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

[CapnZapp]

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.


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.


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.



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.


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")?

Hang on here a bit, something iffy's going on.

First, I need to say: [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION], this guy spent four paragraphs diverting the focus away from your proposals instead talking about they way you presented them. That's never a good idea on the internet. My advice: ignore all of that and focus on the issue at hand.

Then, Hillsy: after all that you create an obvious bad-faith example. It might not be obvious to the casual reader, but this example is rife with assumptions that we simply don't have to stand for.

How about the consequence "Fight and probably win anyway out of sheer bravado and awesomeness, creating a memorable moment because the rest rules prevented us from taking the safe Tiny Hut or Teleport tactics that the rules as written always let us trivialize encounters with"?

For starters.

And even if not: them's the breaks. Everybody knew the rules going in. If you can't accept actually getting defeated, maybe you shouldn't use these rules in the first place?

In other words, you might want to make it out to be a neutral example and you to be an reasonable argumenter, but if your real agenda is: "I don't want to have to fight against bad odds" or "I don't want there to be a risk of actual defeat" then just say so

Sharply,
CapnZapp

PS. I might come across strong here, but you really did spend four paragraph attacking vonklaude rather than his arguments, there. Since I have myself fallen into the trap of responding many many times (which then conveniently derails the thread), I wanted to set the record straight. I remain prepared to apologize, Hillsy, if you feel unfairly treated here.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.....

The problem is when posters use that solution to tell me no other solutions are needed.

I have never questioned the validity of the story-based solution. I think Flamestrike is its greatest Champion, ask him. What I have done, however, is getting irritated at people that denies me other, further, solutions.

Other than that, I'm not sure where you're going with the highly abstract style there Hillsy. There is no need to evaluate the discussion at such a high level. I would much rather you tell us what your own personal opinions are. What's your skin in this game?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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?


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.

Yep. Agreed. My point is really that we ought to look at the problem from multiple directions.

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.

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

To the last point - I worded it too vaguely. I like it to be more consistently tied to the passage of time in the game world, rather than the arbitrary/abstract notion of number of encounters, number of XP gained, etc.

OK, so back to the OP version. It only works if the DM is using the XP system to design the adventure. The more non-XP challenges such as traps, or long term effects, such as mummy rot, poison, that you introduce, the less it's going to work like people expect 5e to work. On the other hand, it will start to be more and more like AD&D.

What you are essentially doing is giving the PCs a total pool of resources, but spreading access to it over time. They only get one long rest between 1st and 2nd levels, or between 2nd and 3rd levels. So essentially you're saying they have double their hit points, and 1 1/2 times their Hit Dice to work with, plus magical healing to extend that.

If that's too tough, then double the number of rests allowed between levels.

Let's look at examples where this might be a problem:
Tomb of Horrors (TftYP version): Since there are multiple paths to get to where there is a potential combat encounter, I'm going to just go in numerical order. Room 8 is a potential combat encounter (450 XP - one would think it's more, but they didn't alter the number of attacks). Potential damage in rooms 1-7?

27 (5d10) + 12 (2d10 poison +1) + up to 5 pits (19 + 11 + 22 poison or 42 possible from each) + 65 (10d6).

That's a lot of damage and dealing with poison and since this is for 10th level characters or so, you'll need 21,000 XP (each, or 84,000 for the party) to get to the next level. So the expected long rest is about halfway through, or at 42,000 XP.

Granted, the pits are almost certainly a non-issue since a 10th level party that can't spot DC 15 pits with passive Perception is pretty pathetic. And it's also not designed using the DMG adventuring day guidelines. But I also don't think it would work with this system. The most difficult "combat" encounter is Acererak himself, and he's worth less than 1/4 the XP that the party as a whole needs (20,000 of the 84,000 XP needed).

At the very least, the DM will need to use the Non-combat XP variant in the DMG. However, that will require a lot of work on the DMs part, because they'll have to calculate the appropriate XP for each trap, they can't just look them up.

So to be more fair, how about a dungeon designed for 5e?

