# Exhaustion



## jasper (Sep 30, 2022)

EXHAUSTED   [CONDITION] While    you    are    subjected    to    the    Exhausted     Condition (known    in    older    books    as    Exhaustion), you    experience    the    following    effects: Levels    of    Exhaustion.    This    Condition    is     cumulative.  Each    time    you    receive    it,  you    gain     1    level    of    exhaustion.    You    die    if    your     exhaustion    level    exceeds 10.
d20    Rolls Affected.    When    you    make    a    d20    Test, you    subtract    your    exhaustion    level from    the     d20    roll.

Spell    Save    DCs    Affected. Subtract    your exhaustion    level    from    the    Spell save    DC    of any Spell    you   cast.

Ending    the    Condition.    Finishing    a    Long    Rest removes    1    of    your    levels    of    exhaustion.    When     your    exhaustion    level    reaches    0, you    are    no     longer    Exhausted.


----------



## jasper (Sep 30, 2022)

Okay I was losing the exhaustion comments in the mist of others. 
I think it should only go up to 6 like it does now. It should include the Slowed Condition
Some Monsters should give exhaustion like the Banshee Wail DC 14 CON save or gain 2 levels of exhaustion or 1 level on a save.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 30, 2022)

I hate it. What was wrong with old exhaustion?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

Pie in the Sky 6E
					

Delete the Wizard?  I'm trying to get a movement started.  The Cleric goes first, AFAIC.




					www.enworld.org
				




called it.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 30, 2022)

I think this is a terrible change to a great existing condition. It's overly simplified, doesn't actually model being exhausted very well, especially compared to the existing rules, and is no longer scary.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

the Jester said:


> I think this is a terrible change to a great existing condition. It's overly simplified, doesn't actually model being exhausted very well, especially compared to the existing rules, and is no longer scary.



it is scary and it models it pretty well.

you are weaker all across the board by little every level.

there is no binary switch for some things(disadvantage/movement) on not on others.

Edit: I still believe that it need -1 AC per level, to effect HPs in a way.

speed penalty could be -5ft per two levels only, if we are going for 10 levels of it.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2022)

I like the change quite a bit.  Easier to implement and remember at the table, and granular enough to be used as currency for physical actions, if needed.  And getting to 4 or 5 exhaustion is plenty punishing.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Sep 30, 2022)

Agreed, it's a huge improvement. It has a much smoother progression and it's meaningful: every level of exhaustion is like getting a -2 on all your ability scores. It makes exhaustion much easier to use as a mechanic. Dropping to 0HP, maybe failed saves, and maybe even as a another source of Heroic Inspiration at a cost.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 30, 2022)

As I mentioned earlier, I don't like it.  It was a rule that made players pay attention to the exploration pillar.  And if it's supposed be a pillar that important rather than hand-waved away, then why neuter the one thing that made it important?  With the existing rule, PCs paid attention and made decisions around it.  With only a -1 penalty?  It's hardly much of an impact any longer.  Not only will PCs not balk at getting a level of exhaustion, they won't mind too much to get two or three levels before worrying about it too much.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> As I mentioned earlier, I don't like it.  It was a rule that made players pay attention to the exploration pillar.  And if it's supposed be a pillar that important rather than hand-waved away, then why neuter the one thing that made it important?  With the existing rule, PCs paid attention and made decisions around it.  With only a -1 penalty?  It's hardly much of an impact any longer.  Not only will PCs not balk at getting a level of exhaustion, they won't mind too much to get two or three levels before worrying about it too much.



To my mind, the problem with old exhaustion was that players simply didn't choose it.  There was no trade-off.  No one ever chose to take exhaustion, it was simply a penalty imposed by an unavoidable situation.  

At -1 or -2, a player will make that choice sometimes if the tradeoff is worth it, even though they won't be happy about it.  And getting it up to -4 or -5 is legitimately painful and dangerous.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> As I mentioned earlier, I don't like it.  It was a rule that made players pay attention to the exploration pillar.  And if it's supposed be a pillar that important rather than hand-waved away, then why neuter the one thing that made it important?  With the existing rule, PCs paid attention and made decisions around it.  With only a -1 penalty?  It's hardly much of an impact any longer.  Not only will PCs not balk at getting a level of exhaustion, they won't mind too much to get two or three levels before worrying about it too much.



It was unbalanced towards various classes.

IF you were some dumb fighter with 4 skills total or a spellcaster, you would not care for exhaustion level 1.

If you were Scout Rogue or similar heavy skill build, you might just got to sleep as you got hammered by 1 level of exhaustion.

this affects all characters almost the same.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 30, 2022)

I like it


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 30, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I hate it. What was wrong with old exhaustion?



Everyone hated it and no one used it?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 30, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Everyone hated it and no one used it?



That certainly wasn’t my experience. Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> As I mentioned earlier, I don't like it.  It was a rule that made players pay attention to the exploration pillar.  And if it's supposed be a pillar that important rather than hand-waved away, then why neuter the one thing that made it important?  With the existing rule, PCs paid attention and made decisions around it.  With only a -1 penalty?  It's hardly much of an impact any longer.  Not only will PCs not balk at getting a level of exhaustion, they won't mind too much to get two or three levels before worrying about it too much.



Looks like you are getting 'exploration' mixed up with 'travel'. They are very different things.

Old exhaustion was too much of a hindrance so there was never a choice. It was always bad. With this version, you gamble. You take one or two levels thinking it'll be ok and you are gambling on your ability to get rests in later to clear it (you may not get the opportunity). When the penalty hits -3 you are in real trouble.

Also with just a -1 penalty, it allows DMs to hit players with exhaustion a lot more as a warning without crippling the party.

But that is just my opinion. I think this version will get used a lot. The previous one I never saw in play.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 30, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That certainly wasn’t my experience. Quite the opposite in fact.



Your experience may be very much in the minority. Or mine may be. I guess we'll have to wait and see the survey results.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 30, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Your experience may be very much in the minority. Or mine may be. I guess we'll have to wait and see the survey results.



What specifically about it did you dislike that this change addresses?


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 30, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> What specifically about it did you dislike that this change addresses?



It was too punishing too quickly, and too difficult to remove. It very quickly became "I guess we have to stop doing anything and just do nothing before the game can start being fun again. Great."


----------



## Composer99 (Sep 30, 2022)

It's worth noting that, barring the need to make a spellcasting ability check for dispel magic or counterspell, exhaustion was not as punishing for dedicated casters as it was for melee types.

The new model actually affects them right from the outset by cutting down on saving throw DCs.

I do think adding the slowed condition somewhere in there would make sense. Probably about halfway.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Not only will PCs not balk at getting a level of exhaustion, they won't mind too much to get two or three levels before worrying about it too much.




The same people who would rather not play than have a 15 in their primary stat?  Hmmm.


----------



## Krachek (Sep 30, 2022)

Easy to apply. 2 level of exhaustion. -2!
After ten years I can even try to remember what is the penalty for actual level two of exhaustion.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I like the change quite a bit.  Easier to implement and remember at the table, and granular enough to be used as currency for physical actions, if needed.  And getting to 4 or 5 exhaustion is plenty punishing.



_ how_ are you going to get to 4 or 5?  This is seriously weak sauce.  They should have taken a cue from Level Up's Fatigue and Strife rules.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> _ how_ are you going to get to 4 or 5?  This is seriously weak sauce.  They should have taken a cue from Level Up's Fatigue and Strife rules.



Well, we have no idea what rules are being implemented in terms of exploration or survival procedures.  Without that, we have little guidance as to how much exhaustion will accumulate in a standard exploration scenario.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Well, we have no idea what rules are being implemented in terms of exploration or survival procedures.  Without that, we have little guidance as to how much exhaustion will accumulate in a standard exploration scenario.



Given the lack of exploration-based abilities in the new ranger, we might not be getting an exploration pillar at all mechanically.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> _ how_ are you going to get to 4 or 5?  This is seriously weak sauce.  They should have taken a cue from Level Up's Fatigue and Strife rules.



Funny you should mention that. I've been toying with a houserule ofr LU's Fatigue & Strife that would have them both going to 10 before you're "Doomed" and had a "kinder" progression - just so I could give it out more often without my players flipping the table.

This does a similar thing, so I can totally understand why they're testing it.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Given the lack of exploration-based abilities in the new ranger, we might not be getting an exploration pillar at all mechanically.



Sure, but that isn't related to the quality of the exhaustion rule, is it?  If they don't properly support a new implementation of a rule, that doesn't mean the rule is flawed.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Given the lack of exploration-based abilities in the new ranger, we might not be getting an exploration pillar at all mechanically.



I put a "laugh" on that, but I honestly don't know if I should laugh... or cry.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Easy to apply. 2 level of exhaustion. -2!
> After ten years I can even try to remember what is the penalty for actual level two of exhaustion.



this.

always have to check.

we only remember the 1st one with disadvantage to ability checks.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 30, 2022)

I like it. Read it one time and as a DM I'll be able to run it without ever having to look up the rule. Also, the extra granularity lets more things affect exhaustion.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 1, 2022)

I know know one thing: with this Exhaustion rule, I'd be more likely to use the Path of the Berserker Barbarian's Frenzy ability


----------



## clearstream (Oct 1, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It was unbalanced towards various classes.
> 
> IF you were some dumb fighter with 4 skills total or a spellcaster, you would not care for exhaustion level 1.
> 
> ...



EDIT - perhaps you are right. Rechecking I see it hits your save DCs.

Notwithstanding that I like the speed hit of the original.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> _ how_ are you going to get to 4 or 5?  This is seriously weak sauce.  They should have taken a cue from Level Up's Fatigue and Strife rules.




Easy. Have a sidebar *in the PHB next to death saves* that replaces the default wacksmole healing enabling mechanic with 3.x style* death at minus ten with bleeding out and damage beyond zero imposes a exhaustion point per point.

Having it in the PHB is important because 5.5 can't continue with almost every option making pcs more powerful in the PHB and the DMG containing the ones players will fight being made somehow weaker.  The DMG can contain guidance about _using_ that sidebar.

*yes I know earlier editions had something similar as an option somewhere but I can't remember what if any differences it had.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 1, 2022)

If they don’t add an official rule that going unconscious gives you a level of exhaustion, I will absolutely be house-ruling that.

One of my top wishes for 2024 is that dropping to zero becomes something players are more afraid of.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 1, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Easy. Have a sidebar *in the PHB next to death saves* that replaces the default wacksmole healing enabling mechanic with 3.x style* death at minus ten with bleeding out and damage beyond zero imposes a exhaustion point per point.
> 
> Having it in the PHB is important because 5.5 can't continue with almost every option making pcs more powerful in the PHB and the DMG containing the ones players will fight being made somehow weaker.  The DMG can contain guidance about _using_ that sidebar.
> 
> *yes I know earlier editions had something similar as an option somewhere but I can't remember what if any differences it had.



