PDA

View Full Version : Strict per day abilities in RPGs.



Agrippa
2013-07-21, 06:23 PM
How do the people of this forum react to the idea of strict daily abilities? Do you feel that the inclusion of limited player character resources adds anything to the game. Perhaps a sense of logistical and strategic planning? Or do you find this too limiting and hard to make sense of?

The Rose Dragon
2013-07-21, 06:33 PM
I usually don't like "X times per day" effects, since I prefer a more narrative approach to the passage of time in RPGs, but I see nothing wrong with limiting the resources available to the characters in a given period, as long as that time period is in terms of "story" or "scene".

erikun
2013-07-21, 11:57 PM
Daily limitations seem fine, although it really depends on what kind of game you're trying to play. It makes the most sense in some sort of survivalist or resource-driven game, where characters are slowly worn down trying to progress through some task.

It makes less sense when the game is focused more towards some kind of story point, especially when the players are expected to contribute towards the suspense of the narrative. I suppose it might work in that case, although I haven't seen it done successfully.

Tengu_temp
2013-07-22, 01:57 AM
I hate daily resources. They usually make very little sense (why can a barbarian rage exactly 3 times per day?), and they force you to use a certain amount of encounters per day, or else the players will either nova through them or run out of resources and be unable to do anything. And nothing ruins the tension of a game like the 5-minute adventuring day.

Vitruviansquid
2013-07-22, 08:21 AM
I'm alright with player resources if they make sense or can easily be homebrewed to make sense.

Most of the time this means turning a "daily" resource into a resource that replenishes every session or every GM-defined "milestone" in the adventure.

Yora
2013-07-22, 09:36 AM
Spell slots are the main problem I have with all editions of D&D. Using power points and psionic powers insted makes a real difference and the game so much more enjoyable.
Star Wars Saga has the slightly strange "Powers per Fight" system, but it's not nearly as bad as spell preparation. If you can do it once and still have the neccessary energy, you can do it again. Anything else just doesn't make any sense.

Jay R
2013-07-22, 09:58 AM
Perhaps a sense of logistical and strategic planning?

Logistical and strategic planning is determining how to best use your resources. It applies equally to any set of resources.

The major advantage, when it works right, is story-driven. The purpose of a limited-use ability is to allow a powerful ability to be an interesting aspect of the character type without being the only action he ever takes.

A wizard who throws an infinite sequence of fireballs isn't a wizard; he's just a bazooka.

Eldan
2013-07-22, 10:25 AM
I do like the strategic aspect. You have a limited amount of resources and have to stretch them out to achieve your goals.

That said, the day is a strange limiter. Perhaps if your fluff was tied to the day cycle in some way, say, for a priest of the sun god, I could see it. But apart from that, especially for the purely mundane? It's strange.

Now, the five-minute workday, as some people mentioned is, I think an unrelated problem. It can only really occur when the actors have an unlimited amount of time and can afford to wait as long as they want to regain their resources. At that point, the story is a strange one anyway.

valadil
2013-07-22, 10:36 AM
I can live with them, but they have to make sense in the context. Vancian casting (barely) makes sense to me. Super secret punch technique that can only be used once does not. At least not in medeival fantasy. If you're playing an anime or pro wrestling game, a once a day physical maneuver could work.

I like 4e's daily/encounter/round breakdown a lot better for spell durations. One of the things that always bothered me in 3.5 was arguing over whether that spell we cast at the beginning of the dungeon was still up by the time we got to the fight. Just saying you have that bonus to hit for a round or for the whole fight got rid of the argument entirely.

Thrudd
2013-07-22, 11:54 AM
Per day abilities and spells work fine as long as the game measures time fairly accurately. In a game where the mechanics aren't accurate enough or nobody is keeping track, arguments come up. In a game that is cinematic in nature, it makes no sense at all. D&D (until 4th ed) makes the assumption that the DM or someone is keeping track of the days and hours, and in the dungeon and combat, minutes and seconds (rounds). Rules for all the spells and durations and abilities are written with that assumption. So there should be no argument about when spells are wearing off or whether an ability is available. In practice, of course, I think many DM's don't bother being that precise.

Knaight
2013-07-22, 12:50 PM
I generally dislike the mechanics for a few reasons.
1) They often make fairly little sense. D&D Clerics make sense, sure, but in most cases rest is variable, the degree of strain people undergo is variable, and as such the amount of time it takes to get rested again isn't going to be consistent, let alone just so happen to equal precisely 24 hours. With the notable exception of characters who draw power from things connected to time (e.g. magic drawn from the moon which works far better at night) per day abilities make little sense, and even for those there is likely some amount of drift, particularly if they move.

2) I generally don't like tracking time that precisely, simply because it isn't particularly important to what I focus games on. If I were running dungeon crawls and hidden map games focused on exploration of an area, then the per-day concept would irk me significantly less. However, I personally can't stand that style of play, as I find it incredibly dull, and outside of it really precise time tracking rarely matters.

3) Per-day abilities tend to work best when assuming a certain in-game rate of action (where action is whatever corresponds to the abilities, be it combat, social interactions, or whatever else) that doesn't vary too much. I've found that that isn't the case at all in the games I play, sometimes there are long periods of game time that don't see much happen (and are usually covered quickly), other times there are short periods that are extremely packed.

obryn
2013-07-22, 01:10 PM
I don't like them because of the constraints they put on adventure design.

If your best stuff is Daily, and "going nova" is possible within the system, it constrains the sorts of adventures possible. For example, if you're traveling for two weeks, it's unreasonable to assume you'll get 4 encounters on one day and nothing of import the rest. While this can work if you make every encounter particularly meaningful, it works a lot less well when some characters have daily nova capacity and others don't.

I prefer recharge systems based on narrative and/or metagame events - be those adventure, "episode", scene, encounter, or game session.

-O

Eldan
2013-07-22, 01:31 PM
I really dislike recharge based on metagame events. Especially once per encounter abilities. Sometimes you just run out of juice and have to rest, you can't just run into the next room and do it all over. Per scene isn't much better.

And I don't think you should build your adventures around novaing players. If you nova it all on the first encounter, tough. Try to make it through the rest with what you have left. Or fail at your task. Same for the five minute workday. If you rest for 24 hours after the first half hour of adventuring, have fun coming to the ritual chamber when all the hostages where already sacrificed a day ago.

obryn
2013-07-22, 02:01 PM
I really dislike recharge based on metagame events. Especially once per encounter abilities. Sometimes you just run out of juice and have to rest, you can't just run into the next room and do it all over. Per scene isn't much better.
That's fine; different strokes. I find it incredibly easier to design and run adventures when the clock is a variable somewhat independent of PC resources. It's great to have deadlines and clock pressure, but I'd rather not manage the intersecting curves of time and resources as a single thing; I find that the effort is not worth the payoff.


And I don't think you should build your adventures around novaing players. If you nova it all on the first encounter, tough. Try to make it through the rest with what you have left. Or fail at your task. Same for the five minute workday. If you rest for 24 hours after the first half hour of adventuring, have fun coming to the ritual chamber when all the hostages where already sacrificed a day ago.
That's more or less exactly what I'm talking about with limitations on adventure design, though. You're just spelling out what I find lacking with per-day resource management. If there's hostages, crazy time pressure, etc. in every single arc, that's pretty tiresome.

The 5 minute workday is an issue with adventure design, not an issue with player behavior.

-O

Thrudd
2013-07-22, 02:52 PM
Exactly, it all depends on what kind of game you are running. D&D was originally designed as the hidden map dungeon crawl. When they designed 4e, it seems like the designers felt people weren't really playing that game anymore and the narrative/encounter based powers arrived.
Whether or not daily powers makes logical sense from a fluff/in-world perspective is a separate matter. But it makes at least as much sense as a power that you can only use once per encounter. It is simply a game balance issue, there needs to be a way to limit powerful abilities. Why can you only perform a stunning strike two times a day? Because it would be too easy to win if you could do it all the time. Limited resources is an important part the game, without it there is significantly less challenge.

If you're playing a game that is more about acting out interpersonal relationships and simulating a fantasy world, or creating a cinematic or literary narrative, then hard rules and limiting powers aren't as necessary.
The RPG experience runs the gamut from diceless, no-rules narratives to tactical boardgames with precise rules and battles that are connected by a light plot. Opinions on the original question are really a question of what kind of game you like to play.

Person_Man
2013-07-22, 03:05 PM
I think it only makes sense if your "game day" is "from the time that you enter a dungeon until the time you leave the dungeon, and you can't leave the dungeon until you accomplish your objectives." (Also, this is the exact context of why Vancian casting was imported into original D&D).

In that context, it makes perfect sense as a balancing mechanism, and as a way to encourage diversity in combat (so that the players aren't just using the exact same abilities over and over again in every combat).

However, if your "game day" is literally just 24 hours of game time, it sucks, because there are too many other metagame concerns. Players can blow their Daily abilities and then just retreat and rest. Or worse, they will hold onto and rarely use their Daily abilities because they have no context for how long the "day" is really going to last. And they can metagame in their character construction, loading up solely on the most powerful daily abilities, and then "resting" whenever they run out of them.

Emmerask
2013-07-22, 03:12 PM
Strict / day abilities are imo in most cases just terribad.
There are some exceptions where it does make sense but not that many really.

Of course some form of resource management pretty much must be there especially in systems where abilities are much stronger then things you can do all day long.

Overall I prefer point based resource management over strict per day stuff.

Another_Poet
2013-07-22, 04:22 PM
I think per-day works fine as an abstraction. For a more realistic (heh) feeling system, you could require a check to use a power, which gets progressively harder the more times you use it, until you get a night's sleep.

Knaight
2013-07-22, 07:36 PM
I think it only makes sense if your "game day" is "from the time that you enter a dungeon until the time you leave the dungeon, and you can't leave the dungeon until you accomplish your objectives." (Also, this is the exact context of why Vancian casting was imported into original D&D).

This makes sense if your game uses dungeons, at all. Plenty of games point well away from that direction, including some that still have pretty traditional mechanics.

navar100
2013-07-22, 08:25 PM
It can lead to "spongeworthy" problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sponge

Players become afraid to use the ability because they think they'll need it more later that game day. They end up either never using it or use it for a truly less worthy moment when that previous encounter should have been the time to use it.

To fix this problem, players will metagame and only use the ability for the BBEG fights regardless of any other encounters, random, planned, or against the Lieutenants. That makes the agonizing decision moot. It's a common trope in video games where you have this Awesome Power/Weapon but can only use it once, so you never use it because you'll need it later usually for the Boss Monster. Some games have the Boss Monster be immune to it, making the players angry and hating the game.

To fix this as the DM, you need to make sure the player doesn't absolutely need the power to defeat the BBEG. Handy, certainly, but not a must have. Have non-BBEG fights where it becomes obvious using the power makes a tough fight a lot easier and don't skimp on the XP if the player does use it. Occasionally have the BBEG fight be the only combat of the game day so that the player can enjoy using it in the climactic battle.

prufock
2013-07-23, 06:56 AM
As a mechanic, per-days are okay, but I'm still not sure why they're necessary. Yes, you use up resources, but per-encounters seem to use up resources in much the same way.

From a thematic perspective, I don't like them at all. I understand the idea that certain abilities might be more taxing than others, but using them doesn't apply fatigue or anything.

I think a better way to do it would be to make per-day abilities things with long use times. They are powerful abilities but require hours to prepare and use, like rituals.

Another option might be to have your most powerful abilities cause fatigue, then exhaustion, then unconsciousness. This would be a better way to model the "taxing magic" idea. Mutants and Masterminds does something similar with Extra Effort, allowing you to use your powers at a higher rank or gaining alternate powers in exchange for getting more and more tired as you do so.

Frozen_Feet
2013-07-23, 07:06 AM
They're fine by me. Then again, it should be noted I keep strict account of time, and like it when a day is the shortest unit of operative time. I also have nothing against the "15-minute-workday" phenomenom, and have written multiple treatises on both on why it usually doesn't happen and why it isn't a problem when it does. (Long story short, if my players are smart enough to approach cautiously, only fight when they're strong and retreat to safety when things look bad, they deserve a reward.)

Jay R
2013-07-23, 11:17 AM
It can lead to "spongeworthy" problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sponge

Players become afraid to use the ability because they think they'll need it more later that game day. They end up either never using it or use it for a truly less worthy moment when that previous encounter should have been the time to use it.

Yup - that's actually the point. The limits are intended to keep powerful options from being used constantly. Gandalf throws fireballs once in The Hobbit, and once in the Lord of the Rings.

You get a powerful option. Don't let it warp the character. Use it to save your life, not to make every challenge less challenging.

I repeat: a wizard who throws an infinite stream of fireballs isn't a wizard; he's a bazooka.

Agrippa
2013-07-23, 04:01 PM
I hate daily resources. They usually make very little sense (why can a barbarian rage exactly 3 times per day?), and they force you to use a certain amount of encounters per day, or else the players will either nova through them or run out of resources and be unable to do anything. And nothing ruins the tension of a game like the 5-minute adventuring day.

The idea, as Jay R said, was that by limiting spells and other powers to a daily basis the PCs would only use such powers when they had little choice. They'd then be forced to use mundane items from poles to marbles, attempt to talk their way out of fights, fight normally (read poorly for magic user types) or flee. Also having a stable of higherlings and henchmen came highly recomended in early D&D. It helps if they're suicidal, deathseeking drunks and bums. Makes it a lot cheaper to hire them for dungeon crawling.

Frozen_Feet
2013-07-23, 05:27 PM
Yup - that's actually the point. The limits are intended to keep powerful options from being used constantly. Gandalf throws fireballs once in The Hobbit, and once in the Lord of the Rings.

You get a powerful option. Don't let it warp the character. Use it to save your life, not to make every challenge less challenging.

I repeat: a wizard who throws an infinite stream of fireballs isn't a wizard; he's a bazooka.

Infantry RPGs are often one-use-only, and even if they're not the ammunition is so weighty a soldier is expected to carry three shots at most. Those things are likely to be used only when necessary (=against armored vehicle) and only when the shooter is sure he can make the shot.

So bazookas and other auxiliary infantry weapons (handgrenades, landmines, anti-materiel charges) are actually good example of how "per-day" resources work. :smallwink:

Stubbazubba
2013-07-23, 06:10 PM
Not much to add. I agree that per-day abilities feel artificial and warp the play dynamic if used too tactically. Also agreed that OP is conflating "per day abilities" with "limited-use abilities," which exist in any resource management scheme other than all at-will.

The problem with per-day uses is that it puts control over the PCs' power refreshes in the hands of the PCs. While the DM can send random monsters or apply time pressure to sabotage that, it's ultimately the PCs' choice when to rest and regain spells, and the "correct" or "ideal" balance is achieved only by DM sabotage (or at least the prospect of DM sabotage). That just seems unnecessary. I'd rather limited-use abilities recharge per encounter/scene, per adventure, or per session, so as to remove the inherent desire to refresh all the time.

Frozen_Feet
2013-07-23, 06:32 PM
But GM-controlled refresh is either inconsistent with in-game reality (per-scene model etc.) or relies on same sorts of excuses as interferences with per-day model ("can't leave dungeon before princess is saved").

It's pretty much always better to tie resources to in-game logistics, but this will always start to approximate per-day model ("How many days to nearest village?"). And it will always make pressing the refresh button a players' choice. Always.

In my opinion, that is a feature, not a bug. Again, if players are smart enough to do it, they deserve a reward. Rather than artificially limit this, it's an opportunity for the GM to step up his scenario design and think how passing of in-game time will alter the situation. Instead of saying "no" to players recovering resources, find ways to say "yes and" or "yes, but" that are consistent with in-game reality.

TuggyNE
2013-07-23, 07:31 PM
Yup - that's actually the point. The limits are intended to keep powerful options from being used constantly. Gandalf throws fireballs once in The Hobbit, and once in the Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien trivia: Hmm. I know Gandalf used something like fire seeds once in The Hobbit, and pyrotechnics once also. He used searing light once or twice in The Return of the King, and some kind of weird "light a tree on fire and have it scatter fire all over" (incendiary cloud refluffed?) trick in Fellowship. But when did he actually cast a fireball?

In any case, that was a lot closer to "one/month" or "one/adventure" than "one/day", so I'm not sure the argument works quite the way it was intended.

MukkTB
2013-07-23, 07:40 PM
The five minute workday only comes up in stories without time pressure anyway. I really don't have a problem with people choosing to take it easily and carefully when they're exploring or screwing around in the woods.

Conversely if there is going to be a rush to the finish I like to have the context firmly in hand when I go for it. You're racing against another adventuring party. The evil ritual will be preformed on the day of the new moon. The bandit was seen sneaking out of the city this morning going north.

Normally I prefer if the sense of urgency comes from the players reaction the organic situation, not the DM trying to turn the screws.

obryn
2013-07-24, 08:32 AM
But GM-controlled refresh is either inconsistent with in-game reality (per-scene model etc.) or relies on same sorts of excuses as interferences with per-day model ("can't leave dungeon before princess is saved").
All of this is quite narratively appropriate, however.


Tolkien trivia: Hmm. I know Gandalf used something like fire seeds once in The Hobbit, and pyrotechnics once also. He used searing light once or twice in The Return of the King, and some kind of weird "light a tree on fire and have it scatter fire all over" (incendiary cloud refluffed?) trick in Fellowship. But when did he actually cast a fireball?

