| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the definitions that were printed in 3.5 didn't make it over to Pathfinder despite them having the same meaning.
I think that if we port PF 1.0 game terms and 3.5 legacy game terms over to PF 2.0 they should be in the glossary.
I would also like for common verbage such as "precision damage" that appear a lot, to have an actual place in the glossary.
While we're at it we need to do something to separate flavor text from mechanical text and clarify that flavor text is not rules text, and it's mutable(aka artistic interpretation) more than anything that is to be followed.
My suggestion would be to italicize flavor text.
For spells the flavor text can be over the mechanical text, like it is for feats.
It also stops GM's from trying to use flavor text against a player and claim "it's the rules". Of course as the GM he can make any rules he wants, but pretending it's official rules should not be encouraged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, for the love of all things holy make it CRYSTAL clear what wielding is for instance or what a hand means [as opposed to effort]. I don't care if 1/2 the core book is definitions as long as we know what what all the game terms mean from the get go.
No boilerplate, please.
That path leads to madness.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No boilerplate, please.That path leads to madness.
How so?
The only way to make sure the game is clear, precise and understandable to the most people, is to ensure that every "type" of thing is written mechanically the same way.
If it adds a +1 bonus, or takes an action, or whatever, it should be written a specific way to ensure that we don't have another Vital Strike issue or this wield vs. carry issue.
I want to know how the game is played, and I want a minimum of future material to muck up how the game has "always" been played up until that future product (I see you potion sponge.) Obviously, you can't avoid this 100% of the time. But if the game is clear, then future designers, developers, editors and freelancers will be unable to throw too many wrenches into the cogs.
I'm all for removing "types2 on say modifiers. I think there only needs to be two kinds of bonuses on skills/attacks etc inherent (race/class/feat) and buff (spell/effect).
But I also fully support defining the types we do keep very precisely. Put it an appendix, its not that hard to do and makes so much rules-lawyering clearer, not to mention game design.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Words like "wield" and "carry" should be defined in a glossary of game terms so that everyone understands what they mean, then not used anywhere else in the rules portion of the book unless it's within the specific context of its game meaning.
-Skeld
Edit: The point is to cut down on language-parsing arguements and clarify intent.