If all it took was training then every soldier would be the same with their weapons the differences are based on physical ability differences and that is stat bonus. You are certainly better with firearms than I am given all that practice but I manage to hit what I aim at. So have the stat bonus and you have both the proficiency and the stat bonuses.
If all it took was training then every soldier would be the same with their weapons the differences are based on physical ability differences and that is stat bonus. You are certainly better with firearms than I am given all that practice but I manage to hit what I aim at. So have the stat bonus and you have both the proficiency and the stat bonuses.
no 2 soldiers have the exact same training experience - none. yes everyone is different, but STR and DEX have absolute nothing more to do with it than INT and WIS - they're terrible proxies. all imo.
This is somewhat off topic as I don't see making attack rolls as accurate as possible as part of gritty realism but:
To be good with a firearm (and a crossbow for that matter) requires the ability to stopping any undesired movement witin your body. You ar equite likely to be rushing around and trying to avoid swords, etc so using a firearm in D&D is likely to be much more like a biathlete or pentathlete, trying to keep their heart rate down while exerting themselves so they can make a steady aim. If you are going to change the rules on their ability modifiers you should be switching it to Con. (Now that would enable a really SAD character)
You could also argue the same thing for long bows but strength is also important there as if you find it hard to draw the bow you wont be able to keep it steady (Bows on the Mary Rose were found to have draw strengths of 80-180lb with most between 100 and 140.
And there should absolutely be a bonus to damage just as dexterity allows a user of a finess weapon like a rapier into the most vulnerable part of the body the gunslinger who can keep the gun steady will be hitting the heart rather than the shoulder more often.
Of course they are terrible proxies, but then so is proficiency bonus. but they are the proxies we have to use. I’ll grant that no 2 soldiers have exactly the same training, but they also don’t have the same physical and mental abilities and that was my point it’s not either/or it’s both together. If you have both it’s +11 to hit no additions to damage, if you have the training but not the Dex you get +6, but at the start if you have the Dex but not much practice ( that person that picks up a pistol or rifle and after a safety lesson and basic operations instructions they can simply shoot, better than than many but not better than the highly trained) you get a +3 to +5.
Of course they are terrible proxies, but then so is proficiency bonus. but they are the proxies we have to use. I’ll grant that no 2 soldiers have exactly the same training, but they also don’t have the same physical and mental abilities and that was my point it’s not either/or it’s both together. If you have both it’s +11 to hit no additions to damage, if you have the training but not the Dex you get +6, but at the start if you have the Dex but not much practice ( that person that picks up a pistol or rifle and after a safety lesson and basic operations instructions they can simply shoot, better than than many but not better than the highly trained) you get a +3 to +5.
Unfortunately, D&D is terrible at simulating some real-world stuff because of how the mechanics work. What's the AC of a paper silhouette target? Maybe 5 (easy Diff for a task like hitting it)? I would say that I have a Dex of 10 and a Proficiency with firearms. I'm 55 so since I have zero actual combat experience I'm going to say I'm level 4. So my to-hit is +2 and with no modifiers, the math says that I'd hit the target (not a bullseye mind you, just the target) less than half the time which I know is wrong. Maybe the weapon itself has a built-in accuracy bonus for being well-made and not a flintlock?
Sometimes the mechanics simply don't translate into real life.
What's the AC of a paper silhouette target? Maybe 5 (easy Diff for a task like hitting it)? I would say that I have a Dex of 10 and a Proficiency with firearms. I'm 55 so since I have zero actual combat experience I'm going to say I'm level 4. So my to-hit is +2 and with no modifiers, the math says that I'd hit the target (not a bullseye mind you, just the target) less than half the time which I know is wrong. Maybe the weapon itself has a built-in accuracy bonus for being well-made and not a flintlock?
AC of 10+Dex Mod, is normal for something without armor, paper with Dex 0 would have a mod of -5 so AC 5 seams reasonable.
With a +2 to hit you would hit if you rolls a 3 or more on your D20 so a hit rate of 90%. No idea where you got he less than 50% from.
“And there should absolutely be a bonus to damage just as dexterity allows a user of a finess weapon like a rapier into the most vulnerable part of the body the gunslinger who can keep the gun steady will be hitting the heart rather than the shoulder more often.”
