# What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

Our last thread was closed because of misunderstandings and personal attacks, though at its end everyone seemed to be resolving conflicts and moving forward. This poll could offer valuable information to WOTC in helping their decisions with fluff feats like this. I am relaunching the poll for that purpose, as it is obviously an important issue considering all of the debate.

Lets all heed what the moderators asked and keep all discussion constructive and friendly in here. Remember, this is for the game we love and we all need to work together to offer good solutions to WOTC that is as close to a win/ win for everyone.  

Here is the overview of the Golden Wyvern Adept and other fluff named feats, pros and cons:

Obviously Golden Wyvern Adept is causing a huge amount of debate right now. As we are getting closer to 4e's print time we need to get WOTC to look at both sides of the debate and have a clear descision on where to go with these sort of fluff+crunch core materials. I know there are lots of discussion on this matter slipping into every thread, but this could be the last chance to change the feat (if that is what most D&D players want) and get the attention of WOTC with a poll here.

For those on the fence or in the dark, here is what the arguments are:

*Golden Wyvern Adept is good...*
1) Because it gives DMs with little time on their hands instant fluff with no work.
2) It allows DMs to fill in the blanks with artsy names and be inspired creatively. 
3) It gives players some direction and a feeling of history by rules they choose
4) It defines a core D&D mythology and story

*Golden Wyvern Adept is bad....*
1) Because it shoe horns the campaign setting to include golden wyvern adepts
2) It doesn't describe what the feat's rules actually do and is thus counter-intuitive to the other game mechanics 
3) It gives players a way to mess with a DMs campaign by bringing in fluff they don't want
4) Renaming the feat to remove its fluff is messy
5) DMs can't attach the feat easily to their own wizard orders
6) Official campaign settings are going to have trouble working around feats like this, espcially settings like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright etc. where a "generic" order with a sterotypical monster doesn't belong like that. 
7) 3rd Party publishers will have trouble pluging on even more so than they did with the named spells from greyhawk. 
8) Golden Wyvern Adept starts a trend of naming feats in confusing and campaign damaging ways. Once this form of feat naming begins, it just flows over into all the sourcebooks and SRD material creating a huge list of frustrations for DMs who do not want it in their games.
9) Feat names like this encourge lazy game mechanic naming. 
10) Fluff with no meaning behind it is bad, empty fluff calories. It is to subjective to make a standard that is used. 

Overall, there is more reasons not to keep names like golden wyvern adept. I would like to see your opinion on what WOTC should do.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 9, 2007)

No offence, but I believe it's poor form to re-open a thread after it's closed. You might want to ping one of the mods (if you haven't already).


----------



## Ragnar69 (Dec 9, 2007)

Where is it stated that there has to be an Order of the Golden Wyvern for the feat to work?

IRL we have judo, karate, kung fu and lots of others as various schools of basicaly the same thing (martial arts). I've trained a bit im my youth, you could call me a teak-won-do adept if you like, but I never ever joined some mystical order   

Besides, if there are half a dozen or so feats associated with each school, I prefer them to be organised as GW Adept, GW Master, GW Expert than Spell Shaper, Improved Spell Shaper and Ethereal Spell Shaper so they are right next to each other in the feat section.

There are lots of RL examples of names that lost their origins over the time. Simply say aeons ago someone called spellshaping the Golden Wyvern Technique and it still sticks to this day. No need for fancy fluff-rebuilds.

And before you say "there are no wyverns in my game", there's no pegasus in RL either, yet we have a greek restaurant named so.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 9, 2007)

Ragnar69 said:
			
		

> Where is it stated that there has to be an Order of the Golden Wyvern for the feat to work?
> 
> IRL we have judo, karate, kung fu and lots of others as various schools of basicaly the same thing (martial arts). I've trained a bit im my youth, you could call me a teak-won-do adept if you like, but I never ever joined some mystical order
> 
> ...



I am pretty sure that "Golden Wyvern" was intended to be a reference to the many animal-symbolic names in alchemy, such as White Eagle, Black Crow, Peacock's Tail, Phoenix Reborn in Fire...

Mods, can we please have a moratorium on Golden Wyvern threads? there's been at least a half dozen of them in the past weekend alone and there seems to be a very unhealthy level of fixation on the name of one feat.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Dec 9, 2007)

What I don't get is this: Feats are one of the aspects of your character you are _least_ likely to talk about in character. Unless you go down the, hehe, anime route of declaring your powers out loud every time you use them, I can't see why you need to have a flavourful feat. It's just an aspect of your character that has an effect in the game. It doesn't need to be given a fancy background name. You don't need to call Move Silently 'Rice Paper Walk' if you're a monk, because chances are when you use the skill, you'll simple say 'I sneak past the guard'. Spells, until now, have been very much the opposite, they have inherent names given to their effects - I think this is something less important when you lose the fire and forget mentality. Classes can be referred to in character, sometimes people don't like that. Races typically are. Feats, I've not come across as being explicitly named in character _except_ for those that are flavourful, like Thunder Twin or similar. Does WotC want us to label our abilities explicitly in character? Because that sounds somewhat counter-roleplay, counter-imagination and extremely forcing.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

Ragnar69 said:
			
		

> And before you say "there are no wyverns in my game", there's no pegasus in RL either, yet we have a greek restaurant named so.




I know some people don't think it is a big deal, but what if you don't have pegasus or wyverns even as mythical creatures.

For example, Dark Sun is a setting that had very few herbivore mammals. So no horses, no cows, etc.. So having a minotaur didn't even make sense. It would hurt the look and feel of the game. I realize this seems minor to some people, but it can have a fairly big effect on a DMs plans if they don't want specific symbols, terms, mythical creatures etc. 

It just seems like WOTC is being a bit careless with how they have handled their naming conventions in the past. Rich, well detail worlds are enjoyable and these feats could effect the feel of campaign settings both homebrewed and officially published.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

La Bete said:
			
		

> No offence, but I believe it's poor form to re-open a thread after it's closed. You might want to ping one of the mods (if you haven't already).




I know this subject is important to discuss, and as long as we respect each other the moderators are fine with this subject. The thread was closed for people being rude to each other, not for the subject being dicussed.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that "Golden Wyvern" was intended to be a reference to the many animal-symbolic names in alchemy, such as White Eagle, Black Crow, Peacock's Tail, Phoenix Reborn in Fire...
> 
> Mods, can we please have a moratorium on Golden Wyvern threads? there's been at least a half dozen of them in the past weekend alone and there seems to be a very unhealthy level of fixation on the name of one feat.




None of the threads are dealing with the subject with a poll or the overall effect of naming feats with fluff content and the effect it has on the game. We are discussing that specifically here. This thread should be the primary one for that reason, as it addresses the main issue of fluff based feats and whether they should be in the core rules.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 9, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Overall, there is more reasons not to keep names like golden wyvern adept. I would like to see your opinion on what WOTC should do.




It's not the _number_ of pros vs cons, it's the _weight_ of each. But even with that, the number of pros vs cons you've listed is self-created, and includes indicators showing bias.

Thus your list is of insignificant value. 



BTW: I don't particularly like any of WotC's chromey snap-tite names... GWA is just the worst one yet.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 9, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> None of the threads are dealing with the subject with a poll or the overall effect of naming feats with fluff content and the effect it has on the game. We are discussing that specifically here. This thread should be the primary one for that reason, as it addresses the main issue of fluff based feats and whether they should be in the core rules.



To be totally honest, when the Golden Wyvern adept thing broke, which I believe was over a month ago, I was kind of like, "Hey, something that sounds like you'd have found it in real history. Cool," and I felt that the people who were complaining about it sounding like "anime" or "MMO" were simply people who had never been exposed to actual history before and were dealing from ignorance, and reacted much the same way that most people react to something they don't understand. That is, giving it a label and shoving it into a little cubbyhole in their mind where they don't actually have to examine it.

The flavor of Golden Wyvern is historical in nature, because REAL things were named after stuff that was frankly a hell of a lot more obscure, and real things in _European history_, no less, while Japanese martial arts techniques are named a lot of boring things that basically translate to English as "Front hip throw" and "Rear foot snap kick." I'm getting sorely tempted to name my next wizard character Golden Wyvern just so I have somebody in my campaign history to name the feat after, and if that causality loop doesn't snap your neck, you aren't looking at it in the right light.

We've reached stage two because we're over a month in and people are still complaining about stuff that has no actual basis in fact. We're also reaching a state of obsessive-compulsion, where people are complaining with increasing vehemence about something that is at worst neutral in value. I personally think that Rich Baker backing off so precipitously from Dragon's Tail Cut was actually one of the worst things he could have done, because he inadvertently gave the internet fanboy community, who collectively (and I include myself in this) has the worst entitlement complex imaginable, the idea that they could change the design of 4th Edition if they complained loudly enough.

To wrap my thoughts up and move on, I think people need to start getting over themselves and realize that their personal preferences don't reflect the hobby as a whole.

-- Fire (with apologies to Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw)


----------



## Mr Jack (Dec 9, 2007)

I didn't answer the poll because I think we need to wait and see where and how it appears in the book.

I _strongly_ suspect we'll find the Goldern Wyvern stuff introduced in the DMG as a worked example of doing magical traditions for your own world. In which case I have no problem with it.

If that's not the case, I don't want to see the game peppered with 'Goldern Wyvern Adept' style feats and so forth, but if it turns out there's only a few I'd still have no problem with it. I honestly don't see it as any more intrusive that having Pelor, St. Cuthbert _et al_ or Mordekainen's Disjunction or The Hand of Vecna in the core rules.

Wait 'til we've had a chance to see the rules and we'll see how it fits in.


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 9, 2007)

I can't understand what this is all about. Really, I just can't.

AFAIR I have never ever used the name of one of my charactes feats ingame. None of my characters have ever said "I have weapon focus" or "I have spell penetration" or "I have great cleave"

So why does it matter how the feat is called? it's name will never be mentioned ingame.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 9, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> To be totally honest, when the Golden Wyvern adept thing broke, which I believe was over a month ago, I was kind of like, "Hey, something that sounds like you'd have found it in real history. Cool," and I felt that the people who were complaining about it sounding like "anime" or "MMO" were simply people who had never been exposed to actual history before and were dealing from ignorance, and reacted much the same way that most people react to something they don't understand. That is, giving it a label and shoving it into a little cubbyhole in their mind where they don't actually have to examine it.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Well there goes the whole keeping it friendly thing.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Dec 9, 2007)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I can't understand what this is all about. Really, I just can't.
> 
> AFAIR I have never ever used the name of one of my charactes feats ingame. None of my characters have ever said "I have weapon focus" or "I have spell penetration" or "I have great cleave"
> 
> So why does it matter how the feat is called? it's name will never be mentioned ingame.




As I mentioned above, they aren't mentioned in game, so why not make them more usefully descriptive, or at least short to write down?


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 9, 2007)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> So why does it matter how the feat is called? it's name will never be mentioned ingame.



And that is _exactly_ what the fuss is all about.

Since it's not used in-game, the name should be utilitarian and descriptive rather than flavourful. The name of a pure game mechanic has no need for flavour, but every need for description and mnemonic.

There _could_ be a good mnemonic behind the name as is, but so far the only connection has been to the wizard traditions, i.e. flavour.

That's why it matters - at least to me.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 9, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Well there goes the whole keeping it friendly thing.



If I was being hostile you'd know. Honesty takes precedence.


----------



## am181d (Dec 9, 2007)

I think the bottom line on this discussion is "This isn't the optimal place to inject flavor text, as it makes it harder to keep track of what the feat does." The more of these feats WotC creates, the harder it will be to keep them all straight.

If their goal is really to inject more flavor into the game, it would be better to organize feat descriptions like this:

*SPELL SHAPER*
_In the ancient monasteries of the Golden Wyvern order, adepts train to sculpt the effects of their spells, just as sculptors shape clay._
*TIER:* Paragon
*EFFECT:* You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

or

*SPELL SHAPER*
*TIER:* Paragon
*EFFECT:* You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.
*SETTINGS:* In some lands, spellcasters earn this feat by becoming adepts of the Golden Wyvern order.

(Obviously, the flavor text here is just a placeholder.)

These options keep the names of the feats "purpose-centric" for easy reference and memorization. It also allows DMs to easily cut flavor if it's not appropriate for their campaigns.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 9, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> If I was being hostile you'd know. Honesty takes precedence.



Honesty usually implies dealing with facts.  You basically said that those with a different opinion than yours are dealing in ignorance, obsessive-compulsive, and are hung up on themselves. Those aren't facts. That's just derisive opinion cloaked as honesty in order to avoid accountability for your approach to the discussion.

Just tone it down a bit. Your post is exactly how flame wars get going.


----------



## Rel (Dec 9, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Honesty takes precedence.




NO, ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T.

I say that in all caps not because I'm screaming, but because it is an important thing that it is obvious that many don't seem to understand here.

At least once a week we get some yahoo that sends one of us moderators an e-mail, after they've been banned or reprimanded, about how they were "Only speaking the TRUTH!"  It's become so common that we even have a term for it:  "TEH TROOF! defense".

If you want words to live by it should be these:  "Civility takes precedence."

This is a game.  A hobby.  A pastime that we enjoy.  It should be fun.

There is no point that you need to make that is so important that it can't be done in a manner that is polite and friendly.  Remember that each and every time you click the Submit Reply button and this board of ours will be a better, more interesting, more productive place.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Dec 9, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Honesty usually implies dealing with facts.  You basically said that those with a different opinion than yours are dealing in ignorance, obsessive-compulsive, and are hung up on themselves. Those aren't facts. That's just derisive opinion cloaked as honesty in order to avoid accountability for your approach to the discussion.
> 
> Just tone it down a bit. Your post is exactly how flame wars get going.



Up to the present moment, the attitude of the I Hate Golden Wyvern club has been, essentially, that they're Right, and that anybody who views the idea of a core feat with a name that doesn't sound clinically detached (i.e. boring) either neutrally or with interest is Wrong. And they've said it umpteen different times in umpteen different threads and tried to mash into the carpet anybody who disagrees with them, so suddenly expressing shock and dismay at my relatively mild expression of irritation with the whole damned mess is more than a little dishonest.

My perception, and probably the perception of more than a few others, is that "keep friendly" in the context of this thread - and indeed, in the context of MOST threads on contentious topics on the internet - means "agree with me."


----------



## Cbas_10 (Dec 9, 2007)

am181d said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line on this discussion is "This isn't the optimal place to inject flavor text, as it makes it harder to keep track of what the feat does." The more of these feats WotC creates, the harder it will be to keep them all straight.
> 
> If their goal is really to inject more flavor into the game, it would be better to organize feat descriptions like this:
> 
> ...




Excellent.  Clear and to the point.

I'm not bugged by just a single feat name, but I think it is a funky precedent.  I'm not sure if I could keep a straight face during a game if players were announcing actions like Golden Wyvern Adept, Blue Monkey Crawl, Crazy Tiger Leap, and such all afternoon long.


----------



## Mad Mac (Dec 9, 2007)

> And that is exactly what the fuss is all about.
> 
> Since it's not used in-game, the name should be utilitarian and descriptive rather than flavourful. The name of a pure game mechanic has no need for flavour, but every need for description and mnemonic.




 I thought about this, and at first I agreed with you, but on reflection, I don't. My reasoning is this. 

  Players rarely forget what their feat does. Feats are precious, and each of them is an important character building decision. Especially so for an active feat that will see frequent use. No matter what the name is, a player is unlikely to forget it, unless they simply don't use it and probably shouldn't have picked it to begin with. And of course they aren't going to shout the name every time they use it, it's just "I remove square b, x, and d", probably at least once every major combat, and thats it. 

  Now, I do forget what feats do on occasion, and have to look them up, but it's usually only relevant when I'm leveling up a character. And honestly, browsing a few feats to see if it really works for my character (or one of my players characters) is hardly a chore. I just might see a possibility I didn't notice before while flipping through the book. And if we're mostly talking character creation--I think flavorfull feat names *can* be a plus. Anything that might spark my imagination is a good thing. This is one of the reasons I like Campaign Setting Books is all the flavorfull feats n'stuff. (And no, I don't have any compunction about stealing a feat I like from, say, the FRCS even if I'm not playing there.)

  Granted, Golden Wyvern doesn't do much for me one way or the other, though I do like most of the other tradition names, but I can see the advantage. Also, "Spell-shaper?" While that will tell me the basic idea behind the feat, I'm still going to have to look it up to see exactly what it does, especially if we have SpellShaper 1, 2, 3, and 4.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 9, 2007)

am181d said:
			
		

> *SPELL SHAPER*
> _In the ancient monasteries of the Golden Wyvern order, adepts train to sculpt the effects of their spells, just as sculptors shape clay._
> *TIER:* Paragon
> *EFFECT:* You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.



I really like this.

I understand that WotC wants to inject some flavor into things. I just happen to think they are choosing the worst way of doing it in this instance. Something like the feat above seems like one of the best ways. There's definitely flavor there to spark the imagination of some players, but it's very unobtrusive and easy to ignore if someone doesn't like it. Seems like a great compromise.


----------



## Kintara (Dec 9, 2007)

Is it really a good idea for a pollster to inform someone of the debate, and then flatly state that one subset of the options has more support? I mean it normally doesn't matter that much, but the whole Golden Wyvern Adept thing is flame-bait. If you want it to stay friendly, you should be assiduously neutral, shouldn't you? I don't think that's a tall order for one thread.

Also, justifying the poll choices by saying stuff like "so that it works in every campaign" is like saying "Choose me because I have a REAL reason." The option for liking it comes down to, "I like the name, so it should stay the same." No justifications or logic. It's just preference, and damn everyone else's campaign. It's not the truth or lack of it that's the problem, but the way it's framed. You're better off just leaving the explanations behind entirely.

Anyway, my point is that polls quickly become meaningless, or even intellectually dishonest, if you're not careful. The topic may not be all that important, but then I'm not the one polling people about it. If you want the poll to mean anything, it should be done right.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 9, 2007)

Kintara said:
			
		

> Is it really a good idea for a pollster to inform someone of the debate, and then flatly state that one subset of the options has more support? I mean it normally doesn't matter that much, but the whole Golden Wyvern Adept thing is flame-bait. If you want it to stay friendly, you should be assiduously neutral, shouldn't you? I don't think that's a tall order for one thread.
> 
> Also, justifying the poll choices by saying stuff like "so that it works in every campaign" is like saying "Choose me because I have a REAL reason." The option for liking it comes down to, "I like the name, so it should stay the same." No justifications or logic. It's just preference, and damn everyone else's campaign. It's not the truth or lack of it that's the problem, but the way it's framed. You're better off just leaving the explanations behind entirely.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that polls quickly become meaningless, or even intellectually dishonest, if you're not careful. The topic may not be all that important, but then I'm not the one polling people about it. If you want the poll to mean anything, it should be done right.



QFT.

Polls are not automatically meaningful. Bias can enter them in many ways, from poor design, leading questions, or simple selection bias.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 9, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I really like this.
> 
> I understand that WotC wants to inject some flavor into things. I just happen to think they are choosing the worst way of doing it in this instance. Something like the feat above seems like one of the best ways. There's definitely flavor there to spark the imagination of some players, but it's very unobtrusive and easy to ignore if someone doesn't like it. Seems like a great compromise.




Sure, that makes sense - but I still think that it doesn't really change much - according to (some) detractors of the feat name, one of the issues with this is that players will refer to this "order of the golden wyvern", even after having been told by the GM that theres no such thing. The feat name is still in there, and part of the alleged implied setting.

Najo the problem with this discussion (and most like it) is that everyone has different levels of acceptance of fluff in their crunch (i can't believe I said that), and it's a completely subjective thing - so to anyone with a higher tolerance of it would not see a number of things on your "bad" list being bad. (and the fact that this level has varied throughout the editions).

Thus you see in these discussions a lot of talking past each other - "taken out of context", "not reading what I'm saying, "not the same thing", etc.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 9, 2007)

La Bete said:
			
		

> Sure, that makes sense - but I still think that it doesn't really change much - according to (some) detractors of the feat name, one of the issues with this is that players will refer to this "order of the golden wyvern", even after having been told by the GM that theres no such thing. The feat name is still in there, and part of the alleged implied setting.



Yeah, certainly, not everyone is going to be happy no matter what. Isn't that the sign of a good compromise, though, when neither side is completely happy? 

I just think there's better ways of pleasing, or at least appeasing, more people than what WotC is currently doing. I think am's feats are one of a number of ways of doing that. Again, not ideal for everyone, but at least acceptable for more people.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 9, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> I thought about this, and at first I agreed with you, but on reflection, I don't. My reasoning is this.
> 
> Players rarely forget what their feat does. Feats are precious, and each of them is an important character building decision. Especially so for an active feat that will see frequent use. No matter what the name is, a player is unlikely to forget it, unless they simply don't use it and probably shouldn't have picked it to begin with. And of course they aren't going to shout the name every time they use it, it's just "I remove square b, x, and d", probably at least once every major combat, and thats it.
> 
> ...



I assume our players are a bit different, then. I often see players forget what a feat or ability does. I even forget myself at times. And that is with feats whose names are mostly descriptive.

Granted, we play casually, maybe once a month. Hard core gamers might have an easier time remembering. For those the colourful name might be a bonus.

I see what you're saying about flavour - and I agree to a certain point - but I'd still like to let mechanical names favour mnemonics more than flavour. Their descriptions could still be heavy with story.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2007)

I guess I will just have to repeat myself here:
I don't care how WotC calls the feat for my personal game, because I might decide to adopt or not adopt the name and its implication, depending on what I play.

But I guess it's nice for a beginning group to have some fluff that they can build upon. Whether it's because in the flavor section of the feat description or the feat name itself doesn't matter to me. If I'd have to start roleplaying with a new group, the Points of Light combined with setting elements implied by the rules sounds like a great thing. I don't know how the entire world looks like, but I see some elements, and can build upon them. I can create my own world based on the few implied tid-bits, and I am not overwhelmed by having a full world to comprehend, nor is the DM overwhelmed by having to create a whole new world from the spot.



> I assume our players are a bit different, then. I often see players forget what a feat or ability does. I even forget myself at times. And that is with feats whose names are mostly descriptive.



The descriptions don't help the casual gamer that much. 
"Hmm, I've got Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialisation? Which did what? Power Critical, certainly that increases the critical multiplier, right?"; "Energy Substitution [Metamagic]? That increases the level and I can choose any energy type, or what was it?" ;"Haha, I take an extra attack of oppertunity, I've got Combat Expertise!"; "You mean Combat Reflexes?" "Uh, wait, let me look it up again..."; "I prepared my spells with Enlarge Spell, so I have a bigger area" "No, you only get a bigger range with that."; "I can leave out targets with Scult Spell, right?". The descriptive names often enough give you a false sense of knowing what the feat did. But the devil always lies in the detail. 

On the other hand, if the 4th edition equivalent of metamagic feats are named according to the theme of an order, it might be easier to figure out where to look for a specific effect then before.


----------



## Kintara (Dec 9, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Polls are not automatically meaningful. Bias can enter them in many ways, from poor design, leading questions, or simple selection bias.



Don't even get me started on the title. The poll is about whether Wizards should keep or change the name, not "what should be done." If you're doing something, you're changing it. If you're not doing anything, you're leaving it alone, which is what one side would want. It's a leading question. You can find the answer in the question if you know what to look for.

Edit: And keep in mind that such polling decisions don't necessarily skew the poll the way you think. If you go too far in exposing your bias you might cause a backlash, which could artificially inflate the side you DIS-favor.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 9, 2007)

Nothing "should" be done, just because a few internet savvy gamers don't like the name. I don't think it's any more problematic than something like Power Attack, Combat Expertise or Combat Reflexes.

Now, if someone wants to rename it in their campaign, more power to them. I have several feats and prcs that are renamed in my campaign world, for instance.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 9, 2007)

Now, I voted for WotC should not change the name.  I voted for that not because I thought that was the best response but because I thought that was closest to the correct response.

There is something that many people have failed to do when they have a poll like this.  They have failed to do what in business is referred to a Step 1.

A Step 1 is taking time to listen and think of the situation from the other person's point of view.

Currently, this poll is built around the end user's thoughts.  It is a valid way of thinking because end users are important for the sale of business items.  No end users and you have sunk a mountain of development costs into something without a reasonable payback.

That does not invalidate the need to look at things from the point of the producer and their needs.

Artists and developers have a reasonable need to protect the work that they produce.  Unless you are the person that believes that you should have an open right to plagerize works and not support a company like WotC which does work hard producing original materials for your campaigns, funding stores to have events like world wide DnD game day, magic tournaments, and sponsoring conventions.  Those are profits that they rechannel to support the end consumer and grow their business.

One of the developers said they send things like many of the feats to their legal department that does web searches to determine if there are any matches and makes recomendations.

Why is this?

What if the 4e team comes out with something that they call Spellshaper and someone else on the web has made an ability with the name of Spellshaper.  Now the developers could be in a mess do to that person choosing to file a law suit stating that the Developers stole the Spellshaper feat from them.  It is money that is thus diverted now into fighting a frivolous lawsuite instead of sponsoring a gaming convention.

Unfortunately, we live in a litigious world (aka we sue anything we can) and the best way to avoid these types of law suits is sometimes to go with silly seeming names.  Not because the developers themselves want to do it that way but because our current world makes it safer for them to operate that way.

This is what I mean by saying that you need to think from the designer's needs first before you comepare your needs.  This is why I do not oppose the WotC developers using names like Golden Wyvern.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Dec 9, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Now, I voted for WotC should not change the name.  I voted for that not because I thought that was the best response but because I thought that was closest to the correct response.
> 
> There is something that many people have failed to do when they have a poll like this.  They have failed to do what in business is referred to a Step 1.
> 
> ...




Er, aren't they covered by open gaming content license rules?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 9, 2007)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Er, aren't they covered by open gaming content license rules?



Not necessarily. The ability in question could have been released as product identity, rather than open content. Meaning it could still be protected. This would probably be tricky, since it means that the ability could not use any existing open content, but it is possible.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Dec 9, 2007)

I voted for the second choice, though the third option would suit me fine.  I want game mechanics names to actually remind me what they do.  Flavor is fine, as long as it's also descriptive.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. The ability in question could have been released as product identity, rather than open content. Meaning it could still be protected. This would probably be tricky, since it means that the ability could not use any existing open content, but it is possible.



I highly doubt that WotC cares about the homebrew creations of random shmoes on the web.  They're concerned about the IP of other companies and published authors, who will actually sue WotC to protect their IP.

Besides, there's an easy solution: If they rename it, just do a search for the new name!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 9, 2007)

The only option I would favor, renaming the Golden Wyvern school to something slightly better and more descriptive, but equally specific and flavorful, is not on the poll.

I don't really care for the name Golden Wyvern, especially since Wyverns have little to do with shaping spell effects, as far as I am aware, but I would dislike having it just be the Spellshaping school even more.

I like the names for the Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, and Stormwalker schools. They manage to be descriptive and flavorful at the same time. If the name "Golden Wyvern" was replaced with a name that was as good as those, I would be happy. If there is some reason that it works well that I am not aware of, and it doesn't need to be changed, I would also be happy. If it didn't get a new name or a better explanation, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be mad. Certainly though, the Emerald Frost school needs a new name much more than Golden Wyvern.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Up to the present moment, the attitude of the I Hate Golden Wyvern club has been, essentially, that they're Right, and that anybody who views the idea of a core feat with a name that doesn't sound clinically detached (i.e. boring) either neutrally or with interest is Wrong. And they've said it umpteen different times in umpteen different threads and tried to mash into the carpet anybody who disagrees with them, so suddenly expressing shock and dismay at my relatively mild expression of irritation with the whole damned mess is more than a little dishonest.




Those of us who don't like the fluff in our game mechanics feel that it is forcing a certain flavor or feel into our campaigns we have worked hard on.

Personally, I prefer being given abilities and rules that are detacted from fluff so I can control the fluff. I use intricate history, character background, adventure hooks and other dramatic devises in my games. A series of feats that refers to something that doesn't exist in my world creates confusion and extra work, it forces me to work around WOTCs flavoring of the rules more than any previous edition did. This is how many of the DMs who create homebrews are feeling.

For the players and DMs who use premade stuff or just wing it, they are not going to feel the same impact. It is going to seem like we are overreacting to you. I assure you we aren't, not from our position. 

It is important to try and make the majority of the players happy. If there is a solution for everyone, then that is what we should work towards, something that takes into account everyones interests as much as possible. 

I would also point out, that my players and myself do not refer to our game mechanics in character. But, the flavor of the names does affect the feeling of the setting. As an example, in the Star Wars RPG they renamed Bull Rush as Bantha Rush, the reason being there are no Bulls in star wars and using Bantha gave it a star wars feel. I think this is minor, but it points out how things like this set the mood and feel of the game. Of course, you might argue that we were happy with Bull Rush before, but it is so common of a reference it doesn't detract from the setting (whether bull's are in it or not). Also, bull's rush is one feat, the wizard orders (and the possiblity of fighter camps, rogue guilds, churches etc) mean alot more than just a single feat is what we are talking about.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Anything that might spark my imagination is a good thing. This is one of the reasons I like Campaign Setting Books is all the flavorfull feats n'stuff. (And no, I don't have any compunction about stealing a feat I like from, say, the FRCS even if I'm not playing there.)




That is why they should have sidebars with fluff and then keep feats named golden wyvern adept, child of winter, emerald frost acolyte and serpent eye cabalist in campaign setting books. Why would every single D&D campaign have the very same wizard orders in them? It makes them boring and frustrating to create a world around.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I really like this.
> 
> I understand that WotC wants to inject some flavor into things. I just happen to think they are choosing the worst way of doing it in this instance. Something like the feat above seems like one of the best ways. There's definitely flavor there to spark the imagination of some players, but it's very unobtrusive and easy to ignore if someone doesn't like it. Seems like a great compromise.




Yeah, this is one of the best approaches I've seen so far.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 9, 2007)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Up to the present moment, the attitude of the I Hate Golden Wyvern club has been, essentially, that they're Right, and that anybody who views the idea of a core feat with a name that doesn't sound clinically detached (i.e. boring) either neutrally or with interest is Wrong. And they've said it umpteen different times in umpteen different threads and tried to mash into the carpet anybody who disagrees with them, so suddenly expressing shock and dismay at my relatively mild expression of irritation with the whole damned mess is more than a little dishonest.



To the contrary, the tactic of the *one flavor fits all* side has been to consistently misrepresent the opposing side's views and arguments.  As you have done here.  
Telling us why your ideas are good and expressing thoughtful reasons that our actual concerns are unfounded would be much more productive.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The only option I would favor, renaming the Golden Wyvern school to something slightly better and more descriptive, but equally specific and flavorful, is not on the poll.
> 
> I don't really care for the name Golden Wyvern, especially since Wyverns have little to do with shaping spell effects, as far as I am aware, but I would dislike having it just be the Spellshaping school even more.
> 
> I like the names for the Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, and Stormwalker schools. They manage to be descriptive and flavorful at the same time. If the name "Golden Wyvern" was replaced with a name that was as good as those, I would be happy. If there is some reason that it works well that I am not aware of, and it doesn't need to be changed, I would also be happy. If it didn't get a new name or a better explanation, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be mad. Certainly though, the Emerald Frost school needs a new name much more than Golden Wyvern.




I left that option off the poll because it is subjective. Whether or not Golden Wyvern is a good name is someone's opinion. The issue here is wether or not to use fluff names in core (non-campaign specific) games mechanics. 

D&D is going to have to build worlds off of this rules set. OGL publishers are going to have to too. WOTC is making it harder for that world building and unqiue expressions to occur with fluff imbedded core rules. 

In reply to the various posters who feel the poll is one sided or leaning a certain way. I have stepped back and looked at all of the message boards, looked at it as a player, as a DM, as a retailer as a future publisher and from WOTCs long term perspective with the D&D Brand. I see the value of using fluff in the core rules with new players, but I also see how it can causes issues later one when you try to create new and different worlds and then plug them onto the engine that is the player's handbook. WOTC is doing something risky here, along with all the other changes, could be a bad move.

My "opinions" are weighed very heavily against my better judgment and I have carefully kept them unbiased. If you read them with that perspective you can see I have fairly laid out the debate. Likewise, I looked at the poll questions and do not see how they are weighted one way or the other. 

My interest as a professional is that D&D succeeds. If fluff named feats will make it more money and a stronger game, I am all for that. But I do not think it is the correct choice to alienate the creative driven DMs. WOTC knows that DMs are important. It is their goal to make as many as they can. The better DMs tend to be the ones who do not like their hands held, feats like this can step on the creativity of those types of DMs.

There is more at stake here than just "change the feats name". WOTC is upsetting a valuable resource, their Dungeon Masters.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 9, 2007)

I feel that "fluff" (names, campaign references, etc.) should be published in splatbooks.  I feel that the core rules should contain generic stuff that is suitable for every campaign.  And I feel that both are important, so I buy both.


----------



## Najo (Dec 9, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> To the contrary, the tactic of the *one flavor fits all* side has been to consistently misrepresent the opposing side's views and arguments.  As you have done here.
> Telling us why your ideas are good and expressing thoughtful reasons that our actual concerns are unfounded would be much more productive.




I agree Bryon. I would like to see input from those who like the fluff feat naming that at least treat our concerns with respect and try to find a solution that works for us all. I have seen alot of bashing the anti-GWA people instead of offering constructive input.

Which is what Rel is talking about. Come on people, lets keep this positive and help each others concerns. How do we make the majority happy with fluffy + crunch?


----------



## Kintara (Dec 9, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> IIn reply to the various posters who feel the poll is one sided or leaning a certain way. I have stepped back and looked at all of the message boards, looked at it as a player, as a DM, as a retailer as a future publisher and from WOTCs long term perspective with the D&D Brand.



You're claiming a well-studied disinterest. Okay. I remain unconvinced, but whatever. The poll is fine as a conversation starter, I suppose.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 9, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> I agree Bryon. I would like to see input from those who like the fluff feat naming that at least treat our concerns with respect and try to find a solution that works for us all. I have seen alot of bashing the anti-GWA people instead of offering constructive input.
> 
> Which is what Rel is talking about. Come on people, lets keep this positive and help each others concerns. How do we make the majority happy with fluffy + crunch?



1. The majority may already be happy with the proposed fluff+crunch balance. We have no way of knowing, and no poll on this site will ever tell you that.

2. Perhaps there is no solution that "works for us all". You need to be willing to consider the possibility that the "best" solution overall will leave you unhappy. The solution that makes the most people happy may not be one that pleases you. You cannot make everyone happy about everything.

3. I agree that some have been bashing the anti-GWA people. But several _have_ offered constructive criticism. I worry that you are treating anyone who disagrees with your position as if they are not respecting what you have to say, and thus dismiss what they have to say. I can respect your opinion and still completely disagree with it.


----------



## rounser (Dec 9, 2007)

IMO, "mythologically resonant" far outtrumps "historically accurate".  History is full of lame stuff, ignoble stuff, silly ideas that failed, and the posturing of the powerful and tasteless.

It's also broad enough that if you look long enough at history, you can probably justify anything.  (That said, mythology is full of lame stuff too - but they're generally not the "resonant" bits.)

And, let's face it - stuff which was tough and powerful-sounding in the middle ages might be cheesey and overblown to a modern audience.  Enter the Goldern Wyverns.

They just need to shorten it a bit.  Gold magic, or a Gold Adept.  Add Silver, Bronze, and a bunch of other metal names and you've got a better solution.  Or colours.  Didn't WOTC have one heck of a big success with something related to coloured magic already?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 9, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> I left that option off the poll because it is subjective. Whether or not Golden Wyvern is a good name is someone's opinion. The issue here is wether or not to use fluff names in core (non-campaign specific) games mechanics.



Well, I don't see how you can possibly _avoid_ any kind of fluff whenever you name something.

Even the "descriptive" name mentioned here has its own quality as fluff. "Spellshaper" is just as much a piece of fluff as "Golden Wyvern", it is just a different sort of fluff. To compare, Feat names like "Trip" is a purely fluff name for the ability to force a character to become prone. Something like "Knock Prone" is another way of adding fluff to the same concept, and has different implications for the way it is perceived, making it seem like a blow to knock the opponent off balance, rather than a trip with the foot or a weapon. As we have seen, "Dragon's Tail Cut" is another way of re-imagining the exact same mechanic, turning into inflicting a minor leg injury. Another example, the terms "Stormwalker" and "Lightning Mage" both have the same flavor impact on the game, except they are just different kinds of flavor.

The only difference between "Golden Wyvern" and "Spellshaper" is that the first one has a net benefit for the creative potential for the DM and his world, and the latter has a net detriment to the DM's creative potential. I know this may not be easy to believe, so let me explain.

If they choose purely dry and categorical names for magical schools, like "Spellshaping" or "Conjuration", then the existence of those schools tends to fade. A feat like "Trip" is not regarded as something that exists in the game world, it is regarded as being a pure mechanic. It is easy for players and DMs assume that the 3E schools, like Conjuration, are similarly removed from the game world, and are purely mechanics. This occurs quite a bit because of the dry name. Another probable result is that these dry mechanical terms will be used in the game, and as a result all magic in the game is peppered with dry, categorical names that do not evoke anything or sound impressive or magical. Making a magical school stand out and have a personality of its own is made a _lot_ harder when this happens, and most mages start sounding like rulebooks in game, and worse, all the different traditions start to blend in as merely alternative wizards, and arcane magic becomes homogenized.

I guess another way of phrasing this is that I want there to be interesting, flavorful groups and traditions of mages in my own game. When D&D uses strictly mechanical and categorical names for everything, then the flavor of those names is just as permeating and damaging to that effort as the anti-Golden Wyvern group is claiming the GWA feat to be. I can always change the name of the magical tradition Golden Wyvern, but if no one in the game expects magical traditions like Golden Wyvern to exist in the first place, then adding them in a meaningful way is a lot harder.

Argh, this is where having a single unified thread on this topic would come in handy. I posted my feelings on the new names a lot more clearly here.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 10, 2007)

Here is a list of real world secret societies (note can you spot the fake society?)

Skull and Bones
Freemasons
Rosicrusions
Ordo Templis Orientis
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
The Knights Templar
The Illuminati
The Bilerberg Group
The Priory of Sion
Opus Dei

How much differance is there in a name like Golden Wyvern from say Golden Dawn???

Note:  Most of these societies have little to do with their titles.  For example, Skull and Bones is not a group of pirates and Freemasons generally do not work with stone.  The Bilderberg Group is only known by the name of the hotel where this group first met and may not be the real name of the group.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 10, 2007)

I like the side bar option the most, but I can deal with things like Golden Wyvren spell shaper adept.  As long as I can have an idea of what feats I want to take a closer look when designing a NPC or PC by just skimming the names I'm satisfied.  I like the idea of flavor text added into side bars because it sparks ideas and it makes it more obvious to newer players that changing names around and alterations are a good idea for your campaign setting.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> Here is a list of real world secret societies (note can you spot the fake society?)



I think you've been reading too much Dan Brown or Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

And as I said, just because something's historically accurate doesn't mean it is appropriate for core D&D.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Here is a list of real world secret societies (note can you spot the fake society?)
> 
> Skull and Bones
> Freemasons
> ...




Do you have any idea from the names if you even want to look closer to see if its an organization you would be interested in joining?

If not then its not a particularly useful name for a rule book.  If I can't glance at the name and at least guess that it might be a good feat to look at for my character concept the name has failed its primary purpose in a games rule book, ease of use.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 10, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea from the names if you even want to look closer to see if its an organization you would be interested in joining?
> 
> If not then its not a particularly useful name for a rule book.  If I can't glance at the name and at least guess that it might be a good feat to look at for my character concept the name has failed its primary purpose in a games rule book, ease of use.




Could I tell from the words Red Mages or Mages of Thay that I would want to put tattoos on my butt?

Yet, if either of those terms replaced the Golden Wyverns would you be having this same concern?

The arguement on the usage of the name relating to the actual rule mechanics has not been in vogue in the gaming industry for almost two decades when games like Vampire started to appear and give names to Disciplines and Geas that often had little direct linkage to the ability.

Proof, I pulled my 1996 copy of Vampire Dark Ages off the self (could not be bothered going into the boxes to dig out copies of vampire and werewolf).  Here are the names of groups Assamite, Brujah, and Cappadocians which are now pretty much house hold words in the gaming community but back then were as alien as Golden Wyvern or Red Mages of Thay.  Here are some other names taken from the book 'Howling Lunacy', 'Fear of the Void Below', 'Ride the Wild Mind', and 'Reveler's Memory'.

I could get similar phrases from Arcana Unearthed, 2003, 'Mojh', 'Runechildren', and 'Iron Witch'.

All of these have the words, groups, and abilities as part of the material and it has not affected the customer interest.  Oppositely, it increased the customer interest to have these lexicons of words and phrases.

WotC is actually behind the trend of the industry when it comes to incorporating names for things in their books.


----------



## Tquirky (Dec 10, 2007)

> WotC is actually behind the trend of the industry when it comes to incorporating names for things in their books.



Irrelevant, because Vampire and the rest use WOD.  

In D&D, a key draw is worldbuilding.  It's core should reflect that, not compromise it.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> WotC is actually behind the trend of the industry when it comes to incorporating names for things in their books.



Have you EVER tried to homebrew from the WW systems?  It just doesn't work once you go beyond a painting over the facade level.   more than half of all campaigns are played in hombrews.  WoTC's own marketing research showed that.  And given the near impossibility of homebrewing WW material (at least the Storyteller based systems) that is the last direction WoTC should go it wants the new edition to succeed.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Could I tell from the words Red Mages or Mages of Thay that I would want to put tattoos on my butt?
> 
> Yet, if either of those terms replaced the Golden Wyverns would you be having this same concern?



If the feat was called Red Mage Adept or Mage of Thay Adept I would have the exact same concern because the exact same problem would exist.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Here is a list of real world secret societies (note can you spot the fake society?)
> 
> Skull and Bones
> Freemasons
> ...




So? None of these organizations exist in most campaigns either... they are just as much an ill-choice to name a feat after.

Golden Wyvern is a great bit of chrome to offer in a sidebar in the PHB or in a campaign building section of the DMG, but not as hard-wired into a feat that should be generically evocative of what it actually does.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> 1. The majority may already be happy with the proposed fluff+crunch balance. We have no way of knowing, and no poll on this site will ever tell you that.
> 
> 2. Perhaps there is no solution that "works for us all". You need to be willing to consider the possibility that the "best" solution overall will leave you unhappy. The solution that makes the most people happy may not be one that pleases you. You cannot make everyone happy about everything.
> 
> 3. I agree that some have been bashing the anti-GWA people. But several _have_ offered constructive criticism. I worry that you are treating anyone who disagrees with your position as if they are not respecting what you have to say, and thus dismiss what they have to say. I can respect your opinion and still completely disagree with it.



Can you explain why "Shape Spell" Immediately followed by "Golden Wyvern Adept" as the default in game name would not please the pro-GWA side.  There are times when win-win is easy to obtain.  And this seems one of them.  Why must one group be forced into a constraint when both sides can have what they want at the same time?

And you may not be able to get scientific data from an ENWorld poll, but I would readily wager that ENWorld is biased TOWARD the GWA side.  The more casual beer and pretzel gamers are underrepresented here.  And the kick in the door types I have known don't care about flavor beyond types of ale and colors of orc entrails.  I exaggerate for point, but only slightly.  There is certainly no presented evidence to support that GWA is favored by any majority.  Are you OK that you may be the one who ends up unhappy?  Hypothetically, would you make 55% unhappy so that the 30% you happen to be in is happy?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Can you explain why "Shape Spell" Immediately followed by "Golden Wyvern Adept" as the default in game name would not please the pro-GWA side.  There are times when win-win is easy to obtain.  And this seems one of them.  Why must one group be forced into a constraint when both sides can have what they want at the same time?



This may work for GWA, but remember this thread is also about "similarly named" things as well. It may not always work out nicely.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> 1. The majority may already be happy with the proposed fluff+crunch balance. We have no way of knowing, and no poll on this site will ever tell you that.
> 
> 2. Perhaps there is no solution that "works for us all". You need to be willing to consider the possibility that the "best" solution overall will leave you unhappy. The solution that makes the most people happy may not be one that pleases you. You cannot make everyone happy about everything.
> 
> 3. I agree that some have been bashing the anti-GWA people. But several _have_ offered constructive criticism. I worry that you are treating anyone who disagrees with your position as if they are not respecting what you have to say, and thus dismiss what they have to say. I can respect your opinion and still completely disagree with it.




1. That is possible. Enworld still represents a market sampling and the longer the poll runs, the more accurate it gets. If you ran surveys in many places (game stores, wotc's site, conventions, fan sites like this one, in the books themselves) sure you would get a better idea. But opening discussion on a world wide forum like enworld, where the discussion and input is fairly intelligent and the fan base is very dedicated, does a decent job of weighing the pros and cons.

2. Yes, I considered that. I understand that not everyone can be made happy by everything. With that said, my interests here are for the long term health of D&D and the hobby industry as a whole as I have a professional, invested interest in them both. I want D&D to do what it needs to do to bring in more customers and strengthen the existing market as much as it can. My position and opinion are based in my business experience as well as my hobbist interest.  

3. I realize it is not everyone, and more a vocal minority that is doing the bashing. But, I have seen very little reason given by those supporting Golden Wyvern Adept other than it a) doesn't bug them, b) they think it is cool because they don't do much fluff or c) they really like it. I have not yet heard a solution offered by the pro-GWA camp that takes into consideration the interests of those against fluff names in core products. Most of them say change the name of the feat if you don't like it, which doesn't address any of our concerns and it makes more work for us.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Could I tell from the words Red Mages or Mages of Thay that I would want to put tattoos on my butt?
> 
> Yet, if either of those terms replaced the Golden Wyverns would you be having this same concern?
> 
> ...




Those names have meaning because there is background and story attached behind them. Names for names sake does not create story, nor does it provide insight into what they do. You know what brujah and cappadocians are because white wolf wrote pages of world setting attached to them. That is the very reason these feats belong in a campaign settings book or a sidebar add on.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Here is something to consider, what if the fluff naming (shadowfel, emerald frost, etc) turns into a SRD nightmare where all of it is considered IP that can't be used by 3rd party publishers. Next thing we know, Paizo is making their own 4.0 or 3.75 and the D&D market splinters. That is one of the issues this naming convention could cause. Right now, Paizo and WOTC have a harmonious and shared customer base that nuture each other. WOTC might be kicking people out of the playground potentially, saying here is the scraps. 

Likewise, how does Paizo go and take their Pathfinder setting and squeeze in all of these new fluff ideas without it effecting the way the world feels. How does Iron Kingdoms redo their rulebook and have it feel like Iron Kingdoms when the warcasters have feats like Golden Wyvern Adept. What about if White Wolf gave Scarred Lands another go? Lets say they made World of Warcraft d20 for 4.0? How do you use the wizard orders in that rules set?

This is what we are trying to avoid. The anti-GWA camp doesn't like the idea of D&D telling us how to be creative by force. We want it optional. We want many worlds that can be plugged on with out having to rename a 100 feats to get rid of confusing fluff that hurts the look and feel of the campaign.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 10, 2007)

I voted for "remove the fluff names", but am beginning to think that the fluff names don't really matter. The 4e SRD will strip out the names, and I'm likely to use the SRD as a primary resource in the same way as I do the 3.5 SRD (since books aren't as available as the internet in many situations).

