Righteous Brand said:You smite your foe with your weapon and brand it with a ghostly, glowing symbol of your deity’s anger. By naming one of your allies when the symbol appears, you add divine power to that ally’s attacks against the branded foe.
I figured out why I'm having a hard time getting into 4e D&D, despite all the improvements they made to tactical cr0mbat. They stole my narration!
For a while now I've been trying to figure out why my mental picture of the game isn't as cool as it used to be. I think it's because of powers like the one I quoted above.
Previous editions might have had you Whirlwind Attacking, but the actual description of what you did was up to you. Maybe you spun around, wuxia-style. Maybe it was a furious attack that beat down all your opponents. Maybe it was a comedy of errors, where your backswing accidentally clobbers somebody. But it was up to you!
With a power like the one I quoted, you've got built in description. The name of the power is Righteous Brand. Already there are some assumptions about the kind of cleric you are. You're someone righteous, for one, who smashes his foes with the power of his god. Furthermore, your deity is angry. And there's a glowing symbol involved. But what if that doesn't fit your character concept? What if you worship Avandra? She's not the righteous, furious type. What if you don't want glowing symbols following you around?
I know, you can say your Righteous Brand isn't like that. And that it's not Righteous. But like it or not, having that stuff in the rulebook gives it a certain amount of weight. At the very least, you're going to have to refer to that power as Righteous Brand, no matter how well you narrate it differently.
I understand why the Wotc guys did it. You can't just have a bunch of powers without any color, especially if a big chunk of the book is said powers. It's just a bummer. I used to imagine what was happening during cr0mbat. Now I just try to visualize what Wotc tells me is happening.