Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback BG3 and the 5 minute adventuring day issue

2AD&D didn't have short rests and everything balanced around there being both short and long rests.

It’s simple. If you’re against resting frequently, just don’t do it. If you want to rest after each battle, it’s your game. Sleep away.

It's not simple. And "just don't do it" is not good game design.

In the worst case, I hope they will at least turn up the difficulty if they don't want to balance the rest anymore.
If it is to be unlimited anyway, let it at least require consuming more resources

Why are you worried about what your "most people" are doing? What they do within the confines of their legally purchased SP game is entirely up to them. The higher difficulties exist to provide harder content for those of us that may desire it. So unless you have a complete breakdown of exactly what those entail, this is more about "but, they might be able to beat the game on Normal, and I don't like that". "Poor balance" are what the lower difficulties are all about. They always have been. They tip the scales in the player's favor. I find a lot of games boringly easy on Normal. I find some games boringly easy on Nightmare, it's probably a good thing they don't balance the game around me. Why do I say that? Because I've managed to play over 30 hours w/out LRs after every encounter, and so, I didn't know it was going to be some game breaking issue, until I come to the forums, and find this...

Actually, in a mode designed with the more casual player in mind, it's the best advice in the world.

It absolutely is good game design particularly in an rpg. If I want to run the entirety of act 1 solo (no npc’s) as a cleric, I’m gonna be hittin the hell outta camp. It’s my game, my prerogative.

If you want to run a full party of 4 and never rest, so be it.

Pretty soon someone is going to tell me not to put tobasco on my steak because it’s not meant to be ate that way.

I didn't go through every post here but just to demonstrate why the current resting system (unlimited long rests) is completely unbalancing to classes I will point to the class design of two classes: warlock and monk. In standard 5e most class abilities reset on a long rest, so spell slots, action surge, barbarian rage, lay on hands, etc... all are tuned to the long rest. Long rests are limited, usually 2-3 short rests for every long rest. Warlock was tuned specifically to this balancing when they gave them 2(3) spell slots that return on a short rest. In a standard day the warlock will have access to 6-8 spell slots if they use short rests, which puts them in contention with other spell casters. Spell slots being limited to 5th level, but always cast at 5th level makes those spells they do cast potent but again limited in overall numbers compared to wizards, sorcerers, bards, druids and clerics. Compare 10th level spell caster progression to warlock and they get 15 spell slots on a long rest (sorcerers and wizards have some ability to get more back in between rests making their number higher), compared to 6-8 spells for the warlock if you maximize short rests.

Monks are the melee version of the warlock, all of their abilities are fueled by ki points which return on the short rest and the monk kit has been tuned to this system. If long rests are free, then it totally undercuts these classes as it also undercuts the battle master sub for fighters and how they regen their superiority dice. Unless Larian goes in and fundamentally retunes these classes to reflect the rest changes they will be significantly weaker than other classes, ie give warlocks more spell slots, give monks more ki and halve the ki costs of most abilities, and increase the number of superiority dice battle masters get.

Larian has said they'll probably add some sort of solo mode in for release, and you can use that.

Nobody is going to eat your steak. Hundreds of thousands of people will be playing this game. It might surprise you to learn that no, you are not in fact entitled to have the default game balance which everyone will use designed so that a solo player in this game (which has mechanics based around a 4-person party) can breeze through the game on Normal difficulty. The customer is not always right, even if you paid $60 USD - especially when there are so many customers with conflicting desires.

...that's not how game design works. Every game is bound by rules, rules that (hopefully) make the game fun, but also rules that present challenge.

To create an over the top example, Larian could allow players to have unlimited actions per round. That would allow you to attack as many times as you wanted, and others to attack however many times they wanted. Would this be good game design? Obviously not, because it trivializes combat and would make the game boring. For your example: there are more ways of designing the game so that you can solo it, ways that don't actively harm others' experiences. In fact, simply having infinite rests is probably one of the worst ways. Resting 5 times in a row won't help with individual difficult combats. For example, experience could be gained individually, so a 1-person party would level up faster.

Similarly, the rest mechanic trivializes resource management. There is almost no reason to use food or short rests, the classes are not balanced with each other, and much of the risk-reward system is gone (e.g., saving a more powerful spell for a future more difficult encounter but risking damage/defeat in this combat).

Ultimately, Larian is going to make these decisions based on what they think will make the best game for the largest number of people. Some people outside of that majority will be displeased, as the game will not cater to their needs. What IS the best thing for the largest number of people? Hard to say. Do any of us really know? This is why we discuss it. This is why Larian discusses these things in-house as well. Early Access is a special time, as this is when Larian can nail down all of these questions of "what is best?", using a million extra testers to help them.

Games have rules for a reason. They have limitations for a reason. A game with no limitations would not really be fun for very many people, for very long. I can make a new version of Chess, and say, "Hey, in this Chess, you can just pick up any pieces, any time you want, and move them anywhere you want!" But that will be a shitty version of Chess, and only small children will want to play it. Often times people think they want more freedom from restrictions in a game, but in fact, if they get that freedom, they end up finding the game less engaging, less rewarding, and less memorable because of it. Game designers are not supposed to just give people what they say they want, with no thought to the matter. They are supposed to figure out what is actually best, even if it's not what people are asking for.

I mean, there are tons of video games. And millions of players offering feedback and suggestions for all of those games. But developers ignore the majority of those requests. Because they know that the game will be better if they DON'T give everyone everything they think they want. (Or at least, in theory they know that. In reality, they might just THINK they know that, and mess it up. But that would be bad game design.)

Why is there no button to automatically kill all enemies in a second? Why is there no button to just gain a free level up whenever you like? Why can't you just fly through all of the walls right from the start? Because those freedoms would ruin the game. Rules and restrictions MAKE the game. Chess is chess BECAUSE I can only move my bishop in a diagonal line, not wherever the hell I want. And D&D is D&D because of many, many restrictions that combine to make a SYSTEM. If we just start throwing out any boundaries and say "Do whatever you want, and players can just govern themselves" then we no longer have a coherent game.

What's the right call regarding how much people can rest in Baldur's Gate 3, and whether or not it should have some kind of cost, and how the game should be balanced around that resting system? I have no idea. I'm not the one getting paid to figure that out. But I can offer my opinions, and so can everyone else here. And maybe Larian will agree with some of us, or maybe they will see our ideas as poorly-conceived ones and ignore them. Who knows? But in no way is the question "simple". In no way should they "just" do anything. There is a lot to consider, and they're getting paid to do that considering.

I don’t rest after every battle, and I don’t expect the devs to cater to a select few or design the game so that it can be run solo.

I’ve run every class solo through act 1 just for kicks cause the game is boring at this point (until more content is released). Cleric is the last class I’m running and I just finished the blighted village without resting (to include the 3 ogres) and I’m going to rest now that I’m done with it before I move on to the goblin camp.

You absolutely do not have to rest after each battle, but if anyone chooses to do that, they should completely have that option.

Everyone is so hell bent on this being 5E, when it’s never going to completely follow 5E rules. That would require an insurmountable amount of coding and the game would never get released.

In the end, the game will be what it will be, and all players, happy or unhappy, will have to take it as it is. If they put restrictions on resting, I personally don’t care, but I wouldn’t expect anything like that anytime soon. There’s numerous bugs and other issues that need to be fixed before they implement a major coding patch for resting. Personally, I would prefer they focus on new content opposed to addressing something petty like people “abusing” resting and enjoying their game.

Problem is, if the normal settings doesn't follow DnD rules, what will make the hard mode follow it? Ennemies will be HP sponge, they will have more spell, damage, etc, it will NOT be closer to a DnD experience, it will just be harder to play.

I want a DnD game that feels a DnD game, the challenge for me is included in the RULEBOOK. I don't want to much powerful enemies, I want rules that follow what the game is supposed to be based on!

I get that now, more or less, by simply not taking a LR after each encounter. I get that now by not eating food during combat. I get that now by not changing my gear during combat. A whole lot of things that are readily available, and yet, here we are, telling everyone else what they must conform to because reasons. The funniest response I've gotten to this so far equates to "Wait, you expect me to not take advantage of things I see as exploitive???".

