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

[shoak1]

I don't think it's accurate to say the published materials don't stick to the 6 encounter day guideline. There are some sections within most of the adventures that have fewer, but more often than not, adventure areas seem designed with the expectation of multiple encounters. I don't think that "Encounter-long rest-encounter-long rest" is the expectation at all. Will there be an occasional day where there is only one encounter? Sure. But it should not be presented as the norm.

We are saying the same thing here hawkeye. The published adventures are indeed designed and balanced with the expectation of multiple encounters per day - populated with monsters that become a pushover if the PCs are able to rest considerably more often than once every 6-8 encounters.

And they do indeed provide the structure that limits such rests...they are limited to one a day, and also require other elements such as safety and shelter and the like.

Right, so theoretically therefore the published adventures should routinely provide these limits (time constraints, dangerous inescapable areas and such) so as to constrain rest frequency right?

It is up to the DM to determine if all these elements are present and if a rest is possible.....So I'm not sure where your assessment is coming from..... it doesn't actually seem to be based on what's in the books.

Right again - the published adventures provide almost no constraints on rest, that's my point!!!! Everything regarding rest constraint is thrown squarely in the lap of the DM with no help.

Take for example Curse of Strahd. There are no time constraints in any of the eight Adventure Hooks, the plot lines, or any of the quests given by NPCs - not a one. And with very few exceptions, there are no geographic restraints restricting access to safe rest areas. Outdoor encounters average 0.6/day, half of those wouldn't even disrupt a rest, and none of the encounters are challenging to a party of level 3 or higher determined to rest-encounter-rest. So the PCs can pretty much plop down in the middle of the road, without precautions and whenever and wherever they want, and probably get a long rest. While they might have bad luck and roll an encounter, just rinse repeat. No problem.

Now theoretically, another way to handle too many long rests is to scale up encounters. In the Village of Krezk, there is only one meaningful encounter (7 wights=4900 XP), but it is enough to challenge a party of four level 5 PCs as suggested. Ditto the Ruins of Berez and Werewolf Den. In Old Bonegrinder, the 3 night hags (XP=5,400) might even prove insurmoutable to a fully rested party. But in the other 9 encounter areas, including Castle Ravenloft (by far the biggest encounter area), the encounters are not scaled up to provide a challenge to a well-rested party.

They could have included any number of things to fix the rest problem in CoS. For instance, you could have the mists move closer together every day, and the PCs could thereby estimate they have 18 days to defeat Strahd "or else". By introducing these sorts of mechanisms in published materials, it helps DMs by giving them concrete examples of ways to enforce the resource management that is so crucial to the game balance, without making the players feel railroaded.

It's really bad game and product design to go into such considerable detail in so many comparatively minor areas (like bonuses to saves for a particular creature), while giving virtually no written details on such a fundamentally important feature of a game as the 6-8 encounter a day presumption!!!!! What the heck does it matter if I get 5, 10, or 15 spells a day, or if I have 30 hp vs. 50, if I can rest after every encounter, or almost every encounter?!?!?!?

Potential exceptions and notable rest-related material:
1) Death House (the level 1-3 prequel) has the hilarious enclosing mists that could be interpreted to preclude a long rest.
2) There is a passage on p.39 that mentions the PCs being able to get undisturbed rest and sanctuary in the Mad Mages castle, but no guidance as to how that is different from the norm.
3) On page 7, it is indicated that PCs get a sign of something to come (in a dream) when they rest.
4) Once in a great while (every 30 days or so) the party might randomly encounter werewolves who might track them through the day then interrupt their rest, as per p. 32. Of course nothing constrains the PCs from just resting after that encounter....
5) The Ruins of Berez have insect swarms that specifically accost PCs attempting to rest off the road in the marsh (of course the PCs can just rest on the road or leave the area and rest).
6) There is a possible curse in the Werewolf Den that is inflicted on a PC that steals from the area that prevents him from resting (removed via a remove curse).
7) The Vallaki Festival (scheduled for a few days after the PCs arrive) and a few events there could serve to constrain rest, but it these are very unlikely and short-lived constraints.
8) There are three items of treasure that are limited in their use to 7 days (phantom warrior henchman), 10 days (a few of the Dark Gifts granted in the crypt of Ravenloft). These could theoretically accelerate a PCs timeline but the phantom buddy is of little use and the Dark Gifts come with some intense down sides so......
9) Resting IN Castle Ravenloft is effectively precluded by the frequency of encounters, but this is easily countered by hiding (magical or otherwise) or by.....leaving the castle lol
10) There are a couple minor quests involving saving missing children, which could make the PCs inclined to accelerate their timeline.
11) Page 10 refers to having the PCs possibly encounter Strahd a time or two prior to them reaching the castle. He toys with them and then flees, allowing the PCs to rest again....
12) Once every 33 days or so the party might encounter a revenant which could challenge a very low level party.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I understand your point of view but some of us want to play D and D as a game with rules and limits, and not have to have a DM willy nilly adding and subtracting monsters as he sees fit as we go. Its kind of like a DM deciding whats behind a door after we open it....what was the point of making the decision which door to open in the first place? Just so I can have the illusion I had "agency?" The DM made an NPC that he really likes, so wherever we go we're gonna find him, just in different clothes?

The inability to realistically compel resource management is to me just one of many reasons why sandbox just doesn't cut it as a serious game. Certainly I can see it as being potentially entertaining, but as a compelling, fair, and challenging game/puzzle/competition? nah

When a game requires a "fights per day" mechanism for balance and combat encounters are also the primary means of gaining XP/advancement then you have a game that is crap for sandbox play unless you change some basic assumptions.

- make treasure the primary source of XP. Divide encounter XP by 10. Wandering monsters are then more of a resource drain and pain in the arse instead of being loads of extra XP.

- with treasure as the primary source of XP, exploration to find it can become a central activity of play instead of a brief interlude between fights. This can be challenging if a good amount of physical challenges are presented with failure & failed attempts resulting in levels of exhaustion instead of massive hit point loss.

A good resource management game must challenge the players by forcing meaningful decisions about how to expend resources that matter. By default, hit points (and to a lesser extent magical abilities) are so easy to replenish out of nowhere that players don't have to worry about managing them very much. Exhaustion however, is another matter. Recovering from that requires actual time along with the consumption of supplies or valuable high level spell slots.

With these assumptions in play, the party can go seek as many fights as their little hearts desire. They can also rest when they like and recover their resources. All they will get managing meaningless resources is nearly meaningless XP. Make sure any good loot requires risky exploration to find and that could mean multiple levels of exhaustion for the party in obtaining it. Once exhausted, any combat that the party engages in will be that much more dangerous and tense.

 

[Sadras]

Also, don't forget this wasn't a thing back in d20, because there was no short-long rest dichotomy.

I'm not following you here. Rope Trick and Leomund Tiny Hut existed before - so just like in 5e casters (and other classes) could retool themselves.

For me the issue is not so much Rests, but that classes are more powerful (+ better healing rates) and monsters have become essentially weaker. That's why some of us came up with the variable XP earnings based on number of encounters participated in a day. It just sadly didn't work with milestone levelling

 

[shoak1]

When a game requires a "fights per day" mechanism for balance and combat encounters are also the primary means of gaining XP/advancement then you have a game that is crap for sandbox play unless you change some basic assumptions.

- make treasure the primary source of XP. Divide encounter XP by 10. Wandering monsters are then more of a resource drain and pain in the arse instead of being loads of extra XP. .

I don't see how this helps. The combats are still going to be trivial if you rest-encounter-rest. To counter that problem in sandbox play, you need to constantly manufacture time crunches or geography constraints on rests. And those constraints will seem increasingly implausable and railroady - which is contrary to the essence of sandbox.

 

[shoak1]

I'm not following you here. Rope Trick and Leomund Tiny Hut existed before - so just like in 5e casters (and other classes) could retool themselves.

Yes but in 5e resource management is more crucial than it was before because most all classes and many magic items get rechargable powers - in the old days resource management was just hp and spells. So anything that provides easy rest (like Rope Trick and Leomund Tiny Hut) takes on greater import.

