D&D 5E "Charge Up" Mechanic: A problem for D&D

[dave2008]

--with the suggestion that the longer combat goes, the more powerful you become. No one, when doing a high intensity workout, gets more energy as the time of the activity progresses.

That is not how I understand it. The longer the combat goes, the better you fight/ higher chance of success. It is not that you are more powerful the longer the combat goes - you are better / better positioned the longer the combat goes. Think of it like this: if each combatant has a certain percentage chance of making a mistake each time they act, the longer the combat goes the more likely there is a chance of a mistake. But if your chance of failure is lower than your opponents, the longer the combat goes the more likely you are to succeed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is not entirely true - and it is relative to your opponent as well. I can give many examples from my own and my children's sports careers. However, if your familiar with american football there is one that you hear a lot: "xyz running back get's stronger as the game goes on. What was a 2 yard gain is now a 5 yard gain," etc., etc. Now, does the running back actually get stronger, not really (though that can happen too), but he is fatiguing less than his opponents. He is getting relatively stronger.

I think that could be modeled by the type of mechanics that have been suggested.

I think there's some cross talk going on. I was responding to a post that was talking in a conversation around the "physical ability" in a literal sense. Not relative, not skill, but how the body physically reacts to prolonged exertion. If you want to create a rule based on what you're talking about as justification. Sure. Heck, I did so myself. But when we're talking in the context of physical reactions to exercise, it is a fact that you don't get better the longer you do. We see it in every physical event, from sports to wars. Boxers get tires and slower in later rounds, football players get gassed (especially those who have to work harder, like defenses), armies need reserves, etc. So yes, it is in fact entirely true that the longer you are exerting yourself physically and continuously, the the less powerful you become as time goes on. This is basic human physiology. Muscle fibers tear, you need more oxygen in your blood, etc.

 

[Corwin]

I'll parrot several others who have already pointed to Monte Cook's Iron Heroes. It did this kind of thing in very interesting ways. I don't see why it couldn't be farmed for ideas.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'm really glad I read this thread. I'd never heard of Iron Heroes. I like a low magic setting, so I might be able to mine some great ideas out of it. I'll have to pick it up.

 

[dave2008]

I think there's some cross talk going on. I was responding to a post that was talking in a conversation around the "physical ability" in a literal sense. Not relative, not skill, but how the body physically reacts to prolonged exertion.

Again, that is not entirely true. There is some limit, but there is also some warm up. When I run a 5K, if I want to do my best I have to do about 1 mile of warm ups first. I need to jog, sprint, pace, strides, etc. to get my body in peak running condition. If I don't, my time will must definitely be slower. It was actually even more important when I ran the 1/2 mile, which is more similar to the type of exertion in D&D combat.

It is similar in judo / jujitsu from what I have observed in my sons competitions. They are just not at there peak in the first match or even the first 15-20 secs of a given match. Even after they do warm ups (partially because I don't think they take their warm ups seriously).

The amount of warm up varies from person to person, but I would bet that most highly competitive athletes do some type of warm up to get their bodies fully ready for show time. That could be addressed by these types of mechanics.

The extent of the prolonged exertion is important, as I agree at some point you start to go down hill. Maybe the mechanics should have a Con prerequisite!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That is not entirely true - and it is relative to your opponent as well. I can give many examples from my own and my children's sports careers. However, if your familiar with american football there is one that you hear a lot: "xyz running back get's stronger as the game goes on. What was a 2 yard gain is now a 5 yard gain," etc., etc. Now, does the running back actually get stronger, not really (though that can happen too), but he is fatiguing less than his opponents. He is getting relatively stronger.

I think that could be modeled by the type of mechanics that have been suggested.

Should we just assume that all monsters experience combat fatigue at the same rate, regardless of whether it's a plant monster or a golem? Everyone gets -1 to attacks and defenses every round, except for this one class? I know we have to make a lot of assumptions in order to get the game into a playable state, but I'm not sure if that assumption would count as a reasonable one.

 

[dave2008]

Should we just assume that all monsters experience combat fatigue at the same rate, regardless of whether it's a plant monster or a golem? Everyone gets -1 to attacks and defenses every round, except for this one class? I know we have to make a lot of assumptions in order to get the game into a playable state, but I'm not sure if that assumption would count as a reasonable one.

No, that would miss the point. This fictional class is able to, through some type of training, learn how to exploit the fatigue of others and / or warm up during combat to increase its effectiveness as combat continues (to a point). You don't change everything else, just a new, different class or subclass mechanic.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Should we just assume that all monsters experience combat fatigue at the same rate, regardless of whether it's a plant monster or a golem? Everyone gets -1 to attacks and defenses every round, except for this one class? I know we have to make a lot of assumptions in order to get the game into a playable state, but I'm not sure if that assumption would count as a reasonable one.

Not every monster has exactly the same vulnerable bits, but we abstract it enough for the rogue to have a clean simple Sneak Attack mechanic.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, that would miss the point. This fictional class is able to, through some type of training, learn how to exploit the fatigue of others and / or warm up during combat to increase its effectiveness as combat continues (to a point). You don't change everything else, just a new, different class or subclass mechanic.

But golems and skeletons and whatnot are incapable of fatigue, so it would seem like this new class wouldn't work against them. If you go back to the class working by building its own momentum, rather than exploiting the fatigue of others, then that's a different thing and those arguments are a lot harder to defend.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not every monster has exactly the same vulnerable bits, but we abstract it enough for the rogue to have a clean simple Sneak Attack mechanic.

At some point, probably right around 4E, the rogue's Sneak Attack power changed from "knowing all of the different weak spots" to "being able to figure out the different weak spots" in order to justify the mechanic working on things that they've never seen before.

Although I suppose it's right in line with the thinking that golems and skeletons don't have weak spots, which was the original reason why they were immune to those abilities. Suddenly, the bad guys started building weak spots into their creations, and if players can accept that logic then they'll probably accept the logic that golems and skeletons can slow down over time. I just feel like it's getting to a point where some people won't be willing to suspend their disbelief anymore. I mean, what's next, putting a golem to sleep?