Change to short rests-- Balanced?

[Chronos]

So, my DM doesn't like short rests, as currently implemented. He feels that they interrupt the flow of the game, and he doesn't like having to design adventures to accommodate 2-3 short rests per day. However, he also recognizes that the game as designed is balanced around the assumption that there will be about that many short rests.

So he came up with an alternate rule idea, and asked me for feedback: Instead of taking hour-long short rests, a character can gain the full benefits of a short rest in five minutes... but can only do so a limited number of times per day. As I understand it, this would fully replace as-written short rests, so even if the party has a chance to hole up securely for an hour, it wouldn't make a difference.

Now, the only balance issue I see with this is that it makes the warlock's level 20 capstone redundant... but then, that was always the weakest capstone anyway, and it'll take us a very long time to reach 20, if ever. But I recognize that I might not be seeing all of the unintended consequences. So, is there any real problem with this idea?

[Zman]

How about this, just add a "Breather", a 1-5 minute rest that allows a character to use a single Hd+Con for heal thing before they have another encounter or short rest?

[MaxWilson]

So, my DM doesn't like short rests, as currently implemented. He feels that they interrupt the flow of the game, and he doesn't like having to design adventures to accommodate 2-3 short rests per day. However, he also recognizes that the game as designed is balanced around the assumption that there will be about that many short rests.

So he came up with an alternate rule idea, and asked me for feedback: Instead of taking hour-long short rests, a character can gain the full benefits of a short rest in five minutes... but can only do so a limited number of times per day. As I understand it, this would fully replace as-written short rests, so even if the party has a chance to hole up securely for an hour, it wouldn't make a difference.

Now, the only balance issue I see with this is that it makes the warlock's level 20 capstone redundant... but then, that was always the weakest capstone anyway, and it'll take us a very long time to reach 20, if ever. But I recognize that I might not be seeing all of the unintended consequences. So, is there any real problem with this idea?

The only thing I can think of is that this messes somewhat with spell durations. A Warlock could have Armor of Agathys and Hex up, then take a five-minute breather and be back at full spell slots and yet with his spells still active. If you're okay with that consequence (I would be), then all right, you probably won't experience anything unexpected. Oh, except that you'll need to decide what you're going to do about monk meditation--is 30 minutes still a minimum for them to regain ki, or would you change that to five minutes too?

[Chronos]

I already asked about ritual casting, and he said that he'd change that to 5 minutes too, so it still fits within a short rest. I assume the same would apply to the monk.

At higher levels, the spell duration thing already works with normal short rests. If anything, it'd be more balanced with this houserule, because you'd have to use up one of your limited number of short rests to do it, instead of just resting right after you wake up while waiting for the wizard to prepare spells, at no additional cost.

[Kane0]

So he's pretty much thinking of using the rest variant from the DMG then?

Why exactly does he think an hour is too long? Thats like a lunch and smoke break.

[MaxWilson]

At higher levels, the spell duration thing already works with normal short rests. If anything, it'd be more balanced with this houserule, because you'd have to use up one of your limited number of short rests to do it, instead of just resting right after you wake up while waiting for the wizard to prepare spells, at no additional cost.

Most spells don't have durations that scale with levels. Fire Shield is just a flat ten minutes. Stoneskin is an hour (concentration). Armor of Agathys is just an hour. With a five-minute rest you can combine them in new ways.

But yes, limiting the total number of rests is a nerf in some ways, which kind of sort of maybe balances it out--and it's not likely to be a problem either way. Put it this way--I tried my hardest to come up with a potential abuse, and all I got was something that made you go, "meh, that already works with Hex anyway." This suggests to me that you're likely to be fine with the results.

[djreynolds]

How about this, just add a "Breather", a 1-5 minute rest that allows a character to use a single Hd+Con for heal thing before they have another encounter or short rest?

I like this. Like just after a nasty fight, even before you go and loot bodies, a quick rest just make sure you have all your people up and count gear.

But yes most old school DM's don't get it, that there are two kinds of rests now. But a breather is really good idea

[Chronos]

Quoth Kane0:

So he's pretty much thinking of using the rest variant from the DMG then?
Not exactly. Long rests would remain 8 hours, and the DMG variant doesn't put a limit on the number of rests.

[Kryx]

So he came up with an alternate rule idea, and asked me for feedback: Instead of taking hour-long short rests, a character can gain the full benefits of a short rest in five minutes... but can only do so a limited number of times per day.
I do exactly this. 5 minute short rests. No problems besides the rituals mentioned, but that has never come up.

[ryan92084]

I'm doing the same with my group. The only real consequence is that they don't need a caster with rope trick anymore.

[Malifice]

So, my DM doesn't like short rests, as currently implemented. He feels that they interrupt the flow of the game, and he doesn't like having to design adventures to accommodate 2-3 short rests per day. However, he also recognizes that the game as designed is balanced around the assumption that there will be about that many short rests.

So he came up with an alternate rule idea, and asked me for feedback: Instead of taking hour-long short rests, a character can gain the full benefits of a short rest in five minutes... but can only do so a limited number of times per day. As I understand it, this would fully replace as-written short rests, so even if the party has a chance to hole up securely for an hour, it wouldn't make a difference.

Now, the only balance issue I see with this is that it makes the warlock's level 20 capstone redundant... but then, that was always the weakest capstone anyway, and it'll take us a very long time to reach 20, if ever. But I recognize that I might not be seeing all of the unintended consequences. So, is there any real problem with this idea?

Thats exactly what I do. A Short rest is a handwaved period of time from 5 minutes to an hour of (catching breath, checking the map, taking a swig of water, binding wounds, looting corpses etc). You cant benefit from more than 2 per long rest (DM can add more at his sole discretion).

No unintended consequences have popped up so far and my party is 6th.

Also; make sure the Monks Ki just recharges on a short rest (remove the 30 minute meditation requirement). Just make him mediate while short resting, or on the prior long rest.

[Toadkiller]

Do people leave the game every time there's a short rest? I don't get it. Here is how it can/should go.

Ok, we find a somewhat out of the way spot and spend about an hour taking a break. What's next? How does that disrupt the game? It's 3 seconds.

[Malifice]

I don't get it. Here is how it can/should go.

Ok, we find a somewhat out of the way spot and spend about an hour taking a break.

The world doesnt stop when the players do mate. Monsters react to what the PC's have done during that hour they have their feet up.

An hour long break is way too jarring, and has definate in game ramifications. Monsters discover the guards in rooms 1 and 2 have gone missing (and discover dead bodies). BBEG's are notified (and move the macguffin elsewhere, or simply flee), rooms get restocked with monsters (or they fall back to a more defensive position, and are alerted to the PC's), monsters come looking for the dudes that did it, etc etc etc.

These problems are ameliorated greatly be reducing your short rests to 5 minutes.

[Rhaegar14]

The world doesnt stop when the players do mate. Monsters react to what the PC's have done during that hour they have their feet up.

An hour long break is way too jarring, and has definate in game ramifications. Monsters discover the guards in rooms 1 and 2 have gone missing (and discover dead bodies). BBEG's are notified (and move the macguffin elsewhere, or simply flee), rooms get restocked with monsters (or they fall back to a more defensive position, and are alerted to the PC's), monsters come looking for the dudes that did it, etc etc etc.

These problems are ameliorated greatly be reducing your short rests to 5 minutes.

Malifice hit the nail on the head. By the default rules, a DM needs to write adventures to allow hour-long, consequence-free rests. There are a lot of situations where that doesn't make any sense (such as most dungeons with intelligent inhabitants).

@OP: My group just switched to this rule and it's working out fine. Definitely make sure the Monk, Battlemaster Fighter, and Warlock get their stuff back as normal. Not having to shoehorn in rests so that those characters can continue to function at full power is half the appeal of the variant.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, my DM doesn't like short rests, as currently implemented. He feels that they interrupt the flow of the game, and he doesn't like having to design adventures to accommodate 2-3 short rests per day. However, he also recognizes that the game as designed is balanced around the assumption that there will be about that many short rests.

So he came up with an alternate rule idea, and asked me for feedback: Instead of taking hour-long short rests, a character can gain the full benefits of a short rest in five minutes... but can only do so a limited number of times per day. As I understand it, this would fully replace as-written short rests, so even if the party has a chance to hole up securely for an hour, it wouldn't make a difference.

Now, the only balance issue I see with this is that it makes the warlock's level 20 capstone redundant... but then, that was always the weakest capstone anyway, and it'll take us a very long time to reach 20, if ever. But I recognize that I might not be seeing all of the unintended consequences. So, is there any real problem with this idea?

Yes, there is a problem, it's not up to the DM to decide that the players should rest or not, the DM's responsibility in terms of balancing out encounters is to ensure that the players have at least two opportunities for short rests. If the players literally want to stop and rest for an hour, that's entirely their decision. (Now, depending on where they do this, and how, that might have some consequences if there are patrols, or it's a place that enemies routinely frequent...but if they pick some off the beaten track location, it should be fine).


The world doesnt stop when the players do mate. Monsters react to what the PC's have done during that hour they have their feet up.

An hour long break is way too jarring, and has definate in game ramifications. Monsters discover the guards in rooms 1 and 2 have gone missing (and discover dead bodies). BBEG's are notified (and move the macguffin elsewhere, or simply flee), rooms get restocked with monsters (or they fall back to a more defensive position, and are alerted to the PC's), monsters come looking for the dudes that did it, etc etc etc.

These problems are ameliorated greatly be reducing your short rests to 5 minutes.

This just sounds very lazy on the part of the DM. So...what happens if the party spends time searching for hidden passages in a large room? That could easily take an hour. Does the DM also speed that up to avoid having to think about what their creatures are doing?

[Malifice]

This just sounds very lazy on the part of the DM. So...what happens if the party spends time searching for hidden passages in a large room? That could easily take an hour. Does the DM also speed that up to avoid having to think about what their creatures are doing?

Its not a question of laziness. Its a question of 'taking one hour breaks in a dungeon crawl two or three times per day breaks my immersion'.

Making them 5 minutes to an hour or so feels better.

[Trickshaw]

Yes, there is a problem, it's not up to the DM to decide that the players should rest or not, the DM's responsibility in terms of balancing out encounters is to ensure that the players have at least two opportunities for short rests. If the players literally want to stop and rest for an hour, that's entirely their decision. (Now, depending on where they do this, and how, that might have some consequences if there are patrols, or it's a place that enemies routinely frequent...but if they pick some off the beaten track location, it should be fine).



This just sounds very lazy on the part of the DM. So...what happens if the party spends time searching for hidden passages in a large room? That could easily take an hour. Does the DM also speed that up to avoid having to think about what their creatures are doing?

Why exactly would you fire off the port bow with "sounds very lazy" when you KNOW that's just gonna provoke someone to come about and unload in your general direction? No one, IRL or Online, is gonna take "lazy" in a positive way and no one, aside from the legitimately autistic and/or asperger patient, can reasonably spit that out and come back with, "What? What I say?" So either you're looking to pick a fight or trying to be as passively aggressive as you can so people truly understand you disapprove of their DM'ing choices because "that's not how you do."

Regardless, there's no call for being a Dbag.

As for the topic:
---------------------

I have also elected to reduce long and short rests substantially. Down to 5-15 min and 1-2 hours respectively to a maximum of twice per day. My players, of course, didn't argue but the reasoning I gave them was simple: How often do you see heroes taking 4 hour "short rests" in movies? When John McClane gets pounded into the dirt, as John McClane does, do you see him stop for a four hour rest? No. He takes a breather, patches himself up, loots what bodies are loot-able and moves the **** on.

Because we've shortened these values it affords for more dangerous/engaging encounters and a more cinematic player experience. As my players and I agree, it's about the story, it's about the action and it's about the fun. When rules come in conflict with that agenda it's time to modify or get rid of them. And that's what we do.

I legitimately don't care about minutiae. So things like encumbrance go out the window. So long as it's within reason (i.e no, your Gnome can't carry around an anvil like a back pack) I don't care. Or the whole lifestyle cost per day. Don't care. How many bolts can I carry? Don't care. Do we have materials for bandages? Don't... care.

All I care about are the CHOICES my players make and the ramifications of said choices.

My players know, there are no rail roads at my table. Your imagination is the limit of what you can do. You do whatever it is you feel is appropriate or relevant. But every choice has a consequence.

To *ME*, that's what DM'ing is all about.

Making sure my players are keeping track of the amount of grains of sand the wizard has so he can cast sleep... that doesn't even register in my mind.

But each to their own.

[DanyBallon]

To me it doesn't break immersion at all, having characters taking about an hour to catch their breath, heal small bruises and take some time to eat. This imply that they need to secure the area before taking a break, and that in the mean time monsters may have found out that gards are missing, etc. and set up for what coming, and/or send a search party for the intruders. But that's only our playstyle and it may not fit for everyone. So a 5 min breather as short rest is totally ok for a playstyle that favor a faster pace.

[JellyPooga]

The world doesnt stop when the players do mate. Monsters react to what the PC's have done during that hour they have their feet up.
Nothing wrong with that. If the PC's choose to take a break, they should expect the monsters to get one too.

By the default rules, a DM needs to write adventures to allow hour-long, consequence-free rests.
Where does it say anything in the rules about Short Rests being consequence free?

Because we've shortened these values it affords for more dangerous/engaging encounters and a more cinematic player experience.
The bolded text is the crux of this and why it's offered as an optional rule in the DMG alongside the (so-called) "more realistic" Longer Rest rules. The default rules are just a middle-ground. Each offers a unique play style, none of which is objectively better than the others.

There's nothing broken about offering shorter short rests; it's just a matter of player preference. It benefits everyone in the setting equally (more or less), not just the players. The game won't disintegrate because of it, but it's worth checking with everyone playing that this is cool; not everyone wants to play a cinematic action-hero game. Some people do like tracking the minutiae and the simulationist take of longer rests.

The game takes all sorts; always check what type you're playing with.

[Malifice]

Where does it say anything in the rules about Short Rests being consequence free?

The expectation is that you give your players about 2 per adventuring day. So they go through 2 encounters, short rest, two or three more, short rest again, and then 2 ot so more encounters then long rest.

The 'consequences' bit is only really there as an implied threat that the DM can use to stop players from short rest nova-ing. It was decided that 1 hour was about right to limit a group to only be able to take 2-ish during your 6-8 encounter adventuring day (between long rests) that is your standard default dungeon crawl.

There was a feeling that 5 minutes wasnt long enough and that players could nova more frequently in every ecnounter. OTOH there was also a feeling that if the game assumes 2 x short rests during a standard dungeon crawl, that having to hole up somewhere for an hour at a time was too jarring (seeing as it is assumed that you basically need to do it 2 x day in every dungeon youll ever be in).

I personally side on the 5 minute side of the debate.

I actually would have preferred it even better if 'short rest' abilities were toned down a bit and simply became 'per encounter' abilities. Ki points, sup dice and warlock spell slots halved, action surge just adding 1/2 your extra attack value number of attacks to your attacks onece per encounter etc, and a bonus action 'healing surge' was the norm.

Luckily I have the options for them in the DMG.


There's nothing broken about offering shorter short rests; it's just a matter of player preference. It benefits everyone in the setting equally (more or less), not just the players. The game won't disintegrate because of it, but it's worth checking with everyone playing that this is cool; not everyone wants to play a cinematic action-hero game. Some people do like tracking the minutiae and the simulationist take of longer rests.

I was toying with the longer (7 day) long rest option for my next campaign if I noticed that spell casters were getting out of hand. They havent so far, but were only 6th level.

Im actually considering going halfway and limiting 6th-9th level slots to a 7 day (extra long rest) recharge.

[JellyPooga]

The expectation is that you give your players about 2 per adventuring day. So they go through 2 encounters, short rest, two or three more, short rest again, and then 2 ot so more encounters then long rest.

You don't address anything about the possible negative consequences of short rests. Rhaegar14 made a statement that GM's are obliged to provide for a number of "consequence free" short rests in their adventures. This simply isn't the case. In a "typical" adventuring day, sure, it is expected that the PC's will take a couple of short rests, but it's by no means necessary to conform to that "typical" day and I've yet to read anything in the rules about those short rests necessarily being consequence free.

It's the PC's choice to take a rest at any given point; whether the GM obliges them at that time is his choice. What happens whilst the PC's are resting is also up to the GM. If he chooses for the world outside of the PC's resting spot to go into stasis, that's his call, but he's under no obligation to have that be the case. An hour is a long time and all sorts of things can happen in that time.


I was toying with the longer (7 day) long rest option for my next campaign if I noticed that spell casters were getting out of hand. They havent so far, but were only 6th level.

Im actually considering going halfway and limiting 6th-9th level slots to a 7 day (extra long rest) recharge.

I'm currently playing a Bard in a "longer long-rest" game and it creates a very different play-style; players are more cautious in fights because damage doesn't heal so quickly, spellslingers are much more conservative with their spells because they won't get them back until they've rested for a week, even short-rest based abilities feel much more valuable as you're getting a lot less use out of them. I actually quite like it...it's not so fast-paced or cinematic, but it's a lot more tense and I find it feels a lot more epic. When you pull out the stops to actually use one of your limited-use abilities, it feels like you're doing something special and not just that thing you did all day yesterday, twice already today and will do several times again tomorrow.

[DanyBallon]

I'm currently playing a Bard in a "longer long-rest" game and it creates a very different play-style; players are more cautious in fights because damage doesn't heal so quickly, spellslingers are much more conservative with their spells because they won't get them back until they've rested for a week, even short-rest based abilities feel much more valuable as you're getting a lot less use out of them. I actually quite like it...it's not so fast-paced or cinematic, but it's a lot more tense and I find it feels a lot more epic. When you pull out the stops to actually use one of your limited-use abilities, it feels like you're doing something special and not just that thing you did all day yesterday, twice already today and will do several times again tomorrow.

I guess the longer rest variant, is better suit for campaign where there can be a few days in between encounters? How does it play when your group get into a dungeon and have to face successive encounters in a short time?

Would a mix of both rest variant could be use in the same campaign? i.e. longer rest variant when traveling over long distance and facing mostly random encounter then switching to a normal or shorter rest when they explore a dungeon.

[Malifice]

You don't address anything about the possible negative consequences of short rests. Rhaegar14 made a statement that GM's are obliged to provide for a number of "consequence free" short rests in their adventures. This simply isn't the case.

Yes it is the case. In your typical (default) adventuring day, the expectation is that you get around 2 short rests.

Pulling up stumps for an hour every 2-3 encounters is jarring in many circumstances. I've seen many DM's that dont 'get' what the short rests are, and throw % chance of wandering monsters at the party every 10 minutes or so.


In a "typical" adventuring day, sure, it is expected that the PC's will take a couple of short rests, but it's by no means necessary to conform to that "typical" day and I've yet to read anything in the rules about those short rests necessarily being consequence free.

It is typical to the standard adventuring day. If you deviate from the 2 short rest/ 6-8 encounter adventuring day, the class balance falls apart. Zero short rests and your monks, warlocks and fighters get gimped. 1-2 encounter adventuring days favor the full casters.

Im not saying that every adventuring day must conform to the 6-8/ 2 short rest paradigm. It's just not only the default and assumed split, but the classes balance best around it.


It's the PC's choice to take a rest at any given point; whether the GM obliges them at that time is his choice.

I agree. But the length of time impacts on that player choice. Either that, or the DM has to ensure that his 'typical' adventures that confrom to the expected AD feature safe places for the party to rest very 2 or so encounters, and also the monsters cant regularly react to such expected resting.

It's jarring. If I have a princess to save, Im not going to up stumps for an hour in the middle of the Ruins of Terror to catch my breath for a bit.

Handwaving it as a 5 minute 'catch your breath' type of thing (with map checking, quick swig of water, bite to eat and bandaging wounds) is much more elegant.


What happens whilst the PC's are resting is also up to the GM. If he chooses for the world outside of the PC's resting spot to go into stasis, that's his call, but he's under no obligation to have that be the case. An hour is a long time and all sorts of things can happen in that time.

Thats exactly my point. Too much can happen in an hour for me to be able to accept that parties routinely take an hour 'off' to rest up after every 2-3 encounters while exploring deadly ruins.

If I reduce it to 5 minutes, I can ensure the players get the rest they need to recharge abilities at the expected time they are due to recharge (thats all short rests are mechanically speaking - you dont take them for any other reason) and still maintain immersion, without the dungeon inhabitants contantly being forced to twiddle thumbs for an hour (unbeleivable) or to track down the invaders and attack them (which is contrary to the reason short rests exist).

The time limit of 1 hour was deemed to be the sweet spot that would ensure than players only took about 2 per adventuring day without anything adverse happening too often while the recharged. It stretches by belief to accept that paradigm.

In my campaigns they last for an arbitrary amount of time as dicated by the story from 5 minutes to an hour, and no more than 2 can be taken in any one period seperated by long rests. In all honesty I usually just handwave them, and make sure they enerally get one every 2-3 encounters (sometimes I dont allow them at all for a different sort of challenge with a simple 'its too dangerous to rest here' or 'you dont have the time to rest or else the princess dies').


