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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4103121" data-attributes="member: 1054">Every thread? No, just the ones where it's relevant, where the conflict between design goals is slammed into my face, hard.D&D combat has always relied heavily on the DM adding in all the flavor which the rules, by design, do not provide. "You take 6 hit points...he takes 4 hit points..."  -- that's deathly dull and will kill a campaign. It's the DMs job to take the raw numbers of rolls and results and turn them into a dynamic fight scene. "You duck low under the monster's swing...it grazes your skull. You then leap up and jam the spear into its side, staining his armor with dark blood."Descriptions need to be consistent with the rules. If you do 5 points of damage to a 200 hit point creature, it should not be described as "a vicious blow which nearly guts the thing". Likewise, if you know that the current rule paradigm is that all hit point damage represents effects which can be healed with a good night's rest and some bandages, you need to describe all combat effects in those terms. "Impaled and dragged around by a goblin" is hard to describe in such a way. Not impossible, I suppose...maybe it always goes through the fleshy part of your leg and you just soldier through the pain...but more difficult.4e is supposed to make the DM's life *easier*. That means I should need to make less effort, not more, to create an exciting narrative from the results of the rules.To reiterate: Picador is cool monster. (Rather, it's a cool mechanic and it's a shame the 4e paradigm blends monster+mechanic instead of making this an ability I can give to any monster). Flavor text doesn't match rules. Keep concept, change flavor text.</blockquote>

Verification