Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3934391" data-attributes="member: 2067">To put it in context, the objection, again, isn't that you can't gloss over it. It's that people don't understand why they should have to when the words "golden wyvern" don't add ANYTHING to the game, as far as can be seen from the previews thus far. I made a diagram, even -- people didn't ask for it, while things people DID ask for are being ignored.And having to gloss over it is a little bump. It's not a game-breaker per se, but if this is representative of many of the feats in the PH, then there will be many more little bumps, and those will be much more annoying en masse. But more to the point right now, that little bump has no justification for being there. I adds NOTHING to the game, as far as is evident from the previews. This could all be revealed later, and perhaps it will be worth the annoyances when seen in context, but the trust isn't high amongst those with a problem with the feat. It's not necessarily limiting the ability to play generic fantasy. It's limiting my ability to take the rules and do whatever I want to them.Again, the comparison that crops up in my head is that the original 3e rules were locked up and transplanted anywhere from Africa to the Wild West to Rome to the biblical era to the age of pirates to colonial America without, largely, changing the words around. I think the tell for this will be the 4e SRD. Check the 3e SRD against the 3e core books -- that's how much "D&D" was in 3e (e.g.: not that much. Some wizard's names and a few monsters). If the 4e SRD has more changes in it than the 3e SRD, then 4e will be "less generic" than 3e, and thus less easily portable to somewhere else just out of the box.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.We won't know for sure 'till the books get here, but these are entirely valid concerns that spring out of Golden Wyvern Adept, and none of them are about how hard it is to remind your players that GWA has a different name in your campaign. They're all about how hard WotC is pushing their own pet setting fluff that, it must be said, no one really groks at the moment. If the books come out and it's still as obtuse as it seems now, we have a problem in the way that the 1e grappling rules were a problem: no one will really use it.</blockquote>

Verification