Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 7187196" data-attributes="member: 1003">Yeah, that's true. I think they did that on purpose because of the bad reaction that a lot of people had to 4E where the fluff and the mechanics were so strongly separated that it created jarring verisimilitude problems for many people. I was among them. The fluff description said something like &quot;Your sword glows with blue flame&quot; and the mechanics said &quot;Extra d6 damage&quot;, and when the designers were asked if the blue flame shed light or could set drapes on fire they steadfastly said &quot;No, only d6 damage&quot;. People flipped out, because this is a role-playing game that requires suspension of disbelief, which in turn requires the narrative and the mechanical effects to be at least in the same ballpark.So the results is that the narrative elements (which you see as archetypically restrictive) are more integrated. My solution though is that I sometimes will take a class or collection of spells, strip them down to their bare mechanics, and then re-write the fluff from the ground up so that it makes a cohesive narrative. Sometimes this results in a damage type or ribbon effects being different, so that an Ice Bolt might freeze liquids whereas the Fire Bolt it's based on ignites flammables. When I'm the DM I of course have unlimited flexibility here, but even now as a player my DM has been cool with letting me do this; for example, my current PC is a GOO Warlock with the Magic Initiate (Bard) feat, but I rewrote the spells I got from that to be &quot;Lovecraftian&quot;, so instead of &quot;Vicious Mockery&quot; I have &quot;Gibbering Secrets&quot;, and instead of &quot;Guidance&quot; I have &quot;Akashic Whispers&quot;. The effects are exactly the same, but the narrative is consistent with someone who's brain has been tuned to the frequency the GOOs broadcast their dreams at.So it's definitely possible to use the current framework to cover more archetypes, although maybe not in Organized Play situations.I'm definitely going to have to check that out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 7187196, member: 1003"] Yeah, that's true. I think they did that on purpose because of the bad reaction that a lot of people had to 4E where the fluff and the mechanics were so strongly separated that it created jarring verisimilitude problems for many people. I was among them. The fluff description said something like "Your sword glows with blue flame" and the mechanics said "Extra d6 damage", and when the designers were asked if the blue flame shed light or could set drapes on fire they steadfastly said "No, only d6 damage". People flipped out, because this is a role-playing game that requires suspension of disbelief, which in turn requires the narrative and the mechanical effects to be at least in the same ballpark. So the results is that the narrative elements (which you see as archetypically restrictive) are more integrated. My solution though is that I sometimes will take a class or collection of spells, strip them down to their bare mechanics, and then re-write the fluff from the ground up so that it makes a cohesive narrative. Sometimes this results in a damage type or ribbon effects being different, so that an [I]Ice Bolt[/I] might freeze liquids whereas the [I]Fire Bolt[/I] it's based on ignites flammables. When I'm the DM I of course have unlimited flexibility here, but even now as a player my DM has been cool with letting me do this; for example, my current PC is a GOO Warlock with the Magic Initiate (Bard) feat, but I rewrote the spells I got from that to be "Lovecraftian", so instead of "Vicious Mockery" I have "Gibbering Secrets", and instead of "Guidance" I have "Akashic Whispers". The effects are exactly the same, but the narrative is consistent with someone who's brain has been tuned to the frequency the GOOs broadcast their dreams at. So it's definitely possible to use the current framework to cover more archetypes, although maybe not in Organized Play situations. I'm definitely going to have to check that out. [/QUOTE]

Verification