Mike Mearls comments on design

[Zaruthustran]

Thank you, Kamikaze Midget. I think I get it now. GWA doesn't *add* anything. It's doesn't make the game better. And it pisses off some people. A net negative. So why not replace it with a more generic, content-neutral descriptive term? A net zero?

Is that about right?

Still don't see how "warlord" hurts anything, though. That's just a cool, generic name for a guy who leads a warband. No more or less descriptive than fighter, wizard, etc. That can stay, certainly. Dragonborn and Tiefling are wholly different names. "Dragonborn" is WotC's relatively new infatuation with compound names (Frostburn, Stormwrack, etc.), while "Tiefling" is just a made-up name. So, "Dragonborn" could just as likely have been "Hooha" (or whatever), and "Tiefling" could have been "Hellspawned" (or whatever). I'm fine with either. They're new, and they fill gaps made from half-orc (tough, militaristic) and gnome (weird, mystical).

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I don't think that GWA hurts the generic feel of D&D, not more than the fact that there are Dragons and Armor and bows, not more than the fact that in 1st edition druid had to fight other druids to get beyond 12th level, not more the fact that bard in 1st edition had to be fighters than thief and then found a lot of bardic colleges (the horror the horror, so little genericity)

the GWA fits perfectly to the PoL they are "tradition" in the sense that in that specific part of the world the mages that like that spell call themselves GWA

don't like it? it takes 1 line of a campaign note to say "GWA are called Black Mamba Dancer in the Darkflame Campaign Setting", much less work than creating a new pantheon

so please keep Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil and Hidden Flame

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thank you, Kamikaze Midget. I think I get it now. GWA doesn't *add* anything. It's doesn't make the game better. And it pisses off some people. A net negative. So why not replace it with a more generic, content-neutral descriptive term? A net zero?

Though here is a part where I'd disagree. GWA does add something to the game. It reinforces the idea that your character is more than a set of powers. It makes you think about "where do these powers come from? How did I pick them up? Who else does it? How does it link me to them?"

Sure, you could have always done this. "I take the feat Power Attack, and pretend that I picked the technique up from my Half Orc Trainer at the Military Academy". But how many people ever considered that? And how many of them did it at all? And did any DM ever try to create a homebrew in where such abilities where linked to traditions or schools? Wouldn't it be cool if you could say - ah, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Rapier), and Dodge? Did that guy also train Fabornaccis "Contemplations on the Art of Duels"? "Extend Spell, Spell Focus (Abjuration), and Spell Pentration? You would right fit into our Order of Silver Mage".
The only time this _might_ have happened where in case of Prestige Classes. But that felt pretty heavy-handed, and if you wanted to follow that implication, you were forced to pick up certain abilities that you might not been interested in.

"Fluffy" feat names invite you to explore such concepts.

 

[rounser]

Still don't see how "warlord" hurts anything, though. That's just a cool, generic name for a guy who leads a warband.

No, it's a misnomer, and IMO it's an overblown lame one. An adventuring party is not an army, and the name isn't generic, it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply in a D&D party context. "Champion" is an example of a generic name, and lacks all the implications and baggage that don't apply of the term "warlord". They really need to go back to the thesaurus on this one, IMO.

 

[Simon Marks]

Specifically, the names - Golden Wyvern, Secret Fire et al. force you to consider a concept in regards to the Wizard.

Namely who trained them.

Force is the issue.

Even 3.5 clerics didn't actually need to worship something. I feel this is a weakness of 3.5 - along with the multiclassing rules that obviated the concept of 'training' to join a class.

In 3.5 anyone could in theory become a wizard at any time, in 4e it asks a number of tricky questions.

Still, I'm as hopeful as every that the Traditions will be like Pantheons.

*edit, removed Domains. I actually want Traditions to work like Pantheons*

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Specifically, the names - Golden Wyvern, Secret Fire et al. force you to consider a concept in regards to the Wizard.

Namely who trained them.

Force is the issue.

If you learn and use Fourier transformations, does that imply that you've been taught by Fourier Adepts?

 

[Simon Marks]

If you learn and use Fourier transformations, does that imply that you've been taught by Fourier Adepts?

No, but that's not what is meant.

If you learn to use Fourier transformations (Wizard powers) in a specific way (a tradition), that does imply you have been taught by someone who uses Fourier transformations in the same way.

Doesn't insist on it, just implies it.

 

[AllisterH]

Specifically, the names - Golden Wyvern, Secret Fire et al. force you to consider a concept in regards to the Wizard.

Namely who trained them.

Force is the issue.

Even 3.5 clerics didn't actually need to worship something. I feel this is a weakness of 3.5 - along with the multiclassing rules that obviated the concept of 'training' to join a class.

In 3.5 anyone could in theory become a wizard at any time, in 4e it asks a number of tricky questions.

Still, I'm as hopeful as every that the Traditions will be like Pantheons.

*edit, removed Domains. I actually want Traditions to work like Pantheons*

Um, what does that strip prove exactly. Elan was simply dressing up as a wizard.

In all editions of D&D, you had to be "trained" by someone to be a wizard. In the fluff for the 1e/2e wizard it's mentioned that you are sent off by your master with a few spells.

The _SORCEROR_ though. That didn't need a trainer.

 

[Simon Marks]

Um, what does that strip prove exactly. Elan was simply dressing up as a wizard.

You have to read the strip before to get the full context.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps that's part of the intent, but from where I'm sitting, making it harder to disentangle 4e from 4e's implied setting works against one of the major strengths of tabletop gaming: that is, the ability of the gaming group to OWN how they play the game. That I could be playing a french elf paladin in mythic colonial america and you could be playing a dwarf samurai in mythic japan and next week we could be playing a group of people going against a vampire lord in Ravenloft in a third game, and we're all playing it as D&D and referencing the same Power Attack feat is a very very strong element of 3e D&D, and of D&D in general (which has always be kludged into new shapes, even if it didn't entirely fit comfortably). 4e's ability to support that, if things like "golden wyvern adept" feats are the norm, is reduced from that of 3e. The more 4e has it's own 4e-isms, the less easily I can inject my own group's -isms.

It's not GWA per se, it's more the fact that it can represent a whole approach that threatens one of the best things about D&D. That is, if you're inclined to be suspicious of WotC. And given that "making new IP" is a voiced consideration, but "supporting your ability to play the game outside of our core assumptions" isn't, it's not an unreasonable suspicion to have.

Wow. Great post.

RC