D&D 5E Short rest benefits during declared long rest?

[BryonD]

I don't think it makes sense to assume that healing happens suddenly at the 8 hour and zero minute mark. So it would be completely reasonable to "pause" the game for a moment if 1 hour+ into a long rest and allow the spending of HD. At the end of the long rest (assuming the fight didn't take an hour.... ) the PCs regain their HP, but they might have less HD for having spent them during the night. This doesn't seem to conflict with either balance or narrative flow.

Because of the way my house rules work, this may not be helpful to most groups. but FWIW:
PCs only heal 10% (not 100%) with a long rest. So they are often going to spend HD for healing either way. Allowing this choice to be "achieved" after the first hour makes sense anyway. You can already spend HD one at a time and see the results before choosing to role another. So if you know you are going to spend 3, I'd give that at the hour mark. You could then decide to spend 4th or more at 1 hour, or the end of the full rest or whenever.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not sure I even understand this. Our group would do a short rest at the beginning of a long rest anyway and use up all of their HD if required. If the PCs did not do this intentionally, then tough luck. If the DM just blew past it, I would retroactively allow them to use up whatever resources they want to use up. But I would do so BEFORE I introduced the combat (or the moment a player questioned it).

 

[BryonD]

I think if you are expecting to get 100% of your HP back, it would make sense to not spend HD. Of course, you are gambling that you make it through. In which case it is fair to say "you might win that gamble and you might lose".

But, again, I don't think it makes sense to declare that hit points pop back on at 8 hours. So even without a HD declaration, a pause is very much reasonable after the (arbitrary) 1 hour mark

I don't think either way is wrong. The key point would be making sure the group and DM are on the same page.


But, then again, my house rule is clearly much better than any of these options.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I don't think the declaration is relevant - it isn't a Short or Long rest until it is over. When the interruption occurs - it qualifies for a short rest, and the PCs can spend Hit Dice. If they choose to forfeit the Short Rest benefits, and the fighting lasts less than 1 hour, then they can count that time towards a Long Rest

If they take the Short Rest benefits, then they need to start the clock over to qualify for the Long Rest benefits.

That's how I would run it.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think the declaration is relevant - it isn't a Short or Long rest until it is over. When the interruption occurs - it qualifies for a short rest, and the PCs can spend Hit Dice. If they choose to forfeit the Short Rest benefits, and the fighting lasts less than 1 hour, then they can count that time towards a Long Rest

If they take the Short Rest benefits, then they need to start the clock over to qualify for the Long Rest benefits.

That's how I would run it.

This us a very tactical / resource management style.

You have inserted the requirement that a short or long rest be declared and that declaration has in game impact on the narrative.

There is nothing remotely wrong with this. I'm not being critical. It just jumped out at me as a very clear and strong example.

To me I look at things as a narrative flow and I want all the mechanics to serve that narrative flow. The narrative flow (for me) should never react to the mechanics.
you have effectively created a world in which the characters are consciously aware of short and long rests and have to set about doing one or the other.

I see it as the characters simply know when they need to rest (and when they need to seriously heal, but that is for another thread). When they rest, they rest.
If they settle down to rest for the night and then decide to get up at 2 AM and go exploring, they still get the results of having rested for "a little while". Same if that 2 AM interruption is due to an attack.

Again, I see the merits of your style and I don't have any issue with it. But I prefer a different approach.

 

[Thyrwyn]

You have inserted the requirement that a short or long rest be declared and that declaration has in game impact on the narrative.

That was the exact opposite of my intent - I was trying to say that ANY declaration would be meaningless. Only when the time has passed can it be determined whether or not it was a Short or Long Rest. I was trying to argue AGAINST the need to declare intent. Sorry I did not explain that clearly

 

[BryonD]

That was the exact opposite of my intent - I was trying to say that ANY declaration would be meaningless.

Cool

sorry I misunderstood.