How many short rests per long rest is the game designed for?

[Particle_Man]

I am thinking of divorcing the crunch from the fluff a bit so while I want a party to gain back spells and hp, I want to tie it directly to number of encounters without tying it to in game hours or eight hour periods of rest.

This a party might have 2 fights over an in-game month without getting the benefits of a short rest between them or might have 14 fights in on in-game day but get the benefits of short and long rests in between, as appropriate.

So what is the recommended number of fights between short rests and short rests between long rests and fights between long rests?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am thinking of divorcing the crunch from the fluff a bit so while I want a party to gain back spells and hp, I want to tie it directly to number of encounters without tying it to in game hours or eight hour periods of rest.

This a party might have 2 fights over an in-game month without getting the benefits of a short rest between them or might have 14 fights in on in-game day but get the benefits of short and long rests in between, as appropriate.

So what is the recommended number of fights between short rests and short rests between long rests and fights between long rests?

Generally, if you have 2 short rests per long rest and average X > 1 fights between any two rests, you're decently fine. It doesn't always have to be the same number--you could do the following (each line is a long rest, each / is a short rest):

1/2/1 (mostly hard+ encounters)
2/2/2 (the "default")
3/2/3 (the "all medium/easy default")
1/5/1 (as long as the 5 are reasonably easy)
etc.

What doesn't work as a continual diet (it can work for short spurts) is

//N (N <= 2 big fight, no short rests)
1/1 (1 fight per short rest, works better than above but still not great)
etc.

[Unoriginal]

I am thinking of divorcing the crunch from the fluff a bit so while I want a party to gain back spells and hp, I want to tie it directly to number of encounters without tying it to in game hours or eight hour periods of rest.

This a party might have 2 fights over an in-game month without getting the benefits of a short rest between them or might have 14 fights in on in-game day but get the benefits of short and long rests in between, as appropriate.

So what is the recommended number of fights between short rests and short rests between long rests and fights between long rests?

The game is not designed for a particular number of short rests per long rest, nor is there an official recommended number.

HOWEVER, the classes where designed in way that the expectation of how many encounters a party can have before it runs out of ressources is 6-8 Medium encounters, or 3-4 Deadly ones, with 2 short rests. Which is markedly different.

[Tanarii]

The officially recommended number is 2 short rests per long rest. See DMG page 84:
SHORT RESTS
In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day.

[Unoriginal]

The officially recommended number is 2 short rests per long rest. See DMG page 84:
SHORT RESTS
In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day.

That doesn't *recommend* two short rests, though. It says that the PCs will likely need it at this point of the adventuring day.

Recommending would imply the DMG tells you you should provide a short rest at this point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am thinking of divorcing the crunch from the fluff a bit so while I want a party to gain back spells and hp, I want to tie it directly to number of encounters without tying it to in game hours or eight hour periods of rest.

This a party might have 2 fights over an in-game month without getting the benefits of a short rest between them or might have 14 fights in on in-game day but get the benefits of short and long rests in between, as appropriate. So what is the recommended number of fights between short rests and short rests between long rests and fights between long rests? If you read the book, it's pretty clear.


The Adventuring Day
Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.
Short Rests
In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day.
What we found; if we are going to do 8 encounters, medium, with one or two hard, three short rests. Six, two.

CAVEAT 1:
This will vary with your group's play style and their focus on resource management. That guideline assumes that the players are into the game, and that they keep an eye on their resources and get into the resource management piece of the game.

CAVEAT 2: how big is your party?

CAVEAT 3: how smart do you play the monsters.

This isn't a CRPG; its an in person role playing / adventure game so you won't be able to approach it as a vending machine.
(I put in a quarter, there is my small handful of M&Ms)
The above point is why I really like how PhoenixPhyre approaches this.

Lastly: depending on the group ... what tends to work best with my group is 3 hard plus (between hard and deadly) with a short rest in between. That has a lot to do with our table dynamic and scheduling. I try to fit in one day's adventuring budget and the split for 3 fights gets me to about that. The harder fights also tend to really focus the players.

For five 4th level PCs, the budget is 1700 x 5 (8500) adjusted XP. When they hit 5th level, the boost to 18,500 XP for a day might move me to putting together 4 fights in an adventure day. The DM in our Tier 3 game (mixed level 12-15) gives us 4 hard/hard plus (with the now and again deadly) encounters per adventure day for two major reasons. (I've asked him about this)
(1) He wants each encounter to make us work; (2) he wants to prepare fewer encounters.
It works well enough.

[Unoriginal]

CAVEAT 1:
This will vary with your group's play style and their focus on resource management. That guideline assumes that the players are into the game, and that they keep an eye on their resources and get into the resource management piece of the game.

CAVEAT 2: how big is your party?

CAVEAT 3: how smart do you play the monsters.

This isn't a CRPG; its an in person role playing / adventure game so you won't be able to approach it as a vending machine.
(I put in a quarter, there is my small handful of M&Ms)

This is quite true.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the outlier examples of "all of the encounter XP for the day, and more in one fight" was a great big battle in a giant's stronghold.
Our 5 PCs averaged 12th level. That's ~ 57,500 XP (adjusted) on the budget. When we opened the door, there were a lot of giants, from Hill Giant chiefs to Frost Giants to Cloud Giants to Stone Giants. (And I think a fire giant came in through a wall later in the fight). Well over a dozen of them. (Thank goodness our wizard had wall of force to split the combat up a bit ...)
One of our players went back, as we counted the slain giants, and came up with an encounter budget somewhere in the 90,000 XP range with all of the multiples from the table ... but I'd say that this battle was very much a "multipart encounter" the way it played out. Once the battle started, it didn't end; no rest, no pause, just some maneuvering on our part to keep the choke points up so that the giants could not surround us. Near the end of the battle, my champion got whacked down to 0 HP and missed his first two death saves due to being hit while down! Thankfully, the one death save I had to make, I did ...

I think that battle would be fairly called "deadly + " but it was also very much a "BBEG final confrontation" type of fight.
Yes, we long rested after that one.
I think that was the only one for that adventure day, but it's been over a year. There might have been a small skirmish right before we opened that door ...

[Pex]

I find it's not about how many short rests per long rest but how many short and long rests per gaming session. Players want to use their stuff. That's part of the fun of playing. Conserving resources is fine and dandy and should be something to learn. However, players never using their stuff for fear of needing it later and it will take forever to get it back is just as bad as players using all their stuff as soon as possible then run on fumes of their most basic abilities until finally they get an appropriate rest.

If combat is light one short rest during the session then long rest when session ends to start fresh next game will be fine. For a general feel of combat two short rests during the session then long rest at the end to start fresh next game session is fine. For a heavy combat day have a long rest in the game session and the end of session to start fresh next day where heavy doesn't necessarily mean the BBEG fight but rather in number such as a dungeon crawl. If there's virtually no combat that session then no long rest is needed until next session and maybe not even a short rest but probably give one anyway to account for players using their stuff for utility or roleplaying.

How many in game hours/days/weeks/months/centuries it takes for any particular rest doesn't matter. Use whatever in game narrative fits for time passing. The important thing is the ratio of how many rests (short and long) the players get per game session when a rest is needed.

[KorvinStarmast]

How many in game hours / days / weeks / months / centuries it takes for any particular rest doesn't matter. Use whatever in game narrative fits for time passing. The important thing is the ratio of how many rests (short and long) the players get per game session when a rest is needed. Well said. *golf clap*

[djreynolds]

Is it safe to short rest?

Is there time? In game is there 1 hour, or must you get somewhere now.

Do you need to short rest? Is there a reason not to have close to max health.

Did the fighter and monk have to save the day, because the wizard is only casting cantrips?

Or is the wizard casting cantrips, knowing he needs the big spells for the BBEG, and that fighter and monk will pick up the slack because they short rest.

