Recharge via Short Rest vs Long Rest -- Is There an Issue?

[Ziegander]

In D&D 5e there are some classes and subclasses (and combinations thereof) which recharge most or all of their powers on a short rest, some which recharge most of all of their powers on a long rest, and others that recharge some powers with a short rest and others with a long rest.

The Barbarian, for example, gains next to no class-based benefits from a short rest, while he recovers his rages only after a long rest. On the other hand, the Warlock regains all expended pact magic spell slots after a short or long rest. To me it seems like this could cause some tension in the party, depending on the classes involved. Has anyone seen this come out at the table, where, because certain characters can gain so many additional benefits from a short rest, there has been hiccups in gameplay or even tension between players?

I have only played the game at low levels, and from my experience, the classes with short rest based recovery methods tend to feel quite weak if they do not get short rests, and because the party decides when to rest, these short rests can often simply not occur, especially in parties where the majority of the characters get no special benefit from taking one. From a cursory reading of the classes, I don't see anything that would change this paradigm at higher levels, but I don't have the play experience to inform any theory one way or the other. Thoughts?

[Perseus]

My friend got me back on giantitp because of discussion about resource management.

I actually hate, narratively and mechanically, the laziness of having rests be the main mechanic of resource management.

There are so many better ways of dealing with this than to screw classes over if they are under a specific type of DM or game. No class or subclass should be automatically precluded from being decent just because the number of short or long rests go up or down.

[mephnick]

It definitely depends on the DM. I feel like short rest includes anything that isn't a quick series of encounters or extended dungeon crawl, so those classes would be stronger in my game. Generally between encounters you're just walking, role-playing a discussion or searching for something for much more than an hour before another encounter.

The variance depending on the person running the game may not be great, but it's pretty in line with the rest of the system.

[MaxWilson]

Three points:

1.) Even a Barbarian gains back HP after a short rest, especially if there's a bard in the party. That's not nothing.
2.) Even a Barbarian has to eat. Why should he object to a short break in the action to stretch himself out and have a meal?
3.) Even a Barbarian needs allies. Why wouldn't the Barbarian want the Bard to have full inspiration dice, especially since those dice aren't used by the bard himself, they're given to the Barbarian and his cohorts?

As far as practical experience goes: in my 5E experience so far, resting at all has been almost nonexistent, but that's a player issue (i.e. even the PCs who would benefit from it don't think to do it) and I'm trying to change that.

[Kaeso]

I've seen other threads equate short breaks to a lunch break of sorts. This makes sense, considering an hour is a pretty reasonable timeframe for a filling meal, and eating is considered an activity that fits within a rest. The rules also state that there are penalties for skipping a meal. So unless a barbarian wants to incur such a penalty, he profits from at least one short break each day for lunch (if we assume that his dinner and his breakfast take place at the beginning and end of his long rest respectively).

[TheDeadlyShoe]

nah. everyone recharges hp on short rests, so there's always something to do.

The Barbarian in particular is likely to be scratched up, so :)

[INDYSTAR188]

I would prefer that my players take short rests as appropriate without me needing to keep track of their meals. In the game, if one player depended on them and the other players didn't take them, then I would insist that they make narrative time to eat meals, bind wounds etcetera. Do you think reducing short rest times to a half-hour would make them more palatable for players?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think the important aspect of the short rest is that it's not something you can do after every fight. The timescale is otherwise completely negotiable.

[silveralen]

Honestly things work better if people are on a similar timeframe. Or at least sort of similar. Druids and warlock get more out of short rests than other casters for example, while barbarians, paladins, and rangers are martial characters who benefit mainly from long rests.

Not required, but it helps.

[Kaeso]

I think the important aspect of the short rest is that it's not something you can do after every fight. The timescale is otherwise completely negotiable.

I think an hour is good for rough estimations of a game day. Working with half hours, quarter hours etc. would make scheduling more complicated.
Hours keep it nice and easy. You can measure the distance between one day and another, measure how fast your group travels (by foot or by horse or whatever), calculate how many hours of travel it would take to get there and adjust your long and short rests accordingly.

[Safety Sword]

I think an hour is good for rough estimations of a game day. Working with half hours, quarter hours etc. would make scheduling more complicated.
Hours keep it nice and easy. You can measure the distance between one day and another, measure how fast your group travels (by foot or by horse or whatever), calculate how many hours of travel it would take to get there and adjust your long and short rests accordingly.

It really would take an hour to make camp, feed and water your horses, make fire, boil water, cook food, eat food and pack up and get going again. It's assumed you're also resting and tending to wounds, reading your spellbook/doing devotions, cleaning your armor and weapons, discussing party tactics, collecting components for spells.

Not only a simpler unit of time to work with, but a realistic one for the assumed level of "technology" in the "standard game".

[INDYSTAR188]

It really would take an hour to make camp, feed and water your horses, make fire, boil water, cook food, eat food and pack up and get going again. It's assumed you're also resting and tending to wounds, reading your spellbook/doing devotions, cleaning your armor and weapons, discussing party tactics, collecting components for spells.

Not only a simpler unit of time to work with, but a realistic one for the assumed level of "technology" in the "standard game".

This is reasonable and makes sense. Honestly, it would take me much longer than an hour to do most of those things. I imagine that if I was doing them three or four times a day for years then it would go faster. In a dungeon enviornment it could be more complicated of course. I can imagine my players just wanting to push through, even if it causes one of them to be resource short.

[Person_Man]

I actually hate, narratively and mechanically, the laziness of having rests be the main mechanic of resource management.

There are so many better ways of dealing with this than to screw classes over if they are under a specific type of DM or game. No class or subclass should be automatically precluded from being decent just because the number of short or long rests go up or down.

Could you expand upon your comment a bit, and list or describe the "better ways?"

I ask because I don't like the imbalanced resources of 5E, but have yet to find a resource system that is relatively balanced, encourages players to use a variety of different abilities/spells/etc in different encounters, while still making sense within the context of the game world (ie, not being disassociated mechanics).

[Kaeso]

I can imagine my players just wanting to push through, even if it causes one of them to be resource short.

If they really want to rush through, they could simply summarize it as "the group takes a short rest at [insert time here]" purely to get it out of the way. Otherwise it would be no more than fair to give them the appropriate penalties. Even adventurers need to eat (unless they're level 14+ monks IIRC).

[Safety Sword]

This is reasonable and makes sense. Honestly, it would take me much longer than an hour to do most of those things. I imagine that if I was doing them three or four times a day for years then it would go faster. In a dungeon enviornment it could be more complicated of course. I can imagine my players just wanting to push through, even if it causes one of them to be resource short.

Pushing through is a valid choice too. If the person who is getting shafted mechanically by doing that is OK with it then that's the party SOP.

[Perseus]

Could you expand upon your comment a bit, and list or describe the "better ways?"

I ask because I don't like the imbalanced resources of 5E, but have yet to find a resource system that is relatively balanced, encourages players to use a variety of different abilities/spells/etc in different encounters, while still making sense within the context of the game world (ie, not being disassociated mechanics).



Most of these lead to more at-will abilities but the resource management will stop spammable abilities.

These would need to hammered out to work for D&D but the basic ideas I've seen...

1: Material Components (casters)

If you have the items you can cast the spells. Simple enough. Work on the items to make it a bit simple and you have a resource management that narratively makes sense and doesn't revolve around sleep cycle.


2: Exhaustion levels (caster and non casters).

Everything at will and insert a sane exhaustion system (current 5e one gets crazy fast).

Perform a low powered ability? Nothing happens. Perform a moderate ability? You get a bit tired for a while. Try to cast a 9th level spell at first level? You die. Jump off a mountain at level 1? You die. Cast a 9th level spell at level 17, its as exhausting as when you cast a first level spell at level 1. You are level 17 and jump off a mountain? Meh, landing was a breeze.

You will have different tiers of exhaustion and they heal gradually so that your power doesn't come only in 1 or 8 hour increments. Resting actually makes sense with this because you aren't resting to get your power back but to keep yourself from over doing it..

Sure you can cast your high level spells or perform high level abilities at-will... Though you might die or go into a coma from over exhaustion... This sort of time management works on a narrative level a lot better than "used my spell, totally forgot it" or "used all my energy, I gain back all of it at once and not a little at a time".

This one could allow you to open up power a lot earlier as long as using that power before they are ready comes at a price.

3: Tome of Battle/4e monsters refresh mechanics.

This is the nicer version of number 2. Way more forgiving and such :).

[Mellack]

I've seen other threads equate short breaks to a lunch break of sorts. This makes sense, considering an hour is a pretty reasonable timeframe for a filling meal, and eating is considered an activity that fits within a rest. The rules also state that there are penalties for skipping a meal. So unless a barbarian wants to incur such a penalty, he profits from at least one short break each day for lunch (if we assume that his dinner and his breakfast take place at the beginning and end of his long rest respectively).
Where are these rules about meals? All I can find in my book is that they have to eat 1 pound of food each day. They could decide to eat one big meal, or just snack all day long. No connection to short rests I can find.

[Kaeso]

Where are these rules about meals? All I can find in my book is that they have to eat 1 pound of food each day. They could decide to eat one big meal, or just snack all day long. No connection to short rests I can find.

I think it's on the section of saves. Under Constitution Saves, it states that you need to make one for skipping meals (and missing sleep too, I think). However, IIRC it does not explicitly state what the penalty for it is.

EDIT: Yep, it's on page 177 of the PHB. Con checks apply to skipping meals, going on without any sleep, and even marching without rest. It'd still be nice if the penalty for failing the check were listed. I guess it's up to the DMs discretion then.

Personally, I think that giving a PC the exhausted penalties for going on without any sleep or marching without resting is fair enough, but what would be a good penalty for skipping meals if the con check is failed?

[JFahy]

Personally, I think that giving a PC the exhausted penalties for going on without any sleep or marching without resting is fair enough, but what would be a good penalty for skipping meals if the con check is failed?

A nice simple one is that their exhaustion levels can't decrease while they're fasting.

[Mellack]

I think it's on the section of saves. Under Constitution Saves, it states that you need to make one for skipping meals (and missing sleep too, I think). However, IIRC it does not explicitly state what the penalty for it is.

EDIT: Yep, it's on page 177 of the PHB. Con checks apply to skipping meals, going on without any sleep, and even marching without rest. It'd still be nice if the penalty for failing the check were listed. I guess it's up to the DMs discretion then.

Personally, I think that giving a PC the exhausted penalties for going on without any sleep or marching without resting is fair enough, but what would be a good penalty for skipping meals if the con check is failed?

My book says Con checks are for surviving without food and water. Not just skipping a meal. Food and water needs are on pg 185. They can go for days without food. That is also where the penalties are listed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Could you expand upon your comment a bit, and list or describe the "better ways?"

I ask because I don't like the imbalanced resources of 5E, but have yet to find a resource system that is relatively balanced, encourages players to use a variety of different abilities/spells/etc in different encounters, while still making sense within the context of the game world (ie, not being disassociated mechanics).Not to say it's the perfect system, or that it necessarily fits in D&D/d20 in general, but Drain in Shadowrun makes pretty good narrative sense while encouraging cautious resource management. If you cast a spell, channeling those energies deals damage to you roughly equivalent to the power of the spell (minus your ability to resist it), and people take decent sized penalties for damage, including to the rolls to resist drain later. Funnily enough the best way to heal from drain is to rest, but it's not strictly necessary. The mundanes generally have at-will abilities, but this is basically the same as classic D&D.

[Talakeal]

Could you expand upon your comment a bit, and list or describe the "better ways?"

I ask because I don't like the imbalanced resources of 5E, but have yet to find a resource system that is relatively balanced, encourages players to use a variety of different abilities/spells/etc in different encounters, while still making sense within the context of the game world (ie, not being disassociated mechanics).

Although it is a bit slow paced for a game like d&d the oWoD games all had suitably slow resource recovery mechanics that were not gamey.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think the important aspect of the short rest is that it's not something you can do after every fight. The timescale is otherwise completely negotiable.

I take the contrary position. Combat is an intrinsically tiring proposition (both mentally and physically) and a short break after a pitched battle is exactly what characters ought to be partaking in.

Unless there's an artificial timer going, or the PCs are being actively chased, what good reason could be given for not stopping to patch themselves up?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

it all depends on the context of the adventure. But inevitably you will be faced with a situation where you are engaging several groups of foes in a short period of time - like the classic mooks -> lieutenants -> big bad boss progression.

it's basically the DM's job to create a sense of urgency anyway, heh.

[Person_Man]

Hmm. Some interesting resource management ideas on this thread. It think a lot of them would work quite well. But I have yet to see one that encourages players to use a variety of different tactics/abilities/spells/etc.

For example, Mearls has specifically said that he made Short Rests 1 hour long because he wanted to discourage using the same set of Encounter Powers every encounter. This was a major criticism of 4E (which he obviously agreed with) - players basically used the same exact same Powers and tactics in the same order over and over and over again in every combat, unless its a boss fight, then they use Daily Powers as well.

But I've noticed that most 5E classes don't really have that many Short Rest resources, or if they do (Monk, Warlock, Fighter), the number of options they have are still pretty limited. So while the 1 hour Short Rests do encourage some variety, they only do so modestly.

[Perseus]

Hmm. Some interesting resource management ideas on this thread. It think a lot of them would work quite well. But I have yet to see one that encourages players to use a variety of different tactics/abilities/spells/etc.

For example, Mearls has specifically said that he made Short Rests 1 hour long because he wanted to discourage using the same set of Encounter Powers every encounter. This was a major criticism of 4E (which he obviously agreed with) - players basically used the same exact same Powers and tactics in the same order over and over and over again in every combat, unless its a boss fight, then they use Daily Powers as well.

But I've noticed that most 5E classes don't really have that many Short Rest resources, or if they do (Monk, Warlock, Fighter), the number of options they have are still pretty limited. So while the 1 hour Short Rests do encourage some variety, they only do so modestly.

Mearles isn't exactly someone I like running D&D, one of the issues is that he took the message from 4e wrong.

I saw encounter powers as the obvious progression of power.

At a certain point you become badass enough that what was once hard for you to do, now was quite easy.

I mostly wished that there were power chains that upgraded at wills with those encounter powers.

Once again, instead of brining everyone up a level, the creators of D&D decided to being everyone down a level. The answer shouldn't have been to get rid of the encounter abilities but to work them in and make them the base abilities that one uses.

A good homebrew I've used for 4e noncasterz is that you have a pool of energy and the level of the ability depleted this energy. But as time went on you would get your energy back. At-wills did not tax this energy and dailies were mixed into encounter powers. You knew X encounter powers but could use them in any order you wanted.

At a certain point lower level abilities became at will... I think at level 6 is when level 1 powers became at-will.

Sure your original at+will may become useless but theres nothing wrong with that. It is abreaource you have outgrown and can do better than.

[Selkirk]

my 3rd level cleric has been wandering with my party thru a dungeon for 3 combats now with essentially nothing to do. in the first fight we hit the boss and i used my group heal and hold person..in another fight i had to use cure wounds 3 times. now i'm down to cantrips ^^;...meanwhile melee classes take short rest and keep on chugging. short rest gets me channel divinity back but im life domain so i can turn undead...but we're fighting goblins/orcs/bugbears. my turn typically goes...i cast sacred flame for 1d8 :smallredface:.

short rest isn't recharging my spells so we end up having to take a short rest again after a combat where anyone is wounded even moderately..there has to be some balance between casters and melee on short rests aka show the clerics some lovin :smallsmile: .

[Finieous]

I think I like it (I need more game time, but I think I do). I like that different classes have different concerns in terms of managing their principal resources. For example, I like that fighters get very few superiority dice, but recover them with a short rest, while full casters require a long rest to recover spells.

I also like that resource management will vary depending on what the party is doing. In a dungeon-crawl, where multiple consecutive encounters are the norm, resource management is more of a challenge. In a hex-crawl, maybe there are fewer set encounters per day but a greater chance of random/unforeseen encounters. This gives those kinds of adventures a very different feel from a resource-management perspective.

I'm definitely pleased that there are no "encounter" abilities.

[jkat718]

I would personally prefer giving classes with long rest-only abilities more/better short rest abilities. That way, everyone benefits from short rests, just as everyone benefits from long rests. The problem with this is that long rest abilities tend to be spellcasting or other powerful options, which would unbalance the casters against mundanes even further than they already are.

[Person_Man]

my 3rd level cleric has been wandering with my party thru a dungeon for 3 combats now with essentially nothing to do. in the first fight we hit the boss and i used my group heal and hold person..in another fight i had to use cure wounds 3 times. now i'm down to cantrips ^^;...meanwhile melee classes take short rest and keep on chugging. short rest gets me channel divinity back but im life domain so i can turn undead...but we're fighting goblins/orcs/bugbears. my turn typically goes...i cast sacred flame for 1d8 :smallredface:.

short rest isn't recharging my spells so we end up having to take a short rest again after a combat where anyone is wounded even moderately..there has to be some balance between casters and melee on short rests aka show the clerics some lovin :smallsmile: .

Yeah, I've seen similar issues with low level spellcasters throughout every non-4E edition of D&D. My advice is to allow a Short Rest to renew all hit points every time (so that a Cleric or whatever that heals is useful in combat, but not mandatory between combats) and just start at level 5ish (when you have enough spells per Long Rest that they start being more meaningful.

[Perseus]

Yeah, I've seen similar issues with low level spellcasters throughout every non-4E edition of D&D. My advice is to allow a Short Rest to renew all hit points every time (so that a Cleric or whatever that heals is useful in combat, but not mandatory between combats) and just start at level 5ish (when you have enough spells per Long Rest that they start being more meaningful.

I've found that most DMs and group think that starting at level 1 is mandatory or necessary... It is very weird.

To the one PM replied too...

If you choose your cantrip right in 5e and use other actions you should never run out of things to do. They may reduce you to being plane Jane but you can be a lot of help to your party.

Although I think a system should be fixed, working with what we have... Take guiding light and guidance and use the help action and you should do fine between the cool things you can do.

Cleric + Help is a lot of fun, or can be, way more than it should be. Trip, shove, sneak attack, or ever attack spells... You are everyone's best friend. Other classes can do this but I feel the cleric is best equipped for it.

[MaxWilson]

my 3rd level cleric has been wandering with my party thru a dungeon for 3 combats now with essentially nothing to do. in the first fight we hit the boss and i used my group heal and hold person..in another fight i had to use cure wounds 3 times. now i'm down to cantrips ^^;...meanwhile melee classes take short rest and keep on chugging. short rest gets me channel divinity back but im life domain so i can turn undead...but we're fighting goblins/orcs/bugbears. my turn typically goes...i cast sacred flame for 1d8 :smallredface:.

I suggest resisting the pressure to cast healing spells. HP recharge on a short rest, spells do not (for clerics at least).

That said, I feel your pain. We fought a wererat last weekend and the only thing my Eldritch Knight could do was spam Chill Touch at them for 1d8 every round. I still got the kill, but it doesn't feel very exciting compared to +mods with a real weapon. (It didn't help that I calculated my to-hit bonus wrong as only +2 instead of +4.)


I've found that most DMs and group think that starting at level 1 is mandatory or necessary... It is very weird.

I wouldn't say "mandatory," but I do think it's a good idea, especially if you roll stats. There's nothing like rolling 12, 14, 8, 8, 13, 14 on a character who is supposed to start off at 14th level. You look at that and go, "How did you ever get to be a Prime Magus?" First level characters are supposed to be common, and if you don't like one it's easy enough to retire him or kill him, but when you start doing that to 14th level characters it starts to strain credibility. They're supposed to already have been winnowed out by that level.

[Selkirk]

the cleric creates a dilemma . the cleric who is out of healing spells is actually creating the need for rests. i mean most rests are to regain hp...parties rarely rest to regain action surge :D. so the cleric trudges along underpowered and in fact is creating more situations where he/she will remain underpowered by not being able to perform low hp heals via spells.

while the fighters and rogues are just going nuclear and having fun i'm casting a cantrip and moving around a little bit (basically a cheerleader). so during this long dungeon crawl im just thinking 'hey guys can't we just take a long rest?' :D. and i think from above that better/modified short rest recovery is an answer...how that would be implemented is a tough question tho.

[Perseus]

I suggest resisting the pressure to cast healing spells. HP recharge on a short rest, spells do not (for clerics at least).

I wouldn't say "mandatory," but I do think it's a good idea, especially if you roll stats. There's nothing like rolling 12, 14, 8, 8, 13, 14 on a character who is supposed to start off at 14th level. You look at that and go, "How did you ever get to be a Prime Magus?" First level characters are supposed to be common, and if you don't like one it's easy enough to retire him or kill him, but when you start doing that to 14th level characters it starts to strain credibility. They're supposed to already have been winnowed out by that level.

Healbots have not been needed for quite a while.

Actually, you are wrong about first level characters being common. PC classes are rare, PC classes such as the Paladin are even rareer.

These classes aren't some average Joe came up and decided to be a fighter. These classes are more like Perseus, Achilies, or Hercules. Exceptional folks that grew up or were around the common folks but have that special something that makes them stand out.

My level 1-13 back story is up to me when I start at higher level and the player can make it up. Its quite easy. I've retired multiple high level characters through story narrative and through "well I can't make the game anymore... This is what my PC does...". It doesn't hurt anything to retire a character... Could be a problem if you go through 10 in 10 sessions but that is a bigger issue showing its head.

[Mellack]

These classes aren't some average Joe came up and decided to be a fighter. These classes are more like Perseus, Achilies, or Hercules. Exceptional folks that grew up or were around the common folks but have that special something that makes them stand out.



I don't think that is true in this edition. The first 3 levels or so were described as apprentice levels. A first level fighter is little more than a guy who has finished basic training. That is what I seem to remember Mearls saying.

[Theodoxus]

As I was reading this, I was thinking 'wouldn't a level dip into Warlock essentially negate the short rest dilemma of full casters?' Having 1 spell recharge on a short rest would at least allow them to having a meaningful contribution as often as every other short rest recovery class.

Then I thought, shoot, why not just roll that into every caster class. You gain 1 short rest recoverable spell slot equal to your highest available spell slot. You also have 1 fewer spell slot of your highest available - no free cake here!

I would also add a feat that converts an additional long rest spell slot to a short rest, equal to your highest level minus 1, minimum 1st. Purchasable multiple times. If you wanted to spend all your ASI on the feat, then you become a quasi Warlock... max 5 short rest spells plus whatever goodies your class brings along with it.

I could see some fun things as a 1st level human cleric with two short rest spell slots...

[Shadow]

I'm involved in two games right now.
One of them uses the hour listed in the PHB, and hardly ever takes short rests.
The other has short rests of 15 minutes, and uses them frequently. 15 minutes is still too long to stop in the middle of a dungeon trek (or the mobs will have adequate time to build defenses and set ambushes/traps/etc). In every situation where the group could take a 15 minute break, they could take an hour break and it would change nothing, but because it doesn't take an hour they/we actually do it.
There have only been two times when that other 45 minutes would have actually made a difference.
Basically it's only a matter of perception. For seeing the differences between the two groups, I think that 15 minutes (or another arbitrary but lower number) works better than an hour.

[Perseus]

I suggest resisting the pressure to cast healing spells. HP recharge on a short rest, spells do not (for clerics at least).

I wouldn't say "mandatory," but I do think it's a good idea, especially if you roll stats. There's nothing like rolling 12, 14, 8, 8, 13, 14 on a character who is supposed to start off at 14th level. You look at that and go, "How did you ever get to be a Prime Magus?" First level characters are supposed to be common, and if you don't like one it's easy enough to retire him or kill him, but when you start doing that to 14th level characters it starts to strain credibility. They're supposed to already have been winnowed out by that level.

Healbots have not been needed for quite a while.

Actually, you are wrong about first level characters being common. PC classes are rare, PC classes such as the Paladin are even rareer.

These classes aren't some average Joe came up and decided to be a fighter. These classes are more like Perseus, Achilies, or Hercules. Exceptional folks that grew up or were around the common folks but have that special something that makes them stand out.

My level 1-13 back story is up to me when I start at higher level and the player can make it up. Its quite easy. I've retired multiple high level characters through story narrative and through "well I can't make the game anymore... This is what my PC does...". It doesn't hurt anything to retire a character... Could be a problem if you go through 10 in 10 sessions but that is a bigger issue showing its head.

[MaxWilson]

Healbots have not been needed for quite a while.

Actually, you are wrong about first level characters being common. PC classes are rare, PC classes such as the Paladin are even rareer.

These classes aren't some average Joe came up and decided to be a fighter. These classes are more like Perseus, Achilies, or Hercules. Exceptional folks that grew up or were around the common folks but have that special something that makes them stand out.

My level 1-13 back story is up to me when I start at higher level and the player can make it up. Its quite easy. I've retired multiple high level characters through story narrative and through "well I can't make the game anymore... This is what my PC does...". It doesn't hurt anything to retire a character... Could be a problem if you go through 10 in 10 sessions but that is a bigger issue showing its head.

The problem isn't per se retiring a high-level character, the problem is replacing it with a new high-level character. It makes no sense to have multiple 14th level characters popping out of thin air, whereas having multiple 1st level characters popping in out of thin air does not strain credibility.

That's why I say that starting at level 1 is more attractive if you roll stats. You don't get stuck with a high-level character that you don't want, because you've already winnowed out the characters that you don't like. Conversely, if you use a non-random chargen method like point buy, starting at high levels is never a problem because you're never left wishing your PC was dead so you could make a new one.

[Perseus]

The problem isn't per se retiring a high-level character, the problem is replacing it with a new high-level character. It makes no sense to have multiple 14th level characters popping out of thin air, whereas having multiple 1st level characters popping in out of thin air does not strain credibility.

That's why I say that starting at level 1 is more attractive if you roll stats. You don't get stuck with a high-level character that you don't want, because you've already winnowed out the characters that you don't like. Conversely, if you use a non-random chargen method like point buy, starting at high levels is never a problem because you're never left wishing your PC was dead so you could make a new one.

First off... Did my post double post with time between the two posts or am I seeing things???

No one is ever stuck with a character, if you want to switch one out that is up to the group but just because someone else can't fathom it doesn't mean there isn't good reasons (fun) or whatever. Starting at level 1 or level 14 makes absolutely no difference other than power level and where in the narrative a DM may place you.

Hell, I've ran and played in games where level 16 is, within the game setting, the newbs and rookies. People shouldn't let level or power dictate the narrative.

Rolling versus point buy... You are completely over blowing your point. First you assume that rolling average or slightly above average means you have a sucky character... Sorry not in bounded accuracy. Sure bigger is better but it isn't that much better. I'm not sure what happened in your past to take such an extreme stance on this but your logic is all over left field on this.

Having a PC of any level show up doesn't hurt credibility, you are just making stuff up to justify your point. If you can't figure out a way to narratively explain a new member of the group then that isn't everyone else's problem.

[jkat718]

@Perseus

Yeah, IDK why, but the post went through twice.

[MaxWilson]

Rolling versus point buy... You are completely over blowing your point. First you assume that rolling average or slightly above average means you have a sucky character... Sorry not in bounded accuracy. Sure bigger is better but it isn't that much better. I'm not sure what happened in your past to take such an extreme stance on this but your logic is all over left field on this.

Having a PC of any level show up doesn't hurt credibility, you are just making stuff up to justify your point. If you can't figure out a way to narratively explain a new member of the group then that isn't everyone else's problem.

Calm down, dude. You don't need to get so defensive. I'm not attacking your game, just expressing a viewpoint. You can play your elf-game any way you like it.

[Vogonjeltz]

it all depends on the context of the adventure. But inevitably you will be faced with a situation where you are engaging several groups of foes in a short period of time - like the classic mooks -> lieutenants -> big bad boss progression.

basically it's the DM's job to create a sense of urgency, if you want to take on a bunch of enemies that wait patiently in rooms for you to rest up between fights you barely need a DM...

