D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

Remember in the olden days, when wizards had only a couple spells per day? And even though the entire party was fine to continue, once the wizard expended his repertoire, time to camp. Cuz wizard is outta spells. Didn't matter that the rest of the group was good to go.
I actually didn't see this until 3E. Before that, the casters were expected to ration their spells well enough that the party actually spent a day's work in a day. Sure, there were times where the caster was so critical to a given scenario that the party packed up and came back the next day, but that was the exception.

The shift might be related to the shift of the wizard class being for advanced/experienced players. In "ye old days", the wizard may not have been throwing spells all the time, but he was definitely the guy who was solving most of the puzzles, setting up tactics, etc. I wonder if there's also a relationship to the way skills like Search were tweaked in 3E to be less demanding than in AD&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Why would I mention that? It's an unrelated topic.

Asking for rules is odd when the example you gave requires no new rules. You don't need rules dictating if scouts are dispatched or if they successfully warn other creatures. You don't need rules dictating and mandating how an encounter becomes more difficult if the players rest.

And while all classes don't benefit equally from a short rest, all classes do benefit. The ability to heal is always nice. But, really, as a team based game, the benefit of taking a short rest is the increased success for the team. It doesn't matter if your class (or character) doesn't gain a significant benefit from a long rest. You can't carry on without the party.
But, really, even if every class recharged after a short rest, you'd always get one person who uses fewer abilities than the rest of the party. One character that never used their abilities by choice, or good tactics, or because they came late in the initiative and had fewer turns. You always have someone who's resting despite not really needing to take the break.

(Personally, I never use wandering monsters. I have incidental encounters. I draw a monster from a list when it makes sense in the game. When people are beginning to lag and need some action or as a break between longer periods of roleplaying or exploration or puzzle solving. Tying monsters to a table just increases the chance I'll get an encounter when the flow of the game doesn't require one.)


Replying to this again, because it just keeps jumping out at me.
So, there are mechanical costs already. But they're not working. So the solution is more mechanical costs?

If glue completely isn't working, the solution isn't more glue or different types of glue. The solution is a freakin' nail. If mechanics aren't working... then a different solution needs to be tried. A non-mechanical solution.

I think clearly defining the win and loss conditions of an adventure can only be a good thing. What's the sense of accomplishment if you can't have a chance to fail? A moment of failure can be a great motivator for character development. Forcing an adventure failure on taking a long rest just assumes by default that there is an expected time limit to the adventure. You can determine what that is yourself.

Short rests are are limited by their 1 hour time span and having a chance for increased difficulty. I never said always increased difficulty. The wandering monster table I was referring to would not be a predefined list of monsters, but a table for creature types. For example, see below.

Wandering Monster Table
Creature Type | d20 Result
None | 13-20
Other | 8-12
Intelligent | 1-7

This gives it a 35% chance to encounter an intelligent wandering monster that will make the next encounters harder, a 35% chance to encounter nothing, and a 25% chance to encounter a monster that will not make the next few encounters harder.

I think that will discourage players from wanting to rest after taking one or two short rests.
 

Remember in the olden days, when wizards had only a couple spells per day? And even though the entire party was fine to continue, once the wizard expended his repertoire, time to camp. Cuz wizard is outta spells. Didn't matter that the rest of the group was good to go.
Been playing since 1977, in 8+ groups, in 5 cities in 3 states.

I have never been a part of a group that did this. Either the spellcasters rationed their spells better, or the party went on, and they had to blow the dust off their darts.
 

Remember in the olden days, when wizards had only a couple spells per day? And even though the entire party was fine to continue, once the wizard expended his repertoire, time to camp. Cuz wizard is outta spells. Didn't matter that the rest of the group was good to go.

I only saw that in 3e (level 5+), maybe in 1st level Classic or 1st level non-UA AD&D.

Otherwise the Fighters just laugh at puny spell-less wizard "More treasure for us!" :D
 

I never saw the 5 minute work day in play, to be honest. People bring it up, but I've never actually seen it happen at my table. Even if the wizard spills all his spells for the day, even in 3e, they usually just shrugged, and pulled out a wand or something and relied on weaker spells from them. No one even brought up resting. Was never a thing for us. We had a mission, we worked on getting the mission done.
 

I never saw the 5 minute work day in play, to be honest. People bring it up, but I've never actually seen it happen at my table. Even if the wizard spills all his spells for the day, even in 3e, they usually just shrugged, and pulled out a wand or something and relied on weaker spells from them. No one even brought up resting. Was never a thing for us. We had a mission, we worked on getting the mission done.
Was there any reason why the mission had to be finished today or tomorrow instead if next week? If not resting after 1-2 encounters, especially when the dungeon inhabitants have no means of counter attacking (disorganized or unintelligent) is the smart thing to do. Pushing in is only really doable when you have a soft DM who will pull punches.
 

Was there any reason why the mission had to be finished today or tomorrow instead if next week?
Sometimes, yes. Othertimes no. But mostly, we wanted to have fun, and you got to the fun by moving forwards.

If not resting after 1-2 encounters, especially when the dungeon inhabitants have no means of counter attacking (disorganized or unintelligent) is the smart thing to do. Pushing in is only really doable when you have a soft DM who will pull punches.
"Smart" is relative. It depends on the individual playstyle. You're makinga lot of assumptions about a game if you say that about "dungeon inhabitants" or assume most of our game involved many dungeons. Its a cliche, but not necessarily a thing for great swaths of play.
 
Last edited:

How do you make attrition work in a game where you don't fancy doing all the hard work, and instead rely on official published supplements?

This is entirely the responsibility of the DM. This is why it is not addressed as directly as you would like, although I do think it is addressed by most published products. The reason you don't see the adventures telling you when and where rests are possible is the same reason you don't see adventures that tell you when initiative must be rolled, or reminding you that the PCs can use spells in combat. It's because they expect you to know this based on your understanding of the rules.

Now, the way that you can make attrition matter is to make the decision to rest a risk/reward assessment. The PCs know that they can regain some strength by choosing to rest...so why would they not do it? That's the question.

The first answer is to make rest not guaranteed. It can be interrupted in any number of ways. Yes, you are correct that there are some spells that mitigate these risks...but that doesn't mean they are fool proof. Have an enemy caster dispell a rope trick and the PCs find themselves tumbling down amidst a horde of enemies.

The second answer is along the linea of the dreaded time constraints, but different enough that I'm not afraid to mention it to you. And it's that time passes. Maybe the bad guys hear the heroes are lookin for their base. Luckily, the heroes decided to rest, giving the bad guys time to get out of town, or abandon their HQ. Or get reinforcements. This isn't so much a deadline as it is treating the fictional world like a dynamic setting. If things like this happen to your PCs a few times, it will impact their decision making when it comes to deciding to take a rest or not.

A third option is to string a few encounters together so that there is no time for rest. They happen one after the other without any break. That will make attrition be a factor. Removing the ability to safely rest at will is a big deal. Judging by your desert scenario you described, it seems you're already aware of this, but it never hurts to reiterate.

Plus, there are always time constraints. Yeah, I know you said not to mention this, but I'm not treating it as the catchall method that you seem to think many consider it. If it's one tool in a toolkit, then it's not so arbitrary or forced. And I would not say to add a time constraint where one does not already exist...I agree with you that will seem rather artificial. But I find it hard to beleive that time constraints aren't already in place as part of the story. The published modules all include some forma of time constraints. If there's an enemy force marching on the town....if the wizard is studying the arcane doodad underground to unlock its secrets...if the bad guys are chasing you...if the cultists will strike again...if the vampire bites the girl again....all of these are story elements that contain natural time constraints. Take too long, and there's a consequence.

And that's ultimately the issue...it sounds like your players never face any consequences for resting. And that'd be fine except that according to you, it's not. The rules give you what you need, but it's up to you to make it work for your game and what you want it to do. No one but you can correct the issue. A combination of the methods above will create a variety of impacts on your players decidingg whether to rest or not. No need for mechanics...just choose to use these methods, or ignore them and watch the problem persost.
 

I actually didn't see this until 3E. Before that, the casters were expected to ration their spells well enough that the party actually spent a day's work in a day. Sure, there were times where the caster was so critical to a given scenario that the party packed up and came back the next day, but that was the exception.
I have never been a part of a group that did this. Either the spellcasters rationed their spells better, or the party went on, and they had to blow the dust off their darts.
I only saw that in 3e (level 5+), maybe in 1st level Classic or 1st level non-UA AD&D.
Otherwise the Fighters just laugh at puny spell-less wizard "More treasure for us!" :D
Glad you guys agree with me. Thanks.

Been playing since 1977, in 8+ groups, in 5 cities in 3 states.
That's it? If I have you beat, does that mean my opinions and observations carry more weight?
 

Glad you guys agree with me. Thanks.

Hmmm...

I'm puzzled as to how or why you think I agree. To clarify, I've never been a part of a group in which the party stopped simply because the spellcaster ran out of spells.

Either they rationed their spells in order to not run out while the rest of the party was still good to continue, or after they ran out, they contributed to combats by using their weapons.

That's it? If I have you beat, does that mean my opinions and observations carry more weight?

Nope, nor yours more than mine.

However, a common rhetorical device in these discussions when I mention I've never seen the "15 minute day" is to question the breadth and depth of my experience as a gamer. So I list it.

At the very least, it shows my (non-scientific) experiences are not unique to one group or a local/regional playstyle.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top