Only being able to Long Rest at "campsites" is stupid

[Blackdragon]

There is nothing in the SRD or PHB to suggest that long resting is only allowed at certain pre-determined spots. It ruins the balance, especially for classes dependant on long rest abilities. Furthermore, since leveling up is made dependant on long resting, it means you can't level up until you find a "campsite" - which can completely screw you over in some situations.

For instance, in the Ruined Tower, if you arrive before leveling up to level 3, you won't have access to spells like Misty Step or Spider climb, which are essential for completing this location. And there is no place to long rest inside.

This should be fixed. Even BG3 has it better, allowing long resting whenever there aren't enemies nearby.

If you want to add challenge, use the random encounter mechanic for resting without a "campsite". This would preserve the element of danger without completely robbing players of long rests.

[Dr Duh]

Think of it as a DM who's telling you everywhere there isn't a campfire "if you rest here you're gonna get ganked... bad... over and over until you move somewhere safer"

[wizard1200]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

There is nothing in the SRD or PHB to suggest that long resting is only allowed at certain pre-determined spots. It ruins the balance, especially for classes dependant on long rest abilities. Furthermore, since leveling up is made dependant on long resting, it means you can't level up until you find a "campsite" - which can completely screw you over in some situations.

This should be fixed. Even BG3 has it better, allowing long resting whenever there aren't enemies nearby.

If you want to add challenge, use the random encounter mechanic for resting without a "campsite". This would preserve the element of danger without completely robbing players of long rests.

I think that limiting the number of long rests is ESPECIALLY important for the game balance, because otherwise you can start every encounter with a full rested party and this makes classes with limited abilities, for example wizards or clerics, too powerful.

I think that BG3 is actually a great example how unlimited rests ruin the game balance, because the challenge rating (number of enemies, hp of enemies, abilities of enemies, ...) of most encounters must be higher than a regular encounter for a level 2 - 4 party to make the game challenging.

Full random encounters would not solve the issue in my opinion, because the player can just reload if an encounter interrupts his rest. Guaranteed random encounters in dangerous areas would be an option, because the player needs to save some ressources to survive them.

You are right that leveling up should not require a long rest. A short rest would be much better in my opinion.

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

For instance, in the Ruined Tower, if you arrive before leveling up to level 3, you won't have access to spells like Misty Step or Spider climb, which are essential for completing this location. And there is no place to long rest inside.

Misty Step or Spider Climb are ONLY essential if you want to get the OPTIONAL chests.

[Something completely different]

There's one resting spot in the Dark tower you can't reach otherwise. Not that it really matters as you can always backtrack to the previous one without issue so OP's point feels mood to me.

The spells most certainly are not essential to complete any mission whatsoever.

Personally I prefer the Solastra mechanics much over BG's mechanics where you can set up camp right around the corner of an enemy parties location and 8 hours of nothing happens next. Very realistic that.

[DiceWrangler]

I disagree with the OP and feel the current implementation is a good balance to encourage careful resource management. Being able to take a Long Rest anywhere and whenever your want just leads to abuse. Implementing an in-game "countdown" to discourage Long Rests just discourages parties from exploring and completing side quests. Restricting Long Rests to specific locations without only minor (or, eventually, no) costs -- like it has been implemented in "Solasta" -- is a better solution.

[Patrick]

I think BG3's approach is terrible - you are free to long rest (with 0 consequences) after every combat, so why bother managing combat resources like spells and abilities? You may as well have cooldowns. I found that limited spots to rest (like limited camping supplies in PoE) created greater tension and suspense and added to the experience. I also never found that I couldn't really rest if I needed to, even if it involved some back-tracking to a safe spot (I had to do that in BG1/2 too, unless you save-scummed to avoid possibly deadly rest encounters). You can also move on the map to fast-move to other map locations, so it's not that tedious to traverse an explored map to get to a camp site. Sure, it may no be everyone's cup of tea, but I like the idea of only being able to rest in safe spots. Even BG1/2 had that - although you could risk a random encounters. I'm sure there'll be an option so you can turn it off if it bugs you I also think levelling up shouldn't instantaneous - and a long rest (at least) - is a good compromise.

[Blackdragon]

Again, if you want more challenge, add random encounters to rests, like in BG 1/2. That was a fun and engaging risk/reward mechanic, and more battles = always good.

Limited supplies - and their cost in weight and gold - already offer a sufficient "survival" mechanic to make campsites superfluous.

Backtracking is a waste of time. I'd rather be actually playing the game - fighting battles and doing quests - than treading same ground over and over just because of arbitrary restrictions. I'd gladly fight an extra battle to be able to rest without backtracking.

Save-scumming is a player's choice. Personally I never save-scummed in BG1/2 - partly because I played these games when they came out in 1990-s, and loading times were a ♥♥♥♥♥. Especially when playing from a CD-ROM like me. (one time, the CD just blew apart inside my drive). So yeah, I ate those random encounters and fought to the last hp, hoping for a successful rest. But if somebody wants to, there are plenty of ways to save-scum in Solasta as it is.

I agree BG3 makes resting too easy. I am not in favour of "easy rests whenever/however often you want". I want rests outside of towns to be dangerous and costly. But I want to have the option to rest at my disposal, like in PnP and old-school CRPGs, instead of being hand-held by an invisible DM telling me, nah you can't rest here because there isn't a campfire. Yeah I know resting requires supplies, I know it entails dangers, but I want to manage my own resources and calculate my own risks, thank you very much.

Originally posted by wizard1200:

Misty Step or Spider Climb are ONLY essential if you want to get the OPTIONAL chests.

You do understand there is no such thing as "optional" when you talk about treasure at CL 2.

