# The new playtest Exhaustion rules has already fixed the exploration pillar a lot.



## FallenRX (Oct 9, 2022)

The problem with the old exhaustion is that its was far too punishing, and detrimental to the point where the players would never wish to interact with it beyond the first level, limiting choice and also limiting how you can use it, as giving the party Exhaustion beyond level 1 basically meant a death spiral due to their speed getting halved and attacks being useless to where it critically will drastically slow them down, or they would just die.

The playtest actually fix this by focusing it all on incremental minuses, that isnt much to begin with but add up, this is great design because due to it being far less punishing at first, players can actually choice to interact with it in a meaningful way, and make interesting decisions.

For example, Forced marching is actually an option the players can consider now, only getting level 1 was worth it, and it only marches you for an extra hour before you have to risk the check again which one a failure massively slowed you down. Now since its only a minus one if you fail, its actually worth the risk, especially since slowdowns on, even if you fail all the checks if you wanna move an extra 12 miles, its only a -4 which is about as bad as disadvantage, with not too many slowdowns. This might be worth the risk to some players, and i can see players choosing to march forward to get there, and risk the minuses.

On top if this, due to how brutal the previous exhaustion rules were, the game could not meaningfully use its food and water rules, because it was too brutal, and gave a lot of ways to circumvent it because it was simply not fun or deal with the old exhaustion, now due to it being a much slower progression, it actually isnt too bad, the game can now be harsher on food and water requirements without being too detrimental, and the DM can make scarcity an issue without completely tanking the game after 2 levels of exhaustion, the players can also take more risks in places where food and water isnt plenty, and even take risks and conserve food/rations sometimes.

The best part of all this, is the DM can use exhaustion as a risk or downside to challenges in the wilderness now without completely screwing over the players, now the players can choose between more arduous routes that are shorter, with the risk being taking levels in exhaustion vs the less arduous but longer route, you also can use this as a punishment for failing exploration skill challenges without completely killing the party, you can basically use exhaustion as a long term cost for the exploration pillar, an alternative method of attrition without having to use player resources, and combat, and there are a variety of ways to deliver it, from food and water, costs for failing skill challenges, to a conscious decision of traveling over the more exhausting path. This honestly excites me, and i can see why the design was made.

Pair this with the new long rest rules, and how easy it is to interrupt long rest now, players deciding to not sleep to keep traveling or find an appropriate safe place to rest becomes a viable option, this makes the game imo a lot more interesting. I personally am excited.

What are your thoughts?

TLDR: The new exhaustion rules not being as harsh so quickly, allows the players to actually engage with it as a risk, and DM's to use it as a consequence of exploration, and a way to pressure players outside of just combat/resources, without completely screwing over the players immediately like before.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 9, 2022)

I strongly disagree.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie (Oct 9, 2022)

Agreed. And the cool thing about it is that the dm can give different activities different levels of penalties. Staying up all night might give you 1 point of exhaustion, while pushing yourself to the limit and marching for 16 hours might give you 2-3 points


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 9, 2022)

Well...it helped. 

Fixed a lot might be pushing it a little. There's still many ways it could be improved, but it's indeed a step in the right direction.


----------



## Cadence (Oct 9, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I strongly disagree.




And now, because I often find your opinions edifying, I find myself wondering why you strongly disagree. 

(But, certainly, don't feel the need to do any labor just to satisfy my curiosity.  Just keeping up with real work and things one is interested in can be exhausting enough!)


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 9, 2022)

Cadence said:


> And now, because I often find your opinions edifying, I find myself wondering why you strongly disagree.
> 
> (But, certainly, don't feel the need to do any labor just to satisfy my curiosity.  Just keeping up with real work and things one is interested in can be exhausting enough!)



I greatly prefer the more specific effects of the various levels of exhaustion over a boring blanket numerical pentalty. For much the same reason that I prefer magic items that have unique effects over generic +X magic items, and the same reason I prefer gaining new abilities on level up over simply increasing HP and proficiency bonus. Numbers are the least interesting part of an RPG to me, so any mechanic that is expressed solely through a numerical modifier is inherently less interesting to me than one that is expressed through exceptions-based rules. Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I greatly prefer the more specific effects of the various levels of exhaustion over a boring blanket numerical pentalty. For much the same reason that I prefer magic items that have unique effects over generic +X magic items, and the same reason I prefer gaining new abilities on level up over simply increasing HP and proficiency bonus. Numbers are the least interesting part of an RPG to me, so any mechanic that is expressed solely through a numerical modifier is inherently less interesting to me than one that is expressed through exceptions-based rules. Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.




I see what you are saying here, and agree with the sentiment, but always found the stages of exhaustion arbitrary and not particularly evocative. Why do your ability tests always suffer before attack rolls (which are really just a specific kind of ability check).

How about a list of negative effects, with the worst effects toward the end. Every time you gain a level you roll for a new effect with the next size die, starting at d4?


