3
\$\begingroup\$

There is a tag. It's applied to 11 questions; all but (the most recent) one of them have the tag as well.

Unfortunately, the tag has no tag info/wiki. Does it refer to a particular thing in D&D 4e specifically? I'm guessing it does, and I'm guessing that is what differentiates it from the general tag.

What is the tag meant to be used for, and how is it distinct from the tag?

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Now nine; I retagged Where can I learn the meanings of RPG terminology? and What is fighting? to not use this tag.

It looks like the tag got started in D&D 4e. Keywords in that game are a specific element of power definitions: Arcane, Implement, Fire, Weapon, Healing, Primal, etc are keywords. Keywords can reference a myriad of things: power source, damage type, power category, whether you need to use a weapon/implement to use it, etc. They're a significant element of character building because a lot of things care about specific keywords. If you have an Arcane build, you'd focus on picking up Arcane powers and on finding feats and items which apply the Arcane keyword to otherwise non-Arcane powers. For example see Is there a way to add the "primal" keyword to a power? or How can I add psychic damage to wizard powers?.

I have added a tag definition:

for questions about managing the keywords of D&D 4e powers

That's a very specific definition for a very general concept, but it reflects usage right now.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ A quick search through my PDFs tells me that 13th Age and Andromeda also use "keyword" as mechanical terminology. I'd be shocked if they're the only ones. Maybe the tag wiki should be something like "for questions about keywords in systems which use that term, such as D&D 4e"? \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Jan 27 at 23:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Speaking as someone with a gold badge in the 4e tag, [keywords] is not a particularly useful tag. In this context (and probably in others like 13th Age, etc.) it basically just means "indicator that a thing is in a certain category so that rules can reference the category". Rather than being a distinct piece of rules/crunch/fluff, it's more of an organizational tool for those things. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Jan 28 at 14:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ObliviousSage indeed. I can't really see when it's applicable to discuss keywords. If a power has, say, the "fire" keyword that's all well and good but what possible question would have the tag with that power? "Why X has the fire keyword" doesn't really need the tag, it's just discussing the rules and/or powers. The granularity of "keyword" adds nothing. It's a bit like having a tag for "page" because you might want to discuss a rule that is printed on a page. It's not a useful descriptor, IMO. The currently tagged questions don't benefit from the tag. \$\endgroup\$ – VLAZ Feb 1 at 8:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ObliviousSage (cont) looking at the examples we have "Does Blazing Starfall Cause Fire Damage?" - this is already covered by [damage-type], so the [keyword] tag only references the fire keyword. "Is there a way to add the “primal” keyword to a power?" references keywords specifically but I don't think it really adds anything by the tag. It's no like somebody who is an expert at keywords can come in and answer that. Whoever answers will be knowledgeable in rules and probably powers, options, supplements - not just "keywords". \$\endgroup\$ – VLAZ Feb 1 at 9:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .