Martial Dailies - How so?

[Zaruthustran]

keterys nailed it. To me, the martial power source is the *easiest* power source to conceive as having only one use of a daily power. It represents that supreme effort, that amazing feat that takes everything you've got.

Plenty of example from sports: the at-the-buzzer 3-pointer. The knockout punch. The Eagle.

From movies: pretty much any climax of any fight scene (Rob Roy's big chop being a fun example).

Makes sense to me.

 

[SlagMortar]

The only way I can reconcile it is the same way as Fallen Seraph says above. A daily power represents the player's opportunity to take over the story for a moment and say "The foe my character is fighting is in position for the Triple Dragon Strike of Doom." Then the character performs the Triple Dragon Strike of Doom. As far as I can tell, the decision to use a martial daily power is a player decision, not a character decision.

How about real life then... why don't golfers get an Eagle every time? They don't have the ability to pull together the perfect shot every time. Using your daily power is a game mechanic for deciding when you burn the adrenaline, seize the moment, etc.

Unless the golfer can decide before playing a hole that he will get an Eagle, then the analogy is not a very good one.

an Eagle is when a golf is 2 strokes under par on a hole. Basically, it is a very well played hole

 

[beverson]

All that being said, I can see how someone could have an issue with shooting two arrows at the same time only being a daily. It doesn't fit as "nicely" in the fine examples given above. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it might fit better as an encounter power.

 

[Stilvan]

keterys nailed it. To me, the martial power source is the *easiest* power source to conceive as having only one use of a daily power. It represents that supreme effort, that amazing feat that takes everything you've got.

Plenty of example from sports: the at-the-buzzer 3-pointer. The knockout punch. The Eagle.

From movies: pretty much any climax of any fight scene (Rob Roy's big chop being a fun example).

Makes sense to me.

But what if you miss? Does this imply that only at one golden moment in the day you remember to grab two arrows from the quiver? The problem with the sports comparison being that the golf player always swings at the ball the same way, but the ranger has to think to nock two arrows before he even has a chance to have his knockout punch. I think knockout punches are critical hits btw Now if All martial dailies were Reliable, the sports analogy would work a lot better from a simulationist viewpoint.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I said my issue with the idea was from a simulationist view, not a gamist one.

From a strictly simulationist point of view, there is no way to justify it. If you can do it once in a day, you can do it twice.

Not much you can do about it except accept that D&D is not a realistic combat simulator and rationalize it like others have suggested above.

 

[mach1.9pants]

One of my players, who has a simulationist bent, is going to have these players coming from a a power source. I.e. there is something out there, not divine or arcane or primal but mmartial providing him with his powers..he normally plays fighter. As DM I am OK to have differing views amongst the players even within the campaign. I am perfectly happy with the 'right circumstances only come up once a day' with the players deciding when the right circumstances come up. My players will be describing their characters attempting these powers more than once a day, if it enhances the combat description, but only using the game effect once

 

[Fallen Seraph]

But what if you miss? Does this imply that only at one golden moment in the day you remember to grab two arrows from the quiver? The problem with the sports comparison being that the golf player always swings at the ball the same way, but the ranger has to think to nock two arrows before he even has a chance to have his knockout punch. I think knockout punches are critical hits btw Now if All martial dailies were Reliable, the sports analogy would work a lot better from a simulationist viewpoint.

It means that you are able to set up, and everything has been set in motion to enable the character to perform this task, and when the player takes that slight narrative control that says "yes, now he can perform this move" it doesn't mean though that even though he has set it up perfectly it can't still miss.

 

[CleverNickName]

Plenty of example from sports: the at-the-buzzer 3-pointer. The knockout punch. The Eagle.

Except you can't simply decide when your next shot will be an "at-the-buzzer 3-pointer" attempt. Nor can you just decide when you are going to swing the club and try for an Eagle. And if you could decide when to use your Knockout Punch for the day, winning a boxing title would be as easy as winning initiative.

I know, I know...it is a game we are talking about, not real-life. I'm just trying to see it from a simulationist's POV, like the OP. And it fails. I agree with Thornir Alekeg.

 

[Tenbones]

The whole "simulationist" vs. "gamist" civil war is definitely heating up.

The abstraction of of the daily martials is fine. Ironically - they've been in D&D before (Oriental Adventures 1ed) and everyone said "neat! Chi-based abilities". Now, suddenly it's turning people ('simulationists' yay a new geek sub-meme!) off because it doesn't make sense from that perspective.

I have to admit - it really doesn't. But I haven't seen a list of these abilities either. In general I think it's lazy design - at the very least it's lazy implementation. I think most of it is psychological on the player's part - just like you see people arguing ad nauseam about the abstraction of HP and AC. I think I'm with the OP - I've digested the idea of encounter-only powers etc. But the daily-martial thing 'sounds' dumb.

I'd rather they have seperate mechanics for martial classes than simply having dailies and per encounter abilities.

Whatever - it's not like we can change anything. Let's just hope it works out.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think if you let the narrative of the fight, and let the players delve into that narrative the simulationist aspect will come forth in that way. In that it is through a narrative we see how/why the fight is the way it is, etc.