Curse of Strahd will be tough too. Strahd himself might appear multiple times, and consume some of the PCs resources, but not be killed himself, so they won't gain the benefits of any XP from those encounters. There are a lot of social encounters, some of which can have an impact on resources (Vistani curses, for example), but most of the encounters that will consume resources are combat encounters. However, with the amount of undead, there are a lot of things that might be problematic (Life Drain lasts until completing a long rest, for example).

Something like OotA will probably work fairly well. Not too many traps or other non-XP resource draining encounters.

My assessment right now? It sounds like for certain adventures and approaches it will add a lot of work for the DM. At the very least, it assumes that the system as outlined in the DMG is being used. I'm not convinced that all of the published APs do, much less most DM written adventures. It will make certain types of adventures more deadly, requiring the PCs to retreat to home a la AD&D more often. Or the DM will need to add in XP for non-combat encounters, again with limited guidelines in the DMG and more work.

In addition, for me, the disconnect from the narrative and the game world are a big issue too. A hurdle that I haven't overcome just yet. The idea that the PCs are resting (potentially in the same spot) several nights in a row, but only one of those counts as a long rest. That's one example, anyway.

Alternate Ability Recovery System
What if we separate recovery from rests altogether, and model it after the Barbarian's Relentless Rage ability?

To recover short or long rest abilities, you must make an ability check using your character's primary ability. You make a separate check for short rest abilities and long rest abilities.

The base DC is 5 for a short rest ability, and 20 for a long rest ability. It increases by +5 each time you attempt to recover the ability. See "Rests" below for resetting this DC.

You regain the use of all short rest abilities (or long rest abilities) on success or failure, but also suffer exhaustion if you fail the saving throw. You suffer 1 level of exhaustion for a short rest ability, or 3 levels of exhaustion for a long rest ability.

We'll need to modify the rest system as well:
Short Rest. 10 or 15 minutes long. Roll available Hit Dice.

Long Rest. 8 hours long. You regain 1/2 of your Hit Dice. You regain 1 level of exhaustion. The base DC for your short rest and long rest recovery checks are reset but increased by 2. Your first short rest and long rest recovery checks for the day are made with advantage.

Full Day Rest. A full day rest is 24 hours of uninterrupted rest. No strenuous activities, no combat, etc. You regain all Hit Points. You regain all Hit Dice. You regain all abilities, and the base DC for ability recovery is entirely reset.

--

A few additional thoughts:

Tying the saving throw to the class makes it easier (and more fair).

Another alternative is to make it a d20 check with no modifiers. That means it's harder (since everybody will typically have a bonus if it's tied to their primary ability), but it won't suffer disadvantage on the saving throw if they reach an exhaustion level of 3.

The Base DC may need some tweaking. The intention is that a player should expect to be able to use a short rest ability 3 times/day and a long rest ability once/day without much risk to closely match the RAW.

It addresses long-term attrition. You are only gaining the potential of half of your maximum hit points each day, and you still might fail your recovery check. In addition, each day the base DC is 2 points higher.

The players remain in control of their rests and recovery, and have more flexibility. In addition, as characters raise their ability scores, they'll have a better chance of regaining abilities a little more frequently.

I think it works with game balance fine. Even gaining your long rest abilities for a second time in a day isn't really any different from the group that decides they will wait it out and get their long rest before that next encounter. In addition, I think it discourages that type of approach to some degree - taking more long rests makes future recovery tougher. So waiting is encouraged a bit more, and taking a risk instead. I suspect most will stop taking the risk once they are suffering a level of exhaustion, although this aspect can be countered to some degree with greater restoration.

If your players are the type that will attempt to game the Full Day Rest, then make it a Full Week Rest instead. I think 24 hours should be sufficient to discourage most abuse, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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")?

I don't see how this is any better/worse than the time-pressure scenario. In fact it is the time-pressure scenario.

It's another aspect of what's 'wrong' with resting(npi) class balance & encounter difficulties on resource-attrition/recovery, but it's not a 'strike' against the mechanical solution.

2) However, "Just use story and your problems are over" is a reasonable answer (taken obviously without the dismissive first part).

It is a way to apply the guidelines. But it's not accurately phrased. "Subordinate story to the needs of the system," would be a more accurate. It's not really a solution, either, it's more of a work-around.

 

[clearstream]

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.


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")?

Thank you for your efforts to assist me in developing my rhetorical style. I'd like to focus on the thread's goals. You dislike that I suggest that people aren't honestly interested in consequences. You then present an example where you raise fears that the consequences will be a problem. Remember, if we're using story pressures to accomplish the same thing as mechanical pressures, the outcome should be the same. The BBEG will have recruited additional help. Or he'll be nearer completing his ritual. Or whatever: conditions will prevail that make the PC's job harder. Alternatively, we can say that we are not honestly interested in consequences and neither story pressures nor mechanical pressures will please us. That's also a reasonable position to take... so long as we give up any claims to the contrary. You seem to interpret that point pejoratively.

Your example is partly a take on the variance argument raised earlier. One of the key elements that separate PnP RPGs from linear narrative (e.g. books) are stochastic mechanisms that can result in things going awry. In my experience, some of the most exciting moments in the game have been where something unexpected happened. Where things came down to the wire. Moments that people remember for years. So the straight answer to your question is that - yes - the PCs have a difficult choice to make. That elevates the action. The outcome will be remembered longer than if they went in full-powered and alpha'd the BBEG. Worst case, they had the fun of triumphing earlier when they nailed whatever lesser threat they expended their resources on, and will have the fun of trying out some other character concepts. I'd also make the point here that through making easier encounters mechanically meaningful, we elevate the tension in those. Even a random encounter may become relevant. The BBEG's outriders matter. Overall, the tension and fun of our game made gains.

One needs to reflect here on character death. Think of this in terms of a fair bet. One of the issues for all persistent RPGs is that investment in a character - the player's stake - is continuously increasing. Up to a point, a DM is able to offer payouts worth the wager, taking into consideration the possibility of loss. A simple way to represent that is that hours played*chance of loss must be less than anticipated winnings. However, at some point the player's stake becomes more valuable than any reasonable payout. That is balanced out by declining the chance of loss; in practice that eventually collapses into no chance of loss. The exit from the maths of character death is to focus on the incommensurables. Did I enjoy what happened? Did I feel tension? Excitement? Was it memorable? For me, the mechanical tools are all about elevating those things. The reason for preserving consequences is not to avoid being a "pussy" (as you put it), but to create memorable heroic fantasy.

You may now accuse me of belittling other DMs by suggesting that they have no interest in creating memorable heroic fantasy

 

[clearstream]

OK, so back to the OP version. It only works if the DM is using the XP system to design the adventure. The more non-XP challenges such as traps, or long term effects, such as mummy rot, poison, that you introduce, the less it's going to work like people expect 5e to work. On the other hand, it will start to be more and more like AD&D.

What you are essentially doing is giving the PCs a total pool of resources, but spreading access to it over time. They only get one long rest between 1st and 2nd levels, or between 2nd and 3rd levels. So essentially you're saying they have double their hit points, and 1 1/2 times their Hit Dice to work with, plus magical healing to extend that.

If that's too tough, then double the number of rests allowed between levels.

Let's look at examples where this might be a problem:
Tomb of Horrors (TftYP version): Since there are multiple paths to get to where there is a potential combat encounter, I'm going to just go in numerical order. Room 8 is a potential combat encounter (450 XP - one would think it's more, but they didn't alter the number of attacks). Potential damage in rooms 1-7?

27 (5d10) + 12 (2d10 poison +1) + up to 5 pits (19 + 11 + 22 poison or 42 possible from each) + 65 (10d6).

That's a lot of damage and dealing with poison and since this is for 10th level characters or so, you'll need 21,000 XP (each, or 84,000 for the party) to get to the next level. So the expected long rest is about halfway through, or at 42,000 XP.

Granted, the pits are almost certainly a non-issue since a 10th level party that can't spot DC 15 pits with passive Perception is pretty pathetic. And it's also not designed using the DMG adventuring day guidelines. But I also don't think it would work with this system. The most difficult "combat" encounter is Acererak himself, and he's worth less than 1/4 the XP that the party as a whole needs (20,000 of the 84,000 XP needed).

At the very least, the DM will need to use the Non-combat XP variant in the DMG. However, that will require a lot of work on the DMs part, because they'll have to calculate the appropriate XP for each trap, they can't just look them up.

So to be more fair, how about a dungeon designed for 5e?

Curse of Strahd will be tough too. Strahd himself might appear multiple times, and consume some of the PCs resources, but not be killed himself, so they won't gain the benefits of any XP from those encounters. There are a lot of social encounters, some of which can have an impact on resources (Vistani curses, for example), but most of the encounters that will consume resources are combat encounters. However, with the amount of undead, there are a lot of things that might be problematic (Life Drain lasts until completing a long rest, for example).

Something like OotA will probably work fairly well. Not too many traps or other non-XP resource draining encounters.

My assessment right now? It sounds like for certain adventures and approaches it will add a lot of work for the DM. At the very least, it assumes that the system as outlined in the DMG is being used. I'm not convinced that all of the published APs do, much less most DM written adventures. It will make certain types of adventures more deadly, requiring the PCs to retreat to home a la AD&D more often. Or the DM will need to add in XP for non-combat encounters, again with limited guidelines in the DMG and more work.

In addition, for me, the disconnect from the narrative and the game world are a big issue too. A hurdle that I haven't overcome just yet. The idea that the PCs are resting (potentially in the same spot) several nights in a row, but only one of those counts as a long rest. That's one example, anyway.

Alternate Ability Recovery System
What if we separate recovery from rests altogether, and model it after the Barbarian's Relentless Rage ability?

To recover short or long rest abilities, you must make an ability check using your character's primary ability. You make a separate check for short rest abilities and long rest abilities.

The base DC is 5 for a short rest ability, and 20 for a long rest ability. It increases by +5 each time you attempt to recover the ability. See "Rests" below for resetting this DC.

You regain the use of all short rest abilities (or long rest abilities) on success or failure, but also suffer exhaustion if you fail the saving throw. You suffer 1 level of exhaustion for a short rest ability, or 3 levels of exhaustion for a long rest ability.

We'll need to modify the rest system as well:
Short Rest. 10 or 15 minutes long. Roll available Hit Dice.

Long Rest. 8 hours long. You regain 1/2 of your Hit Dice. You regain 1 level of exhaustion. The base DC for your short rest and long rest recovery checks are reset but increased by 2. Your first short rest and long rest recovery checks for the day are made with advantage.

Full Day Rest. A full day rest is 24 hours of uninterrupted rest. No strenuous activities, no combat, etc. You regain all Hit Points. You regain all Hit Dice. You regain all abilities, and the base DC for ability recovery is entirely reset.

Thank you. It feels worthwhile to try to picture the system in actual adventures. For me our concerns about non-combat encounters are most suggestive of a need to enhance the XP system. However, we should also think about risk. What's at stake in a non-combat encounter? As a DM, one guideline for when I award XP is - was there a risk of loss that was faced and overcome? So assuming for the sake of argument that we were awarding XP for non-combat situations where there are risks of loss that are faced and overcome (in fact, I already do this!) then that is covered. We give those Tomb of Horrors traps a CR and we're done. So what about when PCs expend resources in a risk-free non-combat situation not worth XP. Perhaps then the cost - their risk of loss - rightly becomes the resource itself? I would predict that if we do that, PCs will start thinking about what they get for what they expend, and join the world economy. Prima facie, that sounds like a good thing.

Strahd I argue is fine. His goal in appearing multiple times must be in part consuming PC resources. If we don't allow him to accomplish that, then we're taking a no-consequences approach. As I've said above, not wanting consequences is fine, but our goal here is to have consequences. You suggest that it will add work for the DM, but I don't see right now what that work is. Can you expand on that point?

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you for your efforts to assist me in developing my rhetorical style. I'd like to focus on the thread's goals. You dislike that I suggest that people aren't honestly interested in consequences. You then present an example where you raise fears that the consequences will be a problem. Remember, if we're using story pressures to accomplish the same thing as mechanical pressures, the outcome should be the same. The BBEG will have recruited additional help. Or he'll be nearer completing his ritual. Or whatever: conditions will prevail that make the PC's job harder. Alternatively, we can say that we are not honestly interested in consequences and neither story pressures nor mechanical pressures will please us. That's also a reasonable position to take... so long as we give up any claims to the contrary. You seem to interpret that point pejoratively.

