Disclaimer: After completing 2 full playthroughs of BG3 EA I think I can safely say I like the game quite a lot (and I'm someone who doesn't like turn based RPGs) but I also think there's room for improvement. One of the issues I have is that I think the game has a pretty huge problem with the the infamous "5 minute adventuring day" issue.

The meaning of the notion: As those who play tabletop D&D undoubtedly know, the "5 minute adventuring day" issue is the situation that happens when (usually inexperienced) DMs allow parties to rest more frequently than they should. This is a problem because the game is supposed to be ballanced around the party having having from 6 to 8 encounters per day forcing players to manage their resources to stay effective during the adventuring day instead of buring all of their rechargeable powers (i.e. "going nova") even when faced with minor encounters and then resting. This is also an issue because certain classes like the fighter and to a lesser extent the rogue are meant to be more reliable than others who instead enjoy stronger "power surges".

The issue in BG3: After playing the game for a considerable amount of time and testing things a little I found out 2 things. (1) You can successfully manage your resources and have several consecutive encounters in BG3 without being forced to resort to a long rest. (2) There's pratically no incentive of any kind to do so, as resting after each encounter makes you way more effective in combat because you can burn all of your rechargeable powers in one go without consequence.

Why it is a problem: Again, 2 reasons. (1) This kind of "playstyle" risk destroying suspension of disbelief as your party of adventurers supposedly on a urgent timeframe (having time bombs set into their brains) wastes days at camp after every minor skirmish, which is admittedly not a very heroic behaviour and makes little sense considering they don't know how much time they have before turning into mind flayers. (2) This risks making some classes like the fighter difficult or even impossible to ballance when compared with other classes covering similar roles, namely the barbarian and the paladin, because those classes have abilities that allow them to greatly outperform fighters on the span of the single encounter (rage and divine smite are the powers that make these classes become better fighters than the fighter on the span of a short adventuring day).

How can the problem be solved?: I have 3 suggestions.
1. Introduce more areas where resting is impossible as you did with auntie Ethel's dungeon. If a player is forced to backtrack for a long time and has to invest time doing so he's less likely to just run out rest and come back. If they do so anyway consider respawning monsters into the area, reducing (or not giving) xp for their defeat.
2. Make time count. Again, this is already partially in the game as seen with the events of Waukeen rest. If players rest before completing a time sensitive mission consequences should be a given soing as far as causing sidequests to fail and main quest to incur into setbacks and complications.
3. Make resting at camp less secure than it is now. Set a counter on the number of times certain parties rest and make those who spend way too much time at camp more likely to be attacked losing the benefits of rest altogether. Also, make resting from more dangerous zones like the putrid bog or the underdark more dangerous than doing so from a safe zone like Silvanus Grove or the Goblin Camp (as long as you are on friendly terms with the denziens, of course).

I believe that by implementing these changes the game will become more well rounded and offer a better experience over all, but I'd love to hear from other players here if they had the same experience as me and if they think resting after every encounter is a problem or not for BG3.

Is there some reason that you feel compelled to participate in this? I mean, if it's happening in your SP campaign, it's happening because you allow it to happen. I don't do this, I tend to rest when my session is over. I use food for healing after fights, and I try to not expend all my "Oh crap" spells, just in case something big comes up. What I find hard to believe is that someone in France doing this is going to somehow adversely affect someone in Canada. Especially if they're not in a MP session together. To me, this is akin to being upset that someone rolled up a female Drow wizard, when everyone knows that only male Woodelves can be wizards. In other words, this "issue" is really a non-issue, because if one is dead set against it, they are more than free to not do it. It's not like the game forces it on us, after all.

So no, I don't think that George resting after every encounter is a problem, if that's the only way George can play. George did, after all, spend his money on the game, the same as I did. I think it's a rather silly mechanic, and won't be using it, but I'm certainly not going to be prepping up the bonfires, and sharpening the pitchforks over it either.

It is a problem because it shows that Larian has not properly paced and balanced the game.

I believe that forcing the players to "act the way you want" is not the way to go and because there's no day/night timeframe/clock, it would take a significant rework of the application (per 5e you can only benefit from a long rest once every 24 hours).
Like you mentioned in your post "You can successfully manage your resources and have several consecutive encounters in BG3 without being forced to resort to a long rest." which means that you tried that play style. I do the same thing on purpose, extend my time between long rests, because I like playing as if this was a PnP game. However, there are times when I've gotten my self into a jam and needed to have a long rest. Having the option of a long rest at any time, made the game more enjoyable for me. There are those that will "abuse" this option/ability but that's entirely up to them. As another example, there are MMORPG games where you would die and you can simply respawn. I've played in groups where the players would not respawn and either wait for a good samaritan to rez them and some groups that play permadeath (even though they don't have to). Leave it up to the players how they would most enjoy the game and not force them to play as you feel it should be played.

How so? As I stated, I only do Long Rests at the end of my playing sessions, meaning that it's entirely possible to play a lot longer than 5 minutes between long rests, like 4-5 hours longer.

This "issue" seems a lot more like "I don't like that someone else may do it", and someone else is likely to, than any real problem with the mechanic. I think I've only ever used Short Rest like 3 times. So no, I'm not seeing it.

I like restricting rests, but not in a way that causes monsters to respawn (I feel like that would potentially generate a lot of trash fights, since you won't respawn bosses/special encounters). Regardless, doing the same fights again is always boring (feels like a reload punishment).

Maybe instead, it's a set of skill-checks for you to get back to camp (depends on where you are). A combination of survival (if in nature), stealth, perception, etc. Potential random encounters due to failure. Interesting opportunities if critical success (i.e. ambush the ambushers, etc).

The only other thing we have to take into consideration is the current "teleportation" system. Maybe it's disabled within the dungeon, and a skill check is required to use (simulating a stealthy escape), or a monetary cost is required (a teleportation stone you have to buy).




I personally don't mind this one too (as long as it's not the entire game), but I know there are people who absolutely hate timed-scenarios. Just the idea of "time-limits" break certain people - I remember the Chapter 1 complaint threads in Kingmaker (despite the game giving you far more time than you actually will need).

I think this will work well if failure leads to an interesting scenario instead of game over - i.e. Disco Elysium




I think the idea that there's a skillcheck to get back to camp will accomplish this. This lets Larian get away with using 1x Camp location instead of having to design a new one for every new area.

I don't know why people want random encounter so much. They don't matter as long as you can save and load the game without restriction.
This will end up the same as in the old games where you were just loading the game when you attacked (usually you rested when your characters were weak / had no spell slots).

With all due respect, if we have to think like this there is no reason to improve the game outside bugs and crashes.
Is there an unbalanced class? Don't use it.
Is there an unbalanced spell? Don't use it.
Is there an unbalanced mechanic? Don't use it.

Is this an unbalanced game? Don't play it.

Hold up. Where do you get this notion from? 6 to 8 encounters sounds way to much....

-edit-
Nvm, found it. Page 84 of the DMG.

You know what the problem about holding onto that number of 6 to 8 encounters is though? It assumes that the encounters are medium to hard in their difficulty.

And let me just tell you this. Not a single encounter in this game currently falls into that category.at the levels that you approach them. Some of the gobbo fights could be hard if you approach them at lvl 4 but aside from that.... Hard to deadly is all we get. So the number of 6 to 8 is also not realistic

Except that we do have a MP component? On the other hand, this isn't an MMO, and someone resting after an encounter has absolutely no effect on my gameplay. A bug with saves? Yep, needs to be fixed, as that will adversely affect my gameplay. A bug with how a spell is supposed to work, yep, needs to be fixed, it can adversely affect my gameplay. Saving during combat, or changing armor? Yeah, that's not supposed to be a thing, but since I won't do it, because I don't think it should be a thing doesn't mean it's going to break my gameplay when I don't. George resting after every encounter in a SP game? Who's George? But from where I'm sitting, this is more about that fictional George. After all, he might be able to beat the game doing that, and we can't have that, right?

The other side of this argument is that we don't have all the difficulties yet, and we don't know, for sure, how they're going to treat any of these things. Now, I'm all for removing all but the hardcore difficulty after release. I mean, I played all of the DA games on Nightmare right out of the gate, why should anyone else be able to have an easier time of it. /sarcasm, except the part where I played on Nightmare. There are things that need to be fixed. This is a thing that isn't broken. This is a thing that may well be part of this difficulty, but won't work in harder ones, which will be fine too. But right now, when the idea is to get a feel for how players are making it through the game, not so much. Because this kind of thing may well show that it needs to be adjusted for higher difficulties, or even this one on release, if there are lower difficulties. But expecting everyone to be hardcore is defeating the purpose of EA, because you can bet that there will be non hardcore players after release, and the game has to be balanced for them too.

I've seen this discussion crop up a number of times and wondered why no one has suggested just implementing a hard cooldown for long rests. It would be very easy to incorporate into the current tutorial on resting and would eliminate the problem of rest-spamming while allowing folks to wait out the CD if they have to (which honestly isn't likely, given the availability of healing in the game).

The problem with sensible mechanics like hard limits on rests is that these days these are the sort of things that make Polygon/Kotaku game journalists cry "IMPOSSIBLE TO PROGRESS! ELITISM! GATEKEEPING!" and write articles against your game.
You know, like the whole Sekiro debacle.

The good news is that no one really gives a fuck. It's just the gaming press nodding knowingly and patting each others on the back for being terrible with games.

The game does not have to be adjusted to the same number of fights as P&P. I would even say it shouldn't. In the game, you don't have DMs that can help your team adjust fights to their skill or luck. Combating AI is ruthless in this regard, and will incessantly punish the player for poor build or team composition.
The fights cannot be too easy, otherwise some players will get bored instantly or too difficult for the same reason.
How often you need to rest depends primarily on your build and party composition. Not every player will know (and shouldn't) how to optimally develop the character.
Most likely, he will also choose the companions he likes the most (some of them have really bad stats).
The player cannot get to the point where he cannot do anything.
Let's add the difficulty levels to that and we have a problem if we suddenly introduce a rest limit.
Most likely players will rest every 3-4 fights on normal level, on the highest difficulty level I suspect it will be 1-2.

It actively encourages people to use alt + tab instead of playing the game.

I am not sure how I feel about this. At higher levels I would probably prefer some sort of limit for long rests, but definitely not a timer. My irl time shouldn't be wasted by in game time, and if I had a rough fight then I would have to wait it out.

If there was some story development though - that would be nice. Would raise the stakes for each fight.

It is not a good idea. If they tried something like this, players would feel they had to hurry, and most likely most people would hate it.
It's not without reason that it's hard to find a game that actually introduces such a mechanic.
Most players prefer to play at their own pace.

Yeah, true. Plus, if you limiting it to only high difficulties then you are spending resources on something most players won't see.

You know I remember back in High School tag teaming Ninja Gaiden Black with my best friend, I did the bosses he did all the platform jumpy shit I was (and still am) terrible at. Loved it, it was a great week and a ton of fun. Then there was the original Dark Souls. I didn't realize I was supposed to run by that fat bastard boss in the tiny room filled with jars so I spent five hours getting the timing right to beat him down with a sword handle only to be rewarded with some jenky mallet I couldn't even wield. Hated it, loathed every moment but I was determined not to give up simply because it was difficult. I promptly quit as soon as I beat the encounter.

You never know where someone is going to get their greatest joy in a video game, or which game will be someone's introduction to the genre. I say let it ride, allow people to sleep as often as they like. The needs of those who can't get by without relying upon their spells I think outweigh the desires of those worrying about how someone else may be playing.

Kingmaker didn't have any "hard limit" on camping (Pathfinder's equivalent of long rest) but it was absolutely brilliant at giving you plenty of reasons to not abuse it.
Well, sometimes it was brilliant, at least. Other times it was admittedly a bit of a prick.

Maybe it is, when someone mentioned the time limit in pathfinder I took a look at the forums and it wasn't the most-liked feature and this is still quite a niche game.
I can only imagine what would happen on the bg3 forums.

I don't think that limiting resting is to ask all the player to be hardcore. It's to ask the game to be balanced, as the PnP version played by thousands of non-hardcore ordinary peoples.
If you (Larian) say this is a game based on D&D rules, you must be aware of the D&D balance. Saying "just don't rest so often" is a weak argument because you are not resolving the game flaw, you are just ignoring it. Besides, as I said, you can apply this reasoning to every non-bug-related aspect of the game.
I don't want to speak for you, but I think no-one is willing to pay 60€ for a flawed game and playing it pretending said flaws aren't there.

As always Tuco, you are my hero.

I dunno... I used to rest after every encounter in the old BG games. I guess because it's the original games it's fine there

Lterally all of us here have done precisely that.

@robertthebard: I'm not saying the game needs to be more difficult. I'm saying I believe the current system makes rest spamming absolutely risk free and therefore (1) it weakens the game premise ("Yes we had Illithid tadpoles implanted into our brains and didn't know when we could be turned into horrible tentacled monsters. How much time did we spend exploring the ruins near Silvanus' Grove? Two weeks. It might seem like a long time but as my father used to say, when adevnturing you can never be too careful...") and (2) it makes ballancing certain classes really hard because if Larian keeps barbarians and paladins (just to name a couple) as they are they will simply be much better than fighters due to their internal mechanics. Also note that the solutions I suggested and those some other people put forward as well hardly amount at just making the game difficult for the shake of difficult. Those ideas are soft limits that can even be used to improve the gameplay experience.

@Topgoon: Really good idea about having a secret roll based on the party abilities before they can get to camp. Also yes, instant teleportation is another issue that needs to be looked into (although it helps avoiding some cumbersome unavoidable fights, like in Goblin Camp after you killed the 3 leaders). I also completely agree with the notion "random encounters" could be used to improve the gaming experience or even advancing gameplay.

@Demoulius: true, BG3 takes many liberties with monsters making them stronger than they would be in D&D and that's needed to an extent. I'm not saying you should never rest though I'm saying the game should implement soft counters for resting after every single encounter.

@Contra: that could work too but only if the game provides players with other stuff to do while they wait for the CD to expire.

The problem with D&D balance is that the game doesn't have DM.

The real problem with Pathfinder is that it mixed rather forgiving and brilliant implementations of this feature with some unfair ones.

As an example of the former, your first major goal in the game is to kill/dethrone a robber baron and take control of a region. If you accomplish it under a month (which is vaguely challenging but still enough to explore everything in that area) you'll get a luxurious extra reward (the first +2 sword in the game).
The hard limit to reach the same goal before a straight game over, instead, it's three months. And you'd have to go REEEAAAALLY out of your way to waste that much time.

As an example of the latter, on the other hand, later in game there are occasional HIDDEN doomclocks that can lead to a game over if ignored and the player is not even fully aware of their existence.
THESE are the ones people got angry about.

On top of that, once you become Baron of the first region, you'll start a side minigame of "Kingdom management" and that could lead to unexpected game overs as well if you make poor decisions. Needless to say, people were super-pissed about that too (but they made it easier since the original launch).

Resting has no real consequences or roadbumps to stop you from spamming it. At worst you can just fast travel to a place you can rest no doubt. I basically didn't use any short rests in my 2nd playthrough and just used long rests all the time.

Got to the druid grove after 8ish long rests. Did a long rest after fight. 9 long rests in. Took my character 9 days to get there with 0 consequence I suppose.

Probably a couple of months before I got to underdark.

I can see a resource being days you have. Which makes sense thematically and discourages long rest spam. While leaving it up to you when you can use it. It makes sense, is thematic and up to you the player. Right now it's just free healing.

Why exactly do we need to force the number of rests? What's preventing characters to do nothing for 24 hours? If the number of rests were connected to the story then sure, but a lot of people hate time limits. It's a single player role-playing game without "ironman" mode, so just roleplay according to your standards.

Ah, but it is not a single player role-playing game. One of the significant parts about Larian games is that they have strong multiplayer support, a trend which BG3 continues and even builds on.

So what happens when, in multiplayer, one player chooses a wizard and one player chooses a fighter/barbarian? The allowance for infinite rests means that the wizard can just have so much more to do every fight. It's a big unfair to the person playing fighter, yes?

Sure, but you could just discuss with your friends whether you should rest or not - it is not like you'll be playing with strangers.

I mean, probably? Idk how many people just join random games, but it's definitely non-zero as I've seen open lobbies in DOS2 and/or know of discords for playing with strangers.

I 100% agree that there needs to be a reason to NOT long rest. Right now there is no difference between a short rest recharge and long rest recharge power because under almost every situation you can just do a long rest. On top of that you only get a single short rest per long rest meaning you have no in game reason to NOT long rest. So, yes, I agree this is an issue in the game, but I do not really like any of the ideas presented here.

Personally I would love to see the PnP hit die mechanic added to the game, allowing for more frequent short rests, but limiting the amount of healing you can get from short rests.

I am not really sure what to do about long rests as there are many solutions, each with their own pro's and con's. Perhaps a solution could be a concept of milestones that can grant 'long rest tokens'. You would only be able to travel to your camp if you expend one of these 'long rest tokens'. You could gain them (or grain progress towards them) from a whole host of things: Quest progressions, combat completions, experience earned, etc....

With the addition of hit die mechanics and limiting how often you can long rest it would be possible allow for more flavor in how players can chose to play. They can play a party that favors short rest powers, or a party that favors spell slot rationing. In the end this could increase the potential ways to play the game.

All in all, the resting system needs to be tweaked and I think increasing the frequency of short rests is the proper way to go to distinguish between the different classes and game play styles.

Did it not occur to you for a second that maybe actual rest system is simply not in yet?

Mind blowing revelation, I know.

Well, I guess we'll know when Larian will starts talking about it.

They are busy making the game, not explaining obvious shit to people every step.

Rest, as it's now, quite obviously won't stay for actual launch. It exists in current form so we could actually play, but it's pretty clear it's a major WIP there with them deciding/working on exact limitations and triggers. There are already spots in EA as is where long rest does not work and you need to go to safe area to actually do it - Hag's den for one, pretty clearly they are considering at the very least area-based restrictions, but I bet there will be more to that too, whether it's some sort of limited resource for resting or some other solution they will come up with.

The thing is, it's simply not done yet, clearly. Mommy and Daddy Larian does not need to come out and state the obvious.

You might have noticed in the very first post of this thread I mentioned the fact some minor limitations to rest spamming are already in the game. At the same time I'm not so confident the resting system will be overhauled but if that's what ends happening then I'll be happy.

Debating on rest mechanics is very polarizing.

Some have fun in quick games, short burst of fun.
Others want to blow through the game.
You have the mechanics junkies, who analyze and want to complete everything single thing.
Why others want to get immersed in the world, taking it slowly.

All need different resting mechanics to satisfy everyone.

I personally liked the BG2 way. Can't rest in some areas (in cities the guards tell you to go to an Inn, but there were ways to go around that...). In the wild there is a chance for a random encounter scripted to that particular area -
I think it was both quick and immersive.

Also I would think that different resting mechanics could be very easily modded in.

There's nothing to "overhaul" there - the bloody thing ain't ready yet, that's clear as a day.

No, they won't let you pop long rest after every silly 3 goblins or 4 gnolls encounter, unless it will be a story mode difficulty. How exactly they limit it, now that's a better question and I hope they will figure out a good solution there.

BG2, with all its merit, was also VERY lenient with rest abuse.
In some way, despise the (negligible) risk of random encounters* it was even more abusable than in this game, since it didn't even require to load a different area as a minor inconvenience.

*Risk that could be sidestepped entirely just quicksaving before a rest and trying again if things went poorly.

I mean only if you're actively trying to go to camp after every battle, which there is no reason to do unless you're being supremely lazy with the resources the game gives you.

Well, I've seen people here BRAGGING about their habit to rest after each single minor fight.
Which is weird, because it sounds like an unnecessary, contrived, incredibly tedious form of game masochism.

In the next thread, players asked how to motivate the player to relax in the camp, since theoretically you can go through the entire first act without going to bed (except for a party with tieflings or goblins) and skip all the important events in the camp. I did not find the opportunity for a short and long rest immediately, it was not in the tutorial. I think Larian needs to think about how often the player should rest in the camp, and help him to act correctly

At this point in the iteration of gameplay there is nothing stopping you from resting after every fight. Making short rests useless and saving spells and abilities pointless. There needs to be at least a configurable difficulty to limit this otherwise why not use the best tactic. Players acting all big, tough and superior for not resting, butnwithout restriction it means 0

My suggestion is create an "iron ration" that you need for a long rest and limit when you reward them, for story beats that would be like 4-6 encounters. Each long rest needs an Iron Ration and since they are limited, Long Rests become valuable. Need to bump of short rests to like 3 between a long rest.

Of course, if you are going to limit long rests, you will need to rebalance the encounters so they are not all hard / deadly.

Again, it was my impression that allowing for frequent rests are by design.

A lot of the plot elements are tied to the camp which is why there's just one short rest and combat is on the more difficult side. This encourages you to return to camp often, and in turn allows these plot elements to progress.

And we'll have even more companions in the final game, and they'll want you to juggle your party around frequently. So you'll have their plot elements to push forward, camp NPCs, pets, etc. before having to decide on our final 3 companions by the end of Act I.

It does seem like the number of long rests is by design. I was getting story content all the way the way through my last playthrough, and I feel like it explored everything.
Also I tend to limit them because I'm afraid there is some potential consequence, like that tadpole might actually burst through if you take to long.
Or worse yet, Gale insists on eating another one of my blue magic items.

In Baldur's Gate (the 1st game, Enhanced Edition), one can rest after every fight as well. At least on normal difficulty setting.

This is something that has to be adjustable based on player preferences, in something like a difficulty settings: allow endless rest & no pressure, or set limits.

Nothing can please everyone except customizable settings.

If short rests arent limited to 1 per day we wouldnt need as many rests either. Short rests regain you hp, some abilities (depending on class ofcourse) and would have often times sufficed for my rest. Favt that short rests are limited to 1 per day is just weird. And I do feel that the amount should br limited. Just not to 1.

Maybe 2 or a maximum of 3 could work without breaking the fliw of the game?

What if the player gets stuck and cannot rest, being on the verge of death / before an extremely difficult fight?
Read my previous post why this won't work.

It would be easy to reset counters allowing rest before "boss fights" (possibly on lower difficulty settings though)

Well, not every tough fight is a boss. It's hard to say what will be a difficult fight for some people. I had no problems with the minotaurs myself, but the fight with the goblin leader was extremely unpleasant.
There is a reason why PoE2 doesn't have rest restriction items, unlike PoE1

Instead of having artificial limits just have the tadpole growing be an actual danger. (+the need items to rest mechanic).

Why introduce a mechanic that is disliked by most players? First of all, it is a game and should be fun.

Well the whole game premise is about you having a time bomb lodged into your brain and desperately searching for a way to remove it before it kills you. I'm not saying the game should have hard set time limits like in PF:Kingmaker (which I considered completely fine btw, although the game failed to explain they were in place when it was first released and that could force you to replay huge chunks of the game in order to suceed) just that some limitations for rest-spam whould be implemented otherwise suspension of disbelief is undermined along with internal ballance between classes.

Please no. It would be very unfun. Not "challenging in a fun way". Just frustrating and punishing the player for engaging with side content.

Items needed for rest I can get behind though. And limit the places where you can long rest to areas that are actually safe and/or easily defendable. (Like... in a dungeon - a room with area around it cleared would be ok, but not an open corridor with unexplored rooms nearby. Something like that. In general, maybe require the area around the resting spot to be explored - adventurers wouldn't want to sleep in a completely unfamiliar location where anything could be lurking just a couple steps from the camp.)

I'd really prefer localized long rests where you camp on the actual map. With a chance to be attacked by wandering monsters.

If there has to be a "base camp" that is in a safe mystery location you teleport to, you should only be able to access it from a safe area. If you are not in a safe area, you should take long rests in a makeshift camp. Or find some kind of campsite or shelter, like the Deep Gnome village or Myconic colony.

