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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5757962" data-attributes="member: 95493">That isn't really what the system currently allows, any more than any other edition did. Reflavouring should be changing the fireball to be a burst of fire-fairies that burn everything in their path. Not a DM's choice if that burst of fire damages paper.Put another way, I wouldn't mind seeing limitations (assuming they follow the power's text) that an unconscious person doesn't benefit from the warlord's cry. I can still choose to "dm's fiat" or ignore the rule but limitations are good to understand what the rule is intended to do and what it isn't. It is good to understand what the rule excels at and what fails to provide. That is totally different from what the others are describing, I'm still not sure if you see things their way.Narration of the game has always existed, but limitations are good too, instead of reskinning something beyond what was intended. If something doesn't work then Rule 0 it. That hasn't changed in any edition. 3e provided a firmer framework on how things, in the game world, should act. 4e went in the opposite direction, in favour of balanced mechanic, saying that you get to make up whatever you want. They go so far as to say DM's CAN allow paper to burn in that fiery burst spell, not saying that paper does burn but that DM's can choose to allow it. Either way, the DM can say if it does but I don't understand why a logical explanation in the form of a rule is so feared in this regard.No, that's not really what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say the rules should cover how an effect works, then when people have differing tastes they can feel free to use them and ignore or follow the rules as much as they want. I think my game should give me all the tools, as well as the rationale of how they got there, for the situation. I think that 3e excelled at this and 4e is ignores it entirely.I think they are similar in the fact they are produced by the same company. I think they are similar in the way they are both games with clear design goals as far as construction of said rules.I think they are dissimilar in that they are different kinds of games. I think, that in the fact they are being produced by the same company, they are dissimilar if one explicitly says a rule works a certain way and the other says a rule works a certain way but the DM has the option of changing it.For this specific argument, it comes down to:3e - fireball causes flammable stuff to burn (if unattended)4e - fireball targets creatures, the DM CAN also allow it to target flammable stuff, and they can do so each time it comes up, no rule needed - just reflavourIn 3e we almost never had it actually catch stuff on fire, it was a common choice and houserule instituted in our games that the "sets stuff on fire" effect wasn't activated by fireballs. But it was in the rules and not flavour of the text. It was our choice to ignore the rule, it wasn't up the DM to decide that this time it burns stuff and another time it doesn't. It worked on way or it worked another, it didn't change each time for fun.This is what I meant earlier when I said, "If I liked it, I'd use it and if I didn't I wouldn't."So, you dislike the game when it starts to give you standard (based on Nemesis Destiny above) middle of the road mechanics? I can certainly see why you would prefer to argue that the 4e rulings are better when you get to make up whatever flavour text you want.In 4e I wouldn't have minded seeing a modular system with a solid CORE ruleset and several optional subset expansions. The problem is that this is nowhere near what we ended up with. We got 16 different books with 16 mildly different (reflavoured?) things in them, which provide a balanced approach to combat.</blockquote>

Verification