# Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 26, 2008)

Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.

I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day. I can see perhaps allowing for telling a player that a certain opening needed by his fighter would likely only happen once per encounter...and that is a bit of a stretch IMO depending upon the length of the encounter. But once per day is insane. So non-magical abilities have a recharge time. At least with magic I am able to create a reason why that makes sense within the mytaphysics of the setting or game system.

But once per day no matter how many encounters take place? My players (D&D players for 20+yrs each) thought that the very idea was ridiculous and destructive to the suspension of disbelief. None of us are hard core simulationists, but for god's sake we like to immerse ourselves in the setting and the events of the campaign so a bit of versimilitude is helpful.

As a DM, this is way, way too gamist for me. I'm sorry, but the idea of daily non-magical exploits or whatnot is bordering on CRPG territory or boardgame territory where there isn't even an attempt at maintaining the illusion of the "reality" of events in the game. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

*points to your sig*


----------



## Brute (Jun 26, 2008)

</thread>


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> *points to your sig*




Beautiful. I haven't laughed so hard in days. Thanks


----------



## shilsen (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> *points to your sig*



 You win the thread


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 26, 2008)

Epic.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 26, 2008)

Lol


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> Beautiful. I haven't laughed so hard in days. Thanks



What he said.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jun 26, 2008)

I laughed, almost felt bad about laughing, and then laughed harder.


----------



## Christian (Jun 26, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I can see perhaps allowing for telling a player that a certain opening needed by his fighter would likely only happen once per encounter...and that is a bit of a stretch IMO depending upon the length of the encounter. But once per day is insane.




OK, I'll refrain from sig-pointing to ask ... why? Why is it less ridiculous to say a particular unusual situation is likely to arise only about once every five minutes of combat than to say another unusual situation is likely to arise only about once every thirty minutes? That's all the once/encounter and once/day rules are 'simulating', after all. OK, a given adventuring day may actually have fewer than four-six encounters, of course. But a day with only one or two encounters is a day in which the fighter/ranger/rogue/warlord is more likely to accidentally 'save' his daily past the end of the last encounter, since the players don't know when the next one will be. The daily limitation on the dailies is effectively, on average, a 'roughly once per twenty-thirty minutes of combat' limitation; and I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.


----------



## webrunner (Jun 26, 2008)

My take:

"Daily" abilities are not daily because they are abilities that you can use once per day.

They are daily because they are the sort of abilities a hero uses once per episode.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 27, 2008)

I agree with the OP limiting per day does not feel right for non magical abilities. If they are taxing to perform, they ought to cost HP or healing surges to use.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> I agree with the OP limiting per day does not feel right for non magical abilities. If they are taxing to perform, they ought to cost HP or healing surges to use.



So in other words only wizards, clerics, warlocks, and paladins can do cool stuff without committing seppuku?


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 27, 2008)

webrunner said:


> They are daily because they are the sort of abilities a hero uses once per episode.



I like the way you think!

That's precisely my rationale---for a lot of 4e, in fact.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 27, 2008)

Zurai said:


> So in other words only wizards, clerics, warlocks, and paladins can do cool stuff without committing seppuku?



If you think that spending HP and healing surges must equal spending ALL HP and healing surges, you are free to do so, but do not try to infer that was the equivalent of my words.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> If you think that spending HP and healing surges must equal spending ALL HP and healing surges, you are free to do so, but do not try to infer that was the equivalent of my words.




Well, let's put it this way:

The absolute maximum number of healing surges available to a martial character is 23 (30 con dwarf fighter with durable and dwarven durability). Said character would have 219 hp and a surge value of 64. The absolute maximum number of daily powers available to such a character is 11. If non-magical "daily" powers cost 1 healing surge each, and the fighter limited himself to 1 use of each power per day voluntarily, said fighter would pay the equivalent of 704 hit points to use all of his available daily powers.

A more typical character would be a rogue or ranger with maybe 14 con at the high end, with 8-9 surges, and would never be able to use all of their "daily" powers - and if they did, they'd be at risk of imminent death in any combat anywhere near their level.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jun 27, 2008)

After carefully reviewing both the OP and the attached sig I really don't see that they're incompatable. Maintaining SoD is not equal to requiring abstract rules to be the physics of the world.  It does help for these abstract rules to actually be abstracting something though.

There are many old school sandbox style D&D players out there and these non-magical dailly powers are going to be a hurdle for thousands of them.

Thousands.

Not everyone wants the same thing out of D&D.

Sam


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 27, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> If you think that spending HP and healing surges must equal spending ALL HP and healing surges, you are free to do so, but do not try to infer that was the equivalent of my words.



I believe the point was that the wizard isn't spending a healing surge to do something once per day. Why should the fighter?


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> I believe the point was that the wizard isn't spending a healing surge to do something once per day. Why should the fighter?




Correct. And you can't set the price as LESS than a healing surge, either, because fighters could abuse it with their multiple attack-for-big-damage-AND-heal-with-a-surge powers.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jun 27, 2008)

jmucchiello said:


> I believe the point was that the wizard isn't spending a healing surge to do something once per day. Why should the fighter?



Spending a healing surge to use daily powers is a bad solution.

I'd prefer to eliminate both daily and encounter powers for martial characters, increase the damage done by the standard attacks from fighter types & add in a robust subsystem for stunting.

Sam


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 27, 2008)

Zurai said:


> The absolute maximum number of daily powers available to such a character is 11.



How was that maximum arrived at? Character level charts only gives a 30th level character 4 daily powers.

Also, charging HP and surges is not something that will work if just tacked on. It has to be built into the system from the ground up, otherwise some people will be suicidally spamming super attacks.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> How was that maximum arrived at? Character level charts only gives a 30th level character 4 daily powers.



4 daily attack powers and 7 daily utility powers.







> Also, charging HP and surges is not something that will work if just tacked on. It has to be built into the system from the ground up, otherwise some people will be suicidally spamming super attacks.



It wouldn't work at all within the 4E framework. You'd have to do a significant re-design of the entire power system to get it to work. It's not worthwhile and, furthermore, it creates a lot of complexity in the game system while removing flexibility and playability. Generally, that's considered a bad thing.


----------



## Umadin (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm just going to say I agree, it's lame.  My question is how do I convince players that it isn't silly.

"You muster a torrent of power and you (do whatever)."

"Why the F*** can't I do that more then once?" 

"Your character realizes that his (do whatever) muscles ache and require rest for tomarrow."  

"...."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Umadin said:


> I'm just going to say I agree, it's lame.  My question is how do I convince players that it isn't silly.
> 
> "You muster a torrent of power and you (do whatever)."
> 
> ...



Ask them if they've ever watched an action movie. Then ask them why Rambo didn't just punch the head off of every single guy he killed.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 27, 2008)

I have to admit that this is the closest thing to a dealbreaker for me in the game as written than anything else. I can suspend my disbelief quite a ways - much more so than most people can, I think. Yet this idea of 1/day powers just isn't something I can rationalize very far. I can accept that some abilities and powers and such are not things you can spam all day long, but at the same time I can't see them being so restricted in this particular manner. Spells and prayers I can rationize under the system to a greater degree - spells and magical powers are often limited in weird ways just by the very nature of magic. Things like 'I hit him really, _really _hard' are not. 

I would be much more accepting if, say, one had an allotment of more action points and had to spend an action point to use a '1/day'-level power. Yeah, you could then come back and say 'Well, why can I do Crushing Buttstrike' only _four _times a day (read: however many action points one would get under such a system and how often one would get more)?' The fact that you're doing a much more visible "expenditure of a finite amount of fortitude/willpower/opportunity I've created" would make it more palatable to me.


----------



## Andor (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Ask them if they've ever watched an action movie. Then ask them why Rambo didn't just punch the head off of every single guy he killed.




And then explain to me why my character can't be the star of the entire series like in the Harry Potter books or LotR.

A game is not a movie is not a book. They have different requirements and using one to justify another is like giving me a picture of a glass of water and expecting it to cure my thirst.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

Andor said:


> And then explain to me why my character can't be the star of the entire series like in the Harry Potter books or LotR.




... they're not?



> A game is not a movie is not a book. They have different requirements and using one to justify another is like giving me a picture of a glass of water and expecting it to cure my thirst.




In MY day, generic food metaphors used peanut butter and ice cream, and we LIKED it.


----------



## charlesatan (Jun 27, 2008)

Andor said:


> And then explain to me why my character can't be the star of the entire series like in the Harry Potter books or LotR.
> 
> A game is not a movie is not a book. They have different requirements and using one to justify another is like giving me a picture of a glass of water and expecting it to cure my thirst.




The quote is valid if you're running a "cinematic" game. Why does Voltron not use his Blazing Sword at the start of the battle? (Or -insert favorite super robot/sentai/anime/action movie special move here-).

You're absolutely right, a game is not a movie or a book but there are elements you can take from those other mediums. And for the same reason, that's why some abilities work only 1/day--because it's a game and not a faithful simulation of real life or -insert favorite medium here-.

If you're looking for a meta-game explanation, those 1/day constraints are there for game balance.

As for in-game rationalization, it all depends on what you're willing to believe and your imagination. It might be that the move requires various specific conditions that are difficult to replicate in the same day (a combination of the opponent leaving himself/herself vulnerable, concentration/frame of mind, physical stamina, etc.). It could be an abstract form of fatigue (physical or mental) that is draining on the user and not drawn from one's hp or healing surge pool. Perhaps it's a psychological limitation--a technique you don't use as often lest others discover its weakness or find the perfect counter to it. Similarly, it can be a last-resort technique that your character can theoretically execute every single time but he/she wants to save it until he/she really needs it. Or it can be wushu cinematic and the technique is actually fatal if you perform it more than once a day. Or the technique might not be draining on the user but on the weapon (i.e. causing the weapon to shatter and break).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 27, 2008)

If you can't help otherwise, think this way:

- It is impossible for any human, regardless how trained, to kill a mighty beast like a dragon with nothing but a sword and a chain mail.

- Therefore, this guy must use some kind of magic that allows him to cheat reality.

- As a consequence, the Martial power source is a form of magic. Sword Magic, if you want. It is not arcane or divine, but it's certainly supernatural. 

In the end, it _is_ called a power source - very often in fantasy literature, power refers to magical or supernatural abilities, so Martial could also. 

You can call this the Earthdawnization of D&D, if you like.


----------



## Atropos (Jun 27, 2008)

Another view on this, is that the "daily power" is not so much an ability that the character consciously uses, but more of a special circumstance that simply allow the character to apply his natural skill. In narrativist RPG theory, these mechanics could be seen as "shared narrative authority", a controlled way of allowing the players to narrate events that normally fall under the GMs narrative domain.

In other words, the mechanics allow the players a little bit of the freedom to describe the outcome of attacks that normally only GMs enjoy, and the rules describing the powers, their damage and how often they can be used are metagame restrictions to prevent the players from simply declaring: "I win!". Thus, a "Dire Wolverine Strike" is not a special move that a Ranger has trained and perfected, in Kung-fu movie style, but an in-combat event that just occasionally happens when that character is fighting.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 27, 2008)

I view Dailies (and encounter powers) as a mathematical abstraction.

For the daily to work a number of circumstances have to come together, luck, skill and training all play a part; but on average you will only be able to pull of your "Death by Smashy Blows" once a day. 

Now, in a realistic RPG, you could construct mechanics that show the variation. Some days you'll get two or even three and once in a great while five "Smashy Blows" in the one *encounter*. However, in this realistic 4e game (in an alt dimension), there are days when you get no "Smashy Blows". But on average it works out as once per day.

So 4e went with the abstraction that these are daily powers. It makes them easier to track, kudos, my game is easier to run. But how to I explain them? 

Well the character, in-game, is always trying to end things quick and will be trying to set-up "Smashy Blows" every encounter if they are appropriate. 

So now your player has some Narrative Control to say when these circumstances come together, if you try and see this with your 3e eyes (or gurps oe other less abstracted RPGs) it will look wonky. 

So you need to grow a pair of 4e eyes, they are more abstracted than your 3e set. 


^^^^ My take on it, may not be offical WotC policy


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.
> 
> I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because there is NO rationale whatsoever ...




Quick question - how did you feel about barbarian rage in 3e? That was a 1/day non-magical power after all.

Or the rogue "defensive roll" special ability? That was a 1/day non-magical power.

This is a serious question BTW, I'm not poking fun at you.



Originally I felt that "daily" martial powers were rocking my sense of reasonableness, but the suggestion that someone made which helped me with rationalising it is that the daily power doesn't reflect something that the PC has trained to do; rather it represents the Players ability to gain enough narrative control over the situation to say "*now* is the perfect time to land a brute strike". If the PC could, he would spam off his best attacks all the time. As it is, he can only use them when the circumstances come together perfectly for it - and the player gets to choose when those circumstances exist. When that 'once per day' chance actually comes up.

This might not work for you, but I find it a more compelling argument than I ever hand for the barbarian and rogue abilities mentioned above - and even those I just learned to accept in the end.

Cheers


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

*sigh*

Guess I'll post in this thread again...



Plane Sailing said:


> Quick question - how did you feel about barbarian rage in 3e? That was a 1/day non-magical power after all.




Could we please quit touting this as a valid response to the argument? Because it's not.

As you gain levels, you can use the rage more often. This implies that the ability is not static; you improve in your ability to use it. It increases in power, duration, and the side-effects decrease.

The real problem is that a good number of martial dailies are nonsensical in the sense that they never improve. You can never get better at using it; it is a static ability.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jun 27, 2008)

Yeah what Plane Sailing said is dead on how I view it as well... I think actually a large majority of people atleast on ENWorld, who like the Power-System also use that view.


----------



## Ydars (Jun 27, 2008)

I prefer to think of martial daily powers as something like a meditative state that the fighter has to enter into in order to execute the power and that this state is powered by a burst of energy from the unconscious mind. This primal state allows conscious control of heart-rate, muscle and tendon tone/metabolism and a complete connection between the conscious and 
unconscious mind. It also involves huge bursts of adrenalin into the system. 

Tapping into this "primal action" more than once in 24 hours could be very harmful, possibly fatal to the person using it, and might cause permanent brain damage and/or muscle damage, because of the superhuman forces involved.

To reflect this, I am thinking of instituting a house rule in my game that allows a player to use any daily more than once per day but with a 50% chance of a permanent loss of 1 point in an ability score everytime this is attempted.

In this view, sleep is essential to re-charge this unconscious power and so it can only be safely used after SLEEPING = long rest= daily power.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Could we please quit touting this as a valid response to the argument? Because it's not.
> 
> As you gain levels, you can use the rage more often.




But you can never increase in the number of daily uses of Defensive Roll, so the point is still plenty valid.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> The real problem is that a good number of martial dailies are nonsensical in the sense that they never improve. You can never get better at using it; it is a static ability.




You most definitely get better at using martial dailies. Notice the use of an attack roll to see if you connect.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Guess I'll post in this thread again...
> 
> ...




But as you gain levels, you will be retraining your Daily powers and selecting more powerful ones - therefore you are improving this ability. What starts out as a 1/day triple damage attack eventually becomes a 1/day seven-times-damage attack - a massive improvement.

Sadly, this is just one of those abstractions that either you like, or not. My group didn't have the slightest problem with it - YMMV.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

The uses/day increasing was the important part.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> But you can never increase in the number of daily uses of Defensive Roll, so the point is still plenty valid.




Defensive roll is also a higher-level ability, and has conditionals. The conditionals make a good argument for being able to use it only once a day.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> The uses/day increasing was the important part.
> 
> 
> 
> Defensive roll is also a higher-level ability, and has conditionals. The conditionals make a good argument for being able to use it only once a day.




So it comes down to where you draw the line?

If the given "explanations" don't work, they just won't work. I might also not understand why a spellcaster never learns to _not_ forget his spell after he cast it. I mean, he has cast it dozens if not hundreds of time, and he still can't retain Magic Missile in his memory more then once? 

Well, I guess, it's okay because it is magic. So, just define "Martial is a kind of magic", and you're done (either with 4E, because you _must_ have an entirely non-magical class, or with the problem, because this explanations works for you  )


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> The uses/day increasing was the important part..




The fact that it was finite is what matters. If you are okay with the 3e Barbarian rage and can justify it in-game, then there should be no problems with martial character having dailies (or encounter powers). 

How did you explain it?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So it comes down to where you draw the line?




I think that conditionals are reasonable. A lot of the explanations for the dailies is "the condition for this shows up only about once a day...", so, by extension, if a mechanic has that sort of condition _built into it_, it should be alright.



> Well, I guess, it's okay because it is magic. So, just define "Martial is a kind of magic", and you're done (either with 4E, because you _must_ have an entirely non-magical class, or with the problem, because this explanations works for you  )




Eh, I've gotten off the D&D train. 4e makes no sense to me, and contemplating 4e has made me consider 3.5 more deeply, and I've concluded that neither one is right for me.

As for what I'm still doing here... just stirring up trouble, I guess. 



			
				vagabundo said:
			
		

> How did you explain it?




I didn't. I accepted it. 4e made me realize both methods were lousy.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> I think that conditionals are reasonable. A lot of the explanations for the dailies is "the condition for this shows up only about once a day...", so, by extension, if a mechanic has that sort of condition _built into it_, it should be alright.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, fair enough. That makes sense. 

My problem with the "conditional" approach is that it is typically very... tedious.
The Tactical Feats from 3E where interesting, conceptually. You got a special effect if you fulfilled several conditions. But tracking these conditions or achieving them rarely felt worth the effort. It was easier and more enjoyable to take a simpler feat like Weapon Specialization or Mobility.

There are situations where "conditional" powers or abilities I find interesting and less tedious - like using your abilities to move the enemy into a worse tactical position (at the edge of a cliff, back to the wall, surrounded). 

They feel somehow better then a feat that allows me to "hit him with the spear first, then bullrush with the shield, then do both on your third round as an effect.

In a perfect "powerless" game, the feat would not be required, it's something everyone can try, like Trip or Disarm in 3E - but imagine how complicated the combat system would be if all these synergestic effects where included! 
This might be an example of balancing "simulation" vs. "playability". Ultimately, D&D is still a game, and playability is therefore a very important goal.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> My problem with the "conditional" approach is that it is typically very... tedious.
> The Tactical Feats from 3E where interesting, conceptually. You got a special effect if you fulfilled several conditions. But tracking these conditions or achieving them rarely felt worth the effort. It was easier and more enjoyable to take a simpler feat like Weapon Specialization or Mobility.




My homebrew gamesystem is going along those lines, like the Tactical feats in 3.5. I've gotten rid of full attacks and such concepts; it's one attack at a time. So hopefully the more powerful sorts of martial abilities won't wind up too droll.



> There are situations where "conditional" powers or abilities I find interesting and less tedious - like using your abilities to move the enemy into a worse tactical position (at the edge of a cliff, back to the wall, surrounded).




Fair enough. 



> They feel somehow better then a feat that allows me to "hit him with the spear first, then bullrush with the shield, then do both on your third round as an effect.




Well, you have to admit... that's not very inspired.



> In a perfect "powerless" game, the feat would not be required, it's something everyone can try, like Trip or Disarm in 3E - but imagine how complicated the combat system would be if all these synergestic effects where included!




And this is why I have someone checking over my shoulder, who warns me when he thinks I'm making things too complex.



> This might be an example of balancing "simulation" vs. "playability". Ultimately, D&D is still a game, and playability is therefore a very important goal.




You've drawn a line in the sand in one place, and I in another.

I like lots of fiddly bits.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Guess I'll post in this thread again...
> 
> ...




I think it is a valid example. Some paragon paths allows you to re-use a daily, so implying that you improve in your ability to use it.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 27, 2008)

After reading this post here ( and a lot of related posts here and in other forums),

I have to ask. Did 3E hurt our imagination that much, when the use of a daily power is a 'dealbreaker' for some?

What happened to us?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> As for what I'm still doing here... just stirring up trouble, I guess.




Well, I hope that isn't the case, 'cos we don't like that.

The issues I post about barbarian rage and defensive roll are germane to the original posters question, and hadn't been brought up yet in this thread.

Your dismissal of the barbarian rage issue isn't thought through IMO. The 2nd level barbarian gets to use it 1/day. Why?

The 10th level barbarian gets to use it 3/day. Why? Why can't he use it a 4th time?

It is a completely arbitrary ability. The class tells him how many times he can use it a day, and thats all he can do.

Daily powers are the same.

But if you're not interested in discussion, and just want to stir up trouble, I suggest you don't answer this. After all, it is the original poster that I'm interested in having the discussion with at this point.

Cheers


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Well, I hope that isn't the case, 'cos we don't like that.




