New Design & Development: Feats

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wonder... "Golden wywern" maybe the PHB name, with the attached IP, but sculpt spell may be the SRD name, OGL.

I don't really think that "Golden Wyvern" can count as IP.
Gold and Wyvern can appear in too many contexts and have certainly been used before, but names like "Melf", "Leomund", "Mordekainen" or "Tenser" are unique to D&D (are they even real world names?).

I am not sure if I like the "Gold Wyvern" name, but I think it isn't really worse than "Scult Spell" or "Shape Spell". In all cases, you will want to look up what they do exactly. Too many 3.x abilities sound similar, but you still don't know what they do and will confuse them. You will probably also confuse the various "flavoured names", but at least they have some kind of flavor. And it might also sound nicer to refer to these names in-character. (that's debatable, though)

And honestly, it's incredibly difficult to come up with good names for so many abilities. But it removes the "cold and technical" feeling of the game, which I think isn't too bad. (At least for newcomers. I don't really need this stuff anymore. )

 

[Jinete]

I am not sure if I like the "Gold Wyvern" name, but I think it isn't really worse than "Scult Spell" or "Shape Spell". In all cases, you will want to look up what they do exactly. Too many 3.x abilities sound similar, but you still don't know what they do and will confuse them. You will probably also confuse the various "flavoured names", but at least they have some kind of flavor. And it might also sound nicer to refer to these names in-character. (that's debatable, though)

And honestly, it's incredibly difficult to come up with good names for so many abilities. But it removes the "cold and technical" feeling of the game, which I think isn't too bad. (At least for newcomers. I don't really need this stuff anymore. )

It's not the name "Golden Wyvern" that is the worst part. Although IMO it's awful. I don't like the idea of wizard schools if they are going to be in game organizations.

I bought Complete Champion and hated most of the PrC's that were in there. Most were tied to some organization that I wouldn't use as a DM, or wouldn't ask a DM to put in the game.

Sure, I can change a PrC to fit my setting, but why should I need to change core classes to fit my homebrew?!

 

[zoroaster100]

I agree with the concern about Golden Wyvern for a feat name. I think feats should have names that easily reveal what they do, and should stay away from specific flavor. Each DM can add flavorful fanciful names for specific feats, or campaign settings can suggest a different naming system for feats, but the core rules should avoid that in order to keep the rules easily adaptable to many kinds of campaigns.

 

[Ant]

Good

• Finally, a toothsome Design and Development article
• Toughness - nice evolution of a weaker feat
• Possibility of streamlined bonus types for stacking
• The illustration of the halfling looks decidedly un-dungeon-punky

Bad

• Everything else

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Well, I'm back on board. That had meaty information to digest, and useful design philosophy spelled out.

But say, I wasn't on ENWorld when some of the 3.5 stuff came out; was there this much crying about 'Robilar's Gambit'? 'Thunder Twin'? Hell, 'Combat Expertise' doesn't tell you anything useful about what the feat -does-. Stupid 3.5 designers and their constant need to inject "flavor" into the rules!

 

[neceros]

One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?

Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.

Jeez.

Sure, I can change a PrC to fit my setting, but why should I need to change core classes to fit my homebrew?!

Most Prestige classes tell you how to change it to get rid of flavor in the class desciption.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

It's not the name "Golden Wyvern" that is the worst part. Although IMO it's awful. I don't like the idea of wizard schools if they are going to be in game organizations.

I bought Complete Champion and hated most of the PrC's that were in there. Most were tied to some organization that I wouldn't use as a DM, or wouldn't ask a DM to put in the game.

Sure, I can change a PrC to fit my setting, but why should I need to change core classes to fit my homebrew?!

Sometimes i wonder how people played their homebrew in 3.0/3.5...
Quick question: Did you manage the unthinkable and change or ignore a name, or did all your homebrew worlds have a Tenser, Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tasha etc...?

 

[Jinete]

One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?

Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.

Jeez.

Most Prestige classes tell you how to change it to get rid of flavor in the class desciption.

You know what Debbie? You're right! And I think Guild Bubblepants also has a point. In fact since you two are obviously more experienced could you give me some help with my current 3,5 build?

I'm playing a lvl 5 westfolk Kingdom Rebel, my feats so far are Unseen Warrior and Blade Parry. What do you think I should take at lvl 6?

 

[humble minion]

One thing that irritates me about people is their inability to get over names. Must I quote Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)?

Re-name it if it bothers you so much. This goes with Feats, Classes and everything else. For instance, even though it says "Ranger", perhaps you aren't a D&D ranger, you're just using the class. Call yourself whatever you like.

I can see how it's possible to change the flavour of a prestige class by changing its background, and how a change of name can help this happen, but seriously - has anyone in a real game EVER managed to change a feat(/whatever) name and make it stick? If your character has, I dunno, Robilar's Gambit, but IC calls it 'Dancing Nancyboy Flourish' or something, both you and your GM are still going to have to remember that's where you've got Dancing Nancyboy Flourish written on your character sheet it actually means Robilar's Gambit, and so if there's a question about how the feat works, you look under 'R' rather than 'D' in the feat list.

YMMV of course, but I find that sort of thing just doesn't have sticky in the group, and around the table always just gets referred to feat-X-which-we're-calling-by-name-Y, and just maks things slower and more confusing.

 

[JosephK]

Hm, first thing I've heard about 4e that has me somewhat worried. I considered it one of the coolest things about 3e, that feats made untraditional character options widely available. Cleric archer? Sure. Mobile, spring attacking, dual-wielding dex-based fighter? Yep. Melee oriented duird? Gogogo.

Imo, it'd be a huge shame if they sacrifice character diversity on the alter of role-conformity :/