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

[Maggan]

And that's fantastic for you, but it probably means this isn't a discussion you should have been concerned with in the first place.

"People talking about a feat I will never use? OK, next thread!"

Cheers,
Cam

Nope, this was on one level a discussion about how severe the ramifications of this feat were on every future D&D product, and how a feat name relates to names of spells. Which I find interesting to discuss, if for no other reason than to provide the debate with another view of the severity of the problem.

But then again, there is nothing with any roleplaying game that I see as not fixable, and my basic philosophy is that I control my world, regardless of what the publishers say in their books. So maybe this Internet thing isn't for me.

/M

 

[Cadfan]

That is your assumption only, Cadfan. The theory is a good one, but until a WoTC designer says things to that effect, that's all it is. A theory.

Actually, we know some of this for certain. The fact that Golden Wyvern is a name drawn from a school of magic based around use of the staff is not, I think, in dispute. This means that the objection to the name "Golden Wyvern" is a lot more structurally involved than just one feat.

 

[Mad Mac]

Spells have been redivided based on mechanical attributes, instead of the fluff based attributes (that admittedly had some mechanical implications, but not as many as you might think) that were used in 3e.

I think your theory is a probably a little off, but the basic idea is likely correct--I seriously doubt the old 8 schools of magic will even exist in 4th edition, so some sort of spell organization is going to have to step in. I mean really, how could they? They have apparently refocused the wizard enough to make Summoning, Enchantment, and Necromancy non-viable specializations, while schools like Divining could easily be replaced largely by rituals.

The Cleric and Druid will also be heavily reworked, so there's no point in them continuing to reference the defunct wizard schools, either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The complainers are going about this all wrong.

Look, I wrote up a very nice post on "Why we have golden wyvern adepts" that got all of a dozen and a half responses, then dropped off the front page in favor of complaining posts. If you want to read me explaining at length in a nicer tone of voice, go there.

Here I'll just summarize real fast why the complainers don't understand this argument and why as long as they continue to not understand this issue, won't get what they want.

Spells have been redivided based on mechanical attributes, instead of the fluff based attributes (that admittedly had some mechanical implications, but not as many as you might think) that were used in 3e.

Now we've got new schools, that doesn't have an obviously fluff link like "necromancy." They've got a mechanical link, like, "projects directly out from the spellcaster and favors fire as an element." I don't remember if that's exactly one of the schools, but that's the gist of the idea.

These schools need names.

Further, WOTC wants to encourage people to specialize in schools, so that wizards have some variety of build instead of just having one polymath build option. So they make feats for each school that augment the sorts of things that school likes to do. This helps separate the wizard who might know a little bit of golden wyvern magic from the wizard who has really mastered the stuff, which is cool.

So anyways now you have feats that use the school's name in them.

This is why you can't just rename "golden wyvern adept" to "spell shaper." It is deriving its name from the "golden wyvern" school of magic. There are probably other feats, like "golden wyvern initiate" or "golden wyvern master" sitting out there, plus similar feats for every other school of magic in the game.

So if you want the golden wyvern adept renamed, coming up with "spell shaper" is an inadequate fix. It doesn't even address the issue, frankly. You need to rename probably around 18 feats. And to rename those 18 feats, you FIRST need to rename six schools of magic.

-----------------------

Anyways, regarding some other points brought up in the thread.

1: It won't be hard to remember what Golden Wyvern Adept does because it will reference the golden wyvern school of magic, which you'll get used to using. It won't be any worse than a feat like "Initiate of Mystra," and in fact will probably be easier on this score because there are loads more than 6 deities.

2: Players will probably assume that a golden wyvern school of magic exists. My players always assume that the default pantheon is in, unless I specifically tell them otherwise, so I imagine this will be the same. However, just telling my players "I'm not using the default pantheon, you can use feats that reference it but we'll just count them as applying to your particular god." has always worked for me before, and I can't see why it won't for me again.

3: This particular feat won't get referenced in game very much. Players will just say things like, "I cast fireball centered on the fighter, but I leave him out of the blast." You'll remember that the player can do that because the player does that every other time he casts a fireball.

4: If you're going to have schools of magic, martial disciplines, and religious orders, they need names. I personally believe the game is better off for having all of these things. I personally don't like it when default fluff intrudes on my game. But I'm willing to accept the time it takes me to say "oh, that's just a discipline of magic in my game, it doesn't represent any order of wizards or anything," as an acceptable trade off for gaining improvement to game mechanics.

5: I find it interesting how heavy the fluff tends to be in expansion books, and how that seems universally accepted, compared to how even light fluff in core creates howls of rage. I can see that expansions and core are different, but expansions REALLY pile on the fluff, often going so far as to dictate the explicit existence of organizations, detail how they get along with other organizations, mix in the default pantheon liberally, and even discuss how a particular class gets along with other types of character classes.

QFIP*
Quoted For Interesting Point

 

[TwinBahamut]

By placing them in a sidebar and removing the feat tied to the order, you make both camps happy. The tools are there for new DMs and players and the DMs and players who do not want it can build around the feat as they wish. What if I want a Wvyern to be worshiped as a god, or what if the golden wyverns are an order of knights in my campaign world already and we have been playing for 10 years. This named feat forces me have to adapt to their throwing some fluff into the core rules, fluff they could have stuck in a sidebar or the flavor text under the feat's name and gotten the very same result. The DMs and players who do not want this are losing much more than the ones who do want this gain.

I think you are getting to wrapped up in the specific name Golden Wyvern itself. If you have a wyvern worshipped as a god, or a group of knights already called Golden Wyvern, then just the name for your own campaign.

The same argument could be applied to the name Spellshaper, you know. What if there is a group of powerful demon wizards in someone's games called the Spellshapers? If you are talking about the chance that a specific name is already in use for a campaign, then no matter what name you pick, it will have a chance to be bad for someone.

Regardless, you didn't even touch on the main point of my post, which was that having a flavorful name has a real value, and I don't think such a value can be achieved with just a sidebar treatment.

Even half of the people in support of the fluff feats have said they are silly. Lol, its crazy.

Let me bring up something you said earlier.

I left that option off the poll because it is subjective. Whether or not Golden Wyvern is a good name is someone's opinion. The issue here is wether or not to use fluff names in core (non-campaign specific) games mechanics.

By your own statement, it doesn't matter whether someone thinks the names are silly or not. The only important thing is whether or not you like the idea of feats with fluff.

 

[jensun]

I have still yet to see a comparable example provided from a prior edition.

The Appartus of Kwalish.

Not only was it a great big metal robot thing it looked like a lobster and had a stupid name.

In terms of killing versimiltude its right up there with Golden Wyvern Adept and yet I have been happily able to ignore it for 20 years.

Edit: of course thats just my opinion which you are free to disagree with and you may be entirely happy including it within your game. Which is sort of the point in relation to GWA. If it doesnt fit into your game then change the name, no one will notice anything different.

 

[Najo]

There are two possibilities here: either the nomenclature is included in the SRD and 3rd parties can incorporate it (which is not a hindrance), or its not included (in which case its back to business as usual).

How is either one "crippling" when the OGL allows specifically for modification of OGC?

If its not included in the SRD, then 3rd party companies cannot refer to those feats in their character write ups. How is that not crippling? It was hard enough for companies to deal with the spell issue when they couldn't use the wizard names and specific monsters. Now, take the key feats for the wizard and strip them out of the game? Any 3rd party who wants to use that ability now has to make their own verison of the feat with another name and they all could (and likely will) end up with their own versions.

That creates confusion and a feeling of the 3rd party products being inferior to official products even more. Considering as much as companies like Paizo have offered D&D that is pretty shady if that occurs. WOTC would be closing the door on 4e OGL without officially looking like they are to blame. The core mechanics need to have fluff removed for this reason alone.

 

[Najo]

Well, I've been running D&D for 21 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official adventures. I have years of experience with Ravenloft and Dragonlance, with a little Planescape on the side and a setting or two of my own.

Trust me. This is not a big deal.

To me.

/M

Okay, with Dragonlance, now you have Raistlin was part of the Iron Sigil Order? He spent time learning the Golden Wyvern techniques between joining the Order of the Black Robes and becoming a god? The white, red and black orders are totally stepped on by these new six wizard orders, it goes against the setting's official lore of magic during the war of the lance. Afterwards, during the age of mortals makes even less sense as the wizards do not have any orders and magic is raw again.

In planescape the factions are the key organizations and mortal orders would be meaningless, so now these wizards orders are found on EVERY single world across the planes?

In ravenloft, the orders do not even feel right theme wise. In a setting as grim and frightening as Demiplane of Dread, wizards are tied to feats called Golden Wyvern Adept? Let alone trying to find a way to make since that traditions like these exist in a place made up of the bits and pieces of kingdoms and realms belonging great forces of evil from across multiple worlds and realities. It just takes something from the themes of the setting.

Lets say I am reading new novels for each of these settings, and in them all, the wizards are tied to these orders. The fighters tied to specific fighting styles etc. It is a big deal.

 

[Najo]

Easy. My players aren't using any metamagic feats. They're soldiers with no magic-users in the party. So changing, or even dropping metamagic feats, won't have an effect on my current game.

EDIT: and, this is also why I fail to see why dropping the feat(s) is impossible. My current game has tons of feats that aren't being used, and never will, so in effect, we have dropped them. Works like a charm for us.

/M

Start by using magic users and then you will make use of feats like this. Since you aren;t, now try renaming the feats your group is using and see how that goes instead.

These new feats are not rare, obscure effects. They are ones every wizard is going to want to make use of. Keep in mind, 4e characters have more feats and talents than 3.5 characters.

 

[jensun]

Okay, with Dragonlance, now you have Raistlin was part of the Iron Sigil Order? He spent time learning the Golden Wyvern techniques between joining the Order of the Black Robes and becoming a god? The white, red and black orders are totally stepped on by these new six wizard orders, it goes against the setting's official lore of magic during the war of the lance.

In the same way they were stepped on by the appearance of such luminaries as Tenser, Bigby, Mordenkainen and Vecna?

I thought not.