I Really Like Keywords

[Keenath]

I like the keywords too... I hope the raw number of them doesn't get quite as bad as with Magic the Gathering (memorizing stuff is good, but too much information to memorize can be difficult and problematic), but I can really see how keywords will benefit D&D.

I really like the whole thing. As long as there aren't too many keywords with rules stuck on them, it'll be fine. Obviously some of them will -- such as 'High Crit' or 'Versatile' -- but you want to keep that number low.

Raw number won't be an issue that I can see other than if it causes a certain lack of focus -- if there's too many keywords, the old ones tend to get ignored over time. But I don't think it'll be a problem to add, say, a "Blue" keyword, because if you have an ability that affects Radiant and Fire, you just have to say, "Does it have either of these descriptors? No? Move on."

Keywords make design work a LOT easier. If a spell looks like it should be some sort of impact, you make it Thunder. Or possibly Force. I do want to know what that distinction is. In any case you have an explicit list to work off. And keywords imply certain concepts, such as "If there are more than 1 damage-type keyword, then split the damage evenly, distributing any leftovers in the order they're printed". That means you don't have to say, "this spell deals XdY+Z damage which is half holy and half fire" -- or worse, "one-third cold, one-third fire, and one-third thunder..." Just give it three descriptors, and if it ever matters, the rule is simple to apply.

Eh. I dislike them for the moment because their just so bloody random so far. Energy/damage types need to be be a lot more symmetrical for me to really be happy, for instance. I really hope we don't see a Fire / Cold / Electricity vs. Acid vs. Sonic vs. Force hierarchy again...

Ehh. I don't like symmetry-for-its-own-sake. Just because we have Thunder doesn't mean we need an anti-thunder; Acid does not imply the need for an anti-acid (Tums!); and so on. Pairs should only exist when there's a legitimate pairing like Fire and Cold, not because there's some need for a symmetrical pattern.

 

[Ilium]

On the one hand using programing models for game mechanics can result in cleanly written and easily understandable rules. On the other I'm starting to worry that imagination is being replaced by a machine like adherance to the rules, and a terror of straying beyond them.

In particular the more rabid anti-simulationist posts like the "NPCs don't exist off stage" ones leave me wondering why these people are bothering to play a role-playing game since they seem to be insisting on a world so alien and limited that they cannot possibly empathise with their characters. The game they are playing seems to have little to do with RPGs as I know and love them. :\

I suppose you can get carried away with anything, but the idea that "game thing X" is also a "game thing Y" can be very handy. Creature types were a big boon when trying to describe what creatures should be affected by certain magic, for example. Same with spell descriptors.

But I agree that expecting RPG rules to cover every single action possible is a mistake. That way lies madness.

 

[Just Another User]

A possible problem for keywords can be had where you try something to the system which is not already covered by the existing keywords, let's suppose, for example, that I want to add a new type pf damage i.e. Radiation. then I'd have two choice, either adding a new keyword (which would risk to unbalance the system, after all existing damages type are balanced because there are X monster vulnerable, Y monster resistants or immune, etc) or pick one or more existing keywords and hammer the new square keywords effects into esixting round keywords holes, which could or could not give origin to any kind of oddity.

arforged were a good example of this for 3rd edition, they were a great addiction to the game (IMHO) but there waere some points where they interacted a little weirdly with the existing rules (i.e brilliant energy weapons or undead creation) that is because living construct was a totally new concept which don't fitted exactly within any of the existing boxes. I'm not saying that the same could/would happen in 4e, but it is a possibility.

 

[Keenath]

A possible problem for keywords can be had where you try something to the system which is not already covered by the existing keywords, let's suppose, for example, that I want to add a new type pf damage i.e. Radiation. then I'd have two choice, either adding a new keyword (which would risk to unbalance the system, after all existing damages type are balanced because there are X monster vulnerable, Y monster resistants or immune, etc) or pick one or more existing keywords and hammer the new square keywords effects into esixting round keywords holes, which could or could not give origin to any kind of oddity.

