D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[Charlaquin]

some what yes. But never nearly as bad. They wouldn't even say the name of the power. Just "I spend my daily" or "I trigger an at will" and then either lay out a card and read the mechanics or state them. In 5e I don't think I've EVER had that happen. In 4e it would happen a lot a lot.

Well, it would be pretty hard for that to happen in 5e, given that “at will” and “dailys” with cards explaining their mechanics aren’t a thing. But “I cast fireball.” roll “23 damage on a fail, 11 on a success.” or “I attack.” roll “14.” is the 5e equivalent. And I imagine if you had players doing that in 5e, and it bothered you, you wouldn’t blame 5e for it.

 

[darjr]

Well, it would be pretty hard for that to happen in 5e, given that “at will” and “dailys” with cards explaining their mechanics aren’t a thing. But “I cast fireball.” roll “23 damage on a fail, 11 on a success.” or “I attack.” roll “14.” is the 5e equivalent. And I imagine if you had players doing that in 5e, and it bothered you, you wouldn’t blame 5e for it.

I don't think I'm getting across the magnitude. There ARE cards for 5e. And even with them folks talk about what they are doing "in game" using the fluff to say what it is. In 4e, even without cards, people would just drop the fluff altogether. And they could do that because it really meant nothing when the rubber hit the road. The seperation in the rules between the fluff and the mechanics, just like magic cards, drove this. There isn't that kind of seperation in 5e. In 4e skipping the fluff was the least path of resistence to running your character. In 5e saying the name, at least, "Sacred Flame" is the least path. Because it means something in 5e, it means that's what your character is doing.

In 4e your character was executing a power with mechanics that just so happend to have some fluff attached and a name. But NONE of that was needed to run your character in the game. Which means it didn't matter, it didn't really mean anything because it wasn't what your character was doing, it wasn't important.

 

[darjr]

@Charlaquin I do realize peoples mileage will vary. I imagine the fluff usage could be enforced or encouraged with effort or with the right group. Maybe I was just unlucky.

But things would change in encounters and the living campaigns mods because of this kind of thing. And I would see it at convention and store events.

And it just doesn't happen in 5e, not this much, not nearly this much or in this way. And many of the folks I play with in public are the same folks from back when.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think I'm getting across the magnitude.

No, I understand the magnitude, I just don’t think this is either a serious problem, or unique to 4e.

There ARE cards for 5e. And even with them folks talk about what they are doing "in game" using the fluff to say what it is.

Well, yes, because the mechanics are buried in fluff text - something my players consistently complain about because it makes it difficult to find the information they need about what the spell does.

In 4e, even without cards, people would just drop the fluff altogether.

Right, which people also do in 5e, basically whenever they’re playing non-casters. I hear “I attack. 17.” way more often than I hear any kind of description, and I know I’m not alone in that.

And they could do that because it really meant nothing when the rubber hit the road.

It doesn’t mean any less than it means in 5e (or any other edition) You have always been able to divorce the fluff text from the mechanics of a spell or ability with no impact on the gameplay. That doesn’t mean the fluff text is meaningless, in 4e or in any other edition.

The seperation in the rules between the fluff and the mechanics, just like magic cards, drove this.

Magic cards don’t separate between the fluff and rules, what are you talking about?

There isn't that kind of seperation in 5e. In 4e skipping the fluff was the least path of resistence to running your character. In 5e saying the name, at least, "Sacred Flame" is the least path.

Right, 5e is designed to make identifying the mechanical effect of a spell less convenient than it was in 4e. I do agree with you on that.

Because it means something in 5e, it means that's what your character is doing.

It means what your character is doing in 4e too. And in both editions, players are capable of ignoring the fluff and just stating the mechanics.

In 4e your character was executing a power with mechanics that just so happend to have some fluff attached and a name. But NONE of that was needed to run your character in the game.

None of it is needed in 5e either.

Which means it didn't matter, it didn't really mean anything because it wasn't what your character was doing, it wasn't important.

It’s as important as you make it, which again, is true of every edition.

 

[darjr]

Those rules buried in fluff are a feature. You can't say I cast sacred flame without saying "I cast sacred flame" and have to deal with the fluff of it. The fluff means something so much your players have to deal with it running their characters.

In 4e you can entirely ignore the fluff. A feature to some, at least I thought it was at first.

And while it is true about the "I attack" thing in 5e it isn't nearly as bad as in 4e, in 4e EVERYTHING was "I attack with a * power". At least in 5e you often HAVE to state what ability you're using or what spell is being cast because there is NO OTHER way to refer to it.

I can't find a quote at the moment, but 4e powers were designed like magic cards, precicely because the fluff and mechanics are seperate. It was a design goal. And at first I thought it was freaking brilliant. It helped them be clear about the rules and develop them, it was a desired asset. But its downside was that the fluff had no effect on the mechanics.

However, I think we'll have to just agree to disagree.

 

[darjr]

@Charlaquin Also thank you. I hope I didn't come across badly. I'm pretty passionate about RPG's as I think we all are here.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well, it would be pretty hard for that to happen in 5e, given that “at will” and “dailys” with cards explaining their mechanics aren’t a thing. But “I cast fireball.” roll “23 damage on a fail, 11 on a success.” or “I attack.” roll “14.” is the 5e equivalent. And I imagine if you had players doing that in 5e, and it bothered you, you wouldn’t blame 5e for it.

Oh really??

Spellbook Cards: Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons): Wizards RPG Team: 9780786966547: Books - Amazon

Spellbook Cards: Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons) [Wizards RPG Team] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Spellbook Cards: Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons)

www.amazon.com

 

[Charlaquin]

Those rules buried in fluff are a feature. You can't say I cast sacred flame without saying "I cast sacred flame" and have to deal with the fluff of it. The fluff means something so much your players have to deal with it running their characters.

But it doesn’t mean any more or any less than it does in 4e, it’s literally just less convenient to read around if you want to do that. That’s a valid thing to prefer of course (even if I think it’s a very strange preference to have), but it means exactly as much however you format the power/spell.

In 4e you can entirely ignore the fluff. A feature to some, at least I thought it was at first.

You can entirely ignore the fluff in any edition.

And while it is true about the "I attack" thing in 5e it isn't nearly as bad as in 4e, in 4e EVERYTHING was "I attack with a * power". At least in 5e you often HAVE to state what ability you're using or what spell is being cast because there is NO OTHER way to refer to it.

I dunno, “I cast a cantrip” is about the 5e equivalent of “I use an at-will.” If people want to say the name of a feature they will. If they don’t, they won’t.

I can't find a quote at the moment, but 4e powers were designed like magic cards, precicely because the fluff and mechanics are seperate. It was a design goal. And at first I thought it was freaking brilliant. It helped them be clear about the rules and develop them, it was a desired asset. But its downside was that the fluff had no effect on the mechanics.

Where you put the fluff doesn’t change the effect it has on the mechanics. It has exactly the same effect on the mechanics whether it’s written on a separate part of the card or interspersed throughout. Is it more inconvenient to ignore if it’s interspersed throughout? Yes. But that doesn’t make it mean any more, or any less.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin Also thank you. I hope I didn't come across badly. I'm pretty passionate about RPG's as I think we all are here.

For sure! Same to you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh really??

Spellbook Cards: Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons): Wizards RPG Team: 9780786966547: Books - Amazon

Spellbook Cards: Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons) [Wizards RPG Team] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Spellbook Cards: Arcane (Dungeons & Dragons)

www.amazon.com

Those are not “at wills” and “daily’s,” they are just called spells. And those cards are not how the spells are formatted in the book. A player could, however, say “I cast a cantrip” or “I cast a spell” and read the effect, ignoring the fluff text. It would be a little more inconvenient for them to read around the fluff text, but it would have no more or less impact gameplay than it would to do the same in 4e. And again, if you had a player do this in 5e, and you found that to be a problem, you wouldn’t blame 5e for it.