D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

So in 4e, to not allow a short rest between encounters is, quite literally, doing it wrong.

I think this is an exaggeration. Doing it by accident might be doing it wrong, but doing it either to challenge your players, or just because you gave them the choice of rushing into the next room without stopping to rest (or for, say, dramatic purposes) was always fine - a feature, even.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think this is an exaggeration. Doing it by accident might be doing it wrong, but doing it either to challenge your players, or just because you gave them the choice of rushing into the next room without stopping to rest (or for, say, dramatic purposes) was always fine - a feature, even.

Right, but if you are doing it on purpose, then ... it's not multiple encounters, it's a single encounter! Per the rules. If you design encounters in which you expect characters to move from one challenge to the next without a short rest, then the multiple "events" are one "encounter."

And if you want to string along multiple, um, events but need to provide them resources in the meantime, there's guidance for that as well (DMG2).

I keep going back to this. It's not an exaggeration. It's a real, salient, and fundamental difference. And that's good! Difference is good.
 


You could try, but you run into the problem that people doing so always run into. The general public understands that resting for a bit of time really is restorative. The idea that someone might need to catch a night's sleep to replenish their energy is an extremely intuitable mechanic for a game to rest on. The specifics of how many X you get per day may be arbitrary and based on game engine concerns, but the recognition that a good long rest is a fantastic way to recover is not. That's why it's not the tail wagging the dog like the encounter-based unit for recovery is in 4e and why attempts to equate the two are generally rejected.

I just had a thought, I'm sure its come up before, but we also have 'rounds' in combat sport.

The idea that we can equate 1 15 minute round, with 3 5 minute rounds, is a false one. That minute to breath without the threat of violence, is very restorative as well.

Just something I'm thinking on. :)
 

How so?

2e's voluminous descriptions versus the 3.0 MM's descriptive sparseness stood out strongly for me.
Spell-like abilities, mostly. Check out what a 3.0 pit fiend can do in that regard versus what a 3.5 pit fiend can do; it's rather stark.

Admittedly, this is a very niche area, and one that doesn't apply to a lot of monsters, but for some reason it's always stood out very strongly in my mind. The 3.0 pit fiend can identify targets worthy of corruption via detect good, lure them into sin with suggestion, and defile holy sites with unhallow, etc. The 3.5 pit fiend is basically just a combat machine, though it at least kept the 1/year wish.
 

Right, but if you are doing it on purpose, then ... it's not multiple encounters, it's a single encounter! Per the rules. If you design encounters in which you expect characters to move from one challenge to the next without a short rest, then the multiple "events" are one "encounter."
Yeah, sure, they effectively become the same encounter, but they could still have been designed as separate encounters if, for example, they existed in two rooms that if you take out one room quietly enough / fast enough / make the right choices, you can keep them separate (and even get a "4e-short" short rest in-between, but will need to do both encounters as one if you rush it.

I mean, the same thing happens in every other edition, where you can (to use video game parlance) "aggro your dungeon" and combine multiple encounters into one. If you want to avoid a TPK, you have to be aware of what it's going to mean when it happens.


And if you want to string along multiple, um, events but need to provide them resources in the meantime, there's guidance for that as well (DMG2). I keep going back to this. It's not an exaggeration. It's a real, salient, and fundamental difference. And that's good! Difference is good.
I mean, exactly how it works is different, sure, but it follows the same basic reasoning.
 

Spell-like abilities, mostly. Check out what a 3.0 pit fiend can do in that regard versus what a 3.5 pit fiend can do; it's rather stark.

Admittedly, this is a very niche area, and one that doesn't apply to a lot of monsters, but for some reason it's always stood out very strongly in my mind. The 3.0 pit fiend can trick hapless mortals with major image, lure them into temptation with suggestion, and defile holy sites with unhallow, etc. The 3.5 pit fiend is basically just a combat machine, though it at least kept the 1/year wish.
I stand by the idea that 2e just did monsters better.
 

You could try, but you run into the problem that people doing so always run into. The general public understands that resting for a bit of time really is restorative. The idea that someone might need to catch a night's sleep to replenish their energy is an extremely intuitable mechanic for a game to rest on. The specifics of how many X you get per day may be arbitrary and based on game engine concerns, but the recognition that a good long rest is a fantastic way to recover is not. That's why it's not the tail wagging the dog like the encounter-based unit for recovery is in 4e and why attempts to equate the two are generally rejected.

I might agree that there's nothing special about an hour, in particular, but it is substantially longer than 5 minutes which doesn't seem long enough for fully recovering from one death defying exertion to another. There's a reason most high performance runners wind down 10-15 minutes after their race and then rest more afterward and that's because 5 minutes isn't much rest time between major exertions. So yeah, I'd say there is an inherent difference in verisimilitude between a 5 minute recovery and an hour. And, again, that's easily intuitable based on our real life experiences.
Well, I'm speaking as a former fencer, aikidoist, and LARPer, and current weightlifter. I'm accustomed to 2-5 minute breaks between fairly short periods of heavy to extreme exertion, for the most part.

I agree that there's a meaningful difference between an hour (long enough to have a full meal AND a bit of a stretch and breather) and a five minute break (which is plenty to get a drink of water, adjust your gear, and return your breathing and heart rate to normal).

IME 10-15 minutes like you're citing is a good rest period for a period of exertion considerably longer than an action movie or D&D fight. It's obviously subjective based on our prior experiences, but I don't think that an hour is inherently any more intuitive a minimal break to refresh between fights than five minutes is.

To the contrary, like Voadam, I find that an hour is too long to maintain credibility with an action movie-style pacing, and I've seen this issue crop up with my 5E players. Where I've tried to provide a plausible safe rest spot in a dungeon, say, and I've seen them balk and conclude that there's no way they could expect to stay undisturbed for an hour. So they press on and don't take the rest. :/

I note that in OD&D and Basic D&D PCs are required to take a 10 minute break every hour of dungeon exploration, and that every combat is abstractly considered to take 10 minutes for exploration and torch tracking purposes. However many rounds it takes + the remainder for rest, a little bandaging, and looting the bodies.

A second wind is kind of cool and dramatic, and it was when it was introduced in SWSE. But you only got one a day unless you specifically invested in more. Making it a default feature that could be used every encounter deflated most of its dramatic power.
So you dislike it in 5E too then, for Fighters?

In practice in 4E it wasn't used every encounter, unless perhaps by a Dwarf, who got to use it as a Minor action (like the 5E Fighter with their Bonus action), as opposed to it being a Standard action for everyone else. In my experience most folks would prefer not to give up a full action for it, so it was only used when really needed. (except by Dwarves).
 
Last edited:

Yeah, sure, they effectively become the same encounter, but they could still have been designed as separate encounters if, for example, they existed in two rooms that if you take out one room quietly enough / fast enough / make the right choices, you can keep them separate (and even get a "4e-short" short rest in-between, but will need to do both encounters as one if you rush it.

I mean, the same thing happens in every other edition, where you can (to use video game parlance) "aggro your dungeon" and combine multiple encounters into one. If you want to avoid a TPK, you have to be aware of what it's going to mean when it happens.
Yup. This happened regularly when I ran and played 4E.
 

So you dislike it in 5E too then, for Fighters?
The fact that the second wind is a lot less common in 5e than 4e does help it not cross the irritation threshold quite as much. And that's not a small thing. Some 4e-isms might have been alright if it weren't for the fact that so many of them felt like they were swimming upstream against the regular D&D current. 5e, for my money, took some of those 4e-isms and turned back downstream with them so it's far less work to fit them into my mental D&D model.
 

Remove ads

Top