Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Bohandas]

And I hate the idea that magic is some kind of exception to the physical laws. That way only produces absurdities. If, instead, everything (abilities that a commoner can't do, at least) is fantastic[2] in a fantasy world, the whole issue goes away. Fighter powers/maneuvers/etc aren't at-will because they require fantastic powers, and those fantastic powers are limited. Reconceptualizing the abilities as more than just the mundane solves the entire issue for me, personally.

I agree with the first part of this but not the second. Not entirely at any rate.

Magic is the result of the game world having different physical laws, but on the scales and energies of human life those laws reduce to those of ordinary biology, chemistry, and physics sufficiently well for most creatures to have all the usual organs, and for tools and machines of of the sorts found up to and including the renaissance to function as espected. And so while, yes, maybe some high level maneuver from the Book of Nine Sowrds where you burst into flames or something might have excuse to be limited, the majority of martial moves that break down to just kinematics should be at will. (Or at least at will as long as you aren't fatigued)

[Tanarii]

Oh totally this. In all honesty I'd rather D&D (or Pathfinder, or any RPG) work as as a game first and a fiction emulator second. If in any particular care the rules support the fiction we've decided to emulate that's great, if not we can make do, rule 0 around if, or not notice.

The topic under discussion, limited use martial abilities, is a really good emulation of many fictional martial abilities. 1/combat and 1/day abilities line up with the narrative 1/scene and 1/chapter or 1/story-arc concept very well. That's a common enough fictional martial ability trope.

I don't know where the idea martials should be able to do everything all day long comes from. Certainly it's not appropriate to fiction emulation.

Nor does it match the idea of Guy at the Gym very well. Certain abilities taking more out of you and being limited might make someone want to put the kibosh on a Daily power as too extreme an outlier, but encounter powers or short-rest limited ones fit that just fine.

[Satinavian]

The topic under discussion, limited use martial abilities, is a really good emulation of many fictional martial abilities. 1/combat and 1/day abilities line up with the narrative 1/scene and 1/chapter or 1/story-arc concept very well. That's a common enough fictional martial ability trope.

I don't know where the idea martials should be able to do everything all day long comes from. Certainly it's not appropriate to fiction emulation.

Nor does it match the idea of Guy at the Gym very well. Certain abilities taking more out of you and being limited might make someone want to put the kibosh on a Daily power as too extreme an outlier, but encounter powers or short-rest limited ones fit that just fine.

It just seems that for martials people find a stamina/mana system more believable. While for magic it is easy to say "this setting is pseudo vancian and has no mana system" and have people accept it because, well, magic, for martials the Guy at the Gym demands that running out of steam and needing a break seems plausible but not to be able to a lot of moves each very complicated and demanding one after another but never twice the same in short order.

Personally i don't really care.

[SteveLightblade]

I don't know if this is unpopular, but I actually like Vancian magic. Having to choose your spells ahead of time and planning your items and strategies around your spell slots is an extra layer of logistical planning and strategy for me and therefore an extra layer of fun.

I really don't like iconic characters: Characters in the book that represent the class. I get the idea of artists saving time and money by drawing the same person over and over, but I don't like how characters can be defined by a single person. It always came across to me as the creators telling me this is the "right" way to play a class, when in reality there were multiple equally viable or even more viable options than the iconic build.

I really don't like D&D 5e. It's combat is shallow and boring compared to older editions, including 4e. Also, the entire game feels like an original RPG made in the 2000s-2010s was unnaturally fused with a game made in the 70s with all of its ancient quirks. Recently, they've also been trying to merge story heavy mechanics into a combat heavy games, and it mixes as well as oil and water in my opinion. I could honestly write an entire thesis on my problems with 5e compared to 3e, PF, and even 4e.

[Anonymouswizard]

All RPGs work as games. Old maid and tic-tac-toe work as games. Trash like... well, lets not mention the absolute bottom of the barrel, but basically everything labeled "RPG" works as a game. You gotta set your sights higher than trash games random people on the internet write. I mean, at least aim for "fun & engaging & without '**** you' type errata".

If s game is not fun and engaging it doesn't work. At least for that group of people in particular, Carcassonne is not for everybody after all.

Which was actually my point. Fun and engage matters more than emulating either fiction or the real world, therefore working as a game is nuts important than emulating fiction (or reality).

Errata and even outright nerfing or removal of abilities is just going to be an unfortunate necessity for complex games. 4e's errata collection cable from their release schedule not matching the amount of playtesting time they had, Exalted 2e's from having, as far as I can tell, designers of wildly varying levels of quality sometimes working on the same book. Both of them needed an edition change, and 4e needed far fewer books.

Might not be an actually unpopular opinion, but for something new: PDFs and rules databases are great for when I don't actually know where a rule is, but I'm always gonna prefer flipping open a book to quick searching a pdf if I know the general area where the rule is. The one exception is if I'm running a prewritten module, in which case I'd rather not clutter the table with an extra DM-only book

Eh, the fact that physical books still sell suggests that there's a preference for them, even if it's just a large minority.

The topic under discussion, limited use martial abilities, is a really good emulation of many fictional martial abilities. 1/combat and 1/day abilities line up with the narrative 1/scene and 1/chapter or 1/story-arc concept very well. That's a common enough fictional martial ability trope.

I mean, it depends on the source material, but yes in a lot signature moves aren't used more than once a fight (if that). But characters in fiction also don't tend to function at 100% after a sword fight.

Neither matter, but FWIW I'd probably limit martial powers per encounter than power day. But that's more meaningful difference to D&D spellcasters.

I

don't know where the idea martials should be able to do everything all day long comes from. Certainly it's not appropriate to fiction emulation.

I'm fairly certain you can thank 0e for that. WIzards with limited spell slots, Fighting Men with infinite attacks.

Nor does it match the idea of Guy at the Gym very well. Certain abilities taking more out of you and being limited might make someone want to put the kibosh on a Daily power as too extreme an outlier, but encounter powers or short-rest limited ones fit that just fine.

Yep, realistically powerful abilities should fatigue characters, and a good number of marital abilities should be situational. But I have no issue modelling it through limited powers, I just think it's less important for them to emulate treasury than to be fun (and to me doing more than 'turn 1: charge turn 2+: full stack' is fun).

[OldTrees1]

Well, then, to briefly touch on the less important things…

I'm pretty sure, if it didn't hurt to think in certain directions, I'd claim your "world circles" was "implementation error". However, it may map to the conversation in unforseen ways.

Okay, I think it is time for some non Euclidean Geometry. Those world circles are not "implementation errors". The rules of geometry are just a bit different on a globe than on a flat paper. On the surface of the globe I can draw a triangle with 3 right angles.

I can also share this brainteaser: Sara took a trip one day. She bundled up for the weather and walked South 1 mile, West 1 mile, and North 1 mile to end up where she had started. Her trip could have started at the North Pole, or at infinite points in Antarctica. Where?

These are not implementation errors. Consider the equator. Every point on the equator is the same distance "R" to the north pole (assuming a prefect spherical Earth). The circumference of that circle is 4R. The diameter is 2R. Circumference / Diameter = 2 for that circle.

I feel I owe you an apology (several, actually) for how many times my senile mind forgets / underestimates how wise you are. Hopefully you don't take too much offense.

Indeed, poking for holes - and doing so at the obvious / "logical" places, and where my communication skills point - is, well, pretty dang smart.

I'm glad you've poked to see "it doesn't require Quertus", "it doesn't actually require Sith Lord stance prefect matching" (that's just a conversational simplification for learning the shape of the chopped up elephant bits), "4e can be an RPG without Quertus knowing" (follows from that first one, but good to clarify anyway).

Thank you. It is nice to be appreciated.

I think most of the potential holes have been checked. There are just 2 left to check and I only feel competence enough to check the first:
1) Non Euclidean geometry is different but we live in a non Euclidean world already. It is easy to overestimate the challenge of mapping a territory to a map without reminders like these.
2) There is a possibility that Quertus' judgement is stricter than Quertus' definition. (This might require 3 way telepathy, and I am no psion).

Please take time to consider/experiment drawing on globes.

That, and "4e is not an RPG" is much catchier than, "4e is among the least RPGish of things claiming the title of 'RPG' that I have ever played".

Personally, I think that the most important thing I said in the previous post was that people can engage in role-playing in anything from Monopoly to Chess, so the definition of an RPG cannot take as its primary input evidence of people role-playing, else everything would qualify as an RPG, and the term would lose all meaning.

Thus why my definition is so… complex, so out there. I didn't really expect such a definition to get traction or acceptance in common usage easily.

Honestly, for communicating with others, the less catchy phrase is better for communication than the more pithy phrase.

This point makes sense.

[Cluedrew]

That makes it the most useful definition there is. Because it helps with communication and learning. Which is far more useful than pedestrian "functionality" or "adoption". [...] But... no one has contended that my basic / fundamental / foundational thought process is wrong, and no one has been able to provide a territory that matches 4e's map.

Well, things have kind of progress while I found time to finish my reply. But here we have, we have A) is this a useful definition, B) is there a problem with the basic thought process and C) the map of 4e.

