D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Hussar]

Except there is a rationale built in - a rest, even a short one, gives the fighter enough of a rest to recover them.
The idea that there are resources that refresh with sufficient rest isn’t really the problem. The problem comes from how those are structured. If the battlemaster had 4 maneuvers, each of which he could use once, but only once each, per rest, then you’re looking at the kind of structure people really complain about. But if he’s got a pool of, say, energy that he can tap into 4 times but in any combination he wants, that’s an abstraction people are less likely to mind because we can rationalize being able to push one’s self a limited amount of time before we‘re simply out of gas and have no more to push.
But hey, historically, I know you’re not going to acknowledge the difference between these two arguments...

Wow, that's not being all personal at all.

Doesn't really matter though. Ok, give fighters a pool of maneuvers they can do per short rest. Poof, done. As you say, no push back and no problems.

But, we cannot EVER have any non-magical ability that even comes close to what a 3rd level caster can do. That's the point I keep talking about. Since, as you say, people have no problems with the notion of "running out of gas", then, it shouldn't be a problem to have stronger abilities that cause you to run out of gas faster right?

Of course, I did notice that you ignored the ranger attacking sixteen or seventeen times in a round, every round, but never, EVER being able to attack the same target twice. And that's perfectly believable.

People's "rationales" are far more often pretty self serving than not.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All these different levels of "believability" or acceptance of what can happen and how many times and the reasoning given for why things are or aren't allowed to be done repetitively are all exactly why WotC does not waste any time trying to formulate a cohesive system. It's not worth it and none of you would be able to agree on one system anyways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow, that's not being all personal at all.

Doesn't really matter though. Ok, give fighters a pool of maneuvers they can do per short rest. Poof, done. As you say, no push back and no problems.

But, we cannot EVER have any non-magical ability that even comes close to what a 3rd level caster can do. That's the point I keep talking about. Since, as you say, people have no problems with the notion of "running out of gas", then, it shouldn't be a problem to have stronger abilities that cause you to run out of gas faster right?

Of course, I did notice that you ignored the ranger attacking sixteen or seventeen times in a round, every round, but never, EVER being able to attack the same target twice. And that's perfectly believable.

People's "rationales" are far more often pretty self serving than not.

Perhaps we could make that "gas in the tank" analogy explicit. You have X Grit in the tank. All of your abilities are decent at-will attacks. Spend 1 Grit to boost one to "Encounter." Spend 2 Grit to make it "Daily."

Of course, in order to make this work and actually be fun, you'd have to deal with an issue. Namely, that you should always pick the best "Daily" option and then spam the living hell out of it until you ran out of Grit. Which is pretty clearly Not Desirable, by way of being Very Boring--it's okay if there's a consistent basic option for folks that don't want to make lots of choices, but it sucks for anyone who wants engaging gameplay. Perhaps some sort of "reverse-reliable"? Or building in a "rebound" time where you have to wait 1d6 rounds before you can boost a particular attack again? I dunno. This is me spitballing.

Spoiler: Souper Sekrit

Don't go spoiling the surprise, 4e fans! I'm curious to see how this one plays out.

All these different levels of "believability" or acceptance of what can happen and how many times and the reasoning given for why things are or aren't allowed to be done repetitively are all exactly why WotC does not waste any time trying to formulate a cohesive system. It's not worth it and none of you would be able to agree on one system anyways.

Sounds like a great excuse for refusing to actually solve a problem that's been a problem for over a decade, minus the brief respite during 4e.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Perhaps we could make that "gas in the tank" analogy explicit. You have X Grit in the tank. All of your abilities are decent at-will attacks. Spend 1 Grit to boost one to "Encounter." Spend 2 Grit to make it "Daily."

Of course, in order to make this work and actually be fun, you'd have to deal with an issue. Namely, that you should always pick the best "Daily" option and then spam the living hell out of it until you ran out of Grit. Which is pretty clearly Not Desirable, by way of being Very Boring--it's okay if there's a consistent basic option for folks that don't want to make lots of choices, but it sucks for anyone who wants engaging gameplay. Perhaps some sort of "reverse-reliable"? Or building in a "rebound" time where you have to wait 1d6 rounds before you can boost a particular attack again? I dunno. This is me spitballing.

Spoiler: Souper Sekrit

Don't go spoiling the surprise, 4e fans! I'm curious to see how this one plays out.

Sounds like a great excuse for refusing to actually solve a problem that's been a problem for over a decade, minus the brief respite during 4e.

