Alright WotC, fess up...who came up with "Emerald Frost"?

[Pazu]

Acid makes you melt.

Cold makes you freeze.

Can you see the disconnect there?

Familiar with the term "frostburn"? I know, I know, there's no reason for a D&D player to have heard that word before...

 

[Anthraxus]

I'm honestly astonished (though I should not be, knowing gamers) about the sheer amount of griping and complaining about a handful of names which aren't noticeably better or worse than the standard fantasy offerings, and which take all of half a minute of the DMs time to replace or remove for his campaign.

Is "too kung-fu" now the new "anime" and "videogamey"? (Imagine a head-shaking smiley here.)

I'm honestly astonished about the sheer amount of griping and complaining about people expressing their opinion on this issue, so we're even. <shrugs>

 

[Pbartender]

But that's the real world. Don't let petty things like science ruin your fantasy game.

And technically, acid doesn't "melt" anything... It corrodes.

While there isn't really any strong connection between acid and ice, there's no real disconnect either.

 

[GreatLemur]

Eh - why not? The ancients thought that acid was a type of water - aqua fortis, aqua regia are both latin names for types of acid IIRC.

And, of course, acid is liquid. It may not be aqua pura, but in the traditional elemental structure of air/earth/fire/water, a strong case can be made that acid belongs with water and not one of the other elements.

I really don't like game mechanics based on the four classical elements. Or, for that matter, on what "the ancients thought".

Acid is water. It's just water with a strong ion dissolved in it.

That'd still make about as much sense as a "water wizard" power as firing gouts of water with a bunch of nails in 'em.

This image basically summarizes how I feel about these new names.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u163/TonyFelony/kungfuwizard.jpg

That was an awesome movie.

And technically, acid doesn't "melt" anything... It corrodes.

While there isn't really any strong connection between acid and ice, there's no real disconnect either.

Hell, two opposing forces--fire and ice, for example--would work far better. It's the utter lack of any relationship between ice and acid that makes the pairing seem so completely nonsensical.

 

[Lackhand]

Funny thought. Ice and necromancy, or acid and necromancy, both (thematically) work pretty well for me.

Maybe they had two separate traditions, and merged them when they decided to do... something... to necromancy?

Count me as a vote for changing the school. Entirely. We could even just drop acid as a spell type... it's not the most myffic. We know that the warlock has the Mine of Minauros; we could leave them with all of the poison/necromancy/acid spells...

I'd be sad to see the wizard lose them, but with the mild specialization implied by the new traditions, something's gotta give. There could always be an acid/poison/necromancy tradition in the splats.

What *would* you put with Frost, though, to thicken the abilities out? I'm a fan of a Hinterlands-wizard, with frost and some sort of rune magic; I'm not sure precisely what "rune magic" might entail, but it doesn't matter.

It's better than acid.

 

[Felon]

WOTC, I'm hoping you learnt from 3E not to do this, because it sure looks like you're making the same darn mistake all over again with this awkward coupling of "elements" and wacky "kewl" names. :\

"Learn from their mistake"? How was this a mistake? Because 3e was some kind of financial waterloo for them, or because you didn't like them doing it?

Can't say I like the names, but they certainly have some solid ideas about how to appeal to the masses.

 

[rounser]

"Learn from their mistake"? How was this a mistake? Because 3e was some kind of financial waterloo for them, or because you didn't like them doing it?

No, it's just that I think you can point at a subset of 3E's "list of things which suck" and it maps pretty squarely with stuff that is there for no reason but crunch. Think monsters with no concept beyond "we need a CR something abomination who uses sonic powers", or "we need something more convenient than a torch", or "chain-wielding demon needs a new weapon, hmm, can't disallow PC access", or "multiclassing wiz/cleric is stuffed, let's make a no-concept PC class".

It waters down the strong themes and images of D&D, the aesthetics which make it worth playing in the first place because of all that mythic imagery. All for the sake of some designer wanting some neat categories.

And yes, this is mostly a recent mistake, because 1E and 2E had the crunch as an afterthought (and thus were a mess mechanically). This is the opposite mistake, and just as big a-one, IMO.

 

[Thundershield]

Whether things fit together is up to the player, really, and maybe his gaming group. As "outside" gamers we can only comment on whether we feel something "fits" from a subjective point of view.

Hell, two opposing forces--fire and ice, for example--would work far better. It's the utter lack of any relationship between ice and acid that makes the pairing seem so completely nonsensical.

Well, wouldn't oppositions fit each other much less, seeing how they're oppositions? However, I remember a 2nd and 3rd Edition spell named "Fire and Ice", and it'd be so cool (pun intended) to make a 4th Edition Wizard that focused on the devastating effects of cold/heat shock, possibly by incorporating some game mechanical effect if traditions permit that.

Likewise, I can see Acid and Cold work. Shooting a lance of frozen acid would be a devastating effect. First you pierce your foe with it, and then it melts and corrodes the foe. Or if it is magical Acid, it might just as well preserve its potency in frozen form, so raining acidic shards of frozen corrosives would be quite impressive as well.

Just don't be so close-minded the only things that "fit" are classics like Fireball and Finger of Death. Or at least don't preach that. Not everybody needs to be stuck with that mindset.

 

[rounser]

Likewise, I can see Acid and Cold work. Shooting a lance of frozen acid would be a devastating effect. First you pierce your foe with it, and then it melts and corrodes the foe. Or if it is magical Acid, it might just as well preserve its potency in frozen form, so raining acidic shards of frozen corrosives would be quite impressive as well.

Once again it's a matter of scope. One wizard who does this? Hmm...interesting, novel, might make a good PC or villain. 1/8th (or whatever) of the wizards on every world have this incongruous combination specialty? Lame, and "against type" for implied setting themes.

The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.

Oh my god, they're really going to go down this lame path aren't they? It's like Eberron stylings have sneaked into the core books and begun polluting the implied setting. YUCK YUCK YUCK. I don't want "kewlness" names like Iron Sigil entering the D&D universe as the default for some wizard's club, this proper noun stuff should be left to the DM or worldbuilder. Who's behind this direction?

 

[Thundershield]

Once again it's a matter of scope. One wizard who does this? Hmm...interesting, novel, might make a good PC or villain. 1/8th (or whatever) of the wizards on every world have this incongruous combination specialty? Lame, and "against type" for implied setting themes.



Oh my god, they're really going to go down this lame path aren't they? It's like Eberron stylings have sneaked into the core books and begun polluting the implied setting. YUCK YUCK YUCK. I don't want "kewlness" names like Iron Sigil entering the D&D universe as the default, this proper noun stuff should be left to the DM. Who's behind this direction?

Yeah, does seem like the way the Greyhawk deities "polluted" all 3rd Edition settings have affected how people respond to "core" material. And I can see how it was annoying how all DMs got confused with Forgotten Realms having both Mielikki and Ehlonna, Bane and Hextor, all kinds of deities overlapping and never mentioned in the Forgotten Realms material.. NOT.

No, just like the Greyhawk deities were sample deities, to give players a feel of how a deity is statted for "Cleric purposes", the traditions given in the article on Wizards' website are examples (or actually just a sneak peek) of how one aspect of the 4th Edition Wizard might work. They've already explained they won't have a "core setting" in 4th Edition, so everything in the core books will be samples of how things can be done.

By combining hitherto-unassociated elements such as Acid and Cold they're saying "players can combine any elements they like", and at the same time they have the Serpent Eye to show that "you can also simply pick a classic theme, like charms and beguilement". Even the names are just examples of how you could name your traditions.

And when it's hinted they might publish new traditions and implements in future supplements and source material, I think it means they'll create custom material for Wizards in various settings to have it fit the individual settings, just like they do with deities.

Addendum: And let's not go into the "keep stuff 100% generic" talk. If new players see that deities in D&D games are apparently named "Generic Chaotic Neutral Deity #2", it'll give them a wholly skewed view of the game, or nothing in the way of inspirational material.