# Dragon's Tail Cut?



## Xyl (Oct 11, 2007)

From Rich Baker's blog:


			
				Rich Baker said:
			
		

> I spent a little time here and there polishing up some Player's Handbook bits. Yesterday I cast my eye over our list of fighter powers, and spent a couple of hours patching up placeholder names and writing up better flavor text. We had a 1st-level power called "Wallop" that had a knock-you-prone rider on it; I changed the name to "Dragon's Tail Cut" and flavored it as a crouch down and make a long looping swing through target's legs power, sort of like the way a dragon might use a tail whip to knock someone down. Maybe it's dorky, maybe it's cool; hard to tell with flavor you write yourself.



It looks like they're going with Book of Nine Swords style move names. I know some people will view it as just extending the sorts of names they use for spells to other classes, and other people will say it's yet more evidence that D&D is becoming Exalted. What do you think?


----------



## WyzardWhately (Oct 11, 2007)

Xyl said:
			
		

> From Rich Baker's blog:
> 
> It looks like they're going with Book of Nine Swords style move names. I know some people will view it as just extending the sorts of names they use for spells to other classes, and other people will say it's yet more evidence that D&D is becoming Exalted. What do you think?




I like 'wallop' better.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 11, 2007)

Do Western-style sword fighters not use idiosyncratic names for the various moves they do?  Is this only an asian thing; or is it just thought to be asian, but is actually universal?


----------



## useridunavailable (Oct 11, 2007)

I vote "dorky" on that one.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Oct 11, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Do Western-style sword fighters not use idiosyncratic names for the various moves they do?  Is this only an asian thing; or is it just thought to be asian, but is actually universal?




Western swordfighters have names for their moves, but they tend to be less metaphorical.  This kind of stuff (to my limited understanding) actually comes from the various animal styles of kung fu specifically, rather than just asian martial arts in general.  They were a sort of metaphor/mnemonic device for the moves from fighting animals that the martial artists were attempting to emulate.  

Or at least, that's how it was explained to me by my buddy who does a lot of kung fu.  And we were drinking at the time.


----------



## szilard (Oct 11, 2007)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> I like 'wallop' better.




Me too. What if I just want to hit people so hard they fall down? Do I have to trip them?

-Stuart


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 11, 2007)

I'll second the Dorky. These guys need some help in the naming stuff department.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 11, 2007)

They should call it "Sweep the Leg" and write flavor text of how it was a maneuver perfected by the ancient and mysterious Cobra Kai society.


----------



## Xyl (Oct 11, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Do Western-style sword fighters not use idiosyncratic names for the various moves they do?  Is this only an asian thing; or is it just thought to be asian, but is actually universal?



Part of it is a translation problem. Even really flashy moves in anime/wuxia tend to have relatively short names, for example "getsuga tenshou". However, because every syllable in Chinese or Japanese has its own meaning, if you translate it into english you get a mouthful like "Moon-Fang Piercer of the Heavens".


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 11, 2007)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> Western swordfighters have names for their moves, but they tend to be less metaphorical.  This kind of stuff (to my limited understanding) actually comes from the various animal styles of kung fu specifically, rather than just asian martial arts in general.  They were a sort of metaphor/mnemonic device for the moves from fighting animals that the martial artists were attempting to emulate.
> 
> Or at least, that's how it was explained to me by my buddy who does a lot of kung fu.  And we were drinking at the time.



Well, I think that a swordfighter is more likely to call his own move "dragon's tail cut" than "wallop" anyway.  But I do think that it's kind of a crappy name.  It sounds like it hails from the "rice paper walk" and "footpaddin'" school of nouns.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 11, 2007)

Dorky. I've got a player in my group who runs a swordsage, and after three months we all still grimace when he calls out "I run up and do my maneuver, Saphire Nightmare Diamond Blade!"

I don't know why "Dragon's Tail Cut" is worse than "Bull Rush", but it is. I'd rather they go as generic/descriptive as possible, and just call that particular strike "Knockdown".


----------



## shilsen (Oct 11, 2007)

I think it doesn't matter what they name it at all, since I (and the player involved) will be the one putting the flavor in the game. Some PCs will achieve the mechanic by walloping their enemy, some by flipping the enemy's feet out from under them, etc.

In short, what's in a name? Will not a Dragon's Tail Cut by any other name still drop you flat on your ass?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Oct 11, 2007)

It's too clumsy, WAY too clumsy. Falls in line with the phrase "attack of opportunity"; it is just too long and too cumbersome.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 11, 2007)

I dislike Wallop, because that... just sounds like something your grandpa would say. "So we're trading blades, and I walloped him!" It just makes me want to say "a-huck!". Besides, "Wallop" is more of a "strong hit that would do a lot of damage", to me, not "knock you down". 

But I also dislike Dragon Tail Cut. Because when I read "Dragon Tail Cut" I think "He's cutting the dragon's tail?" "Sweeping Blow" is better. Or maybe "Sunder Footing".


----------



## Scribble (Oct 11, 2007)

When I saw this I first thought this was yet another thread grumbling about the new Dragon format. 

I think Leg Sweep would have worked just fine... Or Sweeping Kick.


----------



## IanB (Oct 11, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> When I saw this I first thought this was yet another thread grumbling about the new Dragon format.
> 
> I think Leg Sweep would have worked just fine... Or Sweeping Kick.




Not if (as is implied by "cut") it is a sword-specific power.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 11, 2007)

I don't like "Wallop", but I don't like "Dragon's Tail Cut" either.  Both of them are particularly bad examples of the sort of names they are.

C'mon, WotC, it's not that hard to come up with names that are flavorful but don't sound like they came out of a Shaw Brothers movie.


----------



## Flobby (Oct 11, 2007)

I think they should have called it Monkey Calf Double Strike.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Oct 12, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> They should call it "Sweep the Leg" and write flavor text of how it was a maneuver perfected by the ancient and mysterious Cobra Kai society.




Hell. Yeah.

I can already see my first character: Johnny.

"Fear does not exist in this dojo, does it?"

"NO SENSI!!!"


----------



## Baduin (Oct 12, 2007)

Italian terms:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/saviolo/glossary.html

imbroccata: a thrust with the hand pronated (knuckles forward, palm outward) passing over the opponent's hand and downward; also foin

inquartata: a sideways or backwards step with the rear foot together with a lowering of the body underneath the incoming blade, dropping the left hand to the ground for support, followed by a counterattack with line; also passata sotto. 

mandritta: a horizontal cut delivered with the palm upward and the knuckles leading, from right to left

punta riversa: a thrust with the hand in supination (knuckles down, palm inward), delivered from the inside line, passing on either side of the opponent's ward, usually delivered on a step

riversi: a horizontal cut delivered with the palm downward and the knuckles leading, from left to right

stoccata: a thrust with the hand supinated (knuckles down, palm inward) rising from underneath the opponent's ward; also thrust

stramazone: a vertical cut to the head, palm to the left 

German terms:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/talhoffer.htm

eg:
Overhand cut. – Underhand cut.
Plunging cut. – Changing cut.
guard of Wrath
 sword capture.
open guard 
Iron Gate
half-sword
Murder-stroke 

Spanish terms
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/articles/spanish1.htm

Old French:
Coup de Jarnac:
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php

"The technique disabled one's adversary by severing the tendinous portion of the hamstrings, causing the victim's leg to collapse immediately, much the same way the limb of a marionette would go limp upon the severing of the string responsible for its movement. Located behind the knee, these tendons are not well exposed to an adversary facing his opponent from the front. Consequently, delivering a cut to this area presents certain challenges. The efficacy of the stroke was clear, however, and the technique may have served as a justifiable alternative to the risky and less effective cutting strokes directed to other parts of the leg.

The momentous duel in 1547 which gave the technique its name was that fought between Jarnac and Chastaigneraye.28 After a preliminary exchange of thrusts and cuts, Chastaigneraye was closing distance when Jarnac shifted his position while drawing Chastaigneraye's defenses high with a feint to the head, leaving the lower limbs exposed. With his hand in pronation, Jarnac then executed a drawing cut with the false edge of his blade across Chastaigneraye's hamstrings, inflicting a slight wound behind the knee of the left leg. Surprised, Chastaigneraye became briefly distracted, but before he had an opportunity to regain his composure Jarnac delivered a similar stroke to the hamstrings of the right leg, this time cutting through to the bone. Although Chastaigneraye eventually bled to death, it was the severing of his hamstrings which resulted in his immediate incapacitation.

A similar duel featuring the application of this technique was also fought between Newton and Hamilton in the same year, and earlier in that century yet another duel is reported to have been fought in which the same technique was employed in a combat between an Italian officer and a Frenchman. Short of a stroke resulting in dismemberment, this technique would appear to be the only sure means of disabling instantly the musculature of the leg. "

As regards fantasy, this exact cut is described by M. John Harrison in "Viriconium's Knights"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viriconium-Pastel-Nights-Fantasy-Masterworks/dp/1857989953

Vikings preferred to simply cut off the legs from under the adversary.

Other resources
http://www.iceweasel.org/fencing.html
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

As a bonus, critical hits:
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

I like it.

It had to have some kind of name, and "Dragon's Tail Cut" is vastly better than "wallop."


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Why not just "Knockdown" ?


----------



## Bishmon (Oct 12, 2007)

Moniker said:
			
		

> It's too clumsy, WAY too clumsy. Falls in line with the phrase "attack of opportunity"; it is just too long and too cumbersome.



Agreed.

I also think it gets uncomfortably close into the realm of wuxia, which is definitely not what I think of when I'm playing D&D, especially at 1st level.

Edit: I guess it could be a good name for a monk power.


----------



## Delta (Oct 12, 2007)

> Very anime - I think I preferred "Wallop". It knocks you prone.




What? How dare you call this anime! How DARE you!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 12, 2007)

Yep it is a def dorky, very 12 years old kid name -no insult to those of you out there at that age, but it is the sort of thing I would have used and thought cool, WAAAY back then.
Then again wallop is just as bad, I place another vote for knockdown, leg-sweep or sumfin that says exactly what it does in plain english. If you are the type that wants to call it footpaddin' (with a deliberate lack of 'g') then help yourself to "Evil Scything Tail Swing Dragon Knockover Slice Blow to the Lower Extremeties...of Death (TM)"


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 12, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> Italian terms:
> 
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/saviolo/glossary.html
> 
> ...



The rest of your post is very interesting, but are there translations available on these terms? It is hard to evaluate (ridicule?) them properly if you don't speak Italian...

I certainly don't mind a change away from the name "wallop". Anything that avoids the stereotype of fighters being big brutes just bashing away clumsily with brute strength is great, if you ask me. Also, I have no objection to flashier names (I am a fan of anime, after all). However, "Dragon's Tail Cut" just sounds cheesy. It is too descriptive to be plain and functional, but not poetic enough to stand on its own as a flashy name.

Either change the name to something basic (like Leg-Cutter), or something more poetic and properly descriptive (Falling Tree Slash is what I can come up with).


----------



## Monkey King (Oct 12, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> Italian terms: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/saviolo/glossary.html
> 
> imbroccata: a thrust with the hand pronated (knuckles forward, palm outward) passing over the opponent's hand and downward; also foin




Very cool, Baduin! I think historical names and perspective are a lot of fun, and the Western martial arts should definitely have a place in D&D.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

I like it.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 12, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yep it is a def dorky, very 12 years old kid name -no insult to those of you out there at that age, but it is the sort of thing I would have used and thought cool, WAAAY back then.



Well, I always hated such names... even at 12. That name is... dorky? Goofy? I don't know, but that's the 2nd thing in 4E, I don't like (1st thing was the revised wizard-implement article, the revised one, mind you).

The mechanics sound grand... but I cringe at almost every name they produce (okay, the cosmology names were fine).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> or is it just thought to be asian, but is actually universal?




Most maneuvers and stances in western sword fighting have names. In princes bride they point out echothers attacks and defenses as they fight. The name conventions sound different (from the east to the west) but are really the same. Japan very in depth with sword lengths and stances but they don't sound at all the way we make them out to be. 

I would have called the maneuver Sweeping tail strike, or sweeping dragon strike. it fits the imagery i think the writer was going for and flows better. I like the maneuver visual but not the name.


----------



## el-remmen (Oct 12, 2007)

Evocative, I guess. . . Just not evoking what I'd like.  D&D ain't a kung-fu movie.  Save it for the monk.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 12, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> Why not just "Knockdown" ?



Seriously.  There is no need to get all poetic here; the attack knocks you down...so call it "Knockdown."

This whole thing reeks of "Rice Paper Walk" and "Footpaddin'," if you catch my drift...


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Seriously.  There is no need to get all poetic here; the attack knocks you down...so call it "Knockdown."




Nah. Utilitarian names are so 80s.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> Why not just "Knockdown" ?



I would have prefered this.  Just some basic descriptive text that tells you what the thing does in a word or two and include some alternate names for different regions.  I wonder if Fireball is getting a more poetic name too.  

It isn't a big deal, I just wonder why poetic is better than functional for this sort of thing.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> This whole thing reeks of "Rice Paper Walk" and "Footpaddin'," if you catch my drift...



Those were good for options, but Move Silently was pretty much fine for what it did.  the characters can call it whatever they want, but players need to be able to reference the rules easily.  

