Originally Posted by Merlex
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Another idea I had was that they could limit Long Rest by having characters refuse to do it unless there is a significant need. Basically, instead of them saying they are tired for dialogue triggers, they say they aren't tired when you try to Long Rest unless you meet the prerequisites.

What would be required for a Long Rest is the following:

1. Short rests all used up.
2. HP less than half collectively. So if all party members have a total of 80 HP and together they have less than 40.
3. 1 or more characters with no more spell slots and/or special ability slots
4. Not in a dangerous location like Hag's lair or gobbo base
5. 1 Food item per character in the camp.
6. 1 Drink item per character in the camp.

Doesn't have to be this exactly, but thinking something like this. Than restrict short rests a bit too. ...

This I greatly prefer. though i think shortrests shouldn't be restricted too much, even in tabletop they are meant to be used freely. I think they should just depend on how many "hitdie" a caster could have, so level. So a level 1 party can only shortrest once and a level 4 party could do it four times. Shortresting in quick succession only means they heal more cause most characters can only take advantage of X on Shortrest once or it falls off on shortrest. Just keep things as they work in 5e for shortresting and give some limit to longresting like how you mentioned needing a resource and the characters to be tired. Also long resting needing food actually is in line with 5e as characters are supposed to eat rations to avoid exhaustion.

I completely agree with your long rest model. But I'm with CJMPinger on short rests.

Originally Posted by XxAnonymousxX
I disagree entirely, that suggestion would make the game significantly less fun, albeit more like dnd 5e in some aspects, but overall I don’t think most people want 4 or 5 restrictions on the ability to get some spell slots. In fact I don’t really understand why even hardcore players would want that, the game by its self on normal when fighting 5 or more enemies is already a huge pain but the payoff is usually worth it and you can rest and recover after to at least have your melee fighters in tip top shape as it currently stands, but that change would neuter wizards as a whole for me personally as it would be no different than POE which i loved except for the fact wizards were 99% of the time worthless, and only cause further annoyance when they died after being useless (when they ran outta spells). I don’t want a repeat of that. Personally i want to see wizards in a better spot than right now as currently they are Imo the weakest of all the currently available classes, and no I don’t think that the individuality of warlock would be ruined as the main draw for me and probably some other people is the pet and evil eldritch feel of the spell warlock has that wizard can’t even get, the only class wizard can really copy somewhat is cleric but even then it is completely subpar because the wizard usually lacks wisdom to cast good cleric spells. This loss of identity for other classes from what i can tell would be non existent because the identity is based on what spells the spellcaster has and then the next defining factor would be how effective those spells are on said class. Also cantrips getting an extra die still would make them subpar on most classes as their damage (other than a few exceptions) is already low and the boost they get would barely bring them to lvl 2 eldritch blast territory. Also one of the only ways you can resurrect a party member is at the camp so multiple restrictions would hamper that as well.

Then you're playing them wrong. Wizards are by far my favorite D&D class. I've been playing them 40+ years. From the Basic and Expert Box sets, AD&D, 2e, 3e, and 3.5. Wizards are about strategy. Having the right spell at the right time. Managing your spellslots, picking the right spells for your spellbook. Wizards are not suppose to nova every fight, that just turns them into a second rate Sorcerer. They are suppose to control the battlefield, not be blasters. That's for Sorcerers and Warlocks. Don't get me wrong, they can blast too. But that's not what they are best at. That's why I push so hard to get the Abjurer fixed; and am pushing for the Enchanter, Diviner, Necromancer, and Illusionist subclasses. If played right Wizards are the MOST POWERFUL class in D&D, and BG3. Clerics while a lot of fun, burn through their spellslots much quicker, with useful spells like Bless, Aid and Healing Word. When I add a Cleric spell to my Wizard spellbook, I go for the ones that Wisdom doesn't matter as much. Shield of Faith is at the top of the list, and it makes an Abjurer very difficult to bring down. It's an acceptable tempary replacement until the Shield spell gets added in.

If the wizard had more subclasses or spells maybe the class would be better i agree but as it currently stands with the build of game, the wizards are the weakest in my opinion. The one thing they got going for them is basically useless currently (though it might get better but nobody really knows) and they feel like a one and done for the day class for some players which is a bad feeling because in many other games your can go ham with your spells and dish out insane damage each fight, but in BG3 only melee characters in the demo (and the warlock in some cases) deal huge amounts of damage while the cleric and wizard are basically set to heal and occasionally cc’ing enemies due to the limitations of spell slots and the ability to get them back without long resting. This is more then likely going to get better in some way but right now you either have a wizard who does amazing for maybe 1 or 2 fights then is tuckered out for the day, or you have a crowd control only class who dies in a single hit when targeted (which also ruins the cc due to concentration).