Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 jim11735 Sep 10, 2010 12:38:20	Preview of errata. www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
#2 hunterian7 Sep 10, 2010 13:01:13	great link, thank you. glad to see the erata updating my phb with essentials!
#3 battles14 Sep 10, 2010 13:47:14	And my PHB gets less and less useful by the day. I understand that they're trying to improve the system, but part of me can't help but think this is a prelude to re-printing the PHB and extracting another $40 out of us.
#4 Nai_Calus Sep 10, 2010 15:45:37	I'm just sad I can't get Psionic Power in the character builder without having to get Essentials changes in the character builder.
#5 Tony_Vargas Sep 10, 2010 15:46:33	If they do re-print the PH1, it'll just be to add errata and updates that you already have, so buying it would be a matter of convenience, not necessity.
#6 MalakLightfoot Sep 10, 2010 16:42:33	I'm just sad I can't get Psionic Power in the character builder without having to get Essentials changes in the character builder. I fail to see how it makes a big difference. Here are the nerfs. Melee Training (in five flavors) is losing a potential six damage at level 30, Nimble Climb loses out on 1 square of climbing speed, Presdigitation loses a redundancy with Mage Hand, Disintegrate lost 1d10 damage (out of 5, or 3 on a miss), Visions of Avarice was completely reworded, Weapon Focus no longer applies to staves as an impement, Shield of Deflection now resists less damage and scales all the way to Epic, Phantom Chasm was changed siginificantly, Mass Resist was nerfed a bit, Phantom Mask was nerfed a bit, Phantasmal Horror lost a little bit of damage for a miss effect (this is a wash, in my eyes). Those are the nerfs that you will see in the character builder. All of them. Every other change will either make your character more powerful or more versatile. Why so sad? I just don't understand.
#7 BoneManPress Sep 10, 2010 19:14:46	09/10/2010 Holy Cr*p !  That's a lot of errata for a book that's not even supposed to be out until 09/21... And what's with the HORRIBLE clashing colors on the new background of the DnD home page ?  Yuck. Looks like they need a new web designer / graphic artist, as well as a new game design team. DnD has essentially gone to Hell.
#8 celticmutt Sep 10, 2010 20:01:43	09/10/2010 Holy Cr*p !  That's a lot of errata for a book that's not even supposed to be out until 09/21... And what's with the HORRIBLE clashing colors on the new background of the DnD home page ?  Yuck. Looks like they need a new web designer / graphic artist, as well as a new game design team. DnD has essentially gone to Hell. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, this is not errata for the Essentials books.  It is errata for pre-Essentials books to reflect what is in the Essentials books.
#9 jim11735 Sep 10, 2010 20:11:27	Here are the nerfs. Melee Training (in five flavors) is losing a potential six damage at level 30, Nimble Climb loses out on 1 square of climbing speed, Presdigitation loses a redundancy with Mage Hand, Disintegrate lost 1d10 damage (out of 5, or 3 on a miss), Visions of Avarice was completely reworded, Weapon Focus no longer applies to staves as an impement, Shield of Deflection now resists less damage and scales all the way to Epic, Phantom Chasm was changed siginificantly, Mass Resist was nerfed a bit, Phantom Mask was nerfed a bit, Phantasmal Horror lost a little bit of damage for a miss effect (this is a wash, in my eyes). Weapon Focus and Two-Weapon Fighting no longer applies to weapons used as implements.
#10 commissar Sep 10, 2010 21:29:37	09/10/2010 Holy Cr*p !  That's a lot of errata for a book that's not even supposed to be out until 09/21... And what's with the HORRIBLE clashing colors on the new background of the DnD home page ?  Yuck. Looks like they need a new web designer / graphic artist, as well as a new game design team. DnD has essentially gone to Hell. 09/10/10 No, this is not errata for Essentials. This is errata for pre-Essentials books like the ones you currently have. This brings them up to Essentials standard. No, the website looks very cool. No and no. I think they're doing great!
#11 Dragon9 Sep 10, 2010 21:56:00	Weapon Focus and Two-Weapon Fighting no longer applies to weapons used as implements.  Which is how it should have been from the start.  Frankly I'm surprised it took this long for them to correct that.
#12 thax Sep 10, 2010 23:11:46	I think overall, my group will like these changes....
#13 charybdis Sep 10, 2010 23:26:50	While I generally like the essentials release that updates PHB, I've noticed asomething which seems odd. Sneak attack damage can now be dealt out 1/turn (instead of 1/round). - OK, fair enough, rogues get a nice bump-up in being able to use Sneak attack damage on AoO's, Immediate actions and the like. However, in keeping the Striker baseline fair, there's no mention of Warlocks being allowed to utilise Curse Damage any more than 1/round. Am I missing something, or does this little release give Rogues a massive boost, while leaving the Warlocks stuck on an old DPR level (especially with the added nerfing of Weapon focus etc applying to implement attacks) Comments?
#14 Janx_14 Sep 10, 2010 23:30:49	The loss of weapon focus for locks is moot because essentials adds Implement Focus. The only classes that get screwed out of it is the weapliment users. Sneak Attack was apparently changed cause WoTC previously assumed rogues had CA every round and balanced them around that. Apparently they decide to 'fix it' now... now that rogues have a billion ways to get CA.
#15 Rustmonster Sep 10, 2010 23:38:47	As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, this is not errata for the Essentials books.  It is errata for pre-Essentials books to reflect what is in the Essentials books. How exactly is it erreta "to reflect what is in the Essentials books"? All of this stuff looks completely independant of anything in Essentials.
#16 celticmutt Sep 11, 2010 3:20:59	While I generally like the essentials release that updates PHB, I've noticed asomething which seems odd. Sneak attack damage can now be dealt out 1/turn (instead of 1/round). - OK, fair enough, rogues get a nice bump-up in being able to use Sneak attack damage on AoO's, Immediate actions and the like. However, in keeping the Striker baseline fair, there's no mention of Warlocks being allowed to utilise Curse Damage any more than 1/round. Am I missing something, or does this little release give Rogues a massive boost, while leaving the Warlocks stuck on an old DPR level (especially with the added nerfing of Weapon focus etc applying to implement attacks) Comments? You're not missing anything.  Mearls stated at ENWorld (like, back in July) that Warlock's Curse and Hunter's Quarry are not going to get the same increase. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, this is not errata for the Essentials books.  It is errata for pre-Essentials books to reflect what is in the Essentials books. How exactly is it erreta "to reflect what is in the Essentials books"? All of this stuff looks completely independant of anything in Essentials. ... What?  Sooo .... the races getting the same versatile stats, Wizards encounter powers getting effects on a miss, implement proficiency, etc. - all stuff we've been told for months were coming in Essentials and that we know for a fact are actually in the Essentials book - are somehow independent of what's in the Essentials books? No, this is an errata to update pre-Essentials books to the Essentials updates.  This isnot an errata for the Essentials books themselves because this is the exact same stuff contained in those books.
#17 Fabio_Milito_Pagliara Sep 11, 2010 6:27:46	09/10/2010 DnD has essentially gone to Hell. killed all the devils and come back victorious
#18 snarls_at_fleas Sep 11, 2010 7:28:56	09/10/2010 DnD has essentially gone to Hell. killed all the devils and come back victorious  +100500
#19 Garthanos Sep 11, 2010 8:07:10	09/10/2010 DnD has essentially gone to Hell. killed all the devils and come back victorious  got bored and resurrected them again painted moustaches on them... then killed them all over again with more flair this time
#42 celticmutt Sep 12, 2010 21:11:50	It's not inescapable.  Rationalization is wonderful thing, people can convince themselves of almost anything.  "Oh, all the changes being made to make 4e compatible with Essentials were going to happen anyway, they just started work on Essentials after deciding to make the changes, and delayed actually making them until they released Essentials..."  The key thing to notice is that it doesn't make any difference.  It doesn't matter if the egg came before the chicken.  What matters is whether the egg gives you salmonella. Fortunately, Essentials does no such thing.  It's making some much needed improvements instead.
#43 battles14 Sep 12, 2010 22:15:07	I'm glad to hear it!  The Gamma World release is being burried in all this Essentials controversy, and it's got enough booster-pack controversy of it's own keeping people away.  I think GW would be a safe refuge for you - in all it's prior six editions, it's never gotten more than a handful of suplements at a time. That's good to hear. And I think "refuge" is a good choice of words. I love D&D, and I'm going to keep playing LFR, but there are just too many moving parts to keep track of right now. I think GW's going to be a good change of pace. And I hope (although I highly doubt) that the Essentials stuff will run its course soon enough to get some robust discussion about it before it comes out.
#44 Janx_14 Sep 13, 2010 0:14:40	It's not inescapable.  Rationalization is wonderful thing, people can convince themselves of almost anything.  "Oh, all the changes being made to make 4e compatible with Essentials were going to happen anyway, they just started work on Essentials after deciding to make the changes, and delayed actually making them until they released Essentials..."  The key thing to notice is that it doesn't make any difference.  It doesn't matter if the egg came before the chicken.  What matters is whether the egg gives you salmonella. Fortunately, Essentials does no such thing.  It's making some much needed improvements instead. Except it still didn't fix the math holes without feat patches. Now your feat patch just comes in various flavors. Its also taking the game in a direction that not everyone is a fan of. That said, I like some of the changes and improvements, but some of it really, really bugs me.
#45 Rowan_Whispercloak Sep 13, 2010 1:06:22	The whole not making curse and quarry useble 1/turn is bad design, No, it's that they aren't in that book.  Expect to see those rules updated when Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is released which contain the Ranger and Warlock. One of the designers was quoted on ENworld stating the Ranger and Warlock were not getting similiar treatment, I will have to dig the like back up and post it as an edit later. Edit found it: www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/2861...
#46 Duskweaver Sep 13, 2010 3:07:55	Except it still didn't fix the math holes without feat patches. Now your feat patch just comes in various flavors. If the feats that boost attack rolls, damage and defenses are 'patches', then aren't all the magic items that give enhancement bonuses to attack rolls, damage and defenses also 'patches', if we're being at all consistent in our definitions? It's part of the design of the game that, while monsters improve at a fixed rate per level, PCs need feats and items to keep pace with them. The Red Queen Effect is a deliberate feature of the game, not a bug in need of patching.
#47 greyman Sep 13, 2010 10:42:45	While I generally like the essentials release that updates PHB, I've noticed asomething which seems odd. Sneak attack damage can now be dealt out 1/turn (instead of 1/round). - OK, fair enough, rogues get a nice bump-up in being able to use Sneak attack damage on AoO's, Immediate actions and the like. However, in keeping the Striker baseline fair, there's no mention of Warlocks being allowed to utilise Curse Damage any more than 1/round. Am I missing something, or does this little release give Rogues a massive boost, while leaving the Warlocks stuck on an old DPR level (especially with the added nerfing of Weapon focus etc applying to implement attacks) Comments? To clarrify: Rogues, Rangers, and Warlocks can already apply their extra damage on opportunity attacks, immediate attacks, and Warlord granted attacks, etc -- just once per entire round.  The change means Rogues will be able to apply sneak attack on each turn they can make an attack--theirs and anyone else's. EG: On his turn, Pierre tumbles passed a hobgoblin commander into flanking possition and hits with Easy Target, adding sneak attack damage. On its turn, the hobgoblin tries to flee, provoking an opportunity attack, and Pierre hits with a melee basic attack, and adds Sneak Attack damage. Did I get that right?
#48 boolean Sep 13, 2010 11:33:50	Shield of Deflection now resists less damage... Actually, the changes to the Shield of Deflection are all improvements; the 12th level version originally gave resist 5 vs. ranged, and still does, it just gives the same resistance vs. area attacks as well. Ditto (but 10) for the 22nd level version. The 2nd level version that only gives resist 2 is completely new.
#49 GMforPowergamers Sep 13, 2010 12:08:05	The whole not making curse and quarry useble 1/turn is bad design, No, it's that they aren't in that book.  Expect to see those rules updated when Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is released which contain the Ranger and Warlock. One of the designers was quoted on ENworld stating the Ranger and Warlock were not getting similiar treatment, I will have to dig the like back up and post it as an edit later. Edit found it: www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/2861... I have to say I like the fact that they are making the 3 features diffrent...
#50 thax Sep 13, 2010 20:09:45	Yes, obscene isn't it? That it wasn't like that before, yes, it was. It is a Rogue, that is what a Rogue does.
#51 Tony_Vargas Sep 13, 2010 20:38:10	The Rogue is a very effective striker.   Attack-granting builds ('lazy warlords'), though odd, were also surpisingly effective.  Taking SA from per round to per turn is potentially quite the power-up.  Seems completely uncalled for.  If a striker was going to get an unexpected power-up, I'd've expected it to be the Warlock (which people are always complaining about), or, if a Rogue, the Brutal Rogue, specifically.   It suppose it'll keep the pre-Essentials Rogue, and one rather strange warlord build strategy, from 'falling behind' the power inflation curve for a while.
#52 Dragon9 Sep 13, 2010 22:38:28	Hmmm... is all SA only going to be 1d6 like it is in essentials?  Or is the 4e Classic rogue keeping the 2d6 + progression?  The 1/turn makes sense for the Essentials rogue since they only get 1d6.  (it might increase with level as well but I don't have the book so just speculating on that)
#53 MalakLightfoot Sep 13, 2010 23:48:39	Hmmm... is all SA only going to be 1d6 like it is in essentials?  Or is the 4e Classic rogue keeping the 2d6 + progression?  The 1/turn makes sense for the Essentials rogue since they only get 1d6.  (it might increase with level as well but I don't have the book so just speculating on that) Sneak Attack damage is unchanged (Levels 1-10: 2d6, Levels 11-20: 3d6, Levels 21-30: 5d6). You are confusing Sneak Attack with Backstab (which is the Thief Encounter Power, and provides 1d6 at levels 1-6, 2d6 at 7-16, 3d6 at 17-26, 4d6 at 27-30).
#54 celticmutt Sep 14, 2010 0:01:44	The 1/turn SA is for all Rogues, not just the Thief build from Essentials.
#55 Garthanos Sep 14, 2010 3:53:31	I have to say I like the fact that they are making the 3 features diffrent... Need to be more gains for the others in different ways perhaps... Can easily see a pact specific controllery boost for the Warlocks.