On Metagame Dissonance, Daily Powers, and Logic

I will use Emerikol's definition for metagame dissonance, which can be found here: community.wizards.com/emerikol/blog/2012...

Now, by this definition Vancian casting in DDN does not evoke metagame dissonance, while the martial daily powers from 4e do evoke metagame dissonance.  What is the difference?  In the stated rules Vancian Casting is given a reason to exist inside the game world to explain to the characters how Vancian Casting works, i.e. the wizard forgets the spell after use or the cleric spell use is limited by a deity.  Thus, if a similar explanation were put into effect for a daily power for fighters, by definition, it would not evoke metagame dissonance because the player and the character are congruent on how the power works in the game world.

In 4e, particularly martial, powers are ridiculed because of limited use, whether that be because of class or frequency of use.  For example, let's take the encounter power "Offhand Strike."  Why can't my fighter use the ranger ability "Offhand Strike?"  Quite simply, because it is a ranger power.  Now, before you get carried away by context and commit a logical fallacy let me explain.  In the logic of the 4e game system and world "Offhand Strike" is ability(offhand strike) of class(Ranger), and class(Fighter) does not have access to ability(offhand strike).  In the logic of the system(which governs the game world created under 4e rules) questioning why a fighter can't use "Offhand Strike" is exactly the same as questioning why a cleric can't cast fireballs (class(cleric) does not have access to ability(fireball)).  This applies for any class using any ability not accessable under the class structure.

The manner in which I interpret encounter and daily abilities the character understands that s/he may only use these abilities with a combination of environment, luck, and skill - and that those factors only occur as often as the player is able to use the ability.  Thus, I do not suffer metagame dissonance.

That aside, I do not understand why the inclusion of powers excludes the imitation of those powers through imagination.  A fighter in 4e can still attempt a knockout blow, but your dm probably won't allow it to be as effective as the rogue's "Knockout Blow" ability.  Or indeed, why a fighter cannot simply make a basic attack role-played and imagined as an offhand strike.  If however the fighter wanted to use the ranger's "Offhand Strike" multiple times per encounter I question the player's motive for wanting an unbalancing game advantage, as the two weapon fighting can be imitated through imagination alone in the system.

Finally, I would like to say: if you do not like powers, or daily resources, or whatever, fine.  There are plenty of things I like and don't like about any game system.  However, please admit to the fact that you don't like it and it doesn't work at your table, and that you don't need to attempt to explain it away with logic.  It's okay to like/dislike a feature just because.  That's how people act for most other aspects of life anyway.
I think you hit a valid point. The disconnect between an ingame reason and a game mechanic might be one of the main backgrounds for many of the vague complaints about 4E.

They have tried to address some of those issues as early as 2E Combat and Tactics, with things like Fatigue.

I think that avoiding this metagame dissonance is essential but sometimes a very hard thing to do. It might be one of the biggest challenges in designing a good game.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)

For example, let's take the encounter power "Offhand Strike."  Why can't my fighter use the ranger ability "Offhand Strike?"  Quite simply, because it is a ranger power.  Now, before you get carried away by context and commit a logical fallacy let me explain.  In the logic of the 4e game system and world "Offhand Strike" is ability(offhand strike) of class(Ranger), and class(Fighter) does not have access to ability(offhand strike).


Or he doesn't use Offhand Strike ebcause that type of thing isn't how he trained himself?

I have yet to run into anything dissociative in 4e that wasn't in past editions (hit points, AC, etc).

What's dissociative is subjective, ebcause it varies from person to person. Arguing otherwise is a losing battle.
i agree with you on this idea, too many times i have seen characters use player knowledge to try to get advantages against monsters with weaknesses to certain things. as a dm i am lucky to have players that play dumb to that unless the character has done research or has a skill or the knowledge of the weakness in question.

I think that avoiding this metagame dissonance is essential but sometimes a very hard thing to do. It might be one of the biggest challenges in designing a good game.

