I want to check something with fellow DMs. If I wanted to reduce the benefits of resting without going the Gritty Realism variant route stated in the DMG, how does the following sound?
Short Rest = 1 hour. For every level from Level 3 through Level 6, a character may roll 1 die to recover hit points after completing the short rest. At level 1, the character may roll 1 die and divide the result by 2 to determine hp recovered (round up). After Level 6, for each 4 levels the character has, roll an additional die for hit point recovery. When determining effective levels that are not divisible by 4, round the fraction normally. If the character is multi-classed determine the hit die to roll based on whichever class the character has more levels in.
Long Rest = 24 hours. Otherwise, it is the same as the official rules.
Why bother nerfing healing on Short Rests so hard? Your level 1 characters only get one hit die and they might only be able to recover a couple of HP anyway, now they're getting even less.
Just seems a little unnecessary to me! Change the timescale if you want, but changing how players manage their hit die... eh.
The point of the proposed change is manifold: 1) Incentivize smarter planning before combat; 2) incentivize non-combat solutions where possible; 3) increase the value of classes/sub-classes with healing spells and effects.
Sounds a bit over-elaborate to me for not a lot of gain.
If you don't want hit dice to be the main source of hit points you might find that extending the long rest to 24 hours bangs that on the head as they'll run out quicker while they can still buy healing potions and recover magic item charges quicker at the same rate.
Rather than all that, why not go for the gritty realism option in DMG? Short rest lasts 8 hours, long rest of 7 days? Accomplishes the same basic thing. You could trip the long rest down to 48 hours if you think 7 days is too much.
Alternatively you could make them spend hit dice to heal at the end of a long rest as well as a short rest -- this is another optional rule in DMG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I am playing in a campaign where short rest is 8 hours and long rest is 3 days. I've noticed that it really messes with the resource management for most spellcasters. This is why I would rather keep short rests at 1 hour, increase long rest somewhat to 24 hours, but decrease the amount of healing from short rests.
If what I wrote in Post #1 sounds too complex, how about:
During a short rest, # of dice the player can roll to restore hp is equal to 1/2 their character level, rounded down. A character at level 1 rolls one die and divides the result by 1/2 (minimum 1 hp). Multi-classed characters use the dice of the class they have the most levels in.
Keep long rest as healing all hp, but also keep it at 24 hours instead of 8.
You’ll do better if you award additional XP for planning and healing and equal XP for finding alternatives to combat. That’s why I specifically reward XP the way I do,
The point of the proposed change is manifold: 1) Incentivize smarter planning before combat; 2) incentivize non-combat solutions where possible; 3) increase the value of classes/sub-classes with healing spells and effects.
That may be your goal and intended impact, but this is not what will happen.
Its important to understand that you can't "incentivize" anyone through harsher or more punishing rules, that is just never going to be a thing that happens.
That's not precisely true, but you have to actually make changes that are relevant to the behavior you want to encourage. If you want people to be more concerned with resource management, what you need to do is make resting a limited resource (time limits, prerequisites for resting, or some such).
The other thing I would say, if you want to incentivize not-combat solutions you have to make non-combat solutions a viable option.
For example, if you just make an old-style dungeon map with rooms populated by angry monsters who attack on sight and stay in their rooms waiting for combat (and I am NOT saying that I think you are doing), you won't see any attempts by the players not to get into combat. On the other hand, if you make a dungeon that has two warring factions, one of which can be turned against the other or used to pump for information about the other, and make it fairly easy for the players to detect this, then they might do the non-combat option for you.
As an example from my own campaign, my party has currently entered the area of a Roman fortress town that was flattened 5 years ago by an unknown enemy powerful enough to take out an entire Roman legion (5,000+ soldiers). I created the fortress and populated it with enemies, and yes, it would have been possible to sneak around the fortress itself (and they probably will do some of that). But as I designed it and thought about how Roman towns are organized, I realized there should be extensive sewers underneath the fortress, and so I designed a large sewer map with sewer grates leading up to things like the latrines. The party then asked what they know of Roman towns and if there are any ways in, and because they could see the aqueduct leading toward the town, and know that where there's a way for water to get in there must be a way out, they realized there were sewers, and they used these sewers to sneak in. They did have to fight a hydra down there (which was a fun surprise for them) and an ochre jelly, but they have managed to sneak in without being seen, and now in between sessions are talking about using spells like charm person to capture a guard and pump him for information. Other than maybe 45 minutes against the hydra and 10 minutes against the jelly, there was zero combat that session. And why? Because I provided them with a non-combat option.
