Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5339793" data-attributes="member: 57112">When I say that it's up to the DM to determine the usefulness of Instant Friends, that is not carte blanche for the DM to declare the power useless. Especially if they have a player that's actually taken the power. No; the DM has a responsibility to determine what impact, if any, the power has in the given situation. Note: That &quot;if any&quot; clause above is there in case the player tries to use the power in a situation where they should have realized the power wouldn't have had any real use. I suppose the other instance would be if the DM hadn't intended to use mechanics to resolve the situation, at which point the DM should still take the use of the power in account when acting out his or her roles.But the only time a player is &quot;gambling&quot; when taking the power is if their DM both really dislikes and the power and, more importantly, is vindictive. A proper DM would be duty-bound to determine some benefit from using the power in a situation where the power would clearly benefit the power, even if that benefit is the old fallback +2. Players with vindictive DMs are gambling every time they sit down at the table.I will agree with you on one aspect though; I wish that 4e had a better mechanic for resolving non-combat encounters. In a perfect world there would be some other mechanic between utility and ritual that Instant Friends would fit into. But in the absence of the next best thing, it becomes up to the DM to figure out how it works. While this is not ideal, it's hardly tragic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 5339793, member: 57112"] When I say that it's up to the DM to determine the usefulness of Instant Friends, that is not carte blanche for the DM to declare the power useless. [I]Especially [/I]if they have a player that's actually taken the power. No; the DM has a responsibility to determine what impact, if any, the power has in the given situation. Note: That "if any" clause above is there in case the player tries to use the power in a situation where they should have realized the power wouldn't have had any real use. I suppose the other instance would be if the DM hadn't intended to use mechanics to resolve the situation, at which point the DM should still take the use of the power in account when acting out his or her roles. But the only time a player is "gambling" when taking the power is if their DM both really dislikes and the power and, more importantly, is vindictive. A proper DM would be duty-bound to determine some benefit from using the power in a situation where the power would clearly benefit the power, even if that benefit is the old fallback +2. Players with vindictive DMs are gambling every time they sit down at the table. I will agree with you on one aspect though; I wish that 4e had a better mechanic for resolving non-combat encounters. In a perfect world there would be some other mechanic between utility and ritual that Instant Friends would fit into. But in the absence of the next best thing, it becomes up to the DM to figure out how it works. While this is not [I]ideal[/I], it's hardly [I]tragic[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification