MichaelSomething
Legend
Didn't everyone complain about how the 4E fireball didn't burn down stuff because the power didn't say it did? Isn't that why they had to add in a few lines saying it could in Essentials?
D&D 5E D&D Lingua Franca, or 5e really, REALLY needs to create it's own new "space"
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
Didn't everyone complain about how the 4E fireball didn't burn down stuff because the power didn't say it did? Isn't that why they had to add in a few lines saying it could in Essentials?
Of course. Which is why I'm now making up Gamer Axiom #78--
"A player will find any game rule is unnecessary to have right up until the time another player tries to 'break the spirit' of the game and things devolve into an argument lasting more than 30 minutes... at which time adding the rule is absolutely mandatory."
Savage Wombat
Hero
Think electronically. If fireball has the keyword "fire", then it will turn up on a search for all "fire" spells without having to search the text.
This is a tricky subject.
There's no doubt in my mind that there is room for improvement, but what to improve, and how?
We have to remember that 5E is trying to be the bridge between editions, that means some jargon must remain in place, regardless of how meaningful it is.
Armour Class for example, lost its original meaning long ago. As far as I understand it, the meaning changed from 'armour class' to 'defense value' when DND stopped using hit tables and started using THAC0.
In order for 5E to be a refining of core DND concepts, terms like Armour Class and Hit Points must be kept.
On the other hand; Opportunity Actions, Opportunity Attacks, and Attacks of Opportunity, could definitely be replaced. 3E uses AoO, which is a mouthful to say the least. OA actually means Opportunity Action, and 4E makes it sound as though there's going to be a wide variety of OAs available. But in the end they were all Opportunity Attacks, so that's what people think when they see OA.
I'd like to see OA (Opportunity Action) replaced with 'Reaction' or removed altogether. It only needs to exist if there's more than one type of action that can be triggered. Meanwhile, Opportunity Attack could simply be 'free attack'. My memory (and a quick skim reading) of 2E states that no such thing existed back then. The closest was the free attack you got if a character was 'fleeing' rather than 'withdrawing'. For what it's worth; I don't think either concept (OA nor AoO) is required for basic play. However, in a tactical combat module, they're a valuable mechanic to add to the depth of play.
If we're serious about trying to clean up and simplify the language of DND, a good starting place would be to draw up a table of jargon that showed how the terms varied across the editions. (It would take a lot of work to draw up that table, so maybe just a list would be better)
Once collected, each of the terms can be compared across editions, and the most self explanatory one can be chosen for 5E.
The results should then be sanity checked, so that 'burst/blast' confusion doesn't happen. 'Burst and spread' would have been better for the simple reason that they aren't both 5 letter B words.
There is a lot to be said for natural language. There isn't much confusion to be had when the spell says '20ft cube' or '30ft radius'. We know what those things are, even back at the age of 10 when I started playing DND, there was no explanation required.
There's no doubt in my mind that there is room for improvement, but what to improve, and how?
We have to remember that 5E is trying to be the bridge between editions, that means some jargon must remain in place, regardless of how meaningful it is.
Armour Class for example, lost its original meaning long ago. As far as I understand it, the meaning changed from 'armour class' to 'defense value' when DND stopped using hit tables and started using THAC0.
In order for 5E to be a refining of core DND concepts, terms like Armour Class and Hit Points must be kept.
On the other hand; Opportunity Actions, Opportunity Attacks, and Attacks of Opportunity, could definitely be replaced. 3E uses AoO, which is a mouthful to say the least. OA actually means Opportunity Action, and 4E makes it sound as though there's going to be a wide variety of OAs available. But in the end they were all Opportunity Attacks, so that's what people think when they see OA.
I'd like to see OA (Opportunity Action) replaced with 'Reaction' or removed altogether. It only needs to exist if there's more than one type of action that can be triggered. Meanwhile, Opportunity Attack could simply be 'free attack'. My memory (and a quick skim reading) of 2E states that no such thing existed back then. The closest was the free attack you got if a character was 'fleeing' rather than 'withdrawing'. For what it's worth; I don't think either concept (OA nor AoO) is required for basic play. However, in a tactical combat module, they're a valuable mechanic to add to the depth of play.
If we're serious about trying to clean up and simplify the language of DND, a good starting place would be to draw up a table of jargon that showed how the terms varied across the editions. (It would take a lot of work to draw up that table, so maybe just a list would be better)
Once collected, each of the terms can be compared across editions, and the most self explanatory one can be chosen for 5E.
The results should then be sanity checked, so that 'burst/blast' confusion doesn't happen. 'Burst and spread' would have been better for the simple reason that they aren't both 5 letter B words.
There is a lot to be said for natural language. There isn't much confusion to be had when the spell says '20ft cube' or '30ft radius'. We know what those things are, even back at the age of 10 when I started playing DND, there was no explanation required.
Mattachine
Adventurer
"Does it mean a cube with 20 cubic feet inside, or a cube, 20' on a side?"
I remember a lot of badly written jargon back in AD&D.
I remember a lot of badly written jargon back in AD&D.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I could sit down tomorrow with half of my group and play any edition and be fine... But then there are those that think like engineers who follow the letter of the law instead of the spirit... Ones who argued sticking a PCs head in a bucket of water heals them... Because the rules say so.
Depending on your group the wording of rampage may need to be that long...
Depending on your group the wording of rampage may need to be that long...
Yeah, AD&D had a terrible tendency to treat things like 20 ft cube and 20 cubic feet as synonyms.
I love many parts of the system, in some ways more than 3E, but TSR couldn't write a gaming manual to save their lives.
True enough, but it's still more meaningful to a new reader than 'close burst 3'
TwinBahamut
First Post
Er... How so? How is one measurement any better than another when it comes to learning the game? I mean... I could easily argue that cubic feet is a terrible measurement. It doesn't have a clear meaning because of the infinite vagueness of dimensions and space in a tabletop RPG. How is even the DM supposed to know exactly how many cubic feet are in any given area? How is a DM supposed to know how these 20 cubic feet will be distributed? More important, how is the player using these rules supposed to know all of this and factor it into the game?
On the other hand, "Burst 3" is a pretty clear description. It doesn't have ambiguity or guesswork. It makes use of squares, which are a very natural way to count distance in a game based on a grid (as anyone who has ever played chess or checkers could tell you). It is not like the typical new D&D player hasn't ever played a boardgame or videogame before. Game terms are probably easier for new players to use than plain language when it comes to understanding game rules.
Similar Threads
