Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5806272" data-attributes="member: 7635">I agree with you, there is also a bit of poetry/prose distinction going on as well. The 3.5 fireball is descriptive at the cost of being quick to reference (though the top material is still pretty functional; all it lacks is the effect in summary). The 4e one feels like a jumble of code and jargon; making perfect sense to those who can read it and looking like html to those who don't. It is efficient, but lacks a strong feeling of what its supposed to be (which is a boon to re-fluffers, but terrible at explaining exactly what a fireball is/does.)I hate (with a furious passion) the iron fence made out of radioactive tigers that separate fluff/crunch in 4e. There is some good fluff that seems utterly divorced from the rules that follows, and there are rules that I cannot find a justification for (why do wizards use spellbooks, but sorcerers/warlocks don't? Why do all tieflings have anger-management issues? How DOES an eladrin teleport? Why do all monsters blindly charge a fighter using CAGI? And don't even get me started on the first Monster Manual, which was so utterly devoid of fluff I needed the 3.5 MM to describe the monsters in it!)D&D needs both fluff and crunch. It needs in-game rationale for things, and descriptions beyond keywords and die-codes. As an experienced DM, I could compensate for the lack of good fluff with old edition knowledge; heaven help me if I was a first time DM here...Better (and more accurate, vs my "here are the number parts vs. here is the text/description part), but I could debate you the last sentence (the melts gold one) as fluff since there is no rule given for it, merely a suggestion of a rule (such items should save or just feel destroyed, depending on circumstance and DM interpretation, not a hard/fast rule like the damage die or touch attack).</blockquote>

Verification