Reasoning behind Extended Rests?

Well, I'm a player in a 4e game, as well as a DM. I have yet to see the players call an extended rest unless they really need to. By "need to" I mean that most of them have expended their dailies, they're low on healing surges and/or it's simply night time and time to rest. I haven't seen any "munchkin'ism" of resting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whether or not they eliminated the 15 minute work day ... there are only a few resources that are truly daily. Certain "daily" effects also recharge after each milestone. The incentive for going for a 15-minute workday are greatly diminished. The players aren't as bad off after going nova as they would be after a 3.5 workday.

If you have more magic items with daily powers than you have opportunities to use them in a single fight, the benefit later on is great. If the first say ... 4 encounters aren't that bad, you can use an additional 2 magic items in that last fight.
 

My question is: WotC claims to have abolished the 15-adventure day. I don't see where and how.
I'm sure the basis of their claim is that you must wait at least 12 hours between extended rests. So, even if the party wants to do the 15 minute day, the characters have to wait 11 hours and 45 minutes before they can take another extended rest.
And then my real, underlying (philosophical even) question: why have Wizards kept the adventuring day at all? Why force adventurers to rest just to regain their powers? Couldn't there have been a better solution (to avoid everyone blowing their dailies in each encounter)?

Confusedly yours,
Zapp
There are a number of possible solutions, but part of the reason was to stick to the underlying philosophies of previous editions of D&D. There's only so many massive changes the target audience will accept; for that matter, there are only so many changes the design team can accept before they stop thinking of it as D&D.
I'm going to guess that the "adventuring day" concept is so hard-wired into the design team's ideas of D&D that they couldn't remove the concept without feeling like they'd abandoned the soul of D&D. (Whether or not they abandoned it anyway is a different discussion and not one I wish to engage in.)
 

Okay, so I guess I didn't phrase my question clearly... :-)

I fully understand the evils of the 15-minute adventure day.

And I also realize a good DM can avoid it simply by applying some well-measured time pressure that is tailored specifically to his or her own play group.

But. Let's just for the moment discuss the rulebooks only, without the "a good DM can always compensate for bad rules" mentality. By this I only mean that with a good DM there is no 15-minute day problem to solve. Thus, the only place where there is a problem is when the "good DM" solution doesn't apply - the case I would like to discuss here.

My question is: WotC claims to have abolished the 15-adventure day. I don't see where and how.

As far as I understand it, it is always more beneficial to take an extended rest than to plow on. There are no built-in penalties to taking extended rests other than time consumption - which is exactly the same as in 3rd Edition! How is that a solution?

AFAIK, the only thing 4th does better than 3rd is granting some modicum of "plow-on" capability when you're forced to continue past the first 15 minutes of each adventuring day.

And then my real, underlying (philosophical even) question:[/B] why have Wizards kept the adventuring day at all? Why force adventurers to rest just to regain their powers? Couldn't there have been a better solution (to avoid everyone blowing their dailies in each encounter)?

Well, people have just tried to answer this for you, but you have now excluded the "good DM" from the discussion. The rules don't expressly forbid you from throwing Orcus at 1st level PCs either. The rules give you guidelines, reasons why those guidelines exist, and suggestions on how to use them. Does this mean there is a fault in the rules for encounters.

If "a good DM can always compensate for bad rules" is how you view the rules, then you have already assumed that the rules are bad. We can't argue with you, since you've assumed your conclusion as part of your premise.

Many of us think that the extended rest rules aren't "bad", and that a "good DM" can simply make creative use of them. If we are forced, by your discussion rules, to exclude the behavior of "good DMs" from the discussion, then only average and below average DM behavior can be considered. I don't know of a single game system which makes good DMs out of average ones, or average DMs out of bad ones. You want to consider only the cases where the "good DM" does not apply, and I would argue, those cases, by definition, aren't going to show you ANYTHING that the system does particularly well, just like you aren't going to find many examples of good writing when you exclude all writing from "good writers".

Trying to answer more specificially, the things you directly reject as answers (time pressure and milestones) are the things which discourage you from taking extended rests. If you exclude the very ideas put in the system which discourage extended rests, then, by definition, you will find no reason not to take extended rests.

Milestones, to my mind, and that of my players, are not insignificant. Extra action points are very useful, unless you choose (against DMG advice, I would add) to have every single encounter be of the same level of difficulty. If you deliberately ignore the advice of the game designers, and have each encounter be equally easy, the action points will not be needed. If you deliberately ignore their advice and have every encounter be equally hard (and also ignore their advice about treating very hard encounters as two encounters), then there will not be enough action points for the PCs to use. If, on the other hand, you have the occasionally easy encounter, with more average encounters, and some hard ones, the PCs will be able to "bank" action points in easy encounters (and average ones played cleverly) to spend them in hard encounters.

