Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#680197 08/10/20 03:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Hello! I've been playing BG3 for a few hours so far and while everything is okay for EA, I really can't wrap my head around Long Rest, Short Rest mechanic.

1. What is stopping me from just spamming long rest after every battle? Are there any penalties at all?

2. How is short rest viable if you can spam long rest after every battle?

What am I missing or misunderstanding? Save from role playing reasons, I don't see a reason why I shouldn't just camp after every battle.



Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I've not gotten that far yet. Is there a time flow to keep track of? If so, I'd imagine a long rest would hasten the transformation.

Perhaps it could be balanced by allowing one long rest per 'day'.
I'm not sure either, I need to play more to give any feedback, otherwise I'm in the same boat as op.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Agreed, it does seem that taking a long rest has no drawbacks. Of course, in DOS2 you could simply click on your bedroll and everyone instantly healed up, but here, finding a way to balance this mechanic would really be preferable! We do love a challenge!

Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
Great point. Maybe they will implement different penalties/put blocks in.

In 5e, you are only allowed 1 rest, so they could also try putting in the hard block, but since they're phrasing it as "ending the day" that makes it more difficult. So maybe characters start to leave, the tadpole starts to make itself more apparent in a negative way?

Last edited by dreambled; 08/10/20 03:46 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Thanks for your reply! Based on reddit discussion, no time movement. Also, someone did 20 long rests without any consequences which reinforces that notion. Yeah the one long rest per day is a good idea!

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Appreciate your reply! Yes I do remember DOS2 doing that. Agree 100% with you bro !

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Thanks for stopping by! Yes I do hope they have some sort of penalty or blocker. Although hopefully not a time limit because that just makes me stressed and might discourage exploration haha!

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RorariiAuxilia
Thanks for stopping by! Yes I do hope they have some sort of penalty or blocker. Although hopefully not a time limit because that just makes me stressed and might discourage exploration haha!

I think the best bet is to have time triggers rather than time limits; certain actions, such as progressing certain quests, or taking a long rest, advances one day, whereas anything else does not.
Allows for exploration and freedom, but also requires management and planning.

Joined: Jan 2017
C
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Jan 2017
There needs to be not blocker on short rests if you want warlocks and eventually sorcerer to function AT ALL

Joined: Oct 2020
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by CamKitty
There needs to be not blocker on short rests if you want warlocks and eventually sorcerer to function AT ALL

I couldn't agree more.

Short rests should be available whenever you're able to take a breather, not just once per day. The D&D 5th ed. rules as written place no limit on the numer of short rests a day and mandate a duration of 1 hour. Many DM's have house rules reducing this even further: Matt Mercer of Critical Role, for instance, allows his players to take short rests lasting only a few minutes.

Long rests, conversely, should be available only once per in-game day, and it is crucial that there be real, tangible consequences to the in-game passage of time, so players don't just blow all spell slots every fight.

Now, while I personally abhor the resource recovery mechanisms of D&D 5th ed. and much prefer encounter-scope systems like the one in DOS2, BG3 is attempting to implement the former. Given that fact, class and overall game balance are impacted tremendously by how the implementation is carried out.

Example:

Assuming 5th level characters, four fights per in-game day, a short rest between each (i.e., four short rests), and finally a long rest:

* A fighter would be able to use 4 Action Surges (1 per fight),
* A warlock would be able to use 8 spell slots (2 per fight),
* A cleric would be ablel to use 4 (1st), 3 (2rd), and 2 (3rd) spell slots distributed as they saw fit across the day.

Assuming 5th level characters, four fights and unlimited long rests:

* A fighter would be able to use 4 Action Surges (1 per fight),
* A warlock would be able to use 8 spell slots (2 per fight),
* A cleric would be ablel to use 16 (1st), 12 (2rd), and 8 (3rd) spell slots.

Obviously, the second scenario is utterly balanced and would render content balanced for fighters, warlocks, and other short rest-based classes utterly trivial for clerics, wizards, and other classes based on long-rest resource recovery.


Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I totally agree that should be some limitation/penalty to long rest indiscriminately. However, I do not agree that the party should be able to short rest at will. That will definitely break the game. Maybe twice or 3 times a day?

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Better yet: short rest 1/per level?

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I would like to see a penalty to spamming long rest as well. The game makes it clear over the course of the act that you're in no danger of transforming and the tadpole is in some sort of stasis. So that kills the narrative urgency. Pathfinder Kingmaker had it where you needed rations to rest, which were rather limited early game so you had to conserve resting a lot more. Might be doable here?

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
I have to disagree for story and character development purposes. If something happens and I can tell it's going to trigger a chat with a companion in camp, I don't want to be penalized because I didn't wait 30 minutes to an hour.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Perhaps the locations where a long rest can take place should be changed so that it only available in locations where it’s “safe” enough, and then short rests can still be used like they are now, that way you can still short rest in dungeons, or leave to get all your slots back/a full heal from the long rest.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Cowoline
I have to disagree for story and character development purposes. If something happens and I can tell it's going to trigger a chat with a companion in camp, I don't want to be penalized because I didn't wait 30 minutes to an hour.


It could be an optional difficulty setting. Story-normal mode could have no penalties while hard and ironman do.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Or you could let people play in whatever way they find the most enjoyable. You want to run this like its a D&D day, go for it. Gonna be a lot more encounters while you short rest, which will be limited no matter what on how many times a day you can do it, and also attacks at night rough 15% of the time. The idea of penalizing a rest when someone may have gotten into a corner in the game and cant fix their level or spells and cannot possibly progress without squeezing by...in the comfort of their own home...in a game they bought - for themselves, that has no PVP or competitive component....who exactly you protecting by letting them have fun?


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
There definitely needs to be some restriction or disincentive to long resting at will, otherwise classes balanced around Long Rests will be more powerful than intended, which isn't good for those balanced for more short rests.

...But any consequences can't be too impactful, like advancing the tadpole progress, because then people could get stuck in an unwinnable state and need to restart the entire game.

Solasta does this currently by having rations be the resource consumed... but that obviously won't work if you can stockpile tons of rations.


Originally Posted by Karnos
I couldn't agree more.

Short rests should be available whenever you're able to take a breather, not just once per day. The D&D 5th ed. rules as written place no limit on the numer of short rests a day and mandate a duration of 1 hour. Many DM's have house rules reducing this even further: Matt Mercer of Critical Role, for instance, allows his players to take short rests lasting only a few minutes.


It used to be half an hour, but he's been much more of a stickler to that, and enforces the one hour rule pretty consistently these days.

I think 2 or 3 short rests per long rest is good.


Originally Posted by Karnos
Long rests, conversely, should be available only once per in-game day, and it is crucial that there be real, tangible consequences to the in-game passage of time, so players don't just blow all spell slots every fight.


What's an in-game day? Time doesn't really pass noticeably. There is a state "Too Soon For A Long Rest", but what conditions should allow that state to progress to "Can Long Rest Now"?

It can't just be completing quests and objectives either. If the trigger is complete 3 quests, the map has 6 quests and you are able to complete 4 of them well enough before you need a long rest, and there's only two left, but one is tough enough that you need a long rest before you are able to do the other one, you're stuck because there aren't enough to do another long rest.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Orbax
Or you could let people play in whatever way they find the most enjoyable. You want to run this like its a D&D day, go for it. Gonna be a lot more encounters while you short rest, which will be limited no matter what on how many times a day you can do it, and also attacks at night rough 15% of the time. The idea of penalizing a rest when someone may have gotten into a corner in the game and cant fix their level or spells and cannot possibly progress without squeezing by...in the comfort of their own home...in a game they bought - for themselves, that has no PVP or competitive component....who exactly you protecting by letting them have fun?


Chill.
What you say is true, however, BG3 is using (or should be using) the rules of D&D 5e - and 5e is balanced around the following:
one or two fights -> short rest -> one or two fights -> short rest -> boss fight -> long rest
This specific formula has encountered a LOT of trouble with how most people play 5e (including famous shows like Critical Role), because it's not easy to balance the game around it. In most cases this causes the so called long rest classes to skyrocket in power, while the short rest classes gutted.
Since this is a program - it should be much easier to force the "intended" balance into the gameplay than it is during a proper live game.

Joined: Oct 2020
V
stranger
Offline
stranger
V
Joined: Oct 2020
Once additional difficulty levels are added to the game, it's very likely that long rest will become a staple. It doesn't make sense to change or nerf it prior to adding much harder difficulties.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5