Do you like the name "Golden Wyvern Adept"?

[Dragoon]

Golden Wyvern Adept must be stopped! They are cabal of evil wizards seeking to inject fanciful kewl sounding names in our favorite game.

 

[Eidalac]

Where do you stand?

Heward's Handy Haversack.

 

[billd91]

It seems that you have no problem with the name "(magic school) Adept", it is just that you don't like the name Golden Wyvern as a description for whatever it is that Golden Wyvern does, is that right? I can understand that.

As much as I like the idea of the Magical Traditions and the like, I will admit that I find the names to be somewhat lacking...

You misunderstand. I would have no problem with Golden Wyvern Spell Sculpt or Spell Sculpting Adept. Something that indicated what the feat does and not merely its provenance.

 

[Scribble]

You misunderstand. I would have no problem with Golden Wyvern Spell Sculpt or Spell Sculpting Adept. Something that indicated what the feat does and not merely its provenance.

But what if the "big function" of the Golden Wyvern Order is sculpting spells... so really ALL of their abilities would have to be called spell sculpt.

 

[billd91]

I agree with that. The player or DM can always change the name to something else. Unless, that is, the feat is part of a broader flavour theme for the character, which requires the PC to be tied down to a Golden Wyvern progression of some sort. But it wouldn't be that inflexible, would it?

The problem with name changes is you'll probably have to keep reminding players of it because their table-games and books will constantly be saying different things. So, yes, name changes can be done on a table-by-table basis, but it can be an annoying solution. I find it easier to add flavor when there is basic rules than to replace one flavor with another piecemeal.

 

[billd91]

But what if the "big function" of the Golden Wyvern Order is sculpting spells... so really ALL of their abilities would have to be called spell sculpt.

Then spell them out based on how they sculpt the spells. Don't needlessly obscure them behind obscure titles.

 

[Starglim]

There's no "Heck, no" option. The name is meaningless, highly restrictive and generally awful.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

True Dat! (x1000)

There's no "Heck, no" option. The name is meaningless, highly restrictive and generally awful.

Hear, hear!

-DMoS (Samir)

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

As it stands, golden wyvern offers no help even guessing what it does... a non-plus in my book. Even a confusable name like, "manipulate spell effect" is better than some random, disassociated, sounds-kewl, title.

A wyvern makes me think it would have something to do with flight or poison.

Now maybe they've established some new element to connect wyverns to manipulating safe-zones in a spell effect, but by no means is it intuitive.


I don't think a poor feat name spells the doom of 4E, but they've shown considerable lack of talent with some of these silly names following this tradition so far.

 

[broghammerj]

For those quoting Bigby, Tensor, Tasha, etc Remember those were names removed from the game. Perhaps that speaks to their viability. Although, I would argue they were removed because they were from Greyhawk and the original authors campaign figures. They were descriptive despite the name.

Why not call is Spell shape, Spell sculpt, Area adaptation, Spell bender.....I can go on and on for names that have a more description.

Why do I want description...two reasons:

1. When I am 30th level, I want to look over my list of 15 talents/feats and know what it does when I haven't used it in a while.

2. When I play in my underwater sea campaign where there is no such thing as a wyvern, I'll know that the feat makes sense in my setting.