Turning "short rest" classes into long rest, what breaks?

[Protolisk]

I've kept seeing players that have issues with how short rest classes and long rest classes interact badly for balance. Even though the DMG says its expected to have 6-8 encounters to a long rest, with some short rests throughout, this often doesn't happen. In such games, Warlock, Fighter, and Monk each are drastically gimped in their effectiveness as they lose out on their expected recharges of resources of high level spell slots/Action Surge/ki points.

There is an idea that is a relatively easy fix: make anything that says it "recharges on every short or long rest" into having triple the amount of charges, and they recharge every long rest only. It's a simple fix, but often houserules have issues that are longer reaching than at first glance.

Would making this change break something? I know things like channel divinities also recharge on short rests. Is there any mechanic that gets broken from this?

[stoutstien]

Not really. I've done the same thing at a few tables and it has worked out well. It does increase the power of short rest classes Nova potential but as long as they have more than 1 or 2 encounters a day its not an issue.

[diplomancer]

It allows a bigger Nova, specially by Warlocks, but it's a usually suggested fix for those kinds of parties

[Doug Lampert]

I've kept seeing players that have issues with how short rest classes and long rest classes interact badly for balance. Even though the DMG says its expected to have 6-8 encounters to a long rest, with some short rests throughout, this often doesn't happen. In such games, Warlock, Fighter, and Monk each are drastically gimped in their effectiveness as they lose out on their expected recharges of resources of high level spell slots/Action Surge/ki points.

There is an idea that is a relatively easy fix: make anything that says it "recharges on every short or long rest" into having triple the amount of charges, and they recharge every long rest only. It's a simple fix, but often houserules have issues that are longer reaching than at first glance.

Would making this change break something? I know things like channel divinities also recharge on short rests. Is there any mechanic that gets broken from this?

The fighter action surges 3 times in a single boss fight. You need to limit short rest powers to no more than the normal allowance per encounter. (Which probably means adding a definition of how long the break is before it's two separate encounters rather than one encounter in two parts, the 4th edition 5 minutes works fine for this.)

When does the wizard get back his arcane recovery? Again, allow it anytime you have five minutes downtime.

Basically, what I think you want to do is go with the 4th edition 5 minute short rest, and limit total recovery per day to no more than what you'd get in 2 or 3 BtB short rests.

[crayzz]

Probably easier to say you only get a short rest every 6 hours.

5e is designed roughly for two short rests per long, and you only get one long rest a day. Make 'em wait 6 hours between short rests, and it works out to roughly two or three shorts per long, assuming you're taking as many long rests as possible.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I’m gonna present a pretty unorthodox solution that my party uses. Essentially, you remove short rests, and change long rests into “1/3rd” rests. On these rests you regain a 3rd of your long rest resources (rounded up) and you can choose (once per 3 long rests) to regain a feature with one use. You also gain all short rest resources, gain 1/3rd of all hit dice, and may regain hit points via hit dice.

[MaxWilson]

I've kept seeing players that have issues with how short rest classes and long rest classes interact badly for balance. Even though the DMG says its expected to have 6-8 encounters to a long rest, with some short rests throughout, this often doesn't happen. In such games, Warlock, Fighter, and Monk each are drastically gimped in their effectiveness as they lose out on their expected recharges of resources of high level spell slots/Action Surge/ki points.

There is an idea that is a relatively easy fix: make anything that says it "recharges on every short or long rest" into having triple the amount of charges, and they recharge every long rest only. It's a simple fix, but often houserules have issues that are longer reaching than at first glance.

Would making this change break something? I know things like channel divinities also recharge on short rests. Is there any mechanic that gets broken from this?

Well, it breaks certain out-of-combat scenarios: druids are no longer able to stay wildshaped for weeks-long infiltration missions, for example, nor a warlock stay invisible for extended periods.

A tweak that wouldn't have that problem: short-rest classes can supercharge themselves by exceeding their normal limits (up to 3x normal), but doing so "breaks" the short-rest abilities so they no longer charge on a short rest, until you get a long rest. Might be a bit OP because you could do a bunch of short-rest casting/resting and then ALSO get your turbocharge, but if it works out OP that will just motivate a discussion about whether short-resting was even problematic in the first place. You might wind up in a place where turbocharging only lets you go up to 2x normal instead of 3x.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

Go with the slightly gamey, but more balanced fix of "everyone gets 2 short rests they can use a day. Any time you're not in combat and have a few minutes time to take a breather, you can opt to use a short rest and gain the benefits of it. Short rests recharge on a long rest." It's a little more mechanical than I'd like, but every game I've played in that's done it that way had been quite a bit better balanced and more fun for short rest characters. Also stops shenanigans like coffeelocks.

[strangebloke]

The fighter action surges 3 times in a single boss fight. You need to limit short rest powers to no more than the normal allowance per encounter. (Which probably means adding a definition of how long the break is before it's two separate encounters rather than one encounter in two parts, the 4th edition 5 minutes works fine for this.)

When does the wizard get back his arcane recovery? Again, allow it anytime you have five minutes downtime.

Basically, what I think you want to do is go with the 4th edition 5 minute short rest, and limit total recovery per day to no more than what you'd get in 2 or 3 BtB short rests.

Three action surges in a fight is just one example, but its probably the biggest one. Remember that action surge lets you cast more than one spell a turn and you start to see the problem. Get two levels of fighter and suddenly your opener for combat is fireball+fireball+fireball and the DM goes to cry in the corner.

You can't get away from the adventuring day. Even if you balance short rest classes and long rest class somehow, you still have that pesky third group, the no-rest class. Rogues and fighters (to a lesser extent) don't really need rest at all, and in order to 'shine' in a campaign, they really need long adventuring days some of the time. There's simply no way for a melee fighter to keep up with a paladin who is smiting on every attack. So getting rid of short rests or making short rests five minutes long doesn't prevent the adventuring day from being a balance point.

Personally I like the whole adventuring day artificiality. It really influences how characters play and forces them to engage in flavorful behavior. Wizards and Sorcerers and Paladins are always carefully managing their resources, carefully biding their time until their strength is most needed. Warlocks and monks and fighters are generally attacking with everything they've got, and a Rogue just straight up doesn't get tired. You can do shorter days to let the Wizards and Paladins shine, and then have a longer day to let the fighters and rogues shine.

[stoutstien]

Three action surges in a fight is just one example, but its probably the biggest one. Remember that action surge lets you cast more than one spell a turn and you start to see the problem. Get two levels of fighter and suddenly your opener for combat is fireball+fireball+fireball and the DM goes to cry in the corner.

You can't get away from the adventuring day. Even if you balance short rest classes and long rest class somehow, you still have that pesky third group, the no-rest class. Rogues and fighters (to a lesser extent) don't really need rest at all, and in order to 'shine' in a campaign, they really need long adventuring days some of the time. There's simply no way for a melee fighter to keep up with a paladin who is smiting on every attack. So getting rid of short rests or making short rests five minutes long doesn't prevent the adventuring day from being a balance point.

Personally I like the whole adventuring day artificiality. It really influences how characters play and forces them to engage in flavorful behavior. Wizards and Sorcerers and Paladins are always carefully managing their resources, carefully biding their time until their strength is most needed. Warlocks and monks and fighters are generally attacking with everything they've got, and a Rogue just straight up doesn't get tired. You can do shorter days to let the Wizards and Paladins shine, and then have a longer day to let the fighters and rogues shine.

Action surge is limited once per turn as is so the 2 fire balls is the limit which already happens. I don't think it's that bad and as long as they are more than 2 big fights a day.
I think a lot of DM fall into a pattern of when they use the tougher fights so the party knows they can go all out but as long as they aren't sure that another fight that will needed some of their resources isn't right around the corner they most likely will learn to be more reserved.
It is easier to plan an budget for a party once they are all on the same recovery pattern. Especially once short rest options are hard to counter without blatantly just putting a me cap on it for players which in turn makes them more likely to dump even more into onto individual fights and just go for the long rest.

[strangebloke]

Action surge is limited once per turn as is so the 2 fire balls is the limit which already happens. I don't think it's that bad and as long as they are more than 2 big fights a day.
I think a lot of DM fall into a pattern of when they use the tougher fights so the party knows they can go all out but as long as they aren't sure that another fight that will needed some of their resources isn't right around the corner they most likely will learn to be more reserved.
It is easier to plan an budget for a party once they are all on the same recovery pattern. Especially once short rest options are hard to counter without blatantly just putting a me cap on it for players which in turn makes them more likely to dump even more into onto individual fights and just go for the long rest.

I mean I agree. But there are a lot of DMs out there who want to just do "one big fight a day, if that much" and that still is completely unbalanced. Imagine being a rogue when everyone in the party is dropping a max-leveled spell or action surge for the first three rounds of combat while you plink away with a few d6's of damage.

[MaxWilson]

Three action surges in a fight is just one example, but its probably the biggest one. Remember that action surge lets you cast more than one spell a turn and you start to see the problem. Get two levels of fighter and suddenly your opener for combat is fireball+fireball+fireball and the DM goes to cry in the corner.

You can't get away from the adventuring day. Even if you balance short rest classes and long rest class somehow, you still have that pesky third group, the no-rest class. Rogues and fighters (to a lesser extent) don't really need rest at all, and in order to 'shine' in a campaign, they really need long adventuring days some of the time. There's simply no way for a melee fighter to keep up with a paladin who is smiting on every attack. So getting rid of short rests or making short rests five minutes long doesn't prevent the adventuring day from being a balance point.

Long-rest PCs and no-rest PCs can already be accomodated within the context of a single, complex fight. E.g. four 8th level PCs vs. 2d6 trolls and 2d20 stirges in an eight-room cave, with the trolls and stirges all starting out in different rooms of the cave initially unaware of the intruders until they hear another troll give the warning or a PC make a big noise (Fireball, Thunderclap, etc.). There's a balance between the no-rest PCs providing baseline damage/tanking and the long-rest classes choosing when to burst, but fitting a short-rest class like an EleMonk into that scenario can be kind of awkward because he doesn't burst as well as the long-rest guys and his baseline isn't as good as the no-rest guys.

Converting short rest to long rest is one way of solving this problem.

[strangebloke]

Long-rest PCs and no-rest PCs can already be accomodated within the context of a single, complex fight. E.g. four 8th level PCs vs. 2d6 trolls and 2d20 stirges in an eight-room cave, with the trolls and stirges all starting out in different rooms of the cave initially unaware of the intruders until they hear another troll give the warning or a PC make a big noise (Fireball, Thunderclap, etc.). There's a balance between the no-rest PCs providing baseline damage/tanking and the long-rest classes choosing when to burst, but fitting a short-rest class like an EleMonk into that scenario can be kind of awkward because he doesn't burst as well as the long-rest guys and his baseline isn't as good as the no-rest guys.

Converting short rest to long rest is one way of solving this problem.

But making a complex encounter like this is very comparable to making an adventuring day... just with the encounters immediately following one another.

Once again, all I'm saying is that while there are merits to simplifying the resting mechanics, it doesn't eliminate the need to plan out your adventuring day. I've met DMs who felt that the above was a way to justify their terrible "1 simple encounter per day, social activity the rest of the time."

[Warlush]

I like the idea of changing the short rest recharge into a roll initiative recharge. That way everybody gets to use their stuff every combat.

[MaxWilson]

But making a complex encounter like this is very comparable to making an adventuring day... just with the encounters immediately following one another.

Similar, but since all of the pieces get to interact with each other, it's conceptually one big encounter, like a mission in XCOM: UFO Defense. It's up to the PCs to break the encounter into smaller mini-encounters if they want it to be easy. This may require them to (gasp!) split the party.


Once again, all I'm saying is that while there are merits to simplifying the resting mechanics, it doesn't eliminate the need to plan out your adventuring day. I've met DMs who felt that the above was a way to justify their terrible "1 simple encounter per day, social activity the rest of the time."

Well, I agree that 1 simple and easy encounter per day is not likely to push any PCs to their limits. It sounds like the kinds of "one big fight" I would plan might qualify as entire adventuring days in your book, while I wouldn't call them that--but in either case it should be clear now how converting short rest classes to long rest classes can simplify the adventure design. You don't have to worry about providing hour-long breaks in the middle of the encounter.

Responding to an earlier point:


I mean I agree. But there are a lot of DMs out there who want to just do "one big fight a day, if that much" and that still is completely unbalanced. Imagine being a rogue when everyone in the party is dropping a max-leveled spell or action surge for the first three rounds of combat while you plink away with a few d6's of damage.

If the fight is only three rounds long and all of the monsters are visible at the start of it, it isn't what I would call "one big fight". The Rogue shines brightest at scouting anyway, not DPR, and his moment of glory could be e.g. detecting the incoming Iron Golem two rooms away and decoying it away from the party so they can finish off the hobgoblin archers behind 3/4 cover, instead of the Iron Golem hitting the PCs from behind and giving all of the hobgoblins bonus damage. If you want Rogues and other scouts like Shadow Monks to be valuable, you need hidden information in your "one big fight" so they can go uncover it.

[strangebloke]

If the fight is only three rounds long and all of the monsters are visible at the start of it, it isn't what I would call "one big fight". The Rogue shines brightest at scouting anyway, not DPR, and his moment of glory could be e.g. detecting the incoming Iron Golem two rooms away and decoying it away from the party so they can finish off the hobgoblin archers behind 3/4 cover, instead of the Iron Golem hitting the PCs from behind and giving all of the hobgoblins bonus damage. If you want Rogues and other scouts like Shadow Monks to be valuable, you need hidden information in your "one big fight" so they can go uncover it.

Yeah, rogues are kind of hard to imbalance in some regards. They're just always useful in every situation.

But no, I typically fill a dungeon with encounters and the players begin by scouting/sleuthing, and then they fight and get several back-to-back encounters. Effectively one 'big' encounter but that isn't how it feels, and there's potential to kill one group easily or delay another group if you use smart tactics.

[stoutstien]

I mean I agree. But there are a lot of DMs out there who want to just do "one big fight a day, if that much" and that still is completely unbalanced. Imagine being a rogue when everyone in the party is dropping a max-leveled spell or action surge for the first three rounds of combat while you plink away with a few d6's of damage.

Don't be a bad/lazy DM?(not you just the one fight a day ones) I mean play how you play but by doing one fight/rest you are intentionally tossing the balance of the game out the window because it's easier on prep work and then complaining that the games is broken.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, rogues are kind of hard to imbalance in some regards. They're just always useful in every situation.

But no, I typically fill a dungeon with encounters and the players begin by scouting/sleuthing, and then they fight and get several back-to-back encounters. Effectively one 'big' encounter but that isn't how it feels, and there's potential to kill one group easily or delay another group if you use smart tactics.

That doesn't sound quite the same as one big complex encounter unless there's potential for those encounters to overlap. E.g. the Rogue would never have a reason to try to decoy away the Iron Golem, because that's a separate encounter from the hobgoblins--or am I wrong, and Fireballing some of the hobgoblins would trigger activity from the other, off-screen monsters who hear the explosion?

If they're all potentially interacting then yeah, that's just one big encounter.

[strangebloke]

That doesn't sound quite the same as one big complex encounter unless there's potential for those encounters to overlap. E.g. the Rogue would never have a reason to try to decoy away the Iron Golem, because that's a separate encounter from the hobgoblins--or am I wrong, and Fireballing some of the hobgoblins would trigger activity from the other, off-screen monsters who hear the explosion?

If they're all potentially interacting then yeah, that's just one big encounter.

Nah, you generally aggro a significant subset of the monsters when you start combat.

[MaxWilson]

Nah, you generally aggro a significant subset of the monsters when you start combat.

Sorry, I don't mean to be dense, but was that a yes or a no? I think you're saying, "No... the PCs probably WOULD make enough noise to wake up the Iron Golem so it could hit them while they're still busy with the hobgoblins," but the "No" confuses me and makes me wonder if you meant something else.

[Rukelnikov]

I laugh at the notion that spending the majority of game time in social interaction means bad DMing, if anything it's the opposite.

In the excedeengly common case of 1 fight per day, what you could use is the gritty realism rules that set a short rest at 8 hours and a long rest as a week.

If you don't like that and want to balance them within the day instead of throughout a week, give everyone (or only some classes but I don't like from a design pov) the ability to spend an action to gain all the benefits of a short rest except healing or to recharge their short rest features. Limit this to X times per day. Now in order to "Nova harder" you gotta spend an action which is a relatively reasonable cost.

[stoutstien]

I laugh at the notion that spending the majority of game time in social interaction means bad DMing, if anything it's the opposite.

In the excedeengly common case of 1 fight per day, what you could use is the gritty realism rules that set a short rest at 8 hours and a long rest as a week.

If you don't like that and want to balance them within the day instead of throughout a week, give everyone (or only some classes but I don't like from a design pov) the ability to spend an action to gain all the benefits of a short rest except healing or to recharge their short rest features. Limit this to X times per day. Now in order to "Nova harder" you gotta spend an action which is a relatively reasonable cost.

Needing to spend resources ≠ combat.

The exploration and social pillars ARE made up of encounters and should be treated as such. The wizard using wall of stone to make a bridge To help the refugees escape the advancing horde of undead or the Bard using feather fall when a Rock slide pushes half the party off the mountain are just as important as a fight with a dragon. in the same way zone of truth or calm emotions can effect the social pillar.


*Side note*
This is why low key the rogue is so great. the combination of the class's features help conserve those slots and hit dices. Sure they only do ok damage but that lock they Picked saved a slot from knock and that guard they persuaded saved a bribe or using a spell which could either could lead to negative reaction from the local constables.

[Rukelnikov]

Needing to spend resources ≠ combat.

I don't know why you are saying this


The exploration and social pillars ARE made up of encounters and should be treated as such. The wizard using wall of stone to make a bridge To help the refugees escape the advancing horde of undead or the Bard using feather fall when a Rock slide pushes half the party off the mountain are just as important as a fight with a dragon. in the same way zone of truth or calm emotions can effect the social pillar.

Things don't HAVE to be a certain way. If the players want to spend resources during npc interaction or exploration its their choice, i don't just randomly make up "tax" scenarios to deplete resources, if I think its interesting to see how the party deals with a broken bridge ill put one in the story, and players will maybe use magic to create a wall, or maybe jump around, look for a different way, who knows. Spending those resources is a choice, nothing else.


*Side note*
This is why low key the rogue is so great. the combination of the class's features help conserve those slots and hit dices. Sure they only do ok damage but that lock they Picked saved a slot from knock and that guard they persuaded saved a bribe or using a spell which could either could lead to negative reaction from the local constables.

Rogue's are great because they are super cool, on that we agree, though i don't have that perspective of "by picking a lock a 2nd lvl slot has been saved", in my view is more in line with "well someone take knock since we don't have a rogue"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Honestly, you should go backwards.

Give all the casters Warlock casting and push ecerything into short rests. Maybe full casters get 1 more spell per short rest.

It would be much easier to balance since that's an actual thing rather than trying to make the fighter's action surge work per long rest.

Or just remove the fighter and give the Warlock full caster slots.

Run a no-short rest user (primarily fighter and warlock) game. Rogues already make fantastic sword n board users and are quite the tank.

[Randomthom]

I recently finished DM'ing Out of the Abyss, a 2-year long campaign in-all and by it's very nature it is a slog. If played as written we'd probably be about ¼ of the way through now as we trudge through a massive list of random encounters.

If you plan on running this adventure, cut back on the random encounters to no more than 1/day & use the gritty realism optional rule. Thank me later.

I was fortunate in that my party was predominantly a long-rest group and so they just got used to the one encounter-per-day nova and I just upped the nastiness of the combat encounters significantly.

Back to the point though, there's two separate issues with two separate solutions needed here;
If you're finding that one combat encounter per day is your norm then the problem isn't solved by buffing the short-rest classes, it's nerfing the long-rest ones.
If you're running a full adventuring day but they're not stopping to take short rests, why not? Is 1hr too much? Shorten it a bit, 10 minutes seems apt to me (long enough for ritual spells).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If you plan on running this adventure, cut back on the random encounters to no more than 1/day & use the gritty realism optional rule. Thank me later.



This is a great way to get a lot of people to leave your table.

Ask if they want to do "gritty realism" (which isnt really gritty realism, just a "screw you" to the players) before throwing it on the group.

Out of the Abyss runs perfectly fine the way it is and definitely runs perfectly fine without gritty realism.

Cutting down on encounters per day works rather well for 5e in general.

[stoutstien]

I don't know why you are saying this



Things don't HAVE to be a certain way. If the players want to spend resources during npc interaction or exploration its their choice, i don't just randomly make up "tax" scenarios to deplete resources, if I think its interesting to see how the party deals with a broken bridge ill put one in the story, and players will maybe use magic to create a wall, or maybe jump around, look for a different way, who knows. Spending those resources is a choice, nothing else.



