Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 3994319" data-attributes="member: 2804">Thats what prompted this entire thread in the first place. Spending a full round to recharge is exactly the sort of mechanic that should be in the rules.No matter how you try to spin it, not being able to refresh maneuvers in battle is bad design, IMO. It feels half-finished and arbitrary and in my opinion goes right back to problems in 3.5 such as the paladin only having Smite Evil X times per day.To offer a different way of looking at where I'm coming from, lets say I turn my D&D session into a narrative story. If the warrior in my story uses some cool attack (for example, 3.5 Smite Evil, or a 4e per encounter power), and it makes sense in the context of the story for them to reasonably want to use that power again, there should be method to do that so that the narrative makes sense.If they can't use the power again because of a poorly designed game mechanic (i.e. Smite Evil only usable X times per day), then my narrative must awkwardly try to explain this. This game mechanic may make sense from a game balance perspective (though I would disagree even with that assertion), but when looked at from a narrative perspective makes no sense without coming up with a narrative excuse as to why the hero can't do it again. This notion of trying to conform my narrative to the mechanics of the game doesn't sit right with me.I know I'm off on a tangent here, and I recognize that D&D is more of a game than a storytelling format, but I thought I would present where I'm coming from in a different light.Here is another example from left field. When I was a kid I watched Voltron a lot. Voltron was basically an older anime series where a group of giant lion shaped mecha were piloted by our young heroes. The lions could merge into a bigger mecha called Voltron. Voltron would struggle and fight against other giant monsters until finally he would form a giant sword (e.g. "Form Blazing Sword!" <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=":)" /> ) and then would proceed to instantly cut the monster in half. Game over.As a kid, I always found this extremely dissatisfying. Why doesn't Voltron just form the sword right out of the gate and end the battle? Why wait until he gets his ass kicked before he does it? Clearly this was so that the episode could add tension and drama and still wrap up in 30 minutes. But it was arbitrary and illogical. If this was a D&D game and the Blazing Sword was a Per Encounter power, then it makes sense. But only when viewed in the context of the game. In narrative format, it just simply makes no sense.And to me good game design should not only offer balanced mechanics, but they should make sense even when a game session is viewed from a narrative perspective.</blockquote>

Verification