|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 11:48AM
#31
|
|
|
Maybe do people from the Golden Wyvern Adept get this and other Golden Wyvern feats for free, but do others need to spend a feat to get it. Similar to how the ranger got feats for free others had to spend feats on. If it works like this would it be easy to remove traditions, simply give your players a bonus feats each level a tradition gets a free feat OR let them choice one of the "tradition feats" for free 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 12:43PM
#32
|
|
|
If it works like this would it be easy to remove traditions, simply give your players a bonus feats each level a tradition gets a free feat OR let them choice one of the "tradition feats" for free
Sounds good to me if that the way it works. (Except that I don't want to remove the traditions so much as have the freedom to make my own.)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 12:45PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Because the feat actually gives us the exact opposite impression of cementing the fluff into the rules.
There is no "Golden Wyvern Trainee" prereq, there is no "must be a staff user" prereq, and there is no "must have all the powers from the Golden Wyvern Talent Tree" prereq. The fact that you can gain this ability and have no special relationship to an organization tends to imply that you can get wizard abilities without using some organization fluff that you dont like in your game.
The article notes that some feats were included in the class abilities (I assume that you'll get at least one ability/level -- just like 3E monks did). The downside in using the names of the traditions is that if you don't want to use their fluff (i.e. prefer your own names) you *also* have to rewrite the names of some of the feats. That said, I would have preferred more "general" (less "flavoured") feats, such as "Arcane Shaping".
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 1:08PM
#34
|
|
|
I would have preferred more "general" (less "flavoured") feats, such as "Arcane Shaping".
Aha! I told you guys it was the name!
Organization pre-requisites indeed.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 1:11PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2007
|
The thing with SWSE is that the progression is for skill checks.
If the ability modifier level progression is limited to skills checks, then it doesn't really apply to the Golden Wyvern Adept feat and my original point still stands: the order of ability scores in terms of importance may change considerably for wizards in 4th edition.
I like the idea of having to spread ability increases around. It makes for more varied characters.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 2:40PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
Ya, so apparently traditions will be somewhat cemented into the rules.
Why isn't their screaming and nashing of teeth?
There is. I, for one, hate the name. I'd much rather see feat names remain straightforward and descriptive. Aside from hating to have a flavor enforced on me, it makes the feats easier to remember - especially after a few years, when there are hundreds of them. As I've already posted in another thread on the "Concerns and Criticisms" board, I'd rather see this "Golden Wyvern Adept" called something like "Limit Spell Area" or "Restrict Area of Effect." What would be so bad about that?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 2:42PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2006
|
[list=1]
Wizard traditions mean nothing more than having a feat and aren't hard-wired into the class at all.
I hope that is all it is, and if it is, I like it :D
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 2:45PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2003
|
I would have preferred more "general" (less "flavoured") feats, such as "Arcane Shaping".
Yes, exactly. Simple, understandable, and you don't need to look it up to remember the gist of what it does.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 4:15PM
#39
|
|
|
Either way, as others have noted, just allowing for one space to be excluded from a blast is good enough to be worth a feat -- letting you nuke all enemies surrounding an isolated ally or yourself. So, while Wisdom would not be a "dump" stat anymore, it might not be bad to have an easily rolled 12 in it.
It could also make stat-boosting spells more interesting. Need to exclude three from the blast instead of one? Read a scroll of Owl's Wisdom and be ready to cut loose on your next and subsequent turns...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 27, 2007 - 6:13PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2003
|
Ya, so apparently traditions will be somewhat cemented into the rules.
Why isn't their screaming and nashing of teeth?
This is Dragon Tail's Cut all over again.
  -1/5 stars, three thumbs way down, Gold Wyvern Adept FTL. I'll hunt everyone's at Wotc dog down to kill them, and pee in their soup. Oh and use their toilets and leave the seat up. There's my screaming and gnashing of teeth.
Power attack was a good name in 3e, boars ferocious tusk attack would have been a bad name for it though. I think the suggestion like Asgetrion said, was a much better name. Seriously... I don't know of anyone who ever had a problem with power attack, but there are significantly more people (Some people compared to virtually no one) who had problems with goofy stupid names. Please, I've never heard of anyone hating the name for power attack or names akin to that... if anyone has ever heard of a complaint for the name power attack, please speak now and prove me ignorant. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll be the case.
|
|
|
