Dragon's Tail Cut?

[Imp]

Okay, if I were to have this move in my game, at first level, I'd call it "Reaping Blade" and flavor it as a clinch move where the fighter closes to infighting distance, applies a very fast draw-cut or short chop to the back of the knee, and follows it up with a proper sweep on the wounded leg. Now, at tenth level, you could have something like "Dragon Twine" that starts off similarly, but the initial cut is much more circular and extensive and it ends with the sweep landing the hapless victim on the point of the blade Operative-style. And at 20th level maybe you could have "Slice of the Abyss" that cuts down all of the adversary's legs, hurls him 10 feet away, and attempts to guillotine him with a leaping chop as his chin bounces up from the floor.

The point being, again, that the names and moves should scale up in cinematic fantasticalness, not so much to sell particular names, though I think "Reaping Blade" is much better for this proposed maneuver and I pretty much totally ran out of gas after "Dragon Twine" there.

(Mire of Minauros is pretty good, I think. Lord knows the generic names in the Spell Compendium bored me to tears, but there's a contingent around here who'd be happy if they just named the spells Fire 1, Fire 2, and Fire 3...)

 

[Hussar]

Just a thought.

One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless. Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.

Isn't this a response to that criticism? Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?

 

[Reynard]

Just a thought.

One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless. Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.

I can't say that pops out in my memory as one of the "largest" crticisms of 3e. I don't recall it in recent memory at all, in fact.

Isn't this a response to that criticism? Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?

If the "fluff" makes the rules harder to understand and/or makes it more difficult for groups to amake the game their own, it is bad fluff.

 

[Wormwood]

Just a thought.

One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless. Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.

Isn't this a response to that criticism? Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?

I really think you have something there! Good call.

 

[hazel monday]

Just a thought.

One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless. Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.

Isn't this a response to that criticism? Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?

No flavor* is better than bad flavor* as far as I'm concerned.

*( I refuse to use the word "fluff" when talking about RPGs. What people call "fluff" is actually the most important part of the game. Calling it fluff dismisses it, and is, in my opinion, misguided. Calling something "Fluff" implies that something is useless, or superfluous. It especially bugs me when game designers use the word "fluff". These are guys are professionals, and I think they should know better. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. In the grand scheme of things, I realize it's unimportant. But it's a pet peeve of mine. like the words"gish" or "munchkin". There oughtta be a list I tells ya.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can't say that pops out in my memory as one of the "largest" crticisms of 3e. I don't recall it in recent memory at all, in fact.



If the "fluff" makes the rules harder to understand and/or makes it more difficult for groups to amake the game their own, it is bad fluff.

Oh, it was certainly not on the top lists of complaints, because after a few month or years playing D&D, you will tend to ignore the names anyway. Bad mechanics hurt a lot longer.

But that said, I also remember it as a criticismn, and something I felt sometimes. But I didn't really care much about it, since I am pretty "technical" guy.
But since I don't really care much about it, I think it is good that they give their abilities "flavored" names, because there are people that will care. Especially newcomers might feel a bit more engaged if there are some colorful names to their abilities.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which incidentally contained several new spells with silly names.

For the record: I don't like 'Dragon's Tail Cut' and I'd hate having to memorize hundreds of names of that kind. Especially once there are several varieties on the name.

The BO9S already showed the problem with fancy names: There were two maneuvers from different disciplines that were (almost?) identical without their names indicating any kind of similarity. And there's a feat that shares a name with a class ability.

Yeah, I know, this could happen with less flowery names as well, but still...

I think it happened a lot in some ways.

I remember that there was the Improved Trip feat in 3.0, and Sword & Fist invented "Knockdown". Both are "unflavored" terms, but do I really understand by the name that there is a difference? Could I even guess that Knockdown might require Improved Trip, and not the other way around?

On a totally different note:
From some blogs and articles I have seen, I gathered that it is possible that they actually have feats for similar things multiple times. Dragon Tail Cut might require sword to effectively "trip" someone, and there might be another feat with a similar effect for maces or flails.

I am not sure if I like this approach. On this regard, I preferred the "generic" maneuvers - keeps things simpler, and doesn't lead to people inventing the same ability multiple times. But maybe it turns out to be better than it looks.

 

[The Merciful]

One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless. Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.

Isn't this a response to that criticism? Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?

Not really. Firstly, "Dragon's tail cut" has an oriental feel to it, which does not really fit the assumed default setting of sort of magical medieval Europe. Secondly, it is clumsy - bland is better than ridiculous when it comes to flavor. Thirdly, flavour is in the small details, in the way of writing and giving things a context - not in gimmicks and flashy names.

From what little I read about the power, I don't see why it isn't called "hamstring" or somesuch. To the point, explains much in the name alone, and seems like something that might be in actual sword fighting manual. (For record, I'm writing that as a common man and a non native english speaker)

 

[WhatGravitas]

But that said, I also remember it as a criticismn, and something I felt sometimes. But I didn't really care much about it, since I am pretty "technical" guy.
But since I don't really care much about it, I think it is good that they give their abilities "flavored" names, because there are people that will care. Especially newcomers might feel a bit more engaged if there are some colorful names to their abilities.

Well, the question is: How many gearheads do we have in the target audience? I like the 'bland' names, because I can drop my own flavour on it. However, I have one player in my group, who is a rabid anime watcher, and he likes such names, indeed.

However, I dread the German translation of Dragon's Tail Cut.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, the question is: How many gearheads do we have in the target audience? I like the 'bland' names, because I can drop my own flavour on it. However, I have one player in my group, who is a rabid anime watcher, and he likes such names, indeed.

However, I dread the German translation of Dragon's Tail Cut.

Cheers, LT.

"Schnitt des Drachenschwanzes", "Drachenwurf", "Schlag des Drachenschwanzes" "Schwung des Drachenschwanzes"? ( Hmm. Honestly, I have no idea how they will translate that, but I don't own any German D&D books, anyway. There is only one player in our group that owns them, and we never use them. At first, the translation took forever, and we forced to use the English ones. When the books were finally out, it was too difficult to get accustomed to the German names for game terms we already knew perfectly well from English.

There might be another reason why such limited abilities are "required": They enforce that people specialize in a chosen weapon. If you got Dragon's Tail Cut and it can only be used with swords, you will probably also want to pick up other sword-related feats and talents.

Now, I personally did like the archetype of the non-weapon-specialized Fighter (that's what I played in the Shackled City campaign), but in most fiction, characters usually focus on a very select few weapons. So it might be a good idea to model this with encouraging weapon specialization.
At the same time, this means you can specialize in a weapon and still have multiple combat options. A 3rd edition fighter that did choose weapon focus has to give up many feats that give him more or better tactical options, and as a result, they are only interesting when you only wanted a heavy hitter without further style. Now, if the whole Weapon Focus chain is removed and replaced with weapon specific improved trip/sunder/disarm feat chains, this might in some way be the best of both worlds.