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

[Najo]

A fair complaint IMO. I blame WOTC's goofy ass energy system that leaves acid an energy type. If you're splitting the four major elemental damage types into 2 groups, fire/lightning go together better than fire/cold or fire/acid. So emerald frost gets the leftovers.

Though if you think thats bad, try running Arcana Evolved. I'm still not sure what "earth" damage is aside from being hit by rocks.

Well, there is another way to look at it. Lightning can be tied to Air, Cold/ Ice to water and Acid tied to Earth.

So...

That would give you a Fire/ Air (hidden flame) mage tradition and a water/ earth (Emerald Frost) mage tradition.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
From the newspage (also quoted in another thread)

* He also confirms that the design intention is that these things be adjustable to work in your campaign -- "You can add your own implements and disciplines/traditions to the mix. Doing so takes some work, but it's not a massive undertaking."

* And on the nature of the described traditions: "...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."

* Wizardly orders: "They're not really specializations in the sense of 3rd Edition specialist wizards; choosing one doesn't make the spells belonging to another unavailable to you. Basically they're a mechanism by which we answer the question, "How did your wizard learn magic? Was he trained in a magical academy, tutored by a single mentor, etc., etc." So each order provides a subset a spells your character is *best* at, but doesn't replace the notion of spell school from previous editions."
* Implements: "Wizard implements now provide your character with a reason to care about a signature weapon in much the same way that the fighter cares about a signature sword. We think it's a good thing. Many other implements have been suggested, including things such as mask, dagger, and (of course) tome."

Emphasis mine.

The wizard traditions (and the implements) are not set in stone. We are allowed (supposed?) to build our own when building our own world.

Another comment I couldn't track back (it might have been in a pod cast or in a blog entry) was that there might be some overlapping of abilities granted by feats.
The feat formerly known as "Dragon Tail Cut" is an example: According to its description, it was basically the equivalent of Improved Trip - but limited to swords. Which means that you can have feats with different names, yet still doing similar things.

 

[Najo]

What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
From the newspage (also quoted in another thread)

Emphasis mine.

The wizard traditions (and the implements) are not set in stone. We are allowed (supposed?) to build our own when building our own world.

Another comment I couldn't track back (it might have been in a pod cast or in a blog entry) was that there might be some overlapping of abilities granted by feats.
The feat formerly known as "Dragon Tail Cut" is an example: According to its description, it was basically the equivalent of Improved Trip - but limited to swords. Which means that you can have feats with different names, yet still doing similar things.

As I said in another thread. My instinct on the traditions is that they are a loose collection of feats and ideas for you to build with, not anything so strict as something your character must choose. They represent wizard training concepts and a collection of themes to add to your character when you choose feats connected to them. Likely, a home brew could make a collection of new feats to represent a different tradition if they wanted too, I am guessing.

 

[Epic Meepo]

What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
From the newspage (also quoted in another thread) <snip>

The wizard traditions (and the implements) are not set in stone. We are allowed (supposed?) to build our own when building our own world.

I don't think the big complaint was that people couldn't make their own traditions. It was that they'd have a hard time avoiding the default fluff of the existing traditions when communicating with gamers outside their own gaming groups.

For example: The Golden Wyvern school is for battle mages. If their feats were named "battle mage" feats, two GM's talking about their different worlds might have this conversation:

GM1: "In my homebrew, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Cool. In my homebrew, the battle mage school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your battle mages use a chalice as an implement, then?"

But the Golden Wyvern school isn't called the battle mage school. It's called the Golden Wyvern school. So the conversation would have to go:

GM1: "In my homebrew, the Golden Wyvern school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Cool. In my homebrew, the Golden Wyvern school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your Golden Wyverns use a chalice as an implement, then?"

The conversation is just as simple, but the GMs involved are forced to refer to a default fluff name in order to describe their own, different fluff for a particular subset of crunch. If used as a feat name, Golden Wyvern becomes part of the lingua franca of the D&D community.