 

[jrowland]

I understand your point of view but some of us want to play D and D as a game with rules and limits, and not have to have a DM willy nilly adding and subtracting monsters as he sees fit as we go. Its kind of like a DM deciding whats behind a door after we open it....what was the point of making the decision which door to open in the first place? Just so I can have the illusion I had "agency?" The DM made an NPC that he really likes, so wherever we go we're gonna find him, just in different clothes?

The inability to realistically compel resource management is to me just one of many reasons why sandbox just doesn't cut it as a serious game. Certainly I can see it as being potentially entertaining, but as a compelling, fair, and challenging game/puzzle/competition? nah

While I understand that point view, it relegates the DM to that of a computer, executing pre-ordained algortihms.

No thanks. I, as a DM, am a person, and that whole "decide whats behind the door after you open it bit" is a feature, not a bug. It's what makes DMs superior to computers.

 

[CapnZapp]

We are saying the same thing here hawkeye. The published adventures are indeed designed and balanced with the expectation of multiple encounters per day - populated with monsters that become a pushover if the PCs are able to rest considerably more often than once every 6-8 encounters.

Right, so theoretically therefore the published adventures should routinely provide these limits (time constraints, dangerous inescapable areas and such) so as to constrain rest frequency right?


Right again - the published adventures provide almost no constraints on rest, that's my point!!!! Everything regarding rest constraint is thrown squarely in the lap of the DM with no help.

Take for example Curse of Strahd. There are no time constraints in any of the eight Adventure Hooks, the plot lines, or any of the quests given by NPCs - not a one. And with very few exceptions, there are no geographic restraints restricting access to safe rest areas. Outdoor encounters average 0.6/day, half of those wouldn't even disrupt a rest, and none of the encounters are challenging to a party of level 3 or higher determined to rest-encounter-rest. So the PCs can pretty much plop down in the middle of the road, without precautions and whenever and wherever they want, and probably get a long rest. While they might have bad luck and roll an encounter, just rinse repeat. No problem.

Now theoretically, another way to handle too many long rests is to scale up encounters. In the Village of Krezk, there is only one meaningful encounter (7 wights=4900 XP), but it is enough to challenge a party of four level 5 PCs as suggested. Ditto the Ruins of Berez and Werewolf Den. In Old Bonegrinder, the 3 night hags (XP=5,400) might even prove insurmoutable to a fully rested party. But in the other 9 encounter areas, including Castle Ravenloft (by far the biggest encounter area), the encounters are not scaled up to provide a challenge to a well-rested party.

They could have included any number of things to fix the rest problem in CoS. For instance, you could have the mists move closer together every day, and the PCs could thereby estimate they have 18 days to defeat Strahd "or else". By introducing these sorts of mechanisms in published materials, it helps DMs by giving them concrete examples of ways to enforce the resource management that is so crucial to the game balance, without making the players feel railroaded.

It's really bad game and product design to go into such considerable detail in so many comparatively minor areas (like bonuses to saves for a particular creature), while giving virtually no written details on such a fundamentally important feature of a game as the 6-8 encounter a day presumption!!!!! What the heck does it matter if I get 5, 10, or 15 spells a day, or if I have 30 hp vs. 50, if I can rest after every encounter, or almost every encounter?!?!?!?