Do you see any indication WotC would do such a thing?  Players _ like_ the whack-a-mole healing.  WotC wants players to get what they want.  They seem to me unconcerned about the consequences.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 1, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Easy. Have a sidebar *in the PHB next to death saves* that replaces the default wacksmole healing enabling mechanic with 3.x style* death at minus ten with bleeding out and damage beyond zero imposes a exhaustion point per point.
> 
> Having it in the PHB is important because 5.5 can't continue with almost every option making pcs more powerful in the PHB and the DMG containing the ones players will fight being made somehow weaker.  The DMG can contain guidance about _using_ that sidebar.



It is not incumbent on WotC to put special rules in special places just so DMs can avoid "feeling bad" about telling their players what rules they are choosing to use in their campaign.

If (generic) you are a DM and you want to run your game with less whac-a-mole healing and you have a special system you want to use to do so... then step up and tell your players that's what you're doing.  They'll either go along with it, choose not to play, or want to discuss it with you and figure out why you're doing so.  At which point (generic) you will have to defend your decision.  Which is exactly what you _should_ be doing any time you decide on which rules of the game you are going to play with.  Own your decision and defend it.

The one thing  you shouldn't do (and WotC is under no obligation to make it easier for you) is to just point to the PHB and say "Oh, well, you know, I don't WANT to make this game feel more difficult for all of you, but you know, these rules are right up here in the Player's Handbook and I'd like to give them a try... and because they're here in the Player's Handbook, then you know, all you players should be okay with giving them a try too.  It's not me!  No, no!  WOTC put these rules here in the PHB!  So blame them if you don't like it!"

Stop trying to make WotC be the "bad guy" because (generic) you are unwilling to actually talk with your players and tell them what you want to play.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 1, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> If they don’t add an official rule that going unconscious gives you a level of exhaustion, I will absolutely be house-ruling that.
> 
> One of my top wishes for 2024 is that dropping to zero becomes something players are more afraid of.



I've been contemplating having spells like Revivify, Resurrection, Reincarnation, and True Resurrection gave the recipient a level of Exhaustion.  Being killed and returned to life seems like a harrowing experience.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you see any indication WotC would do such a thing?  Players _ like_ the whack-a-mole healing.  WotC wants players to get what they want.  They seem to me unconcerned about the consequences.



Yea I do.  Someone at wotc mentioned that the new dmg was going to have better guidance for new GMs & between things like the new barskin or the various newly codified actions there looks to be a shift towards furthering that with rules that serve the GM's needs in running the game


DEFCON 1 said:


> It is not incumbent on WotC to put special rules in special places just so DMs can avoid "feeling bad" about telling their players what rules they are choosing to use in their campaign.
> 
> If (generic) you are a DM and you want to run your game with less whac-a-mole healing and you have a special system you want to use to do so... then step up and tell your players that's what you're doing.  They'll either go along with it, choose not to play, or want to discuss it with you and figure out why you're doing so.  At which point (generic) you will have to defend your decision.  Which is exactly what you _should_ be doing any time you decide on which rules of the game you are going to play with.  Own your decision and defend it.
> 
> ...



Wotc makes the game & its rules, it has nothing to do with willingness to "talk" with players... what are you talking about?    Just like a casino it's absolutely _imperative_ that they structure things in a way that doesn't give the gm/dealer an aura of improper behavior when simply attempting to full their role.  The same would apply to the referees in any professional sport & the associated rule making body (fifa/nfl/ncaa/etc)



Spoiler: DMG4



A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the
architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures
by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other
players' characters (the adventurers) to discover. As
a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize
what's happening around them, improvising when the
adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected.
As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and
supporting characters, breathing life into them. *And as a 
referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to 
abide by them and when to change them.*





Spoiler: DMG5



PART 3 : MASTER OF RULES
*DUNGEONS & DRAGONS isn't a head-to-head competition
but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the
game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the
rules. As the player who creates the game world and the 
adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural 
fit to take on the referee role. *
As a referee, t*he DM acts as a mediator between the 
rules and the players. *A player tells the DM what he or
she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is
successful or not, in some cases asking the player to
make a die roll to determine success. For example, if a
player wants his or her character to take a swing at an
ore, you say, "Make an attack roll" while looking up the
ore's Armor Class.
The rules don't account for every possible situation
that might arise during a typical D&D session. For
example, a player might want his or her character to
hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face.
How you determine the outcome of this action is up to
you. You might tell the player to make a Strength check,
while mentally setting the Difficulty Class (DC) at 15.
If the Strength check is successful, you then determine
how a face full of hot coals affects the monster. You
might decide that it deals ld4 fire damage and imposes
disadvantage on the monster's attack rolls until the end
of its next turn. You roll the damage die (or let the player
do it), and the game continues.
Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits.
If a player tells you, "I want to run up and attack the
ore," but the character doesn't have enough movement
to reach the ore, you say, "It's too far away to move up
and still attack. What would you like to do instead?"
The player takes the information and comes up with a
different plan.



