On The Horrible Naming

[Brown Jenkin]

The idea I like best was mentioned elsewhere but I think would work best at achieving both generic and fluf.

The feats could be listed as:

Sculpt Spell [Golden Wyvern Adept]
Description

or in other words

Generic Title A (Same title that goes in SRD) [Fluf Title B (IP specific and flavorful idea title)]
Description

This way all homebrews and 3rd parties can easily reference the base title while still giving IP based fluf for new campaigns and DMs.

 

[neceros]

Holy Hell. This is almost as bad as EverQuest2-before-release-date-drama.

Wait until the book is released to see if you need to complain about stuff. Heck, just wait until we know more about the book to complain. At this point, we don't know anything except a possible pseudo name they've used to stir up player reactions.

 

[delericho]

Wait until the book is released to see if you need to complain about stuff. Heck, just wait until we know more about the book to complain. At this point, we don't know anything except a possible pseudo name they've used to stir up player reactions.

I simply don't understand this mindset at all. At the moment, the rules are being playtested, and the PHB is not finalised. So, if there is enough of a backlash, something as minor as feat naming conventions can be changed. If we simply remain silent until the PHB is published, then it's too late to do anything about it, and we're stuck with the names for the life of the edition, which would seem to be about eight years.

Surely, then, it makes sense to express an opinion now, when something can be done, rather than waiting and then complaining after it's too late?

 

[Monkey Boy]

Holy Hell. This is almost as bad as EverQuest2-before-release-date-drama.

Wait until the book is released to see if you need to complain about stuff. Heck, just wait until we know more about the book to complain. At this point, we don't know anything except a possible pseudo name they've used to stir up player reactions.

Welcome to the boards neceros. Where have you been the last 3 months?

Back on topic and stirring up more drama, assuming 4E includes a default setting to support the emerald frost and goldern wyvern's , will this mean less pages devoted for rules? Are we sacrificing generic crunch for default setting flavour? Will 4E be so attached to the default setting as to make it difficult for the hombrew, Eberron and Forgotten Realms DM?

Finally chalk me down as being against the flavourful names. Give me generic please.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

'Tenser's Floating Disk'
'Robilar's Gambit'
'Black Lore of Moil'
'Mordenkainen's Disjunction*'
'Eagle Claw Attack'
'Falling Star Strike'
'Cloak of Elvenkind'
'Evard's Black Tentacles'

I assume all of these and their forced flavor raised a similar level of stink when they were introduced, right? Broad attacks and insults towards the game's designers, multiple simultaneous whines from the same source, endless claims of "Well, it's objectively bad and that you don't agree is a personal failure of yours"?

No? It's just 'anime and video games' wearing a new suit? Alright, just wanted to be clear.

And I'm sorry, guys, but "The kids won't be able to remember what it does because it doesn't explain itself in the name!" is utter bollocks. I've met plenty of 10-year olds in game stores who could walk you through the lifecycle of any given Pokemon on record, as well as those it'll likely stomp on and get stomped on by in battle. If the kids care, they'll find a way to remember it, even if only through the cripplingly obvious mnemonics of 'Golden Wyvern feats change the shape of spells' and knowing which feat is at which tier.

* This is my favorite, because based on D&D's limited explanations of magic, the word 'Disjunction' doesn't actually describe the effect at all.

 

[Monkey Boy]

'Tenser's Floating Disk'
'Robilar's Gambit'
'Black Lore of Moil'
'Mordenkainen's Disjunction*'
'Eagle Claw Attack'
'Falling Star Strike'
'Cloak of Elvenkind'
'Evard's Black Tentacles'

But I don't like those names. The feat names you use are from supplements and not the core. The core did not use flavourful names rather they went with the generic. As far as I can tell this worked out fine for everyone.

Lets take cleave as an example - I know what it does, the name says it all. It doesn't need a flavourful name to be fun. The DM creates the flavour with his descriptions surrounding the after effects of the cleave. No Dragon Tail Strike necessary. ITs not the name that is cool instead it is what the feat does.

The spells listed go hand in hand with an implied setting with its nod to Greyhawk characters. I would prefer to see 4E avoid this as the implied setting names do sit well outside of that setting.

I'm not saying down with DnD's traditional crazy naming conventions. I want to see it in monsters and worlds, where I can choose what to use. I don't want implied setting flavour in my feats and spells.

