Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magic Rub" data-source="post: 467833" data-attributes="member: 3619">"just plain old uber-l33t, munchkin powergaming"It is most certainly not. If every single item in your game works by that mechanic, including the ones that the "bad guys" have. Then everyone is on the same playing field, with the same advantages & disadvantages. I agree with The Souljourner, & other's. If you really want to pick it apart, you can only use item-x 1 time every 24 hours starting from the time you use it. However that way, as I had stated, can be a little annoying. The way we play works for us, 1 charge everyday. the day starts at (pick mutually agreed upon time), end of story.   How often do you really think that PC' are going to get to use item-x  2 times nearly back to back, as per my obviously sarcastic & purely demonstrative example. The DM would have to be a total idiot to have an encounter (or misc. other situation) run over that "Magic moment" when item-x recharges. At the very least it's been like 2 or 3 hours between uses for 1 time per day items, in any session that I've seen use this mechanic. And such a situation is a rare one.   I feel that, in the case of my group, people are generally responsible players who aren't out to "Power game" (screw over the DM). That there are times when item-x could be used to help the PC's in a situation. Sometimes but not often that help is needed during, for example, a late night unexpected encounter... then again the next morning during travel (only a few hours later). Depending on the item, it can be a nice fall back when spell casters are run down, & the party could use some extra help. But on the other hand the item can't be used "BACK TO BACK" like this everyday, it (the "Back to back" use idea) only works when there's a minimum of a full day's lack of use.   I obviously don't see it as a compromise at all. To me & the group that I play with, this is nothing more then an unnecessary complexity. We've modified it so that it works well for us. However I must apologise, I shouldn't have call it lame.</blockquote>

Verification