Trying to rename the Golden Wyvern school without explicitly referring to it as the Golden Wyvern school in the first place would lead to this conversation:

GM1: "In my campaign world, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Wait, when you say 'battle mage,' you mean..."
GM1: "Oh, that's what I call the Golden Wyvern school."
GM2: "I just usually call it the war caster school."
GM1: "So, yeah. In my world, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "In my campaign world, the war caster school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your battle mages use a chalice as an implement, then?"
GM2: "My war magic casters, you mean?"

People who like the Golden Wyvern crunch but dislike its fluff must, by necessity, reference its fluff when explaining that they don't use its fluff. If the Golden Wyvern school had a blander name, that would be less of an annoyance to people who dislike the fluffy name, and no more of an annoyance to people who don't care what something is named.

Of course, this all assumes that Golden Wyvern is actually used in a feat name in the first place. See the quote in my sig for more on that.

 

[Hussar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
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)?

The SRD Wiki explains this pretty clearly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by D&D Wiki
Heal enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions.


Further:

Quote:
Originally Posted by D&D Wiki
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you


Now, why does 'Golden Wyvern Adept' allow you to exclude certain squares in your spell?

So, conjuration channels positive energy? So, why isn't it evocation? Evocation is all about channeling energy, not conjuration. And, even if the wiki is 100% correct, and conjuration can be used to channel energy, then why do we have evocation at all?

Never mind that, for some bizarre reason, neither conjuration nor evocation can be used to channel negative energy - that's for necromancy which doesn't deal with channeling energy at all.

Also, we have a nice clear place where flavor is locked tight to the mechanics. Rock hard locked. You want to heal - cast conjuration. You want to harm - cast necromancy. Usually. Unless you don't. What if my cosmology doesn't have positive and negative material planes? Never mind the gnashing of teeth that goes on in tying the negative material plane to evil and positive to good.

Meepo - how is that any different than clerics? In my world, war clerics worship Chernobyl and use dire flails, for example. Would people confuse them for clerics of Hextor?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think the big complaint was that people couldn't make their own traditions. It was that they'd have a hard time avoiding the default fluff of the existing traditions when communicating with gamers outside their own gaming groups.

For example: The Golden Wyvern school is for battle mages. If their feats were named "battle mage" feats, two GM's talking about their different worlds might have this conversation:

GM1: "In my homebrew, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Cool. In my homebrew, the battle mage school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your battle mages use a chalice as an implement, then?"

But the Golden Wyvern school isn't called the battle mage school. It's called the Golden Wyvern school. So the conversation would have to go:

GM1: "In my homebrew, the Golden Wyvern school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Cool. In my homebrew, the Golden Wyvern school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your Golden Wyverns use a chalice as an implement, then?"

The conversation is just as simple, but the GMs involved are forced to refer to a default fluff name in order to describe their own, different fluff for a particular subset of crunch. If used as a feat name, Golden Wyvern becomes part of the lingua franca of the D&D community.

Trying to rename the Golden Wyvern school without explicitly referring to it as the Golden Wyvern school in the first place would lead to this conversation:

GM1: "In my campaign world, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "Wait, when you say 'battle mage,' you mean..."
GM1: "Oh, that's what I call the Golden Wyvern school."
GM2: "I just usually call it the war caster school."
GM1: "So, yeah. In my world, the battle mage school is called the Vengeful Pheonix."
GM2: "In my campaign world, the war caster school is called the Order of the Chalice."
GM1: "So do your battle mages use a chalice as an implement, then?"
GM2: "My war magic casters, you mean?"

People who like the Golden Wyvern crunch but dislike its fluff must, by necessity, reference its fluff when explaining that they don't use its fluff. If the Golden Wyvern school had a blander name, that would be less of an annoyance to people who dislike the fluffy name, and no more of an annoyance to people who don't care what something is named.

Of course, this all assumes that Golden Wyvern is actually used in a feat name in the first place. See the quote in my sig for more on that.

How often to GMs discuss with other GMs such details of their campaign setting?

Usually, I am playing with my group, in my campaign. They need to know about the details, they must get the feeling for the campaign, they should care about their characters and their relation to the world. Other GMs and players are not my primary concern when creating my campaign setting.

There will be tons of things other GMs don't know about my campaign (What gods do I use? What countries exist and how are they related to each other? What PrCs do I use, which of them did I "reflavour"? Which spells and classes did I ban or change?)

Usually, people talk about things like these in forums:
- Problems with certain rules (overpowered PCs/NPCs, underpowered PCs/NPCs, unclear rulings)
- Problems with certain players (or player "archetypes")
- New house rules
- interesting story elements they came up with (or might need help coming up with)
- player quotes and stories

Some of these require more background information of the campaign, others don't. It doesn't matter whether its about wizard traditions, gods, countries, house rules.

 

[Ahglock]

My issue with Emerald Frost isn't as much the name (which I dislike) as the grouping of effects (cold and poison). I really don't think cold and poison really fit together. I like the idea of a cryomancer, I even like the idea of a acid mage. I don't like the idea that they go together. I guess you could play one and only focus on half of your abilities, but then there will likely be a substantial power loss. Why not develop the two seperately?

Why does cold fit better with acid than lightning or fire?

Poison and cold work together in the sense that they both will likely cause debilitating effects past just a quick blast of HP damage. Whether its a slow effect from frost, paralization, or damage over time from poison they kind of fit thematically in effect if they don't fit in with some kind of elemental like ties.

So I'm expecting feats that give extra duration on negative effects, or increase the effectiveness of slows, maybe some kind of sticky or contagious effect.

The name kind of works, frost=cold, emerald is green which seems to be tied to poison effects in every video game I play. So I get at least something from this. Its better than GWA, but I would prefer a less fluffy name for feats with a fluffy tradition in the magic chapter describing a group of feats they usually take.

 

[Ahglock]

What might be worth noting for "world building concerns":
From the newspage (also quoted in another thread)

Emphasis mine.

The wizard traditions (and the implements) are not set in stone. We are allowed (supposed?) to build our own when building our own world.

Another comment I couldn't track back (it might have been in a pod cast or in a blog entry) was that there might be some overlapping of abilities granted by feats.
The feat formerly known as "Dragon Tail Cut" is an example: According to its description, it was basically the equivalent of Improved Trip - but limited to swords. Which means that you can have feats with different names, yet still doing similar things.

Yeah there letting me know I can house rule things and that this wont be easy, but it wont be really hard. I don't really find that very reassuring. I can house rule everything so how is this different, if they said its really easy to make new traditions it will probably take a couple minutes tops then that would be reassuring.

I also don't find the idea that there could be multiple feats that do the same thing reassuring. It seems needslessly limiting, overly complicated, and a waste of space.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah there letting me know I can house rule things and that this wont be easy, but it wont be really hard. I don't really find that very reassuring. I can house rule everything so how is this different, if they said its really easy to make new traditions it will probably take a couple minutes tops then that would be reassuring.

I also don't find the idea that there could be multiple feats that do the same thing reassuring. It seems needslessly limiting, overly complicated, and a waste of space.

Just to take the other side for a second, how much time and how difficult is it to come up with a new pantheon for your game?

I imagine that's the level of difficulty they're talking about. It can be done fairly quickly, or it can take hours, depending on a whole host of factors - how picky is the DM about his world, how detailed does he want to get, how detailed do the players want to get etc.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Meepo - how is that any different than clerics?

Actually, it's not different at all for clerics. There is no easy way to explain that clerics in your world have X characteristic without first using the word "cleric." So the word "cleric" is just as integral to conversations about the game as the phrase "Golden Wyvern" threatens to become.

In my world, war clerics worship Chernobyl and use dire flails, for example.

Creating a flail-using cleric with the war domain does not require you to mention the name "Hextor" in order to clarify which game elements you are using. No weapon, base class, or domain is named "Hextor." Two people who hate the name "Hextor" can have a conversation about your cleric without ever using the word "Hextor."

Would people confuse them for clerics of Hextor?

Not likely, unless you chose to define them using the word "Hextor" somewhere in your description. But you don't have to do that, so the issue won't come up.

How often to GMs discuss with other GMs such details of their campaign setting?

Well, very few people actually. But I do think I might have to quote you in my sig on this message board.