Fluff vs Crunch

[Gunpowder]

I think GWA as a name convenes as much information as power attack or Bigby's X hand, which is under which letter in the feat list I can find the description. Power attack is no more descriptive than GWA. If I want to use power attack in a game, I have to look up mechanics of the feat. If I want to use GWA in a game, I have to do the exact same thing.
The only thing GWA has that power attack doesn't is some fluff that can either be used to flesh out the powers my wizard uses or be completely and totally ignored with zero reprecussions.

 

[MonkeeGalore]

For me mechanics are about 90%, fluff 10%. D&D was never a game I could play out-of-the-box; customization (homebrew world, new races, and custom religions) is way to fun to do. What I do want the fluff to do, however, is provide direction and inspiration for how I customize the game. The points of lights setting look promising in that regard, as does GWA / Wizard traditions (even though I agree that the actual name is rather lame). I also couldn’t care less if it says in the PHB that Halflings are 4’ instead of 3’ high or whether they live on rivers.

Besides, 3.5 had plenty of fluff hard-coded into the rules – and I’m not just talking names here (although most 3.5 prestige class names are all-fluff). One thing that caused my group some trouble was the existence of spells that allow you to bring people back to life (such as Raise Dead). If you want to play in a setting where such magic is banned (for various religious reasons) or does not exist, the rules are really difficult to change – especially at higher levels, since save or die spells/effects becomes so common that resurrection is required unless you want to roll up new characters every week. That’s a lot of spells, monsters and classes that needs changing.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've noticed something interesting. Some people are getting quite upset over some of the cosmetic changes to the game. As a DM, is not really easy to control, say, the height and behavior of races, inclusion of certain races and classes as PCs, the flavor of the campaign world, etc? Isn't the fundimental mechanical changes more important? Changes to alignment, the skill list, modifier progression, balance along the level progression line, etc, are changes I've seen people ask for here for years.

Cost, edition loyalty and whatever is understandable to a point, I guess, but getting in a tizzy over gnomes and such, I don't get that. Am I the only one?

Yes, fluff is quite easy change for a DM, and IMHO all DMs should make their own fluff.

But... if you favourite car would only be sold in pink colour with silver linings, would you still buy it (considering you can always repaint it) or wouldn't you at least protest a little bit?

If you keep the fluff/colorful level low in the core books, that actually defaults the game to "create your own color". Using moderately generic names of abilities, spells, classes etc. is one way to do that. It gives the impression that by being generic you can immediately turn the game into a fluff direction of your taste, be it grim-and-gritty, high fantasy, anime-style, dark, comedy or anything else, which IMHO is a strength for a fairly generic RPG such as D&D. The fluffy naming direction they have chosen for 4e provides a certain "color" which will be easy to change in practice, but will undeniably stick a certain "cover" on the game, making its default narrower than before.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think GWA as a name convenes as much information as power attack or Bigby's X hand, which is under which letter in the feat list I can find the description. Power attack is no more descriptive than GWA. If I want to use power attack in a game, I have to look up mechanics of the feat. If I want to use GWA in a game, I have to do the exact same thing.
The only thing GWA has that power attack doesn't is some fluff that can either be used to flesh out the powers my wizard uses or be completely and totally ignored with zero reprecussions.

Two notes.

First, it's not true that Power Attack gives no info. It tells you it's an attack-based or attack-related ability, and it provides a small clue that it has to do with damage. Combat Expertise is a much less descriptive name, for instance. OTOH, Golden Wyvern Adept is truly meaningless. There is no gold, no wyvern and no adept at all in the function of the feat.

Second, if you want to ignore it you have to find an alternative name in your campaign. Easy. Then as soon as you step out of your door and try to play with new people, or at a shop/convention, the GWA will spring back again. Rule 1 of naming things (and characters) in a RPG: don't choose something overboard or you'll hate it later (from Hero Builder's Guidebook, not from my own DMing notes ). If you don't believe this, let's come back in 2 years and see if gamers have learned to love these names or started to hate them: it's easy to love them or ignore them NOW, but let's see if they stand the test of time.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Its the proper noun "Golden Wyvern," that clearly and concisely communicates that this is a feat about shaping magical effects.

!?!?

How does Golden Wyvern communicate anything but flying bling-monster?

I am truely not seeing a hint of relationship here.

 

[rounser]

flying bling-monster

How could you possibly know th-

WHO LEAKED THE CONTENTS OF THE 4E MM?

OWN UP.

 

[Cadfan]

!?!?

How does Golden Wyvern communicate anything but flying bling-monster?

I am truely not seeing a hint of relationship here.

Its a proper noun. Go reread the Wizard Implement article. "Golden Wyvern" is a defined term in 4e, not just something dreamed up for one particular feat.

It communicates as much as any other well defined, pervasively used proper noun. If your players are capable of remembering their own spells, they will be able to handle this feat. If they are not capable of remembering their own spells, suggest to them a different class.

 

[Wormwood]

It communicates as much as any other well defined, pervasively used proper noun.

Yep.

I was able to grasp the nine spell schools quickly enough---I should be able to pick up a few feats.

 

[Storminator]

"Good" is the keyword here. I can write rules or fluff for hours. Writing good rules or fluff is the tricky part.

Fortunately, we don't need good fluff: just write us some critters to kill and take stuff from!

Good writing is fluff. Bad writing is dreck.

PS

 

[houser2112]

Well, to be fair, Dwarves have always had a bonus to hit against Giants. 4E has just taken greater steps to explain why they have this bonus to hit. It seems like a lot of the surface fluff rewriting is along these lines, explicitly explaining why a race can do something and tying it into an implied shared backstory.

I don't know anything about 4E dwarves, but pre-4E dwarves had an AC bonus against giants:

# +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids.
# +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against monsters of the giant type. Any time a creature loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class, such as when it’s caught flat-footed, it loses its dodge bonus, too.