Your example is partly a take on the variance argument raised earlier. One of the key elements that separate PnP RPGs from linear narrative (e.g. books) are stochastic mechanisms that can result in things going awry. In my experience, some of the most exciting moments in the game have been where something unexpected happened. Where things came down to the wire. Moments that people remember for years. So the straight answer to your question is that - yes - the PCs have a difficult choice to make. That elevates the action. The outcome will be remembered longer than if they went in full-powered and alpha'd the BBEG. Worst case, they had the fun of triumphing earlier when they nailed whatever lesser threat they expended their resources on, and will have the fun of trying out some other character concepts. I'd also make the point here that through making easier encounters mechanically meaningful, we elevate the tension in those. Even a random encounter may become relevant. The BBEG's outriders matter. Overall, the tension and fun of our game made gains.

One needs to reflect here on character death. Think of this in terms of a fair bet. One of the issues for all persistent RPGs is that investment in a character - the player's stake - is continuously increasing. Up to a point, a DM is able to offer payouts worth the wager, taking into consideration the possibility of loss. A simple way to represent that is that hours played*chance of loss must be less than anticipated winnings. However, at some point the player's stake becomes more valuable than any reasonable payout. That is balanced out by declining the chance of loss; in practice that eventually collapses into no chance of loss. The exit from the maths of character death is to focus on the incommensurables. Did I enjoy what happened? Did I feel tension? Excitement? Was it memorable? For me, the mechanical tools are all about elevating those things. The reason for preserving consequences is not to avoid being a "pussy" (as you put it), but to create memorable heroic fantasy.

You may now accuse me of belittling other DMs by suggesting that they have no interest in creating memorable heroic fantasy

I now see you need no help. Bravo.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

OK, so back to the OP version. It only works if the DM is using the XP system to design the adventure.

Hang on, I must have missed this the first time.

What makes you say you need to use xp to make an encounter point system work?

More accurately, why assume perfect balance is required.

The numbers behind encounter points are based on the typical encounter pace, yes, but it would be a fragile (read useless) system if it didn't work on... pretty much every scenario out there.

Which I have no reason to believe it won't do. You seem to think so, though?



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Thank you. It feels worthwhile to try to picture the system in actual adventures. For me our concerns about non-combat encounters are most suggestive of a need to enhance the XP system. However, we should also think about risk. What's at stake in a non-combat encounter? As a DM, one guideline for when I award XP is - was there a risk of loss that was faced and overcome? So assuming for the sake of argument that we were awarding XP for non-combat situations where there are risks of loss that are faced and overcome (in fact, I already do this!) then that is covered. We give those Tomb of Horrors traps a CR and we're done. So what about when PCs expend resources in a risk-free non-combat situation not worth XP. Perhaps then the cost - their risk of loss - rightly becomes the resource itself? I would predict that if we do that, PCs will start thinking about what they get for what they expend, and join the world economy. Prima facie, that sounds like a good thing.

Strahd I argue is fine. His goal in appearing multiple times must be in part consuming PC resources. If we don't allow him to accomplish that, then we're taking a no-consequences approach. As I've said above, not wanting consequences is fine, but our goal here is to have consequences. You suggest that it will add work for the DM, but I don't see right now what that work is. Can you expand on that point?

The work is primarily calculating XP for the traps or other non-combat encounters, since the system doesn't inherently cover that for you now. There is also more work for a DM like me that doesn't already design my approach using the XP/CR system. In fact, I don't use XP as written at all, making a system like this difficult to implement. But that's really my issue for not using the existing system.

I'm not saying the work is impossible, just that it adds work over the current system of resting.

But yes, I think the answer is clearly that if the OP's suggestion is going to be a system for determining a number of rests, then the XP system needs to account for anything that could consume resources and trigger the need for a rest.

