Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8640560" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Anything so long as you don't have to track XP totals with and without the drain, and remember the rules for what happens to the 400 xp you picked up after the drain if you do get the 1,327 you had drained back (and do you re-roll HP for levels you regained, and all the other nuisances). Also not making having to re-calculate derived abilities for drained attributes, or making character age-to-lifespan a secondary HP track and such. At least for my groups, TSR-style Undead drain wasn't hated because of the danger* it possessed, but for the sheer annoyance  *this is D&D, there are no-resurrection deathtraps and cursed magic items around every corner. Or just plain being eaten by a bear at level 2.Base 5e's exhaustion mechanics are (IMO) kinda crummy, I personally wouldn't expand their use. Level Up's fatugue, VR's stress, or heck use draining max hp but just make them take more effort to recoup would all be interesting ideas.Semi-agree. Bags of holding have existed since day one specifically because even Gary and crew found tracking of equipment something of a nuisance to be circumvented after a certain point in play. I think every group tried tracking rations fastidiously at least once and (especially after the Wilderness Survival Guide came out) tried making a survivalism campaign for a little while. But not for very much of their TSR-D&D-playing experience. I think what I saw the most of was travel time to destination, coupled with wilderness wandering monsters. 'Bring a ranger or invest in these NWPS, otherwise you'll fight twice as many (low-XP, as you probably won't find the lair-treasure) fights on the way to the dungeon, and might start out without all your HP' is a meaningful threat to work around. 'bring extra food, or else you will starve to death' really isn't, as it is a trigger no one wants to pull. 'I guess everyone starved, roll new characters' would be the peak of nofun, and I doubt happened much. I think it would have honestly been better if the consequences of running out of food was more like 'planned adventure aborted. PCs emerge in nearest settlement in 5d6 days; dirty, dazed, and confused; talking about living on squirrels and cattails and Sir Robin's Minstrels. Roll item saving throw for each important piece of gear to determine if it got lost in the desperation or damaged when misused as makeshift survival gear.' Even then I think it might be too pointless-seeming to see much use (people just overstock rations so as never to deal with it. Yay, everyone's encumbrance limit drops 10%. So much changed). Tracking torches and arrows, at least, did make sense to me as running out of them doesn't create a game-boring catastrophic failure, but merely a limitation around which you have to work. If you don't have arrows, you pull out your sword and just have to be up alongside the front-liners until you can buy some more (or more likely defeat an enemy who has some).  Run out of torches? Well okay, you can go back to town with your treasure, or have the darkvision races go back in without whomever now can't see. Meaningful choices and decisions. Regardless, and I'm learning this making a sandbox game for my current group, the primary way you make wandering in the wilderness interesting is by placing interesting things into it. Particularly places the PCs wouldn't otherwise seek out. Sacred grotto with a mystic who can write down natural philosophy rambles (someone with ritual caster:druid can get more spells for their books); hermit who sells owlbear repellant in return for wheels of cheese; ancient temple to the otherwise unknown religion (opening up domain option, or maybe has the true name of a campaign relevant demon somewhere within); etc. Having/not having enough food doesn't cut it, becomes tedious, and then gets circumvented.I don't think this will happen for 5e because it requires them coming down solidly on where on the realistic/cinematic/mythic scale (non-magical) D&D is supposed to be. The fanbase has strongly-held, mutually-incompatible desires on that subject, and thus it is in their best interest not to answer the question. At least moreso than they already have. There is a DC list for common happenstances, it's just universal and tautological (Hard tasks have DC 20. What is a hard task? Something that would require a DC 20 to complete). The current setup lets play with the same system (if not together, minus negotiation on this point) groups who think that that a D&D Hard task should be what an IRL medieval soldier would find hard, those that think it should be what John McClane would find hard, and those that think it should be what Perseus or Fionn mac Cumhaill would find hard. They tried solid numbers tied to specific IRL qualities* in 3e and there was much complaining about the skill/general task resolution system, and again in 4e and there was much complaining about the skill/general task resolution system. So now they are vaguebooking all the way down and... I don't know? People on forums with very important opinions on how games ought be built complain frequently. Those people I know who are new to D&D with 5e find it... well, each would put in their own chart based on their own preference on the realism-epic spectrum, but barring that not finding it an incomprehensible compromise. *Well, since forever if you include the lifting capacities and speed-moved, converted back to MPH or KPH, and no one ever is satisfied with those.I am guessing 3e D&D's Book of Exalted Deeds. Lots of stuff in there was 'damage evil entities only' along with a few effecting any non-good instead.</blockquote>

Verification