House Rule: Resting

[dreast]

Three house rules, actually.

Short Rest: You may only short rest twice before needing to take a long rest or lesser long rest.

Lesser Long Rest: A lesser long rest has all the requirements of a long rest as listed in the PHB. It has the benefits of a short rest, but in addition it replenishes half the playerÂ’s maximum hit dice (rounded up) and both short rest uses. If this results in the player receiving more than their maximum hit dice, they may immediately use the excess to heal.

In addition, a lesser long rest removes one level of exhaustion (under the same limitations of a long rest to do so) and ends all “until long rest” effects, including temporary hit points.

Long Rest: In order to receive the benefits of a long rest, the player must do one of the following:

1. Rest at the player’s “home”, either a previously defined base of operations or, if applicable, a stronghold. Notably, wilderness camps and locations created or secured by simple spellcasting do not qualify.

2. Rest at an inn or other defended location where the players are recognized as legitimate guests by the inhabitants.

3. The players may try to convert a lesser long rest to a long rest. To do so, the DM must roll on a d8 less than or equal to the number of encounters the players have had since their last long rest. On a failure, the players must have at least one encounter before they can make another attempt. Sufficiently difficult encounters may result in automatic successes.

What is an encounter? That is partly up to the DM, but random encounters (even peaceful ones) and anything requiring an initiative roll should both count.

These rules are designed to match the designer assumptions, making the resource management portion of the game more important and reducing the impact (but not entirely eliminating the utility) of spells like LeimundÂ’s Tiny Hut.

Thoughts?

Edited to update interaction with exhaustion and like effects.

[JonBeowulf]

Summarizing the PHB definitions to make comparisons easier:
Short Rest:
1 hour duration
allows mild activity
spend HD to restore HP
recharges Short Rest abilities

Long Rest:
8 hour duration
allows light activity
restores all HP
restores up to half total HD
recharges Long Rest abilities

If I understand you correctly...
Short Rest still equals Short Rest (but limits them to 2/day)
Long Rest still equals Long Rest (but adds a location requirement)
Lesser Long Rest:
8 hour duration
allows light activity
restores Short Rests
restores up to half total HD (with a neat "burn extra to heal" feature)
can be converted to a Long Rest by some rolling and arithmetic
DOES NOT restore HP
DOES NOT recharge Long Rest abilities

If I've got that right, then I've got no problem with it. The nerf on sanctuary-type spells will probably some folks and it's certainly a session 0 talking point. The LLR-to-LR conversion is a bit fiddly, but I think you're striking a good balance.

[Sparky McDibben]

What is the problem this fix is trying to solve?

[giskard]

Very interesting. I'm planning to run Tomb of Annihilation and I was actually looking for a way to make the jungle feel more dangerous! I might very likely try this out:) Of course it's a bit of a challenge for the DM to try and gauge the difficulty of encounters because long streaks are more likely this way.

What is the problem this fix is trying to solve?

Not exactly a problem.. at least not for everyone, but at least in my opinion, as one who likes a certain level of "realism" or "verisimilitude" (as subjective as these term can be in the D&D universe), Long Resting in hostile environments feels too easy to accomplish as it is RAW. And I know that there is the Gritty Realism optional rule but that can slow the pace of a campaign too much. Of course this is just my opinion. It's "easier" to just sleep a rough adventuring day off whenever you want and many groups understandably prefer it that way.

[dreast]

What is the problem this fix is trying to solve?

Several.

1. Random encounters in the current edition are either deadly++, or pointless, since while traveling players get a long rest every two (potential) encounters (in general), and more often every encounter. Putting a limit on long rest resources adds some tension to non-super-deadly encounters while traversing a map.

2. The developers have stated their assumption is about eight encounters a day, with two short rests. There is absolutely nothing currently enforcing this assumption in the game, and the ten-minute adventuring day that players can get away with heavily favors long rest resources and drastically reduces the resource management component of the game, especially when long-rest enabling spells (LTH) are considered.

3. The game can be made arbitrarily hard by the DM to compensate, but that seems... arbitrary. This allows a DM to run an adventure out of the box without having to compensate for the overuse of long rests, and encourages players to push themselves.

[dreast]

Summarizing the PHB definitions to make comparisons easier:
Short Rest:
1 hour duration
allows mild activity
spend HD to restore HP
recharges Short Rest abilities

Long Rest:
8 hour duration
allows light activity
restores all HP
restores up to half total HD
recharges Long Rest abilities

If I understand you correctly...
Short Rest still equals Short Rest (but limits them to 2/day)
Long Rest still equals Long Rest (but adds a location requirement)
Lesser Long Rest:
8 hour duration
allows light activity
restores Short Rests
restores up to half total HD (with a neat "burn extra to heal" feature)
can be converted to a Long Rest by some rolling and arithmetic
DOES NOT restore HP
DOES NOT recharge Long Rest abilities

If I've got that right, then I've got no problem with it. The nerf on sanctuary-type spells will probably some folks and it's certainly a session 0 talking point. The LLR-to-LR conversion is a bit fiddly, but I think you're striking a good balance.

That is correct, although LLRs also count as SRs for resource restoration.

[x3n0n]

That is correct, although LLRs also count as SRs for resource restoration.

I assume an LLR prevents the potential exhaustion for going more than a day without a true LR.

Does an LLR remove exhaustion?

[dreast]

I assume an LLR prevents the potential exhaustion for going more than a day without a true LR.

Does an LLR remove exhaustion?

Yes, an LLR would have the same effect as an LR when it comes to exhaustion, as well as any “until the player takes a long rest” effects in-game (including temporary hit points).

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Several.

1. Random encounters in the current edition are either deadly++, or pointless, since while traveling players get a long rest every two (potential) encounters (in general), and more often every encounter. Putting a limit on long rest resources adds some tension to non-super-deadly encounters while traversing a map.

2. The developers have stated their assumption is about eight encounters a day, with two short rests. There is absolutely nothing currently enforcing this assumption in the game, and the ten-minute adventuring day that players can get away with heavily favors long rest resources and drastically reduces the resource management component of the game, especially when long-rest enabling spells (LTH) are considered.

3. The game can be made arbitrarily hard by the DM to compensate, but that seems... arbitrary. This allows a DM to run an adventure out of the box without having to compensate for the overuse of long rests, and encourages players to push themselves.

If random encounters aren't conducive to fun play, maybe just don't use them?

And this isn't always an issue. Some parties/players do self-police when it comes to encounters/rests/resources. And regardless, if they like playing that way, what's the issue? If the players are having fun using their abilities, craft encounters around them being able to use all their abilities. Let them have a power fantasy.

If you really need to stop rest cheese, just add time limits. "Aight well you have 7 days to do X, off you go". Now you have set a pace for the journey as a whole and give the players the freedom to think strategically about it. A lot easier than having arbitrary limits about what counts as a real rest.

"No, your bedroll is too uncomfortable, you don't get your slots back"

If you need to revamp rests, it should be specific to your players.

[x3n0n]

If random encounters aren't conducive to fun play, maybe just don't use them?

...

If you need to revamp rests, it should be specific to your players.

I can see the rationale. Having played in similar situations (that is, multi-day travel with rarely-more-than-twice-daily random encounters), a system like this would have kept me more engaged than "I guess I'll Conjure Animals, since I get a long rest tonight anyway" while still giving me the option of refreshing my Wild Shapes.

Also, to be fair, the thread clearly labels these as a house rule. :)

[Ionathus]

It sounds like you want these rules for travel, and I'd agree that travel in 5e is woefully lacking in excitement or resource management. It's hard to give enough encounters/challenges without bogging down the storyline, which is why we only wind up with 1-2 random encounters.

However, this Lesser Long Rest stuff would play hell with dungeon crawls. Short rest classes would stay normal, but Long Rest classes would get severely handicapped.

Maybe you could preserve the flavor of what you're trying to do (make travel more interesting) by baking a rest restriction into travel specifically, rather than changing the default rest mechanics? Something like "while traveling for more than 8 hours per day, your Long Rests only recharge Hit Dice and not abilities or features." That allows you to stretch encounters out on travel days, without rewriting the rest mechanics when PCs are in town or exploring an ancient mega-temple.

[x3n0n]

It sounds like you want these rules for travel, and I'd agree that travel in 5e is woefully lacking in excitement or resource management. It's hard to give enough encounters/challenges without bogging down the storyline, which is why we only wind up with 1-2 random encounters.

However, this Lesser Long Rest stuff would play hell with dungeon crawls. Short rest classes would stay normal, but Long Rest classes would get severely handicapped.

Maybe you could preserve the flavor of what you're trying to do (make travel more interesting) by baking a rest restriction into travel specifically, rather than changing the default rest mechanics? Something like "while traveling for more than 8 hours per day, your Long Rests only recharge Hit Dice and not abilities or features." That allows you to stretch encounters out on travel days, without rewriting the rest mechanics when PCs are in town or exploring an ancient mega-temple.

Again, not my rules.

That said, the "in town" thing seems like it's clearly written into the second condition for real long rests, doesn't it?

