fluff vs. mechanics question 3.5/PF

[Elricaltovilla]

Kind of a poll question. But, as DMs, would you take issue with a character roleplaying their iterative attacks as all being one swing? Assuming they roll everything as normal and dont change any game mechanics at all.

[BWR]

No, not in this case.

There are times I dislike attempts to flavorize mechanics. For instance, in my PF game the player of a sorcerer tried to play that he really needed a library of spellbooks, but just memorized them a bit weirdly. I pretty soon got annoyed with this and told the player that if he needed spellbooks at all, he was a wizard, and that sorcerers, despite having many similarities in expression of power with wizards, were something else entirely and had no need for spellbooks, not even for flavor.
Basically, the player was trying to get the best of both worlds and didn't like to acknowledge that there is a definite difference between the two.

[DeltaEmil]

No. Describing the full attack as being one swing is the same as describing them each individually, or saying that you're making one hundred slashes in those six seconds, of which only those many X attacks hit, especially since no rules are changed, nor is there any cheating involved or so.

Also, after a few enough battles, practically nobody will bother to describe their full attack routine anymore, because too much time is spend calculating the attack, trying to look if there's miss chance involved, to see if it's a critical hit or not, apply immunities, resistances, damage reduction and vulnerabilities to the damage roll, see if the target is a valid target for the bane property, remembering any bonuses and penalties to attack and damage, and all the other things that bog down combat.

[dascarletm]

I cannot see how this would be an issue with me.
DeltaEmil's words speak true.

[Eldan]

No, not in this case.

There are times I dislike attempts to flavorize mechanics. For instance, in my PF game the player of a sorcerer tried to play that he really needed a library of spellbooks, but just memorized them a bit weirdly. I pretty soon got annoyed with this and told the player that if he needed spellbooks at all, he was a wizard, and that sorcerers, despite having many similarities in expression of power with wizards, were something else entirely and had no need for spellbooks, not even for flavor.
Basically, the player was trying to get the best of both worlds and didn't like to acknowledge that there is a definite difference between the two.

Why would that matter? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems to me to be a drawback to the player, not a benefit. And an interesting one, too.

[Elricaltovilla]

No. Describing the full attack as being one swing is the same as describing them each individually, or saying that you're making one hundred slashes in those six seconds, of which only those many X attacks hit, especially since no rules are changed, nor is there any cheating involved or so.

Also, after a few enough battles, practically nobody will bother to describe their full attack routine anymore, because too much time is spend calculating the attack, trying to look if there's miss chance involved, to see if it's a critical hit or not, apply immunities, resistances, damage reduction and vulnerabilities to the damage roll, see if the target is a valid target for the bane property, remembering any bonuses and penalties to attack and damage, and all the other things that bog down combat.

So your reasoning for disallowing this fluff is because you think someone will be too busy calculating their attacks to bother roleplaying it out after a few rounds, so you'd just disallow it from the beginning? Not trying to sound accusatory, just trying to understand.

Assume that they have the commitment and skill to be able to manage the number crunching and still be able to roleplay successfully.

[dascarletm]

I read DeltaEmil as in flavor of the fluff. No to having issues with it.

[Elricaltovilla]

I read DeltaEmil as in flavor of the fluff. No to having issues with it.

I guess I misread it then?

[Amnestic]

Kind of a poll question. But, as DMs, would you take issue with a character roleplaying their iterative attacks as all being one swing? Assuming they roll everything as normal and dont change any game mechanics at all.

Perfectly acceptable in my eyes.



Basically, the player was trying to get the best of both worlds and didn't like to acknowledge that there is a definite difference between the two.

"Best of both worlds"? Could you elaborate a bit?

[Zero grim]

If it was with Melee attacks then yes id allow it, so long as they don't try to get more bonuses then they should, for example "my spell says I do 20 extra damage on my next attack and its just one swing!", so long as you can keep players from slowly creeping in mechanical advantages then fluff is up to them as far as I care.

I like to keep the fluff for the classes the same, especially prestige classes, but for swinging a sword I don't mind if the fighter want to be interesting.

[ArcturusV]

Well, in that case, no. I wouldn't have a problem with it. I let my players describe actions however they want as long as there's no mechanical bonus. In fact I kinda encourage them to do so. When they drop enemies I'll say something like "Give me a Deathblow" so they know they just finished someone off and they can elaborate on the carnage if they want.

Having a full attack being one giant swing? I wouldn't mind so much.

The problem is, typically as much as people say things like "Pssh, just ignore/alter the fluff, it's not important", that DnD is a game where the Mechanics are all fluff derived. So I'm generally very leery of letting fluff get altered.

The reason monks suck? It's because their mechanics suck. Why do their mechanics suck? Because they were trying to mirror the fluff of a Faux Shaolin style unarmed monk.

Why do Sorcerers and Wizards have different mechanics to it? Because the fluff of inborn, wild power in the case of the sorcerers versus methodological study and scientific theory applied in the case of the wizard.

So that's why I'm generally leery of altering fluff. But in the example cited in the opening post I'd have no problem.

[BWR]

Why would that matter? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems to me to be a drawback to the player, not a benefit. And an interesting one, too.

Because the player never actually played a need for spellbooks, just wanted to have them, and because, at least in my game, sorcerers don't need spellbooks at all. They cannot use them except as an odd form of currency. The character has a very high Spellcraft and K.(Arcana) and is from Alphatia (super high-powered omnipresent magic, for those unfamiliar with the place) so I can to a degree understand the idea behind it, but since the mechanics are so definitely different on the subject I can't really see any reason to allow it.

The player's a big Ars Magica fan so I can see what he was hoping to accomplish, but hoggin spellbooks when you literally have no need for them seems just a bit greedy.

[Elricaltovilla]

Because the player never actually played a need for spellbooks, just wanted to have them, and because, at least in my game, sorcerers don't need spellbooks at all. They cannot use them except as an odd form of currency. The character has a very high Spellcraft and K.(Arcana) and is from Alphatia (super high-powered omnipresent magic, for those unfamiliar with the place) so I can to a degree understand the idea behind it, but since the mechanics are so definitely different on the subject I can't really see any reason to allow it.

The player's a big Ars Magica fan so I can see what he was hoping to accomplish, but hoggin spellbooks when you literally have no need for them seems just a bit greedy.

And travelling from town to town killing people and taking their stuff isn't greedy? <\sarcasm>

[panaikhan]

In the beginning combat was described as a number of feints, counter-feints and manoeuvrings - during which the character got X chances (depending on weapon, class and level) to land a telling blow. This was back when combat rounds were a minute long.
I have a little difficulty understanding why someone would try to describe their combat going the other way ("Instead of hitting the enemy 4 times, I hit him REALLY HARD") unless they were trying to set up some sort of mechanical benefit later on ("It's really only one attack, so DR shouldn't reduce it so much").
Then again, seeing some of the characters my players come up with, it would get difficult to describe the attack routine of someone who can land blows faster than one per second with any kind of melee weapon.

[Amnestic]

I have a little difficulty understanding why someone would try to describe their combat going the other way ("Instead of hitting the enemy 4 times, I hit him REALLY HARD") unless they were trying to set up some sort of mechanical benefit later on ("It's really only one attack, so DR shouldn't reduce it so much").

I'd do exactly that if I were going for some sort of Iaido/Iajutsu theme character, especially if I were abusing the little Gnomish quickblade trick for Iaijutsu Mastery.

It's just thematically more fitting for all the damage to be from one attack in such a concept.

[Eldan]

Because the player never actually played a need for spellbooks, just wanted to have them, and because, at least in my game, sorcerers don't need spellbooks at all. They cannot use them except as an odd form of currency. The character has a very high Spellcraft and K.(Arcana) and is from Alphatia (super high-powered omnipresent magic, for those unfamiliar with the place) so I can to a degree understand the idea behind it, but since the mechanics are so definitely different on the subject I can't really see any reason to allow it.

The player's a big Ars Magica fan so I can see what he was hoping to accomplish, but hoggin spellbooks when you literally have no need for them seems just a bit greedy.

That sounds to me as if he was just squandering his WBL on expensive spellbooks that offer him no actual advantage whatsoever.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'd do exactly that if I were going for some sort of Iaido/Iajutsu theme character, especially if I were abusing the little Gnomish quickblade trick for Iaijutsu Mastery.

It's just thematically more fitting for all the damage to be from one attack in such a concept.

This for me, althought without the Gnomish Quickrazor stuff.

I'm attempting to flesh out my character a bit in my Real Life game, and one of his life goals is to open a school for Maguses (Magi?) focused on swordplay. Since we already have a dual wielding Dwarf-Tiefling (the non-human buzzsaw with 9 attacks a round and oversized Greataxes), I thought about differentiating my character by saying his sword style was focused on winning a fight in a single blow. However, the mechanics don't support that kind of fighting style for a Magus, so I thought I'd poll the playground to hear their thoughts before presenting the idea to my DM.

[huttj509]

That sounds to me as if he was just squandering his WBL on expensive spellbooks that offer him no actual advantage whatsoever.

