D&D 5E Second Wind Regeneration

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, a DM can change short rests to be whatever they want and then use wandering monster checks, countdowns, and other methods to make two or more chained short rests less desirable. It does not change that the additional short rests only provide direct benefit to the fighter, there are other means to provide the healing, and the DMG suggests about 2 short rests per day.

You could change the short rest to work like the 13th Age 'quick rest' - automatic after each encounter, no specified time. No 'chaining' possible. It's setting it to a specific time - any specific time, whether 1 hr or 1 min - that makes 'chaining' potentially a thing.

 

[redrick]

Yes, a DM can change short rests to be whatever they want and then use wandering monster checks, countdowns, and other methods to make two or more chained short rests less desirable. It does not change that the additional short rests only provide direct benefit to the fighter, there are other means to provide the healing, and the DMG suggests about 2 short rests per day.

I'm not suggesting any change to the length of short rests or the nature of short rests. A short rest is an hour. That's really no more or less RAW than saying, "An hour long short rest tacked onto another hour long short rest is actually just one short rest, because a short rest is defined by being 'no less than one hour.'" And, as you say, the only reason for a party to take a short rest immediately or shortly after another short rest is so that the fighter can recharge the second wind feature. It's the only short rest feature I can think of that has utility beyond immediately facing danger. (Well, maybe the warlock casts a minor utility spell and then wants to rest for another hour? Some sort of scrying spell? I don't know their spell list off hand.)

But what if the fighter is the only one really hurting, the party has no healing potions, scrolls or other healing options, and they want to press on? They decide that they're more concerned about what is waiting at the other end of the castle than whatever is wandering through the hallways they're currently camped in. They say, "alright, we're gonna risk it and take another short rest, all for a measly 1d10+character level hp for our fighter." That's a decision with risks. Why not let them take it? You don't need to regularly roll wandering monster checks to just say, "man, these guys stayed here a lot longer than might have been prudent. Let's roll a die and see if they get lucky."

Suggesting 2 short rests per day (for the sake of adventure and encounter planning) isn't the same thing as mandating it. I think, wherever reasonable, player choices should be governed by risks and rewards, not DM (or PHB or DMG) fiat. The rewards for 2 consecutive short rests are very low, but, under the right circumstances, they might be worth it.

(I would also accept that this is not "reasonable" in a game where the DM does not run unplanned encounters. If a session really does follow a fairly scripted series of encounters which the DM has planned beforehand, it is unkind to the DM to impose consecutive short rests on that DM, because now he has the choice of stepping way outside his DM comfort zone and play style, or giving the players free hp, because he and his players absolutely hate wandering monsters. In that case, Rules as Fun would dictate that the DM and the players come to an agreement of, "you don't run this play so I don't have to drop a band of wandering monsters on your ass, which you know you and I will both hate." It's like limiting blitzes in touch football, because it's not fun to blitz when the offense can't really block.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Second Wind is not a limit of 1/hour or 1/minute or any other time measurement. It is once per Short Rest which is a game mechanic that has a definition and recommended usage.

I never said that Second Wind was limited by time. I'm saying that, even if it was limited to 1/hour, then that would still be a limit.

In scenario 1 the party must have been in pretty good condition to be able to whittle down an unexpected dragon to the point where a single hit/turn from the fighter finished it off. At that point, 10 hp on the fighter when everyone else is unconscious is luck and a good story as much as anything.

I never described the specifics of the party, or their levels, or the type of dragon. That's all tangential, at this point. The relevant bit is that it's a very close fight. We don't know who is going to win. Luck could very easily determine the outcome, but the way the dice come up in this example, the fighter would still be up if she'd had +10HP when she went into the fight.

This isn't some crazy hypothetical borderline situation, either. This sort of thing happens whenever there is an encounter with an extremely close outcome. If the party wants to reduce the chance of TPK, then they should be taking every opportunity to replenish their resources - they should be chaining Short Rests, whenever they can afford to do so. If the DM decrees that you can't chain Short Rests, then they should take every opportunity to trigger whatever condition that allows them to take another Short Rest.

 

[Tormyr]

I'm not suggesting any change to the length of short rests or the nature of short rests. A short rest is an hour. That's really no more or less RAW than saying, "An hour long short rest tacked onto another hour long short rest is actually just one short rest, because a short rest is defined by being 'no less than one hour.'" And, as you say, the only reason for a party to take a short rest immediately or shortly after another short rest is so that the fighter can recharge the second wind feature. It's the only short rest feature I can think of that has utility beyond immediately facing danger. (Well, maybe the warlock casts a minor utility spell and then wants to rest for another hour? Some sort of scrying spell? I don't know their spell list off hand.)

But what if the fighter is the only one really hurting, the party has no healing potions, scrolls or other healing options, and they want to press on? They decide that they're more concerned about what is waiting at the other end of the castle than whatever is wandering through the hallways they're currently camped in. They say, "alright, we're gonna risk it and take another short rest, all for a measly 1d10+character level hp for our fighter." That's a decision with risks. Why not let them take it? You don't need to regularly roll wandering monster checks to just say, "man, these guys stayed here a lot longer than might have been prudent. Let's roll a die and see if they get lucky."

Suggesting 2 short rests per day (for the sake of adventure and encounter planning) isn't the same thing as mandating it. I think, wherever reasonable, player choices should be governed by risks and rewards, not DM (or PHB or DMG) fiat. The rewards for 2 consecutive short rests are very low, but, under the right circumstances, they might be worth it.

(I would also accept that this is not "reasonable" in a game where the DM does not run unplanned encounters. If a session really does follow a fairly scripted series of encounters which the DM has planned beforehand, it is unkind to the DM to impose consecutive short rests on that DM, because now he has the choice of stepping way outside his DM comfort zone and play style, or giving the players free hp, because he and his players absolutely hate wandering monsters. In that case, Rules as Fun would dictate that the DM and the players come to an agreement of, "you don't run this play so I don't have to drop a band of wandering monsters on your ass, which you know you and I will both hate." It's like limiting blitzes in touch football, because it's not fun to blitz when the offense can't really block.)

Like I said, the DM can do whatever they want. I would be hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the party ran out of healing options in such a way that the fighter was the only one hurting. If the party still had some healing, the fighter would be receiving healing equally before they ran out. If the party used up the healing on the last short rest, and the fighter was the only one who took damage in the interim, then the party probably does not have the resources to continue on anyway.

Regardless, at this point pushing on or another short rest for the fighter are both risks to the fighters life. The party probably needs to be thinking about a long rest if they are running on empty like that, because if they keep on going and lose more hp, there is nothing protecting them from being jumped in the middle of the night and being wiped out when they take the long rest.

 

[aramis erak]

Does that even limit it any more than raw?

Yes. It means they have to get into a fight to use it again... because I'll toss a player whose character is self-damaging. (

 

[redrick]

Regardless, at this point pushing on or another short rest for the fighter are both risks to the fighters life. The party probably needs to be thinking about a long rest if they are running on empty like that, because if they keep on going and lose more hp, there is nothing protecting them from being jumped in the middle of the night and being wiped out when they take the long rest.

If the party is taking a risk, why not let them take it? Why should the DM say, "You can't take another short rest. You're already short resting," when the risk to the party should be deterrent alone? ("You can take another short rest, or you can push on without a short rest, or you can go home. Taking another short rest would allow your fighter to regain another 11 hp, but it would also greatly increase your risk of being attacked by wandering monsters. Pushing on without a short rest will put your fighter that much closer to unconsciousness, and you're already pretty low on resources. Going home might mean death to poor Uncle Bob, because the information you have clearly said he would be sacrificed to the Big Fire Breather at midnight. I wonder what the Big Fire Breather is?")

That being said, I believe that you were originally arguing that there's no need to change the rule as written to cover corner cases, so we may be arguing over two positions that happen to be more or less in the same place.

This thread has made me interested in trying out the slow healing option. It seems like a great way to add some teeth to multi-day dungeon delves, without completely changing the timescale of the game with the super-slow-rest option. After a normal day in the dungeon, your party can probably be back up to full hp and spells, especially if you have a cleric in the party. After two days of hard-hitting dungeoneering, you might be out of HD and the cleric might not have enough spell slots left over to make up the difference. The fighter's second wind is definitely going to be a better feature in this situation. (On day 2, she might be the only one with any healing other than the cleric's spell slots.) I still think that the comparatively low amount of hp gained from second wind will keep it from being an actual problem. Coming back up through a mega-dungeon that can't be properly cleared is going to be a nail-biter no matter what.

