I have a player who constantly looks for loopholes in the rules. The newest is resting. We have always agreed that players would declare that a rest was being taken during the game. However, recently the player has started trying to call sections of time played through a rest after the fact. For example, they decided to follow a NPC to a tavern and ended up hanging out for an hour. Since no combat happened the player declared that the time at the tavern was a short rest, stating that it fit the rules despite our track record of mindfullyly declaring rests before being taken in the game. The reason the player does this is to make sure the character is constantly full on abilities.
Looking for thoughts from other DMs as this seems like a slippery slope.
It depends what you agreed upon. I usually inform my players they can count it as a short rest of they've been mostly idle in-game for an hour or more, but it's still up to me as DM to make that call. If you agreed beforehand they need to declare it, then they need to declare it. There are upsides and downsides to all approaches.
In the case of the tavern visit, if they were keeping an eye on an NPC I wouldn't accept it as a short rest. Spending time in a tavern may not be particularly strenuous, but if you're deliberately trying to keep an eye out and watch for things going down you're not resting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would be a little lenient, since it can sometimes be hard to get a word in to request a short rest while the other players are exploring the tavern. I think it's fine if at some point while you're there you say you've been resting since you got there. Not cool if you get into a combat and say, "Wait, I rested back there," but since this player clearly values rests and will always rest as soon as they think of it, you might as well assume they're resting any time they're in a tavern.
I feel he's kinda right though, if they went to a tavern and just kept an eye on some NPC, kicked back and ate n had some drinks.. thats a rest. They might not have intended to spend an hour resting but they did end up doing so.
It would be nicer if he asked instead of told like "hey DM we just chilled out for an hour is that a short rest?"
Whether or not spending time at a tavern counts as a short rest is up to you as the DM. On one hand it isn't physically strenuous, but at least some abilities that replenish after such a rest seem to me like the kind of things that would also require mental calm and freedom from distraction if not straight up meditation or a short nap (warlocks regaining spell slots, for example). I wouldn't exactly call catching up on local gossip and some light flirting with a barmaid the kind of thing that properly re-centers one's mental state for the purposes of arcane or divine powers.
Of course, any player is going to want to get every advantage they can and while sometimes it can be reasonably justified, the way you describe this player suggests they're the type to constantly push the limits into weasel territory. In that case it's your job as DM to decide when to allow it and where to draw the line and say "no, you don't get that because you didn't do what's needed for it." Just make sure to be clear about any such calls up front so you're consistent; if your game has consistently required short rests to be specified as such before they happen (such as "while I have some time, I want to take a breather and clear my head, can this count as a short rest?"), make it clear that that is the rule and it will be enforced.
If you agreed they need to call it out beforehand, those are the rules... But I personally think that approach doesn't work very well... Imagine one half of the party ends up just standing around for a few hours while the others go shopping.. Yea the focus may not have been on the inactive party members enough for them to declare a short rest.. they may not have known it would be a few hours so didn't think about declaring it..
I think it's much more sensible to assume a short rest whenever someone have been in a restful situation for more than an hour... It is of course up to you to decide what situation is restful... maybe a tavern is incredibly noise and people keep bumping into them, so a short rest wasn't possible... But it shouldnt come to down to whether or not the players predicted the short rest beforehand.
Personally, in my own games, I wouldn't consider this retconning. There are conditions to be met for a short or long rest, and if I decide they have been met without a conscious decision, I will let my players know.
However, your situation is very different. Firstly, you decided as a group that rests needed to be declared in advance*. In that case, the rest has not happened, no matter what the circumstances. Secondly, the player has asked (or, possibly, tried to tell you) that it counts as a short rest.
I would tell him no, in your shoes, and very firmly so. He sounds like a rules lawyer. While this can be fun, it should be done outside the game in order not to slow the game down. My response would be "no, we agreed that rests would be declared in advance, but we can discuss whether to change it going forward after the session as a group".
* I'm assuming this was a conscious, deliberate decision discussed and agreed by the table, not just an assumption based on what has happened up to now in your games. If it wasn't discussed, it's a little different and I wouldn't handle it quite the same.
Hmm.... Now, I agree that the player does sound* like they're pushing against the agreed upon rules of the table. And that's a bad thing.
Personally, I do agree with the way that the player is dealing with short rests more than your rules of pre-emptive short rest declarations. My favorite classes are bards and warlocks, two very short-rest dependent classes. And having to ask the DM every single time the group stops "do we have enough time to short rest?" gets old FAST. The players get annoyed, the DM gets annoyed, makes the game less fun. And so what if the players recharge their abilities? Using powers are FUN. And we're all here to have fun.