Originally posted by Something completely different:

Not that it really matters as you can always backtrack to the previous one without issue so OP's point feels mood to me.

You can't backtrack from the Tower of Magic. Can't even go back to global map. Even if you run back the entire level, there is simply no exit from the location.

And yes, I found the campfire in the next area after solving the puzzle in the library. But I would have much preferred doing the library with access to misty step/spiderclimb/shadow step.

[wizard1200]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Again, if you want more challenge, add random encounters to rests, like in BG 1/2. That was a fun and engaging risk/reward mechanic, and more battles = always good.

Limited supplies - and their cost in weight and gold - already offer a sufficient "survival" mechanic to make campsites superfluous.

Random encounters are only a risk vs. reward mechanic in an ironman game, because if you take the risk and fail you will otherwise reload and this makes the mechanic pointless in my opinion. Another issue with random encounters is that they make it more difficult to balance the game, because the heroes will have a higher level (difficulty in the dark castle with level 4 vs. level 5) if they complete more random encounters, but this problem could be fixed by removing the xp reward of random encounters.

The cost of rations is so low that it does not matter even at level 1 and the weight is neither a limit, because a party with an average strength of 12 can carry about 40 rations with light load. The speed penalty of the light load is less important than the ability to rest basically as often as you wish with about 40 rations.

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

For instance, in the Ruined Tower, if you arrive before leveling up to level 3, you won't have access to spells like Misty Step or Spider climb, which are essential for completing this location. And there is no place to long rest inside.

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

You do understand there is no such thing as "optional" when you talk about treasure at CL 2.

The treasure is not essential for completing the location, because this would mean that you can not finish the particular quest without it, which is not true.

[Blackdragon]

Originally posted by wizard1200:

Random encounters are only a risk vs. reward mechanic in an ironman game, because if you take the risk and fail you will otherwise reload and this makes the mechanic pointless in my opinion.

You can already reload if you lose a battle. Does it make the entire game "pointless" in your opinion? Do you only play games without a save function?

Originally posted by wizard1200:

Another issue with random encounters is that they make it more difficult to balance the game, because the heroes will have a higher level

It's a single player game, not an MMO. If a player wants to grind to get stronger at endgame, it's his choice. Random encounters are a stable feature in both PnP and CRPG D&D games.

Originally posted by wizard1200:

the weight is neither a limit, because a party with an average strength of 12 can carry about 40 rations with light load. The speed penalty of the light load is less important than the ability to rest basically as often as you wish with about 40 rations.

40 rations = 10 days. Since traveling requires at least several days, and then you have to get back, you're left with only a few long rests, not "as often as you wish". And the speed penalty may be crippling for melee builds.

Originally posted by wizard1200:

The treasure is not essential for completing the location, because this would mean that you can not finish the particular quest without it, which is not true.

Again, D&D is not an MMO where ticking boxes in "quests" from exclamation point NPCs constitutes "gameplay". In D&D progress = XP and equipment, not just "finishing a quest". If you haven't gotten all the loot, then you haven't "completed a location", you basically just gimped yourself for no reason. And before you say anything about "muh roleplaying", yes I RP as a NE merc who doesn't care whose throat he cuts so long as there's loot and XP.

[Cartesian Duelist]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

For instance, in the Ruined Tower, if you arrive before leveling up to level 3, you won't have access to spells like Misty Step or Spider climb, which are essential for completing this location.

You do understand there is no such thing as "optional" when you talk about treasure at CL 2.

In D&D progress = XP and equipment, not just "finishing a quest". If you haven't gotten all the loot, then you haven't "completed a location", you basically just gimped yourself for no reason.

Repeating a thing doesn't make it true.

[wizard1200]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

You can already reload if you lose a battle. Does it make the entire game "pointless" in your opinion? Do you only play games without a save function?

40 rations = 10 days. Since traveling requires at least several days, and then you have to get back, you're left with only a few long rests, not "as often as you wish". And the speed penalty may be crippling for melee builds.

No, but balancing a game with a risk vs. reward mechanic will be pointless in that case.

You find rations while you travel and close to most resting locations (i have played through the game three times and reached the dark castle with about 25 of 40 rations). The speed penalty was not crippling for my full melee party.

[NexusRoy]

I come here for extactly what op posted for.

Only able to take long rest at campfires is a bit lame.

You should be given the option to camp with the risk of being ambushed or something. Like Pathfinder (you can set up guards, etc.).

[ZiffyHead]

I almost never use short rest and there have been a few times where I was thinking, I really hope I find a long rest spot soon, because I'm starting to get low on resources and have been rationing for a few battles now.

But I've never died from lack of a long rest spot and have never really felt compelled to short rest, because long rest spots are too rare, so it seems to be pretty well balanced for my play style.

[psychotron666]

No, but in regular DND the DM can decide on the fly whether or not you can get away with a long rest. Without some sort of restriction,nothing stops you from nonsensically long resting in the middle of a hostile environment. In which case what's the point in having spell slots and whatnot, might as well just let everyone bust off unlimited abilities at all times.

One of the main factors of DND is resource management

[Team Triss]

Originally posted by Blackdragon:

Backtracking is a waste of time. I'd rather be actually playing the game - fighting battles and doing quests - than treading same ground over and over just because of arbitrary restrictions. I'd gladly fight an extra battle to be able to rest without backtracking.

You don't want an RPG, you want a dungeon crawler, if that.

[dhraiden]

Play something like Grim Dawn it sounds like, that it's more of an A-(emphasis on the A)-RPG you want, or perhaps just a fantasy-reskinned brawler.

As is I think the game is overly generous with how often you're allowed to long-rest and where. It makes the game very easy.