# Long rests getting better but GM needs still not being considered



## tetrasodium

The cleric packet can only support so much discussion & it looks like we have at least another week or two till the next packet I figured that with so much (well deserved) focus on the OGL1.1 thing it might not be a bad time to discuss something in every packet so far.  Specifically long rests, they are getting bettyer but still largely written for the wrong side of the GM screen.






Spoiler: Origins Long Rest



A  Long  Rest  is  a  period  of  extended  downtime—
at  least  8  hours  long—during  which  a  creature
sleeps  for  at  least  6  hours  and  performs  no
more  than  2  hours  of  light  activity,  such  as
reading,  talking,  eating,  or  standing  watch.
BENEFITS  OF  THE  REST
At  the  end  of  a  Long  Rest,  a  creature  regains  all
lost  Hit  Points.  The  creature  also  regains  spent
Hit  Dice,  up  to  half  of  the  creature’s  total
number  of  them  (round  down;  minimum  of  one
die).
  A  creature  can’t  benefit  from  more  than  one
Long  Rest  in  a  24-hour  period,  and  a  creature
must  have  at  least  1  Hit  Point  at  the  start  of  the
rest  to  gain  its  benefits.
INTERRUPTING  THE  REST
If  a  Long  Rest  is  interrupted  by  combat  or  by  1
hour  of  walking,  casting  Spells,  or  similar
activity,  the  rest  confers  no  benefit  and  must  be
restarted;  however,  if  the  rest  was  at  least  1
hour  long  before  the  interruption,  the  creature
gains  the  benefits  of  a  Short  Rest.





Spoiler: Expert Long Rest



LONG  REST
A  Long  Rest  is  a  period  of  extended  downtime—
at  least  8  hours  long—available  to  any  creature.
During  a  Long  Rest,  you  sleep  for  at  least  6  hours
and  perform  no  more  than  2  hours  of  light
activity,  such  as  reading,  talking,  eating,  or
standing  watch.
BENEFITS  OF  THE  REST
When  you  finish  a  Long  Rest,  you  gain  the
following  benefits:
Regain  All  HP.  You  regain  all  lost  Hit  Points.
Regain  All  HD.  You  regain  all  spent  Hit  Dice.
HP  Max  Restored.  If  your  Hit  Point  Maximum
was  reduced,  it  returns  to  normal.
Ability  Scores  Restored.  If  any  of  your  Ability
Scores  were  reduced,  they  return  to  normal.
  You  can’t  benefit  from  more  than  one  Long
Rest  in  a  24-hour  period,  and  you  must  have  at
least  1  Hit  Point  at  the  start  of  the  rest  to  gain  its
benefits.
INTERRUPTING  THE  REST
If  a  Long  Rest  is  interrupted  by  combat  or  by  1
hour  of  walking,  casting  Spells,  or  similar
activity,  the  rest  confers  no  benefit  and  must  be
restarted;  however,  if  the  rest  was  at  least  1  hour
long  before  the  interruption,  you  gain  the
benefits  of  a  Short  Rest.





Spoiler: Cleric Long Rest



LONG  REST
A  Long  Rest  is  a  period  of  extended  downtime—
at  least  8  hours  long—available  to  any  creature.
During  a  Long  Rest,  you  sleep  for  at  least  6  hours
and  perform  no  more  than  2  hours  of  light
activity,  such  as  reading,  talking,  eating,  or
standing  watch.
BENEFITS  OF  THE  REST
To  start  a  Long  Rest,  you  must  have  at  least  1  Hit
Point.  When  you  finish  the  rest,  you  gain  the
following  benefits:
Regain  All  HP.  You  regain  all  lost  Hit  Points.
Regain  All  HD.  You  regain  all  spent  Hit  Dice.
HP  Max  Restored.  If  your  Hit  Point  Maximum
was  reduced,  it  returns  to  normal.
Ability  Scores  Restored.  If  any  of  your  Ability
Scores  were  reduced,  they  return  to  normal.
Exhaustion  Reduced.  If  you  are  Exhausted,
your  level  of  exhaustion  decreases  by  1.
  After  you  finish  a  Long  Rest,  you  must  wait  at
least  16  hours  before  starting  another  one.
INTERRUPTING  THE  REST
A  Long  Rest  is  stopped  by  the  following
interruptions:
• Combat
• Casting  a  spell  other  than  a  0-level  spell
• 1  hour  of  walking  or  other  physical  exertion
If  the  rest  was  at  least  1  hour  long  before  the
interruption,  you  gain  the  benefits  of  a  Short
Rest.
  You  can  resume  a  Long  Rest  immediately  after
an  interruption.  If  you  do  so,  the  rest  requires  1
additional  hour  to  finish  per  interruption.



If the goal is diehard every session on loop as the only style of game these are great, but they all cause serious problems for other styles of game.   Doom clocks can be used to make resting more difficult, but eventually players realize that they can call the GM's bluff & dare them into just executing their own campaign with no real consequences if they want a rest whenever they feel like it.  Alternately the doom clocks are strictly enforced & the game winds up an exhausting grind feeling 



Spoiler: like this




Watching that is almost as exhausting as having to run a game under those conditions week after week



Back in 2e resting was in a few forms
Firstly the GM agreed now was a good time for the group to rest up & it was handwaved when _given_ to the party... Everyone is back to full or whatever fraction of complete the GM felt appropriate given the situation.
Secondly the GM expressed that it was not safe or that time was limited in whatever way but the players called the GM's bluff & did it anyways.  This was (I believe)  1hp/day plus a healer's spell slots for cure spells, but _players_ needed to balance that against the fact that the healers couldn't later use those slots while adventuring after _taking_ one
That's about it

In 3.x it varied a little bit because of a feat but effectively the values were still the same at first. 
Once again  the GM agreed now was a good time for the group to rest up & it was handwaved when _given_ to the party... Everyone is back to full or whatever fraction of complete the GM felt appropriate given the situation.
The GM had an extra tool for that handwaved rest though in that they could put use some reciprocity across the group & handwave it for just some PCs by hooking it onto Alice using the long term care action to justify why Bob or whoever is getting such a leg up instead of Alice being yet another pair of eyes on watch rotation or whatever.
After long term care & natural healing the GM a good bit of control over pacing by using the supply of CLW wands top allow HP recovery mid adventure without resource recovery & they didn't need to resort to all battle of helms deep all the time & half minute hero style doom clock since those could be tied to gold (which was still very much required by players).

In 5e there is one recovery speed and a few routes for them but almost none of them are a thing under the GM's control or within their sphere of influence.
There's no doom clock and the GM handwaves _giving_ one to the players with a shrug or there is a doom clockbut the GM decides the PCs need/deserve one for whatever reason & _gives_ one to the party.
The group didn't really need a rest but _claimed_ one anyways because they went to sleep at night instead of going for forced march penalties.
The GM couldn't invent yet _another_ reason why simply sleeping is not an option or couldn't stomach yet another ruleslawyering argument that leaves them with no ground to stand on against "it _says_ 8 hours, _you_ need to _give_ _us_ a long rest so we get back everything." so the players _take_ one and give it to their own PCs to recover literally everything.
Nobody cares about the GM's efforts to deter a 5mwd  and the group _takes_ one anyways to recover literally everything

So far we've not seen a way that the GM can say"no you aren't safe and the five of you spent the night rotating two hour shifts keeping watch because it's literally a hellscape & you knew it when you dared me to TPK the group by _taking_ that rest" -or- "you sleep but it's a long journey & it doesn't make sense to force 6-8 encounters between sunup to sundown, you only get back what I give you while you travel".  short rests & hitdice provide an analog for hp recovery without resource recovery -but- _all_ HD are recovered after the 8 hour nap most of us narratively call "going to sleep at night" & there's no way to link them to gold or similar.  1d&d GMs very much need the ability to play those kinds of cards when it fits the adventure without forcing the group to accept  "we are switching to gritty realism & now will need to juggle all the problems that causes so expect more nerfs too because pretty please this 5mwddoesn't fit right now guys"


----------



## Charlaquin

Random encounter rolls.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Rest variants of the DMG.


----------



## Mistwell

Yeah we've routinely had sleep interrupted when we try to rest in dangerous areas. We do use random encounter rolls, and they're built into a whole lot of WOTC official published adventures. We're playing through Tomb of Annihilation (and have for years now) and it's been an issue which plagued us the whole way through. Even when we got Leomund’s Tiny Hut, we'd sometimes wake to creatures making noise outside (it doesn't block sound) and when the spell dropped we'd sometimes be surrounded by a ton of creatures and a deadly fight because they all found us during the night and went for help or more allies found us and joined up.


----------



## Haplo781

You skipped 4e which incidentally solved this issue along with like 80% of all longstanding problems in D&D.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

tetrasodium said:


> Doom clocks can be used to make resting more difficult, but eventually players realize that they can call the GM's bluff & dare them into just executing their own campaign with no real consequences



PREACH IT BROTHER!!! 

Just glad to hear someone actually admit that, rather than endlessly saying "JUST TIME PRESSURE THEM!".

It's a good post and good analysis (imho).

I feel like the ultimate solution is that we should basically eliminate the concept of Short Rests, and move to something a bit more like 4E and some earlier version of the D&D Next playtest, where you get either have daily resources, or your resources basically are "per combat" (or a mix of the two), and where out of combat, you can essentially spend HD at will (maybe 5 mins of bandaging etc.).

Then have some kind of lesser rest which _prevents exhaustion _(and perhaps even drops 1 level of it - but only 1), and regains some number of HD (possibly and HP), like, maybe 25% or 50%, but doesn't regain any Daily resources. Maybe 4 hours long and you don't have to necessarily sleep or be "safe", but you do have to stop moving. Also you can probably need a gap between it and benefiting from it again (8 hours? 20? I dunno).

A big part of the problem is illustrated here:



tetrasodium said:


> The group didn't really need a rest but _claimed_ one anyways because they went to sleep at night instead of going for forced march penalties.




Parties have to be kind of dumb/suicidal to accept forced march penalties, even with a doom clock or other reasons to hurry, and that absolutely also applies to the -1-type exhaustion from the Cleric packet. That's arguably actually worse in a lot of situations, because it immediately and seriously negatively impacts your ability to fight, whereas 1 of level of exhaustion in the other system is most an out-of-combat annoyance (unless dealing with a ton of grappling or similar).

So I think simultaneously making easier to avoid exhaustion, and giving a way to regain some HP (especially important for parties with limited magical healing), without immediately giving back four million tons of Daily resources would be quite beneficial. What do you think?


----------



## mellored

IMO:  There should be levels of rest.  
I.e.

Poor rest: regain hit dice (spend the ones you have first) and half your spells.
Moderate rest: as written
Comfortable rest:  also regain 2 levels of exhaustion.

Possibly tie in something like getting a level of exhaustion when you drop to 0.  And have Rangers/survival checks can also help make rest more comfortable.


----------



## Smackpixi

tetrasodium said:


> Nobody cares about the GM's efforts to deter a 5mwd and the group _takes_ one anyways to recover literally everything



Aside from the same answers people always give, how about the table just cooperate, ”you can’t rest here.” “Ok”.  “You rest, but are haunted by mysterious nightmares about -future story point- and only recover 1/4 your normal rest” “ok”.  Establish that you’re limiting resting, or may limit resting, or whatever you’re limiting for a greater entertainment purpose and get player buy in.  If you can’t, then accept that players don’t care about verisimilitude or whatever you’re trying to achieve and provide a game that lets everyone nova over and over if that’s what they want.  Or establish that what the players want is for you find evermore ingenious ways to interrupt their resting.

Or whatever, figure out ahead of time outside the game what everyone, including the DM, wants play to be like and compromise on something.  Mechanics are available for abundant resting and scarce resting and discussion amongst the group outside the game can work out anything in between.


----------



## tetrasodium

Haplo781 said:


> You skipped 4e



Yes I did, I skipped 4e when that was a thing.  My 4e experience is extremely limited so I didn't feel comfortable maybe finding the right section of rules & maybe extrapolating how that combines with other aspects of that system in actual play that I may or may not remember right or may hor may not have been exposed to in a couple one shots.    Also 4e was so different from every other edition on a mechanical level that it's difficult to make comparisons.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

The 15minute working day was a issue in the 3x era and I do not believe that the rest rules had much impact.
I also think that the issue is fundamentally a play culture issue and one that can only be solved by discussion and agreement around the table. Rules are never on their own going to address all issue.
In so far as the 4e rules solved this, in 4e the character always had at will and encounter powers in every combat and in most combats a daily power available (assuming they were somewhat conservative with daily's) They generally rested when they ran out of healing surges rather than other power.


----------



## Olrox17

tetrasodium said:


> Also 4e was so different from every other edition on a mechanical level that it's difficult to make comparisons.



As someone who has played and DMed 3e, 4e and 5e extensively, it really wasn't. The biggest difference was the language used and the mechanics > fluff approach.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

tetrasodium said:


> Yes I did, I skipped 4e when that was a thing.  My 4e experience is extremely limited so I didn't feel comfortable maybe finding the right section of rules & maybe extrapolating how that combines with other aspects of that system in actual play that I may or may not remember right or may hor may not have been exposed to in a couple one shots.    Also 4e was so different from every other edition on a mechanical level that it's difficult to make comparisons.



As someone who liked 4E a lot, and played it a ton, I think it's fine to skip, because the approach is different_ enough _that it's less directly relevant.

Just to summarize (and generalizing a little):

1) Everyone had some Daily resources, but only some, because everyone also had Encounter, Utility and At-Will stuff (not getting into the slight deviations from this in Essentials). This by itself reduced the desire for a 5MWD, in part because of the design of the Dailies, which made them only part of your toolkit, and not always the right tool to be using on any given round (indeed often not). All the rest of your toolkit, which was considerable, refreshed between combats, essentially. So PCs were basically never on less 70%-ish of their toolkit in a combat, which made for way less reason to take a rest.

2) Combat was a lot less swing-y than other editions, so there was less feeling that you had to "floor it" and take out scary enemies to prevent deaths etc, but rather to use the right abilities/teamwork to deal with them tactically. I saw a number of TPKs or near-TPKs in 4E, and several of them were against not-super-hard encounters, but ones which required good tactics. One of the near-TPKs showed you couldn't just Daily your way out of a hole if you'd dug deep enough too! They got saved because one player used smarter tactics than the rest and didn't expose himself to withering sling-fire (instead forcing the remaining enemies to essentially come at him one at a time through clever use of terrain/corridors).

3) You pretty much always got back to full HP between combats thanks to Healing Surges, and usually reached a natural stopping point before Healing Surges ran out (I'd say most PCs had slightly too many but that's a separate discussion)

4) The encounter design system (with "roles" for monsters, minions, etc.) was significantly more solid and the math whilst arguably boring, was more reliable than 5E. This also disincentivized wild spending of daily abilities, or attempting to 5MWD things, because it just wasn't that helpful, and easier for a DM to prepare an encounter for it, if it was definitely going to be a 1-encounter day, without much risk of TPK.

Anyway!

I think there's some design inspiration to be had there maybe, but less direct.


----------



## Olrox17

Ruin Explorer said:


> 4) The encounter design system (with "roles" for monsters, minions, etc.) was significantly more solid and the math whilst arguably boring, was more reliable than 5E. This also disincentivized wild spending of daily abilities, or attempting to 5MWD things, because it just wasn't that helpful, and easier for a DM to prepare an encounter for it, if it was definitely going to be a 1-encounter day, without much risk of TPK.



Just a minor disagree here: a normally optimized mid paragon 4e party would absolutely crush any encounter if they went in nova with dailies. Especially if they had a controller or two, holy crap.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Olrox17 said:


> Just a minor disagree here: a normally optimized mid paragon 4e party would absolutely crush any encounter if they went in nova with dailies. Especially if they had a controller or two, holy crap.



That's probably right. We stopped playing 4E fairly early in Paragon because the issues with Immediate Actions, Interrupts, Reactions, abilities that rearranged initiative and so on started slowing the game down so much - yet also seemed dumb not to take because they were many of the best abilities. And yeah control Dailies were definitely by far the most OP ones. So I'm thinking more of the Heroic tier.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I find all or nothing nature of long rests, as well as fully refreshing basically everything with good night's sleep pretty problematic.

I would prefer one night's sleep to refresh only some portion of your resources.


----------



## mellored

Olrox17 said:


> As someone who has played and DMed 3e, 4e and 5e extensively, it really wasn't. The biggest difference was the language used and the mechanics > fluff approach.



Agreed.  4e was more "table top game" and less "role playing".

But as far as resting goes.  It kind of just embraced the 15 minute work day.  You got most of your power back after each battle, so no need to stop.

So to do that in 5e, you would need to reduce the number of spells slots, and increase arcane recovery / channel divinity / wild shape.  And shorten short rest to like 10 minutes.


----------



## Olrox17

mellored said:


> Agreed.  4e was more "table top game" and less "role playing".
> 
> But as far as resting goes.  It kind of just embraced the 15 minute work day.  You got most of your power back after each battle, so no need to stop.
> 
> So to do that in 5e, you would need to reduce the number of spells slots, and increase arcane recovery / channel divinity / wild shape.  And shorten short rest to like 10 minutes.



The 5e warlock might the closest to a 4e AEDU class.


----------



## Willie the Duck

UngainlyTitan said:


> The 15minute working day was a issue in the 3x era and I do not believe that the rest rules had much impact.
> I also think that the issue is fundamentally a play culture issue and one that can only be solved by discussion and agreement around the table. Rules are never on their own going to address all issue.
> In so far as the 4e rules solved this, in 4e the character always had at will and encounter powers in every combat and in most combats a daily power available (assuming they were somewhat conservative with daily's) They generally rested when they ran out of healing surges rather than other power.



Definitely remember the 5/15-minute workday being a thing for 3e. Fundamentally, the 15-minute workday has been an issue pretty much since the play culture of 'if you leave to rest we stop play for the session' and 'my other play group might loot the place while you are gone' ended (and for many, it never existed in the first place). TSR-era D&D often had longer natural-healing and spell memorization times -- and multiple days rest might mean multiple wilderness encounter rolls -- but if an average day's wilderness encounter would drain more resources than you would recover, going into the dungeon in the first place would be a fool's errand (as you need all your resources to survive the trip home). Mechanically, going and resting after every encounter (whenever not challenged by in-game consequences) has always been the strategically optimal choice. I think in most of the TSR-era, there was just a strong play culture about that being cheezy or the like (or just more house rules on the matter), or just more dungeons where in-game consequences (people notice the disturbance and run away with the loot) are more inherent to the setting.


----------



## Haplo781

mellored said:


> Agreed.  4e was more "table top game" and less "role playing".



That's D&D in general. 4e just made the combat engaging enough that there was more reason to actually fight things.


----------



## Stalker0

mellored said:


> IMO:  There should be levels of rest.
> I.e.
> 
> Poor rest: regain hit dice (spend the ones you have first) and half your spells.
> Moderate rest: as written
> Comfortable rest:  also regain 2 levels of exhaustion.
> 
> Possibly tie in something like getting a level of exhaustion when you drop to 0.  And have Rangers/survival checks can also help make rest more comfortable.



This is probably the best idea because it gives the DM a mechanical toolbox to adjust rests. While the DM *always has this power of course*, it never hurts for the rules to grant that specific expectation.

This gives the DM license to say "sleeping in a dungeon ain't great" vs "paying for that luxurious inn does have some benefits".


Probably the biggest difference between 5e and 3e is the removal of CLW or Lesser Vigor wands. So in my experience past the low levels most DMs ensured the party had these, so healing between combats was mostly trivial. Rests were all about spell recovery. 5e there is more a mix


----------



## Flamestrike

tetrasodium said:


> So far we've not seen a way that the GM can say"no




Start with a session zero chat of 'dont try and abuse the 5MWD or else.' Get player consensus on this. If after agreeing, they try anyway...

*Players*: (clearly seeking to abuse the 5MWD) We fall back and Long rest.
*DM*: You get a good nights sleep, but none of the benefits of a long rest.
*Players*: But..
*DM*: No buts about it. Ask me again in... oh I dont know... say 5 or 6 more encounters.


----------



## Irlo

mellored said:


> IMO:  There should be levels of rest.
> I.e.
> 
> Poor rest: regain hit dice (spend the ones you have first) and half your spells.
> Moderate rest: as written
> Comfortable rest:  also regain 2 levels of exhaustion.
> 
> Possibly tie in something like getting a level of exhaustion when you drop to 0.  And have Rangers/survival checks can also help make rest more comfortable.



