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

[EpicureanDM]

I always allow players to determine how much in-game time their short and long rests use. They rarely choose anything other than "instantaneous". Once in a while, some players make an argument for a certain rest (short or long) to take a particular amount of time for reasons that fit the narrative. And I go with what the players want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's worked for multiple, different groups of players. I often encourage DMs to try it because it usually reveals just how little the players care about in-game time between rests. It seems like it would feel artificial, but it produces enough fun play that people tend to forget worries about artificiality.

Well, the DM is a player too, and I certainly would care. I don't think all my players would be as sanguine as yours about it either.

 

[Oofta]

It's worked for multiple, different groups of players. I often encourage DMs to try it because it usually reveals just how little the players care about in-game time between rests. It seems like it would feel artificial, but it produces enough fun play that people tend to forget worries about artificiality.

I use the gritty rest rules, they work fine. Glad your solution works for you, it would not work for me.

 

[Zaukrie]

I liked how 4E handled it, for the most part. But the idea of hit points vs wounds is very interesting.

I'd also be good with more random refreshes of powers like the recharge mechanic for monsters.

 

[Zaukrie]

It's hard to understand the most important function of the rest system: control of the game's pacing. It's an artificial restraint on the recovery of the characters' limited resources. It makes the game challenging and rewarding. The biggest hurdle to accepting this idea comes from players and DMs internalizing the idea that "rest" should be meas...................

Every 5e group I've introduced to this rest system has enjoyed it.

This is a great idea.

 

[Yaarel]

This post continues a thought experiment from earlier in thread.

The standard rest is: each 24 hours has two short rests and one long rest. In other words, there are three rests per day. And about two or three encounters before the next rest.

A way to simplify this is: there is only one kind of rest. Every rest only grants half hit dice.

The player can choose to spend these hit dice during the rest, or save them to spend later.

To go from both zero hit dice and zero hit points to both max hit dice and max hit points takes four rests. (Two rests refresh the hit points. Two rests regain the extra max hit dice.) In other words, total recovery takes about four rests.



To distinguish between the "long rest" spell recovery versus the "short rest" spell recovery:

One can only recover long-rest spell slots if at maximum hit points at the end of a rest.

By contrast, one can recover a short-rest spell slots whether at max hit points or not.

So a Warlock is a bit more rough-and-tumble. A Wizard must be at peak to prepare magic.



Since there is only one kind of rest, the DM can easily determine the amount of time to qualify as a rest, whether 15 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours, 1 week, or 2 weeks, or by frequency per level or per encounter.

 

[EpicureanDM]

This post continues a thought experiment from earlier in thread.

The standard rest is: each 24 hours has two short rests and one long rest. In other words, there are three rests per day. And about two or three encounters before the next rest.

I appreciate the impulse to design some sort of new mechanical system that will find the sweet spot between metagame resource management and in-game narrative. That's a bit of a distraction, though, from what I consider the bigger flaw in your idea: players still largely control when rests happen and they will try to game them in a way that maximizes recovery and minimizes risk. This is the central tension underlying all of the hand-wringing over rest. Players want to minimize risk by maximizing rest while DMs struggle to find ways to swing the balance towards risk without seeming unfair or arbitrary.

The greatest strength of my house rule is its simplicity. There's no negotiation, no ambiguity, no jockeying to get around your new house rules. Players know exactly what rests will come and when. In a way, their risk is somewhat minimized. They don't have to worry about whether the DM's going to contrive to keep them from getting a short rest that they want. The schedule tells them when the next rest - next resource recharge - comes. So it's up to them to play smart or find clever ways of managing if they used resources too freely in previous encounters. As the DM, you're short-circuiting all of those tedious negotiations about whether the party can find a safe place to rest in the dungeon. And the players always have a safety valve if they want to recharge faster. But I've very rarely seen players use that safety valve to force an early long rest. They generally do their best with limited resources rather than take the increased difficulty.

 

[Yaarel]

I appreciate the impulse to design some sort of new mechanical system that will find the sweet spot between metagame resource management and in-game narrative. That's a bit of a distraction, though, from what I consider the bigger flaw in your idea: players still largely control when rests happen and they will try to game them in a way that maximizes recovery and minimizes risk. This is the central tension underlying all of the hand-wringing over rest. Players want to minimize risk by maximizing rest while DMs struggle to find ways to swing the balance towards risk without seeming unfair or arbitrary.

The greatest strength of my house rule is its simplicity. There's no negotiation, no ambiguity, no jockeying to get around your new house rules. Players know exactly what rests will come and when. In a way, their risk is somewhat minimized. They don't have to worry about whether the DM's going to contrive to keep them from getting a short rest that they want. The schedule tells them when the next rest - next resource recharge - comes. So it's up to them to play smart or find clever ways of managing if they used resources too freely in previous encounters. As the DM, you're short-circuiting all of those tedious negotiations about whether the party can find a safe place to rest in the dungeon. And the players always have a safety valve if they want to recharge faster. But I've very rarely seen players use that safety valve to force an early long rest. They generally do their best with limited resources rather than take the increased difficulty.

I think everyone agrees that your resting style works well, especially with respect to gaming balance.

Some posts mention a preference to link resting to the narrative, rather than to the mechanical timing the way advancing in levels does. I think the narrative can handle the periodic "breakthrus" that happen across the activities of a character. Yet there is an odd "ding" that happens when leveling up.



Regarding the thought experiment, the DM does control the narrative and mechanical flow of the gaming style, when deciding how long a rest takes. If it is only 15 minutes, the DM intends the players to rest often and normally operate at heightened capacity. If the DM makes a rest 2 weeks, the DM intends the rest to represent physical healing, and for a campaign to be gritty and its magic preparation more scarce. By simplifying the long and short rests into one kind of rest, the DM can more easily dial the style.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I appreciate the impulse to design some sort of new mechanical system that will find the sweet spot between metagame resource management and in-game narrative. That's a bit of a distraction, though, from what I consider the bigger flaw in your idea: players still largely control when rests happen and they will try to game them in a way that maximizes recovery and minimizes risk. This is the central tension underlying all of the hand-wringing over rest. Players want to minimize risk by maximizing rest while DMs struggle to find ways to swing the balance towards risk without seeming unfair or arbitrary.

The greatest strength of my house rule is its simplicity. There's no negotiation, no ambiguity, no jockeying to get around your new house rules. Players know exactly what rests will come and when. In a way, their risk is somewhat minimized. They don't have to worry about whether the DM's going to contrive to keep them from getting a short rest that they want. The schedule tells them when the next rest - next resource recharge - comes. So it's up to them to play smart or find clever ways of managing if they used resources too freely in previous encounters. As the DM, you're short-circuiting all of those tedious negotiations about whether the party can find a safe place to rest in the dungeon. And the players always have a safety valve if they want to recharge faster. But I've very rarely seen players use that safety valve to force an early long rest. They generally do their best with limited resources rather than take the increased difficulty.

And I'd consider this a serious flaw. Players should have an incentive to try to avoid fights. That is both realistic and encourages intelligent gameplay. Your system creates utterly bizarre incentives, such as seeking a fight in order to regain resources and to heal!

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't really get short rest vs encounter reharge ..... the idea of encounter rechrage is that you only get the opportunity to do something once (or twice or whatever) an encounter, which makes a ton of sense in the fiction, IMO. I'm not sure why a short rest would increase my ability to do most of the things a melee fighter does, and who the heck knows how magic works anyway....