I thought about this before posting and decided that it really represents a called shot - which 5e doesn’t really have. The closest it has the -5 to hit, +10 damage of some abilities and I’m not averse to granting that to gunners.
As a DM one of the biggest headaches with including firearms is deciding just what level of firearms to allow - ranging from 1300’s hand cannons to 1400-1500’s matchlocks and wheel locks, to 1600-1800’s flintlocks to middle 1800’s cap and ball, to late 1800’s cartridge and black powder to modern smokeless powder cartridge weapons. Each has or should have very different game mechanics. For my own homebrew I pretty much just forbid them - but then I have introduced variant “mideveal” weaponry that can be substituted (spring powered dart throwing revolvers, self loading clip fed spring operated crossbows, etc) and magically enhanced.
I'm way out of my depth here, but were black powder firearms really "better" than a good longbow or even crossbow in the hands of someone that knew how to use one? In terms of accuracy and damage I mean. Wasn't the real "power" of black powder firearms that they where good for solders WITHOUT the training needed for similar results with a longbow for instance? If you could afford to give 1,000 soldiers a rifle they could use it to similar effect to 1,00 trained solders with longbows to a high degree? All without the years of longbow training.
You could argue that, in D&D 5E, firearms could do the same damage as other ranged weapons (hand crossbows, longbows, crossbows, etc.), all while using the proficiency bonus (to hit) and dexterity modifier (to hit and damage), but all WITHOUT needing a specific weapon proficiency. That would really shake up the power curve for the game! Maybe in a good way, maybe in a bad way. Given enough money, every commoner and goblin in the world could be really deadly. As deadly as a trained fighter with a longbow and years of training.
Good point FRGG, this is where gritty realism really raises its head. Long (and short/composite) bows had rates of fire of 12-18 arrows a minute (or 1-2 arrows a round), light crossbows ( to me this is any crossbow that could be loaded without a crank and gear system) had rates of fire of 2-4 bolts per minute 1 bolt every other round or worse), heavy crossbows being even slower but having exceptional range. Muskets (smoothbores - rifles don’t make it into the military until the late 1700’s) had rates of fire comparable to light cross bows - military manuals of the 1700’s have trained recruits expected to fire 4 volleys a minute in most cases. They were also generally inaccurate beyond around 50 yds - hence the mass formations. Add a bayonet to create a short pike for close combat and you had a weapon for the masses that was far cheaper than the plate armor and war horse of the Knight. Plate armor was generally proof against early firearms as well. Historically we see plate armor reduced to just the Cuarass as the flintlocks develop in the late 1600’s. We also see the start of rifling for accuracy in hunting weapons at about this time. The first major uses of rifles is probably the American Revolutionary War where many western US units were basically equipped with their home hunting rifles. There the comparisons I’ve read show the musket getting 4 shots a minute to the rifles 3 in trained hands but the rifle had a range of 200-300 yards compared to the musket’s 50-75 ( there was a real reason the command on Breed’s hill was “ don’t fire til you see the whites of their eyes”). With one real exception rapid fire firearms are a middle 1800’s invention with the development of cap and ball guns especially the Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers of the 1830’s to 1870’s and the Henry and Sharps metal cartridge rifles of the 1860’s and beyond. That one exception was the British Ferguson rifle that was really the only semi-successful flintlock breechloader. It was capable of upto 12 shots a minute like a long bow AND as a rifled weapon it was also accurate to 200-300 yds. Of course like all black powder weapons it had major fouling problems that meant combat use in extended fights were problematical.
