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

[Najo]

Here is something to consider, what if the fluff naming (shadowfel, emerald frost, etc) turns into a SRD nightmare where all of it is considered IP that can't be used by 3rd party publishers. Next thing we know, Paizo is making their own 4.0 or 3.75 and the D&D market splinters. That is one of the issues this naming convention could cause. Right now, Paizo and WOTC have a harmonious and shared customer base that nuture each other. WOTC might be kicking people out of the playground potentially, saying here is the scraps.

Likewise, how does Paizo go and take their Pathfinder setting and squeeze in all of these new fluff ideas without it effecting the way the world feels. How does Iron Kingdoms redo their rulebook and have it feel like Iron Kingdoms when the warcasters have feats like Golden Wyvern Adept. What about if White Wolf gave Scarred Lands another go? Lets say they made World of Warcraft d20 for 4.0? How do you use the wizard orders in that rules set?

This is what we are trying to avoid. The anti-GWA camp doesn't like the idea of D&D telling us how to be creative by force. We want it optional. We want many worlds that can be plugged on with out having to rename a 100 feats to get rid of confusing fluff that hurts the look and feel of the campaign.

 

[Enkhidu]

I voted for "remove the fluff names", but am beginning to think that the fluff names don't really matter. The 4e SRD will strip out the names, and I'm likely to use the SRD as a primary resource in the same way as I do the 3.5 SRD (since books aren't as available as the internet in many situations).

But even if the SRD didn't strip out the names and substitute more generic and utilitarian terms I don't think it will matter. It didn't in previous editions - for example, Mordenkainen didn't figure in any homebrews I took part in, but that didn't stop my mage from use his Faithful Hound. For us, Mordenkainen meant "insert powerful contemporary mage here!"

I don't see why it will be any different this time around. If I don't like the flavor provided with the meat, I'll just change it anyway.

It mechanics that encourage a certain type of play, or make assumptions about a certain type of flavor that I'm concerned about.

 

[Smerg]

Ok,

In this thread I have shown

1> The intellectual property and legal side to the choice of something like Golden Wyvern which is backed up by WotC developers like Mike Mearls.

2> The naming is comparable to real world naming of organizations.

3> The naming is comparable to gaming models that are used throughout much of the industry. Partly for fluff flavour and partly for point number one.

In return I have received the counter arguement that is

We do not like the naming because it does not work for my campaign because it is not neutral enough. Which really is not a properly proven arguement but a self opinion of what you want.

Unfortunately, as Mike Mearls pointed out in another thread, WotC does not produce specific things for individual campaigns. They provide a rule set which provides the optimum of production value and fun that they can provide for a very wide audience. This rule set though is shaped by the companies needs to protect itself and to hopefully make something more interesting then 'Mace hits Head'.

Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking. At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

I like this approach, but I have an objection:

Spell Shaper is not a good name for this feat. I mean it works, but only if you don't have another feat which allows you to adjust the actual shape of the spell from say cone to line or sphere to wall.

Star Wars Saga has a similar feat called something like Gentle Strike, but that honestly sounds more like a Kung Fu or therapy technique than a puissant arcane technique.

Which points to the larger problem of GWA, it's a very hard feat to name except through some sort of branding device.

Either by having it be the only 'adept' feat with other tradition feats getting names like Ferocious Tiger Initiate or Jade Crucible Apprentice, which then become Adept, Initiate, and Apprentice when you strip the adjectives off.

Or by making all Golden or Wyvern or Golden Wyvern feats about exempting teamates from damage.

The other other approach would be to give the feat explicitly meta-gamey nomenclature like No-Team Kills Approach, but to my mind that breaks the flavor far worse than giving the feat some sort of Heraldry.



Huge Side Note:

Opus Dei isn't what I would call a secret organization. Discrete perhaps, but they are pretty open to the public.

 

[The Little Raven]

Lets say they made World of Warcraft d20 for 4.0? How do you use the wizard orders in that rules set?

Well, considering they didn't use the 3E core classes (going so far as to simply rename the fighter to "Warrior") for the WoW d20 game, I don't see how this is an issue in the slightest.

 

[Najo]

A question posed for the pro-GWA feat people.

What happens when we have 100's of these, the D&D core rules could easily look like this:

Golden Wyvern Initiate (1st level)
Golden Wyvern Adept (11+ level)
Golden Wyvern Master (21+ level)

Plus, an initiate, adept and master for Iron Sigil, Serpent Eye, Hidden Flame, Emerald Frost, and the one other order I don't remember its name.

