New 4th Ed Article: Feats [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Person_Man

2007-11-27, 04:31 PM

Some feats offer utilitarian but unexciting benefits, while others grant characters entire new options in combat. It’s hard to argue with the utility of Alertness, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus, or even (for 1st-level wizards and sorcerers) Toughness, but that same feat slot could purchase Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Spring Attack, or Empower Spell.

WTF? It's pretty easy to argue with the utility of Alertness et al. They all provide minor static bonuses which are marginally useful. And how is Spring Attack in the same league as Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and Empower Spell?

Can't tell if the new feats are useful or not, but at least it seems like they fixed some scaling problems.

Also, although I'm aware of how Action Points work, I've never used them in a game. Can anyone report on whether or not they like them and specifics as to why?

Lord Tataraus

2007-11-27, 04:31 PM

For those who can't read it otherwise, here is the article for your reading pleasure:
One of the most useful and popular additions to Dungeons & Dragons that appeared in 3rd Edition was the concept of feats: special bonuses, benefits, or actions that characters could acquire outside their normal class features.

Throughout the lifespan of the edition (and even between the covers of the Player’s Handbook), the potency, utility, effect, and coolness of feats have varied widely.

Some feats offer utilitarian but unexciting benefits, while others grant characters entire new options in combat. It’s hard to argue with the utility of Alertness, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus, or even (for 1st-level wizards and sorcerers) Toughness, but that same feat slot could purchase Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Spring Attack, or Empower Spell.

When we started talking about feats for 4th Edition, we already knew that we wanted the bulk of a character’s powers—the exciting actions he performs in combat—to come from his class. Even character classes that hadn’t traditionally offered class-based power options (that is, non-spellcasters) would now acquire these special attacks, defenses, maneuvers, and so on directly from their class’s list of such abilities.

Once that decision was made, a lot of the most exciting feats suddenly looked more like class-based powers. Spring Attack, for example, now looked an awful lot like a power for the rogue or melee-based ranger, rather than a feat that just anybody could pick up. Manyshot, Whirlwind Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Shot on the Run—these were specialized powers appropriate for particular character archetypes.

So what design space did that leave for feats? After some discussion, we came to see feats as the “fine-tuning” that your character performed after defining his role (via your choice of class) and his build (via your power selections). Feats would let characters further specialize in their roles and builds, as well as to differentiate themselves from other characters with similar power selections.

They would accomplish these goals with simple, basic functionality, rather than complicated conditional benefits or entirely new powers that you’d have to track alongside those of your class.

Here are four examples of feats taken from the latest draft of the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook. The first two demonstrate the minor evolution of familiar favorites from 3rd Edition, while the other two show off some new tricks. As always, nothing’s final until you read it in the printed book, so take these with a grain of salt.

Toughness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: When you take this feat, you gain additional hit points equal to your level + 3. You also gain 1 additional hit point every time you gain a level.

Alertness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: You don’t grant enemies combat advantage in surprise rounds.
You also gain a +2 feat bonus to Perception checks.

First Reaction
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: If you are surprised, you may spend an action point to act during the surprise round.

Golden Wyvern Adept
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

Catch

2007-11-27, 04:36 PM

Hmm. The more that I think about it, the more I'm starting to like this idea.

Since many of the core classes (read: non-casters) weren't particularly powerful, the cornucopia of feats available made many characters much more adept and powerful. Now, with the 4e "balance," it seems that by containing all a class really needs in its granted features, the importance of feats will be downplayed. It certainly will make rolling up characters faster, I'm sure, though I wonder if by doing so the classes will be reduced to cookie-cutter builds.

Well, more so than now. This vexes me.

Also, although I'm aware of how Action Points work, I've never used them in a game. Can anyone report on whether or not they like them and specifics as to why?

They're an expendable resource like anything else. I like Action Points, mostly because they're incredibly useful for when you have to succeed at a difficult roll and most action point feats generally fall under the category of "power when you really need it." They're more or less balanced, I'd say, yet some people prefer the Gygaxian standard of "Oh, look. You rolled a 2. Here's a blank character sheet."

Chaos Evoker

2007-11-27, 04:40 PM

Very interesting, the unexplained taste of apparent feat tiers is fascinating. I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes out.

Green Bean

2007-11-27, 04:42 PM

WTF? It's pretty easy to argue with the utility of Alertness et al. They all provide minor static bonuses which are marginally useful. And how is Spring Attack in the same league as Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and Empower Spell?

I think they're talking in terms of the skill and impressiveness involved in a feat. You've got the ability to shoot arrows twice as fast as a normal person sitting next to the ability to be slightly more observant. They aren't all on the same scale.

cupkeyk

2007-11-27, 04:43 PM

I like how the augment option of psionics works but i do not like psionics, I hope that by saying a wizard has powers does not mean that manifesting is the new spellcasting. It sounds promising that Alertness is useful throughout your levels. It functions even better than uncanny dodge, without displacing uncanny dodges role as a class feature against invisibles.

Mad Mask

2007-11-27, 04:48 PM

For those who can't read it otherwise, here is the article for your reading pleasure:
article goes here

You don't have to copy the article, Lord Tataraus. People that don't have an account can simply view it by clicking on the Print Friendly button.

So, it seems that Wizards is encouraging archetypes. I hope I will still be able to play my Dwarven Wizard or Half-Orc Sorcerer.

Belial_the_Leveler

2007-11-27, 04:49 PM

Tier feats obviously refers to the three level tiers, namely heroic (lvl 1-10), Paragon (lvl 11-20) and Epic (lvl 21-30).

AKA_Bait

2007-11-27, 04:56 PM

Golden Wyvern Adept
Tier: Paragon
Benefit: You can omit a number of squares from the effects of any of your area or close wizard powers. This number can’t exceed your Wisdom modifier.

Um... does this imply that Wizards are now Wisdom based casters?

Morty

2007-11-27, 05:10 PM

Um... does this imply that Wizards are now Wisdom based casters?

That, or Green Wyvern(:smallyuk:) utilizes Wisdom. Maybe various wizard schools/orders focus on different stats.

Thinker

2007-11-27, 05:27 PM

BardicDuelist

2007-11-27, 05:41 PM

Maybe Paragon are like racial feats and you get a "Paragon" feat at every 4th level or some such. Heroic feats are available to everyone. Maybe there will also be class specific ones...Any other ideas on what it could be?

Actually, they talked about tiers of play in a previous article. I don't remember what they were, but it was somthing like 1-10, 10-20, 20-30 with the first being heroic, the second being paragon, and the third being epic, or somesuch.

tyckspoon

2007-11-27, 05:53 PM

I like how the augment option of psionics works but i do not like psionics, I hope that by saying a wizard has powers does not mean that manifesting is the new spellcasting.

Powers appears to be the word they've chosen to generically refer to a category of class feature. Note that the article speaks of Spring Attack as a rogue or ranger power. Psionics probably still uses powers, but now so does everybody else. The word doesn't mean the same thing it does in the context of 3.5.

Thinker

2007-11-27, 05:53 PM

Actually, they talked about tiers of play in a previous article. I don't remember what they were, but it was somthing like 1-10, 10-20, 20-30 with the first being heroic, the second being paragon, and the third being epic, or somesuch.

Oh. I missed that one, thanks. I guess its easier to maintain balance if you just don't allow things until various sets of levels.

Azerian Kelimon

2007-11-27, 05:57 PM

So, to sum up, those feats were:

1) The two Toughness feats into one. LOVE IT!

2) Alertness MIGHT work like Foresight does now. If it stops flatfootedness, CRUD! Else, I'll wait and see.

3) That's a toned down version of Celerity that lets you roll initiative, most likely.

4) Bah, a fancy-schmancy version of Mastery of Shaping that is situational and wisdom based

warmachine

2007-11-27, 06:00 PM

Does anybody know what a tier is?

Azerian Kelimon

2007-11-27, 06:04 PM

Jeeze, read the posts, pal!

mostlyharmful

2007-11-27, 06:19 PM

Action points? Ewwwwwwwwwwww

Quoted for truth.:smallyuk: :smallconfused: :smallannoyed: :smallfurious:

Lord Tataraus

2007-11-27, 06:28 PM

Quoted for truth.:smallyuk: :smallconfused: :smallannoyed: :smallfurious:

Action points do have their place in some games. I use them to a limited extent, not how Wizard's implements them. I give 2 action points and 1 "divine intervention" point at the start of the game. An action point lets you add a 1d6 to your roll (they actual value so you can change a roll of 17 into a nat 20) or lets you re-roll (d20 rolls only). Additionally, you can trade 5 action points for a divine intervention point. A divine intervention point is for extreme circumstances and you only get one (except for those you buy). I award action points for amazing feats and brilliant thinking/role-playing. I hardly give out 1 action point per player per session and they use them up faster than I give them out in most cases. This system allows for you to recover major screw ups and correct bad luck in dire circumstances but you don't get ungodly amounts of them.

However, the ridiculous scaling and of the dice you get from action points and the amount you get that's in normal D&D is just too much. I like heroic games, but not that heroic. And they should be a reward to replace RP XP (since I don't really use XP) and they way I implement action points makes them something to use only in emergencies, not to squander.

Orzel

2007-11-27, 06:36 PM

So it looks like the active powerful feats will be class and role powers and the weaker passive feats will get beefed up and lose their prereqs.

Hooray first level Whirlwind Attack??

daggaz

2007-11-27, 06:45 PM

I dont like action points because a) people always tend to forget they have them. They are like the dodge feat, only for dealing with the universe as a whole.

and b) because while I do not relish at the thought of "oh, you rolled a two, heres a new character sheet," I DO like to follow the dice for the most part. Thats why we have them, and thats why we roll in the open. Otherwise, why would people care about cheating? Action points are just way too much dice-fudgery-pooh-pooh... oohhh.. poor guy, didnt like your roll, hey, dont worry, just reroll it, nobody cares...

Artanis

2007-11-27, 07:41 PM

And how is Spring Attack in the same league as Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and Empower Spell?
It provides a new option in combat, which is what he's talking about. Whether or not said option is actually useful, or if so whether or not it's as useful as the others, is another discussion entirely :smalltongue:

Edit:

As for Action Points, I wonder what mechanism (if any) there will be for regaining them. I'd rather have a slightly-useful mechanism that you won't permanently run out of than a moderately-useful mechanism that you can only use X times per character.

Draz74

2007-11-27, 07:45 PM

So it looks like the active powerful feats will be class and role powers and the weaker passive feats will get beefed up and lose their prereqs.

Yeah, that was my thought. It appears interesting abilities are now being made into Talents, while useful but boring static abilities are Feats. I was hoping for the other way around, which would make things more like the Generic Classes system.

And what about Prerequisites? Did they just pick four feats that don't have any? Or did they just leave them out? Or is "Tier" the only kind of prerequisite that feats have anymore? That's a little scary ... though I guess it could work if all feats are generic, useful-to-everyone abilities like these four.

And how is Spring Attack in the same league as Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and Empower Spell?

Spring Attack is a fabulous feat, if you get rid of the subpar prerequisites and are playing without iterative attacks anyway! And 4E says it will have a lot more terrain effects or bonuses for moving around the area, which would make Spring Attack even more valuable.

Also, although I'm aware of how Action Points work, I've never used them in a game. Can anyone report on whether or not they like them and specifics as to why?

Dunno much about them myself -- never used 'em -- but I'm surprised that's the main thing people are focusing on in this article. Especially since they were announced as a Core part of 4E long ago. I don't find anything wrong with their implementation in this feat list, at least.

Severus

2007-11-27, 08:03 PM

Perception is a skill. About time they fixed that.

Glawackus

2007-11-27, 08:09 PM

Jack Zander

2007-11-27, 08:17 PM

I like action points for games like Star Wars and d20 Modern where healing is hard to do and reviving is impossible. Even then, I still only like them for passive defense (negating critical hits, falling to -11 and instead falling to -1) or for certain skills (heroic jump across the chasm, epic piloting through the exploding Death Star). They can be easily abused when used for offense though.

They simply don't belong in DnD. It's too easy to undo hazardous effects in that system. Even dying past level 9 isn't a big deal anymore, and if you die beforehand it was your own fault for not healing earlier (or maybe your DM sucks, but that's not a problem with the system).

Collin152

2007-11-27, 08:28 PM

I must concur. Action points should be optional, no lace.

Corlis

2007-11-27, 08:37 PM

Just to put an opposing voice out here, I rather like the idea of Action Points in D&D. Depending on how Wizards decides to adjust for them, it might in fact make it more realistic, because, as the players have a bit of a cushion against bad luck, they can now increase the rarity and cost of resurrection spells. After all, in books adventurers don't reach old age by being resurrected every other adventure, but by not dying in the first place. It also gives the players the ability to pull off stunts that are important to the plot without making them constantly available, which could result in abuse.

Khosan

2007-11-27, 08:46 PM

I find it interesting that they talk about measuring the wizard powers in "squares"...is this something common that I've somehow missed, or an alteration in 4.0? (I know the "Wizards wants people to use miniatures!" deal is always going around somewhere. :smalltongue:)

I think they mean for area of effect spells, so a Fireball doesn't have to nail your buddies, you can remove their location from the effect of the spell.

Dragonmuncher

2007-11-27, 08:59 PM

Not sure if anyone's talked about this in another post, but I find the interaction of feats and tiers (at least, how I'm guessing they interact from this article) very interesting.

It looks like feats will have a tier prerequisite. That's good for people who wanted Spring Attack, but didn't feel like wasting precious feats on dodge and mobility.

