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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5889737" data-attributes="member: 151">I think it's worth pointing out that Essentials appears to have internalized the idea that Daily Martial powers did not sit well with some players.  I know I was confused when we realized that the Knight had no Dailies.  It bugged my wife, who had taken that class, because she found she suddenly lacked a 'big hit', similar to what she had with the 4E fighter.  Which should highlight that different players see it as a problem or not.  When I played a 4E fighter, I didn't have a problem with the fact that I could only use 'Villain's Menace' once per day.  It was a 'boss-killer' and the meta-game nature of it didn't bother affect my enjoyment of the narrative.  I accepted it as a meta-game mechanic.  I don't see it the same as an action point, because the action point increases player agency and is far more utilitarian than a daily power: it can heal, it can harm and it can often be used to do something outside of the range of normal ability (at least with the DMs I game with, myself included).  It's also worth noting that action points accumulate, while dialies do not.  A daily is a special trick that can only be used once a day like a magic bean, while an action point is something that replenishes as the adventurer continues to adventure.The argument that dailies are 'special moments' where the martial character simply does better than normal only applies if you ignore many of them don't emulate that behavior terribly well.  You only need to look at stances (of which there are currently 358, only 40 of which are NOT dailies).  You either have to accept the meta-game aspect or the fiction, for some people, makes no sense.  Aragorn can pass easily through dense terrain...once in a while, when he feels like it.  Sometimes Gimli can do amazing things against an unwary opponent, but other times he can't do anything but basic attacks.  For some players, that can break them out of the fiction of the game and they find that unsatisfying.For my part, it doesn't bother me at all, but I can understand why some people would have a problem with it.  We periodically come to 'well, the rules don't say 'No' moments in 4E, where the rules have clearly been streamlined to make a faster playing game, even if it occasionally sacrifices believability to do so.  We usually just say, 'Hmm. Well, it makes things much easier if it works this way...let's say this happens and move on'.  I can imagine some groups are completely derailed by such events.But as billd91 points out, the AEDU system (like the Vancian system) is not beholden to alternate implementations to address such concerns.</blockquote>

Verification