I like that a lot. I would consider allowing interruptions to the long rest to down-grade the quality a step rather than eliminating the benefits completely. And I can see background traits to mitigate poor rests (soldier - sleeps anywhere).


----------



## Irlo

If the Doom Clock (or, less dramatically,  a Consequence for the Passage of Time) is a bluff, no rules are going to help the DM resolve that situation.

Whatever long rest rules are in place, it's best to give the players agency to decide when and where to try to rest. The DM doesn't need to exert control to approve or deny the attempt. They'll fail or succeed based on circumstances and based on random encounter rolls, if appropriate for the environment. If it's a dangerous place, there will be interruptions. If the DM is just _saying_ it's dangerous but presents no dangers to the PCs, then that's a DM problem that doesn't have a rules-based solution.


----------



## Olrox17

mellored said:


> IMO:  There should be levels of rest.
> I.e.
> 
> Poor rest: regain hit dice (spend the ones you have first) and half your spells.
> Moderate rest: as written
> Comfortable rest:  also regain 2 levels of exhaustion.
> 
> Possibly tie in something like getting a level of exhaustion when you drop to 0.  And have Rangers/survival checks can also help make rest more comfortable.



I think this idea has merit. Sometimes, as a DM, you'd really wish to grant the party a rest to regain a portion of their HP (besides what HD and spells can do, ofc), but also don't want them to regain all of their long rest abilities and spells because that would allow them to destroy the rest of the adventure/dungeon.


----------



## mellored

Olrox17 said:


> The 5e warlock might the closest to a 4e AEDU class.



Part of the problem of 4e was that EVERY class was a warlock.

I mean, I had fun playing it for years.   But I definitely don't want to go all the way back to AEDU again.   Only a few steps closer.

Still, backwards compatability means it can't change much.  So i doubt the number of spell slots will change, and thus the daily power won't either.

Having a few level of rest however seems perfectly backwards compatabile.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Flamestrike said:


> Start with a session zero chat of 'dont try and abuse the 5MWD or else.' Get player consensus on this. If after agreeing, they try anyway...
> 
> *Players*: (clearly seeking to abuse the 5MWD) We fall back and Long rest.
> *DM*: You get a good nights sleep, but none of the benefits of a long rest.
> *Players*: But..
> *DM*: No buts about it. Ask me again in... oh I dont know... say 5 or 6 more encounters.



I am not a fan of a 5mwd, but I would walk right then and there


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mellored said:


> Part of the problem of 4e was that EVERY class was a warlock.



Meanwhile I wish 6e would be based on exactly that... every class being warlock

2 subclasses that can be mix and match
a bunch of mini feats that can augment or add little things
good at will abilities
a growing list of abilities with a small set of (per encounter/short rest) uses that scale to a point.
at later levels a few BIG game changing daily abilities


----------



## Olrox17

mellored said:


> Part of the problem of 4e was that EVERY class was a warlock.
> 
> I mean, I had fun playing it for years.   But I definitely don't want to go all the way back to AEDU again.   Only a few steps closer.
> 
> Still, backwards compatability means it can't change much.  So i doubt the number of spell slots will change, and thus the daily power won't either.
> 
> Having a few level of rest however seems perfectly backwards compatabile.



Yeah, that's a common complaint with AEDU, and one the devs tried to address with the 4e Essentials. I really like AEDU and see the 5e Warlock as the best designed class of the edition, but obviously YMMV.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not a fan of a 5mwd, but I would walk right then and there.



Yeah the idea the DM is breaking the trust as much as the players allegedly "abusing" the 5MWD there.

The DM's response should be "Didn't we agree not to abuse the 5MWD?" and then actual conversation about it, because I don't for even a FRACTION OF SECOND believe the players would genuinely go directly to abusing the 5MWD after agreeing not to. That's not how humans act in a social situation. The reality would be that the session 0 had failed to get the players and the DM on the same pages as to what constituted "abuse". Also the DM clearly isn't as familiar with 5E as he thinks, because 6-8 encounters is not actually how 5E is intended to be balanced. This was literally explained at some length in a video with I believe Jeremy Crawford in like, 2018. I might even be able to dig it up. He says 5E is intended to actually function well with 1, 3, 5 encounters, it's not married to 6-8 "normal" encounters. Now, I think if Crawford is being honest and we should assume he is, then he messed up badly by including both Short Rest and Long Rest characters (pick a lane buddy!), and making short rest an hour, but that's a separate issue.

In general I think the suggestions that this be solved with play style stuff or "agreements" are kind of missing the point of the thread. This is not something impossible to solve mechanically. It's not something that's an issue in every game.

I really do think step 1 to resolving this issue is probably to get all/most classes on the same page re: long/short rest. By far the easiest way to do that, is simply to multiply Short Rest-refilling resources by x3 (i.e. +200% for two imagined Short Rests) and make them Long Rest. It's also nice because you can kind of apply it "ad hoc" as it's a very simple rule of thumb.

Once you've done that, it's a lot easier to look at what's gained from a Long Rest, and how a Long Rest should and should not work. It does temporarily make the "nova" issue worse, but I dunno, I think any attempt to retain Short and Long classes whilst fixing the resting issues I definitely agree 5E has is somewhat doomed.

(The alternative is to remove Short Rests the opposite way, by making SR resources just renew out of combat but there be less of them, but I think that's a lot trickier to design right.)


----------



## AnotherGuy

So it seems like WotC is still behind which is not surprising tbh as they're too busy trying to figure out how to monetise the game

At our table we have
*a short rest* (+/-1 hour) - standard
*a travel rest* (8 hours) - restores half your HD or removes 1 level of exhaustion; and
*a long rest* (24 hour period) - restores all hit points, HD and class/race features - and removes all exhaustion
A long rest can only be had if you're not having to watch your back constantly.

HD have more uses at our table.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Olrox17 said:


> As someone who has played and DMed 3e, 4e and 5e extensively, it really wasn't. The biggest difference was the language used and the mechanics > fluff approach.



Those were more than enough differences for me.


----------



## James Gasik

I had a problem with long rests from the moment they were instituted in the Next playtest.  It was obvious that this wasn't a narrative mechanic; it was intended to be a "after X encounters, recover abilities".  But by saying "it takes Y hours", it became rather immersion breaking.

One of the Next adventures had you exploring some ruins while trying to track down some enemies.  After a few minor encounters (like, literally "three orcs"), we found some clues about where to go.

The DM says "ok, you travel for two weeks and get to..." and the players immediately started adjusting their hit points and so on, naturally assuming they got a long rest.

"No no no, you don't get a long rest, this is still the same game day."

From a mechanical standpoint, sure that made sense.  But in the narrative, it was such a disconnect that several people just checked out and stopped taking the adventure seriously.


----------



## mellored

GMforPowergamers said:


> Meanwhile I wish 6e would be based on exactly that... every class being warlock





Olrox17 said:


> Yeah, that's a common complaint with AEDU, and one the devs tried to address with the 4e Essentials. I really like AEDU and see the 5e Warlock as the best designed class of the edition, but obviously YMMV.



I agree the warlock is the best designed class.  But that doesn't mean I want every class to have the exact same design.

Artificer infusions and monks ki pool
for instance.  Those are good mechanics as well (balance can be tweaked).  Pathfinder 2 Swashbucklers is another one I really like.  So is a 3.5 prepreare wizard (though IMO would go best with an alchemist, preparing potions each night).

And even if I will never personally play it, champion fighter should be included too.  (Though IMO would go best with barbarian.).


----------



## James Gasik

The problem is, designing classes with different resource allocation is apparently too hard for WotC to balance in any real way.  So depending on how the DM runs their games, some classes become much stronger or much weaker than intended.

Take AL for example.  3-4 encounters in a 2 hour session, maybe one short rest.  People with daily resources clean up.  Characters with encounter resources grumble a lot.

The reverse, an old style dungeon crawl, with many small encounters, where hiding in a broom closet for an hour is easy, but an 8 hour rest is impossible?  Warlocks, Monks, and Battlemasters are raring to go while the full casters are like "dude, all we have is cantrips".

Now obviously, a mix of adventure styles would be best, but that's a lot of work to put on a DM, in my opinion.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

How do rests work in Pathfinder?

It seems I don't even remember how they worked in pre 4e D&D... But I don't think they were restoring everything in eight hours...


----------



## Olrox17

Crimson Longinus said:


> How do rests work in Pathfinder?
> 
> It seems I don't even remember how they worked in pre 4e D&D... But I don't think they were restoring everything in eight hours...



If I recall correctly, they restored all spells for spellcasters, and a piddly, pathetic fraction of hit points for everyone else (including casters). So yeah, not ideal and/or balanced.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Olrox17 said:


> If I recall correctly, they restored all spells for spellcasters, and a piddly, pathetic fraction of hit points for everyone else (including casters). So yeah, not ideal and/or balanced.



With spell slots it is rather tricky to come up with an easy and elegant system that would let you regain portion of your spells via resting. Arcane Recovery is already rather clunky, and that sort of mechanic wouldn't work if you wouldn't want the highest level of spells to be recharhable with one rest. With spell points it would be super easy, but those feel wrong for D&D.


----------



## Shiroiken

Irlo said:


> If the Doom Clock (or, less dramatically,  a Consequence for the Passage of Time) is a bluff, no rules are going to help the DM resolve that situation.



This! If the players think there's no consequences, then they'll do what they want. This is not a failure of the rules, but a failure of DMing. I've never suffered much of an issue with the 5MWD, because I will adjust the adventure/world based on the actions of the players. Yeah, this might be more work and it might end your carefully crafted campaign, but if the players can get away with bad behavior, your campaign is going to be ruined anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah the idea the DM is breaking the trust as much as the players allegedly "abusing" the 5MWD there.
> 
> The DM's response should be "Didn't we agree not to abuse the 5MWD?" and then actual conversation about it,



I know I get flak on these boards for it but right there... that is the right answer. Talk, like adults (or as close to adults as a bunch of 40 and 50 year old dudes playing make believe get).

Not every 5mwd is abuse... sometimes it is the flow of the game, and sometimes players are tapping out "dude, I have no HD left 7 hp and our cleric is out of spells... If I take all our potions I might be at 3/4 hp but no resources, so no I am needing to recharge"


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Shiroiken said:


> This! If the players think there's no consequences, then they'll do what they want. This is not a failure of the rules, but a failure of DMing. I've never suffered much of an issue with the 5MWD, because I will adjust the adventure/world based on the actions of the players. Yeah, this might be more work and it might end your carefully crafted campaign, but if the players can get away with bad behavior, your campaign is going to be ruined anyway.



I just don't agree.

There's a reason that this isn't a problem in systems that aren't D&D or a close relative thereof.

It doesn't matter if your Doom clock is a bluff or not in most TTRPGs, and you don't need to some Vietnam war-era insanity where you "Had to destroy the campaign in order to save it!" (jesus wept lol - but that's genuinely what you seem to be saying).

Just fix the system so long rests aren't so central and OP or make it so that encounter where you blow all your resources actually works okay mechanically.


----------



## Olrox17

Shiroiken said:


> This! If the players think there's no consequences, then they'll do what they want. This is not a failure of the rules, but a failure of DMing. I've never suffered much of an issue with the 5MWD, because I will adjust the adventure/world based on the actions of the players. Yeah, this might be more work and it might end your carefully crafted campaign, but if the players can get away with bad behavior, your campaign is going to be ruined anyway.



I think every DM learns to deal with that, sooner or later. Thing is, if it's a problem we can solve directly in the game mechanics (and we can), there's no need to make the DM learning curve steeper than it needs to be.
One of the reason I appreciate 4e over 3e and 5e is that I managed to be a player for years, as anyone in my group was able to DM pretty well with little trouble. Something that can't happen with 3e or 5e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> I had a problem with long rests from the moment they were instituted in the Next playtest.  It was obvious that this wasn't a narrative mechanic; it was intended to be a "after X encounters, recover abilities".  But by saying "it takes Y hours", it became rather immersion breaking.
> 
> One of the Next adventures had you exploring some ruins while trying to track down some enemies.  After a few minor encounters (like, literally "three orcs"), we found some clues about where to go.
> 
> The DM says "ok, you travel for two weeks and get to..." and the players immediately started adjusting their hit points and so on, naturally assuming they got a long rest.
> 
> "No no no, you don't get a long rest, this is still the same game day."
> 
> From a mechanical standpoint, sure that made sense.  But in the narrative, it was such a disconnect that several people just checked out and stopped taking the adventure seriously.



yup... in 2e we used to have random travel encounters in 3e we would too but they turned deadly fast at low levels, 4e it went back to working, and then came 5e low level (we fix this by not playing pre 3rd) random encounters can bedeadly like 3e, and at higher level they are jokes...

by 5th level you throw a 6 week travel with a 15% increase by 2% each non encounter reset to 15% at encounter roll 3/day 1 / at night... you might as well gift wrap xp to your players... the gift wrap will be the flesh of your random encounter


----------



## mellored

Crimson Longinus said:


> Arcane Recovery is already rather clunky, and that sort of mechanic wouldn't work if you wouldn't want the highest level of spells to be recharhable with one rest.



4e psionic classes mostly spammed their lower level stuff, rather than spending points on the big stuff.


Crimson Longinus said:


> With spell points it would be super easy, but those feel wrong for D&D.



I think they would work just fine for sorcerers.

But I also don't think spells are currently balanced across levels very well.  So I wouldn't do it this edition.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> Not every 5mwd is abuse... sometimes it is the flow of the game, and sometimes players are tapping out "dude, I have no HD left 7 hp and our cleric is out of spells... If I take all our potions I might be at 3/4 hp but no resources, so no I am needing to recharge"



Yup. And this is another problem with non-bluff Doom clocks which don't fail forwards in an interesting and fun way (which is actually most Doom clocks sadly).

If the players get unlucky or make a few bad decisions, it can be easy to get some or all of the party into a situation where a Long Rest is basically needed, but if there's no way to "stop the clock", then you're just setting fire to the campaign to make a point, which I think is very funny, but it's not likely to be fun or fondly remembered.

And particularly it's worth noting with the completely asymmetrical way 5E does resources (as opposed to 4E's largely symmetrical approach), it's not uncommon to see a a PC who is out of HP and HD, and the healer is out of heals, even though the Wizard has most of his spells left, and Fiend Warlock literally hasn't taken any damage which wasn't THP.

So what do you do? That one PC really needs a Long Rest, maybe it's mostly because he accidentally took an 80ft drop earlier, and the healer is also kind of in need of one, but maybe you're only 3 encounters in (or 1 even, I've seen people get mangled that bad with crits!). Do you say, oh well he'll just have to get Bobby McFighter killed because otherwise the DM will get mad? I mean come on.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mellored said:


> I agree the warlock is the best designed class.  But that doesn't mean I want every class to have the exact same design.
> 
> Artificer infusions and monks ki pool
> for instance.  Those are good mechanics as well (balance can be tweaked).  Pathfinder 2 Swashbucklers is another one I really like.  So is a 3.5 prepreare wizard (though IMO would go best with an alchemist, preparing potions each night).
> 
> And even if I will never personally play it, champion fighter should be included too.  (Though IMO would go best with barbarian.).



To be fair when I did a full idea I used artificer and warlock as the two base classes but with some having some twists... the monk isn't a bad idea it just needs some work


----------



## AnotherGuy

Crimson Longinus said:


> With spell slots it is rather tricky to come up with an easy and elegant system that would let you regain portion of your spells via resting. Arcane Recovery is already rather clunky, and that sort of mechanic wouldn't work if you wouldn't want the highest level of spells to be recharhable with one rest. With spell points it would be super easy, but those feel wrong for D&D.



That's because WotC refuses to tie spells/abilities to the exhaustion mechanic via the HD system. If rests recovered HD which could then be used to cast spells then it would be simple. Short Rests recover x HD, Long Rests recover x HD. And then you let the player choose how to spend their HD with higher level spells/class features cost more HD.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

mellored said:


> But I also don't think spells are currently balanced across levels very well. So I wouldn't do it this edition.



Yeah that's the big issue with spell point in 5E, spell levels were designed in such a way as to almost be intentionally opposed to being used with any kind of spell point system. The weird "some spells are just much better/worse than other similar ones because TRADITION!!!" really doesn't help either.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> The problem is, designing classes with different resource allocation is apparently too hard for WotC to balance in any real way.  So depending on how the DM runs their games, some classes become much stronger or much weaker than intended.
> 
> Take AL for example.  3-4 encounters in a 2 hour session, maybe one short rest.  People with daily resources clean up.  Characters with encounter resources grumble a lot.
> 
> The reverse, an old style dungeon crawl, with many small encounters, where hiding in a broom closet for an hour is easy, but an 8 hour rest is impossible?  Warlocks, Monks, and Battlemasters are raring to go while the full casters are like "dude, all we have is cantrips".
> 
> Now obviously, a mix of adventure styles would be best, but that's a lot of work to put on a DM, in my opinion.



this is why we balance at character creation... group full of artificers 1 multied into cleric is great, group that is all martial is perfect... mixing those parties would be a nightmare


----------



## Ruin Explorer

AnotherGuy said:


> That's because WotC refuses to tie spells/abilities to the exhaustion mechanic via the HD system. If rests recovered HD which could then be used to cast spells then it would be simple. Short Rests recover x HD, Long Rests recover x HD. And then you let the player choose how to spend their HD with higher level spells/class features cost more HD.



I feel like I've played systems which work like that, but I can't quite place it. It's not entirely unlike how Spire/Heart work (because a lot of abilities/spells inflict Stress of various kinds on you when you use them).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Shiroiken said:


> This! If the players think there's no consequences, then they'll do what they want. This is not a failure of the rules, but a failure of DMing. I've never suffered much of an issue with the 5MWD, because I will adjust the adventure/world based on the actions of the players. Yeah, this might be more work and it might end your carefully crafted campaign, but if the players can get away with bad behavior, your campaign is going to be ruined anyway.



Having doom clocks make for a great adventure or two but it gets old...

We had someone try to run a campaign like that once and after a bit we just got blase "Oh if we don't rush the prince dies... well if we die the prince dies, so we are taking a rest"


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ruin Explorer said:


> I feel like I've played systems which work like that, but I can't quite place it. It's not entirely unlike how Spire/Heart work (because a lot of abilities/spells inflict Stress of various kinds on you when you use them).



Yeah I'm sure there are many systems that do something along those lines. It's just a pity WotC let's tradition stand in the way of being innovative and thus forcing the player base to either do their work via homebrew rules or migrating to a different game.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> And particularly it's worth noting with the completely asymmetrical way 5E does resources (as opposed to 4E's largely symmetrical approach), it's not uncommon to see a a PC who is out of HP and HD, and the healer is out of heals, even though the Wizard has most of his spells left, and Fiend Warlock literally hasn't taken any damage which wasn't THP.



I was introducing 5e to some peeps at a store and started a campign at 1st level... we had 3 new to TTRPG player 1 new to D&D but had TTRPG and TTWG experence and 2 new to 5e but played older editions... 1 of those 3 new ones was a kid like 8 years old...

we had gone a few games gotten to level 3 and we hit where the fighter rushed in got crit by an attack that took perm hp (until long rest) the ranger went to save him and got dropped to 0 3/4 of that was perm hp (until long rest) and the rest of the party had minor bumps and scratches no one had used any real amount of daily stuff... and we had to ask a completely new table "Do we rest now because our combat characters are down and out, or push on... remembering we ALWAYs before pushed on when casters were out of resources" 

Watching this group out of game as a DM for 15 minutes weight not only the options for right now but the implications of if we do this now does it make more sense to have the casters unload big spells early and rest then... blew my mind.  20 years of my experience basicly condensed into this group trying to solve it and then giving up and asking me "What should we do?" and me telling them it depends how they want the game to flow.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> We had someone try to run a campaign like that once and after a bit we just got blase "Oh if we don't rush the prince dies... well if we die the prince dies, so we are taking a rest"



Exactly.

At some point it becomes "Put your mask on first so that you can help others", one of the most basic and practical bits of logic (not instinct, for most people!) out there.

If you're dead, the objective will not be achieved. And a lot of aggressive Doom clocks, the kind where one Long Rest makes a difference, are very fragile, in that in a swingy-ass game like 5E D&D, you can very easily end up, by bad luck or bad ideas or even just misunderstandings, end up in a situation where it's like "Welp...".

D&D just isn't a great game for Doom clocks. I think that's the takeaway really.

I personally don't generally find the players ever abuse the 5MWD, but I what I do find with 5E is that there's no granularity to rests, which comes back to the original purpose of the thread - to give DMs and players some options, mechanically, not try and peer-pressure players into just not using Long Rests even when it make sense lol.


----------



## Shiroiken

Ruin Explorer said:


> I just don't agree.
> 
> There's a reason that this isn't a problem in systems that aren't D&D or a close relative thereof.
> 
> It doesn't matter if your Doom clock is a buff or not in most TTRPGs, and you don't need to some Vietnam war-era insanity where you "Had to destroy the campaign save it!" (jesus wept lol - but that's genuinely what you seem to be saying).
> 
> Just fix the system so long rests aren't so central and OP or make it so that encounter where you blow all your resources actually works okay mechanically.



Nonsense. Any game that has recovery mechanics that aren't tied to some other arbitrary mechanic. such as 13th Age) can easily have this issue. Hell, I've seen the 5MWD occur in 4E, when the benefit was minimal. The only other solution is to have a game mostly with unlimited/at-will abilities, which doesn't fit the feel of D&D for most (see the complaints about 4E).

As for your Vietnam comment, it's not about "saving" the campaign, but saving *all* of your campaigns. "Jesus wept," if I was a player in your game, I'd have no respect for you and would walk all over your campaign, since there's obviously no consequences. You appear to value your predetermined story more than the game itself, and as a player, I can use that to my own benefit (which is ultimately what the 5MWD is all about).



Olrox17 said:


> I think every DM learns to deal with that, sooner or later. Thing is, if it's a problem we can solve directly in the game mechanics (and we can), there's no need to make the DM learning curve steeper than it needs to be.
> One of the reason I appreciate 4e over 3e and 5e is that I managed to be a player for years, as anyone in my group was able to DM pretty well with little trouble. Something that can't happen with 3e or 5e.



Yeah, there's a learn curve, but I'm of the opinion that the DMG should, you know, actually teach people how to DM. While I'm not a fan of 4E, the DMG was really good in that it taught the DM how to run the game the way it was intended. The 3E DMG and 5E DMG do not, assuming the DM would figure out their own playstyle with trial and error, since these editions do not have an assumed style of play. IMO the 1D&D DMG should outline the different types of play, and teach DMs how to run them properly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

AnotherGuy said:


> That's because WotC refuses to tie spells/abilities to the exhaustion mechanic via the HD system. If rests recovered HD which could then be used to cast spells then it would be simple. Short Rests recover x HD, Long Rests recover x HD. And then you let the player choose how to spend their HD with higher level spells/class features cost more HD.



my answer (not that any creators care) is to make each spell it's own resource at prep...

I have an 18 caster stat and am level 5 so I can prep 9 spells 1st-3rd. If I prep detect magic as 1 I can cast it at will no slot. If I prep magic missle I can cast it once for free then spend spell slots (or spend spell slots to up cast holding the 1/free) and that free use comes back on a short rest. If I prep Tasha's laugh it takes a spell slot.  Then use a modified version of the warlock for spell slots where slots upgrade... at 5th level you have 1 1st 2 2nd and 3 3rd level slots... the 3 slots you have at 3rd started at 1st and 'leveled up' 
at 10th level with a 20 caster stat you can prep 14 spells 1st-5th and have 1 3rd level slot 2 4th level slots, and 3 5th level slots per day... this doesn't go up again until 17th level when it becomes 2 3rd 3 4th 4 5th... and you get the equivalent of the arance mystery powers from warlock with no slots just 1/day big booms that prep differently.  THis also means at 17th level when you can prep 22 spells 1st-5th you can load up on at will spells and 1/free per short rest spells since you still only have 9 slots per day.


----------



## Shiroiken

GMforPowergamers said:


> Having doom clocks make for a great adventure or two but it gets old...
> 
> We had someone try to run a campaign like that once and after a bit we just got blase "Oh if we don't rush the prince dies... well if we die the prince dies, so we are taking a rest"



Then the king declares them outlaws for failing to save his son. Now the party has to deal with bounty hunters and assassins because of it.

While an actual Doom Clock gets old, there should normally be consequences for taking a rest. If there's not, then you designed the adventure to assume they will rest at that point (whether you intended it or not). The bad guys should not remain static, waiting in their default location until the party runs across them, but should be reacting. If the party attacks a dungeon, then leaves, they should shore up their defenses, possibly including traps, patrols, increased guards, etc. Remember: if the party does a full 8 hour adventuring day, that leaves 16 hours to respond, so if they do less than an hour a day, they have almost 24 hours to respond (and you can get a lot done in a day, if you put your mind to it).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Shiroiken said:


> Nonsense. Any game that has recovery mechanics that aren't tied to some other arbitrary mechanic. such as 13th Age



Why say nonsense then agree with what I said? That's a close relative of D&D, as I said and you quoted.


Shiroiken said:


> if I was a player in your game, I'd have no respect for you and would walk all over your campaign, since there's obviously no consequences



Sorry, no that's laughable.

The only sort of player that behaves like that is one who has severe and genuine social problems, frankly, that go far beyond "abusing 5MWD". You don't attempt to destroy someone's campaign because they're not aggressive enough about 5MWDs. That's like 4Chan behaviour. Any player behaving that badly is going to be causing you so many other problems.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Shiroiken said:


> Then the king declares them outlaws for failing to save his son. Now the party has to deal with bounty hunters and assassins because of it.



if the king has access to bounty hunters and assassins as good or better then the PCs they will just point out "WHERE were THEY?!?! eithier they should have been with us helping, or send them instead."


Shiroiken said:


> While an actual Doom Clock gets old, there should normally be consequences for taking a rest.



yeah but most examples are like your above one "lets make an illogical more powerful threat"

my answer would be "the prince dies now you have to explain WHY you failed... not under punishments, but under the queens hysterical tears.


Shiroiken said:


> If there's not, then you designed the adventure to assume they will rest at that point (whether you intended it or not). The bad guys should not remain static, waiting in their default location until the party runs across them, but should be reacting.



this NEVER ends well in the long wrong with my group.


Shiroiken said:


> If the party attacks a dungeon, then leaves, they should shore up their defenses, possibly including traps, patrols, increased guards, etc. Remember: if the party does a full 8 hour adventuring day, that leaves 16 hours to respond, so if they do less than an hour a day, they have almost 24 hours to respond (and you can get a lot done in a day, if you put your mind to it).



Kurt and Rachel used to call that "Ever full XP tanks" you leave and can redo the same dungeon knowing the basic lay out with refreshed guards... no need to find a new one no need to go to the next level just MORE xp"


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah but most examples are like your above one "lets make an illogical more powerful threat"
> 
> my answer would be "the prince dies now you have to explain WHY you failed... not under punishments, but under the queens hysterical tears.



Exactly. This guy roleplays.


----------



## overgeeked

Olrox17 said:


> As someone who has played and DMed 3e, 4e and 5e extensively, it really wasn't. The biggest difference was the language used and the mechanics > fluff approach.



Most of your resources being daily recharge (everything but 4E) and most of your resources being encounter recharge (4E) was a huge shift. One that allowed for the game to actually be balanced for a change. Also splitting non-combat from combat magic was a big help. So was calling out class roles and designing the role first then fitting the fiction of the class to that really helped. Etc.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Exactly. This guy roleplays.



Thank you... when I really get into it though my players sometimes wish I just sent assassins and bounty hunters... I play a great grieving _____


----------



## Olrox17

overgeeked said:


> Most of your resources being daily recharge (everything but 4E) and most of your resources being encounter recharge (4E) was a huge shift. One that allowed for the game to actually be balanced for a change. Also splitting non-combat from combat magic was a big help. So was calling out class roles and designing the role first then fitting the fiction of the class to that really helped. Etc.



True enough, and some of those changes are present, to a degree, in 5e as well (short rest recharging powers, rituals). Roles might be making a sneaky comeback in 5.5 (experts, priests, mages, warriors).
But I still think those changes didn't really change the way we played D&D at the table, they just made the game somewhat more enjoyable, overall.


----------



## tetrasodium

Crimson Longinus said:


> How do rests work in Pathfinder?
> 
> It seems I don't even remember how they worked in pre 4e D&D... But I don't think they were restoring everything in eight hours...



pretty muchidentical to 3.5. Long term care, wands of cure light wounds, handwaved "yea now's a good time" recovery.  

spell slot recovery got some discussion but it was more nuanced than was expressed up thread in both PF & 3.x.  Depending on the class it varied a bit.  Most classes needed either a specific time of day or  a good night's rest plus either some peaceful time in study or prayer with interruptions  trivially nixing it if they came at the wrong time.



Shiroiken said:


> Then the king declares them outlaws for failing to save his son. Now the party has to deal with bounty hunters and assassins because of it.
> 
> While an actual Doom Clock gets old, there should normally be consequences for taking a rest. If there's not, then you designed the adventure to assume they will rest at that point (whether you intended it or not). The bad guys should not remain static, waiting in their default location until the party runs across them, but should be reacting. If the party attacks a dungeon, then leaves, they should shore up their defenses, possibly including traps, patrols, increased guards, etc. Remember: if the party does a full 8 hour adventuring day, that leaves 16 hours to respond, so if they do less than an hour a day, they have almost 24 hours to respond (and you can get a lot done in a day, if you put your mind to it).




Your premise depends *entirely* on the _players_ caring about things beyond their own PCs, It's very easy for players to not care & have a great time.  Take this example from a recent campaign of mine. 

So the king declares them outlaws?... "cool MOAR story!"
So hunters come after the party looking for the bounty?... "cool MOAR story!"
So the players need to explain why they failed under the queens hysterical tears?... "cool MOAR story!"
etc

the system is designed so players can long rest in a gutter outside a haunted mansion during a hailstorm & so that they never _require_ anything like regular equipment improvements  that might be put behind difficulties... No matter what the GM puts under the knife of consequence is just  "cool MOAR story!"


----------



## Flamestrike

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not a fan of a 5mwd, but I would walk right then and there




And I'd be happy to see you leave.

You're violating the social contract we (as a group) agreed to at session zero.

You can take those shennanigans to another table, and the current group can get on with the game we agreed to play.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Flamestrike said:


> And I'd be happy to see you leave.
> 
> You're violating the social contract we (as a group) agreed to at session zero.
> 
> You can take those shennanigans to another table, and the current group can get on with the game we agreed to play.



except you said the group... so in this case it would be YOU violating the social contract. YOU think it is us abuseing the 5mwd but since we all agreed not to and everyone but you agreed to an 8 hour rest we DIDN'T think it was shennangins... again your passive agressive "You can but suprise no benfit" instead of talking like an adult is crazy.