It seems to me that poetic names might get in the way after a while.  It isn't ridiculous or terrible just yet, but it puzzles me.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 12, 2007)

Yuck.
I love 4E rules, and I love 4E fluff (from what we've seen) but man, I really don't like the 4E naming convention. Emerald frost? Dragon's Tail Cut? Yeesh.

Now, they can't call it plain 'knockdown' as 1) it appears to be a sword specific maneuver and 2) there will most likely be plenty of things that cause knockdown.

But, I'm sure they can make more specific utilitarian names.

For this maneuver, I suggest:
Sword sweep


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> For this maneuver, I suggest:
> Sword sweep



See, I think this might be a little specific.  I just want to hit a guy so hard he hits the ground.  Knockdown is perfectly fine for this.  I can hit him wherever I want.  It describes the effect, not the method.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 12, 2007)

It's okay but it's not grandiose enough.

It should be called Five Angry Panthers Spinning Earth Collision.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's okay but it's not grandiose enough.
> 
> It should be called Five Angry Panthers Spinning Earth Collision.





I can't find my Dragon issue with the random tables for Monk moves.  I really wanted to just roll up a stack of them for this thread.


----------



## Grymar (Oct 12, 2007)

Why does it have to be so lame?  If you don't want it generic (knockdown), make it something less dorky.

Goblin's Strike
Swift Sweep
Kneebender
Topple

Hell, Timber would be better than anything with Dragon in the title.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 12, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> guard of Wrath
> Iron Gate



Those actually sound a bit anime.


----------



## wayne62682 (Oct 12, 2007)

I like it.  But I also *like* anime and videogames.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Seriously.  There is no need to get all poetic here; the attack knocks you down...so call it "Knockdown."



We've been calling it Trip Attack since 3.0 anyway.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 12, 2007)

No thanks. I prefer more descriptive (and simpler) names, please.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 12, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> No thanks. I prefer more descriptive (and simpler) names, please.



Ditto.  In the 7 years of 3.x I've _*NEVER *_heard anyone say "You know, 'Power Attack' and 'Trip' just aren't evocative enough."

This, for the first time, is "Change for change's sake."

And a bad one.

Time to resurrect the "Wotc, you suck at names" thread.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 12, 2007)

As I said elsewhere...

Don't we already know that dragons can knock people down/back with their tails? If that's indeed the case, Dragon's Tail Cut makes perfect sense--_in_ character, without the need for anime or wuxia influences on the culture or setting--for an attack that knocks people down.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm waiting for powers like "Curb Stomp" and "Circle Boot" (or is that a teamwork benefit?).


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 12, 2007)

It would be better as "Dragon's Tail", perhaps, rather than "Dragon's Tail Cut", but I like the more evocative name. It ain't "anime" until the rules force you to yell out the name of the maneuver as you perform it. 

"Wallop" is just tragic - as I said in another thread, it's what the Three Stooges do to each other, not what a _D&D_ fighter does to her foe - and "Knockdown" is bland.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 12, 2007)

After the talk from WoTC about "Attacks of Opportunity" being too many syllables, they take something that could be well-described as "Wallop" or "Leg Sweep" and name it something like Dragons Tail Cut?

Go ask a player in your group who hasn't read about this what they think "Dragons Tail Cut" means in game terms.  I bet no one gets two answers the same.


----------



## Droogie (Oct 12, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> Italian terms:
> 
> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/saviolo/glossary.html
> 
> ...




Neat.

Naming conventions aside, I was still iffy about the prospect of fighter "powers". Thanks to Baduin's post, I am now sold.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As I said elsewhere...
> 
> Don't we already know that dragons can knock people down/back with their tails? If that's indeed the case, Dragon's Tail Cut makes perfect sense--_in_ character, without the need for anime or wuxia influences on the culture or setting--for an attack that knocks people down.



Yes, this is true.   And while I have no care about the kung fu portion of it, I do have a care for how flowery the description is.  I'd rather have topple or takedown or knockdown as the core name for it and include a short list of alternate names based on martial tradition or culture.

Dwarves might call it Dragon Tail Cut, but elves might call it Stormbent Willow Sweep and orcs might get the same effect out of 'Eadstompin Thwack.

Dragon Tail Cut, while evocative and sensible, is flowery and I do not belive that this is a kind of flowery that benifits the game.  Simple and descriptive is fine, let the poetry be customizable.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 12, 2007)

WOTC just does not get it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 12, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> I'd rather have topple or takedown or knockdown as the core name for it and include a short list of alternate names based on martial tradition or culture.




Given how many people complained when WotC added the one-sentence, italicized descriptions to their spell write-ups, can you imagine how many complaints they'd get if each spell, maneuver, and power had a list of alternate names?   

Better, I think, for them to just name each spell and each power once--as the game has always done--and let people who don't like them come up with their own.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 12, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Yes, this is true.   And while I have no care about the kung fu portion of it, I do have a care for how flowery the description is.  I'd rather have topple or takedown or knockdown as the core name for it and include a short list of alternate names based on martial tradition or culture.
> 
> Dwarves might call it Dragon Tail Cut, but elves might call it Stormbent Willow Sweep and orcs might get the same effect out of 'Eadstompin Thwack.
> 
> Dragon Tail Cut, while evocative and sensible, is flowery and I do not belive that this is a kind of flowery that benifits the game.  Simple and descriptive is fine, let the poetry be customizable.





I think this would be the best option as well.  Let me describe the powers the way I want in my game...just give me a practical name so I have an idea of what it actually does.


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Given how many people complained when WotC added the one-sentence, italicized descriptions to their spell write-ups, can you imagine how many complaints they'd get if each spell, maneuver, and power had a list of alternate names?



People complained about that?  Really?  Huh...  I kind of liked them.

I agree though that the power should just have the one official and constant name, but that name should be just descriptive enough to tell you what the thing does.  I want Fireball, not Phoenix Bloom.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 12, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> People complained about that?  Really?  Huh...  I kind of liked them.




Yep. And yeah, I like them, too.



> I agree though that the power should just have the one official and constant name, but that name should be just descriptive enough to tell you what the thing does.  I want Fireball, not Phoenix Bloom.




I agree to a point. But there's another factor to consider:

What if there are two maneuvers that do similar things, in different ways?

We already know that many maneuvers are weapon-oriented. Suppose the "knockdown" maneuver with longswords or other bladed weapons has different mechanics than the one for, oh, let's say hammers and other blunt weapons. Or perhaps there are multiple _levels_ that do the same thing, but add other effects or are more effective as you grow more powerful.

(Pulling all this out of my butt, of course. It's all hypothetical.)

Maybe one deals damage but only has a small chance of knocking the foe over, while the other does no damage but has a better chance of working. Maybe one knocks him down, while the other knocks him down and back. And so on and so forth.

My point--yes, I have one --is that it simply may not be practical to name each maneuver solely for what it does, in a purely functional/non-flowery way. There are reasons beyond the aesthetic that Bo9S named its maneuvers as it did, and I imagine that even with a change in said aesthetics, those other reasons remain in 4E.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Just split the difference and call it "Dragon's Tail Wallop".


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 12, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I think this would be the best option as well.  Let me describe the powers the way I want in my game...just give me a practical name so I have an idea of what it actually does.




Gee, if only there were a term in european swordfighting for a cut to the legs that knocks your opponent prone.

Like, I dunno..."Hamstring" or something...

What?


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My point--yes, I have one --is that it simply may not be practical to name each maneuver solely for what it does, in a purely functional/non-flowery way. There are reasons beyond the aesthetic that Bo9S named its maneuvers as it did, and I imagine that even with a change in said aesthetics, those other reasons remain in 4E.



Which is why it is merely puzzling and not actually upsetting.  Yes, if Dragon Tail Cut is named like the Bo9S maneuvers, then there might well be a good reason for it to be named Dragon Tail Cut.  However, it used to be called "Wallop" which lends the idea that it is a garish name for a simple technique.  

Right now the name is hanging by slender threads and I'm just not seeing the one that is bearing the load here.  Sure, there are a few reasons that it might be kept in place, but the "Oh THAT is why!" isn't as obvious as I'd like it to be.  

However, I do think that a simple change like dropping the "cut" part would be an improvement.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My point--yes, I have one --is that it simply may not be practical to name each maneuver solely for what it does, in a purely functional/non-flowery way. There are reasons beyond the aesthetic that Bo9S named its maneuvers as it did, and I imagine that even with a change in said aesthetics, those other reasons remain in 4E.




Okay, I can buy that, to some extent.

However, there is a difference between "flowery to differentiate this maneuver from other similar ones" and "too flowery, period."

In this specific example, I'm not even entirely sure _how to read the name_. Is it "Dragon's (Tail Cut)"? Or is it "(Dragon's Tail) Cut"? Reading it one way leads me to envision a dragon's tail doing the cutting, while the other leads me to envision a dragon's tail being cut. Since these two things are rather different, it is clear that the writer was intending it to be read one way and not the other, but I can't figure out which was the intended meaning.

A name can be "flowery" and still functional. However, when the name gives two rather different visuals, there is an issue there.


----------



## Riley (Oct 12, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> They should call it "Sweep the Leg" and write flavor text of how it was a maneuver perfected by the ancient and mysterious Cobra Kai society.




Sweep the Leg.  Leg Sweep.  Knee Bash.  Undercut.  Something like that.  Keep it simple.

You know, if we posted our suggestions on Gleemax, they'd have the rights to them, and maybe they'd use one.

I hereby bequeathe my rights to any of these names to WOTC, if they'll just use one as a  replacement for Dragon's Tail Sweep.


----------



## KrazyHades (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm going with saying neither Wallop nor Dragon's Tail Cut as any good. No offense, but c',mon, if you actually call it that you'll end up with every single DM who isn't running an asian-style setting changing the name to something more universal while remaining descriptive.

Slightly altering "Dragon's Tail Cut":
Dragon Sweep
Dragontail Strike (note: One word, no clunky " 's " sound)


Assuming this is a specific sword power (although if "wallop" is good enough, then some of these can be out there), here are some tentative ideas:
Sword Sweep
Leg Cut
Stance Slicer
Leg-lunge
Knockdown
Shove
Sword-trip

And dozens of other possibilities that are more universal and less-dorky. C'mon, Rich Baker, we know you have it in you to do better than that! We have faith in you, as long as you take our opinions here on ENWorld into account!


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 12, 2007)

Watch out for my spinning reversed dragon's tail cut delivered while parting the wild horse's mane.  Iron broom time, baby.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 12, 2007)

Maybe Red Dragon Slash... (to tie it in with D&D itself n all...)


----------



## A'koss (Oct 12, 2007)

I don't mind evocative names myself - so long as they actually suggest what is being done. I would never guess that "Dragon Tail Cut" was some kind of _knockdown_ attack. 

Dragon Hammer, Dragontail Strike, Dragontail Lash - if you have to use "dragon" in the name. I like the word "hammer" myself - because it suggests a powerful attack - Mountain Hammer and so on...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Given how many people complained when WotC added the one-sentence, italicized descriptions to their spell write-ups, can you imagine how many complaints they'd get if each spell, maneuver, and power had a list of alternate names?
> 
> Better, I think, for them to just name each spell and each power once--as the game has always done--and let people who don't like them come up with their own.



I liked the italicized, descriptive spell text. huh....

Anyway, I am not too hot on this name, nor am I that big on the Wizard Naming traditions.  I am likely to rename them with something more befitting the campaign world anyway.  Maybe even something named after a local master. 

A local weapon master's maneuver name might be: "Ryven's Sweeping Blade"

The barbarian half-orc: "Thurgun Dropp'um!"


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Oct 12, 2007)

Definitely dorky.  Worse yet, it's a mouthful, and completely meaningless.  One problem I had with the Bo9S names, and things like "Dragon's Tail Cut", is that they don't actually describe what they do.  They're meaningless, so players and DMs are forced to memorize dozens or hundreds of arbitrary names. 

I hope that the dorky and confusing names is something that gets changed during playtesting.    Power/spell names can be evocative, but they should also be relatively short, and actually describe what they do.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 12, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Not if (as is implied by "cut") it is a sword-specific power.



That's another thing that bothers me about this power, besides its name.  To be most effective at knocking an opponent backward, a choice weapon to use would be one that would generate a lot of impact force...something bulky, heavy, and long-hafted, like the flat side of a greataxe.  A sword doesn't have enough stopping power; it is too light and thin.

Imagine playing baseball with a sword instead of a bat.  A skilled swordsman with the right blade will cut the ball in two pieces, but that ball will still get past the plate.  A skilled batter with the right club will crush that ball out of the park.

I suppose that using the "flat of the sword" on a two-handed blade would work, but the word "cut" in the title suggests using the sword to cleave an opponent backward.  I suppose a sword would be ideal for upsetting an opponent's balance, due to the speed and flexibility of the blade, but this is called "tripping."

Anyway.  I'm being nitpicky.  Physics and fantasy should always be kept in separate containers.  But it was bugging me, so I had to say something about it.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm not keen on the names proposed.

However, I do think of one of the fantasy series I really like, that does have names for sword manuevers:

* Sheathing the Sword
* Folding the Fan
* Stones Falling Down the Mountain
* Cat Dances on the Wall

I really enjoyed those names. 

Cheers!


