Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3947353" data-attributes="member: 710">I think it's better that a lot of abilities are named "fluffy". In the Complete Arcane, "Black Lore of Moil" stands out badly, because there is no precendence for naming feats this way.If a lot of abilities have such names, you know: "Ah, okay, that's the name for this setting. I should probably change this for my own". Once the first "non-generic" setting book hits the shelves and changes names to better fit the setting people will "get it" and begin to adapt names and tailor them to their setting.The positive net effect for me are two things1) The core rulebooks don't read like a dry technical manual, but contain evocative names (even if some suck <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) that sparks their creativity and makes them want to play a certain character. 2) In the long run, people might lose some of their strong focus on the rules and as a whole become a little more immersed into the game, focusing more on their role in the world and the background of their character. Less "how can I get combat powers A-D together in one character, because this gets me the option to make an AoO if someone trips me, fails to disarm me, fails to hit me, and doesn't move 5 ft, and also do it all on the same guy" and more "I want to play an adept of Karneos Sacred Lore, because their order is actively trying to ensure that the demonic lore doesn't fall into the wrong hands but still manage to use it for good themselves"</blockquote>

Verification