What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[BryonD]

The real issue being that you didn't read what I wrote before responding, right?

Actually, that is quite amazingly wrong.

 

[BryonD]

So you're telling me that if you had a spell called merely clenched fist, you'd instantly and immediately know that it creates a giant glowing hand made of pure magical energy to punch your enemies, Looney Tunes-style? Instead of, for example, enhancing the caster's ability to make unarmed attacks? How about forceful hand? Can you tell me what that spell does, without looking it up? How about trap? Hell, even I wouldn't know that a spell called trap makes a lock seem to be trapped without actually being trapped at all! How about faithful hound? Lucubration? Sword? Menmonic enhancer? Transformation? Those are all PHB spells.

Hey look, it is the same ole bait and switch AGAIN.

 

[Zurai]

Actually, that is quite amazingly wrong.

Then please, O Wise and Powerful Oz, enlighten woeful ignorant me. Because your question was a total non-sequitor. I said Adept implied magic user, and you asked whether adept implied cleric or warlock... who are magic users. Yes = yes.

 

[jeffh]

Space in the book and time in the development cycle permitting, the second option seems clearly to be the best. But none of the others would exactly be the end of the world.

 

[Zurai]

Hey look, it is the same ole bait and switch AGAIN.

Are you going to make a substantive argument, or just say "Wrong" over and over again like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum?

 

[La Bete]

. Say you spent years working on a game world, using D&D mechanics, to have those mechanics turned against your work. D&D has not done that until now. It is one thing to work rules that operate behind the scenes as infrastructure. That is easy. It is the fluff anf flavor seeping in through game mechanics that they are doing for the first time.

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....

 

[BryonD]

Are you going to make a substantive argument, or just say "Wrong" over and over again like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum?

LOL

I have made detailed explanations is several posts above. If you have a three years old's ability to read and comprehend them, it isn't my fault. I've done a hell of a lot more than say "Wrong" It is just that you clearly don't have answers to the details of what I have said so you repeatedly ignore it.

Are YOU going to step up to the plate? Because I'm not going to bother replying to more of the same shallow replies that don't even touch on the real point no matter how many times it is re-stated.

 

[Cam Banks]

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.

Knowledge (arcana) isn't compulsory, either. You can run a perfectly good wizard without it. It would still blow for it to be called Golden Wyvern Acuity.

Here's the thing. Wouldn't it be better (I'm not saying it will happen, but just humor me) for them to have the Golden Wyvern Adept be a mage tradition example with "Spell Shaping" as a feat listed under it, implying that most of the GWA would take it? Instead of, you know, just calling it Golden Wyvern Adept for the sole reason of 'it gives D&D players a hook'?

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.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Fifth Element]

I'd hate for the mods to have to crack down on this thread. I think we need to take our tone down a couple of notches. Both sides.

 

[Maggan]

Knowledge (arcana) isn't compulsory, either. You can run a perfectly good wizard without it. It would still blow for it to be called Golden Wyvern Acuity.

Sure. I'd drop it, or rename it in my game.

Here's the thing. Wouldn't it be better (I'm not saying it will happen, but just humor me) for them to have the Golden Wyvern Adept be a mage tradition example with "Spell Shaping" as a feat listed under it, implying that most of the GWA would take it? Instead of, you know, just calling it Golden Wyvern Adept for the sole reason of 'it gives D&D players a hook'?

To be perfectly honest, I think Golden Wyern Adept as a name for a feat is a bad name. I quite like descriptive names like Cleave and Manyshot, and I can add fluff on my own.

It is perfectly possible to not like the name, and still not agree on the earth-shattering implications on gamerdom this name has. I basically just don't see the fundamental effect a name of a feat has on the game. That's all.

/M