I am going to actually start with B, which actually frames my responses for the other to. You see this basic analysis is a fine thing to do on role-playing games. It could use some polish and various tweaks but I don't think it is broken on a fundamental level. Except for the part where this relates to what is and is not an RPG.

I think it is entirely inappropriate for deciding if something is a role-playing game. I know board games where the map and territory match almost perfectly* but they are obviously not role-playing games. Also it is an axis that you can slide along and there is no qualitative shift along it that I can see, it is a quantitative change (a measure of quality at most) and those are hard to define groups with because they are a continuous change.

And now I am going to get to part A: Yeah adoption is actually pretty important because words are used to communicate to each other so if two people have different ideas of what a word means it isn't communicating anything. There probably is some lesson in here but I doubt it actually has to do with what we should or should not consider a role-playing game; in that case framing it as being about that would be misleading and counter productive.

And finally C the map: I don't care enough. In theory I could analysis how you view both the map and territory to try to make them match. But the fact you don't have a match doesn't matter to 4e's role-playing games status on at least two levels and if you haven't figured it out from the rate at which I am posting, the time I have for these posts is limited (and some of these posts have already taken me multiple hours to write).

And now I'm going to turn it around: You think this is a good definition role-playing games? Well convince me of that. (Then convince at least half the people who talk about role-playing games, but let's start small.) Here I my list of problems with it as a definition:

• It fails in usability: I still don't know exactly what it is. It is something describing the level of match between map and territory. But I don't know to measure it nor do I understand the "cut-off" that 4e apparently doesn't meet.
• It fails as a feature based definition: I mean despite the fact it doesn't touch on things like characters, it doesn't actually describe and basic features; its just comment on one measure of quality of implementation.
• It fails as a distributive definition: Relating back to A, it doesn't accurately describe how people use the term role-playing game.

Actually I'm not sure if you are still trying to argue that but if you do want to forward this as a definition that is just some of the problems you have to fix. And at this point I am willing to point at you and say its your responsibility to fix them. And please stop with this "4e isn't a REAL role-playing game" talk until you do.

* Unless you push the Habsburgs into an ocean while it has no blight and it is isolated. Then things get kind of weird.

[Telwar]

Might not be an actually unpopular opinion, but for something new: PDFs and rules databases are great for when I don't actually know where a rule is, but I'm always gonna prefer flipping open a book to quick searching a pdf if I know the general area where the rule is. The one exception is if I'm running a prewritten module, in which case I'd rather not clutter the table with an extra DM-only book

I have a much, much easier time finding information in a printed book than I do a PDF. I realize I can search for something in the PDF, but it's mentally less annoying to flip around.

[Bohandas]

Have I voiced my opinion yet that Baldur's Gate had unacceptably un-D&D-ish combat. Calling it an adaptation of D&D combat is like calling Quake an adaptation of Call of Cthulhu

It just seems that for martials people find a stamina/mana system more believable. While for magic it is easy to say "this setting is pseudo vancian and has no mana system" and have people accept it because, well, magic

To be perfectly honest, even for magic it comes off as kind of ridiculous

[kyoryu]

Physical things aren't limited use, ergo Fighter thingies should be able to be used more than once a day. Guy At The Gym isn't limited to lifting the biggest weights once per day or whatever.

But.... they are. If you really do a max weight lift/set, you're probably not going to be able to do that again later in the day. Muscle fatigue is real. This is especially true if you've actually lifted enough that you've cause some kind of minor strain/stretch which can recover in a day or so. (Note that usually that would be lifting more than you "should").

IOW, if I can normally and sustainably bench press like X pounds, then there's some value where I can lift X+Y - once. But I'll cause enough strain/etc. that I won't be able to do it again until I can rest those muscles. That's above and beyond normal "fatigue" type things.

If you assume that dailies are things that, in some small way, push your body beyond its normal sustainable abilities, then it makes sense that you can't do it again until you rest a bit, or get a good sleep overnight. Again, the precision is a bit odd and doesn't map entirely well. But the idea that "if I can do this physically once, I can do it all day without limit" just doesn't map to reality in my experiences.

[LibraryOgre]

Physical things aren't limited use, ergo Fighter thingies should be able to be used more than once a day. Guy At The Gym isn't limited to lifting the biggest weights once per day or whatever.

In theory this could mean their fancy dailies get used more often; in practice it often means don't get fancy use-limited abilities, or at least onle get extremely limited ones. Looking at you, "Lunging forward is a use-limited BM-only ability," 5e.

An example of a one-a-day thing? Running a marathon. Sure, a marathon requires a lot of time, which is part of why it's a one-a-day power. But it also requires an immense amount of endurance, and running a marathon is something most people can't do every day, and even fewer will be able to run 52.4 miles twice in a day, just from an endurance perspective.

Encounter or Daily powers might also require pretty specific circumstances... the right combination of openings and positions to align to pull off a devastating maneuver, abstracted down to "This is only likely to happen once in an encounter" or "this is only likely to happen once a day." Daniel-san can't use a Crane Kick for every attack; it requires him to be in the right positioning, his opponent to be in the right mindset, and things to align just so... then he can kick Johnny Lawrence in the face. If he does it WRONG, if he tries that maneuver when such things don't align, then he's going to get taken down.

EDIT: Oh, hey, other thing I was going to say: This is part of why I appreciated Earthdawn specifically making Warriors, Swordmasters, and other "martial" types into people who used magic to boost their abilities. Sure, you could LEARN the Melee Weapons skill, or you could enhance it with magic and not only use it to hit people, but also learn how to leap into the sky and do flips. Being explicitly magical, it wasn't tied to what someone could do, even if that someone was Batman.

[PhoenixPhyre]

EDIT: Oh, hey, other thing I was going to say: This is part of why I appreciated Earthdawn specifically making Warriors, Swordmasters, and other "martial" types into people who used magic to boost their abilities. Sure, you could LEARN the Melee Weapons skill, or you could enhance it with magic and not only use it to hit people, but also learn how to leap into the sky and do flips. Being explicitly magical, it wasn't tied to what someone could do, even if that someone was Batman.

That's my preferred reading. In non TTRPG things, it's the path that FFXIV uses. For everybody. Even "mundane" crafters use aether (in the form of crystals) to create stuff. Everyone bar everyone uses aether. There's no "non-magic" option even for regular people. It's one reason why I have the following unpopular opinion:

One of the best concepts that got lost between 4e and 5e was the idea of Power Sources. Everyone's got one, like it or not. And they're explicitly fantastic[1]. Those Martial[2] powers? Those are explicitly coded as "this is not something everyone can learn to do." Plus splitting druids (and barbarians, although rangers should be in this bucket as well but weren't in 4e) out into a Primal source (instead of being divine casters) makes a whole lot of things make a lot more sense.

I'm not fond of the implementation details, but that's a separate issue.

[1] I prefer this to "magical", because the latter has way too many overloads and too strong of connections to "casting spells".
[2] capitalizing the power source to differentiate it from the concept of "someone who uses weapons and not really spells."

[Lord Raziere]

That's my preferred reading. In non TTRPG things, it's the path that FFXIV uses. For everybody. Even "mundane" crafters use aether (in the form of crystals) to create stuff. Everyone bar everyone uses aether. There's no "non-magic" option even for regular people. It's one reason why I have the following unpopular opinion:

One of the best concepts that got lost between 4e and 5e was the idea of Power Sources. Everyone's got one, like it or not. And they're explicitly fantastic[1]. Those Martial[2] powers? Those are explicitly coded as "this is not something everyone can learn to do." Plus splitting druids (and barbarians, although rangers should be in this bucket as well but weren't in 4e) out into a Primal source (instead of being divine casters) makes a whole lot of things make a lot more sense.

I'm not fond of the implementation details, but that's a separate issue.

[1] I prefer this to "magical", because the latter has way too many overloads and too strong of connections to "casting spells".
[2] capitalizing the power source to differentiate it from the concept of "someone who uses weapons and not really spells."

I mean I get what you mean.....

I just feel your losing something with that kind of logic. You can't truly have a Batman with that. It makes things make sense, especially to DnD's materialist way of modeling things, but as soon as you do it there is no real motivation TO make a badass normal type of person. You give them the means but take away the reason for them to exist. The reason the archetype works is that they underestimated for it- then those who underestimate them are proven wrong. I guess its probably the way DnD will go sooner or later, but I wouldn't accept it in a superhero game.

[ahyangyi]

Plus splitting druids (and barbarians, although rangers should be in this bucket as well but weren't in 4e) out into a Primal source (instead of being divine casters) makes a whole lot of things make a lot more sense.

Their late iterations, the Hunter and the Scout subclasses for Ranger, are both listed as "Martial and Primal". Surely they realized the missed opportunity and attempted to remedy that. But too late.

So many of 4e's problems seem to have resulted from rushing the product, which is a pity.

[LibraryOgre]

I mean I get what you mean.....

I just feel your losing something with that kind of logic. You can't truly have a Batman with that. It makes things make sense, especially to DnD's materialist way of modeling things, but as soon as you do it there is no real motivation TO make a badass normal type of person. You give them the means but take away the reason for them to exist. The reason the archetype works is that they underestimated for it- then those who underestimate them are proven wrong. I guess its probably the way DnD will go sooner or later, but I wouldn't accept it in a superhero game.

TBH, **** Batman.

Batman has, over the years, been caricatured into somehow being this ubermensch who can do anything, and does it all while somehow simply human. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrific (Michael Holt), has more or less the same abilities (and wildly inferior in some cases; Holt has mastered 6 martial arts, and Batman 127) and is considered a metahuman.

[Talakeal]

But.... they are. If you really do a max weight lift/set, you're probably not going to be able to do that again later in the day. Muscle fatigue is real. This is especially true if you've actually lifted enough that you've cause some kind of minor strain/stretch which can recover in a day or so. (Note that usually that would be lifting more than you "should").

IOW, if I can normally and sustainably bench press like X pounds, then there's some value where I can lift X+Y - once. But I'll cause enough strain/etc. that I won't be able to do it again until I can rest those muscles. That's above and beyond normal "fatigue" type things.

If you assume that dailies are things that, in some small way, push your body beyond its normal sustainable abilities, then it makes sense that you can't do it again until you rest a bit, or get a good sleep overnight. Again, the precision is a bit odd and doesn't map entirely well. But the idea that "if I can do this physically once, I can do it all day without limit" just doesn't map to reality in my experiences.

Maybe its an inverse guy at the gym?

Nerds who don't know a lot about sports never notice real life people doing the equivalent on daily maneuvers, so they assume all physical feats should be at will?

[Lord Raziere]

TBH, **** Batman.

Batman has, over the years, been caricatured into somehow being this ubermensch who can do anything, and does it all while somehow simply human. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrific (Michael Holt), has more or less the same abilities (and wildly inferior in some cases; Holt has mastered 6 martial arts, and Batman 127) and is considered a metahuman.

Eh.

Thats not really the point. I mean I hate Batgod as much the next guy but its not really the point.

The point is the Badass Normal thing. you take away something by eliminating that, and I don't think its something worth getting rid of.

[Anonymouswizard]

Plus splitting druids (and barbarians, although rangers should be in this bucket as well but weren't in 4e) out into a Primal source (instead of being divine casters) makes a whole lot of things make a lot more sense.

I didn't like it at the time, but looking back at it yeah it was definitely the right move. I also liked how 4e used the term 'psionic magic' to try and point out that they can and do have a place in fantasy (sitting I think they dropped the entire crystal thing as well, which probably helped).

Pathfinder 2e had five kinds of casters in the core rulebook and four types of magic/spell lists. Clerics are divine and Wizards are arcane, as normal, while Druid's use primal magic and Bards occult magic (far realm and psionic stuff, I believe). Sorcerers have no attached style, your Bloodline tells you which to pick spells from (interestingly Undead Sorcerers are divine casters)

[Pex]

Might not be an actually unpopular opinion, but for something new: PDFs and rules databases are great for when I don't actually know where a rule is, but I'm always gonna prefer flipping open a book to quick searching a pdf if I know the general area where the rule is. The one exception is if I'm running a prewritten module, in which case I'd rather not clutter the table with an extra DM-only book

I got converted. Back in the early days when computer character sheets and dice first started I wanted nothing to do with them. Pencil and paper, roll real dice, that's how you play. Even if I accept the computer character sheet you roll physical dice at the game, not computer randomization. As time passed I soon became annoyed having to write everything down. There was just so much stuff, especially as a spellcaster keeping track of what spells I prepared and how many slots I have, how many have I used, the DC when spell level mattered as in 3E. Worse was tracking hit points with all the erasing and putting holes in the sheets then the need for scrap paper to write down the fiddly bits of all the accumulated pluses. I desperately needed/wanted a computer program character sheet to help me. I could never find a satisfactory one for Pathfinder. D&D Beyond made a great one for 5E, and I have used it ever since. I still rolled physical dice at the game table. Then the Virus Apocalypse happened, so rolling computer dice became a thing playing online. Now I'm fine with rolling physical or computer dice, but I won't go back to paper character sheets.

[Telwar]

TBH, **** Batman.

Batman has, over the years, been caricatured into somehow being this ubermensch who can do anything, and does it all while somehow simply human. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrific (Michael Holt), has more or less the same abilities (and wildly inferior in some cases; Holt has mastered 6 martial arts, and Batman 127) and is considered a metahuman.

Technically Mr Terrific is a metahuman because he's invisible to machines, iirc. But he's awesome in addition to that (sometimes extraordinarily useful, often meh) ability.

Eh.

Thats not really the point.

The point is the Badass Normal thing. you take away something by eliminating that, and I don't think its something worth getting rid of.

But do you get more by having explicitly magical abilities for everyone? That shoves the "wah, guy at the gym (I don't think) couldn't do that so (non-spellcaster class) can't, that would break my immersion and realism in a game with giants, centipedes the size of trains, and spells wah" argument off the cliff.

I mean, it's probably obvious what I think about it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean I get what you mean.....

I just feel your losing something with that kind of logic. You can't truly have a Batman with that. It makes things make sense, especially to DnD's materialist way of modeling things, but as soon as you do it there is no real motivation TO make a badass normal type of person. You give them the means but take away the reason for them to exist. The reason the archetype works is that they underestimated for it- then those who underestimate them are proven wrong. I guess its probably the way DnD will go sooner or later, but I wouldn't accept it in a superhero game.

That's just it. I don't care about being able to model all the things. I don't want a BA normal PC. Because I find that trope to entirely shatter my worldbuilding consistency. How can <totally normal person, I swear> keep up with those with actual powers? Because plot armor/DM fiat. That's all. Superhero settings run on rule of writer fiat, and have zero (or even negative) internal consistency. They entirely lack verisimilitude--there are no consistent rules from issue to issue, let alone writer to writer. That's something I find inimical to having a world I want to engage with.

[Lord Raziere]

But do you get more by having explicitly magical abilities for everyone? That shoves the "wah, guy at the gym (I don't think) couldn't do that so (non-spellcaster class) can't, that would break my immersion and realism in a game with giants, centipedes the size of trains, and spells wah" argument off the cliff.

I mean, it's probably obvious what I think about it.

I don't think its worth getting rid of those people at the cost of a getting rid of a Badass Normal being able to do something awesome with sheer creativity, training, and willingness to do more with less. Your making it all magic, then the reason to play the archetype is gone because everyone will know its magic and thus accept that it can be done, thus you don't get the moments they can pull off great things because no one expects them to, instead it becomes boring because the explanation is not they are awesome its that they are utilizing some magic-jargon to pull it off, and your doing that you might as well not bother. By doing it you take the focus off the characters own achievements, you want the badass normal to be a magic man masquerading as normal and that just feels wrong. Its not engaging with the fantasy that the Badass Normal is about.

[Luccan]

Have I voiced my opinion yet that Baldur's Gate had unacceptably un-D&D-ish combat. Calling it an adaptation of D&D combat is like calling Quake an adaptation of Call of Cthulhu

Do you mean the originals? I haven't played them, but I've played icewind dale 2 and the Neverwinter Nights games and I am lead to understand it's a similar case of D&D fit to a real time combat system. Which, yeah, makes BG3 the only D&D game I know of to really incorporate the turn-based tactical combat of D&D. Oh, that and the GBA version of Eye of the Beholder. I enjoyed the former two, but I'm really excited for the Baldur's Gate specifically because it does turn-based like regular D&D

[Telok]

Maybe its an inverse guy at the gym?

Nerds who don't know a lot about sports never notice real life people doing the equivalent on daily maneuvers, so they assume all physical feats should be at will?

Unlikely. I'm coming at it from epee & kendo and I dislike the default implementation/explanation. The "its magic with a different label" would have been fine but would also have annoyed those eho want to play characters that don't use magic (ref: some of the old ToB debates).

I don't feel that "run a marathon" or "list so much you strain something" match dailies either, those would be better represented by fatigue or actual injury. A D&D style "run marathon" daily leaves the character able to immedately after it use the "swim the English Channel" and "go climb a mountain" dailies in addition to still being able to fight 5+ combats.

Yes there are things rl people can generally only do once a day. But the limits of those are exhaustion and injury which also limit and affect the rest of the daily activities. And its still a massive failure with archery/crossbow dailies.

Now you could present it as a game mechanic to model mythic stories &/or action movies. It works for that sory of narrative driven concept that already pre-requires significant and specific suspension of disbelief. But D&D 4e martial dailies weren't presented that way, they were presented closer to "guy at the gym" style that didn't ask for that specific suspension of disbelief.

As with many of 4e's non-mechanical issues I think it was an advertising/presentation issue that created a mismatch between customer expectations and the product.

[kyoryu]

Maybe its an inverse guy at the gym?

Nerds who don't know a lot about sports never notice real life people doing the equivalent on daily maneuvers, so they assume all physical feats should be at will?

Yeah, basically. Especially since that kind of thing is very internal, so you wouldn't necessarily "see" it. And it's also never really a truly "once per day" thing, even if it is effectively close to it. Like, you'd never say "well, I've used my allotment!" You'd say "ow, that hurt, I'd better be careful not to push that too far from here on out". And yes, you could design a more accurate simulation that took those things into account, but in reality the end result would be fairly close to "dailies".

But, yeah. Like in my "is that a dog?" analogy earlier, if it looks like a pug, someone that's seen a pug will say "that kinda looks like a dog" while someone that hasn't will say "that doesn't look like a dog".

