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

[Ilbranteloth]

C'mon.... there's this room.... and this elephant....
...and these blind men... no, wait, different metaphor.

5e classes shake out into several different resource-recovery schemes. The prepped casters share one - many potent/flexible resources recovered on a long rest - and the other full casters are pretty close, that's like half the classes almost (Bard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard), right there. Then there's the Warlock - fewer but still potent/flexible resources recovered on a short rest. The half-casters Paladin/Ranger/EK/AT - fewer, flexible but less potent resources recovered on a long rest. The Monk & Battlemaster - fewer, less potent/flexible resources recovered on a short rest. The Barbarian - one potent resource recovered on a long rest. And the Fighter - one potent resource, one minor, recovered on a short rest.
And, hiding in the shadows, wondering why everyone's always goofing off, is the Thief/Assassin.

So good. That's quite different than regaining hit points too frequently, or regaining long rest abilities too much, or people being always at their best each day when traveling overland, and...whatever other issues that have arisen.

My point is, there may be more than one solution that work together to make a whole. So knowing which specific problem(s) we're trying to resolve helps.

Next is to find out if everybody else agrees that the problem we're having is that the classes have asymmetrical recovery schemes.

So here's a different question on finding a solution. In AD&D, there were two primary resources - spellcasting and hit points. Originally, regaining hit points was way too slow to worry about. You needed magical healing for most situations, or you simply left the dungeon because finding a place to hole up for a week generally didn't work. So that meant that the only recovery time that was needed was a good night's rest.

Even when hit point recovery was faster, since it was just those two abilities, tied to a long rest (or something similar), it still wasn't much of an issue, right?

So for the short rest abilities, what's the expected recovery? Not what's implied in the rules, but what is wanted. Do we want a warlock to have to spread their few spell slots across several encounters, or should they have them available for most every encounter? What about Second Wind, or other classes' abilities?

It's possible that recovery for "short rest" abilities could be managed separately from "long rest" abilities, and those could also be different than hit points. For example, short rest abilities could recharge after 30 or 60 minutes of game time. Or perhaps a system where you can make a DC 30 check, with the DC reducing by 1 every minute to regain the use of the ability. That would allow you to potentially gain an extra use or two in the same encounter sometimes.

Long rest abilities could be regained during a good night's sleep, along with hit points. The amount of hit points could vary depending on how difficult you'd like the campaign to be.

You can see where part of my bias lies - finding a mechanical solution is fine with me, but I'd like it to be tied to the passage of time in the game world.

 

[clearstream]

The 6-8 encounters are for medium to hard encounters, so a number of easy encounters can throw off the mix. I haven't looked at them in terms of XP cost to see whether it skews the system.

This doesn't impact the system as the system is really based on XP, not number of encounters. That's why it's so many rests per level.

Non-combat encounters that utilize resources are an issue, an obvious one being traps. Imagine running ToH with this system. You've touched in this, but I think it's a big one.

Yup, I'm pondering this one. Pragmatically, it may not be as big a deal as it looks because overwhelmingly, resources are spent in combat. Also, interesting to see Mearls' latest thoughts on XP... coming from non-combat encounters! Maybe the answer is - fix XP?

What happens when their rests have been exhausted and they find they need one? What are the options?

You mean, what happens when the system has the intended consequence? Consequences, man, consequences.

What about recovery from effects like Life Drain or a Mummy's curse? I don't have books handy, so I can't remember if those tie into rests.

Exactly! I've been looking into "world effects" that use rests. Exhaustion is another one. I'll extend my point 3. to make it clearer I mean to reference world effects. My rough thinking is that world effects continue to use calendar time.

As far as mechanical vs story-based, I would characterize it more in terms of how is the recovery (or lack thereof) explained within the game world? This is a huge hurdle to me for a system like this. Adventures in Middle Earth has an explanation for their system. But I still don't like the approach because of the shifting rules for resting and recovery, combined with the fact that I think their reasoning is too restrictive and doesn't make sense in my view of the game world. I think this is the biggest hurdle for any system.

It needs work, but let's face it - resource management is a valuable part of an RPG's mechanics. That's why it appears so frequently among them. Vancian magic? Ki? Superiority dice? Hit dice? Hit points? Actions? It's all shades of resource management. I agree with your sense that we need a solid characterisation to sell it, of course.