Grey Watcher

2007-11-27, 09:26 PM

This article gives me a less than warm and fuzzy feeling about 4th edition. I liked some of the fluff things I was seeing, but this feels like they're trying to force you to play the archetype. Stunts like Spring Attack or Two-Weapon Fighting are going to be off limits to characters without the right class? Any riding fancier than a dismount is going to be off-limits to everyone but Paladins? Nobody but Clerics can use a tourniquet?

One of the things I love about 3rd edition is that I can build the character I want to build. Whether it's something as iconic and classic as a sword and board Paladin or something as outlandish as a Minotaur Wizard who wields a Spiked Chain, I could find (or even invent, if need be) the right combination of classes, skills, and feats to make the concept playable. I'd be very sad indeed if 4th edition took away too much of that adaptability.

Maybe things aren't as bad as they look. Maybe multiclassing will be even easier under this system, allowing you to skip lower-level class abilities if you're multiclassing into a class. Maybe they intend to solve the problem with an endless stream of classes so that, no matter what wacky concept you've got, there's a class to match it.

:sigh: We shall see.

Crow

2007-11-27, 09:31 PM

I could find (or even invent, if need be) the right combination of classes, skills, and feats to make the concept playable.

I think this bears repeating. It is indeed one of things I love about 3e, and I think it's important that this not be lost in this (ultimately fruitless, wait and see) attempt to provide "niche protection", which is itself a dubious "feature". Our group doesn't have the players to fill the "four basic roles". Maybe nobody feels like playing a certain role. We can customize our characters to partially fill that gap by bleeding over into two "niches".

Overall for our group, it seems the more they lift the lid on this thing, the more it stinks.

tyckspoon

2007-11-27, 09:37 PM

Maybe things aren't as bad as they look. Maybe multiclassing will be even easier under this system, allowing you to skip lower-level class abilities if you're multiclassing into a class. Maybe they intend to solve the problem with an endless stream of classes so that, no matter what wacky concept you've got, there's a class to match it.

I read this on the 'big list of everything anybody has said about 4th Ed' thread at EnWorld, so I can't give a direct source, but this has been said to be one of the things they're working on. They want to make multiclassing properly functional- the 'Valley of Multi-ineffectiveness' was specifically mentioned, where you suck at two or three things at the same time because of your multiclassing. They want to get rid of that. It was implied that even if Spring Attack or Two-Weapon Fighting or some other power is actually unique to one or two classes, you could multiclass into that class at the appropriate level and cherry-pick the feature you wanted.

Fuzzy_Juan

2007-11-27, 10:54 PM

hmm...assuming the same number of feats available to a fighter in 3.5 is available to a human fighter in 4.0...by 4th level a human fighter has 3+1+1+1 feats...or 6...if all 6 are toughness and the fighter is 'das uber tank' with a +4 con mod (assuming 18 is still +4)...the fighter has between 71 and 98 HP (also assuming d10 HP)...

wow...neat...not alot of fancy moves, but how about that for taking on level 4 encounters...damn near unstoppable...a 4th level fighter with 18 con would normally have between 29 and 56 HP...might seem alot more awesome if you wouldn't take so damn long to get healed after taking alot of damage.

I wonder if the new class feats won't be more like WoW talents that augment normal class abilities in new and interesting ways.

Mewtarthio

2007-11-27, 11:01 PM

I'm pretty sure that HP will be completely different in 4e. Well, not completely different, but you couldn't easily compare the two editions. I think dragons have over a thousand hit points.

Draz74

2007-11-27, 11:03 PM

This article gives me a less than warm and fuzzy feeling about 4th edition. I liked some of the fluff things I was seeing, but this feels like they're trying to force you to play the archetype. Stunts like Spring Attack or Two-Weapon Fighting are going to be off limits to characters without the right class? Any riding fancier than a dismount is going to be off-limits to everyone but Paladins? Nobody but Clerics can use a tourniquet?

Yeah, I got worried about this as soon as they started announcing 4E classes, and this article sure didn't help.

Maybe things aren't as bad as they look. Maybe multiclassing will be even easier under this system, allowing you to skip lower-level class abilities if you're multiclassing into a class.

That's the reason I still have any hope. They do claim multiclassing is a lot smoother in 4E. Maybe it won't be a huge problem that Spring Attack is a class Talent for Rogues and Rangers only, as long as my Eladrin Fighter/Paladin who wants to get more use out of his racial mobility can take a 1-level dip in Ranger and pick up Spring Attack without the multiclassing hurting his usual progression too much.

... I still think I'll end up using a homebrewed Generic Classes system instead of Talent Trees, though.

Collin152

2007-11-27, 11:24 PM

I'm pretty sure that HP will be completely different in 4e. Well, not completely different, but you couldn't easily compare the two editions. I think dragons have over a thousand hit points.

Well, that either means many more dice per attack, a lot less randomness, or a lot longer battles.

Zincorium

2007-11-27, 11:33 PM

Actually, I kind of like it (as seems to be the case with an increasing portion of 4th ed).

Feats, to me, always seemed better as a backup for the existing concept than the focus of the character. Why would a fighter build off of improved trip, when that's really the overall goal?

All in all, it seems another example of customization (the advantage 3rd ed has over 2nd and 1st edition) combined with clearly defined party roles (which other than popularity is the only advantage D&D has retained). Wotc is playing to their strengths, and not only can I not blame them, I'm honestly looking forward to the result.

Kompera

2007-11-28, 12:19 AM

Action points seem to be similar to the system used by TORG, where the player would be awarded cards and "possibility energy" which could be applied as bonuses to certain actions such as attacks, skill checks, etc.

I very much liked that system, as the players would inevitably save most of their cards and possibility energy for when they counted most, such as fights with BBEG types. It made for some very epic encounters, and completely avoided the disappointment of rolling a poor saving throw or a poor hit number during an important fight, while still being a limited resource which must be managed carefully.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-28, 08:28 AM

I like it and obey my masters of D&D.

I think when I start my new game in a couple weeks I am going to make it "D&D 3.75" and include Action Points and as many 4e elements as I can to prep my players for the 4e switch.

Fixer

2007-11-28, 08:36 AM

Interesting...I don't like action points being core, but I guess I could house rule that. It looks like they fixed Toughness with a bit of a boost from Improved Toughness. I wounder what the Tiers mean and I find it interesting that Golden Wyvern Adept refers to wizard powers, possibly like psionics?
From what I have been able to derive (no source) powers are how everything will be working in 4th ed. Things like Fire Power will allow a character who can access it to throw fire from their hands, or fireballs, or flame strikes, or whatever based on their level. Wizards would have access, perhaps Fire-themed clerics, perhaps the Warlord? No matter what class uses the power, it still operates the same (KISS principle).

WTF? It's pretty easy to argue with the utility of Alertness et al. They all provide minor static bonuses which are marginally useful. And how is Spring Attack in the same league as Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and Empower Spell?
Apparently these are going to be class abilities (and likely choices from among a list of class abilities) and not feats.

That, or Green Wyvern(:smallyuk:) utilizes Wisdom. Maybe various wizard schools/orders focus on different stats.
That would be my hope as well. Give more versatility in your characters instead of always being able to say, "He's a wizard! He has to be smart!" Or, "I want to play a wizard, so I guess I have to play a high Int character.."

Tormsskull

2007-11-28, 08:55 AM

One of the things I love about 3rd edition is that I can build the character I want to build. Whether it's something as iconic and classic as a sword and board Paladin or something as outlandish as a Minotaur Wizard who wields a Spiked Chain, I could find (or even invent, if need be) the right combination of classes, skills, and feats to make the concept playable. I'd be very sad indeed if 4th edition took away too much of that adaptability.

I'm completely the opposite. I like the idea of archetypes. I like the idea that character creation is easy, straight-forward, and doesn't require you to look through pages and pages of options to find the best upgrades. I cringe everytime I read a stat block and see something like Fighter3/Rogue3/PrCA2/PrCB2/PrCC5.

I've always been of the mind that the fluff is what separate characters rather than having to have thousands of mechanical options that someone can pick to "customize" their character.

It will be interesting to see how 4e turns out but this article has definitely piqued my interest.

Grey Watcher

2007-11-28, 09:10 AM

I'm completely the opposite. I like the idea of archetypes. I like the idea that character creation is easy, straight-forward, and doesn't require you to look through pages and pages of options to find the best upgrades. I cringe everytime I read a stat block and see something like Fighter3/Rogue3/PrCA2/PrCB2/PrCC5.

I've always been of the mind that the fluff is what separate characters rather than having to have thousands of mechanical options that someone can pick to "customize" their character.

I actually do agree with you. I usually start with images or stories in my head for characters and find the mechanics to make that happen, not vice versa. And archetypes are a lot of fun to play with. I have a penchant for Paladins and Lawful Fighters, especially (not sure why).

And yes, I like simple builds better than complex ones. I like to use as few classes as possible to get where I'm going. (Rogue/Assassin is fine for me, I don't need Rogue 4/Fighter 1/Assassin 4/Invisible Blade 3/Daggerspell Mage 1/Bladesinger 2/Duelist 3/Shadowdancer 1.)

I just like having the ability to choose the mechanics that I think will best support what I want to play, rather than being told, "Sorry, you're a fighter, so you can't use any magic at all, ever."

Aleksendr

2007-11-28, 09:17 AM

This really start to looks like we are about to play World of warcraft around a table.

Dausuul

2007-11-28, 09:25 AM

Green Bean

2007-11-28, 09:30 AM

This really start to looks like we are about to play World of warcraft around a table.

Okay, I'll bite. How does a feat list make a game look more like World of Warcraft? :smallconfused:

Zherog

2007-11-28, 09:32 AM

This really start to looks like we are about to play World of warcraft around a table.

I thought that a long time ago, shortly after they announced 4e. *shrug*

Raewyn

2007-11-28, 09:33 AM

This really start to looks like we are about to play World of warcraft around a table.
You mean like this (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20050207)? :smallwink:

Sorry for the brief derail. As you all were.

Dausuul

2007-11-28, 09:36 AM

Okay, I'll bite. How does a feat list make a game look more like World of Warcraft? :smallconfused:

Because everything 4E looks like WoW, by definition. What, you hadn't realized that yet?

Roderick_BR

2007-11-28, 09:51 AM

I don't see where people is taking the "forcing archetypes" thing. If anything, these feats sounds like the "feat fixes" we have here.
Take Alertness for example. Instead of a simple +2 to listen/spot, it also prevents being flatfooted (at least for action purposes, I guess). It's not unlike, for example, Improved Bullrush, that in 3.0, just allowed you to bull rush without attacks of opportunity, and the greater version gave you a +4 to rolls, and in 3.5 these were combined into one single feat (bull rush without attacks of opportunity AND +4 to rolls. no greater version).

Duke of URL

2007-11-28, 09:52 AM

Would it be cynical for me to say that by making most "feats" be part of class packages, that they basically give themselves the ability to crank out unlimited class variants in supplemental releases by essentially hard-coding specific character builds from the more flexible feat system in 3.x?

Darrin

2007-11-28, 10:04 AM

Also, although I'm aware of how Action Points work, I've never used them in a game. Can anyone report on whether or not they like them and specifics as to why?

Action Points are, in general, a Good Thing. Many older/veteran GMs are leery, suspicious, or outright incensed at the idea, but with a few caveats, they add a lot of positives to the game. They do put more control in the hands of the players, which means there's a bit of power creep in what sort of CR the PCs can handle. As a Karma mechanic, they can make the game more cinematic, but my advice to suspicious GMs would be: get over it, it just another type of mechanic. RPG rules systems continue to evolve, and almost all games actively being developed and supported now include some type of Karma mechanic.

The three most common uses for Action Points:

1) Add 1d6 to a d20 check. Or as we like to call it, "Spend an Action Point and STILL FAIL". Powergamers generally avoid this one because only rarely do the benefits outweigh the risks.
2) Emulate a feat for 1 round. Much more useful, since the player has a lot more control over whether spending the Action Point will be beneficial. When a player gets cornered in a life-or-death situation, you can see a lot of creativity come out of this option. It also makes some of the worst feats in the game actually useful... for example, smart players would never, ever waste a feat on taking Great Cleave because you almost never get a chance to use it. But that one time you're actually surrounded by 8 goblins... spending an Action Point means you get "...And I Was Wearing Sunglasses" levels of Coolness.
FIRST CAVEAT: Watch out for Metamagic or Sudden Metamatic feats. If you think DMM is bad, Action Points are just as bad and available to EVERY CASTER.
3) Spell Recall - Prepared casters can spend an Action Point to instantly recall a spell they just cast. Spontaneous casters can spend an Action Point to just cast another spell they know without counting against their daily slots. This is the SECOND, and BIGGEST CAVEAT: if you have optimized spellcasters threatening to break the game, this will allow them to break it eleventy-nine times faster.

You can also use Action Points to activate "per day" class abilities (turning, smite, Stunning Fist) or improve feats you currently have. For example, you can get an extra multiplier on Power Attack... which might seem broken up until your Ubercharger finds himself taking the Permanent Dirt Nap after a multiple Maximized Shivering Touches or Twin Ray Enervations.

So, in general, Action Points give the fighter/skillmonkey types more options and better survivability. In the hands of a spellcaster, though, it can be a faster, shinier, more powerful "I Win and You Must Polish My Dice In Order to Bask In the Warm Glow of My Ultimate Coolness" button.

If you're still leery about them, UA has some advice on how to use them, either by changing how they are given out, or treating them as one-shot magic items with a GP value and adjusting treasure/CRs accordingly.

I have no idea how they will work in 4E. Hopefully they'll address the Metamagic/Spell Recall issues.

Craig1f

2007-11-28, 10:26 AM

Fighter3/Rogue3/PrCA2/PrCB2/PrCC5.

After reading that, all I could think was "fighter level 3 is dumb level, thog not take."

Kurald Galain

2007-11-28, 11:06 AM

Is anyone else annoyed by the inclusion of a feat named for one of those wizardly traditions everyone got so upset about?

Yes. No mixing crunch and fluff, please.

Possibly a good point for the SRD will be that it will omit these annoying stupid names as so-called product identity, and instead use an actual descriptor.

Regarding "action points" (although I don't really like the name), I've long been surprised that D&D lacks an "emergency boost" mechanic (like White Wolf's willpower, that lets you get extra successes when you really need them) so I think this would be a good mechanic. In principle. As long as there aren't dozens things you can actually do with those.

KIDS

2007-11-28, 11:13 AM

gaymer_seattle

2007-11-28, 11:24 AM

Also, although I'm aware of how Action Points work, I've never used them in a game. Can anyone report on whether or not they like them and specifics as to why?

I do like them. Though it seems as though I might be in the minority on that. Honestly I prefer them as a DM than as a Player. I set my encounter bar pretty high. Not high enough to ensure a TPK, but high enough that the party could fail in a task if they are not cohesive and focused.

Action points allow them to stablize automatically at negative HP (always a plus in my book regardless of your side of the DM screen)

They allow a PC to pull out of a potential blunder.

And since they theoretically require some sort of narrative to describe heroic action when the player uses them, I think it just ads to the over all story and ROLE PLAYING EXPERIENCE.

Sorry, I have a major beef with "builds" and "optimizing"

At any rate, in the next game I run I'm going to house rule Action Points as being considered natural 20s. If and only if, the player is able to describe how their character is behaving differently than they normally would, showing the reward of risk and creativity

versus

"I attack is with my longsword, and my slay-everything-because-I-spent-four -hours-crossing-referencing-splat-books feat which means I only miss on a 1 or a 2 and do between 1 kabillion and 1.1 kabillion points of damage

Dausuul

2007-11-28, 11:25 AM

Yes. No mixing crunch and fluff, please.

Possibly a good point for the SRD will be that it will omit these annoying stupid names as so-called product identity, and instead use an actual descriptor.

The curious thing is that in a lot of games, I'd be perfectly happy to have stuff like that. Mixing crunch and fluff can often be quite beneficial. However, those are games built for a specific setting, in which the setting is one of the major selling points (indeed, in some cases, the setting is in fact the only selling point--see Rifts). D&D is supposed to accommodate a variety of settings, especially homebrew ones.

Morty

2007-11-28, 11:32 AM

There's also the fact that names of these schools are so incredibly stupid.
But really, those names are bad enough for themselves, but naming feats after them is even worse. After all, one of things that make D&D good is that it can be played in variety of settings. Now they'll have to rename feats in various settings or have the same Green Wyvern school in Eberron, Forgotten Realms and other settings.
Also, concerning wizard's "powers": I fear it may mean that wizards won't have spells anymore, but rather class features that work like spells, as other classes' abilities are also called "powers".

Starbuck_II

2007-11-28, 12:05 PM

As long as they don't have dumb restrictions (particularly monk and bard lawful ones), I'm going to enjoy it. These feats previewed sound satisfactory at least.

@Grey Watcher: creating your character starting from personality does not guarantee your character will be better roleplayed than the character who started with "that cool feat".

They already said alignment is less constricting in 4 E. So you can have Lawful Bards.
Heck, Paladins are now Divine Champions as they are still called paladins if they follow Asmodius (an evil diety).

Kurald Galain

2007-11-28, 12:13 PM

There's also the fact that names of these schools are so incredibly stupid.

Precisely.

Say, given that "nothing is fixed until the book is printed", isn't there some kind of petition somewhere that we can use to encourage WOTC to withdraw this nonsensical naming?

Artanis

2007-11-28, 01:09 PM

tyckspoon

2007-11-28, 01:15 PM

Precisely.

Say, given that "nothing is fixed until the book is printed", isn't there some kind of petition somewhere that we can use to encourage WOTC to withdraw this nonsensical naming?

Probably, but I doubt it would help anything. As fluff inside crunch goes, it's just the name; there's no 'Be a Golden Wyvern mage' in the prerequisites line (and no prerequisites line at all besides the tier, apparently) or any mention of the silly tradition name in the mechanics of the feat.

Draz74

2007-11-28, 01:30 PM

Probably, but I doubt it would help anything. As fluff inside crunch goes, it's just the name; there's no 'Be a Golden Wyvern mage' in the prerequisites line (and no prerequisites line at all besides the tier, apparently) or any mention of the silly tradition name in the mechanics of the feat.

Yeah, this actually gave me hope that the silly wizarding traditions won't ruin the wizards' crunch or make them too setting-specific. If the "wizarding traditions" are really just nicknames for Feats and Talent Trees that tend to go well together, that's fine with me. It means they really can be removed from the fluff of the game without changing the mechanics.

After this article, what I'm thinking is that you'll be able to describe your wizard quickly by saying, "He's a golden wyvern wizard." In-character, the wizard may not even think of himself as "a golden wyvern" type, but OOC, this is like being able to say, "He's a fighter who concentrates on the Power Attack feat tree." There should be some reason that a lot of wizards actually will take strings of abilities that are in the same "tradition;" for example, if all of the Golden Wyvern abilities are keyed off your Wisdom modifier.

Sleet

2007-11-28, 01:35 PM

Action Points are, in general, a Good Thing. Many older/veteran GMs are leery, suspicious, or outright incensed at the idea, but with a few caveats, they add a lot of positives to the game.

*raises hand* Here's one crusty old GM who loves them and has been using them in one form or another for years.

SmartAlec

2007-11-28, 01:38 PM

Sounds like the recent D20 Star Wars: Saga Edition rules.

Excellent. That's a damn fun system.

CabbageTheif

2007-11-28, 01:48 PM

So, it seems that Wizards is encouraging archetypes. I hope I will still be able to play my Dwarven Wizard or Half-Orc Sorcerer.

from what i have seen about races, it seems to be going back to the 2nd edition idea: you can mix any race with any class, but the dwarven rogue is going to be awful at lock-picking, but decent at seeing in the darkness and good at explosives. in other words, some races are going to be ideal for some classes, and some races are going to be naturally bad for some classes, but you can still do it, and compensate in some manner.

SpikeFightwicky

2007-11-28, 01:58 PM

from what i have seen about races, it seems to be going back to the 2nd edition idea: you can mix any race with any class, but the dwarven rogue is going to be awful at lock-picking, but decent at seeing in the darkness and good at explosives. in other words, some races are going to be ideal for some classes, and some races are going to be naturally bad for some classes, but you can still do it, and compensate in some manner.

Back in 2nd ed., there were alot of classes that weren't allowed for certain races. Like only humans could be paladins, and dwarves could not be mages and I believe only humans and half-elves could be druids. Made it downright impossible to mix classes and races for some combinations.

Kyeudo

2007-11-28, 02:12 PM

Yeah, this actually gave me hope that the silly wizarding traditions won't ruin the wizards' crunch or make them too setting-specific. If the "wizarding traditions" are really just nicknames for Feats and Talent Trees that tend to go well together, that's fine with me. It means they really can be removed from the fluff of the game without changing the mechanics.

After this article, what I'm thinking is that you'll be able to describe your wizard quickly by saying, "He's a golden wyvern wizard." In-character, the wizard may not even think of himself as "a golden wyvern" type, but OOC, this is like being able to say, "He's a fighter who concentrates on the Power Attack feat tree." There should be some reason that a lot of wizards actually will take strings of abilities that are in the same "tradition;" for example, if all of the Golden Wyvern abilities are keyed off your Wisdom modifier.

This is fairly true. When asked what kind of wizard I am going to be playing, I can say "Necromancer", "Blaster", "Gish", "Summoner", or even "Batman" and people immediately know what I can do in general.

I hope "Golden Wyvern" works out like this.

Dausuul

2007-11-28, 02:17 PM

This is fairly true. When asked what kind of wizard I am going to be playing, I can say "Necromancer", "Blaster", "Gish", "Summoner", or even "Batman" and people immediately know what I can do in general.

I hope "Golden Wyvern" works out like this.

Necromancers use necromancy. Blasters blast things. Summoners summon things. "Gish" and "Batman" are slang terms not found in the rulebooks (well, "Gish" is technically in the rulebooks, but not as a synonym for "general fighter/caster").

Unless Golden Wyvern wizards specialize in summoning golden wyverns, it's not really the same.

Draz74

2007-11-28, 02:26 PM

Necromancers use necromancy. Blasters blast things. Summoners summon things. "Gish" and "Batman" are slang terms not found in the rulebooks (well, "Gish" is technically in the rulebooks, but not as a synonym for "general fighter/caster").

Unless Golden Wyvern wizards specialize in summoning golden wyverns, it's not really the same.

So pretend it's another slang term. Only everyone will understand it whether they frequent online forums or not.

Kurald Galain

2007-11-28, 02:52 PM

Unless Golden Wyvern wizards specialize in summoning golden wyverns, it's not really the same.

Yes, that's pretty much the point. This will breed a new generation of people who feel that every world should have an Order of the Golden Wyvern, or something silly like that. It fits well into WOTC's strategy of "let's discourage people from actually inventing their own stuff".

Draz74

2007-11-28, 03:06 PM

Yes, that's pretty much the point. This will breed a new generation of people who feel that every world should have an Order of the Golden Wyvern, or something silly like that. It fits well into WOTC's strategy of "let's discourage people from actually inventing their own stuff".

... I dunno. I haven't noticed too many settings where there's an actual Assassins' Cabal for people with the Assassin PrC (a Greyhawk thing, which explains why "assassins" have their own form of spellcasting). Nor an actual league of Eldritch Knights or Horizon Walkers, even though those classes' fluff text implies that such organizations should exist.

Indon

2007-11-28, 03:09 PM

Is anyone else annoyed by the inclusion of a feat named for one of those wizardly traditions everyone got so upset about? I was under the impression that wizardly traditions in 4E would be like deities in 3.5E--essentially modular, with a default list provided in the PHB but very easy to construct your own out of the box if you don't like the standard flavor. But if they're attaching tradition names to feats, that's evidently not the case. It's like having a 3.5E Core feat called "Pelorian Healer."

Or a class called something like "Glowing Champion of Pelor", even. :smalltongue:

But no, I'm not afraid of that. Aside from the note that there actually are no requisites that would seem to imply a Wizard must be a "Golden Wyvern" or whatever, worse comes to worse it can just be reflavored and tweaked for any custom campaign, just like certain prestige classes are reflavored and tweaked in 3.5 games right now.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-28, 03:20 PM

SpikeFightwicky

2007-11-28, 03:36 PM

Attention people complaining about the whole 'Golden Wyvern' name:

You have won me over to your side. It is just flat out dumb and stupid to apply such a completely and utterly unique name like that to a Core feat.

Everyone knows that Wyverns exist in ONLY the Eberron setting and ONLY in the Eberron setting is Gold valuable. Thus it is categorically impossible that in an infinite number of D&D universes, people might name a feat with an important sounding prefix attached to an intimidating monster name. In fact, I think Eberron is the only known universe which names things like that. :mitd:

I hear tell that in Eberron, there are also monsters called 'Touch of Golden Ice', Eberron being the only known universe that has both gold AND ice. Then again, it's a monk style feat, and from what I can tell, no universes have monks in them. They, as a class, died out ages ago

Morty

2007-11-28, 03:40 PM

Attention people complaining about the whole 'Golden Wyvern' name:

You have won me over to your side. It is just flat out dumb and stupid to apply such a completely and utterly unique name like that to a Core feat.

Everyone knows that Wyverns exist in ONLY the Eberron setting and ONLY in the Eberron setting is Gold valuable. Thus it is categorically impossible that in an infinite number of D&D universes, people might name a feat with an important sounding prefix attached to an intimidating monster name. In fact, I think Eberron is the only known universe which names things like that. :mitd:

So? What is your point? Yes, wyverns and gold exist on all settings. Yes, it is theoretically possible that on three different settings wizards would think of the exact same name. This doesn't mean that applying unique name to a core feat is any less stupid.

Artanis

2007-11-28, 03:59 PM

Morty

2007-11-28, 04:01 PM

Crow

2007-11-28, 04:05 PM

Ok, I have to ask...

The complaints about the "Golden Wyvern" thing, are you guys complaining about the name itself (i.e. "Golden Wyvern" sounds stupid) or about the fact that it was given a non-generic name, regardless of what said name is?

It's more that the name is so specific, that you can't really get an idea of what it means. Instead of something like "Necromancy", where you get an idea of what it means, it gets a fluffy name that doesn't make much sense outside of the system or core campaign setting.

That and it sounds ridiculous.

That was my main problem with ToB as well. I know I can change the names if I want to, but I shouldn't have to.

clericwithnogod

2007-11-28, 04:09 PM

I'll jump in on the side that dislikes it both because it is non-generic and stupid.

But, this isn't going to be the worst of it. There was an article or post by someone at WOTC talking about how the new fighter design was going to allow them to have someone sit in the office and think about ways the weapon might be used or something to that effect.

That's guaranteed to come up with crap like a power tree of Surtr's Big Balls, Surtr's Burning Balls, Surtr's Bouncing Balls and Surtr's Itchy Balls for the dire flail.

Dausuul

2007-11-28, 04:16 PM

I don't know about others, but in my case it's both.

Same here. I object to the inclusion of highly setting-specific fluff in the name of a Core mechanic. I also object to the particular name in question.

If you want to put such feats in world-specific sourcebooks--fine by me. That's where they belong, and if I don't like that world's fluff, I won't run games in that world. But having it in the core rules means that I am more or less stuck with that fluff unless I a) browbeat my players to use a different name and remember to "translate" every time they look up that feat, or b) ban the feat outright.

