| I posted this in the other thread, but I feel it qualifies universally:
Why are we needing to bend over backwards to explain Fighter dailies, when there is so much that we just "accept" that doesn't cause narrative blockage?
Take critical hits. We just "accept" that because the die comes up 20, that whoever attacked gets buckets of damage (and for some people, even more special effects). We just handwave it as "a lucky hit/a great attack" and move on. But really, if a fighter could, every swing would be a crit; he'd do the same thing he did when he rolled the 20, so why is the crit different? Because we accept the gamist notion of a roll of 20.
Sneak attack damage is another. Why is it we just handwave the rogue's sneak attack damage as just "Well knows how to go for the kidneys" or "It was a lucky hit". But he would be trying to do that every round. So sneak attacks necessitate a circumstance occuring, we all accept that.
Not to mention the ranger's extra damage die just for hitting a guy he said "You're it" a round ago.
Why can't Fighter dailies just be "the crit of the day"? | 
And yet another word from our sponsors
