[House Rule] Fatigue

[Matthew]

EDITED

I thought that this House Rule I devised might be of interest to some people.

NEW PROPOSAL


Fatigue

After a period of exertion (such as a Combat Encounter), a Character must make a Constitution Check or accrue one point of Fatigue. The Difficulty Class of the Check is equal to the number of Rounds of exertion (modified by Circumstance). A Character may 'take 10' on this Check.

A failed check causes the Character to gain a point of Fatigue. Every Fatigue Point accrued incurs a culmative -1 Penalty on all Dice Rolls [including 'taking 10', but not Damage Rolls]. When a Character accrues as many Fatigue Points as he has Points of Constitution, he collapses from exhaustion and remains that way until he has rested for one minute and removed one point of Fatigue.

Resting for a period of one minute removes one Fatigue Point and the -1 Penalty associated with it.

Special

The Endurance Feat grants a +4 Bonus on Constitution Checks with regard to Fatigue.


ORIGINAL PROPOSAL


Fatigue

A Character can continuously exert themselves for a period in Rounds equal to [10 + Constitution Modifier]. After that he can make Constitution Checks to continue exerting himself without any ill effects. The DC is equal to the number of Rounds spent continuously fighting.

Every Check that the Character fails accrues a Fatigue Point. Every Fatigue Point accrued incurs a culmative -1 Penalty on all Dice Rolls [including 'taking 10', but not Damage Rolls]. When a Character accrues as many Fatigue Points as he has Points of Constitution, he collapses unconscious and remains that way for a number of minutes equal to the number of Fatigue Points accrued.

Resting for a period of one minute removes one Fatigue Point and the -1 Penalty associated with it.

Special

The Endurance Feat grants a +4 Bonus on Constitution Checks with regard to Fatigue and can also continuously exert themselves without making a Constitution Check for four additional Rounds longer than normal.

[Altharis]

Nice! I might add to my low-magic setting with spell casters getting fatigue for casting or something.....

*Yoinkage!*

Cheers,
Altharis

[dr.cello]

I like it. It's got a lot of potential. But what counts as 'continually exerting yourself'? Running? Fighting? Also, I'm not sure if collapsing unconscious is quite right--maybe consider the character Fatigued after he has half of his constitution in fatigue points (round up), and Exhausted after he has his con score in fatigue points? Unconscious if he doubles it? I think that better duplicates the ability of higher-constitution characters to resist fatigue for longer.

Also, what sort of mechanic is there for resting? Does a rogue skulking in the shadows firing a bow incur less of a penalty than a swashbuckler dashing from target to target, tumbling and jumping and weaving in and out?

And finally, is the DC right? I know that a fight can last for longer than two minutes or so (for comparison, a high school wrestling match consists of three two-minute periods). And in terms of historical combat (or even cinematic-style swashbuckling combat), a fighter was not useless after two or three minutes.

I'm not so familiar with historical combat in terms of 'how long they could last,' but I think it's on par with a good, vigorous workout more than anything--if you conserve your energy you can last for a good long while. I can see it applying while grappling, but there needs to either be a way to last for a lot longer, or the DC needs to be a lot lower.

It is definitely a nice mechanic for spellcasters. I have always loved the idea of casters getting physically exhausted for casting spells (especially if you scale it up, so 9th level spells cost more fatigue points). Possibly let them add their caster level for the purpose of spellcasting only. So, assuming 10 constitution, for the purpose of spellcasting only, a spellcaster has an effective constitution score of 30 when determining fatigue points. This lets him cast three ninth level spells before he is exhausted, six before he passes out.

[Matthew]

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.

Really, I intentionally left it open as to what counts as 'continually exerting yourself' so that individual DMs could decide for themselves. If you want my opinion, then I would count continual Combat, Running, Swimming, Climbing, Jumping and Spell Casting as being 'continuous exertion'.

The idea behind collapsing unconscious is that the Character ought to stop before he reaches that point. If he doesn't, then there has to be tangible result.

Resting is resting, same as it is when Spell Casters rest, just for a shorter period. A Rogue skulking in the shadows shooting his Bow will indeed become exerted as quickly as someone running around fighting (and if you have ever shot a Bow, you will know that it is a strenuous activity to keep up consistantly), but the Rogue has the option of not shooting every round, in which case he can avoid becoming involved in continuous exertion.

As for this vs Realism, well, there are at least two things to take into account. One is that this is a game mechanic intended to actually affect the game. Rare is the D&D combat that goes on for thirty Rounds or more. However, it should also be noted that by simply doing nothing (or relatively nothing) for a Round, the counter (really the DC) can be reduced by 1.

So, for instance, Aldros the Fighter has a Constitution of 14. He can fight or run continuously for 12 Rounds with no ill effects. After that, though, if he wants to avoid the risk of accruing Fatigue Points, he will need to be rest for a number of rounds equal to the number he wishes to act.

The second thing to take into account is how real combat works. Few actual combats consist of continual combat and exertion (combatants tend to circle one another a lot), so I would say that was fairly realistic, as it gives the Characters a reason not to just keep going and going like a Duracel Bunny.

I should mention that Encumbered Characters could be given penalties to the DC, causing them to become Fatigued earlier.

[Maldraugedhen]

Also, you should distinguish whether you mean resting for one minute or one round, as you say minute in the OP. Round, I think, makes more sense and balances it out a bit.

[Matthew]

No, it's one minute once you accrue an actual Fatigue Point. You rest for one Round to remove a point of DC.

[dr.cello]

One attack every six seconds is hardly very constant. That's ten swings in one minute. (Seriously, count out six seconds and tell me that's not a long time.) And as I said, even with wrestling (which is basically constant grappling and exertion) you can reasonably expect to last a good deal longer than two or three minutes.

Shooting a bow, while it may be tiring to the arm muscles, is hardly likely to be fatiguing enough that you'd pass out from it. (As it is anaerobic exercise; at the worst your arms will get sore and you won't be able to shoot anymore.) And keep in mind that this is heroic fantasy. The way the mechanic stands, you're making, for the sake of a game mechanic, all player characters significantly weaker than real people with a similar degree of training. The rogue has been training with his bow for a long time, now. The fighter knows how to wear armor without tiring himself out and has trained himself to fight without using too much energy (which, yes, real fighters do). Even someone continually engaged in wrestling and grappling (which is strenuous, believe me) will last for a while before fatigue and exhaustion set in. They're warriors, not nerdlings. They're trained and conditioned. This is what they do.

It's an interesting mechanic, but primarily I see it as a balancing factor on casters--making it do enough to have an effect in combat is going to take the 'heroic' right out of heroic fantasy. What it will encourage is slow-paced battles, where your characters feel like they're too weak to actually behave in an epic fashion. You might want to include it for battles that last for a long time, but 'fatigued' at first and 'exhausted' later seem to be a much more balanced ruleset.

I think I've got that figured, though:

You can continually fight for a number of rounds equal to twice your constitution score without taking any checks. 'Fight,' for the purposes of this houserule, counts as any round in which you take either a full-round action, two move actions, or a move action and a standard action. (There are already rules in place for continuing running.) Some instances of move actions and standard actions can be ruled as not counting as a strenuous activity. (For instance: drinking a potion is probably not very strenuous, nor would be moving half your speed, drawing a weapon, etc.)

Each round after this, make a constitution check (DC 10, +1 for each previous check.) Characters with Endurance apply a +4 bonus to this check. For each failed check, add one point of Fatigue to your character. When your character's Fatigue score is equal to his constitution score (round up), your character is fatigued. When his Fatigue score is equal to double his constitution score, he is exhausted. When his Fatigue score is equal to triple his constitution score, he passes out from exhaustion.

It might be a lot for the DM to keep track of, but sometimes (as with an adventure I did tonight) there is not a terrible lot of resting between battles. Over the course of the day, this might add up. While a few short battles aren't likely to do much, a series of long battles over the course of the day, and your character is going to be one tired hero. The DM can arbitrarily determine how much rest was possible between encounters.

Essentially, you'd have two tallies: rounds of strenuous combat (I'd call them Tiredness points) and fatigue points. I haven't thought of healing mechanics for either, but the latter should obviously be more difficult than the former (though not quite so difficult as actually removing fatigue and exhaustion.) It should also require a little bit of effort to remove tiredness points--this gives the players some meaningful decisions, like whether to rest and have a breather, or keep moving right away. (DMs should probably give an incentive to move quickly.)

[Matthew]

One attack every six seconds is hardly very constant. That's ten swings in one minute. (Seriously, count out six seconds and tell me that's not a long time.) And as I said, even with wrestling (which is basically constant grappling and exertion) you can reasonably expect to last a good deal longer than two or three minutes.

Quite so, but you don't take one swing in six seconds in D&D. The combat Round is an abstract mechanism, as are Attacks per Round.


Shooting a bow, while it may be tiring to the arm muscles, is hardly likely to be fatiguing enough that you'd pass out from it. (As it is anaerobic exercise; at the worst your arms will get sore and you won't be able to shoot anymore.) And keep in mind that this is heroic fantasy. The way the mechanic stands, you're making, for the sake of a game mechanic, all player characters significantly weaker than real people with a similar degree of training. The rogue has been training with his bow for a long time, now. The fighter knows how to wear armor without tiring himself out and has trained himself to fight without using too much energy (which, yes, real fighters do). Even someone continually engaged in wrestling and grappling (which is strenuous, believe me) will last for a while before fatigue and exhaustion set in. They're warriors, not nerdlings. They're trained and conditioned. This is what they do.

I think you are rather exaggerating the danger here. A Character is not likely going to pass out from performing this action, but there is going to come a point where he needs to take a break. Shooting 10-50 Arrows in a Row seems to me a reasonable point at which to accrue some measure of Fatigue (assuming the Character has a Constitution of 10-11) and if the Character continues exert himself without a break for a similar length of time then he will pass out. If you think it's too harsh, that's fair enough, the length of time before Fatigue kicks in can be easily extended.


It's an interesting mechanic, but primarily I see it as a balancing factor on casters--making it do enough to have an effect in combat is going to take the 'heroic' right out of heroic fantasy. What it will encourage is slow-paced battles, where your characters feel like they're too weak to actually behave in an epic fashion. You might want to include it for battles that last for a long time, but 'fatigued' at first and 'exhausted' later seem to be a much more balanced ruleset.

You may want to use it for Spell Casters, and that's fine, feel free to adapt it for that purpose, but that is not the intention of this rule. It is intended to put a limit on how long Characters can continue to fight unhindered. Any Fatigue Rule will bring down the level of 'Heroicness' of a game, because it places a limitation on what a Character can do (though, personally, I don't find Heroes who never tire to be particularly heroic).


I think I've got that figured, though:

You can continually fight for a number of rounds equal to twice your constitution score without taking any checks. 'Fight,' for the purposes of this houserule, counts as any round in which you take either a full-round action, two move actions, or a move action and a standard action. (There are already rules in place for continuing running.) Some instances of move actions and standard actions can be ruled as not counting as a strenuous activity. (For instance: drinking a potion is probably not very strenuous, nor would be moving half your speed, drawing a weapon, etc.)

Each round after this, make a constitution check (DC 10, +1 for each previous check.) Characters with Endurance apply a +4 bonus to this check. For each failed check, add one point of Fatigue to your character. When your character's Fatigue score is equal to his constitution score (round up), your character is fatigued. When his Fatigue score is equal to double his constitution score, he is exhausted. When his Fatigue score is equal to triple his constitution score, he passes out from exhaustion.

It might be a lot for the DM to keep track of, but sometimes (as with an adventure I did tonight) there is not a terrible lot of resting between battles. Over the course of the day, this might add up. While a few short battles aren't likely to do much, a series of long battles over the course of the day, and your character is going to be one tired hero. The DM can arbitrarily determine how much rest was possible between encounters.

That may well work for you, but the whole point to this alternative is to get away from the D&D Fatigue and Exhaustion Rules that have been with us since 1e. I wouldn't even bother to keep track of anything much via this method, I would just ask for Constitution Check at the end of a battle with a DC equal to the number of Rounds fought. Failure = Fatigued. Much simpler and the same general effect.


Essentially, you'd have two tallies: rounds of strenuous combat (I'd call them Tiredness points) and fatigue points. I haven't thought of healing mechanics for either, but the latter should obviously be more difficult than the former (though not quite so difficult as actually removing fatigue and exhaustion.) It should also require a little bit of effort to remove tiredness points--this gives the players some meaningful decisions, like whether to rest and have a breather, or keep moving right away. (DMs should probably give an incentive to move quickly.)

A two layered system I would not encourage.

There are many possible other alternatives, such as Fatigue related to Hit Points, but bear in mind that any Fatigue Rules will place a limit on what Characters can do.

Edit

Actually, come to think of it, I'm probably trying too hard to adapt this to 3e. I ran it much more simply in my 2e Game. Try this version:


Fatigue

After a period of exertion (such as a Combat Encounter), a Character must make a Constitution Check or accrue one point of Fatigue. The Difficulty Class of the Check is equal to the number of Rounds of exertion (modified by Circumstance). A Character may 'take 10' on this Check.

A failed check causes the Character to gain a point of Fatigue. Every Fatigue Point accrued incurs a culmative -1 Penalty on all Dice Rolls [including 'taking 10', but not Damage Rolls]. When a Character accrues as many Fatigue Points as he has Points of Constitution, he collapses from exhaustion and remains that way until he has rested for one minute and removed one point of Fatigue.

Resting for a period of one minute removes one Fatigue Point and the -1 Penalty associated with it.

Special

The Endurance Feat grants a +4 Bonus on Constitution Checks with regard to Fatigue.

[dr.cello]

There are many possible other alternatives, such as Fatigue related to Hit Points, but bear in mind that any Fatigue Rules will place a limit on what Characters can do.

Which is fine. The problem is when you place fatigue rules that make characters weaker than real people (which you are, in effect, doing.)

[Matthew]

As I said, Dr Cello, I do not really think that is the case, because real people do not generally exert themselves to the point where they fall unconscious (though it has been known).

That said, the ambiguous nature of the original text left it purposefully open to the user to decide what constitutes continuous exertion for just this reason. If you feel that 'Shooting a Bow' does not constitute continuous exertion, then there is no need to apply this rule. If you feel Circumstance Modifiers should apply to represent the difference between running about whilst fighting and not running about whilst fighting, apply them.

All in all, though, I prefer the second version I came up with anyway, as it goes easier on everyone involved and minimises book keeping.

[dr.cello]

Is your second version only making one check at the end of combat, not at the end of every round? (If so, the wording isn't entirely clear on that--I just noticed.) That would be a lot better, though I still maintain that 'fatigued' and 'exhausted' are much better than declaring the presence of a -1 penalty on all rolls.

Let's take a real-life example. Let's say I had to run in order to get class/work/whatever on time. I fail my constitution check. I arrive breathless, and arrive to a scene of some people who are bickering with each other--both friends of mine. I attempt to calm them. In game rules, I'd make a diplomacy check, but I'd have a -1 penalty--why? Am I less diplomatic because I've been running? I might be a bit out of breath and red in the face, but does that make me less persuasive?

So let's pretend I succeed at calming them, even with my penalty. The professor/boss/whatever comes in and senses that something happened, and asks what's going on. Because she recently warned against arguing, I lie and say nothing happened--again, at a -1 penalty. But why? Does the fact that I'm a bit tired make me less believable? Or, if that's a bad example, she asks where an absentee friend of mine is. I know that my friend is actually just staying home and playing computer games, but I say that he had a doctor's appointment. Am I less believable because I'm out of breath?

Regardless of the outcome, I quickly set about studying/working/whatever, applying my knowledge to the task at hand. But, because I'm tired, I apparently know less than I otherwise would, because I incur a -1 penalty on all rolls, including knowledge checks. I don't know about you, but when I apply myself to an intellectual task, no matter how tired I am, I can do just fine.

Your second idea (as opposed to the first), if I read it right, suffers from almost the opposite problem to the first: it will almost never come into play. At the end of an encounter you roll to see if you gain one point which goes away after a minute of rest? Even the most grueling of adventures tends to allow for at least one minute of rest in between encounters.

And really, you usually need to rest for longer than you exerted yourself to fully rest up. It might grant a temporary reprieve, but in the end there's no cure better than a good night's rest, or sitting down to a nice long meal and relaxing after, et cetera. Just sitting down for a moment might let you get a second wind, but you aren't going to be completely fresh after a short breather.

[Matthew]

Is your second version only making one check at the end of combat, not at the end of every round? (If so, the wording isn't entirely clear on that--I just noticed.) That would be a lot better, though I still maintain that 'fatigued' and 'exhausted' are much better than declaring the presence of a -1 penalty on all rolls.

It's whenever the DM decides. Fair enough, though as I said, I strongly dislike the current fatigue Rules.


Let's take a real-life example. Let's say I had to run in order to get class/work/whatever on time. I fail my constitution check. I arrive breathless, and arrive to a scene of some people who are bickering with each other--both friends of mine. I attempt to calm them. In game rules, I'd make a diplomacy check, but I'd have a -1 penalty--why? Am I less diplomatic because I've been running? I might be a bit out of breath and red in the face, but does that make me less persuasive?

In my experience, being fatigued does indeed cause people to operate at a reduced level, even with regards to social skills. It's harder to think when you're panting for breath and, yes, if you are out of breath and red in the face, it may be harder for people to even understand what you are saying.


So let's pretend I succeed at calming them, even with my penalty. The professor/boss/whatever comes in and senses that something happened, and asks what's going on. Because she recently warned against arguing, I lie and say nothing happened--again, at a -1 penalty. But why? Does the fact that I'm a bit tired make me less believable? Or, if that's a bad example, she asks where an absentee friend of mine is. I know that my friend is actually just staying home and playing computer games, but I say that he had a doctor's appointment. Am I less believable because I'm out of breath?

Well, in short, yes. Tiredness in my experience does make it harder to come up with good sentence structure or recall precise details quickly.


Regardless of the outcome, I quickly set about studying/working/whatever, applying my knowledge to the task at hand. But, because I'm tired, I apparently know less than I otherwise would, because I incur a -1 penalty on all rolls, including knowledge checks. I don't know about you, but when I apply myself to an intellectual task, no matter how tired I am, I can do just fine.

I find it much harder to concentrate if I am tired. That's why I take a rest after my morning excercises and before beginnng my academic work.


Your second idea (as opposed to the first), if I read it right, suffers from almost the opposite problem to the first: it will almost never come into play. At the end of an encounter you roll to see if you gain one point which goes away after a minute of rest? Even the most grueling of adventures tends to allow for at least one minute of rest in between encounters.

Well, you can increase it to ten minutes, if you like. I find that it does come into play and fairly regularly in my games. I'm just thinking of things in terms of Rounds and Turns for 3e D&D. In 2e it would indeed be ten minutes. Degrees of failure could also elicit additional Points of fatigue. It really depends on the DM as to how much he wants Fatigue to impact his game.


And really, you usually need to rest for longer than you exerted yourself to fully rest up. It might grant a temporary reprieve, but in the end there's no cure better than a good night's rest, or sitting down to a nice long meal and relaxing after, et cetera. Just sitting down for a moment might let you get a second wind, but you aren't going to be completely fresh after a short breather.

No, you won't be completely fresh, but that's not really the point and is already handled by Hit Points anyway. The idea here is to create a mechanical reason for Player Characters to rest after a combat, not a method for knocking them unconscious.

[dr.cello]

It's whenever the DM decides. Fair enough, though as I said, I strongly dislike the current fatigue Rules.

What do you dislike about them? They work just fine as is; they just don't have a mechanic for getting tired after combat. Something like that is definitely a lot better than something where being tired makes you completely incompetent.


In my experience, being fatigued does indeed cause people to operate at a reduced level, even with regards to social skills. It's harder to think when you're panting for breath and, yes, if you are out of breath and red in the face, it may be harder to even understand what you are saying.

I have never experienced a tired (from exercise) person being any more abrasive or unpleasant to spend time with. (Those who are tired from lack of sleep, maybe. But even then it's usually more short temper and not so much lack of social skill.) Actually panting and out-of-breath, I can see keeping you from making a check (perhaps requiring a successful Concentration check), but if I see my friends about to fight and attempt to resolve the dispute, me being tired isn't going to have anything to do with it. Especially if I'm not actually trying to restrain someone from blows, and they have the time to listen to me.


Well, in short, yes. Tiredness in my experience does make it harder to come up with good sentence structure or recall precise details quickly.
[...]
I find it much harder to concentrate if I am tired. That's why I take a rest after exerting my morning excercise before beginnng my academic work.


Maybe I'm just so sharp I'll cut myself, but I have never had a problem with being tired and doing intellectual things. While exercise is not usually the source of my woes, I have gone something on the order of 48 hours of no sleep and still performed exceptionally on tests and essays. And when it comes to lying, the bluff skill isn't about thinking up a lie so much as it is making that lie believable.