Rogue's are great because they are super cool, on that we agree, though i don't have that perspective of "by picking a lock a 2nd lvl slot has been saved", in my view is more in line with "well someone take knock since we don't have a rogue"

It's not an encounter if there isn't anything happening. If nothing is happening, no choices are being made. No choices, no dnd.

They also don't have to spend any spell slots in combat but it makes them a heck of a lot easier. The same should hold true for any encounter or it isn't really an encounter/scene/whatever you want to call it.
It's not a tax, it's a choice but without any driving force of consequences it's only an illusion. The broken bridge is meaningless if the way they choose to bypass it doesn't effect them or the game.
Time is usually hand waved which is sad because it's one of the more powerful effects to drive choices.
Spending resources makes stuff easier but not knowing how long it is before you can regain those resources is a constant building tension which is good.
If you only ever have one encounter that can be majority effected by the players features it massively swings the balance of the game towards those who can Nova resources.
DND has always been built around resource management from chainmail to 5e it holds true other than they tried to remove almost all of it in 4e which was widely received as not DnD because of that.

[strangebloke]

Sorry, I don't mean to be dense, but was that a yes or a no? I think you're saying, "No... the PCs probably WOULD make enough noise to wake up the Iron Golem so it could hit them while they're still busy with the hobgoblins," but the "No" confuses me and makes me wonder if you meant something else.

A dungeon will have many "encounters" in it. But the rooms are close together and the conditions are such that spellcasting and combat creates enough noise that most creatures in the dungeon will be aware of them. Unintelligent brutes like Trolls or owlbears will immediately rush the chamber, while intelligent creatures are less predictable. The hobgoblins may immediately retreat to a position they have a tactical advantage from, or send for reinforcements, or go to unchain the great big beast that they've got chained up in the next room.

I'd still call those all seperate encounters because there's a chance that the party could skip one or more of them, or even deal with them in isolation. Sneaking past enemies, killing sleeping enemies, locking off parts of the dungeon so that enemies can't come after them, killing weak encounters in surprise rounds without making extra noise, etc.

[Rukelnikov]

It's not an encounter if there isn't anything happening. If nothing is happening, no choices are being made. No choices, no dnd.

Again I don't understand why you are telling me this.


They also don't have to spend any spell slots in combat but it makes them a heck of a lot easier. The same should hold true for any encounter or it isn't really an encounter/scene/whatever you want to call it.

Not always... trying to charm some thugs in a place where magic is forbidden will likely make things more complicated rather than easier


It's not a tax, it's a choice but without any driving force of consequences it's only an illusion. The broken bridge is meaningless if the way they choose to bypass it doesn't effect them or the game.

I think this showcases one of the main differents in our roleplaying point of views, many of the decisions that the PCs make will affect the world they live in, if they choose to go explore the unknown west, or travel to the volcano that made eruption recently will make for very different scenarios, and i'll put the broken bridge in the story if I think its interesting, how they bypass it IS the game, if its only there the decide how much time it took them, then we are back to what I said earlier, the bridge is only a tax, either in character features resources or time (which is ofc a resource).


Time is usually hand waved which is sad because it's one of the more powerful effects to drive choices.

We sometimes have time constraints, when it makes sense. A failed attempt to steal something from a lord will put him into a lert, and likely make him move/conceal w/e the players wanted to steal, that puts them in a time constraint for that in particular, or a cackle of gnolls marching to pillage a village will mean they have to do w/e it is they wanna do before they reach, if they are interested in saving said village, or something.

We have been playing sandboxes for the last decade, so more often than not, the current objectives of the party are decided by the party, there are some "A shady guy approaches you at the inn and says he will pay X if you do Y". Sometimes the party takes it, sometimes they don't sometimes they take it and drop it midway, happens all the time. Point is, anytime short of being hunted, the party is under time constraints only if it decides it is under time constraints, cause nothing stops them from ditching some idea when they decide its unfeasible or extremely dangerous to pull off. My example of the volcano was one of those things they wanted to do at first, but after 2 or 3 sessions they decided it was too dangerous, and focused on other stuff, one of the pms village had been being harrased for a while, so they went to check on that.


Spending resources makes stuff easier but not knowing how long it is before you can regain those resources is a constant building tension which is good.

Unless they are being hunted, regaining those resources is generally a matter of deciding to rest however long it takes to regain them, why would something prevent them from doing so?
Also, in our games, spending resources often allows to do stuff that would be really hard/nigh impossible to do otherwise. Divinations often provide info you can't get thru rping because you wouldn't even know where to start, "Is that guy we met 3 days ago still in this forest?" Sure, you can decide to search all over the forest for him, and if after week of searching you don't find him, assume he's moved on, but being able to ask your god a question or three speeds things up a lot.


If you only ever have one encounter that can be majority effected by the players features it massively swings the balance of the game towards those who can Nova resources.
DND has always been built around resource management from chainmail to 5e it holds true other than they tried to remove almost all of it in 4e which was widely received as not DnD because of that.

Regaining those resources is generally a matter of deciding to rest however long it takes to regain them, unless they are being hunted, why would something prevent them from doing so? Doom clocks are a players choice unless they are someones target.

[stoutstien]

Again I don't understand why you are telling me this.



Not always... trying to charm some thugs in a place where magic is forbidden will likely make things more complicated rather than easier



I think this showcases one of the main differents in our roleplaying point of views, many of the decisions that the PCs make will affect the world they live in, if they choose to go explore the unknown west, or travel to the volcano that made eruption recently will make for very different scenarios, and i'll put the broken bridge in the story if I think its interesting, how they bypass it IS the game, if its only there the decide how much time it took them, then we are back to what I said earlier, the bridge is only a tax, either in character features resources or time (which is ofc a resource).



We sometimes have time constraints, when it makes sense. A failed attempt to steal something from a lord will put him into a lert, and likely make him move/conceal w/e the players wanted to steal, that puts them in a time constraint for that in particular, or a cackle of gnolls marching to pillage a village will mean they have to do w/e it is they wanna do before they reach, if they are interested in saving said village, or something.

We have been playing sandboxes for the last decade, so more often than not, the current objectives of the party are decided by the party, there are some "A shady guy approaches you at the inn and says he will pay X if you do Y". Sometimes the party takes it, sometimes they don't sometimes they take it and drop it midway, happens all the time. Point is, anytime short of being hunted, the party is under time constraints only if it decides it is under time constraints, cause nothing stops them from ditching some idea when they decide its unfeasible or extremely dangerous to pull off. My example of the volcano was one of those things they wanted to do at first, but after 2 or 3 sessions they decided it was too dangerous, and focused on other stuff, one of the pms village had been being harrased for a while, so they went to check on that.



