If you wanted to say a healing surge is divine or something else fine, but "catching your breath" does not take you from almost dying to healed up.
Neither does Second Wind. It gives you back a healing surge worth of hit points, which is equal to 25% of your total hit point value. In other words, it might heal you from almost dying to slightly less in danger of dying.
Again 4e encompasses more than just the PHB, it enompasses their whole product line...And yes it even includes meta terms like controller etc to be more gamist. The focus is on combat. If thats what you want, fine, but don't call it something it isn't. And obviously all D&D has combat, but its to what degree the focus of combat (and mechanics) is compared to RPing and fluff.
Look, kmal2t, I'm done arguing with you. It's pretty obvious that you don't know how 4e works, but you seem to think you do, and you seem to think that that entitles you to judge it harshly. I could make up things about your game of choice, too, and criticize them, but I don't, because that would be dumb. So maybe go play a few games of 4e and familiarize yourself with how it actually works, and then you can decide exactly how much you want to hate on it. But, until then, maybe start listening to the people who are telling you that you have some pretty severe misconceptions about how the game works and what it's about.
So... Would it be fair to say that sometimes there's a fair amount of ignorance and words get thrown around? Sometimes.
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop.This is a meaningless claim justified with superficial comparisons. It is no different than the people who didn't like what they saw in 3e and decided to blame it on Diablo
As an aside, your lmgtfy link produces pages of results of people dismissing 4e criticism by saying "back in the day, people called 3e/2e 'diablo on paper'"
It doesn't actually produce much in the way of it actually happening.
You can cry all you want Scott that it isn't in the PHB, but the fact is things made by 4e i.e. adventures are part of 4e and their intent and the culture they create.
And WOW. Ok I can still use multiple "heal-ups" at once to heal back to full, so stop trying to split hairs on things that are obvious.
Deep breath. No need to say someone is crying or whatever.
Personally I have nothing against healing surges. Helps get rid of the need for heals, which I think is a good thing. You still drop from exhaustion if you keep fighting. I think I'd have an easier time balancing that than depending on purely vancian casting for healing, but YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In before lock.
3) Powers have cool down rates. (Encounter, daily, maybe others?)These are narrative "cooldowns", and don't serve the same function as they do in an MMORPG. This is an example of shallow, superficial comparisons being tossed around with no understanding of the underlying design rationale. [...]
I just wanted to say that for me, there is nothing "narrative" about those cooldowns when it comes to non-magical characters. You can't narrate away someone somehow forgetting how to do a stunt for the fight or even for a whole day.
You can cry all you want Scott that it isn't in the PHB, but the fact is things made by 4e i.e. adventures are part of 4e and their intent and the culture they create.
And WOW. Ok I can still use multiple "heal-ups" at once to heal back to full, so stop trying to split hairs on things that are obvious.
I've mentioned it before, healing surges are not intended to be a "realism" mechanic. They are a pacing mechanic for the game to encourage the GM and players to engage in more action during the day. The same way you had encounter powers.
You can dislike it from a realism standpoint, but as a pacing mechanic for PC's and their resources, it was excellent game design. Healing Surges and encounter powers destroyed the 15-minute adventuring day with virtually zero effort from the GM and players to alter their game. It also reduced the reliance on CLW wands, which I find particularly onerous in 3.5 games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, methinks thou doth protest too much. To turn some of your own pseudo psychology on you, since you have stooped low enough to try to Dr. Freud everybody else, your seeming desperation to defend 4th to the death as the greatest non-MMO-inspired-game in history might be indicative of a deep-seated fear that the opposite is true.
As for myself, I have only this.
Powers. Powers per day. Powers per encounter (WTF?!?! are powers per encounter!?!). Powers possessed by non-spellcasting classes, and that are called "POWERS".
4th is the poster child for MMO-inspired tabletop not because you can or cannot translate its algorithms into code, and vice-versa - and that is a weak defense at best. It is the poster child because the language with which is was written sacrificed verisimilitude and immersion for coolness and hip language. Its verbage, the way it was written is itself an anathema to fantasy roleplay.
I'd recommend listening to a Rob Heinsoo interview/panel. There's a lot less "screw it" in his attitude and a lot more "hey, this might be really cool, lets try it!"
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to say that for me, there is nothing "narrative" about those cooldowns when it comes to non-magical characters. You can't narrate away someone somehow forgetting how to do a stunt for the fight or even for a whole day.
