When I read the rulebook and note the terminology changes, I wonder how much my group will adopt.
Unfortunately, not had the chance to begin the playtest, but I just imagine that Strike will still be Attack and Jaws will just be Bite.
So, pure curiosity, but how has other groups found the slight change in terminology.
P.S. A small part of me wonders if this particular set of changes was really necessary to improve the game, or was it just to move another step away from its d20 roots and create its own identity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much nope
Someone says "Mace to the Face" we know what he means
and none of us are using the word Ancestries. Pretty much the entire table stuck with Race.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The group I play in still gets confused by things that used to be 3.5 rules, even though we've been playing Pathfinder for 9 years now.
I told them before the first playtest adventure.. this is a brand new system. This isn't an upgrade like 1E AD&D to 2E AD&D, or 3.0 to 3.5, or even 3.5 to Pathfinder. It's its own game, starting fresh. Yet, we still spent half the game with me correcting everyone on things that aren't even a thing. Like them stopping every time to say, "If I move here, does it provoke an attack of opportunity from this creature?"
So, I imagine getting them to use new terms is an exercise in futility.
I'm having the opposite experience of others in this thread. Just last night my regular Strange Aeons group played, the same group I'm also running through the playtest, and they kept referring to striding and striking and using seek actions.
So I think it has the potential to stick and become general parlance.
In some cases, using the 2E terminology in 1E made things less ambiguous. You can 5' step as long as you didn't stride with your move action, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we use race
we use move, attack
I've been really forcing myself to use the new terminology, and so far it's cool. Other players are a mixed bag so far
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. And to phrase it in a less rude way, they think much of the new speak is dumb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, not really. We're trying, but it's just not really flowing very well for us. Well, except we've been using the word "multitype" to describe multiclassing. A bit cheesy and dumb, admittedly, but whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not feeling pressure to use the terminology. I'm of the school of thought that immersive language should be used at the table when possible. I prefer a player who descriptively describes their attack -- I offer the kids I GM a "gore bonus" to damage if they get very descriptive, hehe -- to one who simply says I "Step forward and Strike" the creature. The time to use rules language is when rules clarification is needed. That usage has ITS time and place.
Player: I run up and charge at the goblin, holding my greataxe high!
GM: [notes that barbarian needs to move twice to reach the goblin] I'm assuming you're using Sudden Charge, yes?
Player: Yes! Aaaarrr!
GM: Roll to hit.
*Resolves attack*
GM: Okay, you have one more action. What do you do now?
(Note: I REFUSE to say "Exploration Mode" and its siblings unless it's absolutely necessary. I loathe that terminology.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We haven’t used it at all, except where it’s a completely new term like resonance or manipulate traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we'll be on pathfinder XII before the people I game with stop using 'race'... That and I don't see anyone casting a Somatic Casting action and a Verbal Casting action: spells and other abilities are just 1, 2 or 3 action abilities unless the DM makes someone look up what the actions are for some reason.
I think it will only come up when checking rule interactions and I think it will be useful for that purpose. But for actual narration at the table I don't think any new terminology will make an appearance.
We're using the character and class terms, like ancestry and proficiency, but not the combat terms reliably. We abandoned exploration mode almost immediately, so we don't use any of those terms.
We're using the character and class terms, like ancestry and proficiency, but not the combat terms reliably. We abandoned exploration mode almost immediately, so we don't use any of those terms.Yes, the arbitrary and ham-handed separation of modes is something I also pretty much ignore in 5th Ed, I think in that system it's the 3 Pillars of Play (because someone said so...): Combat, Exploration, Social.
For my group I find the separation into two types more useful combat and non-combat. Non-combat is far more intuitive for my group when done in a freeform style rather than a tactical framework. It could be different for fresh gamers.
|
I like the designation of the action terms but I might not use them much, but that's still more use than previously as I've never actually used the terms "Move" and "Standard" from 3rd on (I have said "Double Move" but that's it), who know, I might start using Stride instead of "I go over there and smack em", "I Stride over" sounds cooler.
We've been using Step before the Playtest as everyone knew what it meant when we said it XD
Ancestry is growing on me after reading how it's presented in the book "people of Orc Ancestry, people of Human Ancestry," flows a bit nicely while still being technical so as to cut off confusion before it starts from later things.
"Operate Activation Action" on the other hand...