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

[CapnZapp]

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.

Which makes this type of play exactly a good kind of campaign to offer variants for mechanical rest restrictions! ☺

Adding "Threat Dice" when you rest in a sandbox makes perfect sense.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[shoak1]

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.

If you decide what's behind the door before the PCs get there, they have real options of what door to open with real consequences. If you decide whats behind the door when they open it, then it was just a phantom choice, and that's the problem with sandbox play as I see it. Lots of flag waving about player freedom and choices and in the end still its just a DM making up whatever he wants after each player "choice", thereby making those "choices" trivial or meaningless.

 

[shoak1]

Which makes this type of play exactly a good kind of campaign to offer variants for mechanical rest restrictions! ☺

Yes I think we are on the same page.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes but in 5e resource management is more crucial than it was before because most all classes and many magic items get rechargable powers

Relative to 3e & earlier eds, that is, yes.
In a way that makes resource management less crucial: You have more resources spread out over the party to fall back on if one player messes up. Similarly, full casters all have cantrips to fall back on, so can be a bit less cautious with managing their spell usage, and they're all spontaneous, so there's no 'wasted slots,' also taking some pressure off. Finally, even the most resource-poor classes have something to 'nova' with, so class balances is a bit less sensitive to the shortened adventuring day than it was in 3e & earlier (though, by the same token, encounter balance can swing that much harder).

- 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.

'Just?' Spells were all-important, and much harder to research. Leomonds Tiny Hut, back in the day, offered little more than protection from environmental factors, enemies could attack or move right through it (as could allies, only the caster couldn't leave it), Rope Trick, though, sure, was a quick rest, but at 3rd, it was your only 2nd level spell and you had to choose Rope Trick when you memorized spells (no Stinking Cloud or Web or Invisibility), so that was quite the resource expenditure. Resource management loomed very large back in the day. 5e calls that back, but also makes it a deal less challenging for the above reasons (more classes have resources, short-rest recharges, at-will cantrips & spontaneous casting for all full casters).

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*

In 3e there was a strong tendency to the 5MWD, your highest level spells were the most useful, offensively, and lower level spells could be used on buffs, protections, and utilities that could be layered over yourself & your party without limit. 'Nova's could thus be insanely powerful. DMs would just dial up the challenge until you needed the Nova-power to have a chance, and that playstyle rut just deepened.

You could play about the same way in 5e, if you wanted. You can simply dial up challenges without limit, and you can offload a fair proportion of your resources in a single encounter. Concentration limits the buff-layering thing, and some classes have short-rest recharges that in theory let them take on a second encounter just as hard, but those aren't huge factors.

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

3e offered CR and encounter guidelines, and at least in theory was 'balanced' around a long and unpredictable enough day that Vancian casters would be challenged relative to spontaneous caters relative to non-casters. That days that long prettymuch never happened was the same problem than as it is now in 5e, but, at least, this time, we have clearer guidance (as promised) as to the 'right' number of encounters (6-8), /if you want to use resource pressure to balance classes & encounters/.

If you don't, you do still have a large bag of DM tricks with which to impose balance.

Wow - just - wow...So then why have all the other rules? What does it matter if a caster has 2 spells or 50? Why track hp? Why have a game at all? Why not just sit around a campfire and tell stories?

That wouldn't exactly evoke the classic game, now would it. Casters gain spells as they level, and everyone gains hps - that sense of advancement is key.

Caster dominance being enhanced and challenges being trivialized by the 5MWD, are also part and parcel of the authentic D&D experience.

Its kinda like saying mobility is not the default for an automobile lol....

Sure, until you turn the key and drive it.

Of course, driverless cars are just around the corner, but the driving public is more accepting of improvements than the D&D community.

See I DON'T think its "funny" - I would call it extreme tragic short-sighted reactionism actually

I don't think those two opinions are entirely at odds...

 

[Corwin]

Of course, driverless cats are just around the corner

My wife's cat hates, hate, hates, being in the car. Even as a passenger. So I have no doubt it would hate driving it even more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That wouldn't exactly evoke the classic game, now would it. Casters gain spells as they level, and everyone gains hps, that sense of advancement is key.

Caster dominance being enhanced and challenges being trivialized by the 5MWD, are also part and parcel of the authentic D&D experience.

Sure, until you turn the key and drive it.

Of course, driverless cars are just around the corner, but the driving public is more accepting of improvements than the D&D community.

I think you, Elon Musk, and a lot of other people, are wildly overestimating how many people will be willing to be driven by an automated car. I think there may literally be riots if they try to make it illegal to drive your own car, like Elon Musk wants. We shall see, though.

Anyway, on topic, I think you are also exaggerating the idea that balance isn't part of the design paradigm. It definately is. Just not as high a priority as it was in 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you, Elon Musk, and a lot of other people, are wildly overestimating how many people will be willing to be driven by an automated car.

For decades, electric cars couldn't get traction(pi), it was a technological thing - and a generational thing. The technology arrived, and the generation that couldn't handle the idea of a car that didn't go 'vroom' aged into a less important segment of the car-buying demographic.

I think there may literally be riots if they try to make it illegal to drive your own car

World of difference between 'diverless cars are available' and driving being illegal. The technology for the former is already here, and the obvious entry point for them is giving independent mobility to people who can't drive, themselves. From that to 'driving a car manually is depraved indifference to the lives of others' would likely take generations...

Anyway, on topic, I think you are also exaggerating the idea that balance isn't part of the design paradigm. It definately is. Just not as high a priority as it was in 4e.

(I think what I said was that balance isn't designed to be the default state of the game, not that it was not considered, at all.)

Balance in 4e, particularly class balance, was different, it was robust and designed-in from the ground up. You didn't have to stick to a specific pacing to keep a semblance of class balance, and encounter difficulty swung much more on level than relative numbers or day length. In one sense, you could play in many more styles, because you could vary pacing/challenge/emphasis without wrecking class balance - in another sense, more central to the D&D experience, you couldn't, because there are hallowed styles that require radical class imbalance, and very high impact from resource management and rest timing.
4e was unique that way, resulting in the edition war, and 5e was a reaction to that, so couldn't treat balance the same way.

Of course balance is still part of the 5e design paradigm, as it's been part of every edition. It's just that earlier editions aimed for balance and failed dramatically, while 3.x intentionally 'rewarded system mastery' with opportunities to imbalance the game.
5e tries to be all D&Ds to all D&Ders, and that includes at least leaving open to the possibility of it being (im)balanced in a way at least suggestive of each prior edition... and, of course, like the DMG 'modules' implementing that is left up to the DM. Thus the 6-8 encounter guideline, it's not a OneTrueWay that's assumed as a default, and you'll wreck your game if you deviate from it, it's a guideline. If you want to have some semblance of class balance and are willing to narrow the kind of campaign you run so you can use the encounter-building guidelines with some hope of them them producing challenging encounters, it's there for you to use. If you want your game to feel more like AD&D, you might use it as a vague guideline in dungeon type adventures. If you want your game to feel more like 3e, you'll ignore it, and maybe loosen the concentration rule...

 

[shoak1]

For decades, electric cars couldn't get traction(pi), it was a technological thing - and a generational thing. The technology arrived, and the generation that couldn't handle the idea of a car that didn't go 'vroom' aged into a less important segment of the car-buying demographic.

World of difference between 'diverless cars are available' and driving being illegal. The technology for the former is already here, and the obvious entry point for them is giving independent mobility to people who can't drive, themselves. From that to 'driving a car manually is depraved indifference to the lives of others' would likely take generations...


Balance in 4e, particularly class balance, was different and designed-in. You didn't have to stick to a specific pacing to keep a semblance of class balance, and encounter difficulty swung much more on level than relative numbers or day length. In one sense, you could play in many more styles, because you could vary pacing/challenge/emphasis without wrecking class balance - in another, sense, more central to the D&D experience, you couldn't, because there are hallowed styles that require radical class imbalance, and very high impact from resource management and rest timing. 4e was unique that way, resulting in the edition war, and 5e was a reaction to that.

Of course balance is part of the 5e design paradigm, as it's been part of every edition. It's just that earlier editions aimed for balance and failed dramatically, while 3.x intentionally 'rewarded system mastery.'
5e tries to be all D&Ds to all D&Ders, and that includes at least leaving open to the possibility of it being (im)balanced in a way at least suggestive of each prior edition... and, of course, like the DMG 'modules' that's left up to the DM. Thus the 6-8 encounter guideline, it's not a OneTrueWay that's assumed, and you'll wreck your game if you deviate from it, it's a guideline if you want to have some semblance of class balance and are willing to narrow the kind of campaign you run so you can use the encounter-building guidelines with some hope of them them producing challenging encounters, it's there. If you want your game to feel more like AD&D, you might use it as a vague guideline in dungeon type adventures. If you want your game to feel more like 3e, you'll ignore it, and maybe loosen the concentration rule...

Guys you seem to be missing the point. Imagine all the published modules came out with no monster stats for any new monsters. You complain about it, saying they should have included stats for the new monsters. After all, aren't you buying a module so as to reduce your workload? So you post your complaint and we all say, hey its no biggee, this way you can make monster stats that suit you and your table...we tell you you could even change the monster to one of the published ones so as to not have to create any stats......

silliness....of course they should include monster stats.....of course they should include the core balancing mechanism, without which levels have very little meaning...come on guys....I mean what point are the monster stats or CR guidelines without rest regulation?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Guys you seem to be missing the point. Imagine all the published modules came out with no monster stats for any new monsters.

Meh, modules aren't the game. You can have a good game with bad modules and vice versa.

(And, BTW, thanks for saying 'modules' instead of 'adventures' or 'APs,' makes me feel less ancient.)

After all, aren't you buying a module so as to reduce your workload?

A module does prep for you, but, IMHO, prep just isn't as valuable in 5e as it may have been in prior eds, and it's certainly not easy, either. So, yeah, buy a module so you don't have to do prep that's hard, I get. But prep isn't that useful, either, you're still going to have to react, improvise, & make rulings, regardless, and every time you do there's a chance to inject a little of the balance or challenge or whatever it is you were hoping the 6-8 encounter guideline might deliver.

.....of course they should include the core balancing mechanism, without which levels have very little meaning...come on guys....I mean what point are the monster stats or CR guidelines without rest regulation?

Levels still have meaning even in a 5MWD, it's just that meaning is more hps/damage rather than bonuses/DCs - that's a matter of BA.

And it's not the core balancing mechanism, I'm not sure it's even a mechanism. It's a guideline that's supposed to help with balance, but balance is still primarily the DM's responsibility - like everything else, that's DM Empowerment, taking responsibility for the success of your campaign. You can't blame D&D for being imbalanced, it's virtually always been imbalanced, if it weren't, it wouldn't be D&D. Just be thankful that there's even that theoretical guideline, at all, it's one of the playtest promises that was actually delivered on, afterall.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Let them be trivial. If you change the reward structure then all the party gets is light exercise.

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

If leveling on a schedule is a given then you have no challenge. The End.