If tired-me and freshly-rested me both say "John had a doctor's appointment today," I actually think tired-me might have a better chance of succeeding. A calm, composed, rested individual generally has a neutral expression, so a little tic or inflection could make someone suspect she's lying. But someone who is trying to catch her breath, red-faced, generally already has an expression and is talking with a breathless voice: you aren't as likely to notice if anything is off in her expression, because there is already a dominant expression.


Well, you can increase it to ten minutes, if you like. I find that it does come into play and fairly regularly in my games. I'm just thinking of things in terms of Rounds and Turns for 3e D&D. In 2e it would indeed be ten minutes. Degrees of failure could also elicit additional Points of fatigue. It really depends on the DM as to how much he wants Fatigue to impact his game.

Here's the thing: if I'm being given a mechanic, I don't want to have to define its workings. I don't want to have to decide 'well, I want the players to be this tired combat.' I want there to be a rule in place so I can say 'okay, you were fighting for twenty rounds; roll a constitution check at this DC, and it will have this effect.'


No, you won't be completely fresh, but that's not really the point and is already handled by Hit Points anyway. The idea here is to create a mechanical reason for Player Characters to rest after a combat, not a method for knocking them unconscious.

In my experience players rest a bit after combat anyway. Or at least, they don't just rush on to the next fight. They loot bodies, see if anyone needs healing, and so on. And then, unless they are ambushed, attacked, or otherwise hindered, they move on. Resting would usually not change anything beyond them saying "Okay, we rest for ten minutes." And if you just sneak the penalty onto them you're just being a jerk.

[Matthew]

What do you dislike about them? They work just fine as is; they just don't have a mechanic for getting tired after combat. Something like that is definitely a lot better than something where being tired makes you completely incompetent.

That they actually reduce Attribute Scores, which is ridiculous, and that there are only two degrees of fatigue. Also, that a Fatigued Character cannot Run nor Charge until he has rested for eight hours (I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me eight hours to fully recover from doing excercise, let alone enough to run at speed or lift a weight I was previously able to).


I have never experienced a tired (from exercise) person being any more abrasive or unpleasant to spend time with. (Those who are tired from lack of sleep, maybe. But even then it's usually more short temper and not so much lack of social skill.) Actually panting and out-of-breath, I can see keeping you from making a check (perhaps requiring a successful Concentration check), but if I see my friends about to fight and attempt to resolve the dispute, me being tired isn't going to have anything to do with it. Especially if I'm not actually trying to restrain someone from blows, and they have the time to listen to me.

Sure, but we're not talking huge penalties here. We're talking a minor penalty for a minor level of fatigue immediately after vigorous endurance breaching excercise.


Maybe I'm just so sharp I'll cut myself, but I have never had a problem with being tired and doing intellectual things. While exercise is not usually the source of my woes, I have gone something on the order of 48 hours of no sleep and still performed exceptionally on tests and essays. And when it comes to lying, the bluff skill isn't about thinking up a lie so much as it is making that lie believable.

Frankly, the social aspects of the game's Skill checks are fairly broken to begin with, but I just don't agree with you that tiredness (whether from sleep deprivation or excercise) has no effect on the ability of people to perform intellectual tasks. I too have gone for long periods with minimal sleep and performed well on tests and I have often wondered if I wouldn't have performed better after a good night's rest. Certainly, I have made grammatical and mathematical errors when working whilst tired that I would not otherwise have made.
However, we are not talking about people sitting in front of a computer revising for 48 hours and then walking to an examination hall to take a test. We're talking about somebody exerting themselves physically for a protacted period until beyond the threshold of their endurance and then immediately attempting to do a short intellectual based skill without a break.


If tired-me and freshly-rested me both say "John had a doctor's appointment today," I actually think tired-me might have a better chance of succeeding. A calm, composed, rested individual generally has a neutral expression, so a little tic or inflection could make someone suspect she's lying. But someone who is trying to catch her breath, red-faced, generally already has an expression and is talking with a breathless voice: you aren't as likely to notice if anything is off in her expression, because there is already a dominant expression.

This is complete supposition. Obviously, more than being tired comes into a check; that's why the DM has Circumstance Modifiers.


Here's the thing: if I'm being given a mechanic, I don't want to have to define its workings. I don't want to have to decide 'well, I want the players to be this tired combat.' I want there to be a rule in place so I can say 'okay, you were fighting for twenty rounds; roll a constitution check at this DC, and it will have this effect.'

Well, then, that's a design concept difference. I don't need a rule to define every aspect of everything that occurs in the game, it only leads to illogical consequences; I want plenty of room within a rule. We're not talking, "Oh, I want the Characters to be tired now", we're talking "Hmmn, that was a lengthy combat, I should probably have the Players check for Fatigue."
That said, Circumstance Modifiers prevent anything in D&D from merely being a matter of [A + B = C]. A DM can always Fiat any mechanic via that.


In my experience players rest a bit after combat anyway. Or at least, they don't just rush on to the next fight. They loot bodies, see if anyone needs healing, and so on. And then, unless they are ambushed, attacked, or otherwise hindered, they move on. Resting would usually not change anything beyond them saying "Okay, we rest for ten minutes." And if you just sneak the penalty onto them you're just being a jerk.

That really is all it's intended to be and why would you want to 'sneak the penalty onto them'? Perhaps you run very different Adventures to me, but in my experience Adventurers can have multiple combats in a Dungeon one after the other very quickly and I have had Players ask if this shouldn't have an impact on their fighting ability.

[dr.cello]

That they actually reduce Attribute Scores, which is ridiculous, and that there are only two degrees of fatigue. That a Fatigued Character cannot Run nor Charge until he has rested for eight hours (I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me eight hours to fully recover from doing excercise, let alone enough to run at speed or lift a weight).


What you're doing with just one 'Fatigue Point' is effectively giving a -2 penalty to all attributes, ever. And, just for good measure, an additional penalty to everything else you might do that doesn't involve damage.

It doesn't reduce your scores, it gives them an effective penalty. It keeps it from using the word 'Everything.' Because when you give a penalty to 'everything', you usually end up in a really ridiculous place (like one where exercising gives you a penalty on bluff checks.) A penalty to an ability is, essentially, saying that 'I believe all things strength-related should take a penalty at this point in time. People shouldn't hit as hard with weapons, should have trouble operating their bows, and so on. So, you take a penalty to strength.' It also means you can carry less for a while, which also makes sense--you ever notice how your bag gets heavier and heavier the longer you're walking? It makes a lot more sense than 'every roll except damage rolls now takes a penalty.' That's like gaining a negative level, without the -5 hp or -1 effective level.

Fatigued, I should note, is, as it currently stands, a pretty difficult status to achieve. It happens when you've been walking for eight hours, or rough equivalent. After one hour or so of walking I'm already pretty sore and could do with a bit of a rest--after eight hours, I really doubt I'd be able to run anywhere. And I think there are a number of effects which have special rules for getting rid of fatigue if it would be inappropriate to require eight hours of rest to get rid of it.

There's only two degrees of it, fair enough--you could add in one that does -4 to the appropriate stats in between, if you wanted, and probably include some mechanics which don't include the inability to run or charge as a minor penalty, but as it stands it's designed for simplicity. Unless you're doing something really strenuous, it's generally assumed you aren't doing anything that will tire you out enough to merit having a noticeable effect on gameplay. Which, generally speaking, is probably the case.



Sure, but we're not talking huge penalties here. We're talking a minor penalty for a minor level of fatigue.


I'd like to note that your rules involve being able to have up to a -9 penalty on all checks, ever. That's a huge penalty. And if two minutes of exertion could give me a -1 penalty, that means, logically, that another two minutes would give me another -1. So if I spend a half hour working out, I should be at -9 to everything that I do. That's absurd.


Frankly, the social aspects of the game's Skill checks are fairly broken to begin with, but I just don't agree with you that tiredness (whether from sleep deprivation or excercise) has no effect on the ability of people to perform intellectual tasks. I too have gone for long periods with minimal sleep and performed well on tests and I have often wondered if I wouldn't have performed better after a good night's rest. Certainly, I have made grammatical and mathematical errors when working whilst tired that I would not otherwise have made.

I know myself well enough that I know what I'm capable of and what my limits are. The worst being tired has ever done to me is give me an unpleasant burning sensation in my eyes, and that was from sleep deprivation, which is actually mental fatigue. Working out does not wear down one's mental facilities.


However, we are not talking about people sitting in front of a computer revising for 48 hours and then walking to an examination hall to take a test. We're talking about somebody exerting themselves physically for a protacted period until beyond the threshold of their endurance and then immediately attempting to do a short intellectual based skill without a break.

I cannot fathom the situation in which physically exerting yourself would prove problematic when doing a mental task, unless you are actually physically unable to complete it (in which case it's a physical problem, not a mental one.) I don't get dumber because I went jogging. And if I have any time at all to cool off, get a drink, and compose myself, I wouldn't suffer on any social tasks at all; the ones I would have suffered on are the ones which rely on me looking my best, cool, and composed, which are pretty few and far between.


This is complete supposition. Obviously, more than being tired comes into a check; that's why the DM has Circumstance Modifiers.

Having to rely on circumstance modifiers is generally a sign that either the rules are inadequate, or the DM is not very good. Sometimes both. It's not helpful to say 'well, you can just apply circumstance modifiers.' It's part of what's broken about the Diplomacy skill, in fact: it relies on 'circumstance modifiers' to make it scale appropriately. This is entirely inadequate.


Well, then, that's a design concept difference. I don't need a rule to define every aspect of everything that occurs in the game, it only leads to illogical consequences; I want plenty of room within a rule. We're not talking, "oh I want the Characters to be tired now", we're talking "Hmmn, that was a lengthy combat, I should probably have the Players check for Fatigue."
That said, Circumstance Modifiers prevent anything in D&D from merely being a matter of [A + B = C]. A DM can always Fiat any mechanic via that.

The DM is never required to follow the rules literally, and any intelligent DM doesn't do so. This is where house rules come from, and homebrewing, and this keeps players from exploiting loopholes. But the rules exist to give the DM a much better framework from which to work. Instead of having to decide how difficult he wants a task to be, and mentally do the math to figure that out, he can look at his book and make a decision. And if it's obvious that the RAW doesn't work in that situation, then he applies an appropriate modifier, and possibly pencils something in.

The problem with circumstance modifiers is they are arbitrary and usually not consistent. While the DM should always be able to make the final decision, he should be provided with as much hard ruling as possible,


That really is all it's intended to be and why would you want to 'sneak the penalty onto them'? Perhaps you run very different adventures to me, but in my experience Adventurers can have multiple combats in a Dungeon one after the other very quickly.