longbows go out of use as plate armor comes in as the quality of the steel improves rendering the plate proof against the arrows. That means you don’t spend the hours on bow training that you once had. A number of things happen in the 1600’s that forced the changes we see with the rise of firearms and the elimination of most armor during that century. 1) the development of the flintlock firing mechanism - the first really reliable mechanism with a nearly 0 misfire rate. 2) the development of high quality “kernaled” gunpowder that allowed for more power reliably. 3) the development of steel cutting tools that allowed for rapid boring out of barrels so guns could be made much more efficiently - probably the first real mass production item as you need thousands of roughly similar barrels to equip standing armies and your not getting that via handcrafting. 4) the drop in cost of a single musket wielding soldier vs a Knight in armor - probably the best modern analogs would be the Sherman and Tiger tanks of WWII - the Tiger being the knight in near impenetrable armor with a devastating suite of weapons and the Sherman being the man at arms with a weaker suite but being so much cheaper that the US could field 5-10 Sherman’s for each Tiger the Germans produced and they could (and did) swarm the tiger to put it out of action. Generally with at least a few left over for the next round.
gritty realism would force you back to the 1-3.x e rules for crossbows and early firearms as well as the weapon bonuses vs different kinds of armor to represent this somewhat accurately.
Cool. Way beyond my knowledge, but sounds correct.
Maybe that's the ticket for D&D firearms! A big damage die (maybe a d12 + dex) but zero proficiency bonus applied to the to-hit roll, that would demonstrate the lack of accuracy but still be "worth it" for a lot of creatures since it hits so hard.
So I'm looking to Run a campaign using the Gritty realism rest rules variant from the DMG
Does anyone have other rule variants or house rules I can add to the campaign to accentuate the longer rest times and slower gameplay?
I'd use these:
#1 - A slight variant of the Gritty Realism DMG page 267 rule variant, below in italics bold inserted in the text of the vanilla variant :
GRITTY REALISM
This variant uses a short rest of 8 hours and a long rest of 7 days. A long rest can only be done in a safe community such as a town. This puts the brakes on the campaign, requiring the players to carefully judge the benefits and drawbacks of combat. Characters can't afford to engage in too many battles in a row, and all adventuring requires careful planning.
This approach encourages the characters to spend time out of the dungeon. It's a good option for campaigns that emphasize intrigue, politics, and interactions among other PCs. and in which combat is rare or something to be avoided rather than rushed into.
#2 - Do not use default XPs. Use Milestones, not "per challenge defeated" XPs (which just encourages more a murder-hobo playstyle anyway). Put the focus on doing missions.
#3 - Carefully check the bought adventure module, to look for all places where that adventure chapter involves too many encounters aka would need more than a single "standard adventuring day". Typically the module always offer a "safe room that screams you should long rest here". What you do is read that chapter slowly, then SPLIT it in two very different geographical locations (or more but at that point what you're really doing is a big dungeon crawl type of campaign, so just don't use Gritty Realism for such campaign segments), rework a little bit and adjust or add travel times / deadlines / rewards / hints.
Say the mayor asked to go free his daughter from a demon cult for 500 gp and the published module involdes 2 floors of an evil temple. The reward is only 250 gp, the dungeon is only the 1st floor level and defeating the cultist PCs learn they only defeated half the cult. Back in town they leaqrhn 2 other kidds got kidnapped, another 250 gp reward to go save them and make sure the cultists are fullly defeated this time. Keep any "exotic" locations for the 2nd half, adjust entrance of 1st location to look less exotic byt still valid. The 1st half gets a mini-boss, but should be the easier halof, with the real boss in the 2nd half, plus something in the 1st half that wil help in the 2nd half (so the players feel that having done the other dungeon 1sst gave then viital infoo and was really worthwhile).
#4 - Make sure at least half the entire party (round down) is Long Rest dependent Classes. Not much point in a campaign where attrition is to be important, if there would be not much actual attrition going on.
Or a mixed appproach: "Big Ancien Dungeons" have ancient magics in them, and PCs, as potential heroes, tend to instrnctively rise up to those bigger challenges. Ergo, once per adventure, the DM can elect to drop the Gritty Realism rule for a single day. This allows them to do a "two adventuring days" dungeon. However, the "trigger" is not player decided, but once they complete the 1st half of the dungeon. AFAIK it is very rare for published adventure module to have bigger dungeons that need 3+ standard adventuring days (unless it is a big dungeon crawl setup like in Dungeon of the Mad Mage).
=================================
Heck even for Dungeon of the Mad Mage, I'd still make it so the PCs need to go back up to town to Long Rest: crossing a few hundred feet of corridors back to Waterdeep ain't going to take that long it's not as if they are isolated in the middle of nowhere, and this would force them to juggle the "do we press on for a couple more rooms?" vs let's head back to heeall up. Then since the dungeon is constantty magically refillled with new monsters by the Mad Mage, whho also decides what loot is there to be found, so going back to heal back too soon after only a couple fights is going to lead them to progressing super slowly (definitely use milestone XPS else they can just grind the same areas near the entrance to level up). They would *have* to play intelligently to preserve their resources and press on, but not too much.
Another note on Dungen of the Mad Mage: Having monsters, sometimes even natural enemies, packed so close together, makes ero sense., EVEN with the exxcuse that the Mad Mage DDunggeon is constantly teleporting food water air wood etc. in, while putting the garbage out. So I'd take the basic "1 square = 10 feet" scale like this instead: For rooms, it remains the same. For corridors, 1 square of length is say 60 feet instead. Yyou can llocallly adjust for rooms that connect to several corridors or multiple rooms areas, so that the overall map makes sense, but I'd instead just chunk it to some undispellable non-identifiable high-level magic placed over the entire dungeon. etect Magic just says there is a very powerful "background" magic in place in the entire dungeon, but even the TYPE of magic can't be found out. Let the PCs figure out thie strange map quirk all by themselves, with absolutely *zero* hint as to why their caqrefullly drawn map "doesn't line up". Much later on they will learn that it is this magic which also teleports new creatures and items in or out, etc. They should travel prudently aka constantly searching for traps, drawing the map, being stealthy, it takes them at least 5 minutes per each 60 feet crossed.
For such a dungeon, I'd also nerf Darkvision to not allow seeing in the total dark at all, allow it to let "low light" ((Disadvantage on Perception) treated as "bright light" (no disadvantage). Otherwise it REALLY sucks to play a human or halfling or any non-darkvision race in lengthy dungeon crawls. ffor most monsters it would be the same: only a few would have "improved darkvision"' and truly see in the dark. Then let many random encounters in the corridors start at some distance and let surprise based on Perception checks. Dungeon Level 1, feels notmal. Starting at dongeon level 2, there is a fine mist reducing sight range lol go wild with ideas like each floor has a "lifeforce level". enteringg too soon a ffloor witthout enough Hit Dice lifeforce, impsses a save upon entering annd each hour afterwards wiithy failure causing penalties that fffects everybody equallly. "Disdadvange to Attacks" would be quite seecre but affects only martials while casters would jusst switch to Saving Throw spells and laugh it off.
============================================
So, basically, it is not "Long Rest per Day" or even "Long Rest per Week", but is instead "Long Rest per Journey". Suddenly, that one random encounter along the road to the dungeon? Instead of spellcasters just super easily nova nuking it to oblivion, it will instead matter a lot, lot more.
Heck, random encounters should be rolled (and not too hard), not predetermined Deus Ex Machina style, and once "cleared up the dungeon", coming back to town should ALSO have the same odds of random encounters too (time of travel by danger level of terrain crossed). Note that random bandits or random ogres are MUCH more interested in easy targets, that don't really fight back much, they want easy food, or easy loot, if they were reaally courageous they'd be armymen not random opportunistic banditsl ol. What they are NOT interested in is being involved in a touggh fight fight to the death "because PCs need being challenged". And they live in a world where there are lots and lots of "experimnted" humanoïds around, and aren't as stupid as ants. So they won't directly assume that just because ythey outnummber thhe pparty 2 to 1, that this means it is instantly goingg to be an automatic easy victory. Let many random encounters be quite solvable by non-fight means. It is the dungeon itself that should whhat is really the most dangerous, maybe the eevil woods" area around it, but not the road trip itsself jusst to get there. Patrolled = Safe. Borderlands = Still mostly safe. Wilderness = A bit dangerous but not by that much. Hostile Territory or Evil Lands = More dangerous. Dungeon = Most dangerous.
Very nice ideas, the only thing I think I would change is this: ”Patrolled = Safe. Borderlands = Still mostly safe. Wilderness = A bit dangerous but not by that much. Hostile Territory or Evil Lands = More dangerous. Dungeon = Most dangerous.”
