Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by etonbears
Um, not sure what your trying to say here. The TT rules for resting are largely irrelevent, and always have been. You rest as much as you want and as often as you want. If this requires going somewhere safe, and you choose to do it, then you do it.

The cost to the player is exactly what the DM chooses. The standard trade-off used to be the chance of "wandering monsters" while asleep. But all this achieves is to ensure that resting occurs even more frequently to ensure you still have spells for attacks while resting.

One of the early sets of modules D1-D3 that introduced the Drow, actually denied arcane casters ANY spell recovery when in the Underdark. So guess what; when the arcane users ran out of spells ( or had used a certain portion ), the whole party trooped back to the surface to rest.

And yes, you have reasonably analysed where Larian sit as DM. They know there is no point in trying to force any particular resting cadence ( which would be wildly unpopular ), so they design on the assumption you will rest as needed. Typically, I find I get through 2-3 fights before needing a long rest, due to the choices I take. But if I needed ( or wanted ) to long rest after every fight, that's exactly what I would do.

The only thing I would disagree with is that there is any real or implied relationship between "balance" and the TT resting rules. Nothing in the resting rules forces any particular behaviour upon the player, so any intent to use the resting rules as a "tool" for class balance woud be an astonishly poor design choice. I suppose that is possible, but if so, I don't see that it should be Larian's responsibility to fix it.
My point is that Larian, if they want to allow unlimited resting and/or not implement a day/night cycle, should more fully commit to this.

They have achieved arguably the most important thing, which is balancing encounters assuming players will rest as often as possible.

But they need to do a lot more work on
1) the camp cutscenes that only occur during long rests and can be missed if you don't long rest frequently enough.
-Option A: More strongly encourage long resting. Companions could say "let's return to camp; I have something to talk about" instead of just saying "I'm tired." Alternatively, some sort of light penalty should apply when companions start saying they're tired. Maybe a -1 to skill checks...not enough to force a rest, but enough to more strongly encourage it
-Option B: Untie these long rest conversations from long rests, and allow them while traveling or while short resting

2) Consumables and Food could be reduced, so that it becomes more necessary to long rest frequently. This, again, encourages players to long rest without explicitly forcing it

3.) If we are expected to long rest frequently, then honestly it wouldn't be bad to make some class changes. Give warlocks more spell slots or wizards less. Maybe adjust abilities that recharge per short rest (e.g., Action Surge) to have more uses. This would have a similar effect as allowing wizards to use all their slots in 1 encounter.

And in PnP you can't always just rest whenever you want; as you say this is up to the DM who sometimes declares that you cannot long rest. Or you can, but the DM imposes some penalty, like enemy reinforcements arrive or you have to waste time in which brings you closer to some deadline. Larian as the DM is allowing unlimited long resting but rarely imposes corresponding penalty.

1. Certainly agree the linkage between long-resting and plot-related party conversations is sub-optimal. This is particularly true as the (seemingly) very non-linear story leads to a difficult tangle of subsequent conversation triggers, some of which can invalidate earlier conversation triggers before they have a chance to activate.

I understand the production reasons for wanting an invariant camp backdrop when enacting these hi-res cut-scene conversations. As you say, it's usually better not to force players into any particular behaviour, so I would prefer they find a way to allow conversations to trigger "in the field" where possible, rather than contrived penalties, which tend not to be popular.

Of course, if Larian choose to add the passage of time to their game, the reasoning changes; but I don't think that is likely.

2. Quantity reduced, or heal values lowered or weight increased could all achieve the nudge towards long resting, but at the expense of reducing player choice. Can't say I care much one way or the other, but as with other player choice limitations, this can often prove unpopular. And, of course, not needed if you can trigger conversations in the field.

3. Yeah, why not ( apart from the fact it will induce apoplexy in some people ). I really don't care much about ability balance in games. As long as I can see upfront what I am going to be choosing between, I can make my choices from whatever the game maker offers. As with most design decisions, whether changes lke the ones you propose are necessary or desirable is probably a matter of personal opinion. Most BG3 players probably wouldn't care, and those that do would turn to mods.

As for BG3 long resting, I think Larian's current decision to allow long rest at will and with no penalty is fine. There isn't ( tadpole notwithstanding ) any obvious time pressure present in Act 1, which is more useful to gain experience,build up knowledge of the situation, and establish relationships with other actors in the story.

Later, the story may have time pressures or penalties that will cause players to think twice about a long rest. Or not. There shouldn't be contrived reasons that the story doesn't need.

Last edited by etonbears; 24/04/21 01:57 PM. Reason: bad tags