Fluff vs Crunch

[Falling Icicle]

3.5 First level NPC wizard had 900 gp in gear, more than enough to have a wand of magic missle or an orb spell which is practically 'at will'.

A 50 charge wand is not even close to "at will."

 

[Agamon]

Not even close? Even if you used it a couple times per encounter, that's 25 encounters after which you get another (or even better) one. That's as close to at will as you can get with actually being at will, IMO.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Not even close? Even if you used it a couple times per encounter, that's 25 encounters after which you get another (or even better) one. That's as close to at will as you can get with actually being at will, IMO.

You're only going to need to shoot twice per encounter? Wow.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

You're only going to need to shoot twice per encounter? Wow.

The 1st-level wizard (or better yet, a sorcerer) is going to have his own spells in addition to the wand. And they're unlikely to be adventuring alone.

Still, if you assume four uses of the wand per encounter, that's still 12.5 encounters... which is about the point where they're going to get to the second level.

 

[KingCrab]

I think GWA as a name convenes as much information as power attack or Bigby's X hand, which is under which letter in the feat list I can find the description. Power attack is no more descriptive than GWA. If I want to use power attack in a game, I have to look up mechanics of the feat. If I want to use GWA in a game, I have to do the exact same thing.
The only thing GWA has that power attack doesn't is some fluff that can either be used to flesh out the powers my wizard uses or be completely and totally ignored with zero reprecussions.

No. The first time I heard power attack, I knew it was some sort of a powerful attack. That meant extra damage at some sort of cost. After reading the feat, I saw there was a reduced chance to hit. It could have been reduced AC or some other cost, so reading it was necessary, yet I still had an idea of what it did the first time I heard it. This why I think it was a good name.

GWA gives me NO idea what the feat does. It is not in any way like the name 'power attack'.

 

[KingCrab]

Its more than one or two. But my expectation is the assumed setting and the mechanics are tied together more in this edition than any previous edition.

I very much agree with you and disagree with WotC's decision on this. At the very least, there will be a LOT of rewriting if you want to run things in your own setting. Normally you could take their non-fluff names and add fluff names for your setting if you liked, or not added new fluff names if you liked. You could leave feat names alone if you wanted and it still made sense.

Now you -have- to explain that all these campaign specific organizations (like the Golden Wyverns) don't exist in your world and assign new names to them. It's a way of penalizing DM's who want to do their own settings for their creativity.

 

[Agamon]

You're only going to need to shoot twice per encounter? Wow.

Shoot your wand is the only thing you have to do during a combat? Huh.

 

[Agamon]

I very much agree with you and disagree with WotC's decision on this. At the very least, there will be a LOT of rewriting if you want to run things in your own setting. Normally you could take their non-fluff names and add fluff names for your setting if you liked, or not added new fluff names if you liked. You could leave feat names alone if you wanted and it still made sense.

Now you -have- to explain that all these campaign specific organizations (like the Golden Wyverns) don't exist in your world and assign new names to them. It's a way of penalizing DM's who want to do their own settings for their creativity.

But I still think implied settings help new DMs and experienced DMs have the ability to make the game their own.

Unless the Golden Wyvern concept is as rooted into the game as, say, alignment is in 3.x, I don't see it as much of a problem.

 

[JohnSnow]

Now you -have- to explain that all these campaign specific organizations (like the Golden Wyverns) don't exist in your world and assign new names to them. It's a way of penalizing DM's who want to do their own settings for their creativity.

Personally, I regard this as trivially easy, as should any advanced DM.

The built-in flavor isn't for us though. It's for the starting DM who may not have any idea what he wants his campaign to look like. By tying certain wizard feats and powers to specific "traditions," you're saying to the new person "some wizard abilities have to be taught." A simple sidebar that says: "Why Golden Wyvern?" might go a long way.

Some kind of tradition dedicated to shaping spells makes sense. That is especially important if you're proceeding with the assumption that wizard's abilities are learned rather than inherent. You're making the beginning DM give some thought to the world beyond the PCs. He has to either incorporate the Golden Wyvern Discipline in his campaign, or replace it. Either way, he can't choose not to get involved in the setting's flavor. IMO, that's a good thing.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Will]

John Snow:

So 'Golden Wyvern Adept' means 'purity strength and finesse/skill.'

Which would suggest something along the lines of 'metamagic substitution: Holy' or 'extra critical damage on spells' or 'bonus on strength checks.'

That it means 'selective AoE targetting' isn't obvious at all unless you take the most vague, all-inclusive derivation of the term.

Now, mind you, I'll agree that Combat Expertise is also a terrible feat name... 'the feat of being good in combat.' Uh. k... Thankfully, most feat names are appropriately evocative; I think that's less a defense of GWA and more an admission that not every term pans out.

Though if all the OTHER terms they end up using turn out to be evocative, and GWA is just an aberration, then I'll be relieved. Still not a fan of this level of fluff, but I can deal with it.