If you answer,
yes it is safe,
yes we need health, and
yes we have the time

Then short rest

[Particle_Man]

To the last post, I would be taking that out of the players’ hands. They would not get any mechanical benefits from resting for an hour anymore, but instead based on something else, like have they had two fights since their last short rest.

[djreynolds]

To the last post, I would be taking that out of the players’ hands. They would not get any mechanical benefits from resting for an hour anymore, but instead based on something else, like have they had two fights since their last short rest.

No you are the key. Your adventure will dictate, do they press on?

They may have to go into the next situation bloodied. Because they have to! Someone will die if they don't get there. Your story should dictate.

Maybe the paladin is driven by his/her oath to get there now. He's convincing the party to press on. The reasonable fighter favors a safer course. Both are right in their hearts, death does not care.

All this can occur. Your story, the drama and tempo you've created, will leave your players with choices.

Often right next to the dead paladin are his comrades.

You set the stage, Why can't they short rest? Being chased? Someone in peril?

Allow the discussion to occur and players to advocate why yes, or why no.

The let make choices, good or bad.

[Tanarii]

That doesn't *recommend* two short rests, though. It says that the PCs will likely need it at this point of the adventuring day.Saying they will likely need it is recommend it.

I doubt you think they're recommending you deny it, in saying they need it?

[Unoriginal]

Saying they will likely need it is recommend it.

I doubt you think they're recommending you deny it, in saying they need it?

"They will likely need X" isn't the same thing as "we recommend you to give them X".


"They will likely need X" means that without it, they risk to be in trouble.

"We recommend you to give them X" means that you're advising against putting them in trouble.

A DM's job is, among other things, to give the PCs lots of troubles they can handle. The DMG isn't telling the DM "you should shy away from not giving X", it's saying "here's what's likely to happen if you don't give X".

Being in a situation where rest isn't possible, or is costly, is a tense situation. Therefore, it is an *interesting* adventure situation, and a welcome tool in the DM's toolbox.

Sometime you have to keep running to stop the ritual on top of the tower, even if you've had two fights in a row. Sometime you have to hide without a chance to rest. Sometime you try to rest and get attacked by a patrol.

All are valid situations, and the DMG isn't recommending avoiding them because PCs need rests.

[Laserlight]

My players typically like really tough fights. In SKT, for instance, most of our fights (including the one at the end) were just not that tough--but our barbarian barged into the hill giants' hall and said "I'll take you all on!" and the result was a 5xDeadly that pretty much drained us dry. That was, by far, the most popular fight of that campaign.

I don't give my players Easy encounters, except to say "It's a kobold horde! They'll kill you all! Run!" when the players can say "Dave, fireball that for me, wouldya? I'm flirting with the bartender." If they're in a fight, it's normally Deadly to 3xDeadly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you're dead set on doing "rests" at fixed intervals, I'd do it by fractions of the recommended adventuring day XP budget.

Depending on optimization/gear, I might do any of the following:

Low-op/low-gear:
33% then SR, 33% then SR, 34% then LR

High-op/high-gear:
40%/40%/40% (total 120% since the baseline is set for low-op/no-feats/no-multiclassing/no +X items)

My reasoning is that if you do it by fights, you could end up with 2 easy fights and then an unneeded SR or 2 deadly+ fights with no rest. %-of-budget handles strength-of-schedule better, IMO.

But I still agree with others that it makes more sense if it's organic to the fiction.

[Tanarii]

"They will likely need X" isn't the same thing as "we recommend you to give them X".I fail to see the difference between "they will likely need X" and "we recommend the game generally have X".

"give" doesn't come into it. There's no assumption that it be controlled by the DM. It's a recommendation of what the game is designed to work with.

[Malifice]

I am thinking of divorcing the crunch from the fluff a bit so while I want a party to gain back spells and hp, I want to tie it directly to number of encounters without tying it to in game hours or eight hour periods of rest.

This a party might have 2 fights over an in-game month without getting the benefits of a short rest between them or might have 14 fights in on in-game day but get the benefits of short and long rests in between, as appropriate.

So what is the recommended number of fights between short rests and short rests between long rests and fights between long rests?

Roughly 1 short rest every 1-3 encounters (so once per 2 encounters on average), and a long rest every 2-3 short rests/ 6-8 encounters.

I'd recommend a rest every 2 encounters, with the third such rest being a long rest.

So: encounter, encounter [short rest] encounter, encounter [short rest] encounter, encounter [long rest], repeat from the start.

It's probably too gamist for my liking, if I wanted to slow down the pace of the game I would instead just use the gritty rest variant (especially if my game features 0-3 encounters per day as a median).

[Unoriginal]

There's no assumption that it be controlled by the DM.

Incorrect. The rests are always in control of the DM.

[Malifice]

Incorrect. The rests are always in control of the DM.

Absolutely.

He can limit them as he sees fit. Doom clocks, dangerous environments, or a simple 'you slept badly last night, and gain no benefits from the rest' all do the job. As does any of the rest variants (from now on we're doing this for rests) etc.

Of course he doesnt have to limit them if he wants either.

A DM that doesnt turn his mind to managing and policing the adventuring day, isnt doing his job AFAIAC.

[Tanarii]

Incorrect. The rests are always in control of the DM.
Insofar as everything in the game is controlled by the DM, yes. But there's a difference between that and "DM says when rests happen".

[Malifice]

Insofar as everything in the game is controlled by the DM, yes. But there's a difference between that and "DM says when rests happen".

But he does.

Players: After the encounter we rest for 8 hours.
DM: You all feel slightly better, but gain back none of your resources from the rest (and gain no benefit from it) as you are woken several times during the night be strange sounds, and are plagued by nightmares and have restless nights sleep. In addition the Princess you were trying to save has been sacrificed, and the Demon has been summoned/ the bad guys have left the dungeon taking the treasure with them/ they've reinforced the dungeon with double the number of monsters as yesterday/ your employer has decided to hire someone else because youre taking too long/ a rival band of adventurers has gotten to the treasure first/ the Death Star blew up the dungeon while you were waiting around etc etc etc.

The players say when rests happen, and the DM decides what the benefits (and consequences) of that stated action are (as he does with every stated action by the players).

Again, resting is key to DnD's resource management core. A DM that doesnt turn his mind to how he is going to police that resource managment by his players in game is failing in his job as DM.

Doing it via inexperience I can understand. Doing it via stubborn refusal irks me no end.

[Misterwhisper]

The classes are based around 2 short rests per long rest.

However, adventures are are not.

No, module is designed around 2 short rests per long rest.

The concept is resource management but if the DM is really just going to regulate encounters for how many resources you have spent or not spent then what rests you get or don't get will not matter.

Ex.

Group A is a mixed group of some long rest classes and some short rest classes.

They encounter a combat with some enemies but due to great rolls and some great strategy they wipe them out with little effort and nobody really takes any damage and very few resources were spent.
Now though they are a little resource high for the next combat so the Dm throws in another encounter to drain some resources.
They get to the more important encounter with what the DM planned for them to have.

Group B is the same group but different day.

The first encounter goes very wrong and the group barely makes it out. Their resources are very low and their HP is as well.
To this the DM lets them take a short rest to renew some resources and HP.
So the group still fights the final fight about the same as the first.

So who really cares if the rests even happen if the first few encounters are only there to drain resources?

This is why the 15 min adventuring day comes up a lot.

The DM does not have to care about the resource management of multiple combats, they only have to care about the one big fight.
The game then gets more done because more pointless fights get cut out.
The players have more resources to spend in non-combat scenarios because they know there is only going to be one big fight.
For many lazy DMs, they like it because it is just less work for them to do.
Players of long rest classes love it because they know they will not be running out of juice, and if they do the DM will have to give them a rest before the big fight or they all die.
Short rest classes get screwed because they only have a small pool of resources at any one time and don't get a refresh because there is no reason to give short rests due to no resource management.