But even if the SRD didn't strip out the names and substitute more generic and utilitarian terms I don't think it will matter. It didn't in previous editions - for example, Mordenkainen didn't figure in any homebrews I took part in, but that didn't stop my mage from use his Faithful Hound. For us, Mordenkainen meant "insert powerful contemporary mage here!"

I don't see why it will be any different this time around. If I don't like the flavor provided with the meat, I'll just change it anyway.

It mechanics that encourage a certain type of play, or make assumptions about a certain type of flavor that I'm concerned about.


----------



## Smerg (Dec 10, 2007)

Ok,

In this thread I have shown

1>  The intellectual property and legal side to the choice of something like Golden Wyvern which is backed up by WotC developers like Mike Mearls.

2>  The naming is comparable to real world naming of organizations.

3>  The naming is comparable to gaming models that are used throughout much of the industry.  Partly for fluff flavour and partly for point number one.

In return I have received the counter arguement that is

We do not like the naming because it does not work for my campaign because it is not neutral enough.  Which really is not a properly proven arguement but a self opinion of what you want.

Unfortunately, as Mike Mearls pointed out in another thread, WotC does not produce specific things for individual campaigns.  They provide a rule set which provides the optimum of production value and fun that they can provide for a very wide audience.  This rule set though is shaped by the companies needs to protect itself and to hopefully make something more interesting then 'Mace hits Head'.

Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking.  At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 10, 2007)

am181d said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line on this discussion is "This isn't the optimal place to inject flavor text, as it makes it harder to keep track of what the feat does." The more of these feats WotC creates, the harder it will be to keep them all straight.
> 
> If their goal is really to inject more flavor into the game, it would be better to organize feat descriptions like this:
> 
> ...




I like this approach, but I have an objection:

Spell Shaper is not a good name for this feat.  I mean it works, but only if you don't have another feat which allows you to adjust the actual shape of the spell from say cone to line or sphere to wall.

Star Wars Saga has a similar feat called something like Gentle Strike, but that honestly sounds more like a Kung Fu or therapy technique than a puissant arcane technique.

Which points to the larger problem of GWA, it's a very hard feat to name except through some sort of branding device.

Either by having it be the only 'adept' feat with other tradition feats getting names like Ferocious Tiger Initiate or Jade Crucible Apprentice, which then become Adept, Initiate, and Apprentice when you strip the adjectives off.

Or by making all Golden or Wyvern or Golden Wyvern feats about exempting teamates from damage.

The other other approach would be to give the feat explicitly meta-gamey nomenclature like No-Team Kills Approach, but to my mind that breaks the flavor far worse than giving the feat some sort of Heraldry.



Huge Side Note:

Opus Dei isn't what I would call a secret organization.  Discrete perhaps, but they are pretty open to the public.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Lets say they made World of Warcraft d20 for 4.0? How do you use the wizard orders in that rules set?




Well, considering they didn't use the 3E core classes (going so far as to simply rename the fighter to "Warrior") for the WoW d20 game, I don't see how this is an issue in the slightest.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

A question posed for the pro-GWA feat people.

What happens when we have 100's of these, the D&D core rules could easily look like this:

Golden Wyvern Initiate (1st level)
Golden Wyvern Adept (11+ level)
Golden Wyvern Master (21+ level)

Plus, an initiate, adept and master for Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, Emerald Frost, and the one other order I don't remember its name.

That is 18 feats, minimum of 6. But I am sure there is at least 2 for each order.

Then, take the Fighter. Is there going to be martial styles like in 9 swords?
The Rogue, how about secret guilds?
The Cleric can have churches. 

So, now we have easily 60-80 feats with non-functional fluffy names. The DMs you are asking to bite the bullet and not make a big deal about this have to write up a two page document that has alternative feat names, the other DMs who use these orders have to find a place to stick minimum of 6 and up to 24 different training styles for the 4 main classes. 

That doesn't include the Warlock, Warlord, Ranger, Barbarian or Paladin. 

Then, every core book holds the potential of including a dozen or more of these types of named feats.

So, when Dark Sun CS comes out, they have to figure out how to fit in these basic rule modifying feats (like GWA) that should be available to any wizard, and take the order names and work them into a world where magic is based around stealing the life energy of the planet and most wizards are in hiding, for fear of being killed for following their art.

For that matter, Forgotten Realms now has these six orders? Greyhawk has them now? Ravenloft? This is where it doesn't make sense to make the heart of D&D harder to incorporate into other fantasy settings, espcially ones they plan on supporting in some fashion.

I know some people loved Book of Nine swords and some people hated it. I liked it, as it was optional and had some awesome ideas. But, if the player's handbook was made that way and I was forced to use the martial arts style inspired fighting in every campaign, it would get very old eventually. 

By flavoring the core mechanics, WOTC is forcing us to use salt everytime when I rather have pepper sometimes. What is so wrong about using sidebars or even the flavor text beneath the feat to convey the fluff instead of the actually mechanics name itself?

I will put it into another form for you guys. Lets say I love the six orders and I am using them the way D&D has them laid out. Then for whatever purpose, something happens in my game storywise that gives my Iron Sigil mages the ability to use the spellshaping power of the golden wyverns. Now I have to explain this all of the time, when instead I could have said that the paragon path of Iron Sigil has access to the spellshaper feat. 

The game rules should be adaptable to your campaign, not force you to play in the same world. They are going to alienate alot of DMs who do not want this. D&D needs to keep its DMs, not be driving them to other options or not support the RAW.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking. At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.



Nonsense, your points have been refuted quite neatly.  They involve games which have a default setting of a tweaked version of the real world (WOD) with everybody effectively using the same setting, or games which are popular as heavily flavoured supplemental to D&D yet wouldn't be appropriate for the core game (i.e. Arcana Unearthed) because, again, they depict a specific setting.

D&D happens to be much more popular than WOD games.  It might be because it allows people to realise their own fantasy worlds without getting in the way of them too much, something that WOD games can never do because they're too focused on a specific, exclusive flavour.  Imagine that.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> 1>  The intellectual property and legal side to the choice of something like Golden Wyvern which is backed up by WotC developers like Mike Mearls.



Which is a good argument against it.



			
				Smerg said:
			
		

> 2>  The naming is comparable to real world naming of organizations..



Which is irrelevant.



			
				Smerg said:
			
		

> 3>  The naming is comparable to gaming models that are used throughout much of the industry.  Partly for fluff flavour and partly for point number one..



You're talking WoD. We don't want Core D&D to become WoD.




			
				Smerg said:
			
		

> Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking.  At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.



I'm trying real hard to respond to this in a nice and friendly manner. Perhaps it's better I just ignore posts such as this. Let me just point out that your post doesn't help at all.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> Er, aren't they covered by open gaming content license rules?




Something to remember is they have to look beyond D20.  If any game, or novel, or video game or whatever, ANYWHERE has Spellshaper Adept in it, you can't use it because it's someone else's IP.  



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> IMO, "mythologically resonant" far outtrumps "historically accurate".  History is full of lame stuff, ignoble stuff, silly ideas that failed, and the posturing of the powerful and tasteless.
> 
> It's also broad enough that if you look long enough at history, you can probably justify anything.  (That said, mythology is full of lame stuff too - but they're generally not the "resonant" bits.)
> 
> ...




Kind of like say, Blue Star Adept.  Oh, wait.  That's from Theives World and was written thirty years ago.  Sorry, that's taken.  I'm willing to imagine that, somewhere, in someone's published fanasy novel, Gold Adept has appeared.  Are you willing to go out and license that name from some guy?  For every feat?



			
				Tquirky said:
			
		

> Irrelevant, because Vampire and the rest use WOD.
> 
> In D&D, a key draw is worldbuilding.  It's core should reflect that, not compromise it.




A key draw for YOU maybe.  The preponderance and enduring popularity of published game worlds shows that there are lots and lots of gamers for whom world building is not the key draw.  It certainly is a draw for a subset of gamers, but, is it a key draw?  I'm not so sure.  There's a 150 000 RPGA gamers out there who don't do any world building.  That's a pretty big chunk right there.

Remember, one of the key components of 4e is drawing in new blood.  Forcing new DM's to sit down for dozens of hours to create new campaign worlds is NOT a draw for new DM's.  

Can you use the rules to world build?  Of course you can.  Will you have to?  Nope.  And, now, you get more than a bland, flavourless world goverened by wealth by level guidelines.  Instead, in the DMG you get a starting town, a complete (if bare bones) history and elements that fit into that history.

Yay! We're going back to  Basic/Expert D&D.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> In this thread I have shown
> 
> 1>  The intellectual property and legal side to the choice of something like Golden Wyvern which is backed up by WotC developers like Mike Mearls.




Fair enough. They can still make mistakes though, look at spell caster multiclassing in the last edition.



> 2>  The naming is comparable to real world naming of organizations.




Ok, so lets take D20 modern and take all of your organizations and create feats connected to them. Lets say each one governs something specific, a modern resource, better than the others. Freemasons could have +2 bonus to government social rolls, the Rosucuricians could have +2 bonus to church based rolls, etc. 

So, I want to make a political character that is a Freemason Initiate of the 4th degree (or whatever) in order to get the bonus, but I don't want them to be a freemason? How do I do that?

1) what happens if the group's power struct or influence changes? Now, instead of moving a feat from one group to another, I need to explain it everytime.

2) what happens if I set my campaign before these groups existed? What if I move to a time in the future where they might be gone?

3) What if I don't want these groups in my game, but I want the feats?

4) What if I want these groups to have different effects or be represented by other feats that actually do something specific with the group instead of a generic modifier?

All of these issues create WORK for the DM. If the feat is instead changes to Government Infleunce or Church Influence and then I can say the Freemasons have government influence, etc.. it makes it much easier. Now my political non-freemason can have his feat, the freemasons can have it too and when the end of the world happens the feat for the freemasons can change as they move into a new power position then the current one.





> 3>  The naming is comparable to gaming models that are used throughout much of the industry.  Partly for fluff flavour and partly for point number one.




Almost every product in the gaming industry is tied to a setting. D&D hasn't REALLY been until now. Problem is, this is not a real setting, it is pieces and fragments of one they are using to inspire us. The fluff in other games have meaning because it ties to storylines. This fluff just exists to not be generic fantasy. With most of the elements here, that is ok. But the Feats and Talents are bad. Why not add in rules for Organizations, that is something that D&D could make good use of and keep simple. 



> In return I have received the counter arguement that is
> 
> We do not like the naming because it does not work for my campaign because it is not neutral enough.  Which really is not a properly proven arguement but a self opinion of what you want.
> 
> ...




D&D 2nd edition was all about other campaign worlds. D&D 3rd and 3.5 was somewhat like this with Forgotten Realms and Ebberron. WOTC even said they found their surveys told them players and DMs wanted options and tools for making their own worlds and that too many campaign settings fractured the market. This approach goes against giving DMs tools to make their own worlds by forcing them to use premade fluff. 

We want more than mace hits head. We want spellshaper so we an attach it to our own wizard orders, secret traditions or other methods of learning magic then being stuck with the idea of the six orders over our heads ALL THE TIME. This change with the feats is restricting most of the DMs, not helping them. 

I am not going to get into a flame war. There are points we have brought up that you are not considering. Still, you have not offered a solution that keeps in the orders and gives us freedom with the feats. 

We want to create our own fluff without having to make pages of errata to rename core player choices, what is so hard about that to understand? How is that us being childish or reduced to 'hit in head with mace'?

Our camp doesn't want to hear the words Golden Wyvern Adept unless the order/ school/ path/ secret society is in our game setting by our choice.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> I voted for "remove the fluff names", but am beginning to think that the fluff names don't really matter. The 4e SRD will strip out the names, and I'm likely to use the SRD as a primary resource in the same way as I do the 3.5 SRD (since books aren't as available as the internet in many situations).



This will cripple companies like Green Ronin, Paizo, White Wolf and Goodman Games trying to plug onto the corerule books through the SRD. It is very bad, and might be the reason WOTC is doing it if for some reason they want to get rid of the 3rd party publishers. 

Also, how do you SRD name Golden Wyvern Adept? Adept?


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> A key draw for YOU maybe.



Heh.  I think you'll find the stats may actually back me on this one.  Didn't the 3E research convey that the most popular setting was "homebrew"?  Given the paucity of settings since, I doubt the landscape has changed much (but that's speculation).

I think we had a massive thread earlier this year that suggested that many DM's precious worldbuilding was perhaps the biggest sacred cow of all.  People INVEST themselves in this stuff.  It's the hobby within the hobby, but we don't talk about it.  I wonder if WOTC agrees, or is aware of the possibility that this may be the case?

And "heh" because I'm one of the least likely people to indulge much in worldbuilding; I think it's mostly a waste of time.  Still don't want it dictated to me by an intrusive core, though.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Something to remember is they have to look beyond D20.  If any game, or novel, or video game or whatever, ANYWHERE has Spellshaper Adept in it, you can't use it because it's someone else's IP.




That is not entirely true. It has to do with how protected the name is, how it its used in context and what market the trademark or copyright is used in and whether the company registered it. Like, Spell Shaper or Spell Shaping Adept couldn't be protected unless it is a pronoun and then it is stopped from being a name of a person, place or thing. It can still be used as a descriptor. This is because it is a combination of common words. Putting Spellshaper together might make it copyrightable. Like Skywalker. That is one of the reasons, George Lucas uses such weird names (aside from the otherworldly feel) with Star Wars. Same thing with characters like Dritzz or Elminster, they are made up words and easier to protect. Words have to be registered as trademarks and brands to be protected. Golden Wyvern Adept could be a registered trademark.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Heh.  I think you'll find the stats may actually back me on this one.  Didn't the 3E research convey that the most popular setting was "homebrew"?  Given the paucity of settings since, I doubt the landscape has changed much (but that's speculation).
> 
> I think we had a massive thread earlier this year that suggested that many DM's precious worldbuilding was perhaps the biggest sacred cow of all.  People INVEST themselves in this stuff.  It's the hobby within the hobby, but we don't talk about it.  I wonder if WOTC agrees, or is aware of the possibility that this may be the case?
> 
> And "heh" because I'm one of the least likely people to indulge much in worldbuilding; I think it's mostly a waste of time.  Still don't want it dictated to me by an intrusive core, though.




Yes, they did find that with their research. 

This is why the fluff feats are bad for us DMs who enjoy this. It is like being told to use pen when you want to draw in pencil etc. Tomato sauce when you want to use curry. Play guitar when you want to play drums. etc.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, considering they didn't use the 3E core classes (going so far as to simply rename the fighter to "Warrior") for the WoW d20 game, I don't see how this is an issue in the slightest.




I realize that, but I was trying to make a point. Lets say White Wolf was going to make a FRCS style guide for WOW and add it onto the players handbook. Feats like GWA hurt the feel of Azeroth. 

Again, my comment taken out of context by someone in the pro-GWA camp trying to make a point. This is the kind of stuff I wish people would stop doing and focus on the main issues at hand. It is frustrating.

No offense to you Mourn, I am not meaning to seem like I am attacking you. Just please don't ignore my intent to try and prove me wrong. It is the whole of my post you took that from that matters and not that small out of context bit.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Yes, they did find that with their research.
> 
> This is why the fluff feats are bad for us DMs who enjoy this. It is like being told to use pen when you want to draw in pencil etc. Tomato sauce when you want to use curry. Play guitar when you want to play drums. etc.



I completely disagree.

As I stated in my earlier post, there are just as many problems for worldbuilding if you use flavorless names. Also, having flavorful names in the PHB is a great tool for the kind of patchwork worldbuilding that is easiest for new DMs and DMs without a lot of free time. They establish an interesting base that can be altered and molded into a fun campaign setting.

There are many degrees of worldbuilding, and for any kind of worldbuilding which is less extensive than a Dark Sun style complete rebuild, the new magical traditions can add something valuable.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Heh.  I think you'll find the stats may actually back me on this one.  Didn't the 3E research convey that the most popular setting was "homebrew"?  Given the paucity of settings since, I doubt the landscape has changed much (but that's speculation).
> 
> I think we had a massive thread earlier this year that suggested that many DM's precious worldbuilding was perhaps the biggest sacred cow of all.  People INVEST themselves in this stuff.  It's the hobby within the hobby, but we don't talk about it.  I wonder if WOTC agrees, or is aware of the possibility that this may be the case?
> 
> And "heh" because I'm one of the least likely people to indulge much in worldbuilding; I think it's mostly a waste of time.  Still don't want it dictated to me by an intrusive core, though.




I question the idea of paucity.  There are dozens of published settings out there.  The big 2 from WOTC, with a book pretty much every month or so, plus the 3rd party settings.  If you move outside of WOTC, there's literally dozens of settings.

Again, I agree that for many DM's world building is a sacred cow.  Yup, I remember that thread.  But, again, with 150 000 RPGA gamers, this sacred cow may only be sacred to a small number of gamers.  Like hardcore gamers who take the time to post on message boards.  

An intrusive core means you have less worldbuilding to do since it's already done for you. 



> That is not entirely true. It has to do with how protected the name is, how it its used in context and what market the trademark or copyright is used in and whether the company registered it. Like, Spell Shaper or Spell Shaping Adept couldn't be protected unless it is a pronoun and then it is stopped from being a name of a person, place or thing. It can still be used as a descriptor. This is because it is a combination of common words. Putting Spellshaper together might make it copyrightable. Like Skywalker. That is one of the reasons, George Lucas uses such weird names (aside from the otherworldly feel) with Star Wars. Same thing with characters like Dritzz or Elminster, they are made up words and easier to protect. Words have to be registered as trademarks and brands to be protected. Golden Wyvern Adept could be a registered trademark.




IANAL, so, I don't know how true what you just said is.  I do know that WOTC and Hasbro spend more money each year than I make answering this question though.  

Considering your own poll shows that most people don't want to change to a flavourless descriptive title, bringing up Spellshaper isn't really the point.  I was answering the point that you could make simpler, or more generic flavour titles.  You can't.  Because they're already taken.

It works from both ends.  The simple terms have long been taken and the complex terms can be protected.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

I would like to add (yet another <rolls eyes at self>) comment:

I am a professional in the industry. My wife and I have visited hundreds of gaming stores, travelled to tons of conventions, paid attention to all of the successes and failures in the industry for the last 20 years. We have a very progressive game store. I interact with every aspect of the gaming industry on daily basis. 

Sure, this is not going to kill D&D. But it does step on a specific type of DM that D&D does not want to lose. RPGs are becoming inbreed by groups natural inclination to play amongst friends. This is causing younger and younger players to be locked out and drawn to games like WOW, and fewer and fewer strangers to be brought into groups.

One of the best things good DMs can do is go into a game store or a convention, convince a bunch of non-D&D players to play a session, and then blow those players socks off. So far, this has been an uphill battle. WOTC needs a way to sanction DMs and reward them for finding and creating new players in game stores. That is the solution.

Feats like GWA are an attempt to put cool sounding fluff in front of the new player who picks up D&D for the first time. I get that. Problem is, it also does it at the expense of the DM who D&D can not afford to loose. At the heart, this is what this debate is about.

I am not discussing these matters with people in my store. I do not want to influence buying decisions or cause drama there. That is not the place for it. The point of this poll and these discussions is to find a win/win solution for a problem WOTC might not be aware of or a sacrifice they may think they are willing to make. 

When you change a key part of a game, you risk losing its loyal fan base. Hobby games are already niche, they do not pull in mainstream, and cannot lose their core customers. Whenever a successful hobby game has done a 180 on its players, the game has shot itself in the foot. 

A few examples:

White Wolf did this with the setting of their world of darkness. Right now the rules are the best they have been, but most customers hate the new setting or more accurately, miss the original setting (and the reason they played the game as WOD is setting driven). Monte Cook speaks about mastery of the game, this occurs in different levels. With WOD it was the familiarity with the Fluff. White Wolf I am sure blames the drop in WOD sales to D&D 3.0 and 3.5, but that is only a small part of the issue. Most fans are frustrated that the good storylines of the original World of Darkness were chucked with the bad ones.   

Recently, Rackham did something similiar by alienting their customers. Their customers loved their beautiful miniatures more than any other part of the Confrontation game. When Rackham announced not only they were changing the game's rules, but also dropping the metal minis and going to prepainted plastic ones, they angered their customers and lost a huge market share, now the company is filing the equalivent of a chapter 11 in France. 

Games Workshop continues to skate this edge with Warhammer 40,000. The universe is amazing, deep and very original. But, many of the hardcore players I have known over the years are frustrated with the last two rule sets as they do not reflect even psuedo-realistic fire fight tactics. The game has rule issues that occured when they streamlined the system at 3rd edition and those issues are still not addressed. Warhammer 40,000 would have a much larger customer base today if they had corrected this aspect of the game.   

Even World of Warcraft (yes I know, 10 million players .. worldwide that is) did this to a lesser extent. It used to be EVERY gamer played. Now only a small percentage do. I know they have gained a huge following, but much of that is over seas. Alot of the first players fell away from frustration with a) not being able to raid to continue to see end game b) losing PVP to instanced battlegrounds c) the lack of the fun, flowing feel the game had in its first year being lost to speedbumps placed. My point, even Warcraft lost customers by going against the feel of a Blizzard game that WOW had at first. They have yet to recapture that or get PVP really working. With Warhammer Online coming, Blizzard may lose 3-4 million subscribers if they can't fix those areas of their game properily.

My point, when you change the heart of the game away from the key reasons your customers play it, you are going to lose customers. You need to make sure you really understand that.

D&D can afford to lose alignment, it can lose vacian spell casting, it can lose hit points and armor class even, as long as it feels like D&D adventuring and the typcial four classes. Part of D&D though, is the ability for it to become the framework for your own worlds if you desire it too. People have put years of hard work into their campaign settings. Removing obstacles for that to occur is good, finding ways to enocourge and support that is even better. Those become long term customers who stick with your product because it still offers them what they love about the game. 

We feel D&D is risking losing something very key at its heart. It is going to tell us how to flavor our worlds. It is going to force that on us. This is something the Anti-GWA camp doesn't want.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I completely disagree.
> 
> As I stated in my earlier post, there are just as many problems for worldbuilding if you use flavorless names. Also, having flavorful names in the PHB is a great tool for the kind of patchwork worldbuilding that is easiest for new DMs and DMs without a lot of free time. They establish an interesting base that can be altered and molded into a fun campaign setting.
> 
> There are many degrees of worldbuilding, and for any kind of worldbuilding which is less extensive than a Dark Sun style complete rebuild, the new magical traditions can add something valuable.




By placing them in a sidebar and removing the feat tied to the order, you make both camps happy. The tools are there for new DMs and players and the DMs and players who do not want it can build around the feat as they wish. What if I want a Wvyern to be worshiped as a god, or what if the golden wyverns are an order of knights in my campaign world already and we have been playing for 10 years. This named feat forces me have to adapt to their throwing some fluff into the core rules, fluff they could have stuck in a sidebar or the flavor text under the feat's name and gotten the very same result. The DMs and players who do not want this are losing much more than the ones who do want this gain.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> I question the idea of paucity.



Okay, you're right that there've been non-WOTC settings.  Their fate sort of speaks for itself, though - are there many left in print, still d20'd?


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

The bottom line is it forces DMs to adapt their fluff to the fluff in the core books. Until now, D&D has not done that to its DMs to this degree. Sure, a few spells and gods, but not key building blocks for players to make the characters from. It is a hassle for a DM who doesn't want to have his campaign take these orders or other fluff driven feats into his game. This sort of naming belongs in setting books or sidebars. 

