Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3931283" data-attributes="member: 710">I guess I will just have to repeat myself here:I don't care how WotC calls the feat for my personal game, because I might decide to adopt or not adopt the name and its implication, depending on what I play.But I guess it's nice for a beginning group to have some fluff that they can build upon. Whether it's because in the flavor section of the feat description or the feat name itself doesn't matter to me. If I'd have to start roleplaying with a new group, the Points of Light combined with setting elements implied by the rules sounds like a great thing. I don't know how the entire world looks like, but I see some elements, and can build upon them. I can create my own world based on the few implied tid-bits, and I am not overwhelmed by having a full world to comprehend, nor is the DM overwhelmed by having to create a whole new world from the spot.The descriptions don't help the casual gamer that much. &quot;Hmm, I've got Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialisation? Which did what? Power Critical, certainly that increases the critical multiplier, right?&quot;; &quot;Energy Substitution [Metamagic]? That increases the level and I can choose any energy type, or what was it?&quot; ;&quot;Haha, I take an extra attack of oppertunity, I've got Combat Expertise!&quot;; &quot;You mean Combat Reflexes?&quot; &quot;Uh, wait, let me look it up again...&quot;; &quot;I prepared my spells with Enlarge Spell, so I have a bigger area&quot; &quot;No, you only get a bigger range with that.&quot;; &quot;I can leave out targets with Scult Spell, right?&quot;. The descriptive names often enough give you a false sense of knowing what the feat did. But the devil always lies in the detail. On the other hand, if the 4th edition equivalent of metamagic feats are named according to the theme of an order, it might be easier to figure out where to look for a specific effect then before.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 3931283, member: 710"] I guess I will just have to repeat myself here: I don't care how WotC calls the feat for my personal game, because I might decide to adopt or not adopt the name and its implication, depending on what I play. But I guess it's nice for a beginning group to have some fluff that they can build upon. Whether it's because in the flavor section of the feat description or the feat name itself doesn't matter to me. If I'd have to start roleplaying with a new group, the Points of Light combined with setting elements implied by the rules sounds like a great thing. I don't know how the entire world looks like, but I see some elements, and can build upon them. I can create my own world based on the few implied tid-bits, and I am not overwhelmed by having a full world to comprehend, nor is the DM overwhelmed by having to create a whole new world from the spot. The descriptions don't help the casual gamer that much. "Hmm, I've got Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialisation? Which did what? Power Critical, certainly that increases the critical multiplier, right?"; "Energy Substitution [Metamagic]? That increases the level and I can choose any energy type, or what was it?" ;"Haha, I take an extra attack of oppertunity, I've got Combat Expertise!"; "You mean Combat Reflexes?" "Uh, wait, let me look it up again..."; "I prepared my spells with Enlarge Spell, so I have a bigger area" "No, you only get a bigger range with that."; "I can leave out targets with Scult Spell, right?". The descriptive names often enough give you a false sense of knowing what the feat did. But the devil always lies in the detail. On the other hand, if the 4th edition equivalent of metamagic feats are named according to the theme of an order, it might be easier to figure out where to look for a specific effect then before. [/QUOTE]

Verification