101 roleplaying descriptions justifying martial dailies

[lutecius]

I posted this in the other thread, but I feel it qualifies universally:

Why are we needing to bend over backwards to explain Fighter dailies, when there is so much that we just "accept" that doesn't cause narrative blockage?

Take critical hits. We just "accept" that because the die comes up 20, that whoever attacked gets buckets of damage (and for some people, even more special effects). We just handwave it as "a lucky hit/a great attack" and move on. But really, if a fighter could, every swing would be a crit; he'd do the same thing he did when he rolled the 20, so why is the crit different? Because we accept the gamist notion of a roll of 20.

Sneak attack damage is another. Why is it we just handwave the rogue's sneak attack damage as just "Well knows how to go for the kidneys" or "It was a lucky hit". But he would be trying to do that every round. So sneak attacks necessitate a circumstance occuring, we all accept that.

Not to mention the ranger's extra damage die just for hitting a guy he said "You're it" a round ago.

Why can't Fighter dailies just be "the crit of the day"?

Because crits don't happen exactly once per day, when a player says so. Critical hits effectively model luck/external circumstances, they can happen several times per encounter or not at all.

Likewise, sneak attack opportunities are dictated by combat circumstances, not artificially limited. A rogue can attempt to set up more than one per fight and have a chance to succeed

Apparently you don't understand the issues some of us have with encounter/daily powers. At all.

Player driven vs character driven? Is this really even an important distinction?

D&D is a story fundamentally a story telling fantasy adventure game, and it's the players that always tell the story. All the decisions that players make for their characters are drawn from a mixture (of different ratios) of how they imagine their character, how they want their character to progress, and how to create an enjoyable story, and how effective they want to be at the game.

Like it or not, but every choice we make in the game is a player choice, not a character choice. This includes encounter powers, daily powers, at-will powers, skill rolls, and the vast majority of actions that players decide their characters will perform.

The game is full of rules, and players can take the rules and mechanics and describe them in narrative terms. Isn't that part of the fun? Players are storytellers.

Encounter powers and Daily Powers are not realistic. They are dramatic and cinematic. They make a good story. They make a poor simulation, but that's ok. This isn't a good simulation game anyway.

For some players it was good enough until 4e. And I don't think dnd has ever been a storytelling game either. Aside from the strategy aspect, many play it for immersion. They want to "live the story" rather than write it.

Also, dramatic and cinematic scenes in a fiction are entertaining because they surprise the viewer/reader. Predictable actions happening exactly once per encounter/day, when the player decides don't. I don't think narration dictated by strategic choices makes particularly good stories anyway.

A few questions:

1. Are you okay with "encounter/daily use restrictions" on magical abilities?

2. If so, what's the "fluff reason" that justifies the use restrictions on magical abilities?

3. Why can't that same "fluff reason" be applied to martial powers?

There are so many things in older editions that are just as difficult to put into fluff but are believed and accepted. Some examples:
A spellcaster can cast a level 8 spell, but not an additional two 3rd level spells instead without the proper spell.
A paladin can cast Remove Disease once a week and not once per day.
Skill Tricks can be used only once per encounter.

The reason for those rules is and has always been balance. You can put fluff around it, and we all did all those years. But if we did that, why is it so hard for some of us to find some believability in the already existing fluff for martial dailies?
I cannot wrap my head around it.

Because most of the stuff you mention is magical. Quirky magical powers are easier to accept because magic doesn't exist IRL. And even then, many find Vancian magic counterintuitive, hence the variants in previous editions (Sorcerer, Psionics, Unearthed Arcana point system.)

3e may also have a few hard-to-explain "martial dailies" and once per encounter abilities, but they are pretty scarce. In 4e, it's a core mechanic for every fing class. See the difference?

Only if people actually playing the game have a problem with it no?

I have a hard time buying the 'issue' when several of those persisting that it is an issue don't play the game.

You're missing the cause-and-effect relationship here.

If you can't approach the game in the spirit is it written and can't enjoy it, your perspective isn't going to change enough to make it worth playing. [...] If the game's not for you, like the ole song by All American Rejects, Move Along.

So what's your point? Only 4e lovers should post in threads like this one?

 

[TheFindus]

lutecius wrote:
"Because most of the stuff you mention is magical. Quirky magical powers are easier to accept because magic doesn't exist IRL. And even then, many find Vancian magic counterintuitive, hence the variants in previous editions (Sorcerer, Psionics, Unearthed Arcana point system.)

3e may also have a few hard-to-explain "martial dailies" and once per encounter abilities, but they are pretty scarce. In 4e, it's a core mechanic for every fing class. See the difference?"

