Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 VaultDweller Mar 02, 2010 9:29:31	I thought there was supposed to be a big chunk of errata published this morning, but I don't see anything newer than the January errata. Do the errata updates not go up in the morning like other published content?  Do they come later in the day, as the D&D insider tools do?
#2 Silver_Blaze Mar 02, 2010 9:31:36	I am not certain, but if we do get a big errata set today, it will probably hit when the compendium updates at noon.
#3 Janx_14 Mar 02, 2010 9:32:49	The errata updates do usually hit around noon, usually around when the DDI update server goes down for maintenance.
#4 Saric Mar 02, 2010 9:33:54	So does the compendium typically update at noon pacific time or eastern time?
#5 celticmutt Mar 02, 2010 9:42:26	Pacific I think.  And yeah, errata updates almost always come at the same time or after the compendium/CB updates.
#6 VaultDweller Mar 02, 2010 9:51:01	Alright, good to know.  I just wasn't sure if they typically went up with the morning articles or the afternoon D&DI content. I do wish everything just went up in the morning, though.  Noon Pacific time is 4:00 PM Atlantic time - too late in the day for errata to be reviewed and tools updated/used before my Tuesday evening game. Does WotC not know that the world revolves around me?  Seriously.  Someone needs to notify them of my God-King status.
#7 Silver_Blaze Mar 02, 2010 9:55:11	Alright, good to know.  I just wasn't sure if they typically went up with the morning articles or the afternoon D&DI content. I do wish everything just went up in the morning, though.  Noon Pacific time is 4:00 PM Atlantic time - too late in the day for errata to be reviewed and tools updated/used before my Tuesday evening game. Does WotC not know that the world revolves around me?  Seriously.  Someone needs to notify them of my God-King status. I agree that everything should go up at once, and that time should be 8:00 AM EST.
#8 Marandahir Mar 02, 2010 10:36:25	Alright, good to know.  I just wasn't sure if they typically went up with the morning articles or the afternoon D&DI content. I do wish everything just went up in the morning, though.  Noon Pacific time is 4:00 PM Atlantic time - too late in the day for errata to be reviewed and tools updated/used before my Tuesday evening game. Does WotC not know that the world revolves around me?  Seriously.  Someone needs to notify them of my God-King status. Do you have armies of Templars?  Can you grant Sorcerer-King Pacts? No?  Then you're not quite powerful enough to sway their hand. Did it say anywhere that errata was going to go into Compendium with the March update?  I thought -at some point- they were going to release an errata document this month.
#9 ad616 Mar 02, 2010 10:41:45	If its noon time pacific so wot time is it in the uk does it update?
#10 Janx_14 Mar 02, 2010 10:44:21	Alright, good to know.  I just wasn't sure if they typically went up with the morning articles or the afternoon D&DI content. I do wish everything just went up in the morning, though.  Noon Pacific time is 4:00 PM Atlantic time - too late in the day for errata to be reviewed and tools updated/used before my Tuesday evening game. Does WotC not know that the world revolves around me?  Seriously.  Someone needs to notify them of my God-King status. Do you have armies of Templars?  Can you grant Sorcerer-King Pacts? No?  Then you're not quite powerful enough to sway their hand. Did it say anywhere that errata was going to go into Compendium with the March update?  I thought -at some point- they were going to release an errata document this month. *goes to prepare armies of Templars and Sorcerer-King-Pact-Warlocks*
#11 sirvimes Mar 02, 2010 10:46:42	If its noon time pacific so wot time is it in the uk does it update? 8pm in the UK if it were to update exactly at noon Pacific.
#12 ad616 Mar 02, 2010 10:49:03	thnx for the info.
#13 ranadiel Mar 02, 2010 11:24:43	Fyi, the errata has been posted. No added race versatiliy. Didn't really notice anything big for my character(although there is one change that I'm sure I'm going to get an earful about from my best friend later).
#14 celticmutt Mar 02, 2010 11:50:46	Fyi, the errata has been posted. No added race versatiliy. I'm tempted to say that's a good thing.
