Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.

[Stalker0]

I'm pretty sure it's possible, in the real world, to blind or trip someone without using magic...

In Soviet Russia, magic blinds you!

 

[Herschel]

Short answer: Its magic.

Which makes no logical sense when you think about it. Fighters have magic swords, armor, helms, medalions, boots, trinkets, mounts, knick knacks and tchotchkes too. Do they forget how to bring fire from their sword? Does their armor stop protecting them from acid after it has once? Does their Cat's Eye stop letting them see the next night? Does the sword stop being magical until the next day after he's attacked with it?

And if Wizards are supposedly geniuses, shouldn't they be able to figure out a way to make casting more efficient/often? They have magic and they're geniuses, they should have figured out how to cast whatever, whenever, right?

Being comfortable with the familiar is completely normal, but the "it's magic" excuse doesn't hold water.

 

[slobster]

And if Wizards are supposedly geniuses, shouldn't they be able to figure out a way to make casting more efficient/often? They have magic and they're geniuses, they should have figured out how to cast whatever, whenever, right?

If scientists are so smart, how come they haven't invented cold fusion? It would be really useful. If you think about it, it would solve all sorts of world problems. And it would help armies get over their lazy adventure day, where they keep going back to base just to "refuel" even though they could just get out and push the Tank, or go downhill (military types are all munchkins).

Magic should have limitations within the game world, but it gets a lot of leeway since the designers get to make up those limitations as they go. Once they are there, though, we'd like them ideally to remain consistent. So if Bob can't cast more than 3 spells a day because that is the arbitrary rule that the game designers came up with, Jane, Fred, and Azkurion the Blighted should work by those same rules.

[EDIT] Now this is a separate argument from whether, as a game design issue, Bob should be limited to three spells a day. You might have some legitimate reasons why that shouldn't be the case. We could at least have that discussion. But saying that "if mages are so smart magic should be X" is, on the face of it, a rather silly argument to make.[/EDIT]

 

[Herschel]

First of all, that's not what happens, at least in 3e D&D. Preparing spells is a matter of casting the spell until only a small amount remains un-cast. When the spellcaster actually casts the spell, he's completing the spell (hence the ensuing fireworks).

So why still casting times and focus/interruption? There's a disconnect in this explanation that was made up and tacked on to try and have it make more sense (which it doesn't, but it's a game. Some things won't)

Second of all, magic works according to different rules so it can't be really compared to anything that one could feasibly attempt in real life. Thus, if the rules of magic dictate that all wizards must wave their hands about and speak funny words, no one blinks an eye. Likewise for the spell being erased from their minds.

Again, this explanation doesn't hold water logically, geniuses, repetition, tomes and all that. And again, what about the Fighter's magic?

As for situational feats/exploits, how does this guy ever not score . I mean he should be able to do this every play, right? It's not magic.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN1SFA2UDOc]Jerome Simpson Touchdown Flip (HD) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Herschel]

If scientists are so smart, how come they haven't invented cold fusion? It would be really useful.

They have, they just forget it after discovering it because it's powerful and, you know, magic.

Now this is a separate argument from whether, as a game design issue, Bob should be limited to three spells a day. You might have some legitimate reasons why that shouldn't be the case. We could at least have that discussion. But saying that "if mages are so smart magic should be X" is, on the face of it, a rather silly argument to make.

Of course it's silly, that's the point. "Fire and forget" is an arbitrary construct and the AEDU structure makes at least as much logical sense. It's not perfect, but it works. Maybe a system kind of like 4E psionics with chutzpah or style points you gain more of as you level where you augment your basic/signature moves/tactics with a little extra flair/oomph would be more to some peoples' tastes but then that really doesn't make any more sense either.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Nonmagical daily abilities are just wrong. They're bad game design on every level. They don't model anything, they don't make sense in the game world, they're horribly unbalancing, and they're not tactically engaging. It is really not that hard to write better fighter/rogue abilities than these. There is no place for per-day. Even having it with magic is a compromise.

The Fighter dailies and rogue dailies described in 5e are similar to barbarian rages in 3e. If that didn't bother you then, it shouldn't bother you now.

It bothered people then, but it wasn't as big of an issue, because the barbarian is a small niche class that isn't played often, and because it was only one ability. Moreover, the Bo9S bothered a whole lot of people in 3e. You can bet if the 3e rogue or fight had per-day abilities, it would have caused the same kind of discontent it does now.

 

[Kinak]

Actually it didn't once you got more material past the PHB1, but alas that gets left out of the argument all too often.

Also, there was no Psionicist or Warlock in the 3E PHB, but again that never gets mentioned.

Yeah, my 4e history was cut abruptly short after the first round of core books. Because my players hate it with a visceral passion. Even the ones that were completely fed up with 3rd edition. Them's the breaks, I suppose.

But for everyone who didn't like AEDU, PHB1 was an impassible wall, which is what I was trying to get at. But you could skim through the rest of the editions without touching all at-wills or vancian casting. And I know a lot of people that did.

I'll grant you the psionicist thing. If it helps I was actually thinking about the 2nd Edition Complete Psionics Handbook version.

Anyway, judging by your response, I hit a serious edition war nervepoint. Sorry about that. That's really not my fight. 3rd isn't my cup of tea either. I was just trying to get across why I think people hate fighter dailies and why that wouldn't apply here.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[FireLance]

Nonmagical daily abilities are just wrong. They're bad game design on every level. They don't model anything, they don't make sense in the game world, they're horribly unbalancing, and they're not tactically engaging.

I'll let the first two slide as your opinion (there are arguments against these, but they involve flavor that may not be to everyone's taste), but unbalancing and not tactically engaging? Martial classes with daily abilities are arguably better balanced against magical classes with daily abilities, and having the option to activate a daily ability by itself creates more scope for tactics. Now, you might have intended to state that all daily abilities are unbalancing, or that having more varied at-will abilities creates more scope for tactics than adding an equal number of daily abilities, but that is not how your points are coming across.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Martial classes with daily abilities are arguably better balanced against magical classes with daily abilities, and having the option to activate a daily ability by itself creates more scope for tactics. Now, you might have intended to state that all daily abilities are unbalancing, or that having more varied at-will abilities creates more scope for tactics than adding an equal number of daily abilities, but that is not how your points are coming across.

All daily abilities are unbalancing. There is such wide variation for how much characters do in a day, it makes no sense for the rules to assume how much they can or should be able to do in a day (or any unit of time).

The other issue of course, is that having all characters use the same ability platform unbalances them. Fighters not having usage limits vs. mages having use limits is how the D&D classes (including the playtest ones) are balanced. The only way to rebalance them would be to change them so all their abilities were of equal power.

Tactics involves analyzing a situation, generating a list of options, and choosing one to act on. Managing a meaningless metagame resouce that your character can't understand he has ("Well, I took my extra actions earlier, so I sure can't do it now!") is not tactics. Tactics is: Should I attack wildly or defensively? Should I try to disarm the enemy or just kill him? Should I help my ally or press the assault? (One could term that as more at-will abilities, though these are inherent abilities that everyone should have, not functions of a character class).

 

[Herschel]

If it helps I was actually thinking about the 2nd Edition Complete Psionics Handbook version.

Cheers!
Kinak

It's funny, I wasn't a fan of psionics really (2E or otherwise) but I LOVE the handbook. Weird, huh?

(Actually, I really like all the 2E handbooks even though a lot of the stuff in them was wonky)