 

[Jinete]

'Tenser's Floating Disk'
'Robilar's Gambit'
'Black Lore of Moil'
'Mordenkainen's Disjunction*'
'Eagle Claw Attack'
'Falling Star Strike'
'Cloak of Elvenkind'
'Evard's Black Tentacles'

I assume all of these and their forced flavor raised a similar level of stink when they were introduced, right? Broad attacks and insults towards the game's designers, multiple simultaneous whines from the same source, endless claims of "Well, it's objectively bad and that you don't agree is a personal failure of yours"?

Robilar's Gambit: a Gambit. As in sacrifice something to get an advantage, lvl 12 feat
Black Lore of Moil: never heard of it. Or maybe I did but I don't remember what it does.
Mordenkainen's Disjunction: 9th lvl spell, don't care. Never used it, never will, destroys magic items
Eagle Claw Attack: is that the wisdom bonus to damaging objects for monks?
Falling Star Strike: never heard of it. See Black Lore of Moil
Cloak of Elvenkind: cloak, +5 hide
Evard's Black Tentacles: black tentacles, lvl 4 spell, grapple

So what was your point? Some of these are bad, some could be better, mostly I don't care. It's not like Eagle Claw Attack is a 1st level ranger ability.
And some of them are different in the SRD, e.g. black tentacles and mage's disjunction.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Robilar's Gambit: a Gambit. As in sacrifice something to get an advantage, lvl 12 feat
Black Lore of Moil: never heard of it. Or maybe I did but I don't remember what it does.
Mordenkainen's Disjunction: 9th lvl spell, don't care. Never used it, never will, destroys magic items
Eagle Claw Attack: is that the wisdom bonus to damaging objects for monks?
Falling Star Strike: never heard of it. See Black Lore of Moil
Cloak of Elvenkind: cloak, +5 hide
Evard's Black Tentacles: black tentacles, lvl 4 spell, grapple

So what was your point? Some of these are bad, some could be better, mostly I don't care. It's not like Eagle Claw Attack is a 1st level ranger ability.
And some of them are different in the SRD, e.g. black tentacles and mage's disjunction.

That 'forced flavor', some of it goofy, has been dogging this game since it got its first hardback cover. That most people are just used to looking past it now, and those that don't appear to feel "old + goofy" is inherently better than "new + goofy". Goofy is goofy, says I, and whether E.G.G. penned it or not its presence in the core books is (IMO) unfortunate, but hardly game-destroying. I think "Bigby" is a wicked stupid name, but I get by.

Addendum I: Whether you like the names or abilities in question is at BEST an intellectual exercise as regards this discussion.
Addendum II: That the names are different in the SRD has a similar relevancy to your personal opinion of the ability. That's not what anybody else is talking about.
Addendum III: How much of that was experience with the game, and how much was the name? Is 'Robilar' a code word for 12th level and I just missed the memo? Is there a formula for letters in the name of a spell to determine its level? No? Did you remember the information, regardless of the name?

That's my point.

 

[OakwoodDM]

And Golden Wyvern Adept may be different in the SRD. If it is, would that make the people complaining about it here go, "Ok, fair enough. That doesn't matter, then."?

The point of that list is that there has always been assumed flavour from one world in the PHB, but people don't complain about that. As soon as there is assumed flavour from an as yet un-fleshed out campaign setting in the new PHB, it gets complaints hurled at it and threads started in their dozens.

As for the names, I far prefer "Golden Wyvern Adept" to "Make AoE Spells not hurt my friends" and "Lightning Panther Strike" to "General Combat Double Damage Manoeuvre"

 

[Jinete]

And Golden Wyvern Adept may be different in the SRD. If it is, would that make the people complaining about it here go, "Ok, fair enough. That doesn't matter, then."?

The point of that list is that there has always been assumed flavour from one world in the PHB, but people don't complain about that. As soon as there is assumed flavour from an as yet un-fleshed out campaign setting in the new PHB, it gets complaints hurled at it and threads started in their dozens.

As for the names, I far prefer "Golden Wyvern Adept" to "Make AoE Spells not hurt my friends" and "Lightning Panther Strike" to "General Combat Double Damage Manoeuvre"

What will Golden Wyvern Adept be in the SRD? Adept? Golden adept? Wyvern adept? Wizard adept?

Sure there has always been some flavor in the PHB, and you pointed out some examples of bad flavor. I for one like the name Robilar's Gambit, it's not too flashy. But I'm sure there are people who dislike the name.

But do you know anyone who thinks that Weapon Finesse is a horrible name? Sure, nobody will say "Weapon finesse is a really cool sounding feat", but it doesn't have to sound cool, it should be useful and make you glad you took it. And you should read the feat description once, and the name should make immediate sense.
Even if you didn't read the rest of the PHB, and especially not the fluff.

Same goes for powers, though I don't mind if powers have a bit more flashy names than feats.