# New Design & Development:  Feats



## M.L. Martin (Nov 27, 2007)

Never rains but it pours.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071126&authentic=true 

Those of us familiar with SWSE will recognize some of this (the 'repurposing' of feats, the new Toughness), but other elements are new.  I note that tiers now are used to categorize feats, and judging from the PH blurb, probably class options as well.



> One of the most useful and popular additions to Dungeons & Dragons that appeared in 3rd Edition was the concept of feats: special bonuses, benefits, or actions that characters could acquire outside their normal class features.
> 
> Throughout the lifespan of the edition (and even between the covers of the Player’s Handbook), the potency, utility, effect, and coolness of feats have varied widely.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

> Spring Attack, for example, now looked an awful lot like a power for the rogue or *melee-based ranger*, rather than a feat that just anybody could pick up.



Huh. Here I was anticipating the ranger would be archer-only, or archery-focused, sort've like how the Warlord has few ranged attacks.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 27, 2007)

Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.


----------



## Mostlyjoe (Nov 27, 2007)

*AHA!* A selective fire feat! I was right! (sorry...minor RL quibble.)


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ugh, more class straight jackets. .



And we now have the next three threads' dramatic topic. 

Here I thought it was going to be the Golden Wyvern thing.


----------



## KoshPWNZYou (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.




I'm sure those will all be available as powers on separate talent trees. No packages or straight-jackets -- just choose whichever options you'd like.

And the ability for a fighter to choose a rogue-like power will grow out of whatever form multiclassing takes. So if you want to be a fighter with spring attack, you essentially want to be a fighter with a rogue-like tendency. Makes sense.


----------



## FadedC (Nov 27, 2007)

Sounds like you might be able to multiclass to get spring attack for your fighter, though it's unclear exactly how this will work. Personally I have no problem with not every ability being available to every class, nor do I have a problem with ability packaging.


----------



## D_E (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And we now have the next three threads' dramatic topic.
> 
> Here I thought it was going to be the Golden Wyvern thing.




That's what I was going to go off on!    

I hate those names.  I really do.  I was really hoping that whole Wizard implement article would be dropped, but looks like it's in for good.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And we now have the next three threads' dramatic topic.
> 
> Here I thought it was going to be the Golden Wyvern thing.



They're both excellent opportunities for complaint! I'm sure someone will latch onto them.

I'm also concerned about the "non-woodsey Dex Fighter" being a non-option.  Unless the Rogue is now the Swashbuckler in all but name.  But then, who's the assassin/spy?  I'm also hoping you can be a non-priest Archer.  I did not like how in AE you had to go all "mystic hawk warrior" to be a good archer, and I would not like the same for D&D.

"Wyvern Adept" is a small complaint compared to that.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

I will say: Alertness and Toughness actually look like decent feats. Well, Alertness is really subjective - how often do you expect to get jumped? Still, it's better than just "Here's a plus to some stats"; it's that AND 'haha no surprising me pal'.

Toughness giving a flat extra HP every level is actually a good investment.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Here I thought it was going to be the Golden Wyvern thing.




I would think that news would be somewhat of a relief to many. Traditions as a feat is probably the most innocuous way that concept could have been implemented.


----------



## Dragoon (Nov 27, 2007)

Interesting read, but ugh on the feat name for Golden Wyvern Adept. What is wrong with "Shape Spell" or a different descriptive name rather than playing, "lets make feats with fanciful names game" by the 4e designers?

Player: "_Okay I'm taking Golden Wyvern Adept feat for my wizard_."
DM: "_Whats that do_?"


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Dragoon said:
			
		

> Interesting read, but ugh on the feat name for Golden Wyvern Adept. What is wrong with "Shape Spell" or a different descriptive name rather than playing, "lets make feats with fanciful names game" by the 4e designers?



I'm willing to bet that Golden Wyvern mages can pick up the feat, as opposed to them all?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 27, 2007)

Dragoon said:
			
		

> Interesting read, but ugh on the feat name for Golden Wyvern Adept. What is wrong with "Shape Spell" or a different descriptive name rather than playing, "lets make feats with fanciful names game" by the 4e designers?
> 
> Player: "_Okay I'm taking Golden Wyvern Adept feat for my wizard_."
> DM: "_Whats that do_?"



I like what they showed.  But I agree 100% here.
If you want to add some common "in world" names as flavor text then great.  But please, ditch the silly meaningless goop as the primary name.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 27, 2007)

Interesting.

Toughness. Hp equal to class level +3 (is that a indication of triple starting hp at first?)

Alertness: Wonder why this isn't Skill Focus?

First Reaction: Shows a use for AP (there is a feat in Eberron that does this already)

Golden Wyvern Adept: Well, its a limited version of the Archmages shape spell power. Makes wisdom useful for mage "*powers*" (not spells?)


----------



## FireLance (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.



Two thoughts:

One, a talent tree may be open to more than one class, so the (hypothetical) Combat Mobility talent tree which includes Spring Attack and Shot on the Run might be open to both the rogue and the ranger classes.

Two, the idea of fighters not getting access to Spring Attack may tie in with the whole idea of combat roles. A defender class should be drawing attacks, not avoiding them. However, that doesn't stop any character from getting Spring Attack - he just needs some levels in a striker class.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 27, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern Adept: Well, its a limited version of the Archmages shape spell power. Makes wisdom useful for mage "*powers*" (not spells?)



I didn't think about it at first, but it _is_ nice to see Wisdom showing up for Wizards.  Given that they're usually presented wise-but-frail sages, 3e's Int-Con-Dex focus was more than a bit annoying.  Here's to hoping that they tend towards using _all_ of the mental stats at least a smidgen.


----------



## tombowings (Nov 27, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Alertness: Wonder why this isn't Skill Focus?




The skill system does not seem to be much like that of SWSE in every way. There is the perception skill, but no skill focus. maybe there will be skill ranks.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 27, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Alertness: Wonder why this isn't Skill Focus?



Because of the "do not grant enemies combat advantage in surprise rounds" clause.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 27, 2007)

Dragoon said:
			
		

> Interesting read, but ugh on the feat name for Golden Wyvern Adept. What is wrong with "Shape Spell" or a different descriptive name rather than playing, "lets make feats with fanciful names game" by the 4e designers?
> 
> Player: "_Okay I'm taking Golden Wyvern Adept feat for my wizard_."
> DM: "_Whats that do_?"




Agreed.  Shape Spell would have been a nice name.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

Also, Alertness now stacks with Skill Focus: Perception.


----------



## WarlockLord (Nov 27, 2007)

Woohoo! Stupid names RETURN!


----------



## M.L. Martin (Nov 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Also, Alertness now stacks with Skill Focus: Perception.




  Not necessary.  They define it as a 'feat bonus', and it's possible that Skill Focus in 4E will be the same.


----------



## Ruvion (Nov 27, 2007)

If 4e is designed to simplify (as intended):

All bonuses provided by feats would be a feat bonus.

Following this train of thought, then all bonuses provided by arcane spells (or wizard powers if you will) would be arcane bonus.

Which nicely ties in with the power source concept...martial bonus, divine bonus, etc...and I guess talents would provide one of these types of bonuses.

If these are the only types of bonuses...then the world of stacking would be quite a bit simpler than what it is now.  A lot of ifs...but one can always hope.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 27, 2007)

Dragoon said:
			
		

> Interesting read, but ugh on the feat name for Golden Wyvern Adept. What is wrong with "Shape Spell" or a different descriptive name rather than playing, "lets make feats with fanciful names game" by the 4e designers?
> 
> Player: "_Okay I'm taking Golden Wyvern Adept feat for my wizard_."
> DM: "_Whats that do_?"




And how is Shape Spell self explanatory? It hints on the actual use of that feat but you need to know the exact gain nevertheless. I mean, i could think of at least half a dozen other things a feat named 'Shape Spell' could do. Personaly i dislike overly bland names for feats/powers.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 27, 2007)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> And how is Shape Spell self explanatory? It hints on the actual use of that feat but you need to know the exact gain nevertheless. I mean, i could think of at least half a dozen other things a feat named 'Shape Spell' could do. Personaly i dislike overly bland names for feats/powers.



This is particularly apt given that the feat's effects aren't anything like 3.5's Shape Spell, instead being more akin to Extraordinary Spell Aim (which also won't work as a feat name now that Spells involve attack rolls, or whatever we end up calling them).  It brings back shades of some of Monte Cook's complaints with the 3.5 revision in general -- that things are similar enough to _think_ you know what they mean, but not enough to actually be confident that you're right.

I mean, I'm not a huge fan of Golden Wyvern either, but this certainly isn't a sparkling alternative, and when you say you're taking Shape Spell for your feat, I'm still going to ask you what it does anyway.

*Edit:* Wait a second, does 3.5 have a Shape Spell?  It's not in the SRD... it's it CArc material?  Maybe I'm thinking of Sculpt Spell.  The point pretty much stands either way, though.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

This isn't "Shape" spell so much as it is "Hole in the Middle" or something. You know, "The square the fighter in is uneffected - the rest get blasted." 

Shape spell effects the area of effect - turning a line versus a cone versus etc etc etc.


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 27, 2007)

I find it most interesting that, beyond tier, none of these feats have prerequisites. I also like how easily summed up all of these feats are (just one or two short sentences without pedantic explanation). As such, I hope these examples are indicative of feats in general.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 27, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> I find it most interesting that, beyond tier, none of these feats have prerequisites. I also like how easily summed up all of these feats are (just one or two short sentences without pedantic explanation). As such, I hope these examples are indicative of feats in general.




I second that! I really hope that the heroic/paragon/epic division will be the only prereq in the books! If there must be any feat chains they should be as short as possible. ^


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 27, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> I find it most interesting that, beyond tier, none of these feats have prerequisites.



I hope this proves to be the case in the final product.  It was always annoying to run into feats that fit a character perfectly but had prerequisites that didn't.  Combat Reflexes, for instance, has a few neat children that don't really jive with the AoO-monster concept of the parent.

It should also simplify the build process considerably.  As someone who dislikes first-level play and enjoys multiclassed characters, I was always annoyed by the level of grunt work involved in figuring out whether my levels should be Bard/Crusader/Crusader/Bard, Bard/Crusader/Bard/Crusader, Bard/Bard/Crusader/Crusader, and so on and so forth.  Skill rank requirements were especially annoying for those characters.


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 27, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Shape Spell would have been a nice name.



I disagree.  Serviceable? Yes.  Nice?  No.

I find it odd that so many have complained about the lack of flavor in D&D of late and how D&D had much more in names and such.  Now that they move in that direction we get complaints about the flavor and requests for boring flavorless names.


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 27, 2007)

Now THIS is what I call a Design & Development column.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 27, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Now THIS is what I call a Design & Development column.



QFT
This is what the columns up to now should have been like.  

Brevity is good.  I don't like the way they're taking feats overall or some of the things they're making class abilities .  Then again I didn't like the entire class role design philosophy, so I didn't expect to.  No skin off my nose anyway.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 27, 2007)

Golden Wyvern Adept is a bit of an odd man out in these four. Why is it a feat rather than a Wizard class ability? In contrast the other three feats are very generic. I could see any character wanting to take them.

Also, is First Reaction is the first time we've seen a use for an action point in 4e? A nice feat, but it could easily be in Eberron or Saga.


----------



## Dragoon (Nov 27, 2007)

Well "Shape Spell" was just a suggestion, heck, I even like "Sculpt Spell" better actually. Fanciful feat names just don't work for me personally. Also why have some pedestrian named feats and others fanciful? Maybe it is the mixing of the two naming styles that is bothering me, but I do think the 4 feats presented are useful and well thought out. 

Now if they used Golden Wyvern Adept as PrC name, now that would be a cool name.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Nov 27, 2007)

I like the feats and the news about feats and class abilities.  So long as multiclassing is still viable, it should still allow for any number of character concepts, such as a fighter who can also spring attack (with some rogue levels).  What pleases me most about this article is that it suggests WOTC is finally ready to start sharing some bits about mechanics, which is what I need to get me excited about 4th edition (since I'm not too happy about the flavor changes).  I remain hopeful about improvement to the mechanics of the game.


----------



## humble minion (Nov 27, 2007)

Have to agree on the names.  Golden Wyvern Adept is meaningless and will only be annoying to run.  How about when an NPC has a feat with this sort of overly-florid name?  (Do NPCs have feats, anyway?)  Presumably he'd have the feat name on his character sheet, and unless the GM has an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules he'll have to look it up before using it.  And this problem will only get worse as supplements start coming out and the feat options pile up.

Surely something a little bit descriptive would be better?  I can cope with the names not being completely prosaic, but a bit more thought being put into the names rather than just picking an adjective and a noun out a hat would have been nice.  This one could have been called Islands In The Fire Technique, or something like that.  This way the name actually means something.  What do wyverns or gold have to do with shaping evocations anyway?

Also, does anyone else think the 'Adjective Noun' naming convention might be limited to higher-level powers and abilities?  Both this and the legendary 'Dragons Tail Cut' would appear to be targeted mostly at fairly beefy characters.  If this is the case, it makes the whole business a fair bit more palatable imho.  A 5th-level fighter might have Weapon Focus and Defensive Expertise or something, and that seems reasonable, but when he's 25th it's a fair bit easier to see him having mastered Razor Hail Technique and Cut of the Nine Winds.  Very Epic.


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 27, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I find it odd that so many have complained about the lack of flavor in D&D of late and how D&D had much more in names and such. Now that they move in that direction we get complaints about the flavor and requests for boring flavorless names.



Well duh, the new names aren't the exact same as the old names.  What did you expect when you go changing things for good reasons?  Polite, considered arguments for and against?

I like the magic schools, and I hope only a Golden Wyvern wizard can take Golden Wyvern Adept as a feat.  Current choices should affect later options.

I also think some of the 'straitjacket' hate comes from people who categorically despise multiclassing for whatever reason.  My opinion is, classes are ability packages, and you should mix and match to fit your character concept.  Also; remember the tenth level Warlord who multiclassed into wizard and yet didn't have any wizard levels, just wizard talents/powers.  If you want Spring Attack on the fighter, you can multiclass into ranger and pick up the tree instead of other fighter options.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Nov 27, 2007)

I think that Wizard Traditions are not so important rules-wise: they look like Jedi Combat Styles in SW RPG. Probably it will be hard to give some of these "tradition feats" a plain flavor-less name because of the benefits they give. They give some "miscelaneous" bonus based on what the tradition is supposed to be good at.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 27, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> I didn't think about it at first, but it _is_ nice to see Wisdom showing up for Wizards.  Given that they're usually presented wise-but-frail sages, 3e's Int-Con-Dex focus was more than a bit annoying.  Here's to hoping that they tend towards using _all_ of the mental stats at least a smidgen.




Depends on how much it shows up.  I think its ok for it to be useful, I don't think its ok to be needed.  Though I don't want to turn this into a MAD/SAd debate.  There is a thread somewhere for that already.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern Adept is a bit of an odd man out in these four. Why is it a feat rather than a Wizard class ability? In contrast the other three feats are very generic. I could see any character wanting to take them.
> 
> Also, is First Reaction is the first time we've seen a use for an action point in 4e? A nice feat, but it could easily be in Eberron or Saga.




It IS a wizard class ability, its just one that uses a feat slot.

Its a feat that provides benefits to wizards using wizard powers.  Now, nothing in the feat says "only wizards may take this," but if you aren't a wizard and haven't got wizard powers, it doesn't do anything for you.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 27, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern Adept is a bit of an odd man out in these four. Why is it a feat rather than a Wizard class ability? In contrast the other three feats are very generic. I could see any character wanting to take them.
> 
> Also, is First Reaction is the first time we've seen a use for an action point in 4e? A nice feat, but it could easily be in Eberron or Saga.





Totally agree on Golden Wyvern Adept, from there description and from the other feats it seems more like a class ability than a feat.  Then again if I was playing a wizrd while the other feats might be useful I could care less if I had them.  Ways to improve my spells though I do want, so I'd want to be spending all my feats and class abiltitie son making me abetter wizard not generic buff # 7.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.



They basically told us that this was the way it's going to be in the last podcast.  They're trying to divide up the major tricks into classes, so that each class has a kind of shtick.  They mentioned that the warlock is easy to design for because he doesn't have 30 years of baggage, but the big four are harder because everyone wants them to be all things.

Given what they've hinted about multiclassing, I don't see a big problem here.  From the way it sounds so far, if you want Shot On The Run, you multiclass with rogue or ranger, and pick it from the list of powers.  Since you're not actually a ranger (your class is fighter, not fighter/ranger), you don't get the rangery things (if they even exist anymore).  You just borrow class abilities.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 27, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> They're both excellent opportunities for complaint! I'm sure someone will latch onto them.
> 
> I'm also concerned about the "non-woodsey Dex Fighter" being a non-option.  Unless the Rogue is now the Swashbuckler in all but name.  But then, who's the assassin/spy?



Probably the rogue on an Assassin Paragon Path.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 27, 2007)

Ruvion said:
			
		

> If 4e is designed to simplify (as intended):
> 
> All bonuses provided by feats would be a feat bonus.
> 
> ...



Oh god yes please.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 27, 2007)

^^ tough luck for those groups with more than one of a type (two wizards for example), but else I agree, it does sound like a much simpler way of handling bonus stacking.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> This isn't "Shape" spell so much as it is "Hole in the Middle" or something.




Hmmm...  Swiss spell?


----------



## Sadrik (Nov 27, 2007)

I really like that.
Have 4 groups of bonuses:
Feats
Arcane
Divine
Martial

Allong with the standard:
Situational


----------



## Sadrik (Nov 27, 2007)

Anybody notice the reference to combat advantage? I think this is the new standard bonus that you get against somebody if you: flank, feint, have higher ground, being invisible, flat footed etc. Also the rogue probably keys off of gaining a combat advantage.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 27, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Serviceable? Yes.  Nice?  No.
> 
> I find it odd that so many have complained about the lack of flavor in D&D of late and how D&D had much more in names and such.  Now that they move in that direction we get complaints about the flavor and requests for boring flavorless names.




I don't think "shape spell" is more boring than "augment spell."

I haven't heard the complaints about lack of flavor that you speak of, but perhaps I'm reading the wrong threads.  I'm just one of the people that prefers the core to be a bit more generic.  My complaints (and many of the complaints I've read) are about the type of flavor they're putting into the core.

My campaign setting might not even contain wyverns.  It doesn't make much sense then that this ability (that has nothing to do with wyverns in a world where wyverns don't exist) is named after them.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 27, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> My campaign setting might not even contain wyverns.  It doesn't make much sense then that this ability (that has nothing to do with wyverns in a world where wyverns don't exist) is named after them.



Hasn't stopped people naming stuff after dragons, phoenixes and unicorns in this world...


----------



## loseth (Nov 27, 2007)

Golden wyvern. Ouch.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 27, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Golden Wyvern Adept is a bit of an odd man out in these four. Why is it a feat rather than a Wizard class ability? In contrast the other three feats are very generic. I could see any character wanting to take them.



I believe from everything I've read that it is likely that class abilities are things you DO whereas feats modify things you do so you are different from other people of your class.

So, rangers might have a class power called Spring Attack that you activate as a full round action that lets you make a move, attack, the move again.

There might be a feat that lets you move 1 square further whenever you use any of your ranger powers.

All rangers can move around easily and get in attacks.  You are just a little faster than most.

Just like with the above feat, you are a wizard, you are able to blast an area around you.  However, due to your dedication to the ways of the Golden Wyvern, you are able to avoid your allies.


----------



## Terramotus (Nov 27, 2007)

Did anyone else catch the implication that Two-Weapon fighting is going to be a class specific ability?  What the heck kind of sense does that make?  Man, yet another edition I'll have to houserule that stuff to make it palatable.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 27, 2007)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> Did anyone else catch the implication that Two-Weapon fighting is going to be a class specific ability?  What the heck kind of sense does that make?  Man, yet another edition I'll have to houserule that stuff to make it palatable.



Just because it's a class ability doesn't mean only one class will have it.  I'll be surprised if rogues, rangers, and fighters don't all have access to two-weapon abilities.  Maybe they'll even have different kinds of two-weapon fighting.

Yeah, single-class wizards probably won't be able to learn two-weapon fighting.  Who cares?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 27, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Just because it's a class ability doesn't mean only one class will have it.  I'll be surprised if rogues, rangers, and fighters don't all have access to two-weapon abilities.  Maybe they'll even have different kinds of two-weapon fighting.
> 
> Yeah, single-class wizards probably won't be able to learn two-weapon fighting.  Who cares?



I don't even care if it is restricted only to rogues and rangers.  I found that 3rd edition muddled the classes way too much as it didn't matter what class you were anymore, just your build.  It might have been classless for all it mattered.

I think of two weapon fighting as being something appropriate for the rogue and rangers of the group, not the fighter who wears full plate.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 27, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I believe from everything I've read that it is likely that class abilities are things you DO whereas feats modify things you do so you are different from other people of your class.




That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 27, 2007)

I wonder... "Golden wywern" maybe the PHB name, with the attached IP, but sculpt spell may be the SRD name, OGL.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Nov 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> It IS a wizard class ability, its just one that uses a feat slot.
> 
> Its a feat that provides benefits to wizards using wizard powers.  Now, nothing in the feat says "only wizards may take this," but if you aren't a wizard and haven't got wizard powers, it doesn't do anything for you.




Also, with it being a feat, that Warlord who grabbed some wizard powers through multiclassing needn't take yet another wizard (level/power) to gain this ability. He can take it as a feat and not (presumably) lose out on another warlord power choice.

Sure, it'd be sub-optimal compared to a single class wizard with more area powers, but them's the breaks.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Nov 27, 2007)

I wonder at the terms "combat advantage" and "action point."

"Combat advantage" seems to be catching someone flat-footed. Probably a better name for it, really.

I know other RPGs have had "action points," but it'll be interesting to see how much of a role they play in D&D. Maybe they're used for per-encounter abilities?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 27, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I wonder... "Golden wywern" maybe the PHB name, with the attached IP, but sculpt spell may be the SRD name, OGL.



I don't really think that "Golden Wyvern" can count as IP. 
Gold and Wyvern can appear in too many contexts and have certainly been used before, but names like "Melf", "Leomund", "Mordekainen" or "Tenser" are unique to D&D (are they even real world names?). 

I am not sure if I like the "Gold Wyvern" name, but I think it isn't really worse than "Scult Spell" or "Shape Spell". In all cases, you will want to look up what they do exactly. Too many 3.x abilities sound similar, but you still don't know what they do and will confuse them. You will probably also confuse the various "flavoured names", but at least they have some kind of flavor. And it might also sound nicer to refer to these names in-character. (that's debatable, though)

And honestly, it's incredibly difficult to come up with good names for so many abilities. But it removes the "cold and technical" feeling of the game, which I think isn't too bad. (At least for newcomers. I don't really need this stuff anymore.  )


----------



## Jinete (Nov 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am not sure if I like the "Gold Wyvern" name, but I think it isn't really worse than "Scult Spell" or "Shape Spell". In all cases, you will want to look up what they do exactly. Too many 3.x abilities sound similar, but you still don't know what they do and will confuse them. You will probably also confuse the various "flavoured names", but at least they have some kind of flavor. And it might also sound nicer to refer to these names in-character. (that's debatable, though)
> 
> And honestly, it's incredibly difficult to come up with good names for so many abilities. But it removes the "cold and technical" feeling of the game, which I think isn't too bad. (At least for newcomers. I don't really need this stuff anymore.  )




It's not the name "Golden Wyvern" that is the worst part.  Although IMO it's awful. I don't like the idea of wizard schools if they are going to be in game organizations. 

I bought Complete Champion and hated most of the PrC's that were in there. Most were tied to some organization that I wouldn't use as a DM, or wouldn't ask a DM to put in the game.

Sure, I can change a PrC to fit my setting, but why should I need to change core classes to fit my homebrew?!


----------



## zoroaster100 (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree with the concern about Golden Wyvern for a feat name.  I think feats should have names that easily reveal what they do, and should stay away from specific flavor.  Each DM can add flavorful fanciful names for specific feats, or campaign settings can suggest a different naming system for feats, but the core rules should avoid that in order to keep the rules easily adaptable to many kinds of campaigns.


----------



## Ant (Nov 27, 2007)

*Good*

Finally, a toothsome Design and Development article
Toughness - nice evolution of a weaker feat
Possibility of streamlined bonus types for stacking
The illustration of the halfling looks decidedly un-dungeon-punky
*Bad*

Everything else


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 27, 2007)

Well, I'm back on board. That had meaty information to digest, and useful design philosophy spelled out.

But say, I wasn't on ENWorld when some of the 3.5 stuff came out; was there this much crying about 'Robilar's Gambit'? 'Thunder Twin'? Hell, 'Combat Expertise' doesn't tell you anything useful about what the feat -does-. Stupid 3.5 designers and their constant need to inject "flavor" into the rules!


----------



## neceros (Nov 27, 2007)

One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?

Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.

Jeez.



			
				Jinete said:
			
		

> Sure, I can change a PrC to fit my setting, but why should I need to change core classes to fit my homebrew?!




Most Prestige classes _tell_ you how to change it to get rid of flavor_ in the class desciption._


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 27, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> It's not the name "Golden Wyvern" that is the worst part.  Although IMO it's awful. I don't like the idea of wizard schools if they are going to be in game organizations.
> 
> I bought Complete Champion and hated most of the PrC's that were in there. Most were tied to some organization that I wouldn't use as a DM, or wouldn't ask a DM to put in the game.
> 
> Sure, I can change a PrC to fit my setting, but why should I need to change core classes to fit my homebrew?!




Sometimes i wonder how people played their homebrew in 3.0/3.5...
Quick question: Did you manage the unthinkable and change or ignore a name, or did all your homebrew worlds have a Tenser, Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tasha etc...?


----------



## Jinete (Nov 27, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?
> 
> Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.
> 
> ...





You know what Debbie? You're right! And I think Guild Bubblepants also has a point. In fact since you two are obviously more experienced could you give me some help with my current 3,5 build?

I'm playing a lvl 5 westfolk Kingdom Rebel, my feats so far are Unseen Warrior and Blade Parry. What do you think I should take at lvl 6?


----------



## humble minion (Nov 27, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?
> 
> Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.




I can see how it's possible to change the flavour of a prestige class by changing its background, and how a change of name can help this happen, but seriously - has anyone in a real game EVER managed to change a feat(/whatever) name and make it stick?  If your character has, I dunno, Robilar's Gambit, but IC calls it 'Dancing Nancyboy Flourish' or something, both you and your GM are still going to have to remember that's where you've got Dancing Nancyboy Flourish written on your character sheet it actually means Robilar's Gambit, and so if there's a question about how the feat works, you look under 'R' rather than 'D' in the feat list.

YMMV of course, but I find that sort of thing just doesn't have sticky in the group, and around the table always just gets referred to feat-X-which-we're-calling-by-name-Y, and just maks things slower and more confusing.


----------



## JosephK (Nov 27, 2007)

Hm, first thing I've heard about 4e that has me somewhat worried. I considered it one of the coolest things about 3e, that feats made untraditional character options widely available. Cleric archer? Sure. Mobile, spring attacking, dual-wielding dex-based fighter? Yep. Melee oriented duird? Gogogo.

Imo, it'd be a huge shame if they sacrifice character diversity on the alter of role-conformity :/


----------



## Wepwawet (Nov 27, 2007)

> So what design space did that leave for feats? After some discussion, we came to see feats as the “fine-tuning” that your character performed after defining his role (via your choice of class) and his build (via your power selections). Feats would let characters further specialize in their roles and builds, as well as to differentiate themselves from other characters with similar power selections.
> 
> They would accomplish these goals with simple, basic functionality, rather than complicated conditional benefits or entirely new powers that you’d have to track alongside those of your class.



I love this reasoning!
I'm glad they powered down feats, and favored class options.

More points for 4th edition!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm liking the idea that the names of feats and powers get more interesting as you go along - the suggestion that a Heroic character takes Toughness, but a Paragon character takes Bones of the Mountain and the Epic character takes Rock of the World or similar.

I like that - it makes a clear distinction that you've stepped up in class and are moving into more legendary exploits.

As for the other names, well, I'm sure we'll all get used to them in time.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 27, 2007)

TWF rangers *again*? I thought WotC would have learned their lesson. I hope there's more options for melee rangers beyond TWF.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

One concern I have is that they may be adding more IP to the core game, making it even hard for 3rd parties to tie in. This might be why they are not do the d20 liscense. Personally, I think the added IP into the core books only hurts the campaign settings WOTC makes and the ability for 3rd party contributions. Wotc should avoid the stuff that can be conflicting in other compaign settings.

Specific campaign material should not be in the core books.

This goes for names like golden wyvern adept. If my campaign setting doesn't have wyverns then this feat doesn't fit very well. I hate this sort of forcing content into my campaign. 

Now, if you want to put golden wyvern adepts in Forgotten Realms or Ebberron, then do it. Now issues there. Just keep them out of the core.


----------



## Kaffis (Nov 27, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> Toughness. Hp equal to class level +3 (is that a indication of triple starting hp at first?)
> 
> Alertness: Wonder why this isn't Skill Focus?




Probably. Except, I'm guessing it'll follow suit with Saga and not triple the con modifier. Saga is triple the class's max hit die + con mod for first level hp.

Probably because you can stack that and skill focus? Also, Alertness provides an additional benefit (and a correspondingly smaller bonus to the skill).


----------



## Klaus (Nov 27, 2007)

Toughness is just 3.5's Improved Toughness (you used to gain +level hp, now it'll be +level+3).

Alertness now includes the benefit of Uncanny Dodge (not flat-footed if surprised).

What I don't like is the possible reserving of some ability paths for some classes. The biggest advancement of 3e was

"Options, Not Restrictions."

And in that it succeeded admirably. I really hope 4e isn't a step back from that.


----------



## loseth (Nov 27, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?
> 
> Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.
> 
> Jeez.




The fact that something can be changed is not a valid argument for its inclusion in the rules. If WOTC renamed hit points as 'jambalamba juice' you could change that. If they scrapped all current classes and replaced them with just two classes--_teletubby_ and _yeti_--you could change that. If they changed the name of the 'Strength' stat to 'Broccoli power' you could change that. The fact that you could change any of these if you wanted to does _not_ make them a good idea, nor does it remove a customer's right to say 'I don't like these names in the product you want me to buy.'


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 27, 2007)

Cleric archer?  Multiclass into ranger or fighter, depending on the abilities you want.  It will replace some of your cleric options, but not any of your cleric effectiveness.

People are still thinking 3e mutliclassing, and it grates on me.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm almost certain that "Golden Wyvern" etc will be less like organizations, and more like the equivalent of a fighting style. A tradition or school of magic that in 3e is just Evocation/Divination/etc.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm almost certain that "Golden Wyvern" etc will be less like organizations, and more like the equivalent of a fighting style. A tradition or school of magic that in 3e is just Evocation/Divination/etc.




Still doesn't work for me if wyverns or gold aren't in my game.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Still doesn't work for me if wyverns or gold aren't in my game.



If gold isn't in your game, then you've got more problems. Why aren't you complaining that everything has a Gold Piece value? And all treasures have GP listed? Because that's _not in your campaign_!


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Nov 27, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> I didn't think about it at first, but it _is_ nice to see Wisdom showing up for Wizards.



Indeed.  Though we should also bear in mind that in 4e, the ability bonuses are higher because there are no penalties.  A 10 Wisdom gives a +3 bonus.  For for this feat, a high wisdom is nice, it's not neccessary to take the feat in the first place.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Though we should also bear in mind that in 4e, the ability bonuses are higher because there are no penalties.  A 10 Wisdom gives a +3 bonus.  For for this feat, a high wisdom is nice, it's not neccessary to take the feat in the first place.




Debunked.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 27, 2007)

JosephK said:
			
		

> Imo, it'd be a huge shame if they sacrifice character diversity on the alter of role-conformity :/




I have a feeling you may be on the ball here.. you will be forced to muticlass to gain some abilities that should be feats.

If someone wants to play a duel warhammer fighting cleric of the god of war.. they should be able to learn it with a feat, not buy being forced to take levels of rouge or ranger.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Debunked.




how so?


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 27, 2007)

I _really_ liked the crunch. Across the board improvement. Take the spell sculpt, I could definately see more use from that then the complicated (ok, for my players) and overrestrictive metamagic in the PHB 3rd. 

But the name of that feat, and even the tone of that article (we decided to make things more restrictive and feats crappy), just not good. Maybe the GWA will make more sense in context, but still...

Maybe I will just play with the SRD.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> how so?




Can't be bothered to track it down. I am sure someone else has it at their fingertips. But I am happy to summarize:

Deriving the stats from the skills listed on the Spined Devil card created this rumor, and indeed, the math "matches up."

But the math also "matches up" if you use the normal ability score modifiers + 1/2 Level, which happens to be the much more likely formulation for skill bonuses.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Still doesn't work for me if wyverns or gold aren't in my game.




well there is an easy way to fix this... 

copy and past the SRD when its out and rename the feats you want to rename (which I have a feeling will en dup being quite a few for my home games)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Still doesn't work for me if wyverns or gold aren't in my game.



Wyverns don't exist in the real world, either, still we have people using the name.

What do you do with the monster "Wyvern" or the monster "Unicorn" if you don't have them in the game? What happens if an player accidently makes an in-game reference to a creature of our mythology that doesn't exist in your game? Is it possible it still exists as a purely mythological (but not really existing) creature? 

Maybe Wyverns do not exist as a creature, but the name is actually a Draconic word for something totally different (maybe an ancient wizard academy, and "Gold" refers to certain disciplines taught by the academy?)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Still doesn't work for me if wyverns or gold aren't in my game.



Wyverns don't have to physically exist to name an organisation or a style after them. They just have to exist as an idea.

Dragon style kung fu exists in our world, yet dragons don't.


----------



## Wepwawet (Nov 27, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> If someone wants to play a duel warhammer fighting cleric of the god of war.. they should be able to learn it with a feat, not buy being forced to take levels of rouge or ranger.



In this case it makes perfect sense that you go to some fighting school to improve your warrior skills, and pause your cleric development for a while.
A god of war would totally be in favor of an adventuring cleric developping his fighting skills instead of satying in the convent reading books and studying religion.

If multiclassing rules were done properly, you shouldn't get much trouble for taking one or 2 levels in a class that fits your concept (unlike 3E)

I never quite liked feats in 3.5... There was an infinity of feats. Too much choices for my character and most of the feats I could not use, as they where designed for all the other classes. So I prefer this way better. Stuff meaningful to your PC is connected to the classes you have. And general stuff useful to anyone stays as feats.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But the math also "matches up" if you use the normal ability score modifiers + 1/2 Level, which happens to be the much more likely formulation for skill bonuses.




Like he said...

This is the sacred mechanic in 4 *+ 1/2 Level*, IMNSHO


----------



## Ruvion (Nov 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Wyverns don't have to physically exist to name an organisation or a style after them. They just have to exist as an idea.
> 
> Dragon style kung fu exists in our world, yet dragons don't.




In my decidedly limited understanding of martial arts, I recall there being more creature names based on real world examples such as: monkey, crane, mantis, etc...rather than fantasy creature like dragon.  Anime and other such fantastic literatures usually have the more fantastic creature names such as pheonix strike and what have you.  This, however, does not mean that D&D (being a game taking place on a fantastic world) should not use what can potentially be a set of non-campaign specific (meaning elements that do not belong to one's campaign) names...it may just grate on some sensibilities when compared to a more generic set of names.  A fine balance to walk and tune I think.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> If gold isn't in your game, then you've got more problems. Why aren't you complaining that everything has a Gold Piece value? And all treasures have GP listed? Because that's _not in your campaign_!




lol, not quite. Let's say I am running a Dark Sun campaign. Gold is scarce and the common coin is a ceramic piece. The rules let me easily treat 1 gold as 1 ceramic piece for non-metal items ... etc.

But the name of a feat, golden wyvern adept, that is something that is difficult to change reference to and not create confusion. Now, in the world they may not call it that, that is fine. But the player's will use it and it hurts the feel of the setting for them to keep saying they are using this power or that one. 

I think as a whole, I am in the camp that wants function descriptive abilities and not colorfully named ones. WOTC is heading into dangerous ground with these new naming conventions. I think players overall won't like this approach. Most of the polls support this too.


----------



## Ruvion (Nov 27, 2007)

It may decidedly hurt the immersion factor for some groups/campaigns, like you say.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> They basically told us that this was the way it's going to be in the last podcast.  They're trying to divide up the major tricks into classes, so that each class has a kind of shtick.  They mentioned that the warlock is easy to design for because he doesn't have 30 years of baggage, but the big four are harder because everyone wants them to be all things.
> 
> Given what they've hinted about multiclassing, I don't see a big problem here.  From the way it sounds so far, if you want Shot On The Run, you multiclass with rogue or ranger, and pick it from the list of powers.  Since you're not actually a ranger (your class is fighter, not fighter/ranger), you don't get the rangery things (if they even exist anymore).  You just borrow class abilities.




It strikes me as odd that basic combat abilities would be THAT tied to class though. 

The sample feats are also pretty bland and weak seeming, with the exception of the wizard "fireball your party" feat.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> lol, not quite. Let's say I am running a Dark Sun campaign. Gold is scarce and the common coin is a ceramic piece. The rules let me easily treat 1 gold as 1 ceramic piece for non-metal items ... etc.
> 
> But the name of a feat, golden wyvern adept, that is something that is difficult to change reference to and not create confusion. Now, in the world they may not call it that, that is fine. But the player's will use it and it hurts the feel of the setting for them to keep saying they are using this power or that one.



And I say that it's the same.

Every time someone says gold or GP it breaks the immersion. 

How may monsers have DR/Silver? How many things in D&D reference Silver? Hell, there are _silver dragons_. And if you don't have Silver in your campaign, MADNESS.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> well there is an easy way to fix this...
> 
> copy and past the SRD when its out and rename the feats you want to rename (which I have a feeling will en dup being quite a few for my home games)




The abilities of the characters need to becareful how they are named. They need to easily convey their function to a new player, and they need to play the way the name sounds. Toughness is a good, easy to get name. Combat Expertise is good. Power attack is good (as a name). Whirlwind Attack, still good. First Reaction ...bad. Golden Wyvern adept is bad too. Another example is the epic spell 'I see you' I think it was called. Plain silly. 

Magic items, monsters and other objects and creatures that exist in the game can be removed or changed if there is something the DM doesn't feel fits in their game. 

Player class features (skills, feats, talents, abilities, etc) do not have this luxury, they are the language of the game for the players. Coating these features of the game with overly colorful, setting implying, mood-based names is a bad move over all.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 27, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> In this case it makes perfect sense that you go to some fighting school to improve your warrior skills, and pause your cleric development for a while.
> A god of war would totally be in favor of an adventuring cleric developping his fighting skills instead of satying in the convent reading books and studying religion.
> 
> If multiclassing rules were done properly, you shouldn't get much trouble for taking one or 2 levels in a class that fits your concept (unlike 3E)
> ...





And I had the exact opposite feeling. If you want to learn to punch someone, you shouldnt have to go train at a monastary. Classes have baggage, feats are bite sized abilities.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> lol, not quite. Let's say I am running a Dark Sun campaign. Gold is scarce and the common coin is a ceramic piece. The rules let me easily treat 1 gold as 1 ceramic piece for non-metal items ... etc.




Its probably referring to the color. Moreover, if you're running a darksun game, you need to rebalance the entire PHB anyways. You've got bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And I say that it's the same.
> 
> Every time someone says gold or GP it breaks the immersion.
> 
> How may monsers have DR/Silver? How many things in D&D reference Silver? Hell, there are _silver dragons_. And if you don't have Silver in your campaign, MADNESS.




But I as a DM can easily control the elements I am using. The elements in the hands of the players is going to effect the game atmosphere more. Those elements need to be setting generic in the core books as much as possible, otherwise everytime the player's refer to those abilities they are breaking the immersion, if even on a small level. 

With silver, for example, I can replace silver with whatever valuable I wish. Tell my players as such, and replace silver DR on the monsters. Like, swap iron in place of it for example. 

With feats, and other class powers, the players are using it. Changing the names confuses them or makes it hard to communicate. So that means I am stuck referencing wyverns and flying monkeys and tiger style, when maybe my world is the land of undead bugs and bug like faeries and there is no wyvern, flying monkey or tiger style anywhere in my game. 

It would be like having a power called Songbird Strike or Drifting Rainbow Acolyte. Both of which color my setting more so than any other aspect of the rules, because I can't choose to include them or not.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Nov 27, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> Too much choices for my character .




 I read the words, but I do not understand what they mean when they are in that order.   

The first thing I look at in game rules is character creation flexibility - one of the things that brought me back to D&D (after leaving when 2nd ed came out) was the amazing flexibility that feats and PrCs and the new multiclassing rules brought to the game.

I am in the boat that I hope that 4th would be *more* open and flexible in character creation.


----------



## Ruvion (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And I had the exact opposite feeling. If you want to learn to punch someone, you shouldnt have to go train at a monastary. Classes have baggage, feats are bite sized abilities.




Hmmm....classes may have baggages or not (see below), but it may require more than a simple bite-sized band-aid solution if you want to punch someone (as per martial arts), when you don't even know an uppercut from straight...you being a cloistered cleric/wizard.  A fighter would have access to this 'empty hand fighting style' from the get-go (ie: without the need to multiclass) of course. Now if we can safely assume that 4e multiclassing involves 'point mutations' (or a quick dip for an ability or two, but not skinny dipping and getting the whole baggage) rather than a whole 'x-some mutations' which may result in a weird assortment of baggages then the designers have cause to be proud of their multiclass system.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 27, 2007)

Golden Wyvern sounds like something one might catch from the local tavern trollop.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> But I as a DM can easily control the elements I am using. The elements in the hands of the players is going to effect the game atmosphere more. Those elements need to be setting generic in the core books as much as possible, otherwise everytime the player's refer to those abilities they are breaking the immersion, if even on a small level.



Except that if it's Darksun, you're buggered.

For one, you're arguing about a Wizard's feat, and Dark Sun doesn't really have "wizards". Or at least, it seems like they're not allowed to be PCs, so you don't have to worry about that.

Two, no psionics, so how you going to play Dark Sun in the first place?

But I've never had a problem with immersion. Hell, at the tables I've been at, the most extensive people get when they use a feat is say 'I'm sundering' or 'Power attacking with'. 

The wizard PC isn't going to say 'I initiate my Golden Wyvern adept capacity to allow me to develop the arcane strike so that it invalidates the area around the gladiator'. He's going to say 'I arcane strike this area, sans this square so that it doesn't hit the dwarf.'


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 27, 2007)

> Golden Wyvern adept is bad too.




  It's a necessary evil for their organizational structure, though. It's not just a "fireball your party feat" it's a "Congratulations on your ascension to the rank of adept in the hallowed Order of the Golden Wyvern" feat. 

  You can hate the name of the order, or the idea of feat based organizations, but given that is what they're doing, I'd like to see someone come up with a name that both explains that it is an entry level feat to an organization devoted to advanced metamagic and the precise mechanical benefit.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

1) Its true that you shouldn't have to go to a monastery to learn to punch someone.
2) Its not true that the fighter should be designed so that it can punch people just as well as the monk.

Classes have baggage.  But so do fighting styles.  If you want to play a character who doesn't wear armor, or at least doesn't wear much armor, who punches things as his primary attack technique, and who's reasonably skilled in terms of balance, coordination, and mobility, and I want to play a character who wears full plate, carries a shield, hits people with a big axe, and who occasionally punches people when he's in a bar and not wearing any of his gear, well, we probably need two different classes for that.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 27, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> In this case it makes perfect sense that you go to some fighting school to improve your warrior skills, and pause your cleric development for a while.
> A god of war would totally be in favor of an adventuring cleric developping his fighting skills instead of satying in the convent reading books and studying religion.
> 
> If multiclassing rules were done properly, you shouldn't get much trouble for taking one or 2 levels in a class that fits your concept (unlike 3E)
> ...



 Smaller brushes paint a more accurate image.

The example given above (dual-hammer dwarven cleric of war) can *easily* be done in 3.5 by simply taking 1 or 2 levels of Fighter. Wanna get better at fighting? Take a few levels of Fighter.

From what is inferred of 4e, the same character would need to take a few levels of Rogue or Ranger, neither of which match the heavy-armor image the character conveys.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Area Effect Spell Novice of the Campaign Appropriate Name.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 27, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> You know what Debbie? You're right! And I think Guild Bubblepants also has a point. In fact since you two are obviously more experienced could you give me some help with my current 3,5 build?
> 
> I'm playing a lvl 5 westfolk Kingdom Rebel, my feats so far are Unseen Warrior and Blade Parry. What do you think I should take at lvl 6?





What i suggested had nothing to do with experinece but with common sense. I implied that you had to rename things in 3.5 to fit your homebrew, and that's exactly what you'll have to do in 4th Ed. If thinking about alternative names is to troublesome for you, you can always play in a published setting.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Area Effect Spell Novice of the Campaign Appropriate Name.




I'm only taking this feat if it increases my yeti's Broccoli Power.

I think three of those four feats are exceptional, if only because the somewhat bland names allows for some game mechanic transparency. Golden Wyvern Adept does not. In fact, the less WotC employs Fancy Adjective Noun, the better, at least in the core, because "you can change it" and "well, we don't have these in the real world" are pretty weak defenses against "this is poorly implemented branding."

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The example given above (dual-hammer dwarven cleric of war) can *easily* be done in 3.5 by simply taking 1 or 2 levels of Fighter. Wanna get better at fighting? Take a few levels of Fighter.




But it's even easier done by just taking the TWF feat and keeping your cleric progression intact.

And don't say, "Well they've fixed multiclassing in 4e!" 

If you tell me that the cleric can multiclass with fighter in 4e and sacrifice _nothing_ of his cleric advancement, then it's broken.

In 3e, all you have to sacrifice is a feat. You take TWF at 1st level, and ITWF at 9th level, and so on. You don't have to give up anything about being a full-time cleric.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But it's even easier done by just taking the TWF feat and keeping your cleric progression intact.
> 
> In 3e, all you have to sacrifice is a feat. You take TWF at 1st level, and ITWF at 9th level, and so on. You don't have to give up anything about being a full-time cleric.



You don't "get better" at fighting. You get an extra attack at the cost of sucking.

A cleric taking TWF means that the cleric is going to barely hit anything with his weakened BAB. Two levels of fighter give him enough BAB to cover those two -2 to his attack.


----------



## rowport (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.



This is not the *first* bit of news that worries me-- that was having different versions of creatures for players and NPCs-- but this certainly follows that trend.  I believe that the 3e flexibility and customizably is one of the hallmarks of the edition, a vast improvement over 1e and 2e.  This is a huge step in the wrong direction, back towards class restrictions.  Blech.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But it's even easier done by just taking the TWF feat and keeping your cleric progression intact.
> 
> And don't say, "Well they've fixed multiclassing in 4e!"
> 
> ...



 Sorry, I was thinking about the clerics IMC, which are all of the Cloistered variety. If someone wants to play a fully-armored Cleric, they need a level of Fighter.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 27, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> It's a necessary evil for their organizational structure, though. It's not just a "fireball your party feat" it's a "Congratulations on your ascension to the rank of adept in the hallowed Order of the Golden Wyvern" feat.
> 
> You can hate the name of the order, or the idea of feat based organizations, but given that is what they're doing, I'd like to see someone come up with a name that both explains that it is an entry level feat to an organization devoted to advanced metamagic and the precise mechanical benefit.



So every D&D game everywhere now needs to have an "Order of the Golden Wyvern" AND every D&D game everywhere needs to constrain that the ONLY way to get this mechanical ability is to join this order? 

IMO - that sucks


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> You don't "get better" at fighting. You get an extra attack at the cost of sucking.
> 
> A cleric taking TWF means that the cleric is going to barely hit anything with his weakened BAB. Two levels of fighter give him enough BAB to cover those two -2 to his attack.




LOL.

Clerics suck at fighting, huh?

That was the quickest self-elimination from an argument I have seen around here in a while.


----------



## mhensley (Nov 27, 2007)

Has anyone else noticed that Alertness provides a +2 bonus to Perception checks instead of to Listen and Spot?  Its looks like they've been combined.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Has anyone else noticed that Alertness provides a +2 bonus to Perception checks instead of to Listen and Spot?  Its looks like they've been combined.



I noticed that too.

Prediction: MS and Hide have been combined into Stealth.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> Clerics suck at fighting, huh?
> 
> That was the quickest self-elimination from an argument I have seen around here in a while.



Is that the extent of your rebuttal? "LOL NOOB"? 

The cleric is a contender in a fight because they have decent HP, can wear armor and can cast many buff spells. The dwarven cleric of the war god and the nerdy cleric of the knowledge god have the same capacity for fighting. 

If the Dwarven cleric just takes TWF, then he's not a _better fighter_, he can just take two weaker attacks compared to the nerdy cleric's one.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I noticed that too.
> 
> Prediction: MS and Hide have been combined into Stealth.




Petty as it may sound, one of my chief concerns about 4e was that that Spot/Listen and Hide/MoveSilently would still be separate skills.

So...yay!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> If the explanation is "You're a better fighter", TWF doesn't make you so. If all your fighting prowess is coming from your spells, then you're no different from Bob the Knowledge Cleric in a fight, except that you can make two attacks with more likelihood of missing than him.




That is not the fault of the Cleric, it's the fault of TWF.

But that's not the point. 

The point is, as the premise was presented, if you WANT to play a sub-optimal TWF dual-hammerin' dwarven Cleric build, it is EASIER AND BETTER to just take TWF than it is to take 2 levels of Fighter.

Because if you take 2 levels of Fighter, you are two levels behind access to the kick-ass cleric spells that have put clerics on the undisputed top of the heap where they've been for YEARS.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The point is, as the premise was presented, if you WANT to play a sub-optimal TWF dual-hammerin' dwarven Cleric build, it is EASIER AND BETTER to just take TWF than it is to take 2 levels of Fighter.
> 
> Because if you take 2 levels of Fighter, you are two levels behind access to the kick-ass cleric spells that have put clerics on the undisputed top of the heap where they've been for YEARS.



So your complaint is that you can't play a suboptimal fighter without becoming a suboptimal cleric? You should have all the strengths of the cleric PLUS your sub-optimal feat selection?


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 27, 2007)

> So every D&D game everywhere now needs to have an "Order of the Golden Wyvern" AND every D&D game everywhere needs to constrain that the ONLY way to get this mechanical ability is to join this order?




  That's a fair opinion. If you don't like the Wizard Orders you're going to have to rewrite them at some level. I just don't get people talking about the feat being horribly misnamed. It's perfectly descriptive of what it is, an organization based feat. They had similar feat chains in SW Saga for Jedi/Sith traditions, and even a more limited form of them in other products, like the Druidic Orders in Eberron. 

  If you hate Golden Wyvern, then change the name. If you hate Wizard orders or traditions, period, make them generic feat chains. But at least understand why the feat has the name it does. It's driving me crazy seeing everybody baffled by the fact an organization based feat chain isn't called "Spellsculpt" or something.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 27, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I wonder... "Golden wywern" maybe the PHB name, with the attached IP, but sculpt spell may be the SRD name, OGL.




That would be even worse than using the name golden wyvern in both places since now you'd have a disconnect between one version and the other and that means lack of clarity.

Personally, I very much prefer my feats and powers to be relatively clearly named for what they do rather than have some flowery label that has no direct meaning. Sculpt Spell or even Exclude Area would be far clearer to work with as a DM handling several NPCs at a time.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> So your complaint is that you can't play a suboptimal fighter without becoming a suboptimal cleric? You should have all the strengths of the cleric PLUS your sub-optimal feat selection?




I don't have a _complaint_.

Meaningful choices are good. It _appears_ that feats like TWF, Spring Attack, etc. are being re-dedicated and siloed off into classes. That might be good for streamlining difficult decisions for newer players, but it is indisputably bad for player choice overall.

I made a rather simple observation in response to Klaus that it is _better design_ to allow the player the choice of just taking TWF instead of forcing him to multiclass into fighter. 

Your rebuttal was that it was preferable to multiclass into fighter to make up for the shortcomings of the cleric (which, as I pointed out, are actually the shortcomings of TWF).

And yes, quite frankly, as you put it: that's a noob suggestion. Slowing down your caster progression is a sub-optimal choice on a much more staggering scale than TWF.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Is that the extent of your rebuttal? "LOL NOOB"?
> 
> The cleric is a contender in a fight because they have decent HP, can wear armor and can cast many buff spells. The dwarven cleric of the war god and the nerdy cleric of the knowledge god have the same capacity for fighting.
> 
> If the Dwarven cleric just takes TWF, then he's not a _better fighter_, he can just take two weaker attacks compared to the nerdy cleric's one.




Uhm...wouldn't the domains they took affect this as well?  Just sayin, a "war" cleric is going to be a better fighter than a "knowledge" cleric.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm...wouldn't the domains they took affect this as well?  Just sayin, a "war" cleric is going to be a better fighter than a "knowledge" cleric.




I am not 100% sure he's 100% familiar with the cleric class.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 27, 2007)

If it's at all like Saga, TWF will still be a feat.  I think all this anger over class restrictions might be a bit premature in general.  While there was some interesting mechanical info given, there was not nearly enough to say their "straitjacketing" character creation.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 27, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> That's a fair opinion. If you don't like the Wizard Orders you're going to have to rewrite them at some level. I just don't get people talking about the feat being horribly misnamed. It's perfectly descriptive of what it is, an organization based feat. They had similar feat chains in SW Saga for Jedi/Sith traditions, and even a more limited form of them in other products, like the Druidic Orders in Eberron.
> 
> If you hate Golden Wyvern, then change the name. If you hate Wizard orders or traditions, period, make them generic feat chains. But at least understand why the feat has the name it does. It's driving me crazy seeing everybody baffled by the fact an organization based feat chain isn't called "Spellsculpt" or something.



No offense, but perhaps people wouldn't have such negative reactions (I don't see anyone "baffled") if the feat actually gave any indication that it was the wizard order based feat you are calling it. Like say an [order] tag, a prereq line "entry into the Order of the Golden Wyvern, no other [order] feats" or any other hints besides using the same bit of flavor text as another article which folks may or may not have read. 

This whole _5 blind men describing an elephant_ strategy of advertising 4e isn't impressing me, and if they say "Here are four examples of feats taken from the latest draft of the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook," I expect that to mean that they contain the information we would need to use them, including the extra info you seem to be assuming about it being a special class of Order feats and requiring membership in an organization or tradition (at least in the form of a tag or prereq).


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

> It appears that feats like TWF, Spring Attack, etc. are being re-dedicated and siloed off into classes. That might be good for streamlining difficult decisions for newer players, but it is indisputably bad for player choice overall.




But it is almost certainly better for crafting rules for high quality two weapon fighters, high quality spring attackers, etc.

Consider Spring Attack in 3e.  Sure, anyone could take it.  It was actually GOOD, though, only for a few types of characters.  A rogue could kind of take it, but most didn't because there were better choices and giving up iterative attacks really sucks.  A fighter could kind of take it, but until the PHBII it was almost always a bad option (barring spiked chain cheese) because giving up iterative attacks is murder on a fighter.

It wasn't until the Scout that spring attack, used for its actual intended purpose of springing forwards, attacking, then ducking out of reach, was a good idea.  The class itself had to be designed around giving up iterative attacks in order to spring attack instead.

I personally favor moving Spring Attack into class feature territory, with the caveat that as newer classes come out, some will probably cover similar territory.  You know, if spring attack is a rogue ability now, and eventually a Swashbuckler is released, there's some logical crossover between the two.

I don't quite think that two weapon fighting should be automatically off limits to everyone but rogues and rangers, but I'd be shocked if it really was impossible for other classes.  The fact that most of the neat two weapon fighting abilities show up as Ranger class features doesn't preclude other classes from using two weapon fighting as well.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't have a _complaint_.
> 
> Meaningful choices are good. It _appears_ that feats like TWF, Spring Attack, etc. are being re-dedicated and siloed off into classes. That might be good for streamlining difficult decisions for newer players, but it is indisputably bad for player choice overall. Slowing down your caster progression is a sub-optimal choice on a much more staggering scale than TWF.




This is only true if caster progression works as in 3.5e.

My guess is that in 4e you wouldn't slow down the caster progression, you would just elect to take two-weapon fighting from fighter instead of a spell/power from the cleric. Which wouldn't be sub-optimal, if the different powers are balanced against each other


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 27, 2007)

> No offense, but perhaps people wouldn't have such negative reactions (I don't see anyone "baffled") if the feat actually gave any indication that it was the wizard order based feat you are calling it. Like say an [order] tag, a prereq line "entry into the Order of the Golden Wyvern, no other [order] feats" or any other hints besides using the same bit of flavor text as another article which folks may or may not have read.




  Eh, fair enough. Do you honestly think it's not a tradition feat, though? There's reasonable doubt, and then there's no paticular reason to think otherwise. 

  Also, "entry into the order of the golden wyvern" is roleplaying fluff and is not going to show up in the rule mechanics for any feat. One of the feats I mentioned earlier, "Child of Winter" in the Eberron campaign setting book, is a good example of an organization feat. 

 Pre-reqs for the feat are simply non-good alignment and ability to cast spontaneous summon natures ally (Be a Druid, basically). There's no join the organization requirement, or prohibition on taking any other organization feat. The Fluff description for the  feat indicates you have learned the teachings of the Children of Winter, and you get the ability to summon vermin using the Summon Natures Ally spells. 

You also gain the ability to take _other_ feats unique to the children of winter, such as vermin shape or vermin companion. _Those_ feats do make reference to having Child of Winter as a pre-req. So I don't see anything in the feat description that goes against my assumption. At the end of the day, it's just a feat chain.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Consider Spring Attack in 3e.  Sure, anyone could take it.  It was actually GOOD, though, only for a few types of characters.  A rogue could kind of take it, but most didn't because there were better choices and giving up iterative attacks really sucks.




I think the overall changes to movement and iterative attacks already address Spring Attack better than moving the feat into a class silo. Without having to worry as much about AoO and losing iterative attacks, Spring Attack becomes much more desirable.


----------



## Sadrik (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That is not the fault of the Cleric, it's the fault of TWF.
> 
> But that's not the point.




It is really the fault of the rules!

It is so suboptimal for anyone to even attempt to dual wield without the feat that it is basically a non-option. Those rules should be re-written so that anyone can dual wield and then when the rogue or ranger ability is applied that they actually get a bonus while doing it rather than just mitigating a huge penalty.

I actually liked the way they did it in 2e. Give characters a -4/-4 and have their dex modifier offset that penalty. So that dual hammer wielding cleric could have an 18 dex and have no penalties while dual wielding. And if they picked up rogue or ranger they would get a +x bonus while dual wielding. Done.

Hopefully 4e does it a little better on this account.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> This is only true if caster progression works as in 3.5e.
> 
> My guess is that in 4e you wouldn't slow down the caster progression, you would just elect to take two-weapon fighting from fighter instead of a spell/power from the cleric. Which wouldn't be sub-optimal, if the different powers are balanced against each other




That is delaying caster progression-- if what was formerly acessible as a general feat becomes a martial power.

A 3e cleric does not have to make a choice between full access to his class features and fighter feats. He only has to make a choice between feats.

I do understand and agree with your larger point.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 27, 2007)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> What i suggested had nothing to do with experinece but with common sense. I implied that you had to rename things in 3.5 to fit your homebrew, and that's exactly what you'll have to do in 4th Ed.




And I implied that renaming an odd PrC or spell now and then isn't quite the same as renaming a core class or feat. 



			
				Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> If thinking about alternative names is to troublesome for you, you can always play in a published setting.




Dude, I'm not getting that common sense you mentioned. How does a published setting, which is usually more fluff heavy, help me if I don't like the names WotC comes up with?


----------



## Sadrik (Nov 27, 2007)

I kind of like the concept of removing PrC specific abilities and making the available former "class features" into feats and allowing characters to take them however they want. 

This is actually much more open and lenient than 3e's PrC system. So if Golden Wyvern Adept is actually the start of a paragon "path" feat chain that describes abilities-wise what the Golden Wyvern Adepts can do. 

I am all for it because I hated the PrC system in 3e- dont get me started. But if it is a single feat that has no bearing on anything else and the designers thought that it just sounded cool. I say tsk tsk, get a better name.


----------



## Smerg (Nov 27, 2007)

I actually think that Golden Wyvern sounds like the cheezy line that a mage might use in a wizard singles bar.

'Hey baby, I am a Golden Wyvern and you know what that means <wink wink>.

Yeah, that's right, I am a master of the staff.

Let's free the Golden Wyvern and sculpt some magic together.'


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 27, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Eh, fair enough. Do you honestly think it's not a tradition feat, though? There's reasonable doubt, and then there's no paticular reason to think otherwise.



If I had read some other article talking about the existance of tradition feats in 4e, I might. But my point is that I shouldn't need to. Why not just *say* "The first two demonstrate the minor evolution of familiar favorites from 3rd Edition, while the other two show off some new tricks _one shows how action points and feats will interact, and one is a tradition feat in a style players of Eberon or Saga will be familiar with._"  ?


----------



## Sadrik (Nov 27, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> How does a published setting, which is usually more fluff heavy, help me if I don't like the names WotC comes up with?




I think, Golden Wyvern Adept is the first feat in a "paragon path" which takes the place of the PrC system. I actually like this. If you dont want that "path in your game- ban it. Make a new path, keep the abilities but change the name of the path etc. You decide.


----------



## jasin (Nov 27, 2007)

I find it _really_ weird that they thought "you can make your attack in the middle of your move" was a power too specific to be taken by anyone and should be limited to particular classes, but that "you can omit areas from the effect of your wizard spells" is good enough for anyone.


----------



## Sadrik (Nov 27, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I find it _really_ weird that they thought "you can make your attack in the middle of your move" was a power too specific to be taken by anyone and should be limited to particular classes, but that "you can omit areas from the effect of your wizard spells" is good enough for anyone.



My guess is that spring attack will be a martial "spell" that martial characters will take and have the same types of restrictions as a wizard taking fireball.


----------



## Perun (Nov 27, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Petty as it may sound, one of my chief concerns about 4e was that that Spot/Listen and Hide/MoveSilently would still be separate skills.
> 
> So...yay!




My list of expectations for the 4e includes:

 fixing skills(merging of some skills, removing others, etc. in general, I hope the skill system resembles that in SWSE)
 reducing the amount of magic items, as well as the characters' dependence on them, and (hopefully) fixing item creation process
 reducing/eliminating the feat (and PrC, should they remain in the game) bloat
 simplifying monsters
 keeping gnomes as one of the PH1 races

Everything else, including the wizard tradition names, is good 

Since it looks like they're covering at least four out of five, I'm happy


----------



## grimslade (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't have a _complaint_.
> 
> Meaningful choices are good. It _appears_ that feats like TWF, Spring Attack, etc. are being re-dedicated and siloed off into classes. That might be good for streamlining difficult decisions for newer players, but it is indisputably bad for player choice overall.
> 
> ...




 To create a dual weilding sword lovin' priest of Kelanen in 3E, hands down the better cleric will take TWF feat rather than 2 levels of fighter and losing an entire level of spells + 2 caster levels. 
The better holy swordsman will take the 2 fighter levels (+1 BAB and an extra feat). 

This is a design flaw with 3E. You have to stay cleric or appropriate PrC to be a cleric at a decent power level to ECL. The TWF feat blows chunks for a cleric because of the stat requirement. 15+ dex on a cleric? A cleric who takes TWF for a feat wasted one of his limited feats and is sub-optimal. If the cleric takes some fighter levels he has diluted his caster levels and is sub-optimal. Where is the good design? Where is the increased choice? A cleric must be a caster first -melee second or else he is sub-optimal. So whether the class design is flawed or the feat is flawed; there is a flaw that needs to be corrected. 

The simple thing would be to fix the feat, but that would be errata not a new edition. 4E seems to be addressing the larger change of the class/multiclass system. I feel this is a good choice/design because although the feat system in 3E allowed many choices, it was only an illusion of choice because most feat choices were sub-optimal for classes. Tie the big feats to classes that can use them and use the 4E feats to customize those talent trees. It does help 'noob' proof the game but that is a good thing. If you're able enough to tinker with sub-optimal feat choices in 3E, I am sure you will be able to jigger the multiclass system in 4E. 

I will also add that clerics (or druids) are horrible examples to use for this discussion because they bring way to much to the table to begin with. The 3E cleric is a juggernaught that needs no feats or 'build' to be effective. It is a class without peer in the PHB and a PrC amongst NPC classes when you add in splat books.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 27, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> That would be even worse than using the name golden wyvern in both places since now you'd have a disconnect between one version and the other and that means lack of clarity.
> 
> Personally, I very much prefer my feats and powers to be relatively clearly named for what they do rather than have some flowery label that has no direct meaning. Sculpt Spell or even Exclude Area would be far clearer to work with as a DM handling several NPCs at a time.




Er, how so?

Even if the name was "Exclude Area", until you play with it a few times, you still will have to go to the PHB to see what the Feat actually does.

Exclude Area tells me nothing just like Power Attack tells me nothing intrinsically. Really, is there ANY feat that you can decipher how it works without reading the text?


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 27, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> And I implied that renaming an odd PrC or spell now and then isn't quite the same as renaming a core class or feat.





Well, here we disagree. Not much to discuss then.



			
				Jinete said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm not getting that common sense you mentioned. How does a published setting, which is usually more fluff heavy, help me if I don't like the names WotC comes up with?




It wont help you if yout don't like the names in general. It helps you if you find it to much work to tinker with published stuff like classes, feats or spells until they fit your homebrew. 
Apart from that, it's not like D&D has ever been an absolutly setting neutral game. There has been always stuff in the corebooks that wouldnt fit in somebodys selfmade campaign world and that's all i tried to point put, dude.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I find it _really_ weird that they thought "you can make your attack in the middle of your move" was a power too specific to be taken by anyone and should be limited to particular classes, but that "you can omit areas from the effect of your *wizard spells*" is good enough for anyone.




Emphasis added.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 27, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Exclude Area tells me nothing just like Power Attack tells me nothing intrinsically. Really, is there ANY feat that you can decipher how it works without reading the text?



But it is easier to learn, memorise, whatever. If the name (your mental bookmark) has a connection to the content, you have an easier time learning it, not forgetting it. While not a full-fledged mnemonic, it's still helpful.

Furthermore, what bothers me: Pre-determined names for reference-heavy things. Class names? How often do you look it up? Once per level-up, hence it's easy to "ignore" the name.
Feats and spells? Much more often, even on the table, as in "Hey, pass the book, I need to look up 'Golden Wyvern Adept'!" - then you have the flavour at the table.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DamnedChoir (Nov 27, 2007)

I was really, really looking forward to 4E as a marked improvement for D&D...until I got the impression that there was going to be even more Straightjacketing than 3E, which dropped my enthusiasm quite a bit.

Defenders shouldn't avoid attacks, but absorb them! Fighter with a bow? I don't think so!

Sigh.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

DamnedChoir said:
			
		

> I was really, really looking forward to 4E as a marked improvement for D&D...until I got the impression that there was going to be even more Straightjacketing than 3E, which dropped my enthusiasm quite a bit.
> 
> Defenders shouldn't avoid attacks, but absorb them! Fighter with a bow? I don't think so!
> 
> Sigh.




If multiclassing carries no penalty (indeed, by the hints it seems you can even keep your original class) than I don't see a problem here. Want spring attack? Pick it up as a rogue talent with multiclassing. Same thing for some ranger archery stuff. Seems great to me


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> If multiclassing carries no penalty (indeed, by the hints it seems you can even keep your original class) than I don't see a problem here.




If multiclassing carries NO penalty, then the game is essentially classless: a big heaping barrel of feats and powers than anyone can pick and choose freely from.

It's safe to say that multiclassing will carry SOME penalty. It will involve some form of informed, meaningful decision.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 27, 2007)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> It wont help you if yout don't like the names in general. It helps you if you find it to much work to tinker with published stuff like classes, feats or spells until they fit your homebrew.
> Apart from that, it's not like D&D has ever been an absolutly setting neutral game. There has been always stuff in the corebooks that wouldnt fit in somebodys selfmade campaign world and that's all i tried to point put, dude.




I'm not worried that there will be stuff in the corebook that won't fit in everybodys homebrew, people like to change core a bit if only to give their setting a more original feel.

What I'm worried about is the general look & feel of D&D. This includes art, races, classes, deities and names. 

Like you said, I'm worried I won't like the names in general. What am I supposed to to then? Change the name of every wizard school, spell and feat and insist that my players do the same?


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If multiclassing carries NO penalty, then the game is essentially classless: a big heaping barrel of feats and powers than anyone can pick and choose freely from.
> 
> It's safe to say that multiclassing will carry SOME penalty. It will involve some form of informed, meaningful decision.




Yes, that is my hope and vision 

And there is a meaningful decision: Do I learn another clerical spell, or pick up some lockpicking skills, or some fighting ability...etc ?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 27, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Feats and spells? Much more often, even on the table, as in "Hey, pass the book, I need to look up 'Golden Wyvern Adept'!" - then you have the flavour at the table.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



I think that's the intent (and that might be the crux). It's an attempt to make the whole game feel less technical and more evocative.
That seems (is) unnecessary for many of us, because adding flavor and imagination to the game is not something we need rules for, because we build our own settings and adventures anyway. But for the beginning player, the Core rulebooks probably shouldn't really read like a mere toolbox. Once he is ready for the homebrew stuff, he can get rid of the Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts, and only mention it on the message boards he travels to get more cool ideas for his setting or an understanding of the rules...


----------



## BryonD (Nov 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think that's the intent (and that might be the crux). It's an attempt to make the whole game feel less technical and more evocative.
> That seems (is) unnecessary for many of us, because adding flavor and imagination to the game is not something we need rules for, because we build our own settings and adventures anyway. But for the beginning player, the Core rulebooks probably shouldn't really read like a mere toolbox. Once he is ready for the homebrew stuff, he can get rid of the Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts, and only mention it on the message boards he travels to get more cool ideas for his setting or an understanding of the rules...



Exactly.  

Looked at in the extreme case it could be said that not only are they afraid we can't handle complicated rules and they need to simplify that for us poor confused strugglers, but we also just don't have the knack of this whole "imagination, roleplaying" thing, so they need to spoon feed us that as well.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Nov 27, 2007)

Aage said:
			
		

> If multiclassing carries no penalty (indeed, by the hints it seems you can even keep your original class) than I don't see a problem here. Want spring attack? Pick it up as a rogue talent with multiclassing. Same thing for some ranger archery stuff. Seems great to me





The exact reason I threw out multiclassing penalties in my 3.x games. I saw a feat as a special thing you could do, and a class level as a package of skills you got. The flavor was in the character, and his particular fit of abilities. When I ran classes, aside from some special PrCs and Paladins to an extent, there was not "fluff/baggage" with a class - it was just a special package of abilities you learned. When the Gestalt rules hit, I jumped all over them too (I tended to have small groups with only two or three PCs, that helped cover the "roles"). 

I fully expect to do the same kind of thing if/when I play 4th ed.


----------



## Njall (Nov 27, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If multiclassing carries NO penalty, then the game is essentially classless: a big heaping barrel of feats and powers than anyone can pick and choose freely from.
> 
> It's safe to say that multiclassing will carry SOME penalty. It will involve some form of informed, meaningful decision.




We can't really say that, though.
Say classes are build like they are in SWSE: class talents at odd levels, bonus feats at even levels.
Now, assume all classes have similar progressions, as it is rumored...thus, you improve your fighting capabilities through talents more than BAB; same goes for spellcasting: a "spell", or a set of "spells" is a talent you take (take a look at SWSE...force powers are gained through the "force training" feat...make it a class talent, et voilà).
Now, if you're a spellcaster, your talents make your spells more powerful ( for exemple, you have a talent that gives +1 to hit with spells, or another one that adds +1d6 damage to all your spells, etc...), similar to metamagic feats.
There is no specific "caster level", and your spell's effects are based on character level.

This way, multiclassing is easy: each class is a collection of abilities more than a career path.
Want to multiclass into fighter? Sure, take a level as a fighter, grab TWF and back into cleric. Your spellcasting capabilities are not hampered ( since they're based on character level ) and you got the talent you wanted.
Where's the catch, then? The "catch" is that you lost the opportunity to take a "spellcasting" talent, much like in 3e you'd have lost the opportunity to take, say, Divine Metamagic for that TWF feat.
The multiclassed character is not overpowered ( assuming all the classes are balanced ), and neither he's underpowered, since his spellcasting is not suffering a huge hit like it would have in 3.x, but it's still slightly worse than a "pure" spellcaster due to that missed +1 to hit or +1d6 damage.
Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> We can't really say that, though.
> Say classes are build like they are in SWSE: class talents at odd levels, bonus feats at even levels.
> Now, assume all classes have similar progressions, as it is rumored...thus, you improve your fighting capabilities through talents more than BAB; same goes for spellcasting: a "spell", or a set of "spells" is a talent you take (take a look at SWSE...force powers are gained through the "force training" feat...make it a class talent, et voilà).
> Now, if you're a spellcaster, your talents make your spells more powerful ( for exemple, you have a talent that gives +1 to hit with spells, or another one that adds +1d6 damage to all your spells, etc...), similar to metamagic feats.
> ...




If it doesn't work this way I'm house-ruling it


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 27, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.




That would be the _ideal _ system, IMHO.


----------



## Gundark (Nov 27, 2007)

The feats look great. Good job WotC.

I have to say I'm sorry people jumped to complaining instead of talking about the good.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 27, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> To create a dual weilding sword lovin' priest of Kelanen in 3E, hands down the better cleric will take TWF feat rather than 2 levels of fighter and losing an entire level of spells + 2 caster levels.
> The better holy swordsman will take the 2 fighter levels (+1 BAB and an extra feat).
> 
> This is a design flaw with 3E. You have to stay cleric or appropriate PrC to be a cleric at a decent power level to ECL. The TWF feat blows chunks for a cleric because of the stat requirement. 15+ dex on a cleric? A cleric who takes TWF for a feat wasted one of his limited feats and is sub-optimal. If the cleric takes some fighter levels he has diluted his caster levels and is sub-optimal. Where is the good design? Where is the increased choice? A cleric must be a caster first -melee second or else he is sub-optimal. So whether the class design is flawed or the feat is flawed; there is a flaw that needs to be corrected.
> ...



 I just don't see how a cleric 18/Ftr 2 has sacrificed any measurable spell power in return for +2 BAB and two bonus feats.


----------



## Aage (Nov 27, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I just don't see how a cleric 18/Ftr 2 has sacrificed any measurable spell power in return for +2 BAB and two bonus feats.




The problem is at earlier levels: A cleric6/ftr2 has sacrificed an entire level of spells for +0,5 BAB and two bonus feats.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

Huh.  Its almost like a person who wants to be a strong spellcaster who also fights in melee sometimes is supposed to be a cleric, and a person who wants to be a strong melee combatant who also casts spells sometimes is supposed to be a paladin.


----------



## Rykaar (Nov 27, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.




If multiclassing is as flexible and engaging as it is in SWSE, we'll all be fine with whatever vision we want for our respective characters.  Yes, each class has a finite number of talent trees associated with it, but most classes have an array of talents within those trees with no prereqs that are immediately useful, scale well, and have amazing synergy across classes.  For how self-contained SWSE current is (it's one book) character creation is extremely dynamic.

I think we look at 3.5's abundance of feats as a way to let any single class have a vast array of options.  I suspect 4E will simply require you to multiclass to achieve the same goal.  And from a RP sense, this is reasonable--if your "Warlord" wants to jump around like a cat in battle, he's not going to learn how to do so from an "Old School Warlord", he's going to go learn a few things from his buddy the rogue.

Also, talent trees mean you break out of the "At level X gain Y talent" model, which is truly a cookie-cutter, or "straight jacket".

The net result of either system is a character tailor made to your likes and dislikes.  The difference is you can't necessarily hide all your esoteric feats behind "Level 10 Warrior" anymore--you need to say "Level 3 Warrior/Level 2 Wizard/Level 5 Rogue"  which really says more about your character anyway.  

Before you bemoan the loss of the vast array of feats that anybody can learn, see what options are truly open to your character.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 27, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> We can't really say that, though.
> *snip*
> Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.



I like the idea of making all costs opportunity costs.  It seems nicely elegant.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 27, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I just don't see how a cleric 18/Ftr 2 has sacrificed any measurable spell power in return for +2 BAB and two bonus feats.





No, but at 7th level, when the party turned to the Ftr2/Clr5 for a Divination or Restoration, he was not there.

And at 9th level, when the party turned to the Ftr2/Clr7 for a Commune or Raise Dead, he was not there.

And at 11th level, when the party turned to the Ftr2/Clr9 for Find the Path or Heal, he was not there.

etc.


----------



## jasin (Nov 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Emphasis added.



This part you emphasized is what makes it truly weird.

Why is this not a wizard ability but a feat?


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 27, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Why is this not a wizard ability but a feat?




Probably because wizard class abilities have a bigger impact on customization, and they need to make sure there are enough feats for every class.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

I don't know for sure, but I can think of a few reasons.

1) By having both wizard class abilities and feats designed for wizards, it lets you use all of your choices on wizarding.
2) A wizard class ability can only be chosen when gaining a level of wizard.  A feat which augments wizard abilities is more flexible, and can be chosen more easily by multiclass characters.
3) If a wizard's abilities are his spells, making this a wizard ability would require the wizard to sacrifice spells known to learn to shape his spells around allies.  Maybe the designers prefer that this sort of ability trade off with feat choice rather than spell selection.  Or rather than whatever else you get as wizard abilities.

If a wizard's class abilities are full of abilities much like this feat, then yes, it would be incongruous to have this as a feat rather than a class ability.  But that's not the only way to divide things.  I personally like the idea of having a wizard's class ability be his arsenal, and then providing him with feats to augment that arsenal.  Its not the only way to do things, but its one that could be fun.


----------



## jasin (Nov 27, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I just don't see how a cleric 18/Ftr 2 has sacrificed any measurable spell power in return for +2 BAB and two bonus feats.



He sacrificed two miracles, one greater spell immunity and one blasphemy each day. That, for two feats, 2 hp and martial weapons. He didn't get +2 BAB; a Clr18/Ftr2 is BAB +15, just like Clr20. At another level, there might be BAB gain (+1 at the most, and probably made irrelevant by divine power) but there will be also an even more significant loss in spell power: 0 miracles vs. 2 miracles is even worse than 2 miracles vs. 4 miracles.

The sacrifice is huge.


----------



## DM_Blake (Nov 27, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, how so?
> 
> Even if the name was "Exclude Area", until you play with it a few times, you still will have to go to the PHB to see what the Feat actually does.
> 
> Exclude Area tells me nothing just like Power Attack tells me nothing intrinsically. Really, is there ANY feat that you can decipher how it works without reading the text?




I dont' think anyone is claiming you can "decipher" a feat you've never seen before just from the name.

My dislike of Golden Wyvern Adept is that it doesn't tell me anything about what it does. Does this feat help the adept brew potions? Improve his Teleport range? Let him summon more monsters (wyverns)? No idea.

Once this feat is on a list with over a thousand other feats with equally meaningless names, nobody is going to remember what all of them do.

I know in 3.5e I have over 1200 feats on my feat list. I can look at the name of almost all of those feats and know what they do. 

I could possibly forget the exact mechanics of Power Attack (well, not likely, but I'll allow for the possibility) but at least when I look at it on some monster's stat block, I will know it must do something to add power to his attack. Maybe the players negotiate with thsi monster (or NPC) and there never is any combat. Which means that if I forgot what Power Attack does, I didn't have to delay the game to look it up because it never applied to the encounter.

But if that NPC had a feat called Golden Wyvern Adept and we were negotiating with him, I would probably have to look that up to make sure it didn't improve his ability in negotiation type encounters.

Which means that for cryptically named feats, there is more time spent at the gaming table pawing through reference books than for obviously named feats.

It's not the "golden wyvern" that is annoying. It's the "adept" that annoys me. That part, at least, should be changed to represent the feat.


----------



## jasin (Nov 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I don't know for sure, but I can think of a few reasons.



They make sense, but I still think the feat is weird in the context provided by the comment about Spring Attack.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 27, 2007)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> My dislike of Golden Wyvern Adept is that it doesn't tell me anything about what it does. Does this feat help the adept brew potions? Improve his Teleport range? Let him summon more monsters (wyverns)? No idea.




Giving anyone the name of something without context will cause confusion. However, it takes only a moment to get that context by reading the article about wizards and implements.



> Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.




Now, since they're described as shaping and sculpting their spells, it's pretty clear what the feat would do (exactly what it does... allows them to shape spells in particular ways).


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 27, 2007)

Plus, since I'd put money on there being a chain, or at least a cluster of golden wyvern feats, golden wyvern can function as a useful prefix which sorts all feats that involve shaping and sculpting spells in one easy to find location in the feat list (increase range, increase area, increase targets, exclude squares, etc.).


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Plus, since I'd put money on there being a chain, or at least a cluster of golden wyvern feats, golden wyvern can function as a useful prefix which sorts all feats that involve shaping and sculpting spells in one easy to find location in the feat list (increase range, increase area, increase targets, exclude squares, etc.).



This is my guess as well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Looked at in the extreme case it could be said that not only are they afraid we can't handle complicated rules and they need to simplify that for us poor confused strugglers, but we also just don't have the knack of this whole "imagination, roleplaying" thing, so they need to spoon feed us that as well.



Not _us_. New gamers. We don't need spoon-fed anymore. But that doesn't mean others couldn't benefit from it to give them a nice start, and then they can join ranks with us and do the cool stuff we already did in 3rd edition and leave Gold Wyvern or Emerald Frosts behind (or adapt, rename, throw away, twist, abuse or whatever else they come up with). But with a different, hopefully better foundation.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 28, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think that's the intent (and that might be the crux). It's an attempt to make the whole game feel less technical and more evocative.
> That seems (is) unnecessary for many of us, because adding flavor and imagination to the game is not something we need rules for, because we build our own settings and adventures anyway. But for the beginning player, the Core rulebooks probably shouldn't really read like a mere toolbox. Once he is ready for the homebrew stuff, he can get rid of the Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts, and only mention it on the message boards he travels to get more cool ideas for his setting or an understanding of the rules...



That's a noble intent, and I see why they're doing that - but I still have the feeling that they went a bit overboard with it.

Well, aside from that (rather minor) quibble, the article was great and crunchy - more of these kinds of articles, please!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Betote (Nov 28, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm also concerned about the "non-woodsey Dex Fighter" being a non-option.  Unless the Rogue is now the Swashbuckler in all but name.  But then, who's the assassin/spy?  I'm also hoping you can be a non-priest Archer.  I did not like how in AE you had to go all "mystic hawk warrior" to be a good archer, and I would not like the same for D&D.




We don't know if a ranger *has* to be a tree-hugger. It seems like class abilities are going to be more like special powers you _can_ choose as your character gains levels, but without having (or being able) to take all of them.

I'd actually like it a lot if it were like that; something similar to True20 where classes/roles don't tell you what yo can do, but the array of different things from where you can choose the ones you will be able to do.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 1) Its true that you shouldn't have to go to a monastery to learn to punch someone.
> 2) Its not true that the fighter should be designed so that it can punch people just as well as the monk.
> 
> Classes have baggage.  But so do fighting styles.  If you want to play a character who doesn't wear armor, or at least doesn't wear much armor, who punches things as his primary attack technique, and who's reasonably skilled in terms of balance, coordination, and mobility, and I want to play a character who wears full plate, carries a shield, hits people with a big axe, and who occasionally punches people when he's in a bar and not wearing any of his gear, well, we probably need two different classes for that.




And thus the class glut of 3.5. 

Really feats were a great counter to this issue. A class based system has its share of weaknesses (witness numerous classes and prcs to cover many concepts). Feats were a good patch to that. I'm saddened they appear to be largely lame now.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 28, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I find it _really_ weird that they thought "you can make your attack in the middle of your move" was a power too specific to be taken by anyone and should be limited to particular classes, but that "you can omit areas from the effect of your wizard spells" is good enough for anyone.




And honestly, can anyone see being a wizard and NOT taking this feat? To me that means its either broken, or needs to be a class ability.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 28, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And honestly, can anyone see being a wizard and NOT taking this feat?




If I'm playing a wizard of the Emerald Frost, I definitely wouldn't have this feat.



> To me that means its either broken, or needs to be a class ability.




Class-only feats have existed since 3rd Edition. Nothing new.


----------



## Xethreau (Nov 28, 2007)

I have a few things to say to various things said in this thread so far:

-There is no evidence of Two-Weapon Fighting moving to a class power.  Many classes in 4e art has been seen dual wielding.  Including a tiefling fighter, and the other tiefling on the front of the Races and Classes book.

-I am not too happy with the name "Golden Wevern Adept" myself, and since the other names kind of stink too, I think an 'in-between' name like "Spell Sculpting Adept" might be suitable.

-I *really* like the idea that Najal speculated, and agree/hope that a system like that is put into place.

-I do not think that Golden Wyvern will any more of an organization than the field of Biology is in real life. There may be organizations who study the area, or perhaps even dedicate themselves to it, but I doubt such a thing is necessary to run the world.

-As a person who was not introduced to some of the 'classic' flavor of D&D during its prime, I was not much of a fan of some of the systems in place during 3e (including Wizard's schools, rules on planes, etc.), and found myself having to do a lot of reflavoring many many things.  Even though this time around, I am going to build my campaign world roughly arround 'core,' I have little problems with changing fluff to fit my needs, and this is partualy from the practice I got in 3e.  Please keep an open mind, people, when listening to fluff.  [Example] Just because there is a Peylor in core does not mean that that has to be your campaign's sun god.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 28, 2007)

My problem with the wizard traditions whether physical or philosophical organization is that they don't mean anything and have no resonance.  Golden Wyvern?  Iron Sigil Snake?  utterly meaningless and don't create any idea of what they're about.  

Whereas the old-style spell schools had deeper meaning that was hard coded into both culture and the English language.  Need a master of death magic necromancy leaps out at you, the word has been used for centuries and has cultural grip.  On top of that its a literal description of what it does.  Wizard who changes things. Transmutation.  The root meanings of the word describe to you just what the school is supposed to do.  While people may argue a bit over exactly where particular spells belonged they could be easily moved around between schools to fit if necessary.  

But these new traditions aren't broken up like that, they're treated more like the divisions between fighting styles of a martial art.  And the names themselves have no association with any meaning let alone a connection with a general theme of magic.  So it becomes more difficult to move certain features you don't think thematically belong together because they've been built into the mechanics with too strong a relation.


----------



## Voss (Nov 28, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And honestly, can anyone see being a wizard and NOT taking this feat? To me that means its either broken, or needs to be a class ability.




I can easily see a reason not to take this feat.  If blasting spells aren't totally revamped and made useful, there really is no reason to take it.
Alternately, if you can still make an illusionist/enchanter style wizard, there isn't much of a need for it.  
At best, even for a blaster, its a minor perk that allows you to place the AoE just a little more precisely without annoying your party members.

To be honest, all of these feats strike me as significantly low-power.  If every feat is on the same level and will be through ALL the splat books, thats fine, but I don't expect Wizards to manage that.

Toughness is just toughness + improved toughness.  2 extremely weak feats making one fairly weak feat.

The combat advantage one may be OK, depending on what exactly that means.

The action point thing is just insulting.  You want me to spend a very limited mid-level resource to spend another limited resource in a limited situation that only occurs if I fail a perception check?  Bzzt.  Try again.  The deny combat advantage feat just sounds better all around, and I can spend a low level feat, and no other resources.  Even just allowing a reroll to avoid the surprise would be better than this nonsense.


Not happy with specific classes eating the general, useful feats, either.  
Or a horrible mechanic like action points being shoehorned in.

The first real crunchy preview isn't supposed to turn me off, folks!  Its bad enough I'll have to rip out the horrible naming conventions and ignore fully half the PHB races.  And I liked the idea of 4th edition!


Oh, and some of you are becoming very certain that your speculation about how multi-classing will work is almost certain fact.  You might want to rein in that optimism, even if only to avoid personal disappoint, let alone muddying up the rumour mill.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

> And honestly, can anyone see being a wizard and NOT taking this feat? To me that means its either broken, or needs to be a class ability.



1) The feat specifies powers centered on the mage. These are things like Arcane Strikes and stuff that come out of the wizard's staff. Not every wizard is going to specialize in their staff.

2) As it was quoted earlier from the Design and Development: Wizards article, Golden Wyvern wizards specialize in blasting with their staves. So I'm betting money this feat is only going to be taken by Golden Wyvern wizards. If every wizard is a golden wyvern, then yes, everyone will take it. But an Iron Sigil wizard may not be *able* to take it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 28, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And thus the class glut of 3.5.
> 
> Really feats were a great counter to this issue.



Are you trying to say that the "class glut" was significantly worse than the feat glut?  There were a lot of prestige classes, sure.  But there were more feats by at least an order of magnitude, if not two.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> 2) As it was quoted earlier from the Design and Development: Wizards article, Golden Wyvern wizards specialize in blasting with their staves. So I'm betting money this feat is only going to be taken by Golden Wyvern wizards. If every wizard is a golden wyvern, then yes, everyone will take it. But an Iron Sigil wizard may not be *able* to take it.



Ideally, any wizard would be able to take it, but it would be a stronger choice for a wizard who picked the right talents to go with it.  There would golden wyvern wizards and iron sigil wizards because the system naturally encourages that, rather than having it hard-coded in.  And you could have a wizard who dabbles in both styles, and ideally that would be just as effective overall.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Ideally, any wizard would be able to take it, but it would be a stronger choice for a wizard who picked the right talents to go with it.  There would golden wyvern wizards and iron sigil wizards because the system naturally encourages that, rather than having it hard-coded in.  And you could have a wizard who dabbles in both styles, and ideally that would be just as effective overall.



It's possible. We don't know if there's some sort of pre-requisit. 

If there's no pre-requisit (aside from say, 'You need Golden Wyvern Initiate to get Golden Wyvern Adept'), then a wizard _could_ spend all their feats nabbing all the low hanging fruit from the various schools.


----------



## jasin (Nov 28, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And honestly, can anyone see being a wizard and NOT taking this feat? To me that means its either broken, or needs to be a class ability.



Well, that depends on what spells, powers and other feats look like.

In the context of 3E, it would be a very attractive feat, but even now, I could imagine a wizard that focuses on (say) enchantments or rays or summoning and has more important things to take.


----------



## jasin (Nov 28, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Whereas the old-style spell schools had deeper meaning that was hard coded into both culture and the English language.  Need a master of death magic necromancy leaps out at you, the word has been used for centuries and has cultural grip.  On top of that its a literal description of what it does.  Wizard who changes things. Transmutation.  The root meanings of the word describe to you just what the school is supposed to do.  While people may argue a bit over exactly where particular spells belonged they could be easily moved around between schools to fit if necessary.



While necromancy indeed is a (relatively) commonly used word, ask anyone not familiar with the particulars of D&D what an abjurer or evoker does, and I wouldn't bet they'll get it right, even if they're a fantasy fan.

I like current D&D's schools of magic, but it seems to me that they're mostly so comfortable because they're coded into D&D culture, not culture at large or common language.


----------



## Enoch (Nov 28, 2007)

I like the Toughness feat.  Especially since they made it like Improve Toughness, which has the added bonus of being equally valuable at all levels.  I'm not sure how many hitpoints 4E characters will have, but 33 hitpoints for one feat is pretty good.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 28, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> My problem with the wizard traditions whether physical or philosophical organization is that they don't mean anything and have no resonance.  Golden Wyvern?  Iron Sigil Snake?  utterly meaningless and don't create any idea of what they're about.
> 
> Whereas the old-style spell schools had deeper meaning that was hard coded into both culture and the English language.  Need a master of death magic necromancy leaps out at you, the word has been used for centuries and has cultural grip.  On top of that its a literal description of what it does.  Wizard who changes things. Transmutation.  The root meanings of the word describe to you just what the school is supposed to do.  While people may argue a bit over exactly where particular spells belonged they could be easily moved around between schools to fit if necessary.
> 
> But these new traditions aren't broken up like that, they're treated more like the divisions between fighting styles of a martial art.  And the names themselves have no association with any meaning let alone a connection with a general theme of magic.  So it becomes more difficult to move certain features you don't think thematically belong together because they've been built into the mechanics with too strong a relation.



Oh please.  There's nothing intuitive or common-sense about the eight schools.  You'd have to heavily rearrange the spells before the eight schools would even be self-consistent, and even then you'd have to explain to people what abjuration, evocation, enchantment, and perhaps conjuration mean in D&D.  And that "illusions" aren't always illusory.  And so forth.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 28, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Oh please.  There's nothing intuitive or common-sense about the eight schools.  You'd have to heavily rearrange the spells before the eight schools would even be self-consistent,



I kind of specifically pointed out that there WAS argument over what spells belonged where, and that as such the framework still made it easy to move spells from one school to another.
Right here


> While people may argue a bit over exactly where particular spells belonged they could be easily moved around between schools to fit if necessary.






			
				Gloombunny said:
			
		

> and even then you'd have to explain to people what abjuration, evocation, enchantment, and perhaps conjuration mean in D&D.  And that "illusions" aren't always illusory.  And so forth.



The only schools that are not descriptive are abjuration and evocation.  Abjuration comes from a root meaning to shun or forsake, while evocation derives from a root meaning 'to call upon.'  These aren't very straightforward but of the eight schools they are the only two that aren't.  

The school names have a rough description of what they do bound right into the name. Conjuration is the act of bringing forth something from nothing and is a fairly good short description of what the school involves, healing for example doesn't really fit within it but wasn't part of it in previous editions.  Divination, the act of foretelling or prophecy.  Enchantment, to influence the mind or desire.  Illusion, to mislead through false impression.  Necromancy, death magic.  Transmutation, changing the nature of a thing.  The basic root structure or definition of the word itself serves as a decent rough outline of what the school does.


----------



## ferratus (Nov 28, 2007)

If we look at the complaints we can see some similarities with complaints of prior editions:

1) Names - This is sort of like the problem we had with Tasha's Hideous laughter, Bigby's crushing fist or Mordenkeinen's sword.   They were Greyhawk names, and you might have wanted something a little more generic for your setting, or use your own names.   Most people didn't bother, because a) they didn't stick during gameplay or b) you have the conceit that they were archmages buried somewhere in the history of your campaign.

The paragon paths are a little different, in that they are both active schools, and feats and class abilities attached to that school.   I myself don't really see a place for Golden Wyvern or Emerald Frost in my campaign setting (though I do have culture that fits Iron Sigil).  Regardless, I'm going to want to use the feats and magical attacks associated with that school, so I'd rather not have their name on them because of reason (a) mentioned above.  So if I was (for example) to call an order of War Wizard Evokers "The Academy", I would probably find them mentioned by players as the "Golden Wyvern Academy" pretty quickly if I based it on that order or a few of their abilities.   Not quite the same elite menace I was trying to convey.

2) Not anime enough - The complaint that a spell's school didn't really fit its effect in 1-3e is similar to the complaint that "Golden Wyvern" doesn't really explain its theme or philosophy of magic.  I would certainly expect a school called "Iron Sigil" to use an iron orb as a focus and create magic based on sigils.  It certainly is much more cinematic.   Like fighting styles, if it was based on an animal, you would expect it to have abilities that evoke that animal.   The Black Crow Witches for example would have a shrieking attack, and dissolve into a pile of black feathers when they teleport.   

I was kind of hoping myself that since we were getting rid of the Vancian magic system that we would be easier to design our own types and philosophies of magic by having standard ways of attacking, effects, and so forth so that you could leave the flavor text to define a lot of how the magic functions.  This seems to go against that principle.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 28, 2007)

I actually agree with this article main idea....

I like niche protection of classes, to me it's perfectly fine that Sneak Attack is only for Rogues, Rage only for Barbarian, and (YES!) Use Magic Device only for Bards/Rogues.

If someone wants two sticks, they can always multiclass (if multiclass rules are solid enough, there should be no major problem).

The hard part is the decision of what should be a feat and what should be a class ability. The simplest criteria is that if it's conceivable for everyone to be able to learn this, then it should be a feat... However this criteria, as simple as may be, is the cause of why Fighters in 3ed have really nothing special. Nothing major is Fighter-only, because every class is theoretically qualified to learn about combat, and the consequence is that the Fighter becomes a utility/support class to dip into for a few extra combat feats and then pursue another, more interesting class path.

edit:

So how is it that I have nothing yet to criticize this time...? Let me think... got it! I dislike the magnitude of the new feats. Actually, they are not that large compared to the 3e feats... but overall 4e is another step into the hero-ization of D&D (to quote Hong). By the time we get 6th edition, player characters will start with a Divine Rank.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 28, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If I'm playing a wizard of the Emerald Frost, I definitely wouldn't have this feat.




Why not, are they exclusive?




> Class-only feats have existed since 3rd Edition. Nothing new.




True. However a class only feat you'd have to be either a fool or intentionally gimping yourself to skip, are bad design. This sounds like its basically Spellcasting Prodigy 2: Electric Boogaloo. 

Raise your hand if your crusader DIDNT take "Extra Granted Manuever". Go stand in a corner.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Are you trying to say that the "class glut" was significantly worse than the feat glut?  There were a lot of prestige classes, sure.  But there were more feats by at least an order of magnitude, if not two.




Definately. I think classes should be broad archtypes. You dont need a WHOLE new class for a guy that likes ham and fights with a spear and a warhammer. Make it a feat and be done with it. Most classes should have been feat chains.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Raise your hand if your crusader DIDNT take "Extra Granted Manuever". Go stand in a corner.




Oh come on... I'm sure at least 5% of those characters had a good justification.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Why not, are they exclusive?



Yes, that's what I'm thinking.

Or at least, it's like Spell Focus: Evocation versus Spell Focus: Conjuration or Spell Focus: Enchantment. You could conceivably get them all, but you don't want to.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 28, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Well, that depends on what spells, powers and other feats look like.
> 
> In the context of 3E, it would be a very attractive feat, but even now, I could imagine a wizard that focuses on (say) enchantments or rays or summoning and has more important things to take.



