Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5886926" data-attributes="member: 52073">I strongly disagree.  You seem to think that all classes must be on exactly the same resource schedule to have parity, but as we saw in 3e with the T3 classes, you can have similar (but not identical) resource schedules and still be on roughly even footing.But that's exactly the point--they aren't perfectly reasonable rationales, because they don't work all the time."You only get the right opening to use them at such-and-such a time" -> Why can't you re-use daily powers against stunned/dazed foes, who by nature would give you extra openings?  Why aren't such openings quantified, like flat-footedness or flanking for sneak attacks?"It's very taxing to use those powers" -> Why can you use each power exactly once, without affecting other daily powers or any encounter or at-will powers?  How is it then not taxing to use a stance for an entire encounter, or use a reliable power until you hit?"They can only use them when it's dramatically appropriate" -> Why can you use daily powers only once on "bosses" and on mooks at all?  How do you determine what is dramatically appropriate?The problem is that no one explanation was provided for martial daily powers that was subsequently consistently followed; actually, the problem is that no explanation is given at all, really, and we're left to come up with explanations for ourselves, which means the game itself (and different groups) won't treat them consistently.  As I mentioned, if they had chosen a single, consistent explanation, then they could have stuck with that explanation for everything...and they would have had to use something besides daily powers to make that explanation make sense and fit every situation, in all likelihood.1) This insistence that people who dislike martial daily powers must therefore want martial types to be boring is wrong.  I like resource management systems for martial types, and in fact like ToB quite a bit because (A) they use a different system from other power sources to drive home the difference, (B) they use encounter powers with recharge, which is much more explainable and much better at approximating openings/rhythm in combat, and (C) they can actually do things that matter beyond "damage + condition."  Those martial systems, however, have to make sense and should preferably be different from other resource management systems.2) The 4e psionics system and all preceding psionics systems are different.  If it were up to me, a lover of psionics in every edition even if I'd hate to run them in 1e because they were completely borked, the martial types could have the 4e psionics system for their "fatigue" system or whatever, and the psionic types could go to a 3e-ish power points for daily power + maintain psionic focus for at will power + expend psionic focus for limited power mechanic.Well, yes, if you consider "using a weapon against a single target within melee range" as a distinguishing feature of an entire power source to be a notable difference, there's quite a hard limit on possible mechanical distinction.  However, let's take a look at what nonmagical things a 12th-level martial adept can do, shall we?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deflect attacks into opponents</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Pick up and throw enemies</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attack without breaking stealth</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Immobilize creatures</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gain DR</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Make 4 attacks in a round</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deal Con damage</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Follow enemies when they try to flee</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Detect invisible enemies with hearing</li> </ul>Those aren't really things that magic does in 3e, generally, and they fit into a martial paradigm just fine.  On top of that, the nine ToB disciplines are very distinct, and you can generally tell what maneuver a discipline belongs to given its description, though there are a few areas of overlap.  Maneuvers aren't defined in terms of their range, or what you use them with, or their damage types; they can be made with any type of damage including ability damage, and they can be made at multiple ranges.  They're defined by their resource management mechanism, and the type of effects they can accomplish, which are quite different from all of the other resource management systems in 3e in both respects.And yet, martial adepts, bards, totemists, full-list Vancian casters, binders, wildshape rangers, factotums, duskblades, and psionic warriors are all roughly on a par in terms of versatility and power, despite their different systems--and it is those different systems, as much as each system's effects, that make them feel and play quite differently.  Only two of those classes use daily resources, and those are psionics and Vancian casting, yet the other classes keep up just fine.And encounter powers are in both 3e and 4e, and are quite popular for martial types in both editions--there are ToB haters, but there are psionics haters and sha'ir haters and plenty of other haters too.  Once again, "no daily mechanics" does not mean "boring one-dimensional fighters," it means "no daily mechanics," that's it.  What I'm arguing for, despite your assertions, is a system that makes martial types powerful and versatile while giving them a unique play experience relative to the different caster types.</blockquote>

Verification