What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[Najo]

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.

Sunder destroys a plot item the DM needs. The fact that it is a PLOT item and not just a non-important one is the story hooks of that item or the need for that item to remove an obstacle in some form.

Golden Wyvern Adept inserts a plot element into the DM's campaign. It brings a resource and possible story disrupting fluff along with it.

Both of these affect the Dm by not respecting his campaign.

They are the same in that regard. Not mechanically.

 

[Najo]

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.

To add to Byrons point, what happens when we have 10 fluff name feats, or 20 or 100...that sounds like a lot of fun.

 

[Zurai]

To add to Byrons point, what happens when we have 10 fluff name feats, or 20 or 100...that sounds like a lot of fun.

We already have that many.

 

[Najo]

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.

The difference is that previous elements (spells, gods, the planes, monsters) that is DM controlled. It is setting/ campaign dependant. DMs place those things and allow them.

Elements tied into character creation and development (i.e. skills, feats, talents) are all player controlled elements. Putting those things into classes drags the fluff along with the character building choice. This is fine in a campaign setting where fluff is needed to convey the story, setting and atmosphere. This is not ok in a toolset design to present a wide array of fantasy settings.

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?

It creates work for the artistic DMs who enjoy making their own worlds. It also creates work for WOTC when they launch new campaign settings or bring back old ones.

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.

You misunderstand my point. The golden wyverns didn't exist in the stories of Arthur. Just like most of the DMs out there do not want them in their homebrew settings. Nor do we need them crammed into the works of Howard, Moorcock, Martin, Tolkien etc.

Lets say I am running a campaign based in the world of an author I enjoy, next thing you know I am having to change around key character building elements that do not fit as named because of their naming convention?

Why approach the wizards with makeshift orders like this? Are they doing this with all the classes? Next thing we know, do we have to deal with Fighter Schools, Rogue's Guilds, Cleric Churches and Wizard Orders all premade and with named feats?

For that matter, when do you use the standard functional names and the fluff driven names? Why not call lightning reflexes, dances across a thousand plains or call power attack the secret master of the thunder sword.

People had a fit with Dragon's Tail Cut, why is Golden Wyvern Adept any different?

These details matter. You may think it is one name, but it is a change in their attitude towards the game that might be to far to continue being D&D. Golden Wyvern Adept is a direction that wasn't necessary to win over new players, it wasn't necessary to help DMs, it didn't give anything to veteran players that they needed.

What if I want to create a wizard order and have them shapespells like the Golden Wyvern's? How do I incorperate that without confusing my players and causing extra work explaining things?

 

[racoffin]

More Work?

I'm not sure that having to rename this feat, or any of the new feats, will cause that much extra work for home-brewed campaigns. For our game we have a player's hand-out, for example, that lists where we stray from the RAW, the local gods, and so forth. Adding an extra page saying that we are calling a feat one thing instead of another is pretty simple to add to what we are doing.

We already do this when we bring in material from newer books, after all, so it is not something that hasn't already come up. Adjusting names, organizations, and so forth for home brew is part of the whole package; that extra work to make it yours and not just out of the box.

 

[tsadkiel]

With that in mind, did Merlin belong to the Golden Wyverns?

Of course not. Merlin's totally a Serpent's Eye mage.

 

[Maggan]

You misunderstand my point. The golden wyverns didn't exist in the stories of Arthur.

And neither did Mordenkainen et. al.

Regardless of how easy or not easy we think it is to remove these elements, they were present in AD&D1st, and it is no revolutionary change to have fluff names for elements in the rules.

Just like most of the DMs out there do not want them in their homebrew settings. Nor do we need them crammed into the works of Howard, Moorcock, Martin, Tolkien etc.

Lets say I am running a campaign based in the world of an author I enjoy, next thing you know I am having to change around key character building elements that do not fit as named because of their naming convention?

I easily admit that I'm not seeing your point. There are more problems/challenges running Howard, Moorcock, Martin, Tolkien using D&D than one or a few feat names; how to deal with the classes? Spellcasting Rangers in Middle-Earth? What class is Conan? And so on so forth.

Feat names would be the least of my problems if I wanted to accurately mirror those literary sources.

/M

 

[Fifth Element]

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

Rope trick (yes it involves a rope, but what about the extradimensional space?)
Massmorph (can only turn things into trees)
Magic jar
Tenser's transformation (as discussed above)
Chant

Any more?

 

[Cam Banks]

I admit to being a little floored that folks think Mordenkainen's sword is just as bad as Golden Wyvern Adept. I don't equate a spell (one of hundreds) with a name that can be dropped (as per SRD) with a feat (the utility of which extends beyond just a specific kind of wizard) with a name that can't be dropped.

Like I said, it's like renaming Knowledge (arcana) "Golden Wyvern Acuity." I have a feeling there are people who, given that news, would simply shrug and say "oh well, Mike's a genius so I guess we'll just deal with it like we dealt with Mordenkainen's sword." Madness.

I think Mike's a terrific designer. I think mage traditions included in the core rulebook are awesome as examples and flavor elements. I think naming a metamagic-style feat with broader utility after a mage tradition with no other descriptor, and accepting it as something that we shouldn't argue about, is nuts.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Fifth Element]

You misunderstand my point. The golden wyverns didn't exist in the stories of Arthur. Just like most of the DMs out there do not want them in their homebrew settings. Nor do we need them crammed into the works of Howard, Moorcock, Martin, Tolkien etc.

Of course not. Those are specific campaign settings. Most people who play D&D, however, play D&D rather than one of these settings.

To take your argument to an extreme, you could say there should be no artwork in the core books, because that will force the designers' vision of the game on everyone who buys the book.

Heck, having PC wizards isn't appropriate for all possible settings (Conan, for instance). Plate armour on the equipment list isn't good for Conan either. Are DMs running a Conan game going to be forced to include those elements? Of course not.