Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5883543" data-attributes="member: 58197">Then nothing can ever be re-fluffed, because even the most trivial change affects the potential uses of the spell.Look, suppose I said I wanted scorching burst to have black fire instead of bright orange. That's a textbook example of what is typically meant by &quot;re-fluffing.&quot; But now I can do things with it that weren't possible with the original! The old scorching burst is highly visible at night or in a dark cave. You have to be careful not to draw unwanted attention. The new version is far more stealth-friendly.Now, is it still balanced in its new form? I would say so. The benefit is relatively minor, and there are drawbacks as well (I can't use it to signal allies from a distance). But at a glance, the ancient-dragon thing would appear to be the same way; it's just tweaking the appearance. I could slide that change past any number of 4E DMs, and they wouldn't realize what they'd agreed to until I started breaking the game with it. You can't know whether a change is balanced until you put on your game design hat and think about consequences, and 4E's approach does not save you from that.But it's lying! I didn't change any of the &quot;crunch&quot; text. If there were a power that was created from the beginning to be &quot;Ancient dragon swoops down and breathes fire in a burst 1 for 1d6 + Int fire damage, then flies away,&quot; its statblock would be exactly identical with that of scorching burst.What 4E is really doing with its purported &quot;fluff&quot; versus &quot;crunch&quot; distinction is separating the &quot;tactical combat game&quot; part of 4E from the &quot;role-playing game&quot; part. My ancient-dragon-burst spell has the exact same effect on tactical combat as traditional scorching burst. It's only when you step back and start to view the game world as an integrated whole, where monsters are living creatures instead of robotic battle drones, that ancient-dragon-burst becomes brokenly powerful.Some folks like having the sharp distinction where &quot;roll initiative&quot; means &quot;we're playing an abstract board game for the next 45 minutes.&quot; I have come to hate it. I want combat, exploration, and roleplaying to mesh together smoothly. D&amp;D should be one game, not two.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5883543, member: 58197"] Then nothing can ever be re-fluffed, because even the most trivial change affects the potential uses of the spell. Look, suppose I said I wanted [I]scorching burst[/I] to have black fire instead of bright orange. That's a textbook example of what is typically meant by "re-fluffing." But now I can do things with it that weren't possible with the original! The old [I]scorching burst[/I] is highly visible at night or in a dark cave. You have to be careful not to draw unwanted attention. The new version is far more stealth-friendly. Now, is it still balanced in its new form? I would say so. The benefit is relatively minor, and there are drawbacks as well (I can't use it to signal allies from a distance). But at a glance, the ancient-dragon thing would appear to be the same way; it's just tweaking the appearance. I could slide that change past any number of 4E DMs, and they wouldn't realize what they'd agreed to until I started breaking the game with it. You can't know whether a change is balanced until you put on your game design hat and think about consequences, and 4E's approach does not save you from that. But it's lying! I didn't change any of the "crunch" text. If there were a power that was created from the beginning to be "Ancient dragon swoops down and breathes fire in a burst 1 for 1d6 + Int fire damage, then flies away," its statblock would be exactly identical with that of [I]scorching burst[/I]. What 4E is really doing with its purported "fluff" versus "crunch" distinction is separating the "tactical combat game" part of 4E from the "role-playing game" part. My ancient-dragon-burst spell has the exact same effect on tactical combat as traditional [I]scorching burst[/I]. It's only when you step back and start to view the game world as an integrated whole, where monsters are living creatures instead of robotic battle drones, that ancient-dragon-burst becomes brokenly powerful. Some folks like having the sharp distinction where "roll initiative" means "we're playing an abstract board game for the next 45 minutes." I have come to hate it. I want combat, exploration, and roleplaying to mesh together smoothly. D&D should be one game, not two. [/QUOTE]

Verification