Furthermore, the milestones accumulate daily uses of magic items. If you take one encounter (and use a daily item), then an extended rest, you start again with ONE daily magic item usage. If, on the other hand, you plow through 4 encounters, without using any daily magic item uses, your "big" fifth encounter can see you using three daily magic item powers. Those powers are useful, and situational. It may be that several encounters need none, while another encounter can really use multiple ones. Being able to release daily powers together, rather than just one per encounter, can often be very helpful. In addition, many adventures are structured so that PCs have some idea of the goal of the encounter. If the PCs know that they have to stop the evil wizard, they are even more likely to conserve those daily powers for the "final confrontation", rather than just doling them out one encounter and resting.

Finally, on the topic of "time pressure". This isn't a concept that is only available to "good DMs". It's written into the system; it's discussed in the DMG; it's mentioned in every prewritten adventure I've read for 4th (which is all of them but the FR one). The system assumes, as a base, underlying mechanic, that the DM doesn't treat the encounters as static and unconnected, unless they are "in game" static and unconnected (like a room with a trap). The game gives you "patrol groups" (to interrupt rests), and discusses what the enemies might do if they are aware of an attack (and moving quickly gives you a chance to avoid that). The tactics blocks on encounters will often tell you where the enemies might scout around in, or pursue you beyond. The books often tell you guard movements, shift changes, or wandering monster encounters. Then, the adventures also often tell you about places the PCs might choose for extended rests (this area is relatively safe; this area is accessed once per day). If you deliberately ignore all of the intentionally included information about putting time pressure on PCs, and deliberately ignore all of the included information about interrupting extended rests, why, yes, there does seem to be no reason not to take extended rests.

So, is your objection to the existence of powers which cannot be used in each encounter, or to the mechanism of recovering powers which are not intended to be used in every encounter?

I can think of several ways you might do this other than a "daily" power which refreshes after each extended rest:

Powers which recover after a certain number of hours, regardless of rest (which would lead to the PCs simply waiting around until they refreshed, but not "taking an extended rest".

Powers which would recharge on a recharge roll after the encounter. However, in this system, you'd still have to allocate some amount of time between recharge rolls (and PCs could just wait multiple time periods until everybody made their roll), or you would give one roll after each encounter, which might massively punish one person with bad rolls, or massively reward someone else with good rolls.

Powers which would recharge with specific components/activities. This would be a big headache (you need holy water to recharge this power, and you are out. You, on the other hand, need mistletoe to recharge this one, and you have a bunch, so you can use it after each encounter.)

There are probably a metric crap-ton of other recharge systems which someone could think up. However, the one 'recharge' system they have come up with for daily powers is one that closely mimics a real-life behavior: going to bed!

Given a choice between a system which has some other mechanism for allowing a power to be used basically "once per day", or using a system that closely maps onto the "real world" mechanic of "I'm tired. Let's stop and sleep.", I'll pick the one that connects to a real life mechanic.

On the other hand, is your problem with the whole idea of "once per day" powers? Which is fine, but what do you want to replace them with? How often do you envision "not every encounter" powers being used? More often than once per day? Less often than once per day? Every 4 encounters?

I think that Wizards kept the "adventuring day" because it was a game concept that closely tracked with a real life one (yesterday, today, tomorrow). However, if you replace it, what do you replace it with? If the PCs each get one "wow" power at the start of a session, and one more "wow" power usage after every 2 encounters, then what is to stop those encounters from being separated by weeks, or months. First fight of the session is in February, against the ice wolves, and you use your wow power. Next fight is in March against the Insane Rabbits, and you have no wow power. Then in July, you fight the Four, and you have another wow power to use. Wizards picked a time division which we are naturally conversant with.
 

I think some kind of "limit break" for lack of a better term would have been a good idea. A power that gets better the lower your resources and the more milestones you have passed.
 

it isn't penalties...it's loss of benefits...

additional action points, including benefits for paragon paths...additional use of daily item powers...bonuses from rings...etc.
 

WotC has this general theme about 4E of multiple good options. You benefit by resting or continuing unless the DM makes either way more hazardous. It's more about what benefit you want.
 

Milestones, to my mind, and that of my players, are not insignificant. Extra action points are very useful, unless you choose (against DMG advice, I would add) to have every single encounter be of the same level of difficulty.
Yes, but the problem is that however many AP you accumulate, you can still use only 1/encounter (unless you are a lv30 warmaster), and taking an extended rest resets your AP total to 1, regardless of how many you had the night before. So there is no such thing as hoarding APs for a rainy day.

This means that if you opted to press on, you get to use an AP only once every 2 fights (barring your 1st 2 encounters, and some abilities which grant you extra APs). And unless you have perfect knowledge that you are definitely going to encounter a tougher fighter later down the road, it seems better to spend the AP you have ASAP (sort of like the "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" analogy), rather than save it for a rainy day which may never come.

Conversely, if you decided to call it a day after each battle and take an extended rest, you restart with 1 AP, meaning you effectively get an AP for each fight you partake in.

I am not trying to encourage the return of the 15-minute work day here, but I don't quite understand the logic of how opting to press on is supposedly superior to simply resting for the day (or at least, that seems to be the gist behind the idea of milestones...:erm:).
 

Thanks Runestar - that is exactly the question.

If you can get away with an Extended Rest, how is it not always better than trudging on?

All the milestone-related "recharges" of the game to me seems only directed at alleviating the situation where you are forced to continue.

But this makes claiming "the 15-min day gone" seem like backwards logic.

A good DM or other circumstances can force you to move on, and in this, the penalties are less severe than in 3rd edition.

But what this is not is the rules encouraging you to move on - on the contrary, all things equal, an extended rest is better, because the time cost is not encoded in the rules, it's highly adventure specific.

So if Wizards claimed "continuing the adventure day beyond the first 15 minutes made less painful" they would be right. But that doesn't mean it's gone.

Not in any way I can see from where I stand, at least.



Compare this to the imaginary 4e where the DMG says "the DM - or adventure - will tell you when you can take an extended rest". A kind of "super milestone", as it were.

Some adventures - those without any restricting time limits - work best if you regain your dailes (equal to taking an extended rest only without the 6 hour time requirement) once you complete a set objective (even one as primitive as "clearing the current level").

Others throw lots of intense action at the adventurers all within the same day. In this case, an extended rest could work best if you could take one each hour, resting for fifteen minutes, say.

In all cases putting the decision power where it belongs: in the hands of the DM or adventure designer.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Where is the discussion regarding this in the otherwise very friendly and flexible DMG? Why is the parameters of the extended rest completely rigid and not up for discussion. Where is the sidebar explaining the reasons for having the extended rest in the first place?

Best Regards,
Zapp
 

My question is: WotC claims to have abolished the 15-adventure day. I don't see where and how.

As far as I understand it, it is always more beneficial to take an extended rest than to plow on. There are no built-in penalties to taking extended rests other than time consumption - which is exactly the same as in 3rd Edition! How is that a solution?

AFAIK, the only thing 4th does better than 3rd is granting some modicum of "plow-on" capability when you're forced to continue past the first 15 minutes of each adventuring day.

The key is that the 15-minute adventuring day wasn't something the PCs CHOSE to do, but something that was forced on them by the game system. If the PCs CHOOSE to rest after every encounter, then they can do it just as well in this edition as any other edition.

But the original idea behind the 15-minute adventuring day was that:

a) PCs have so many resources that they weren't challenged by "normal" difficulty encounters
b) DMs started throwing encounters at the PCs that required the use of nearly all of their resources to defeat
c) With no resources, the PCs could not defeat any more encounters
d) The players have no choice but to rest after one encounter or risk death. No matter what the story considerations were.

Now the options after each encounter are:

a) Do an extended rest and get back an action point and all dailies and all hp and healing surges but risk any story consequences from resting.
b) Continue on with any losses you've already taken.

Most combats in 4e don't require a daily to win, however. Nor do they use up more than 3 healing surges to every member of the party(which means everyone has at least 3 left for the next battle). This means that going into combat number 2 for a day, you likely have close to 100% of your resources.

When the choice is nearly equal(with continuing on being the slightly worse choice), then you can let the players decide based on their personalities and story concerns. The point is to have a real choice instead of one that is so far clearly superior that it is a non-choice. To our group it has so far been "Did anyone use a daily?" "I did." "Anyone else? No? We are down only 2 healing surges, should we rest for the night?" "Do we think we need to?" "No, we should be able to defeat another encounter without any problem." "Well then, might as well keep going rather than spend 2 weeks exploring one dungeon."

And then my real, underlying (philosophical even) question: why have Wizards kept the adventuring day at all? Why force adventurers to rest just to regain their powers? Couldn't there have been a better solution (to avoid everyone blowing their dailies in each encounter)?

Because they wanted to keep the sense of tension that comes from ever dwindling resources as you press on in your quest to do something heroic. It means you are risking more to save the princess if each battle you fight makes it less likely to survive the next one. If you want to remove that tension, it is really easy to simply say that all short rests give you the same benefits as an extended rest.
 

Remove ads

Top