Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6424044" data-attributes="member: 7006">Here's my personal thoughts on the matter:1)  I don't know if actually setting a hard and fast rule of "only two Short Rests per Long Rest" is really going to be necessary.  If the party is going to be in a situation where they are going to be in so many fights where those that have Short Rest re-chargable abilities are going to want to continually re-charge them... they're probably in a location (like a dungeon) where being able to take three or more 1-hour rests at various points within is probably unlikely.  So I don't know if it's ever going to be an issue such that you need a house rule on it.  After all... if it really becomes such an issue time and time again that the party keeps wanting to re-charge because the Short Rest PCs keep going nova after five minutes of action, or they're so cowardly that they don't want to continue on without re-charging... just have monsters show up to interrupt them during their rests.  Just because they may *want* to take that third hour-long rest, doesn't mean you have to give it to them.  But at the same time... there may come a point in your campaign when letting them take a third hour long Short Rest rather than force them into an 8-hour Long Rest might be perfectly okay.  So why hamstring yourself over it?As far as the "Long rest full HD re-charge, spend HD to heal"... I personally don't think your houserule is going to result in anything different than what the rules currently say.  After a Long Rest, the PCs are going to be at almost full hit points, and only have a few HD remaining *regardless*.  Because (if you follow the actual rules) their HP completely recharge but they only get half their HD back (which for a lot of characters means they are about half their HD)... or they fully re-charge their HD and them *immediately* spend them to get their HP up to full before heading back out.  So as a result... they are *still* going back out at almost full HP and down a significant number of HD in both cases.  Your rule does not really grant you what you want.So to me it's six on one hand, half a dozen on the other.  But maybe you'll find it to be different?2)  This houserule results in the potential for unbalancing the characters to each other... which if you are okay with it and the players are okay with it... then go with it (if you just genuinely prefer the randomness factor of the situation.)  Just be prepared for the possibility of the Fighter rolling three 9s or 10s on their HP, the Wizard rolling a series of 1s, and then trying to figure out the proper number of monsters you have to throw out there that will be able to challenge said Fighter, without completely smearing and one-shotting the Wizard over and over and over again.  Because that kind of unbalancing is possible.3)  I have no idea how useful or not useful this hourserule will be.  My guess is that it just will make fights more difficult for the party, as each level they will be down 10% of the expected number of hit points the monsters have been balanced against.  Won't be much of a factor at levels 11, 12, or 13... but once you get up around 17, 18, 19, it's going to have a much greater impact.  Personally... I don't see the gain in your proposed houserule, as my first instinct is always to just throw more monsters out there (in number or power) if the party seems like they are handling the encounters with ease.  Balancing each fight on the fly by having another monster show up to me is much easier than slashing the HP of the party then needing to guess how that is going to affect the balancing of fights later on.  But I'm lazy in that way.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />4)  I'm fine with this idea, as I found in my own games that the "starting equipment" packages are never exactly what the players end up wanting, and they always ask to buy equipment anyway.  And as the game gives you the "rolling for starting gold" right there in the rules, I wouldn't even call this a houserule for you, per se.  It's an expected part of the game.5)  Never would I use the rule you proposed.  Too much gain for not enough loss.  If you want to introduce the Charge action into your game... my suggestion would be just to just take what you get from the Charger feat and use that as an action in of itself that anyone can do, rather than require someone to spend a feat slot for it.At the *very* least if you decide to use your houserule... you should state that the double damage only applies to the *first* attack of the Charge.  Otherwise, as you have written it every class that gets multiple attacks using a single action would get double damage on all of them.  Which will kill the game dead.And finally... I don't personally see the gain in a Flat Footed condition as a substitute to the Ad/DisAd system.  I am a huge proponent to the ease-of-use of that system and have rarely seen any situation where taking it out gained anything substantial.  But as Cover is currently the only non-class specific game system that grants small numeric bonuses (over and above the Ad/DisAd system), maybe you're okay with adding more?  That comes down to personal preference I suppose.  Up to you.Them's my feeling on the matter.  Take them for what you will.</blockquote>

Verification