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: 6176215" data-attributes="member: 221">Some of those I can see, others I regard though as rather intuitive regardless of edition; and still others I know for a fact predate 3e.Armor bonuses, while not the technical term used, for example, are present in every edition; though, like Thac0, the term denotes a specific way of looking at the math; but the idea is consistent throughout editions (I tend to think the inversion 3e did was actually a good thing, and like much of the 3e changes was so intuitive one wonders why it was not always done that way. Skills (as a concept) predates 3e, though the jargon changed a bit, as did caster level (the level of your caster), a concentration check, being flat-footed, having a longer reach and bonuses (bonuses!?  There were +1 bonuses to magic items from the get go). Also, damage types from different weapons surely predates 3e. Especially blunt vs. slashing. One always, always wanted clubs and maces against skeletons as opposed to arrows and swords. (Okay, I double checked - 1e Monster Manual had weapon types matter against skeletons; basic set did not) Granted, some of these terms were made more specific in 3e, but the concepts were always there and there was little problem adapting the jargon. I would postulate that most of these terms (with some Jargon like BAB being the exception; though the concept is basic to every edition) wouldn't actually cause much confusion if players from two different editions were talking about their game experience. While 3e defined a lot of terms, the concepts were the same and I think that was why 4e was harder on the language. So many concepts changed. And I think you are right that 4e players tend to talk more technically than 3e players. I think a lot of this goes back to playstyles. And while some of the terms are intuitive (an at-will power is pretty easy to comprehend), others make little sense in the tradition of the game.  When I hear "healing surge," my first instinct is to think cleric spell. The whole idea of a healing surge is completely foreign to every other edition of the game. I think you would have a much harder times finding examples of the same in 3e where the very concept is just so novel and edition specific. That may just be familiarity bias, but I have to think it is not entirely such. Beyond this, in 4e, other otherwise common words are given entirely new technical meanings, such as "Heroic."  "Heroic" takes on an entirely new definition in 4e where the use of the word by the player of one edition is going to mean something completely different; for example, "My character went on a heroic quest," tells a story (of sorts) in every other edition, but in 4e it likely only means that the character was a certain level. I think creating technical jargon using common words using new, novel definitions is a poor design decision in terms of making a game inclusive in conversation. It is one thing to make "reach" a technical term where the term means how far a character or monster can reach. But to take the term heroic, and make it exclusive of all activity outside a certain range of levels creates confusion in the language. In my opinion anyway.</blockquote>

Verification