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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Unfortunately, with the way 5e is designed, teamwork will never be more rewarded than ruthless personal optimization. There isn't enough time within a given encounter (combat or non-combat) for actual teamwork and synergy to matter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

For the purpose of this poll, "going nova" means using all of your best and most effective class features: your most damaging spells and attacks, your most devastating combos, your flashiest and snazziest tricks. "Going Nova" means that you are using all of the best and most iconic things that define your character, and you're spending the most resources you can so that you can crank all the dials as high as they will go. It's the ultimate power-move...the hardest you can hit, the fastest you can go, the most you can do, etc.

i would like to say that to the people asking 'going nova' has already been defined for the purposes of the thread in the OP's post, but if i had to make my own definition of what constitutes 'going nova' i think it would be:
"a limited period of notable output from a character that is unsustainable due to the tier and/or quantity of abilities required to achieve it"

 

[Lanefan]

...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.

I interpret "once in a lifetime" to mean that a character should be able to go out in a blaze of glory, doing something truly spectacular and maybe even game-changing but dying - permanently and perhaps rather messily - in the process.

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?

I've heard worse ideas.

 

[Lanefan]

Unfortunately, with the way 5e is designed, teamwork will never be more rewarded than ruthless personal optimization. There isn't enough time within a given encounter (combat or non-combat) for actual teamwork and synergy to matter.

This is also a result of niche erosion. When one character can do it all it becomes far more beneficial to optimize the hell out of that one character rather than to seek optimization of the party as a whole.

With strong and inviolate niches, the party are somewhat forced to cooperate in order to cover off each other's weak points.

 

[Muso]

I interpret "once in a lifetime" to mean that a character should be able to go out in a blaze of glory, doing something truly spectacular and maybe even game-changing but dying - permanently and perhaps rather messily - in the process.

Yes. My idea is that one.

 

[Scribe]

With strong and inviolate niches, the party are somewhat forced to cooperate in order to cover off each other's weak points.

That would however make it plain that classes have strengths and weaknesses. If you have weaknesses, then your character is flawed at a certain activity, and if THAT is true, well then we need 10 threads to discuss how its both terrible, and needs to be solved.

 

[Lanefan]

That would however make it plain that classes have strengths and weaknesses. If you have weaknesses, then your character is flawed at a certain activity, and if THAT is true, well then we need 10 threads to discuss how its both terrible, and needs to be solved.

I kinda stopped listening to the "Oh noes, my character has weaknesses! What will I do?" lobby a very long time ago, except in situations where the character didn't have corresponding strengths and really did need a second look.

 

[Voadam]

With strong and inviolate niches, the party are somewhat forced to cooperate in order to cover off each other's weak points.

That sort of was out the window from day one in OD&D with clerics stepping on the toes of both fighting men (heavy armor fighting), and magic users (spells). It left fighters with a few more hp and sword and bow use as their limited niche while magic users had a few artillery spells as their big niche.

 

[Blue]

Once per encounter. Trying to force resources to last across multiple encounters breaks any chance of balance in the game.

I'd like to give some counter examples to try to change your mind. Here's two staying in the D&D space.

D&D 4e - everyone has the same amount of resources. One character using all of their dailies in one encounter and others in other ones doesn't break their relative balance.

13th Age - a d20, still reasonable to discuss in the D&D forum. You have a full heal up (equivalent of Long Rest) every 4 encounters regardless if it's a morning dungeon crawling or a two month safari. How can 4 times per 4 encounters be balancable, but 1 time per 4 encounters be absolutely un-balanceable? Answer: it's not.

That's two counter examples right there: one where all character have nigh the exact same power frequencies, and one where the recharge mechanism is outside player manipulation. It's definitely possible to balance across multiple encounters using different paradigms than the current edition of D&D.

 

[ezo]

I voted once per day. Or go with once per adventure or level, whichever happens first.