Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7288384" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, and MOSTLY this is OK. It can seem a bit forced at times though. I mean think about the 'Ray of Fire' example that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] uses: Why does a Ray of Fire cause you to move slower in order to put yourself out, but some other Fire power just does ongoing damage UNTIL you put yourself out (presumably covered by the save ends or the EONT or whatever it is). I'm not saying this doesn't work, but 4e always left me wondering why the same 'narrative' effects get mapped so inconsistently to mechanical effects. Of course I don't think 4e is especially unique in this respect. D&amp;D in general has been fairly ad-hoc. It just seems that 4e, with its rich repertoire of standardized effects, didn't do better. Well, clearly it would have added a whole extra rule to do so. I think maybe there should have been fewer but more interesting 'damage changers', and if effects WERE standardized then those could have been where some more comprehensive approach would be undertaken. In other words you could create a set of powers that exchange damage types and encapsulate the rules (however complex) for changing effects. Then anything which performs such an exchange would merely invoke one of these powers (as a free action probably, that should be flexible enough to cover pretty much all cases).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7288384, member: 82106"] Yeah, and MOSTLY this is OK. It can seem a bit forced at times though. I mean think about the 'Ray of Fire' example that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] uses: Why does a Ray of Fire cause you to move slower in order to put yourself out, but some other Fire power just does ongoing damage UNTIL you put yourself out (presumably covered by the save ends or the EONT or whatever it is). I'm not saying this doesn't work, but 4e always left me wondering why the same 'narrative' effects get mapped so inconsistently to mechanical effects. Of course I don't think 4e is especially unique in this respect. D&D in general has been fairly ad-hoc. It just seems that 4e, with its rich repertoire of standardized effects, didn't do better. Well, clearly it would have added a whole extra rule to do so. I think maybe there should have been fewer but more interesting 'damage changers', and if effects WERE standardized then those could have been where some more comprehensive approach would be undertaken. In other words you could create a set of powers that exchange damage types and encapsulate the rules (however complex) for changing effects. Then anything which performs such an exchange would merely invoke one of these powers (as a free action probably, that should be flexible enough to cover pretty much all cases). [/QUOTE]

Verification