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

[JamesonCourage]

Haven't read the thread. Can anyone tell me when it became another 3.5 LFQW thread? I have a mild interest in reading everything before it, and no interest in any part of it.

 

[Quickleaf]

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

If yes, will the D&D audience accept a resource which is unique to that class?

Resources are things like spell-points, spell slots, psi points, mana, energy/rage in videogames, etc. Abilities often generate or consume the resource, and the ability cannot be used if the resource cost cannot be paid.

It's interesting seeing the convention turning back to what a fighter can do, particularly at higher levels to make them useful against the supremacy of magic.

My read is that when people talk about "narrative dissonance" with the 4e martial classes (ranger, rogue, fighter, warlord) or Tome of Battle 3.5e classes, it's not that they're totally opposed to some way to incorporate more powerful/limited use abilities into martial classes...it's that the execution has left them unable to figure out a compelling logical explanation. *Why* can a fighter use Brute Strike to deal 3[W] + STR damage once per day, "shattering armor and bone with a ringing blow"? 4e answers this on PHB page 54, explaining daily powers as "the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you're a martial character, you're reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit..."

So narratively, it is supposed to represent some kind of a fatigue track that is independent of a character's sleep cycle or the solar/lunar cycle. But the mechanics don't map to that...they map to the description of an arcane daily power as "reciting a spell of such complexity that your mind can only hold it in place for so long, and once it's recited, it's wiped from your memory." That makes sense for D&D magic, but not for what they're trying to model for martial characters.

If instead you had something like "Brute Strike (take X levels of fatigue, or spend X healing surges, after using this power"), *that* would map to the way we think of a martial character working.

So when you're asking this question, you've got to ask what it is exactly that you're trying to model? For example, if you said Hollywood Movie Scene Pacing Logic, then a per encounter/scene power makes a lot of sense! If you said a gritty approximation of western martial arts, not so much. It depends on your goals.

 

[Bluenose]

Haven't read the thread. Can anyone tell me when it became another 3.5 LFQW thread? I have a mild interest in reading everything before it, and no interest in any part of it.

It's become the topic by page 8.


I'm personally amazed by the number of people (who presumably have never had a single lesson in any sort of physical endeavour such as sport or martial arts) who think that it's easy to learn martial techniques. The idea that there's nothing that can't be learnt in martial techniques may be true, but the years of practice required to reach the stage where you can attempt to learn it would seem to preclude any but the most dedicated from actually doing so. Ergo, the Fighter should have techniques not available to less dedicated classes, and I include Paladins and Rangers in that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

At level one, the Fighter trips and the Wizard casts Magic Missle. That's cool and balanced.
At level eighteen, the Fighter trips while the Wizard casts Wish. That's not cool and balanced.

And your solution to this supposed problem is what exactly? Adding in a nonmagical resource so that said fighter runs out of trips? Going from no resource tracking to resource tracking makes the character worse.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is only true if you also discount every caster class in the PHB

Not true.

Doubtful, core-only Druid and Clerics are still extremely powerful and much better choices than the Fighter.

Certainly not at those low levels where the fighter class is still good and can't prestige yet. In the right playstyle those spellcasters might be able to catch up when the game hits double-digit levels, but assuming that you had to play the game from level 1 it's hard to say they're ever better choices.

It's just a question of traditional popularity. At level 1 and 2 the fighter is probably the most powerful class and the PHB, and perhaps even up to level 4. The problem is that at level 5 the casters start getting worthwhile spells and the fighter's chart is empty. At some point the fighter's dead levels will drag him down below the crowd; the only debate is where that point is.

I'm not sure why the Druid would be cowering in fear when he's far more effective than the Fighter in melee combat(in addition to having a pet Fighter as a class feature).

Probably because two crappy fighters aren't as good as one good one.

The Wizard assumes you're dealing damage, which as I've said is a very ineffective way of dealing with enemies when you have Save-or-Suck/Save-or-Lose spells like Grease(watch them slip and slid around while you plink them to death with a crossbow), Color Spray, Sleep, and Charm Person handy to simply remove enemies from the fight.

Sure, all those short range spells that have saves to negate can occasionally be effective. However, dealing damage is still generally the best choice on average. Again, I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that Magic Missile is the best first level spell (along with CLW on the divine side) due to its reliable effectiveness.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Answering the OP, I don't believe they can, I believe they should. But we also need classes where there's not a lot of resource management involved, because not everyone enjoys this mini-game.