I don't think there's that much game-balance disruption to be had by adding a damage type, honestly. It's not that you have to have X number of immune monsters in the book, or something.

But on the other hand, I think the existing types are probably pretty well suited to covering most of the effects you could want. Radiation, maybe... half radiant and half fire? I'm not sure Radiation even belongs in the setting (and if you're changing settings to something more modern, you'll need to change more than a few of those damage types anyway, like Necrotic).

Warforged were a good example of this for 3rd edition, they were a great addiction to the game (IMHO)

Hehe. Freudian slip.

 

[Mercule]

So, using just the first block, how fast do you figure out what has recharged? The second? It might be easy with this one block everyone is familiar with, but what if you had 4 or 5 of these blocks?

They're there to highlight recharging powers as well as convey what numbers those powers recharge on.

It's a mixed bag, IMO. The symbolic bullets are fabulous to draw the eye to the attacks and differentiate things. Mega-kudos for using them.

The little dice symbols for recharge are crap. Seriously, who uses dice with pips on them anymore? That's not what I'm used to looking at. If the ability recharges on four or better, then mark it with a 4+ and be done with it. The color sets it off enough, and you can always put it in a circle if you want to. Using a list or the silly pipped dice pictures is value-subtractive.

I like the keywords. They are just an extension of standardized terminology used in gaming. They are just formally defined and given a usage scope. Of course, I'm a computer programmer, so concrete keywords are part of my daily existence.

Symbols can be good, but it's easy to over do them or to put them in bad places.

 

[AuraSeer]

I wonder though; did the guys working on 4e take this idea from MtG and their other games, or did they just happen about it in a meeting?

Keywords are not solely a MtG thing. The idea is very common in modern information science, especially in so-called "Web 2.0" stuff, under various names. Lots of places call them Tags. Gmail calls them Labels. WotC calls them keywords. All pretty much the same thing.

 

[Just Another User]

I don't think there's that much game-balance disruption to be had by adding a damage type, honestly. It's not that you have to have X number of immune monsters in the book, or something.

Well, it is just an example, beside we have a precedent in 3e with Sonic, which was more powerful of other energy damages because there are less monsters vulnerable to it (or so I gathered.)

But on the other hand, I think the existing types are probably pretty well suited to covering most of the effects you could want. Radiation, maybe... half radiant and half fire? I'm not sure Radiation even belongs in the setting (and if you're changing settings to something more modern, you'll need to change more than a few of those damage types anyway, like Necrotic).

We'll have to see the complete rules before to say it. I'm just saying that keyword based games can have these problems,After all 3e had at least partially these problems (remember the energy sostituted-cold fireball that by the RAW still put thing on fire?)
Radiant + fire? it could work, but depending on what exactly radiant and fire does it could have some ... weird conseguences (like undead being more vulnerable to radiation then living beigns, for example, which is a little genre weird.

Hehe. Freudian slip.

Nah, just plain ignorance. My english is not good enough to make freudian slips with it

 

[Sojorn]

The little dice symbols for recharge are crap. Seriously, who uses dice with pips on them anymore? That's not what I'm used to looking at. If the ability recharges on four or better, then mark it with a 4+ and be done with it. The color sets it off enough, and you can always put it in a circle if you want to. Using a list or the silly pipped dice pictures is value-subtractive.

I was thinking about it and yeah, it does seem like they could have just recolored them in order to say "RECHARGEABLE ABILITY HERE".

I don't think the symbol translation will be a problem for more than a couple game sessions though. will start coming up "5" in people's minds pretty fast. But I do wonder why they even bothered putting in that step though when a recoloring would have worked. They must have thought it had some sort of long term value.

Or maybe they're just being fancy. Shame on them if they were.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Seriously, who uses dice with pips on them anymore?

Over 3/4 of my d6s are pip dice.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I was thinking about it and yeah, it does seem like they could have just recolored them in order to say "RECHARGEABLE ABILITY HERE".

The dice icons work with colorblind people, and in black-and-white print / copies, though.