Again, trying to go against the rules that the table agreed upon is an objectively bad thing, even if I do sympathize with the why.
* We do only have your side of the issue, so its possible there's more going on that we the forum as well as you the DM are just not seeing
There are Long Rest dependent Classes. They aren't going to be pleased if the Short Rest characters are always at full. If you don't wish to allow retconning, don't allow it at all. Talk with your players, explain what you want to do and why, then give them a specific number of Short Rests per day, and they can manage them just like any other resource. If they want to take them all back-to-back, let them.
If the party were in the tavern keeping a close eye on an NPC, ready to fight or otherwise do active stuff if the NPC acted in a certain way, then I wouldn't consider that a Short Rest.
The main thing is that the table agreed to a rule - rests have to be declared, not retroactively taken. That was the agreement, and trying to go back on it without a word isn't cool. I would possibly pull the player aside and have a chat with him, let him know he's starting to step on tempers a bit.
On the other hand...it's a very real thing in the military to catnap whenever you can, and "constantly being full on abilities" is sorta the point of some classes. An adventurer who spies an opportunity to nap would likely do so, because one never knows when something else is going to explode. Short rests are also usually severely underutilized; most games/tables I've seen very rarely slow down enough to take a short rest unless the whole-ass table is made up of short rest classes or everybody needs to burn hit dice, which can leave classes designed to key off of short rests at a pretty hefty disadvantage.
if this player is being an issue in other ways, definitely talk to them. If it feels more like a player with a short-rest character trying to actually get short rests because the table doesn't bother with them? Perhaps a compromise - let the player have one retroactive short rest per day, provided they meet the requirements for the rest. Or remind the table that some classes care a whole lot more about short rests than others, and simply because your sorcerers, rogues, barbarians and the like don't give a snot about short rests doesn't mean your warlocks, monks, or fighters are going to work right without ever taking a rest.
On the other hand...it's a very real thing in the military to catnap whenever you can, and "constantly being full on abilities" is sorta the point of some classes. An adventurer who spies an opportunity to nap would likely do so, because one never knows when something else is going to explode. Short rests are also usually severely underutilized; most games/tables I've seen very rarely slow down enough to take a short rest unless the whole-ass table is made up of short rest classes or everybody needs to burn hit dice, which can leave classes designed to key off of short rests at a pretty hefty disadvantage.
I agree with your general points, Rei, but let me ask this: if the PCs are in a tavern somewhere and the players state they will explicitly take a short rest there and then, should they still be allowed to make an active check (say, Perception to see if someone is cheating at cards or Sleight of Hands to be the one doing the cheating)? If not, and I believe a majority of DMs will say no to that, then the reverse should also hold true: that if the PCs are explicitly keeping an eye on someone, they can't at the same time be resting. Taking the opportunity to get some quick shut-eye should have consequences for what can be done while you're snoring away (or maybe just resting your eyes, no judgment), that's why some DMs might ask for short rests to be announced - otherwise you can not suffer those consequences and afterwards try to get the rest benefits regardless.
Again, I'm more in favour of a middle ground myself with the DM announcing you can consider yourselves to have gotten some rest when appropriate aside from the players deliberately choosing to, but I can see an argument for being a bit strict with when the DM should or should not allowing something to count.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Xanathar's Guide allows players to explicitly use their tools to craft items during short rests, such as an alchemist making alchemical concoctions, a woodcarver making arrows, or a smith repairing damaged items. Those tasks take more physical effort than watching cards or trying to clever-fingers your way into a bit of coin. As I recall, the only class that explicitly has to do something during a short rest to get their shit back are monks, who have to spend at least half of it meditating.
I've never really seen short rests as "I completely shut down for an hour". I tend to see them more as "I'm gonna do calmer shit that doesn't require strenuous effort, relax a little. Maybe do some soothing light work, keep my hands busy while my mind wanders, or peoplewatch, or whatever gets me back in gear." Players getting a short rest while doing other shit is dependent on what the player is trying to do and whether the character is the sort who'd find that restful. Obviously, people trying to game the rules are a Thing, but a lot of this is simply players trying to be efficient with their time. That falls under "Things I Don't Want to Punish Players for Doing as a DM" in terms of D&D Jeopardy Categories.
Xanathar's Guide allows players to explicitly use their tools to craft items during short rests, such as an alchemist making alchemical concoctions, a woodcarver making arrows, or a smith repairing damaged items. Those tasks take more physical effort than watching cards or trying to clever-fingers your way into a bit of coin. As I recall, the only class that explicitly has to do something during a short rest to get their shit back are monks, who have to spend at least half of it meditating.
I don't think the physical effort alone counts. Scribing a spell or decyphering a code or investigating a room isn't more strenuous than what you listed either, but I for me they aren't compatible with a short rest. Those tool uses sound more like going through the motions of some familiar activity to let your mind rest, doing stuff you could - albeit figuratively - do in your sleep.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
On the other hand...it's a very real thing in the military to catnap whenever you can, and "constantly being full on abilities" is sorta the point of some classes. An adventurer who spies an opportunity to nap would likely do so, because one never knows when something else is going to explode. Short rests are also usually severely underutilized; most games/tables I've seen very rarely slow down enough to take a short rest unless the whole-ass table is made up of short rest classes or everybody needs to burn hit dice, which can leave classes designed to key off of short rests at a pretty hefty disadvantage.
I agree with your general points, Rei, but let me ask this: if the PCs are in a tavern somewhere and the players state they will explicitly take a short rest there and then, should they still be allowed to make an active check (say, Perception to see if someone is cheating at cards or Sleight of Hands to be the one doing the cheating)? If not, and I believe a majority of DMs will say no to that, then the reverse should also hold true: that if the PCs are explicitly keeping an eye on someone, they can't at the same time be resting. Taking the opportunity to get some quick shut-eye should have consequences for what can be done while you're snoring away (or maybe just resting your eyes, no judgment), that's why some DMs might ask for short rests to be announced - otherwise you can not suffer those consequences and afterwards try to get the rest benefits regardless.
Again, I'm more in favour of a middle ground myself with the DM announcing you can consider yourselves to have gotten some rest when appropriate aside from the players deliberately choosing to, but I can see an argument for being a bit strict with when the DM should or should not allowing something to count.
Note to self: using your eyes to see is strenuous activity.
Seriously, if they wanted to take a perception check while resting in a tavern, sure thing. I don't consider "using your eyeballs" as a strenuous activity. I guess when you run a long rest and somebody is on watch, they can't actually watch out for anything? Weird. Because the rules do say of the 8 hours of a long rest, only 6 is sleeping and the other can include being on watch.
Light activity includes eating, drinking and talking. All of these require more muscles, effort and thought than looking at some cards.
--
Personally I'm fine with retconning short rests. The whole point of short-rest abilities is so they are have them more often for multiple encounters in the day. So, if they want to get them back for new encounters and they had spent time resting enough... Sure thing. I'm not a "DM vs The Player" type.
Sometimes the declaring a short rest can slip your mind or it gets lost in narrative. You don't remember until its time to use such an ability, like if the wizard realises he doesn't have the spell slot he needs.. but wait, "Hey, DM, back at the tavern, all we did was sit and have a meal does that count as a short rest?" - I'd say yes, he gets spells and is more prepared for the monsters and puzzles I'm going to pit them against. All good. Likewise the Monk might not realise how low on Ki they are until a battle. Etc.
This is fine.
I don't see the problem with it. Worst case scenario is they've got those abilities for new encounters -- why is that bad, given that's the entire point of them? Just factor it in your encounters like you're supposed to. Voila, issue solved. Good grief people.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a player who constantly looks for loopholes in the rules. The newest is resting. We have always agreed that players would declare that a rest was being taken during the game. However, recently the player has started trying to call sections of time played through a rest after the fact. For example, they decided to follow a NPC to a tavern and ended up hanging out for an hour. Since no combat happened the player declared that the time at the tavern was a short rest, stating that it fit the rules despite our track record of mindfullyly declaring rests before being taken in the game. The reason the player does this is to make sure the character is constantly full on abilities.
Looking for thoughts from other DMs as this seems like a slippery slope.
Tell them that they have to declare beforehand, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I have thus far but in these situations i like to check in here and make sure im not just being a jerk. 😆
It depends what you agreed upon. I usually inform my players they can count it as a short rest of they've been mostly idle in-game for an hour or more, but it's still up to me as DM to make that call. If you agreed beforehand they need to declare it, then they need to declare it. There are upsides and downsides to all approaches.
In the case of the tavern visit, if they were keeping an eye on an NPC I wouldn't accept it as a short rest. Spending time in a tavern may not be particularly strenuous, but if you're deliberately trying to keep an eye out and watch for things going down you're not resting.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would be a little lenient, since it can sometimes be hard to get a word in to request a short rest while the other players are exploring the tavern. I think it's fine if at some point while you're there you say you've been resting since you got there. Not cool if you get into a combat and say, "Wait, I rested back there," but since this player clearly values rests and will always rest as soon as they think of it, you might as well assume they're resting any time they're in a tavern.
