Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Short Rest Poll

It will be quite easy to avoid. You don't even have to attack anyone to deal damage to them.
Fall damage is enough. Okay, you can also block it, but there is one thing that cannot be blocked sensibly.
These are surface damage. It's hard for it to actually loss approval for obvious reasons.

Again, such a system can be complicated because it would have to consider different classes.
As for me, a lot of work and the profit from it is practically none.

It will be surprising if the rest is somehow limited in the end, because it completely contradicts how most developers have been designing games for over 20 years.
If you look at the most popular crpg, most of the time the rest restrictions are quite poor (not being able to rest when enemies are nearby, that's no restriction).
There have been a few games that have tried to implement these restrictions, but in the end, if the game got a sequel, these restrictions were virtually removed, or at least severely limited.
Even the newest Pahtfinder can be such an example.
Compared to the first game, in WotR you have practically endless rests.
Sometimes the game even forces you to rest a dozen times to unlock quests, because for some strange reason they appear after a certain amount of time.

Surfaces only cause damage because the party is stupid enough to walk into them. This is something they need to fix anyway. Any surface you walk into that injures you SHOULD be a trap, which is a legit form of damage that shouldn't lower relationship points.

And why would such a system have to consider different classes? Keep it simple stupid.

If total party HP and spell slots is greater than 75%, Resting is locked.
If 25-74%, Short Rest is unlocked.
If less than 25% HP regardless of spell slots used, Long Rest is unlocked.
If approaching serious encounter, and less than 75%, Long Rest is unlocked and party members advise using it before continuing. This only happens the first time you approach the encounter. Use the Long Rest and then back away from the encounter and that's on you.

Example: Astarion, SH, Lae, Gale. Total HP for whole party is max 50. Total spell slots is maybe 10. They fight. Lose 10 HP between them. Used 4 spell slots between them. No rest unlocked because only 20% HP lost altogether and 40% spell slots. A bit more HP lost and Short Rest would be unlocked. They fight again. 20 HP lost and 3 more spell slots. Short Rest unlocked. Gale can now use Arcane Recovery, and party can use Hit Dice to gain HP back. Lae gets Action Surge and Second Wind again. SH gets Channel Divinity back. They fight and lose 40 HP. Long rest unlocked.

They fight the next day. Bam! Tough fight against gnolls. They have 25 HP left between them. Short Rest unlocked. They don't use it. They approach the Gith patrol. SH stops them. "I have a bad feeling about this. We should maybe rest before going there." Long Rest unlocks.

Personally I adore Deadire. Yea the main storyline is so so and very short HOWEVER that is NOT how to play this game. I clearly was designed for you to explore the lore and get immersed in the world; and it works beautifully at that. When I play this game I completely ignore the main storyline lol. You have a boat load of stuff to explore and discover. And its my favorite looking crpg ever; even more so than BG3.

I adore Deadfire as well - it's relative lack of success is really sad. I even like the main story - I can see why some people don't (in the end you don't really affect the outcome much), but I really love the plot and the involvement in the Gods. Given the PoE 1 relevation it is a bit ironic that the gods in Deadfire feel more like gods than in pretty much every other cRPG I played.

The problem with Deathfire is that the story is terribly short. From what I remember, there are only 3-4 main missions.
The rest is swimming around the islands.
I hope they will abandon this pseudo-philosophical writing in the next game, it was tiring for the first game.
After all, the game is still several times better than the first PoE.

I had the misfortune of playing a cleric of Eothas in PoE and it really became a detriment to my enjoying both stories considering how integral Eothas is to the setting, and in the second game. The story kind of encourages you to have a certain view of the gods that I had been earnestly roleplaying against (unwittingly), but without really giving the options to you to come around to it gradually, like what happens in your Magran companion's story.

I recently replayed Deadfire again because I never played the ending with the added content, it still didn't quite hack it. It felt like anything, like the endings to the move A.I. or Bioshock Infinite, the story became so ungrounded that it kind of implodes into itself.

Josh Sawyer has some good talks about Pillars and Deadfire where I think he cops to a lot of the shortcomings in the story. The biggest thing I remember were the points he made about how the factions in Deadfire are very interesting, but aren't really tied to the main story, meaning that interest in the world can run counter to the narrative's impetus. Of course, considering how the game ends, maybe they were trying to make a point about temporal concerns.

This is the one I remember at around 26:30 he gets into the post-mortem Nevermind that, I was just scrubbing through it and it's all pretty much post-mortem

They are about 5 unskippable nods between intro and outro. What I don't understand is why people insist on "swimming around the islands" to not being part of the story - it's quality is on par with unskippable mission, it's really well explores the conflict happening in the region, and sets up important story beats of the Eothas storyline. I have my issues with PoE2 story (mainly lack of development, payoff and potential lack of PC's motivation depending on character you concieve) but it being short is definitely ain't one. The fact that big chunk of it is skippable is something that doesn't offend me in any way.

