An Eberron Review by SKR

[Psion]

You can't use Enhance, because enhancement is a particular type of bonus, what if you aren't giving the armor an enhancement bonus?!?!

Since enhance is something you would do to armor, and enchant is silly taken as "cast an enchantment spell" on the armor unless you have living armor or something, I think enchant remains less ambiguous.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Since enhance is something you would do to armor, and enchant is silly taken as "cast an enchantment spell" on the armor unless you have living armor or something, I think enchant remains less ambiguous.

Enchant is fine, and I can't imagine it causing confusion. I think it irritates me more as a writer to always have to say "imbues the armor with magical abilities" rather than just "enchants the armor." Although on further reflection it shouldn't irritate me too much, since the first phrase buys me an extra stamp over the second.

 

[Marius Delphus]

...d20 designers rapelling into your game room like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible to offer a correction.

[OT] I've been meaning to figure out how to make that stop. Thanks BG! [/OT]

Rats. I was dead-set against picking this book up. Now that I've been presented with some more detailed analyses of why it's cool, it's starting to look cool.

Rats.

 

[Henry]

Oh, it is. I've been reading it for a week straight, now, and still finding tidbits to dig into. Everything from the Dragonmarked Houses and their interactions, to the cinematic nature of the world. If nothing else, it's given me items to add to my next game that I run.

 

[Mark]

Enchant is fine, and I can't imagine it causing confusion. I think it irritates me more as a writer to always have to say "imbues the armor with magical abilities" rather than just "enchants the armor." Although on further reflection it shouldn't irritate me too much, since the first phrase buys me an extra stamp over the second.

Didn't "Enspell" become the term that was planned as a replacement/alternate word to use to alleviate that issue?

 

[Gez]

It would be misleading, since magical effects put on weapons and armors do not always correspond to a spell (despite the spell prerequisite).

 

[Vocenoctum]

Enchant is fine, and I can't imagine it causing confusion. I think it irritates me more as a writer to always have to say "imbues the armor with magical abilities" rather than just "enchants the armor." Although on further reflection it shouldn't irritate me too much, since the first phrase buys me an extra stamp over the second.

Why isn't "create's magical armor" enough though?

Like I mentioned before, I don't think it's a major event that they said enchant, but it is WotC policy not to use that word for that event. To miss it in the editing process or simply figure it's no longer important isn't going to end the world, or create a situation that's ambigious for THIS wording, but it IS lazy writing/ editing. If Terminology no longer applies, it only gets worse.

 

[Saeviomagy]

She was small for an elf her age.

Small? SMALL?! Elves are MEDIUM creatures, NOT small.

(I'm having too much fun with this, but ever since I saw SKR chew somebody out for referering to their sorcerer as a "sorceress", he just makes such an easy target.)

Some of SKR's complaints aren't particularly valid.

OTOH, you just have to try for a familiar that isn't on the standard list before you see what the problem is with mixing terms - I believe the flavour text in the phb says you may have any small animal as a familiar, despite the fact that every listed familiar is smaller than size small, and furthermore that familiars are actually "like animals", but are actually magical beasts...

Perhaps it would be smart for wizards to have a policy of highlighting rules terms in some way, much as they italicise spell names.

 

[Krieg]

Some of SKR's complaints aren't particularly valid.

Unfortunately I come across with that impression almost everytime I hear Sean speak...but to his credit he rarely let's the little nitpicks distort his overall view. Despite some questionable (IMO of course) complaints about Eberron, he still does an excellent job of pointing out it's strengths and weaknesses in a fair manner.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And given there is no ambiguity as to what "enchanting an armor" is compared to "enchanting a person's mind" there is no risks of confusion.

Natural languages are never context-free. Context is everything. And context in "enchanting an armor" refers to magical enhancement for armors, while context in "enchanting someone" refers to using a spell of the enchantment school.

This is probably true, and this is a bit off topic, but I know there are many books that have this problem of using imprecise wording. I've been in so many rules arguements with people that say "threats" are people who "threaten" you (as in the rules definition), of people who say that a trip attack is different from a trip attempt (which, it still might be), etc.

Monte Cook had a beef with this as well. He really was annoyed at Warrior being a name for an NPC class because it is used in normal speech.

Needless to say, I know a couple of people who like to take the literal definition of anything, no matter how stupid it might sound, because they believe that no one would ever write a book and use the wrong word. I know people who would actually try to cast charm person on the warforged armor just because it says the armor can be enchanted. They'd point out that since it is an exception to the rules, all other rules saying that it shouldn't work should be ignored. Not that they'd prove much, but they'd do it, just to be an idiot.

Sort of like our "Sorry, you can't hide. Someone is looking at you....it is your party. Until they, and all of the insects in the room stop looking at you, you cannot hide."

Majoru Oakheart