I'm currently playing a Bard in a "longer long-rest" game and it creates a very different play-style; players are more cautious in fights because damage doesn't heal so quickly, spellslingers are much more conservative with their spells because they won't get them back until they've rested for a week, even short-rest based abilities feel much more valuable as you're getting a lot less use out of them. I actually quite like it...it's not so fast-paced or cinematic, but it's a lot more tense and I find it feels a lot more epic. When you pull out the stops to actually use one of your limited-use abilities, it feels like you're doing something special and not just that thing you did all day yesterday, twice already today and will do several times again tomorrow.

Im considering the same thing if spellcasters get out of hand. I quite like the 7 day / 1 day longer rest variant in the DMG.

So far full casters havent been a problem, and I only foresee it happeneing at higher levels once 6-9th level spells come into play. It'll be easy enough to limit just those slots to a 1 week recharge if it does become a problem.

[mephnick]

I guess the longer rest variant, is better suit for campaign where there can be a few days in between encounters? How does it play when your group get into a dungeon and have to face successive encounters in a short time?.

It's much better for a campaign that is focused on travel or politics, as it's much more likely you'll have 6 encounters a week as opposed to 6 a day. I also like using it with injuries (I have a custom table though), as an injured player will be out for a few weeks as opposed to a day.

It is very difficult to balance for a dungeon. My group has been dealing with it, but as a DM I've really had to hold back when I design my dungeons. I need to make them smaller with a few harder fights as opposed to the attrition crawl it's supposed to be. We've been mulling over switching to the fast healing rules for dungeon crawls, but it's a major shift and hit to verisimilitude.

[DanyBallon]

If I reduce it to 5 minutes, I can ensure the players get the rest they need to recharge abilities at the expected time they are due to recharge (thats all short rests are mechanically speaking - you dont take them for any other reason) and still maintain immersion, without the dungeon inhabitants contantly being forced to twiddle thumbs for an hour (unbeleivable) or to track down the invaders and attack them (which is contrary to the reason short rests exist).


Don't you think that adventuring from dawn till dusk, without spending more than 10 min (2x 5 min breather) is more beliveable than monster twiddling ltheir thumbs for an hour? Wandering monsters are meant to be part of the adventuring day. If you encounter none, then you're lucky and can explore further down the dungeon, otherwise, you just need to secure a camp site sooner. If your running against time to save the princess, you could have prepared extra potion and spell scroll or some other aid to help you go through more encounters.

Shorter rest is a totally acceptable playstyle, but plese, don't put it in opposition to 1h rest, becaus or versimilitude, both have their flaws in that regard.

[JellyPooga]

Yes it is the case. In your typical (default) adventuring day, the expectation is that you get around 2 short rests.

I'm not disputing this, I'm disputing that a short rest must be consequence free.


It's jarring. If I have a princess to save, Im not going to up stumps for an hour in the middle of the Ruins of Terror to catch my breath for a bit.

The counter argument to this is "if you're in that much of a hurry, don't take any rests". Does this mess with the expected "balance" of a "typical" adventuring day? Sure, but we're not talking about a "typical" adventuring day under these circumstances; we're talking about an adventuring day under extreme time pressure where every hour counts. That's not "typical". If I, the GM, balance it correctly then I should be taking that time pressure and lack of short rests into account.


If I reduce it to 5 minutes, I can ensure the players get the rest they need to recharge abilities at the expected time they are due to recharge (thats all short rests are mechanically speaking - you dont take them for any other reason) and still maintain immersion, without the dungeon inhabitants contantly being forced to twiddle thumbs for an hour (unbeleivable) or to track down the invaders and attack them (which is contrary to the reason short rests exist).

Personally I think a 5 minute short rest takes away the impact of scenarios like the one you posited where time is a factor and it also takes away some of the tactical considerations the players must make; "do we go on and press our advantage, or do we stop to lick our wounds, losing the element of surprise?".

As I mentioned in my last post; if NPC's are just sitting there in stasis whilst the PC's rest, that's the GM's call to make the world he's created be inorganic (i.e. limited to what he's got written on the page and not responsive to Player actions). It's fine if you like that kind of "computer game" style, but I dislike it (as, I get the impression, do you).

I'm a bit leery of your implication that short rests exist for the "reason" of recharging abilities and that once you've decided to have one, that it should be uninterrupted. I don't see it that way. It's a fine distinction, I think, but I see it the other way around; if you take a short rest and it's uninterrupted, then you get to recharge your abilities. For instance;

If the PC's decide that they've had two encounters and therefore must take a short rest and set up camp right outside a room full of monsters...they're not getting a short rest just yet! They might start resting, but someone is bound to come through that door in that hour.
If they retreat to a safer location, they should still remain on the lookout for potential backlash from their expedition so far; if they held to the expectation that they couldn't possibly be in danger just because they're taking a short rest, why post a watch? Too metagamey for my liking.

[Jamesps]

Don't you think that adventuring from dawn till dusk, without spending more than 10 min (2x 5 min breather) is more beliveable than monster twiddling ltheir thumbs for an hour?

I've been running players in a campaign spanning over a year in a published module and I have to say... Absolutely not. I usually try to enforce a realistic dungeon, and it's been truly absurd how few short rests the party has managed to take over the year we've been playing.

And probably well over half of the very small number of short rests the party has managed to take has resulted in me having to ignore or hand wave dungeon responses.

I have nothing but sympathy for the poor Warlock in the group who is basically persistently out of spells, and can almost never use his spells for anything utility based. And again, these are published modules so they're probably not too out of the ordinary with regards to encounters.

[Chronos]

OK, I think I'm seeing a pretty strong consensus here, then, that this should work fine. I'll let my DM know.

[georgie_leech]

-snip-

The concern is that if Short Rests aren't relatively consequence free, you run into the issue of short-rest balanced classes being detrimental. A Rogue doesn't care much about Short Rests, as their abilities are all either at will or Long Rest (with AT). A Rogue without Short Rests is still a Rogue. The bulk of a Wizard's power is in Long Rest spells; a Wizard without Short Rests is still a Wizard. A Monk without Short Rests burns through Ki extremely quickly, becoming a mediocre Fighter without weapons, or is extremely sparing with their abilities, drastically reducing their effectiveness overall. In other words, if Short Rests are assumed to have negative consequences as the default, it penalises characters unnecessarily for relying on Short Rests to maintain their effectiveness, in the same way that preventing Long Rests would severely weaken full casters.

[Kane0]

In other words, if Short Rests are assumed to have negative consequences as the default, it penalises characters unnecessarily for relying on Short Rests to maintain their effectiveness, in the same way that preventing Long Rests would severely weaken full casters.

Namely Warlocks, Fighters (Battlemasters especially), Monks and anybody using the Healer or Inspiring Leader feat I believe. Cleric/Paladin Channel Divinity and Druid Shapeshifting also suffers, and not being able to spend Hit Dice to heal affects everybody.

[JellyPooga]

In other words, if Short Rests are assumed to have negative consequences.

Yet I'm not talking about curtailing Short Rests or limiting them, I'm talking about the world beyond the PC's perspective accounting for an hour of time passed whilst the PC's rest. The consequences don't have to be negative, either; perhaps the PC's have arranged for reinforcements, or someone comes looking for them or another band of adventurers come along and join up with the PC's. Perhaps the other occupants of the complex spread themselves out over the area the PC's have already cleared looking for them, turning the dungeon into a big game of cat-and-mouse and the PC's now have to chase individuals down before they can regroup.

Changing to a 5-minute Short Rest means you're always going to get your mechanical benefit and balance out of it, but it also means you can lose something in story potential or the opportunity to shake things up a little.

I do quite like the idea of a variable short rest though. I'd go with a minimum of 15 minutes, rather than 5 minutes. Five minutes is not a short rest, it's just necessary recovery from physical exertion.

[DanyBallon]

Having an encounter during a short rest just mean that the party will need to find a better resting place next time. A DM may forgo any random encounter if the party prepared before rest, it could be by securing a door, or casting an illusion, setting an alarm spell, etc. A fair DM may even allow such party that still face a random encounter during a short rest to still gain the benefits from the rest.

[Vogonjeltz]

Its not a question of laziness. Its a question of 'taking one hour breaks in a dungeon crawl two or three times per day breaks my immersion'.

Making them 5 minutes to an hour or so feels better.

In hiking it is immersive to take no more than a 5 minute rest break before continuing on (longer and you'll start into muscle fatigue).

Combat is much more tiring and taking 30 minutes to get your breath back and then another 30 to take stock of the situation after every couple of combats (every combat even) is significantly more plausible than taking no time at all. Heck, the characters could easily take almost an hour just discussing which direction to go when there's a fork in the road or passageway or whether to proceed or not.

If the characters have burned all their short rest abilities, and they've lost a bunch of hit points, that's the game simulating them being tired and needing a rest. At that point pushing on without an imperative reason to do so is what is immersion breaking.

Now, if it balms your worry, the players could always hide the bodies in a side room so passing by is any the wiser for it.


-snip-

Malifice says it's not, but my gut reaction to it is still that it's immersion breaking to categorically take short rests out of the players hands, and it was put forward (originally) as being done for the sake of convenience. That's lazy.

Try not to assign the worst motives behind every criticism and you'll find the internet to be a substantially more hospitable place.


The concern is that if Short Rests aren't relatively consequence free, you run into the issue of short-rest balanced classes being detrimental. A Rogue doesn't care much about Short Rests, as their abilities are all either at will or Long Rest (with AT). A Rogue without Short Rests is still a Rogue. The bulk of a Wizard's power is in Long Rest spells; a Wizard without Short Rests is still a Wizard. A Monk without Short Rests burns through Ki extremely quickly, becoming a mediocre Fighter without weapons, or is extremely sparing with their abilities, drastically reducing their effectiveness overall. In other words, if Short Rests are assumed to have negative consequences as the default, it penalises characters unnecessarily for relying on Short Rests to maintain their effectiveness, in the same way that preventing Long Rests would severely weaken full casters.

Presumably if a short rest is considered too long, it's entirely impossible to get a long rest anywhere but a fortified space (wandering monsters are ubiquitous in the great outdoors!).

Obviously I don't favor denying the players the very things that create balance in terms of the number of anticipated encounters. Given that a single watch when doing a long rest can be up to 2 hours, it's well within the realm of plausibility that, even in a fortress, there would be time (a mere hour) to rest before a shift change might happen.

Heck, depending on the number of opponents involved a shift might last 6-8 hours, and enemies involved might not be missed even after that point if the bodies are hidden and signs of a struggle are covered up. DM's should reward players for giving consideration to their surroundings and planning for such an eventuality, not punish them.

[Malifice]

Don't you think that adventuring from dawn till dusk, without spending more than 10 min (2x 5 min breather) is more beliveable than monster twiddling ltheir thumbs for an hour?

An adventuring 'day' is not actually a day. A 12 room dungeon would take less than an hour to clear, and that includes 6-8 encounters.

In the wilderness, with the players getting 6-8 scattered out over the entire day, then I expect the party would stop and rest for a half hour or an hour or so once or twice during the day (in addition to 10 minute short stops).

Like I said; short rests in my campaign are arbitrary periods of time from 5 minutes to an hour, and you cant take more than two (subject to the DM's call).


Wandering monsters are meant to be part of the adventuring day.

Agree. But I generally plan my 'wandering' monsters in my dungeon design. As in the first 'random' encounter happens on the way to the dungeon proper. I'll also throw a chance of one at the party on rests. 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter on a short rest, and 1-2 on a d6 for a long rest is fair.

Gotta keep them guessing.


I'm not disputing this, I'm disputing that a short rest must be consequence free.

It should be consequence free to the point that the party can expect 2 x short rests every adventuring day.


The counter argument to this is "if you're in that much of a hurry, don't take any rests". Does this mess with the expected "balance" of a "typical" adventuring day? Sure, but we're not talking about a "typical" adventuring day under these circumstances; we're talking about an adventuring day under extreme time pressure where every hour counts. That's not "typical". If I, the GM, balance it correctly then I should be taking that time pressure and lack of short rests into account.

Im not arguing against timed adventures. In fact, timed adventures are an expected part of 5E's encounter design.

I am saying that classes balance around the (2 short rest/ 6-8 medium to hard encounter) adventuring day. By adding consequences to short rests, then players wont take them, and this paradigm goes out the window and classes like the Warlock, Fighter and Monk suffer.

See the following post for an example:


I've been running players in a campaign spanning over a year in a published module and I have to say... Absolutely not. I usually try to enforce a realistic dungeon, and it's been truly absurd how few short rests the party has managed to take over the year we've been playing.

And probably well over half of the very small number of short rests the party has managed to take has resulted in me having to ignore or hand wave dungeon responses.

I have nothing but sympathy for the poor Warlock in the group who is basically persistently out of spells, and can almost never use his spells for anything utility based. And again, these are published modules so they're probably not too out of the ordinary with regards to encounters.

To this poster. STOP. Youre unfairly nerfing the Warlock. Give the party 2 short rests every adventuring day (around one every 2 encounters). Enforce a 2 short rest/ 6-8 encoutner adventuring day between long rests.

Hand wave the short rest time limit if you must. The time limit is not important to the game (the time limit restriction is just there to give DM's the ability to to restict or limit rests if players are looking to abuse the rest mechanic, or if the DM wants to design an adventure with limited rests as a specific mechanic ). The default expected ratio of encoutners / short rests in an adventuring day is 6-8 encounters/ 2 short rests.

If your players are getting less short rests, back off a bit till theyre averaging this number. If theyre resting after every batle, throw randoms at them till they get the picture.

You're unfairly punishing the Warlock otherwise by straying from the expected 2 short rests per long rest, and one short rest every 2 encounters. Its in your hands as the DM to do something about this.


