White Raven Onslaught Revision

[Lizard]

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.

Whereas I found them perfect and wished that was the model they'd follow in 4e. Sucks to be me, I guess. They were *purely* rules-based names with absolutely no in-game meaning, and it made it very easy to decide how to build characters, by thinking of how their strengths broke down among the six attributes. The example characters for each possible pairing (Strong/Tough, Strong/Fast, Strong/Smart, etc) showed how to think in terms of breaking a character concept into its component classes. There were flaws, mostly with how multiclassing stacked, but conceptually, it was great.

We obviously have very different tastes.

As to your other points...I strongly disagree that 'unique' names are superior to descriptive ones, and how could anyone confuse 'enhancement' with 'enchantment'? The words don't remotely mean the same thing. Further, unless things like 'white raven' are *explicitly* defined in terms of their game effects and which abilities can/cannot be given that label, your argument for the use of that label is moot -- and if they are so defined, we're back to the problem of the label being essentially arbitrary and non-descriptive. It is also unclear if every GoofyNameNoun ability is a 'labelled' ability or just a 'flavor text' ability; this is why descriptors ought to be separate from names.

 

[Lizard]

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.

Statements made by Mearls and others are that the terms are undefined and are there purely to "spark the imagination" or some such. It was specifically in reference to Golden Wyvern Adept, but it seemed to be a general design guideline. Trust me, I don't go around making things up -- there's no need.

It's certainly possible this has changed since the statements were made, but since that was late in the development cycle, I doubt it.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Indeed. Particularly since White Raven started in Bo9S, and they give a pretty interesting and detailed description of the Temple of the Nine Swords, the history of the Blade of the Last Citadel (which is the White Raven legacy sword), the teachings and philosophy of the White Raven school, etc..

 

[Mistwell]

As to your other points...I strongly disagree that 'unique' names are superior to descriptive ones, and how could anyone confuse 'enhancement' with 'enchantment'?

Uh...they all did. All, as in the game designers. They messed that one up bad. Monte Cook said it was a joke how many times someone had to re-edit something to change it from one to the other in 3.0.

The words don't remotely mean the same thing.

Do you just have a very clinical personality, or are you kidding? At first glance, they look like nearly identical words. Of course they don't mean the same thing, but when writing and reading them, in the context of rules that repeat them both often, they are easily confused with each other unless you are being particularly careful. It's best to not infuse the game with that sort of stuff.

Further, unless things like 'white raven' are *explicitly* defined in terms of their game effects and which abilities can/cannot be given that label, your argument for the use of that label is moot -- and if they are so defined, we're back to the problem of the label being essentially arbitrary and non-descriptive.

I gave you examples of how it works, and works well. Rather than erase it and try and talk about this in obscure disjointed terms, why don't we talk about what we already established. You tell me why the examples given don't work. Tell me why the White Raven example, or the Muse example, don't function well.

And, not to repeat myself, but why did you again call the "non-descriptive" labeling a problem again, after we just went through that whole thing on why that is a good thing? I know you disagree, but why assume it's a problem in a conversation where you already know folks don't necessarily agree with that assumption?

It is also unclear if every GoofyNameNoun ability is a 'labelled' ability or just a 'flavor text' ability; this is why descriptors ought to be separate from names.

If it's in the title, and it's (as you say, in a very baiting manner) "goofy", then it's not confusing. "Tactical" might be flavor. "White Raven", which as you say is not in itself descriptive, is obviously not confusingly similar to names which might be descriptive or might be just flavor, like "Tactical".

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

I don't agree. I think this situation of having half the work done is the best possible situation, not the worst. I think you go to far in trying to make two categories of "worldbuilders" who want to make everything themselves and "not worldbuilders" who want everything done for them. I am fairly certain that there are a great many DMs who fall in between (such as myself), who like to take small bits of flavor and possibilities, and run with them to create their own unique thing. I would actually go so far to say that that kind of "take what you get adn run with it" creativity is the most defining and fun part of the DMing experience (at least for me).

I am the kind of person who looks at the new Wizard Traditions and sees golden opportunities that I have never even considered in D&D. The very existence of Wizardly traditions opens amazing doors that completely and irreversibly change my entire mental image of Wizards for the better. I am overwhelmingly happy that WotC is including stuff like that in 4E, and most of my excitement would be lost if WotC created overly strict links between such things and any particular setting element.

As such, I guess I am a counter-example to your logical assumption that it makes no one happy. Sorry.

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.

What is wrong with that? If you ask me, that is half of the fun of it all. A character should know what their abilities are called. People name stuff; it is part of human nature. Heck, my twin brother named some of his favorite spell/smite combos when he was playing a Paladin in our Eberron campaign. In real life martial arts, most stances and techniques of any importance have a specific name (if nothing else, giving such things names makes it a lot easier to have discussions about specific moves). What is more, every spell in the history of D&D has had a name, and I have never had a problem with the characters themselves knowing the names of their spells. Whether you describe names like White Raven Onslaught as something being taught to the PC by his master, or as a name the PC thought up himself, I see no reason for it to not exist in the game.

However, I don't accept the argument that they should leaves name generic so "DMs can think up creative ones for themselves". That is just too much work for too little benefit. The burden for the hard parts of creativity should be on the designers, not DMs, and giving good names to things is one of the hard parts.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Well, considering that we have Bo9S, and Tome of Magic, both of which very expressly define the sources of their powers and both were test bed products for 4e, I think you're off base here.

I think, and we're going to have to wait a bit to see, that you will find that many of these schools/history/background will be fairly well defined in the core setting, between the DMG and the PHB.

Now, you might be angry about that, and that's fine, but, again, I don't care in the slightest. As I said, I've been forced by people to make my own campaign worlds because all the world builders pissed and moaned about how they didn't want a "core world" polluting their precious gem of creation.

So, you had twenty years of having it your way, now, FINALLY, it's my turn.

 

[Piratecat]

...and how could anyone confuse 'enhancement' with 'enchantment'? The words don't remotely mean the same thing.

Bwah ha ha! Not to hijack, but this was so prevalent Sean K. Reynolds wrote a rant about it.

 

[Lizard]

So, you had twenty years of having it your way, now, FINALLY, it's my turn.

I can sympathize. If only sometime, during the past 20 years, WOTC had thought to produce pre-made worlds for those who want them. Perhaps one could have been of some magical realms, now forgotten. They might have taken one of the original gaming worlds -- even the one Gary Gygax created! -- and published that! Another could have involved, I don't know, dragons, perhaps with some sort of ancient weapon which could be used to battle them...a spear, maybe, or a lance. Another could have been some world built just for D&D, a world where all the weirdness of D&D makes a kind of sense, and people use magic as if it were technology, even making magical 'robots'. But I guess they never thought of this, FORCING people to build their own worlds, instead. You'd think with the OGL, some company, somewhere, would have found the niche of 'people who just want a campaign world' and exploited it, but I guess it never happened. Who knows? I might even have written for such settings![1] Wouldn't that have been something?

Ah, sweet dreams of might have been.

So I guess you'll settle for half-a-world in 4e. Perhaps by 5e, my strange idea of publishing "campaign setting books" as distinct from "core rule books" will be a reality, and we can BOTH be happy. Wouldn't that be something?

I think we've reached the end of this topic. I think the name is a bad name in and of itself, that baggage-laden names are bad in general, and that mixing core rules and setting fluff in a generic fantasy system is poor game design and wasteful of my time and money. You disagree on all counts. That is that.

[1]Which is sort of a good point. When I was working on Excalibur for S&S, I came up with all sorts of flowery feat names..."Deny The Lethal Strike", which made it harder for an enemy to confirm a critical hit, or 'Tis Only A Flesh Wound, which let you turn part of a critical hit into non-lethal damage. Why was this sort of fluff acceptable to me then and not now? Because it's one thing to have fluff which reinforces the flavor of a *specific setting*, and another to have it in core rules which must, by their nature, fit a tremendous range of settings.

D&D is losing genericness. Genericity? I consider that a Very Bad Thing. YMMV.

 

[Hussar]

D&D is losing genericness. Genericity? I consider that a Very Bad Thing. YMMV.

So, you think Basic D&D was a bad game? And 1e? Considering how tightly the game was tied to a specific world pre 2e, I find your arguement somewhat flat.

 

[kennew142]

I find it interesting how often a thread becomes hijacked with the I hate 4e names meme.

On the OP, I find the revision you've done to be much more clear than the original wording. I still think that 4e rules will specify that allies cannot be moved unless willing. If not, it will appear in errata, a Sage Advice article or the FAQ soon after publication.