That is 18 feats, minimum of 6. But I am sure there is at least 2 for each order.

Then, take the Fighter. Is there going to be martial styles like in 9 swords?
The Rogue, how about secret guilds?
The Cleric can have churches.

So, now we have easily 60-80 feats with non-functional fluffy names. The DMs you are asking to bite the bullet and not make a big deal about this have to write up a two page document that has alternative feat names, the other DMs who use these orders have to find a place to stick minimum of 6 and up to 24 different training styles for the 4 main classes.

That doesn't include the Warlock, Warlord, Ranger, Barbarian or Paladin.

Then, every core book holds the potential of including a dozen or more of these types of named feats.

So, when Dark Sun CS comes out, they have to figure out how to fit in these basic rule modifying feats (like GWA) that should be available to any wizard, and take the order names and work them into a world where magic is based around stealing the life energy of the planet and most wizards are in hiding, for fear of being killed for following their art.

For that matter, Forgotten Realms now has these six orders? Greyhawk has them now? Ravenloft? This is where it doesn't make sense to make the heart of D&D harder to incorporate into other fantasy settings, espcially ones they plan on supporting in some fashion.

I know some people loved Book of Nine swords and some people hated it. I liked it, as it was optional and had some awesome ideas. But, if the player's handbook was made that way and I was forced to use the martial arts style inspired fighting in every campaign, it would get very old eventually.

By flavoring the core mechanics, WOTC is forcing us to use salt everytime when I rather have pepper sometimes. What is so wrong about using sidebars or even the flavor text beneath the feat to convey the fluff instead of the actually mechanics name itself?

I will put it into another form for you guys. Lets say I love the six orders and I am using them the way D&D has them laid out. Then for whatever purpose, something happens in my game storywise that gives my Iron Sigil mages the ability to use the spellshaping power of the golden wyverns. Now I have to explain this all of the time, when instead I could have said that the paragon path of Iron Sigil has access to the spellshaper feat.

The game rules should be adaptable to your campaign, not force you to play in the same world. They are going to alienate alot of DMs who do not want this. D&D needs to keep its DMs, not be driving them to other options or not support the RAW.

 

[rounser]

Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking. At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.

Nonsense, your points have been refuted quite neatly. They involve games which have a default setting of a tweaked version of the real world (WOD) with everybody effectively using the same setting, or games which are popular as heavily flavoured supplemental to D&D yet wouldn't be appropriate for the core game (i.e. Arcana Unearthed) because, again, they depict a specific setting.

D&D happens to be much more popular than WOD games. It might be because it allows people to realise their own fantasy worlds without getting in the way of them too much, something that WOD games can never do because they're too focused on a specific, exclusive flavour. Imagine that.

 

[Oldtimer]

1> The intellectual property and legal side to the choice of something like Golden Wyvern which is backed up by WotC developers like Mike Mearls.

Which is a good argument against it.

2> The naming is comparable to real world naming of organizations..

Which is irrelevant.

3> The naming is comparable to gaming models that are used throughout much of the industry. Partly for fluff flavour and partly for point number one..

You're talking WoD. We don't want Core D&D to become WoD.

Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking. At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.

I'm trying real hard to respond to this in a nice and friendly manner. Perhaps it's better I just ignore posts such as this. Let me just point out that your post doesn't help at all.

 

[Hussar]

Er, aren't they covered by open gaming content license rules?

Something to remember is they have to look beyond D20. If any game, or novel, or video game or whatever, ANYWHERE has Spellshaper Adept in it, you can't use it because it's someone else's IP.

IMO, "mythologically resonant" far outtrumps "historically accurate". History is full of lame stuff, ignoble stuff, silly ideas that failed, and the posturing of the powerful and tasteless.

It's also broad enough that if you look long enough at history, you can probably justify anything. (That said, mythology is full of lame stuff too - but they're generally not the "resonant" bits.)

And, let's face it - stuff which was tough and powerful-sounding in the middle ages might be cheesey and overblown to a modern audience. Enter the Goldern Wyverns.

They just need to shorten it a bit. Gold magic, or a Gold Adept. Add Silver, Bronze, and a bunch of other metal names and you've got a better solution. Or colours. Didn't WOTC have one heck of a big success with something related to coloured magic already?

Kind of like say, Blue Star Adept. Oh, wait. That's from Theives World and was written thirty years ago. Sorry, that's taken. I'm willing to imagine that, somewhere, in someone's published fanasy novel, Gold Adept has appeared. Are you willing to go out and license that name from some guy? For every feat?

