Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8412034" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.You can entirely ignore the fluff in any edition.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.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8412034, member: 6779196"] 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. You can entirely ignore the fluff in any edition. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification