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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 5755507" data-attributes="member: 2656">I think that for some 4e elements to be portrayed as "realistic" (coherent, with versimilitude etc) e.g. warlord's ins, piring word, the old "Come and Get It" power, certain constraints are placed on description of the gameworld. However these constraints are an emergent phenomenon, a consequence of wanting the rules to work and being willing to adapt to them. "Inspiring Word" is the "It's just a flesh wound" schtick from many action films, IMO. It doesn't make sense if the DM insists on describing massive gaping wounds and crippling injuries. The thing is, given the D&D hit point system, for me it never did for positive hp values, and I didn't describe unconscious-but-living PCs in earlier editions as having crippling injuries either. So only minor changes were needed in my descriptions.However, I can see different wound description styles could make "Inspiring Word"  problematic, and the rules didn't say anything about this issue.Similarly, even the old Come and Get It power could be described in ways that retained versimilitude, but hostile and some neutral descriptions of it's functioning could break said versimilitude.Personally, I think 4e has the implicit assumption all PCs can have supernatural powers, not just spellcasters.Even martial PCs can be super-good at their specialities. In old Irish folklore most of the heroes tended to be warriors of superhuman ability, and I have no problem with  4e balancing the scales between non-spellcasters and spellcasters, its one of the changes I heartily approve of.</blockquote>

Verification