If you're really exploring a multi-day dungeon far away from the nearest town, then maybe there could be merit in establishing some kind of "real" base that is more than a flat area big enough to fit a Tiny Hut. Plus, the third condition will eventually apply anyway.

[dreast]

It sounds like you want these rules for travel, and I'd agree that travel in 5e is woefully lacking in excitement or resource management. It's hard to give enough encounters/challenges without bogging down the storyline, which is why we only wind up with 1-2 random encounters.

However, this Lesser Long Rest stuff would play hell with dungeon crawls. Short rest classes would stay normal, but Long Rest classes would get severely handicapped.

Maybe you could preserve the flavor of what you're trying to do (make travel more interesting) by baking a rest restriction into travel specifically, rather than changing the default rest mechanics? Something like "while traveling for more than 8 hours per day, your Long Rests only recharge Hit Dice and not abilities or features." That allows you to stretch encounters out on travel days, without rewriting the rest mechanics when PCs are in town or exploring an ancient mega-temple.

Responding by paragraph:

1. Most published adventures have 2 random encounter rolls by day of travel, with maybe a 25-50% chance of an encounter per roll. However, most of those rolls are medium difficulty (the occasional fire giant excavation or Juiblex attack notwithstanding). Introduce resource constraints, and those boring and pointless encounters become more interesting, because the players no longer need only think of how to win, but how to win efficiently. Remember that is the chief gameplay purpose of a “medium” encounter: to act not as a threat, but a resource sink.

2. These rules are not only intended for wilderness travel, but also for dungeon crawls. This is why short rests were limited to 2/day: so that short rest classes would also feel the pinch. But the encounters needed to generate a long rest are much more quickly (in game time) generated inside a dungeon, especially if you consider traps to be encounters... and nothing says you shouldnÂ’t.

3. In town, the services of an inn should be readily available; as stated above, mega-dungeons should generate long rests frequently. Note that this house rule is more lenient than the assumptions presented by the devs: on average, youÂ’ll get a long rest every 4.5 encounters. The only people who would end up complaining are the nova classes... and only those who feel it is their right to go nova every encounter. But whereÂ’s the fun in that?

[JackPhoenix]

3. The game can be made arbitrarily hard by the DM to compensate, but that seems... arbitrary. This allows a DM to run an adventure out of the box without having to compensate for the overuse of long rests, and encourages players to push themselves.

So, instead you use arbitrary limitation on rests, and that's somehow better? Your ability to rest outside civilization depends on random chance and number of "encounters", whatever those are. One day, I can fully replenish after I've met a villager on the road, while the next day I can't get proper rest until I fight off 8 ambushes? Why does characters arbitrarily need to sleep in a 'stronghold'? What if the character in question is a ranger, a barbarian or a druid who propably feels better in the wild anyway? Why doesn't Tiny Hut counts as "defended location"? It's propably more secure than some dubious inn.

[dreast]

So, instead you use arbitrary limitation on rests, and that's somehow better? Your ability to rest outside civilization depends on random chance and number of "encounters", whatever those are. One day, I can fully replenish after I've met a villager on the road, while the next day I can't get proper rest until I fight off 8 ambushes? Why does characters arbitrarily need to sleep in a 'stronghold'? What if the character in question is a ranger, a barbarian or a druid who propably feels better in the wild anyway? Why doesn't Tiny Hut counts as "defended location"? It's propably more secure than some dubious inn.

Perhaps. But the important thing about this house rule is that I did not need to alter one iota of a published adventure (or pre-planned by the given guidelines) to maintain an engaging level of difficulty for the players.

In-game, characters wouldn’t make a significant distinction between LLRs and LRs; some energies just take a while to recover, and a single night’s rest doesn’t always suffice. So a magical barrier doesn’t always get your angry back... but it would always refresh your body (hit dice/exhaustion).

Come to think of it, while I wasn’t thinking in these terms, this house rule also increases the relative utility of the frenzy barbarian, since LLRs do restore exhaustion levels, but not necessarily rages.

[Valmark]

What is an encounter? That is partly up to the DM, but random encounters (even peaceful ones) and anything requiring an initiative roll should both count.

I'm confused by the definition of encounter. Does this mean that if we randomly meet a merchant on the road it's an encounter but if we go parlay with X king it's not?

Come to think of it, while I wasn’t thinking in these terms, this house rule also increases the relative utility of the frenzy barbarian, since LLRs do restore exhaustion levels, but not necessarily rages.

I don't think it makes the berserker any more useful. The cost to remove a Frenzy is the same, but you are now raging much less- if anything I feel like this makes berserkers worst since they have even less chances of Frenzying.

