Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.

[Paraxis]

The best way to handle all special abilities for every class including spellcasters is some kind of encounter based system.

Fatigue is one option.

Stunt points generated on certain rolls like in Dragon Age is another.

Combo moves you have to link together.

Ect, ect, ect......

The worst way to do any special stuff is a daily resource this has always been a problem with all editions of D&D, whether it was barbarian rages, paladin smite evils, clerics turning attempts, druids wild shape, wizard spells it doesn't matter daily powers are bad game design.

Each class can have it's own way to use it's special powers to make them feel unique, they don't all have to be the same like in 4e but X/times a day should not be in the books for anyone.

All it does is make a lame resource management mini game and cause the 15 minute workday.

All that said I highly doubt they will ever change this in D&D and it was one of the things you just deal with if you want to play.

 

[Tallifer]

Fatigue mechanics are great. Daily powers, which place a starkly unreasonable limit on one ability while leaving all the character's other capabilities unaffected, are not representing adrenaline, energy, fatigue, or anything else in those action movies. They are representing the coyote chasing the roadrunner off a ledge, and realizing that he is out of movement-related powers a little too late.

I am all for abilities that meaningfully capture this idea, such as a legitimate fatigue mechanic, or action points, which represent that superhuman effort but have the virtue of not being time-limited resources and being optional for people who don't like them.

Fatigue mechanics would be cumbersome as great as they might be. A daily exploit is the simplest thing of which to keep track. I also love the idea hit locations and segment by segment movement, but I do not wish them on D&D either.

Yes, many epic heroes have had quasi-superpowers. You know what they didn't have? Occasions where they tried to use them, but couldn't because they had already done something similar that day. Those characters are so superhuman precisely because they never stop coming. In other words, I'm not just talking about the daily aspect being unrealistic, I'm talking about it being anti-dramatic and anti-fun.

I am sorry but I have never read a novel or seen a movie where the hero consistently clove his opponent from shoulder to groin (or threw a spear and skewered two opponents at once; threw his sword and struck through his opponent's eyeslit; leapt up upon a shield wall and came crashing down relentlessly; et cetera): it has always been a amazing event once in the story. The audience would tune out quickly if the hero did the same amazing stunt constantly. A good dramatist or writer knows the value of a surprising display of prowess.

Likewise many (but obviously not all) players enjoy being able to amaze the table now and again. As a Fighter I like to do consistently significant damage and I like to consistently protect my party, but I also like to sometimes inflict crippling punishment or really lock down a threat. However it would unbalance the game and ruin the drama of the story if my Fighter could lock down every threat all the time or inflict crippling damage every time. The daily exploit is a very simple way to mechanically enable this heroic and narrative play-style; it is moreover an excellent model for the luck, opportunities and adrenalin of battle. There is no way that D&D can replicate all the detail of actual combat (try Aces & Eights if you want to see how slow that gets!), but it can be abstracted in a fun and reasonable way with daily and per-encounter exploits.

EDIT: I realize my argument is pointless without any examples. In the Doctor Who New Adventures novels, the Seventh Doctor picks up two companions who are a sort of policemen from the future. The elder one Roz Forrester is the experienced and toughened fighter and investigator. In one scene she pokes out an opponent's left eye with her fingers, but in the eleven novels in which she appears she only does this very effective action once. Of course being Doctor Who, the heroes and heroines do not get into as many tactical situations as a character in Dungeons & Dragons, but being the policewoman from the future gets her into at least one scrape in each novel. Sometimes she kicks them in the groin, sometimes she blows their head off, sometimes she shoots them between the eyes, often she is knocked unconscious and captured in Doctor Who fashion.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I should be able to swing my sword in any way that my character realistically could, as many times as he could, achieving the results that he could, without using a metagame mechanic. Then, if I also want to use a metagame mechanic to affect the outcome, I can. Again, I'm advocating for a clear separation of mechanics that are metagame and those that are in-game.

Again, why? Why does there have to be a clear demarcation here? I'd almost prefer if there wasn't. Then you can describe it however you like. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes it's skill. It's up to the player to make that clear.

Or, you could simply have, "Basic Fighter Attack" and then have a shopping list of meta-game effects you could add on to that attack. That works too. So, yup, you can swing your sword normally all day long. But, that really cool hit is only going to happen sometimes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Fatigue mechanics would be cumbersome as great as they might be. A daily exploit is the simplest thing of which to keep track.

Really? I find keeping track of one centralized reservoir of spell points much easier than keeping track of individual use of dozens of different spells? If you have more than a couple of use-limited powers, tracking them individually requires more bookkeeping. One centralized reserve of energy (magical or physical) is easy to track regardless of the overall complexity of your character.

Moreover, separating out fatigue would allow us to take that component out of hit points, and would streamline that section of the rules. You could lose fatigue either through external (being harmed) or internal (expending energy) processes. That would be great!

I also love the idea hit locations and segment by segment movement, but I do not wish them on D&D either.

This is on the list of things that should be there, but should be highly optional.

I am sorry but I have never read a novel or seen a movie where the hero consistently clove his opponent from shoulder to groin (or threw a spear and skewered two opponents at once; threw his sword and struck through his opponent's eyeslit; leapt up upon a shield wall and came crashing down relentlessly; et cetera): it has always been a amazing event once in the story. The audience would tune out quickly if the hero did the same amazing stunt constantly. A good dramatist or writer knows the value of a surprising display of prowess.

Exactly. Which is why D&D characters shouldn't be thinking "which opponent am I going to use my crazy dramatic skewering power on today?" each day. The dramatic events you describe are modeled quite well by critical hits (always a fun part of D&D), combat maneuvers/stunts or their like that represent unusually difficult attacks (sword throwing, cleaving an opponent in half), or action points. Being able to do that same thing with a high chance of success exactly once (or twice, or any number of times) each day is not dramatic at all. Being able to do amazing things on rare occasions is something that no version of D&D handles particularly well (unless you use those mechanics I listed or something like them).

The point is not that the outcomes you describe are wrong, but that daily limitation of character abilities is not a good way of achieving those outcomes.

 

[ferratus]

The audience would tune out quickly if the hero did the same amazing stunt constantly. A good dramatist or writer knows the value of a surprising display of prowess.

I groked the 4e idea that you were describing a scene rather than real world mechanics which is why, "why can't I do this next round" doesn't bother me like it does Mr. A.

However, I do think that basic conceit of 4e is at odds with its structure, which is heavy tactical planning. You are planning what you are going to do, rather than planning what happens. In that sense, the surprising display of prowess wasn't surprising, but repetative or unreliable. It tried to merge two different rpg styles (tatics and dramatic scene making) but it never quite met in the middle.

However it would unbalance the game and ruin the drama of the story if my Fighter could lock down every threat all the time or inflict crippling damage every time.

Why? Wizards do it. Many 4e at-will powers do it. Why can't you trade the ability to do damage for the ability to do conditions, do conditions as a result of a critical hit, or have energy points in a pool that you expend over a day to do conditions?

Especially if you consider opponents are going back to being killed in 1-4 rounds again (for combat speed). Giving one opponent a crippling condition or locking him down while every body else does their own thing doesn't seem all that unbalancing to me at all. They are pretty much dead quickly whether you do a condition first or you just overwhelm them with raw damage.

 

[Tallifer]

EDIT: I realize my argument is pointless without any examples. In the Doctor Who New Adventures novels, the Seventh Doctor picks up two companions who are a sort of policemen from the future. The elder one Roz Forrester is the experienced and toughened fighter and investigator. In one scene she pokes out an opponent's left eye with her fingers, but in the eleven novels in which she appears she only does this very effective action once. Of course being Doctor Who, the heroes and heroines do not get into as many tactical situations as a character in Dungeons & Dragons, but being the policewoman from the future gets her into at least one scrape in each novel. Sometimes she kicks them in the groin, sometimes she blows their head off, sometimes she shoots them between the eyes, often she is knocked unconscious and captured in Doctor Who fashion.

As for the once-per day thing being too often and predictable: I can see your point in certain campaigns at certain tables. In the games in which I have played, players usually only get to use a daily spell or exploit once every two sessions. Most daily powers only get used one, two at most three times before they are replaced by another higher level power, so they seem exceptional and dramatic. I can see that if a dungeon master likes grinding players through endless combats or if a dungeon master allows extended rests all the time, those daily powers could become mundane and silly.

 

[Tallifer]

Why? Wizards do it [lock down consistently or deal amazing damage consistently]. Many 4e at-will powers do it. Why can't you trade the ability to do damage for the ability to do conditions, do conditions as a result of a critical hit, or have energy points in a pool that you expend over a day to do conditions?

Um, no. In Pathfinder, Wizards have a limited number of Vancian spells which can do amazing effects.

In the Fourth Edition, daily Wizardly spells are almost always more effective than at-wills: Sleep is better than Ray of Frost, Fireball is better than Scorching Burst, Grasping Shadows is better than Nightmare Eruption. Fighters can routinely mark opponents and smack with their sword, but only now and then can they crush an opponent's skull or lock down several enemies with one sweeping blow. The idea of amazing is not to do the same old thing or to sacrifice your attack to trip someone, but to simultaneously leap through the air and cleave off two heads: once in a while you can get all your damage and pull off a great effect.

As far as fatigue points go: too much to keep track of. As far as critical rolls: sometimes the player wants to be part of the narrative, not just allowing the dungeon master or the dice to tell the story. Now I realize that many old schoolers prefer just that, but those of us who like a more cooperative narrative need a different mechanic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This seems like a great place for the modular approach to shine. Just make the core fighter simple without the 4e powers system, but set it up so that can be added in easily enough. I am definitely someone who doesn't fnd 4e's method fun, so they arent going to winme over by baking it into core. What i want is a simple fighter who is very goodat fighting without turning it into a sub game of resource management or special powers. Give the core fighter a good attack bonus, a hefty damage bonustat goes up with level, high hp, and some steady or conditional abilities here or there. The 4e fighter is the opposite of what i want.

 

[ferratus]

Um, no. In Pathfinder, Wizards have a limited number of Vancian spells which can do amazing effects.

Yeah, but people rest when the wizard is out of spells (at least more often then not) so it amounts to the same thing. Even if it is presented that way in the book, in practice Vancian spells are often abilities you do every round.

In the Fourth Edition, daily Wizardly spells are almost always more effective than at-wills: Sleep is better than Ray of Frost,

Yep, but that is a far cry from your statement that at-will crippling effects are unbalancing when fighters do it. Ray of frost still slows, which is a crippling effect. Sleep makes people helpless to be sure, but nobody is suggesting that a fighter be able to make a whole room of people helpless with one daily ability.

There are many minor conditions and effects that the fighter could (and should!) do without being daily type powers. Push, pull, slow, knock prone, frighten, and disadvantage are all things that can and should be done at will.

 

[slobster]

I 100% agree with this standpoint. It's completely, and utterly, true. However, my response is, "I don't care". Meta-game mechanics are an excellent method to balance in-game power.

I more or less agree with this. I have a slight preference for less meta mechanics, where possible, but it's not something I get worked up about. I'd rather just have fun playing the darn game!