I see the difference between a core mechanic for all martial classes and single class abilities, yes. However, I do not think that makes your argument more convincing. Because there are a lot of class abilities that are dailies with no magic attached in many 3.5 books. But nobody ever talked about the fact that they had a problem with the believability.
Since it is Sunday and I have the time, I put together a small list with the classes that have one or (sometimes many) more martial dailies. I only took those that are considered exceptional (ex), not (su) or (sp). So it is not magical:

From Complete Warrior: Swashbuckler, Cavalier, Darkwood Stalker, Dervish, Eye of Gruumsh, Ravager.
From Complete Adventurer: Dread Pirate, Dungeon Delver, Nightsong Infiltrator, Streetfighter, Thief Acrobat and the Feat Danger Sense.
From Races of Destiny: Outcast Champion, Urban Soul and some Destiny Feats.
From Complete Scoundrel: all martial Skill Tricks and the Prestige Classes that use them.
And those are books I looked at, I did not look through all the other supplements. And some of those dailies are at least part of the main characteristic of the class (Dervish, Dread Pirate, Streetfighter, Cavalier, Ravager).

I have heard nobody talk about this "problem" before in 3e, because we all accepted it as a given fact. And I do not think that anybody ever had much of a problem storywise or roleplayingwise to use these abilities in their 3e game.
So I really have to wonder why there is so much resistance to all the explanations given for martial dailies in 4e.

If one does not like the 4e system, that is fine with me and one will play something else. Or use the Ki power source, since WotC will most likely not use it.

But I do not think I can give any other convincing explanation, since I cannot wrap my head around the problem with the already existing ones compared to the lack of problems with explanations for daily class abilities in older editions.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So what's your point? Only 4e lovers should post in threads like this one?

The point is that the game is not going to change because you don't like it.

I'ts like watching someone hit his head against the wall and they say they do it because it feels so good when they stop. I'm just advocating stopping now instead of doing more damage.

If you don't like 4e, I can't figure out why you'd be in a thread about it outside of to piss in it.

 

[BryonD]

If you don't like 4e, I can't figure out why you'd be in a thread about it outside of to piss in it.

I've been told several times lately around here that 4E does everything 3E does, only better and easier. (I disagree)

Perhaps trying to get the "don't like" perspective in would help to bridge the gap. In this thread I see pretty clear examples of why I prefer 3E so much. At least, one aspect of that is on display.


Of course it might also have to do with all the 3E threads getting pissed into flooding and not leaving much else...

 

[BryonD]

3e may also have a few hard-to-explain "martial dailies" and once per encounter abilities, but they are pretty scarce. In 4e, it's a core mechanic for every fing class. See the difference?"

I think this is really worth expanding on.

The limited times per day, or similar elements, in 3E are there purely because the designer thought that was the best way to model the feature. You can agree or disagree that it was a good choice, but the designer looked at options and elected to make the mechanic work that way.

You can take this all the way to Vancian magic, Gygax wanted magic to work like the Vance books so he choose to do it that way. Future designers wanted to retain that legacy of D&D magic and made wizards work that way purely because they wanted to. Don't like it? Then use something else. This is in particular true in 3E, with tons of alternative magic systems available. Within 3E (and many other games) the designer has free reign to build it as they see fit and the DM has free reign to pick and choose what they find best for their game.

When the 4E monk comes around, it will have dailies and encounter powers just like every single other class out there (as well as other mandated elements). The "math works" and it is easy, but thou shalt comply with the structures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes.

My, my, aren't we the judgmental type.

There are numerous examples of previous editions with very similiar rules. As others have pointed out, barbarian rage as an excellent counter.

I'm pretty sure that someone's feelings aren't something that can be argued against.

"Your feelings are wrong! Change the way you feel!": the argument doesn't work, no matter how much evidence you have that their feelings are wrong, because it's not on a logical level.

Barbarian rages in 3e were a different beast than martial dailies in 4e, so drawing that comparison is false and misleading to begin with.

But even if they were the same thing, 4e's martial dailies and encounter powers obviously ramp up the unreality of the situation. If the barbarian rages were limited enough in scope that you could mostly ignore it, 4e's martial powers are certainly not so limited.

If you approach the game and don't like the way it handles the mechanics, to the point where you can't play it, then the game is not for you as written and from that perspective, you're not playing make-believe right and their problem isn't with the rules, it's with their inability to think about things in the right way.

Don't put the cart before the horse, there. The point of the game is to give me appealing mechanics that I can play with. It is 100% the fault of the game if it doesn't give me that: presumably, they could have done things differently, and they didn't, and a D&D message board is exactly the place to discuss the things you don't like about D&D that you want to be done differently in the future. I am the customer, here: D&D is competing for my money and free time, and it is failing to achieve it. It's not my fault if it fails. It doesn't want to fail. It wants my money, it wants my time. It needs to be receptive to the way that I think...I can't be wrong, because it's supposed to serve me. Discussing why it fails to achieve it is completely within the scope of the conversation here. With some positions, perhaps D&D won't ever realistically be able to achieve popularity with me, but in this specific case, 4e is obviously trying something new, and they need to see if it works or not. Threads talking about why it doesn't work for some people are entirely useful, because then we get a sense of what can make the D&D game better for delivering fun to more people.

If you can't approach the game in the spirit is it written and can't enjoy it, your perspective isn't going to change enough to make it worth playing.

Well, that's part of the idea for this thread, isn't it? "How can I try and think about things in a new way that helps me enjoy what it is?" is basically the question in the thread title. People aren't categorical and immutable, so they can change (or they can change the game) enough to make it worth playing, if they want to.

Can I see some people going, "because Martial powers are not supposed to be magical and the whole point of the game's intricate balance demands they act like every other power in the game, I can't enjoy it and I must impress this view on other people!" then I don't care. If the game's not for you, like the ole song by All American Rejects, Move Along.

Well, you've got a lot of debatable assumptions worked into your position, there.

Specifically, the point of the game's intricate balance needs to be called out as a thing that doesn't have to exist: they could have balanced the game with martial powers that were "always on," but they chose not to. That's a choice that can certainly be debated by fans of the game.

Second, you seem to think that they want other people to share the view, but from what I've seen in this thread, most of them just want others to accept that they have a problem, and maybe propose ways to fix it. They don't want to change the way you think, they want the game to match more how they think.

Third, the conversation is entirely topical for the boards, so "Move Along" just seems to be a way to shut down a conversation that you're not a fan of. If you're not a fan of people talking about how 4e encounter and daily powers don't meet their sense of verisimilitude, and so make the game less fun for them, just don't come to the thread. Certainly "You're feelings are wrong and you should shut up!" is not very constructive for helping anyone.

The point is that the game is not going to change because you don't like it.

4e's various changes certainly speak against that. The game goes through editions, and 4e certainly took a lot of things that people didn't like about 3e and changed them. 5e will take things that people don't like about 4e and will change them, too. Furthermore, people designing supplements for 4e might find a way to change the game to something more appealing.

The game does change because I don't like it. The game has changed before because people don't like it, and it will continue to change because people will never be totally satisfied with it.

If you don't like 4e, I can't figure out why you'd be in a thread about it outside of to piss in it.

It's not about liking or not liking an entire edition. This thread wasn't started with "Come here and tell me how much you love 4e!" in mind. There was a specific problem to address -- a specific problem that didn't need to occur, and that can potentially be fixed for those who have the problem.

Is it difficult for you to be OK with people who have problems with 4e? If so, then I'd advocate ignoring the threads about 4e problems, rather than entering them just to tell people that they're wrong and need to shut up.

 

[Ariosto]

(1) As I offered in the other thread: gifts of the gods. As in Greek mythology, heroes and monsters are pieces in games of the gods. The powers have arbitrary effects because they are miraculous, and arbitrary limitations because that's part of the game the gods play. Does every goodwife and ploughman get such abilities? No -- only those chosen to play roles requiring them, in the heroes' sagas.

(2) Heroes bind spirits to their service, the terms of which are as in the 4E rules. See RuneQuest, especially Cults of Prax, for general "flavor" that may be inspirational. Drawing again on RQ, different classes (or builds within a class) might involve different Runes.

 

[Greg K]

lutecius wrote:
I have heard nobody talk about this "problem" before in 3e, because we all accepted it as a given fact. And I do not think that anybody ever had much of a problem storywise or roleplayingwise to use these abilities in their 3e game.

I don't use any of those things you mentioned and I have mentioned several times my dislike and banning of WOTC supplemental classes. The only things that I use from the Complete books are alternate skill uses, a few feats, a handful of few spells, and a few pieces of equipment. My dislike for many of the classes is the use of non Su or Sp abilities that are useable x/day.

 

[Greg K]

There are numerous examples of previous editions with very similiar rules. As others have pointed out, barbarian rage as an excellent counter.

Just because previous editions had similar rules does not make it a good counter example. For some of us, it was just as bad in previous editions. I use the Barbarian Hunter variant from UA as the default for barbarians, because I dislike the x/day uses and that it is a barbaria only ability. Rage, in my campaigns, became a feat that allows one to make concentration checks to enter, willingly break, and maintain (after con bonus rounds) rage.

 

[blargney the second]

I don't like green eggs and ham.

That's fine. Why not take your displeasure to another thread devoted to that topic?


5. Bullet time.
-blarg