The pro-GWA camp make it sound like this is not an issue, or that we are overreacting. But once this box is opened, it can continue to fighting styles, thieves guilds, churches, and other fluff driven by this smattering of assumed setting D&D is placing on the game now. 

Even planes of existance and races are not as big a deal. Campaign Setting books usually replace those with their own, but key feats that affect basic class abilities is a big deal and impossible to ban and replace without causing confusion. 

Likewise, the customer most stepped on by this is the homebrew DM. The one who has been playing for years and years, loyal through all editions he played. With years of creative and hard work, similar to a writer or artist, he is being told to alter that creation or ignore a potential intrusion into his game. 

Should Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance drop these orders into their settings now? Should every D&D setting? I be curious what Tracy Hickman and Margret Weis think. How about asking Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore? At that point, these orders become boring and old hat, impossible to get away from. Next time the creative teams at WOTC start cooking up new settings, they are going to have their hands much more tied than those who worked at TSR. They will see the mistake then. 

This issue is bigger than people realize. It smacks in the face of the creative design side of the D&D rules, forcing the DM to use elements against his will. That is a mistake all in all, and steps on the most valuable resource D&D has, its commited and creative Dungeon Masters.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, I agree that for many DM's world building is a sacred cow.  Yup, I remember that thread.  But, again, with 150 000 RPGA gamers, this sacred cow may only be sacred to a small number of gamers.  Like hardcore gamers who take the time to post on message boards.




That might be, except that one DM is more important and outweighs all those other players that outnumber him. He creates new players everytime he lets someone new play. DMs spend 5-10 times as much on their gaming materials as a common player too. Players who do not DM do not do this. WOTC has confirmed this is true. So, those DMs are more important than you are making them out to be. This direction in fluff directly steps on most of those DMs and is offensive to their commitment and hardwork.

That is why this is so important. You piss those DMs off enough to stick with 3.5 or move to another game and 4.0 is going to take a solid hit.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> As I stated in my earlier post, there are just as many problems for worldbuilding if you use flavorless names.



I dispute that.  What if it was a Gold Adept or Gold Magic, rather than Golden Wyvern Adept?  Much less intrusive, and yet still somewhat flavourful.  Just not jarringly flavourful.

Probably not trademarkable, though, which is probably why we're not seeing it.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> By flavoring the core mechanics, WOTC is forcing us to use salt everytime when I rather have pepper sometimes. What is so wrong about using sidebars or even the flavor text beneath the feat to convey the fluff instead of the actually mechanics name itself?



I am curious about those who hate the name. 

Did you have similar problems incorporating Mordenkainen, Bigby, Drawmidj (bloody stupid anagram names), the Eye and Hand of Vecna, the Apparatus of Kwalish, Keoghtoms Ointment, Ehlonnas Quiver or a chunk of the Greyhawk Pantheon?  That is just the stuff out of the core material, every splat book has added a load of new organisations to use or not as you see fit.

As I understand it we know that the feat is not tied into an organisation it is simply an unusual name.  Personally i think it is a bit of a daft name but it is as easy to ignore as the rather silly Machine of Lum the Mad.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Okay, you're right that there've been non-WOTC settings.  Their fate sort of speaks for itself, though - are there many left in print, still d20'd?




How many settings, other than FR have ever stayed in print?  2e saw a raft of settings, all have vanished or at least greatly reduced in presence.

What's your point?  You said that there were not many settings out there.  There's as many settings for 3.5 as there was for 2e and FAR more than there was for 1e.  

Najo - about the RPGA.  You do realize that RPGA has DM's right?  That of those 150 k players, 1/5th are DM's (or thereabouts?).  

I question your assumption that world building DM's are a large group in D&D.  I think the far larger group is the patchwork DM who steals and borrows whenever he wants and only creates setting material when forced to.  There's also a sizable section of the hobby that uses pre-published settings.

I would hazard a guess, based on what WOTC is doing, that the world building DM is actually a very small minority of the hobby.  That possible losses in this group will be offset by potential gains in the patchwork DM group.  

The problem is, catering to the worldbuilding DM makes the game harder for new DM's.  After all, why would I spend all the money getting into D&D, only to have to spend dozens, if not hundreds, of hours detailing a world before I can even start to play?  The new DM just wants to play.  But, the 3.5 DMG tells me, as a new DM, that I should create an entire world (either top down or bottom up - doesn't matter).  It goes into pretty large detail - demographics, political entities, economics etc.  That's very, very daunting to a new DM.

Why not make D&D much easier to play out of the box?  Why cater to a small section of the fans, when those who use published settings, and those who use patchwork settings, couldn't care less about the level of flavour in the core rules?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> I dispute that.  What if it was a Gold Adept or Gold Magic, rather than Golden Wyvern Adept?  Much less intrusive, and yet still somewhat flavourful.  Just not jarringly flavourful.
> 
> Probably not trademarkable, though, which is probably why we're not seeing it.




I'm sorry, but, how is that less intrusive or jarring.  How many campaigns out there DON'T have wyverns?  Seriously?  I'm betting that the overwhelming majority of campaign worlds out there have wyverns in them.  So, adding the word "wyvern" to the title isn't going to have any impact in the vast majority of campaigns.

Or at least, it would have exactly the same impact as Gold Adept.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> I am curious about those who hate the name.
> 
> Did you have similar problems incorporating Mordenkainen, Bigby, Drawmidj (bloody stupid anagram names), the Eye and Hand of Vecna, the Apparatus of Kwalish, Keoghtoms Ointment, Ehlonnas Quiver or a chunk of the Greyhawk Pantheon?  That is just the stuff out of the core material, every splat book has added a load of new organisations to use or not as you see fit.
> 
> As I understand it we know that the feat is not tied into an organisation it is simply an unusual name.  Personally i think it is a bit of a daft name but it is as easy to ignore as the rather silly Machine of Lum the Mad.




Spells have the names of greyhawks uber wizards, characters that were tributes to Gary Gygax and the other creators of the game. I get that. If I use them, they seem like weird ancient wizards lost to time, if I don't them and I drop them from my game, they are hardly noticed being gone.

Same thing goes with magic items, more weird names and references to obscure things from an unknown past or a long dead wizard. For the ones that are really bad, I can choose to use them or not or I can easily rename them. Like available spells, I as DM can control their inclusion in my game with very little effort.

A pantheon, that is easy to plug or un plug. The rest of the game does not use the pantheon in its mechanics or hardly at all. There is very little, must be a cleric of pelor type of feats or other abilities. Most D&D pantheons are designed to plug in and out. Every campaign setting changes them around, along with the planes of existance and how planar magic works over all. Again, this is standard fair for the D&D DM who makes his own worlds or uses a published campaign setting from WOTC or a 3rd party publisher.

Organizations, again, either I use them or don't. They do not tie to game mechanics. They are prebuilt ideas for me to change around and play with as I wish. I can use the maps, I can use the npcs, I can use concepts etc. Easy to rename and so on.

Now, feats. Specifically feats that do basic core mechanic/ base class modifications (i.e. spell areas of affect) and ties it to a wizard tradition/ order/ etc by a fluff name. 
1) because it is player chosen, I can not control its placement
2) because it is a core mechanic (spell area effect) I can not replace it easily. I either have to rename it or get rid of it, and thus complicate things for my player or my campaign.
3) because it has a fluff name, even though the character might call it something else, the players are going to constantly be using the term "golden wyvern adept" when refering to it. So your campaign is forced to bring in these fluffy feats. Because of the nature of the feat building fluff into the character, it is very likely a player embraces the concept of the feat (being an adept in a Order called the Golden Wyverns or learned from an ancient form of magical schooling called the Golden Wyvern technique or whatever). This colors and flavors the campaign setting in ways the DM can't control. It places setting elements just by a character making reference to it, which then leads characters to wonder at the nature of such a group or school. This in turn places the Golden Wyverns (and like named feats) into EVERY D&D campaign running in 4.0. As roleplaying reflects storytelling in all its forms, this is a short sighted and silly thing to do with core rules at best. 
4) because, feat and talent reference is necessary for the rules to core rules to function. Everything else can be ignored, but classes and their abilities cannot. If the feat is kept like this (and even worse considered product identity) then 3rd party publishers are done for.  

Renaming core rules on a character that the player choose and brings into play without the DM placing it in game is going to cause frustration. Not renaming those elements is going to frustrate the DMs who work hard on their worlds they have crafted and told stories in, It is going to frustrate many of the fans of official settings that suddenly have these shared ancient orders and identical magic in each setting. This just seems like a bad idea.

Why do that to those DMs and those campaign settings. Why take away a key part of D&D, the appearance of a rules set that for the most part lets you tell fantasy stories with your friends in creative ways. 

There is actually very little fluff in the 3.0 and 3.5 books. The designers knew that, and only put in a small amount in places the DMs were not bothered by it.

As for Golden Wyvern Adept not being an order, an adept is typically a member of a group who follows certain teachings when referring to the practice of magic. WOTC could be meaning it as an expert in Golden Wyvern techique, but I doubt it considering they have already referred to these as wizard orders with distinct training.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

*Post from MindWandererB on Andy Collins Site*

This is a direct quote from a poster named MindWandererB on Andy Collins website regarding the built in fluff, it illustrates the point and my concerns of losing these sorts of DMs. Please read, he has a very valid point and clearly expresses our concerns: 



> I've said it in other threads, but since the topic is up again: the core setting both is and is not a setting, and that makes a big difference.
> 
> When a bunch of players is getting together to run H1: Keep on the Shadowfell, then the core flavor is fine. The wizard schools can have proper names, the dwarves can be former slaves of giants, the tieflings and dragonborn can have their ancient war, the eladrin can half live on another plane, it doesn't matter. That's fluff, and when you're playing a "generic" game, it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Like available spells, I as DM can control their inclusion in my game with very little effort.




When it comes to this, I am of a different mind (which of course will not surprise you). The spells available in the PH are as available to the players as the feats. Or as un-available.

You come back to the idea that placement of spells is controlled by the DM, but Feats aren't. 

But both elements are present in the PHB, so players will be aware of their existence.

So the spells are known to the players, and they might want to use them at one time or the other. This is simple to control according to your thinking; just disallow them or don't include them in your home brew.

But I just can't get my head around the idea that you can't treat feats the same way. In my mind they are player chosen on the same level as spells, they sometimes even have prerequisites that you can use to limit access (no Golden Wyvern organisation in your world, then no Golden Wyvern Adept either), or you can just exercise the right of the DM to say no.

There will be parties without this feat, so the game will work without it. Hence, it is possible to remove it altogether, which would be akin to running a party of adventurers who never chose the feat in question, much the same situation as for a spell.

So it has to be prefectly possible to run a home brew without this feat. And I just don't see that it has to be incorporated in each and every published setting, much like the pantheons aren't the same in each and every setting.

As a side point, you have explained your reasoning clearly. Kudos. I just don't agree with the idea that you can't drop the feat.

/M


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> The bottom line is it forces DMs to adapt their fluff to the fluff in the core books. Until now, D&D has not done that to its DMs to this degree. Sure, a few spells and gods, but not key building blocks for players to make the characters from. It is a hassle for a DM who doesn't want to have his campaign take these orders or other fluff driven feats into his game. This sort of naming belongs in setting books or sidebar.




But I think here is one assumption that is wrong: Just because there is something like a "Golden Wyvern Adept" feat does not mean that the DM has to include some organisation behind it. 
"Gold Wyver Adept" is just a name used for a certain kind of alteration to magical effects. There might have been an organisation, there might have been a train of thought. But the name doesn't imply that much. 
It can imply that there exists a large "Gold Wyvern Academy", most members focussing on the war applications of combat, and known for their pivotal role during the second Orc invasion after the fall of the city Mythandor. Or it could refer to an ancient book written by a mage that was refered to as "The Gold Wyvern", a book that is still studied today for its comprehensive teachings about area spells.

The feat name in and on itself serves as a starting point for the DMs creation. "So, there is apparently this Gold Wyvern thingy, but what does this mean to me, in my campaign?", or for the player "hmm, Gold Wyvern Adapt sounds interesting, what's the story behind it?"
"Fluffy" names with little description attached will serve as a spark for the readers imagination. While "Spell Shaper" just sounds like from a technical handbook and only tells you "WoW, another power I can get!"


----------



## Ragnar69 (Dec 10, 2007)

I ask again, since nobody has answered it. Where is it stated that there has to be a Order of the Golden Wyvern? It could as well be the age old name of a magic technique.
Do we IRL have a Karate Order where everone ever learning karate automaticaly must be a member? I think not.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> This is a direct quote from a poster named MindWandererB on Andy Collins website regarding the built in fluff, it illustrates the point and my concerns of losing these sorts of DMs. Please read, he has a very valid point and clearly expresses our concerns:




I see the "dialogue" as a problem with the player. If the player won't accept the creative decisions of his DM, they have to sit down and have a talk about why they game together.

If people accept a new pantheon for my home brew, accept the removal of spells, removal of races such as halflings and elves, they sure won't argue about the background of some of the other races, or why a feat and organisation is gone. I have to do some explaining, sure, but that's the case with each and every home brew I've made, or for each and every 3rd party setting I've used. 

Want to play Midnight? Well, there's some explaining to do. And we still love it. Same with Iron Kingdoms. Sure they are third party, but in a sense all that means is that they are published home brews. And they work very differently from core D&D, dropping things that are very integral to the rules (no clerics, different spellcasting, e.g.)

A home brew will always require explanation as to how it works. It's the nature of a home brew that it is a different take on the world.

Sure, if the basic desing philosophy is "everything in D&D core has a place in my world" much like in Eberron, then I understand that the rules shape the design to a large degree. But then again, if you deliberately chose a design philosophy that limits your creativity, who's responsibility is that? Yours or the rules?

/M


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> I'm sorry, but, how is that less intrusive or jarring.



Because a simple type of colour, metal, or gemstone or the like doesn't sound cheesey in the way Golden Wyvern does.  And that's part of why people are complaining about it.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> How many settings, other than FR have ever stayed in print? 2e saw a raft of settings, all have vanished or at least greatly reduced in presence.
> 
> What's your point? You said that there were not many settings out there. There's as many settings for 3.5 as there was for 2e and FAR more than there was for 1e.



The fact that they don't stay in print might suggest to you that people may be homebrewing far more than using these settings.  

In fact, as I've stated earlier in the thread, WOTC's 3E research backs this up.  That's the point.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Spells have the names of greyhawks uber wizards, characters that were tributes to Gary Gygax and the other creators of the game. I get that. If I use them, they seem like weird ancient wizards lost to time, if I don't them and I drop them from my game, they are hardly noticed being gone.



I get where they come from.  it is as easy to drop their names from the spells as it is to adjust the name for a feat.  it is as easy to remove the spells as it is to remove the feat.



> For the ones that are really bad, I can choose to use them or not or I can easily rename them. Like available spells, I as DM can control their inclusion in my game with very little effort.



How is this different to a feat?



> Now, feats. Specifically feats that do basic core mechanic/ base class modifications (i.e. spell areas of affect) and ties it to a wizard tradition/ order/ etc by a fluff name.



The feat is not tied to an order as no order is presented.  Go watch some bad Kung Fu moves where the fighters quote fighting names at each other as they raise hell.  Golden Wyvern Adept no more has to imply an organisation as anything else. 



> 1) because it is player chosen, I can not control its placement



You are the GM.  You can control its use as much as you can say ban Disjunction or remove polymorph or power attack or anything else.  Of course I would suggest discussing it with the players first but you can certainly do it.  



> 4) because, feat and talent reference is necessary for the rules to core rules to function. Everything else can be ignored, but classes and their abilities cannot. If the feat is kept like this (and even worse considered product identity) then 3rd party publishers are done for.



Spells are the class abilities of casters.  If I have to include the idiotically named wizard Drawmidj just because one of his spells is in the PHB then this ruins the feel and flavour of my game.

Or possibly not.  



> There is actually very little fluff in the 3.0 and 3.5 books. The designers knew that, and only put in a small amount in places the DMs were not bothered by it.



Like spells, magic items, PrC's, Monk Abilities and dozens of organisations in splat books?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I see the "dialogue" as a problem with the player. If the player won't accept the creative decisions of his DM, they have to sit down and have a talk about why they game together.
> 
> If people accept a new pantheon for my home brew, accept the removal of spells, removal of races such as halflings and elves, they sure won't argue about the background of some of the other races, or why a feat and organisation is gone. I have to do some explaining, sure, but that's the case with each and every home brew I've made, or for each and every 3rd party setting I've used.



I absolutely agree. And on top of that, it's not only a problem with homebrews or 3rd parties. It's also with WotC settings. (Eberron introduces Dragonmarks, Houses, Half Elves become their own race and are more than half-breeds. Forgotton Realms enforces you to chose your personal diety, which usually is only relevant for Clerics, and it adds new languages)


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> it is as easy to drop their names from the spells as it is to adjust the name for a feat.



No it isn't. 

One of the following three names is Bigby's Clenched Fist with the name part removed for my campaign.  Can you guess which one?

Roaring Dragon
Clenched Fist
Mark of Death



One of the following three names is GWA with the name adjusted for my campaign.  Can you guess which one?

Purple Fire Dancer
Yellow Deer Stands
Red Wall Victory


Still just as easy?



And that is before you consider that even if someone turns D&D into a grade school lesson and memorizes a bunch of translations, they will still need to do more grade school memorization lessons to remember which thing GWA is when it is one a 40 randomly named feats.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> when it is one a 40 randomly named feats.




I'm really not up to date with the feat names. Is this naming convention being applied to that many feats? Is that confirmed?

/M


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I'm really not up to date with the feat names. Is this naming convention being applied to that many feats? Is that confirmed?
> 
> /M



40 was just a random example number.  30 wouldn't be any better.  50 wouldn't be any worse.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> 40 was just a random example number.  30 wouldn't be any better.  50 wouldn't be any worse.




Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.

50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?

/M


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> 50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?



We are still at one known.  We did have Dragon Tail Cut which was about as silly but that I believe got pulled.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.
> 
> 50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?
> 
> /M



If it is 1 or 5 then that will be much better than my assumption.  At least for me.  But since we know that there will be abilities for all classes I tend to doubt it is likely.  But maybe there is hope.  

I also wouldn't care much.

But I think that would be kinda the lose-lose scenario.  GWA would still have issues for those of us who don't like random names and those who do like it (I'm going on a limb here, but it looks sturdy) will likely be disappointed that they got so little.

But bottom line, yes, If it is 1 or 5 then a lot of the problem will go away.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.
> 
> 50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?
> 
> /M




We can safely assume there is at least one for each order, that gives us a minimum of 6. Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil, Hidden Flame, Stormwalker and Serpent Eye. The feat Golden Wyvern Adept is a paragon (level 11+) ability. All Golden Wyvern abilities deal with changing the areas of spells, while Emerald Frost deals with acid and cold effects. These "orders" replace the schools (necromancy, abjuration etc) and instead of dividing wizards by school specialization, wizards choose feats from their order (or something to that effect). 

Knowning these points, we can safely assume there is a heroic level feat and an epic level feat at least for each order. That puts the number of feats at 18, for one class.

Now, if they do anything similar with the other classes to give them fighting styles (note dragon tail cut mentioned earlier) and the work of the Book of Nine Swords, you are going to have roughly 6-18 feats per class. 

Even just going an average of 12 feats for the four main classes, that gives you 48. With 18 for wizard and 6 for each of all the other 8 classes confirmed that gives us 54 feats with names like that. 

This is what ALL of this is about. It is not about one feat, it is about having to deal with fluff being forced on us. I do not want to have to remove Golden Wyverns plus 5 other wizard groups, plus a handful of fightning styles, plus rogue's guilds, cleric churches or whatever else they decide on being fluffy with just so my players can use feats that manipulate the basic rules of the game. 

Is this becoming clear yet?

EDIT: It is rumored that the barbarian has a feat or talent called Lightning Pather Strike, just so everyone knows.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> We are still at one known.  We did have Dragon Tail Cut which was about as silly but that I believe got pulled.




Even half of the people in support of the fluff feats have said they are silly. Lol, its crazy.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.
> 
> 50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?
> 
> /M




It will start at least at a two or three dozen. Minimum. Then it will be used over and over again in every book. D&D is having fluff strapped on every place they can do it and the feats are the hardest part to remove it from. 

Ironically, I am ok with it most other places. Even spells to a point.

The reason why, is I can write my own races, spells, monsters, magic items etc. Just like a campaign setting. But redoing feats and talents gets messy. I can't rename them with out creating confusion and having to micro-manage it. All the rest is easy to remove or change. I have been running D&D for over 20 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official ones. I have years of Dark Sun and Planescape, with a little Ravenloft and then my own settings. I am not overreacting and I understand what these feats are going to do to the non-traditional and homebrew games. Trust me. This is a big deal.

Try this experiment. Change all of your metamagic feat names your players are using to a new name using one of these six orders. Now play on as normal, but no referring to the feat by any other name than the new order name. The name cannot have a functional description. So, you need to use things like Golden Wyvern Adept and Serpent Eye Cabalist. Now, do not put the orders in your setting and do not work them into the character's background. See how it goes over the next few weeks. Let me know the pros and cons and we will see where we are at.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> We can safely assume there is at least one for each order, that gives us a minimum of 6. Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil, Hidden Flame, Stormwalker and Serpent Eye. The feat Golden Wyvern Adept is a paragon (level 11+) ability. All Golden Wyvern abilities deal with changing the areas of spells, while Emerald Frost deals with acid and cold effects. These "orders" replace the schools (necromancy, abjuration etc) and instead of dividing wizards by school specialization, wizards choose feats from their order (or something to that effect).
> 
> Knowning these points, we can safely assume there is a heroic level feat and an epic level feat at least for each order. That puts the number of feats at 18, for one class.
> 
> Now, if they do anything similar with the other classes to give them fighting styles (note dragon tail cut mentioned earlier) and the work of the Book of Nine Swords, you are going to have roughly 6-18 feats per class.



thats an awful lot of assumptions there for something that we actually know very little about.

There could just as easily be 6 sample feats, 1 for each "order".  Just as easily GWA could be the only one.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> thats an awful lot of assumptions there for something that we actually know very little about.
> 
> There could just as easily be 6 sample feats, 1 for each "order".  Just as easily GWA could be the only one.



Roughly how many do you hope are in the book?  Would you prefer 1 to 6, or would you prefer 25+?


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> I have been running D&D for over 20 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official ones. I have years of Dark Sun and Planescape, with a little Ravenloft and then my own settings. I am not overreacting and I understand what these feats are going to do to the non-traditional and homebrew games. Trust me. This is a big deal.




Well, I've been running D&D for 21 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official adventures. I have years of experience with Ravenloft and Dragonlance, with a little Planescape on the side and a setting or two of my own. 

Trust me. This is not a big deal. 

To me.

/M


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Dec 10, 2007)

Keep it as is.  I'd rather the devs focus on more important issues with the game.  I can easily fix fluff I do not like, but mechanics are more of a problem.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Try this experiment. Change all of your metamagic feat names your players are using to a new name using one of these six orders. Now play on as normal, but no referring to the feat by any other name than the new order name. The name cannot have a functional description. So, you need to use things like Golden Wyvern Adept and Serpent Eye Cabalist. Now, do not put the orders in your setting and do not work them into the character's background. See how it goes over the next few weeks. Let me know the pros and cons and we will see where we are at.




Easy. My players aren't using any metamagic feats. They're soldiers with no magic-users in the party. So changing, or even dropping metamagic feats, won't have an effect on my current game.

EDIT: and, this is also why I fail to see why dropping the feat(s) is impossible. My current game has tons of feats that aren't being used, and never will, so in effect, we have dropped them. Works like a charm for us.

/M


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> EDIT: and, this is also why I fail to see why dropping the feat(s) is impossible. My current game has tons of feats that aren't being used, and never will, so in effect, we have dropped them. Works like a charm for us.




