Obviously Golden Wyvern Adept is causing a huge amount of debate right now. As we are getting closer to 4e's print time we need to get WOTC to look at both sides of the debate and have a clear descision on where to go with these sort of fluff+crunch core materials. I know there are lots of discussion on this matter slipping into every thread, but this could be the last chance to change the feat (if that is what most D&D players want) and get the attention of WOTC with a poll here.
For those on the fence or in the dark, here is what the arguments are:
Golden Wyvern Adept is good...
1) Because it gives DMs with little time on their hands instant fluff with no work.
2) It allows DMs to fill in the blanks with artsy names and be inspired creatively.
3) It gives players some direction and a feeling of history by rules they choose
4) It defines a core D&D mythology and story
Golden Wyvern Adept is bad....
1) Because it shoe horns the campaign setting to include golden wyvern adepts
2) It doesn't describe what the feat's rules actually do and is thus counter-intuitive to the other game mechanics
3) It gives players a way to mess with a DMs campaign by bringing in fluff they don't want
4) Renaming the feat to remove its fluff is messy
5) DMs can't attach the feat easily to their own wizard orders
6) Official campaign settings are going to have trouble working around feats like this, espcially settings like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright etc. where a "generic" order with a sterotypical monster doesn't belong like that.
7) 3rd Party publishers will have trouble pluging on even more so than they did with the named spells from greyhawk.
8) Golden Wyvern Adept starts a trend of naming feats in confusing and campaign damaging ways. Once this form of feat naming begins, it just flows over into all the sourcebooks and SRD material creating a huge list of frustrations for DMs who do not want it in their games.
9) Feat names like this encourge lazy game mechanic naming.
10) Fluff with no meaning behind it is bad, empty fluff calories. It is to subjective to make a standard that is used.
Overall, there is more reasons not to keep names like golden wyvern adept. I would like to see your opinion on what WOTC should do.
For those on the fence or in the dark, here is what the arguments are:
Golden Wyvern Adept is good...
1) Because it gives DMs with little time on their hands instant fluff with no work.
2) It allows DMs to fill in the blanks with artsy names and be inspired creatively.
3) It gives players some direction and a feeling of history by rules they choose
4) It defines a core D&D mythology and story
Golden Wyvern Adept is bad....
1) Because it shoe horns the campaign setting to include golden wyvern adepts
2) It doesn't describe what the feat's rules actually do and is thus counter-intuitive to the other game mechanics
3) It gives players a way to mess with a DMs campaign by bringing in fluff they don't want
4) Renaming the feat to remove its fluff is messy
5) DMs can't attach the feat easily to their own wizard orders
6) Official campaign settings are going to have trouble working around feats like this, espcially settings like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright etc. where a "generic" order with a sterotypical monster doesn't belong like that.
7) 3rd Party publishers will have trouble pluging on even more so than they did with the named spells from greyhawk.
8) Golden Wyvern Adept starts a trend of naming feats in confusing and campaign damaging ways. Once this form of feat naming begins, it just flows over into all the sourcebooks and SRD material creating a huge list of frustrations for DMs who do not want it in their games.
9) Feat names like this encourge lazy game mechanic naming.
10) Fluff with no meaning behind it is bad, empty fluff calories. It is to subjective to make a standard that is used.
Overall, there is more reasons not to keep names like golden wyvern adept. I would like to see your opinion on what WOTC should do.