Aren't you glad I'm not here insisting they build the game around me? If they did, you may not be able to play it on Casual. I play the hardest difficulties, a lot. I play them in ways that weren't intended, by soloing stuff that's designed for parties. I don't want, or need, them to "balance" the game according to my interpretation of the rules, or my understanding, or lack thereof, of game design, especially where difficulty levels are concerned. I need them to build the game they have envisioned, so that I can see if their vision matches up with my expectations. I don't spend a lot of time in game right now, because I know me. I'll have every possible character/class played in a few months, and be completely burnt out by the time the game launches. So when I'm playing this Alpha build, I make concessions for things that I hope will be fixed, like everyone having rogue abilities, and I'm not overly fussed at having to play the game in what I consider to be the Casual mode. They are, after all, trying to make sure that those players, who spent the same money I did, get what they paid for.

[/quote]
I get that now, more or less, by simply not taking a LR after each encounter. I get that now by not eating food during combat. I get that now by not changing my gear during combat. A whole lot of things that are readily available, and yet, here we are, telling everyone else what they must conform to because reasons. The funniest response I've gotten to this so far equates to "Wait, you expect me to not take advantage of things I see as exploitive???".

Aren't you glad I'm not here insisting they build the game around me? If they did, you may not be able to play it on Casual. I play the hardest difficulties, a lot. I play them in ways that weren't intended, by soloing stuff that's designed for parties. I don't want, or need, them to "balance" the game according to my interpretation of the rules, or my understanding, or lack thereof, of game design, especially where difficulty levels are concerned. I need them to build the game they have envisioned, so that I can see if their vision matches up with my expectations. I don't spend a lot of time in game right now, because I know me. I'll have every possible character/class played in a few months, and be completely burnt out by the time the game launches. So when I'm playing this Alpha build, I make concessions for things that I hope will be fixed, like everyone having rogue abilities, and I'm not overly fussed at having to play the game in what I consider to be the Casual mode. They are, after all, trying to make sure that those players, who spent the same money I did, get what they paid for.[/quote]

Well said sir!

Robert can we both agree the response " It's not a problem if I can ignore it" isn't exactly an answer to everything? Most of your posts reflect that ideology in my opinion. The thing is it can be the answer. And it goes together with " Play the game the way you want it". That's precisely what Larian did in DOS2, and it worked very well. That's why BG2 sleeping system worked very well just as the one in BG3 does the same. But it's not an answer PRECISELY if we speak about the difficulty level.


On the highest difficulties, you use every mechanic in the game or at least that's what could be expected. You admit the player knows everything and you can punish him for each mistake he makes. If there's no mercy for the player then you have to make some assumption as to the current power level of the said player.
AKA => He's on full spells, knows every AI tricks, where are the enemies, and might have some special consumables. That's the assumption BG2 creators made. It worked. Every encounter that wanted to be difficult assumed you have everything. BG3 can do the same and it won't be a problem. It will most likely be balanced around it.

Now your point is "why balancing the game if i can do it myself?". Or at least that's how you make it sound. And it's valid argument to some extent, I played the game exactly this way and had fun.

BUT

Beating a game on the hardest difficulties it's to some extent a way of accomplishment and having to "ignore the cheese" consciously to avoid it can give the player the impression that he's making it hard for himself. The game isn't a challenge. He is.

IN CONCLUSION:
Can we come back to discuss how can we make a sleeping system that doesn't assume you use it before every encounter BEFORE we invent the nighmtare difficulty in assumption mobs have to be ready for every spell the player can launch at them at the given time?


On this aspect BG3 will copy BG2. It's not a bad thing, more spells to use per encounter? More strategies to discuss with you coop teammates? Cool!

They won't change it in BG3 and it's predecessor shown they don't even need to ^^ Yet, it's still interesting to discuss it. Try to find a way for the D&D resting system to find it's way to PC without being overly complicated or changing the gameplay for the sake of changing the gameplay. It has to serve it, and add something to it. For now, it adds a spell Gatling gun. Can it add more depth if done differently? Resource management can be a very interesting feature if done correctly.

I understand what people are getting at. In a tabletop setting a DM typically isn’t going to allow players to restore spells after every encounter without there being some repercussions. I also understand that some people would like to see a system implemented that has repercussions if you “exploit” going to camp after every battle or a system that moderates the frequency in which you can camp. I can see both sides of the coin but agree entirely with neither.

