D&D 5E [5E] Longer long rests and spell durations

[Sadras]

To avoid unintended consequences.

For example, I had never thought about the effect this would have on spells like Rope Trick and Mordenkainen's Mansion. A DM might see that the change prevents those spells from fulfilling a role they still want them to fill.

Intended consequences.
That is one half of the reason for the change in the first place.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I once played in a seafaring campaign where we could only take long rests at port. To compensate 24 hour durations were extended to "until you finish a long rest." While my cleric of Vecna never did get to animate any dead, it was a nice rule to have.

 

[NotAYakk]

I once played in a seafaring campaign where we could only take long rests at port. To compensate 24 hour durations were extended to "until you finish a long rest." While my cleric of Vecna never did get to animate any dead, it was a nice rule to have.

I like the idea of a duration being "spell slot". Ie, it lasts until you regain the spell slot.

 

[Gadget]

Intended consequences.
That is one half of the reason for the change in the first place.

That depends on the campaign now doesn't it? Many people adjust the Rest cycle because they find cramming the intended 6-8 encounters (or anything close to such) into on "day" problematic, and would like to maintain the balance between short rest and long rest classes. Furthermore, the value and utility of many of the longer duration spells loose a good bit of their utility if the duration is unchanged but the spell slot expended is only recovered long after the spell has expired.

Now, this might be a desired out come for those who want to take full spell casters down a peg, or for a more gritty game; but unless the goal was to curtail the use of those specific spells, I would hazard that the result would be to promote other spells, less adversely affected by the changes.

 

[Oofta]

That depends on the campaign now doesn't it? Many people adjust the Rest cycle because they find cramming the intended 6-8 encounters (or anything close to such) into on "day" problematic...

That's the reason I changed rest periods in my campaign. I rarely do dungeon crawls or anything similar so longer periods of time work better. At the same time I don't want to be overly harsh on spellcasters that rely on things like mage armor.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't see the problem.

Sure, you cannot hex, short rest, then adventure. But remember this is intended to make 5 minute adventuring days go away, so the benefits to Warlocks (relative to other classes) will be solid anyhow.

And goodberry, well, it means that with this change feeding 10 people indefinitely takes more than 1 1st level spell slot. Doesn't seem to be a huge concern?

OTOH, Mage Armor is a larger concern. It isn't on a short rest spell caster. That specific issue hasn't come up, but if it does I'd just make up something reasonable on the spot. Like maybe make it "spell slot" duration (it lasts until you regain the spell slot), which also works for Hex if needed.

There are other issues spawning from sane cause. Look at the number of "if cast every day for..." type effects. If they are not rituals, it means you need multiple casters or significantly higher level casters spending more and more slots between weekly refresh of slots.

Unless you routinely get into guaranteed safe weekly periods - its just about unbelievable to see those options bring practical - getting multiple mages commiting multiple slots over a week. (If you are getting plenty of guaranteed safe weekd off, then the rule is just a calendar stretcher - not making for a lot of play that's much different from a more typical adventuring dsy.)

Ritual casting or its lack becomes much more critical.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Intended consequences.
That is one half of the reason for the change in the first place.

Right, so don't change the ones you intended to happen. But, not every change is going to be intentional, especially since different DMs intend different results. So, it is worth looking at to see what you wanted to change and what you didn't and adjust.

 

[Laurefindel]

That's the reason I changed rest periods in my campaign. I rarely do dungeon crawls or anything similar so longer periods of time work better. At the same time I don't want to be overly harsh on spellcasters that rely on things like mage armor.

Out of curiosity, as anyone ever made a list of "things like Mage Armor" that would be affected by longer long rests?

 

[Sadras]

That depends on the campaign now doesn't it?

Maybe. It might also depend on the table.
This was never highlighted as a solution for all campaigns or all tables. It is an optional rule in the DMG afterall.

Now, this might be a desired out come for those who want to take full spell casters down a peg, or for a more gritty game; but unless the goal was to curtail the use of those specific spells, I would hazard that the result would be to promote other spells, less adversely affected by the changes.

But those spells affected are still extremely useful. I do not see Mage Armour, Rope Trick or Leomund's Tiny Hut being used any less at my table.

 

[Sadras]

Right, so don't change the ones you intended to happen. But, not every change is going to be intentional, especially since different DMs intend different results. So, it is worth looking at to see what you wanted to change and what you didn't and adjust.

I think I have been misunderstood by a couple of posters.

DMs who change up the rest periods (including utilising the alternatives in the DMG) do so specifically and intend for certain spells to lose some of their functionality. Those are intended consequences.

There was a massive thread (200+ pages) which discussed this on Enworld 2 years back about how the 1 hour and 8 hour rests are easily circumvented by using spells such as a Rope Trick and Leomund's Tiny Hut.
One of the many solutions suggested was to change up the rest periods. It is very much known.

You cannot exactly have a gritty campaign when spells bypass any measures taken to make it gritty.
Hence TwoSix's quote

No adjustments. What's the point of making a systemic change if it doesn't impact the meta?