NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5869059" data-attributes="member: 52073">I'm not saying that there must always be a one-to-one mapping of flavor to mechanics, I'm saying that there is a problem if you have some mechanics have one flavor in some circumstances and another flavor in others without consistent rationale.  I completely agree that having HP abstract is useful, and that it can be done well...but it hasn't been implemented well in the past.  Crusader/warlord healing doesn't work well when paired with falling damage, as you have a HP-as-morale healing effect attempting to heal HP-as-wound damage.  Poison stingers, death rays, and other attacks with rider effects don't work well when compared against your measure of combat effectiveness, as you have a situation where you take HP-as-luck-and-fatigue damage but the stinger/ray/etc. would logically need to deal HP-as-wounds damage and actually make contact to take effect.The lack of consistency in the explanation of HP is the problem I'm highlighting--specifically, that many mechanics in the post-AD&D editions have thrown up their hands and abstracted things away without giving thought to the in-game rationale.  Leaving things up to the DM to decide in his game results in something like having one DM use 3e or 4e HP as written, one use the Vitality/Wounds variant, and one use HP-as-wounds.  One game has useful, abstract, but inconsistent HP; one has useful, abstract, consistent, elegant HP but drastically more lethal combat; and one has useful, abstract, consistent HP but an in-game disconnect with superheroic characters.  These little changes have wide-ranging effects, and one must first have a common language describing what each effect means in-game and does mechanically before one can customize the game to suit one's taste, else we will come right back to the HP problem again.The 3e sorcerer derives his power from draconic, fiendish, or other special heritage.  Says so right there in the PHB.  Except that if you decide you want to have a different power source for your sorcerer, you can do so, because the fluff doesn't impact the mechanics.  You just say "My mom wasn't a dragon, I just had some arcane experiments done on me at a young age!" and poof! you have magic without any dragons involved.The 3e paladin must be lawful good, he has powers useful against evil creatures, and has a code of conduct enforcing his behavior.  If you decide you want to have a different cause for your paladin, such as serving a god who would send you after chaotic foes more than evil ones or one who upholds different ideals of lawful goodness, you can't just discard the fluff, because the mechanics are intertwined with the flavor; any fluff changes have to change the crunch as well.The 3e fighter is a rough, tough, mercenary kind of guy, a gruff veteran who gets the job done and can take a lot of damage before going down.  Of course, that's the stereotype, but you can play a fighter as a tactically-gifted commander type as well.The above examples illustrate several points.  First off, a default explanation is not always hindering, and in fact can be quite helpful--sorcerer fluff is a starting point but is completely nonbinding due to having no mechanics attached, and the default fluff opens the door for things like heritage feats to build off it without penalizing people who want to use different fluff.  Second, a badly-implemented explanation (or a lack of one at all) causes problems--paladins are lawful good, yet have only anti-evil abilities and not anti-chaotic ones?  Paladins are expected to redeem villains yet can't travel with them at all?  Why?  Who knows!  Once again, some simple changes (either making them any Good or allowing smiting of chaotic creatures, loosening the code, or the like) would make things a lot better, but because the mechanics and flavor don't mesh, there are some issues.Third, you can have default fluff and successfully change that fluff without changing existing mechanics--you can make a swashbucklery fighter, a noble fighter, a dastardly fighter, a mercenary fighter, and more, with no change to the class mechanics at all.  The baseline fluff is helpful, again, and serves a certain purpose--everyone knows basically what a fighter is and has a common understanding of the default--but you are not shackled to it.Does the game dictate that all players must follow the holy writ of draconic sorcerers?  Does the concept of the fighter restrict choice or require errata?  No and no.  Would we have nearly the variety or ingenuity in flavor or mechanics if the sorcerer, paladin, and fighter were reduced to "magic guy," "holy guy," and "sword guy," with the rest of it left up to groups to decide?  Is a baseline level of fluff required to give a game an identity and ensure continuity of flavor between tables and groups?  Yes and yes.</blockquote>

Verification