They should have either made the SSL mandatory, or not used it at all.

[Unoriginal]

Insofar as everything in the game is controlled by the DM, yes. But there's a difference between that and "DM says when rests happen".

It's "DM says if rest can happen in those circumstances, then the players decide if they want to take a rest or not. Then DM decides of the consequences (positive or negative)."


People should really be aware of that. All those "5 mins adventure days" bs only happen because the DM let it happen.

Which is also part of why all that Coffeelock **** annoys me so much.



Again, resting is key to DnD's resource management core. A DM that doesnt turn his mind to how he is going to police that resource managment by his players in game is failing in his job as DM.

Doing it via inexperience I can understand. Doing it via stubborn refusal irks me no end.

Well, a DM could decide to give free rests every time the players want to, if they'd wish so.

But they have to be aware the DM *IS* the one in control of this.

Same way a DM can decide how much magic items the PCs get.

[Malifice]

The classes are based around 2 short rests per long rest.

However, adventures are are not.

No, module is designed around 2 short rests per long rest.

The concept is resource management but if the DM is really just going to regulate encounters for how many resources you have spent or not spent then what rests you get or don't get will not matter.

Ex.

Group A is a mixed group of some long rest classes and some short rest classes.

They encounter a combat with some enemies but due to great rolls and some great strategy they wipe them out with little effort and nobody really takes any damage and very few resources were spent.
Now though they are a little resource high for the next combat so the Dm throws in another encounter to drain some resources.
They get to the more important encounter with what the DM planned for them to have.

Group B is the same group but different day.

The first encounter goes very wrong and the group barely makes it out. Their resources are very low and their HP is as well.
To this the DM lets them take a short rest to renew some resources and HP.
So the group still fights the final fight about the same as the first.

So who really cares if the rests even happen if the first few encounters are only there to drain resources?

This is why the 15 min adventuring day comes up a lot.

The DM does not have to care about the resource management of multiple combats, they only have to care about the one big fight.
The game then gets more done because more pointless fights get cut out.
The players have more resources to spend in non-combat scenarios because they know there is only going to be one big fight.
For many lazy DMs, they like it because it is just less work for them to do.
Players of long rest classes love it because they know they will not be running out of juice, and if they do the DM will have to give them a rest before the big fight or they all die.
Short rest classes get screwed because they only have a small pool of resources at any one time and don't get a refresh because there is no reason to give short rests due to no resource management.

They should have either made the SSL mandatory, or not used it at all.

I cant disagree with this post more.

The system they implemented was purposely designed to support the DM. Ultimately the DM has his hands on a number of levers; he can add in short rests (giving the fighters, warlocks and monks a boost) or add in more encounters between rests (giving champions and rogues a boost) or reduce the number of either (giving paladins, barbarians, and full casters a boost).

They tried making everyone do resources the same last edition remember, and it caused even more headaches among players of the game. The complaints were everyone feels too samey.

When I design and run an adventure, I always turn my mind to the rest meta (how will I frame the adventure and police the adventuring day in this adventure). If we've had a few short single deadly encounter days, Ill purposefully time limit the adventure to push the PCs through 6 or more encounters, with opportunities provided for multiple short rests. If we've ran some longer adventures, I'll throw in a shorter day with a more difficult encounter. If the Fighter has been quiet lately, then Ill add in even more short rest opportunities. If he's instead been dominant lately, Ill take out any opportunity to short rest for the adventure.

By pulling those levers, you affect resource management and encounter difficulty, move the spotlight among different classes and players, and change the tone of the game (from rocket tag, to a more conservative tactical and strategic game of deliberate resource usage at key moments).

The guys that make the criticisms you make (in my experience) are the guys that dont understand this, or are incapable of managing it at the table as DM, or stubbornly refuse to for whatever reason.

A valid criticism you could make would be that it places a hefty burden on the DM (knowing how to manage those levers, and understanding the underlying core rest/ resource based nature of the game).

Sometimes even I wish I could just stat up half a dozen encounters, draw a map and be done there and let the rests handle themselves, and not have to come up with a contrivance like a doom clock or similar to manage those levers.

[Whit]

The op list a great question but it varies by dm and players expectations and both have a job to do regarding it.
DM. Module based or freehand the DM should take into account the CR rating, where the different encounters take place and the overall groups health/resource. Spread out to thin they get to much rest. To close together the group is spent.
The party on the other hand also have to take into account where they are in regards to short or long rests and as listed above how smart the DM makes monsters.

If you’re in a certain environment and do battle, is it close enough for other X creatures/villains to hear? Will they go to you during the fight? After when they think yuyr resting short or long or barricade. Or perhaps to far away to know nothing.

For example. Some generic dungeon crawl with rooms etc 60 120 ft away. Do you honestly think whatever is there won’t hear a fight of armor weapons and spells, yelling and screaming?

A long rest IMO better be well thought out where the party is. 8hrs per se is a long time in an adventure to sit down and rest unless it’s a wilderness type above or below or town environment.

[Particle_Man]

I guess I would do mechanical change first, then layer a description on top of it. So sometimes if two fights are close together and I want the party to get back the resources of a short rest (or long rest!) it will be "You all get your breath back, and recover from the minor flesh wounds in time for the next set of orc guards coming down the corridor" and sometimes if the party just had a rest, and then a fight, and then nothing for a week until the next fight, so I don't want them to get back the resources of a short rest or long rest before that fight, it will be "The infections from the wounds stop them from healing, you are having trouble preparing spells from your spellbook, and the gods are not granting spells back as readily for some inscrutible reason; it is a rough week, but at least you get 7 more days to learn Abyssal".

[MaxWilson]

Sometimes even I wish I could just stat up half a dozen encounters, draw a map and be done there and let the rests handle themselves, and not have to come up with a contrivance like a doom clock or similar to manage those levers.

mumblemumbleWandering Monster (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1668/roleplaying-games/the-death-of-the-wandering-monster)mumblemumble

[Xetheral]

By pulling those levers, you affect resource management and encounter difficulty, move the spotlight among different classes and players, and change the tone of the game (from rocket tag, to a more conservative tactical and strategic game of deliberate resource usage at key moments).

The guys that make the criticisms you make (in my experience) are the guys that dont understand this, or are incapable of managing it at the table as DM, or stubbornly refuse to for whatever reason.

Put me in the "stubbornly refuse" camp. I have zero interest in emphasizing the resource management part of the game in the context of players rationing their abilities across encounters. That's neither fun for me as a DM nor as a player.

I'm much more interested in emphasizing resource management in terms of which strategic priorities the players devote their characters' resources towards, and encouraging players to find creative ways to use their resources to make the greatest impact on the game world.

In other words, I care about "how", "why", and "for what" the characters use their resources. I don't much care "when" they use them. If the players choose an approach towards achieving their goals that may result in multiple encounters, they'd be wise to ration their rechargable resources to make sure they have enough. But I have zero interest in focusing on this rationing as a major element of game play, and thus have no interest in "pulling levers" to influence the rationing process.

Because in 5e the rationing process (via rest ratios) is baked-in to how many resources the short-rest classes have in total, I can't ignore it completely. I still need to make sure, as Pex points out, that all the players have opportunities to use (or opportunities to create opportunities to use) resources at a fun rate in real time. And with the classes having different rest paradigms, that's tricky.

In 3.0/3.5, when there was only one rest type, I never needed to worry about it (and for whatever reason the 5mwd has never been an issue at my tables in any edition). In comparison, I find 5e's variable rest ratio dynamic frustrating. It's worth putting up with the frustration to get the other benefits of the system, but it's still a drawback for me.

[Misterwhisper]

Put me in the "stubbornly refuse" camp. I have zero interest in emphasizing the resource management part of the game in the context of players rationing their abilities across encounters. That's neither fun for me as a DM nor as a player.

I'm much more interested in emphasizing resource management in terms of which strategic priorities the players devote their characters' resources towards, and encouraging players to find creative ways to use their resources to make the greatest impact on the game world.

In other words, I care about "how", "why", and "for what" the characters use their resources. I don't much care "when" they use them. If the players choose an approach towards achieving their goals that may result in multiple encounters, they'd be wise to ration their rechargable resources to make sure they have enough. But I have zero interest in focusing on this rationing as a major element of game play, and thus have no interest in "pulling levers" to influence the rationing process.

Because in 5e the rationing process (via rest ratios) is baked-in to how many resources the short-rest classes have in total, I can't ignore it completely. I still need to make sure, as Pex points out, that all the players have opportunities to use (or opportunities to create opportunities to use) resources at a fun rate in real time. And with the classes having different rest paradigms, that's tricky.

In 3.0/3.5, when there was only one rest type, I never needed to worry about it (and for whatever reason the 5mwd has never been an issue at my tables in any edition). In comparison, I find 5e's variable rest ratio dynamic frustrating. It's worth putting up with the frustration to get the other benefits of the system, but it's still a drawback for me.

It would have been so much easier if all classes were balanced around long rests for their main resource like spells, ki, superiority dice, and short rests were for secondary bonuses like spending hitdice, or you could use that hd to regain a small amount of a class resource.

Nobody would have to care about how many short rests there are because it really only effects hp and very minorly class resources.

It would also emphasize the abilities of non resource classes like most rogues or fighters.

[Man_Over_Game]

It would have been so much easier if all classes were balanced around long rests for their main resource like spells, ki, superiority dice, and short rests were for secondary bonuses like spending hitdice, or you could use that hd to regain a small amount of a class resource.

Nobody would have to care about how many short rests there are because it really only effects hp and very minorly class resources.

It would also emphasize the abilities of non resource classes like most rogues or fighters.

The problem with that solution is that, as of right now, most casters already have a way of regenerating some kind of resource on a Short Rest, martial types already have methods of spending Hit Die, and Hit Dice are ignored.

The only people who really benefit from Short Rests are the resource dependent classes. Fighters and Rogues could hardly care less about Short Rests.

So the solutions would have to be something like:


Introduce limited resources for Fighters and Rogues
Somehow have a situation where casters need to cast leveled spells frequently for damage rather than healing, while martial classes take damage to need Short Rests to spend hit die, but not enough in either direction to change the difficulty of the game (Lots of encounters with high damage, low HP monsters?)
Remove Short Rest resources, making classes more bland and flipping off Warlocks
Convert Short Rest resources into Long Rest resources, making classes more bland as Warlocks laugh at everyone.
Ignore the Short Rest/Long Rest issue and tell Fighters, Rogues and Warlocks to suck it [Crowd favorite]

[Rusvul]

Put me in the "stubbornly refuse" camp. I have zero interest in emphasizing the resource management part of the game in the context of players rationing their abilities across encounters. That's neither fun for me as a DM nor as a player.

I'm much more interested in emphasizing resource management in terms of which strategic priorities the players devote their characters' resources towards, and encouraging players to find creative ways to use their resources to make the greatest impact on the game world.

In other words, I care about "how", "why", and "for what" the characters use their resources. I don't much care "when" they use them. If the players choose an approach towards achieving their goals that may result in multiple encounters, they'd be wise to ration their rechargable resources to make sure they have enough. But I have zero interest in focusing on this rationing as a major element of game play, and thus have no interest in "pulling levers" to influence the rationing process.

Because in 5e the rationing process (via rest ratios) is baked-in to how many resources the short-rest classes have in total, I can't ignore it completely. I still need to make sure, as Pex points out, that all the players have opportunities to use (or opportunities to create opportunities to use) resources at a fun rate in real time. And with the classes having different rest paradigms, that's tricky.

In 3.0/3.5, when there was only one rest type, I never needed to worry about it (and for whatever reason the 5mwd has never been an issue at my tables in any edition). In comparison, I find 5e's variable rest ratio dynamic frustrating. It's worth putting up with the frustration to get the other benefits of the system, but it's still a drawback for me.

If you don't like short rests, you could remove them. Give Warlocks 3x as many spell slots, Monks 3x as much Ki, Battlemasters 3x as many superiority dice. They'd be able to nova more, but in theory other than that it should be mostly the same. You could make spending HD the only benefit of a short rest, or you could say "spend one minute bandaging yourself out of combat and you can spend hit dice." Similarly, for other classes (like Wizard) that have a "...over the course of a short rest" class features, you could just say "sit and chill for 10 minutes" if you didn't want your players actually short-resting.

[Tanarii]

In other words, I care about "how", "why", and "for what" the characters use their resources. I don't much care "when" they use them. If the players choose an approach towards achieving their goals that may result in multiple encounters, they'd be wise to ration their rechargable resources to make sure they have enough. But I have zero interest in focusing on this rationing as a major element of game play, and thus have no interest in "pulling levers" to influence the rationing process.Resources are pointless if they're unlimited. What makes them interesting is having to make difficult choices. It doesn't matter what or why or for what if there are no difficult choices involved in the process.

You can do that without a recharge of course. If you have a large number of resource options, and can only apply a more limited number (or even one) simultaneously, they're no longer unlimited. ie action economy is also kind of resource management that makes it not pointless to have resources at all.

Of course, at a certain point, I'm curious why you bother with an RPg game like D&D which is and has always been at its core (in every edition) a game about resource management. Usually on multiple levels.

[Tvtyrant]

I just do the end of each encounter up to three, then you need a long rest to recover further. The short rest is like a breather, everyone stands around panting for a minute and doesn't take deliberately resting in character. Long rest is eight hours of sleep equivalent.

Basically I think of it like sprinting. You can sprint to exhaustion a few times a day but after that you need to take the rest of the day off to recover further. If a party wanted to take additional short rests after 3 I would stick a level of exhaustion on each time as they push themselves past The Wall and start tearing muscles.

[Sception]

I generally shorten short rests to 5 to 10 minutes, so a character can always short rest between encounters if need be, but limit them to 2 per long rest, which in turn are limited to once per in game day. That way players get their rests if they want them, the party doesnt have to argue about when to take them, and the rests themselves can't be spammed.

Putting a flat limit on the nember of rests is the only way I've been able to ration them out properly, in a way that makes both daily and short rest resource c lasses engaging.

Honestly, though, I dearly miss 4e's consistent resource regimen between classes. Granted, it's about the only thing I really miss about 4e (apart from maybe the warlord), but still, it's literally the only edition of D&D where I could run adventuring days as long or as short as the adventures narrative desired without this or that player feeling justifiably put out because an unusual number of encounters screwed over their particular character's resource mechanic relative to the rest of the party.

[Malifice]

Put me in the "stubbornly refuse" camp. I have zero interest in emphasizing the resource management part of the game in the context of players rationing their abilities across encounters. That's neither fun for me as a DM nor as a player.

DnD is a resource management game. HP, HD, slots, rages, smites, sup dice, action surge, charges, GP, XP, bardic inspiration, pact magic, channel divinity, etc etc are all resources that need to be mananged by the players. You cant escape it or pretend it isnt so.

And I cant disagree with you more. If given the option between boring rocket tag where resources are not an issue (my HP are at full, and round 1 of every encounter is a nova strike, and the 5 minute adventuring day is alive and well) or having to ration those slots/ smites/ HP etc over a single adventuring day (one dungeon level), using those abilities at tactically and dramatically appropriate times, I take option 2.


Because in 5e the rationing process (via rest ratios) is baked-in to how many resources the short-rest classes have in total, I can't ignore it completely. I still need to make sure, as Pex points out, that all the players have opportunities to use (or opportunities to create opportunities to use) resources at a fun rate in real time. And with the classes having different rest paradigms, that's tricky.

I agree that it's tricky and can sometimes be a downright PITA for a DM to police and manage.