In any case, that was a lot closer to "one/month" or "one/adventure" than "one/day", so I'm not sure the argument works quite the way it was intended.
More Tolkien nerdery:

(Arguably, because all of his flashy stuff dealt with fire, it could be because he was wearing Narya. So we're talking item powers rather than any kind of spells. :smallbiggrin:)

-O

TuggyNE
2013-07-24, 04:07 PM
More Tolkien nerdery:

(Arguably, because all of his flashy stuff dealt with fire, it could be because he was wearing Narya. So we're talking item powers rather than any kind of spells. :smallbiggrin:)

-O

True. But it's item powers with a slow and non-calendar-linked refresh.

Come to think of it, with the possible exception of searing light against the Nazgul, control weather with Theoden, and the not-actually-magic passphrase at the Doors of Moria, I don't think he cast anything that wasn't Narya-enhanced or Narya-created. Not a great example of a wizard, eh?

Eldan
2013-07-25, 03:57 AM
Pretty great example of a wizard, actually, if you look at most legends. Magic is not something you cast for a visible effect, in most cases. It's more subtle than that. And a wizard's greatest power is his wisdom and understanding.

PersonMan
2013-07-25, 04:59 AM
Yup - that's actually the point.

The point is to make you never use powerful things when they'd be perfect to use, because you're worried about the next fight, and then end up frustrated because after that fight there's no need for the powerful thing anymore?

That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

obryn
2013-07-25, 08:45 AM
True. But it's item powers with a slow and non-calendar-linked refresh.

Come to think of it, with the possible exception of searing light against the Nazgul, control weather with Theoden, and the not-actually-magic passphrase at the Doors of Moria, I don't think he cast anything that wasn't Narya-enhanced or Narya-created. Not a great example of a wizard, eh?
Yep, Gandalf was not one for flashy magic. It always puzzles me when an LotR RPG (like ICE's MERP) have rather showy and direct spellcasting.


Pretty great example of a wizard, actually, if you look at most legends. Magic is not something you cast for a visible effect, in most cases. It's more subtle than that. And a wizard's greatest power is his wisdom and understanding.
For legends, yep, absolutely. I don't know if it's a good model for a fantasy RPG, though. "Stand around being wise" isn't much of a character concept. :smallwink:

-O

Jay R
2013-07-25, 02:43 PM
The point is to make you never use powerful things when they'd be perfect to use, because you're worried about the next fight, and then end up frustrated because after that fight there's no need for the powerful thing anymore?

That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

No, the point is to make the players make important tactical decisions, and learn to use all of their abilities, not just blow people away with the one most powerful one.

What I actually said was, "Yup - that's actually the point. The limits are intended to keep powerful options from being used constantly." Dropping
the second sentence to pretend I said that you should never use it, when you know I said that you shouldn't use it constantly, serves no useful purpose.

If you get frustrated from trying to make tactical combat decisions about fantasy character abilities, why on earth play D&D?

Eric Tolle
2013-07-25, 04:04 PM
It seems pretty reasonable to me. I personally have the" Take lunch break" power activated once pretty day, and the " Take 10 minute break" power usable twice per day. Nothing supernatural about it either.

Stubbazubba
2013-07-25, 04:29 PM
If you get frustrated from trying to make tactical combat decisions about fantasy character abilities, why on earth play D&D?

That would be strategic decisions, not tactical. In fact, what I find most lacking in D&D is good, interesting, tactical decisions. It has always been an onerously strategic game, with planning and planning and planning, but rarely has it tried to give in-combat tactics much depth.

TheThan
2013-07-25, 05:19 PM
Oh I hate per day abilities.

It’s what turned me off to dnd 4E. I liked the concept of powers [ie activate power, get result] but the artificial limitation of at will, per encounter/ per day just irked me.

Mostly this applies to melee combat. Why can that fighter “spam” the living crap out of that ability, but only use that other ability once per fight and that other really awesome ability once per 24 hours?

There just doesn’t seem to be any in universe explanation for this. Sure in some cases it make sense, but in the case of fighters it just feels too meta-game for my tastes. “We need to have a limit on this so it’s fair.” That sort of thought process.

I’m sort of against “restricting” players; I would rather provide my players with resources they have to manage. The at will, per encounter, per day formula is not a resource to manage; it’s a routine because in my experience the players fall into a boring routine. Players are almost always going to use the best options at their disposal. So they pick up the best daily, the best encounter, and the best at wills they have access to and only using those, unless a specialized scenario comes up and they must switch to different powers.

Now if you’ve had different or better experiences with 4E, that’s great, good for you. But that’s been my experience and I’ve hated it.

obryn
2013-07-25, 05:30 PM
Mostly this applies to melee combat. Why can that fighter “spam” the living crap out of that ability, but only use that other ability once per fight and that other really awesome ability once per 24 hours?
Take your pick:

(1) Because the Fighter is really, really awesome but just can't get that same trick to work all the time for whatever reason.
(2) Because the player is taking narrative control and manipulating the scene to let his Fighter is behave in a genre-appropriate way.
(3) Because, by limiting use, Fighters are able to get special effects that would be simply unbalanced if they were at-will; it's an answer to giving Fighters nice things.
(4) By putting everyone on a similar refresh scale, it at least changes the nature of a 15 MWD so that you have a shared pool of daily resources across the party.

I go mostly with (3) and don't worry about it any more than I worry what an experience point is and why monsters release them when they die. :smallsmile:

But regardless - I'm not a fan of per-day usage, period, for any character - and that includes in 4e. I just have a different kind of objection, and it's all gameplay and adventure-design related (and not even a little bit simulation-related). I prefer "narratively appropriate" refreshes. In my game that's usually at the conclusion of a small arc, when the PCs have a lot of downtime in a safe place, etc.

-O

TheThan
2013-07-25, 07:22 PM
I understand why limiters need to be in place.

However I prefer those limiters to feel like they should be there, they should feel natural and not artificial. A player shouldn’t feel held back or punished for taking or using certain features (powers, abilities etc).

For instance, I really like the power point system presented in expanded psionics handbook. With this system, you’re give a resource and you have to manage it. Sure you can go nova and burn all or most of your power points that day, but you might pay for that later. So you might want to pace how many PP you’re using throughout the day. The more you use your resource, the weaker you become.

With 4E, it feels like they’ve not given you a resource, but have instead been allotted you certain powers you can only use at certain times. it feels artificial and mechanical to me.

TuggyNE
2013-07-25, 09:42 PM
However I prefer those limiters to feel like they should be there, they should feel natural and not artificial. A player shouldn’t feel held back or punished for taking or using certain features (powers, abilities etc).

For instance, I really like the power point system presented in expanded psionics handbook. With this system, you’re give a resource and you have to manage it. Sure you can go nova and burn all or most of your power points that day, but you might pay for that later. So you might want to pace how many PP you’re using throughout the day. The more you use your resource, the weaker you become.

I didn't specifically mention this earlier, but yeah, I like the PP system because your decisions are more spread out and more flexible; you don't have to make a decision whether or not to use your 1/day "teleport a few hundred feet away" *coughAbundantStepcough*, you only decide whether teleporting a few hundred feet away is worth the PP it will cost, given your pool as it now stands.

Put in economic terms, the "system/producer surplus" (i.e., amount of per-day usages you're forced to pay for over the amount you'd strictly need) is less, because your usage is more granular, as well as pooled into a single daily resource.

1
Of course, this, or any other means of making it easier on the players, can reduce the amount of challenge; however, there are a lot of ways to increase the challenge to the desired levels, and a number of them are more fun for various players. So it's a potentially useful tradeoff.

Jay R
2013-07-26, 12:09 PM
I'm an SCA fencer. I actually have a few "per-encounter" abilities, and one "per-day" ability.

1. When fighting with rapier and cloak, I'll flick the cloak towards his face, while throwing a shot to the belly under it. The opponent will often not notice the thin blade underneath the large fluttering cloak. But once he has been shown that trick, it won't work. So I will only try it once in an encounter.

2. Throwing my cloak over his blade to weigh it down so he can't parry works, but obviously can only be done once per encounter, unless my opponent chooses to let me pick my cloak back up.

3. Rushing in past the rapier point range (his and mine), and trying to get a cut with the edge, likewise only works when my opponent doesn't expect it. If I do it once, and don't succeed, I can't make it work a second time on that opponent.

4. When I'm rushed, I have occasionally (rarely) managed to fall backwards, roll backwards, and come up with a thrust. But my 57-year-old legs can't do that more than about once a day.

Aquillion
2013-07-26, 12:18 PM
I think per-day (or per-time-period) abilities can be cool, but they tend to get overused. And it's a pity to use them with no justification.

For example, a magic ring with a spirit in it that can produce fire magic for you once a day as per their contract is cool.

Jay R
2013-07-26, 01:00 PM
That would be strategic decisions, not tactical.

You're right; I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.


In fact, what I find most lacking in D&D is good, interesting, tactical decisions. It has always been an onerously strategic game, with planning and planning and planning, but rarely has it tried to give in-combat tactics much depth.

Umm, what?

What's the party order?
Shall we attack the orcs?
Do we set up an ambush?
If so, where and how?
Do we open with a sneak attack or area spell?
Where do we place the fireball?
Who do I attack?
Where do I move?
How do we keep the enemy contained?
Are there any available chokepoints?
Do we want to use or avoid the choke points?
Should the henchmen get involved, or is this fight to dangerous for them?
What terrain features can we hide behind?
What terrain features might they be hiding behind?
How can I use my spear and magic helmet to kill the wabbit?

All straightforward tactical decisions.

Stubbazubba
2013-07-26, 01:17 PM
Umm, what?

What's the party order?
Shall we attack the orcs?
Do we set up an ambush?
If so, where and how?
Do we open with a sneak attack or area spell?
Where do we place the fireball?
Who do I attack?
Where do I move?
How do we keep the enemy contained?
Are there any available chokepoints?
Do we want to use or avoid the choke points?
Should the henchmen get involved, or is this fight to dangerous for them?
What terrain features can we hide behind?
What terrain features might they be hiding behind?
How can I use my spear and magic helmet to kill the wabbit?

All straightforward tactical decisions.

Only a small minority of those actually have abilities or mechanics designed with them in mind, though. As you say, most of them are just "Do we use this, Yes/No?" And how many of those are decisions made just before a battle vs. made in the battle? I want to be able to interact a whole heck of a lot more within the battle; I'll attack the guy you're engaged with so you can run over (without risking an AoO) and distract the Troll that's threatening the Wizard so he can get his Fireball off which will send the mooks running right past the Barbarian who will hew them down with AoOs. Or even deeper than that; You set up a wall of fire to halt their advance, I'll shoot arrows through it that will catch the enemy leader on fire, and then the Paladin will try and cow them as their leader hopefully either staggers from the burn or at least gets spooked and runs off. Or something. I want abilities to interlock and affect each other much more, I want the battle to be more about synergy than a bunch of pockets of individual awesome. Not that there's none of that right now (there is Flanking and buff spells do exist), it's just that I want more. I want every class, every character to be able to contribute to someone else's awesome, and I would rather have that be the key to victory in D&D than maxing out to hit and damage (or Save DCs on your spells, to be more realistic).

Jay R
2013-07-26, 02:30 PM
Only a small minority of those actually have abilities or mechanics designed with them in mind, though.

So what? Tactical considerations of any game aren't built into the rules; they are the optimizing strategy within the rules. There's no special rule in chess for a pin or a knight's fork. Those are ways to use the rules tactically.


As you say, most of them are just "Do we use this, Yes/No?" And how many of those are decisions made just before a battle vs. made in the battle?

Forming a kill pocket vs. clogging a chokepoint is a yes/no decision, but accomplishing either one involves coordinating with each other tactically. Then adjusting to the enemy's response is another set of decisions.

Every single action in battle is a tactical decision - if you make it one and if you and your allies co-ordinate decision making.


I want to be able to interact a whole heck of a lot more within the battle; I'll attack the guy you're engaged with so you can run over (without risking an AoO) and distract the Troll that's threatening the Wizard so he can get his Fireball off which will send the mooks running right past the Barbarian who will hew them down with AoOs. Or even deeper than that; You set up a wall of fire to halt their advance, I'll shoot arrows through it that will catch the enemy leader on fire, and then the Paladin will try and cow them as their leader hopefully either staggers from the burn or at least gets spooked and runs off. Or something. I want abilities to interlock and affect each other much more, I want the battle to be more about synergy than a bunch of pockets of individual awesome. Not that there's none of that right now (there is Flanking and buff spells do exist), it's just that I want more. I want every class, every character to be able to contribute to someone else's awesome, and I would rather have that be the key to victory in D&D than maxing out to hit and damage (or Save DCs on your spells, to be more realistic).

In a recent 1E game:

We were attacked by several mercenaries. In the first wave, the clerics started casting Hold Person, while the fighters engaged individuals not Held. The Thief went around cutting Held throats, while the Wizard cast Strength and Enlarge on the top fighters. Six were killed, while four fled into the night.

They then saw that we were low on spells, so a second wave came shortly afterwards. Our fighters and henchmen formed a shield wall to hold them back and in a line, while the wizard ran a Flaming Sphere back and forth along the bad guys' backs.

That's how three fourth level PCs with five third-level henchmen defeated ten 7th level Fighters - twice.

In another game (2E), I opened the battle by locating their nine trolls and fireballing them, followed by a Phantasmal Force of a fireball. Our ranger was dealing with giant spiders, so the Fighter and Paladin could lead their armies against the opposing armies. The second wizard used lightning Bolt any time the enemy army tried to form up against our army. Soon, our cavalry unit was charging their archers. So I cast a Wall of Fog on the archers, starting in the second row, so the cavalry could see their target, but only the front row of archers could see theirs. Meanwhile, their clerics were targeting our army with Flamestrikes until we located them and sent a harassing unit.

Of course, in the second game, it helps that the DM is a graduate of a military college. The limitation on tactics isn't the rules; it's the DM.

In any event, from the start of the battle to its conclusion, I'm considering the tactical possibilities of combining actions of my character and his allies.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-07-26, 03:24 PM
I'm an SCA fencer. I actually have a few "per-encounter" abilities, and one "per-day" ability.

1. When fighting with rapier and cloak, I'll flick the cloak towards his face, while throwing a shot to the belly under it. The opponent will often not notice the thin blade underneath the large fluttering cloak. But once he has been shown that trick, it won't work. So I will only try it once in an encounter.

2. Throwing my cloak over his blade to weigh it down so he can't parry works, but obviously can only be done once per encounter, unless my opponent chooses to let me pick my cloak back up.

3. Rushing in past the rapier point range (his and mine), and trying to get a cut with the edge, likewise only works when my opponent doesn't expect it. If I do it once, and don't succeed, I can't make it work a second time on that opponent.

4. When I'm rushed, I have occasionally (rarely) managed to fall backwards, roll backwards, and come up with a thrust. But my 57-year-old legs can't do that more than about once a day.

Those aren't actually strict per-encounter or per-day abilities, though. You could re-use your Cloak Toss "encounter power" as many times as you like as long as you managed to pick up your cloak each time. If another combatant somehow joined your fencing bout (which I know is illegal, but bear with me) after you used your Cloak Flick and Headlong Rush "encounter powers" against your original opponent, you'd be able to re-use them against your new opponent because the newcomer hadn't seen them yet and might fall for them; on the other hand, if you faced your first opponent again in a new "encounter" right after the first, you couldn't just blithely re-use your "encounter powers" since he wouldn't suddenly forget those tactics just because it's been a few minutes.

For your "daily power," you say you can't do it more than "about" once per day, but it's likely that on some days you could manage it twice or even three times if you're lucky, and on some days you might be too sore to manage it at all. Not to mention that any powers complex and tiring enough that you can only pull them off once per day would likely interfere with other "encounter" and "daily" powers since you're not just performing them in a vacuum.

The big complaint about nonmagical encounter/daily powers is that explanations like "he saw the trick, I can't use it again" or "I'm too tired to do it more than once per [time unit]" or the like might make sense in the fiction, but the mechanics for encounter/daily powers don't actually model any of those explanations. If you could re-use an encounter power on enemies who didn't see the first use, or re-use an encounter power with a Bluff check, or refresh a daily power with an Endurance check, or something like that, most likely people wouldn't find encounter/daily powers so objectionable.

Magesmiley
2013-07-26, 03:35 PM
Personally, I like abilities that are limited to how often they can be used. Fpr me, this really comes down to liking that it forces a decision on resource management. Managing resources adds a whole additional angle to the game.

The limitation makes players look at other ways to solve problems rather than just power their way through problems, which often gives the game its defining moments. And daily use (as opposed to per encounter use) makes an even more interesting quandary for players, as it spans multiple encounters.

Scow2
2013-07-26, 05:12 PM
Those aren't actually strict per-encounter or per-day abilities, though. You could re-use your Cloak Toss "encounter power" as many times as you like as long as you managed to pick up your cloak each time. If another combatant somehow joined your fencing bout (which I know is illegal, but bear with me) after you used your Cloak Flick and Headlong Rush "encounter powers" against your original opponent, you'd be able to re-use them against your new opponent because the newcomer hadn't seen them yet and might fall for them; on the other hand, if you faced your first opponent again in a new "encounter" right after the first, you couldn't just blithely re-use your "encounter powers" since he wouldn't suddenly forget those tactics just because it's been a few minutes.

For your "daily power," you say you can't do it more than "about" once per day, but it's likely that on some days you could manage it twice or even three times if you're lucky, and on some days you might be too sore to manage it at all. Not to mention that any powers complex and tiring enough that you can only pull them off once per day would likely interfere with other "encounter" and "daily" powers since you're not just performing them in a vacuum.

The big complaint about nonmagical encounter/daily powers is that explanations like "he saw the trick, I can't use it again" or "I'm too tired to do it more than once per [time unit]" or the like might make sense in the fiction, but the mechanics for encounter/daily powers don't actually model any of those explanations. If you could re-use an encounter power on enemies who didn't see the first use, or re-use an encounter power with a Bluff check, or refresh a daily power with an Endurance check, or something like that, most likely people wouldn't find encounter/daily powers so objectionable.

A more suitable justification for Encounter-level powers is that "Your stance/technique only allows you to get into position to perform that maneuver once in the few rounds combat lasts." Yes, it breaks down when combat lasts more than 5-8 rounds or so, but it's a close approximation.

TuggyNE
2013-07-26, 06:52 PM
A more suitable justification for Encounter-level powers is that "Your stance/technique only allows you to get into position to perform that maneuver once in the few rounds combat lasts." Yes, it breaks down when combat lasts more than 5-8 rounds or so, but it's a close approximation.

Personally, I prefer to actually have a mechanic that models that directly, such as tracking stances, rather than something that sorta kinda maybe maps to it.

But then, I'm just weird.

Scow2
2013-07-26, 07:01 PM
Personally, I prefer to actually have a mechanic that models that directly, such as tracking stances, rather than something that sorta kinda maybe maps to it.

But then, I'm just weird.

This type of limitation causes and requires a lot of bookkeeping and moment-by-moment combat breakdowns. And, it frequently leads to abilities not being able to be used enough.

Dissociated limitations of maneuvers may be arbitrary and 'unrealistic' in implementation, but having them be completely usable at-will or require an incredibly complex situation to justify using it in is a far worse result.

Jay R
2013-07-26, 07:18 PM
The big complaint about nonmagical encounter/daily powers is that explanations like "he saw the trick, I can't use it again" or "I'm too tired to do it more than once per [time unit]" or the like might make sense in the fiction, but the mechanics for encounter/daily powers don't actually model any of those explanations. If you could re-use an encounter power on enemies who didn't see the first use, or re-use an encounter power with a Bluff check, or refresh a daily power with an Endurance check, or something like that, most likely people wouldn't find encounter/daily powers so objectionable.

Agreed. But it's a lot closer to reality than most aspects of D&D combat. If this is your biggest objection to it as a simulation, you're remarkably easy to please in other areas.

It's just an unrealistic but simplistic rule to attempt to simulate an ability that you don't use all the time, just as levels are an unrealistic but simplistic rule to attempt to simulate improved skills based on experience, and alignment is unrealistic but simplistic rule to attempt to simulate moral issues.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-07-26, 10:19 PM
Agreed. But it's a lot closer to reality than most aspects of D&D combat.

Debatable. Most supposed unrealistic aspects of combat (like being able to fight without worrying about fatigue, being unable to kill mid level enemies in one hit, etc.) aren't too far off if you keep in mind that the majority are less than 30 seconds long and that real-world humans are supposed to be very low level. It's not perfect, obviously, and I usually do things like call for Con/Endurance checks during longer combats, impose wound penalties for heavily-wounded characters outside of combats once the adrenaline has worn off, and so forth, but the meme that D&D combat is totally unrealistic so we shouldn't bother with verisimilitude is an incorrect one.

And really, the main problem I have with encounters/dailies is that they're not realistic in their flavor-to-mechanics correspondence, but perhaps too realistic in their usage limits; if you're going to just tack on flavor to explain a less-than-realistic mechanic, it should be done to empower characters, not to limit them. If encounter powers are justified by "I can't fool him again," then a higher-level Cha-spec skillmonkey who could sell water to a fish should reasonably be able to fool people more easily and more frequently than a lower-level skillmonkey or an even-level non-skillmonkey could. If they're justified by "I don't have the strength and endurance to keep doing this," then a higher-level martial type should be able to use them longer and more frequently than a lower-level martial type or an even-level non-martial type.


It's just an unrealistic but simplistic rule to attempt to simulate an ability that you don't use all the time

Making very small changes to the power refresh schedules (like letting rogues re-use powers with Bluff checks with increasing penalties or letting fighters refresh powers with Endurance checks, to use the examples from above) would add very little extra complexity while satisfying those who want to power up noncasters and those who find encounters and dailies less than realistic.

TuggyNE
2013-07-26, 10:51 PM
This type of limitation causes and requires a lot of bookkeeping and moment-by-moment combat breakdowns. And, it frequently leads to abilities not being able to be used enough.

Can you give me an example of a game that tried this and that led to these problems? Theory-crafting potential problems with an idea is all well and good, but sometimes apparently impractical ideas turn out fine, while apparently simple ideas can have hidden complexities or subtle but pervasive flaws.

Scow2
2013-07-26, 11:02 PM
Can you give me an example of a game that tried this and that led to these problems? Theory-crafting potential problems with an idea is all well and good, but sometimes apparently impractical ideas turn out fine, while apparently simple ideas can have hidden complexities or subtle but pervasive flaws.

Well... D&D's 3rd Edition's style feats spring to mind on the opposite problem. I've not really seen any combat system use the one I complained about, and I supect for that reason. Well, except video games, because there's a computer resolving the complex systems.

Tetsubo 57
2013-07-27, 05:22 AM
I endorse the use of daily powers. X per day is fine by me. I despise encounter powers. Ones that are per 'scene' or combat encounter. Just hate them.

Scow2
2013-07-27, 10:19 AM
I endorse the use of daily powers. X per day is fine by me. I despise encounter powers. Ones that are per 'scene' or combat encounter. Just hate them.

Eh... I prefer Per-encounter spells, and limited per-encounter resources like D&D Next's Expertise Dice.

Jay R
2013-07-27, 12:47 PM
Debatable.

Of course. That's why we're debating it.


Most supposed unrealistic aspects of combat (like being able to fight without worrying about fatigue, being unable to kill mid level enemies in one hit, etc.) aren't too far off if you keep in mind that the majority are less than 30 seconds long and that real-world humans are supposed to be very low level.

Of course, I consider the idea that sword fights are less than 30 seconds long, and that twenty-year combat veterans are low level, to be prime examples of the lack of realism.


It's not perfect, obviously, and I usually do things like call for Con/Endurance checks during longer combats, impose wound penalties for heavily-wounded characters outside of combats once the adrenaline has worn off, and so forth, but the meme that D&D combat is totally unrealistic so we shouldn't bother with verisimilitude is an incorrect one.

Agreed. That's why I did not invoke that meme. What I was trying to say was that this mechanic is a (poor but passable) way to simulate abilities that are not used constantly, and that as such, it is closer to realistic than many other aspects. I never said or implied that "we shouldn't bother with verisimilitude". My message may have gotten lost in my desire to keep posts short.

The purpose of a simulation is to simulate a complex situation with a simpler one that we can more easily observe. (One of my simulations professors said, "If we wanted to observe reality, we'd observe reality." Similarly, if we want a perfect swordfight. we'd fight with swords.)

The goal is to provide a mechanic that is close enough to reality to serve the purposes of the simulation.

In this case, the mechanic exists specifically to limit certain abilities. Changing it to be more empowering to match the fluff is throwing out the purpose of the simulation to preserve something meaningless. If you don't like the fluff, toss the fluff, don't destroy the mechanic to preserve the fluff.

The goal is to make them use that specific ability less often. If you don't like that goal, start by tossing that goal, not pretending that you want to preserve fluff that doesn't matter to you or anyone else.

I have no problem with the mechanic, because I believe in movements and skills that are used rarely. I agree with you that the "per-encounter" or "per-day" limitation is not an exact simulation. It's an attempt to simulate a continuous, infinitely complex situation with a simple discrete function - just like hit points, level advancement, characteristics, saving throws, Spot checks, or nearly every other mechanic in D&D.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-07-27, 01:55 PM
Of course, I consider the idea that sword fights are less than 30 seconds long, and that twenty-year combat veterans are low level, to be prime examples of the lack of realism.

The 3-5 rounds figure assumes a full adventuring party vs. normal opposition in relatively close quarters and leaves out any scouting or pre-battle preparation; obviously a one-on-one match without team support, a longer-range engagement, mass combat, or other circumstances can cause battles to take longer. Consider, though, that average time to first touch in a fencing bout would be 6 rounds, assuming the standard 3-minute time limit for a 5-touch bout, and if those combatants had heavier weapons and were actually trying to kill each other that could very well be a very short combat.

As for veterans being low level, that's mostly a function of 1st-level characters already being fairly competent and levels being fairly granular. if 1st-level meant "is a child just picking up a sword" instead of "already has lots of training and has seen combat," then it would make sense for experienced veterans to be mid-level or higher; in my own campaigns I usually alter the skill and demographics assumptions to make 1st level "complete newbie" level and mid levels "top of realistic human achievement" level to facilitate starting at higher levels than 1st, making mid-level NPCs more common, and so forth, but that's not the default assumption.


In this case, the mechanic exists specifically to limit certain abilities. Changing it to be more empowering to match the fluff is throwing out the purpose of the simulation to preserve something meaningless. If you don't like the fluff, toss the fluff, don't destroy the mechanic to preserve the fluff.

That's all very well and good, but any of the fluff you can use to replace the bad fluff is similarly bad at explaining the mechanics, and the mechanics aren't actually worth preserving over the fluff if they don't limit ability usage in a desirable way.


The goal is to make them use that specific ability less often. If you don't like that goal, start by tossing that goal, not pretending that you want to preserve fluff that doesn't matter to you or anyone else.

The whole point is that there are many better ways to achieve the goal of allowing powers to be used less often without stretching suspension of disbelief so much; even a very small variation like allowing you to use X daily powers X times per day in any combination rather than X daily powers once per day each can make martial dailies a lot more palatable.

And yes, the fluff does matter to people, otherwise they wouldn't have so many problems with noncaster encounter/daily powers in 4e. Heck, in this very thread (and many others) we have people who find Vancian casting to be unintuitive and unrealistic even though it has an internally-consistent in-game explanation (you're casting a ritual ahead of time and holding it for later) and also has the "it's magic, deal with it" handwave going for it, and they find other alternatives like points-based or skill-based magic to be more intuitive and realistic and decide on what characters to play and what forms of magic to allow and use in their games based on those perceptions...despite the fact that it's all magic and none of it's real! If that's a dealbreaker for many people, then it's no surprise that acceptance of a resource schedule that does have a firmer connection to reality would hinge on the fluff.

tasw
2013-07-27, 04:01 PM
I dislike daily abilities strongly. I would much prefer a fatigue system where various maneuvers need different amounts of fatigue points and you can be either fatigued or exhausted when you amass certain amounts of fatigue.

I'd throw spell usage into the fatigue system too.

Then instead of recharging at a set time of day I would have them recharge per minute or hour of resting at a variable rate that takes into account your CON score.

Stubbazubba
2013-07-27, 04:08 PM
I much prefer all abilities drawing from the same pool, as well, even though it's not mechanically much different, it feels less arbitrary and less of a barrier to immersion.

tasw
2013-07-28, 12:15 PM
Definitely. I also really like the feel of magic drawing on the casters life force to bend and warp reality. Its so much a part of literary magic that it drains the caster that its always felt arbitrary and wrong that D&D does it differently

Agrippa
2013-08-07, 06:14 PM
So I have my answers now. I can't say that I'm in favor of strictly limited use abilities across the board. I favor limited usage combined with over time/gradual refresh and recharge for abilities. Now for an addendum to my original question, do you feel preparing abillties ahead of time per use is a good idea?

Need_A_Life
2013-08-07, 09:15 PM
It... depends.

I prefer "per encounter" or - even better - "once per day for free... if you want more, it'll cost <resources/health/mana/whatever>."

Or, a la Shadowrun, let people take damage for each use.

Or, a la Harry Potter, let people use any spell they know as many times as they want. Wands don't need reloading.

Sebastrd
2013-08-09, 10:29 AM
Only a small minority of those actually have abilities or mechanics designed with them in mind, though. As you say, most of them are just "Do we use this, Yes/No?" And how many of those are decisions made just before a battle vs. made in the battle? I want to be able to interact a whole heck of a lot more within the battle; I'll attack the guy you're engaged with so you can run over (without risking an AoO) and distract the Troll that's threatening the Wizard so he can get his Fireball off which will send the mooks running right past the Barbarian who will hew them down with AoOs. Or even deeper than that; You set up a wall of fire to halt their advance, I'll shoot arrows through it that will catch the enemy leader on fire, and then the Paladin will try and cow them as their leader hopefully either staggers from the burn or at least gets spooked and runs off. Or something. I want abilities to interlock and affect each other much more, I want the battle to be more about synergy than a bunch of pockets of individual awesome. Not that there's none of that right now (there is Flanking and buff spells do exist), it's just that I want more. I want every class, every character to be able to contribute to someone else's awesome, and I would rather have that be the key to victory in D&D than maxing out to hit and damage (or Save DCs on your spells, to be more realistic).

It sounds like you want to play 4E.

Sebastrd
2013-08-09, 10:49 AM
As for veterans being low level, that's mostly a function of 1st-level characters already being fairly competent and levels being fairly granular. if 1st-level meant "is a child just picking up a sword" instead of "already has lots of training and has seen combat," then it would make sense for experienced veterans to be mid-level or higher; in my own campaigns I usually alter the skill and demographics assumptions to make 1st level "complete newbie" level and mid levels "top of realistic human achievement" level to facilitate starting at higher levels than 1st, making mid-level NPCs more common, and so forth, but that's not the default assumption.

Then why bring it up?


The whole point is that there are many better ways to achieve the goal of allowing powers to be used less often without stretching suspension of disbelief so much; even a very small variation like allowing you to use X daily powers X times per day in any combination rather than X daily powers once per day each can make martial dailies a lot more palatable.

I'd really like to hear these many better ways. I'm no fan of dissociated mechanics, but I'm willing to accept things like hit points, encounter/daily powers, experience points, etc. in the interest of simplicity, balance, and ease of use. If you have better ideas, by all means share them.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-08-09, 03:23 PM
Now for an addendum to my original question, do you feel preparing abillties ahead of time per use is a good idea?

Tactically and strategically, what preparation does is give you a list of X abilities that your character can use in general and makes you choose a subset Y of those abilities to use at any given time (for a particular adventure or whatever), rewarding you if you choose those abilities well and punishing you if you don't. Whether that's a good idea for a given game is all down to the particular style of gameplay you want.

Pre-4e D&D assumes you'll use abilities outside of encounters, that you'll try to stack the deck against your enemies with buffs, ambushes, etc., and that you need to out-think and out-advantage your enemies or be overwhelmed, so preparation of everything from spells to mundane equipment is a big deal and that's one reason why we have Vancian casting in the first place. 4e D&D assumes that the vast majority of ability usage will be within encounters, that combats will start out generally "fair," and that round-by-round tactics are more important than preparation, so you don't really need to make any choices before the start of the encounter. Those assumptions lead to different playstyles and assuming those playstyles leads to different design choices, so it's all up to what you prefer for your game.

Flavorwise, it all depends on the fluff and justification of the abilities. A D&D wizard casts a bunch of long rituals and stores them in his mind for later (and quicker) use, so preparing things ahead of time makes sense. A D&D sorcerer has an intuitive, inborn ability to use magic and generates magic from within, so preparing things ahead of time doesn't make much sense. An artificer uses items for his abilities and so needs to make sure to take the right items with him, so preparing things ahead of time can make sense, though having some non-item-based abilities that he can use on the fly to enhance items or the like also makes sense. A warrior either knows a particular technique or he doesn't, and while he might need to warm up before combat he doesn't need to warm up specific techniques, so preparing things ahead of time doesn't make sense. And so on and so forth.


Then why bring it up?

To point out that "20-year veterans are low level" is only the default flavor assumption, not something baked into the rules; if you don't like the idea of veterans being fairly incompetent, ignore that and refluff it just like any other fluff you don't like and it won't impact the mechanics at all while making combat feel more realistic.


I'd really like to hear these many better ways. I'm no fan of dissociated mechanics, but I'm willing to accept things like hit points, encounter/daily powers, experience points, etc. in the interest of simplicity, balance, and ease of use. If you have better ideas, by all means share them.

Again, it's as easy as choosing what flavor you want to emulate and basing your mechanics off that. I already mentioned letting people use X daily powers per day in any combination instead of X powers once per day each; without even attaching a specific flavor justification to them, that feels more "realistic" because you can use a particular power twice if it makes tactical sense, using up a "pool" of resources feels closer to fatigue or openings than ticking off individual powers, and so forth.

