D&D 5E Have the designers lost interest in short rests?

Charlaquin said:

People grouse way too much about the 6-8 encounter adventuring day with 2-3 short rests, IMO. Yes, that is the assumption around which different resource recovery systems are balanced. Yes, inter-class balance is at its best when you stick broadly to this guideline. No, the game will not break if you don’t follow it precisely.

Personally, I plan my adventures around this guideline, but I don’t enforce the sequence, and I allow my players the freedom to break it. I plan around 4-6 encounters per session, and I roll for random complications (which can include encounters) in dangerous areas. The players are free to take rests when they want, but taking the time to do so creates a risk of such random complications occurring. We generally get close to the 6 encounters with two short rests per adventuring day, but sometimes we get fewer, and that’s fine. It’s very rare that we get more, because the PCs are pretty worn down by or before the end of that time. It works fine.

I feel like with a lot of the game balance assumptions of 5e, people have a tendency to either worry way too much about adhering to them, or decide that they’re oppressively restrictive and actively avoid them while decrying them as terrible game design. I think both positions are far too extreme. Treat them like simple guidelines and don’t stress about following them to the letter, and the game will work out fine.

Click to expand...

It would be groused on less if the response towards people who deviate from it and find difficulties wasn't constantly, "Are you running the recommended schedule of encounters and rests?" or "You know that even a trap counts as an encounter, right? It's not hard to get to 8 encounters when everything counts as an encounter!" These responses are used to tell someone they are playing the game wrong rather than that the game isn't working well for them due to a genuine problem they've encountered in the game's design. It's an ultimately dismissive response because it fails to address the underlying issue while saying that it can't be a problem because not everyone experiences it.

It's the same as the complaints in prior editions about PCs long resting after 1 encounter. "Well, have you tried applying time pressure?" Like, that's not a fix, either! You can't do that every adventure. That's just a form of railroading. What if it's a sandbox campaign? "I just ambush my PCs when they rest too often." Really? You... just go full DM vs PCs? That's not fair, either.

It's not a big ask for the same game to support some tables running 1-2 really hard encounters each day, other tables running 3-4, others running 6-8 easy, and still other tables vacillating between 1 encounter days and 8 encounter days. We know that it's not a big ask because every edition of the game prior to 5e supported this style of play. That doesn't mean the editions had no problems -- like some tables abusing long rests -- but it does mean that the encounter schedule and rest schedule that the game suggested or implied you should aim for were not to blame. Think of it like this: Even if your table runs 6-8 in dungeons, do you seriously run more than 1-2 encounters per day during travel?

When they were designing 3e, WotC did a ton of research into how people actually played 1e/2e AD&D. They did that because TSR (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) never thought to do that. What they discovered was most tables played 2-4 combat encounters a session. That's what most DMs like to prepare for, what fit into most people's game sessions, and what most players seemed to enjoy. So, they pegged the game at 3-4 encounters per day. There's a reason nobody complained about that in 3e.

If you really want to fix the single encounter day problem, you've got to make the PCs get better as the day goes on. Like maybe you get better rewards like bonus XP, bonus gp, or bonus loot for making it to the 3rd encounter in a day. Or maybe you get bonus abilities that can't be used until you've had one encounter in a day. The problem that prompted short rests was that the game rewarded single encounter days. Just make the game not reward that style of play. Not by shaping the narrative into something that punishes the campaign progression. There need to be daily rewards for PCs.

Maybe PCs can't even earn XP until you've earned at least their daily budget. If they rest early, they get nothing or a greatly reduced reward. Now your players are pressured into moving on, playing smart, etc. Now short rests are valuable because they're healing and they're not long rests. Now it doesn't matter how many encounters you have in a day. It doesn't matter how hard they are. You've got to reach threshold in order to progress. It also means that when the PCs don't think they can achieve their daily goal, they aren't interested in empty combat. It's just a waste of resources.

Obviously, yes, a DM could definitely be a huge jerk and not give an opportunity for PCs to earn enough XP. But the more I think about it the more I'm liking this idea.

Horwath said:

Why not after every combat?
Just make combats more difficult.

no need for 8 combats a day, if 4 combats with short rest between everyone will do just fine.
No one is interested in "easy" token battle just to fill up the numbers.

