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

[Tony Vargas]

Let's separate it from a rest - resting (a normal thing that people do on a regular basis), let's tie recovery to time. You can use the ability again every 4 hours.

Nod, that's a fair first step, but not the whole journey. As long as you tie recovery to a fixed period of time, rather than some more narratively flexible condition, the issue can crop up.

So instead, you're proposing that on a day when you have more encounters, you recover faster. You are able to recover after 5 encounters, let's say. OK, on a normal day that's fine. But when you're traveling, you can't regain your spells now for days, maybe even weeks or months if you don't have any encounters.

That's a similar but more abstract take, yes. It's about what 13th Age does. You get a "full heal-up" after every 4th encounter, usually corresponding with a 'rest' if that fits the flow of the story, but not always. The recharge may come right between two battles, with the recharge being more a matter of momentum. :shrug: The GM preps encounters and can decide to put in another to fit the recharge point in a more dramatically appropriate moment. And, players can decide to 'rest' early and accept a 'campaign loss' - something bad happens while they're recharging their batteries - that whole time-pressure thing, but abstracted to a consistent rule.

So let's try to look at it from a real (fictional) world.

In the 'real fictional' world, the re-charging of D&D characters really doesn't make oodles of sense, anyway (it can be rationalized, but so can changing it from one situation to another). Both the short & long-rest recharge of abilities, and the 6-8 encounter guidelines are concessions to the fact it's a game.

Spell slots require you to reconnect to the magical energy, which takes either time, rest, or sleep. I use time and sleep in my campaign, you regain spell slots while sleeping, or after 24 hours if you don't sleep. This is part of the "physics" of the world and I expect that to remain consistent whether I'm gardening, shopping, traveling or adventuring.

Of course, it's not part of the physics of the world, it's the game mechanics of the system being given the gravitas of realism, when they're just arbitrary & abstract game mechanics. By adding that extra weight to the mechanics, you straightjacket yourself - unnecessarily, IMHO - but it could be worth it depending on the style & feel you're going for. It's perfect for 'CaW,' for instance, where the point /is/ for things to be skewed rather than balanced.

So I'll make the same suggestion again:
Use the gritty realism approach for healing, and the regular resting approach for regaining spells and abilities. Guess what? That's almost identical to AD&D.

It is, and that's a desirable accomplishment if you want more of that AD&D feel - including profound class imbalance in any given day and no 'encounter balance' or CR/encounter guidelines to speak of.

That's a 5e 'modularity' feature: mak'n it more like a prior edition. Mike can tick off a promise delivered. I'm not sure how we got on that tangent, but there it is. You can make 5e run rather a lot like AD&D if that's the campaign you want to run.

Although I still have issues with the solution. Why? Because you still haven't provided any meaningful fiction to explain why I can't stop and take a rest for a week.

It'd presumably go the other-way round. The fiction would imply the changes to the availability and required duration of the 'rest,' just as it implies the pacing of encounters.

So a desert trek might consists of many days of travel, with a few encounters and even fewer 'rests' at the odd well or oasis and a 'long rest' when you get out of the desert and have a chance to recuperate. You'd still sleep every night (or perhaps, day, under some sort of shelter, and travel at night, to beat the heat?) you just wouldn't get the long rest benefits, because of the adverse conditions.

Now, of course, just like crossing the desert in a 747 flying first class is not as draining as walking across it, a 'trek across the desert' with lavish magical resources would be different 'in the real fictional world' - and played through differently, possibly hand-waved.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In the 'real fictional' world, the re-charging of D&D characters really doesn't make oodles of sense, anyway (it can be rationalized, but so can changing it from one situation to another). Both the short & long-rest recharge of abilities, and the 6-8 encounter guidelines are concessions to the fact it's a game.

Of course, it's not part of the physics of the world, it's the game mechanics of the system being given the gravitas of realism, when they're just arbitrary & abstract game mechanics. By adding that extra weight to the mechanics, you straightjacket yourself - unnecessarily, IMHO - but it could be worth it depending on the style & feel you're going for. It's perfect for 'CaW,' for instance, where the point /is/ for things to be skewed rather than balanced.

I just prefer the effects of the rules to make sense within the game world. And I prefer consistency in the way the world works in general. I think that it's possible to do both with a good mechanic.

Most of the abilities we're talking about are magical in nature, and I've just always viewed that as requiring a certain amount of attenuation or replenishment of those magical energies. It's a natural process, that occurs over time, but rest, particularly sleep, speeds up the process a bit.

It is, and that's a desirable accomplishment if you want more of that AD&D feel - including profound class imbalance in any given day and no 'encounter balance' or CR/encounter guidelines to speak of.

And of course this change doesn't do anything to class nor encounter balance/CR guidelines. It just means you probably won't have as many hit points on day 6 as day 1. Combined with the exhaustion rules I think it covers the bases pretty well, and makes sense in the game world too.

That's a 5e 'modularity' feature: mak'n it more like a prior edition. Mike can tick off a promise delivered. I'm not sure how we got on that tangent, but there it is. You can make 5e run rather a lot like AD&D if that's the campaign you want to run.

That's what I'm working on, at least in part. But really it's just because there seems to be this opinion that the resting rules break the game. The implication that it wasn't broken at some time in the past. OK, when was that? What system that has such recovery rules (even if it's just spells) that works? Or has it always been broken?

It'd presumably go the other-way round. The fiction would imply the changes to the availability and required duration of the 'rest,' just as it implies the pacing of encounters.

So a desert trek might consists of many days of travel, with a few encounters and even fewer 'rests' at the odd well or oasis and a 'long rest' when you get out of the desert and have a chance to recuperate. You'd still sleep every night (or perhaps, day, under some sort of shelter, and travel at night, to beat the heat?) you just wouldn't get the long rest benefits, because of the adverse conditions.

Now, of course, just like crossing the desert in a 747 flying first class is not as draining as walking across it, a 'trek across the desert' with lavish magical resources would be different 'in the real fictional world' - and played through differently, possibly hand-waved.

I guess what it comes down to, is I'm still not seeing anything that makes sense to me in the fiction. If you're able to sleep every night/day, what are the adverse conditions that are preventing you from recovering your abilities? And the desert is only an example. What if you're wandering across the plains in spring?

More importantly if you are making a decision that the recovery of abilities is slower during overland/wilderness adventuring than a dungeon crawl, then you are pretty much requiring yourself (the DM) to try to come up with some justification why you're recovering much slowly this time. Even if it's not a desert.

So here's another option that will make things tougher across the board.

Spending the day in the desert imposes 1 level of exhaustion. Natives (or those that spend 30 days there to become acclimated), don't suffer this affect.

You cannot benefit from a long rest when suffering a level of exhaustion. You can only remove the level of exhaustion by taking a long rest. If you wanted, you could attach a Constitution saving throw to the effect.

So you start each day without exhaustion (unless you have some from another source), but as long as you're in the desert for consecutive days, you can't benefit from a long rest. You could include the same rule for a short rest. Of course, they might be able to cover some people with greater restoration but probably not all.

The exhaustion rule applies everywhere - dungeon, wilderness, etc.

It could also apply for a day of travel across difficult terrain, although that's negated by a ranger. Not sure that's a bad thing, though.

I suppose if you just want to simplify that to no long rests during the week, it's a similar result. But it seems a bit more fair to have an underlying rule, especially since they may be able to find a way to mitigate it. That's less possible if the rule is just "you can't rest in the desert."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just prefer the effects of the rules to make sense within the game world. And I prefer consistency in the way the world works in general.

The way things work in fiction, and, especially, in reality, aren't always all that consistent, especially on the surface. Rules tend to be more consistent because it's just easier/simpler. An RPG system doesn't have to take the totality of biology into account, nor function as a Grand Unified Theory of everything.

I think that it's possible to do both with a good mechanic.

That you can always gain the same benefit from resting regardless of conditions is consistent, but it doesn't make sense. If you vary things with the situation in a sensible manner, that's inconsistent. So, no, not with a /good/ (here using good to include 'flexible' and 'making sense') mechanic.

