It’s really frustrating that you keep repeating the same arguments when I’ve already said I will be using One D&D exhaustion (so no disadvantage) and that the adventure structure means that resting unnaturally will result in failure of their goals. These are events based adventures not location based. I’ve also made it clear that casters will definitely want to use spells in the investigative parts of the adventure.It does stop (or seriously hamper) you from using your abilities as a martial.
Rogues are totally denied sneak attack class feature with even a single level of exhaustion.
Vs AC 15 a 7th level Rogue (Dex 20, shortsword) has a DPR of 15 (65 percent chance of 4d6+5). The same Rogue with a single level of exhaustion has a DPR of 4 (42 percent chance of 1d6+5).
Fighters core class feature is 'making attacks'. You're imposing disadvantage on those attacks, which is seriously harming their core class feature, which is 'Fighting'.
Casters will utterly dominate in such a game. Firstly, you're penalizing martials far more than casters with exhaustion (for no other reason than doing their jobs) and secondly, you're running a game where Casters only ever have to deal with a few encounters before getting back their entire suite of spells (meaning they can nova with relative impunity).
Now not only can they Nova much more easily, they're also encouraged to do so, in order to avoid everyone getting levels of exhaustion. Nuke them, before they nuke us, then fall back to long rest.
If you want 'rocket tag' to be the games default play style, your rule changes are the way to go.
That’s one possible solution. It is simple and would increase the risk of death. It doesn’t stop the problem of the PC popping back into full health the next morning as if nothing has happened.Simply making failed death saves stack (even after being brought to positive HP) does this, without forcing a player to play a crippled PC. They drop by 1 save per long rest, and if ever brought to 3 failed saves, you die.
Let me give you an extreme example. Say I brought in a rule that 'any PC reduced to half HP or less, takes a -10 penalty to all D20 rolls, till that PC finishes a long rest'.
What would be the natural consequence of that rule? That meta channels players into seeking to avoid getting hit (avoid heroics, play ranged PCs or casters) and further channels them into Long resting as soon as they have the above penalty (grinding play to a halt, and forcing the DM to do extra work to maintain pacing) or alternatively into playing the game without having any fun.
While your goals might be noble, none of those things are desirable outcomes.
The way this proposal works (which you’re allowed not to like) is the carrying over of a wound into the rest of the adventure (not just the combat parts). It moves away from Hp being the only metric of fighting strength towards a more nuanced set of criteria to evaluate. I don’t expect it to happen every session and sometimes when it does it will be the end of the session and won’t impact the adventure. But occasionally it will the risk that it might will factor into the players considerations.
You seem to be of the opinion that you can’t have fun if you are at a disadvantage. I disagree. Problems are more interesting and dynamic if they are complex and dynamic. If what you said was correct nobody would have fun if they went into a fight with anything less than full hp. The truth is we want ideal circumstances as players, that’s our job to approach an encounter with as much advantage as possible to minimize risk. One of the DMs jobs is to make this a challenge. To increase risk.
At the moment 5e combat has negligible risk… particularly in an investigation/mystery style campaign. That’s not tenable. Your proposed solution increases immediate risk and has a small increase longer term risk. I would definitely consider it as a plan B if my proposal doesn’t work.
You’re still not taking into account the campaign. For the purpose of Hp and combat difficulty all those things are there already in this campaign. It’s about mitigating that so combat is still challenging.If you want more co-operation from your PCs, or to increase the stakes for them as your goals, there are other ways of doing it, without forcing your players to not have fun, or implementing a rule that pushes them towards the 5MWD, Nova strikes, and massive class imbalance.
Pause for a second and consider the above sentence. Trust me mate, I dont doubt your goals are sincere, I just want you to step back and consider that there are better ways of achieving those goals, that dont also have an adverse effect elsewhere.
Again I reject the idea that challenges aren’t fun. They may not be your idea of fun. In the campaign @GuyBoy is currently running we were betrayed, and had all our belongings taken - with no immediate (next several levels) chance of recovering them. It was excruciating. It was also good fun. We appreciated the con. However had a sleep spell not taken us out when we were wounded it is very likely we would have fought to the bitter end and been TPK’d. because those behaviors are ingrained in us by the rules. The rules need to change to make the risk profile more appealing.
Let me give you an example. You’ve just rested and are at full strength and a foe ambushes you offering you and the party a chance to surrender. How likely are you to surrender? Now imaging you need to rest - you have a character on 1hp and the poisoned condition and you casters are out of spells? Now are you more or less likely to surrender?
I’m trying to allow the game to create situations where these circumstances happen naturally and not because the DM has taken advantage of the party’s weakness in a calculated way. @GuyBoy ’s con worked because we walked into it eyes open. Had the same group attacked us coming out of the dungeon wounded and expanded it would have felt more personal I suspect. Still our own fault if it had been signposted but personal nonetheless.