What should WOTC do about Golden Wyvern Adept?

[Fifth Element]

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.

 

[Zurai]

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.

Your second post in this thread, the first one I responded to, contained only "Please name on 1st edition spell that didn't include words relevant to what it did." Again, the ONLY THING YOU ASKED FOR was a 1st edition spell that did not include words relevant to what it did. You have been provided with 5 examples of 1st edition spells and another half a dozen or so PHB 3rd edition spells that do so.



Your responses? "Read the description of the spell and you'll know what it means". Then you said that people that don't mind GWA are "baiting and switching about the need to know before reading the description". Sorry, bub, you're the one that specifically asked for judgement based solely on name, not me. I've been the one saying there's no problem to associate a name with a function.

Later on, you said that "clenched fist" (from Bigby's Clenched Fist) is enough for you to know exactly what a spell does. I responded asking whether "sword" (from Mordenkainen's Sword) or "trap" (from Leomund's Trap) or a handful of other partial spell titles were enough to know exactly what the spell does. This is especially problematic with the "trap" spell, which does pretty miuch exactly opposite what the spell name implies. Your response? Completely ignore following up on your original statement (again) and say I'm baiting and switching. Again, it was your statement in the first place that you could identify the spell purely from the name. When I asked whether this was really true and gave you potentially confusing examples, you ducked the questions and insulted me.

Why are the full spell titles relevant? Because once you are familiar with the implied fluff, it's easy to determine that Bigby's <foo> creates a giant glowing hand of force, or Mordenkainen's <bar> has a purely magical effect, or Leomund's <stuff> deals with some kind of shelter or ward. Why? Because those names represent a theme, the same as Golden Wyvern or Serpent Eye or Iron Sigil.

 

[Najo]

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

Cam gets it. This is not an as much as a you say to-ma-TO I say to-MA-to kinda thing guys. It is exactly like renaming the skills Round Table Horsemanship (ride), Cloaked in Darkness (stealth), Tongue of Serpents (bluff) or calling the six ability cores things like Thor's Stern Rightousness, Odin's Judgment, Loki's Guile etc.

WOTC is doing damage to the core systems that flavor our games in ways all of us do not want them flavored.

 

[La Bete]

WOTC is doing damage to the core systems that flavor our games in ways all of us do not want them flavored.

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)

 

[Zurai]

WOTC is doing damage to the core systems that flavor our games in ways all of us do not want them flavored.

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!

 

[Najo]

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.

1) Your being extreme and purposely making things more difficult

2) Your ignoring all of our valid concerns, the heart of the matter is that this does make things less adaptable for creative DMS that don't play generic D&D.

3) Artwork does not force itself into my campaign like a game mechanic. Again, these fluff examples should be in side bars, like artwork is. Not built into mechanics. With that point, if I was reading a Dark Sun campaign setting and it had knights in armor running around like King Arthur I would be as bothered by that as I am by Golden Wyvern Adapt popping into the core rules.

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...

Really, honestly, think about this for a minute and tell me it doesn't get old. That is just for the wizard orders too, what if Fighters, Clerics, Rogue etc all have traditions like this. They do that and D&D is done. No more plugging your own setting on after that, to much headache, it would be easier to make your own rulebook and use the SRD.

 

[Maggan]

Cam gets it. This is not an as much as a you say to-ma-TO I say to-MA-to kinda thing guys. It is exactly like renaming the skills Round Table Horsemanship (ride), Cloaked in Darkness (stealth), Tongue of Serpents (bluff) or calling the six ability cores things like Thor's Stern Rightousness, Odin's Judgment, Loki's Guile etc.

I don't think that is correct. Every single PC will have six ability scores, so renaming them will of course have effect on how the game is viewed for those who play it and are familiar with the earlier names. Feats are optional, as are most skills.

Naming skills is not that much of a deal to me. I was reared on skill based systems, and there are several versions of "stealth" in them. Especially WFRP 1st edition had interesting variants of skill names. FWIW, Tongue of Serpents sounds like a cool name for Bluff, and I don't think anyone would have problems remembering what it does. Cloaked in Darkness is even better than Stealth, in my opinion.

/M

 

[Fifth Element]

WOTC is doing damage to the core systems that flavor our games in ways all of us do not want them flavored.

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

 

[Zurai]

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...

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.

 

[Fifth Element]

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...

"You folk"? I can't speak for others, only myself.

I won't be upset by its inclusion, since I don't use campaign settings - homebrew all the way. So I'll either work Golden Wyvern into my world, or not and change the name of the feat.

You're still making way too big a deal about this. D&D will be "done" if they do too much of it? Relax. I think it will be far easier to adapt than you think it will be.

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.