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

[Cbas_10]

I think the bottom line on this discussion is "This isn't the optimal place to inject flavor text, as it makes it harder to keep track of what the feat does." The more of these feats WotC creates, the harder it will be to keep them all straight.

If their goal is really to inject more flavor into the game, it would be better to organize feat descriptions like this:

SPELL SHAPER
In the ancient monasteries of the Golden Wyvern order, adepts train to sculpt the effects of their spells, just as sculptors shape clay.
TIER: Paragon
EFFECT: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

or

SPELL SHAPER
TIER: Paragon
EFFECT: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.
SETTINGS: In some lands, spellcasters earn this feat by becoming adepts of the Golden Wyvern order.

(Obviously, the flavor text here is just a placeholder.)

These options keep the names of the feats "purpose-centric" for easy reference and memorization. It also allows DMs to easily cut flavor if it's not appropriate for their campaigns.

Excellent. Clear and to the point.

I'm not bugged by just a single feat name, but I think it is a funky precedent. I'm not sure if I could keep a straight face during a game if players were announcing actions like Golden Wyvern Adept, Blue Monkey Crawl, Crazy Tiger Leap, and such all afternoon long.

 

[Mad Mac]

And that is exactly what the fuss is all about.

Since it's not used in-game, the name should be utilitarian and descriptive rather than flavourful. The name of a pure game mechanic has no need for flavour, but every need for description and mnemonic.

I thought about this, and at first I agreed with you, but on reflection, I don't. My reasoning is this.

Players rarely forget what their feat does. Feats are precious, and each of them is an important character building decision. Especially so for an active feat that will see frequent use. No matter what the name is, a player is unlikely to forget it, unless they simply don't use it and probably shouldn't have picked it to begin with. And of course they aren't going to shout the name every time they use it, it's just "I remove square b, x, and d", probably at least once every major combat, and thats it.

Now, I do forget what feats do on occasion, and have to look them up, but it's usually only relevant when I'm leveling up a character. And honestly, browsing a few feats to see if it really works for my character (or one of my players characters) is hardly a chore. I just might see a possibility I didn't notice before while flipping through the book. And if we're mostly talking character creation--I think flavorfull feat names can be a plus. Anything that might spark my imagination is a good thing. This is one of the reasons I like Campaign Setting Books is all the flavorfull feats n'stuff. (And no, I don't have any compunction about stealing a feat I like from, say, the FRCS even if I'm not playing there.)

Granted, Golden Wyvern doesn't do much for me one way or the other, though I do like most of the other tradition names, but I can see the advantage. Also, "Spell-shaper?" While that will tell me the basic idea behind the feat, I'm still going to have to look it up to see exactly what it does, especially if we have SpellShaper 1, 2, 3, and 4.

 

[Bishmon]

SPELL SHAPER
In the ancient monasteries of the Golden Wyvern order, adepts train to sculpt the effects of their spells, just as sculptors shape clay.
TIER: Paragon
EFFECT: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

I really like this.

I understand that WotC wants to inject some flavor into things. I just happen to think they are choosing the worst way of doing it in this instance. Something like the feat above seems like one of the best ways. There's definitely flavor there to spark the imagination of some players, but it's very unobtrusive and easy to ignore if someone doesn't like it. Seems like a great compromise.

 

[Kintara]

Is it really a good idea for a pollster to inform someone of the debate, and then flatly state that one subset of the options has more support? I mean it normally doesn't matter that much, but the whole Golden Wyvern Adept thing is flame-bait. If you want it to stay friendly, you should be assiduously neutral, shouldn't you? I don't think that's a tall order for one thread.

Also, justifying the poll choices by saying stuff like "so that it works in every campaign" is like saying "Choose me because I have a REAL reason." The option for liking it comes down to, "I like the name, so it should stay the same." No justifications or logic. It's just preference, and damn everyone else's campaign. It's not the truth or lack of it that's the problem, but the way it's framed. You're better off just leaving the explanations behind entirely.

Anyway, my point is that polls quickly become meaningless, or even intellectually dishonest, if you're not careful. The topic may not be all that important, but then I'm not the one polling people about it. If you want the poll to mean anything, it should be done right.

 

[Fifth Element]

Is it really a good idea for a pollster to inform someone of the debate, and then flatly state that one subset of the options has more support? I mean it normally doesn't matter that much, but the whole Golden Wyvern Adept thing is flame-bait. If you want it to stay friendly, you should be assiduously neutral, shouldn't you? I don't think that's a tall order for one thread.

Also, justifying the poll choices by saying stuff like "so that it works in every campaign" is like saying "Choose me because I have a REAL reason." The option for liking it comes down to, "I like the name, so it should stay the same." No justifications or logic. It's just preference, and damn everyone else's campaign. It's not the truth or lack of it that's the problem, but the way it's framed. You're better off just leaving the explanations behind entirely.

Anyway, my point is that polls quickly become meaningless, or even intellectually dishonest, if you're not careful. The topic may not be all that important, but then I'm not the one polling people about it. If you want the poll to mean anything, it should be done right.

QFT.

Polls are not automatically meaningful. Bias can enter them in many ways, from poor design, leading questions, or simple selection bias.

 

[La Bete]

I really like this.

I understand that WotC wants to inject some flavor into things. I just happen to think they are choosing the worst way of doing it in this instance. Something like the feat above seems like one of the best ways. There's definitely flavor there to spark the imagination of some players, but it's very unobtrusive and easy to ignore if someone doesn't like it. Seems like a great compromise.

