D&D General IS the 5 min work day a feature or a bug?

[Helldritch]

if they have enough to have 12 encounters all in 1 place they are leaving a lot of empty space... it's like when you put 3 people on mike jorden leaving 2 players with no one gaurding them.

And even if it were only the equivalent of 5 encounters. They would all be at once. This means a sure TPK.

it seems kind of contrived that you can guarantee that they got found before they finish there long rest... and 60ft is nothing

Just as the players have resources to find the keep or whatever, so have their foes.

I find the oppsite... they would just make more mon maxed characters, or quit and find a new DM.

So far, this never happened to me. Might be because you have experienced only adversarial DM that invent threats on the spots. When your DM uses only what was written as it was, you can only blame yourself.

yes I rarely see 3rd level wizard pull off a 5 min work day... becuse they don't have the resources to do it easy (not that it can't happen)

And I have seen 5th level characters do it.

I have never seen a party that is BOTH able to teleport AND doesn't make sure they have components. it seems so counterintuitive to be able to go anywhere as an action AND be high level AND not be able to keep tract of what is needed.

why didn't they buy more? I mean

• Components: V M (Rare chalks and inks infused with precious gems worth 50 gp, which the spell consumes)

50gp you can buy 100 teleports worth for 5,000gp

And yet, 5 activations of teleport circle is more than enough. At some point, you have to check which component you will want to have in better quantities and what this amount of component will imply. Will you buy potions of haste, flying, healing or scrolls? And if those 95 other shot at teleport circle you bought prevent you to buy the potion that would have helped you then it was a poor choice. When you manage your gold and resources that are in limited quantities, then you have to make choices.

I am so glad I gave you the chance to brag that people don't leave when you keep killing characters over and over again when they don't play the way you want

No, you asked me how my tables wanted to play. I told you so. I am not bragging; as I do make session zero whenever a new player is coming in (which is relatively rare, my tables are very stable) and these new players are invited to assist a few games to see what it is all about. During session zero all players will vote on rule changes if needed and the majority will decide. And I am but one vote. Not 13 (12 players, one DM, 6 players per group).

You assume that I am an adversarial DM, which I am not. Stop assuming the worst and think about it. There is not only one play style and even within in a play style, there are variations that can go in quite opposite directions. Do my players do the 5 mwd? It can happen and they do pull it off. But the 5mwd is by no means the only play style we have. Do we always do 6-8 encounters? Of course not, we strive to do both for game balance and to have a certain narrative that we like. But the narrative will always supersede the 6-8 whenever logic and story dictate. But there is no guarantee that one or the other will happen.

Edit: Added missing words. Thanks auto corrector.

 

[tetrasodium]

I address it by saying pulling back isn't always (and shouldn't always) be an option.

Sure if you can ALWAYS NOVA and pull back then going NOVA is optimal. But I think it's much more white room to say you can always pull back!



If you think that's the case - change the resting mechanics - there are even several options in the DMG. Or heck, do what the early play test did and have death saves be cumulative between long rests (as in they don't reset when a character stabalizes/gets above 0) - that makes players very cautious right there.

But I haven't found it that hard to either motivate or prevent groups from resting after every/near every fight without any strain on credulity.

That sounds like quite the game.

Players: "let's go back the way we came, we should try to rest up"
Gm: "that's not an option"
Players: "why not?"
Gm: "it's risky"
Players: "and?... How does that stop us?"
Gm: "well... It's just not always an option"
Players: "I don't care... I look down the passage we came in from, what do I see that makes it not an option?"

The players are moving back to an area they already cleared, even reinforcements only goes so far until you either go back to the monster spawner problems already discussed or resort to a mogudishu style bloodbath where the players have somehow managed to become mortal enemies of an entire city coming at them from all directions. Both of those are cards the GM can employ sparingly but the rules of 5e itself are very much structured in such a way that makes them little more than a bluff when played by the GM. When the players say "I don't care, we take a rest" it's almost certain for them to be successful even if they need to follow it with "so anyways, lets pull back to hunker down for a rest" after dealing with yet another interruption.

That structured certainty of a rest whenever desired by one or more adamant players willing to say "I don't care" or "My character doesn't care" persists up until the GM crosses a line into either killerGM "rocks fall, everyone dies" where that/those players are daring the GM to TPK them in some kind of suicidal MAD daring the gm to shoot the shaggy dog or extreme fiat simply stating "you can't". Yes those players exist, @Iry spotlighted them earlier in post111.

 

[Mort]

That sounds like quite the game.

Players: "let's go back the way we came, we should try to rest up"
Gm: "that's not an option"
Players: "why not?"
Gm: "it's risky"
Players: "and?... How does that stop us?"
Gm: "well... It's just not always an option"
Players: "I don't care... I look down the passage we came in from, what do I see that makes it not an option?"

The players are moving back to an area they already cleared, even reinforcements only goes so far until you either go back to the monster spawner problems already discussed or resort to a mogudishu style bloodbath where the players have somehow managed to become mortal enemies of an entire city coming at them from all directions. Both of those are cards the GM can employ sparingly but the rules of 5e itself are very much structured in such a way that makes them little more than a bluff when played by the GM. When the players say "I don't care, we take a rest" it's almost certain for them to be successful even if they need to follow it with "so anyways, lets pull back to hunker down for a rest" after dealing with yet another interruption.

That structured certainty of a rest whenever desired by one or more adamant players willing to say "I don't care" or "My character doesn't care" persists up until the GM crosses a line into either killerGM "rocks fall, everyone dies" where that/those players are daring the GM to TPK them in some kind of suicidal MAD daring the gm to shoot the shaggy dog or extreme fiat simply stating "you can't". Yes those players exist, @Iry spotlighted them earlier in post111.

It is VERY easy for the DM to make time pressure a thing.

Resting whether for 8 hours, or the MUCH longer optional variants, takes time. Lots of things detrimental to the groups goals can happen during that time.

If the group really doesn't care and wants to rest anyway? Well ok, but many of their stated goals or things they wish to accomplish may end up blown as a result.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am not saying that is super easy issue to solve, and it requires some thought. And I think the game defaults are set so that the problem is likely to arise. But once you're cognisant of the issue, there certainly are things you can do. I got rid of easy "rest enabling" spells (rope trick, tiny hut*) and changed to gritty rests and require "sanctuary" for long rests. The world also moves on while the PCs rest. These things were done to avoid this issue cropping up, and it has worked. (I mean, it was not the only reason these things were done, but it was among the reasons.)

(* Seriously, if your game is balanced around certain number of encounters between rests, why on Earth would you then have easy spells that give the players a way to dictate when to rest in most circumstances?)

And sure, it certainly requires for the players to care on some level about the world and their characters. Like if the players don't care that the gnolls will sacrifice and/or eat their prisoners if the characters don't rescue them swiftly, and (the absurd example someone actually made) don't even care about TPK because they can just make new characters, then this might not work. But basically if you have that level of disinterest the game is an utter failure anyway so it's just best to give up. Either the players are terrible or the GM is, possibly both.

I think the game as written does poor job on advising how to handle the matter, and has build in structures that encourage it. But it is not an insurmountable issue either.

 

[Mort]

I think the game as written does poor job on advising how to handle the matter, and has build in structures that encourage it. But it is not an insurmountable issue either.

Right.

This is yet another issue mostly caused by the poor organization of the DMG.

And the, frankly, bizarre failure to include good play loop examples that deal with common issues such as this one.

I really hope, but doubt, that the 2024 update will address/fix issues such as this one.

 

[delericho]

(* Seriously, if you're game is balanced around certain number of encounters between rests, why on Earth would you then have easy spells that give the players a way to dictate when rest in most circumstances?)

There are an awful lot of things like this in 5e - there's a nod to encumbrance for those who want to use them, but bags of holding seem to be awfully common and quickly negate that; characters who want to engage in the exploration pillar are likely to take Ranger, Druid and/or Outlander, which eliminate many of the challenges associated with the pillar (so instead of engaging they go to auto-win); the game expects 6-8 encounters between rests, but Leomund's tiny hut lets the PCs rest almost anywhere they want...

As best I can see, 5e is very good at the things that it does well, and those are almost the only things that the vast majority of the customer base care about.

 

[Ixal]

There are an awful lot of things like this in 5e - there's a nod to encumbrance for those who want to use them, but bags of holding seem to be awfully common and quickly negate that; characters who want to engage in the exploration pillar are likely to take Ranger, Druid and/or Outlander, which eliminate many of the challenges associated with the pillar (so instead of engaging they go to auto-win); the game expects 6-8 encounters between rests, but Leomund's tiny hut lets the PCs rest almost anywhere they want...

As best I can see, 5e is very good at the things that it does well, and those are almost the only things that the vast majority of the customer base care about.

5E, like much of D&D is a murderhobo playground with anything else being at best neglible or at worst completely ignored.
But as most players are only looking for power fantasies with their friends when playing D&D it works.
Most people who want more from rpgs have already migrated to other systems.

 

[Helldritch]

I am not saying that is super easy issue to solve, and it requires some thought. And I think the game defaults are set so that the problem is likely to arise. But once you're cognisant of the issue, there certainly are things you can do. I got rid of easy "rest enabling" spells (rope trick, tiny hut*) and changed to gritty rests and require "sanctuary" for long rests. The world also moves on while the PCs rest. These things were done to avoid this issue cropping up, and it has worked. (I mean, it was not the only reason these things were done, but it was among the reasons.)

(* Seriously, if your game is balanced around certain number of encounters between rests, why on Earth would you then have easy spells that give the players a way to dictate when rest in most circumstances?)

And sure, it certainly requires for the player to care on some level about the world and their characters. Like if the players don't care that the gnolls will sacrifice and/or eat their prisoners if the characters don't rescue them swiftly, and (the absurd example someone actually made) don't even care about TPK because they can just make new characters, then this might not work. But basically if you have that level of disinterest the game is an utter failure anyway so it's just best to give up. Either the players are terrible or the GM is, possibly both.

I think the game as written does poor job on advising how to handle the matter, and has build in structures that encourage it. But it is not an insurmountable issue either.

For the bolded part.
We should a bit more precise.
The game as written does a good job.
But the writings do a poor job in conveying the intent and the RAI.
It is not evident, if you do not carefully read the DMG that the game is based on the assumption that there should be 6-8 encounters between long rests.
It is clear that there is an exp budget for characters and that this budget is to be adjusted for the number of players.
What is less clear is how to divide the daily budget into a meaningful adventuring day that will not be too easy or too hard.

In using "natural" language, the game became easier to handle and learn for the neophytes. But it also blurred a few rules and made them relatively hard to handle once you get stuck with trickier situations.

As for the rest of the post.
I rarely encountered this type of player. The type that simply do not care about the consequences of the actions of their characters. My pick on them was to avoid at all costs a TPK. Make sure that at least one character not belonging to the uncaring player survives and have every players that lost a character make new characters one level lower than the survivors. Ho god could you see the face on the uncaring one! The other players usually knew that I would put treasure to help them out save the uncaring one. Either that player started to "care" and amend for his/her way or that player would leave and the players that got hosed because of the other would quickly rise in level to catch up on the surviving ones. But since the 2ed, I have never encountered this type of player ever again. (Either that or I am instinctively screening these players out of game right before they can even enter my groups.)

 

[James Gasik]

Something that's always struck me as odd when DM's are like "you need to get to X in Y time so you can't stop to rest" is that a lot of times, some of these same DM's (at least from my experience) are also the types that will happily let you miss secret doors or fall into traps unless you move slowly and declare you are poking every square inch of whatever ruin you happen to find yourself in with 11' poles (because as Greg Costikyan once joked, "there are some things you wouldn't touch with a 10' pole"), leading to this weird disconnect of "hurry up but go slowly". Even more interestingly, you'd think this style of play would lend itself to trying to skip past encounters (which 1e AD&D certainly did- fighting monsters was far less preferable than robbing them blind). I've seen DM's infuriated by players who figure out ways to bypass their encounters (and then just punish them later when "the sounds of battle" attract these enemies anyways).

It's all well and good to apply time pressure to your players, but you need to be careful with how much, or they will feel forced into making rash decisions.

Curiously, a lot of old school modules I played early in my D&D career didn't have a lot of time pressure at all, and encouraged you to take your time, or even retreat when things got too tough- the long-abandoned tombs weren't going anywhere, and with death around every corner, it was to your advantage not to press on.

It's funny how the game has changed over the years- now players have tons of resources they can draw upon, so we expect them to get in, have their 6 encounters, and burn them all, where there was a time when your "resources" were nothing but your hit points, and the main way to heal was the meager handful of cure spells your Cleric had and maybe some potions, and pressing onward was a certain death sentence...

 

[Oofta]

5E, like much of D&D is a murderhobo playground with anything else being at best neglible or at worst completely ignored.
But as most players are only looking for power fantasies with their friends when playing D&D it works.
Most people who want more from rpgs have already migrated to other systems.

I don't do murder hobo games yet I still use D&D by choice. Some people want "more", some don't. What the percentages are is difficult to say, but in my experience true murder hobo groups are incredibly rare.