Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2739057" data-attributes="member: 172">Yes. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If I think the existing rule covers the situation at hand adequately, I usually use the rule as-is.But if I think the situation is not fairly covered by the rules, I extend them or invent something appropriate.I beleive the rules give players a sense of consistency and fairness (as well as absolving me from blame when their character gets hosed <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ), but I beleive the rules are limited and one of the principle roles of the GM is to fill in the blanks where the rules are not serving the purposes of the game.I don't think so, but in part 1 of the above response, I guess I am. But again, if I think that it's reasonable to let the PCs use an ability in a way that is not explicitly called out in the rules, I will usually allow it, possibly with a toll of one action point (after all, even if I think they are stretching it, I can summize that there is an unnamed feat out there that lets them do what they are trying to do.)As for the nauseated example, I think the existing rule handles most cases fairly. If the player makes a fuss, I might imagine there is a feat out there that allows them to act when nauseated and let them spend an action point.Action points are great, y'know?</blockquote>

Verification