|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 9:00AM
#171
|
|
|
Not everyone is going to want to have that kind of flavor.
Not every one is going to have Wizards in their game. Not every one is going to play in a campaign with Elves. Not everyone is going to play with Metalurgy in their world. Not everyone has combat in their game. Not everone will use social encounters.
You can't please everyone.
You can't make a game with everything that some one might not want preremoved. You'd be selling an empty book cover.
You choice as I see it is simple. Remove the flavor behind the feat or remove the feat.
It's actually probably as simple as blacking out Wildspell in the 3.5 PHB.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 10:47AM
#172
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
Not every one is going to have Wizards in their game. Not every one is going to play in a campaign with Elves. Not everyone is going to play with Metalurgy in their world. Not everyone has combat in their game. Not everone will use social encounters.
You can't please everyone.
You can't make a game with everything that some one might not want preremoved. You'd be selling an empty book cover.
You choice as I see it is simple. Remove the flavor behind the feat or remove the feat.
It's actually probably as simple as blacking out Wildspell in the 3.5 PHB.
I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it. No, not everyone will use wizards. But if you do, then it sounds like you have to use the wizard traditions. That's not like saying there are elves in the game if you want to use them; it's more like saying if you want to play a wizard, then you have to play an elf. Sure, elven wizards carry a certain flavor - but what if that's not the flavor I want?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 1:03PM
#173
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
T
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.
No, it means whatever the feat description says it means mechanically. The name is of little to no importance in the long run. It's like making a feat called "Justicar trainee" that allows a PC to deal 1 1/2 times damage to chaotic creatures. Taking the feat does not cause the PC to actually be a Justicar in training,
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 1:04PM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it. No, not everyone will use wizards. But if you do, then it sounds like you have to use the wizard traditions. That's not like saying there are elves in the game if you want to use them; it's more like saying if you want to play a wizard, then you have to play an elf. Sure, elven wizards carry a certain flavor - but what if that's not the flavor I want?
Then you create your own flavor. Same thing with traditions.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 1:55PM
#175
|
|
|
No, not everyone will use wizards. But if you do, then it sounds like you have to use the wizard traditions.
Hopefully we will get the option to make whole new custom traditions for our home games.
Crafting Traditions and Wizard lineages for my own game is the thing that concerns me.
It may or may not be easy but I certainly know I will be.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 1:57PM
#176
|
|
|
Taking the feat does not cause the PC to actually be a Justicar in training,
Sure kneecap the players attempt at roleplay :P
But it's your own concern.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 5:48PM
#177
|
|
|
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.
It's similar, yes, but it's still connected in a fairly intuitive way that Golden Wyvern Adept isn't. Anyone reading that name is going to think of sound and probably, due to the out of game association of thunder and lightning, lightning as well. But to be honest, I consider this to be a side issue.
Actually, Three Thunders does make a pretty good example of what I'm aiming for, except what you're missing is that it's rolled two of my steps into one. According to the process I outlined, that feat would be replaced by these two feats (using 3.5e terminology to get the point across since that's what we're familiar with):
[INDENT]Concussing Thunder (Metamagic)
Benefit: You may prepare/cast any sonic spell as a Concussing Thunder spell. Any opponent that takes sonic damage from a Concussing Thunder spell must make a Fortitude save or be stunned for 1 round. Casting a Concussing Thunder spell is taxing and will leave the caster dazed until the end of their next turn. A Concussing Thunder spell uses a slot of the same level as the original spell.
Energy Mixing (Metamagic)
Benefit: Choose two energy types. Any damaging spell which has one of those energy types in its descriptor can be mixed with the other energy type, dealing half damage of its original energy type and half of the other energy type. Any benefits or abilities applicable to either energy type may be applied to the spell. An energy mixed spell uses a slot of the same level as the original spell.
This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time this feat is taken, choose a different pair of energy types to be mixed.[/INDENT]
Of this pair, the first feat grants an option when using sonic spells. The second is a generic feat which, in this case, can be chosen to mix electricity and sonic to, in combination with the first, mimic the effect of Born Of The Three Thunders. However, it still allows the option to mix acid/fire instead with a different version of the same feat, thus allowing an acid/fire wizard to combine the benefits of their specialties.
And there you go. A generic system which allows any pair of elements to be combined. There may be a few cases where a particular effect requires more specific elements to be used that might require more specific feats to represent the effect, but with a system like this in place those could be the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 05, 2007 - 9:22PM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
This is out and out theft from Cam Banks on the EN World forum.
