Stupid feat naming: Does it really matter that much?

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

First of all: I HATE the feat (and everything else) naming direction they are taking. Golden Wyvern Adept, Dragon Tail cut, Lightning Panther Attack ("I'm Batman" looks cool, though ) They are all just silly.

But,

I think it doesn't really matter. No character knows his abilities are called "power attack" or "rapid shot" or whatever and they don't scream "sneak attaaaaack" They won't know they have "Dragon tail" cut or "Lightning panther attack" either. This nonsense will just be written with pencil in the character sheet, and that's it.

WotC come up with horrible names, big deal.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I agree with your second point. The name of the game mechanic does not necessarily translate to the term the character actually uses to refer to her ability.

Damn it. Now I need to play a wizard or cleric who renames everything according to her own tastes or the attributes of her deity.

 

[Oldtimer]

This nonsense will just be written with pencil in the character sheet, and that's it.

And in the stat blocks of NPCs in adventures. And in the PHB when you need to look up the rule for it.

The thing is not that it is a bother in-character. The thing is that it is a bother out-of-character. If the DM wants to rename it, it will cause needless confusion as everyone will need to convert between the RAW name and the campaign name. So you really can't rename it.

If it was just an in-character thing, renaming would be simple. But since it's an out-of-character game mechanic thing, we're stuck with the stupid name.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it doesn't really matter. No character knows his abilities are called "power attack" or "rapid shot" or whatever and they don't scream "sneak attaaaaack" They won't know they have "Dragon tail" cut or "Lightning panther attack" either. This nonsense will just be written with pencil in the character sheet, and that's it.

WotC come up with horrible names, big deal.

On this specific point, you're right, but if this is symptomatic of a greater conceptual agenda within 4e (such as the fluff of the core setting injecting itself needlessly into mechanics), it becomes a rallying point for those who don't like that agenda.

In other words, most complaints aren't just about the feat's name, but also about the line of thouguht that lead to them naming things after fluff concepts that don't presumably exist outside the 4e core. It adds fuel to a different fire.

I mean, the name does sound pretty bad, but if someone named their kid "Whipping Boy," the problems with it wouldn't begin or end with "it sounds bad," though that might be one of the problems.

 

[Nikosandros]

As many others have already said, the main problem for me is not about stupid names (I don' actually mind most of them) but non-descriptive names. If many powers and feats have names that don't tell me even vaguely what they do, it makes my life more difficult while running the game.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

And in the stat blocks of NPCs in adventures. And in the PHB when you need to look up the rule for it.

The thing is not that it is a bother in-character. The thing is that it is a bother out-of-character. If the DM wants to rename it, it will cause needless confusion as everyone will need to convert between the RAW name and the campaign name. So you really can't rename it.

If it was just an in-character thing, renaming would be simple. But since it's an out-of-character game mechanic thing, we're stuck with the stupid name.

I don't think we even need to rename it out-of character...

well... maybe I will feel silly when saying:
"No, the "Dragon tail cut" does not let you do that"
"no? then I'll take "Monkey rock pitcher" it gives me +2 with thrown weapons."

I see Kamikaze Misget's point. All this fluff better lead to somewhere, and quick!

 

[CleverNickName]

No, I really don't think it is that big of a deal. The various names of feats, spells, and other game elements are all just a matter of personal preference.

The arguments, complaints, and disagreements all stem from the fact that we all have different tastes (and therefore, different personal preferences.) Some of us seem to think that our preferences should be written into law somehow, as if WotC were a democracy ruled by the people who use their products.

So you are 100% correct in your second point...if it is a name you don't like, you can just write it differently on your character sheet, and that will be the end of it. Sure, the disliked name will continue to live on as-printed in various products, NPC stat blocks, and reference materials as Oldtimer pointed out, and some will find that annoying. But I doubt anyone who is serious about gaming will refuse to play the 4E system solely because of the names used. That would be silly.

Personally, I would prefer generic, "brown paper bag" names for spells and feats, over the colorful "action packed super adventure" names. If we are all going to be creating our own names for feats, spells, and whatnot anyway, it would be easier to go from generic to fluff, than to go in the other direction.

Just my two coppers.

 

[hazel monday]

It's not really a big deal. If 4.0's full of stupid names that I can't say with a straight face I'll just stick with 3.5. No big deal at all.

 

[shilsen]

I agree completely. One of the things that I've found very handy when playing D&D is to ignore names, or more precisely, to not make assumptions about anything based on its name. I view the names in the D&D books in only a denotative sense (to refer to what it mechanically refers to) and not in a connotative way (to imply certain things).

And that applies in every section of the game for me. When I see a class is called Ranger, I don't make assumptions based on Aragorn or Robin Hood or Drizzt or the US Rangers or anything else that word evokes for me. Instead, I just look at the mechanics and then say, "Okay - so in this game, this is what ranger means." Same goes for other classes, races, feats, equipment, spells, etc. So for me, a falchion in D&D is what the PHB says, not what the word might mean in some other context.

It really does make life a lot easier for me as a gamer, since I can look at, for example, the name Warlord and not give a damn whether it's a good fit for what it refers to. Whatever it refers to will be what I refer to when I use the word. Simple.

 

[Delta]

...if it is a name you don't like, you can just write it differently on your character sheet, and that will be the end of it.

Um, how would that work? How would anyone know what feat you "really" had, then?