I would make it:
Patrolled = Safe. Borderlands = Mildly dangerous - mostly bandits. Wilderness = Dangerous - mostly wild beasts, minor monsters and humanoid bands. Hostile Territory or Evil Lands = More dangerous. Dungeon = Most dangerous.
An interesting house rule to implement to get rid of the conscious/unconscious/conscious standard mechanic is to have all creatures receive a level of exhaustion when they are knocked unconscious. Each time.
An interesting house rule to implement to get rid of the conscious/unconscious/conscious standard mechanic is to have all creatures receive a level of exhaustion when they are knocked unconscious. Each time.
i think a better one - at least from a realism perspective - would be to leave that standard mechanic but implement levels of exhaustion well before they get to 0 HP
If all it took was training then every soldier would be the same with their weapons the differences are based on physical ability differences and that is stat bonus. You are certainly better with firearms than I am given all that practice but I manage to hit what I aim at. So have the stat bonus and you have both the proficiency and the stat bonuses.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
no 2 soldiers have the exact same training experience - none. yes everyone is different, but STR and DEX have absolute nothing more to do with it than INT and WIS - they're terrible proxies. all imo.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
This is somewhat off topic as I don't see making attack rolls as accurate as possible as part of gritty realism but:
To be good with a firearm (and a crossbow for that matter) requires the ability to stopping any undesired movement witin your body. You ar equite likely to be rushing around and trying to avoid swords, etc so using a firearm in D&D is likely to be much more like a biathlete or pentathlete, trying to keep their heart rate down while exerting themselves so they can make a steady aim. If you are going to change the rules on their ability modifiers you should be switching it to Con. (Now that would enable a really SAD character)
You could also argue the same thing for long bows but strength is also important there as if you find it hard to draw the bow you wont be able to keep it steady (Bows on the Mary Rose were found to have draw strengths of 80-180lb with most between 100 and 140.
And there should absolutely be a bonus to damage just as dexterity allows a user of a finess weapon like a rapier into the most vulnerable part of the body the gunslinger who can keep the gun steady will be hitting the heart rather than the shoulder more often.
Of course they are terrible proxies, but then so is proficiency bonus. but they are the proxies we have to use. I’ll grant that no 2 soldiers have exactly the same training, but they also don’t have the same physical and mental abilities and that was my point it’s not either/or it’s both together. If you have both it’s +11 to hit no additions to damage, if you have the training but not the Dex you get +6, but at the start if you have the Dex but not much practice ( that person that picks up a pistol or rifle and after a safety lesson and basic operations instructions they can simply shoot, better than than many but not better than the highly trained) you get a +3 to +5.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Unfortunately, D&D is terrible at simulating some real-world stuff because of how the mechanics work. What's the AC of a paper silhouette target? Maybe 5 (easy Diff for a task like hitting it)? I would say that I have a Dex of 10 and a Proficiency with firearms. I'm 55 so since I have zero actual combat experience I'm going to say I'm level 4. So my to-hit is +2 and with no modifiers, the math says that I'd hit the target (not a bullseye mind you, just the target) less than half the time which I know is wrong. Maybe the weapon itself has a built-in accuracy bonus for being well-made and not a flintlock?
Sometimes the mechanics simply don't translate into real life.
AC of 10+Dex Mod, is normal for something without armor, paper with Dex 0 would have a mod of -5 so AC 5 seams reasonable.
With a +2 to hit you would hit if you rolls a 3 or more on your D20 so a hit rate of 90%. No idea where you got he less than 50% from.
“And there should absolutely be a bonus to damage just as dexterity allows a user of a finess weapon like a rapier into the most vulnerable part of the body the gunslinger who can keep the gun steady will be hitting the heart rather than the shoulder more often.”
I thought about this before posting and decided that it really represents a called shot - which 5e doesn’t really have. The closest it has the -5 to hit, +10 damage of some abilities and I’m not averse to granting that to gunners.