When the GM/referee is expected to do a thing, the rules need to be structured & presented in a way that allows them to do so without appearing to be shedding neutrality  & becoming adversarial.  In the case of an alternate death save mechanic making use of exhaustion 1-10 the fact that a party of players can be expected to encounter the risk or results frequently when it gets used is an additional reason why it should be in the phb.  *Something would be very wrong in basic book layouts if the players need to consult the dmg every time they are weighing the odds & cost/benefit of being low on hp or every time they find themselves suddenly below zero.*


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> _ how_ are you going to get to 4 or 5?  This is seriously weak sauce.  They should have taken a cue from Level Up's Fatigue and Strife rules.




I wish I had one dollar for each time you complain that OneDnD doesn't do it like LevelUp...


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 1, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I wish I had one dollar for each time you complain that OneDnD doesn't do it like LevelUp...



To be fair, I complain when 5e doesn't do it like Level Up too.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It is not incumbent on WotC to put special rules in special places just so DMs can avoid "feeling bad" about telling their players what rules they are choosing to use in their campaign.
> 
> If (generic) you are a DM and you want to run your game with less whac-a-mole healing and you have a special system you want to use to do so... then step up and tell your players that's what you're doing.  They'll either go along with it, choose not to play, or want to discuss it with you and figure out why you're doing so.  At which point (generic) you will have to defend your decision.  Which is exactly what you _should_ be doing any time you decide on which rules of the game you are going to play with.  Own your decision and defend it.
> 
> ...




I wonder if a few more sentences in the PHB about there being a bunch of optional rules  the DM might pick for a given campaign would help with this part of the social interaction.  (Apparently, for example, the wording around common and uncommon races in the PHB isn't "enough" for implying one shouldn't make and have their heart set on a  character before even hearing the potential  DMs pitch, for example.  And of course, the potential DM shouldn't expect the current group of players to buy their pitch this time around.)


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 1, 2022)

Cadence said:


> I wonder if a few more sentences in the PHB about there being a bunch of optional rules  the DM might pick for a given campaign would help with this part of the social interaction.  (Apparently, for example, the wording around common and uncommon races in the PHB isn't "enough" for implying one shouldn't make and have their heart set on a  character before even hearing the potential  DMs pitch, for example.  And of course, the potential DM shouldn't expect the current group of players to buy their pitch this time around.)



At what point does WotC have to continually hold the hand of every player who can't be bothered to read the rules, who then get into arguments with their DM because the DM is daring to include rules from the DMG in a game that they specifically are running?

Heck... I've seen posts _here_ in all these threads with players making comments about these new rules they don't think work or make sense... only for someone to point out "Uh... this gets mentioned and referenced here."  Even here people can't be bothered to read the rules!  So why should WotC waste time, space, energy, and money adding more and more redundant mentions of rules all over the place just trying to baby-proof them for those people?  If you can't be bothered to read the rules... then too bad when the DM "springs" something on you.  That ain't the DM's problem, and it certainly isn't WotC's problem.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> At what point does WotC have to continually hold the hand of every player who can't be bothered to read the rules, who then get into arguments with their DM because the DM is daring to include rules from the DMG in a game that they specifically are running?
> 
> Heck... I've seen posts _here_ in all these threads with players making comments about these new rules they don't think work or make sense... only for someone to point out "Uh... this gets mentioned and referenced here."  Even here people can't be bothered to read the rules!  So why should WotC waste time, space, energy, and money adding more and more redundant mentions of rules all over the place just trying to baby-proof them for those people?  If you can't be bothered to read the rules... then too bad when the DM "springs" something on you.  That ain't the DM's problem, and it certainly isn't WotC's problem.



I think WotC just wants players to be happy since that way they will buy their books.  Anything that could make that happen, including "holding their hand" at every opportunity, is on the table.  I don't like it, but that's what I see.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> At what point does WotC have to continually hold the hand of every player who can't be bothered to read the rules, who then get into arguments with their DM because the DM is daring to include rules from the DMG in a game that they specifically are running?
> 
> Heck... I've seen posts _here_ in all these threads with players making comments about these new rules they don't think work or make sense... only for someone to point out "Uh... this gets mentioned and referenced here."  Even here people can't be bothered to read the rules!  So why should WotC waste time, space, energy, and money adding more and more redundant mentions of rules all over the place just trying to baby-proof them for those people?  If you can't be bothered to read the rules... then too bad when the DM "springs" something on you.  That ain't the DM's problem, and it certainly isn't WotC's problem.



I do not think it is all about handholding. Wizards often do not make things easy. If you want to study up on the rules for hiding, it is often not enough to look at the definition of hiding or the hide action. There are interactions implied in the rules on invisibility, blindsight and so on that can modify the interpterion. 
Add into that the often, subtle changes in these rules between editions. At this point I have the legacy of about 5 different version of D&D rattling about in my head.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> At what point does WotC have to continually hold the hand of every player who can't be bothered to read the rules, who then get into arguments with their DM because the DM is daring to include rules from the DMG in a game that they specifically are running?
> 
> Heck... I've seen posts _here_ in all these threads with players making comments about these new rules they don't think work or make sense... only for someone to point out "Uh... this gets mentioned and referenced here."  Even here people can't be bothered to read the rules!  So why should WotC waste time, space, energy, and money adding more and more redundant mentions of rules all over the place just trying to baby-proof them for those people?  If you can't be bothered to read the rules... then too bad when the DM "springs" something on you.  That ain't the DM's problem, and it certainly isn't WotC's problem.



Enough that the only place it shows up isn't buried in the introduction?





- _second full paragraph on page 6 of the PHB_

If the player misses that to get to the good stuff...