As for some other approaches, here are some:
If daily powers are meant to represent fatigue...well, the best way to do it would be to implement actual battle fatigue/wound penalty mechanics and hook powers into that subsystem, but failing that:
Every time you use a daily power, you accumulate 1 fatigue. You can handle up to X fatigue without any problems, but if you want to go past that you need to make an [Athletics/Con/whatever] check with a DC of 10 + Y*X, where Y is higher or lower depending on how hard of a limit you want X to be. If you make the check, you can use the power again, but accumulate more than 1 fatigue and take penalties for Z time (which include not being able to use additional daily powers during Z time). This is similar to the 3e barbarian (push yourself past your limits to do better, get fatigued as a consequence) but without a strict per-day rage limit.
You have a pool of X stamina. Each power has an at-will, an encounter, and a daily version. Spend 0 stamina when using a power to get the at-will version, 1 stamina to get the encounter version, and 2 (or more) to get the daily version. A short rest restores Y stamina, a long rest restores Z stamina--and Z is not necessarily equal to X. This is somewhat similar to the 4e psionics approach (pump more energy into a power to get a bigger effect), but without having a strict encounter/daily separation.
If daily powers are meant to represent positioning and openings:
Give each power a trigger condition--must be used against a flat-footed opponent, or a flanked opponent, or an opponent attacking your ally, or an opponent more than 10 feet away, or whatever. At-wills have no trigger conditions, encounters have 1 trigger condition, dailies have 2 (or more). That forces variety so you can't spam powers, and assuming the triggers are restrictive enough or difficult enough to set up, you can't over-use powers...but if you do happen to set up a condition that lasts for a while (like surprising someone in the dark so they're flat-footed and blinded for 2 rounds, or boxing them up so they're flanked for a while), you can take advantage of it and re-use your encounters and dailies.
When a character learns an encounter or daily power at level 1, they assign it numbers from 1 to 8; encounter powers get 3 numbers, daily powers get 1. At the start of each turn, the player rolls 1d8 to determine what openings are possible this turn. As the character levels and learns more powers, he gets larger dice (corresponding to having more powers) and can rearrange the numbers assigned to each power. For instance, if the player assigned Level 1 Encounter Slash to 2, 5, and 6 and Level 1 Daily Smash to 8 and he rolled a 7, he could use either Encounter Slash [6] or Daily Smash [8]. If no encounter/daily powers are rolled, only at-wills are usable. This is similar to the 3e crusader's maneuver recharge mechanic and emulates random openings and combat flow much better than powers that are supposedly dependent on combat flow but are actually used in whatever order the player wants.
If daily powers are meant to represent wearing your opponent down or generating openings yourself:
Each time you successfully use an at-will power, gain 1 point of momentum (or rage, or advantage, or whatever else you want to call it). Each time you successfully use an encounter power, gain 3 points of momentum. Using an encounter power costs 2 momentum, using a daily power costs 4 momentum. Not only does this regulate encounter/daily power usage, it emulates the usual cinematic "soften them up and then use your big guns" flow instead of letting everyone unload their dailies at the beginning of combat.
You can re-use an encounter power by making a successful Bluff or Athletics check (depending on whether you're tricking them to create openings or battering down their defenses through repeated use). Each time you use an encounter power against someone you've previously used it against, you take a cumulative -2 to any attack or damage rolls involved and the target gains a cumulative +1 to any save involved; the penalties/bonuses reset each day or whatever other time unit you find appropriate.
If you're basically okay with powers as they are and just want the power schedule to be a bit less strict:
All powers gain the [Reliable] keyword, and powers that are already [Reliable] gain some other perk. Once per combat, you may roll a d6 as a free action and recharge one used encounter power if the number rolled is less than or equal to the number of rounds the combat has lasted (3rd round = roll 1 or 2). Once per day during a short rest, you may roll a d6 and recharge one used daily power if the number rolled is less than or equal to the number of encounters you've had thus far.
You may spend an action point to recover one expended daily power or half your expended encounter powers.

Each change will work for different groups (some are simpler, some are more complex; some are close to stock 4e, some are quite different; some require lots of power changes, some require few or none), but all of those match up with at least one of the supposed explanations for martial dailies better than "You can use each one once per day, here are some half-hearted handwaves to justify them." Personally, my group uses a different approach for each martial class when we play 4e because we like different classes having different resource schedules.

Knaight
2013-08-09, 03:57 PM
I'd really like to hear these many better ways. I'm no fan of dissociated mechanics, but I'm willing to accept things like hit points, encounter/daily powers, experience points, etc. in the interest of simplicity, balance, and ease of use. If you have better ideas, by all means share them.

4e's recharge ability is actually pretty good for something like this, particularly if you paired it with mechanics that allow you to roll several dice to try and recharge (abstract maneuvering). Then there are fatigue systems, systems such as the Burning Wheel fight matrix where you script a few moves, they interact with each other, and there are ways to go off script last minute. Another option is something like ORE, where you pay dice out of your dice pool to attempt things ahead of time, everyone rolls, and initiative, damage, etc. all emerge from the roll.

Me? I like abstract maneuvering systems. Something where you maneuver to try and get a fist full of dice, then roll these and attack with what options you have where attacks require sets of dice in numerical ranges could be a lot of fun, particularly when there are ways to get more dice that make intuitive sense (attacking off balance or prone opponents) and attacks that mostly set you or allies up for more dice or restrict the maneuverability of opponents.

kyoryu
2013-08-09, 04:35 PM
To point out that "20-year veterans are low level" is only the default flavor assumption, not something baked into the rules; if you don't like the idea of veterans being fairly incompetent, ignore that and refluff it just like any other fluff you don't like and it won't impact the mechanics at all while making combat feel more realistic.

"Twenty year veterans are low level" is not about absolute scale of abilities - it's about the fact that most time in an army is spent marching, making camp, and sitting around, and some level of training.

The actual amount of combat experience for even a "twenty year veteran" is probably low, and the amount of combat experience against experienced foes is even lower - once the vet gets enough experience, opponents tougher than him will be hard to find, even in a war context. So opportunities for rapid advancement dry up.

If you just think about the math required to figure out how much xp, and how many kills, it would take to reach 5th level, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that having a large number of high level troops would require massacres of epic proportions.

Sebastrd
2013-08-09, 05:44 PM
You have a pool of X stamina. Each power has an at-will, an encounter, and a daily version. Spend 0 stamina when using a power to get the at-will version, 1 stamina to get the encounter version, and 2 (or more) to get the daily version. A short rest restores Y stamina, a long rest restores Z stamina--and Z is not necessarily equal to X. This is somewhat similar to the 4e psionics approach (pump more energy into a power to get a bigger effect), but without having a strict encounter/daily separation.
Each time you successfully use an at-will power, gain 1 point of momentum (or rage, or advantage, or whatever else you want to call it). Each time you successfully use an encounter power, gain 3 points of momentum. Using an encounter power costs 2 momentum, using a daily power costs 4 momentum. Not only does this regulate encounter/daily power usage, it emulates the usual cinematic "soften them up and then use your big guns" flow instead of letting everyone unload their dailies at the beginning of combat.[/list]

I have to admit, I actually like these two. They're simple enough, I think. I'd certainly want to try them out in play to make sure there are no balance issues, but nice job.


"Twenty year veterans are low level" is not about absolute scale of abilities - it's about the fact that most time in an army is spent marching, making camp, and sitting around, and some level of training.

The actual amount of combat experience for even a "twenty year veteran" is probably low, and the amount of combat experience against experienced foes is even lower - once the vet gets enough experience, opponents tougher than him will be hard to find, even in a war context. So opportunities for rapid advancement dry up.

If you just think about the math required to figure out how much xp, and how many kills, it would take to reach 5th level, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that having a large number of high level troops would require massacres of epic proportions.

I suppose I'll buy that, but I might like to do the math.

kyoryu
2013-08-09, 06:22 PM
I suppose I'll buy that, but I might like to do the math.

10K xp to reach level 5.

If we say that a basic orc is roughly equivalent to a 1st level warrior (which seems fair, since they have a 0 LA), then it's worth 150 xp.

That turns out to be 66 orcs to hit level 5.

(Since more than 2 kills are required to get to the next level, it's most efficient in terms of overall kills required to kill the easiest thing a lot).

So having 1,000 level 5 troops in an army would require that they kill 66,000 enemies *in optimal conditions*. For perspective, that's more casualties than the US had in Vietnam. All the WWII casualties for the US would barely be sufficient to produce 7,000 level 5 soldiers *in optimal conditions*.

The entire (military) death count of WWII would be enough to create 333,333 level 5 soldiers. That's 22,000,000 casualties - and a seriously significant amount of those were Soviet - think "human waves against machine guns" for an entire war.

This also assumes that you'd end up with an even distribution of experience, and that any given soldier would either never die, or never kill. Since level two requires 1K xp, would require ~7 kills of level 1 opponents, but yet only grant 300 xp (twice a level 1 kill), killing a level two opponent would grant 300 xp, but require 8 casualties... in any kind of realistic scenario, this utter inefficiency would significantly inflate the death counts required to get a certain number of troops to high level.

So, yeah. The math required (RAW) doesn't really support the idea of typical military being 5th level.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-08-09, 06:55 PM
"Twenty year veterans are low level" is not about absolute scale of abilities - it's about the fact that most time in an army is spent marching, making camp, and sitting around, and some level of training.

[...]

If you just think about the math required to figure out how much xp, and how many kills, it would take to reach 5th level, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that having a large number of high level troops would require massacres of epic proportions.

[...]

So having 1,000 level 5 troops in an army would require that they kill 66,000 enemies *in optimal conditions*.

That's an absolutely ridiculous figure in real life, to be sure...but not all that unusual in a world where goblin tribes and orc clans live in the forest a few miles outside of town, villages need to fight off the occasional hungry trolls or ogres, massive armies might need to be raised to fight off the undead hordes of the next wannabe Dark Necromancer Lord, and so forth. You also have to remember that you get XP for defeating enemies, not necessarily killing them; whether your army kills most of the other army, or captures most of the other army, or causes most of the other army to retreat, you still get the same XP.

This is where the refluffing comes in. If you want to make level 1 "seasoned veteran" and level 5 "larger than life hero," you can decide that most people live in fairly safe, civilized urban areas of large nations, with most monsters on the frontiers and few wars or other major conflicts going on. If you want to make level 1 "green recruit" and level 5 "seasoned veteran," you can decide that most people live in isolated towns or city-states with a constant threat of invasion or conflict. The bottom line is that level 1 PCs don't have to be orc-slaying badasses and they don't have to be wet-behind-the-ears farmboys, because neither is enforced by the mechanics.


