Flavorful Names That Make No Difference

[Voss]

QFT. People are deathly afraid of multiclassing. It's funny, in a sad and pitiful way.

Here's how I think 4e multiclassing will work:

1) Choose your base class. Here is where you get your starting bonuses - Defense bonuses, BAB bonuses, Magic bonuses, etc - and your starting feats/talents. So here's where a Fighter/Warlord and a Warlord/Fighter differ, and why that choice matters.
2) To multiclass, you just pick up a talent that you qualify for from any other class. You don't get the starting bonuses from any class you multiclass into, just the talent.

So... you don't have a class, you have a collection of starting bonuses and an open field. It makes a class system seem rather irrelevant.

 

[Dragonhelm]

If D&D is lacking anything in the current edition, it's flavor. While a mechanically sound system, it reads like a textbook sometimes.

This is fantasy. I like rulesy goodness that evokes the fantasy feel. Why play a mounted warrior when I can be a Knight of the Crown? Why be a mage when I can be a Wizard of High Sorcery?

Now maybe this sort of thing isn't for everyone. And maybe every little iota of info will be put under a microscope and criticized. For me, though, I like cool flavor bits. They help to evoke the feel of what the game is supposed to be about.

One's mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Xethreau]

So... you don't have a class, you have a collection of starting bonuses and an open field. It makes a class system seem rather irrelevant.

Not if class is defined as "a suet of abilities that defines a characters role in a party, powers they can use, and possible/suggested role played character archtypes."

For the record though, I bet there will be a little more to multiclassing than that, but I do hope it will be about that simple.

 

[Voss]

If its a suet of abilities, there are bigger problems with the game

Seriously, though, if you can cherry pick from other classes like he was suggesting, you don't a have a coherent role. You're a Warrangingwizadin with a striking/defending/controlling leader role. You might as well do a universal talent list, and tell folks to distribute X points between BAB, saves, and hit points at first level.

 

[Cam Banks]

This is fantasy. I like rulesy goodness that evokes the fantasy feel. Why play a mounted warrior when I can be a Knight of the Crown? Why be a mage when I can be a Wizard of High Sorcery?

Because the person who would prefer to play the Purple Dragon Knight or the Red Wizard of Thay is going to be upset at that, if it's hardwired into the rulebook.

Those flavor elements are for campaign settings and sourcebooks. This hasn't been a problem for people before, so why change it now?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Lord Zack]

If you want to play a dexy, tumbly fighter; you're already trying to play a half-rogue. Admiting it is the first step towards recovery. Nothing says you have to refer to yourself as a rogue, it's just a smattering of abilities you're picking up.

Same thing with taking a level or two of Cleric to supplement your fighterishness. You're just drawing inspiration from your god to be a better fighter. Nothing about having Cleric levels means you've got to be a wandering proselytizer.

That said, I like the names. I hope that there are in game orders such as the Order of the Golden Wyvern which specializes in spell shaping. A much different group than the Guild of the Emerald Frost, a group of mage-assassins that specialize in elemental substitution and trickery.

-TRRW

What if I want to be a striker that's not all sneaky or knowledgeable in nature like Rogues and Rangers, but more like Fighters?

In my case it's not so much I don't like the names, I don't like the idea that every Wizard has to use the traditions. What about the local Hedge Wizard? Maybe he learned one of these traditions, maybe not.

 

[kennew142]

Because the person who would prefer to play the Purple Dragon Knight or the Red Wizard of Thay is going to be upset at that, if it's hardwired into the rulebook.

Those flavor elements are for campaign settings and sourcebooks. This hasn't been a problem for people before, so why change it now?

Cheers,
Cam

I agree completely. I will likely be changing any and all feat or power names that don't fit the flavor of my campaign. Golden Wyvern Adept just doesn't sound like a name that would fit (It sounds kind of wuchsia). Including meaningless fluff names in the PHB seems somewhat constraining. If the feat is cool, it is likely that I will call it "Spell Shaper" or even "Spell Shaper Adept."

I do agree with those who feel that this is more difficult than changing spell names. I've always left the proper nouns off of spell names in my games (Acid Arrow, Grasping Fist, Hideous Laughter). If you try to make such minor changes to Golden Wyvern Adept, what are you left with - Golden Wyvern? Wyvern Adept? In neither case does the name say what the feat does.

I know for a fact that I won't be using any precanned organizations like Golden Wyvern Adepts in my homebrew campaign. I have put a lot of work into the background and would prefer not to be fed unimaginative pablum masquerading as rules.

I suppose that I fall into the camp that would prefer not to see this sort of thing in the core rules, but will be able to live with it.

I have to say that I have no problem with such fluff being in campaign books. I also run an Eberron game and have no trouble with the Gatekeeper Initiates (and other groups). No matter how cool they are, I wouldn't want to see these groups written into the PHB.

 

[Najo]

Because the person who would prefer to play the Purple Dragon Knight or the Red Wizard of Thay is going to be upset at that, if it's hardwired into the rulebook.

Those flavor elements are for campaign settings and sourcebooks. This hasn't been a problem for people before, so why change it now?

Cheers,
Cam

Agree. If they are hellbent on putting this stuff in the core rulebooks then stick it in optional sidebars at least. Personally they are crapping all over our campaign settings.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Because the person who would prefer to play the Purple Dragon Knight or the Red Wizard of Thay is going to be upset at that, if it's hardwired into the rulebook.

Those flavor elements are for campaign settings and sourcebooks. This hasn't been a problem for people before, so why change it now?

I do see the point. I just think people are making a bigger issue out of this than what it really is. Seriously, how many times have we had to file off the serial numbers from any spell beginning with Tenser or Bigby? Then do we just get rid of all the deity names from the PHB and call them Draconic Entity of Good and Deity of the Storm?

*shrugs*

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What if I want to be a striker that's not all sneaky or knowledgeable in nature like Rogues and Rangers, but more like Fighters?

In my case it's not so much I don't like the names, I don't like the idea that every Wizard has to use the traditions. What about the local Hedge Wizard? Maybe he learned one of these traditions, maybe not.

If he didn't he doesn't take the feat.
I probably shouldn't take a level in Druid if I never left the city (and didn't come close to any of its parks). I probably shouldn't take Weapon Focus (Greatsword) if I've never ever seen or used one until 300 XP before my next level!

If the flavour doesn't fit your character, but the effect grants you something that might make your character better, well, what do you do? Either avoid it, because you feel like a (bad) powergamer, or you rationalize the ability another way (possibly by renaming it?)