4 of the 5 Pregens looked great. Disliked that the paladin's LOH was reduced from 3 to 1 a day, but otherwise, very nicely done.
However the half-elf has NONE of its racial abilities except the following:
+2 Con and Cha.
+2 Insight + Diplomacy
+1 to allies for diplomacy if within 10ft.
Yes, that is it. No free feat, no additioanl class ability, no addition power as an encounter from another class, not even an extra trained skill, NOTHING EXTRA. I emplore WOTC to address this and sometime before the offical release of KotS post on the site a revised cleric. It looks bad for it not to be addressed and (for me personally) worse because I have 6 people playing the module who would like to see the new pregens and as old timers will cry foul, spoiling the mood with this one thing ("damn it, do I have to be the low level cleric? Ah crap it is a half elf and they are half as good as any other race!")
LOL actually at the store I was at, there were a few people all of whom did the DDXP and guess what they were talking about? The nice production value? The new monsters? Nope, they (and soon I) were all talking about the half-elf flub and the concern it represented what was to come in the rule books. i.e. oversight and error. Since this one is for a pregen, it is even MORE huge. A concern is your actually getting BAD press, not good press so far.
If half-elves only get a +1 to allies diplomacy BTW, that would be even worse than a simple mistake on the pregen.
Please address quickly.
As another note, I hope you all are still going to post a 6th character as was said before, can we get a confirmation on this?
Thanks,
Ken
Is it possible that the power from the other class is a Warlock ability instead of a 1/2 elf ability?
Yes, its possible. People made too many assumptions based on the DDXP characters and now they're having to reassess what might be in the PHB lite.
Yes, its possible. People made too many assumptions based on the DDXP characters and now they're having to reassess what might be in the PHB lite.
Yes, it is possible. HOWEVER, if this is so, the only ability a half elf gets is (beyond the stat boost and skill bonuses everyone gets):
+1 to allies diplomacy checks within 10ft of you.
I did look over the character for 10 minutes, looking for anything else and there was nothing. No extra feat, skill, power, NOTHING. I find it extremely hard to believe with how exciting and interesting the other races are that half-elves are THAT much worse.
Yes, it is possible. HOWEVER, if this is so, the only ability a half elf gets is (beyond the stat boost and skill bonuses everyone gets):
+1 to allies diplomacy checks within 10ft of you.
I did look over the character for 10 minutes, looking for anything else and there was nothing. No extra feat, skill, power, NOTHING. I find it extremely hard to believe with how exciting and interesting the other races are that half-elves are THAT much worse.
I agree. I looked it over and didn't see anything that jumped out at me as anything special. I found this interesting because I've heard in many podcasts with developers that people were choosing half-elves for mechanics reasons. If those reasons were on the sheet, then they were difficult to see.
Inspiring Word 1/day
Sneak Attack 1/encounter
+1 Attack and mark 1/encounter
Divine Challenge 1/encounter
Hunter's Quarry 1/encounter
Also question: What is the Wisdom score of the Paladin in KotS? Is it 12-13? I have a suspicion here.
If the Half-Elf racial is getting one of the multiclass feats for free, only the Wizard and Warlock got a power for their multiclass feat. Does the Half Elf Cleric have any of the following:
Inspiring Word 1/day
Sneak Attack 1/encounter
+1 Attack and mark 1/encounter
Divine Challenge 1/encounter
Hunter's Quarry 1/encounter
Also question: What is the Wisdom score of the Paladin in KotS? Is it 12-13? I have a suspicion here.
No, none of those abilities were listed on the half-elf sheet and there wasn't a listing under the feats section that he had taken a multiclass feat.
The Paladin had a +1 bonus to Wis so it must have been 12 or 13.
One interesting thing though is it has a trait, Healer's Lore, that allows it to add its Wisdom to all Healing keyword cleric abilities. Looking at the XP cleric though I think he also had it but it just wasn't listed under his abilities. While the Xp cleric was a better attacker, this cleric's daily is certainly suited to a healing focused character. Also the push distance on turn undead is 6 on the new character, rather than 5 on the XP one. My guess is this shows the distance pushed is Cha mod+ Wis mod.
The half-elf cleric does seem to be lacking a little. Stat-wise it is almost certainly +2 con and cha but it only has Skill Bonuses(+2 Diplomancy, Insight) and Group diplomancy listed as racial traits. My guess is the exact rules for half-elves when not 100% decided or a similar situation so the one here is also lacking a little something.
One interesting thing though is it has a trait, Healer's Lore, that allows it to add its Wisdom to all Healing keyword cleric abilities. Looking at the XP cleric though I think he also had it but it just wasn't listed under his abilities. While the Xp cleric was a better attacker, this cleric's daily is certainly suited to a healing focused character. Also the push distance on turn undead is 6 on the new character, rather than 5 on the XP one. My guess is this shows the distance pushed is Cha mod+ Wis mod.
These could be changes due to the god worshipped and/or associated feats with that god. But, Mearls also said during the DDXP that they had already made changes to the game by the time the event started. So, the characters we have may have been obsolete for months. But, I can' believe that they actually nerfed half-elves in the intervening time. So, I'm inclined to think that something is missing or there is something hidden in the stats that we aren't seeing.
I just noticed that both the dwarf and half-elf don't seem to be affected by armor penalties to skills. But the dragonborn is receiving a -4 penalty from armor to its checks. Maybe just simplifying/glossing over rules, so to help new players?
I find inherently funny the assumption that -- between fan speculation over what a half-elf does and a half-elf released in a final product -- the poster here assumes the developers made a huge mistake.
You could also read it that the OP is saying that it is a HUGE Mistake to only give the Half-Elf that one racial ability.
Either way you read it, it's a mistake in my book if true.
I find inherently funny the assumption that -- between fan speculation over what a half-elf does and a half-elf released in a final product -- the poster here assumes the developers made a huge mistake.
I find it inherently funny that when a (effectively) customer service post is made (to correct an issue) people still have to defend the mistake makers.
All I am looking for is for them to correct the half-elf pre-gen or say it is not a mistake on the sheet (and thus a mistake in design, giving a race only a +1 to other diplo checks within 10 ft? That is a far more intense error than simply forgetting to put in the racial abilities on one pregen. Either way it is a mistake).
Is there actually a way to contact a WOTC employee without having to fight to get them to see it on the boards?
Thanks,
Ken
Is there actually a way to contact a WOTC employee without having to fight to get them to see it on the boards?
Thanks,
Ken
You can always send an email to [email]custserv@wizards.com[/email].
These are "quick start" pregenerated characters to give a taste of 4th edition rules. They don't include all the rules in the product.
I'm sure when the rulebooks are released and people get a chance to go back to the pregen characters in Keep on the Shadowfell, we will find plenty of little "mistakes" in several characters, if not all of them.
One missing feat is probably not going to destroy the usefulness of a character, especially when it would likely be thematically dissimilar to what the class was supposed to do anyway. As such, it probably won't do anything like make the cleric "unplayable" or "useless" and likely won't make it "un-fun."
You may be right. But you might not be.
All I am looking for is for them to correct the half-elf pre-gen or say it is not a mistake on the sheet (and thus a mistake in design, giving a race only a +1 to other diplo checks within 10 ft? That is a far more intense error than simply forgetting to put in the racial abilities on one pregen. Either way it is a mistake).
You arrogantly assume too much by accusing them of making a mistake when you are in possession of far less information about the game than they are.
It's possible that they did, but you're far too arrogant in insisting that it must be true and believing that they owe you any kind of explanation.
(And what exactly is a "mistake" about giving people standing next to you a Diplomacy bonus?)
You arrogantly assume too much by accusing them of making a mistake when you are in possession of far less information about the game than they are.
It's possible that they did, but you're far too arrogant in insisting that it must be true and believing that they owe you any kind of explanation.
(And what exactly is a "mistake" about giving people standing next to you a Diplomacy bonus?)
Not at all IMO. It is as simple as reading and playing RPGs. It is likely 90% likely they forgot or did not add the half-elf traits to the pregen, which is a mistake, that is pretty simple to understand. Not including all relivant info for a character is a mistake. Now it may have been on purpose (not enough space, made to long ago to know what the final rules for half-elves were), but it comes across as either an oversight or bad design. Coming arcoss negatively in your advert materials is a mistake.
Now, assuming this is the half-elf stats for 4th, lets play a game, of the following, pick the one 99.99% of RPG players would consider the least effective or complete (i.e. poorly designed to be equal to the others):
1) Extra trained skill, at-will power, feat and +1 to all defenses.
2) Breath weapon/encounter(e), +con to healing surges, +1 to hit and damage when bloodied
3) 7 move, shift in difficult terrain, reroll to hit(e), +1 to perception to all within 10 ft.
4) 5 Fire Resistance, +1 to hit bloodied, +1 to hit/dam(e)
5) +1 to allies within 10ft diplomacy checks
6) +1 to hit, AC and reflex, reroll enemy hit(e), +2 to AC vs AOO, +5 to saves v.s. fear.
7) teleport 5(e), trance (4 hours sleep), considered fey, +5 saves v.s. charm.
8) second wind as minor, -1 to slides/pushes and pulls, +5 saves v.s. posion.
Hmm, one of these things is not like the others (a mistake)...
Sorry for being snide, but seriously it is not too much to ask for them to release a revision of the Pregen corrected. They did it for the DDXP character for goodness sakes, they can do it for published material's pregen's as well.
You arrogantly assume too much by accusing them of making a mistake when you are in possession of far less information about the game than they are.
It's possible that they did, but you're far too arrogant in insisting that it must be true and believing that they owe you any kind of explanation.
(And what exactly is a "mistake" about giving people standing next to you a Diplomacy bonus?)
It's not arrogant to be observant, it's missing way too much compared to the other races to be correct.
If it is correct as printed, you would be at a major disadvantage to play one compared to any other race or build.
Or ask a developer directly without using any of them angry fighting words...
Having seen the WWGD characters... (I'm the Senior GM for it and my stuff has come in), the half-elf gets a power from another class (and the one for WWGD chose a fanastic synergised one).. until the 6th of June, let's not get too flustered and wait to see what the half-elf truely gets.
Or ask a developer directly without using any of them angry fighting words...
How is that helpful? If your looking to run the KotS game and people are looking at the pregen characters and say "look at all of these errors (sword and shield guy's picture is him wielding axes, etc) oh my god, this half-elf sucks. Just goes to show WOTC is not up to snufff for this new add" and I have players lose interest due to horrific editing, that is a big problem. Not satified to say "oh well, lots of errors and wow their pregens are messed up, oh well, I'm sure they can get it right later."
What I would HOPE would happen is a WOTC staff who has the book, take 30 minutes of their day ONE day, and fixes the PDF's for these guys and re-releases them. Or even have an offical response of anykind on any of the 4-5 boards talking about it a lot.
In my job, allowing a prerelease with this many errors would be a disaster and we'd be all over it to satifiy the customer.
Of course, once the books come out we will notice any discrepancies, so it is best for them to make whatever supplementary changes are required. I suspect there will be some form of errata on the 20th when the module is actually released. Remember this is just a preview period, they don't expect people to really be playing at this point. They also mentioned that there will be setting adaptations for Forgotten Realms and Eberron, including extra encounters and/or characters, so they could easily release errata then.
I do think that this speculation is potentially hurting their sales (particularly preorders) though, so they really should address the community concerns ASAP.
Where is this huge list of errors that makes this product 'unnacceptable'? I only saw the whole "picture is a guy with axes and he has a sword/shield, HOW CAN WE USE THIS PRODUCT AT ALL????".
Also, why are we so sure that the half-elf has the racial bonuses that we expect? I'm clearly missing something, lol.
Don't we just have no idea what all the exact racial traits are? Isn't there a lot more to balancing racial traits than just initial stats? I thought there were racial feats that would certainly have an impact on balance, so how do we know the half-elf doesn't have some feats that make up for it?
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4218163&postcount=104
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221806&page=1&pp=15
Message received!
A few of us in R&D saw this thread, but we completely forgot that retailers were getting early copies of KotS. Sorry! We didn't want to jump into a thread before an official release.
I'm reading through this thread now to make sure that we take care of any issues that come up in the adventure. We have some goodies going up on DDI for the adventure next week, so we'll be sure to take care of any issues when we post those.
The half-elf's bonus power was cut simply due to space restrictions. Keep in mind that, as a quick start, KotS doesn't always use the full rules. For example, the skill challenge in the adventure was slimmed down so that we could fit it and the rules around it into the encounter.
We'll address the half-elf on DDI and bundle it with the materials we're posting next week. If you're playing the adventure right now, go ahead and pick a at-will power from a different character and use it as an encounter power for the half-elf. Just go ahead and use the listed attack bonus and damage for the power you choose, though normally you'd recompute those.
Sorry for the confusion, and sorry we didn't answer this thread earlier.
Mike Mearls posted these comments on the EnWorld sister-thread...
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221806&page=1&pp=15
This was what I was looking for and I thank Mike again for taking the time to respond.
Thanks,
Ken
Neither oversight nor error, but a deliberate decision.
Ironically, I was just about to post that I was coming around to idea that it was an error.
A lot of the excerpt articles lately have contained major typos and omissions, and I'm starting to have major worries about the quality of the product that's going to ship. I think I'm starting to come around to the OP's wariness about QC here.
on the Dragonborn Paladin, look closely at his Lay on Hands. it says 'At-Will(Special)'.
and the 'Special:' line says 'You can use this power once per day.'
did i miss something? :P
Ironically, I was just about to post that I was coming around to idea that it was an error.
A lot of the excerpt articles lately have contained major typos and omissions, and I'm starting to have major worries about the quality of the product that's going to ship. I think I'm starting to come around to the OP's wariness about QC here.
I can see wariness about the typos. While there can be some doubt as to the quality of the finished product, you might want to keep in mind that the previews could have come from previous versions of the game and much of this will be corrected in the final release. WotC could have planned these previews months in advance, with older info or at least the pre-release non-scoured for errors document. Anything omitted is either because they don't want to give us the full picture right away, that's what a teaser is after all. As to the half-elf, I think that makes sense. We have to remember the new players. As most of us have played the game, we often forget that we were once new to all of this that we take for granted. Putting in an ability from another class could, possibly, confuse a new player. Making them ask why the cleric can cast a wizard spell at best, or making them think that there is no quality control because there is an error in that the cleric can cast a wizard spell. Do you see where I'm going with that? A deliberate decision to remove an ability that could be confusing to brand new players is not an error. Does it make the cleric any less useful? I don't think so. If had only played 3.5 or other editions and gave this a try I'd still think that playing a cleric could be pretty cool.. They're not healbots any more. The can do more.. just that often when they do more they happen to heal as well.
When I looked over the half-elf cleric I wasn't thinking that they are missing something, I was thinking how very COOL clerics were now.
another odd typo that i just noticed, dunno if anyones pointed this one out yet...
on the Dragonborn Paladin, look closely at his Lay on Hands. it says 'At-Will(Special)'.
and the 'Special:' line says 'You can use this power once per day.'
did i miss something? :P
This isn't a typo, and is explained in another EnWorld thread, http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4218224&postcount=107
As for Lay on Hands. It's use is tied to the Wis Mod. with a minimum use of 1 per day. So our Dragonborn Paladin is not so wise and thus has one LOH per day. The higher the Wis Mod for character the more LOH they get per day (still limited to 1 per round).
So, it is an at-will power that can be used a number of times a day based on their Wisdom bonus (minimum once), once per round. The Dragonborn has a 0 Wis Bonus, so he gets the minimum of 1, so once a day at-will.
It's amazing how many things make sense when we actually wait for explanations and more information. Maybe we need to relax and have more faith. :P
This isn't a typo, and is explained in another EnWorld thread, http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4218224&postcount=107
So, it is an at-will power that can be used a number of times a day based on their Wisdom bonus (minimum once), once per round. The Dragonborn has a 0 Wis Bonus, so he gets the minimum of 1, so once a day at-will.
It's amazing how many things make sense when we actually wait for explanations and more information. Maybe we need to relax and have more faith. :P
I'd be curious to know, and I didn't read the emworld article to see if its answered, so maybe I am speaking premature here. But if its a min of 1 per day, does that mean a Paladin with a WIS bonus +1, gets 2 per day? (min 1 plus 1) or do the lower stats get shafted a bit?
Maybe the community in general on these boards is a bit less civil, but maybe that's because we are left in a vacuum for so long until someone links us to a completely different forum...
Is it me, or is it kind of strange how all the developers prefer ENworld to posting info on their own official websites and forums?
Maybe the community in general on these boards is a bit less civil, but maybe that's because we are left in a vacuum for so long until someone links us to a completely different forum...
Perhaps there is a higher traffic on those forums, or the developers post on there when they read something that elicits a response, where here they may not see it as much.
Is it me, or is it kind of strange how all the developers prefer ENworld to posting info on their own official websites and forums?
Maybe the community in general on these boards is a bit less civil, but maybe that's because we are left in a vacuum for so long until someone links us to a completely different forum...
I've also thought it was weird that I had to go to an unofficial website for official responses.
WotC could have planned these previews months in advance, with older info or at least the pre-release non-scoured for errors document. Anything omitted is either because they don't want to give us the full picture right away, that's what a teaser is after all.
These things weren't placed in a time capsule or launched in a ballistic arc that WotC has no control over. Someone should have had a look-see before posting them.
Examples: Messing up the table in the multiclass excerpt (and initially failing to place the images for the article on the server), getting minion and standard monster XP reversed, omitting the Earth Titan's signature move in the preview (without explaining why).
All of these things could've been fixed by having someone on staff actually *look* at the articles before taking them live. The fact that no one is QC'ing the articles doesn't speak well for WotC's ability to catch their own errors in production. Numerous faulty, unworkable example PCs following prestige class entries in their products testify to this.
Honestly, someone's asleep at the wheel in WotC with regards to quality checking.
These things weren't placed in a time capsule or launched in a ballistic arc that WotC has no control over. Someone should have had a look-see before posting them.
Examples: Messing up the table in the multiclass excerpt (and initially failing to place the images for the article on the server), getting minion and standard monster XP reversed, omitting the Earth Titan's signature move in the preview (without explaining why).
All of these things could've been fixed by having someone on staff actually *look* at the articles before taking them live. The fact that no one is QC'ing the articles doesn't speak well for WotC's ability to catch their own errors in production. Numerous faulty, unworkable example PCs following prestige class entries in their products testify to this.
Honestly, someone's asleep at the wheel in WotC with regards to quality checking.
I'm willing to let the issues of the KotS adventure and all of the preview excerpts slide just as long as the future books don't contain the same kinds of issues. I (along with a bunch of other people) will be very disappointed if a week after the books come out we have to download a very lengthy pdf of errata for serious errors in the core books.
But, I'd like to think that will all of the playtesting and attention the new rules have gotten, this won't be the case.
Is it me, or is it kind of strange how all the developers prefer ENworld to posting info on their own official websites and forums?
Maybe the community in general on these boards is a bit less civil, but maybe that's because we are left in a vacuum for so long until someone links us to a completely different forum...
I saw the thread there first so we answered it. It was then cross posted here.
I have been answering questions here too.
I saw the thread there first so we answered it. It was then cross posted here.
I have been answering questions here too.
I've noticed you answered one question on ENW by pointing to the thread here where you'd already answered it.
These things weren't placed in a time capsule or launched in a ballistic arc that WotC has no control over. Someone should have had a look-see before posting them.
Examples: Messing up the table in the multiclass excerpt (and initially failing to place the images for the article on the server), getting minion and standard monster XP reversed, omitting the Earth Titan's signature move in the preview (without explaining why).
All of these things could've been fixed by having someone on staff actually *look* at the articles before taking them live. The fact that no one is QC'ing the articles doesn't speak well for WotC's ability to catch their own errors in production. Numerous faulty, unworkable example PCs following prestige class entries in their products testify to this.
Honestly, someone's asleep at the wheel in WotC with regards to quality checking.
For one thing, I doubt that the web team and the designers of the rules are the same people, this means that those responsible for updating the website might not have knowledge of the rules and therefore not know what to change. There is also the possibility that those updating the website may have entered the info incorrectly.
Just because these web documents have errors doesn't mean that the actual books will have the same issues. It looks like much of the previews we see are going to be a different format than what is found in the book, so they could be from different sources. I've noticed that the excerpt wiht minion/standard xp has been fixed. The fact that these documents go up around 12 in the morning can also be a factor.
Now, you mention prestige classes... I haven't seen any prestige classes for 4e, but that could be because they don't exist any more.
I'm not saying I'm don't have any apprehensions about these mistakes, but the people looking over these things are only human, and humans make mistakes. It sucks yes, but is it the end of the world? No. The fact that they have fixed the issues or explained why things were missing speaks pretty well of WotC that they are trying to put out the best product they can. Now, as much as I would like the product to be perfect, that isn't possible. They can only do the best they can. And despite what many might think, just because Hasbro owns WotC that doesn't mean that they have an infinite number of employees to do all the work that we, the fans, are demanding. They are probably hard working, people that are tired, have been working for quite a while and can't wait till 4e comes out so that they might, just maybe, get a little bit of rest.
It's easy to sit back and criticize everything, but try putting yourself in their shoes. There probably is more going on than you know, and It seems that many WotC employees seem to do more than one thing as part of their job.
I'd be curious to know, and I didn't read the emworld article to see if its answered, so maybe I am speaking premature here. But if its a min of 1 per day, does that mean a Paladin with a WIS bonus +1, gets 2 per day? (min 1 plus 1) or do the lower stats get shafted a bit?
It's a minimum of one, not always adding one. If your Wis bonus is -1, then you still get 1 Lay on Hands. If it's 0, you still get 1. If it's a bonus of +1, then you still get 1 Lay on Hands.
It's not shafting someone with a +1 Wisdom Bonus, it's merely allowing Paladins with a lower Wisdom bonus to still have access to their class feature.
I'm sure having a +1 Wisdom Bonus will have other benefits.
I saw the thread there first so we answered it. It was then cross posted here.
I have been answering questions here too.
You're right, my apologies. It probably stems from my spending much more time on these boards, and thus seeing a much different proportion of official responses compared to normal chatter.
... Hey, while you're here. I would like to know who does go over the books to look for errors after the writers, or if you have to police yourselves (which is exceedingly hard to do, finding your own mistakes). Is it freelance copy editors as I have heard, or does WotC have its own staff? I am actually seriously interested in working as a copy editor for you guys, but I don't know how to go about applying.
... Hey, while you're here. I would like to know who does go over the books to look for errors after the writers, or if you have to police yourselves (which is exceedingly hard to do, finding your own mistakes). Is it freelance copy editors as I have heard, or does WotC have its own staff? I am actually seriously interested in working as a copy editor for you guys, but I don't know how to go about applying.
The primary job belongs to the editor but developers, designers, type setters, and even the pre-press person can all catch and report errors. It depends on the book who th editor is but there are people who catch errors throughout the process.
The process is not perfect as it is humans doing the job. Some times we miss stuff. There is a saying in the book industry that goes something like " if you want to find errors in a book, print it and open it for the first time"
As for applying for the jobs they are posted here and the editor position is the one you'd be looking for if you want to proof read books
It's a minimum of one, not always adding one. If your Wis bonus is -1, then you still get 1 Lay on Hands. If it's 0, you still get 1. If it's a bonus of +1, then you still get 1 Lay on Hands.
It's not shafting someone with a +1 Wisdom Bonus, it's merely allowing Paladins with a lower Wisdom bonus to still have access to their class feature.
I'm sure having a +1 Wisdom Bonus will have other benefits.
Hum, not sure I like this. I'll wait till the offiical rules come out, but knowing that a -1 and a +1 still get only 1 LoH, seems...lacking. I'm ok with the min 1, but -1 to +1 is three steps.
Anyway, if LoH is a class feature, as it has been in the past, then it should have remained as such and perhaps been level adjusted instead, i.e the longer you are faithful to your diety, the more powerful you become.
But, like I said, I'll wait for the official rules to draw judgement.
Hum, not sure I like this. I'll wait till the offiical rules come out, but knowing that a -1 and a +1 still get only 1 LoH, seems...lacking. I'm ok with the min 1, but -1 to +1 is three steps.
Anyway, if LoH is a class feature, as it has been in the past, then it should have remained as such and perhaps been level adjusted instead, i.e the longer you are faithful to your diety, the more powerful you become.
But, like I said, I'll wait for the official rules to draw judgement.
your stat bonus for a given stat increases as you level, so at 1st level it is not any better then a +0 or -2, but by 6th it is better.
See ya,
Ken
Now, you mention prestige classes... I haven't seen any prestige classes for 4e, but that could be because they don't exist any more.
What I was referring to was the body of work from 3.5 that shows poor QC. I picked the Complete Warrior (which I knew had a buggy entry) and four other more recent books at random from off my bookshelf. Here's the results of a quick search.
Examples:
- The sample Order of the Bow Initiate character in the Complete Warrior has damage that's off and is 1 short on both skills needed to qualify for the class.
- The sample Kensai from the same book couldn't have purchased the Ride ranks to qualify for the PrC by level 7 as a Monk.
- The sample Eldritch Disciple from the Complete Mage is missing ranks in Knowledge (religion), needed to qualify for the class, and is of an invalid alignment to be a Warlock.
- The sample Nightmare Spinner from the same book is an illusionist who took evocation as a barred school but has prepared continual flame.
- The sample Arachnomancer in Drow of the Underdark has no way to have bought 4 ranks in Climb by Wizard level 5.
- The sample Cavestalker in the same book also can't qualify for the class. A 4th level Ranger can't have 8 ranks in Survival.
- The sample Extreme Explorer in the Eberron Campaign Setting 2 short on both skills needed to qualify for the class.
- The sample Weretouched Master in the same book is missing his 5th level ability.
- I couldn't find any major quibbles in Fiendish Codex II's sample prestige class characters, but the Aasimar Monk/Hellreaver is treated as a CR 13 when it should be CR 12 -- Aasimar have ECL +1 but CR +0. They get this right with the Tiefling Ninja/Hellbreaker.
Yeah, I know this is needlessly nitpicky and all. I'm sure people don't even notice because the sample builds are just so much filler and wasted space for most of us. However, that was just 40 minutes of checking for 5 books -- these were problems I noticed at a bare glance, which any good proofreader should have been able to do if it were ... say... their job.
Non superficial issues like the brokenness of celerity + arcane fusion, the feat Arcane Thesis with 0 LA metamagic (pre-errata), and the biggest OMGWTFBBQ of them all, the Planar Shepard, show that playtesting QC isn't necessarily there either. The problem is not merely one of mere typos but one that I think runs deeper. I'm worried that after the first 3 core 4e books come out that WotC is going to shut off any nascent QC process they have an return to churning out broken splatbooks. The seemingly short-term involvement of breakage-seeking playtesters (i.e. the CO board regulars) only early in the development phase tells me that they aren't treating the problem seriously.
It's easy to sit back and criticize everything, but try putting yourself in their shoes. There probably is more going on than you know, and It seems that many WotC employees seem to do more than one thing as part of their job.
I've been a software developer for years. I know from experience what it's like to accidentally ship a product with bugs in it and how hard it is to prevent. But I also know that there are ways to mitigate the problem that don't seem to be in place, as evidenced by the end product. Having a second set of eyes do a code review make a huge difference as does having a formal QC department to run through the finished product (without having been any part of its development) to see if there are bugs in it.
I'm just saying that WotC's error rate is too high. That points to a process problem of some sort, and I'm becoming increasingly worried that nothing has happened in the run-up to 4e to address the internal issues that led to sloppiness like the points I've raised above. Simple proof-reading combined with hiring a devious munchkin or two would solve 99% of their problems.
(Editing scan of several books, no contention on this point)
Yeah, I know this is needlessly nitpicky and all. I'm sure people don't even notice because the sample builds are just so much filler and wasted space for most of us. However, that was just 40 minutes of checking for 5 books -- these were problems I noticed at a bare glance, which any good proofreader should have been able to do if it were ... say... their job.
(Not contesting rest of statements)
In defense of perhaps a few poor proofreaders, it is quite possible that the people WOTC have working in the back room don't actually play the game. As such, they wouldn't be looking for mathematical and construction errors. The proofreaders would assume the person who makes the game would have been aware of and dealt with mechanical issues before hand. Their job would be checking grammar.
Given how they are often are cutting books close to deadline (not to mention their lack of ability to get periodicals out on time until recently, and mainly that being eased due to cut and paste methods), I am not surprised that you will find many errors, or things that were changed at the last minute and not completely tested. However, at least give the proofreaders some slack. They're not R&D. It's not their job to know the rules.
Now blaming the developers.... you can go ahead. They should have known better.
What I was referring to was the body of work from 3.5 that shows poor QC. I picked the Complete Warrior (which I knew had a buggy entry) and four other more recent books at random from off my bookshelf. Here's the results of a quick search.
Examples:
- The sample Order of the Bow Initiate character in the Complete Warrior has damage that's off and is 1 short on both skills needed to qualify for the class.
- The sample Kensai from the same book couldn't have purchased the Ride ranks to qualify for the PrC by level 7 as a Monk.
- The sample Eldritch Disciple from the Complete Mage is missing ranks in Knowledge (religion), needed to qualify for the class, and is of an invalid alignment to be a Warlock.
- The sample Nightmare Spinner from the same book is an illusionist who took evocation as a barred school but has prepared continual flame.
- The sample Arachnomancer in Drow of the Underdark has no way to have bought 4 ranks in Climb by Wizard level 5.
- The sample Cavestalker in the same book also can't qualify for the class. A 4th level Ranger can't have 8 ranks in Survival.
- The sample Extreme Explorer in the Eberron Campaign Setting 2 short on both skills needed to qualify for the class.
- The sample Weretouched Master in the same book is missing his 5th level ability.
- I couldn't find any major quibbles in Fiendish Codex II's sample prestige class characters, but the Aasimar Monk/Hellreaver is treated as a CR 13 when it should be CR 12 -- Aasimar have ECL +1 but CR +0. They get this right with the Tiefling Ninja/Hellbreaker.
Yeah, I know this is needlessly nitpicky and all. I'm sure people don't even notice because the sample builds are just so much filler and wasted space for most of us. However, that was just 40 minutes of checking for 5 books -- these were problems I noticed at a bare glance, which any good proofreader should have been able to do if it were ... say... their job.
Non superficial issues like the brokenness of celerity + arcane fusion, the feat Arcane Thesis with 0 LA metamagic (pre-errata), and the biggest OMGWTFBBQ of them all, the Planar Shepard, show that playtesting QC isn't necessarily there either. The problem is not merely one of mere typos but one that I think runs deeper. I'm worried that after the first 3 core 4e books come out that WotC is going to shut off any nascent QC process they have an return to churning out broken splatbooks. The seemingly short-term involvement of breakage-seeking playtesters (i.e. the CO board regulars) only early in the development phase tells me that they aren't treating the problem seriously.
Granted the 3.x errors in printed materials is bad, but considering the number of fiddly little numbers, from classes, abilities, skils, etc. I'm not the least bit surprised. There were so many things to keep track of in 3.x that some were glossed over. One of the reasons why I don't play 3.x right now, and think 4e is a great step forward. WotC seems to be taking a different approach to books it seems. Lets look at the campaign settings - 3 books. A DM's guide, a Players guide, and a large adventure. We'll get that for FR this year and Eberron next year. Three books, means not adding in new prestige classes every book. I'm happy about that. Perhaps they are taking some steps to prevent some of the breakable mechanics from past editions, but we won't know until the product comes out. So saying that there is no QC is a bit presumptuous if you ask me. If the book comes out and is full of errors, beyond the trivial little grammatical ones that always come up, mostly because the proof-readers are most likely U.S. citizens, and those down south don't speak or write proper English. :P
As to the web documents, I said before, and I'll say it again - the web team may not know the rules, they're responsible for putting the stuff online. If they screw up the setting of a experience table and put the wrong word somewhere, such as the standard monster and minion xp, it may not be a representation of QC in the actual books. The fact of the matter in the web documents, they do make changes if something is pointed out. I think that speaks pretty well of them.
I've been a software developer for years. I know from experience what it's like to accidentally ship a product with bugs in it and how hard it is to prevent. But I also know that there are ways to mitigate the problem that don't seem to be in place, as evidenced by the end product. Having a second set of eyes do a code review make a huge difference as does having a formal QC department to run through the finished product (without having been any part of its development) to see if there are bugs in it.
I can't disagree with having a second set of eyes looking for things, but those eyes have to know what to look for. And I would think most proof readers are more concerned with grammar than the mechanics of the rules and that is there primary focus. So should you have someone read over the rules? Yes, but they need to know the most up-to-date rules, and that, especially with 3.x, was constantly changing. A very hard job. I'd expect high turnover in that position, which compounds the problem. Having new people search for errors and not knowing everything about the system.
I'm just saying that WotC's error rate is too high. That points to a process problem of some sort, and I'm becoming increasingly worried that nothing has happened in the run-up to 4e to address the internal issues that led to sloppiness like the points I've raised above. Simple proof-reading combined with hiring a devious munchkin or two would solve 99% of their problems.
The best way to rectify this is, don't buy the product if it is full of errors. That way, WotC will know there is a problem faster than posting on here that the book has errors. Now, just in case you say: 'well how can I find the errors if I don't buy it?', it's called wait till you read some reviews, do some research, read it in Chapters or what not, there are ways. You don't have to buy the game when it comes out.
Working in the video game industry, as a retailer, I found that people (and this is probably true of many things other than my example) complain about every damn thing. A game is full of bugs and people are irate that it's flawed. If said game was delayed people will be irate because it's not on time and been delayed. Even if that fixed the flaws, the problem is that some will lose interest or move on to something else because of the delays. My point is there are SO many factors that can lead to errors cropping up, and much of it has to do with the large corporation/North American mindset when it comes to business (and life in general). People are stressed out from too much work, constantly rushing around and it's no wonder that all these errors crop up. The fact is though, there's no sign of anything taking a step back and slowing down to get better quality, because everything has to be GO-GO-GO!. Money becomes an issue. 4e isn't out yet so they aren't making money off it, so they cut some peoples jobs until they do. Now you can't cut the developers as easy as you can cut the editors/proof readers so you let them go. See the problem?
Every thing stems form another thing. The butterfly effect as it were. So, while you propose they hire more staff to read over the books, it may not be possible. Yes, they could use free fans, but that can cause other problems down the road. So proposing a solution may seem easy enough, but I'd wager that most people don't look at the bigger picture and how everything is co-dependent what is around it.
So saying that there is no QC is a bit presumptuous if you ask me. If the book comes out and is full of errors, beyond the trivial little grammatical ones that always come up, mostly because the proof-readers are most likely U.S. citizens, and those down south don't speak or write proper English. :P
*cough*
Um... I'm from the South, originally.
On a more serious note, I'd like to say that there's grammar issues, there's violating your own rules in the filler, and then there's the Planar Shepard. I'm most worried about design issues like the last bit than I am about simple proofreading. Poor proofreading is just a symptom of carelessness and not the major damage done by it.
As to the web documents, I said before, and I'll say it again - the web team may not know the rules, they're responsible for putting the stuff online.
The problem with this line of argument is that some things should be obvious to a person who doesn't know the rules. The mention of a power not listed in the stat block in the Giants article should have tripped off some sort of "I wonder what that's talking about" alarm in the head of whatever simple web minion put it up. Only someone completely without RPG experience should have been able to look at the minion/standard goof up and not think anything of it. The table formatting errors in the Multiclass article were more forgivable since you'd actually have to know something about the system to catch that it looked confusing, but not having the images up originally was purely the website editor's fault -- a direct sign that they don't review their own work before and after it goes live.
I can't disagree with having a second set of eyes looking for things, but those eyes have to know what to look for. And I would think most proof readers are more concerned with grammar than the mechanics of the rules and that is there primary focus.
That's why I talk about two different kinds of review. In software development, "code review" is done by another developer who has not worked on the particular problem you are working on but is familiar with the general code base. It's review by an objective expert and not someone wrapped up in the current design. For RPGs, this is best done by fellow game designers.
QA or QC is where you take in house expert users (and not developers) who run through and try to find issues with the product as presented to users. This is where proofreaders and your in-house munchkin squad come in. One catches style errors; the other catches substance errors.
The best way to rectify this is, don't buy the product if it is full of errors.