----------



## FallenRX (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I greatly prefer the more specific effects of the various levels of exhaustion over a boring blanket numerical pentalty. For much the same reason that I prefer magic items that have unique effects over generic +X magic items, and the same reason I prefer gaining new abilities on level up over simply increasing HP and proficiency bonus. Numbers are the least interesting part of an RPG to me, so any mechanic that is expressed solely through a numerical modifier is inherently less interesting to me than one that is expressed through exceptions-based rules. Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.



I agree with the concept of the old exhaustion but not the method, because it was too harsh too quickly to where players do not wish to engage with it or take the risk of it ever after a single level of it. It needs to be on a longer stage list, especially for how things in 5e were very hourly.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I greatly prefer the more specific effects of the various levels of exhaustion over a boring blanket numerical pentalty. For much the same reason that I prefer magic items that have unique effects over generic +X magic items, and the same reason I prefer gaining new abilities on level up over simply increasing HP and proficiency bonus. Numbers are the least interesting part of an RPG to me, so any mechanic that is expressed solely through a numerical modifier is inherently less interesting to me than one that is expressed through exceptions-based rules. Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.



That table was pretty cool, but agree that in practice it was just so harsh. You also had to keep looking at it.

The newer one is easier to memorize. And being less harsh, its use can be expanded, in ways that make sense. Want to give an extra penalty for being dropped in combat--a level of exhaustion. Or for sleeping rough, instead of pushing on to get to the inn, or have the next possible encounter--a level of exhaustion.


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 10, 2022)

I like it a lot but I don't think it will impact exploration. Exploration is about "discovery", not "travel".    

People be like "there is no exploration!" whereas nearly every moment that your character is actively doing something, that is not an encounter, or RP, is exploration. Rolling a perception check? Exploration. Arcana check to see what those runes mean? Exploration. Going to a temple to search it for clues? Exploration. Trying to find out who the bad guy is? Trying to find them? You get it. 

Exploration is basically _doing the adventure, _and as a pillar, it is doing just fine.



TerraDave said:


> The newer one is easier to memorize. And being less harsh, its use can be expanded, in ways that make sense. Want to give an extra penalty for being dropped in combat--a level of exhaustion. Or for sleeping rough, instead of pushing on to get to the inn, or have the next possible encounter--a level of exhaustion.




Um these ideas are AMAZING. Love it. Such a great idea - sure having a long rest in an inhospitable place (cough dungeon cough) will give you back your HP, but those levels of exhaustion will start to add up fast...


----------



## Justice and Rule (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I greatly prefer the more specific effects of the various levels of exhaustion over a boring blanket numerical pentalty. For much the same reason that I prefer magic items that have unique effects over generic +X magic items, and the same reason I prefer gaining new abilities on level up over simply increasing HP and proficiency bonus. Numbers are the least interesting part of an RPG to me, so any mechanic that is expressed solely through a numerical modifier is inherently less interesting to me than one that is expressed through exceptions-based rules. Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.




I feel like there has to be a middle ground between evocative but too mechanically harsh to be used often, while easier mechanically while lacking flavor.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 10, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> I feel like there has to be a middle ground between evocative but too mechanically harsh to be used often, while easier mechanically while lacking flavor.



I think the classic exhaustion is just the right amount of harsh, personally. But I guess I’d rather a nerfed version of it than the version that’s in the UA.


----------



## Alby87 (Oct 10, 2022)

This new exhaustion can help a lot fine tuning the exploration pillar mechanics: for example, not eating for a day is two level of exhaustion up, but eating a goodberry could raise exhaustion by only one (thus eating and foraging classic food is still a need but not as urget as before, or totally useless if a Goodberry user is in the party).

Slepping in a safe and confortable place like a inn, PC's home, guest of a friend can relieve you of 2 or more exhaustion level. Resting inside the wilderness or a cleared dungeon level (every time your party has to set a watch, even if you don't take your turn) can let you lose only 1 of those level. Sleeping inside Leomund's Tiny Hut can also be a relieve only 1 level, to nerf a little a really good spell.

And (but this something I just came up, if there is a blatant error, please ignore), when waking up, spellcaster can have spell slots used by exhaustion, starting from the top ones, with a conversion like 2 levels - 1 slot. So parties with spellcaster will try to be as rested as possible, and long trekking in the wilderness without a good plan can be dangerous again at very low level, a challenge at tier 2 and so on.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.



I also like the flavor and harshness of the 5e system in the right context. As a punishing status effect to inflict on characters it works pretty well and is evocative. I wish it was used more. Dropping to O HP should involve taking d4 levels of exhaustion or whatever.

As something players knowingly and willingly risk taking levels of it has mostly been a failure, because they are willing to do things that cause or risk exactly one level of exhaustion (if the payoff is very high), possibly 1 or 2 more in an actual emergency, and that's it. And the designers mostly recognized this early on and designed very few abilities that willingly self inflicted exhaustion.

And, while I find it evocatively fun for a few minutes of gameplay, the nature of getting rid of it means that a character who takes multiple levels at an inopportune point in the adventure might have a multi-session slog of being pretty boring to play, which is probably why, as a mechanic, it barely gets used in official materials.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 10, 2022)

I like the UA part. but also it needs gradual speed penalty and AC penalty with d20 roll penalty and DC penalty.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 10, 2022)

Mah, for me exhaustion rules are useful only if they're interesting and that means if the effects are a big deal at once. If I have to keep track of fiddly -1s, I am simply not going to use exhaustion rules.

I'd rather even have less than the current 5 levels of exhaustion before death, maybe 2 levels called "exhausted" and "severly exausted" would be enough.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 10, 2022)

FallenRX said:


> What are your thoughts?



I regularly use exhaustion without it becoming a death spiral.  Levels 1 and 2 are actually pretty common, level 3 is uncommon and one PC has hit level 4.  I personally see the new exhaustion as weakening a decent tool.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 10, 2022)

FallenRX said:


> I agree with the concept of the old exhaustion but not the method, because it was too harsh too quickly to *where players do not wish to engage with it or take the risk of it ever after a single level of it.* It needs to be on a longer stage list, especially for how things in 5e were very hourly.



The vast majority of the time it's not up to the players when it happens.  As for not taking the risk after level 1, that's one of the best parts of it.  It has real teeth and players have to think hard about pushing forward, except sometimes they have to or risk failure in what they are trying to achieve.  Do they take the risk of exhaustion, or do they take the risk of failure?  That's a real choice.  

I've seen my players choose both options, depending on the situation and party goals.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 10, 2022)

Problem with current exhaustion is that it is unfair to certain character concepts.

Most fighters and spellcasters will not take notice at level one exhaustion while a skill monkey build like scout is so hammered that their only smart solution is going to bed and sleeping it off.
And it's not that skill monkeys are most overpowered thing in D&D

-1 to everything affects all concepts mostly the same, unless you are a heal-bot, but that is probably the weakest build in the game, so I guess that is OK.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 10, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Problem with current exhaustion is that it is unfair to certain character concepts.
> 
> Most fighters and spellcasters will not take notice at level one exhaustion while a skill monkey build like scout is so hammered that their only smart solution is going to bed and sleeping it off.
> And it's not that skill monkeys are most overpowered thing in D&D



That's not my experience, but then I use knowledge checks pretty liberally, and everyone feels the hit to perception, investigation and stealth.  In fact the skill monkeys with their expertise handle exhaustion the best.  Disadvantage means less when you have higher bonuses.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 10, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That's not my experience, but then I use knowledge checks pretty liberally, and everyone feels the hit to perception, investigation and stealth.  In fact the skill monkeys with their expertise handle exhaustion the best.  Disadvantage means less when you have higher bonuses.



if you have 4 proficiencies and no expertise, skill checks are side show for you. Sure some stealth and knowledge can be a crucial roll, but when you have 11 skill proficiencies and 7 expertise, then skill checks are your main show. and your main show is severely affected by level one exhaustion.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 10, 2022)

What I think is missing is a short-term equivalent of exhaustion that gets dealt with by a short rest instead of a long. That's the kind of thing that would be more appropriate as a cost for various abilities and/or a debuff from various attacks and spells.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 10, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I also like the flavor and harshness of the 5e system in the right context. As a punishing status effect to inflict on characters it works pretty well and is evocative. I wish it was used more. Dropping to O HP should involve taking d4 levels of exhaustion or whatever.
> 
> As something players knowingly and willingly risk taking levels of it has mostly been a failure, because they are willing to do things that cause or risk exactly one level of exhaustion (if the payoff is very high), possibly 1 or 2 more in an actual emergency, and that's it.



Well, you can pretty safely _risk_ exhaustion indefinitely, until you accumulate one level, and at that point you probably stop risking it, if you can help it. But the thing is, you can’t always help it. I think that’s a great play dynamic.


Benjamin Olson said:


> And the designers mostly recognized this early on and designed very few abilities that willingly self inflicted exhaustion.



Only one that I can think of is Berseker Barbarian’s Frenzy, and IMO the problem there is that the payoff isn’t worth the cost. In theory, exhaustion as a drawback for using a special ability could be a really cool soft 1/day. But the only ability they put it on only gave you one minute of a benefit you could get at-will with no additional cost by just dual-wielding.

I also think a save vs. exhaustion instead of an automatic level of exhaustion would be a better way to do a mechanic like this, cause again, that essentially makes it free until you fail.



Benjamin Olson said:


> And, while I find it evocatively fun for a few minutes of gameplay, the nature of getting rid of it means that a character who takes multiple levels at an inopportune point in the adventure might have a multi-session slog of being pretty boring to play, which is probably why, as a mechanic, it barely gets used in official materials.



