5
\$\begingroup\$

This is an extension of a previous question that comes in two parts, and is based on the following problem.

I've personally been in multiple encounters where the module as written assumed that the party would get much further without the need for a long rest, but the party was clearly tapped out and would not have survived subsequent encounters without one. Unfortunately, taking a long rest would give the opportunity for the enemies to either escape or be doubly prepared for the PCs when they next encounter the party.

Part one:

  • How can you build a party to minimize the need for long rests and still be effective? (While effective is a relative term, a party of all fighters won't work very well.)

    For example, in considering party composition, Warlocks recover spells after a short rest, rarely require a long one, but don't normally have access to things like healing spells or many utility spells.

Part two:

  • How useful would it be to minimize the need for long rests?

    As a player or DM, how often do you run into a situation where the party needed to take a long rest, but it would have dramatically altered the story?

\$\endgroup\$

closed as too broad by Miniman, user17995, Oblivious Sage, KorvinStarmast, doppelgreener Jul 25 '16 at 15:58

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/78918/… - a character concept designed to avoid taking long rests \$\endgroup\$ – Adeptus Jul 25 '16 at 6:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's potentially a good question, but I also think it's two questions. @Adeptus I seem to recall that the linked question was admitted to be complete cheese, but it was a great Q&A exercise in rules loophole diving. :-) \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jul 25 '16 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suggest that you define how big the party is. 3, 4, 5, 6? The first part of the question is in the "too broad" category and needs some more specificity to attract an SE compatible answer. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jul 25 '16 at 15:20
6
\$\begingroup\$

Part one is out of my wheelhouse, and possibly not a question for Stack Exchange (although I'm still learning the ropes here, so it might be a completely valid question). As for part two...

What you fight, and how often you fight, changes between group to group and DM to DM. Although you CAN simply have one or two more difficult fights during an adventuring day, that is not how the game was designed. 5E is mechanically built around resource attrition, and thus, short rests and long rests are part of game balance. DMG p84 gives specific examples of how much (adjusted) XP worth of encounters a party can face in The Adventuring Day, specifying:

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters per day. If it the adventure has more easy encounters, they can get through more. If the adventure has more hard encounters, they can handle fewer.

Additionally on DMG p84, under Short Rests:

In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day.

So, any advice on how advantageous it could be to work around taking less rests will be nebulous and vague at best - nobody could answer this without knowing exactly the sort of game that you, your DM, and your group have.

\$\endgroup\$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.