Quote from: ggroy;361896Some daily powers can be sustained from round to round, such as flaming sphere of the wizard.

Well, it's true that there's a huge variety and massive diversity (my invoker character's daily is truly spectacular at least in my mind--- it's a dire malediction that damages both my target and myself, until one of us makes a saving throw.. and sometimes it continues to damage me even after the enemy has shaken off the effect; such is the power of the gods) but the real point is: if you have players  that somehow need to use their daily in every battle, (or can't manage a battle without a daily) you have a problem somewhere- either with poorly set up/overmatched encounters, players who don't understand how to battle, or something similar.

A daily is also like a moment of glory- you want to save it for your most memorable or dramatic moment in the story.

Also, they often have specific triggers or circumstances. Out of my 4 most active characters, my Warlord has only used his daily a single time (and he's 4th level). It's a "Fearless Rescue" ; the trigger is a party member has to be dropped to 0 hit points by an enemy (and it's best if there are enemies between him and the fallen ally). He can cross the battlefield to attack the enemy that just took down his friend, and for each opportunity attack he suffers he adds a little bit to the healing he does when he reaches his fallen companion.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361915Also, they often have specific triggers or circumstances. Out of my 4 most active characters, my Warlord has only used his daily a single time (and he's 4th level). It's a "Fearless Rescue" ; the trigger is a party member has to be dropped to 0 hit points by an enemy (and it's best if there are enemies between him and the fallen ally). He can cross the battlefield to attack the enemy that just took down his friend, and for each opportunity attack he suffers he adds a little bit to the healing he does when he reaches his fallen companion.

Ha! One of my players has that power....now his favorite part of the game is when I drop someone.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361915but the real point is: if you have players  that somehow need to use their daily in every battle, (or can't manage a battle without a daily) you have a problem somewhere- either with poorly set up/overmatched encounters, players who don't understand how to battle, or something similar.

Reading that, I wonder why Wotc Ever came up with the idea (in 4E DMG 2, page 55 and following)) that a series of encounters could benefit from having a story point where people recharge their daily's. Was it because gamers couldn't cope with the recharge pace of daily's, or was it because they simply felt it made for a poor play experience (even taking competent play into consideration?

Never forget that 4E, as initially planned, didn't come with daily's at all, and that the only reason they included it had nothing to do with design but all to do with "let's not divorce the game too radically from earlier editions".

well you should listen to the Ron Edwards interview on the the walking eye podcast. he talks about how one of his forge buddys helped design 4E. that what is wrong with 4E.

http://www.thewalkingeye.com/

Quote from: Windjammer;361918Reading that, I wonder why Wotc Ever came up with the idea (in 4E DMG 2, page 55 and following)) that a series of encounters could benefit from having a story point where people recharge their daily's. Was it because gamers couldn't cope with the recharge pace of daily's, or was it because they simply felt it made for a poor play experience (even taking competent play into consideration?

Never forget that 4E, as initially planned, didn't come with daily's at all, and that the only reason they included it had nothing to do with design but all to do with "let's not divorce the game too radically from earlier editions".

I have no idea who can't cope with what. In general, 4E players (ranging from the newest of the new to older players) seem to do just fine, but I have seen my fair share (here if nowhere else) of people having hard time coping with various things.

An option to recharge dailies at a story point rather than at an extended rest is really sort of an advanced DM tip, not the rule.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361942I have no idea who can't cope with what. In general, 4E players (ranging from the newest of the new to older players) seem to do just fine, but I have seen my fair share (here if nowhere else) of people having hard time coping with various things.

As in, the way you have trouble coping with a simple question?

QuoteAn option to recharge dailies at a story point rather than at an extended rest is really sort of an advanced DM tip, not the rule.

A tip that is presumably correcting a deficiency pointed out by some number of players.

Allow me to put the question into context:
It is widely held that new editions to the rules are made because of a certain number of players have an issue with a certain mechanic.  The designers judge how widespread the issue within the player base, and updates or changes the mechanic to reflect 'how people are actually playing'.  This can be extended to 'patch' upgrades as well, meaning a follow on to a core book.  In this case, the DMG2.  Taking this view, the designers will rarely, if ever, institute a change on their own recognizance, deferring in almost all cases to customer feedback.  

The primary conclusion we can draw in this specific instance is that, even as a guideline, it was included because a certain percentage of players brought it up as a problem, and this number appeared to be large enough for WotC to take notice and address the issue.  The issue appears to be a problem with the recharge rate of dailies, or perhaps the recharge rate coupled with the perception that the dailies are not significantly more powerful than encounter powers, or some combination of these and some other reasons.  This contradicts your statement that "4E players ... seem to do just fine".  Of course, this wasn't strictly necessary, since extrapolating conclusions about a general population from a sub-set of that data is incorrect to begin with.

The other conclusion that can be drawn is that the designers simply addressed a problem that didn't really exist and that no one was complaining about.  While possible, I find this unlikely.  However, it highlights a situation where this could be an isolated incident of such a tendency, but the better odds are that it is the standard(ish) operating procedure.  In other words, the designers have a habit of fixing things that aren't broken.

In a sense, this brings us back around to the original question posted by this thread:  innovations.  Certainly, innovations are more than just clever fixes to existing problems, but many are simply that.  So we have something of a contradiction on our hands.  Depending on the degree to which the designers fixed things that weren't broken, how many of these changes were really necessary?  How many are really innovative, in that light?

So, which is it?  Are they in the habit of fixing things that aren't broken, and only made changes for the sake of change, or are they offering a fix for something that didn't work well (and by extension, wasn't well planned) in the first place?  In regards to the second question, don't forget that the skill challenge system was mathematically broken when it was rolled out, despite assurances that it was thoroughly tested - according to most accounts - by a mathematician.

DMG 2 is about offering additional techniques, not "fixing mistakes".

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361996DMG 2 is about offering additional techniques, not "fixing mistakes".

Of course.  They offered this wholly unbidden, then.

http://www.motel6.com/