Knights & Knaves Alehouse

As it stands I assume the duration of any complete combat to be measured in turns and not rounds (any fractional turn left over after combat ends is spent resting sore muscles, recovering one’s breath, binding wounds, overcoming shock, cleaning weapons, and so forth (23 BD&D). Thus, rest is assumed as part of the abstraction of melee. However, I am undecided as how to handle melee that interrupts imposed rest following combat or at the beginning of the 6th turn of movement. Do any of you impose a penalty for rest interrupted by melee?
Here are four options I am entertaining...

Attack and Defend next lower value and -1 on morale and morale dice (11 Chnml.)

(-1 'to hit', -1 damage)/failure to rest/dungeon exploration (19 Bsc D&D, 20 Exp D&D).

(-2 'to hit', +2 to be hit)/failure to rest/running (24 Bsc D&D)

Effectively, 'helpless', unable to muster an effective or 'telling' attack or defense for the duration of what is left of the turn, 'automatically hit' (72 DMG). 'Helpless' is the equivalent of being made prone without a shield or a ready weapon (72 DMG), being the victim of a cause disease spell, the recipient of a raise dead spell [1 day bedrest/day(s) dead] (50 PHB), the cost of casting a resurrection spell (53 PHB) and the effect nausea from 2 to 5 rounds from a stinking cloud spell (72 PHB). This is probably a bit heavy-handed, but I like the concept I certainly have been 'virtually helpless' or winded to the point of inactivity following a track event or hiking for prolonged periods (like a day turn).

For characters who skip the mandatory rest period, or het attacked during it, I consider them Fatigued as per Chainmail - I don't remember exactly how I converted the numbers but -2 to hit & saves, +2 AC, and -10% morale feels pretty reasonable offhand.

It doesn't look like there is a BtB penalty for missing rests in AD&D? it just says they must rest 1 turn for every 6 turns of activity(Pg 38 DMG). They should also rest 1 turn after difficult activity.

I've always been adverse to applying penalties to hit for fatigue in D&D. I think because it is something I have to remember round to round.

What if they took 1 point of damage for each period of rest they missed? It could even be considered non-lethal or subdual damage to start and become real damage after more periods are missed. Those with more hit points would be far better at PUSHING the limits of endurance.

Right, there is no listed penalty in the rulebooks; I like to apply a minus one or five percent penalty to all activities, rather than a double penalty. The penalties are severe in Chain Mail, but basically a product of the dice being used [i.e. 16⅔ in the case of mass combat].

T.Foster wrote:

but -2 to hit & saves, +2 AC, and -10% morale feels pretty reasonable offhand.

I am leaning in this direction, similar to the ruling on 'running' in Classic D&D.

Solinar wrote:

It doesn't look like there is a BtB penalty for missing rests in AD&D?

Indeed, the only penalty is an imposed rest for movement and melee as you note:

A party should be required to rest at least one turn in six (remember, the average party packs a lot of equipment), and in addition, they should rest a turn after every time they engage in combat or any other strenuous activities (38 DMG).

What if they took 1 point of damage for each period of rest they missed? It could even be considered non-lethal or subdual damage to start and become real damage after more periods are missed. Those with more hit points would be far better at PUSHING the limits of endurance.

I had considered this as well, but as you point out it becomes more something I would have to track round to round. I also imagine it would amount to a double penalty as the party is already forced to take rest.

Matthew wrote:

I like to apply a minus one or five percent penalty to all activities, rather than a double penalty. The penalties are severe in Chain Mail, but basically a product of the dice being used [i.e. 16⅔ in the case of mass combat].

Yeah, I think it is a choice between a '-1' or '-2' modifier.


Thanks to the three of you for your thoughts

Further justification for using the Chainmail fatigue penalty as the penalty for characters skipping their mandatory 1-turn-in-6 rest period: in CM the fatigue penalty applies after 5 rounds of continuous activity (movement or melee), so extrapolating from combat rounds to exploration turns (which has precedent in move rate) we get the same logic - 5 rounds/turns of movement/activity requires 1 round/turn of rest in order to avoid a fatigue penalty. So in addition to just feeling reasonable, it also fits nicely within the existing rules-structure. Maybe this was already obvious to everybody, but since it hadn't been previously stated (at least in this thread) it seemed worth bringing up.

T.Foster wrote:

So in addition to just feeling reasonable, it also fits nicely within the existing rules-structure. Maybe this was already obvious to everybody, but since it hadn't been previously stated (at least in this thread) it seemed worth bringing up.

