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

[CapnZapp]

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 using xp either, like at all. Not using exactly milestones either.

I simply tell the players at the end of a session "you've gained a level" and they can spend the time until next session planning and studying their next level.

I honestly don't see why I/you/we have to do "more work". Not only do I not like work I really don't like to do stuff I don't understand...

So what's the work and why do we have to do it?

(Not directing this to you in particular Ilb. I am asking everybody that claims there's a connection between xp and ep)

Why not just run your games as per usual, just winging it "that encounter felt like it was worth 2 EPs"?

Sure, you might end up overestimating some encounters that really should have been easy:ish, but the players bungled it. And you could concievably think "well, that was easy" and give out 0 EP even though it was smart play that trivialized the encounter (and not lack of xp in the encounter budget).

But that mostly points to inexperience with the system - kinks that will be ironed out soon enough, just like how you learn to create encounters on-the-fly without "xp budgets" as you gain experience as a 5E DM.

None of this is suitable for the newbie DM, after all.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Ah, thank you. I got my threads crossed. Never cross the threads!

Okay so this thread is about getting a set number of (effectively) encounter points per level which you then have to survive on throughout the level.

If you run out of encounter points before you level up, the game stops working (though I'm sure vonklaude has suggested workarounds elsewhere in the thread).

In the other thread, the granularity is greater. Instead of replenishing encounter points when you level up, you gain encounter points by having encounters until you have enough EP to take a rest. When you take a long rest, encounter points are reset to zero. The "granule" is "per day" instead of "per level" (a comparison I feel is apt even if the number of encounter points goes up in one version but down in the other).

Okay, so that uncrosses the beams, at least for me.

Now back to the question at hand. Risking to appear outright stupid I ask again: why do you have to do XP for this system to work?

It appears the players spend their Recoveries as they please. As DM I don't have to do anything, least of all starting to do some mystical XP calculation all of a sudden.

Why can't I just go on with my game, trusting the players and the system to get by on the Recoveries they have been given until it is time for a new level.

After all, one major reason for dropping all the xp whahoo was the observation that the PCs level up at the rate of the adventure and the DM anyway. Regardless of pseudo-scientific xp waddling.

In fact, one complaint against published supplements is "not enough xp to level up". Doesn't this suggest the number of Recoveries will be enough (or even "too much")?

It is only in the (rare) case where WotC has made a calculation error and included "too much xp" in a particular dungeon that we should expect the Recoveries to run out. Another way of saying this is "that dungeon is a hard challenge" Not because it has particularly deadly encounters, but because of the attrition.

Perhaps you mean that Tomb of Horrors is like that?

Even so - isn't it great PR for the variant if it can be used to put proper fear of that dungeon back in the hearts of gamers?



Zapp


PS I could still be catastrophically mistaken. If so, feel free to point that out

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Ah, thank you. I got my threads crossed. Never cross the threads!

Okay so this thread is about getting a set number of (effectively) encounter points per level which you then have to survive on throughout the level.

If you run out of encounter points before you level up, the game stops working (though I'm sure vonklaude has suggested workarounds elsewhere in the thread).

In the other thread, the granularity is greater. Instead of replenishing encounter points when you level up, you gain encounter points by having encounters until you have enough EP to take a rest. When you take a long rest, encounter points are reset to zero. The "granule" is "per day" instead of "per level" (a comparison I feel is apt even if the number of encounter points goes up in one version but down in the other).

Okay, so that uncrosses the beams, at least for me.

Now back to the question at hand. Risking to appear outright stupid I ask again: why do you have to do XP for this system to work?

It appears the players spend their Recoveries as they please. As DM I don't have to do anything, least of all starting to do some mystical XP calculation all of a sudden.

Why can't I just go on with my game, trusting the players and the system to get by on the Recoveries they have been given until it is time for a new level.

After all, one major reason for dropping all the xp whahoo was the observation that the PCs level up at the rate of the adventure and the DM anyway. Regardless of pseudo-scientific xp waddling.

In fact, one complaint against published supplements is "not enough xp to level up". Doesn't this suggest the number of Recoveries will be enough (or even "too much")?

It is only in the (rare) case where WotC has made a calculation error and included "too much xp" in a particular dungeon that we should expect the Recoveries to run out. Another way of saying this is "that dungeon is a hard challenge" Not because it has particularly deadly encounters, but because of the attrition.

Perhaps you mean that Tomb of Horrors is like that?

Even so - isn't it great PR for the variant if it can be used to put proper fear of that dungeon back in the hearts of gamers?



Zapp


PS I could still be catastrophically mistaken. If so, feel free to point that out

Players can use their rests whenever they want. But they are a fixed resource. You only get so many between levels. So if you just whittle down their resources with traps (which currently don't carry XP), or Strahd taunting and retreating, you can eliminate the PCs rests before the hard part of the adventure (and their gaining a level). You could conceivably consume all of their rests before awarding any XP if you wanted to.

For an absurd example, let's say your Vistani are particularly malicious. Every other one you meet is cursing you. No problem, I'm a 10th level cleric, remove curse. After 3 of those, you're now using your three 4th level slots, and two 5th level slots. No big deal, we'll use our long rest and regain all of those. Of course, once you've done that twice, your cleric only has 2nd level spells until they reach 11th level. And yet he doesn't have any XP yet.

A trap heavy dungeon will have the same effect on hit points, if nothing else. You can address that with more access to healing potions and scrolls I suppose.

It's not a question of when the PCs rest, it's how many times they can. It's primarily a problem because of the way XP are granted. I think a point-based system is a better option than an XP-based system, at least until you rework XP sufficiently.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm not using xp either, like at all. Not using exactly milestones either.

I simply tell the players at the end of a session "you've gained a level" and they can spend the time until next session planning and studying their next level.

I honestly don't see why I/you/we have to do "more work". Not only do I not like work I really don't like to do stuff I don't understand...

So what's the work and why do we have to do it?

(Not directing this to you in particular Ilb. I am asking everybody that claims there's a connection between xp and ep)

Why not just run your games as per usual, just winging it "that encounter felt like it was worth 2 EPs"?

Sure, you might end up overestimating some encounters that really should have been easy:ish, but the players bungled it. And you could concievably think "well, that was easy" and give out 0 EP even though it was smart play that trivialized the encounter (and not lack of xp in the encounter budget).

But that mostly points to inexperience with the system - kinks that will be ironed out soon enough, just like how you learn to create encounters on-the-fly without "xp budgets" as you gain experience as a 5E DM.

None of this is suitable for the newbie DM, after all.

Well, the system as presented in the OP is that it should be easy for everybody, since it's tied directly to the existing system.

I'm not likely to use the system at all, so it won't make any work for me

And as an experienced DM, and one that likes to optimize, my guess is your "time to gain a level" would be well calibrated to the number of rests needed. So this approach - assigning a certain number of rests per level - would probably work fine for you. Your estimated XP for anything is probably quite accurate, since you have a strong understanding of the math underlying the game. I don't have that level of mathematical understanding, but I have a good feel for it after all of these years.

For somebody attempting to follow the system as intended in the OP, the DM will need to account for traps and other non-XP encounters. A handful here or there won't make a difference. But for something like ToH, the traps should be allocated XP, and that will take some work. Particularly for new DMs that don't have a feel for the math. That's all.

Not saying it's a lot of work, but it's work they don't currently have to do. The important thing is not to get the XP right for the traps, by the way, but to understand when you have enough that it will skew the relationship between XP/Level and allocated rests, and that you need to either give them XP for the traps, or an extra rest to account for them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Players can use their rests whenever they want. But they are a fixed resource. You only get so many between levels. So if you just whittle down their resources with traps (which currently don't carry XP), or Strahd taunting and retreating, you can eliminate the PCs rests before the hard part of the adventure (and their gaining a level). You could conceivably consume all of their rests before awarding any XP if you wanted to.

For an absurd example, let's say your Vistani are particularly malicious. Every other one you meet is cursing you. No problem, I'm a 10th level cleric, remove curse. After 3 of those, you're now using your three 4th level slots, and two 5th level slots. No big deal, we'll use our long rest and regain all of those. Of course, once you've done that twice, your cleric only has 2nd level spells until they reach 11th level. And yet he doesn't have any XP yet.

A trap heavy dungeon will have the same effect on hit points, if nothing else. You can address that with more access to healing potions and scrolls I suppose.

It's not a question of when the PCs rest, it's how many times they can. It's primarily a problem because of the way XP are granted. I think a point-based system is a better option than an XP-based system, at least until you rework XP sufficiently.

You're answering a different question than the one I asked.

Edit: I now see you made two posts, so we're good /Zapp

You're talking about traps and curses - things that doesn't carry xp awards...
...but probably should, if #1 you're using xp and #2 you're using this variant.

I currently do neither

Instead, I was asking about the claim you need to do some xp calculations(?) to use this variant.

I don't see how I
...need to use xp awards (instead using milestones, or "session levelling")
...need to do xp budgets (instead eyeballing my encounters; curses or no curses)
...and... and... I can't even think of a third way to mention xp
to use this variant.

Why can't I simply give them a couple of "recoveries" (or start awarding encounter points) and xp doesn't have to be part of it.

I'm asking those who specifically brought in the assumption.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, the system as presented in the OP is that it should be easy for everybody, since it's tied directly to the existing system.

I'm not likely to use the system at all, so it won't make any work for me

And as an experienced DM, and one that likes to optimize, my guess is your "time to gain a level" would be well calibrated to the number of rests needed. So this approach - assigning a certain number of rests per level - would probably work fine for you. Your estimated XP for anything is probably quite accurate, since you have a strong understanding of the math underlying the game. I don't have that level of mathematical understanding, but I have a good feel for it after all of these years.

For somebody attempting to follow the system as intended in the OP, the DM will need to account for traps and other non-XP encounters. A handful here or there won't make a difference. But for something like ToH, the traps should be allocated XP, and that will take some work. Particularly for new DMs that don't have a feel for the math. That's all.

Not saying it's a lot of work, but it's work they don't currently have to do. The important thing is not to get the XP right for the traps, by the way, but to understand when you have enough that it will skew the relationship between XP/Level and allocated rests, and that you need to either give them XP for the traps, or an extra rest to account for them.

Okay.

Does that mean you agree with me there's no real xp requirement here? (No need to respond if so; let's instead wait if somebody else feels there is)

 

[clearstream]

For somebody attempting to follow the system as intended in the OP, the DM will need to account for traps and other non-XP encounters. A handful here or there won't make a difference. But for something like ToH, the traps should be allocated XP, and that will take some work. Particularly for new DMs that don't have a feel for the math. That's all.

Not saying it's a lot of work, but it's work they don't currently have to do. The important thing is not to get the XP right for the traps, by the way, but to understand when you have enough that it will skew the relationship between XP/Level and allocated rests, and that you need to either give them XP for the traps, or an extra rest to account for them.

Yes, I think I agree that the system can be improved by loosening the ties a bit. To give it flexibility to accommodate a wider range of scenarios in play. [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] asked "Why XP?" That came out of noticing that significant balancing assumptions are expressly built into the game maths, and are revealed for us in the DMG. The game flatly assumes one long rest and two or three short rests per adventuring day. And an adventuring day flatly assumes 6-8 medium or hard encounters (more if easier, fewer if deadlier). Given that the core RAW demands XP to level, and awards XP for resolving encounters, we can derive the ratio of rests to level-ups. My thought then was to cement rests ineluctably to those balancing assumptions to see how that looked. If that works, the job is largely done.

The insights acquired have been so far valuable. It does look like one wants to dial back on how hard the parts are locked together. Traps need either CR or perhaps a rating as encounters. A third kind of rest - for "world" effects - is probably needed. My intuition is that for no-risk out-of-combat encounters, the cost of a resource is a fair payment for whatever is gained (i.e. in the absence of risk). There remain a list of issues that will have to be looked at, although I think one would rev the system once - maybe toward OB1's EP system - and then playtest it before reacting to envisioned issues that might prove to arise rarely or have tolerable consequences, once we're out of theorycrafting. A game designer always needs to respect what they know, and think about the most efficient path to knowing more. Frequently, fixing every possible issue envisioned up front is not the shortest route to a great solution.

I do feel firm in a conviction that next-gen D&D would benefit from a mechanical solution to the issues around rests. Instead of the present reasonable attempt that shows signs of being subverted by its own designers.

 

[CapnZapp]

Have an XP for using the word "ineluctably"

 

[jmucchiello]

This is total off the top of my head, but I think it would be easier to handle this in the XP system. After a long rest, the first encounter is at 50% xp and the second encounter at 75% xp. The fourth encounter after a short rest would be at 125% and +25% per encounter after that. So the party knows it is penalized by frequent long rests. But pushing their luck after a short rest could benefit them. There might be an exception for boss fights after a long rest at the DM's discretion.

After all, XP awards should be adjusted by the actual difficulty of the encounter. While usually that is just a CR kind of thing, there's no reason why a timing element could not be included.

 

[Sadras]

double post