Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
As someone who doesn't really care much about D&D and likes other ttrpgs far better for varying reasons, I still think you're wrong about the cooldown issue and also about how obscure D&D is. If you ask any person who doesn't play ttrpgs about games they've heard of, D&D will almost certainly be first on the list. I don't think it's the best system by a longshot, and if it changes I would probably be in favour of it purely because there are aspects of it I think really need changing (though rests aren't high on that list for me). But I think you're being hyperbolic and dismissive about the game in a way that's not really fair.

Regarding Baldurs Gate in particular, I think trying to change things as much as you're suggesting isn't feasible because it would probably require tearing a whole lot down and starting from scratch. That is something I can't imagine them being willing to do that at this stage and frankly I doubt that it would be viable at this stage. They may be at a stage where they can tinker with the rest system, but completely replacing it would require going back and reworking a whole host of systems from the ground up, altering everything about the way spellcaster classes play. Then going back to every other class and making sure they're still interesting and fun and worth playing compared to casters. And even then you need to look at casters more as well, making sure that a Warlock still has something to offer compared to a Wizard. If they were thinking about implementing multi-classing, that'll need to be accounted for as well. All of that stuff is perfectly doable, but it would require massive changes to the D&D system that you don't want to be doing at this stage in the games development.

I don't know if your suggestions would actually be objectively better (I've played Solasta and found the rest system and combat in that game far more smooth and enjoyable, same with Pathfinder: Kingmaker which used a rest system as well so I do think a degree of this is simply how Larian chose to implement their system) but I don't think it can be implemented regardless. Plus I do think there's something to be said for the fact Larian has been claiming this to be ass close to the real tabletop experience as they can make it. If they had just said they're adapting the 5E system it'd be simpler but they've made a promise to customers, and deviating as far as your suggestion would be breaking that promise and there'd probably be repurcusions. And it's unreasonable to expect people who came because they were promised a thing not to get mad when the people who made that promise actively choose to go against it. Larian made the promise and got themselves into the situation. Now it's on them to deal with it.
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Seiryu Suta
Originally Posted by fallenj
Fair enough.

I have no clue what your talking about when you mention mechanic from another game. Maybe you miss read my reply.

That's how d&d works along with any other d&d video game I can remember, even pathfinder went this route. It's not a stone age mechanic its just a mechanic some games use. Your abilities are tied to rest, you character gets fatigued and runs out of spells / abilities he can do with-in the day. I already mentioned this in my previous post. Here ill copy / paste it so you can read it again.

I'm encompassing some other things mentioned by others that are on my mind the same time, that I am giving a more direct response.

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
I completely disagree with the OP. If Larian implemented this, they might just as well throw the whole ruleset out of the window.
This is why D&D stays in obscurity, or reverts back to it. Statements or points of view that say "we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater".

@everything else going on, that I've needed more time to comment on.

Rest resetting has evolved even in the PnP setting. The PnP setting got more fast paced, as some others have gotten interested in it. Since it has, it has added a short rest for even that setting. D&D has modernized itself on the PnP side. Adapting a mechanic to the video game landscape, is the logical thing to do. They tried to stay as true as possible to the system for DDO, and even there they adopted a mana system, which lets you spam spells. At least cooldowns limit them. Combat usually does not extend past 5 rounds. Cooldowns lasting 4-5 turns limit them to 1 time per battle, this makes it serve the same purpose as the rest reset mechanic. As a matter of fact you can balance it even better, because you can make higher level spells/abilities more restricted. Spellslots would allow me to actually spam a spell back to back, as long as I have them available, and is less strategic overall. Cooldowns serve the same exact purpose of balance, that rest resets do, except they do it better. What reason is there to keep rest resets other than "that's the ruleset bro". Once upon a time there was 4E too, which was the worst thing WotC ever produced.

Because it was cherrypicked out again, I will address it AGAIN. My statement about popularity, wasn't that it should be implemented because its popular. I stated I'd like a D&D based game to actually be popular enough for it to get a successful franchise. That is why it is a relevant statement, because I'd like more content to become available. I firmly believe those games are more popular because of that mechanic, not that the popular games just use them. Sticking to things because, "that's just the way we've always done it", is a terrible reason. What holds back the D&D inspired games from actually being received by a wider audience? Is it the stories? Nope, I think the D&D based ones have some of the most interesting/epic storylines. Is it cuz peeps don't play RPGs? Nope, definitely not that one. Is it the barrier to entry. Maybe, character creation, leveling and advancement is slightly more confusing than other games out there, but then again there are games that are even more min/max that have popularity. Is it because the gameplay sucks or its clunky? Nope, D&D nails combat. Is it because it loses fun factor because it has laborious chore like mechanics, that don't translate to the medium of PnP to cRPG well. Pretty sure that's the reason. I would even argue that a lot of you arguing against it prefer cooldown mechanics, but just don't want them in this game cuz you want a true to life ruleset, even if it makes parts of the game less fun. Sounds masochistic to me.

What really happens if we use Cooldowns instead of Rest Resetting spell availability?
1. The same effect of balance. Better balancing overall, because you can fine tune it better. Rest resetting is a sledgehammer approach, mana is a slightly smaller/bigger hammer depending on how you look at it approach, and cooldowns are a dagger approach.
2. You can still keep rest mechanics. You can still make some spells restricted to 1/day.
3. Your character can have a more realistic day/night rest cycle.
4. Combat becomes more strategic, because you have to use more than 1 spell you really like from each level.
5. We could get a Day/night cycle, that we can't control. This adds so much more RP value.

