If you want to Valiant Smite, you have to be Valiant, like it says on the fluff
Schwaaaaa? That's a totally made-up idea. You can roleplay your valiant strike however you dang well please, fluff or no fluff
As best I understad S'mon's point, at least a part of it is this: if you are using Valiant Smite, then you
will put your PC into the thick of melee, so that you can get your bonus to hit. And wailing into an enemy in the thick of melee is pretty much the paradigm of valiant combat. And
that's why using Valiant Smite will typically produce a PC who is valiant in play.
It's not even permanent - for my group, interpreting what power xyz uniquely represented in this instance is par for the course.
Agreed, and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] makes the same point and has been a forceful proponent of it for years now.
What I would add, though, is that the mechanics - requirements, keywords and effects - put constraints around the intepretation of what using a power means. This can happen in different ways, too. Valiant Smite and Come and Get It, for instance, work best when the PC is in the thick of things with many foes about. So typically they will produce a story about a melee combatant who is bold, dauntless etc. However exactly you narrate Valiant Smite or Come and Get It, it is unlikely to produce a story about a snivelling coward who wilts when confronted by physical threats. (Whereas some lazy warlord builds - especially combined with something like the Disgraded Noble theme - might produce just that sort of story.)
rewards for playing a character "correctly" should be treated as a tool for giving newer/less-confident roleplayers a simple, archetypical template they can use to play their character. Better and more experienced roleplayers don't need such guidance, and punishing them for having a different concept - regardless of whether or not it causes problems, but simply because it doesn't fit in a WotC fluff writer's mould - is damn near unpardonable as a GM.
I think that, in 4e, the "rewards for playing correctly" come from building your PC and then playing to its strengths. If you build a typical fighter or STR paladin, the game will reward you if you play a bold, forthright PC - you'll find many opportunities to use your powers, your good AC and durability (hit points, surges) will distinguish you from the other PCs, etc. Whereas if you play a snivelling coward you'll find the game punishes you - because you won't get many opportunities to use your powers, class features like high AC and hit points will go unused, your ranged basic attacks probably suck, etc.
Which is not to say there's anything wrong with playing a non-caster snivelling coward, but choose the right class: archer ranger, rogue, assassin, lazy warlord etc.
Side 1) 4e provides narrative hooks by providing mechanics that reinforce and reward the class/archetype's expected playstyle.
Side 2) No it doesn't, since 4e encourages you to reflavor, there's no expected playstyle to reinforce. Your own personal narration of the power is doing all the work.
That's a fair summary. Notice that these (2) doesn't actually contradict (1), because (1) has the form "mechanics imply X" and (2) has the form "falvour text does not imply X". (2) is true, but tells us nothing about the implications of the mechanics, and hence nothing about the truth of (1).
And what I take issue with here is that these issues are not contradictory. Yes classes do have an inbuilt flavor to them, if you choose not to reflavor through RP, then yes, the powers cater towards an expected theme. 4e does encourage you to reflavor IF you want to, and in that case the class then plays to your expected playstyle through the same mechanics.
We've established that re-flavoring a power, hell even changing the damage type is fully applicable.
For me, at least, the damage type and keywords of a power are the main anchors between mechanics and fiction. They are a big deal that prevents the game's mechanical abstractions collapsing into fiction-free self-refentiality. So I think changing damage types is a bigger deal than reflavouring - it's getting closer to the difference between "targets creatures" and "targets enemies", and I put it in the domain of house ruling.
As long as the mechanics of Valiant Strike aren't changed I don't think it matters how you flavour it. Whether you treat it as a manifestation of inner resoures, divine inspiration, divine protection, sheer luck, or something else, you will still only benefit substantially from the power if you throw yourself into the middle of melee. Which is exactly what a valiant warrior does.
Some reflavouring will have a bigger impact on PC theme - lazy warlords, for instance, might run the gamut from aging but still inspiring warleaders to snivelling, cowardly disgraced nobles to stereotypical princesses. There's a reason I picked Valiant Strike as my example upthread - its mechanics tie it much tighter to thematic expression than some other powers and builds.
what an amazing piece of luck that even the fighter has a range of powers from which to pick!
Yes. As I've mentioned upthread and/or on the mirror thread, fighter and wizards are among the broader 4e classes as far as thematic/archetypical range is concerned. Conversely, I think paladins are among the tighter.