That said, there are advantages to the system. By pulling on different levers, you can alter class and encounter balance without ever touching a classes abilities or tweaking the monsters stats. You can move the spotlight around from session to session to different players in your group.

The sorts of 'builds' and classes and strategies that form in campaigns with regular 5 minute adventuring days are very different indeed to the 'builds' classes and strategies that evolve in campaigns where there is an expectation of 6+ encounters per long rest, and 2+ short rests in that time.

[Malifice]

It would have been so much easier if all classes were balanced around long rests for their main resource like spells, ki, superiority dice, and short rests were for secondary bonuses like spending hitdice, or you could use that hd to regain a small amount of a class resource.

Nobody would have to care about how many short rests there are because it really only effects hp and very minorly class resources.

It would also emphasize the abilities of non resource classes like most rogues or fighters.

3e did that, and it was famous for the 5 minute adventuring day.

By having some classes be 100 percent good to push on after a short rest (Fighters, Monks, Rogues, Warlocks), it makes the PCs more likely to push on.

The issue it creates is that Wizards, Paladins and so forth are likely to dump everything in a single encounter and then demand a long rest. The DM then (foolishly) reacts by sitting passively by and allowing it, and instead upping encounter difficulty to Deadly+ (thus mandating this kind of rocket tag, instead of stopping it) instead of pushing multiple encounters per long rest at the party.

This creates a situation where fighters, monks and warlocks start to drop away, and the game devolves into totally unrealistic rocket tag and button mashing by the players, where on round 1 of encounter 1 they reach for the Nova button.

There is no thinking involved there. There is no decision points of (do I use this ability now, or save it for later on?). Its boring, unrealistic and mindless.

If your long rest dependent classes want to drop everything on round 1 of encounter 1, let them. They can enjoy spamming cantrips for the next 5 or 6 encounters of the dungeon, before long resting. It only happens the once.

[Xetheral]

Resources are pointless if they're unlimited. What makes them interesting is having to make difficult choices. It doesn't matter what or why or for what if there are no difficult choices involved in the process.

You can do that without a recharge of course. If you have a large number of resource options, and can only apply a more limited number (or even one) simultaneously, they're no longer unlimited. ie action economy is also kind of resource management that makes it not pointless to have resources at all.

Of course, at a certain point, I'm curious why you bother with an RPg game like D&D which is and has always been at its core (in every edition) a game about resource management. Usually on multiple levels.

The best example of where I find resource management uninteresting would be an eight "medium" encounter day. (Caveat: I don't personally use CR, so my experience with how difficult a medium encounter is comes from limited play experience with DMs who do use CR.) A medium encounter doesn't put anyone at risk and is designed primarily to drain resources. If I'm going to have eight purposefully-resource-draining encounters, I find the choice of which encounter in which to use limited-use abilities uninteresting. Sure, there's a tactical advantage to using my resources optimally, and doing so might require "difficult" choices, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter if I cast my Fireball in resource-draining encounter #2 or resource-draining encounter #5. My resources are going to be drained at the end anyway, and by definition none of the encounters were much of a threat.

Your second paragraph describes much more the type of tactical resource management I enjoy. If I have 30 seconds before <x> happens, and I want to accomplish <y> and <z> before that happens, then I need to devise a way to maximize my odds of accomplishing <x> and <y> using only the resources I have on hand and five rounds worth of actions. If a don't think I can do that, I may need to instead choose whether to prioritize <x> over <y>. To me, those are much more interesting choices. The scarcity of available resources plays a role in my decision making, but the rationing of those scarce resources isn't what makes the choices interesting.

As for your question, there are two possible answers, and which one best applies depends largely on precisely how expansively you're defining the phrase "about resource management". If you're defining it narrowly to assert that the point of playing D&D is to have fun rationing limited use abilities over multiple encounters to make sure you don't run out, then I simply reject your premise. That has never been even a major (let alone the main) component of any game of D&D I've ever played in, in any edition.

If instead you're defining "about resource management" broadly to mean that D&D has (as one among several major elements) a resource-management component, then I accept the premise. My answer in that case is that I enjoy a large enough subset of the resource-management component to enjoy the game. I love strategic resource management, and also enjoy tactical resource management as I described above. I happen not to like tactical resource rationing, which is the part of resource management most closely related to the short-rest/long-rest ratio.

I suspect your meaning lies between those two extremes, but hopefully seeing my replies to each endpoint manages to answer your question?


DnD is a resource management game. HP, HD, slots, rages, smites, sup dice, action surge, charges, GP, XP, bardic inspiration, pact magic, channel divinity, etc etc are all resources that need to be mananged by the players. You cant escape it or pretend it isnt so.

As I described to Tanarii, I agree that D&D has a major resource management element. If that's all you're claiming, then fine. If you're arguing that the entire point of playing D&D is to manage resources, then I stridently disagree.


And I cant disagree with you more. If given the option between boring rocket tag where resources are not an issue (my HP are at full, and round 1 of every encounter is a nova strike, and the 5 minute adventuring day is alive and well) or having to ration those slots/ smites/ HP etc over a single adventuring day (one dungeon level), using those abilities at tactically and dramatically appropriate times, I take option 2.

In my experience that's a false dichotomy. None of the games I've ever run fit into either of your two categories. Even in 3.5 I never had even a hint of a problem with the 5mwd, and so never the felt the need to take extra measures to avoid it. In my style of play, it just doesn't seem to come up. (I suspect, but cannot be certain, that the sheer number of simultaneous plots I weave into my games means there's always more to do than time permits, which indirectly discourages taking excess rests.) The same has been true in 5e. And as I've already strongly implied, my games definitely don't fit into your second category. :)


I agree that it's tricky and can sometimes be a downright PITA for a DM to police and manage.

That said, there are advantages to the system. By pulling on different levers, you can alter class and encounter balance without ever touching a classes abilities or tweaking the monsters stats. You can move the spotlight around from session to session to different players in your group.

I generally prefer to have encounter difficulty emerge organically from the events of the game. I accordingly don't design encounters to have a particular difficulty level (one of several reasons I ignore CR), and thus have no need of "levers" to alter that difficulty. If it turns out that an encounter isn't fun for the players because it's too hard or too easy compared to what the players anticipated/wanted/are in the mood for, I simply adjust the encounter directly.

Similarly, when I need to intervene to make sure everyone is getting enough spotlight time (usually that works out on its own, but not always), I prefer to do so via introducing content to the game intended to appeal to that player, rather than just by making that person stand out more in combat due to the pacing of that session. For one thing, I'm not even sure if I would qualify "excelling in combat this session" as spotlight time. For another thing, session pacing depends so heavily on the players' choices in my games that I rarely know advance how many encounters there are going to be in a particular session/day, which makes pacing very difficult to employ as a spotlight tool.

Your point about being able to use encounter pacing to adjust class balance is certainly true, but rather than being an advantage I see it as one of the main sources of my frustration. If class balance was rest-ratio independent, I could make any necessary balance adjustments up front and be done with it, rather than have to pay attention to the rest schedule in each particular session and watch for balance concerns. That seriously gets in the way of my preference to just let rests happen naturally whenever the party is waiting/dining/sleeping.


The sorts of 'builds' and classes and strategies that form in campaigns with regular 5 minute adventuring days are very different indeed to the 'builds' classes and strategies that evolve in campaigns where there is an expectation of 6+ encounters per long rest, and 2+ short rests in that time.

I'm sure that's true. But since my games aren't in either category the builds I see at my table similarly don't fall into either grouping. My players don't take the anticipated rest schedule into account when designing their characters, and I'm sure that's at least in part because resource management at my table looks very different than resource management at your table.

[Tanarii]

As for your question, there are two possible answers, and which one best applies depends largely on precisely how expansively you're defining the phrase "about resource management". If you're defining it narrowly to assert that the point of playing D&D is to have fun rationing limited use abilities over multiple encounters to make sure you don't run out, then I simply reject your premise. That has never been even a major (let alone the main) component of any game of D&D I've ever played in, in any edition."about resource mangement" means that a major component of D&D, in every single edition of the rules, has been about rationing some combination of equipment, hit points, and for some classes limited use abilities, over the course of a session or adventure.

If it's never been a major or main component of any game of D&D you've ever played in, then that's because you're using the game for something other than it's full rules. Your choice, but again my question remains: In that case, why D&D? There are other RPGs that do less or even almost none of that.

Edit: To be clear, resource management cannot be the primary thing D&D is "about", if that's your objection, to the phrasing. For any RPG rules, the "game" portion of the rules is about resolving declared actions. And any fun "game" typically requires some kind of goal or goals to attempt to achieve as the focus. In D&D resource management can be the goal unto itself, but that depends on the DM. But regardless, resource management is very intentionally designed to be a huge part of the "how" you accomplish goals in every edition of D&D. You can disregard that, and many DMs do, but you can't try and claim it's not written to be a huge part of the rules intentionally. That ignores the entire history of how D&D game to be and how it has evolved.

(See Torchbearer for a counter example where the resource management part of classic D&D dungeon crawling was taken, then used as a basis for rules that emphasize it so much that it effectively becomes the goal unto itself.)

[Xetheral]

"about resource mangement" means that a major component of D&D, in every single edition of the rules, has been about rationing some combination of equipment, hit points, and for some classes limited use abilities, over the course of a session or adventure.

If it's never been a major or main component of any game of D&D you've ever played in, then that's because you're using the game for something other than it's full rules. Your choice, but again my question remains: In that case, why D&D? There are other RPGs that do less or even almost none of that.

Edit: To be clear, resource management cannot be the primary thing D&D is "about", if that's your objection, to the phrasing. For any RPG rules, the "game" portion of the rules is about resolving declared actions. And any fun "game" typically requires some kind of goal or goals to attempt to achieve as the focus. In D&D resource management can be the goal unto itself, but that depends on the DM. But regardless, resource management is very intentionally designed to be a huge part of the "how" you accomplish goals in every edition of D&D. You can disregard that, and many DMs do, but you can't try and claim it's not written to be a huge part of the rules intentionally. That ignores the entire history of how D&D game to be and how it has evolved.

(See Torchbearer for a counter example where the resource management part of classic D&D dungeon crawling was taken, then used as a basis for rules that emphasize it so much that it effectively becomes the goal unto itself.)

I still think we're running into a wording issue, so I'll try to clarify in order to better answer your question.

Resource management--taken broadly to include things like action economy, time, and influence--has been a significant component of every D&D game I've played in or ran. By contrast, rationing limited-use abilities across multiple encounters occuring within the same recharge cycle--which I consider a specific subtype of resource management--has not been emphasized or been particularly important in any D&D game I've played in or ran. Sure, characters have had to decide whether to use abilities now or save them for later, but it hasn't been a focus of gameplay, either conceptually or mechanically. For the latter, in the games I've seen, characters almost always end each recharge cycle with significant resources unspent, from which it follows that resource rationing isn't that critical in these games, because "inefficient" rationing of resources is the norm.

A style of play that was grueling enough to require efficient resource rationing doesn't interest me, nor do I think such a style is a necessary or inherent part of D&D (although I am aware some people play in such a style). Since 3.0 came out, then 3.5 and 5e, D&D has supported my preferred style better than any other system I've tried.

Does that answer your question?

[Malifice]

rationing limited-use abilities across multiple encounters occuring within the same recharge cycle--which I consider a specific subtype of resource management--has not been emphasized or been particularly important in any D&D game I've played in or ran.

How can you possibly make that assertion in a game that features both HP and Vancian magic?

Combat is fundamentally (mechanically speaking) resource management. You're trying to reduce your opponents HP to zero, before he does the same to you. You do that by expending resources (slots, rages, smites etc) to get him to zero first, and other resources (lay on hands, hit dice, cure wounds slots) to transfer one resource (often spell slots) into another (hp).

Are you telling me that HP and Spell slot management (in addition to other resources like sup dice, action surge, rages, smites, channels, sorcery points, bardic inspiration, ki points etc) are not 'particularly important' in games you play or run?

You might not realise how important they are, but unless your're playing a mechanically very different game to DnD (one that lacks HP, lacks spell points or 'slots', has 'at will' casting and ability use etc), those resources are central to the mechanics of the game whether you realise it or not.

Resource management might not interest you, and I get that. But that doesnt take away from its existence as the core mechanical underpinnings of the game, nor does it make ignoring it (as a DM or player) something you can do without there being consequences.

[MaxWilson]

How can you possibly make that assertion in a game that features both HP and Vancian magic?

So now every game with HP and limited magic, from AD&D to GURPS to Dresden Files RPG, is "about" resource management?

No, they aren't. 5E is an anomaly. Having lots of attention devoted to rechargeable resource is a WotC thing, not a Gygax/TSR thing. Vancian magic BTW is less about "Did you deplete all the wizard's spells" and more about "Did the wizard research and memorize an appropriate spell for this situation?" DMs were not even remotely expected to deplete all of the wizard's spells in order to provide challenge. Puzzle, not resource grind.

[Tanarii]

No, they aren't. 5E is an anomaly. Having lots of attention devoted to rechargeable resource is a WotC thing, not a Gygax/TSR thing. Vancian magic BTW is less about "Did you deplete all the wizard's spells" and more about "Did the wizard research and memorize an appropriate spell for this situation?" DMs were not even remotely expected to deplete all of the wizard's spells in order to provide challenge. Puzzle, not resource grind.That completely ignores the history of why Gygax/Arneson intention used HP and vancian magic, as well as the focus on proper equipment. Ie you're utterly wrong.

Edit: not to mention they were wargamers developing a new kind of war game

[sophontteks]

The game is not designed toward a certain number of short rests per long rests.

There are situations where its hilariously easy to short rest basically at-will. An hour of time is realistically not a very big deal. Remember that the game is not paused when you are sitting around scheming a plan, and the real ticker is not moving in the 10 seconds per turn combat system. The players need to eat, rest, scheme, prepare, sharpen weapons, fortify position, bandage wounds, etc etc. A crafty short rest class can squeeze in many short rests in these times without even slowing the party down. In this scenario long rest probably wouldn't be difficult either, but they have a limit of 1 per day. There is a world of difference between days of down time and hours. Wait an hour for a warlock to power up. Fine. Wait another day because the wizard cast a spell, forget it, we got things to do.

There are also situations where short resting is difficult. When the party is being chased, or is under a strict time constraint. A short rest isn't really possible here, and short rest character will be stretched thin. That's fine.

Many encounters have a middle ground. You take a couple fights and find yourself in a rather secure position where the party can lick their wounds before continuing. They can't do this freely, but they can spare an occasional rest to stay tip top without any real consequence. Of course, there are also situations where long rests aren't feasible either. Players tend to take those for granted. Finding a safe place to sleep in the middle of enemy territory is incredibly dangerous and risky.

Now, I do believe short rests are plagued by the games accelerated time mechanics where everything happens in 10 second intervals. When the default time lapse is 10 seconds, an hour is an eternity. There is nothing mechanically present, besides the short rest itself, that prevents a party from taking several fights in a few minutes time. The funny thing is we tend to see time itself de-syncing in these situations. A dm may say that this dungeon run took the entire day, but if you do the math it took the party 5 minutes. During this dungeon slog the players may have believed there wasn't time for a short rest at any point, even though several hours of time were literally hand-waved by the DM. If you notice this, you should probably ask for more short rests and remember to roleplay the periods between fights a bit more. You are breaking the laws of time.

[Malifice]

So now every game with HP and limited magic, from AD&D to GURPS to Dresden Files RPG, is "about" resource management?


Mechanically yes, they are.

DnD has historically been one of the most resource management driven games.

Unless you play DnD without HP, HD, XP, GP, short rests, long rests, spell slots or points, rages, bardic inspiration, charged items, smites, sup dice, action surge, divine channel, Lay on hands, Sorcery points, Ki points, divine sense, second wind, wild shape, bladesong etc etc of course.

DnD is mechanically a resource management game. It mechanically plays very differently depending on what choices you (as DM) make with regard to managing of those resources.

[Malifice]

The game is not designed toward a certain number of short rests per long rests.

Yes, it is. The expectation is your long rest resources should last you around 6-8 medium encounters before running out, and you should be getting 2-3 short rests in that time.

This bares out in any kind of mechanical comparison of classes (Warlock vs Wizard, and Fighter v Paladin). Thole classes balance out at this mark (figuring roughly 2.5 short rests per long rest).

[sophontteks]

Yes, it is. The expectation is your long rest resources should last you around 6-8 medium encounters before running out, and you should be getting 2-3 short rests in that time.

This bares out in any kind of mechanical comparison of classes (Warlock vs Wizard, and Fighter v Paladin). Thole classes balance out at this mark (figuring roughly 2.5 short rests per long rest).
This assumption is flawed and causes much confusion. It has no real meaning. I have pointed out the reality, which is that the game is not balanced towards any of this. Each set of encounters instead is approached very differently. It may be very easy to short rest between every encounter or very difficult to short rest between several encounters.

If we never actually see this supposed ideal, then the ideal does not exist. We could say that it is the average, but the average itself never happens. Instead encounters fall upon a spectrum where the average is actually very rare.

[strangebloke]

If you find resource management hard, just make short rests take ten minutes, and limit it to two per day.

Actually, you don't even have to limit it to two per day. The warlock having full spells every encounter is less bad for balance than never allowing short rests.

Really fricking easy.

Makes more sense in the fiction, too, IMO. You just need a minute to patch up your wounds and take a swig of water before throwing yourself back into the fray.


This assumption is flawed and causes much confusion. It has no real meaning. I have pointed out the reality, which is that the game is not balanced towards any of this. Each set of encounters instead is approached very differently. It may be very easy to short rest between every encounter or very difficult to short rest between several encounters.

If we never actually see this supposed ideal, then the ideal does not exist. We could say that it is the average, but the average itself never happens. Instead encounters fall upon a spectrum where the average is actually very rare.

Yeah yeah yeah we know.

This never happens.

That doesn't mean it isn't a useful guideline.

But one of the goals of any good DM is that everyone gets a certain number of chances to shine. 5e is wisely designed such that in general everyone has a certain baseline of combat ability, because combat takes a long time and if somebody feels useless during combat they won't want to play. So yeah, if you're a DM, you want everyone to have chances to shine in combat specifically.

The 6-8 medium encounters, 2 short rests rule is the balance point here where everyone will be able to do cool stuff.

The fact that it doesn't ever show up exactly in this form is pretty much meaningless. Its trivial to extrapolate this to say "Ah, I'll have 2 deadly encounters, 2 medium encounters, and one hard encounter with three short rests." Even if you don't follow this guideline at all, you'll know the consequences of what youu're doing. Running a game with no short rests? Yeah, warlocks/monks will be pissed. Running a game with 1 super-deadly encounter? The rogues will be bummed.

[Xetheral]

How can you possibly make that assertion in a game that features both HP and Vancian magic?

Combat is fundamentally (mechanically speaking) resource management. You're trying to reduce your opponents HP to zero, before he does the same to you. You do that by expending resources (slots, rages, smites etc) to get him to zero first, and other resources (lay on hands, hit dice, cure wounds slots) to transfer one resource (often spell slots) into another (hp).

Are you telling me that HP and Spell slot management (in addition to other resources like sup dice, action surge, rages, smites, channels, sorcery points, bardic inspiration, ki points etc) are not 'particularly important' in games you play or run?

You might not realise how important they are, but unless your're playing a mechanically very different game to DnD (one that lacks HP, lacks spell points or 'slots', has 'at will' casting and ability use etc), those resources are central to the mechanics of the game whether you realise it or not.

Resource management might not interest you, and I get that. But that doesnt take away from its existence as the core mechanical underpinnings of the game, nor does it make ignoring it (as a DM or player) something you can do without there being consequences.

To answer your first question, let me start by noting that D&D is a multifaceted game. Different styles of play will unavoidably emphasize different facets. One of those facets that can be emphasized differently at different tables is resource management. Resources in D&D come in many forms, including: (1) resources that never refresh, such as time; (2) resources that can be accumulated but don't refresh on their own, such as money, allies, and influence; (3) resources that refresh at a set rate, like many character abilities; and (4) resources that have a constant but limited supply, such as actions in combat. In general, the relative scarcity and utility of each type of resource will determine how much that resource will be emphasized in a particular style of play: resources that are both relatively useful and comparatively scarce will naturally be emphasized over less-useful or more-abundant resources.

In my style of play, resources in group (3) that refresh at a set rate are comparatively abundant, as evidenced by the fact that characters routinely begin rests with substantial fractions of their resources remaining. By contrast, resources in categories (1) and (2) are scarce in my style: the characters just have too many simultaneous goals competing for their limited supplies of time, money, allies, and influence. (Actions in combat, in category (4), can be either abundant or scarce, depending on the particular situation: killing the opposition before they can raise an alarm is very different from a protracted standoff with everyone in full cover.) Thus, to answer your first question, I can assert that rationing limited-use refreshing abilities across multiple encounters hasn't been emphasized in any of the campaigns I've ran or played in because it's been literally true: there simply isn't enough overall pressure on the supply of such resources to make the rate at which they are used particularly important.

That also answers your second question. Yes, I'm saying that the management of such resources has not been particularly important. By contrast, the individual abilities themselves can be extremely important: having the perfect spell or ability at the perfect moment (whether in combat or not) can change the course of an adventure or even the entire campaign. But at my table the limiting factor in PCs being able to do so is the creativity necessarily to identify such a moment when it arrives, or to engineer the moment themselves. The limiting factor isn't whether or not the PCs have wisely managed their resources in previous encounters that day.

And I disagree with your assertion that management of refreshing resources (i.e. category (3)) in combat is "a core mechanical underpinning" of D&D.* Consider, for example, a party of 3rd level Assassin Rogues in a game without feats. The only refreshing resource those characters have is HP, and they can only mange to "expend" that resource indirectly via their choice of tactics. How many HP will actually be "expended" depends on the enemies' response to the Rogues' tactics and the fall of the dice. Ergo, every combat those Rogues participate in will only indirectly and tangentially involve management of refreshing resources. And yet, a game with that party will work just fine, which would be impossible if management/rationing of refreshing resources was "a core mechanical underpinning of D&D".

*If you instead were referring to resource management as a core mechanical underpinning in the broadest sense of including all the categories of resources I described above, rather than just category (3), then my explanation for my disagreement doesn't apply. However, in context I believe you are specifically referring to category (3) resources since I haven't expressed any desire to "ignore" (i.e. de-emphasize) [edit: management of] any other category of resource.

[Malifice]

This assumption is flawed and causes much confusion. It has no real meaning. I have pointed out the reality, which is that the game is not balanced towards any of this. .

The game is balanced around that point. It's been mathed out hundreds of times here and on other forums.

Google it.

[sophontteks]

The game is balanced around that point. It's been mathed out hundreds of times here and on other forums.

Google it.
Its been mathed out. I'm assuming you mean the average? I'm saying this has no practical application.


If you find resource management hard, just make short rests take ten minutes, and limit it to two per day.

Actually, you don't even have to limit it to two per day. The warlock having full spells every encounter is less bad for balance than never allowing short rests.

Really fricking easy.

