So, who's still playing the objectively best edition of D&D?

Playing in three games of it at the moment. Although I do think 'Objectively the best' is a shitty way of putting it.

4e is the only edition of D&D I actually like, and I like the stuff that 4e added more than I like the D&D default stuff it was saddled with, which seems to be the reverse of most of the systems detractors.

Other systems might be better for other play styles, but the sheer degree of focus and strong design concept really gives 4e a place in the library of games I play, as opposed to most D&D styles systems which are just a bit broad and unfocused for my tastes.

Not you.

Why is it the best?

Playing in an Eberron game, we've house-ruled a lot of the math problems away and we're using inherent bonuses because the magic item progression is a bit goofy.

Sure the system has flaws but it's one of my favorites. I'd play it more if there was more interest in my time-zone.

'Best' is always couched in personal preferences, but there are distinct elements of 4e that appeal to people more than the D&D default. For an RPG system dealing with tactical combat in a high fantasy setting, it's unsurpassed. It's far from perfect, with a lot of tweaks needed and some content that doesn't work, but compared to its contemporaries its content rich, mechanically engaging and despite the complete disaster that was its intended online integration the fanpatched character builder is still one of the best chargen programs available.

>I really like 4e but I wish it was never made
Heh, Here here.

I'm a 4e fan, (although I think calling it the best is just baiting because it is pretty subjective), and I really like it because it has the most interesting combat rules.

I like having cool things to do as a melee fighter that doesn't rely on playing "Mother May I?" with the GM and if you get a cool idea, you still can try it, and the DMG even gives advice on how to adjudicate those actions.
Related to above, I like having interesting decisions to make in combat, and I like how the party synergy works together to make those optimizations involve team work.
I fucking love Warlords.

As for the non-combat stuff, I both honestly don't see a substantive difference between the various editions of D&D (besides 4e having a reduction of the "Wizard solves all the problems" issue). And, while I CAN recall times where the rules for outside of combat in an RPG have added to my fun instead of the GM just handling it, those times have never* been in D&D. So even if any other given edition is "better" for the out of combat stuff, it's not substantially enough so to make a difference, and, for me, I like 4e's combat (which is what D&D is basically about anyway) best.

*Okay, there was ONE time, but that was due to a "skill checks explode on a 20" houserule, where I rolled 2 20s followed by a 19, and suceeded on my stupid plan to pass myself off as an iron golem just by being in really heavy armor. But again, that was a houserule, and it could have happened in any D&D system.

>I fucking love Warlords.

This seems to be a very common opinion, and one I share. I feel like you could learn a lot by analysing what makes Warlords such fun to play, as it generally seems like they're the most popular Leader class in that respect.

I guess they're the most proactive Leader class? Doing the whole lead from the front thing, with their form of support being very aggressive and active as opposed to passive and reactive.

If you want to make 4e more dangerous, go for a funhouse type dungeon. 4e shines when there are traps and falls and all sorts of environmental hazards everywhere. You can make the game harder and more interesting without necessarily trying to kill your characters.

Also Valor.

I guess we could also count Gamma World?

I only wish the wizard had more interesting spells like polymorph or whatever

Rituals mang, that is where the crazy shit is at. All you need is a GM that hands out ritual components as "extra" treasure above coin and magical items to make the system work. The existing "spend money on a temporary effect" just irritates players.

I thought about having a BBEG using this ritual to create a disaster by raising an underwater tract of land to create a big ass tsunami.

4e's biggest problem, for me and my group at least, is how tremendously compartmentalized everything is.
Skill challenges, normal skill use, rituals/martial practices, AEDU abilities: all explicitly stratified. We found that taken together it's too awkward and distracting from actual plot/character/narrative considerations, as each subsystem is entirely preoccupied with its mechanics. Other moving parts get put on hold as people have to navigate what is actually happening in the game world when things are actually executed or failed.

I don't really get this. Could you try to explain/go into more detail?

Figure I might as well ask it here. I'm yet another person working on a 4e successor, thought I'd see whether our ideas for where combat should end up.

Our ideal is combat lasting 3-5 rounds, 4 on average, so each round the PCs will be do on average a quarter of a standard encounters total HP in damage. Of that damage, 1/3 comes from the Striker, with the remaining two thirds split equally amongst the Leader, Controller and Defender.

