Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Okay, wrong word. "Sucks to be them"?

Why does it suck? Is this a badwrongfun kind of argument?

It can only be badwrongfun if you're having fun when you shouldn't (because you're not doing it right.)

Maybe we need a new term: "Badwrongunfun" - not having fun when you should have. (I guess that's correlated to hongs second law of fantasy gaming.)

 

[Psion]

?

Person 1: I don't really like 'x'.

Person 2: Really? That's too bad, I think it's cool.

You're reading way too much into that.

Oh, I think "Sucks to be you" is just a bit more snarky than person 2.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The "structured" part is the part that makes the difference to me. If they were generic "reserves" that could be used on anything, most of my conceptual reservations would evaporate.

Yes, I thought so. Why can't you pretend that you're actually using such a system, and just happen to use the powers as you could use them only once per day?

Or pretend that martial is not non-magical. It's not arcane magic, it is not divine magic, it is not psionics, but it is a kind of magic - it's the magic that lets you beat up Dragons and fight Demon Hordes. (I guess this fails because it forces too much setting assumptions on you? Like Vancian Magic and "Wealth by Level" forced to much setting assumptions on me?)

 

[xechnao]

even though I don't understand why.

They are just two different styles: 4e is not better then 3e nor the opposite is true. Each one is better in some things and worse in others. But since 4e is on the scene by somehow trying to take the place of 3e, some people that prefer 3e will seek to talk about the worse parts of 4e.

EDIT: grammar/orthography

 

[xechnao]

It can only be badwrongfun if you're having fun when you shouldn't (because you're not doing it right.)

Maybe we need a new term: "Badwrongunfun" - not having fun when you should have. (I guess that's correlated to hongs second law of fantasy gaming.)

Lol, this the winner of the thread

 

[Agamon]

Oh, I think "Sucks to be you" is just a bit more snarky than person 2.

Yeah, I shoulda not given into snark for snark, my bad.

 

[Agamon]

There are just two different styles: 4e is not better then 3e nor the opposite is true. Each one is better in some things and worse in others. But since 4e is on the scene by somehow trying to take the place of 3e, some people that prefer 3e will seek to talk about the worse parts of 4e.

I never saw this as a 3e v 4e arguement, but yes, to this, I agree.

 

[Psion]

Yes, I thought so. Why can't you pretend that you're actually using such a system, and just happen to use the powers as you could use them only once per day?

Wait... instead of pretending, pretend to be pretending?

Argh... brainsprain... bzzzt.

 

[IanArgent]

It doesn't get any better...Rain of Steel (Daily 5):

"You constantly swing your weapon about, slashing and cutting into nearby enemies."

Damn if that isn't a generic description for most melee combat. Yet its once per day...and not "Reliable."

Shift the Battlefield (Daily 9):

"With supreme skill and great resolve, your beat your enemies back."

Again, this looks like something you should be able to use virtually at will against lesser combatants, not 1/day.

The Daily 15?s Same thing.

It helped me when I added "in bed" "and it works" or "this time it has the following additional effects" to the descriptions. Of course you are trying to do these things every time you attack; but most of the time it doesn't work out that way. This brings the number of brain BSoDs down to an acceptable level (I was able to rationalize almost all of the fighter powers this way - I need to check the rogue ones next).

Of course the fighter is trying to use No Mercy every chance he gets, even if he expended that power; he ends up with Reaping Strike or a basic attack. Ditto most of the other powers I've looked at. Why did it work the other time and not now? Dunno - I'd make up a reason on the fly, or just ignore it; it would depend on the circumstance.

 

[Nifft]

It was an in-game rationalization; I sometimes find those acceptable. (...) The "disguise" works better for me. (...) I'm similarly allowed to dislike an aspect of a game, especially when it has gone from two classes to becoming standardized.

It hasn't gone from two classes to standard. It's gone from 9 out of 11 classes to all classes (if we ignore Defensive Roll... if we don't, it's 10/11 classes). Every class but the Fighter and Rogue (ignoring PrCs and Defensive Roll) had a daily limited resource -- most were disguised as spells (just like far too many class features), but they were still daily resources.

Previously, there were only four classes that didn't cast spells, and only three classes that didn't have any magical abilities at all.

Forgive my presumptuousness, but it really sounds like you're saying you got used to the way stuff used to work, and you liked the stuff you're already used to better than new stuff. The thing you're most comfortable with is the most common thing (Rage); the thing you're least comfortable with is the least common thing (Defensive Roll, which legitimately earned its rarity by sucking). I don't see any mechanical or conceptual differences between the stuff you're able to justify and the stuff you're unable to stomach, other than novelty.

Cheers, -- N