Personally I think a 5 minute short rest takes away the impact of scenarios like the one you posited where time is a factor and it also takes away some of the tactical considerations the players must make; "do we go on and press our advantage, or do we stop to lick our wounds, losing the element of surprise?".

It doesnt. The get 2 per long rest. Its just up to the players to decire when to take them. They know they are going to get 6-8 medium to hard encounters most days.


I'm a bit leery of your implication that short rests exist for the "reason" of recharging abilities and that once you've decided to have one, that it should be uninterrupted. I don't see it that way. It's a fine distinction, I think, but I see it the other way around; if you take a short rest and it's uninterrupted, then you get to recharge your abilities. For instance;

Its not an implication. Thats all short rests are. They replenish resources.

Classes are not balanced against each other (like in 4E) with the same number of short rest (encounter) powers and daily (long rest) powers. Some classes rely on short rests to recharge abilities (Warlock, Flighter, Monk). Some rely on long rests to do so (all full casters, Paladin, Barbarian). Some (Champion and Rogue) are rest neutral and excell on days where no rests are available.

If you allow less than two short rests per AD (or more) you affect the balance of the classes, just like if you run more or less than the expected number of encounters.

Compare Warlock 6 v Wizard 6.

With 2 x short rests over a 7 encounter AD, the Warlock has 6 x 3rd level slots (and invocations and cantrips). Nearly enought for 1 spell per encounter (at max level).
The Wizard has 4 x 3rd level slots (arcane recovery), 3 x 2nd level slots, 4 x 1st level slots and cantrips. Enough for 1.5 spells per encounter (however only enough to drop a 3rd level slot on every second encounter).

Thats the balancing point.

Now have a look at those classes over a 7 encounter AD with no short rests allowed. The 'Lock is screwed. Now look at them again in a single encounter day (the Wizard has the edge). Now again in a 7 encounter day, with 5 short rests taken (Warlock is boss). And again in a 15 encounter AD (first with a short rest after every encounter and the 'Lock is grinning, and again with no short rests at all and the 'Lock is crying).

Notice the massive difference each time?


If the PC's decide that they've had two encounters and therefore must take a short rest and set up camp right outside a room full of monsters...they're not getting a short rest just yet!

The monsters are only there becuase you put the monsters there. In other words, you (as the DM) are not allowing a short rest. You are making a decision that affects class balance (possibly deliberately).

The game expects (and is balanced around) 2 short rests every 6-8 encounters.

If you as the DM enforce something different to that (by constantly having environments too dangerous to rest in, not providing ample opportunity for the party to rest after every 2-3 encounters etc), then it affects the different classes differently.

Rather than have to deal with that, its much easier to just hand wave rests every 2-3 encounters, maintain class balance and get on with it.

Remember 'short rests' only exist as a resource replenishment mechanism. By restricting them, you restrict resource replenishment. And this restriction punishes different classes differently.


In hiking it is immersive to take no more than a 5 minute rest break before continuing on (longer and you'll start into muscle fatigue).

Combat is much more tiring and taking 30 minutes to get your breath back and then another 30 to take stock of the situation after every couple of combats (every combat even) is significantly more plausible than taking no time at all. Heck, the characters could easily take almost an hour just discussing which direction to go when there's a fork in the road or passageway or whether to proceed or not.

If the characters have burned all their short rest abilities, and they've lost a bunch of hit points, that's the game simulating them being tired and needing a rest. At that point pushing on without an imperative reason to do so is what is immersion breaking.

Now, if it balms your worry, the players could always hide the bodies in a side room so passing by is any the wiser for it.

I did 8 years in the Army. Ive experienced both walking very long distances with very heavy weights (I dont miss that!), and combat.

After contact with the enemy, the standard thing to do is a quick re-org (10 minutes at max) to check ammo, POW's, KIA or WIA and then bug out. And when patrolling, we certainly never stopped for an hour, let alone for a few times a day! A 5 minute harbour up and quick smoke, drink of water and bite to eat and you're on your way again.

I certainly cant picture an assault on an enemy postion with us stopping to rest for an hour after every 2-3 firefights!


Malifice says it's not, but my gut reaction to it is still that it's immersion breaking to categorically take short rests out of the players hands, and it was put forward (originally) as being done for the sake of convenience. That's lazy.

You're not taking them out of your players hands by defining a short rest as 'A short rest is an arbitrary period of time from 5 minutes to an hour, and you can generally only take 2 in between long rests'

My players know that they get 2 in between long rests (and broken up by usually 6-8 encounters). They choose when they take one. I'll generally handwave them (possibly occasioanally rolling a random encounter 1/6 chance to keep them on their toes).

[JellyPooga]

The game expects (and is balanced around) 2 short rests every 6-8 encounters.

I get that the mechanics of the game are balanced around this. I've never argued otherwise and you don't have to convince me of it.

What we both are finding that breaks immersion is having to shoe-horn those rests into a game for "game balance".

You deal with it by changing the rules; by reducing the amount of time a short rest takes, it feels less forced. That's fine, it works. You also impose a "2 short rests per long rest" limit and for me that also breaks immersion; aside from game mechanics, what IC reason is there for this limit?

I prefer to deal with the mechanic-immersion divide by adjusting the IC world such that immersion is not lost. There's a divide because it's all too easy to put the world into "stasis mode" whilst the PC's are resting. By changing the world and accounting for that time, no immersion is lost; the world is a living, breathing atmosphere.

I agree that if every "consequence" of taking a short rest is negative, players will feel less inclined to take short rests and yes, this will adversely affect game balance for some classes...which is why you don't have all consequences be necessarily negative.

You cite Jamesps as an example of the short rest mechanic failing because of an organic world, but we hardly have all the facts. Is the group mostly long rest focused classes with the Warlock being the only one really dependent on short rests? Are the players "old-schoolers" who are having trouble getting to grips with the mind-set of taking short rests? Is the GM limiting short rests by constantly rolling Wandering Monsters or straight up saying "you can't rest there/now"? We don't know. It's not the GMs place to enforce the 2-short rest paradigm; that's on the players. The GM can provide for it, but can't force the players to rest.


The monsters are only there becuase you put the monsters there. In other words, you (as the DM) are not allowing a short rest. You are making a decision that affects class balance (possibly deliberately).

Yes the monsters are there because I put them there, but that has nothing to do with providing or preventing short rests; the adventure is designed such that it makes sense, not because of game mechanics.

For example; if the players want to storm the kings palace when they're level 1, that's on them; I'm not going to provide a "level appropriate encounter", because they've decided to do something stupid. They'll be facing elite guards that will simply take them apart. I probably wouldn't even bother rolling dice for that encounter; I'd tell a story of how it all went pear-shaped and they'd wake up in jail.

If the players are assaulting a dungeon full of goblins, that dungeon will be designed as an organic environment; living quarters, guard posts (including rotations), kitchens and ablutions, food/water sources...the works. I don't "hand-wave" the details. If the players, after having taken out a guard post and stealthily assaulted the kitchen, decide that "hey we've had two encounters, better rest up for game mechanics" right outside the door to the living quarters, you can guarantee that in that hour someone will come through that door looking for food. The players have done a stupid thing by trying to rest there and I'm not going to bend or change the rules to account for the players being idiots. If they want to retreat to the guard post and rest, they'll probably get away with it (assuming there was no guard rotation expected in that time), but they can't expect the goblins not to have discovered that their kitchen staff have been slaughtered. I'm also not going to design the dungeon layout in nice 2-encounter blocks, such that the players can happily go in, have their two encounters, rest undisturbed, move on for another 2 encounters and so on. Who would design a dungeon that way?

The players have always got the option of resting; they can do so any time they like. What they can't do is expect a game world than runs like a computer game;
- They won't always get 2 short rests per long rest. Sometimes they'll have more, sometimes they'll get less...it depends on how often they want to rest and how smart they are about it.
- They can't always rest undisturbed (even when they're not in directly hostile territory). Especially if I think they're taking liberties with resting too much.
- The world doesn't stand still whilst they're resting. This is usually enough to prevent rest-abuse.

[djreynolds]

The reality is, for most posters on this forum, I feel everyone here is experienced enough to know when rules need to be enforced and when not to. Don't tell me, that no one has ever heard a good DM say "hey your dice hit that crack in the table, you should roll again." If someone is going fail a death save because his jerk team mate won't even roll the dice on a medicine check, then I will roll your death save for you.

Sometimes what I do, "there is no reason you cannot take a long rest here, and since it will not impact this particular adventure in terms of time or degree of difficulty, go ahead."

If the guys and gals are under some time restraint than I have to enforce these rests and it is understood it is part of the game. If you are under a spell, it sucks but please attack your wizard for me please.

If you're about to enter the big showdown, I'll give you 5 minutes and some hit dice. Because I am excited too. I want to see the party, struggle and win, I'm not there to kill them nor cheat them.

If you play well for me, invest in your character, play well with your table, I will help you.

If you are rules snob, role play chessy builds, and a jerk to the table--- I will play by the rules.

[Malifice]

You also impose a "2 short rests per long rest" limit and for me that also breaks immersion; aside from game mechanics, what IC reason is there for this limit?

There is only so much energy you can recover from resting in a day. Its not a hard limit either. Like I said, I occasionally allow more.


I prefer to deal with the mechanic-immersion divide by adjusting the IC world such that immersion is not lost. There's a divide because it's all too easy to put the world into "stasis mode" whilst the PC's are resting. By changing the world and accounting for that time, no immersion is lost; the world is a living, breathing atmosphere.

Constantly taking 1 hour rests in dungeons breaks my immersion. Its the taking of constant one hour stops about a third of the way through most dungeons that jars me.


It's not the GMs place to enforce the 2-short rest paradigm; that's on the players.

I disagree. Its one of the DM's main jobs to police the adventuring day. Thats why a DM uses timed quests etc. Those 'save the princess in 'X' hours' hooks are DM invented plot contrivances to force the 6-8 encounter AD. eEcounter design (and adventures) are based around the DM having control over the resting (and thats why they have the time limits they do - to assist in this policing). If my players rest too often, I warn them, and then throw random monsters at them. If they dont rest enough, I suggest they do so. They *know* that they'll (more often than not) get 6-8 encounters in between long rests, and I'll generally allow them 2 opportunities to short rest in among them. Not that the 6-8 encounter day is set in stone mond you, but that's the expected standard.

If I sat on my hands and did nothing (not placing time limits on my adventures, or not putting them in a sufficiently hostile environment to make the perception of danger enough to restrain resting) then the 5 minute adventuring day becomes a thing, and class balance goes out the window.


Yes the monsters are there because I put them there, but that has nothing to do with providing or preventing short rests; the adventure is designed such that it makes sense, not because of game mechanics.

That is where we disagree. If the expectation is for 2 x 1 hour breaks every day, broken up by 2-3 encounters either side of those 1 hour breaks, then youre obliged as a DM to provide for such rests. Resting needs to be a factor in your adventure design. If you design a dungeon that is hostile to the point that a 1 hour rest is impossible, or that has a 1 hour time limit to complete, then youre making a decision with relation to the rest assumptions in that adventure. If you intend on sticking to the expected 2 x 1 hour rests paradigm, then you need to provide an environment that supports that paradigm.

5 minute breaks are much easer to provide for as a DM when planning an adventure than 1 hour breaks.

[DanyBallon]

the 2-3 encounters between rest is only a guideline. As a DM it's a usefull tool to create challenging adventures, but it's still up to the players to decide when they should rest. Maybe the feel that the last 3 fight haven't use much of their abilities and that they can take some more, or maybe some bad roll turned a easy fight into a Deadly one and they had to run for their lives, and decide to call it a day, only after their first encounter. Both scenario have different consequences than what was planned by the DM, in the former, they may surprise their enemies, or just run into a fight that might end up too hard for them, in the second case, the monsters may reenforced their guards, but at least the PC will face them with full health, or maybe the vilain knowing that someone stumble onto it's lair, may decide to relocate during the night, sending the campaign in a new direction.

In the end, the lenght of rest as well of when these rest are taken, should have impact on the game. However, any good DM should know when a random encounter would be too much, and will let the character have break.

[Malifice]

the 2-3 encounters between rest is only a guideline. As a DM it's a usefull tool to create challenging adventures, but it's still up to the players to decide when they should rest. Maybe the feel that the last 3 fight haven't use much of their abilities and that they can take some more, or maybe some bad roll turned a easy fight into a Deadly one and they had to run for their lives, and decide to call it a day, only after their first encounter. Both scenario have different consequences than what was planned by the DM, in the former, they may surprise their enemies, or just run into a fight that might end up too hard for them, in the second case, the monsters may reenforced their guards, but at least the PC will face them with full health, or maybe the vilain knowing that someone stumble onto it's lair, may decide to relocate during the night, sending the campaign in a new direction.

In the end, the lenght of rest as well of when these rest are taken, should have impact on the game. However, any good DM should know when a random encounter would be too much, and will let the character have break.

So its not an entirely player driven choice when they rest and when they dont. The DM can simply throw random monsters at them stopping resting, or other contrivances to stop it.

Players choose when to rest; subject to the DM's permission. He designed the adventure. He sets the environment and places the time frame within which you make the decision to rest or not to.

Im just codifying what already exists. I generally (almost always) say yes, and occasionally throw a random encounter at them (1/6 chance in busy dungeons). The '2 per day' soft limit of short rests and 6-8 encounter expectation is the main limiting factor for when they chose to take a breather.

Its a convoluted method of balancing the different classes, but with different classes with different degrees of complexity, and different methods of resouce management, its a key role in managing the game (regulating your players resource management, while also regulating class balance and encounter difficulty).

When you settle into an equilibrium its not jarring at all and the game runs quite smoothly. Still; I feel there could have been a more elegant method of ensuring classes balance than the current AD and rest paradigm that wasnt overly gamey and samey as 4E was.

[Sception]

The problem with insisting that short rests both take an hour and that they have 'consequences' is that the most obvious, most natural consequence of taking an hour rest in an enemy stronghold (which is what dungeons effectively are), is that you get attacked, and if you get attacked during your rest then you never got the rest in the first place.

