Stupid feat naming: Does it really matter that much?

[billd91]

Indeed. The 10 years statement made me think "How the hell do they play D&D if they can't remember a simple name after 10 years of using it?"

You'd be surprised. I have a player who has played RPGs for over 20 years, many different RPGs, in a casual way... which is to say not obsessively and not for marathon sessions for the most part. She definitely has trouble remember the names of the powers her characters have even if she's played the PCs for over 5 years. And she's not dumb in any sense of the word.

 

[tomBitonti]

It is a bad idea because of communication.
Being dumb sounding has nothing to do with it. I might love Golden Wyvern Adept on flavor grounds. It is still really bad communication.

I quite agree.

 

[Oldtimer]

It was a hyperbole in response to another hyperbole (10 years??? come on!)

Anyway: My bad, got carried away. I guess not everybody is a rules-freak like me.

It was not hyperbole. Some of them have been playing D&D for 30 years and most for over 20 years. There are still things they find difficult to remember. D&D is just not a major thing in their lives.

Indeed. The 10 years statement made me think "How the hell do they play D&D if they can't remember a simple name after 10 years of using it?"

They play it casually. And the central point was that the name is not simple, nor is it the only thing they need to remember.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Gold is a malleable metal, easily shaped. GWAs shape spells. That makes it easier to remember what the feat does. Also it's exactly the sort of connection of ideas that occurs in magic-type thinking, for example the connection of silver with the moon.

I think, as mentioned here before, pudding is even more malleable than gold.