Martial Dailies - How so?

[Hypersmurf]

After Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, I wanted to see if it was possible, or total crap. So I nocked two arrows into my longbow, tipped it at a slight angle, and released. They both hit the target, about 5 feet apart (opposite corners), from a distance of ~30 feet. That's the first time I ever tried this stunt. Obviously, it was not a combat situation.

If you didn't rip some fletching off one arrow with your teeth to make it veer, it doesn't count.

-Hyp.

 

[Falling Icicle]

But... daily martial powers? Just. Not. Getting it. I don't see how a martial ability would ever be something you can only do once between rest periods. It feels like a rather artificial restriction. I specifically have an issue with the ranger double-shot power (I forget what it's called) being a daily power - that doesn't make any sense to me.

This is strictly a simulationist issue. Please don't respond with "you're thinking too hard about fantasy" (hong, I'm looking at you).

Anybody got any ideas?

Well, 4th edition is not a simulationist's game. And for that matter, neither has any edition of D&D. I've come to accept this. You're right, it doesn't make much sense for martial characters to only be able to use certain powers once per day. I don't think it makes much sense for spells either. It's not much different from Barbarians only being able to rage a certain number of times per day in 3rd edition, really. That was a very artificial restraint. It's just one of those things you have to accept as being there purely for gameplay reasons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To return to the first page of this thread with some different references...

Mike Tyson used to lament about how a particular right-handed blow of his was his best knockout punch, but that he almost never got to use it. Many of his KOs came with his left or with combos of lesser strikes from his right- it was just next to impossible for him to set up his opponents properly for that sweet, fight-ending shot he was aiming for. Their guard was too high on that side; they were out of the strike's effective range; the opponent was moving in the wrong direction- whatever.

This seems to me to be an example of a "daily" martial ability.

Its also clear to me that there are other rationales (stated by others in this thread) that would work for certain other maneuvers...but not all.

But none has to be the catch-all. Just accept that some maneuvers work daily for "Reason X" and others for "Reason Z" and you'll be fine.

 

[Kzach]

Damn, Danny beat me to it.

I was just thinking on this and remembered sparring and watching others fight as well watching boxing and kick-boxing. When fighting or watching a fight you can tell that there are moments when you think they're going for that uber kick or punch but the moment passes and they do something else.

Most professional fighters seem to keep it pretty simple. Even in kick-boxing, the roundhouse kicks are the exception rather than the rule. They take a lot of setting up or you have to be quick to take advantage of that special moment.

So I can definitely see how daily powers are daily.

I think the big problem is, much like the abstraction of hit points, we're put in a certain mindset by the language. When something is called a "hit" point and you roll "damage" then naturally we expect you to have actually hit and done actual damage. So calling it a daily power creates an expectation of what it really is.

So if it helps, call it a special attack instead of a daily power.

 

[vagabundo]

The players are clearly separate entities from the PCs. They have greater power in 4e, demi-powers, while the DM is still overgod.

The player clearly commands the PC, but the PC lives in the world of the DM, under his rules. The player has the power to alter reality slightly with Action Points, Encounter Power and Dailies.

(From a simulationist point of view I would have thought Action points are harder to justify.)

 

[Minigiant]

The martial power source seems to be fueled on luck, awareness, stamina, and combat sense.

The at will power but 100% of the control in the PC's hands. Everything except accuracy and the target's ability is up to the character to perform. The target has no control on the success of the move's performance. They can only make it miss.

The per encounter removes some of the control from the user and places it into the environment and/or the target. These powers are more likely to happen but not more than once a fight for some reason:
Environmental conditions
Position of the target
The target won't fall for it twice
A triggered event
A hard to notice event
Stamina loss
Mental and physical strain or pain

No one's going to fall for Positioning strike or Fox's Cunning more than once. After performing a passing attack, the enemy won't position themselves to let the fighter try it again.


A daily power is like a per encounter power but the there are more conditions that must line up or the required situation is too rare to work more that once a day.

A fighter can only use a Brutal Strike once per day because it take a long rest before your hand feels 'right again. The wind conditions make that crazy 2 arrow shot too mentally painful to do again without a rest. The situations when a warlord can use its crazy tactics are so rare that having access to them daily is being nice.

 

[Ondo]

I have a problem with the idea that every decision the player makes is a decision the character makes. It rules out the possibility of a character where (some of) his powers aren't under his personal control - he just "gets lucky" all the time, or he has a guardian spirit, or a god is constantly intervening in his life, or something.

It doesn't rule that out at all - it just means those powers wouldn't be under the player's control either. That's part of what the DM is for.

Some martial powers could even be done this way, by switching them from daily to activated on a crit.

 

[Li Shenron]

Um, no. For some who aren't keen on the idea, 4E may not work. I, for one, don't tend to like the whole idea of "putting magic into martial abilities," but I have no trouble at all using other means (primarily a combination of the "in the zone" and "narrativist" techniques) to rationalize 1/day martial abilities.

I don't think the martial abilities look magic, and that is good for my taste.

I just have to find a better way to describe them than "chi".

 

[LostSoul]

Would you still have a problem with the daily powers if, instead of being daily, you could only use it "when the DM thinks the conditions are right"?

That would probably be a good house rule to facilitate simulationist play.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I have a problem with the idea that every decision the player makes is a decision the character makes. It rules out the possibility of a character where (some of) his powers aren't under his personal control - he just "gets lucky" all the time, or he has a guardian spirit, or a god is constantly intervening in his life, or something.

That concept is so cool that any metagame philosophy preventing it is obviously wrong.

Personally, I find the idea of constant deific intervention to be dull and boring. It's akin to a deus ex machina, and - IMO - that's lame.

This ability cannot be described as "The player decides that the character decides to use the power". It is entirely "The player decides to use the power, behind the character's back".

For something like luck, I totally agree. I even use a Luck stat in my current games, and my justification for the luck points it grants you refreshing every session is that luck is metaphysical, and therefore the mechanic should be a metagame mechanic.

There are exceptions to the idea that everything the player decides to do, the character decides to do in-game. But that is the general rule of thumb that I try to follow.

Well, 4th edition is not a simulationist's game. And for that matter, neither has any edition of D&D. ... It's just one of those things you have to accept as being there purely for gameplay reasons.

I am aware of this. This is why I am not moving to 4e, because I don't have to accept it, if a suitable answer cannot be found.

Its also clear to me that there are other rationales (stated by others in this thread) that would work for certain other maneuvers...but not all.

But none has to be the catch-all. Just accept that some maneuvers work daily for "Reason X" and others for "Reason Z" and you'll be fine.

Oh, of course. The same rationale doesn't have to be universal - just so long as there are a few solid reasons that could be used to explain any martial daily, I'm fine with that.

So if it helps, call it a special attack instead of a daily power.

It is an ability you can use once per day. A rose by any other name would still bear thorns; this is not an issue of name, it is an issue of the mechanic itself.

(From a simulationist point of view I would have thought Action points are harder to justify.)

They are. I don't use them, and I won't.

Would you still have a problem with the daily powers if, instead of being daily, you could only use it "when the DM thinks the conditions are right"?

That would probably be a good house rule to facilitate simulationist play.

That doesn't facilitate simulationism at all, IMO - this is heading into narrativism. Now you are subject to DM fiat. Not only that, but doesn't the DM have enough to worry about? I don't want to also have to deal with thinking about whether or not the martial characters can use their abilities.

Also, trying to ensure that the requirements balanced out such that the martial dailies were equivalent in power and usefulness to other classes' dailies... ugh. The mechanic is sound, I just want a solid in-game explanation of what is going on when they are used.