What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)

[Ragnar69]

I ask again, since nobody has answered it. Where is it stated that there has to be a Order of the Golden Wyvern? It could as well be the age old name of a magic technique.
Do we IRL have a Karate Order where everone ever learning karate automaticaly must be a member? I think not.

 

[Maggan]

This is a direct quote from a poster named MindWandererB on Andy Collins website regarding the built in fluff, it illustrates the point and my concerns of losing these sorts of DMs. Please read, he has a very valid point and clearly expresses our concerns:

I see the "dialogue" as a problem with the player. If the player won't accept the creative decisions of his DM, they have to sit down and have a talk about why they game together.

If people accept a new pantheon for my home brew, accept the removal of spells, removal of races such as halflings and elves, they sure won't argue about the background of some of the other races, or why a feat and organisation is gone. I have to do some explaining, sure, but that's the case with each and every home brew I've made, or for each and every 3rd party setting I've used.

Want to play Midnight? Well, there's some explaining to do. And we still love it. Same with Iron Kingdoms. Sure they are third party, but in a sense all that means is that they are published home brews. And they work very differently from core D&D, dropping things that are very integral to the rules (no clerics, different spellcasting, e.g.)

A home brew will always require explanation as to how it works. It's the nature of a home brew that it is a different take on the world.

Sure, if the basic desing philosophy is "everything in D&D core has a place in my world" much like in Eberron, then I understand that the rules shape the design to a large degree. But then again, if you deliberately chose a design philosophy that limits your creativity, who's responsibility is that? Yours or the rules?

/M

 

[rounser]

I'm sorry, but, how is that less intrusive or jarring.

Because a simple type of colour, metal, or gemstone or the like doesn't sound cheesey in the way Golden Wyvern does. And that's part of why people are complaining about it.

 

[rounser]

How many settings, other than FR have ever stayed in print? 2e saw a raft of settings, all have vanished or at least greatly reduced in presence.

What's your point? You said that there were not many settings out there. There's as many settings for 3.5 as there was for 2e and FAR more than there was for 1e.

The fact that they don't stay in print might suggest to you that people may be homebrewing far more than using these settings.

In fact, as I've stated earlier in the thread, WOTC's 3E research backs this up. That's the point.

 

[jensun]

Spells have the names of greyhawks uber wizards, characters that were tributes to Gary Gygax and the other creators of the game. I get that. If I use them, they seem like weird ancient wizards lost to time, if I don't them and I drop them from my game, they are hardly noticed being gone.

I get where they come from. it is as easy to drop their names from the spells as it is to adjust the name for a feat. it is as easy to remove the spells as it is to remove the feat.

For the ones that are really bad, I can choose to use them or not or I can easily rename them. Like available spells, I as DM can control their inclusion in my game with very little effort.

How is this different to a feat?

Now, feats. Specifically feats that do basic core mechanic/ base class modifications (i.e. spell areas of affect) and ties it to a wizard tradition/ order/ etc by a fluff name.

The feat is not tied to an order as no order is presented. Go watch some bad Kung Fu moves where the fighters quote fighting names at each other as they raise hell. Golden Wyvern Adept no more has to imply an organisation as anything else.

1) because it is player chosen, I can not control its placement

You are the GM. You can control its use as much as you can say ban Disjunction or remove polymorph or power attack or anything else. Of course I would suggest discussing it with the players first but you can certainly do it.

4) because, feat and talent reference is necessary for the rules to core rules to function. Everything else can be ignored, but classes and their abilities cannot. If the feat is kept like this (and even worse considered product identity) then 3rd party publishers are done for.

Spells are the class abilities of casters. If I have to include the idiotically named wizard Drawmidj just because one of his spells is in the PHB then this ruins the feel and flavour of my game.

Or possibly not.

There is actually very little fluff in the 3.0 and 3.5 books. The designers knew that, and only put in a small amount in places the DMs were not bothered by it.

Like spells, magic items, PrC's, Monk Abilities and dozens of organisations in splat books?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I see the "dialogue" as a problem with the player. If the player won't accept the creative decisions of his DM, they have to sit down and have a talk about why they game together.

If people accept a new pantheon for my home brew, accept the removal of spells, removal of races such as halflings and elves, they sure won't argue about the background of some of the other races, or why a feat and organisation is gone. I have to do some explaining, sure, but that's the case with each and every home brew I've made, or for each and every 3rd party setting I've used.

I absolutely agree. And on top of that, it's not only a problem with homebrews or 3rd parties. It's also with WotC settings. (Eberron introduces Dragonmarks, Houses, Half Elves become their own race and are more than half-breeds. Forgotton Realms enforces you to chose your personal diety, which usually is only relevant for Clerics, and it adds new languages)

 

[BryonD]

it is as easy to drop their names from the spells as it is to adjust the name for a feat.

No it isn't.

One of the following three names is Bigby's Clenched Fist with the name part removed for my campaign. Can you guess which one?

Roaring Dragon
Clenched Fist
Mark of Death



One of the following three names is GWA with the name adjusted for my campaign. Can you guess which one?

Purple Fire Dancer
Yellow Deer Stands
Red Wall Victory


Still just as easy?



And that is before you consider that even if someone turns D&D into a grade school lesson and memorizes a bunch of translations, they will still need to do more grade school memorization lessons to remember which thing GWA is when it is one a 40 randomly named feats.

 

[Maggan]

when it is one a 40 randomly named feats.

I'm really not up to date with the feat names. Is this naming convention being applied to that many feats? Is that confirmed?

/M

 

[BryonD]

I'm really not up to date with the feat names. Is this naming convention being applied to that many feats? Is that confirmed?

/M

40 was just a random example number. 30 wouldn't be any better. 50 wouldn't be any worse.

 

[Maggan]

40 was just a random example number. 30 wouldn't be any better. 50 wouldn't be any worse.

Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.

50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?

/M