D&D 5E Limiting Short Rests

[Bacon Bits]

Why are they just 'exploring' and doing whatever they want?

No, but they must have some in game reason to hang out together, and delve into dungeons and fight monsters. One probably studied wizardry, and has a master/ fellow apprentices out there somewhere, and other is a member of an organised church heirarchy. These people have things going on in their lives. Friends. Family. Obligations. A reason why they are exploring. People to answer to.

Unless the campaign is a homeless, faceless, friendless, orphan with no connections to anyone or anything somehow finding reason to band up with four more homeless, faceless, friendless, orphans and spontaneously all deciding to explore the world for no good reason, Im sure you can come up with some kind of time limiting factor.

And if you cant, then use the longer rest variant.

Why don't you ask the PCs why they adventure. It very well may be to simply seek their fortune and adventure. To satisfy wanderlust, loot ancient tombs, defeat mighty beasts, and destroy the foes of the good and just nations. To earn enough renown to be granted lands and your own title. There are countless examples of people in our world just taking off and seeking adventure and fortune. Same story for why they're together: make the PCs come up with it.

Why is it up to the DM to tell the players why they're motivated to adventure? The DM builds the world. It's up to the players to decide their place. It's *their job* to adventure.

Seriously, has no one played an old school sandbox campaign?! Just wander around the wilderness, meeting new friends and foes, finding danger and adventure around every corner? You know, actually adventure. Didn't anyone ever have a campaign where the DM told them, "Just show up with a character, a reason to be adventuring, and a reason to be with these other knuckleheads"? You start the campaign in a tavern of a small town in BFE Greyhawk, and you hear rumors of bandits to the south, tales of a green dragon living in the forests to the northeast that's been terrorizing the town, legends of a lost tomb in the swamp to the east, whispers of a cult and missing farmers to the north, hints that the old wise cleric of the local church just isn't who he claims to be, and a merchant desperately seeking replacement guards for his wagons that will be leaving town in a fortnight.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not really a sandbox though is it? You have predefined quests. You choose to do one and then stuff happens then you choose which quest to do next.

In fact from the player perspective a well done linear adventure will feel exactly the same as a sandbox as long as the player has no meta game expectations of either. In a linear adventure failure to complete the quest causes things to happen. In a sandbox failure to complete the quest also causes things to happen. As long as there are time frames and setbacks and alternate paths based on failure in a linear story it should feel exactly like a sandbox.

Why don't you ask the PCs why they adventure. It very well may be to simply seek their fortune and adventure. To satisfy wanderlust, loot ancient tombs, defeat mighty beasts, and destroy the foes of the good and just nations. To earn enough renown to be granted lands and your own title. There are countless examples of people in our world just taking off and seeking adventure and fortune. Same story for why they're together: make the PCs come up with it.

Why is it up to the DM to tell the players why they're motivated to adventure? The DM builds the world. It's up to the players to decide their place. It's *their job* to adventure.

Seriously, has no one played an old school sandbox campaign?! Just wander around the wilderness, meeting new friends and foes, finding danger and adventure around every corner? You know, actually adventure. Didn't anyone ever have a campaign where the DM told them, "Just show up with a character, a reason to be adventuring, and a reason to be with these other knuckleheads"? You start the campaign in a tavern of a small town in BFE Greyhawk, and you hear rumors of bandits to the south, tales of a green dragon living in the forests to the northeast that's been terrorizing the town, legends of a lost tomb in the swamp to the east, whispers of a cult and missing farmers to the north, hints that the old wise cleric of the local church just isn't who he claims to be, and a merchant desperately seeking replacement guards for his wagons that will be leaving town in a fortnight.

 

[Flamestrike]

You start the campaign in a tavern of a small town in BFE Greyhawk, and you hear rumors of bandits to the south, tales of a green dragon living in the forests to the northeast that's been terrorizing the town, legends of a lost tomb in the swamp to the east, whispers of a cult and missing farmers to the north, hints that the old wise cleric of the local church just isn't who he claims to be, and a merchant desperately seeking replacement guards for his wagons that will be leaving town in a fortnight.

Those bandits to the south. Are they just going to be there forever? What if someone else gets to them first? Have they captured anyone important? What do they do when they discover the PCs are after them?

The green dragon thats terrorizing the town. How much more time does that town have left before its razed to the ground? Refugees are already flooding into greyhawk, and people are dying by the day.

The cult and the missing farmers. How long until they are sacrificed? What is the cult sacrificing them for? Maybe to summon a demon - how long until it appears and devestates the surrounding area?

Whats that cleric up to? Is it part of a nefarious plan with the clock already ticking against the PCs?

Those wagons leave in a fortnight, and the merchant is already hiring people. If you dont hurry, he'll find someone else to do the job.

