Just a couple of questions

[TheSeer]

I have a couple of questions I’d like answered by all you smart people out there. These are honest questions, not an attempt to Troll, just someone who’s been a long time reader, sometime poster, who just doesn’t get it, and would like some body to explain it to me. Now I’m not a rabid 4E fan...OK, maybe I am a bit, but not to the point where I can’t see some flaws, (I did playtesting for 3.5 and even have my name in the DMG which means that I found problems and was more than glad to report not only the problem but fixes for em ) but I am willing to listen to both sides of an argument.

What I don’t get is the intensity of dislike on some of the tidbits that we’ve heard about so far. Well, that’s not quite true. I can get the dislike, but the reasons why escape me, which is why I’m hear to ask those who have problems if they could answer a few questions. Again, this isn’t trolling, it’s hopefully intelligent discussion about opposing viewpoints and the motivations behind those view points.

OK, on to the confusion,

1) First off, all of the furor about Warlord and why WOTC didn't listen to the public about how much the name is disliked and many a poll was started to come up with a new name. People didn’t seem to like the connotation Warlord for a 1st level character and also thought that it was too close to Warlock. But, if you take a look at the poll on the 4th edition info page, you will see that Warlord just slightly edges out all of the other choices, which means that a majority of your peers considers it an OK name. So why the fuss? It's just a metagame name.

2) Why the fuss about Dragonborn as a race name? It’s descriptive and brings an image to mind of what the race is. Might they use something else better descriptive? Sure, but then again, everyone accepts Halflings who really aren’t Half of anything, but that’s their name and most people never had a problem with that.

3) Golden Wyvern Adapt. I have been playing D&D for 25+ years. When I first started playing my first character’s class was *Elf*. I primarily adventure and run games in the Realms and was really confused as to who Mordenkainen and Bigsby because they certainly didn’t reside in the Realms. The same goes for Pelor. He was no god from the Realms, but there he was in the Players Handbook. Monks got abilities called Diamond Body and Diamond Soul. Did this ability turn their bodies or souls into Diamond? Nope. Was it a completely fluff description of something else? Yup. Did you have to explain exactly what it was to someone so they knew what it did? Yup. Was it a problem doing so? Nope. So why would having to explain what Golden Wyvern Adept is be a problem?

In that vein, why is a metagame thing such as a name of an ability or class or race a problem as far as the flavor of a game a problem? If you don’t like Warlord and prefer Marshal then while it’s written down on the sheet as Warlord the characters themselves would call their career as being a Marshal. Don’t like Dragonborn? Well, I have a friend who is an American Indian and on any id (ie: character sheet) that’s what would be listed. But ask her what her race is, and she’d say at the basic, it’s “The People”. The same would apply to Dragonborn and what you would want your players to call it. Don’t like Golden Wyvern Adept? Fine, just as a person in the real world who was using a fencing foil to perform a riposte, a person who didn’t know any better would say that person just swing their sword. So on the character sheet is written Golden Wyvern Adept feat, but when referring to it the character says “Shape Magic”, again, what’s the problem? I as a DM have either changed feats (completely changed how Polymorph worked in my game and we didn’t use the text in the PHB at all) or removed (hatedhatedHATED Phantasmal Killer and outright banned it from my games).

These changes do nothing to affect your ability to play. My suggestions actually enhance the immersion in the game without affecting the rules in a significant fashion. There are always going to be metagaming info that appears in the game (STR, INT, WIS, etc) that the characters would in no way directly reference that HAVE to be on the sheets for your characters to function. What is it about these particular metagaming terms infuriates you so?

Next I had seen a lot of complaining about the setting being changed to the Realms and how that is so awful and will destroy the feel of D&D. Uhm…why? I have only recently played in Greyhawk. I never had any inclination to play in it because of a few reasons, primarily not being able to pronounce half of the country names! , and primarily adventured in the Realms. Should I have quit D&D because in 3E they added Greyhawk Gods in the PHB? No, I waited until the Realms setting came out and then used that info. Did my campaign break or be completely unplayable because it took whatever time it took for that campaign setting to come out? Nope, I did my job as DM and made up stuff as needed until the official stuff came out. That’s what I thought DMs did. So why would your campaign break because the setting is now the Realms and you are the one who needs to wait?

Then we have Eladrin/Elf . Wow. Not even sure I wanna go here with some of the posts I have seen. People complaining about the change in how Eladrins are now the magic using ones and Elfs are the woodsy ones and how dare WoTC makes such sweeping changes. Uhm..again when I first started playing Elf wasn’t a race, it was a class. And there was only one kind. And that was it. Imagine my surprise when that changed with 2E, and how it multiplied with 3E. Did it destroy my characters or how I play? Nope, in fact, my very first character, created 25+ years ago, Philgo Ap Iswain, has changed from Elf to Elven Cleric/Ranger to Elven Cleric/Ranger/Mystic Theurge. And will probably change again to Eladrin (fill in the 4E blank). Have I had to make some adjustments? Yup. Is he exactly the same as he was in 1E? Heck no, but then again, 25 years later I wouldn’t expect him to be even if we were still using 1E. So do you think this change will really break your characters and why?

Lastly on to Tieflings and Warlocks. In 3E, they were connected in some way to evil powers and some people didn’t like that in their games. And that’s fine, that’s your prerogative. In 4E, apparently according to the latest info, they aren’t or need to have to be. Even if they were, why does it upset you to have the possibility of evil characters in the PHB. You don’t wanna play that way, fine. There are people who do (not me mind you, not my cup of tea) and they enjoy having characters who are grey or even dark. Why shouldn’t WoTC let these people be able to play a character that way? Previous versions of the PHB have not said that playing evil is the best, they even state that being Good promotes party harmony in the character creation section. But that choice should be each individual player and DMs to use or don’t. If you don’t like it as a DM, just don’t. If a player complains, that’s his problem. It’s your game, end of story. If ALL or most of your players want to do it, maybe you might want to look at it again, as it may not be as bad as you want. Or, just find new players. But why take away the choice by not including it?

Again, this is not a flame against someone having a different opinion. It’s a request for a dialog more than “IT SUCKS!” or “They just broke D&D by adding in that fluff!” So, any takers? 

 

[Traycor]

3) Golden Wyvern Adapt. I have been playing D&D for 25+ years. When I first started playing my first character’s class was *Elf*. I primarily adventure and run games in the Realms and was really confused as to who Mordenkainen and Bigsby because they certainly didn’t reside in the Realms. The same goes for Pelor. He was no god from the Realms, but there he was in the Players Handbook. Monks got abilities called Diamond Body and Diamond Soul. Did this ability turn their bodies or souls into Diamond? Nope. Was it a completely fluff description of something else? Yup. Did you have to explain exactly what it was to someone so they knew what it did? Yup. Was it a problem doing so? Nope. So why would having to explain what Golden Wyvern Adept is be a problem?

I'll take a stab at this one. If I want a wizard in my game that lives as a hermet in the mountains and gained his powers by studying an old spellbook, he is not a "Golden Wyvern Adept" and is not part of any order. Such a heavy handed and wonky name gets in the way of things. I can honestly see new players looking at that and going, "What the #$%^ is that!?"

Stupid stuff like that takes away from the credibility of the game. It interferes with the story. Monk abilities called "diamond body" don't mean anything because they just describe a cool power that will never be named inside the game world. Where as "Golden Wyvern Adept" describes a wizardly order and directly infers that you are part of and associated with this organization.

Lastly, the name requires senseless memorization. It is easy to see "diamond body" and remember in general what the ability does because the name makes sense. "Golden Wyvern Adept" has nothing at all to do with anything. It requires me to look up the abilities each times because I have no clue whatsoever what the difference is between a "Golden Wyvern Adept" and a "Lightning Beaver Expert".


P.S... Halfings are called that because they are half as TALL as a human, not because they are a half breed.

 

[Lenaianel]

Well as we don't have much crunch to discuss and rant about, you know..... :\

Nice post, I do agree with you on all

 

[Traycor]

2) Why the fuss about Dragonborn as a race name? It’s descriptive and brings an image to mind of what the race is. Might they use something else better descriptive? Sure, but then again, everyone accepts Halflings who really aren’t Half of anything, but that’s their name and most people never had a problem with that.

I would guess that the real beef people have with the name "Dragonborn" is that it doesn't sound like a name that an actual race would call itself. We call ourselves human, not "Sons of Men". Dwarves could have been "Mountainfolk" or "Stonechildren", but it has a better sense of reality to it that a race would have a unique name for itself. A name that doesn't mean anything besides the name of that race.

Draconian. Dracon. Even something like Saurials. All of these sound like the name of a race.

Dragonborn sounds like a category or an organization. Like what some of those creatures might refer to themselves as, but not the race as a whole.

 

[KrazyHades]

Thank you for some much-needed reason on these boards! Let me just emphasize one of your points:

This is YOUR game. WotC can call things whatever they want, or have a race look a certain way, or change how a particular spell works (fireball comes to mind), but your group can do WHATEVER it wants, and WotC won't interfere with that.

I understand that it can be more work to modify things to what you want rather than just having it the way you would like from the start, but with a little effort and creativity the game becomes whatever you dream of. Sometimes it seems like people don't want to be creative, that they want their rules and fluff handed to them the way THEY like without regard to others. Are there things I don't like in 4E? Sure, but I won't stop that from making the game into what my players and I choose. I recommend that you all do the same.

(if this post offends anybody, just realize I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just frustrated by what I percieve as an unwillingness to modify your game)

 

[Traycor]

I'm just frustrated by what I percieve as an unwillingness to modify your game

I can understand that. The game can and should be modified by each group. For someone like me, I modify lots of things, but to keep things easy to use I never modify the basic material (i.e. class abilities, race names, etc) because it confuses my less-than-rules-savy players when they are looking things up.

Heavy handed and laughable names built into the wizard class will cause someone like me problems. Not all of us have players that can easily assimilate sweeping rules changes. Most modification I make are things that are completely transparent to the players.

...And I would guess that many groups outside the hardcore base are like mine. My players don't look up monsters in the MM. They don't know 95% of the spells. They have to look up rules almost every time. They are very very smart people and we've been playing for over a decade... but they just aren't interested in rulebooks. K.eep I.t S.imple S.tupid

 

[Alnag]

The only think I don't like are those long names. Why to use three words names if two would suffice. Diamond body = 2 words. Lightning panther strike = 3 words. Although it might be just Lightning strike = 2 W, and OK with me. Or Panther strike = 2 W and also Ok with me.

If it would be just one or two instances I wouldn't mind that either. But it seems to be more common feature. Like we might have Lightining panther strike and later improved lightning panther strike or something. It is just too much. I am lazy, maybe. It is slowing things. It is not cool. And there is absolutely no need to have those long names.

I like the rest of the thinks - dragonborns, warlord (although abbreviations will be tricky - War - which class is it?) and so on.

So... is it too much to ask the best and not be settle for "second class" outcome? I don't think so.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

I would guess that the real beef people have with the name "Dragonborn" is that it doesn't sound like a name that an actual race would call itself. We call ourselves human, not "Sons of Men". Dwarves could have been "Mountainfolk" or "Stonechildren", but it has a better sense of reality to it that a race would have a unique name for itself. A name that doesn't mean anything besides the name of that race.

Draconian. Dracon. Even something like Saurials. All of these sound like the name of a race.

Dragonborn sounds like a category or an organization. Like what some of those creatures might refer to themselves as, but not the race as a whole.

I don't want to sound to harsh, but first you complain that Gold Wyvern Adept is not descriptive enough (as it doesn't actually state what the feat does) and now your complaining that the name Dragonborn is too descriptive and not flavorfull enough. There's no way they can get it right, and that's a reasoning i've seen here many times lately.

@TheSeer: I totally agree with you ^^

 

[DM_Blake]

1) First off, all of the furor about Warlord and why WOTC didn't listen to the public about how much the name is disliked and many a poll was started to come up with a new name. People didn’t seem to like the connotation Warlord for a 1st level character and also thought that it was too close to Warlock. But, if you take a look at the poll on the 4th edition info page, you will see that Warlord just slightly edges out all of the other choices, which means that a majority of your peers considers it an OK name. So why the fuss? It's just a metagame name.

I don't mind that it's close to warlock. I'm clever enough to know the difference. But, it will be strange to come up with abbreviations for stat blocks. Can't abbreviate it as War or Wrl because of warlock, and can't use the first+last letters (a common second choice for abbreviations, such as Maryland or Georgia), Wd, because of wizard. Not really a big concern, but an interesting point.

I do, however, dislike class names that sound impressive or imposing. Fighter, for example, can be level 1 or level 30; he fights. Wizard can be level 1 or level 30; he casts arcane spells.

Warlord is, in any standard definition, someone who leads armies and theoretically has vast experience at warfare. This doesn't apply well to a level 1 character. Marshal as a suggestion isn't much better.

I would have the same complaint if they renamed the wizard class to archmage. It wouldn’t sound appropriate for a level 1 beginner.

I can live with this, but it does irk me a little.

2) Why the fuss about Dragonborn as a race name? It’s descriptive and brings an image to mind of what the race is. Might they use something else better descriptive? Sure, but then again, everyone accepts Halflings who really aren’t Half of anything, but that’s their name and most people never had a problem with that.

No fuss here. I’m fine with it.

3) Golden Wyvern Adapt. I have been playing D&D for 25+ years. When I first started playing my first character’s class was *Elf*. I primarily adventure and run games in the Realms and was really confused as to who Mordenkainen and Bigsby because they certainly didn’t reside in the Realms. The same goes for Pelor. He was no god from the Realms, but there he was in the Players Handbook. Monks got abilities called Diamond Body and Diamond Soul. Did this ability turn their bodies or souls into Diamond? Nope. Was it a completely fluff description of something else? Yup. Did you have to explain exactly what it was to someone so they knew what it did? Yup. Was it a problem doing so? Nope. So why would having to explain what Golden Wyvern Adept is be a problem?

Mordenkainen’s Sword was easy to remember that it creates a sword. Bigby’s Crushing Fist was pretty easy to glance at the spell name in a stat block and know what it does. Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere, Tenser’s Floating Disc, etc., etc., they all include something in the title that describes what it does. All I had to do was read the spell description one time. Then, even years later, if I saw the spell on a scroll, or a stat block, I might not remember the exact details, but I knew what it did.

If Bigby’s Crushing Fist were renamed to Bigby’s Adept, I would have hated that name because now it would be meaningless. Years later, if I saw it on a stat block, I would not have a clue what it did.

Even worse, if the rules had hundreds of similar meaningless names, then stat blocks would have become full of junk. When it was time for my evil wizard to cast a spell, I would have to look up 30 spells in the PHB just to decide which one to cast.

Golden Wyvern Adept is a feat, but it has the meaningless fluff name. Much better for me would be Golden Wyvern Friendsafe, or Golden Wyvern Safespace, or something that at least describes what it does.

In short, I don’t hate the “Golden Wyvern” part, I hate the meaninglessness of the “Adept” part.

Diamond Body and Diamond Soul bothered me for the same reason. It’s not evident what these things do by their names, so they don’t mean anything in a stat block unless I have a photographic memory (I don’t).

In that vein, why is a metagame thing such as a name of an ability or class or race a problem as far as the flavor of a game a problem? If you don’t like Warlord and prefer Marshal then while it’s written down on the sheet as Warlord the characters themselves would call their career as being a Marshal. Don’t like Dragonborn? Well, I have a friend who is an American Indian and on any id (ie: character sheet) that’s what would be listed. But ask her what her race is, and she’d say at the basic, it’s “The People”. The same would apply to Dragonborn and what you would want your players to call it. Don’t like Golden Wyvern Adept? Fine, just as a person in the real world who was using a fencing foil to perform a riposte, a person who didn’t know any better would say that person just swing their sword. So on the character sheet is written Golden Wyvern Adept feat, but when referring to it the character says “Shape Magic”, again, what’s the problem? I as a DM have either changed feats (completely changed how Polymorph worked in my game and we didn’t use the text in the PHB at all) or removed (hatedhatedHATED Phantasmal Killer and outright banned it from my games).

These changes do nothing to affect your ability to play. My suggestions actually enhance the immersion in the game without affecting the rules in a significant fashion. There are always going to be metagaming info that appears in the game (STR, INT, WIS, etc) that the characters would in no way directly reference that HAVE to be on the sheets for your characters to function. What is it about these particular metagaming terms infuriates you so?

Not entirely true.

These changes can affect my ability to play. If the core rules have hundreds of them, and I have to rename hundreds of things to make their names more meaningful, or more appropriate to my campaign, then I will need a translator to keep track of all the changes.

My current 3.5e feat list (I combined dozens of splat books and typed all the feats into one big list that I can use, and my players can use, when picking feats) has over 1200 feats on them. I would say that about 98% of the feats on that list have meaningful names. When someone scans through 1200 feats, they can literally judge a book by its cover. If the feat “Power Attack” sounds interesting, but they don’t know what it does, at least they can tell in a general sense. You won’t see too many wizards opening the PHB to look it up to see if they want it, but fighters would.

Put Golden Wyvern Adept on that feat list, and now monks, druids, bards, maybe even paladins, etc., will have to know in their heads what that is, or they will have to look it up. 7 years from now when there are dozens of splat books out, who will know what is in all of them? Who will read a 1200+ feat list and be able to generally understand all, or nearly all, of the feats listed?

Answer: Every player if names like Golden Wyvern Adept are avoided. Nobody if those names are commonly used all over the place by core and splat books.

I want to nip this kind of nonsense in the bud. Don’t start. Don’t put it in the core books and maybe many of the splat books will follow WotC’s example.

Next I had seen a lot of complaining about the setting being changed to the Realms and how that is so awful and will destroy the feel of D&D. Uhm…why? I have only recently played in Greyhawk. I never had any inclination to play in it because of a few reasons, primarily not being able to pronounce half of the country names! , and primarily adventured in the Realms. Should I have quit D&D because in 3E they added Greyhawk Gods in the PHB? No, I waited until the Realms setting came out and then used that info. Did my campaign break or be completely unplayable because it took whatever time it took for that campaign setting to come out? Nope, I did my job as DM and made up stuff as needed until the official stuff came out. That’s what I thought DMs did. So why would your campaign break because the setting is now the Realms and you are the one who needs to wait?

Well, I use my only home-grown campaign world. I’ve used the same world, Rynn, for over two decades.

So I don’t really care which campaign world WotC uses in the core books, or any other books. I will still convert it to Rynn.

I would like, however, that the core books feel like a toolset that I can apply to my campaign. This means most of the content should be generic. Save the campaign fluff for core books that I can decide to buy or not buy. I have never bought an Eberron book. Not one. Don’t need the campaign fluff.

But I have bought all the core books, every MM, every Complete Classname, and a score of other books like Spell Compendium, Tome of Magic, Book of 9 Swords, etc., since those books contain mostly tools and only some, or no, campaign flavor.

Then we have Eladrin/Elf . Wow. Not even sure I wanna go here with some of the posts I have seen. People complaining about the change in how Eladrins are now the magic using ones and Elfs are the woodsy ones and how dare WoTC makes such sweeping changes. Uhm..again when I first started playing Elf wasn’t a race, it was a class. And there was only one kind. And that was it. Imagine my surprise when that changed with 2E, and how it multiplied with 3E. Did it destroy my characters or how I play? Nope, in fact, my very first character, created 25+ years ago, Philgo Ap Iswain, has changed from Elf to Elven Cleric/Ranger to Elven Cleric/Ranger/Mystic Theurge. And will probably change again to Eladrin (fill in the 4E blank). Have I had to make some adjustments? Yup. Is he exactly the same as he was in 1E? Heck no, but then again, 25 years later I wouldn’t expect him to be even if we were still using 1E. So do you think this change will really break your characters and why?

No big deal here.

I guess I’ll have to make some changes on my maps and my gazetteer for my home world.

Lastly on to Tieflings and Warlocks. In 3E, they were connected in some way to evil powers and some people didn’t like that in their games. And that’s fine, that’s your prerogative. In 4E, apparently according to the latest info, they aren’t or need to have to be. Even if they were, why does it upset you to have the possibility of evil characters in the PHB. You don’t wanna play that way, fine. There are people who do (not me mind you, not my cup of tea) and they enjoy having characters who are grey or even dark. Why shouldn’t WoTC let these people be able to play a character that way? Previous versions of the PHB have not said that playing evil is the best, they even state that being Good promotes party harmony in the character creation section. But that choice should be each individual player and DMs to use or don’t. If you don’t like it as a DM, just don’t. If a player complains, that’s his problem. It’s your game, end of story. If ALL or most of your players want to do it, maybe you might want to look at it again, as it may not be as bad as you want. Or, just find new players. But why take away the choice by not including it?

I have no strong feelings on this either way. In my 3.5e games I don’t use alignments. I tell my players to write one on their sheet if it helps them roleplay, but I will never ask them what it is.

On those rare cases that some alignment spell is cast, or some magic item is restricted to an alignment, I adjudicate the effects based on how I have seen them roleplay, assuming I don’t just ignore the effects entirely.

 

[Traycor]

I don't want to sound to harsh, but first you complain that Gold Wyvern Adept is not descriptive enough (as it doesn't actually state what the feat does) and now your complaining that the name Dragonborn is too descriptive and not flavorfull enough. There's no way they can get it right, and that's a reasoning i've seen here many times lately.

@TheSeer: I totally agree with you ^^

Hehe! I hear what you're saying. But honestly, Dragonborn is fine as a description, it just sounds inappropriate. It's not quite a race name. (That's simply linguistics thing as far as I'm concerned)

Golden-whatever on the other hand is outright stupid. I have players that will spend entire game sessions laughing about a name like that.

Simplifying it down to a contradiction if I dislike both is dismissive.