gimme back my narration

Righteous Brand said:

You smite your foe with your weapon and brand it with a ghostly, glowing symbol of your deity’s anger. By naming one of your allies when the symbol appears, you add divine power to that ally’s attacks against the branded foe.

Click to expand...

I figured out why I'm having a hard time getting into 4e D&D, despite all the improvements they made to tactical cr0mbat. They stole my narration!

For a while now I've been trying to figure out why my mental picture of the game isn't as cool as it used to be. I think it's because of powers like the one I quoted above.

Previous editions might have had you Whirlwind Attacking, but the actual description of what you did was up to you. Maybe you spun around, wuxia-style. Maybe it was a furious attack that beat down all your opponents. Maybe it was a comedy of errors, where your backswing accidentally clobbers somebody. But it was up to you!

With a power like the one I quoted, you've got built in description. The name of the power is Righteous Brand. Already there are some assumptions about the kind of cleric you are. You're someone righteous, for one, who smashes his foes with the power of his god. Furthermore, your deity is angry. And there's a glowing symbol involved. But what if that doesn't fit your character concept? What if you worship Avandra? She's not the righteous, furious type. What if you don't want glowing symbols following you around?

I know, you can say your Righteous Brand isn't like that. And that it's not Righteous. But like it or not, having that stuff in the rulebook gives it a certain amount of weight. At the very least, you're going to have to refer to that power as Righteous Brand, no matter how well you narrate it differently.

I understand why the Wotc guys did it. You can't just have a bunch of powers without any color, especially if a big chunk of the book is said powers. It's just a bummer. I used to imagine what was happening during cr0mbat. Now I just try to visualize what Wotc tells me is happening.

I've been hearing similar complaints now that people have been playing and have honed in on some of the differences that bother them.

cr0m said:

tactical cr0mbat

Click to expand...

Heh.

*Shrugs shoulders* I guess it depends on the person I have no problem narrating combat as whatever I wish as-long as the final result matches the power. Hell, we don't even use names of the powers at all, we simply describe along with the narration what happens mechanically.

I can't think of a single power I haven't altered in some way narratively.

Fallen Seraph said:

*Shrugs shoulders* I guess it depends on the person I have no problem narrating combat as whatever I wish as-long as the final result matches the power. Hell, we don't even use names of the powers at all, we simply describe along with the narration what happens mechanically.

I can't think of a single power I haven't altered in some way narratively.

Click to expand...

This.

The GM leans heavily on the players to get their powers right anyway. I've played with a GM that didn't want to hear the name of the powers. He just wanted our actions narrated and what we got for mechanical results.

cr0m said:

I know, you can say your Righteous Brand isn't like that. And that it's not Righteous. But like it or not, having that stuff in the rulebook gives it a certain amount of weight. At the very least, you're going to have to refer to that power as Righteous Brand, no matter how well you narrate it differently.

Click to expand...

I dunno... I pretty much ignore everything in italics in the power descriptions.

And the name of the power never shows up in-character, so I can ignore that too. Just like in 3E, I could use the Cleave feat with a spear, or the Deflect Arrows feat when someone threw a javelin at me - the name is immaterial, the mechanics are what's nailed down.

I have a 4E Ranger with Righteous Brand as his half-elf Dilettante power. I nearly used it in the last combat; I was going to describe it as hammering my war-pick into the opponent's shoulder and yanking him off-balance, leaving an opening for my ally to exploit (hence the bonus to his attack roll). No glowing symbols, no divine intervention, but the mechanics are the same as if I'd gone the whole "ghostly, glowing symbol of my deity’s anger" route.

-Hyp.

Its just fluff. Its even stated and suggested that you can ignore and reflavor it as you wish.

I don't see the problem at all. At least, I don't see the problem lying with the books themselves.

*blink*

This isn't something new to 4E. 3E (or at least 3.5) had its italicized spell descriptions. Lots of other games do the same.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just honestly don't for one second see how reflavoring the fluff is any more difficult than making it up from the get-go.

Kishin said:

Its just fluff. Its even stated and suggested that you can ignore and reflavor it as you wish.

I don't see the problem at all. At least, I don't see the problem lying with the books themselves.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that people have a hard time to follow the suggestion of the book. The italics are in every power, the mention that they are optional are "hidden" in the initial powers explanation.

Mouseferatu said:

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just honestly don't for one second see how reflavoring the fluff is any more difficult than making it up from the get-go.

Click to expand...

Indeed so. In fact, I'll go a bit further and say that 'reflavouring the fluff' (heh, love this jargonese) is going to - at least sometimes - be easier and/or less time consuming than 'making it up from the get-go'. Not always, but yes, some of the time. Statistically, or what have you.

Mouseferatu said:

*blink*

This isn't something new to 4E. 3E (or at least 3.5) had its italicized spell descriptions. Lots of other games do the same.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just honestly don't for one second see how reflavoring the fluff is any more difficult than making it up from the get-go.

Click to expand...

A good reminder - and maybe also the reason for the problems. How often where spell descriptions altered?

I know there have been suggestions on EN World how one could reflavor spells, but it was always something "special" to do. While it's common to describe the attack rolls that basically lack any flavor by default as you see fit.

The entire "fluff" discussions regarding 4E shows to me that some people have a hard time ignoring or changing fluff to their preferences. PoL, Astral Sea, Dragonborn, Italic Text in Powers... *shrug* Maybe it's just a phase for people until they get accustomed...