D&D 4E 4E is too balanced - options to replace all martial dailies?

[Oldtimer]

That might be a decent answer for encounter feats with complicated trigger criteria, but still doesn't cut it for dailies, IMO.

Why not? The opening that needs to occur before you can use that maneuver is just even more rare. So rare that it only seems to happen once per day.

I've had similar discussions about these aspects of 4E with a lot of my old-timer friends. So I'll ask you the same question.

Image that all fights are five rounds long and you always manage four fights every day. Let's also assume that you have three classes of maneuvers; class A that needs no particular opening, class B that needs some opening that is fairly uncommon, and class C that needs a serious opening that is very rare.

What if the mechanics for this was; at the start of each round you roll a d20. On 1-16 you can only use class A maneuvers. On 17-19 you can use class A and class B maneuvers. On 20 you can use any class of maneuver.

In this way you, as the player, would have no control over when these opportunities occur. Random chance will give you an opening and you can choose to exploit it. Your fighter can do that high-damage finishing move only when the dice roll his way. Now, statistically, this will allow you the use of class B maneuvers once each fight and class C maneuvers once each day.

Would this be a mechanism you could accept?

Now, just imagine that let the player control that random chance...

 

[Pickles JG]

However, my players are just starting out, so adding a new layer to the rules isn't a good option for me right now.

I think this is what WOTC thought when they were first writing the game. They tried to ensure balance by making all classes have the same structure. They are now more confident about breaking that model with eg Psionics & Essentials classes.

The classes feel more distinct in play than they do as written down too FWIW & there are different sorts of daily (Uberpower, Opportunistic/Toolkit, Oh ****! & Bread & Butter I would say) & diffferent classes favour different sorts.
EG Barbarians have rages which are "bread & Butter" they will try to use one in most fights - as many as they can. See also wizards summons. Rangers have "uberpowers" that just kill things faster. These are best used to make hard fights easier, if you can spot when that is. Rogues have toolkit dailies that add a lot of situational utility & they should use when it looks good to use them rather than saving them for a hard fight where they might not be so useful. Warlords have oh ****! dailies that can be a massive heal or buff that you only pull out when you really need it. (and most classes have a mixture of these types so you can specialise one way or another or be a generalist)

 

[jedavis]

Hey all, I'm actually a 3.x player, but your Groove Points idea sounds really, really similar to Iron Heroes' notion of tokens, so if you're looking for kind of a sample implementation of Groove Points (albeit a 3.x derivative), you might take a look at that.

Particularly, IH had multiple classes that ran on tokens, but the kind of tokens, the methods by which they were produced, and what they could be spent on varied significantly. For example, the Berserker gets Rage tokens whenever he's hit, and can spend Rage tokens to (duh) rage. The Executioner (assassin, basically) gets a pool of Execution tokens at the beginning of each combat and can spend them to boost sneak attacks, but has a hard time earning more. This creates significant differences in the way classes play even though they're structured similarly; Executioners are great in short fights, but run out of steam, whereas Berserkers start out weak and get stronger as combat goes on.

So if you're looking to introduce 1) Groove points and 2) variety in classes, you might look to IH for some inspiration.

 

[Frankie1969]

Domain-based clerics, fighters without dailies, a modified spellbook... Heroes of the Fallen Lands sounds really really good. My kids & I definitely will be using it by Xmas break. Thanks again for the suggestion.

What if the mechanics for this was; at the start of each round you roll a d20. On 1-16 you can only use class A maneuvers. On 17-19 you can use class A and class B maneuvers. On 20 you can use any class of maneuver.

Hmm... haven't tried that, but it sounds potentially aggravating, and not befitting of heroic fantasy. Heroes make their own luck.

Now, just imagine that let the player control that random chance...

That's definitely worse. The player having total control completely belies the notion of limited circumstances. If they're able to activate the feat at any moment, then it makes no sense that they can't do it again in the next battle, and the next, every time.

If I were inclined to use 3rd tier martial powers, I would take RW's "groove point" idea up a notch. A fighter plans the battle turns ahead, with a series of shifts, feints & maneuvers preparing for the desired opportunity.

But that's moot, because it seems that Mike Mearls and I have similar views on D&D.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Would this be a mechanism you could accept?

Now, just imagine that let the player control that random chance...

Disclaimer: I like and am fine with dailies for all classes. I do like encounters a lot more for any class, including casters who would traditionally have dailies.

The problem is, it's not a random chance. If you had to a roll a twenty to use a 'daily,' then there's a chance you could use a daily more than once a day. In 4E, there is no such chance, it's once or not at all. If that boils down to a sort of, 'meta-random-chance,' then why does that random chance change for the amount of encounters you have in a day?

What I mean is, if it was a 'roll 20 to a get daily' scenario, the more encounters you have, the higher your chance of using a daily twice or thrice etc is. In 4E, no matter how many encounters you have, you only have 1 daily. That fluctuation means that, in my opinion, random chance is not a useful way to justify dailies.

For me, I just accept they don't make much sense, look at my game table having a blast using them, smile, and move on. It's a game, and everyone will have a different standard for what is fun.

 

[Oldtimer]

Hmm... haven't tried that, but it sounds potentially aggravating, and not befitting of heroic fantasy. Heroes make their own luck.

Exactly my point. They make their own luck.

That's definitely worse. The player having total control completely belies the notion of limited circumstances. If they're able to activate the feat at any moment, then it makes no sense that they can't do it again in the next battle, and the next, every time.

You misunderstood (I think), I wasn't saying they could override that random chance. I was trying to say that they can control they moment that random chance works their way. Make their own luck, as you put it.

The problem is, it's not a random chance. If you had to a roll a twenty to use a 'daily,' then there's a chance you could use a daily more than once a day. In 4E, there is no such chance, it's once or not at all. If that boils down to a sort of, 'meta-random-chance,' then why does that random chance change for the amount of encounters you have in a day?

What I mean is, if it was a 'roll 20 to a get daily' scenario, the more encounters you have, the higher your chance of using a daily twice or thrice etc is. In 4E, no matter how many encounters you have, you only have 1 daily. That fluctuation means that, in my opinion, random chance is not a useful way to justify dailies.

I'm aware that the statistical model would need to be much more complicated than my simple thought experiment. But that's not the point. It's not "roll d20" at the start of every turn. Actually it's not possible or necessary to map that probability into a die roll. One can still look at it as random chance creating an opportunity, even though the exact probability cannot be computed.

 

[Pickles JG]

A couple of years ago I was working on a combat system that wanted to reflect the way fights occcur in movies & even UFC. Fighters do not just spam one move they use a variety of attacks & look for opportunities to open up with big combinations or in movies cool finishing moves. I was trying for a system where each attack would apply some simple status effects to the targets & the bigger moves would require that their target was suffering form a particular status effect. Some of these status effects might have other consequences like 4es dazed but they could also make their targets vulnerable eg "Exposed".

I felt that 4es power system achieved the effects of this system without the admin & procedure.

As mentioned Iron Heroes has systems like this sitting on top of d20. I felt that the work involved in getting the beneifts in IH was not worth the effort involved - those benefits were often pretty small. It was a very intriguing look at how to make martial characters more interesting & I suspect it informed 4e design.

I still feel there is scope for a system like this that uses these combinations as the main driver of the system but probably not layering it no top of 4e.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I'm aware that the statistical model would need to be much more complicated than my simple thought experiment. But that's not the point. It's not "roll d20" at the start of every turn. Actually it's not possible or necessary to map that probability into a die roll. One can still look at it as random chance creating an opportunity, even though the exact probability cannot be computed.

Like I said, it doesn't make sense that the 'probability,' no matter what it is exactly, changes based on how many encounters you have in a day. It's 100% daily use with 1 encounter. 50% daily use with 2 encounters. And so on.

I would have much preferred dailies instead be limited by, say, once every 4 encounters, but alas.

 

[Frankie1969]

You misunderstood (I think), I wasn't saying they could override that random chance. I was trying to say that they can control they moment that random chance works their way. Make their own luck, as you put it.

Whether it's purely random or a hero controlling the circumstances, the daily limit make no sense for martial powers.

If I were inclined to use them, I would convert them to encounter powers with a chain of 2 preceding attacks (or other actions approved by the DM) required as buildup. The desired power is declared in advance, and the player gets a 2 turn window to use it. If they don't (by choice or unable to attack), then they need another buildup before using that power.

One of the buildup attacks must affect a combatant's position (such as any of the fighter level 1 encounter exploits in PHB). An ally's attack which moves or knocks down an opponent would be valid, or killing a specified opponent if the player can predict how the nearby opponents will move in response. The point is to exert control of the battlefield, thereby "making luck".

But as I said, I think I'll use the way Essentials handles martial classes. Stronger at-will capabilities, not so many bombs.

 

[Oldtimer]

Whether it's purely random or a hero controlling the circumstances, the daily limit make no sense for martial powers.

I don't understand why random circumstance makes no sense. I think we both feel that a daily martial power could be a manuever that requires very special circumstances. Your fighter character is trying to create them with his every move, but he needs luck on his side to get that perfect opening he needs. Luck. Random circumstance. Call it what you want. Why does that not make sense?

If I were inclined to use them, I would convert them to encounter powers with a chain of 2 preceding attacks (or other actions approved by the DM) required as buildup. The desired power is declared in advance, and the player gets a 2 turn window to use it. If they don't (by choice or unable to attack), then they need another buildup before using that power.

One of the buildup attacks must affect a combatant's position (such as any of the fighter level 1 encounter exploits in PHB). An ally's attack which moves or knocks down an opponent would be valid, or killing a specified opponent if the player can predict how the nearby opponents will move in response. The point is to exert control of the battlefield, thereby "making luck".

Sure, you could convert the manuevering into a mini-game like this. I seem to remember some 3e variants that had this. But in the end it seems to amount to the same thing. You want the fighter to be able to "make his luck". Why not cut to the chase and just let the player decide?