D&D (2024) Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered

[kigmatzomat]

I am disputing your statment that in 3e the gms had any control over rest, which was in the 1st post.

In 3.x it varied a little bit because of a feat but effectively the values were still the same at first.
Once again the GM agreed now was a good time for the group to rest up

That mismatches the SRD and it doesn't match what I read in my 3e phb. There was no GM agreement required. The players just rested when they wanted.

The playtest packets are imo, absolutely unremarkable in how they handle rest. Your desire to go back to 2e version rests (which I haven't confirmed is actually accurate) is the anomaly.

So why do you want the playtest packet to support your house rules on resting?

 

[tetrasodium]

I am disputing your statment that in 3e the gms had any control over rest, which was in the 1st post.



That mismatches the SRD and it doesn't match what I read in my 3e phb. There was no GM agreement required. The players just rested when they wanted.

The playtest packets are imo, absolutely unremarkable in how they handle rest. Your desire to go back to 2e version rests (which I haven't confirmed is actually accurate) is the anomaly.

So why do you want the playtest packet to support your house rules on resting?

"effectively" is the important bit & you are wrong on the 3.x rules themselves . "Complete bed rest"(2hp/level) pretty much never happened without some level of endorsement by the gm because almost anything could downgrade it to light activity(1hp/level) & adventuring>rest>adventuring was trivially enough to drop it to strenuous activity(0hp/level).

"effectively" is the important bit. You are wrong on the rules too.

Natural Healing: With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. For example, a 5th-level fighter recovers 5 hit points with a night of rest. Any significant interruption (such as combat or the like) during your rest prevents you from healing that night. For example, a 5th-level fighter recovers 5 hit points with a night of rest. Any significant interruption (such as combat or the like) during your rest prevents you from healing that night.

If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points.
A 5th-level fighter recovers 10 hit points per 24 hours of bed rest.

1hp/level was a value that almost any encounter could trivially deal to one or more players & that meant "it's not safe" was backed by the possibility of not getting a rest due to interruption and/or winding up with less HP than the group started with.

Long-Term Care: Providing long-term care means treating a wounded person for a day or more. If your Heal check is successful,
the patient recovers hit points or ability score points (lost to ability damage) at twice the normal rate: 2 hit points per level for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 hit points per level for each full day of complete rest; 2 ability score points for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 ability score points for each full day of complete rest. You can tend as many as six patients at a time. You need a few items and supplies (bandages, salves, and so on) that are easy to come by in settled lands.
Giving long-term care counts as light activity for the healer. You cannot give long-term care to yourself.

Again what's with the constant chewbacca defense houserule distraction?

 

[kigmatzomat]

1hp/level was a value that almost any encounter could trivially deal to one or more players & that meant "it's not safe" was backed by the possibility of not getting a rest due to interruption and/or winding up with less HP than the group started with.

That's not where the DM can refuse the players taking a rest, that is the players Resting and the dm interrupting it. A dm can, and in some cases should, interrupt rest when it fits the plot. Every game system allows that. The play test allows that.

You seem to be arguing that the future ddOne RAW should let a DM dictate player Rests without having to use in-game events as interruptions.

long rests.....still largely written for the wrong side of the GM screen.

.... you only get back what I give you while you travel...

So, why do you want to make this RAW? What does it give you, besides not doing the work of interrupting the rests? Why would you even want it to be a rule ("The DM will tell you when you can Rest") rather than making it part of the in-game events?

 

[tetrasodium]

That's not where the DM can refuse the players taking a rest, that is the players Resting and the dm interrupting it. A dm can, and in some cases should, interrupt rest when it fits the plot. Every game system allows that. The play test allows that.

Difference being is that the bar to interrupt a full day or long term care is so low -and- regular 8 hours is such a small recovery that "well lets take another rest" is a nonstarter to the point where simply stating "It's not safe here/now/etc" was a credible threat to players wanting a rest . That credible threat extended far enough that the GM was not required to leap into adversarial hostile GM territory to influence behavior & players knew the very real risk of coming out worse than they started if they ignored it. Meanwhile in 5e & 6e the inverse is so true that there are multiple skits on it

You seem to be arguing that the future ddOne RAW should let a DM dictate player Rests without having to use in-game events as interruptions.




So, why do you want to make this RAW? What does it give you, besides not doing the work of interrupting the rests? Why would you even want it to be a rule ("The DM will tell you when you can Rest") rather than making it part of the in-game events?

What I'm saying is that the RAW creates problems as described both in the OP & throughout the thread (including more than once to you specifically). You are the one who keeps trying to make it something else while demonstrating the unreasonable hurdle that RAW places on a GM who needs to allow passage of time in step one of the playloop or do anything but say "ok" in step 3 of the playloop if the players want to take a rest they shouldn't for whatever reason. We only have a small subset of the rules for 6e & none of them are final, discussing solutions is just asking for half measures that avoid the problems themselves.

 

[Willie the Duck]

In 5e they are. You can not like it but it is true.

Let me assure you that everyone on this forum is familiar with the 'my position is the correct one, you may not like it, but it is' form of trying to declare oneself to have one an argument instead of actually doing so. Since 'gatekeeping' is not an immutable technical or legal term, it is up to each claimant to make an argument in support of their position. Make your argument, and then your audience will determine if they are convinced or not.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Let me assure you that everyone on this forum is familiar with the 'my position is the correct one, you may not like it, but it is' form of trying to declare oneself to have one an argument instead of actually doing so. Since 'gatekeeping' is not an immutable technical or legal term, it is up to each claimant to make an argument in support of their position. Make your argument, and then your audience will determine if they are convinced or not.

I have pointed out that for 20+ years, deciding to take a rest is something Players choose to do and DMs have to interupt in game.

I have asked over 3 different posts why DMs want RAW to explicitly make rests under DM explicit control, rather than the implicit control via in-game interruptions.

119: OneDnD - Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered
121: OneDnD - Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered
123: OneDnD - Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered

I have seen nothing advocating for why this change is superior beyond some vague "different play styles" comments.

 

[Irlo]

I have pointed out that for 20+ years, deciding to take a rest is something Players choose to do and DMs have to interupt in game.

I have asked over 3 different posts why DMs want RAW to explicitly make rests under DM explicit control, rather than the implicit control via in-game interruptions.

119: OneDnD - Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered
121: OneDnD - Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered
123: OneDnD - Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered

I have seen nothing advocating for why this change is superior beyond some vague "different play styles" comments.

I'm interested in the answers to those questions too.

I occassionally feel the need to encourage my players to focus on telling me what their characters are doing (or trying to do) rather than trying to figure out what their DM thinks they should do. Likewise, as a DM, I avoid deciding what I think the PCs should do and focus on adjudicting their stated actions. That certainly goes for deciding to rest or not. Should they or shouldn't they? That's the players' decision.

As I read it, the OP wants tools to influence the players' choices, specifically to discourage (or prohibit?) attempts to rest that the OP feels are inappropriate. With the current rules, I've never had players argue when I suggest that difficult weather or terrain conditions would make a long rest ineffective. And if they try to rest in a dangerous area, they soon learn that dangerous areas are dangerous. I would never think to prohibit a rest simply based on the number of encounters that party has had in a given time period. That feels weirdly artificial to me.

I think the OP has players who do argue about it and feel entitled to sucessful rests regardless of circumstances. I don't think new rules are the solution to that problem.

I'm all for D&D presenting an array of rule options to handle rests differently depending on the preferences of the table. But, equally useful, are threads like these in which people share their own houserules on how to handle rest periods and refreshing of PC resources.

 

[kigmatzomat]

That credible threat extended far enough that the GM was not required to leap into adversarial hostile GM territory to influence behavior & players knew the very real risk of coming out worse than they started if they ignored it.

I don't consider "consequences" to be "adversarial hostile GM territory". The players act and there are consequences. Some good, some bad. Sometimes they make reasonable decisions that are guaranteed to have bad outcomes because they have incomplete information (I.e. Assuming an "evil outsider" is a demon, ignoring creature from the shadowfell or feywild) and their characters have bad die rolls (failed religion/Arcana checks). Sometimes the players just do something reckless or ignore in game advice (the "1 for All" skits are replete with the players making bad choices even after the GM explicitly telegraphs the consequences of said choice)

Actually, one interesting thing in 1 For All is that they almost never blame Patrick. When Nixie kills Evandra with a fireball, Eva blames Nicole. When Nixie fireballs a guard, Eva and Anthony yell at Nicole because they know the whole guard force will be called.

So, if I remind them it isn't safe here (because in Step 1 of the play loop it should be evident why their characters know it isn't safe) and they still make camp, unless they do something very tricky to hide/conceal themselves, they will find out why it isn't safe.

And that isn't adversarial. Its just foreseeable consequences.

(See the 1 for All where their stuff is stolen overnight)

And if there is a time constraint their characters are aware of, or should be aware of and I describe that in Step 1 (or even in that hazy "make an knowledge check to see what you know about the Fire Swamp" that can happen as part of Step 2) and they still make camp so they miss their time box, they will get that Step 3 result.

the unreasonable hurdle that RAW places on a GM who needs to allow passage of time in step one of the playloop or do anything but say "ok" in step 3 of the playloop if the players want to take a rest they shouldn't for whatever reason.

I see no unreasonable burden. That just sounds like running a game.

If a group shouldn't do something (and they know they shouldn't do it) and the players decide to do it anyway....well that's player agency. Player agency always has the option to impact the game. That is kind of the point.

This should be a teachable moment, where the players learn how bad things happen to foolish people. Most players will actually learn and be better players over time.

Using 1 for All as an example, if the players are bad players who simply never learn, no rules can fix that. (Patrick really should start a campaign with the paladins, the cleric, and mayyyybe the druid)

If a DM has a time constraint or a dangerous environment and isn't prepared for things to go wrong, well, that's on them. Failure is always an option and the GM should at least have spent 5 minutes on general notes on how to react if the players fail.