#15 areola Mar 02, 2010 11:57:00	Fyi, the errata has been posted. No added race versatiliy. I'm tempted to say that's a good thing. Is the race versatility a must for the old races other than for optimization?
#16 celticmutt Mar 02, 2010 12:00:08	Is the race versatility a must for the old races other than for optimization? Some people seem convinced that it's a necessity in order to be competitive with races that do have it.  I don't really believe it myself.
#17 mellored Mar 02, 2010 12:05:43	I really doupt they would update the races it in an errata.  I could see them doing it in a "Race" handbook or something.  I know thieflings are supposed to get one, and their good contenders for a Con option.
#18 Janx_14 Mar 02, 2010 12:17:17	Why post free options when you can make people pay for them? That said, changing the old races isn't needed (though not unwelcome in my opinion), its still +2 to 2 stats in the end, and races aren't simply their attribute bonuses. Will it make players consider the  race more often, possibly, but if the arguments on the threads over the new races are anything, people may very well weight the old ones higher due to flavour. Just because a Wilden can be Con/Wis or Dex/Wis doesn't mean people will chose them over Dwarves and Elves.
#19 sirvimes Mar 02, 2010 12:25:00	My guess would be that changing the old races stats will show up in the Essentials line of products if they decide to do that.
#20 areola Mar 02, 2010 12:48:02	Just because a Wilden can be Con/Wis or Dex/Wis doesn't mean people will chose them over Dwarves and Elves. Exactly. From a fluff and flavour point of view, the classic races have their appeal without needing the ability score modifiers versatility. I'll take this back if the PHB3 races become the most played races in D&D.
#21 Marandahir Mar 02, 2010 12:48:26	I really doupt they would update the races it in an errata.  I could see them doing it in a "Race" handbook or something.  I know thieflings are supposed to get one, and their good contenders for a Con option. Tieflings, Mellored, Tieflings.  They're not Thiefs.  Not necessarily, at least, and not optimally either. That said, the errata covers a lot of other "good" things – like the changes to weapon, implement, and hide armour expertise, and the (woe to me, a user of the power through MC feat) Winged Horde, making it more in line with other Wizard Powers (though I wish they hadn't changed it, since it already wasn't one of my more attractive encounter powers, being a Cunning Bard). Fixing of the Urgrosh and Eberron Double Weapons is also sure to raise some eyebrows.
#22 mellored Mar 02, 2010 13:12:45	I swear, i spell it differenlt every time.
#23 VaultDweller Mar 02, 2010 21:19:21	Do you have armies of Templars?  Can you grant Sorcerer-King Pacts? No?  Then you're not quite powerful enough to sway their hand. Did it say anywhere that errata was going to go into Compendium with the March update?  I thought -at some point- they were going to release an errata document this month. I do have armies of GI Joes in a box somewhere.  Does that count? The January update document clearly stated that the next update doc was due for today - that is how I knew it would be today, and not "at some point" this month.  The next one is due for May 4. Fyi, the errata has been posted. No added race versatiliy. Didn't really notice anything big for my character(although there is one change that I'm sure I'm going to get an earful about from my best friend later). I want to guess.  Is your friend an Orbizard?
#24 Silver_Blaze Mar 02, 2010 21:30:58	Is the race versatility a must for the old races other than for optimization? Some people seem convinced that it's a necessity in order to be competitive with races that do have it.  I don't really believe it myself. I never really understood why people thought it was necessary in the first place.  Would it have been kinda nice?  Sure, I am of the opinion that options can't hurt too much.  But just how much would that one ability change REALLY affect your character?  Honestly, the desire for the changes to the races almost came across as pure powergaming.
#25 ranadiel Mar 03, 2010 5:36:50	I want to guess.  Is your friend an Orbizard? Nah, he had previously mentioned to me that Boots of Eagerness were essential for his build(he's playing a Gnoll Barbarian just as fyi), so when I saw they were changed I assumed it messed him up but apparently wasn't using them for extra attacks so I was wrong on that element....unfortunatly the change to claw fighter apparently completely screwed up his latest level up(although I don't know details).