Getting multiple levels of exhaustion at an inopportune time sounds like the opposite of a boring slog to me. That would create an intense challenge to try to get the exhausted character somewhere they can safely rest before it’s too late. That’s like peak narrative tension right there. Once you’re in a safe place, it doesn’t really matter how long it takes to recover from, you can narrate over that time in a sentence or two and get back to adventuring.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 10, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if you have 4 proficiencies and no expertise, skill checks are side show for you. Sure some stealth and knowledge can be a crucial roll, but when you have 11 skill proficiencies and 7 expertise, then skill checks are your main show. and your main show is severely affected by level one exhaustion.



I strongly disagree.  It doesn't matter if you only have 1 skill if it's commonly used and important to the success of the group.  And if you have expertise in 7 skills then the first level of exhaustion is just a speed bump.  Double proficiency for a minimum of +6 on top of ability bonus is huge. You'll miss a few more rolls, but you'll still make the lion's share of them if the DM is doing DCs correctly.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 10, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I strongly disagree.  It doesn't matter if you only have 1 skill if it's commonly used and important to the success of the group.  And if you have expertise in 7 skills then the first level of exhaustion is just a speed bump.  Double proficiency for a minimum of +6 on top of ability bonus is huge. You'll miss a few more rolls, but you'll still make the lion's share of them if the DM is doing DCs correctly.



with +3 proficiency and +3 on average ability mod, it's +9

you DC 15 chance goes from 75% to 56%, your DC 20 goes from 50% to 25% and your DC 25 goes from 25% to 6%.


maybe 1st level of exhaustion should be disadvantage on all attack rolls and having all targets advantage vs your spells/abilites and see how fast PCs would go to bed after 1st level of exhaustion...


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 10, 2022)

I see two predominant issues
1) Expertise makes small potatoes of this incremental exhaustion track. 
2) And I agree with @Staffan, there needs to be a short-term version of exhaustion, like a winded-condition.

Once you iron out those issues, you could look at modifying the exhaustion track in interesting ways.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

I swapped around my exhaustion chart and it works so much better.

Level 1) Speed halved
Level 2) Max HP halved
Level 3) Attacks and STR/DEX/CON saves with disadvantage
Level 4) Ability checks and INT/WIS/CHA saves with disadvantage
Level 5) Movement 0
Level 6) Dead

Doing this makes the top of the chart much more acceptable to players even if its still annoying.  Half speed just means that when you are out of combat you can't do "double moves" (Move and Dash action) to get where you need to go, you can only do standard movement (where the Exhausted PC has to use their Action to Dash to keep up, rather than keeping watch while traveling, foraging, etc.)  Max HP halved at level 2 is also something that PCs have to plan and adjust their tactics around, but so long as the character makes thorough choices during any combats that come up, they can survive fairly well even when they start the day at half the XP as the others.  Then at 3 & 4 I just prefer having physical reduction in ability over mental reduction in ability when exhausted which is why I do attacks and physical saves first, then skill checks and mental saves second (YMMV).  Then being bedridden and dead remain the same.

Arranging things this way gives all PC two levels of irritating detriments but nothing that absolutely kills the player's fun (like rolling all ability with disadvantage at level 1 in the normal chart).  Now of course those DMs who call for much fewer ability and skill checks might not find the current chart so big a deal... but I use checks all the time even just for the doling out of information so pushing that further down the chart has been a boon for my table.

The new playtest rules seems fine(?) but as I'm quite happy with where my current chart is (and in fact I use it in place of the 3 Death Saves rule for going unconscious)... I dunno if I'd bother to switch over if this new rule got put in place.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 10, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The new playtest rules seems fine(?) but as I'm quite happy with where my current chart is (and in fact I use it in place of the 3 Death Saves rule for going unconscious)... I dunno if I'd bother to switch over if this new rule got put in place.



You mean characters roll on your exhaustion track rather than the 3 death saves? So, they essentially have 6 "death saves" if they don't have any exhaustion levels, right?


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I greatly prefer the more specific effects of the various levels of exhaustion over a boring blanket numerical pentalty. For much the same reason that I prefer magic items that have unique effects over generic +X magic items, and the same reason I prefer gaining new abilities on level up over simply increasing HP and proficiency bonus. Numbers are the least interesting part of an RPG to me, so any mechanic that is expressed solely through a numerical modifier is inherently less interesting to me than one that is expressed through exceptions-based rules. Furthermore, I think the harshness of the exhaustion penalties was a feature, not a bug. There’s value in having status conditions with real teeth, as that gives them more power to create strong gameplay incentives. Classic exhaustion is one of very few things other than straight-up character death that could meaningfully threaten PCs of any level in 5e.



I agree with everything you write.

What you don't talk about, however, is the criticism against the original system: that anything beyond the first level you just avoid at any cost.

Fixing this by reducing everything to just boring numbers is somewhat akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

But something needed to be done.

It would have been much better to keep the idea of discrete levels of exhaustion (with meaningful penalties that are more than just "-2" and such) but change these into things that remain playable to a point.

Most players considered the second level already to effectively shut down a hero. Effects of such severity needs to be reserved for many more levels of exhaustion.