Irrelevant, because Vampire and the rest use WOD.

In D&D, a key draw is worldbuilding. It's core should reflect that, not compromise it.

A key draw for YOU maybe. The preponderance and enduring popularity of published game worlds shows that there are lots and lots of gamers for whom world building is not the key draw. It certainly is a draw for a subset of gamers, but, is it a key draw? I'm not so sure. There's a 150 000 RPGA gamers out there who don't do any world building. That's a pretty big chunk right there.

Remember, one of the key components of 4e is drawing in new blood. Forcing new DM's to sit down for dozens of hours to create new campaign worlds is NOT a draw for new DM's.

Can you use the rules to world build? Of course you can. Will you have to? Nope. And, now, you get more than a bland, flavourless world goverened by wealth by level guidelines. Instead, in the DMG you get a starting town, a complete (if bare bones) history and elements that fit into that history.

Yay! We're going back to Basic/Expert D&D.

 

[Najo]

Ok,

In this thread I have shown

1> The intellectual property and legal side to the choice of something like Golden Wyvern which is backed up by WotC developers like Mike Mearls.

Fair enough. They can still make mistakes though, look at spell caster multiclassing in the last edition.

2> The naming is comparable to real world naming of organizations.

Ok, so lets take D20 modern and take all of your organizations and create feats connected to them. Lets say each one governs something specific, a modern resource, better than the others. Freemasons could have +2 bonus to government social rolls, the Rosucuricians could have +2 bonus to church based rolls, etc.

So, I want to make a political character that is a Freemason Initiate of the 4th degree (or whatever) in order to get the bonus, but I don't want them to be a freemason? How do I do that?

1) what happens if the group's power struct or influence changes? Now, instead of moving a feat from one group to another, I need to explain it everytime.

2) what happens if I set my campaign before these groups existed? What if I move to a time in the future where they might be gone?

3) What if I don't want these groups in my game, but I want the feats?

4) What if I want these groups to have different effects or be represented by other feats that actually do something specific with the group instead of a generic modifier?

All of these issues create WORK for the DM. If the feat is instead changes to Government Infleunce or Church Influence and then I can say the Freemasons have government influence, etc.. it makes it much easier. Now my political non-freemason can have his feat, the freemasons can have it too and when the end of the world happens the feat for the freemasons can change as they move into a new power position then the current one.

3> The naming is comparable to gaming models that are used throughout much of the industry. Partly for fluff flavour and partly for point number one.

Almost every product in the gaming industry is tied to a setting. D&D hasn't REALLY been until now. Problem is, this is not a real setting, it is pieces and fragments of one they are using to inspire us. The fluff in other games have meaning because it ties to storylines. This fluff just exists to not be generic fantasy. With most of the elements here, that is ok. But the Feats and Talents are bad. Why not add in rules for Organizations, that is something that D&D could make good use of and keep simple.

In return I have received the counter arguement that is

We do not like the naming because it does not work for my campaign because it is not neutral enough. Which really is not a properly proven arguement but a self opinion of what you want.

Unfortunately, as Mike Mearls pointed out in another thread, WotC does not produce specific things for individual campaigns. They provide a rule set which provides the optimum of production value and fun that they can provide for a very wide audience. This rule set though is shaped by the companies needs to protect itself and to hopefully make something more interesting then 'Mace hits Head'.

Now, I have taken the time to go through the points and show you the fallacies of your thinking. At this point, I can not help you further because you have reached the point when logic has been used and the child keeps temper tantruming and saying 'No, no, no'.

D&D 2nd edition was all about other campaign worlds. D&D 3rd and 3.5 was somewhat like this with Forgotten Realms and Ebberron. WOTC even said they found their surveys told them players and DMs wanted options and tools for making their own worlds and that too many campaign settings fractured the market. This approach goes against giving DMs tools to make their own worlds by forcing them to use premade fluff.

We want more than mace hits head. We want spellshaper so we an attach it to our own wizard orders, secret traditions or other methods of learning magic then being stuck with the idea of the six orders over our heads ALL THE TIME. This change with the feats is restricting most of the DMs, not helping them.

I am not going to get into a flame war. There are points we have brought up that you are not considering. Still, you have not offered a solution that keeps in the orders and gives us freedom with the feats.

We want to create our own fluff without having to make pages of errata to rename core player choices, what is so hard about that to understand? How is that us being childish or reduced to 'hit in head with mace'?

Our camp doesn't want to hear the words Golden Wyvern Adept unless the order/ school/ path/ secret society is in our game setting by our choice.