Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Because there are more complaints about failed attack rolls than failed ability checks.
Wait, is there a hotline I can call when I fail an attack roll? Why does nobody tell me these things?
Because there are more complaints about failed attack rolls than failed ability checks.
Obviously I can't dispute your findings at your table... but those are quite a bit different than what I see at my own.Half speed is devastating. I'd never, ever touch an ability which came with "half speed for the rest of the day" as a cost.
Difficult terrain affects all combatants equally (most of the time), and it is often possible to maneuver around it or bypass it. Having just your speed halved is far worse. If you're a melee warrior, it usually means losing a round of attacks as you close, and each time you need to get to a different place on the battlefield, there goes another round. If you're a ranged attacker or caster, it means you can't escape from the enemy's melee warriors without burning spell power.
And on top of all that, half speed and difficult terrain stack.
I don’t see a problem with that. Of course players would try to avoid it (presumably they would try to avoid the first level too, though they might be a bit more willing to risk it for a sufficient payoff). The thing is, it’s not always avoidable.
What are your thoughts?
TLDR: The new exhaustion rules not being as harsh so quickly, allows the players to actually engage with it as a risk, and DM's to use it as a consequence of exploration, and a way to pressure players outside of just combat/resources, without completely screwing over the players immediately like before.
There's not much point in having them because, with rare exceptions that are usually outside their control, players will simply consider any action that leads to gaining more than one level of exhaustion as off the table.
Can you elaborate?I strongly disagree.
It's like different groups approach the game differently, explaining why some posters claim something in the game is completely broken while others think it works just fine.Obviously I can't dispute your findings at your table... but those are quite a bit different than what I see at my own
Really? Speed halved? That's the infirmity that shut heroes down? That's an opinion that is surprising to me.
I very much disagree. D&D really suffers from being unable to have consequences that persist longer than 24 hours. Overland travel is a good example of something that tends to get handwaved away because of this.I prefer a the current exhaustion list reordered, however i'm not opposed to the proposed system.
However my main gripe is how slow exhaustion is to recover. I personally would prefer maybe half hp healed on a long rest but all exhaustion is healed. On a short rest 1 exhaustion point is healed.
One level on short, all on long seems about right.Would a solution to the harshness of the existing system be to remove on level of exhaustion on a short rest instead of a long rest?
Yes, I don’t see exhaustion mechanics as a fix for explorationOne level on short, all on long seems about right.
This doesn't really 'fix' exploration for me as there's really not much to exploration aside from a list of punishments and penalties for trying to leave town.
No, unless it is acceptable to have all levels of exhaustion removed on a long rest. Which then obviates exhaustion, you might as well just make it a -2 penalty with some hp damage. There isn't any rule or guidance on how many short rests you can take each day, as far as I know.Would a solution to the harshness of the existing system be to remove on level of exhaustion on a short rest instead of a long rest?