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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 4565646" data-attributes="member: 114">I think that reducing descriptive text to the pejorative 'flavour text' doesn't do anyone any favours (it is like the old 'fluff vs crunch' discussions, which automatically denigrates 'fluff'). I like descriptive text for powers and spells.I think that the problem partly stems from (I'm afraid) a lack of thinking things through by the designers and developers.Specifically, the awful lack of thought to anything relating to the third dimension and flying creatures.vis: the questions (and Customer Services responses!) about the height to which close bursts and blasts extend.Illusory Pit would be a fine spell if land based creatures was all that mattered, but as soon as flying creatures come into the mix one has to ask about the wisdom of a 1st level spell that takes out a flying creature whether it hits or misses...?Of course, the problematic spell in question here is from Dragon rather than the core books, so certainly had less critical thought and testing applied to it.If the designers truly wanted the spells to be divorced from the name and description of the spell, then they should probably have given them purely prosaic names such as "Illusory Fall Down Spell". Keep it straightforward.I don't buy this argument. What if the wizard had chosen "Acid Arrow" as his first level daily and found he was facing a black dragon (as per the DDXP game). Was he screwed because his big power was useless on this occasion against an enemy? Should Acid Arrow be able to affect black dragons by reflavouring it as eating away rock and causing rocks to fall on the dragon to hurt it (I don't think anyone would allow that). I'm happy with the extent to which keywords are used to indicate whether something is particularly vulnerable or resistant to certain effects. I (and my friends) are happy with applying common sense to our games - nobody would try to trip an ooze because it doesn't make sense. Nothing says that illusions require minds to be affected, only that they need senses, so illusions would work fine against anything which doesn't have specific resistance to illusions (although if the illusion is a special case one, then it sticks within its special case)I disagree with the principle of entitlement that says all powers should be useful in all circumstances against all things. I think the game is more interesting and fun when there are meaningful choices to be made, and the availability of powers (*especially* when it comes to wizard dailies when they can choose each day what to prepare) is one of those aspects of meaningful choice.Cheers</blockquote>

Verification