Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Larrin" data-source="post: 6288834" data-attributes="member: 55816">I've been a fan of the 5 minute short rest in 4e for since I first heard of it, and it wasn't until I started thinking out of the '4e design box' that I've had any compassion for people wanting longer ones, and in fact considered the benefits to longer short rests.My interpretation of &quot;By-the-book&quot; encounters in 4e is that there are two relevant assumptions:1) it is a full xp budget fight of&nbsp; Level+n.2) You had a short rest before hand.Thus you'd better make short rests short enough that you can fit them into the shortest believable timescales between battles in which characters could rest, and that is about 5 minutes.&nbsp; And I like that, It allows combats to be fun and full of encounter powers and all sorts of things.&nbsp; I never questioned 5 minute short rests.But I've recently questioned is Assumption #1, that each fight should be a full xp-beudget fight, which is definitely a 4e artifact.&nbsp; I'm fine with the idea in general, but there are times when it is a waste of time (random encounters with 6 wolves that take an hour to resolve, but no real benefit to players fun) or not the right flavor for the fight (sweeping through a castle room by room, I posted a thread about that recently)I started wondering &quot;What if a party of 6 only fought 3 creatures of equal level?&quot;&nbsp; and because of the short rest assumption, the answer is &quot;massacre&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; I _experienced_ a module that asked the question &quot;How long does it take 6 PCs with 12 non-minion NPC allies to kill a level appropriate full-xp budget fight?&quot;&nbsp; and the answer was &quot;WHY WOULD ANY DM DO THAT TO HIS PLAYERS?&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; I started wanting to change the way 4e encounters were scaled, and the biggest obstacle is that pesky 5 minute rest making small fights too easy and big fights stupidly large (because monsters have to be tough to take on a 5-minute-rested 4e PC).&nbsp;&nbsp; So now when I look at 5e, and its lack of assuming a full xp-budget fight, I see a definite benefit to characters not getting too well rested too quickly.&nbsp; Short rests don't need to be very short because you don't &quot;need&quot; a short rest to start a new fight.&nbsp; So it should be a length that draws a distinct line between situations that you need need to fight battle after battle with no rest, and situations where you can really recoup after a fight.&nbsp; In my estimations: the difference between 5 mins and 10 mins is irrelevant, really, you aren't changing anything there. The next step of any relevance in 30 mins, which is believable.&nbsp; I'd say its the minimum time at which you can easily say: &quot;You've got time for a rest&quot;. Anything longer than that is being intentionally bothersome.&nbsp; So 30 mins is a narratively appropriate timescale for a rest to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Larrin, post: 6288834, member: 55816"] I've been a fan of the 5 minute short rest in 4e for since I first heard of it, and it wasn't until I started thinking out of the '4e design box' that I've had any compassion for people wanting longer ones, and in fact considered the benefits to longer short rests. My interpretation of "By-the-book" encounters in 4e is that there are two relevant assumptions: 1) it is a full xp budget fight of Level+n. 2) You had a short rest before hand. Thus you'd better make short rests short enough that you can fit them into the shortest believable timescales between battles in which characters could rest, and that is about 5 minutes. And I like that, It allows combats to be fun and full of encounter powers and all sorts of things. I never questioned 5 minute short rests. But I've recently questioned is Assumption #1, that each fight should be a full xp-beudget fight, which is definitely a 4e artifact. I'm fine with the idea in general, but there are times when it is a waste of time (random encounters with 6 wolves that take an hour to resolve, but no real benefit to players fun) or not the right flavor for the fight (sweeping through a castle room by room, I posted a thread about that recently) I started wondering "What if a party of 6 only fought 3 creatures of equal level?" and because of the short rest assumption, the answer is "massacre". I _experienced_ a module that asked the question "How long does it take 6 PCs with 12 non-minion NPC allies to kill a level appropriate full-xp budget fight?" and the answer was "WHY WOULD ANY DM DO THAT TO HIS PLAYERS?". I started wanting to change the way 4e encounters were scaled, and the biggest obstacle is that pesky 5 minute rest making small fights too easy and big fights stupidly large (because monsters have to be tough to take on a 5-minute-rested 4e PC). So now when I look at 5e, and its lack of assuming a full xp-budget fight, I see a definite benefit to characters not getting too well rested too quickly. Short rests don't need to be very short because you don't "need" a short rest to start a new fight. So it should be a length that draws a distinct line between situations that you need need to fight battle after battle with no rest, and situations where you can really recoup after a fight. In my estimations: the difference between 5 mins and 10 mins is irrelevant, really, you aren't changing anything there. The next step of any relevance in 30 mins, which is believable. I'd say its the minimum time at which you can easily say: "You've got time for a rest". Anything longer than that is being intentionally bothersome. So 30 mins is a narratively appropriate timescale for a rest to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification