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

[GMforPowergamers]

Do they want to know now?

Does your Battlemaster player want to know why he has limited maneuver dice? Does any fighter player want to know why he has limited action surges? Does any barbarian player want to know why his rage grants him damage reduction?

Or, do the players not care at all, or, if they do, then they come up with their own explanations?

it's a game... I know it's a game of make believe, but games have rules.

"Why can I only disarm 1 time per short rest/encounter?" "You try all you want you can only do it with ease and guaranteed success that many times and YOU the player get to call that moment of cool out"

It's the reason called shots are such an issue... I had a DM let someone take a penalty to do a called shot eye to kill someone in 1 shot back in 3e... do you know what then happened EVERY round... it was MAX bonuses, take the penalty and try to shoot for a called shot kill shot.

You know what I (and others) kept suggesting as the DM got more and more mad about it... "Every shot you are trying for a kill shot... as you twiddle down the HP you get closer and closer to landing one and the last one hit dead."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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...

the difference is there... as long as you don't look too close.

Rally: I give an inspirational speech and grant temp hp
Parry: I block attacks
Disarm: I use my knowledge to knock a thing out of your hand with my attack

all of these take from the same pool... a pool that refreshes after an hour of sitting (hey your action surge and second wind are back too)

but 30 mins at a local tavern laughing and eating and resting inbetween the fight with the gang and now the orc attacking the city isn't enough... wait why can't I give that inspirational speech? because I parried 3 attacks and disarmed a gang member?!?!

there are differences but lets not pretend they are not super similar.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Fatigue preventing a disarm or riposte attempt is also kind of hilarious.

Maybe around the time your arm is too fatigued to swing the weapon but ummm at that point you are having problems keeping it up to hit or for the standard self defense (the skill for which is not even included in 5e except as hit points for some reason)

that's the thing, D&D allows me to be hit by 3 arrows, get breathed on by a dragon (taking full damage) and fall 30ft landing on my back... and if I have 7hp left I have no penalties to attack or skills. I am as good then as I am after a month of rest at everything I do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because there isn't one? It's a distinction without a difference.

Why does "you can do one of three things three times before taking a break" make absolute unequivocal sense, when those three things are completely different from one another, while "you can do these three things once each" is totally unacceptable under all circumstances?

They're both equally unrealistic. They're both equally not how physical things work. And yet one gets a pass because it's...what, less specific?

I think the pool is better design (use the warlock as an example) but no, neither makes sense in real world. My ability to inspire others my ability to faint and my ability to parry are not coming from the same pool.

 

[Garthanos]

Another possible option: moves that you can do an unlimited number of times per combat/day/whatever BUT only on your very next attack against a foe after that foe has missed you on its attack, the in-fiction rationale being that in missing the foe left itself open to something.

Nods that is already on the table, by at least one maneuver, it takes a bit of control away from the user ie for instance in this case it makes it a little harder to focus fire compared to some of the other maneuvers but it doesn't seem to justify too much buff on the maneuver you get out of the deal but it may provide some. (it does not for instance make the maneuver not cost a superiority die).
There is also requiring advantage to use a maneuver.
or making finishing moves requiring the target be bloodied (below half hit points).
or making desperation moves requiring the user be bloodied.
The -5/+10 feat effects are kind of like allowing someone to choose to accept swingy instead of requiring advantage (though +10 damage is a rather singular effect it could be opened up further).

 

[Micah Sweet]

dripping with ego you are.

"For me" applies to both statements in the sentence. No need to be rude.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

again and again as a MAJOR 4e stan I have to say... that is a good complaint, and something that should have been fixed moving on.

 

[Garthanos]

that's the thing, D&D allows me to be hit by 3 arrows, get breathed on by a dragon (taking full damage) and fall 30ft landing on my back... and if I have 7hp left I have no penalties to attack or skills. I am as good then as I am after a month of rest at everything I do.

right I didnt say it was great and you would expect a limit on offense when you are limited defensively..
The loss of hp does not cause obvious impairment.
However since the chance the next attack will take you out is basically nil when your high level full hitpoint character is attacked normally you can say that after their hit points go down to within one shot from a potential minor adversary their defenses are definitely at a worse state when they are down a lot of hit points.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Level Up solved this problem for me with exertion. Perfectly acceptable "I have this much gas for tricks" mechanic.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t think I’m seriously proposing this…just brainstorming…but what if every time the character gains/learns a new effect, you assign it to a d20 result. When that’s your unmodified attack roll, you get to use the effect (if applicable). It takes all agency away, but I personally would still find it fun. At high levels you might have a whole table of effects.