See, I don't agree. For one thing, despite warts that pop up every now and then I actually want to buy their products. I just wish there was some better workmanship on them. And I admit that a certain gleeful munchkin side of me finds design oversights as some sort of Christmas present even though I'd refuse to use them in an actual game. I just don't like having to develop a banned list for my own games, and I think that the use of D&Di to put together games with random strangers is only going create a strange tension between people who insist on inspecting PCs for things they don't like v. the "it's official, so you have to allow it" crowd.
But more importantly, if I just don't buy their product at all because of a broken prestige class or feat or spell here and there, then WotC has absolutely no idea why I'm not buying their products. My actions would not have sent a message at all. For all they know, I'm just not interested in the content, the price was too expensive, I didn't like the artwork, etc. They have no idea that my real problem was a design or editing flaw.
Maybe I'll reach that point someday of getting fed up by an egregious series of issues and become one of those "core only" gamers (no matter what WotC tries to claim core is), but I'd hope it doesn't come to that. But those people do exist for a reason.
So, while you propose they hire more staff to read over the books, it may not be possible.
No company that cuts testing and quality control before marketing and glitz does well in the long run. If they really are that strapped for cash (which I doubt), then should prioritize QC over glitzy artwork. It's the substance that gamers buy RPG books for.
In defense of perhaps a few poor proofreaders, it is quite possible that the people WOTC have working in the back room don't actually play the game.
But they should have people who play the game. It can't be that hard to find nitpicky people that like D&D for cheap. I'm sure the local colleges could provide them in droves if they didn't want to hire a full-price, full-time staff.
I'm just saying that WotC's error rate is too high. That points to a process problem of some sort, and I'm becoming increasingly worried that nothing has happened in the run-up to 4e to address the internal issues that led to sloppiness like the points I've raised above. Simple proof-reading combined with hiring a devious munchkin or two would solve 99% of their problems.
It makes so much sense! Just hire somebody to check the errors!! Why didn't WotC think of that?? WOWOWOW you need to get hired, son!!!
The best way to rectify this is, don't buy the product if it is full of errors.
You won't know it has errors until you buy it, or wait until the first errata is released and that could take a while.
Any company that wants to have a reputation for high quality products must make quality control a priority at all levels. Look at Microsoft and Apple - the most recent OS from each company had some big problems. Microsoft had a reputation for poor quality and Apple's rep was quite the opposite. Apple was forgiven for its transgressions as it made rapid response to bugs the highest priority and thus saved their reputation in the process. Microsoft balked at the notion that it Vista was crap and we should all be grateful to have it. Getting them to acknowledge the problem took a great deal of public and media pressure. Then they come out and say that they knew it was crap from the word go. Right now their reputation is taking a real pounding.
WotC may not have a large competitor like Apple is to Microsoft, but that could change if they continue to earn a reputation for poor quality products. I hope the DDI becomes a rapid response hub to help fix the reputation they are gaining for poor quality control.
The primary job belongs to the editor but developers, designers, type setters, and even the pre-press person can all catch and report errors. It depends on the book who th editor is but there are people who catch errors throughout the process.
The process is not perfect as it is humans doing the job. Some times we miss stuff. There is a saying in the book industry that goes something like " if you want to find errors in a book, print it and open it for the first time"
As for applying for the jobs they are posted here and the editor position is the one you'd be looking for if you want to proof read books
Thanks ;)
In a CMS you've turned over the ability to create complex HTML to WYSIWYG editing tools and people that aren't coders. In general it works well since most of the content they create is paragraphs of text and the site templates are locked down. Things get harder when tables are introduced. There aren't many tools that handle making tables (statblocks) well. Then you have the fact that there probably aren't editors scouring the text before it's published because it's time consuming and you can always correct it later. It's not just WotC, it's everyone. I've seen similar errors on the New York Times website.
If this cost $10 dollars, it would still be subject to criticism for leaving out something due to space considerations.
I sense WotC senses that DDI is going to die aborning, and decided to cash in on the 'books'.
I stopped reading the posts and replies when a staff member said that they omitted information due to space considerations in a product with 56 pages of flimsy paper with runny ink stapled together, that cost $29 dollars. (Not to mention maps that are copied from other sources and character sheets on the same flimsy paper without perforations.)
If this cost $10 dollars, it would still be subject to criticism for leaving out something due to space considerations.
I sense WotC senses that DDI is going to die aborning, and decided to cash in on the 'books'.
I guess with the Concerns and Criticisms forum locked we will be getting a lot of these kind of posts... Thanks for being constructive!
You may think the module was worth $30, but I can't imagine there are a lot of people who agree. Most of the comments I've seen are pretty clearly on the 'rip-off' side.
Do you really think being snide is 'being constructive"?
No actually. I thought you were just being as you say "snide"...
You may think the module was worth $30, but I can't imagine there are a lot of people who agree. Most of the comments I've seen are pretty clearly on the 'rip-off' side.
As for the value of the product. I would agree that it was produced on the cheep. As well I feel that $30 is a bit hight but not a rip off either. My biggest issue is the editing. If I were creating something to use as a tool to prime the market for future products I would go over it with a supper fine tooth comb. But that is just me.
I like the format of the module both inside the Adventure book and the Player guide. I don't mind the pre-gens not be perforated because I can copy them. I also like the folder.
But those are just my opinions and no one has to agree with me.
Maybe I missed something.