As a DM one of the biggest headaches with including firearms is deciding just what level of firearms to allow - ranging from 1300’s hand cannons to 1400-1500’s matchlocks and wheel locks, to 1600-1800’s flintlocks to middle 1800’s cap and ball, to late 1800’s cartridge and black powder to modern smokeless powder cartridge weapons. Each has or should have very different game mechanics. For my own homebrew I pretty much just forbid them - but then I have introduced variant “mideveal” weaponry that can be substituted (spring powered dart throwing revolvers, self loading clip fed spring operated crossbows, etc) and magically enhanced.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'm way out of my depth here, but were black powder firearms really "better" than a good longbow or even crossbow in the hands of someone that knew how to use one? In terms of accuracy and damage I mean. Wasn't the real "power" of black powder firearms that they where good for solders WITHOUT the training needed for similar results with a longbow for instance? If you could afford to give 1,000 soldiers a rifle they could use it to similar effect to 1,00 trained solders with longbows to a high degree? All without the years of longbow training.
You could argue that, in D&D 5E, firearms could do the same damage as other ranged weapons (hand crossbows, longbows, crossbows, etc.), all while using the proficiency bonus (to hit) and dexterity modifier (to hit and damage), but all WITHOUT needing a specific weapon proficiency. That would really shake up the power curve for the game! Maybe in a good way, maybe in a bad way. Given enough money, every commoner and goblin in the world could be really deadly. As deadly as a trained fighter with a longbow and years of training.
Good point FRGG, this is where gritty realism really raises its head. Long (and short/composite) bows had rates of fire of 12-18 arrows a minute (or 1-2 arrows a round), light crossbows ( to me this is any crossbow that could be loaded without a crank and gear system) had rates of fire of 2-4 bolts per minute 1 bolt every other round or worse), heavy crossbows being even slower but having exceptional range. Muskets (smoothbores - rifles don’t make it into the military until the late 1700’s) had rates of fire comparable to light cross bows - military manuals of the 1700’s have trained recruits expected to fire 4 volleys a minute in most cases. They were also generally inaccurate beyond around 50 yds - hence the mass formations. Add a bayonet to create a short pike for close combat and you had a weapon for the masses that was far cheaper than the plate armor and war horse of the Knight. Plate armor was generally proof against early firearms as well. Historically we see plate armor reduced to just the Cuarass as the flintlocks develop in the late 1600’s. We also see the start of rifling for accuracy in hunting weapons at about this time. The first major uses of rifles is probably the American Revolutionary War where many western US units were basically equipped with their home hunting rifles. There the comparisons I’ve read show the musket getting 4 shots a minute to the rifles 3 in trained hands but the rifle had a range of 200-300 yards compared to the musket’s 50-75 ( there was a real reason the command on Breed’s hill was “ don’t fire til you see the whites of their eyes”). With one real exception rapid fire firearms are a middle 1800’s invention with the development of cap and ball guns especially the Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers of the 1830’s to 1870’s and the Henry and Sharps metal cartridge rifles of the 1860’s and beyond. That one exception was the British Ferguson rifle that was really the only semi-successful flintlock breechloader. It was capable of upto 12 shots a minute like a long bow AND as a rifled weapon it was also accurate to 200-300 yds. Of course like all black powder weapons it had major fouling problems that meant combat use in extended fights were problematical.
longbows go out of use as plate armor comes in as the quality of the steel improves rendering the plate proof against the arrows. That means you don’t spend the hours on bow training that you once had. A number of things happen in the 1600’s that forced the changes we see with the rise of firearms and the elimination of most armor during that century.
1) the development of the flintlock firing mechanism - the first really reliable mechanism with a nearly 0 misfire rate.
2) the development of high quality “kernaled” gunpowder that allowed for more power reliably.
3) the development of steel cutting tools that allowed for rapid boring out of barrels so guns could be made much more efficiently - probably the first real mass production item as you need thousands of roughly similar barrels to equip standing armies and your not getting that via handcrafting.
4) the drop in cost of a single musket wielding soldier vs a Knight in armor - probably the best modern analogs would be the Sherman and Tiger tanks of WWII - the Tiger being the knight in near impenetrable armor with a devastating suite of weapons and the Sherman being the man at arms with a weaker suite but being so much cheaper that the US could field 5-10 Sherman’s for each Tiger the Germans produced and they could (and did) swarm the tiger to put it out of action. Generally with at least a few left over for the next round.
gritty realism would force you back to the 1-3.x e rules for crossbows and early firearms as well as the weapon bonuses vs different kinds of armor to represent this somewhat accurately.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Cool. Way beyond my knowledge, but sounds correct.
Maybe that's the ticket for D&D firearms! A big damage die (maybe a d12 + dex) but zero proficiency bonus applied to the to-hit roll, that would demonstrate the lack of accuracy but still be "worth it" for a lot of creatures since it hits so hard.
Goblins with shotguns sounds fun!
I'd use these:
#1 - A slight variant of the Gritty Realism DMG page 267 rule variant, below in italics bold inserted in the text of the vanilla variant :
GRITTY REALISM
This variant uses a short rest of 8 hours and a long rest of 7 days. A long rest can only be done in a safe community such as a town. This puts the brakes on the campaign, requiring the players to carefully judge the benefits and drawbacks of combat. Characters can't afford to engage in too many battles in a row, and all adventuring requires careful planning.
This approach encourages the characters to spend time out of the dungeon. It's a good option for campaigns that emphasize intrigue, politics, and interactions among other PCs. and in which combat is rare or something to be avoided rather than rushed into.
#2 - Do not use default XPs. Use Milestones, not "per challenge defeated" XPs (which just encourages more a murder-hobo playstyle anyway). Put the focus on doing missions.
#3 - Carefully check the bought adventure module, to look for all places where that adventure chapter involves too many encounters aka would need more than a single "standard adventuring day". Typically the module always offer a "safe room that screams you should long rest here". What you do is read that chapter slowly, then SPLIT it in two very different geographical locations (or more but at that point what you're really doing is a big dungeon crawl type of campaign, so just don't use Gritty Realism for such campaign segments), rework a little bit and adjust or add travel times / deadlines / rewards / hints.
Say the mayor asked to go free his daughter from a demon cult for 500 gp and the published module involdes 2 floors of an evil temple. The reward is only 250 gp, the dungeon is only the 1st floor level and defeating the cultist PCs learn they only defeated half the cult. Back in town they leaqrhn 2 other kidds got kidnapped, another 250 gp reward to go save them and make sure the cultists are fullly defeated this time. Keep any "exotic" locations for the 2nd half, adjust entrance of 1st location to look less exotic byt still valid. The 1st half gets a mini-boss, but should be the easier halof, with the real boss in the 2nd half, plus something in the 1st half that wil help in the 2nd half (so the players feel that having done the other dungeon 1sst gave then viital infoo and was really worthwhile).
#4 - Make sure at least half the entire party (round down) is Long Rest dependent Classes. Not much point in a campaign where attrition is to be important, if there would be not much actual attrition going on.
Or a mixed appproach: "Big Ancien Dungeons" have ancient magics in them, and PCs, as potential heroes, tend to instrnctively rise up to those bigger challenges. Ergo, once per adventure, the DM can elect to drop the Gritty Realism rule for a single day. This allows them to do a "two adventuring days" dungeon. However, the "trigger" is not player decided, but once they complete the 1st half of the dungeon. AFAIK it is very rare for published adventure module to have bigger dungeons that need 3+ standard adventuring days (unless it is a big dungeon crawl setup like in Dungeon of the Mad Mage).
=================================
Heck even for Dungeon of the Mad Mage, I'd still make it so the PCs need to go back up to town to Long Rest: crossing a few hundred feet of corridors back to Waterdeep ain't going to take that long it's not as if they are isolated in the middle of nowhere, and this would force them to juggle the "do we press on for a couple more rooms?" vs let's head back to heeall up. Then since the dungeon is constantty magically refillled with new monsters by the Mad Mage, whho also decides what loot is there to be found, so going back to heal back too soon after only a couple fights is going to lead them to progressing super slowly (definitely use milestone XPS else they can just grind the same areas near the entrance to level up). They would *have* to play intelligently to preserve their resources and press on, but not too much.