The first three or four levels needs to be inconvenient yes debilitating no.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> You mean characters roll on your exhaustion track rather than the 3 death saves? So, they essentially have 6 "death saves" if they don't have any exhaustion levels, right?



Yup.  Makes it harder for characters to die (a positive in my book), but it also gives longer-term ailments to PCs who go unconscious.  Inspires the players to try harder to keep their fellow players on their feet and not let them go to 0 HP.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 10, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if you have 4 proficiencies and no expertise, skill checks are side show for you. Sure some stealth and knowledge can be a crucial roll, but when you have 11 skill proficiencies and 7 expertise, then skill checks are your main show. and your main show is severely affected by level one exhaustion.



And if you’ve invested in, say Shield Master or Grappler, then ability checks are your bread and butter.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

CapnZapp said:


> Most players considered the second level already to effectively shut down a hero. Effects of such severity needs to be reserved for many more levels of exhaustion.



Really?  Speed halved? That's the infirmity that shut heroes down?  That's an opinion that is surprising to me.  To me... halving a PCs speed is like the least problematic thing on the entire chart.  Outside of combat it just means the PC can't do something else while traveling (as they use their Action to Dash while others use their Action to keep watch or forage or do X)... and in combat PCs have their movement halved due to difficult terrain all the time enough such that it's a handicap we'd think parties are entirely used to dealing with.

I certainly believe these are your feelings, Capn... they're just not one that I would have expected.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Oct 10, 2022)

I think you could make a nice compromise between the two mechanics by having 1dnd’s flat stacking -1s as the baseline exhaustion penalty but 5e’s (or something similar to 5e’s) exhaustion penalties on top of that as specific consequences for how the exhaustion was inflicted in the first place, mentally exhausted from staying up all night researching? Disadvantage on INT, WIS and CHA checks, Recovering from a deadly poisoning or magical affliction? Halved HP, Forced march for days straight? Move speed is halved, Toughed out walking through a desert or climbed a mountain? Disadvantage on STR, DEX and CON checks.

So the -1s are a smaller penalty across the board but there’s a harsher caveat in the specific relevant areas.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 10, 2022)

FallenRX said:


> The problem with the old exhaustion is that its was far too punishing, and detrimental to the point where the players would never wish to interact with it beyond the first level, limiting choice and also limiting how you can use it, as giving the party Exhaustion beyond level 1 basically meant a death spiral due to their speed getting halved and attacks being useless to where it critically will drastically slow them down, or they would just die.
> 
> The playtest actually fix this by focusing it all on incremental minuses, that isnt much to begin with but add up, this is great design because due to it being far less punishing at first, players can actually choice to interact with it in a meaningful way, and make interesting decisions.
> 
> ...



If they don't fix tiny hut and goodberry, then they've done nothing for exploration.  And of course, that's not enough on its own either.

IMO, the reason they weakened exhaustion is just because players hate de-buffs.  If anything, exploration is getting less support, given the new ranger lacking any non-spell panacea effects that interact with it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 10, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I see what you are saying here, and agree with the sentiment, but always found the stages of exhaustion arbitrary and not particularly evocative. Why do your ability tests always suffer before attack rolls (which are really just a specific kind of ability check).
> 
> How about a list of negative effects, with the worst effects toward the end. Every time you gain a level you roll for a new effect with the next size die, starting at d4?



Because there are more complaints about failed attack rolls than failed ability checks.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 10, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> I feel like there has to be a middle ground between evocative but too mechanically harsh to be used often, while easier mechanically while lacking flavor.



To me, that middle ground is Level Up's Fatigue/Strife system.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I think the classic exhaustion is just the right amount of harsh, personally. But I guess I’d rather a nerfed version of it than the version that’s in the UA.




I've always found it very immediately harsh. If there was like one step before that one, one that is "sort of tired" that is like a -2/3 penalty to skills to start out, that feels like it'd be a better fit for what I want. Successive -1s doesn't feel like it works as well within the 5E paradigm (which still feels pretty dominant in 1D&D), on top of being bland.



Micah Sweet said:


> To me, that middle ground is Level Up's Fatigue/Strife system.




Summary for someone unfamiliar?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 10, 2022)

Horwath said:


> with +3 proficiency and +3 on average ability mod, it's +9
> 
> you DC 15 chance goes from 75% to 56%, your DC 20 goes from 50% to 25% and your DC 25 goes from 25% to 6%.



Yep.  And the normal guy with his +6(no expertise) is making a DC 15 60% of the time and that DC 20(uncommon at level 6) 35% of the time and DC 25(rare at level 6) 10% of the time.  With disadvantage is just a hair below the normal guys.  That's hardly the the class concept destruction you are describing.

And those numbers were with the skill monkey being exhausted and the rest of the party not being tired at all.  If the rest of the party is also exhausted the skill monkey is still making most of the DC 15s(the lions share of DCs) and can make the uncommon DC 20's 25% of the time, where the rest of the party will have to get super lucky to make it at all.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 10, 2022)

CapnZapp said:


> I agree with everything you write.
> 
> What you don't talk about, however, is the criticism against the original system: that anything beyond the first level you just avoid at any cost.



I don’t see a problem with that. Of course players would try to avoid it (presumably they would try to avoid the first level too, though they might be a bit more willing to risk it for a sufficient payoff). The thing is, it’s not always avoidable.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 10, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Really?  Speed halved? That's the infirmity that shut heroes down?  That's an opinion that is surprising to me.  To me... halving a PCs speed is like the least problematic thing on the entire chart.  Outside of combat it just means the PC can't do something else while traveling (as they use their Action to Dash while others use their Action to keep watch or forage or do X)... and in combat PCs have their movement halved due to difficult terrain all the time enough such that it's a handicap we'd think parties are entirely used to dealing with.



Half speed is devastating. I'd never, ever touch an ability which came with "half speed for the rest of the day" as a cost.

Difficult terrain affects all combatants equally (most of the time), and it is often possible to maneuver around it or bypass it. Having _just your speed_ halved is far worse. If you're a melee warrior, it usually means losing a round of attacks as you close, and each time you need to get to a different place on the battlefield, there goes another round. If you're a ranged attacker or caster, it means you can't escape from the enemy's melee warriors without burning spell power.

And on top of all that, half speed and difficult terrain stack.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 10, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Because there are more complaints about failed attack rolls than failed ability checks.




Wait, is there a hotline I can call when I fail an attack roll? Why does nobody tell me these things?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 10, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Half speed is devastating. I'd never, ever touch an ability which came with "half speed for the rest of the day" as a cost.
> 
> Difficult terrain affects all combatants equally (most of the time), and it is often possible to maneuver around it or bypass it. Having _just your speed_ halved is far worse. If you're a melee warrior, it usually means losing a round of attacks as you close, and each time you need to get to a different place on the battlefield, there goes another round. If you're a ranged attacker or caster, it means you can't escape from the enemy's melee warriors without burning spell power.
> 
> And on top of all that, half speed and difficult terrain stack.



Obviously I can't dispute your findings at your table... but those are quite a bit different than what I see at my own.

First off the front-line fighters never seem to have any issue being in melee range, because monsters more often than not rush to get into combat just as much as the PCs do.  And if a frontline warrior is wailing away on a creature... another one will be running up to assist / take over.  So I rarely see situations where a frontline warrior only moving 15' per round during combat is having such a hardship (excluding special situation combats where yes, the enemies keep themselves at range, but those are rare occurrences because most monsters are melee focused.)

For the ranged attackers... usually they are rangers and dexterity fighters-- and they have more than enough hit points that they SHOULD be taking hits from melee warriors that rush up to them quite frankly.  Too many times those players act like their characters are as fragile as weakened wizards are, wherein case in point they are just as hardy as the folks up front and they would do well to absorb some of the damage rather make the tank do all the work.  Running away is far down on the list of things those PCs should be doing as far as I'm concerned, LOL.  And I didn't even mention the Rogue... who have Cunning Action to Hide/Dash/Disengage at their disposal to reduce their issues moving at half speed.  And for spellcasters... using their spells to get away from attacks is something they have to deal with all the time anyway... so while they aren't moving as far as they normally would... getting engaged is something usually they are prepped for.

But of course... I'm sure in other games like your own it's probably the opposite. (Just like wherein my own games having Level 1 be Disadvantage on Ability Checks is the absolutely suckiest things there is because it pretty much destroys the good time of the player stuck with it all the time outside of combat... since skills and ability checks are the bread and butter of the gameplay experience at my table-- whereas other tables who rarely roll checks probably doesn't bother them at all.)

But this is why I just reworked the order of my Exhaustion table to move Half speed up and Disad on ability checks down... to fix it to work better at mine.  I'm sure at other tables another re-ordering could work out better for them.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t see a problem with that. Of course players would try to avoid it (presumably they would try to avoid the first level too, though they might be a bit more willing to risk it for a sufficient payoff). The thing is, it’s not always avoidable.




One advantage of the new system is that each additional level isn’t that bad…its’s just -1…so players can be incrementally lured into catastrophe.  (Mwuhahahaha…)

The disadvantage of the old system is that players stop doing anything that would risk that second level. And imposing it on them by essentially leaving them no choice isn’t (imo) as fun as letting them do it to themselves. 

Something combining both systems…flavor and real penalties, but in a smooth progression, would be ideal. (Which is one reason I like rolling on a table of penalties: the hope of a lucky roll lures players into all kinds of trouble.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 10, 2022)

FallenRX said:


> What are your thoughts?
> 
> TLDR: The new exhaustion rules not being as harsh so quickly, allows the players to actually engage with it as a risk, and DM's to use it as a consequence of exploration, and a way to pressure players outside of just combat/resources, without completely screwing over the players immediately like before.




They are still pretty harsh, my regular group is pretty risk averse when it comes to penalties. 
the first level of exhaustion in the old system was  Disadvantage on Ability checks this is something they might consider suffering, as it did not reduce their effectiveness in combat that much.
But with the new rule they see taking the -1 to attack rolls and spell DC as something you would only do if you where in a situation where there would be a very low chance of combat before your next long rest.
This would exclude exploring out in the wild where random encounters are a thing.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 10, 2022)

So, perhaps

-1 to d20s
-2 to d20s
-5 ft. movement
-3 to d20s
-10 ft. move
Disadvantage to d20s
Half movement
Crawl / stagger at 5 ft. / rd
Unable to move
Death


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 10, 2022)

On the one hand, the current exhaustion rules are too harsh. There's not much point in having them because, with rare exceptions that are usually outside their control, players will simply consider any action that leads to gaining more than one level of exhaustion as off the table. So the current function of exhaustion actively limits gameplay and story options.

On the other hand, the new system is too basic. It could use a bit more flavour. It goes too far the other direction by making extra levels of exhaustion no big deal. Much better for Berserker Barbarians, though, whose core mechanic is too punishing right now.

Maybe all they need to do is add an extra level of exhaustion, where the first level of exhaustion is the -1, the second is that plus disadvantage on ability checks, etc. Just make it a bit more incremental.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 10, 2022)

1: -1 to d20, -1 to AC, -1 to DC,  - 5ft move speed
2: -2 to d20, -2 to AC, -2 to DC,  - 5ft move speed
3: -3 to d20, -3 to AC, -3 to DC, -10ft move speed
4: -4 to d20, -4 to AC, -4 to DC, -10ft move speed
5: -5 to d20, -5 to AC, -5 to DC, -15ft move speed
6: -6 to d20, -6 to AC, -6 to DC, -15ft move speed
7: -7 to d20, -7 to AC, -7 to DC, -20ft move speed
8: -8 to d20, -8 to AC, -8 to DC, -20ft move speed
9: -9 to d20, -9 to AC, -9 to DC, -25ft move speed
10: death

penalty would not affect death saves, but every failed death save would add level of exhaustion. Death saves exhaustion levels go away at short rest.

failing a save vs. severe weather could be level or two if weather is really severe or save was really low.

many poisons or diseases could work this way.

day without sleep, one level.

day without water, two levels.

two days without food, one level.

forced march, one level for extra 2 hrs beyond 8.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 10, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> There's not much point in having them because, with rare exceptions that are usually outside their control, players will simply consider any action that leads to gaining more than one level of exhaustion as off the table.




Agreed. And as I noted above, I think it should always be the result of players knowing the risks and making a conscious decision.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 10, 2022)

Very much a fan of the new mechanic. It accumulates smoothly instead of making erratic leaps from "moderately inconvenienced" to "severely disabled" to "totally boned." By penalizing all d20 rolls _and_ your save DCs, it hits every class just about evenly. And it's easy to remember. (Quick, without looking it up--what are the combined penalties for four levels of exhaustion in the standard 5E rules?)

Rules complexity comes with a heavy cost. It makes the game harder to learn, it slows down play, it forces everyone to think about the rules instead of the fiction, and it introduces balance hazards. There are times when it is worth paying that cost, but IMO this is not one of those times. Exhaustion should be like hit points--simple, clean, easy to use. That allows it to serve the same function in exploration that hit points do in combat.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Oct 10, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I strongly disagree.



Can you elaborate?

Never mind, I see you answered already!


----------



## TheSword (Oct 10, 2022)

The new system is just negative levels by another name (for the most part) I think it’s fine. Now they just need to add lingering injuries at zero Hp that bestow a number of levels of exhaustion and additional penalties keyed to the levels until the exhaustion is removed…. Injured leg - reduce speed by 5 feet for each level of exhaustion (minimum speed 5’).


----------



## CubicsRube (Oct 10, 2022)

I prefer a the current exhaustion list reordered, however i'm not opposed to the proposed system.

However my main gripe is how slow exhaustion is to recover. I personally would prefer maybe half hp healed on a long rest but all exhaustion is healed. On a short rest 1 exhaustion point is healed.

I feel that how long it takes it takes to recover impacts play a lot more than the penalties. If I know that i'll have disadvantage on attack rolls if i push on, but i know i need to just make it out of the valley and then i can sleep and be functional again, it might just be worth the risk. And as a DM I can feel less mean by hitting players with exhaustion if i k ow they can bounce back quickly from it.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 11, 2022)

I don't think the new system is any better than the last, players still won't really engage with it because they are averse to any kind of penalty. So in that respect, I think this system will have about as much impact as the current one, any level of exhaustion will cause the players to look for an area to take a break so that they can recover.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Oct 11, 2022)

Would a solution to the harshness of the existing system be to remove on level of exhaustion on a short rest instead of a long rest?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 11, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Obviously I can't dispute your findings at your table... but those are quite a bit different than what I see at my own



It's like different groups approach the game differently, explaining why some posters claim something in the game is completely broken while others think it works just fine.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Oct 11, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Really?  Speed halved? That's the infirmity that shut heroes down?  That's an opinion that is surprising to me.




