Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4953192" data-attributes="member: 71571">That's for the DM to decide, the reasoning can be consistant, but it doesn't have to be consistant regarding only the rules.And inconsistancies can be made on a case-by-case basis.It's easier to start with a default that doesn't allow rules abuses and allow non-abusive rulebending, then it is to start with a default that does, but suddenly disallow abusive rulebending.  Then you can explain on a case-by-case basis why you're -allowing- something from a narrative POV, which is a lot easier than explaining why you -aren't- from a narrative POV.The game table -is- a two-way street.  Not only are you as a DM supposed to understand the players want to think outside the box, the players must understand that sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes they don't even get an explanation at that moment in time.  And sometimes it is -right- they don't get an explanation.A secondary target is not declared until after the power's mid-resolving, therefore it's lack of declaration is not necessary to resolve the power, so it's not the same situation at all.But even then, you are never required to declare a secondary target or make a secondary attack.Unless you feel that your players might try to get around their utility powers limit by taking attack powers with Utility effects.  Then you might have an issue with it.As well, you then give them a choice... they have to describe what they want to do to pull it off, rather than simply "i use the power and go there."  This adds to immersion which only enhances the game play.If you say no, then the Players can't work around it.  And if they slow the game down to a crawl trying to ruleslawyer their way around Rule 0, they're wasting the group's time and they -themselves- are being destructive to the group.How is it inconsistant?  You make the default for attacks such that they only work -as- attacks, with the caveat that the player can use the power outside of such if they can plausible describe it to your satisfaction.That's -very- consistant.  It's -subjective- to the will of the DM, but then everything is.The advice on how a DM should deal with improvisation when the players get an idea to go in a direction is not 'The rules should always allow it unless the DM says no.'In fact, how -can- the DM say 'Yes' if the rules already say 'Yes' and force the DM to say 'No.'You've missed the entire point of that series of paragraphs in the DMG.  The idea is to say "Yes, and..." when the players do something that goes outside of the plans of an adventure.That's not the same as saying the rules must automatically allow stuff that could be problematic, and then you say 'No' to it on a case by case basis.And again, you're using an attack to gain a benefit.  The DM -already- has the right to say No, and should do so unless there's a reason not to.  The 'targetting a square' rule is not intended to trigger power effects, as you can tell if you follow the very page reference given from the very quote given.  I don't know how you get 'This tactic is good for blah, see page blah' and take that to mean 'regardless of purpose'  And the rules for how to target a square and what you do with it are on that page.  And mention you have to be targetting a creature.  Out of context=bad.</blockquote>

Verification