I think most people would be lying if they said their very first time running through the game that they didn’t rest more often than they do now, before they knew where each encounter was and what it entailed. Or, at the very least, had to reload the game because there were 2 monstrous minotaurs that came outta nowhere and tore em a new one.

Honestly, if you want to make it more like tabletop, when you die in the game, your dead. No loading of a previous save. How often would you rest then? I mean, you could still save the game whenever you wanted, but if you die, you can’t load previous saves associated with that character. Now that would be more like tabletop. I’ve never had a DM say “well, everybody died, but let’s rewind and start all over”. Nope. You pull out your d6 and start rolling a new character.

I believe the system will ultimately be left the way it is because it just makes sense to allow players who want to play that way to be able to, and people who don’t want to, simply don’t have to. There’s no sense in restricting the game play of some (even if it’s the minority) if people can simply choose not to exploit a certain feature.

I've read your other thread in it's entirety and I think i have a conclusion for balancing resting on a larger scale in BG3.
TLDR: Limited rest could be a difficulty setting in the way Stabbey proposed it in his other thread and explained in detail in this one after me. It doesn't make any sens in the context of BG3 current design focus though.

@Stabbey:
"Whether long rests in enemy territory are allowed is a different question which my idea does not address."
"The idea of resting in specific areas isn't terrible, but because there are no respawning enemies, it would ultimately end up being a lot of backtracking to the safe area[...] ".

Blocking entirely the possibility to rest could become a no-outcome situation regardless of how you design the game. Any type of non -rest encounters should be a closed environment with a full rested party and some kind of info about what's ahead. Straight up. So that idea on a larger scale is something to throw to the bin after me in how BG series look. Only in the context of BG.

"What the different difficulty settings each do still needs to be determined, then balanced, then tested and re-balanced"

After me it's a difficulty setting on it's own. Due to a long list of reasons I thought about. While ressource management on it's own is a really good gameplay feature in general and present in all sorts of games from survival to RPG it's hard to implement without addressing the outcome of failure.

Your idea is currently a way to balance rest( a good take at it ) and a good one as long as the player succeeds. But what do we offer for failure? Walking around.Or restarting the last few fights now that we know them. That's why it could be a thing in the current version of BG3 even without polishing some of it rought ends admitting you know the fights hence why on "Hard" or "Insane" it could become a feature. Admitting it's aimed at people who accept punishment as a reward.


In conclusion:
If " You play the game the way you want it " and "Failure is part of the fun" are what drives Larian with BG3 then the sleep mechanic could in fact be limited by default regardless of the difficulty type. Admitting NOT spending resources has some incentive for it. Currently not using all spells means: Doing the content slower, getting less exp if you decide not to engage in a fight (cause too many spells needed, and you still have your objective to accomplish).

I think to get actual gameplay value out of resting you need a title built around this very mechanic. BG2 implemented it cause lol why not. Night/day! Yey! Larian did it in BG3 did it and actually asked themselves: why in the actual fuck would we do it? And.... they added discussion with companions only in camp. And some other things happening at camp. It's a good enough way to give the camp a reason to exist.

D&D 5th edition did it and....they have a GM that will tell you what happens if you fail. Did you use all your spells after killing the 3 warlords? Well... you sneak out. You face a goblin patrol, they see you. You run away, make a distraction maybe, run up the mountains and use your last grenade to barry your enemies under rock and dirt, securing your retreat. There's a lot of things you can come up with without killing your entire party in D&D. But as a pc game? You have no idea if you're about to put your players in a situation without outcome. And you can't do that. Unless you aim at hardcore players. In which case see above.

I read my post for the 5th time, I think that's actually the main issue. If you want to limit rest in BG3 that would be one way to do it.

Different rest restrictions on different difficulty levels are a bad idea. How then to design these fights? What level should be the default? Is this location possible to clean in all systems?
In this case, it is not enough to weaken or strengthen the opponents for each encounter. In this case, you have to design all battles separately for each difficulty level.
In most games, when you change the difficulty level, the strength and possibly tactics of the enemies usually change. Their quantity or type is almost never adjusted.

The game itself is clearly not designed for very limited rest. I am not sure if trying to include it at this point really makes sense, it could cause more problems than it's worth.
It is better to design fights so that they use as many resources as possible than try to force the systems into which the game was not designed. As a rule, it doesn't end well without a major overhaul of the game.