Terminology

[DEFCON 1]

One of the things that has caused some of the most rules problems in the 4E game is the use of certain words that are used multiple times to mean different things. Many rules issues have cropped up over time as the game has expanded and these discrepancies in terminology have grown broader. For example, a word like 'Attack' gets thrown about in rules description in the general sense of going into combat, while there is also the specific meaning of 'Attack', which is to make a d20 Attack roll to see if you hit. When these words are used with little thought as to context, or if written into rules that appeared in early books before more concrete terminology was developed, we end up with all kinds of conflicts when we have to parse the grammar.

I've decided to try and plow through some of the worst offenders and get a bit more specificity into the words we use to describe 4E. The following are more concrete, specific or new terms I've come up with for myself to use, but if you can think of further words/rules that could use solidifying, post them below!

STANDARD ACTION / MINOR ACTION

These two terms are both fine, because I have never seen them appear in any context other than being used as the specific actions they represent. However, this is not true of a word that is perhaps the worst one the game has and uses. The word 'move'.

MOVE ACTION

This needs to be changed, because too many times in too many places, rules description make mention of when "your character moves". Sometimes it means when your character takes a Move action to do something from the Move action list... sometimes it just means when your character goes elsewhere on the game map. With the amount of times the word 'move' appears in the rules in a general sense, a better term should be selected to be the Action. For now, let's call it POSITION ACTION. A character has an action that allows him to change his position on the game map. So our three actions per character turn are the Standard action, the Position action, and the Minor action.

WALK

Another problem that crops up are the multiple places where something allows you to "move your speed". This is a case where a general term ('move') is used to describe a very specific thing and which causes confusion. When you "move" your speed, you aren't just moving... you are taking a POSITION ACTION through a certain number of squares, all of which provoke Opportunity Actions when you leave threatened squares. The word 'move' is currently used to describe this, but we already also have the Move action, plus in addition the word 'move' gets thrown about randomly when describing shifting, crawling, running, flying, climbing, swimming, and teleporting throughout the game rules as well. Thus, I would put forth the word WALK to describe the specific POSITION ACTION where you can move your Speed and whose movement provokes Opportunity Actions.

MELEE and RANGED

Right now these two words are used in several very different contexts. They are used to describe types of weapons, they are used to describe the Range of certain attack powers, and they are used in general terms to describe combat. Describing something as a 'ranged attack' shouldn't mean several different things, dependent entirely upon the context in which it's being described. Thus, my own opinion would be to change the terms to describe the types of weapon classes, and keep Melee and Ranged as descriptions of power range/attack distance. Let's go with HAND-TO-HAND weapons and ARTILLERY weapons. Thus a Hand-To-Hand weapon has a range of Melee weapon. And an Artillery weapon has a range of Ranged weapon.

And by the same token... the use of 'melee' to describe any hand-to-hand, weapon to weapon attack should be stricken from the rules entirely. How many times have we seen people try and claim they can use Iron Armbands of Power on a Close burst 1 attack, because it gives a +2 to melee damage, and in their mind, 'melee' is not talking about the power range of 'Melee', but rather just a general term of any hand-to-hand combat, which a fighter's Close burst attacks "technically" are, because they are Weapon powers. This kind of grammatical problem should not ever appear and needs to be corrected.

***

These are just some of the first set of terms that really deserve codifying so that we being to eliminate the general use of words that muddy descriptions when they have specific meanings as well. And there are still plenty of terms remaining to be solidifying... like 'CRITICAL'. Do you need to Hit with an attack for a roll within a power's Critical range to actually BE a Critical Hit? When is a Critical hit not a Critical Hit? And why do we have these problems?

Anyone else have better terminology they wish to present?

 

[Roger]

There's got to be a better solution than overloading "level" a dozen times.

But I guess we haven't found one in the last 30 years, so I'm not holding my breath.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Prestidigitalis]

There's got to be a better solution than overloading "level" a dozen times.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Whereas in the past a 20th level Wizard's best spells were 9th level, now they are 20th level. Magic items and monsters now have levels, and those levels should be about the same as the levels of the characters. That's one thing WotC did exactly right -- the term level is now used in many places but with exactly the same meaning.

 

[ourchair]

I think what Roger is talking about is how new players have difficulty grokking aspects of any edition of D&D simply because of the disconnect between player level and item/spell level.

Some people, at a cursory glance, expect that 9th level wizards should have 9th level spells and 4th level fighters should wield 4th level items -- a gut feeling if you will that the character's level should reflect the tools he uses. I don't subscribe to that logic, but on a certain level (BADUM-PSSH) it's understandable why people look at it that way.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I think what Roger is talking about is how new players have difficulty grokking aspects of any edition of D&D simply because of the disconnect between player level and item/spell level.

Some people, at a cursory glance, expect that 9th level wizards should have 9th level spells and 4th level fighters should wield 4th level items -- a gut feeling if you will that the character's level should reflect the tools he uses. I don't subscribe to that logic, but on a certain level (BADUM-PSSH) it's understandable why people look at it that way.

Yes, but in 4e, that IS how it works. The comment would make perfect sense if this were a thread about pre-4e D&D, but it isn't.

 

[Zaran]

I think the term Attack needs better definition. Does a fighter Mark both monsters on a Cleave attack? What about with Rain of Steel? To me, both of those powers are attacks.

 

[Insight]

I think the term Attack needs better definition. Does a fighter Mark both monsters on a Cleave attack? What about with Rain of Steel? To me, both of those powers are attacks.

I'm pretty sure a Fighter has to make an attack roll against an enemy to mark it.

In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target.

Now, it doesn't quite state you have to make an attack ROLL, but since there's the chance of hitting or missing, I believe that implies you have to make a roll. It would be better written as "When you make an attack roll, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target."

 

[Zaran]

Now, it doesn't quite state you have to make an attack ROLL, but since there's the chance of hitting or missing, I believe that implies you have to make a roll. It would be better written as "When you make an attack roll, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target."

Yeah I know, but both powers are listed as Fighter Attack powers. As I said, it's poorly defined to me. And thinking about the fluff, something I'm infamous for, both powers are attacking foes. They are just automatic successes.

 

[Roger]

But even in 4E, a 20th level character might not be on the 20th level of the dungeon.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Prestidigitalis]

But even in 4E, a 20th level character might not be on the 20th level of the dungeon.

And anyone who can't figure out that distinction is never going to be able to master OAs, shift vs. move, difficult terrain, immediate actions, or basically any other aspect of 4e. But I think you know that and are just trying to get a rise out of me.