Make sure you take a moment to acquaint yourself with these updates and changes, as I suspect they'll be in effect for DDXP.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates
I've started an inquiry to see if there we be any sort of "retrain" or other changes allowed for those that have taken Veteran's Armor in light of this (rather significant) change.
And, y'know - to play SPEC1-1. But man, the Veteran's Armor nerf is a big one, relative to most nerfs.
Man, I played SPEC1-1 just to get Veteran's Armor as an item slot. :raincloud
And, y'know - to play SPEC1-1. But man, the Veteran's Armor nerf is a big one, relative to most nerfs.
Its a level 2 set of Armor come on. Regaining a daily on a level 2 item and it wasnt a big one?
Man, I played SPEC1-1 just to get Veteran's Armor as an item slot. :raincloud
And, y'know - to play SPEC1-1. But man, the Veteran's Armor nerf is a big one, relative to most nerfs.
You think that's bad - I played SPEC1-1 in its original form and took Surge Armour +1, then had to swap it for Veteran's Armour +1 because Surge Armour +1 doesn't exist in the Adventurer's Vault as published, and now I'm going to have to trade it out again (if I can).
I wonder if this means that adventure will get yet another update to switch out the treasure bundles.
I wonder if this means that adventure will get yet another update to switch out the treasure bundles.
I cannot guess how WotC will handle errata affecting PCs in LFR. I have my own opinions on how I would like to handle it, but that opinion is as valid as anyone else's opinion.
On the question of if the adventure will change treasure bundles available, I am fairly confident in saying that it will not. Veteran's armor is still a magic item, so therefore it is still a valid choice. Other than perhaps changing the description of the armor in New Rules section, there is no reason to change its offering in a treasure bundle.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Its a level 2 set of Armor come on. Regaining a daily on a level 2 item and it wasnt a big one?
It was a large (not necessarily undeserved) change, that's all I'm saying.
Now, as soon as we figure out what this means to the half of my local players who've acquired veteran's armor over the past few months I'll be completely happy. I'm grateful the beast is dead, but I don't want to see my players screwed out of their armor choice.
Plus,
No orb wizard update.
No Channel Divinity: Righteous Rage of Tempus update.
No update to any of the other dozen broken items in Adventurers Vault.
Maybe we will finally see those updates in another 5 months.
I hate WotC. I just drove to another state and paid around $200 for a hotel room and admission to a convention so could get +2 Veteran's armor for two of my characters. I haven't even had a chance to use it once and they nerf it. My heart sank to my stomach when I read that. I feel that WotC now owes me $200 and two days of my life back. However, I do agree that it was broken.
Plus,
No orb wizard update.
No Channel Divinity: Righteous Rage of Tempus update.
No update to any of the other dozen broken items in Adventurers Vault.
Maybe we will finally see those updates in another 5 months.
Was your sole reason for attending the convention really just the opportunity to get some Veteran's Armor a few weeks before the mods become available? Or was it have a great time playing some D&D, with VA as a nice side bonus? If the latter (which I hope), then it wasn't a waste, was it?
I hate WotC. I just drove to another state and paid around $200 for a hotel room and admission to a convention so could get +2 Veteran's armor for two of my characters. I haven't even had a chance to use it once and they nerf it. My heart sank to my stomach when I read that. I feel that WotC now owes me $200 and two days of my life back. However, I do agree that it was broken.
Plus,
No orb wizard update.
No Channel Divinity: Righteous Rage of Tempus update.
No update to any of the other dozen broken items in Adventurers Vault.
Maybe we will finally see those updates in another 5 months.
If you haven't played a module with your character owning that armor yet, you still have the option of chosing something else.
If your primary goal was to show off your VA+2, that may not help a whole lot, but it should still beat being "stuck" with VA+2 instead of some other choice.
I hate WotC. I just drove to another state and paid around $200 for a hotel room and admission to a convention so could get +2 Veteran's armor for two of my characters. I haven't even had a chance to use it once and they nerf it. My heart sank to my stomach when I read that. I feel that WotC now owes me $200 and two days of my life back. However, I do agree that it was broken.
That was really your only reason for driving out of state to a convention and dropping all that money? If that's the case then I truly do feel sorry for you. Not really because I have sympathy for you here - partly for spending all that money to get an item out of a module that can be run anywhere by anyone, but mostly because if that's the only reason you went, you weren't going because you were having fun. I can understand you being unhappy about the change, but feeling you're entitled to something because they made a rules change? It's a game. A game with a brand-new rules system. Changes are going to be made. (I speak from experience, having been pretty much in charge of a brand-new rules system for the better part of two years working on Dreamblade.) They may not be the changes you want at the time you want, but there will be changes. If you dislike that to the point of wanting reimbursement for attending a convention... well, you may be playing the wrong game.
