Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4967500" data-attributes="member: 3424">The problem with flavor-based arguments is that flavor is very mutable in 4E. I could easily reflavor dual lightning strike as transforming yourself into a bolt of lightning, so that the ability to damage an enemy close to the point where you discorporate and another one close to the point where you rematerialize, while a bonus, is not an essential element of the power.In addition, consider the flavor text of the 5th-level Ranger attack power, splintering shot:&quot;Your arrow burrows into flesh and shatters, sending splinters of wood deep into the wound.&quot;If you apply your flavor text rule consistently, then you should rule that the ranger has to use an arrow with this power, even though it is not explicitly called out by a &quot;Requirement&quot; entry in the rules. One final minor nitpick: I find that &quot;realism&quot; is a vague concept at best when applied to a fantasy role-playing game, and doubly so when it is used to determine when happens when a magic spell is used. Some better yardsticks might be: &quot;plausibility&quot;, which basically boils down to whether the player or the DM can come up with a reasonable explanation for what happens, or &quot;internal consistency&quot;, which can arise from either treating the game rules as the laws of physics in the game world, or taking reference from the DM's house rules on the laws of magic or something similar. As an example, one internally consistent way to have blood of the mighty damage the paladin when he uses it to attack the air, but to disallow the swordmage from teleporting outside of combat by attacking the air with dual lightning strike, even though they are both Effects, is to rule that harmful Effects occur even when the character does not have a valid target, but beneficial Effects don't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 4967500, member: 3424"] The problem with flavor-based arguments is that flavor is very mutable in 4E. I could easily reflavor [I]dual lightning strike[/I] as transforming yourself into a bolt of lightning, so that the ability to damage an enemy close to the point where you discorporate and another one close to the point where you rematerialize, while a bonus, is not an essential element of the power. In addition, consider the flavor text of the 5th-level Ranger attack power, [I]splintering shot[/I]: [INDENT]"Your arrow burrows into flesh and shatters, sending splinters of wood deep into the wound."[/INDENT]If you apply your flavor text rule consistently, then you should rule that the ranger [I]has[/I] to use an arrow with this power, even though it is not explicitly called out by a "Requirement" entry in the rules. One final minor nitpick: I find that "realism" is a vague concept at best when applied to a fantasy role-playing game, and doubly so when it is used to determine when happens when a magic spell is used. Some better yardsticks might be: "plausibility", which basically boils down to whether the player or the DM can come up with a reasonable explanation for what happens, or "internal consistency", which can arise from either treating the game rules as the laws of physics in the game world, or taking reference from the DM's house rules on the laws of magic or something similar. As an example, one internally consistent way to have [I]blood of the mighty[/I] damage the paladin when he uses it to attack the air, but to disallow the swordmage from teleporting outside of combat by attacking the air with [I]dual lightning strike[/I], even though they are both Effects, is to rule that harmful Effects occur even when the character does not have a valid target, but beneficial Effects don't. [/QUOTE]

Verification