|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 9:24AM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
If the grouping of effects is important (as I imagine is the case for traditions), that grouping needs a name.
If the unifying factor for the group is even a little complex then a generic name will not encompass the idea or will sound silly. It might also cause too much overlap. You could call Golden Wyvern "Shaping Speciality", but I honestly don't think that is any better. Also you couldn't call either Iron Sigil or Stormwalkers "Force Speciality"; because not only does that not cover all of those traditions' attributes, force magic is part of both.
Perhaps you favor made up Greek- or Latin-rooted names, but I would like to hear proposals for those for the traditions that have been mentioned. You might also like shoehorning effects into words that don't really fit, like "evocation", but you run into limitations regarding which words are available and which have already been used.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 10:05AM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2004
|
I'm sorry Tusz has traditions that don't sync with those in 4e, but ey is surely a minority in that and could not reasonably expect eir traditions and the new ones to line up. So the only option would have been to keep the divisions that already existed (i.e. schools), which were deemed inappropriate by the developers.
I don't think that's the only option. I'm in favor of having general concepts (fire, force, etc) that can be arranged into traditions (Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil), much like domains (Good, Healing, etc) that could be arranged under gods (Moradin, Pelor) in 3e.
I don't understand the argument for no traditions. Tusz obviously values magical traditions as a concept or ey wouldn't have included them in eir campaign.
While I (obviously) like the idea of traditions, other people don't. It comes down to preference, really. Some people like the old Dragonlance-style schools, and want to keep them. I think their issue is the fact that those are going away, rather than anything with the system replacing them.
Divisions or shticks are necessary in order to have those options be available at all. They enable the creation of the feats or talents that interrelate with the powers. Would you rather not have feat choices? Otherwise the sum total of a fire mage is that he has a disproportionate amount of fire powers.
I don't think anyone's against the feat itself. We're just arguing about the name.
The way traditions appear to be structured, they aren't all-inclusive. That allows you or developers to add more traditions in a way that wasn't possible with schools of magic. So draxynic can have his liquid nitrogen tradition if ey wants to make up that shtick.
That's what I'm hoping for. I just want to be able to replace the core traditions rather than simply add to them.
Rhymes with Bruce
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 10:07AM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2005
|
Well, probably that's an other part of the misunderstanding. I don't think there are lots of people who don't like the traditions, in fact i think most of them like the idea. However, a descriptive part in the feat would help if I tell a new player who knows the rule book, that there are no Golden Wyverns in my game but he can still pick the Spell shaping feat (this is shortened a lot, but I hope it is understandable what I mean)
You could just as easily tell a player "The Golden Wyvern tradition does not exist in this campaign but you may still take all of the Golden Wyvern feats."
If the grouping of effects is important (as I imagine is the case for traditions), that grouping needs a name.
If the unifying factor for the group is even a little complex then a generic name will not encompass the idea or will sound silly. It might also cause too much overlap. You could call Golden Wyvern "Shaping Speciality", but I honestly don't think that is any better. Also you couldn't call either Iron Sigil or Stormwalkers "Force Speciality"; because not only does that not cover all of those traditions' attributes, force magic is part of both.
Perhaps you favor made up Greek- or Latin-rooted names, but I would like to hear proposals for those for the traditions that have been mentioned. You might also like shoehorning effects into words that don't really fit, like "evocation", but you run into limitations regarding which words are available and which have already been used.
Moribund, I believe you have pretty much hit a nail on the head. Golden Wyvern is shorthand for "feat that modifies the AoE of a wizard's spells". Because of all the wizard AoE modification feats being named "Golden Wyvern" they will be on ruffly the same page(s) of PH1, and any new wizard AoE modification feats appearing in latter books will be easy to find as they will all have the name "Golden Wyvern".
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 10:39AM
#154
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2003
|
It also centered on the assumption that you needed to belong to an order dedicated to the tradition to make use of those traditions. That is clearly not the case as there are no such restrictions on the feat.
I didn't mean to claim you made unfounded assumptions about science. You make unfounded assumptions about the role of the magical traditions in 4e.
Here's the crux of the our argument then. You made the assumption that I assumption about the role of magical traditions in 4e. I never claimed you have to be part of an order.
What I was saying is that if you choose to have the same mechanics as that tradition, you're tied in part by name to that tradition, even if your culture, up-bringing, and study of magic never even hinted at that tradition.
You're stuck with the name Golden Wyvern Adept. There's no easy way to change it. If my mechanic has that silly name and my character doesn't know the mechanic name, then what is the difference between having it called Master Shaper?
I never said you're forced to be part of an order, but to remove that said flavor from your game, with that current naming scheme requires rewriting with a key, rather than dropping names like any other named thing in the 3e PHB.
What you persistently fail to recognize is that having a name like Bigby is completely innocuous. He doesn't have to be alive, he doesn't have to interact with the characters, and he doesn't have to have any influence beyond making up a few spells. Why do you need to drop the name?
So if I find a point moot, then from your point of view, I'm persistently failing to see the big picture.  right.
If it doesn't matter if he exists or not, then why is it named that in the first place? It doesn't make much sense does it? Why do I need to use a name I don't want?
The answer to your question of why I 'need' (read: want) to drop the name is that it doesn't fit my flavor of D&D. I'll have more fun if I can develop my own names and 'traditions,' that fit with the world than ones that don't easily translate to other settings. What other reason would I have the view I do? Perhaps not a good one, if you continue to assume that I'm jumping the gun on what the role of traditions are in 4e. I don't care what their roles are, even if there are any, all we've seen thusfar is that they are naming conventions. Naming conventions that I don't agree with because it's hard to convert to all campaign settings.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 12:05PM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
I'm sorry Sphyre, I confused your argument with others.
I think a tie to a tradition that is purely a mechanical one is acceptable. Too me, it does not seem like a stretch to have come up with the same techniques as a tradition on your own or to have somehow stolen that knowledge. But if that is the case, the generally accepted game term for the technique may be something different, it doesn't mean it shouldn't have a name. Compare to Lidda's "Footpaddin'" or Ember's "Rice Paper Walk" as alternatives to "Move Silently".
I really don't see how the name can be that difficult to change either as a player or a DM.
It may be possible to "generify" Golden Wyvern as Shaper Initiate, Shaper Adept, and Master Shaper. You then have Shaper Wizards. But Golden Wyvern is the simplest concept among the traditions, the others are not so easy to contain in a short phrase.
It matters that Bigby exists because he provides a thematic link between the spells. The name is not essential because that link has no mechanical aspect, but if you wanted to do something like create a feat that increase the potency of Bigby's spells, then the name becomes necessary. You could change the name if you wanted to, but you could no longer remove it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 12:16PM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
I don't think that's the only option. I'm in favor of having general concepts (fire, force, etc) that can be arranged into traditions (Golden Wyvern, Iron Sigil), much like domains (Good, Healing, etc) that could be arranged under gods (Moradin, Pelor) in 3e.
The problem you run into then is you cannot then interrelate those general concepts with the feats or other game elements. If you want a mechanic that relates thunder and force and another that relates lightning and force, how do you do it with general concept-based abilities?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 1:04PM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2004
|
The problem you run into then is you cannot then interrelate those general concepts with the feats or other game elements. If you want a mechanic that relates thunder and force and another that relates lightning and force, how do you do it with general concept-based abilities?
The same way I would link thunder and lightning abilities or fire and ice abilities in 4e as written.
It's a good point, though, and one I hadn't thought of. I'm not sure what I'd use for those other than the tradition names. But I also think that feats that use other combinations (like fire/cold) should have an equal chance to be used, and that feats that only use one "aspect" or whatever (like GWA with shaping) don't need a setting-specific name, for the reasons that I've mentioned earlier.
Rhymes with Bruce
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 2:58PM
#158
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
I just posted this in another thread, but it fits this discussion, too, so I'm going to put it here, too.
We can have the "Golden Wyvern Adept" feat without having Golden Wyvern wizards; just give the feat a more straightforward name like "Arcane Shaping." That could be done across the board.
We haven't seen any Emerald Frost feats, so I can't suggest any alternate names for those - but let's speculate: Emerald Frost wizards apparently "channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic." Meanwhile, Hidden Flame wizards "wield fierce powers of fire and radiance" and Stormwalker theurges "channel spells of lightning and force." Could those all be some kind of energy admixture feats? Those could all conceivably be the SAME feat, if the traditions were removed - mix any two types of energy (which would actually allow more options with one feat than three different feats would, if there were one for each tradition).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 3:01PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
Personally, I don't think the feats all need to be tied together with similar names. Look at the 3E feat chains - not all of those had similar names (the example I've cited before was Dodge-Mobility-Spring Attack, and I'm sure there are others). I can appreciate how that might help reinforce the connection, but it's not an absolute necessity. The feat chart in the PHB was sufficiently clear about which feats went together.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 5:22PM
#160
|
|
|
I'm going to link a Mike Mearls Post from "Quests... Feh" It has some relevence to the idea of Traditions as a non-fleshed out connection between the world and the Character. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php? … tcount=129
|
|
|