Time constraints brother. Theyre a thing. Use them and your sandbox comes alive. Within those time constraints lies the rest meta. No-one anywhere has all the time in the world to do what they want. Yet for some ridiculous reason, its a common thing in RPGs (generally down to lazy DMing). And thats not only unrealistic in the extreme, but incredibly boring. A key part of the dramatic tension in any story is the race against the clock. Youll be hard pressed to find a single adventure story that doesnt contain it as an element.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Well, Fighters do get infinite Second Wind healing if you use Unlimited Short Rests per RAW. Maybe that's not a problem.

Personally I like my solution of 15 minute short rests to boost the Monk Fighter & Warlock, but keep it to 3/day so they don't get ridiculous.

 

[Bacon Bits]

That's not really a sandbox though is it? You have predefined quests. You choose to do one and then stuff happens then you choose which quest to do next.

From your comment, I assume that your answer is "No, I've never played a sandbox campaign."

The keys are that a) there's no storyline; b) there's no interconnection between quests; c) there's no BBEG; d) DM is very possibly making it all up on the fly; and e) players don't have to do any of them. If the players decide to hire on with the merchant and leave town, then they don't do *any* of the other adventures.

And sure, you can say that the players "don't have to" follow the storyline quests in any of the published 5e modules, but that's disingenuous.

In fact from the player perspective a well done linear adventure will feel exactly the same as a sandbox as long as the player has no meta game expectations of either. In a linear adventure failure to complete the quest causes things to happen. In a sandbox failure to complete the quest also causes things to happen. As long as there are time frames and setbacks and alternate paths based on failure in a linear story it should feel exactly like a sandbox.

But it doesn't have to be. My whole point is that TIME IS NOT A MANDATORY CONSTRAINT TO A CAMPAIGN. People keep coming back saying there has to be or that you could easily add one. That's not the point.

And I still see people claiming short rests are a problem without describing *why* they're a problem. Sure, you can theorycraft a 5th level Warlock into having 16 fireballs each day if you have 8 encounters with an hour of rest in between, but not only is it unlikely that you'll have that many encounters spaced so perfectly, it's unlikely you'll have that many encounters where fireball is even a useful spell. It's likely to end up a glorified scorching ray at least once or twice, and likely won't be usable at all in at least one encounter. And if it's not Warlock we're having problems with, then whom?

I still see the problem of smite nova Paladins, auto-rage Barbarians, and alpha strike Sorcerers and Evokers. My experience is that we need to encourage, not discourage a short rest.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Those bandits to the south. Are they just going to be there forever? What if someone else gets to them first? Have they captured anyone important? What do they do when they discover the PCs are after them?

The green dragon thats terrorizing the town. How much more time does that town have left before its razed to the ground? Refugees are already flooding into greyhawk, and people are dying by the day.

The cult and the missing farmers. How long until they are sacrificed? What is the cult sacrificing them for? Maybe to summon a demon - how long until it appears and devestates the surrounding area?

Whats that cleric up to? Is it part of a nefarious plan with the clock already ticking against the PCs?

Those wagons leave in a fortnight, and the merchant is already hiring people. If you dont hurry, he'll find someone else to do the job.

Time constraints brother. Theyre a thing. Use them and your sandbox comes alive. Within those time constraints lies the rest meta. No-one anywhere has all the time in the world to do what they want. Yet for some ridiculous reason, its a common thing in RPGs (generally down to lazy DMing). And thats not only unrealistic in the extreme, but incredibly boring. A key part of the dramatic tension in any story is the race against the clock. Youll be hard pressed to find a single adventure story that doesnt contain it as an element.

Time exists, but it's not always a pressing issue. Bandits aren't likely to move on to another geographic region because you stopped for a short rest. It's not an issue of, ", we can't ever stop and rest or everything will be gone or ruined." You might as well say, "We can't short rest. I'm a human; I've only got another 70 years of game time." Time is only a constraint if there's some penalty for failure to act. In each of the cases I listed, what will happen to the players or the campaign world if they do nothing? Well, nothing. Nothing will happen. None of the rumors are about anything that's going to affect anybody outside this tiny town. There's more magical weapons than the +1 longsword the bandit leader has. What's more, it's very possible that none of these will change appreciably in the next several months, with the exception of our desperate merchant trying to get out of town. A doomsday clock is not an essential component of adventure.

Oh, and the green dragon is actually not a green dragon. It's a group of goblins who are using a canvas float as a cover to steal sheep from shepherds. They've just killed just one local man who went investigating when they got suspicious, but the rest of the town thinks there's a dragon out snatching up people.

Edit: Think of it like this. You can only safely travel 8 hours in a game day. But there's more than 8 hours in the day you could use for travel. There's 24 hours, and only 8 of them are going to be used for long resting. You could space the 8 travel hours any way you'd like. Time exists, but it's not urgent. There's not a pressing need to get your travel done immediately in the first 8 hours of every day of travel.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

I have, but the issue it caused was party survival. They'd've never gotten through the dungeon if they hadn't taken frequent short rests, and after the first couple, it was just to get the Warlock's spells back so they'd have a little AE offense to get them through the next roomful of fractional CR monsters.

Because from where I'm standing, the absolute last thing 5e needs is more punishment for the Fighter and the Warlock.

The 6-8 encounter/day, 2-3 short rest/day guideline probably is meant to give the few short-rest-recharge classes a fair shake.

But keeping short rests to 2-3/day could easily include putting a mandatory limit on short rests like there is on long rests.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd counter that from what you describe all that I've played are sandbox campaigns. I'd counter that all anyone plays are sandbox campaigns given your descriptions.

From your comment, I assume that your answer is "No, I've never played a sandbox campaign."

The keys are that a) there's no storyline; b) there's no interconnection between quests; c) there's no BBEG; d) DM is very possibly making it all up on the fly; and e) players don't have to do any of them. If the players decide to hire on with the merchant and leave town, then they don't do *any* of the other adventures.

And sure, you can say that the players "don't have to" follow the storyline quests in any of the published 5e modules, but that's disingenuous.



But it doesn't have to be. My whole point is that TIME IS NOT A MANDATORY CONSTRAINT TO A CAMPAIGN. People keep coming back saying there has to be or that you could easily add one. That's not the point.

And I still see people claiming short rests are a problem without describing *why* they're a problem. Sure, you can theorycraft a 5th level Warlock into having 16 fireballs each day if you have 8 encounters with an hour of rest in between, but not only is it unlikely that you'll have that many encounters spaced so perfectly, it's unlikely you'll have that many encounters where fireball is even a useful spell. It's likely to end up a glorified scorching ray at least once or twice, and likely won't be usable at all in at least one encounter. And if it's not Warlock we're having problems with, then whom?

I still see the problem of smite nova Paladins, auto-rage Barbarians, and alpha strike Sorcerers and Evokers. My experience is that we need to encourage, not discourage a short rest.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'd counter that from what you describe all that I've played are sandbox campaigns. I'd counter that all anyone plays are sandbox campaigns given your descriptions.

Yes, that's why I said, "And sure, you can say that the players "don't have to" follow the storyline quests in any of the published 5e modules, but that's disingenuous."

Each chapter in, say, Hoard of Dragon Queen leads to the next. Each bit has a crumb that leads you to the next bit, eventually to Rise of Tiamat and the ultimate confrontation. It's an epic campaign where essentially each encounter involves enemies from the same Cult of the Dragon and they all tell the story of one huge battle against that Cult and the Dragon Queen. PC in the campaign fight to prevent Tiamat from triumphing and conquering the Realms. The players need to stop Tiamat. If they don't, the campaign ends. If they do, the campaign still ends.

In a sandbox, the PCs fight bandits because they're killing people. If the PCs don't, then the bandits keep being bandits. The bandits don't destroy the world. They're just bandits. The same is true for nearly every adventure they go on. You uncover a cult, and it has nothing to do with the bandits. You find goblins pretending to be a green dragon. They have nothing whatsoever to do with a cult or bandits. You loot a tomb. The undead inside have no interest in cults, banditry, green dragons, goblins, or anything going on in the living world. You discover the cleric of the town has been charmed by a warlock. Neither he, nor the warlock, have anything to do with bandits, cults, dragons, goblins, or tombs of undead. They're just unconnected events that are going on that the PCs could investigate. And if they don't? Well, nothing particularly special happens. The bandits keep robbing people. More people join another cult. The goblins keep terrifying people with a fake green dragon. The cleric remains in the clutches of a warlock. The undead guard their lonely tomb. Sure, more bad things happen. But it's just normal levels of bad things, and bad things happen all the time anyways. The problems don't escalate to world-ending calamity. There's no monolithic evil menace threatening the multiverse with a incurable case of terminal swamp ass. When I DM a sandbox, I assume what the players find is the status quo. If the players don't act to change it, it may worsen, but it's not likely to change all that much over the timespan that the PCs are in the area.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Four, actually. There's basic abilities that don't need recharge at all, including cantrips. There's short-rest recharge abilities, like Warlock slots or Ki points. There's long-rest-recharge abilities, like most class's slots, Rage or hit points. And, there's long-rest-only-recharges-half, the most restrictive recharge in 5e, that only applies to HD. Then there are modules that make hp and HD recharges even slower.

The reason is class balance. Some people want it, others hate it. As a compromise, we have classes with radically different recharge schemes that all theoretically balance at 6-8 encounter/day and 2-3 short rests/day - a pacing carefully chosen for it's startling lack of popularity. Anyone who hates balance just has to arrange for shorter days, and it's back to your regularly scheduled game of caster supremacy.

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)

Short rests actually being short would make sense. In prior eds, you did have 'em: In 4e they were formal as in 5e, but only 5 min. In 3e, you could take a de-facto short rest to top everyone off from the obligatory Wand of CLW, and you could drain one of those in only 5 min. In 1e, exploration proceeded in 10-minute 'turns' and combats in 1-minute rounds, with combats typically taking less than 10 minutes, the assumption was that the balance of the turn that included combat was spent resting, patching armor, cleaning weapons &c, in a de-facto short rest (some variants included 'binding wounds' in that time to get back a few hps).