White Raven Onslaught Revision

[hong]

There's also another benefit I can see. If White Raven does encompass an entire school, you end up with the BIGBY/OTILUKE effect in that players are interested in finding out mroe about the "White Raven" which is a good thing as they are more interested in the world.

Lizard glossed over this bit of my previous reply to him. Perhaps he is still mulling over the revelation that a comprehensive rules framework is not the only way by which depth is imparted to the world. Give him time.

 

[Piratecat]

Yes.

Hong, out of the thread.

We don't always require posts to necessarily be productive, but deliberately rude, obstructive and "cute" posts are something we'd like people to stay far away from. This isn't a competition about who posts verbal repartee. Don't let it become one.

Contribute when you post in the future, please, or don't bother to hit 'submit post.'

 

[Lizard]

Lizard glossed over this bit of my previous reply to him. Perhaps he is still mulling over the revelation that a comprehensive rules framework is not the only way by which depth is imparted to the world. Give him time.

That is depth which is provided by the DM -- not the publisher. That sort of 'depth' belongs in setting books. I do not like being told, or even strongly encouraged, to add this or that specific school of combat to my world. If this is a desired goal, there should be a section in the DMG on "Creating groupings", with notes about thieves guilds, wizards guilds, fighting schools, etc, and one example for each, with examples of feats/spells/exploits that might be taught by the school, and a ***suggestion*** that the DM name such things after the school, if they're strongly associated with it in his world.

Take the power away from the publisher, and give to the DM. Putting flavor text into the core rules in a non-setting-specific game is Bad. It makes more work for the DM, which is not waht 4e is supposed to do.

 

[Lizard]

So what happens when you come up with a stronger/weaker version? Do you call it, Superior Aura of Undead Bane? What if the spell is a slight variation (for example, you can choose certain undead for greater effect)? Variant number 1 of greater aura of undead bane?

Sure. "Greater Aura Of Skeleton Bane".

Point is, even a less-than-perfectly-accurate name is superior to a totally-pulled-out-of-your-ass name.

There's also another benefit I can see. If White Raven does encompass an entire school, you end up with the BIGBY/OTILUKE effect in that players are interested in finding out mroe about the "White Raven" which is a good thing as they are more interested in the world.

This conflicts with "Just change it if you don't like it!" I wish people would pick one defense. If I change it, there is no "White Raven", and I have to constantly tell players that. As it is, things like this are double work for the DM. Since there is no "White Raven" defined in the game -- is it a school? The name of the first warrior to invent the tactic? The river where the tactic was used? A code name used by a secret society? A reference to a long-dead counting system? A maneuver in a board game which resembles the combat action? A bad pun in a foreign language, poorly translated? A flavor of ice cream popular among generals? -- the DM has to make something up to give the term in-game meaning, and if he's doing that already, he might as well have his own name. I don't want players interested in the "presumed world" shoe-horned into every nook and cranny of the core books; I want them interested in my world, and I don't like having to take an eraser to the core books and produce handouts explaining all the changed names before I can even start to play.

It also helps when designing powers a la M:TG (For example, if I tell a M:TG player to design an Angel, even though there's no explicit rule about this, you're going to end with a large selection that have common traits).

And there's no possibility of coming up with a name which is more transparent?

All of your other objections apply just as much to White Raven. What's the next step beyond Onslaught? White Raven Overwhelming Strike? What's the weaker version? White Raven Battle Dance? What if there's a variant for use against specific types of foes? What if...

Same problem, with the ADDED problem that the words 'White Raven' convey no intuitive meaning. Sorry, but to me, it's a nickname you'd give to a coward. That's the emotional/symbolic meaning for me, and it pretty much means I can't use the terms as written either as a player or a DM, at least not without snickering.

(For example, Bigby's pointing Finger would automatically give people an idea what the spell was)

No more so than Pointing Finger does alone, especially in context with Grasping Hand, Interposing Hand, etc.

There's also the fact that even if you use "explicit names" you still have to look it up. For example, I know what a trip and greater undead bane probably are, but I still have to look under UNDEAD BANE and TRIP to know what the effect actually is if I don't regularly use it. Thus, the benefit of using "explicit" names doesn't actually EXIST.

You are honestly saying that "Trip" carries no more innate meaning to English speakers than, say, "Wolf's Bite". That to a naive player, confronted with the following choices:

a)Improved Trip
b)Bite Of The Alpha Wolf

Both tell just as much about what the attack does?

(In D&D, wolves trip, so I'm not being deliberately obtuse; it's at least as logical as White Raven, possibly more.)

 

[AllisterH]

Take the power away from the publisher, and give to the DM. Putting flavor text into the core rules in a non-setting-specific game is Bad. It makes more work for the DM, which is not waht 4e is supposed to do.

I tend to disagree with this. In fact, I tend to think this might be bad for the game itself. If there's no flavour and no inspiration behind the text (and it reads like a textbook) chances are that many a DM/player aren't going to bother picking up the setting book as the game itself seems boring.

Now, an entirely fluff oriented book also has a problem in that it basically forces down a setting for the player but at least there, there is something the players/DM can judge.

I think you want a combination of names like "Trip" and "Greater Wyvern Adept" in the book. Having just one is the problem.

 

[AllisterH]

You are honestly saying that "Trip" carries no more innate meaning to English speakers than, say, "Wolf's Bite". That to a naive player, confronted with the following choices:

a)Improved Trip
b)Bite Of The Alpha Wolf

Both tell just as much about what the attack does?

(In D&D, wolves trip, so I'm not being deliberately obtuse; it's at least as logical as White Raven, possibly more.)

Actually it does. Remember, D&D is NOT a freeform RPG and that even though it says "Improved Trip", I STILL have to go back to the PHB and see what it actually does. Which is what my point is. Knowing what a power/spell does doesn't help one bit in D&D unless you know the EXACT effects.

Let's say for example, two players has been given permission to use one spell from a new Spell Compendium.

Player A casts "Greater Skeleton Undead Bane" and Player B casts "Light of Mercuria". The effect at the table is the SAME THING since nobody has ever heard of either spell and everyone has to go through the Spell compendium to see what EITHER spell does.

Yet, if Player C says "I'm going to use Tide of Iron", presumbably, by that point in time, she has used Tide of Iron many times before and everyone knows what it does.

So the benefit of "explicit" names doesn't actually exist.

 

[Lizard]

I tend to disagree with this. In fact, I tend to think this might be bad for the game itself. If there's no flavour and no inspiration behind the text (and it reads like a textbook) chances are that many a DM/player aren't going to bother picking up the setting book as the game itself seems boring.

Now, an entirely fluff oriented book also has a problem in that it basically forces down a setting for the player but at least there, there is something the players/DM can judge.

I think you want a combination of names like "Trip" and "Greater Wyvern Adept" in the book. Having just one is the problem.

The problem isn't just flavor -- it's that it's BAD flavor. "White Raven" and "Golden Wyvern" don't mean much to most people, and digging up obscure legends to "prove" they do it an exercise in navel gazing, at best.

For example, calling "Power Attack" "Ogre Strike" can work, because most of the audience -- English speaking Westerners with an interest in fantasy -- know what an Ogre is. It's something big, strong, and powerful. Thus, few people complained about "Gauntlets Of Ogre Power" -- the term 'ogre' has meaning. (I don't necessarily approve of this, but the name is at least well chosen).

The problem comes when the desire to come up with "cool" names exceeds the rather small pool of terms which have resonance which is both widespread and consistent -- that is, lots of people know the word, and they all have the same general interpretation of it. If, after three years of development, they're down to "White Raven", it means the pool is pretty darn dry...Look. I've been reading fantasy and SF for almost 40 years (yes, I learned to read when I was 3, for those tracking my age, and yes, as soon as I could express tastes in books, it was F/SF all the way), and playing D&D and other games for almost 30. If "White Raven" gets a blank stare of incomprehension from me, what's it going to get from a 16 year old whose knowledge of fantasy is the LOTR movies and WoW?

I do understand why WW is going after D&D players and pushing them to Exalted:"If you're going to have to memorize a hundred incomprehensible power names anyway, they might as well be powers that let you split mountains with your pinkie, right?" It's a good marketing scheme.

 

[Lizard]

Player A casts "Greater Skeleton Undead Bane" and Player B casts "Light of Mercuria". The effect at the table is the SAME THING since nobody has ever heard of either spell and everyone has to go through the Spell compendium to see what EITHER spell does.

Except that Player A found his spell a lot faster than Player B did, because he only had to look up spells which at least *hinted* at what he was looking for, while Player B had to read each and every spell description.

And Player A knows when to use his lesser or greater spells, while Player B must constantly go back to the book to remember which one was "the good one".

And when Player A says "I'm casting Greater Skeleton Undead Bane", the other players have a good idea what's about to happen, while when player B says "I'm casting Light of Mercuria", everyone asks "What the hell does THAT one do?"

 

[Hussar]

That is depth which is provided by the DM -- not the publisher. That sort of 'depth' belongs in setting books. I do not like being told, or even strongly encouraged, to add this or that specific school of combat to my world. If this is a desired goal, there should be a section in the DMG on "Creating groupings", with notes about thieves guilds, wizards guilds, fighting schools, etc, and one example for each, with examples of feats/spells/exploits that might be taught by the school, and a ***suggestion*** that the DM name such things after the school, if they're strongly associated with it in his world.

Take the power away from the publisher, and give to the DM. Putting flavor text into the core rules in a non-setting-specific game is Bad. It makes more work for the DM, which is not waht 4e is supposed to do.

Oh good god no. I've had a couple of decades of setting wankery forced upon me by this mindset. Gimme a complete game that I don't need to spend the next hundred hours turning into a setting.

It was more than good enough for Basic/Expert D&D, it was good enough for 1e D&D. It wasn't until 2e that suddenly every DM out there had to become a amateur hour fantasy writer in order to play the game. Give me a full, nicely detailed setting right in the core rules so I get down to playing. If you want to write fanfic, go right ahead, I won't stop you. But don't force me to spend my free time so you can have an easier time of it.

 

[AllisterH]

Except that Player A found his spell a lot faster than Player B did, because he only had to look up spells which at least *hinted* at what he was looking for, while Player B had to read each and every spell description.

And Player A knows when to use his lesser or greater spells, while Player B must constantly go back to the book to remember which one was "the good one".

And when Player A says "I'm casting Greater Skeleton Undead Bane", the other players have a good idea what's about to happen, while when player B says "I'm casting Light of Mercuria", everyone asks "What the hell does THAT one do?"

Incorrect.

Why would player A find his spell faster? Since player A and player B both have to had choose the spell beforehand, how does player A find the spell faster at the game table? The same thing applies to the other players. Both spells force the other players to look under their specific descriptions.

Similarly, Greater Skeleton Undead Bane doesn't convey anything to the players other than, "it's bad for skeletons". They still have to check their spell compendium to see what the hell the spell does and the same thing applies to ANY effect in D&D due to it not being freeform.