In Chapter 1, for example, when it runs through making a character, unless I missed it, it doesn't seem to imply at any point that the DM might have some restrictions on what races or classes are out there. It is all about the player choosing any options they want and "What’s important is that you come to the table with a character you’re excited to play."

It does note the DM might decide to have you begin at a higher level.  It mentions that there is a standard array and the variant of point buy as options beyond the rolling, but leaves it entirely to the player if they roll or standard, and that they have a third choice of the point buy if the DM lets them have that as a third option.  For backgrounds it explicitly says the DM might offer additional backgrounds or work with you on one, but never hints they might restrict them.

In Chapter Two, it doesn't mention that the DM might restrict what races are available - except that you should ask permission to play a Drow.

Chapter Three says the twelve classes "are found in almost every D&D world", but doesn't say how one knows if they are or not.

etc...

One extra sentence or tiny box to start each of those three chapters doesn't feel awful to me or like it's asking WotC to put in extraordinary effort.

Edit:  Or I'd even take them putting some sort of emphasis around it in the introduction I guess, instead of it just sitting there as part of a wall of text.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 1, 2022)

Cadence said:


> One extra sentence or tiny box to start each of those three chapters doesn't feel awful to me or like it's asking WotC to put in extraordinary effort.



I dunno... maybe I just think less of the overall playerbase I guess.  If they can't be bothered to read the rulebook and the DM can't be bothered to tell their players the rules they are using before the game starts... WotC doesn't need to try and beg and plead for them to do so by running up flags every three pages saying "Read the rules please!!!"  At some point, personal accountability must come into play.

But of course that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 1, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Given the lack of exploration-based abilities in the new ranger, we might not be getting an exploration pillar at all mechanically.



On the other hand, the ranger does have a class feature that involves Exhaustion, the 11th-level Tireless feature which improves exhaustion recovery. That suggests that we might see some wider use of exhaustion.

With this new version, I could see exhaustion being inflicted as a spell effect - currently the only spell which inflicts exhaustion as a hostile effect is _sickening radiance_, and even then the effect goes away once the spell ends.


----------



## Wyckedemus (Oct 5, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I've been contemplating having spells like Revivify, Resurrection, Reincarnation, and True Resurrection gave the recipient a level of Exhaustion.  Being killed and returned to life seems like a harrowing experience.



Agreed. Both Raise Dead and Resurrection say the following:

"Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The target takes a −4 penalty to all attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks. Every time the target finishes a long rest, the penalty is reduced by 1 until it disappears."

This works exactly how the new "Exhaustion" rule works. They can be reworded to grant "4 levels of Exhaustion" and it does the same thing.

I also believe that if a character drops to 0 HP, they should get a level of exhaustion, which would impact their Death Saves too, as those would be d20 Tests. The more Yo-Yo you go, the worse off you get.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 6, 2022)

Wyckedemus said:


> I also believe that if a character drops to 0 HP, they should get a level of exhaustion, which would impact their Death Saves too, as those would be d20 Tests. The more Yo-Yo you go, the worse off you get.



It would also be easy to put in official or house rule that for every death failure you take you suffer a level of exhaustion, in case you want to add in a little more pain.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 6, 2022)

The new exhaustion rules would have fit 3e quite well.

Too much fiddly bits for 5e.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 6, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> The new exhaustion rules would have fit 3e quite well.
> 
> Too much fiddly bits for 5e.



But... it is simpler than the extant 5e exhaustion rules.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 6, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> But... it is simpler than the extant 5e exhaustion rules.



Simpler and more usable. it is more granular, the death spiral is linear instead of exponential. The PCs have time to act before the issue become irreversible.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 6, 2022)

It would be interesting if Wizards introduces another mechanic that causes exhaustion or uses the impacts of exhaustion. The odd thing about the existing exhaustions rules is that they kind of on its own. OK barbarians had to interact with the exhaustion rules but otherwise interaction with the exhaustion rules was more or less optional.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 6, 2022)

I don't have access to the playtest material regarding how One D&D is going to be handling Exhaustion, but does it provide everyone a table that describes what each level of Exhaustion will do to a given character? _curious_ Level Up does with Fatigue, which it refers to as a Tracked Condition. Fatigue covers levels of Physical Stress while Strife covers levels of Mental Stress. 

Fatigue
Level 1-Cannot Sprint
Level 2- Disadvantage on Strength, Dexterity and Constitution checks
Level 3-Speed halved and unable to maintain a fast traveled pace
Level 4- Disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws using Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution, and unable to maintain a normal travel pace
Level 5-Hit Dice Halved
Level 6- Speed reduced to 5 ft. and unable to maintain a slow travel pace
Level 7- *DOOMED! *

Strife
Level 1- Disadvantage on Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma checks
Level 2- Disadvantage on concentration checks
Level 3- Can only take a bonus action or action each turn (not both)
Level 4- Disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws using Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma
Level 5- Suffer the effects of a randomly determined short-term mental stress effect.
Level 6- Cannot cast spells (but can cast cantrips)
Level 7-Suffer the effects of a randomly determined long-term mental stress effect.

The Short-Term mental stress effects are- Bewildered, Cowed, Distraught, Enraged, Flippant, Musical, Obsessed, On Edge, Sleepless and Terrorized.
The Long-Term mental stress effects are- Covetous, Distorted Perceptions (hallucinations, I am guessing), Hopeless, Inimical, Memory Wipe, Murderous, Peacekeeping, Phobia, Superstitious, Suspicious

The mental stress effects to me sound like something like the players have to role-play with until their characters find a way to relax and unwind.  

Is One D&D going to cover mental exhaustion as well as physical exhaustion?


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

@Corinnguard 

mental vs physical stress can also be split with -1 modifier:

Fatigue:
-1 to all str, dex and con attacks, checks and saves per fatigue level
-1 to str, dex and con based DCs per fatigue level
-1 AC per fatigue level
-5 ft speed per fatigue level(min of 5ft speed)

Strife:
-1 to all int, wis and cha attacks, checks and saves per strife level
-1 to all int, wis and cha DCs per strife level


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> @Corinnguard
> 
> mental vs physical stress can also be split with -1 modifier:
> 
> ...



So if I had a character who picked up 6 levels of Fatigue, the character would have a -6 to all attacks, -6 to all STR, DEX, and CON checks and saves, -6 to STR, DEX and CON based DC's, -6 to AC and -30 ft. speed. However, their HD would remain unaffected. No loss of HD to represent internal injuries from pushing themselves beyond what they are capable of.  

As for Strife, no loss in spellcasting ability or lack of concentration?


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 6, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> I don't have access to the playtest material regarding how One D&D is going to be handling Exhaustion, but does it provide everyone a table that describes what each level of Exhaustion will do to a given character? _curious_ Level Up does with Fatigue, which it refers to as a Tracked Condition. Fatigue covers levels of Physical Stress while Strife covers levels of Mental Stress.
> 
> Fatigue
> Level 1-Cannot Sprint
> ...



It's minus one to d20 rolls & spell DC per point up to minus ten where the character dies.

I've been running levelup since it came out & fatigue is useful but also a bit too hard to get in any amount that matters IME.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's minus one to d20 rolls & spell DC per point up to minus ten where the character dies.
> 
> I've been running levelup since it came out & fatigue is useful but also a bit too hard to get in any amount that matters IME.



What would push a character to the point where they would acquire 10 levels of exhaustion and then die? 

Good point. It kind of depends on how often the party stops for a short or long rest. If the party decides not to rest between encounters, then I could see physical and mental exhaustion setting in. As for tracking fatigue and strife, it might require another deck of cards for the narrator to hand out to the players.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 6, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> What would push a character to the point where they would acquire 10 levels of exhaustion and then die?
> 
> Good point. It kind of depends on how often the party stops for a short or long rest. If the party decides not to rest between encounters, then I could see physical and mental exhaustion setting in. As for tracking fatigue and strife, it might require another deck of cards for the narrator to hand out to the players.



Past editions had a ten point buffer of negative hp before a character died but it needed to be healed like hp too.  If it works like that (by default or optional rule) then just taking ten points more damage than remaining up would do it.  With players aware of the extreme risk of being atlw hp they act accordingly rather than expecting to rely on death saves. As a shield.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> So if I had a character who picked up 6 levels of Fatigue, the character would have a -6 to all attacks, -6 to all STR, DEX, and CON checks and saves, -6 to STR, DEX and CON based DC's, -6 to AC and -30 ft. speed. However, their HD would remain unaffected. No loss of HD to represent internal injuries from pushing themselves beyond what they are capable of.



No need to fiddle with HD mechanics, penalty to AC and saves describes easier HP loss


Corinnguard said:


> As for Strife, no loss in spellcasting ability or lack of concentration?



Again no need to be so binary with loss of spellcasting.
penalty to spell attacks and DCs describes weaker and weaker spellcasting.
Also concentration is affected by fatigue.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 6, 2022)

I'd like exhaustion to happen regularly and certain healing spells to reduce it (either restoration or a new spell called Invigoration). As written, it should come from both mental and physical sources.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 6, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'd like exhaustion to happen regularly and certain healing spells to reduce it (either restoration or a new spell called Invigoration). As written, it should come from both mental and physical sources.



One spell for both physical and mental exhaustion? Or one spell for each, _Invigoration_ for Physical, _Clarity_ for Mental.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 6, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> One spell for both physical and mental exhaustion? Or one spell for each, _Invigoration_ for Physical, _Clarity_ for Mental.



No, sorry. I meant that a 1-10 scale condition called exhaustion (this playtest version) is both mental and physical (one system for both) and one spell (Invigoration) ought to correct a level or two.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 6, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> No, sorry. I meant that a 1-10 scale condition called exhaustion (this playtest version) is both mental and physical (one system for both) and one spell (Invigoration) ought to correct a level or two.



Exhaustion is only worthwhile _ because_ it can't be easily spelled away.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 6, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Exhaustion is only worthwhile _ because_ it can't be easily spelled away.



It would be worthwhile if you could use a spell to make others exhausted as part of a debuff.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 6, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Exhaustion is only worthwhile _ because_ it can't be easily spelled away.



I get what you're saying, but my thinking is to give it out quite a bit, and a spell would just give a party the ability to knock down the worst of it. I wouldn't want it to be "easily spelled _away_" (unless someone has a single level and they want to blow a spell slot to "top up" the party - something that should be rarely worth doing.) I would expect it to be something that's a resource-management decision.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 6, 2022)

ultimately I'm curious what works better in play, lowering offense with exhaustion or defense.

right now the playtest version is offense, no loss of defensive power, just offense. So a highly exhausted character isn't going to get gacked, but probably not going to be able to contribute to the fight very well either....which is boring, the worse thing you can do to a player. Previously they could try things like grappling but those are attack rolls now as well.

