D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Tony Vargas]

Right, so then you agree this has worldbuilding implications. How many villages in modules have you seen with palisade walls? How many towns with stone walls?

I want to say 'all,' but I guess the odd thorp or hamlet might count, so I'll go with 'most.'

So, then, you're backing off of the 3 deadly encounter units of monsters as a mechanical solution to the resting issue because it affects world building? Interesting point, I'll have to give it some thought.

I think the point, there, is that you simply don't have adventuring days in more sedate areas. Well, not unless something is specifically targeting the adventurers, and targeting them with a wave of 6-8 would-be assassins rather than all of them just ambushing the party at once...

sigh...Once again - the problem is that the OFFICIAL MATERIALS don't offer solutions!!! OF COURSE we can all just make up whatever solutions we want - I call that "Big/Empowered DM waving his magic wand" - that is NOT a satisfactory way to resolve the problem for many Gamists/Big Challenge guys like myself. We have a disdain for having to change official stuff and feel it should come with the basics at least complete - capesh?????

The game is complete in it's 'default' state, it's just not balanced in that state, but balances casters, particularly the classic Wizard, as well as the other two prepped casters (not coincidentally, the Tier 1 classes of 3.x).

(I'm considering the default to be PH with Feats & MCing turned off, no DMG options turned on, and being run about like D&D games always have been - with single encounter days being not uncommon, hour-long rests in the middle of more intense adventuring days being oddities, and days with more than one encounter closer to 2-5 than 6-8, with 8+ being very unusual, indeed.)

The above cynicism aside, I want to highlight two posts that recently offered remotely practicable mechanical solutions:

I think with a 1-2 encounter day all PC's have to have their total daily allotment of powers and be allowed to spend hit dice as a reaction or maybe a bonus action. I think that might work but you'd still have to be careful with the number of enemies that make up the encounter.

The seed of a practical class-redesign. I'd been considering re-desiging classes to be more robust to a varied adventuring day off the table. Now I'm not so sure.

Recoveries Per Level
Characters gain a new resource—minor and major “recoveries”. All features that refresh with a short-rest are instead refreshed by spending a minor recovery. All features refreshed with a long-rest are instead refreshed by spending a major recovery. To spend a recovery, a character must do the things described on PHB page 186 for a short (minor) or long (major) rest. If the rest is interrupted, the recovery fails and is not expended i.e. it can be reattempted later. All expended recoveries are replenished each time a character levels up. At 1st level, a character gains two minor and one major recovery to spend. At 5th level, a character gains an additional recovery of each type to spend.

A neat synthesis of player-entitlement and DM-empowerment considerations in resolving the issue. The idea of "recoveries" as a level-based player resource retains player agency in managing those resources, while giving the DM latitude to rule whether they can be spent on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Obryn]

Second are you saying every day of their lives outside of being in a city or civilized area a deadly group of monsters attacks adventurers? Thats just absurd. If you choose to make every single day of travel an all out life or death battle... I've literally never experienced this in a game... some days traveling through the wilderness are dangerous yes... but the majority are uneventful (combat wise) with the purpose of providing color, exploration/social opportunities and/or a chance for inter-party roleplay.
...
Why would the woods, roads, etc. Near major civilizations not be "safe" or relatively safe? At that point you dont use the deadly encounters because it shouldnt be there but this goes back to your assumption that combats shoyld be happening all the time and everywhere that isnt a city, town or village.

Okay so I read this, and it reads like you're conceding the point.

The core argument (as I understood it) is that 5e is bad at certain types of adventuring styles because of its encounters/day and short/long rest structure. Two of those styles are hexcrawls (that is, travel through the wilderness) and city-based (that is, near or in major civilizations).

If you want to argue that 5e is bad at traveling/hexcrawls, and that cities should obviously be safer than dungeons, then I don't think you're actually on the other side of this particular debate.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I want to say 'all,' but I guess the odd thorp or hamlet might count, so I'll go with 'most.'

Huh. Not my experience. Homlett springs to mind as an early example, and it was out in the sticks. Triboar in SKT has no walls, and isn't in an entirely passive area (there's an Oni right next to town doing thriving murder business). A quick look through SKT's town descriptions have many without walls. Don't think it's near as common as you're saying.

I think the point, there, is that you simply don't have adventuring days in more sedate areas. Well, not unless something is specifically targeting the adventurers, and targeting them with a wave of 6-8 would-be assassins rather than all of them just ambushing the party at once...

Right, so, again, world building -- only have adventuring days in dangerous areas far from civilization because you shouldn't ever challenge players with town based adventures. :/

 

[Tony Vargas]

Huh. Not my experience. Homlett springs to mind as an early example, and it was out in the sticks. Triboar in SKT has no walls

Anything between 1979 & 2016?

Seriously, though, I picture any D&D city having walls - though quite possibly a lot of buildings sprawled outside the walls - and any settlement in a remotely dangerous area having palisades or something. Little towns in more settled area may lack walls but are probably clustered around a castle or some sort of fortification or defensible structure (a temple, perhaps) where the populace seek shelter in times of war.

 

[Imaro]

Okay so I read this, and it reads like you're conceding the point.

What point is that?

The core argument (as I understood it) is that 5e is bad at certain types of adventuring styles because of its encounters/day and short/long rest structure. Two of those styles are hexcrawls (that is, travel through the wilderness) and city-based (that is, near or in major civilizations).

Ok this part of the discussion was around a suggestion for enabling hexcrawls and city adventures with the current structure... And no I don't concede the point, if you are purposefully creating a problem... every deadly challenge must be a horde of low level critters vs. a singular one, or even more powerful version of low level critters with a lower number of them actually appearing then you are creating the problem purposefully.

