|
6 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 7:35PM
#161
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Ya, so apparently traditions will be somewhat cemented into the rules.
Why isn't their screaming and gnashing of teeth?
Well, for one thing, some of us really like the idea of tradition-based talent trees for classes.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 7:37PM
#162
|
|
|
Two example conversations of a group of relatively new players:
1.
P1: "Sheesh, man, you keep hitting me with your fireballs! Isn't there some way you can make the spell avoid me and hit everyone else?"
DM: "There should be some sort of spell-shaping feat that would do that, have a look in the PHB."
P2: "Hmm... can't see anything. Any idea what it would be called?"
DM: "Um... it might have a name based on one of those wizard traditions we haven't been using. What do they do again?"
P2: "Let me look it up, just a sec."
- A few minutes pass while Player 2 reads through the wizard traditions -
P2: "It sounds like the Golden Wyvern tradition has some stuff about shaping spells. Oh hey, there's a feat called Golden Wyvern Adept! I'll look it up and see what it does."
2.
P1: "Sheesh, man, you keep hitting me with your fireballs! Isn't there some way you can make the spell avoid me and hit everyone else?"
DM: "There should be some sort of spell-shaping feat that would do that, have a look in the PHB."
P2: "Hmm... oh hey, Spell Shaping! That sounds promising. I'll look it up and see what it does."
Which one of those scenarios is preferable?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 8:00PM
#163
|
|
|
Which one of those scenarios is preferable?
A player that has used area attack considerably has probably read the bit about staves enhancing area attacks and has probably read staff based wizard traditions already.
Especially by level 10.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 8:25PM
#164
|
|
|
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?
Step 1: Have some mechanics that allow the user to get more effect out of lightning or thunder spells.
Step 2: Have some mechanics that allow the user to get more effect out of force spells
Step 3: Have a mechanic that allows the two to be combined. (Examples could be the classic Energy Admixture feat or something like it, a lesser Admixture feat that does half one type and half the other but the same total damage (allowing both 1 and 2 to be used, but making the spell potentially more vulnerable to energy resistance) or even a means to allow two spells of the right energies to be combined in one casting)
The point is that whatever can be done with traditions can surely be done in a generic form that allows new traditions to be formed - if Step 3 isn't bound to a given tradition but is instead generic, that allows Hidden Flame, Emerald Frost, Iron Sigil, Stormwalker or any other combination of effects a player or DM might come up with to be formed through the same mechanic, instead of requiring a seperate feat or talent for each tradition.
One obvious case here is the far more intuitive link between lightning and thunder than between one or the other and force, a link that has already been made in 3E with the Born of the Three Thunders feat, the Stormcaster prestige class, and the rod of thunder and lightning magic item.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 9:24PM
#165
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
I'm glad you bring up the Born of Three Thunders feat. It is the best example I have in a 3e of a feat that combines two general concepts in a way that is not really compatible with the full category of those concepts.
By which I mean, this doesn't work so well:
[INDENT]Feat A
Benefit: Choose two energy types. When you cast a spell of the first energy type, half the damage is dealt by the second energy type. Creatures damaged by the spell are stunned.[/INDENT]
It's generic, but it also doesn't make the kind of intuitive sense that Born of Three Thunders does; why does an acid/fire spell stun people? It might also be considered harder to balance. And how do you name such a beast?
Also note: Born of Three Thunders bears a striking similarity to tradition names.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 04, 2007 - 9:50PM
#166
|
|
|
Well, for one thing, some of us really like the idea of tradition-based talent trees for classes.
That has never stopped people before.
Anyway I do like the idea of having a back story that hooks into the Campaign world and into the things on my Character Sheet.
And I like the idea that magic comes from somewhere and that PC should have connections to the world in which they live and evidently grew up in.
I know most people reflexively create characters that grow up in little bubbles, never talked to anyone of import, has no friends, no obligations and owes favour and loyalty to no one.
It's just that playing this exact same character over and over again can get a little tiresome and puts all the responsibility on the DM to create hooks to hook Characters that are made to be unhookable by anything other then Gold or threat of death.
Having "Golden Wyvern Adept" on your character sheet means not only that you have encountered a Wizard of the Golden Wyvern Tradition, but that you are due the possibly grudging respect of any Wizard of the Golden Wyvern Tradition.
It might mean more, depending on how you decide to flesh out the Tradition in your own game, but it won't mean less.
... What? I thought the Dragonmark feat was the coolest thing. It actually made your character important in the world and gave you a family. Traditions shouldn't be all that different.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 12:16AM
#167
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
If someone cannot process logically, they should have no say in how the game is made. There's a reason that the highest persuit of knowledge relies on logic and evidence.
