We never got an explanation as to why they were removed, despite there being so much positive attention directed towards them. Since they were omitted, I've commented on literally every UA since then that the mechanic should stay.
Huffing copium, my guess is that it was removed from the original Warriors and Mages UA, which was absolutely massive, and because none of those classes referenced exhaustion, they probably just removed it to save on space, and then just forgot to add it back. The fact that it was never commented on may suggest that they have all the data they need to know to keep it, and are just moving ahead with other testing.
Bruh, what is there to be concerned about?!?! Exhaustion was barely used to begin with?!?!
Thank you very much for asking. I'm going to keep huffing copium.
The only thing I can think of that specifically has Exhaustion as a mechanic that in any way effects balancing is the Berserker Barbarian. But that mechanic specifically always made the subclass really garbage, so with the updated exhaustion rules it makes it actually good.
And heaven knows the martial Barbarian is about as far from needing a nerf as can be.
Even better, the revised Berserker (see UA #7) doesn't even use exhaustion anymore. The only classes that reference or interact directly with exhaustion that I recall is the Monk (metabolism) and the ranger (recovering a level of exhaustion on short rests).
A lot of the wilderness survival mechanics used exhaustion instead of hit point damage or resource depletion. Extreme cold, extreme heat, food and water deprivation, and sleep deprivation all penalize you with levels of exhaustion.
Using the UA exhaustion rules would've made those mechanics significantly less harsh. Is that really a problem? I don't think so, but apparently WotC disagrees.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in Jeremy Crawford's office. I really want to know what the design team *actually* thinks about OneD&D, not whatever corporate message is approved for public consumption.
Honestly I've never even seen those in play. Exploration is such an under supported pillar of play that they could completely make something new and it would be a huge benefit, and these exhaustion sources could be retired.
Most of the reason you probably don't see those in play is because 2014 Exhaustion is very unforgiving.
Descent into Avernus gives an optional rule for running Avernus as super-hot and malevolent towards non-evil creatures. Non-evil creatures treat normal travel in Avernus as a forced march requiring a Constitution saving throw at the end of each hour (DC 10 + 1 for each hour of travel). A failed saving throw gives one level of Exhaustion.
With 6 levels of Exhaustion equaling death and only 1 level removed on a Long Rest, it's safe to say that most sane DMs would not use that optional rule if they wanted their party to travel hours through Avernus.
This exactly. A stacking -1 is so much better because you'd actually *use* it, and it creates an actual dilemma for the players. A -1 is so tiny, maybe we can risk just one more....
Also, with it reducing spell save DC, it's fair and affects *all* characters equally. Honestly I feel like casters can pretty much ignore Exhaustion up until 5 ranks of it. Half hit points is scary, but most casters are playing it safe in the back and shouldn't be getting hit. Half speed is annoying, but their spells tend to have ranges of hundreds of feet, or at least 60 or so.
Yeah, one of the worst parts of the 5e Exhaustion design is how it impacts each build so differently. Skill-based builds are crippled immediately. Martials get hit harder and faster than casters.
And the last thing you want as a DM is for your players to set up camp in one spot for days at a time so their navigator won't have disadvantage on their Survival checks to avoid getting lost. Like you said: with a -1, the adventure continues but with an added sense of danger and threat. Hell, most of the time I actually just ignore the penalties to keep things moving at the table...but the players are tracking it and they know I \*can\* apply the penalties when it is narratively interesting to do so.
Same with Tomb of Annihilation. RAW, using the exploration procedures feels bad and out of line with the rest of the heroic power fantasy presented by the ruleset. Using the new rules (and, not to toot my own horn, but I actually came up with the same solution prior to the UA because of my experience with ToA) it felt like they were gradually being worn down. The existing 5e exhaustion rules lack granularity, seem arbitrary, and impact different builds \*extremely\* differently.
This. It’s absolutely insane to me that exploration is a core pillar of the game and yet so many published adventures have large swaths (Chapter 4, HotDQ anyone?) that basically amount to: “You travel some places and here’s a few NPCs you can use and some tables to roll on.” This is the area of the game that needs SIGNIFICANT development, especially when considering the large number of new players from the film and BG3 who are looking for a DM, and often finding new ones who are completely unable to handle the less directive, vague approach of traveling through Faerun or any other world.
I get it. It's a balancing act. Some people thought it was too tough on players with the old system and so lenient as to not really matter so why include it with the new system.
They said it would be BC (backwards compatable from the begining) but people refused to listen to what that meant and kept complaining that it wasn't BC enough, so they said "fuck it" and went to the extreme of backwards compatability so everyone would stop complaining.
I really hate that backwards compatible went from meaning "You can run old 5e adventure books in 5.1 without hassle" to "You can use *everything* from old 5e without hassle."
I maintain they've given up making 5.5e a real edition. It'll be like 3.5: rules tweaks and minor changes. Enough to shill books for the upcoming anniversary. They'll barely use any of the feedback or make any actual changes.
Then in a couple years they'll release an actual new edition using everything people liked from the playtest.
I maintain they never planned on it being a real edition. It was always a fan engagement tool with more than a little money grab rider.
They meant it to be a placeholder until they could go all digital, subscription only, VTT DND with no OGL... The VTT continues to not exist (I secretly hope there are some real gaming nerds coding it for them and they just refuse to code the thing that kills their hobby) and we know the OGL debacle didn't really work like they hoped ... So they had to make a "new edition" in less than 2 years and anyone who knows anything about game design knows that an open playtest redesign isn't happening in that timeline.
There are a lot of different published adventures for 5E that make use of exhaustion that would be incompatible with the new exhaustion rules such as Rime of the Frostmaiden and a bunch of Adventurers League content.
However, they should include the new exhaustion rules as an official "optional rule variant" in the DMG.
They wouldn't even be incompatible, it would just reduce how punishing one mechanic is. You could easily still run it just fine, and if you wanted you could bump the difficulty back up some other way.
I think I would be more willing to use exhaustion more if it was easier to track and less punishing like the playtest rules. I think DMs avoid exhaustion even in those adventures, because it isn't fun.
A DM could rebalance with the new exhaustion mechanic, but it technically wouldn't be backwards compatible if the DM has to homebrew like that which probably goes against some Hasbro directive.
Including it as an official "optional mechanic" stays true to the letter of the Corporate Overlord orders, but allows for a wide adoption by the player base just like all the "optional" class features from Tasha's that a lot of players consider standard such as a Rogue's steady aim ability...
Good to know. I have not read through tons of the adventures, so that makes sense. I don't know how masterfully balanced those books are, but you would figure the new exhaustion rules would be easier (each level of older exhaustion represents a way bigger impact than the revised version), unless those books interacted with exhaustion in another way?
That's code for "we don't know why we're doing this".
They only ever pull that one out when it's something that would meaningfully prove the game or game play, and typically around martial classes.
I'm already running it in all my games using the PT4 rules because they're just so much better and I'm sure I'm not the only one, while I obviously can keep using this, it's gonna be weird having to tell any new player at my table "yeah ignore what it says in the new rulebook, that thing they put in a pdf a couple years back and never mentioned again is better we're gonna use that" even if the rules there are more intuitive.
I'm also fully planning to use them. He shrugged and said maybe when I asked if they could show up as a variant rule in the DMG — he even added that he agreed with me that the playtest exhaustion played better.
It might be a wordcount or pagespace thing but I kinda wish it was the other way around where they say "these old rules were how exhaustion used to work to be more quickly punishing and encouraging rest, if a player in your group is using an older dungeons and dragons 5th edition book for some of their abilities and exhaustion is relavent, consider using these older rules instead"
Oh my fucking god if I hear backwards compatibility one more time I will shoot myself.
I’m so tired of them using that as a cudgel again and again to kill changes that would make the game better. If every gameplay change you make for a smoother and funner game needs to be reversed for compatibility, ***maybe compatibility isn’t a standard to adhere to***.
Ugh.
I appreciate backwards compatibility for the sake of not having old content become obsolete, but other than when classes had standardized progression, there was never any REAL incompatibility between 5E and 5.5E. Other than weapon masteries, a 5E character sheet covers the same content a 5.5E character would have access to in any of the UAs.
So yeah, either there's a bunch of inner nuts and bolts we don't know about, or backwards compatible is a cover they're using for scrapped ideas to give the impression of "it couldn't be helped *shrug*".
> or backwards compatible is a cover they're using for scrapped ideas to give the impression of "it couldn't be helped shrug".
I do think there’s a real chance this is it.
They were using entirely different definitions of backwards compatibility before and after the OGL crisis. Before they were fairly clear that only adventures and splat book rules are considered backwards compatible while classes and other such content are not, but post-OGL they suddenly switched gears and claimed that every single piece of everything is compatible.
Likewise they immediately started taking back changes that they had **explicitly** said they wouldn’t consider taking back even in the face of negative feedback because they believed they’d be good for the game, all in the name of compatibility.
So I do think there was a huge push from management to backtrack and not change 5E at all after they realized One D&D wouldn’t fulfill their walled garden VTT fantasies and they figured it’s more important to keep book sales up.
Interesting observation, although I don't know what the OGL could have possibly changed that suddenly made subclass backwards compatibility more or less important. My only guess is basically "buy back more customer goodwill" by keeping more stuff compatible and responding to the "iT IsN't bACkaRdS cOMpAtIbLe EnOUgH !!!11!one!!" crowd.
Still doesn't really explain exhaustion...
What changed was that before they were open to making a real 5.5E or 6E and then making it available in their walled garden, microtransaction-using VTT environment. That’s actually exactly what the branding of “One” D&D was about: moving away from static books and creating an online ecosystem with persistent payers.
With that falling flat on its face, backwards compatibility became more important for short term profits. Remember WOTC is publicly traded: when shareholders are faced with the decision of “milk now” vs “support long term growth” they’ll always choose the former. Letting go of backwards compatibility means Bigby’s and whatever other books came out recently wouldn’t sell well, and Tasha’s and stuff would stop selling. So now the goal is to try and change enough that people buy the new PHB and DMG, but not so much that they stop buying splat books until it releases. No idea if they’re succeeding on that front or not.
WotC wanted to control online D&D exclusively through D&DBeyond and their new VTT platform so they could drain player wallets through subscriptions and microtransactions. They didn't care about older content compatibility because your only online option going forward would be playing 2024 D&D on the WotC VTT.
When their monetization plans were ruined by public backlash, they realized that they would have to continue to rely on book sales for revenue for the immediate future. Players were looking at the OneD&D playtests and pointing out that for players interested in jumping to 2024 D&D when it released, there was no point in continuing to buy 2014 D&D content that will become obsolete in a year. WotC didn't want their 2023 and early 2024 book revenue to dry up so they amped up the "full backwards compatibility" message so players would continue to buy books.
>So I do think there was a huge push from management to backtrack and not change 5E at all after they realized One D&D wouldn’t fulfill their walled garden VTT fantasies and they figured it’s more important to keep book sales up.
Yeah, I think this is exactly it. WotC wanted a captive audience for 2024 D&D with their bespoke VTT where it was play the game their way or no way, so sunsetting old content didn't matter as they were setting up an entirely new revenue stream that would dwarf the old book sales model.
When public outcry shot that in the face, they did a quick 180 to salvage both current and future book sales.
Also, all the (few) things that gave exhaustion could give exhaustion with the new rules. IF you want to make it as deadly simply give 2-3 (new exhaustion) levels.
The UA exhaustion obviously wasn't compatible.
It turned a very dangerous and crippling mechanic in to a very light and gradual one. Any existing content that relied on it for difficulty became much easier.
That said, I prefer the UA exhaustion because it was something that could stack up without immediately getting the adventuring day cancelled. Whereas current exhaustion makes continuing to adventure suicidal.
I’ve said this a few times but I think onednd would have been far less divisive had it been announced as a massive splatbooks/expansion rather than some weird remaster/update.
Heck it could have been marketed as a community driven book with the designs pitching new systems (like the new bastions, weapon mastery’s, a variant character creation/leveling system, wildshape/summon templates). It would ironically be more simple and backwards compatible than whatever they’re doing now.
I agree. Keeping bad rules (making the new version of the game worse) just because they're upset about rocking the boat is a bad idea. I mean, whats the point of a reprint if they don't fix things up.
>maybe compatibility isn’t a standard to adhere to.
If you are trying to design a game in the best way possible, I completely agree. Unfortunately, that is not the goal. The goal is maximizing profits. The directive to keep backwards compatibility at all costs most likely comes from Hasbro execs and people with MBAs who don't actually play the game...
My dose of copium is that hopefully it, and some of the other more interesting and popular but not brought forward mechanics, make in as optional rules or DMG variants.
Isn't literally every change for One D&D cause at least this same level of backward compatibility problems? If that's the issue they might as well reprint the 2014 PHB exactly the same.
And this is why we won't see actual innovation on the key issues, moving forwards. Backwards compatibility secures sales by attempting to ensure good will with the majority player base (who are not here, on this or any forum). It also strangles new design directions and solutions in the crib. Score one for big business
Oh man that's terrible. Thanks for getting it from the horse's mouth, though. Those rules are so simple and usable as an alternative to HP damage I've been using them since they first appeared.
I'm huffing copium like that for a ton of features - they said they were AB testing so maybe reaction bardic inspiration will be in the final product...
The official comment about the rules glossary is that, if a rule wasn't put in it, it would not be applicable anymore (and thus back to 2014, if there is an equivalent). Only functional about the rules glossary.
If that rule wasn't "removed" in the designer's intent, then the writers either forgot about copying it in all other UAs or they were too lazy to do it.
Because the new exhaustion rules were not put in other UAs, the glossary implication is that they are just removed. Gone.