And that's fantastic for you, but it probably means this isn't a discussion you should have been concerned with in the first place. 

"People talking about a feat I will never use? OK, next thread!"

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Uzzy (Dec 10, 2007)

What's so wrong with just calling the feat 'Shape Spell (Golden Wyvern Adept)'?

Everyone gets what they want then. A generic feat name for homebrewers and a fluffy name for the inbuilt campaign setting. It's even easy to convert for campaign settings. You could have a list in the campaign setting books saying 'Shape Spell is referred to as 'Elminsters Shaping' in the Realms' or whatever.


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> This will cripple companies like Green Ronin, Paizo, White Wolf and Goodman Games trying to plug onto the corerule books through the SRD. It is very bad, and might be the reason WOTC is doing it if for some reason they want to get rid of the 3rd party publishers.
> 
> Also, how do you SRD name Golden Wyvern Adept? Adept?




There are two possibilities here: either the nomenclature is included in the SRD and 3rd parties can incorporate it (which is not a hindrance), or its not included (in which case its back to business as usual).

How is either one "crippling" when the OGL allows specifically for modification of OGC?


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Roughly how many do you hope are in the book?  Would you prefer 1 to 6, or would you prefer 25+?



I would rather none, as I have said I think it is a silly name.

But that isnt really an argument, its purely a matter of personal preference.  I dont see fluff included within the books as impinging on any game I run.  I will simply do what I have always done, use what fluff I like and change what I dont.  Its worked since Basic and it will still work when 5e comes out.


----------



## Rel (Dec 10, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking.  At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.




See you in three days, Smerg.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 10, 2007)

The complainers are going about this all wrong.

Look, I wrote up a very nice post on "Why we have golden wyvern adepts" that got all of a dozen and a half responses, then dropped off the front page in favor of complaining posts.  If you want to read me explaining at length in a nicer tone of voice, go there.

Here I'll just summarize real fast why the complainers don't understand this argument and why as long as they continue to not understand this issue, won't get what they want.

Spells have been redivided based on mechanical attributes, instead of the fluff based attributes (that admittedly had some mechanical implications, but not as many as you might think) that were used in 3e.

Now we've got new schools, that doesn't have an obviously fluff link like "necromancy."  They've got a mechanical link, like, "projects directly out from the spellcaster and favors fire as an element."  I don't remember if that's exactly one of the schools, but that's the gist of the idea.

These schools need names.

Further, WOTC wants to encourage people to specialize in schools, so that wizards have some variety of build instead of just having one polymath build option.  So they make feats for each school that augment the sorts of things that school likes to do.  This helps separate the wizard who might know a little bit of golden wyvern magic from the wizard who has really mastered the stuff, which is cool.

So anyways now you have feats that use the school's name in them.

This is why you can't just rename "golden wyvern adept" to "spell shaper."  It is deriving its name from the "golden wyvern" school of magic.  There are probably other feats, like "golden wyvern initiate" or "golden wyvern master" sitting out there, plus similar feats for every other school of magic in the game.

So if you want the golden wyvern adept renamed, coming up with "spell shaper" is an inadequate fix.  It doesn't even address the issue, frankly.  You need to rename probably around 18 feats.  And to rename those 18 feats, you FIRST need to rename six schools of magic.

-----------------------

Anyways, regarding some other points brought up in the thread.

1: It won't be hard to remember what Golden Wyvern Adept does because it will reference the golden wyvern school of magic, which you'll get used to using.  It won't be any worse than a feat like "Initiate of Mystra," and in fact will probably be easier on this score because there are loads more than 6 deities.

2: Players will probably assume that a golden wyvern school of magic exists.  My players always assume that the default pantheon is in, unless I specifically tell them otherwise, so I imagine this will be the same.  However, just telling my players "I'm not using the default pantheon, you can use feats that reference it but we'll just count them as applying to your particular god." has always worked for me before, and I can't see why it won't for me again.

3: This particular feat won't get referenced in game very much.  Players will just say things like, "I cast fireball centered on the fighter, but I leave him out of the blast."  You'll remember that the player can do that because the player does that every other time he casts a fireball.

4: If you're going to have schools of magic, martial disciplines, and religious orders, they need names.  I personally believe the game is better off for having all of these things.  I personally don't like it when default fluff intrudes on my game.  But I'm willing to accept the time it takes me to say "oh, that's just a discipline of magic in my game, it doesn't represent any order of wizards or anything," as an acceptable trade off for gaining improvement to game mechanics.

5: I find it interesting how heavy the fluff tends to be in expansion books, and how that seems universally accepted, compared to how even light fluff in core creates howls of rage.  I can see that expansions and core are different, but expansions REALLY pile on the fluff, often going so far as to dictate the explicit existence of organizations, detail how they get along with other organizations, mix in the default pantheon liberally, and even discuss how a particular class gets along with other types of character classes.


----------



## Uzzy (Dec 10, 2007)

That is your assumption only, Cadfan. The theory is a good one, but until a WoTC designer says things to that effect, that's all it is. A theory.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 10, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> It won't be hard to remember what Golden Wyvern Adept does because it will reference the golden wyvern school of magic, which you'll get used to using.  It won't be any worse than a feat like "Initiate of Mystra," and in fact will probably be easier on this score because there are loads more than 6 deities.




Well I can agree with this, but only because I don't think anyone on EN World will ever forget what Golder Wyvern Adept does for the rest of their lives after all these threads.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> One of the following three names is Bigby's Clenched Fist with the name part removed for my campaign.  Can you guess which one?
> 
> Roaring Dragon
> Clenched Fist
> ...




Very well said.  Maybe back in the day, they knew what they were doing when they added their flavor.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> I would rather none, as I have said I think it is a silly name.
> 
> But that isnt really an argument, its purely a matter of personal preference.  I dont see fluff included within the books as impinging on any game I run.  I will simply do what I have always done, use what fluff I like and change what I dont.  Its worked since Basic and it will still work when 5e comes out.



I have still yet to see a comparable example provided from a prior edition.

It isn't a matter of fluff.   It is a matter of effective communication.  The same concern would exist if a zero fluff name such as "Feat W24" was used.  I might even LOVE the name Golden Wyvern Adept.  The preference of one fluff over another issue is wholely beside the point.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 10, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> And that's fantastic for you, but it probably means this isn't a discussion you should have been concerned with in the first place.
> 
> "People talking about a feat I will never use? OK, next thread!"
> 
> ...




Nope, this was on one level a discussion about how severe the ramifications of this feat were on every future D&D product, and how a feat name relates to names of spells. Which I find interesting to discuss, if for no other reason than to provide the debate with another view of the severity of the problem.

But then again, there is nothing with any roleplaying game that I see as not fixable, and my basic philosophy is that I control my world, regardless of what the publishers say in their books. So maybe this Internet thing isn't for me.   

/M


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 10, 2007)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> That is your assumption only, Cadfan. The theory is a good one, but until a WoTC designer says things to that effect, that's all it is. A theory.




Actually, we know some of this for certain.  The fact that Golden Wyvern is a name drawn from a school of magic based around use of the staff is not, I think, in dispute.  This means that the objection to the name "Golden Wyvern" is a lot more structurally involved than just one feat.


----------



## Mad Mac (Dec 10, 2007)

> Spells have been redivided based on mechanical attributes, instead of the fluff based attributes (that admittedly had some mechanical implications, but not as many as you might think) that were used in 3e.




  I think your theory is a probably a little off, but the basic idea is likely correct--I seriously doubt the old 8 schools of magic will even exist in 4th edition, so some sort of spell organization is going to have to step in. I mean really, how could they? They have apparently refocused the wizard enough to make Summoning, Enchantment, and Necromancy non-viable specializations, while schools like Divining could easily be replaced largely by rituals. 

  The Cleric and Druid will also be heavily reworked, so there's no point in them continuing to reference the defunct wizard schools, either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 10, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The complainers are going about this all wrong.
> 
> Look, I wrote up a very nice post on "Why we have golden wyvern adepts" that got all of a dozen and a half responses, then dropped off the front page in favor of complaining posts.  If you want to read me explaining at length in a nicer tone of voice, go there.
> 
> ...



QFIP*
Quoted For Interesting Point


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> By placing them in a sidebar and removing the feat tied to the order, you make both camps happy. The tools are there for new DMs and players and the DMs and players who do not want it can build around the feat as they wish. What if I want a Wvyern to be worshiped as a god, or what if the golden wyverns are an order of knights in my campaign world already and we have been playing for 10 years. This named feat forces me have to adapt to their throwing some fluff into the core rules, fluff they could have stuck in a sidebar or the flavor text under the feat's name and gotten the very same result. The DMs and players who do not want this are losing much more than the ones who do want this gain.



I think you are getting to wrapped up in the specific name Golden Wyvern itself. If you have a wyvern worshipped as a god, or a group of knights already called Golden Wyvern, then just the name for your own campaign.

The same argument could be applied to the name Spellshaper, you know. What if there is a group of powerful demon wizards in someone's games called the Spellshapers? If you are talking about the chance that a specific name is already in use for a campaign, then no matter what name you pick, it will have a chance to be bad for _someone_.

Regardless, you didn't even touch on the main point of my post, which was that having a flavorful name has a real value, and I don't think such a value can be achieved with just a sidebar treatment.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> Even half of the people in support of the fluff feats have said they are silly. Lol, its crazy.



Let me bring up something you said earlier.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> I left that option off the poll because it is subjective. Whether or not Golden Wyvern is a good name is someone's opinion. The issue here is wether or not to use fluff names in core (non-campaign specific) games mechanics.



By your own statement, it doesn't matter whether someone thinks the names are silly or not. The only important thing is whether or not you like the idea of feats with fluff.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I have still yet to see a comparable example provided from a prior edition.



The Appartus of Kwalish.

Not only was it a great big metal robot thing it looked like a lobster and had a stupid name.  

In terms of killing versimiltude its right up there with Golden Wyvern Adept and yet I have been happily able to ignore it for 20 years.

Edit: of course thats just my opinion which you are free to disagree with and you may be entirely happy including it within your game.  Which is sort of the point in relation to GWA.  If it doesnt fit into your game then change the name, no one will notice anything different.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> There are two possibilities here: either the nomenclature is included in the SRD and 3rd parties can incorporate it (which is not a hindrance), or its not included (in which case its back to business as usual).
> 
> How is either one "crippling" when the OGL allows specifically for modification of OGC?




If its not included in the SRD, then 3rd party companies cannot refer to those feats in their character write ups. How is that not crippling? It was hard enough for companies to deal with the spell issue when they couldn't use the wizard names and specific monsters. Now, take the key feats for the wizard and strip them out of the game? Any 3rd party who wants to use that ability now has to make their own verison of the feat with another name and they all could (and likely will) end up with their own versions. 

That creates confusion and a feeling of the 3rd party products being inferior to official products even more. Considering as much as companies like Paizo have offered D&D that is pretty shady if that occurs. WOTC would be closing the door on 4e OGL without officially looking like they are to blame. The core mechanics need to have fluff removed for this reason alone.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Well, I've been running D&D for 21 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official adventures. I have years of experience with Ravenloft and Dragonlance, with a little Planescape on the side and a setting or two of my own.
> 
> Trust me. This is not a big deal.
> 
> ...




Okay, with Dragonlance, now you have Raistlin was part of the Iron Sigil Order? He spent time learning the Golden Wyvern techniques between joining the Order of the Black Robes and becoming a god? The white, red and black orders are totally stepped on by these new six wizard orders, it goes against the setting's official lore of magic during the war of the lance. Afterwards, during the age of mortals makes even less sense as the wizards do not have any orders and magic is raw again.

In planescape the factions are the key organizations and mortal orders would be meaningless, so now these wizards orders are found on EVERY single world across the planes? 

In ravenloft, the orders do not even feel right theme wise. In a setting as grim and frightening as Demiplane of Dread, wizards are tied to feats called Golden Wyvern Adept? Let alone trying to find a way to make since that traditions like these exist in a place made up of the bits and pieces of kingdoms and realms belonging great forces of evil from across multiple worlds and realities. It just takes something from the themes of the setting. 

Lets say I am reading new novels for each of these settings, and in them all, the wizards are tied to these orders. The fighters tied to specific fighting styles etc. It is a big deal.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Easy. My players aren't using any metamagic feats. They're soldiers with no magic-users in the party. So changing, or even dropping metamagic feats, won't have an effect on my current game.
> 
> EDIT: and, this is also why I fail to see why dropping the feat(s) is impossible. My current game has tons of feats that aren't being used, and never will, so in effect, we have dropped them. Works like a charm for us.
> 
> /M




Start by using magic users and then you will make use of feats like this. Since you aren;t, now try renaming the feats your group is using and see how that goes instead. 

These new feats are not rare, obscure effects. They are ones every wizard is going to want to make use of. Keep in mind, 4e characters have more feats and talents than 3.5 characters.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Okay, with Dragonlance, now you have Raistlin was part of the Iron Sigil Order? He spent time learning the Golden Wyvern techniques between joining the Order of the Black Robes and becoming a god? The white, red and black orders are totally stepped on by these new six wizard orders, it goes against the setting's official lore of magic during the war of the lance.



In the same way they were stepped on by the appearance of such luminaries as Tenser, Bigby, Mordenkainen and Vecna?  

I thought not.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Lets say I am reading new novels for each of these settings, and in them all, the wizards are tied to these orders. The fighters tied to specific fighting styles etc. It is a big deal.



Another huge assumption without any actual evidence.  

The novels tend to go there own way and have certainly already introduced a fair few organisations.  FR ones are packed with them, does that impact on your game?


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> In the same way they were stepped on by the appearance of such luminaries as Tenser, Bigby, Mordenkainen and Vecna?
> 
> I thought not.




We have already shown how the greyhawk spells are not the same thing as forcing wizard's magic to fit into these orders. The original specializations were more open to adapting to individual worlds and concepts than these current ones are.

I want to see one of these examples that are comparable to this. 

Spell names, magic items, monsters, etc DO NOT compare.

You give me examples of core class abilities and feats from previous editions, that players used constantly, with this sort of fluff attached and then we have a comparable example. Those examples cannot come from setting books either (like initiate of mystra) because those things belong there. I am talking generic D&D core rules.


----------



## rounser (Dec 10, 2007)

> In terms of killing versimiltude its right up there with Golden Wyvern Adept and yet I have been happily able to ignore it for 20 years.



That's because it's a magic item.  Monsters, spells, and magic items either get little screentime or are easily excluded and replaced.  Core races, classes and feats, much less so.


----------



## Najo (Dec 10, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> Another huge assumption without any actual evidence.
> 
> The novels tend to go there own way and have certainly already introduced a fair few organisations.  FR ones are packed with them, does that impact on your game?




No, because those things are released where fluff is important, in SETTING books. We just want our CORE rule books (PHB, DMG, MM) fluff nuetral as possible, thats all. We want those to be areas to build onto with out first having to clear a bunch of junk out of the way. Is that unreasonable for us to ask? An entire style of DMing and adding onto the game systems is being messed with this approach to rules they are taking this time around.


----------



## Counterspin (Dec 10, 2007)

Feat names really don't come up at my table.  I presume that these names will be used to group feats by function while still listing them in alphabetical order, and I approve of that.  Even if I disliked the Gold Wyvern name, I'd never hear it, just "I'm fireballing here and excluding this, this, and this space."  As for the presumption that there be an actual organization called the Golden Wyverns, it is either A) untrue, or B) will have no impact on my game because I will ignore it.  I homebrew, and I don't see what anyone's problem is.


----------



## jensun (Dec 10, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> No, because those things are released where fluff is important, in SETTING books. We just want our CORE rule books (PHB, DMG, MM) fluff nuetral as possible, thats all. We want those to be areas to build onto with out first having to clear a bunch of junk out of the way. Is that unreasonable for us to ask? An entire style of DMing and adding onto the game systems is being messed with this approach to rules they are taking this time around.



It isnt unreasonable but you are starting from the assumption that fluff issues arent already included in the game.  They are there, they just dont bother you because they fit in with your view on what the game is about.  They may be easier to ignore (although frankly I think thats hooey) but they are there. 

This is simply a clash of perceptions.  You dont see this as fitting into your game, I am sure lots of people will like it.  If you dont like it take it out.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 10, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The fact that Golden Wyvern is a name drawn from a school of magic based around use of the staff is not, I think, in dispute.



I sincerely hope you're wrong. If this fiasco about one feat name is any indication, the existence of an entire Golden Wyvern school of magic would likely drown this entire message board in threadcrap from now 'til 5th Edition.

_ _ _

On a related note, I must admit that I find the debate in this potentially-constructive thread becoming rather tedious. From what I can see, most posters are saying "I could go either way" or "the fluff could be retooled to make it better" or "this could make both sides happy."

But there seems to be a vocal minority more interesting in waving pro-GWA and anti-GWA flags than debating the best way to utilize fluff. I would like to pose a question to both camps in this particular group: can anything be said that would change your mind about your own position?

If the answer to that question is "no," I have a follow up question. There is no reason to believe that advocates of the opposing opinion are any easier to win over than you are. And the people in the middle have plenty of options that are neither for nor against you. So what is being accomplished by continuing to restate your argument in this thread?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Okay, with Dragonlance, now you have Raistlin was part of the Iron Sigil Order? He spent time learning the Golden Wyvern techniques between joining the Order of the Black Robes and becoming a god? The white, red and black orders are totally stepped on by these new six wizard orders, it goes against the setting's official lore of magic during the war of the lance. Afterwards, during the age of mortals makes even less sense as the wizards do not have any orders and magic is raw again.
> 
> In planescape the factions are the key organizations and mortal orders would be meaningless, so now these wizards orders are found on EVERY single world across the planes?
> 
> ...



As has been repeated several times in this thread, there is not necessarily any such thing as "The Iron Sigil Order". Things like Golden Wyvern and Iron Sigil were described as "traditions". There is a distinct difference between traditions and organizations. If it helps any, think of the different traditions as more closely resembling the old spell schools, than the Order of the Black Robes.

Think of it this way: within the Order of the Red Robes, there are several different traditions, each championed by different particular wizards. Certain traditions, like Golden Wyvern, might be studied by all three Orders, while others, like Serpent Eye, might only be studied by the Order of Black Robes. After the end of those orders, these traditions survive, passed down through individual tutors and magic tomes.

Think of it like the various martial arts traditions of real world history. Various forms of Kung fu were started by temples and various peasant communities, but after these temples were banned from practicing martial arts, the traditions did not vanish, they were taken up by the various Triad gangs, very different groups who studied them for completely different purposes. These days, these same traditions are studied by countless people unrelated to either ancient Chinese temples or the Triad gangs.

Keep in mind, before relatively modern times, there were no schools or organizations of instruction. If you wanted to learn _anything_ whether it was a fighting style, a craft, a form of art, or any literary pursuit, you had to go and find a person willing to tutor you. I think it helps if you think of the traditions being passed down in such an environment, rather than anachronistic things like large and elaborate universities and super-guilds.


----------



## rounser (Dec 11, 2007)

> Think of it this way: within the Order of the Red Robes, there are several different traditions, each championed by different particular wizards.



Now, that would have been a cool solution: colours.  Why aren't they doing this again?  Oh yeah, lawyers.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 11, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you're wrong. If this fiasco about one feat name is any indication, the existence of an entire Golden Wyvern school of magic would likely drown this entire message board in threadcrap from now 'til 5th Edition.



Err... This was already confirmed back in September. It was the first we ever heard about Golden Wyvern, in the Wizards and Wizards Implements Design and Development article. Here is the link to the article.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 11, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> I don't see what anyone's problem is.



I think that is why you haven't demonstrated the ability to offer a good solution.    
If you can't see the problem then it is really hard for you to solve it.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 11, 2007)

jensun said:
			
		

> The Appartus of Kwalish.
> 
> Not only was it a great big metal robot thing it looked like a lobster and had a stupid name.
> 
> ...



Actually that is pretty much exactly NOT the point.    I don't give a flip about the names killing versimiltude.  
The fit of the name has nothing to do with it, as has been stated and ignored repeatedly.  
If I loved GWA and it fit my game perfectly it would still have the exact same problem.  If GWA was named something as dumb as Wizard Feat 28 which didn't fit anyone's campaign it would again have the exact same problem.

The biggest problem comes down to effective communication between players, many of whom have no interest whatsoever in memorizing a bunch of random crap.  Even with stretching things to the point of trying to suggest a mostly comedic virtually never used artifact as comparable to a PH wizard feat, you have still failed to meet the criteria.

Seriously, if you don't grok the problem then just drop it because it clearly isn't an issue for you and you clearly have nothing to offer to address it.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 11, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you're wrong. If this fiasco about one feat name is any indication, the existence of an entire Golden Wyvern school of magic would likely drown this entire message board in threadcrap from now 'til 5th Edition.




Its not a school in the sense of a building with walls and teachers inside.  Its a school in the sense of "a collection of similar abilities in which one can progress and possibly specialize."


----------



## Enkhidu (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> If its not included in the SRD, then 3rd party companies cannot refer to those feats in their character write ups. How is that not crippling? It was hard enough for companies to deal with the spell issue when they couldn't use the wizard names and specific monsters. Now, take the key feats for the wizard and strip them out of the game? Any 3rd party who wants to use that ability now has to make their own verison of the feat with another name and they all could (and likely will) end up with their own versions.




Did you completely skip the part where I said "nomenclature"? If WotC follows the pattern they set in the 3.0 and 3.5 SRD, the only things that will get left out are certain monsters and artifacts - things inextricably tied to the D&D brand. Spells, magic items, etc - these all got the "rename it with something generic" treatment. Feats with funky names in 4e are going to fall into the _latter_ category - all of the mechanics will still be there, but in a generically named form.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I have still yet to see a comparable example provided from a prior edition.
> 
> It isn't a matter of fluff.   It is a matter of effective communication.  The same concern would exist if a zero fluff name such as "Feat W24" was used.  I might even LOVE the name Golden Wyvern Adept.  The preference of one fluff over another issue is wholely beside the point.




Comparable examples:  How about the Magic School names.  Can you tell me, off hand, what Evocation does?  How is it different from Invocation?  Conjuration?  All of these names were just convenient shorthands for schools.  Hard locked into the text.  Why is healing Conjuration and not Necromancy?

Better yet, could you tell me what a dweomer is?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 11, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> One of the following three names is Bigby's Clenched Fist with the name part removed for my campaign.  Can you guess which one?
> 
> Roaring Dragon
> Clenched Fist
> Mark of Death



If it were Mark of Death, that would be intentionally misleading, since that is a fairly descriptive name, rather than a purely flavour one.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> One of the following three names is GWA with the name adjusted for my campaign.  Can you guess which one?
> 
> Purple Fire Dancer
> Yellow Deer Stands
> Red Wall Victory



Well, considering none of them even imply magic at all (which Adept does, at least), I'd have to say none of them. The last two aren't even in the same form as GWA.

Though perhaps if I knew your campaign, I would know what the Purple Fire, Yellow Deer or Red Wall are, and that would give me a clue as to the function of the feat.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 11, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its not a school in the sense of a building with walls and teachers inside.  Its a school in the sense of "a collection of similar abilities in which one can progress and possibly specialize."



I was worried that you meant "school of magic," as in: abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, Golden Wyvern (!), illusion...

But then I found this from a few months back:


			
				Dave Noonan said:
			
		

> I may have good news for you, then: traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc.
> 
> I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.



So I guess I don't have to worry about seeing that can of worms opened.


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> We have already shown how the greyhawk spells are not the same thing as forcing wizard's magic to fit into these orders. The original specializations were more open to adapting to individual worlds and concepts than these current ones are.
> 
> I want to see one of these examples that are comparable to this.
> 
> ...



Tome of Battle.