Oh, I was just trying to make a funny. I've apparently been up too long for that, though.



> The issues I post about barbarian rage and defensive roll are germane to the original posters question, and hadn't been brought up yet in this thread.




Yes, and I felt that they were inaccurate comparisons.



> Your dismissal of the barbarian rage issue isn't thought through IMO. The 2nd level barbarian gets to use it 1/day. Why?




Because he's a low-level barbarian?



> The 10th level barbarian gets to use it 3/day. Why? Why can't he use it a 4th time?




It's not the specific quantity that matters. It's the idea behind it.

Yes, the 10th-level barbarian can only use it 3 times per day. But that is superior to the number of times a lower-level barbarian can use it.

It makes more sense to me than only ever being able to use it once a day.



> It is a completely arbitrary ability. The class tells him how many times he can use it a day, and thats all he can do.




Yes, it's arbitrary, I'll grant you that. But it still improves with experience. That, to me, says that it's not the same kind of thing.



> But if you're not interested in discussion, and just want to stir up trouble, I suggest you don't answer this. After all, it is the original poster that I'm interested in having the discussion with at this point.




You shouldn't take the tubes so serious-like. 

I feel I'm making a valid point. I'm not exactly able to describe in precise terminology why I feel that there is a distinction between barbarian rage and dailies in 4e, but I think there is. It feels different.

It's not different enough that barbarian rage doesn't cause issues for me, as well, but it seems more sensical to me. It irks me less than 4e dailies do, but still irks me.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

Barbarian rage isn't really per-day. It's more analogous to per-encounter, especially at higher levels where you get more uses per day than you really need.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

hong said:


> Barbarian rage isn't really per-day. It's more analogous to per-encounter, especially at higher levels where you get more uses per day than you really need.




Well, but at lower levels, it's still a daily sort of thing, because you can only use it once a day.

I can see where PS (and others) are coming from, I just think it feels different because of the progression.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

4E has a progression, too. At 1st level, you have 1 daily ability. At 5th, 2; at 9th, 3; at 20th, 4. Not counting Utility dailies, which could add anywhere from 0 to 7 more.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

Zurai said:


> 4E has a progression, too. At 1st level, you have 1 daily ability. At 5th, 2; at 9th, 3; at 20th, 4. Not counting Utility dailies, which could add anywhere from 0 to 7 more.




If you see it as sensical, cool. Do what works for you.

I don't. I see 3.5's few instances of "daily" abilities as slightly more sensical, but in trying to figure out why 4e bothered me, I found that the few 3.5 abilities that were vaguely correspondent also bothered me a bit - not as much, but they did.

It really does come down to how you interpret them. I can rationalize a few of the 4e martial dailies as being sensical, but there are still a good number (Split the Tree, for instance) that just don't make any sense to me.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> there are still a good number (Split the Tree, for instance) that just don't make any sense to me.




You can do Split the Tree at-will: it's called Twin Strike. Split the Tree just does more damage with a more limited target selection; call it "and Lady Luck smiled as both arrows buried themselves deep in the enemies' flesh".


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 27, 2008)

webrunner said:


> My take:
> 
> "Daily" abilities are not daily because they are abilities that you can use once per day.
> 
> They are daily because they are the sort of abilities a hero uses once per episode.




I'm not certain that we even need to justify the 'once per day' aspect in this manner. D&D is a game. The idea of 'once per day' powers makes _perfect_ sense of a game.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

Ok, forgetting my old sig..which though a brief source of amusement... in no way detracted from my overall point which is that too much abstration and gamism can turn a RPing game into a board game by sucking the believability and immersion out of the gaming experience. For those who thought they scored a victory of some kind because of my previous sig, my sig has been changed so find your humor at my expense elsewhere. 

Onto the barbarian's rage example. In this case I will quote myself from another response on another board:

A Barbarian's rage depends on accessing deep inner reserves of psychic ie. mental/emotional power that would drain him/her greatly after its use. The rage ability of the barbarian is based on the historical berserker and not just an issue of getting angry. Historically speaking, berserkers were a terrible sight of frothing madness...this is what the barbarian is based on. Thus rage is sensibly limited to a certain number of times per day to reflect the difficulty of tapping one's deep reserves.

Ok, onto daily exploits:

Here's a smattering of daily powers.

*Brute Strike Fighter Attack 1 *
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow.

*Comeback Strike Fighter Attack 1 *
A timely strike against a hated foe invigorates you, giving you the 
strength and resolve to fight on.

*Crack the Shell Fighter Attack 5 *
You break through your enemy’s armor and deal a painful bleeding 
wound.

*Dizzying Blow Fighter Attack 5 *
You crack your foe upside the head.

*Thicket of Blades Fighter Attack 9 *
You sting and hinder nearby foes with a savage flurry of strikes 
aimed at their legs.

*Dragon’s Fangs Fighter Attack 15 *
You strike twice in rapid succession.

There are more from other classes of course but these will serve as an example.

Such exploits are nothing like a barbarian's rage ability because they aren't based on the character's inner fury/chi/etc. but instead are based on circumstances of the battle such as an opening appearing in an enemies defenses or an enemy making a fatal mistake allowing the fighter to take advantage of the situation. None of these exploits are explainable, in regards to versimilitude, in the same manner as a barbarian's rage.

_At level 5 mysteriously ONE opening will appear in your enemies defenses that will allow you to bash them upside the head. Unfortunately such an opening will appear only once every 24hrs thus say the gods of battle._

or

_You draw upon great inner reserves of power to cause an enemies defenses to fall so you can wack him upside the head. So draining is the effort involved in wacking someone upside the head that you are physically and emotionally drained for 24hrs._

IMO either is exceptionally silly if one is using the rationale of "inner reserves" or of rare circumstances. Even if there are 10 battles that day in which you fight 30 enemies, you will only get one opening to hit them in the head ie. dizzying strike. 

Can anyone actually tell me that these abilites are anything like a barbarian's rage when one looks at the fundamental assumptions regarding the circumstances involved in using such abilities?



Wyrmshadows


----------



## charlesatan (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> A Barbarian's rage depends on accessing deep inner reserves of psychic ie. mental/emotional power that would drain him/her greatly after its use.




I checked d20srd.org and that particular "fluff" isn't in the mechanics. That's a fluff attached by us as readers/players. There's nothing stopping us from attaching that same mentality to the powers in D&D 4E. In my opinion, it's more of a matter of shifting one's paradigm rather than a lack of "rationalization".

Brute Strike for example can be accessing deep inner reserves from one's psyche. Why else would it deal so much damage compared to your other blows? From a narrative point of view, this doesn't even have to be conscious decisions on the character's (but not the player's) part. Maybe it's a sudden surge of adrenaline caused by an external stimuli (seeing an ally get wounded in battle) or simply a fluke of battle (the opponent revealed an opening).


----------



## Mallus (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Onto the barbarian's rage example. In this case I will quote myself from another response on another board:
> 
> A Barbarian's rage depends on accessing deep inner reserves of psychic ie. mental/emotional power that would drain him/her greatly after its use. The rage ability of the barbarian is based on the historical berserker and not just an issue of getting angry. Historically speaking, berserkers were a terrible sight of frothing madness...this is what the barbarian is based on. Thus rage is sensibly limited to a certain number of times per day to reflect the difficulty of tapping one's deep reserves.



Wyrm, you just did a wonderful job justifying Rage. Nice work. What stops you from doing the same with 4e'ss martial dailies? You've just shown us that you are perfectly capable of adding your own fluff to the given mechanics in order to make them more palatable. You are willing to do the work required to suspend disbelief.

From a game perspective, rage, martial dailies and previous edition spell slots all amount to the same thing; finite daily character resources that are used/managed during play. And they all finite for the same reason; game balance. There were always places in the game where the _game_ priorities asserted themselves. This isn't anything new to D&D.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Yes, it's arbitrary, I'll grant you that. But it still improves with experience. That, to me, says that it's not the same kind of thing.



To be clear, is it being able to use an ability more over the course of an adventuring career what creates the appearance of truth in your game? If so, you can feel free to gain Brute Strike again at level 5, at which point you will be able to use it twice per day. The wording in the PHB is that at level 5 you "learn" a daily power of your level or lower. In this case, you'd be learning how to do it more than once _because _ you've become higher level fighter. This satisfies your reasoning of the barbarian being able to use rage progressively more times per day.

If improving over the course of levels means that the ability becomes better, this is shown in a couple of ways. For one, you add half of your level to the attack roll in order to hit with a power. So, the power has the greater chance of connecting and has therefore improved, as hong pointed out earlier. Also, by level 5 you'll have increased your strength by 2. This adds 1 more damage and 1 more attack. So at this point, the attack has improved by doing more damage and being easier to hit with, as well as being able to use it more than once. 

An alternative to gaining brute strike twice is making the new daily power you choose the evolution of the ability. Dizzying Blow does 3[W] damage and is reliable just as brute strike but immobilizes on top of that. So, you can do your awesome exploit twice per day and one of them happens to hit them so hard that your enemy can't even move afterwards.

The tools are certainly there to make the game appear true to you, or in otherwords, the line you drew in the sand doesn't actually exclude you.



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> Can anyone actually tell me that these abilites are anything like a barbarian's rage when one looks at the fundamental assumptions regarding the circumstances involved in using such abilities?



Yep:


			
				Fourth Edition PHB said:
			
		

> Daily powers are 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.



Not only can your rationale be applied to martial powers just as easily as rage, but the writers of fourth edition already did. The openings/luck thing is actually a creature born here, the idea of inner resources is core 4E. So yes, the abilities you listed are just like the barbarian rage you envision.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Andor said:


> And then explain to me why my character can't be the star of the entire series like in the Harry Potter books or LotR.



Your DM hates you?

My player characters are definitely the stars of the campaign.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> _At level 5 mysteriously ONE opening will appear in your enemies defenses that will allow you to bash them upside the head. Unfortunately such an opening will appear only once every 24hrs thus say the gods of battle._
> 
> or
> 
> ...




Your looking at it all wrong.

Would it feel better to you if you could only access martial dailies on a roll of a natural 20, rolled once per encounter? Or a natural 100 rolled once per turn?

This takes into account how hard it is to pull of the daily attack powers and the randomness of battle. Then lets say that this works out to be once per day (avg number of encounters, blah fudge blah). Some days the fighter will be able to do two or three of his big "Daily" attacks and someday will get none. BUT on average he will get one of these big attacks per day. 

I know some people would prefer this method, but players would lose some of their control, and  some fun, they have by being able to say when this, lucky set of circumstances, happens in a battle. I feel it is a good compromise between the two sides, gamist and believability.


----------



## Creeping Death (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Your DM hates you?
> 
> My player characters are definitely the stars of the campaign.




He said character not characters.  You changed what he meant and then answered him.

This thread started out as a shining example of how one is treated if they don't fall down and worship at the alter of 4e.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 27, 2008)

Some people like envisioning daily martial powers as representing a chance opening or particularly advantageous moment to strike. It's not like a fighter is going "Okay, time to use my Daily, step chop swing step" -- he's fighting hard, like he's fighting hard the whole fight, but this particular round the fates shine on him. Why? Because the player decided so. 

The powers describe an effect you, the player, want to have happan as a result of your PC's actions. Those effects can be described however you like (by RAW). So if a particular way of describing a power usage makes you unhappy, why not describe it in a different way?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Creeping Death said:


> He said character not characters.  You changed what he meant and then answered him.



I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get what you're accusing me of here.

The player characters are the stars. If there's issues with the fact that sometimes someone else's character at the table will get the limelight, that's really beyond the scope of the game, but having different characters share the spotlight happens in fiction and movies, such as the cited Harry Potter novels, as well.


----------



## sophist (Jun 27, 2008)

IMO, the rationale from the PHB is rather flimsy. Daily powers are the intrusion of metagame conerns into the story. Yes, yes, it does create a sort of illusionary balance that seems to pacify players that want win against the "monsters".

Some in-chracter exchanges about daily powers:
A:"Hey, use that trick that, you used to whack the orcs."
B:"I can't. I tapped my daily reserves for that, now i only can tap my reserves to run faster."
A:"??? ... Well, then use that trick you used to blind the gobin."
B:"I cant. I tapped my reserves for that, too. I can only use it again when we meet the next batch of monsters."
A:"???? ... Well tap your reserves for running faster, to what that goblin."
B:"But understand. I can only tap my resources only once in a specific way. It's a rule...." (BZZZT. Metagaming so we correct to) "its a universal law."
A: <sigh> "But I can tap my resources indefinitly to throw someone sand in the eyes."
B:"Dont bring up things that aren't covered in unversal law. You know full well that THROW SAND would be a power that the gods did not make available for us. And for it to be a fair power, it will tap your resources in way so that you can use it only once for reach batch of monsters."
A: <stunned silence>

The per-Episode-power argument doesn't convince me either:
B:"But understand. I can only tap my resources only once in a specific way. It's a rule...." (BZZZT. Metagaming so we correct to) "It wouldn't be dramatically appropriate."
A:"???? ... leave me alone with your theatrics, and kill the goblins."

To be fair, daily powers in 4e aren't worse than daily powers in 3e or Pathfinder.

And hey, I am not saying daily power aren't good for beer&pretzel rollplaying. But for us other players, weho might want some immersion, it hurts verisimilitude really bad.


----------



## Creeping Death (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get what you're accusing me of here.
> 
> The player characters are the stars. If there's issues with the fact that sometimes someone else's character at the table will get the limelight, that's really beyond the scope of the game, but having different characters share the spotlight happens in fiction and movies, such as the cited Harry Potter novels, as well.




It was in response to the Movie analogy.  Andor was talking about his character, you responded about all the characters.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

Creeping Death said:


> It was in response to the Movie analogy.  Andor was talking about his character, you responded about all the characters.



If Andor was trying to say that his character is the only star of the movie, then he's wrong.

If Andor was trying to say that the characters are the stars of the movie, then he's right but his post is pointless.

And your point is...?


----------



## Henry (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> IMO, the rationale from the PHB is rather flimsy. Daily powers are the intrusion of metagame conerns into the story. Yes, yes, it does create a sort of illusionary balance that seems to pacify players that want win against the "monsters".
> 
> Some in-chracter exchanges about daily powers:
> A:"Hey, use that trick that, you used to whack the orcs."
> ...





Or, to put it another way...

A: "Hey, why didn't that monster die when you cut his gut open to crawl out!"
B: "Because muscular action closes the hole."
A: "Huh? If I sliced a monster's gut open, he'd bleed to death on the floor."
B: "Yeah, but muscular action closes the hole. It's a universal law."

In most cases, it's just as flimsy as the excuse you use. Why can't a wizard cast magic missile more than once in a day? Does he get tired? Does he forget how? Does his mind need to rest? If so, why doesn't he lose CON or hit points? Or why doesn't he take a penalty on INT skills and checks until tomorrow?

The two above aren't issues in 4e, but are in 3e because of the metagame considerations. The reasons you use to justify them can be as flimsy or as complex and well-reasoned as you want them to be.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> IMO, the rationale from the PHB is rather flimsy. Daily powers are the intrusion of metagame conerns into the story. Yes, yes, it does create a sort of illusionary balance that seems to pacify players that want win against the "monsters".
> 
> Some in-chracter exchanges about daily powers:
> A:"Hey, use that trick that, you used to whack the orcs."
> ...




This is hilarious!

This actually inspires me to run a 4E game exactly like that in a setting where the gods have made these arbitrary rules governing the universe, and the world is split between the "chaotics" who chaffe against that and question it and the "lawfuls" who believe it is sacrilege to question it and revel in its short-comings and contradictions!  

Beautiful!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> And hey, I am not saying daily power aren't good for beer&pretzel rollplaying. But for us other players, weho might want some immersion, it hurts verisimilitude really bad.



How do you feel about Vancian magic? That's equally gamist.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 27, 2008)

Oh, but for what it's worth, I agree with the OP. Daily martial powers (and encounter ones, too) strike me as lame and don't jive with my own view of how such things should work.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jun 27, 2008)

Wormwood said:


> I like the way you think!
> 
> That's precisely my rationale---for a lot of 4e, in fact.




Me too... being able to perform a dramatic act as often as you want removes the "dramatic" from it.  Imagine if Luke were to have "Used the Force" through the whole of Episode IV.  How boring would it have been at the end when he blew up the Death Star because incredible acts at that point would have been common.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> How do you feel about Vancian magic? That's equally gamist.




I wanna answer! 

It isn't gamist, it's magic!

Magic of any kind has its own internal consistency based on the fact that it is _magic_ and does not model even in the slightest or most abstract sense anything in the real world - while an attempt at an armor-crushing blow is something we can understand from a "this is something that really happens" point of view even if we are not trained combatants.


----------



## Henry (Jun 27, 2008)

hong said:


> If Andor was trying to say that his character is the only star of the movie, then he's wrong.
> 
> If Andor was trying to say that the characters are the stars of the movie, then he's right but his post is pointless.
> 
> And your point is...?




I see Andor's point: He's saying if it's like a book, then one character would be the protagonist. But I'd contend that's not the best type of fiction to emulate if doing cinematic stuff, where only one character is the Golden Child like Harry Potter or Elric or Conan. It's more like the Avengers or the X-Men, or Firefly, where every character has just as much screen time or importance. 

If one wanted a more "plausible" version, you'd have characters unable to do very big effects, but lots of little effects in a day. Alternately, have a character able to do their thing, but a random roll to determine if the opponent is in position, then another random roll to determine if the character is in position, then another roll to see if a random battle circumstance (like another enemy or ally gets in the way, etc.) to the effect that you can only pull it off, statistically, once every four or five combats.

Or, you could, like 4e, just simply it down to say, "once a day, you can do the big stuff." Like was said earlier.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

el-remmen said:


> I wanna answer!
> 
> It isn't gamist, it's magic!
> 
> Magic of any kind has its own internal consistency based on the fact that it is _magic_ and does not model even in the slightest or most abstract sense anything in the real world - while an attempt at an armor-crushing blow is something we can understand from a "this is something that really happens" point of view even if we are not trained combatants.



OK, so next question, how did you feel about the Book of 9 Swords magical-martial abilities?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Henry said:


> I see Andor's point: He's saying if it's like a book, then one character would be the protagonist.



That's not my takeaway from Lord of the Rings or even Harry Potter, the two series he cited. Who's the single protagonist in LotR? Frodo? Why do we waste all that time in Gondor, then? And if it's Aragorn, why the much-delayed introduction of the character in Bree? His examples actually work great for D&D, because there are multiple protagonists in each.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> OK, so next question, how did you feel about the Book of 9 Swords magical-martial abilities?




Hated them.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> Your looking at it all wrong.
> 
> Would it feel better to you if you could only access martial dailies on a roll of a natural 20, rolled once per encounter? Or a natural 100 rolled once per turn?
> 
> ...




Damn that is a good idea.  

Maybe accessing martial/non-magical dailies on a natural 20 plus maybe a lowering of the number per X number of levels. Maybe this could improve by -1 per six character levels to reflect increased skill and/or inner power depending on the daily in question. At 6th level a 19+, at 12th level 18+, at 18th level 17+, at 24th level 16+ and finally at 30th level a roll of 15+.

This could work quite nicely I think. I have no if this would unbalance things, but I like the look of it. I can't believe I didn't consider this option.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

el-remmen said:


> Hated them.



Well, all right then.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> How do you feel about Vancian magic? That's equally gamist.




That old chestnut about past editions of D&D paying verisimilitude heed is bunk. D&D has _never_ fostered verisimilitude, from its assumptions that all inhabitants of the world had a PC class (an assumption not explicitly dumped until D&D 3x) or that all members of a given race possess identical attributes to the ideas that armor makes you harder to hit (rather than damage) or that physical health never declines but, rather, gets continually stronger as you age (ostensibly addressed in D&D 3x, but not satisfactorily so IMO). 

People who actually want verisimilitude in RPGs have historically not played D&D for these and other reasons. The idea that, with the advent of D&D 4e, D&D is _suddenly_ not a realistic physics engine is laughable at best and a deliberate strawman at worst. This isn't anything new and you'd have to knowingly ignore 30+ years of D&D trampling verisimiltude to death in order to believe it. That seems like a lot of work to me but, apparently, some people are that invested in not liking the new edition of the game.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> Some in-chracter exchanges about daily powers:
> A:"Hey, use that trick that, you used to whack the orcs."
> B:"I can't. I tapped my daily reserves for that, now i only can tap my reserves to run faster."
> A:"??? ... Well, then use that trick you used to blind the gobin."
> ...




You've left out the "Players are granted narrative control to decide when favorable circumstances occur" solution. What's your take on that one?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Maybe accessing martial/non-magical dailies on a natural 20 plus maybe a lowering of the number per X number of levels. Maybe this could improve by -1 per six character levels to reflect increased skill and/or inner power depending on the daily in question. At 6th level a 19+, at 12th level 18+, at 18th level 17+, at 24th level 16+ and finally at 30th level a roll of 15+.
> 
> This could work quite nicely I think. I have no if this would unbalance things, but I like the look of it. I can't believe I didn't consider this option.



If you try this, post how it works out.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 27, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> to the ideas that armor makes you harder to hit (rather than damage)



I feel compelled to reply to this every time I see it.

Armour does make you harder to hit. Just stop thinking of a miss as "nothing but air". Hitting someone's armour, without penetrating it and actually causing damage to the person, is also a "miss". If the armour stops a blow that would have otherwise hit the wearer, that armour made the wearer harder to hit.

Take a fighter with a 10 Dex and wearing chainmail (+5 armour). His AC is therefore 15. If an opponent rolls 9 or less to hit, it is a complete miss, since it would have missed regardless. If an opponent rolls 10 to 14, he lands the blow but it is either deflected by the armour, or the armour absorbs the damage (since he would have hit on that roll if the armour were not there). If he rolls 15 or higher, he lands the blow and penetrates the armour, causing damage.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 27, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Armour does make you harder to hit. Just stop thinking of a miss as "nothing but air". Hitting someone's armour, without penetrating it and actually causing damage to the person, is also a "miss". If the armour stops a blow that would have otherwise hit the wearer, that armour made the wearer harder to hit.




I'm aware of this rationale but it requires additional justification past what it present in the rules which is, frankly, indicative of it being at odds with a convincing simulation of reality.


----------



## Puggins (Jun 27, 2008)

Daily Powers are a simple abstraction that make a ton of sense.  In combat, certain maneuvers simply don't happen that often because it is difficult to set them up.  Let me draw a comparison to one of my other loves- Mixed Martial Arts.

*At-Wills Powers: Straight Right, Jab, Leg Kick, Takedown, Head Clinch*

These abilities require very little to set up, and happen multiple times in the same fight.  The opponent can defend against them, but doing so won't become easier as the fight wears on.

*Encounter Powers: Arm Lock, Read Naked Choke, Head Kick*

These abilities take quite a bit of set-up, but are reasonably common- a ton of MMA matches are settled by these maneuvers.  Once you execute them, though, the opponent will find repeated attempts to be much easier to defend against.  The read naked choke, for example, tires your arms out enough that a second attempt to apply it will stand less of a chance of success.

*Daily Powers: Gogoplata, Omaplata, Kimura, Superman Punch, Spinning Reverse Punch*

These are the maneuvers that you see only occasionally, because they require that the opponent is caught unawares in a very specific position at the same time that the attacker is aware that such a maneuver is executable.  The MMA world talks about these for months afterwards if once of these ends a fight.

So.... what's the problem with dailies?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2008)

Henry said:


> Or, to put it another way...
> 
> A: "Hey, why didn't that monster die when you cut his gut open to crawl out!"
> B: "Because muscular action closes the hole."
> ...




Actually, Henry, you're wrong about the magic missile bit. The wizard could cast magic missile all day, if he had prepared multiple castings of it, until he ran out of prepped spells. Not once a day. It did require preparation and that's the weird structure of the Vancian system... though that DID debut before D&D so it's not like it was entirely just a gamist system. It was adapted into a game because that made for an easy system to work with from a gamist perspective, but it was in the literature before it was in the game.

For my part in this, I expect most daily powers to imply some justification that a character needs to sleep to regain the use of it. For a low-level barbarian, fighting in an exhausting style works for me. There's only so many times you're gonna be able to do it.
But for martial exploits? I'm not seeing it. I can get behind encounter powers just fine. You make your special move and any opponents in that encounter space who witness it are now wise to your tricks - won't work again until you run into new people. But martial exploit daily powers don't work for me. If you can force the situation to be amenable to the daily power of your choice (once you've got multiple ones), why can't you do it or at least try it again?

I might be able to get behind a set of daily powers that have a per encounter reactivation check - something that indicates that the circumstances are right to use it again. That, I think, would do a better job of conveying what a martial exploit seems to be.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> I'm aware of this rationale but it requires additional justification past what it present in the rules which is, frankly, indicative of it being at odds with a convincing simulation of reality.



Eh, it's handwaving that people have somehow managed to accept for the last 30 years. It just goes to show that the only problem with per-day martials is the fact that they're new and shiny.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 27, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> That old chestnut about past editions of D&D paying verisimilitude heed is bunk. D&D has _never_ fostered verisimilitude, from its assumptions that all inhabitants of the world had a PC class (an assumption not explicitly dumped until D&D 3x) or that all members of a given race possess identical attributes to the ideas that armor makes you harder to hit (rather than damage) or that physical health never declines but, rather, gets continually stronger as you age (ostensibly addressed in D&D 3x, but not satisfactorily so IMO).
> 
> People who actually want verisimilitude in RPGs have historically not played D&D for these and other reasons. The idea that, with the advent of D&D 4e, D&D is _suddenly_ not a realistic physics engine is laughable at best and a deliberate strawman at worst. This isn't anything new and you'd have to knowingly ignore 30+ years of D&D trampling verisimiltude to death in order to believe it. That seems like a lot of work to me but, apparently, some people are that invested in not liking the new edition of the game.




I think the biggest fallacy in your argument is the "until 3.x part".  I think correctly, or incorrectly, 3.x was looked at as an advancement towards more verisimilitude.  To then say, that it is wrong for people to assume it should continue in that direction, or at least not regress is kind of weird.  

As far as people who want verisimilitude not playing D&D... maybe these same people believed, from the previous edition that D&D was headed more in that direction.  Personally, I thought that was one of the reasons they were (supposedly) removing the vancian magic system.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> And hey, I am not saying daily power aren't good for beer&pretzel rollplaying. But for us other players, weho might want some immersion, it hurts verisimilitude really bad.



To my mind, players who want more immersion tend to be very good at coming up with in-game explanation of mechanical effects. They really shouldn't have a problem with this.

Oh, and "rollplaying"? Very clever. Here's hoping it's a typo.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jun 27, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Whizbang Dustyboots
> OK, so next question, how did you feel about the Book of 9 Swords magical-martial abilities?




I hated them with the fiery fury of 1000 suns as well... just so you know. 



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 27, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> I'm aware of this rationale but it requires additional justification past what it present in the rules which is, frankly, indicative of it being at odds with a convincing simulation of reality.



What additional justification is required past what's in the rules? Per the rules, a "miss" just means no damage. I don't recall "miss" being defined as "nothing but air".

In the 3.5 PHB, it says "Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for your opponent to land a solid, damaging blow on you." Not just any blow, but a solid, damaging one.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2008)

hexgrid said:


> You've left out the "Players are granted narrative control to decide when favorable circumstances occur" solution. What's your take on that one?




At least until they've blown their wad of dailies... and then they're out of luck until the PCs sleep on it. Why then, should the ability to take narrative control be based on the ability to sleep it off? Why not have it be a resource based on the game session? Or the character's level? Or some other mechanic of stored-up hero points?

Why should the ability to take "narrative control" be granted only to martial exploters and not controllers who use completely different (and splashier) magical effects for their dailies and not just making use of some fantastical opportunity to cause harm to the target?


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

billd91 said:


> At least until they've blown their wad of dailies... and then they're out of luck until the PCs sleep on it. Why then, should the ability to take narrative control be based on the ability to sleep it off?




Change management, so that the ppl who are now complaining about the new and shiny won't have their heads completely explode, as opposed to partially explode.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 27, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day.



Yeah, I hate Barbarian Rages and Rogue defensive rolls, too.

...wait, were you complaining about *4e*?

-O


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 27, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> What additional justification is required past what's in the rules? Per the rules, a "miss" just means no damage. I don't recall "miss" being defined as "nothing but air".
> 
> In the 3.5 PHB, it says "Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for your opponent to land a solid, damaging blow on you." Not just any blow, but a solid, damaging one.



If i were a truly good DM, I would follow through on this plan:

Create a small chart for each character, and keep it behind my DM screen.  It would look something like this

Fighter
1-10, air
11-17, scale armor
18-19, shield
20+, check for temporary AC bonuses, otherwise hit

Then when an enemy attacked the Fighter, I'd look at my notes and know how to narrate what happened.

Actually... now that I look at it, maybe I will actually do that.  I always wanted to do it in 3e, but I never did, because 3e charts looked more like this after a few levels:

1-10, air
11-21, magical plate armor
21-26, magical shield
27-28, ring of protection
29-31, amulet of natural armor
32, dexterity bonus
33+, check for the half a dozen protective spells the party uses, otherwise, hit.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2008)

I have a radical suggestion.

3e's structure of abilities and combat facilitates more verisimilitude and more realism (with a level of abstraction via hit points and iterative attacks). 

4e's structure of abilities and combat facilitates cinematic and tactical tastes, without too much realism.

Play the edition which suits you?


----------



## Atzilla (Jun 27, 2008)

Compare it to a soccer player. He can use his Power "Pass" at will, which allows him to pass the ball to an ally, but attempt the power "Dream Goal", which lets him break the game, just once per day.


----------



## Delta (Jun 27, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> That old chestnut about past editions of D&D paying verisimilitude heed is bunk. D&D has _never_ fostered verisimilitude, from its assumptions that all inhabitants of the world had a PC class (an assumption not explicitly dumped until D&D 3x) or that all members of a given race possess identical attributes to the ideas that armor makes you harder to hit (rather than damage) or that physical health never declines but, rather, gets continually stronger as you age (ostensibly addressed in D&D 3x, but not satisfactorily so IMO).




I probably shouldn't reply, but:

A huge number of the Dragon articles in the 1970's and 1980's dealt with the game-design topic of "realism vs. playability". People were constantly trying to add new rules to make D&D more realistic in perceived ways, and the main barrier was how many rules made it no longer playable. This was the primary game-design goal for 20 years until the "balance" fetish came on the scene.

The general NPC population all through 1E, 2E and BXCMI were in fact all classless ("normal men"; per 1E DMG, only 1 in 100 humans could attain a PC class). Members of a given race did not have identical attributes -- hit points varied, specifications for leaders with more hit dice always appeared, etc. (something I loved about D&D as opposed to other game systems that really did have identical stats for a given race). Physical health certainly could decline with age if investigated closely (see Gygax's Dragon stats for Conan at different ages -- sure enough, his level & hit points go up to age 40, then decline after that).

Frankly, there's a jaw-dropping amount of revisionist history going on from the 4E camp this year. Your kind of observations don't remotely match what I know of early D&D, nor the reactions of people that I introduce it to at this time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I have a radical suggestion.
> 
> 3e's structure of abilities and combat facilitates more verisimilitude and more realism (with a level of abstraction via hit points and iterative attacks).
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but all the heretics must be brought in line with the viewpoint of any given poster, or be fed to the flame.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 27, 2008)

billd91 said:


> At least until they've blown their wad of dailies... and then they're out of luck until the PCs sleep on it. Why then, should the ability to take narrative control be based on the ability to sleep it off? Why not have it be a resource based on the game session? Or the character's level? Or some other mechanic of stored-up hero points?
> 
> Why should the ability to take "narrative control" be granted only to martial exploters and not controllers who use completely different (and splashier) magical effects for their dailies and not just making use of some fantastical opportunity to cause harm to the target?




Sleep is giving narrative control to the DM. In the time the characters, sleep off, everything can happen. Guards can be reorganized, Assassins be hired, virgins be sacrificed. 

So, the least the game can do is give the players some of their control back, in the hope they can turn the tide despite all the things the DM could have reasonably allowed to happen in those 6h of Extended Rest.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 27, 2008)

Delta said:


> A huge number of the Dragon articles in the 1970's and 1980's dealt with the game-design topic of "realism vs. playability". People were constantly trying to add new rules to make D&D more realistic in perceived ways, and the main barrier was how many rules made it no longer playable. This was the primary game-design goal for 20 years until the "balance" fetish came on the scene.



I subscribed to The Dragon during this period, and I really don't think that's a fair characterization.

I'm not sure "hey, here's 72 more polearms" is really realism per se, so much as it was indulging a segment of the gaming community's love of super-obscure weaponry. Columns like "The Whole Half-Ogre" or the Cloistered Cleric added more options, but since neither half-ogres nor spellcasting clerics exist in our world, I'm not sure either qualifies as realism. There were seemingly endless attempts to remake the bard and druid, but they were aimed at the goal of being more fun, not being more realistic.

(Which is, incidentally, where the "fetish" of balance comes from: Everyone at the table should have an equal amount of fun, not just be the sidekicks to the guy who got to play the super-awesome character. As a game design goal to sneer at, everyone having more fun is a pretty strange choice.)

Other well-remembered articles, like "The 7 Sentence NPC" (reprinted in Paizo's wonderful Dragon compilation), the 9 Hells and the incredibly influential "_____ Point of View" series were about fleshing out the game world in a way that was, again, about it being more interesting and more fun, not more realistic. (The 7 Sentence NPC in particular doesn't worry about things like realism, so much as it's about creating cool and memorable NPCs on the fly.)

In fact, in truth, I have a hard time remembering any articles from this period that were about more realism -- they certainly didn't make it into the Best of the Dragon anthologies -- and they certainly weren't a dominant design philosophy in the magazine.



> The general NPC population all through 1E, 2E and BXCMI were in fact all classless ("normal men"; per 1E DMG, only 1 in 100 humans could attain a PC class).



Which, as a realism example, doesn't work either: Where did that number come from? What was it based on? I don't know that any philosopher, historian or sociologist of note would come up with a 1:100 ratio, even if they subscribed to the notion that only certain people are capable of extraordinary lives.



> Members of a given race did not have identical attributes -- hit points varied, specifications for leaders with more hit dice always appeared, etc.



Also not realistic. Bullets do not have a harder time killing a general than they do a private.



> Physical health certainly could decline with age if investigated closely (see Gygax's Dragon stats for Conan at different ages -- sure enough, his level & hit points go up to age 40, then decline after that).



And that's certainly present through 3E. I haven't seen an age chart in the 4E books yet (I have an 11-month-old, so protracted reading time is mostly a memory for me at this point), and if it's not, it should be added back in, and I'm sure will be by third party publishers and maybe even WotC as well.



> Frankly, there's a jaw-dropping amount of revisionist history going on from the 4E camp this year. Your kind of observations don't remotely match what I know of early D&D, nor the reactions of people that I introduce it to at this time.



I've been playing since 1979, and my dad had photocopies of all of the original booklets in the house before then (which I pored over, even if I didn't have anyone to play with at first), and your memories don't match mine, either.

I think it's a little much to accuse others of revisionist history, based on your declarations of what sort of content predominated in the first 15 years of The Dragon.


----------



## BraveSirRobin (Jun 27, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> What additional justification is required past what's in the rules? Per the rules, a "miss" just means no damage. I don't recall "miss" being defined as "nothing but air".
> 
> In the 3.5 PHB, it says "Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for your opponent to land a solid, damaging blow on you." Not just any blow, but a solid, damaging one.




So a hit against someone in full plate means that you broke through their armor and caused them damage?  And yet their armor still is just as effective as ever?


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

It might be more accurate to characterise Dragon as adding more _detail_ to D&D, as opposed to more realism. This continues even to this day.


----------



## hong (Jun 27, 2008)

BraveSirRobin said:


> So a hit against someone in full plate means that you broke through their armor and caused them damage?  And yet their armor still is just as effective as ever?



This holds to the exact same extent in 4E as it did in 3E, 2E and in fact every version of (A)D&D.


----------



## hexgrid (Jun 27, 2008)

billd91 said:


> At least until they've blown their wad of dailies... and then they're out of luck until the PCs sleep on it. Why then, should the ability to take narrative control be based on the ability to sleep it off? Why not have it be a resource based on the game session? Or the character's level? Or some other mechanic of stored-up hero points?




I agree that basing it on any number things besides "daily" could work just as well. They all raise the same sorts of questions, which all have the same answer.



> Why should the ability to take "narrative control" be granted only to martial exploters and not controllers who use completely different (and splashier) magical effects for their dailies and not just making use of some fantastical opportunity to cause harm to the target?




I don't think it should. But obviously, if there's already an in-game reason, you don't need an out-of-game reason.


----------



## BraveSirRobin (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I've been playing since 1979, and my dad had photocopies of all of the original booklets in the house before then (which I pored over, even if I didn't have anyone to play with at first), and your memories don't match mine, either.
> 
> I think it's a little much to accuse others of revisionist history, based on your declarations of what sort of content predominated in the first 15 years of The Dragon.





I have been playing since 1980 and my memories match yours.  I don't ever remember a goal of realism from D&D nor did we want one.  There certainly may have been group that tried to insert more realism based on personal preferance but that certainly didn't seem like an object for the overall RAW.  And before anyone puts me in the 4e camp, I have yet to even buy any books and only have managed to flip through the first 20 pages of the PHB.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2008)

If your suspension of disbelief was destroyed by per day abilities then God only knows what hit points, character classes, levels and alignments did to it.

D&D's key core rules have always put playability above realism. When the game moves away from that, 1st edition's weapon vs AC modifiers for example, then it tends to suck.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 27, 2008)

BraveSirRobin said:


> So a hit against someone in full plate means that you broke through their armor and caused them damage?  And yet their armor still is just as effective as ever?



Sure, why not? Abstraction and all that. I know some have desired to add armour damage systems into the game, and I think some games do incorporate such a thing, but I don't think such bookkeeping is appropriate for core D&D.

Or, you could say the blow found the weak point in the armour (a joint where the plates do not cover the wearer entirely), rather than actually punching through the armour itself.

The description is limited only by your imagination.


----------



## chriton227 (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> To be fair, daily powers in 4e aren't worse than daily powers in 3e or Pathfinder.
> 
> And hey, I am not saying daily power aren't good for beer&pretzel rollplaying. But for us other players, weho might want some immersion, it hurts verisimilitude really bad.




Over the last several weeks, I've seen a lot of people complaining about this or that aspect of 4e not fitting their personal preferences or campaign style, and saying that is a problem with 4e.  4e, just like 3.x, GURPS, HERO, and all other RPG systems, is nothing but a set of tools to assist in playing and adjudicating a game.  Not all tools are alike, nor do they excel at the same thing.  As a programmer, the languages I use are tools.  JavaScript isn't the best tool to create a relational database, and assembler isn't the best tool to create a web page.  Just like a chainsaw isn't the best tool for modifying a mini, and a Dremel isn't the best tool for cutting down a tree.  If I tried to cut a tree down with a Dremel, it wouldn't be the tool's fault for not doing it very well, it would be my fault for selecting the wrong tool for the job.  The same applies for RPGs.  Don't blame the system because it doesn't do a good job with something it wasn't designed for, instead select the right tool for the job. I can't blame Aftermath for doing a poor job with a cinematic anime game, it would be my fault for choosing the wrong system.

Wouldn't it be a better use of time and energy to search for or create a game system that does what you want it to do rather than railing against a particular system for not doing what you want?  Is there some odd pleasure derived from shouting to the world that hammering a square peg into a round hole is ugly business?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2008)

chriton227 said:


> Wouldn't it be a better use of time and energy to search for or create a game system that does what you want it to do rather than railing against a particular system for not doing what you want?  Is there some odd pleasure derived from shouting to the world that hammering a square peg into a round hole is ugly business?




Maybe, but if D&D used to do what you want and now doesn't, I can understand a little venting of the spleen.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Maybe, but if D&D used to do what you want and now doesn't, I can understand a little venting of the spleen.




If it used to do what you want, then use what used to work. If it's that important to you.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 27, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> What happened to us?




3.x kicked us in the junk and then stole our wallet.

Seriously, though, if encounter and daily powers kill your game-on, then don't play 4e. There are other fine systems out there that you can play that are more whateverist to suit your needs.

Personally though, I don't see the problem. It's an abstract representation of a difficult manoeuvre. If it helps you to justify the mechanic, then think of the character constantly looking for an opportunity to pull off the stunt, but because of the extreme difficulty of it, he only manages to do it once every encounter/day.

Call it luck, circumstance, the limits of skill and ability, or whatever it is that helps you sleep at night with 4e tucked under the covers.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 27, 2008)

Kzach said:


> 3.x kicked us in the junk and then stole our wallet.




In his best J.D. impersonation:







"That 3E is one baaad Seeed!."


----------



## Agamon (Jun 27, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Ask them if they've ever watched an action movie. Then ask them why Rambo didn't just punch the head off of every single guy he killed.




Unfortunately, it's probably the same guy that asks during the movie, "Why doesn't he just do that all the time?  This movie is so stupid!" lol


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 27, 2008)

hong said:


> It might be more accurate to characterise Dragon as adding more _detail_ to D&D, as opposed to more realism.



Exactly.  In fact, most gamers seem to mean _detail_ when they say _realism_.


----------



## jeffh (Jun 27, 2008)

hong said:


> It might be more accurate to characterise Dragon as adding more _detail_ to D&D, as opposed to more realism. This continues even to this day.




People confusing the two, however, has been a D&D tradition since Chainmail. It predates whining about Bards, if you can believe that.


----------



## jeffh (Jun 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> If i were a truly good DM, I would follow through on this plan:
> 
> Create a small chart for each character, and keep it behind my DM screen.  It would look something like this
> 
> ...




Urk.

Well.

I can honestly say that, if this seems like a good idea to you, 4E is not the game for you.


----------



## Psion (Jun 27, 2008)

sophist said:


> To be fair, daily powers in 4e aren't worse than daily powers in 3e or Pathfinder.
> 
> And hey, I am not saying daily power aren't good for beer&pretzel rollplaying. But for us other players, weho might want some immersion, it hurts verisimilitude really bad.




Do action points give you the ability to gain additional daily uses in 4e as it did in 3e/UA? Because for me, powers that had daily uses, especially ones that weren't magical in nature, troubled me in 3e, but I found that the action point workaround made it less conceptually troubling for me.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 27, 2008)

I've heard these sorts of discussions for a long time, for as long as I've been playing D&D (which has been over 30 years as I think about it, man I'm feeling old).

Here's the thing: whether it's hit point, armor class, racial class or level restrictions, the magic system, the saving throw system, healing or whatnot, all of these discussions come back to the same point.

D&D is, first and foremost, a game. It's a game with certain assumptions about what's useful, effective, balanced, too powerful and so forth. Over the years, a lot of those assumptions have changed, and 4E is just the latest generation of those ideas, from a new set of designers.

Why do hit points work the way they do? Heck if I know. I can come up with metagame/fluff reasons why they do, and if they work for me (and also for my players) then we're done. If not, we need to decide if this game is what we really want to be spending time with, or if there is another RPG that better fits our shared idea about what believable.

The discussions about daily powers make me think of an action movie and how the hero tends to use his one big power only that one time (remember Karate Kid? He tries to use the Crane Kick in every movie after the first, and it never works!) and that description resonates and works for me. 

I'm sure there are many other reasons that you can come up with for how the martial dailys work, but they're all ultimately fluff for the game balance rules that are inherent to this edition of the rules, just like "wizards can't wear armor or use a sword," was a part of editions past.

So ultimately saying "martial dailys don't make sense!" opens up a discussion where other posters attempt to give fluff based answers that can make that part of the rules click for different people. At a certain point, however, it's time to just call it a day and move to another game that you can be happy with.


--Steve


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 28, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If i were a truly good DM, I would follow through on this plan:
> 
> Create a small chart for each character, and keep it behind my DM screen. It would look something like this
> 
> ...




So, what you're saying is you'd really rather be playing Palladium RPG?  Because, you know.. they've been doing that for over 25 years.  Oh, and don't forget to give armor and shields SDC... er... HP so they're damaged when they get hit.


----------



## charlesatan (Jun 28, 2008)

Psion said:


> Do action points give you the ability to gain additional daily uses in 4e as it did in 3e/UA? Because for me, powers that had daily uses, especially ones that weren't magical in nature, troubled me in 3e, but I found that the action point workaround made it less conceptually troubling for me.




No but you can use Healing Surges to do that for magic items...


----------



## Nifft (Jun 28, 2008)

For anyone who missed the post's original context (i.e. signature):





Cheers, -- N


----------



## Psion (Jun 28, 2008)

charlesatan said:


> No but you can use Healing Surges to do that for magic items...






It makes more sense you'd be able to boost your own abilities by "tapping into reserves" than item abilities.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 28, 2008)

jeffh said:


> Urk.
> 
> Well.
> 
> I can honestly say that, if this seems like a good idea to you, 4E is not the game for you.



Huh.  I thought it was a pretty innocuous idea on how to get queues for describing combat effects so that players could obtain a bit of payoff for their various AC bonuses, rather than have everything kind of blur together.  But so far I've garnered only two sarcastic responses.  I don't get it.  Is this a hobby horse for some people, and I don't know about it?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 28, 2008)

Psion said:


> It makes more sense you'd be able to boost your own abilities by "tapping into reserves" than item abilities.




Depends how you view it...

I see it less as your character sitting there attempting to do his power move but failing, and more as your character just not trying at all. The power move works once per day, not because of lack of power, but because the opportunities that make that attack possible happen only very rarely. 

Sure, it's "once per encounter" to the player, but to someone in the world, it's just a length of time since the last time he was able to pull off that power... be it 6-10 minutes (per encounter) or 9 + hours (daily.)

Magic items, on the other hand, tap into the users power a bit. Like bove, the time between their uses is based on opportunity to use it, (and the magic possibly even makes thiose opportunities a bit easier) but after a bit they feel draining.


----------



## KingCrab (Jun 28, 2008)

Zurai said:


> So in other words only wizards, clerics, warlocks, and paladins can do cool stuff without committing seppuku?




I think the idea is, with magic you can always say... well that's the effect of the magic cause it's like... magic and stuff.  With a physical ability, I guess there are some things I can only do once a day (like maybe I can only pull off 1 chin up per day cause I'm out of shape) but you don't have the easy 'well it's magic' excuse for why they sometimes can't pull it off a second time.


----------



## KingCrab (Jun 28, 2008)

Nifft said:


> For anyone who missed the post's original context (i.e. signature):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ahh, thank you Nifft.  That explains the reaction much better.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 28, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Huh.  I thought it was a pretty innocuous idea on how to get queues for describing combat effects so that players could obtain a bit of payoff for their various AC bonuses, rather than have everything kind of blur together.  But so far I've garnered only two sarcastic responses.  I don't get it.  Is this a hobby horse for some people, and I don't know about it?




This begs the question then:  Why haven't you been doing this for the past 8 years of 3.x?  Because, really, AC really hasn't changed between editions since OD&D.


----------



## KingCrab (Jun 28, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> Huh.  I thought it was a pretty innocuous idea on how to get queues for describing combat effects so that players could obtain a bit of payoff for their various AC bonuses, rather than have everything kind of blur together.  But so far I've garnered only two sarcastic responses.  I don't get it.  Is this a hobby horse for some people, and I don't know about it?




I think it's a nice way for the DM to add a little flavor by making a quick chart.  If you were suggesting keeping track of the damage each piece of equipment took, I would understand the objections, but in this case I really don't.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 28, 2008)

Jhulae said:


> This begs the question then:  Why haven't you been doing this for the past 8 years of 3.x?  Because, really, AC really hasn't changed between editions since OD&D.



Because there were too many modifiers to track, and too many of them changed round by round, or were part of the "buff suite" of spells that my PCs cast before each fight, all of which had different durations.


----------



## charlesatan (Jun 28, 2008)

Psion said:


> It makes more sense you'd be able to boost your own abilities by "tapping into reserves" than item abilities.




Well, they are "magic" items so I don't really need to rationalize that so much.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 28, 2008)

As weird as it sounds, I find the once a day powers more closely match what I see in novels and film. You don't see the protoganist pull off that special move all the time (that Karate Kid is a good example).


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2008)

billd91 said:


> The wizard could cast magic missile all day, if he had prepared multiple castings of it, until he ran out of prepped spells. Not once a day.




That's not all day, that's more like 30 or 40 times, tops, and that's if he uses every last vestige of his capability to do it, leaving nothing left but magic items to back him up. (48 times, with a 24 INT? Something like that?) In other words, a lot, but not all day, every fight he might find himself in, and a fighter could swing his sword a lot longer than that, even.

My point? Same as the rest, every game has its abstractions for balance. 4e's happens to be to limit powerful abilities, magical or otherwise, to a certain number of times per day.


----------



## Psion (Jun 28, 2008)

charlesatan said:


> Well, they are "magic" items so I don't really need to rationalize that so much.




I'm vaguely tempted to do a search and see if you are one of the 4e fans who also danced on the grave of vancian magic because "it didn't make sense."


----------



## charlesatan (Jun 28, 2008)

Psion said:


> I'm vaguely tempted to do a search and see if you are one of the 4e fans who also danced on the grave of vancian magic because "it didn't make sense."




There should be no incriminating posts on me but for the record, I don't like the Vancian Magic system, but for game play reasons (long list of things to track--and I've been the one playing the epic-level spellcasters) rather than "it didn't make sense" (because it's a game!).


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 28, 2008)

el-remmen said:


> oh, but for what it's worth, i agree with the op. Daily martial powers (and encounter ones, too) strike me as lame and don't jive with my own view of how such things should work.




qft!


----------



## jackston2 (Jun 28, 2008)

*My apologies if this has already been said, but*

Think of it this way:

You can make rules to justify anything, even once per day abilities, but is it worth it?

Example: You are a fighter.  You can use Mighty Face-Eating Bite if you make an endurance check DC 0.  Every time you use this ability again without having first rested, the DC goes up by 50.

It's the same thing as once per day, but it requires so much more mental work and book space.

Think of it like the Grapple issue.

You can roll an Opportunity Attack, Touch Attack, and two Opposed Strength Checks, or you can simply roll Fortitude versus Reflex.

They both accomplish the same thing! But one is faster!

Like someone said before: those kinds of rules are fun to read but a pain to play.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Henry said:


> That's not all day, that's more like 30 or 40 times, tops, and that's if he uses every last vestige of his capability to do it, leaving nothing left but magic items to back him up. (48 times, with a 24 INT? Something like that?) In other words, a lot, but not all day, every fight he might find himself in, and a fighter could swing his sword a lot longer than that, even.
> 
> My point? Same as the rest, every game has its abstractions for balance. 4e's happens to be to limit powerful abilities, magical or otherwise, to a certain number of times per day.




And my point? That's it's a hell of a lot more than once and gives you the impression that he's actually done some _work_ that's going to need a decent night's sleep to recover from. That's the difference. One actually gives you the impression of something, the other gives you squat.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Rechan said:


> If it used to do what you want, then use what used to work. If it's that important to you.




Oh, I am. I most certainly am.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 28, 2008)

Has anyone noticed that in these discussions of daily powers, the "fixes" are always something incredibly complicated? Like HERO complicated? I think that says a lot for the simplicity of 4e.

I think part of the problem is as what was really the first rpg, D&D never really had a niche in people's mind. The new direction is giving it a niche. That niche is somewhere close to Anima: Tactics, honestly.

But it leaves people outside the scope of the game going "Hey, what about me?" Where if it were a different game, say GURPS or WoD (Which had much bigger problems with unhappiness with the edition change) or Anima, people would just say "Well, I'll play something else." But everyone seems to think D&D should be all things to all people.

Where on the narritivist/simulationist/gamist scale do you see D&D? Because I think the direction is more gamist, more in competition with Warmachine and Anima than with Vampire or HERO.

If you remember way back to the launch of third edition, the company vision was that Chainmail would be the big item, and D&D would be a support system for people who wanted a little more roleplaying with their miniature tactics game.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jun 28, 2008)

Christian said:


> OK, I'll refrain from sig-pointing to ask ... why? Why is it less ridiculous to say a particular unusual situation is likely to arise only about once every five minutes of combat than to say another unusual situation is likely to arise only about once every thirty minutes?




This explanation still leaves the mechanics fundamentally dissociated from the game world.

The problem with such mechanics, for me, is that they make roleplaying more difficult. When I'm roleplaying, I put myself in the shoes of my characters and try to make the same decisions they would make. The resolution of the course of action I decide upon will be done using mechanics my character has no awareness of -- but because there is a direct one-to-one mapping between those mechanics and the game world -- I don't become dissociated from my character.

If we choose to explain these mechanics in the way you suggest (and we pretty much have to, because (a) no explanation is given for them in the rulebooks and (b) no other explanation I've seen is even remotely viable), then you've suddenly introduced significant decision points for me -- as a player -- which have no relevance to the character at all. For the character, they're just taking advantage of an opportunity which has presented itself. But I, as a player, am deciding when that opportunity happens. My experience and the character's experience have been sundered.

That's my problem with dissociated mechanics: They distance me from my characer. And since roleplaying is the #1 reason that I, personally, play roleplaying games, that's a huge problem for me.

More generally, I find the explanation doesn't hold up very well to any kind of meaningful analysis. For example, let's take a look at a talented fighter who knows a Nifty Exploit. All he's waiting for is for an enemy to leave his back open so that he can use his Nifty Exploit...

On Day 1, our talented fighter fights a whole bunch of opponents who are significantly less talented and less skilled than him. He fights his way through five such encounters, dispatching dozens of opponents. During all of these fights against all of these opponents he finds only one opportunity to use his Nifty Exploit.

On Day 2, our talented fighter faces off against a single opponent who is actually much more skilled than he is. He's just as likely to find one (and only one!) opportunity to use his Nifty Exploit against this much more talented opponent as he was to find one (and only one!) opportunity to use it against a legion of lesser opponents.

How does that make any sense? It doesn't.

So now we try to excuse this by saying something like, "Well, see, against those lesser opponents the talented fighter never really felt the _need_ to use his Nifty Exploit, so he didn't."

Of course now you've not only handed me a dissociated mechanic (which I don't like), you've been forced to justify it by also taking control of my own character away from me.

Describing these as "Voltron mechanics" or narrative mechanics has a bit more mileage to it. I'm certainly willing to accept the inherent disadvantages dissociated mechanics if I'm trading those off against the advantages of gaining meaningful narrative control. But, personally, I don't consider "when does Voltron pull out his Win the Battle Sword?" to be meaningful narrative control.

Or, to put it another way: Usually when I'm playing an RPG it's because I enjoy pretending to be somebody else (i.e. roleplaying). Sometimes people come along and say, "Hey, for this game I'm going to interfere with your ability to roleplay. But, in exchange, you'll get to be a co-author of the story." And that can be pretty cool, too, so I'm more than willing to do that.

But if you offer me that deal and then say, "And by 'co-author the story' I mean 'decide when your characters gets to use an Awesome Combat Move(TM)'." Then that's pretty lame and I'm not interested. Besides, I was doing all kinds of Awesome Combat Moves in 3rd Edition without anybody mucking up my roleplaying.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 28, 2008)

Puggins said:


> *Encounter Powers: Arm Lock, Read Naked Choke, Head Kick*
> 
> These abilities take quite a bit of set-up, but are reasonably common- a ton of MMA matches are settled by these maneuvers.  Once you execute them, though, the opponent will find repeated attempts to be much easier to defend against.  The read naked choke, for example, tires your arms out enough that a second attempt to apply it will stand less of a chance of success.?




Except that if you watch MMA bouts, you will see that people do attempt these multiple times in a bout. And, people do get the naked choke after one or two failed attempts.



> *Daily Powers: Gogoplata, Omaplata, Kimura, Superman Punch, Spinning Reverse Punch*
> 
> These are the maneuvers that you see only occasionally, because they require that the opponent is caught unawares in a very specific position at the same time that the attacker is aware that such a maneuver is executable.  The MMA world talks about these for months afterwards if once of these ends a fight.




Really? I see kimura attempts fairly often watching the UFC and, often, multiple times in the same bout. I've also just saw a bout with 2 superman punches, and I have seen bouts with mulitple spinning reverse punches.  

And, this is exactly why I hate per encounter and daily.  For myself, the question is not how often these attacks succeed, but that per encounter and dailies limit  how often you can attempt the maneuver.  The failed attempts, imo, add just as much to the "narrative" as the successes.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 28, 2008)

jackston2 said:


> They both accomplish the same thing! But one is faster!




Faster doesn't necessarily mean better. And, in the grapple example, I think the faster way sucks. YMMV


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2008)

billd91 said:


> And my point? That's it's a hell of a lot more than once and gives you the impression that he's actually done some _work_ that's going to need a decent night's sleep to recover from. That's the difference. One actually gives you the impression of something, the other gives you squat.




The fact that he ran out of slots gives you that impression, but once per day or per encounter abilities don't? Even with the idea that he could still perform complex calcs just as well as before he shot off all his power, or could jog a mile if he did? If it does, that's fine, but I'm not seeing the big difference, myself. I've played around with alternatives that give a wizard more staying power, myself, and the 4e way isn't the best one I've seen, but it is pretty simple to follow.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> the question is not how often these attacks succeed, but that per encounter and dailies limit how often you can attempt the maneuver. The failed attempts, imo, add just as much to the "narrative" as the successes.




It strikes me that one would have just as easy a time describing the failed attempts in the combat round just as easily as describing the successes. _"I whirl around and attempt to catch him again with a Whirling Blade Maneuver, but he's just too quick to retrerat from it -- so I follow up with a Tide of Iron in the form of a single strong blow that knocks him seriously off balance."_ If the mechanics stink, that's one thing -- there are going to be a lot of people, myself included, playing 3e AND 4e on and off, and we pick the one that makes sense for each group. But all the arguments about lack of plausiblity seem to ignore all the implausibilities of any other D&D, in favor of trying to highlight this D&D as implausible. It used to be implausible to gamers in the 1980's to have those short-lived humans master multiclassing two careers at once, too, or for wizards to cast spells in armor, but we take it for granted ever since the year 2000.


----------



## Umadin (Jun 28, 2008)

It seems I'm hearing 3 ways to approach this:


1.  "Its a game, who gives a S***, its like barbarians rage.  Once a day, deal with it."


2.  (My favorite)  Your character knows a certain few techniques that when the opportunity arises he/she can use this technique.  The fun part, is that instead of the DM letting the player know when this opportunity is arising, the player decides when this opportunity arises, that opportunity is somewhat rare, we have to give some amount of time, so, a day:

"I use my Hunter’s Bear Trap power!"

DM flavor: "As the Orc is fighting you notice a somewhat unprotected area of his leg.  Standing prone his leg stretches forward."
Then actual description: "A well-placed shot to the leg leaves him hobbled and bleeding."

Then again it still doesn't make much sense for ... say:
"Force the Battle: With the slightest flick of your weapon and minimal movement, you control the battle and turn your enemies’ thoughts from conquest to survival."  

Whoever wrote some of these should be shot.  Having a "You shout something scary" is better then that crap.


3.  Each class has a powerful magic that grants them daily powers.  For wizards its a rule of magic.  For clerics, their god says "Nope, once a day."  Warriors - You focus and channel a source of physical energy that will take a day to comfortably do again.  Rogues - Uh... Rogues uh...  hate when people think they are one trick ponies... so they are so self conscious about doing some things too often that they insist to only do it once a day?


----------



## hong (Jun 28, 2008)

Beginning of the End said:


> This explanation still leaves the mechanics fundamentally dissociated from the game world.
> 
> The problem with such mechanics, for me, is that they make roleplaying more difficult. When I'm roleplaying, I put myself in the shoes of my characters and try to make the same decisions they would make. The resolution of the course of action I decide upon will be done using mechanics my character has no awareness of -- but because there is a direct one-to-one mapping between those mechanics and the game world -- I don't become dissociated from my character.
> 
> ...



You are thinking too hard about fantasy. Stop thinking.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 28, 2008)

Henry said:


> My point? Same as the rest, every game has its abstractions for balance. 4e's happens to be to limit powerful abilities, magical or otherwise, to a certain number of times per day.



We can agree that every game has its abstractions, and while some people want more detail and less abstraction, other people want _better_ abstractions -- *equally simple rules that make more sense*.


----------



## BeauNiddle (Jun 28, 2008)

Beginning of the End said:


> On Day 1, our talented fighter fights a whole bunch of opponents who are significantly less talented and less skilled than him. He fights his way through five such encounters, dispatching dozens of opponents. During all of these fights against all of these opponents he finds only one opportunity to use his Nifty Exploit.
> 
> On Day 2, our talented fighter faces off against a single opponent who is actually much more skilled than he is. He's just as likely to find one (and only one!) opportunity to use his Nifty Exploit against this much more talented opponent as he was to find one (and only one!) opportunity to use it against a legion of lesser opponents.




On Day 1 the fighter saw 3 possible opportunities to do Nifty Exploit but they didn't fit precisely so he let them slide by. Fortunately the fourth chance he saw was perfect so he showed off straining his muscles. The fifth chance he got was too soon afterwards and he thought risking his health to perform it again would be detrimental. The sixth chance wasn't quite right like the first 3 weren't so he let it slide as well.

Day 2 he saw but one chance and took it straight away realising the opponent was more skilled. It paid off.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 28, 2008)

Henry said:


> But all the arguments about lack of plausiblity seem to ignore all the implausibilities of any other D&D, in favor of trying to highlight this D&D as implausible.



Henry is a man of great learning and wisdom.

Learn from him, children.

-O


----------



## Derren (Jun 28, 2008)

Henry said:


> But all the arguments about lack of plausiblity seem to ignore all the implausibilities of any other D&D, in favor of trying to highlight this D&D as implausible.




No, some 4E supporters want to make it look like that is the case in order to discredit the others arguments but that is not the case.
4E is not as implausible as 3E, its even more implausible. And just because 3E has problems it doesn't mean that its ok for 4E to have even more problems. People expected for 4E to fix the shortcomings of 3E, but now some people realize that for them 4E made the shortcomings worse.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 28, 2008)

jackston2 said:


> Think of it like the Grapple issue. You can roll an Opportunity Attack, Touch Attack, and two Opposed Strength Checks, or you can simply roll Fortitude versus Reflex. They both accomplish the same thing! But one is faster!
> 
> Like someone said before: those kinds of rules are fun to read but a pain to play.



I think you reiterate an excellent point, that *complicated, detailed rules are fun to read but a pain to play*.  (I also think they're easy to write.)

But we can make rules that make more sense without being more complex.  (I won't say it's always easy, but it is a worthwhile goal.)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 28, 2008)

Derren said:


> 4E is not as implausible as 3E, its even more implausible.



And you're more drunk after six martinis than you are after five. But either way, you're still past the point where counting had any relevance.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 28, 2008)

Jhulae said:


> So, what you're saying is you'd really rather be playing Palladium RPG?  Because, you know.. they've been doing that for over 25 years.  Oh, and don't forget to give armor and shields SDC... er... HP so they're damaged when they get hit.



How do you reach that conclusion? Cadfan was describing something that can help _narrate the results of combat_, so that a miss isn't just "he misses". No new mechanics, just the logic of the D&D AC system spelled out. The AC system assumes what Cadfan has spelled out, but lumps it into a single number.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 28, 2008)

Beginning of the End said:


> When I'm roleplaying, I put myself in the shoes of my characters and try to make the same decisions they would make. The resolution of the course of action I decide upon will be done using mechanics my character has no awareness of -- but because there is a direct one-to-one mapping between those mechanics and the game world -- I don't become dissociated from my character.



I like to think that a good set of rules models "reality" -- we have to put "reality" in quotes to stave off the pedants -- well enough that the players can make their decisions without reference to the rules.

With a good set of war game rules, a real-life officer should be able to play and win _without knowing the actual rules_ -- presumably with the help of a referee or _aide-de-camp_ translating his orders into game moves.

But that's obviously a simulationist point of view -- terribly, terribly out of style.


Beginning of the End said:


> For the character, they're just taking advantage of an opportunity which has presented itself. But I, as a player, am deciding when that opportunity happens. My experience and the character's experience have been sundered.



Exactly.


Beginning of the End said:


> Describing these as "Voltron mechanics" or narrative mechanics has a bit more mileage to it. I'm certainly willing to accept the inherent disadvantages dissociated mechanics if I'm trading those off against the advantages of gaining meaningful narrative control. But, personally, I don't consider "when does Voltron pull out his Win the Battle Sword?" to be meaningful narrative control.



LOL.  I am definitely adding *Voltron mechanics* to my lexicon.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 28, 2008)

Beginning of the End said:


> My experience and the character's experience have been sundered.



Sorry, sundering is in 3rd edition, not 4th.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 28, 2008)

Mallus said:


> And you're more drunk after six martinis than you are after five. But either way, you're still past the point where counting had any relevance.



  Yeah, but to some its not 5 martinis or 6.  Its slightly tipsy and need to wait a while before driving with 3e.  And so drunk you have to crawl up stairs and end up peeing yourself because you can't work your zipper, or button, with 4e.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 28, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> Its slightly tipsy and need to wait a while before driving with 3e.  And so drunk you have to crawl up stairs and end up peeing yourself because you can't work your zipper, or button, with 4e.



Oh sure, people _claim_ they're only a little tipsy with 3e... and then they slam their characters through three prestige classes and a poor, unsuspecting template nonetheless.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 29, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Oh sure, people _claim_ they're only a little tipsy with 3e... and then they slam their characters through three prestige classes and a poor, unsuspecting template nonetheless.



  What people can do to manipulate a system and wreck another's suspension of disbelief doesn't mean much to me.  What the game is at its core without without some rules 
tweaker is what matters.  And for me the once a day non-magical abilities are a much larger jarring effect than 3e was on its whole, assuming someone isn't' going out of there way to make an absurd character.  The few once a day non-magicals in 3e I did not like as well, but they were not so pervasive and could be more easily ignored. But hey 3e had enough problems that I don't think I'll be going back to it unless pathfinder really does a major overhaul.


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I like to think that a good set of rules models "reality" -- we have to put "reality" in quotes to stave off the pedants -- well enough that the players can make their decisions without reference to the rules.




4E models "reality" perfectly well. Of course, this "happens" to be "action movie" "reality", not "reality" "reality".


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

Mallus said:


> And you're more drunk after six martinis than you are after five. But either way, you're still past the point where counting had any relevance.



"I know what you're thinking. Hash he drunk sixsh martinis, or only five? So ashk yourshelf, punk. Do yoush feel lucky? Hic."


----------



## Toras (Jun 29, 2008)

hong said:


> 4E models "reality" perfectly well. Of course, this "happens" to be "action movie" "reality", not "reality" "reality".




Which is fine unless you think, as this results in "Last Action Hero" syndrom or a tendency to deconstruction ala "Scream".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2008)

And if you're modeling action movie reality, most of the fighter's daily exploits read like they shouldn't be daily powers, but usable at will, especially against lesser foes.


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And if you're modeling action movie reality, most of the fighter's daily exploits read like they shouldn't be daily powers, but usable at will, especially against lesser foes.



They are usable at will. He just won't succeed except once per day.


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

Toras said:


> Which is fine unless you think, as this results in "Last Action Hero" syndrom or a tendency to deconstruction ala "Scream".



The solution to the urge to deconstruct is not to think too hard about fantasy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2008)

> They are usable at will. He just won't succeed except once per day.




They are not usable at will with one success.

The ones I've quoted are useable once, _regardless_ of success or failure, and by description are things that many action heroes do fairly often- some successfully many times in a day or even encounter.


----------



## hong (Jun 29, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They are not usable at will with one success.




Exactly.



> The ones I've quoted are useable once, _regardless_ of success or failure, and by description are things that many action heroes do fairly often- some successfully many times in a day or even encounter.




Against weak opposition, you can trip and disarm all day. Against stronger opposition, you can use a specific trip or disarm attempt a few times each day. Even this doesn't stop you tripping and disarming all day.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2008)

> Exactly.




Trying to have it both ways or misunderstanding my reply?

I'm saying that _NO,_ the exploits I mentioned are not usable once per day with one success, but are instead usable once per day regardless of success or failure.

Which is contrary to your assertion in post #162.


> Against weak opposition, you can trip and disarm all day. Against stronger opposition, you can use a specific trip or disarm attempt a few times each day. Even this doesn't stop you tripping and disarming all day.




This isn't the tripping thread, its the one about general non-magical 1/day exploits and their impact on suspension of disbelief.

So its not about whether you can achieve the same results by a variety of maneuvers, but whether it makes sense that certain exploits are limited to 1/day.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 29, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Trying to have it both ways or misunderstanding my reply?
> 
> I'm saying that _NO,_ the exploits I mentioned are not usable once per day with one success, but are instead usable once per day regardless of success or failure.
> 
> ...



Yes, it makes sense, because it is thematically appropriate for action movies to reserve the most powerful and impressive feats of power for the good scenes.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, it makes sense, because it is thematically appropriate for action movies to reserve the most powerful and impressive feats of power for the good scenes.




If I wanted to play an action movie game, I'd be playing Feng Shui... where I do believe I can whip out my best moves any time I want to.


----------



## Toras (Jun 29, 2008)

hong said:


> The solution to the urge to deconstruct is not to think too hard about fantasy.




I would propose that you aren't thinking hard enough.  And really if you were going to use action movie logic, then they'd be able to do their "cool" moves many times against lesser opposition like mooks/minions as you've suggested.  

I really would have preferred an Iron Heroes or combo based system.  Having a feint leading into powerful attack just feels like more fun for me.  For teamwork fun, have the combo work for two synced people (feat). Warlord slashes right, knocking aside the enemies sword, Fighter slashes left.  The rogue runs up the fighters back, leaps at the BBEG with knife outstretched and his protection down.


----------



## IanArgent (Jun 29, 2008)

Unless I'm very much mistaken (I could be, I've generally just skimmed the martial classes); all of the martial daily exploits consist of Take a <type> action, do x[w] and <power> affects the target(s). So even if the character has used <power> today, he can try again - it just won't work. They don't seem to require much setup.

So when the Warlock asks the Fighter "Why can't you do No Mercy (Lvl 29 daily - 7W+Str) on the BBEG?" the fighter answers "I'm trying dammit!" It's just that his attempts to do so end up being Indomitable Battle Strike all the way down to Reaping Strike. The fighter doesn't "know" he's expended his Lvl 29 daily; all he knows is that roughly once a day he gets lucky and *plasters* some poor opponent for what is a fairly ridiculous amount of damage. e's not doing anything different narratively than if he used Reaping Strike or even a basic attack.

There are some Fighter Utility exploits that are a little harder to justify, Stalwart Guard is the main offender here.

Over in Ranger, the big "offender" is claimed to be Split the Tree - which is merely a superior version of Twin Strike, an at-will power (as noted above). Again, the Ranger follows the pattern of attack for x[w] and <power> happens.

For the few powers that require metagame knowledge to use effectively; who cares? You _always_ have metagame knowledge that will inform your character's actions. From being able to see the entire battle, to being able to communicate with your allies perfectly over the hue and cry of battle, there's _always_ metagame knowledge.


----------



## IanArgent (Jun 29, 2008)

Toras said:


> I really would have preferred an Iron Heroes or combo based system.  Having a feint leading into powerful attack just feels like more fun for me.  For teamwork fun, have the combo work for two synced people (feat). Warlord slashes right, knocking aside the enemies sword, Fighter slashes left.  The rogue runs up the fighters back, leaps at the BBEG with knife outstretched and his protection down.




Too much work for too little effect. the At-will/encounter/daily power economy gets most of that without needing any book/token-keeping.


----------



## williamhm (Jun 29, 2008)

It is a game first and formost.  They had to do something to balance the classes, and this was the easiest most effective way to do it.  Frankly I dont have a problem with it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 29, 2008)

billd91 said:


> If I wanted to play an action movie game, I'd be playing Feng Shui... where I do believe I can whip out my best moves any time I want to.




Well, if you prefer. I read the Feng Shui book many years ago, and found it quite interesting, but I think the mechanics are a bit to simplistic in the end. 
4E seems to offer still a lot of variety and place for tinkering, if I feel like it.


----------



## Atropos (Jun 29, 2008)

billd91 said:


> If I wanted to play an action movie game, I'd be playing Feng Shui...



An awesome game, too, but not suitable for all types of action movies, just the Hongkong-style ones.



> where I do believe I can whip out my best moves any time I want to.



You cannot. Feng Shui also have a ressource management system for martial arts powers, called Chi. If you're out of Chi, you don't get to "whip out your best moves".


----------



## Gort (Jun 29, 2008)

Nifft said:


> For anyone who missed the post's original context (i.e. signature):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks Nifft. It kinda ruined the first page of the thread when the OP got embarrassed and changed it.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Trying to have it both ways or misunderstanding my reply?




I am having it both ways, of course. This is the beauty of having an abstract combat system, whereby defeating an opponent can be described in various ways that all share the same outcome of the guy ending up in a heap on the ground.



> I'm saying that _NO,_ the exploits I mentioned are not usable once per day with one success, but are instead usable once per day regardless of success or failure.
> 
> Which is contrary to your assertion in post #162.




The in-game effect of beating up a bad guy is usable as many times per day as you defeat bad guys. It just so happens that some daily specific powers can only be used once per day.



> This isn't the tripping thread, its the one about general non-magical 1/day exploits and their impact on suspension of disbelief.
> 
> So its not about whether you can achieve the same results by a variety of maneuvers, but whether it makes sense that certain exploits are limited to 1/day.




It makes complete sense that certain exploits are limited to 1/day, on the assumption that certain types of bad guys will be met 1/day.

Which is what happens in action movies.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

billd91 said:


> If I wanted to play an action movie game, I'd be playing Feng Shui... where I do believe I can whip out my best moves any time I want to.



Why play Feng Shui when you can play D&D and do the same thing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

> It just so happens that some daily specific powers can only be used once per day.




Which doesn't make sense in the specific cases cited.  Let's go around the circle again?



> It makes complete sense that certain exploits are limited to 1/day, on the assumption that certain types of bad guys will be met 1/day.
> 
> Which is what happens in action movies.




Again, not the ones I cited.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which doesn't make sense in the specific cases cited.




It makes complete sense, once you let go of the notion that a specific in-game action must be mapped to a specific metagame mechanic.



> Let's go around the circle again?




If you insist.



> Again, not the ones I cited.




Watch better action movies.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

> It makes complete sense, once you let go of the notion that a specific in-game action must be mapped to a specific metagame mechanic.




No, not really.  If they wanted _that,_ they shouldn't have provided the reality-jarring descriptions.  There is simply no logical reason why the maneuvers lumped together as the exploit "Villain's Menace" (and others) should be 1/day.



> Watch better action movies.




Pick any action movie you want- modern or old, American or International- odds are good that at there will be multiple uses of what would be simulated by one of the 1/day non reliable exploits more often than that.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, not really.  If they wanted _that,_ they shouldn't have provided the reality-jarring descriptions.  There is simply no logical reason why the maneuvers lumped together as the exploit "Villain's Menace" (and others) should be 1/day.




So the fluff won't win a Pulitzer prize. This does not inhibit you, any more than it inhibits "builder" players in 3E.



> Pick any action movie you want- modern or old, American or International- odds are good that at there will be multiple uses of what would be simulated by one of the 1/day non reliable exploits more often than that.




No, it would be simulated by taking down mooks using whatever means you consider narratively appropriate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

> This does not inhibit you, any more than it inhibits "builder" players in 3E.




Sure it does- it damages the suspension of disbelief, it drives me out of my character and back to a guy sitting at a table pushing game pieces around.

Judging from the 2 threads and the poll, I'm not alone there, either.



> No, it would be simulated by taking down mooks using whatever means you consider narratively appropriate.




I'm pretty sure I could find examples even using non-mooks.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure it does- it damages the suspension of disbelief, it drives me out of my character and back to a guy sitting at a table pushing game pieces around.




Nonsense. When playing, you use the ability, you don't look at one line of mediocre fluff.



> Judging from the 2 threads and the poll, I'm not alone there, either.




Which just means that there are many people who could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.




> I'm pretty sure I could find examples even using non-mooks.




Of course you could. And this would not rule out per-day abilities either.

(The OTHER really nice thing about abstracting away from reality is that it becomes non-disprovable.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

> Nonsense. When playing, you use the ability, you don't look at one line of mediocre fluff.




You don't know me.

When playing, I'd use the ability and then I ask myself why, based on the fluff, I can't use the ability again.

That's not nonsense, _that's a fact._  If I can't find a good reason for why a game limits X, Y, or Z, then I start wondering about the rest of the system.  I might even stop playing that game.  Or never start.


> Which just means that there are many people who could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.




Insulting more people doesn't make your argument any more valid or any less insulting.



> Of course you could. And this would not rule out per-day abilities either.




It would put the lie to a goodly portion of the fighter's exploits.  Enough to continue criticizing it as a poor mechanic that says doesn't model what it says it does.


----------



## Toras (Jun 30, 2008)

hong said:


> Which just means that there are many people who could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.




You know, I am getting profoundly sick of you trotting that out like its some manner of wisdom.  Its the RPG equivalent of a "wizard did it" or more irritatingly "Its magic we don't have to explain it."  I wouldn't accept that from book, why in God's good and verdant Earth would I accept it from something that is supposed to be more interactive and immersive.

And leaving aside this fact.  Why is the Martial Characters the only one's who don't understand what powers they have available.  (Assuming the opportunity)  If we are really going to get into the Gamist mindset, everyone else (Psi, Ki, and most definitely magic) knows that they have a couple big spells they can use once, a couple they need to recover from, and a few they can trot out any time they want.  

If it really is opportunity, then martial characters are at a disadvantage because when it comes to PC planning, they are never going to know what they have available.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You don't know me.




Somehow, I can bet that you didn't really look at the fluff for the six million prestige classes out there, after the first. "Oh look, another mystic theurge."



> When playing, I'd use the ability and then I ask myself why, based on the fluff, I can't use the ability again.




You can't use the ability again because the writeup says so.



> That's not nonsense, _that's a fact._  If I can't find a good reason for why a game limits X, Y, or Z, then I start wondering about the rest of the system.  I might even stop playing that game.  Or never start.




And if you didn't worry about good reasons, you'd never have to stop playing the game. It is all very logical -- assuming, of course, that playing the game is a more meaningful pursuit than nursing one's grievances.




> Insulting more people doesn't make your argument any more valid or any less insulting.




Which does not change the fact that they could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.



> It would put the lie to a goodly portion of the fighter's exploits.  Enough to continue criticizing it as a poor mechanic that says doesn't model what it says it does.




It models what it says it does perfectly well.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Toras said:


> You know, I am getting profoundly sick of you trotting that out like its some manner of wisdom.  Its the RPG equivalent of a "wizard did it" or more irritatingly "Its magic we don't have to explain it."  I wouldn't accept that from book, why in God's good and verdant Earth would I accept it from something that is supposed to be more interactive and immersive.




Exactly. Because it aids interactivity. If one is not playing the game, by definition, one is not interacting.




> If it really is opportunity, then martial characters are at a disadvantage because when it comes to PC planning, they are never going to know what they have available.




In the gamist mindset, everyone does know what they have available. What you are trying but failing to identify is why those opportunities happen to appear only X times per day.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2008)

hong said:


> Somehow, I can bet that you didn't really look at the fluff for the six million prestige classes out there, after the first. "Oh look, another mystic theurge."




Why would I?  And how in the world is that relevant?



> You can't use the ability again because the writeup says so.




Sorry, "Because I said so" regardless of context, hasn't been a valid and meaningful answer since I was 7 years old.


> And if you didn't worry about good reasons, you'd never have to stop playing the game. It is all very logical -- assuming, of course, that playing the game is a more meaningful pursuit than nursing one's grievances.




You're essentially telling me to "Play dumb and have fun!"  Nice motto for a game.

Again, I'm not going to ignore the problems I have with the game in order to play 4Ed.  If I were that kind of person, I'd be playing a LOT of bad games.



> Which does not change the fact that they could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.




When will your horse carcass reach "puree?"

No one benefits from underuse of their brainpower.



> It models what it says it does perfectly well.




Not even close.  Villain's Menace says it models a flurry of blows etc., but limits its use to 1/day.  Rain of Steel says it models "constantly" swinging your weapon in a certain way- again 1/day.  And so forth.

My credulity is strained.


----------



## hong (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why would I?  And how in the world is that relevant?




Because "builder" players look at prestige classes first and foremost as collections of special abilities to be put together in search of a concept. Whatever fluff may be present in terms of in-game organisations, activities that must be completed to join, and so forth, is secondary.




> Sorry, "Because I said so" regardless of context, hasn't been a valid and meaningful answer since I was 7 years old.




This is why you make it up. You're allowed, in the context of a make-believe pursuit. Hint: those elves aren't real.



> You're essentially telling me to "Play dumb and have fun!"  Nice motto for a game.
> 
> Again, I'm not going to ignore the problems I have with the game in order to play 4Ed.  If I were that kind of person, I'd be playing a LOT of bad games.




And see? You'd be having a lot more fun.

... unless, that is, you derive fun from complaining about the inabilities of said games to provide you with fun. Not that there's anything wrong with that.



> When will your horse carcass reach "puree?"




I don't know. When will my horse carcass reach puree?



> No one benefits from underuse of their brainpower.




Of course they do, if it results in more fun.



> Not even close.  Villain's Menace says it models a flurry of blows etc., but limits its use to 1/day.  Rain of Steel says it models "constantly" swinging your weapon in a certain way- again 1/day.  And so forth.




So the fluff won't win a Pulitzer prize.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not even close.  Villain's Menace says it models a flurry of blows etc., but limits its use to 1/day.  Rain of Steel says it models "constantly" swinging your weapon in a certain way- again 1/day.  And so forth.
> 
> My credulity is strained.



Would the following work for you? It does require you to accept that there are some types of injury that can only be healed by time, and not by magic, though.

Martial daily abilities represent the PC pushing his body beyond its normal physical limits, so much so that it actually damages it a little (a particular muscle is strained or pulled, or the character's vision is slightly blurred, etc). This sort of damage is not represented by hit points, and does not otherwise hamper a character's effectiveness, but it does make it impossible for him to pull off exactly the same stunt until he gets an extended rest. He may try to do it, but his balance or timing will always be a little off (and it defaults to the most relevant at-will ability that he has).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

Daily abilities are fun. Martial dailies specifically are fun because you get to do an awesome combat maneuver. This is the fun they aim and fulfill to achieve. 

If you look closer, you might wonder "why can I do it only once per day?". The answer is, it wouldn't be as much fun otherwise. It would hurt the balance of the game, and it would remove the "now I am _really_ kicking ass" factor that a limited ability provide.*). You will not find a better reason, certainly not when you try to look at the game world and and use "realistic" explanations. 
And this is why you should stop thinking to hard about fantasy. The mechanic exists because the mechanic provides fun. And what benefit does it have to thinking harder about it, if thinking harder means you will no longer have fun? Isn't the ultimate goal of any game to bring fun to its players? 



*)
Carefully managing limited resources and using them when you feel they are appropriate is part of the fun - it's the fun D&D spellcasters had in every edition. And Barbarians and Monks in 3E. The reason Vancian magic was such an integral part of D&D was not that it made thematically sense or was "realistic" or modeling a common description of magic. It was that way because it provided fun to do it that way.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And this is why you should stop thinking to hard about fantasy. The mechanic exists because the mechanic provides fun. And what benefit does it have to thinking harder about it, if thinking harder means you will no longer have fun? Isn't the ultimate goal of any game to bring fun to its players?




...oh, good. Another one is using the phrase.

"Fun" is subjective.

I play RPGs because they are generally intellectually-stimulating. I, personally, do not have fun with a game that tells me that I am thinking too much about something. I find that to be incredibly annoying and detrimental to my "fun."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> ...oh, good. Another one is using the phrase.
> 
> "Fun" is subjective.
> 
> I play RPGs because they are generally intellectually-stimulating. I, personally, do not have fun with a game that tells me that I am thinking too much about something. I find that to be incredibly annoying and detrimental to my "fun."




Yes. Fun is subjective. But if you think about daily powers and do not like them, do you have fun? If not, the best thing you can do is not thinking about it. This can mean not playing 4E at all, or just using them as is and not thinking hard about it. 

I am pretty sure you will not have a lack of fun when you're running an encounter and using these daily martial powers in it. If you need intellectual stimulation, find ways to use your daily martial to best effect.


That's exactly the opposite of what I sometimes experience with 3E. There are rules that I use and they are not fun - like recalculating my attack bonus, weapon damage and AC after being hit by a _Dispel Magic_ after having checked which spells are dispelled and which are not, or recalculating my AC and Saves after being hit with ability damage. I don't have to think about reasoning this effects. The rules make "sense". But they still hurt my immersion in the game, because I am busy doing math instead of deciding how to help the Wizard surrounded by Drows.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes. Fun is subjective. But if you think about daily powers and do not like them, do you have fun? If not, the best thing you can do is not thinking about it. This can mean not playing 4E at all, or just using them as is and not thinking hard about it.




You're still using the word.



> I am pretty sure you will not have a lack of fun when you're running an encounter and using these daily martial powers in it. If you need intellectual stimulation, find ways to use your daily martial to best effect.




If I turn my brain off, sure. Asking "why" kills immersion in 4e (no save).



> That's exactly the opposite of what I sometimes experience with 3E. There are rules that I use and they are not fun - like recalculating my attack bonus, weapon damage and AC after being hit by a _Dispel Magic_ after having checked which spells are dispelled and which are not, or recalculating my AC and Saves after being hit with ability damage. I don't have to think about reasoning this effects. The rules make "sense". But they still hurt my immersion in the game, because I am busy doing math instead of deciding how to help the Wizard surrounded by Drows.




The sins of the past edition do not excuse the sins of the next.

Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.

You are comparing two extreme ends of the scale. Somewhere in there, there is sensicalness balanced by what you call "fun." The difference between 3.5 and 4e is not a boolean, it's a scale.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> You're still using the word.



Yes. I will continue to do so. I have fun using it in discussions. Maybe I should use different words, like entertaining, compelling, interesting, enjoyable, but if I call it just "fun" it's shorter. 



> If I turn my brain off, sure. Asking "why" kills immersion in 4e (no save)



Don't turn it off. You'll need its full power when running into the next Kobold horde. Asking "why" only kills immersion because you're thinking about stuff your character can't afford to think about while being surrounded by those pesky kobolds, or discussing why Lord Padraig does not trust your claims that some Orcus cultits are operating from Winterhaven...
Edit: It also kills your immersion because you try to make a "catch-all" justification. They don't exist. If you were really part of the game world at the moment, it would be evident why you can't use a certain technique, but it is totally dependent on details the rules do not describe.



> The sins of the past edition do not excuse the sins of the next.



Yes. But they can be used to explain the motivation behind different approaches - approaches which might just be another form of sin for you. 



> Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.
> 
> You are comparing two extreme ends of the scale. Somewhere in there, there is sensicalness balanced by what you call "fun." The difference between 3.5 and 4e is not a boolean, it's a scale.



I know that you are not a fan of 3.5 nor 4E, I am following the discussions and sometimes I can even remember screen names and avatars. 

But it's not always about you, or about edition wars. Sometimes it's just about contrasting different approaches and showing their respective pit falls. 

For your homebrew system: Learn from the errors others have made. You don't have time to make them all yourself!


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes. I will continue to do so. I have fun using it in discussions. Maybe I should use different words, like entertaining, compelling, interesting, enjoyable, but if I call it just "fun" it's shorter.




Crap. Synonyms.

You have outwitted me, good sir!



> Don't turn it off. You'll need its full power when running into the next Kobold horde. Asking "why" only kills immersion because you're thinking about stuff your character can't afford to think about while being surrounded by those pesky kobolds, or thinking about why Lord Padraig does not trust your claims that some Orcus cultits are operating from Winterhaven...




Unlike some of you folk who seem to insist that the "rules are the physics of the game world" mentality automagically leads to OotS, that is - in fact - an acceptable approach to gameplay.

As such, I - as a character in such a world - cannot help but wonder why it is that I can only hit a dude *really hard* once a day.

That breaks my versimilitude to pieces, right there.



> Yes. But they can be used to explain the motivation behind different approaches - approaches which might just be another form of sin for you.




Fair enough.



> I know that you are not a fan of 3.5 nor 4E, I am following the discussions and sometimes I can even remember screen names and avatars.




I can only really keep track of what's going on in one thread at a time. Yeah, I know, we're both chatting in another thread... but without looking at it, I couldn't really tell you what we're talking about, right now.

I've got some memory issues...



> But it's not always about you, or about edition wars. Sometimes it's just about contrasting different approaches and showing their respective pit falls.




Ah, right, sure enough. Forgot that we were talking in a larger context.



> For your homebrew system: Learn from the errors others have made. You don't have time to make them all yourself!




Some lessons are best learned the hard way.

But I hear you. I'm trying to not retread old ground. We'll see how it winds up... I hope to have some kind of beta done in a reasonable amount of time (six months to a year). Perhaps I'll throw it up on EN World, and have my ego mercilessly slaughtered as numerous holes are picked in the system, if anyone even bothers looking... 

Sounds like a fun time.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Unlike some of you folk who seem to insist that the "rules are the physics of the game world" mentality automagically leads to OotS, that is - in fact - an acceptable approach to gameplay.
> 
> As such, I - as a character in such a world - cannot help but wonder why it is that I can only hit a dude *really hard* once a day.
> 
> That breaks my versimilitude to pieces, right there.



Or it does not. "Oh, I would have wanted to hit that guy really hard, I know a few tricks to do that. But none of them worked, the guy just wouldn't fall for it! Well, I still get the better of him, didn't I?"
"Yep, I hit him as hard as I could, but he still wouldn't drop! Parried my blade at the last possible moment, or just plained move exactly opposite as I expected. That was one tough kobold, I can tell you."

It's not like the characters see the damage dealt floating above the monsters head... 



> I can only really keep track of what's going on in one thread at a time. Yeah, I know, we're both chatting in another thread... but without looking at it, I couldn't really tell you what we're talking about, right now.
> 
> I've got some memory issues...



I am the guy with the dancing baby on the upper left of his posts. (Unless I get a new avatar)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Or it does not. "Oh, I would have wanted to hit that guy really hard, I know a few tricks to do that. But none of them worked, the guy just wouldn't fall for it! Well, I still get the better of him, didn't I?"
> "Yep, I hit him as hard as I could, but he still wouldn't drop! Parried my blade at the last possible moment, or just plained move exactly opposite as I expected. That was one tough kobold, I can tell you."




Gives the players too much narrative control, IMO.



> It's not like the characters see the damage dealt floating above the monsters head...




...so how about that DDI? 



> I am the guy with the dancing baby on the upper left of his posts. (Unless I get a new avatar)




Can you fight that feeling?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Gives the players too much narrative control, IMO.



Well, that's something new! Something I can... understand. Not agree with, because I think it's nice to hand some narrative control to my players, but it is a position to have. 



> ...so how about that DDI?



The PCs still can't see it, can they? The players do.



> Can you fight that feeling?



I got the avatar when Ally McBeal was still around (German TV, of course). I didn't remember that there was song text involved. 
But reading up on it: No, I couldn't fight it, but it didn't lead to anything...


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's not nonsense, _that's a fact._  If I can't find a good reason for why a game limits X, Y, or Z, then I start wondering about the rest of the system.  I might even stop playing that game. Or never start.




Dude. 

HERO notably limits certain powers (or heavily suggests that certain powers be limited) without providing any in-game rationale for said limitations. The time travel stuff is what immediately comes to mind. I mean, it has the "This power is broken, unbalanced, and not recommended!" icon (i.e., the STOP sign) next to it, right? 

How can you genuinely say that you won't play D&D 4e because it fails to provide an in-game rationale for limiting certain things, when HERO does the _exact same thing_? We all know how you feel about HERO. Are you simply holding D&D to a different standard where supplying in-game rationale for power limitations is concerned and, if so, _why_?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, that's something new! Something I can... understand. Not agree with, because I think it's nice to hand some narrative control to my players, but it is a position to have.




I'm not a big fan of narrativism. I like simulationism best.



> The PCs still can't see it, can they? The players do.




It was a friendly stab.

Damage has - or should have - a visual effect. You should know when you land a hit, and about how effective it was.

For example: if I were to come up and punch you in the face, I could most certainly see the effects of that, right? Sure, there's no numbers attached to it, but if I hit you slightly harder the next time I saw you, a month later, and if I were able to remember things rather clearly, I would be able to see that the second hit was harder than the first.



> I got the avatar when Ally McBeal was still around (German TV, of course). I didn't remember that there was song text involved.
> But reading up on it: No, I couldn't fight it, but it didn't lead to anything...




Fair enough.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system..





So if you hate 4E and have admitted you don't like 3E system, why o why are you posting on a mainly D&D 3e/4e board?

Also if you think 4E drives your suspension of disbelief into the ground, why don't you just stick with more simulationist games and go post in their respective boards?

Why be a negative here , when you could have been a positive somewhere else?


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 30, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> None of us are hard core simulationists, but for god's sake we like to immerse ourselves in the setting and the events of the campaign so a bit of versimilitude is helpful.



You don't realize that you're not even thinking at this point. Everything is a preprogrammed response. Every response is hackneyed. Your response has very little to do with 4e. The only connection to 4e is such reponses are trite, abundant, and unoriginal. I have a hard time believing that you are a sincere critic when your reponses are so banal.

What about daily exploits prevents your "setting immersion"? Nothing other than being informed by the blah,blah-hate threads suggests that it prevents anything. Roleplaying involvement is often performed best _without_ dice. If that wasn't the case then people wouldn't be roleplaying D&D at all because basic edition was terrible. Or is it too _gamist _for a fighter to never develop a single sword trick in twenty levels?

Simulationist doesn't mean realist. Furthermore, if you wanted to immerse yourself in the setting you would be a Narrativist. In fact, martial exploits with Daily limits is more story driven because it depicts inherent limits and fatigue. Forcing characters to make tough choices makes for better stories. The need for rest and safety as a necessary limitation for all abilities requires characters to rely on each other and the world around them for aid creating both and immersive and narrative system. 


Or it's just marketing to kids blah, blah, hate


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> I'm not a big fan of narrativism. I like simulationism best.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since you can't see the numbers, how could you decide if you were using Brute Strike or just a Basic Attack? 
Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 30, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> Dude.
> 
> HERO notably limits certain powers (or heavily suggests that certain powers be limited) without providing any in-game rationale for said limitations. The time travel stuff is what immediately comes to mind. I mean, it has the "This power is broken, unbalanced, and not recommended!" icon (i.e., the STOP sign) next to it, right?
> 
> How can you genuinely say that you won't play D&D 4e because it fails to provide an in-game rationale for limiting certain things, when HERO does the _exact same thing_? We all know how you feel about HERO. Are you simply holding D&D to a different standard where supplying in-game rationale for power limitations is concerned and, if so, _why_?



It's blah, blah, hate mentality.  It has nothing to do with 4e.  It has everything to do with mealy-mouthed, bandwagon hatred.  It's just easier for people to shrug and hate then to think.

In the 60's, during the Civil Rights Movement, Adelai Stevenson was in Texas and had to cross a group of angry picketers.  An old woman takes her sign and smashes it over his head.  He calls off the Secret Service Agents and asks the woman, "why did you do that?"  Her response, "I don't know."


That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> So if you hate 4E and have admitted you don't like 3E system, why o why are you posting on a mainly D&D 3e/4e board?




To share the light, brother. 

I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. 4e has a fantastic combat engine, and viewed in that light, I don't know if there is a system out there that can compare to it, in terms of what it accomplishes. 3.5 is incredibly modular and easy to modify, and Drifts (in the Forge-ist sense) to simulationism with some amount of effort - and since I'm willing to put in that effort, and like simulationism, I find 3.5 to be pretty solid, as well.

That said, in further review and with some amount of soulsearching, I have found that neither system is really what I am looking for in a game system.

I started seriously gaming with 3.5. I've been around here for a long time, and this place feels like home.

...besides, last I checked, this was the general forum, in which we discuss gaming in general...



> Also if you think 4E drives your suspension of disbelief into the ground, why don't you just stick with more simulationist games and go post in their respective boards?




Because my homebrew doesn't have a board yet?

And, on a related note, who are you to tell me where to post?



> Why be a negative here , when you could have been a positive somewhere else?




A small amount of bitterness is to be expected. We are in the midst of an edition change, after all.

Besides, I'd like to think that - unless folk provoke me - I tend to try to be relatively fair to 4e. I'm not perfect, of course, but I try.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Since you can't see the numbers, how could you decide if you were using Brute Strike or just a Basic Attack?
> Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?



Actually, you described every D&D edition BUT Fourth.

4e is the only system thus far where the effect can be more important than the numbers.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Since you can't see the numbers, how could you decide if you were using Brute Strike or just a Basic Attack?




The character would know.

"I will hit him with all my might," vs "I'm going to stab you."

I mean, yes, it is just a difference in damage, but there is something more going on with brute strike, as opposed to just a basic attack.



> Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?




I admit that I'm not terribly certain.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5.



 Yes you do.  You've already said you hate both of those editions on numerous occasions.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> Yes you do.  You've already said you hate both of those editions on numerous occasions.




...?

I don't think so.

I think you have me confused for someone else.

Either that, or you have been miscontruing sarcasm as actual trains of thought. Though I didn't think I'd been doing that terribly often, either...

*shrug*


----------



## AtomicPope (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> I'm not making it up. But you were missing the sarcasm tags




...dude, I used "hat."

How much more sarcastic can you get?


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> ...?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...






GnomeWorks said:


> Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system.




and then you go to say:



GnomeWorks said:


> I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. 4e has a fantastic combat engine, and viewed in that light, I don't know if there is a system out there that can compare to it, in terms of what it accomplishes. 3.5 is incredibly modular and easy to modify, and Drifts (in the Forge-ist sense) to simulationism with some amount of effort - and since I'm willing to put in that effort, and like simulationism, I find 3.5 to be pretty solid, as well..




You change your position faster than the tide, and this really discredits any future argument you would do.



			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> And, on a related note, who are you to tell me where to post?..



I am telling you where not to troll.

and finally:



			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> A small amount of bitterness is to be expected. We are in the midst of an edition change, after all.?..




Just because "someone has to"', is a very poor excuse for trolling.


----------



## Rel (Jun 30, 2008)

hong said:


> Which just means that there are many people who could benefit from not thinking too hard about fantasy.




Hey, hong, I'm going to need you to be about 40% less hongish for...let's say the next week.  Kay?


----------



## BraveSirRobin (Jun 30, 2008)

Derren said:


> No, some 4E supporters want to make it look like that is the case in order to discredit the others arguments but that is not the case.
> 4E is not as implausible as 3E, its even more implausible. And just because 3E has problems it doesn't mean that its ok for 4E to have even more problems. People expected for 4E to fix the shortcomings of 3E, but now some people realize that for them 4E made the shortcomings worse.




I didn't realize these were shortcomings in 3e.  Where there people out there complaining about abstract combat features in 3e like hit points and AC?  I don't seem to remember much of it.  Or are you specifically refering to the use of daily limitations?  Because I don't remember that being a complaint with regards to the barbarian rage, monk's stunning fist, etc. either.

It seems to me that people had no problem whatsoever suspending their disbelief without any problem using abstract systems in the past.  I think the difference in this situation is simply that it is something new and on a larger scale.  For years people have been dealing with the abstract notion of hitpoints, ac and others without a problem, simply because they have always been there.  With something new, it will just take some time to adjust.  Afterall, should the person playing the barbarian in 3e really have a problem suspending disbelief because of a daily limit?  I wouldn't think so.


----------



## clearstream (Jun 30, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day... At least with magic I am able to create a reason why that makes sense within the mytaphysics of the setting or game system.




Then assume it is magic. In a rigorous philosophical sense, it is.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> HERO notably limits certain powers (or heavily suggests that certain powers be limited) without providing any in-game rationale for said limitations. The time travel stuff is what immediately comes to mind. I mean, it has the "This power is broken, unbalanced, and not recommended!" icon (i.e., the STOP sign) next to it, right?
> 
> How can you genuinely say that you won't play D&D 4e because it fails to provide an in-game rationale for limiting certain things, when HERO does the _exact same thing_?



Those are hardly the exact same thing.  Hero has an extremely free-form character-creation system, and it warns you that certain powers might seem innocuous -- and might work fine in a carefully scripted comic -- but they can destroy your game.  It's a warning to the gamemaster about what to allow into the game.

The complaint about once-per-day martial exploits is that the constraint the character faces doesn't exist in the game world.  The expert swordsman knows he can only pull of his super-move if conditions are just right; the player knows he can _make_ conditions just right exactly once per day.  That's fine for a board game.  It's fine for narrating an action movie.  It's not fine for _simulating_ fantasy combat and keeping the player thinking from the character's point of view.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm suddenly picturing two gamers arguing over the rules of chess...

"The knight's 'L' shaped move doesn't make in sense. It should charge straight ahead. Not mention how unrealistic it is that it can execute a right-angle turn given the mass of an armored horse and rider."

"The rook's even worse. It's supposed to represent a castle. How does it move at all? Shouldn't the other pieces hide inside of the it?"


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

BraveSirRobin said:


> Where there people out there complaining about abstract combat features in 3e like hit points and AC?



Of course.  People have been complaining about AC and hp for decades.


BraveSirRobin said:


> It seems to me that people had no problem whatsoever suspending their disbelief without any problem using abstract systems in the past.



People have had plenty of problems with AC and hp, but they largely "got over it" because those mechanics work better than the alternatives presented so far.

And the problem isn't _abstraction_; it's _bad_ abstraction.  It's one thing to skip some details; it's another to explicitly provide the wrong details.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Of course.  People have been complaining about AC and hp for decades.
> People have had plenty of problems with AC and hp, but they largely "got over it" because those mechanics work better than the alternatives presented so far.



Exactly. The daily power work better as the alternatives presented so far. (I'd point to 3.5 Tactical Feats and Iron Heroes Token gathering systems)


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Exactly. The daily power work better as the alternatives presented so far.



I suspect that's true, but that doesn't mean that all complaints are invalid, and it certainly doesn't mean we should drop all discussion of how to do it better -- that is, with equally simple mechanics that make more sense.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> You don't realize that you're not even thinking at this point. Everything is a preprogrammed response. Every response is hackneyed. Your response has very little to do with 4e. The only connection to 4e is such reponses are trite, abundant, and unoriginal. I have a hard time believing that you are a sincere critic when your reponses are so banal.




Attacking other posters is against the rules. I'm banning you from this thread, and if you continue the practice you'll get a suspension from the boards.

Feel free to email me if you don't understand this.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 30, 2008)

I agree that daily or per encounter martial abilities are less realistic than a hypothetical game system in which things are just as fun and worth playing as they are in 4e, but are completely realistic and plausible mechanically as well.

But you know what's better than that?  A hypothetical game system in which things are just as fun and worth playing as they are in 4e, but are completely realistic and plausible mechanically as well, AND YOU GET A PONY!

Hypotheticals only get us so far.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 30, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And if you're modeling action movie reality, most of the fighter's daily exploits read like they shouldn't be daily powers, but usable at will, especially against lesser foes.




Not really.

I mean, you don't see The Bride using the "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique" on everyone, just once against the BBEG. You don't see Choder Boy using Hamster Style until it really calls for it. You don't see John McClane blowing up helicopters with cars more than once a movie at the most. Blade doesn't use his one-hit kill on Quinn until the time is right.

Action movie stars don't use their baddest moves at all times, because it just cheapens them.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> ...AND YOU GET A PONY!



I'm sorry, did I say something snarky to you?  You seem upset.

Anyway, my point is that daily powers may "work" OK for many people, but that doesn't mean that all complaints are invalid, and it certainly doesn't mean we should drop all discussion of how to do it better -- that is, with equally simple mechanics that make more sense.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Anyway, my point is that daily powers may "work" OK for many people, but that doesn't mean that all complaints are invalid, and it certainly doesn't mean we should drop all discussion of how to do it better -- that is, with equally simple mechanics that make more sense.




The real comment that you sniped from was about how this discussion isn't about Theoretical Physics: you have to provide testable mechanics to discuss for your personal anecdote to even qualify as Theory instead of mad ravings.

Is there a mechanic that is simple and sensible, especially in a game where the physical anatomy of a Dwarf would suggest that their hearts would explode when they approach 20 STR?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> The real comment that you sniped from was about how this discussion isn't about Theoretical Physics: you have to provide testable mechanics to discuss for your personal anecdote to even qualify as Theory instead of mad ravings.
> 
> Is there a mechanic that is simple and sensible, especially in a game where the physical anatomy of a Dwarf would suggest that their hearts would explode when they approach 20 STR?



I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you'd accuse _me_ of mad ravings.  Exploding dwarf hearts?


----------



## wally (Jun 30, 2008)

BraveSirRobin said:


> I didn't realize these were shortcomings in 3e.  Where there people out there complaining about abstract combat features in 3e like hit points and AC?  I don't seem to remember much of it.  Or are you specifically refering to the use of daily limitations?  Because I don't remember that being a complaint with regards to the barbarian rage, monk's stunning fist, etc. either.
> 
> It seems to me that people had no problem whatsoever suspending their disbelief without any problem using abstract systems in the past.  I think the difference in this situation is simply that it is something new and on a larger scale.  For years people have been dealing with the abstract notion of hitpoints, ac and others without a problem, simply because they have always been there.  With something new, it will just take some time to adjust.  Afterall, should the person playing the barbarian in 3e really have a problem suspending disbelief because of a daily limit?  I wouldn't think so.





I think it is a little in line with what you are saying.  Previously, a barbarian could only rage x times per day (depending upon level), which ended up being explained, either by your interpretation of the rules, or by your DM stating why it happened that way.

The problem I think most people have is that previously, you only had a few things like this that you had to explain.  Now every power needs an excuse due to them all being put into a category that is usable only x times per day.  

Previously, many of the class abilities that were physical in nature (ie. rogues sneak attack) weren't limited per day, and now that you limit physical abilities per day, many of the excuses that people come up with don't necessarily work for everyone, and since 4e seems to just say, 'separate your mindset from your character's and you'll be fine,' people are complaining.

You can rely upon your DM coming up with an excuse, 'The fellow you are fighting didn't just line up properly this time,' or you can let the player decide, 'my character thinks he is trying the same move again, but I will actually use a lesser one and apply damage as it is similar.'  Either way, it is a big change from previous, and it isn't easy for people to just want to accept because it is the newest edition.

-wally


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you'd accuse _me_ of mad ravings.  Exploding dwarf hearts?




Alright, Strength is a linear progression, as from page 222 of PHB: 10 STR lifts 200 lbs while moving, while 20 STR lifts 400 lbs while moving, etc etc.  The Weight and Height of a Dwarf, from page 36, is around 4'3" to 4'9" an 160-220.

Even assuming a Sizable Dwarf, a 4'9" 220 lb being, even being broadly stocky enough to support additional weight at that moment, would have non-trivial medical problems when they approach the scales of 400lb and 540lbs.

This is beyond considering a STR 18 360lb lifting 85lb halfling being just incredulous.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> Alright, Strength is a linear progression, as from page 222 of PHB: 10 STR lifts 200 lbs while moving, while 20 STR lifts 400 lbs while moving, etc etc.  The Weight and Height of a Dwarf, from page 36, is around 4'3" to 4'9" an 160-220.
> 
> Even assuming a Sizable Dwarf, a 4'9" 220 lb being, even being broadly stocky enough to support additional weight at that moment, would have non-trivial medical problems when they approach the scales of 400lb and 540lbs.
> 
> This is beyond considering a STR 18 360lb lifting 85lb halfling being just incredulous.



This is quite a tangent, but Olympic weightlifter Halil Mutlu, at 4'11" and 133 pounds, was able to clean & jerk 168 kg (370 lbs) overhead.  His heart has not exploded.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

> This is quite a tangent, but Olympic weightlifter Halil Mutlu, at 4'11" and 133 pounds, was able to clean & jerk 168 kg (370 lbs) overhead.  His heart has not exploded.




360lbs is an 18STR feat.  Halil has 18STR even at 133lbs.  He is not 85lbs (Halfing) nor is he trying to lift 400 or 540lbs (20 or 26 STR).

The point of the Tangent being that "Martial" isn't as mundane as you think it is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> I agree that daily or per encounter martial abilities are less realistic than a hypothetical game system in which things are just as fun and worth playing as they are in 4e, but are completely realistic and plausible mechanically as well.
> 
> But you know what's better than that?  A hypothetical game system in which things are just as fun and worth playing as they are in 4e, but are completely realistic and plausible mechanically as well, AND YOU GET A PONY!
> 
> Hypotheticals only get us so far.




What am I supposed to do with a Pony?!!!


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> The point of the Tangent being that "Martial" isn't as mundane as you think it is.



You've lost me again.

I think we can agree that all _mundane_ powers are _martial_, even though not all _martial_ powers are _mundane_.

Anyway, the problem -- and it's obviously only a problem for some people -- is that these martial exploits face meta-game constraints, not in-game constraints.  The player is making decisions based on totally different criteria from his character.

I don't have a perfect, fully-formed alternative set of rules ready to go, but we can discuss alternatives that would make more sense than one-per-day exploits.

For instance, if we want to emulate the rarity of good openings for spectacular moves, we can allow a quasi-attack roll each turn.  Choose an exploit, roll to not-quite-attack, and if you "hit", you see an opening and perform your exploit.  If you "miss", you don't see an opening, and you fall back on your basic attack.

That's just off the top of my head, but it moves a meta-game resource back into the game as a question of whether there's an opening or not.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

> I think we can agree that all _mundane_ powers are _martial_, even though not all _martial_ powers are _mundane_.



So what is the problem with "Eye of the Tiger" being a 1/day resource when it isn't a question of physical properties?  If the 1/day Martial powers are asymptomatic of how your mundane body acts, there is no need for you to staple on a crufty DC 50 Endurance check to regain it; it becomes a solely meta-game constraint only if you build the in-game to question it.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> That's just off the top of my head, but it moves a meta-game resource back into the game as a question of whether there's an opening or not.



It also puts us squarely back in the "create one super attack, then spam it" technique of melee combat.

Which apparently some people like.

But those people are also apparently in the minority, so, sucks to be them.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> If the 1/day Martial powers are asymptomatic of how your mundane body acts, there is no need for you to staple on a crufty DC 50 Endurance check to regain it; it becomes a solely meta-game constraint only if you build the in-game to question it.



What?

If something is constrained by the rules to once-per-day, but within the game world it's not specifically constrained to once-per-day (but has some other constraints, like spotting a rare opening), then that once-per-day constraint is a meta-game constraint.

I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> It also puts us squarely back in the "create one super attack, then spam it" technique of melee combat.



No, not quite.  You can't pull off your super-attack every turn.  You can look for the opening, but you can't pull it off.

Further, you presumably have a menu of super-attacks that are better in different circumstances, so you look to try the right one at the right time.

It's not perfect though, agreed; it's just something I aome up with off the top of my head to spur discussion.


Cadfan said:


> But those people are also apparently in the minority, so, sucks to be them.



Are you angry?


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> What?
> 
> If something is constrained by the rules to once-per-day, but within the game world it's not specifically constrained to once-per-day (but has some other constraints, like spotting a rare opening), then that once-per-day constraint is a meta-game constraint.
> 
> I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.




*So what is the problem with "Eye of the Tiger" being a 1/day resource when it isn't a question of physical properties?  ​ In case you missed it in your egregious snipe there.  Considering you said that "I think we can agree that all _mundane_ powers are _martial_, even though not all _martial_ powers are _mundane_.", I think you are being obtuse.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> So what is the problem with "Eye of the Tiger" being a 1/day resource when it isn't a question of physical properties?



I haven't made any claims about Eye of the Tiger, and I don't have its entry right in front of me.  Would you care to explain your point?


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> "I think we can agree that all _mundane_ powers are _martial_, even though not all _martial_ powers are _mundane_."




yet



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.




So using your own logic, the answer is that daily abilities are not mundane.


----------



## subbob (Jun 30, 2008)

Atropos said:


> Another view on this, is that the "daily power" is not so much an ability that the character consciously uses, but more of a special circumstance that simply allow the character to apply his natural skill.




I think I could get accustomed to thinking in this manner.

There's nothing to say that a DM could not allow a subsequent use of one of these daily powers if the right circumstances came about.

"The orc falls prone at your feet."  (OOC to character - you may use your [Insert Daily Power Name] next round even if it's already been expended for the day.)


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> So using your own logic, the answer is that daily abilities are not mundane.



What on earth are you talking about?  That's the complaint.  These martial exploits are supposed to represent non-magical fighting abilities, but they have these silly meta-game constraints of once-per-day or once-per-encounter, when I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> What on earth are you talking about?  That's the complaint.  These martial exploits are supposed to represent non-magical fighting abilities, but they have these silly meta-game constraints of once-per-day or once-per-encounter, when I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.




However
_"I think we can agree that all mundane powers are martial, even though not all martial powers are mundane."_​ You're disagreeing with yourself here.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> You're disagreeing with yourself here.



I have no idea how.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> However
> _"I think we can agree that all mundane powers are martial, even though not all martial powers are mundane."_​ You're disagreeing with yourself here.



 Compare: "All bears are mammals, even though not all mammals are bears."​
Cheers, -- N


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 30, 2008)

Nifft said:


> Compare:"All bears are mammals, even though not all mammals are bears."​Cheers, -- N




So therefore your problem is that there are Tigers (Marital and "one-per-day") that are not Bears (Martial and Mundane).  Even though they are both Mammals (Martial) you do not need to consider it a Bear (Mundane with suited explanation)


----------



## Nifft (Jun 30, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> So therefore your problem is that there are Tigers (Marital and "one-per-day") that are not Bears (Martial and Mundane).  Even though they are both Mammals (Martial) you do not need to consider it a Bear (Mundane with suited explanation)



 You are confused about who has what problem.

I'm a pedant: I don't like seeing well-constructed logical statements mislabeled as self-contradictory.

To contest the truth value of the statement, the original author may be a better target.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> No, not quite.  You can't pull off your super-attack every turn.  You can look for the opening, but you can't pull it off.
> 
> Further, you presumably have a menu of super-attacks that are better in different circumstances, so you look to try the right one at the right time.
> 
> It's not perfect though, agreed; it's just something I aome up with off the top of my head to spur discussion.



That's like saying that 3e didn't involve spamming attacks, because sometimes your attack roll missed.  Of course its spamming attacks all over again.  Now it just requires one extra roll of the dice, and your attack has a "Miss: etc" entry like some 4e attacks.

Put it this way.  Imagine this spell in 3e.

"The target makes a will save.  On a failure, the target is assaulted by illusory chipmunks who eat his skin, and takes [caster level]d6 in damage.  On a success, the target is not assaulted by illusory chipmunks who eat his skin.  Instead, the target must make a fortitude save.  On a failure, the target is blind.  On a success, the target suffers no ill effects."

Now, you could theme this in two different ways.  Either its one spell that has two possible effects, or, its two spells and you cast the first one if you can, or cast the second one if you cannot.

But either way, the fact remains- every round you're going to spam this choice.  We can make the decision tree as big as we want, with as many options as you want, but the only decision YOU make is whether to initiate the decision tree.  

And you'll choose "yes" because any system in which one's best attack is spammable encourages people to create characters optimized for the spamming of one single attack.  Which is what 4e designed around with encounter and daily abilities.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 30, 2008)

Well between the 'Dwarven Exploding hearts' and 'Cadfan's assaulting squirrels', this thread has achieved a minimal level of worthiness.

I predict that by this time friday, we should be able to actually make a full blown adventure from tidbits from this thread.


----------



## tgaptte (Jun 30, 2008)

*I had a hard time too until...*

Hey Wyrm,

I used to feel your pain...until I changed my thinking a bit.  I still really don't like the way they did things, but at least I can accept that they did them a particular way and can enjoy playing the game.  My background is in fairly heavy roleplaying/story-driven games...it's never been about the rules crunch for me, other than how I could crunch the rules to make my character fit my concept better.  Here's what I've come to realize:

In 3.5e, DnD seemed to attempt to more closely simulate fantasy novels, worlds, and stories - I believe this is called simulationist.  And I definitely fall firmly on this side of the fence.  I know some of you will argue that 3.5e was not more realistic at all and could sight examples of why...but please read on anyway 

 - Hit Points, while not exactly, seemed to more of an attempt to simulate real life vitality (there will ALWAYS be SOME abstraction in a game).  When the characters were gravely injured and the Cleric had exhausted the gifts of his god, they had to "lick their wounds" and be careful not to get into a fight until they had a chance to heal.  They might even be forced to travel back to town and rest for several days to recover from a particularly hard fight.  I think this can simulate fantasy novels, movies, and stories quite nicely.  There are numerous examples in fantasy literature where our heroes must limp away and spend time to recover from some overwhelming defeat.

In 4e, they seem to have moved the bar.  Instead of attemping to mimic fantasy novels, movies, stories, etc., they are using "cinematic" action hero logic to explain the characters powers, abilities and hit points as well as to achieve game balance. The game now seems to be mostly focused on "Kill the monsters, take their stuff" (I realize previous versions of the game also had this motto, but 4e, to me, seems to have taken bigger steps to enforce it) and anything that detracts from this goal is "bad" and must be "removed".

- Now we have Hit Points that represent how John Mclane in one scene is walking gingerly across a field of shattered window glass...eventually wrapping his feet in cloth, and still walking gingerly due to the deep cuts in his feet.  Later in the movie he's running full tilt again, apparently his mind blocking the cuts in his feet or perhaps they weren't so deep after all, (ignore all the blood  ) having used a healing surge and is now fully ready to fight again.  So 4e is more about the party being "Action Heroes" and less about them being realistic characters in a fantasy novel.  When Frodo gets sick due to the dark sword wound and has to return to the elves to be healed, it's a MAJOR event...I don't think this is the thinking in 4e.  Effects, in general, don't last beyond combat...unless you call it a disease or hand wave it.  You can certainly MAKE 4e work as a simulationist game...but you have to do more work to do so IMO.  In 4e, they tried to design a good GAME as their FIRST priority and I think the side effect is that they ended up designing a game that is a good SIMULATION of fantasy as their SECOND priority.  Nothing wrong with it, it's a fun game, but I think it is one of the things that is leading all of us to have these types of discussions.

So...with this in mind...my rationale for Encounter and Daily Exploits is as follows:  Once per movie session (err...game session) the players have the opportunity to take over script control from the writer (GM) and say "my action hero" (err..."character") does something cool at this point.  You rarely see a repeat of a "Really Cool Move" in a movie, and that's what 4e is simulating...it's just allowing the player to decide when "Conan one-punches the horse".

If you can accept how 4e deals with Hit Points, Healing Surges and healing in general....then I think the same "Action Hero logic" will help you see through to accept Encounter and Daily abilities as roots of the same tree - all these things stem from their shift in focus from "character in a fantasy story" to "Lead Action Hero in a movie"

Anyway...I hope that helps you enjoy the game more...it certainly has helped me enjoy myself while playing 4e.  If you try to force the 4e rules to fit into a "fantasy story simulation mindset" I think you will have trouble making this make sense and will not enjoy 4e.  I am currently playing in a heavy roleplaying 4e game and am having a blast - mostly because the GM and the other players are great roleplayers, and we've all agreed to "just accept" the way 4e does things and try to have fun anyway. .

T


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

tgaptte said:


> Hey Wyrm,
> 
> I used to feel your pain...until I changed my thinking a bit.  I still really don't like the way they did things, but at least I can accept that they did them a particular way and can enjoy playing the game.  My background is in fairly heavy roleplaying/story-driven games...it's never been about the rules crunch for me, other than how I could crunch the rules to make my character fit my concept better.  Here's what I've come to realize:
> 
> ...



Generally I can't see anything wrong here, except two points: 
- Even fantasy stories have a lot of "action movie" logic in them. I am not really an expert on the fantasy genre, but a lot of combats seem to work more "scene-based". In 4E, the closest to combat fatigue over multiple encounters are the loss of healing surges..

- Frodos special injury/sickness could be modeled by the 4E disease mechanic (if anyone is considering to "stick" with 3E but wants to plunder something from 4E, this might be a good rule  ). It is a unique event when the characters are hit by a disease, and it takes more then a random Cleric casting a no-chance-of-failure Remove Disease spell.


----------



## BraveSirRobin (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> Of course.  People have been complaining about AC and hp for decades.
> People have had plenty of problems with AC and hp, but they largely "got over it" because those mechanics work better than the alternatives presented so far.
> 
> And the problem isn't _abstraction_; it's _bad_ abstraction.  It's one thing to skip some details; it's another to explicitly provide the wrong details.




And yet, I don't recall seeing any threads here complaining about the bad abstractions that are HP and AC, although I don't come and view every day so I may have missed them.  The point though is that this has always been a game with abstraction, and bad ones at that.  HP is a terrible abstraction, but people live with it.  Suddenly, however, it seems like it has become a big issue that people just can't live with anymore.  

I don't know, maybe the changes in 4e are so dramatic that it just doesn't feel the same.  But to me, the complaints that there isn't enough realism in their _fantasy role-playing game_ seems more like a change of opinion then a change of the game.  I'll admit that I don't like the notion of daily martial powers but I can't see how they would _break _the game for me coming from 3e either.


----------



## BraveSirRobin (Jun 30, 2008)

wally said:


> You can rely upon your DM coming up with an excuse, 'The fellow you are fighting didn't just line up properly this time,' or you can let the player decide, 'my character thinks he is trying the same move again, but I will actually use a lesser one and apply damage as it is similar.'  Either way, it is a big change from previous, and it isn't easy for people to just *want *to accept because it is the newest edition.
> 
> -wally




I think there are probably alot more abstractions that that they are already making "excuses" for beyond just rage and the other martial dailies.  They already do this to a significant extent so doing it a bit more really isn't all that big of a change.  But I do think that you touched on possibly the larger point.  Its not that people can't accept the change, its that they don't *want *to accept the change for whatever reason.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> But either way, the fact remains- every round you're going to spam this choice.  We can make the decision tree as big as we want, with as many options as you want, but the only decision YOU make is whether to initiate the decision tree.



There are multiple facets to this issue.

If you have one clear super-attack that is always better than your next best attack, then, yes, you would always choose it.  Maybe you won't successfully roll for an "opening" in the system I described, but, yes, you will always choose that one super-attack "tree" (in your parlance).