I have to admit, I actually like these two. They're simple enough, I think. I'd certainly want to try them out in play to make sure there are no balance issues, but nice job.

I aim to please. :smallwink:

kyoryu
2013-08-09, 07:25 PM
That's an absolutely ridiculous figure in real life, to be sure...but not all that unusual in a world where goblin tribes and orc clans live in the forest a few miles outside of town, villages need to fight off the occasional hungry trolls or ogres, massive armies might need to be raised to fight off the undead hordes of the next wannabe Dark Necromancer Lord, and so forth.

Oh, sure. It's just to put some perspective on things.


You also have to remember that you get XP for defeating enemies, not necessarily killing them; whether your army kills most of the other army, or captures most of the other army, or causes most of the other army to retreat, you still get the same XP.

Absolutely. There's a lot of simplifications in my model, and though I did make one error in it, that model is a *best case* scenario. So some simplifications the other way are, I think, within tolerance.


This is where the refluffing comes in.

Sure, and you don't have to do everything exactly the way the math works anyway.

And I figure "seasoned veteran" is probably closer to level 3, anyway. But it's a matter of taste.

Anyway, sorry to keep tangenting, but I find this kind of interesting. Don't take anything I say here as saying "you can't make level 5 a seasoned veteran" or anything like that. It's just a mental exercise.

I made a mistake in assuming that a level 1 orc would actually be CR 1/2, when CR 1 is probably more accurate if you're assuming "Fighter". So, you can cut my "best case" numbers in half for the casualties required.

Which would give 30,303 level five fighters if they kill 1,000,000 level 1enemies.

But even then, that's such a ridiculously best case scenario. Let's go for a slightly more balanced scenario, and assume we start with 1,000,000 level 1 fighters. Each is worth 300 xp to each other, and it takes 1K xp to hit level 2. I'll go ahead and round that to 900 for ease of math.

So if they all fight each other (opposite sides), and keep fighting until they level, you'll be down to 1/4 of the original number when they hit level 2. So now you've got 250,000 level 2 fighters. This is still pretty optimal, though, and presumes that any given fighter will either always win or always lose.

To get to level 3, they'll each require 2,000 more xp to level, and they'll be worth 600 xp each. So with the same simplifying assumptions, we'll end up with 62,000 fighters at level 3.

Level 4 will require an additional 3K xp, and each fighter is now worth 900, so again we'll just chop the number by a quarter - though those free rounding errors are starting to add up! That gives us 15.5K level 4 fighters.

The 1/4 ratio holds at Level 5 as well (4K, 1.2K each), so we'll cut that in 4, and round up to 4,000 level 5 fighters.

From a million starting fighters, and with pretty generous rounding.

Now, if we assume that in each round, each fighter has a 50/50 chance of dying, it gets worse... essentially, we chop the number in half each round, and each level takes 3 rounds. So 12 rounds in all to increase four levels (from 1st to fifth). That may be closer to worst-case.... but it's kinda neat to get some boundaries. Starting with 1,000,000 fighters, we can divide by 2^12, and get...

244 fighters. Out of a million. One for each 4,096 fighters that started this.

Of course, that's not realistic either, given that there'd be new recruits coming in and whatnot, the difference between "defeated" and "killed", but on the other hand in a realistic scenario you'd also end up with a bunch of second and third and fourth level guys, and not all of your death count would go to making 5th level guys.

So on an absolute best case scenario, 1,000,000 casualties would result in 30,303 level 5 fighters (with no spillover), a middle case (still with no spillover) would get you 4,000, and a pretty bad (but not worst case - worst case would involve killing 1st level guys killing solely level 4s) case would result in only 244.

But, yeah... by the experience requirements, in any case, rules would suggest that level five fighters would be pretty damn rare.

Mordar
2013-08-09, 07:55 PM
Infantry RPGs are often one-use-only, and even if they're not the ammunition is so weighty a soldier is expected to carry three shots at most. Those things are likely to be used only when necessary (=against armored vehicle) and only when the shooter is sure he can make the shot.

So bazookas and other auxiliary infantry weapons (handgrenades, landmines, anti-materiel charges) are actually good example of how "per-day" resources work. :smallwink:

Okay, fine - wizards who cast fireball all day long are bazookas in a game where you click "off screen" to reload :smallsmile:


That would be strategic decisions, not tactical. In fact, what I find most lacking in D&D is good, interesting, tactical decisions. It has always been an onerously strategic game, with planning and planning and planning, but rarely has it tried to give in-combat tactics much depth.

Wouldn't it actually frequently be a tactical decision? The availability of the power may factor into strategic decisions, but the power could be used "on the fly" as a tactical decision within a battle/encounter.


Now for an addendum to my original question, do you feel preparing abillties ahead of time per use is a good idea?

Hrm, a more difficult question in my opinion. I don't love Vancian casting, but within the D&D framework I appreciate it because it provides at least a nod towards making the very powerful have to consider resource preparation. In a 4e model, though, I'm less certain...ala "Your Clerk has two different Daily powers from Level 1. Decide if today you will be prepared to "Price Check" or "Ad Match" and you may not change your decision until clock-in time tomorrow" seems a bit too limiting to me.

I think that the powers to be prepared would either have to be stronger than the current suite (not sure how to quantify that) to justify the risk of failing to choose the correct power, or that preparation offer some sort of additional regular bonus ("If you prepare "Ad Match" for the day, you gain a +5 modifier for an additional restroom break and may throw a contested Will roll to swap any "Harried Mom with Toddler" to another available Clerk for a standard patron.").

That help? :smallwink:

- M

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-08-09, 08:25 PM
But, yeah... by the experience requirements, in any case, rules would suggest that level five fighters would be pretty damn rare.

This of course assumes only level 1 fighters vs. only level 1 humanoid opponents with no other magical, terrain, or tactical considerations. Considering you'd never find a PC party that just walks into fights naked and starts whacking away at enemies with a sword on an open plain, that's a bit uncharitable, don't you think? :smallwink:

Consider the following scenario:The small town of Genericsville lies on the border between the Spooky Forest of Evil and the Really Tall Hills. Every year in the springtime, the orc tribes of the Really Tall Hills raid Genericsville for supplies, having run low on during the winter because no one wants to trade with them and they have too large a population to sustain normally.

These yearly raids are expected, so when spring arrives the townsfolk ensure that the walls of their town are repaired, their gates are oiled, their weapons are sharpened, and everyone is ready to repel a raid. Joe Fighterson is one of the green recruits stationed on the walls when the first raid comes. He and his friends Bob McWarrior and Dave d'Aristocrat are armed with bows and behind thick walls, so they manage to take out three orcs each before the orcs can get to them. When the orcs breach the walls, Joe luckily manages to take out the one who fights him and survives thanks to his sturdy scale armor; he isn't swarmed thanks to the choke points in the wall and his uncle Steve Wizardington taking out some of them with burning hands and flaming sphere.

Having killed 4 level 1 orcs (1200 XP), Joe is now level 2; Bob is level 2 as well, but Dave chickened out and ran away so he's still level 1. Two more raids happen the next year, and Joe also kills 4 orcs in each of those engagements; he's almost killed in the second raid, but his trusty armor and shield and the quick healing of Frank the local adept of Pelor saves his life. Joe is now level 3. Sadly, Bob died, but Bob Jr. joins the militia and takes his place.

The next year, Joe manages to kill 8 orcs over the course of the first raid of the year; not only does he have good cover, good armor, and a bunch of HP, he's picked up Power Attack and Cleave and puts them to good use. He's now level 4. Individual orcs aren't much of a challenge to him as they once were ("Back in my day...!") but this year the orcs' level 4 chieftain and level 3 shamans join the battle; Captain Phil the level 6 Warblade takes care of the chieftain, but Joe gets lucky and kills one of the shamans in addition to 6 normal orcs, putting him well on the way to level 5.

Later that year in the middle of summer, there is a plague of werewolves! A bunch of the foul creatures attack the town and Joe manages to kill two of them before the werewolves are forced to retreat. Joe is now level 5, and when Bob Jr. (who was bit in the battle) turns, Joe easily (but regretfully) puts him down.
When you consider all those additional factors, its not at all difficult for a level 1 fighter with, say, a ranged weapon, cover, flanking buddies, a wizard, and some healers behind him to have much better than 50/50 odds of taking on another level 1 character, and keep stacking the odds in his favor to survive to low-mid levels. Of course, for every Joe Fighterson and his town there's a poor village with no walls and no healers that dies in the first orc raid, but that's to be expected--where else would advanced orcs with good gear come from to challenge the low-mid level fighters? :smallamused:

So the scenario of comparing numerical averages in a vacuum isn't necessarily representative of the world, and once again it comes down to concerns like what region characters live in, what resources they can access, and so forth.