Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Camping and resting.

I wouldn't even want a fast travel spot at every camp, frankly. Precisely because as I already suggested that would make it TOO convenient to abuse as what we have now.
Keep that for the MAJOR hubs, rather than every little camp fire spot we could come across.

Yeah I suppose. Though I wouldn't think that camping spots would be that much farther apart then major hubs, since big locations are fairly close together in BG3.

Take Act 1 Overworld - I'd want 3 camping sites max throughout it? Grove, near Goblin Camp, and maybe a Tollhouse camp? So unless the Grove and the Goblin fortress are literally the only fast travel locations in Act 1 overworld, the #of camps would be equal to #of hubs. What would you define as a MAJOR hub?

Nah, I'm more or less in line with you in terms of average distribution.

I'm specifically stressing that I wouldn't want to add EXTRA warp point in proximity of any other small camps across the map.
Thisalready feels like a Lilliput diorama world (frozen in an eternal moment in time where is permanent noon, too) where everything is at most one minute of walk away.
Last thing I'd want is make it down to 15 seconds by increasing the number of teleporting spots in proximity of each intermediate camp fire.

I feel like it would be perfectly acceptable to go, for instance, through three or four "contextual mini camps" between the major warping points.

Camping locations should be required, in my opinion, for Long and Short Rest both. Logical locations are as follows:

Grove
Harper's Lookout - for Short Rest mainly, but could be long if you want
Dank Crypt - after you defeat mercenaries or if you sneak in from lower beach entrance.
Harper's Cove - where you find Harper Stash Map. It's remote and gives a good view of approaching hostiles
Owlbears cave after owlbear is dead. Who would enter to get you at that point?
Waukeen's Rest
Goblin camp has a few secluded areas perfect for camping, even long resting

All these places could be utilized so you don't have to backtrack that far from ANYWHERE.

And there are more, of course. I just don't have time to list all the logical locations

If I had license to limit the use in some form I'd probably go for a hybrid solution:

- long rest: only in specific camps around the map. Or in taverns and similar safe hubs.
- short rest: a button that you can use at any given time as it is now (maybe with a short animation of your party sitting around to rest/chat if you want to be fanciful about it) but tied to a "heat system", like "City hub or safe area? Go on! Yellow area? Only after you clean the surrounding enemies and turn it green. Red area? Not suited for resting in any form. No resting here (and ideally no teleporting away, either. So no convenient fast travel available for REASONS in these places).

I would like them to keep the current system where I can rest where I want.

I like the idea of requiring specific locations for Short Rest as well.

Short Rest means a downtime of at least one hour, resting, eating, fixing your equipment, talking about your next move. It should be more than an insta-heal button.

Perhaps not a full on campsite but at least a location with somewhere to sit or rest comfortably at. I'd like to see the party sitting down or idle.

Right now you can Short Rest while the PC's are on fire, so perhaps it's not quite final yet.

If you're not going to do Random Encounters, this should be at least something implemented in the game. You should not be able to short rest in a hostile spider lair while stealthing past very powerful spiders.

I could see allowing you to short rest in the whispering depths of you didn't alert them to your presence or after killing the phase spiders and ettercaps that are prowling around.

So, yeah, should be like a red, yellow, green indicator or something.

This may sound like good idea on paper ...
But what would stop us from simply returning to previous "rest point" ?

If nothing, all you "add to the game" are several minutes of walking. :-/
Is that your intention?

I mean, it was already explained, you just weren't paying attention.
Nothing would stop it. The idea is not to "stop it" (which you can't really do, unless you want a lot of people crying that the game is too hard), but to make it just inconvenient enough to discourage its abuse.

"B-but I can do it anyway, it's only few minutes of walking!". Yeah, well. Enjoy minutes of walking, then? For the most part sensible people with a good grasp about how to deal with the game combat will chose to push forward and do without some skill/spell slot ready rather than backtracking for minutes.
And and if anyone is going go ask: yes, the argument "Then what about removing even that minor inconvenience and make unlimited rest spam completely frictionless?" is stupid.

There could be other sensible design decisions to discourage, "punish" or even entirely prevent the abuse of rest spam in few ways, but realistically while they would arguably make the game even better mechanicallty, you can't win against the Icelyns of this world, who would complain about ANY sort of restriction for the sake of balance as it was a personal abuse.