Yeah, that's almost as silly as wizurd randomly forgetting how to cast Fireball after he's done so a couple of times already that day.
I think it was fairLy clear that 4e was influenced by MMOs. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. What I disliked about 4e was the reduction of skills checks, and the sort of overlap between combat and magical abilities. One of the the reasons people played fighters was because their abilities always work. That's the point. Giving fighters once per day powers sort of reduces their advantage. Barbarians and Paladins etc. get x-times-a-day powers, yes, but this is my main objection to 4e.
-People who were raised on MMO do have a slightly different approach to table top gaming, but this is turning into a "kids these days argument"
I just wanted to say that for me, there is nothing "narrative" about those cooldowns when it comes to non-magical characters. You can't narrate away someone somehow forgetting how to do a stunt for the fight or even for a whole day.
I'm surprised people even care any more, to be honest. Nonetheless, this was a big barrier for me too until I realised that the daily/encounter mechanic is not actually a limit on the number of times the character can do something, it's a limit on the number of times it works.
I think that's why it's seen as narrativist (as opposed to being a simulation) - there isnt a one-to-one correlation between the game mechanic and the action it is representing*. It's not that your archer can only run whilst firing two arrows once every eight hours (the ranger power shot-on-the-run). The implicit assumption is that they're dodging through combat, firing off arrows willy-nilly, generally being rangerish and that every now and again they pull off a spectacular move. The daily/encounter/at will mechanic hands that narrative power to the player - they can decide "NOW is when my spectacular, moment in the spotlight occurs".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to the OP, I think it's elitism. People have a tendency to declare the "other" inferior and sadly I think this is very common amongst 'geeky' pursuits.
What I disliked about 4e was the reduction of skills checks, and the sort of overlap between combat and magical abilities. One of the the reasons people played fighters was because their abilities always work. That's the point. Giving fighters once per day powers sort of reduces their advantage. Barbarians and Paladins etc.
I never did see why 4E was more like an MMO, in fact I was playing Neverwinter today and someone said they wished it was more like a tabletop game! And giving martials nice things has long been an argument though, so I'm not sure if that's a bad thing. I don't have the books on me, so I'm not sure how insane the fighter gets in 4E. I'd imagine its more interesting than "I full attack!"
Anyways, 4E isn't pathfinder or 3E or every tabletop, so I'm not sure why MMOs get the blame for problems in pathfinder still. It looks to be a dislike for the different approach, which really would be a "kids these days!" argument.
-Honestly, I have felt most of the MMO hate comes from the fact that MMO players are often considered to be 'immature' or 'trolls'. Where as d&d was a hobby associated with the less popular, often slightly lacking in social skills, the fact it brought people together, face to face, was a profound strength. MMO's are closer to team sports, in that players who are not compeititve or casual about the sport, will be slowly excluded from play.
-Think about it. Try playing WOW for a few hours per week. Everytime you are looking for a group, you'd find people complaining about your gear, why you don't play a better class, etc etc. The level of idiocy on the barrens chat was so legendary it spawned memes.
-So when a person who thinks this 'gaming' translates to that 'gaming' he ends up with a a character who is nothing more than a pile of equipment and abilities. Finer points of role play, or even social skills are totally forgotten. Granted, there are plenty of hack and slashers, but MMMO players have a very different approach to things, and one I do not share.
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop.This is a meaningless claim justified with superficial comparisons. It is no different than the people who didn't like what they saw in 3e and decided to blame it on DiabloAs an aside, your lmgtfy link produces pages of results of people dismissing 4e criticism by saying "back in the day, people called 3e/2e 'diablo on paper'"
It doesn't actually produce much in the way of it actually happening.
That's because 3e came out in 2000. It's pretty tough to find content from back then. There are a handful of sites floating around that still have angry forum rants by 2e players angry at the Diablo-ification of 3e.
You can cry all you want Scott that it isn't in the PHB, but the fact is things made by 4e i.e. adventures are part of 4e and their intent and the culture they create.
And WOW. Ok I can still use multiple "heal-ups" at once to heal back to full, so stop trying to split hairs on things that are obvious.
You can only use Second Wind once.
So, no.
Again.
Unless you have a problem with the idea that hit points don't always mean physical wounds. In which case you have a problem with D&D in general, and you're just realizing it now.
In before lock.
I just wanted to say that for me, there is nothing "narrative" about those cooldowns when it comes to non-magical characters. You can't narrate away someone somehow forgetting how to do a stunt for the fight or even for a whole day.
