What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[Stormtower]

Move the fluffy names into sidebars. GWA should be renamed "Spell Shaper" or something similar. I understand the need for branding, but branding ought to be cool and sensible.

I hold out little hope that this and similar suggestions will be heeded.

 

[Zurai]

This is EXACTLY the same reason Golden Wyvern Adept is bad. It doesn't respect a DMs campaign or his control over it. If that is good enough reason to take Sunder out, it is good enough reason to change the name of feats like this.

No, no it isn't. Mearls says that Sunder removes control of the campaign from the DM because it allows the players to utterly destroy Plot Items that are held by NPCs. The name of a feat is a completely different thing. It has no mechanical effect on the campaign. It cannot have a mechanical effect on the campaign.

 

[BryonD]

Novice Player: Hey, what does Power Attack do again? What about Combat Expertise? Does that help me hit more often? What about Lightning Reflexes, does that make me go first in combat? Oh wait, it won't stack with Improved Initiative, right?...

What's in a name? Honestly, I don't think GWA is a crisis point for the game.

All of the above are not obvious on initial inspection, but once you know what they mean it is very easy to recall.

When you have Golden Wyvern Adept, Purple Sunshine Calling, Red River Aspect, Crimson Butterfly Halo, Black Song Kitten, and dozens others it won't be just the novice players who are confused.

I have never once met a person who didn't remember what Lightning Reflexes did once it was explained to them the first time. Maybe you have. But we will both meet many many people who forget which thing Red River Aspect does over and over if they have names like that. And we will also have a lot more people going "I know there is a feat that lets me get a +3 to attack when I make a jump check, but WTF is it called again? I want to add it to my character but I can't freaking find it."

I may not be a crisis point, but it is a real pain in the ass for no merit. I'd prefer to avoid the pain in the ass.

 

[Stalker0]

Speaking from experience, I once decided to give all of my feats cool descriptive names, so I wrote that down on my character sheet.

Then I lost my character and had to remake it. Problem was, I couldn't remember the feats I had chosen as they all now had different names. So I spent hours going through various books trying to figure out what feats I had.

In other words, just renaming feats has its drawbacks too.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is a double-bind for Wizards, IMO.

On the one hand, they get blamed for making bland, boring rules and textbook-like books.
On the other, they get blamed for making rule names too specific and thereby dictating everyone's personal campaign worlds.

Case in point: Lots of fiddly bits (talents, feats, class abilities, powers, virtues/flaws, etc.) are added to the game, but then frequently need to be referred to in character. If I'm always referring to my Golden Wyvern Adept ability or my Mordenkainen's Dysjunction, doesn't there have to be an in-game rationale? In-game rationales are one of the things 3e does rather poorly. I'd like to believe the imagined world is still part of the game.

It's not a no win situation though. "Fighters", "Spells", "Wizards", etc. are all referred to in-character in games, so it's not like previous rules aren't referred to in character. It's defining what these new rules will mean in game worlds. What are these things? Can they be made general enough to span from Greyhawk to Darksun to Planescape without appearing out of place?

I know plenty of games in the past have added in "sword schools" and stuff like that. Cool maneuvers learned when wielding scimitar and shield, so I imagine these new abilties will be something similar. Didn't even Chainmail (71') have some french legionnaire's or something? I think these particular game rules are a challenge though when adding such highly specific elements to generalist games. They tend to make all settings more similar because they define combat in such particulars. Maybe with more options this drawback will feel more like a benefit? Any new cool ideas will have to have their own cool combat powers or be left feeling undefined?

 

[Maggan]

These named feats don't work like that. They force whole orders and world elements in with them. It is like building specific gods onto the cleric's class features or tying all of a fighter's abilities to styles and training schools like in the Book of Nine Swords.

This one feat might seem harmless on its own, but what happens once there is a ton of them? What happens when a DM has to have pages of renamed feats to make use of these feats in their setting (if they choose to do that).

I just don't get what you're saying. I don't see much difference between named spells in 1st ed AD&D and named feats in D&D4e. Remove the names, it's as simple as that.

Sure if you have to remove a lot of names, it gets cumbersome. In 1st as well as in 4e.

This one feat might seem harmless on its own, but what happens once there is a ton of them? What happens when a DM has to have pages of renamed feats to make use of these feats in their setting (if they choose to do that).

What happens when your Conan styled character who grew up in his moutain tribe and was then sold into slavery and raised as a pitfighter, instead has to have learned from three different martial arts type schools?

I don't know what happens. And I'm not in the least worried about what might happen. For all I know, the feats might still be renamed, and then what'll happen?

With that in mind, did Merlin belong to the Golden Wyverns? Maybe Arthur knew the Lightning Panther Strike. See, this is where it gets really stupid.

No, Merlin did not belong to the Golden Wyerns, and no Arthur didn't know the Lightning Panther Strike, since they weren't created using the D&D4e rules.

And I think it's a really weak argument to try to fault D&D4e for having rules that don't fit Merlin or Arthur out of the box. Where would we draw the line? How would a single set of rules model each and every hero or villain in the history of literature?

Does Merlin know Mordenkainen? Does he hang out with Tisha? What level is he? What class is he? And so on so forth.

It can't be done, and it's not a fault in D&D4e (or 1st, 2nd or 3e) that such a thing can't be done without some reworking of rules and concepts.

/M

 

[BryonD]

I just don't get what you're saying. I don't see much difference between named spells in 1st ed AD&D and named feats in D&D4e. Remove the names, it's as simple as that.

Sure if you have to remove a lot of names, it gets cumbersome. In 1st as well as in 4e.

Please name on 1st edition spell that didn't include words relevant to what it did.

 

[Zurai]

Please name on 1st edition spell that didn't include words relevant to what it did.

Tenser's Transformation? Was it in 1st? The only thing you know is it transforms... something. There's no indication in the spell title that it makes the caster into a fighter.

I'd also challenge you to describe how Golden Wyvern Adept doesn't include any words relevant to what it does. If nothing else, the Adept indicates that it's for magic users, which is about as much information as TT gives.

 

[Maggan]

Please name on 1st edition spell that didn't include words relevant to what it did.

That's not my point. I'm not talking about the utility of the names. My point is if you use Tenser's Floating Disk, you have to explain who Tenser is/was.

Or Mordenkainen. Or Tisha. Or Baba Yaga. And so on so forth. So to me, the concept of fluff being hardwired into the rules is not something new to the game as of 4e.

/M

 

[Lurks-no-More]

If the 4e designers at WotC put one-tenth as much effort in building a good game as we gamers spend in talking about Golden Wyvern, wizard implements, demon/devil changes or whatever, I have absolutely no worries about the game.