|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:06AM
#741
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
But I am not considering naming conventions in real life.
I am considering the names of monsters in the MM.
So my feeling/opinion is "baseless and childish knee-jerking"?
Again, thanks for the insults guys.
But you are.
For example. What's bad about the Aboleth Overseer?
Ghaele Of Winter? (and if you say "I HATE IT!" guess what you just admitted to hating a title of mythological fey. Good job. Maybe fantasy games just aren't for you)
Knight of Summer? (again "real" fey title)
Orc Beserker?
Balor?
Pit Fiend?
Succubus?
Goblin Hexer?
Goblin Cutter?
Black Dragon?
Ochre Jelly?
Gelatenous Cube?
Mindflayer?
Hello?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:07AM
#742
|
|
|
There are however five other Blightborn creatures, all from the same adventure. The name Blightborn has context within the adventure if you've ever read it. There is a common naming convention there for all the monsters related to that part of the story.
EDIT - The Ruin Touched beastcaller also has a story line connection to the adventure they were presented in. They were presented in Den of the Destroyer in Dungeon 160 as a specific subgroup, the "ruin touched", of the Wicked Fang Tribe of gnolls.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think part of the complaint was that the naming made them sound MMOish. Having a source that the naming came from would not change this aspect.
So, the existance of a common naming convention would not necessarily make the convention used good.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:07AM
#743
|
|
|
Wait a minute.
Maybe I am confusing character build names and monster names.
I don't like things like "Artful Dodger Rogue".
I don't like how every aspect/attack form of a creature has a different name. kobold dragonshield, kobold slinger, kobold wyrmpriest...
I like saying "you see 4 kobolds, 2 carry spears and shields, 2 carry slings, and the last one is wearing some kind fancy headress and has a strange looking medallion around its neck."
It is a personal thing and no way reflects on the mechanics of the game.
Now will you let me have my opinion?
"Is it just me or does HATED look like an evil mastermind?"- Pigknight
A military solution isn't the only answer, just one of the better ones.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:12AM
#744
|
|
|
I do not believe that The Hated ever said the names don't make sense. He said he did not like them because they sounded like something from an MMO if I am not mistaken. So, saying that they make sense does not disprove the reason for not liking them.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:13AM
#745
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Wait a minute.
Maybe I am confusing character build names and monster names.
I don't like things like "Artful Dodger Rogue".
I don't like how every aspect/attack form of a creature has a different name.
It is a personal thing and no way reflects on the mechanics of the game.
Now will you let me have my opinion?
Build names are there, because of convenience. Actually you name the RPG you'll get a build name somewhere. Be it the Lancer Ninja build from FFT, a Stalker Build in Hunter, Artful Dodger in D&D etc.
It's basically nomenclature that everyone understands and knows what you are talking about instantly. You aren't going to ask a character -in game- What Build/Spec are you? That's like one -character- asking another -character- how many hp they have left.
It's just like Class names. They exist because names are necessary so that people know, easily and readily wtf you are talking about.
I don't like how every aspect/attack form of a creature has a different name. kobold dragonshield, kobold slinger, kobold wyrmpriest...
I like saying "you see 4 kobolds, 2 carry spears and shields, 2 carry slings, and the last one is wearing some kind fancy headress and has a strange looking medallion around its neck."
It is a personal thing and no way reflects on the mechanics of the game.
There's nothing stopping you from doing so. Actually that is encouraged. The Kobolds might call themselves Dragonshields or wyrmpriests (because of their Dragon Worship) but Slinger meh. It's a Kobold with a slingshot. It's one part convience for you and one part helping tell you at a glance where the monster might be in society.
Dragonshields for example might be considered sacred guardians to Wyrmpriests. Characters might not know these two titles however unless they are familiar with Kobold Society. As far as the pcs go, it's a bunch of kobolds. 2 carrying spear and shields, 2 with slings, and 1 with a fancy headdress.
When you are out of the game and talking with a bunch of friends about D&D over the watercooler though, saying a Kobold Dragonshield kicked your ass, is much more evocative than saying a Kobold with a Spear and Shield kicked your ass.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:19AM
#746
|
|
|
Build names are there, because of convenience. Actually you name the RPG you'll get a build name somewhere. Be it the Lancer Ninja build from FFT, a Stalker Build in Hunter, Artful Dodger in D&D etc.
It's basically nomenclature that everyone understands and knows what you are talking about instantly. You aren't going to ask a character -in game- What Build/Spec are you? That's like one -character- asking another -character- how many hp they have left.
It's just like Class names. They exist because names are necessary so that people know, easily and readily wtf you are talking about.
But, I have never used a 'build' for any character that I have made. What is a 'stalker' build in Hunter anyway? (Note: I understand the gist, it just isn't necessary, IMO) I have made a number of characters and have played a couple games with thoser who have made characters...I don't know of any who used a 'build' for Hunter.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:20AM
#747
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2009
|
Maybe I'm the only one, but I actually understand Hated's complaint here. To sum it up: he does not like the naming convention of appending descriptor's to monster names. Why call it 'Macetail Behemoth' when you could just call it 'Ankylosaur'? However, what Hated is either forgetting or ignoring is that the VAST majority of real world animals follow that very same convention. Bluebird. Giant panda (whose scientific name means "cat-foot black-and-white"). Blue-footed booby. Duck billed platapus. Tasmanian devil. African lion. Saber-toothed tiger. Spectacled bear. Grizzly bear. Rhodesian ridgeback (also known as the African lionhound). Sure... there's chicken... but there's also the Saipan jungle fowl, Transylvania naked neck, Yurlov crower, Asturian painted hen, white-faced black Spanish chicken, Rhode Island Red, Iowa Blue... Know what Ankylosaur means? It means 'fused lizard', because the bones of its back and skull were fused together in unusual ways. So, is 'macetail behemoth' any sillier than 'fused lizard'? In my opinion, it is not. It's a behemoth in a very literal sense, and it's tail is shaped like a mace. Tyrannosaurus Rex means 'King of the Tyrant Lizards'. Nothing in any 4e book is that lame, yet I don't hear you banging down the doors of the Smithsonian. So what's you're real complaint? That characters in D&D don't name things in Latin? Why does it seem less silly when it's from the real world? Typically, it is one of three reasons. Either we don't know what the word really means (as in Ankylosaurus), we default to a 'dumbed down' generic term (as in chickens or birds) or we just get so used to the dumb name that it doesn't matter to us (as in duck billed platypus). I'm not saying you are 'wrong' Hated. Just that I understand your complaint and completely disagree with it. If you look at the setting as a real world rather than an artificial construct created by people with your own prejudices and predispositions, those types of names make more sense.
I don't like how every aspect/attack form of a creature has a different name. kobold dragonshield, kobold slinger, kobold wyrmpriest...
I like saying "you see 4 kobolds, 2 carry spears and shields, 2 carry slings, and the last one is wearing some kind fancy headress and has a strange looking medallion around its neck."
It is a personal thing and no way reflects on the mechanics of the game.
Now will you let me have my opinion?
When I describe them to my characters, I wouldn't even say 'kobold' personally, unless they know what a kobold is in-character. Things like 'Wyrmpriest' aren't mechanics. Hell, they're not really even fluff. They are descriptors that are useful for organizational purposes. WotC has two options: they can either make all the monsters have only one 'type' or they have to categorize them somehow. If you can come up with a short, flavorful description for a priest dedicated to a dragon that is better than 'Wyrmpriest', please feel free to offer it. If you can't, then you're complaint is pretty well meaningless.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not the best way to accomplish the goal. You are free to have your opinion. We are free to think your opinion is misguided, uninformed, and ignorant. That's the beauty about opinions. Everyone has them.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:22AM
#748
|
|
|
Thank you for giving examples..
Blightborn Twig Blight - I agree with this...There's no other Twig Blight in the compendium so why have an adjective, especially one that is ALREADY in the name...Bad naming there.
Grand Melee Gladiator has the problem, like many other critters, there's ALREADY a Gladiator in the compendium...I think what is happening is that designers are being asked to try and keep duplication of names if possible.
Same thing happened in 3.x and even in 2e. For example, in 2e where we actually got multiple Monks (by my count, if someone says "The monk from 2e", you actually got to ask "which one" as there's the Monk from PO:S&M, there's the monk from the Scarlet Brotherhood and then there's the monk from the complete fighter's splatbook)
Both Bloody Scalp and Skull Kicker actually refer to the organization. Basically, it's like saying a British Marine or American Marine.
Ice Warrior though seems more like a location so it is analogous to saying Galapagos Tortoise so I don't think this is a MMORPG influence.
I think if I'm reading the Dungeon entry correctly, the Ruin-carved Beastcaller doesn't actually exist . The text of the adventure "REFERS" to the ruin-touched beastcaller but the actual name of the MM entry used in the adventure is simply BEASTCALLER (see page 41)
ruin-touched beastcaller: http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compe … px?id=1815
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:22AM
#749
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2007
|
Wait a minute.
Maybe I am confusing character build names and monster names.
I don't like things like "Artful Dodger Rogue".
Not a monster example, but a valid example nonetheless. Alright, I can understand that. Personally, I don't like some of that stuff myself. At least now we're talking about something that really exists. 
I don't like how every aspect/attack form of a creature has a different name. kobold dragonshield, kobold slinger, kobold wyrmpriest...
I like saying "you see 4 kobolds, 2 carry spears and shields, 2 carry slings, and the last one is wearing some kind fancy headress and has a strange looking medallion around its neck."
It is a personal thing and no way reflects on the mechanics of the game.
Different attacks, etc, need differentiation. A trip is not a bullrush is not a grapple is not a basic attack. Even in 4e we need different names for different abilities. For the rest, nobody is telling you that you can't still refer to Kobolds in that manner. I've been playing 4e since it came out and I still don't know what a Skirmisher or a Lurker is. And I don't care to. That stuff isn't important at our table. It's important to the DM so that he can tell what's what and it's important for discussion purposes out of game, but it's not something that needs to be used at the table. My advice is to simply let it go. It's there for reference. Stupid or not, it's not a meaningful part of the game/experience.
Now will you let me have my opinion?
Who was trying to take it away? We were just trying to understand where it was coming from. You gave the impression that it was born of fabrication. With specific examples, we can get an idea of where you're coming from.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.Section Six Soldier Front Door of the House of Trolls If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2009 - 10:23AM
#750
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
But, I have never used a 'build' for any character that I have made. What is a 'stalker' build in Hunter anyway? (Note: I understand the gist, it just isn't necessary, IMO) I have made a number of characters and have played a couple games with thoser who have made characters...I don't know of any who used a 'build' for Hunter.
You might not know it, but you probably are using a Build, or a combination thereof. Anytime there's a specific goal you are shooting for with the character you are probably going to end up making a Build.
Even if it's truly a custom and one off build.
A build is simply a collection of abilities and or powers or what have you that provide synergy with one another, either in character concept, or in gameplay. Its not nearly as rigid as a Class would be as builds can be tailored and altered much more readily usually than a Class.
Other names for builds include but are not limited to, Character Themes, Specs, and Type.
|
|
|