But if I had just populated the fort with enemies crawling all over it, and they had bulled their way in, I couldn't blame them.... I didn't give them any other choice. So if you want there to be non-combat solutions, you have to provide at least some mechanism for it.
Now, I am not saying that you should think of a bunch of non-combat solutions to each circumstance yourself. That's not our job as DM... our job as DM is to provide the challenge and let the players think up their own solutions. But if as a DM you'd like to encourage non-combat solutions, the situation needs to be layered and complex enough, and have enough varied ways to handle it, that the players can actually come up with something non-combat to do.
The most important rule I follow when considering something as a DM is "But is it fun?". Some players/groups love combat and live for the encounters. Some groups are great roll players and enjoy solving puzzles. Other times you get a mix of different types of players and as a DM you are challenged to create a fun world for all the different play styles.
Currently, I'm having the opposite trouble as the OP. My group likes to fight, and I don't want to squash that. 4th edition rules only required 15 minutes. This is a big change for this group. I'm sticking to the standard rules given in the PHB and DMG, but I'm also looking for ways to accommodate their warrior spirit. (They're going to spend all their money on healing potions I think. lol)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Your words are as sharp as my blade, although not half as shiny." - Minsc
2. It's really just about what is fun for you and your players
3. It probably won't make the players be more tactical
4. It does not make healing more useful. Ever heard of "the best defense is offence"? Well that is true in most dnd combat. Just kill the monster before it kill you and it won't kill you
I won’t comment on what would or wouldn’t be fun, because you know your group best.
But as a point of “elegant design” or what have you, I’d suggest making the cap on spending hit dice the character’s proficiency bonus rather than making anyone do obnoxious math.
I was toying with the idea that characters could spend 1 hit die in a 15 minute break. Sometimes the players get more beat up than I expected and there is no possible way they could rest for a full hour. This way, they don't get spells and abilities back, but the game can move forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Your words are as sharp as my blade, although not half as shiny." - Minsc
Using the proficiency bonus as the basis for # of hit dice to spend is not something I had thought of and it does simplify the math. I will likely use this in my sessions, thanks.
About the most sure fire way to get players to do something in D&D is to award XP for doing it, I've written volumes on the subject myself but D&D is a game driven by rewards and historically every edition of the game awarded XP in different ways drastically changing how the game was played. For example in 1st edition you got XP for hauling back treasure and very little reward (almost nothing) for killing monsters, the result was that players where highly motivated by looting everything and avoided fighting, I like to call it the "treasure hunter period". Later the game turned to monster killing for XP rewards and the "murder hobos" where born. Today XP in D&D is rewarded for narrative purposes (milestones etc..) and the result is a game heavily focused on "completing quests". I think the impact of changing behavior based on XP rewards has a proven track record.
You still have to be weary of how you hand out rewards (and for what) because behaviors might not be entirely predictable. For example giving out XP rewards for "good role-playing" can backfire as players may feel that your definition of what constitutes good role-playing and theirs may not sync up, resulting in resentment. Its usually best to make XP rewards something very tangible and clear. Gold = XP for example is a very well defined reward, XP = Completed quest is very clear as long as what constitutes a quest is clear. Things like XP for Milestones or good RP can be shaky unless you really clearly define what those things are and that players understand how they can affect the outcomes.
I prefer to use milestones. Less fiddly numbers to track while DMing. I will also be using an inspiration dice variant to reward good RP, which will be based on characters achieving personal goals as well as when characters do something that relates to their Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals.
I forgot to mention it, but I am doing this partly also because I want quests to be more difficult, just not "gritty realism" level of difficulty.
The main issue I have with inspiration dice is getting my players to use them. Almost every time I think, "I should give inspiration for this," I look, and they already have it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The main issue I have with inspiration dice is getting my players to use them. Almost every time I think, "I should give inspiration for this," I look, and they already have it.
That's because RAW inspiration dice are a bonus that's small enough to not really be worth the effort of tracking. If you want people to remember they have inspiration, and use it, I'd increase what it does (at the moment I'm thinking of treating it as a reroll, like lucky, but even more extreme things like treating it as a use of action surge are possible).
No, I don't think that the advantage is "not enough of a bonus." Quite the opposite. They are hoarding it until they "really need it" -- which suggests to me they don't consider the bonus "not worth the effort of tracking."