However, if, as D&Ders sometimes do, you use the rules as the laws of physics in the campaign world, you can build an iron-clad circular rationalization. FWTW.

Most of the abilities we're talking about are magical in nature, and I've just always viewed that as requiring a certain amount of attenuation or replenishment of those magical energies. It's a natural process, that occurs over time, but rest, particularly sleep, speeds up the process a bit.

Really, that's just like recovering perfectly natural abilities, rest helps, sleep works better. And conditions matter.

It could also make a lot of sense that a party couldn't just 'run on magic' indefinitely. That is, you couldn't just conjure food & water and create safe/comfortable rest environments, with your daily spells, and use those comforts to recharge those same daily spells. The rules don't say anything like that, but it wouldn't be unreasonable... even if it would smack of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

And of course this change doesn't do anything to class nor encounter balance/CR guidelines.

It certainly doesn't do anything to support them.

That's what I'm working on, at least in part. But really it's just because there seems to be this opinion that the resting rules break the game.

I guess that is a little unfair, or at least a bad way to put it. The class & monster designs and resting rules limit the game, if you want to limit yourself to any degree of class balance and/or wish to use CR & encounter building as meaningful guidelines. The fixed time requirements for short/long rests are part of the problem, but so are the class designs, so are the monsters, so is the concept of CR, the exp tables, and the encounter building guidelines - and so is the desire for balanced classes and/or encounters.

Rests are just a single point in that mess that can be used efficiently by the DM to allow him to vary the pacing of his campaign significantly without having the revise everything else that contributes to the issue.

The implication that it wasn't broken at some time in the past. OK, when was that?

D&D came closest c2008-10.

What system that has such recovery rules (even if it's just spells) that works?

13th Age (full heal-up after every 4th encounter), and FATE ('scenes' not fixed units of time) would be two examples of recovery systems not locked into rests of specific duration. Both are still more structured than the idea of the DM simply ruling when a rest is possible and how long it takes based on the current situation in the campaign, which has a very 5e 'DM Empowerment/Rulings-not-Rules' vibe to it, IMHO.

I guess what it comes down to, is I'm still not seeing anything that makes sense to me in the fiction. If you're able to sleep every night/day, what are the adverse conditions that are preventing you from recovering your abilities? And the desert is only an example. What if you're wandering across the plains in spring?

The campaign I use alternate resting in the most features a lot of seagoing adventure, so the rule was that short rests were generally available, but long rests could only be taken at a friendly port or convenient island with fresh food & water, some time on solid ground, and hopefully the odd friendly native...

More importantly if you are making a decision that the recovery of abilities is slower during overland/wilderness adventuring than a dungeon crawl, then you are pretty much requiring yourself (the DM) to try to come up with some justification why you're recovering much slowly this time.

Which seems like less of a problem than always coming up with intense time-pressure or extra encounters crammed into a day, at least to me it does. And, really, it only applies to a journey that's supposed to be challenging and challenging in a way that includes encounters and attrition/resource management.
A journey under benign conditions could be largely hand-waved.

I suppose if you just want to simplify that to no long rests during the week, it's a similar result. But it seems a bit more fair to have an underlying rule, especially since they may be able to find a way to mitigate it. That's less possible if the rule is just "you can't rest in the desert."

To be clear, I'm not championing a variant rule, but just putting forth the idea that the DM could make rulings based on the situation and the pacing of his campaign.

 

[shoak1]

(duplicate post)

 

[shoak1]

D and D has always been and continues to be a resource management game as has been touched on earlier. 5e makes it even more of an issue because in addition to everyone's hp and casters' spells, there are also numerous short/long rest powers for all classes. So any alteration in that underlying principal is going to make the game far different, either necessitating large scale house rules (an unattractive option to many of us), a new edition (yes please?), or a different play style.