Meanwhile, in order to make them threatening, enemies will deal between two thirds and three quarters of a single PC's HP on average, split amongst the group. Obviously tuned differently with single large enemies to avoid unavoidable one shot kills and such, which aren't fun.

We're pivoting it all around a base hit chance of 65%- Weighted slightly in favour of hitting.

Do those numbers sound roughly right? We're still fiddling with stuff and running some test combats with basic mock ups of characters and monsters to make sure it all feels right.

Can anyone recommend any good 4e prebuilt campaign stuff? I kind of want to give it a try, but am too lazy to create my own stuff.

Remember the one user that got roasted?

>Duur u cant water walk!
>4+ examples later
>Urr, U r wrong bye! *runs away like a bitch*

Well, if you compare it to how people saw clerics in prior editions (Ignoring how 3.5 clerics just preferred to self-buff) I think it shows a bit of why people like them. Warlords are never just sitting about (Lazylords excepted) letting other people do stuff for them. They are moving and fighting and helping at the same time. So people get to feel like they are doing stuff personally, rather than just patching up allies/making them do stuff.

Still here, still the best. I also prefer much of the fluff.

They also just got really cool thematic powers that also tended to be very powerful

Like Vengeance is Mine, or Hail of Steel

I think you should boost the hit rate for PCs

I would generally say missing more than 1/4 of the time feels like ass

I just really wish there was a way to easily compile all errata and rules together and show it to new players.

Most groups around me play the shit system known as Pathfinder mainly just cause all the rules and options are easily available for free.

4e requires getting a shitload of books and errata pdfs, pirating and downloading the old character builder, or paying for the official compendium.

4e isn't really shit. It's just (1) a huge break from previous D&D in that it dropped hit dice, 9-alignments, and similar sacred cows, and (2) suffers from overly-gamist design.

It wasn't bad, it was mediocre. It had good numbers balance, somewhat-interesting combat, and was well-balanced. It also was an improvement on normal 1-9 level Vancian casting. It lacked customization in the same way 3.5 had it, mostly due to its inherent structure, but the encounter design was good and it was hard to make a shitty character from what it sounds like. I only played the game for a couple of years, so I'm not an expert, but I liked that it balanced AC versus attack bonus. It also had a nice format.

What kills 4th edition for me is the stupid fucking resource-tracking. I don't want once-a-day abilities as a fighter. I don't want healing surges, which were made even shittier in 5e. The dissociated mechanics of daily powers and encounter powers for non-casters destroyed the game for me. It felt like League of Legends. 4rrys always bitch about vidya comparisons but it's there, so fucking refute it or else fuck off. There was no sensical reason for them besides game balance. Which could have been accomplished without shitty powers.

Overall it gets a 5/10 in my book. Honestly, other editions had other shit that was just as bad if not worse, but 4e particularly annoyed me with some design choices. Had it kept the good ideas it honestly would have fixed at lot of what was wrong with 3.5 (boring-ass auto-hitting, dependency on magic items, and caster supremacy) but the stupid powers system fucked it up. It was a cop-out and it was such a radical divergence from previous editions that it made a lot of players feel betrayed.

Again, not horrible, and definitely DM-friendly. It's not like 5e is much better.

I fucking hated the 4e fluff. I loved Fallcrest, though, which is what our current campaign takes place in (we converted 4e to 3.5)

That doesn't look like the 5e PHB.

> 4rrys always bitch about vidya comparisons but it's there, so fucking refute it or else fuck off.

It's a narrative conceit. Think about how fight scenes in movies or TV shows play out.

Most of the time, people just trade blows, back and forth without much real impact- These are your At Will powers, simple but reliable effects you always have access to.

A few times in a fight, one fighter or another will bust out something stronger, taking an opportunity presented to them or using some sort of technique that looks really effective, and it'll have a significant impact on the fight.

And then, even more rarely, someone involved will do something really huge and significant, ending a fight or turning the tide in a single blow.

The power of the option is directly relevant to how scarcely it's used, because that's key to creating an interesting and compelling fight scene. If one guy just spams his best thing over and over and over it's kinda dull. While this is focused on the experience of the audience in non-interactive media, in RPGs the same principle can be used to create interesting and engaging combat mechanics which give people a variety of interesting and enjoyable options to make use of.

I run games of 4e quite regularly. It's my go-to game as a DM. I also run SR, and some hyper-lite games when I need a break, but 4e is very much the default for my group.

