Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="breschau" data-source="post: 4108099" data-attributes="member: 52376">But, if that assumption is true, why not simply describe them that way. If it's about buffing call it a &quot;bolstering x&quot; or an &quot;encouraging x&quot; or a &quot;coordinating x.&quot; There's no need to use descriptive names this badly.Go check again, onslaught is not a tactical term. It's a &quot;fierce or destructive attack.&quot; Aren't they all? If it's not fierce or destructive, it's not much of an attack.My complaint isn't about the inclusion of tactical terms, my complaint is about the meaningless descriptive text used in their names. &quot;White Raven&quot; is useless. &quot;Iron Dragon&quot; is useless.Pin the foe isn't bad, but it could be better. A more apt name would be &quot;Coordinated Pin&quot; because it requires an ally to pull off. Hearing &quot;pin the foe&quot; doesn't tell me much. It certainly does nothing to imply the team nature of the power. That's all I'm asking for. Descriptive power names. Descriptive here meaning that they reveal something about the power itself, rather than descriptive as in flowery and useless.What's wrong with &quot;Shifting Onslaught&quot;? It's far more descriptive of the actual maneuver and therefore helpful to DMs and players to remember. By using the name as a descriptive of what the power actually does it helps DMs and players recall enough about the power that they can get by, possibly even remember what the power actually does. Melf's Acid Arrow is a great example. &quot;Melf&quot; here is useful only as a nod to a designer's character. But, it's perfect. Acid. Arrow. Perfect. One shaft of acid that strikes the target. Simple. &quot;White Raven Onslaught&quot; doesn't tell me anything.Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. &quot;Repeating charge&quot;, &quot;Lasting charge&quot;, &quot;Staggered charge&quot;... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="breschau, post: 4108099, member: 52376"] But, if that assumption is true, why not simply describe them that way. If it's about buffing call it a "bolstering x" or an "encouraging x" or a "coordinating x." There's no need to use descriptive names this badly. Go check again, onslaught is not a tactical term. It's a "fierce or destructive attack." Aren't they all? If it's not fierce or destructive, it's not much of an attack. My complaint isn't about the inclusion of tactical terms, my complaint is about the meaningless descriptive text used in their names. "White Raven" is useless. "Iron Dragon" is useless. Pin the foe isn't bad, but it could be better. A more apt name would be "Coordinated Pin" because it requires an ally to pull off. Hearing "pin the foe" doesn't tell me much. It certainly does nothing to imply the team nature of the power. That's all I'm asking for. Descriptive power names. Descriptive here meaning that they reveal something about the power itself, rather than descriptive as in flowery and useless. What's wrong with "Shifting Onslaught"? It's far more descriptive of the actual maneuver and therefore helpful to DMs and players to remember. By using the name as a descriptive of what the power actually does it helps DMs and players recall enough about the power that they can get by, possibly even remember what the power actually does. Melf's Acid Arrow is a great example. "Melf" here is useful only as a nod to a designer's character. But, it's perfect. Acid. Arrow. Perfect. One shaft of acid that strikes the target. Simple. "White Raven Onslaught" doesn't tell me anything. Iron dragon charge does nothing to imply that it's a group effort or effect. "Repeating charge", "Lasting charge", "Staggered charge"... anything really that helps the DM and player know the gist of what the power does. [/QUOTE]

Verification