I feel he's kinda right though, if they went to a tavern and just kept an eye on some NPC, kicked back and ate n had some drinks.. thats a rest. They might not have intended to spend an hour resting but they did end up doing so.
It would be nicer if he asked instead of told like "hey DM we just chilled out for an hour is that a short rest?"
Whether or not spending time at a tavern counts as a short rest is up to you as the DM. On one hand it isn't physically strenuous, but at least some abilities that replenish after such a rest seem to me like the kind of things that would also require mental calm and freedom from distraction if not straight up meditation or a short nap (warlocks regaining spell slots, for example). I wouldn't exactly call catching up on local gossip and some light flirting with a barmaid the kind of thing that properly re-centers one's mental state for the purposes of arcane or divine powers.
Of course, any player is going to want to get every advantage they can and while sometimes it can be reasonably justified, the way you describe this player suggests they're the type to constantly push the limits into weasel territory. In that case it's your job as DM to decide when to allow it and where to draw the line and say "no, you don't get that because you didn't do what's needed for it." Just make sure to be clear about any such calls up front so you're consistent; if your game has consistently required short rests to be specified as such before they happen (such as "while I have some time, I want to take a breather and clear my head, can this count as a short rest?"), make it clear that that is the rule and it will be enforced.
If you agreed they need to call it out beforehand, those are the rules... But I personally think that approach doesn't work very well... Imagine one half of the party ends up just standing around for a few hours while the others go shopping.. Yea the focus may not have been on the inactive party members enough for them to declare a short rest.. they may not have known it would be a few hours so didn't think about declaring it..
I think it's much more sensible to assume a short rest whenever someone have been in a restful situation for more than an hour... It is of course up to you to decide what situation is restful... maybe a tavern is incredibly noise and people keep bumping into them, so a short rest wasn't possible... But it shouldnt come to down to whether or not the players predicted the short rest beforehand.
Personally, in my own games, I wouldn't consider this retconning. There are conditions to be met for a short or long rest, and if I decide they have been met without a conscious decision, I will let my players know.
However, your situation is very different. Firstly, you decided as a group that rests needed to be declared in advance*. In that case, the rest has not happened, no matter what the circumstances. Secondly, the player has asked (or, possibly, tried to tell you) that it counts as a short rest.
I would tell him no, in your shoes, and very firmly so. He sounds like a rules lawyer. While this can be fun, it should be done outside the game in order not to slow the game down. My response would be "no, we agreed that rests would be declared in advance, but we can discuss whether to change it going forward after the session as a group".
* I'm assuming this was a conscious, deliberate decision discussed and agreed by the table, not just an assumption based on what has happened up to now in your games. If it wasn't discussed, it's a little different and I wouldn't handle it quite the same.
Hmm.... Now, I agree that the player does sound* like they're pushing against the agreed upon rules of the table. And that's a bad thing.
Personally, I do agree with the way that the player is dealing with short rests more than your rules of pre-emptive short rest declarations. My favorite classes are bards and warlocks, two very short-rest dependent classes. And having to ask the DM every single time the group stops "do we have enough time to short rest?" gets old FAST. The players get annoyed, the DM gets annoyed, makes the game less fun. And so what if the players recharge their abilities? Using powers are FUN. And we're all here to have fun.
Again, trying to go against the rules that the table agreed upon is an objectively bad thing, even if I do sympathize with the why.
* We do only have your side of the issue, so its possible there's more going on that we the forum as well as you the DM are just not seeing
There are Long Rest dependent Classes. They aren't going to be pleased if the Short Rest characters are always at full. If you don't wish to allow retconning, don't allow it at all. Talk with your players, explain what you want to do and why, then give them a specific number of Short Rests per day, and they can manage them just like any other resource. If they want to take them all back-to-back, let them.
<Insert clever signature here>
If the party were in the tavern keeping a close eye on an NPC, ready to fight or otherwise do active stuff if the NPC acted in a certain way, then I wouldn't consider that a Short Rest.
I'd probably say, "Sure, you can take a short rest here... let's advance the clock an hour." Up to them if they want to stay another hour or not.
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'm of two minds on this issue.
The main thing is that the table agreed to a rule - rests have to be declared, not retroactively taken. That was the agreement, and trying to go back on it without a word isn't cool. I would possibly pull the player aside and have a chat with him, let him know he's starting to step on tempers a bit.
