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

[clearstream]

Originally Posted by DaviMMS View Post
I kind of liked the system proposed by the OP, but I think it does not take into consideration the multipliers for number of enemies.

You don't actually gain 300 xp per character in an adventure day at 1st level. Your adventure day xp budget will normally not be enough to level up the group.

For example, let's say we have a group of 4 1st level players. Their adventure day budget is 1200 xp.

1 encounter with 4 goblins is worth 200 xp but, because of the number of enemies, the encounter is actually worth twice that (400).

So, after 3 enconters like that, you would already have filled the adventure day budget, but each member of the group only gained 150 xp.

I had this thought, too. Did anybody actually respond to this idea?

I assumed in my OP that the adventuring day is unmodified XP. There are two reasons for that. The main reason is that I've tied recoveries to level and not XP. And number of foes doesn't change the XP awarded, only their difficulty rating for the purpose of setting up an encounter.

A secondary reason is that encounters in 5e appear to me significantly underpowered. That might be a function of the experience of myself and my group, so I stand to be corrected. However, if it is right that they are underpowered, then that can't be fixed by simply adding in more foes because what is also happening is that PCs are being awarded too much XP relative to the challenges they face. I find that if you ignore the number of enemies table, the system partly rights itself. Let me emphasise however that this reason is secondary to the fact that I tied recoveries via level to XP earned, not encounter difficulty rating.

 

[ro]

I assumed in my OP that the adventuring day is unmodified XP. There are two reasons for that. The main reason is that I've tied recoveries to level and not XP. And number of foes doesn't change the XP awarded, only their difficulty rating for the purpose of setting up an encounter.

A secondary reason is that encounters in 5e appear to me significantly underpowered. That might be a function of the experience of myself and my group, so I stand to be corrected. However, if it is right that they are underpowered, then that can't be fixed by simply adding in more foes because what is also happening is that PCs are being awarded too much XP relative to the challenges they face. I find that if you ignore the number of enemies table, the system partly rights itself. Let me emphasise however that this reason is secondary to the fact that I tied recoveries via level to XP earned, not encounter difficulty rating.

I see. Doesn't using unmodified XP imply that encounters are easier than they actually are, when there are more monsters? This in turn would drain player resources more, and limiting rests would make it much harder to make it through the level.

As an aside, I think it's weird that harder encounters don't necessarily result in more XP.

 

[clearstream]

I see. Doesn't using unmodified XP imply that encounters are easier than they actually are, when there are more monsters? This in turn would drain player resources more, and limiting rests would make it much harder to make it through the level.

Limiting rests will make it as hard as intended. And that will indeed be much harder than encounters where rests are not limited. And that is a good thing

 

[ro]

One of the obstacles to level-based resting is non-combat use of rest-based abilities.

What if rest-based abilities outside of combat were free?

At the DM's discretion, Activity that is intended to influence combat encounters, or is very likely to, such as gaining hit points, would suffer its normal cost.

An alternative would be to have two separate ability pools, one for combat use and another for non-combat use.

 

[clearstream]

One of the obstacles to level-based resting is non-combat use of rest-based abilities.

What if rest-based abilities outside of combat were free?

At the DM's discretion, Activity that is intended to influence combat encounters, or is very likely to, such as gaining hit points, would suffer its normal cost.

An alternative would be to have two separate ability pools, one for combat use and another for non-combat use.

I noted this concern because I know people have it, but I suspect that the issue will prove to be less pronounced than imagined. In campaigns where mechanics like these matter, the ability use will generally be done in expectation of a gain. That gain could be information, a resource, influence or something else. Where that gain can be obtained for no risk of loss, the loss of the ability use itself will balance against it. Where there is a risk of loss, the players should be getting XP for taking that risk.

I know that won't work for campaigns focused on story because frequently in such campaigns players will be using expendable abilities purely for narrative effect, but then I'm not sure that it should be a concern for those kinds of campaigns. They're probably hand-waving a bunch of rules anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the obstacles to level-based resting is non-combat use of rest-based abilities.

It's only a potential obstacle if the DM doesn't give commensurate experience for overcoming non-combat challenges...

What if rest-based abilities outside of combat were free?

Rituals essentially are.

 

[clearstream]

One of the obstacles to level-based resting is non-combat use of rest-based abilities.

What if rest-based abilities outside of combat were free?

At the DM's discretion, Activity that is intended to influence combat encounters, or is very likely to, such as gaining hit points, would suffer its normal cost.

An alternative would be to have two separate ability pools, one for combat use and another for non-combat use.

I thought further on this, and I believe it is correct not to offer any special replenishment of abilities used outside of combat. The reason relates to the broader world. We need to know why a tier-1 spell cast costs 10-50gp when that will pay for a week to a month's work for a skilled person? I had formerly supposed that casts aren't call on every day, but that feels tenuous given what you can do with them. A better reason is that casts are rarer because their replenishment cycle is slower. (In fact, I believe Gritty Realism improves the consistency and credibility of the background world.)

However, your question also points to a reason why level-based or encounter-based recoveries don't work: they completely fail the background world. They represent a disjunction that should prevent them being our preferred solution.