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 12, 2007)

Hm, maybe the'll go ahead and actually rename the paladin's mount to Pokemount for 4e.


----------



## Imp (Oct 12, 2007)

Monkey Steals The Peach!

Hmm, I dunno, I'm not real real big on martial arts simulation, but it's not the name of this that bugs me so much as how you're supposed to do this with – what – a sword? An axe, I guess?  I swear, I'm not a real stickler about this kind of stuff, but the 1st-level moves, if they're associated with weapons, ought to hew kind of close to reality, and get more cinematic/ fantastic as you go up in levels, right?


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 12, 2007)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> That's another thing that bothers me about this power, besides its name.  To be most effective at knocking an opponent backward, a choice weapon to use would be one that would generate a lot of impact force...something bulky, heavy, and long-hafted, like the flat side of a greataxe.  A sword doesn't have enough stopping power; it is too light and thin.
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway.  I'm being nitpicky.  Physics and fantasy should always be kept in separate containers.  But it was bugging me, so I had to say something about it.




Well, for the record, the last time I got hit in the legs with a sword, it knocked me prone. It hurt like hell too.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 12, 2007)

It seems like the maneuver, as described, would cause you to never walk again, rather than just knock you down, but hey, that could just be me.


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 12, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It seems like the maneuver, as described, would cause you to never walk again, rather than just knock you down, but hey, that could just be me.




Honestly, it depends on how deep the cut is. A shallow cut would knock you prone, but is something you can recover from, not even necessarily with a lot of time. By way of example:

I was doing some longsword practice this spring. I took a blow to my unarmored face from a greatsword. It gave me a minor cut and a black eye. And it knocked me flat.

A short time later, I was, basically, fine. For safety reasons, I wasn't allowed to resume swordplay, but I could have. There was no lasting damage. I was lucky.

This was an accident. But someone could have done it on purpose. Moreover, traditional european swordplay involved a lot of takedown maneuvers; everything from hooking the legs with the crossguard of your sword to using your legs for a trip attack to knocking your opponent over with a shield push.

It's a common misperception that medieval european combat involved two armored men doing nothing but swinging at one another.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 12, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> 1st-level moves, if they're associated with weapons, ought to hew kind of close to reality, and get more cinematic/ fantastic as you go up in levels, right?




This is an interesting point.

Simple names to start, fancier names as you go up.

Dragon's Tail Cut doesn't make me think of anything like a longsword sweeping the feet out from an opponent.  Soon enough it would be DTC, and we would have another TLA* to deal with.

Sword Sweep - explanatory, simple.  Can be "I sword sweep him", can be "I sweep him" (since the players and DM know the player uses a sword, right?).
And easily adapted to other weapons - axe sweep, spear sweep, etc.

Wallop makes me think of the Batman TV series ;-)

When I'm DMing I don't want to have to remember a huge list of powers and what they mean.  Sword Sweep I wouldn't have to remember, it's self-explantory IMO.

* TLA - Three-Letter Acronym.  But they are better than FLA (four-letter or five-letter acronyms) and XTLA (extended three-letter acronyms).


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 12, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> They should call it "Sweep the Leg" and write flavor text of how it was a maneuver perfected by the ancient and mysterious Cobra Kai society.




off-topic:
Will Smith wants remake karate kid, starring his 8-year old son as Daniel.
Help stop him!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/scotty-and-nige-say-no-to-the-wil-smith-katrate-kid-remake


----------



## Reynard (Oct 12, 2007)

This kind of "flavor" doesn't really belong in the Core books, IMO.  Not because it is bad, per se, because that's a matter of opinion on whether Dragon Tail Strike sounds better than Knockdown.  Rather, because D&D traditionally encourages homebrewing and published campaigns settings, each with their own flavor, keeping the core rulebooks as vanilla as possibile, utilitarian even, preserves that quality.  Think of all the "bamed" spells in D&D.  They were Gygaxian and Grehawkish and they really didn't sound right in FR or DL.  Once the OGL came into being, they had to be excised.  KoK went so far as to invent new "iconic" wizards so that those spells would still have names.

Names matter.  Imagaine if you ran D&D by the RAW with toally new players, but changed the names thus:

Str=Aspect of the Bull
Dex=Aspect of the Eagle
Con=Aspect of the Bear
Int=Aspect of the Fox
Wis=Aspect of the Owl
Cha=Aspect of the Eagle
Level=Ascension
Hit Points=Manifestation
AC=Insubstantiation

and so on... The Players would think, just based on those names, that they were playing some form of world walking spirits or gods, and if they played long enough and gained enough levels, they'd be convinced of it.  Now try this:

Str=Muscle
Dex=Speed
Con=Grit
Int=Smarts
Wis=Sense
Cha=Wit
Level=Skill
Hit Points=Pluck
AC=Luck

and so on... now you are playing a pulpy, noirish game with elves and dwarves.  the point is, names do in fact matter.  the more specific they are, the more unintended and possible unwanted flavor they inject in everyone's game.  Imagine a Hyborea or Middle Earth with Conan or Aragorn shouting "Mountain Sundering Slash" when what they really want to do is power attack.

This kind of "flavor design" is both unneccesary and unhelpful.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As I said elsewhere...
> 
> Don't we already know that dragons can knock people down/back with their tails? If that's indeed the case, Dragon's Tail Cut makes perfect sense--_in_ character, without the need for anime or wuxia influences on the culture or setting--for an attack that knocks people down.



Well, if you look at most of those real-world fighting techniques, they're called what they do.  Nobody calls a particular sword stroke "waterfall slice."  It'll be called "downward stroke" or something.

I've noticed that there's been a lot more emphasis on trying to saddle things with fluffy names for the sake of it.  I think they want to make sure that every aspect of the game has at least a light dusting of spray-flocking so that nobody has to look directly at the bare rules without some kind of conceptual prophylaxis.  What's wrong with unambiguous names for things?  Aren't we trying to make the game easy to understand for new players?


----------



## Matthan (Oct 12, 2007)

The name doesn't really appeal to me, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't make it into the final product.  The author admits that he hasn't run it by anyone else yet.  He also mentions writing some flavor text for it.  Maybe the text can keep, but the name will shift.  

Personally, I'm pulling for a shorter name.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Duncan Haldane said:
			
		

> * TLA - Three-Letter Acronym.  But they are better than FLA (four-letter or five-letter acronyms) and XTLA (extended three-letter acronyms).



Shoot.  What's the word for things which are themselves examples of the concept they define, like TLA and XTLA up there?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> What's wrong with unambiguous names for things?  Aren't we trying to make the game easy to understand for new players?



 Er, isn't a unique (and probably silly sounding) name LESS ambiguous?

Not arguing which should be used, though I do like making up silly maneuver names... 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on the names proposed.
> 
> However, I do think of one of the fantasy series I really like, that does have names for sword manuevers:
> 
> ...



These sound like euphemisms for _something else_, IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Er, isn't a unique (and probably silly sounding) name LESS ambiguous?




No? After all, my character's name is Tevyn Wheelwright. But you wouldn't know him from Adam. 

I think he meant "ambiguous as to what it does". And I agree.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

*shrug*

Sounds fine to me. More interested in the mechanics, frankly.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> No? After all, my character's name is Tevyn Wheelwright. But you wouldn't know him from Adam.



 *sigh* 







> *ambiguous*
> adj 1: open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature
> or significance; or (often) intended to mislead; "an
> equivocal statement"; "the polling had a complex and
> ...



 I'm referring to (1) and (2), not (3).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Er, isn't a unique (and probably silly sounding) name LESS ambiguous?




Which are you more likely to forget the purpose of:


Ogre's kneecap dancing flumph manoeuvre
or
hamstring attack

Especially when you consider how many other idiosyncratically-named manoeuvres you need to keep track of.

PC 1: Bargle's Lesser Gryphon Tail Technique?  Is that the one where you spin around and hit people who are flanking you?
PC 2: No, you're thinking of Massive Hedgehog Birthday Gambit.  B's LGTT is when you backflip over your opponent and backstab him.
PC 3: Wait, I thought that was Mordenkainen's Overly Abstruse Malfeasance.
PC 1: That's a 4th level spell.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Right. We mean 3. 

No worries. We can all be right  I didn't mean that to sound as snarky as it did, sorry.

Besides, 2 could be used either way: the name has no intrinsic meaning, since you can interpret Dragon Tail Cut as either a maneuver similar to that of a dragon's tail (which we'd need to see rules for, before we could tell whether that had further ambiguity) or a cut at a dragon's tail, implying some sort of flankery thing.

Besides, it just doesn't summon the same motion for me as Sweeping Cut or Tripping Cut or even just regular old Leg Cut do.

_never post while tired, kids._


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Right. We mean 3.
> 
> No worries. We can all be right



Well, by unambiguous, I mean the antonym of 1, 2, and 3.  As in, it has only one meaning, and the meaning itself is given and will not be mistaken for another meaning.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> I think he meant "ambiguous as to what it does". And I agree.



 Oh, that's what you mean.

Dunno. It really depends on how many maneuvers there are, and how specific the rules are for each one. "Downward Chop" means nothing more or less mechanically than "Seven Demon Fang".

Example (IMHO): Trip is fine as an attack name in 3.5e, because it does something simple, and the rules don't grossly violate my intuition.

Combat Expertise, however, tells me nothing. Parry might be a better name for that.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Yeah. Names are a weak point.

This *can* be fixed, but it'd be nice if the names were right from the start, since it makes communicating so much easier.

Some of it is taste, of course.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Oh, that's what you mean.
> 
> Dunno. It really depends on how many maneuvers there are, and how specific the rules are for each one. "Downward Chop" means nothing more or less mechanically than "Seven Demon Fang".
> 
> ...



Probably, and I'd prefer it that way.  However, I think there is a middle ground.  Look at Power Attack or Whirlwind Attack.  If you didn't know what they did, you probably wouldn't guess.  However, once you know what they do, the name seems to make sense, as it is somewhat evocative of the action.


----------



## hero4hire (Oct 12, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> Why not just "Knockdown" ?




I *so* agree with this. Let me or my GM name my funky fresh manuevers. Maybe there are no dragons in my D&D.

I don't need "Monkey Eats Grapes" or "Fish Evades Hook" type of names. Besides wouldnt it be nicer to state your manuever _Knockdown_ and have it be clear to all what exactly that does by the name instead of memorizing a bunch of corny names and matching them to thier effects.

Cripes why did they even name it Wallop instead of _Knockdown_ in the first place?  

I have a new manuever *"Wizard's Names Suck"*


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

I'd like to separate *intuitive* from *ambiguous*.

IMHO y'all are asking for *intuitive* names, and that's a fine thing, but separate from their ambiguity.

How likely am I to remember Hamstring Attack? Really depends on how many other, very similar maneuvers are on the palette. You bet I'll forget WTF it does if I'm looking at a maneuver list like:
- Hamartia Attack*
- Hamble Attack
- Hammer Attack
- Hampering Attack
- Hampered Attack
- Hamstring Attack

... and so would you.

Cheers, -- N

*) Bard only.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Oct 12, 2007)

Well, I guess I don't really like the name either.  It's definitely going to roll a few eyes in my local gaming group when we first here it, but we'll probably get used to it.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

It's true. But they need a thesaurus; even throwing in the appropriate "gouge", "slice", "chop", "blow", and "maneuver" might help there, a lot.


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 12, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on the names proposed.
> 
> However, I do think of one of the fantasy series I really like, that does have names for sword manuevers:
> 
> ...




Those are from _The Wheel of Time_, aren't they? There's also:

Heron Wading in the Rushes
Cat crosses the Courtyard

and a few others.

By the late, lamented Robert Jordan, may he rest in peace.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> It's true. But they need a thesaurus; even throwing in the appropriate "gouge", "slice", "chop", "blow", and "maneuver" might help there, a lot.



 See, at this point, I might prefer they just jump into some abstract and poetic namespace where they can group similar concepts by motif rather than be limited to strict meaning. (I think this is obvious, but if it's not, I've got examples.)

It's an art to choose when to use a metaphor rather than just spell something out -- and I don't know nearly enough about 4e to say if they're doing the names right. I'm just saying there are times when it is appropriate, because you can get better intuitive leverage by lifting from metaphorical ground. Sure, your reader will have to take a short walk to get there, but once he's there, he can lift more.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

Sure. Actually, I quite agree. I'm just not sure that anything with Dragon in it is the way to get there -- since the images Dragon conjures, once I've seen it, quite overpower any obviousness from the Tail Cut portion of the name.

But I totally see your point. It's just another grey mark in the tally of names-I'm-probably-going-to-change-thank-goodness-I'm-a-tinkerer tally.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Which are you more likely to forget the purpose of:
> 
> 
> Ogre's kneecap dancing flumph manoeuvre
> ...



LOL.  That's exactly the problem I have with Bo9S.  D&D spells almost all have intuitive names, which makes learning and playing the game easier.

Must the game be filled with [melodramatic adjective] [fantasy beast/object]'s [ambiguous verb]?


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Time to deliver my Dancing Griffon Performs Hysterectomy On Caryatid Column While Wading Through Field of Lillies Before Filing Income Tax Documents: "Dragon Tail Cut" is *stupid*.  Try again, guy.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Knockdown, Curb Stomp, Choke...those kind of manuever names wouldn't bother me.
All this Clever Monkey Belching Hidden Thunderstorm stuff seems pretty weak.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 12, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> Definitely dorky.  Worse yet, it's a mouthful, and completely meaningless.  One problem I had with the Bo9S names, and things like "Dragon's Tail Cut", is that they don't actually describe what they do.  They're meaningless, so players and DMs are forced to memorize dozens or hundreds of arbitrary names.




It's called JARGON.

I can't believe there is not one person on the staff there advising them on this.

Or maybe there is. Perhaps learning a whole new shared gamer language is a design goal. 

But it certainly doesn't make the book easier to read and learn.


----------



## Daztur (Oct 12, 2007)

Dear god, just about all of the mechanics I hear about for 4ed seem good but the names, dear god the names are getting embarrassing...


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's called JARGON.




Actually, it's now called "Diamond Hippocampus Frolic of Seventeen Gilded Tulip Petals from Heaven's Outer Vestibule", citizen.  Please stop using the word "jargon"... it's not flavorful enough.


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 12, 2007)

Rules and fluff need to be separatel as Reynard nicely demonstrated, flavored names imply genre.

If the feat is tied into the weapon of choice (as postulated by some) then include it in the title:

*Sword Sweep:* Your cutting blow knocks your enemy prone
*Hammer Blow:* The strength of the strike from your hammer knocks your enemy back 1 square
*Stunning Shield: * The sudden parry from your shield stuns your opponent; they lose an action on the next turn
*Blinding Arrow:* Theprecision of your arrow shot momentarily blinds your opponent; they are blinded for the rest of the encounter
*Quaterstaff Trip:* Your quaterstaff expertly slides between your opponents legs, knocking them off balance. They are prone
*Hamstring Strike*: Your light bladed weapon slices accurately at your opponents leg, inflicting a crippling blow; You gain +2 attack for the rest of the encounter  
*Spear a Boar*: The blow from your spear knocks your opponent prone. They are also winded
*Shield Shatter*: The blow from your two handed weapon shatters your oppoents shield. All bonuses from the shield are lost for the rest of the encounter. Magical shields are not destroyed but the enemy is considered disarmed of his shield for the rest of the encounter.
*Receive the Charge*: You quickly set your pike/spear to recieve an enemies charge dealng an automatic critical if you hit hit. Attacks are resolved against an oppoents reflex only

Some fluff based effects
*Banshee Wail*: Expert with this elven blade, it sings its ghostly dirge as it strikes. Enemies not immune to fear are considered frightened for the rest of the encounter 
*Enemy of My Father* The warlord names one monster type as the weapon's favored enemy. All attacks with this weapon strike at +2 and do +2 damage


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 12, 2007)

Daztur said:
			
		

> Dear god, just about all of the mechanics I hear about for 4ed seem good but the names, dear god the names are getting embarrassing...




not embarrassing, but you are considered to have the flaw ... *blushes with shame when the moon passes the zenith with the memory of past flirtations*


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> These sound like euphemisms for _something else_, IYKWIMAITYD.



Snake Creeps Down?
Piercing the Jade Gate?
Twist the Dragons Tail?  (ouch)
Hide the...aw, never mind.  This could go on all night.


----------



## Belorin (Oct 12, 2007)

Well at least we they don't have us yelling "*Draagoon's Taail Cuuut!!!*" as we make our moves and no joypad ache from pushing all those buttons to get the cool move. 
I like 'Legsweep' myself.


Bel


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 12, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Ditto.  In the 7 years of 3.x I've _*NEVER *_heard anyone say "You know, 'Power Attack' and 'Trip' just aren't evocative enough."
> 
> This, for the first time, is "Change for change's sake."
> 
> ...




Roger that.


----------



## Henry (Oct 12, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Snake Creeps Down?
> Piercing the Jade Gate?
> Twist the Dragons Tail?  (ouch)
> Hide the...aw, never mind.  This could go on all night.




A lot longer than what it's describing, anyway. 

Great-sounding feat, terrible names for it. I'd prefer leg sweep or something like that.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> LOL.  That's exactly the problem I have with Bo9S.  D&D spells almost all have intuitive names, which makes learning and playing the game easier.




That's just familiarity talking. I can never remember the different between fire storm, flame strike and incendiary cloud.


----------



## Henry (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> That's just familiarity talking. I can never remember the different between fire storm, flame strike and incendiary cloud.




Yeah, but isn't "fire storm" a storm of fire, "flame strike" an actual strike made of flame, and the "i-cloud" a cloud that burns things? As opposed to a "Dragon's Tail Cut" having nothing to to with a dragon? Just me, I'd rather have the names as more descriptive. Even those German and Italian maneuver names were nothing but stuff like "reverse chop" or "low guard" etc. when translated, rather than being poetic and running the risk of being misinterpreted.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Yeah, but isn't "fire storm" a storm of fire, "flame strike" an actual strike made of flame, and the "i-cloud" a cloud that burns things? As opposed to a "Dragon's Tail Cut" having nothing to to with a dragon?




It's close enough, given the fluff provided.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> It really depends on how many maneuvers there are



This is a very important point and I don't know why it's getting overlooked so much.  The reason they didn't name the maneuver "Knockdown" is almost certainly because there are several maneuvers that knock the enemy down and they need to have distinct names.

Really, the more maneuvers you have, the less simple and direct the names can be.  "Power Attack" is a great name for an ability that lets you hit extra-hard when it's the only ability that does so.  When there are a dozen different abilities that increase your damage using various mechanics, you have to dig deeper to get names for them.  Sometimes this turns out well, other times... not so much.  "Dragon's Tail Cut" would be an example of the not so much.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Yeah, after a while, the Improved/Greater/Supreme/Epic convention gets boring.


----------



## epochrpg (Oct 12, 2007)

Xyl said:
			
		

> From Rich Baker's blog: and other people will say it's yet more evidence that D&D is becoming Exalted. What do you think?




Sounds to me like they should add a maneuver called "Jumping the Shark"

I was fine with it when this ability was called Knock Down attack in 3.0


----------



## Hussar (Oct 12, 2007)

Gotta admit, not loving the naming conventions.  

Just blarg.

Intuitive naming conventions would seem to be a much better route to go.


----------



## Imp (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Combat Expertise, however, tells me nothing. Parry might be a better name for that.



You know, I never really have made a full instinctive distinction between Combat Expertise and Combat Reflexes after all this time even though they are very very different feats.  They've always seemed kinda interchangeable and I always have to look twice.

* data point *


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> This is a very important point and I don't know why it's getting overlooked so much.




Because then people might have less reason to be snippy, and apparently, the chance to be snide is more important to some people than reasoned consideration.  :\ 

(Mandatory disclaimer: This doesn't apply to everyone who dislikes the name, but only certain folks, and so on and so on, blah, blah...)


----------



## KingCrab (Oct 12, 2007)

Another 4ed house rule: Dragons tail cut officially changed to wallop.  

I guess it could be worse.  Maybe something like "wind of fire and a hundred blades" would not be too wise.  Lets hope they're not reading this and use that to replace "power attack".


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Yeah, but isn't "fire storm" a storm of fire, "flame strike" an actual strike made of flame, and the "i-cloud" a cloud that burns things? As opposed to a "Dragon's Tail Cut"



I don't know, I read the explanation and now I remember what it does.  It is a maneuver, that like a dragon's tail, sweeps from one side to the other and trips the person it sweeps through.

Even though I don't know if a dragon's tail actually trips someone in the game, I imagine that a tail the size of most dragons WOULD knock people over by sweeping their legs.

I don't know, it just makes sense to me.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I don't know, I read the explanation and now I remember what it does.  It is a maneuver, that like a dragon's tail, sweeps from one side to the other and trips the person it sweeps through.



I think a small number of people who aren't happy with "Dragon's Tail Cut" would have been okay with "Dragon's Tail Sweep". "Cut" implies slashing more than tripping.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 12, 2007)

I go with generic names like "knockdown" and maybe "improved knockdown and greater knockdown".
It is Dungeons & Dragons all right, but there may be campaign settings without Dragons. There may be races for which this sounds not right.
Give us generic names and leave it to the individual groups to get the flair names.
Magic Missile was ok as Magic Missile and not "Susan's Sting of the magic Wasp".

By they way, there was a Dragon article in 02' or 03' called "Eat Steel Maggot" with ideas how to rename Feats and moves for the different races.


----------



## Gold Roger (Oct 12, 2007)

Alright, this one, I really don't like. Please give me generic names for my powers, even if they don't sound as flashy. I want knockback, fireball and magic missile, not Dragon's Tail Cut, Bursting of the Fifth Sun and Rise of Deathly Stars.

Because frankly, these names are silly, flavor specific and just not very descriptive. I want to be able to know what a power does by reading the name.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 12, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think a small number of people who aren't happy with "Dragon's Tail Cut" would have been okay with "Dragon's Tail Sweep". "Cut" implies slashing more than tripping.



Yeah, that's why I'm guessing that it's a axe or sword maneuver.  I imagine that they want it to translate to "that tripping attack you do with a sword".  Sweep implies using your foot or something.  I'm guessing their original name, "Wallop" was a temporary name for "I hit him so hard I knock him down".  And then later in the design, they realized "Well, it's a knockdown attack with a SWORD, I don't really think you're walloping the enemy, rather, you're tripping them with your sword.  So what name says that?  Tripping Sword Attack?  That's kind of bland.  Take feet out from underneath guy with your sword?  Way too long.  So, if someone was going to come up with a name that still explains what the maneuver does precisely and they lived in the D&D world, what would it be?"

And they got an answer.  It might even have been "sweep" to begin with he decided that cut was more descriptive.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 12, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's why I'm guessing that it's a axe or sword maneuver.  I imagine that they want it to translate to "that tripping attack you do with a sword".  Sweep implies using your foot or something.  I'm guessing their original name, "Wallop" was a temporary name for "I hit him so hard I knock him down".  And then later in the design, they realized "Well, it's a knockdown attack with a SWORD, I don't really think you're walloping the enemy, rather, you're tripping them with your sword.  So what name says that?  Tripping Sword Attack?  That's kind of bland.  Take feet out from underneath guy with your sword?  Way too long.  So, if someone was going to come up with a name that still explains what the maneuver does precisely and they lived in the D&D world, what would it be?"
> 
> And they got an answer.  It might even have been "sweep" to begin with he decided that cut was more descriptive.



For what it's worth, I would rather have a single tripping attack that applied to a variety of weapons (for game purposes, I don't think it's necessary to distinguish between tripping with a sword or a spear or a mace) than to have a separate name for tripping attacks made with each type of weapon. 

But - it's a small matter and certainly not something for me to swear off 4e for.


----------



## Someone (Oct 12, 2007)

I'd vote for "sword sweep", if there was anywhere to vote. "Dragon's tail cut" not only sounds dorky, but also misleading.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 12, 2007)

Grymar said:
			
		

> Hell, Timber would be better than anything with Dragon in the title.




Hey but remember testing shows anything with Dragon in the title sells better. It's how we go the Dragon Magic book.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> WOTC just does not get it.



That sums it up.

We may as well get rid of fireball and replace it with a spell called Dragon Marks the Ground.

If you want an "in character" special name for your fireball or fighter knockdown maneuver, then that is very cool.  But don't go telling me that every fighter everywhere knows this move by the same name.  That is completely stupid.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> This is a very important point and I don't know why it's getting overlooked so much.  The reason they didn't name the maneuver "Knockdown" is almost certainly because there are several maneuvers that knock the enemy down and they need to have distinct names.





Honestly, whether you get knocked down by a mace, or knocked down by a sword, the end results the same. If they 4 different manuevers that knock people down, just call em all knockdown. My players are smart enough to remember what weapons they're using. They don't need to call one manuever "Chocolate Mountain  of Doom"  just cause it's done with a mace and another "Emerald PeeStomp of the Dawnstar" just cause it's done with a sword, if they both do the same thing.
Whether a Sorcerer or Wizard casts Fireball, it's still called Fireball right? Same principle here. Really, if they want me to buy 4.0 they're gonna have to do something about these played out, corny Street Fighter Turbo type names.
 "Golden Wyvern ice" and Dragon Tail Cut".... pffft.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 12, 2007)

Actually, thinking further on this, I'd be cool with a naming system operating something like Wolfgang Bauer's Book of Roguish Luck - spells got two names; for example there was a roguish/sorceror-ish core class whose spells all had unique names, even when they were standard spells and were listed like this:

Bouncing the Baby (Feather Fall)

So you got the standard, easy to understand version, and the more flavorful version, which you could use or discard easily.  I'd be in favor of soemthing like this.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 12, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> Really, if they want me to buy 4.0 they're gonna have to do something about these played out, corny Street Fighter Turbo type names.



Props for not just saying 'videogamey'.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Props for not just saying 'videogamey'.





No problem. I know how the "V-word" sets you people off.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Because then people might have less reason to be snippy, and apparently, the chance to be snide is more important to some people than reasoned consideration.  :\
> 
> (Mandatory disclaimer: This doesn't apply to everyone who dislikes the name, but only certain folks, and so on and so on, blah, blah...)




I hope I'm not one of those certain folks you have in mind. Guilty as charged on the snide and snippy, but my position is actually arrived at through very careful consideration. (As well as, if you'll permit the appeal to authority, a degree in Technical Writing.)