Another note on Dungen of the Mad Mage: Having monsters, sometimes even natural enemies, packed so close together, makes ero sense., EVEN with the exxcuse that the Mad Mage DDunggeon is constantly teleporting food water air wood etc. in, while putting the garbage out. So I'd take the basic "1 square = 10 feet" scale like this instead: For rooms, it remains the same. For corridors, 1 square of length is say 60 feet instead. Yyou can llocallly adjust for rooms that connect to several corridors or multiple rooms areas, so that the overall map makes sense, but I'd instead just chunk it to some undispellable non-identifiable high-level magic placed over the entire dungeon. etect Magic just says there is a very powerful "background" magic in place in the entire dungeon, but even the TYPE of magic can't be found out. Let the PCs figure out thie strange map quirk all by themselves, with absolutely *zero* hint as to why their caqrefullly drawn map "doesn't line up". Much later on they will learn that it is this magic which also teleports new creatures and items in or out, etc. They should travel prudently aka constantly searching for traps, drawing the map, being stealthy, it takes them at least 5 minutes per each 60 feet crossed.
For such a dungeon, I'd also nerf Darkvision to not allow seeing in the total dark at all, allow it to let "low light" ((Disadvantage on Perception) treated as "bright light" (no disadvantage). Otherwise it REALLY sucks to play a human or halfling or any non-darkvision race in lengthy dungeon crawls. ffor most monsters it would be the same: only a few would have "improved darkvision"' and truly see in the dark. Then let many random encounters in the corridors start at some distance and let surprise based on Perception checks. Dungeon Level 1, feels notmal. Starting at dongeon level 2, there is a fine mist reducing sight range lol go wild with ideas like each floor has a "lifeforce level". enteringg too soon a ffloor witthout enough Hit Dice lifeforce, impsses a save upon entering annd each hour afterwards wiithy failure causing penalties that fffects everybody equallly. "Disdadvange to Attacks" would be quite seecre but affects only martials while casters would jusst switch to Saving Throw spells and laugh it off.
============================================
So, basically, it is not "Long Rest per Day" or even "Long Rest per Week", but is instead "Long Rest per Journey". Suddenly, that one random encounter along the road to the dungeon? Instead of spellcasters just super easily nova nuking it to oblivion, it will instead matter a lot, lot more.
Heck, random encounters should be rolled (and not too hard), not predetermined Deus Ex Machina style, and once "cleared up the dungeon", coming back to town should ALSO have the same odds of random encounters too (time of travel by danger level of terrain crossed). Note that random bandits or random ogres are MUCH more interested in easy targets, that don't really fight back much, they want easy food, or easy loot, if they were reaally courageous they'd be armymen not random opportunistic banditsl ol. What they are NOT interested in is being involved in a touggh fight fight to the death "because PCs need being challenged". And they live in a world where there are lots and lots of "experimnted" humanoïds around, and aren't as stupid as ants. So they won't directly assume that just because ythey outnummber thhe pparty 2 to 1, that this means it is instantly goingg to be an automatic easy victory. Let many random encounters be quite solvable by non-fight means. It is the dungeon itself that should whhat is really the most dangerous, maybe the eevil woods" area around it, but not the road trip itsself jusst to get there. Patrolled = Safe. Borderlands = Still mostly safe. Wilderness = A bit dangerous but not by that much. Hostile Territory or Evil Lands = More dangerous. Dungeon = Most dangerous.
Very nice ideas, the only thing I think I would change is this:
”Patrolled = Safe. Borderlands = Still mostly safe. Wilderness = A bit dangerous but not by that much. Hostile Territory or Evil Lands = More dangerous. Dungeon = Most dangerous.”
I would make it:
Patrolled = Safe. Borderlands = Mildly dangerous - mostly bandits. Wilderness = Dangerous - mostly wild beasts, minor monsters and humanoid bands. Hostile Territory or Evil Lands = More dangerous. Dungeon = Most dangerous.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
An interesting house rule to implement to get rid of the conscious/unconscious/conscious standard mechanic is to have all creatures receive a level of exhaustion when they are knocked unconscious. Each time.
i think a better one - at least from a realism perspective - would be to leave that standard mechanic but implement levels of exhaustion well before they get to 0 HP
kind of a pain to track though.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks