The new playtest Exhaustion rules has already fixed the exploration pillar a lot.

[Bill Zebub]

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?

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Obviously I can't dispute your findings at your table... but those are quite a bit different than what I see at my own.

First off the front-line fighters never seem to have any issue being in melee range, because monsters more often than not rush to get into combat just as much as the PCs do. And if a frontline warrior is wailing away on a creature... another one will be running up to assist / take over. So I rarely see situations where a frontline warrior only moving 15' per round during combat is having such a hardship (excluding special situation combats where yes, the enemies keep themselves at range, but those are rare occurrences because most monsters are melee focused.)

For the ranged attackers... usually they are rangers and dexterity fighters-- and they have more than enough hit points that they SHOULD be taking hits from melee warriors that rush up to them quite frankly. Too many times those players act like their characters are as fragile as weakened wizards are, wherein case in point they are just as hardy as the folks up front and they would do well to absorb some of the damage rather make the tank do all the work. Running away is far down on the list of things those PCs should be doing as far as I'm concerned, LOL. And I didn't even mention the Rogue... who have Cunning Action to Hide/Dash/Disengage at their disposal to reduce their issues moving at half speed. And for spellcasters... using their spells to get away from attacks is something they have to deal with all the time anyway... so while they aren't moving as far as they normally would... getting engaged is something usually they are prepped for.

But of course... I'm sure in other games like your own it's probably the opposite. (Just like wherein my own games having Level 1 be Disadvantage on Ability Checks is the absolutely suckiest things there is because it pretty much destroys the good time of the player stuck with it all the time outside of combat... since skills and ability checks are the bread and butter of the gameplay experience at my table-- whereas other tables who rarely roll checks probably doesn't bother them at all.)

But this is why I just reworked the order of my Exhaustion table to move Half speed up and Disad on ability checks down... to fix it to work better at mine. I'm sure at other tables another re-ordering could work out better for them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

One advantage of the new system is that each additional level isn’t that bad…its’s just -1…so players can be incrementally lured into catastrophe. (Mwuhahahaha…)

The disadvantage of the old system is that players stop doing anything that would risk that second level. And imposing it on them by essentially leaving them no choice isn’t (imo) as fun as letting them do it to themselves.

Something combining both systems…flavor and real penalties, but in a smooth progression, would be ideal. (Which is one reason I like rolling on a table of penalties: the hope of a lucky roll lures players into all kinds of trouble.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

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.

They are still pretty harsh, my regular group is pretty risk averse when it comes to penalties.
the first level of exhaustion in the old system was Disadvantage on Ability checks this is something they might consider suffering, as it did not reduce their effectiveness in combat that much.
But with the new rule they see taking the -1 to attack rolls and spell DC as something you would only do if you where in a situation where there would be a very low chance of combat before your next long rest.
This would exclude exploring out in the wild where random encounters are a thing.

 

[Baron Opal II]

So, perhaps

1. -1 to d20s
2. -2 to d20s
3. -5 ft. movement
4. -3 to d20s
5. -10 ft. move
6. Disadvantage to d20s
7. Half movement
8. Crawl / stagger at 5 ft. / rd
9. Unable to move
10. Death

 

[Clint_L]

On the one hand, the current exhaustion rules are too harsh. 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. So the current function of exhaustion actively limits gameplay and story options.

On the other hand, the new system is too basic. It could use a bit more flavour. It goes too far the other direction by making extra levels of exhaustion no big deal. Much better for Berserker Barbarians, though, whose core mechanic is too punishing right now.

Maybe all they need to do is add an extra level of exhaustion, where the first level of exhaustion is the -1, the second is that plus disadvantage on ability checks, etc. Just make it a bit more incremental.

 

[Horwath]

1: -1 to d20, -1 to AC, -1 to DC, - 5ft move speed
2: -2 to d20, -2 to AC, -2 to DC, - 5ft move speed
3: -3 to d20, -3 to AC, -3 to DC, -10ft move speed
4: -4 to d20, -4 to AC, -4 to DC, -10ft move speed
5: -5 to d20, -5 to AC, -5 to DC, -15ft move speed
6: -6 to d20, -6 to AC, -6 to DC, -15ft move speed
7: -7 to d20, -7 to AC, -7 to DC, -20ft move speed
8: -8 to d20, -8 to AC, -8 to DC, -20ft move speed
9: -9 to d20, -9 to AC, -9 to DC, -25ft move speed
10: death

penalty would not affect death saves, but every failed death save would add level of exhaustion. Death saves exhaustion levels go away at short rest.

failing a save vs. severe weather could be level or two if weather is really severe or save was really low.

many poisons or diseases could work this way.

day without sleep, one level.

day without water, two levels.

two days without food, one level.

forced march, one level for extra 2 hrs beyond 8.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Agreed. And as I noted above, I think it should always be the result of players knowing the risks and making a conscious decision.

 

[Dausuul]

Very much a fan of the new mechanic. It accumulates smoothly instead of making erratic leaps from "moderately inconvenienced" to "severely disabled" to "totally boned." By penalizing all d20 rolls and your save DCs, it hits every class just about evenly. And it's easy to remember. (Quick, without looking it up--what are the combined penalties for four levels of exhaustion in the standard 5E rules?)

Rules complexity comes with a heavy cost. It makes the game harder to learn, it slows down play, it forces everyone to think about the rules instead of the fiction, and it introduces balance hazards. There are times when it is worth paying that cost, but IMO this is not one of those times. Exhaustion should be like hit points--simple, clean, easy to use. That allows it to serve the same function in exploration that hit points do in combat.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I strongly disagree.

Can you elaborate?

Never mind, I see you answered already!

 

[TheSword]

The new system is just negative levels by another name (for the most part) I think it’s fine. Now they just need to add lingering injuries at zero Hp that bestow a number of levels of exhaustion and additional penalties keyed to the levels until the exhaustion is removed…. Injured leg - reduce speed by 5 feet for each level of exhaustion (minimum speed 5’).

 

[CubicsRube]

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.

I feel that how long it takes it takes to recover impacts play a lot more than the penalties. If I know that i'll have disadvantage on attack rolls if i push on, but i know i need to just make it out of the valley and then i can sleep and be functional again, it might just be worth the risk. And as a DM I can feel less mean by hitting players with exhaustion if i k ow they can bounce back quickly from it.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think the new system is any better than the last, players still won't really engage with it because they are averse to any kind of penalty. So in that respect, I think this system will have about as much impact as the current one, any level of exhaustion will cause the players to look for an area to take a break so that they can recover.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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?

 

[Fifth Element]

Obviously I can't dispute your findings at your table... but those are quite a bit different than what I see at my own

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.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Really? Speed halved? That's the infirmity that shut heroes down? That's an opinion that is surprising to me.

We would never willingly take that kind of penalty. I want the new version to have a bit more flavor than it does but we've never gone over Exhaustion:1 without a vampire attack or the like.

Movement in our games is vital. More than half of our group have chosen optional class features or feats that improve movement. I would say all our biggest fights required taking dash actions or other movement boosts and that doesn't include the running combats and chases that covered hundreds of feet.

I could see adding -5ft movement to odd levels (1,3,5,7,9) for that slow degradation.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

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.

You can, of course, adopt something like the "gritty rests" variant in the DMG, but that is a sledgehammer solution with a host of side effects. The new exhaustion is a natural fit for the exploration pillar, and could also support a lot of other uses, without throwing combat out of whack.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

One 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.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

One 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.

Yes, I don’t see exhaustion mechanics as a fix for exploration

 

[Baron Opal II]

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?

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.