Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Fluff vs Crunch
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 3944455" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>Whether changing fluff names is a problem depends on the scale.</p><p></p><p>If Golden Wyvern Adept is the only feat of its kind (or perhaps one of three or four feats), sure, I can rename it and it's not a major issue. If there are twenty of these feats, however--plus spells, monsters, God knows what else--then it's a much bigger problem to laboriously strip all those names out of the PHB, and virtually impossible to get players to remember the changes. Every DM will effectively be stuck with a Golden Wyvern tradition.</p><p></p><p>We have seen little of the actual rules, so I and many others are concerned that the latter will be the case. Will it, in fact, be so? No way to know for sure; BUT, the time to complain is now. If there are only a handful of fluffy names and we complain, the only harm done is that we look silly when 4E comes out. If there are a lot of fluffy names and we <em>don't</em> complain, though, we'll be stuck with them once the PHB is released.</p><p></p><p>And the 3.5E gods and their portfolios are a bad comparison. The 3E gods are how they <em>should</em> have done wizard traditions; they're all locked away in their own section of the rulebook, all the associated rules are modular, and with the sole exception of <em>Boccob's blessed book</em> (a 2E holdover), their names are found only in that section. If you don't like the standard pantheon, you can make up your own without having to go through the whole PHB crossing out "Pelor's this" and "Hextor's that."</p><p></p><p>Also, the idea that Golden Wyvern Adept is descriptive because of some of the lesser-known interpretations of medieval heraldic symbols? I don't know about you, but not all of my players are up on their medieval heraldry. In fact, I should say <em>none</em> of my players are up on their medieval heraldry. The fact that you have to resort to this type of esoteric knowledge only reinforces the point that GWA is not new-player-friendly; it only suggests a meaning once you're already well-versed in the system.</p><p></p><p>"Power Attack," on the other hand, clearly conveys that this is a way to make your attacks more powerful. You can look up the details when you need them, but if you're trying to pick a new feat and want more damaging attacks, "Power Attack" should draw your attention. If you're in the middle of a battle and need to hit a monster really hard, and you glance down your character sheet looking for options, "Power Attack" is likely to jump out at you.</p><p></p><p>If "Golden Wyvern Adept" meant that you had learned to control and ride the elusive golden wyvern, it would be descriptive (though "Golden Wyvern Rider" would be even better). Letting you shape your spells? Not descriptive.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 3944455, member: 58197"] Whether changing fluff names is a problem depends on the scale. If Golden Wyvern Adept is the only feat of its kind (or perhaps one of three or four feats), sure, I can rename it and it's not a major issue. If there are twenty of these feats, however--plus spells, monsters, God knows what else--then it's a much bigger problem to laboriously strip all those names out of the PHB, and virtually impossible to get players to remember the changes. Every DM will effectively be stuck with a Golden Wyvern tradition. We have seen little of the actual rules, so I and many others are concerned that the latter will be the case. Will it, in fact, be so? No way to know for sure; BUT, the time to complain is now. If there are only a handful of fluffy names and we complain, the only harm done is that we look silly when 4E comes out. If there are a lot of fluffy names and we [I]don't[/I] complain, though, we'll be stuck with them once the PHB is released. And the 3.5E gods and their portfolios are a bad comparison. The 3E gods are how they [i]should[/i] have done wizard traditions; they're all locked away in their own section of the rulebook, all the associated rules are modular, and with the sole exception of [i]Boccob's blessed book[/i] (a 2E holdover), their names are found only in that section. If you don't like the standard pantheon, you can make up your own without having to go through the whole PHB crossing out "Pelor's this" and "Hextor's that." Also, the idea that Golden Wyvern Adept is descriptive because of some of the lesser-known interpretations of medieval heraldic symbols? I don't know about you, but not all of my players are up on their medieval heraldry. In fact, I should say [I]none[/I] of my players are up on their medieval heraldry. The fact that you have to resort to this type of esoteric knowledge only reinforces the point that GWA is not new-player-friendly; it only suggests a meaning once you're already well-versed in the system. "Power Attack," on the other hand, clearly conveys that this is a way to make your attacks more powerful. You can look up the details when you need them, but if you're trying to pick a new feat and want more damaging attacks, "Power Attack" should draw your attention. If you're in the middle of a battle and need to hit a monster really hard, and you glance down your character sheet looking for options, "Power Attack" is likely to jump out at you. If "Golden Wyvern Adept" meant that you had learned to control and ride the elusive golden wyvern, it would be descriptive (though "Golden Wyvern Rider" would be even better). Letting you shape your spells? Not descriptive. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Fluff vs Crunch
Top