Agreed, context is king here. However, not every day is going to be filled with all four encounters (assuming that's still a thing?) back to back to back. If your party is storming a castle to rescue the princess it breaks tempo to rest for an hour after trashing all the guards in the courtyard.

On the other hand, if your party is excavating a dig site, or exploring a dungeon then it's perfectly reasonable to pause after clearing a room, bar the door and rest for an hour. Just the possibility of wandering monsters shouldn't be sufficient to claim it's impossible to rest for an hour. Otherwise making camp for a long rest would be 8x as impossible to succeed at as the single short rest.


Hmm. Some interesting resource management ideas on this thread. It think a lot of them would work quite well. But I have yet to see one that encourages players to use a variety of different tactics/abilities/spells/etc.

For example, Mearls has specifically said that he made Short Rests 1 hour long because he wanted to discourage using the same set of Encounter Powers every encounter. This was a major criticism of 4E (which he obviously agreed with) - players basically used the same exact same Powers and tactics in the same order over and over and over again in every combat, unless its a boss fight, then they use Daily Powers as well.

But I've noticed that most 5E classes don't really have that many Short Rest resources, or if they do (Monk, Warlock, Fighter), the number of options they have are still pretty limited. So while the 1 hour Short Rests do encourage some variety, they only do so modestly.

I find that I typically expend the one-off Fighter abilities early on dangerous opponents. For example, when fighting a higher level Ranger who was using bow attacks and trying to maintain distance, I burned action surge to dodge while closing distance with a dash.

The action surge is pretty flexible in terms of when it's needed and what for, whereas I'm likely to simply burn Second Wind at the first opportunity (it returns after a short rest, so using Hit Dice to heal doesn't make a ton of sense and spells to heal require a long rest...so why burn those first?).
Maneuvers I conserve, trying to only use one per enemy (or none if the enemies don't come across as serious threats), saving them for emergencies (friendly in serious trouble, spellcaster winding up, etc...).

[Safety Sword]

Calm down, dude. You don't need to get so defensive. I'm not attacking your game, just expressing a viewpoint. You can play your elf-game any way you like it.

Magic elf game, thank you.

[Demonic Spoon]

This actually creates a fairly interesting dynamic. On days where the encounters will all be back to back to back, there probably won't be as many encounters total, because the piece of the party that relies on short rest resources will run out and the party will need to stop - advantage goes to classes with long rests.

If the encounters of the day are broken up between short rests, then it favors the short rest classes since they're constantly getting their resources back where the long rest classes are using an ever-dwindling set.

[Shadow]

This actually creates a fairly interesting dynamic. On days where the encounters will all be back to back to back, there probably won't be as many encounters total, because the piece of the party that relies on short rest resources will run out and the party will need to stop - advantage goes to classes with long rests.

If the encounters of the day are broken up between short rests, then it favors the short rest classes since they're constantly getting their resources back where the long rest classes are using an ever-dwindling set.

That concept is covered under the multipart encounters section.

Multipart Encounters
Sometimes an encounter features multiple enemies that
the party doesn’t face all at once. For example, monsters
might come at the party in waves. For such encounters,
treat each discrete part or wave as a separate encounter
for the purpose of determining its difficulty.
A party can’t benefit from a short rest between parts
of a multipart encounter, so they won’t be able to spend
Hit Dice to regain hit points or recover any abilities that
require a short rest to regain. As a rule, if the adjusted
XP value for the monsters in a multipart encounter is
higher than one-third of the party’s expected XP total
for the adventuring day (see “The Adventuring Day,”
below), the encounter is going to be tougher than the
sum of its parts."

Basically, any encounters which do not have rests between them would fall under this umbrella. Even if they were completely separate encounters with no tie-ins between them, if the party hasn't had a short rest, the effect/result is the same, and it effectively all becomes a string of encounters rather than a number of individual enounters.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

They wern't really going for 'any' encounter. The specific guideline is more than 1/3 of an adventuring day, without player ability to take a rest (or as I'm interpreting it, to make choices whether to proceed or rest.) Since an adventuring day is 6-8 average encounters, the guideline is basically '>2 encounters in a row without player agency = more difficult than xp rating'