It's the same thing with potions by the way. They are probably all clinking with the noise of several flasks clanking against each other because I give potions out fairly freely, figuring they are single-use and so good magic to give out but not unbalance the game. They never use them though... they just keep hoarding them until they "really need them."
I want to check something with fellow DMs. If I wanted to reduce the benefits of resting without going the Gritty Realism variant route stated in the DMG, how does the following sound?
Short Rest = 1 hour. For every level from Level 3 through Level 6, a character may roll 1 die to recover hit points after completing the short rest. At level 1, the character may roll 1 die and divide the result by 2 to determine hp recovered (round up). After Level 6, for each 4 levels the character has, roll an additional die for hit point recovery. When determining effective levels that are not divisible by 4, round the fraction normally. If the character is multi-classed determine the hit die to roll based on whichever class the character has more levels in.
Long Rest = 24 hours. Otherwise, it is the same as the official rules.
Why bother nerfing healing on Short Rests so hard? Your level 1 characters only get one hit die and they might only be able to recover a couple of HP anyway, now they're getting even less.
Just seems a little unnecessary to me! Change the timescale if you want, but changing how players manage their hit die... eh.
The point of the proposed change is manifold: 1) Incentivize smarter planning before combat; 2) incentivize non-combat solutions where possible; 3) increase the value of classes/sub-classes with healing spells and effects.
Sounds a bit over-elaborate to me for not a lot of gain.
If you don't want hit dice to be the main source of hit points you might find that extending the long rest to 24 hours bangs that on the head as they'll run out quicker while they can still buy healing potions and recover magic item charges quicker at the same rate.
Rather than all that, why not go for the gritty realism option in DMG? Short rest lasts 8 hours, long rest of 7 days? Accomplishes the same basic thing. You could trip the long rest down to 48 hours if you think 7 days is too much.
Alternatively you could make them spend hit dice to heal at the end of a long rest as well as a short rest -- this is another optional rule in DMG.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I am playing in a campaign where short rest is 8 hours and long rest is 3 days. I've noticed that it really messes with the resource management for most spellcasters. This is why I would rather keep short rests at 1 hour, increase long rest somewhat to 24 hours, but decrease the amount of healing from short rests.
If what I wrote in Post #1 sounds too complex, how about:
I don't think I would divide the roll by 1/2 for level 1's. Lv 1s are plenty squishy anyway.
That's true. I'll consider that as well.
This^^^
You’ll do better if you award additional XP for planning and healing and equal XP for finding alternatives to combat. That’s why I specifically reward XP the way I do,
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's not precisely true, but you have to actually make changes that are relevant to the behavior you want to encourage. If you want people to be more concerned with resource management, what you need to do is make resting a limited resource (time limits, prerequisites for resting, or some such).
The other thing I would say, if you want to incentivize not-combat solutions you have to make non-combat solutions a viable option.
For example, if you just make an old-style dungeon map with rooms populated by angry monsters who attack on sight and stay in their rooms waiting for combat (and I am NOT saying that I think you are doing), you won't see any attempts by the players not to get into combat. On the other hand, if you make a dungeon that has two warring factions, one of which can be turned against the other or used to pump for information about the other, and make it fairly easy for the players to detect this, then they might do the non-combat option for you.
As an example from my own campaign, my party has currently entered the area of a Roman fortress town that was flattened 5 years ago by an unknown enemy powerful enough to take out an entire Roman legion (5,000+ soldiers). I created the fortress and populated it with enemies, and yes, it would have been possible to sneak around the fortress itself (and they probably will do some of that). But as I designed it and thought about how Roman towns are organized, I realized there should be extensive sewers underneath the fortress, and so I designed a large sewer map with sewer grates leading up to things like the latrines. The party then asked what they know of Roman towns and if there are any ways in, and because they could see the aqueduct leading toward the town, and know that where there's a way for water to get in there must be a way out, they realized there were sewers, and they used these sewers to sneak in. They did have to fight a hydra down there (which was a fun surprise for them) and an ochre jelly, but they have managed to sneak in without being seen, and now in between sessions are talking about using spells like charm person to capture a guard and pump him for information. Other than maybe 45 minutes against the hydra and 10 minutes against the jelly, there was zero combat that session. And why? Because I provided them with a non-combat option.