Oh, I can easily see DMs sneaking in the penalty so the party doesn't just say 'We rest for ten minutes' in order to negate it--it seems that a mechanic designed to make the party say 'we rest for ten minutes' is sort of completely useless.

And I'm not saying that the party rests for eight hours between encounters. But it seems to be assumed that the party does rest for a few minutes between encounters in dungeons. If it's so close that resting for ten minutes would be impossible, it's usually the same encounter. Essentially, the time between combats is 'long enough that all of your 1 minute/level buff spells have worn off.' And then once you've used all your buffs for the day, you rest for eight hours to regain them. Once you're no longer acting in initiative order time is no longer being tracked and generally becomes irrelevant.

Pretty standard order of operations seems to be 'Okay, who's wounded?' followed by 'I use my wand of cure light wounds on the wounded parties.' There is looting (as I mentioned) and then the party discusses what to do with the loot or just searches the room for anything else interesting to grab/open/explore. Generally speaking that takes several minutes. Unless you count 'resting' as 'not doing anything at all,' I think that qualifies.

[Matthew]

Dr Cello, we clearly have very different ideas about how mechanics should work and what constitutes being a good and bad DM. I just don't see the sense in specific, but intricate, fatigue rules - after all, it's not a reality simulator, it's a game. That's not to say I don't understand your view point, I just don't agree with it. I'm not really sure how much more useful continued discourse can be, but I will persevere in the hopes that we can come to some level of mutual understanding.

A -1 Penalty to all Attacks and Skill Checks is not the same thing as reducing Attribute Scores (via a Penalty or not). There is a huge mechanical difference between the two, particularly with regard to qualifying for Feats and Prestige Classes or being able to use certain Weapons. Unless I am reading such things wrong, reducing an Attribute Score (even by means of a penalty) has wide ranging potential game repurcussions because Attributes are used as Prerequisites. Applying a Penalty to specific Checks does not. That said, the penalty probably ought also to apply to AC, Saving Throws and Caster Levels, which is something I overlooked.

If you are happy with the current fatigue and Exhaustion Rules, then this Optional Rule is not for you. I am not happy with them for the above reasons.


I'd like to note that your rules involve being able to have up to a -9 penalty on all checks, ever. That's a huge penalty. And if two minutes of exertion could give me a -1 penalty, that means, logically, that another two minutes would give me another -1. So if I spend a half hour working out, I should be at -9 to everything that I do. That's absurd.

Sigh. That is not logical at all, that is up to the DM. You won't get fatigued from 'working out' because working out at a reasonable pace is not sufficient to induce Fatigue (unless the DM for some reason decides that it is). The length of time you are allowed to Run in D&D is already measured in minutes. Just take a look at the Running Rules. A Character with a Constitution of 10 is going to Run for a maximum of two minutes before having to rest for a minute; all I am suggesting is that they have an associated penalty for Running beyond their limits (which is the root of the one Minute Rest Period idea). It's quite ridiculous, as people are quite capable of Running at speed continuously for significantly longer than one minute, but that's the current rule set.


I know myself well enough that I know what I'm capable of and what my limits are. The worst being tired has ever done to me is give me an unpleasant burning sensation in my eyes, and that was from sleep deprivation, which is actually mental fatigue. Working out does not wear down one's mental facilities.

Do not misrepresent me. I never said working out would wear down a person's mental faculties. I said becoming fatigued has an impact on how well people perform mental tasks. We clearly cannot agree on the facts of this, so perhaps we should seek some scientific data to prove it one way or the other instead of relying on anecdotal evidence.


I cannot fathom the situation in which physically exerting yourself would prove problematic when doing a mental task, unless you are actually physically unable to complete it (in which case it's a physical problem, not a mental one.) I don't get dumber because I went jogging. And if I have any time at all to cool off, get a drink, and compose myself, I wouldn't suffer on any social tasks at all; the ones I would have suffered on are the ones which rely on me looking my best, cool, and composed, which are pretty few and far between.

Who said you get dumber? Seriously, if you honestly think that the state of the mind and body are unrelated, then I cannot really see how I can convince you otherwise. A quick look over the internet seems to suggest to me that fatigue effects both physical and mental abilities, but that was a brief look over and unsourced statements, such as "It is accepted that physical fatigue increases levels of mental fatigue" A Biomechanical Approach to Performence, Fitness and Sportsmedicine for Golfers (http://www.backtogolf.com/leinfo.html). A more respectable and sourced statement would be infinitely preferable, either way.


Having to rely on circumstance modifiers is generally a sign that either the rules are inadequate, or the DM is not very good. Sometimes both. It's not helpful to say 'well, you can just apply circumstance modifiers.' It's part of what's broken about the Diplomacy skill, in fact: it relies on 'circumstance modifiers' to make it scale appropriately. This is entirely inadequate.

Who said anything about relying? What I am telling you is that Circumstance Modifiers already exist in the game and can have a significant impact on play. The DMG is pretty specific about the level of mechanical freedom allowed. I think it's a bad DM who doesn't take circumstances into account beyond those suggested in the Skill Sections.


The DM is never required to follow the rules literally, and any intelligent DM doesn't do so. This is where house rules come from, and homebrewing, and this keeps players from exploiting loopholes. But the rules exist to give the DM a much better framework from which to work. Instead of having to decide how difficult he wants a task to be, and mentally do the math to figure that out, he can look at his book and make a decision. And if it's obvious that the RAW doesn't work in that situation, then he applies an appropriate modifier, and possibly pencils something in.

How is that different from what I am suggesting here? I provide some guidelines, the DM makes the decision. That's really all there is to it. DMs don't need to be led about by the nose. I suspect precise Rules about how many Rounds are required before Fatigue applies will cause more problems than they solve (as with the first proposal, which assumed Characters would stop exerting themselves when penalties began to accrue and that DMs would use good judgement as to what is 'continuous exertion').


The problem with circumstance modifiers is they are arbitrary and usually not consistent. While the DM should always be able to make the final decision, he should be provided with as much hard ruling as possible,

That's not really a problem with Circumstance Modifiers, that's a problem with a DM being inconsistant about how he applies them. It's worth noting that a 1D20 Roll is essentially one big random Circumstance Modifier.


Oh, I can easily see DMs sneaking in the penalty so the party doesn't just say 'We rest for ten minutes' in order to negate it--it seems that a mechanic designed to make the party say 'we rest for ten minutes' is sort of completely useless.

That would be an example of bad DMing. The DM is not the opponent of the PCs. It doesn't matter how precise your rules are if you are playing with someone like that you can forget about them being any use.


And I'm not saying that the party rests for eight hours between encounters. But it seems to be assumed that the party does rest for a few minutes between encounters in dungeons. If it's so close that resting for ten minutes would be impossible, it's usually the same encounter. Essentially, the time between combats is 'long enough that all of your 1 minute/level buff spells have worn off.' And then once you've used all your buffs for the day, you rest for eight hours to regain them. Once you're no longer acting in initiative order time is no longer being tracked and generally becomes irrelevant.

Pretty standard order of operations seems to be 'Okay, who's wounded?' followed by 'I use my wand of cure light wounds on the wounded parties.' There is looting (as I mentioned) and then the party discusses what to do with the loot or just searches the room for anything else interesting to grab/open/explore. Generally speaking that takes several minutes. Unless you count 'resting' as 'not doing anything at all,' I think that qualifies.

I can't see how any of this matters. None of this precludes or makes useless the Rule proposed above. If the party has ten minutes to rest between combats (or other strenuous physical exertion), then we don't need to worry about Fatigue at all. This rule is intended to be used when you don't have ten minutes between combats but are moving rapidly to the next (indeed, perhaps because your Spells have limited duration) or when a combat takes place immediately following some streuous and lengthy activity. It doesn't matter at all whether you would consider such rapid movement to be 'one encounter' as it is up to the DM when to apply this rule in conjunction with good judgement. It's not intended to be idiot proof.

Edit
Here's something:

"Contrary to what was expected, it turns out that physical and mental tiredness are inextricably linked to each other. One cannot be physically tired without being mentally tired and vice versa."

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/D/20023993.html

Most of this stuff appears to be for long term effects of fatigue/tiredness. If you can find some short term studies that demonstrate the truth of the matter either way I would be interested.

[dr.cello]

A -1 Penalty to all Attacks and Skill Checks is not the same thing as reducing Attribute Scores (via a Penalty or not). There is a huge mechanical difference between the two, particularly with regard to qualifying for Feats and Prestige Classes or being able to use certain Weapons. Unless I am reading such things wrong, reducing an Attribute Score (even by means of a penalty) has wide ranging potential game repurcussions because Attributes are used as Prerequisites. Applying a Penalty to specific Checks does not. That said, the penalty probably ought also to apply to AC, Saving Throws and Caster Levels, which is something I overlooked.


I don't think it removes your prerequisites any more than having Bear's Strength cast on you qualifies you for new feats. It's inherently a temporary condition. And strength and dex damage pretty well describes the effects of fatigue, in my experience: you'll be slower, carrying things is harder,

And you aren't applying the penalty to 'specific checks', you're applying it to every check, ever.


Dr Cello, we clearly have very different ideas about how mechanics should work and what constitutes being a good and bad DM. I just don't see the sense in specific, but intricate, fatigue rules - after all, it's not a reality simulator, it's a game. That's not to say I don't understand your view point, I just don't agree with it. I'm not really sure how much more useful continued discourse can be, but I will persevere in the hopes that we can come to some level of mutual understanding.

The key benefit to having a specific ruleset instead of a bunch of general guidelines, is it makes the DM's job a lot easier. It's why we have AC and base attack bonuses instead of the DM just arbitrarily deciding how hard it should be for the party to hit--because it gives the DM as much information as possible before he decides to apply any appropriate circumstance modifiers. It also prevents arbitrary application of circumstance modifiers. It gives you a frame to work from, instead of just a foundation. And if you find you dislike it in a certain situation, you can then apply a circumstance modifier and remember it.


You won't get fatigued from 'working out' because working out at a reasonable pace is not sufficient to induce Fatigue (unless the DM for some reason decides that it is).

Similarly: a trained combatant has trained to minimize his movements and energy expenditure, precisely so they don't get worn out and useless in the middle of combat. (In fact, the Romans trained with double-weight armor and weaponry.) While I, personally, have not done any historical combat training, my roommates used to (and still do, intermittently). We're looking at a half-hour to an hour of drills and combat simulation.

Judging from their later complaints of being sore in places they didn't know they had, these activities are definitely stretching the limits of their endurance. But while they might have been less capable of continuing physical tasks, there was certainly no decline in their ability to handle intellectual or social situations.

[Tormsskull]

I don't think it removes your prerequisites any more than having Bear's Strength cast on you qualifies you for new feats.


Matthew's right here. If you have a Strength score of 13 and then you are reduced to a 12 by some form, you can no longer Power Attack because the prereq of Power Attack is Strength 13. Also, if you had a 13 strength, lost 1 due to ageing, so you were down to 12, then someone cast Bull's Strength (isn't it Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance?) on you, then you would once again be able to use Power Attack for the duration of the spell.



And you aren't applying the penalty to 'specific checks', you're applying it to every check, ever.


To say that being physically tired doesn't affect you mentally is being very short-sighted, IMO. While it might seem odd to you that someone who just fought for his life for 8 straight minutes of combat might not be as eloquent in speech as someone who is bright and perky, it makes total sense to me.

Being tired would realistically affect everything that you do. I think fatigue is viewed as being something that doesn't affect super-heroes that D&D 3.5 tries to make the PCs out to be, and thusly a lot of groups brush it under the rug, but if you want to portray a more realistic game, then fatigue is something that could definitely help bring that about.



Judging from their later complaints of being sore in places they didn't know they had, these activities are definitely stretching the limits of their endurance. But while they might have been less capable of continuing physical tasks, there was certainly no decline in their ability to handle intellectual or social situations.

How would you quantify that they did not perform at below optimal level in an intellectual or social situation?

[Matthew]

I don't think it removes your prerequisites any more than having Bear's Strength cast on you qualifies you for new feats. It's inherently a temporary condition.

As Tomsskul says, this is just plain wrong. I went and asked it in the simple Questions and Answers section, just in case I was mistaken. You can read the replies there.


And strength and dex damage pretty well describes the effects of fatigue, in my experience: you'll be slower, carrying things is harder,

It's actually not. It's only perceived as harder, you don't lose Muscle Mass from being tired nor are you suddenly unable to carry the same weight as you were before. Usually, you just cannot do it for as long before your muscles start objecting painfully.


And you aren't applying the penalty to 'specific checks', you're applying it to every check, ever.

Erm, no. As I said, Skill Checks and Attack Rolls. There is a case to be made to apply this also to Saving Throws, Initiative, Armour Class and so on, but you're free to not apply them if you don't want to (if that's the crux of your problem). I mean, if you want to draw up a specific list of things that you think should and should not be affected by fatigue, feel free. It's not as simple as just doing it via Attributes, though, because that creates logical inconsistancies [such as being less able to climb, but fully able to craft things or use Profession (Sailor)]


The key benefit to having a specific ruleset instead of a bunch of general guidelines, is it makes the DM's job a lot easier. It's why we have AC and base attack bonuses instead of the DM just arbitrarily deciding how hard it should be for the party to hit--because it gives the DM as much information as possible before he decides to apply any appropriate circumstance modifiers. It also prevents arbitrary application of circumstance modifiers. It gives you a frame to work from, instead of just a foundation. And if you find you dislike it in a certain situation, you can then apply a circumstance modifier and remember it.

No, the reason we have a consistant rule set is not to make the DMs' job easier, it's to have a mechanical structure. The Dice randomly determine whether a Character hits or misses regardless and Circumstance Modifiers certainly can be applied to combat. You cannot prevent Circumstance Modifiers being applied by the RAW, they are part of the Rules Set and they are there to cover the aspects that the rules do not. The example in the DMG itself illustrates the point well.
And, honestly, the complexity of the D&D Rules Set does anything but make the DM's job easier. All it does is provide more precise (but not exhaustive) rules for more situations. Many of which end up conflicting with good sense. If you cannot appreciate that there are alternatives that are just as good as having a complex Rule Set, then we are unlikely to come to an agreement. It's just a difference of opinion and game style.


Similarly: a trained combatant has trained to minimize his movements and energy expenditure, precisely so they don't get worn out and useless in the middle of combat. (In fact, the Romans trained with double-weight armor and weaponry.) While I, personally, have not done any historical combat training, my roommates used to (and still do, intermittently). We're looking at a half-hour to an hour of drills and combat simulation.

You are quoting Vegetius, not exactly an incontrovertable source (he's not very reliable to say the least). Yes, Soldiers are trained to have a higher level of Endurance, that's part of being a Soldier. If we had an Endurance Skill (as in 2e), I would take that into account. We don't, though, we only have Constitution and the Endurance Feat. You could, of course, always add Circumstance Modifiers to account for training.


Judging from their later complaints of being sore in places they didn't know they had, these activities are definitely stretching the limits of their endurance. But while they might have been less capable of continuing physical tasks, there was certainly no decline in their ability to handle intellectual or social situations.

Soreness usually comes sometime after exertion (complaints often arise the following day). It's a normal part of stretching muscles that don't often get used and due to Lactic Acid build up (as far as I am aware, though I am no expert). It is not an indication of fatigue, which would itself be relieved by a few minutes rest under the rules we are discussing.

[dr.cello]

Matthew's right here. If you have a Strength score of 13 and then you are reduced to a 12 by some form, you can no longer Power Attack because the prereq of Power Attack is Strength 13. Also, if you had a 13 strength, lost 1 due to ageing, so you were down to 12, then someone cast Bull's Strength (isn't it Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance?) on you, then you would once again be able to use Power Attack for the duration of the spell.

Yeah, Bull's Strength, my bad. And to be honest, if there isn't a problem with ability-based prerequisites, I can easily see fatigue making it so you can't use some of your feats. If you can't do X if you're too weak, then an effect making you too weak shouldn't


To say that being physically tired doesn't affect you mentally is being very short-sighted, IMO. While it might seem odd to you that someone who just fought for his life for 8 straight minutes of combat might not be as eloquent in speech as someone who is bright and perky, it makes total sense to me.

'Bright and perky' are mood descriptors, generally speaking. I can easily imagine someone being eloquent after running for eight minutes. The only thing getting in the way would be physical limitations (eg, catching your breath). Hell, my friend once took someone on a date right after she'd been in a softball game. As far as I'm aware she wasn't any less charismatic than she usually was.

The 'after eight minutes of fighting for your life' thing, as far as I can see, seems to be more of a mood descriptor, much like 'bright and perky.' Speaking strictly in terms of fatigue, I don't see any reason fighting should make you less eloquent or less socially capable. I can't imagine someone saying 'oh, don't mind him, he's just been working out' to explain his bad mood. I can imagine them saying 'don't mind him, he hasn't been sleeping,' but that's not what we're talking about.


Being tired would realistically affect everything that you do. I think fatigue is viewed as being something that doesn't affect super-heroes that D&D 3.5 tries to make the PCs out to be, and thusly a lot of groups brush it under the rug, but if you want to portray a more realistic game, then fatigue is something that could definitely help bring that about.

I like fatigue. I don't like it being ridiculous, or giving characters weaknesses that it realistically shouldn't. ('All right, where's the nearest bakery?' 'Well, ordinarily you'd know, but since you're out of breath, you take a penalty on your Knowledge (local) check, and you just missed the DC.' / 'My friend is at a doctor's appointment.' 'Unfortunately, you take a penalty on your bluff check for being winded, so the professor doesn't believe you.' / 'So how much is this gem worth?' 'Under normal circumstances you'd know, but since you're tired, you just missed estimating the price.' / 'Sorry, you're out of breath, so your disguise is less effective.')


How would you quantify that they did not perform at below optimal level in an intellectual or social situation?

Tell me you did not just ask me to quantify social skills.

Here's how I know they weren't functioning at a sub-par level: under various situations I have interacted with them, both while they were fully rested and while they had just returned from a workout. Also, when they were tired from lack of sleep, to throw in another variable. I have, in sum, come to know these people rather well.

In all of these circumstances, we have engaged in discussions both intellectual and inane, and various and sundry activities--console games, computer games, roleplaying games, board games (such as chess, Go, and so on). While they were sleep-deprived, I have noticed a decline in their intellectual capabilities; while they were merely worn out, I have noticed no such thing. Similarly, while sleep-deprived, they are generally less enjoyable to spend time with--they are irritable, inattentive, and otherwise not up to par with our usual repartee. When they are merely worn out, I have noticed no such thing. In fact, I have noticed that, while they are clearly exhausted from exertion, they are more cheerful and enthusiastic than normal--a positive quality.

[dr.cello]

It's actually not. It's only perceived as harder, you don't lose Muscle Mass from being tired nor are you suddenly unable to carry the same weight as you were before. Usually, you just cannot do it for as long before your muscles start objecting painfully.


Actually, with muscle fatigue, you become incapable of lifting objects you would normally be more than capable of holding. A hazing ritual once performed at the naval academy involved giving the plebs a pitcher full of water and having them hold it until they couldn't anymore. They would gradually work down the list of items, lighter and lighter, until they were no longer able to lift a spoon. A test of one's upper body strength involves doing pushups until you are no longer able to do so. It's not just 'I don't think I can do anymore,' but 'my arms will no longer support my weight.' This, by the way, is something they do in fitness classes. Strength is not just a matter of willpower. It's a matter of your muscles being unable to do what they were supposed to do.


Erm, no. As I said, Skill Checks and Attack Rolls.


Every Fatigue Point accrued incurs a culmative -1 Penalty on all Dice Rolls

Hmm.


No, the reason we have a consistant rule set is not to make the DMs' job easier, it's to have a mechanical structure.

Which makes things easier.


Many of which end up conflicting with good sense. If you cannot appreciate that there are alternatives that are [I]just as good as having a complex Rule Set, then we are unlikely to come to an agreement. It's just a difference of opinion and game style.

Oh, there are plenty of times when simple is just fine, or even entirely preferable. But when there is something which is inherently complex, based vastly on what exactly you did in the combat, or on whether you were actively fighting or merely skulking in the shadows, occasionally throwing a knife, or on whether you were dancing around the whole time or if you stayed relatively still, just saying 'apply circumstance modifiers' just doesn't cut it. Or 'no, that doesn't make sense and you should rule that in this situation it doesn't qualify as exertion.' That basically says 'well, this rule is a basic foundation, and you get to make up all of the specifics because I, frankly, can't be bothered.


You are quoting Vegetius, not exactly an incontrovertable source (he's not very reliable to say the least). Yes, Soldiers are trained to have a higher level of Endurance, that's part of being a Soldier. If we had an Endurance Skill (as in 2e), I would take that into account. We don't, though, we only have Constitution and the Endurance Feat. You could, of course, always add Circumstance Modifiers to account for training.

No, soldiers are trained not to expend energy. They learn to minimize their movements so that they don't wear themselves out. Yes, they train to increase endurance, as well, but one of the things they learned was to minimize energy expenditure. It wasn't so much 'I have a higher threshold of endurance' but 'I know how to avoid reaching my threshold.'


Soreness usually comes sometime after exertion (complaints often arise the following day). It's a normal part of stretching muscles that don't often get used and due to Lactic Acid build up (as far as I am aware, though I am no expert). It is not an indication of fatigue, which would itself be relieved by a few minutes rest under the rules we are discussing.

Soreness is an indication that you have worked your muscles to the point of fatiguing them. It is also a more solid indicator than, for instance, people complaining of being tired (which they did) or being out of breath. Soreness is a very definite and concrete fact.

[Tormsskull]

Yeah, Bull's Strength, my bad. And to be honest, if there isn't a problem with ability-based prerequisites, I can easily see fatigue making it so you can't use some of your feats. If you can't do X if you're too weak, then an effect making you too weak shouldn't


But, as Matthew stated above, you don't lose muscle mass from being fatigued. Remember, no rule for a game is going to 100% accurately reflect real life. I think his optional house rule is a decent approximation though.



'Bright and perky' are mood descriptors, generally speaking. I can easily imagine someone being eloquent after running for eight minutes. The only thing getting in the way would be physical limitations (eg, catching your breath). Hell, my friend once took someone on a date right after she'd been in a softball game. As far as I'm aware she wasn't any less charismatic than she usually was.


You are using a lot of personal experience as your examples, which is never scientific. It is open to interpretation, your view of your friends, your capabilities to determine these factors, etc. Try to find some solid evidence backing your assertions up, and then it will be easier to debate.



Tell me you did not just ask me to quantify social skills.


Yeah, I did. You seem to be asserting (which is further evidenced by your below paragraph) that you are able to differentiate between when your friends are operating at full mental capacity versus when they are operating at the equivalent of a -1 penalty to their skills in a D&D game. I.E., you are trying to say that when you speak with someone, you can tell that they are not suffering from any penalties that might be occuring due to a fatigue penalty.

To even attempt to assert that makes me doubt your statements.



Here's how I know they weren't functioning at a sub-par level: under various situations I have interacted with them, both while they were fully rested and while they had just returned from a workout. Also, when they were tired from lack of sleep, to throw in another variable. I have, in sum, come to know these people rather well.


"sub-par" could mean a -1 penalty, but it could also mean a -9 penalty. Also, I would think it odd that you have analyzed your friends to such a degree.



In fact, I have noticed that, while they are clearly exhausted from exertion, they are more cheerful and enthusiastic than normal--a positive quality.

Its a known fact that exercising releases endorphins (sp?) in the brain which generally lead people to feeling happy. That would be a completely separate entity from fatigue. If there was a skill called "Tolerance" then I'd suggest giving it a bonus when you were fatigued from exercising, but then we're getting super-specific which defeats the purpose of a generic house rule.

[Matthew]

Yeah, Bull's Strength, my bad. And to be honest, if there isn't a problem with ability-based prerequisites, I can easily see fatigue making it so you can't use some of your feats. If you can't do X if you're too weak, then an effect making you too weak shouldn't

If you feel that way, that's fine, I personally don't like it at all, because things like Power Attack are themselves the Prerequisite for a great many other things (such as entry into a Prestige Class). In my opinion, it's unbalancing to have this happen from becoming Fatigued and not at all an accurate reflection of how fatigue effects people. That said, if you are happy with it and understand all of the ramifications, then there is no basis for continuing to discuss it.


'Bright and perky' are mood descriptors, generally speaking. I can easily imagine someone being eloquent after running for eight minutes. The only thing getting in the way would be physical limitations (eg, catching your breath). Hell, my friend once took someone on a date right after she'd been in a softball game. As far as I'm aware she wasn't any less charismatic than she usually was.

The 'after eight minutes of fighting for your life' thing, as far as I can see, seems to be more of a mood descriptor, much like 'bright and perky.' Speaking strictly in terms of fatigue, I don't see any reason fighting should make you less eloquent or less socially capable. I can't imagine someone saying 'oh, don't mind him, he's just been working out' to explain his bad mood. I can imagine them saying 'don't mind him, he hasn't been sleeping,' but that's not what we're talking about.

Come on now, it's fairly clear that anecdotal evidence is not going to persuade either of us of how fatigue affects people.


I like fatigue. I don't like it being ridiculous, or giving characters weaknesses that it realistically shouldn't. ('All right, where's the nearest bakery?' 'Well, ordinarily you'd know, but since you're out of breath, you take a penalty on your Knowledge (local) check, and you just missed the DC.' / 'My friend is at a doctor's appointment.' 'Unfortunately, you take a penalty on your bluff check for being winded, so the professor doesn't believe you.' / 'So how much is this gem worth?' 'Under normal circumstances you'd know, but since you're tired, you just missed estimating the price.' / 'Sorry, you're out of breath, so your disguise is less effective.')

Uh, so how is suddenly losing all your Power Attack based Class Features not a weakness that realistically they shouldn't have? As we have discussed, if you don't think these things should be affected by fatigue, then we are at an impasse. I think X, you think Y. Until we can find some scientific data that proves it one way or another, that's how it's going to remain.


Tell me you did not just ask me to quantify social skills.

I think that was rather his point. You cannot show it to be true either way, because we have not quantifed the data (or found research that shows whether people do perform less well at mental tasks when suffering from short term fatigue).


Actually, with muscle fatigue, you become incapable of lifting objects you would normally be more than capable of holding. A hazing ritual once performed at the naval academy involved giving the plebs a pitcher full of water and having them hold it until they couldn't anymore. They would gradually work down the list of items, lighter and lighter, until they were no longer able to lift a spoon. A test of one's upper body strength involves doing pushups until you are no longer able to do so. It's not just 'I don't think I can do anymore,' but 'my arms will no longer support my weight.' This, by the way, is something they do in fitness classes. Strength is not just a matter of willpower. It's a matter of your muscles being unable to do what they were supposed to do.

That doesn't last for eight hours. According to Wikipedia's discussion of fatigue, it is exactly the case that you just think you cannot do it any longer. Mind you, I'm not really interested ina rguing that, as a -1 Penalty to Strength Checks would model this fine.


Hmm.

Fair enough, I got lost in my own discourse.


Which makes things easier.

As I said, no it doesn't. It simply provides an alternative method.


Oh, there are plenty of times when simple is just fine, or even entirely preferable. But when there is something which is inherently complex, based vastly on what exactly you did in the combat, or on whether you were actively fighting or merely skulking in the shadows, occasionally throwing a knife, or on whether you were dancing around the whole time or if you stayed relatively still, just saying 'apply circumstance modifiers' just doesn't cut it. Or 'no, that doesn't make sense and you should rule that in this situation it doesn't qualify as exertion.' That basically says 'well, this rule is a basic foundation, and you get to make up all of the specifics because I, frankly, can't be bothered.

A Simple System is always as good as a Complex System in a general sense. They have advantages and disadvantages with regards to particulars, but fundementally they are just different methodologies without absolute values.


No, soldiers are trained not to expend energy. They learn to minimize their movements so that they don't wear themselves out. Yes, they train to increase endurance, as well, but one of the things they learned was to minimize energy expenditure. It wasn't so much 'I have a higher threshold of endurance' but 'I know how to avoid reaching my threshold.'

Which would be modelled by an Endurance Skill, Feat or Circumstance Modifiers. You seem to have a very specific idea about what mechanics represent and I don't think it's doing you any favours here.


Soreness is an indication that you have worked your muscles to the point of fatiguing them. It is also a more solid indicator than, for instance, people complaining of being tired (which they did) or being out of breath. Soreness is a very definite and concrete fact.

Once again, please show how this relates to what we are discussing. This Fatigue Rule applies a modifier to checks that is removed after a few minutes rest, and doesn't apply to soreness or what that may or may not mean about the reality of Fatgue. If you don't want to apply the Modifier to Diplomacy Checks, then don't, but show why this is not a better basic mechanic than the two stage Fatigue Rule.

[dr.cello]

You are using a lot of personal experience as your examples, which is never scientific. It is open to interpretation, your view of your friends, your capabilities to determine these factors, etc. Try to find some solid evidence backing your assertions up, and then it will be easier to debate.

Yeah, I used to think that finding a study which more or less says something similar to what I'm trying to say made for 'debate-worthy' material. Then I stopped being seventeen. Psychological studies of any merit are based around things you can actually quantify, which, in the context of the human brain, is currently a very narrow area. Quantifying something like 'social skills' is not really possible--even in controlled studies it becomes nothing more than collected anecdotal evidence.

I'm not in favor of digging up evidence just to 'prove you're right.' I only ask for evidence in support of something when people pretend they are citing studies. Anecdotal evidence is easier to come by and there is nothing stopping you from providing some of your own. Or, indeed, providing a reason why the manifold hypothetical examples I have provided are not accurate, instead of just saying 'well, if you think that way, fine.' It will be neither conclusive nor scientific, of course, but this is the internet. Conclusive, scientific discussions do not happen on the internet.


Yeah, I did. You seem to be asserting (which is further evidenced by your below paragraph) that you are able to differentiate between when your friends are operating at full mental capacity versus when they are operating at the equivalent of a -1 penalty to their skills in a D&D game. I.E., you are trying to say that when you speak with someone, you can tell that they are not suffering from any penalties that might be occuring due to a fatigue penalty. To even attempt to assert that makes me doubt your statements.

I will, of course, forgive you for not realizing that being perceptive is sort of my thing. In my years of watching (and often studying) people, I've gotten quite good at it. In people I know well (like the friends I mentioned previously), I can tell you if something is off pretty quickly.


"sub-par" could mean a -1 penalty, but it could also mean a -9 penalty. Also, I would think it odd that you have analyzed your friends to such a degree.

I haven't 'analyzed' them. I have undergone the process that some of us know as 'getting to know people.' I've used my intuition and memory, extrapolated from previous behavior, and compared. In situations which are identical except for the fact that on one occasion they had just finished a workout and on the other, they hadn't, they behaved identically.

In essence, I have learned enough about these people through various conversations and interactions that I can usually predict how they'll react in a given situation. I know how they usually behave. I have a vast repertoire of previous behaviors with which to compare them. Of course, I don't actively do so, so much as I intuit. You may, of course, doubt me, but really if you want a discussion to go somewhere, it is helpful to at least pretend I know what I'm talking about, instead of merely saying 'nuh-uh.'


Its a known fact that exercising releases endorphins (sp?) in the brain which generally lead people to feeling happy. That would be a completely separate entity from fatigue. If there was a skill called "Tolerance" then I'd suggest giving it a bonus when you were fatigued from exercising, but then we're getting super-specific which defeats the purpose of a generic house rule.

So, you're acknowledging that people tend to be more cheerful and otherwise enjoyable to spend time with post-exercise while simultaneously affirming that someone who is worn out is less charismatic?

[Matthew]

I'm not in favor of digging up evidence just to 'prove you're right.' I only ask for evidence in support of something when people pretend they are citing studies. Anecdotal evidence is easier to come by and there is nothing stopping you from providing some of your own. Or, indeed, providing a reason why the manifold hypothetical examples I have provided are not accurate, instead of just saying 'well, if you think that way, fine.' It will be neither conclusive nor scientific, of course, but this is the internet. Conclusive, scientific discussions do not happen on the internet.

But you do not place the same expectations upon yourself? You are talking in riddles here. We both have anecdotal evidence and I have presented you with some bits and pieces off the Internet that purport to be based on scientific evidence. It is now incumbent on you to find something similar to back up your anecdotal evidence (which I find as unconvincing as you do mine).

That said, I am starting to detect some bitterness in the conversation and I really do not want that to be the case. Nor do I want to bootstrap you with multiple replies to your posts. I can quite happily accept that you are fine with the current Fatigue Rules and that you do not consider this to be a viable alternative. I am also fine with the fact that you prefer a tighter rule structure. However, I am not going to alter my approach to suit your preferences. Please feel free to use this as a basis to create a tighter version or not, as you prefer.

Let us not allow this to devolve into a Flame War or exchange of passive aggressive insults (and if I have made any, I retract them and apologise). The friendly atmosphere of this Forum is something that I value as a source of constructive criticism (which I think we have now gone well beyond).

[Tormsskull]

Yeah, I used to think that finding a study which more or less says something similar to what I'm trying to say made for 'debate-worthy' material. Then I stopped being seventeen. Psychological studies of any merit are based around things you can actually quantify, which, in the context of the human brain, is currently a very narrow area. Quantifying something like 'social skills' is not really possible--even in controlled studies it becomes nothing more than collected anecdotal evidence.


So what your saying is that there is no way to lend credence to a theory about social skills since it is impossible to precisely weigh those skills? "collected anecdotal evidence" would mean that you are comparing/contrasting several different accounts against one another. So if 10,000 people say that they know fatigue affects them mentally, and 1 person states otherwise, would you think both are of equal value?



I'm not in favor of digging up evidence just to 'prove you're right.' I only ask for evidence in support of something when people pretend they are citing studies. Anecdotal evidence is easier to come by and there is nothing stopping you from providing some of your own. Or, indeed, providing a reason why the manifold hypothetical examples I have provided are not accurate, instead of just saying 'well, if you think that way, fine.' It will be neither conclusive nor scientific, of course, but this is the internet. Conclusive, scientific discussions do not happen on the internet.


I could be off base here, but you are putting forth what I would think is a very controversial statement, i.e. fatigue does not affect a person's mental capabilities, only their physical capabilities. Usually when someone puts forth an unpopular thought/idea they support it with something, otherwise its just some guy that said something.



I will, of course, forgive you for not realizing that being perceptive is sort of my thing. In my years of watching (and often studying) people, I've gotten quite good at it. In people I know well (like the friends I mentioned previously), I can tell you if something is off pretty quickly.


Yeah, there's no way for me to know that you are a perceptive person besides the fact that you say you are a persective person.



In essence, I have learned enough about these people through various conversations and interactions that I can usually predict how they'll react in a given situation. I know how they usually behave. I have a vast repertoire of previous behaviors with which to compare them. Of course, I don't actively do so, so much as I intuit. You may, of course, doubt me, but really if you want a discussion to go somewhere, it is helpful to at least pretend I know what I'm talking about, instead of merely saying 'nuh-uh.'


Oh, I am quite sure you believe that you are a perceptive person and can accurately judge someone's mental capabilities by getting to know them. What I am saying is that using your experience alone, it would be difficult for other people besides yourself to suggest changes to a house rule.



So, you're acknowledging that people tend to be more cheerful and otherwise enjoyable to spend time with post-exercise while simultaneously affirming that someone who is worn out is less charismatic?

No. I'm saying that exercising releases endorphins, endorphins make you feel good, so it is not unexpected for someone to be cheerful after exercising. If someone exercised to a degree that would warrant "fatigue" in the same manner as fighting in life-or-death combat warrants "fatigue" then they probably wouldn't be as "on the ball" as they would be otherwise.

[dr.cello]

So what your saying is that there is no way to lend credence to a theory about social skills since it is impossible to precisely weigh those skills?

No, I'm saying that a theory about social skills is not something that you attempt to quantify, because it's currently impossible. I'm saying that demanding an experiment to demonstrate some truth with regards to social interaction is a bit silly, because experiments are narrowly defined. And I'm saying that essentially, all of psychology is anecdotal evidence, so dismissing anecdotal evidence out of hand is counterproductive.


I could be off base here, but you are putting forth what I would think is a very controversial statement, i.e. fatigue does not affect a person's mental capabilities, only their physical capabilities. Usually when someone puts forth an unpopular thought/idea they support it with something, otherwise its just some guy that said something.

Controversial? Prior to this discussion I've never encountered anyone who believes that fatigue wears down your mental capabilities. I've never heard the excuse used 'sorry, I just got done with (tiring activity), I'm not on top of my game.' Sleep deprivation, sure. But never overexertion.


No. I'm saying that exercising releases endorphins, endorphins make you feel good, so it is not unexpected for someone to be cheerful after exercising. If someone exercised to a degree that would warrant "fatigue" in the same manner as fighting in life-or-death combat warrants "fatigue" then they probably wouldn't be as "on the ball" as they would be otherwise.

And you've been in life-or-death combat and know that it's more tiring than exercise, which is an activity designed to push you past the limits of your endurance, then, have you?


Oh, I am quite sure you believe that you are a perceptive person and can accurately judge someone's mental capabilities by getting to know them. What I am saying is that using your experience alone, it would be difficult for other people besides yourself to suggest changes to a house rule.

Well, golly jeepers, maybe you should suggest something from your own experience, then, instead of just saying 'I think your experience is silly.' Maybe you should try to explain why you don't like my hypothetical situations (of which I have listed many) instead of just completely ignoring them. In other words, I've given specifics--your turn.


But you do not place the same expectations upon yourself? You are talking in riddles here. We both have anecdotal evidence and I have presented you with some bits and pieces off the Internet that purport to be based on scientific evidence. It is now incumbent on you to find something similar to back up your anecdotal evidence (which I find as unconvincing as you do mine).

You miss the point. I was saying I think finding articles on the internet that prove your pet theory is a waste of time. So, yes, I hold myself to the same standard.


I can quite happily accept that you are fine with the current Fatigue Rules and that you do not consider this to be a viable alternative. I am also fine with the fact that you prefer a tighter rule structure. However, I am not going to alter my approach to suit your preferences.

I like the idea. I just think your execution is lacking and unrealistic, and that it would be better integrated into the existing rules. It's definitely an improvement on the first suggestion, but -1 on all rolls just doesn't make sense. Even supposing fatigue did have an effect on mental abilities, it's definitely not on the same level as physical abilities. (I could do pushups until I can no longer move my arms and still have the same persuasive abilities.)

[Matthew]

You miss the point. I was saying I think finding articles on the internet that prove your pet theory is a waste of time. So, yes, I hold myself to the same standard.

No, I quite get the point. It's hardly a 'pet theory' of mine, it's just an observation and more than just my own. Please, let's not bandy about passive aggressive insults and try to be objective about this.
[Edit]
Just to be clear, as far as anecdotal evidence goes I have observed people perform less well at mental tasks whilst fatigued or tired than when fresh. Certainly, I perform less well at these things under those conditions.


I like the idea. I just think your execution is lacking and unrealistic, and that it would be better integrated into the existing rules.

Yes, I quite understand that such is your opinion on the matter.


It's definitely an improvement on the first suggestion, but -1 on all rolls just doesn't make sense. Even supposing fatigue did have an effect on mental abilities, it's definitely not on the same level as physical abilities. (I could do pushups until I can no longer move my arms and still have the same persuasive abilities.)

As I said, if you do not wish to apply the Modifier in every situation, you do not have to; in my opinion, this is more easily applied as a general Modifier with exceptions based on the perception of the group than a Modifier that only applies to X specific cases. Please do stop asserting as an absolute something that we clearly do not agree on.

Let me explain why:

Group A
DM: "Okay, Bob, Aldros is suffering from Fatigue, apply the -1 Penalty to your Bluff Check."
Bob: "I don't really think Fatigue should affect how persuasive Aldros is. <explanation>"
DM: "Yeah, you're probably right, in the future I won't apply Fatigue to Bluff Checks."

Group B (The situation in my group)
DM: "Okay, Bob, Aldros is suffering from Fatigue, apply the -1 Penalty to your Bluff Check."
Bob: "Okay, that sounds reasonable."

Group C (Our situation)
DM: "Okay, Bob, Aldros is suffering from Fatigue, apply the -1 Penalty to your Bluff Check."
Bob: "I don't really think Fatigue should affect how persuasive Aldros is. <explanation>"
DM: "Sorry, Bob, I agree with the Rule as written, the Modifier stands."

What I mean to say is that it doesn't matter how the Rule is written (whether as a general modifier or a specific one) because groups will make their own decisions about what sorts of things Fatigue should apply to, based on their experience in the absence of absolute evidence. Since you are either not willing or not able to supply any objective evidence to the contrary, I will not be altering the default status of the Rule.

In short, this seems completely reasonable to me as written (unless it can be shown to be objectively mistaken) and since neither you nor I can show the other to be wrong (in the absence of convincing evidence) there seems little reason to continue to discuss it. All that the DM is receiving is my opinion on the matter (that fatigue effects all activities), which I expect him to take under advisement (though not necessarily agree with).

I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of things you think it should and shouldn't apply to, I could imagine that being potentially constructive.

[Tormsskull]

In short, this seems completely reasonable to me as written (unless it can be shown to be objectively mistaken) and since neither you nor I can show the other to be wrong (in the absence of convincing evidence) there seems little reason to continue to discuss it.

Yeah, well, according to dr.cello, no such evidence can exist. Since there is no precise way to measure social skills / mental capabilities, all such evidence would be anecdotal. And if the anecdotal evidence you find (say backed by a psychological institution) has merit, then so should the anecdotal evidence that his acute perceptive abilities have gathered.

