I Really Like Keywords

[arscott]

I love the keywords, and wish they'd taken them further, in some circumstances.

Monsters in particular:

I was hoping for keywords based on animal type, but that held across creature categories. For example:

A python, a Yuan-ti, and a hydra would all have the keyword 'serpent'
A Lion, a Were-Tiger, and a Cait Sith would all have 'cat'.
A satyr and an Ibixian would both have 'goat'.
And a Chimera would have all three.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I misread something and made a stupid post. But I can't delete it. Sadness.

 

[Counterspin]

The roles aren't keywords, they're descriptors. A keyword is, at least in a Magic sense, a compressed rules concept reused throughout the text. For instance, the weapons article uses many keywords for weapon abilities. Calling some one a defender describes their role in combat, but is not attached to a larger rule.

Additionally, since Wizards is right now developing a hybrid class(druid), I'm not sure how the whole "pigeon hole" thing in your signature makes a lick of sense.

 

[AZRogue]

Keywords seem like a really great idea. I like what we've seen so far and I can see a lot of potential. With most things, for me, it's going to be in how it's all implemented. Not that I have long to wait to find out.

 

[arscott]

Do keywords automatically include rules information?

I tend to define keywords more broadly to include identifying markers that have no specific rules attached to them, but define how the creature or object with the keyword is affected by other rules.

So, "Bloodied" is a keyword--Being bloodied doesn't do anything, but other rules might affect a creature differently depending on whether or not the creature is bloodied.

Energy Types also don't do anything on their own. They just define how an attack relates to a creatures immunities, resistances, and weaknesses.

 

[Lizard]

While I know that keywords are not exactly a new thing, I really have to give credit to the 4e designers for their organizational usage of keywords. Now that I've read two excerpts that explore the keyword system quite heavily (Power and Weapons) I find it a very efficient and easily accessible system. Kudos to WoTC!

Am I alone here with my enthusiasm (or is it analness)?

No, keywords rock. It makes it easy to add in mechanics that play off them. 3x always seemed muddled WRT them; for example, you had Simple, Martial, and Exotic weapons, but Monks and Rogues had custom proficiency lists and there was no rules-grounded concept such as 'rogue weapon'.

 

[Lizard]

I too love keywords, especially if they have a lexicon in the beginning with all the keywords listed out with short descriptions (or online to be printed out for quick reference).

I also love the symbols.

Symbols, bah. A sop to the semi-literate, and one more thing for aging eyes to ponder in confusion. "Is that a shuriken?" "Is that the bow-pointing-straight symbol or the bow pointing slightly up symbol?"

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I find the keywords bad. I personally have been having a very hard time reading and interpreting the PHB and MM excerpts. I have never had this problem with any other rules system (including 1E, 3E, HERO, CoC, and RoleMaster).

 

[Wormwood]

Keywords: [Good] [Useful]

Symbols: [thumbsup.gif]

 

[Klaus]

I like keywords, and have liked them since 3e. After all, what are dazed/stunned/nauseated/etc, [Fire, Evil. Healing, etc], Empowered/Stilled/Quickened/Etc, if not keywords subsuming entire mechanical modifications?