Mike Mearls comments on design

[mhensley]

I think I have a new deity for my next campaign - Mearls, god of balance and wisdom.

Looking down from Olympus
On a world of doubt and fear,
Its surface splintered
Into sorry Hemispheres.

They sat a while in silence,
Then they turned at last to me.
"We will call you Mearls,
The god of Balance you shall be."

 

[AllisterH]

Hmm?

What about spell names like Mord et al?

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Remember such classic nuggets of interest in 1e and 2e like Gutboy Barrelhouse and his buddies, the relics and artifacts with bizarre and unexplained backgrounds, etc? Somehow all of that was included in the rules without embedding it in something critical like character-building elements.

But similar things to Golden Wyvern were all through the spells: Bigby, Tenser and Mordenkainen seemed to be part of every game world. I'm inclined to put wizards spell books and costless material components are pretty similar - the spell component pouch exists so that players can ignore a piece of fluff that was given mechanical status.

Of course, it looks like 4th edition will be removing Bigby et al, and the material components will be replaced by implements; I hope spell books follow them. I just wish they weren't introducing new fluff at the same time.

Edit: Ninja attack!

 

[Cam Banks]

But similar things to Golden Wyvern were all through the spells: Bigby, Tenser and Mordenkainen seemed to be part of every game world. I'm inclined to put wizards spell books and costless material components are pretty similar - the spell component pouch exists so that players can ignore a piece of fluff that was given mechanical status.

Of course, it looks like 4th edition will be removing Bigby et al, and the material components will be replaced by implements; I hope spell books follow them. I just wish they weren't introducing new fluff at the same time.

These aren't the same. Don't believe me? Look at the SRD. All the IP names are dropped and it doesn't make a difference. That's because it's all "Bigby's this" and "Rary's that." If it were "Golden Wyvern's Spellshaping" you'd have a better comparison. This was one way that 3e improved upon previous editions without sacrificing any of that newbie grab.

When filing serial numbers off things, it helps to have something left after you're done. I can't file anything off Golden Wyvern Adept unless I change the name completely, and that's a pain in the ass.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

These aren't the same. Don't believe me?

Sorry, no I don't. Bigby & partners were just as much core fluff as Golden Wyvern.

Turning "Golden Wyvern Adept" into "Shaping adept" is more difficult than say "Tenser's Floating Disk" to "Floating Disk", sure. Just because they could be removed more easily doesn't change their status.

 

[Rechan]

I was hoping this thread wasn't going to be derailed into yet another Golden Wyvern argument. It seems like Golden Wyvern is going to be the monk of 4th edition.

The impression I got from the Quests thing is that it was going to get maybe five pages devoted to it in the DMG. I just interpreted the Design article to be "Hey guys! We're going to have a defined mechanic for designating story awards/accomplishing goals! In earlier editions (like in 3e), we had vague and undefined info about story awards, but now we can provide for you a tool!"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Absolutely. If there's an interest in providing newbies with something meaty to sink their teeth into, having no pre-made world or whatever, then hardwired core rules elements with flavor names are not the best way to do this. It would be better to represent this with those paragon paths or the example gods or examples of play that namedrop things. Remember such classic nuggets of interest in 1e and 2e like Gutboy Barrelhouse and his buddies, the relics and artifacts with bizarre and unexplained backgrounds, etc? Somehow all of that was included in the rules without embedding it in something critical like character-building elements.

I disagree. To me, having a feat named Golden Wyvern Adept asks the question "What is Golden Wyvern?" A new player is going to look at that and wondering where he learned it, what kind of process he went through at this "Golden Wyvern School". It leads to him thinking about the fact that his character would have been there for a while learning this feat. What part of the world is the school in? What kind of people did he meet there?

And as a DM, I have a bunch of ideas already spelled out for me so I don't have to come up with my own. I can instead have a player ask me "Where is this school in your world?" and not only can I be lazy and say "It's in...this country here in some mountains" but it also encourages me to put more effort into fleshing out some details about it. I want to answer all the players' questions about the school, so I should think about it.

Compared to "Spell Shaper" which basically says "I can shape spells". It doesn't say anything about who taught it to you or where you learned it or really require asking questions about it other than "I have a cool power".

That's the difference. I assume most DMs who LIKE to put a lot of effort into their campaign worlds and like to design the whole world from the ground up with all the details would prefer a generic worded feat so they can say "You learned it yourself from a book you picked up at the library, since there are no magic schools in my world."

I prefer to be able to concentrate on the storyline of particular adventures rather than the world itself. So, I can say "I don't know how people learn magic in my world....but there are some feats that come from a school called Golden Wyvern, so I'll go with that."

 

[Rechan]

And as a DM, I have a bunch of ideas already spelled out for me so I don't have to come up with my own. I can instead have a player ask me "Where is this school in your world?" and not only can I be lazy and say "It's in...this country here in some mountains" but it also encourages me to put more effort into fleshing out some details about it. I want to answer all the players' questions about the school, so I should think about it.

The complaint is that DMs who want to flesh out every corner of their world don't want to include it, and thus feel forced because it's shackled to the mechanics. Maybe there is no gold or no wyverns or no adepts or no this or that, but because it's right there in the mechanics, well they just have to put it in.

At least to my understanding.

 

[Cam Banks]

I prefer to be able to concentrate on the storyline of particular adventures rather than the world itself. So, I can say "I don't know how people learn magic in my world....but there are some feats that come from a school called Golden Wyvern, so I'll go with that."

The alternative is this.

In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept. I assume they're going to do something like this anyway, so we're already halfway there.

Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.

There you go. All the same flavor and hooks you asked for, but without hardwiring it. It's like the prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG. Easy to use, easy to toss out.

Not sure why Mearls didn't see that this was what the poster was going on about, nor why this isn't just as useful, cool, and flavorful an idea as the "we won't tell you anything about the Golden Wyvern, we'll just name a feat after them and let you do the rest" schtick.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[The Little Raven]

The complaint is that DMs who don't want to include it feel obligated because it's shackled to the mechanics. Because maybe there is no gold or no wyverns or no adepts or no this or that.

To me, this is no different than having the Ethereal Plane, which is shackled directly to mechanics. Same sense of obligation since that fluff is tied to game mechanics, and requiring the same amount of work (very little) to change.