Here, Let Me Fix "Powers Per Day" For You

[Shadeydm]

And how often can the previous edition Fighter that attacks twice every round mark a foe and attack enemies for attacking his allies?

To be quite honest fighter marking seems very lack luster and not very impactful. Having played both a fighter and a swordmage (shielding, coronal guard) the fighter mark doesn't even come close to what a shielding swordmage can do. IMHO

 

[FireLance]

I think I personally would prefer a system where most of the PCs' capabilities are in at-will and encounter resources (to make encounter balance easier, since the PCs will have approximately equal amounts of starting resources in each encounter), and daily resources that act as a sort of safety net to be pulled out in really tough encounters or encounters where the PCs have been very unlucky. Ideally, the daily abilities themselves should have some mechanism that discourages the players from "novaing" and encourages them to to save them for tough fights.

Healing spells, for example, could resore half of a character's lost hit points plus a random amount. Hence, they are most effective when used on a character who has lost most or all of his hit points.

Attack spells could have the option for the spellcaster to extend the casting time and "gather energy" for a greater effect. For example, fireball could deal just 2d6 damage if cast with no extra preparation. However, if the spellcaster gathers energy in the first round of a fight (this can be done in addition to casting an at-will spell), it could deal 3d6 damage if cast in the next round. If he continues to gather energy in the second round of the fight, it deals 4d6 damage in the third round. Attack spells thus get more effective the longer you spend casting them. This also makes successive castings of daily attack spells less effective since the spellcaster would have spent less or no time gathering energy for each spell.

Daily martial abilities (for those who want them) could have an extra boost that depends on how many hit points the user has lost to represent an increase in effectiveness from additional adrenaline.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To be quite honest fighter marking seems very lack luster and not very impactful. Having played both a fighter and a swordmage (shielding, coronal guard) the fighter mark doesn't even come close to what a shielding swordmage can do. IMHO

Having seen both in play - the Shielding Swordmage reduces the overall damage output of the enemy _and_ the party. When the Swordmage mark/defender ability comes into play, it reduces damage. When the Fighter's Mark/Defender ability comes into play, he is likely to increase the party's damage output. Overall, the Fighter in my experience tends to "force" people into attacking him better, and if he is ignored, he instead speeds up combat. I like the specific gameplay of the Fighter and the impact he has on the gameplay of the entire combat more.

 

[Shadeydm]

Having seen both in play - the Shielding Swordmage reduces the overall damage output of the enemy _and_ the party. When the Swordmage mark/defender ability comes into play, it reduces damage. When the Fighter's Mark/Defender ability comes into play, he is likely to increase the party's damage output. Overall, the Fighter in my experience tends to "force" people into attacking him better, and if he is ignored, he instead speeds up combat. I like the specific gameplay of the Fighter and the impact he has on the gameplay of the entire combat more.

Having played both the fighter mark is more often ignored and has much less impact.

The aegis is generally placed on creatures that are on the opposite side of other melee characters. This either forces the cretures to get thier damage reduced to almost nothing while simultaniously granting the swordmage temp hitpoints, or it forces them to provoke opportunity attacks as they move around to try and focus on attacking the swordmage.

The former usually meant the creature was -19 to its damage while granting 19 temp hitpoints. The latter meant that the creature was not damaging the other more squishy party members, focusing on the swordmage instead.

Sadly the fighter just can't compete. Although I haven't played a warden i have heard they are also better defenders potentially leaving our iconic fighter as third best in his "role" unless of course the battlemind is also a superior defender leaving our fighter dead last.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think I personally would prefer a system where most of the PCs' capabilities are in at-will and encounter resources (to make encounter balance easier, since the PCs will have approximately equal amounts of starting resources in each encounter), and daily resources that act as a sort of safety net to be pulled out in really tough encounters or encounters where the PCs have been very unlucky. Ideally, the daily abilities themselves should have some mechanism that discourages the players from "novaing" and encourages them to to save them for tough fights.

Healing spells, for example, could resore half of a character's lost hit points plus a random amount. Hence, they are most effective when used on a character who has lost most or all of his hit points.

Attack spells could have the option for the spellcaster to extend the casting time and "gather energy" for a greater effect. For example, fireball could deal just 2d6 damage if cast with no extra preparation. However, if the spellcaster gathers energy in the first round of a fight (this can be done in addition to casting an at-will spell), it could deal 3d6 damage if cast in the next round. If he continues to gather energy in the second round of the fight, it deals 4d6 damage in the third round. Attack spells thus get more effective the longer you spend casting them. This also makes successive castings of daily attack spells less effective since the spellcaster would have spent less or no time gathering energy for each spell.

Daily martial abilities (for those who want them) could have an extra boost that depends on how many hit points the user has lost to represent an increase in effectiveness from additional adrenaline.

Your post has a lot of merit in my eyes. I have no issue with every class having at least some at will capability.

Regarding avoiding the early/untimely novas while I embrace living worlds and active stories to dictate pacing and have consequences for novas and "15 min days" I do think its human nature to respond better to positive incentives so if we can reward PCs mechanically for pushing on this would be a win-win to me. The trick will be making that mechanical reward still feel like D&D.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, WotC is planning to go back to the old school vibe, so it seems they've decided to go back to balance mechanics with plot devices.

One possible solution would be to have "campaign" balance. The game could define NPC organizations, their goals, and resources. If those organizations improve based on some criteria - time, PC inaction, whatever fits the plot device - then there'd be a cost for refreshing daily powers.

That seems like a flexible tool that would provide what other people already do in order to avoid issues arising from limited character resources.

 

[pemerton]

If you allow your players to nova and then rest every single time then you have taught them that this okay with you and there is no consequence in doing it.

But if you don't always allow it, if you make it difficult for them and they learn that you are more than willing to TPK the party if they choose to play that way then they know if the want to live they need to be more careful with their resources.

It really is not that hard and it does not have to be done in every plot or every session just enough so that the players don't know if it is going to happen.

Not everyone's issues with the 15-minute day results from a lack of player training, or excessive player indulgence.

these problems seem to come from an assumption that all encounters are "balanced" to the party's power level, or lower. And this is not always the case.

When the party encounters a monster, they shouldn't just assume that combat is going to occur. And they certainly should not assume that if it does, it will be matched to their power level. They should always be wondering whether or not they can take that orc in a fight, or if they should try to sneak past it, or bargain with it, or trick it somehow instead.

<snip>

By removing the assumptions that every encounter needs to result in battle, and that every battle will be evenly-matched to the party's level, they tend to be a little more cautious.

I'm not sure encounter diversity necessarily produces caution. That can depend a lot on other features of the campaign and group expectations.

But if it does generate caution - if there's the chance that an encounter might be dangerous - then it seems that the players have an incentive to try to rest, in case of the need for resources.

For example, in one of my last adventures, the fighter caught a 5-year old street urchin trying to pick his pocket. Sure, he could have killed the thief with a flick of his knife, but the local officials would have arrested him for murder. So the player had to role-play that situation out, and I had to do some quick improv to compensate. He chased the kid down the street and into an abandoned building, where he discovered a group of orphans living in squalor. "Where are your parents?" he asked, and discovered that the kids had escaped from a band of slave traders, who had a lair just outside town. Boom, another adventure hook: destroy the slave traders.

This is certainly one way to use random adventure elements.

But I don't think it necessarily encourages players to take more risks. And I think there are other viable approaches to play too, which don't want random events to have such a prominent role.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not everyone's issues with the 15-minute day results from a lack of player training, or excessive player indulgence.

I'm not sure encounter diversity necessarily produces caution. That can depend a lot on other features of the campaign and group expectations.

But if it does generate caution - if there's the chance that an encounter might be dangerous - then it seems that the players have an incentive to try to rest, in case of the need for resources.

This is certainly one way to use random adventure elements.

But I don't think it necessarily encourages players to take more risks. And I think there are other viable approaches to play too, which don't want random events to have such a prominent role.

I understand that but the biggest complaint as always been the wizard going to nova and then making the party rest.


There are times it makes sense and is good tactics to rest and get all your resources back and there should be times when it does not. It really depends on what is going on. If stealth and acting quickly is the way to really succeed then stopping to rest is poor tactics.

One of the reasons I hate daily kind of things 4E introduced was it felt like a video game. To me it took one of the most important parts of the game away which is sometimes not being at full strength for every encounter. Some of the most memorable encounters were ones where we didn't go in full strength and yet because of team work and creative use of what we had we still won.

To be honest I have watched the game change in ways I just don't find enjoyable.

The whole idea that a PC should never lose his items or spend an encounter paralyzed or not always be in the spotlight for every encounter is a a very alien way to play.

 

[CleverNickName]

Your post has a lot of merit in my eyes. I have no issue with every class having at least some at will capability.

Nor do I. However, I tend to think of things like "attack with my sword," "throw a vial of acid," and "fire my crossbow" as at-will capabilities. A character does not need a magical power, class ability, or any other special trick each round to be effective, entertaining, and balanced.

 

[Shadeydm]

Nor do I. However, I tend to think of things like "attack with my sword," "throw a vial of acid," and "fire my crossbow" as at-will capabilities. A character does not need a magical power, class ability, or any other special trick each round to be effective, entertaining, and balanced.

Speaking in general terms I do agree that all of those things are options for any PC and each has its own merit. Yet at the same time I haven't met a 1E player yet who would have considered the game ruined if a wizard could have squeezed off a low powered magical attack every round from a magic item. By that logic if the source of the attack is the wizard not the item it should hardly be a huge deal breaker. Personally I have always liked the 1E playstyle and balance the best of all editions but it would not have been ruined for me if the wizard's crossbow or dart usage was reskinned into a sort of basic magical attack. YMMV etc etc