D&D 4E Concerned with 4e now, do you agree or not?

[Desdichado]

Why is Gold Wyvern worse than having a vancian inspired magic system? I mean, this system was totally inappropriate for most fantasy settings - except those that were already builded on the D&D foundations.

Absolutely it is not.

I'd almost rather have a "Golden Wyvern Adept" then a Tenser's Floating Disk or a Bigby's Crushing Hand or a Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

It's more generic than those are, assuming that wyvern's are part of the setting.

 

[Jinete]

Absolutely it is not.

I'd almost rather have a "Golden Wyvern Adept" then a Tenser's Floating Disk or a Bigby's Crushing Hand or a Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

It's more generic than those are, assuming that wyvern's are part of the setting.

You mean, assuming that golden wyverns are part of the setting?

 

[Desdichado]

You mean, assuming that golden wyverns are part of the setting?

If I meant that, I would have said it.

How about this: assuming that wyverns and gold are part of the setting.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

You mean, assuming that golden wyverns are part of the setting?

Probably more likely that there is both gold, the color of which or reference to which conveys a symbolic significance, and wyverns.

EDIT: Slowed.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

One of the things I'm hoping for 4E is that I'll have an easier time teaching it to new players without overwhelming them. If they need to memorize a list of random jargon words just to learn how their character works, it's going to make that process more difficult for me.

Yes indeed.

You're even ahead of a couple of technical writers who have spoken up in this thread-- but then, sadly, it's not uncommon to find technical writers on a different page than the audience.

There are a lot of tech writers who back into the job from the technical side, instead of coming in the front through a writing background. The back-in approach makes some sense in highly technical fields, where it is easer to teach the techie to write than it is to bring a writer up to speed on the tech. And, provided the intended audience is a bunch of other tech-heads who just want a hard copy technical manual, it's usually not a problem.

But for tech writing designed to reach a general audience, it is a huge problem. It is a problem so widespread it has become cliche: If you still can't program your VCR, blame the engineer who got tapped to write the instruction manual.

There are technical writers, and there are technical writers.

This particular problem-- and let's not focus specifically on Dragon's Tail Cut or Golden Wyvern; we're talking big picture-- is a primarily an issue of jargon.

As I said before, I'm willing to cut WOTC some slack at the Paragon and Epic levels of play. By 11th and 21st level, the players (even noobs) should have internalized and contextualized enough of the setting that these feat names don't become an impediment to play.

(They still sound goofy, but that's a matter of taste I can also concede.)

 

[Jinete]

If I meant that, I would have said it.

How about this: assuming that wyverns and gold are part of the setting.

Ok, snark off.

From what I know of Tenser, Bigby and Mordenkainen, they were powerful mages of old, and they created said spells. I've even seen some magical locations and quests in some WotC products that were related to Bigby IIRC.
I could of course be wrong since I don't read that much into 3.5 fluff, and it's not like I have to play a "Mordenkainen wizard". That is to say I don't come across Mordenkainen that often that his name would bother me.

What or who OTOH is a Golden Wyvern? Why is it golden and why is it a wyvern? Why is it so important that it's an integral part of character creation?

And Tenser's floating disk is a floating disk. Golden Wyvern adept is what?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think that a vancian inspired magic system can compare to "Golden Wyvern".


1. I can see how by opting to play a wizard you have to choose from several different types of wizards, each one having an emphasis on different spells/powers. I think that's great.

2. I can see how wizards need to use implements to enhance their spellcasting. I love the idea. (Obviously I'm never going to play a wand using wizard since I don't want to seem girly and Harry Potter-ish compared to my staff wielding wizard friends, but that's just my low self esteem talking.)

3. I can see that each of these wizard "types" gets tied to a wizardly order. I'm not so crazy about this, since this kinda forces my wizard into an organization, in the same way 3,5 clerics were (mostly) forced into churches. But I can live with this.

4. I can see how feats and powers related to said orders use the orders name. I don't like it because I have to remember the mentioned orders, thus giving them more significance than I want to, but whatever gets the WotC material selling, right?

5. I don't know why the names have to suck as hard as Golden Wyvern.

To 5: I don't know. But honestly, if I look at a rule book like from "Das Schwarze Auge" (Black Eye?) in Germany, I think many of the names suck, too. (They often sound a bit childish, like "Flim Flam Funkel" or "Blitz Dich Find"). Some names in the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay books also sound bad (to a German Reader, at least).

But I agree, the Vancian Magic system can barely compare to Golden Wyvern - the Vancian magic limits the play style of D&D, while Golden Wyvern just doesn't sound good.
(But that's just because the word Wyvern itself sucks, in my opinion. )

 

[Doug McCrae]

What if wizards don't have orders in my game, or what if wyverns don't exist.

Most likely Golden Wyvern refers to a style of magic, not an organisation. Wyverns don't have to physically exist to name something after them, they only have to exist as an idea. After all, dragon style kung fu exists in our world.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Am I really in such a minority to say that I actually quite like the name?

 

[Darkness]

Threads merged. Please don't start a new thread if there already is a thread on the topic. Thanks.