Sure, that makes sense - but I still think that it doesn't really change much - according to (some) detractors of the feat name, one of the issues with this is that players will refer to this "order of the golden wyvern", even after having been told by the GM that theres no such thing. The feat name is still in there, and part of the alleged implied setting.

Najo the problem with this discussion (and most like it) is that everyone has different levels of acceptance of fluff in their crunch (i can't believe I said that), and it's a completely subjective thing - so to anyone with a higher tolerance of it would not see a number of things on your "bad" list being bad. (and the fact that this level has varied throughout the editions).

Thus you see in these discussions a lot of talking past each other - "taken out of context", "not reading what I'm saying, "not the same thing", etc.

 

[Bishmon]

Sure, that makes sense - but I still think that it doesn't really change much - according to (some) detractors of the feat name, one of the issues with this is that players will refer to this "order of the golden wyvern", even after having been told by the GM that theres no such thing. The feat name is still in there, and part of the alleged implied setting.

Yeah, certainly, not everyone is going to be happy no matter what. Isn't that the sign of a good compromise, though, when neither side is completely happy?

I just think there's better ways of pleasing, or at least appeasing, more people than what WotC is currently doing. I think am's feats are one of a number of ways of doing that. Again, not ideal for everyone, but at least acceptable for more people.

 

[Oldtimer]

I thought about this, and at first I agreed with you, but on reflection, I don't. My reasoning is this.

Players rarely forget what their feat does. Feats are precious, and each of them is an important character building decision. Especially so for an active feat that will see frequent use. No matter what the name is, a player is unlikely to forget it, unless they simply don't use it and probably shouldn't have picked it to begin with. And of course they aren't going to shout the name every time they use it, it's just "I remove square b, x, and d", probably at least once every major combat, and thats it.

Now, I do forget what feats do on occasion, and have to look them up, but it's usually only relevant when I'm leveling up a character. And honestly, browsing a few feats to see if it really works for my character (or one of my players characters) is hardly a chore. I just might see a possibility I didn't notice before while flipping through the book. And if we're mostly talking character creation--I think flavorfull feat names can be a plus. Anything that might spark my imagination is a good thing. This is one of the reasons I like Campaign Setting Books is all the flavorfull feats n'stuff. (And no, I don't have any compunction about stealing a feat I like from, say, the FRCS even if I'm not playing there.)

Granted, Golden Wyvern doesn't do much for me one way or the other, though I do like most of the other tradition names, but I can see the advantage. Also, "Spell-shaper?" While that will tell me the basic idea behind the feat, I'm still going to have to look it up to see exactly what it does, especially if we have SpellShaper 1, 2, 3, and 4.

I assume our players are a bit different, then. I often see players forget what a feat or ability does. I even forget myself at times. And that is with feats whose names are mostly descriptive.

Granted, we play casually, maybe once a month. Hard core gamers might have an easier time remembering. For those the colourful name might be a bonus.

I see what you're saying about flavour - and I agree to a certain point - but I'd still like to let mechanical names favour mnemonics more than flavour. Their descriptions could still be heavy with story.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess I will just have to repeat myself here:
I don't care how WotC calls the feat for my personal game, because I might decide to adopt or not adopt the name and its implication, depending on what I play.

But I guess it's nice for a beginning group to have some fluff that they can build upon. Whether it's because in the flavor section of the feat description or the feat name itself doesn't matter to me. If I'd have to start roleplaying with a new group, the Points of Light combined with setting elements implied by the rules sounds like a great thing. I don't know how the entire world looks like, but I see some elements, and can build upon them. I can create my own world based on the few implied tid-bits, and I am not overwhelmed by having a full world to comprehend, nor is the DM overwhelmed by having to create a whole new world from the spot.

I assume our players are a bit different, then. I often see players forget what a feat or ability does. I even forget myself at times. And that is with feats whose names are mostly descriptive.

The descriptions don't help the casual gamer that much.
"Hmm, I've got Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialisation? Which did what? Power Critical, certainly that increases the critical multiplier, right?"; "Energy Substitution [Metamagic]? That increases the level and I can choose any energy type, or what was it?" ;"Haha, I take an extra attack of oppertunity, I've got Combat Expertise!"; "You mean Combat Reflexes?" "Uh, wait, let me look it up again..."; "I prepared my spells with Enlarge Spell, so I have a bigger area" "No, you only get a bigger range with that."; "I can leave out targets with Scult Spell, right?". The descriptive names often enough give you a false sense of knowing what the feat did. But the devil always lies in the detail.

On the other hand, if the 4th edition equivalent of metamagic feats are named according to the theme of an order, it might be easier to figure out where to look for a specific effect then before.

 

[Kintara]

QFT.

Polls are not automatically meaningful. Bias can enter them in many ways, from poor design, leading questions, or simple selection bias.

Don't even get me started on the title. The poll is about whether Wizards should keep or change the name, not "what should be done." If you're doing something, you're changing it. If you're not doing anything, you're leaving it alone, which is what one side would want. It's a leading question. You can find the answer in the question if you know what to look for.

Edit: And keep in mind that such polling decisions don't necessarily skew the poll the way you think. If you go too far in exposing your bias you might cause a backlash, which could artificially inflate the side you DIS-favor.