Frankly, the best option IMO would be to simply build a diverse and competitive set of attacks to choose from, such that a player who wants optimal output is required to think critically about which attack to use. Admittedly, that is easier said than done. This isn't significantly more an issue for martial maneuvers than it is for other abilities (such as spells or ki abilities) though.

If anything, I would add a combo system whereby using a different subsequent attack would net some sort of benefit (maybe an extra damage die or reduced Grit cost). That could be an easy way to make varying your attacks the optimal way to play.

 

[Umbran]

dripping with ego you are.

Mod Note:
Can we not make this personal, please? Thanks.

But hey, historically, I know you’re not going to acknowledge the difference between these two arguments...

And, historically, does this tactic actually work for you? Or does it just make everything around us that little bit more acrimonious? If you can't find it in you to be kind, it is time for you to disengage from the discussion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course, in order to make this work and actually be fun, you'd have to deal with an issue. Namely, that you should always pick the best "Daily" option and then spam the living hell out of it until you ran out of Grit. Which is pretty clearly Not Desirable, by way of being Very Boring--it's okay if there's a consistent basic option for folks that don't want to make lots of choices, but it sucks for anyone who wants engaging gameplay. Perhaps some sort of "reverse-reliable"? Or building in a "rebound" time where you have to wait 1d6 rounds before you can boost a particular attack again? I dunno. This is me spitballing.

There is only an obvious "best choice" if the designers are not doing their job properly.

One thing I really grew to dislike in 4e was "one-use" powers, many of which were situational. Like I have said many times, I played a Whirlwind Barbarian for quite a while, and a lot of their powers were ones that only did anything if there were multiple foes. So against a single foe I simply had no access to a huge chunk of my assumed power budget. And at this point someone always says: "but in 4e the battles should always have multiple foes" or something like this. But that is just weird and limiting. Fighting one tough monster is a fantasy staple, and the game shouldn't break every time that is attempted. A shared pool just is much more flexible design.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Meanwhile, at WotC’s secret undersea laboratories:

“It's resolved then: we'll increase the Wizard's hit die to d8. Next order of business: where are we with this whole 'buff the Fighter' nonsense?
"Encouraging news: the grass roots proponents are at each others' throats. No two of them want the same thing, and the arguments quickly turn acrimonious. Our estimates of the probability of the rabble organizing into a threat is less than 2%."
"Good...good. Our Russian troll farms seem to be earning their keep."
"Actually, no. Our troll farms aren't assigned to this project. They don't need to. The discord seems to arise organically."
"Perfect. So...table this for another year? All in favor?"
"Aye."
"Aye."
"Aye."



Epilogue:

"By the way, what are the troll farms working on?"
"Orcs and Drow. That seems to be working. The majority of the fan base is so disgusted with the old guard...or what they think is the old guard...that the new material is testing at 96% approval."
"Mwuhahahahahahaha"

 

[billd91]

Speaking as a rather vocal 4E fan, I do see the difference between the two arguments.

My follow up question is whether you would accept a similar framework for martial dailies, i.e. up to (say) four units of a resource which allow a fighter to pull off a variety of spectacular effects (stun, paralysis, unconsciousness, etc.), but which can only be recovered after finishing a long rest?

Back when 4e was an ongoing thing, I did, in fact, suggest that as a superior alternative to the rigid structure that was 4e's AEDU. It's in some of the discussions on this very board.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is only an obvious "best choice" if the designers are not doing their job properly.

I will respond more fully to this later on--there is an important bit of data I will share, just not quite yet.

One thing I really grew to dislike in 4e was "one-use" powers, many of which were situational. Like I have said many times, I played a Whirlwind Barbarian for quite a while, and a lot of their powers were ones that only did anything if there were multiple foes. So against a single foe I simply had no access to a huge chunk of my assumed power budget. And at this point someone always says: "but in 4e the battles should always have multiple foes" or something like this. But that is just weird and limiting. Fighting one tough monster is a fantasy staple, and the game shouldn't break every time that is attempted. A shared pool just is much more flexible design.

Okay, but if we then make sure your powers always work no matter what the situation, we'll get exactly the same criticism but inverted. "My choices never matter! I'm supposed to be the area-of-effect attacker, but there's literally no difference between me fighting one guy and me fighting half a dozen. No difficulty, no meaning, it's all crap."

 

[billd91]

Of course, I did notice that you ignored the ranger attacking sixteen or seventeen times in a round, every round, but never, EVER being able to attack the same target twice. And that's perfectly believable.

That would be because I addressed the specific quoted post, not the posts directly talking about the ranger.