----------



## AnotherGuy

GMforPowergamers said:


> my answer would be "the prince dies now you have to explain WHY you failed... not under punishments, but under the queens hysterical tears.



This works. 
They could find themselves stripped of titles, guild memberships and/or perks. 
Perhaps lose the hand to a fair noble maiden. 
Worse case scenario banished.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AnotherGuy said:


> This works.
> They could find themselves stripped of titles, guild memberships and/or perks.
> Perhaps lose the hand to a fair noble maiden.
> Worse case scenario banished.



That is a great answer...for the right players.  A lot of folks IME only really care about the next adventure, and that sort of stuff wouldn't matter to them.


----------



## FallenRX

Haplo781 said:


> You skipped 4e which incidentally solved this issue along with like 80% of all longstanding problems in D&D.



Solved this issue? 4E is the reason this issue exists, no other dnd rest is like 5e's but 4e's.
It started this problem because it wanted to move away from resource attrition to just tactical combat game with powers, and it held over into 5e. 
90% of 5e's problems are 4E hold overs that dont work with a actual normal dnd game. Because 5e is and always will be the 4E devs trying to make a normal dnd game.


----------



## Branduil

Part of the problem is that D&D wants to be "simulationist"(you do X, and Y always happens) without suffering the natural consequences of simulationism (players realize they are always more powerful with frequent rests, try to rest as much as rules allow). The easy fix is to just say players must complete X number of encounters before they can long rest, but that makes the same players complaining about frequent rests mad for "gamifying" rests (as if the current system is not gamified).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Branduil said:


> Part of the problem is that D&D wants to be "simulationist"(you do X, and Y always happens) without suffering the natural consequences of simulationism (players realize they are always more powerful with frequent rests, try to rest as much as rules allow). The easy fix is to just say players must complete X number of encounters before they can long rest, but that makes the same players complaining about frequent rests mad for "gamifying" rests (as if the current system is not gamified).



It's more obviously gamified.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Micah Sweet said:


> That is a great answer...for the right players.  A lot of folks IME only really care about the next adventure, and that sort of stuff wouldn't matter to them.



True. Thankfully 3 or 4 out of my 5 players would care.  
The other is your typical murderhobo - he is new to the group and we are busy "training" him to roleplay.


----------



## FallenRX

Micah Sweet said:


> It's more obviously gamified.



Honestly someone put it to perspective for me recently. Which was basically saying...all of this basically boils down to.
The players doing the rational thing after a serious fight and just watching away, they want to act rationally and we simply do not want them too.

The reality is, after a serious fight, where resources were spent to deal with it quickly, when is it ever rational to not just rest if you can help it to be at your best if you know your going into a dangerous situation, and you can afford too.
The answer is 100% always. Like thats just how it is.

even in real life, after a hard fight people dont go into 5 more, they go rest, because they want to be at their best period when dealing with something possibly dangerous, its never illogical. Wars have been won and lost on this very principal.

The best solution is...a non-mechanical one or a external penalty outside of the characters(like encounters), give them a realistic reason for why they do not have time to rest, and must push on, otherwise, it is 100% always logical to do so, both irl and in game, in every edition.

in Older editions the solution was Dungeon restocking, in the more narrative-driven era its more story consequences.

But the five minute adventuring day issue is just a feature...of like life, people need a reason to risk pushing on, if not its always best to rest and come at it better the next day


----------



## GMforPowergamers

AnotherGuy said:


> True. Thankfully 3 or 4 out of my 5 players would care.
> The other is your typical murderhobo - he is new to the group and we are busy "training" him to roleplay.



Ironically the first time (this is many years and an edition ago) I had a pure RP consequence to a new player everyone was ready for him to not care since he had everybit of murder hoboed up until then... and he was so shocked he didn't know what to do. He was so used to getting just another combat out of it... and he didn't. 
Jon is RUNNING a game right now using my tactics against me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FallenRX said:


> Honestly someone put it to perspective for me recently. Which was basically saying...all of this basically boils down to.
> The players doing the rational thing after a serious fight and just watching away, they want to act rationally and we simply do not want them too.
> 
> The reality is, after a serious fight, where resources were spent to deal with it quickly, when is it ever rational to not just rest if you can help it to be at your best if you know your going into a dangerous situation, and you can afford too.
> The answer is 100% always. Like thats just how it is.
> 
> even in real life, after a hard fight people dont go into 5 more, they go rest, because they want to be at their best period when dealing with something possibly dangerous, its never illogical. Wars have been won and lost on this very principal.



Imagine a seal team, they just escaped with there lives from a firefight, they need more ammo and some of them are hurt. They  can go lay low in that vetranirians office and get some stolen medical help for there friend, rest and recoup... or they can press on and attack another target... can I imagine a situation where they push on and complete something yes 100% but I can imagine WAY more sceneries where they hunker down... especially if they expect to refill ammo and grenades in 8 hours.


----------



## Branduil

The problem is 99% of dungeon crawls are not SEAL team time-critical missions, you can try to make it so but that's unlikely to be a permanently workable solution.

If you look at how D&D is usually actually played, the best solution is probably to simply make most powers per-encounter. But we saw how that went, so...


----------



## mellored

Probably wouldn't work for DnD.

But you could narrativly justify milestone as gaining power by killing stuff.

Like you get spell slots back by collecting reagents from magical monsters.  Clerics need to impress their god with heroic deeds.  Warlocks need sacrifices for their power.  Or some other excuse where resting doesn't work, but action does.

Would be really easy for a vampire game.


----------



## Flamestrike

GMforPowergamers said:


> except you said the group.




I said to the group at Session zero, 'there will be no 5MWD, any attempt to game it will fail, and this campaign adheres to 6 or so encounters per Long rest'.

'No gaming the rest mechanic in this campaign' was discussed during session zero.

Players buy into that at that stage, or they don't (and take no part in the game). My game, I'm the DM, my rules. Dont play if you dont want to.

Players that then attempt to abuse the 5MWD, find it doesnt work. If they sook about that fact, they don't need to bother 'leaving the table' because they'll be getting thrown out of the game quicker than their heads can spin.


----------



## Scott Christian

While DMing, I have always just followed the story. There are many times the PCs have one fight, blow all their resources, and then long rest. But then, when they come to a place where they know there will be a harder road, they have a tendency to play much more reserved. And there are the times they go through all their resources, only to have a second encounter or exploration piece appear unexpectedly. A mixture of these three things (with the last one not happening often), in my opinion, is the best way to approach it. (To be fair and honest, I am also one of those people that find random monster encounters incredibly lame.)
But the story trumps all. If they have a great camp, Leomund's, an awesome ranger or druid that has hidden them well, etc. that just seems like good playing on their part.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Flamestrike said:


> I said to the group at Session zero, 'there will be no 5MWD, any attempt to game it will fail, and this campaign adheres to 6 or so encounters per Long rest'.
> 
> 'No gaming the rest mechanic in this campaign' was discussed during session zero.
> 
> Players buy into that at that stage, or they don't (and take no part in the game). My game, I'm the DM, my rules. Dont play if you dont want to.
> 
> Players that then attempt to abuse the 5MWD, find it doesnt work. If they sook about that fact, they don't need to bother 'leaving the table' because they'll be getting thrown out of the game quicker than their heads can spin.



got it, no need to keep going we will NEVER agree


----------



## tetrasodium

GMforPowergamers said:


> got it, no need to keep going we will NEVER agree



I can't tell if you have been citing a personal opinion on the matter or if you've been playing devils advocate to demonstrate the eca t no win group splitting scenario that 5e rests force a gm  through when they start  trying to put the brakes on the designed in 5mwd.  If it's the latter I'd say that you've forgotten a phrase like "they realized the old style was unpopular and shouldn't be used anymore" or "more of us are in favor of these rests than your half baked homebrew rests" and "look at all the infighting you are creating, this is supposed to be a game, try talking to us if you think there is a problem & see what you can do to work out your problem because we need this rest". Of course if it's the former...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

tetrasodium said:


> I can't tell if you have been citing a personal opinion on the matter or if you've been playing devils advocate to demonstrate the eca t no win group splitting scenario that 5e rests force a gm  through when they start  trying to put the brakes on the designed in 5mwd.



I am speaking form experience that ANY issue is just open communication. I am also speaking as both a player and a DM that sees that having a 5mwd is NOT always people being abusive... sometimes it just makes sense. That's the problem with D&D in general, the system is not designed to bend with the game story.


tetrasodium said:


> If it's the latter I'd say that you've forgotten a phrase like "they realized the old style was unpopular and shouldn't be used anymore" or "more of us are in favor of these rests than your half baked homebrew rests" and "look at all the infighting you are creating, this is supposed to be a game, try talking to us if you think there is a problem & see what you can do to work out your problem because we need this rest". Of course if it's the former...



Lets try this again. If my party is taking a rest after 1 encounter and I don't know why, I am not going to punish them, I am going to ask them "Hey why rest now?".  If my players ARE trying to abuse the system (not something I am used to anymore but HAVE years ago delt with it) I would talk about why I don't like it and find a way to come to an understanding. 
There are times you have to part ways (and passive aggressive "No benefit even though you got 8 hours of rest cause I say so" is totally one I would split from). I have even (way back in 3e) had to ask players to leave for abuse of rules and not getting into the flow of the group, and I had players leave.

The most resent split was with a guy I don't understand his disconnect, and I thought we were doing well. However even that wasn't us refuseing to talk things out.


----------



## Haplo781

FallenRX said:


> Solved this issue? 4E is the reason this issue exists, no other dnd rest is like 5e's but 4e's.
> It started this problem because it wanted to move away from resource attrition to just tactical combat game with powers, and it held over into 5e.
> 90% of 5e's problems are 4E hold overs that dont work with a actual normal dnd game. Because 5e is and always will be the 4E devs trying to make a normal dnd game.



That's... Certainly a take, I guess.


----------



## James Gasik

Haplo781 said:


> That's... Certainly a take, I guess.



A strange one, really.  So even though 4e didn't have many problems with the 5 minute workday, the fact that it was based around encounter resources led to issues in 5e's design?  I mean, no class in 5e has encounter resources*, so I'm not sure how that works.

*Call me crazy, but I don't think you're supposed to rest for 1 hour after every encounter.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> That's... Certainly a take, I guess.



4e solved the 5mwd in many ways... they were taken away in 5e.

4e had milestones that rewarded you a benefit for having more encounters (every 2)
4e had the main thrust of every class be use 1 big daily and 2-3 encounter powers and the at wills as back up... 

in 4e the best use of most characters is to stagger 2 characters pop a daily per encounter at most (unless in case of emergency break glass) not everyone nova then rest.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> A strange one, really.  So even though 4e didn't have many problems with the 5 minute workday, the fact that it was based around encounter resources led to issues in 5e's design?  I mean, no class in 5e has encounter resources*, so I'm not sure how that works.
> 
> *Call me crazy, but I don't think you're supposed to rest for 1 hour after every encounter.



yeah if the short rest was 5-10 mins the fighter and warlock would be per encounter...

the entire base of Action Surge was the Action pt from mile stones so 1/per 2 encounters... but even that I don't often see 2 encounters short rest 2 encounters short rest 2 encounters short rest or long rest after 6...


----------



## James Gasik

GMforPowergamers said:


> 4e solved the 5mwd in many ways... they were taken away in 5e.
> 
> 4e had milestones that rewarded you a benefit for having more encounters (every 2)
> 4e had the main thrust of every class be use 1 big daily and 2-3 encounter powers and the at wills as back up...
> 
> in 4e the best use of most characters is to stagger 2 characters pop a daily per encounter at most (unless in case of emergency break glass) not everyone nova then rest.



Generally, since I never knew how many encounters I would have, I would mostly just use my Dailies up early rather than save them.  The way I saw it, making any encounter shorter would save us healing surges for later, just in case.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> Generally, since I never knew how many encounters I would have, I would mostly just use my Dailies up early rather than save them.  The way I saw it, making any encounter shorter would save us healing surges for later, just in case.



one group I had worked it into a pattern and we had 'assigned' 1st round dailies and 'back up dailies' but once we made the DM go "WHAT!" because he dropped a demon lord on us, and me, kurt, kelly, and jon ALL dropped dailies round 1.  When 4 out of 5 players do that the encounter is VERY curtailed... I will never forget kelly saying "We always said incase of emergency break glass... demon lords are a reason to break glass"

and it depends ont he class Barbarians want to rage early, controllers want to hold for a good moment to drop there big save effect.


----------



## James Gasik

GMforPowergamers said:


> one group I had worked it into a pattern and we had 'assigned' 1st round dailies and 'back up dailies' but once we made the DM go "WHAT!" because he dropped a demon lord on us, and me, kurt, kelly, and jon ALL dropped dailies round 1.  When 4 out of 5 players do that the encounter is VERY curtailed... I will never forget kelly saying "We always said incase of emergency break glass... demon lords are a reason to break glass"
> 
> and it depends ont he class Barbarians want to rage early, controllers want to hold for a good moment to drop there big save effect.



Yeah this is true, most controller dailies need very specific setups to function ideally.  Which usually led to me going "oh this would be a great fight to use Fountain of Flame!" and I'd just do it, because again, who knew what a future fight would be like?

On the other hand, yeah, if your daily just does big damage, turning an Elite into fine red mist at first opportunity seems perfectly legit to me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> Yeah this is true, most controller dailies need very specific setups to function ideally.  Which usually led to me going "oh this would be a great fight to use Fountain of Flame!" and I'd just do it, because again, who knew what a future fight would be like?
> 
> On the other hand, yeah, if your daily just does big damage, turning an Elite into fine red mist at first opportunity seems perfectly legit to me.



yup and a warlord bonus on action pts combined wit a stiker going big encounter then big daily could make solos worry

My biggest gripe with 4e (and 5e) is HPs are all too high... but I have SO seen them not matter in the right moments


----------



## Staffan

FallenRX said:


> Solved this issue? 4E is the reason this issue exists, no other dnd rest is like 5e's but 4e's.
> It started this problem because it wanted to move away from resource attrition to just tactical combat game with powers, and it held over into 5e.
> 90% of 5e's problems are 4E hold overs that dont work with a actual normal dnd game. Because 5e is and always will be the 4E devs trying to make a normal dnd game.



Huh. I'd argue that a significant portion (I wouldn't say 90% though) of 5e's problems are "4e did it that way, and people didn't like 4e, so let's go back to the old way."

Also, I would argue that if players keep wanting to rest in order to refill their abilities and hp, attrition is a bad basis for adventure design.


----------



## tetrasodium

GMforPowergamers said:


> I a*m speaking form experience that ANY issue is just open communication. *I am also speaking as both a player and a DM that sees that having a 5mwd is NOT always people being abusive... sometimes it just makes sense. That's the problem with D&D in general, the system is not designed to bend with the game story.



that sounds familiar...


Spoiler: maybe this is why






tetrasodium said:


> you've forgotten a phrase like "they realized the old style was unpopular and shouldn't be used anymore" or "more of us are in favor of these rests than your half baked homebrew rests" and "look at all the infighting you are creating, this is supposed to be a game*, try talking to [players] if you think there is a problem & see what you can do to work out your problem because we need this rest*". Of course if it's the former...



yea guess that's why


The trouble with just pawning a system problem off on a demand that the GM engage in a discussion is that 5e takes too many steps elsewhere to ensure that the GM starts off standing in quicksand and that the players have no needs at stake should they simply decline to participate & twiddle their thumbs while some fraction of the group_(maybe just a single player)_ makes clear that there is no room for compromise in their self insert power fantasy.  half baked Solutions like gritty realism just make the problem worse because too many things are linked to time rather than rests & the GM will be nerfing some things by switching & ridiculously buffing others in ways that will require wave after wave of "surprise" unannounced nerfs as they are stumbled across.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Lets try this again.* If my party is taking a rest after 1 encounter *and I don't know why, I am not going to *punish* them, I am going to ask them "Hey why rest now?".  If my players ARE trying to abuse the system (not something I am used to anymore but HAVE years ago delt with it) I would talk about why I don't like it and find a way to come to an understanding.
> There are times you have to part ways (and passive aggressive "No benefit even though you got 8 hours of rest cause I say so" is totally one I would split from). I have even (way back in 3e) had to ask players to leave for abuse of rules and not getting into the flow of the group, and I had players leave.
> 
> The most resent split was with a guy I don't understand his disconnect, and I thought we were doing well. However even that wasn't us refuseing to talk things out.




Even your example starts off churning that quicksand with Evard's by setting up a no win loaded question where either the GM doesn't know why the players are _taking_ a rest they don't feel appropriate to _give_ -or- the GM is punishing the players.  The idea that the GM could be the one in the right is not even on the table until they can prove otherwise & the players have no incentive to listen to that attempt in good faith by design of a system that strips away every PC facing pressure for new players to develop the idea that player:GM cross table relationship has symbiotic elements & that the GMisn't just their adversary while taking so many steps to ensure the GM _can't_ look reasonable to their players when trying to subvert the system this way


----------



## FallenRX

Staffan said:


> Huh. I'd argue that a significant portion (I wouldn't say 90% though) of 5e's problems are "4e did it that way, and people didn't like 4e, so let's go back to the old way."
> 
> Also, I would argue that if players keep wanting to rest in order to refill their abilities and hp, attrition is a bad basis for adventure design.



No but they held on to a lot of the design of 4e. Like its style of resting which made sense for a 4e-styled AEDU-based game, where big tactical combats are the point, and long attrition-based adventures are discouraged, but not for a old school-styled resource-based game like they were designing 5e, How healing surges are just the hit dice mechanic but dragged out basically over a longer period(thats all short rests really are), the combat focused based designed, but built around a longer adventuring day, where primary resource attrition is combat/resting(a very 4e concept). A lot of this game is just 4E's ideas being reworked into a more "Normal" dnd game, based on 3e(with some 2e influence.). Even remnants of AEDU are in the game, most of the classes abilities are on a literal short/long rest cycle but dragged out over a longer period, with the rest being at will, or on basic resources, usually daily.

Thats why 4E ideas always seem appealing in 5e, because thats how these mechanics were actually meant to work, because of the basis of 4E is still in the game, just redesigned around to fit a longer/dragged out of combat focused attrition instead of big engagements or setpieces, to better fit the more dungeon crawling style of older games(It works but the combat focus leaves a lot of the procedure and resource management of those games, causes it to feel loose, or messy, but it does actually work).

It ends up in this weird middle space where it doesnt do either well enough without some major changes in either direction(Which seems to be the point since they wanted 5e to be more modular like that).  And a lot of these holdovers lead to issues in the game's design, them wanting to keep a healing surge-like mechanic with hit dice, dragged out adventuring days to 6-8 per day with medium/Hard encounters, the rest based power design also being like that but dragged out made resource attrition a pain, espeically in a combat focused game like 4e instead of the more expedition forced older style of game, and keeping the 4e paradigm of the rest system(Espeically when some Short rest powers are designed like Encounter powers), when it makes no sense for the game, is simply old overs from their design ethos of 4E, that work against some goals of the game.

But this again, was likely on purpose, because they obviously wanted this game to accommodate all styles of DnD, so you can adjust the game like rests, and power recovery rates, to fit the style you want, but they never actually fleshed out those bit, outside of the thin stuff in the DMG.

Thats why i say 4e holdovers have lead to issues in 5e, because if you look to the origin point about many of the design decisions people have with 5e, then tend to source from 4e in some way. And why solutions that feel good, are simply putting them back into their original context, like short rests being 10 minutes, or skill challenges, or giving power-like systems, or just killing them outright and focusing it on what they want to do. Its something fundamental of the quirks of 4E designers adjusting themselves to a more normal style of dnd game(a lot of 5e's design is very mearls still especially). And yes they wanted to respond to the backlash of 4e, by trying to make a not 4e game, but also wanted to take some of the ideas and keep them, because they felt they were good, and worked well(Whole point of Battle master still existing), they just repackaged it into a format that actually was more like a normal DnD game, while accommodating those who do not like that style as well.(Its probably why the alternate rest systems exists, because they thought adjusting that would change the feel of the game enough since powers are still based on that, this is true too an extent).

In the end, some holdovers work, some didnt, and core 5e is suffering a bit from it, luckily it is adjustable, as intended to fit any style of play with a bit of work(Some easily with just some rest system adjustments), the issue is WoTC wants us to do the work, instead of releasing supplements that do this for us(I feel that was a goal of 5e but they didnt think itd sell so didnt wanna do it.) But that has lead to the rather messy inbetween state of 5e.

TLDR: 5e still has a lot of design ideas that source from 4e, because 5e is meant to be a in between edition that uses all of their ideas, and is meant to be adjustable to all styles of DnD, including 4e, the issue is some of those holdovers in the core game work contrary to the attrition based design of 5e, becuase a lot of 4e's design was around tactical combat, not resource-based expeditions.(Luckily there have ways to adjust this to fit better, mainly their rest adjustment systems).

It was more like, "people didnt like our way, so lets go back to the old way, while keeping what we liked from OUR WAY, just letting their way work well enough too"


----------



## tetrasodium

Staffan said:


> Huh. I'd argue that a significant portion (I wouldn't say 90% though) of 5e's problems are "4e did it that way, and people didn't like 4e, so let's go back to the old way."
> 
> Also, I would argue that if players keep wanting to rest in order to refill their abilities and hp, attrition is a bad basis for adventure design.



I don't know.   @FallenRX nicely maps out one example in post#92 but it's not the only example.   Take the acquisition of treasure shifting from flavors of required magic items & magic item churn present in editions prior to 4e to 4e's treasure parcels.  Sure treasure parcels had some amount of good in the way they avoided problems caused when PCs were under & ill equipped but they also eroded the GM's ability to leverage those needs in positive ways.  5e got rid of treasure parcels but wasn't willing to go back the other way  so the system just makes it so PCs don't need _any_ magic items & shoves the resulting problems adding them causes onto the GM.  The end result is that players can't find themselves under or ill equipped -and- the GM can't use the risk of making it harder to get them if the prince from page 3&4 is killed as a credible concern to factor against taking another rest to help control the pace of their own game.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

tetrasodium said:


> they also eroded the GM's ability to leverage those needs in positive ways



Not trying to turn this into a system debate, but how so? I felt like it was the precise opposite. By getting players to actually say what they wanted, I found it was pretty easy to, if there was an item they wanted sufficiently, make it part of the reward offered by an NPC, or they'd learn it was present in the dungeon or see the villain carrying it or whatever. I felt like that let me leverage that better, but maybe I misunderstand? You didn't ever _have_ to give them the item, and players aren't entitled dumbasses (I mean, if they are, why are they in your group lol?). If they let the villain get away and his was still packing his flameburst greatsword or whatever, well, that's where it went!

I think what was a problem was that because you were expected to have so many items, and they were expected to be of X level of power at Y character level, you had to churn through a lot of stuff. I think a more Earthdawn-like system of enhancing items/bonds with items would have worked better but I always think 4E should have drawn more ideas from Earthdawn (which has some similarities to 4E), so I may be biased!

Personally I'd also say 5E's "no-one neeeeeeeeeeeeeeds magic items" feels more weasel-y and less factual the more I've played 5E, especially from level 5 onwards. It's more like "Only non-casters or people reliant on weapon attacks need magic items". YMMV.


----------



## FallenRX

Ruin Explorer said:


> Not trying to turn this into a system debate, but how so? I felt like it was the precise opposite. By getting players to actually say what they wanted, I found it was pretty easy to, if there was an item they wanted sufficiently, make it part of the reward offered by an NPC, or they'd learn it was present in the dungeon or see the villain carrying it or whatever. I felt like that let me leverage that better, but maybe I misunderstand? You didn't ever _have_ to give them the item, and players aren't entitled dumbasses (I mean, if they are, why are they in your group lol?). If they let the villain get away and his was still packing his flameburst greatsword or whatever, well, that's where it went!
> 
> I think what was a problem was that because you were expected to have so many items, and they were expected to be of X level of power at Y character level, you had to churn through a lot of stuff. I think a more Earthdawn-like system of enhancing items/bonds with items would have worked better but I always think 4E should have drawn more ideas from Earthdawn (which has some similarities to 4E), so I may be biased!
> 
> Personally I'd also say 5E's "no-one neeeeeeeeeeeeeeds magic items" feels more weasel-y and less factual the more I've played 5E, especially from level 5 onwards. It's more like "Only non-casters or people reliant on weapon attacks need magic items". YMMV.



Martials needs feats more than magic items, but magic items can take feats place.

But they really werent lying about that, at more you need A magic item to deal with resistances, just a single 1, even just a Moonlight sword. The issue is more central around the game itself than that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yeah I don't think it's a lie, I just think they're mistaken in claiming not giving out magical items will just slightly lower player power across the board. In reality not having many magic items in the mix, particularly weapons, stat-increasers and armour, pushes full casters ahead significantly further as they're far less impacted by it.


----------



## FallenRX

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah I don't think it's a lie, I just think they're mistaken in claiming not giving out magical items will just slightly lower player power across the board. In reality not having many magic items in the mix, particularly weapons, stat-increasers and armour, pushes full casters ahead significantly further as they're far less impacted by it.



Eh not really, Martials get bigger benefits from just taking martial feats. Magic items can help, but only really if you arent giving them too casters, which just makes their power grow even further beyond, making them even stronger.


----------



## tetrasodium

me said:
			
		

> they also eroded the GM's ability to leverage those needs in positive ways



Including that for clarity


Ruin Explorer said:


> Not trying to turn this into a system debate, *but how so*? I felt like it was the precise opposite. By getting players to actually say what they wanted, I found it was pretty easy to, if there was an item they wanted sufficiently, make it part of the reward offered by an NPC, or they'd learn it was present in the dungeon or see the villain carrying it or whatever. I felt like that let me leverage that better, but maybe I misunderstand? You didn't ever _have_ to give them the item, and players aren't entitled dumbasses (I mean, if they are, why are they in your group lol?). If they let the villain get away and his was still packing his flameburst greatsword or whatever, well, that's where it went!
> 
> I think what was a problem was that because you were expected to have so many items, and they were expected to be of X level of power at Y character level, you had to churn through a lot of stuff. I think a more Earthdawn-like system of enhancing items/bonds with items would have worked better but I always think 4E should have drawn more ideas from Earthdawn (which has some similarities to 4E), so I may be biased!
> 
> Personally I'd also say 5E's "no-one neeeeeeeeeeeeeeds magic items" feels more weasel-y and less factual the more I've played 5E, especially from level 5 onwards. It's more like "Only non-casters or people reliant on weapon attacks need magic items". YMMV.




Sometimes the party is under equipped with good reason & deserves it because of problems they created in the world & for the gm, that's a GM toolbox tool less available since 4e.  Lets say the campaign is expected to take place in an area involving... I dunno... ten towns & cold themed stuff but bob wants to go elsewhere like silverymoon & you get elsewhere but Alice wants to go somewhere else like thay as soon as you build up a toehold of adventures.  Treasure parcels make it harder for the GM to disincentivize that kind of me me me behavior & the "who cares if the prince dies if we rest  [to nova every fight]" disregard for the world by  using those player choices to add barriers between filling needs/desires while pointlessly fleeing just looking for the edge of the map .  It also means that the GM can't include cool little things to be found as easily when players do something unexpected but worthy of finding a  minor shiny thing so players don't look for them.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FallenRX said:


> Eh not really, Martials get bigger benefits from just taking martial feats. Magic items can help, but only really if you arent giving them too casters, which just makes their power grow even further beyond, making them even stronger.



I just don't really agree I guess, I don't see the caster benefiting from the magic items are much, but I suppose it depends on exactly which you give them.


----------



## Irlo

Sometimes one needs new rules. Sometimes one needs new players.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

tetrasodium said:


> Including that for clarity
> 
> 
> Sometimes the party is under equipped with good reason & deserves it because of problems they created in the world & for the gm, that's a GM toolbox tool less available since 4e.  Lets say the campaign is expected to take place in an area involving... I dunno... ten towns & cold themed stuff but bob wants to go elsewhere like silverymoon & you get elsewhere but Alice wants to go somewhere else like thay as soon as you build up a toehold of adventures. Treasure parcels make it harder for the GM to disincentivize that kind of me me me behavior & the "who cares if the prince dies if we rest [to nova every fight]" disregard for the world by using those player choices to add barriers between filling needs/desires while pointlessly fleeing just looking for the edge of the map .



I guess I don't see how that's a treasure parcel problem, as you've already chosen to go against much stronger guidance - the expected bonus at expected level one.


tetrasodium said:


> It also means that the GM can't include cool little things to be found as easily when players do something unexpected but worthy of finding a minor shiny thing so players don't look for them.



But it doesn't. It's just a wishlist and a vague approach to placing treasure. It's guidance not even a rule. Whereas +X at level Y is a lot closer to a rule because 4E's math begins to fray and break if you don't do it (at least it's stated with 4E - 3.XE has the same issue but largely unstated). Ironically the lower value of any given item and higher magic item churn in 4E allowed you to give out a lot more "goodies" than 5E does.


----------



## tetrasodium

Ruin Explorer said:


> I guess I don't see how that's a treasure parcel problem, as you've already chosen to go against much stronger guidance - the expected bonus at expected level one.
> 
> But it doesn't. It's just a wishlist and a vague approach to placing treasure. It's guidance not even a rule. Whereas +X at level Y is a lot closer to a rule because 4E's math begins to fray and break if you don't do it (at least it's stated with 4E - 3.XE has the same issue but largely unstated). Ironically the lower value of any given item and higher magic item churn in 4E allowed you to give out a lot more "goodies" than 5E does.



The difference is how much control players feel they are entitled.  Now in 5e they still feel they are owed magic items because it's d&d but the GM can't  make it difficult with cause to pressure negative behavior as described because there are no needs to lose or delay filling.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

tetrasodium said:


> The difference is how much control players feel they are entitled.  Now in 5e they still feel they are owed magic items because it's d&d but the GM can't  make it difficult with cause to pressure negative behavior as described because there are no needs to lose or delay filling.



Ahhh I see. I managed to control expectations to such an extent that it never became a problem for me, but I can see it might have if in a number of ways (not all of which are the DM's fault).


----------



## mellored

FallenRX said:


> But they really werent lying about that, at more you need A magic item to deal with resistances, just a single 1, even just a Moonlight sword. The issue is more central around the game itself than that.



Resistance to non-magical weapons should die in a fire.

That said, magic weapon is available for paladins and rangers.  Monks and moon druids get magic attacks by default.

So it's just fighters and barbarians that have issues.

But no real reason it should be.  It's just a really odd artifact from early editions.


----------

