gimme back my narration

[Mallus]

And on the subject of glowing runes and godlasers... it seems to me that even these egregious examples -- in some folks eyes -- of bad, imagination-contaminating 4e flavor can be fixed without much fuss.

If the glowing rune in the Righteous Brand description bothers you, dim the lights. Describe it as the Mark-of-Cain-in-reverse that appears on the target's forehead, an invitation from God to do harm to them.

If the godlaser is a bit too... laser Floyd, describe it as spiritual warfare; an invisible angel that only the priest can see whose merest touch weakens the target's resolve.

It's not hard to make 4e rock things old-school and OT (that's Original Testament!).

 

[Engilbrand]

I'm not familiar with the word "frock".
Also, please remember that this is not a thread for reasoned debate, but rather a place to complain about flavor text. Never mind that even the names automatically assume something. What if I don't want fireball to be a ball of fire?

 

[Scribble]

I'm not familiar with the word "frock".
Also, please remember that this is not a thread for reasoned debate, but rather a place to complain about flavor text. Never mind that even the names automatically assume something. What if I don't want fireball to be a ball of fire?

You're in luck... Technically in 4e it's a firecube...

 

[ThirdWizard]

You're in luck... Technically in 4e it's a firecube...

Burn!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip

See, asking questions like these make me wonder why charging knights on horseback don't posses inertia (in D&D 3.x).

Excellently well put.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also a good question.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rule 0 is always the exception, and a rules system by default is a confined corral of your imaginary wilderness.

Its not impossible to 'go off the grid'. Its just significantly more difficult, and will cause you added frustration. Ultimately, the choice is still yours, but to go off the grid and then complain about how the grid isn't doing you any favors anymore is a bit counterproductive.

I think the complaint is more about how you have to go (farther) off the grid now, and you didn't have to before.

The question is how to get a bigger grid.

 

[Delta]

"What does this rule represent in the game world? How to the PCs and NPCs perceive this rule's function?"

See, asking questions like these make me wonder why charging knights on horseback don't posses inertia (in D&D 3.x).

No, those aren't alike. There's a big difference between:

(A) There is a rule that has implications I don't want, and
(B) There is no rule that has implications that I do want.

Logically, !W(R) != W(!R).

The former argues for cuts, exchanges or getting rid of certain things. The latter argues for adding to and expanding the rulebase. For example, I'm generally I'm in favor of the former and against the latter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, those aren't alike. There's a big difference between:

(A) There is a rule that has implications I don't want, and
(B) There is no rule that has implications that I do want.

Logically, !W(R) != W(!R).

The former argues for cuts, exchanges or getting rid of certain things. The latter argues for adding to and expanding the rulebase. For example, I'm generally I'm in favor of the former and against the latter.

How is exchanging different to expanding, though? Either way, you're introducing rules that didn't exist before...?

-Hyp.

 

[Delta]

How is exchanging different to expanding, though? Either way, you're introducing rules that didn't exist before...?

As you know, I don't play 20 questions with you anymore. Unless possibly you decide to address my full questions regarding that over here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ayers-not-characters-stats-5.html#post4501236