People involved in athletic endeavors have seen more "dogs" than people that aren't. And the more you work with dogs, the more you learn what various things look like dogs, and the more experience you get in really determining things that don't look like dogs.

Anybody can look at a Lab and say "that's a dog". Someone with very limited knowledge of dogs might look at a coyote and say "that looks like a dog", but look at a pug and say "that's not a dog." OTOH, someone with a lot of dog experience would likely look at the coyote and say "that's not a dog" but look at the pug and say "yup, definitely dog."

Also note that since we're talking about things like immersion and fun, it really doesn't matter if a "pug" is "really" a "dog". If it blows someone immersion because it doesn't match their idea of what a "dog" looks like, and so they have to start thinking in weird ways about it that don't map to the character, then that's the effect it has. I absolutely, do not dispute in any way that daily martials have that effect on some (many) people. The only thing that I dispute is that they necessarily have that effect on everyone. You know, because they don't have that effect on me, and my thoughts regarding them are more "in character" than my thoughts about hit points.

[KorvinStarmast]

Might not be an actually unpopular opinion, but for something new: PDFs and rules databases are great for when I don't actually know where a rule is, but I'm always gonna prefer flipping open a book to quick searching a pdf if I know the general area where the rule is. The one exception is if I'm running a prewritten module, in which case I'd rather not clutter the table with an extra DM-only book

I'm with you.

The topic under discussion, limited use martial abilities, is a really good emulation of many fictional martial abilities. 1/combat and 1/day abilities line up with the narrative 1/scene and 1/chapter or 1/story-arc concept very well. That's a common enough fictional martial ability trope.

yep. Back when I was weight lifting, my max bench or my max squat was not all day every day. I'd work into it, or up to it, and try the max about once a week, or maybe twice a week.

I don't know where the idea martials should be able to do everything all day long comes from. Certainly it's not appropriate to fiction emulation.

FWIW, what a 5e martial can do "all day every day" is attack and defend. Anything beyond that (in terms of special moves) is "a power that has limited charges."

I don't know if this is unpopular, but I actually like Vancian magic.

Yes. I got used to it. The new system in 5e is a bit more flexible, but the idea of "you charge this capacitor, and you carry it around until you meet the situation where you discharge it" works well enough. Ritual magic, though, is a thing that is common in fiction and D&D has often struggled with. (I didn't get to see how 4e handled that). How 5e handles it is a slight improvement, but I'd like to see more spells be cast as a ritual, not fewer.

You can't truly have a Batman with that.

While I appreciate Miller's Dark Knight interpretation of Batman, the story of the caped crusader only works well when he's the only one in the fictional world who does that unique thing that he is positioned (due to both his wealth and his smarts) to do. I've never liked the attempts to crosswalk Batman into Superman's milieu: even back in the 60's and 70's there was a jarring dissonance in the various attempts to do that. I stopped enjoying Batman long ago, but, thanks to a recommendation from a friend, I did enjoy the first Christian Bale Batman movie a lot. Unfortunately, I didn't stop at that one, which leads me to agreeing with

TBH, **** Batman.

Batman has, over the years, been caricatured into somehow being this ubermensch who can do anything, and does it all while somehow simply human. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrific (Michael Holt), has more or less the same abilities (and wildly inferior in some cases; Holt has mastered 6 martial arts, and Batman 127) and is considered a metahuman.

He's up against Supers, so they keep having to find ways to not lose his place in the super hero pantheon.
Again, Batman (still) works best when he's the only "super" in Gotham.

Superhero settings run on rule of writer fiat, and have zero (or even negative) internal consistency. They entirely lack verisimilitude--there are no consistent rules from issue to issue, let alone writer to writer. That's something I find inimical to having a world I want to engage with.

Heh, they similarly did a real hatchet job on Spiderman - OK, time to stop.
Re imagining stories is a very old habit and isn't gonna stop any time soon.

[Bohandas]

Yeah, basically. Especially since that kind of thing is very internal, so you wouldn't necessarily "see" it. And it's also never really a truly "once per day" thing, even if it is effectively close to it. Like, you'd never say "well, I've used my allotment!" You'd say "ow, that hurt, I'd better be careful not to push that too far from here on out". And yes, you could design a more accurate simulation that took those things into account, but in reality the end result would be fairly close to "dailies".

Perhaps a saving throw? Or gated by remaining HP? Or 'cast' from HP?

And there ought to at least be workarounds to the limitations, possibly rather cheap ones.