If you nerf defense, yes you create death spirals, but at least that's interesting. The player has to take a bigger risk to adventure, that to me is more "heroic" than being fully defended up and sit there ineffectually wailing on the enemy


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 6, 2022)

'Interesting' is a wide net. Something you hate with an all-consuming passion is 'interesting', but probably not preferable to not having to deal with it.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie (Oct 6, 2022)

I like that the new exhaustion rules will allow me to trade a long rest for more downtime activities such as training, crafting, researching, copying spells, etc, without getting severely punished for it.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 7, 2022)

I would prefer for AC to also be affected (simply "-1 penalty to any D20 test you make, or is made against you") and a hard limit on 1 exhaustion level recovered via long rest and 1 via other means per day (suggest limit spells to Hero's Feast, Heal, Regenerate, Life Transference) unless via Wish or Power Word: Heal. That's how we've played our over-exertion rules for 2 years now and it works really well.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 7, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> No, sorry. I meant that a 1-10 scale condition called exhaustion (this playtest version) is both mental and physical (one system for both) and one spell (Invigoration) ought to correct a level or two.



Lesser restoration seems like a good candidate to remove a level or two of exhaustion.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 7, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> It would be worthwhile if you could use a spell to make others exhausted as part of a debuff.



A rewriting of Ray of Enfeeblement or perhaps time to introduce Ray of Exhaustion


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 7, 2022)

So now I'm wondering, with this new 10 levels of exhaustion mechanic if WotC are going to finally do what they should have done so many years ago - tie one's limits for powers/spells/class features to the exhaustion mechanic. For example characters can push passed x times per day power but suffer y levels of exhaustion.
We already do this at our table.

EDIT: The only trick is, not to have it easily circumvented with spells.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 7, 2022)

I'm not sure how I feel about them bringing back semi-regular negative modifiers to rolls after they constructed the entire advantage/disadvantage system to avoid that kind of fiddly (and easily forgotten) number crunching


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 7, 2022)

Branduil said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about them bringing back semi-regular negative modifiers to rolls after they constructed the entire advantage/disadvantage system to avoid that kind of fiddly (and easily forgotten) number crunching



Agreed. Advantage/Disadvantage keeps it simple. Bringing back negative modifiers for something like Exhaustion could bog down gameplay because the player and/or the DM will then have to figure out which positive and negative modifiers apply to the situation. Being fatigued in body, mind or both is a disadvantage for the player. But even a disadvantaged player is still given  a chance at succeeding a check when both d20's end up rolling high anyway.


----------



## gorice (Oct 7, 2022)

Advantage/disadvantage is nice, but it just isn't granular enough to be used for everything. Basic stuff like cover and buffing spells have used distinct modifiers from the beginning (a lot of spells also _roll_ bonuses, which is unbelievably fiddly). Ideally, they should restrict advantage to specific kinds of circumstances, or shift to a different system.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 7, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Agreed. Advantage/Disadvantage keeps it simple. Bringing back negative modifiers for something like Exhaustion could bog down gameplay because the player and/or the DM will then have to figure out which positive and negative modifiers apply to the situation. Being fatigued in body, mind or both is a disadvantage for the player. But even a disadvantaged player is still given  a chance at succeeding a check when both d20's end up rolling high anyway.



that is why this exhaustion rules are good.
It's -1 to every d20 roll.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 7, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Agreed. Advantage/Disadvantage keeps it simple. Bringing back negative modifiers for something like Exhaustion could bog down gameplay because the player and/or the DM will then have to figure out which positive and negative modifiers apply to the situation. Being fatigued in body, mind or both is a disadvantage for the player. But even a disadvantaged player is still given  a chance at succeeding a check when both d20's end up rolling high anyway.



I have no problem creating or remembering disadvantages for the player, as long as they make sense in the narrative.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 7, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> A rewriting of Ray of Enfeeblement or perhaps time to introduce Ray of Exhaustion



On D&D Wiki, there are actually two homebrewed spells that can cause Exhaustion. _Inflict Exhaustion_ Inflict Exhaustion (5e Spell) - D&D Wiki  and _Waves of Exhaustion_ Waves of Exhaustion (5e Spell) - D&D Wiki

There is even an oil that can be coated on six pieces of equipment that can cause Exhaustion. _Oil of Exhaustion_ Oil of Exhaustion (5e Equipment) - D&D Wiki


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 7, 2022)

And there is another spell that can actually reduce the effects of Exhaustion too. _Remove Fatigue_ Remove Fatigue – 5th Edition SRD 

Exhaustion – 5th Edition SRD  This link provides alternate rules for Exhaustion.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 7, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that is why this exhaustion rules are good.
> It's -1 to every d20 roll.



It's about as simple as a negative modifier can be yes, but it will still inevitably face the problem of players forgetting to apply it. Maybe not a problem for online play, but at the table it's the kind of thing that's very easy to lose track of and forget to apply. And certainly it's hard for other players or the DM to notice if you've forgotten it or miscalculated. 

This was always one of the big reasons for advantage/disadvantage, everyone can immediately see if you're applying it. It's true it lacks granularity, the question is if granularity is actually desirable for D&D.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 7, 2022)

Branduil said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about them bringing back semi-regular negative modifiers to rolls after they constructed the entire advantage/disadvantage system to avoid that kind of fiddly (and easily forgotten) number crunching



Yeah....kinda agree.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 8, 2022)

Branduil said:


> This was always one of the big reasons for advantage/disadvantage, everyone can immediately see if you're applying it. It's true it lacks granularity, the question is if granularity is actually desirable for D&D.



