D&D 5E Slow Rests: Anyone Tried It?

[Dausuul]

So, one thing I've seen discussed as a way to alter the pacing of 5E (for DMs who tend to have fewer encounters per day) is to make "short rest" mean a night's rest, and "long rest" mean several days of downtime in a safe place.

I'm wondering if anyone's tried this, and what the results were? Any pitfalls to be aware of? Did you think it worked?

 

[Thaumaturge]

Not yet. I mentioned it to my group once. The other guy who started in 2e was interested. Those who started in 3e and 4e thought I was speaking martian. I'll probably force the issue at some point, but not yet.

I, too, look forward to reading reports. It seems like wizards and clerics would be pretty severely impacted.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Astrosicebear]

What would be the point if other features were not changed? A long rest accomplished the same mechanical features as a short rest, and moreso. So why not just have them take long rests?

The only difference would be if the DM wanted a slower approach to natural healing. Short rests could not allow hit die to be rolled, only long rests. After a short rest, the characters could regain 1 hit point.

 

[Thaumaturge]

What would be the point if other features were not changed? A long rest accomplished the same mechanical features as a short rest, and moreso. So why not just have them take long rests?

The only difference would be if the DM wanted a slower approach to natural healing. Short rests could not allow hit die to be rolled, only long rests. After a short rest, the characters could regain 1 hit point.

The bolded bit is the primary reason.

Long rests = 5 days & short rests = 8 hours slows the game down. It make things feel a bit more realistic. Instead of healing up overnight, you need 5 days to recover. Some see this as appalling. Some as appealing.

Thaumaturge.

 

[keterys]

Some campaigns also rarely have more than one encounter per day, so for those campaigns it would be a much (much) better balance for daily-using classes.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Some campaigns also rarely have more than one encounter per day, so for those campaigns it would be a much (much) better balance for daily-using classes.

Exactly. Especially for overland travel adventures/scenes, getting a full 6-8 encounters a day is ridiculous. But spreading those out over a week feels just about right.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Dausuul]

What would be the point if other features were not changed? A long rest accomplished the same mechanical features as a short rest, and moreso. So why not just have them take long rests?

Because they can't? I don't understand what you're getting at. If you're traveling in the wilderness or exploring a dungeon, and long rest requires several days of downtime in a safe location, you pretty much can't take long rests mid-adventure. This sharply affects the balance between classes whose abilities are mostly on a short-rest cycle (e.g., fighters, warlocks) and those whose abilities are on a long-rest cycle (e.g., wizards, clerics).

WotC has said 5E is balanced on the assumption of 6-8 encounters between long rests. For a dungeon crawl, that's reasonable; for a wilderness adventure, however, it often isn't. So if one is running a campaign with few dungeon crawls and lots of wilderness adventuring, the "long-rest classes" (casters) have an advantage over the "short-rest classes."

In theory, slow rests would help bring things back into balance, as well as altering the feel of the game to something more restrained and less gonzo. What I'm wondering is how well theory lines up with practice. I can see a number of potential issues, mostly around long-duration utility spells (mage armor is a big one); but I don't know how large those issues loom in actual play.

 

[TwoSix]

Not yet, but I will be once I start DMing 5e. My campaigns are pretty heavily travel-focused, and not very site-focused. 1-2 combats a day is pretty much my norm when actively adventuring.

In general, I expect that characters to go between 3-5 short rests between finding an adequate time and place to be able to take a long rest. I think that will bias the game towards martials and warlocks a little bit, but I'm cautiously OK with that. I'm also ok with expecting casters to either attack or use cantrips or other class features for about 65-75% of their combat actions, and reserve spells for special occasions.

If the party seems to be in a spot where they could really use a long rest but haven't been able to find a safe haven, I'll probably introduce some kind of mana potion, one that either gives back spell slots or allows an additional use of Arcane Recovery (and other classes' equivalents).

Personally, I like the logistical tension of requiring the party to find somewhere safe (and maybe have to MAKE it safe) if they want to take a long rest. I'm also thinking of requiring training time (new level in weeks) to further encourage the party to make frequent returns to civilization.

 

[LapBandit]

House rules I had to put in place for a weekly game (chars level 11):

Long rest being 3 days in a secure locatI n where they do not have to worry about security or food.

Cantrip damage scales at half the normal pace.

Treat arcane spells as equipment, you have to find/acquire them.

 

[drjones]

If you like watching folks cast cantrips and use basic attacks then go for it.

But when you are altering the basic economy of action the entire game is built around, assume that you have completely broken it until proven otherwise. I'm sure the DMG will have some guidance about this though.

I think if one wanted to actually do it right and keep combat interesting for players they would have to look at every single ability that recharges and separate them out into more tiers so you end up with a 4e model of A/E/D/Weekly+. And then you would need to playtest that significantly to see where you messed up the economy too much. Or just handwave pretty much the entire rulebase into a system where you just make up a gritty, low magic story together by fudging the enemy math to fit the story you want.