D&D 5E D&D Lingua Franca, or 5e really, REALLY needs to create it's own new "space"

[Estlor]

Well, let's make this constructive then.

What would be an appropriate fantasy-genre name for something that includes arcane spells, divine prayers, martial exploits, psionic disciplines, primal evocations, and shadow hexes?

 

[Janaxstrus]

Well, let's make this constructive then.

What would be an appropriate fantasy-genre name for something that includes arcane spells, divine prayers, martial exploits, psionic disciplines, primal evocations, and shadow hexes?

Why does it need an overall term?

Wizards and Clerics and Druids (oh my!) cast spells. Paladins have auras. Psionic characters use psionics. Martial characters have combat manuevers.

The rest? I am not sure we'll see "primal" or "shadow hexes" in the next version.

No, but neither are they obligated to change it.

Also quite accurate. SOME of the terms from 4e are good changes. Shift? Way better than 5 foot step. Even Prayers I could get on board with, fits the theme and also differentiates from Arcane spells.
But many of them are jarring to me, personally, in ways that switching between the previous 3 versions was not.
All my opinion.

 

[Sunseeker]

Martial characters have combat manuevers.

Almost everyone can do combat maneuvers, most people don't because they generally suck compared to the alternatives. Why trip when I can do d10+5? Why disarm when the guy's missing most of the time or not really doing much dmg to me?

Generally speaking, combat maneuvers are a waste of time. Either the enemy is too strong for them to be of any use, or they're so weak that combat maneuvers just drag the fight out while strict damage ends it quickly.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Almost everyone can do combat maneuvers, most people don't because they generally suck compared to the alternatives. Why trip when I can do d10+5? Why disarm when the guy's missing most of the time or not really doing much dmg to me?

Generally speaking, combat maneuvers are a waste of time. Either the enemy is too strong for them to be of any use, or they're so weak that combat maneuvers just drag the fight out while strict damage ends it quickly.

Those were alternative names instead of "powers".

Instead of "martial powers", call them "combat maneuvers". This is all about the language, not the effects they produce.

 

[KidSnide]

I LOLed a little when I read the assertion that 4e's over-abundance of keywords was a turn-off. Someone should finger their way through a 3e Monster Manual (any manual) if they want to see excessive keywords and jargon in play. Now, I'm not knocking 3e by saying this, because I (at the time) supported and applauded the design initiative to pull over the universal terms from Magic and apply them to monsters.

It's true that 3e has a crap load of keywords (e.g. "undead"), but you point at the monster manual for good reason. Most of the keywords are dumped on the DM. Sure, a PC can benefit from knowing whether a Construct has a Con score and what the effect of that is his spells, but he doesn't actually need to know those keywords in order to understand what his spells do. In contrast, a 4e player needs to know the difference between a shift and a slide and it's hard to evaluate powers if you don't know the difference between daze and stun.

Re: The term "Powers" is bad jargon because it doesn't fit the genre - Keep in mind "Powers" is a generic, over-arching term like "Race" or "Class." Technically there aren't any powers in the world. Only Exploits, Spells, Prayers, Evocations, Disciplines, and Hexes. The term "power" only exists to express an equivalency so people won't argue Spell <> Prayer as a rule unit.

Yeah, it's true that they have all these more flavorful replacements for powers, but the word is still all over the rules. The advancement table and all the meta-rules talk about powers, not exploits or prayers. There's a good reason for that structurally, but it doesn't help. The fact that a power is an exploit is mostly irrelevant.

Now, if 4e had a generic pool of martial "exploits" that were available to fighters, rangers and rogues (and maybe paladins and barbarians), then Exploit would have some meaning. But they didn't. Instead, they have Fighter Powers, Ranger Powers and Rogue Powers, and "powers" is the term that people use.

-KS

 

[Sunseeker]

Those were alternative names instead of "powers".

Instead of "martial powers", call them "combat maneuvers". This is all about the language, not the effects they produce.

The game called the "Martial Exploits". The players called them "martial powers".

 

[Janaxstrus]

The game called the "Martial Exploits". The players called them "martial powers".

Exploits is even worse. It's got a bad connotation with me after so many years of gaming

 

[Sunseeker]

Exploits is even worse. It's got a bad connotation with me after so many years of gaming

That's the way I feel about "combat maneuvers", certainly we could find some middle ground with say "Martial Maneuvers"? I mean realistically, what's stopping anyone from having "Combat Maneuvers"? Nothing. The Fighter might just be better at it, but there's no reason Combat Maneuvers can't be accomplished by anyone.

 

[Kynn]

Those were alternative names instead of "powers".

Instead of "martial powers", call them "combat maneuvers". This is all about the language, not the effects they produce.

I know! Let's call them exploits!

...

...

...

Oh, you said that already.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, let's make this constructive then.

What would be an appropriate fantasy-genre name for something that includes arcane spells, divine prayers, martial exploits, psionic disciplines, primal evocations, and shadow hexes?

Abilities works for me.