Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fox Lee" data-source="post: 6077861" data-attributes="member: 4346">Okay, that makes more sense. Valiant Strike doesn't require valiance per se, but it's only useful in situations where your actions seem to display valiance; ergo, it encourages actions that, unless you choose to impose some other concept on them, express the default flavour?I think you have something here; there are three parts to this, not just crunch and fluff. There's show (actions), tell (fluff) and resolution (mechanics). All three of those are part of roleplay, even mechanics - a person's methods and capabilities are a reflection of her character, too - but just like in storytelling, show is more important than tell because it forgoes explaining how the audience should feel, in favour of just creating that feeling. You can fluff all you like, but you're going to create the wrong impression if you act in a manner that seems to contradict your stated flavour, and you actions will probably weigh more heavily.Valiant Strike is a great example of that, yes, because (assuming default fluff), all three of those aspects reinforce each other. On the other hand, you still have the right to re-fluff it however you want, even in a way that expresses its mechanics poorly. Mind you, the system is not going to stop you from doing something just because you might do it badly, and fair enough; some players are simple worse at flavour, but they should still be allowed to try. The system really can't account for player skill, except by giving reliable defaults.I think we're on the same page here. You are already rewarded for playing in fashion that causes the different mechnical and thematic aspects of your character to align, by the fact that your character will be more effective than one whose various facets are at odds with one another. This is why the recognition that fluff is malleable is so important - when you build a character, mechanically, you should be free to use the class that best fits with how you want her to act, the tools you want her to use, and so forth. How better to reinforce your character as more than just numbers, than to create a build where both mechanics and flavour are tools designed to express her identity?I have a similar feelings. As a GM I would likely say yes to changing damage keywords, but I would expect to be asked - not all damage types are equal, thanks to feat and echantment support, and I also think there's a difference between "I'd like this character to be a pyromancer" and "can I change this power to cold, this power to lightning, this one to necrotic...." etc. Another area where this comes up is power sources. Like damage types, these are mooostly just flavour, but they carry a bit more weight than simple changing a description. And you'd have to watch for specific loopholes.Sheer luck! Now that you mention it, I finally have a non-valiant reflavour that still reflects the mechanics - that particular fly-by-the-seat of his pants archetype where you never quite know whether you should call him unlucky, because he constantly winds up being at the centre of a brawl, or lucky because he always seems to survive. "I duck that blow, backstep to avoid the cart, and turn around to find myself suddenly surrounded by the soldiers! I take a blind swing as I duck behind my shield, deflecting the captain's sword thrust toward the sergeant behind me, sidestep just in time for the private to overextend and stumble into the lieutenant... and somehow in the clearing dust, I emerge unscathed!"Sure, that particular example is quite wordy and it requires a little more abstraction than "I charge the <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ers", but that's hardly unreasonable when you consider that our neat turned-based combat is in reality representing a chaotic mess of spiky things and magic balls. Anyway, the point is that I chose flavour which still implies effective use of the power - so I certainly will keep moving my hapless PC into the mob, whether he likes it or not. Another thing to keep in mind is that characters don't necessarily need to understand, appreciate, or intend their powers at all, as long as the player does.Of course, all this means is I'm reinforcing your basic point, that Valiant Strike and other such paladin powers encourage actions that reflect their default flavour more strongly than many other powers. That much I have to agree with, and the fact that I actually had to work at it to find and alternate concept is fairly good evidence for that.</blockquote>

Verification