D&D 5E Why sleeping shouldn't be a long rest

[Coroc]

Besides the 6-8 encounters* between long rests is near impossible w/o TPK if all that encounters are decent fights, I recommend to analyse your party whether there are classes who rely on short rests more than others.

I tend to use the short rest = 8 hours of sleep, Long rest = weekend at the inn (or spa or any other high commodity place) or a week in the wild.

*I see this rule rather that if you talk your way past some mobs that is one encounter, if you resolve a tricky puzzle that is another and so on. That is about the only interpretation that would make sense.
I want challenging fights so the 6-8 fights adventuring day just does not do it, even if there are 2 short rests in between.

 

[S'mon]

I agree with the OP point that a long rest needs to be a resource commitment, or else wilderness adventures don't work without a silly encounter density. Even dungeon adventures suffer, with the PCs encouraged to throw up a Leomund's Tiny Hut every couple fights. Conversely, 1 hour short rests work fine and could even stand to be a bit shorter; but 1 hour in a dungeon adventure does encourage a couple encounters per rest rather than rest after each encounter.

I have mostly been using 1 week long rests and that works fine; 1 week in the wilderness or 3 days in a sanctuary (inn, temple, castle etc) also works well, and is preferable if running a time-critical adventure based around the standard assumptions. The main thing is to avoid overnight LR.

 

[miggyG777]

5E is notorious for being too easy IME if you play by the guidlines for encounters. It is basically like a video game, once you get to a certain point, you just have to put in the time and you will win.

I have to disagree with this one. Ever since I stick to the DMG guidelines, aka. 6-8 medium to hard encounters per long rest, the difficulty has increased significantly.

Now, sorry for that sort-of-rant, maybe it does address your issues--maybe not. To address a specific concern of the players with casters. You are nerfing them. I'm not saying that is bad thing necessarily, but to them it is. Remember that 5E nerfed a lot of spells compared to earlier editions to remove the power difference between casters and non-casters. With your idea, short-rest classes become more powerful because their abilities refresh, while the long-rest classes abilities don't.

Consider the ki points of a Monk or the Warlock's spell slots compared to the spell slots of a Paladin who wants to divine smite. The paladin's slots are much more valuable because you are making them even rarer when you require a longer long rest. Meanwhile, the Monk and Warlock and Battle Master and other short-resters are sitting pretty with most if not all their stuff back.

And this exactly is why it got harder, I nerfed my casters to the point where I actually follow the rules of the DMG. Casters have to manage their resources over the course of 6-8 encounters rather than 2. Before that, they outshone the short rest classes by almost always having all their spells available per encounter.

I certainly agree that resources should be meaningful. But unlike a real war zone, conserving your resources in D&D usually means more auto attacking, something many (but not all) people consider to be mechanically boring as watching paint dry. I would love a happy medium.

This describes the problem that arose with going back how the game was meant to be played. The casters suddenly had to auto attack because their spells were gone and they felt bad about it. It boils down to me having taught them a wrong way to approach the game, which I now have to revert.

But then again, the point stands, that if the way the DMG describes the game should be played, actually is more fun. At first glance it seems as if casters fun resources are spread out more thinly over the adventuring day this way, compared to the short rest classes.
We are still playing on low level, so perhaps them getting more spells with leveling up will fix this and even make progression feel more meaningful. Or maybe I can give the casters different things to do during a fight, i.e cast from scrolls, which in my game should only be done by people that know the arcane arts.

What do you guys, that run more encounters per long-rest do, in terms of making the game fun for your spell-casting classes, if you do that at all, or do you just make them auto attack at some point?

 

[NotAYakk]

*I see this rule rather that if you talk your way past some mobs that is one encounter, if you resolve a tricky puzzle that is another and so on. That is about the only interpretation that would make sense.
I want challenging fights so the 6-8 fights adventuring day just does not do it, even if there are 2 short rests in between.

The thing is, encounters are much harder when you have more of them. The earlier encounters are going to be challenging because nobody wants to burn resources, and the late ones because nobody has resources.

Now, 6-8 can be replaced with 3 scenes. In each scene you have a deadly or deadly+ encounter, and sometimes an easy one as a preamble/post. An easy encounter after a deadly one is going to be harder, and that last easy one after 3 deadly 2 easy and 2 short rests is going to drive your players bonkers.

Easy encounters in 5e don't even take that much time.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have to disagree with this one. Ever since I stick to the DMG guidelines, aka. 6-8 medium to hard encounters per long rest, the difficulty has increased significantly.

I guess that depends on how many encounters you had between long rests before?

Or you could have a dozen easy, or a few deadly, or whatever. It really doesn't matter. I can have what should be an easy or moderate encounter and make it "difficult" simply due to the environment and scenario set-up.

So, you are seeing the game as harder because you have more encounters between rests. Sure, makes sense, but IMO it removes the organic element of chance and real life from the game.

And this exactly is why it got harder, I nerfed my casters to the point where I actually follow the rules of the DMG. Casters have to manage their resources over the course of 6-8 encounters rather than 2. Before that, they outshone the short rest classes by almost always having all their spells available per encounter.

Let's say your party is travelling and has an encounter or two a day, and then gets to "rest" in towns, etc. in between the days. Even with 36 hours they can just stay longer. And casters can still have most of their spells.

But, by having more a more encounters some "adventuring days" and fewer on other days, casters can never know when they will be done. So, some days they rest with tons of spells left over and other days they will run into encounters with no spells left.

This describes the problem that arose with going back how the game was meant to be played. The casters suddenly had to auto attack because their spells were gone and they felt bad about it. It boils down to me having taught them a wrong way to approach the game, which I now have to revert.

But then again, the point stands, that if the way the DMG describes the game should be played, actually is more fun. At first glance it seems as if casters fun resources are spread out more thinly over the adventuring day this way, compared to the short rest classes.
We are still playing on low level, so perhaps them getting more spells with leveling up will fix this and even make progression feel more meaningful. Or maybe I can give the casters different things to do during a fight, i.e cast from scrolls, which in my game should only be done by people that know the arcane arts.

What do you guys, that run more encounters per long-rest do, in terms of making the game fun for your spell-casting classes, if you do that at all, or do you just make them auto attack at some point?

Well, a lot of spells are attack spells. But if you are more inferring to cantrips, that was why 5E had at-will attack cantrips, which can keep up for the most part with martial classes.

Now, also, why should they "feel bad" when their spells are depleted? And it is confusing. You nerf casters by changing your long rests, but then worry that they run out of slots and feel bad about it.

Finally, you repeat a number of times about how the game was "meant to be played." Just keep in mind, if you will, that the game is played differently by most tables. You seemed to have had one problem, and made a change to "fix" it, but now you are having other issues. So, I guess I have to wonder if your changes really fixed anything?

 

[miggyG777]

Well, a lot of spells are attack spells. But if you are more inferring to cantrips, that was why 5E had at-will attack cantrips, which can keep up for the most part with martial classes.

Now, also, why should they "feel bad" when their spells are depleted? And it is confusing. You nerf casters by changing your long rests, but then worry that they run out of slots and feel bad about it.

Finally, you repeat a number of times about how the game was "meant to be played." Just keep in mind, if you will, that the game is played differently by most tables. You seemed to have had one problem, and made a change to "fix" it, but now you are having other issues. So, I guess I have to wonder if your changes really fixed anything?

Meant to be played, as in, according to how WotC describes it in the DMG and clearly balanced the mechanics around.
What you seem to find confusing is me, describing how I feel the DMG guidelines are impacting the game, that I used to run in a different way.

If I understand your approach correctly, you say, that I should regularly push the party to its limits in terms of resource management, which would be equal to running the recommended amount of encounters per long rest. That way the players will still conserve their resources when there are days with less encounters.

The thing that bothers me about that is, that a level of arbitrariness is needed to create the constant feeling that the party is in a "warzone", as you have described earlier.
Sometimes that just does not suit the scenario the players find themselves in. My players will infer that from the game-world.
Then they will use long rests more readily, especially if the time constraints of the normal long rest are barely a factor. And rightfully so.

If for you it is no problem to have stretches where encounters are merely something the party deals with easily, that is fine. I like them to be challenged in any scenario of play.

But instead of handwaving the logics of the scenario and essentially trying to balance the resting mechanic by adjusting my encounters, as stated in the OP, by either making them harder or throwing more unpredictable attacks at them as you suggest, I just increase the cost of a long rest.

The cost is time and it is always valuable, because the game world changes.

That way I can have a scenario where the party could theoretically safely long rest at any time, but the party doesn't want to. As opposed to, them having to worry that some assassins are trying to murder them every night and that is why they conserve their resources.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Meant to be played, as in, according to how WotC describes it in the DMG and clearly balanced the mechanics around.
What you seem to find confusing is me, describing how I feel the DMG guidelines are impacting the game, that I used to run in a different way.

If I understand your approach correctly, you say, that I should regularly push the party to its limits in terms of resource management, which would be equal to running the recommended amount of encounters per long rest. That way the players will still conserve their resources when there are days with less encounters.

The thing that bothers me about that is, that a level of arbitrariness is needed to create the constant feeling that the party is in a "warzone", as you have described earlier.
Sometimes that just does not suit the scenario the players find themselves in. My players will infer that from the game-world.
Then they will use long rests more readily, especially if the time constraints of the normal long rest are barely a factor. And rightfully so.

If for you it is no problem to have stretches where encounters are merely something the party deals with easily, that is fine. I like them to be challenged in any scenario of play.

But instead of handwaving the logics of the scenario and essentially trying to balance the resting mechanic by adjusting my encounters, as stated in the OP, by either making them harder or throwing more "warzone" like constant attacks at them as you suggest, I just increase the cost of a long rest.

The cost is time and it is always valuable, because the game world changes.