Very much agree here. Making 4e homebrew is much more difficult than making 3e OGL homebrew, and more importantly, it's less rewarding. 4e already works out of the box, and the rules/fluff separation makes it possible to run most concepts with simple re-fluff and MAYBE minor house-rules for something REALLY out there.

The problem here is that, yeah 4e is indeed responsible for pathfinder.... HOWEVER, 3e already existed, so how does the creation of PF add any shit to the shitpile that wasn't already fully present?

Why don't you want resource tracking?

Without resource tracking, you can't have big things. Powerful, game-changing features, because such features would shatter the game if you could spam them, so you're stuck doing boring shit all day every day.

You think so? I realise I might've missed some important context. 65% is the base rate, not including circumstantial modifiers, accurate powers and things like that. A basic At Will with no combat advantage or other bonuses.

Making it higher would make Encounter/Daily powers or situations where you leverage an advantage almost a sure thing, which we thought could damage the tension a bit. Even if whiffing a daily does suck.

I'll talk to my team about it.

A 75% hit rate isn't a "sure thing", Try playing a Pokemon game to see this in action.

Martial encounter or daily powers have been explicitly related as being dramatically governed, rather than being a specific magic spell with inherent limitations like in casters. It's exactly like watching a conventional sports game. Those dudes are playing hard all the time, but sometimes the stars align and something insane happens. Those are encounter or daily powers for fighters, warlords, rogues, etc.

I more meant that Encounter/Daily powers or advantageous situations can give you +10/15% on top of that, making hitting a 90% hit chance relatively easy, which seems a bit much.

That's a rather drastic change from 4e, most 4e encounter or daily powers aren't more accurate. They're either good for action economy, more powerful in terms of effect or damage, or target more enemies at once

Hello, I'm a richfag borrowing this thread.
I don't play tabletop RPG games, but I like morrowind & gothic.

My autism is enjoying reading about lore & stuff, also enjoy beautifully drawn pictures, study different races & different monster-races, my favorite book is a fine leather edition of Vampire Masquerade.

Could you guys give me other different RPG books that could satisfy my need for this stuff?

Things like Combat Advantage are the more common stuff, but more accurate powers are also a thing so I included them for completeness sake.

There is that too. I've never quite gotten the whole 'There is no flavor'. So many powers oozed flavor in the mechanics themselves.

Like the Void Gensai racial power Void Assumption. Useful and just fun flavor-wise.

>Effect: Until the start of the user's next turn, the user ceases to exist.

>. I don't want healing surges, which were made even shittier in 5e. The dissociated mechanics of daily powers and encounter powers for non-casters destroyed the game for me. It felt like League of Legends. 4rrys always bitch about vidya comparisons but it's there, so fucking refute it or else fuck off.

...how the hell is Healing Surges like League of Legends? League of Legends has infinite healing available per match and people constantly regen health.

That's what spells are for. I'm sorry if this makes me sound like a 3.5 caster munchkin, but that's why you play a caster. To set off giant bad-ass explosive spells once per day but that's it. And 4e did that kind of well. Whereas fighter? Ranger? I'd rather have interesting attacks I can use at will. I don't want to float a bunch of tokens around my character sheet for what's used up and what's not. The rest cycle was built around casters and now the martials have to suffer for it as well. No, martials get to do their awesome shit constantly, but it's not as good as a caster's spell which is limited to a few per day.

The solution is, casters get their at-will powers, then they can do a number of daily spells per day equal to their level. That's it. At will spells are literal cantrips, like a blast of fire attack roll for 1d8 damage that might increase a bit at higher levels to be inferior to fighter damage. The rest are basic cantrips. That's it. Then, one big-ass spell per level per day. None of this triangular spellcasting bullshit where a wizard has forty spells and a psion has 300 fucking power points.

>Those dudes are playing hard all the time, but sometimes the stars align and something insane happens.

Except in your case it's literally your character deciding to use the maneuver. So no, it's not the stars aligning.

I don't entirely hate the 4e combat system, either. It works for what it is. But the core conceit of its maneuvers/exploits/powers system is fucking retarded.

Try reading this article and refuting anything in it. It even uses the exact example you presented.

thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer

That is true, but other powers had a distinct lack of flavor to them

Like, there's a bunch of paladin powers which are just hit, radiant damage, mark. And even if it is rather thematic, the Ranger's "just hit them more" powers are pretty dull

i'm talking about "daily" and "encounter" powers that refresh, with dramatic-ass names that make it feel like I'm supposed to click one to set it off. Not to mention minions and the whole vidya-esque way the encounter building is set up (which is actually well-done, if you're the kind of DM who actually builds out encounters).

