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

[Corwin]

My style of play is to LIMIT DM heavy handedness, so neither me nor my players appreciate weaknesses in a system that force me to step in and fix them. Or lazy/negligent module designers that fail to take into account fundamental aspects of the game in their design.

Not every system is designed to cater to every player or their preferences. Have you considered a more robust ruleset/edition? One better suited to your table's preferences?

 

[OB1]

I'm not exactly enthused about the idea of another edition anytime soon, but, sure, it's possible.

3-4 encounters, maybe

Depends on what folks whine about the loudest..

5e is already balanced for three daily encounters as long as they are all deadly.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not exactly enthused about the idea of another edition anytime soon, but, sure, it's possible.

3-4 encounters, maybe

Depends on what folks whine about the loudest..

Instead of x number of encounters, wouldn't a better (and simpler) move be to do away with the short rest mechanic entirely and simply accept the short adventuring day as the norm? I'm not saying I like the short-day model, but when resources return on a daily basis it only makes sense from the point of view of the adventurers themselves.

I mean, it's a whole spectrum - the designers just have the unenviable task of figuring out where to land on it. Let's look:

Recoverable resources: hit points/hit dice/health/stamina - spells/mana - limited-use abilities (LUA) e.g. Druid shapeshift

Spectrum: (just for resting, ignoring cure spells etc.)
- everything is fully reloaded after every encounter
- hit points and spells are fully reloaded after every encounter but LUA have to wait until overnight
- hit points are fully reloaded after every encounter but spells and LUA have to wait until overnight
- spells are fully reloaded after every encounter but hit points and LUA have to wait until overnight
- everything has to wait until overnight but is fully reloaded in the morning
- everything has to wait until overnight but only spells and LUA are fully reloaded in the morning with hit points only partly reloaded (this one's my preference, with the h.p. reload being minimal)
- everything has to wait until overnight but only LUA are fully reloaded in the morning with spells and hit points only partly reloaded
- nothing fully reloads overnight but if two (or three, or however many) consecutive nights are spent resting then a full reload happens for all
- resting in the field does nothing at all; the only way to get anything reloaded is to spend a few days in town

Lan-"if we adventured for 15 minutes today and scooped 750 g.p., imagine how much we could make if we put in an 8-hour day!"-efan

 

[Corwin]

5e is already balanced for three daily encounters as long as they are all deadly.

And you could even theoretically get a short rest in between each, for that supposed "requisite 2/day" people think is a thing...

 

[Ashkelon]

5e is already balanced for three daily encounters as long as they are all deadly.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Not really though. Since 5e is based around the 4-6 encounters per day with 2 short rests, a 3 deadly encounter day will require a short rest after each encounter to be "balanced". Since a deadly encounter rarely gets a player down enough resources to warrant a short rest, a 3 encounter day will highly favor daily classes. Not to mention many daily spells can also obviate encounters or otherwise trivialize them. Sleep at low level for example. Wall of force, banish, maze, reverse gravity, or forcecage at higher levels. In a game with just 3 encounters per day, daily classes will be able to effectively neuter those encounters to make them so easy as to not adequately drain 1/3 of the party resources. Short rest based classes again cannot hope to have a similar level of impact on a single encounter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really though. Since 5e is based around the 4-6 encounters per day with 2 short rests, a 3 deadly encounter day will require a short rest after each encounter to be "balanced".

They just need to be sufficiently deadly - and leisurely...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hawkeye you hit the nail on the head....But don't you want people who care about these things to have them? Isn't it better to have a bigger fan base for a game? Doesn't that mean more money thus more publications? Do you really want roleplayers and gamists to constantly duke it out in edition wars? This is not a big thing - all the work on CR ratings has been done, the only missing piece is that they don't support their own dang rest guidelines...I mean come on, I have to suffer threough dozens of pages of background details on innumerable NPCs and locations in these modules, and that has almost no effect on my game - can't you roleplayers throw a bone to us lol?????

Sure. I want people who like the game to be able to play it any way that they like. The best way to do that is to allow them to make the adjustments that they want. Kind of like the old saying about giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish for himself. I think this edition is more about people makong the game their own in many ways.

Resting and the number of encounters and all of that...there are ways to tweak things to make the game deliver the experience you want. I think the rules on these matters are about as broad as they can be, usable by most and easily adjusted by those who want something different.

Personally, resting has not been a problem for my game at all. I think the mechanics as they exist work fine...in conjunction with the story. I can understand how a group approaching it from a purely gamist angle might see things differently. But then, I don't tend to divorce the game and the story as much as you seem to do.

 

[shoak1]

If the players can tell the difference between when the DM is running off prepared material and when she's flat-out winging it then the DM is doing it wrong.....Part of the job of DM is to be able to run the same game the same way regardless of what you have or have not prepared, or what curveballs your players have just thrown at you. It's the old duck analogy: calm and placid on the surface but paddling like hell under the water where you can't see it.

Don't you mean to say "The job of the DM as I see it is....."??? Because to me and my players the "DMs job" is MUCH different lol

Also, instead of worrying about being in "conflict of interest", embrace it! Put yourself in the heads of those monsters and think "what can we do to squash these annoying little bugs, or at least hurt them enough that they go away and leave us alone?" You're not a computer processor.

Again you are very condescending....no, I am not a computer processor but I am also not so arrogant as to presume that I am unbiased when deciding things on the fly. Though I have heard tales of such arrogant DMs

.....and if a player is playing the monsters doesn't that conflict their interest even worse?

I have a person play them who is not running a character.

 

[shoak1]

Personally, resting has not been a problem for my game at all. I think the mechanics as they exist work fine...in conjunction with the story. I can understand how a group approaching it from a purely gamist angle might see things differently. But then, I don't tend to divorce the game and the story as much as you seem to do.

I don't divorce the game from the story - my stories are integral to the game. But like millions of Americans who go to watch movies or theater, my players are quite content with the story being written by someone else, as long as they can act in it and have a role in deciding the outcome. Believe it or not, many players PREFER not to do any heavy lifting story-wise or direction wise and just enjoy the game. Those approaching D and D from a purist rpg angle on the other hand, have the attitude that the players should dictate the story, or at least should have a major role in it.

 

[shoak1]

Not every system is designed to cater to every player or their preferences. Have you considered a more robust ruleset/edition? One better suited to your table's preferences?

LOL perhaps you are trying to be helpful but it seems whenever anyone doesn't like something about 5e, the wagons get circled and we get tossed dozens of variations of these suggestions:

1) "If you perceive a problem, relax - just have the DM change the rule to suit your table. D and D is soooo awesome that way!" (big smile)
2) "Perhaps you should try a different game more suited to your (cough) "preferences""?
3) "Why get worked up over something as trivial as combat or balance?" (confused look) "Don't you know D and D is an rpg, not a wargame?"

If you hardcore rpgers started seeing giant stat blocks and multi page encounter diagrams replacing your yummy background, history, and motivations in modules, you would be crying foul too. And odds are you wouldn't find the above 3 suggestions "helpful."
"Gee why you getting so worked up over the module lacking something as silly and trivial as the history of the region? Just make it up yourself if you find it so important, or go find a more fluffy game that might be better suited to your preferences - I hear 5e was totally rpgish, you might start there (helpful smile)."