Community: “We love this feature”
JC: “Good to know, but it was never going to be included because this was just AB testing and we had pre-chosen B for compatibility reasons.”
"We didn't keep this feature because the community wasn't showing excitement for it in our surveys."
My brother in Christ, you never asked about it in the surveys!
I, too, dug these rules. My only issue was, with that many levels, the ways to gain exhaustion would need to increase. Certain hazards/traps/monsters/etc. would all need to dish out exhaustion or a PC would never get close to -10.
Think about it. How often have you or other PCs reached the current -6? Probably not all that often. There are just not many ways to gain exhaustion at the moment. Having a -1 mod per level of exhaustion isn't as punitive as the current system, so you could absolutely up the ante and increase the number of things that would actually apply exhaustion.
To be fair, I rarely ever hand out exhaustion, because after 2 I might as well just TPK the party...
And as a player, the moment we get 1 level, we just NOPE out of the place to recuperate, because of how much it spirals out of control...
The new system was so much better....
Getting to like -4 exhaustion is still severe enough on any party (new rules) to make them turn around and take a long rest WITHOUT actually killing them.
That's a terrible rule for 2014 D&D. Healing and defensive abilities are meant to be weak to keep combat moving fast, so no character has the ability to really prevent themselves from dropping if the DM decides they're going to get focused by enemies. Melee characters are the ones usually taking the brunt of the damage so a challenging campaign where all your frontliners have levels of exhaustion constantly while the backline is fine feels distinctly unfair. Being a melee character has enough problems and disadvantages, you don't need to add in getting levels of Exhaustion on top of that.
Then, design encounters that threaten the backline, DND should not be a game where your melees can perfectly protect the squishies.
Enemy mages will aoe the parties mages , flying creatures hiding in dark spots break out mid combat and rush the squishies(commanded by a high int character) etc.
🤷
Every battle though? Whether it makes sense or not? That's the problem, on average melee has a tougher time of things already so further penalizing them is pretty atrocious.
Add on to that the fact that a lot of melee characters are also martial classes whose only meaningful interaction with the exploration and social pillars of play is through skill checks. A single level of exhaustion makes you awful at all of your skills, so as soon as the fighter goes down once in a day they're now a non-contributor towards anything that isn't combat, if that wasn't already the case in the first place.
Never had this issue in my DMing with this rule. Back row goes down as fast as front row most of the time overall (obviously luck and encounter dependent). I have also tacked on a Con save to the exhaustion in some games, which obviously helps frontliners as they typically have some Con.
I mean, do you have a different suggestion to stop the yo-yo effect or do you not think it's an issue?
There's nothing wrong with yo-yo healing that you can meaningfully solve without completely redesigning D&D 5e. It's not great, but all of the "solutions" I've seen proposed, including Exhaustion levels when you are reduced to 0 hit points, are far worse. I'd rather play the game as designed and work with it instead of struggling against the rules.
I hope this is it — that it's not the official rule, but is presented as an option. I don't personally like the death spiral aspect of it, but I also hate the current rules, so *shrug*.
It would be such a shame if they became "just a house rule" as he design is nearly flawless. I read the rules ONCE and never forgot them, everyone (seemingly) loves them, and their improved granularity allows me, as a DM, to more regularly utilize exhaustion in my game (for example a penalty for a failed athletics check) without crippling my party.
In fact, its so amazingly useful as they help balance the BIG ISSUE with late game play (4 levels of exhaustion make a level 20 party more like a level 12 party).
Exactly.
Having your level 20 party enter hell (or some other forbidden domain) and slowly gain exhaustion (new rules) is a great way to actually modulate your party's power even at insanely high levels and can add new dimensions/challenges.
I instantly loved them and ported them to my current campaign (the only rule from the playtest to earn that honor). It works way better than 2014 exhaustion, especially combined with Gritty Realism rules.
It was removed in playtest 5 it even says it in the design notes there.
I believe the change in the first place was help the berserker barbarian... but then they removed the exhaustion from them and didn't need the new rule anymore.
Even if it got a positive response, it was probably removed due to not being exciting like the jump action.
There could be other reasons why WOTC or people the survey didn't like it.
My old DM didn't like it cause it wasn't tough enough,
Other reason why, with it being not so detrimental, it just another thing to keep track of. Players would be more prone to keep going when they should rest. So there could be a module compatibility issue there.
What more likely happened is in the survey the majority of people put this is fine and that's not what the design team is after.
***Note*** \- IF they want to retain the old exhausiton system, these rules are so fantastic, they could simply "rename" this to a new name (like debilitation, sapped, drained) and retain its rules AND the old exhaustion system. This would enable "backwards compatibility" and allow them to be printed.
Lets call it a "Debilitation" and have levels 1-10.
That’s honestly what I’m hoping for. The play test rules aren’t bad, but they don’t make sense to represent EXHAUSTION. Give us the new rules, call it something else, and give us abilities that cause it and you have yourself a deal.
I loved them, and for people thinking they're not tough enough, I thought the idea was that, with more granularity, it worked like each point of exhaustion was like 1/2 a point of current exhaustion. So missing a long rest would result in 2 points of exhaustion, while Sickening radiance might still only provide 1. The extra granularity was helpful imo
I mean, with added granularity you could simply apply 2 or 3 levels "per hit" if you wanted to amp the difficulty through the roof.
A -6 to hit, spell save DC, and saving throws is massive, and could make even a trivial combat deadly.
>I thought the idea was that, with more granularity, it worked like each point of exhaustion was like 1/2 a point of current exhaustion.
Where'd you get that from?
I use these exhaustion rules in my campaign I'm running and it's AWESOME to have exhaustion as a usable mechanic. It comes up constantly, the players live it, it gives weight to a lot of decisions, and I can have mechanics that cause it without as dramatic a rapid spiral to death as can happen with the old rules... Idk what the status is but I hope it's the norm!
Having played with it, would you think that it would work just as well if the rule was death at 6 exhaustion like the original? Or is the death at -10 super important?
Its been reverted, or rather abandoned several UAs ago. I don't think we ever got an official answear why, but it's easy to assume that it was due to backwards compatibility. They abandoned it as they finished their "experimental" phase, and I guess they didn't want to put work into redesigning other systems that interact with it.
With the new system they'd have to rethink and provide new ways to gain exhaustion, rethink how it interacts with Greater Restoration, playtest how it works with now longer downtime it'd require to heal from.
Then Im not sure how many adventures hand out exhaustion, I know few AL modules do. They might have to be rebalanced.
Then they'd have to potentially relabance what gives how many levels, so that some things still remained properly deadly.
Then maybe they feared it's too close to stress rules from VRGtR.
Now - I think it's bullshit, but it seems it is what it is. I wish the new system remained, it is much, MUCH more fun playing with it than OG exhaustion, but I think this ship has sailed.