Either way, I'm making up yet another house rule over something that shouldn't be an issue. A certain amount of house ruling is inevitable in D&D, but you only have so much "cognitive space" to house-rule in before your players start to lose track of all your tweaks, and it annoys me to have to waste that space stripping out WotC's in-house setting details from the ruleset.

Aleksendr

2007-11-28, 04:42 PM

Somebloke

2007-11-28, 04:48 PM

Personally I love using Action Points. I use them a lot in my homebrew- my current one more or less relies on them for treasure and certain feats can only be used with them. I think it is a great way to give players resources while cutting back on the small libraries/bar fridges of scrolls and potions that have become the mainstay of earlier editions. It also manages to tap into the idea of magic or destiny as a low-key, near invisible force- magic as mysterious.

Artanis

2007-11-28, 05:00 PM

So, Lets see if I understand 4th ed so far…

1 – Level is part of nearly all game mechanism (Kind of like World of warcraft…)
2 – Tier approach to power, like World of warcraft tier gear. (See the thread here?)
3- Powers for wizards. Not spell – Powers. Is spell casting a power? Not sure. I know that all class in wow receive powers, different powers with cool down time, which mean it would be like the per round and per encounter type of power we already know about.
1) What do you mean by this? Level is already an important part in 3rd edition...hell, it may even be more important, since they've said that 4th is doing away (in part or in whole) with "1d6 per level" -type stuff.

2) If you're going to compare it to WoW, the impression I got was that it'd be closer to "1-39", "40-69", and "70" than to the epic tier gear. 1-39 you don't have most of the class's powers or even a mount. 40-69 the classes really come into their own. 70 you're fighting the biggest, baddest enemies the game has to offer.

3) Wizards still cast spells. From what I gather, "powers" is just a generic term for "stuff the class does". Spells, maneuvers, skill tricks, etc. all described as "powers" just for the sake of brevity.

Dausuul

2007-11-28, 05:10 PM

I can already see it.

4th ed will be simple. Efficient and clear design. Free of loopholes, optimisation and individuality. Customization will be purely cosmetics as every class will receive a set amount of power. Clear cut classes and party roles: Blaster, tank, healbot and Battlefield control. Ideal balance at every level enforced by rigid class progression.

A shiny, smooth, simple future where everything is easy to understand and do. Like a slot machine. Insert coin, pull handle and receive cookies. Instant gratification without exertion.

A perfect world…

You know, take out the bit about balance and you've got 2E in a nutshell. Anyway, what's all this about rigid class progression? They've specifically said that they're trying to make multiclassing work better, and provide more options within the classes themselves.

SpikeFightwicky

2007-11-28, 05:12 PM

1 – Level is part of nearly all game mechanism (Kind of like World of warcraft…)

How is that different than 3.X? Other than equipment, I'd say every mechanic is level dependant on some level.

2 – Tier approach to power, like World of warcraft tier gear. (See the thread here?)

I don't see the relation... For all we know, it might something simple like: You can only take a Paragon feat if you're level 10 and have 2 heroic feats. Is that how WoW tier gear works (once you reach a certain level, you're granted free gear)?

3- Powers for wizards. Not spell – Powers. Is spell casting a power? Not sure. I know that all class in wow receive powers, different powers with cool down time, which mean it would be like the per round and per encounter type of power we already know about.

The terminology in WoW is 'Skills', not powers, so that they can refer to class 'abilities' with an umbrella term. With the information we have, assuming that wizards will no longer cast spells is a bit of a stretch.

As for action points, do they play off that badly in Eberron? I haven't played much Eberron, but the action point system never seemed like a terrible mechanic.

mshady

2007-11-28, 05:57 PM

Reminds me a bit of 2nd edition, before feats, where alot of benefits were part of the class to begin with. Obviously this is alot better method of doing it all, but its a bit "back to the future" too.

But hey, I always liked 2E...

MShady

SmartAlec

2007-11-28, 06:42 PM

Most of the games I've seen that used an 'action point' system, or a similar mechanic, like Star Wars: Saga Edition, or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, or D20 Modern, or Lord of the Rings, or Serenity, etc etc, they all tended to have things in common; a de-emphasis on equipment, or a continual sense of PC vulnerability. The action point system compensated for that. I'll agree that an action point system would be needless for DND 3.5e, as combined with the many rules involving magical buffs, magic items and such, it would be mostly unnecessary. But if buffs and magical weapons are going to become rarer or less important in 4th ed, an action point system would probably be welcome, please.

Neon Knight

2007-11-28, 07:31 PM

2 – Tier approach to power, like World of warcraft tier gear. (See the thread here?)

Actually, WoW's gear tiers measure rarity, not power. The most rare weapons are the most powerful, of course, but you can find a "blue" tier gear at level 5 and level 55. Blue merely means uncommon.

Nattypat

2007-11-28, 09:33 PM

Wizards has told us that multiclassing will be easier, so why are people predicting that the class progression is, "rigid?" Its not like they're just saying things for no reason.

Also, I think that many classes will share similar class features, (the ones that are feats in 3.5). For example, clerics and druids both cast divine spells, so share some spells, (such as cure X wounds or flamestrike). Rogues and Fighters draw from the martial power source, so will share class capabilities. This will most likely be the case in all, um... cases.

....

2007-11-28, 10:46 PM

They should nix Action Points and use something like Stunts in Exalted.

Shatteredtower

2007-11-28, 11:01 PM

Same here. I object to the inclusion of highly setting-specific fluff in the name of a Core mechanic.Why? What's so threatening about allowing a game designer some literary creativity? Why the need to restrict them to code monkey status?

I also object to the particular name in question.Again, why? I'd really like to hear a meaningful reason for once, rather than the generic-substitute-for-argument that it's "stupid". When it comes to setting-building, we're a bunch of glorified writers of fan-fic by committee, with a roulette wheel and a specialized library as crutches, so it seems a rather silly gripe.

Ryuuk

2007-11-28, 11:01 PM

Kyeudo

2007-11-28, 11:06 PM

Just out of curiosity, are the action points found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm) the same as the ones in Eberron? Did they keep the Spell Power and Spell recall features?

Eberron action points are less powerful, containing only the "reuse class feature", "augment a d20 roll", and "automaticaly stabilize" abilities by default. I like them that way though. Less spellcaster abuse potential.

Crow

2007-11-28, 11:15 PM

Why? What's so threatening about allowing a game designer some literary creativity? Why the need to restrict them to code monkey status?

Again, why? I'd really like to hear a meaningful reason for once, rather than the generic-substitute-for-argument that it's "stupid". When it comes to setting-building, we're a bunch of glorified writers of fan-fic by committee, with a roulette wheel and a specialized library as crutches, so it seems a rather silly gripe.

Because they are designing a game in which it is well-known (even to the designers), and I'll even say expected that some DM's and Players are going to be homebrewing.

While the "Golden Wyvern" school of spellcasting may sound cool in Eberron or Forgotten Realms, it's going to sound ridiculous in my world, and probably sound just as ridiculous in the world of many of the other DM's like myself that dislike these names.

Like I said before, this is the same big problem I have with ToB. Sure, I could go through and rename everything, but why should I have to do this when something could just as easily be given a name that doesn't sound quite as "kung-fu movie". The names just sound silly. Would you want to play a game of D&D where the classes were all named for characters in the Harry Potter novels? Or would you rather they gave the classes names that were a bit more flexible?

SmartAlec

2007-11-28, 11:20 PM

Sure, I could go through and rename everything, but why should I have to do this

Why don't you anyway? You said you were homebrewing.

Seriously, I don't see how it is that someone who's gone to the trouble of creating their own world and setting would baulk at the names of a few Feats.

Are you saying that if the feat was just called something like "Spellcasting Discipline: Attack", you wouldn't attribute some funky name to it to fit in with your campaign world? You'd just leave it as-is?

Crow

2007-11-28, 11:26 PM

Why don't you anyway? You said you were homebrewing.

Seriously, I don't see how it is that someone who's gone to the trouble of creating their own world and setting would baulk at the names of a few Feats.

Because there are a lot of feats. I don't want to need to make a translation dictionary for my players just in case we need to look something up. If I wanted to that, I may as well go the whole way and build my own system from scratch. We still want to play D&D, we just prefer to play in our own world, rather than those released by the company. Not everybody likes the flavor of Forgotten Realms or Eberron, so they don't play in them.

I'm not saying anything about the feats themselves, just pointing out (in response to another poster) why some people would be opposed to the names they have decided to use.

SmartAlec

2007-11-28, 11:41 PM

I just can't help but feel you're severely overstating the immersion-breaking potential of a few oddly-named feats written on the wizard player's character sheet.

The things that would make this very simple:

- a small list of the magical disciplines and their renamed equivalents, on a piece of paper, in the DM's notes.

- where it would say "Golden Wyvern Spellcasting" on the Wizard player's character sheet, have him instead write "[Equivalent Name] Spellcasting - see Golden Wyvern"

Players should be able to keep track of the feats they've taken, even in the face of a little renaming. They'll be using these feats pretty often, after all.

Shatteredtower

2007-11-28, 11:51 PM

While the "Golden Wyvern" school of spellcasting may sound cool in Eberron or Forgotten Realms, it's going to sound ridiculous in my world, and probably sound just as ridiculous in the world of many of the other DM's like myself that dislike these names.How exactly does it sound ridiculous? Does your world feature an absence of poetry or do you hear "kung-fu movie" even when the influence could as easily be Greek, Finnish, or Inuit?

You don't have to rename anything. In game, your PCs hopefully aren't referring to their Improved Initiative -- not by that name, at least. Robilar's Gambit doesn't have to be acknowledged as a special technique any more than Power Attack.

In chess, we've got opening systems with names like the Frankenstein-Dracula Variation and the Fried Liver Attack -- not that you need to know or acknowledge the names to play either of them. It will help you look up the theory, sure, but that's as far as it needs to go. In D&D, a feat only has to be named to make it possible to look it up. It doesn't have to describe exactly what it does -- this is fantasy (and perhaps art), not science or medicine.

Grey Watcher

2007-11-29, 12:04 AM

@Grey Watcher: creating your character starting from personality does not guarantee your character will be better roleplayed than the character who started with "that cool feat".

That's not what I meant by that. Just that, for me, using multiclass isn't about stacking on the bonuses as much as possible, it's just about using whatever resources I want to get at the character idea I want, which doesn't always fit neatly into a single-classed character. Whether or not they're roleplayed well is something I'll find out when I can actually find an online game that doesn't collapse after two weeks. :smallfrown:

Skjaldbakka

2007-11-29, 01:07 AM

It's more that the name is so specific, that you can't really get an idea of what it means. Instead of something like "Necromancy", where you get an idea of what it means, it gets a fluffy name that doesn't make much sense outside of the system or core campaign setting.

Which makes "Golden Wyvern" exactly the same as "Gish."

Gish is a generic term for "fighter/magic-user" now, but it has setting specific origins.

Leon

2007-11-29, 03:34 AM

from what i have seen about races, it seems to be going back to the 2nd edition idea: you can mix any race with any class, but the dwarven rogue is going to be awful at lock-picking,.

Err, not by Standard 2nd Ed rules - your choice was very limited by your race (our DM is more flexible to what goes on in his campagin)

Dunno about your Dwarven rogue, ours has a 95% chance to open any lock short of magicly barred ones

Tiered Feats are Akin to WoW Talents - you can only take this feat after your X level and have X points in the prerequisite

Skjaldbakka

2007-11-29, 03:50 AM

Tiered Feats are Akin to WoW Talents - you can only take this feat after your X level and have X points in the prerequisite

Really? I was unaware that WotC had released the details of this upcoming product. Please, if you know where we can find the specific details of the new feat system, by all means enlighten us.

. . .

. . .

.

Leon

2007-11-29, 04:23 AM

I don't see the relation... For all we know, it might something simple like: You can only take a Paragon feat if you're level 10 and have 2 heroic feats. Is that how WoW tier gear works (once you reach a certain level, you're granted free gear)?

That is what i was refering to, its more akin to how Wow Talents work than how the item system does

Kurald Galain

2007-11-29, 05:59 AM

I just can't help but feel you're severely overstating the immersion-breaking potential of a few oddly-named feats written on the wizard player's character sheet.

It still makes it a net negative. WOTC has no actual benefit in using those names.

Plus, Oberoni fallacy. "You can fix it with house rules" is not an argument against perceived problems in the rulebook.

Azerian Kelimon

2007-11-29, 06:24 AM

While I understand the the point Crow is trying to make, I personally find it rediculous. I sincerely doubt you rename "Leomund's X", or Robilar's gambit, or the like. However, in most homebrew worlds, Robilar never walked the earth, nor did Leomund. I expect some player could say he/she wants those spells/feats that have the name of a Greyhawk character on them. Would you nerf their idea on how to build the character because "nah, I don't wanna rename it"? Would you stop using the PHB because it has "setting specific" parts?

Kurald Galain

2007-11-29, 06:37 AM

I sincerely doubt you rename "Leomund's X"

Actually, everybody who plays from the SRD does that.

Also, I know many players who either just cast "Acid Arrow" out of laziness, or substitute their own name for Melf's. See any melves around here? I thought not - hence this is Fraelinom's Acid Arrow.

Azerian Kelimon

2007-11-29, 06:43 AM

Hmm. The SRD is a good point. But it means that, if someone does the dirty work for you, you'd use it, but not if YOU have to go and change it? Pfft.

As for the other thing about many players. How many, in comparison, DON'T change it? I'd say more. Would you tell them "No, you can't pick that spells because it's setting specific and I don't want to rename it"?

Kurald Galain

2007-11-29, 06:51 AM

Hmm. The SRD is a good point. But it means that, if someone does the dirty work for you, you'd use it, but not if YOU have to go and change it? Pfft.

Several people are simply, at a point where WOTC is still actively seeking and listening to feedback, giving the feedback that they don't like these feat names.

Azerian Kelimon

2007-11-29, 06:57 AM

Which is a good thing, actually. What I dislike is the people saying "I'm refusing to use this on the principle that it sounds stupid". Heck, I found golden wyvern as a name stupid too. But this wouldn't stop me from giving it a look, and if a player asked me "hey, can I take Golden Wyvern?" I wouldn't refuse them just because I didn't like the name.

Going back to the article, could it be possible that, seeing D&D will have an Epic tier Epic thingies will finally be balanced?

NAAAAAAH.

Roderick_BR

2007-11-29, 07:09 AM

Why are people comparing the tiers to WoW? It was made first in D&D!

Weapon specialization. Requisites: Fighter level 4th
Craft magic arms and armor: Requisites: Caster level 5
Improved Critical: Requisites: Base attack bonus +8 (minimum 8th level)
Epic weapon focus: Requisites: Being epic level (level 21+)

Epic level was already a "tier". They just put the mid levels as a new tier. Most of the time it has been there all time along. Where is it "becoming like Wow"? Seriously, show me.

And this one gets the cake: "Level is part of nearly all game mechanism (Kind of like World of warcraft…)". Tell me you are joking, please. Since when are levels NOT part of game mechanism in D&D, since 1st edition?

And the game seems to be giving TONS of options for powers, abilities, class features, whatever you want to call it. Where is the characters become "generic"?

You want generic? Try 1st or 2nd edition. Fighter Bob uses a sword, and fighter Jack uses an axe. Mechanically, both are the same, maybe with some different abilities (although there's minimum difference between a Str score of 15 and 17).

And about specific names... Mordencainer's Disjunction, Eward's Black Tentacles, Bigby's Crushing Hand anyone? :smalltongue:

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 07:27 AM

Bah, you are going for 3.X comparisons to WoW. How about 1st Edition D&D? At 9th level was your "name" level when you got Followers and all that jazz. That was pretty "tiered".

I do really appreciate the arguements by the people who dislikethe Gold Wyvern name, I mean really you have made a pretty strong case against it. After all "I don't like it" is a fairly balanced and logical answer. Totally not irrational or anything.

Would you prefer that all feats followed a naming convention like this:

Generic Combat Feat 001
Generic Combat Feat 002
Generic Skill Feat 001
Generic Magic Feat 001

?

Is that what you want?

Oh no, wait, then you would just be whining anyway. Then the arguement would be "B-b-but I have to rename all the feats!!!!111" Or "OMG how unoriginal can they get!!111"

Of course, if they named the feats something totally arbitrary and without any description, like say instead of Golden Wyvern Adept it was named... "Master of Shaping" or "Spell Shaping" or some such, we would hear just as many complaints. "What a boring and generic name" "How lame. It's so dry." "I knew WotC would mess this up!" The last comment is of course the real heart of it. How many of you who think Gold Wyvern Adept is "stupid" either: Oppose 4e anyway, "knew" that 4e would suck, hate Eberron or hate WotC? I'd like to see the comparison stats on that. :smallwink:

Khanderas

2007-11-29, 07:30 AM

You don't have to copy the article, Lord Tataraus. People that don't have an account can simply view it by clicking on the Print Friendly button.

So, it seems that Wizards is encouraging archetypes. I hope I will still be able to play my Dwarven Wizard or Half-Orc Sorcerer.
I liked it. My workplace comp blocks WOTC page. I wish more would do what he did.

Morty

2007-11-29, 08:48 AM

I do really appreciate the arguements by the people who dislikethe Gold Wyvern name, I mean really you have made a pretty strong case against it. After all "I don't like it" is a fairly balanced and logical answer. Totally not irrational or anything.

How is "I don't like it" irrational? You don't agree with it, so it's irrational? People have given clear answer as to why they don't like it.

Would you prefer that all feats followed a naming convention like this:

Generic Combat Feat 001
Generic Combat Feat 002
Generic Skill Feat 001
Generic Magic Feat 001

?

Oh no, wait, then you would just be whining anyway. Then the arguement would be "B-b-but I have to rename all the feats!!!!111" Or "OMG how unoriginal can they get!!111"

Wow, so you know what we would do before we actually do it? Are you an oracle or something?:smallsigh: Or maybe just someone who makes up stuff to make his arguments sound better?

Of course, if they named the feats something totally arbitrary and without any description, like say instead of Golden Wyvern Adept it was named... "Master of Shaping" or "Spell Shaping" or some such, we would hear just as many complaints. "What a boring and generic name" "How lame. It's so dry." "I knew WotC would mess this up!" The last comment is of course the real heart of it. How many of you who think Gold Wyvern Adept is "stupid" either: Oppose 4e anyway, "knew" that 4e would suck, hate Eberron or hate WotC? I'd like to see the comparison stats on that. :smallwink:

See above. I myself would prefer "Mastery of shaping" much more than "Green Wyvern adept".

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 08:54 AM

Yeah, of course, because most peope complaining about Gold Wyvern wouldn't be complaining if it was named something else, I'm sure. :smallwink:

Morty

2007-11-29, 08:58 AM

Yeah, of course, because most peope complaining about Gold Wyvern wouldn't be complaining if it was named something else, I'm sure. :smallwink:

Maybe they wouldn't. I know I wouldn't, provided the name is simple and normal. How can you know this?

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 09:12 AM

Please illustrate the difference between naming this feat:

Golden Wyvern Adept
Silver Tarrasque Adept
Will O' Wisp's Big Blast Bookmark
Spellcasting Feat #314873
Shape Blast
Blast Shape
Shast Blape
Spell Shape
Shape Spell
Doug's Taco Emporium and Boiled Peanut-ery

If the feat does the same thing, no matter what it's named, why is it even relevant? Perhaps the names are relevant within the context of the book because let's say #2 is already used as a Fighter-type feat; #3, 5 and 6 are used for Warlock feats, since they have their Blast. Perhaps they can't use Mastery of Shaping or other "shaping" names because they are using it for other feats and didn't want to confuse people.

This is why I find this arguement silly. If you don't like the name, change it. It's not like the feat description reads:

Feat Name
Benefit: X
Special: If feat is renamed, it does Y instead of X.

Morty

2007-11-29, 09:16 AM

Yes, we can rename it. But why should we have to if they can just name it "Mastery of shaping" instead of "Green Wyvern adept" and therefore spare us the renaming and spare themselves renaming it in various campaign settings.
This, and "Mastery of shaping" indicates the function of the feat outright, while "Gold Wyvern adept" doesn't.

Kurald Galain

2007-11-29, 09:26 AM

Please illustrate the difference between naming this feat:

That's easy. Numbers 5, 6, 8 and 9 indicate what the feat does and are therefore preferable to those names that do not indicate such.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 09:31 AM

Ok, let's just suppose for a moment that there are more feats in 4th edition than just the ones listed so far. (Just a hunch :smallwink: )

Let us further suppose that Warlocks still work fundamentally the same. (i.e. they have Eldritch Blast, still get things to let them *shape* that blast)

Now, since Golden Wyvern Adept specifies that it applies to *wizard* powers. It would be likely to infer that it does nothing for *warlock* powers. So, it seem possible then to me that they chose a different naming scheme for the wizard related feats than for warlock related feats, so players wouldn't get confused and accidentally pick the wrong feats for their characters.

For example...

If they use the following naming convention for warlock feats...

Eldritch Shape (lets you ignore X squares within a blast area)
Eldritch Glaive (lets you form your mojo into a melee weapon)
Eldritch Split (lets you split your blast into a multi shot and hit multiple targets)

And then used this naming convention for wizard feats...
Arcane Shape (lets you ignore X squares within certain types of spells)
Arcane Glaive (lets you form your mojo into a melee weapon)
Arcane Split (lets you split your ray spells into a multi shot and hit multiple targets)

Then the feats become a little hazier to differentiate.

On the other hand if they went with...
Golden Wyvern Adept (lets you ignore X squares within certain types of spells)
Silver Tarrasque Adept (lets you form your mojo into a melee weapon)
Platinum Hydra Adept (lets you split your ray spell into a multi shot and hit multiple targets)

Then there is more flavor and it makes Wizards sound a bit more formal with rigid codified rules and regulation, which is kinda how Wizards are supposed to be.

Indon

2007-11-29, 09:42 AM

So, Lets see if I understand 4th ed so far…

1 – Level is part of nearly all game mechanism (Kind of like World of warcraft…)
2 – Tier approach to power, like World of warcraft tier gear. (See the thread here?)
3- Powers for wizards. Not spell – Powers. Is spell casting a power? Not sure. I know that all class in wow receive powers, different powers with cool down time, which mean it would be like the per round and per encounter type of power we already know about.

I doubt level can be any _more_ a part of the game than it already is in 3.5; your class level determines all of your basic stats and abilities already, the number and availibility of skills you have, and so on.

D&D already has tiers; four of them. 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 (21+ not fully supported). They're just being formalized now.

"Power" is a word to mean "Class abilities", and I'll have you know in WoW warriors sure don't have powers, they have abilities.

I can already see it.

4th ed will be simple. Efficient and clear design. Free of loopholes, optimisation and individuality. Customization will be purely cosmetics as every class will receive a set amount of power. Clear cut classes and party roles: Blaster, tank, healbot and Battlefield control. Ideal balance at every level enforced by rigid class progression.

A shiny, smooth, simple future where everything is easy to understand and do. Like a slot machine. Insert coin, pull handle and receive cookies. Instant gratification without exertion.

A perfect world…

I think you are simultaneously significantly overestimating and underestimating 4'th edition.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 10:09 AM

That's easy. Numbers 5, 6, 8 and 9 indicate what the feat does and are therefore preferable to those names that do not indicate such.

Actually, they don't do any such thing.

Shape Blast - Is this a Warlock Feat? A Feat for Wizard spells with a "blast" area?
Blast Shape - As above. There is no indication who this for or exactly what it affects.
Spell Shape - Does this make "holes" in a spells are of effect or does it change the AoE from say a 20' blast to a 20' Cone?
Shape Spell - As above; still no real indication ecatly what this does.

So, you can make educated guesses. At the end of the day though they are all roughly as descriptive as Doug's Taco Emporium and Boiled Peanut-ery and lack the flavor of Will O' Wisp's Big Blast Bookmark. So why not just give it a semi-flavorful name (Golden Wyvern Adept) that says nothing about what it does, so the player needs to read the feat before picking it, instead of making a wild guess after looking at the quick reference chart?

Kurald Galain

2007-11-29, 10:15 AM

Actually, they don't do any such thing.
You are, I hope, aware that you're now just talking about random things you made up, instead of about facts? Argumentum ad absurdum is a fallacy.

Dausuul

2007-11-29, 10:33 AM

The last comment is of course the real heart of it. How many of you who think Gold Wyvern Adept is "stupid" either: Oppose 4e anyway, "knew" that 4e would suck, hate Eberron or hate WotC? I'd like to see the comparison stats on that. :smallwink:

I've been wanting 4E for years, am eagerly awaiting its release, and think WotC is doing a better job with D&D than TSR ever dreamed of. I'm not fond of the Eberron setting (steampunk never appealed to me), but that's a personal preference, and I don't see what it has to do with anything. It's not even the standard game world. Do you like every single setting ever published for D&D?

However, just because I'm looking forward to 4E and think it will be good doesn't mean I automatically drool over everything WotC shows me, or that I don't feel I have the right to criticize when I see something I don't like. As others have said--this is the point where they're still soliciting feedback and my criticisms might lead them to change their approach. Far better to raise the issue now than to have blind faith that they'll make it all wonderful and then whine and moan after it's released.

Anyway, setting aside the ad hominem arguments...

Yes, "Spell Shaping" is a generic, bland, flavorless name. That's as it should be. Core stuff is typically generic, bland, and flavorless; flavor comes from setting books and from the individual DM. Do you want "Power Attack" to be renamed "Conan's Mighty Thews?"

The Bigby (Leomund, Mordenkainen, et cetera) spells irritate me, too; but not as much, because it's easier for my world to incorporate the possibility that some wizard somewhere went by the name of Bigby than it is to incorporate a whole wizardly tradition. And those spells have a storied history in D&D going back to First Edition, so there's a certain nostalgia value. Still, I'd prefer that they strip off Bigby's name from the hand-conjuring spells, or move the spells to the appropriate setting-specific sourcebook.

Moreover, "Golden Wyvern Adept" is not informative. It's easy for a novice player to remember what Power Attack does, because it's right there in the name; it makes your attack more powerful. Bigby's Crushing Hand creates a giant hand that crushes people. But Golden Wyvern Adept? Who knows what that does? If it isn't summoning golden wyverns, it could be anything.

Does anyone have a reason why this feat should be named "Golden Wyvern Adept" instead of, say, "Spell Shaping?" I see a lot of people telling me how I can strip it out of my homebrew world if I want. Yes, I can, but why is it necessary that I should?

Gish is a generic term for "fighter/magic-user" now, but it has setting specific origins.

And if they put "Gish" in the Core rules as a synonym for "fighter/magic-user," I'd complain about that, too. "Gish" is gamer slang, and as such I'm okay with it, but it shouldn't be written into the rulebooks.

Why? What's so threatening about allowing a game designer some literary creativity? Why the need to restrict them to code monkey status?

Because the designer's not writing a novel. The designer is making a game that's intended to be used by a variety of people in a variety of settings.