I'm also still not entirely sure what exactly we're trying to fix. For example, if the warlock wasn't dependent on short rests and refreshed their abilities at the same rate, would there still be a problem? If it has to do with recovery of abilities for a few classes, perhaps the classes need to be fixed, not resting?

One approach - and certainly the approach it appears many are currently taking - is simply reduce the mechanical variety and interest of the game. That doesn't satisfy me. I like Warlock spell slots to play and feel different from Wizards'. That design space narrows if we get rid of rests. Or to put it another way, good foundational structures - like rests - open up design space for delivering more fun.

 

[clearstream]

My point is, there may be more than one solution that work together to make a whole. So knowing which specific problem(s) we're trying to resolve helps.

Wise words. I agree that the solution could have many parts. Look at Mearls' latest thoughts on XP... coming from non-combat encounters! Maybe the answer to "what about non-combat encounters using resources" is to fix XP?

Next is to find out if everybody else agrees that the problem we're having is that the classes have asymmetrical recovery schemes.

Could I suggest we look at this a slightly different way. The problem is not that classes have asymmetrical recovery schemes: that's a feature, not a bug. The problem is that those schemes are blurred into one when rests are blurred into one.

It's possible that recovery for "short rest" abilities could be managed separately from "long rest" abilities, and those could also be different than hit points. For example, short rest abilities could recharge after 30 or 60 minutes of game time. Or perhaps a system where you can make a DC 30 check, with the DC reducing by 1 every minute to regain the use of the ability. That would allow you to potentially gain an extra use or two in the same encounter sometimes.

That might improve things, but it won't touch what I believe is a more central issue, which is the 5MAD (one encounter adventuring day). In other threads I even read people suggesting dropping random encounters because they have no mechanical impact. We don't want to be forced to have all-lethal encounters, dealt with by all-alpha-strikes. I think that leads to a more degenerate version of the gameplay.

You can see where part of my bias lies - finding a mechanical solution is fine with me, but I'd like it to be tied to the passage of time in the game world.

Just in case... you noticed that to spend a recovery you need the passage of game world time, right?

 

[CapnZapp]

Von Klaude, thank you for your organizing.

As for story based solutions, my issue with them is that I simply don't think that way. I can come up with plenty interesting challenges and dungeons and whatnot, I'm just not wired to put "what about the time pressure" in the driver's seat.

Part of that is of course because I'm painfully aware it is only ever meant as an illusion or smokescreen in 9 out of 10 cases. And I'll be the first to admit to that. I would hate to TPK my players just because they didn't complete Assingment X in 4 days, even if I told them so beforehand.

And if we are serious about the time limit, it's actually hard to allocate "just enough" rests but not "too many" or "too few".

I think it would be a great DMG variant to lift that entire yoke off of the DMs shoulders. I certainly see no adventure writer trying it, and for good reason too: they don't know my players.

So I really can't understand anyone arguing against even having it as a variant (that they never have to use themselves).

It would certainly simplify a LOT of adventures if rests regulated themselves. Boy, how that would help a hardworking DM out! Suddenly I don't have to artificially pump up encounters just to stop players from falling asleep during them.

As the message to the players? Do only easy encounters, and try to rest up after each harder one? No luck, no matter what spells you cast or what tricks you pull, your only option is to go back to Starter Town each time (and implicitly admit you like to play with the training wheels still on).

Most importantly, I don't have to spend a single second dealing with that . I don't even have to forbid it. I'm not an evil DM. The rules just make abuse impossible. Now get back in there, show some guts, and play the game the way it was clearly meant to be played!

Something along those lines, anyhow.

Cheers

 

[Hillsy7]

As for story based solutions, my issue with them is that I simply don't think that way. I can come up with plenty interesting challenges and dungeons and whatnot, I'm just not wired to put "what about the time pressure" in the driver's seat.

Part of that is of course because I'm painfully aware it is only ever meant as an illusion or smokescreen in 9 out of 10 cases. And I'll be the first to admit to that. I would hate to TPK my players just because they didn't complete Assingment X in 4 days, even if I told them so beforehand.

And if we are serious about the time limit, it's actually hard to allocate "just enough" rests but not "too many" or "too few".

I think it would be a great DMG variant to lift that entire yoke off of the DMs shoulders. I certainly see no adventure writer trying it, and for good reason too: they don't know my players.

So I really can't understand anyone arguing against even having it as a variant (that they never have to use themselves).