This leaves us with an uninteresting choice, from the player's perspective, but it does vary the outcome significantly, and that's worth something.  You could think of this as a bit like an expanded critical hit system, where some attacks -- probably far more than 1-in-20 -- don't just do twice as much damage but hit every opponent nearby, or knock someone prone, etc.

The bigger issue is having super-attacks that dominate all other options.  You can take the easy way out, which 4E's designers did, and give them once-per-day constraints, and that does give the player a resource constraint to consider, but I would much, much rather see exploits that can only be exploited under the right circumstances, and where strategies emerge from the combination of options available to everyone.

Then the player's challenge would be using the right exploits at the right time and maneuvering in combat to make the right time happen, not expending a meta-game resource at the right meta-time.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> There are multiple facets to this issue.
> 
> If you have one clear super-attack that is always better than your next best attack, then, yes, you would always choose it.  Maybe you won't successfully roll for an "opening" in the system I described, but, yes, you will always choose that one super-attack "tree" (in your parlance).
> 
> ...



Maybe I am a bit to optimistic, but I think D&D 4 has both. 
The 4E dailies are unique powers that are "reliable" to pull off (within the constraints of rolling d20s and so on). 
But using all those at-will, encounter and daily powers together does create "meta-powers" - tactics and strategies that will usually prove effective (provided a given set of constraints, like "a lot of enemies are minions" or "there is a choke point" or "we're surrounded"). The trick is finding them, because they are not neatly labeled (yet)...


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 30, 2008)

So if we were to change at will actions to at will minor actions and Encounter powers to standard at will actions and daily powers to encounter powers, would that help you make it more viable and more suspensiony of disbeliefy?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 30, 2008)

cangrejoide said:


> You change your position faster than the tide, and this really discredits any future argument you would do.




No, I really don't. Quit ignoring the context, and quit looking for excuses to make me into the troll you want to see.



> I am telling you where not to troll.




Thanks for being a jerk! That's really awesome, thanks.

Because, clearly, I have no idea where I should be posting, or how, even though I've been here for almost seven years. Clearly, someone who's been here for - what, three, maybe almost four months? - knows how things work around here infinitely better than I do.


----------



## outsider (Jun 30, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.
> 
> I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day. I can see perhaps allowing for telling a player that a certain opening needed by his fighter would likely only happen once per encounter...and that is a bit of a stretch IMO depending upon the length of the encounter.




Has anybody mentioned the gogoplata choke yet?  It's a jujitsu manuever that probably hundreds of mixed martial artists know, yet only 3 mma fights have ended by it(last I looked into it at least).  People rarely try the manuever, because the required positioning for it comes up extremely rarely.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 30, 2008)

BraveSirRobin said:


> And yet, I don't recall seeing any threads here complaining about the bad abstractions that are HP and AC, although I don't come and view every day so I may have missed them.  The point though is that this has always been a game with abstraction, and bad ones at that.  HP is a terrible abstraction, but people live with it.  Suddenly, however, it seems like it has become a big issue that people just can't live with anymore.
> 
> I don't know, maybe the changes in 4e are so dramatic that it just doesn't feel the same.  But to me, the complaints that there isn't enough realism in their _fantasy role-playing game_ seems more like a change of opinion then a change of the game.  I'll admit that I don't like the notion of daily martial powers but I can't see how they would _break _the game for me coming from 3e either.




I can go with that, but here I think a better alternative is to provide a house-ruled combat action for tripping (couldn't find one in the PHB when I looked).

The real problem is that tripping in 3.x was way too powerful.  Similar to "called shots" in 1 and 2E that were attacks with a minor penalty that allowed for super-powerful effects.  With the HP abstraction, a concrete penalty like blinding a badguy in early editions was straight out more effective on every attack than a simple attack.  

Tripping in 4E looks to remain extremely powerful--having an opponent prone provides combat advantage and a guaranteed free attack for everyone within melee reach unless the victim turtles and takes later beatings (standing up and crawling both provoke opportunity attacks).  There has to be some limitation on overly powerful attacks or they would be the only actions ever taken.  That may seem overly gamist to the simulationist crowd, but the best solution I've ever encountered is to turn the tables on the PCs and have them get swarmed by trip specialists that proceed to pound them into a pulp.  

This may be a "break" to the game, but any game that attempts to portray tripping and some kind of "reasonable penalty" to a prone person in a combat melee will run into the same problem.  The only other alternative is jettisoning role-playing games that have combat in any central role and returning to strategy boardgames that abstract out one more level.  (For example, why can't my armies attempt to trip or use missile weapons in Risk?)


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 30, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> No, I really don't. Quit ignoring the context, and quit looking for excuses to make me into the troll you want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Lol, yeah because postcount is a testimony of character.

Actually Trolls usually have a high post count. You know, because of trolling.

But you have made it obvious in earlier posts that you are not here to actually provide anything postive to the thread, in your own words:



GnomeWorks said:


> As for what I'm still doing here... just stirring up trouble, I guess.
> .




Also: 



GnomeWorks said:


> Thanks for being a jerk! That's really awesome, thanks.
> .




And Thanks for calling me a Jerk, it is quite rare that a high post count poster would deign himself to talk to a petty low post count poster, even more to be called a jerk. It is quite an Honor.

And with that last bit, I bid my goodbyes to this thread.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe I am a bit to optimistic, but I think D&D 4 has both.
> 
> The 4E dailies are unique powers that are "reliable" to pull off (within the constraints of rolling d20s and so on).
> 
> But using all those at-will, encounter and daily powers together does create "meta-powers" - tactics and strategies that will usually prove effective (provided a given set of constraints, like "a lot of enemies are minions" or "there is a choke point" or "we're surrounded"). The trick is finding them, because they are not neatly labeled (yet)...



I think you're right that "combos" will arise.  My complaint wasn't the lack of such tactics, but rather that meta-game constraints were needed _at all_.

I'd like to see once-per-encounter exploits only be useful or possible roughly once per encounter, because conditions _in the game_ actually aren't right, not useful or possible most of the time, but limited purely by the rule, which has no in-game rationale.


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> You've lost me again.
> 
> I think we can agree that all _mundane_ powers are _martial_, even though not all _martial_ powers are _mundane_.
> 
> ...




This was, essentially, the rational for miss-chance in 3E. There's a reason it's gone. I would rather have the metagame construct of at-will/encounter/daily (AED) than potentially never see the Ultimate Move of Ultimate Coolness because my dice hate me (or my players - I play both sides of the screen).

All the mechanics for randomizing or making the use of powers less predicatable end up a)taking longer, and b) making them less important. If you can't count of your daily to come up against the BBEG, it's a lot less interesting, useful, and fun (last IMNSHO). Gathering tokens is interesting, but much more board-gamey, heavier book-keeping, and subject to the fight ending first.

Earthdawn had a class that had a 3-round attack sequence (Parry, riposte, ATTACK) that could do a crapload of damage once it charged up. By the time the guy playing that class got around to unleashing it; his opponent was generally dead by the rest of the party doing average damage across those 3 rounds. Tokens to me look the same way.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?



Not quite QFT, because it's a question rather than an assertion. But one of several good posts on this thread, Mustrum.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I think you're right that "combos" will arise.  My complaint wasn't the lack of such tactics, but rather that meta-game constraints were needed _at all_.
> 
> I'd like to see once-per-encounter exploits only be useful or possible roughly once per encounter, because conditions _in the game_ actually aren't right, not useful or possible most of the time, but limited purely by the rule, which has no in-game rationale.



I think one reason for going with daily powers - aside from the arising tactical implications - is that if you don't have them, you have nothing to get you out of a tough situation. 

I played a 3E Warlock - all powers are at-will. 
If the fight was going well, I used Eldritch Blast.
If the fight was hard, I used Eldritch Blast.
If the fight was really hard, I used everything I had... Which was Eldritch Blast. There was no way to spent any last-ditch effort resources for me.

Daily Powers are required for gameplay. They might not have an in-game rationale, but the game suffers if you don't have a desperate measure available. That's why even games that don't generally use powers have some kind of mechanic for this - action points, possibilities, karma, fortune...


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Daily Powers are required for gameplay. They might not have an in-game rationale, but the game suffers if you don't have a desperate measure available. That's why even games that don't generally use powers have some kind of mechanic for this - action points, possibilities, karma, fortune...




Wow I had no idea that I had been suffering for the past 26 years because there were no daily powers in my games. Thanks for clearing that up I feel so much better about them now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Wow I had no idea that I had been suffering for the past 26 years because there were no daily powers in my games. Thanks for clearing that up I feel so much better about them now.




Well, usually you probably had them - they were called spells.  And sometimes magical items.

Maybe I should have mentioned that my Warlock was member of a party with a Dragon Shaman, a Paladin and a Druid (with the Druid player and his character partially absent). The lack of daily resources showed.


Edit: And please, don't always assume that people are attacking your play style or trying to invalidate your experience, damn it! I don't want to feel like I am walking on eggs when I post something!
I have had a lot of fun with 3E, too. Including the aforementioned Warlock!


----------



## Steely Dan (Jul 1, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Wow I had no idea that I had been suffering for the past 26 years because there were no daily powers in my games. Thanks for clearing that up I feel so much better about them now.





If you've played any 3rd Ed there were plenty of daily powers (rage, stunning fist, smite evil etc).


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 1, 2008)

Steely Dan said:


> If you've played any 3rd Ed there were plenty of daily powers (rage, stunning fist, smite evil etc).




Sorry I didn't realize 3.xE had been around around for 26 years, my bad clearly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2008)

Steely Dan said:


> If you've played any 3rd Ed there were plenty of daily powers (rage, stunning fist, smite evil etc).






Shadeydm said:


> Sorry I didn't realize 3.xE had been around around for 26 years, my bad clearly.




There are still spells, that have been around since the beginning. And are daily. And the thing I addressed had nothing to do with martial daily powers, but with daily powers in general.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jul 1, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> Sorry I didn't realize 3.xE had been around around for 26 years, my bad clearly.





I never said that, why are you being so aggressive and defensive?

All I said was that if you played 3rd Ed (however many times) it had daily abilities as well.

And the fact that you keep bringing up that fact that you've been playing for 26 years is getting creepy – got something to prove? 

_I've_ been playing for 21 years, wow, yay, fascinating…


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There are still spells, that have been around since the beginning. And are daily. And the thing I addressed had nothing to do with martial daily powers, but with daily powers in general.




My issue isn't so much with spell dailys (although sleep seemed so lame in play I have trouble seeing why it couldn't be an encounter power). My issue is why something akin to whirlwind attack should be limited to 1/day.


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 1, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> My issue isn't so much with spell dailys (although sleep seemed so lame in play I have trouble seeing why it couldn't be an encounter power). My issue is why something akin to whirlwind attack should be limited to 1/day.




Rules-wise, because the daily powers are powerful - they are powerful enough that the DM and the other players doesn't want to see them every combat. If this isn't acceptable from a stricly mechanical point of view, this isn't going to work for you. 4E has accepted there will be things every class can do only sometimes  game balance reasons. We could do this by recharge or miss chance (monsters do this by recharge), we could do it by tokens (Iron Heroes - written by Mike Mearls, among others). There are problems with both; recharge/miss chance means that some fights you would want to use the power in you just can't. I've been in a situation in another game where my character died because I couldn't roll over a 15 on percentile dice across 5 rounds of combat to hit a caster and end a spell. That wasn't a lot of fun. A recharge roll means potentially you could use the power too often. Tokens means book-keeping, and means that in some circumstances you could charge up your power and have no eligible or appropriate targets for it (a charge I've heard leveled at IH, and seen in other systems with a charge-up mechanic). 

As for description, I've gone through the fighter powers and skimmed the ranger, rogue, and warlord powers and I can't find very many examples of use-limited powers that can't be explained as "I'm trying but it's not having an effect right now". You knocked him prone, but he got back up before you could follow up. The effect happened, but not in such a way that can be represented inside the turn/grid structure (you didn't push him the full five feet, the ally you granted extra movement to was slow enough off the mark that his turn came up first, etc).

There's always going to be some metagame knowledge where the player knows more in combat than his player. the limits on AED powers is one of them. So's the table talk, hitpoint status of all your allies, exact locaiton of all your allies, etc. This is just another example of that.

In short, given that some powers for each class need to be limited by the AED structure so that all classes are equally powerful across all levels (a core design goal of 4E, let me remind you), and the limitations of other mechanisms for limiting the use of Encounter and Daily powers, the AED structure is the better alternative. Once we have this, explain it away however you like - the easiest IMHO and the one that works with almost all the pwoers I've looked at is to add "and it has a noticeable secondary in-game effect" to the description of the martial powers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> My issue isn't so much with spell dailys (although sleep seemed so lame in play I have trouble seeing why it couldn't be an encounter power). My issue is why something akin to whirlwind attack should be limited to 1/day.



The context I was posting in did not address the importance or validity of martial dailies in specific, but the general importance of dailies. It wasn't supposed to address the in-game logic or anything like that.
---

The easiest "cop-out" is to say: Martial powers are magic. It's "Martial Power" not "Mundane abilities". All those awesome stunts real people do, they are still mundane and are what you do when you're using basic and at-will attacks. The rest is "sword magic". It's not "flashy" with dazzling light displays, but it's still magic.

The a little less easy route is to say (because it might seem contrived): Martial Powers strain your body. To execute a specific maneuver/power, you use a combination of muscles, adrenaline, nerves and brain cell clusters that you will not be able to activate this way again unless you rest for a few hours. The neurons won't fire again with the necessary speed and sequence, the muscles are too fatigued, and you don't have the adrenaline to get the energy boost required. 


The next way to go is using the narrative/gamist approach, assuming "fortune in the middle", and distinguishing between player and character choices. This seems to be the hardest for most, since it changes core assumptions on how to interpret game mechanics in the context of the game-world. Some people are not accustomed or do not want to change between a narrating player and the player characters point of view, or rather want them to be identical. 


The final method might be to use the hong-way - stop thinking to hard about fantasy. While simplistic looking, it seems to be even harder then anything else, because most role-players have learned that it's important to think critical - which is usually right, but when we're talking about having fun only, and thinking gets in the way instead of improving it, there is no harm in not thinking to hard about fantasy. (And very different from what happens with "not thinking to hard about politics" or "not thinking to hard about gender equalities" or just "not thinking too hard about math")

Ask yourself only: Does it provide cool scenes on the battlefield? Does it make combat interesting? Would it lead to imbalances restricting daily powers to spellcasters only, or having all dailies becoming encounter powers? In short, do the game mechanics provide ways for a fun play experience?


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2008)

For those who dislike metagame-based Encounter and Daily powers, what are your thoughts on Token mechanics that achieve similar results?

-O


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 1, 2008)

Obryn said:


> For those who dislike metagame-based Encounter and Daily powers, what are your thoughts on Token mechanics that achieve similar results?
> 
> -O




At a much higher cost in book-keeping, particularly between sessions...


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2008)

Obryn said:


> For those who dislike metagame-based Encounter and Daily powers, what are your thoughts on Token mechanics that achieve similar results?



I haven't played a game that uses token mechanics, but, if the tokens don't represent something in game, they're just another meta-game mechanic.

And it sounds like they add bookkeeping.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 1, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> I haven't played a game that uses token mechanics, but, if the tokens don't represent something in game, they're just another meta-game mechanic.
> 
> And it sounds like they add bookkeeping.



They were big with some classes in Iron Heroes - which is the first place I saw them.  Basically, you build up tokens by doing class-appropriate stuff, and when you have enough you can spend them to use more powerful abilities.

It's pretty intense bookkeeping, but IH was pretty clearly marketed for advanced players.  Also, it provided "Villain Classes" so GMs wouldn't need to track them for the bad guys.

I have heard that some classes in Pathfinder are - in the newer revisions - moving to Token mechanics, but at this point I can't tell you how it's being used.  (Or even if - I mean, web boards are hardly the most reliable of sources, and I can't access Paizo from work.)  It'll be interesting, though, if this conversation shifts from "Metagame mechanics are always broken!" to "My metagame mechanic can beat up your metagame mechanic."

-O


----------



## Voadam (Jul 1, 2008)

Obryn said:


> For those who dislike metagame-based Encounter and Daily powers, what are your thoughts on Token mechanics that achieve similar results?
> 
> -O




For me they were generally more resource management tracking than I wanted to deal with as a player or DM.

Many seemed OK, tieing dodging and dodging and dodging into a positional based payoff advantage seems thematically appropriate, for instance.

Token mechanics can simulate well the delayed aspects of sizing up your opponents or getting into your groove as you fight.

The cost is resource tracking and the style is suited more for those who enjoy mechanical fiddling, (evaluating when do you spend your tokens).



Wyrmshadows said:


> Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.





I dislike 1/day mechanics period. 

I live with vancian spells and spell point psionics but I prefer recharge magic from UA. Vancian spells I can articulate in character so it makes sense as preparation of spells is the way magic is in standard D&D worlds and the arbitrary nature of magic being as it is works sufficiently for me to immerse myself into the D&D worlds and characters.

I live with 3e barbarian rage and monk stunning fist but don't like them, either mechanically or from a roleplay perspective. My preferred choice for a barbarian is to take the extra rage feat and hope I don't have to worry about saving up rage for the day's last big fight. I avoid talking about the daily limits in character.

I live with paladin and celestial/fiendish smites but change them when I DM so they provide constant lower bonuses. I've been tempted by the UA recharge magic model and now 4e's encounter powers to make all daily powers into recharge/encounter powers. I have no problem saying the god smack power works X number of times per day in character because again it is the arbitrary nature of magic in the D&D world the characters live in, although thematically I prefer a different cosmological power setup.

The 1/day martials as PC narrative control for circumstances being just right does not appeal to me. It being supernatural ki powers similar to a paladin smite is distasteful but works from an IC RP perspective for me. Just biting my tongue and not bringing them up IC similar to barbarian rage would probably be my way of dealing with them.

The more martial 1/day effects are at will ones but more powerful (striking really hard for more damage or bonus to hit, etc.) instead of doing new capabilities the less problems I would run into from the IC suspension of disbelief aspect.

I would still prefer to have always on but depend on the situation style powers or an upgrade to the encounter or at will abilities for playstyle preference instead of daily powers though.


----------



## Bunnicula (Jul 1, 2008)

*every edition of everything has at least one stupid rule*

so if you don't like it, why don't you just houserule it?  

WotC has noticed by now that many people feel strongly that daily powers are a problem.  Maybe they'll fix it in the errata, maybe they won't; maybe they'll fix it in the next edition, maybe they won't.  

Meanwhile, here's my suggestion for a houserule for those of us who can't stand it:

Any class can use their daily powers as often as they want.  BUT, you only get one free use.  All subsequent uses have a cost.  The penalty for the second use of a daily is a -1 to your primary stat (i.e., DEX for rogues, INT for wizards, etc) and a -1 to all saves, until your daily would normally refresh.  The penalties stack, so the third time you use a daily, you're taking a -2 to everything.

Sound fair?  The rationale behind this is roughly the same as given in the books, that the daily is a strain on the character.  

Wizard Bob's natural magical aptitude allows him to inflict one terrifying destructive spell a day; then he can't do it again until his magic refreshes at sunrise.  But if he's willing to pay the price in mental cloudiness and bone-deep, stumbling exhaustion, he can sacrifice some of his life energy to pull it off again.  

Similarly, Fighter Jim is strong enough to cleave through flesh and bone and lay waste to his enemies, but after he does this he's tired, so he's not going to be quick and strong enough to do it again until he's had a meal and a nap.  If he really needs to, though, he can do it again, just like the wizard, and he must pay a similar price:  afterward he's weary and in pain.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 2, 2008)

Bunnicula said:


> so if you don't like it, why don't you just houserule it?



"Just" house-ruling something isn't always easy.  Or, rather, it's easy to house-rule something, but house rules often have unintended consequences.


Bunnicula said:


> Any class can use their daily powers as often as they want.  BUT, you only get one free use.  All subsequent uses have a cost.  The penalty for the second use of a daily is a -1 to your primary stat (i.e., DEX for rogues, INT for wizards, etc) and a -1 to all saves, until your daily would normally refresh.  The penalties stack, so the third time you use a daily, you're taking a -2 to everything.
> 
> Sound fair?  The rationale behind this is roughly the same as given in the books, that the daily is a strain on the character.



That is strictly more powerful than the current rules.  If a daily power is going to be usable more than once per day, then even the first use will probably need a cost.

Also, the rationale for a magical power should likely be very different than for a martial exploit, which is ostensibly limited by timing and opportunity.


----------

