White Raven Onslaught Revision

[I'm A Banana]

For what it's worth:

White Raven > Golden Wyvern

I can grok tactical abilities named after a clever bird. Ravens are vaguely militaristic, too (heralds of death and all) and "white" gives it that particular "military jargon" feel, that it would make perfect sense if you knew the History.

"Onslaught" isn't especially bad, either. Wave after wave of shifting enemies works for that.

So score one for WotC's "new IP" department with that. Not bad.

It's an exception to the rule that "Adjective Creature Coolness" is a horrible formula for ability names.

 

[Chibbot]

At the risk of actually joining this ongoing argument, here are my thoughts on the issue:

I enjoy developing my own worlds, but I only have so much time and effort and the names of powers and spells themselves don't bother me, whether I think they are cool or lame.

For me, this isn't really a concern, because, to me, the names of powers, just like the vast majority of everything else on the character sheet, the character itself is unaware of.

The character doesn't necessarily know that "swinging my sword this way and inspiring my ally to take advantage of the opening to press the attack and attempt to further harm our shared foe" is called "White Raven Onslaught" any more than the character knows that he has an 18 strength or what his spell save DCs (or, for 4th ed, what his attack modifiers) are. He simply knows that he's much stronger than your average guy, and that his magic is more powerful than someone else's. The name, from a roleplaying and world standpoint is only relevant if you, the DM, want it to be.

To be fair, this is likely a side-effect of my immersion in LARPing shortly before beginning to play DnD seriously (as opposed to basically just doing delves), where the character has things that the character knows how to do ("I am quite skilled at driving, using a gun, and concentrating on having my blood make me move with superhuman speed") without quantifying it the way it is abstractly represented on the character sheet ("I have 3 dots of Drive, 2 of Firearms, and second intermediate Celerity"). I think it still stands though.

 

[Lizard]

For what it's worth:

White Raven > Golden Wyvern

This is true, but it is also damning with faint praise...

"Onslaught" isn't especially bad, either. Wave after wave of shifting enemies works for that.

Can't argue with that, it's the prequel that bugs me.

 

[Lizard]

For me, this isn't really a concern, because, to me, the names of powers, just like the vast majority of everything else on the character sheet, the character itself is unaware of.

See, that's sort of my point.

"Bland" names like Cleave, Power Attack, and so on are very clearly "game terms". They aren't supposed to have in-game meaning of existence, and that's obvious. But "White Raven", "Golden Wyvern Adept", and so on, ARE supposed to have in game meaning -- it's been explicitly stated they are designed to make characters think about the source of their abilities, their origins, their training, and the like. However, proving that half a loaf is NOT better than none, the designers seem to think they've thrown a bone to the world builders by not bothering to *actually* *define* the origin or meaning of the term. See my earlier posts -- this is bad for those who like to design worlds, and those who do not, providing too much for the former and too little for the latter.

If my character has "Great Cleave" on his character sheet, I do not expect him to use or know the term, just that he's skilled at whacking weak foes. OTOH, if he has "Sweeping Blade Of The Roaring Wind" on his sheet, that sounds enough like a "real" combat maneuver that I expect him to know/use the term in in-character dialog.

 

[Chibbot]

If my character has "Great Cleave" on his character sheet, I do not expect him to use or know the term, just that he's skilled at whacking weak foes. OTOH, if he has "Sweeping Blade Of The Roaring Wind" on his sheet, that sounds enough like a "real" combat maneuver that I expect him to know/use the term in in-character dialog.

Why?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Meaninglessness is going to be a plague on 4e, partially because of that desire for IP, I think. It's especially flawed in D&D, since D&D has often been a game of "story emulation", where you're a character LIKE some other character in myth or history.

4e seems to be taking steps away from this, which is bit of a shame. You won't be a Wizard like Merlin. You'll be a Wizard, but it might mean something ENTIRELY different.

 

[Lizard]

Why?

Uhm...because it's so obviously a non-functional name, the only reason to use it, INSTEAD of a purely descriptive name, is because it reflects an in-world reality?

For example, 'fireball' is pretty bland. 'Aldrazar's All Encompassing Conflagration' is not. If I were told that the spell was referenced in the rules as AAEC, but that in the game world, it was just called 'Wizard's Fire', then, I'd want to tie the designer to a chair and make him watch 'Barney' until he told me what he was thinking. OTOH, if that's the name which is used in the world, it tells me a lot about the world, the nature of magic, the style of wizards, and so on, and I'd expect it to be a consistent naming pattern. Way back when I did FH, I had almost all 'modern' spells be the result of work by an ancient cabal of wizards, and their wars, feuds, and so on shaped much of the game world, and you could tell what a spell would do and how it would look by which mage it was allegedly first designed by. (This is great for a personal world or a game set in a specific world. For a set of broad, generic, high fantasy rules...not so much.)

 

[Mistwell]

It also mandates the game be simplified...

I hope so. Rules Simplicity /= Game Simplicity. Complex rules don't help me have a fun game, they just help people who like to read and memorize and play with rules get a leg up on their peers who don't do that. The game can be as complex as you want without the need for complex an inelegant rules.

or, worse, that is be exposed to Gross Munchkinry because the designers didn't look for combos outside their carefully delineated boxes. ("Hey guys...if someone take Purple Monkey Overpass and combines it with Laughing Hippo Umbrella, they can kill anything in the game." "But...but...why would someone pick abilities from two *different* builds?")

That is a risk with any game system, and no less with (for example) 3.5. I don't think this issue correlates strongly with the issue we are discussing.

By "rules mastery", I do not mean "Find the secret hidden sucky rules". I mean the idea that the rules are a set of cool lego blocks, and you get to assemble them as you wish...not just in accordance with someone else's idea of how they should fit together.

I do not see that being lessened in any way by this naming protocol. You already could take, for example, a bard, with Song of the Heart, Haunting Melody, and Music of Growth, and such a bard was already suggested in the Song of the Heart text. Just because the names were not "Power of the Muse", "Haunting Muse", and "Muse of Growth" (to follow my earlier example), doesn't mean they were not intended to go together already. You don't have to take all Muse feats, just as you didn't have to take all the feats listed under the Song of the Heart text. It just makes it easier, from a rules perspective, to call out a bonus to those Muse feats, or a change to those feats as a group, rather than going through the complex procedure of spelling out each feat individually in the text of the basic Song of the Heart feat. I do not see how the naming protocol makes you conform to someone else's idea of how they should fit together any more than the basic Song of the Heart feat (or even the Bard itself) always did.

From what I've seen of 4e, the emphasis on making sure you can't suck has led to a situation where you also can't excel, or even stand out as different or unique. (Still waitin' on them thar multiclassin' rules...)

Well, I have not seen that, and I am not sure how relevant that is to this naming protocol issue. It sounds like you are looking for an opening for a rant about other issues, but I could be wrong. Why don't we try and stick to this topic.

Sure, and in 3x, you had major steps that way with things like monster types (Remember when 'Charm Person' in 1e had to explicitly list each monster which was a 'person'), spell schools and categories (Constructs are immune to mind-affecting spells) and so on. So, prithee, tell me why

No. I will not prithee tell you anything. Why be cute?

'tactical', 'combat maneuver', 'ally-affecting', or some other setting-neutral, flavor neutral, tag would not be preferable to 'white raven'?

Because it will cause confusion on the same level of "enchantment" and "enhancement". If the game is going to have room to grow and expand in different directions over many years, it needs lots of space for that. Once you label something as "tactical" with a specific meaning, suddenly other things cannot have Tactical names even if they involve tactics, because it will cause confusion and may interfere with another suit of powers. So you use something unique, like White Raven. After a few games, everyone will know what White Raven means, and have an idea what White Raven Tactics will be about, and nobody will confuse it with Golden Wyvern, or what Golden Wyvern Tactics might be about. However, I think generic names that are descriptive in nature (like the ones you suggest) will get confused quickly.

Take, for example, lessons from Trademark law. Basic trademark naming teaches that descriptive names are the weakest trademarks, and unique names that have nothing to do with the product or service are the strongest. So for example Apple Computers is a very strong trademark, while Spicy Salsa is a very weak trademark. You don't have to go to that extreme, but I think that field holds lessons for these kinds of naming protocols in RPGs. In the end, White Raven will communicate better to players than Tactical.

It would be superior in many ways, not the least of which would be not saddling a character with a name that might not fit their world/background/style. (And we get back to the problem with 'just change the name' -- if I decide some maneuvers of the White Raven School are actually taught by the Generals Of the Grand Academy, and some are known as 'Skirmishers Secrets', then when WOTC publishes "+1 to all White Raven moves", I have to go and remind players which moves they have that this now applies to (especially if those schools in my universe apply to moves outside the White Raven list) -- and god help anyone who *liked* the idea of the 'white raven school' and applied the name to other manuevers he thought fit the theme!) ("Hey, my character has 'White Raven Lindy Hop', does he get +1 with it?" "No, because it used to just be Lindy Hop, so it doesn't count.")

I lost you at the second set of parenthesis within parenthesis. But regardless, "Tactical" alone as a generic name doesn't fit most world's either, as it calls out for a name change to fit your world. I'd rather WOTC do that job for me, and give me a name that at least COULD fit my world, than they make sure that I have to change everything because its all been given bland generic names. If I need to change one or two lines of powers to fit my world, that is easier to do than change the whole thing because it's all flavorless.

For example, I was a fan of d20 Modern. However, the character class names were so bland and generic that they all had to be changed for a campaign. For those not aware, d20 Modern classes were: Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, and Charismatic Hero. That is so boring and generic that, for my games, they all had to be changed.

 

[AllisterH]

Meaninglessness is going to be a plague on 4e, partially because of that desire for IP, I think. It's especially flawed in D&D, since D&D has often been a game of "story emulation", where you're a character LIKE some other character in myth or history.

4e seems to be taking steps away from this, which is bit of a shame. You won't be a Wizard like Merlin. You'll be a Wizard, but it might mean something ENTIRELY different.

That is perhaps one of the most unfortunate examples to use.

Taken from Tolkein,

"You cannot pass. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass."

Yeah, "basic names" with no fluff there...

 

[Kordeth]

However, proving that half a loaf is NOT better than none, the designers seem to think they've thrown a bone to the world builders by not bothering to *actually* *define* the origin or meaning of the term. See my earlier posts -- this is bad for those who like to design worlds, and those who do not, providing too much for the former and too little for the latter.

Could you kindly provide evidence for this statement? How is it that you know that, for example, the fluff for the warlord class doesn't say "many warlords studied their art at the Academy of the White Raven, one of the last remaining vestiges of the empire of Nerath?" If you don't like fluff in your core rules that's fine, but let's not leap to the assumption that because the 50-word paragraph we've seen doesn't include the history of White Raven whatever that it isn't in the rules.