Stupid feat naming: Does it really matter that much?

[Umbran]

I think it doesn't really matter.

I don't think world civilization will collapse, or anything, but think it matters enough to discuss it on a messageboard. Basically, for anyone who doesn't memorize the book, the names don't carry any information, and that's a not a good thing.

 

[D_E]

Why should core feat names be fluff free when nothing else is? Classes, class abilities, spells, magic items and non-core feats all have fluffy names.

I must admit to total confusion here. I would think that "Fighter," "Wizard," "Rogue," and even "Paladin" are about as fluff-free as you can get. As far as spells go, only the named spells had fluff injections and most of those were descriptive as well (Bigby's Clenched Fist). Magic item abilities had no fluff at all (flameing). The example items did, sort of, but those were examples anyway.

...

To post what I was going to say: I too hate their fluff names, but as long as every second feat doesn't have names like that I won't have a problem, since I do have both an ink pen and a willingness to write "corrections" into the feat look-up tables.

 

[Will]

If 1% of the feats have weird nonevocative names, I won't care much.

Once you get to about 10%, it'll start annoying me. Much more than that, and I'll start weighing it into the 'do I really want to play this' equation.

 

[Arnwyn]

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.

Exactly so.

Of course it's a problem (and matters) for those who don't like the name. Regardless of whether a couple of posters here have these "Word documents" and all sorts of other extra bookkeeping documents, and regardless of whether some of them have a great memory, etc - it's simply not relevant. What it is, is changing a baseline to something else - most notably a baseline that all the players have access to and will reference often (ie. the core rulebook(s)). This immediately introduces yet more bookeeping and tracking, with questionable results - especially if multiple games are involved.

It's bad, and yes, it "really matters".

 

[Wolfspider]

If one of the goals of 4e is to make DMing easier--and I seem to have read somewhere that it is--then having to rename feats and such will definitely impact negatively on this goal.

Why not make things as clear as possible for everyone involved?

To those people who don't mind "Golden Wyvern Adept," would it annoy you if the feat were called "Shape Spell"? My theory is that it wouldn't annoy many people. The opposite is very apparently not true.

If my prediction is true, then why not avoid annoying some people and just name the feats descriptively? I think that it would make communication clearer and easier.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

*flips out and beats Mallus with a stick*

*kicks him when he's down*

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I've said this before. Being able to know something BEFORE you read it is a completely different point than being able to effortless recall it once you read it once. I did not know what Power Attack did, but the effect is so obviously associated with the name that I have never once had to even stop to think about it since that first reading.

I think you're jumping to conclusions here. We can't really know if no-one will learn what Golden Wyvern Adept does. I remember.
Though certainly, reading again through the "Feats" chapter in my 3.5 PHB makes me say: "I want my old simple 3e feats back !"

 

[Doug McCrae]

I might love Golden Wyvern Adept on flavor grounds. It is still really bad communication.

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.

 

[Will]

Yes, but what does Solar Purity have to do with the feat?

That's the thing.

I can't think of a single example, in the real world, of 'gold' being used descriptively to suggest malleability. That's just not how it's used to evoke a response.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

I think your dead wrong on this point. For some feats that are just bonuses (like iron will) then yes, the name is completely pointless. I write down the +2 to will and never think about it again.

But when I have power attack, I often say "I give a big swing, I'm going to power attack for 5". And the rogues will say, "I move behind the guy and sneak attack."

Active feats and active powers will be spoken at the gaming table when those actions are used. And if the names are stupid, then it makes the actions seem stupid.