Forked Thread: Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

[hong]

Forked from: Do nonmagical 1/day abilities damage suspension of disbelief?

It doesn't get any better...Rain of Steel (Daily 5):

"You constantly swing your weapon about, slashing and cutting into nearby enemies."

Damn if that isn't a generic description for most melee combat. Yet its once per day...and not "Reliable."

Shift the Battlefield (Daily 9):

"With supreme skill and great resolve, your beat your enemies back."

Again, this looks like something you should be able to use virtually at will against lesser combatants, not 1/day.

The Daily 15?s Same thing.

So the fluff won't win the Pulitzer prize.



Hm, hit fork instead of quick reply. Can someone merge this back with the other thread? AdvTHANKSance!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So the fluff doesn't jibe at all with the concept of one use per day.

 

[hong]

So the fluff doesn't jibe at all with the concept of one use per day.

So you are not inhibited by the fluff, just as "builder" players are not inhibited by the fluff in 3E.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The question wasn't whether the game was playable.

The question was whether these 1/day nonmagical abilities damage- not ruin- suspension of disbelief.

For some of us, it clearly does just that.

 

[hong]

The question wasn't whether the game was playable.

The question was whether these 1/day nonmagical abilities damage- not ruin- suspension of disbelief.

For some of us, it clearly does just that.

So stop thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So stop telling people to stop thinking hard about logical inconsistencies that bug them.

 

[hong]

So stop telling people to stop thinking hard about logical inconsistencies that bug them.

Well, I assume that you are looking for a way to deal with these logical inconsistencies so that they will no longer bug you. And if you cease thinking too hard about fantasy, these logical inconsistencies will indeed no longer bug you. I provide a solution, although it may not be the one you were thinking of.

But then, noone listens to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The solution to dealing with inconsistencies in internal game logic isn't thinking less, its thinking more and demanding that designers do the same.

 

[GnomeWorks]

But then, noone listens to me.

That is because you continue presenting the same tired, cryptic argument.

Those who listened to you have stopped "thinking too hard about fantasy."

Those who didn't are still trying to find a way to resolve the inconsistency in a way that satisfies them. Your solution does not, thus you are ignored.

 

[hong]

The solution to dealing with inconsistencies in internal game logic isn't thinking less, its thinking more and demanding that designers do the same.

... or you could just not think too hard about it.