That way I can have a scenario where the party could theoretically safely long rest at any time, but the party doesn't want to. As opposed to, them having to worry that some assassins are trying to murder them every night and that is why they conserve their resources.

I suppose if I experienced how you played before to now, I might have a better picture of it.

My dislike of the DMG guidelines is that it creates too much routine when I have seen people using it. Also since a long rest is normal 8 hours, the "adventuring day" is really the period between long rests, the idea being that after so many encounters, a party's resources will be low or depleted and further encounters create greater and greater risk.

Now, by "war zone" resource management, I mean that, while a single fireball could crush a group of kobolds, the threat they likely represent is not worth the resource. Sure, it is a power-trip to wipe out a threat with a single spell, and if the character is "going back to bed" and getting a long rest afterwards, why not, right? Well, while I don't expect assassins to come in every night while resting, I like a game where resources are used as needed not just when desired because you never know what is to come.

With the DMG guidelines, a lot of that is lost IMO.

So, it isn't that you plan to push a party to its limits. It happens organically enough if you design/play with a mindset of real life drive, concerns, etc. The tipping point comes when the party realizes they are approaching a point of no return. As you understand, other times the encounters are easy and of little threat, but in the concept of a real world that makes sense.

I find it abhorrent that XGtE has encounters based on party level, not monster rarity. I mean, do random encounters and such become more dangerous simply because the characters are higher level? Is the world just becoming more and more dangerous? Did those threats not exist before?

At level 1, humanoids and such are the common threats in most games. At level 20, it is fiends and dragons. So, what happened to all the orcs? Where have all the goblins gone? And where were the fiends and dragons at level 1?

Let me ask you this: how often does your party seek to avoid conflict or need to run from a fight because otherwise they know they will die???

I use truly random encounters. In 2E, I had a game begin, very first encounter, was an age 8 green dragon. YIKES!, right? You bet. How was I going to work that into the story? How was it possible the characters would survive? Well, since we started in a small town, the character awoke that morning to the dragon raiding the town. They hid, they ran, some of their friends and family members were killed. After the dragon left, what could they do? There was no way they could fight a dragon, it was insanely beyond them. So, they decided they needed to alert the local ruler and find heroes who could handle the dragon.

And how often do they encounter something that runs away from them? At lower levels, not often, but imagine being in world of magic and you are an orc in a small war party. You happen about 5 travelers, but three are riding phantom steeds, one is on a pegasus, and another striding alongside a large wolf. Some have heavy armor, others rich robes and staffs, etc. Even outnumbering the party 3 to 1, the orcs should hesitate. Why? Because in a magic world they understand those are likely heroes with power. A single fireball could destroy half of them! Unless they could ambush them, get the upper hand, or something, the fight is not worth the risk. Most of the time, the orcs should (IMO) seek a non-hostile solution or simply run.

I understand a lot of this depends on the game world. But, if I was a caster, and your solution was to nerf my spellcasting, I would also be upset. The fact you have to find a solution to deal with a new problem indicates to me there might be a better solution to your original problem.

All-in-all, I am not trying to be an ass about it. If there are problems as you see it in your game, and there is a good solution that works for you, great. Sorry for the long response, I generally prefer to keep them brief but this is a topic of interest to me and seeing how other tables operate.

 

[Blue]

@miggyG777, you might gain some inspiration from how 13th Age does it. 13th Age is a d20 from lead designers of D&D 3.0 and 4e that came out a bit before 5e, but they both have very similar philosophies of play and streamlining.

But one big change is that power are (basically) at-will, per-encounter, or per-full-heal-up. A full heal up is divorced from the narrative of sleeping and instead happens every four encounters. They could be a three week trek across a jungle, or could be a morning of dungeon crawling.

Now, the DM can give it out sooner if the encounters are particularly tough. And the players can always take it sooner - at the cost of a campaign setback. Perhaps the werewolves struck again and infected another rancher, or the cultist completed another stage of their ritual and have some demonic reinforcements.

It puts all the pacing control in the DM's hands.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

7 day long rests mess with the spell economy in a big way.

True. The duration of many spells is supposed to last across many encounters (water breathing, dark vision, death ward, higher-slot hex). With a 24-hour short rest, these spells only last for one or two encounters, not 6 to 8.

Druids can no longer spend an entire rest in beast form.

The resting and healing spells also get messed by 7 day long rests. No more casting goodberry before going to sleep. No sleeping in leomund's tiny hut or mordenkainen's magnificent mansion. No point in casting alarm, mordenkainen's faithful hound, or nondetection to protect you while you rest (especially the last two, which are not rituals).

The logistics of buying and carrying rations also becomes a problem. A 7 day long rest requires 14lb of food and 58 pounds of water, per person! After all, you won't be foraging for food - you can't do activities like that during a rest (otherwise it is not restful). Who is carrying all of that? I guess it encourages PCs to buy pack animals but now you have to feed and water those animals, and protect them.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*