Cam Banks, "The alternative is this.
In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept. I assume they're going to do something like this anyway, so we're already halfway there.
Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.
There you go. All the same flavor and hooks you asked for, but without hardwiring it. It's like the prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG. Easy to use, easy to toss out.
Not sure why Mearls didn't see that this was what the poster was going on about, nor why this isn't just as useful, cool, and flavorful an idea as the "we won't tell you anything about the Golden Wyvern, we'll just name a feat after them and let you do the rest" schtick."
I really like this idea, you want the flavor hey there it is. Its just not tied directly to the feat name so it there for those who want and easy to remove for those who don't. Also it still allows the feat names to be tied to what they do so when I'm reading a list of feats I can have an idea if I should take a closer look while making NPC X.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 06, 2007 - 12:39AM
#179
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
There is no wisdom without logic.
If you know that you know nothing you know a lot. [Sokrates]
That's a truck load of wisdom in one sentence, but it is certainly not logical - at least if you write that down as a boolean term.
If I ask for his reasoning and he cannot explain it, he has no right dictating anything.
Nobody has a right to dictate anything. As long as he is not your boss, a cop or a judge. And even then his right dictating anything is thankfully very limited.
Emotional reasoning is the wrong reason to make any decision. Ever.
This is plainly wrong. Often our emotions tell us much more than our reasoning can ever tell us. Interesting enough, this works even in computer science. Sometimes I just have a bad feeling about a solution for a problem, and I really don't know exactly why. Then later during development, it becomes clear why the solution that "felt" better was the right one.
The unconcious processing capabilities of our brain are far superior to the concious ones. Of course whe should not just blindly follow our feelings, but on the other hand pure logic can't help us allways to decide what's right and what's wrong. The world is bigger than that.
I would recommend to read some psychological studies about emotional reasoning and decision making. Can be very interesting.
You have a reason for feeling that way. If you can't communicate the reason, then why feel that way?
Since even if we speek the same language we may speak a different one. Words don't mean the same to everybody. Sometimes communication is not possible because mind sets are too different. We assume a lot if we write or talk and we assume a lot if we read or listen. Since human minds are a unbeleivable complicated thing, are assumptions often go to far.
What are you gaining or loosing by the name?
Well I don't know if I want to gain anything, however, I just want to be understood, and there are several people who think similar than me.
I am just thinking about what will help or what will hurt my chances to switch to 4e. There are a lot of things I like about it, and I am looking forward to start a campaign. However, I know my players and their wishes pretty good and I just want to know how much convincing I have to do to to make the change.
And I know that if character creation gets to cumbersome or if there is to much stuff to read before a player can start playing, some of them which I would like in my game would simply say no.
Some players buy the players handbook and have finished reading it at the end of the week, some will never read anything, but are still valuable players.
And when I want to help them make their characters I just don't want to sit there for ours explaining again and again what Golden Wyvern or whatever means.
So and now we come to the problem of reasoning: I have told about only 10% of the story, since if I really would like to communcate my entire reasoning I would have to give you a complete character profile of every person I know, why we play the game (since it's a social thing it's sometimes more than just a game) and so on. I would bore you with it, since you don't know anybody of them and so on.
So on the bottom line, I still have heard no convincing argument why the feats can't have at least a descriptive part in their name. The only real argument is, that the names may bekome awkwardly long. But the boundary when a feat name is to long and when it is not is also no hard black or white factor but depends on a lot of parameters.
Ceterum censeo scrinium puniceum esse delendam
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 06, 2007 - 8:37AM
#180
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
If you know that you know nothing you know a lot. [Sokrates]
That's a truck load of wisdom in one sentence, but it is certainly not logical - at least if you write that down as a boolean term.
Boolean isn't logic.
You're trying to put logic in a box that it doesn't belong in. If you havn't taken a Critical Thinking course, or even a simple Philosophy course, I don't think we can continue since, like most of the US, I'm pretty sure you're unaware of what logic is.
Nobody has a right to dictate anything. As long as he is not your boss, a cop or a judge. And even then his right dictating anything is thankfully very limited.
Yet they dictate all the time on here, whether they'll have the impact they want or not. If they can't defend their views, they should shove off.
This is plainly wrong. Often our emotions tell us much more than our reasoning can ever tell us. Interesting enough, this works even in computer science. Sometimes I just have a bad feeling about a solution for a problem, and I really don't know exactly why. Then later during development, it becomes clear why the solution that "felt" better was the right one.
This is just...specious. A few anecdotal successes about intuitive reasoning isn't going to balance out the fact that it's stupid. When I have a bad feeling about something, I research it and figure out the most logical conclusion. I've got a healthy amount of skepticism for myself since fear, intuition, and other emotions are inherently irrational.
My internal need to find fats and salts, as well as climb trees and run away from rhinos isn't going to help me when I'm running INSERT blocks against MySQL.
Logic should be the foundation of any reasoning anyone ever does. Emotional reasoning is flawed and, frequently, flat out wrong. Being correct at the end doesn't alieviate it being unsound and invalid.
The unconcious processing capabilities of our brain are far superior to the concious ones. Of course whe should not just blindly follow our feelings, but on the other hand pure logic can't help us allways to decide what's right and what's wrong. The world is bigger than that.
No, pure logic can help us always decide what's right and wrong for ourselves. Especially in a purely analytical decision, which design decisions are on this level. They can be polled. They can be adjusted. They can be tested.
"Intuition" only works in art. Even when writing, it takes logic to stay on task. You have no idea how many writers just write too much, or end up wandering in the middle of their work, because they write on intuition. That doesn't fly with reasonable approaches.
So long as there is a reason for it, people can discover it. The subconcious processing power of the brain is, and can be, used to link various symbols together, which enhances the concious processess of the brain. Intuition warrents inquiry, not decisions.
I would recommend to read some psychological studies about emotional reasoning and decision making. Can be very interesting.
I have. They come to the same conclusion; intuition is a terrible way to make decisions. It's an excellent way to discover paths of inquiry.
Since even if we speek the same language we may speak a different one. Words don't mean the same to everybody. Sometimes communication is not possible because mind sets are too different. We assume a lot if we write or talk and we assume a lot if we read or listen. Since human minds are a unbeleivable complicated thing, are assumptions often go to far.
If we do speak the same language, you should easily be able to understand the words I'm saying and adjust your statements to properly convey the message you want to convey. So long as you can understand the words I'm saying and I can understand the words you're saying, we can communicate, even if that takes creating a key before hand so that we're speaking the same 'dialect'.
It's irrelevant if the words mean something different to you. Definitions can be adjusted for speech.
Well I don't know if I want to gain anything, however, I just want to be understood, and there are several people who think similar than me.
That's fine. You made your statement. I disagreed with it.
If you're not interested in defending your views, though, don't try. If you're not looking to gain anything, just leave me alone. Pretty simple.
I am just thinking about what will help or what will hurt my chances to switch to 4e. There are a lot of things I like about it, and I am looking forward to start a campaign. However, I know my players and their wishes pretty good and I just want to know how much convincing I have to do to to make the change.
And I know that if character creation gets to cumbersome or if there is to much stuff to read before a player can start playing, some of them which I would like in my game would simply say no.
Some players buy the players handbook and have finished reading it at the end of the week, some will never read anything, but are still valuable players.
And when I want to help them make their characters I just don't want to sit there for ours explaining again and again what Golden Wyvern or whatever means.
So and now we come to the problem of reasoning: I have told about only 10% of the story, since if I really would like to communcate my entire reasoning I would have to give you a complete character profile of every person I know, why we play the game (since it's a social thing it's sometimes more than just a game) and so on. I would bore you with it, since you don't know anybody of them and so on.
No you wouldn't. You can predicate things based on your players. "My players don't like [x]..." which can be assumed to be true.
However, statements about the name itself, the design decision, etc, can be reasoned from a global position, which is where I'm reasoning from. Your views are, inherently, irrelevant to the global position unless they relate directly to a global position. While something else might be better for your group, it isn't good for the brand or the player-base. A good example of this are the elitists who want to make D&D difficult.
So on the bottom line, I still have heard no convincing argument why the feats can't have at least a descriptive part in their name. The only real argument is, that the names may bekome awkwardly long. But the boundary when a feat name is to long and when it is not is also no hard black or white factor but depends on a lot of parameters.
It isn't just that. I've stated before that 'flavored' names make it easier for new players and DMs to understand how the system interacts with the setting. They also make communicating that setting easier. The flavorful names also allow linking of what would be otherwise unrelated Feats as appropriate for the Traditions writen into the PHB. That might be the only way, or one of very few ways, that the Traditions actually show up mechanically, in which case those Feat chains may be designed to be destinctive. That's a design decision that we can't be sure about until the book arives.
|
|
|
