Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3909519" data-attributes="member: 18549">I think the consensus is that the flavour should be in there.&nbsp; It just shouldn't be welded to the mechanics in ways that make it difficult to remove.&nbsp; It should be extremely simple to work a class into an existing setting or into a setting that's being written, and one of the ways to do this is to design the flavour to be modular.&nbsp; In the implied setting, we can call the wizards with the Spell Shaping talent tree Golden Wyvern wizards.&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; But we should also be able to call them &quot;wizards with the Spell Shaping talent tree&quot; so that in Campaign Setting X they can be the Dweomercraft Cabal.&nbsp; As things appear now, the name &quot;Golden Wyvern&quot; is built into the abilities they can choose.&nbsp; So the conversation will look like this:DM: You are attacked by some acolytes of the Dweomercraft Cabal.Player 1: Which ones were those guys again?Player 2: They're the Golden Wyvern wizards.DM: No, Golden Wyvern doesn't exist in this setting.&nbsp; They're Dweomercraft Cabal.Player 1: What do Dweomercraft Cabal wizards do?DM: They use the Golden Wyvern abilities.Player 2: So they're Golden Wyvern wizards, after all?DM: No.&nbsp; They're exactly identical to Golden Wyvern, but they're not called Golden Wyvern, and even though you need to look for Golden Wyvern in the index if you want to look up their powers, because there's no generic name for them, they're definitely not Golden Wyvern wizards.Player 1: I attack a Golden Wyvern wizard.DM: *gets up, begins to leave*Player 2: Where are you going?DM: I'm going to Renton, Washington to find Andy Collins.&nbsp; I'll need bail money.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 3909519, member: 18549"] I think the consensus is that the flavour should be in there. It just shouldn't be welded to the mechanics in ways that make it difficult to remove. It should be extremely simple to work a class into an existing setting or into a setting that's being written, and one of the ways to do this is to design the flavour to be modular. In the implied setting, we can call the wizards with the Spell Shaping talent tree Golden Wyvern wizards. Fine. But we should also be able to call them "wizards with the Spell Shaping talent tree" so that in Campaign Setting X they can be the Dweomercraft Cabal. As things appear now, the name "Golden Wyvern" is built into the abilities they can choose. So the conversation will look like this: DM: You are attacked by some acolytes of the Dweomercraft Cabal. Player 1: Which ones were those guys again? Player 2: They're the Golden Wyvern wizards. DM: No, Golden Wyvern doesn't exist in this setting. They're Dweomercraft Cabal. Player 1: What do Dweomercraft Cabal wizards do? DM: They use the Golden Wyvern abilities. Player 2: So they're Golden Wyvern wizards, after all? DM: No. They're exactly identical to Golden Wyvern, but they're not called Golden Wyvern, and even though you need to look for Golden Wyvern in the index if you want to look up their powers, because there's no generic name for them, they're definitely not Golden Wyvern wizards. Player 1: I attack a Golden Wyvern wizard. DM: *gets up, begins to leave* Player 2: Where are you going? DM: I'm going to Renton, Washington to find Andy Collins. I'll need bail money. [/QUOTE]

Verification