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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 5883276" data-attributes="member: 1">... or if I'm just blowing smoke. But I had a thought the other day about how abilities/powers/spells/what-have-you are presented, and how that ties into the "feel" of a game. In 4E, the fluff element of a power is separated from its attack/effect etc. entries. In my experience (and I recognise this might not be yours), players tend to skip over that line of fluff, and zero in on the stats below it.  While we've been playing Pathfinder recently, I chose to play a wizard. What I noticed was the I was forced to read the fluff, because it's interwoven with the effects in a paragraph of text. The difference is, essentially:Assimilate You reach out and assimilate your enemy like a Borg. Attack: +x Hit: y damage, and z condition. and...Assimilate When you reach out and touch your opponent, tendrils emerge from your hands and assimilate the enemy like a Bord, causing x damage in the process. This requires a melee touch attack. OK, that's a stupid spell, and a silly example. And descriptions are usually longer or better than that. But - for me, at least, when I use the second version (the 3.x/PF style version) my character feel like he's reaching out and assimilating someone, but when I use the first version (the 4E style version) he does not. Yet both are saying exactly the same thing. There's no difference between those two spells; just formatting. In 4E, the description part is a little block at the top, and the stats take up all the space. In 3.x, the stats are the little block at the top, and the description takes up all the space. In addition, the description and effects are interwoven, not separate. I dunno. Is that a thing? Description and effects being interwoven rather than separated out? Same thing with magic items.</blockquote>

Verification