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

[Najo]

Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.

 

[Kintara]

Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I read what you said and I liked it.

 

[Will]

My heart sank at what you said. For what it's worth.

I'm still taking a wait and see attitude, and am generally expecting to like 4e, but this is one area I'll probably end up having troubles with down the line.

The problem, as I see it, is the mechanical issue of 'how obvious is this term?' I game with some real RPG novices, and they get confused VERY easily; if a feat has some fluff strange name, they are going to continue to ask what the feat does for months. And months. And months.

Maybe it won't play out this way, but it sounds to me like there is a gulf between how the designers view 'newcomers' and, well, my estimation of newcomers. Maybe their judgment is better or maybe I'm misreading what they are doing; we'll see.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.

just read

I always was pro-fluff never bothered me that level of fluff... I am on old timer and this kind of fluff tend to stick and create new and strange direction (do you remember? the mantle of the clestial? Magna Alumnae? Grand Master of the Flowers?)

I hope that they also create a decent starting box/game for the first 3-5 level of character development (a little like the red box + a ready to go adventure with ready characters)

and with this I take my Hidden Flame Master feat

 

[rounser]

WOTC is trying to make D&D good for as brood an audience as possible.

I just hope they've learnt from Eberron.

That was an attempt on their part to make all-inclusive, broadly appealing world and the result was an incoherent theme and quirky flavour, appealing to some and leaving others completely cold.

It would be a pity if 4E turned out like that.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I don't care either way. I can understand why some people don't like it. Personally, I don't see it as being much different than having a spell called Melf's Acid Arrow, or a prestige class such as Jade Phoenix Mage.

I wonder if the SRD will remove this and put in generic names? For example, wasn't the Quiver of Elhonna renamed in the SRD as the Endless Quiver?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.

More work, less fun.

Well, I think you "got" what I got form the moment I first began thinking about the issue. I also understand the concern, and like you, I tend to assume that the goal might be worth the drawbacks.

There is also a secondary effect that might or might not be achieved:
Players might "relearn" to think more about style and fluff then only "power".
This hope might be disappointed, considering that we also had regional feats which had a similar goal in anchoring the character in the setting and improving immersion to the setting.
(By the way: I absolutely am a power-gamer. But sometimes I wouldn't mind a little less joking around, hammering foes and a bit more immersion in my character and the goals.)

My heart sank at what you said. For what it's worth.

I'm still taking a wait and see attitude, and am generally expecting to like 4e, but this is one area I'll probably end up having troubles with down the line.

The problem, as I see it, is the mechanical issue of 'how obvious is this term?' I game with some real RPG novices, and they get confused VERY easily; if a feat has some fluff strange name, they are going to continue to ask what the feat does for months. And months. And months.

Maybe it won't play out this way, but it sounds to me like there is a gulf between how the designers view 'newcomers' and, well, my estimation of newcomers. Maybe their judgment is better or maybe I'm misreading what they are doing; we'll see.

I am not convinced that the so called descriptive names actually do this better. Maybe it's just because some names aren't as descriptive as others. I guess I might always be able to link Power Attack with subtracting from attack and adding to damage (but will they keep in mind that they get twice the bonus for two-handed weapon? That it doesn't work for light weapons?)

But Weapon Finesse, Focus, Specialisation;Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes; Spell Focus, Spell Mastery, these aren't that easy distinguishable just because of their name. Improved Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Sunder/Bullrush might give you a good idea of what it does, but does it help me remember the Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Sunder/Bullrush rules for which I can use them?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I just hope they've learnt from Eberron.

That was an attempt on their part to make all-inclusive, broadly appealing world and the result was an incoherent theme and quirky flavour, appealing to some and leaving others completely cold.

It would be a pity if 4E turned out like that.

I thought Eberron was pretty succesful? (But then, I liked the setting.)

I think every setting has its fans, people that hate it and people that don't care much about it. (Think about the FR discussions and how many fans don't understand the flaws others perceive as such. I think the same is true for Eberron, Dragonlance, Dark Sun or - outside D&D - Vampire, Shadowrun or Torg)

 

[Rel]

Wow, no replies since I posted this afternoon. I am surprised. I will check back in later.

I was almost beginning to think that everything that needed saying about the subject had been said.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Unless the Golden Wyverns are an order of battle mages or something. Again, Purple Dragon knights aren't purple dragons.