Then you just increase the difficulty of the fights.
Probably the class balance will be sacrificed for a more enjoyable gameplay.

In games, the problem with time lapse is practically from the beginning.
When the game tells you that you must hurry to kill the evil dragon, otherwise it will burn the city in 99%, you have unlimited time for it. Gamers are used to it.
You can set a time limit even several times greater than needed by the average player, but he will feel that he must hurry.
The consequences themselves could even have a minimal impact on the game, but still most players would not hate it.
Gamers like to play games at their own speed.
Out of curiosity, I looked at a few topics related to pathfinder (I didn't play it myself) and it wasn't a well-liked mechanic, even though the game was aimed at more hardcore RPG fans.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next part would either abandon it completely or make it even less important.

I have a better comparison to PoE1 and PoE2 (I played both of them).
In the first game, the rest was limited to items which, on a higher difficulty level, you could have two with you.
This meant that you often had to go back for more.
As you might expect, it was not pleasant, so it was removed in the next part along with the combat system overhaul. Which didn't help the game anyway.

It would be appropriate for Larian to learn from other developer's mistakes and not try to smash the walls with his head.
Restriction may make sense in terms of role playing and logic, but both them fail with convenience.
Better to use the proven rest systems from previous D&D games than trying to invent a square circle.

This may be the objectively wrong way to play depending on how immersed and slow you take it.

For me the first playthrough was avoid long rests, be super cautious, dont want long rests... I got a tadpole... time is ticking... Got to underdark before I saw the raphael cutscene.

My 2nd playthrough was me just deciding to spam long rests to see what happens. The answer being I got a ton more content since apparently most story stuff is tied to long resting. Even tadpole use is tied to longrests? Didn't know that since I didnt use it in the first playthrough. So the game actively encourages you mechanically and story wise to do long rests. It's all a bit weird considering the whole premise.


With my experience in the 2nd "spam longrest" playthrough I can say 2 things.
It's not tedious at all even with my incredibly awful slow hard drive. Loading back and forth takes little to no time. Personally I found inventory, hotbar and party management a ton more tedious and infuriating if that matters.
It's the best way to heal. You get health back, don't use any resources to do so, get companion cutscenes thus more content and fill spellslots for mages. In essence being at max readiness always.

I'm not sure if people are bragging so much as pointing out how overpowered and unbalanced it is. It can be seen as suboptimal play if you don't use longrests a lot. But that doesn't make sense with the story premise. Yet the story relies on you long resting a lot to see all the cutscenes and get all the camp events.

Pretty sure most D&D games have been really lenient on Resting.

I normally try not to abuse the resting thing by playing like I would play in Table top. I do not cast bless every fight, I use cantrips most times unless I really need to burn down something, my casters have bows if they can use them (IE clerics sacred flame sucks), etc. I only rest when abilities, etc. are depleted and only sleep when the casters are wiped out of spell slots.

Just because a single player game allows spam sleeping, does not mean I have to do it.

My first playthrough I only rested 3 times throughout the entire thing and I missed all of the illithid dialogue stuff. Which is ok I guess, but I would prefer if the game had a proper time cycle and some of that stuff would trigger after a fixed amount of time had passed, rather than being entirely related on when you go to camp. You could then also add exhaustion status effects, for people who go to long without resting, to also encourage going to camp and resting as well.

Id love that as well. I noticed characters mention that they are tired sometimes so I assume some sort of 'tiem progression' effect beeing added at some time. BG1 and 2 also had a day and night cycle. And with the amount of effort that they added to light and visibility beeing in the game a lack of night times would be a real shame imo.

It also opens up tactics for the players that they normally wouldnt have. Raiding the goblin camp at night for example would be alot easier if you want to do the sneaky approach. I did it in the daytime and by the gods is it tedious and a pain in the backside!

Also, some *cough* activities in Baldurs Gate should probably be limited or at least somewhat limited to night time activities in the final game. Chance to be attacked by muggers/bandits should raise when traveling at night and finding certain vendors (like thief guilds for example) could also be tied to night time. A complete lack of it in the final game would be a very big shame!

Balancing in this way is great, in an MMO, where everyone can affect everyone else. But "balance" in this scenario? Not seeing it as an issue, as I said, what George is doing over in Spain has no affect on me here in NA. Speaking of ignoring arguments, what about the argument that in higher difficulties, this feature may not work like it does here, in this one?

"But Rob, it's balanced this way in TT". Of course it is? In TT, there are other people affected by that one player that feels like they have to have a long rest after squashing a few rats. I ask this again, because this is the crux of a "balance" argument: How does whatever George is doing in whatever region adversely affecting you in whatever region you're in? House Rules for MP will cover this adequately, by disallowing it from the start, so that everyone knows it's not going to be a thing, and can base whether they stay in that party or not on that, if it's an issue for them. Hell, we can carry this "balance" argument to the extremes, can't we? Why is there more than one difficulty in games that are fully released? Isn't that "unbalanced", because someone may have an easier time beating an encounter than I did? Which brings me back to my initial argument: The rules are different in different difficulties. Why expect that it would be any different here? So no, I don't see this as a balance thing. I can, and do, completely ignore the fact that you can do it. I also, however, realize that this isn't the final product that's going to "hit the shelves", virtually or otherwise, and don't think it's one of the things they need to spend a lot of time on.

Maybe the simplest "solution" to this "problem" would be to outline the basic rules for each difficulty, with an outline of what each one is. I also think we should have access to monitoring after it goes live, so we can see how many people coming to the forums complaining about it are actually abusing it themselves, in the privacy of their own SP campaign. You know, as a frame of reference for relevance of feedback? Maybe I'm more than a bit skeptical? I mean, I've seen this before. DDO is my best example, where they insisted for years that they needed a higher difficulty because the game was too easy. I was against it, because I knew what would happen. I knew it wouldn't take very long before people insisting they needed this higher difficulty would be calling for nerfs to that difficulty, and it took about 2 weeks for that to come true. I was permanently banned from their forums, initially, for pointing and laughing, and "I told you so".

So yeah, before we start throwing out the bath water, let's be sure the baby's not still in the tub, and that there aren't different rules for this in higher difficulties, which are intended for those that are looking for a challenge.

There's something similar, I guess? Comps will start complaining about being tired. I ignored this initially because of the tadpole, and not knowing what it would mean to rest too often. Now, if it happens when I'm close to done with that character for that session, I'll do my LR, any dialogs that spring up, and then save and quit.

When you can long rest in the middle of the goblin stronghold while in the process of genociding them, is a sign of the current resting mechanics just being temporary.

I would argue Larian should implement a day/night cycle as part of their solution to resting and that this solution should be mindful of the class balance concerns. For me the lack of signs of the passing of time directly detracts from the storyline which dictates there the party is ticking time bombs (twice for Gale).

In games, the passage of time is practically always a conventional thing, not affecting the plot.

The thing I find most troublesome is the incentive to rest to experience party/character story progression. If fewer of those story moments were locked behind the rest mechanic and instead possible to experience out of the camp I wouldn't feel the push to rest more than I actually had to based on my resource use.

The short version of my proposal for resting is a fatigue system based on average distance traveled per party member, and healing received from every source except short resting. You cannot long rest until after you have accumulated a certain amount of fatigue. If you exceed a high threshold of fatigue, you get a point of Exhaustion, and contining to exert yourself will increase your fatigue and exhaustion points until you reach 5, at which point you're forced into a long rest as soon as you're out of combat/conversation. Long rests remove all points of Exhaustion.




This is not a case where "let players play how they want" applies, because it does effect overall game balance. D&D 5e is based on an attrition-based system where resources are depleted over time. It is not balanced around being fully healed and fully charged up for every encounter.

Given that we'll have a party of 4 which will be fixed at that size, that makes every party slot a precious resource which must be filled carefully.

Take the Warlock class. They get almost no spell slots, but they gain them all back after a short rest instead of a long one. In a system where you can only short rest once between long rests, but can long rest at will without limit, that makes Warlocks completely inferior in every way to Wizards. Wizards get a lot more spells known and a lot more spell slots and if they can use all their spells in every encounter and still be charged to fill for the next fight, that gives them no reason to hold back the power.




If Larian has different rules for different difficulty levels in mind, then that needs to be communicated to the player. But based on the things they've said about how many different iterations of rule variations they went through even before EA, I'm pretty sure that Larian does not have any such rules firmly in mind yet. Until such time as Larian communicates on that topic, it's better not to assume there will be any such rules.

I think that a way of dealing with it would be to do like how Pathfinder Kingmaker does it, require rations to rest outside of certain zones like the Grove.
It'd add a level of inventory management too, you'd actually have to plan ahead and it'd add a whole other level to the gameplay.

They could make the food utems count as a ration. Like an apple is 1/4 ration or something. And then remove the part where you can consume to regain hp.

Helps balance resting and the REEEEE'ing people that say food arent hp potions should also be satisfied

This is legendary Baldur's Gate, not just some game. We should expect more, especially given the original title had a day/night mechanic with tangible gameplay effects as well as some time sensitive quests. This is a step down in realism/immersion. Besides the illusion of a thing is oftentimes just as effective as something more tangible.

The lack of visual cues as to time passing has indirectly a profound effect on gameplay even inadvertently. For instance, I played all the way to the druid grove without even a short rest feeling like we were pressed for time and like my real time pretty much corresponded to game/story time. Others rest after each battle, in very close proximity of enemies that should be searching/attacking them, seemingly without issue. This thing needs to be *much* better communicated to the player than it is presently.

I agree that it should ultimately be up to each player to enjoy the game as they see fit. It’s their $60. If someone wants to rest after every battle, who cares, it’s their dime and their time. So what if it’s not the same as 5E or table top. Lorian has never said the rules will be the same as 5E or table top. The game mechanics are BASED on the 5E ruleset not an exact enforcement of the ruleset.

Anyone who has ever played tabletop should know that D&D rules are a base set of rules for a DM to manipulate and change to provide the best play experience for the players. Restricting the ability for people to play BG3 how they enjoy playing the game just because others don’t think it’s right, is the wrong way to design a role playing game. Freedom of choice to do what you want is what it’s all about.

With that said, if John Doe can’t determine a tactical approach to a battle to provide an edge and make the fight easier, that doesn’t mean they should be punished in their play experience by making it even harder by including random encounters while resting. I don’t know how many times during a session of tabletop that a group of new players charged into a battle they should have avoided. As a DM, should I have killed them or made the experience even harder? It’s all about having fun. Not forcing an experience on someone.

I think if players want to include random encounters into the game while resting or just in general while traveling, that could be an added option in the game that a player could enable at the start of the game, but adding this may allow people to exploit experience gains and offset the expected player level per area. But, if someone wanted to employ that exploit, again it’s their dime and their time

That's the real bitch about snipping posts to reply to them, I literally said they should outline the rules for the difficulties and what those are, but, I noticed you managed to snip that out to try to make an "original" argument? WTAF?

I'm not sure if I can say I have really abused the rest mechanic too often in my playthroughs. Sure, maybe every now and then, but not a regular thing. Even maining as a wizard, with a level cap of 4 and limited spells, I did not necessarily have to rest after every 2 battles. I did have to march out of Auntie Ethel's lair after defeating her captives and recharge my heals and spells, but that is really the only time I recall actively having to rest for the reason of my spells/abilities. Very occasionally, I would out of combat take a rest after burning enough misty steps or featherfalls used for exploration or puzzles to prep a different spell. I may have rested to recharge a heal so I could use it on the guy in the tunnel under the druid grove.
Not too sure if this had any effect on my feeling of urgency with the tadpole or not. Probably not, but I am also someone who when playing videogames where there is an urgency put in (get to the hospital, escape the burning buidling or ship), realizes that there is usually a checkpoint that triggers something scripted and takes time to enjoy the set pieces.

@Stabbey This could be an interesting solution despite being a disguised time constraint. There is one major problem and one major benefit I see here.


Let's see how this could work :
In this case we want to have a fatigue treshhold giving you exhaustion points, up to 5. At 5 we go to sleep.

We have a cooldown that you cannot bypass (for now) for long rests. Long rests being the only way to get back your spells as a mage/wizard.
Short rests give us back our hp + special actions.

It brings us to the logic of D&D when you won't long rest twice in a row cause only 2 hours elapsed in your role play. It also forces you to use your spells carefully and to scout before engaging in a fight. You cannot end up in a fight not knowing what awaits you later on. It forces you to use more mechanics from D&D, including certain spells like invisibility( even if it already has an application right now).

Sooner or later you will deplete all your spells. Let's take the goblin camp as an example.

You cleared the gate and sneaked inside. You executed everyone inside. Outside you have 18 enemies awaiting you. You already killed around 20 of them and you're low level so you're in need of replenishing your spells. You have 3 fatigue points(for now we don't know how they are generated).

At this point we are down to short rest and let's go. This encounter is doable with cantrips only for mage and you still have your melee/archer characters that can do the damage. After the fight we have 5 fatigue points. Long rest, and let's go.

The major issue I see here is -> Sooner or later you might end up against the wall with no possible solution.
If you replace the 18 super simple to kill goblins with a boss where your wizard is actually required there is nothing you can do to fight the boss in question. Or rather your mage will be borderline useless during that fight. That will be super difficult all of sudden and might become frustrating. Unless you balance the game around cantrips and melee characters.

You can eventually leave and come back for him later. That would make sense, you're not in power to kill who you want when you want at your level. And that's the wall I'm speaking off. In D&D it would make sense story wise to leave this fight, do something else and you're still playing.

In a PC game you're loosing content. If you have to skip some fights or have serious issues during them because " you're can't rest yet" that would ( based on the current form of BG3) become an issue.

Not sure what you think 'bout it? I love the aspect of resource management in games, I like how it was implemented in hoi4,wasteland 3 or XCOM 2 while it was insaley frustrating in case of Pillars of eternity 1. Those examples I provided are for the most part not even RPG games but it doesn't matter. But they approached the same subject and they were praised for it. Apart from POE1. In bg2 it was ignorable.


I think the solution would be not to limit how often you can replenish your ressources to 100% but where you can do it. I think the best way would be to provide "camping kits" exactly like in POE1 but give you like 5 of them. More than enough to clear one of the zones of the map. After this time you could come back to the town and buy more of them.

Now you made the player come back to the town and...what for exactly? There should be some kind of gameplay there. In wasteland you had your base to manage, upgrades to make etc. In case of BG3 you have items to sell, others to identify( hopefully!). So it would make sense to some extent. But then you're effectively making an illusion of resource management while in reality you're never in the risk of running low on anything. In wasteland it worked because you were buying ammo type for each gun , upgrading them etc. If it sums up to " buy this item 5 times" it will be pointless.

Yes, i have no solution for this. Yours is the closest one to become a good idea BUT we would need to find something for the " wall" i mentioned.

I see that you associate the system with PoE1. You know how annoying and pointless this system was at times. This was especially noticeable when you tried to clear the dungeons under the castle.
Rest-restricting items make no sense in a game where you can return at any time.
In the game we have a fast travel system which, even if it is limited from one point to another, will practically invalidate the possession of items.
In that case, we might as well remove them.

I think my quote above accurately captures your argument. If I missed something, I apologize.

Can you elaborate how one would be "losing content" in this case? With @Stabbey's fatigue system, you gain fatigue through walking. Thus, you simply leave (sneaking if necessary) and do something else before you rest. It causes some time lost, but that is not terribly punishing because
a) It will incentivize you to be a bit more cautious in your spell usage in the future, which I think agrees with 5e's focus on resource management
b) This provides a perfect opportunity to go to camp, where Larian has a bunch of cutscenes/camp dialogues they want you to see.
c) After you walk away, rest, and come back, that encounter will still be waiting for you! You haven't "lost content." It has just been delayed.
d) Presumably you would go find an easier encounter to do before resting. So it doesn't even delay content, it just rearranges it. You now do B (other easy encounter) before A (hard boss encounter), instead of A before B.

Difficulty setting.

My proposal (which I detailed here) was to have a fatigue meter. Once it crosses a certain threshold, you are permitted to long rest, but have no penalties at that time. Once it hits the maximum, the party gets a point of Exhaustion. The meter continues to count up, but you can take a long rest to clear any accumulated Exhaustion points.


The Exhaustion system I mentioned was the one 5e uses, which progressively increases the penalties. With 5 points of Exhaustion, movement is reduced to 0 - you can't move at all, which is why I set that as the point at which a long rest is automatically forced. Practically speaking, the penalties for Exhaustion in 5e are bad enough that it's highly encouraged to long rest long before getting any, never mind 5 points:

1 Exhaustion point is Disadvantage on ability checks.
2 Exhaustion points cuts movement speed in half.
3 Exhaustion points is Disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws.
4 Exhaustion points cuts maximum HP in half.
5 Exhaustion points reduces speed to 0.
At 6 Exhaustion points you die.

Of course, the actual rules also say that you can only lose 1 point of exhaustion per long rest, but that would be tedious in videogame format which can't gloss over time so easily, so in my system you lose them all upon taking a long rest.




Correct, there will be a cooldown you can't bypass. The reasoning is that long resting too frequently breaks the attrition-based balance of D&D, and gives no incentive to use a Warlock, which is based on long rests being a lot rarer than short rests.




I was in a hurry when I posted my idea, so I didn't go into a lot of detail, but the idea I have in mind is that once you get to about 67% of your first Exhaustion Point, you can long rest again. Difficulty settings could possibly change that, so 40% for Easy and 80% for Hard. Once you're past that "67%", you can long rest whether you have 0 or 4 Exhaustion points.

You really wouldn't want to have any exhaustion points, never mind entering into an enemy encampment and starting a fight with 3 of them. So yes, if you have 3 exhaustion points and are tapped out with a ton of enemies outside, you're pretty screwed. However, if you have crossed the (arbitrarily chosen) "67% Fatigue" threshold on the first exhaustion point, you can take a long rest. If you have not yet crossed it, you can walk around more to increase it and tip it over, or use healing to tip it over.

Whether long rests in enemy territory are allowed is a different question which my idea does not address.




My idea was that simply walking around increases fatigue to allow crossing the threshold and allowing a long rest. This to me is less likely to get players stuck than a system based around consuming food or rations, which could run out. I also think it's better than a "random encounter" system which could either block players because they're in too bad a shape to win the fight, or, if the encounter happens after a long rest, could tap them enough that they'll feel like they need another long rest to recover from the random encounter they just had by having a long rest.

Walking around would increase fatigue less than receiving healing would. Healing from short rests would not count towards the fatigue meter, because I want to encourage more use of short rests, and you would be limited to 2-3 short rests per long rest anyway.




Again, this is my fault for poorly explaining my idea in limited time, but fatigue increases from walking around outside of combat (it probably does not increase from movement inside combat, which would disadvantage melee-heavy parties more), so you wouldn't get stuck being unable to rest as long as you can still move.




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, resting then returning to the place you left off from, all without any new encounters along the way. That would start to feel like a waste of time, which would only increase the more you play.




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

It all depends on how fast it grows.
What if the player is left without spells and hp after a hard battle
(I suppose the larian bends and remove the healing from the food).
In my opinion, this is terribly overcomplicated.

If the player had just completed a hard battle, a balanced game would mean the next battles they face should be relatively easy. Thus, a player could get through them with basic attacks and cantrips.
In addition, there are potions and scrolls to heal and cast leveled spells. With the current rest system, after Larian fixes it so that only magic-users can cast scrolls (as in 5e rules), scrolls will be pretty useless aside from increasing your wizard's known spells. If you can long rest infinitely, then you'll have access to all your spells for every battle and thus why would you use scrolls? (Again, assuming Larian will fix the scoll-usage rules)

In the case of such a limited rest, fights such as the bulette or the minotaurs would be much less frequent. Instead, you have to put in simple fights with trash mobs (which are usually much less interesting).
Now how are you going to balance them? Do you assume that the player will be approaching the fight with some resources or maybe he had bad luck in the previous match and will have to rely on cantrips?
If you assume that a player has no more resources then fights can be trivial.
If you assume that the player still has some spells left, the fight may be too difficult.
Now we are adding difficulty levels on which we need to balance it.
Too easy or too difficult fights are an easy way to get bored.
In terms of design, it is a nightmare. You have to consider possible group compositions and a few other factors.
In the game, you are not able to choose next fight depending on how the player is currently doing.

Was this directed to me about my "fatigue meter" idea? I'm not sure how fast it would grow, but Larian is pretty proud of all the analytical data they're collecting, and they might have a rough idea how many encounters they think players should have in a day, and they can figure out the distance between encounters in their game.

I have no doubt that Larian will reject my idea for being overly complicated. I'm not sure they'll find a better way to balance long and short rests, and I'm not even sure if they'll even try.




This is part of the problem with adapting an attrition-based game which requires human management to a game managed by an algorithm. At the moment, Larian is using an infinite free long rest system, which removes the attrition part of the attrition based game, and that also has balance implications.

I sincerely doubt whether they will try to balance it at all, it seems to me doomed to failure.
I suspect that it will eventually end up with a bg2 system with (maybe) some modifications.
The fact that the camp is related to the plot doesn't help.

@Rhobar121 I agree that those are potential problems. Incorporating a fatigue (or other long-rest limit) system would require more work for the design team (not necessarily a bad thing if it results in a better game).

However, most of this game can be done in different orderings. Larian doesn't have to exactly tune every encounter. If the player doesn't have enough resources to fight the Minotaurs, then they can go another path to find easier enemiese:
1.) jumping to another region of the underdark, bypassing the minotaurs
2.) going back to the overworld and exploring the Hag's lair, Waukeem's Rest, the Inn with those Paladins, the Creche, the cursed route to the Tower, or more.

Something your points don't fix is the current balance of short-vs-long rest classes. IF Larian wants every fight to be taken at max or near-max strength after a long rest, then they should also adjust the classes to strengthen short-rest classes and/or weaken long-rest classes. Given the options of Larian either implementing a long rest limit or making further changes to the classes, I'd prefer the former.

An attrition system will never happen, there is plenty of data to back up the fact that the majority of mainstream rpg players do not like them, so I doubt Swen would ever take the risk. It doesn't change the fact that I would really like one though and I bet that this is something that there will be a mod that fixes it. It isn't going to stop me from asking for 1 though, even if I will be highly surprised to see 1 implemented.

At least at present, the player would not have such an option.
There are not that many fights in the game.
Currently, practically most paths end with difficult fights except paladins or a few fights with goblins, as long as you are not actively trying to spoil the game.

That won't address anything, most of these end up in pretty tough fights too. So you'd wind up clearing all the easy stuff everywhere, and then nothing but hard stuff to do, and no way to rest between them. I wouldn't call that particularly balanced either.

@Rhobar121

Sure at present options are more limited. But given the explicitly available areas (2 other paths to Moonrise) that will be in the full game, I'm operating under the assumption that there will ~always be multiple paths and opportunities to find/sneak past different fights.

@robertthebard

I'm assuming that if Larian implements a system like this, then they'll explicitly tell you about the importance of resource management. If people were intentionally attempting to manage resources, then they'd try to do harder encounters when they were full and try to get through easy encounters without spending many resources.

Also, again, this is just a suggestion of a single way to implement a long-rest mechanic. It would obviously require further fine-tuning by Larian. Larian would, for example, reduce the number of supremely hard encounters where you're expected to use all your resources.

Agree with OP. These suggestions are actually very similar to how resting was implemented in BG1 & 2. You could get attacked at camp, negating rest. Quests would fail, companions might bail, and lots places made camping off limits. It worked.

That's a depressing thought.

Whatever happened to making the games they wanted to make instead of the ones driven by the marketing departments of big publishers? That was one big reason why Larian went all in on Divinity: Original Sin 1 through Kickstarter.

Doesn't have to please any "majority" or minority in a way that creates a less fun game. All that matters is creating an experience based on mechanics that leads to fun for everyone. In this case, related to resting, this can be done through a more or less complex difficulty setting: from no restrictions (as they are now) to a more complex fatigue & camping BG2 style, or just some limits set, if it's too much work to add all that BG2 system.

