D&D 5E Players Only: How Often Should Your Character Be Able to "Go Nova"?

[Lanefan]

Depends on the class. I think the game is more interesting if classes play differently.

Agreed; though as 5e has shown, trying to have different classes work on different recharge rates and keep it the least bit balanced leads to an expected play paradigm (the 6-8 encounter day, for example) that's just too confining for a broad-tent game like D&D.

 

[Umbran]

How about, "When dramatically/thematically appropriate"?

 

[FrogReaver]

How about, "When dramatically/thematically appropriate"?

Hmmm... I like this rule as I've never once took stock of the fiction and thought - nah, novaing now wouldn't be dramatic or thematic.

 

[Charlaquin]

No poll option for my preference, which is for characters of different classes to be able to “nova” (by the definition given here of “use your flashiest, most impactful powers”) on different schedules

 

[Umbran]

Hmmm... I like this rule as I've never once took stock of the fiction and thought - nah, novaing now wouldn't be dramatic or thematic.

Well, maybe your approaches to pacing and narrative tension need some polishing, then.

That aside, though...

I think that "going Nova" is at its core a reference to comic books - specifically, Johnny Storm, the Human Torch of the Fantastic Four. Back in the 80s, he had a power he referred to as a "Nova blast" - he cranked up his flames for one big blast, after which his flames faltered for a while.

In game terms for the original Marvel Super Heroes RPG, he normally could do 100 points of damage with his flame, in a game in which a normal human has about 24 health, and Spider-Man had 160 health.. Nova Blast did 500 points of damage, but his powers fell to Feeble rank for 1-10 rounds afterwards.

From that referent, going Nova is a thing you can do whenever you need to, but you don't do it all the time because it leaves you incredibly vulnerable afterwards. If you have a small conflict, and go Nova, when the BBEG steps around the corner, you are thoroughly screwed.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

If you have a small conflict, and go Nova, when the BBEG steps around the corner, you are thoroughly screwed.

'Bad GM, how could you!'

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I had to vote "once per day" because of the explicitly-given definition of "nova." My problem is, I don't care for that definition. I have a broader definition of what I consider to be "nova." That is, not that it necessarily is always your best tools 100% of the time, but that it is a very strong tool (such as a Daily power in 4e or 13A) which you can drop early in a fight to make a major difference right away. Though I would prefer to call it a "nova," for the purpose of argument I'll let the OP's definition stand and refer to my preference as a "mini-nova."

Understood by those lights, I think only low-level characters (e.g. before 5th level) should be limited to one "mini-nova" each day. Instead, I prefer that it be 2-3 "mini-novas" each day, spread out over 3-5 encounters each day. On a slow day where you're carefully shepherding your resources, you might be able to trounce all the fights you face. On a busy day, especially if you faced difficult opponents early on, you might be tapped for all your "big guns" before the halfway point.

If supplemented by encounter-like resources (personally, I find 5e's "two encounters per short rest" method tedious bookkeeping for little benefit, fully overshadowed by the negatives this approach induces), then this creates a reasonably interesting tension between hoarding and nova-ing at the strategic level, while reserving more context-specific choices for the tactical level. This can then be supplemented with robust rules at the strategic level for taking away (or allowing the expenditure of) daily or long-term resources for other benefits, completely outside tactical-level concerns.

With such a setup, there are interesting and worthwhile choices at all levels of play, and even though the two ends remain mostly distinct, each can influence the other in important ways. Screw up or fail to exploit your tactical resources, and you suffer a drain on strategic resources that can compound with time. Conversely, being profligate or miserly with your strategic resources, and you'll find the tactical layer becomes dramatically harder without any effort from the DM. This creates a ripe environment for actually learning to play better, which is one of the most important aspects of anything claiming to be a "game" and not just a puzzle.

 

[Muso]

Never or once in a lifetime.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No poll option for my preference, which is for characters of different classes to be able to “nova” (by the definition given here of “use your flashiest, most impactful powers”) on different schedules

This can only work if the folks who can nova the hardest are never allowed to set the group's pace.

D&D has manifestly, abjectly failed to prevent this in every edition that meets your description.

Never or once in a lifetime.

...an...interesting choice. So characters should be limited to rather ordinary, not-particularly-powerful abilities literally all of the time, or all but once in an entire character's career? That seems pretty limiting.

Just to be clear, you do realize that this means spellcasters would be limited to cantrips and Fighters wouldn't get Action Surge anymore, right?

 

[Muso]

...an...interesting choice. So characters should be limited to rather ordinary, not-particularly-powerful abilities literally all of the time, or all but once in an entire character's career? That seems pretty limiting.

Just to be clear, you do realize that this means spellcasters would be limited to cantrips and Fighters wouldn't get Action Surge anymore, right?

Maybe it could be better to define what "go nova" means. Is casting a fireball going nova? Or is an Action Surge going nova? But yes, I would prefer characters limited to not-particulary-powerful abilities so that the team work and the problem solving skills should be used to deal with adventuring problems.