In my current campaign (the party is level 7), my merry band of adventurers have taken to exploring a very large swamp. They have realized that the portion of the swamp they are in is under the influence of a powerful and most likely malefic being. Early on in the swamp, they met a nice older lady who lived in a hut at the edge of the swamp and she told them that while they would be safe near the hut, further in, the swamp itself was dangerous.
From a DM perspective, I plan to give each character different dreams while trying to take a long rest in the swamp, but denying the actual long rest mechanic (thereby hindering spells and recovery). It is one of the ways I am trying to convey the power of the being as well as show how difficult proceeding could be, particularly without good preparation. The party has just completed a battle and is low on resources and about to attempt to take a long rest....
Is denying a long rest too harsh in this kind of instance?
Also of note, is that one of the characters hasn't suffered from this penalty (I've been giving them long rest benefit) so have hinted that there could be ways to mitigate this effect.
Thanks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
The occasional missed long rest is not harsh, especially when it's used to further the story.
If you go by the material it's suggested that a missed long rest results in a point of exhaustion. The first point of exhaustion is not overly harsh, disadvantage on ability checks. However the resource loss is going to be difficult, and it will make some parts of the session, between long rests, that much more deadly if they're already low on resources before the attempted long rest. If you're wanting to give them a bit of help, one thing I've done is give them a point of exhaustion and recover half of their resources.
Deny a long rest when the situation calls for it. If you always let the characters take a long rest when it is strategically beneficial, you are forfeiting a lot of situational tension that comes from a quick series of encounters. Likewise, long rests are very important for resetting hit dice and spells, so we must be mindful not to abuse the players.
What is "proceeding could be, particularly without good preparation." in your mind? You mentioned 1 player hasn't suffered the effects, but you're being cryptic about it, so I assume they have no idea why. What is enticing the players not to just Noping out of the swamp?
In what way can the party combat this? Because if they can't recover spells you're basically removing the core mechanic from most of the classes: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer and Wizard. Without spells or Rage a huge amount of their mechanics are just gone. While classes like Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Warlock only need a short rest to get most of their mechanics back if rest doesn't heal then the part can't actually get back HP.
Are they expecting to use the hut as a home base and make it back every night? While that will give the place a feel like the Mournlands of Eberron, it's probably going to slow down the exploration phase. As you said it's a very large swamp.
DMThac0 while I agree the 1st point of Exhaustion isn't that bad in combat, out of combat in the exploration phase that point of Exhaustion is going to be brutal. DisAdvantage on all ability checks means the party has -5 to their Passive Perception to detect ambushes. Their ability to use Survival to forage or navigate the swamp is going to fall to near non-existent for the same reason. Day 2 halves their speed, Day 3 DisAdv on everything, Day 4 is halved HP, Day 5 is Speed 0.... so that'll fall into Day 6 which is Death.
Thanks everyone. The intent is to deny the long rest while in this area of the swamp, until the party determines some way to counter it. While I have a couple of methods in mind, they can probably come up with more, and more interesting ones.
What is enticing the players not to just Noping out of the swamp? In what way can the party combat this?
"Noping out" is always an option. I try to keep my world relatively open so the party can choose to come back to things (though the world isn't static). The party could investigate why one member is not affected, they could possibly consult others and come up with something. As for preparation, they could always return to the swamp with more resources like scrolls/potions, and knowing that they probably won't get a long rest, can more judiciously use spells/resources etc.
Thanks again everyone for the feedback and discussion!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
DMThac0 while I agree the 1st point of Exhaustion isn't that bad in combat, out of combat in the exploration phase that point of Exhaustion is going to be brutal. DisAdvantage on all ability checks means the party has -5 to their Passive Perception to detect ambushes. Their ability to use Survival to forage or navigate the swamp is going to fall to near non-existent for the same reason. Day 2 halves their speed, Day 3 DisAdv on everything, Day 4 is halved HP, Day 5 is Speed 0.... so that'll fall into Day 6 which is Death.
