I wasn't trying to be rude either, sorr if I also came off that way.
I really do like the idea, I was just trying to say that I might have been upset if that wasn't said upfront because that kind of mechanic would drastically change how a character needs to be built. I still personally think spellcasters would have a harder time, but I do agree that it would be possible. I even think the mechanic would be fun to play through.
I just don't think the same type of builds in rules as written D&D would be plausible using this mechanic.
As a side note, I might actually run a one-off in a few weeks to see if my players like this type of mechanic and see how they build their characters, what do they change? how does their combat tactics change?
Don't worry, you weren't being rude, I was just making sure you didn't think I was belittling you.
We were aware of the rules going in, but I think the OP should take note of that. Suddenly being put into a situation like this could be very thematic, but also very hard. Starting off with smaller encounters and leaving some wiggle room for using social interactions to escape combat could be the fairest way to do things.
When I was building my character for this campaign, it was very much a group activity. Being told to consider what long term survival and exploration would require was a big departure from the norm. The ability to just keep going was way more important than any spell or weapon. We all took a background or feat that gave us a tool proficiency, simply because the DM said he would allow certain crafting of items. The DM also hinted at languages by asking how much common would a goblin know? Little hints that made a big change to how the characters interact with the world really sold this to us. He also categorically banned all those spells that provide the caster with shelter or sustenance. Purify food and drink made it through, but not much else.
As for how tactics change, that really depends on the players. You might still see a wizard trying control or artillery builds, but they would be highly focussed. A fighter will likely be more cagey in combat, less aggressive. Ranged builds will focus on ammo conservation, unless they use cantrips. Expect unusual uses for cantrips though, mold earth is a favourite of mine for producing cover in a pinch, or even bringing down a foe on a high up, natural ledge. Mage hand to activate a trap behind us and so on. My party's paladin plays the defence fighting style as often as he can, something which I found surprising, but I am grateful now. Certainly, spells like bless are being used more than I remember they used to be. I hope you do run that style of campaign, it is a very different way of playing, but rewarding, I also hope you enjoy it.
@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.
That does if I read you right, yeah. You're saying that in your experience the melee types aren't hurt less by a lack of resting? That's good. Again, I haven't played 5e with extreme rest-deprivation :) In earlier editions I am more familiar with, spell casters would be hosed by that.
Even in those editions, spellcasters could always act as advisors, stategizers, and an extra blade. It's just that doing that isn't 'being a spellcaster'--it wasn't part of the class that you'd picked. The barbarian was just as able to advise, strategize, and do all the things a spellcaster without spells could do--plus he was able to still use the vast majority of his class-specific features. The spellcasters back then could really only do non-class-specific stuff at a certain point. Judging by what you're saying, it looks like the spellcaster without rests is still just as much a spellcaster as the barbarian without rests is still a barbarian. Good news. :)
Well, denying a long rest being to harsh of a penalty, I‘d say it depends, but usually is. If you read how encounters are balanced, which is described in the 13th Age ruleset from the lead designers of 3rd and 4th AD&D edition, a long rest will replenish the spend resources. Usually 3-4 fights can be done without a long rest, which means if you‘ve no fights omitting a long rest won‘t hurt much. Player‘s should be made aware in advance, so they don‘t spill their resources without knowing and having an issue afterwards, imho.
I personally think that you should have random encounters every eight hours, or a high chance for one, so that there’s a high chance of them not being able to get the positive effects of a long rest.
I can see why it is obvious to think that spellcasters are hit harder by limited recovery options, spending all those big spells does limit their effectiveness, but the front line have a resource that spell casters rarely need to worry about, health. When the party have their way then the spell casters will never take a hit so do not need to worry about spending or replenishing hit dice, but soaking up those blows is a major part of the front lines job. Once you make recovering hit dice more difficult it will not take long for the front line to start showing a bit of trepidation about another fight. Then when a fight happens they can either spend health to whittle down the opponent without using abilities, or blow through a load of abilities to nuke the enemy and conserve health.
Admittedly I have not tried full blown gritty realism yet, but recent experiences with limited recovery seemed to hit all party members in a significant way so I think that the limited healing is on a similar level to limited spell slots.
This.. if every character is left with less than a handful of hitpoints, and they are faced for an encounter matching their level, they are all dead. TPK. If they don‘t have a way to recover and find a way out of this situation, it will be just frustrating and they won‘t like it being handled unfair.
