Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

[vagabundo]

The uses/day increasing was the important part..

The fact that it was finite is what matters. If you are okay with the 3e Barbarian rage and can justify it in-game, then there should be no problems with martial character having dailies (or encounter powers).

How did you explain it?

 

[GnomeWorks]

So it comes down to where you draw the line?

I think that conditionals are reasonable. A lot of the explanations for the dailies is "the condition for this shows up only about once a day...", so, by extension, if a mechanic has that sort of condition built into it, it should be alright.

Well, I guess, it's okay because it is magic. So, just define "Martial is a kind of magic", and you're done (either with 4E, because you _must_ have an entirely non-magical class, or with the problem, because this explanations works for you )

Eh, I've gotten off the D&D train. 4e makes no sense to me, and contemplating 4e has made me consider 3.5 more deeply, and I've concluded that neither one is right for me.

As for what I'm still doing here... just stirring up trouble, I guess.

How did you explain it?

I didn't. I accepted it. 4e made me realize both methods were lousy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think that conditionals are reasonable. A lot of the explanations for the dailies is "the condition for this shows up only about once a day...", so, by extension, if a mechanic has that sort of condition built into it, it should be alright.



Eh, I've gotten off the D&D train. 4e makes no sense to me, and contemplating 4e has made me consider 3.5 more deeply, and I've concluded that neither one is right for me.

As for what I'm still doing here... just stirring up trouble, I guess.



I didn't. I accepted it. 4e made me realize both methods were lousy.

Okay, fair enough. That makes sense.

My problem with the "conditional" approach is that it is typically very... tedious.
The Tactical Feats from 3E where interesting, conceptually. You got a special effect if you fulfilled several conditions. But tracking these conditions or achieving them rarely felt worth the effort. It was easier and more enjoyable to take a simpler feat like Weapon Specialization or Mobility.

There are situations where "conditional" powers or abilities I find interesting and less tedious - like using your abilities to move the enemy into a worse tactical position (at the edge of a cliff, back to the wall, surrounded).

They feel somehow better then a feat that allows me to "hit him with the spear first, then bullrush with the shield, then do both on your third round as an effect.

In a perfect "powerless" game, the feat would not be required, it's something everyone can try, like Trip or Disarm in 3E - but imagine how complicated the combat system would be if all these synergestic effects where included!
This might be an example of balancing "simulation" vs. "playability". Ultimately, D&D is still a game, and playability is therefore a very important goal.

 

[GnomeWorks]

My problem with the "conditional" approach is that it is typically very... tedious.
The Tactical Feats from 3E where interesting, conceptually. You got a special effect if you fulfilled several conditions. But tracking these conditions or achieving them rarely felt worth the effort. It was easier and more enjoyable to take a simpler feat like Weapon Specialization or Mobility.

My homebrew gamesystem is going along those lines, like the Tactical feats in 3.5. I've gotten rid of full attacks and such concepts; it's one attack at a time. So hopefully the more powerful sorts of martial abilities won't wind up too droll.

There are situations where "conditional" powers or abilities I find interesting and less tedious - like using your abilities to move the enemy into a worse tactical position (at the edge of a cliff, back to the wall, surrounded).

Fair enough.

They feel somehow better then a feat that allows me to "hit him with the spear first, then bullrush with the shield, then do both on your third round as an effect.

Well, you have to admit... that's not very inspired.

In a perfect "powerless" game, the feat would not be required, it's something everyone can try, like Trip or Disarm in 3E - but imagine how complicated the combat system would be if all these synergestic effects where included!

And this is why I have someone checking over my shoulder, who warns me when he thinks I'm making things too complex.

This might be an example of balancing "simulation" vs. "playability". Ultimately, D&D is still a game, and playability is therefore a very important goal.

You've drawn a line in the sand in one place, and I in another.

I like lots of fiddly bits.

 

[cangrejoide]

*sigh*

Guess I'll post in this thread again...



Could we please quit touting this as a valid response to the argument? Because it's not.

As you gain levels, you can use the rage more often. This implies that the ability is not static; you improve in your ability to use it. It increases in power, duration, and the side-effects decrease.

The real problem is that a good number of martial dailies are nonsensical in the sense that they never improve. You can never get better at using it; it is a static ability.

I think it is a valid example. Some paragon paths allows you to re-use a daily, so implying that you improve in your ability to use it.

 

[cangrejoide]

After reading this post here ( and a lot of related posts here and in other forums),

I have to ask. Did 3E hurt our imagination that much, when the use of a daily power is a 'dealbreaker' for some?

What happened to us?

 

[Plane Sailing]

As for what I'm still doing here... just stirring up trouble, I guess.

Well, I hope that isn't the case, 'cos we don't like that.

The issues I post about barbarian rage and defensive roll are germane to the original posters question, and hadn't been brought up yet in this thread.

Your dismissal of the barbarian rage issue isn't thought through IMO. The 2nd level barbarian gets to use it 1/day. Why?

The 10th level barbarian gets to use it 3/day. Why? Why can't he use it a 4th time?

It is a completely arbitrary ability. The class tells him how many times he can use it a day, and thats all he can do.

Daily powers are the same.

But if you're not interested in discussion, and just want to stir up trouble, I suggest you don't answer this. After all, it is the original poster that I'm interested in having the discussion with at this point.

Cheers

 

[GnomeWorks]

Well, I hope that isn't the case, 'cos we don't like that.

Oh, I was just trying to make a funny. I've apparently been up too long for that, though.

The issues I post about barbarian rage and defensive roll are germane to the original posters question, and hadn't been brought up yet in this thread.

Yes, and I felt that they were inaccurate comparisons.

Your dismissal of the barbarian rage issue isn't thought through IMO. The 2nd level barbarian gets to use it 1/day. Why?

Because he's a low-level barbarian?

The 10th level barbarian gets to use it 3/day. Why? Why can't he use it a 4th time?

It's not the specific quantity that matters. It's the idea behind it.

Yes, the 10th-level barbarian can only use it 3 times per day. But that is superior to the number of times a lower-level barbarian can use it.

It makes more sense to me than only ever being able to use it once a day.

It is a completely arbitrary ability. The class tells him how many times he can use it a day, and thats all he can do.

Yes, it's arbitrary, I'll grant you that. But it still improves with experience. That, to me, says that it's not the same kind of thing.

But if you're not interested in discussion, and just want to stir up trouble, I suggest you don't answer this. After all, it is the original poster that I'm interested in having the discussion with at this point.

You shouldn't take the tubes so serious-like.

I feel I'm making a valid point. I'm not exactly able to describe in precise terminology why I feel that there is a distinction between barbarian rage and dailies in 4e, but I think there is. It feels different.

It's not different enough that barbarian rage doesn't cause issues for me, as well, but it seems more sensical to me. It irks me less than 4e dailies do, but still irks me.

 

[hong]

Barbarian rage isn't really per-day. It's more analogous to per-encounter, especially at higher levels where you get more uses per day than you really need.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Barbarian rage isn't really per-day. It's more analogous to per-encounter, especially at higher levels where you get more uses per day than you really need.

Well, but at lower levels, it's still a daily sort of thing, because you can only use it once a day.

I can see where PS (and others) are coming from, I just think it feels different because of the progression.