GnomeWorks
Adventurer
Zinovia said:How often does the critter you're fighting open itself up to your attack in such a way that you can land your mighty smite on it? About once a day.
Alright, I suppose that is sensical. That still leaves the question of the ranger's double-shot. There is no "the critters leave an opening" there. You grab two arrows and shoot them simultaneously.
Moniker said:Simply consider it a "lucky blow". Meaning, although you the player declare you wish to do it, the character executes the attack without making a conscious effort to do so.
There is nothing lucky about grabbing two arrows as opposed to one. That seems to be a rather conscious decision.
The power names and usage are simply a game mechanic to illustrate on paper what happens.
There should not be a complete disconnect, and that is what I am seeing here.
wartorn said:I don't think there's any real-world way to justify daily martial powers. I believe they are daily partly for balance reasons but also to give the designers leeway to create really heroic maneuvers without worrying about the players using them to the exclusion of everything else.
I recognize that it's a design thing; it does seem rather easy to balance the daily powers. I don't have an issue with that, and think that the at-will/encounter/daily paradigm works rather nicely. I just want simulationist rationalization for some of the stranger martial daily powers.
Conan might cleave a soldier in half and carrying the momentum lop off another soldier's head, but he doesn't do it in every battle.
I'm not a fan of 4e's whole "you're a hero, so you must do heroic things!" shtick, but I'm not really interested in discussing that - I recognize that 4e is not targeted at me, in that regard, and I'm fine with that.
Fallen Seraph said:It can be a variety of things, the placement of the enemies, perhaps your hands are shaking too much from adrenaline and cannot hold the two arrows, etc.
That seems rather weak. I realize that nocking two arrows and firing them with any accuracy would be more difficult than nocking one, but to the extent that you can only shoot two once a day?
Your argument would make sense to me if it were an encounter power, but I just don't buy it for a daily.
There are many reasons why the chances of you pulling of the move is too the point where it is only once-per-day. View it less like... A move, where the character decides to do this specific move and more a narrative control of the battle where the character manages to pull of this amazing feat.
Sorry, I don't buy the narrativist reasoning, either. The mechanics are an abstracted representation of the game world, and while it does not necessarily always have to be a perfect representation, actions you take at the table should reflect actions taken by the character.
Zaruthustran said:keterys nailed it. To me, the martial power source is the *easiest* power source to conceive as having only one use of a daily power. It represents that supreme effort, that amazing feat that takes everything you've got.
Sure. That sounds reasonable, and I'm sure that - for some martial dailies - that explanation works.
But nocking two arrows and shooting them with any accuracy does not seem, at least to me, to be in the same category as what you describe.
SlagMortar said:The only way I can reconcile it is the same way as Fallen Seraph says above. A daily power represents the player's opportunity to take over the story for a moment and say "The foe my character is fighting is in position for the Triple Dragon Strike of Doom." Then the character performs the Triple Dragon Strike of Doom. As far as I can tell, the decision to use a martial daily power is a player decision, not a character decision.
Again, not a fan of the narrativist reasoning, either. I'm looking for a strictly simulationist explanation.
wartorn said:Now if All martial dailies were Reliable, the sports analogy would work a lot better from a simulationist viewpoint.
This would be much more sensical to me. If the ranger's double-shot were reliable, I think I might have fewer issues with it... but then again, maybe not.
Even if it is reliable, that would mean that - as soon as you successfully use it - you can't do it anymore. That raises another set of issues all on its own.
Thornir Alekeg said:From a strictly simulationist point of view, there is no way to justify it. If you can do it once in a day, you can do it twice.
I want to make sense out of it. I'm rather certain that there is a way to do so, I'm just not sure what it is.