest/recharge/healing times would require class and encounter balance more robust than the broader D&D fanbase is willing/able to accept (to judge from the edition war, anyway).

The other alternative is for the 'short' and 'long' to be undefined and DM-moderated, rather than fixed to a set number of hours which the DM can change from campaign to campaign, that way, nominal pacing can be varied without greatly distorting the number of encounters per short & long rest needed to retain some modicum of balance among classes with different resource schedules and something resembling challenging encounters. That's actually in keeping with 5e's philosophy of 'rulings not rules' and basic core mechanic of "tell the DM what you do, and he describes what happens," so it's kinda surprising they didn't just present rests as undefined, as whatever the DM judges is sufficient time to recover from the exertions of the current adventure to one of two degrees,.

Play could go something like:

Caller: "Wow, that was a tough fight, we better tend to our wounds and rest for a bit before we continue on"

DM: "You're not sure you have enough time, a goblin patrol could interrupt you."

Player 1: "I need to spend HD and get my Second Wind back. Either that or some healing spells."

Player 2: "No way I'm blowing slots on anyone conscious, let alone out of combat."

Player 3: "I could do with recovering some spells."

Caller: "We chance it and take a rest."

DM (pretending to roll dice that mean something behind the screen): "Whew, that was close. You hear a patrol pass in the distance but are able to finish a 'Short' Rest. Spend HD and recover whatever else you get for your class."

 

[Hussar]

Is there a particular reason right now that you can't change the definition of short and long rests during the campaign? Why do you have to use only one definition throughout the entire campaign?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is there a particular reason right now that you can't change the definition of short and long rests during the campaign? Why do you have to use only one definition throughout the entire campaign?

Consistency of the narrative. The characters should know how long it takes them to get their spells back.

 

[Evenglare]

The problem with the wand of Cure Light Wounds was that players could buy them, easily, and it allowed them to heal up to full after every fight without expending any meaningful resources. The item was ludicrously cheap, compared to the expected-wealth-by-level chart.

That problem is fixed in 5E, because magic items aren't for sale.

Why was the topic not closed after this post? This was your answer 3 posts in. This is how 5e handled it. There is nothing more to talk about other than DMs who don't know how to handle their game which is the DM fault, not the game. There is no CLW problem in 5e. /topic

 

[Celtavian]

The problem is how this doesn't work for all narratives.

For some stories, healing up full just because you got a night's sleep will mess with pacing or challenge.

To this many say "so choose one of the optional DMG rules then"

But this, or any singular suggestion, misses the point.

Which is: you want rules that support different pacing during different times, often within the same campaign!

No matter what the rules say it will be a bad fit for many adventures.

It is the very notion that whatever solution you choose, you should choose only that, and stick with it. And if you're not happy, completely throw it out and exchange it for some other singular rule.

This is such unbelievable horsecrap. For "many adventures", really? How does it not work for many adventures? Give me an example of what you would run where this wouldn't work?

You can go to zero hit points in any battle. If you threw a horde of creatures even at a high level party, they could end up at zero hit points. If you can end up at zero hit points after any battle, why can't you be back on your feet after a night's rest?

This isn't 3rd edition where you can get your AC so high that you will take very little damage from the trash. This isn't 3rd edition where you can stack buffs and do such insane damage that you can destroy anything you fight with minimal damage done to you. Even the trash mobs do quite a bit of damage in groups. Even a twenty kobolds might do a good amount of damage to a group of high level adventurers in 5E. The instances where the healing system won't work are so few and far between as to not require a different healing system.

I can understand people wanting a system that provides a more realistic simulation of wounds. That makes sense. 5E's healing system is cinematic. The 5E healing system fits 99% of the narrative needs of DMs, especially when you combine the healing system with the Exhaustion system. The two systems combined can simulate about anything you need. If they have no time to take long rests as you stagger encounters, then you simulate not being able to heal to full. If you want to simulate prolonged fighting with running causing battle fatigue and weakness, you toss in some levels of exhaustion.

I would like to know what pacing and challenge you could not simulate using a combination of 5E healing and exhaustion rules?

 

[Celtavian]

In what way is tapping your wounded with magic sticks not part of a narrative? I mean, it may seem like a silly, contrary-to-genre narrative, but it's not like it's just hand-waved or anything.

I have never read of any such thing in fantasy books. I play these games to simulate fantasy stories. Going to the store and buying a box of little magic sticks to heal destroys verisimilitude for myself. If it doesn't for you, the usual tastes differ applies. You hate wizards as they are with the overabundant spell options, I hate easily attainable wand healing. It didn't exist in any edition save for 3E from what I remember. I like magic healing kept to a minimum. 5E has done that. I might go farther once I do a few campaigns. I don't know how much I like paladin weeble wobble healing where he uses one point of his LoH to keep a warrior up every round swinging indefinitely. I definitely don't want easily accessible CLW wand healing back.