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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wyrmshadows" data-source="post: 3911462" data-attributes="member: 56166">I'm surprisedI am actually surprised at the feat naming conventions the designers are using. I am surprised because guys who have been gaming for years and are payed professional designers think that these questionable names are a good idea. I was never a fan of Tenser's this or Mordenkainen's that in core either unless it was in a Greyhawk sourcebook and always changed them by removing the character name from the spell when I DM'd on other settings. I ran these names by my players (gamers of 20+ years) and they are unimpressed at best and think they are silly at worst. I feel the same way personally. There is no reason for Flying Panther Strike, Soaring Hawk Rend, Lotus Dragon Claw Sunder or Jade Ogre Skull Smash or what have you. This isn't a grognard issue, its merely an issue of desiring the books that are core to contain as little assumed style as possible so that D&D can, as it has always, support the ability for the ruleset to be ported to a variety of settings and genres without too much work.I don't run games in Greyhawk and therefore don't have any use for Mordenkainen and don't run campaigns in the world of the Last Airbender, Final Fantasy, Elric's Melnibone, or He Man's Eternia and don't want to have to cut and carve the core game up constantly so as to run my homebrew or some other published setting where the names I have seen thus far, will not fit without being renamed.I just have to scratch my head wondering "Do the designers really think these are good names or are the names a marketing angle?"Wyrmshadows</blockquote>

Verification