What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[Zurai]

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.

This is the folly of trying to use a self-selecting survey for statistical analysis. You yourself have said that the orders are intended for hand-holding purposes. What percentage of the people that need hand-holding do you think are even registered on an obscure (to the outside world) website like this? There are millions of people that play D&D. There are 56,000 registered members on these forums. Even if only 10% of 1,000,000 people playing D&D needed hand-holding and all 56,000 registered members here were in that 10%, your poll would still only show the opinions of about than 0.001% (that's one-one-thousandth of one percent) of the hand-holdees.

 

[Najo]

I'll point out that there is no majority of people mandating a removal of the fluff in your poll, and in fact the second highest % response is to leave the feat exactly as-is. Clearly, you do not represent nearly so large a majority as you think you do. "All of us" indeed!

Again, attacking my point out of context. It is obvious that I don't mean everyone agrees with me. I am saying that the option that takes care of the most people's positions is the one that removes the fluff from the name and puts it in optionally is all.

As for majority, read the poll again. You can add the percentage of 1 and 2 because they both want the fluff removed from the name of the feat. By choosing option 2, option 1 gets what it wants too. Option 3 wants the fluff and the function name together (ala Golden Wyvern Shapeshaper). Option 4 wants the fluff as is (Golden Wyvern Adept). The last bunch don't care what happens.

About 50% want the fluff taken off the feat name. 10% want the fluff added to the functional name. 20% want the name to stay as is. 20% do not care. Of course these are shifting around with votes, but that is roughly what is going on.

The majority is option 1, 2 and 5 added together. Since option 3 wants the fluff in still, then option 2 partially satisfies them.

The best that option 4 can pull together is gathering those in option 5, roughly 40%. Because you alienate those who want 1,2 or 3 by choosing option 4.

That also means that leaving it as it is now makes 60% of the market represented in the poll upset, which is the majority.

The group that wants the feat to stay is only 1/5th the potential customers.

So, please, stop making this a witch hunt. We have alot of people upset about WOTCs choice. You are trying to make it look like we are overreacting, and that is not the case. So far, most of your posts have not be constructively trying to show how GWA is good, you have been attacking people personally who have been showing why GWA is bad.

 

[Najo]

You mean "I" not "all of us" I assume?

(tbh, I'm with Maggan and FE - I can't say I particularly care for the feat name - but I simply don't think it's nearly as doom-and-gloom as it's made out)

I meant alot of us. I did not mean to be all inclusive, but I do think that the majority do not want this change.

 

[Najo]

Bet you 10:1 that each setting includes a section on how to re-flavor feats to better capture the individual setting's flavor. "Golden Wyvern Adept" becomes "War Wizard Trainee" or whatever. If WotC can do it, you can do it.

Why make it that hard? Why not just give examples in the core rules that show how to take Spell Shaper and turn it into Golden Wyvern Adept?

Then each setting doesn't have to devote space to renaming, and instead just give those groups the appropiate feats.

Why is my suggestion a subpar solution for you? That is all we are asking for.

 

[Najo]

Golden Wyvern Adept or Spell Shaping, I don't care. I'm much more interested in the mechanics of a new edition, not the fluff.

Exactly.

On the note of campaign settings. What if your game doesn't have wizard orders? Then what?

 

[Zurai]

The majority is option 1, 2 and 5 added together.

No. Option 5 does not WANT the name removed. They just don't care if the name is removed. Option 5 is, for all intents and purposes, "I abstain". You cannot add abstentions to any side. Now, true, 1 and 2 added together do equal a very slight (53%) majority, that's hardly a mandate.

 

[Najo]

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.

I misread your post and thought Zurai had said it. You've been constructive through most of this. I apologize for my misunderstsanding No hard feelings.

 

[Zurai]

I misread your post and thought Zurai had said it. You've been constructive through most of this. I apologize for my misunderstsanding No hard feelings.

Why does who posted it matter? Am I to understand that Fifth Element could post the exact same thing I post and you'd read them differently?

 

[Najo]

No. Option 5 does not WANT the name removed. They just don't care if the name is removed. Option 5 is, for all intents and purposes, "I abstain". You cannot add abstentions to any side. Now, true, 1 and 2 added together do equal a very slight (53%) majority, that's hardly a mandate.

See, once again you are taking it out of context. I said you can add it to both sides because they do not care either way.

Are you trying to get this thread shut down?

Please be constructive, and stop being so manipulative and negative towards the people who are trying to share their opinions in a positive manner. You need to cool off and come back in with a level head and re-read things you misread, like most of the post you quoted here.

Anyrate, lets not get bad blood going on. I do not have any issue with you, nor am I trying to cause one. I also am not trying to misrepresent the poll or be using a minority position to infleunce a majority. Everything I have stated is supported by the poll.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why does who posted it matter? Am I to understand that Fifth Element could post the exact same thing I post and you'd read them differently?

It matters, I think, because he made a comment to me without realizing who had said what I said. It's valid, given the misunderstanding.