Indeed, the correspondence is there but certainly not spelled out here. Thanks for the clarification Foster! I am just going to walk through the logic presented for my own edification:

the fatigue penalty applies after 5 rounds of continuous activity (movement or melee)

I think the application of this ruling is sometimes confusing in an AD&D context though the correspondence is obvious. The turns/rounds question has been perplexing, but in previous threads has been made plain by you and Matthew. Translating the three 'rounds' into a duration of time in AD&D has not been plain. At first I wondered if I should be keeping track of melee rounds. It has been made clear that combat fatigue occurs follwing three exchanges of melee within a full Chainmail turn (1 minute). So I would impose the penalty following an AD&D turn of melee or some fraction thereof. Intersting that in Gygax's Classic Warfare he chose to consecutively impose a fatigue penalty of -1 every odd round after the third. I am, however, satisfied with a flat '-2' modifier.

extrapolating from combat rounds to exploration turns (which has precedent in move rate) we get the same logic - 5 rounds/turns of movement/activity requires 1 round/turn of rest in order to avoid a fatigue penalty.

Just seeing if I am following the details as you have presented them... so from the example in Chainmail of 3 consecutive melee rounds or 5 exploration turns (assuming that's Chainmail movement turns) one arrive at 5 AD&D turns of of movement/activity/melee demanding 1 turn of rest, otherwise see fatigue penalty via Chainmail.

I do believe that the rounding out of melee rounds into a turn as presented in Classic D&D was helpful. Also interesting that in Swords & Spells a hero-1 or 3rd lvl. fighter or higher is not subject to a fatigue penalty. That to me either suggests a lack of direct involvement in the melee or a further distinction between the non-heroic (1st-3rd lvl.) and the heroic angle of the game.

I would start with a -1 penalty, and then go from there. I would up the penalty as more time passed, but not on a round by round basis.

I'd probably draw on the Outdoor Survival fatigue rules if I actually tracked such. But I usually don't.

Nothing to track here, just a penalty imposed for interrupted rest period, either during the fraction of the turn left over from melee or the following turn if melee entailed most of the previous turn.

I'm just saying I don't pay much attention to rest periods, fatigue, food, water, etc.

I'm always interested in the games of people who do.

@Sepulchre: it sounds like you're trying to read some deeper logic or reasoning into my decision than I intended. It's really very simple: the AD&D DMG says characters should be made to rest 1 turn out of 6, but doesn't say what happens if they don't/ Chainmail says continued activity, including among other things "moving 5 consecutive turns" causes fatigue, and then spells out what the fatigue penalty is. So it seemed simple and reasonable to me to adapt the CM fatigue penalty to AD&D terms. In CM 5 turns of moving make you fatigued and you have to rest for 1 turn to recover. AD&D says you have to rest 1 turn out of every 6. Those look like different expressions of the same concept to me. There's no need (at least to me) to go any deeper into the logic behind it than that.

No, that's pretty much how I've read the correspondence in the past as well. I was just trying to make sense of the wording of your justification.

ScottyG wrote: I would start with a -1 penalty, and then go from there. I would up the penalty as more time passed, but not on a round by round basis.

I agree with this. Whilst I understand Foster's rationale for making it a 10% modifier, I think that was only a matter of the granularity available on the dice being used. That is to say, the penalty does not change between the 1:10 (or 1:20) system and the 1:1 man-to-man system, even though the percentage meaning does.

sepulchre wrote: Also interesting that in Swords & Spells a hero-1 or 3rd lvl. fighter or higher is not subject to a fatigue penalty. That to me either suggests a lack of direct involvement in the melee or a further distinction between the non-heroic (1st-3rd lvl.) and the heroic angle of the game.

Very interesting observation, indeed! Something to think about, definitely.

Rest seems like one of those categories of rules thats often best left to common sense (plus I don't like gamey feeling rules ("you didn't get your minimum 8 hours rest so...). So I just go with what sounds reasonable, based on my own knowledge of real life, granted these are adventurers that have grown up with such activity (doing similar tasks, hiking all day etc.) and based on the constitution of the PCs involved (if I figure I'm at a 10 con its not hard). I never tell the PCs "I'm lowering your chance x amount to do y task because of lack of rest" I just say "you feel tired and feel like you might be off a bit", and reduce what their doing appropriately, say -10% to climb a wall for thief, or -1 on a save etc. The rules are good to know when it comes to this sort of thing, but I think its just one persons opinion (and something to agree or disagree with). It should be reasonable to you. Plus, most players by now know the rules as well as the DM, so if the DM changes things up a bit now and then it keeps them into "playing make believe".

PS when it comes to spells I think you do need to keep to the rest rules.