Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

[Felix]

Hmm. Rage is the core mechanic for the Barbarian.

In Post 33 I explained why I can accept Rage as a 1/day kind of power. It was an in-game rationalization; I sometimes find those acceptable.

Stunning Fist has been one of the major abilities of the Monk since his inception. That's one central class mechanic for 2 of the 4 non-spellcasting classes.

I'm ok with the Barbarian power, and if I really had to, I'd hand-wave Stunning Fist away with an explanation of how he doesn't have enough qi to focus. Both of those are internal limitations; having opportunities in combat doesn't come into it. I'd swallow an internal in-game rationalization quicker than that.

Rangers, for example, can't just shoot a volley of arrows all day -- they have to use a spell slot to prepare Arrow Storm. In 3e, these limited-use combat maneuvers were disguised as spells.

The "disguise" works better for me.

I guess you can ban Monks & Barbarians, and prohibit Rogues from taking Defensive Roll

Don't mind Rage.
In a pinch, I don't mind Monks, though it's harder to stretch.
Defensive Rolls sucks.

but ... why not just wave the hands? It's a game, it's allowed to be somewhat game-like.

I'm similarly allowed to dislike an aspect of a game, especially when it has gone from two classes to becoming standardized.

I though I just did that.

I don't know how to say it more 'to their face' than that.

Are you suggesting I send them a PM?

While calling an individual poster desperate and irrational may not quite get tipped to the mods, it isn't polite. Vaguely saying "some people" are desperate and irrational will protect you from that, but you'll hit a lot of folks you may not have been aiming at. And whomever you hit won't know if they are the "some people" you were talking about.

See how that can be a problem?

EDIT: Rechan explained it better in fewer words.

This wasn't meant for me, but I'll go ahead and respond to it: I think getting hung up on this issue is silly.

"Silly" I don't have a problem with. It's when I may be desperate and irrational, but don't know for sure, that's unpleasant.

And that specialness means he gets to break the rules of the world

And here we have the central design philosophy of 4e. Which I disagree with.

We're playing a game. An abstract creation, sitting in a basement with our friends pretending to be elves and wizards, moving plastic or pewter around on a checkerboard. So I just can't take you seriously when you say that it breaks your disbelief because x can happen but y can't in the above environment.

It breaks my disbelief to sit in a basement with my buddy next to me playing an elf and he says he no longer wants his eyes to be blue, but gray. If liking internal rationalization is silly, then I'm your man.

And if I were playing "Chess: the RPG", you're darned right I'd want a reason why the knight can only move in an "L". Since it's not an RPG and has no in-game characterization, that's not an issue.

then perhaps 4th edition isn't for you.

Way ahead of you.

 

[Kzach]

I have never been in more pain, put as much physical exertion in, and be entirely as wiped out as when I pulled 2000m race pieces on a rowing ergometer in college. You are expected to use every last ounce of energy in the race so that you collapse, having reached muscle failure, immediately after you cross the finish line. And we had to put forth that kind of effort in multiple races in the same day. So yeah, from a physical capability standpoint non-magical once-a-day exploits give suspension of disbelief a swirlie.

Yes, but did you win every race?

Dailies are the equivalent of saying, "I win," not the equivalent of saying, "I bust a gut to win."

 

[mmadsen]

Yes, but did you win every race? Dailies are the equivalent of saying, "I win," not the equivalent of saying, "I bust a gut to win."

Did he get to choose to win?

 

[Caliber]

Did he get to choose to win?

Perhaps his player did.

 

[hong]

"Pay no attention to the things about the game system you dislike; they're an abstraction, and if you don't think so you're being silly."

Is that about what you're trying to say?

Well, yes.

Your point is...?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why do we pick this issue to be the "I just can't get past it"?

Because unlike flying dragons and fireballs, many of these maneuvers have no real magical component to them.

Again, read the text of that quote from the Villain's Menace- its not about magic, its about delivering a withering, demoralizing flurry of attacks against a single. Foe. Per. Day.

There is no logical reason (besides a game design decree making it so) why this should be limited as a daily exploit. At worst, it should be usable once per opponent.

 

[hong]

It breaks my disbelief to sit in a basement with my buddy next to me playing an elf and he says he no longer wants his eyes to be blue, but gray.

Precisely. Stop looking so deeply into the elf's baby-blue eyes.

 

[hong]

Because unlike flying dragons and fireballs, many of these maneuvers have no real magical component to them.

It's a ki thing.

 

[hong]

The quote couches in a pop culture reference the idea that attempting too much verisimilitude within the rules is silly. How much is too much?

It's too much if it starts interfering with your enjoyment of the game.

Now stop thinking too hard about fantasy and start playing the game.

 

[Mort]

So while I may accept magical hand-waving for dragons, fireballs and giant centipedes, I'm not going to like it as much for Guardsman Billy who can't hit people hard twice.

As stated in some previous posts it's not a magical hand-wavy thing it's simply giving (a little) narrative control to the player. No magic needs to be involved, merely the recognition that combat in D&D is/and always has been an abstraction of reality.

easy example:
ranger with twin strike - normally he can shoot 2 arrows at 2 targets for 1[W] damage. He has the "split the tree" daily power which allows him to shoot 2 arrows at 2 targets but it does 2[W] + Dex damage. This just means the the player dictates a "lucky" or particularly good shot - no funky magic explanation needed (heck many games would allow a fate point or some such to add damage; 4e just makes you use a daily).

Most of the rangers, rogues and fighter's powers can easily be explained as extensions of their basic attacks that do extra. it's all about realizing things have always been abstract - but now the player has a little input into the abstraction.