D&D 5E Second Wind Regeneration

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

Usually about once per day, sometimes twice. We haven't had any reason to chain Short Rests, though. The wizard's Arcane Recovery only works once per day, and the fighter's HP haven't really been a limiting factor at any point. Second Wind is nice for keeping the fighter topped off, whenever anyone else needs to take a Short Rest (usually declared just like that - the party wants to take a Short Rest, so the fighter uses Second Wind first, often resulting in a few points of over-healing).

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

You guys are really under-rating Wolverine's regeneration. Just say'n.

But, yes, any rest-recharge power is essentially unlimited, given time. That's been an issue with D&D and spells since the beginning, and why we get bizarro schemes to systematically cast spells to generate unlimited money, or simulacra, or wishes, or whatever. 5e extends it to a few more, much less problematic things than spells, as well. I mean, you can't systematically abuse Action Surge or Second Wind or Rage or Ki Points to wreck global economies, AFAIK...

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.

Which is resolved by *ding* the DM interpreting the rules and issuing a ruling. The players then rely on the ruling, not the rules (sounds familiar, no?).

5e needs some sort of trained Internet Forum raven to squawk "Rulings not Rules! CaW! Rulings not Rules! Nevermore!"

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.

I'm guessing that'd mess with whatever balance there may be between short-rest-recharge and long-rest-recharge resources. Other alternatives might be "only one short rest between encounters" or making short rests an indefinite time, that's as simple as putting 'or more' at the end ("After resting an hour or more, you gain the benefits of a Short Rest, after resting for 8 or more hours, you also gain the benefits of a long rest") or having a minimum time between short rests (min 12 hrs between long rests, min 3 hrs between short rests - you could even make short rests a lot shorter with that kind of rule).

 

[Tormyr]

Usually about once per day, sometimes twice. We haven't had any reason to chain Short Rests, though. The wizard's Arcane Recovery only works once per day, and the fighter's HP haven't really been a limiting factor at any point. Second Wind is nice for keeping the fighter topped off, whenever anyone else needs to take a Short Rest (usually declared just like that - the party wants to take a Short Rest, so the fighter uses Second Wind first, often resulting in a few points of over-healing).

So out of interest, why make the argument that the party is expected to maximize the fighter's healing through chaining short rests if it does not happen at your table?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Which is resolved by *ding* the DM interpreting the rules and issuing a ruling. The players then rely on the ruling, not the rules (sounds familiar, no?).

...except where the rulings are vague, in which case the players can't proceed because they don't know the effective rules.

Other alternatives might be "only one short rest between encounters" or making short rests an indefinite time, that's as simple as putting 'or more' at the end ("After resting an hour or more, you gain the benefits of a Short Rest, after resting for 8 or more hours, you also gain the benefits of a long rest") or having a minimum time between short rests (min 12 hrs between long rests, min 3 hrs between short rests - you could even make short rests a lot shorter with that kind of rule).

These are vague, though. In the first case, what defines an encounter (PC solution - provoke an encounter with a much-weaker enemy)? In the second case, what defines when one Short Rest has ended (PC solution - everybody move 200 feet and then sit down again)? In either case, the players are encouraged to trigger whatever event flag allows them to take a distinct second rest.

The minimum time between Short Rests is an example of a clearly-defined rule, which players should be able to understand. They know exactly what event is required before they can take a second Short Rest, and there's no easy way to circumvent it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So out of interest, why make the argument that the party is expected to maximize the fighter's healing through chaining short rests if it does not happen at your table?

I was just following from the situation put forth by the OP, that the fighter would attempt to do this unless there was a rule in place to prevent it. In that premise, the fighter is expected to be low on HP when going into a Short Rest, and there's nothing like a time constraint which would stop her from chaining them.

If I was in that situation, as a player, then you can bet I would be chaining my Short Rests! Because, as I mentioned, it's in the best interests of the party to hoard as many resources as possible. If you're in that situation - which I haven't experienced first-hand, but which the OP is clearly concerned with - then this is the logical course of action.

 

[Tony Vargas]

...except where the rulings are vague, in which case the players can't proceed because they don't know the effective rules.

Fortunately, the DM is /right there/ for any needed clarification.

These are vague, though. In the first case, what defines an encounter

They begin when the DM says 'roll initiative.'

In either case, the players are encouraged to trigger whatever event flag allows them to take a distinct second rest.

Nod. And, the DM can use that if he wants to promote a certain tone or tactic in his campaign.

The minimum time between Short Rests is an example of a clearly-defined rule, which players should be able to understand. They know exactly what event is required before they can take a second Short Rest, and there's no easy way to circumvent it.

Yeah. It's also potentially pretty limiting for the DM, though, as it can preclude faster pacing. Fortunately, the DM is free to change it - afterall, he instigated it.

 

[Elodan]

Probably spitting into the wind here but our group only allows Second Wind to be used during Combat. Our reasoning is that it's defined as a bonus action on your turn. Turns and bonus actions are defined under Combat. Combat starts with initiative and ends when we're no longer acting in initiative order. The fighter hitting the wizard is not combat but an animated party discussion.

 

[Uchawi]

Fortunately, the DM is /right there/ for any needed clarification.

They begin when the DM says 'roll initiative.'

Nod. And, the DM can use that if he wants to promote a certain tone or tactic in his campaign.

Yeah. It's also potentially pretty limiting for the DM, though, as it can preclude faster pacing. Fortunately, the DM is free to change it - afterall, he instigated it.

Which points to the overall problem that in general martial characters are under the direct influence of how a DM interprets an ability, where at least the caster has options, depending on the DMs whims.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Spells can be re-interpreted with extreme prejudice, too.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Fine, then that actually happens. Their alignments shift, and legitimate attacks are made before the paladin breaks up the fight and everyone agrees to set aside their differences only until they kill the Big Bad.

Whatever I describe in an obviously ridiculous way could also be undertaken seriously. There's no right or wrong way to role-play your character. The difference here is that the party which role-plays their alignment conflicts - to the point where it actually comes to blows - has a better chance of beating the Big Bad and saving the world than a party which works together in all things.

Which is, itself, ridiculous. Why would a DM want to incentivize that sort of thing?

I really, really hate to say this, but there is a wrong way to role-play a character: when the game's rules interfere with the personality of the characters in the game.

But I'm confused as to where you thought I was making an incentive of this. That was your example of what characters would do, and I told you how I would punish them. Alignment changes and party destruction are not ideal things to happen. Would it really help them fight the Big Bad if there's so much in-fighting they can't even take a break?

I remind you that this all goes back to the OP trying to make Second Wind more limiting, and that's what my proposal does. All you've been doing is trying to take it apart by arguing semantics of things like the definition of "in-combat", which is, frankly, rather absurd.