On the other hand...it's a very real thing in the military to catnap whenever you can, and "constantly being full on abilities" is sorta the point of some classes. An adventurer who spies an opportunity to nap would likely do so, because one never knows when something else is going to explode. Short rests are also usually severely underutilized; most games/tables I've seen very rarely slow down enough to take a short rest unless the whole-ass table is made up of short rest classes or everybody needs to burn hit dice, which can leave classes designed to key off of short rests at a pretty hefty disadvantage.
if this player is being an issue in other ways, definitely talk to them. If it feels more like a player with a short-rest character trying to actually get short rests because the table doesn't bother with them? Perhaps a compromise - let the player have one retroactive short rest per day, provided they meet the requirements for the rest. Or remind the table that some classes care a whole lot more about short rests than others, and simply because your sorcerers, rogues, barbarians and the like don't give a snot about short rests doesn't mean your warlocks, monks, or fighters are going to work right without ever taking a rest.
Please do not contact or message me.
Chilling in a tavern would count as light activity, but they’d totes have to declare it at the beginning of the time period.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I agree with this. No harm in asking unless they're really pushing it to the point of annoyance, but up to the DM for the final say.
I agree with your general points, Rei, but let me ask this: if the PCs are in a tavern somewhere and the players state they will explicitly take a short rest there and then, should they still be allowed to make an active check (say, Perception to see if someone is cheating at cards or Sleight of Hands to be the one doing the cheating)? If not, and I believe a majority of DMs will say no to that, then the reverse should also hold true: that if the PCs are explicitly keeping an eye on someone, they can't at the same time be resting. Taking the opportunity to get some quick shut-eye should have consequences for what can be done while you're snoring away (or maybe just resting your eyes, no judgment), that's why some DMs might ask for short rests to be announced - otherwise you can not suffer those consequences and afterwards try to get the rest benefits regardless.
Again, I'm more in favour of a middle ground myself with the DM announcing you can consider yourselves to have gotten some rest when appropriate aside from the players deliberately choosing to, but I can see an argument for being a bit strict with when the DM should or should not allowing something to count.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly?
Sure.
Xanathar's Guide allows players to explicitly use their tools to craft items during short rests, such as an alchemist making alchemical concoctions, a woodcarver making arrows, or a smith repairing damaged items. Those tasks take more physical effort than watching cards or trying to clever-fingers your way into a bit of coin. As I recall, the only class that explicitly has to do something during a short rest to get their shit back are monks, who have to spend at least half of it meditating.
I've never really seen short rests as "I completely shut down for an hour". I tend to see them more as "I'm gonna do calmer shit that doesn't require strenuous effort, relax a little. Maybe do some soothing light work, keep my hands busy while my mind wanders, or peoplewatch, or whatever gets me back in gear." Players getting a short rest while doing other shit is dependent on what the player is trying to do and whether the character is the sort who'd find that restful. Obviously, people trying to game the rules are a Thing, but a lot of this is simply players trying to be efficient with their time. That falls under "Things I Don't Want to Punish Players for Doing as a DM" in terms of D&D Jeopardy Categories.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think the physical effort alone counts. Scribing a spell or decyphering a code or investigating a room isn't more strenuous than what you listed either, but I for me they aren't compatible with a short rest. Those tool uses sound more like going through the motions of some familiar activity to let your mind rest, doing stuff you could - albeit figuratively - do in your sleep.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Note to self: using your eyes to see is strenuous activity.
Seriously, if they wanted to take a perception check while resting in a tavern, sure thing. I don't consider "using your eyeballs" as a strenuous activity. I guess when you run a long rest and somebody is on watch, they can't actually watch out for anything? Weird. Because the rules do say of the 8 hours of a long rest, only 6 is sleeping and the other can include being on watch.
Light activity includes eating, drinking and talking. All of these require more muscles, effort and thought than looking at some cards.
--
Personally I'm fine with retconning short rests. The whole point of short-rest abilities is so they are have them more often for multiple encounters in the day. So, if they want to get them back for new encounters and they had spent time resting enough... Sure thing. I'm not a "DM vs The Player" type.
Sometimes the declaring a short rest can slip your mind or it gets lost in narrative. You don't remember until its time to use such an ability, like if the wizard realises he doesn't have the spell slot he needs.. but wait, "Hey, DM, back at the tavern, all we did was sit and have a meal does that count as a short rest?" - I'd say yes, he gets spells and is more prepared for the monsters and puzzles I'm going to pit them against. All good. Likewise the Monk might not realise how low on Ki they are until a battle. Etc.
This is fine.
I don't see the problem with it. Worst case scenario is they've got those abilities for new encounters -- why is that bad, given that's the entire point of them? Just factor it in your encounters like you're supposed to. Voila, issue solved. Good grief people.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.