And if the designers want to throw in some literary creativity, that's fine, as long as it's done in such a way that it's separated from the ruleset proper. 3E did this well with the standard list of deities. The deities in the PHB are specific to the Greyhawk setting, but if I don't like Pelor in my homebrew world, I don't have to go through the rulebook scratching out "Pelor" all over the place. I just have to hand my players a list of the gods available in my world, with their domains and alignments.

Wizardly traditions should be the same. If you don't like Golden Wyvern, you shouldn't have to rename a bunch of stuff in order to remove it; you should be able to simply hand your players a list of the traditions in your world, with whatever mechanical details are linked to traditions, and that's all.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 10:39 AM

You are, I hope, aware that you're now just talking about random things you made up, instead of about facts? Argumentum ad absurdum is a fallacy.

And quoting logical fallacies (incorrectly) is just a red herring. :smallwink:

I listed a series of alternate names for Golden Wyvern Adept. I asked what the difference was between them. You said that four of them indicated what the feat does; I pointed out that they do not in fact, by name alone, indicate what the feat does. Now, seeing your error, you need to paint me as illogical in an effort to maintain a perceived legitimate foothold in the arguement. I could accuse: Poisoning the Well, Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition and of course Red Herring. However, quoting a bunch of formal logical fallacies is pointless in this debate, since the arguement "Golden Wyvern Adept" is a bad name for a feat is based purely on emotion has little to do with logic.

SmartAlec

2007-11-29, 10:48 AM

Does anyone have a reason why this feat should be named "Golden Wyvern Adept" instead of, say, "Spell Shaping?"

Well, no.

Because there's no reason why this feat should be called anything in particular, really. What's in a name? It's an identifier. If the DM and the players around the table who use the feat all know what it does and what it is, it's done the job; and there's no reason why they shouldn't.

Roleplaying games have been doing this 'descriptive naming' thing for years. Pretty much every White Wolf game, for example. It's not complicated to figure out. It's not difficult. Heck, after a few weeks of using the feat, I guarantee that everyone'll know what Golden Wyvern Spellcasting does. That kind of name sticks in the mind.

Which is good!

Dausuul

2007-11-29, 11:00 AM

I listed a series of alternate names for Golden Wyvern Adept. I asked what the difference was between them. You said that four of them indicated what the feat does; I pointed out that they do not in fact, by name alone, indicate what the feat does.

They do, in fact, indicate what the feat does. They simply don't convey every detail. The name "Power Attack" doesn't tell you that it grants +1 to hit for every -1 to attack, or that it's capped at your BAB, or that it grants +2 if you're using a two-handed weapon... but it does tell you that it makes your attack more powerful, which is the core of the feat.

When I glance at my character sheet and see "Power Attack," it's easy to remember what it does. I may not remember the details if I'm new to the game, but if I'm in the middle of a battle and need to hit something extra hard, "Power Attack" jumps out at me as something I should consider. Likewise, if I look at my sheet and see "Spell Shaping," I know that it lets me reshape my spells. If I'm trying to figure out how to aim a spell so it doesn't hit my buddies but hits as many enemies as possible, "Spell Shaping" will draw my attention. I'll look up the details if I need them.

I'm not saying this is a huge deal. It isn't. If a feat called "Golden Wyvern Adept" is the worst problem I have with 4E, I will be ecstatic. But I do consider it a problem and I hope they get rid of it.

Well, no.

Because there's no reason why this feat should be called anything in particular, really. What's in a name? It's an identifier. If the DM and the players around the table who use the feat all know what it does and what it is, it's done the job; and there's no reason why they shouldn't.

See above. Human beings are not computers to whom all labels are interchangeable. Names carry associations. If you name your feats things like "Spell Shaping," that name is informative but not flavorful; if you name them things like "Golden Wyvern Adept," that's flavorful but not informative. My argument is that names in the Core rules should be informative (making them easy to learn) but not flavorful (making it easy to homebrew with them), and therefore "Spell Shaping" is a better name for a Core feat.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 11:12 AM

They do, in fact, indicate what the feat does. They simply don't convey every detail. The name "Power Attack" doesn't tell you that it grants +1 to hit for every -1 to attack, or that it's capped at your BAB, or that it grants +2 if you're using a two-handed weapon... but it does tell you that it makes your attack more powerful, which is the core of the feat.

If I had never played D&D before, let's say no RPG ever, then yeah I would guess that is enhances an attack. It could just as easily mean a feat that let you say, burn a spell to "power" an attack and was therefore useless to a character without spells.

When I glance at my character sheet and see "Power Attack," it's easy to remember what it does. I may not remember the details if I'm new to the game, but if I'm in the middle of a battle and need to hit something extra hard, "Power Attack" jumps out at me as something I should consider. Likewise, if I look at my sheet and see "Spell Shaping," I know that it lets me reshape my spells. If I'm trying to figure out how to aim a spell so it doesn't hit my buddies but hits as many enemies as possible, "Spell Shaping" will draw my attention. I'll look up the details if I need them.

And while that is a fine point, given that the feat appears at Paragon level and Wizards are generally a more book intensive class to play, I don't see that it makes much of a difference. Further, I posit that they have chosen not to name it something like Spell Shaping since as listed it applies to a wizard "power' which I am guessing is something not unlike the previously mentioned Wizard Strike. They couold call it "Power Shaping" I suppose, but if they stick with some 3e naming conventions and call Psionic Abilities "powers" in 4e, then that may not work.

I'm not saying this is a huge deal. It isn't. If a feat called "Golden Wyvern Adept" is the worst problem I have with 4E, I will be ecstatic. But I do consider it a problem and I hope they get rid of it.

Amen to the first part. Disagree with the second.

Starbuck_II

2007-11-29, 11:47 AM

Like I said before, this is the same big problem I have with ToB. Sure, I could go through and rename everything, but why should I have to do this when something could just as easily be given a name that doesn't sound quite as "kung-fu movie". The names just sound silly. Would you want to play a game of D&D where the classes were all named for characters in the Harry Potter novels? Or would you rather they gave the classes names that were a bit more flexible?

I like Harry Potter so yes I would.

SpikeFightwicky

2007-11-29, 12:21 PM

I like Harry Potter so yes I would.

PC1: I'm playing a level 9 Malfoy!
PC2: I'm playing a level 8 Hedwig!
PC3: I'm playing a level 3 Ron/Level 6 Hermione!

Reminds me of 1st edition:

PC1: I'm playing a level 5 Cleric!
PC2: I'm playing a level 6 Elf!
PC3: I'm playing a level 5 Dwarf!

Here's a question: why wasn't there any grief when 'Robilar's Gambit' came out? It's the same principle: somewhere in every D&D setting is a person called Robilar who used strange and deadly tactics. I know it's not core, but PHB2 is used in a lot of gaming circles (and some people consider it core when they restrict books). Is that feat banned because the name is silly? Same with Meteor Strike: My level 6 fighter with 8 Int mystically knows what a meteor is, and how it interacts with things because he rams things good with his shield. It's silly when you think about it, but I've never heard any grief over the name.

Kurald Galain

2007-11-29, 12:39 PM

Is that feat banned because the name is silly?

Nobody is suggesting banning any feats, except as a straw man. But then, there are a lot of fallacies in this thread now.

Dausuul

2007-11-29, 12:52 PM

Here's a question: why wasn't there any grief when 'Robilar's Gambit' came out? It's the same principle: somewhere in every D&D setting is a person called Robilar who used strange and deadly tactics. I know it's not core, but PHB2 is used in a lot of gaming circles (and some people consider it core when they restrict books). Is that feat banned because the name is silly? Same with Meteor Strike: My level 6 fighter with 8 Int mystically knows what a meteor is, and how it interacts with things because he rams things good with his shield. It's silly when you think about it, but I've never heard any grief over the name.

Okay, seriously, why do people keep bringing up other examples of the same friggin' problem and saying "How come you aren't complaining about those, too?" No, I don't like the name Robilar's Gambit either, at least for a quasi-Core book like PHB2. Nor do I like Bigby's this, or Mordenkainen's that, or any of the other instances of setting-specific names in the Core rules. I'm not specifically complaining about them here because a) they're in already-published books, so the chances of getting them changed are much smaller, and b) most refer to specific people rather than entire organizations, which is, as I said, less objectionable, and c) they're in 3E and this is a 4E thread. So please quit trying to paint me and the other objectors as inconsistent on this.

I'm still waiting to hear why this feat should be called Golden Wyvern Adept.

SpikeFightwicky

2007-11-29, 01:03 PM

Okay, seriously, why do people keep bringing up other examples of the same friggin' problem and saying "How come you aren't complaining about those, too?" No, I don't like the name Robilar's Gambit either, at least for a quasi-Core book like PHB2. Nor do I like any of the other instances of this, and yes, I know they exist. I'm not specifically mentioning them because a) they're in already-published books, so the chances of getting them changed are much smaller, and b) most refer to specific people rather than entire organizations, which is, as I said, less objectionable, and c) they're in 3E and this is a 4E thread. So please quit trying to paint me and the other objectors as inconsistent on this.

I'm still waiting to hear why this feat should be called Golden Wyvern Adept.

I wasn't targetting you specifically, and I was more curious than accusing. I remember when PHBII was coming out, there weren't nearly as many differences in opinion as I'm seeing right now. If you look at my question in the post you quoted, it wasn't "Why aren't you guys hating on Robilar's gambit too, you double-standard jerks!"... It was "Why wasn't there any hate for setting specific feat names back when PHB2 came out". I realize that right now there's jack that can be done about those PHB2 feats, but maybe if there was this much dislike of the names back then, they may have eased up on 'setting-named' feats. All I'm saying is people seemed less critical of those PHB2 feats when they came out as with the 4th ed. feats.

Personally, I agree that the name is quite silly, and feels like it's based on some character in a D&D novel I've never read. However, it doesn't bug me to the point of disliking the system or claiming 'OH CRAP IT'S WORLD OF WARCRAFT'. If WotC checks out GitP boards for 4th ed. suggestions, then I hope they'll see this thread and rethink the name change. If they don't, I'll simply pick 'the feat that lets me not smoke my teamates with a fireball', since regardless of the feat name, people who aren't familiar with it won't know what it does regardless of name.

That is what i was refering to, its more akin to how Wow Talents work than how the item system does

Ummm have you played 3.X? We have stuff like:

Weapon Focus - Prereq: BaB +1
Weapon Spec - Prereq: Weapon Focus, Fighter 4th level
Greater Weapon Spec - Prereq: Weapon Spec, Weapon Focus, Fighter 12th level

This kind of stuff existed before WoW... Heck, even Tiered Talent Trees did. D20 Modern came out long before WoW.

Overlard

2007-11-29, 01:03 PM

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 01:11 PM

I'm still waiting to hear why this feat should be called Golden Wyvern Adept.

I believe I stated earlier my reasons, but I will summarize:

There may be other feats for other classes already eating up more "generic" names.
Gold Wyvern Adept is a clear, memorable name.
The fluff implications are evocative of a rigid, specific training regiment, as is appropriate for a Wizard.

I'm still waiting to hear how a generic name like "Golden Wyvern Adept" is exclusively tied to Eberron.

Dausuul

2007-11-29, 01:14 PM

I wasn't targetting you specifically, and I was more curious than accusing. I remember when PHBII was coming out, there weren't nearly as many differences in opinion as I'm seeing right now. If you look at my question in the post you quoted, it wasn't "Why aren't you guys hating on Robilar's gambit too, you double-standard jerks!"... It was "Why wasn't there any hate for setting specific feat names back when PHB2 came out". I realize that right now there's jack that can be done about those PHB2 feats, but maybe if there was this much dislike of the names back then, they may have eased up on 'setting-named' feats. All I'm saying is people seemed less critical of those PHB2 feats when they came out as with the 4th ed. feats.

Okay, fair enough.

Personally, I agree that the name is quite silly, and feels like it's based on some character in a D&D novel I've never read. However, it doesn't bug me to the point of disliking the system or claiming 'OH CRAP IT'S WORLD OF WARCRAFT'. If WotC checks out GitP boards for 4th ed. suggestions, then I hope they'll see this thread and rethink the name change. If they don't, I'll simply pick 'the feat that lets me not smoke my teamates with a fireball', since regardless of the feat name, people who aren't familiar with it won't know what it does regardless of name.

Sure, and as I said, if this is the worst problem I have with 4E, I'll be a very happy gamer. I'm certainly not about to complain that it's turning the game into WoW. But it remains an annoyance.

Is it my imagination, or is there a large contingent of very lazy people in this thread? If you don't like the names, change them. Don't complain that you don't think you should have to, it's a minor, superficial problem at worst for you, and takes mere minutes to alter (longer if you have no imagination, but if that's a problem, maybe you shouldn't be criticising).

Aaand, ad hominem for the win!

Morty

2007-11-29, 01:15 PM

Is it my imagination, or is there a large contingent of very lazy people in this thread? If you don't like the names, change them. Don't complain that you don't think you should have to, it's a minor, superficial problem at worst for you, and takes mere minutes to alter (longer if you have no imagination, but if that's a problem, maybe you shouldn't be criticising).

Yes, it is minor. Yes, we can change that name. But why should we have to? Also, it may be the sign that more feats will be named like that. Also, personal arguments are kind of unwelcome.

I'm still waiting to hear how a generic name like "Golden Wyvern Adept" is exclusively tied to Eberron.

Did anyone ever suggest it?:smallconfused:

Tren

2007-11-29, 01:30 PM

It's been said already but it seems that some people are severely overestimating the immersion breaking capabilities of something as immaterial as the fluff name on something like a feat, which is otherwise primarily mechanical. Does it destroy the verisimilitude or internal consistency of your world if the feat on the character sheet says "Golden Wyvern Adept" instead of "Spell Shape"? How often does something like a feat name even come up in an in-character discussion? If the concern is even discussing it for mechanical purposes at the table will break the mood, I really think that's being unnecessarily sensitive to something that's really not that big of a deal.

I agree that it's a goofy name, and I wouldn't mind seeing it changed myself, but to claim that not doing so will be some sort of failure on Wizards part in their design of 4E is just plain silly. It's a name to describe a set of mechanics, you can call it Fluffy Bunny Pancake Attack and it'd still serve the exact same role in your game world.

Overlard

2007-11-29, 01:31 PM

Yes, it is minor. Yes, we can change that name. But why should we have to?
You don't have to! You can change them if you want to, or leave them as they are. At the end of the day, they're just feats. You won't be forced to call your wizard a Gold Wyvern Adept anymore than a Fighter has to be called a Power-Attacker. It's an ability, not a description in of itself.

Also, it may be the sign that more feats will be named like that. Also, personal arguments are kind of unwelcome.
It wasn't a personal argument, just a thought that a lot of DMs I know complain about names of spells or PrCs, but either lack the patience or ability to make good changes.

Morty

2007-11-29, 01:34 PM

You don't have to! You can change them if you want to, or leave them as they are. At the end of the day, they're just feats. You won't be forced to call your wizard a Gold Wyvern Adept anymore than a Fighter has to be called a Power-Attacker. It's an ability, not a description in of itself.

Great. So why did they have to give it goofy, ridiculous name instead of plain and simple one that describes feat's function and won't neeed to be changed by anyone?
A minor nuisance is still a nuisance.

Deepblue706

2007-11-29, 01:37 PM

I dislike "Gold Wyvern Adept" because it's a dumb name. A better name could work. But, WotC sucks and is bad at names. It just is. Don't argue this (please, I'm not quite serious, here).

In my opinion, a more generic name that gave the gist of the feat's use would be better than making a poor attempt at sounding "cooler". Yeah, I can easily change it - I probably will. Generic stuff jogs the memory, and is easier for me to look at. Also, easier for me to rename into something I like more.

I recall the PHB (the 3.0 one, at least) giving the suggestion of renaming skills, etc that you thought were tasteless. Something about "Move Silently" becoming "Rice Paper Walk". Rice Paper Walk can fit well with some characters. It should never be the norm, though - it will outright confuse and possibly enrage more players than you can handle. Reminds me of the "Retarded Name War of 2005"...oh wait, I'm imagining things again.

Still, I like to contribute my own kind of names to a generic piece, much like I like turning raw clay into um...a jug, or something. Having to rename is like smashing it on the ground, collecting the pieces, and trying to start over from there! I once got a bad cut that way. Also, it's annoying, regardless - unless you get the opportunity to break it over another person's head, or something.

If, as a DM, I want to say that the Gold Wyvern Mages used a technique that can be learned through acquiring the Gold Wyvern Adept feat, then it'd work. But that's not the default. As a DM, I don't want to find ways to have everything make sense - they should be inherent in the system, because I have a campaign to write, dammit, and my attention needs to be elsewhere. But, if I just say "whatever", ignore the feat's name and continue without developing what's behind it, something just doesn't sit right with me. I literally get sick when details are ignored. When I do not give certain things attention, I feel my work is shoddy and incomplete, lacking in what is necessary for a thoroughly enjoyable experience. If that's what I deliver, am I DM? Or, am I a fill-in? I am a DM - an artist - and I have respect for myself! I refuse to bring myself so low as to use the rubbish that is known as "Gold Wyvern Adept".

Hence, it will be known as "Magical Spell Shapey Thingamabob."

Tren

2007-11-29, 01:38 PM

Great. So why did they have to give it goofy, ridiculous name instead of plain and simple one that describes feat's function and won't neeed to be changed by anyone?

You can't possibly make a name that fits everyones criteria as far as gameworld fluff is concerned. The point still stands though that NOBODY needs to change the name. There's nothing forcing any player who takes this feat to call their wizard a Golden Wyven Adept, or that prevents them from calling their character "Bob the Red Arcanist" or "Evoker Adept" or whatever you like that fits with in your specific game's context.

Morty

2007-11-29, 01:49 PM

You can't possibly make a name that fits everyones criteria as far as gameworld fluff is concerned.

I, however, can make a name that's generic and to-the-point enough that noone cares about it.

The point still stands though that NOBODY needs to change the name. There's nothing forcing any player who takes this feat to call their wizard a Golden Wyven Adept, or that prevents them from calling their character "Bob the Red Arcanist" or "Evoker Adept" or whatever you like that fits with in your specific game's context.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about forcing the player to use anything, it's about WoTC using unnecesarily specific -and stupid- name where generic one would fit better.

Tren

2007-11-29, 01:51 PM

In my opinion, a more generic name that gave the gist of the feat's use would be better than making a poor attempt at sounding "cooler". Yeah, I can easily change it - I probably will. Generic stuff jogs the memory, and is easier for me to look at. Also, easier for me to rename into something I like more.

This really comes down to a matter of personal taste. I'd argue just the opposite personally, when sorting through a deluge of feats in both core and supplements, I think you can only remember so many "Adjective Spell" or "Arcane Noun" feats before having the details of each one run together.

I recall the PHB (the 3.0 one, at least) giving the suggestion of renaming skills, etc that you thought were tasteless. Something about "Move Silently" becoming "Rice Paper Walk". Rice Paper Walk can fit well with some characters. It should never be the norm, though - it will outright confuse and possibly enrage more players than you can handle. Reminds me of the "Retarded Name War of 2005"...oh wait, I'm imagining things again.

Golden Wyvern Adept, however, does (ostensibly) fit into the context of the core world that WotC is designing for 4E, where Rice Paper Walk is obviously out of place in a European medieval fantasy setting.

Still, I like to contribute my own kind of names to a generic piece, much like I like turning raw clay into um...a jug, or something. Having to rename is like smashing it on the ground, collecting the pieces, and trying to start over. I once got a bad cut that way. Also, it's annoying, regardless - unless you get the opportunity to break it over another person's head, or something.

I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of renaming a skill. Unless you're adjusting the game mechanics associated with each skill, how does changing the name require you to shatter the existing rule schema and create a new one?

If, as a DM, I want to say that the Gold Wyvern Mages used a technique that can be learned through acquiring the Gold Wyvern Adept feat, then it'd work. But that's not the default. As a DM, I don't want to find ways to have everything make sense - they should be inherent in the system, because I have a campaign to write, dammit, and my attention needs to be elsewhere. But, if I just say "whatever", ignore the feat's name and continue without developing what's behind it, something just doesn't sit right with me. I literally get sick when details are ignored. When I do not give certain things attention, I feel my work is shoddy and incomplete, lacking in what is necessary for a thoroughly enjoyable experience. If that's what I deliver, am I DM? Or, am I a fill-in? I am a DM - an artist - and I have respect for myself! I refuse to bring myself so low as to use the rubbish that is known as "Gold Wyvern Adept".

So if my ranger takes spring attack, his class name should be "Spring Attacker"? Just because the fluff name of the feat has connotations of being associated with a certain order doesn't mean it's required your character be named after it. By the same token, if I want to call my wiz20 a "Pyromancer of the Scarlet Flame" (tm) should I be obligated to take some feat with a name association to said order? And if certain elements of DMing are causing you to become physically ill, I would honestly recommend seeing a doctor.

Mr. Friendly

2007-11-29, 01:53 PM

Did anyone ever suggest it?:smallconfused:

Well, just a few people....
----------------------------------
Post #50 | Yesterday, 09:25 AM
Dausuul
Is anyone else annoyed by the inclusion of a feat named for one of those wizardly traditions everyone got so upset about? I was under the impression that wizardly traditions in 4E would be like deities in 3.5E--essentially modular, with a default list provided in the PHB but very easy to construct your own out of the box if you don't like the standard flavor. But if they're attaching tradition names to feats, that's evidently not the case. It's like having a 3.5E Core feat called "Pelorian Healer."

Post #63 | Yesterday, 11:32 AM
M0rt (name seems familiar....)

There's also the fact that names of these schools are so incredibly stupid.
But really, those names are bad enough for themselves, but naming feats after them is even worse. After all, one of things that make D&D good is that it can be played in variety of settings. Now they'll have to rename feats in various settings or have the same Green Wyvern school in Eberron, Forgotten Realms and other settings.
Also, concerning wizard's "powers": I fear it may mean that wizards won't have spells anymore, but rather class features that work like spells, as other classes' abilities are also called "powers".

Post #81 | Yesterday, 03:40 PM
M0rt (this name keeps coming up...)
So? What is your point? Yes, wyverns and gold exist on all settings. Yes, it is theoretically possible that on three different settings wizards would think of the exact same name. This doesn't mean that applying unique name to a core feat is any less stupid.

Post #86 | Yesterday, 04:16 PM
Dausuul
Same here. I object to the inclusion of highly setting-specific fluff in the name of a Core mechanic. I also object to the particular name in question.

If you want to put such feats in world-specific sourcebooks--fine by me. That's where they belong, and if I don't like that world's fluff, I won't run games in that world. But having it in the core rules means that I am more or less stuck with that fluff unless I a) browbeat my players to use a different name and remember to "translate" every time they look up that feat, or b) ban the feat outright.

Either way, I'm making up yet another house rule over something that shouldn't be an issue. A certain amount of house ruling is inevitable in D&D, but you only have so much "cognitive space" to house-rule in before your players start to lose track of all your tweaks, and it annoys me to have to waste that space stripping out WotC's in-house setting details from the ruleset.

---------------------------------

I could go on, but that is enough to say QED.

Morty

2007-11-29, 01:56 PM

I could go on, but that is enough to say QED.

:smallconfused: There wasn't anything about the name being tied to Eberron here. You just quoted people complaining about the name of the feat and that it's going to look dumb if the wizarding schools are the same in all campaing settings, and will probably not fit in the settings anyway.

Deepblue706

2007-11-29, 02:05 PM

This really comes down to a matter of personal taste. I'd argue just the opposite personally, when sorting through a deluge of feats in both core and supplements, I think you can only remember so many "Adjective Spell" or "Arcane Noun" feats before having the details of each one run together.

It certainly is personal taste. And mine is the priority.

As for the names of feats - I might not be able to remember every single detail, but the gist is something I can appreciate. Dodge? Something avoiding hits, gotcha. Power Attack? Hit big. Combat Expertise? Ehh...have a variety of abilities? Oh, nope. Entirely defense.

Some things you get, some things you don't - but I rarely have problems with generic names.

Golden Wyvern Adept, however, does (ostensibly) fit into the context of the core world that WotC is designing for 4E, where Rice Paper Walk is obviously out of place in a European medieval fantasy setting.

Maybe it does fit in their world (and I suppose it's not a crime to assume that players would use it), but my default gaming experience is actually homebrewed worlds. I have no perspective of what most others do, but I know I prefer something less specific, in my case.

I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of renaming a skill. Unless you're adjusting the game mechanics associated with each skill, how does changing the name require you to shatter the existing rule schema and create a new one?

Then you are correct! While I was trying to make a point here and there, my post was primarily for fun. I was being absurd. Still, I don't like any "extra" work.

So if my ranger takes spring attack, his class name should be "Spring Attacker"? Just because the fluff name of the feat has connotations of being associated with a certain order doesn't mean it's required your character be named after it. By the same token, if I want to call my wiz20 a "Pyromancer of the Scarlet Flame" (tm) should I be obligated to take some feat with a name association to said order? And if certain elements of DMing are causing you to become physically ill, I would honestly recommend seeing a doctor.

What? No, I think somewhere things went backwards.

Spring Attack isn't say, "White Wolf Blitz" - if it was, who are the "White Wolves"? Or, is it modelled after the animal? Who named it? The character? If the standard is "White Wolf Blitz", things just start looking silly, to me.

I didn't say you had to take a feat to be associate with a group, my statement was associating (somehow) with a group to get the feat. Maybe you learned the technique in a book. Maybe you were taught by an ex-member. Maybe you're in the order. Whatever the case, there exists a reason to gain the Gold Wyvern Adept feat and call it such - having an order that goes by that name gives it some background.

Without the background, what sense does it make? Maybe in the core world, it works - but again, I dislike that standard - especially when it currently has no explicit context.

Kaelik

2007-11-29, 02:37 PM

SmartAlec

2007-11-29, 02:40 PM

Ya know, if they were, I wouldn't be too bothered! In fact, I might well be entertained at hearing those called across the gaming table in a dramatic voice. :smallsmile:

It's fun, guys! This is why I make a point of bringing a few bottles of wine to a game session.

Matthew

2007-11-29, 02:51 PM

Fun is subjective.

SmartAlec

2007-11-29, 03:00 PM

It is! And you know what? There's plenty of stuff that crops up in the course of playing 3.5ed that I don't find fun. But you know what else? I don't let it get in the way, because if I didn't, I wouldn't find *any* of it fun!

Here's the kicker - I like the name. "Golden Wyvern Spellcasting!!!" is exactly the kind of crazy thing that I - and, in fact, many of the guys and gals I play with - love to call out in the course of a gaming session. We do it with spell names, we do it with monk abilities; it may sound goofy, but it's a laugh. So no, I don't think it should be changed. I know my group can deal with any setting incompatibility issues that arise, and it sounds cool.

If anyone's going to tell me that it should be changed and that I should just rename it in my games, well - hang on, isn't that just what other people told them, and said it wasn't 'right'?

Starbuck_II

2007-11-29, 03:02 PM

I think the most important question we need to ask ourselves as regards Green Wyrven Adept is:

Do you think Spring Attack should be named Spring Attack? Or should it be called Black Wolf Ensign?

How about Power Attack? Should it be Power Attack? Or The Mighty Bison Leaps High and From There Much the Pain Is Felt By Those Who Are Enemies of the Great Yellow Zombie General? (Yellow Zombie General for short.)

Well, if melee has a tradition explained in the book about mobility: called Black Wolf. I'd be cool with that.

It makes it easy to know which feats deal with mobility (just look for the Black Wolf seal..err name.

You named the Power attack one too long. Power Attack called Yellow Zombie is weird unless the Yellow Zombie tradition has all the big brute feats.

Deepblue706

2007-11-29, 03:15 PM

Here's the kicker - I like the name. "Golden Wyvern Spellcasting!!!" is exactly the kind of crazy thing that I - and, in fact, many of the guys and gals I play with - love to call out in the course of a gaming session. We do it with spell names, we do it with monk abilities; it may sound goofy, but it's a laugh. So no, I don't think it should be changed. I know my group can deal with any setting incompatibility issues that arise, and it sounds cool.

Perhaps it's fun for you - that's perfectly fine - but, I, personally, would get bored with this very fast.

If anyone's going to tell me that it should be changed and that I should just rename it in my games, well - hang on, isn't that just what other people told them, and said it wasn't 'right'?

It's just the idea that things I deem absurd shouldn't hold precedence. That has more weight, because I'm me.

SmartAlec

2007-11-29, 03:19 PM

Matthew

2007-11-29, 03:27 PM

Sure, but then there are majority preferences to consider. If the majority of people deem something 'unfun' or, worse, 'annoying' then there's no real reason to go ahead with it. It probably won't make any difference if you do, unless you do that a lot, in which case people will turn to alternatives.

The point is that people's opinion of something isn't rendered invalid by somebody else's opinion. Personally, I don't view any of this as a big deal, but some people actively dislike it and if enough of them do, it's a good reason not to do it if you expect to keep your customer base. One of the things 3e is famous for is appealing to a very broad audience, mainly by including stuff that will appeal to the majority of their customers.

Kaelik

2007-11-29, 03:27 PM

Well, if melee has a tradition explained in the book about mobility: called Black Wolf. I'd be cool with that.

It makes it easy to know which feats deal with mobility (just look for the Black Wolf seal..err name.

You named the Power attack one too long. Power Attack called Yellow Zombie is weird unless the Yellow Zombie tradition has all the big brute feats.

First, it's Yellow Zombie General.

The naming convention is color/creature/rank.

Secondly, that's everyones point. The core rules should not talk about specific schools/traditions/ect. Because some people feel (quite sensibly) that it would change between settings.

Sure they have Green Wyrven Adepts in FR, but in Ebberon they have Black Otyguh Privates that do the same thing. Now we have to remember twice as many names. And then change them more when we homebrew.

Power Attack never needs to be changed because it doesn't reference a school that may or may not exist, Yellow Zombie General does. The Yellow Zombie General fluff works in exactly one place, everywhere else you need different fluff. Power Attack never needs to be changed.

The stupidest part about the name is that it's still going to be called Spell Shaping in the SRD anyway, so we still have to remember two names eventually.

Crow

2007-11-29, 03:34 PM

It's like all those feats in Oriental Adventures and Rokugan. If you want to use the abilities of the feat in your low-magic medieval campaign, do you keep the Oriental Adventures name for it?

Sure, you could. Or you can rename it. This is fine when your taking it out of a specific setting, and it's expected.

But when you are designing a game which is going to be the base mechanic for multiple settings, and that is targetted towards people who will play in a variety of settings, homebrew and published, and will have wildly different playstyles between groups, then going with a more "generic" name that gives an idea of what the feat does is going to annoy fewer people.

(mad run-on sentence skills baby!)

SmartAlec

2007-11-29, 03:46 PM

But what if - what if - they don't want to do that, this time, eh? What if this time, they want to mix the 'fluff' with the 'crunch', to make a standard Core Trio of books with some real flavour, and really push this new setting of theirs to be the new Flagship setting for DnD?

Why would they do such a thing - well, possibly in an attempt to create an easy-to-DM-in, light-on-complicated-political-structure setting for those who will be starting to play DnD with this edition - while trusting that the old guard, the guys with the old sourcebooks, will have no trouble adapting the new system to their setting of choice? Perhaps they'll even going so far as to include sections on how to adapt, in the PHB and DMG.

What I'm saying is - what if WotC have wised up to the fact that they'll never please everyone, and they've decided they're going to do what they want, and have realised that anyone with an ounce of RPing experience will have no trouble doing the same?

Would they be wrong for wanting to do their own thing?

The thing is, what I like about this idea is that it means you don't have to pick up a sourcebook to play a game with some actual flavour. 'cos believe me, even after buying three 3rd Edition books - PHB, DMG and MM - I still had a game that was dry as toast without some serious work on my part. It was like I'd bought a step-by-step guide to coding a computer game, rather than having an actual game. If the core books would give you a fully-formed setting to play in, alongside the rules, though... oh, I wish that would have been the case back then! We could have opened the books, and bam! We're in. All you guys with the sourcebooks already have them, and maybe conversion supplements can be released, but would they even be needed? Perhaps not... perhaps not.

I reckon we can handle it. And if this crunch-plus-fluff idea nets DnD some new blood in the form of new players, I like it. Could use some new blood, y'know?

Indon

2007-11-29, 03:52 PM

Do you think Spring Attack should be named Spring Attack? Or should it be called Black Wolf Ensign?

Do you think Shock Trooper should instead be called "Reckless Charge Attack?" (with more words to describe everything else Shock Trooper does, of course)

I think it more likely that Golden Wyvern Feat was named as such because it is not a general feat; it is a very specific feat. Only one kind of build for one class can utilize it, because it specifies wizards, and then further specifies only certain types of Wizard powers, and a certain stat to tie it to.

"Shape Spell", in this case, is ridiculously inaccurate. The feat doesn't let you shape spells at all. It lets you shape area and close effect Wizard spells, and "Wizard Area/Close Shape Wisdom-Based Spell" is a bad name, far worse, in my view, than Sapphire Kobold Lieutenant or whatever.

Might I point out that metamagic feats in 3.5 really were general; you got it once, and it applied to all classes. Thus the descriptions were accurate.

Morty

2007-11-29, 04:11 PM

Do you think Shock Trooper should instead be called "Reckless Charge Attack?" (with more words to describe everything else Shock Trooper does, of course)

I think it more likely that Golden Wyvern Feat was named as such because it is not a general feat; it is a very specific feat. Only one kind of build for one class can utilize it, because it specifies wizards, and then further specifies only certain types of Wizard powers, and a certain stat to tie it to.

"Shape Spell", in this case, is ridiculously inaccurate. The feat doesn't let you shape spells at all. It lets you shape area and close effect Wizard spells, and "Wizard Area/Close Shape Wisdom-Based Spell" is a bad name, far worse, in my view, than Sapphire Kobold Lieutenant or whatever.

Might I point out that metamagic feats in 3.5 really were general; you got it once, and it applied to all classes. Thus the descriptions were accurate.

Well... it allows you to omit certain squares from your area-of-effect spells. Looks like something most wizards that operate such spells are going to take. Hardly a specific feat.

Matthew

2007-11-29, 04:12 PM

What I'm saying is - what if WotC have wised up to the fact that they'll never please everyone, and they've decided they're going to do what they want, and have realised that anyone with an ounce of RPing experience will have no trouble doing the same?

Would they be wrong for wanting to do their own thing?

No, but people aren't under any obligation to like it either. 3e D&D was designed to be 'as dry as toast', maybe 4e won't be. It doesn't really matter, the only thing tha matters is what individuals think about it, where they put their money and whether they choose to play it.

I won't be buying 4e, but that's just because I don't care enough to buy it. I didn't buy jack for 3e either (though I bought stuff for other people and some stuff was bought for me). I certainly wouldn't choose not to play it on account of some poor choices with regards to naming conventions. I won't be buying it because it's already well beyond my preferred style.

SmartAlec

2007-11-29, 04:19 PM

Oh, I agree. But it's actually a pretty big step from I do not like it to They should not do it, and it is the exact size of that step people should take into account.

There may be many decisions WotC makes concerning this new edition, some of them will be pertinent to old-guard gamers, some of them won't really mean anything to us - and some aren't made for us at all.

Of course, we can't see the whole picture; we're not at the board meetings, we don't see the brainstorming sessions, all we have seen so far are hints. But perhaps what seems to us to be a small niggle is in fact part of something larger that we can't see - or don't appreciate.

So I'm keeping an open mind, on everything - and I'm focussing on the good things I hear. Perhaps that's naive! It's certainly not empirical reasoning; in fact, it's mostly deduction. But it's probably all one can legitimately do at this stage.

Matthew

2007-11-29, 04:38 PM

Sure, but remember, this is the time and place to express your opinion as to what they should and should not do. After next June/July it will be too late for them to take any heed.

Deepblue706

2007-11-29, 04:42 PM

And so, we're led to the sad but irrefutable fact, that no matter what they do - it's going to disappoint someone, and the only way they could play it safe is to give it no name at all; which would disappoint everyone equally.

Thanks for playing along and finishing off the thought process. :smallsmile:

Well, between disappointing me and disappointing the rest of you dopes, I think disappointing me is worse. If you agree with my side, then it's worse for you too.

Dausuul

2007-11-29, 04:50 PM

The thing is, what I like about this idea is that it means you don't have to pick up a sourcebook to play a game with some actual flavour. 'cos believe me, even after buying three 3rd Edition books - PHB, DMG and MM - I still had a game that was dry as toast without some serious work on my part. It was like I'd bought a step-by-step guide to coding a computer game, rather than having an actual game. If the core books would give you a fully-formed setting to play in, alongside the rules, though... oh, I wish that would have been the case back then! We could have opened the books, and bam! We're in. All you guys with the sourcebooks already have them, and maybe conversion supplements can be released, but would they even be needed? Perhaps not... perhaps not.

Then let them do what they did with 3E deities. In 3E, the Player's Handbook contains a list of gods, each with an associated alignment and domains. You can play with them out of the box, and a lot of people do. And because that section is completely self-contained, you can also scrap it and swap in your own deities, without having to go through the rulebook looking for Pelor this and Vecna that*. Moreover, the modular domain system means that making your own deities is a snap from a "crunch" perspective--pick your domains, pick your alignment, boom, you're done.

If they want to put a bunch more stuff like that in the 4E Core books, it's fine by me. I probably won't use it, but so long as I can excise it with a minimum of fuss, hey, whatever. My problem is with the possibility of having "Golden Wyvern" tacked onto this, that, and the other thing, so that removing the Golden Wyvern Tradition from the game will require going through the books looking for Golden Wyvern stuff and deciding what to do with each element.

*Except for Boccob's blessed book.

Leon

2007-11-29, 11:05 PM

Ummm have you played 3.X? We have stuff like:

Weapon Focus - Prereq: BaB +1
Weapon Spec - Prereq: Weapon Focus, Fighter 4th level
Greater Weapon Spec - Prereq: Weapon Spec, Weapon Focus, Fighter 12th level

This kind of stuff existed before WoW... Heck, even Tiered Talent Trees did. D20 Modern came out long before WoW.

I dont know why i even bother.

I pointed out that Tiered feats is like Talents not gear - i know that Tiered feats have existed long before

Indon

2007-11-30, 04:29 PM

Well... it allows you to omit certain squares from your area-of-effect spells. Looks like something most wizards that operate such spells are going to take. Hardly a specific feat.

Unless Warlocks get one too. Now it's "Wizard Shape Spell".

And it only allows you to shape some Wizard spells. So now it's "Wizard Shape Some Spells", particularly if they release a feat that lets you shape the other categories of Wizard powers.

And the effectiveness of the feat is based on Wisdom. If Wizards decides to make a feat that does a similar effect, but is based on another stat (say, Charisma), now it has to read "Wizard Shape Some Spells Based On Wisdom".

When you need seven words to describe what the feat does because you could easily make similar but distinct feats, and you want to avoid confusion, then it's time to pick something that sounds at least slightly memorable.

I can only hope that the feat names are somewhat logical; that the Golden Wyvern Adept feat is the tree-entering ability for a group of Wizard metapower feats that focus on Wisdom, for instance.

Crow

2007-11-30, 04:42 PM

Unless Warlocks get one too. Now it's "Wizard Shape Spell".

And it only allows you to shape some Wizard spells. So now it's "Wizard Shape Some Spells", particularly if they release a feat that lets you shape the other categories of Wizard powers.

And the effectiveness of the feat is based on Wisdom. If Wizards decides to make a feat that does a similar effect, but is based on another stat (say, Charisma), now it has to read "Wizard Shape Some Spells Based On Wisdom".

When you need seven words to describe what the feat does because you could easily make similar but distinct feats, and you want to avoid confusion, then it's time to pick something that sounds at least slightly memorable.

I can only hope that the feat names are somewhat logical; that the Golden Wyvern Adept feat is the tree-entering ability for a group of Wizard metapower feats that focus on Wisdom, for instance.

Dude, you had to reach so damn far on that post that I wonder why you even bother.

Dausuul

2007-11-30, 04:51 PM

When you need seven words to describe what the feat does because you could easily make similar but distinct feats, and you want to avoid confusion, then it's time to pick something that sounds at least slightly memorable.

OR, it's time to quit making one feat for warlocks and a different one for wizards, and one for Charisma and another for Wisdom, and just consolidate them all into a single feat like any sane designer would do. Seriously, why ever would you make two separate feats to do the exact same thing for different classes?

Instead of Shape Some Spells For Wizards Based On Wisdom and Shape Some Different Spells For Warlocks Based On Charisma, the obvious thing to do is make one single Shape Spell feat, and then require the player to pick a) a category of spells to which it applies, b) a class to which it applies, and c) a stat to use with it.