Potential exceptions and notable rest-related material:
1) Death House (the level 1-3 prequel) has the hilarious enclosing mists that could be interpreted to preclude a long rest.
2) There is a passage on p.39 that mentions the PCs being able to get undisturbed rest and sanctuary in the Mad Mages castle, but no guidance as to how that is different from the norm.
3) On page 7, it is indicated that PCs get a sign of something to come (in a dream) when they rest.
4) Once in a great while (every 30 days or so) the party might randomly encounter werewolves who might track them through the day then interrupt their rest, as per p. 32. Of course nothing constrains the PCs from just resting after that encounter....
5) The Ruins of Berez have insect swarms that specifically accost PCs attempting to rest off the road in the marsh (of course the PCs can just rest on the road or leave the area and rest).
6) There is a possible curse in the Werewolf Den that is inflicted on a PC that steals from the area that prevents him from resting (removed via a remove curse).
7) The Vallaki Festival (scheduled for a few days after the PCs arrive) and a few events there could serve to constrain rest, but it these are very unlikely and short-lived constraints.
8) There are three items of treasure that are limited in their use to 7 days (phantom warrior henchman), 10 days (a few of the Dark Gifts granted in the crypt of Ravenloft). These could theoretically accelerate a PCs timeline but the phantom buddy is of little use and the Dark Gifts come with some intense down sides so......
9) Resting IN Castle Ravenloft is effectively precluded by the frequency of encounters, but this is easily countered by hiding (magical or otherwise) or by.....leaving the castle lol
10) There are a couple minor quests involving saving missing children, which could make the PCs inclined to accelerate their timeline.
11) Page 10 refers to having the PCs possibly encounter Strahd a time or two prior to them reaching the castle. He toys with them and then flees, allowing the PCs to rest again....
12) Once every 33 days or so the party might encounter a revenant which could challenge a very low level party.

Excellent analysis.

What we want, of course, is an adventure sourcebook where the inability to rest takes player character abilities into account.

Once the PCs are high enough level to cast Rope Trick or Teleport (or whatever), the guidance on rest restrictions starts to take that into account.

After all, the purpose of restricting rests is not to allow players to shine by using bleedingly obvious spells and other strategies.

The purpose is to *actually put a cost* on resting.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[jrowland]

Sure. And thanks for the essay.

I'll just note that at no point during your text do you even approach the question here:

Why can't there be optional variants in the DMG for people that play differently from you?

Because I was responding to your OP, as evidenced by the quotes.

To answer this NEW question: There are optional variants in the DMG for people that play differently from me.

 

[CapnZapp]

When a game requires a "fights per day" mechanism for balance and combat encounters are also the primary means of gaining XP/advancement then you have a game that is crap for sandbox play unless you change some basic assumptions.

- make treasure the primary source of XP. Divide encounter XP by 10. Wandering monsters are then more of a resource drain and pain in the arse instead of being loads of extra XP.

- with treasure as the primary source of XP, exploration to find it can become a central activity of play instead of a brief interlude between fights. This can be challenging if a good amount of physical challenges are presented with failure & failed attempts resulting in levels of exhaustion instead of massive hit point loss.

A good resource management game must challenge the players by forcing meaningful decisions about how to expend resources that matter. By default, hit points (and to a lesser extent magical abilities) are so easy to replenish out of nowhere that players don't have to worry about managing them very much. Exhaustion however, is another matter. Recovering from that requires actual time along with the consumption of supplies or valuable high level spell slots.

With these assumptions in play, the party can go seek as many fights as their little hearts desire. They can also rest when they like and recover their resources. All they will get managing meaningless resources is nearly meaningless XP. Make sure any good loot requires risky exploration to find and that could mean multiple levels of exhaustion for the party in obtaining it. Once exhausted, any combat that the party engages in will be that much more dangerous and tense.

Most published 5e materials already ignore xp (using milestone levelling or simply leaving it up to the DM) so in this context that problem is actually already solved...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not following you here. Rope Trick and Leomund Tiny Hut existed before - so just like in 5e casters (and other classes) could retool themselves.

For me the issue is not so much Rests, but that classes are more powerful (+ better healing rates) and monsters have become essentially weaker. That's why some of us came up with the variable XP earnings based on number of encounters participated in a day. It just sadly didn't work with milestone levelling

Of course the spells already existed.

What didn't exist, however, was such a heavy emphasis on resource depletion as a primary source of challenge.

With cheap wands of CLW rest was mainly a thing to keep the quadratic wizards happy, and any serious encounter were challenging *in its own right*

Therefore: that WotC didn't offer mechanical variants for rest restriction was much less of an issue.

I have played and dungeonmastered d20 extensively and it simply was not a problem.

But it is now.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app