Or not selling spellbooks the party found because he wanted to "hog" them. Not sure.

[JusticeZero]

I'd actually consider that to be the default assumption. You're learning how to hit harder and more efficiently, and that's how your damage scales up. A wizard doesn't have to treat their Fireball as a long sequence of 1d6 blasts, and that's basically the same thing.

[Amnestic]

However, the mechanics don't support that kind of fighting style for a Magus, so I thought I'd poll the playground to hear their thoughts before presenting the idea to my DM.

Stress that there's no mechanical change, it's all description. You're not trying to skirt around DR, not trying to do weird things with touch spells and not trying to get around multiple hit/crit rolls from iteratives.

If they're reasonable, I should think they'll allow it.

Archers are another concept I'd probably want to use the idea on (assuming I ever made an archer). While I'm sure it's more than possible to grab 3-4 individual arrows, draw, aim and fire them at an enemy in the space of 6 seconds, it's not the image I'd generally want.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'd actually consider that to be the default assumption. You're learning how to hit harder and more efficiently, and that's how your damage scales up. A wizard doesn't have to treat their Fireball as a long sequence of 1d6 blasts, and that's basically the same thing.

I actually think that would be a pretty cool image, a wizard casts fireball and a series of rapid explosions pepper his foes with arcane fire... sounds pretty stylish to me.


Stress that there's no mechanical change, it's all description. You're not trying to skirt around DR, not trying to do weird things with touch spells and not trying to get around multiple hit/crit rolls from iteratives.

If they're reasonable, I should think they'll allow it.

Archers are another concept I'd probably want to use the idea on (assuming I ever made an archer). While I'm sure it's more than possible to grab 3-4 individual arrows, draw, aim and fire them at an enemy in the space of 6 seconds, it's not the image I'd generally want.

My DM is a really reasonable guy, so I doubt he'll have a problem with it. I'm actually more of a stickler for rules than he is. I've read a few of the horror stories people have posted here about crazy DMs/players and I'm amazed because I've never had to deal with something like that before.

As for archers being able to fire multiple arrows in six seconds? I highly doubt that's possible. I'm no archer, but I've pulled a bow a few times and I can't see how anyone could fire 4 arrows in six seconds. Not with any chance at hitting anything.

[JusticeZero]

Rapid firing arrows, sling bullets, or atlatl darts is commonplace with practice. The people who train with those weapons just get used to reloading so that the process goes faster, without any specific effort other than generic time on the range.

[georgie_leech]

Archers are another concept I'd probably want to use the idea on (assuming I ever made an archer). While I'm sure it's more than possible to grab 3-4 individual arrows, draw, aim and fire them at an enemy in the space of 6 seconds, it's not the image I'd generally want.

Giving up to quadruple the effect of enchanted arrows (I'm looking at you, Spell Storing) seems like it's heading away from "fluff only" territory.

Edit: If it is just about image and you don't try to gain mechanical benefit this way, how are you justifying a super accurate, pin-point shot making 3 other arrows in quiver broken?

[Amnestic]

Edit: If it is just about image and you don't try to gain mechanical benefit this way, how are you justifying a super accurate, pin-point shot making 3 other arrows in quiver broken?

Magic.

In an ideal scenario (for me), the damage of bows would be increased and the iterative numbers decreased so I could have my cake and also eat it. As it stands, that's not available. I'd rather stretch the fluff and have a few of my arrows mysteriously disappear than play an archer which can fire 4 arrows in the space of six seconds.

O'course, chances are there's a few homebrew ToB styles archery styles which offer exactly what I want.

[JusticeZero]

If it is just about image and you don't try to gain mechanical benefit this way, how are you justifying a super accurate, pin-point shot making 3 other arrows in quiver broken?
The same way you justify having a couple hundred arrows in the quiver in the first place, or any of the other things of dubious reality your group does in the course of a day.
You don't. You track ammo as normal. Nobody will care. It's an acceptable break from reality.

[georgie_leech]

Magic.

In an ideal scenario (for me), the damage of bows would be increased and the iterative numbers decreased so I could have my cake and also eat it. As it stands, that's not available. I'd rather stretch the fluff and have a few of my arrows mysteriously disappear than play an archer which can fire 4 arrows in the space of six seconds.

O'course, chances are there's a few homebrew ToB styles archery styles which offer exactly what I want.

Yeah, 3.P really doesn't do the sniper archetype well at all. Nothing wrong with Legolas now and then, but it would be nice if it were possible to mechanically represent Bard instead.

[dascarletm]

Or, you "bought" 1/3rd or whatever arrows but they are just 3x well made.