More specifically, if the wizard is using his Orb or his Wand more, he's not going to pick it up because it's based on the Staff.


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 29, 2007)

> > Why not, are they exclusive?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's what I'm hoping, as well.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 29, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Raise your hand if your crusader DIDNT take "Extra Granted Manuever".



<Raises hand>

Some did, some were too busy doing other things, like taking Bard feats.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> I can easily see a reason not to take this feat.  If blasting spells aren't totally revamped and made useful, there really is no reason to take it.
> Alternately, if you can still make an illusionist/enchanter style wizard, there isn't much of a need for it.
> At best, even for a blaster, its a minor perk that allows you to place the AoE just a little more precisely without annoying your party members.




Its not just damaging spells. Its area of effect spells. Thats *huge* for a class that specializes in area of effect battlefield alteration. Moreover, its been implied that enchanters and illusionists will be their own classes.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 29, 2007)

"This feat, which changes how you can use a bunch of powers we don't know anything about, is way too good compared to a bunch of other feats we know even less about!"

I can't be the only one who thinks this is silly.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 29, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Its not just damaging spells. Its area of effect spells. Thats *huge* for a class that specializes in area of effect battlefield alteration. Moreover, its been implied that enchanters and illusionists will be their own classes.



Not just implied the second preview from Hungary specified that enchantment and mind altering magic had been seriously nerfed to avoid stepping on the toes of psionics in the upcoming books.  And that while it hadn't been eliminated like summoning Illusion isn't what it was in 3e.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 29, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yes, that's what I'm thinking.
> 
> Or at least, it's like Spell Focus: Evocation versus Spell Focus: Conjuration or Spell Focus: Enchantment. You could conceivably get them all, but you don't want to.




I wouldn't mind your option 2 there.  Not everyone taking it because its generally better to focus more than spread out sure thats great, there are benefits, negatives, you make a choice.

Not being able to because um they said so is just crap.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Its not just damaging spells. Its area of effect spells. Thats *huge* for a class that specializes in area of effect battlefield alteration. Moreover, its been implied that enchanters and illusionists will be their own classes.




Which means one whole area of battlefield control is gone, and another set of traditional wizardly powers is also gone. And there has been zero mention of conjuration or necromancy...

I know they've called Wizards Controllers earlier on, but the implements article doesn't really mention battlefield control at all.  All I'm really sure they do at this point is blast people. 

And leaving out a small number of squares isn't really that great for battlefield control. There is no indication that you can alter which squares you can omit, so you still end up trapping your allies, with essentially just 2-3 squares and a combat system that supposedly will highly favor mobility.  And those safe spaces will available for enemies to move into...


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Which means one whole area of battlefield control is gone, and another set of traditional wizardly powers is also gone. And there has been zero mention of conjuration or necromancy..



Necromancy has been pulled out and will be the domain of a specialist Necromancer class according to an earlier preview.  And according to the newest spoiler from Races & Classes summoning is entirely gone both from conjuration and clerical magic.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

OK then, I had caught that about illusions, but not necromancy.  So, uh, blasting, then?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> OK then, I had caught that about illusions, but not necromancy.  So, uh, blasting, then?



What it looks like.  Out of the five example Wizarding traditions in the Implements preview only one had anything at all to do with non-blasting spells and they were said to focus on "enchanting, beguiling, and ensnaring" which seems like it's dealing with mind-affecting spells, an area Races and Classes says has been nerfed to leave a place for psionics in future books.


----------



## Victim (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> OK then, I had caught that about illusions, but not necromancy.  So, uh, blasting, then?




And pretty much all of Transmutation and Conjuration (except the weak summons).  So, uh, most of their buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control spells should be mostly intact.  From the information so far.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Hmm.  You can look at that way, but there have been enough changes that I'm not comfortable with the assumption that anything not mentioned is done the 3.5 way.  

I'd rather get the information and say, OK, this is confirmed.  So far, for wizards, thats just blasting.

Plus I'm very certain that 3.5 buffs aren't going to be the same in 4E.  It doesn't fit with the other information we're getting.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 29, 2007)

They took out summoning?

I don't want to buy a rowboat that when I get a supplement it means I can strap on an outboard motor.  

I want to buy the Miami vice speedboat with a couple of uzis and when I get a supplement I'm strapping on a mini-gun and some rockets.  

I really hope they mean they took out the open ended summoning spells like Gate or planar ally, but are keeping in things like monster summoning 1+.

  If the wizards choices end p being I hit you with fire now, oh and next round some fire, and then I'll mix it up and add some fire I'll be very disappointed.


----------



## Mad Mac (Nov 29, 2007)

> Hmm. You can look at that way, but there have been enough changes that I'm not comfortable with the assumption that anything not mentioned is done the 3.5 way.




  True. They did designate wizards as controllers though, and then spelled out that controlling would involve reshaping the battlefield, walls, ect. As the only controller currently in the game, I think we can assume wizards have these powers as well.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> They took out summoning?



According to Races & Classes it's entirely gone.  They also removed all alignment based spells from the cleric at least until some future round of supplement maybe brings them back.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> According to Races & Classes it's entirely gone.  They also removed all alignment based spells from the cleric at least until some future round of supplement maybe brings them back.




Dang, is this just a symptom of an overarching problem?

I'm somewhat worried that whenever they came upon an issue that they had a problem with they just removed it instead of fixing it.  

My pre-order is already in so they are getting my money, but take out too many options and I wont want to run or play the game.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Which means one whole area of battlefield control is gone, and another set of traditional wizardly powers is also gone. And there has been zero mention of conjuration or necromancy...




Actually, they've said that Summoning won't be in PHB1. Where did I read that?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212851 : Under "Cleric".

Not sure if that means from the whole game or not, but there it is.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Actually, they've said that Summoning won't be in PHB1. Where did I read that?
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212851 : Under "Cleric".
> 
> Not sure if that means from the whole game or not, but there it is.




Ah so it might not be that summoning is gone but that clerics in particular can't summon.  I can live with that if wizards, warlocks, and when they make them druids can summon, and since the psion will eventually be in I want astral constructs(about the only reason I played psions)


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 29, 2007)

To be blatantly honest, I'm not exactly unhappy they got rid of summoning. 
Considering my current party has a dedicated summoner, nothing is quite as 'fun' as waiting for him to figure out what his 10+ Dark mantles and 2 dire apes are doing while I wait my next turn. 

If/when they do bring summoning back, I hope they're limited to just one critter at a time to avoid that particular issue.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> To be blatantly honest, I'm not exactly unhappy they got rid of summoning.




I'll go one extra step and say, YES! I'd be _positively thrilled _ if they got rid of summoning. 

Life's too short to wait for the Mister animal companion and summoned woodland speedbumps to take his three turns for every one of mine.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2007)

Also, summoning is a pretty cool concept, and if removing it from the wizard repertoire means a chance to really sit back and do it right, to really make it its own animal, then I'm all for it.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 29, 2007)

What exactly is the problem with summoning?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'll go one extra step and say, YES! I'd be _positively thrilled _ if they got rid of summoning.
> 
> Life's too short to wait for the Mister animal companion and summoned woodland speedbumps to take his three turns for every one of mine.



I'd rather summoning work more like, "My friend here would like a word with you."

Make summoners focus on keeping one thing bound, and focus their own abilities on buffing that thing.  Make it so that it's easy to keep track of not only the creature's stats, but also the extra actions a summoned creature provides.  The summoner should be almost useless without his bound critter, but a holy terror when he's got it.

The benefit to being a summoner is that you could switch between defender and striker as necessary, by summoning different creatures from your short list of creatures that looks less like the Summon Monster I-IX tables and more like the alternate shapeshifting druid from PHB II.

Hell, maybe I should just write the class myself, since I like the idea so much.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 29, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> What exactly is the problem with summoning?



Action spam.  When you have 7 wolves, 3 dire wolves, a black bear, and your own actions (which probably involve spellcasting), you take up more than your fair share of table time.  Also, keeping track of multiple statblocks can become an organizational nightmare if you have large summoning lists, buff effects, summon-enhancing feats, etc.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'll go one extra step and say, YES! I'd be _positively thrilled _ if they got rid of summoning.
> 
> Life's too short to wait for the Mister animal companion and summoned woodland speedbumps to take his three turns for every one of mine.




Why don't they just remove everything but sticks from the game which characters can beat each other to death with.  

This remove everything that didn't work perfectly idea just sucks IMO.  If there is a problem fix it, don't remove it.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 29, 2007)

it seems to me that this IS what they're doing, actually.  But some fixes are easier then others.  They get the easy fixes out now (PHB) while working on the more problematic ones, to be released later. (Other books)

No one said summoning will NEVER be back, after all.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> This remove everything that didn't work perfectly idea just sucks IMO.  If there is a problem fix it, don't remove it.




In lieu of a fixing a problem (and I think Dr. Akward _might _ be on to something), removing the problem entirely is a perfectly acceptible solution.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 29, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> "This feat, which changes how you can use a bunch of powers we don't know anything about, is way too good compared to a bunch of other feats we know even less about!"
> 
> I can't be the only one who thinks this is silly.




We saw 4 feats. Three of them are boring as hell retreads of feats that were crappy in 3e, and seem crappy in 4e. They dont change your character's abilities can do very much. One of them seems like a no brainer choice, that does seem to have a large impact. It really seems like it should have been a talent. If we arent suposed to comment on what we see, I question the point of the message boards.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 29, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Why don't they just remove everything but sticks from the game which characters can beat each other to death with.
> 
> This remove everything that didn't work perfectly idea just sucks IMO.  If there is a problem fix it, don't remove it.




The fix would be something along the lines of what happened in complete psionic. you only get one summoned critter to order around at a time. As opposed to now where the party sits with its collective thumb up its butt while 15 summoned dire badgers make a claw/claw/bite against something they need a 20 to hit.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> We saw 4 feats. Three of them are boring as hell retreads of feats that were crappy in 3e, and seem crappy in 4e. They dont change your character's abilities can do very much. One of them seems like a no brainer choice, that does seem to have a large impact. It really seems like it should have been a talent. If we arent suposed to comment on what we see, I question the point of the message boards.



Because this is how they are doing feats now, as mentioned in the article. Basis of power comes from class, rounding out and fine generalizing come from feats. Feats aren't supposed to give you more abilities; class and power selection are.


----------



## Andor (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Because this is how they are doing feats now, as mentioned in the article. Basis of power comes from class, rounding out and fine generalizing come from feats. Feats aren't supposed to give you more abilities; class and power selection are.




That still seems like a very strange design decision to me. In 3.x when a new mechanical system was introduced (Psi,Incarnum,Bo9S,ToM) they always had some feats that allowed existing characters to dabble in the new mechanic. To allow a group to wet their toes before diving in headfirst. By redefining feats they've removed that option and so any new system introductions will now have a steeper learning curve because they took away the kiddie pool.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> That still seems like a very strange design decision to me. In 3.x when a new mechanical system was introduced (Psi,Incarnum,Bo9S,ToM) they always had some feats that allowed existing characters to dabble in the new mechanic. To allow a group to wet their toes before diving in headfirst. By redefining feats they've removed that option and so any new system introductions will now have a steeper learning curve because they took away the kiddie pool.



I may stand corrected on this. I think Trap Finding is a feat that allows people other than rogues to gain this ability. I'm not really sure, as it seems mish-mashed right now.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> That still seems like a very strange design decision to me. In 3.x when a new mechanical system was introduced (Psi,Incarnum,Bo9S,ToM) they always had some feats that allowed existing characters to dabble in the new mechanic. To allow a group to wet their toes before diving in headfirst. By redefining feats they've removed that option and so any new system introductions will now have a steeper learning curve because they took away the kiddie pool.




Personally, I always thought that those feats were typically a trap for the unwary, since you have very few feats, and they're Precious, Precious Things (tm).  "Oh, look, I can get a point of incarnum to use on this one feat and it gives me an effect that would be equivalent to a non-incarnum feat, so I have to get more to make it worthwhile?"

They weren't always like that (in particular, the Bo9S "take-a-maneuver" feats), but often enough that I didn't see the point.

Brad


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 30, 2007)

> They dont change your character's abilities can do very much.




Well, given that *that's exactly their stated design goal here,*, I'd say that they're succeeding pretty well.


----------



## neceros (Nov 30, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Personally, I always thought that those feats were typically a trap for the unwary, since you have very few feats, and they're Precious, Precious Things (tm).  "Oh, look, I can get a point of incarnum to use on this one feat and it gives me an effect that would be equivalent to a non-incarnum feat, so I have to get more to make it worthwhile?"
> 
> They weren't always like that (in particular, the Bo9S "take-a-maneuver" feats), but often enough that I didn't see the point.
> 
> Brad



This is exactly right.

I have a friend who enjoys creating a character as opposed to creating a class. He routinely selects feats that have names of traits that he believes embodies his character design. This is not a bad way to do things, but it does leave him powerless often enough to be frustrating. Wizards is trying to stop this problem. By balancing feats from the get-go I don't have to worry when he designs a character because I'll know the feats are essentially balanced so long as you take ones your character would use.

That being said, feats need to be balanced around a centric design. For instance, feats should not _only _give a +2 skill, but instead offer a +2 skill plus something combat worthy, etc.


----------



## GrinningBuddha (Nov 30, 2007)

For those concerned about summoning being turfed completely, notice the Warlock entry:

_Warlock

They make pacts with devils, feys, the starts, elemental powers. Their initial pact determines a large part of their powers. There are four types of it: Infernal, Fey, Vestige and Star.
Primary attack is eldritch blast and soul ruin.
You can transpose yourself and later others as well.
*Invocation can summon.*
Curses are an integral part of your power. Curses are associated with your pact. They are per encounter damage dealing / crippling powers. Cursed creatures are easier to damage with your blast or soul ruin. When a cursed creature is dropped to 0 hp, you gain a powerful follow up attack against nearby foes.
As for alignment, most creatures and PC will be unaligned._


----------



## Imp (Nov 30, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> it seems to me that this IS what they're doing, actually.  But some fixes are easier then others.  They get the easy fixes out now (PHB) while working on the more problematic ones, to be released later. (Other books)



If they're so greatly simplifying monster stat blocks, the summoning should be much less of a problem.  That's the whole thrust of 4E combat, right? – to play through slightly larger combats, faster.  If a couple of tagalongs in the party "wreck" this, it doesn't say very much for achieving this goal in general.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 30, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> it seems to me that this IS what they're doing, actually.  But some fixes are easier then others.  They get the easy fixes out now (PHB) while working on the more problematic ones, to be released later. (Other books)
> 
> No one said summoning will NEVER be back, after all.




Yeah great so the first PH is half a game, where eventually you can buy enough crap to get the full game you used to play.

This isn't some odd prestige class its a basic fairly standard form of magic.  Its like removing blunt weapons form the game, but oh you are so lucky because in PH 5 they may reintroduce them.

Thankfully it seems they wont be removing them.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> In lieu of a fixing a problem (and I think Dr. Akward _might _ be on to something), removing the problem entirely is a perfectly acceptible solution.




If after great effort you still can't fix it, yes removing it can be an option, the absolute last option though.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 30, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> If they're so greatly simplifying monster stat blocks, the summoning should be much less of a problem.  That's the whole thrust of 4E combat, right? – to play through slightly larger combats, faster.  If a couple of tagalongs in the party "wreck" this, it doesn't say very much for achieving this goal in general.




I never had a problem in 3e.  i just asked the player what do you want to do with your monsters, I rolled a stack of dice and it was usually resolved in under a minute.  

But yes you are right if the attack a pile of monsters is there current design goal, one I really like(wasn't  a fan of the one monster or small groups 3e emphasized) the summoner with a horde shouldn't be a problem in any game.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 30, 2007)

GrinningBuddha said:
			
		

> *Invocation can summon.*



Missed that in the Warlock entry after reading through the bit on the Cleric, looks like they've just narrowed it from a common element of arcane and divine magic to something more specific.


----------



## GrinningBuddha (Nov 30, 2007)

Summoning has always had a strong arcane feel to me, so I'd be perfectly happy to have it as the sole domain of the arcane classes.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> That still seems like a very strange design decision to me. In 3.x when a new mechanical system was introduced (Psi,Incarnum,Bo9S,ToM) they always had some feats that allowed existing characters to dabble in the new mechanic. To allow a group to wet their toes before diving in headfirst. By redefining feats they've removed that option and so any new system introductions will now have a steeper learning curve because they took away the kiddie pool.




