Epic Meepo
Hero
This quote from another thread sums up my thoughts on flavorful names in a concise, constructive manner:
For example: Golden Wyvern Adepts can still appear in the core rules as wizards who pick feats from a particular list. But other characters can use feats common to Golden Wyvern Adepts without having to rename them, since the feats themselves don't utilize the Golden Wyvern name. Or, as another example, Bigby can be mentioned as a wizard famous for using a spellbook containing a certain list of spells. But characters don't have to refer to those spells as Bigby's spells, since Bigby isn't explicitly mentioned in the names of the spells.
It would seem to me that a scheme like this would be the best of both worlds. D&D would encourage flavor in sidebars devoted to 'packages' of feats or spells. And new players would have examples of ways to combine feats and spells into coherent character concepts. But the flavor would be extremely modular. Anyone could drop names like Golden Wyvern or Bigby from the game without having to rename any feats or spells.
Agreed. Instead of having flavorful names for feats, why not have flavorful names for packages of feats and other sample character concepts?Cam Banks said:In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept...
Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.
There you go. All the same flavor and hooks you asked for, but without hardwiring it. It's like the prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG. Easy to use, easy to toss out.
For example: Golden Wyvern Adepts can still appear in the core rules as wizards who pick feats from a particular list. But other characters can use feats common to Golden Wyvern Adepts without having to rename them, since the feats themselves don't utilize the Golden Wyvern name. Or, as another example, Bigby can be mentioned as a wizard famous for using a spellbook containing a certain list of spells. But characters don't have to refer to those spells as Bigby's spells, since Bigby isn't explicitly mentioned in the names of the spells.
It would seem to me that a scheme like this would be the best of both worlds. D&D would encourage flavor in sidebars devoted to 'packages' of feats or spells. And new players would have examples of ways to combine feats and spells into coherent character concepts. But the flavor would be extremely modular. Anyone could drop names like Golden Wyvern or Bigby from the game without having to rename any feats or spells.