D&D 5E Aren't Short Rest classes *better* in "story-based" games rather than dungeon crawls?

Asisreo

Patron Badass
The problem with short rest classes is that it’s the long rest classes who set the pace. Yes, theoretically the warlock can take enough short rests over the course of a day to cast more spells than the wizard can. But not if the wizard uses up all their spells before the warlock has had a chance to take a single short rest and then demands the party call it quits for the day.
Why does it matter that the warlock short rests? Unless the party is actively moving, there's no obligation that the entire party must short rest at once. So the warlock can simply say "keep looking around, I'll take a short rest and regain my slots."

It's not really abusing the system either. The designers are well-aware that players can do this. That's why Warlocks don't have spells like Animate Dead.

I don't know why a different player would feel compelled to rest when a different character can simply rest while they move. And a smart party could invest in a carriage so that even when the party moving, the warlock can still short rest.

Kinda thematic too, right. "Oh, we need someone to change all of our appearances. Let's ask the warlock meditating in the carriage whether he can do it." "Yes, my connection with the Archfey allows me to adjust our appearance. I shall cast the spell, then I shall take a moment to concentrate on my magical power again."

It seems like this is the intended way for Warlocks to be played outside of combat. It's like if a group was actively making sure the wizard doesn't have enough gold to copy spells into their book. That would suck for the wizard player because they're not allowed to play their game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
I have no limits on short rests save what seems reasonable in a given place set of circumstances. That being said, during "adventure time" I think the greatest number of short rests my groups have taken in a day is four, but usually it is more like one or two.

While 20+ short rests is absurd, characters can try to take as many as they like. I do think it'd get frustrating if these short rests were frequently interrupted by events (and have to be started over) or if things happen while the PC(s) are resting that makes the adventure harder over all.
 


I think the only time I'd put a kibosh on short rests would be if someone tried that Coffeelock nonsense in one of my games.

While you are correct, rules-as-written, a great many GMs place a limit on how many short rests you can take - the most common I've seen is that you can take a maximum of 2 short rests between long rests.

On the whole, I think short- vs. long- rest based classes generally even out in the wash, but in many Adventurers League scenarios, I've noticed that the opportunity to take a long rest is generally rare, so there's some utility to the short rest-based abilities.
 

Ever actually been the person at work who is constantly not working?
Or been the opposite?

The narrative creates limits because no one will want to be around the individual who is constantly badgering the team for another break.
How is this an answer to my question? I asked if there was a reason to impose a hard limit.
 

How is this an answer to my question? I asked if there was a reason to impose a hard limit.
Because when you work with someone who constantly refuses to work you quickly learn that one of you doesn't need to work there.
D&D is a cooperative game. if your character's version of cooperation is "everyone has to take care of me and serve me while I rest" I'm out. That character isn't participating in an ensemble. They're telling a story where they are the only character of importance.
 

Because when you work with someone who constantly refuses to work you quickly learn that one of you doesn't need to work there.
D&D is a cooperative game. if your character's version of cooperation is "everyone has to take care of me and serve me while I rest" I'm out. That character isn't participating in an ensemble. They're telling a story where they are the only character of importance.
What exactly are you on about here?

I don't think short rests have to take place in real time.
 
Last edited:

What exactly are you on about here?

I don't think short rests have to take place in real time.
Then you aren't playing RAW nor RAI nor are you playing a modern story game.
My character isn't going to be constantly doing things that yours refuses to do just because you found a mechanical exploit
 

Then you aren't playing RAW nor RAI nor are you playing a modern story game.
My character isn't going to be constantly doing things that yours refuses to do just because you found a mechanical exploit
You're replies are all over the place and not making any sense.

Is there a problem which is solved by imposing a limit on the number short rests while leaving their duration unchanged?

What exactly is that problem? (And has it actually come up in play?)
 

It tend to limits the number of short rest that can be included in an adventuring day. It's quite rare that you can split activity in nice 10 minutes package and take 60 minutes of rest before having another activity package. Having 3 short rests within a day is sometimes possible, but 4 is starting to stretch it in most case. 2 seems easy to "fit in" the day. I don't "hard limit" at 2 short rests a day (as in, you can have more than two and still get the benefit) but the narrative kind of often "soft limit" short rests around 2.
This is outlining a theoretical problem issue though. Is it also a real issue?
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
This is outlining a theoretical problem issue though. Is it also a real issue?

I don't know if it's an issue. It's a fact: in my (urban fantasy) campaigns, where I try to track time between locations, the characters have rarely the time to do more than two. I suppose it's the result of my pacing (which I find appropriate for the storytelling) more than a design goal (I intend to limit shorts rest at 2), but you asked if DMs kept SR at 1+h and limited at two, so I felt sharing my experience would be useful to illustrate the variety of the situations. Sorry.
 

What exactly is that problem?
The problem, as clearly stated, is that you the player have found a rules exploit which turns their character into the master of the party. That character demands constant pauses in action and servitude from the rest of the party.
I would despise this at my table and refuse to play.
Were I the DM I would ask what narrative your character was attempting to embrace and how that fit the party's objectives.
A narrative that the majority of a day is spent resting may fit at some tables. Fine. I find it boring and unrelated to any fictional hero which has inspired D&D play. There are grand tales of sitting around and doing nothing
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Why does it matter that the warlock short rests? Unless the party is actively moving, there's no obligation that the entire party must short rest at once. So the warlock can simply say "keep looking around, I'll take a short rest and regain my slots."

It's not really abusing the system either. The designers are well-aware that players can do this. That's why Warlocks don't have spells like Animate Dead.

I don't know why a different player would feel compelled to rest when a different character can simply rest while they move. And a smart party could invest in a carriage so that even when the party moving, the warlock can still short rest.

Kinda thematic too, right.

Nah, thats only thematic if the warlock is suddenly the special Princess or Lord Floppy who follows along expecting the real adventurers to do things while they rest in their carriage and occasionally do something dramatic.
Rests should be time for bonding and epic tales, not just waiting for the Warlock - Pippin Took was an aristocrat in LoTR but at no point was the adventure slowing down for him..
 

What I'm trying to work out is if this putting some limit on the number of short rests is in response to some actual gaming issue (and in this case in what kind of game situations is it arising - as I find it hard to imagine) or is just one of those annoying things DMs do to make things "make sense".

Like taking three short rests back to back. There's precious little that achieves because most things are actually fully restored or limited. The main issue I can think of is that it would give the Fighter some free healing with Second Wind (but the problem here is Second Wind not Short rests).
 

The problem, as clearly stated, is that you the player have found a rules exploit which turns their character into the master of the party.
Which is?
That character demands constant pauses in action and servitude from the rest of the party.
Servitude?
I would despise this at my table and refuse to play.
Were I the DM I would ask what narrative your character was attempting to embrace and how that fit the party's objectives.
Why are you using the subjunctive? Is this purely hypothetical? Have you actually seen this happen in play?
 

In any case. If you are going to put limits on short rests, it only makes sense to make them easier. There's no reason to keep them at an hour any longer. The hour is there to put limits on them anyway. Make them five or ten minutes then. If you only get two you still need to consider if they're worth taking now or pushing on, but you've removed a lot of the game world issues.
 

the Jester

Legend
What I'm trying to work out is if this putting some limit on the number of short rests is in response to some actual gaming issue (and in this case in what kind of game situations is it arising - as I find it hard to imagine) or is just one of those annoying things DMs do to make things "make sense".

Like taking three short rests back to back. There's precious little that achieves because most things are actually fully restored or limited. The main issue I can think of is that it would give the Fighter some free healing with Second Wind (but the problem here is Second Wind not Short rests).
The healing thing is the main reason I have seen multiple short rests in a row- either a fighter or a warlock who can cast cure wounds. SR, second wind + healing, SR to regain expended slots and second wind.

I don't find it to be a problem in my games, but I use random encounters and stuff like that, so a SR is rarely guaranteed.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
Nah, thats only thematic if the warlock is suddenly the special Princess or Lord Floppy who follows along expecting the real adventurers to do things while they rest in their carriage and occasionally do something dramatic.
Rests should be time for bonding and epic tales, not just waiting for the Warlock - Pippin Took was an aristocrat in LoTR but at no point was the adventure slowing down for him..
One party member resting =/= all party members standing idle.

There's no waiting. Everyone doesn't have to gather around while the warlock rests. There is no group resting enforced in the RAW.

Even something as simple as "we're going to ask around town and see if any info comes up" is plenty of time for the warlock to say "While they do that, I'll cast Contact Other Plane and Scrying then long rest."

Or "While we wait for the next day, my character is going to cast Hallucinatory Terrain 6 times (3 hours) to make the terrain seem different for the 300x450ft area."

In other words, the party isn't constantly needing all hands on deck every hour of every adventure. So shouldn't the warlock maximize their profits?
 

Why does it matter that the warlock short rests? Unless the party is actively moving, there's no obligation that the entire party must short rest at once. So the warlock can simply say "keep looking around, I'll take a short rest and regain my slots."
Because the rest of the party is, in general, incentivized to also short rest if one person is able to take one. You can spend HD, you regain any short-rest features you may have (more relevant for some classes than others, see below). Splitting the party is (almost) always a bad plan, and if one person is genuinely truly safe and comfortable enough to rest reliably, it's not clear why everyone wouldn't be.

It's not really abusing the system either.
Try selling a typical 5e DM on this logic. I'd be impressed if you get even a 25% success rate. "It's not really breaking the rules..." is exactly the kind of argument that fails the smell test for most DMs regardless of edition.

I don't know why a different player would feel compelled to rest when a different character can simply rest while they move. And a smart party could invest in a carriage so that even when the party moving, the warlock can still short rest.
Many DMs don't actually seem to buy that you can rest while you move. The description given is, "A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." Walking or horseback riding doesn't fly for a pretty significant number of 5e DMs out there. Your carriage idea works....but is now actually making the warlock special, getting special attention and/or resources in order to pull the plan off. That's going to ruffle some feathers in at least some groups.

Further: (BM) Fighters, Barbarians, Clerics, Druids, Bards, and probably more classes besides all actually do want to take a short rest if they have the opportunity. Battle Masters get their dice back, Barbarians (at 11 for all Barbs, with Relentless Rage; earlier for Totem and Beast), Clerics get Channel Divinity back (doubly useful since Tasha's added Harness Divine Power to regain spell slots), Druids get wild shape back (and many subclasses thus get more uses of their key features), Bards get their Bardic Inspiration back at 5th level (and various subclasses get stuff back on SR at other levels). Even the party Wizard, the would-be king of long-rest-based characters, usually wants in on at least one SR a day because of Arcane Recovery. Add in spending Hit Dice and any other benefits, and it's unclear why you'd make space for just one character to take short rests whenever they want.

Plus...there could easily be some resentment going on here. "Sorry guys, can't help you with whatever you're doing right now, I gotta take a short rest first."

Kinda thematic too, right. "Oh, we need someone to change all of our appearances. Let's ask the warlock meditating in the carriage whether he can do it." "Yes, my connection with the Archfey allows me to adjust our appearance. I shall cast the spell, then I shall take a moment to concentrate on my magical power again."

It seems like this is the intended way for Warlocks to be played outside of combat. It's like if a group was actively making sure the wizard doesn't have enough gold to copy spells into their book. That would suck for the wizard player because they're not allowed to play their game.
Yeah, sorry, I don't see it. If short rests were still 4e-style, that is, only five minutes, then yeah I'd totally buy that this was intended. With them being a full hour and (at least in principle) somewhat restrictive in what activities you can perform, it doesn't strike me as "intended" that Warlocks be taking tons and tons of rests while the rest of the party....waits, apparently? Or adventures without them? Or something?

But yes, you're correct that it IS just like making sure the Wizard doesn't have enough gold to copy spells. That's the problem. The game, and the DMs, and even the players themselves, are incentivized to not let the Warlock do this, even though it probably would be more effective--because it feels unfair, because it looks suspicious, because most people don't feel it's thematic, and (as noted elsewhere) because you really can't rely on there being only one fight per day and lots and lots of ample "really doing not much of anything" time. (Frankly, even presuming you can buy a carriage for the warlock to rest in is a bridge too far for many DMs!)
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top