What happens if we don't change them.
1. AA slog battles.
2. Not being able to really appreciate your character in battle, always having to force yourself to hold back, and never truly being able to just unload on an enemy.
3. Rest cycles are entirely unrealistic.
4. You cant fine tune balance, meaning once we get to level 20 in this game or future expansions, all combat will be a slog, and or completely irrelevant, and/or those levels will continue to be locked off, because gameplay at those levels is just bleh.

What happens if options that have been suggested, are added on top of this poor mechanic.
5. Day/Night cycles will be so fast they will be unrealistic, or so slow that you have to sit around and wait for night time just so you can rest.
6. If you make it limited to 1 rest per 2hrs of play, you are forcing people to sit around and wait, creating even more of a negative experience for them, and making the game get bad reviews.

In closing, you can achieve better balancing, and you can implement a more meaningful resting mechanic, when it is not tied to skill/spell availability. That more meaningful rest mechanic will have actual roleplay value. You could add a day night cycle, that can make the game more immersive. You can add in an actual time into the games, that is impactful and meaningful. You can actually improve the overall experience, and implement more things and not have them be negatives, but positives.

If you're going to counter point this, at least give real reasons, and discuss in good faith.

In this case, why even wait for cooldowns? Why not just reset spell slots at the end of combat?

Quote
I would even argue that a lot of you arguing against it prefer cooldown mechanics, but just don't want them in this game cuz you want a true to life ruleset, even if it makes parts of the game less fun. Sounds masochistic to me.

It's pretty hyperbole to say that clicking a few times is masochistic. I prefer mechanics that make for meaningful and engaging combat.

Take Fire Emblem for example, Combat Arts are limited by a weapons durability. So the player has to manage the risk/reward with Combat Arts, if you break the weapon you need to repair it or buy a new one outside of battle. It's very engaging and completely cooldown free. Abilities/Spells have a limited use at the start of combat similar to DnD. (In Fire Emblem the player starts out with significantly more uses, it's like having more spell slots). The games are fun and combat is tied to skill/spell availability.

Outside of combat the player has a significant rest period, where they can repair weapons, catch fish, cook dishes, etc. etc.

So we have a lot more options to change the game, than what has been implied. We have the option to increase spell slots for casters to adapt DnD 5e better to a videogame setting. We have the option to give the player an item that can restore a spell slot. We could talk about long rest having mini-games itself. The most important thing, whether it's through long rest or not is that the player has meaningful and engaging choices about it. (There probably are more options besides implementing cooldowns).

And I don't really see how cooldowns would improve player choices, if anything they would be the same as the game currently is (sans a few mouse clicks).

The current issue is: repeatedly using long rest to get spell slots back feels like a chore and combat is balanced to where the player feels the need to do this between every encounter.

As others have stated, rebalancing combat can improve this issue. But I do agree with you as well, it can be fun to put your best spells forward. That would go back to other options to replenish spell slots or increasing the total. (While moving long rest to safe zones only).

Love how peeps just throw words around. Hyperbolic....about what? Since both of you used it, and 1 actually put a face to it. When I say masochistic, I meant causing yourself undue harm, for no other reason to do it to yourself. (Harm in this context means creating a laborious act, in order to feel what....more true to life? It seems to just suck joy away from the game for no real benefit.)

Dismissive of the game? Again throwing words around. How am I dismissing the game? You are the ones that are being dismissive. There hasn't been a D&D ruleset game yet that has tried to change to a cooldown system. You all keep naming games that didn't, that didn't do anything for creating a real fan base. So maybe, especially since there's Solasta that is also in in EA already doing the true to life ruleset, we could....idk try testing out something a little different and see which game does better.

Saying we might as well just reset spellslots after battle, is actually being hyperbolic. We're throwing the baby out with the bathwater again. Cooldowns provide in combat balancing. Rest resets don't do all that much to balance in combat, just length of combat. Like I said its a sledgehammer approach.

Again I go back to the point resting in unrealistic timeframes is immersion breaking. This is something everyone seems to be able to see on the other end of the scope of not having to rest at all, which again would be your choice not to RP it yourself, but don't see how constantly doing it does. It also downgrades the whole meaningful experience that camping should be to a few clicks.

The best way I can think of to explain this is that the rest mechanic as it stands having spell/skill availability tied to it is a vampire, sucking the enjoyment out of the things it touches.

Again I will also address, maybe there are some that don't mind the rest mechanic, or maybe they even like it, however most people obviously do not.

As far as Fire Emblem goes, I've never heard of it, so I cant comment too much, but from some quick research, there isn't a "rest mechanic" just downtime in-between. The only "resting" thing I found on that quick search was to get a 50-100% XP boost to your students. Which is quite funny, as it is something I said I'd be in favor of for rest mechanics. Of course there should be downtime, would be nice to have some downtime features, like I mentioned in another post having a city management option for the goblin village and/or druid grove. Have it completely side quest, that got some very dismissive responses. Hey you don't have to play it, but I like having some other game features besides just punching people in the face, if I cant talk to them or buy something from them.

Love how I've actually spent time trying to discuss this, and actually make a case, and point things out, and I'm the one that gets called dismissive, hyperbolic, flamebaity, etc. Yet, not a lot of the responses have actually offered up more than just those types of comments.