It would certainly simplify a LOT of adventures if rests regulated themselves. Boy, how that would help a hardworking DM out! Suddenly I don't have to artificially pump up encounters just to stop players from falling asleep during them.

As the message to the players? Do only easy encounters, and try to rest up after each harder one? No luck, no matter what spells you cast or what tricks you pull, your only option is to go back to Starter Town each time (and implicitly admit you like to play with the training wheels still on).

Most importantly, I don't have to spend a single second dealing with that . I don't even have to forbid it. I'm not an evil DM. The rules just make abuse impossible. Now get back in there, show some guts, and play the game the way it was clearly meant to be played!

Something along those lines, anyhow.

Cheers

I think there's a lot of overlapping intentions at play when a thread gets this long and people are crossing opinion, rebuttal and validation.

1) I don't think anyone is saying anyone shouldn't houserule this variant if you want it. The conflict arises because the explanations people have for their answers is often worded poorly, meaning "I wouldn't do this myself because" becomes "This doesn't work because" - it's not anyone's fault really, it's just the vagaries of language. So often people end up driving their point home to prove their view is equally valid, not to say the opposing or alternative point is incorrect.

2) The OP would do well to acknowledge that while he may not agree with a softer alternative solution, that it is perfectly acceptable to play the game that way, and not try and belittle that opinion in order to justify his own preference for more rigid structures. His preference is justification enough. A simple note saying "Story based solutions don't appeal to me, so I'm looking for purely mechanical fixes only" would avoid a lot of people feeling their perfectly valid solutions are being dismissed and arguing back just to be taken seriously.

3) Just as an aside "I would hate to TPK my players just because they didn't complete Assingment X in 4 days, even if I told them so beforehand" isn't what people have been saying. A story based solution would be "If you don't complete this in [x] days, something consequential happens." If the players try and play the GM, take the piss, and just assume the GM will adjust the reality of the Game to suit them...well...that's what consequences are for.

4) There's lots of different ways to play the game that have differing feels to them - and a question that says "I think this is a problem, here is my solution, what are your thoughts" are going to garner a full gamut of responses from "Me too! Perfect solution!", through "I would do it this way", right up to "It's not even a problem". It's up to the OP to assess those responses, reaffirm his position where he has been misrepresented, and generally take stuff in. He is perfectly entitled to take or leave anything he doesn't 'feel' would work for his game. That's totally fine - it's his decision after all. He's also perfectly entitled to call an a$$hat out if they are being Dicks. What isn't fair is to say to other people "Your opinion is incorrect".

I've done a fair amount of Writing as a hobby, and one of the golden rules when workshopping your novel with other people is to argue back. You can clarify if there are clear mistakes, or ask the opinion giver for clarification why they think something, but otherwise you SHTU and listen to the feedback. You then parse it all and discard that which you don't agree with, or seems like an outlier. What's left is stuff you can use however you wish.

5) People's GM-ing preference is a very personal thing, and really shouldn't be justified. It also shouldn't be feared as a reason to say "I understand what you're saying, but it's not what I want to do". In fact it is, after all, the ultimate deciding factor.

 

[clearstream]

Von Klaude, thank you for your organizing.

As for story based solutions, my issue with them is that I simply don't think that way. I can come up with plenty interesting challenges and dungeons and whatnot, I'm just not wired to put "what about the time pressure" in the driver's seat.

Part of that is of course because I'm painfully aware it is only ever meant as an illusion or smokescreen in 9 out of 10 cases. And I'll be the first to admit to that. I would hate to TPK my players just because they didn't complete Assingment X in 4 days, even if I told them so beforehand.

And if we are serious about the time limit, it's actually hard to allocate "just enough" rests but not "too many" or "too few".

I think it would be a great DMG variant to lift that entire yoke off of the DMs shoulders. I certainly see no adventure writer trying it, and for good reason too: they don't know my players.

So I really can't understand anyone arguing against even having it as a variant (that they never have to use themselves).

It would certainly simplify a LOT of adventures if rests regulated themselves. Boy, how that would help a hardworking DM out! Suddenly I don't have to artificially pump up encounters just to stop players from falling asleep during them.

As the message to the players? Do only easy encounters, and try to rest up after each harder one? No luck, no matter what spells you cast or what tricks you pull, your only option is to go back to Starter Town each time (and implicitly admit you like to play with the training wheels still on).

