As Editions progress, are homebrews...

[The Little Raven]

Ergo, whining

What really gets me is that BryonD says flat out "If it was named differently, I wouldn't have a problem with the feat," then in the next sentence says "Re-naming the feat has nothing to do with my complaint."

 

[BryonD]

So, telling someone that "Golden Wyvern Adept" is called "Spell Shaper" takes more time than telling someone that "Elves" are called "Sidhelien" or that gnomes don't exist in this world?

No.
But answering the questions about what the hell is "golden Wyvern" again? will.

But how does it speed things up when you have to explain what a "Mul" is, or why elves are completely different than the description given in the PHB?

Because there is one less step and that step doesn't come up over and over.

So, you're incapable of effectively communicating "These wizard traditions don't exist in my world, and a number of feats have different names?" You want Wizards to write things to make up for your ability to effectively communicate? Incapable of writing up a little campaign world primer, since you're deviating from the core material so much anyhow?

sigh No, you are wrong and the actual problem is already presented in prior posts. Making up a straw man problem may be easier than actually talking about what I said, but it isn't very productive.

The only problem you present with the feat is the name... you have no problem with it's effector it's place in your work, you simply have a problem with "Golden Wyvern Adept." You even admit that if it was called something else this problem wouldn't exist.

So, yes, simple re-naming has everything to do with it.

wrong.

 

[resistor]

I very much agree with BryonD.

As I see it, there are two kinds of core fluff:

1) The kind that needs non-intrusive editing. This includes things like the Greyhawk gods in 3e, the Bigby spells, etc. Renaming them or dropping them has serious ramifications for dealing with my players. If they know what "Bigby's Crushing Hand" is, they'll know what "Crushing Hand" is. All of these fixed by either not using the thing, completely replacing it, or a trivial renaming.

2) The kind that requires intrusive editing. Things like the Golden Wyvern Adept qualify: I don't want to drop the feat, but I don't want to have Golden Wyverns in my game. I have to rename it, but then I'll have confusion down the line when my players inevitably forget the mapping between "Spell Shaper" and "Golden Wyvern Adept" when they want to look up something about it in the books.

I think that many of the people who don't see the difference must not play with non-expert players that often. In my group, I am the only one with deep knowledge of the rules, and only one other owns his own copy of the books. I regularly have to re-explain Cleave to the fighter. They enjoy the game, but they don't live for it; they don't invest lots of time in memorizing the rules.

Now, I could play a game with them where elves have wings. It'd be pretty simple: I just tell them that all elves have wings, and we're good. However, if I tell them that we're renaming "Golden Wyvern Adept" to "Spell Shaper", and the wizard takes it as a feat, I absolutely GUARANTEE you that he will forget what it means a few sessions down the road, and then be confused when he can't find "Spell Shaper" in the book.

This makes it harder for me to homebrew for my group.

 

[BryonD]

What really gets me is that BryonD says flat out "If it was named differently, I wouldn't have a problem with the feat," then in the next sentence says "Re-naming the feat has nothing to do with my complaint."

WOW!!!!!!!

If you reading comprehension sucks that badly, then there is no reason to pay any further attention to your dronings.

 

[resistor]

Question: I was just wondering... as editions progress, are you finding it more difficult to create your own settings and forge your own path, or have the new editions been making it easier to come up with your own content?

Answer: I don't like some feat names in 4E

Ergo, whining

No, his response was that the insertion of flavored feat names in 4e makes it harder to homebrew. Some of us don't have players with perfect recall.

 

[BryonD]

Question: I was just wondering... as editions progress, are you finding it more difficult to create your own settings and forge your own path, or have the new editions been making it easier to come up with your own content?

Answer: I don't like some feat names in 4E

Ergo, whining

Ahh, the straw men never end.

Can't respond to what I did say so make up something different. But hey, if that is the best you got, then that is the best you got.

If either of you would like to try to answer my actual concerns I'll reply. Otherwise I think your continued failure to even try speaks for itself.

 

[The Little Raven]

No.
But answering the questions about what the hell is "golden Wyvern" again? will.

If it's not applicable to your world, why answer the question? "It doesn't exist, don't worry about it." That too difficult?

Because there is one less step and that step doesn't come up over and over.

If you have to explain something to your players over and over again, maybe they should work on their memory problems.

sigh No, you are wrong and the actual problem is already presented in prior posts. Making up a straw man problem may be easier than actually talking about what I said, but it isn't very productive.

Maybe you should read what you post.

"If the name of the feat was "shape spell" then re-naming it would be the only issue and there would be zero problem."

Note the part where you said there would be zero problem if the name was different?

wrong.

Either you have multiple personalities, or you don't read what you post.

 

[SteveFoerster]

To they extent they change the mechanics, it does make things more difficult. If my campaign setting already featured gnomes and half-orcs prominently, then their absence from the rules would be pretty inconvenient (not that I'll rewrite them out of things as a result, I'll just wing it).

In particular, however, I'm nervous about how incantations will work in 4e, or whether they'll be there at all. They actually play an important role in my setting, and if they're not around, that will be harder to make do without rules than it would be for missing PC races.

-=Steve=-

 

[WhatGravitas]

And again, I fail to see how renaming a feat is more difficult than cutting out/bringing in races/classes.

How often do you look up your race/class name? How often do you search for a feat explanation/spell description?

For me, that's the only problem. Most classes and races are only consulted during character creation/level-up. Spells, and to a lesser extent feats, are look-up heavy stuff, hence increasing the need to reference it at the table.

And dropping the name "Golden Wyvern Adept" in the middle of a Ravenloft game is perhaps a bit more disruptive to the atmosphere than "Spell Shaper".

Sure, feats are not that bad, since you don't look them up that often, but if this is very prevalent, it'd become really annoying (but not that annoying that'd pass 4E).

The second problem is a purely practical one and more off-topic.

Cheers, LT.

 

[The Little Raven]

How often do you look up your race/class name? How often do you search for a feat explanation/spell description?

Personally? Never. I make sure I know what every single thing on my character sheet means for my character, and if I have trouble remembering things, I write them down on a note card.

For me, that's the only problem. Most classes and races are only consulted during character creation/level-up. Spells, and to a lesser extent feats, are look-up heavy stuff, hence increasing the need to reference it at the table.

Well, people who just write things on their sheet without making sure they know what they mean will always have these issues. Nothing bugs me more than having to wait while someone digs through the book looking or a feat they took 8 levels ago, but never bothered to understand.

And dropping the name "Golden Wyvern Adept" in the middle of a Ravenloft game is perhaps a bit more disruptive to the atmosphere than "Spell Shaper".

But how is it more disruptive to change the name than having to explain the vast differences in spells and classes (since Ravenloft changes MASSIVE things about the paladin class and tons of spells)?