D&D 5E A mechanical solution to the problem with rests

[Hillsy7]

I don't think 5e needs mechanics to dictate the pacing or class balance any more than it has already. I am happy with the DM and the story determining when to rest, not mechanics.

I agree - but in the OPs defence, he did ask that he was looking for a rule regardless (house-ruling basically means your wants and desires win out - this isn't a "the game sucks" psot and the OP in his defence did state that).

I would say you "can" have a middle ground by couching rest limitations into the situations the players find them in, and then make the overuse of rests have narrative consequences (be that outright failure, Real World alteration, or something as simple as having to overcome a couple more combat hurdles that would otherwise be bypassed (Look for me by the light of the dawn on the third day!). Yes it gamifies the narrative a bit ("Ok guys, you have 6 hours to kill the Orc warlord, Urg'Grash, time starts as soon as you enter the cave"), but it does have a more flexible and narrative feel than x number of rests per level.

I think for what the OP wants, this would be a workable system and perhaps work a little better for his players who might not be pleased to find their resting rights revoked by GM decree.....

 

[clearstream]

I see where the OP is going, but how would parties know ahead of time how long the adventure is, and how many rests they can take?

Doing it that way also assumes a certain strict adherence to the CR rules. What if you're in a 'sandbox' game, with a much swingier type of play?

This question has come up several times and I believe could come from a lack of clarity in the terminology.

An adventuring day in this context (DMG84) is any number of encounters that sum to a given amount of experience points. It doesn't matter how many calendar days those encounters span over. And it doesn't matter whether those are deadly or easy encounters because the adventuring day XP is divided over encounters pro-rata their XP value. Deadly encounters are worth more XP so fewer fit into one adventuring day. Easy encounters are worth less XP so more fit into one adventuring day.​

An adventuring day is called that because it is assumed that it ends with one long rest, and contains two to three short rests. From the point of view of refreshing abilities, it doesn't matter how many calendar days those rests span over. The intended balance as expressed in the DMG and stitched through the MM and PHB, is that over all the encounters that fit into one adventuring day you will get one use of each of your abilities that refresh when you finish a long rest.​

It doesn't matter if this is seen as a guideline or a rule, it's simply a fact about the way 5th edition is balanced. Coming back to your question, it doesn't matter mechanically if the party knows ahead of time how long the adventure is and it doesn't matter mechanically if you are in a sandbox with a swingier type of play (in fact, I designed this system because I am running a sandbox and calendar rests do not work well when the time from one encounter to the next might be measured in days or weeks). Resource attrition is overwhelmingly due to encounters, and the game baseline is one refresh of each long rest ability and two to three refreshes of each short rest ability per however many encounters yield the XP of one adventuring day.

A quick example. If I am 3rd level going to 4th I need 2700-900=1800XP. Looking at the table on DMG84, my XP per "adventuring day" at 3rd level is 1200. So I need 1.5 of those to earn 1800XP because 1800/1200=1.5. It doesn't matter how many calendar days that takes. And it doesn't matter whether those were all easy encounters (attrition) or all deadly encounters (lethality). It just needs to be whatever number of encounters yields 1800XP. (This is the simple picture. I will discuss the relevant complexities in a separate post.)

 

[clearstream]

I wanted to summarise where I think things are generally, and respond to the mechanical issues raised in this thread.

Nothing to see here?
Some people assert that this isn't a problem for their group. It's impossible to say anything about that without seeing their group in play. I suspect that if you have a group who are engaged with the game mechanics, then this is a problem at your table. (Whether you notice that is another matter. There are always obscuring factors in the mix for a given gaming group.) On the other hand, if your group is focused on the RP then nothing much about the game mechanics is really an issue for you. However you side on this, I value posters who respected the purpose of this thread. The mechanical problem addressed doesn't need to be a problem for you or your group, for someone else to be genuinely interested in looking at it and imagining solutions for it. (And maybe one day, those solutions will benefit you without your noticing.)

Story-based solutions?!
Many posters advanced that the best solution is to adjust your story to put pressure on your players. So long as a mechanical solution integrates with calendar rests (my one does), then there is no dichotomy between liking story-based solutions and liking supportive mechanics. Or if you believe there is, then the burden is on you to show how one forestalls the other? Additionally, in the context of this thread "story-based solutionists" need to decide if they are really dealing with the problem that this thread was created to deal with, or sweeping it neatly under the carpet? That is, when the going gets rough due to attrition and bad rolls, are they really holding players to account? And if they are holding players to account, then they may need to reconsider their objections.

Mechanical problems raised
Thank you! I value these hugely, and posters have pointed out a few significant mechanical hurdles. At the top of my list to find imaginative solutions for are

1. How does the system map to spell durations?
2. Should casters be allowed to change their spell lists without spending recoveries?
3. When do you recover levels of exhaustion? And other "world effects"? (Effects on a rest clock that come from things other than PCs.)
4. What about downtime activities (like training, if used?)
5. If characters use resources outside of encounters, how do they refresh them if they're not earning XP?
6. Will variance be a problem?
7. How might DMs retain some flexibility while still benefiting from mechanically meaningful easy and medium encounters?
8. What happens when the value that two players put on resting diverges widely, because one has expended many resources and the other has expended few? In the standard system, the latter player doesn't need to conserve recoveries so could be more tolerant of the former players desire to rest because at least they get some small benefit out of it.

I believe that some of these hurdles need solutions even outside of the mechanical solution proposed, because they amount to a lock-in to the standard schedule of rests and I don't believe that kind of lock-in is good for the game. For instance, if we go with Gritty Realism from the DMG we hit most of those problems. It's super-easy to overlook how sophisticated and joined-up D&D is.

Have I missed any mechanical problems of significance? The goal of this kind of design is always to get to a good starting point for playtesting! (@Jester David I'd be shocked if a design was correct on first draught, and testing may reveal problems not yet considered.)

 

[mflayermonk]

Have I missed any mechanical problems of significance? The goal of this kind of design is always to get to a good starting point for playtesting! (@Jester David I'd be shocked if a design was correct on first draught, and testing may reveal problems not yet considered.)

What about single player rest vs party rest.
For example, party finished a combat and one player wants to spend a rest. Three players do not want to spend a rest. For the one player to spend a rest, the whole party has to do a "rest-like" activity, even if they do not spend a rest. If another combat comes up, and two of the players that did not spend a rest now want to spend a rest. So we need another one hour of (imaginary time) in a "rest-like" activity.
I think you can imagine a situation where short rests are scattered all over the place, which might not blend well with the rules-to story blend you mentioned in your original post.

 

[clearstream]

What about single player rest vs party rest.
For example, party finished a combat and one player wants to spend a rest. Three players do not want to spend a rest. For the one player to spend a rest, the whole party has to do a "rest-like" activity, even if they do not spend a rest. If another combat comes up, and two of the players that did not spend a rest now want to spend a rest. So we need another one hour of (imaginary time) in a "rest-like" activity.
I think you can imagine a situation where short rests are scattered all over the place, which might not blend well with the rules-to story blend you mentioned in your original post.

Thank you, I'll ninja-edit that one in. I think the problem you are describing is where the value two players put on resting now diverges widely, because one has expended many resources and the other has expended few. In the standard system, the latter player doesn't need to conserve recoveries so might be more tolerant of the former players desire to rest because at least they might get some small benefit out of it. The mechanic as written offers them no benefit out of it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Theoretically I agree with Dad here. The 'limited use' is the number of spell slots available. If a spellcaster wants to burn all their 3rd level spells that way, why not?

What am I missing?

Yes, the limitation on use is the slot. Once the duration overlaps the recovery time, it's a lesser limitation - it' s no longer 'should I use this, would it be wasted' but 'if I use this systematically, it'll always be there when I need it.'
And, anytime you're not under time pressure (and there's no mechanical solution like the OP) it's not a meaningful limitation, at all.

 

[Caliburn101]

With apologies, I had to laugh with your post It was nicely short and pithy.

Recoveries are about DM freedom. The rests system at present hog-ties a DM horribly. They either have to live with short-rest classes being outmatched by long-rest classes and/or go with all-deadly encounters or many mechanically meaningless encounters. Or they have to sweat to find ways to forestall or interrupt rests. Hours of random encounter combats when I'd rather get on with beautifully crafted, fun narrative combats? No thanks.

I run the game how I prefer to run it, and I change it as I see fit in terms of pacing, and in neither case does the game suffer in any way due to the standard version of the LR and SR aspect of the game.

There is enough in the game that is already formulaic without putting in such a rigid 'solution'.

 

[Krachek]

RPG
Ressources Planning Game

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I wanted to summarise where I think things are generally, and respond to the mechanical issues raised in this thread.