Fair enough, you bring up some valid points. I was assuming that the "no long rest" was a one time, or intermittent event. In that light, the questions you ask are important points to consider.
If they're not going to be able to long rest then they are going to fall quickly, how will they recover their spells, abilities, and HP? Is there a way to combat this, such as spells or an item they can get from the woman in the hut, otherwise leaving seems the most appropriate course of action. A little something to help the players along so that they aren't completely overwhelmed by 3 lizardfolk who ambush them. I'd say look at the "worst case scenario", what are the limitations you're setting on them, and figure out if there's a way you can make it so that they can use some creativity to survive this nightmarish swamp.
Since it's a magically-caused problem, if you're worried about things like spell recovery (no long rest hinders spellcasters more in combat, although non-casters do have rest-recovery issues too), you can go with partial recovery of things like spell slots. "You wake from sleep, but the dreams have left you tired and unrested. You regain half of your spell slots (or whatever number)."
You are creating the phenomenon and the effects, so you don't have to deny the long rest completely if you don't want to.
You could always make the players make a wisdom saving throw DC 15. If the succeed they sleep through the night, if they fail they suffer nightmares avoiding the long rest but count it as a short rest.
I recently had my party spend several days traveling through the plane of death, decay and disease, so similar to the suggestion above I had them roll a Con save each rest (long and short) in order to resist the detrimental influence of the plane. There was no benefit for terrible rolls, and normal benefits for high rolls, with a couple of partial recovery steps in the middle (regaining half the usual amount of hit dice, wild forms, rages, only being able to spend a single hit die to heal etc). They were also provided with an item that was single use tiny hut to prevent exhaustion getting out of hand and/or prepare for the big bad.
Since you are narrative tying it to nightmares Wisdom saves probably suit your situation better than Con saves, and if you want to put in the extra work it might be helpful to adapt the staggered success/failure to impair without crippling.
I play with the realistic survival rules frequently, eight hours for a short rest and a week in relative safety for a long rest. It is gruelling, but it really shakes up traditional party roles. At first everything goes well, but on your fourth day of your spelunking exedition in a monster infested hole, you really are feeling it. All of a sudden the wizard is holding on to a staff trembling and wondering if the DM will let them learn a martial wepon proficiency, whlie the fighter desperately hopes that they can last one more day without using those last two hit die. All the while, the Cleric is apologising for his lack of healing mojo to throw around. It is tough, but it really helps sell this adventuring malarkey as dangerous.
Stopping long rests for a period will definitely change the tone and pace of the game, with the players suddenly needing to pay close attention to their resources, you will see much more conservative play from the group as a whole. I say go for it, and really sell the swamp as a tough place to fight in.
I am glad I posed the question, as there has been a lot of good feedback.
One of my earlier comments was misleading:
The intent is to deny the long rest while in this area of the swamp,
The real intent, is to have this portion of the swamp be "dangerous", something that the characters approach with an element of fear and trepidation. Changing the long rest mechanic (for this area, not the whole campaign) seemed like a good idea as a way to "ratchet up tension". Ultimately it does come down to pacing, should the adventure in the swamp last days (or longer) or not, if so, what happens in the rest of the world during this time?
I need to think about it a bit more, but I like the idea of gaining half-health and half-spells/mechanics so as to not overly penalize those that really need a long rest.
Nice discussion! thanks everyone!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I play with the realistic survival rules frequently, eight hours for a short rest and a week in relative safety for a long rest. It is gruelling, but it really shakes up traditional party roles. At first everything goes well, but on your fourth day of your spelunking exedition in a monster infested hole, you really are feeling it. All of a sudden the wizard is holding on to a staff trembling and wondering if the DM will let them learn a martial wepon proficiency, whlie the fighter desperately hopes that they can last one more day without using those last two hit die. All the while, the Cleric is apologising for his lack of healing mojo to throw around. It is tough, but it really helps sell this adventuring malarkey as dangerous.
Stopping long rests for a period will definitely change the tone and pace of the game, with the players suddenly needing to pay close attention to their resources, you will see much more conservative play from the group as a whole. I say go for it, and really sell the swamp as a tough place to fight in.
Do you find that this impacts spellcasters more? They've done a good job of balancing some of these things, particularly with cantrips. But it still seems to me that non-casters or half casters have more to rely on that doesn't require resting. But I've never used extreme resting rules myself.
I play with the realistic survival rules frequently, eight hours for a short rest and a week in relative safety for a long rest. It is gruelling, but it really shakes up traditional party roles. At first everything goes well, but on your fourth day of your spelunking exedition in a monster infested hole, you really are feeling it. All of a sudden the wizard is holding on to a staff trembling and wondering if the DM will let them learn a martial wepon proficiency, whlie the fighter desperately hopes that they can last one more day without using those last two hit die. All the while, the Cleric is apologising for his lack of healing mojo to throw around. It is tough, but it really helps sell this adventuring malarkey as dangerous.
Stopping long rests for a period will definitely change the tone and pace of the game, with the players suddenly needing to pay close attention to their resources, you will see much more conservative play from the group as a whole. I say go for it, and really sell the swamp as a tough place to fight in.
Do you find that this impacts spellcasters more? They've done a good job of balancing some of these things, particularly with cantrips. But it still seems to me that non-casters or half casters have more to rely on that doesn't require resting. But I've never used extreme resting rules myself.
It impacts everyone. Spellcasters struggle to regain spell slots, and this really shows with the cagey uses of these spells. 8f your typical wizard takes firebolt, and runs up against a fire resistant critter, it is quite terrifying for the caster. Rituals, cantrips and weapon proficiencies all help mitigate these weaknesses, but they do not bring a caster w/out spell slots and fighters/paladins/barbarians in to any kind of contention. A lot of the best class abilities say 'regained after long rest' somewhere in there. Divination wizards are especially affected. The only way for a spell caster to retain their ability to frequently cast powerful spells is something similar to a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Melee builds really miss the hit dice regen in the field. A lack of support from healers and a suitably stingy supply of health potions make them sweat bullets. The panic and tenseness is still there, but in a slightly different form. Ironically, typical melee builds enjoy a few perks that casters simply don't. A fighter's higher average CON score is way more useful against a cloud of poison gas than a fireball spell, for example.
The biggest differences in this play style, as ever, is decided by the imagination and creativity of the players and DM. A fighter with proficiency with a healer's kit, is better than a cleric without spell-slots, who is, in turn, more useful than a barbarian on low hp, without his rage. My group are playing an exploration based campaign, and my abjuration wizard has been forced to learn how to use armour and a shortsword, while making full use of his alchemist's tools proficiency to brew curatives from plants found by our party ranger. Meanwhile, the cleric is less capable at healing than either of us, but better in combat due to his weapon and equipment loadout being far less limited in terms of ammunition.
In summary, if the group is flexible and innovative in their choice of characters, then the entire group has to work together to overcome a number of symptoms, all caused by one common problem. If their is one class that can still hold up well, it is warlocks. But even they lose access to a lot of their abilities or invocations after a few days. I hope that answers your question, even if the answer is that old 'it depends on what you want' cliche.
It impacts everyone. Spellcasters struggle to regain spell slots, and this really shows with the cagey uses of these spells. 8f your typical wizard takes firebolt, and runs up against a fire resistant critter, it is quite terrifying for the caster. Rituals, cantrips and weapon proficiencies all help mitigate these weaknesses, but they do not bring a caster w/out spell slots and fighters/paladins/barbarians in to any kind of contention. A lot of the best class abilities say 'regained after long rest' somewhere in there. Divination wizards are especially affected. The only way for a spell caster to retain their ability to frequently cast powerful spells is something similar to a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Melee builds really miss the hit dice regen in the field. A lack of support from healers and a suitably stingy supply of health potions make them sweat bullets. The panic and tenseness is still there, but in a slightly different form. Ironically, typical melee builds enjoy a few perks that casters simply don't. A fighter's higher average CON score is way more useful against a cloud of poison gas than a fireball spell, for example.
The biggest differences in this play style, as ever, is decided by the imagination and creativity of the players and DM. A fighter with proficiency with a healer's kit, is better than a cleric without spell-slots, who is, in turn, more useful than a barbarian on low hp, without his rage. My group are playing an exploration based campaign, and my abjuration wizard has been forced to learn how to use armour and a shortsword, while making full use of his alchemist's tools proficiency to brew curatives from plants found by our party ranger. Meanwhile, the cleric is less capable at healing than either of us, but better in combat due to his weapon and equipment loadout being far less limited in terms of ammunition.
In summary, if the group is flexible and innovative in their choice of characters, then the entire group has to work together to overcome a number of symptoms, all caused by one common problem. If their is one class that can still hold up well, it is warlocks. But even they lose access to a lot of their abilities or invocations after a few days. I hope that answers your question, even if the answer is that old 'it depends on what you want' cliche.
I get what you're saying, and I'm totally on board with characters diversifying skills and such. And 5e has done a good job of giving melee types some cool abilities that to require rests. And a party working together well makes up for a lot.
But I'm wondering whether the spellcasters have it worse when all of their rest-dependent abilities are used up. All classes are equal in their ability to use skills and to diversify, but are the spellcasters at a bigger disadvantage in terms of functioning as their class? So, for reference--back in 1st and 2nd ed, a magic-user (wizard) at 1st level had one first level spell. When that was gone, it was poking with a dagger or a staff. They were basically really crappy fighters until they got their spell back. But fighters were fighters, at full effectiveness, the whole time. And when skills and proficiencies got introduced, it helped magic-users be able to at least do something. But that something still wasn't their class function. They could use skills, which anyone could use.
In 5e, the melee types have rest-dependent abilities, and the spellcasters have at-will cantrips, which really does help with balance. But I've never really looked at balance with all the rest-dependent features stripped away. If you take away all rest-dependent features, including spells, are fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers more effective when operating as their class than spellcasters are? The melee types have better weapons, better HP, better armor, and none of that goes away. Multiple attacks eventually. So I'm wondering whether spellcaster cantrips keep up with that, or whether the melee types are better as melee types than the spellcasters are as spellcasters.
Not sure I'm explaining myself well. Does that question make sense?
As the only spellcaster in a group of 7, I will admit when we hit our 4-5 encounter if I haven't rested, I literally do nothing all fight. My AC is 12, my strongest weapon is 1d6 - 1 and my only damaging cantrip is Vicious Mockery. I do a great job as a bard controlling the battlefield because that is how my character was built. They weren't designed to do close range encounters instead to control how the enemies moved and reacted. She does a great job at doing that, but if you put her in a ring with none of her abilities she is useless.
And yes I am a bard, but due to RP I rarely ever use Bardic Inspiration. Which yes is only for RP reason so I could break that for a more harsher roleplay, but that doesn't really make my character more useful, it makes the others better at what they are doing.
I think if you are a more well-rounded spellcaster you might be able to last at least if not more than 4-5 encounter before using up all your spells. But if your character was built like mine where I rely on those spells to control the battlefield, because I have no AC or Hit Points, the mechanic would be significantly against me.
I am going to play around with making a wizard and seeing if I could design him in a way that would make him better suited for @TangledupAubergines guidelines, but if I was being honest if I knew those rules before designing a character I would easily choose something like fighter or rogue. Who I think there extra attack and damage not being tied to resting would be way more useful then trying to build a character that was good at spellcasting but could fall back to ranged or melee attacks if needed.
@Brotherbock, I think I understand your question. I believe you're asking if a caster is of diminished value after using up most or all of their slots, to which the answer is yes. In battle, my wizard loses alot of damage output without spell slots available, but that doesn't mean the more combat focussed PCs have it any easier. Only fighters, monks and barbarians do not have spell slots at all, the barbarian cannot rage more than once per long rest.
Fighters and monks seem very powerful under these rules, most of their abilities recharge on a short rest after all, but either one suffers from a lack of support quite keenly, being that the monk is rather fragile for a front liner and the fighter suffers from a 'jack of all trades' mentallity that often leaves them over extended. Certainly, in my campaign, the lv 7 champion is usually the one on the ground simply because he ends up closest to the enemy with fewer hp than he might like to have.
My wizard cannot fulfill the role of a fighter, but he doesn't need to, anymore than he would in a the usual ruleset. Due to Arcane Recovery, I can regen several slots in a short rest, and thanks to careful co-operation with my party, and judicious use of rituals, I can continue to support my teammates even after a long period without a long rest. My wizard's role in the party is no longer handy dandy problem solver or magic artillery or even battlefield controller. Instead, my wizard serves as a counter-magical scalpel in tough fights, fire support in smaller skirmishes, a knowledgable advisor and strategiser in puzzling situations, and, when things get hairy, an extra blade at the parties side.
I hope this helps answer your question.
@mouse0270, lasting through 4 or 5 encounters is actually fairly common, though you are correct, battlefield control is beyond the scope of possibility most of the time. There are times when I really wish I could throw out a few extra attacks, but green flame blade is usually sufficient. The major advantage of a caster in this situation is counterspell and dispell, I didn't know that before going down abjuration, but I am glad I took them now. Trying to take on a lot of bigger monsters is almost impossible without at least some magic. There are too many critters with resistance to non-magical attacks really. It is a very different mindset to my usual caster focus, planning ahead is vital and rituals like detect magic and - before I learned what chainmail does - mage armour, are real life savers. The number of times casting alarm without using a slot has given me a get out of jail free card is uncountable, I'm sure.
It really is a fun way to play, but fun in the 'I beat dark souls on hardest mode using a rockband controller' way. Every victory leaves you, and your character, a little bit more tired, and a little bit more ragged. But in an exploration and discovery campaign it really fits.
@TangledupAubergines you should look at Bard's spell list, there aren't many ritual type spells. About 10 less compared to something like the Wizard. And though some of the might be useful (unless you count Leomund’s Tiny Hut or Tiny Hut which might actually break your rest mechanic because it is a warm and comfortable space in which the player don't need to worry), So I would assume that spell would be banned in a style of gameplay like this.
I honestly this some spellcasters could be built to not rely on their spells, shoot I even think I could build a bard that could rely less on their spells. I was simply stating that this kind of gameplay mechanic would make my specific build nearly impossible. I am not saying I wouldn't enjoy playing it or that it is bad. I am simply saying it would drastically change how I build my character.
Oh, I absolutely understand, just offering some unsolicited advice for if you did design a character for this sort of campaign. I apologise if my post came off as aggressive or harsh. I only wanted to give a more complete picture of how my own caster build has survived so far, especially those early levels. I am sorry if I was rude, that wasn't my intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
G'day everyone.
In my current campaign (the party is level 7), my merry band of adventurers have taken to exploring a very large swamp. They have realized that the portion of the swamp they are in is under the influence of a powerful and most likely malefic being. Early on in the swamp, they met a nice older lady who lived in a hut at the edge of the swamp and she told them that while they would be safe near the hut, further in, the swamp itself was dangerous.
From a DM perspective, I plan to give each character different dreams while trying to take a long rest in the swamp, but denying the actual long rest mechanic (thereby hindering spells and recovery). It is one of the ways I am trying to convey the power of the being as well as show how difficult proceeding could be, particularly without good preparation. The party has just completed a battle and is low on resources and about to attempt to take a long rest....
Is denying a long rest too harsh in this kind of instance?
Also of note, is that one of the characters hasn't suffered from this penalty (I've been giving them long rest benefit) so have hinted that there could be ways to mitigate this effect.
Thanks!
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
The occasional missed long rest is not harsh, especially when it's used to further the story.
If you go by the material it's suggested that a missed long rest results in a point of exhaustion. The first point of exhaustion is not overly harsh, disadvantage on ability checks. However the resource loss is going to be difficult, and it will make some parts of the session, between long rests, that much more deadly if they're already low on resources before the attempted long rest. If you're wanting to give them a bit of help, one thing I've done is give them a point of exhaustion and recover half of their resources.
Deny a long rest when the situation calls for it. If you always let the characters take a long rest when it is strategically beneficial, you are forfeiting a lot of situational tension that comes from a quick series of encounters. Likewise, long rests are very important for resetting hit dice and spells, so we must be mindful not to abuse the players.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Here is my question.
What is "proceeding could be, particularly without good preparation." in your mind? You mentioned 1 player hasn't suffered the effects, but you're being cryptic about it, so I assume they have no idea why. What is enticing the players not to just Noping out of the swamp?
In what way can the party combat this? Because if they can't recover spells you're basically removing the core mechanic from most of the classes: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer and Wizard. Without spells or Rage a huge amount of their mechanics are just gone. While classes like Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Warlock only need a short rest to get most of their mechanics back if rest doesn't heal then the part can't actually get back HP.
Are they expecting to use the hut as a home base and make it back every night? While that will give the place a feel like the Mournlands of Eberron, it's probably going to slow down the exploration phase. As you said it's a very large swamp.
DMThac0 while I agree the 1st point of Exhaustion isn't that bad in combat, out of combat in the exploration phase that point of Exhaustion is going to be brutal. DisAdvantage on all ability checks means the party has -5 to their Passive Perception to detect ambushes. Their ability to use Survival to forage or navigate the swamp is going to fall to near non-existent for the same reason.
Day 2 halves their speed, Day 3 DisAdv on everything, Day 4 is halved HP, Day 5 is Speed 0.... so that'll fall into Day 6 which is Death.
Thanks everyone. The intent is to deny the long rest while in this area of the swamp, until the party determines some way to counter it. While I have a couple of methods in mind, they can probably come up with more, and more interesting ones.
"Noping out" is always an option. I try to keep my world relatively open so the party can choose to come back to things (though the world isn't static). The party could investigate why one member is not affected, they could possibly consult others and come up with something. As for preparation, they could always return to the swamp with more resources like scrolls/potions, and knowing that they probably won't get a long rest, can more judiciously use spells/resources etc.
Thanks again everyone for the feedback and discussion!
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
Fair enough, you bring up some valid points. I was assuming that the "no long rest" was a one time, or intermittent event. In that light, the questions you ask are important points to consider.
If they're not going to be able to long rest then they are going to fall quickly, how will they recover their spells, abilities, and HP? Is there a way to combat this, such as spells or an item they can get from the woman in the hut, otherwise leaving seems the most appropriate course of action. A little something to help the players along so that they aren't completely overwhelmed by 3 lizardfolk who ambush them. I'd say look at the "worst case scenario", what are the limitations you're setting on them, and figure out if there's a way you can make it so that they can use some creativity to survive this nightmarish swamp.
a thought I had thinking about the old 3rd edition Mournlands of Eberron was that you couldn't heal naturally in the Mournlands.
One idea I just had which won't involve disabling most everyone's features (spell recovery, feature, etc...) but still make the place full of malice.
You don't heal during a long rest. Still let them recover half their hit dice, but the *only* healing they have is spending hit dice, spells, items.
It means they won't lose all their tools, but PC will likely always be down a few HP.
Since it's a magically-caused problem, if you're worried about things like spell recovery (no long rest hinders spellcasters more in combat, although non-casters do have rest-recovery issues too), you can go with partial recovery of things like spell slots. "You wake from sleep, but the dreams have left you tired and unrested. You regain half of your spell slots (or whatever number)."
You are creating the phenomenon and the effects, so you don't have to deny the long rest completely if you don't want to.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
You could always make the players make a wisdom saving throw DC 15. If the succeed they sleep through the night, if they fail they suffer nightmares avoiding the long rest but count it as a short rest.
I recently had my party spend several days traveling through the plane of death, decay and disease, so similar to the suggestion above I had them roll a Con save each rest (long and short) in order to resist the detrimental influence of the plane. There was no benefit for terrible rolls, and normal benefits for high rolls, with a couple of partial recovery steps in the middle (regaining half the usual amount of hit dice, wild forms, rages, only being able to spend a single hit die to heal etc). They were also provided with an item that was single use tiny hut to prevent exhaustion getting out of hand and/or prepare for the big bad.
Since you are narrative tying it to nightmares Wisdom saves probably suit your situation better than Con saves, and if you want to put in the extra work it might be helpful to adapt the staggered success/failure to impair without crippling.
I would definitely include a wisdom saving throw along side those dreams, so they have a chance of still gaining a long rest.
I play with the realistic survival rules frequently, eight hours for a short rest and a week in relative safety for a long rest. It is gruelling, but it really shakes up traditional party roles. At first everything goes well, but on your fourth day of your spelunking exedition in a monster infested hole, you really are feeling it. All of a sudden the wizard is holding on to a staff trembling and wondering if the DM will let them learn a martial wepon proficiency, whlie the fighter desperately hopes that they can last one more day without using those last two hit die. All the while, the Cleric is apologising for his lack of healing mojo to throw around. It is tough, but it really helps sell this adventuring malarkey as dangerous.
Stopping long rests for a period will definitely change the tone and pace of the game, with the players suddenly needing to pay close attention to their resources, you will see much more conservative play from the group as a whole. I say go for it, and really sell the swamp as a tough place to fight in.
I am glad I posed the question, as there has been a lot of good feedback.
One of my earlier comments was misleading:
The real intent, is to have this portion of the swamp be "dangerous", something that the characters approach with an element of fear and trepidation. Changing the long rest mechanic (for this area, not the whole campaign) seemed like a good idea as a way to "ratchet up tension". Ultimately it does come down to pacing, should the adventure in the swamp last days (or longer) or not, if so, what happens in the rest of the world during this time?
I need to think about it a bit more, but I like the idea of gaining half-health and half-spells/mechanics so as to not overly penalize those that really need a long rest.
Nice discussion! thanks everyone!
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
Do you find that this impacts spellcasters more? They've done a good job of balancing some of these things, particularly with cantrips. But it still seems to me that non-casters or half casters have more to rely on that doesn't require resting. But I've never used extreme resting rules myself.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It impacts everyone. Spellcasters struggle to regain spell slots, and this really shows with the cagey uses of these spells. 8f your typical wizard takes firebolt, and runs up against a fire resistant critter, it is quite terrifying for the caster. Rituals, cantrips and weapon proficiencies all help mitigate these weaknesses, but they do not bring a caster w/out spell slots and fighters/paladins/barbarians in to any kind of contention. A lot of the best class abilities say 'regained after long rest' somewhere in there. Divination wizards are especially affected. The only way for a spell caster to retain their ability to frequently cast powerful spells is something similar to a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Melee builds really miss the hit dice regen in the field. A lack of support from healers and a suitably stingy supply of health potions make them sweat bullets. The panic and tenseness is still there, but in a slightly different form. Ironically, typical melee builds enjoy a few perks that casters simply don't. A fighter's higher average CON score is way more useful against a cloud of poison gas than a fireball spell, for example.
The biggest differences in this play style, as ever, is decided by the imagination and creativity of the players and DM. A fighter with proficiency with a healer's kit, is better than a cleric without spell-slots, who is, in turn, more useful than a barbarian on low hp, without his rage. My group are playing an exploration based campaign, and my abjuration wizard has been forced to learn how to use armour and a shortsword, while making full use of his alchemist's tools proficiency to brew curatives from plants found by our party ranger. Meanwhile, the cleric is less capable at healing than either of us, but better in combat due to his weapon and equipment loadout being far less limited in terms of ammunition.
