Alright WotC, fess up...who came up with "Emerald Frost"?

[Lonely Tylenol]

So a player of a religous character needs a copy of the DMG just to create their character?

"Ummmm I worship the God of Knowledge. I don't know his name, or what else he stands for, but that's what my new cleric worships."

"But the god of knowledge in the DMG is EVIL! You can't worship him!"

"Oh, I don't own the DMG"

Doesn't work for me.

Player: Hey, DM. Who's the god of knowledge?
DM: It's Bob, the evil librarian.
Player: Okay. Thanks. It sure is a good thing we need you to run the game, or else I wouldn't have anyone around to ask about what is in the DMG.
DM: It sure is.

 

[F4NBOY]

Player: Okay. Thanks. It sure is a good thing we need you to run the game, or else I wouldn't have anyone around to ask about what is in the DMG.

Ouch!

 

[Gloombunny]

Personally, I'd like as much of the PHB to be as generic as possible

So you don't want to have any rules for magic in the PHB? I mean, the way magic works in a setting is generally pretty specific and distinctive.

(Except for D&D settings, of course, because D&D has a really bizarre and warped notion of what "generic" means.)

 

[F4NBOY]

So you don't want to have any rules for magic in the PHB? I mean, the way magic works in a setting is generally pretty specific and distinctive.

(Except for D&D settings, of course, because D&D has a really bizarre and warped notion of what "generic" means.)

You just contradicted yourself:

Magic is specific and distinctive in settings, except for D&D settings.
Thus we can have have generic rules of magic in the PHB

 

[Felon]

Everyone keeps calling the proper names in the article "cheesy", but seriously, what would examples of non-cheesy fantasy monikers be?)

Like I said in another thread, keeps the names focused around arcane lore concepts. Avoid references to beasts, because that sounds very kung-fooey.

Iron sigil is a good example. Serpent eye isn't bad either. Stick to references of symbols and words and knowledge.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

(Assume Latin was never a root language for the fantasy world in question.)

Why? I have no problem with wizards using a dead language for scholarship, and the fallen empires of the "points of lights" setting will provide a plentiful supply of them.

As for why they should use Latin, it's because it generally sounds better: I don't much Latin, but I do know "Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur "(1). And unless the author has the linguistic abilities of Tolkien, made up languages usually sound pretty awful


(1) Anything said in Latin sounds profound.

 

[F4NBOY]

I also used latin as a fictional ancient language from a setting I made long ago. It was not called latin, but since no one on the table knew latin, it was not something familiar to their everyday lifes, so it sounded really profound and old. It was perfect for the job.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I'm honestly astonished (though I should not be, knowing gamers) about the sheer amount of griping and complaining about a handful of names which aren't noticeably better or worse than the standard fantasy offerings, and which take all of half a minute of the DMs time to replace or remove for his campaign.

Is "too kung-fu" now the new "anime" and "videogamey"? (Imagine a head-shaking smiley here.)

 

[Duncan Haldane]

Player: Hey, DM. Who's the god of knowledge?
DM: It's Bob, the evil librarian.
Player: Okay. Thanks. It sure is a good thing we need you to run the game, or else I wouldn't have anyone around to ask about what is in the DMG.
DM: It sure is.

So you think a player shouldn't be able to create a character before the game?

 

[rounser]

OMG, it looks like they're doing it AGAIN. Crunch defining flavour....WOTC, I'm hoping you learnt from 3E not to do this, because it sure looks like you're making the same darn mistake all over again with this awkward coupling of "elements" and wacky "kewl" names. :\

The flavour is not the afterthought! It is not there to conveniently fit in with something that is elegant crunch-wise! Please tattoo to your foreheads design team, or at least consider looking at some stuff through this filter...please do not stuff up the monsters in this way again, too...no more yrthaks, destrachans or digesters, please...

That said, I really like the staff/orb/tome stuff, that's good coupling of flavour and crunch. And the demon/devil cleanup is fine by me. Just don't like it when crunch runs roughshod over aesthetics, as it appears to be doing here, and that warlord class name.