Dunno ...
I gues i just dont see much difference here.

While you were told to simply dont spam Long Rests if you dont like it ... and as far as i know, you repeatly dismiss that as a stupid argument ...
Now you say that you expect people just not walk back and forth, to rest anytime they want to ... since if they do, your restrictions are completely void ...

So where exactly is the difference?
What is the point of this? Are you trying to just annoy anyone who would not play the game your way as much as possible?
How would this be better (or even different) than simply tell to YOU to rest only when you reach those places you would concider to be fiting a camp and leave everyone else be?

And here we go again.

You spin me right round Baby right round like a record Baby right round round round.

Random Encounters
Limit long rest
Limit fast travel
And let's go over AGAIN all the reasons why we want these things.

Because that's what it is.
Serving to the players unlimited convenience on a plate and then asking them to "self-restrain if they want anything vaguely resembling a balanced experience" is AWFUL game design, not to mention and an idiotic, incompetent approach in general.

Especially when you realize that in its essence a game is a series of interconnecting, interacting sub-systems that is defined by its limitations just as much as its possibilities.
Chess wouldn't be chess is players would be allowed to change a piece moveset at will when he's in a tight spot.

Cute ...
But i would really like to hear how is this case different, if you dont mind telling me.

In left corner we have stupid, awfull and idiotic game design that requires player to self-restrain themselves while keeping people who dont want to be restrained to play smoothly and easily ...

In right corner we have intelligent, brillitant and perfect game desing that restrict player only as long as they want to keep restricted themselves and all that is required to bypass it is simply invest few dozen seconds ...

And my question stay unanswered ...
Where is the difference?

Funny you mentioned Chess, wich (aswell as any at least little complex game) had many rules added, removed, or changed during the times.

I WOULD insert some hard restrictions here and there if it was up to me, but that's a digression.

Sticking to the key point here: the player workaround around the soft restriction in this case (having the option to take few minutes to walk all the way back the previous closest camp) comes with a price, which is precisely the minor inconvenience of that time they'll need to waste.
Which is also why the usual rebuttal following this type of conversation ("Since it's just a minor inconvenience, why don't we remove it entirely?") is fundamentally stupid.
Just because you don't want to put an unsurmountable barricade for the player around a certain restriction out of sheer mercy, itt doesn't mean you should go out of your way to make the system entirely frictionless.

Games are adjusted, tweaked and redesigned countless times over the years.
That's why this is called "5th Edition" of D&D in case you didn't notice before.
Tweaking doesn't mean making it frictionless and surely doesn't mean "We can throw the rules out of the window at will in the mid of playing it".

Basically, this is not even close to be the strong "gothca" point you think you are making.

It seems to me a little like you have feeling that exactly this is happening ... while at the same time you are trying really hard to convince me that this cant be happening. O_o

It isnt quite easy to react on something like that.

Lets focus on those differences, shall we?
//Edit (sory i posted too soon, my bad ):
Yup ... you said that earlier.
But the question is how is that better?

I mean i feel like i know the answer, but i would rather hear it from you.

A better analogy might be saying that all chess games should be timed, because untimed games are too easy.

Then someone else says, why not time your games and let me play untimed games?

To which the response is: if chess games didn't have to be timed, who could then be expected to limit themselves by playing a timed game?

And yet... life doesn't seem to work that way, despite arbitrary statements and confident assertions otherwise.

People who like timed games play them every day. And people who don't like timed games play without a clock.

Not quite. Restricting resting is a fundamental rule in D&D. AGAIN, if you don't, wizards and clerics unbalance the game, making all other classes boring and unnecessary. If I, as a wizard, can fireball 3 times, rest and keep fireballing 3 times per battle, I won't need anyone else. I can perch a good distance from enemies and rain fireballs all the way to the end of the game because I can literally wipe out tons of enemies with 3 fireballs per battle, and after each battle I can just long rest.

So, it's like playing chess and allowing the queen piece to be able to return to the board every turn. I can sacrifice her as much as I want to take out enemy pieces because I know I can return her to the board at the start of my next turn. Suddenly, no other piece on the board matters. Why move any other piece but the queen because I removed the rule that says she can only return if I get a pawn to the other side.

Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.