What I expect you'll find is that those feats will be now be subsumed in the new way of having talents and multiclassing. So, you'll be able to dabble in a new system with 4e - in fact, possibly easier than in 3e.

Cheers!


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Nov 30, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Also, summoning is a pretty cool concept, and if removing it from the wizard repertoire means a chance to really sit back and do it right, to really make it its own animal, then I'm all for it.





AAAAAmen!


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 30, 2007)

Looks like it will be an arcane ability.

Cleric: no summoning according to the preview book.

Warlock: confirmed that they can summon

Wizard: no info as of yet, but conjurer was mentioned at some point? Either way, if it exists, it's fairly likely the wizard will be able to summon.

Druid: as per the preview book:


> Druid: Their spellcasting takes second seat. The primary ability is wildshape, which they can do a lot more often, but only shapes they have picked (like spells). They have some nature related spell to canst when in humanoid form.




All of which is good if true. I agree that summoning always fitted better as an arcane ability.


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 30, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> If after great effort you still can't fix it, yes removing it can be an option, the absolute last option though.



Well, look at what they've done.  They've left out things that are amazingly tough nuts to crack *temporarily* as their last option, so they could bring them back in ways that both work well and are effective, rather than dumping a bunch of half-thought-out, broken, weak, game-breaking junk in the PHB.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 30, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> If after great effort you still can't fix it, yes removing it can be an option, the absolute last option though.




In all likelyhood, Wizards just punted this problem downfield. I'm sure it'll be addressed by the time we see Core 2.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 30, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> If they're so greatly simplifying monster stat blocks, the summoning should be much less of a problem.  That's the whole thrust of 4E combat, right? – to play through slightly larger combats, faster.  If a couple of tagalongs in the party "wreck" this, it doesn't say very much for achieving this goal in general.



Faster combats and simpler statistics? Sure.  but a LOT of that is dependent on the DM setup of the encounter first.  Everything, for the most part is already down and it's just the DM glancing at his prewritten notes.   Compare this to 3rd ed summoning.  The caster checks to see what summoning spells he has, then checks the list to see what he can summon with them, then crunches the numbers to see which he wants to use, then he spends an entire round summoning it, and then he needs to pull out the stats to use them, and then he spends more time with them then the other characters.  With more advanced players, you can mitigate some of those issues, but the base problem still exists in that the summoner is taking more time for his creatures then the other players.  Some players wont have a problem with this, but others do.



			
				ahglock said:
			
		

> Yeah great so the first PH is half a game, where eventually you can buy enough crap to get the full game you used to play.



You're never going to get EVERY possible archetype a player can want into the first PHB anyways, so why not take the time to pass off some of them to be a better fit?  In all previous editions, it often took a few supplements before certain archetypes showed up.  In this particular case, we might losing one particular aspect, but it looks like we're gaining certain archetypical structures.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 30, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Faster combats and simpler statistics? Sure.  but a LOT of that is dependent on the DM setup of the encounter first.  Everything, for the most part is already down and it's just the DM glancing at his prewritten notes.   Compare this to 3rd ed summoning.  The caster checks to see what summoning spells he has, then checks the list to see what he can summon with them, then crunches the numbers to see which he wants to use, then he spends an entire round summoning it, and then he needs to pull out the stats to use them, and then he spends more time with them then the other characters.  With more advanced players, you can mitigate some of those issues, but the base problem still exists in that the summoner is taking more time for his creatures then the other players.  Some players wont have a problem with this, but others do.



That is a player problem not a summoning problem.  People complain about polymorph, wildshape, and summoning all with this specific note.  "All the time it takes!"  One very simple ruling eliminates this problem entirely for all three of those actions.  Inform players that wildshapes, summoning, and polymorphs must be pre-statted to use, the spend forever deciding and looking up the numbers goes away with that one provision.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> That is a player problem not a summoning problem.  People complain about polymorph, wildshape, and summoning all with this specific note.  "All the time it takes!"  One very simple ruling eliminates this problem entirely for all three of those actions.  Inform players that wildshapes, summoning, and polymorphs must be pre-statted to use, the spend forever deciding and looking up the numbers goes away with that one provision.




Polymorph: Might work fine. (Except that people, even with the numbers, might still contemplate which one is better, but I guess that might not be worse than just picking a spell. Unless you are just contemplating whether you pick the Polymorph spell or another one...)

Summoned Monsters: You are still handling two creatures instead of one, which means twice the action each other players get at the table.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 30, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Inform players that wildshapes, summoning, and polymorphs must be pre-statted to use, the spend forever deciding and looking up the numbers goes away with that one provision.




Good idea, but the zookeepers are _still _ moving their animals all over the map, rolling dice, and generally sucking up a lot of time.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 30, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Inform players that wildshapes, summoning, and polymorphs must be pre-statted to use, the spend forever deciding and looking up the numbers goes away with that one provision.



That's the absolute bare minimum for admission. It's what we do currently and it still eats up way more than its share of time. With polymorph/wildshape that's due to the complexity of multiple sets of stats (in fact I'm planning on banning polymorph and enforcing the PHB2 version of wildshape to reduce this considerably). With summon it's due to the multiple combatants, no real way to avoid this and have it still feel like summon. 

You could make it more like direct damage - animal appears for an instant, does a full attack then nicks off, all it needs is +hit and damage stats - which is a compromise between a normal spell and a summon. If the animal does stick around you could have it use the summoner's stats for +hit, hit points, saves, and armor class, that would help a bit.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> In all likelyhood, Wizards just punted this problem downfield. I'm sure it'll be addressed by the time we see Core 2.




Exactly, why rush it out into the first core books when you can take the time to make it super-cool and it's own thing, rather than just a little tack-on ability of an existing class. I'd much rather have a Summoner class than just jamming the ability into the wizard class.


----------



## Imp (Nov 30, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> But yes you are right if the attack a pile of monsters is there current design goal, one I really like(wasn't  a fan of the one monster or small groups 3e emphasized) the summoner with a horde shouldn't be a problem in any game.



Well, I wouldn't go that far, a horde is a horde, unless there's a graceful way to implement fighting en-masse into D&D-style skirmishes.  But neither do I grant the absolute notion that more actions granted to the summoner is an imbalance on general principle – if the stat blocks are easy enough to deal with, then it mitigates the overhead of summoning a great deal, subject of course to the number of things summoned.  If the actions are easy, "twice the time" is not much time at all.  Like most everything else it's not a binary issue.

The idea of having more of a bond between the casters and the things they summon, so that they have a relationship with a few beings that they summon over and over again, seems like a way to simplify things that also adds fun to the concept.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That's the absolute bare minimum for admission. It's what we do currently and it still eats up way more than its share of time. With polymorph/wildshape that's due to the complexity of multiple sets of stats (in fact I'm planning on banning polymorph and enforcing the PHB2 version of wildshape to reduce this considerably). With summon it's due to the multiple combatants, no real way to avoid this and have it still feel like summon.
> 
> You could make it more like direct damage - animal appears for an instant, does a full attack then nicks off, all it needs is +hit and damage stats - which is a compromise between a normal spell and a summon. If the animal does stick around you could have it use the summoner's stats for +hit, hit points, saves, and armor class, that would help a bit.



I think that wouldn't really "feel" like summoning any more.

A "short term" solution would be to have Summoning spells with a duration of "Concentration". Casting time reduced to standard action maybe. The caster must spend his own mental effort to keep the summoned creature under his control/on this plane. Obviously, only one creature per summoning. Though you could use the other options to get a "renewed" monster after the first is killed or you were forced to cease concentration.
You still need a stat-switch, but there is only one action to compare with.

Alternatively, summoning spells are actually like teleport spells, and the character and the summoned monster exchange place. (Not so great, because _where_ is the caster? He's a PC, you can't just hand wave that, can you?)

Another solution might be a table rule - every player gets one round of the summoned creatures actions. So every round, one player gets to play with the creature and have his "extra spot light"...


----------



## Imp (Nov 30, 2007)

Additionally:

- summoning fits right snugly in to the "controller" role that the wizard is supposed to play, unless he's supposed to just lay down magical carpeting everywhere, which sounds super boring.  Also, to a more limited extent, it could work for "leader" types.  I would be for hard caps on active summons – give a wizard 3 effective summons and a cleric one, let's say.  Together with simplified stats and possibly other restrictions on summons, this could keep things flowing relatively smoothly.

- retconning campaign worlds to disappear summoned monsters would be a huge headache... it's a big big part of fantasy settings and an even bigger part of the D&D fantasy setting if you're one of those who takes D&D's status as a unique setting real seriously.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Exactly, why rush it out into the first core books when you can take the time to make it super-cool and it's own thing, rather than just a little tack-on ability of an existing class. I'd much rather have a Summoner class than just jamming the ability into the wizard class.




Because I don't want half a game.  If summoning is the only time they do this its not that huge of a deal, but the entire idea of punting it down field just means you are getting lots less from the get go.

Summoning isn't something like Super Sayan obscure prestige class, its a fairly core and common magical system in fantasy, its about on the scale of saying sneaking around you know that is kind of tough to figure out, lets just punt the entire sneaking around thing till we figure it out in PH3.  

Again luckily it doesn't sound like they are punting summoning.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Because I don't want half a game.  If summoning is the only time they do this its not that huge of a deal, but the entire idea of punting it down field just means you are getting lots less from the get go.




Keep in mind that there are more classes than just spellcasters. Before the introduction of the Sorcerer class, the 3e PHB would have had 1/3 of it's full page count devoted to the ability of ONE CLASS out of TEN (eleven with Sorcerer).

Now, since they decided "Hey, let's stop giving wizards 100x more options than EVERYONE ELSE," obviously some of that content has to be put somewhere else.



> Summoning isn't something like Super Sayan obscure prestige class, its a fairly core and common magical system in fantasy, its about on the scale of saying sneaking around you know that is kind of tough to figure out, lets just punt the entire sneaking around thing till we figure it out in PH3.




So, you're saying that calling creatures from other realms of existence, binding them to your service, and controlling them against your foes is just as easy as walking slowly and softly? I'm afraid I don't see it.


----------



## neceros (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, you're saying that calling creatures from other realms of existence, binding them to your service, and controlling them against your foes is just as easy as walking slowly and softly? I'm afraid I don't see it.



Some would argue that writing, drawing or dancing come so easily to them that they do it instinctively. I doubt, however, that most people have this amount of competence in the arts.

It's all about what you study in. A summoner indeed will know how and be able to summon as easily as the rogue sneaks about. After all, he's trained to do it his whole career.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> It's all about what you study in. A summoner indeed will know how and be able to summon as easily as the rogue sneaks about. After all, he's trained to do it his whole career.




The problem is the scale of the comparison.

Summoning is the whole of what a summoner does, especially since summoned creatures can theoretically be used to fill any role.

Sneaking is just one part of what a rogue does.


----------



## neceros (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The problem is the scale of the comparison.
> 
> Summoning is the whole of what a summoner does, especially since summoned creatures can theoretically be used to fill any role.
> 
> Sneaking is just one part of what a rogue does.



I agree. In that regard, a summoner can use a summoned creature to fill almost any other role. It requires balance in order to keep the classes sane with each other.

At the same time, a rogue would theoretically use Sneak almost as often, if that is the method he wished to use his skills. In the end, though, the balance would be that the wizard can summon really well, but not much else could be said about him. He is a summoner point in fact. Whereas the rogue would have many talents, as sneaking is useful, but not entirely life-consuming to learn.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> At the same time, a rogue would theoretically use Sneak almost as often, if that is the method he wished to use his skills. In the end, though, the balance would be that the wizard can summon really well, but not much else could be said about him. He is a summoner point in fact. Whereas the rogue would have many talents, as sneaking is useful, but not entirely life-consuming to learn.




Exactly!


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that there are more classes than just spellcasters. Before the introduction of the Sorcerer class, the 3e PHB would have had 1/3 of it's full page count devoted to the ability of ONE CLASS out of TEN (eleven with Sorcerer).
> 
> Now, since they decided "Hey, let's stop giving wizards 100x more options than EVERYONE ELSE," obviously some of that content has to be put somewhere else.




A bit inaccurate since the spell lists were jumbled, that 1/3 was for all spell casting classes.  Further more its somewhat irrelevant.  If a spell takes 4 paragraphs to describe like many do and a feat takes 1 it doesn't mean more content was put towards the spells, just more page count.  Further more I'd say wizards got about as much use from pages 57-140 as rangers got from the spell lists.




			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> So, you're saying that calling creatures from other realms of existence, binding them to your service, and controlling them against your foes is just as easy as walking slowly and softly? I'm afraid I don't see it.




No I'm saying summoning is about as important a role to spell casters as sneaking is to  a rogue.  So it really isn't something you should punt down field.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> No I'm saying summoning is about as important a role to spell casters as sneaking is to  a rogue.  So it really isn't something you should punt down field.



Perhaps, but if it's a really tricky system to balance properly given its historical difficulties, you have limited resources due to a perhaps hastily chosen publication date, and a limited page count in the first core books, it might be prudent to set it aside for purely logistical reasons.

Not that I'm happy it won't be included in the PHB.  I'm actually kind of bummed about that.  But if something's gotta go, I can see why they put off summoning.  (And druids, and monks, and psions, and...)


----------



## neceros (Dec 1, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but if it's a really tricky system to balance properly given its historical difficulties, you have limited resources due to a perhaps hastily chosen publication date...




Haven't they been play testing 4e since 2006? I wonder how hastily two years is...


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 1, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but if it's a really tricky system to balance properly given its historical difficulties, you have limited resources due to a perhaps hastily chosen publication date, and a limited page count in the first core books, it might be prudent to set it aside for purely logistical reasons.
> 
> Not that I'm happy it won't be included in the PHB.  I'm actually kind of bummed about that.  But if something's gotta go, I can see why they put off summoning.  (And druids, and monks, and psions, and...)




1.  It appears summoning is in so this is just a arguing for arguings sake.

2.  I can agree but serious effort should of been made to anything they cut that seems fairly core to make it work before they cut it.

3.  If it ended up just being summoning I'd deal.  Its the and, and, and I'm worried about.  There comes a point where enough ands are removed for a later date and the core 3 books really don't provide you what you see as a full game.  Sure it has rules for beating people to death and some skills so you can play it, but it isn't a full enough D&D experience.

I have no idea if that will happen but it is a concern, I don't want my fancy collectors edition PH ending up being an book end for the role playing books I use.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Haven't they been play testing 4e since 2006? I wonder how hastily two years is...



My understanding is that they broke ground on 4E in 2006.  Playtesting seems to have been integrated into the core development cycle a lot more than last edition, but they're still making major revisions to the rules to the extent that they do not feel that they can yet release a draft to the 3rd party publishers.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 1, 2007)

Perhaps the reasons for "punting" summoning have less to do with it being tricky to design, and more to do with it

A) being complex mechanically, and

B) taking up a lot of space.

Those two being the case, I can certainly see them wanting to focus on other aspects in the first PHB, and saving summoning for later, even if I'd like to see it sooner.


----------



## Stogoe (Dec 1, 2007)

Dr. Akward, that's wrong.  They were designing 4e for over two years before the announcement.

People just think it's 'hasty' because WotC kept it so tight a secret for those entire two years.


----------



## Sadrik (Dec 1, 2007)

I think everybody should be able to summon or create creatures:
Cleric: a divine ally
Druid: animals
Wizard: planar creatures similar to what they currently have
Warlock: fey/devils/shadowfell creatures
Illusionist: illusionary monsters
Necromancer: undead

I also think that mitigating the choices is a lot better here. So that for instance it would be a summon dire rat spell, period. Not a summon this that and this and that- then you choose out of the list. That takes too much time. If the wizard has a "summon fiendish dire rat" spell then that is what he does. There would definately be some benefit here for simplifying. Throw the abbreviated stat line in the spell and you have a very nice spell description.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Dr. Akward, that's wrong.  They were designing 4e for over two years before the announcement.
> 
> People just think it's 'hasty' because WotC kept it so tight a secret for those entire two years.



People think it's hasty because here we are, 6 months from release, and they still haven't worked out the core systems enough that they feel like they can pass them on to trusted 3rd party developers.

Also, part of the development of 4E was writing books for 3E like Bo9S.  I'm not sure that really counts.  I don't know when they sat down and said "okay, we've run a few test cases in 3E, now let's actually draft a core system," but I bet it wasn't in 2005.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 1, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> People think it's hasty because here we are, 6 months from release, and they still haven't worked out the core systems enough that they feel like they can pass them on to trusted 3rd party developers.



I think most of the core system has been worked out, it's the fine details they're fixing at this point.


----------

