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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 5636172" data-attributes="member: 13107">To fill in additional detail, there is a notion here of what: A player has an ability to achieve a result, and how or why: A player can teleport, at will, as a teleportation based spell.  A shadowdancer can teleport from shadow to shadow by stepping into the plane of shadow, where distances are different, and back.Then, the explanation has a real effect: In a magic dead region, a teleport spell does not work.  In total darkness, there are no shadows.Applying the same to a possible fighter's mark: A fighter chooses to harry a particular opponent that they threaten.  The fighter chooses to forestall their attack, but if the opponent does anything except fight defensively, the fighter gets an immediate attack with a +2 bonus against that opponent.  The fighter takes a -2 to their AC to any attack other than from the marked opponent.In many cases, what the objection seems to be is that they player and the GM are removed from the rationale behind the ability.  The ability just "works" because "that's the way it is".  Although, they are allowed to describe the ability, as they see fit (providing that the description has no consequential effect: If I describe "Come and Get It" as the fighter shouting a challenge at the top of their lungs, so to draw the room's attention, that still doesn't alert creatures in the next room.)I think an issue here is that some players like to be involved in the "working out" of a powers explanation.  Clearly, YMMV here, as other players very much do not want to be in that space.Thx!TomBitonti</blockquote>

Verification