Cast from HP with workarounds available sounds best to me at the moment because I just thought of one thing that's potentially one and done in this manner, and that's a full-force bare-knuckle blow from a professional boxer, because at the professional level the full force of a boxer's punch is greater than the structural integrity of their hand, that's why they use boxing gloves; the padding prevents their hand bones from shattering. That said, WITH the gloves they can keep punching for a pretty long time, and a missed blow definitely won't shatter their hand regardless

EDIT:
And in any case, uses should probably be restored by magical healing if it's a matter of how far they can push their bodies without injuring themselves

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think its worth getting rid of those people at the cost of a getting rid of a Badass Normal being able to do something awesome with sheer creativity, training, and willingness to do more with less. Your making it all magic, then the reason to play the archetype is gone because everyone will know its magic and thus accept that it can be done, thus you don't get the moments they can pull off great things because no one expects them to, instead it becomes boring because the explanation is not they are awesome its that they are utilizing some magic-jargon to pull it off, and your doing that you might as well not bother. By doing it you take the focus off the characters own achievements, you want the badass normal to be a magic man masquerading as normal and that just feels wrong. Its not engaging with the fantasy that the Badass Normal is about.

Having magic (fantastic) powers doesn't mean you got them for free. Someone with powers who works hard and is creative and trains is just going to be flat better than someone without powers who has the same creativity and drive. So for a BA normal to be able to hang with powered people, you have to assume that everyone else is lazy and uncreative. Because that niche has to be reserved for the people who don't have anything else. Beyond that, it seems like having a BA normal (under this meaning) requires that the enemies all hold the Idiot Ball. They're not able to do awesome things because of their own capabilities (which are objectively sub-par), they're only able to do those things because the enemies don't see it coming. Which means that as soon as they can see it coming, the BA normal is up a creek. So to have a BA normal stay effective, the enemies have not not learn.

And if BA normals were actually more than a one-off thing in a setting...they'd not be BA any more. They'd just be normal. That works really well for authored fiction, but for a game in a world that could be real, where players have agency and so does the world? Makes it really hard to maintain any kind of consistency.

[LibraryOgre]

Do you mean the originals? I haven't played them, but I've played icewind dale 2 and the Neverwinter Nights games and I am lead to understand it's a similar case of D&D fit to a real time combat system. Which, yeah, makes BG3 the only D&D game I know of to really incorporate the turn-based tactical combat of D&D. Oh, that and the GBA version of Eye of the Beholder. I enjoyed the former two, but I'm really excited for the Baldur's Gate specifically because it does turn-based like regular D&D

The Gold Box games were 100% turn based.

[BRC]

Having magic (fantastic) powers doesn't mean you got them for free. Someone with powers who works hard and is creative and trains is just going to be flat better than someone without powers who has the same creativity and drive. So for a BA normal to be able to hang with powered people, you have to assume that everyone else is lazy and uncreative. Because that niche has to be reserved for the people who don't have anything else. Beyond that, it seems like having a BA normal (under this meaning) requires that the enemies all hold the Idiot Ball. They're not able to do awesome things because of their own capabilities (which are objectively sub-par), they're only able to do those things because the enemies don't see it coming. Which means that as soon as they can see it coming, the BA normal is up a creek. So to have a BA normal stay effective, the enemies have not not learn.

And if BA normals were actually more than a one-off thing in a setting...they'd not be BA any more. They'd just be normal. That works really well for authored fiction, but for a game in a world that could be real, where players have agency and so does the world? Makes it really hard to maintain any kind of consistency.

I mean, that's the power fantasy being the BAN. That they ARE more driven/creative/smarter, enough to engage on equal levels with people who have impossible capabilities. This is the "Batman" fantasy.

Also, you're take proposes that all potential Skills/approaches do the exact same thing, which makes sense in some contexts. A person with Super Strength is always going to be able to lift more than a normal person without super strength who does equivalent amounts of training, but the Badass Normal usually works by practicing things that don't take supernatural abilities, while their superpowered teammates focus on their abilities.

Imagine, if you will, two people, one is mute, the other is not. (In this metaphor, speech is the Superpower, and the mute person is our Badass Normal). The Mute Person practices the Violin and becomes a master violinist. The other person trains their voice and becomes an expert singer. Assume all thing are equal such that, had the person who can speak decided to take up the Violin instead of their voice, they would be just as good a violinist as the mute person become.

Would you say that the Singer must be a better musician, because they can do something the violinist cannot? That the only way the Violinist can stand on the same stage and be held in equal regard as the Singer is if the Singer is slacking somewhere?


To put it another way, Batman will never beat Superman or Wonder Woman in a fistfight. He'll never compare to either of them when it comes to punching out Godzilla either. He's doing other stuff, stuff that they didn't train to do because they were practicing their Godzilla punches.