They took a bunch of martial maneuvers, which were very similar to spells, and split them up into nine fluffy distinctions based on "ancient martial disciplines". Those disciplines had names like Iron Heart and Diamond Mind.

That seems to be the exact blueprint they're following for wizard's spells in 4E. Take the big group of spells, split 'em up according to "disciplines" and give them names like Golden Wyvern and Emerald Frost.

I hated it in Tome of Battle, and I'm betting I'm going to hate it in 4E. I'd much rather have a list of abilities split up by level and then I could group them together how I wanted and add whatever flavor I wanted. If Wizards wanted to put it some sidebars with recommended groupings and example flavor, fine. But keep it seperate.

edit: Meepo unearthed a quote that makes it look like they might not be seperating the wizard's spells like they seperated the maneuvers in ToB. That would be good. Really makes me wonder what exactly Golden Wyvern and Hidden Flame are then. What their purpose is.


----------



## Mad Mac (Dec 11, 2007)

> edit: Meepo unearthed a quote that makes it look like they might not be seperating the wizard's spells like they seperated the maneuvers in ToB. That would be good. Really makes me wonder what exactly Golden Wyvern and Hidden Flame are then. What their purpose is.




  They're staff styles. Hidden Flame for instance, is a staff weilding wizard who specializes in using a staff to blast foes to cinders with arcane fire. They're anagalous to spell schools in that they represent the new specialization options for wizards. They're different in that they don't represent actual spell groupings. Keep in mind, the only point in dividing magic into 8 different schools to begin with was so you could create 8 flavors of specialist wizard. They don't have any real purpose except allowing spellcasters to emphasize certain types of magic.

Any Wizard can cast fire spells, but not as powerfully as a master of the Hidden Flame. That is not terribly different than saying that any wizard can cast Lightning Bolt, but not as well as the Evoker. Except that specialist wizards were lame and no truly interesting advantages, while the new Wizard Traditions have the potential to provide concrete mechanics for creating interesting variations of wizard.

  Also, Traditions have the advantage of being inherently expandable. If you have 8 schools of magic, well that's that, but you can create as many traditions as you can think of viable themes+mechanics. You can even add new implements and tie them to completely new styles.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 11, 2007)

For the pro-GWA side, can you explain why you don't like some of the ideas like a side bar.  How does explaining the tradition in maybe just as many words as it would be if it was fully integrated but in a side bar, while giving the feat a more utilitarian name with a note towards the side bar bad.  

I don't remember and anti-GWA people having a problem with the compromise solutions but if any of them do why would you have a problem with it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 11, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> For the pro-GWA side, can you explain why you don't like some of the ideas like a side bar.  How does explaining the tradition in maybe just as many words as it would be if it was fully integrated but in a side bar, while giving the feat a more utilitarian name with a note towards the side bar bad.
> 
> I don't remember and anti-GWA people having a problem with the compromise solutions but if any of them do why would you have a problem with it.




I could live with a side bar, but, then, why bother?  We've never had them before.  There's no side bar explaining the Astral plane.  No side bar explaining Invocation.  No side bar for Tolkien races.  Do we really need a side bar for this?  

I'm not particularly opposed to it, I just don't really see the need.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 11, 2007)

I don't like the sidebar because its pointless.

Personally, I'm not so much "pro GWA" as I am "anti hyperventilating over nothing." 

We've got six different styles of magic.



			
				WOTC said:
			
		

> The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.
> 
> The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.
> 
> The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.






			
				WOTC said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern Adept
> Tier: Paragon
> Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.




So amongst other things, we have a magical tradition that focuses on using staves, and on shaping and molding magical effects.  Its got to have some kind of name.  Once you choose its name, you might as well use that name on feats.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> You give me examples of core class abilities and feats from previous editions, that players used constantly, with this sort of fluff attached and then we have a comparable example. Those examples cannot come from setting books either (like initiate of mystra) because those things belong there. I am talking generic D&D core rules.



Bard's Colleges (which got also in magical items)
Monk's titles and way to go up in levels (defeat a bigger monk)
Class titles for level
Druid requisite to go up in level (defeat a bigger druid)

to me this seem much more heavy


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 11, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Err... This was already confirmed back in September. It was the first we ever heard about Golden Wyvern, in the Wizards and Wizards Implements Design and Development article. Here is the link to the article.



they also said they are not school in the traditional sense, they are group of spells that a wizard that learned magic from that tradition would be better, but can be setting specific

as for Dragonlance there you have the Order of High magic and the 3 robes order you would replace the various tradition with the 3 robe order and maybe make subtradition in them to raise the number back to 6..... (and by the way dragonlance should hevily be adapted to 4th edition)

they also said that the implements can be changed, the tradition expanded and culturally differentiated, all in all the tradition presented in the wizard implement article are the points of light tradition ready to be swapped in favor of more specific setting traditions


----------



## jensun (Dec 11, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The biggest problem comes down to effective communication between players, many of whom have no interest whatsoever in memorizing a bunch of random crap.



So all the development blogs and playtest reports and everything else is not communicating with the players?  Really, because I dont remember getting half this much information about 3e before it was produced and narely anything before 2e.  

Also, your crap is someone eleses interesting.  Thats it as far as the argument goes.  Neither side is capable of being right as its not something you can objectively prove.    



> Seriously, if you don't grok the problem then just drop it because it clearly isn't an issue for you and you clearly have nothing to offer to address it.



Until you are promoted to Mod I will continue to post as I like within the rules thanks. Presenting the issue as not being a problem is as valid an argument as suggesting changes.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Since you aren;t, now try renaming the feats your group is using and see how that goes instead.




One reason why this might not be a big thing for me, is that we are not native english speaking. We already mix the English names with Swedish names when we game (a language mix popularily called "swenglish"). So we do translations from english to swedish lots of times during a session, which means some feats are effectively already renamed.

This might also be a part of why I don't think this is a big deal; there's a lot of stuff that has to be translated anyways during play, so GWA is just a term among many.

/M


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> For the pro-GWA side, can you explain why you don't like some of the ideas like a side bar.  How does explaining the tradition in maybe just as many words as it would be if it was fully integrated but in a side bar, while giving the feat a more utilitarian name with a note towards the side bar bad.
> 
> I don't remember and anti-GWA people having a problem with the compromise solutions but if any of them do why would you have a problem with it.



I can currently come up with two reasons
- People can easily miss/ignore the sidebars. If one goal of using "fluffy" names is to make people not only consider the mechanical part only, but also consider what such an ability could imply for their character as a personality, this will reduce its impact.

- You will have to come up with two names for every ability. 

I like side bars for describing "behind the scene" concepts - why do we use a level only dependent bonus to most checks? How can I adjust the system from the base line given in the book? 

In that case, a more attractive side bar comment might be: 
"World Building Note: The default setting implies that a concpet of "Emerald Frost" academy, style or tradition exists. This might not fit into your campaign. In such a case, consider describing an alternate organisation and changing the name. Using the Points of Light approach, you could also leave the exact meaning open, and figure the details out at a later point, possibly together with a player considering picking up the feat."


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Okay, with Dragonlance, now you have Raistlin was part of the Iron Sigil Order? He spent time learning the Golden Wyvern techniques between joining the Order of the Black Robes and becoming a god? The white, red and black orders are totally stepped on by these new six wizard orders, it goes against the setting's official lore of magic during the war of the lance. Afterwards, during the age of mortals makes even less sense as the wizards do not have any orders and magic is raw again.
> 
> In planescape the factions are the key organizations and mortal orders would be meaningless, so now these wizards orders are found on EVERY single world across the planes?
> 
> In ravenloft, the orders do not even feel right theme wise. In a setting as grim and frightening as Demiplane of Dread, wizards are tied to feats called Golden Wyvern Adept? Let alone trying to find a way to make since that traditions like these exist in a place made up of the bits and pieces of kingdoms and realms belonging great forces of evil from across multiple worlds and realities. It just takes something from the themes of the setting.




Given that each of these settings differs significantly from core D&D, and requires their own setting specific rules, I dont think its a big concern. 

Dragonlance wizards arent actually core wizards last time I checked, and have specific powers based off their school. You're going to need new stuff anyways, and the setting book can easily explain that the Golden Wyvern feats are tied to robe color x and renamed thus.  

I personally dont even think Ravenloft works using D&D rules. The setting is supposed to be low magic and low power. Standard wizards with their easy and sure fire magic fit the mold about as much as naked howling berserkers.

And Planescape is a vast melting pot of many worlds and realities. If you cant work in something, you're intentionally being stubborn.

The name Golden Wyvern adept bothers me about as much as Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter or Melf's Acid Arrow does. Or the fact that certain races get weapon proficiencies or bonuses against other creature types, which are tied to fluff. In other words, not at all.


----------



## Will (Dec 11, 2007)

I would vastly prefer something I've seen in 3.5e books, which is 'this organization typically teaches the following feats/spells.'

So, for example, if Golden Wyvern Adepts often learn Spellshaping, Greater Range, and Combat Casting, you have an idea of the kind of group/focus the organization has.

But maybe some other organization is focused on 'altering the nature of spells,' with Spellshaping, Elemental Substitution, and Delay Spell.

And so on.

I'd rather have the flavor use terms that are self-evident. Packaging flavor like this has the benefit of showing 'how it's done,' too.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Dragonlance wizards arent actually core wizards last time I checked, and have specific powers based off their school. You're going to need new stuff anyways, and the setting book can easily explain that the Golden Wyvern feats are tied to robe color x and renamed thus.




Dragonlance wizards are core wizards. The Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class is a 10-level class they can take at their 5th character level but there is no requirement for them to take it. All they have to do is pass the Test before they cast 3rd level spells. That's an in-game event, roleplayed out. If they are invested in the Orders they can then pursue the PrC, but not having the PrC does not make you a renegade wizard.

It's the same with Knights of Solamnia. Most are fighters, fighter/nobles, or occasionally paladins or rangers. They take levels in a Knight of Solamnia prestige class to reflect a commitment to their Order.

In 4e I imagine all of this will be handled by paragon paths, and before that (at the heroic tier) by a combination of recommended feats and class powers.

My hope was that the mage traditions would be packages of suggested feats and powers, provided as an example of how a mage tradition might work. I would prefer that the feats taken by Emerald Frost mages, Golden Wyvern adepts, etc not have their names attached to them. Otherwise I'll just have to say "and White Robe mages usually take Golden Wyvern Adept even though nobody calls it that."

Dragonlance has had plenty of core revision over the last 20 years. I am not all that keen on the prospect of coming up with a Golden Wyvern tradition within the Orders of High Sorcery just because the 4e designers thought it would be a cool hook for new players and some fun IP.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 11, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Dragonlance wizards are core wizards. The Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class is a 10-level class they can take at their 5th character level but there is no requirement for them to take it. All they have to do is pass the Test before they cast 3rd level spells. That's an in-game event, roleplayed out. If they are invested in the Orders they can then pursue the PrC, but not having the PrC does not make you a renegade wizard.




My experience with 3e dragonlance is admittedly limited. In earlier editions, I did know they had different spell progression than phb wizards (and different spell lists). Regardless, given the division of types of magic, it stands to reason that you would want to break up the focii feats/powers among the robe colors, unless you want all wizards to be the same regardless of alignment. You've got some revision anyways, an extra 2 minutes to rename the feats doesnt seem like the insurmountable task people are making it out to be.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> My experience with 3e dragonlance is admittedly limited. In earlier editions, I did know they had different spell progression than phb wizards (and different spell lists). Regardless, given the division of types of magic, it stands to reason that you would want to break up the focii feats/powers among the robe colors, unless you want all wizards to be the same regardless of alignment. You've got some revision anyways, an extra 2 minutes to rename the feats doesnt seem like the insurmountable task people are making it out to be.




Do you see how not revising it at all, because the name isn't a hardwired IP name, is even easier? The feat names do not suitably meet the intended effect as described by Mike. 

I'm just saying. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 11, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not so much "pro GWA" as I am "anti hyperventilating over nothing."



The discussion is probably better off without implications like that.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> So amongst other things, we have a magical tradition that focuses on using staves, and on shaping and molding magical effects.  Its got to have some kind of name.  Once you choose its name, you might as well use that name on feats.



Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?

It's odd, because it seems like you're dismissing the "problem" because the "problem" is more widespread than what's being discussed.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 11, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?
> 
> It's odd, because it seems like you're dismissing the "problem" because the "problem" is more widespread than what's being discussed.



Of course, other than Golden Wyvern, the names of the wizard traditions do hold clues to what they're about. Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, Emerald Frost and Stormwalker all have clues in the name, to help you know what they do.

Golden Wyvern appears to be the exception.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 11, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?




The styles aren't arbitrary.  They each appear to have a distinctive theme, and to be much LESS arbitrary in crunch terms than the 3e schools of magic, which were divided according to fluff characteristics and which only divided in terms of crunch when the crunch derived from the fluff.

The names appear a bit arbitrary though.  So yes, the discussion does turn to what, if anything, should be done about those names.

My take on it is pretty simple.  We need SOME proper noun for the six 4e magical disciplines/styles/schools/whatever you call 'ems.  

Right now we have

Iron Sigil (orb, defense, thunder, force)
Serpent Eye (orb, enchantment, beguiling, ensnaring)
Hidden Flame (staff, fire, radiance)
Golden Wyvern (staff, battle-mages, shape and sculpt spells)
Emerald Frost (wand, accurate, damaging, cold, acid)
Stormwalker (wand, accurate, damage, lightning, force)

Golden Wyvern is the only one that makes me wince, because it has wyverns in it and I don't like wyverns.  But that's an awfully personal objection, so its not one I'm hung up upon.  The others seem just fine, and in some cases, quite evocative of what they do.

So, you have better names?


----------



## Bishmon (Dec 11, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The styles aren't arbitrary.



Acid and cold? Lightning and force? Thunder and defense? 

Those aren't arbitrary? Really? We'll just agree to disagree on that.

And no, I don't have better names for the styles, because I never would have created these styles of magic to have in the core rulebooks.


----------



## Will (Dec 11, 2007)

Golden Wyvern would be cool with me if it meant something like 'Fire spells are treated as sunlight' or gain the 'Sun' descriptor or allow clerics with Sun domain to use Flight spell at will or...

Something goldenish, or wyvernly, or... something.

Similarly, if 'spellshaping' was 'Golden octopus,' I could be persuaded to go with it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> You give me examples of core class abilities and feats from previous editions, that players used constantly, with this sort of fluff attached and then we have a comparable example. Those examples cannot come from setting books either (like initiate of mystra) because those things belong there. I am talking generic D&D core rules.



What about the entirety of the monk class? The monk is an Asian-flavoured/inspired class lumped into a world that otherwise relies on Western European flavour. The name itself may not be strange, but given the underpinnings of "generic" fantasy of the game (ie, European), it is completely out of place.

Ditto for all the monk weapons included in the 3.X PHB. Why are Asian weapons mixed in with European ones?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 11, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> You give me examples of core class abilities and feats from previous editions, that players used constantly, with this sort of fluff attached and then we have a comparable example.



Druids. What if there are no Celts in my game? Should be called a neutral name like 'nature priest'.

The 3e monk abilities _ki_ strike, diamond body, diamond soul and tongue of the sun and moon. What if I don't want the concept of ki? What if there are no diamonds? What if there's no moon?

The 3e feats Whirlwind Attack and Improved Bull Rush. There might be no whirlwinds or bulls in my milieu.

Ranger's and druid's Woodland Stride ability. Wouldn't that have to be renamed in a setting such as Dark Sun where there are no woodlands left?

The feat Spell Focus makes reference to the eight schools of magic. The magic item creation feats make reference to magic items with all their fluff specific names such as Murlynd's Spoon.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 11, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Do you see how not revising it at all, because the name isn't a hardwired IP name, is even easier? The feat names do not suitably meet the intended effect as described by Mike.
> 
> I'm just saying.
> 
> ...




Again, unless you're going to have black/white/red wizards all using the same focii effects and specialties, you willl need to revise and split things up amongst the three robes. Its an entirely new edition, with new mechanics. Styles, be they weapon or spell effects, are given greater emphasis in 4th edition so that two members of the same class have different feels from a mechanics standpoint. White robes and black robes should play differently. Use this to your advantage,. Encourage players of one to pick iron sigil, the other to pick whatever, and rename as required. Renaming the feats and styles seems the least of your issues.

Does Dragonlance fall apart the minute someone mentions bigby's crushing hand?


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 11, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern would be cool with me if it meant something like 'Fire spells are treated as sunlight' or gain the 'Sun' descriptor or allow clerics with Sun domain to use Flight spell at will or...
> 
> Something goldenish, or wyvernly, or... something.
> 
> Similarly, if 'spellshaping' was 'Golden octopus,' I could be persuaded to go with it.




Or maybe it refers to an order of battle wizards with their emblem a golden wyvern. Kind of like the purple dragon knights arent actually purple dragons, dont squirt grape soda, etc.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> So you're instead changing your opinion that instead of the feat being renamed, there shouldnt be any style based specialties? Thats an entirely different complaint it seems.
> 
> Unless you're going to have black/white/red wizards all using the same focii effects and specialties, you will need to revise and split things up amongst the three. Its an entirely new edition, with new mechanics. Styles, be they weapon or spell effects, are given greaqter emphasis in 4th edition so that two members of the same class have different feels from a mechanics standpoint. Renaming the feats and styles seems the least of your issues.




No, I'm saying I would prefer that names like Golden Wyvern Adept be kept as names for mage traditions, and falling under those traditions are listings for suggested related feats typically chosen by those traditions, and that the feats not have the tradition hardwired into their name. That way, new mage traditions may be created, without requiring the feats to be renamed in the process. Think of it as being the same as the class skill list for each class. We don't need to rename each class skill from "fighter intimidation" or "rogue move silently" in order to share those around, and likewise I would expect it would be easier for a new mage tradition (in Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, etc) not to have to worry about those hardwired names for the feats.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Does Dragonlance fall apart the minute someone mentions bigby's crushing hand?




Dragonlance has _crushing hand_. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 11, 2007)

D&D's not great for homebrewing. It's not a toolbox like GURPS. Sure it's fine if you just want to recreate Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk with the names changed, draw political and physical maps and create organisations and NPCs. But it's not fine if you want a different magic system or a grim n' gritty feel. Then you have to make a lot of changes to the core rules.

D&D isn't a particularly good system for worlds such as Dark Sun. You have to communicate to your players that metal is rare, arcane magic harms the environment, halflings are cannibals,  half-giants and muls are core races and so on and so forth. That's a lot more trouble than renaming a single feat.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Druids. What if there are no Celts in my game? Should be called a neutral name like 'nature priest'..




I'd love for the druid to be renamed to something else. Maybe animist.



> The 3e monk abilities _ki_ strike, diamond body, diamond soul and tongue of the sun and moon. What if I don't want the concept of ki? What if there are no diamonds? What if there's no moon?




I'd like to have those abiities not to be hardcoded into the monk and made feats so I could more easily ignore those abilities that don't fit.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> D&D's not great for homebrewing. It's not a toolbox like GURPS.




I'd disagree with this - within certain bounds I think D&D is just fine for homebrews - but I get your point about needing cooperation from the players.

To add to Najos list:

Kits?
Speciality priests?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 11, 2007)

The problem of learning what 'Golden Wyvern Adept' means is not as great as it's being made out to be. D&D is full of stuff you just have to learn.

You have to learn that druids are not necessarily Celts and that monks are the Shaolin Temple sort, not the Western sort. You have to learn that Combat Reflexes doesn't improve your initiative bonus, Mobility doesn't increase your movement rate and Whirlwind Attack doesn't let you blast your foes with wind. You have to learn that a falchion is a two-handed scimitar. You have to learn what glaives and guisarmes are. You have to learn what Sequester and Antipathy and Enervation do.


----------



## Corinth (Dec 11, 2007)

No fluff in the Core.  Crunch Only.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 11, 2007)

How about: create a 32-page PDF including all the information required to run a 4E campaign in the implied setting, including all the organizations, names for things, etc.  Something like Paizo's Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide.  Give it away for free.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 11, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Ranger's and druid's Woodland Stride ability. Wouldn't that have to be renamed in a setting such as Dark Sun where there are no woodlands left?



There are so.  They're full of cannibal halflings.


----------



## Will (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Or maybe it refers to an order of battle wizards with their emblem a golden wyvern. Kind of like the purple dragon knights arent actually purple dragons, dont squirt grape soda, etc.




My point is that a heraldic term is very narrowly functional, and I don't like it at all.

I mean, presumably 'Golden Wyvern Adepts' do more than simply shape how spells fall. Why would it be associated with just one particular ability, which (again, presumably) numerous other traditions would also learn?

I could accept fluff if it was also evocative. Fluff that is just fluff, for stuff that's core mechanics, is really unpleasant to me.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 11, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> My point is that a heraldic term is very narrowly functional, and I don't like it at all.
> 
> I mean, presumably 'Golden Wyvern Adepts' do more than simply shape how spells fall. Why would it be associated with just one particular ability, which (again, presumably) numerous other traditions would also learn?
> 
> I could accept fluff if it was also evocative. Fluff that is just fluff, for stuff that's core mechanics, is really unpleasant to me.




Since we don't actually know what their other abilities do, we're operating in a vacuum. If theres another Golden Wyvern feat that lets you add additional targets to buffs, blasts, etc, then the concept would emerge. "Hey, the Golden Wyvern school is your mass battle caster style". 

Since the designers dont want wizards knowing how to do everything (hence carving up their spells into whole other classes), and want a party to be able to have two wizards who play differently based on their specialities (ie, Iron Sigil, Golden Wyvern, hidden flame) then yes, it makes sense to create packages based around these concepts. 

Its no more fluff for fluff's sake than saying elves can use a longbow, gnomes get a +1 to hit kobolds, or that there's someone named Tasha who makes people laugh hideously and uncontrollably. 

Similar to the core pantheon, it helps new DM's (or experienced, time constrained DM's) have semi-fleshed out schools, organizations, what have you's to drop into the campaigns that match the style concepts. New DM's arguably need the most help, and are a population that needs to grow in order for the game to survive. I'd assume the pros can somehow manage to get by renaming a few feats. 

If instead of Golden Wyvern Adept, lets assume a new feat called Iron Sigil Master that lets you add your Constitution modifier to any the bonus that any spell that raises defense (will, ac, reflex, etc) grants. Is this offensive?


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 11, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Dragonlance has _crushing hand_.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




So what you're saying is, someone had to indicate it was renamed, as the spell doesn't appear named similarly in the PHB. I cant imagine it took a ton of effort. I assume renames appear in a sidebar in the 3e Dragonlance books. 

Was the announcement that 3e would have spells named after Bigby, Melf, etc met with such.... rigorous opposition?

Furthermore, do we really know these names are going to remain in any SRD type release for 4e? WOTC may well remove the issue by retaining such names as IP and renaming them.


----------



## Cam Banks (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, someone had to indicate it was renamed, as the spell doesn't appear named similarly in the PHB. I cant imagine it took a ton of effort. I assume renames appear in a sidebar in the 3e Dragonlance books.




Dragonlance appeared in 3e after the release of 3.5. The "renames" appear in Towers of High Sorcery and map exactly to the versions of those spells in the 3.5 SRD. If any character has one of these spells, it's listed in the SRD format. All of this was possible because the name could be dropped off the end for the most part, and because the SRD provided us with an extant precedent. It was no work at all.



> Was the announcement that 3e would have spells named after Bigby, Melf, etc met with such.... rigorous opposition?




People had been ignoring the Greyhawk names since 1e Dragonlance. At one time it was simply stated that those spells don't even exist, but we liked the utility of many of them. All that said, a spell is not the same as a feat. Dragonlance doesn't assume anybody owns any books other than the core rulebooks and other DL books for 3.5, so later additions in Complete XXX weren't of much concern (such as the oddly-named feats that provided two or three cantrips 1/day.)



