D&D 5E Limiting Short Rests

[ccs]

Not sure if you (and your players) actually consider this a problem. If you do, the optional resting rules are an option to consider.

Clearly my players do not consider this a problem....
Me (as the DM)? Not really. I'm perfectly fine with the bad guys maybe succeeding, killing off NPCs, etc. I just find it a strange way to go about adventures where it's pretty obvious there's time constraints.

Have you tried imposing some actual in game time limits, as opposed to implied ones? ie; So and so is to be hanged at high noon, or this will happen at the solar eclipse. Have you tried giving real numbers of things happening rather than % chances ie; BBEG "We will sacrifice one virgin ever day ..." or consequences to the party (less resources).

If the party knowing exactly how much sands left in the proverbial timer fits the story, then they'll know that up front. Otherwise, no. They will not be told. I'm OK with them resting to the point of failure.

Also, are those things imperative to the players/characters in the game, would they rather be doing other things in that world, or doing things a different way. I know that doesn't help much with a strongly narrative game, but maybe the hooks aren't deep enough.

Well, since I was told "We want general dungeon crawling with - some - plot {IE; more reason than just kill/loot, but not super-heavy PF AP style plot}, & then these are the hooks that they chose to follow up on.... I presume that's imperitive to them.
It's a sandbox game set on the Greyhawk map. At any time they could point to some random place & say "We want to explore here". Or, "I want to go on x type of adventure". OK, then that's what I'll prep. Or they can follow up on random bits they find during play.

 

[happyhermit]

...

Well, since I was told "We want general dungeon crawling with - some - plot {IE; more reason than just kill/loot, but not super-heavy PF AP style plot}, & then these are the hooks that they chose to follow up on.... I presume that's imperitive to them.
It's a sandbox game set on the Greyhawk map. At any time they could point to some random place & say "We want to explore here". Or, "I want to go on x type of adventure". OK, then that's what I'll prep. Or they can follow up on random bits they find during play.

That's cool then, as long as it's fun.

 

[Azurewraith]

I just can't understand why wotc decided to go with 2seperate recharge mechanics it was never going to end well.

If it were me short rests would be a light snack cleaning down patching up cuts and catching ones breath(using hd). Sleeping would be done during a long rest with a main meal, recharging ones batteries (gaining abilities back)

 

[spectacle]

The usual suspects: wandering monsters, time pressure, wandering monsters, pushy NPCs, wandering monsters, rivals, wandering monsters, re-setting traps, wandering monsters, re-spawning monsters, wandering monsters...

..oh, and did I mention wandering monsters?

To meta-gamey players the chance of wandering monsters is actually another incentive to rest as often as possible. You want to be sure that you have plenty of resources left to deal with any monsters that interrupt your resting. If you wait until you can't go on any longer before resting, wandering monsters can be deadly.

 

[Flamestrike]

To meta-gamey players the chance of wandering monsters is actually another incentive to rest as often as possible. You want to be sure that you have plenty of resources left to deal with any monsters that interrupt your resting. If you wait until you can't go on any longer before resting, wandering monsters can be deadly.

You'll find that wandering monsters tend to attack PCs that rest too much instead of not enough. Most DMs wont roll for them when the PCs are sticking to around 2 encounters per short rest and around 6 encounters per day. If the PCs start abusing the rest mechanic though, the DM will roll for them (and ignore the dice, and just throw a wave of them at the party anyway).

The players will catch on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I just can't understand why wotc decided to go with 2seperate recharge mechanics it was never going to end well.

As I understand it, they wanted to distance themselves from the way that 4E did things, with its AEDU power structure.

They wanted classes to feel different, and this was a way that they could do it.

 

[C-F-K]

You'll find that wandering monsters tend to attack PCs that rest too much instead of not enough. Most DMs wont roll for them when the PCs are sticking to around 2 encounters per short rest and around 6 encounters per day. If the PCs start abusing the rest mechanic though, the DM will roll for them (and ignore the dice, and just throw a wave of them at the party anyway).

The players will catch on.

Even without throwing waves of monsters at them the players can be encouraged to continue. I can remember in the Baldurs Gate games you couldn't rest everywhere because "It didn't feel right".
I can understand that when you hear the howling of a wolf nearby, or the wailing of a ghost in the next room characters won't rest all that well and won't benefit from a short rest until the thread is dealt with.

IMHO: Throwing a horde of monsters at them is counterproductive. After the first few horde(s), they do need a short rest so they get what they want AND extra exp.

 

[S'mon]

You'll find that wandering monsters tend to attack PCs that rest too much instead of not enough. Most DMs wont roll for them when the PCs are sticking to around 2 encounters per short rest and around 6 encounters per day.

Hmm. I certainly roll for them - as a simulation element, not to punish the players for too many rests.

 

[Li Shenron]

According to the RAW, characters can have as many short rests as they want in a single day?

What's to stop players from stopping to rest after every single encounter? Sure, the DM can interrupt them once or twice, but too many times and it will quickly look like sour grapes on the part of the DM.

Nothing stops them from resting as often as they can, but is it really a problem?

Your DM might choose to run adventures from a large range of options with relation to encounters frequency. If you deviate too much from the common, you are suggested to actually change the length of rests rather than limiting their numbers. The typical example is a LotR-style adventure, where you may get encounters with days or even weeks between, and rarely more than a couple on the same day: perhaps in such case you'd be better off with short rests = 1 night / long rests = 1 week. At the other end of the range, with a continuous stream of encounter in a megadungeon you can't get out of for a long time, consider short rests = 5 minutes / long rests = 2 hours. Just try to keep a somewhat similar proportion between shorts and longs.

There is a kind of small ambiguity in the definition of rests length when it says "at least 1 hour/8 hours", in the sense that a stingy DM could even rule that consecutive short rests count as one, but it could cause boring arguments at the table.

Interrupting rests should not make the DM feel guilty. Just don't cause interruptions specifically to spoil the players' strategy. Make them clearly part of the world, and roll randomly for them so that it is not your decision to make them happen. The idea is that if the PCs are in a dungeon/forest/else with wandering monsters, choosing to rest or not should be a tactical choice with a calculated risk. The DM sets the probability (and magnitude) of such risks, but rolling randomly makes the DM not guilty when the risk materializes. It's not sour grapes when you tell the players that the chance is on the dice!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Has anyone actually seen a Warlock, or whatever other short-rest-based class, doing so much better than everyone else that it causes issues?

Or is this a solution in search of a problem?

Because from where I'm standing, the absolute last thing 5e needs is more punishment for the Fighter and the Warlock. What little data I've seen indicates that the substantial majority favor a style of play that significantly favors long-rest-based classes. Artificially restricting the number of short rests simply compounds that. I mean, I have nothing against giving weight to short rests (as long as long rests have weight too, of course). But a lot of this talk strikes me as people fearing a boogeyman that isn't really there.