It's an impossible task since everyone has a different point of view on what is dissociative. I have no issue with martial dailies (at least as far as dissonance) and Emerikol does. If you take out every part that doesn't work for someone then you end up throwing everything out.

I don't think we really needed another thread about this [general topic].
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I like turtles
I don't think we really needed another thread about this [general topic].

But alignment just will not die! I try and try but it's worse than killing a half-red dragon troll! Tongue Out

I don't think we really need another thread about alignment, either.

Wink
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I don't think we really needed another thread about this [general topic].

But alignment just will not die! I try and try but it's worse than killing a half-red dragon troll! Tongue Out




how could you make a red dragon/troll cross since trolls cant regen fire? just asking and i didnt know troll and dragon dna was compatible.
The solution seems rather simple to me, instead of having distinct daily, and encounter powers, have at-wills that can be modded with encounter and daily resources. So a fighter's at will is 'swing sword' but by expending a couple points of encounter resources he turns that into whirlwind attack. Spending points of a daily resource (i suggest we have HD pull double duty here) he can instead make his swing sword attack into Hurricane of Endless Blood.

This gets rid of the silly ness where a fighter can whirlwind at the start of a fight but never again until he's had a chance to take a quick nap, while at the same time, giving the warrior types to ability to nasty things that would be horribly broken as at-wills. 
The solution seems rather simple to me, instead of having distinct daily, and encounter powers, have at-wills that can be modded with encounter and daily resources. So a fighter's at will is 'swing sword' but by expending a couple points of encounter resources he turns that into whirlwind attack. Spending points of a daily resource (i suggest we have HD pull double duty here) he can instead make his swing sword attack into Hurricane of Endless Blood.

This gets rid of the silly ness where a fighter can whirlwind at the start of a fight but never again until he's had a chance to take a quick nap, while at the same time, giving the warrior types to ability to nasty things that would be horribly broken as at-wills. 

That sounds really cool. Very similar to another poster who mused that martial abilities may have gone over better is built like the Psionic powers from 4e (all at will's with varying levels of augmentation you can spend power points to do). It would be interesting to see how well/not-well that went over with the general playtest public.
I don't think we really needed another thread about this [general topic].

But alignment just will not die! I try and try but it's worse than killing a half-red dragon troll! Tongue Out




how could you make a red dragon/troll cross since trolls cant regen fire? just asking and i didnt know troll and dragon dna was compatible.

www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.h... 
Dragons can mate with ANY living creature. Now to make a truely unkillable death machine take a troll and add 1/2 fire elemental and 1/2 black dragon. Now NOTHING can stop it from regenerating! Tongue Out
The solution seems rather simple to me, instead of having distinct daily, and encounter powers, have at-wills that can be modded with encounter and daily resources. So a fighter's at will is 'swing sword' but by expending a couple points of encounter resources he turns that into whirlwind attack. Spending points of a daily resource (i suggest we have HD pull double duty here) he can instead make his swing sword attack into Hurricane of Endless Blood.

This gets rid of the silly ness where a fighter can whirlwind at the start of a fight but never again until he's had a chance to take a quick nap, while at the same time, giving the warrior types to ability to nasty things that would be horribly broken as at-wills. 



This is in the realm of acceptable imo.  I'd even go so far as to allow some of this 'resource' (I confess, I really hate appending that term but I see its use) to regenerate under certain conditions mid-battle -- like a critical.  (In-game explanation - the telling blow is often an indicator of a shift in momentum, and can inspire an adrenaline-like burst of energy, ready to be drawn on again.  Can be seen in any of a myriad of meda, from movies to books to poems and so forth).  I dislike the HD, though...instead, simply up the cost (2 of 'Resource X' instead of 1, for instance).  This way there is a shifting, trackable resource and a martial character doesn't risk 'running out for the day' -- something a martial should -never- have to worry about.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

...However, please admit to the fact that you don't like it and it doesn't work at your table, and that you don't need to attempt to explain it away with logic.  It's okay to like/dislike a feature just because...

No! IMO, game design is about understanding "why" so you can work with it and craft more purposeful and rich experiences.

My point of view: I dislike rules that are designed to be explained situationally in-game as opposed to being designed as a consistent concept. It's not about metagame dissonance, I like luck rerolls, I don't even bother taking them out of the metagame. Having to come up with my own reasons why something is supposed to be "mundane" and yet I can only do it once per combat/day feels wrong. This is why I claim "I prefer simulationist game design." (Note I use that term to label certain game design, not players. I know that miffs people, no reason for me to do that.)

That is the logical reason why I don't like "martial dailies." Since I didn't accept just because as a good reason, I was able to pinpoint this. I then tried GMing 13th Age, a game with tons of narrativist based game mechanics. Because I understand it, I was able to get over myself and enjoy the game for what it is instead of hating for not being the system I'm used to.



I don't care about the debate that is going to ensue from the subject of this thread, I just wanted to say leaving things as "just because" is not a good idea for everyone. If people want to pinpoint why they feel X about Y, more power to them. Although I will say one thing, I don't think the problem lies within the "daily" part, I think it lies in the idea that martial means our Earth mundane. I can live with martial dailies because I assume that "martial" has a pinch of magic/supernatural in it despite the name. Problem solved for me; logic ho!
Un fortunately anjelika the warriors need some form of daily or the mages need to stop getting dailies because the false concept that wizards and such should get massively better stuff because they have a daily limit is as persistant as it is false.
Un fortunately anjelika the warriors need some form of daily or the mages need to stop getting dailies because the false concept that wizards and such should get massively better stuff because they have a daily limit is as persistant as it is false.



Unbelievable.

I give you the exact same power you wanted as a 'daily' with a resource that can recharge so it can be used MORE than daily WHILE making it work associatively for virtually every person posting on these boards...

...and somehow that's STILL 'worse than wizards'.


"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

A universal and/or standardized resource system would be amazing (but I would never expect it).

I'd run with either Stamina or Focus, though it would essentially boil down to the same thing.  "Daily" abilities would "spend" the resource until... whatever.  A "long rest".  "Encounter" abilities would "spend" it until the end of combat, a short rest, or however you want to work it.  You could have an "active" way to recover points, too, somehow *shrug*.

Both would be tied conceptually to the concept of "fatigue" (physical or mental, depending on which way you go with the resource, and on the particular ability).


Personally, I prefer focus - I think the name choice alone gives some room for more approaches to handling it.  Like abilities that require you to "invest" it temporarily ("spend" it on something, and get it back when that something ends).
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Nice attempt Corliss but did you read the link yourself?

Imagine a coffee shop in Greyhawk City where two wizards are talking about their day.  Each of them in discussing the use of their spells are fully and totally aware they are used once per slot.  The characters are fully and totally aware of spells and how they work.  The spell mechanics are in game knowledge.

Now imagine at another table two fighters talking.  One they probably are talking about powers at all.  Why?  Because what they can do with a sword isn't broken down into powers.  It would take hundreds of powers to fully reflect every move a fighter could make.  But let's just assume for now that a power is broadly representative of a category of manuever.  So given that we are okay so far.  But these fighters never ever talk about using up their big daily martial attack in the morning and wishing they had it later that night.  Martial daily is not in their vocabulary.  

Whereas the wizards do talk about daily spells.  That is a known thing in the world.


Rampant.
I do think going to 100% at-will powers with some kind of fatigue point system that refreshed at the end of the encounter could rid us of dissociative issues.  And if you state that you can't design a game that is balanced if only magic classes can do dailies, then your strategy makes sense.  I'm not sure I believe that limitation myself personally but I get thats where you are at in this discussion.


Other ways...
1.  Have an exception based system where whenever a fighter crits he gets access to choose some special manuever as a result.
2.  Let fighters crit whenever they exceed their enemies AC by some number like 3 or 5.  


I've seen this debated on numerous threads already though.  So no need to reignite this discussion.  
 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


I'd run with either Stamina or Focus, though it would essentially boil down to the same thing.  "Daily" abilities would "spend" the resource until... whatever.  A "long rest".  "Encounter" abilities would "spend" it until the end of combat, a short rest, or however you want to work it.  You could have an "active" way to recover points, too, somehow *shrug*.



I think it would have to be encounter.  I don't see anything stamina based being daily.   But you could have "big" powers use up more stamina.  So what used to be a daily might just completely exhaust your stamina and thus you do it in place of a bunch of other former encounter style powers.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


Personally, I prefer focus - I think the name choice alone gives some room for more approaches to handling it.  Like abilities that require you to "invest" it temporarily ("spend" it on something, and get it back when that something ends).

I like KI. Martials can use it to a lesser extent than the monk through training. Casters would use it for meditation/focus for casting.

To put it simply as long as some classes get dailies the classes without are at a huge disadvantage because the devs are under the impression that dailies can be far more powerful than other powers. Thus any class with dailies will be dramaticaly more powerful than those without.
I think that there is room for different styles of warrior with different "sources".

Some might have stamina, fuelled by Constitution.

Some might have focus, fuelled by Intelligence or Charisma.

Some might have Ki, fuelled by Wisdom.

These might give "per encounter" points to show short term bursts of "power" and/or "per day" points to show more exhausting bursts of "power" which cannot be sustained.

For the ver-sim-my-illitude crowd optional rules could be included for taking HP damage to fuel additional "points" of "power" above and beyond the usual allowance, representing burning through physical reserves beyond those usually available.

In any case the "why couldn't I just do that last one again?" question from 4th should be avoided, but repetition discouraged through the inclusion of many interesting and effective options.           
@Rampant
So you believe that regardless of how they did dailies, no game could have them and also have sufficient parity for your preferences to be met.  That would mean that 1e/2e/3e all failed on that count for you. 
I don't see why burning hd recieves a negative response. Its already a daily resource that represents reserves of energy and will that can't be used all the time. It's already there why not use it?
@Rampant
So you believe that regardless of how they did dailies, no game could have them and also have sufficient parity for your preferences to be met.  That would mean that 1e/2e/3e all failed on that count for you. 



Those three named editions all certainly failed to balance at-level (or at-XP) characters.

In 1st and 2nd casters start off terribly weak compared to martial characters, are briefly balanced between about 4th and 6th level and then are overwhelmingly more powerful from about 7th level onwards.

In 3rd and 3.5 casters have a risky 1st level but if they can survive that they are basically more mechanically powerful than any martial character for their entire career.

These failures demonstrated the ineffectiveness of attempting to balance pure daily with pure at-will classes, hence the more balanced approach we see in Next.     
I think a different set of devs might be able to pull it off but i have no faith that the people who put together these packets could do so.
I don't see why burning hd recieves a negative response. Its already a daily resource that represents reserves of energy and will that can't be used all the time. It's already there why not use it?



It would still be dissociative though at that point if you made it daily.  Obviously with magic you could say there was a fatigue that was granular enough to affect spells if you defined it that way I suppose.  But I know about fighters.  They wouldn't operate this way.
I don't see why burning hd recieves a negative response. Its already a daily resource that represents reserves of energy and will that can't be used all the time. It's already there why not use it?



It would still be dissociative though at that point if you made it daily.  Obviously with magic you could say there was a fatigue that was granular enough to affect spells if you defined it that way I suppose.  But I know about fighters.  They wouldn't operate this way.



So you are saying that the entire concept of Hit Dice is dissociative?
Yeah, there's no sense at all in which that has to be inevitable. It may take some reexamination; I believe that part of what make 3.5's PHB a little tippy was that it systematically overestimated how much extra potency something should be allowed to have if you can only do it a certain number of times each day, rather than an unlimited number of times.

It's trivial, at least as a theoretical exercise, to design a class that has daily abilities where those daily abilities are clearly more powerful than the pure at-will class's at-will abilities, but the daily-using class is still clearly inferior to the at-will class. For example, consider two incredibly simple classes. Class A does 10 damage each round. Class B does 5 damage each round, but can do 12 damage twice a day. Class B is obviously worse in all but the most extreme campaigns (campaigns that routinely feature 1-2 rounds of combat each day, but not more), and by a pretty huge margin.

All that really has to happen is some combination of daily abilities being kept in a reasonable place (in some combination of raw potency and rate of use - if you can do something 30 times a day, it kind of stops being much of a "daily" ability, and shouldn't really be better than an at-will action by much, if at all) and classes that don't rely on daily abilities being made sufficiently badass to compensate.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Why not its fairly common for there to be manevers and techniques that strain the body. What's dissaciative about tapping into those resources early to pull off something big?

I'd run with either Stamina or Focus, though it would essentially boil down to the same thing.  "Daily" abilities would "spend" the resource until... whatever.  A "long rest".  "Encounter" abilities would "spend" it until the end of combat, a short rest, or however you want to work it.  You could have an "active" way to recover points, too, somehow *shrug*.



I think it would have to be encounter.  I don't see anything stamina based being daily.   But you could have "big" powers use up more stamina.  So what used to be a daily might just completely exhaust your stamina and thus you do it in place of a bunch of other former encounter style powers.


The idea that nothing you could do, ever, would be so exhausting that you can't recover from it in a short rest (or whatever), is... odd.

Honestly, it strikes me as completely unrealistically preposterous, but that may just be me.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Yeah, there's no sense at all in which that has to be inevitable. It may take some reexamination; I believe that part of what make 3.5's PHB a little tippy was that it systematically overestimated how much extra potency something should be allowed to have if you can only do it a certain number of times each day, rather than an unlimited number of times.

It's trivial, at least as a theoretical exercise, to design a class that has daily abilities where those daily abilities are clearly more powerful than the pure at-will class's at-will abilities, but the daily-using class is still clearly inferior to the at-will class. For example, consider two incredibly simple classes. Class A does 10 damage each round. Class B does 5 damage each round, but can do 12 damage twice a day. Class B is obviously worse in all but the most extreme campaigns (campaigns that routinely feature 1-2 rounds of combat each day, but not more), and by a pretty huge margin.

All that really has to happen is some combination of daily abilities being kept in a reasonable place (in some combination of raw potency and rate of use - if you can do something 30 times a day, it kind of stops being much of a "daily" ability, and shouldn't really be better than an at-will action by much, if at all) and classes that don't rely on daily abilities being made sufficiently badass to compensate.



That's a great idea in theory.

But there have been a LOT of efforts over the years to balance "all daily" with "all at-will" and none of them has been a resounding success.

You certainly can't argue that the effort has been abandoned by WotC, because it has, hence the mix in Next classes.

I'd like to see a true "all daily" class later, in a suppliment, so that it can be totally ignored by those of us who get that it will never be properly balanced (or, at the VERY most, balanced only in a strictly encounter/round constrained environment detrimental to good DMing).      

I'd run with either Stamina or Focus, though it would essentially boil down to the same thing.  "Daily" abilities would "spend" the resource until... whatever.  A "long rest".  "Encounter" abilities would "spend" it until the end of combat, a short rest, or however you want to work it.  You could have an "active" way to recover points, too, somehow *shrug*.



I think it would have to be encounter.  I don't see anything stamina based being daily.   But you could have "big" powers use up more stamina.  So what used to be a daily might just completely exhaust your stamina and thus you do it in place of a bunch of other former encounter style powers.


The idea that nothing you could do, ever, would be so exhausting that you can't recover from it in a short rest (or whatever), is... odd.

Honestly, it strikes me as completely unrealistically preposterous, but that may just be me.



I don't know how you miss it, Frito.   But let me cover two things, very quickly.

1. The 'strength' of martials is that they do what the do all day erry day, while mages can't.  Giving them abilities that break this is not a good thing.
2. Stamina/Fatigue/Focus/Et al are fine, because they model something in the game world -- exhaustion.  The moment you say 'He cant do it more than once!', you're forced to come up with a reasonable explanation.  'Hes too tired!' works fine...until someone casts Dispel Exhaustion (or whatever they're calling it these days).  Now what?  THAT'S the dissociation.  Its that under no circumstances can the fighter do it again, even though he's no longer too tired to!.  Stamina/Fatigue/whatever can be regained (as it should be) and as such, a 'daily' is simple...ridiculous.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

That strength is no such thing its the number one excuse to gimp the martials.

Also by your logic hp should be infinite.
That strength is no such thing its the number one excuse to gimp the martials. Also by your logic hp should be infinite.



You'll do me a favor and not presume to tell me about 'logic' in a post towards me, particularly when your grasp of it seem to be so...questionable.

If you want to limit your martials to doing only regular attacks once they do something 'kewl' once a day, by all means do so.  For me and mine, we'll continue to have martials that own wizards as a matter of course.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

1. The 'strength' of martials is that they do what the do all day erry day, while mages can't.  Giving them abilities that break this is not a good thing.


I (mostly) disagree.  I think that's a strength - but it's a 'strength' like 'being simple' is a 'strength'.

And it's certainly not some universally held opinion.  Abilities-with-some-limited-use seem popular enough that at least having the option if you want to excercise it seems very much like a 'good thing'.

Mind you, I wasn't talking about nor suggesting something where every character had every type of ability.  Hell, what I was suggesting was, at most, a framework upon which you could actually, competently, put the choice of what ability schema the character uses entirely in the players' hands (ie, someone could choose only 'at-will' options that use their resources only as a round-by-round limit, whereas someone else could choose only 'daily' options that use their resources up in a more standard D&D fashion).


2. Stamina/Fatigue/Focus/Et al are fine, because they model something in the game world -- exhaustion.  The moment you say 'He cant do it more than once!', you're forced to come up with a reasonable explanation.  'Hes too tired!' works fine...until someone casts Dispel Exhaustion (or whatever they're calling it these days).  Now what?  THAT'S the dissociation.  Its that under no circumstances can the fighter do it again, even though he's no longer too tired to!.  Stamina/Fatigue/whatever can be regained (as it should be) and as such, a 'daily' is simple...ridiculous.


Wait, what?  I don't follow your... criticism I guess?  At all.

It can't be daily, because what about magic?  I... yeah?  Okay?

You can't have daily fatigue because... I honestly have no idea what your "because" is.  Because "what about exceptions"?  I mean... are you under the impression that a "daily" use would be without exceptions ever?  Because that's not necessarily the case - it's almost certainly not the case.  Even 4e had exceptions to its Dailies - things that could be used more than once, that would recover, that would recover other daily things, etc.

Honestly now, you're telling me that Stamina/Fatigue/Focus/Whatever can never be 'daily'... regardless of any sense of reality?

Do I have to play the "realism" card?  Because if so, we're in crazy upside-backwards land.  Also: Cthulhu.

              


EDIT: Honestly, I think I just don't understand the point you were trying to make with your post, beyond "Daily limits don't (ever?) make sense!"
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
@Anj-

If you dispel exhaustion, the mechanical effect is to recharge the daily power.

Side points: a number of athletes and martial artists on this forum have described why 1/day martial exploits makes sense to them/us.

Second, a common house rule in 4e was to allow the dailies (for all characters) to be repeated and charged against that characters allotment of total daily powers.

All of this is to say that people who advocate for martial dailies are looking to have some supercool exploits that are on par with supercool spells.

Many of us aren't too particular on the mechanism for delivery of those exploits (or even their repeat-ability).

You had a decent idea about stamina charges a while back. I like that.
@Anj- If you dispel exhaustion, the mechanical effect is to recharge the daily power.



Okay.  Once you add this in, it moves into the realm of something that could be looked at imo because the explanation (fatigue) is consistent with remedies (the cure spell) and responds appropriately (it becomes 'available' again).

Side points: a number of athletes and martial artists on this forum have described why 1/day martial exploits makes sense to them/us. Second, a common house rule in 4e was to allow the dailies (for all characters) to be repeated and charged against that characters allotment of total daily powers. All of this is to say that people who advocate for martial dailies are looking to have some supercool exploits that are on par with supercool spells. Many of us aren't too particular on the mechanism for delivery of those exploits (or even their repeat-ability). You had a decent idea about stamina charges a while back. I like that.



Well I can honestly say I didn't know about the common house rule.  And I've never said that the simple act of something being overwhelmingly fatiguing in and of itself never made sense.  My objection has been that it couldn't be undone through game world conditions (like the afore-mentioned spell, for instance).  I still think the stamina/momentum thing is superior, but I get that others will disagree.

Also its worth noting that if the Dispel Exhaustion works to remove fatigue, I still maintain that such an explanation would -not- be sufficient to give a spellcaster a spell back, even though it too is a 'daily' resource.  Take that, all those 'you just want martials to be weaker!' cryers (which was not, in any way, towards you Bawylie).

@frito -- Does this help clear it up some?

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

EDIT2: New Post Because I Got Distracted and Took Too Long
Maybe my mere use of 'daily' as a term confused what I was saying?

I'm not talking about "a universal resource", and then abilities with specific refresh rates (ala 4e's A/E/D).

I was talking about "a universal resource" that would be used in different ways by different abilities.

Some would use it for "right now" (until your next round, maybe - like the Packet 2-3 5e Fighter), some would use it for "a little while" (until you can take a break, or take some kind of recover action - like the 3.5 Warblade), and some would use it "for a long time" (until you can get some serious rest-and-recovery time - like 3.5 Power Points). 

The door would also be open for abilities that used it "for however long you need it" (effectively 3.5/4e 'stances' put on the same system as everything else - but you could also do Vancian 'fire-and-forget' magic that way).

REALEDIT2:ELECTRICBUGALOO: It would be like having a "pool" of marbles, putting the marbles into different "buckets" based on the ability and the relative strain/exhaustion/whatever involved, and then pouring the different "buckets" back into the "pool" at different times.

AN ACTUAL EDIT: Yeah, that clears it up.  I always just assume that exceptions are implied.  Since that (having exceptions to "the rules" when necessary and/or awesome) is how games, like, work.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
EDIT2: New Post Because I Got Distracted and Took Too Long
Maybe my mere use of 'daily' as a term confused what I was saying?

I'm not talking about "a universal resource", and then abilities with specific refresh rates (ala 4e's A/E/D).

I was talking about "a universal resource" that would be used in different ways by different abilities.

Some would use it for "right now" (until your next round, maybe - like the Packet 2-3 5e Fighter), some would use it for "a little while" (until you can take a break, or take some kind of recover action - like the 3.5 Warblade), and some would use it "for a long time" (until you can get some serious rest-and-recovery time - like 3.5 Power Points). 

The door would also be open for abilities that used it "for however long you need it" (effectively 3.5/4e 'stances' put on the same system as everything else - but you could also do Vancian 'fire-and-forget' magic that way).

REALEDIT2:ELECTRICBUGALOO: It would be like having a "pool" of marbles, putting the marbles into different "buckets" based on the ability and the relative strain/exhaustion/whatever involved, and then pouring the different "buckets" back into the "pool" at different times.

AN ACTUAL EDIT: Yeah, that clears it up.  I always just assume that exceptions are implied.  Since that (having exceptions to "the rules" when necessary and/or awesome) is how games, like, work.



It sounds like we're reasonably close, but just on opposite sides of the 'assuming exceptions' divide.  Fair enough.  Carry on, mighty chip!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Sign In to post comments