Makes more sense in the fiction, too, IMO. You just need a minute to patch up your wounds and take a swig of water before throwing yourself back into the fray.



Yeah yeah yeah we know.

This never happens.

That doesn't mean it isn't a useful guideline.

But one of the goals of any good DM is that everyone gets a certain number of chances to shine. 5e is wisely designed such that in general everyone has a certain baseline of combat ability, because combat takes a long time and if somebody feels useless during combat they won't want to play. So yeah, if you're a DM, you want everyone to have chances to shine in combat specifically.

The 6-8 medium encounters, 2 short rests rule is the balance point here where everyone will be able to do cool stuff.

The fact that it doesn't ever show up exactly in this form is pretty much meaningless. Its trivial to extrapolate this to say "Ah, I'll have 2 deadly encounters, 2 medium encounters, and one hard encounter with three short rests." Even if you don't follow this guideline at all, you'll know the consequences of what youu're doing. Running a game with no short rests? Yeah, warlocks/monks will be pissed. Running a game with 1 super-deadly encounter? The rogues will be bummed.

Its up to the players to make the time for short and long rests. The DM can try to space out encounters, but the players have the last say in the pace of the game. If they choose to take things slowly, they will short rest more. IF they keep running in and ignoring periods where they could have rested, they will not be short resting. The DM should not be saying "And here you can take a short rest."

[strangebloke]

Its been mathed out. I'm assuming you mean the average? I'm saying this has no practical application.



Its up to the players to make the time for short and long rests. The DM can try to space out encounters, but the players have the last say in the pace of the game. If they choose to take things slowly, they will short rest more. IF they keep running in and ignoring periods where they could have rested, they will not be short resting. The DM should not be saying "And here you can take a short rest."

Not really true at all.

I mean, the players choose when to rest, sure, but their decisions are pretty heavily influenced by things outside of their control. Things inside of the DM's control.

Like, do you take a long rest before going to the tower of Malkizan the Lich?

Well, if NPCs have made it clear that he's completing his ritual tonight... no you don't. The DMs created a 'rule' in this instance that basically prevents the players from taking a long rest, assuming that they do want to stop Malkizan the Lich.

If you've thoroughly exhausted the players during the day with a long series of deadly encounters and conveyed that Malkizan's tower is a dangerous place, the PCs effectively have to take a rest. Even if the ritual completes, there's not much they can do about it so they rest, and deal with the consequences in the morning.

If the DM has there be several days before Malkizan completes his ritual, then the PCs are driving the action, as you say. They can rest, forgo resting, or even attack the tower twice. But the players only set the pace here because the DM has decided not to set the pace. Its a style of game, not something inherent about how the game works.

And since I know that your response is going to be "What a tyrannical way to play! Let your players write the story!":

Well that's just silly! Your NPCs have plans of their own as well, right? What fun is it for the players if the various enemies that they face are all just metaphorical orcs in ten-by-ten rooms guarding pies? Typically, what I do, is write an "Evul villun timetable" before the campaign starts, which is the villain's plans. As the PCs disrupt parts of the plan, the plan changes. Then for each adventuring 'day' I usually plan out a full day of 6-8 encounters, with a huge, pivotal decision at the end, and also consequences for failure and benefits for superb success.

This still offer the party lots of meaningful choices. Save the Princess or loot the tower? Release the thief or deliver him to the authorities? Back the rightful or the best king for the throne? But certain choices lock you into certain paths, and on many of those paths, there's the equivalent of 6-8 meaningful encounters.

[djreynolds]

It sounds silly, and just reinforcing my theme, your players need to be caught up in the story.

It's not a training session where characters are exploring their powers.

If your story is good, and your action is a part of that story, the player will advocate and police their own needs.

The paladin will look upon the weary fighter's face and suggest a short rest.

The fighter may look at the wizard pondering over his books, close them on him, and say your ready.

If it is not a random encounter, then the next fight is there because you placed it there. You're going to have an idea of what this party can handle. You can stage the option to rest accordingly.

They shouldn't rest because the monks out of KI and can't kick butt right now. They're short resting because they are a team and they need him.

If you have them fight at the doors to the throne of the BBEG, then you should know they're not going to rest, they going in now

Most of all, have fun, make a great story and incorporate moments for them to shine as individuals and as a team.

Fudge as needed, they enemy could've been wounded prior to battle.

6 to 8 encounters, and 2 short rests is a guideline.

[ad_hoc]

Its been mathed out. I'm assuming you mean the average? I'm saying this has no practical application.



Its up to the players to make the time for short and long rests. The DM can try to space out encounters, but the players have the last say in the pace of the game. If they choose to take things slowly, they will short rest more. IF they keep running in and ignoring periods where they could have rested, they will not be short resting. The DM should not be saying "And here you can take a short rest."

TPKs sort that out real quick.

2 or 3 of those and the players will start taking short rests.

[Malifice]

Its been mathed out. I'm assuming you mean the average? I'm saying this has no practical application.



Its up to the players to make the time for short and long rests. The DM can try to space out encounters, but the players have the last say in the pace of the game. If they choose to take things slowly, they will short rest more. IF they keep running in and ignoring periods where they could have rested, they will not be short resting. The DM should not be saying "And here you can take a short rest."

No, the DM has the final say on rest frequency.

Not the players.

[sophontteks]

No, the DM has the final say on rest frequency.

Not the players.
Ok we can say the DM has final say on everything, but the DM can't force, or really I should say shouldn't be forcing the players to stop or move. The DM can create times of convenience, but the players are the one's who decide to take advantage of it. Similarly, the DM could put time pressures on the players, but the players could decide to loaf about anyway. I say players get the final say, because the DM does not say when the players rest. That is their choice. the DM can say its a bad choice, right? But the players can still choose to do it.

I'm not saying this to start an argument about semantics. We all know short rests are very controversial. I think a lot of players who are frustrated with short rests don't understand how much of the matter is in their own hands, not the DM. It is not the DM's job to tell the players when to short rest. Players may feel the DM is not giving them enough short rests, but that is not the DM's job. He should not be telling the players when they should rest.

Back to the time crunch problem. Lets say the players just got done with a fight and now they have run of a new room. The rogue is looking for traps, others are turning stones looking for goodies, and everyone is debating what to do next. Mechanically speaking, the game is "paused" when the players are debating their next move, and the act of searching is an action taking 10 seconds of time. Mechanically all of this will be done in under 30 seconds. But realistically, this is not true. Realistically this period of down time after the fight probably takes about an hour. Planning, searching, solving are all time consuming things that should not be broken down into 10 second rounds when combat isn't active, especially when we consider the party will also be trying to catch their breath, mow on some food, and get a drink after engaging in such strenuous activity.

A wise warlock would notice this. He would say "While everyone is doing this, my character is going to perform a ritual to gather his strength." AKA take a short rest.
And if we look at what you can do in a short rest...
"A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. "
The warlock can still contribute to the planning, and continue performing light activity during this time. There are no consequences for the rest being interrupted either. It would be wise for a warlock to constantly try to squeeze a short rest in, and if it doesn't pan out, its no big deal. Maybe the party discovers a hot trail they need to follow ASAP, maybe the party finds a perplexing puzzle they need to spend more time on. Its better for the warlock to start his rest early just in case.

Now compare this to the other idea of short rests. The one where the players announce to the DM "Can we short rest now?" or worse, the players don't say anything at all and just hope the DM literally tells them that this "looks like a convenient place to rest."

If we do the math on dungeon crawls. Mechanically players can rip through multiple fights, traps, searching, planning, everything in about 5-10 minutes (50-100 turns), if they don't short rest, but the actual time lapse will be more like a day. The players may not realize how much time they actually had available to short rest that they squandered.

[djreynolds]

Unless the DM has something planned or real danger is present or they are pressed for time, the party can short rest.

It's the luck of a dice roll.