How does making a short rest 8 hours solve balancing an adventure day?

[jleonardwv]

I've read several posts where this contention is made. And they further suggest that a long rest is even longer like 4 days or a week. Can someone explain how this works? Wouldn't that just make the players who are long rest dependent even more worthless?

[CantigThimble]

I've read several posts where this contention is made. Can someone explain how this works? Wouldn't that just make the players who are long rest dependent even more worthless?

It is a solution to this problem: 'There are too few encounters per day and so short-rest dependent characters are overshadowed by long rest dependent characters.'

If the problem in your game is that short rest dependent characters are overshadowing long rest dependent characters, then you are correct that it will only make the problem worse.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The idea follows fairly naturally, honestly.

5e is only properly balanced when you have 2-3 encounters/short rest and 2 short rests/long rest
6-9 encounters per day is a lot. If you're playing a more story-driven game, it's hard to fit that many fights in a single in-game day.
(Also, "one good night's sleep healing all your injuries" is goofy)
If the problem is in-game timescales, the easy solution is to expand in-game timescales. 6 encounters in a week is a lot easier, narratively speaking, than 6 in a day.

You're maintaining the usual balance of encounters/rest, just stretched out over a longer period of time. It works decently well, but you'd probably want to houserule spells and abilities like Mage Armor (that are supposed to last for most of your adventuring day) and False Life (that are supposed to last for 2-3 encounters) so they remain useful.

[Man_Over_Game]

Grod stole pretty much everything I was going to say. The minimum needs to be 1 fight per Short Rest, not 1 fight per Long Rest. If you're having fewer than 2 Short Rests (and 3 fights) per Long Rest, then you need to make Long Rests harder to get.

Or you risk making resource-heavy classes (Paladins, Wizards, Clerics) much better than "endurance" classes (Rogues, Fighters, Warlocks).

One solution I'd recommend is making it so that a Short Rest is 8 hours of rest, and a Long Rest is 32 hours (or 1 day + 2 night's worth of rest).

This effectively means that a character will be able to deal with about 2 encounters (1-3) per Day/Night cycle, and need a day's break after 2-3 days of adventuring.

If you're worried about how a Long Rest gets interrupted in this way, I'd say that a character can do decent work/travel throughout the day, or the character can participate in combat, but they cannot do both, for it to be considered a Long Rest.

[MThurston]

The idea follows fairly naturally, honestly.

5e is only properly balanced when you have 2-3 encounters/short rest and 2 short rests/long rest
6-9 encounters per day is a lot. If you're playing a more story-driven game, it's hard to fit that many fights in a single in-game day.
(Also, "one good night's sleep healing all your injuries" is goofy)
If the problem is in-game timescales, the easy solution is to expand in-game timescales. 6 encounters in a week is a lot easier, narratively speaking, than 6 in a day.

You're maintaining the usual balance of encounters/rest, just stretched out over a longer period of time. It works decently well, but you'd probably want to houserule spells and abilities like Mage Armor (that are supposed to last for most of your adventuring day) and False Life (that are supposed to last for 2-3 encounters) so they remain useful.

I am not sure what people are talking about either with this.

Say for example the fighter types have a bad first fight of the day. Missing attacks and getting hit hard.

The cleric and Bard end up using more spell slots than normal to get the party back up to health.

If you are out into a game where a Princess needs to be saved in two nights before the full moon, this taking a week to get long rest spells back is impossible.

You are also putting the Warlocks into a bad spot because they can only cast two spells.

[Anymage]

I am not sure what people are talking about either with this.

Say for example the fighter types have a bad first fight of the day. Missing attacks and getting hit hard.

The cleric and Bard end up using more spell slots than normal to get the party back up to health.

If you are out into a game where a Princess needs to be saved in two nights before the full moon, this taking a week to get long rest spells back is impossible.

If one fight can shake you up that badly, you're probably making it way too hard. This is understandable for people who were used to the fifteen minute adventuring day - the party could nova and recover all resources after one fight, so you want to make it as tough as possible - but that isn't the design intent and stretching out rests is designed to counter, among other things, exactly that.


You are also putting the Warlocks into a bad spot because they can only cast two spells.

Warlocks are short rest dependent, and many of their abilities are at will. Warlocks will do just fine.

[Deathtongue]

Frankly, I think a lot of DMs are way too glib about using time pressures to balance short rest v. long rest parties.

Parties tend to want to maximize the performance of the party, not of individual characters, so when you try to impose a narrative punishment for long rest classes to balance them against the short rest classes, the result isn't the short rest classes going 'cool, looks like we're more equal in performance', the result is the Fighters and Warlocks 'guess the princess gets eaten, then, I ain't going in with the wizard and cleric drained'.

[Rukelnikov]

Frankly, I think a lot of DMs are way too glib about using time pressures to balance short rest v. long rest parties.

Parties tend to want to maximize the performance of the party, not of individual characters, so when you try to impose a narrative punishment for long rest classes to balance them against the short rest classes, the result isn't the short rest classes going 'cool, looks like we're more equal in performance', the result is the Fighters and Warlocks 'guess the princess gets eaten, then, I ain't going in with the wizard and cleric drained'.

IMC its not about balancing, but more about exploration having some sense of attrition.

We do a lot of hexcrawling, and very rarely do more than 2 encounters a day, so with standard rest mechanics exploration becomes meaningless or worse.

[Man_Over_Game]

I am not sure what people are talking about either with this.

Say for example the fighter types have a bad first fight of the day. Missing attacks and getting hit hard.

The cleric and Bard end up using more spell slots than normal to get the party back up to health.

If you are out into a game where a Princess needs to be saved in two nights before the full moon, this taking a week to get long rest spells back is impossible.

You are also putting the Warlocks into a bad spot because they can only cast two spells.

Random chance takes place for everyone though. Best just to deal with strictly average situations.

---------------------------------------------------

Consider if you have 2 fights per Long Rest, and you have two 5th level casters: Warlock and a Wizard who both have Fireball. You can expect something like this:

Round 1
Wizard: Fireball
Warlock: Fireball

Round 2
Wizard: Fireball
Warlock: Fireball

Round 3
Wizard: Flaming Sphere
Warlock: Cantrip

Round 4
Wizard: Invisibility
Warlock: Cantrip

[...]

Round 9
Wizard: Shield
Warlock: Cantrip

Round 10
Wizard: Cantrip
Warlock: Cantrip

(Rounds are counted as their sequence throughout an entire day)

The Wizard can continue leveled casting for 7 more rounds, when the Warlock runs out after their second cast.

However, if the Warlock and Wizard are able to take a Short Rest after the third combat Round of the day, the Warlock will be able to cast 2 more fireballs, and the Wizard will be able to cast 1 more. Another Short Rest after Round 6 will do the same thing.

---------------------------------------------------

A Warlock and Wizard, with (or without) two short rests, with 3 combat rounds between each rest, would effectively have:

Round 9 totals with Short Rests:
(Following the formula of 3 Rounds, Short Rest, 3 Rounds, Short Rest, 3 Rounds)

Wizard: 4 Fireballs, 2 level two spell slot castings, 2 level one spell slot casting2.
Warlock: 6 Fireballs, 3 cantrips


Round 9 totals without Short Rests:
(Following the formula of 8 Rounds with no Short Rest in between)

Wizard: 2 Fireballs, 3 level two spell slot castings, 4 level 1 spell slot castings.
Warlock: 2 Fireballs, 7 cantrips


---------------------------------------------------

See the problem?

Not only does the Wizard have more versatility (especially early in the day), but he has a lot more staying power when there is no reliance on Short Rests. A Warlock, at a table with no Short Rests, is a strictly worst caster than the Wizard. Considering the Warlock already has limitations on versatility and defensive options, this is a pretty big problem to have.

In fact, the only situation where a Warlock is casting at more efficiency than a Wizard is if it is getting 3 Short Rests throughout the day, with them being roughly even at 2 Short Rests throughout the day, and the Warlock being worse at 1 Short Rest throughout the day. To me, this implies that having 3 Short Rests should be equally as possible as having 1 Short Rest in the day, and having 4 Short Rests has an equal amount of chance of having none.

Or something like this:


0 Short Rests: Rare
1 Short Rests: Uncommon
2 Short Rests: Average
3 Short Rests: Uncommon
4 Short Rests: Rare



TLDR: 5e's balance needs an average of 2 Short Rests before every Long Rest, and at least one fight between each Rest. Space those out however you see fit (over a week, a day, doesn't matter), or ignore this and certain classes will be strictly worse than others.

[Frozenstep]

Say for example the fighter types have a bad first fight of the day. Missing attacks and getting hit hard.

The cleric and Bard end up using more spell slots than normal to get the party back up to health.

If you are out into a game where a Princess needs to be saved in two nights before the full moon, this taking a week to get long rest spells back is impossible.

That's kind of the point though, isn't it?

The party getting hit hard is punishing and has lasting consequences, so players are strongly encouraged to play tactically. If you have a bad first fight, perhaps giving up a day in order to get a short rest and use hit dice healing is a better response, rather then wasting all your party's spell slots.

Bad luck happens, but a DM can intervene by having the party find potions of healing and the like if they think it'll prevent the party from getting somewhere in time.


Frankly, I think a lot of DMs are way too glib about using time pressures to balance short rest v. long rest parties.

Parties tend to want to maximize the performance of the party, not of individual characters, so when you try to impose a narrative punishment for long rest classes to balance them against the short rest classes, the result isn't the short rest classes going 'cool, looks like we're more equal in performance', the result is the Fighters and Warlocks 'guess the princess gets eaten, then, I ain't going in with the wizard and cleric drained'.

If princesses keep getting eaten because of how the party plays, maybe they'll eventually change how they play. Let the short rest classes use their resources to get through most encounters, and save the long rest abilities for more important moments.

[RickAsWritten]

Does going the opposite direction work as well? Making Short Rests five or ten minutes long, easier to come by, and never interrupted. The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that the spell Catnap would need changed(to say SR=1 minute).

[MThurston]

If one fight can shake you up that badly, you're probably making it way too hard. This is understandable for people who were used to the fifteen minute adventuring day - the party could nova and recover all resources after one fight, so you want to make it as tough as possible - but that isn't the design intent and stretching out rests is designed to counter, among other things, exactly that.



Warlocks are short rest dependent, and many of their abilities are at will. Warlocks will do just fine.

Most of my gaming was with Harn where you have to roll healing of wounds each day. So you could be healing for weeks.

But I can see doing this if you want the world to be magically weak. The only issue is that the characters are going to have to fight in other ways if their at wills do not do good damage.

[MThurston]

Are people really sticking to encounters per day?

Sometimes when we play 5E we could have four encounters in one day. Sometimes only one.

[Man_Over_Game]

Does going the opposite direction work as well? Making Short Rests five or ten minutes long, easier to come by, and never interrupted. The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that the spell Catnap would need changed(to say SR=1 minute).

Potentially, but then you're dealing with attrition differences with casters vs. non-casters.

If the Caster never runs out of resources before a Long Rest, they're basically strictly better than the martial equivalent. If your Paladin doesn't have to resort to just basic attacking for 1/3 of the time, then he'll always outshine your team's Fighter. For a solid balance, your casters should be running out of resources 1-2 encounters before their long rest.

Yes, you can do a heroic equivalent, like you suggest, and that fits well with managing resources, just make sure you cram enough fights in the day to allow your resourceless classes (Rogues/Fighters/Barbarians/Monks) to have the spotlight for once.


For what you're suggesting, you'd still should be trying to fit 5 or so fights in a single day/night cycle. Making Long Rests harder to get is a solution designed to cram fewer fights in a day cycle while maintaining balance.

--------

A couple small things that would need to be adjusted are Inspiring Leader, Monk Ki points, or anything that relies on a timer for Short Rests.

[Asmotherion]

it's basically crossing rest time with Dawntime. Not that complicated.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Most of my gaming was with Harn where you have to roll healing of wounds each day. So you could be healing for weeks.

But I can see doing this if you want the world to be magically weak. The only issue is that the characters are going to have to fight in other ways if their at wills do not do good damage.

I liked the Harn(master) setting and system quite well, and that healing was a good feature. But the incredibly complex hit/armor/wound system made a single one-on-one combat a real slog. And magic is so rare that it barely influenced intra-party power dynamics. I don't know that the recovery system favored any one type of character over the others.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Does going the opposite direction work as well? Making Short Rests five or ten minutes long, easier to come by, and never interrupted. The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is that the spell Catnap would need changed(to say SR=1 minute).
Sort of. If you limit the number of short rests/long rests people can take, this makes a pretty good way of handling the pacing problems that come from uneven rest schedules. But you need some limit, otherwise you'll have Warlocks et al going nova on every fight.

[stoutstien]

Rests(time) is one of hardest mechanical concepts to get right in DND or any rpg.
The running joke how a 10 year journey
in game takess 10 seconds in real life and a 10 second fight in game takes 10 years on real life is pretty telling.

5e only has a solid time when it comes to combat and rest. An example is spells that last 8 hours(mage armor). Unless you spend the entire session resting/combat the spell duration is up to the DM.
Short/ long rest resource recovery takes center stage here but I think it's deeper than that

[RickAsWritten]

For what you're suggesting, you'd still should be trying to fit 5 or so fights in a single day/night cycle. Making Long Rests harder to get is a solution designed to cram fewer fights in a day cycle while maintaining balance.

--------

A couple small things that would need to be adjusted are Inspiring Leader, Monk Ki points, or anything that relies on a timer for Short Rests.

I tend to use cascading encounters, where enemies come in waves. So it feels like one big encounter but is actually two or three. Two of that type of encounter in a day usually hits the right balance for resource management. The only drawback/challenge is making sure the players don't get bogged down by a combat slog.

On point two: noted, thanks.

[mephnick]

I just shifts the "adventuring day" into an "adventuring week".

Adventuring Day (normal) is more useful for traditional dungeon campaigns with little downtime, where you will fight monsters room by room.

