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

[Will]

Or maybe it refers to an order of battle wizards with their emblem a golden wyvern. Kind of like the purple dragon knights arent actually purple dragons, dont squirt grape soda, etc.

My point is that a heraldic term is very narrowly functional, and I don't like it at all.

I mean, presumably 'Golden Wyvern Adepts' do more than simply shape how spells fall. Why would it be associated with just one particular ability, which (again, presumably) numerous other traditions would also learn?

I could accept fluff if it was also evocative. Fluff that is just fluff, for stuff that's core mechanics, is really unpleasant to me.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

My point is that a heraldic term is very narrowly functional, and I don't like it at all.

I mean, presumably 'Golden Wyvern Adepts' do more than simply shape how spells fall. Why would it be associated with just one particular ability, which (again, presumably) numerous other traditions would also learn?

I could accept fluff if it was also evocative. Fluff that is just fluff, for stuff that's core mechanics, is really unpleasant to me.

Since we don't actually know what their other abilities do, we're operating in a vacuum. If theres another Golden Wyvern feat that lets you add additional targets to buffs, blasts, etc, then the concept would emerge. "Hey, the Golden Wyvern school is your mass battle caster style".

Since the designers dont want wizards knowing how to do everything (hence carving up their spells into whole other classes), and want a party to be able to have two wizards who play differently based on their specialities (ie, Iron Sigil, Golden Wyvern, hidden flame) then yes, it makes sense to create packages based around these concepts.

Its no more fluff for fluff's sake than saying elves can use a longbow, gnomes get a +1 to hit kobolds, or that there's someone named Tasha who makes people laugh hideously and uncontrollably.

Similar to the core pantheon, it helps new DM's (or experienced, time constrained DM's) have semi-fleshed out schools, organizations, what have you's to drop into the campaigns that match the style concepts. New DM's arguably need the most help, and are a population that needs to grow in order for the game to survive. I'd assume the pros can somehow manage to get by renaming a few feats.

If instead of Golden Wyvern Adept, lets assume a new feat called Iron Sigil Master that lets you add your Constitution modifier to any the bonus that any spell that raises defense (will, ac, reflex, etc) grants. Is this offensive?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Dragonlance has crushing hand.

Cheers,
Cam

So what you're saying is, someone had to indicate it was renamed, as the spell doesn't appear named similarly in the PHB. I cant imagine it took a ton of effort. I assume renames appear in a sidebar in the 3e Dragonlance books.

Was the announcement that 3e would have spells named after Bigby, Melf, etc met with such.... rigorous opposition?

Furthermore, do we really know these names are going to remain in any SRD type release for 4e? WOTC may well remove the issue by retaining such names as IP and renaming them.

 

[Cam Banks]

So what you're saying is, someone had to indicate it was renamed, as the spell doesn't appear named similarly in the PHB. I cant imagine it took a ton of effort. I assume renames appear in a sidebar in the 3e Dragonlance books.

Dragonlance appeared in 3e after the release of 3.5. The "renames" appear in Towers of High Sorcery and map exactly to the versions of those spells in the 3.5 SRD. If any character has one of these spells, it's listed in the SRD format. All of this was possible because the name could be dropped off the end for the most part, and because the SRD provided us with an extant precedent. It was no work at all.

Was the announcement that 3e would have spells named after Bigby, Melf, etc met with such.... rigorous opposition?

People had been ignoring the Greyhawk names since 1e Dragonlance. At one time it was simply stated that those spells don't even exist, but we liked the utility of many of them. All that said, a spell is not the same as a feat. Dragonlance doesn't assume anybody owns any books other than the core rulebooks and other DL books for 3.5, so later additions in Complete XXX weren't of much concern (such as the oddly-named feats that provided two or three cantrips 1/day.)

Furthermore, do we really know these names are going to remain in any SRD type release for 4e? WOTC may well remove the issue by retaining such names as IP and renaming them.

Possibly. That'd be a bonus.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Will]

If instead of Golden Wyvern Adept, lets assume a new feat called Iron Sigil Master that lets you add your Constitution modifier to any the bonus that any spell that raises defense (will, ac, reflex, etc) grants. Is this offensive?

For me? Borderline; at least 'iron sigil' suggests durability/toughness.

'Iron Ward Master' would work better, imo.

 

[Hussar]

The discussion is probably better off without implications like that.


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.

Like D&D magic styles were never arbitrary? Really?

Then explain to me why Heal is Conjuration (Calling or creating matter into our realm) and not either Evocation (dealing with energy) or Necromancy (dealing with life/unlife)?

And, why do Invokers cast mostly evocation spells?

Why are Diviners the strongest of all specialist wizards?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Like D&D magic styles were never arbitrary? Really?

Then explain to me why Heal is Conjuration (Calling or creating matter into our realm) and not either Evocation (dealing with energy) or Necromancy (dealing with life/unlife)?

And, why do Invokers cast mostly evocation spells?

Why are Diviners the strongest of all specialist wizards?

In order no the schools of magic are not overall arbitrary. Evocation, Abjuration, and Invocation aren't entirely appropriate names but the rest actually refer to the overall theme of magic for the school.

The reason for Healing in Conjuration instead of Necromancy and most all the other issues either deal with the attempt to balance the effectiveness of differing schools of magic with little thought as to the flavor of what was being moved. Or the Evocation, Abjuration, and Invocation schools and sub-schools which were poorly named for their theme.

They went a long way to tying the wizard in with classical themes and leveraged off rennaisance pseudo-science/alchemy terms to do so. For me at least those images and themes are what defines a wizard. The new traditions function akin to marital arts styles as if the wizards themselves didn't even really understand what they were doing they just threw a name at it and said hey that works lets call it that. Whereas the old schools implied a systematic categorization of arcane force into a universal set of types based on understanding of their implied ties to the metaphysical backdrop.

 

[Fifth Element]

So is no one going to argue that Asian-style monks are utterly appropriate in a generic Western European setting? I'd love to hear how the monk class doesn't count as non-generic flavour being hardwired into the core rules.

 

[rounser]

I'd love to hear how the monk class doesn't count as non-generic flavour being hardwired into the core rules.

Given it's occidental fellows, the monk is a D&Dism (and IMO probably doesn't deserve it's place in the core). Congratulations. Do you want a cookie?

 

[The Little Raven]

The new traditions function akin to marital arts styles as if the wizards themselves didn't even really understand what they were doing they just threw a name at it and said hey that works lets call it that.

So, you're saying that martial arts are just thrown together with no understanding of how they function? Just a clever name and a marketing gimmick?

Yeah, I'm sure centuries of teachings would disagree with you, and they'd probably be right.