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

[jensun]

50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?

We are still at one known. We did have Dragon Tail Cut which was about as silly but that I believe got pulled.

 

[BryonD]

Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.

50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?

/M

If it is 1 or 5 then that will be much better than my assumption. At least for me. But since we know that there will be abilities for all classes I tend to doubt it is likely. But maybe there is hope.

I also wouldn't care much.

But I think that would be kinda the lose-lose scenario. GWA would still have issues for those of us who don't like random names and those who do like it (I'm going on a limb here, but it looks sturdy) will likely be disappointed that they got so little.

But bottom line, yes, If it is 1 or 5 then a lot of the problem will go away.

 

[Najo]

Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.

50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?

/M

We can safely assume there is at least one for each order, that gives us a minimum of 6. Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil, Hidden Flame, Stormwalker and Serpent Eye. The feat Golden Wyvern Adept is a paragon (level 11+) ability. All Golden Wyvern abilities deal with changing the areas of spells, while Emerald Frost deals with acid and cold effects. These "orders" replace the schools (necromancy, abjuration etc) and instead of dividing wizards by school specialization, wizards choose feats from their order (or something to that effect).

Knowning these points, we can safely assume there is a heroic level feat and an epic level feat at least for each order. That puts the number of feats at 18, for one class.

Now, if they do anything similar with the other classes to give them fighting styles (note dragon tail cut mentioned earlier) and the work of the Book of Nine Swords, you are going to have roughly 6-18 feats per class.

Even just going an average of 12 feats for the four main classes, that gives you 48. With 18 for wizard and 6 for each of all the other 8 classes confirmed that gives us 54 feats with names like that.

This is what ALL of this is about. It is not about one feat, it is about having to deal with fluff being forced on us. I do not want to have to remove Golden Wyverns plus 5 other wizard groups, plus a handful of fightning styles, plus rogue's guilds, cleric churches or whatever else they decide on being fluffy with just so my players can use feats that manipulate the basic rules of the game.

Is this becoming clear yet?

EDIT: It is rumored that the barbarian has a feat or talent called Lightning Pather Strike, just so everyone knows.

 

[Najo]

We are still at one known. We did have Dragon Tail Cut which was about as silly but that I believe got pulled.

Even half of the people in support of the fluff feats have said they are silly. Lol, its crazy.

 

[Najo]

Ok, so the actual sample number is 1? I feel like I'm missing something about the numbers, when you and Najo are talking about the severe ramifications on the game.

50 names like GWA, I wouldn't like. 5 or so, I don't care about. So whereabouts are we?

/M

It will start at least at a two or three dozen. Minimum. Then it will be used over and over again in every book. D&D is having fluff strapped on every place they can do it and the feats are the hardest part to remove it from.

Ironically, I am ok with it most other places. Even spells to a point.

The reason why, is I can write my own races, spells, monsters, magic items etc. Just like a campaign setting. But redoing feats and talents gets messy. I can't rename them with out creating confusion and having to micro-manage it. All the rest is easy to remove or change. I have been running D&D for over 20 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official ones. I have years of Dark Sun and Planescape, with a little Ravenloft and then my own settings. I am not overreacting and I understand what these feats are going to do to the non-traditional and homebrew games. Trust me. This is a big deal.

Try this experiment. Change all of your metamagic feat names your players are using to a new name using one of these six orders. Now play on as normal, but no referring to the feat by any other name than the new order name. The name cannot have a functional description. So, you need to use things like Golden Wyvern Adept and Serpent Eye Cabalist. Now, do not put the orders in your setting and do not work them into the character's background. See how it goes over the next few weeks. Let me know the pros and cons and we will see where we are at.

 

[jensun]

We can safely assume there is at least one for each order, that gives us a minimum of 6. Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil, Hidden Flame, Stormwalker and Serpent Eye. The feat Golden Wyvern Adept is a paragon (level 11+) ability. All Golden Wyvern abilities deal with changing the areas of spells, while Emerald Frost deals with acid and cold effects. These "orders" replace the schools (necromancy, abjuration etc) and instead of dividing wizards by school specialization, wizards choose feats from their order (or something to that effect).

Knowning these points, we can safely assume there is a heroic level feat and an epic level feat at least for each order. That puts the number of feats at 18, for one class.

Now, if they do anything similar with the other classes to give them fighting styles (note dragon tail cut mentioned earlier) and the work of the Book of Nine Swords, you are going to have roughly 6-18 feats per class.

thats an awful lot of assumptions there for something that we actually know very little about.

There could just as easily be 6 sample feats, 1 for each "order". Just as easily GWA could be the only one.

 

[BryonD]

thats an awful lot of assumptions there for something that we actually know very little about.

There could just as easily be 6 sample feats, 1 for each "order". Just as easily GWA could be the only one.

Roughly how many do you hope are in the book? Would you prefer 1 to 6, or would you prefer 25+?

 

[Maggan]

I have been running D&D for over 20 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official ones. I have years of Dark Sun and Planescape, with a little Ravenloft and then my own settings. I am not overreacting and I understand what these feats are going to do to the non-traditional and homebrew games. Trust me. This is a big deal.

Well, I've been running D&D for 21 years, I have ran tons of my own campaigns and official adventures. I have years of experience with Ravenloft and Dragonlance, with a little Planescape on the side and a setting or two of my own.

Trust me. This is not a big deal.

To me.

/M

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Keep it as is. I'd rather the devs focus on more important issues with the game. I can easily fix fluff I do not like, but mechanics are more of a problem.

 

[Maggan]

Try this experiment. Change all of your metamagic feat names your players are using to a new name using one of these six orders. Now play on as normal, but no referring to the feat by any other name than the new order name. The name cannot have a functional description. So, you need to use things like Golden Wyvern Adept and Serpent Eye Cabalist. Now, do not put the orders in your setting and do not work them into the character's background. See how it goes over the next few weeks. Let me know the pros and cons and we will see where we are at.

Easy. My players aren't using any metamagic feats. They're soldiers with no magic-users in the party. So changing, or even dropping metamagic feats, won't have an effect on my current game.

EDIT: and, this is also why I fail to see why dropping the feat(s) is impossible. My current game has tons of feats that aren't being used, and never will, so in effect, we have dropped them. Works like a charm for us.

/M