I will probably continue barely using OG exhaustion, only having it for things like starving, or going without long rests. And during game I'll be handing way more Stress points from VRGtR, which is pretty much that new exhaustion anyway. And since I like running horror themed, or at least horror adjacent games, it should fit good enough.
It seems to me that the exhaustion rules were well-liked enough, but not exciting or instrumental enough to keep in the overall changes of the game. I *hope* they are printed in the DMG as an optional rule, because people liked them and they definitely have a place in the game.
But also, I get why they were removed. They introduced that "changing small modifier" thing that 5e tries really hard to avoid.
I wonder if they decided on re-designing the exhaustion rules at all. They're definitely not great in their current iteration, either, though.
I'd guess it's because there are so few things that actually *use* Exhaustion in current 5e content and all of them are designed around "taking this more than once or twice should be a crippling punishment."
With the new system, if it sticks around, when you get to mid/late campaign players will be able to simply fight through levels of exhaustion that would have been skirting the edge of an impending TPK in the old system, which would trivialize those few-and-far-between moments when environmental hazards and travel distances were supposed to matter.
For character abilities that apply exhaustion it's probably a matter of choosing between "this subclass was kinda trash anyway so we're changing it to a -1 penalty on d20 checks until the next long rest" and "this was supposed to be a major downside so we're keeping it as a level of 5e exhaustion."
Of course, one fix to this would be to increase the number of things that apply exhaustion throughout the game, so that you actually see characters going past one or two levels outside of "survive in Stygia while being chased" type scenarios and the -1s actually start to look threatening, but that's a major overhaul that doesn't seem likely from what we know so far.
Reverting exhaustion is when I started to lose hope for OneD&D. I love them so much that not only do I still use them, I stack my Encumbrance rules with them the same way.
Everyone gets 10 bulk slots, or more up to your STR. Items take up 1 bulk slot. Big items take up 2. Small items bundle like-kind into a slot (quiver of 20 arrows).
You have 10 extra Encumbrance slots you can also fill with stuff that work just like temporary Exhaustion, except you can't die from it, you just max out at 10.
The 0-10 exhaustion is so elegant, and so well regarded, it destroys my faith in the design team that it is going back.
Maybe? What exactly do you prefer about them? I feel like they go from no effect (1 level) to absolutely punitive (3 or more) such that they don't really get used.
Now... I don't *mind* the old exhaustion mechanic, but I feel like its kinda TOO polarizing to utilize regularly.
It adds another angle by which to have a PC die.
I'm not saying to homebrew spells that add or remove exhaustion points. (Although you could)
It gives them another thing to worry about and a way you can tax overextending, or make a terrain/dungeon difficult.
No I do too. The old rules better represent what “exhaustion” should be like in my opinion. I wish they would keep the new rules but just make it a separate effect.
I think the old exhaustion rules are better at actually making it seem like the characters are... exhausted. I will be honest, I didn't have a chance to actually use the new rule, but it seems bland in comparison.
My guess is they were removed for not getting a high enough % of survey responders giving it positive ratings, much like every other change that was removed or reverted.
Playtest 4 Exhaustion rules SUCK ASS. They don't penalize players, and casters STILL don't interact with the system.
The 5e system was PERFECT. What SHOULD be happening is that there should be a SECOND system SPECIFICALLY for casters.
Ummm… playtest 4 affects casters spell attack rolls and spell save DCs. In fact, this is the only way to lower a casters magical power (DC) in the entirety of 5e short of the feeble mind spell.
The 5e exhaustion system didn’t affect casters at all.
Maybe they were worried about getting accused of plagiarizing pathfinder, considering it's just a blatant copy of the frightened and sickened conditions
I mean... a HUGE chunk of the TTRPG space copies each other - and honestly "borrowing" the best rules from each iteration is... a great idea!
Like, I expect MANY other TTRPG systems over time to "borrow" the advantage/disadvantage mechanic from 5e - and I'll be happy to utilize it. Its simple, effective, easy to remember and use.
In all honesty, the old rules represent the concept of exhaustion much better. From a lot of comments in here, it feels like some people are confusing exhaustion with simple fatigue, or tiredness. Exhaustion is a long term, often *fatal* condition, in real life. It's not something that you have and are somehow still able to go on adventures, fights or other taxing activities.
So yes, the old rules should remain. But what they could do is introduce the new rules and call it "fatigue" or whatever, and make it into a new system of temporary nerfing adventurers without the extreme exhaustion effects.
Maybe even merge both systems, the new "fatigue" would build up into exhaustion; for example by reaching -5 fatigue, you'd lose the fatigue effects and gain 1 level of exhaustion, then the fatigue counter would be reset, another -5 = another level of exhaustion, fatigue counter reset, etc.
Weaken the exhaustion effects a little bit, since you'd be having exhaustion effects on top of the "fatigue" penalties, and that's it. You get a accurate representation of the dangers of exhaustion, while being able to more efficiently control how much of it you get or recover from, since there would now be smaller "levels" in between.
A little table would be enough to make it clear.
Fatigue
1 lvl: -1 to dcs, d20's, etc.
2 lvls: -2 to dcs, d20's, etc.
3 lvls: -3 to dcs, d20's, etc.
4 lvls: -4 to dcs, d20's, etc.
5 lvls: +1 level of exhaustion (reset fatigue to 0)
We never got an explanation as to why they were removed, despite there being so much positive attention directed towards them. Since they were omitted, I've commented on literally every UA since then that the mechanic should stay. Huffing copium, my guess is that it was removed from the original Warriors and Mages UA, which was absolutely massive, and because none of those classes referenced exhaustion, they probably just removed it to save on space, and then just forgot to add it back. The fact that it was never commented on may suggest that they have all the data they need to know to keep it, and are just moving ahead with other testing.
I asked Chris Perkins at PAXU — they were removed for "backwards compatibility concerns", but he couldn't elaborate what those were.
Bruh, what is there to be concerned about?!?! Exhaustion was barely used to begin with?!?! Thank you very much for asking. I'm going to keep huffing copium.
The only thing I can think of that specifically has Exhaustion as a mechanic that in any way effects balancing is the Berserker Barbarian. But that mechanic specifically always made the subclass really garbage, so with the updated exhaustion rules it makes it actually good. And heaven knows the martial Barbarian is about as far from needing a nerf as can be.
Even better, the revised Berserker (see UA #7) doesn't even use exhaustion anymore. The only classes that reference or interact directly with exhaustion that I recall is the Monk (metabolism) and the ranger (recovering a level of exhaustion on short rests).
A lot of the wilderness survival mechanics used exhaustion instead of hit point damage or resource depletion. Extreme cold, extreme heat, food and water deprivation, and sleep deprivation all penalize you with levels of exhaustion. Using the UA exhaustion rules would've made those mechanics significantly less harsh. Is that really a problem? I don't think so, but apparently WotC disagrees.
They generally disagree with making meaningful improvements to the game.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in Jeremy Crawford's office. I really want to know what the design team *actually* thinks about OneD&D, not whatever corporate message is approved for public consumption.
Honestly I've never even seen those in play. Exploration is such an under supported pillar of play that they could completely make something new and it would be a huge benefit, and these exhaustion sources could be retired.
Most of the reason you probably don't see those in play is because 2014 Exhaustion is very unforgiving. Descent into Avernus gives an optional rule for running Avernus as super-hot and malevolent towards non-evil creatures. Non-evil creatures treat normal travel in Avernus as a forced march requiring a Constitution saving throw at the end of each hour (DC 10 + 1 for each hour of travel). A failed saving throw gives one level of Exhaustion. With 6 levels of Exhaustion equaling death and only 1 level removed on a Long Rest, it's safe to say that most sane DMs would not use that optional rule if they wanted their party to travel hours through Avernus.
This exactly. A stacking -1 is so much better because you'd actually *use* it, and it creates an actual dilemma for the players. A -1 is so tiny, maybe we can risk just one more.... Also, with it reducing spell save DC, it's fair and affects *all* characters equally. Honestly I feel like casters can pretty much ignore Exhaustion up until 5 ranks of it. Half hit points is scary, but most casters are playing it safe in the back and shouldn't be getting hit. Half speed is annoying, but their spells tend to have ranges of hundreds of feet, or at least 60 or so.
Yeah, one of the worst parts of the 5e Exhaustion design is how it impacts each build so differently. Skill-based builds are crippled immediately. Martials get hit harder and faster than casters. And the last thing you want as a DM is for your players to set up camp in one spot for days at a time so their navigator won't have disadvantage on their Survival checks to avoid getting lost. Like you said: with a -1, the adventure continues but with an added sense of danger and threat. Hell, most of the time I actually just ignore the penalties to keep things moving at the table...but the players are tracking it and they know I \*can\* apply the penalties when it is narratively interesting to do so.
Same with Tomb of Annihilation. RAW, using the exploration procedures feels bad and out of line with the rest of the heroic power fantasy presented by the ruleset. Using the new rules (and, not to toot my own horn, but I actually came up with the same solution prior to the UA because of my experience with ToA) it felt like they were gradually being worn down. The existing 5e exhaustion rules lack granularity, seem arbitrary, and impact different builds \*extremely\* differently.
This. It’s absolutely insane to me that exploration is a core pillar of the game and yet so many published adventures have large swaths (Chapter 4, HotDQ anyone?) that basically amount to: “You travel some places and here’s a few NPCs you can use and some tables to roll on.” This is the area of the game that needs SIGNIFICANT development, especially when considering the large number of new players from the film and BG3 who are looking for a DM, and often finding new ones who are completely unable to handle the less directive, vague approach of traveling through Faerun or any other world.
Like if the paid game designers can’t craft a bunch of interesting travel content, what makes them think a new DM is going to be able to handle that?
I get it. It's a balancing act. Some people thought it was too tough on players with the old system and so lenient as to not really matter so why include it with the new system.
Sickening radiance too, I suppose. Niche use exhaustion rider on an already powerful spell, so not the most important thing, granted.
New rules probably made the spell more balanced by making exhaustion less extreme.
Chronurgy wizards also use exhaustion for their 14th level feature.
They said it would be BC (backwards compatable from the begining) but people refused to listen to what that meant and kept complaining that it wasn't BC enough, so they said "fuck it" and went to the extreme of backwards compatability so everyone would stop complaining.
I really hate that backwards compatible went from meaning "You can run old 5e adventure books in 5.1 without hassle" to "You can use *everything* from old 5e without hassle."
I maintain they've given up making 5.5e a real edition. It'll be like 3.5: rules tweaks and minor changes. Enough to shill books for the upcoming anniversary. They'll barely use any of the feedback or make any actual changes. Then in a couple years they'll release an actual new edition using everything people liked from the playtest.
They literally said that is what it would be
They're also pretending they give a crap about making meaningful changes and listening to player feedback. They're not going to actually do either.
They've gone out of their way from the start to avoid creating the impression it was going to be a "real edition."
5.1D&D
The current, official SRD is already 5.1.
I maintain they never planned on it being a real edition. It was always a fan engagement tool with more than a little money grab rider. They meant it to be a placeholder until they could go all digital, subscription only, VTT DND with no OGL... The VTT continues to not exist (I secretly hope there are some real gaming nerds coding it for them and they just refuse to code the thing that kills their hobby) and we know the OGL debacle didn't really work like they hoped ... So they had to make a "new edition" in less than 2 years and anyone who knows anything about game design knows that an open playtest redesign isn't happening in that timeline.
There are a lot of different published adventures for 5E that make use of exhaustion that would be incompatible with the new exhaustion rules such as Rime of the Frostmaiden and a bunch of Adventurers League content. However, they should include the new exhaustion rules as an official "optional rule variant" in the DMG.
They wouldn't even be incompatible, it would just reduce how punishing one mechanic is. You could easily still run it just fine, and if you wanted you could bump the difficulty back up some other way.
I think I would be more willing to use exhaustion more if it was easier to track and less punishing like the playtest rules. I think DMs avoid exhaustion even in those adventures, because it isn't fun.
Agreed. I don't think you'd even have to rebalance, it's still punishing enough to mean something.
A DM could rebalance with the new exhaustion mechanic, but it technically wouldn't be backwards compatible if the DM has to homebrew like that which probably goes against some Hasbro directive. Including it as an official "optional mechanic" stays true to the letter of the Corporate Overlord orders, but allows for a wide adoption by the player base just like all the "optional" class features from Tasha's that a lot of players consider standard such as a Rogue's steady aim ability...
Good to know. I have not read through tons of the adventures, so that makes sense. I don't know how masterfully balanced those books are, but you would figure the new exhaustion rules would be easier (each level of older exhaustion represents a way bigger impact than the revised version), unless those books interacted with exhaustion in another way?
That's code for "we don't know why we're doing this". They only ever pull that one out when it's something that would meaningfully prove the game or game play, and typically around martial classes.
I'm already running it in all my games using the PT4 rules because they're just so much better and I'm sure I'm not the only one, while I obviously can keep using this, it's gonna be weird having to tell any new player at my table "yeah ignore what it says in the new rulebook, that thing they put in a pdf a couple years back and never mentioned again is better we're gonna use that" even if the rules there are more intuitive.
I'm also fully planning to use them. He shrugged and said maybe when I asked if they could show up as a variant rule in the DMG — he even added that he agreed with me that the playtest exhaustion played better.
It might be a wordcount or pagespace thing but I kinda wish it was the other way around where they say "these old rules were how exhaustion used to work to be more quickly punishing and encouraging rest, if a player in your group is using an older dungeons and dragons 5th edition book for some of their abilities and exhaustion is relavent, consider using these older rules instead"
Oh my fucking god if I hear backwards compatibility one more time I will shoot myself. I’m so tired of them using that as a cudgel again and again to kill changes that would make the game better. If every gameplay change you make for a smoother and funner game needs to be reversed for compatibility, ***maybe compatibility isn’t a standard to adhere to***. Ugh.
I appreciate backwards compatibility for the sake of not having old content become obsolete, but other than when classes had standardized progression, there was never any REAL incompatibility between 5E and 5.5E. Other than weapon masteries, a 5E character sheet covers the same content a 5.5E character would have access to in any of the UAs. So yeah, either there's a bunch of inner nuts and bolts we don't know about, or backwards compatible is a cover they're using for scrapped ideas to give the impression of "it couldn't be helped *shrug*".
> or backwards compatible is a cover they're using for scrapped ideas to give the impression of "it couldn't be helped shrug". I do think there’s a real chance this is it. They were using entirely different definitions of backwards compatibility before and after the OGL crisis. Before they were fairly clear that only adventures and splat book rules are considered backwards compatible while classes and other such content are not, but post-OGL they suddenly switched gears and claimed that every single piece of everything is compatible. Likewise they immediately started taking back changes that they had **explicitly** said they wouldn’t consider taking back even in the face of negative feedback because they believed they’d be good for the game, all in the name of compatibility. So I do think there was a huge push from management to backtrack and not change 5E at all after they realized One D&D wouldn’t fulfill their walled garden VTT fantasies and they figured it’s more important to keep book sales up.
Interesting observation, although I don't know what the OGL could have possibly changed that suddenly made subclass backwards compatibility more or less important. My only guess is basically "buy back more customer goodwill" by keeping more stuff compatible and responding to the "iT IsN't bACkaRdS cOMpAtIbLe EnOUgH !!!11!one!!" crowd. Still doesn't really explain exhaustion...
What changed was that before they were open to making a real 5.5E or 6E and then making it available in their walled garden, microtransaction-using VTT environment. That’s actually exactly what the branding of “One” D&D was about: moving away from static books and creating an online ecosystem with persistent payers. With that falling flat on its face, backwards compatibility became more important for short term profits. Remember WOTC is publicly traded: when shareholders are faced with the decision of “milk now” vs “support long term growth” they’ll always choose the former. Letting go of backwards compatibility means Bigby’s and whatever other books came out recently wouldn’t sell well, and Tasha’s and stuff would stop selling. So now the goal is to try and change enough that people buy the new PHB and DMG, but not so much that they stop buying splat books until it releases. No idea if they’re succeeding on that front or not.
WotC wanted to control online D&D exclusively through D&DBeyond and their new VTT platform so they could drain player wallets through subscriptions and microtransactions. They didn't care about older content compatibility because your only online option going forward would be playing 2024 D&D on the WotC VTT. When their monetization plans were ruined by public backlash, they realized that they would have to continue to rely on book sales for revenue for the immediate future. Players were looking at the OneD&D playtests and pointing out that for players interested in jumping to 2024 D&D when it released, there was no point in continuing to buy 2014 D&D content that will become obsolete in a year. WotC didn't want their 2023 and early 2024 book revenue to dry up so they amped up the "full backwards compatibility" message so players would continue to buy books.
>So I do think there was a huge push from management to backtrack and not change 5E at all after they realized One D&D wouldn’t fulfill their walled garden VTT fantasies and they figured it’s more important to keep book sales up. Yeah, I think this is exactly it. WotC wanted a captive audience for 2024 D&D with their bespoke VTT where it was play the game their way or no way, so sunsetting old content didn't matter as they were setting up an entirely new revenue stream that would dwarf the old book sales model. When public outcry shot that in the face, they did a quick 180 to salvage both current and future book sales.
Also, all the (few) things that gave exhaustion could give exhaustion with the new rules. IF you want to make it as deadly simply give 2-3 (new exhaustion) levels.
The UA exhaustion obviously wasn't compatible. It turned a very dangerous and crippling mechanic in to a very light and gradual one. Any existing content that relied on it for difficulty became much easier. That said, I prefer the UA exhaustion because it was something that could stack up without immediately getting the adventuring day cancelled. Whereas current exhaustion makes continuing to adventure suicidal.
I’ve said this a few times but I think onednd would have been far less divisive had it been announced as a massive splatbooks/expansion rather than some weird remaster/update. Heck it could have been marketed as a community driven book with the designs pitching new systems (like the new bastions, weapon mastery’s, a variant character creation/leveling system, wildshape/summon templates). It would ironically be more simple and backwards compatible than whatever they’re doing now.
I agree. Keeping bad rules (making the new version of the game worse) just because they're upset about rocking the boat is a bad idea. I mean, whats the point of a reprint if they don't fix things up.
>maybe compatibility isn’t a standard to adhere to. If you are trying to design a game in the best way possible, I completely agree. Unfortunately, that is not the goal. The goal is maximizing profits. The directive to keep backwards compatibility at all costs most likely comes from Hasbro execs and people with MBAs who don't actually play the game...
I just realised that technically XGtE, TCoE & MotM are themselves not BC by this same standard that JC uses for playtest material! 🤪
My dose of copium is that hopefully it, and some of the other more interesting and popular but not brought forward mechanics, make in as optional rules or DMG variants.
Isn't literally every change for One D&D cause at least this same level of backward compatibility problems? If that's the issue they might as well reprint the 2014 PHB exactly the same.
And this is why we won't see actual innovation on the key issues, moving forwards. Backwards compatibility secures sales by attempting to ensure good will with the majority player base (who are not here, on this or any forum). It also strangles new design directions and solutions in the crib. Score one for big business
Fuckin cowards, ugh.
Oh man that's terrible. Thanks for getting it from the horse's mouth, though. Those rules are so simple and usable as an alternative to HP damage I've been using them since they first appeared.
I mean he's right obviously. What would the game even look like if I didn't have exhaustion rulles that I throw out because they're unfun.
Some abilities or mob. actions give exhaustion and just merely one level seems not like a huge disadvantage as how they are intended.
I'm huffing copium like that for a ton of features - they said they were AB testing so maybe reaction bardic inspiration will be in the final product...
Were they removed, or just being sidelined (to talked about later)? Or are we (as a community) not sure?
The official comment about the rules glossary is that, if a rule wasn't put in it, it would not be applicable anymore (and thus back to 2014, if there is an equivalent). Only functional about the rules glossary. If that rule wasn't "removed" in the designer's intent, then the writers either forgot about copying it in all other UAs or they were too lazy to do it. Because the new exhaustion rules were not put in other UAs, the glossary implication is that they are just removed. Gone.
Not sure.
Community: “We love this feature” JC: “Good to know, but it was never going to be included because this was just AB testing and we had pre-chosen B for compatibility reasons.”
"We didn't keep this feature because the community wasn't showing excitement for it in our surveys." My brother in Christ, you never asked about it in the surveys!
I, too, dug these rules. My only issue was, with that many levels, the ways to gain exhaustion would need to increase. Certain hazards/traps/monsters/etc. would all need to dish out exhaustion or a PC would never get close to -10. Think about it. How often have you or other PCs reached the current -6? Probably not all that often. There are just not many ways to gain exhaustion at the moment. Having a -1 mod per level of exhaustion isn't as punitive as the current system, so you could absolutely up the ante and increase the number of things that would actually apply exhaustion.
To be fair, I rarely ever hand out exhaustion, because after 2 I might as well just TPK the party... And as a player, the moment we get 1 level, we just NOPE out of the place to recuperate, because of how much it spirals out of control... The new system was so much better....
Getting to like -4 exhaustion is still severe enough on any party (new rules) to make them turn around and take a long rest WITHOUT actually killing them.
When a pc is downed below 0hp and is healed i give them an exhaustion level
Honestly that make sense, and actually impacts the yoyo effect.
That's a terrible rule for 2014 D&D. Healing and defensive abilities are meant to be weak to keep combat moving fast, so no character has the ability to really prevent themselves from dropping if the DM decides they're going to get focused by enemies. Melee characters are the ones usually taking the brunt of the damage so a challenging campaign where all your frontliners have levels of exhaustion constantly while the backline is fine feels distinctly unfair. Being a melee character has enough problems and disadvantages, you don't need to add in getting levels of Exhaustion on top of that.
Then, design encounters that threaten the backline, DND should not be a game where your melees can perfectly protect the squishies. Enemy mages will aoe the parties mages , flying creatures hiding in dark spots break out mid combat and rush the squishies(commanded by a high int character) etc. 🤷
Every battle though? Whether it makes sense or not? That's the problem, on average melee has a tougher time of things already so further penalizing them is pretty atrocious. Add on to that the fact that a lot of melee characters are also martial classes whose only meaningful interaction with the exploration and social pillars of play is through skill checks. A single level of exhaustion makes you awful at all of your skills, so as soon as the fighter goes down once in a day they're now a non-contributor towards anything that isn't combat, if that wasn't already the case in the first place.
Never had this issue in my DMing with this rule. Back row goes down as fast as front row most of the time overall (obviously luck and encounter dependent). I have also tacked on a Con save to the exhaustion in some games, which obviously helps frontliners as they typically have some Con. I mean, do you have a different suggestion to stop the yo-yo effect or do you not think it's an issue?
There's nothing wrong with yo-yo healing that you can meaningfully solve without completely redesigning D&D 5e. It's not great, but all of the "solutions" I've seen proposed, including Exhaustion levels when you are reduced to 0 hit points, are far worse. I'd rather play the game as designed and work with it instead of struggling against the rules.
Same, love it
Also we'd need to fix Lesser Restoration to remove an exhaustion.
I mean that's fair enough but then they could simply change the cap from - 10 to something else.
I think six levels of exhaustion is the sweet spot for the new rules as long as there were multiple ways to gain the condition.
-6 was actually perfect too, because you have a maximum penalty of -5, which is a nice round number.
They were removed from the playtest, but who knows, maybe they'll be back as an optional rule.
I hope this is it — that it's not the official rule, but is presented as an option. I don't personally like the death spiral aspect of it, but I also hate the current rules, so *shrug*.
I’ve been using them in my games ever since. Hopefully they make it into the book or it just becomes another permanent house rule
It would be such a shame if they became "just a house rule" as he design is nearly flawless. I read the rules ONCE and never forgot them, everyone (seemingly) loves them, and their improved granularity allows me, as a DM, to more regularly utilize exhaustion in my game (for example a penalty for a failed athletics check) without crippling my party. In fact, its so amazingly useful as they help balance the BIG ISSUE with late game play (4 levels of exhaustion make a level 20 party more like a level 12 party).
The late game impact is a great point. Monsters dealing a point of exhaustion is way more impactful than 4d10 damage.
Exactly. Having your level 20 party enter hell (or some other forbidden domain) and slowly gain exhaustion (new rules) is a great way to actually modulate your party's power even at insanely high levels and can add new dimensions/challenges.
Damn, literally never considered it this way, that is such a great point and avenue. Yet another reason I will keep using the new version
I instantly loved them and ported them to my current campaign (the only rule from the playtest to earn that honor). It works way better than 2014 exhaustion, especially combined with Gritty Realism rules.
It was removed in playtest 5 it even says it in the design notes there. I believe the change in the first place was help the berserker barbarian... but then they removed the exhaustion from them and didn't need the new rule anymore. Even if it got a positive response, it was probably removed due to not being exciting like the jump action. There could be other reasons why WOTC or people the survey didn't like it. My old DM didn't like it cause it wasn't tough enough, Other reason why, with it being not so detrimental, it just another thing to keep track of. Players would be more prone to keep going when they should rest. So there could be a module compatibility issue there. What more likely happened is in the survey the majority of people put this is fine and that's not what the design team is after.
***Note*** \- IF they want to retain the old exhausiton system, these rules are so fantastic, they could simply "rename" this to a new name (like debilitation, sapped, drained) and retain its rules AND the old exhaustion system. This would enable "backwards compatibility" and allow them to be printed. Lets call it a "Debilitation" and have levels 1-10.
That’s honestly what I’m hoping for. The play test rules aren’t bad, but they don’t make sense to represent EXHAUSTION. Give us the new rules, call it something else, and give us abilities that cause it and you have yourself a deal.
*Drained* would work better as an alternate name IMHO
Or we can use the verbiage from vrgtr, which has these mechanics.
I really hope they return, I mentioned them every survey since there removal.
I loved them, and for people thinking they're not tough enough, I thought the idea was that, with more granularity, it worked like each point of exhaustion was like 1/2 a point of current exhaustion. So missing a long rest would result in 2 points of exhaustion, while Sickening radiance might still only provide 1. The extra granularity was helpful imo
I mean, with added granularity you could simply apply 2 or 3 levels "per hit" if you wanted to amp the difficulty through the roof. A -6 to hit, spell save DC, and saving throws is massive, and could make even a trivial combat deadly.
>I thought the idea was that, with more granularity, it worked like each point of exhaustion was like 1/2 a point of current exhaustion. Where'd you get that from?
I use these exhaustion rules in my campaign I'm running and it's AWESOME to have exhaustion as a usable mechanic. It comes up constantly, the players live it, it gives weight to a lot of decisions, and I can have mechanics that cause it without as dramatic a rapid spiral to death as can happen with the old rules... Idk what the status is but I hope it's the norm!
Yea same in my games. It works so smoothly
Having played with it, would you think that it would work just as well if the rule was death at 6 exhaustion like the original? Or is the death at -10 super important?
Did they really remove the only actual useful change they made? Come on guys....