Adventuring Week (gritty realism) is more useful for games with lots of overland travel and wasting time in towns, where you may only have 4 combats in 7 days.

[mephnick]

Of course, people that understand game design simply make short rests 5 minutes and limit them to 2 per long rest.

[deljzc]

The DM is kind of managing the show in my opinion.

I have never thought that when you battle in D&D, the players are "optimized". Attrition, partly wounded, conserving spells are all part of the game (at least to me).

All short and long rests are kind of "approved" by the DM in their own way. Is it safe enough? Do I plop a surprise encounter (thus making a rest even more dangerous)? Those are all up to the DM to keep the flow of the adventure moving and not turn the play session into fight - short rest - fight - short rest - fight - short rest, et. al.

I know 5e has tried to set pretty specific rules about "rests" (and there are lot of abilities tied to both types), but the DM trying to make the game play correctly trumps RAW in my opinion (often in many cases).

I am of the opinion if the players are abusing "rests", then the DM has to make changes. If you think the players are using rests appropriately, then let it go.

[stoutstien]

I just shifts the "adventuring day" into an "adventuring week".

Adventuring Day (normal) is more useful for traditional dungeon campaigns with little downtime, where you will fight monsters room by room.

Adventuring Week (gritty realism) is more useful for games with lots of overland travel and wasting time in towns, where you may only have 4 combats in 7 days.
Or just mutiple short rest resources by 3 and shift all classes to long rest. Now short rest are for spot healing.(catching breath)

[Man_Over_Game]

The DM is kind of managing the show in my opinion.

I have never thought that when you battle in D&D, the players are "optimized". Attrition, partly wounded, conserving spells are all part of the game (at least to me).

All short and long rests are kind of "approved" by the DM in their own way. Is it safe enough? Do I plop a surprise encounter (thus making a rest even more dangerous)? Those are all up to the DM to keep the flow of the adventure moving and not turn the play session into fight - short rest - fight - short rest - fight - short rest, et. al.

I know 5e has tried to set pretty specific rules about "rests" (and there are lot of abilities tied to both types), but the DM trying to make the game play correctly trumps RAW in my opinion (often in many cases).

I am of the opinion if the players are abusing "rests", then the DM has to make changes. If you think the players are using rests appropriately, then let it go.

It's not so much of "Player abuse" as it is "DM negligence". DMs are required to focus on the narrative elements, but don't always have a firm grasp on team balance, and many Players know less than DMs. This is a DM's problem at the player's expense.

Some DM's just say "Well, you can't balance everything. Of COURSE a Wizard is going to be better than a Fighter! Haven't you played DnD in the last 30 years?", but it's a lazy answer that helps nobody. If classes aren't running out of resources, then when is a resourceless character supposed to earn their keep? Or is the DM just suggesting that resourceless players be sidekicks to everyone else? Players end up feeling like they made a poor choice in their build, or that their class sucks, when really the DM decided to take the easy route at the player's expense.


Or just mutiple short rest resources by 3 and shift all classes to long rest. Now short rest are for spot healing.(catching breath)

Samurai with Elven Accuracy: "*Ahem*, Action Surge.".

[stoutstien]

Samurai with Elven Accuracy: "*Ahem*, Action Surge.".
I guess if flat out tell your party, "this is the big encounter for the day. Go nuts!" This makes Nova build more of an issue. Same could be said for a warlock spamming fireball or battle master a using trip attack for advantage and action surging blowing all or most of their resources at once.
I doesn't reduce the need for dms to control rests/ encounters but at least you only have to worry about one not 2

[Rukelnikov]

Of course, people that understand game design simply make short rests 5 minutes and limit them to 2 per long rest.


Or just mutiple short rest resources by 3 and shift all classes to long rest. Now short rest are for spot healing.(catching breath)

Neither of this changes fixes the exploration problem, gritty realism sounds like it could work, haven't had the chance to try it yet.

[mephnick]

Neither of this changes fixes the exploration problem, gritty realism sounds like it could work, haven't had the chance to try it yet.

How does it not?

Gritty Realism has the opposite problem of making Short Rest classes too strong.

My option balances everything and allows the DM to shift pace in his campaign with zero side effects.

[Demonslayer666]

It doesn't.

It simply allows you more in game time to squeeze in encounters per short rest, which feels more logical for short rests, but then breaks the daily spells shtick.

5th forces the dungeon crawl to balance the classes (travel in really dangerous areas to get enough encounters). But the players just take more rests, which forces the DM to put them on a clock, which makes for a clumsy system.

My next game will do away with short rests and make them per day uses, although I'm worried about balance if they drop multiple uses in a single combat, especially a boss fight.

[Rukelnikov]

How does it not?

Gritty Realism has the opposite problem of making Short Rest classes too strong.

My option balances everything and allows the DM to shift pace in his campaign with zero side effects.

It does not because at the end of every day you get all your resources back (except half you HD)

[Man_Over_Game]

How does it not?

Gritty Realism has the opposite problem of making Short Rest classes too strong.

My option balances everything and allows the DM to shift pace in his campaign with zero side effects.

After crunching some numbers, Short Rest characters start to break ahead of Long Rest characters at about 3 Short Rests, being even at about 2.

(This was done with a comparison of Warlock vs. Wizard and Fighter vs. Paladin)

The solution is to have an equal amount of chance of having 1 Short Rests per Long Rest (Short Rest characters slightly underpowered) as you would having 3 Short Rests per Long Rest (Short Rest characters lightly overpowered).

Or come up with a formula that averages out at about 2 Short Rests per Long Rest. Gauge how much time you expect your players to spend in town (a day, a week, etc) compared to how often they should be getting into fights.

8 Hour Short Rests, 32 Hour Long Rests seems to be the sweet spot for me.

[mephnick]

Or come up with a formula that averages out at about 2 Short Rests per Long Rest.

Like....limiting Short Rests to 2 per Long Rest?

[mephnick]

It does not because at the end of every day you get all your resources back (except half you HD)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I mix the 2 short rest limit with Gritty Realism. 2 Short Rests per week, but can be taken at any time, individually by characters. Long Rests are still a few days in a safe location.

[Man_Over_Game]

Like....limiting Short Rests to 2 per Long Rest?

Sure. That covers the potential problem of characters getting too many Short Rests, but the second part is that the players regularly need those two short rests. What you're recommending is balanced to prevent Short Rest features from becoming too good, but the way to prevent Long Rest features from becoming too good is by having too many encounters before a Long rest.

By the end of the day, the Wizard should be relying on the Warlock to pick up some of the burden the Wizard can't manage, and that's not going to happen if the team only needs one Short Rest.

[stoutstien]

After crunching some numbers, Short Rest characters start to break ahead of Long Rest characters at about 3 Short Rests, being even at about 2.

(This was done with a comparison of Warlock vs. Wizard and Fighter vs. Paladin)

The solution is to have an equal amount of chance of having 1 Short Rests per Long Rest (Short Rest characters slightly underpowered) as you would having 3 Short Rests per Long Rest (Short Rest characters lightly overpowered).

Or come up with a formula that averages out at about 2 Short Rests per Long Rest. Gauge how much time you expect your players to spend in town (a day, a week, etc) compared to how often they should be getting into fights.

8 Hour Short Rests, 32 Hour Long Rests seems to be the sweet spot for me.
I would love to see the math on this. Wizards or land druid's arcane recovery vs say a monks stunning fist has always tripped me up on any true comparison.

[Rukelnikov]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I mix the 2 short rest limit with Gritty Realism. 2 Short Rests per week, but can be taken at any time, individually by characters. Long Rests are still a few days in a safe location.


Oh, ok, yeah that should work.

[mephnick]

Sure. That covers the potential problem of characters getting too many Short Rests, but the second part is that the players regularly need those two short rests. What you're recommending is balanced to prevent Short Rest features from becoming too good, but the way to prevent Long Rest features from becoming too good is by having too many encounters for the players to stay comfortable.

Well the assumption is that the Short Rest characters will get those 2 Short Rests every Long Rest because they are near instant. The Long Rest characters see no change because they're still challenged by the same adventuring day/week of encounters. The Short Rest characters pick up the slack at the end of the week and the Long Rest characters still have to ration resources. This is how it's played out at my table the last couple years, anyway.

[Deathtongue]

IMC its not about balancing, but more about exploration having some sense of attrition.

If princesses keep getting eaten because of how the party plays, maybe they'll eventually change how they play. Let the short rest classes use their resources to get through most encounters, and save the long rest abilities for more important moments.
If this is the kind of behavior you're trying to drive, then D&D needs a completely different model than the short rest/long rest mechanic.

For example, Torchbearer definitely has exploration having a sense of attrition. Your characters are literal hobos and if you stop exploring for resources, there's a real risk you'll run out of resources (which in this case would be food or light) and die.

D&D doesn't do that. If your murderhobos let the princess get eaten because they were too slow, so what? They can still go on other adventures. They don't have to stop playing their characters. An NPC gets eaten and the PCs live in infamy and shame? So what? At least I didn't have to retire the character because I tried to rescue the princess without having a full deck of resources.

Trying to control gameplay incentives with story-based incentives rarely, in a stochastic sense, works. Hell, the reason why we have the word 'murderhobo' in the first place. shows the complete failure of D&D trying to corral gameplay behavior with story incentives.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would love to see the math on this. Wizards or land druid's arcane recovery vs say a monks stunning fist has always tripped me up on any true comparison.

Stunning Fist is really difficult to manage, since it's a guaranteed hit rider that relies on an attack, using a tertiary stat but while using one of the most efficient resources in the game? Oh, and it Stuns, one of the best and most rare conditions in the game. It's not exactly easy to gauge.

I find that accuracy is best done with simplicity, which is why I try to use damage/casting as the equalizer for any balance concerns, and then try to convert everything else over to a damage value.

For example, take a level 5 Fighter vs. a level 5 Paladin. Assume they're both using the same feats and weapons, and are using the same methods to attack (represented by X below), and using Divine Smite/Action Surge when possible.

Round 1
Fighter: Action Surge. 2x.
Paladin: X + 3d8

Round 2
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 3d8

Round 3
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 4
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 5
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 6
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 7
Fighter: X
Paladin: X

If we assume X is represented by two 2d6 + 4 (11 damage per hit) attacks, the totals come out to:

Fighter: 176 (154 Attack + 22 Action Surge)
Paladin: 217 (154 Attack + 63 Divine Smite)


Action Surge effectively grants the Fighter 22 damage, and refreshes on a Short Rest. This means that the Fighter gains 22 damage throughout the day per Short Rest.

With two Short Rests, this means that the Fighter does 44 more damage throughout the day, resulting in these totals:

Fighter: 176 + 44 = 220
Paladin: 154 + 63 = 217

Fighters balance with Paladins with two Short Rests, and gain 22 more damage throughout the day for every additional Short Rest.

This, combined with my prior information comparing Warlocks to Wizards, implies that there needs to be around 8 combat rounds per day, with 2 Short Rests dividing those Combat Rounds. Now, based on what I'm looking at, these need to be an average, not a maximum.

Every day that the team only needed one Short Rest is another day you have to plan for them to need 3 Short Rests. This is all assuming a DM wants to do the work of managing balance.

[stoutstien]

Stunning Fist is really difficult to manage, since it's a guaranteed hit rider that relies on an attack, using a tertiary stat but while using one of the most efficient resources in the game? Oh, and it Stuns, one of the best and most rare conditions in the game. It's not exactly easy to gauge.

I find that accuracy is best done with simplicity, which is why I try to use damage/casting as the equalizer for any balance concerns, and then try to convert everything else over to a damage value.

For example, a level 5 Fighter vs. a level 5 Paladin. Assume they're both using the same feats and weapons, and are using the same methods to attack, represented by X, and using Divine Smite/Action Surge when possible.

Round 1
Fighter: Action Surge. 2x.
Paladin: X + 3d8

Round 2
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 3d8

Round 3
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 4
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 5
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 6
Fighter: X
Paladin: X + 2d8

Round 7
Fighter: X
Paladin: X

If we assume X is represented by two 2d6 + 4 (11 damage per hit) attacks, the totals come out to:

Fighter: 176 (Attack + Action Surge)
Paladin: 154 (Attack) + 63 (Divine Smite)


Action Surge effectively grants the Fighter 22 damage, and refreshes on a Short Rest. This means that the Fighter gains 22 damage throughout the day per Short Rest.

With two Short Rests, this means that the Fighter does 44 more damage throughout the day, resulting in these totals:

Fighter: 174 + 44 = 220
Paladin: 154 + 63 = 217

Fighters balance with Paladins with two Short Rests, and gain 22 more damage throughout the day for every additional Short Rest.

This, combined with my prior information comparing Warlocks to Wizards, implies that there needs to be around 8 combat rounds per day, with 2 Short Rests dividing those Combat Rounds.
Thank you. I see how you worked it out now.
Im glad I'm not the only one that looks at stunning fist and Just shrug. So much of monks impact is wrapped up in a single feature it's hard to gauge

[Man_Over_Game]

I guess one thing to note is that the smaller X is, the worse off the Fighter is. For example, a Sword/Board Fighter and Paladin, with a +3 modifier, would deal 7 less damage per round, meaning that the Fighter is less effective and may need a 3rd Short Rest to keep up with the Paladin.

Sword + Board Fighter gains 15 damage per Action Surge.

Sword + Board Round 7 total, Without Rests:

Fighter: 120
Paladin: 105 + 63 (Divine Smite)

With 3 Short Rests:

Fighter: 120 + 15x3 = 165
Paladin: 105 + 63 = 168

[MThurston]

I guess one thing to note is that the smaller X is, the worse off the Fighter is. For example, a Sword/Board Fighter and Paladin, with a +2 modifier, would deal about 4.5 less damage per round, meaning that the Fighter is less effective and may need a 3rd Short Rest to keep up with the Paladin.

Why not make classes that are based on short rest balanced with long rest classes?

[Rukelnikov]

If this is the kind of behavior you're trying to drive, then D&D needs a completely different model than the short rest/long rest mechanic.

For example, Torchbearer definitely has exploration having a sense of attrition. Your characters are literal hobos and if you stop exploring for resources, there's a real risk you'll run out of resources (which in this case would be food or light) and die.

D&D doesn't do that. If your murderhobos let the princess get eaten because they were too slow, so what? They can still go on other adventures. They don't have to stop playing their characters. An NPC gets eaten and the PCs live in infamy and shame? So what? At least I didn't have to retire the character because I tried to rescue the princess without having a full deck of resources.

Trying to control gameplay incentives with story-based incentives rarely, in a stochastic sense, works. Hell, the reason why we have the word 'murderhobo' in the first place. shows the complete failure of D&D trying to corral gameplay behavior with story incentives.

Well, since my party plays a roleplaying game and not a wargame, knowing the princess was in danger of being eaten at any moment has always weighed more than our possible deaths.

[MThurston]

Well, since my party plays a roleplaying game and not a wargame, knowing the princess was in danger of being eaten at any moment has always weighed more than our possible deaths.

The correct answer.

[deljzc]

I'm also of the opinion, D&D is not World of Warcraft. We are not optimizing classes down to damage per second, or total damage output or even which classes would be better mano y mano (or even if that is important).

It's kind of a group game. Sometimes the story creates the importance of players, not the rule book.

All classes and races can contribute and its the entire group (DM and players) to make sure everyone is included and having fun. I don't know how, with all the different combinations of races, classes, variants, class specializations that all will even be CLOSE to equal in "power" (and that term is very arbitrary in D&D in general). I'm not even sure if that is the responsibility of the rules or even the goal of the rules.

[Aett_Thorn]

Why not make classes that are based on short rest balanced with long rest classes?

How do you do this without also balancing rests?

[stoutstien]

Well, since my party plays a roleplaying game and not a wargame, knowing the princess was in danger of being eaten at any moment has always weighed more than our possible deaths.
I don't think he be saying that players will not respond to story incentives as a way of resource control. I think the point he's trying to make is that it's impossible to use storypoint as a way for dm to enforce resource control.
So using the example of the princess who needs saving, the party opt out of taking rest in fear that the princess is going to be eating sooner than later so that running on fewer resources which changes the way the DM's going to you encounter difficulties with portions of the game.
It doesn't matter if the DM or the other players that's trying to affect the resource management. A class based around short rest mechanics going in with full resources is going to completely change how that party interacts with the game compared to that same character out of resources or low
Edit: this isn't about optimization of players it's about a tool for a DM use to make the game more enjoyable with less work.
Rest in a nutshell is a tool for dm2 increase or decrease difficulty or urgency. So knowing how each class interacts with the rest mechanic is important

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why not make classes that are based on short rest balanced with long rest classes?
They did. They're just balanced around the assumption of the 2:1 short rest:long rest ratio.

(On a related note, I have a suspicion that short rest stuff was originally per-encounter, and was switched over later in the design process when people complained about similarities to 4e. That would make balancing easier--you either have long rest classes or "good to go all day" classes, like you did in past editions)


I'I don't know how, with all the different combinations of races, classes, variants, class specializations that all will even be CLOSE to equal in "power" (and that term is very arbitrary in D&D in general). I'm not even sure if that is the responsibility of the rules or even the goal of the rules.
The goal of the rules-- at least in a game as crunchy as D&D-- is to keep everyone within spitting distance of each other, I think. It doesn't matter if the Paladin does 10% more damage than the Fighter; it does matter if they do 200% more. And to its credit, 5e does a pretty good job of that even if you mangle short rest ratios.

[Rukelnikov]

I don't think he be saying that players will not respond to story incentives as a way of resource control. I think the point he's trying to make is that it's impossible to use storypoint as a way for dm to enforce resource control.
So using the example of the princess who needs saving, the party opt out of taking rest in fear that the princess is going to be eating sooner than later so that running on fewer resources which changes the way the DM's going to you encounter difficulties with portions of the game.
It doesn't matter if the DM or the other players that's trying to affect the resource management. A class based around short rest mechanics going in with full resources is going to completely change how that party interacts with the game compared to that same character out of resources or low

Any character, independant of their rest mechanics, will perform better at full resources.

The point of the attrition is that they are not at full resources for every fight, I've pretty much played the last 2 campaigns like that, and 5e just doesn't handle it well.

[Rukelnikov]

The goal of the rules-- at least in a game as crunchy as D&D-- is to keep everyone within spitting distance of each other, I think. It doesn't matter if the Paladin does 10% more damage than the Fighter; it does matter if they do 200% more. And to its credit, 5e does a pretty good job of that even if you mangle short rest ratios.

After long years of playing 3.x, 5e does a great job at balancing even if you just do one fight per long rest.

[Deathtongue]

The correct answer.
So you say. This is the kind of answer I'd expect from a manager who doesn't want to investigate why their incentive/commission/bonus program motivates their employees to take actions that benefits the individual employee but not the company. You must have heard of them. You also must have heard of how ineffective it is when the managers beg/threaten the employees not to abuse the perverse incentives.


Well, since my party plays a roleplaying game and not a wargame, knowing the princess was in danger of being eaten at any moment has always weighed more than our possible deaths.To what end? Would your party still take on the adventure to rescue the princess if they were cursed by Tiamat to have a 95% chance of not taking an action during a particular turn? What about 50%? Or 5%?

Since very few people will agree to 95% but a lot of people will agree to 5%, we're just quibbling about risk management at that point. All the same, you should not be surprised if most parties decide to let the princess get eaten if they're suffering the 95% (or even the 30%) chance of no action curse.

So let's go back to the issue of the princess. Do you think MORE or FEWER parties will allow the princess to get eaten if they could only get a long rest every in-game week vis-à-vis the status quo of one every day? How about every two weeks? Three days?

These discussions completely ignore the interplay between out-game risk management and story incentives. It's always an issue of risk-adverse players needing the DM to nag and shame them into playing, without actually trying to see things from the players' point of view. First let's make sure the incentives align with the behavior we're trying to drive.

[stoutstien]

After long years of playing 3.x, 5e does a great job at balancing even if you just do one fight per long rest.
I think 5e has done the best at per round balance of any ttrpg. But nothing wrong with a little fine tuning of any system

[Rukelnikov]

So you say. This is the kind of answer I'd expect from a manager who doesn't want to investigate why their incentive/commission/bonus program motivates their employees to take actions that benefits the individual employee but not the company. You must have heard of them. You also must have heard of how ineffective it is when the managers beg/threaten the employees not to abuse the perverse incentives.

To what end? Would your party still take on the adventure to rescue the princess if they were cursed by Tiamat to have a 95% chance of not taking an action during a particular turn? What about 50%? Or 5%?

Since very few people will agree to 95% but a lot of people will agree to 5%, we're just quibbling about risk management at that point. All the same, you should not be surprised if most parties decide to let the princess get eaten if they're suffering the 95% (or even the 30%) chance of no action curse.

So let's go back to the issue of the princess. Do you think MORE or FEWER parties will allow the princess to get eaten if they could only get a long rest every in-game week vis-à-vis the status quo of one every day? How about every two weeks? Three days?

These discussions completely ignore the interplay between out-game risk management and story incentives. It's always an issue of risk-adverse players needing the DM to nag and shame them into playing, without actually trying to see things from the players' point of view. First let's make sure the incentives align with the behavior we're trying to drive.

I think the vast majority of the the ones the game is aimed at would try to save the princess against all odds. If they are badly cursed, maybe saving the princess doesn't involve personally hitting the five headed dragon, but petitioning Bahamut to cleanse you, or convincing the Eladrin to fight Tiamat head on.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think 5e has done the best at per round balance of any ttrpg. But nothing wrong with a little fine tuning of any system

Agreed.

Problems are relative. What was once a big problem is now a small problem. Since there aren't any big problems left, the small problems are now the big ones.

Similarly, if someone litters on your yard, that's a problem. But you vaguely remember 20 year ago when you had a problem with people crapping on your yard, and how you're glad things are better now that they're only just littering. That does not mean that it's not a problem that deserves your attention.

You fix the biggest problem, whatever that may be at that time.

[Rukelnikov]

I think 5e has done the best at per round balance of any ttrpg. But nothing wrong with a little fine tuning of any system

I wouldn't go that far, but maybe of the "mainstream" TTRPGs.

[stoutstien]

Agreed.

Problems are relative. What was once a big problem is now a small problem. Since there aren't any big problems left, the small problems are now the big ones.

Similarly, if someone litters on your yard, that's a problem. But you vaguely remember 20 year ago when you had a problem with people crapping on your yard, and how you're glad things are better now that they're only just littering. That does not mean that it's not a problem that deserves your attention.

You fix the biggest problem, whatever that may be at that time.
In that case I vote for the weak binding in 5e books.

[Deathtongue]

I think the vast majority of the the ones the game is aimed at would try to save the princess against all odds. If they are badly cursed, maybe saving the princess doesn't involve personally hitting the five headed dragon, but petitioning Bahamut to cleanse you, or convincing the Eladrin to fight Tiamat head on.How much time are you giving them to do those tasks? Say the party only has two days before the princess is sacrificed and they estimate that getting an audience with Bahamut or rallying the Eladrin would take three days? Would a party under a 95% no-action curse attempt to rescue the princess anyway or would they just leave her to her fate? What about a 50% no-action party? 25%? 5%?

[MThurston]

They did. They're just balanced around the assumption of the 2:1 short rest:long rest ratio.

(On a related note, I have a suspicion that short rest stuff was originally per-encounter, and was switched over later in the design process when people complained about similarities to 4e. That would make balancing easier--you either have long rest classes or "good to go all day" classes, like you did in past editions)


The goal of the rules-- at least in a game as crunchy as D&D-- is to keep everyone within spitting distance of each other, I think. It doesn't matter if the Paladin does 10% more damage than the Fighter; it does matter if they do 200% more. And to its credit, 5e does a pretty good job of that even if you mangle short rest ratios.

Why should my fighter have to output less damage then the mages cantrips?

[Man_Over_Game]

Why should my fighter have to output less damage then the mages cantrips?

Could you explain in a little more depth to what you mean? I'm not sure with how your concern ties in to your quote of what Grod said.

As a personal response to what Grod said, there IS a balance concern of that level, though. If there is a single combat in a day, with only 3 combat rounds, the lvl5 Paladin will deal about 65% more damage than the equal-level Fighter. This is before considering the fact that the Paladin has access to more spell uses than just damage. He can CHOOSE to outdamage the Fighter, or do something else entirely. The Fighter does not have that option.

[Laserlight]

The correct answer.

"We try it when we're too low on resources, we all get killed, the princess gets eaten" is in fact not the correct answer.

[Anymage]

So let's go back to the issue of the princess. Do you think MORE or FEWER parties will allow the princess to get eaten if they could only get a long rest every in-game week vis-à-vis the status quo of one every day? How about every two weeks? Three days?

If they could chose when to get their resources back without any other part of the world changing, of course they'd want faster resource recovery. Taken to the extreme, you have the paranoid wizard who holes up in their tower, and only leaves to scry n' fry a target before holing up again to recharge. Changing the rest time also changes the expectations with the DM and the way the world works, though.

And yes, the rules could have been made for a more uniform resource recovery pattern. Ask yourself how fans would react if wizards moved away from the classic vancian model.


Why should my fighter have to output less damage then the mages cantrips?

...Fighters don't do less damage than the wizard's cantrips. One swing may do less damage than one cantrip, but the whole point is that fighters get multiple swings.

Some classes do better burst damage, some do better sustain. If you want classes to be more balanced than that, you could certainly try tuning them all around similar resource recovery methods. Maybe some at-will, some that recharge per encounter, some that recharge per day, and some utility powers that work on whatever fits best. I'm sure that fans would adore that model and that it would go over swimmingly.

[Rukelnikov]

How much time are you giving them to do those tasks? Say the party only has two days before the princess is sacrificed and they estimate that getting an audience with Bahamut or rallying the Eladrin would take three days? Would a party under a 95% no-action curse attempt to rescue the princess anyway or would they just leave her to her fate? What about a 50% no-action party? 25%? 5%?

If they are being heavily cursed by Tiamat, there must be something about this guys that is relevant, maybe they are a 20th level party or who knows, Bahamut may listen.

Anyway, if the DM puts the players in such a situation and is just gonna deny any attempt from the PCs, the discussion about sr/lr/encounter ratio lost all meaning, because the problem we're dealing with is above the rules themselves.

[Rukelnikov]

"We try it when we're too low on resources, we all get killed, the princess gets eaten" is in fact not the correct answer.

"If we don't try it she gets eaten too, so we might as well try"

[Man_Over_Game]

...Fighters don't do less damage than the wizard's cantrips. One swing may do less damage than one cantrip, but the whole point is that fighters get multiple swings.

Some classes do better burst damage, some do better sustain. If you want classes to be more balanced than that, you could certainly try tuning them all around similar resource recovery methods. Maybe some at-will, some that recharge per encounter, some that recharge per day, and some utility powers that work on whatever fits best. I'm sure that fans would adore that model and that it would go over swimmingly.

Ah, the 4th edition model: Everyone gets an at-will, an Encounter power, and a Daily power. Unfortunately, the balance broke due to certain powers being better than others, but there were no complaints about balance regarding rest/encounter recharging (unless you were playing with Psionics, I guess).

[noob]

Why would you start using plot ressources instead of rests?
Bahamut will not like someone perstering it once every five princes to save.
The angels are too busy getting killed by necromancers to provide them corpses to animate.
If you are forced to do something it means that there was not already another person going to do it: the king will not think "oh there is a level 1323123234234 party willing to work with my army of 324234324 super hyper arch angel titan gods so I am going to ask level 1 characters(the pcs) to go save the princess or prince or whatever then complain and make all my gigantic army of arch angel titan gods attack the party if they say they can not save the prince or princess because they are too battered from their previous fights thus leaving my kingdom undefended and letting the prince(ss) die killed horribly"

[Man_Over_Game]

Regarding this topic, I made a homebrew to help solve balance problems for tables that prefer to have fewer fights in a day. Rather than trying to fit in several short rests with your narrative and still have fewer fights, consider just implementing Short Rests into the fight itself.

My Adrenaline Surge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578061-MOG-Mechanics-Adrenaline-Surge-(Fixing-Short-Rests-bosses-Hit-Die-and-Warlocks)&p=23622135&viewfull=1#post23622135)homebrew in my signature does this. It makes boss fights longer, harder, and rewards Short Rest characters.

[Rukelnikov]

Why would you start using plot ressources instead of rests?
Bahamut will not like someone perstering it once every five princes to save.
The angels are too busy getting killed by necromancers to provide them corpses to animate.
If you are forced to do something it means that there was not already another person going to do it: the king will not think "oh there is a level 1323123234234 party willing to work with my army of 324234324 super hyper arch angel titan gods so I am going to ask level 1 characters(the pcs) to go save the princess or prince or whatever then complain and make all my gigantic army of arch angel titan gods attack the party if they say they can not save the prince or princess because they are too battered from their previous fights thus leaving my kingdom undefended and letting the prince(ss) die killed horribly"

If the DM doesn't want something like that, he shouldn't have cursed the party with a 95% of not acting each round.

[noob]

Or maybe short rests could be short(as the name indicates) sufficiently for people to be able to fit them in the narrative without problems(unlike one hour rests that fit in the same spots as 8 hour rests) so for example one minute short rests.(with some limits to how many short rests you can get in a day(maybe up to 3 or 4 short rests per day))

[Rukelnikov]

Or maybe short rests could be short(as the name indicates) sufficiently for people to be able to fit them in the narrative without problems(unlike one hour rests that fit in the same spots as 8 hour rests) so for example one minute short rests.(with some limits to how many short rests you can get in a day(maybe up to 3 or 4 short rests per day))

Yeah, when the DM curses you with a 95% chance of not acting every round, and doesn't follow the sr/lr/encounter ratio suggested by the manual, the bigger problem is clearly the latter.

[Man_Over_Game]

Or maybe short rests could be short(as the name indicates) sufficiently for people to be able to fit them in the narrative without problems(unlike one hour rests that fit in the same spots as 8 hour rests) so for example one minute short rests.(with some limits to how many short rests you can get in a day(maybe up to 3 or 4 short rests per day))
Mephnick actually suggested the same thing:


I just shifts the "adventuring day" into an "adventuring week".

Adventuring Day (normal) is more useful for traditional dungeon campaigns with little downtime, where you will fight monsters room by room.

Adventuring Week (gritty realism) is more useful for games with lots of overland travel and wasting time in towns, where you may only have 4 combats in 7 days.


Of course, people that understand game design simply make short rests 5 minutes and limit them to 2 per long rest.

However:


Sure. That covers the potential problem of characters getting too many Short Rests, but the second part is that the players regularly need those two short rests. What you're recommending (in regards to capping how many Short Rests you can have per day) is balanced to prevent Short Rest features from becoming too good, but the way to prevent Long Rest features from becoming too good is by having too many encounters before a Long rest.

By the end of the day, the Wizard should be relying on the Warlock to pick up some of the burden the Wizard can't manage, and that's not going to happen if the team only needs one Short Rest.

Mephnick later mentioned that he has done this for a few years, and as long as you make sure the Long Rest characters have exhausted their resources before they take their Long Rest, it works out fine.

[TyGuy]

Grod said it best. I've used gritty realism with some house rules to great effect. I personally prefer how it's better for narrative.

This "what about time constraints on rescuing the princess" is so silly. When a DM goes gritty realism they hopefully understand that they've shifted time scales and will adjust accordingly. The benefits of gritty realism aren't disproved because a DM might be too stupid to take these things into account when preparing. Terrible argument.

[Deathtongue]

If the DM doesn't want something like that, he shouldn't have cursed the party with a 95% of not acting each round.What about a maximum hp reduction of that much? I've seen people attempt to adventure with some pretty hefty maximum hp reduction penalties. Or penalties from Raise Dead.

Please don't focus too much on the 95% part. Instead focus on the 'you are taking penalties that would make something you'd normally succeed more likely to fail' part. We can quibble about the likely part, but the fact is: there's always a spillover point where the amount of penalty you're taking makes your typical heroic actions not worth it.

[mephnick]

Mephnick later mentioned that he has done this for a few years, and as long as you make sure the Long Rest characters have exhausted their resources before they take their Long Rest, it works out fine.

Yeah, if you do my system but still only throw 2 fights at them per Long Rest it's kind of a waste of time. I suppose I took the "6-8 encounters per Long Rest" assumption and changed the rests to fit the that, rather than make the encounters fit the rests.

[noob]

Well an alternative solution is to make everyone be long rest or everyone be short rest.

[Rukelnikov]

What about a maximum hp reduction of that much? I've seen people attempt to adventure with some pretty hefty maximum hp reduction penalties. Or penalties from Raise Dead.

Please don't focus too much on the 95% part. Instead focus on the 'you are taking penalties that would make something you'd normally succeed more likely to fail' part. We can quibble about the likely part, but the fact is: there's always a spillover point where the amount of penalty you're taking makes your typical heroic actions not worth it.

That is exactly the point. When a DM puts the characters in such a situation he is testing their, well, character.

Some characters will go like "you know what, it's not worth it. I'm not risking my neck for whatever it was we were trying to do"

Others may go like "I do wanna do X, but I'm not risking my life over it. We rest, and then we go, and if it's too late we'll avenge those we couldn't save."

And finally others may go "We can't stop to rest, evil reigns while good sleeps, and if we are not ready to risk our lives for the greater good, we are no better than mercenaries"

[c0r1nth14n]

I'm currently DMing a campaign where the party has 10 days to accomplish their objective, and the storyline makes more than 3 encounters a day not viable. I'm using 8 hours of sleep as a short rest and a full day of nothing as a long rest. So far this is driving the desired behavior - they're considering when to nova vs when to conserve, discussing whether they can go another day without a long rest, etc.

The campaign culminates in them assaulting a fortified temple, for which I told them we'd switch to dungeon-crawl short rests of 5 minutes. This should solve the transition from 2-3 fights per day to 6-8 fights per day.

[noob]

"We can't stop to rest, evil reigns while good sleeps, and if we are not ready to risk our lives for the greater good, we are no better than mercenaries"
Then those people are worse than mercenaries because they grant extra corpses to the side of evil.

[Frozenstep]

To what end? Would your party still take on the adventure to rescue the princess if they were cursed by Tiamat to have a 95% chance of not taking an action during a particular turn? What about 50%? Or 5%?

Since very few people will agree to 95% but a lot of people will agree to 5%, we're just quibbling about risk management at that point. All the same, you should not be surprised if most parties decide to let the princess get eaten if they're suffering the 95% (or even the 30%) chance of no action curse.

So let's go back to the issue of the princess. Do you think MORE or FEWER parties will allow the princess to get eaten if they could only get a long rest every in-game week vis-à-vis the status quo of one every day? How about every two weeks? Three days?

These discussions completely ignore the interplay between out-game risk management and story incentives. It's always an issue of risk-adverse players needing the DM to nag and shame them into playing, without actually trying to see things from the players' point of view. First let's make sure the incentives align with the behavior we're trying to drive.


How much time are you giving them to do those tasks? Say the party only has two days before the princess is sacrificed and they estimate that getting an audience with Bahamut or rallying the Eladrin would take three days? Would a party under a 95% no-action curse attempt to rescue the princess anyway or would they just leave her to her fate? What about a 50% no-action party? 25%? 5%?


What about a maximum hp reduction of that much? I've seen people attempt to adventure with some pretty hefty maximum hp reduction penalties. Or penalties from Raise Dead.

Please don't focus too much on the 95% part. Instead focus on the 'you are taking penalties that would make something you'd normally succeed more likely to fail' part. We can quibble about the likely part, but the fact is: there's always a spillover point where the amount of penalty you're taking makes your typical heroic actions not worth it.

I think we're getting too caught up in this scenario where an Evil DM is forcing a party to continue to a boss fight with no resources, which can happen even with 8 hour long rests. Let's take a step back.

The reason I would consider adding a gritty long rest system is because I want to encourage the kind of play I like seeing (I could go on for a while about this, but basically resource management, being rewarded for taking care of encounters efficiently, and managing risks) without needing to constantly come up with reasons something has to be done today.

As you said, parties are risk adverse, and it just makes sense to long rest early so you can use more resources and reduce the risk in fights. This leads to me either needing to up the difficulty of fights or trying to interrupt long rests (both which I feel only encourage parties to want long rests even sooner, to be prepared for either case) or else the challenge vanishes and combat becomes less fun. So a time limit makes sense, but then those time limits need to be very tight, and that just doesn't work for me narratively sometimes.

So extending the time limit, but also making rests grittier allows similar situations to play out over the course of several days. It also helps encourage a party to keep moving without needing strict time limits. I can give vague deadlines (the cultists are working on some sort of super-weapon in x city...), and now even though the party doesn't know exactly how long they have, the urgency pushes them a bit further because while 8 hours doesn't feel like they're giving up too much, a week feels like they'll be too late.

And you know what? If there's 2 days remaining and you don't feel like your party doesn't have the resources to save that princess? Then yes. The party can walk away. Or try to find help. Or whatever. Instead of having 2 hours left in the day before the time limit is up, 2 days is plenty of time to maybe find help or another solution, and as a DM, maybe I will give it. Or maybe I won't, and maybe a princess dies. Yes, the party moves on. You can be more efficient with your resources on the next adventure.

It's a delicate balance. I want players to feel rewarded when they do things efficiently and make good use of resources. I want players to have incentive to not just long rest after a fight or two, but I also don't want to box my players in so tightly that they can't rest if they actually do need one because of bad luck. I want that to make sense in the world and story, by making use of what the players do and do not know to influence their choices.

[Angelalex242]

There is something satisfying about the j00 FAIL! of the princess died.

The party isn't dead, of course, so the experience can be learned from,

[Psikerlord]

I've read several posts where this contention is made. And they further suggest that a long rest is even longer like 4 days or a week. Can someone explain how this works? Wouldn't that just make the players who are long rest dependent even more worthless?

Long rest classes are OP if there is only one fight per day. They "nova" using all their abilities, utterly crush their foes, then rest and get everything back. It's called the nova/rest/repeat problem and it' been around as long as dnd.

The purpose of making the full refresh operate over a longer period is to prevent nova/rest/repeat by long rest classes - particularly during wilderness treks and city adventures, where combats tend to be few and far between.

The problem with this approach is that it can screw up dungeon crawls where you have lots of fights crammed into a few hours and expect the party to be there for more than one day. Regrettably it's not really fixable in dnd without major changes.

[Battlebooze]

Well, since my party plays a roleplaying game and not a wargame, knowing the princess was in danger of being eaten at any moment has always weighed more than our possible deaths.

Why? What has the Princess done to earn such a reward? She was born into a life of wealth and privileged without having to earn any of it. The players more than likely worked hard to become what they are. Will the Princess take up sword and spell if you die saving her, and then go out a save lives? Not bloody likely.

:)

[sithlordnergal]

I've read several posts where this contention is made. And they further suggest that a long rest is even longer like 4 days or a week. Can someone explain how this works? Wouldn't that just make the players who are long rest dependent even more worthless?

It solves it by changing the player's perceptions of a short and long rest without changing any of the actual mechanics. If used properly, you should get the same number of encounters per short/long rest using Gritty Realism as you would using the normal rules. Its just spread out over a longer amount of time, which also gives the DM a chance to draw out dramatic events.

Using the Gritty Realism variant, you should still be getting 1 to 3 encounters per short rest. The only difference is that these encounters are counted as a single "day", and after 3 or 4 "days" you can take a long rest. And since long rests take longer, DMs can use that to create some dramatic tension, such as the oft mentioned "Princess is gonna be eaten" thing.

You can condense the "Princess is gonna be eaten" down to a single, normal adventuring day. You could have the players be forced to track down the dragon's cave, make the trek through said cave, and fight the dragon in a single adventuring day in the normal rules. Adventure League modules do it all the time. However, spreading it out so that the players have an entire "day" to search for the princess, a "day" to get through the Dragon's defenses, and a "day" to fight the dragon makes it feel more epic. The players feel freer to spend more time on any one section, because they don't have a 15 hour time limit, and the DM can increase tensions at the table or build up the dragon by describing what it's been doing during those days.

After all, which sounds more realistic/epic?

The party has 3 days to track down and defeat a Dragon in order to save some royalty. They spend every day hunting for and preparing to face the Dragon. Every day they get reports of the Dragon growing bolder and attacking more settlements. At the end of 3 days, A.K.A. 3 short rests, they finally face the dragon.

or

The party has 15 hours to track down and defeat a Dragon in order to save some royalty. The spend 4 hours hunting for the dragon, and take an hour long short rest.They then spend another 4 hours trying to get to the dragon's lair, followed by another short rest. Finally they spend 4 hours to reach the dragon and fight it. During their short rests they hear about the dragon attacking settlements and every rest they can see the dragon following them.


While both of those do make for some potentially awesome story lines and encounters, they deliver on those encounters in entirely different ways. One is a slow, creeping sense of dread and anticipation. Every day you're getting more news of the wide spread destruction the dragon is causing, leading for an amazing boss fight that has been hyped up in a way that allows the players to savor the hype.

The second option is more fast paced, like an action game. Things are happening so quickly that the players can't really sit back and savor the things they find, instead they're rushing to stop the dragon like an action hero. And they know that if they stop for even a moment, that dragon following them will encounter them before they are ready.

[ad_hoc]

I've read several posts where this contention is made. And they further suggest that a long rest is even longer like 4 days or a week. Can someone explain how this works? Wouldn't that just make the players who are long rest dependent even more worthless?

The longer short or long rest is a narrative device.

In all cases the rest only takes a minute or so of table time.

It's typically used in a game that doesn't use dungeons (or their equivalents). It is also useful for overland travel.