In summary, if the group is flexible and innovative in their choice of characters, then the entire group has to work together to overcome a number of symptoms, all caused by one common problem. If their is one class that can still hold up well, it is warlocks. But even they lose access to a lot of their abilities or invocations after a few days. I hope that answers your question, even if the answer is that old 'it depends on what you want' cliche.
I get what you're saying, and I'm totally on board with characters diversifying skills and such. And 5e has done a good job of giving melee types some cool abilities that to require rests. And a party working together well makes up for a lot.
But I'm wondering whether the spellcasters have it worse when all of their rest-dependent abilities are used up. All classes are equal in their ability to use skills and to diversify, but are the spellcasters at a bigger disadvantage in terms of functioning as their class? So, for reference--back in 1st and 2nd ed, a magic-user (wizard) at 1st level had one first level spell. When that was gone, it was poking with a dagger or a staff. They were basically really crappy fighters until they got their spell back. But fighters were fighters, at full effectiveness, the whole time. And when skills and proficiencies got introduced, it helped magic-users be able to at least do something. But that something still wasn't their class function. They could use skills, which anyone could use.
In 5e, the melee types have rest-dependent abilities, and the spellcasters have at-will cantrips, which really does help with balance. But I've never really looked at balance with all the rest-dependent features stripped away. If you take away all rest-dependent features, including spells, are fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers more effective when operating as their class than spellcasters are? The melee types have better weapons, better HP, better armor, and none of that goes away. Multiple attacks eventually. So I'm wondering whether spellcaster cantrips keep up with that, or whether the melee types are better as melee types than the spellcasters are as spellcasters.
Not sure I'm explaining myself well. Does that question make sense?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
As the only spellcaster in a group of 7, I will admit when we hit our 4-5 encounter if I haven't rested, I literally do nothing all fight. My AC is 12, my strongest weapon is 1d6 - 1 and my only damaging cantrip is Vicious Mockery. I do a great job as a bard controlling the battlefield because that is how my character was built. They weren't designed to do close range encounters instead to control how the enemies moved and reacted. She does a great job at doing that, but if you put her in a ring with none of her abilities she is useless.
And yes I am a bard, but due to RP I rarely ever use Bardic Inspiration. Which yes is only for RP reason so I could break that for a more harsher roleplay, but that doesn't really make my character more useful, it makes the others better at what they are doing.
I think if you are a more well-rounded spellcaster you might be able to last at least if not more than 4-5 encounter before using up all your spells. But if your character was built like mine where I rely on those spells to control the battlefield, because I have no AC or Hit Points, the mechanic would be significantly against me.
I am going to play around with making a wizard and seeing if I could design him in a way that would make him better suited for @TangledupAubergines guidelines, but if I was being honest if I knew those rules before designing a character I would easily choose something like fighter or rogue. Who I think there extra attack and damage not being tied to resting would be way more useful then trying to build a character that was good at spellcasting but could fall back to ranged or melee attacks if needed.
@TangledupAubergines you should look at Bard's spell list, there aren't many ritual type spells. About 10 less compared to something like the Wizard. And though some of the might be useful (unless you count Leomund’s Tiny Hut or Tiny Hut which might actually break your rest mechanic because it is a warm and comfortable space in which the player don't need to worry), So I would assume that spell would be banned in a style of gameplay like this.
I honestly this some spellcasters could be built to not rely on their spells, shoot I even think I could build a bard that could rely less on their spells. I was simply stating that this kind of gameplay mechanic would make my specific build nearly impossible. I am not saying I wouldn't enjoy playing it or that it is bad. I am simply saying it would drastically change how I build my character.
Oh, I absolutely understand, just offering some unsolicited advice for if you did design a character for this sort of campaign. I apologise if my post came off as aggressive or harsh. I only wanted to give a more complete picture of how my own caster build has survived so far, especially those early levels. I am sorry if I was rude, that wasn't my intent.