What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[Najo]

I assume that the feat is not compulsory for every single D&D4e PC created. So, there will exist several groups where no PC has access to GWA.

I don't think it is compulsory for every magic user either. So there will be groups with magic users not using the feat.

Will this ruin the game? Probably not.

So, would dropping it altogether ruin the game? Probably not.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

/M

Its effect, allowing you to remove allies from the area of effects of your spells, is a generalized effect.

GWA does not give you bonuses with the order or make you have a certain in game advantage with the title, it modifies your basic wizard abilties. The other orders probably all have these effects as well. I would take a stab and say these orders are all through the feats and they replace metamagic.
The problem is bigger than changing the names of a couple of feats. Those of use against this naming change SEE that, we can see where this is going and what it is going to do. Try to step back and see our point of veiw for a minute and think about the hassle dealing with fluff based feats in what till now was a core/ generalized set of rules just did to the way people play D&D.

 

[Najo]

I don't know about you, but Dwarves suddenly being able to become wizards certainly changed the fluff in some campaigns I've run. D&D has always done this sort of thing with a new edition.

I do find it ironic that 4e is getting a lot of flack for introducing flavour to feats, whereas 3e was bagged out for removing it....

Readapting basic fantasy concepts and opening up options for making characters is one thing. Those campaigns can still bar dwarves playing magic users.

Being forced to bring in named orders, organizations, schools, guilds etc is a whole other.

This is not the same thing.

If I want wizards to shape spells like this I have to a) allow GWA in the game b) rename the feat and all references to it c) make my own feat that does the same thing. None of these works with me. Why not just have a side bar dicussing the orders and flavor text above the feat saying this is training from the golden wyverns etc. There is no need to force the term Golden Wyvern Adept into my campaign like this. It is intrusive.

 

[Najo]

Honestly. The only stated reason Mike or anybody has provided for why the feat has the name that it does is that it gives new players or people who don't want to come up with whole new mage traditions of their own a hook. They're not going to define it. They're not really going to explain it. It's just going to have a fancy name.

Exactly Cam.

And everyone, this is the reason why they shouldn't do this to the game. The MAJORITY of us do not need it and at least HALF of us do not want it. They are adding in a hold our hand area of the game and in turn running the cooking of alot of chefs here.

 

[Najo]

That's extremely presumptuous. All we need to do is find one person who likes it to disprove this claim.

Ok, I slip and leave otu not all of us want and you use it to attack me.

You are purposely avoiding every valid point I am making and then taking one statement out of context to try and invalidate me or argue for teh sake of arguing.

Please be more respectful and add constructively to this discussion, otherwise I am not going to bother to respond to you.

 

[Zurai]

The MAJORITY of us do not need it and at least HALF of us do not want it. They are adding in a hold our hand area of the game and in turn running the cooking of alot of chefs here.

Half of you do not want it? Your own poll shows exactly the opposite. 71% and some change of the respondents either do not care either way, or want the fluff to be in the core rules in some form.

Ok, I slip and leave otu not all of us want and you use it to attack me.

You are purposely avoiding every valid point I am making and then taking one statement out of context to try and invalidate me or argue for teh sake of arguing.

I don't think it's out of context at all. You're constantly trying to say you speak for the majority, when your own poll shows nothing of the sort.

 

[Maggan]

The problem is bigger than changing the names of a couple of feats. Those of use against this naming change SEE that, we can see where this is going and what it is going to do. Try to step back and see our point of veiw for a minute and think about the hassle dealing with fluff based feats in what till now was a core/ generalized set of rules just did to the way people play D&D.

I'll make a note of this, and take an extra hard look when 4e is released, to see if your powers of clairvoyance pawns my happy go lucky approach to games and rules.

I suggest we revisit this then, and then you can tell me "I told you so!". Until this is a reality and not just conjecture, I'll approach this as a feat with a cheesy name.

/M

 

[Najo]

To be honest, I can see where a lot of the anti-GWA crowd are coming from. I understand the concern, I just don't think it's a big deal. That being said, if GWA were changed to Spell Shaping or whatever, I would complain not one whit.

The only truly objectionable claim is Najo's assertion that fluff has never been coded into the core like this before.

How so?

Show me one circumstance before in the core material where a player's basic game mechanic abilities were named like this. We are talkin about a player chosen feat, not a DM approved magic item, spell, god, or any thing else dropped in by choice. This is a necessary feat too, one that many wizards will want, and all of the "metamagic" is going to be named like this. I am sure we have Iron Sigil Adept, Emerald Frost Adept, etc.

So now, I am having to find places for 6 wizard orders, when my world already has them. Or maybe the are secrets of spell casting or whatever, the point is its LORE being added by RULES. Me banning it makes issues too, either way, these DMs that don't want it are screwed.

Ironcially, most of the ones you don't care or who like it have said they could live without it. So WOTC is obviously making a mistake here.

 

[Fifth Element]

Please be more respectful and add constructively to this discussion, otherwise I am not going to bother to respond to you.

Dude, did you miss where I said I understand your perspective, I just don't think it's as big a deal as you do? It's just a matter of degree.

The only thing I object to is your assertion is that previous editions of D&D did not have flavour incorporated into the core.

Keep away from the hyperbole and you'll be fine.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ironcially, most of the ones you don't care or who like it have said they could live without it. So WOTC is obviously making a mistake here.

Considering the length of this (and other) threads, and the strong opinions on both sides, I'd say is far less than obvious that it's a mistake. It might be, but it might not be.

 

[Maggan]

4) Let's say that WOTC releases a campaign every year like they said they would. You honestly telling me that you folk won't be upset by the intrusion of Golden Wyvern Adepts into Forgotten Realms and Ebberron and Dragonlance and Dark Sun and Spelljammer and Ghostwalk and Ravenloft and Greyhawk and Birthright etc...

Yes, I am honestly telling you I won't get upset about those settings being revised to fit the 4e rule set. WotC does their thing, I buy what I find interesting, and then I do my thing with it and then we play.

If WotC does something I don't like and don't think I can work with, I'll just play a game I feel I can work with. Being upset about changes to a game doesn't enter into the picture for me. I co-created and wrote the first Mutant Chronicles RPG, and that's been made into a second edition which changed some things, and now it's being made into a third edition which changes a lot of things. And it's being made into a move which changes a truck load of things on a fundamental level.

I'm not upset about that, so I'm sure not gonna be upset about changes to D&D. Things change, that's all as far as I am concerned.

/M