D&D 5E (2024) What would your ideal rest mechanic look like?

[Micah Sweet]

Same here

The problem I have with the sanctuary idea is that for me anyway that still wouldn't help much. I regularly want to limit long rests even though the current story arc is set in the party's home city where they go to bed at night to sleep snug in their beds. Safe sanctuary limits only seem to help for exploration and dungeon crawls.

True, but my urban play doesn't feature a lot of combat typically, so it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Yaarel]

If multiply the number of slots a caster has times the spell level then add it all up a 10th level full caster has 41 points. During a short rest, that 10th level caster can recover 5 points back, so 5 1st level spells or a 2nd and a 3rd and so on. Depending on style of campaign you could give casters back 1/2 their level in points back, their level back, double or even just say they get all spells back.

Im exploring similar. If the Wizard converts to spell points, it becomes easy to regulate the rate of refreshing spell points.

Unfortunately, the 5e spell point system in the DMs Guide is awkward, almost unworkable for casual play.

A simplification that stays moreorless within the intent of the system is: a slot costs its slot level +1. So a slot 1 spell costs 2 points, and a slot 5 spell costs 6 points.

Inferably, a caster can figure out how to cast an unknown cantrip (slot 0) at the cost of 1 point. I like this possibility.

Despite the fact the official point system includes slots 6, 7, 8, and 9, I feel it is probably more useful to treat these slot levels separately. Note the Warlock class treats slots 6 thru 9 separately, with only the Arcanum able to access them.

In any case, a spell point system is easy regulate when deciding how many points a short rest can replenish.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, a system where there was only one type of rests and those would refresh certain fraction of resources would work pretty perfectly in theory, but not with the sort of features 5e has. And I don't really want D&D to move into spell point/heroic deed point type system, which would be the requirement for managing it being easy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would love it if people would stop using the phrase "it's fantasy" to disregard every single concern about reality breaking, no matter how big or small. It is a spectrum, and rules and players fall on different points along it, and trying to make a pass at realism matters to a lot of people.

Yeah, well, I call 'em as I see 'em. And D&D combat, where people get into more than a dozen different sword and spell fights in one single day, every day, for days on end (and getting potentially knocked unconscious a half-dozen times)... pretty much throws any sense of "realism" out the window for me.

If you can handwave that away and think that it can still be "realistic" in your mind to have people getting stabbed over and over and over and over again, cool... good on you! But it doesn't mean the rest of us have to stop pointing it out how we disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, well, I call 'em as I see 'em. And D&D combat, where people get into more than a dozen different sword and spell fights in one single day, every day, for days on end (and getting potentially knocked unconscious a half-dozen times)... pretty much throws any sense of "realism" out the window for me.

If you can handwave that away and think that it can still be "realistic" in your mind to have people getting stabbed over and over and over and over again, cool... good on you! But it doesn't mean the rest of us have to stop pointing it out how we disagree.

There are different ways to look at successful attack rolls. And "realism" (or at least a stab at it) can take many forms and may be more effective for any given person in different areas of the game. Not everyone wants a board game out of their ttrpg experience.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are different ways to look at successful attack rolls. And "realism" (or at least a stab at it) can take many forms and may be more effective for any given person in different areas of the game. Not everyone wants a board game out of their ttrpg experience.

Like I said... if you're good with it, happy gaming! All the best to you and your table. But you're the one who complained to me that I called D&D combat "fantasy". If you don't like that I called it unrealistic, there's nothing I can do for you about that. As far as I'm concerned, it is. You may disagree and that's cool... but if you do disagree ya gotta accept that if you quote me when you do that I'm going to respond with why I think you're incorrect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I said... if you're good with it, happy gaming! All the best to you and your table. But you're the one who complained to me that I called D&D combat "fantasy". If you don't like that I called it unrealistic, there's nothing I can do for you about that. As far as I'm concerned, it is. You may disagree and that's cool... but if you do disagree ya gotta accept that if you quote me when you do that I'm going to respond with why I think you're incorrect.

I expected your response. I just think your opinion is in the minority. And that's fine, but sometimes it gets tiring to defend the idea that a fantasy game doesn't mean "literally anything goes, and nothing that's true in the real world matters, so whatever".

 

[Yaarel]

I prefer high-magic characters. So I am comfortable with "nonrealistic".

At the same time, I prefer the narrative to cohere with the mechanics, and viceversa, the mechanics to actualize the narrative. In other words, I want mechanics that make sense narratively.

As a DM I prioritize narrative to adjudicate success or failure of an effort by the player characters. Only if the narrative is ambiguous and can go either way, do I resort to dice rolls.

So, I appreciate when the narrative world works according sensical rules that have verisimilitude, so I can estimate if something is likely to work or not.

Also as a player, when thinking outside the box, I want the narrative world to work in ways that make sense, ... so I know what the "box" of "normal" expectations is, that I might be able to work around.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, a system where there was only one type of rests and those would refresh certain fraction of resources would work pretty perfectly in theory, but not with the sort of features 5e has. And I don't really want D&D to move into spell point/heroic deed point type system, which would be the requirement for managing it being easy.

If the proficiency times per long rest replaces short rests, that would effectively be "one type of rest". Thoughts?

 

[jmartkdr2]

If the proficiency times per long rest replaces short rests, that would effectively be "one type of rest". Thoughts?

For myself: technically an improvement, but I usually find it harder to prevent higher level characters from resting since they have more ways to secure places and there are fewer things that can threaten them. Which means it's getting exponentially harder to attrit them.

Just changing 1/SR to 3/LR would probably be better, though still not great IMO.