Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monkey Boy" data-source="post: 3910932" data-attributes="member: 46422">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.</blockquote>