Do you mean that you feel you are expected to stand in opposition to Gods? I found it to be a common sentiment though I personally never felt that way - it all depends whenever your PC believes that your Kith would be better off without overseers or not. Personally, I found Thaos' argument at the end of PoE1 to be a compelling one - no matter if at the end I agree with him or not. Similarly, Eothas actions in PoE2 don't have to reflect your PCs believes, just as Thaos' didn't have to allign with yours - both characters justify their actions in disturbringly similar way, both bringing destruction to Eora in name of their own greater good. I did a playthrough with a character who remained faithful to gods, and I didn't find it narratively jarring. I imagine, through, that cleric of Eithas might not have enough reactivity to make him feel natural - such perpective should be very unique. Lukcily for me, Durance is such a great character, I can't justify making my PC a cleric.

Not too sure what Soz means here either. Poe2 was basically a story about defending the God's little " Cartel like" operation in the name of fear of change in my feeling ^^ Eothas wanted to give it's freedom back to humanity at the cost of God's power. Still... him being right or not doesn't change much since apparently no one can stop him( As far as I remember there was basically only one outcome and it was Eothas will. Played it so long ago I might be wrong here).

I never really understood the critics around POE2 as it seems to be very similar to Mass Effect series ending critics. People really seem to struggle with " bad" or rather " unchangable no matter what " endings. While the entire game was basically about human struggle with subjugation to much higher powers. If you have strong feeling at the end of the game as long as it's not cringe but rather hate or joy than I think the writer did what he had to. We might be digressing a bit too much from the short rest poll lol.

Well being a priest of a god, I would have imagined learning that there are no gods would have reciprocated a larger response. As for PoE2 the problem was kind of the reverse, my priestess of Eothas was asked to chase down Eothas (to stop him), whose side do they expect me to take? Basically I can choose to end the game there, before being resurrected, or I chase Eothas down to...tell him I'm not interested in stopping him. It's a bigger problem in Deadfire, but I still felt a slightly anachronistic slant to gods, religion and existence, than what I would have thought in Pillars. Or maybe I just remember Deadfire better, because I've played it more recently.

Ngl when you put it like that I kinda laughed. Mostly cause it's true. You assemble an entire team, buy a ship and then you're like " I had my fun Eothas, pull the plug".
You don't learn there are no gods though. They exist it's just they used to be humans. I think we can agree their past as humans is long gone. Might make it weird for a priest but well.

I think that last part is why I was one of the few to love the main story actually. For me at some point gods tell you " Santa doesn't exist". And you have to accept it.

Humans are fallible, gods are not (in their domains anyway) so are there really gods, basically we learn that the gods are making it up as they go along. But I take your point.

I think the anachronistic part I mentioned is that some of the assumptions the gods make (Eothas especially) are based on an expectation of life that exists on our world, but doesn't seem to have existed in theirs. Now I'm making it up as I go along.

Or rather they were made out of Kith's souls. I don't think their nature is completely understood by Watcher. At least their aspects seem to be adopted from individual Kith who lived up to Gods ideals, but I am still not 100% sure how god's conciousness works in PoEs universe. They seem to me to be more like complex constructs (think advanced AI) then individuals who ascended to godhood.

It depends. In Christian religion God is indeed all knowing and infallable, but in Greek/Roman mythology they are certainly flawed (so they are in many others I think). In PoE their aim is to shepard humanity - cosidering Eora works on reincarnation there is no afterlife or "future hope" the aim is for reasonable present and what is best for Kith's future. Are Gods in Eora enforcing order and giving people hope as Thaos claims? If one believed in guidance offered by Gods, learning of how they came to be doesn't necessarily change it. Or does it? I found different answers for different characters.

Look what you made me do:

True enough though I think Fate gives a certain...certainty to the Greek pantheon. As for shepherding humanity, that might be part of it, but ultimately it was to make reincarnation reliable, I'm forgetting if this was an existential threat or just something they'd developed the power to do. I also seem to remember that they modelled themselves after their gods, gods their society had stopped believing in, another interesting wrinkle. Who knows what are their stories, and what are the stories they've adopted...

Of course I'm half-remembering things from a game I played some time ago, so report back to us (and sorry)

P.S. I also happen to be replaying BG:2 right now, make of that what you will

So tie it to food supplies, but include things like Goodberry, and presto, you don't have to manage it at all. You just have to have someone with the spell.

I didn't vote though, because "Leave it alone" wasn't an option.

Back to the point that the food supply system is only a gimmick in it's current implementation.

Spell = spellslots to recover your spellslots
Items = inventory management.

Gameplay-wise it doesn't enhance the resting system at all.

NGL one of the main things BG series lacked compared to D&D tabletop is simply Ironman mode.
When you think of it the entire sleep / short rest system was invented with the idea a GM would " balance " it for the players.
I stated on page #1 how I see short rest/ long rest becoming a tad more interesting mechanics and under what circumstances after me. That said what I said boils down to what robert is saying now: Leave it alone lol.


And I don't see how we can expect more to be done in BG3 seing how you simply HAVE to overcome certain challenges. What good is there in limitting ressource replenishment if you still expect the player to complete certain encounters at all cost if they want to progress the story?

But putting aside the current reality of BG3 I think the long rest / short rest could become way more meaningfull in "Ironman mode" campaigns more similar to how XCOM series worked. D&D " vanillia" tabletop is 100% ironman mode as far as I understand(Correct me if I'm wrong I only played the PC games) so theoratically we're missing a quite vital component. It would change entirely the definition of quests and story line as right now you simply HAVE to overcome certain challenges to progress the story. What if ...you didn't?

XCOM uses a simply idea -> Your ressources recharge "per mission", some conditions impact soldiers between missions, ressources are limited to a certain number per map. In our case it would be spellslots, for xcom those were soldiers skills/grenades. Ammo was infinite and limited to ammo per clip requiring recharding the weapon at some point. The infamous XCOM reputation for being hard AF comes from early stages soldiers squishiness so really the gameplay loop itself isn't related to difficulty that much.

To some extent i can imagine the long rest and short rest system being back " at home" under those conditions. Imagine the hag quest done this way: You leave the druid grove and head to the swamps. Here you talk with aunthie, the swamp reveals it's true nature. You can't long rest for the entirety of the swamp map. Only short rest. Long rest only if you leave the map. You would have to leave eventually if the hag encounter goes south and you can't defeat her anymore.

Let's say you leave the area: That's when you can long rest, the hag? Maybe you can meet her another day. Maybe you can't anymore. She was just a way to achieve the goal not the goal itself. At this point you long rest and keep playing the game(You visit the grove, maybe you keep chasing the hag but naturally she wouldn't be there anymore for instance. So less loot).

The more I write about it the more it boils down to my post on #1 page. I can't convince myself giving any significance to short rest is possible if long rest exists. And it does. Is it a bad thing? Well not that much, it's just the ressource management comes out a bit weird.

Ironman is great. I love it - provided the game is balanced well for it.

In D&D tabletop, of course it's ironman - except you have a DM who can make sure that if he/she threw too much at you, he/she could cut a few monsters in the next encounter or 2, or allow a rest where there normally wouldn't be one.

In tabletop, the DM doesn't normally allow resting except at certain times and places. If they want a true 5e, D&D experience, they need to develop a way to lock resting unless it is needed or it is appropriate.

Neither short and long rest are "meaningfull" in BG3. It's just buttons to heal. You never have to think when, where and/or what you'll do when you'll rest. This is what meaningfull meant to me in a tactical roleplaying game.

P&P long rest = prepare your spells, level up, HP and spellslots recovery, eventually various other activities (RP), eventually food supply, reduce your exhaustion,...

P&P short rest = spend hit dices to recover HP, use some class feature, link items, eventually various other activities.

Larian has only kept
- HP and spellslots recovery (very simplified for short rest)
- they added a very cool RP thing for long rest (companions dialogs)
- they also added a gimmicky food supply system (gimmicky mostly because there are food absolutely everywhere,which mean inventory management more than ressources management).

It's just not enough on top of not being very well done.

Various elements could make rests an important mechanic.
They just simplified it too much compared to P&P and they haven't added enough interresting things to do/to think about related to short or long resting.

They could have, in exemple, kept ritual spells but only when you rest. I.E you can identify items once when you short or long rest. Just another idea of a "various element" that could have made resting meaningfull.

So nice to find someone else who sees PoE2 this way! It's exactly how I approach the game as well, and why I love the game, because I have always wanted a good party-based cRPG where I can afford to pretty much ignore the main quest line for as long as I want and just wander around and do whatever I want without any pressure to follow the script. The problem in PoE2, of course, is that even though the game allows you to do this it really shouldn't, because major God-guy looking to destroy the world as we know it an' all .... So there is that disconnect in the game, and it's understandable this bothers some people.

Interesting take. And one that doesn't undermine the entirety of how it's done in BG3.

Ultimately we will have crafting and that could be tied to the camp encouraging you to get there more often for more " organic" reasons.
Ritual spells at camp would be cool too. Apparently some of them in 5th edition do require some tools so that could spice it up a bit.

There's a rule I usually follow : if you can't hide something then emphasize it. Make it a quality.

So since we can't hide you can go to camp at any time and sleep endlessly at least put more things to do in that camp. Rest will become a " oh btw" thing.

ps: theoratically you can't sleep endlessly, I remember in the oooooooold data mine thread sleeping too often actually can fuck you up. Making the entire clock race thing an actual thing. Those are just speculations based on data mining. If you're interested you would need to go back to threads from 2 years ago. In that light the entire Larian's " Making failing fun " rethoric comes under a completely different light doesn't it.