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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM_Blake" data-source="post: 3910130" data-attributes="member: 57267">I don't mind that it's close to warlock. I'm clever enough to know the difference. But, it will be strange to come up with abbreviations for stat blocks. Can't abbreviate it as War or Wrl because of warlock, and can't use the first+last letters (a common second choice for abbreviations, such as Maryland or Georgia), Wd, because of wizard. Not really a big concern, but an interesting point.I do, however, dislike class names that sound impressive or imposing. Fighter, for example, can be level 1 or level 30; he fights. Wizard can be level 1 or level 30; he casts arcane spells.Warlord is, in any standard definition, someone who leads armies and theoretically has vast experience at warfare. This doesn't apply well to a level 1 character. Marshal as a suggestion isn't much better.I would have the same complaint if they renamed the wizard class to archmage. It wouldn’t sound appropriate for a level 1 beginner.I can live with this, but it does irk me a little.No fuss here. I’m fine with it.Mordenkainen’s Sword was easy to remember that it creates a sword. Bigby’s Crushing Fist was pretty easy to glance at the spell name in a stat block and know what it does. Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere, Tenser’s Floating Disc, etc., etc., they all include something in the title that describes what it does. All I had to do was read the spell description one time. Then, even years later, if I saw the spell on a scroll, or a stat block, I might not remember the exact details, but I knew what it did.If Bigby’s Crushing Fist were renamed to Bigby’s Adept, I would have hated that name because now it would be meaningless. Years later, if I saw it on a stat block, I would not have a clue what it did.Even worse, if the rules had hundreds of similar meaningless names, then stat blocks would have become full of junk. When it was time for my evil wizard to cast a spell, I would have to look up 30 spells in the PHB just to decide which one to cast.Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat, but it has the meaningless fluff name. Much better for me would be Golden Wyvern Friendsafe, or Golden Wyvern Safespace, or something that at least describes what it does.In short, I don’t hate the “Golden Wyvern” part, I hate the meaninglessness of the “Adept” part.Diamond Body and Diamond Soul bothered me for the same reason. It’s not evident what these things do by their names, so they don’t mean anything in a stat block unless I have a photographic memory (I don’t).Not entirely true.These changes can affect my ability to play. If the core rules have hundreds of them, and I have to rename hundreds of things to make their names more meaningful, or more appropriate to my campaign, then I will need a translator to keep track of all the changes.My current 3.5e feat list (I combined dozens of splat books and typed all the feats into one big list that I can use, and my players can use, when picking feats) has over 1200 feats on them. I would say that about 98% of the feats on that list have meaningful names. When someone scans through 1200 feats, they can literally judge a book by its cover. If the feat “Power Attack” sounds interesting, but they don’t know what it does, at least they can tell in a general sense. You won’t see too many wizards opening the PHB to look it up to see if they want it, but fighters would. Put Golden Wyvern Adept on that feat list, and now monks, druids, bards, maybe even paladins, etc., will have to know in their heads what that is, or they will have to look it up. 7 years from now when there are dozens of splat books out, who will know what is in all of them? Who will read a 1200+ feat list and be able to generally understand all, or nearly all, of the feats listed?Answer: Every player if names like Golden Wyvern Adept are avoided. Nobody if those names are commonly used all over the place by core and splat books.I want to nip this kind of nonsense in the bud. Don’t start. Don’t put it in the core books and maybe many of the splat books will follow WotC’s example.Well, I use my only home-grown campaign world. I’ve used the same world, Rynn, for over two decades. So I don’t really care which campaign world WotC uses in the core books, or any other books. I will still convert it to Rynn.I would like, however, that the core books feel like a toolset that I can apply to my campaign. This means most of the content should be generic. Save the campaign fluff for core books that I can decide to buy or not buy. I have never bought an Eberron book. Not one. Don’t need the campaign fluff.But I have bought all the core books, every MM, every Complete Classname, and a score of other books like Spell Compendium, Tome of Magic, Book of 9 Swords, etc., since those books contain mostly tools and only some, or no, campaign flavor.No big deal here.I guess I’ll have to make some changes on my maps and my gazetteer for my home world.I have no strong feelings on this either way. In my 3.5e games I don’t use alignments. I tell my players to write one on their sheet if it helps them roleplay, but I will never ask them what it is.On those rare cases that some alignment spell is cast, or some magic item is restricted to an alignment, I adjudicate the effects based on how I have seen them roleplay, assuming I don’t just ignore the effects entirely.</blockquote>

Verification