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

[Fifth Element]

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?

I do.

(But don't tell my wife please.)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

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.

In my disdain I was imprecise and joined two arguments that should have been separated.

However, what I was attempting to say is that martial arts do not rely on any universal functionality. They aren't thrown together but they also aren't part of a unified pseudo-scientific model. Martial arts styles are formed through practice and then once formed they need a name and someone comes along and slaps a name on it since it needs one now. That name may have varying allusions or connotations based on who did the naming.

The wizard at least for past editions has been metaphysical science. They could not do what they do without understanding the universal framework of magic as a force. Which like science requires that they work from the underlying force up through research to create their spell effects. Central to their art is a singular framework for the metaphysical nature of the power they are manipulating, their names should reflect this underlying theoretical nature. Not the trail and error practice (even if directed there is no single underlying theoretical basis) of martial arts.

EDIT: Also none of the martial arts practiced today can successfully trace their practice more than two to three hundred years in the current form. Despite the "history" Asian martial arts claim they are actually mere successors to those older techniques. Related? In some cases yes in others no, but the techniques are fairly new and have leveraged off the history of older no longer practised techniques to take on the mantle of respect implied with antiquity. For example kendo as practiced today has a distinctly limited resemblance to the historical techniques it claims to represent. Or to use a European example modern sport fencing has NO resemblance to the European bladework disciplines of earlier times

 

[Cadfan]

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 schools of magic aren't arbitrary in terms of fluff. They're quite well defined in terms of fluff.

They're arbitrary in terms of crunch. And the way in which you can mix and match your choices between schools means that a Diviner and an Evoker both fight and divine in the same way- by casting the spells from the other school in exactly the same manner.

It was, and is, a quite common complaint that the schools of magic overlap too much, that each school does too much of what the others do, and that the result of the overall construction of the system is that wizards all look the same regardless of school choice.

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.

So the 3e system is good because it binds the game to an implied setting? I'm cool with that, but you better not let other people in this thread hear you say it. It makes 'em mad.

 

[rounser]

So the 3e system is good because it binds the game to an implied setting? I'm cool with that, but you better not let other people in this thread hear you say it. It makes 'em mad.

Of course they want an implied setting! They just don't want one with too many intrusive, non-generic-fantasy D&Disms in it in hard-to-exclude/ignore places.

Words from english that spot-on describe magic - like "necromancy" - are not D&Disms, they're public domain fantasy territory...exactly what should be core.

"Emerald Frost" (on the other hand) is clearly a contrived D&Dism in the core, sounding like it's from a single world, and WOTC admits they're doing it for such a dubious goal as trademark protection (IMO at the game's expense).

 

[Kintara]

In my disdain I was imprecise and joined two arguments that should have been separated.

However, what I was attempting to say is that martial arts do not rely on any universal functionality. They aren't thrown together but they also aren't part of a unified pseudo-scientific model. Martial arts styles are formed through practice and then once formed they need a name and someone comes along and slaps a name on it since it needs one now. That name may have varying allusions or connotations based on who did the naming.

The wizard at least for past editions has been metaphysical science. They could not do what they do without understanding the universal framework of magic as a force. Which like science requires that they work from the underlying force up through research to create their spell effects. Central to their art is a singular framework for the metaphysical nature of the power they are manipulating, their names should reflect this underlying theoretical nature. Not the trail and error practice (even if directed there is no single underlying theoretical basis) of martial arts.

Actually, I've always seen magical research as VERY much trial and error. Wizards might like to think of magic scientifically, but the truth is that they only understand it superficially. They might be able to extract certain effects from magic, but I've never seen any evidence that Wizards really "get" what they are doing in its entirety (analogy: a non-chemist starting a fire). Besides, magic works (imo) on a strange metaphorical logic, so a created symbology, even if it's completely artificial and made up, could easily have power as a magical technique. It could be used as sort of a form for the magic to take as it's being built up (showing up as brief magical tracery flickering before the spell goes off), that's only so because the wizard that made it up saw a way to make that work. Maybe when you study the text, it requires focusing on a certain Golden Wyvern icon as part of the ritual because of some quirk of language in Elven that the Wizard liked, and used as a mnemonic. There are plenty of ways to sneak it in there.

Now, casting tends to be reliable in D&D (once you hit on something that works), but that's not quite the same thing.

 

[Hussar]

Of course they want an implied setting! They just don't want one with too many intrusive, non-generic-fantasy D&Disms in it in hard-to-exclude/ignore places.

Words from english that spot-on describe magic - like "necromancy" - are not D&Disms, they're public domain fantasy territory...exactly what should be core.

"Emerald Frost" (on the other hand) is clearly a contrived D&Dism in the core, sounding like it's from a single world, and WOTC admits they're doing it for such a dubious goal as trademark protection (IMO at the game's expense).

You're forgetting the other side of the trademark bit.

That most of the names you've trotted out are already taken. Golden Adept? I'm very sure that I could find that in a video game somewhere. Not positive, but, I'm pretty sure.

Even Necromancy doesn't follow it's own fluff. The description of Necromancy says, "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." Yet, healing isn't necromancy. Hit point buffs and Con buffs are not necromancy. Even Raise Dead isn't a necromancy spell.

Heavenshallburn pretty much hit it in his first post. The spells were placed regardless of the actual descriptions of the schools. Healing went to conjuration because Necromancy is evil in the minds of most people. The schools are entirely arbitrary. They are pretty much created whole cloth to fit the magic system, not the other way around. Let's not forget that schools of magic is a 2e creature. It had to be bolted on ON TOP of the existing magic system.

 

[Maggan]

That most of the names you've trotted out are already taken. Golden Adept? I'm very sure that I could find that in a video game somewhere. Not positive, but, I'm pretty sure.

WFRP use something they call "colour magic", with The Gold College being on of the eight colleges of magic. So yeah, it's pretty much taken already.

/M

 

[Will]

Necromancy at least is close.

I mean, if I have a spell called 'Devan's Gyre' which causes targets to spin uncontrollably, that's suggestive.

If I have a feat called 'dance of the monkey' which gives me some sort of dodge bonus, that's not hard to remember.

If the skill 'Pancakes' is used to identify spells, I deserve a lot of confused looks.

If Golden Wyvern Adept had anything to do with gold, things that are golden, wyverns, things that fly, things that breathe fire, things that are poisonous (depending on the book), or maybe an increase to caster level (being adept with spells), I'd go along with it.

But it's just pancakes, man... pancakes!

 

[Najo]

Please read, important post:


I apologize for not replying to any one directly. I skimmed the posts and am up to date, but my time is tight and I've been really busy the last few days.

I've sent letters directly to WOTC designers so I can to make them aware of some of these issues (in case they weren't). Johnathan Tweet replied to a post I made, saying he would bring the issues up with the designers. In the process, I learned information regarding the fluff naming, but I can't speak about any specific details.

What I can say, our assumptions about the fluff feats are correct. There is decent number of them. Designers have already revealed some, and there is more. Some people will like this, some won't. I only bring up this point because I think it is necessary for this discussion to continue and for us to find the best solutions for the game we all love. But, before I give the forum back I want to add a couple of my thoughts on the matter first.


I discussed the direction D&D is taking with a business partner and friend of mine. We were going over the information we knew, and asking why the sudden change in D&D. As you all can tell by the leaks on the Races and Classes book, the fluff is built in, all the way through and there is alot of drama and story. In fact it was that the new D&D rules had so much DRAMA that stood out to me. Then it clicked.

WOTC is trying to make D&D good for as brood an audience as possible. They are removing barriers to entry that make the gamer's non-gamer friend or his wife or girlfriend (majority speaking) who doesn't play yet, want to play. This new approach is filled with action, color, life and drama. They want the D&D world to be energized and full of fantasy adventure for the casual player who picks up the book. They are trying to minimize the overwhelming rules and percieved geek factor.

Now, my primary concern is still not addressed, that being how to keep fluff I don't want from flavoring the mood and themes I am trying to create with a campaign setting. If I am running a horror game and i am dealing with Exalted type names for powers and abilties, it breaks the tension and atmosphere a bit. Likewise, settings that the fluff names don't fit in, suffer. This is what concerns me with 4e, and it is a valid concern. DMs who don't like the fluff are going to be renaming alot of things if that is the route we choose to take.

With that said, I think D&D needs the invigoration of non-gamers thinking it is interesting and cool. I think D&D needs all the girl friends and wives playing. If World of Warcraft got them to do it, D&D figures it can make that happen too. This is the best way I can see D&D doing it. Direct, to the point, with little complication. Make the D&D fluff interesting and intense and in the customer's face. Give enough of a breathing world to inspire anyone holding the book into making a character and wanting to play.

Until now, D&D has had a bit of stigma. Non-gamers see it as a "geek" game and 4e wants to break those walls down and get the girls playing. The timing with Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress book and the articles online now make more sense. I agree with that direction 100%.

So, with that said. I am still concerned with how settings are going to plug on. A customer of mine was talking in general about this matter and mentioned he thinks WOTC is going to do Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master Guides for the Settings. That would be an interesting approach, to completely rebuild a majority of the core material for a campaign setting instead of plugging it onto the player's handbook. We are going to have to wait and see how that plays out, because I do not know.

Fluff feats are coming, and hopefully with them whole new customers. If that is the case, then I feel it is a sacrifice worth making, as I am sure WOTC does too.

So, in the meantime, let's assume the book is chocked full of fluff and story. What solutions can we find to help homebrews and official campaign settings plug on. Or, for that matter, what can people speculate the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is going to do to plug onto D&D 4e? How do you work around alot of fluff when you don't want to have the built in fluff in your setting?

 

[The Little Raven]

WFRP use something they call "colour magic", with The Gold College being on of the eight colleges of magic. So yeah, it's pretty much taken already.

There's also the Piers Anthony "Apprentice Adept" series, which specifically calls the magic-users of the setting <Color> Adepts.