I'm not sure how else to approach it, if I can think of anything else I'll try to respond.

P.S. dr.cello, it is better to attach a poster's name to their quoted section so that others reading the posts know who you are replying to. This is how you do so:




(quoted text)

[nagora]

Prior to this discussion I've never encountered anyone who believes that fatigue wears down your mental capabilities. I've never heard the excuse used 'sorry, I just got done with (tiring activity), I'm not on top of my game.'

Do you never leave the house or something? I've heard this many times.

[dr.cello]

Yeah, well, according to dr.cello, no such evidence can exist. Since there is no precise way to measure social skills / mental capabilities, all such evidence would be anecdotal. And if the anecdotal evidence you find (say backed by a psychological institution) has merit, then so should the anecdotal evidence that his acute perceptive abilities have gathered.

As I said, you are more than free to doubt that I am as perceptive as I claim--but kindly do not continually and sarcastically inform me that you are doing so? There is a difference between doubting me and being rude about it. So you doubt my credentials. At least I have attempted to supply some.

As someone who has actually spent a fair amount of time studying psychology, I can tell you it's pretty much impossible to get a group of psychologists to agree on just about anything. And any given study doesn't really mean much without a lot of independent verification. An experiment has to be able to be duplicated in order to be valid, so you need to have the same study repeated with the same circumstances and a different sample, and if I'd want a peer-reviewed experiment. It's really hard to provide adequate experimental controls when you're dealing with humans. You'd need to give the group two tests of identical difficulty, one while they are rested and calm, the other after they've just been out for a run or something--unfortunately, the best way to determine if a test is identically difficult is by making it the same test. And then you'd need to be sure you make the testing conditions otherwise identical--but a tired person will naturally prefer to rest,


I'm not sure how else to approach it, if I can think of anything else I'll try to respond.

I have already suggested a number of times that you could do something useful, like give me specific reasons why either my anecdotal evidence doesn't work, or, and apparently I have been too subtle with this, respond in some way to the manifold hypothetical situations I have provided.


P.S. dr.cello, it is better to attach a poster's name to their quoted section so that others reading the posts know who you are replying to. This is how you do so:

Yes, well, I'm lazy. I'll give a new name when I start quoting a different person though.


Do you never leave the house or something? I've heard this many times.

Yes, I leave the house quite frequently. I have spent a good amount of time with people who have just thoroughly exhausted themselves for various reasons. And yet, never once have I heard someone excuse any sub-par social or intellectual behavior with that. In fact, while playing basketball or traveling with the basketball team, I've never encountered that excuse. Nor have I encountered it from my father, with whom I've had intelligent conversations while he is working out. I very frequently use the computer to relax after I've exhausted myself and have never noticed a decline in my intellectual performance--some of my best writing has come from such times, in fact.

What I have encountered is people who like to go running or walking in the mornings to wake them up and make sure they're at their peak.


No, I quite get the point. It's hardly a 'pet theory' of mine, it's just an observation and more than just my own. Please, let's not bandy about passive aggressive insults and try to be objective about this.

'Pet theory' merely denotes a theory that you support strongly (or at least, strongly enough to argue about it). It's hardly an insult.


Just to be clear, as far as anecdotal evidence goes I have observed people perform less well at mental tasks whilst fatigued or tired than when fresh. Certainly, I perform less well at these things under those conditions.

Do you have any specific instances to provide as examples?


Please do stop asserting as an absolute something that we clearly do not agree on.

So you don't agree that, in a situation where Fred is so tired he can no longer move or stand, he will still be able to think and reason and socialize without offending everyone or failing miserably in the process? That even if he does so at a hindered ability, it will not be as bad as his physical hindrances?


Since you are either not willing or not able to supply any objective evidence to the contrary, I will not be altering the default status of the Rule.

I've already established (and you even claimed to 'get the point') that I don't want to look for 'objective evidence' because (a) finding someone who agrees with you on the internet is really not an accomplishment; (b) finding an experiment complete with methodology so I can verify that the results might be accurate on the internet is often a Herculean task; (c) this is an argument on the internet and I don't want to expend the effort.


I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of things you think it should and shouldn't apply to, I could imagine that being potentially constructive.

I thought I'd made it fairly clear what I thought it should apply to. But, for the sake of completeness:

Fatigue should cause one to gain the special condition 'fatigued.' They take a -2 penalty to strength and dex, and cannot run or charge. After they have continued to accumulate fatigue, they should become 'exhausted,' taking a -6 penalty to strength and dex. This handily replicates that someone who is tired will be less able to carry things, and less able to avoid blows. Their hands will probably be shaky, so they will also be less accurate, and as their muscles are less able to exert effort, they should also do less damage with each blow. (If you really dislike that the penalty to attributes means you no longer qualify for feats, though I still don't believe this ought to be the case, you can always opt out of that aspect--DM's discretion, after all. You seem to be quite fond of it.) It's also a lot easier than applying a penalty to everything that is related to that attribute without actually penalizing an attribute.

It should definitely not apply to (and when I use 'tired' or a similar term, I mean 'tired from working out,' not 'tired from lack of sleep', which is much different):
Appraise checks- if you know what something is worth, you know what it's worth.
Gather information checks
Use magic device checks - magic doesn't care if you're tired.
Disguise checks - You can put clothes on just as well when you're tired.
Bluff checks - Again, the specific example is best: why would I be less persuasive saying 'Sorry, Bob had a doctor's appointment today' when I was tired? What about being tired would make me less believable? Supposing I was tired and incorporated that into the lie? Would being tired still impose a penalty?
Decipher Script checks
Diplomacy checks - Similar to bluff checks, in addition to the fact that it's just as easy to be nice when tired. I also don't see someone being exhausted as making people react less favorably to them.
Knowledge checks - You shouldn't know less because you're tired. That's not how things work.
Intimidate checks - I can imagine numerous scenarios when someone who is exhausted from battle would be even more terrifying. The exception would be that someone who is exhausted and obviously weak might be less frightening, but to see someone apparently draw on some reserves of energy and pull themselves together is frightening in itself. (And remember, the PCs/NPCs don't know the game mechanics, ICly.) Actually, that sounds like it could be an interesting feat or skill trick or something. Similar to a barbarian's rage.

Wisdom-based skill checks, I could go either way. I can see someone who is tired being less attentive, and thus less likely to succeed on spot/listen checks. With checks like survival or sense motive, I don't think it would make things harder, but I wouldn't think it completely absurd (though I would, naturally, lean towards 'no').

It seems to me that shortly after a period of exertion you'd need to make a concentration check to do most tasks that would be hindered by uncontrollable heavy breathing, but after you make one check you should be fine. So I wouldn't give concentration a penalty so much as I'd require more concentration checks.

Other skills, it depends a fair amount on circumstance. I'd rather see a rule where there's only the most obvious choices (ie, physical-based skill checks), and the others are added as circumstance modifiers, rather than one where everything is included and the DM can choose to opt out.

[nagora]

'Pet theory' merely denotes a theory that you support strongly (or at least, strongly enough to argue about it). It's hardly an insult.


'Pet Theory' is a common pejorative, sometimes used self-deprecatingly.

You'd know that if you went out more.:smallbiggrin:


Do you have any specific instances to provide as examples?


"Efficiency of map interpretation whilst fatigued."

The results showed that exercising at or above the anaerobic threshold does have a statistically significant inhibiting over-all effect on the ability to perform mental tasks. In detail, a significant decrease of the high level cognitive skill 'descriptive abilities' was shown under the fatigue condition, whilst low level cognitive abilities were not affected.

[nagora]

Do you have any specific instances to provide as examples?


Here's another one, albeit with mice.



"Effects of Physical Fatigue in Mice on Learning Performance in a Water Maze"

...The results suggest that learning efficiency was impaired by exercise fatigue. This system may be useful for screening new foods used to enhance brain function during exercise.

[nagora]

And finally: dehydration is always a danger in prolonged exercise, particularly in pre-scientific times when the effects/dangers are not well understood. The negative effects of dehydration on cognative function are so well documented that it is hardly worth mentioning.

[Matthew]

'Pet theory' merely denotes a theory that you support strongly (or at least, strongly enough to argue about it). It's hardly an insult.

As Nagora says, it is commonly used in the pejorative sense and it seemed to me that was how you were using it.


Do you have any specific instances to provide as examples?

Sure, this morning I went for a run and immediately after ceasing activity I did some math in my head. I found that I wasn't able to do it as quickly or accurately as I am normally. A minute or two later I was considerably more clear headed and found it easier to do a similar task.


So you don't agree that, in a situation where Fred is so tired he can no longer move or stand, he will still be able to think and reason and socialize without offending everyone or failing miserably in the process? That even if he does so at a hindered ability, it will not be as bad as his physical hindrances?

As I told you, I think Fred would be less able to reason clearly and quickly.


I've already established (and you even claimed to 'get the point') that I don't want to look for 'objective evidence' because (a) finding someone who agrees with you on the internet is really not an accomplishment; (b) finding an experiment complete with methodology so I can verify that the results might be accurate on the internet is often a Herculean task; (c) this is an argument on the internet and I don't want to expend the effort.

Unfortunately, the onus is not upon me to convince you, but you to convince me. You put no stock in scientific data culled from the internet, but only in your own experience. That's fine, but I do not find your anecdotes more convincing than objective data or, to put it another way, you have to meet my standards of proof, not I yours.
Being 'on the internet' does not excuse you from standard practices of debate or lessen the need for effort nor does my understanding of your point necessitate my agreement with it.


I thought I'd made it fairly clear what I thought it should apply to. But, for the sake of completeness:

Fatigue should cause one to gain the special condition 'fatigued.' They take a -2 penalty to strength and dex, and cannot run or charge. After they have continued to accumulate fatigue, they should become 'exhausted,' taking a -6 penalty to strength and dex. This handily replicates that someone who is tired will be less able to carry things, and less able to avoid blows. Their hands will probably be shaky, so they will also be less accurate, and as their muscles are less able to exert effort, they should also do less damage with each blow. (If you really dislike that the penalty to attributes means you no longer qualify for feats, though I still don't believe this ought to be the case, you can always opt out of that aspect--DM's discretion, after all. You seem to be quite fond of it.) It's also a lot easier than applying a penalty to everything that is related to that attribute without actually penalizing an attribute.

Condescension is also a form of passive aggressive behaviour. Please do me the courtesy that I am trying to do you. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. I suppose we shall just have to agree to disagree as to what is a 'better mechanic' and what is 'suitably realistic'.

Nagora: Some great finds there; thanks for posting them. It's nice to know that I am not just imagining such things.