D&D 5E The Resting Mechanics - What Works Best?

[Scott Christian]

For the last five campaigns (4 different DMs), we have just used RAW. It works well.

I still believe that it is mostly dependent on how a DM sets up sessions and plot clocks. That matters way more than which ruleset is being used.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You're not the only person who has suggested something like that, and to me it seems like a terrible idea. It basically removes resource management and attrition, which has an effect of making death the only possible meaningful mechanical consequence of a fight. To me this seems like highly undesirable situation in a game which is likely to contain a lot of combat.

Most games that aren't dnd or dnd clones do this and work just fine - if the only objective is "don't die" then the game will get boring and repetitive no matter how many encounters you have between rests.

That and from what I've seen, it's not that a lot of people want a game that only works with one encounter per rest (although that would be fine), we want a game that still works with one encounter per rest. Kind of like how 5e is balanced around magic items: it works with no magic items, but that doesn't mean it only works with no magic items. Instead, it works with any number of magic items, including zero.

I'd want a game that works with any number of encounters per day, including one.

FWIW, 5e is pretty close to that in actual practice - you only need to have multiple encounters often enough that players don't assume they'll get a long rest every time. It works okay. But the game could handle it a lot better.

 

[Lanefan]

Gritty also has the drawback of having those more reliant on hit points to naturally be cowardly. If it takes too long to recover, warrior types will naturally became over cautious as they put themselves in more danger. The natural consequences is characters being more cowardly, refuse requests without heavy incentives or reward, or eschew it all for a death wish personify.

All of which seems quite realistic, and therefore fine.

Many of us play these games so long we forget dungeon crawling and adventuring are stupid occupations normal folk won't do even when desperate.

Indeed; and I reference this now and then at the table and in my "blue book" write-ups, that adventuring is an extremely high-risk high-reward profession and if you want a shot at the rewards you have to accept the risks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Most games that aren't dnd or dnd clones do this and work just fine

Do they? I don't think so. I think the resource recovery in most other games is way slower than in D&D, especially for injuries. D&D's "no matter what happens, as long as you live, you're fine and full strength next day" seems to be the anomaly.

I'd want a game that works with any number of encounters per day, including one.

Define "works." Because I'd argue that as long as encounters can have any lasting mechanical consequences, then it is logically impossible to achieve it working just the same regardless of whether there are one or 21 encounters per day. And I really don't know why this would even be desirable. Of course fighting insane amount of enemies in one day if far more taxing than fighting just one!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Do they? I don't think so. I think the resource recovery in most other games is way slower than in D&D, especially for injuries. D&D's "no matter what happens, as long as you live, you're fine and full strength next day" seems to be the anomaly.


Define "works." Because I'd argue that as long as encounters can have any lasting mechanical consequences, then it is logically impossible to achieve it working just the same regardless of whether there are one or 21 encounters per day. And I really don't know why this would even be desirable. Of course fighting insane amount of enemies in one day if far more taxing than fighting just one!

Works as in: is fun and balanced (in that no classes of characters consistently outshine the others). 5e barely meets this threshold at one encounter a day - usually by people metagaming and holding back rather than because you can design an encounter that the sorcerer can't nuke.

I'm not saying attrition shouldn't matter, I'm saying it should be required.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Works as in: is fun and balanced (in that no classes of characters consistently outshine the others). 5e barely meets this threshold at one encounter a day - usually by people metagaming and holding back rather than because you can design an encounter that the sorcerer can't nuke.

If you think one encounter per day is not fun, then don't use one encounter per day. Use gritty rests, super easy to have several encounter between long rests that way without it feeling forced.

I think the tuning currently expects too many combats, but there always is tuning for some expectation. And D&D is and has always been a combat heavy game, so that tuning expectation is likely to always be more than one fight between full resource recoveries.

I'm not saying attrition shouldn't matter, I'm saying it should be required.

Either attrition matters and too few encounters becomes too easy, or it doesn't and they don't. I don't think there logically can be other options.

 

[Oofta]

Gritty also has the drawback of having those more reliant on hit points to naturally be cowardly. If it takes too long to recover, warrior types will naturally became over cautious as they put themselves in more danger. The natural consequences is characters being more cowardly, refuse requests without heavy incentives or reward, or eschew it all for a death wish personify.

Many of us play these games so long we forget dungeon crawling and adventuring are stupid occupations normal folk won't do even when desperate.

I've used the gritty rest rules pretty much since the beginning, I've never seen anyone acting cowardly because of worries about running out of HD. It just means they need to spend their hard earned coin buying healing potions. Win win for me.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If you think one encounter per day is not fun, then don't use one encounter per day. Use gritty rests, super easy to have several encounter between long rests that way without it feeling forced.

But that reduces the kinds of stories I can play, removing most city-based or political games.

I think the tuning currently expects too many combats, but there always is tuning for some expectation. And D&D is and has always been a combat heavy game, so that tuning expectation is likely to always be more than one fight between full resource recoveries.

It doesn't have to be, nor should it be, even if it usually has been.

Either attrition matters and too few encounters becomes too easy, or it doesn't and they don't. I don't think there logically can be other options.

Well, you could set up a game where you can't use all your resources at once. That tend to work as well. Kind of like how 4e handled it, which worked fine.

I mean, it's not an unsolved problem. I just wish 5e used known techniques rather than assume all game will include attrition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Level Up adapted the 'haven' idea from Adventures in Middle Earth. I don't have the full mechanics clear in my mind, but it's akin to what you're saying. Indeed, one element of overland journeys is finding safe havens so you can rest.

The Level Up/Adeventures in Middle Earth option is my preferred choice as well. I love the idea of safe places to rest being needed for a proper recharge. It really helps with the fast healing issue, and builds in opportunities for downtime.

 

[Oofta]

The Level Up/Adeventures in Middle Earth option is my preferred choice as well. I love the idea of safe places to rest being needed for a proper recharge. It really helps with the fast healing issue, and builds in opportunities for downtime.

I get that, but what if you run a game that's heavy on intrigue and politics in an urban campaign? The people go home at night, but they're still fighting the Blind Master gang it's just that their contact won't be able to get back to them until the morning.