Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Monster Manual excerpt
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tomtill" data-source="post: 4165893" data-attributes="member: 37444"><p>Actually that's the problem.</p><p></p><p>With 3e, WotC managed to pull off the dubious feat of getting its audience to accept the idea that the "flavor" text (although technically, this is tactics, not flavor) doesn't have to be consistent with the rules.</p><p></p><p>Other than the fact that there's a lot of conflicting published material, why should this be? What possible use could flavor text that introduces misunderstanding have in a rpg? How do you know what the intent of the designer was? Did they forget to add "The victim is charmed," in the powers section or were they waxing poetic when they said "slavishly loyal" in the tactics section? I understand that 3.5 had a system to resolve these kind of sourcebook conflicts, in lieu of publishing errata. But that seemed like a band-aid more than a desirable design goal.</p><p></p><p>With 4e, they have a chance to start with a clean slate.</p><p></p><p>I hope this is an isolated case.</p><p></p><p>But to start out a new edition with tactics text that conflicts with powers description? </p><p></p><p>Do you really think that's a design goal?</p><p></p><p>It is only unambiguous if you discard the tactics section. Even then, the second paragraph of the powers description becomes almost comic--the PC being stalked by a succubus who he can't harm. If she could teleport into his bedroom whenever he is alone, this is a fun plot device. I might even use it. But, the second paragraph becomes more obvious if the victim is also charmed by the charming kiss. It is also consistent with the succubus' traditional role.</p><p></p><p>I'm not arguing whether or not the intent of the designer was to make the victim charmed. I'm arguing that the designer did not make his intent clear. He clearly made a mistake somewhere, either in the powers description or in the tactics description. You are using the 3e RAW to discard everything that is not consistent with the stat block. That is the rule in 3e. You are correct that by RAW, that is how it should be played (in 3e). However, even in 3e that was not necessarily the designer's intent.</p><p></p><p>It is silliness. </p><p></p><p>I was hoping that in 4e, every effort would be made to put in enough editing that we did not have to discard inconsistent data. I was hoping that every effort would be made to make the rules consistent across stat block, tactics, description, etc.</p><p></p><p>I am still hoping that DDI will allow real corrections and clarifications to be made, not just a blanket "ignore the text, in this order..."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tomtill, post: 4165893, member: 37444"] Actually that's the problem. With 3e, WotC managed to pull off the dubious feat of getting its audience to accept the idea that the "flavor" text (although technically, this is tactics, not flavor) doesn't have to be consistent with the rules. Other than the fact that there's a lot of conflicting published material, why should this be? What possible use could flavor text that introduces misunderstanding have in a rpg? How do you know what the intent of the designer was? Did they forget to add "The victim is charmed," in the powers section or were they waxing poetic when they said "slavishly loyal" in the tactics section? I understand that 3.5 had a system to resolve these kind of sourcebook conflicts, in lieu of publishing errata. But that seemed like a band-aid more than a desirable design goal. With 4e, they have a chance to start with a clean slate. I hope this is an isolated case. But to start out a new edition with tactics text that conflicts with powers description? Do you really think that's a design goal? It is only unambiguous if you discard the tactics section. Even then, the second paragraph of the powers description becomes almost comic--the PC being stalked by a succubus who he can't harm. If she could teleport into his bedroom whenever he is alone, this is a fun plot device. I might even use it. But, the second paragraph becomes more obvious if the victim is also charmed by the charming kiss. It is also consistent with the succubus' traditional role. I'm not arguing whether or not the intent of the designer was to make the victim charmed. I'm arguing that the designer did not make his intent clear. He clearly made a mistake somewhere, either in the powers description or in the tactics description. You are using the 3e RAW to discard everything that is not consistent with the stat block. That is the rule in 3e. You are correct that by RAW, that is how it should be played (in 3e). However, even in 3e that was not necessarily the designer's intent. It is silliness. I was hoping that in 4e, every effort would be made to put in enough editing that we did not have to discard inconsistent data. I was hoping that every effort would be made to make the rules consistent across stat block, tactics, description, etc. I am still hoping that DDI will allow real corrections and clarifications to be made, not just a blanket "ignore the text, in this order..." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Monster Manual excerpt
Top