Reflavouring Powers

[ProfessorCirno]

My favorite system is HERO, so you know I'm on board with reflavoring.

However, I don't think DMZ2112 is asking for your hyperbolic "infinite" rulebook, just a D&D that incorporates the same breadth of mechanical support as the immediately previous base edition; with the example of the necromancer being a stand-in for itself and the other specialist mages.

If so, I agree with that view.

And what about my Greek hoplite?

The necromancer example is one I made up. It's kinda funny, because for the most part in D&D, necromancy wizards have like...two? Maybe two? Wizard spells that raise the dead. In D&D, necromancy was built around killing people's life. At which point you could make a standard wizard, grab a staff that turns your powers into necrotic damage, and bam, you're set.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

what about my Greek hoplite?

What about him? Basically, you need a spear, a sword and a shield, and then the tactics to make 'em work. I'll grant you that 4Ed does spread what you'd want to use for a hoplite I've several different classes...but then again, that has been one of my monks against martial classes & powers in 4Ed in general.

(IOW, I'm not a huge fan of the game; I find it enjoyable enough to play, but there is no love.)

The necromancer example is one I made up. It's kinda funny, because for the most part in D&D, necromancy wizards have like...two? Maybe two? Wizard spells that raise the dead

Compared to...none? Advantage 3.X.

4Ed should have been at least as good in that department, and it isn't. Given how other classes can summon stuff, the 4Ed necromancer could conceivably have surpassed it's immediate predecessor in that regard. Instead, it took a step backwards.

 

[Sunseeker]

Cirno --
They're all the same thing because they're all lazy. A good game shouldn't need its rules changed; they should be robust and flexible enough to suit the vast majority of circumstances. Likewise, no game should need a page that essentially says, "There's a lot of crap we didn't bother to cover, so here's a page of kludges."

These statements are contradictory. A game cannot cover everything[/] but still allow flexibility. Either everything is defined by the rules or it is not. If everything is defined by the rules, then there is nothing that you can do outside of them.

And finally, while I applaud any player's creativity in reflavoring a ranger into a necromancer, I'd rather have the rules for a necromancer in the first place.

But re flavoring and a pre-built are not necessarily the same. One person's vision of a necromancer could be a dark druid, one who twists the power of nature to cause unnatural life. Another's could be a warlock who specializes in animating the dead. As I said above, you cannot have both rules for everything, and flexibility. Flexibility only exists where the rules do not.

No game is perfect. Even the best of them will require these three things in some small measure. But I have to roll my eyes whenever Wizards says, "You know what the best thing about our game is? It's not finished."

IMO, that's been a great selling point to me. Hey, I readily admit I have 5 different flavors of Monopoly. But at the end of the day, they're ALL still Monopoly. For all their variant rules, they're still "earn the most money, own the most property, make your opponents have the least of both"

D&D sells, partially in my case, because it comes right out and says "Here are some good ideas for how to make your game work. Don't forget it's always YOUR game and you can still do whatever you want."

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

This article is as much for players as it is for DMs, because players can show this to their DMs and say, see? I can do this, since it doesn't change anything mechanical in my character. Some DMs ARE obtuse sometimes, and it's nice to have some backup when as a player all you are trying to do is play the character you want to play, without breaking the rules.

Fluff != rules. DMs can and often do limit players options for no good reason sometimes, because they just don't get the difference between mechanics and fluff. So many rules arguments occur when people misinterpret fluff as informing the powers' or feats' applications, but in this edition it actually doesn't matter, as we've seen in countless of these threads about rules. The fluff is often counterproductive and misleading to the application of a power according to RAW

 

[DMZ2112]

Ok, so now your handbook is infinity pages long because you seem to think it has to cover literally every single aspect.

These statements are contradictory. A game cannot cover everything[/] but still allow flexibility. Either everything is defined by the rules or it is not. If everything is defined by the rules, then there is nothing that you can do outside of them.

There are two ways to achieve true personalization in an RPG. The first is, in fact, to have an infinite number of rules. The second is to have no rules. Both of these games would not be any fun at all and I haven't ever said that they would.

No game is perfect. Even the best of them will require these three things in some small measure.

Ok, the player wants to jump and swing on a rope then kick the baddie. There's no rule for "swing on rope then kick baddie" so we use the table - and quite frankly, there shouldn't be a rule for that.

Agreed, but the DC for 'swing on rope then kick baddie' should be inferred from existing rules. It shouldn't require a table for "all the junk we didn't bother to deal with." There's no stated DC for it in D&D3, either, but there are a number of skills that could be used or combined to give the effort some meaning. In D&D4, it's... an athletics check. The same thing the character would be doing if they had to run particularly fast. Color me unimpressed.

To put it another way, there's no way to get better at specifically swinging on ropes and kicking baddies in D&D4. There's no way to get better at most specific things. You've got your powers, at which you are automatically very good, and then you've got a set of immensely broad skills, at which you have two levels of capability. Not what I'd call 'high resolution.'

For the record, this is not a D&D3 vs. D&D4 argument, and I'm not trying to turn it into one. D&D3 is just a convenient example of a system with what I consider to be a better balance of complexity.

Alternately, Class-As-Identity is like the worst of things so yeah, again, no.

That's ridiculous. Our actions define who we are. ...I'm not getting into philosophy with you.

I mean, honestly? You feel insulted because WotC talked about reflavoring?

That's not what I said.

Flexibility only exists where the rules do not.

That's not entirely true. As I said above, true personalization is possible in a system with no rules, but it is also possible in a putative system with an infinite number of rules. The goal of good game design should not be to pursue one of these extremes, nor should it be to find a balance between them, which would serve no purpose. The objective is to choose one of these continua and find a point along it where the mix provides optimal playability.

D&D4 has chosen the 'infinite rules' route, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But I disagree with the point they've chosen.

 

[Balesir]

As for changing damage types, I think it's great so long as you don't end up with a wizard with eight kinds of balls.

My god, what race do you need to pick for that?!?

On the rules point, it seems to me that you are asking for a more simulationist style of system. Since 4E is the only edition of D&D that does gamist coherently (in fact, it's the only edition that does any style of play really coherently), I have to say I think they've got it about right - even if they do pretend that "D&D 4E can absolutely do all this sim stuff, too!" when it can't (as well as several other systems that really major in it, anyway). I don't even think Page 42 is all that useful beyond minor tweaks in game play; limiting the game to the rules is actually a positive thing, here, IMO. And all this is totally different from reflavouring, which has nothing to do with the mechanical elements at all. As The Blessed Pratchett sayeth, "I'll be more convinced about thinking outside the box when I see some evidence that there is any thinking going on inside the box"...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for changing damage types, I think it's great so long as you don't end up with a wizard with eight kinds of balls.

My god, what race do you need to pick for that?!?

To paraphrase 2001: A Space Odyssey: "My God, he's full of balls!"

 

[Sunseeker]

That's ridiculous. Our actions define who we are. ...I'm not getting into philosophy with you.

Actions, yes, class, no. Not all rogues are thieves and assassins. Not all paladins are so fervent that they cannot accept opinions other than their own.

Who your character is is no more defined by their class than their race. Are you going to start saying all dwarves must be drunkards? That all elves must be haugty and superior?

That's not entirely true. As I said above, true personalization is possible in a system with no rules, but it is also possible in a putative system with an infinite number of rules. The goal of good game design should not be to pursue one of these extremes, nor should it be to find a balance between them, which would serve no purpose. The objective is to choose one of these continua and find a point along it where the mix provides optimal playability.

I'll reiterate. These statements are contradictory.

If one is not seeking balance between two extremes, then one cannot be seeking a mix for optimal playability.

The land of rules and the domain of personalization do not exist in seperate universes. One of the opposite of the other. You either have all rules, no rules, or some rules.

D&D4 has chosen the 'infinite rules' route, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But I disagree with the point they've chosen.

Your disagreement is, IMO, misplaced. You dislike that they've taken this particular "infinite rules" approach, but you then dislike that they've also said "you can customize as you please". This latter statement exists entirely to suit players who do not like the "infinite rules" approach.

If you disagree with the concept of having rules AT ALL for a game, then it somewhat begs the question of why play games at all? For if there is a game in which multiple people play, there must be an agreed-upon set of rules.

 

[DMZ2112]

Shidaku, I respectfully disagree, but I'm getting the distinct feeling from your post that I'm not going to be able to convince you of my position's merit, so I'm just going to drop the subject.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The problem is that there are a select few damage types that get extremely powerful feat support, and the spread of resistances, immunities and vulnerabilities makes some energy types significantly better than others. As a prime example, necrotic and poison are resisted or plain ineffective on a large number of creatures, while radiant does extra damage against a ton of monsters and is rarely resisted.

And then there's frostcheese (+5 damage because one member took the feat and I use cold? Yes please! And if I spend a feat I get combat advantage all the time too?) vs the various fire feats (like the feat which was errataed so that it can no longer grant +5 damage to you and you alone).

Fundamentally, necrotic and poison need some high powered immunity and resistance busting feats with some other bonus tacked on (so the same number of feats is required regardless of energy type). Every energy type except radiant and frost need some general damage-boosting (or other in-combat benefit) feats.