 

[Tormyr]

I never said that Second Wind was limited by time. I'm saying that, even if it was limited to 1/hour, then that would still be a limit.

I never described the specifics of the party, or their levels, or the type of dragon. That's all tangential, at this point. The relevant bit is that it's a very close fight. We don't know who is going to win. Luck could very easily determine the outcome, but the way the dice come up in this example, the fighter would still be up if she'd had +10HP when she went into the fight.

This isn't some crazy hypothetical borderline situation, either. This sort of thing happens whenever there is an encounter with an extremely close outcome. If the party wants to reduce the chance of TPK, then they should be taking every opportunity to replenish their resources - they should be chaining Short Rests, whenever they can afford to do so. If the DM decrees that you can't chain Short Rests, then they should take every opportunity to trigger whatever condition that allows them to take another Short Rest.

Any limit could be used, but the end result of chaining short rests, whatever their duration, makes the Second Wind supply essentially limitless and turns every fighter into Wolverine.

Any close encounter can go either way. Cherry picking examples of results as a reason for a rules interpretation is jumping through mental hoops when there are other means of achieving the same healing.

The DM can decide one way or another as to whether short rests can be chained.
Do I think the rules allow for it? No.
Do I think it imbalances PC survivability toward the fighter? Yes.
Can a DM do whatever they want with regards to this? Yes.

The thing is, it is largely unnecessary. The fighter has just as much opportunity to receive healing as any other PC and then some. If the short rests are chained together, then there is less reason to use potions and healing magic on the fighter. This extends the adventuring day, potentially to the point where the party is lacking other, non healing resources. The Second Wind feature, as I believe it was designed, is to give the fighter a quick boost in battle, not a limitless supply of healing outside of combat. Hence the name "Second Wind."

5e put the emphasis back on DM fiat to allow the DM to decide what was appropriate rather than be dictated by players. If the DM wants to go with chaining short rests (whatever their reasons), then everyone deals with the consequences. If the DM decides to not allow chaining of short rests (whatever their reasoning), then everyone deals with the consequences.

 

[Tormyr]

If the party is taking a risk, why not let them take it? Why should the DM say, "You can't take another short rest. You're already short resting," when the risk to the party should be deterrent alone? ("You can take another short rest, or you can push on without a short rest, or you can go home. Taking another short rest would allow your fighter to regain another 11 hp, but it would also greatly increase your risk of being attacked by wandering monsters. Pushing on without a short rest will put your fighter that much closer to unconsciousness, and you're already pretty low on resources. Going home might mean death to poor Uncle Bob, because the information you have clearly said he would be sacrificed to the Big Fire Breather at midnight. I wonder what the Big Fire Breather is?")

That being said, I believe that you were originally arguing that there's no need to change the rule as written to cover corner cases, so we may be arguing over two positions that happen to be more or less in the same place.

This thread has made me interested in trying out the slow healing option. It seems like a great way to add some teeth to multi-day dungeon delves, without completely changing the timescale of the game with the super-slow-rest option. After a normal day in the dungeon, your party can probably be back up to full hp and spells, especially if you have a cleric in the party. After two days of hard-hitting dungeoneering, you might be out of HD and the cleric might not have enough spell slots left over to make up the difference. The fighter's second wind is definitely going to be a better feature in this situation. (On day 2, she might be the only one with any healing other than the cleric's spell slots.) I still think that the comparatively low amount of hp gained from second wind will keep it from being an actual problem. Coming back up through a mega-dungeon that can't be properly cleared is going to be a nail-biter no matter what.

Third time: The DM can do whatever they want on this ruling. The DM can use whatever reasoning they want to cover whether the option should or should not be allowed. The reason for "no" could be as simple as, "In my interpretation, the rules do not allow for it," to, "It changes how healing is distributed through the party. It is meant as a quick recovery, not a long term healing method." Reasons for allowing could be anything from, "You think you should be able to do it? Do what you want," to, "You guys need all the help you can get for what is coming." The DM can implement whatever conditions or consequences for using or not using the option.

I think you lost me as to which corner cases I was referring to. Sorry. Refresh my memory?

I may be mistaken, but I think the slow healing option places a greater burden on magical healing to achieve the same amount of adventuring, or else it slows the party's progress down.

 

[redrick]

Third time: The DM can do whatever they want on this ruling. The DM can use whatever reasoning they want to cover whether the option should or should not be allowed. The reason for "no" could be as simple as, "In my interpretation, the rules do not allow for it," to, "It changes how healing is distributed through the party. It is meant as a quick recovery, not a long term healing method." Reasons for allowing could be anything from, "You think you should be able to do it? Do what you want," to, "You guys need all the help you can get for what is coming." The DM can implement whatever conditions or consequences for using or not using the option.

I think you lost me as to which corner cases I was referring to. Sorry. Refresh my memory?

I may be mistaken, but I think the slow healing option places a greater burden on magical healing to achieve the same amount of adventuring, or else it slows the party's progress down.

My question to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] is, how many times in a given adventuring day does the party short rest? How many of those are "chained" (or close enough in time to be effectively chained?) Is it frustrating for the GM or the non-fighter characters? I would say, in my game, if players were pulling off chained short rests everyday, that something wasn't right. And I would probably step up my wandering monster games to hammer home that one does not simply take a nap in my dungeon. I do try to keep the 2 short rests per day target in mind as a general sense of player rest and resources, so if the adventuring day includes 5 hours of downtime, that's a lot of warlock spells and action surges! (And a very frustrated or very conservative wizard.)

I guess I thought the corner case outlined in the OP? Wherein players would abuse second wind by short resting all over the place and cheating the HD limitations of slow healing? (The corner case which [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] is maybe suggesting isn't as bad as we think it is? Though, again, I can't tell if this something that is a regular occurrence in [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s game, or just a rare occurrence that justifies keeping the option open, because, in that moment, it made for a better game.)

I've never run the slow healing, so can't say for sure, but my experience now is that a long rest in a dungeon is almost a full reset button. (My characters are usually able to keep from going all the way down on their HD in one day of adventuring.) Obviously, under slow healing, the character power of spell slots is still left untouched, and there's a huge difference between a sorcerer with all his sorcery points and all his spell slots, and a run-ragged sorcerer with one L1 spell slot left, but I wouldn't mind a multi-day dungeon delve to feel a little more deadly. We have a cleric in the party, but I don't think it would be enough to totally make up for the loss of HD. I also want to encourage down-time between adventures in my campaign. A deadly delve should require several days rest to recover from. I'd been thinking of going the short rest is a night, long rest is a week route, but that feels a little extreme and makes classic dungeon adventures extremely deadly or means that characters are constantly heading back into town.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Any limit could be used, but the end result of chaining short rests, whatever their duration, makes the Second Wind supply essentially limitless and turns every fighter into Wolverine.

It's limitless... within the parameters that you care about. There is a limit, but you don't see it as a meaningful one. Personally, I feel the same way about full-heal on a Long Rest - it's essentially limitless, and turns everyone into Wolverine. Fortunately, 5E gives me plenty of tools to fix that problem.

Any close encounter can go either way. Cherry picking examples of results as a reason for a rules interpretation is jumping through mental hoops when there are other means of achieving the same healing.

It's not a question about how the DM chooses to interpret the rules. It's a problem with vague rules, which the players cannot adequately interpret.

Regardless of what the rule is, the players are motivated to conserve resources at all times, or else the game might end in an otherwise-avoidable TPK. It should be expected that they'll do everything in their power in order to conserve resources, while progressing toward whatever other goal they have. If chaining two Short Rests will allow them to conserve the most resources without significantly impeding their quest, then that's the expected action for them to take. If they can't chain Short Rests together, then they are best served by finding the minimum possible cost required between two Short Rests. If Short Rests are limited to no-more-than 2 in a period of 24 hours (for example), then Short Rests themselves become a resource to be conserved, and they need to spend those strategically.