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

[TwinBahamut]

I don't see why people think Acid and Cold are so opposing... In the end, both are pretty inseperable from from the idea of water. When most people think of cold, they think think of ice, frozen water. And the idea of acid is totally unseperable from water.

It is completely impossible for something that is dry to function as an acid. A dry acid (such as an acid in powder form) will not corrode anything unless it mixes with water. The true nature of acidity is found in water, not in what mixes with water. Water by its nature is a state of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions in perfect balance. When that balance is disrupted by the addition of other ions, it is the free hyrdrogen and hydroxide ions from the water itself that corrodes and dissolves other materials. When sulfuric acid corrodes something, it is not the sulfate which is chemically reacting with the metal being dissolved (at least, it is not the necessary aspect), it is the free ions from the water.

As such, acids (and bases) can't be seperated from water. Neither can ice. They seem to match up well, simply because both use water as their basis.

Of course, electricity and acid are a good match too, but for different reasons.

However, I agree that Emerald Frost is a pretty bad name...

 

[rounser]

Yeah, does seem like the way the Greyhawk deities "polluted" all 3rd Edition settings have affected how people respond to "core" material.

I think use of the GH deities was a mistake. They're just as fish out of water in the implied setting as almost any other deity from a specific setting, excepting perhaps Earth. Thor is a good candidate for a PHB god, not Boccob, because Thor exists across many D&D worlds as a firm favourite already, and fits D&D conventions. Mordenkainen's Sword is indeed more flavorful than Mage Sword, but if you keep such "named for a specific setting" spells in supplements, the lack of their presence in the PHB will not be missed.

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.

This all revolves around how built into the game these names are. The way that the phrase I quoted has been worded, they sound thoroughly wedged in there, and won't be coming out easily. If they're just the equivalent of "sample deities" examples in a sidebar which can be easily turfed, then fine and dandy, but that quote sure doesn't read like that's the plan. WOTC indeed has a conundrum here, as you point out (they don't want the game to be a bland read, nor provide no flavour to those with no setting), but I'm not sure about the sound of the hints we're being given about the solution. If they have something that pleases both the defaulters and the worldbuilders, then hats off, but this current hint points towards neither.

As a recent thread pointed out, a large amount of D&D's appeal lies in the worldbuilding. The implied setting should be an aid to that, not something that needs weeding before use. And the defaulters shouldn't be turned off by the default that's been given to them.

 

[jasin]

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.

People are comfortable making up their own deities because they're created (mechanically) from premade building blocks. Think of a concept, pick 3-6 appropriate domains: deity! Even WotC mostly relies on existing domains for each new deity.

If traditions along the lines of "Emerald Frost gives +1 to DCs and +1 to caster level with [Cold] and [Acid] spells" and "Stormwalker gives +1 to DCs and +1 to caster level with [Electricity] and [Force] spells" it's trivial to come up with your own Winter Mourner tradition which gives +1 to DCs and +1 to caster level with [Cold] and [Death] spells.

But if the traditions are more along the lines of feat/talent-trees or domain powers, with specific effects for each rather than being just labels for the same effect differently applied, then not everyone is going to be comfortable rolling their own.

 

[Thundershield]

People are comfortable making up their own deities because they're created (mechanically) from premade building blocks. Think of a concept, pick 3-6 appropriate domains: deity! Even WotC mostly relies on existing domains for each new deity.

If traditions along the lines of "Emerald Frost gives +1 to DCs and +1 to caster level with [Cold] and [Acid] spells" and "Stormwalker gives +1 to DCs and +1 to caster level with [Electricity] and [Force] spells" it's trivial to come up with your own Winter Mourner tradition which gives +1 to DCs and +1 to caster level with [Cold] and [Death] spells.

But if the traditions are more along the lines of feat/talent-trees or domain powers, with specific effects for each rather than being just labels for the same effect differently applied, then not everyone is going to be comfortable rolling their own.

Even here whiners might start complaining, arguing that +1 save DC on [Death] spells is more potent than on other spells or somesuch, but yeah, you basically caught the gist of what I wanted to say. Even if traditions provide a wider array of potential bonuses (just like some Domains offer different bonuses than +1 caster level), merely providing guidelines for such bonuses would make it fairly easy to "roll your own" traditions.

Addendum: I should add that it seems they'll provide inspirational fluff of all kinds in the core books, adding that players can use it if they like or not if they don't. Tieflings, for instance, will get a racial history of diabolical pacts and tyrannical empires.

Source: Inside Wizards Blog Post

 

[D.Shaffer]

Probably Energy Admixture (cold) with an [Acid] spell or Energy Admixture (acid) with a [Cold] spell.

That's what I was thinking about yes.

And going back to previous editions, anyone else remember that tidbit in Manual of the Planes where you can SPECIFICALLY research alternate element version of certain spells for those planes? Like shooting a 'Waterball' on the plane of fire.

In any case, I'm still trying to figure out why Acid+Cold is seen as an illogical mixing. Acid is liquid based, and when we think of cold we tend to get liquid based effects as well. As is, I've ALWAYS seen acid as a more 'water' based attack form and DnD's linking of acid with Earth puzzled me.

We can have frozen projectiles melting into a corrosive effect.
Corrosive sprays that harden into ice.
Corrosive ice that still damages while frozen.
Liquid acid that just has a REALLY low freezing point (Corrosive liquid nitrogen? )
I'm sure if we dug deep enough, there's already mixes of ice+acid somewhere in DnD lore as is.

Lots of fun potential here.

 

[wgreen]

I think use of the GH deities was a mistake. They're just as fish out of water in the implied setting as almost any other deity from a specific setting, excepting perhaps Earth. Thor is a good candidate for a PHB god, not Boccob, because Thor exists across many D&D worlds as a firm favourite already, and fits D&D conventions.

Meh. I strongly suspect that most game settings that have deities have obvious counterparts to most, if not all, of the deities in the PHB. Substitute your favorite magic god for Boccob, your nature god for Obad-Hai, your paladin god for Heironeous...

The only complaint I have about the 3.x gods is that some of them seem a little redundant (Boccob/Wee Jas, Wee Jas/Nerull, Ehlonna/Obad-Hai). But it's never caused me any trouble whatsoever.

-Will

 

[Remathilis]

I think use of the GH deities was a mistake. They're just as fish out of water in the implied setting as almost any other deity from a specific setting, excepting perhaps Earth. Thor is a good candidate for a PHB god, not Boccob, because Thor exists across many D&D worlds as a firm favourite already, and fits D&D conventions. Mordenkainen's Sword is indeed more flavorful than Mage Sword, but if you keep such "named for a specific setting" spells in supplements, the lack of their presence in the PHB will not be missed.

Can you name one published setting (D&D or otherwise) that uses Thor in it? I can, but I'm sure Mystara is a bit of an obscure reference. Greyhawk? No. Realms? Tyr, but no Thor. Eberron? Nope. Birthright, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Scarred Land, Aerth, Wilderlands, Blackmoor, Kalamar? No. I guess Planescape, but thats really not fair...

Their comes a time when you ask when has something stopped being specific to a setting and starts becoming generic. Venca's artifacts were in the 1e DMG, but they were pretty Greyhawk specific (heck, all the artifacts were GH specific). Planescapes's tieflings made it into 3e's Monster Manual. Orcus is pretty specific a name, as is Tiamat, but those names pop up repeatedly in D&D generic books. At this point, Mordenkainen, Vecna, Tiamat, and Orcus have been around long enough that they are linked to D&D no matter what the world. You can remove them if they offend you, but to remove them from the core would be a great diservice to new players and make the world seem more toolkit than default, change to taste. I'd rather the latter, IMHO.

 

[GreatLemur]

Well, wouldn't oppositions fit each other much less, seeing how they're oppositions?

Not at all. At least opposition is a thematic connection. But I think it's easy to find a logical connection as well: A Wizard might be capable with both fire and ice spells because he's skilled at manipulating temperature.

For that matter, I could happily put fire and lightning spells in the same tradition, as they're both associated with summoning up energy. Or cold and darkness, as they're both associated with negating energy.

But acid and ice?

I don't see why people think Acid and Cold are so opposing... In the end, both are pretty inseperable from from the idea of water. When most people think of cold, they think think of ice, frozen water. And the idea of acid is totally unseperable from water.

It'd make as much sense--and would work about as well thematically--for a water-themed caster to be slinging around steam and bases. You can look at acid and ice as expressions of water, sure, but they're two very specific (and otherwise unrelated) subsets of water-related phenomena. And they just sound really dumb as the central themes of a magical tradition.

 

[D.Shaffer]

You can look at acid and ice as expressions of water, sure, but they're two very specific (and otherwise unrelated) subsets of water-related phenomena. And they just sound really dumb as the central themes of a magical tradition.

Some of find it logical and appealing, so declaring it so doesnt make it so. Which is why it's probably a good thing you're free to make up your own traditions.

 

[gothmaugCC]

Emerald Frost huh?

Sounds like what happens when a Green and White dragon have offspring. Can we say freezing cold acidic mist?

Point is, it doesnt have to make sense, its fantasy.

"Your Silver Vancian Style is no match for my Ephemeral Crane wizardry!