I wasn't trying to be rude either, sorr if I also came off that way.
I really do like the idea, I was just trying to say that I might have been upset if that wasn't said upfront because that kind of mechanic would drastically change how a character needs to be built. I still personally think spellcasters would have a harder time, but I do agree that it would be possible. I even think the mechanic would be fun to play through.
I just don't think the same type of builds in rules as written D&D would be plausible using this mechanic.
As a side note, I might actually run a one-off in a few weeks to see if my players like this type of mechanic and see how they build their characters, what do they change? how does their combat tactics change?
Don't worry, you weren't being rude, I was just making sure you didn't think I was belittling you.
We were aware of the rules going in, but I think the OP should take note of that. Suddenly being put into a situation like this could be very thematic, but also very hard. Starting off with smaller encounters and leaving some wiggle room for using social interactions to escape combat could be the fairest way to do things.
When I was building my character for this campaign, it was very much a group activity. Being told to consider what long term survival and exploration would require was a big departure from the norm. The ability to just keep going was way more important than any spell or weapon. We all took a background or feat that gave us a tool proficiency, simply because the DM said he would allow certain crafting of items. The DM also hinted at languages by asking how much common would a goblin know? Little hints that made a big change to how the characters interact with the world really sold this to us. He also categorically banned all those spells that provide the caster with shelter or sustenance. Purify food and drink made it through, but not much else.
As for how tactics change, that really depends on the players. You might still see a wizard trying control or artillery builds, but they would be highly focussed. A fighter will likely be more cagey in combat, less aggressive. Ranged builds will focus on ammo conservation, unless they use cantrips. Expect unusual uses for cantrips though, mold earth is a favourite of mine for producing cover in a pinch, or even bringing down a foe on a high up, natural ledge. Mage hand to activate a trap behind us and so on. My party's paladin plays the defence fighting style as often as he can, something which I found surprising, but I am grateful now. Certainly, spells like bless are being used more than I remember they used to be. I hope you do run that style of campaign, it is a very different way of playing, but rewarding, I also hope you enjoy it.
That does if I read you right, yeah. You're saying that in your experience the melee types aren't hurt less by a lack of resting? That's good. Again, I haven't played 5e with extreme rest-deprivation :) In earlier editions I am more familiar with, spell casters would be hosed by that.
Even in those editions, spellcasters could always act as advisors, stategizers, and an extra blade. It's just that doing that isn't 'being a spellcaster'--it wasn't part of the class that you'd picked. The barbarian was just as able to advise, strategize, and do all the things a spellcaster without spells could do--plus he was able to still use the vast majority of his class-specific features. The spellcasters back then could really only do non-class-specific stuff at a certain point. Judging by what you're saying, it looks like the spellcaster without rests is still just as much a spellcaster as the barbarian without rests is still a barbarian. Good news. :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Well, denying a long rest being to harsh of a penalty, I‘d say it depends, but usually is. If you read how encounters are balanced, which is described in the 13th Age ruleset from the lead designers of 3rd and 4th AD&D edition, a long rest will replenish the spend resources. Usually 3-4 fights can be done without a long rest, which means if you‘ve no fights omitting a long rest won‘t hurt much. Player‘s should be made aware in advance, so they don‘t spill their resources without knowing and having an issue afterwards, imho.
I personally think that you should have random encounters every eight hours, or a high chance for one, so that there’s a high chance of them not being able to get the positive effects of a long rest.
I can see why it is obvious to think that spellcasters are hit harder by limited recovery options, spending all those big spells does limit their effectiveness, but the front line have a resource that spell casters rarely need to worry about, health. When the party have their way then the spell casters will never take a hit so do not need to worry about spending or replenishing hit dice, but soaking up those blows is a major part of the front lines job. Once you make recovering hit dice more difficult it will not take long for the front line to start showing a bit of trepidation about another fight. Then when a fight happens they can either spend health to whittle down the opponent without using abilities, or blow through a load of abilities to nuke the enemy and conserve health.
Admittedly I have not tried full blown gritty realism yet, but recent experiences with limited recovery seemed to hit all party members in a significant way so I think that the limited healing is on a similar level to limited spell slots.
This.. if every character is left with less than a handful of hitpoints, and they are faced for an encounter matching their level, they are all dead. TPK. If they don‘t have a way to recover and find a way out of this situation, it will be just frustrating and they won‘t like it being handled unfair.