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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seregil" data-source="post: 5883641" data-attributes="member: 38425">I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point. The clear-cut stuff is easy. Fireball can be summed up in precise, quantitative terms. I don't like it but the 'essence' of the spell can fit into the 4e 'mechanics only' approach. At the very least, a spell card should contain this approach since the point of the card is to sum up the spell.However, problems arise from the grey zones and the stuff that CANNOT be limited to mechanics only description. Suggestion, for example, can be used in combat (IIRC) but is, in implementation, very subject to Dm interpretation. Charm Person, in its classic form, CANNOT be used in combat and CANNOT be summed up in pure mechanical form.THIS is where 4e went wrong. When they were unable to boil down a spell/power to pure quantitative mechanics, they simply abolished it. Thus reducing the game as a whole and making it something less than it was.And, for me, this is where I draw the line. The rules should serve the narrative first and I refuse to give up non-combat, non-mechanical only abilities to bow to the 'clear and precise above all' combat system. If WOTC creates a module that has all these issues, even if it not the  default way, you still end up with something that is NOT DND and I would  prefer WOTC spend its time and resources on DND.Yes, do try and make the mechanical effects of abilities/powers/spells clear and well defined.Yes, include a summary (when you can) of the mechanical effects of a spell.Yes, do make the combat system simple and clean.No, do not strip away anything that cannot conform to the mechanics of the combat system when what you are trying to remove helps the narrative.I want a role playing game with a combat system, not a combat game with rpg elements.</blockquote>

Verification