Forked Thread: Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really? Does that mean that Dragons qualify for Arcane Power feats, because they have magical powers? Why can't they open up their magic breath elsewhere? Could they produce their breath in an anti-magic field? Would the fire breath stop at the edge of an effect? If you killed all the dragons, would dragonborn be able to use their own ability, since it mentions using the "breath of their dragon kin"?

Or is this line of questioning just an unreasonable Burden of Proof and therefore be dropped?

Dragon's breath and the mechanics behind it don't need this kind of scrutiny since they aren't based in reality at all (except in tritest sense in which they are described in RW fiction and legend). No real scrutiny beyond game considerations of balance, flavor & internal consistency needs to be applied.

Fighting rules- fluff, mechanics...the whole enchilada- needs intense scrutiny because they are based upon simulating something that really exists- how people and creatures have evolved and/or trained to fight.

Ignoring it doesn't help your argument- just because you don't like it for whatever subjective reasons you have, the mechanic still proves that the world of the game is in no way "mundane".

Bringing up Healing surges doesn't help yours. Their existence merely proves is that the designers were receptive to those who complained about depending upon healers for healing. IOW, its a style and flavor change from something abstract to something even more abstract.

HPs 18 through 20 involve broken femurs.

???

Those powers that you think are basic tactics are actually done at speeds and power levels that would kill an unprepared warrior if he attempted them twice.

Smacking someone upside the head is pretty much a standard tactic. Yet its a Daily Power. That's a fundamental disconnet.

What you think is normal or over-sold, isn't. You simply aren't taking the steps necessary.

I respectfully disagree with both sentences.

You can have a mechanics supported version of the move and use a daily

then you can also use a narrative version of the move while using a different, daily/encounter/at-will.

You can even narate your character trying his 360 degree spinning slice against all enemies but missing/slipping on some part of the battlefield and going with an at-will attack instead.

There is nothing preventing any of these in game.

Yes there is- the existence of martial dalies.

Again, some of us don't want to have to use our narrative capabilities to justify why you can only use a blow to the head once a day, contrary to the RAW. We would rather the game's system be flexible enough to let people do the maneuvers they want.

In previous editions of the game, there were almost no combat maneuvers. 3.X introduced a few more. Everything was abstracted and the DM told you if your crit roll was a blow to the head or a disemboweling strike. IOW, details of the combat were entirely dependent upon the narrative skill of the DM. Boxing an opponent in was a tactic, not a power.

4Ed has introduced a system of discrete combat maneuvers, described in fluff, detailed in result. Forgive me if I want the fluff and results to match up, or if I feel the fluff describes something that shouldn't be limited.

 

[Solodan]

I feel that daily powers HELPS the suspension of disbelief. I know I only have a few things that are dailies that I need to keep track of. IN previous additoins, I could easily have TONS of dailies, without even being a spellcaster. Having to look though my character sheets IMMEDIATELY suspends disbelief.

In 4E, its pretty easy to remember the daily powers one has left. I could find a logical reason why a power is limited or shouldn't be limited, but it really doesn't matter. The system is elegeant enough that it can fade into the background and let me focus on the game at hand, be it a fiesty dragon or bar brawl.

 

[LostSoul]

IOW, details of the combat were entirely dependent upon the narrative skill of the DM. Boxing an opponent in was a tactic, not a power.

Now they are dependent on everyone's narrative skill.

4Ed has introduced a system of discrete combat maneuvers, described in fluff, detailed in result. Forgive me if I want the fluff and results to match up, or if I feel the fluff describes something that shouldn't be limited.

The fluff is up to you, so use your narrative skills to describe something that is limited.

 

[pemerton]

Mountain Breaking Blow doesn't actually affect AoOs.

What do you mean? It allows a shift of up to 3 squares (depending on the push to the target), and shift is a mechanic that does interact with the AoO rules - in particular, it allows movement without provoking any AoOs.

 

[FireLance]

Again, some of us don't want to have to use our narrative capabilities to justify why you can only use a blow to the head once a day, contrary to the RAW. We would rather the game's system be flexible enough to let people do the maneuvers they want.

In previous editions of the game, there were almost no combat maneuvers. 3.X introduced a few more. Everything was abstracted and the DM told you if your crit roll was a blow to the head or a disemboweling strike. IOW, details of the combat were entirely dependent upon the narrative skill of the DM. Boxing an opponent in was a tactic, not a power.

4Ed has introduced a system of discrete combat maneuvers, described in fluff, detailed in result. Forgive me if I want the fluff and results to match up, or if I feel the fluff describes something that shouldn't be limited.

Ah, I think I have a better understanding now. In your mind, the fluff text is prescriptive - it dictates how the maneuver always functions. On the other hand, I've always assumed the fluff text to be just one example of how the maneuver could be described. Brute strike mentions the shattering of armor and bone, but this description is obviously invalid if the maneuver is used against say, an unarmored ooze.

In addition to viewing the fluff text as prescriptive, you also seem to be of the view that it is exclusive. Meaning, if one maneuver is described as being a blow to the head, then no other maneuvers or attacks can be described as being a blow to the head. On the other hand, my approach is to take the mechanical effects as exclusive, but not the description. Hence, several of a fighter's successful attacks over the course of a day can be described as blows to the head, but only one has the mechanical effect of the daily maneuver.

If you regard the fluff text as both prescriptive and exclusive, I can certainly see how you could conclude logically that a fighter can only use a blow to the head once per day, and why this might make it harder for you to accept the existence of martial daily abilities.

 

[pemerton]

If you regard the fluff text as both prescriptive and exclusive, I can certainly see how you could conclude logically that a fighter can only use a blow to the head once per day, and why this might make it harder for you to accept the existence of martial daily abilities.

Someone who read the flavour text in this way would also be playing in a different way from that suggested in the PHB, which says (at p 55) that "flavour text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, tofit your own idea of what your power looks like." This makes it clear that flavour text is not prescriptive. It also strongly implies that it is not exclusive.

I've always assumed the fluff text to be just one example of how the maneuver could be described.

The PHB makes it pretty clear, in my opinion, that this is an assumption that everyone should make!

 

[Obryn]

The answer to this problem can be found in this thread.

-O

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What do you mean? It allows a shift of up to 3 squares (depending on the push to the target), and shift is a mechanic that does interact with the AoO rules - in particular, it allows movement without provoking any AoOs.

My error, then.

Now they are dependent on everyone's narrative skill.

Not the way I see it.

Someone who read the flavour text in this way would also be playing in a different way from that suggested in the PHB, which says (at p 55) that "flavour text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, tofit your own idea of what your power looks like."

Fair enough- I missed that.

However, even in the absence of the flavor text, I still have a problem. As mentioned before (somewhere upthread), I see no reason for martial dailies to exist at all.

This does not mean that I think martial maneuvers should be unrestricted.

Its just that I find the hard cap to be counterintuitive- really, nonsensical- when describing martial maneuvers, and think better solutions have cropped up in 30+ years of RPG design, like the aforementioned situational or relative level power limitations.