And no healing surges were just a way to structure health because for some reason wands of cure light wounds were a fucking sin, and in-combat healing didn't exist so there was never any reason to cast cure critical or heal, if we're talking 3.5. There was zero reason to put them in except to create more dependence on a stupid, artificial, constraining structure for advneturing.

Try 13th Age, sounds closer to what you want.

Personally though, I like having my fighter being able to pull off animu super-moves once per day

And if someone wants to play a character that uses resources and is martial?

Minions are more an action movie thing than a video game thing unless you play Dynasty warriors.

>i'm talking about "daily" and "encounter" powers that refresh, with dramatic-ass names that make it feel like I'm supposed to click one to set it off.

That's literally just you getting too wrapped up in layout and formatting. Not the systems fault.

I am.

I see D&D as 100% the combat system. That's what D&D is. The rest you can get better from other systems. And 4e has the best combat, at least for over the top heroic stuff. When I run 4e I run god of war shit, with huge monsters, crazy set-piece battles, all that kind of shit.

When I do a more subdued RP-heavy or gritty dark fantasy setting, I don't use D&D. If I did, I'd use 5e or 2e.

I will never go back to fucking 3.X. Fuck 3.X

I like having my Barbarian have really impressive Daily power throw downs that involve Warp Spasming and destroying everything about him with rage strikes.

>When I do a more subdued RP-heavy or gritty dark fantasy setting, I don't use D&D.

Then what do you use, O Wise Wizard?

I learned the d20 system on 4e and I admire it for what it is, entry level D&D. Sometimes its good to have cheap garbage to give to your kids instead of a $350 investment item.

What video games have daily powers? The only ones I can think of that work that way are ones based on D&D and the REALLY old JRPGs when they still had spells per day.

That article seems to miss that disassociated mechanics have always been part of D&D.

Heck, tactical grid combat is in itself a disassociated mechanic. The ability to know the exact position of everyone involved at every moment, regardless of whether they're behind you or obscured by others, effectively means that the players decision making can never be directly lined up with the characters without the kind of rationalisation he claims doesn't make it not disassociated.

4e didn't add those mechanics. It just stopped obfuscating them.

Not him, but I play Burning Wheel

>I'd rather have interesting attacks I can use at will.
4E had these and they were 100% shit so what you want can go fuck off forever. They were less interesting than the classes they were based off of in every single way.

It's my favorite edition of DnD because it's the least like DnD. But I rarely play it because it's still DnD.

>No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”
Don't like that shit ever again, the writer is an idiot.
It's STATISTICAL. The "one-handed catch" is a statistical ability. If you keep trying it over and over more times than not you're going to fail. Occasionally you're going to try and succeed.
The encounter ability is the character being aware the opportunity of succeeding in the ability is particularly likely to occur and executing it. The reason it's once an encounter is they realize the opportunity to do that action is rare and to keep trying regardless of opportunity of circumstance is only going to be met with failure.
Instead of thinking of it as "man I can only do this once during an arbitrary time period" think of it as "The opportunity to do this successfully is rare, happening about once per encounter" this is abstracted into being a once per encounter ability. It's like instead of rolling to do the unlikely action constantly you get to decide when that roll turned out to be a success. The evidence that this is preferable to rolling for abilities constantly is casters. Even if you can cast spells whenever no one like spell rolls where you're risking failure all the time even if it doesn't cost a spell slot because when you cast a spell you want the spells effect for that specific situation rather than randomly rolling to cast the spell and it working sometimes but failing when you actually needed it.

He also asserts a baseless definition for roleplaying games and draws arbitrary lines to make things outside his preference not 'real' roleplaying games. The idiocy is pretty clear.

>The opportunity to do this successfully is rare, happening about once per encounter
But you still have to roll for it.

Stop shilling Strike!

Aw, c'mon, you gotta do the whole thing.
Can't forget the
>Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?

Why didn't you make a 4eg faggot?

4e is a great game and I love it, but releasing it under the DnD franchise label was a mistake.
It's a really solid game that has tight game design, but it alienated itself from everything that is expected from a DnD game.

But of course.

