Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5889881" data-attributes="member: 52073">As I mentioned earlier, and as Zustiur so eloquently expanded on, the disconnect between "This is real in the game world" and "This is a metagame thing" is a deal breaker.  Your wizard can use particular spells, he can talk about his powers in-game, he can strategize about using them, because they are game world artifacts.  Your fighter, though, is in some sort of hazy nebulous state where he just fights, and can do some things some of the time and can't do them other times for no particularly consistent reason.  You can tell your wizard to Fireball the goblins rushing towards you, but not tell your fighter to Stop Thrust the one getting away, because apparently fighters don't have individual techniques, they have dramatically appropriate openings.It's that vague middle state that I really object to.  Completely disconnect the fighter mechanics from the game and make them purely dramatic/plot appropriate abilities, and we're fine.  Completely immerse them in the game and make them individual techniques, and we're fine.  Make them halfway immersed sort-of techniques that sort-of work some of the time, and that doesn't really do it for me.*sigh*Once again, breadth of options.  There are 200-some spells for the wizard alone in the PHB; there are 180-some maneuvers for the swordsage in ToB.  The warmage came along late in 3e, but even with that much material to reference it only got some spells from the PHB and Complete Arcane, so a sorcerer with broader access does blasting better than the warmage.  The Big 5 have access to the most powerful things in 3e, the alternate systems only have access to one book: their own.  Which one book it is really matters.I believe you're being deliberately obtuse here.  By "daily system" I am, and consistently have been, referring to the 4e martial daily model where you get to use each power a certain fixed number of times per day.  Having a certain number of points to turn encounters into dailies, similar to but not identical with 4e psionics, may be a daily system if it has a fixed number of points, or it might not if it works differently (e.g. you regenerate X fatigue points after each encounter, or you can spend HP/penalize defenses/whatever to gain more, or the like).If you're facing minions, a 3-hit power can kill more than Twin Strike.  If you've already damaged some enemies, using a 4[W] daily power on them is better than using a 2[W] encounter power.I would note for the record that 4e is the edition where a mid-level character was built who could one-shot Orcus a week before the game was even released, where flurries of errata fixed and changed tons of material before Essentials came out, and where Twin Strike is the best striker at-will in the game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />On a general note, we do agree on the most important point, that fighters need a resource system to allow them to pace themselves, to strategize, to be balanced with other resource-system classes, and so forth.  We simply disagree on the best way to achieve it.  I want the martial resource system to be as explicable in-game as the other sources, to give a unique play experience, and to provide interesting mechanical options.  These don't seem to be priorities to you, but I'm arguing that 5e could come up with a martial subsystem that satisfies both your goals and my goals, it's just that that system isn't martial daily powers as expressed in 4e.  The aim of martial dailies is one I fully endorse, I just dislike the execution.</blockquote>

Verification