This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Reynard]

One of the arguments for per-encounter abilities (both in new 3.5 supplements and 4e) has been this bugaboo about adventures coming to a halt 3 encounters in to the day because all the spellcasters and other per-day classes end up tapped of resources.

I think it is bunk. First of all, there are lots of ways to make sure the casters have plenty of resources at their disposal, and still maintain the aspect of resource management -- scrolls and wands leap immediately to mind. Second of all, part of that whole resource management "mini-game" that makes D&D great is, well, actually managing your resources. If your party is going into the Pit of Endless Orcs or somesuch -- and all the players/PCs know what resources they have available -- it seems they would move strategically and engage in tactics that allow those resources to be used to their fullest.

Of course, part of the problem is that long term exploration isn't really a part of D&D and hasn't been since 1E (but I am a neo-grognard, so what do I know?) Set piece action sequences and summer-blockbuster "coolness" is what seems to drive thegame these days, so of course the PCs are going to burn all their best toys as soon as the proverbial stuff hits the fan, right? Moreover, this attitude of "well, it is 10 am, let's camp" can only happen if the DM allows it to happen. Dungeons are dangerous -- full of nasty and horrible things, all of which want to eat you and some of which are smart enough to do so while you sleep. PCs that spend 20 hours a day in a campsite produce a lot of sounds and smells that should be attracting everything from goblin guards to hungry carrion crawlers. In addition to all that, it suggests that each room is a fight, with nothing else to do that might take up time (explore, count treasure, decipher ancient glyphs, read the previous adventurer's journal after prying it from his mouldering bones).

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters. Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

NOTE: This isn't intended to be an edition wars thread or an anti-4E thread. It is intended more to talk about playstyles and how game mechanics and subsystems support different playstyles.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One of the arguments for per-encounter abilities (both in new 3.5 supplements and 4e) has been this bugaboo about adventures coming to a halt 3 encounters in to the day because all the spellcasters and other per-day classes end up tapped of resources.

I think it is bunk. First of all, there are lots of ways to make sure the casters have plenty of resources at their disposal, and still maintain the aspect of resource management -- scrolls and wands leap immediately to mind.

They're not part of the Big Six... and generally have lower caster levels and save DCs than the actual character using the items.

At low levels, you don't have the cash or spell stamina to pull this off. (Ironically, you can't get M's Mansion until you're high enough level that you don't need it... but isn't there a 2nd-level equivalent?)

Of course, part of the problem is that long term exploration isn't really a part of D&D and hasn't been since 1E (but I am a neo-grognard, so what do I know?) Set piece action sequences and summer-blockbuster "coolness" is what seems to drive thegame these days, so of course the PCs are going to burn all their best toys as soon as the proverbial stuff hits the fan, right? Moreover, this attitude of "well, it is 10 am, let's camp" can only happen if the DM allows it to happen. Dungeons are dangerous -- full of nasty and horrible things, all of which want to eat you and some of which are smart enough to do so while you sleep. PCs that spend 20 hours a day in a campsite produce a lot of sounds and smells that should be attracting everything from goblin guards to hungry carrion crawlers. In addition to all that, it suggests that each room is a fight, with nothing else to do that might take up time (explore, count treasure, decipher ancient glyphs, read the previous adventurer's journal after prying it from his mouldering bones).

This remind me why I don't like big dungeons. Can't the PCs leave the dungeon at night? If you ask me, that makes sense, and saves on torches too

In most campaigns I've been in, little action takes place underground. It's usually in cities or wilderness.

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters. Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

In some ways I can see it being more fun. I'd rather have fewer but more interesting encounters per day than four lame encounters per day (with the last one having the PCs on the ropes, not due to anything the NPCs are doing, but because the PCs are running low on resources).

So, two powerful encounters, everyone is tapped out. You're not likely to face the two encounters at 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM though Alas, this tends to overpower mages.

IME few GMs have the ability to use four encounters per day anyway. It's just hard coming up with some rational reason why there would be so many almost random encounters in just one day, unless the PCs are in a dungeon (where the monster population is quite large). A lot of GMs don't like random encounters. Even if the PCs aren't interested in taking a nap early in the day, they're still not going to fight a lot of things if the GM cannot or will not use lots of encounters per day.

Almost off-topic, but sleeping encounters are really irritating. They're hard to set up from the GM's point of view (harder still due to having to ask sleeping arrangements yet not tipping off the players) and then for the players, simply getting out of bed is annoying. The last time I was involved in a night encounter, it took me a round just to wake up*, get up and draw my sword, and by the time I was ready for action my horse (Wild Cohort, not tied up at night, didn't go prone either)** had attacked and killed the bad guy. They're also really random in that if the PC keeping watch fails their skill check, the whole party can die (slight exaggeration). Our party survived that night only because the bad guy wanted to steal our McGuffin rather than kill us (too bad for him my horse didn't feel merciful).

And, of course, wizards don't want to "waste" spell slots on spells like Alarm because, even at high levels, you only have a limited number of low level spell slots. I'm hoping 4e fixes this problem with its "silo" approach.

*Initiative issues. Grrr... plus, realistically, most people aren't likely to fly awake. Then again, I've never been attacked in my sleep, so what do I know...

**It has Int 2, sine Wild Cohort does not make the mount intelligent, and that was in fact exactly what I wanted in my warhorse, but I had taught it to attack. (Arabian horses were often taught this trick, so it's real.) Also, I think horses sleep upright, but I've never seen a sleeping wild horse or zebra, so what do I know...

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I dislike the 'Out of spells, lets rest' mindset and my games don't run that way. I expect spell casters to run out of spells if they fail to manage thier resources....

Of course, the group has the option to stop and let the casters rest for 8 hours.. but that doesn't instantly change the groups sleep-cycle... and the world continues to move. Intelligent BBGs, or even natural scavengers move into the 'cleared' area and possibly prepare ambushes or traps for returning PCs. In many cases its better to continue forward.

If 4E lends to kill this mind-set, I wont mind a bit.

Incidently, my normal campaign games with 6 to 8 hour sessions averaged 4 to 6 encounters per day... when the day culminated in a 'Boss' fight. Long-term travel is often glossed over {unless the party is keyed to that sort of adventure}

 

[freyar]

Well, I am ambivalent about the per-encounter vs per-day thing, but I haven't personally had any issues with players resting very early in my limited DM experience. Published adventures (professional or fan-written) usually seem to keep the action moving, too, sometimes to the point that I think a party would be completely tapped out by the end.

Also, I agree with (Psi) about the city and wilderness encounters. I'm just not likely to run that many encounters per day in my usual play style.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

One of the arguments for per-encounter abilities (both in new 3.5 supplements and 4e) has been this bugaboo about adventures coming to a halt 3 encounters in to the day because all the spellcasters and other per-day classes end up tapped of resources.

I think it is bunk. First of all, there are lots of ways to make sure the casters have plenty of resources at their disposal, and still maintain the aspect of resource management -- scrolls and wands leap immediately to mind.

At level 2?

Because I had my Midwood fugitives group stop at least three times in The Dragonfiend Pact to rest for spells, and it's a TINY dungeon. They were level 2, and when the party's wizards had blown their spells, they were done. Crossbows or quarterstaffs against an increasingly difficult array of enemies simply isn't practical, especially when the wizards have the hit points of wet Kleenex.

The "use magic items" fix is only a fix when the characters are high enough level not to run out of spells anyway.

Moreover, this attitude of "well, it is 10 am, let's camp" can only happen if the DM allows it to happen.

You're right. I should have just killed them when they ran out of spells. Much better.

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters. Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

I think it sucks, and under the current system, at low levels, it's unavoidable unless you just send your players into the Dungeon of Ordinary Sized Rats and a Fiendish Housecat.

 

[Zephrin the Lost]

Our game last night, a 3.5 conversion of Palace of the Silver Princess:

4th level team of 5 pc's and one npc rest after combat w/various bad guys, then set out, encounter evil hexblade and his 8 decanter goblin minions, fight for 14 rounds, one PC gets croaked, rest are pretty beat up and healing is stretched thin. So they left camp at 9:00 am, and were back at camp by 10:00 am at the latest (includes looting the fallen).

True story, based on fact.

--Z

 

[Hypersmurf]

Then again, I've never been attacked in my sleep, so what do I know...

I have! In one of the two LARPs I've ever attended, about ten years ago. (My god... about ten years ago!)

I unfortunately can't recall much beyond "We were attacked in our sleep"... details of how long it took to react etc escape me.

-Hyp.

 

[Wik]

You know, we run RAW right now in our STAP game, and we never experienced any of this "let's rest" nonsense.

I mean, we went through "There is no honor" without stopping once (granted, it was a mostly fighter group, with one cleric, and one dragon shaman). And I don't think the group ever stopped to rest halfway through an adventure, which has led to some exciting climaxes!

That being said, I think "per encounter" abilities will make for a more enjoyable game, and I support them.

 

[cougent]

I always come back to the proverbial answer "It depends."

My DM style is harsh, I challenge my players to manage resources and if they tried camping after 2 encounters I guarantee they would not get much rest. If they leave and come back those empty rooms they cleared are full again, probably with even more uglies because they now know that something came in and killed the first group. If they press on to a point of no return, there is *usually* some place safe to hide for a while, maybe 8 hours. All this may sound like your personal game from Hell... but my players loved it! I told them up front how I DM and what to expect. The first time they got TPK they groused a little, but they all liked their new characters better anyway, so all was good.

If your players want or like 2-3 encounters and then camping, is it that they *really* like that, or that they are just used to it? If they really like it, there is probably not much you can do but to DM that way. If they are just used to it though, then maybe they can be coaxed into changing.

 

[Moggthegob]

yes but realistically, if you got your butt kicked and one of your friends die youre probably going bac kto camp to lick your wounds if not back to town