Do you like the name "Golden Wyvern Adept"?

[Wormwood]

But, since the smattering of proper nouns that EGG used in 1E added a lot of character and interest to the books, I'll wait and see how it's implemented before grousing too much.

That sums up my thoughts on the new naming conventions. Guardedly optimistic.

 

[Kintara]

You know, the feat names are misleading, at best, considering how many effects overlap or are variations on the same theme. Also, often the name doesn't really mean anything out of the context of that specific feat. Names are just like that, imo. I don't really care if they are bland or "fancy," though sometimes fancy names can save you the trouble of coming up with a name for something in the game world. Golden Wyvern Adepts could be good names for a group of NPCs with this feat (which is why they are identified with it). I've been happier with lamer names than that.

 

[Stormtalon]

I'd've voted, but there's no option for: "It's a complete and total non-issue and thus I have zero opinion one way or another."

Honestly, it ain't worth gettin' worked up about.

 

[Mortellan]

What game is this for?

 

[delericho]

I quite like the name. But then, I quite liked Emerald Frost.

I don't particularly care for the effect, especially at Paragon levels - it feels more of an Epic thing to do, frankly.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I've said it before, but if I want a game full of 10,000 defacating monkeys feats and maneuvers I'll play Exalted.

And even then the nirvana lotus essence of death naming conventions may add a certain vibe but they do make things more difficult. Both to keep straight all the convoluted names and difficult to alter.

 

[BadMojo]

That's a good point. What, exactly, are these feats going to be called in the various campaign settings? Or will the Golden Wyvern be shoehorned into every single setting that 4E touches just because they need them so that the feat names make sense?

Yeah, that's the main thing bothering me. I think the names sound silly and I don't really want to cram them and/or their corresponding groups in to Eberron or FR. The only other choices would be to just handwave the whole thing and use the names out of game only or rename every single offending feat and having your players refer to your custom "cheat sheet" for FR specific names.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Agreed. I won't use Golden Wyvern Adept as a name in-game since I think it sounds goofy, but I don't really care about it as a meta-game rules thing like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc. I also won't use the Golden Wyvern organization since I don't need non-setting specific groups; have enough groups with FR and Eberron.

See, that's something annoying me to no end (and that's basically my *only* gripe with 4E): Generic metagame concepts with non-generic flavour. Why? Because I need the name to reference it, hence I cannot change the name. A class - that's okay, because you never look it up - but things that you look up often, due to their modular nature, such as spells and feats, are a-n-n-o-y-i-n-g, because you're forced to get the flavour whenever you're referencing it.

Especially in the core books.

Well, it could be worse (like bad mechanics), that's more of a nuisance than everything else.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Commonblade]

Eh, I can deal with it, If I want to change something, I change it. My players have no problem with me changing the base rules as long as we stay consistant.

 

[Cadfan]

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Its a name. They could call it "Feat for Wizards Number 32," and I'd be ok with it.

Its not like the name is even going to get mentioned in combat.

"I cast fireball, targeted here. I leave Joe out of the blast radius."
"Oh, you mean like the last 80 times you cast fireball?"
"Yeah, like that."