> Furthermore, do we really know these names are going to remain in any SRD type release for 4e? WOTC may well remove the issue by retaining such names as IP and renaming them.




Possibly. That'd be a bonus.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Will (Dec 11, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> If instead of Golden Wyvern Adept, lets assume a new feat called Iron Sigil Master that lets you add your Constitution modifier to any the bonus that any spell that raises defense (will, ac, reflex, etc) grants. Is this offensive?




For me? Borderline; at least 'iron sigil' suggests durability/toughness.

'Iron Ward Master' would work better, imo.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> The discussion is probably better off without implications like that.
> 
> 
> Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?
> ...




Like D&D magic styles were never arbitrary?  Really?

Then explain to me why Heal is Conjuration (Calling or creating matter into our realm) and not either Evocation (dealing with energy) or Necromancy (dealing with life/unlife)?

And, why do Invokers cast mostly evocation spells?  

Why are Diviners the strongest of all specialist wizards?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Like D&D magic styles were never arbitrary?  Really?
> 
> Then explain to me why Heal is Conjuration (Calling or creating matter into our realm) and not either Evocation (dealing with energy) or Necromancy (dealing with life/unlife)?
> 
> ...



In order no the schools of magic are not overall arbitrary.  Evocation, Abjuration, and Invocation aren't entirely appropriate names but the rest actually refer to the overall theme of magic for the school.  

The reason for Healing in Conjuration instead of Necromancy and most all the other issues either deal with the attempt to balance the effectiveness of differing schools of magic with little thought as to the flavor of what was being moved.  Or the Evocation, Abjuration, and Invocation schools and sub-schools which were poorly named for their theme.  

They went a long way to tying the wizard in with classical themes and leveraged off rennaisance pseudo-science/alchemy terms to do so.  For me at least those images and themes are what defines a wizard.  The new traditions function akin to marital arts styles as if the wizards themselves didn't even really understand what they were doing they just threw a name at it and said hey that works lets call it that.  Whereas the old schools implied a systematic categorization of arcane force into a universal set of types based on understanding of their implied ties to the metaphysical backdrop.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 12, 2007)

So is no one going to argue that Asian-style monks are utterly appropriate in a generic Western European setting? I'd love to hear how the monk class doesn't count as non-generic flavour being hardwired into the core rules.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> I'd love to hear how the monk class doesn't count as non-generic flavour being hardwired into the core rules.



Given it's occidental fellows, the monk _is_ a D&Dism (and IMO probably doesn't deserve it's place in the core).  Congratulations.  Do you want a cookie?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 12, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> The new traditions function akin to marital arts styles as if the wizards themselves didn't even really understand what they were doing they just threw a name at it and said hey that works lets call it that.




So, you're saying that martial arts are just thrown together with no understanding of how they function? Just a clever name and a marketing gimmick?

Yeah, I'm sure centuries of teachings would disagree with you, and they'd probably be right.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Given it's occidental fellows, the monk _is_ a D&Dism (and IMO probably doesn't deserve it's place in the core).  Congratulations.  Do you want a cookie?



I do.

(But don't tell my wife please.)


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 12, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, you're saying that martial arts are just thrown together with no understanding of how they function? Just a clever name and a marketing gimmick?
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure centuries of teachings would disagree with you, and they'd probably be right.



In my disdain I was imprecise and joined two arguments that should have been separated.

However, what I was attempting to say is that martial arts do not rely on any universal functionality.  They aren't thrown together but they also aren't part of a unified pseudo-scientific model.  Martial arts styles are formed through practice and then once formed they need a name and someone comes along and slaps a name on it since it needs one now.  That name may have varying allusions or connotations based on who did the naming.  

The wizard at least for past editions has been metaphysical science.  They could not do what they do without understanding the universal framework of magic as a force.  Which like science requires that they work from the underlying force up through research to create their spell effects.  Central to their art is a singular framework for the metaphysical nature of the power they are manipulating, their names should reflect this underlying theoretical nature.  Not the trail and error practice (even if directed there is no single underlying theoretical basis) of martial arts.

EDIT:  Also none of the martial arts practiced today can successfully trace their practice more than two to three hundred years in the current form.  Despite the "history" Asian martial arts claim they are actually mere successors to those older techniques.  Related? In some cases yes in others no, but the techniques are fairly new and have leveraged off the history of older no longer practised techniques to take on the mantle of respect implied with antiquity.  For example kendo as practiced today has a distinctly limited resemblance to the historical techniques it claims to represent.  Or to use a European example modern sport fencing has NO resemblance to the European bladework disciplines of earlier times


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 12, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> In order no the schools of magic are not overall arbitrary.  Evocation, Abjuration, and Invocation aren't entirely appropriate names but the rest actually refer to the overall theme of magic for the school.




The schools of magic aren't arbitrary in terms of fluff.  They're quite well defined in terms of fluff.

They're arbitrary in terms of crunch.  And the way in which you can mix and match your choices between schools means that a Diviner and an Evoker both fight and divine in the same way- by casting the spells from the other school in exactly the same manner.

It was, and is, a quite common complaint that the schools of magic overlap too much, that each school does too much of what the others do, and that the result of the overall construction of the system is that wizards all look the same regardless of school choice.



> They went a long way to tying the wizard in with classical themes and leveraged off rennaisance pseudo-science/alchemy terms to do so.  For me at least those images and themes are what defines a wizard.  The new traditions function akin to marital arts styles as if the wizards themselves didn't even really understand what they were doing they just threw a name at it and said hey that works lets call it that.  Whereas the old schools implied a systematic categorization of arcane force into a universal set of types *based on understanding of their implied ties to the metaphysical backdrop.*




So the 3e system is good because it binds the game to an implied setting?  I'm cool with that, but you better not let other people in this thread hear you say it.  It makes 'em mad.


----------



## rounser (Dec 12, 2007)

> So the 3e system is good because it binds the game to an implied setting? I'm cool with that, but you better not let other people in this thread hear you say it. It makes 'em mad.



Of course they want an implied setting!  They just don't want one with too many intrusive, non-generic-fantasy D&Disms in it in hard-to-exclude/ignore places.  

Words from english that spot-on describe magic - like "necromancy" - are not D&Disms, they're public domain fantasy territory...exactly what should be core.  

"Emerald Frost" (on the other hand) is clearly a contrived D&Dism in the core, sounding like it's from a single world, and WOTC admits they're doing it for such a dubious goal as trademark protection (IMO at the game's expense).


----------



## Kintara (Dec 12, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> In my disdain I was imprecise and joined two arguments that should have been separated.
> 
> However, what I was attempting to say is that martial arts do not rely on any universal functionality.  They aren't thrown together but they also aren't part of a unified pseudo-scientific model.  Martial arts styles are formed through practice and then once formed they need a name and someone comes along and slaps a name on it since it needs one now.  That name may have varying allusions or connotations based on who did the naming.
> 
> The wizard at least for past editions has been metaphysical science.  They could not do what they do without understanding the universal framework of magic as a force.  Which like science requires that they work from the underlying force up through research to create their spell effects.  Central to their art is a singular framework for the metaphysical nature of the power they are manipulating, their names should reflect this underlying theoretical nature.  Not the trail and error practice (even if directed there is no single underlying theoretical basis) of martial arts.



Actually, I've always seen magical research as VERY much trial and error. Wizards might like to think of magic scientifically, but the truth is that they only understand it superficially. They might be able to extract certain effects from magic, but I've never seen any evidence that Wizards really "get" what they are doing in its entirety (analogy: a non-chemist starting a fire). Besides, magic works (imo) on a strange metaphorical logic, so a created symbology, even if it's completely artificial and made up, could easily have power as a magical technique. It could be used as sort of a form for the magic to take as it's being built up (showing up as brief magical tracery flickering before the spell goes off), that's only so because the wizard that made it up saw a way to make that work. Maybe when you study the text, it requires focusing on a certain Golden Wyvern icon as part of the ritual because of some quirk of language in Elven that the Wizard liked, and used as a mnemonic. There are plenty of ways to sneak it in there.

Now, _casting_ tends to be reliable in D&D (once you hit on something that works), but that's not quite the same thing.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> Of course they want an implied setting!  They just don't want one with too many intrusive, non-generic-fantasy D&Disms in it in hard-to-exclude/ignore places.
> 
> Words from english that spot-on describe magic - like "necromancy" - are not D&Disms, they're public domain fantasy territory...exactly what should be core.
> 
> "Emerald Frost" (on the other hand) is clearly a contrived D&Dism in the core, sounding like it's from a single world, and WOTC admits they're doing it for such a dubious goal as trademark protection (IMO at the game's expense).




You're forgetting the other side of the trademark bit.

That most of the names you've trotted out are already taken.  Golden Adept?  I'm very sure that I could find that in a video game somewhere.  Not positive, but, I'm pretty sure.  

Even Necromancy doesn't follow it's own fluff.  The description of Necromancy says, "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force."  Yet, healing isn't necromancy.  Hit point buffs and Con buffs are not necromancy.  Even Raise Dead isn't a necromancy spell.  

Heavenshallburn pretty much hit it in his first post.  The spells were placed regardless of the actual descriptions of the schools.  Healing went to conjuration because Necromancy is evil in the minds of most people.  The schools are entirely arbitrary.  They are pretty much created whole cloth to fit the magic system, not the other way around.  Let's not forget that schools of magic is a 2e creature.  It had to be bolted on ON TOP of the existing magic system.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That most of the names you've trotted out are already taken.  Golden Adept?  I'm very sure that I could find that in a video game somewhere.  Not positive, but, I'm pretty sure.




WFRP use something they call "colour magic", with The Gold College being on of the eight colleges of magic. So yeah, it's pretty much taken already.   

/M


----------



## Will (Dec 12, 2007)

Necromancy at least is close.

I mean, if I have a spell called 'Devan's Gyre' which causes targets to spin uncontrollably, that's suggestive.

If I have a feat called 'dance of the monkey' which gives me some sort of dodge bonus, that's not hard to remember.

If the skill 'Pancakes' is used to identify spells, I deserve a lot of confused looks.

If Golden Wyvern Adept had anything to do with gold, things that are golden, wyverns, things that fly, things that breathe fire, things that are poisonous (depending on the book), or maybe an increase to caster level (being adept with spells), I'd go along with it.

But it's just pancakes, man... pancakes!


----------



## Najo (Dec 12, 2007)

Please read, important post:


I apologize for not replying to any one directly. I skimmed the posts and am up to date, but my time is tight and I've been really busy the last few days. 

I've sent letters directly to WOTC designers so I can to make them aware of some of these issues (in case they weren't). Johnathan Tweet replied to a post I made, saying he would bring the issues up with the designers. In the process, I learned information regarding the fluff naming, but I can't speak about any specific details. 

What I can say, our assumptions about the fluff feats are correct. There is decent number of them. Designers have already revealed some, and there is more. Some people will like this, some won't. I only bring up this point because I think it is necessary for this discussion to continue and for us to find the best solutions for the game we all love. But, before I give the forum back I want to add a couple of my thoughts on the matter first.


I discussed the direction D&D is taking with a business partner and friend of mine. We were going over the information we knew, and asking why the sudden change in D&D. As you all can tell by the leaks on the Races and Classes book, the fluff is built in, all the way through and there is alot of drama and story. In fact it was that the new D&D rules had so much DRAMA that stood out to me. Then it clicked. 

WOTC is trying to make D&D good for as brood an audience as possible. They are removing barriers to entry that make the gamer's non-gamer friend or his wife or girlfriend (majority speaking) who doesn't play yet, want to play. This new approach is filled with action, color, life and drama. They want the D&D world to be energized and full of fantasy adventure for the casual player who picks up the book. They are trying to minimize the overwhelming rules and percieved geek factor.

Now, my primary concern is still not addressed, that being how to keep fluff I don't want from flavoring the mood and themes I am trying to create with a campaign setting. If I am running a horror game and i am dealing with Exalted type names for powers and abilties, it breaks the tension and atmosphere a bit. Likewise, settings that the fluff names don't fit in, suffer. This is what concerns me with 4e, and it is a valid concern. DMs who don't like the fluff are going to be renaming alot of things if that is the route we choose to take.

With that said, I think D&D needs the invigoration of non-gamers thinking it is interesting and cool. I think D&D needs all the girl friends and wives playing. If World of Warcraft got them to do it, D&D figures it can make that happen too. This is the best way I can see D&D doing it. Direct, to the point, with little complication. Make the D&D fluff interesting and intense and in the customer's face. Give enough of a breathing world to inspire anyone holding the book into making a character and wanting to play. 

Until now, D&D has had a bit of stigma. Non-gamers see it as a "geek" game and 4e wants to break those walls down and get the girls playing. The timing with Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress book and the articles online now make more sense. I agree with that direction 100%.

So, with that said. I am still concerned with how settings are going to plug on. A customer of mine was talking in general about this matter and mentioned he thinks WOTC is going to do Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master Guides for the Settings. That would be an interesting approach, to completely rebuild a majority of the core material for a campaign setting instead of plugging it onto the player's handbook. We are going to have to wait and see how that plays out, because I do not know.

Fluff feats are coming, and hopefully with them whole new customers. If that is the case, then I feel it is a sacrifice worth making, as I am sure WOTC does too. 

So, in the meantime, let's assume the book is chocked full of fluff and story. What solutions can we find to help homebrews and official campaign settings plug on. Or, for that matter, what can people speculate the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is going to do to plug onto D&D 4e? How do you work around alot of fluff when you don't want to have the built in fluff in your setting?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 12, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> WFRP use something they call "colour magic", with The Gold College being on of the eight colleges of magic. So yeah, it's pretty much taken already.




There's also the Piers Anthony "Apprentice Adept" series, which specifically calls the magic-users of the setting <Color> Adepts.


----------



## Najo (Dec 13, 2007)

Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.


----------



## Kintara (Dec 13, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.



Well, if it makes you feel better, I read what you said and I liked it.


----------



## Will (Dec 13, 2007)

My heart sank at what you said. For what it's worth.

I'm still taking a wait and see attitude, and am generally expecting to like 4e, but this is one area I'll probably end up having troubles with down the line.

The problem, as I see it, is the mechanical issue of 'how obvious is this term?' I game with some real RPG novices, and they get confused VERY easily; if a feat has some fluff strange name, they are going to continue to ask what the feat does for months. And months. And months.

Maybe it won't play out this way, but it sounds to me like there is a gulf between how the designers view 'newcomers' and, well, my estimation of newcomers. Maybe their judgment is better or maybe I'm misreading what they are doing; we'll see.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Dec 13, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.



just read 

I always was pro-fluff never bothered me that level of fluff... I am on old timer and this kind of fluff tend to stick and create new and strange direction (do you remember? the mantle of the clestial? Magna Alumnae? Grand Master of the Flowers?)

I hope that they also create a decent starting box/game for the first 3-5 level of character development (a little like the red box + a ready to go adventure with ready characters)

and with this I take my Hidden Flame Master feat


----------



## rounser (Dec 13, 2007)

> WOTC is trying to make D&D good for as brood an audience as possible.



I just hope they've learnt from Eberron.  

That was an attempt on their part to make all-inclusive, broadly appealing world and the result was an incoherent theme and quirky flavour, appealing to some and leaving others completely cold.  

It would be a pity if 4E turned out like that.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 13, 2007)

I don't care either way.  I can understand why some people don't like it.  Personally, I don't see it as being much different than having a spell called Melf's Acid Arrow, or a prestige class such as Jade Phoenix Mage.

I wonder if the SRD will remove this and put in generic names?  For example, wasn't the Quiver of Elhonna renamed in the SRD as the Endless Quiver?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 13, 2007)

> Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.



More work, less fun. 

Well, I think you "got" what I got form the moment I first began thinking about the issue. I also understand the concern, and like you, I tend to assume that the goal might be worth the drawbacks. 

There is also a secondary effect that might or might not be achieved: 
Players might "relearn" to think more about style and fluff then only "power".
This hope might be disappointed, considering that we also had regional feats which had a similar goal in anchoring the character in the setting and improving immersion to the setting.
(By the way: I absolutely am a power-gamer. But sometimes I wouldn't mind a little less joking around, hammering foes and a bit more immersion in my character and the goals.)



			
				Will said:
			
		

> My heart sank at what you said. For what it's worth.
> 
> I'm still taking a wait and see attitude, and am generally expecting to like 4e, but this is one area I'll probably end up having troubles with down the line.
> 
> ...



I am not convinced that the so called descriptive names actually do this better. Maybe it's just because some names aren't as descriptive as others. I guess I might always be able to link Power Attack with subtracting from attack and adding to damage (but will they keep in mind that they get twice the bonus for two-handed weapon? That it doesn't work for light weapons?)

But Weapon Finesse, Focus, Specialisation;Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes; Spell Focus, Spell Mastery, these aren't that easy distinguishable just because of their name. Improved Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Sunder/Bullrush might give you a good idea of what it does, but does it help me remember the Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Sunder/Bullrush rules for which I can use them?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 13, 2007)

rounser said:
			
		

> I just hope they've learnt from Eberron.
> 
> That was an attempt on their part to make all-inclusive, broadly appealing world and the result was an incoherent theme and quirky flavour, appealing to some and leaving others completely cold.
> 
> It would be a pity if 4E turned out like that.



I thought Eberron was pretty succesful? (But then, I liked the setting.)

I think every setting has its fans, people that hate it and people that don't care much about it. (Think about the FR discussions and how many fans don't understand the flaws others perceive as such. I think the same is true for Eberron, Dragonlance, Dark Sun or - outside D&D - Vampire, Shadowrun or Torg)


----------



## Rel (Dec 13, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.




I was almost beginning to think that everything that needed saying about the subject had been said.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 13, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> If Golden Wyvern Adept had anything to do with gold, things that are golden, wyverns, things that fly, things that breathe fire, things that are poisonous (depending on the book), or maybe an increase to caster level (being adept with spells), I'd go along with it.




Unless the Golden Wyverns are an order of battle mages or something. Again, Purple Dragon knights aren't purple dragons.


----------



## Will (Dec 13, 2007)

Purple Dragon Knights don't have abilities like 'purple dragonning.'

They have 'heroic shield,' which boosts Aid Another for AC. That makes sense... shield, AC.
'Rallying cry,' a morale bonus to attacks and speed increase to allies. Again, the term and result make sense.
Inspire courage, Fear, fairly obvious.
Oath of Wrath: an oath to defeat somebody, giving bonuses to the purple knight to pursue his wrath.
Final Stand: temp bonus to a bunch of allies, presumably to face down some great force.

Bad example. The name of the prestige class is arbitrary, but you'll note that all the components of that prestige class have relatively clear names that suggest what they do. And each of those abilities suggest the overall class.

I'd have no problem with Golden Wyvern Adept as a prestige class; names of classes are generally accepted as a bit more descriptive than other things.

I also agree that some 3.5e feats have names that leave something to be desired, like combat expertise. Though I'd argue 'combat expertise,' while a bad name, is closer to its intended meaning to random folks new to the game than 'golden wyvern adept.'

To reiterate, I'd have no problem if it was a term like, say, 'Golden Wyvern Spellshaping' or 'Adept Spellweaver' or something.

I suppose another problem is that when I hear 'Golden Wyvern Adept,' I think 'oh, a prestige class.'


----------



## Imban (Dec 13, 2007)

I still hate the Golden Wyvern name. (For the record, the Purple Dragon Knights are in the exact same boat with me.)

See, one of the first things I thought of when I heard these traditions would be replacing spell schools was "Man, Thay's screwed. Poor Thay." Then I started wondering what the new Zulkirs might be. And I mean, Zulkir of Emerald Frost? Zulkir of the Serpent Eye? (Serpent Eye Zulkir?) Zulkir of the Iron Sigil? Zulkir of the Hidden Flame? Those are all pretty cool. Stormwalker doesn't fit into this pattern well at all, but you can have the Stormwalker Zulkir, sure. And... then I hit Golden Wyvern, and the best-sounding one to me is Golden Wyvern Zulkir, and even that falls kind of flat - sure, the old spell school names were boring and dry, but that neatly avoided them being actively terrible.

Five out of six isn't bad, but sadly I'm pretty sure every grouping of the traditions is going to hit 5/6 with these, either because one of the names in question is kind of bad, or because Stormwalker doesn't follow the naming convention of the others.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 13, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> To reiterate, I'd have no problem if it was a term like, say, 'Golden Wyvern Spellshaping' or 'Adept Spellweaver' or something.'




"Golden Wyvern" is a defined term in 4e.  It is the proper noun name for "collection of abilities frequently possessed by spellshaping battlemages."  Saying "Golden Wyvern Spellshaping" would be redundant, and would probably be too interchangeable with the other Golden Wyvern feats that involve shaping spells.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 13, 2007)

Imban said:
			
		

> Five out of six isn't bad, but sadly I'm pretty sure every grouping of the traditions is going to hit 5/6 with these, either because one of the names in question is kind of bad, or because Stormwalker doesn't follow the naming convention of the others.




I do kind of agree with that.  Of the 6 names, Golden Wyvern is the weakest.  The others are more evocative.  

Serpent Eye: Evokes serpents, symbolizing deception, and "eye" matches up with orbs well.
Iron Sigil: Sigils suggest protection, and iron works well with the thunder aspect.
Hidden Flame: It lights you on fire.  This is the easiest.
Emerald Frost: Uses acid (green/emerald) and cold (frost).
Stormwalker: Uses lightning.  Not thunder, apparently.
Golden Wyvern: ... shapes spells?  Because wyverns are squashy?

I like this type of division of spell schools.  I like the elimination of the 9 schools of magic, which obscured more than they illuminated.  I like 5 of the 6 names.  I don't think most of the complaints leveled against Golden Wyvern are very valid, because most of them complain about the feat.  I think its perfectly legitimate to tie a school of magic together with feats that represent mastery in the abilities the school of magic focuses upon.  I don't think anyone will have any trouble remembering what this feat does.  I just don't particularly like this particular name.

I don't really know what I'd have called Golden Wyvern if it had been up to me.


----------



## Will (Dec 13, 2007)

Proper noun names for things are not going to work well for a lot of newcomers to the hobby. At all.

I have a group full of them. They can barely remember what 'power attack' does.

Secondly... hold up... Golden Wyvern is a defined term for 'collection of abilities frequently possessed by spellshaping  battlemages'? If it's a collection of abilities, what would lead someone to understand what 'Golden Wyvern Adept' signifies?

It'd be like having a feat called 'Monk Adept.'


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 13, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> Secondly... hold up... Golden Wyvern is a defined term for 'collection of abilities frequently possessed by spellshaping  battlemages'? If it's a collection of abilities, what would lead someone to understand what 'Golden Wyvern Adept' signifies?




Presumably, having read their own character class entry would fill them in on what "Golden Wyvern" means.  If your characters could handle 9 schools of magic that were separated largely by D&Disms (you can't "conjure" an illusion?  really?), then I am sure they can handle this.  If they could not handle 9 schools of magic in 3e, then perhaps playing a spellcaster is not appropriate to their temperament.



> It'd be like having a feat called 'Monk Adept.'




It would be more like a feat named "Initiate of Anhur," except better because there are fewer schools of magic than there are deities.  Also, taking the "Initiate of Anhur" feat in a campaign without Anhur requires the permission of the DM since one of the prereqs is "patron deity Anhur."  Taking the feat "Golden Wyvern Adept" doesn't seem to require actually being part of any organization, anymore than "Spell Focus: Evocation" does now.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern: ... shapes spells?  Because wyverns are squashy?



Gold is malleable.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 13, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Gold is malleable.




This is true, but my personal preference is for squashed wyverns.  Never liked them much.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 13, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> "Golden Wyvern" is a defined term in 4e.  It is the proper noun name for "collection of abilities frequently possessed by spellshaping battlemages."




Is this official?  Do we know the other golden wyvern feats are also about shaping yet?


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 13, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Gold is malleable.




Pudding is malleable. 

Moreso than gold at least.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 13, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Is this official?  Do we know the other golden wyvern feats are also about shaping yet?





			
				Design and Development said:
			
		

> The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070917a

We don't know any other 4e feats than the four that have been presented to us.  But we do know a great deal about the structure of 4e wizard design, and one of the things we know is that there are six disciplines, one of which is "Golden Wyvern," and that the "Golden Wyvern" discipline focuses on shaping spells.  I am sure there will be more reference to this in the finalized 4e than a single feat.


----------



## Najo (Dec 13, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> Purple Dragon Knights don't have abilities like 'purple dragonning.'
> 
> They have 'heroic shield,' which boosts Aid Another for AC. That makes sense... shield, AC.
> 'Rallying cry,' a morale bonus to attacks and speed increase to allies. Again, the term and result make sense.
> ...




There was a designer article that said they no longer had presitge classes, if I am remembering correctly. 

Golden Wyvern Adept is a type of training wizards learn in the D&D mythology now. Just as the feats tied to the other 4 traditions will be. They are not orders or schools etc, just collections of training with a name that groups them together.


----------



## Najo (Dec 13, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Gold is malleable.




Ok, if the wyvern has some sort of area effect that it is deadly and accurate with, the golden wyvern tradition makes more sense when you define gold that way. Maybe they will alter its poison to spray or something?


----------



## Najo (Dec 13, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> Proper noun names for things are not going to work well for a lot of newcomers to the hobby. At all.
> 
> I have a group full of them. They can barely remember what 'power attack' does.
> 
> ...




My impression so far is D&D is going much more story and fluff focused, so the named feats will likely be referenced by class description and flavor text with the feat. That way, a new player is reading the book and it is more like a fantasy story game than a bunch of hard to understand rule that turns them off. They want the new player who doesn't game going, "hey I want to try this, it looks fun"


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 13, 2007)

When I think of wyverns the main thing I think about is poison.  When I think of gold I think of wealth.  Perhaps there are better fluffy names (if we need to pick a fluffy name) for this ability?


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 13, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> When I think of wyverns the main thing I think about is poison.  When I think of gold I think of wealth.  Perhaps there are better fluffy names (if we need to pick a fluffy name) for this ability?



I agree with that, but can't think of one.

I hate names like "Spellshaper."  Its the 3e version of putting the word "War" in front of everything.


----------



## GreatLemur (Dec 13, 2007)

I believe in the separation of fluff and crunch because, as a general rule, I don't like other people's fluff.  I'd rather handle that stuff myself.  So when a company mixes their fluff in with their crunch, it bothers me.

...Especially when that fluff includes names like "Golden Wyvern" and "Emerald Frost".  For the love of _God_, people.  What the hell were you thinking?


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 13, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> ...Especially when that fluff includes names like "Golden Wyvern" and "Emerald Frost".  For the love of _God_, people.  What the hell were you thinking?




If it was Emerald Flame would there be as much gnashing of teeth?


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 13, 2007)

My issue with Emerald Frost isn't as much the name (which I dislike) as the grouping of effects (cold and poison).  I really don't think cold and poison really fit together.  I like the idea of a cryomancer, I even like the idea of a acid mage.  I don't like the idea that they go together.  I guess you could play one and only focus on half of your abilities, but then there will likely be a substantial power loss.  Why not develop the two seperately?

Why does cold fit better with acid than lightning or fire?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Dec 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Like D&D magic styles were never arbitrary?  Really?
> 
> Then explain to me why Heal is Conjuration (Calling or creating matter into our realm) and not either Evocation (dealing with energy) or Necromancy (dealing with life/unlife)?



The SRD Wiki explains this pretty clearly:



			
				D&D Wiki said:
			
		

> Heal enables you to *channel positive energy* into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions.




Further:



			
				D&D Wiki said:
			
		

> Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you




Now, why does 'Golden Wyvern Adept' allow you to exclude certain squares in your spell?


----------



## Simon Marks (Dec 13, 2007)

Healing is 'Conjuration' because it channels Positive Energy into someone.
Coincidently, Inflicting damage is Necromancy - despite the fact that it channels Negative Energy into someone.

How do I know that? Because the Undead are healed by Negative Energy, and by Inflict spells.

Why is healing Conjuration while inflict is Necromancy?

Because positive and negative energy sucks as Metaphysics. And Schools make no sense.


----------



## Najo (Dec 13, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> My issue with Emerald Frost isn't as much the name (which I dislike) as the grouping of effects (cold and poison).  I really don't think cold and poison really fit together.  I like the idea of a cryomancer, I even like the idea of a acid mage.  I don't like the idea that they go together.  I guess you could play one and only focus on half of your abilities, but then there will likely be a substantial power loss.  Why not develop the two seperately?
> 
> Why does cold fit better with acid than lightning or fire?




I find this one a bit strange too. If anything, there should be a focus on how cold and acid naturally eat and kill what they touch. Sort of a non-living passive form of destroying, verses fire and lightning actively burning things with fire and heat. There is something there, as long as the tradition doesn't just stick energy types onto spells. Emerald Frost should have passive, over time negative effects. Things that look to turn elements of nature and magic into slow killers and disabilitators of the victims to their magic.

Golden Wyvern should be aggressive, mallable battle magic effects. It should embrace its animal fury.

Hidden Fire should be secondary fire magic and energy damage. Maybe light and shadow type effects too.

Stormwalkers should gain forces of nature effects to their magic, and be able to channel power from natural forces.

Iron Sigil should have defensive wards and antimagic or stronger to resist spell enhancements. Counterspells should be stronger here and their spells should be harder to counter. 

Serpent's Eye should have limited charms, stuns, dazes and other witchy type effects. There could be side effects from serpent eye spells that lower enemy saving throws temporarily or apply penalties to their actions for a round.


I think out of all of them, I like the name Golden Wyverns the least. They sound like a sports team, not a secret tradition. It is not esoteric enough for spell casters. It is the beastlike wyvern that seems out of place. How could golden wyvern be renamed that could help it feel more like a battle wizard with manipulation over war magic or embracing beastial instinctive magic?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 14, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Pudding is malleable.
> 
> Moreso than gold at least.




Are you proposing Pudding Wyvern Adept in it's place?

I could go for that.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Dec 14, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Why does cold fit better with acid than lightning or fire?



I suppose it is because both ice and acid are mostly water, and they are the two most prominent forms of water that burn and destroy living tissue. They do have some resemblance in that regard.

Still, I agree that it is a bit strange, and lacks some of the elegance of the other traditions. Hopefully future traditions from supplements will be a bit more inspired than that.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 14, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I suppose it is because both ice and acid are mostly water, and they are the two most prominent forms of water that burn and destroy living tissue. They do have some resemblance in that regard.




Ah, sort of a hydromancer.  I hadn't thought of that (thinking of cold as lack of heat) but it does offer an explanation for their reasoning.  I guess if we think of lightning mages as covering the air, we have air, water, and fire covered.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 14, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Are you proposing Pudding Wyvern Adept in it's place?
> 
> I could go for that.




That is most certainly my contribution.  I won't even charge WotC for it if they change the name.


----------



## ehren37 (Dec 14, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> My issue with Emerald Frost isn't as much the name (which I dislike) as the grouping of effects (cold and poison).  I really don't think cold and poison really fit together.  I like the idea of a cryomancer, I even like the idea of a acid mage.  I don't like the idea that they go together.  I guess you could play one and only focus on half of your abilities, but then there will likely be a substantial power loss.  Why not develop the two seperately?
> 
> Why does cold fit better with acid than lightning or fire?




A fair complaint IMO. I blame WOTC's goofy ass energy system that leaves acid an energy type. If you're splitting the four major elemental damage types into 2 groups, fire/lightning go together better than fire/cold or fire/acid. So emerald frost gets the leftovers.

Though if you think thats bad, try running Arcana Evolved. I'm still not sure what "earth" damage is aside from being hit by rocks.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 14, 2007)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Healing is 'Conjuration' because it channels Positive Energy into someone.
> Why is healing Conjuration while inflict is Necromancy?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Spells built around negative energy need a special approach by races that are akin to positive energy, such as humans on the material plane. Just my guess.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 14, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> If it was Emerald Flame would there be as much gnashing of teeth?



It would appeal to Pratchett fans, at least. 

"They know not that we aboard a wizard have! To create in their bellies the burning green fire!"


----------



## xechnao (Dec 14, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern should be aggressive, mallable battle magic effects. It should embrace its animal fury.




Something like "Strange Tide" ?
Could something like "Strange Tide Adept" make it?


----------



## Najo (Dec 14, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> A fair complaint IMO. I blame WOTC's goofy ass energy system that leaves acid an energy type. If you're splitting the four major elemental damage types into 2 groups, fire/lightning go together better than fire/cold or fire/acid. So emerald frost gets the leftovers.
> 
> Though if you think thats bad, try running Arcana Evolved. I'm still not sure what "earth" damage is aside from being hit by rocks.




Well, there is another way to look at it. Lightning can be tied to Air, Cold/ Ice to water and Acid tied to Earth. 

So...

That would give you a Fire/ Air (hidden flame) mage tradition and a water/ earth (Emerald Frost) mage tradition.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 14, 2007)

What might be worth noting for "world building concerns": 
From the newspage (also quoted in another thread)


> * He also confirms that the design intention is that these things be adjustable to work in your campaign -- *"You can add your own implements and disciplines/traditions to the mix. Doing so takes some work, but it's not a massive undertaking."*
> 
> * And on the nature of the described traditions: "...traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc... I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess."
> 
> ...



Emphasis mine.

The wizard traditions (and the implements) are not set in stone. We are allowed (supposed?) to build our own when building our own world. 

Another comment I couldn't track back (it might have been in a pod cast or in a blog entry) was that there might be some overlapping of abilities granted by feats.
The feat formerly known as "Dragon Tail Cut" is an example: According to its description, it was basically the equivalent of Improved Trip - but limited to swords. Which means that you can have feats with different names, yet still doing similar things.


----------



## Najo (Dec 14, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
> From the newspage (also quoted in another thread)
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> ...




As I said in another thread. My instinct on the traditions is that they are a loose collection of feats and ideas for you to build with, not anything so strict as something your character must choose. They represent wizard training concepts and a collection of themes to add to your character when you choose feats connected to them. Likely, a home brew could make a collection of new feats to represent a different tradition if they wanted too, I am guessing.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 14, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
> From the newspage (also quoted in another thread) <snip>
> 
> The wizard traditions (and the implements) are not set in stone. We are allowed (supposed?) to build our own when building our own world.



I don't think the big complaint was that people couldn't make their own traditions. It was that they'd have a hard time avoiding the default fluff of the existing traditions when communicating with gamers outside their own gaming groups.

For example: The Golden Wyvern school is for battle mages. If their feats were named "battle mage" feats, two GM's talking about their different worlds might have this conversation:

GM1: "In my homebrew, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Cool. In my homebrew, the battle mage school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your battle mages use a chalice as an implement, then?"

But the Golden Wyvern school isn't called the battle mage school. It's called the Golden Wyvern school. So the conversation would have to go:

GM1: "In my homebrew, the Golden Wyvern school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Cool. In my homebrew, the Golden Wyvern school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your Golden Wyverns use a chalice as an implement, then?"

The conversation is just as simple, but the GMs involved are forced to refer to a default fluff name in order to describe their own, different fluff for a particular subset of crunch. If used as a feat name, Golden Wyvern becomes part of the lingua franca of the D&D community.

Trying to rename the Golden Wyvern school without explicitly referring to it as the Golden Wyvern school in the first place would lead to this conversation:

GM1: "In my campaign world, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Wait, when you say 'battle mage,' you mean..."
GM1: "Oh, that's what I call the Golden Wyvern school."
GM2: "I just usually call it the war caster school."
GM1: "So, yeah. In my world, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "In my campaign world, the war caster school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your battle mages use a chalice as an implement, then?"
GM2: "My war magic casters, you mean?"

People who like the Golden Wyvern crunch but dislike its fluff must, by necessity, reference its fluff when explaining that they don't use its fluff. If the Golden Wyvern school had a blander name, that would be less of an annoyance to people who dislike the fluffy name, and no more of an annoyance to people who don't care what something is named.

Of course, this all assumes that Golden Wyvern is actually used in a feat name in the first place. See the quote in my sig for more on that.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Hussar
> Like D&D magic styles were never arbitrary? Really?
> 
> ...




So, conjuration channels positive energy?  So, why isn't it evocation?  Evocation is all about channeling energy, not conjuration.  And, even if the wiki is 100% correct, and conjuration can be used to channel energy, then why do we have evocation at all?  

Never mind that, for some bizarre reason, neither conjuration nor evocation can be used to channel negative energy - that's for necromancy which doesn't deal with channeling energy at all.   

Also, we have a nice clear place where flavor is locked tight to the mechanics.  Rock hard locked.  You want to heal - cast conjuration.  You want to harm - cast necromancy.  Usually.  Unless you don't.  What if my cosmology doesn't have positive and negative material planes?  Never mind the gnashing of teeth that goes on in tying the negative material plane to evil and positive to good.

Meepo - how is that any different than clerics?  In my world, war clerics worship Chernobyl and use dire flails, for example.  Would people confuse them for clerics of Hextor?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 16, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> I don't think the big complaint was that people couldn't make their own traditions. It was that they'd have a hard time avoiding the default fluff of the existing traditions when communicating with gamers outside their own gaming groups.
> 
> For example: The Golden Wyvern school is for battle mages. If their feats were named "battle mage" feats, two GM's talking about their different worlds might have this conversation:
> 
> ...



How often to GMs discuss with other GMs such details of their campaign setting? 

Usually, I am playing with my group, in my campaign. They need to know about the details, they must get the feeling for the campaign, they should care about their characters and their relation to the world. Other GMs and players are not my primary concern when creating my campaign setting. 

There will be tons of things other GMs don't know about my campaign (What gods do I use? What countries exist and how are they related to each other? What PrCs do I use, which of them did I "reflavour"? Which spells and classes did I ban or change?)

Usually, people talk about things like these in forums: 
- Problems with certain rules (overpowered PCs/NPCs, underpowered PCs/NPCs, unclear rulings)
- Problems with certain players (or player "archetypes")
- New house rules
- interesting story elements they came up with (or might need help coming up with)
- player quotes and stories

Some of these require more background information of the campaign, others don't. It doesn't matter whether its about wizard traditions, gods, countries, house rules.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 16, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> My issue with Emerald Frost isn't as much the name (which I dislike) as the grouping of effects (cold and poison).  I really don't think cold and poison really fit together.  I like the idea of a cryomancer, I even like the idea of a acid mage.  I don't like the idea that they go together.  I guess you could play one and only focus on half of your abilities, but then there will likely be a substantial power loss.  Why not develop the two seperately?
> 
> Why does cold fit better with acid than lightning or fire?




Poison and cold work together in the sense that they both will likely cause debilitating effects past just a quick blast of HP damage.  Whether its a slow effect from frost, paralization, or damage over time from poison they kind of fit thematically in effect if they don't fit in with some kind of elemental like ties.  

So I'm expecting feats that give extra duration on negative effects, or increase the effectiveness of slows, maybe some kind of sticky or contagious effect.

The name kind of works, frost=cold, emerald is green which seems to be tied to poison effects in every video game I play.  So I get at least something from this.  Its better than GWA, but I would prefer  a less fluffy name for feats with a fluffy tradition in the magic chapter describing a group of feats they usually take.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 16, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
> From the newspage (also quoted in another thread)
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> ...




Yeah there letting me know I can house rule things and that this wont be easy, but it wont be really hard.  I don't really find that very reassuring.  I can house rule everything so how is this different, if they said its really easy to make new traditions it will probably take a couple minutes tops then that would be reassuring. 

   I also don't find the idea that there could be multiple feats that do the same thing reassuring.  It seems needslessly limiting, overly complicated, and a waste of space.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Yeah there letting me know I can house rule things and that this wont be easy, but it wont be really hard.  I don't really find that very reassuring.  I can house rule everything so how is this different, if they said its really easy to make new traditions it will probably take a couple minutes tops then that would be reassuring.
> 
> I also don't find the idea that there could be multiple feats that do the same thing reassuring.  It seems needslessly limiting, overly complicated, and a waste of space.




Just to take the other side for a second, how much time and how difficult is it to come up with a new pantheon for your game?

I imagine that's the level of difficulty they're talking about.  It can be done fairly quickly, or it can take hours, depending on a whole host of factors - how picky is the DM about his world, how detailed does he want to get, how detailed do the players want to get etc.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Meepo - how is that any different than clerics?



Actually, it's not different at all for clerics. There is no easy way to explain that clerics in your world have X characteristic without first using the word "cleric." So the word "cleric" is just as integral to conversations about the game as the phrase "Golden Wyvern" threatens to become.



> In my world, war clerics worship Chernobyl and use dire flails, for example.



Creating a flail-using cleric with the war domain does not require you to mention the name "Hextor" in order to clarify which game elements you are using. No weapon, base class, or domain is named "Hextor." Two people who hate the name "Hextor" can have a conversation about your cleric without ever using the word "Hextor."



> Would people confuse them for clerics of Hextor?



Not likely, unless you chose to define them using the word "Hextor" somewhere in your description. But you don't have to do that, so the issue won't come up.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> How often to GMs discuss with other GMs such details of their campaign setting?



Well, very few people actually. But I do think I might have to quote you in my sig on this message board.


----------



## Najo (Dec 17, 2007)

I know there are people still arguing the subjective nature of the GWA issue. I think we are past that honestly. It amazes me it is still debate, when the facts are clear that this is the first time game mechanics have been this tied to fluff outside of a campaign setting book.

I said earlier in my seeking to speak to WOTC designers on the matter, I discovered that there is alot of fluff in the feats. I did get my message through to the designers with concerns. They are discussing the matter and see our points as holding validity. The issue though, which I agree with to a point, is that the high level of fluff and the new direction the core rules are taking could bring in the friends and spouses of the current D&D players and DMs that are not currently playing D&D.

If you need additional evidence of the fluff levels in the 4e core books, look at the threads going on with the races & classes book. The races have named empires. We have at the very least the basic blocks for a campaign setting built into the player's handbook from the sound of things.

Is this the right approach? I am not sure. It is good for new players and the casual friends and spouses of the D&D players who could be lured in by the new D&D. That is a good thing. It will step on the DMs who homebrew. How they can cope with it, and how much effort they need to put into adjusting, remains to be seen.

But, the anti-GWA camp is not overreacting. The rumor I have heard for the Forgotten Realms setting is it may have its own Player's Handbook and DM/ World Guide as seperate books that you use in place of the core Player's Handbook. 

This would mean, we would see a new player's handbook every year with the release of a new campaign setting, which WOTC implied could happen. interesting times indeed. If this is true, then every DM who has an extensive homebrew would take the SRD and rebuild it with the fluff from his Campaign Setting and then use that instead of his Player' s Handbook. I wonder if WOTC thought about that one, and the issues that could arise if that is what DMs with their own worlds have to do.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 17, 2007)

Hmmm,  what you are saying gives me the impression that 4thEd kind of wants to retouch AD&D's 2nd ed. publication style while retaining the emphasis of the gamist aspect of D20 that turned to a success. 
I can't see why though it will bring wives or create new gamers to the table but I can feel that a model like this can indeed refuel sales to those that are gamers allready or would be in any case. It is about selling new books to the people in the hobby-reselling on what D&D can allready capitalize. It is not expanding the hobby to more people.


----------



## Najo (Dec 17, 2007)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Hmmm,  what you are saying gives me the impression that 4thEd kind of wants to retouch AD&D's 2nd ed. publication style while retaining the emphasis of the gamist aspect of D20 that turned to a success.
> I can't see why though it will bring wives or create new gamers to the table but I can feel that a model like this can indeed refuel sales to those that are gamers allready or would be in any case. It is about selling new books to the people in the hobby-reselling on what D&D can allready capitalize. It is not expanding the hobby to more people.





It brings new gamers by putting story and cool ideas along with easy to use rules in their hands. So, you have bright, colorful covers with cool, eye catching imergy that gets them to pick it up. Then while flipping through the book, they are read intersting story hooks, pieces of fluff, looking at full color art and being excited by all the flair and drama throughout the book, instead of being turned off by the game mechanics and technical stuff.

At that point, they are inspired to make a character and try it. Since 4e will run easily for current D&D players (from what I understand) we can easily get up and running a game with little to no effort (compared to now). So in no time, current player's are inclined to run 4e games for their friends and family who all the sudden take an interest. 

That is WOTC's hope for 4e by my educated observations.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 17, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> It brings new gamers by putting story and cool ideas along with easy to use rules in their hands. So, you have bright, colorful covers with cool, eye catching imergy that gets them to pick it up. Then while flipping through the book, they are read intersting story hooks, pieces of fluff, looking at full color art and being excited by all the flair and drama throughout the book, instead of being turned off by the game mechanics and technical stuff.
> 
> At that point, they are inspired to make a character and try it. Since 4e will run easily for current D&D players (from what I understand) we can easily get up and running a game with little to no effort (compared to now). So in no time, current player's are inclined to run 4e games for their friends and family who all the sudden take an interest.
> 
> That is WOTC's hope for 4e by my educated observations.




To be inspired to make a character IMO is about stimualting ones own imagination. This means that a book has to impress (done by visual art) by touching what allready is inside of me and then show me that there is more I can do of my imagination than myself alone, aka show me the numbers. This is what RPGs are about I think, especially for the uninitiated. 
And for new customers, being simpler does not really count, because if you are inclined to it, you will buy it nevertheless and mold it to your needs. It may count for those allready into the hobby though. So, competition wise, if the new edition brings new and better mechanic ideas to the table, FMPOV this will be very welcome, seeing it as a positive and healthy part of the market competition.
But what it seems, IMO, is that the new edition's fluff does not come as a healthy byproduct of competition, but more as an unhealthy one, seeking to capitalize on the game's actual popularity just by coming from the people that the public thinks are risponsable for the game -my point about popularity being, that if for example a product, identical to 4thEd was made by a 3rd party, let's say a year ago, but did not bear the popular name, I think it would not have made such an impact the 4thEd of D&D claims (but, yes, if it was coming with a groundbreaking mechanics style like D20 did, then perhaps it could shake the hobby). And it seems the new edition is more or equally about fluff than mechanics. So it seems it is coming more as an unhealthy byproduct than a healthy one.  
My point is that the RPG machine from the moment it was invented, it was set to get going fluff wise. So adding new fluff to D&D is not so much adding to the hobby IMO.
What I see as a quality in an RPG product is instead of expanding on fluff, it shows you on the tools how you can do it yourself, and this is what I think D&D D20's success was about-D20 was a leap in this direction and this is what is the claim of its success.


----------



## Will (Dec 17, 2007)

My experience with husbands and wives getting into the hobby is that this is a terrible, terrible miscalculation.

I hope either they realize this or that I'm completely wrong.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 17, 2007)

Will said:
			
		

> My experience with husbands and wives getting into the hobby is that this is a terrible, terrible miscalculation.
> 
> I hope either they realize this or that I'm completely wrong.




I doupt they are actually calculating onto this or anything similar. They may say they are doing so, but I can only think of it as a marketing candy.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 18, 2007)

najo said:
			
		

> when the facts are clear that this is the first time game mechanics have been this tied to fluff outside of a campaign setting book




I reject your reality and submit my own.

Flavor has been rock hard locked tight to game mechanics since Basic D&D.  There are example after example of this in this thread alone.  That you choose to ignore that doesn't make your facts "right".


----------

