Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4202489" data-attributes="member: 710">I never liked the Vancian System. But spells like "Leomunds Secret Shelter", "Mordekainen's Magnificient Mension", "Mefl's Acid Arror", "Bigby's Grasphing Hand", those I liked. The mechanics showed an incredibly powerful (in the sense of scope and possibilities) magical system, and the names showed that it was all part of a bigger world. In my campaign, maybe there would eventually be a "Ridcullys Hunting Bolt" (not that I ever played a character with that name, but you'll get what I mean). Off course, when the names didn't fit, I could easily ignore them. That's why I am a fan of  fluff in the 4E Core Books, too. I didn't like the name "Golden Wyvern" (but mostly because I don't like the name Wyvern, either), but I still liked the idea that picking character abilities made the character also part of the implied setting. I like it, because when it comes to describing a character, I like the characters mechanical abilities reflect the concept of the character. If I say my character is a good liar, I'd like my character to have a mechanical way to represent it. Powers and Feats with fluff also support this. If my PC is supposed to be a graduate from the Unseen University, I might want to representing this with the Unseen University Graduate feat. (For easy fluff remove in settings without it, it might be better if the feat was called Unseen University Staff Mage feat instead).</blockquote>

Verification