If you want to argue that 5e is bad at traveling/hexcrawls, and that cities should obviously be safer than dungeons, then I don't think you're actually on the other side of this particular debate.

THis was in reply to an argument of "worldbuilding" being compromised or changed by using deadly encounters. My point being if worldbuilding is your primary concern then the well traveled road right outside the city shouldn't be that dangerous, and this shouldn't be majorly taxing on adventurers resources... and yeah unless it's a lawless hive of scum and villainy any coherent worldbuilding would for the most part consider cities relatively safe places compared to the wilderness in a D&D trope world. In other words I'm more arguing against "worldbuilding as a rationale for why the suggested system wouldn't alleviate the issues.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What point is that?



Ok this part of the discussion was around a suggestion for enabling hexcrawls and city adventures with the current structure... And no I don't concede the point, if you are purposefully creating a problem... every deadly challenge must be a horde of low level critters vs. a singular one, or even more powerful version of low level critters with a lower number of them actually appearing then you are creating the problem purposefully.



THis was in reply to an argument of "worldbuilding" being compromised or changed by using deadly encounters. My point being if worldbuilding is your primary concern then the well traveled road right outside the city shouldn't be that dangerous, and this shouldn't be majorly taxing on adventurers resources... and yeah unless it's a lawless hive of scum and villainy any coherent worldbuilding would for the most part consider cities relatively safe places compared to the wilderness in a D&D trope world. In other words I'm more arguing against "worldbuilding as a rationale for why the suggested system wouldn't alleviate the issues.

Ok, then, please tell me which PC levels I have to stop using kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, and all the other humanoid races so that I can use this mechanical fix to the resting problem without issues.

 

[Imaro]

Ok, then, please tell me which PC levels I have to stop using kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, and all the other humanoid races so that I can use this mechanical fix to the resting problem without issues.

Let me say it again... Increase their CR and lower the actual number of humanoids...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok this part of the discussion was around a suggestion for enabling hexcrawls and city adventures with the current structure...

And that suggestion was 'use deadly encounters,' in a nut shell, yes?

My point being if worldbuilding is your primary concern then the well traveled road right outside the city shouldn't be that dangerous, and this shouldn't be majorly taxing on adventurers resources...

Then were do the day's deadly encounters come from?

I could see deciding that the city and settled areas are a "no adventuring to be had here: move along" kinda zone, but that's disabling city adventures.

Ok, then, please tell me which PC levels I have to stop using kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, and all the other humanoid races so that I can use this mechanical fix to the resting problem without issues.

Part of the point of BA is that you never have to stop using them.

 

[Imaro]

And that suggestion was 'use deadly encounters,' in a nut shell, yes?

Yes...of course nothing says the deadly encounter has to be created by an ever increasing number of low level humanoids... which is at least part of the rationale for it not working due to worldbuilding.

Then were do the day's deadly encounters come from?

Im not sure I understand the question... from the DM's imagination I would suppose... or are you asking what areas? Probably unsettled/unclaimed lands.... areas not regularly patrolled... the hunting grounds of specific beasts and so on.

I could see deciding that the city and settled areas are a "no adventuring to be had here: move along" kinda zone, but that's disabling city adventures.

Or you could design different types of deadly encounters... a necromancer and his minions hidden in the city's necropolis, A coven of sorcerers who scheme to rest control from the elected officials... a gamg of wererats that have taken control of an assasins guild...An ancient aboleth that has corrupted some of the ruling families of the city. What doesnt really work is an increasing number of humanoids within or just outside the city walls. In other words if thats the encounter you limit yourself to... well thats you shooting yourown self in the foot if it doesnt make sense in every possible in-world situation.

Part of the point of BA is that you never have to stop using them.

Yep and if you need them to hit a little harder or take a little more damage... have a special ability or even know a little magic... as the DM you can use the guidelines in the DMG and do that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes...of course nothing says the deadly encounter has to be created by an ever increasing number of low level humanoids... which is at least part of the rationale for it not working due to worldbuilding.

Does it really matter if it's a lot of low-level humanoids who shouldn't be in a safe/settled area, or a huge dragon that shouldn't be in a safe/settled area?

Or you could design different types of deadly encounters... a necromancer and his minions hidden in the city's necropolis, A coven of sorcerers who scheme to rest control from the elected officials... a gamg of wererats that have taken control of an assasins guild...An ancient aboleth that has corrupted some of the ruling families of the city.

OK, that's 4 encounters. That's all going on in one city in one 'day?' Well, maybe it is, probably just because the party's in town (fine with me, the game is about them, not about the demographics of the city).

...but I can see how some folks might have world-building issues with that.

Those issues might be ameliorated by shifting the pacing, from 6-8 encounters, or alternately 3 deadly ones (the difference doesn't seem that significant, to me), crammed into a day with room for two - hour rests - to those same encounters spread out over a 'season' (y'know, like a social season in a romance novel) in town, with plenty of time for a 'short' (rare full-night's sleep in spite of all the social obligations) rest between each, but no 'long rests' until you go home to the country (to flog that Regency 'season' reference).

I guess it depends on where you're willing to let your V-tude slide. Does it bother you more that the world disgorges a flurry of deadly encounters in a place that wouldn't normally have them - that, indeed, couldn't exist if such were even plausible? Or that the party rests at a different rate in different situations? Or that the party has more or fewer resources available without a short rest when you plan only a single encounter?

(That last was a nice idea, BTW.)