Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6176185" data-attributes="member: 221">Lot of good comments and observations...I think a lot of this goes to play-style and harkens back to a point made above that sometimes the changes in vocabulary is not so much new terms as new ways of thinking. I hardly ever think in terms of builds, and I never consider caster-imbalance, though I have played 3e since its release and have kept in the d20 system with Pathfinder. Though I understand the terms being used, I have trouble relating to the thinking behind them when I read/hear them. And I say this as someone that does freelance writing for the system. I strive to keep abreast of the concerns of people so that I can keep it in mind when writing, but I have a hard time taking it seriously as legitimate concerns because it is so foreign to my actual gaming style. Like you, such conversations pull me out of a certain comfort zone. So I am not sure this is edition specific language, so much as game style specific language. Again some of this is playstyle specific, not edition specific. I still make my players "roll up" their characters.The BAB I had not considered (an example of jargon one takes for granted due to familiarity), though the saves I can see. I still have a habit of saying, "make a saving throw," to which I am always queried as to which one. The concept of a save remains though, but the jargon has changed somewhat tis true. Quibble - in Pathfinder, a round is still a matter of seconds (though 6 not 10). And initiative can be used interchangeably in a number of ways, so that it is still common to ask, "who has initiative," and refer to "initiative order." That may be a game-group specific difference not an edition specific manner of speech. I still buy modules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  And still use wandering monsters when appropriate.  I do find that I dislike the tendency created by class names to pigeonhole character roles into the appropriately titled class. Its something I've pushed back against in my own small way in my writing by distinguishing between character roles and character classes so that not all Samurai must belong to the samurai class and not all ninjas use the ninja class and an assassin is somebody who kills people, not somebody with a certain class. It is what it is, but I always think there must be a better way to perceive the classes in relation to the roles.  Again, some of this is group specific, more than edition specific. Or maybe its age specific. I still use a lot of the first terms but not so much that latter terms. In fact those last two grate on me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  One semi-random thought. Munchkin is not the pejorative it once was. I blame Steve Jackson.</blockquote>

Verification