Forked Thread: Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

[Marcus Majarra]

Both, IMHO, better than the 4Ed method.

After all, neither violates the principle of telling a player "No, you can't do that," when instead you could give the player a chance to succeed or fail.

Dailies, instead, codify a certain and absolute kind of telling the player "No."

Actually, option 2 describes the 4E method perfectly. The availability of daily powers is entirely circumstantial, and the presence of these circumstances is in the player's hands.

But you're right in that dailies, just like any power that cannot be used at will, is indeed just a form of telling a player "no." It is an artifice created purely for game design purposes, and it is completely dissected from how you choose to interpret this in the game. Not being able to cast fireball at will is telling the wizard's player "no" just as much as not being able to use brute strike at will is telling the fighter's player "no." Neither has any universal explanation beyond game mechanics.

The rest, we make up for ourselves, and I think it's just as well.

 

[Mort]

I am not buying it. Neither 'narrativism' nor abstraction in itself have ever been a goal in dnd. 'Player narrative control' is counterintuitive in a game with no other narrative mechanisms (apart from the recently added action points). It's just a poor after-the-fact justification.

D&D has always been extremely abstract, the 4e designers finally admitted that and ran with it. Not everyone likes that, and that's ok.

I'm sure daily and encounter powers are just a way (and a lazy one at that) to achieve balance (designers and playtesters don't have to worry too much if a power is broken because it's only useable once per day/encounter.)

No, again, they're just not everyone's cup of tea.

Sure, it may be efficient and may work for many players but with a litlle more effort, I'm sure they could have come up with a system that doesn't require so much abstraction and convoluted explanations.

It is abstract, but it's not very convoluted - it's main benefit is that it's easy to grasp - which is good for new and old players. But again, if there is an "easier, better and more intuitive way," that's great - looking forward to that game supplement!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, option 2 describes the 4E method perfectly. The availability of daily powers is entirely circumstantial, and the presence of these circumstances is in the player's hands.

I disagree.

The 4Ed exploits I mentioned are not "circumstantial" in description, only in mechanics. That dissonance bugs people.

I just happen to disagree that this is not a good solution to the spellcaster v. non-spellcaster problem.

My problem is less with the existence of exploits than the execution of them.

Well yes, but "I magic it" always covered a heck of a lot more ground than "I hit it" ever seemed to

Well, taking WotC's 3.X as a whole, there are probably almost as many combat feats as there are spells on the Sorc/Wiz list. When you go into 3rd party publishers, spells probably distance themselves a bit more.

But, just as an example, AEG's 3Ed book Feats, contained over 200 (some of which were republished from the PHB).

I'm not familiar with HERO so you could well have a point.

Well, the main problem with transporting the HERO solution into any form of D&D is that each maneuver is individually purchased (since HERO is a point based system), including whether or not the maneuver is usable with a weapon or not (a practitioner of Pankration may know a certain unarmed grapple that a modern Commando might emulate with a nightstick).

And with 30+ maneuvers, putting them all in through any edition of D&D's skills or the 3Ed Feat system presents some problems.

In 4Ed, it would be easy-peasy.

 

[hong]

Well, taking WotC's 3.X as a whole, there are probably almost as many combat feats as there are spells on the Sorc/Wiz list. When you go into 3rd party publishers, spells probably distance themselves a bit more.

But, just as an example, AEG's 3Ed book Feats, contained over 200 (some of which were republished from the PHB).

Column-inches is perhaps not the best measure of inherent flexibility.

 

[Marcus Majarra]

Well, taking WotC's 3.X as a whole, there are probably almost as many combat feats as there are spells on the Sorc/Wiz list.

I'd be interested to see some numbers on this, just to satiate my curiosity. Are there really more combat feats than there are Sor/Wiz spells, especially after the Spell Compendium?

In any case, I doubt the quantification would honestly advance that feat-based combat characters have as many options as a sorcerer or wizard, since both will get to wield more spells than combat characters will feats, and the wizard gets to change his selection of powers every day, whereas the feat-based combat character doesn't. Even sorcerers, for being locked into their spell selection, can expand their selection through scrolls, staves, and wands, of which there doesn't really exist a great number of feat-based magic items.

 

[Toras]

Something I might note. Given the explanations for game balance, I understand that the moves are ones that require an undefined opportunity that occurs once a day for reasons that we do not understand.

Now I have a question for you. Why are martial classes the only ones that are unaware of their own abilities in this fashion? (aka the player rather than character making the decision). The divine, magic, and likely every other power source is going be aware of their resources on an in character level and be able to factor those into PC plans. I'm out of big spells, my divine gifts are on a low emb...etc. Those can be said and make sense. I don't feel lucky anymore sounds retarded and I'm tired in very specific ways is absurd.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They codify telling the player no where one might previously have said yes but stacked on so many penalties as to make it effectively no.

So, you honestly think that some Evil DM would actually pile on negative mods to make something like Villain's Menace impossible more than once per day?

If not, nice straw man.

Daily abilities are thus more honest, and this is immediately obvious to those who do not think too hard about fantasy.

They're not more honest. They're handcuffs.

Keep on telling me to not think to hard. Its really helping me crystallize my opinion of your discoursive prowess.

'Till then, I'll remain an unhappy Socrates and maintain my criticism of 4Ed.

 

[hong]

Something I might note. Given the explanations for game balance, I understand that the moves are ones that require an undefined opportunity that occurs once a day for reasons that we do not understand.

Now I have a question for you. Why are martial classes the only ones that are unaware of their own abilities in this fashion? (aka the player rather than character making the decision). The divine, magic, and likely every other power source is going be aware of their resources on an in character level and be able to factor those into PC plans. I'm out of big spells, my divine gifts are on a low emb...etc. Those can be said and make sense. I don't feel lucky anymore sounds retarded and I'm tired in very specific ways is absurd.

You always feel lucky (or unlucky, depending on your personality). Whether the universe at large agrees, is something out of your control.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd be interested to see some numbers on this, just to satiate my curiosity. Are there really more combat feats than there are Sor/Wiz spells, especially after the Spell Compendium?

Not "more"- I said "almost as many."

Don't forget, though, that not every spell in the Compendium is on the Sorc/Wiz list...and many are just updates & reprints of spells from other WotC sources.

 

[Mort]

Well, taking WotC's 3.X as a whole, there are probably almost as many combat feats as there are spells on the Sorc/Wiz list. When you go into 3rd party publishers, spells probably distance themselves a bit more.

But, just as an example, AEG's 3Ed book Feats, contained over 200 (some of which were republished from the PHB).

On this point:

even with books of feats, spellcasters always had a huge edge on flexibility - in and out of combat. I think it would be next to impossible to argue otherwise.