D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[Ahnehnois]

Well, if that "resource" is fatigue and falls under the health system and isn't class-specific, then sure. Otherwise, absolutely not.

If anything, the question should be whether resource management can be stripped from the base game entirely. In the context of spell slots/points/etc., it's an anachronistic, labyrinthine mess, and effectively a spray of "new player repellent". Hands up everyone who thinks tracking how much stuff you have left today is fun. It is perhaps the most unholy of D&D's sacred cows, and one that could use some slaughtering.

I'm a proponent of the "say yes" school of DMing. The last thing we need is a rules-mandated statement for nonmagical characters that says "no, you can't do that because you're out of 'stuff' for the day". The way forward is a game where the player says what his character wants to do and the DM adjudicates it and they move forward.

 

[steeldragons]

If anything, the question should be whether resource management can be stripped from the base game entirely. In the context of spell slots/points/etc., it's an anachronistic, labyrinthine mess, and effectively a spray of "new player repellent". Hands up everyone who thinks tracking how much stuff you have left today is fun. It is perhaps the most unholy of D&D's sacred cows, and one that could use some slaughtering.

I see this opinion a lot...and I just don't get it.

You're level 1. You get this.
You're level 2. Now you have this many.
You're level 3. Now you have this many.

I hardly see this as "new player repellent."

Tracking resources is part of playing the character in an rpg...or at least, specifically, D&D. No, no one wants to play "Actions & Accounting." If spellcasters have spells to keep track of...and non-casters have "Hero points" or "Stamina" or "Fatigue" to keep track of...that's really not so much. I'm no fan of endless "fiddly bits" and all for a simple, easily grasped framework.

But saying "You've gone up a level! <yay! woohoo! yay!> Roll more hit points. Increase your [whatever one rolls/adds] for your attacks. And bump up your [daily resources: be it spells or skill points or what have you] by X." or "When you use this [ability/power/spell/whatever] you have to deduct 1!" is not sooo difficult/offputting.

I guess I'm just not a fan of the idea/trend that D&D needs to "dumb down" the game so much that you [the player] get everything you want [for your character], with no "work" (for the player), limits or consequences (for the character) for what you get. I don't know how/when it started...but I know I don't like it.

I'm a proponent of the "say yes" school of DMing. The last thing we need is a rules-mandated statement for nonmagical characters that says "no, you can't do that because you're out of 'stuff' for the day". The way forward is a game where the player says what his character wants to do and the DM adjudicates it and they move forward.

Ah! I see where the problem is...that school needs its funding cut. It's not a bad word for DMs to say "NO!" You (the player) have your character. You [should] know what your character is capable of...and "in-game", the character is [should be] aware of their own abilities and limits.

I'm all for players trying whatever they can come up with! (Is that the "say yes" school?) But when you've spent all of your spells, don't say to me "I cast..." Uh...No. Sorry. You don't. Why shouldn't the non-casters have similar systems of "extra special stuff" that they can't just keep doing all day?

They can have their things that they can do all day! This isn't a black/white all/nothing proposition. But a limited resource isn't going to make "record keeping" so onerously overbearing to the game.

Meeting the challenges of the game, with what you've got, is at the heart of game. It's kinda at the root of why there's a class-based system in the first place! I fight. You cast. She sneaks. He prays...have at it and good luck. Giving unlimited resources (which is simply no "resource" at all) removes or drastically lessens any concept of challenge...cuz you can just keep going/doing.

Yes, it's a playstyle thing/preference, I suppose. No "right" answer.

... Did I go off on a tangent?...I kinda feel like I went off on a tangent...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Tracking resources is part of playing the character in an rpg...or at least, specifically, D&D.

Well, it's part of playing a magical character. Playing a nonmagical character, you only have to track hit points (which are not merely some abstract resource but a measure of how dead you aren't) and consumable resources. And, to the point, how many people track arrows and rations? Some, but it's hardly required.

I guess I'm just not a fan of the idea/trend that D&D needs to "dumb down" the game so much that you [the player] get everything you want [for your character], with no "work" (for the player), limits or consequences (for the character) for what you get. I don't know how/when it started...but I know I don't like it.

I don't like dumbing things down either. However, I don't think resources are all that "smart".

I think it's quite sufficient to ask a player to control his character's tactical movement, estimate the challenge of his opponents, estimate the probability spread of any of the actions he can attempt, estimate the survival odds for his character given his extant defenses, and choose actions accordingly. I don't think telling him that one of those actions will run out after he does it for some reason is really necessary. There's plenty of tactical thinking going on as it is.

Ah! I see where the problem is...that school needs its funding cut. It's not a bad word for DMs to say "NO!" You (the player) have your character. You [should] know what your character is capable of...and "in-game", the character is [should be] aware of their own abilities and limits.

True, but resources would indicate that the character is capable of doing something, but has run out of it for some reason (probably not any good reason). It's perfectly fine for a DM to say that a wall isn't climbable because it's too steep or because the character isn't a good enough climber, but I'd rather he not say that because the character trying to climb has run out of "athlete points" for the day.

I'm all for players trying whatever they can come up with! (Is that the "say yes" school?) But when you've spent all of your spells, don't say to me "I cast..." Uh...No. Sorry. You don't. Why shouldn't the non-casters have similar systems of "extra special stuff" that they can't just keep doing all day?

Because they're not casters. Simply because something is possible with magic does not mean that same thing must exist without magic.

And, as I asked above, why not consider the contrary? Why not instead have a magic system where the wizard can keep trying to cast magic missiles? Even if you want to say there's an incongruity between characters that have weird restrictions and those that don't, I'd rather address it by removing weird restrictions, not by adding new ones.

They can have their things that they can do all day! This isn't a black/white all/nothing proposition. But a limited resource isn't going to make "record keeping" so onerously overbearing to the game.

I disagree.

Giving unlimited resources (which is simply no "resource" at all) removes or drastically lessens any concept of challenge

Only if the resource limitations were the source of challenge in the first place. Typically, use limitations do not determine success or failure in game situations anyway. Spellcasters don't run out of spell slots, and when they do they just rest. The "resources" that matter are hit points and time, which are very limited. The challenge in the game comes from probability estimation of what will be the most efficient use of time and what will minimize loss of hp for the good guys and maximize it for the bad guys.

In noncombat scenarios, use-limited resources are usually completely irrelevant, and the question is whether the player can come up with a good plan, and perhaps whether his character creation resources were spent in a way to make him competent enough to do it.

To me, one of the insights gained from playing modern-based d20 games is the observation that losing use-limited resources and class niches removes nothing of importance from the game whatsoever. The important stuff is all still there.

 

[Jester David]

In addition to the rage and grit, I think you could certainly have a "stamina" or "energy" resource. It could work.
Despite being a video game, Warcraft is a good example of this as you have rage that builds as you enter combat, so the longer you fight the more special moves unlock. And there's also energy, which is a set pool of 100, so you have to balance which powers you use, alternating between high energy moves and low energy moves. This contrasts with mana, which is used by all the spellcasters, and goes up with level (and tied to stats), so it plays very different than the martial classes.

The catch being, these resources don't have much of a history in the game. So adding them into an existing class would make the resource feel tacked-on, mechanics that exist for mechanic's sake or for the purpose of change. But they could be the centerpoint of a subclass or other variant, or as part of a new class.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do you think the D&D audience will accept a mundane (non-magical) class which has a resource that powers abilities?

They do have a resource that powers abilities. It's called the action economy. Their abilities are powered by the fact that they can take action.

As far as some sort of "endurance" points or daily skill resource or whatever....it's not very "D&D." That doesn't mean it's impossible to add to D&D by any means, it just means that out of the gate, D&D doesn't need to worry about it. Mechanically, there's nothing really preventing it, though.

And a certain segment of the game's players -- folks who enjoy the videogamey feel or people who want the classes to have equal spike potential or whatever -- would be really happy with it.

 

[Minigiant]

Well if barbarians have rage, can't well do the whole Emotional Spectrum?

You could have warrior who fight at higher levels of prowess that normal and maintain it with their willpower.

 

[Obryn]

The action economy is common to everyone.

I think the op was asking about token economies for fighters above and beyond the baseline.

 

[Arduin's]

In the context of spell slots/points/etc., it's an anachronistic, labyrinthine mess, and effectively a spray of "new player repellent".

Well, statistical evidence (historic sales of this system vs. systems that don't have that "spray of "new player repellent") disproves your statement. FACT always trumps opinion.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The action economy is common to everyone.

I think the op was asking about token economies for fighters above and beyond the baseline.

Sure, but the idea goes that mundane classes in D&D get more out of those actions than anyone else. A class that spends a token is spending that token to play catch-up to the "mundane" classes that do not spend tokens, and such a class does so typically in a way that's dramatically swingy, giving them big spikes and big troughs (which then becomes a problem when those tokens become too frequent).

So in regards to the OP's conjecture about if D&D can have such a thing, I would say that it is certainly possible, but not something that should a high priority for D&D per se.

If we were to add one on, it would be pretty blatant meta-game resource management, as it is in those games that the OP referenced, and so it doesn't so much matter what form it takes. Pick one. Pick seven. The fluff you might use (willpower, endurance, luck, etc.) isn't as great a consideration as the mechanical impact of that change, IMO.

Which, for me, means I'd prefer to see a system where you accrue these tokens over time, rather than start the day with them. Maybe every time you miss/fail, you get a token, get enough tokens, spend them on a big effect. Fluff it as "even when you miss, you gain some info about your target, how they move, how they dodge, what their armor is like, that allows you to prepare a more sophisticated way to exploit their defenses."

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, statistical evidence (historic sales of this system vs. systems that don't have that "spray of "new player repellent") disproves your statement. FACT always trumps opinion.

Historical evidence also indicates that rpgs are a very small niche hobby. Whether continuing the design forward by removing more limitations and exclusions would broaden that niche is not a question of fact; it's speculative. Comparisons to other rpgs are largely irrelevant; none of them have ever approached D&D's level of popularity, but there are far too many confounding factors to isolate one as a reason.

If I had to guess though, I'd say D&D's popularity is due to something other than spell slots.