|
There are plenty of good things from 5E that Paizo can incoprporate into Pathfinder 2, but there is one thing 5E does that I absolutely hate!
I can't stand that 5E has eliminated "points of" and just says 'damage' "You take 5 damage', instead of "You take 5 points of damage')
5 damage just sounds too much like a video game, and my skin actually crawls when I hear it ...
So, wise Paizo folks - PLEASE keep 'points of dame' (or some variation) and DO NOT dumb Pathfinder down by changing to just 'damage'
Thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of good things from 5E that Paizo can incoprporate into Pathfinder 2, but there is one thing 5E does that I absolutely hate!
I can't stand that 5E has eliminated "points of" and just says 'damage'
"You take 5 damage', instead of "You take 5 points od damage')5 damage just sounds too much like a video game, and my skin actually crawls when I hear it ...
So, wise Paizo folks - PLEASE keep 'points of dame' (or some variation) and DO NOT dumb Pathfinder down by changing to just 'damage'
Thanks!
Counterpoint: this seems like an incredibly minor issue to have, and I actually feel the opposite way, with 'points of damage' sounding way more game-y than 'damage'. More importantly, its longer. By making it just 'damage' the designers save 10 characters of space, which should shorten the description of each printed trap by at least that much, and probably free up a page or two in each printed adventure.
I'd also actually argue it comes down to table variation semantics because isn't "he hits you for 5 damage" "he hits you for 5hp" "or a 'you take'" variation of the above the norm? I can't honestly recall verbalizing 'points' because its never unclear what I'm referrign to without it.
|
|
Agreed that the 5E designers most likely did it to save on page count a bit. Also agreed it’s not a huge issue, and folks can say it at the table however they want (though 5 damage will always sound wrong to me)
I’ll be very disappointed if Paizo adopts the shortened 5 damage terminology as the standard in the actual book(s) though.
Yeah, no. I agree with Ninten. The shortened terminology not only saves multiple pages worth of text, meaning we can actually get more abilities / items / whatever, "5 damage" just sounds better than "5 points of damage."
"That's a lot of damage!"
I had to.
I'm not sure that removing "points of" can be described in any way as "dumbing down".
FWIW I suspect it varies but normally I will use "you take X damage". It sounds more natural than "points of".
|
|
Fair enough ...
Maybe it's a generation thing? It was always X points of damage, or even more traditionally x hit points of damage. So to my ear, X points of damage, or even better, X hit points of damage, sounds so much more natural than x damage.
Of course, when I'm at the table, I say experience points, not XP, armor class, not AC, hit points, not HP, etc. .... I think maybe I'm just a stickler for clarity of language, especially when actually speaking.
OH well, I guess we'll see when the playtest books come out if I'm happy or disappointed :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've ever heard/read "you take x hit points of damage"... that's... an odd mouthful. "I take x damage to my HP/you lose x HP" sounds better.
I guess I wouldn't be bothered by the removal of "points" since it's rather superfluous and at this point redundant. You only need to spell it out when it's something specific for DR/ER. "You take x points of Electrical Damage" though even that can be summarized to "you take x Electrical Damage". Yeah, doesn't really bother me.
Fair enough ...
Maybe it's a generation thing?
Not as much as you'd expect, I've been playing a long time. :)
Of course, when I'm at the table, I say experience points, not XP, armor class, not AC, hit points, not HP, etc. .... I think maybe I'm just a stickler for clarity of language, especially when actually speaking.
I'll abbreviate all of those, as long as everyone understands me there is sufficient clarity :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5 damage just sounds too much like a video game, and my skin actually crawls when I hear it ...
Claiming something in a TTRPG sounds too much like a "video game" is a meaningless derogatory remark designed to invoke a negative knee jerk reaction in people. They're both games, one brought about because of the other.
But to alleviate your concern over making something sound too "mechanical" in its streamlining, be aware that with the streamlining of the text for mechanics that leaves more word count for the flavor text of abilities :3
Just posting my experience. I'm a middle schooler (yeah Gen Z!) and I alternate between the two usually using points.
*scratches head*
I can't really recall what we commonly use in our games, I probably flip flop between the two.
Same. Just bounce between the two.
Though, hmm, I do question how "You take 10 damage" and "You take 10 points of damage" read in different languages.
*scratches head*
I can't really recall what we commonly use in our games, I probably flip flop between the two.
Same. Just bounce between the two.
Though, hmm, I do question how "You take 10 damage" and "You take 10 points of damage" read in different languages.
In Japanese, it is kind of natural to say "damage is 10 points" or something like that. We use "counters" and, while you can say a number, like "ni," you add a suffix to it when counting things of different types, like one kitten would be nihiki and one book would be nisatsu.
If it is space we are worried about, popularize dp ("damage points") and start saying "You take 5 dp." I don't normally distinguish between "points of damage" and "damage" when speaking, but I think I am more prone to say, "you take 5 damage."
It feels weird to insist on either "damage" or "points of damage" when either might flow better in a given sentence. Just say what sounds right; it's not as though there's ambiguity here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just posting my experience. I'm a middle schooler (yeah Gen Z!) and I alternate between the two usually using points.
Glad to see a middle schooler engaged with the game and the community.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just posting my experience. I'm a middle schooler (yeah Gen Z!) and I alternate between the two usually using points.Glad to see a middle schooler engaged with the game and the community.
Thanks. Me and my friends love the game!
If it is space we are worried about, popularize dp ("damage points") and start saying "You take 5 dp." I don't normally distinguish between "points of damage" and "damage" when speaking, but I think I am more prone to say, "you take 5 damage."You get the same space saving from "You lose X HP" as "You take X DP" without the need to educate consumers on a new abbreviation with... unfortunate potential misinterpretation.
Yeah but "you deal 5 DP," is shorter than, "the target loses 5 HP."
Arbitrary numbers and "points" are already very game-y innately. That said, when it comes to rules I prefer the wording remove as much vagueness as possible. The PF1e CRB has its fair share of wording issues where the rules are vague enough to cause interpretation problems. So for that reason I would favor "points of damage" over "x damage" when it comes to the text in the rulebook. In actual speech between players it doesn't matter as much which one you use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be even dumber. Did anyone here have the Encyclopedia Magica for 2nd edition AD&D? The one where someone did a Find + Replace to swap every instance of "mage" for "wizard."
"The tower can absorb 200 points of dawizard before collapsing. Dawizard sustained is cumulative, and the fortress cannot be repaired (although a wish restores 10 points of dawizard sustained)."
"The user may look into the ball, concentrate on any place or object, and cause the iwizard of the place or object to appear. A crystal ball may be used three times per day, for up to one turn per use. The more familiar the object or area, the clearer the iwizard."