Exactly where should we be discussing what changes we like to see to expertise feats, Storm of Blades, etc.? It would seem to me that the errata forum for the source book is the appropriate forum, but the expertise thread was moved to CharOp, and the Storm of Blades thread was moved to Building Strikers...
Are we to take it then that there will be no errata on these (some will surely claim this), and that we shouldn't waste our time discussing them? Or is there some other reason to move the discussion about wanted errata? Perhaps we're saving this forum for "things that are clearly misprinted / mistyped / missing / contradict other game rules [as printed, not design philosophies]"?
Because if we're no longer allowed to discuss errata that a significant portion of the community feels is needed for BALANCE or GAME INTEGRITY, but not because there's anything mechanically wrong with the power / feat / feature / etc. as-written, then what are we all doing here? Hire an editor (I know some qualified personnel) and we can all go back to CharOp and make our 1000 DPR with an at-will builds.
Else please let us know where we should be discussing "soft" errata as I'll call it, or maybe "subjective" errata is a better word. And then bring back our threads.
I like 4E; I'm a D&DI subscriber, and I occasionally shoot my mouth off on the boards. I have opinions (didn't see that one coming, I'll bet), and (gasp) I play with House Rules. But someday, I might play LFR, or some other organized play, and I would like to see some things fixed by then. As it seems, would many of the other people in this forum. Some disagree, and that's great, because it helps sharpen arguments and makes both sides really understand why they support the position they do. Some can't argue politely, but we have moderators and VCLs to help with that. So I'm asking, politely, if we could get some sort of explanation on the rationale for the recent thread moves.
Exactly where should we be discussing what changes we like to see to expertise feats, Storm of Blades, etc.? It would seem to me that the errata forum for the source book is the appropriate forum, but the expertise thread was moved to CharOp, and the Storm of Blades thread was moved to Building Strikers...
The errata people are proposing for the expertise feats are not an errata for the feat itself. The discussion has moved onto whether or not it is a math patch and whether or not they should get rid of the feat entirely and just give everyone the scaling bonus. It has moved from errataing the feat to errataing DnD as a whole.
As for SoB, I'm not really sure why that was moved.
Are we to take it then that there will be no errata on these (some will surely claim this), and that we shouldn't waste our time discussing them? Or is there some other reason to move the discussion about wanted errata? Perhaps we're saving this forum for "things that are clearly misprinted / mistyped / missing / contradict other game rules [as printed, not design philosophies]"?
Because if we're no longer allowed to discuss errata that a significant portion of the community feels is needed for BALANCE or GAME INTEGRITY, but not because there's anything mechanically wrong with the power / feat / feature / etc. as-written, then what are we all doing here? Hire an editor (I know some qualified personnel) and we can all go back to CharOp and make our 1000 DPR with an at-will builds.
Else please let us know where we should be discussing "soft" errata as I'll call it, or maybe "subjective" errata is a better word. And then bring back our threads.
I like 4E; I'm a D&DI subscriber, and I occasionally shoot my mouth off on the boards. I have opinions (didn't see that one coming, I'll bet), and (gasp) I play with House Rules. But someday, I might play LFR, or some other organized play, and I would like to see some things fixed by then. As it seems, would many of the other people in this forum. Some disagree, and that's great, because it helps sharpen arguments and makes both sides really understand why they support the position they do. Some can't argue politely, but we have moderators and VCLs to help with that. So I'm asking, politely, if we could get some sort of explanation on the rationale for the recent thread moves.
The threads that got moved were't really trying to create errata. They were trying to completely redesign the feats or powers.
The threads that got moved were't really trying to create errata. They were trying to completely redesign the feats or powers.
Errata can include dropping something or rewriting it, and things like that should be fair game for our discussion.
I've got to agree with LI: there are some serious balance issues that have been cropping up, and we should expect that they will be addressed and we should be able to discuss how best to address them. But unlike LI, I play LFR often (probably too often) and this stuff does come up, and it's causing arguments and making things less fun. I for one am praying that this stuff gets addressed now, while the LFR modules are limited to heroic levels and the abuses are somewhat minor.
For example "Page 44 is missing the power refrenced in the monster description", "The table has a misprint", "The last paragraph on page 56 says 'see page xx'", that sort of thing.
Discussions on opinions and how to houserule and the like go on the other forums.
• Statistics that are significantly underpowered or overpowered compared to others of a similar level. This includes but is not limited to monster attack and damage numbers, power damage numbers, check bonuses or penalties, etc. For example, the fighter power, dance of steel, is a 3rd level encounter power but is less power than the fighter’s 1st level encounter power, steel serpent strike.
This is from the first post of the stickied welcome thread in the PHB1 errata forum. Storm of Blades definitely fell under this, although perhaps weapon expertise did not. If balance considerations are no longer the purview of the errata forums, someone should probably update the welcome thread.
Edit: also, I just noticed that this thread is now in D and D miniature forums. Huh?
Errata forums are for errata- actual print issues rather than what "you'd like to see".
For example "Page 44 is missing the power refrenced in the monster description", "The table has a misprint", "The last paragraph on page 56 says 'see page xx'", that sort of thing.
Discussions on opinions and how to houserule and the like go on the other forums.
How many times has Stealth been rewritten in an errata? It wasn't rewritten because I'd like to see it. It was rewritten because it was broken.
Some of us are saying that we think there are powers/feats out there that are also broken, and where else should we say that than in an errata forum? This was specifically one of the things the PH errata forum claimed it wanted. Why has that changed for the PH2?
The way we're being marginalized is just wrong. I don't want house rules, and I'm not just asking for things I'd like to see. There are rules (feats/powers) that some of us perceive as broken and detrimental to the game. While it's true that in a home game, I can just get rid of the stuff that worries me, it's not so easy in OFFICIAL play and that should count for something also. We have valid concerns and are requesting errata to address those concerns. We should be able to lend our voices to the errata forum where we might actually be heard by the developers. Shutting us out and making us talk off in some corner shouldn't be happening.
======Ends My Response | The Rest is Background======
Why am I so concerned? A little background for those who are interested: There's one guy in our local LFR community that has a fighter that I won't be at a table with. He's got every broken power/feat this player could find --- at-will prone with footwork lure, RoB with power gems, etc. It's just sick, and he and others like him are ruining the game for the rest of us. From their point of view, they're doing nothing wrong --- they've got WotC on their side and the official rules to back them. But when they're playing, balance is dead, and the other characters/roles are not much needed. Even playing on high tier, with the bad guys tweaked out about as much as the Judges can tweak them without killing the rest of us, it's no fun. And this is only going to get worse at higher levels.
The truth is that this sort of thing is splitting my local LFR community. Some people like the fact that characters like his can waltz through a module and everyone gets max xp and all the good items, but others find things like the "Footwork Lure, Rain of Blows Show" to be just boring. And arguments are starting because of it. Some Judges want to disallow things that RAW or CS rulings would otherwise allow because of the "not fun" factor. While DM empowerment is cool, the unpredictability of it is starting to wear some of us down. The OFFICIAL setting needs clarity and balance in the rules as they are written, not as imposed by the judges.
The pendulum for me is starting to swing back toward where it started. At first I was staunchly against even the idea of 4th edition. The first time I played it however, I was hooked. What got me? Two things: the way that all roles (and therefore all characters) were balanced with one-another and useful to the group, and the tension in the combats. (Heck, we took on a dragon in my first adventure --- in no previous edition could you do that!) Now what I see is that the WotC developers are beginning to pander to the munchkins. They're keeping clearly unbalancing powers/feats in the rules so as to not put off the players who derive joy from breaking games and engaging in cake-walk adventures. At the same time, they are putting out supplements that don't just expand choices and add diversity, but in addition introduce must-have abilities and poorly balanced power and feat combinations. If older standard builds are no longer being played in OFFICIAL games because they don't stack up to newer builds then that's a problem. It's like there's an arms race going on. WotC is the arms dealer, and they hope the rest of us will just keep buying so that we can stay one step ahead of the competition. Honestly, I'm more interested in buying for the expanded choices, but the fact that those choices are starting to ruin the OFFICIAL game is really beginning to turn me off.
To echo the counterargument to Webster: Stealth, Blade Cascade, Veteran's Armor, Encounter Powers on Adventurer's vault items- these were not misprints but essential revisions to the rules to maintain a fair and fun system. If you don't let the community tell the boards what is broken and problematic, things will go downhill.
Response (Support Agent)04/21/2009 11:03 AM
Sorry for the late reply to this one. The Errata boards are specifically for bringing up issues that may need errata. While it's always good to see people's opinions of what should and shouldn't be errata, ultimately the errata team makes those decisions, so when conversations get really heated, things have devolved to a point where it's not doing any body any good. We want the errata forums to remain a place where people feel comfortable stating what they feel is errata without fear of being attacked or bashed for their opinions.
Often, anything that is off topic and is not errata worthy will be moved/closed. So theoretical game design discussions don't really belong in this area, and because of that, can be closed/moved.
The community team and the errata team constantly watch over the discussions that are going on in the errata boards and we are aware of each issue brought up there. Even if a conversation is started and then moved, we can still see that the discussion originated in the errata area and have access to all the salient points. There's no need to post the topic again if it has been moved, so I would suggest no reposting it.
Hopefully that sheds some light on some of the reasons things get moved/closed in this area. Thanks for continuing to contribute to making D&D a better game and good gaming!
Trevor Kidd Community Team Wizards of the Coast Contact the Community Team!