Thirst, suffocation and hunger errata : why ???

[Aloïsius]

This does not make sense.

In the table, replace “Ignore Hunger: 10 + 2 per day” with “Ignore Hunger (after 3
weeks): 20 + 5 per day.”

In the table, replace “Ignore Thirst: 10 + 4 per day” with “Ignore Thirst (after 3
days): 20 + 5 per day.”

In the table, replace “Hold breath (each round after 5): 10 + 1 per round” with
“Hold breath (each round after 3 minutes): 20 + 5 per round.”

So, with the new system, endurance is useless because you can stay THREE WEEKS without eating while keeping fully functional, and then the DC are so high that only high level characters can succeed ? The same high level characters who have access to powerful rituals and magic item ?
What is the point ? Thirst and hunger are low level threat. The new rules are less fun (because it makes a skill useless) and far less realistic.
Why did they fix, I mean broke, something that was not broken ? Can someone explain why they made this errata ?

 

[D'karr]

This does not make sense.


So, with the new system, endurance is useless because you can stay THREE WEEKS without eating while keeping fully functional, and then the DC are so high that only high level characters can succeed ? The same high level characters who have access to powerful rituals and magic item ?
What is the point ? Thirst and hunger are low level threat. The new rules are less fun (because it makes a skill useless) and far less realistic.
Why did they fix, I mean broke, something that was not broken ? Can someone explain why they made this errata ?

If you look at the DMG you'll notice that all they are doing is keeping the table in line with the text there. So the errata, is not errata but a correction to a table.

The rules have always been DC 20 increasing everytime and the "rule of threes" was specifically stated in the DMG. This is a no change correction.

As to why? It's because of what you already mentioned Starvation, Thirst & Drowning are supposed to be lower level threats.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Why did they fix, I mean broke, something that was not broken ? Can someone explain why they made this errata ?

The new DCs are actually easier than the old ones.

In the old system, after three weeks without food you would be facing DC 52 checks to survive. Since the book states that people can survive for roughly three weeks without food, the old rules were inconsistent with the description of the situation where the rules would apply. Heroes like the characters are able to survive even longer than 3 weeks if they make succesful endurance checks, but only high-level heroes can expect to do so easily.

With the new rules they have changed thirst, hunger and suffocation from almost certain death at low level to a great way to motivate characters into action. Imagine stranding a low level party in a desert without food or water. With the new rules they have three days to find water. With the old rules they would have reason to be worried already after one day and death would be nearly certain after two days. Again this is inconsistent with the description of thirst provided in the rules.

What we have now is an appropriate threat for high level heroes adventuring in various hostile planes of existence where suitable food and drink might not even exist. Every party doesn't have a ritual to create magical feasts, or an ever-full magical picknick basket. Those that do have paid for that convenience and so should be able to reap the rewards of their investment. Those that don't will have to take their chances.

 

[Aloïsius]

The new DCs are actually easier than the old ones.

Yes and no. The "moment of tension" is when you roll the dice. And the first dice you roll is considerably more difficult with the revision.
Of course, it means that your character can run under the sun, fight in the desert and cast spells without water for THREE days without even caring about it... And that lives my suspension of disbelief absolutely shattered. Just try to not eat for 24 hours. Then imagine adventuring for three weeks... That's simply absurd.

In the old system, after three weeks without food you would be facing DC 52 checks to survive. Since the book states that people can survive for roughly three weeks without food, the old rules were inconsistent with the description of the situation where the rules would apply. Heroes like the characters are able to survive even longer than 3 weeks if they make succesful endurance checks, but only high-level heroes can expect to do so easily.
[...]

The description should have been changed, not the rules. The rules were nice, the description is silly. Painful hunger start after one day without eating, and the maximum pain is after 3 to 4 days. The death usually occurs after 7 to 14 days. Surviving 21 days is a miracle, and requires total inactivity).

What we have now is an appropriate threat for high level heroes adventuring in various hostile planes of existence where suitable food and drink might not even exist. Every party doesn't have a ritual to create magical feasts, or an ever-full magical picknick basket. Those that do have paid for that convenience and so should be able to reap the rewards of their investment. Those that don't will have to take their chances.

So, high level characters (those who usually have some kind of long range transportation, especially if they prepare to enter another plane...) can deal with 3 weeks without eating.
But low level ones, the ones who are supposed to experiment this kind of nasty stuff, will never. Because they won't have the time to feel hunger (three weeks ? That's enough to gain two of three levels in most D&D campaign...) and/or they will insta-die if they ever do.

I guess what we have here is a conflict between two iterations of the rules, one in the DMG and the other in the PHB. Too bad the one I don't like is the one that stays.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes and no. The "moment of tension" is when you roll the dice. And the first dice you roll is considerably more difficult with the revision.

I have to agree with Aloisius here. While the new rules have allowed players to continue longer without food and water, they have also greatly decreased the use of endurance...which to be frank has very little use to begin with.

There's also a certain roleplaying element that is embedded within the mechanics.

Let's compare these two mechanics:

After 1 week of not eating, making an endurance check DC 5 + 1 for each day of not eating.

vs

After 3 weeks of not, making an endurance check DC 20 + 5 for each day of not eating.

The mechanics are different, but also how you describe them would also look different. In the first one, the character grows hungry, starving, but you tough it up and continue onward, at least for a while. In the second, the player is fine for 3 weeks, and then is suddenly hit with complete fatigue that only the toughest individual could throw off.


Again, from the flavor element, I agree with Alosius here. I prefer low level character to more more vulnerable to the basic elements than what the mechanics show. Further, from a mechanics view, I prefer endurance to have a more solid use for the players that invest in the skill. From those points of view, I frown on the errated rules, and would have preferred something different.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

I have to admit these are the first rules I have houseruled out of existence. They might as well have just said "characters are assumed to be knowledgeable enough to be able to gather food and water to meet their needs" and made that the rule.

Yes people are throwing fireballs, but if you are going to make rules for deprivation at least take 10 minutes to google the reality of it, then make simple rules to approximate it.

As to Endurance - my Dire Rat disease infested party thinks its pretty handy as with a trained healer that gets a second reasonable chance for recovery.

 

[doctorhook]

Adventurers survive longer without food, water, and air than the average person might thanks to destiny, that abstraction that makes them awesome in other areas as well.

I have to admit, I like to have my players have to worry at least a little bit about what they're gonna eat; heading back to town for rations every ten or so days keeps them heading into town for some roleplaying. I haven't found tracking food is difficult; I simply subtract one ration from each player's inventory for each time they take an extended rest in the field.

That said, since these thirst, starvation, and suffocation rules seem fairly unpopular, what sort of rule would you prefer? What would it look like, and how does it work? How realistic should it be? (Bearing in mind that these are heroes, so they should automatically be a little better than average Joe.)

 

[cmbarona]

Honestly, I think WotC severely overlooked the remarkable flexibility of their disease track mechanic. I would set up hunger, thirst, and suffocation in a similar manner, with eating, drinking, and taking a breath "instant cures." As for actual numbers, I'm not quite sure yet.

 

[Gort]

That said, since these thirst, starvation, and suffocation rules seem fairly unpopular, what sort of rule would you prefer? What would it look like, and how does it work? How realistic should it be? (Bearing in mind that these are heroes, so they should automatically be a little better than average Joe.)

I'd be happy with just the replacement of the "after 3 weeks", "after 3 days", and "after 3 minutes" parts to something more realistic - a lot shorter. It's not like you instantly expire after those time limits are up, you just start losing healing surges.

I disagree with the sentiment that heroes should automatically be better than "average Joe", just because they're player characters. What about the level 1 guy with 8s in all his physical stats? He should be worse at physical stuff than "average Joe", including everything on this list. As he gains levels, his skills will increase to make him better than "average Joe", but he shouldn't just be handed stuff because he's a PC. (in this regard, in my opinion)

 

[RabidBob]

Personally I think the space used for these rules is totally wasted; for games where supplies and survival is going to be an issue the DM will likely research the issues a bit more closely and come up with a ruleset which suits their game. For games where basic survival is not going to be an issue then the rules just won't be used. Waste of space; flesh out other rules or give us some other crunchy goodness. Sorry, that's probably not all that helpful, but I am left wondering "why?"