#26 jedi123 Mar 03, 2010 6:54:04	Is the race versatility a must for the old races other than for optimization? Some people seem convinced that it's a necessity in order to be competitive with races that do have it.  I don't really believe it myself. I never really understood why people thought it was necessary in the first place.  Would it have been kinda nice?  Sure, I am of the opinion that options can't hurt too much.  But just how much would that one ability change REALLY affect your character?  Honestly, the desire for the changes to the races almost came across as pure powergaming. For me it was wasn't power gaming it was power fluffing. THe iconic thing was the tiefling, who throught their flavor are perfect for Warlock of the infernal variety, but stat wise favor the fey pact. Major problem? No. But It is sort of counter intuitive. Another example are Kalashtar. In 3.5 they were great psions (it was their favored class even), but now they are better at the emotionaly raw Ardent(most fluff says Kalashtar keep a ratgher tight gfrasp on their emotions). Once again dealable (especially since they posses boosts to both sub scores of psion). Can these things be worked around and still make good characters, you bet. To me it would make more sense if they were the best at their iconic classes though. Some others would Dwarves and artificers, Goliaths and the new seeker class, and Gnomes and rogues.
#27 Marandahir Mar 03, 2010 7:28:29	Is the race versatility a must for the old races other than for optimization? Some people seem convinced that it's a necessity in order to be competitive with races that do have it.  I don't really believe it myself. I never really understood why people thought it was necessary in the first place.  Would it have been kinda nice?  Sure, I am of the opinion that options can't hurt too much.  But just how much would that one ability change REALLY affect your character?  Honestly, the desire for the changes to the races almost came across as pure powergaming. For me it was wasn't power gaming it was power fluffing. THe iconic thing was the tiefling, who throught their flavor are perfect for Warlock of the infernal variety, but stat wise favor the fey pact. Major problem? No. But It is sort of counter intuitive. Another example are Kalashtar. In 3.5 they were great psions (it was their favored class even), but now they are better at the emotionaly raw Ardent(most fluff says Kalashtar keep a ratgher tight gfrasp on their emotions). Once again dealable (especially since they posses boosts to both sub scores of psion). Can these things be worked around and still make good characters, you bet. To me it would make more sense if they were the best at their iconic classes though. Some others would Dwarves and artificers, Goliaths and the new seeker class, and Gnomes and rogues. 4e Ardent and Kalashtar fluff says they have more of a relationship with emotions that cerebra.  They fit much more thematically as Psions, and Intelligence doesn't make sense for them.  Dexterity, however, does, and the role of the Monk (and the Avenger) make a -lot- of sense for them, so I would see that as more of the desirable versatile score, not Intelligence. Remember, Ardents aren't necessarily emotional themselves – they have control over their emotions and others emotions.  They just have a strong and defining tie to their emotions, more so than to their intelligence. Ardent makes much more sense than Psion for the Kalashtar.
#28 KoboldAvenger Mar 03, 2010 9:42:56	Tieflings and Infernal Pacts are much like the association of certain ethnic groups and Organized Crime. I don't think many Tieflings want to go Infernal Pact, as they view it as something really bad to be associated with, much like organized crime and certain ethnic groups.  So therefore they all look to making a better name for themselves by pursuing other careers like being Cunning Bards, Feylocks, Illusionist Wizards, Rogues or Telepathic Psions where deception and subtlety are more to their nature (and remember they get +2 to Bluff and Stealth).
#29 Nekoazu Mar 03, 2010 10:01:40	Huzzah! Student of Caiphon nerf!
#30 Tharag_Bocc Mar 03, 2010 16:34:44	I don't think many Tieflings want to go Infernal Pact, as they view it as something really bad to be associated with, much like organized crime and certain ethnic groups.  So therefore they all look to making a better name for themselves by pursuing other careers Whether or not many tieflings might try to cast off the stereotype, that doesn't change the fact that their devilish heritage should probably grant them a natural affinity for the infernal pact.  Also CLASS =/= CAREER, also classes are rare, something only those with heroic potential possess.  A tiefling hellock might never have even met a devil, let alone made any kind of deal with them, his infernal powers may simply be representative of tapping the latent power within his cursed blood.