Yeah, but the problem with advantage/disadvantage is that the more sources there are of them in play, the more likely it is that everything just gets cancelled down to straight rolls.

_Fog Cloud_ was always the most obvious example of this. Everyone gets advantage on attack rolls because their target can't see them, and also gets disadvantage on attack rolls because they can't see the target, so the fight just proceeds with nobody being able to get either advantage or disadvantage.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 8, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, but the problem with advantage/disadvantage is that the more sources there are of them in play, the more likely it is that everything just gets cancelled down to straight rolls.
> 
> _Fog Cloud_ was always the most obvious example of this. Everyone gets advantage on attack rolls because their target can't see them, and also gets disadvantage on attack rolls because they can't see the target, so the fight just proceeds with nobody being able to get either advantage or disadvantage.



That's one legitimate problem with the system. Perhaps it would be good to have something like Greater Advantage and Greater Disadvantage, which can't be cancelled (if you would have both, the one you received more recently applies).


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

MarkB said:


> _Fog Cloud_ was always the most obvious example of this. Everyone gets advantage on attack rolls because their target can't see them, and also gets disadvantage on attack rolls because they can't see the target, so the fight just proceeds with nobody being able to get either advantage or disadvantage.




That’s a funky case that needs to be addressed. It should be “if you can see a target who can’t see you” not just “if the target can’t see you.”

In other words, that’s a problem with the specific rule (there may be others) not with the advantage/disadvantage system in general.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 8, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> What would push a character to the point where they would acquire 10 levels of exhaustion and then die?



Monsters that inflict exhaustion with their attacks, perhaps.

It could be the new energy drain. Max hit point reduction never seemed quite right to me.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 8, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Monsters that inflict exhaustion with their attacks.



Sure, and environmental effects and injuries (as an optional rule, likely).


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 8, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, but the problem with advantage/disadvantage is that the more sources there are of them in play, the more likely it is that everything just gets cancelled down to straight rolls.
> 
> _Fog Cloud_ was always the most obvious example of this. Everyone gets advantage on attack rolls because their target can't see them, and also gets disadvantage on attack rolls because they can't see the target, so the fight just proceeds with nobody being able to get either advantage or disadvantage.





it's a lot worse than that.  Look at what fog cloud did in the past


Spoiler: 3.5 fog cloud



A bank of fog billows out from the point you designate. The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. *A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance)*. Creatures *farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target)*.


That was actually a legitimately useful effect

2e version was almost an illusion spell


Spoiler: 2e fog cloud



The fog cloud spell can be cast in one of two ways, at the caster’s 
option: as a large, stationary bank of normal fog, or as a harmless fog 
that resembles the 5th-level wizard spell cloudkill.
 As a fog bank, this spell creates a fog of any size and shape up to 
a maximum 20-foot cube per caster level. The fog obscures all sight, 
normal and infravision, beyond 2 feet.
 As a cloudkill-like fog, this is a billowing mass of ghastly, yellowish-
green vapors, measuring 40 feet × 20 feet × 20 feet. This moves 
away from the caster at 10 feet per round. The vapors are heavier 
than air and sink to the lowest level, even pouring down sinkholes 
and den openings. Very thick vegetation breaks up the fog after it has 
moved 20 feet into the vegetation.
 The only effect of either version is to obscure vision. A strong 
breeze will disperse either effect in one round, while a moderate 
breeze will reduce the spell duration by 50%. The spell cannot be 
cast under water.



2e had a lot of differences with skills but The 5e version doesn't even try doing any of that misleading illusion type stuff

(dis)advantage as the first last & only mechanic overly limits what effects things can have.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> That’s a funky case that needs to be addressed. It should be “if you can see a target who can’t see you” not just “if the target can’t see you.”
> 
> In other words, that’s a problem with the specific rule (there may be others) not with the advantage/disadvantage system in general.



Yeah, but it's illustrative of the issue. Once you have at least one source of advantage and one source of disadvantage in play, adding more of either does nothing - so too much proliferation of sources of advantage and disadvantage makes the system break down.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 8, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Exhaustion – 5th Edition SRD  This link provides alternate rules for Exhaustion.



Nice find. I hadn't seen this.
You can now see how the 1D&D rules may have evolved from these alternate rules.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 8, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Nice find. I hadn't seen this.
> You can now see how the 1D&D rules may have evolved from these alternate rules.



It's certainly possible. I like the alternate Exhaustion rules in 5eSRD because it actually shows you what each level of Exhaustion is going to do your character if they push themselves too far. Ditto for the Fatigue and Strife tables in A5e.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, but it's illustrative of the issue. Once you have at least one source of advantage and one source of disadvantage in play, adding more of either does nothing - so too much proliferation of sources of advantage and disadvantage makes the system break down.




No, I disagree here. In general I don’t think it’s a problem that sources of advantage and disadvantage cancel out, even if there’s more of one than the other. It’s one of those abstractions that some people feel don’t model reality in sufficient detail, but this one doesn’t (usually) cause paradoxes.

What’s weird in this particular case (e.g. fog cloud) is that it’s the same effect canceling itself, because of the way the rules about seeing and being seen are written.


----------