But if I had just populated the fort with enemies crawling all over it, and they had bulled their way in, I couldn't blame them.... I didn't give them any other choice. So if you want there to be non-combat solutions, you have to provide at least some mechanism for it.
Now, I am not saying that you should think of a bunch of non-combat solutions to each circumstance yourself. That's not our job as DM... our job as DM is to provide the challenge and let the players think up their own solutions. But if as a DM you'd like to encourage non-combat solutions, the situation needs to be layered and complex enough, and have enough varied ways to handle it, that the players can actually come up with something non-combat to do.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The most important rule I follow when considering something as a DM is "But is it fun?". Some players/groups love combat and live for the encounters. Some groups are great roll players and enjoy solving puzzles. Other times you get a mix of different types of players and as a DM you are challenged to create a fun world for all the different play styles.
Currently, I'm having the opposite trouble as the OP. My group likes to fight, and I don't want to squash that. 4th edition rules only required 15 minutes. This is a big change for this group. I'm sticking to the standard rules given in the PHB and DMG, but I'm also looking for ways to accommodate their warrior spirit. (They're going to spend all their money on healing potions I think. lol)
"Your words are as sharp as my blade, although not half as shiny."
- Minsc
1. I think it's a cool idea
2. It's really just about what is fun for you and your players
3. It probably won't make the players be more tactical
4. It does not make healing more useful. Ever heard of "the best defense is offence"? Well that is true in most dnd combat. Just kill the monster before it kill you and it won't kill you
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I won’t comment on what would or wouldn’t be fun, because you know your group best.
But as a point of “elegant design” or what have you, I’d suggest making the cap on spending hit dice the character’s proficiency bonus rather than making anyone do obnoxious math.
I was toying with the idea that characters could spend 1 hit die in a 15 minute break. Sometimes the players get more beat up than I expected and there is no possible way they could rest for a full hour. This way, they don't get spells and abilities back, but the game can move forward.
"Your words are as sharp as my blade, although not half as shiny."
- Minsc
Using the proficiency bonus as the basis for # of hit dice to spend is not something I had thought of and it does simplify the math. I will likely use this in my sessions, thanks.
About the most sure fire way to get players to do something in D&D is to award XP for doing it, I've written volumes on the subject myself but D&D is a game driven by rewards and historically every edition of the game awarded XP in different ways drastically changing how the game was played. For example in 1st edition you got XP for hauling back treasure and very little reward (almost nothing) for killing monsters, the result was that players where highly motivated by looting everything and avoided fighting, I like to call it the "treasure hunter period". Later the game turned to monster killing for XP rewards and the "murder hobos" where born. Today XP in D&D is rewarded for narrative purposes (milestones etc..) and the result is a game heavily focused on "completing quests". I think the impact of changing behavior based on XP rewards has a proven track record.
You still have to be weary of how you hand out rewards (and for what) because behaviors might not be entirely predictable. For example giving out XP rewards for "good role-playing" can backfire as players may feel that your definition of what constitutes good role-playing and theirs may not sync up, resulting in resentment. Its usually best to make XP rewards something very tangible and clear. Gold = XP for example is a very well defined reward, XP = Completed quest is very clear as long as what constitutes a quest is clear. Things like XP for Milestones or good RP can be shaky unless you really clearly define what those things are and that players understand how they can affect the outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to use milestones. Less fiddly numbers to track while DMing. I will also be using an inspiration dice variant to reward good RP, which will be based on characters achieving personal goals as well as when characters do something that relates to their Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals.
I forgot to mention it, but I am doing this partly also because I want quests to be more difficult, just not "gritty realism" level of difficulty.
The main issue I have with inspiration dice is getting my players to use them. Almost every time I think, "I should give inspiration for this," I look, and they already have it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That's because RAW inspiration dice are a bonus that's small enough to not really be worth the effort of tracking. If you want people to remember they have inspiration, and use it, I'd increase what it does (at the moment I'm thinking of treating it as a reroll, like lucky, but even more extreme things like treating it as a use of action surge are possible).
No, I don't think that the advantage is "not enough of a bonus." Quite the opposite. They are hoarding it until they "really need it" -- which suggests to me they don't consider the bonus "not worth the effort of tracking."
It's the same thing with potions by the way. They are probably all clinking with the noise of several flasks clanking against each other because I give potions out fairly freely, figuring they are single-use and so good magic to give out but not unbalance the game. They never use them though... they just keep hoarding them until they "really need them."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.