Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3932774" data-attributes="member: 40961"><p>The complainers are going about this all wrong.</p><p></p><p>Look, I wrote up a very nice post on "Why we have golden wyvern adepts" that got all of a dozen and a half responses, then dropped off the front page in favor of complaining posts. If you want to read me explaining at length in a nicer tone of voice, go there.</p><p></p><p>Here I'll just summarize real fast why the complainers don't understand this argument and why as long as they continue to not understand this issue, won't get what they want.</p><p></p><p>Spells have been redivided based on mechanical attributes, instead of the fluff based attributes (that admittedly had some mechanical implications, but not as many as you might think) that were used in 3e.</p><p></p><p>Now we've got new schools, that doesn't have an obviously fluff link like "necromancy." They've got a mechanical link, like, "projects directly out from the spellcaster and favors fire as an element." I don't remember if that's exactly one of the schools, but that's the gist of the idea.</p><p></p><p>These schools need names.</p><p></p><p>Further, WOTC wants to encourage people to specialize in schools, so that wizards have some variety of build instead of just having one polymath build option. So they make feats for each school that augment the sorts of things that school likes to do. This helps separate the wizard who might know a little bit of golden wyvern magic from the wizard who has really mastered the stuff, which is cool.</p><p></p><p>So anyways now you have feats that use the school's name in them.</p><p></p><p>This is why you can't just rename "golden wyvern adept" to "spell shaper." It is deriving its name from the "golden wyvern" school of magic. There are probably other feats, like "golden wyvern initiate" or "golden wyvern master" sitting out there, plus similar feats for every other school of magic in the game.</p><p></p><p>So if you want the golden wyvern adept renamed, coming up with "spell shaper" is an inadequate fix. It doesn't even address the issue, frankly. You need to rename probably around 18 feats. And to rename those 18 feats, you FIRST need to rename six schools of magic.</p><p></p><p>-----------------------</p><p></p><p>Anyways, regarding some other points brought up in the thread.</p><p></p><p>1: It won't be hard to remember what Golden Wyvern Adept does because it will reference the golden wyvern school of magic, which you'll get used to using. It won't be any worse than a feat like "Initiate of Mystra," and in fact will probably be easier on this score because there are loads more than 6 deities.</p><p></p><p>2: Players will probably assume that a golden wyvern school of magic exists. My players always assume that the default pantheon is in, unless I specifically tell them otherwise, so I imagine this will be the same. However, just telling my players "I'm not using the default pantheon, you can use feats that reference it but we'll just count them as applying to your particular god." has always worked for me before, and I can't see why it won't for me again.</p><p></p><p>3: This particular feat won't get referenced in game very much. Players will just say things like, "I cast fireball centered on the fighter, but I leave him out of the blast." You'll remember that the player can do that because the player does that every other time he casts a fireball.</p><p></p><p>4: If you're going to have schools of magic, martial disciplines, and religious orders, they need names. I personally believe the game is better off for having all of these things. I personally don't like it when default fluff intrudes on my game. But I'm willing to accept the time it takes me to say "oh, that's just a discipline of magic in my game, it doesn't represent any order of wizards or anything," as an acceptable trade off for gaining improvement to game mechanics.</p><p></p><p>5: I find it interesting how heavy the fluff tends to be in expansion books, and how that seems universally accepted, compared to how even light fluff in core creates howls of rage. I can see that expansions and core are different, but expansions REALLY pile on the fluff, often going so far as to dictate the explicit existence of organizations, detail how they get along with other organizations, mix in the default pantheon liberally, and even discuss how a particular class gets along with other types of character classes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 3932774, member: 40961"] The complainers are going about this all wrong. Look, I wrote up a very nice post on "Why we have golden wyvern adepts" that got all of a dozen and a half responses, then dropped off the front page in favor of complaining posts. If you want to read me explaining at length in a nicer tone of voice, go there. Here I'll just summarize real fast why the complainers don't understand this argument and why as long as they continue to not understand this issue, won't get what they want. Spells have been redivided based on mechanical attributes, instead of the fluff based attributes (that admittedly had some mechanical implications, but not as many as you might think) that were used in 3e. Now we've got new schools, that doesn't have an obviously fluff link like "necromancy." They've got a mechanical link, like, "projects directly out from the spellcaster and favors fire as an element." I don't remember if that's exactly one of the schools, but that's the gist of the idea. These schools need names. Further, WOTC wants to encourage people to specialize in schools, so that wizards have some variety of build instead of just having one polymath build option. So they make feats for each school that augment the sorts of things that school likes to do. This helps separate the wizard who might know a little bit of golden wyvern magic from the wizard who has really mastered the stuff, which is cool. So anyways now you have feats that use the school's name in them. This is why you can't just rename "golden wyvern adept" to "spell shaper." It is deriving its name from the "golden wyvern" school of magic. There are probably other feats, like "golden wyvern initiate" or "golden wyvern master" sitting out there, plus similar feats for every other school of magic in the game. So if you want the golden wyvern adept renamed, coming up with "spell shaper" is an inadequate fix. It doesn't even address the issue, frankly. You need to rename probably around 18 feats. And to rename those 18 feats, you FIRST need to rename six schools of magic. ----------------------- Anyways, regarding some other points brought up in the thread. 1: It won't be hard to remember what Golden Wyvern Adept does because it will reference the golden wyvern school of magic, which you'll get used to using. It won't be any worse than a feat like "Initiate of Mystra," and in fact will probably be easier on this score because there are loads more than 6 deities. 2: Players will probably assume that a golden wyvern school of magic exists. My players always assume that the default pantheon is in, unless I specifically tell them otherwise, so I imagine this will be the same. However, just telling my players "I'm not using the default pantheon, you can use feats that reference it but we'll just count them as applying to your particular god." has always worked for me before, and I can't see why it won't for me again. 3: This particular feat won't get referenced in game very much. Players will just say things like, "I cast fireball centered on the fighter, but I leave him out of the blast." You'll remember that the player can do that because the player does that every other time he casts a fireball. 4: If you're going to have schools of magic, martial disciplines, and religious orders, they need names. I personally believe the game is better off for having all of these things. I personally don't like it when default fluff intrudes on my game. But I'm willing to accept the time it takes me to say "oh, that's just a discipline of magic in my game, it doesn't represent any order of wizards or anything," as an acceptable trade off for gaining improvement to game mechanics. 5: I find it interesting how heavy the fluff tends to be in expansion books, and how that seems universally accepted, compared to how even light fluff in core creates howls of rage. I can see that expansions and core are different, but expansions REALLY pile on the fluff, often going so far as to dictate the explicit existence of organizations, detail how they get along with other organizations, mix in the default pantheon liberally, and even discuss how a particular class gets along with other types of character classes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept? (Keep Friendly)
Top