Martial Dailies - How so?

[JohnSnow]

It's more than just nocking two arrows. It's nocking two arrows and having them go in different directions! Physics just threw up its hands.

No, it didn't. Well...probably not.

In general, since Split the Tree applies only to two targets within 3 squares of each other, that means you're talking about 2 guys not more than 15-20 feet apart. From any reasonable range, that's launching the arrows on slightly different angles - an eminently doable thing (albeit a little hard to target).

As I said, I've actually tried the manyshot stunt. 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.

In combat, being ready for this the moment the conditions were right would be tricky. In some sense, it's an "in-the-zone" thing - when you're super-aware, you notice that the conditions are about to be right just early enough that you can nock two arrows, aim and respond.

The conditions might come up frequently, but our heroic ranger isn't always prepared to capitalize on those conditions. When he is, he nocks, aims, and fires. He might still miss, but the time the player "uses" the power is the time he noticed he had a chance.

Combat is a chaotic affair. No matter how many tricks, stunts, or special moves you have, using them still involves seeing the opening and acting on it. Think of the at-will powers as the tricks you have that either require little effort or the ones that you've practiced so often that they're second nature. The per-encounter ones aren't quite as reliable - maybe the conditions come up less often, or the powers take more effort, or they're just trickier to set up. The dailies are like the per-encounter ones, only worse. They take supreme effort, supreme focus, or they're just THAT hard to set up.

I guess I can understand that some people just can't buy this line of reasoning. *shrug* If so, I don't think any rationalization will help.

 

[Mallus]

I don't know, I thought Remathilis' explanation seemed pretty solid.

The 'in the zone' thing? Sure, that's as good as it gets. Of course, it's fairly difficult to explain why a given character is only 'in the zone' for six seconds per day per daily-use ability.

When you put it in that context, we're back to ridiculous.

You don't have to sacrifice logic for utility, or utility for logic. They can coexist.

Not in certain kinds of fiction. To wit: the kinds D&D occasionally emulates.

 

[bramadan]

Frankly I think you are trying to put a square peg into a very round hole.
I understand your play style and sometimes even share it. Daily abilities that do not draw on any universal resources (fatigue, focus etc...) are about as bad a mechanic for a strict simulationist game as any I can think of. They are equally bad for magic but with magic we can always shrug and say "it is magic".

If you are actually brewing your own system I highly recommend actually just costing the actions in something (so "at will" costs 1 focus point, "per encounter" costs 5 focus points, and "daily" costs 20 focus points) and then enable PCs to recover some focus between encounters and even more with a good night's sleep.
That way you can have folks attempting the "big moves" whenever they want but only at the cost of getting exhausted.

Cost you will pay is 10-minute adventuring day, but if you go for realism it is *realistic* that without external time constraints people will tend to approach difficult tasks in very small steps performed only when they are on their peak form.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There is however a share of gamers who very simply don't like the fantasy idea of "chi" in a D&D game. "Chi" is basically "putting magic into combat (and actually everything else)". For those who aren't keen on the idea, 4e is not good.

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.

 

[HeinorNY]

For my money this is the most compelling argument.

I think my previous post came a little late on this thread, but there is where I put most of my money too.
"Most" because I won't put it all, since I'd not use that rationalization on all martial powers. Some really need alternative or unique rationalizations.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The 'in the zone' thing? Sure, that's as good as it gets. Of course, it's fairly difficult to explain why a given character is only 'in the zone' for six seconds per day per daily-use ability.

Again, I thought the explanation was pretty good, and seemed to cover this particular concern. It's difficult to get into it and it doesn't last long. Sounds rather rational to me.

Cost you will pay is 10-minute adventuring day, but if you go for realism it is *realistic* that without external time constraints people will tend to approach difficult tasks in very small steps performed only when they are on their peak form.

Not really.

As I've mentioned, I have no issue with per-encounter. In my mind, encounter abilities are the biggest part of the elimination of the 10-minute adventuring day. I already have in mind how to implement encounter abilities, in a few different ways (as to make magic and martial abilities stand out from each other). So I don't imagine my homebrew system will have this issue.

 

[JohnSnow]

In my mind, the player decides that the character decides that now is the time to give it all he's got, and uses that daily power. It is a conscious decision to put all your energy into a single strike; that sort of thing is physically draining, and you can't do it again until you've rested.

Well, whatever works for you I guess.

I guess Fourth Edition designers just decided to put the nail in the coffin of the "Rules as Gameworld Physics" argument. In Fourth Edition, every decision isn't handled from a strictly cause and effect basis.

In 4E, just 'cuz A happens before B, you don't necessarily know precisely what A means in the game world until after B happens. Is A "PC1 drops to negative hit points?" Then what A means depends on B.

1) If B is the player coming up with a 20 on his stabilization roll and spending a Second Wind to get back in the fight, A was a 'nasty blow that took Kathra out of the fight, sending her tumbling to the ground, before she spits the blood from her mouth and gets back up, charging back into the fray.
2) If the player rolls well enough to stabilize (or someone else stabilizes him), and has used up his second wind, but not all his healing surges, the character is injured enough that he's "out of the fight" unless he receives some kind of healing.
3) If the player rolls well enough to stabilize (or someone else stabilizes him), and has used up all his healing surges, he's taken a substantial enough hit that he's knocked out until he can take an extended rest.
4) If nobody manages to stabilize the character, and he blows 3 saves and dies, A was a killing blow that caused the character to die from blood loss.

There is no "reality" problem here if you can accept that A is only indicative of the immediate event, not some empirical statement about the PC's condition.

If you need a strict "cause and effect" system, 4E just isn't the game for you. And its subsystems aren't intended for you either. Stop trying to perform mental gymnastics that never really worked in the first place to turn the system into something it's not. There's plenty of other games that work on that basis - albeit not always consistently. 3e is one. I believe Paizo's Pathfinder is another.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My issue with the ranger's double-shot power is that it doesn't seem to be in the same category of physical stress. Nocking two arrows is not nearly as physically demanding as hitting someone as hard as you possibly can (ie, dealing triple damage).

That's why the "in-the-zone" explaination is added. Your Ranger can fire two, three or four arrows at once all the time. But only once per day he gets the chance to gain a special benefit from it, that is different from any "normal" use of an arrow.

 

[Mallus]

It's difficult to get into it and it doesn't last long. Sounds rather rational to me.

That part is rational. It's the following "but I can't get back into that state until tomorrow" that strains credulity.

But hey, you found a rationalization that works for you. That's cool.

 

[GnomeWorks]

If you need a strict "cause and effect" system, 4E just isn't the game for you. And its subsystems aren't intended for you either. Stop trying to perform mental gymnastics that never really worked in the first place to turn the system into something it's not. There's plenty of other games that work on that basis - albeit not always consistently. 3e is one. I believe Paizo's Pathfinder is another.

Have you been reading my posts?

I am not converting to 4e. I recognize that it is not the game for me. I want to make sense out of the parts I like, so I can convert them to other systems.

The idea is an interesting one, and can be extricated from the system, modified, and used elsewhere. It takes a little effort: I am interested in making the attempt. If you think that this is a fruitless endeavour, or think I'm a fool for pursuing it, that's fine, but for the love of all that is holy, do not keep telling me that 4e is not the game for me, because I am already aware of this.