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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Dragonlance wizards are core wizards. The Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class is a 10-level class they can take at their 5th character level but there is no requirement for them to take it. All they have to do is pass the Test before they cast 3rd level spells. That's an in-game event, roleplayed out. If they are invested in the Orders they can then pursue the PrC, but not having the PrC does not make you a renegade wizard.

My experience with 3e dragonlance is admittedly limited. In earlier editions, I did know they had different spell progression than phb wizards (and different spell lists). Regardless, given the division of types of magic, it stands to reason that you would want to break up the focii feats/powers among the robe colors, unless you want all wizards to be the same regardless of alignment. You've got some revision anyways, an extra 2 minutes to rename the feats doesnt seem like the insurmountable task people are making it out to be.

 

[Cam Banks]

My experience with 3e dragonlance is admittedly limited. In earlier editions, I did know they had different spell progression than phb wizards (and different spell lists). Regardless, given the division of types of magic, it stands to reason that you would want to break up the focii feats/powers among the robe colors, unless you want all wizards to be the same regardless of alignment. You've got some revision anyways, an extra 2 minutes to rename the feats doesnt seem like the insurmountable task people are making it out to be.

Do you see how not revising it at all, because the name isn't a hardwired IP name, is even easier? The feat names do not suitably meet the intended effect as described by Mike.

I'm just saying.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Bishmon]

Personally, I'm not so much "pro GWA" as I am "anti hyperventilating over nothing."

The discussion is probably better off without implications like that.

So amongst other things, we have a magical tradition that focuses on using staves, and on shaping and molding magical effects. Its got to have some kind of name. Once you choose its name, you might as well use that name on feats.

Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?

It's odd, because it seems like you're dismissing the "problem" because the "problem" is more widespread than what's being discussed.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?

It's odd, because it seems like you're dismissing the "problem" because the "problem" is more widespread than what's being discussed.

Of course, other than Golden Wyvern, the names of the wizard traditions do hold clues to what they're about. Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, Emerald Frost and Stormwalker all have clues in the name, to help you know what they do.

Golden Wyvern appears to be the exception.

 

[Cadfan]

Ok, so the discussion turns to why do we have six largely arbitrary styles of magic with names like 'Emerald Frost' and 'Golden Wyvern'?

The styles aren't arbitrary. They each appear to have a distinctive theme, and to be much LESS arbitrary in crunch terms than the 3e schools of magic, which were divided according to fluff characteristics and which only divided in terms of crunch when the crunch derived from the fluff.

The names appear a bit arbitrary though. So yes, the discussion does turn to what, if anything, should be done about those names.

My take on it is pretty simple. We need SOME proper noun for the six 4e magical disciplines/styles/schools/whatever you call 'ems.

Right now we have

Iron Sigil (orb, defense, thunder, force)
Serpent Eye (orb, enchantment, beguiling, ensnaring)
Hidden Flame (staff, fire, radiance)
Golden Wyvern (staff, battle-mages, shape and sculpt spells)
Emerald Frost (wand, accurate, damaging, cold, acid)
Stormwalker (wand, accurate, damage, lightning, force)

Golden Wyvern is the only one that makes me wince, because it has wyverns in it and I don't like wyverns. But that's an awfully personal objection, so its not one I'm hung up upon. The others seem just fine, and in some cases, quite evocative of what they do.

So, you have better names?

 

[Bishmon]

The styles aren't arbitrary.

Acid and cold? Lightning and force? Thunder and defense?

Those aren't arbitrary? Really? We'll just agree to disagree on that.

And no, I don't have better names for the styles, because I never would have created these styles of magic to have in the core rulebooks.

 

[Will]

Golden Wyvern would be cool with me if it meant something like 'Fire spells are treated as sunlight' or gain the 'Sun' descriptor or allow clerics with Sun domain to use Flight spell at will or...

Something goldenish, or wyvernly, or... something.

Similarly, if 'spellshaping' was 'Golden octopus,' I could be persuaded to go with it.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

What about the entirety of the monk class? The monk is an Asian-flavoured/inspired class lumped into a world that otherwise relies on Western European flavour. The name itself may not be strange, but given the underpinnings of "generic" fantasy of the game (ie, European), it is completely out of place.

Ditto for all the monk weapons included in the 3.X PHB. Why are Asian weapons mixed in with European ones?

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Druids. What if there are no Celts in my game? Should be called a neutral name like 'nature priest'.

The 3e monk abilities ki strike, diamond body, diamond soul and tongue of the sun and moon. What if I don't want the concept of ki? What if there are no diamonds? What if there's no moon?

The 3e feats Whirlwind Attack and Improved Bull Rush. There might be no whirlwinds or bulls in my milieu.

Ranger's and druid's Woodland Stride ability. Wouldn't that have to be renamed in a setting such as Dark Sun where there are no woodlands left?

The feat Spell Focus makes reference to the eight schools of magic. The magic item creation feats make reference to magic items with all their fluff specific names such as Murlynd's Spoon.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Do you see how not revising it at all, because the name isn't a hardwired IP name, is even easier? The feat names do not suitably meet the intended effect as described by Mike.

I'm just saying.

Cheers,
Cam

Again, unless you're going to have black/white/red wizards all using the same focii effects and specialties, you willl need to revise and split things up amongst the three robes. Its an entirely new edition, with new mechanics. Styles, be they weapon or spell effects, are given greater emphasis in 4th edition so that two members of the same class have different feels from a mechanics standpoint. White robes and black robes should play differently. Use this to your advantage,. Encourage players of one to pick iron sigil, the other to pick whatever, and rename as required. Renaming the feats and styles seems the least of your issues.

Does Dragonlance fall apart the minute someone mentions bigby's crushing hand?