The closest I can think of is FFXI had abilities that were on a 2 hour cooldown. Which was about the equivalent of two days in game, as a Vana'diel day was just under 1 hour.

It's like magician's tricks: dropping the obfuscation makes the whole thing lose its fun.

That's my favorite brand of autism too desu
If you haven't already read it, Volo's Guide to Monsters is essentially just that, it's a literal bestiary that focuses on the lore of some D&D creatures rather than the stats.

Neither of you have ever played a TES game?

Not really, because D&D depends on it's players and DMs being able to see through the obfuscation in order to function, while a magician depends on their audience NOT being able to see through it

If I ever start working on my Legend/4e/Strike/5e mishmash of a heartbreaker, there'll be a "no bullshit" and a "fluffy" version of books.

Games with spells that could be cast a certain number of times per day? Geez, you're right, that doesn't sound anything like D&D!

>thealexandrian

Quickest way to have your entire post disregarded.

4E is great, and I would love to see a 4.5 that's simply a tightened up and revised 4th. It's my go-to system.

Arguable. I've had people I've played with calling it closer to "real" D&D than 3.PF ever was, and these were people who've been playing since at least 2e.

I only play 5e because I'm somewhat familiar with it and it's the most recognizable one.

>4E had these and they were 100% shit so what you want can go fuck off forever.

>4e did it wrong therefore it is shit forever.

Fuck OFF you are using the EXACT WotC design ideology that has fucked up the game over and over.

You can't confuse statistics with willful choice and expect to be taken seriously.

>
Instead of thinking of it as "man I can only do this once during an arbitrary time period" think of it as "The opportunity to do this successfully is rare, happening about once per encounter" this is abstracted into being a once per encounter ability

Except, I can choose to succeed at it whenever I want. Therefore, that's a fallacious way of explaining it.

It's just my opinion, man.

I never said 4e isn't a "real roleplaying game." So stop putting words in my mouth. At least the other guy is having an argument you're just being a dismissive cunt because you have a victim complex about 4e.

The article you linked did

Put in some book of nine swords shit, I don't care. Or, just play 4e.

Monk had ki points, I guess. Those worked well and had a decent in world explanation.

There's a difference between partially dissociated, and totally dissociated. The grid is a way of solidifying combat positions into something discrete and easy to use. There isn't any explanation as to why daily powers can be used once per day, except "muh statistics" which is fallacious because you can choose when you get to use them.

So if anything it's metanarrative bullshit which has never been in D&D's design portfolio previously.

It's basically metanarrative currency at best, and from a game design perspective it adds pointless book-keeping for no real benefit. Why can't martials just do good things all the time? Oh, because Wizards had to put all the characters in the same design structure because that was the only way they could balance martials and casters. That is where 4e's "every class feels the same" argument comes from. It isn't true but it is close to true because they all function mechanically similarly.

inb4 you dismiss all of this out of hand because you can't stand to recognize any flaws in your precious fucking system.

I don't even think 4e is a BAD game by the way, it just isn't a GOOD game. And if you like it, more power to you. I played the system for 2 years and hated it but liked parts of it.

>Except, I can choose to succeed at it whenever I want.
YOU are choosing to succeed, not the character.
It's a narrative device where the group and DM collectively decides the stars align for that action to be successful.
It's similar to how the player decides the characters backstory, despite no mechanical basis nor the character having any choice in what their backstory is.

Well that's just going into the wankery of game devs and the distinction between a roleplaying game and a storytelling game.

Unless you concede that fighters have some sort of inborn mana they can call upon, consciously, to fuel their daily moves, then you as a player are making that decision that your character would have no concept or awareness of.

It's a fine distinction, and again, most of my beef with it comes from the bookeeping aspect, not the RP aspect.

I don't even entirely hate the video-gamey feel of it either, it's unparalleled for letting you start out as "Big Damn Fantasy Heroes" and get better from there. In some ways starting at 1st level in 4e actually lets you have a backstory with combat in it because it makes sense your character could win a fight with some measly 1 hp orc minions.

Also damage is well-balanced between the classes and it's hard to make a shitty character.

So there are good things about 4e, and I want to reiterate what I said above because I don't think it's a bad game. I just don't like the daily/encounter/at-will structure for martials and think it is bad game design.

>The grid is a way of solidifying combat positions into something discrete and easy to use.

How is this any different to Martial Daily and Encounter powers, representing opportunities presenting themselves that you can make the best use of in discrete, easy to use ways?

The reason I argue isn't that I want to aggressively defend 4e, it's to understand the complaint. Engaging in debate with those who disagree with you is an excellent way of learning more about your own views and the potential flaws in something you like.

The reason I refute or counter your points is to make you support them, so I can better understand them. Currently, I can't really see much legitimacy in your argument, but by inquiring and going deeper I might find a key point which will let me understand where you're coming from, while at the moment it all still strikes me as highly arbitrary and not founded in anything real.

>Unless you concede that fighters have some sort of inborn mana they can call upon, consciously, to fuel their daily moves, then you as a player are making that decision that your character would have no concept or awareness of.

I guess I've just never noticed this as a problem because it always existed in every edition of D&D. As mentioned earlier in the thread, all 4e did was remove the obfuscation, not make the mechanics any more disassociated.

>It's similar to how the player decides the characters backstory

That is done out of game, before you start roleplaying your character. Once in play, you are locked into that backstory. You are now your character.

> It's a narrative device where the group and DM collectively decides the stars align for that action to be successful.

So it's a meta-game narrative device. If you are fine with that in your group, then that is fine. By Alexander's definition, you are no longer playing an RPG, but rather an STG, because of that level of metagaming built into the mechanics.

And it's not too much different than "luck" points that 3.5 had, to be fair.

>So it's a meta-game narrative device. If you are fine with that in your group, then that is fine. By Alexander's definition, you are no longer playing an RPG, but rather an STG, because of that level of metagaming built into the mechanics.

His baseless, arbitrary, meaningless definition, yes.

>and think it is bad game design.
You'd be wrong because it directly solves the issues it was meant to solve: different scaling rates of power leading to some classes rapidly overtaking all others, some classes being resourceless in a game where resource management is the name of the game, and some classes being worth less than shit when they were out and standing around doing nothing because they couldn't afford to spend their resources.

Who fucking cares about what that retard has to say? He actually thinks 3.5 is a realistic game.

>tabletop WoW
>good

>Once in play, you are locked into that backstory.
Nope. Retcons happen.
>You are now your character.
You are never your character. You are playing the character, because it's a GAME. Big difference.
>So it's a meta-game narrative device. If you are fine with that in your group, then that is fine. By Alexander's definition, you are no longer playing an RPG, but rather an STG, because of that level of metagaming built into the mechanics.
I guess 5e isn't an RPG either, because it's chock full of arbitrary limitations. Why can a druid only wild shape twice a day?
Why does a wizard have an arbitrary number of spell slots?
Why does every class seem to have once per short rest features?

They are just as "meta-narrative", the only difference is time scale per action allowed.

> How is this any different to Martial Daily and Encounter powers, representing opportunities presenting themselves that you can make the best use of in discrete, easy to use ways?

Because the space in the grid actually exists in the game world. All that it is is a formalization of character's actual positions. When you decide to flank a character in 3.5 as a rogue, for example, it's because you, as a player and as a character, know that that can let you get in a nice backstab (sneak attack) while he is focused on his enemy. The grid is just a way of facilitating that. You don't even need it, really. It just makes the game flow a bit better.

Basing the daily moves / encounter moves on probability is different. The character doesn't know that. He knows, maybe, that sometimes he can get in these really epic strikes.

The opportunity isn't presenting itself, you as a player are choosing to alter the narrative outside of your character's actions to present an opportunity.

Character positions present opportunities organically within the rules of the game. And they can be reconciled with "real life" so to speak.

Now, if the daily powers required a certain set-up (and for all I know some of them do, I only played two classes in 4e so I don't know all the powers), like some of the 3.5 tactical fighter feats did, then that would perhaps be better.

But if they did, why once per day? Why can it never be twice per day? It's a hard abstraction that really doesn't even make sense within it's own argument. If it's based off of probability of there being such an opportunity, isn't it likely that opportunity would show up more than once?

> I guess I've just never noticed this as a problem because it always existed in every edition of D&D.

Give an example of this.

In a roleplaying game you are playing a role of your character. Nothing outside of that. By affecting the narrative in a way outside of your character, you are now playing a storytelling game. There is a clear line there.

That's a fallacy, that just because an aspect of a game was "fixed" that that means it is good game design.

Accepting arbitrary limitations on magicals is easier than on martials because all magic rules are arbitrary by definition.

Where did I imply this??

It's not necessarily bad.