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

[BryonD]

I don't see what anyone's problem is.

I think that is why you haven't demonstrated the ability to offer a good solution.
If you can't see the problem then it is really hard for you to solve it.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Actually that is pretty much exactly NOT the point. I don't give a flip about the names killing versimiltude.
The fit of the name has nothing to do with it, as has been stated and ignored repeatedly.
If I loved GWA and it fit my game perfectly it would still have the exact same problem. If GWA was named something as dumb as Wizard Feat 28 which didn't fit anyone's campaign it would again have the exact same problem.

The biggest problem comes down to effective communication between players, many of whom have no interest whatsoever in memorizing a bunch of random crap. Even with stretching things to the point of trying to suggest a mostly comedic virtually never used artifact as comparable to a PH wizard feat, you have still failed to meet the criteria.

Seriously, if you don't grok the problem then just drop it because it clearly isn't an issue for you and you clearly have nothing to offer to address it.

 

[Cadfan]

I sincerely hope you're wrong. If this fiasco about one feat name is any indication, the existence of an entire Golden Wyvern school of magic would likely drown this entire message board in threadcrap from now 'til 5th Edition.

Its not a school in the sense of a building with walls and teachers inside. Its a school in the sense of "a collection of similar abilities in which one can progress and possibly specialize."

 

[Enkhidu]

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.

Did you completely skip the part where I said "nomenclature"? If WotC follows the pattern they set in the 3.0 and 3.5 SRD, the only things that will get left out are certain monsters and artifacts - things inextricably tied to the D&D brand. Spells, magic items, etc - these all got the "rename it with something generic" treatment. Feats with funky names in 4e are going to fall into the latter category - all of the mechanics will still be there, but in a generically named form.

 

[Hussar]

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

It isn't a matter of fluff. It is a matter of effective communication. The same concern would exist if a zero fluff name such as "Feat W24" was used. I might even LOVE the name Golden Wyvern Adept. The preference of one fluff over another issue is wholely beside the point.

Comparable examples: How about the Magic School names. Can you tell me, off hand, what Evocation does? How is it different from Invocation? Conjuration? All of these names were just convenient shorthands for schools. Hard locked into the text. Why is healing Conjuration and not Necromancy?

Better yet, could you tell me what a dweomer is?

 

[Fifth Element]

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

If it were Mark of Death, that would be intentionally misleading, since that is a fairly descriptive name, rather than a purely flavour one.

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

Well, considering none of them even imply magic at all (which Adept does, at least), I'd have to say none of them. The last two aren't even in the same form as GWA.

Though perhaps if I knew your campaign, I would know what the Purple Fire, Yellow Deer or Red Wall are, and that would give me a clue as to the function of the feat.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Its not a school in the sense of a building with walls and teachers inside. Its a school in the sense of "a collection of similar abilities in which one can progress and possibly specialize."

I was worried that you meant "school of magic," as in: abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, Golden Wyvern (!), illusion...

But then I found this from a few months back:

I may have good news for you, then: traditions are not groupings (fluffy or otherwise) of spells/spell schools/etc.

I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.

So I guess I don't have to worry about seeing that can of worms opened.

 

[Bishmon]

We have already shown how the greyhawk spells are not the same thing as forcing wizard's magic to fit into these orders. The original specializations were more open to adapting to individual worlds and concepts than these current ones are.

I want to see one of these examples that are comparable to this.

Spell names, magic items, monsters, etc DO NOT compare.

You give me examples of core class abilities and feats from previous editions, that players used constantly, with this sort of fluff attached and then we have a comparable example. Those examples cannot come from setting books either (like initiate of mystra) because those things belong there. I am talking generic D&D core rules.

Tome of Battle.

They took a bunch of martial maneuvers, which were very similar to spells, and split them up into nine fluffy distinctions based on "ancient martial disciplines". Those disciplines had names like Iron Heart and Diamond Mind.

That seems to be the exact blueprint they're following for wizard's spells in 4E. Take the big group of spells, split 'em up according to "disciplines" and give them names like Golden Wyvern and Emerald Frost.

I hated it in Tome of Battle, and I'm betting I'm going to hate it in 4E. I'd much rather have a list of abilities split up by level and then I could group them together how I wanted and add whatever flavor I wanted. If Wizards wanted to put it some sidebars with recommended groupings and example flavor, fine. But keep it seperate.

edit: Meepo unearthed a quote that makes it look like they might not be seperating the wizard's spells like they seperated the maneuvers in ToB. That would be good. Really makes me wonder what exactly Golden Wyvern and Hidden Flame are then. What their purpose is.

 

[Mad Mac]

edit: Meepo unearthed a quote that makes it look like they might not be seperating the wizard's spells like they seperated the maneuvers in ToB. That would be good. Really makes me wonder what exactly Golden Wyvern and Hidden Flame are then. What their purpose is.

They're staff styles. Hidden Flame for instance, is a staff weilding wizard who specializes in using a staff to blast foes to cinders with arcane fire. They're anagalous to spell schools in that they represent the new specialization options for wizards. They're different in that they don't represent actual spell groupings. Keep in mind, the only point in dividing magic into 8 different schools to begin with was so you could create 8 flavors of specialist wizard. They don't have any real purpose except allowing spellcasters to emphasize certain types of magic.

Any Wizard can cast fire spells, but not as powerfully as a master of the Hidden Flame. That is not terribly different than saying that any wizard can cast Lightning Bolt, but not as well as the Evoker. Except that specialist wizards were lame and no truly interesting advantages, while the new Wizard Traditions have the potential to provide concrete mechanics for creating interesting variations of wizard.

Also, Traditions have the advantage of being inherently expandable. If you have 8 schools of magic, well that's that, but you can create as many traditions as you can think of viable themes+mechanics. You can even add new implements and tie them to completely new styles.

 

[Ahglock]

For the pro-GWA side, can you explain why you don't like some of the ideas like a side bar. How does explaining the tradition in maybe just as many words as it would be if it was fully integrated but in a side bar, while giving the feat a more utilitarian name with a note towards the side bar bad.

I don't remember and anti-GWA people having a problem with the compromise solutions but if any of them do why would you have a problem with it.