Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
While I would definitely prefer your clock to what we have, I don't feel it adequately encapsulates the concept of a D&D adventuring day in a video game. I would argue that it would be harder to decide which amount of time represents a day, than deciding how much content one should cover in order for one day to have passed. Like, what is one in-game day? 2 real-time hours? 3? Half an hour? How does that translate to quests of various lengths?

I'm not sure it's harder to determine which amount of hours represent an in game day than deciding which amount of points represent every single events.
Time does not have to translate to quests or dialogs or anything else... Time is constant except maybe in turn base (should time pass in "in-game real time" while we're fighting ? Or should every turn represent "x" amount of in-games hours/minuites ? that's another thread).

A question about quests : nightsong in exemple.
How would we earn resting points ? For every step ? For specific step ? Only when you reach BG and give it back to the wizard ?
It's not that simple.

As I said I find the idea very interresting but to be honnest I can't think about good solutions to solve the issues raised in this thread (yet?).


French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
Originally Posted by robertthebard
What does that do for the tadpole? Oh, nothing...
It doesn't need to. There are only a few, people will take those rest. And if you wanna play the game without a single long rest, you *shoudn't* experience that content. There, no problem.

Well, this argument is invalid. I'm one that didn't get all the tadpole interactions on my first run, because I didn't take enough LRs to get them. Note: I have, and continue to, openly admit that it's because I didn't do what was required to get them. This is your disconnect; I never claimed everyone should get every possible interaction in every playthrough. That was your strawman, not mine. Then there's the issue that I raised in my very first post in this thread, talking about taking a long rest, fighting the hag, and then taking another long rest. Reading through your responses to points raised after this quoted post, your response to that query doesn't add up. You said, paraphrasing here "it's a boss fight, that's fine". How does that equate to your stated "1 LR per day"? So abusing long rests is ok, so long as it's done how you'd do it? I infer that from your stated position of "it's a boss fight, so it's fine".

Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
Originally Posted by Niara
So, the question I have for the OP is this:

I'm a player who likes to take my time with things, and be thorough. Now, when this new system was explained to me, I took it as an analogue for the adventuring day, so, every time I DO accrue 100 points, I rest, because I feel like that's supposed to be in line with the rhythm of time progression that's being simulated here... so as I explore and fight, I rest relatively often.

Now, we're in a video game, so the actual space I have to play with, and its contents, are limited, even if they make an attempt not to seem so.

The trouble is, I'm now at a situation where I have explored everything I can reach at the moment, and achieved all of the non-combat points that I have available without tackling a boss fight - I have boss fights in three directions, but I need to do at least one of them to progress at this point... Except, I don't have enough points for a rest right now, and my party is partially worn down and light on resources. I cannot beat any of the boss fights in my current condition. I also cannot rest.

What do I do, to prevent my game from being completely broken, and needing to restart it? Your system seems to allow for a broken game situation; how does it avoid that?
I appreciate the question. Someone else pointed something similar above. And it's a valid point, unlike crying about the companions.

This system does put pressure on a player to use their rests strategically, plan what they can fit into a single adventuring day and not paint themselves into a corner. Which I don't think is a bad thing, but there also shouldn't be situations you can't recover from, so I will grant this system would require the game to provide some ways of always gaining Rest Points. Some things that immediately come to mind are earning Combat Points by practicing on dummies, or Story Points by brewing potions, crafting items, fishing, etc., if any of those mechanics will be in the final game.

That also might not be perfect, and you might say, well, that's functionally the same as free rests, but if you make this free Points grinding tedious enough, but not prohibitively so, you make it an option for getting out of those sticky situations but disincentivize its abuse. I would also say, with pretty good story branching in the game, I wouldn't expect players to get stuck in these situations very often as there's almost always something else to do.

People raising legitimate concerns about your system aren't crying any more than you're crying about what Joe Casual may be doing in their SP campaign. Don't try to hit me with "but balance", given the scenario that you've already signed off on as "fine". Unless you're trying to assert that, no matter how fast the fight goes, the Hag fight takes all day to do?

