Quote from: rawma;1054824if a long rest is almost uninterruptible and includes normal travel and heavy activity of less than an hour duration, how is it silly to think you could do this in an enemy fortress, if you can hide or barricade yourself away for long enough? Or did you only mean a sufficiently populated and patrolled fortress where you'd inevitably have to fight and defeat everyone there before a long rest would end?

Yes if you could hide and barricade yourself away for a week with refreshments, light (or darkvision), beds & accommodations, a toilet, a change of underwear etc etc then yes you could long rest in an 'enemy' fortress - but that's well outside the scope of what I was thinking of, which was assaulting an enemy fortress where the enemy react in organised manner.

Quote from: S'mon;1054842Yes if you could hide and barricade yourself away for a week with refreshments, light (or darkvision), beds & accommodations, a toilet, a change of underwear etc etc then yes you could long rest in an 'enemy' fortress - but that's well outside the scope of what I was thinking of, which was assaulting an enemy fortress where the enemy react in organised manner.

The context was mAcular Chaotic's description, in which his players could achieve a long rest in an enemy base if it were the usual 8 hours but not for a full week. So I assume the place is not stirred up, where they will inevitably be found much sooner and either have to flee or defeat every enemy (at least until the remaining enemies stop looking for them), and not densely populated. Given that almost nothing can interrupt a long rest, I don't see why players would not think a longer rest might be possible (how long did characters hide in the crypts of Winterfell in Game of Thrones? How long have stowaways managed to remain concealed on ships smaller than a fortress?).

To put it another way; could Bilbo get a long rest while hiding out among the wood elves? I doubt he faced a full hour of heavy activity at any time.

Quote from: rawma;1054865The context was mAcular Chaotic's description, in which his players could achieve a long rest in an enemy base if it were the usual 8 hours but not for a full week. So I assume the place is not stirred up, where they will inevitably be found much sooner and either have to flee or defeat every enemy (at least until the remaining enemies stop looking for them), and not densely populated. Given that almost nothing can interrupt a long rest, I don't see why players would not think a longer rest might be possible (how long did characters hide in the crypts of Winterfell in Game of Thrones? How long have stowaways managed to remain concealed on ships smaller than a fortress?).

To put it another way; could Bilbo get a long rest while hiding out among the wood elves? I doubt he faced a full hour of heavy activity at any time.

I guess a 1 week long rest in an enemy fortress is possible then. But it would be more like the stowaway situation - the enemy don't know you're there. Not what I was thinking of at all. Often even a short 1 hour rest is impossible or inadvisable. I have TPK'd a fair number of PC groups who tried to do an overnight rest mid assault (in dungeon or camped just outside), with 1 week they don't even try.

I think making it really freaking hard to get a Long Rest inside an enemy fortress is a feature not a bug for me. There should be a trade-off involved in spending too much time out in the field and if you can rest everywhere it takes that trade-off away and makes gameplay less fun (for me). Of course having it be possible just not a sure thing and really hard but I never want to play the kind of game in which there's never any reason not to take a full rest after every fight.

Quote from: Daztur;1054939I think making it really freaking hard to get a Long Rest inside an enemy fortress is a feature not a bug for me. There should be a trade-off involved in spending too much time out in the field and if you can rest everywhere it takes that trade-off away and makes gameplay less fun (for me). Of course having it be possible just not a sure thing and really hard but I never want to play the kind of game in which there's never any reason not to take a full rest after every fight.

Me too, agree 100%! This was something that annoyed me about 6 hour long rests & the Leomund's Tiny Hut spell as a ritual designed to make it automatic; it's completely incompatible with 5e's class design assumption that PCs face 6-8 medium to hard fights per LR and that classes balance around that.

Even with no in-session LR I rarely see 6-8 fights per LR; 3-5 is more typical for a dungeon delve. But at least PCs aren't hitting the hut after every fight.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1054242In another thread, Smon wrote that he runs 5e with Long Rests on a weekly timer.
1. Doesn't that drastically alter some classes capabilities?  The whole Short-Rest/Long-Rest issue?
2. Do you "speed up" any class abilities to account for this?

For anyone who runs a Really Long Rest , how does that affect gameplay that you've noticed?

I'd think it would improve things for many campaigns.

I should clarify--rather than fortress it's a town controlled by an enemy. They posed as allies but their cover is about to be blown.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1054317I've run a game with a week long Long Rest and it's been fine. You just need to make Downtime Activities and Lifestyle a bigger thing, and that's the fun of it. It makes the focus of adventuring to get in, and get out.

The one hiccup now is they are hiding in an enemy base and resting... they really need a recharge, but by the current rules they would need to be somewhere to rest a week, so all they're going to get is a Short Rest. They are going to be out of luck, pretty much.

In the cases where they're in the hot zone for an extended period like this and have no way out it might be better to switch over to the normal rules.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1055114I should clarify--rather than fortress it's a town controlled by an enemy. They posed as allies but their cover is about to be blown.

I think this kind of highlights my problem with having an ultra-important binary of short rest vs. long rest - that for me isn't very intuitive.

Besides the 6 days versus 7 days, there's also a big question of what the rest consists of. A lot of adventure situations are in a big grey area between (1) sleeping soundly in a safe haven versus (2) a brief pause to catch one's breath in the middle of an enemy fortress. For example, in my last campaign, I used The Sunless Citadel module. For a time, the party allied with the kobolds against the goblins. If they're bunked down with the kobolds in their home, could that be a long rest? The kobolds aren't their enemy, and that is the kobolds' home. But there is definite tension of the allies possibly betraying them, or being attacked from the outside.

I'd prefer some sort of gradation where they can get different amounts of recovery depending on how restful things are.

Well, they errata'd a Long Rest to just be literally sleeping.

But that only applies if you're doing the 8 hour LR.

Quote from: jhkim;1055298If they're bunked down with the kobolds in their home, could that be a long rest? The kobolds aren't their enemy, and that is the kobolds' home. But there is definite tension of the allies possibly betraying them, or being attacked from the outside.

If they get to stay with the kobolds for a week, that would be a LR IMC. In Stonehell there's the Kobold Market, my son's kobold PC owns the kobold inn and had it extended with (human sized) private sleeping quarters; he'd love for PCs to stay there.

For an overnight rest BTW I give short rest benefits plus 1 hit point per level recovered.

I really really didn't like whole 'rests' concept when I was consulting, but apparently Mearls was convinced that new-school gamers just would not accept a game that had long healing times. And by long I mean "a couple of days".

Quote from: RPGPundit;1055687I really really didn't like whole 'rests' concept when I was consulting, but apparently Mearls was convinced that new-school gamers just would not accept a game that had long healing times. And by long I mean "a couple of days".

What I first found with running 4e is that many modern players are incapable of tracking resources from session to session. I find that few complain about week long rests in my 5e, and the ones who do are actually old school gamers who do worry about resource tracking and are overly future time oriented. New gamers seem fine with an automatic long rest at end of session (however long it is) with a full reset of resources. It's the reset of resources that matters, not the duration per se - they don't want attrition to carry over from session to session because they (a) can't be arsed to track it and (b) probably have their PC sheet on some horrible phone app that makes it hard anyway.

A great thing about 5e LR is that it puts caster spell recovery on the same timing as warrior hit point recovery. This helps a lot with inter-class balance.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1055687I really really didn't like whole 'rests' concept when I was consulting, but apparently Mearls was convinced that new-school gamers just would not accept a game that had long healing times. And by long I mean "a couple of days".

It's one of the best parts of the game.  It's the default setting of what it means that is the problem, to the extent there is one.

The long/short rest mechanic is one of the few cases where object-oriented software style design makes into a game in exactly the correct way.  (Usually such things are clunky because game designers don't understand software design and vice versa.)  That is, it's a "level of indirection" between the characters doing something to recover, versus what the mechanics tied to doing that means.  There are multiple rules tied to what a rest gives and what it takes to get one.  However, the level of indirection means that the GM/group can alter the rules on either end, with minimal disruption on the other side, and get predictable outcomes.  

You can, of course, still do the same alterations when all the rules are tied to time and other in-game things, but it's a lot easier to screw it up.  If nothing else, the labeled thing of short and long rests means that any house rules in place are shorter and clearer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1055687I really really didn't like whole 'rests' concept when I was consulting, but apparently Mearls was convinced that new-school gamers just would not accept a game that had long healing times. And by long I mean "a couple of days".

The rest mechanic is fine, makes things easier to track. I remember in older editions people sleeping and then lining up for the cleric to heal them in the morning and there was a bunch of healing and dice rolling to get back to full HPs. Bunch of busywork without any real benefit to play.

Just "you slept, now all attrition resets" is a bit extreme which makes the implementation lacking. In makes long overland journeys like The Hobbit and LotR really hard to run well as you have to either:
1. Have the PCs hit every combat with full resources with attrition basically being taken off the table.
2. Squeeze in a whole string of combat into one day.
3. Make up an additional fatigue system or something.
Just a pain in the butt. Much easier to just say "hell no, you're not getting a long rest in fucking Mirkwood" so that you can grind the party down day by day by day and get a proper Oregon Trail feeling.

Quote from: S'mon;1055703What I first found with running 4e is that many modern players are incapable of tracking resources from session to session.

Yeah, resource management is something that has really, really been lost somewhere along the line between Old-School and current D&D.