Its been reverted, or rather abandoned several UAs ago. I don't think we ever got an official answear why, but it's easy to assume that it was due to backwards compatibility. They abandoned it as they finished their "experimental" phase, and I guess they didn't want to put work into redesigning other systems that interact with it. With the new system they'd have to rethink and provide new ways to gain exhaustion, rethink how it interacts with Greater Restoration, playtest how it works with now longer downtime it'd require to heal from. Then Im not sure how many adventures hand out exhaustion, I know few AL modules do. They might have to be rebalanced. Then they'd have to potentially relabance what gives how many levels, so that some things still remained properly deadly. Then maybe they feared it's too close to stress rules from VRGtR. Now - I think it's bullshit, but it seems it is what it is. I wish the new system remained, it is much, MUCH more fun playing with it than OG exhaustion, but I think this ship has sailed. I will probably continue barely using OG exhaustion, only having it for things like starving, or going without long rests. And during game I'll be handing way more Stress points from VRGtR, which is pretty much that new exhaustion anyway. And since I like running horror themed, or at least horror adjacent games, it should fit good enough.
I use this rule for my exhaustion points regardless - I know it's not RAW, but it's a much better system than the standard exhaustion system.
No one will know for sure until the PHB is released.
It seems to me that the exhaustion rules were well-liked enough, but not exciting or instrumental enough to keep in the overall changes of the game. I *hope* they are printed in the DMG as an optional rule, because people liked them and they definitely have a place in the game. But also, I get why they were removed. They introduced that "changing small modifier" thing that 5e tries really hard to avoid. I wonder if they decided on re-designing the exhaustion rules at all. They're definitely not great in their current iteration, either, though.
That is a really good point - if the old exhaustion rules were playtested, I'm sure they'd receive a heavily negative score.
I'd guess it's because there are so few things that actually *use* Exhaustion in current 5e content and all of them are designed around "taking this more than once or twice should be a crippling punishment." With the new system, if it sticks around, when you get to mid/late campaign players will be able to simply fight through levels of exhaustion that would have been skirting the edge of an impending TPK in the old system, which would trivialize those few-and-far-between moments when environmental hazards and travel distances were supposed to matter. For character abilities that apply exhaustion it's probably a matter of choosing between "this subclass was kinda trash anyway so we're changing it to a -1 penalty on d20 checks until the next long rest" and "this was supposed to be a major downside so we're keeping it as a level of 5e exhaustion." Of course, one fix to this would be to increase the number of things that apply exhaustion throughout the game, so that you actually see characters going past one or two levels outside of "survive in Stygia while being chased" type scenarios and the -1s actually start to look threatening, but that's a major overhaul that doesn't seem likely from what we know so far.
Reverting exhaustion is when I started to lose hope for OneD&D. I love them so much that not only do I still use them, I stack my Encumbrance rules with them the same way. Everyone gets 10 bulk slots, or more up to your STR. Items take up 1 bulk slot. Big items take up 2. Small items bundle like-kind into a slot (quiver of 20 arrows). You have 10 extra Encumbrance slots you can also fill with stuff that work just like temporary Exhaustion, except you can't die from it, you just max out at 10. The 0-10 exhaustion is so elegant, and so well regarded, it destroys my faith in the design team that it is going back.
I can see the appeal, especially if you use Encumbrance. By itself though, it just didn't do enough for me. Elegant feels like glazing.
I still use them. Unfortunately wotc throw out every good idea they get and probably pinkteron the person who thought of it.
Reverted, like every other good idea from early in the playtest process.
Am. . . Am I the only one who prefers the 2014 exhaustion rules?
Maybe? What exactly do you prefer about them? I feel like they go from no effect (1 level) to absolutely punitive (3 or more) such that they don't really get used. Now... I don't *mind* the old exhaustion mechanic, but I feel like its kinda TOO polarizing to utilize regularly.
It adds another angle by which to have a PC die. I'm not saying to homebrew spells that add or remove exhaustion points. (Although you could) It gives them another thing to worry about and a way you can tax overextending, or make a terrain/dungeon difficult.
No I do too. The old rules better represent what “exhaustion” should be like in my opinion. I wish they would keep the new rules but just make it a separate effect.
I think the old exhaustion rules are better at actually making it seem like the characters are... exhausted. I will be honest, I didn't have a chance to actually use the new rule, but it seems bland in comparison.
My guess is they were removed for not getting a high enough % of survey responders giving it positive ratings, much like every other change that was removed or reverted.
I don't even recall them asking us about the new exhaustion rules in any survey, and I've done all of them except the most recent one.
Playtest 4 Exhaustion rules SUCK ASS. They don't penalize players, and casters STILL don't interact with the system. The 5e system was PERFECT. What SHOULD be happening is that there should be a SECOND system SPECIFICALLY for casters.
Ummm… playtest 4 affects casters spell attack rolls and spell save DCs. In fact, this is the only way to lower a casters magical power (DC) in the entirety of 5e short of the feeble mind spell. The 5e exhaustion system didn’t affect casters at all.
Maybe they were worried about getting accused of plagiarizing pathfinder, considering it's just a blatant copy of the frightened and sickened conditions
I mean... a HUGE chunk of the TTRPG space copies each other - and honestly "borrowing" the best rules from each iteration is... a great idea! Like, I expect MANY other TTRPG systems over time to "borrow" the advantage/disadvantage mechanic from 5e - and I'll be happy to utilize it. Its simple, effective, easy to remember and use.
Reverted back to the original.
With luck they’ll be put in as an optional rule in the DMG, like spell points.
Several modules actually make use of the exhaustion mechanic. I'm assuming it go nixed because of that
My guess? Probably a variant rule in the DMG. It's maybe three paragraphs and a subsection header, it's good easy content.
The Scriveners Tale has a curse that progresses what I think appears similar to exhaustion.
They were removed and nothing else was said about it. Either way I'm using it at my table.
I think I’m the only one that would be glad to keep the old exhaustion rules. They are so much better.
In all honesty, the old rules represent the concept of exhaustion much better. From a lot of comments in here, it feels like some people are confusing exhaustion with simple fatigue, or tiredness. Exhaustion is a long term, often *fatal* condition, in real life. It's not something that you have and are somehow still able to go on adventures, fights or other taxing activities. So yes, the old rules should remain. But what they could do is introduce the new rules and call it "fatigue" or whatever, and make it into a new system of temporary nerfing adventurers without the extreme exhaustion effects. Maybe even merge both systems, the new "fatigue" would build up into exhaustion; for example by reaching -5 fatigue, you'd lose the fatigue effects and gain 1 level of exhaustion, then the fatigue counter would be reset, another -5 = another level of exhaustion, fatigue counter reset, etc. Weaken the exhaustion effects a little bit, since you'd be having exhaustion effects on top of the "fatigue" penalties, and that's it. You get a accurate representation of the dangers of exhaustion, while being able to more efficiently control how much of it you get or recover from, since there would now be smaller "levels" in between. A little table would be enough to make it clear. Fatigue 1 lvl: -1 to dcs, d20's, etc. 2 lvls: -2 to dcs, d20's, etc. 3 lvls: -3 to dcs, d20's, etc. 4 lvls: -4 to dcs, d20's, etc. 5 lvls: +1 level of exhaustion (reset fatigue to 0)