Dragon's Tail Cut?

Mouseferatu said:

As I said elsewhere...

Don't we already know that dragons can knock people down/back with their tails? If that's indeed the case, Dragon's Tail Cut makes perfect sense--in character, without the need for anime or wuxia influences on the culture or setting--for an attack that knocks people down.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. And while I have no care about the kung fu portion of it, I do have a care for how flowery the description is. I'd rather have topple or takedown or knockdown as the core name for it and include a short list of alternate names based on martial tradition or culture.

Dwarves might call it Dragon Tail Cut, but elves might call it Stormbent Willow Sweep and orcs might get the same effect out of 'Eadstompin Thwack.

Dragon Tail Cut, while evocative and sensible, is flowery and I do not belive that this is a kind of flowery that benifits the game. Simple and descriptive is fine, let the poetry be customizable.

WOTC just does not get it.

Stone Dog said:

I'd rather have topple or takedown or knockdown as the core name for it and include a short list of alternate names based on martial tradition or culture.

Click to expand...

Given how many people complained when WotC added the one-sentence, italicized descriptions to their spell write-ups, can you imagine how many complaints they'd get if each spell, maneuver, and power had a list of alternate names?

Better, I think, for them to just name each spell and each power once--as the game has always done--and let people who don't like them come up with their own.

Stone Dog said:

Yes, this is true. And while I have no care about the kung fu portion of it, I do have a care for how flowery the description is. I'd rather have topple or takedown or knockdown as the core name for it and include a short list of alternate names based on martial tradition or culture.

Dwarves might call it Dragon Tail Cut, but elves might call it Stormbent Willow Sweep and orcs might get the same effect out of 'Eadstompin Thwack.

Dragon Tail Cut, while evocative and sensible, is flowery and I do not belive that this is a kind of flowery that benifits the game. Simple and descriptive is fine, let the poetry be customizable.

Click to expand...

I think this would be the best option as well. Let me describe the powers the way I want in my game...just give me a practical name so I have an idea of what it actually does.

Mouseferatu said:

Given how many people complained when WotC added the one-sentence, italicized descriptions to their spell write-ups, can you imagine how many complaints they'd get if each spell, maneuver, and power had a list of alternate names?

Click to expand...

People complained about that? Really? Huh... I kind of liked them.

I agree though that the power should just have the one official and constant name, but that name should be just descriptive enough to tell you what the thing does. I want Fireball, not Phoenix Bloom.

Stone Dog said:

People complained about that? Really? Huh... I kind of liked them.

Click to expand...

Yep. And yeah, I like them, too.

I agree though that the power should just have the one official and constant name, but that name should be just descriptive enough to tell you what the thing does. I want Fireball, not Phoenix Bloom.

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. But there's another factor to consider:

What if there are two maneuvers that do similar things, in different ways?

We already know that many maneuvers are weapon-oriented. Suppose the "knockdown" maneuver with longswords or other bladed weapons has different mechanics than the one for, oh, let's say hammers and other blunt weapons. Or perhaps there are multiple levels that do the same thing, but add other effects or are more effective as you grow more powerful.

(Pulling all this out of my butt, of course. It's all hypothetical.)

Maybe one deals damage but only has a small chance of knocking the foe over, while the other does no damage but has a better chance of working. Maybe one knocks him down, while the other knocks him down and back. And so on and so forth.

My point--yes, I have one --is that it simply may not be practical to name each maneuver solely for what it does, in a purely functional/non-flowery way. There are reasons beyond the aesthetic that Bo9S named its maneuvers as it did, and I imagine that even with a change in said aesthetics, those other reasons remain in 4E.

Just split the difference and call it "Dragon's Tail Wallop".

Imaro said:

I think this would be the best option as well. Let me describe the powers the way I want in my game...just give me a practical name so I have an idea of what it actually does.

Click to expand...

Gee, if only there were a term in european swordfighting for a cut to the legs that knocks your opponent prone.

Like, I dunno..."Hamstring" or something...

What?

Mouseferatu said:

My point--yes, I have one --is that it simply may not be practical to name each maneuver solely for what it does, in a purely functional/non-flowery way. There are reasons beyond the aesthetic that Bo9S named its maneuvers as it did, and I imagine that even with a change in said aesthetics, those other reasons remain in 4E.

Click to expand...

Which is why it is merely puzzling and not actually upsetting. Yes, if Dragon Tail Cut is named like the Bo9S maneuvers, then there might well be a good reason for it to be named Dragon Tail Cut. However, it used to be called "Wallop" which lends the idea that it is a garish name for a simple technique.

Right now the name is hanging by slender threads and I'm just not seeing the one that is bearing the load here. Sure, there are a few reasons that it might be kept in place, but the "Oh THAT is why!" isn't as obvious as I'd like it to be.

However, I do think that a simple change like dropping the "cut" part would be an improvement.

Mouseferatu said:

My point--yes, I have one --is that it simply may not be practical to name each maneuver solely for what it does, in a purely functional/non-flowery way. There are reasons beyond the aesthetic that Bo9S named its maneuvers as it did, and I imagine that even with a change in said aesthetics, those other reasons remain in 4E.

Click to expand...

Okay, I can buy that, to some extent.

However, there is a difference between "flowery to differentiate this maneuver from other similar ones" and "too flowery, period."

In this specific example, I'm not even entirely sure how to read the name. Is it "Dragon's (Tail Cut)"? Or is it "(Dragon's Tail) Cut"? Reading it one way leads me to envision a dragon's tail doing the cutting, while the other leads me to envision a dragon's tail being cut. Since these two things are rather different, it is clear that the writer was intending it to be read one way and not the other, but I can't figure out which was the intended meaning.

A name can be "flowery" and still functional. However, when the name gives two rather different visuals, there is an issue there.