3) Powers have cool down rates. (Encounter, daily, maybe others?)These are narrative "cooldowns", and don't serve the same function as they do in an MMORPG. This is an example of shallow, superficial comparisons being tossed around with no understanding of the underlying design rationale. [...]
Narrative gaming means creating the fictional scenario surrounding the action post-hoc.
Not having one of your encounter powers available doesn't mean your character "forgot" it. It means that your character, in-universe, hasn't had the opportunity to arise to make use of it. Another way of looking at it is that your character only finds himself in a position to use that ability about once per fight, but you as the player get to decide when that is. The fact that you feel it has to represent "forgetting" something is the problem.
People used the idea in dnd for a long time, but no where in the rule books will you find that.
Why is that important? They just codified something that was an implicit part of D&D for generations. The idea of having a tank, damage dealer, healer, and utility character has always been around. You just seem to be complaining that they finally pointed that out in the rule book. Which is silly.
I did not know you could have more than 3 or 4 utility powers.
Yeah, you'd be surprised how many people don't know important things about 4e, but feel well-equipped to criticize it anyway.
That was my impression from high level character creation. I apologize for that then.
In high-level character creation, you do pick one item of your level -1, one item of your level, and one item of your level +1, plus gold equal to an item of your level. But that's not a restriction on what your character can wear or use. It's just a method for generating starting equipment for characters starting at higher levels.
Rather you like it or not, it is an idea stolen from MMOs. Not all the things stolen are bad.
The idea of giving items levels is not unique to MMORPGs.
It has been a long time since I've played an MMO, but in MMO's positioning was very important. Knowing how far a tank (or defender if you prefer) could be away from a mob before pulling agro, etc.
The level of tactical maneuvering required to play optimally in 4e is far ahead of what is required in MMORPGs. For most MMORPG characters, you can remain stationary for most - if not all - of a given combat. There are exceptions, but for the most part you can stand in one place and run through your hotkey cycle and do just fine.
Nope, in 3.5 / Pathfinder that is how vitality / wound points work. That is why players heal slowly unless they receive magical healing. (Unless of course they're super human tough. Ie. High level.)
There are no vitality points or wound points in 3.5 or Pathfinder (except as a set of alternate rules). Hit points are hit points.
From the 3.5 SRD:
Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill.
...
What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
Abstractions are explained in even more robust terms in previous editions, but I don't have immediate access to those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, methinks thou doth protest too much. To turn some of your own pseudo psychology on you, since you have stooped low enough to try to Dr. Freud everybody else, your seeming desperation to defend 4th to the death as the greatest non-MMO-inspired-game in history might be indicative of a deep-seated fear that the opposite is true.
No, I'm just a little sick of having to deal with people who have little or no actual experience playing 4e convincing themselves that they know how the game works, and then using those misconceptions to criticize the game for things it doesn't actually do. It's a little disheartening to have to put up with crap like a forum community so overwhelmingly hostile to a game many people enjoy that the best they can manage is a thread called "101 Reasons Why 4e DOESN'T Suck".
I'm defending something I really like by correcting misunderstandings. If you have a problem with that, it's safe to say 4e is probably better off without you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanics really aren't the defining thing for any RPG for me. Some of my favorite games, we've gone entire sessions without rolling a die. You can have a great GM draw a great experience out of a bad game, or you can have a poor GM draw a lousy experience out of a great game.
MMORPG's have a certain core behavior at the heart. You are in place A. Travel to place B. Kill X number of Y creatures until you gather Z of something. Return to place A. Receive XP, Money, and possibly an item. It doesn't matter what mechanics you use; that's what the game is going to be, because there is no GM. MMORPG's also have the inherent challenge of having a large number of people tasked with killing the same individual villain at the same time. If you miss your chance to kill that villain, get in the queue and wait for him to respawn, then take your turn killing him. Finally, in an MMORPG, a group of four Level 5 characters will never be able to kill, say, a Level 14 Elite monster. The math just doesn't work.
Tabletop RPG's have a living, breathing GM. He is capable of assigning non-quantifiable goals. He is capable of judging success or failure without relying on numbers of X killed, or numbers of Z gathered. Because of a GM, no tabletop RPG is the same as any MMORPG. The "race" to kill a target is part of the drama of a tabletop RPG. If you get to the villain's lair to assassinate (because let's call it what it is) the leader AFTER another group, that's it. You don't get the bounty. And in a tabletop RPG, a team of four inexperienced characters CAN take out a much more powerful opponent, if they can come up with a clever strategy. Or maybe they will decide to talk to it, which is only an option in an MMORPG if the programmers make it one.