Strahd seems fine. Except that consuming resources isn't the primary purpose of those encounters in my mind. They are to build suspense, to make it clear that Strand is powerful, so powerful that he'll toy with his opponents. I don't think anybody is expecting to enter their final combat with Strahd low on resources. But with this system depending on how many resources Strahd consumes first, the party could be out of rests.

To look at it a different way, since you don't gain XP for defeating a creature until that creature is defeated, then any dungeon where there is an attack/retreat/attack approach, particularly in regard to ambushes, then the party could run out of rests. An example would be Tucker's Kobolds.

I have similar encounters with large groups of creatures that the PCs know they can't defeat outright. It's basically running a gauntlet. You can't defeat the enemies, so you're just trying to survive to get to the other side. So you don't defeat them (and there's a good chance you'll be meeting them in battle in the near future), but they've already consumed a lot of resources without generating any XP. Again, you could treat this as a trap, but then you'll be awarding XP for the creatures again when they encounter them later.

It would be very easy for the DM to overuse Strahd consuming the PCs resources early, so they don't have access to them late in the adventure. And I don't think that's the intent.

A not insurmountable problem, just another point where the XP system doesn't account for the loss of resources.

Another factor that hasn't been raised (I don't think), is what about the tables that prefer to wait until the party is in town with access to trainers, or at least out of the dungeon, before they can gain a level? Delaying the level gain means they have probably already consumed their rests, but can't gain more since they haven't gained a level yet.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hang on, I must have missed this the first time.

What makes you say you need to use xp to make an encounter point system work?

More accurately, why assume perfect balance is required.

The numbers behind encounter points are based on the typical encounter pace, yes, but it would be a fragile (read useless) system if it didn't work on... pretty much every scenario out there.

Which I have no reason to believe it won't do. You seem to think so, though?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The system proposed by the OP is directly tied to XP.

You get X number of rests for each level. Going from second to third level you get one long rest, because it's expected to take one adventuring day, or 6-8 XP granting encounters of a certain difficulty.

It doesn't work on pretty much every scenario out there. Currently, traps are not assigned XP, but they consume resources. The same applies to something like Strahd appearing to harass you, where you'll consume resources, but not gain XP because you haven't defeated him yet.

My example from Tomb of Horrors proves that. The expected point for your long rest would be about halfway through the level. For 4 10th level characters to gain a level, you'll need 84,000 XP. The math says 2.3 long rests, so we'll go with two. That means you'd expect a long rest at 28,000 XP and 56,000 XP. You'll need short rests at 7,000 XP, 14,000 XP, and 21,000 XP (assuming three per long rest), then at 35,000 XP, etc.

The first room that grants any XP is room 8, worth 450 XP. But up to that point you've potentially consumed a lot of resources. The next room with XP is 13, worth 3,350 XP. Room 18A is 2,900 XP. 19 is 450 XP. Room 22 is 700 XP. So two-thirds of the way through the dungeon, and you've only gained 7,850 XP or just at your expected first short rest.

Compare that to Steading of the Hill Giant Chief which they state is for 11th level characters. To go from 11th to 12 level, you only need 1.4 long rests or 60,000 XP for 4 characters. That's 30,000 XP before a long rest, and 7,500 XP for your first short rest.

The first room is worth (1) 3,600 to (1 and 1A) 5,400 XP. By room two you are up to 7,200 XP, almost to your first short rest. That's 4 hill giants, with damage of 36 per round, or 144 per round for all four.

The damage potential of the first 7 rooms of ToH is 314 hp, assuming only 1 character is caught, and they fall prey to all of the traps. That's over 2 rounds of combat with all four giants. You might say that the chance of the party falling prey to the pits is roughly 0 (I agree). But the first four giants you encounter are sleeping. So I would guess the resources consumed would still be less against the giants since the initial attacks will be automatic critical hits by level 11 characters against a creature with 105 hp.

The more non-XP encounters that drain resources, the faster you'll run out of rests.

An encounter point system is different and not what the OP proposed.

In an encounter point system, you'd gain a rest after x number of encounters. Those encounters don't have to be combat encounters, nor do they have to grant you XP. They just have to be what you define as an encounter. So it would avoid this problem. If you only define an encounter as a combat encounter, then you have the same problem.