All in all I don't think this will do anything but force the party in an unnatural rythm- they'll try to push for 8 encounters nearly always because getting a Lesser Long Rest means going on 2 days with no long rest refresh- that can be a big deal, unless you down-grade the encounters to match the party's tiredness, but at that point you could have kept the normal rules.

As somebody else said, definitely have a session 0 where you ask your players if they like and want this house rule.

[dreast]

As somebody else said, definitely have a session 0 where you ask your players if they like and want this house rule.

Indeed. And I intend to do that when I run my updated "Night Below" campaign next year.

[dreast]

I'm confused by the definition of encounter. Does this mean that if we randomly meet a merchant on the road it's an encounter but if we go parlay with X king it's not?

I don't think it makes the berserker any more useful. The cost to remove a Frenzy is the same, but you are now raging much less- if anything I feel like this makes berserkers worst since they have even less chances of Frenzying.

All in all I don't think this will do anything but force the party in an unnatural rythm- they'll try to push for 8 encounters nearly always because getting a Lesser Long Rest means going on 2 days with no long rest refresh- that can be a big deal, unless you down-grade the encounters to match the party's tiredness, but at that point you could have kept the normal rules.

As somebody else said, definitely have a session 0 where you ask your players if they like and want this house rule.

I assume, if you're meeting with the King, you haven't spent the night before in a magical hut outside of town to save 2 silver pieces on inn fees. But whether or not it counts as an encounter is DM dependent, and the consideration should be: is this an everyday, humdrum part of your life, or a unique event where skill checks, initiative, or other elements of gameplay may come to bear?

And yes, I'm intending to inform my players of this rule at session 0 of our updated Night Below campaign next year. I wouldn't impose something like this without consultation.

[clash]

Having ran OotA I completely understand the reasoning behind this. Off the start I was following the random encounters suggested each day and night but honestly we reached a point where casters would just blow their high level spell slots and end the encounter and the whole thing felt pointless. Resting under these guidlines I feel like would fix a lot of the issues with published adventures. I would just add a further caveat that short rests only take 10 minutes rather than 1 hour, for the combat heavy sessions.

[DwarfFighter]

Thoughts?

Try it out.

-DF

[JackPhoenix]

In-game, characters wouldn’t make a significant distinction between LLRs and LRs; some energies just take a while to recover, and a single night’s rest doesn’t always suffice. So a magical barrier doesn’t always get your angry back... but it would always refresh your body (hit dice/exhaustion).

Why does the cheapest inn in a bad part of the town or some farmer's barn always get your angry back, then?

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Made a meme about the underlying issues

[Sorinth]

Overall seems decent, though I'm not sure I like the # of encounter stuff. There does need to be a way to get a long rest but I'd prefer it be something character related so that players could build a character to better at that aspect. In my variant it was using the Survival skill check, since that helped bring a lesser skill into prominence. But this thread got me thinking what if every long rest was Constitution save against say DC 15, success is full long rest, failure is the lesser long rest. This would happen whether resting at an inn or out in the wilderness (A quality inn might give advantage, in the wilds disadvantage).

This will create situations where some players might be at full strength where others are not, which should create situations where the party can't always rely on the optimized build/player to carry the team. Some people might not that, but it could be interesting as well. It would also open up support roles that help others get rest. For example, Rangers might give the whole party advantage when resting in the wilderness (Cancelling out the disadvantage) which would make Ranger a genuinely good class if there is a lot of wilderness exploration.

[Let'sGetKraken]

I like the realism, but I think this would be very punishing for casting classes. Maybe instead of nerfing long rests, add bonus for when rests are taken in comfortable situations?

Why doesn't Tiny Hut counts as "defended location"

I think this is a very going point - Leomund's tiny hut should absolutely be a restful experience, even if it isn't luxurious. Doubly so if the dome is opaque.

[dreast]

LTH doesnÂ’t count as a defended location because that would drain the resource management aspect if this fix out at level 5. It is a location where LLRs are possible without fear of interruption (barring a dispel magic in the hands of an enemy), and with a successful roll it is thus a place where long rests can be achieved, but not guaranteed. Thus, it is still useful; it is just not the automatic refresh so many use it as these days.

[Kylar0990]

Rules like this that feel like they are just there to nerf caster classes often make me question why I would want to play a caster in this person's game. Combat as a caster mostly involves waiting and waiting and waiting some more. I realize spells can do equivalent damage to the multitude of attacks that martial classes get, but waiting for everyone else to take what feels like 2 turns to your one to only get to do a cantrip because the DM doesn't want you to get spell slots back would be boring.

[Sorinth]

Rules like this that feel like they are just there to nerf caster classes often make me question why I would want to play a caster in this person's game. Combat as a caster mostly involves waiting and waiting and waiting some more. I realize spells can do equivalent damage to the multitude of attacks that martial classes get, but waiting for everyone else to take what feels like 2 turns to your one to only get to do a cantrip because the DM doesn't want you to get spell slots back would be boring.

Do you currently believe martials and casters are balanced? And I guess more importantly do you think they are balanced when there is 1-2 combats per long rest?

[Kylar0990]

Do you currently believe martials and casters are balanced? And I guess more importantly do you think they are balanced when there is 1-2 combats per long rest?

Most of the time except during travel there are more fights than that per long rest, and during travel it can be fun to see what you class can do when you don't have to ration your resources every fight.

Most of the games I've played in haven't gotten above 10th level so for I can't really comment about higher levels, but for the lower levels the martial classes have had no trouble keeping up with casters. Added to that combat as a caster has to have moments of cool because 90% of the time you are just waiting for your turn. You cast one spell and maybe move some then back to the long wait as everyone else gets multiple attacks once you hit 5 level that is.

In the beginning martial classes only have one attack, but casters only have a couple spell slots per day so maybe once a fight a caster can do more than the fighter. Eight encounters a day seems steep by the third or fourth a low level caster will have nothing but cantrips and that's if they rations spells to no more than 2 a fight (that includes defensive spells like shield). (Spell slots per day 1st level - 2, 2nd level - 3, 3rd level - 6, 4th level - 7) (Once per day wizards can get get back spell slots on short rest equal to half their wizard level / Sorcerers that use there sorcery points for spell slots instead of metamagic or subclass abilities have just turned themselves into underpowered wizards)

At 5th level the caster finally gets a bit of real power, but the moment you use it everything targets you that's if they didn't already do so just because you were the one not wearing armor so you better have some defense and movement spells ready.

I've yet to see a full caster keep up with the steady damage output of a paladin.

[Sorinth]

Most of the time except during travel there are more fights than that per long rest, and during travel it can be fun to see what you class can do when you don't have to ration your resources every fight.

Most of the games I've played in haven't gotten above 10th level so for I can't really comment about higher levels, but for the lower levels the martial classes have had no trouble keeping up with casters. Added to that combat as a caster has to have moments of cool because 90% of the time you are just waiting for your turn. You cast one spell and maybe move some then back to the long wait as everyone else gets multiple attacks once you hit 5 level that is.

In the beginning martial classes only have one attack, but casters only have a couple spell slots per day so maybe once a fight a caster can do more than the fighter. Eight encounters a day seems steep by the third or fourth a low level caster will have nothing but cantrips and that's if they rations spells to no more than 2 a fight (that includes defensive spells like shield). (Spell slots per day 1st level - 2, 2nd level - 3, 3rd level - 6, 4th level - 7) (Once per day wizards can get get back spell slots on short rest equal to half their wizard level / Sorcerers that use there sorcery points for spell slots instead of metamagic or subclass abilities have just turned themselves into underpowered wizards)

At 5th level the caster finally gets a bit of real power, but the moment you use it everything targets you that's if they didn't already do so just because you were the one not wearing armor so you better have some defense and movement spells ready.

I've yet to see a full caster keep up with the steady damage output of a paladin.

If you are regularly getting 8 encounters a day then yeah balance tends to be there until the much higher levels. Though personally I've never had your experience of sitting around waiting 90% of the time, in most cases it's usually the casters taking the longest turns because they have so many more options, they have to be more precise with AoE things, etc... Martial turns tend to go by quickly by comparison, but I guess it will vary from table to table.


It's worth noting that travel being where the party can have fun and go nova is the opposite of what many campaigns will want.

These rules are no doubt intended for campaigns where travel/exploration isn't supposed to be a fun romp, and likely they aren't having 8 encounters a day at any time.

It's worth noting that Paladin is one of the classes hurt most by this change since they don't have a lot of spell slots and don't recover them. A wizard is still able to Arcane Recovery every day so is still regaining a decent amount of power even with a Lesser Long Rest.

[JackPhoenix]

Though personally I've never had your experience of sitting around waiting 90% of the time, in most cases it's usually the casters taking the longest turns because they have so many more options, they have to be more precise with AoE things, etc... Marital turns tend to go by quickly by comparison, but I guess it will vary from table to table.

If your turn takes longer than someone's marriage, you're definitely doing something wrong.