There is no mechanic in any MMORPG for picking up a rock and bashing someone with it if you lose your sword.
It is impossible to bluff a monster/character in an MMORPG into thinking you are stronger than you actually are.
If you go into a bank in a tabletop RPG, kill all the guards and the tellers, you can steal the piles of gold you see sitting on the table in the back. You can also steal stuff from other characters' "safe deposit boxes."
That said...
The mechanics of 4th Edition D&D do strike me as being more similar to (NOT "the same as") an MMORPG than other editions, or certain other games. This is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is just a thing. And it is an understandable thing, because MMORPG's exist; therefore, they influence game design as (a) designers try to take the best ideas from many sources to make a good game, (b) designers try to increase market share by appealing to a broader group of people, (c) designers are influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by what they do in their spare time.
Anyway, that's just my impression, and your mileage may vary. But permit me the luxury of assuming it is true for a moment. In that case:
A) People who are fans of the click-and-kill action of an MMORPG are more likely (but not necessarily guaranteed) to enjoy the game, depending largely on the GM.
B) People who favor intense role-playing and/or problem solving may or may not enjoy the game, depending largely on the GM.
C) If a group of problem solvers/roleplayers invite an MMORPG player to join them, telling them "it's basically WoW on paper," someone is probably going to wind up disappointed.
This is probably the case for ANY RPG. Any game (not necessarily 4E D&D) with mechanics more similar to an MMORPG may be more accessible to the MMORPG crowd. It may be unpopular with the anti-MMORPG crowd.
In the end, we all have our own preferences. I enjoy playing 7th Sea. How many of you folks can say that? It doesn't make me right and you wrong. If you tell me 7th Sea is a poorly-executed version of Fantasy Europe with mechanics that are more like playing Farkle than a traditional RPG, I probably won't argue with you. But I also won't invite you to game with me.
7th sea cool idea, so so rules.
7th sea cool idea, so so rules.
See? ;)
And scott still whining and pouting and going after my thread when the whole point was for people to give reasons why 4e was GOOD to try to convince me (and anyone else) otherwise that 4e was worth giving yet another chance.
I swear all you do is come on here with silly arguments about why 4e is great.
My brother loves 4 E and I hated it. We were raised together, and people thought he was my twin at university. So clearly it has fans.
I liked a few parts of it, it really gets you into a build smoothly.
|
|
I swear all you do is come on here with silly arguments about why 4e is great.
And there are quite a few posters who come on here with silly arguments about why 4e is the worst RPG of all time.
Damn it, I don't even like 4e, but I deal with that by simply not playing it, and recognizing that I'm fairly ignorant about it. I tried it out back when it first came out. Didn't like it. But Demogorgon didn't jump off the cover and kill my firstborn, I don't seem to have the same level of hatred for it as some of you guys.
Play what you want, and let other people play what they want, that's my philosophy. Some people like 4e. Some people like 3.X or Pathfinder. Some people like 2E, or 1E. Just because they are all wrong doesn't mean that I have to try and ruin their fun and FORCE them to play a better game like Swords & Wizardry or Call of Cthulhu.
|
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can use as many healing surges as you want (that you have) at one time. I remember that from playing and watching an official game played on youtube. So, to say "no, you can only heal x amount with this so you can't heal from low to full" when you can use as many as you have at once to do the same thing is ridiculous.
I'm going off memory here so I may be wrong, but here goes...
Honestly you're either remembering incorrectly or the video was wrong. You have a finite number of surges available to you (paladins tend to have more, as they chew through them for their LoH ability). This is also affected by your CON score.
They are often used in combat when a healer uses a heal on you. The healer, in essence, causes you to use one of your surges and you get a bonus often based upon the healers ability used.
Once you run out of surges, you're fairly screwed for healing.
When out of combat (and in a short rest period) you can chew through some of your surges. You do not have the option to second wind over-and-over during a combat encounter, as it is an encounter ability. You CAN burn four surges during a short rest to heal up to full sure. Considering many characters have around maybe 7, 8 of them it's not always great. Also, honestly the use of Second Wind for the majority of characters is standard action so you're sacrificing contributing in other ways to the combat to do so.
There is not unlimited font of healing in game, sorry. If you run out of surges you're screwed, trust me been there and surprise surprise, that was a very dramatic encounter! ;p
Yeah, it really isnt possible to treat hit points as a linear measure of health in 4E. The amount of healing surges you have left is a factor as well. (Someone on full hit points with no healing surges is more likely to die if they enter a battle than someone on half hit points with all their healing surges).
Also, the fact warlords can grant hit points through essentially telling their comrades to "buck up" is a pretty clear indication that they represent a great deal more than just physical wounds.
And scott still whining and pouting and going after my thread when the whole point was for people to give reasons why 4e was GOOD to try to convince me (and anyone else) otherwise that 4e was worth giving yet another chance.
I wasn't coming after your thread. I was coming after the mentality that requires a thread like that in the first place. If you need a thread dedicated to reasons a game doesn't suck, it's pretty clear evidence that the community you're in is overwhelmingly hostile to it. And that's a sad reflection of that community.
I swear all you do is come on here with silly arguments about why 4e is great.
Nevermind. Maybe I should have come after your thread.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can use as many healing surges as you want (that you have) at one time. I remember that from playing and watching an official game played on youtube. So, to say "no, you can only heal x amount with this so you can't heal from low to full" when you can use as many as you have at once to do the same thing is ridiculous.
That's wrong. The only time you can spend healing surges unrestricted is when you have time to rest between encounters (and even then, when you run out of surges you're done). During encounters, you are limited to how many you can spend by the abilities that allow you to spend them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not having one of your encounter powers available doesn't mean your character "forgot" it. It means that your character, in-universe, hasn't had the opportunity to arise to make use of it. Another way of looking at it is that your character only finds himself in a position to use that ability about once per fight, but you as the player get to decide when that is. The fact that you feel it has to represent "forgetting" something is the problem.
That was one of the things that made 4E a game I didn't especially like to play. It just didn't fit my playstyle.
When I game I look to disappear into a character and the world he (or she) is in. I don't want to engage with mechanics in a way that the character cannot engage with the story element of that mechanic - or I get a disconnect. Same reason I dislike Character Controlled drama editing - I only want to influence the world through the actions of my character.
And 4E is pretty antithetical to that playstyle. If there is a limited resource that the character has access to (say Daily or Encounter power), with the way I approach the game, the character is fully aware of that limited resource - because I the player do not decided when to use the daily or the encounter power - the character does. Martial dailies are especially hard to justify with that POV.
I do play with games with detailed mechanics (HERO and Pathfinder) so the amount of rules to engage in isn't a problem, it's the way they engage. I think a lot of the flac that 4E gets are people just don't get that change in POV, and the game just feels wrong to them.
Personally for the kind of game it is, it is one of the best designed games of it's kind. It's just not a kind of game I like to play. But I have plundered ideas - I use residim (calling it Residium) as a high magic currency (each grain = 1 GP) so you can carry lots of cash that way, and it works really well for item creation costs. I love implements. I wish I could get a really nice ritual system for Pathfinder like 4E does (giving every class the ability to do them).
But the game is encounter (not adventure) balanced, and very gamist - in the sense you engage with the game elements outside of in character POV.
I think a lot of the MMO comparison is for superficial similarities - such as specific Roles, the unified power structure, everything called powers. Sort of how Hit Dice work in D&D Next - they superficially resemble healing surges, but to someone who plays 4E they don't do the same things, but on the outside they have a lot of similarities.
|
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can use as many healing surges as you want (that you have) at one time. I remember that from playing and watching an official game played on youtube. So, to say "no, you can only heal x amount with this so you can't heal from low to full" when you can use as many as you have at once to do the same thing is ridiculous.
Only between encounters, not within an encounter. During an encounter you can use one as a Second Wind and maybe others if you are the target of a healing power. Yes, you can expend healing surges to get back to full hit points after an encounter. But healing surges are limited in number, so you will eventually run out.
As an aside, people get hung up on the "roles" (defender, striker, etc.) like they are something alien. Actually, 3e is probably more hidebound about character roles - the classic line-up of cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard being the most obvious one. 4e is actually designed to make variants to this line-up more viable than in earlier editions. The roles are intended as a guide. But since, for example, healing is now much more democratic (healing surges allow you to heal yourself in combat, rather than wait for the healer to bestow his divine blessing upon you) it is actually much less of an issue tha it was.
|
|
And scott still whining and pouting and going after my thread when the whole point was for people to give reasons why 4e was GOOD to try to convince me (and anyone else) otherwise that 4e was worth giving yet another chance.
I swear all you do is come on here with silly arguments about why 4e is great.
Well, he has experience in playing it. You barely know how it works. There is a question of credibility here. I accept that it may not be to everyone's taste (though one of my players considers it the best edition he has played, and he's played them all over thirty years, and certainly I prefer it to 3e) but it would be preferable if you could provide cogent criticism.
Did we give up talking about MMOs?
I saw a mudcrab today...
Did we give up talking about MMOs?
Apparently! Somehow a thread asking why people lay the blame of bad palyers/gaming on MMOs turned into one about 4E. At least the OP never left?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, every once in a while I see someone blame a problem in table top gaming on MMOs, or relate something unrelated to MMOs to them that they don't particularly like in a tabletop setting. Its like MMOs are some anathema to table top gaming, creating this problem with bad players and playstyles.
Why is that?
A good deal of the percieved problem comes from the fact that some of what makes a good MMO doesn't tranlate well to table top, and vice versa. Yet because of the popularity of each in it's own right, often designers try to take ideas to crossover that don't work.
Many people think the leveling system is an example of this, as it is very similar to the tree choices from MMO games.
The problem is that tree choices are a disadvantage of MMO's brought on by the need to limit options to what is pre-programmed.
Similarly, MMO's that get limited to "dice rolling" miss out on the main advantage of MMO's over tabletop: The ability to use complex formulas. The computer can do the math, we don't need to limit it to a d20.
Tabletop has the advantage of flexibility. MMO's have speed. They are very different formats that require very different approaches, and there has been, IMHO, way to much attempt to crossover without consideration of the values of each separately.
Tabletop has the advantage of flexibility. MMO's have speed. They are very different formats that require very different approaches, and there has been, IMHO, way to much attempt to crossover without consideration of the values of each separately.
Very much this. I think when a RPG ruleset seems to incorporate a number of MMO-inspired ideas, this is often done with the idea that you want to try to attract MMO players to the hobby. And while this may be occasionally successful, I think the flaw in this design principle is that an RPG trying to be MMO-like is not going to compete with MMOs in what they can offer.
And, of course, sometimes an RPG developer may try to incorporate features of his favourite MMO without even realizing it. Like it or not, the abundance of MMOs does affect how we think about stuff, and some of that can sneak into RPG design..
..and give us spells like Baleful Polymorph. :p
|
And the biggest problem with that way of thinking is that trying to attract a certain crowd without thinking about the crowd that is currently playing your game will result in alienating the current crowd and bring about a broken base.
And there has been few occurrences of broken base as big as 4E. And that is why they have moved in with 5E so soon, because the game failed in a spectacular way.
Yeah, that's almost as silly as wizurd randomly forgetting how to cast Fireball after he's done so a couple of times already that day.
I just wanted to say that for me, there is nothing "narrative" about those cooldowns when it comes to non-magical characters. You can't narrate away someone somehow forgetting how to do a stunt for the fight or even for a whole day.
Note that I wrote "non-magical characters". With magic, the limitation can be explained.
@Steve and Scott: Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. There is simply no reason for a non-magical power only working once per day or encounter every day or encounter.
If you use that line of reasoning in-game, what would prevent a character to notice that these stunts only work once in a given span of time? And why would a character try to use powers after they are expended? It's just bad storytelling, and that's why they are not narrativist, but rather gamist in nature.
|
|
I think you have to look at what each does well and address them separately on that basis.
While there is crossover in basic game design, I often feel like a good deal of over reach falls into assumptions about each, as well as forgetting that each experience fills a different customer desire, even if many of the customers overlap.
I table top to hang out with friends while playing a game.
Most of my friends who MMO play a game with their friends.
Note the change in the order of importance in each sentence.
@Steve and Scott: Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. There is simply no reason for a non-magical power only working once per day or encounter every day or encounter.
Exhaustion and limit break would be my first thoughts. Its certainly not "Oh I forgot how", which you use to invalidate it and make it look bad. It don't have a 4E book on me to see how crazy daily powers get.
I'm not sure if they stole that design from MMOs anyway, a lot of DnD things have cool downs or x/day, even if it isn't great balance. X/encounter is probably a better balance, or at least I would think. ToB had maneuvers, which were all per encounter abilities you could recharge mid fight. I really liked that system over fire and forget, and it was easier to run and involved less "Wait! I need to sleep 8 hours to get all my stuff back!"
I should add pathfinder and 3.x both have lots of things that only work so many times per day(even mundane things!). I prefer x/encounter myself, but ymmv I guess.