Unless they are being hunted, regaining those resources is generally a matter of deciding to rest however long it takes to regain them, why would something prevent them from doing so?
Also, in our games, spending resources often allows to do stuff that would be really hard/nigh impossible to do otherwise. Divinations often provide info you can't get thru rping because you wouldn't even know where to start, "Is that guy we met 3 days ago still in this forest?" Sure, you can decide to search all over the forest for him, and if after week of searching you don't find him, assume he's moved on, but being able to ask your god a question or three speeds things up a lot.



Regaining those resources is generally a matter of deciding to rest however long it takes to regain them, unless they are being hunted, why would something prevent them from doing so? Doom clocks are a players choice unless they are someones target.

Sounds like trying to run GURPS with more rules. Why use a system of you ignore half the core math for balance?

[HouseRules]

A DM could rule that a short rest is actually a full night sleep, and a long rest is a weekend rest.

Then, 6 encounters per long rest represents a 7+ day week, treating all battles in a day as an encounter.
Then, 7 encounters per long rest represents a 8+ day week, treating all battles in a day as an encounter.
Then, 8 encounters per long rest represents a 9+ day week, treating all battles in a day as an encounter.

Some lunar-solar calendars follow a three 10 day week (9 days on hollow months).

[Rukelnikov]

Sounds like trying to run GURPS with more rules. Why use a system of you ignore half the core math for balance?

Even ignoring "half the core math for balance", its still 10x more balanced than 3e which is the dnd system we've played the most (or n/WoD, in which we had mages and humans in the same table), so balance wise, we are much better than previous edition.


A DM could rule that a short rest is actually a full night sleep, and a long rest is a weekend rest.

Then, 6 encounters per long rest represents a 7+ day week, treating all battles in a day as an encounter.
Then, 7 encounters per long rest represents a 8+ day week, treating all battles in a day as an encounter.
Then, 8 encounters per long rest represents a 9+ day week, treating all battles in a day as an encounter.

Some lunar-solar calendars follow a three 10 day week (9 days on hollow months).

That's pretty much gritty realism, but you are shortening the long rest from a week to a weekend. I haven't been able to try it, since we haven't been playing dnd since last year, but it looks very good on papaer, and will likely try it next time I DM 5e.

[MaxWilson]

A dungeon will have many "encounters" in it. But the rooms are close together and the conditions are such that spellcasting and combat creates enough noise that most creatures in the dungeon will be aware of them. Unintelligent brutes like Trolls or owlbears will immediately rush the chamber, while intelligent creatures are less predictable. The hobgoblins may immediately retreat to a position they have a tactical advantage from, or send for reinforcements, or go to unchain the great big beast that they've got chained up in the next room.

I'd still call those all seperate encounters because there's a chance that the party could skip one or more of them, or even deal with them in isolation. Sneaking past enemies, killing sleeping enemies, locking off parts of the dungeon so that enemies can't come after them, killing weak encounters in surprise rounds without making extra noise, etc.

Ah, okay, then you're right--that's equivalent to "one big fight" in my terms, and the question of whether or not to call it "one encounter" or "multiple encounters" is moot.

================================


Sounds like trying to run GURPS with more rules. Why use a system of you ignore half the core math for balance?

I like GURPS play but not GURPS chargen, so I do in fact ignore half of the GURPS rules--everything related to balance, because GURPS isn't remotely balanced anyway even if you do track points. Why do pointless accounting?
-Max

[Rukelnikov]

At this point, i'd be interested to know how many ppl actually makes the 6-8 encounters day, and how many do the 1-2. From my casual reading of this forum, i'd say those doing the 6-8 are largely in the minority of the forumites.

[HouseRules]

At this point, i'd be interested to know how many ppl actually makes the 6-8 encounters day, and how many do the 1-2. From my casual reading of this forum, i'd say those doing the 6-8 are largely in the minority of the forumites.

For balance reasons, some of those encounters should be role-playing encounters and not combat encounters.

Maybe automatically success encounters?

[MaxWilson]

At this point, i'd be interested to know how many ppl actually makes the 6-8 encounters day, and how many do the 1-2. From my casual reading of this forum, i'd say those doing the 6-8 are largely in the minority of the forumites.

I did a poll a while back on Enworld which might interest you: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-how-much-combat-per-adventuring-day.469801/

From the numbers, it's much more common to use up the entire day's adventuring day XP budget than it is to run 6-8 encounters, which suggests to me that lots of DMs out there like the "one to three deadly fights" model. But of course, it also depends on how you count "encounters". My "one big encounter" is sometimes 6-8 encounters in strangebloke's eyes, but when filling out this survey I said "2-3 fights".

[HouseRules]

I did a poll a while back on Enworld which might interest you: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-how-much-combat-per-adventuring-day.469801/

From the numbers, it's much more common to use up the entire day's adventuring day XP budget than it is to run 6-8 encounters, which suggests to me that lots of DMs out there like the "one to three deadly fights" model. But of course, it also depends on how you count "encounters". My "one big encounter" is sometimes 6-8 encounters in strangebloke's eyes, but when filling out this survey I said "2-3 fights".

Most Combat could be consider 2 encounters.
Encounter 1) Use skills -- diplomacy, bluff etc -- to prevent the combat from occurring, so that it is only 1 encounter.
Encounter 2) Failed encounter 1 causes the combat to occur.

[Rukelnikov]

I did a poll a while back on Enworld which might interest you: https://www.enworld.org/threads/poll-how-much-combat-per-adventuring-day.469801/

From the numbers, it's much more common to use up the entire day's adventuring day XP budget than it is to run 6-8 encounters, which suggests to me that lots of DMs out there like the "one to three deadly fights" model. But of course, it also depends on how you count "encounters". My "one big encounter" is sometimes 6-8 encounters in strangebloke's eyes, but when filling out this survey I said "2-3 fights".

Thx!

That poll is weird though, the encounter distribution sums up to more than 100%, I assume it was amulti select one and someone chose more than 1 answer :P

[MaxWilson]

Thx!

That poll is weird though, the encounter distribution sums up to more than 100%, I assume it was amulti select one and someone chose more than 1 answer :P

Yep. If you click on the numbers you can even see which specific posters answered more than once and what their answers were, so you can correlate the #fights per day with the % of XP budget. (Some users are invisible though.)

The results aren't anywhere near perfect but I believe they are not useless.

[Rukelnikov]

Yep. If you click on the numbers you can even see which specific posters answered more than once and what their answers were, so you can correlate the #fights per day with the % of XP budget. (Some users are invisible though.)

The results aren't anywhere near perfect but I believe they are not useless.

Ahh I see now, thx!

[stoutstien]

Even ignoring "half the core math for balance", its still 10x more balanced than 3e which is the dnd system we've played the most (or n/WoD, in which we had mages and humans in the same table), so balance wise, we are much better than previous edition.



That's pretty much gritty realism, but you are shortening the long rest from a week to a weekend. I haven't been able to try it, since we haven't been playing dnd since last year, but it looks very good on papaer, and will likely try it next time I DM 5e.

I did neglect to mention that encounters, such as the chasm and the pursuing orcs, that need to be over come are worth xp to the party which might be why you are seeing them as a resource tax when I see them as encounters equal to combat.

I think WotC really had a golden opportunity with 5e to break the mold of killing things as being the primary way of gaining xp. We have three pillars so why not use them.

[Rukelnikov]

I did neglect to mention that encounters, such as the chasm and the pursuing orcs, that need to be over come are worth xp to the party which might be why you are seeing them as a resource tax when I see them as encounters equal to combat.

I think WotC really had a golden opportunity with 5e to break the mold of killing things as being the primary way of gaining xp. We have three pillars so why not use them.

Well, we don't really use the "standard" xp system, we give xp for a particularly good/interesting roleplaying scene, for cool/fun ideas, for figuring stuff out, etc. So Combat xp still makes for the majority of it, but its not 100%, lets say its about 60-70% of the xp, with the rest being RP xp.

I personally wouldn't use killing xp again, if I DM 5e again, I'd likely use milestone leveling. My main gripe with dnd since at least the last 10 years, has been the leveling system. I loved the charsheet, but I hate how the charsheet evolves. I like Having attributes, skills, hp, I don't like how they evolve and are modified, I failed to make a 3e buy point system that I liked, I read a some such systems here or there but I didn't like them either, "Buy the Numbers" is the only one whose name I remember, and it wasn't really a buy point system as advertised, it was actually a smoother leveling system which is in part what I wanted to get out of it, but not the only thing I wanted to get, dnd is extremely railroady for my tastes, and that's what I wanted to break away from (3e's Unearthed Arcana "classless" system had something for it, but lost a lot of content in the process)

DnD is the only game i played extensively were you get xp for killing stuff, SWd6, n/WoD, TBZ they don't reward you for fighting, consequently, DnD is a system that encourages a Diablo-like playstyle, just enter every room kill everything you'll get more loot and more xp, win-win! By removing xp for combat entirely you don't encourage murderhobo life as much.

Loot is another thing, in DnD its much more common than any other system. But its ok, thats kind of DnD's schtik and if it seems "gamey" its because games modeled themselves after dnd not the other way round. However loot is a different beast, and I don't mind it as much outside of 3e since its much more DM controlled.

[Aimeryan]

From what I'm gathering, Rukelnikov is looking at this from a natural 'in-game' point of view, while stoutstien is looking at this from an enforced metagame point of view ('gamey').

I do feel that to consistently have the 6-8 encounters day with short rests evenly spaced to be difficult to naturally cause. You can do it somewhat frequently with various doom clocks and wandering encounters, but to do so consistently results in eventually just saying 'screw it, you can't rest right now'.

My hunch is that 5e (and D&D in general) is just meant to be 'gamey' in this regard - dungeon days will have the appropriate number and difficult of encounters to match the time frame given, social days will have the appropriate number and difficulty of encounter to match the time given, exploration days will have the appropriate number and difficult of encounters to match the time frame given, and mix and match thrown in if the DM goes for that.

As such, while I really don't like it, I would say stoutstien is right that for balance you as the DM should be enforcing the encounters (from a resource usage point of view) for the time frame given, even if it doesn't really make sense from an 'in-game' point of view.

If you get rid of short rests and convert resources reliant on them then it is a lot easier to make it feel natural - you only have to force the long rest to occur at only the appropriate time rather than the short rests as well. You could also get rid of short and long rests altogether and go for more per encounter resources - this is easily fluffed from an 'in-game' point of view but will result in a fairly different game.

[stoutstien]

Well, we don't really use the "standard" xp system, we give xp for a particularly good/interesting roleplaying scene, for cool/fun ideas, for figuring stuff out, etc. So Combat xp still makes for the majority of it, but its not 100%, lets say its about 60-70% of the xp, with the rest being RP xp.

I personally wouldn't use killing xp again, if I DM 5e again, I'd likely use milestone leveling. My main gripe with dnd since at least the last 10 years, has been the leveling system. I loved the charsheet, but I hate how the charsheet evolves. I like Having attributes, skills, hp, I don't like how they evolve and are modified, I failed to make a 3e buy point system that I liked, I read a some such systems here or there but I didn't like them either, "Buy the Numbers" is the only one whose name I remember, and it wasn't really a buy point system as advertised, it was actually a smoother leveling system which is in part what I wanted to get out of it, but not the only thing I wanted to get, dnd is extremely railroady for my tastes, and that's what I wanted to break away from (3e's Unearthed Arcana "classless" system had something for it, but lost a lot of content in the process)

DnD is the only game i played extensively were you get xp for killing stuff, SWd6, n/WoD, TBZ they don't reward you for fighting, consequently, DnD is a system that encourages a Diablo-like playstyle, just enter every room kill everything you'll get more loot and more xp, win-win! By removing xp for combat entirely you don't encourage murderhobo life as much.

Loot is another thing, in DnD its much more common than any other system. But its ok, thats kind of DnD's schtik and if it seems "gamey" its because games modeled themselves after dnd not the other way round. However loot is a different beast, and I don't mind it as much outside of 3e since its much more DM controlled.

I think we agree more than not on this.
While I tend to keep the XP for individual encounter fairly intact u do shift the amount they earn based on the party's decisions. So if they choose not the rest they can potentially earn more XP then if they do. In the same regards if they take too long they will receive less or none for the same ones.
I tend to shy away from using role playing as a positive reinforcement tool because some people just aren't very comfortable with it.

Milestones always come off as lazy in my mind. They can work but only in very specific cases which are more structured campaigns with clear goals. And even then it's lacks negative reinforcement to keep the pace.
as you stated in an earlier post, if there's nothing stopping them from resting frequently it actually makes a lot of sense for them to do it.

[Dark.Revenant]

I would never suggest changing the amount of resources a character gets. It's harder in terms of book-keeping and can get silly. For example, imagine a 5th level monk with fifteen Stunning Strike attempts in one combat.

If you're running classic dungeons (or using dungeon-like pacing), do not change the rest mechanics.

If you're running a game that leans heavily upon non-combat pillars, then my suggestion would be to add complications that require party resources to overcome, rather than changing the rest mechanics.

If you're running a game that has very long time scales such that days pass between encounters - and more than one fight in a day rarely ever happens - just increase the time scale required between rests.

If you're running an extremely time-crunched game where every minute counts, then consider replacing short rests with a one-minute break, with a maximum of 2 per long rest.

[Rukelnikov]

I think we agree more than not on this.
While I tend to keep the XP for individual encounter fairly intact u do shift the amount they earn based on the party's decisions. So if they choose not the rest they can potentially earn more XP then if they do. In the same regards if they take too long they will receive less or none for the same ones.

We also keep XP for the encounters intact, if a mob is worth 200 xp its worth 200 xp, what I meant with "60-70%" was the percentage of the total xp that comes from killing stuff vs the ammount they get from roleplaying.


I tend to shy away from using role playing as a positive reinforcement tool because some people just aren't very comfortable with it.

Well, my current party we've all been playing for 15-20 years so thats not prob, but still that's how my first party worked, and I felt it like an incentive to contribute roleplaying-wise.


Milestones always come off as lazy in my mind. They can work but only in very specific cases which are more structured campaigns with clear goals.