Most importantly, I don't have to spend a single second dealing with that . I don't even have to forbid it. I'm not an evil DM. The rules just make abuse impossible. Now get back in there, show some guts, and play the game the way it was clearly meant to be played!

Something along those lines, anyhow.

Cheers

You're welcome! I like your summary here. 5e has all the pieces for a great mechanical solution, they just need to be bolted together! We know how much XP is needed per level. We know how many CR worth of creatures deliver that XP. We know how much XP fits into an "adventuring day" - the assumed span over which players need to manage their resources. Possibly solutions need to extend to fixing the XP system so it awards for non-combat encounters. We know WotC are thinking about that. Now that I have a decent list of the problems, I need to revise the mechanic to fix anything I can obviously fix... and then get into playtesting.

 

[clearstream]

1) I don't think anyone is saying anyone shouldn't houserule this variant if you want it. The conflict arises because the explanations people have for their answers is often worded poorly, meaning "I wouldn't do this myself because" becomes "This doesn't work because" - it's not anyone's fault really, it's just the vagaries of language. So often people end up driving their point home to prove their view is equally valid, not to say the opposing or alternative point is incorrect.

2) The OP would do well to acknowledge that while he may not agree with a softer alternative solution, that it is perfectly acceptable to play the game that way, and not try and belittle that opinion in order to justify his own preference for more rigid structures. His preference is justification enough. A simple note saying "Story based solutions don't appeal to me, so I'm looking for purely mechanical fixes only" would avoid a lot of people feeling their perfectly valid solutions are being dismissed and arguing back just to be taken seriously.

I don't think I belittled anyone. In my OP I did say "Please respect the goals of this thread and focus on the game mechanics. The question is not whether we approve of rests or require rules for resting, but how to mechanically buttress the "rests" pillar of 5e's game balance given that goal?". Additionally, I don't want to pretend I believe every view is equally valid. Obviously if its apples and pears and you prefer pears, nobody can gainsay that. But if you want to argue that "pears" contains fewer than two vowels, then you're flatly incorrect.

3) Just as an aside "I would hate to TPK my players just because they didn't complete Assingment X in 4 days, even if I told them so beforehand" isn't what people have been saying. A story based solution would be "If you don't complete this in [x] days, something consequential happens." If the players try and play the GM, take the piss, and just assume the GM will adjust the reality of the Game to suit them...well...that's what consequences are for.

In principle it could work, but in practice there seems to be a lot of backpedalling on consequences. Maybe that's something people need to decide. Do they in their hearts want consequences to actually be consequences. Or when the time comes do they know they will back down? A few pages back someone raised that very question "What happens when you're out of recoveries?!" Consequences, that's what happens.

5th edition offers resilient mechanics that validate and diversify play, and solve problems. Like 4th edition it represents the work of highly skilled, experienced designers with access to a large body of testing. A lot of the mechanics are invisible to DMs and players only because we've become used to them. New mechanics have not only have to prove themselves effective, but also fight through community conservatism. Maybe that's a good thing. What I valued most were posts that raised genuine mechanical problems with the mechanical solution. As a designer, I can use that to enhance what I can offer the community.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think there's a lot of overlapping intentions at play when a thread gets this long and people are crossing opinion, rebuttal and validation.

1) I don't think anyone is saying anyone shouldn't houserule this variant if you want it. The conflict arises because the explanations people have for their answers is often worded poorly, meaning "I wouldn't do this myself because" becomes "This doesn't work because" - it's not anyone's fault really, it's just the vagaries of language. So often people end up driving their point home to prove their view is equally valid, not to say the opposing or alternative point is incorrect.

I don't think anyone has ever said that.

It's the opinion "nothing of the sort should ever be in the official DMG even as an optional variant I will never have to use" that doesn't fly with me. It's when the issue is dismissed by "probably very few people have this issue" or "it isn't even an issue, just use story and your problems are over".

Besides, if you think this thread is long, you should see its "parent" thread. It's about Elephants (not really)

 

[Hillsy7]

I don't think I belittled anyone.

I genuinely don't think most people realise a lot of the time, such is the joy of language. Also the internet isn't great for expansive caveat filled posts about how and why we are saying what we say. As I said, you can get a whole thread that sounds like someone saying "You are wrong", and what they are trying to say is "This is an equally valid opinion". But at the minimum you skirted pretty close to belittling, and you did so again in this very post - I'll explain when i get there.

