Short Rest, Long Rest, Round Rest, what does different schedules do for a game?

[deaddmwalking]

I think the thing to keep in mind when you're considering any type of circumstantial reduced potency is overall challenge. A vampire that is invincible in darkness but helpless in light isn't a particularly good challenge. Ultimately it's an example of a puzzle monster - if the PCs can find a way to bring light to the vampire they win; if the vampire can prevent them from doing so, it wins. If the adventure is supposed to be finding the thing the monster is weak against and there's plenty of challenge, you could make the argument that it doesn't matter that the final battle is anti-climatic. You went to all the trouble to find kryptonite, you expect to defeat Superman.

But getting the 'silver bullet' or 'kryptonite' and winning in one shot isn't that rewarding. Making it an easier but still difficult challenge ought to be. The same is true for rests. If creatures aren't a challenge for a fully rested/prepared party, the GM wants to ensure that the party doesn't have a chance to always rest, but players want to ensure that they're always rested. Playing with the rest/recovery mechanics is really about TENSION. You can play with it a bit in an adventure; time limits encourage players to skip rests, but finding a default that supports the most types of stories is best.

I don't want to tie a character's only weapon to a long-rest - that encourages a 5-minute workday. To avoid that we provide a limited resource that regenerates all of the others (hit points, spells, etc) that gets ground down faster with more difficult encounters. You always have the choice of 'one more fight' at close to full efficiency, but you know that afterward you're going to be reduced until you successfully complete a long-rest.

[Thaluikhain]

I think the thing to keep in mind when you're considering any type of circumstantial reduced potency is overall challenge. A vampire that is invincible in darkness but helpless in light isn't a particularly good challenge. Ultimately it's an example of a puzzle monster - if the PCs can find a way to bring light to the vampire they win; if the vampire can prevent them from doing so, it wins.

I was thinking more that the players know that the monsters come out to play at night, so they've got until nightfall to prepare, and/or have to stay put and hold out until dawn. Like Pitch Black.

But, ok, that's a fairly niche monster unless you are going for a horror campaign or treating them as an environmental issue.

[JonSetanta]

Rather than give "Night Magic" a boost when in darkness, a better implementation would be a slight reduction while exposed to light and NO boost otherwise; more of a limitation than a superpower.

Verbal magic doesn't work in Silence areas and in stealth encounters could very well ruin a user's chance of success, while Somatic magic has the problem of limbs being grappled, cuffed, removed, or other upper-body motion impairments (ignoring the "armor makes somatic casting difficult" trope because seriously... Urza and hundreds and of other Mtg casters did just fine)

[deaddmwalking]

Rather than give "Night Magic" a boost when in darkness, a better implementation would be a slight reduction while exposed to light and NO boost otherwise; more of a limitation than a superpower.

Mechanically giving a penalty under some conditions is the same as giving a bonus under the other set of conditions. Ie, if 'CR 10' is normal, then with penalty you become CR 8; if you set normal to CR 8 then with a bonus you become CR 10. Either way, you're bouncing between the same set of numbers.

On the question of whether it is BETTER from a design perspective to use a bonus instead of a penalty in most cases, I would argue YES. There's a psychology. Everybody likes getting something; most people don't like losing something. Getting a invincibility star in the original Super Mario Bros doesn't last long, but you don't feel like you're losing anything when it goes away - you're back to normal. So it actually feels like a power-up.

If your players are never going to be monsters and never interact with the power-up/power-down rules it really just becomes a question of what's easier from a GM standpoint. Big changes to stats are a major pain, but if you have two versions of the monster and you just pick which one you're supposed to use it probably doesn't matter. Outside of that, adding abilities that power up the creature (versus removing abilities) is slightly easier. Something like DR 20 that you add when the monster is tougher without any other changes is really easy to apply whether adding or subtracting; likewise a short list of spells or special abilities that clearly marked as conditional isn't too difficult. I generally favor having a list of 'extra abilities' versus having to mentally subtract out the abilities that are not available when the creature is weaker.

[JonSetanta]

Hmm. Interesting take on that.

I'll think on it and reply tomorrow, 5% battery on phone right now.

For now, your stance on additive rather than subtractive ability design does make sense.

[Thaluikhain]

I remember some Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, with their very basic system, occasionally gave pluses or minuses to you or your opponent which were functionally identical to having an opponent with a different Skill, but if done well could sorta seem different.

Having said that, it could certainly be argued that there are better ways of doing it when you aren't using that sort of very basic system.

[JonSetanta]

Ok. Rather than overall capability of a spell or range of options, a Night Magic user would have one of the two:

Easier to resist or dodge by at most -2 to DC or TN.
-1 damage dice or shorter duration debuff.

[OgreBattle]

As an extra note, having a universal list of modifier categories will help with giving penalties and bonuses to different magic systems, and also help with non-magical 'mundane' effects also have an impact (Torch vs light sensitive monster doing the same thing as a dazzling spell)

[JonSetanta]

I'm... Still working on that.

For ability and damage supertypes I have:
Physical (brute or finesse methods)
Mental (intellect, emotion, social) also being types of damage to the Stamina pool, certain traits and situations grant Resist 5 every 5 levels.
Solid damage (Bash, Cut, Poke)
Energy damage (all the typical tropes including Photon for "Radiant" and Death or Entropy type instead of "Negative" or "Necrotic")
An outlier type called Rust that only affects Steel and Iron
Disease
Toxic

The method of delivery, be it mundane, magic, item, or environment doesn't really matter.

I might just have a suboptimal situation double the Stamina cost for boosting spells, but when conditions are ideal it functions as normal, encouraging casters to sway things in their favor (A Vox caster being forced to mutter or whisper or even cast with their mouth covered would pay double but if they can chant, sing, or just yell their magic it is to their benefit)

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, if your spell attacks someone with fire, I want to explicitly know if I am going to start fires on things other than people, which I may or may not want.

[JonSetanta]

Well, there are materials and character "resource pools" to account for as well.
Certain materials will have inherent Resist (value) to specific damage groups such as Steel being Resist (Cut, Poke, and Fire) but have an Integrity pool rather than Health, which does not "heal" with curative magic or time.

I'm debating on the logistics of "everyone behind that armored Warrior is protected from aoe as long as said Warrior doesn't Dodge" but using a Shield should probably also grant a defense bonus against aoes.


Organic characters and objects, the default, WILL catch Burn status of adjacent to anyone or anything that also has Burn.
This includes forests and wood structures.

[Thaluikhain]

I'm debating on the logistics of "everyone behind that armored Warrior is protected from aoe as long as said Warrior doesn't Dodge"

Do that, and attackers using aoe suddenly have a good reason to use flanking fire, which can only be a good thing, IMHO.

[JonSetanta]

Funny you mentioned "flanking" because after reading a dozen articles this winter of "D&D flanking and melee combat is stupid" I decided to alter it to the conditions of:
Flanked (attacker is not directly observed with the Focus action nor are they Backed, lasts 1 turn or until the target uses either an Action to face to the assault or chose to stop Focus; Dodge and Parry rolls get -5)
Backed (usually occurs from a Stealth character, a group of enemies surrounding, or the target is Focused on someone else; the Vital Strike ability is usable on the target since they are usually Distracted (-5 Sense to everything they are not Focused on) to deal extra damage; 1 Action is needed to do a half-spin)

Characters in melee combat may make a Dodge roll vs the target's Dodge roll, leading to Agile-trait, smaller, and/or higher level characters being able to even spend a Reaction to move 1 space, and/or Stamina (to move farther, such as a whole Move action as a reaction) to cause the Flanked condition mentioned above until a likewise equal investment (1 Action) is spent to point a weapon, shield, or at least Focus on them.

This is a redefining of the expected D&D term Flanking to mean "target has an enemy on two opposite sides", but my version could be summarized more as "if the enemy chooses to be Focused on whatever action to gain a bonus, they are Distracted concerning everything else, and that's what enables certain strategies".

Certain abilities that require Focus:
Control tactic of pretty much every Attack/Defense/Control dynamic, examples being a Grapple used on one or more targets leaves the grappler open to attack by others
Double the Sense range of all senses to locate and target one group, object, or character
(Considering) cast any kind of spell; rather than "provoke an AO" the action of flapping and chanting just leaves one open to being stabbed in the back or snuck up upon

[Frost751]

In most of the prevailing tabletop role-playing games here which involve exploring dungeons, including the well-known Dungeons and Dragons, the rest routines have a standard format. Classes such as wizards and clerics necessitate a complete night's slumber, termed as a long rest, that endures for 6 to 8 hours, to replenish their abilities. However, warlocks have the advantage of regaining their power with just an hour of rest, known as a short rest. In contrast, some classes, such as those featured in the Book of 9 Swords, can take a breather during combat, which can take a round or is based on performing a smaller action.

[Kaelik]

In most of the prevailing tabletop role-playing games which involve exploring dungeons, including the well-known Dungeons and Dragons, the rest routines have a standard format. Classes such as wizards and clerics necessitate a complete night's slumber, termed as a long rest, that endures for 6 to 8 hours, to replenish their abilities. However, warlocks have the advantage of regaining their power with just an hour of rest, known as a short rest. In contrast, some classes, such as those featured in the Book of 9 Swords, can take a breather during combat, which can take a round or is based on performing a smaller action.

Another stupid AI post.

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, you have to use DAN or something to get the best out of chatgpt, and even then it only sometimes works. When I want you to write a Lovecraftian horror story, I don't want the power of love to magically give everyone a happy ending. OTOH, it seems that the fears that AI will soon replace human writers only apply to really awful writers.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Even the chatbot knows 5e should've come out with Bo9S 2!