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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6765047" data-attributes="member: 996">Presumably you just figure out where they are and tell your allies (the concept was 'point out flaws in their defenses'), but in a way that doesn't just let them attack the invisible target, but maybe attack it unexpectedly enough to cancel out the defensive benefit of invisibility.  Nod.  But, 5e does re-cycle spells a great deal (some spells are on 4 or even 5 different class lists), so it's really not at all shy about mechanically similar - indeed, mechanically identical - powers.Well... maybe not as much as the AEDU table might imply.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   That latter a bit, sure (though 'multi attack' is not at all distinctive, and magical ones still likely did typed damage), the former, no, not at all.  There's very few martial Area attacks (plenty of Close ones, but in 4e, Fireball is Area), none do fire damage, none are as large as a fireball.But, setting those quibbles aside, yes, 4e was very open to the sort of 're-skinning' that's come up.  Powers had fluff text that was entirely separate from the rules texts, and players had license to change it.  So, while you couldn't have a fire-tossing fighter, even with the concept of being a highly-trained soldier armed with a unique flamethrower, you /could/ use a ranger with a magic bow or a sorcerer pull off that concept.  Because you could change the fluff of the powers.  Not from giving different classes some similar powers - again, lots of spells get re-cycled, and they're not just similar, they're identical.  But in the sense of leaving fluff and text merged to a degree, sure, not nearly as much as in 3.x and earlier, but enough to make teasing them apart and re-skinning non-trivial.Depends on the context.  The more 'abstract'/effects-based or separate fluff approach means you think more about fitting mechanics to the concept ('fiction') of the character at chargen and level-up, and have a closer model of the desired fiction in play, bringing that more to the front.  It's an up-front cost in needing system mastery/out-the-box-thinking/imagination away from the table, in return for a closer modeling of the fiction at the table.  Whereas the more concrete approach where fluff and rules are mingled gives a more evocative picture of a potential character right out of the box (or rather, right in the box) when you first look at a new class.</blockquote>

Verification