Click to expand...

Because that would make the game play a lot like 4E, but not be as interesting as 4E, which itself got repetitive after a while.

The Fighter will do the same thing every combat. Identify the biggest threat and action surge it straight away. The Barbarian will always rage in the first round. As I said earlier in the thread, part of the benefit of short rests is that they break up the predictable flow of combat. The Fighter needs to scope out the combat to see if Action Surge is worth using this fight. Short rests solve a genuine issue (just as the Escalation die in 13th age approaches the same issue from a very different direction).

In any case. I think a lot of the issue is the idea that combat is something that the GM inflicts on the players. Of course "3 goblins attack" is always going to be boring. It should be more "the rogue scouts and sees 3 goblins in a room, the party make a plan to burst in and take them out as fast as possbile before any reinforcements can arrive."

A big part of the issue is the holdout from previous editions in thinking in terms of encounters instead of environments, while the system is designed to hearken back to an even older mode of play.

If the GM has a series of encounters planned ahead for the party, they'll find 4th Edition or 13th Age are much better games for their purposes.

Don Durito said:

I'm bemused that you say you don't worry about following it before revealing that you basically do.

Click to expand...

It’s like you didn’t even read my post. I said not to worry too much about it. That doesn’t mean ignore it, it just means don’t sweat it if you’re a few encounters above or below the benchmark. Treat it as a broad guideline (because that’s what it is), not a hard rule.

Charlaquin said:

It’s like you didn’t even read my post. I said not to worry too much about it. That doesn’t mean ignore it, it just means don’t sweat it if you’re a few encounters above or below the benchmark. Treat it as a broad guideline (because that’s what it is), not a hard rule.

Click to expand...

I know you were. But I was assuming the discussion already recognised that obvious point and was considering issues that arise when you go beyond that, and espeically when you do so regularly.. Hence my bemusment.

ph0rk said:

If someone is willing to let me play a 5 minute adventuring day game with a battlemaster that starts with three uses of action surge, three attacks a round, GWM, and 15 superiority die at level 11.... Okay.

I strongly suspect the downloaded nova build paladin in that scenario would be a bit miffed.

Click to expand...

I have thought of removing short rest mechanics and doubling or tripling the resources they get.

1-4 seems more typical now, I kinda aim for 4-6.

Newer players heavily into nova playstyle IME.

Zardnaar said:

I have thought of removing short rest mechanics and doubling or tripling the resources they get.

1-4 seems more typical now, I kinda aim for 4-6.

Newer players heavily into nova playstyle IME.

Click to expand...

3× short rest resource would be about correct.

HDs for healing could be spent by spending a use of healers kit, extra HP heal with any potion, healing spell, second wind or at least 5 HPs of lay on hands.

Horwath said:

3× short rest resource would be about correct.

HDs for healing could be spent by spending a use of healers kit, extra HP heal with any potion, healing spell, second wind or at least 5 HPs of lay on hands.

Click to expand...

The problem with just giving short rest classes more uses of short rest recharging abilities is that the abilities ir class tend to be powerful to a degree that would be problematic if those abilities were no longer tightly restricted.

Take the warlock for example. at 5 they have 2x 3rd level slots, at 9 they have 2x 5th level slots, & at 11 they have 3x 5th level slots but at 5 & 11 they are 3x 5th level slots. Meanwhile at 5 11 & 17 eldritch blast is dealing 2x 3x & 4x 1d10+cha with possible hex adding an extra 1d6 to each of those & repelling blast might include a 10 foot knockback on each of those blasts.

Meanwhile at 5th a sorcerer/wizard/etc also has 2x 3rd level slots in addition to 4x 1st level & 3x second level slots but those lower level slots will be hard pressed just to meet the damage of elritch blast. At 9 they have 1 5th level slot along with 4/3/3/3 first/second/third/fourth & eldritch blast is still likely taking the cake. At 11 they have with that one 6th level slot being something the warlock won't have but we can estimate the value of a single 6th level slot vrs six 5th level slots

6x 5th level slots translates to 42 sorcery points while a 6th level slot would probably be 8 or 9 points. Even being generous & saying that you get an unlikely 10.5 sorcery points from a 6th level slot those five 5th level slots are worth 4x more.