The natural, immersive, simulationist consequence of hour long short rests is that the PCs don't get to rest at all during most dungeon delves.

[DanyBallon]

The problem with insisting that short rests both take an hour and that they have 'consequences' is that the most obvious, most natural consequence of taking an hour rest in an enemy stronghold (which is what dungeons effectively are), is that you get attacked, and if you get attacked during your rest then you never got the rest in the first place.

The natural, immersive, simulationist consequence of hour long short rests is that the PCs don't get to rest at all during most dungeon delves.

If the party is wise enough to retreat to an area already cleared, and that they can easily secure, then they should be able to have a full short rest, or at least the DM should reduce the chance for random encounter. If the party want to cath their breath just before opening the "boss" door, even with 5-min short rest I wouldn't allow them to rest, as it is looking for trouble. Remember that it's not a finite 1h, it could be ranging from 30 min to 2hrs if that's what the player wants. Also a DM can say that the time they take to go back and find a secure place is part of the short rest as there wasn't much risk.

i.e. Last session we were exploring a ruined village when we encountered some creatures, our tempest cleric being surround used her most favored spell, Thunder Wave, unfortunately, the sound alert every creatures in the area and they come looking for us, we manage to kill most of them, but we found out that it also alert some bigger nasty threat and we were in no position to fight it at that moment, so we fall back to a ruined house which still had doors and shutters. We secure the place as much as we could and waited. We used that time to eat and rest while doing tour of guard. After a few hours, there were no more sign of the nasty beast and went out, unfortunately for us, something sneaked upon us in the mean time.

This scenario could have happened in a dungeon and the occupants, could have set up a trap instead of attacking while we rest. Not every 1 hour rest in a dungeon end up with rest being broken.

[JoeJ]

The problem with insisting that short rests both take an hour and that they have 'consequences' is that the most obvious, most natural consequence of taking an hour rest in an enemy stronghold (which is what dungeons effectively are), is that you get attacked, and if you get attacked during your rest then you never got the rest in the first place.

The natural, immersive, simulationist consequence of hour long short rests is that the PCs don't get to rest at all during most dungeon delves.

If the PCs have to stop and take a rest after just 2 encounters, then maybe trying to assault the place openly isn't the best strategy. Either stealth or deception might be a better choice.

But I certainly wouldn't assume that every dungeon is an active enemy stronghold. There are still some of us grognards who enjoy the Old School paradigm, in which most dungeons are ruins.

[JellyPooga]

The natural, immersive, simulationist consequence of hour long short rests is that the PCs don't get to rest at all during most dungeon delves.

Correction: The natural, immersive, simulationist consequence of hour long short rests is that the PC's don't get to rest at all when they try to rest somewhere stupid like blatantly out in the open, with monsters still roaming around the area they're trying to rest.

If they retreat to an uninhabited area of a dungeon, an area the inhabitants don't frequent often, outside the dungeon or conceal themselves sufficiently (e.g. using Rope Trick, conveniently an hour long these days...)...crack on and rest. Just don't expect everything to be as you left it when you were there last. Hell, don't expect things to be as you left them even when you aren't taking an hours rest; just because you've "cleared" a room, doesn't mean something isn't going to go back in there after you've left. Even in a linear dungeon, a returning patrol could be coming in behind the PC's, for example.

If the PC's want to press their assault and stay in the think of things, they're not resting and shouldn't be getting the benefits. As I've previously stated, I understand why some might prefer a shorter short rest; it makes for a different playstyle that will appeal to others. For me, it's not a playstyle I enjoy.

[Malifice]

The natural, immersive, simulationist consequence of hour long short rests is that the PCs don't get to rest at all during most dungeon delves.

Yep. And seeing as though dungeon delves AND the 6-8 encounter AD are the default setting and the default pacing of your rests, that kind of stinks to me.

I either play my dungeons 'realistic' (no way in hell the monsters fail to notice a 5 man party has slaughtered creatures in an adjoining room) or dumb in order to conform to the 1 hour paradigm. Alternativvely I have to contrive a means in each dungeon that allows for a few short rests here and there with no disadvantage to the party for so doing.

Its a chore, and I prefer to just handwave it.

[Vogonjeltz]

I did 8 years in the Army. Ive experienced both walking very long distances with very heavy weights (I dont miss that!), and combat.

After contact with the enemy, the standard thing to do is a quick re-org (10 minutes at max) to check ammo, POW's, KIA or WIA and then bug out. And when patrolling, we certainly never stopped for an hour, let alone for a few times a day! A 5 minute harbour up and quick smoke, drink of water and bite to eat and you're on your way again.

I certainly cant picture an assault on an enemy postion with us stopping to rest for an hour after every 2-3 firefights!

A fair point for reality, but it should also be acknowledged that firing a rifle isn't as physically draining as engaging in melee combat.

I'm totally comfortable with the modern military experience being reflected in the heroic variant of a 5 minute short rest, 1 hour long rest, but as that isn't the default for D&D...


You're not taking them out of your players hands by defining a short rest as 'A short rest is an arbitrary period of time from 5 minutes to an hour, and you can generally only take 2 in between long rests'

My players know that they get 2 in between long rests (and broken up by usually 6-8 encounters). They choose when they take one. I'll generally handwave them (possibly occasioanally rolling a random encounter 1/6 chance to keep them on their toes).

Sure you are, it's an arbitrary limitation that lacks anything but a book-keeping purpose. The only guidance regarding the number of rests in the DMG is to let the DM know that the party likely will need to take two. Nowhere is that a limitation, but rather a minimum so the DM knows to provide those opportunities where they might otherwise not exist.

[Malifice]

A fair point for reality, but it should also be acknowledged that firing a rifle isn't as physically draining as engaging in melee combat.

Come back to me when youre patrolling in full cams, 5kgs of body armor, a 5kg rife, and around 10-20kgs of other crap, sprinting from firing position to firing position.

I can assure you, its very tiring.


Sure you are, it's an arbitrary limitation that lacks anything but a book-keeping purpose.

And 'rests take 1 hour' isnt equally arbitrary?

[djreynolds]

The game is designed now, that everyone has a solid attack option (and I still think cantrips are OP) and caster's do not have to drop 6 spell points and twin the kitchen sink at every bad guy. It is a game of resources and attrition and knowing when to nova or retreat or gut it out.

But the world you play in, is a living world full of inhabitants, or un-living, and just because "you've" cleared the dungeon doesn't mean something is not walking the halls the same as you are. Random encounters heightens the tension of the game, and is designed that way to allow all types of party members to shine, not just the guys who throw the kitchen sink.

Put it this way, the guy with rocket launcher has only so many rockets he can carry and should not waste them on people when a bullet will do. Do not waste those rockets (like 3rd level spells) on the goblin tribe, I will not give a rest to recover those slots. Theoretically an hour is along time in game play.

But I like the 5 minute rest idea, and I would be inclined to give one to worthy players to spend a hit die to recover hit points. Perhaps in addition to short rests, etc but with a caveat it can only be done once or twice a long rest. Just a quick shakedown that allows players to regain 1 die of hit points.

But remember the game is full of novice players who need to learn and not be punished and walk away from the table.