I used to think the same, but at my table it has happened many times already that maybe the group does nothing particularly awesome, no BBEG, no pricess rescued for like 4 or 5 sessions, but now we are 2 lvls higher than before, and the power difference is notorious, and it doesn't sit well with me, because it feels like a WoW effect were you outlevel stuff and now its not as interesting. Growth its an intrinsic part of RPing, but it feels too fast for me sometimes.

In our last campaign we played M&Ms 2e, we were pretty much the x-men and basically we made a map of the city with the zones where gangs were opperating and stuff, we played our usual sandboxes, and gained xp for it, but whenever we did something "big" (we busted an operation that a mad scientist was running in an orphanage and rescued the children, and put the leader of one of the gangs behind bars) the PL of the campaign rose. That worked wonders for me as a player, dnd doesn't have something similar to M&Ms PL, so the closest analogy I came up with is playing E6, and raise to E7-E8-etc, whenever they did something that merits it.


And even then it's lacks negative reinforcement to keep the pace.
as you stated in an earlier post, if there's nothing stopping them from resting frequently it actually makes a lot of sense for them to do it.

Yeah, well, point is, I'm not interested in whipping the players to keep going, if they wanna rest they wanna rest, if they wanna go they wanna go.

Currently we are playing a homebrew system in a mid-magic fantasy setting, we are doing odd jobs for an Archmage, but whenever we pass thru a town or something we check to see if people needs stuff or something. Yesterday a group of merchants in a town we were passing by told us that some local thugs had been asking for protection money for a while, and they are unable to pay currently, the system is pretty deadly, and what the merchants described sounded like a pretty difficult encounter, so we were trying to gather some info on the thugs while we pursued other ends (some vampiric contructs, and a highborne that wanted to bail town), 3 days later the merchants all appeared dead. Time passes, the worlds are alive, I don't feel the need for off-world incentives, as @Aimeryan said, I feel them unnatural, and they break immersion for me.

I think the thing is that, to me, the system has to bow to the narrative, if they are in conflict, the system needs to be changed, the story shouldn't be changed in order to accomodate the system.

[MaxWilson]

I used to think the same, but at my table it has happened many times already that maybe the group does nothing particularly awesome, no BBEG, no pricess rescued for like 4 or 5 sessions, but now we are 2 lvls higher than before, and the power difference is notorious, and it doesn't sit well with me, because it feels like a WoW effect were you outlevel stuff and now its not as interesting. Growth its an intrinsic part of RPing, but it feels too fast for me sometimes.

This right here is the most cogent argument I have ever read in favor of milestone leveling.

[Rukelnikov]

This right here is the most cogent argument I have ever read in favor of milestone leveling.

Thx :smallsmile:

[stoutstien]

We also keep XP for the encounters intact, if a mob is worth 200 xp its worth 200 xp, what I meant with "60-70%" was the percentage of the total xp that comes from killing stuff vs the ammount they get from roleplaying.



Well, my current party we've all been playing for 15-20 years so thats not prob, but still that's how my first party worked, and I felt it like an incentive to contribute roleplaying-wise.



I used to think the same, but at my table it has happened many times already that maybe the group does nothing particularly awesome, no BBEG, no pricess rescued for like 4 or 5 sessions, but now we are 2 lvls higher than before, and the power difference is notorious, and it doesn't sit well with me, because it feels like a WoW effect were you outlevel stuff and now its not as interesting. Growth its an intrinsic part of RPing, but it feels too fast for me sometimes.

In our last campaign we played M&Ms 2e, we were pretty much the x-men and basically we made a map of the city with the zones where gangs were opperating and stuff, we played our usual sandboxes, and gained xp for it, but whenever we did something "big" (we busted an operation that a mad scientist was running in an orphanage and rescued the children, and put the leader of one of the gangs behind bars) the PL of the campaign rose. That worked wonders for me as a player, dnd doesn't have something similar to M&Ms PL, so the closest analogy I came up with is playing E6, and raise to E7-E8-etc, whenever they did something that merits it.



Yeah, well, point is, I'm not interested in whipping the players to keep going, if they wanna rest they wanna rest, if they wanna go they wanna go.

Currently we are playing a homebrew system in a mid-magic fantasy setting, we are doing odd jobs for an Archmage, but whenever we pass thru a town or something we check to see if people needs stuff or something. Yesterday a group of merchants in a town we were passing by told us that some local thugs had been asking for protection money for a while, and they are unable to pay currently, the system is pretty deadly, and what the merchants described sounded like a pretty difficult encounter, so we were trying to gather some info on the thugs while we pursued other ends (some vampiric contructs, and a highborne that wanted to bail town), 3 days later the merchants all appeared dead. Time passes, the worlds are alive, I don't feel the need for off-world incentives, as @Aimeryan said, I feel them unnatural, and they break immersion for me.

I think the thing is that, to me, the system has to bow to the narrative, if they are in conflict, the system needs to be changed, the story shouldn't be changed in order to accomodate the system.

I should type up the XP system I use and post it. It's a strange mix of rules that alot of my players really enjoy because it feels like they are actually getting better at vs as you put it the video game style out level content feel you get using the XP as presented in the rules.

I'm still fine tuning the rules for different speed of advancing for tables who want slower or faster progression. They couldn't make the XP per level exponential or anything simple could they.

[Rukelnikov]

I should type up the XP system I use and post it. It's a strange mix of rules that alot of my players really enjoy because it feels like they are actually getting better at vs as you put it the video game style out level content feel you get using the XP as presented in the rules.

Plz do, the method of advancing in dnd has always been one of the things I tweak the most, and any takes on it are an interesting read. (And I know I say this every other post, but TBZ has the most different and amazing method I've seen)


I'm still fine tuning the rules for different speed of advancing for tables who want slower or faster progression. They couldn't make the XP per level exponential or anything simple could they.

The work of a lifetime

[MaxWilson]

Plz do, the method of advancing in dnd has always been one of the things I tweak the most, and any takes on it are an interesting read. (And I know I say this every other post, but TBZ has the most different and amazing method I've seen)

I don't love the D&D advancement method either, because it really does produce weird incentives and it has weird implications (I tend to think of vanilla 5E characters are some kind of psychic life-force vampires a la Highlander, sucking energy out of creatures they kill in order to become more powerful).

There are two alternative approaches that I like, one with XP and one without.

XP version: in addition to choosing race/class/background during character creation, choose an Archetype, a dramatic or narrative trope into which your overall story should fit, or the kind of motivations that you have. This will determine how you gain XP. Basically, at the end of each session, the DM will assess whether you achieved one of the major objectives for your archetype, or one of the minor goals, or none, and will then give you an amount of XP appropriate to major/minor/none for your level. E.g. level x 500 XP for major, level x 100 XP for minor. Example Archetypes can include things like Treasure-seeker (Major: gain possession of a new magic item the likes of which you've never seen before; Minor: increase your wealth by 200 gp x your level) or Killer (Major: defeat in single combat an enemy of CR or level equal to or greater than your own; Minor: with your party, win a combat encounter that is at least Hard). You could also be a Protector who gets their kicks from keeping people safe, or a Benefactor who likes making a positive change in peoples' lives for the better. (A Benefactor who helps an NPC start a new business to lift himself out of poverty has probably just accomplished a Major goal.) Players should work with the DM to define an archetype which is fun and appropriate, and the DM should try their best to ensure that adventures contain hooks suitable for a wide variety of Archetypes, especially ones players are currently playing or have expressed interest in.

This style of advancement is designed for sandbox play.

Non-XP version (similar to milestoning): players determine their own advancement. When you feel like your PC should gain or lose a level, due to what they went through, go ahead and gain or lose a level.

This could be used in any style of play.

[Rukelnikov]

I don't love the D&D advancement method either, because it really does produce weird incentives and it has weird implications (I tend to think of vanilla 5E characters are some kind of psychic life-force vampires a la Highlander, sucking energy out of creatures they kill in order to become more powerful).

There are two alternative approaches that I like, one with XP and one without.

XP version: in addition to choosing race/class/background during character creation, choose an Archetype, a dramatic or narrative trope into which your overall story should fit, or the kind of motivations that you have. This will determine how you gain XP. Basically, at the end of each session, the DM will assess whether you achieved one of the major objectives for your archetype, or one of the minor goals, or none, and will then give you an amount of XP appropriate to major/minor/none for your level. E.g. level x 500 XP for major, level x 100 XP for minor. Example Archetypes can include things like Treasure-seeker (Major: gain possession of a new magic item the likes of which you've never seen before; Minor: increase your wealth by 200 gp x your level) or Killer (Major: defeat in single combat an enemy of CR or level equal to or greater than your own; Minor: with your party, win a combat encounter that is at least Hard). You could also be a Protector who gets their kicks from keeping people safe, or a Benefactor who likes making a positive change in peoples' lives for the better. (A Benefactor who helps an NPC start a new business to lift himself out of poverty has probably just accomplished a Major goal.) Players should work with the DM to define an archetype which is fun and appropriate, and the DM should try their best to ensure that adventures contain hooks suitable for a wide variety of Archetypes, especially ones players are currently playing or have expressed interest in.

This style of advancement is designed for sandbox play.

Non-XP version (similar to milestoning): players determine their own advancement. When you feel like your PC should gain or lose a level, due to what they went through, go ahead and gain or lose a level.

This could be used in any style of play.

Interestingly enough TBZ is kind of a mix of those, you choose your char motivations, and the other players give you XP once you've done or roleplayed something to further them.

It's designed for one shots, so when playing it in campaign format it soon becomes "lvl up when you want".

Catch is leveling increases your karma and at a certain treshold you become a monster (NPC). Modifying your goals lowers your karma.

[stoutstien]

Interestingly enough TBZ is kind of a mix of those, you choose your char motivations, and the other players give you XP once you've done or roleplayed something to further them.

It's designed for one shots, so when playing it in campaign format it soon becomes "lvl up when you want".

Catch is leveling increases your karma and at a certain treshold you become a monster (NPC). Modifying your goals lowers your karma.

I started typing up a new post about how I handle experiencing and character advancement in general but realize the first 600 words just me ranting about how much it sucks RAW so in summary:
1- Figure out how many encounters you want in any giving time/game frame. Per session, adventure day or whatever. This includes combat, social, and exploration. In more open sandbox style games this is harder but just do it in smaller frames.
* To be worth any exp there needs to be meaningful conflict and choices involved. Haggling for lower prices in a shop doesn't cut it.*
2- figure the range of exp that is possible to earn in said frame. Set aside a portion for bonus exp.
3- make up the encounters and give them a standard exp worth based on difficulty. I just steamed it down to set values based on rating. The exp/cr system is over complicated for how off it can be. It still good for a rough idea but past that I don't use it. Social encounters are the hardest to nail down but once you view them as encounters in there own right just don't make it based solely on RP or dice rolls but rather the player's actually choices.
4- use the allotted bonus exp to reward both good character and player actions. Player one is always ready when it's there turn and never has to ask what's going on? Bonus xp. Player two is trying to get better at role-playing but is still unsure? Bonus xp. Party handles an encounter perfectly? Bonus xp. Player saves all the villagers in addition to winning a battle? Bonus xp.
Now the opposite can happen as well and you can xp for reasons that you determine call for it. Just make sure that you were very specific on why they are in the bonus XP and also why get reduced values like taking that extra 2 days to complete the task at hand. They didn't push there limits so they didn't get as much experience is a pretty basic idea.(progressive overload)

The best thing about this is players will advance at slightly different rates and feel that there choices matter as individuals on top of the standard party dynamic

It takes a little time to set it up but it fun to watch players really starts to get into every encounter.

Side note - I still use milestones but usually for reaching a new location that is notable. Finding the lost temple of the lost Lord of lordy or whatnot.

I forgot to add that not every combat grants xp. Easy and lower are worth nothing in them selves. Could contain bonus exp.

[Tanarii]

At this point, i'd be interested to know how many ppl actually makes the 6-8 encounters day, and how many do the 1-2. From my casual reading of this forum, i'd say those doing the 6-8 are largely in the minority of the forumites.
My players usually push on to roughly 1-1/3 of an adventuring day, usually 3 short rests, before pulling out of the adventuring site for a long rest and ending the session. Sometimes they manage a 4th short rest and push to roughly 1-2/3 of an adventuring day, but that's often the recipe for a TPK.

This is in a 3-4 hour session. Heavily combat encounters, but some non-combat.

And of course I try to rate the difficulty of non-combat encounters by expected resource usage, as the system expects. If the intended resource usage is trivial, that's generally an Easy non-combat encounter. But that's a little hard for me to judge, because I have to peg the challenge level (and expected resource usage) to a pre-decided character level and XP award when I design it. I don't design my adventuring sites for specific PCs. Since I don't know which group will enter them in advance, nor what exact mix of levels they will be, just if they're Tier 1, Tier 2, or recently some low Tier 3.

It's also worth noting that my table rule is pulling out for a long rest ends the session. That discourages a 5 minute work day.

[djreynolds]

In out of the abyss adventure you rolled a d12, and on a 12 the party encountered something.... not always a monster. Sometimes is was a fire or earthquake, etc.

My point is, it is a 1 in 12 chance of a short rest failing, 0.083, chance of something happening. Less than 10%

So take short rests, and as a DM offer them, tell new players "hey, you could choose to take a short rest".

We don't bully each other because Dave the Paladin wants to go now and the Glenda the monk wants to rest.

I have tried multiple things in trying to balance the game in regards to the rest system, what has worked the best is telling players to short rest.

The difficulty is often not everyone at the table are friends outside of there, they may only meet up for the games. We may be polite with each other and that is it. But, IMO, especially in the adventurer's league, a lot of players are only out for themselves and whatever XP and gold and items they can collect... hence the you have table bullies. "Well if you short rest... we are just going to leave you here."

That's the issue. Its not the rest system.