Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="resistor" data-source="post: 3908321" data-attributes="member: 9142">I hate it.  Absolutely hate it.I don't like most of the new flavor that seems to be coming in 4e, including the new wizard traditions.  I'd willing to put up with it if it were nothing but flavor, but here we see it start to impugn on game mechanics."But you can just rename the feat!"To all the people saying that: have you EVER played with people who aren't dedicate to the game, with people who don't memorize the rules?  It's hard enough to get them to remember the names of their abilities when the character sheets say the same things as the books.There needs to be a clear distinction between things that are meant for characters and things that are meant for players.  It's fine and dandy for an in-character wizard to consider himself a Golden Wyvern Adept (if the Golden Wyverns happen to exist in the setting), or for a fighter to train for months to perfect his Dragon Tail Cut.  But those are flavor.  Mechanically, they should be described "Spellshaping Adept" and "Forceful Blow," or something that is suggestive to the players of the feat's function as well as SETTING NEUTRAL.I like a lot of the rules changes that have been proposed for 4e, but I have no plan to change the flavor of my campaigns to fit the "new" flavor.  If they make the new default setting/flavor assumptions too integral to the new edition, I won't buy it, whether or not I like the rule changes: it's not worth my time to work out the replacement flavor and to train my players to ignore what it says in the book.</blockquote>

Verification