The key is to make all these optional.
We can advocate for what we feel as fun, but these kind of games also need to please as many newcomers to genre as possible, in order to make them a financial success and allow more games to follow.
Options. That's all about the difficulty side.

But the camp is far more than a difficulty slider... Should be. Larian, don't forget about the "magic" that can be created in there. Add some minor interactions to camp: allow to cook, make a tea, share a song, something to happen. Or just to stare the fire and share the moments.

These camping moments are more than just some boring difficulty balancing options: they can be great fun. Watching that cheap camp fire cut scene in BG1 gives so much satisfaction. Nothing complicated, and still means a lot. These parts add to the soul of a game, the feeling that remains long after we finished playing. They create unforgettable memories. These games are not about the fights alone, nor the characters we meet, or the story we live through: but all small details that just complement each other. They are key ingredients, otherwise the food feels tasteless. Make us want more of it, and wish to return forever. Make us feel good, and we will never forget Baldur's Gate 3.

The idea that a game should be as easy as humanly possible because otherwise some people will feel "frustrated" about it seems rather flawed to me. At the same time people will feel frustrated and bored when a game does nothing to challenge them. Difficulty system will probably ber implemented but the idea that somehow limiting rest spam should be reserved for higher levels of difficulty seems ridicolous. Let the "rest whenever you want" option for the easiest setting, normal needs to offer at least some challenge.

I totally agree that the current resting system is hurting some classes a lot more than others.

The Warlock is a "short rest" class, and is designed by WoC around this idea. They get very few spell slots because of this. Fighters too are balanced around the short rest.

Wizards and Clerics are designed around the long rest, and only regain powers then.

DnD 5e is at it's core a game where you are supposed to have several sort rests before you take a long rest. The Long rest is "end of the day". Not taking this into account because it's "difficult to implement" etc is a bit silly. Right now there's no reason not to long rest after each encounter, but it makes my Warlock seem a lot less effective than my Wizard because of it. (The Waclock in effect only has 4 spell slots...)

This, Day/night cycle offers a solution to both the rest issue as well as the complaints about the world being artificial and inherently 'good'

The game doesn't have to be easy or challenging, but adjustable by the players, so can be both. No more frustration then related to difficulty.

Everyone likes a different level of challenge, and if it's too easy or too hard compared to that subjective expectation, then the game becomes less fun to play. We are very different. I can't even decide for myself, what level of challenge I want; depends on my mood when starting a playthrough. Usually need mods in most games to adjust difficulty properly, which is fine, since mods can do far more than just that.
We just need the base game to provide a good enough foundation for mods, but the more adjustable it is the default difficulty settings, the better.

When you put difficulty modes into a game you start by the "normal" one. That's the benchmark for the others. So I ask you: in your opinion how should rest work in BG3 normal mode?

What's wrong with how it's working now, for Normal? What other difficulties are we confirmed to have? Usually there are at least two higher, Hard and Nightmare types. If they set the bar too high here, with people already complaining about "bullet sponges", what else are they going to add? What if they plan to add an "Iron Man" mode? What are they going to be able to do, if they set the bar too high in Normal? Normal is usually that setting where the mobs are "what you see is what you get", and the same applies to the PC. Hard they start adjusting the rules ever so slightly to favor the mobs, Nightmare is progressed upwards from there, and an "Iron Man" mode has all the Nightmare stuff, and usually things like rest and save restrictions as well as permadeath. These aren't concrete, but are a generalization of how these settings have worked over the years.

They have to have somewhere they can realistically go from Normal. I'm not sure how things work going down from Normal, I've never played a game below Normal, and usually I tend to play at least hard, depending on the genre. But let's be real here, shall we? What are the odds that, even if the harder modes align with what people want, this thread would still be here? Maybe you wouldn't be the OP of that fictional thread, but you can bet it would still exist. What makes me say that? I've seen it before. For all the "but it's not good for the game" we see here, that excuse can, and has, been touted when people start being mad that people that aren't as "good" at the game as they see themselves are still able to beat it. Now, and I'm not implying that anyone is asking for this, in a game like Dark Souls, or Cuphead, I fully agree with them on there not being lower difficulties, as these games are aimed at a specific kind of player. If I'm not one of those players, I'm not going to expect them to "lower the bar" to accommodate me. Here, it's not aimed specifically at that kind of player, so yes, there are multiple difficulties, in order to get as many players as possible. The beauty of this system is that if one feels like Normal is too easy, they don't have to play Normal, and can jump up to Hard, or higher. Now that's not an option in EA, yet, and I can't say it will be, but I'm fairly certain that there will be higher and possibly lower difficulties at launch. I sure don't expect them to "balance" Normal so high that Nightmare would be unplayable by most players, probably more than a few posting here about this scenario. That's not how this kind of system generally works.

I don't mind if they name it "normal" and adjust it based on their testing and feedback. Default difficulty still needs a detailed description to help picking, because not many will bother searching elsewhere and no matter how will be set, will still feel too difficult for some and too easy for others, as usual, nothing new there

What I would like to see beyond the usual Easy, Normal and Hard (maybe Very Hard) is something similar to what even BG 1 had back then; which is specific and detailed extra option to further customize the given difficulty setting. Doesn't have to be exact copy paste of those options, but being able to have -25% incoming damage for your party or have double hit points for example, while leaving AI unchanged, it is a better "easy" mode, instead making AI more passive on easy. Similar for harder.

Of course "Normal" should be challenging enough while still doable, so there is a reason for adding Easy and Easiest, with extra custom options defining what exactly will those mean, same for Harder. It's quite difficult to set in stone something like "after how many fights should resting at camp be allowed" because that depends how every fight went; but adding a limited resource that is needed in order to camp, tied into the difficulty setting, makes sense, on Normal and above at least, otherwise feels quite easy for an experienced player.

If we had 6 man parties we would use less resources per character per encounter.

Problem solved.

No, then you have to adjust the fights and add more opponents.

We still haven't managed to come up with a sensible compromise between nice mechanics and a sensible class balance.
The only thing that comes to my mind is to provide 3 short rests before the long, but it will not significantly affect the situation we have now

They could, of course, add a timer. The shield around the tadpole only lasts so long until it dissipates and you die horribly, story over. Having a time limit would be just as effective at forcing people to limit their gameplay as a fatigue system. However, I suspect timers are disliked by mainstream audiences even more than fatigue.

I would say they are disliked by most people (see pathfinder which is definitely not a mainstream game)

Oh I know. I enjoyed them in Pathfinder actually, although I felt they could have been stricter with them. To each his own though, I agree I didn't need to specify there.

Even this option would help slightly, as it would encourage continued adventuring after a short rest or two.

I am pretty sure the characters mentioning they are tired is linked to spell slots available.

I didn't read six pages of this thread, so somebody else might have already said everything I'm gonna say. If so, I'm sorry.

A big part of the problem with the resting mechanics as they currently stand, for me, is that narrative is tied to resting. There are tons of scenes and dialogues that happen if you rest all the time, and you can completely miss out on them if you rest sparingly. This is . . . frankly unforgivable to me. (I mean, not literally, I won't boycott the game over it, but I will be unhappy with it forever.)

My only other point is that they should probably largely tie resting availability to the difficulty level chosen. They can have Games Journalist Mode, where you can rest every 2 seconds, and every time you rest the clouds break and rain diamonds down on your camp, and a portal to the Plane of Naughty Nymphs opens up next to your campfire. And on the other hand, they can have Big Britches Mode, where you need to spend limited resources to rest, and you have to physically walk back to a waypoint, and monsters can attack you in your camp, and enemies get stronger if you waste too much time, and a portal to the Plane of Sentient Septic Tanks opens up next to your campfire. And some ones in between. Wouldn't that be a good way to please (mostly) everyone?