That said, I don't want the resources of martial classes to have narrative explanations while the resources of non-martial classes have in-game explanations. Things like momentum, ki, rage, focus and stamina work better for my own taste. I hope D&D designers don't shy away from creating classes with this kind of mechanic.

 

[Emerikol]

I think as long as the core fighter and rogue (or in 5e's case a distinct subclass) avoid a resource based approach that other classes could use such an approach without much complaint. People like myself who hate these things don't care so long as they are easily avoided. Changing the fighter though to something unusable makes the game unusable. I've never had a game ever that didn't feature at least one fighter. So it's a popular class.

If the resource could in theory be designed so it's non-dissociative then I'd perhaps allow it in my campaign even if I wouldn't play it in another DM's campaign.

The reason Pathfinder gets less flack than 4e is that Pathfinder has all sorts of different options. It hews to tradition at least somewhat on the core classes. For example the wizard is at least somewhat traditional even if there are many many other types of casters you can choose. As long as we have a rock solid vancian caster, I don't mind having all kinds of other caster types. It's inclusive not exclusive. The issue with 4e was that it chose one single way and it was accept it or leave. So many left.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think as long as the core fighter and rogue (or in 5e's case a distinct subclass) avoid a resource based approach that other classes could use such an approach without much complaint. People like myself who hate these things don't care so long as they are easily avoided. Changing the fighter though to something unusable makes the game unusable. I've never had a game ever that didn't feature at least one fighter. So it's a popular class.

If the resource could in theory be designed so it's non-dissociative then I'd perhaps allow it in my campaign even if I wouldn't play it in another DM's campaign.

The reason Pathfinder gets less flack than 4e is that Pathfinder has all sorts of different options. It hews to tradition at least somewhat on the core classes. For example the wizard is at least somewhat traditional even if there are many many other types of casters you can choose. As long as we have a rock solid vancian caster, I don't mind having all kinds of other caster types. It's inclusive not exclusive. The issue with 4e was that it chose one single way and it was accept it or leave. So many left.

If you truly want a martial combat system where PCs and players are as close to a 1:1 match with respect to experience and decision-making as possible, it all but demands that martial characters have an encounter-based, ablative resource scheme that fuels, and allows them to pace, their martial output (fundamental to aenerobic activity and energy expenditure) + an action resolution system predicated upon a suite of resources which can be activated by (in-fiction...with attendant mechanics) triggers that map to the Observe, Orient, Decide, Activate loop that martial actors make in real time.

Accepting your definition (for these purposes, lets go ahead and do so), anything less than the above is "dissociative" in the extreme...which is what you're advocating for. D&D's historical martial combat interface is so deeply abstract and so fundamentally removed from what truly happens, real time, in the minds and bodies of real martial actors, that on the spectrum of <process simulation ============ utter gibberish>, its definitely on the right side of the mid-point. It facilitates a contraction of table handling time and it minimizes mental overhead, but neither of those goals serve the interest of unifying the legitimate experience and processes of being a martial actor with the table experience of "dude with dice and character sheet." They are, in fact, antagonistic toward that end.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you truly want a martial combat system where PCs and players are as close to a 1:1 match with respect to experience and decision-making as possible, it all but demands that martial characters have an encounter-based, ablative resource scheme that fuels, and allows them to pace, their martial output (fundamental to aenerobic activity and energy expenditure) + an action resolution system predicated upon a suite of resources which can be activated by (in-fiction...with attendant mechanics) triggers that map to the Observe, Orient, Decide, Activate loop that martial actors make in real time.

Not exactly. It suggests that people should all have this resource, and that certain martially trained characters should have more of it or be able to make better use of it.

It's not as if martial artists are the only ones with fast-twitch muscle fibers. They just have more.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Not exactly. It suggests that people should all have this resource, and that certain martially trained characters should have more of it or be able to make better use of it.

It's not as if martial artists are the only ones with fast-twitch muscle fibers. They just have more.

Burst of Stamina: You may spend a hit dice to make one extra melee attack on your turn, however the attack is made with disadvantage. You must take a rest before you can use this action again.

Fighter's Stamina (Fighter ability): when you use the 'Burst of Stamina' action, you do not suffer disadvantage on the attack.

???