			
				Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Alright, this one, I really don't like. Please give me generic names for my powers, even if they don't sound as flashy. I want knockback, fireball and magic missile, not Dragon's Tail Cut, Bursting of the Fifth Sun and Rise of Deathly Stars.
> 
> Because frankly, these names are silly, flavor specific and just not very descriptive. I want to be able to know what a power does by reading the name.




More folks who GET IT. 

And notice that they get it, not solely on aesthetic grounds, but because they understand on a gut level that the handle has to have _instant meaning._ 

The ideal handle of a rule component _defines itself_. It does not require you to learn what the handle means before you can attach any meaning to it.

The designer simply does not have free reign to assign whatever handle he wants to rules components-- not if he wants his rules to be as widely useful as possible.

I'm not advocating a flavorless book of mechanics. There are ways to make a rulebook interesting without making the rules unapproachable; and there are places where creative, descriptive fluff is appreciated and appropriate.

The handle of a rules component is not the appropriate place.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 12, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Hey but remember testing shows anything with Dragon in the title sells better. It's how we go the Dragon Magic book.



Which incidentally contained several new spells with silly names.

For the record: I don't like 'Dragon's Tail Cut' and I'd hate having to memorize hundreds of names of that kind. Especially once there are several varieties on the name.

The BO9S already showed the problem with fancy names: There were two maneuvers from different disciplines that were (almost?) identical without their names indicating any kind of similarity. And there's a feat that shares a name with a class ability.

Yeah, I know, this could happen with less flowery names as well, but still...


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 12, 2007)

Dragon's Tail Cut sounds like an extra lean portion of dragon meat. Cut out the "Cut", make it sweep or just leave it off, and that would sound considerably less silly.

If it isn't sword specific, I'd say call it "Beatdown". Or if not, they should call SOMETHING "Beatdown", mostly because it's just fun to say.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> Dragon's Tail Cut sounds like an extra lean portion of dragon meat. Cut out the "Cut", make it sweep or just leave it off, and that would sound considerably less silly.
> 
> If it isn't sword specific, I'd say call it "Beatdown". Or if not, they should call SOMETHING "Beatdown", mostly because it's just fun to say.



. I hope some of the naming impaired  4.0 designers end up reading this thread.
Knockdown, Curb stomp,Choke, and Beatdown are all acceptable names for manuevers.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> . I hope some of the naming impaired  4.0 designers end up reading this thread.
> Knockdown, Curb stomp,Choke, and Beatdown are all acceptable names for manuevers.




Really? _Beatdown _and _Curb-Stomp_ fit a sword & sorcery fantasy game?


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Really? _Beatdown _and _Curb-Stomp_ fit a sword & sorcery fantasy game?




They fit My Sword and Sorcery fantasy game. And if you can't see that, you're just a grognard who's  stuck in the past. Contemporize man! The future's not such a scary place!


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> They fit My Sword and Sorcery fantasy game. And if you can't see that, you're just a grognard who's  stuck in the past. Contemporize man! The future's not such a scary place!




I see what you did there.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 12, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Dorky. I've got a player in my group who runs a swordsage, and after three months we all still grimace when he calls out "I run up and do my maneuver, Saphire Nightmare Diamond Blade!"
> 
> I don't know why "Dragon's Tail Cut" is worse than "Bull Rush", but it is. I'd rather they go as generic/descriptive as possible, and just call that particular strike "Knockdown".



Freaking _exactly_.  I don't give a damn about the whole Western/Asian question; that's just a dumb and clumsy name, and I'd much prefer something generic and utilitarian.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> I dislike Wallop, because that... just sounds like something your grandpa would say. "So we're trading blades, and I walloped him!" It just makes me want to say "a-huck!". Besides, "Wallop" is more of a "strong hit that would do a lot of damage", to me, not "knock you down".



Total agreement here, too.  Why does WotC seem to have such a serious problem with names?  Maybe they'll all be genericized for the SRD...


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I see what you did there.




Yeah, I thought you'd appreciate that.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane, you make some very interesting points. Rules-only terms should be as clear as possible. For example it was a very bad move, imo to call the GM in Nobilis 'The Hollyhock God'.

However there's a grey area when some rules terms exist also in the game world. For example spell names. These are both a rules term and are known to the inhabitants of the D&D universe. And in fact D&D spell names are all over the place. Some are very simple, such as Fireball, some are grandiose such as Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. There are no naming conventions, so you can't tell that Shapechange is more powerful than Polymorph Self for example.

Class names are particularly tricky. Some, such as fighter, are presumably rules only. Others, such as wizard and sorcerer may be known to students of magic as a recognisable form of spell casting.

Maneuvers, such as power attack, might have game universe names but we don't know what they are, we only know the rules term.

HERO handles powers by having two separate names - one for the rule and one for the game universe. For example Doctor Inferno's flame attack has a rules name - 16d6 Energy Blast - and a world name - Fiery Doom. Is this how you think D&D should handle it?


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 12, 2007)

Is anyone else getting sick of 'They dont get it!' as an alternate way of saying 'I dont agree with this?' yet?   :\ 

In any case...Not really fond of this name.  I dont mind descriptive names, but this one is just...bleah.  Doesnt describe the move that well at all.  Something a bit more ulitarian would probably fit better.  Heck, if you HAVE to keep it dragon themed, call it 'Dragon Tail Sweep'.  It gets the overall description of the move a bit closer.

Responding to a different post...actually, I think HOW you get knocked down can have a bearing on things. A sword/axe cut which damages your legs and restricts your movement; a solid mace hit to the chest which causes you to fly 10 feet thataway; A close bell punch with a saber combined with a leg trip.  All three of those situations do one thing...knock the guy prone, but they also have potential other effects that can be tied in.  Considering they want what weapon a fighter uses to actually mean something, just a 'simple trip' might not be differentiated enough from weapon to weapon.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And notice that they get it, not solely on aesthetic grounds, but because they understand on a gut level that the handle has to have _instant meaning._




I grokked the meaning.



> The ideal handle of a rule component _defines itself_. It does not require you to learn what the handle means before you can attach any meaning to it.
> 
> The designer simply does not have free reign to assign whatever handle he wants to rules components-- not if he wants his rules to be as widely useful as possible.
> 
> ...




Eh. If people can get used to "Snilloc's snowball swarm", they can get used to anything.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 12, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> HERO handles powers by having two separate names - one for the rule and one for the game universe. For example Doctor Inferno's flame attack has a rules name - 16d6 Energy Blast - and a world name - Fiery Doom. Is this how you think D&D should handle it?




The difference is that HERO uses an internally consistent effects based system to define everything in the game, whereas D&D has never done so and has only had varying degrees of internal consistency.  If 4E had gone the route closer to HERO - -which is what I would have guessed was going to happen, had you asked me a few years or months ago -- it would be easy to flavor game elements without disrupting individual's preferences and perceptions.  In Eberron, the maneuver might be called an Argonessen Takedown, for example, but in the core book it could -- and should, IMO -- be called "Takedown" or "Leg Sweep" or "Hamstring Strike" or whatever is most appropriate to what it actually does.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Eh. If people can get used to "Snilloc's snowball swarm", they can get used to anything.




I've actually banned that spell at my table because I felt like such a tool saying that name out loud. Same thing with "Saphire Nightmare Blade." My general rule is if I can't say it out loud without laughing or making a face, then it's banned.


----------



## Ciaran (Oct 12, 2007)

Gold Roger said:
			
		

> Alright, this one, I really don't like. Please give me generic names for my powers, even if they don't sound as flashy. I want knockback, fireball and magic missile, not Dragon's Tail Cut, Bursting of the Fifth Sun and Rise of Deathly Stars.



I would love to have spells named _bursting of the fifth sun_ and _rise of deathly stars_!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I grokked the meaning.




As did I, but only because I already play the game and am steeped in its lore. If I did not already know that a dragon's tail _swept players off their feet_ then I would have no frame of reference.



> Eh. If people can get used to "Snilloc's snowball swarm", they can get used to anything.




And Tenser's Transformation (which is almost completely meaningless), and so on.

But "getting used to it" and "being able to pick it up and understand it instantly" are two very different things.

One is good for a new rules revision that is ostensibly designed to attract new players; one is not.


----------



## Kapture (Oct 12, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> They should call it "Sweep the Leg" and write flavor text of how it was a maneuver perfected by the ancient and mysterious Cobra Kai society.




Do you need a broom with that? I, the janitor of doom, will SWEEP YOUR LEGS!

Mwa ha ha ha ha.

If you want more Western style names, just gank them from the WWF.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 12, 2007)

Foehammer is a manuever name I like.

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2007)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> I would love to have spells named _bursting of the fifth sun_ and _rise of deathly stars_!



Ok.  But what makes more sense and what is more cool:  

a) The Earth and Sky Eternal College of Arcane Arts teaches a spell called "bursting of the fifth sun"

or 

b) Every mage schoool everywhere just happens to call the spell formerly known as fireball "bursting of the fifth sun"?


IMO, A is cool and B is wildly stupid.


----------



## Counterspin (Oct 12, 2007)

Yawn.  I understand why so many of the arguments about 4e are important.  The base system produces a metagame, and its' direction effects all of us in some small way.  But the naming conventions are not on that list.  If the mechanics are solid, I don't care what they name them, frankly.


----------



## Stormtalon (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'd like to separate *intuitive* from *ambiguous*.
> 
> IMHO y'all are asking for *intuitive* names, and that's a fine thing, but separate from their ambiguity.
> 
> ...





You forgot Hamster Attack, btw.

Go for the eyes, Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!!


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> If the mechanics are solid, I don't care what they name them, frankly.




I think the names of the things in the game are very important. If I can't say the names of manuevers and spells without cringing at how corny they are, i'm not gonna be able to play the game. If they change the name of the fighter to "Puffy Fairy Princess", I don't care how sound the mechanics are. No one in my group's gonna play it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I hope I'm not one of those certain folks you have in mind. Guilty as charged on the snide and snippy, but my position is actually arrived at through very careful consideration. (As well as, if you'll permit the appeal to authority, a degree in Technical Writing.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Compare "Dragon's Tail Cut" to "Mire of Minauros".  Apparently, DTC requires you to cut something, but it doesn't tell you much more than that.  However, MoM suggests that the effect involves miring something.  Going in without any idea of what the two abilities do, it's much more likely that a new player would guess that Mire of Minauros gets his opponents stuck in one place for a while, although it's not likely that the player would guess that there's also acid damage involved.

Both of these are flavourful names drawn from the 4E previews.  The latter, however, is strictly a better name because it does provide some clue as to what its function is.  Both are pretty much ambiguous, but on a continuum from perfectly clear to perfectly obscure, MoM is closer to clear, and DTC is closer to obscure.

So, let's have more Mires and less Tails.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Is anyone else getting sick of 'They dont get it!' as an alternate way of saying 'I dont agree with this?' yet?   :\



Wulf backs this up with a very good description of exactly what they're not getting, from the perspective of a professional technical writer.  I don't agree that this is just a matter of opinion.  It is a critique of WotC's design strategy with regards to naming conventions.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> You forgot Hamster Attack, btw.
> 
> Go for the eyes, Boo, GO FOR THE EYES!!



 For me, and I suspect for many others, that's the one maneuver from that list which would NEVER be confused for anything else.

I want more Minsc.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 12, 2007)

*Flavor*

I'm with Wulf - I would rather see names that are less flavorful, more descriptive of function.

If these names are the only ones given, then we are pretty much forced to use them in order to have a common language.

I'm holding out hope that the SRD at least won't use these kinds of names and we will get something more generic to use.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> As did I, but only because I already play the game and am steeped in its lore. If I did not already know that a dragon's tail _swept players off their feet_ then I would have no frame of reference.




No, no. I didn't grok it because of having seen dragon tail attacks in 3E. I grokked it because Rich Baker actually went to the trouble of giving a short fluff description of the idea behind the name.



> And Tenser's Transformation (which is almost completely meaningless), and so on.
> 
> But "getting used to it" and "being able to pick it up and understand it instantly" are two very different things.




I understood it instantly. Or at least, within 5 seconds, which is how long it took to read the description.



> One is good for a new rules revision that is ostensibly designed to attract new players; one is not.




I would think that if you want to attract new players, you want something a bit more evocative than "knockdown".


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Ok.  But what makes more sense and what is more cool:
> 
> a) The Earth and Sky Eternal College of Arcane Arts teaches a spell called "bursting of the fifth sun"
> 
> ...




Pah. If you can deal with every D&D world having a mage called Mordenkainen, you can deal with anything.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2007)

hmmmmmm

[mutters]Wildly stupid thing I can deal with or cool thing?
Wildly stupid thing I can deal with or cool thing?
Wildly stupid thing I can deal with or cool thing?[/mutters]

Choices, choices.......  


 :\


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Pah. If you can deal with every D&D world having a mage called Mordenkainen, you can deal with anything.



.... Ummm.... hold on...  I... No.  No, you pretty much got me there.


----------



## hong (Oct 12, 2007)

I didn't even mention the guy with the thing for hands....


----------



## Stone Dog (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I didn't even mention the guy with the thing for hands....



Hey, I know what you mean.  My favorite campaign setting has a continent that sounds like it is named after a chevy, I suppose I can't gripe too much.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Because then people might have less reason to be snippy, and apparently, the chance to be snide is more important to some people than reasoned consideration.  :\




That sounds more like "advertising" than "opinion", mate.  Hopefully I'm wrong about that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 12, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> Hey, I know what you mean.  My favorite campaign setting has a continent that sounds like it is named after a chevy, I suppose I can't gripe too much.




That always bothered me a little.

Cut though, cuts are for bloody wimps. Real men hack, slash, smash, chop and maim. I don't want fighters using little "cut" attacks unless they're with wimp-weapons like rapiers and daggers. It's un-Fighter-ly. Cuts are for Rogues and stuff. Not Fighters.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That sounds more like "advertising" than "opinion", mate.  Hopefully I'm wrong about that.




Isn't it curious how willing the anti-4E crowd is to see corporate plants all over the place?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Isn't it curious how willing the anti-4E crowd is to see corporate plants all over the place?



 Good job, Informant #4519-b. Your check is in the mail. This private message is for your eyes only, please do not re-send.

Cheers, -- Big Wizard


----------



## darkseraphim (Oct 12, 2007)

In my campaign, the move would be called Backslash or Felling Strike or something descriptive and non-flowery.  But if the player performing it wants to cry out, "Dragon Spirit Moving Over the Waters, Ho!" more power to them.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Isn't it curious how willing the anti-4E crowd is to see corporate plants all over the place?




I was discussing the content (or lack thereof) in his post.  And if I'm part of the "anti-4E" crowd, I'm a late arrival.  I distinctly remember sticking up for Scott Rouse, for example, after the announcement when a lot of folks imputed, on very shaky ground I might add, outright deception to the man.  That was unfair to Scott, and to do the same thing or something similar to the opposite 'camp' is equally unfair.

I don't like most of the latest things I've heard about 4E, and I feel strongly about that.  So what?  People should be allowed to express their views without being tarred and feathered by one side or the other.

As far as Mouse, he's a smart guy (and seems like a nice one, too) and should speak for himself.  But when I see a merchant merely blacken the detractors of a product in which he has an interest, without offering a substantive critique, I feel that it's reasonable to bring it to his attention.  I have every expectation that a reasonable response is forthcoming... but it wouldn't be if I didn't bring it up.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 12, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Going in without any idea of what the two abilities do, it's much more likely that a new player would guess that Mire of Minauros gets his opponents stuck in one place for a while, although it's not likely that the player would guess that there's also acid damage involved..




Well, I really dislike the name Mire of Minauros as well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> As far as Mouse, he's a smart guy (and seems like a nice one, too) and should speak for himself.  But when I see a merchant merely blacken the detractors of a product in which he has an interest, without offering a substantive critique, I feel that it's reasonable to bring it to his attention.  I have every expectation that a reasonable response is forthcoming... but it wouldn't be if I didn't bring it up.




That might be valid, if I'd made a blanket statement "blackening the detractors."

My point is simply that a lot of people have ignored a valid point. It's not one that's necessarily going to change their minds, but it's one they should at least consider.

Many people have done so, and still object to the name. I have no problem with them. (I'm actually not a fan of the name myself, though I don't hate it, either.)

My problem is with certain people--and no, I'm not giving names--who feel the need to respond to _every_ piece of news with allegedly witty put-downs, but consistently ignore any possible counter to their initial reaction. I've seen more than a few people in this category, and frankly, it's starting to irritate me.

And that, in a nutshell, is the extent of any explanation I feel obliged to give. I've been around here long enough that people either trust my objectivity, or they don't. And I've been positive about _most_ of what I've heard about 4E, but expressed a dislike about a few particular features, and that ought to be enough to tell people that I'm not simply parroting any hypothetical party line.

If either of those two points are still lost on anyone, I'm not convinced it's either my responsibility, or that I would even have the ability, to change their minds.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 12, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I hope I'm not one of those certain folks you have in mind.




You're not.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Oct 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I would think that if you want to attract new players, you want something a bit more evocative than "knockdown".




Agreed. "Knockdown" is boring, and as others have pointed out, Dragon's Tail Cut does more than knock the opponent down: Baker describes that effect as a "rider". So just calling it Knockdown could be problematic, because it's not the basic ability for putting your opponent on their butt. It's a special ability gained by fighters who follow a certain path/use a certain weapon.

Evocative names can be just as easy, or even easier, to link to specific effects. As hong pointed out, Baker managed to explain DTC effectively in about a sentence. And that explanation, tied to an evocative name, is quite memorable. It's also, frankly, a heck of a lot more interesting, and probably more likely to jump off the page at a new player trying to figure out what his fighter should be good at.

That being said, I'm not willing to take anyone to task if they think the name sounds silly. That's purely subjective, as even Baker realizes.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> "Knockdown" is boring



It is also a red herring since it isn't actually the alternative.

Beating on a straw man doesn't provide an response to the points which have been raised.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Oct 12, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is also a red herring since it isn't actually the alternative.
> 
> Beating on a straw man doesn't provide an response to the points which have been raised.




Numerous people have suggested it; that's what I was responding to.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Good job, Informant #4519-b. Your check is in the mail. This private message is for your eyes only, please do not re-send.
> 
> Cheers, -- Big Wizard



Hey, quit stealing my joke!    

Ironically, I think it was the Mouse that I used it on last time.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Well, I really dislike the name Mire of Minauros as well.



My point wasn't that it was a better-sounding name, only that it provided some clue as to what it did, making it functionally better.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 12, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That might be valid, if I'd made a blanket statement "blackening the detractors."
> 
> My point is simply that a lot of people have ignored a valid point. It's not one that's necessarily going to change their minds, but it's one they should at least consider.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.

For my part, I wouldn't want, even as a professed "grognard" (but not a 3E one, if there is such a thing), to be a member of one "party" or another.  Even if I didn't like every single thing revealed about 4E from now until May, I wouldn't want to be seen as waving the Grognardican banner rather than the 4Eocrat one.  It doesn't have to be a matter of these binary divisions.  Everybody evaluates what they know based on their own set of personal insights (however expansive or limited, as the case may be).  It goes without saying that everyone is trying to be right.  Hopefully everyone will also try to be consistently honest and fair as well.  Unfortunately I do see people settling into 'sides' and substituting polemic for dialogue.  Maybe it's the culture?


----------



## Imp (Oct 12, 2007)

Okay, if I were to have this move in my game, at first level, I'd call it "Reaping Blade" and flavor it as a clinch move where the fighter closes to infighting distance, applies a very fast draw-cut or short chop to the back of the knee, and follows it up with a proper sweep on the wounded leg.  Now, at tenth level, you could have something like "Dragon Twine" that starts off similarly, but the initial cut is much more circular and extensive and it ends with the sweep landing the hapless victim on the point of the blade Operative-style.  And at 20th level maybe you could have "Slice of the Abyss" that cuts down all of the adversary's legs, hurls him 10 feet away, and attempts to guillotine him with a leaping chop as his chin bounces up from the floor.

The point being, again, that the names and moves should scale up in cinematic fantasticalness, not so much to sell particular names, though I think "Reaping Blade" is much better for this proposed maneuver and I pretty much totally ran out of gas after "Dragon Twine" there.

(Mire of Minauros is pretty good, I think.  Lord knows the generic names in the Spell Compendium bored me to tears, but there's a contingent around here who'd be happy if they just named the spells Fire 1, Fire 2, and Fire 3...)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2007)

Just a thought.

One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless.  Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.

Isn't this a response to that criticism?  Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?


----------



## Reynard (Oct 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just a thought.
> 
> One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless.  Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.




I can't say that pops out in my memory as one of the "largest" crticisms of 3e.  I don't recall it in recent memory at all, in fact.



> Isn't this a response to that criticism?  Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?




If the "fluff" makes the rules harder to understand and/or makes it more difficult for groups to amake the game their own, it is bad fluff.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just a thought.
> 
> One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless.  Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.
> 
> Isn't this a response to that criticism?  Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?




I really think you have something there! Good call.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just a thought.
> 
> One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless.  Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.
> 
> Isn't this a response to that criticism?  Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?



No flavor* is better than bad flavor* as far as I'm concerned.

*( I refuse to use the word "fluff" when talking about RPGs. What people call "fluff" is actually the most important part of the game. Calling it fluff dismisses it, and is, in my opinion,  misguided. Calling something "Fluff" implies that something is useless, or superfluous. It especially bugs me when game designers use the word "fluff". These are guys are professionals, and I think they should know better.  Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. In the grand scheme of things, I realize it's unimportant. But it's a pet peeve of mine. like the words"gish" or "munchkin". There oughtta be a list I tells ya.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I can't say that pops out in my memory as one of the "largest" crticisms of 3e.  I don't recall it in recent memory at all, in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> If the "fluff" makes the rules harder to understand and/or makes it more difficult for groups to amake the game their own, it is bad fluff.



Oh, it was certainly not on the top lists of complaints, because after a few month or years playing D&D, you will tend to ignore the names anyway. Bad mechanics hurt a lot longer. 

But that said, I also remember it as a criticismn, and something I felt sometimes. But I didn't really care much about it, since I am pretty "technical" guy. 
But since I don't really care much about it, I think it is good that they give their abilities "flavored" names, because there are people that will care. Especially newcomers might feel a bit more engaged if there are some colorful names to their abilities.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Which incidentally contained several new spells with silly names.
> 
> For the record: I don't like 'Dragon's Tail Cut' and I'd hate having to memorize hundreds of names of that kind. Especially once there are several varieties on the name.
> 
> ...



I think it happened a lot in some ways.

I remember that there was the Improved Trip feat in 3.0, and Sword & Fist invented "Knockdown". Both are "unflavored" terms, but do I really understand by the name that there is a difference? Could I even guess that Knockdown might require Improved Trip, and not the other way around?

On a totally different note:
From some blogs and articles I have seen, I gathered that it is possible that they actually have feats for similar things multiple times. Dragon Tail Cut might require sword to effectively "trip" someone, and there might be another feat with a similar effect for maces or flails.

I am not sure if I like this approach. On this regard, I preferred the "generic" maneuvers - keeps things simpler, and doesn't lead to people inventing the same ability multiple times. But maybe it turns out to be better than it looks.


----------



## The Merciful (Oct 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One of the largest criticisms of 3e is that the PHB is so bland and flavourless.  Numerous times we've seen people talking about how the PHB reads like stereo instructions.
> 
> Isn't this a response to that criticism?  Aren't the "fluff" bunnies getting a biscuit here after the very crunch heavy core books of 3e?



Not really. Firstly, "Dragon's tail cut" has an oriental feel to it, which does not really fit the assumed default setting of sort of magical medieval Europe. Secondly, it is clumsy - bland is better than ridiculous when it comes to flavor. Thirdly, flavour is in the small details, in the way of writing and giving things a context - not in gimmicks and flashy names.

From what little I read about the power, I don't see why it isn't called "hamstring" or somesuch. To the point, explains much in the name alone, and seems like something that might be in actual sword fighting manual. (For record, I'm writing that as a common man and a non native english speaker)


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But that said, I also remember it as a criticismn, and something I felt sometimes. But I didn't really care much about it, since I am pretty "technical" guy.
> But since I don't really care much about it, I think it is good that they give their abilities "flavored" names, because there are people that will care. Especially newcomers might feel a bit more engaged if there are some colorful names to their abilities.



Well, the question is: How many gearheads do we have in the target audience? I like the 'bland' names, because I can drop my own flavour on it. However, I have one player in my group, who is a rabid anime watcher, and he likes such names, indeed.

However, I dread the German translation of Dragon's Tail Cut.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 13, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well, the question is: How many gearheads do we have in the target audience? I like the 'bland' names, because I can drop my own flavour on it. However, I have one player in my group, who is a rabid anime watcher, and he likes such names, indeed.
> 
> However, I dread the German translation of Dragon's Tail Cut.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



"Schnitt des Drachenschwanzes", "Drachenwurf", "Schlag des Drachenschwanzes" "Schwung des Drachenschwanzes"? ( Hmm. Honestly, I have no idea how they will translate that, but I don't own any German D&D books, anyway. There is only one player in our group that owns them, and we never use them. At first, the translation took forever, and we forced to use the English ones. When the books were finally out, it was too difficult to get accustomed to the German names for game terms we already knew perfectly well from English. 

There might be another reason why such limited abilities are "required": They enforce that people specialize in a chosen weapon. If you got Dragon's Tail Cut and it can only be used with swords, you will probably also want to pick up other sword-related feats and talents. 

Now, I personally did like the archetype of the non-weapon-specialized Fighter (that's what I played in the Shackled City campaign), but in most fiction, characters usually focus on a very select few weapons. So it might be a good idea to model this with encouraging weapon specialization. 
At the same time, this means you can specialize in a weapon and still have multiple combat options. A 3rd edition fighter that did choose weapon focus has to give up many feats that give him more or better tactical options, and as a result, they are only interesting when you only wanted a heavy hitter without further style. Now, if the whole Weapon Focus chain is removed and replaced with weapon specific improved trip/sunder/disarm feat chains, this might in some way be the best of both worlds.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> No flavor* is better than bad flavor* as far as I'm concerned.




Heh. Whereas I'm on record in multiple threads stating the exact opposite. 

Even flavor I don't like can inspire ideas that I do. And there's no real difference between changing "bad flavor" and changing "no flavor." So, for me at least, I'd rather have the potential inspiration, and I'd rather have a PHB that at least tries to be an interesting read, rather than a textbook.

That said, I think we can both agree that good flavor is better than either. 

(And I'm 100% with you on the "fluff" issue. Never use the word, and I resent the fact that it's become the standard.)


----------



## Nifft (Oct 13, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> (And I'm 100% with you on the "fluff" issue. Never use the word, and I resent the fact that it's become the standard.)



 Awww, but then I'd never get to say, "Shut up and fluff my crunch, biatch!"

Actually, I've never gotten to say that anyway...

 , -- N


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 13, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> No flavor* is better than bad flavor* as far as I'm concerned.



Absolutely.  A generic name is always better than a dumb name...and since it is all but impossible to create a name that everyone will think is awesome, it is best to leave it generic.

Just call it Knockdown, and leave the flowery names to the DMs.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 13, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> There is only one player in our group that owns them, and we never use them.



Well, this assumes everybody in your group can use English books without getting completely confused. Well, I just hope F&S gets a better translator than Amigo last time.


			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Even flavor I don't like can inspire ideas that I do. And there's no real difference between changing "bad flavor" and changing "no flavor." So, for me at least, I'd rather have the potential inspiration, and I'd rather have a PHB that at least tries to be an interesting read, rather than a textbook.



Generally, I'd agree. But with the PHB, at least for me, it's a different issue. Expansion books are added, so you can easily ignore the flavour, but the PHB is a groundwork.

While it is easy for me, as a DM, to say "get these names out of my game", I have the problem that I need the "bad flavour" as a reference, whenever I need to look up the exact description.

If I use something from a new book, I can easily pick up some stuff, type it into my PC, print it and put in our "big rules folder", as a DM-approved thing, while changing the name. But not so with the PHB, unless I want to rewrite the PHB.

So basically, it's a problem with my (and my group's) usual playstyle, but the point is: The core books are the only books, you usually use wholesale. And granted, it's easy enough to ignore stuff like deities, because they're in their own chapter - but this bugs me a bit, because the "bad flavour" is attached to a rules element, making it necessary to refer to that, whenever I use it. And unlike a other flavour elements (like a class name), it is even attached to an often referenced element - something like a manoeuvre, that is actively used.

I hope I could get my point across: It's not like I'm not buying 4E or will boycott it, I'm only a bit discontent, that the flavour is attached to a heavily referenced part of the rules, where the name is needed to identify the rules element (i.e. find it in the book).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Baduin (Oct 13, 2007)

To remind of the origin of the discussion:

"Originally Posted by Rich Baker
I spent a little time here and there polishing up some Player's Handbook bits. Yesterday I cast my eye over our list of fighter powers, and spent a couple of hours patching up placeholder names and writing up better flavor text. We had a 1st-level power called "Wallop" that had a knock-you-prone rider on it; I changed the name to "Dragon's Tail Cut" and flavored it as a crouch down and make a long looping swing through target's legs power, sort of like the way a dragon might use a tail whip to knock someone down. Maybe it's dorky, maybe it's cool; hard to tell with flavor you write yourself."

I would say that it would be best to consider the authentic European (and also Eastern) sword technics before inventing something artificial. This applies both to names and to moves.

Fortunately, there is a lot of books on the topic, and many of them are online.

http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

Eg, attack on the legs are rather dangerous. It is difficult to knock anyone down by hitting them in legs with a sword. There are two things you can do - with a heavy sword you could simply cut off the leg - it was very popular manouver with the Vikings. It goes best with a two-handed sword, of course. Or you can try to hamstring a leg by cutting tendons in the back of the knee. This is fairly difficult and specialized manouver, but there have been descriptions of it since Roman gladiator fights.

However, a simple knockdown is an inadequate description of such cuts. Cutting off of the leg causes a rapid death, and hamstringing causes permanent disability (ie Dexterity drain).

On the other hand there are much simpler manouvers ending with the opponent on earth - eg hooking your leg behind him and striking him in the face with your pommel.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Oct 13, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on the names proposed.
> 
> However, I do think of one of the fantasy series I really like, that does have names for sword manuevers:
> 
> ...




These ones would elicit far too many giggles from my group.  Especially if one sheathes the sword right before folding the fan.


----------



## Gundark (Oct 13, 2007)

hate the name....love the concept


----------



## Beckett (Oct 14, 2007)

And the name is gone: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14071597&postcount=22

Also, it seems most of the names won't be of the 9 Swords style.


----------



## hero4hire (Oct 14, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> And the name is gone: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14071597&postcount=22
> 
> Also, it seems most of the names won't be of the 9 Swords style.




*YES!* What makes me truly happy (way more so then not having the name in) is that they listened to the criticism, responded thusly and did not trudge ahead with thier plans with blinders on.

Nice going WoTC.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2007)

Hey, cool.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2007)

I'm not exactly convinced that "generic" names are best. Reason why I don't think so is also why so many people prefer having a generic name and that it makes it easier for a DM to change to suit.

Here's the thing though. If I'm trying to get new blood into the hobby, having generic names isn't going to cut it. Its much easier for an experienced DM to change "Dragon's Tail Cut" to "Wallop" and explain that to his players than it is for a relatively inexperienced DM to change "Wallop" into "Dragon's Tail Cut".


----------



## hero4hire (Oct 14, 2007)

In my experience (31 years of RPGing) Inexperienced GMs have little problem with creativity, just how to represent them mechanically.

They have a tendancy to say "I want my bad guy to do _this_" and then try to find something that fits.

Experienced GMs on the flipside have a tendancy to know what they want to do mechanically first and _then _ use thier storytelling skills to describe it.

Again this is my experience perhaps not a universal one.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 14, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> And the name is gone: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14071597&postcount=22
> 
> Also, it seems most of the names won't be of the 9 Swords style.




That's good news.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 14, 2007)

I only hope that the designers respond to positive feedback as much as they do negative.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 14, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I only hope that the designers respond to positive feedback as much as they do negative.




One thing you learn about feedback is we humans tend to respond more readily if we have negative feedback than if we have positive. So when your surveying a customer base on a system like a forum, you have to realize the results are going to be skewed. Hopefully they keep that in mind.

However, I am very glad they are taking our feedback in mind. I fully believe that when it comes to mechanics, general feedback should NEVER be taken into account. We just don't have enough information, experience, and hands on feel with the system to judge its mechanics yet. However, when it comes to flavor elements, polling the forums is a great way to see if your names are cutting the mustard.


----------



## Agamon (Oct 14, 2007)

Cool.  There's some change due to internet response in action!  Glad to hear it's been changed.


----------



## Stereofm (Oct 14, 2007)

Xyl said:
			
		

> From Rich Baker's blog:
> 
> It looks like they're going with Book of Nine Swords style move names. I know some people will view it as just extending the sorts of names they use for spells to other classes, and other people will say it's yet more evidence that D&D is becoming Exalted. What do you think?




Well, If I remember well, Conan the RPG named combat feats with references to Combat manoeuvers done by Conan in the books. So it could be done in traditional fantasy, even though this looks dorky on the whole, and unrealistic.


----------



## The Merciful (Oct 14, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> And the name is gone: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14071597&postcount=22
> 
> Also, it seems most of the names won't be of the 9 Swords style.



Great news!

Now, on to the next silly name... I have read something about Emerald Frost school of wizardy. I think the name should go.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 14, 2007)

I believe you'll find that "Warlord" isn't exactly loved either...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 14, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> I believe you'll find that "Warlord" isn't exactly loved either...



Compare the 'outrage' about "warlord" to this thread. "Warlord" gets discontent grumbling - and we know the name for quite a time. "Dragon's Tail Cut" produced a multipage-thread within one or two days.

And the Emerald Frost... well, I still liked the first implements article more, but that thread is still less active than this one, AFAIK (correct me, if I'm wrong).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 14, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> And the name is gone: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14071597&postcount=22
> 
> Also, it seems most of the names won't be of the 9 Swords style.




A step in the right direction.

There may be some hope yet.


----------



## BadMojo (Oct 14, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Compare the 'outrage' about "warlord" to this thread. "Warlord" gets discontent grumbling - and we know the name for quite a time. "Dragon's Tail Cut" produced a multipage-thread within one or two days.




I don't really like the name "warlord" but I could at least say it at the gaming table with a straight face.  I can even deal with Emerald Frost.  It just makes me thirsty when I think of it.

Rich Baker originally thought it may have been a dorky name.  I think a good rule of thumb is "if you think it might sound lame, it probably is".  I guess they can't all be winners.

I really would like to see more utilitarian names and let the player's provide their own flavor-y names if they are talking about that stuff in-character.  I've yet to play in a game where a character would yell out the name of an attack or spell before doing it.

I do like the whole "Sweep the Leg" thing.

"Fear does not exist in this dojo!"


----------



## BadMojo (Oct 14, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Especially if one sheathes the sword right before folding the fan.




That would definitely be a major faux pas, especially in public.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 14, 2007)

Xyl said:
			
		

> From Rich Baker's blog:
> 
> It looks like they're going with Book of Nine Swords style move names. I know some people will view it as just extending the sorts of names they use for spells to other classes, and other people will say it's yet more evidence that D&D is becoming Exalted. What do you think?



 In capoeira, this move (crouching down and sweeping at an opponent's legs -- in this case with your own leg) is called Stingray's Tail ("Rabo-de-Arraia"). So colorful names do exist in Western tradition.

OTOH, stomping on an opponent's sternum is called "Hammer" ("Martelo"), so there.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 14, 2007)

Neat. i hope they can keep the good stuff about BO9S mechanics while getting rid of the corny BO9S style names.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Oct 14, 2007)

While I'm glad they aren't calling the power Dragon Tail's Cut, but I hope they gon't go back to Wallop.  Wallop is also pretty corny IMO.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2007)

happy dance


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 14, 2007)

I like the creative names and hope they keep them. I was neutral on Dragon's Tail Cut, but Wallop is just bad. Something descriptive would be preferred to bland and flavorless names.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 14, 2007)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> While I'm glad they aren't calling the power Dragon Tail's Cut, but I hope they gon't go back to Wallop.  Wallop is also pretty corny IMO.




_Wallop _is easily an order of magnitude more lame than _Dragon Tail Cut_.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Oct 14, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> _Wallop _is easily an order of magnitude more lame than _Dragon Tail Cut_.




Indeed. Though, I'm really curious about what exactly the move does, now, since it apparently could be called either.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Oct 14, 2007)

I like Wallop much better than Dragon's Tail Cut.  It's simple and straightforward and doesn't interject a particular flavor into the basic rules of the game.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Oct 14, 2007)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I like Wallop much better than Dragon's Tail Cut.  It's simple and straightforward and doesn't interject a particular flavor into the basic rules of the game.




I disagree. "Wallop" is practically archaic, and so far removed from everyday speech that it constitutes flavor on its own. As I said in the news board, it sounds like something Popeye would do to Bluto.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Oct 14, 2007)

I would have liked Dragon's Tail Sweep, like someone suggested, i sure hope they don't go back to Wallop.  :\


----------



## Agamon (Oct 14, 2007)

Perhaps Bap, Kapow or Kablam?  Players can hold up colorful little cards when they perform their maneuvers.


----------



## DandD (Oct 14, 2007)

So, basically, we're all for hamstring, right?


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 14, 2007)

I prefer 'sweeping blow.'


----------



## Belorin (Oct 14, 2007)

How about Sword Sweep?
Simple, descriptive and easily modified; Halberd Sweep or Staff Sweep.

Bel


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> I disagree. "Wallop" is practically archaic, and so far removed from everyday speech that it constitutes flavor on its own. As I said in the news board, it sounds like something Popeye would do to Bluto.



You like "Dragon's Tail Cut", but have a problem with "wallop" because it is "archaic" and "removed from everyday speech"?      

Anyway, I'll take boring and simple over being force fed someone else's flavor preference any day.    And the bottom line is, a better generic term than "wallop" can be assigned.  But any over the top forced everyone-in-the-world-knows-it-by-this name is still going to suffer the same deep flaws.  And, hurray!, options not limitations won through this time.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 14, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> I prefer 'sweeping blow.'



 Ugh, I hate that. It means the party is pretty much over.   

 -- N


----------



## Imp (Oct 14, 2007)

I resubmit my suggestion, "Reaping Blade."


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 14, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Perhaps Bap, Kapow or Kablam?  Players can hold up colorful little cards when they perform their maneuvers.



Alright, that would be awesome. As long as they include the cards with the core books, and don't sell them in randomized booster packs.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 14, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> And the name is gone: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14071597&postcount=22



This is really, really terrible. I don't want WotC changing decisions because someone spends 30 seconds typing an ill-thought out opinion on the interweb.

Names are very important. I want WotC to have this figured out. I want them to have a plan. Whether they go flavourless or different varieties of flavourful, or both, HERO style, doesn't particularly matter. What's important is that these things are done or not done for good reason.

A few dozen message board posters saying, "This name sucks" isn't a good reason.

Remember also that many people complained about the 3e names not being flavorful enough. You'll always get complaints no matter what you do. They mean nothing.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 14, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> I resubmit my suggestion, "Reaping Blade."



I like how you think and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Oct 14, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You like "Dragon's Tail Cut", but have a problem with "wallop" because it is "archaic" and "removed from everyday speech"?




No. I was pointing out that "wallop" was not flavor-free, as was being claimed. Both "wallop" and "Dragon's Tail Cut" have inherent flavor to them; I prefer the latter's.


----------



## Baduin (Oct 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> In capoeira, this move (crouching down and sweeping at an opponent's legs -- in this case with your own leg) is called Stingray's Tail ("Rabo-de-Arraia"). So colorful names do exist in Western tradition.
> 
> OTOH, stomping on an opponent's sternum is called "Hammer" ("Martelo"), so there.




If the manouver was called Dragon's Tail, it would be at least short and on topic. Dragon's Tail's cut is too much of a muchness.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As I said elsewhere...
> 
> Don't we already know that dragons can knock people down/back with their tails? If that's indeed the case, Dragon's Tail Cut makes perfect sense--_in_ character, without the need for anime or wuxia influences on the culture or setting--for an attack that knocks people down.




You can try to justify this lemon all you like, but it doesn't make it suck any less.  Sometimes a piece of dung is just a piece of dung.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 14, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> A few dozen message board posters saying, "This name sucks" isn't a good reason.



But it _is_ a good reason...probably the best reason of all.  Who better to take advice from, than the future customers who will be buying the product?  I am both happy and relieved that they are listening to their fan base.  Their success depends on us, after all.

My vote is still with "Knockdown."  Because it is an attack that, well, knocks you down.  If the neighborhood DM wants a more descriptive name, he can give it one that fits his personal game style.  In the meantime, everyone else knows at a glance what the ability does and how it works.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 14, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> I wonder if Fireball is getting a more poetic name too.




Fiery Guano Ball?

joe b.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Oct 14, 2007)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Fiery Guano Ball?
> 
> joe b.



Explosive Bat     
or maybe sanguine blossom of flaming putrescence if they're trying for the knockoff Exalted vibe.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 15, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> No. I was pointing out that "wallop" was not flavor-free, as was being claimed. Both "wallop" and "Dragon's Tail Cut" have inherent flavor to them; I prefer the latter's.



um, ok.  

I think I'll just treat that assessment as I would any other outlier.

Pretty much everyone else on the pro-DTC side is complaining about how dull it is.  To claim that "wallop" is a flavor name in the same context of DTC is such an absurd stretch of the meaning of flavor that it just can not be taken seriously.  If you are wiling to stretch the concept that far beyond recognition then Power Attack and Cleave are also heavy with flavor.

Back in reality I'll stand by my preference for neutral terms that more freely allow DMs to build the world as they wish.


----------



## BadMojo (Oct 15, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This is really, really terrible. I don't want WotC changing decisions because someone spends 30 seconds typing an ill-thought out opinion on the interweb.




Well, we don't know that people on message boards were the only ones with strong feelings about Sizzling Dragon Flank Steak, or whatever it was called.

For all we know a dozen WotC employees, Rick Baker's mother in law and his dog could have all told him the name was goofy.  We really don't know how much feedback he was reacting to or where it came from.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Oct 15, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> um, ok.
> 
> I think I'll just treat that assessment as I would any other outlier.
> 
> ...




"Knockdown" is flavor neutral, as is "trip": they describe exactly what they do.

"Wallop" is, as I said, pretty far removed from daily speech, and it doesn't actually even refer to the effect described (no definition of walloping I've found specifically mentions putting someone on the ground). Using uncommon or out of use terms does impart flavor. For example, what if a game referred to its unarmed strike skill as "fisticuffs"? It's a perfectly valid term, but it absolutely conveys a specific flavor. Both "fisticuffs" and "wallop" have fallen out of common use; the only difference is that "fisticuffs" went out sooner. (Though I think the last time someone said that something "packed a wallop" unironically was around 1985.) And both evoke a connotation beyond the mechanical effect.

Actually, Cleave's kind of like that, too: cleaving something implies cutting it, but you can use the feat with blunt weapons. Like DTC and Wallop, it's a name that's designed to evoke an image when you read it, but the mechanics can be used to represent situations different than those evoked by the name. And once you've gone with the evocative/flavorful/fluffy name, it's just a question of whether people like it.

Many don't like DTC. Others don't like Wallop. I'm sure some don't even like Cleave. But that's all subjective. I don't mind things like Cleave for general feats, but I prefer names like DTC for the specific class powers. I also just think "Wallop" sounds goofy.


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 15, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Sizzling Dragon Flank Steak




LOL!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 15, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This is really, really terrible. I don't want WotC changing decisions because someone spends 30 seconds typing an ill-thought out opinion on the interweb.
> 
> Names are very important. I want WotC to have this figured out. I want them to have a plan. Whether they go flavourless or different varieties of flavourful, or both, HERO style, doesn't particularly matter. What's important is that these things are done or not done for good reason.
> 
> ...





I on the other hand, worry that this name is just the tip of the ice berg and that they're going to be much more careful about letting things out until, like the Forgotten Realms, "It's already deicded and it wasn't decided in a vacuum.... remember, we know better than you."


----------



## BryonD (Oct 15, 2007)

Jim DelRosso said:
			
		

> Many don't like DTC. Others don't like Wallop. I'm sure some don't even like Cleave. But that's all subjective. I don't mind things like Cleave for general feats, but I prefer names like DTC for the specific class powers. I also just think "Wallop" sounds goofy.



I'm not a big fan of "wallop".  But so long as it is flavor neutral, I'm fine.  I've never heard anyone say that cleave was bad.  If Wallop sounds goofy to you, then fine.  No reason to argue that.  
But if you think it has intrinsic flavor worth mentioning in the same breath with DTC then I won't argue.  I'll just continue considering that assessment an extreme outlier not worth much time.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 15, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This is really, really terrible. I don't want WotC changing decisions because someone spends 30 seconds typing an ill-thought out opinion on the interweb.



Good thing that didn't happen then.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 15, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This is really, really terrible. I don't want WotC changing decisions because someone spends 30 seconds typing an ill-thought out opinion on the interweb.




It is to be expected when they've put all their 4E eggs in the internet basket.  After all, the internet is "where people go for this kind of information."


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 15, 2007)

LOL. Awesome new development. If this is what constitutes playtesting for us lowly fans so be it.

As a side question how many little details did the 3E crew ever take back? This team seems to be heavily under the gun.


----------



## Gort (Oct 15, 2007)

Well, thank goodness for that. I notice he didn't say what he'd replaced it with, though!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 15, 2007)

Man, Rich Baker sure seems to be getting a lot of crap.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 15, 2007)

And even by now, Open Up A Can of Whoopass is dated. 

Crits in Unknown Armies were called that. Failures were more crudely named.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 15, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This is really, really terrible. I don't want WotC changing decisions because someone spends 30 seconds typing an ill-thought out opinion on the interweb.




We have heard your complaint, sir, and will never do this again!


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 15, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wulf backs this up with a very good description of exactly what they're not getting, from the perspective of a professional technical writer.  I don't agree that this is just a matter of opinion.  It is a critique of WotC's design strategy with regards to naming conventions.



First of all, I wasnt singling him out directly. I've seen it in other threads. Granted, more recently in this one by that individual.

Second, his first posting in this thread DIDN'T start out that way.  It was only later that he actually added detail.  It is the first kind of posting that I'm being snippy about.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> In capoeira, this move (crouching down and sweeping at an opponent's legs -- in this case with your own leg) is called Stingray's Tail ("Rabo-de-Arraia"). So colorful names do exist in Western tradition.



This, combined with the one poster's translation of Dragon Tail Cut into German, cements an opinions I've long had.  Colorful move names only sound stupid when translated into English.  When they're in a DIFFERENT language, they sound damn skippy.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 15, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> First of all, I wasnt singling him out directly. I've seen it in other threads. Granted, more recently in this one by that individual.
> 
> Second, his first posting in this thread DID start out that way.  It was only later that he actually added detail.  It is the first kind of posting that I'm being snippy about.




Fair enough-- I won't hold you responsible for reading all of my other posts on this topic that predate my comment and put it in context; and you don't hold me responsible for knowing how many other random people may have overused a phrase to the point of annoying you.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 15, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Man, Rich Baker sure seems to be getting a lot of crap.




I am starting to feel bad for him...I mean, I couldn't stand the name...but still.


----------



## overelemental (Oct 15, 2007)

hazel monday said:
			
		

> Why not just "Knockdown" ?




WotC should definately try to hire you. Excellent suggestion.


----------



## BadMojo (Oct 15, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Crits in Unknown Armies were called that. Failures were more crudely named.




I forgot about that!  Possibly the best name for a "fumble" I've ever heard.  Of course, it works well in the genre of Tim Powers + Quentin Tarantino Modern Day Occult RPG's.  Probably not so well with a fantasy RPG.

I still think there should be a power called "Give 'em the Business".  I think it was Conan of Cimmeria who once said, "I'm in the business of givin' people the business and business is good."


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Oct 15, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> "Fear does not exist in this dojo!"




"Strike first, strike hard, no mercy, sir!"


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 15, 2007)

When naming anything, you should always say it aloud several times before deciding. For me, "Dragon's tail cut" sounds more like "dragon stale cut" which is what you get from a crummy fantasy deli.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 15, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> This, combined with the one poster's translation of Dragon Tail Cut into German, cements an opinions I've long had.  Colorful move names only sound stupid when translated into English.  When they're in a DIFFERENT language, they sound damn skippy.



I beg to differ:
Any colorful name translated to your _native_ language sounds stupid. (Because the German names for the ability I suggested sounded pretty stupid to me! But German is my native language...)

Maybe it's a general thing. Your own language can never be as cool as a foreign one. 
Another example: Accents and Regional Dialects - In English, they sound interesting, cool, unique, flavourful. In German, it just hurts hearing a Bavarian or someone from Dresden speak his dialect. (I can live with Plattdeutsch, but I grew up with that, and I take pride in knowing that it's not a dialect, but its own language  )


----------



## Klaus (Oct 15, 2007)

I think the strike described could easily be called Dragon Tail with no additional qualifier. These maneuvers tend to be created by professional warriors, who dedicate their lives to combat, and tend to be less poetic and more to the point.

Some options:
- Dragon Tail
- Tail Sweep
- Crescent Blow
- Low Circle
- Leg Strike
- Prayer Maker (because you make your opponents kneel down)


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 15, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I beg to differ:
> Any colorful name translated to your _native_ language sounds stupid. (Because the German names for the ability I suggested sounded pretty stupid to me! But German is my native language...)
> 
> Maybe it's a general thing. Your own language can never be as cool as a foreign one.
> Another example: Accents and Regional Dialects - In English, they sound interesting, cool, unique, flavourful. In German, it just hurts hearing a Bavarian or someone from Dresden speak his dialect. (I can live with Plattdeutsch, but I grew up with that, and I take pride in knowing that it's not a dialect, but its own language  )



However, I think the English language has a somewhat higher tolerance to colourful sounding names. In German, pretty much everything sounds pretentious, if it even tries to be 'evocative'. But then, my experience is, that English is a much more onomatopoeic language... and a melange of dozens of borrowed phrases.

Still, Dragon's Tail Cut even sounded for me, a non-native speaker, pretty.. errrrr!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Gwathlas (Oct 16, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> I also think it gets uncomfortably close into the realm of wuxia, which is definitely not what I think of when I'm playing D&D, especially at 1st level.
> 
> Edit: I guess it could be a good name for a monk power.





This is the primary reason I won't spend a penny on 4e.  IT"S NOT D&D!  IT's wuxi-starwars!


----------



## heirodule (Oct 16, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I forgot about that!  Possibly the best name for a "fumble" I've ever heard.  Of course, it works well in the genre of Tim Powers + Quentin Tarantino Modern Day Occult RPG's.  Probably not so well with a fantasy RPG.
> 
> I still think there should be a power called "Give 'em the Business".  I think it was Conan of Cimmeria who once said, "I'm in the business of givin' people the business and business is good."




and "I'm all out of gum"


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 16, 2007)

There should totally be  a manuever called "Givin' em the Business" in 4.0.


----------



## olshanski (Oct 16, 2007)

We are talking about hairstyles, right?

The dragon's tail cut is sort of like a combination of a mohawk and a mullet?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 16, 2007)

Gwathlas said:
			
		

> This is the primary reason I won't spend a penny on 4e.  IT"S NOT D&D!  IT's wuxi-starwars!




Moderator/

Gwathlas, I've checked out your last dozen or so posts, and they are all anti-4e threadcrapping.

We get it. You don't like it. 

Don't post in this 4e forum again; restrict yourself to the various 3e and earlier forums we have in abundance.

Do email me if you want to discuss this, my email address is found in the meta forum


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 16, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Alright, that would be awesome. As long as they include the cards with the core books, and don't sell them in randomized booster packs.




Nah, you can just buy the commons for cheap on Ebay.  It's all good.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Oct 19, 2007)

I know Dragon's Tail Cut got the boot, but we never got word of its replacement, did we?  In honor of Noonan's latest blog, I submit Chinese Take-Out In The Dark as the new name.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 19, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Nah, you can just buy the commons for cheap on Ebay.  It's all good.



Yeah, but they'd make all the really cool ones Rare. You know they would.


----------