In my OP I did say "Please respect the goals of this thread and focus on the game mechanics. The question is not whether we approve of rests or require rules for resting, but how to mechanically buttress the "rests" pillar of 5e's game balance given that goal?".

From what I read a lot of the "Story solutions" had some mechanical aspects to them, and thereby were covered by the brief. Now that might not be exactly what you wanted, and therefore you're well within your rights to politely decline their advice and tighten up the brief. Others did just say "meh, story", which is fair enough. There's no harm however in just thanking people and restating more clearly what you want; to say "I think that isn't valid advice because I think differently" is going to rub people up the wrong way.

Additionally, I don't want to pretend I believe every view is equally valid. Obviously if its apples and pears and you prefer pears, nobody can gainsay that. But if you want to argue that "pears" contains fewer than two vowels, then you're flatly incorrect.

Actually, this kinda highlights my point about how to deal with feedback. If you have apples, and I have pears, if I claim you spell apples with 5 vowels, then you are well within your rights to say "No That is incorrect". If I then say that I spell pears with 4 vowels, to be fair calling me on it is 1) Unlikely to be productive for you for getting the feedback you want, 2) Not really anything to do with the spelling of apples anyway, and 3) Makes a set of assumptions about my spelling of pears that might, somehow, have some vague validity.

In principle it could work, but in practice there seems to be a lot of back-pedalling on consequences. Maybe that's something people need to decide. Do they in their hearts want consequences to actually be consequences. Or when the time comes do they know they will back down?

And here's where you......how shall we say this....are being less than charitable? In broad brush terms, the subtext reads as "You say consequences but c'mon, really, seems like you're just being a pussy". I mean technically that's 2 insults. 1) They don't know what a 'consequence' really is anyway, and 2) they are probably not a good enough GM to do anything about it anyway.

Now, that's probably not your intention, and you're just saying you "prefer" more mechanical consequences, or for the definition and implementation of consequences to be taken out of the GMs hands altogether. But let me make this clear - that's your preference. The way you have said resembles a mealy-mouthed way way of saying "Ya talk , hen...". And let me also be clear that it's totally fine that you prefer one thing over another, and that you only want feedback on that one particular approach. Totally your call. But respect other peoples preferences too.

And yes there are going to be a decent number of people who say you're talking out your backside, who don't respect your preference or wishes. Best thing with that is remember you're no obliged to listen to them, or you can ask them to leave as it's clearly not the thread for them.

A few pages back someone raised that very question "What happens when you're out of recoveries?!" Consequences, that's what happens.

OK - I'll dig a little deeper into specifics rather than broad theories.

So a team has just completed a standard dungeon crawl and are now outside the door to the BBEG. Killing him will complete the level and all resources will reset. Due to some really bad rolls and being a little too cautious of the threat (say they thought the second from last battle was the BBEG so blew their last SR topping up), they are out of Recoveries. Basically, they've not really done anything wrong with the information and dice rolls they had. So here they are, knowing full well they are seriously down on resources, but the BBEG is going to complete a ritual unless they face him.

In this scenario, what are the consequences (other than the obvious "Fight and probably die", or "Give up and go home")?

 

[Hillsy7]

It's the opinion "nothing of the sort should ever be in the official DMG even as an optional variant I will never have to use" that doesn't fly with me. It's when the issue is dismissed by "probably very few people have this issue" or "it isn't even an issue, just use story and your problems are over".

That's kinda 2 points.

1) Dismissing it as a non-issue objectively (as opposed to "I haven't seen come across this" or "Not really noticed" which is just a subjective summation of experience and opinion) isn't fair play. However, I would say there is still a decent amount of bleed over from people reacting to other people and poorly wording their annoyance. Hell I do it all the time where I realise I'm attributing a comment a different intention or tone because of something else. But yes, unless the overwhelming weight of opinion is one way or t'other (and even then, probably not as after all D&D is almost infinitely variable), dismissing another player's issue as a non-issue isn't really good form.

2) However, "Just use story and your problems are over" is a reasonable answer (taken obviously without the dismissive first part). It might not be the solution you want - or even in the same ballpark as the solution you want - but unless it's totally destructive and/or insulting (e.g. "Just quit GM-ing mate"), I'm afraid it's still valid. And again, with the volume or cross-posting and differing unsaid intentions and poor language, it's pretty easy to develop a bug-bear about it. However, it is still a viable solution - just not in the games you want to run/play in.....