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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5888712" data-attributes="member: 151">Mechanically, from a rules standpoint, you are correct.  They are functionally exactly the same.  The issue some folks have, though, is the contextual source within the narrative within the game.Casters are, conceptually, people who control, channel, embody or otherwise direct supernatural forces.  Players accept the idea that a wizard channels some secret power source (which may be a magical gift, a birthright or just the product of years of esoteric study) that is not available to others.  It is generally very easy to accept, from a narrative standpoint, that access to those forces are limited, rarified or difficult.  Summoning food from thin air, creating a wall of fire or turning into a creature of pure wind are not things generally expected to be seen.Martial abilities, however, are almost always from a natural source.  Often either the result of pure physicality or specialized training, it is rarely justified within the narrative why a martial character would restrict themselves.  One doesn't expect a person to animate a statue very often...but it can put you out of the narrative to see a wariror suddenly not use a technique a second time without justification.Consider Rage, Lay on Hands and the Knight's Aura.  In terms of narrative, Rage makes sense.  You wouldn't expect someone to spend the entire day enraged.  The idea that it is exhausting makes intuitive sense.  Likewise the idea that a Paladin's boon from a deity is limited makes sense in that the deity set the limit and it reflects on the piety of the paladin.  The knight's aura is an example of a skill that makes sense.  The knight will always take advantage of people who are close enough to him to drop their guard.By contrast, consider many of the fighter's dailies.  Stop Thrust (to pick one at random) allows the fighter to shift and attack someone who enters their range.  If he succeeds in the attack, which interrupts his target, he does damage and then immobilizes the attacker.  A powerful maneuver, to be sure, that is rightfully limited mechanically as a Daily power.  You don't want the fighter to be able to do this all the time...from a mechanical standpoint.  From a narrative standpoint, it doesn't really make any sense why he wouldn't use this technique as often as possible.  That's what I believe Eldritch Lord was driving at.  This doesn't apply to all techniques, obviously.  One could understand why Conan doesn't swing his sword with all his might with every blow, for fear of tiring or throwing out his arm.  But one wonders why he wouldn't use something like Shield Deflection or Bare Knuckle Rebuke as often as he chose to.  Certainly, one can create a narrative reason for why he does so...but for some gamers, this narrative leap is one they have trouble making (or at least have the desire to make).  Regardless of whether I agree or not, I can understand why some gamers would have a problem with that notion and don't consider it unreasonable.  Action points are a completely different animal, IMHO.  They are purely a narrative/plot tool to allow a gamer more control over the randomness of dice or allow for a more cinematic flavor.  They represent something above and beyond the norm that happens only rarely, both mechanically and narratively.  When John McClane jumps off a roof as it explodes, he might use that action point to remake a DEX roll or use a Second Wind to heal before he goes unconscious.  From a narrative standpoint, they represent a moment of dramatic fiction, in which 'cool story' trumps pure mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification