Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pax 06-30-05, 07:44 AM	In the article Warlocks with Class (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050630a), Skip Williams has apparently made a commonmistake ... and hte problem is, since this is an article by Skip, and it's on WOTC's website, it stands to perpetuate this lamentably inaccurate error. So, I'm going to to my small, single-voice-in-the-crowd best to UNDO that error, and hopefully Skip, or someone with editorial powers, will see fit to correct the article. Specifically, when discussing the assets of the Warlock class, Skip says: Invocations: An invocation is a spell-like ability that the warlock can use at will. At 1st level, and once every five levels thereafter, he can choose one invocation from a specific list. Some invocations alter the warlock's eldritch blast; others provide new abilities that expand his options beyond merely dealing damage. The trick is, he's got the rate of new invocation selection completely wrong. By what he says, you'd have your second invocation only at 6th level. By the rules, you get your second at level 2, your third at level 3, and your fourth at level 6. IOW, he has missed the entire right-hand-most column, labelled Invocations known - which, I will admit, is lamentably easy to do, as the table is poorly formatted to fit into a single column on text (not at all a usual thing for such tables, where spellcasting classes are concerend ... even pseudo-spellcasters like the Warlock). This makes a serious difference in the power curve of the warlock. I like the warlock, despite thinking it's a bit on the hard side to pull off over "the long haul". However, if what Mr. Williams has said were true, I would never play such a gimped and unplayably weak class. Ever. Period. So please, someone with the ability and authority to do so ... fix the article; correct the error, before too many other people misunderstand how the class works!
Arrowhen 06-30-05, 08:04 AM	The same error is repeated even more blatantly a couple of paragraphs later: Limited Magical Choices: The warlock begins play with his eldritch blast ability and a single invocation. During his entire career, he can choose only three more invocations. He has a limited ability to change his repertoire, but for the most part, he is stuck with whatever spells he has chosen. This is some serious shoddiness on WotC's part. I realize it's "just" their website and they're not going to spend as much time editing it as they would a retail product, but surely they realize that the web articles are a major factor in the purchasing decisions of many of their customers. Heck, I bought Complete Arcane (one of the few non-core products I own) solely for the warlock class, after my interest was piqued by the web preview. If I'd read this article first I would have, based on the misconception it perpetuates, lost interest in the class and probably never have purchased the book.
Yamu 06-30-05, 08:27 AM	I concur. My jaw dropped pretty hard when I read the article, as the Warlock is one of the coolest (albeit trickiest to pull off, in practice) base classes to appear in any of the new class-specific supplements. I'm sure Skip Williams is a good guy and a great DM, but I pity anyone playing a Warlock in one of his campaigns. To those in power: I think Mr. Williams was focusing on the 'Special' column on the Warlock table (Table 1-1, page 8, Complete Arcane), where it lists "New invocation (least or lesser)" at 6th level, "New invocation (least, lesser, or greater)" at 11th, and "New invocation (least, lesser, greater, or dark)" at 16th. This is, as you're probably aware, merely the caliber of invocation which becomes available to the character at that level. As Pax said, the 'Invocations Known' column lists the actual number of invocations availiable to the character, which is fully three times the amount stated in the 'Warlocks with Class' article. I'm a bit of a Warlock fanboy, and a correction here would be greatly appreciated.
digoraccoon 06-30-05, 08:38 AM	At least you all know your Warlock stuff and aren't confused by a little error. :) I have a player in my group who is loving his warlock and I've read that Complete Arcane book about 8 times over to make sure I understood the class. It's an alright class. Not my personal favorite, but definitly a different take at a magic caster which makes it interesting.
crazysamaritan 06-30-05, 09:32 AM	First no supernatural transformation (acepptable, had something anyway :( ) then no hideous blow (wtf? :thinks: ) now he only gets 4 invocations.... :nonono:
Chaotica Maxima 06-30-05, 09:43 AM	Heh, wow, this kinda makes you wonder how easy it is to become 'Sage' for WotC....... I mean seriously, you dont even have to read up on a class to make a '<insert class> with class' article.... I want his job! :D
Particle_Man 06-30-05, 10:08 AM	I was also surprised he didn't note that one of the divine magic items a warlock should get is a wand of cure light wounds. Easy to use, and you can be an emergency back-up healer if the cleric goes down.
Moonflyer 06-30-05, 10:17 AM	Tell me about it... after reading the article I went to the eratta page to see if they tryed to gimp the warlock again... luckily it was just a "Sage" error. Please fix this oh mighty "I have the power to edit person" before those "anti" warlock people start flooding their gaming sessions saying, "I knew you were playing your Warlock wrong" and "See I told you the Warlock class was unbalanced... they changed it... see here on the Official D&D website!" With Skip's belief that supernatural transformation doesn't apply to Warlocks, I took a step back... with his ruling on a concentration check for Hidious Blow, I wondered if he read the discription of the ability... now this, come on man show the Warlock some love. Another request, while I am actually posting here, open up prestige classes that have X level arcane spellcaster as a requirement for the Warlock class... right now a Warlock has the choice to take this evil prestige class or that evil prestige class... you talk about Warlocks with class... how about the Chaotic Good Warlock/Eldritch Knight...
Pax 06-30-05, 10:23 AM	If I'd read this article first I would have, based on the misconception it perpetuates, lost interest in the class and probably never have purchased the book. Because it bears repeating. Often.
OamuTheMonk 06-30-05, 10:29 AM	I am convinced that it is all of you who are wrong, that the Warlock is only entitled to one Invocation of each level of his career. In addition, I feel that Warlocks are meant solely as NPCs, that having an innate spell-like ability does not always mean having an innate spell-like ability, that having a melee attack that provkes AoOs makes perfect reasonable sense that is not at all retarded, and a three-legged greyhound is actually a bowl of potato soup.
Rez 06-30-05, 10:29 AM	Personally, I doubt I'd allow 'arcane prcs' to be used for warlocks. Sorcerers/Wizards and Warlocks work with different mechanics. I may change a prc slightly to /allow/ it.....but yeah, warlocks need more good prcs.
Rez 06-30-05, 10:31 AM	And is it just me or do warlock powers seem to just revolved around 'darkness' and maybe 'evil'? I think there should be 'light' counterparts...
WerewolfPaladin 06-30-05, 10:34 AM	Yeah, I was quite confused by this article. It's not that hard to realize that the Warlock gets more than 4 invocations in his career. The warlock is a pretty cool class as an alternate "spellcaster", but to see them mishandled this badly in an official article hurts. And is it just me or do warlock powers seem to just revolved around 'darkness' and maybe 'evil'? I think there should be 'light' counterparts... Yeah. I'm playing a fae based Warlock. I need to go through and rename my abilities.
CzarGarrett 06-30-05, 10:53 AM	There is a simple word missing from the original article. 'Type'. The Warlock gets 3 additional Invocation TYPES. Lesser, Greater, Dark. The fact that the mistake was made twice in the article and was allowed to go to press is reprehensible.
Aubri 06-30-05, 11:15 AM	And is it just me or do warlock powers seem to just revolved around 'darkness' and maybe 'evil'? I think there should be 'light' counterparts... It would be pretty simple to make one up, a champion of the Powers of Light... assuming that such Powers in your campaign take that direct of a hand in mortal events. It's easy for evil to do so, because evil likes to cheat. But, assuming it's by the rules (or maybe a CG deity) I'd switch the eldritch blast to something similar to the Lantern Archon's light beams and try to invert all the invocations--for example, Hungry Darkness converts to a Daylight spell full of those itty-bitty fay that put you to sleep, or something. Anyway.
Arrowhen 06-30-05, 11:20 AM	There is a simple word missing from the original article. 'Type'. The Warlock gets 3 additional Invocation TYPES. Lesser, Greater, Dark. The fact that the mistake was made twice in the article and was allowed to go to press is reprehensible. No, it was more than just missing the word "types." Both statements, especially the one I quoted, show a clear lack of understanding of the warlock's abilities.
Sildatorak 06-30-05, 02:17 PM	First no supernatural transformation (acepptable, had something anyway :( ) then no hideous blow (wtf? :thinks: ) now he only gets 4 invocations.... :nonono: When did these go away? Or is that a side effect of something that I see to be overlooking? having a melee attack that provkes AoOs What, like touch spells and stuff :P A simple +14 concentration check will always let you utilize spell-like abilities defensively (barring someone with the mageslayer feat).
Guroth the Forsaken 06-30-05, 03:18 PM	Hey sildatorak, nice sig! :D Check mine! ;)
Merestil Haye 06-30-05, 03:18 PM	Slidtorak : Eldritch Blat and other class-learned spell like abilities were ruled ineligible for Supernatural Transformation in the last FAQ. Just promulgating a ruling Richard Baker announced unofficially on the Classes boards a while back. Losing Hideous Blow? Don't know what that means, unless he is referring to the ruling in the same FAQ that Hideous Blow provokes an AoO. Added : On the OP, that is incompetence on the part of Skip Williams and the editorial staff responsible for website content. Errors of this magnitude should result in people having downgraded reviews if it happens too much. Any idea who we should wite to?
Megrim_Lord 06-30-05, 03:43 PM	I am convinced that it is all of you who are wrong, that the Warlock is only entitled to one Invocation of each level of his career. In addition, I feel that Warlocks are meant solely as NPCs, that having an innate spell-like ability does not always mean having an innate spell-like ability, that having a melee attack that provkes AoOs makes perfect reasonable sense that is not at all retarded, and a three-legged greyhound is actually a bowl of potato soup. Hark, this post radiates an aura of artifact level sarcasm! I agree, how stupid does one have to be to write an article on the class WITHOUT actually knowing exactly how the class works?
DDogwood 06-30-05, 03:51 PM	I realize it's "just" their website and they're not going to spend as much time editing it as they would a retail product, but surely... I think you overestimate how much time they spend editing their retail products :weep:
Arkonth 06-30-05, 03:53 PM	I agree, I'm amazed such a glaring error was posted online. I've been toying with playing a warlock for some time, and was thinking this article would be great for inspiration as to what sort of warlock to play. When I saw how confused Skip was, I was just shocked. I mean, isn't rules knowledge a requirment to be the leading expert on the rules?
Pax 06-30-05, 04:38 PM	Added : On the OP, that is incompetence on the part of Skip Williams and the editorial staff responsible for website content. Errors of this magnitude should result in people having downgraded reviews if it happens too much. Heck, I suspect that an error of this magnitude would exclude someone from at LEAST the higher levels of GMing in the RPGA, and maybe even any ranking as a GM. I think we're all going to agree that, while the RPGA isn't neccessarily a cesspool of incompetence, you also don't have to be a paragon of rules perfection to GM an RPGA event. Yet, having made an error this big ... this is still the guy who handles Sage Advice ...?!? Any idea who we should wite to? No, I don't know. Or I'd've already written them - probably with a longer, higher-quality, and far more helpful alternate article to replace Skip's hackneyed and inaccuracy-riddled tripe with.
Pax 06-30-05, 04:53 PM	I agree, how stupid does one have to be to write an article on the class WITHOUT actually knowing exactly how the class works? Look at the name of the author, and ask yourself, "How stupid does someone have to be to be SURPRISED that there are such glaring, inexcusable errors in the article ...?"
Arrowhen 06-30-05, 05:23 PM	I think you overestimate how much time they spend editing their retail products :weep: There's a detailed breakdown of their detailed editorial procedures on page XX of Complete Divine. ;)
Drachasor 06-30-05, 05:28 PM	Are they overworking Skip or something? He did Sage Advice for Dragon for years and years and years and always seemed to do quite a good job. It seems strange he's been making mistakes so much lately. -Drachasor
Board_Rider 06-30-05, 06:38 PM	Did someone die? Are all books getting marked up in price? Did this article somehow ruin your life? I am sorry guys but unless I read some of your posts out of context, some of you seriously need to chill. Errors on a free website? WHO CARES!!! You knew what was wrong( and how to fix it) and it wasn't like it was an "official" article meant to be implemented or to overturn prior text. What it take for you to read that? A few minutes? Now suddenly you all can be armchair editors? Seriously guys, unwind the panties and calm down. Go outside and get a life for chrissakes!!! And you know what else....this is for everbody.....if you are tired of buying WoTC books that are shabby, uninspiring or poorly edited, then don't buy them. Its that simple. No reason to get all butt hurt over something that is out of your control. I seriously doubt WoTC is gonna miss that $40.
Pax 06-30-05, 07:42 PM	Did this article somehow ruin your life? No, but it may make it a tad more difficult, in terms of gaming. Errors on a free website? WHO CARES!!! You knew what was wrong( and how to fix it) I run an online arena; I have, er ... let me count ... thirty-three players, and I get another couple new players every week. So far, more than one has expressed interest in the Warlock class (and there's at least one active warlock being run right now). Yes, I know how to fix it. But I don't care to have to constantly point the error out to less-experienced (or more-gullible) players, who might not have even realised the article was in error. and it wasn't like it was an "official" article meant to be implemented or to overturn prior text. Too many people see Skip's name on something and start changing "official! official! official!" like some sort of unholy mantra. What it take for you to read that? A few minutes? Now suddenly you all can be armchair editors? Actually, I have written better rules text than some of what I see on WOTC's website ... and I've been doing it since before the revised 3.5 rules came out. I also tend to write better explanations of existing rules text than the sort of inaccurate and misleading stuff in the article in question. And I don't get paid for it. I have long held WOTC's rules-based customer service efforts in utter contempt - and yes, thatincludes Skip and "Sage Advice" - because it seems like the answers are made without opening the actual books. I don't make rulings for my games without either (a) opening the books, or (b) prefacing the ruling with "well, withut checking the book, my gut feelign is ______". My ruling affect less than fourty people, right now. Skip's rulings and other articles affect millions of people. He has a responsibility, as a professional, to comport himself in a professional manner ... by making sure he's got his facts straight. If he's going to Preach from the Mountain, he'd best know what he's preaching. Yes?
Arrowhen 06-30-05, 07:46 PM	Errors on a free website? WHO CARES!!! You knew what was wrong( and how to fix it) and it wasn't like it was an "official" article meant to be implemented or to overturn prior text. No, it wasn't an "official" article; it was an article from a series targeted toward newcomers to the game and, most likely, the hobby. Newbies are the future of the hobby. For WotC to display such an egregious lack of concern for nurturing the next generation of players fortells dire consequences for the future of the game we all love. And you know what else....this is for everbody.....if you are tired of buying WoTC books that are shabby, uninspiring or poorly edited, then don't buy them. I don't, for the most part. Its that simple. No reason to get all butt hurt over something that is out of your control. I've been gaming for more than twenty years. No matter how low the quality of WotC's products sinks, it doesn't affect my game in the slightest. HOWEVER, I plan to game for at least another twenty years and I would very much prefer that the next generation of my prospective players be able to purchase brand-new copies of a well-designed and well-supported game, rather than have to scour the dusty shelves of second hand book stores for the tattered relics of a game that is no more.
slade_caizer 06-30-05, 08:58 PM	Too many people see Skip's name on something and start changing "official! official! official!" like some sort of unholy mantra. That's so true. Though normally when I see "Skip Williams" printed on anything I expect it to be a load of Masking is a CoC violation. Actually, the exact phrase that runs through my mind is "oh gods what has that asshat done now?". I wasn't confused in the least by the article. I knew exactly that he was referring to when you get access to a new grade of invocation, but I kept thinking about the players who wouldn't understand. Indeed it's only a small wording error, but the meaning difference is MASSIVE. Did it bug me? Nah. I hope it doesn't screw too many games and groups. What disappointed me the most about the article though...was that he didn't have anything better to do than touch on some of the highlights of what is commonly tossed about on the CO boards. Unlike all of the other "_____ with Class" articles he clearly didn't give a rat's ass. What no suggestions on equipment other than 'get the best light armor' and 'nab some wands and scrolls'? I commend the mention of the knock spell and so forth, however. I'm disappointed there was no mention of say...chasubles and scepters...maybe something to increase movement rate (i mean a continuous item not a haste spell). In general the article was just a 'here let's be vague and let players use their imaginations'. Now I like that view in one sense. However, I can't help but feel there was nowhere near the effort or detail in this article compared to the rest of the series. ------ On a completely different note, now that my rant is done, I'm aware of the arguments going on about Hideous Blow. I checked the Complete Arcane errata and there was nothing in there about it. Where can I find this SRD people keep referring to? It sounds like the greatest collection of attrocities of our age.
Pax 06-30-05, 09:13 PM	In general the article was just a 'here let's be vague and let players use their imaginations'. Oh, yes. I have my own advice for Warlocks. Like, for one: you are not a spellcaster. You are an infinite-ammunition ARCHER with some really neat tricks, and the ability (eventually) to make nearly any magicitem in the game. Treat yourself as such, and you won't go wrong. Some advice on how to use material form other ooks would have been great - like the simple trick of "Tomb-Tained Soul and Utterdark Blst let you heal yourself pretty much whenever you feel like it". Or maybe "For evil warlocks whohave Utterdark Blast and Eldritch Cone, the invocation The Dead Walk is an excellent choice, as your Utterdark Cones will heal the undead youhave created while damaging your foes at the sme time; for the same reason, Undead Leadership is an excellent feat for such warlocks to pick up. Most of the time, though, your DM won't want you to play a warlock built like this; it'd bebest if you checked with him before settingout to do these things." You know, useful advice.
Zandilar 06-30-05, 09:16 PM	Heya, I'm assuming that the article has since been changed. Otherwise, some of you need a lesson in reading comprehension before you go off blathering about poor editing and/or rules knowledge.
Moonflyer 06-30-05, 10:03 PM	Yeah man they did fix it, but it's still a pretty shabby explaination of the invocation progression.
KelanenPrinceofSwords 06-30-05, 10:25 PM	Is Skip going to have to enter the witness protection program or something? Can you ever find it in your hearts to forgive him for ruining your lives? :rolleyes:
slade_caizer 06-30-05, 10:29 PM	Is Skip going to have to enter the witness protection program or something? Can you ever find it in your hearts to forgive him for ruining your lives? :rolleyes: Uhmmm... :plotting: We're gonna have to say no. After all the team of midget ninja assassins has already been paid, and my credit card company is not happy with me. :D
Shaken, not Stunned 06-30-05, 10:42 PM	.... I'll back you up on that. I don't think this is the end of the world, and I think people are eager to criticize Skip Williams over minutia, probobly because of inertia.