Using the same level 5/9/11 a monk has 5, 9 & 11 ki points& 1d6/1d6/1d8 unarmed damage with all of those levels having access to flurry stunning strike & extra attack. For one ki point a monk can do 4x (1d6+Mod) & for a second it can make one of those a stunning strike. giving 3x the ki points would amount to 15 27 & 33 ki points at each of those levels. You could say that 15 ki points might occasionally be taxed on the long haul, buy 27 & 33 ki points is almost certainly into or close to the realm of "more than enough".

You can't just multiply the resources because the classes are broken by design with the demand that the gm will shape the campaign to correct that bonkers design choice.

Zardnaar said:

Yeah reducing them to 5 minutes and capped at 2/day would help. Kinda like that rule.

Click to expand...

Yup, I use this rule too and it does wonders. You still have to manage your short-rest resources due to the cap, but you don't have to wait for an hour-long break in the action to recharge. The DM doesn't have to find places to insert such breaks to avoid shortchanging the warlocks and monks. Long adventuring days, short adventuring days, everything just works.

I kind of hope it becomes the official rule in 6E, whenever 6E comes.

tetrasodium said:

The problem with just giving short rest classes more uses of short rest recharging abilities is that the abilities ir class tend to be powerful to a degree that would be problematic if those abilities were no longer tightly restricted.

Take the warlock for example. at 5 they have 2x 3rd level slots, at 9 they have 2x 5th level slots, & at 11 they have 3x 5th level slots but at 5 & 11 they are 3x 5th level slots. Meanwhile at 5 11 & 17 eldritch blast is dealing 2x 3x & 4x 1d10+cha with possible hex adding an extra 1d6 to each of those & repelling blast might include a 10 foot knockback on each of those blasts.

Meanwhile at 5th a sorcerer/wizard/etc also has 2x 3rd level slots in addition to 4x 1st level & 3x second level slots but those lower level slots will be hard pressed just to meet the damage of elritch blast. At 9 they have 1 5th level slot along with 4/3/3/3 first/second/third/fourth & eldritch blast is still likely taking the cake. At 11 they have View attachment 128355 with that one 6th level slot being something the warlock won't have but we can estimate the value of a single 6th level slot vrs six 5th level slots
View attachment 128356
6x 5th level slots translates to 42 sorcery points while a 6th level slot would probably be 8 or 9 points. Even being generous & saying that you get an unlikely 10.5 sorcery points from a 6th level slot those five 5th level slots are worth 4x more.

Using the same level 5/9/11 a monk has 5, 9 & 11 ki points& 1d6/1d6/1d8 unarmed damage with all of those levels having access to flurry stunning strike & extra attack. For one ki point a monk can do 4x (1d6+Mod) & for a second it can make one of those a stunning strike. giving 3x the ki points would amount to 15 27 & 33 ki points at each of those levels. You could say that 15 ki points might occasionally be taxed on the long haul, buy 27 & 33 ki points is almost certainly into or close to the realm of "more than enough".

You can't just multiply the resources because the classes are broken by design with the demand that the gm will shape the campaign to correct that bonkers design choice.

Click to expand...

yes, warlock spell slots could be a problem. monks, not so much.

Perhaps, warlock could just have spell slot progression flatten out. from 2 slots at 1st level to 12 slots at 20th. Gaining 1 slot every 2 levels.
Or having base just tripled and limiting using spell slots every other round.

Horwath said:

yes, warlock spell slots could be a problem. monks, not so much.

Perhaps, warlock could just have spell slot progression flatten out. from 2 slots at 1st level to 12 slots at 20th. Gaining 1 slot every 2 levels.
Or having base just tripled and limiting using spell slots every other round.

Click to expand...

It's why I said they could double them instead of triple.
Basically giving up all your lower level slots in return for more nova.

Sure you could cast 6 5th level spells at level 9 but it's not that much different to all the other casters anyway with the 3rd and 5th level spells.

4 spells level 2-8. Might need to tweak that lower level.

Managed two encounters tonight, I could throw in a few more but it doesn't really fit the narrative so screw it. PCs don't tend to nova in my games as they never know how many encounters I will run.