We would never willingly take that kind of penalty.  I want the new version to have a bit more flavor than it does but we've never gone over Exhaustion:1 without a vampire attack or the like.

Movement in our games is vital. More than half of our group have chosen optional class features or feats that improve movement. I would say all our biggest fights required taking dash actions or other movement boosts and that doesn't include the running combats and chases that covered hundreds of feet.

I could see adding -5ft movement to odd levels (1,3,5,7,9) for that slow degradation.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 11, 2022)

CubicsRube said:


> I prefer a the current exhaustion list reordered, however i'm not opposed to the proposed system.
> 
> However my main gripe is how slow exhaustion is to recover. I personally would prefer maybe half hp healed on a long rest but all exhaustion is healed. On a short rest 1 exhaustion point is healed.



I very much disagree. D&D really suffers from being unable to have consequences that persist longer than 24 hours. Overland travel is a good example of something that tends to get handwaved away because of this.

You can, of course, adopt something like the "gritty rests" variant in the DMG, but that is a sledgehammer solution with a host of side effects. The new exhaustion is a natural fit for the exploration pillar, and could also support a lot of other uses, without throwing combat out of whack.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 11, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Would a solution to the harshness of the existing system be to remove on level of exhaustion on a short rest instead of a long rest?



One level on short, all on long seems about right.

This doesn't really 'fix' exploration for me as there's really not much to exploration aside from a list of punishments and penalties for trying to leave town.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Oct 11, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> One level on short, all on long seems about right.
> 
> This doesn't really 'fix' exploration for me as there's really not much to exploration aside from a list of punishments and penalties for trying to leave town.



Yes, I don’t see exhaustion mechanics as a fix for exploration


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 12, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Would a solution to the harshness of the existing system be to remove on level of exhaustion on a short rest instead of a long rest?



No, unless it is acceptable to have all levels of exhaustion removed on a long rest. Which then obviates exhaustion, you might as well just make it a -2 penalty with some hp damage. There isn't any rule or guidance on how many short rests you can take each day, as far as I know.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 12, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> This doesn't really 'fix' exploration for me as there's really not much to exploration aside from a list of punishments and penalties for trying to leave town.



Yeah. That fits the travelogues, diaries, and adventure fiction I've read.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 12, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> No, unless it is acceptable to have all levels of exhaustion removed on a long rest. Which then obviates exhaustion, you might as well just make it a -2 penalty with some hp damage. *There isn't any rule or guidance on how many short rests you can take each day, as far as I know.*



I'm going to go out on a limb and say . . . 24 max


----------



## Baron Opal II (Oct 12, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say . . . 24 max



I would have said 16, but there's the rub.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 13, 2022)

I prefer the new rules over the old/current rules. I think no matter what the final rules end up I will use a houserule adding a few of the Old to the new. At Exhausted 5 or 6 I will add Half Speed; at 7 or 8 I'd add Half Max HP; and at 9 add Speed becames 0.

But ever without my changes I think the new rules are better. But I think part of why it is better is that it can be handed out more often with grinding the game to a holt. I think there needs to be more things that cause Exhausted. Monsters can do attacks that cause it (possibly as recharge abilities) or poisons that cause it. But with the less severe rules it makes it a much more acceptable form of damage/punishment that can be thrown at PCs. It also instantly fixes the Berserker Barbarian although I would add that while frenzying they ignore any Exhausted penalty. 

The less severity means use it more often. I think the New rules without adding in more causes for it is not ideal, but I would add it in more often if the rest of the New rules didn't.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 13, 2022)

I have some questions for people, especially the fans of the old/current rules... How often have you seen PCs with more than 1 or 2 level of Exhaustion? What is the most Exhaustion you have seen on PCs? And how did the party react to when a party member(s) ended up with a  higher  amount of Exhaustion? 

My answers are that I have only seen more than 2 levels of Exhaustion once, when the party was doing a test set by a God and we had to just keep going and roll Con Saves or get Exhaustion. Several PCs ended up with 4 levels while others had only 1 by the end of the test (Those with 4 levels were considered to have failed the test). Once we were finished we had to change our plans because of how bad it was. We didn't want to do a tough fight we were originally planning with our frontline warrior so debilitated. So we abandoned our plan and left the area, travelling to another place to achieve something else. Travel involved riding flying creatures and was enough time to recover so we were ready to go once we arrive at the new location. Basically it stopped us from continuing in a dangerous area and changed our plans to deal with something else instead.

So how has it worked in your game?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 13, 2022)

Lycurgon said:


> I have some questions for people, especially the fans of the old/current rules... How often have you seen PCs with more than 1 or 2 level of Exhaustion?




I’ve never seen more than two.


----------