Nothing to see here?
Some people assert that this isn't a problem for their group. It's impossible to say anything about that without seeing their group in play. I suspect that if you have a group who are engaged with the game mechanics, then this is a problem at your table. (Whether you notice that is another matter. There are always obscuring factors in the mix for a given gaming group.) On the other hand, if your group is focused on the RP then nothing much about the game mechanics is really an issue for you. However you side on this, I value posters who respected the purpose of this thread. The mechanical problem addressed doesn't need to be a problem for you or your group, for someone else to be genuinely interested in looking at it and imagining solutions for it. (And maybe one day, those solutions will benefit you without your noticing.)

Story-based solutions?!
Many posters advanced that the best solution is to adjust your story to put pressure on your players. So long as a mechanical solution integrates with calendar rests (my one does), then there is no dichotomy between liking story-based solutions and liking supportive mechanics. Or if you believe there is, then the burden is on you to show how one forestalls the other? Additionally, in the context of this thread "story-based solutionists" need to decide if they are really dealing with the problem that this thread was created to deal with, or sweeping it neatly under the carpet? That is, when the going gets rough due to attrition and bad rolls, are they really holding players to account? And if they are holding players to account, then they may need to reconsider their objections.

Mechanical problems raised
Thank you! I value these hugely, and posters have pointed out a few significant mechanical hurdles. At the top of my list to find imaginative solutions for are

1. How does the system map to spell durations?
2. Should casters be allowed to change their spell lists without spending recoveries?
3. When do you recover levels of exhaustion?
4. What about downtime activities (like training, if used?)
5. If characters use resources outside of encounters, how do they refresh them if they're not earning XP?
6. Will variance be a problem?
7. How might DMs retain some flexibility while still benefiting from mechanically meaningful easy and medium encounters?
8. What happens when the value that two players put on resting diverges widely, because one has expended many resources and the other has expended few? In the standard system, the latter player doesn't need to conserve recoveries so could be more tolerant of the former players desire to rest because at least they get some small benefit out of it.

I believe that some of these hurdles need solutions even outside of the mechanical solution proposed, because they amount to a lock-in to the standard schedule of rests and I don't believe that kind of lock-in is good for the game. For instance, if we go with Gritty Realism from the DMG we hit most of those problems. It's super-easy to overlook how sophisticated and joined-up D&D is.

Have I missed any mechanical problems of significance? The goal of this kind of design is always to get to a good starting point for playtesting! (@Jester David I'd be shocked if a design was correct on first draught, and testing may reveal problems not yet considered.)

Another couple of mechanical issues:

The 6-8 encounters are for medium to hard encounters, so a number of easy encounters can throw off the mix. I haven't looked at them in terms of XP cost to see whether it skews the system.

Non-combat encounters that utilize resources are an issue, an obvious one being traps. Imagine running ToH with this system. You've touched in this, but I think it's a big one.

What happens when their rests have been exhausted and they find they need one? What are the options?

What about recovery from effects like Life Drain or a Mummy's curse? I don't have books handy, so I can't remember if those tie into rests.

As far as mechanical vs story-based, I would characterize it more in terms of how is the recovery (or lack thereof) explained within the game world? This is a huge hurdle to me for a system like this. Adventures in Middle Earth has an explanation for their system. But I still don't like the approach because of the shifting rules for resting and recovery, combined with the fact that I think their reasoning is too restrictive and doesn't make sense in my view of the game world. I think this is the biggest hurdle for any system.

I'm also still not entirely sure what exactly we're trying to fix. For example, if the warlock wasn't dependent on short rests and refreshed their abilities at the same rate, would there still be a problem? If it has to do with recovery of abilities for a few classes, perhaps the classes need to be fixed, not resting?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm also still not entirely sure what exactly we're trying to fix.

C'mon.... there's this room.... and this elephant....
...and these blind men... no, wait, different metaphor.

For example, if the warlock wasn't dependent on short rests and refreshed their abilities at the same rate, would there still be a problem? If it has to do with recovery of abilities for a few classes, perhaps the classes need to be fixed, not resting?

5e classes shake out into several different resource-recovery schemes. The prepped casters share one - many potent/flexible resources recovered on a long rest - and the other full casters are pretty close, that's like half the classes almost (Bard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard), right there. Then there's the Warlock - fewer but still potent/flexible resources recovered on a short rest. The half-casters Paladin/Ranger/EK/AT - fewer, flexible but less potent resources recovered on a long rest. The Monk & Battlemaster - fewer, less potent/flexible resources recovered on a short rest. The Barbarian - one potent resource recovered on a long rest. And the Fighter - one potent resource, one minor, recovered on a short rest.
And, hiding in the shadows, wondering why everyone's always goofing off, is the Thief/Assassin.