Pax 06-30-05, 11:12 PM	Heya, I'm assuming that the article has since been changed. Otherwise, some of you need a lesson in reading comprehension before you go off blathering about poor editing and/or rules knowledge. Yeah, it's been changed. Compare what was there when I started the thread: Invocations: An invocation is a spell-like ability that the warlock can use at will. At 1st level, and once every five levels thereafter, he can choose one invocation from a specific list. Some invocations alter the warlock's eldritch blast; others provide new abilities that expand his options beyond merely dealing damage. ... with what is there now, with the changes in color: Invocations: An invocation is a spell-like ability that the warlock can use at will. At 1st level, and once every five levels thereafter, he can choose invocations from a specific list of grades (least, lesser, greater or dark). Some invocations alter the warlock's eldritch blast; others provide new abilities that expand his options beyond merely dealing damage. Unfortunately, that particular fix still doesn't cut it. Read literally, it leaves one with theimpression thatyou get one invocatin at 1stlevel, a second at 6th, a third at 11th, and your fourth at 16th level. The simple fact is, there ISN'T an easy pattern to when new invocations are gained; the way they are gained cannot be simplified into a single sentence. In this case, one shoudl simply direct the reader to consult the relevant table for the class in question, and perhaps mention that hte column for known invocations is easilymissed, due to how the table was formatted. The article should say (my changes in color: Invocations: An invocation is a spell-like ability that the warlock can use at will. At 1st level, and at various levels thereafter as specified by Table 1-1 in Complete Arcane, he can choose one invocation from a specific list - eventually learning a total of twelve invocations. Note that the column "Invocations Known" on the far right of Table 1-1 can be easy to miss, due to the manner in which the table was formatted. Some invocations alter the warlock's eldritch blast; others provide new abilities that expand his options beyond merely dealing damage. Now, that was written completely off the cuff ... and, really ... how hard was that, anyway ...? And why wasn't it written along those lines to begin with ... or when it was "fixed" ...? IMO, if you're going to bother writing something ... do your darnedest to get it right (preferably the first time, but hey, mistakes DO happen). And if it isn't worth getting right ... well, it's simply not worth writing. IM(NS)HO, anyway. Oh, private aside: don't disparage my reading comprehension until you improve yours. Go back topost #1, and re-read the quote there. And some of the bits others plucked out too (which have also been tweaked, now). Thenconsider: either you want to imply we're all liars and deliberately misquoted the article, or yes indeed, it HAS been changed. Starting with the more-charitable and less-vitrilic assumption is ALWAYS the best course of action.
Shaken, not Stunned 06-30-05, 11:15 PM	On the up side, these people are actually able and willing to correct things based on input from the consumer. And they actually, ya know, read these boards. Crazy.
Aubri 06-30-05, 11:56 PM	On a completely different note, now that my rant is done, I'm aware of the arguments going on about Hideous Blow. I checked the Complete Arcane errata and there was nothing in there about it. Where can I find this SRD people keep referring to? It sounds like the greatest collection of atrocities of our age. Yeah, by the rules, Hideous Blow does provoke an attack. It seems a bit odd--the invocation is quite a weak choice if it does--but that's the RAW. Thus--equipment suggestion!--if you want to use it, grab a longspear. It occurs to me that a Hideous Blow user will want a totally different ability loadout than the average Warlock; you want a high strength (after all, why are you taking Hideous Blow in the first place?), and Charisma sinks behind the physical stats to 4th priority, if that. Of course, if you carefully avoid save-based invocations, you can quite happily Warlock away with Cha 6. As you say--you're not a caster. Would you say this is a good class to multiclass? I think it's probably best as the main component, splashed with another useful class like Barbarian or ranger. It takes a while to get the really good invocations, but once you get to 6-8th you've got a couple Lessers that are very handy and some pretty good damage on your blast. At that point you can go full over to the "other class" and do well. Since there's no "casting stat", you can build the ability scores toward your other class without getting into MAD problems.
Moonflyer 07-01-05, 12:35 AM	I am playing a Swashbuckler1/Warlock3 at the moment in a campaign... tumble in, stick with a hidious blow from my rapier laced with some other dibilating invocation. Luckily the DM thinks as I do, which is hidious blow, because it's not a touch attack and if you don't hit with the weapon the eldritch blast is not invoked, is not a power that needs concentration. As for multi-classing... a fighter class is your best bet, but I wouldn't take many levels of the other class or you'll wind up with no Dark Invocations unless you go beyond 20th level. As for Prestige Classes... for evil I suggest Acolyte of the Skin, but with one it is tricky, depends on your DM. Do your Warlock first... 13 levels then go Acolyte. Look in Libris Mortis there are some good feats that will help this combination of classes. For good... yeah right, there are none. Thou a straight Warlock with the right party is a force to be reckoned with.
Board_Rider 07-01-05, 01:03 AM	I'll back you up on that. I don't think this is the end of the world, and I think people are eager to criticize Skip Williams over minutia, probobly because of inertia. Thanks. Look guys there is no reason to shoulder this burden and put the yoke on themselves. Those who bashed the article quickly fell in some fallacy that this affected so many people that it would take all this time to correct. And ya know what happened? They fixed it. Is it up to some "standard"? Not for everyone but ya got to ask yourselves, "How can it be?" In no way can WoTC, or Skip in this case, please everyone. Sure it looked hastily prepared and not well thought out. Let his employers worry about that. If your players read that and ask about it say, "Ignore it. This is what a Warlock is...." Thats the burden of being a DM. Don't like it. Don't do it. Easy. Besides if you guys have all this time to worry about someone else perhaps you need second jobs. Or, again, a life. Look I have been gaming for coming on 15 years. I have seen all types of gamers and I must admit that I am lost when I see people complain about what should be done or what they would have done. Do it then. If ya got time to critique, then ya got time to correct. Additionally if ya don't like it..fine. Be like Arrowhen and don't buy it. Im done. Carry on Gentlemen.
Maerdash 07-01-05, 01:20 AM	I have to agree with Board Rider (I ussually agree with board rider but that's beside the point). I have a published novel (yes its crap big deal) and from the headache and nausea I got from it I have come to have nothing but respect for real authors and editors, they do a tough and often thankless job. I say thankless because despite the "Oh I'm your greatest fan!" crap they hear at book signings they have to listen to the gibberish thats spouted by people who were disappointed in the work. Disappointed? So what you never have been and never will be forced to purchase the materials.
SnowbearK 07-01-05, 02:04 AM	Ahhh, hideous blow. My Feral Half-Orc Warlock/ is most happy with it, and with staying Single-classed.. Back to the topic at hand. All I can really say at this point is at least they heard and responded positively, the whining can stop.
Particle_Man 07-01-05, 03:19 AM	btw, the latest info on Hideous Blow is in the FAQ. I guess my beef with the Warlock is that it was obvious from Skip's mistake that he never played one. I would have liked someone to have written a Warlocks with Class article to have actually played a Warlock. The advice would have had the "ring of truth" about it, and the article would have been more helpful. As it stands, I learned nothing from the article except that "shield" is a good option for a wand or scroll, and so I think the only value of the (now corrected) ad is to maybe get people to look at the class in Complete Arcane if they haven't already.
KelanenPrinceofSwords 07-01-05, 07:21 AM	Uhmmm... :plotting: We're gonna have to say no. After all the team of midget ninja assassins has already been paid, and my credit card company is not happy with me. :D Those midget ninjas have the size Small advantage to Hide checks, AC and attacks, making them top-notch assassins. Scary! ;)
Malice Duskblade 07-01-05, 07:54 AM	Get off of Skip's back, you vultures. He's done far more for this game than any of you. So he made a mistake in wording. Give it a rest. It's been corrected. Without skip, we'd have less in our bookshelves. Pull your heads out of your colons - nothing any of you has written has popped up on my bookshelf. When it does, you can criticize with the proper stature. In the meantime, as much crap as you talk, you are still nothing. Give this thread a rest - you have beat it down into the grave with repeated remarks enough. -Brought to you with the angst of Ratheus! Grrrrr!
Merestil Haye 07-01-05, 08:09 AM	The main issue I had with the article was that it's on the Wizards website, and therefore the writer and editors have been paid for service which, if delivered individually is "not reasonably fit for the purpose supplied". In short, it's a poor-quality piece of work. Yes it's been fixed. The quoted text in the first two posts is how it read before editing. Now, it just strains. They'd have done better to openly admit the error and rework the article to a more natural feel and describe the number of invocations. As far as his contributions go, I agree he has done a lot. However, sooner or later someone like that becomes an institution. When that happens, he is in danger of having his reputation shroud his errors, and he can then do harm to the thing he has helped build up if he and his peers do not critically review his input. I think this is what is happening here, to be honest. Trivia time. Skip is not the sage. He gave it up last year. Andy Collins replaced him.
Zandilar 07-01-05, 08:52 AM	Heya, Yeah, it's been changed. Compare what was there when I started the thread: Well yes. As a poster a couple of posts up from yours said. Oh, private aside: don't disparage my reading comprehension until you improve yours. Go back topost #1, and re-read the quote there. And some of the bits others plucked out too (which have also been tweaked, now). Thenconsider: either you want to imply we're all liars and deliberately misquoted the article, or yes indeed, it HAS been changed. Starting with the more-charitable and less-vitrilic assumption is ALWAYS the best course of action. I admit I was a touch snippy in my reply, and though it doesn't really excuse my words, I'm currently not well and am irritable because I don't like being not well. I apologise. However, I feel I must point out that your private aside isn't private. Next time, if you want to say something to another board user privately, you might concider using private mail in order to take your issue up with the user privately rather than bringing it onto the public boards. I did not mean to imply that you are liars, it was my mistake not to compare what you had quoted and what the article said as I was writing my post. So again I apologise. However, I have seen enough of the internet to know that overreaction is the name of the game (if you've ever hung out on MMO forums, you'll know exactly where I'm coming from). You complained, the web page got changed... They didn't have to change it, but they did. At least you've won that much... Perhaps it could still be clearer, but even in my current muddle headed state, I found the changed article it made sense - and if taken with Complete Arcane (and Errata) in hand, the problems aren't that bad. The article certianly is a lot better than it was. Normally I'd agree with you on reacting to things more sympathetically, and I apologise again for not being so.
Pax 07-01-05, 09:51 AM	On the up side, these people are actually able and willing to correct things based on input from the consumer. And they actually, ya know, read these boards. Crazy. Absolutely, and for that, I commend them. Or Skip, if he was the one who corrected it. Look guys there is no reason to shoulder this burden and put the yoke on themselves. Those who bashed the article quickly fell in some fallacy that this affected so many people that it would take all this time to correct. And ya know what happened? They fixed it. Is it up to some "standard"? Not for everyone but ya got to ask yourselves, "How can it be?" In no way can WoTC, or Skip in this case, please everyone. And you knwo what? If some fans, myself included, hadn't spoken up and said "Hey, wait a minute, that's not right!" ... they might never have known to correct the mistake. You will note, too, that the opening post (mine, as fate would have it) did describe it as a common mistake. Table 1-1 in Complete arcane is poorly formatted; it should never have been made to fit a single column of text. If it was, as so many class tables are, a full-page-width column, then the "Invocations Known" column itself would not be so easily missed. Look I have been gaming for coming on 15 years. So? I've been gaming for about twenty-seven years now - over a quarter century. So ... now that I've won it, was there a point to this "I'm a veteran gamer!" contest ...? I have seen all types of gamers and I must admit that I am lost when I see people complain about what should be done or what they would have done. Really? That's funny, because if noone had ever said word one about that sort of thing, we wouldn't have a third edition. It's WOTC, after all, that trumpeted the "the players said what they wanted, and we listened" line. Do it then. If ya got time to critique, then ya got time to correct. And I did. That was the wholepoint of this thread when I started it - however, I do NOT have access to the WOTC servers to actually correct the article. Instead, I endeavored to point folkswho did have that access and authority at what needed to be corrected. I say thankless because despite the "Oh I'm your greatest fan!" crap they hear at book signings they have to listen to the gibberish thats spouted by people who were disappointed in the work. Disappointed? So what you never have been and never will be forced to purchase the materials. Any author who cannot stand to hear criticism - constructive or otherwise - abouthis or her work, should probably not have submitted their work for publication. And should definitely not be doing book signings. Criticism is inevitable; if you can't take it, or failed to anticipate it ... well, I'm sorry for your discomfort, but you rather broughtit on yourself. You're welcome to tell the rude ones to bugger off, and (hopefully) actually discuss with the polite ones about what disappointed them,and why. You never know; when they say "Iw as disappointed with how it ends", they may not be saying "you wrote a crappy ending" ... it might be,. just maybe, that they wished things had turned out better for character X, or that Character Y had gotten it up their backside more, etc. IOW, their "disappointment" maynot be with your writing, but instead, with events int h4e story ... and that is in no way a criticism of you, the writer! It's a compliment. Get off of Skip's back, you vultures. He's done far more for this game than any of you. So he made a mistake in wording. Give it a rest. It's been corrected. Why, hello, mister Johnny-come-lately. Thank you for your polite, civil, and insightful entry into this conversation. Pull your heads out of your colons - nothing any of you has written has popped up on my bookshelf. My, and omniscient too ...! After all, how else can you possibly know wether or not something on your bookshelf was or was not penned,in whole or in part, by anyone here? I mean, you'll never see a book or other written work with "Pax, fromthe WOTC community boards" credited as the author, after all. When it does, you can criticize with the proper stature. One does not need to be a writer of gamign products, to point out obvious nd fundamental errors in anothers' works. As far as his contributions go, I agree he has done a lot. However, sooner or later someone like that becomes an institution. When that happens, he is in danger of having his reputation shroud his errors, and he can then do harm to the thing he has helped build up if he and his peers do not critically review his input. I think this is what is happening here, to be honest. Yes, absolutely. My personal problem with Skip? Only that, when he was makign rulings as The Sage, it didn't seem like he was actually checking the books. Whereas in my case, even though I am unpaid and do not hold a position that carries the weight of officialdom ... I ALWAYS admit those few times when I give a ruling without checking the books first. Were I to have been, despite being largely unknown to Wizards, selected for the role of the Sage ...? I'd check the books, for Every. Single. Ruling. Why? Because, IMO, it'd be part ofthe job description: "know the rules, and get them right the first time. Or at the very least, present the appearance thereof." Well yes. As a poster a couple of posts up from yours said. Yeah. That'd be me who said that. In the same post. I admit I was a touch snippy in my reply, and though it doesn't really excuse my words, I'm currently not well and am irritable because I don't like being not well. Okay - that I can understand; been there, done that. Didn't respond well to it, either. ^_^ I apologise. However, I feel I must point out that your private aside isn't private. Wasn't meant to be private in the sense that "only you can see it"; that was simply intended solely to shfit form the "general, nonspecific you" to a specific "yeah I'm talkin to you" you. ^_^
roguken 07-01-05, 10:39 AM	Well, now that we've all vented ourselves, and we brought about the changes that needed to be changed, i honestly think that we can give the complaining a rest. However, it seems that many people aren't happy with the revision, or the article in general. So, i think that we should start posting some of our own advice for warlocks instead of shooting down someone elses. Now, I won't be, simply because I don't know much about the class, but a few people here have already given some great suggestions, and I think that if anyone else has any, they should post them. (If there is a thread specific for this, please let me know.)
Board_Rider 07-01-05, 12:20 PM	And you knwo what? If some fans, myself included, hadn't spoken up and said "Hey, wait a minute, that's not right!" ... they might never have known to correct the mistake.^_^ Oh get over yourself chief. What are you in your 30's? Get a life dude. I am sure someone would have made it known eventually. There are what, 3 to 7 posters that were upset enough to post here about the mistakes? It really was no big deal. So? I've been gaming for about twenty-seven years now - over a quarter century. So ... now that I've won it, was there a point to this "I'm a veteran gamer!" contest.. I only noted my game time because you did. It wasn't some form of contest. However I now know your maturity level for thinking that I was implying that. I am not going to reply to everything you wrote but I just want to say lighten up. You seem so angry about being unpaid for doing some work. Then don't do it. It really is that simple. Just because you hold some standard for the WoTC authors doesn't mean that they have to meet it. I shall await your retort.
Particle_Man 07-01-05, 02:29 PM	I think there is a complaint worth merit. It is generally considered A Bad Idea if the game designers/employees have not actually played the game that they are making/giving advice about. For instance, you expect someone writing a strategy book on chess to know how the knight is supposed to move. Skip's mistake (and frankly, the style of his correction) would not have been made by someone that had actually played or DM'd a Warlock. Therefore he has not played or DM'd a Warlock. Therefore he should have bowed out gracefully on this particular article and let Wotc delegate the task of writing it to someone that actually has played a Warlock. That is my beef. I mean, if we as mere players are not entitled to gripe about game designers' errors because we know so much less than they, then it must be much worse for someone to write (and get paid for writing) a public article about a class that he clearly has never played. In this particular case, the writer of the article was writing as a "suit" and not a "gamer". Skip lost his Street Cred as far as Warlocks are concerned. This is not to take away from his valuable work on stuff that he has actually played and playtested, but it means I will be cautious in the future, since I now know that he writes about classes that he has never played. And I now know that Wotc hires people that write about classes that they have never played.
Aubri 07-01-05, 02:49 PM	I am playing a Swashbuckler1/Warlock3 at the moment in a campaign... tumble in, stick with a hidious blow from my rapier laced with some other dibilating invocation. Luckily the DM thinks as I do, which is hidious blow, because it's not a touch attack and if you don't hit with the weapon the eldritch blast is not invoked, is not a power that needs concentration. Exactly--if it does take a concentration check, then the invocation is horribly underpowered; all you get for your trouble is the extra damage that the weapon and strength deal, and it's not even a touch attack. Compare that to the same-level invocation Eldritch Spear that lets you snipe from 250 feet away, no range increment, no check, no armor! As for multi-classing... a fighter class is your best bet, but I wouldn't take many levels of the other class or you'll wind up with no Dark Invocations unless you go beyond 20th level. That was my sense too, but as I said, there are several mid-level invocations that would be very useful--for example, the lesser invocation Walk Unseen on a rogue build. But, then again, I suppose if you put those levels in Warlock instead you could do about the same damage without needing to sneak attack... and if you've got good charisma, take Eldritch Cone and get all Palpatine on those goblins!
Arrowhen 07-01-05, 03:01 PM	Skip's mistake (and frankly, the style of his correction) would not have been made by someone that had actually played or DM'd a Warlock. Or, for that matter, taken two minutes to read the class description before writing the article.
Aubri 07-01-05, 03:10 PM	btw, the latest info on Hideous Blow is in the FAQ. Yeah, and that's the other thing we're taking issue with. It's precisely the wrong answer. Consider: I, a warlock using no invocations, can fire my ray 30 feet with no more trouble than an archer with his bow. No check, and it's a touch attack to hit. Now I decide to use my Hideous Blow invocation. Pull a mace and step up to smack a guy. I get perhaps 1d8+2 more damage than I would have otherwise, but I can only swing once since it's a standard action. I have to beat his full AC instead of his touch AC. And now I have to make a check or lose the bulk of my damage?? Why bother? If I took Eldrich Spear instead I could stand 200 feet away and blast him three or four times before he could close. Heck, for that matter, I could stand right in front of him, make the same concentration check, and attack his touch AC AND make it a Frightful Blast (or whatever) since I didn't waste an invocation on Hideous Blow. The only thing that's hideous about it is how underpowered it is if it doesn't allow me to use my blast in melee without provoking AoOs. Edit: On re-examining the "Sage" Advice, there's an even bigger error. The FAQ claims that delivering a Hideous Blow is a melee touch attack, when it's clearly not; "as a standard action, you can make a single melee attack". That means against full AC, armor included. Now, I can understand clarifying that you'd be considered armed if you want to deliver the blow with an unarmed strike, but that's not what the FAQ said. Oh, and the question about whether it requires a standard action to activate the Blow and a second one to attack really should note that the text in no way allows you to hold the charge. "If you hit, the target is affected as if struck by your eldrich blast". It's a single standard action, and you don't have the option of activating it ahead of time. You're required to activate it within melee range. The intent is clearly that it doesn't provoke attacks.
roonechr 07-01-05, 03:44 PM	AND make it a Frightful Blast (or whatever) since I didn't waste an invocation on Hideous Blow. I agree with everything that you said but just wanted to point out that you could make a hideous blow frightful because the description specifically states that "the target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast (including any eldritch essence applied to the blast)." This is in keeping with the mechanic that you can apply an eldritch essence and blast shape invocation to your eldritch blast simultaneously. In rereading the description of Hideous Blow it is clear (to me) that the intention was for it not to draw attacks of opportunity. I quote: “As a standard action you may make a melee attack. If you hit, the target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast” The action involved is not using an invocation, which would draw an attack of opportunity, it is making a melee attack, which does not draw attacks of opportunity (as long as you don’t try it unarmed without Improved Unarmed Strike). In fact, you never invoke your eldritch blast, instead the target is affected as if you did.
Aubri 07-01-05, 04:19 PM	I agree with everything that you said but just wanted to point out that you could make a hideous blow frightful. I know you could, I was running on the assumption that you're a 1st level character and only have one invocation. For that matter, even if you're a higher level it still applies--you're using HB in a slot you could have put something else in. It's not a matter of what combinations are theoretically possible, it's a question of your total resources. If you have both HB and Fearful Blast, then you must have given up something else you wanted--say, Devil's Sight. In rereading the description of Hideous Blow it is clear (to me) that the intention was for it not to draw attacks of opportunity. I quote: “As a standard action you may make a melee attack. If you hit, the target is affected [/I]as if[I] struck by your eldritch blast” The action involved is not using an invocation, which would draw an attack of opportunity, it is making a melee attack, which does not draw attacks of opportunity (as long as you don’t try it unarmed without Improved Unarmed Strike). In fact, you never invoke your eldritch blast, instead the target is affected as if you did. Ummm... yes it does. Hideous Blow itself is an invocation, and so (by the RAW) you would provoke an AoO for using it before you even got around to your swing. What you suggest is a bit like saying that Shocking Grasp doesn't say you take an AoO, so you don't; you do, because you're casting a spell. In this case the invocation needs to specifically say you don't, just like Feather Fall specifies that it's automatically quickened and can be used out of turn.
roonechr 07-01-05, 04:41 PM	Hideous Blow itself is an invocation, and so (by the RAW) you would provoke an AoO for using it Hideous Blow is a Blast Shape invocation. The other Blast Shape invocations do not draw attacks of opportunity; using the eldritch blast invocation that they modify does. In the case of Hideous Blow you never use your eldritch blast (instead the target is affected as if you did) and therefore you shouldn't draw an attack of opportunity because you never take an action that draws one (unless your melee attack draws one for some unrelated reason). This is akin to using a spell storing weapon. What you suggest is a bit like saying that Shocking Grasp doesn't say you take an AoO, so you don't; you do, because you're casting a spell. I don't believe so. When you cast shocking grasp as a standard action you draw an attack of opportunity. Nowhere in the use of Hideous Blow do you take any action that draws an attack of opportunity. The only action taken is a melee attack as a standard action. Are you suggesting that Hideous Blow must be "cast" as a spell-like ability at some point during its use? When?
Pax 07-01-05, 05:07 PM	Oh get over yourself chief. What are you in your 30's? Get a life dude. And the reason for a personal attack is ... what, exactly? It's folks in their 20's and 30's who have the money to support WOTC's existance. I happen to know folks in their sixties that play RPGs ... one fo them, I introduced to the hobby in the first place. I am sure someone would have made it known eventually. It so happens that I was that someone, and yesterday morning was that "eventually". Yet, you still have a problem with the "made it known" bit at all, and apparently me in particular. Methinks you'd've been just as upset as you are now, if any error had ever been pointed out ... anywhere ... by anyone ... in any way. I only noted my game time because you did. No, point in fact, I made no such mention prior to your holding up how long you have been playing RPGs, as if it were some sort of "badge of honor". And y'see, I've gone back and checked ALL my posts in this thread - so, it's confirmed, your claim quoted just above here? It's a lie. To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, "Get your facts straight first, sir; then you may twist them to yourheart's content!" And ... if you post a single further attack on my person, rather than on my position, you may expect every such message in this thread to be promptly reported to the moderators. I am perfectly willing - glad even - to engage in passionate or even somewhat heated debate. But the unprovoked personal attacks stop, right now.
Aubri 07-01-05, 05:32 PM	Hideous Blow is a Blast Shape invocation. The other Blast Shape invocations do not draw attacks of opportunity; using the eldritch blast invocation that they modify does. In the case of Hideous Blow you never use your eldritch blast (instead the target is affected as if you did) and therefore you shouldn't draw an attack of opportunity because you never take an action that draws one (unless your melee attack draws one for some unrelated reason). This is akin to using a spell storing weapon. I can see where you're coming from, but "A warlock's invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity." "Some of a warlock's invocations...are called blast shape invocations." I don't know how you can say he's not "using" his invocation. Even if it does apply to the eldrich blast, then you MUST be USING your eldrich blast before you can apply it! If you have to do this much semantic contortion to get the answer you want, it's just not there. Don't get me wrong--I want you to be right. I agree with your point. But I just can't agree that it's there. It most certainly SHOULD be, but it's not.
roonechr 07-01-05, 05:51 PM	Well, there are a few complicated issues here. First the information we have on Invocations states "A warlock's invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity." However, the Blast Shape and Eldritch Essence Invocations are obviously not standard actions but there is no text that actually states this. The book states that Blast Shape Invocations "modify the range, target(s), or area of a Warlock's eldritch blast." However, according to the wording for Hideous Blow it does not do any of these things. Instead, it enables you make a single melee attack and if you hit then "the target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast". You could argue that you are changing the target of your eldritch blast to the target of your melee attack but there is never any action taken to activate your eldritch blast in order to modify it by changing the target. The rules are that attacks of opportunity are caused by actions that you take to draw them. The mechanics for Hideous Blow do not involve an action at any point that should draw an attack of opportunity. Keep in mind that quickened spells or spell-like abilities for spells cast as swift actions do not draw attacks of opportunity. If it is somehow implied (because it is never stated) that the eldritch blast must be invoked at some point or that Hideous Blow itself requires some sort of action this must be a free or swift action (because no other action could occur within the mechanics) and those do not generally draw attacks of opportunity.
Moonflyer 07-01-05, 05:57 PM	That's great if you take everything from the books and everything from the RAW as gospel... but for me and the others I play with we look at everything as a guideline. X does Y doesn't always apply. Common sense tells me that Hidious Blow would not and should not provoke AoO, just like similar effects like the feat arcane strike, so we have made it a house rule. Yes, it say that the eldritch blast provokes AoO... but as stated by others in this thread Hidious Blow says, "As a standard action you may make a melee attack. If you hit, the target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast." Read that how you may, but for me to have a "wizard type" step forward into combat, they have to hit the AC compared to the touch AC for a normal eldritch blast and on top of that they have to make a concentation check... it's a bit much and would put any player off from taking the Hidious Blow Invocation.
Aubri 07-01-05, 06:18 PM	That's good for your group, Moonflyer, and I'd beat up any DM that tried to do otherwise. But, ultimately, the text is ambiguous, which is why the FAQ interpretation is so egregious. If the text were clearly one way or the other, Skip could be easily dismissed, but many, many DMs will take the FAQ as gospel. (And what else are you supposed to do?)
roonechr 07-01-05, 06:54 PM	You, are of course, correct. I would be much happier if the FAQ was quicker to explain the conclusions that they come to. Surely in this case the designer could be tapped to state what his intention was when designing the class.
Moonflyer 07-01-05, 06:55 PM	Well you question their logic, for example: Supernatural Transformation is a feat which allows the taker to bypass SR with a particular innate spell-like ability, but in the RAW the Sage stated it does not apply to the Warlocks invocations. Now examine this... first why? In the Raw they say because the invocations are learned not innate, but if you read the description of a warlock it says warlocks are born not made, thus logically one would think their powers are innate they just haven't awoke all of them. Nowhere does it say they are innate, it does say they are learned as they advance but unlike other spellcasters they do not have to find a spellbook or buy a scroll or see it used to learn the new "spell".... it is a spell-like ability. I could go on and on arguing this point but I believe the only reason they have denied this feat for warlocks is "balance". They don't want the warlock to become the class that can kill every DM's uber-SR creatures with no trouble, so they have stretch the definition so warlock would be excluded. My group currently has this on the table to examine.
roonechr 07-01-05, 07:06 PM	I agree that they probably made that particular decision for balance. I just wish that they would just say that. I truly believe that they would be better served by providing honest answers like "it's to maintain game balance" or "we made a mistake and are now correcting it" than by treating us like we don't know that it's the case. Although they probably made the decision on Supernatural Transformation based on balance I would argue that it didn't have to be. The fairly recent introduction of offensive Conjuration spells like blast of flame, arc of lightning, vitriolic sphere, and the various orb spells gives a wizard the ability to shred a creature that simply relies on SR much better than a Warlock could.
Aubri 07-01-05, 08:59 PM	I would be much happier if the FAQ was quicker to explain the conclusions that they come to. Surely in this case the designer could be tapped to state what his intention was when designing the class. And ultimately, if he asked the designers he could say so, and if necessary offer "consider this to be errata".
Board_Rider 07-02-05, 12:07 AM	And the reason for a personal attack is ... what, exactly? It's folks in their 20's and 30's who have the money to support WOTC's existance. I happen to know folks in their sixties that play RPGs ... one fo them, I introduced to the hobby in the first place. It was no personal attack...geez what got your panties in such a bunch? I merely stated my opinion and you broke down my post first with your remarks. You're the one who must feel the need to explain himself. It so happens that I was that someone, and yesterday morning was that "eventually". Yet, you still have a problem with the "made it known" bit at all, and apparently me in particular. Well kudos to you then. Methinks you'd've been just as upset as you are now, if any error had ever been pointed out ... anywhere ... by anyone ... in any way. No actually I wouldn't. As I said I did not agree with your initial point and you responded..then I responded. No, point in fact, I made no such mention prior to your holding up how long you have been playing RPGs, as if it were some sort of "badge of honor". And y'see, I've gone back and checked ALL my posts in this thread - so, it's confirmed, your claim quoted just above here? It's a lie. No that was a mistake. Apparently you have one serious problem with anyone making those. I just don't get where the hate is at. To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, "Get your facts straight first, sir; then you may twist them to yourheart's content!" And ... if you post a single further attack on my person, rather than on my position, you may expect every such message in this thread to be promptly reported to the moderators. I am perfectly willing - glad even - to engage in passionate or even somewhat heated debate. But the unprovoked personal attacks stop, right now. I have been attacking your posistion saying that it wasn't a big deal. And again there were no personal attacks that you so want to believe. Feel free to call on the mods if you wish. The thread will get locked, I will get a verbal and this fun little chat ends. I am dying in anticipation for your remarks.
gerald_toronto 07-02-05, 12:08 AM	It so happens that I was that someone, and yesterday morning was that "eventually". Yet, you still have a problem with the "made it known" bit at all, and apparently me in particular. Methinks you'd've been just as upset as you are now, if any error had ever been pointed out ... anywhere ... by anyone ... in any way. I'm glad that you are taking credit for the correction of the article. It is quite possible that the post at 3:23am yesterday in the Character Class section made about 4 hours before your posting was the post which drew the attention of WoTC. But regardless, I think the only problem that anyone would have with your post is the obvious vitriol you have for Skip Williams and anyone else who dares make an error. Because that is what it was. An error, an oversite. Even the title of this thread is demeaning. It's easy to point out the faults of someone who puts themselves in the public eye. It is quite possible that we might notice a number of errors that you make if you were publishing 2 articles a week plus whatever other responsibilities you have. Regardless, I think a little more respectful help and a less antagonistic approach would solve the problem in much the same way without having to belittle someone's efforts.
Pax 07-02-05, 12:32 AM	[...] ...geez what got your panties in such a bunch? [...] Right. Say hullo to the mods when they come to talk to you; if you cannot or ill not keep a civil tongue in yoru head (or the text-based, internet equivalent of that behavior), then ... I simply refuse to fall for your trolling. I'm glad that you are taking credit for the correction of the article. It is quite possible that the post at 3:23am yesterday in the Character Class section made about 4 hours before your posting was the post which drew the attention of WoTC. Possibly. Possibly not. When you click on the "discuss this" link on the article, it's this forum you go to. It is quite possible that we might notice a number of errors that you make if you were publishing 2 articles a week plus whatever other responsibilities you have. And if it was my job to get things right, you would be right to point out those errors. If, over a period of several years, I consistently failed to get things right, you would be entirely right to hold me in contempt for that. The man is certainly a very creative writer; what he has not been, in my exprience, is a generally accurate source of reference TO, and rulings ABOUT, the rules of the D&D game.
Orcboss 07-02-05, 01:43 AM	You know, being Sage is probably kinda like being a Supreme Court judge. Countless lawyers carefully examine your every word and any decision you make is bound to tick off half the populace. Do I think the article could have been better? Yes. Is it's quality worth three pages of combat-by-post? No.
Board_Rider 07-02-05, 01:57 AM	Right. Say hullo to the mods when they come to talk to you; if you cannot or ill not keep a civil tongue in yoru head (or the text-based, internet equivalent of that behavior), then ... I simply refuse to fall for your trolling. No trolling here my friend. Simply someone who who doesn't agree with you and that you have taken offense to. If you cannot take a ribbing so be it. Apparently you cannot take anyone not agreeing with you either. I am not the only one who has pointed that this whole thing was not a biggie. I left it at that. YOU quoted me and broke down my post. YOU started this. NOT me. So go ahead and get the WiZo's. And if it was my job to get things right, you would be right to point out those errors. If, over a period of several years, I consistently failed to get things right, you would be entirely right to hold me in contempt for that. Not entirely right. He(We) would have the right to point out flaws..but not be neccessarily right in doing so. It's simply on ones point of view. I mean look at what we have here. You make a post of some article errors . I say its no big deal. Is that not my right? How can you write that we should point out what we see as wrong and then be so adamant in your posistion when I think your wrong? You make no sense. You know that the title (as GT pointed to) is even derogatory and demeaning. Before you start getting upset about me joking with you and calling me a troll perhaps you should look in the mirror buddy. Again, I eagerly await your retort.
Keenath 07-02-05, 02:22 AM	You know, being Sage is probably kinda like being a Supreme Court judge. Countless lawyers carefully examine your every word and any decision you make is bound to tick off half the populace.That isn't really the issue. We're not talking about a situation where the rules are ambiguous and the FAQ/Errata went against what half the people like. This is a situation where somebody who is held up (or was held up) as the source of correct and accurate information has written an article that isn't just against the popular opinion, but factually wrong! A reporter who prints false stories will be the target of justified anger -- this is a similar situation, if somewhat lower on the importance scale.
Al-Ashrad 07-02-05, 03:02 AM	Absolutely, and for that, I commend them. Or Skip, if he was the one who corrected it. And you knwo what? If some fans, myself included, hadn't spoken up and said "Hey, wait a minute, that's not right!" ... they might never have known to correct the mistake. You will note, too, that the opening post (mine, as fate would have it) did describe it as a common mistake. Table 1-1 in Complete arcane is poorly formatted; it should never have been made to fit a single column of text. If it was, as so many class tables are, a full-page-width column, then the "Invocations Known" column itself would not be so easily missed. So? I've been gaming for about twenty-seven years now - over a quarter century. So ... now that I've won it, was there a point to this "I'm a veteran gamer!" contest ...? Really? That's funny, because if noone had ever said word one about that sort of thing, we wouldn't have a third edition. It's WOTC, after all, that trumpeted the "the players said what they wanted, and we listened" line. And I did. That was the wholepoint of this thread when I started it - however, I do NOT have access to the WOTC servers to actually correct the article. Instead, I endeavored to point folkswho did have that access and authority at what needed to be corrected. Any author who cannot stand to hear criticism - constructive or otherwise - abouthis or her work, should probably not have submitted their work for publication. And should definitely not be doing book signings. Criticism is inevitable; if you can't take it, or failed to anticipate it ... well, I'm sorry for your discomfort, but you rather broughtit on yourself. You're welcome to tell the rude ones to bugger off, and (hopefully) actually discuss with the polite ones about what disappointed them,and why. You never know; when they say "Iw as disappointed with how it ends", they may not be saying "you wrote a crappy ending" ... it might be,. just maybe, that they wished things had turned out better for character X, or that Character Y had gotten it up their backside more, etc. IOW, their "disappointment" maynot be with your writing, but instead, with events int h4e story ... and that is in no way a criticism of you, the writer! It's a compliment. Why, hello, mister Johnny-come-lately. Thank you for your polite, civil, and insightful entry into this conversation. My, and omniscient too ...! After all, how else can you possibly know wether or not something on your bookshelf was or was not penned,in whole or in part, by anyone here? I mean, you'll never see a book or other written work with "Pax, fromthe WOTC community boards" credited as the author, after all. One does not need to be a writer of gamign products, to point out obvious nd fundamental errors in anothers' works. Yes, absolutely. My personal problem with Skip? Only that, when he was makign rulings as The Sage, it didn't seem like he was actually checking the books. Whereas in my case, even though I am unpaid and do not hold a position that carries the weight of officialdom ... I ALWAYS admit those few times when I give a ruling without checking the books first. Were I to have been, despite being largely unknown to Wizards, selected for the role of the Sage ...? I'd check the books, for Every. Single. Ruling. Why? Because, IMO, it'd be part ofthe job description: "know the rules, and get them right the first time. Or at the very least, present the appearance thereof." Yeah. That'd be me who said that. In the same post. Okay - that I can understand; been there, done that. Didn't respond well to it, either. ^_^ Wasn't meant to be private in the sense that "only you can see it"; that was simply intended solely to shfit form the "general, nonspecific you" to a specific "yeah I'm talkin to you" you. ^_^ Is the irony not lost on anyone else that someone who is complaining about a writing and editing problem can't spell to save his frickin' life? :D -Al-Ashrad
Palin the Wizard 07-02-05, 04:54 AM	Anyone arguing spelling and grammatical errors on the Internet will make an error (and usually in that very same paragraph).
Iron Cobra 07-02-05, 05:39 AM	Pax loses.
Pax 07-02-05, 10:35 AM	Is the irony not lost on anyone else that someone who is complaining about a writing and editing problem can't spell to save his frickin' life? :D -Al-Ashrad Actually, my problem is that I cannot type to save my life, not without lots of typographical errors. And since, unlike most good word processors, the forum software here doesn't have a spellchecker - things get through. However - this is perilously close to ad hominem. I've already reported one person for attacking the person instead of the message ...
Palin the Wizard 07-02-05, 10:57 AM	He wasn't attacking you--he was attacking your spelling--which honestly isn't bad. Typographical errors happen. I think you need to take a step back and not take offense where there's meant none. In arguments, as well as many other situations, one's skin needs to be thick.
Pax 07-02-05, 11:15 AM	That's why I said it was close, Palin, not that it was an attack ad hominem.
Palin the Wizard 07-02-05, 11:45 AM	Why point it out at all, then?
Shaken, not Stunned 07-02-05, 12:15 PM	Let me take this oppurtunity to verbally assault everyone. Damn. Are we five? You can report me for that, if you like.
Keenath 07-02-05, 04:57 PM	The people reading this thread may be interested to see the "Warlocks with MORE class" article that I posted over on the Classes board. I'll probably be submitting it to the repository after I get a couple of commentary posts. For your convenience, here's a quick link: BAMF! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6594844)
Al-Ashrad 07-02-05, 05:53 PM	Yet, having made an error this big ... this is still the guy who handles Sage Advice ...?!? No, I don't know. Or I'd've already written them - probably with a longer, higher-quality, and far more helpful alternate article to replace Skip's hackneyed and inaccuracy-riddled tripe with. Let's follow this up with this... However - this is perilously close to ad hominem. I've already reported one person for attacking the person instead of the message ... And let's follow this up with the fact that the title of this thread ("Skip Stumbles Yet Again") is dangerously close to an ad hominem attack... or at least libel... geez... Please, learn to take a joke... geez. The real kick is that, in my case, you were preaching to the choir... -Al-Ashrad
Edymnion 07-02-05, 06:51 PM	I say thankless because despite the "Oh I'm your greatest fan!" crap they hear at book signings they have to listen to the gibberish thats spouted by people who were disappointed in the work. Disappointed? So what you never have been and never will be forced to purchase the materials.Actually, in the case of authors, yes, you do have to purchase it. Its kind of hard to tell if a book is good, or bad, until you read it. And that usually means you have to actually buy it before you can read it. Or at the very least, if you can borrow it, or get it from a library, its still costing you a great deal of time to read it. Anyone that makes anything that they make available to the public has to realize that there will be people that don't like what they do, no matter how good it is. And in the case of literature, they DID pay for it, and if they feel that they have not gotten their money's worth, then they have every right to complain about it.
Palin the Wizard 07-02-05, 07:12 PM	Yeah, it's pretty hard to be disappointed if you don't know what you're supposed to be disappointed in beforehand.
Gutcheck Hammerfall 07-02-05, 09:38 PM	I'm not a Christian, by far; however, the Bible offers a perfect saying for situations like this: Let he without sin throw the first stone. So, he rushed an article and messed up. So!? Yes, we expect more professional work, as we should. Nevertheless, he is human. Further, he's a good author and probably very busy. He made a mistake. Don't crucify him people. A final note: many of you are very unappreciative of how much work it takes into designing a sourcebook. In my opinion most of the books are very good. Especiallty the Forgotten Realms books. It takes at least a year of design for one of these things, and this is thanks they get? If you don't like something they put in a book, fix it to your liking or leave it. Beyond the core, the books are for ideas - in fact, i believe the usually say something along those lines. Though, they make few mistakes for the amount they publish, don't ya think? These people are not superhuman. You ever stop to wonder what other things they have to worry about in life? How about a little compassion. It seems that discussion is appropriate, but lets not try to take shots at Skip. I salute is work and his humaness. About the price - capitalism. They can sell for that much because we buy it. Are we to hate them for making the best of their profit ability? If you could sell something for 40 dollars as opposed to 20 dollars, would you sell for 20?
Particle_Man 07-03-05, 12:35 AM	I think that it is ok to admit people are human, if only *they* would admit that they are human, by, say, delegating the responsibility of writing the "Warlocks with Class" article to someone who actually had the time to read the class description carefully (or better, play or DM the class). Surely that isn't too much to ask. If they can't do the job, that is fine, but they should admit that they can't do that particular job. Skip basically tried to *fake it*, and he got caught because he didn't know what he was talking about. He knew so little about Warlocks that he didn't know how many invocations they get. So essentially, *Skip* did not admit that he couldn't do everything, and so did not delegate the responsibility of writing the "Warlocks with Class" article to, say, Richard Baker, the writer of the class, and that led to the mistake Skip made. As for the FAQ "Hideous Blow" question, I will assume that there will be a future FAQ that will further clarify the issue. Yes I am an optimist.
Pax 07-03-05, 12:37 AM	And let's follow this up with the fact that the title of this thread ("Skip Stumbles Yet Again") is dangerously close to an ad hominem attack... or at least libel... geez... Two things. One - it's not libel. a "stumble" or "error" was made. It wasn't the first time an erro was made by that author, nor will it be the last (noone is perfect). To be libel, it must meed the standards ofthe tortof defamation ... which requires the statement to be untrue. The truth is never libel. Two - someone whose job it has been to be the font of correct rulings, has to rather expect a certain degree of criticism for the errors he makes. And because people seem tohavemissed it: I already said, I have nothing against his creative writing. I enjoy what he creates for gaming books, quite a great deal. However, I remain critical of his ability to accurately refer to what has been written, especially by other people, for the D&D game line. IOW, it is not his creativity or skill as a writer I question; nor is it himself as a person ... rather, it is his accuracy as a source of rulings, and ability to accurately cite existing rules, for which I have little (or no) respect. And further, I give no more than I would expect as my own just desserts, were I to be in the same position, and sustain the same rate of error and inaccuracy.
Cantankerous 07-03-05, 07:50 AM	Well, I almost stayed out of it. Skip has consistantly disappointed me with his articles as well. It's unfortunte that someone who is so inextricably tied to the rules and their interpretation so often abuses them. His creative talents are not in question by myself either. His common sense in terms of the game and it's rules and his knowledge thereof are. He's a pro people. He gets PAID for this that we spend so much time and money on. It's hardly out of place to REALLY hammer home displeasure with such cavalier undertakings. But you know, so what? Pax complained about it. Again, so what? That was his right and he exercised it. So what? Others disagreed with his manner, since no one seems to be defending the obvious errors. Yet again, so what? Reporting someone for asking "what got your panties in a bunch" after being so obviously unkind in the subtler intimations in your opening? You've got to be kidding. You reap what you sow. Again, so what? Why does an unkind word from BoardRider extract such vitriol? And the rest of you, why the continued baiting? Obviously the people who run the board felt he was within his rights to sound his opinion on this. If they, who are being indirectly attacked for their perceived incompetence, are accepting of it, why drone on? Isshia
Al-Ashrad 07-03-05, 09:13 AM	Two things. One - it's not libel. a "stumble" or "error" was made. It wasn't the first time an erro was made by that author, nor will it be the last (noone is perfect). To be libel, it must meed the standards ofthe tortof defamation ... which requires the statement to be untrue. The truth is never libel. Two - someone whose job it has been to be the font of correct rulings, has to rather expect a certain degree of criticism for the errors he makes. And because people seem tohavemissed it: I already said, I have nothing against his creative writing. I enjoy what he creates for gaming books, quite a great deal. However, I remain critical of his ability to accurately refer to what has been written, especially by other people, for the D&D game line. IOW, it is not his creativity or skill as a writer I question; nor is it himself as a person ... rather, it is his accuracy as a source of rulings, and ability to accurately cite existing rules, for which I have little (or no) respect. So, basically, you're saying that he is incompetent for his job... that's defamation per se... Time to go to school... Prima facie case for defamation (slander and libel) 1- Statement made by a person; 2- That refers to another person; 3- That is communicated to a third person; 4- The statement is either knowingly false or shows reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement; 5- The statement causes injury to the subject's reputation Now, let's look at this whole thread... 1- This thread started as a statement ("Skip is incompetent at his job")... so the first part is met 2- This thread is about Skip Williams... second part met 3- Hey, other folks have read this thread... third part met 4- Did Pax really look into the problem before starting this? Was the fault of the article because of an intern, staffer, or just plain error? Does Pax have insight as to the competency of Skip at his job? Notice that I said this was close to libel, because this is the grey area... this could show reckless disregard 5- Hey guess what? Calling someone incompetent about their profession is defamation per se... so injury to their reputation is presumed... the same as if you write something about someone committing a crime or moral turpitude (fraud, for example), having a "loathsome disease" (textbook cases always use STDs), or, in some courts, impugning a woman's unchastity. So, the fifth part is presumed. While the truth is a defense, it is only a defense in First Amendment cases, which would not apply here, since this is not part of the press. Also, if truth was a defense here, where is your proof about someone's perceived incompetence? Did you watch Skip type this article, or any of the others, into the website? Remember... "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."- Detective Alonzo Harris, "Training Day" There... I'm done on this... -Al-Ashrad
Cantankerous 07-03-05, 11:32 AM	Actually, it's not defamation in a forum sponsored by the company for which the contractor works; it's opinion. If you take the same statement out into the broader public, say submitting it as an un-solicited article to a magazine on gaming, and even then you probably aren't actually sustaining defamation in a juristic sense, you might conceivably not get laughed out of court on first hearing; you would still also conceivably get censured for wasting the court's time, but maybe not. You might get a really bored Judge nearing retirement who just presides and doesn't really give a flying hoot any more. Isshia
Particle_Man 07-03-05, 12:30 PM	So, basically, you're saying that he is incompetent for his job... that's defamation per se... I wish to officially proclaim that Skip Williams is incompetent at his job. *BRING IT ON!* :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Pax 07-03-05, 01:25 PM	Prima facie case for defamation (slander and libel) 1- Statement made by a person; 2- That refers to another person; 3- That is communicated to a third person; 4- The statement is either knowingly false or shows reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement; 5- The statement causes injury to the subject's reputation Point 4 is where you fail. My statement in the title of this thread is the truth. Skip has made mistakes in the past. He made them in the initial article (wetherhe wrote it, or "an intern" of indeterminate existance, let alone identity, wrote it is irrelevant - Skip's the guy whose name is given). Ergo, "stumbles yet again" is a true statement. Full stop. 1- This thread started as a statement ("Skip is incompetent at his job")... so the first part is met Incorrect. The thread started as a statement, "Skip has made yt another mistake". 4- Did Pax really look into the problem before starting this? Was the fault of the article because of an intern, staffer, or just plain error? Does Pax have insight as to the competency of Skip at his job? Notice that I said this was close to libel, because this is the grey area... this could show reckless disregard If the article was in fact written by an intern or other staffer, and NOT Skip, then the article is misattributed ... or Skip comitted plagiarism. I tend to suspect that neither is true, and that the latte is far less likely than the former, to boot. 5- Hey guess what? Calling someone incompetent about their profession is defamation per se... so injury to their reputation is presumed... the same as if you write something about someone committing a crime or moral turpitude (fraud, for example), having a "loathsome disease" (textbook cases always use STDs), or, in some courts, impugning a woman's unchastity. So, the fifth part is presumed. It can onluy be defamation if the statement is untrue, and even then, only if the issuer of that statement knew it was untrue at the time the statement was issued. While the truth is a defense, it is only a defense in First Amendment cases, which would not apply here, since this is not part of the press. Not true. Truth is a defense in any defamation case. Also, if truth was a defense here, where is your proof about someone's perceived incompetence? Not neccessary, since the statements you are discussing only say "he made a mistake", not "he is incompetent". you would still also conceivably get censured for wasting the court's time, but maybe not. And, in such a situation, someone bringing such a suit against me wouldmost assuredly face coutnersuit - for defamation in turn, as well as for harrassment and filing of nuisance suits against me. You win some, you lose some, and ... sometimes you get buried in an avalanche.
kinem 07-03-05, 01:52 PM	Skip Williams is incompetent at his job. So is Andy Collins. (Just look at Libris Mortis, and take into account the interview in which Andy and Bruce state how they divided the work. Or, just look at Holy Word v. 3.5) Stating these facts isn't an attack, and I for one would be willing to prove these facts in a court of law :) As for the warlock, I don't have Complete Arcane, but it seems like an interesting class. I'd use it if it ever makes it into the SRD.
Cymraegmorgan 07-03-05, 02:52 PM	OH!! The Humanity!!! Hearken, people, unto this before resorting to name calling and character assassination. The writer of an article, in this case Skip Williams, is not responsible for what you see posted or printed. The Editor of that article is responsible. Editors are notorious for "trimming", and it looks like this article was badly editted, then fixed when the Rage started. Somebody made a mistake. The Powers That Be have attempted to fix it. Give all concerned some credit for trying to assuage your anger. Many months ago on these very boards, someone(I forget who) pointed out that no other set of books, articles, and features, with the exception of law books, are subject to as much scrutiny and criticism as the WotC D&D products. Skip Williams and Andy Collins and the rest are in an unenviable position. How many of us have every single flaw in our professional lives thrown into the public light in so demeaning a fashion? I, for one, appreciate the effort that WotC puts into this website. Yes, the staff screws up. Point them out to the authors and staff in a way that you would like your own mistakes pointed out to you. Kinem, I certainly hope your employer does not take the time to advertise on the web that you are incompetent every time you do something he or she doe not agree with. To err is human( or elven or whatever). Even I have made professional goofs and mistakes. I know, it is hard to believe, but it is true. That does not make me incompetent, just mortal.
ZybthRanger314 07-03-05, 05:11 PM	All hail Cymraegmorgan for trying to stop the yelling, etc. How about this; all people who are arguing among themselves, no matter how interesting it is for me to read, start corresponding by private message. It is starting to get annoying. I was going to say something else, but I can't remember it. So, I'm going to find out more about this Warlock class. This thread has gotten me interested enough to look it up. --ZR314
Particle_Man 07-03-05, 05:12 PM	So who is the editor of "Warlocks with Class"? Whooooooo?
Al-Ashrad 07-03-05, 08:43 PM	Not true. Truth is a defense in any defamation case. Well, judging from this statement, I can assume that (a) you are not an attorney, (b) if you are, you haven't dealt with defamation since law school, or (c) if you are an attorney and have dealt with defamation since law school, then you may have committed malpractice. Prosser, Restatement of Torts, Section 565- "..a defamatory communication may consist of a statement of fact" Just citing a fact could lead to defamation. See, Wolston v. Reader's Digest Ass'n 433 U.S. 157 (1979)- U.S. Supreme Court case where a book on Soviet espionage listed plainitff, where the book referred to his citation for contempt for failing to respond to a grand jury subpoena relating to an espionage investigation. The citation was found to be defamatory. Also, in some states, including Illinois, an employee evaluation that states the employee is incompetent at his job, is factual, and is communicated only within the company in which the employee works, can be considered defamation. And yet again, the truth of the statement is no defense because this was not done by the media or the press. Employers do have conditional privileges, which are defenses, so long as they did not abuse their discretion. Once again, if you want to critique folks for not researching before writing, or for writing a mistake and palming it off as gospel, maybe you should not be doing the same. Finally, and off the subect of the "whizzing contest" here, what do you have against Skip Williams? Did he reject one of your ideas, so you then respond with such animosity towards the guy? Answer it if you want... I don't care... I'm out of here... -Al-Ashrad
Particle_Man 07-03-05, 11:31 PM	, what do you have against Skip Williams? Answer it if you want... I don't care... I'm out of here... -Al-Ashrad Speaking only for myself, I have against Skip the fact that Skip seems to get things wrong about the rules. A lot. Most recently with warlocks in his Warlocks with Class article. It made me feel like he didn't even read the class carefully, much less play/DM it, before writing about it. Kind of like a theatre critic writing his review without seeing the play, but just skim-reading the play's program. Although that may be this unnamed editor, who knows? Until I hear more about the editor, I will stay focussed on Skip, since his name is on the article. Bad Skip, bad! :mad:
kinem 07-03-05, 11:48 PM	Creating official material for the world's premier roleplaying game is a spectator sport. As it should be; the game is a mass medium. The two individuals I have mentioned seem to produce consistently shoddy work. By contrast, some designers seem to produce consistently impressive work: Keith Baker, Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell getting an honorable mention for his psionics work. If you're a designer it's easy to get praise from me - just do good work. Firing the 2 is one solution, but it need not be the only one. The problem, I think, isn't lack of ability so much as lack of interest on the part of Skip and Andy. They've become suits, not gamers. When do you think is the last time they designed, say, a new monster just for the hell of it - not for work? For that matter, when's the last time they played? Maybe they think the game is just for kids or something! To save their careers, they need to play. Gamers are scarce here in West Virginia, so I'd even be willing to DM for them. Skip would have to play a warlock, and Andy would have to play an undead.
Aubri 07-04-05, 12:01 AM	Gawd. I think it's about time a Wiz_O locked down this thread. It's been like two pages since anyone discussed the actual error. Al-Ashrad, Pax has a valid point, and it's not your job to regulate who's allowed to say what around here. Chill out, dude. As Cantankerous says -- "So what?" You're a big, smart lawyer, we all get it. Now go lawyer somewhere else, 'kay? Big evil libelous political generalization, obscured for your convenience: Lawyers like you are the reason we have so many nuisance suits. :rolleyes: Edit: Kinem... :rofl:
Board_Rider 07-04-05, 12:43 AM	Gawd. I think it's about time a Wiz_O locked down this thread. It's been like two pages since anyone discussed the actual error....... Chill out, dude. I was just going to write that too. And I have ben asking for everyone to chill since page 1. Hope yours works. However, I assume, that this thread is good to go until Tuesday. For those who want to see a quasi-similar thread go here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457448).
Pax 07-04-05, 01:07 AM	Well, judging from this statement, I can assume that (a) you are not an attorney, This would be the corret presumption. And since, by that statement and the tone of the rest of yoru post, it seems you wish to give the clear impression that you are an attorney, apparently within the United States ... time to be put on the spot yourself: areyou n attorney? I'm sure, if you are an attorney, that I needn't remind you of the ethics issues relating to falsely answering "yes". Prosser, Restatement of Torts, Section 565- "..a defamatory communication may consist of a statement of fact" Without access to that volume myself, I can only say that I suspect that passage goes on to describe when and how a statement of verifiable fact may be defamatory - something to the effect that context, as well as implied statements dependant on the statement of fact, are a determining factor. Just citing a fact could lead to defamation. Yes, but if the fact is determined to be true, then yes ... "I said the truth" is a defense. Of course, as you presumably know very well yourself, "a defense" does not always equate to "an ironclad defense". It is simple a defense. We won't address issues of being immune to judgement. ^_^ The citation was found to be defamatory. Without the determined-to-be-defamatory source material, we cannot,however, draw parallels - because we cannot ascertain HOW this fact was presented. I strongly suspect it was presnted in sucha light as to lead readers to a specific conclusion, and it is that CONCLUSION wqhich was, ultimately, the damaging non-truth. Finally, and off the subect of the "whizzing contest" here, what do you have against Skip Williams? Did he reject one of your ideas, so you then respond with such animosity towards the guy? As a person? Absolutely nothing. ... As a creative author of original gaming material? Nothing at all. ... As a self-represented "expert on all that is D&D", font of rules knowledge and GMing wisdom - IOw, inhis former capacity as "the Sage", and in any other capacity where he is referring to the works of other authors ...? Utter loathing of his established pattern of demonstrably failing to thoroughly and responsibly research the subject matter at hand. IOW, yes ... his incompetence as a commentator on the Rules.
Particle_Man 07-04-05, 08:08 AM	I think that Skip is good for fluff text, but falls down on rules-crunchy stuff. Maybe every "fluff" guy needs to be paired with a "crunch" guy to make certain his fluff fits the rules of the game. And the "crunch" guys, not the "fluff" guys, should be in charge of things like the FAQ, "...with Class" articles, etc.
Cantankerous 07-05-05, 07:59 AM	P_M, that may be the most accurate and insightful description of the problem I've seen yet. I might not refer to it as crunch and fluff, but it hits the essence of it. Skip has a tremendous creative talent. If that's just fluff, yeah, ok. Isshia
Particle_Man 07-05-05, 09:45 AM	Thanks! <blush> :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:
Keenath 07-05-05, 10:14 AM	In terms of the defamation discussion, I'd like to point some things out to our implied lawyer over there... Libel and slander are usually state issues, so the rules do vary from place to place. In general, though, it's very difficult to win a defamation case like this one, because 1) the writing is clearly the poster's opinion and not a statement of absolute fact, and 2) reviewing an author's work falls under 'fair comment and criticism', and is not a legitimate target for libel charges. Saying something nasty isn't enough to show libel; a reasonable person can hold a negative view of an author and his work, and it does not constitute defamation. For a third point, it's hard to show that an internet message board represents "publishing". Normally, libel refers to a printed, distributed journal of some sort, not merely posting on a messaging system. So far as I know, the Supreme Court (or even a federal court) has not yet ruled on whether mailing lists and message boards constitute libel or slander, or neither. Personal communications are not a legitimate source of defamation.
WizO_TheCheat 07-05-05, 11:06 AM	Funny folks asked for a lock. Because it's done now. *CLICK*