Edit, copy/pasted from page 1:

Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
Originally Posted by robertthebard
So, using your system, I do a long rest, fight Ethel, and then do a long rest. What's fixed, exactly?
I don't see how that is a problem. Ethel is a boss. In my book, taking a whole day to prepare for and fight the boss is perfectly fine. You could also, say, get 50 or 70 Combat Points from Ethel if you think she's not worthy of granting a long rest, but those are nuances.

Last edited by robertthebard; 24/10/21 11:53 AM.
Joined: Oct 2021
L
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Well, this argument is invalid. I'm one that didn't get all the tadpole interactions on my first run, because I didn't take enough LRs to get them. Note: I have, and continue to, openly admit that it's because I didn't do what was required to get them. This is your disconnect; I never claimed everyone should get every possible interaction in every playthrough. That was your strawman, not mine. Then there's the issue that I raised in my very first post in this thread, talking about taking a long rest, fighting the hag, and then taking another long rest. Reading through your responses to points raised after this quoted post, your response to that query doesn't add up. You said, paraphrasing here "it's a boss fight, that's fine". How does that equate to your stated "1 LR per day"? So abusing long rests is ok, so long as it's done how you'd do it? I infer that from your stated position of "it's a boss fight, so it's fine".

And I explained that it's fine to have a long rest because it takes a whole day to fight a boss, or that it doesn't even need to grant a long rest, but a hefty number of points. This is not a problem with the consistency of my system. You may not personally like it, but I don't care what you like or not.

Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
People raising legitimate concerns about your system aren't crying

*Other* people have pointed out legitimate concerns about this system for which I am grateful as it has allowed me to further refine it. You, on the other hand, have contributed absolutely nothing of any worth.

From the very start of this thread, your only concern seems to be how to force people into sleeping often enough so they don't miss out on stupid cut-scenes. For one, I don't care about forcing people to sleep or experience content, and for two, if one wanted to force players to sleep, my system is literally the best way to implement it. The fact that you don't see the connection between getting to a 100 each day and being able to force players to bed demonstrates a staggering cognitive impotence on your part, not a problem with my system.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Let's calm down the aggressive rhetoric, please - this is an interesting thread and I'd like it to remain open ^.^

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Well, this argument is invalid. I'm one that didn't get all the tadpole interactions on my first run, because I didn't take enough LRs to get them. Note: I have, and continue to, openly admit that it's because I didn't do what was required to get them. This is your disconnect; I never claimed everyone should get every possible interaction in every playthrough. That was your strawman, not mine. Then there's the issue that I raised in my very first post in this thread, talking about taking a long rest, fighting the hag, and then taking another long rest. Reading through your responses to points raised after this quoted post, your response to that query doesn't add up. You said, paraphrasing here "it's a boss fight, that's fine". How does that equate to your stated "1 LR per day"? So abusing long rests is ok, so long as it's done how you'd do it? I infer that from your stated position of "it's a boss fight, so it's fine".

And I explained that it's fine to have a long rest because it takes a whole day to fight a boss, or that it doesn't even need to grant a long rest, but a hefty number of points. This is not a problem with the consistency of my system. You may not personally like it, but I don't care what you like or not.

Originally Posted by LordRhaegar
People raising legitimate concerns about your system aren't crying

*Other* people have pointed out legitimate concerns about this system for which I am grateful as it has allowed me to further refine it. You, on the other hand, have contributed absolutely nothing of any worth.

From the very start of this thread, your only concern seems to be how to force people into sleeping often enough so they don't miss out on stupid cut-scenes. For one, I don't care about forcing people to sleep or experience content, and for two, if one wanted to force players to sleep, my system is literally the best way to implement it. The fact that you don't see the connection between getting to a 100 each day and being able to force players to bed demonstrates a staggering cognitive impotence on your part, not a problem with my system.

No, it's a problem with your system. It's a problem because the people that are looking for that story, can easily be locked out of it. I didn't buy this game because it's 5e DnD, it just happens to follow that ruleset. I bought it because the first two games carried me through some very rough times, and I loved them. I didn't love, or hate, how the rules were implemented, I loved the stories. That's why people play story driven games, after all. There's a reason that "rules lawyer" has a negative connotation, after all, they suck all the fun out of games, trying to make sure that their vision is the only one that matters, even if they're not running the game they're lawyering in.

Actually, no. My first post in this thread points to a very funny flaw: Hey folks, even if that boss fight is over in a turn, it took all day. You double down on that in this post. You don't have to take my word for that, however. I copy/pasted your reply to my first post in the post you butchered here. I find it even more ironic that you don't see the irony of all the waffling you've done on your "final solution". Your opinion on story content is irrelevant. I'm sure I'm not the only person that sees Baldur's Gate 3, and wants this game to be successful because of the story, since stories are what brought me to the table in the first place. Dismissing them out of hand, as you do here, isn't doing you any favors, and isn't improving the game in any measurable way. Especially when "It doesn't matter how that boss fight actually goes, it took you all day" is one of your justifications. A "final solution" should cover every possible problem that could arise, and you not only fall short of doing that, you choose to claim that some parts of the game just don't matter, because you think they're stupid.

Whether you care or not, some people are going to want to play through the romances. Whether you care or not, some people are going to want to see the story arcs for their chosen companions, even if that's spread out over several playthroughs. Whether you care or not, some people are going to want to see the tadpole stuff play out. Your "final solution" doesn't do anything to provide for these reasonable expectations. I say they're reasonable, because it's expected that you're going to be able to see that content, since it's in the game, even if it does require multiple playthroughs. Your "final solution" can very easily lock players out. The original system locked me out, because I didn't realize how important LRs, or hanging out in camp, was going to be to advancing the story, tadpole or otherwise.

I mean, frankly, if we had a system that locked you out of LRs until you've taken both of your short rests, and a short rest started a 1 hour real time timer, it would be vastly superior to what you've suggested here. That's just off the top of my head, with no real thought into refining it. It may have even been suggested before, I haven't read every thread, let alone post, about resting that's come up. It could be as simple as a non-skippable tutorial on the rest system, that triggers after we get off the ship, with a timer on the rest button. It could even be tuned as such that it allows the first LR, and then explains how it works while you're "setting up camp" for the first LR. It prevents "spamming LRs", and makes it infinitely easier to get all the content you're supposed to get that's tied to the rest system. If they added some kind of message that a comp needs to talk to you in camp, as they did in swtor, for example, with an Icon on the NPC's portrait, it would be even better.

Joined: Dec 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Dec 2020
On a related point (!) - I don't seem to be getting the dreamer ("where are you ?" etc) sequences when I go to rest in camp. Did the latetpatch break something? I aslo have no illithid powers (as a result I think). I didn't follow my usual route of rescuing Halsin first, then going to Underdark...maybe that did something. I have long rested many times, but no dreamer dialogue.

Last edited by booboo; 25/10/21 12:48 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I actually think the Rest Point system could work, but maybe tweaked.

As a DM, I need to always be mindful of my character's overall strength before I initiate any encounters with them. A DM's ultimate objective is to provide challenging encounters that don't kill them. So, I need to pay attention to how much health they have and their spell slots.

So, what if we combine an idea I had with the Rest Points idea? That would be more like what a DM would do anyway. HP and Spell Slots are how you determine the overall fatigue of the party. Therefore, I think that should be how a person earns Rest Points. For every point of HP you lose, you earn 1 Rest Point. For every Spell Slot you spend, you earn 2 Rest Points.

Level 1 characters need to spend 5 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 10 for every Long Rest.

Level 2 characters need to spend 10 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 20 for every Long Rest.

Level 3 characters need to spend 15 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 30 for every Long Rest.

See where I'm going with this? The more HP and Spell Slots you have, the more Rest Points you'll be able to earn. However, it also means the more you'll have to recover. So, as you level up, the cost requirements are more, but that's only because you are increasing in the number of HP you have and the number of Spell Slots.

Example: You and Shadowheart face the 3 intellect devourers in the beginning. You're only Level 1. During the fight, you lose 5 HP, but Shadowheart lost none. However, she spent 2 spell slots. That's 9 Rest Points. You can do a Short Rest but not a Long Rest. Why? Because you have a tadpole in your head and you think it could go off in literally hours and transform you into mind flayers. So you would not call it a day if you didn't feel you needed to as a character. Besides, I, the DM, know that there isn't going to be a super tough fight ahead of the party at this time. They can still keep going. So I would not let them do a long rest. A short rest? Yes. They lost 5 HP and spent 2 spell slots. A short rest might be in order especially if health potions are so limited at this time.

Ah! But I level up! What now? Short Rest first and then Level Up and you'd have enough. Did you level up first? Well, short rest is now disabled, but you don't need it. You just got a boost in spell slots and HP because you leveled up. Sure, to short rest first and then level up is a trick to the system to maximize your recovery, but so what? No system is going to be absolutely perfect, and it's the little tricks like that which make the veteran players better than the novices.

Either way, the rest system is then based on the characters actual need. If you wind up suffering heavy hits and lose lots of HP and spell slots, you NEED to rest regardless of how much you actually did. If the battle against the hag, for example, goes really well, then you don't need to rest. However, if the battle against Marli and Barton goes poorly, you might need to long rest after it. It all depends, honestly, on how much damage you took and how many spells you cast. So the Rest Points should be based on these as well, and the cost should be based on level.

Oh, and to address the "inflict damage to yourself to earn Rest Points" thing, if I was the DM, I'd immediately dock relationship points for that. You make Lae'zel jump off a cliff and take damage, whether it was intentional or not, I don't think she'd be too happy with your MC. Same goes with anyone. You are their leader. If you command them to do something that hurts them because of poor judgment, that should cause a docking of at least some relationship points; maybe 1 relationship point per HP lost (depending on how the relationship points work. I don't really know what values they assign to what).

Last edited by GM4Him; 25/10/21 02:19 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I actually think the Rest Point system could work, but maybe tweaked.

As a DM, I need to always be mindful of my character's overall strength before I initiate any encounters with them. A DM's ultimate objective is to provide challenging encounters that don't kill them. So, I need to pay attention to how much health they have and their spell slots.

So, what if we combine an idea I had with the Rest Points idea? That would be more like what a DM would do anyway. HP and Spell Slots are how you determine the overall fatigue of the party. Therefore, I think that should be how a person earns Rest Points. For every point of HP you lose, you earn 1 Rest Point. For every Spell Slot you spend, you earn 2 Rest Points.

Level 1 characters need to spend 5 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 10 for every Long Rest.

Level 2 characters need to spend 10 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 20 for every Long Rest.

Level 3 characters need to spend 15 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 30 for every Long Rest.

See where I'm going with this? The more HP and Spell Slots you have, the more Rest Points you'll be able to earn. However, it also means the more you'll have to recover. So, as you level up, the cost requirements are more, but that's only because you are increasing in the number of HP you have and the number of Spell Slots.

Example: You and Shadowheart face the 3 intellect devourers in the beginning. You're only Level 1. During the fight, you lose 5 HP, but Shadowheart lost none. However, she spent 2 spell slots. That's 9 Rest Points. You can do a Short Rest but not a Long Rest. Why? Because you have a tadpole in your head and you think it could go off in literally hours and transform you into mind flayers. So you would not call it a day if you didn't feel you needed to as a character. Besides, I, the DM, know that there isn't going to be a super tough fight ahead of the party at this time. They can still keep going. So I would not let them do a long rest. A short rest? Yes. They lost 5 HP and spent 2 spell slots. A short rest might be in order especially if health potions are so limited at this time.

Ah! But I level up! What now? Short Rest first and then Level Up and you'd have enough. Did you level up first? Well, short rest is now disabled, but you don't need it. You just got a boost in spell slots and HP because you leveled up. Sure, to short rest first and then level up is a trick to the system to maximize your recovery, but so what? No system is going to be absolutely perfect, and it's the little tricks like that which make the veteran players better than the novices.

Either way, the rest system is then based on the characters actual need. If you wind up suffering heavy hits and lose lots of HP and spell slots, you NEED to rest regardless of how much you actually did. If the battle against the hag, for example, goes really well, then you don't need to rest. However, if the battle against Marli and Barton goes poorly, you might need to long rest after it. It all depends, honestly, on how much damage you took and how many spells you cast. So the Rest Points should be based on these as well, and the cost should be based on level.

Oh, and to address the "inflict damage to yourself to earn Rest Points" thing, if I was the DM, I'd immediately dock relationship points for that. You make Lae'zel jump off a cliff and take damage, whether it was intentional or not, I don't think she'd be too happy with your MC. Same goes with anyone. You are their leader. If you command them to do something that hurts them because of poor judgment, that should cause a docking of at least some relationship points; maybe 1 relationship point per HP lost (depending on how the relationship points work. I don't really know what values they assign to what).

Why should a companion be offended by the main character if he suddenly decides to jump off a rock for no reason? Losing your approval for something like this is literally tearing down the fourth wall, because it doesn't make any sense from a logical point of view.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
It isn't breaking the fourth wall any more than throwing a companion off a cliff to gain Rest Points is.

Look, the idea is that if the MC is you, and you are the leader of the party, and you command someone like Lae'zel to jump off a cliff, and it hurts her, she might get kinda pissed that you told her to do it. Sure, she still went through with it, and she was an idiot for not telling you to get lost, and she actually did it, but the point is that if Larian provided such a consequence, people might be more careful about having their characters take such huge, purposeful jumps.

I'm not suggesting that every time they take fall damage you lose relationship points. I'm talking about every time you, the player initiate HP loss on a party member. So, if you attack Lae'zel, she would get pissed because you slashed her with a sword. Likewise, if you have her jump off a cliff on purpose, she might not like that.

And I'm not talking a significant relationship lost. Just a small one to discourage abuse of the Rest Point system.

Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
I really dont want to gate Long Rests behind time limits or points or whatever.

I want consequences for Long Rest spamming that make you want to rest as little as possible. Supply costs, ambushes, Druids finishing the Rite of Thorns, Waukeen's Rest burning to ashes.

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Well, I'd love that too, but lots of people don't want to gate Long Rests behind consequences like supply costs, ambushes, Druids finishing the Rite of Thorns, Waukeen's Rest burning to ashes. So, it's the reversal, and we're trying to come up with a compromise.

Personally, as a DM, I'd handle long rests exactly like you just said. I'd make in game story consequences happen. I wouldn't even do supply costs unless it was truly necessary, such as in a desolate wasteland or something where food is scarce.

I'd handle it with soft consequences in the form of complications. Long rest spam? Well, Rath did something stupid now to try to stop the Rite of Thorns. Now you have to rescue him if you want his help to rally the druids against Kagha. Long rest spam again? Zevlor becomes desperate and launches a full scale assault on the druids, disrupting their ritual. Now, they can't finish it because they were attacked. Now, the grove is divided, and the druid area is barricaded off with druids protecting their zone and tieflings protecting theirs. Now you have to try to get the two sides talking again and maybe stand down, but Zevlor's assault has bought you even more time. Still, a complication has been created.

That's the kind of stuff I would do as a DM in Tabletop, and that, in my experience, is the most fun way to handle long rest spamming. You provide soft consequences, complications, when players want to do things that abuse a certain freedom.

But, that might be too much for Larian to do. So, we're trying to come up with a solution that most people will like. Having a Rest Point system is at least a system that measures your party's activities during the game. At least it is forcing players to do a reasonable amount of activity before they are allowed to long rest again.

When you get into higher levels, you absolutely need to do something like this. Otherwise, combats will be unbalanced UNLESS you long rest after every fight, which makes no sense from a story perspective.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
old hand
Offline
old hand
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Well, I'd love that too, but lots of people don't want to gate Long Rests behind consequences like supply costs, ambushes, Druids finishing the Rite of Thorns, Waukeen's Rest burning to ashes. So, it's the reversal, and we're trying to come up with a compromise.

Personally, as a DM, I'd handle long rests exactly like you just said. I'd make in game story consequences happen. I wouldn't even do supply costs unless it was truly necessary, such as in a desolate wasteland or something where food is scarce.

I'd handle it with soft consequences in the form of complications. Long rest spam? Well, Rath did something stupid now to try to stop the Rite of Thorns. Now you have to rescue him if you want his help to rally the druids against Kagha. Long rest spam again? Zevlor becomes desperate and launches a full scale assault on the druids, disrupting their ritual. Now, they can't finish it because they were attacked. Now, the grove is divided, and the druid area is barricaded off with druids protecting their zone and tieflings protecting theirs. Now you have to try to get the two sides talking again and maybe stand down, but Zevlor's assault has bought you even more time. Still, a complication has been created.

That's the kind of stuff I would do as a DM in Tabletop, and that, in my experience, is the most fun way to handle long rest spamming. You provide soft consequences, complications, when players want to do things that abuse a certain freedom.

