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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4135139" data-attributes="member: 162">Personally, I find the idea of constant deific intervention to be dull and boring. It's akin to a deus ex machina, and - IMO - that's lame.For something like luck, I totally agree. I even use a Luck stat in my current games, and my justification for the luck points it grants you refreshing every session is that luck is metaphysical, and therefore the mechanic should be a metagame mechanic.There are exceptions to the idea that everything the player decides to do, the character decides to do in-game. But that is the general rule of thumb that I try to follow.I am aware of this. This is why I am not moving to 4e, because I don't have to accept it, if a suitable answer cannot be found.Oh, of course. The same rationale doesn't have to be universal - just so long as there are a few solid reasons that could be used to explain any martial daily, I'm fine with that.It is an ability you can use once per day. A rose by any other name would still bear thorns; this is not an issue of name, it is an issue of the mechanic itself.They are. I don't use them, and I won't.That doesn't facilitate simulationism at all, IMO - this is heading into narrativism. Now you are subject to DM fiat. Not only that, but doesn't the DM have enough to worry about? I don't want to also have to deal with thinking about whether or not the martial characters can use their abilities.Also, trying to ensure that the requirements balanced out such that the martial dailies were equivalent in power and usefulness to other classes' dailies... ugh. The mechanic is sound, I just want a solid in-game explanation of what is going on when they are used.</blockquote>

Verification