Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[subbob]

Another view on this, is that the "daily power" is not so much an ability that the character consciously uses, but more of a special circumstance that simply allow the character to apply his natural skill.

I think I could get accustomed to thinking in this manner.

There's nothing to say that a DM could not allow a subsequent use of one of these daily powers if the right circumstances came about.

"The orc falls prone at your feet." (OOC to character - you may use your [Insert Daily Power Name] next round even if it's already been expended for the day.)

 

[mmadsen]

So using your own logic, the answer is that daily abilities are not mundane.

What on earth are you talking about? That's the complaint. These martial exploits are supposed to represent non-magical fighting abilities, but they have these silly meta-game constraints of once-per-day or once-per-encounter, when I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.

 

[Intense_Interest]

What on earth are you talking about? That's the complaint. These martial exploits are supposed to represent non-magical fighting abilities, but they have these silly meta-game constraints of once-per-day or once-per-encounter, when I'd have to think long and hard to come up with anything mundane that actually has a once-per-day constraint in real life.

However

"I think we can agree that all mundane powers are martial, even though not all martial powers are mundane."
​

You're disagreeing with yourself here.

 

[mmadsen]

You're disagreeing with yourself here.

I have no idea how.

 

[Nifft]

However

"I think we can agree that all mundane powers are martial, even though not all martial powers are mundane."
​

You're disagreeing with yourself here.

Compare:

"All bears are mammals, even though not all mammals are bears."​

Cheers, -- N

 

[Intense_Interest]

Compare:

"All bears are mammals, even though not all mammals are bears."​

Cheers, -- N

So therefore your problem is that there are Tigers (Marital and "one-per-day") that are not Bears (Martial and Mundane). Even though they are both Mammals (Martial) you do not need to consider it a Bear (Mundane with suited explanation)

 

[Nifft]

So therefore your problem is that there are Tigers (Marital and "one-per-day") that are not Bears (Martial and Mundane). Even though they are both Mammals (Martial) you do not need to consider it a Bear (Mundane with suited explanation)

You are confused about who has what problem.

I'm a pedant: I don't like seeing well-constructed logical statements mislabeled as self-contradictory.

To contest the truth value of the statement, the original author may be a better target.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cadfan]

No, not quite. You can't pull off your super-attack every turn. You can look for the opening, but you can't pull it off.

Further, you presumably have a menu of super-attacks that are better in different circumstances, so you look to try the right one at the right time.

It's not perfect though, agreed; it's just something I aome up with off the top of my head to spur discussion.

That's like saying that 3e didn't involve spamming attacks, because sometimes your attack roll missed. Of course its spamming attacks all over again. Now it just requires one extra roll of the dice, and your attack has a "Miss: etc" entry like some 4e attacks.

Put it this way. Imagine this spell in 3e.

"The target makes a will save. On a failure, the target is assaulted by illusory chipmunks who eat his skin, and takes [caster level]d6 in damage. On a success, the target is not assaulted by illusory chipmunks who eat his skin. Instead, the target must make a fortitude save. On a failure, the target is blind. On a success, the target suffers no ill effects."

Now, you could theme this in two different ways. Either its one spell that has two possible effects, or, its two spells and you cast the first one if you can, or cast the second one if you cannot.

But either way, the fact remains- every round you're going to spam this choice. We can make the decision tree as big as we want, with as many options as you want, but the only decision YOU make is whether to initiate the decision tree.

And you'll choose "yes" because any system in which one's best attack is spammable encourages people to create characters optimized for the spamming of one single attack. Which is what 4e designed around with encounter and daily abilities.

 

[cangrejoide]

Well between the 'Dwarven Exploding hearts' and 'Cadfan's assaulting squirrels', this thread has achieved a minimal level of worthiness.

I predict that by this time friday, we should be able to actually make a full blown adventure from tidbits from this thread.

 

[tgaptte]

I had a hard time too until...

Hey Wyrm,

I used to feel your pain...until I changed my thinking a bit. I still really don't like the way they did things, but at least I can accept that they did them a particular way and can enjoy playing the game. My background is in fairly heavy roleplaying/story-driven games...it's never been about the rules crunch for me, other than how I could crunch the rules to make my character fit my concept better. Here's what I've come to realize:

In 3.5e, DnD seemed to attempt to more closely simulate fantasy novels, worlds, and stories - I believe this is called simulationist. And I definitely fall firmly on this side of the fence. I know some of you will argue that 3.5e was not more realistic at all and could sight examples of why...but please read on anyway

- Hit Points, while not exactly, seemed to more of an attempt to simulate real life vitality (there will ALWAYS be SOME abstraction in a game). When the characters were gravely injured and the Cleric had exhausted the gifts of his god, they had to "lick their wounds" and be careful not to get into a fight until they had a chance to heal. They might even be forced to travel back to town and rest for several days to recover from a particularly hard fight. I think this can simulate fantasy novels, movies, and stories quite nicely. There are numerous examples in fantasy literature where our heroes must limp away and spend time to recover from some overwhelming defeat.

In 4e, they seem to have moved the bar. Instead of attemping to mimic fantasy novels, movies, stories, etc., they are using "cinematic" action hero logic to explain the characters powers, abilities and hit points as well as to achieve game balance. The game now seems to be mostly focused on "Kill the monsters, take their stuff" (I realize previous versions of the game also had this motto, but 4e, to me, seems to have taken bigger steps to enforce it) and anything that detracts from this goal is "bad" and must be "removed".

- Now we have Hit Points that represent how John Mclane in one scene is walking gingerly across a field of shattered window glass...eventually wrapping his feet in cloth, and still walking gingerly due to the deep cuts in his feet. Later in the movie he's running full tilt again, apparently his mind blocking the cuts in his feet or perhaps they weren't so deep after all, (ignore all the blood ) having used a healing surge and is now fully ready to fight again. So 4e is more about the party being "Action Heroes" and less about them being realistic characters in a fantasy novel. When Frodo gets sick due to the dark sword wound and has to return to the elves to be healed, it's a MAJOR event...I don't think this is the thinking in 4e. Effects, in general, don't last beyond combat...unless you call it a disease or hand wave it. You can certainly MAKE 4e work as a simulationist game...but you have to do more work to do so IMO. In 4e, they tried to design a good GAME as their FIRST priority and I think the side effect is that they ended up designing a game that is a good SIMULATION of fantasy as their SECOND priority. Nothing wrong with it, it's a fun game, but I think it is one of the things that is leading all of us to have these types of discussions.

So...with this in mind...my rationale for Encounter and Daily Exploits is as follows: Once per movie session (err...game session) the players have the opportunity to take over script control from the writer (GM) and say "my action hero" (err..."character") does something cool at this point. You rarely see a repeat of a "Really Cool Move" in a movie, and that's what 4e is simulating...it's just allowing the player to decide when "Conan one-punches the horse".

If you can accept how 4e deals with Hit Points, Healing Surges and healing in general....then I think the same "Action Hero logic" will help you see through to accept Encounter and Daily abilities as roots of the same tree - all these things stem from their shift in focus from "character in a fantasy story" to "Lead Action Hero in a movie"

Anyway...I hope that helps you enjoy the game more...it certainly has helped me enjoy myself while playing 4e. If you try to force the 4e rules to fit into a "fantasy story simulation mindset" I think you will have trouble making this make sense and will not enjoy 4e. I am currently playing in a heavy roleplaying 4e game and am having a blast - mostly because the GM and the other players are great roleplayers, and we've all agreed to "just accept" the way 4e does things and try to have fun anyway. .

T