But, that might be too much for Larian to do. So, we're trying to come up with a solution that most people will like. Having a Rest Point system is at least a system that measures your party's activities during the game. At least it is forcing players to do a reasonable amount of activity before they are allowed to long rest again.

When you get into higher levels, you absolutely need to do something like this. Otherwise, combats will be unbalanced UNLESS you long rest after every fight, which makes no sense from a story perspective.

I would say that any solution that adds additional permutations to the game is out of the question for a very simple reason.
They'll never finish this game. So far, the game has probably the greatest responsiveness of any RPG game I've ever played.
Adding more will not end well for sure, I would prefer them to focus on completing the game rather than adding a billion new options, which will end up with an unfinished act 3 again.
Budget and time are unfortunately not made of rubber.

Ultimately, I think the option to choose would be the best, even if unlimited rest were unbalanced, the people who are not interested in it could turn it off.

Last edited by Rhobar121; 25/10/21 09:05 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by GM4Him
I actually think the Rest Point system could work, but maybe tweaked.

As a DM, I need to always be mindful of my character's overall strength before I initiate any encounters with them. A DM's ultimate objective is to provide challenging encounters that don't kill them. So, I need to pay attention to how much health they have and their spell slots.

So, what if we combine an idea I had with the Rest Points idea? That would be more like what a DM would do anyway. HP and Spell Slots are how you determine the overall fatigue of the party. Therefore, I think that should be how a person earns Rest Points. For every point of HP you lose, you earn 1 Rest Point. For every Spell Slot you spend, you earn 2 Rest Points.

Level 1 characters need to spend 5 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 10 for every Long Rest.

Level 2 characters need to spend 10 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 20 for every Long Rest.

Level 3 characters need to spend 15 Rest Points for every Short Rest and 30 for every Long Rest.

See where I'm going with this? The more HP and Spell Slots you have, the more Rest Points you'll be able to earn. However, it also means the more you'll have to recover. So, as you level up, the cost requirements are more, but that's only because you are increasing in the number of HP you have and the number of Spell Slots.

Example: You and Shadowheart face the 3 intellect devourers in the beginning. You're only Level 1. During the fight, you lose 5 HP, but Shadowheart lost none. However, she spent 2 spell slots. That's 9 Rest Points. You can do a Short Rest but not a Long Rest. Why? Because you have a tadpole in your head and you think it could go off in literally hours and transform you into mind flayers. So you would not call it a day if you didn't feel you needed to as a character. Besides, I, the DM, know that there isn't going to be a super tough fight ahead of the party at this time. They can still keep going. So I would not let them do a long rest. A short rest? Yes. They lost 5 HP and spent 2 spell slots. A short rest might be in order especially if health potions are so limited at this time.

Ah! But I level up! What now? Short Rest first and then Level Up and you'd have enough. Did you level up first? Well, short rest is now disabled, but you don't need it. You just got a boost in spell slots and HP because you leveled up. Sure, to short rest first and then level up is a trick to the system to maximize your recovery, but so what? No system is going to be absolutely perfect, and it's the little tricks like that which make the veteran players better than the novices.

Either way, the rest system is then based on the characters actual need. If you wind up suffering heavy hits and lose lots of HP and spell slots, you NEED to rest regardless of how much you actually did. If the battle against the hag, for example, goes really well, then you don't need to rest. However, if the battle against Marli and Barton goes poorly, you might need to long rest after it. It all depends, honestly, on how much damage you took and how many spells you cast. So the Rest Points should be based on these as well, and the cost should be based on level.

Oh, and to address the "inflict damage to yourself to earn Rest Points" thing, if I was the DM, I'd immediately dock relationship points for that. You make Lae'zel jump off a cliff and take damage, whether it was intentional or not, I don't think she'd be too happy with your MC. Same goes with anyone. You are their leader. If you command them to do something that hurts them because of poor judgment, that should cause a docking of at least some relationship points; maybe 1 relationship point per HP lost (depending on how the relationship points work. I don't really know what values they assign to what).

It looks interresting from a DM point of view... But I'm not sure it would be cool in a video game.

If you can rest when you have to rest, what's the difference with the system we have right now ?

Last edited by Maximuuus; 25/10/21 09:18 PM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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