Can someoone explain the "Daily Hate" for me?

[steeldragons]

I don't mean in an AEDU sense, per se, but the resistance there seems to be at the notion that any class ability ought not have limitations per day, be it spells or maneuvers or what ever.

The mage is containing the esoteric mysteries of the arcane in her brain and releasing them upon the world. Can only do that so often a day without turning your mind to jelly.

The fighter can "push themselves to the limit" to make an extra forceful attack, extra damage, tap dance maneuver while swing their sword, push over the ogre only so many times before they are simply, physically, spent...and while they can still fight and manuever in the "normal" sense, they just don't have the strength to "give it their extra all" all of the time.

The cleric can channel their divine energies to effect the undead or imbue their strike with additional damage or walk on water (in the case of a water deity) or whatever...but endlessly channelling those otherworldly hole (or unholy) energies would leave the cleric a pile of smouldering ash.

The warlock can invoke their powers from their "source" to make this or that happen but doing so without a facet to turn on and off would consume their very soul.

None of these things are very difficult to fluff an explanation for...in fact they are quite logical and, I think, flavorful/add flavor to the special ability.

So...why/what is it about have abilities of any kind limited to uses per day that gets everyone so annoyed or resistant if not outright "dealbreakery/I won't play if..."?

I don't get it. 'Splain, please.
--SD

 

[Underman]

Myself, I don't hate dailies, I would just prefer to see alternatives.

From the perspective of verisimilitude for martial dailies specifically, well, never mind. That's an Enworld Vietnam that I'm not willing to get drafted into.

Psychologically, I wouldn't want to have my PC in a ball game and know that he can hit exactly one home run that game. I don't think it encourages "true to character" behavior or immersion or whatever they're calling it these days.

Dailies makes me think of limitations. Points (or combos or other building blocks) makes me think of possibilities.

If 5E tries martial non-daily alternatives in the beta testing, and fails to come up with elegant mechanics, at least I'll know that they tried and have a better opinion of the martial daily.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure. I absolutely despise the idea that you can "run out" of something that isn't part of the game reality. Nothing takes you out of the game quicker than trying to fly into a berserk rage and realizing that because you are playing a 3rd level barbarian, you can get angry only once per day. I can't think of any fantasy where a character presents a holy symbol to an undead creature and has to track how many turning attempts he has left; it either works or it doesn't. Even magic is usually more fluid; casting it is tough and draining (or natural and effortless or it uses up resources that aren't automatically in a 5 gp spell component pouch), but it's strange to think of a wizard "running out" of magic while still feeling fine, even though it's a D&D trope. You can come up with an explanation if you try hard enough (if you try hard enough, you can justify just about anything), but the notion of "running out" of some intangible resource (as opposed to becoming fatigued or passing out from blood loss) takes me out of the game, and thus is antithetical to the "roleplaying" part of rpgs.

The thing is, it's not much better for the "game" side. Daily limitations are not an effective balancing tool at all. Assumptions about what a PC can and should face before resting vary so widely that trying to balance anything around a day is meaningless. Most typically, the players either face challenges only once in a day, or can retreat and rest if their resources are depleted, meaning that the per day limitations are really per encounter. In this case, the characters with more powerful, but daily limited abilities are at an advantage (which has led some people to rather bizarrely conclude that everyone should have these ridiculous limitations so things will be "balanced").

On the occasion that daily resources do become depleted, characters become vulnerable. Despite the fact that they might feel fine, they're out of "mojo" and can't fight effectively, leading to frustrating gameplay experiences where they either act unheroically to avoid dying or face unreasonable difficulty from challenges that feel like they should be easy.

Tracking the resources is also a major, major bookeeping headache; which is why I went to spell points over spell slots. Frequently, people just lose track of these things, but even if they don't, it pushes players into a resource management minigame where they try to guess how many of their abilities they will need before they can next rest and whether the current challenge is tough enough that it is "worth it" to use them now, a metagame distraction that takes away from truly engaging tactical gameplay.

***

I effectively banned nonmagical daily abilities a long time ago, changed the hit point system and the recovery rate to make it less "daily", created a spell point system in which not all points are recovered overnight, and made most of the daily abilities into at-wills, adding meaningful in-game situational restrictions, fatigue or "real" resource depletion or simply increasing their power by making them unlimited. The game plays so much better, I would never think of going back (let alone add in more of those restrictions!). People think about the in-game choices, not the metagame ones, and the game plays much faster.

***

Adapting Green Ronin's Psychics Handbook to a PF-ish vibe was a very informative experience for me. The system itself was built on a fatigue model, but every time I built a class, I automatically thought of per-day abilities. You can see the future? Add your wis mod to something X times a day. Haste? You can use it for 1 round per day per level. Healing surges? Definitely uses per-day.

As I revised and revised the designs, I realized that this was just lazy. The seer's ability to see the future became an improved version of readying an action, improved off-turn dodging and blocking, flat saving throw and AC bonuses, and at 20th level, the foresight spell automatically on at all times. The character dodging with preternatural quickness is far better represented.

Haste became a skill that works under the fatigue model, rather than a needless exception to it.

Healing became at-will applications of temporary hit points, healing of vitality (but not wound) damage, or improved use of existing skills, again falling under the fatigue model.

Other abilities simply used up more in-combat time or imposed penalties or had situational limitations, as appropriate.

It took a lot of thought. A lot. But the bottom line is the solutions that I came up with work. I have a complete magical system with no per-day, per-encounter, per-hour, or anything other than per-round. I also reconceived a variety of core classes and added power on a situational or at-will basis, redefining the fighter, barbarian, rogue, and so on without a hint of rage points, ki points, or any stupid per-day abilities, but making them more powerful, more open-ended , and more able to fulfill the concept. I sure wish I hadn't had to fix all those things, and I don't plan on doing it again.

So when I see professional writers putting a "per day" extra action on the fighter, I see it for what it is: lazy, inept design. And I ask myself, why would I put down money for the product of someone else's laziness?

 

[keterys]

I'm not a huge fan of daily resources, myself - basically I'd prefer they existed in small number, primarily for emergencies (stop someone dying kinda stuff) or just slightly better than your normal powers (but not so much that you feel you have to nova and rest).

That is, I don't like:
* Daily powers that are _much_ more effective than your at-will option. See the wizard for examples.
* The ability to, and incentive to, burn multiple daily resources in a combat to make that combat far easier than expected, with the expectation that you can just rest afterwards to get them back.

That said, one thing WotC is trying to go away from is encounters having minimal effect because you just used at-will / encounter resources, so that you can have easy encounters that still cost some hit points or a spell, and that makes a difference over the course of a day of adventuring. Ie, more 1e/2e where the goal of a combat was often not to survive, but to take minimal damage.

Though the healing potion stuff in the current playtest makes me wonder if they're already down the "Wand of Cure Light Wounds" hole there.

 

[TwoSix]

It took a lot of thought. A lot. But the bottom line is the solutions that I came up with work. I have a complete magical system with no per-day, per-encounter, per-hour, or anything other than per-round. I also reconceived a variety of core classes and added power on a situatinal or at-will basis, redefining the fighter, barbarian, rogue, and so on without a hint of rage points, ki points, or any stupid per-day abilities, but making them more powerful, more open-ended , and more able to fulfill the concept. I sure wish I hadn't had to fix all those things, and I don't plan on doing it again.

I have to admit, I'd be interested in seeing that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't mean in an AEDU sense, per se, but the resistance there seems to be at the notion that any class ability ought not have limitations per day, be it spells or maneuvers or what ever.

The mage is containing the esoteric mysteries of the arcane in her brain and releasing them upon the world. Can only do that so often a day without turning your mind to jelly.

...

I don't get it. 'Splain, please.
--SD

The big question is why "Per Day"? Because making it per day forces a certain pacing on any adventures you run - if the PCs are the agressors, they can always come back the next day fully loaded with spells. And it's a short enough duration that unless there's an immediately ticking clock the PCs can spend that time. It forces one set, defined pacing on the game - and not one that IMO fits either a sandbox or even a ticking clock scenario.

In 4e I houserule an Extended Rest from a single night to "A long lazy weekend somewhere relatively secure". Which keeps all the resource management and then some - i.e. the advantage of daily powers. But means that stopping for an Extended Rest is a big thing because they need to trek back to a basecamp then out again. (This incidently is close to the 1e version which used wandering monsters to disrupt rests in or near the dungeon so you needed to trek home to recharge spells). For a ticking clock the rule is "You take an extended rest and you lose the round" - which works very neatly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's the question that haunts many an RPG... how do you allow PCs to have the opportunity to do "big" effects, but not have them do it all the time? And what ways or mechanics do you use / create to keep them from doing something big all the time?

D&D has traditionally gone the "in-game time" route: In one in-game period of time (day, encounter, segment between long rests, etc.) you can only do your big effects once or a certain number of times in each period.

Other methods include using the "game session": For instance, in 7th Sea, you get a certain number of Drama Dice at the start of each session that you can use to power your abilities during that session. FATE uses a similar mechanic in the use of their fate dice, that refresh usually each session.

You can also use things like Triggers: Big effects can only be used when triggered by some other event that occurs-- a critical hit, or when the attack beats the defense by a certain margin for instance.

So the big question becomes how and when a PC receives the "power ups" that allows him to do the big effect? Per out-of-game session? Per in-game day? Randomly triggered through gameplay?

The problem is... everyone has different feelings as to which method works best. Some people have played these other games that use other methods, and if they have found those methods to be more fun, they want them ported over into D&D-- even if it means taking the game far afield from where it has traditionally been. And then those people who haven't played/experienced those other games wonder why D&D is moving away from what it was that made it D&D. And this is one of the ways in which whatever D&DN ends up being... some people will not be happy with the result.

 

[keterys]

Oh, good point. I'd also much prefer a mechanism that recharged not based on a solar cycle, but on a more adventure/plot/session cycle.

So maybe you get back some healing, some other abilities for resting, but you need to level or finish an adventure or whatever in order to recharge your more rare/extended powers.
[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] You seem to find the ability to perform better/higher than expected unrealistic, but it's actually quite unrealistic for people to perform the same all the time. Olympic athletes can't break records every day all year long, and they require a lot of rest afterwards to get back up to their peak (even if they'll still beat the pants off you or me at their degraded level). It's also fairly against trope (that moment in the book where the ally drops and in a flare of anger the hero does something they couldn't normally do, or someone goes "You're our only hope - you can do it!" and miraculously they can, etc)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have to admit, I'd be interested in seeing that.

I doubt I'll ever be committed enough or internet-smart enough to really disseminate my extensive rewrites of the rules. A lot of my spell point and vp/wp stuff started with Unearthed Arcana, which is on the SRD. I also make use of Combat Reactions from Trailblazer (a highly recommended read), which adapt the attacks of opportunity mechanic into blocks and dodges as well. These systems give me design space that 3.X by itself does not have. However, the alternate rule systems in these books don't give you class abilities based on them, so I have simply filled in the blanks.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It took a lot of thought. A lot. But the bottom line is the solutions that I came up with work. I have a complete magical system with no per-day, per-encounter, per-hour, or anything other than per-round. I also reconceived a variety of core classes and added power on a situational or at-will basis, redefining the fighter, barbarian, rogue, and so on without a hint of rage points, ki points, or any stupid per-day abilities, but making them more powerful, more open-ended , and more able to fulfill the concept. I sure wish I hadn't had to fix all those things, and I don't plan on doing it again.

But at the end of the day... what you've come up with (while it works great for you) is not what many people are going to consider to be "D&D" to them. It's going to be a very different game. One that would cause people to walk away from it the same way they walked away from each edition of D&D over the years. It's no longer the D&D game they wish to play. So while you might be satisfied, many others probably won't be.

And that's the conundrum that the designers face: who do they let go as a potential customer... the folks who have certain baseline expectations of what most editions have presented in terms of "D&D rules", or folks like yourself who've modified the rules so much because you aren't happy with the baseline expectations?