Creating/forcing resource management is a problem in a sandbox campaign - it directly conflicts with the idea of the PCs being able to go where and when they want. But its not a problem if the group plays in a more linear, episodic based campaign. In my campaign, we follow a more encounter-to-encounter format. The players get real choices within each encounter, and in the long term course of the campaign, but much fewer choices in "where do we go right now." By making the story more episodic and setting the encounter sequence, I am able to predict and balance resource management / encounter strengths (as well as create lavish 3d dioramas and more in-depth encounters).

 

[Lanefan]

Creating/forcing resource management is a problem in a sandbox campaign - it directly conflicts with the idea of the PCs being able to go where and when they want.

Does it, though?

In the big picture, sure - the PCs can go where they want and probably not worry much about resource management unless they get lost at sea or in a desert or in some other inhospitable place. But within a given adventure, once they've committed to it, then it's still very possible to create a resource management headache for them simply by making it hard or impossible to get any rest.

But its not a problem if the group plays in a more linear, episodic based campaign. In my campaign, we follow a more encounter-to-encounter format. The players get real choices within each encounter, and in the long term course of the campaign, but much fewer choices in "where do we go right now." By making the story more episodic and setting the encounter sequence, I am able to predict and balance resource management / encounter strengths (as well as create lavish 3d dioramas and more in-depth encounters).

If your players don't mind (or don't notice) the lack of choices, all's well.

Can't say this would appeal to me much, however - I'm too chaotic as a player for that.

Lanefan

 

[jasper]

I discovered in White Plume Mountain if I DM really wants to break a short/long rest he can. Wander Monster checks 1 on d12 per 10 minutes. That 6 during a short rest. And 48 checks for a long rest. Combat breaks a rest. I quit rolling (or letting the players roll for the monsters)
So with wandering monster you party then has spent resources like they Tiny Hut to avoid them.

 

[CapnZapp]

D and D has always been and continues to be a resource management game as has been touched on earlier. 5e makes it even more of an issue because in addition to everyone's hp and casters' spells, there are also numerous short/long rest powers for all classes.

But it's not a resource management game!

It might pretend to be, but as long as it doesn't enforce resource replenishment restrictions, it's not much of a game. And as long as it *actively sabotages* any efforts to strengthen this by handing out freebies such as Rope Trick, it has zero credibility as an actual game (of resource management).



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

D and D has always been and continues to be a resource management game as has been touched on earlier. 5e makes it even more of an issue because in addition to everyone's hp and casters' spells, there are also numerous short/long rest powers for all classes.

Well, there are some. The Rogue doesn't have any, and the fighter and barbarian only a couple.

But that makes the resource management /less/ of an issue of class balance, because everyone has some resources to manage. In the classic game, when some classes got daily resources and little else, and others got no such resources at all, balance was much more readily disrupted, and playing the resource-management game well was that much more critical.

So any alteration in that underlying principal is going to make the game far different, either necessitating large scale house rules (an unattractive option to many of us), a new edition (yes please?), or a different play style.

Moving the 'rest' goal-post around isn't exactly extensive house-ruling. But, yes, the primacy of resource management does restrict styles....

Creating/forcing resource management is a problem in a sandbox campaign - it directly conflicts with the idea of the PCs being able to go where and when they want.

Well, or it's a prominent feature of such a campaign, since the rest/press-on decision is always in the players' hands. It's just not so closed a tactical challenge as it is when there's an expected day-length, as encounter & class designs assume...

 

[Tony Vargas]

But it's not a resource management game!

Sure it is. Well, that or the "Weird Wizard Show" Gygax warned us about - DM's choice which way it breaks.

It might pretend to be, but as long as it doesn't enforce resource replenishment restrictions, it's not much of a game.

It has resource-replenishment restrictions: replenishing some resources requires a short rest that must be 1hr; replenishing others requires a long rest that can only be taken once per 24-hr period; HD even require two long rests to fully replenish. Those are restrictions. Enforcing them, like everything else, is up to the DM. That does place limitations on the DM, as well, unless he chooses to change the game, either formally with a 'module' or homebrew that changes those restrictions (in which case he accepts different limitations), or dynamically with rulings in play rather than up-front rules changes.