I don't envy Larian on this one. The resting mechanics, and the things tied to short and long rests, are difficult to balance on the tabletop. Individual groups play D&D differently, and you'll see many DM's that prefer an "adventuring day" have only 1 or 2 combat encounters rather than a slew of more moderately challenging ones. When I DM, it depends more on story than anything else for that kind of thing. The way rests work is going to be different for a party attacking an enemy stronghold versus one exploring a trap-filled, monster haunted dungeon versus one investigating the criminal activities of an evil nobleman. In a single campaign you might have a party do all of these things. Balancing encounters, then, is done across many weeks, months or even years of play-time. The Fighter will likely excel in an adventure where the party can take advantage of many short rests, but isn't able to take frequent long rests. The Wizard would excel in an adventure that takes place over a short period of time - like say one night. The player knows they aren't looking at a battle of attrition, but rather one where they can act freely with their spell slots. And so on.

Larian is tasked with balancing rests in a video game where they are trying to give lots of freedom to the player. That's extremely tough. As it is now, you really have no penalty for taking a long rest after each combat encounter, and so much story unfolds at the camp that you are encouraged to do so both from a perspective of plot and gameplay mechanics. I think the easiest way to deal with it, is to force the player to take the party to a runed waypoint and travel to the camp - only in the camp would you be able to start a long rest. This would make fast-travel more difficult, though they've put enough waypoints around that I don't really see it as much of an inconvenience, and encourages exploration, if anything. Combining that with more short rests per day and having some explicitly timed quests would probably encourage a play-style closer to the tabletop and honestly more immersive. The story unfolding at the camps might have to be toned down and pushed out into the world a bit.

Others have mentioned it, but I think there is a fair chance that Larian hasn't actually puzzled this out or implemented it yet.

It's been explained a number of times, directly to you. I'll try once more.

• UNLIMITED LONG RESTS ALLOW FOR AN EFFECTIVELY UNLIMITED USAGE OF SPELLS.
• UNLIMITED SPELL USAGE MAKES THE IDEA OF LIMITED SPELL SLOTS A USELESS MECHANIC.
• THIS MAKES "NORMAL" FAR TOO EASY.

It makes just everything far too easy. I am soloing the game with a wizard at the moment and there is not a single encounter that gives me the beginning of a challenge.

Then don't play on Normal?

Any idea how to fix it without blocking the player's progress or making the mechanics mostly irritating (and really not limiting)? The system would also have to be understandable to the player.
Practically, the only idea that could effectively limit the rest are time limits, but if larian introduced it, players would pull out forks and torches (this will not pass in such a large game).
We are discussing ideas and still have not been able to find a reasonable compromise.

Just joining into the conversation after I posted my own big feedback thread.

There are several huge issues with the resting system as it is currently:

- Short rests are obsolete since you can long rest almost anywhere, at any time
- You have full HP and full Spell slots at any point in the game, making characters with spells slots much stronger than they should be, but making Warlocks weaker since having full spell slots after every encounter isn't anything special.
- The camp has many important story interactions (dream scenes for example) which only happen at camp. Currently the player does not know when any of these important events happen, so players are encounraged to camp "just to find out if anything happens".
- Because the player is always at full HP and full spell slots, you start piling up tons of scrolls, special arrows, healing potions, throwables.
- Food in particular, along with Short rests should be used to recover HP inbetween fights. There is such an overabundance of food and healing potions that you can just eat a pig head several turns in a row and heal 50% of your HP as Gale, making potions obsolete as long as you have food during combat. You should only be able to drink potions during combat, not eat food.

But the biggest reason:
The game is way to easy. Once you get accustomed to the environment, make sure to use sneak and high ground for advantage aswell as preparing yourself via the turn-based mode with cantrips like blade ward, most encounters are not very challenging. But they should be considering you always have full HP and full spell slots.

So I suggest to massively cut down on the amount of long rests you can do, increase the amount of short rests inbetween long rests you can do. You end up with so much food and potions that you will always be at max HP after every encounter by using short rest + food. Just not always full spell slots, which is how it should be.

Also the fact that there are so many magic items which give you spells is both a blessing and a curse:

Spells like Scorching Ray from the Circlet of Blasting use your intelligence modifier for chance to hit, even if you are not a Wizard. So this means, as a Warlock, who would benefit greatly from a free Scorching ray every rest, you have low chance to hit because this spell does not use your charisma modifier.
Spells from items should use your primary stat for spellcasting as a Warlock or other casters. These magic items favour Wizards over other casters. And lets be honest, Wizards are way too strong currently given they have full spell slots after every encounter, they get a super powerful magic missile artifact and they can learn and cast ANY spell from scrolls and cast them using intelligence. If Wizards can cast any spell using intelligence, then other classes must be able to cast spells from items with their own spellcasting stat.

To me this is a huge weakness of D&D. Maybe the biggest weakness of D&D. And it always has been. There was only one edition where they fixed this, balanced the classes, and made it possible for every party member to remain useful for many encounters without resting. And everyone hated that edition, so they rolled back all of the (in my opinion, positive) changes that had been made. C'est la vie.

I hate timed quests though, so I hope they don't choose that as their solution. I'd rather they just make resting a pain in the ass somehow, so people don't want to do it as often.

I fully agree with all of this.

Normal is the default difficulty by definition. Most people are going to play on the default difficulty. Poor balance on the default difficulty is bad. Are you really completely incapable of understanding that poor balance is a bad thing?




I do have an idea which would try to achieve both the goals of preventing long rest spam and avoid blocking the player's progress. It's not perfect, but it's at least something brought to the table.

• A Fatigue meter is in the game, which increases based on distance traveled out of combat, and healing received from all sources except short (and long) rests.
• Distance traveled is defined as the number of steps or meters moved by any party member, divided by 4. This accounts for times when the whole party travels together, or if someone goes off on their own scouting or sneaking and moves around a lot while everyone else stands still.
• Movement via Fast Travel would probably not generate as much Fatigue as walking there directly, because that could lead to it accumulating faster than intended if the player is just doing questing or shopping. Perhaps only 1/3 to 1/2 of the fatigue you'd get by forgoing Fast Travel and walking there directly.
• The distance is reset to 0 after a long rest.
• Healing received is fairly self-explanatory, it accounts for recovery from spells, potions, and food (if healing by food is kept). Only actual recovery of HP counts - any healing which overflows your maximum does not count towards Fatigue.
• You can now have up to 3 Short Rests before a Long Rest.
• Healing from Short Rests does not increase Fatigue - or, at least, not by a lot - because the intent is to promote better balance between short and long rests. Also, if Short Rests increased Fatigue, you could have the situation of taking a Short rest to recover, but that pushes you to a point close to exhaustion and you'd need to take a long rest immediately after the short one, and that seems silly.
• Once your Fatigue has passed a certain point, say, 67% of full of the first Exhaustion point on Normal difficulty, you can then take a Long Rest.
• If you wish to Long Rest, but do not want to fight, you can continue to move around until crossing the 67% Fatigue threshold.
• The threshold could possibly be lower or higher based in difficulty level.
• If the fatigue reaches 100%, the entire party receives a point of Exhaustion.
• If the threshold is crossed in combat, the Exhaustion penalty will not apply until combat is finished.
• You can continue to play, your Fatigue Meter will continue to increase and eventually you'll reach additional points of Exhaustion.
• The 67% threshold is only for when you have 0 points of Exhaustion. If you have one or more Exhaustion points, you can Long Rest freely.
• Once you reach 5 points of Exhaustion, you are forced into a long rest before proceeding. If you are still in combat or conversation, those will be allowed to conclude before you are forced to camp.
• Taking a long rest will remove all points of Exhaustion and reset Fatigue to zero. (This is more forgiving than the tabletop rule for smoother gameplay.)

The idea is that you can't get blocked without being able to long rest - like you can be in Solasta from running out of rations. If nothing else, you'll always be able to walk around to reach the 67% threshold. This will however, force you into more shrewd management of resources, since you will be barred from long rests until you've passed 67% fatigue. If a player wants to exploit this by walking around after every combat and then taking a long rest, they're only sabotaging their own fun with tedium.

Resting worked great in BG1 & 2. No need to reinvent the wheel. Just use the constraints and limitations the series has already been using.

I proposed this a few pages ago, but it still doesn't solve the underlying balance issues.

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.