There is wisdom beyond logic. In fact if you deal with people it is often necessary to think out of the box, especially your box. What seems perfectly logical to you may seem totally weird to someone else and the other way round and both can be right - at least from their point of view. There are very very few absolute things in this world that are right for everybody.
And I would not dare to judge who has a saying in what just because I am not capable of understanding his reasoning. I may ask for an explanation, but I don't think it must be wrong just because I don't understand.
And to be back on topic: Especially this entire discussion about fluff terms has much more to do with feelings than with logic. (Yes I know that our feelings are just based on a few billions of neurons communicating with each other but I don't think that anybody here can imagine what's really going on there...)
Ceterum censeo scrinium puniceum esse delendam
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 7:41AM
#168
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
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
Thanks for the link. Thanks, also, to Mike Mearls for posting.
This is what I saw in that post that relates to feat names:
I think you're contradicting yourself here a little. On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world. Don't those names encourage exactly what you want? None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds. They might have some pointers, but they are there precisely to get players to think of the skills their characters learned as coming from somewhere or something.[/quote]
When he says "[n]one of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds," does he mean there's NO FLUFF associated with the tradition names, or just that choosing a tradition doesn't write your character's background in and of itself? I'm guessing it's the latter, based on the context of the post and what he was responding to. The comment had to do with developing a background for your character, and I take the comment to mean that choosing a wizard tradition doesn't write your background. That's all well and good, but that's not why I don't like the wizard tradition names.
What I don't like - and what Asgetrion mentioned in the post that Mearls quoted - was having flavor forced onto your game. I didn't like the names of the "Tome of Battle" fighting styles, and I don't like the names of the wizard traditions. Or at least I don't want to encounter them all the time. In certain campaigns, they might be just fine. But those names bring with them a certain feel, and it's not one that appeals to me under all situations. I think that those kinds of names should be campaign specific, and if they're intended to just give new players and DMs ideas, then they should be easily removable; they should be limited to flavor text and shouldn't find their way into the mechanics - no feat names, no talent names, no class abilities. That would be my preference. If they want to use "Golden Dragon Adept" in the same way that they used "Footpaddin'" and "Rice Paper Walk" in connection with Move Silently, that's fine. But I'd hate to see Move Silently suddenly changed into "Rice Paper Walk" and have that name enforced onto all campaigns.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 7:47AM
#169
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
Having "Golden Wyvern Adept" on your character sheet means not only that you have encountered a Wizard of the Golden Wyvern Tradition, but that you are due the possibly grudging respect of any Wizard of the Golden Wyvern Tradition.
It might mean more, depending on how you decide to flesh out the Tradition in your own game, but it won't mean less.
Well, it could mean less. It could mean exactly nothing in terms of the game world. Maybe my game world never had any such tradition. I could use it as a purely meta-game element, like Zen Archery (as there's no Zen in any game world I've ever played in). But if that's how I'm going to use it, then what's the point of having a name like "Golden Wyvern Adept" written into the core rules? Not everyone is going to want to have that kind of flavor.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 8:18AM
#170
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
There is wisdom beyond logic. In fact if you deal with people it is often necessary to think out of the box, especially your box. What seems perfectly logical to you may seem totally weird to someone else and the other way round and both can be right - at least from their point of view. There are very very few absolute things in this world that are right for everybody.
One can think out of the box without sacrificing logic. Logic has nothing to do with soundness, it has to do with validity. One doesn't have to be right, only consistant and methodical. The logical path might be weird, but the logical connections won't ever be weird. Logic is absolutely right for everyone all the time because it's a paradigm of thought, not a particular set of rules.
There is no wisdom without logic.
And I would not dare to judge who has a saying in what just because I am not capable of understanding his reasoning. I may ask for an explanation, but I don't think it must be wrong just because I don't understand.
If I ask for his reasoning and he cannot explain it, he has no right dictating anything. I can understand quite a bit, but there's no explination to be had when they repeat the same things over and over again and refuse to listen to reason. The posts that I referenced with that statement are full of emotional reasoning, not logical reasoning. Emotional reasoning is the wrong reason to make any decision. Ever.
It only leads to pain and stupidity.
And to be back on topic: Especially this entire discussion about fluff terms has much more to do with feelings than with logic. (Yes I know that our feelings are just based on a few billions of neurons communicating with each other but I don't think that anybody here can imagine what's really going on there...)
Yes, but you have to defend that feeling with logic. You have a reason for feeling that way. If you can't communicate the reason, then why feel that way?
What are you gaining or loosing by the name?
I've seen good arguments, but I still find many of them weak. The only strong argument is 'forced flavor', though even that's easily changed.
|
|
|