If you haven't played a module with your character owning that armor yet, you still have the option of chosing something else.
Do you? If it was a purchase, sure, but if it was a bundle choice, that would've been reported already...
Do you? If it was a purchase, sure, but if it was a bundle choice, that would've been reported already...
Good catch, and an important clarification.
Do you? If it was a purchase, sure, but if it was a bundle choice, that would've been reported already...
I know of no way to verify what bundles have been taken using the online tracker.
(Not that I'm advocating cheating, but to play devil's advocate in a sense...) If your paperwork (which does not have to be signed or verified by anyone), says you chose something else, then obviously (by the LFR guidelines), the reported bundle is erroneous and needs to be corrected.
I know of no way to verify what bundles have been taken using the online tracker.
(Not that I'm advocating cheating, but to play devil's advocate in a sense...) If your paperwork (which does not have to be signed or verified by anyone), says you chose something else, then obviously (by the LFR guidelines), the reported bundle is erroneous and needs to be corrected.
Not that others probably have not thought of this. But but stating it openly and in a public venue you are in a sense advocating cheating, despite your claim otherwise
I know of no way to verify what bundles have been taken using the online tracker.
As you say, we're not advocating cheating. If someone wants to fake their bundles, there's currently not much a DM will do to stop them. However, I believe the people seriously discussing this on the boards are the people interested in correcting this situation legally per the instructions of the RPGA administrators rather than choosing to implement an illegal fix of their own.
Not that others probably have not thought of this. But but stating it openly and in a public venue you are in a sense advocating cheating, despite your claim otherwise
I am stating that given the campaign rules as written there is no way to verify what mods a player has played and what rewards they have obtained. In fact it is possible for someone (as long as they are not being stupid) to create a 9th level LFR character that they have never actually played and have it look legit.
I suppose using a narrow definition of advocate, it could be considered as an act of public advice.
Fine. I'm advocating cheating. You know what? I don't care. Because there is no way to police cheating in LFR, so I won't bother to try.
I have never done it, nor do I think others should do it. There are times when I've considered it (realized I'd made a poor feat choice after playing a mod, but before leveling), but never have given into temptation.
Honestly, +2 Veterans armor can be sold for 520 gp, which could buy you another level 2 item outright. Not the best use for a found item slot, but it wouldn't be the first time I've taken a high level item pick just so I can sell it for the gold. Which is probably what I would do if I were in this situation.
I know of no way to verify what bundles have been taken using the online tracker.
(Not that I'm advocating cheating, but to play devil's advocate in a sense...) If your paperwork (which does not have to be signed or verified by anyone), says you chose something else, then obviously (by the LFR guidelines), the reported bundle is erroneous and needs to be corrected.
We lack the means to properly identify the exact people who caused many aspects of the financial meltdown. It doesn't makes what they did totally fine and we should not encourage others to cheat, lie, and steal, right?
Come on, folks! The armor was a ridiculous bit of bad rules. An armor cheaper than almost any other armor in the game, but with probably the best power of anything outside really high level armors... really, this update is a shocker?
I understand many people wanted this armor and would have used it responsibly, but it was broken as written and was being abused by some players and it really did need to be addressed.
The armor is a fine purchase in its current state, particularly with a TacLord in your party. It is a great armor property and fully worth a pick or purchase. Even with the property alone, this item would not be badly written if it were one item level higher. It is still a great item with a lot of utility (useful three times in an average LFR mod, perfect for improving chances to hit with a daily or strong encounter power).
This game does not hinge on optimized magical item picks. It works just fine with picking items that look cool and have fun aspects.
There is no reason to drive yourself to cheating over what is a very logical correction to a poorly written armor.
As you say, we're not advocating cheating.
It is group think. When someone considering cheating reads posts like this, they think other players out there are doing it and they decide to do it as well.
The morally correct position is to ALWAYS stand against cheating. It isn't to point out loopholes and otherwise push people towards that option.
Ask yourself what kind of campaign you want to be a part of? Can we really not deal with a game where sometimes we take a bit of a hit for thinking an item worked one way and finding it works another way? Is that so terrible in this game we play? The item as it stands won't lessen anyone's enjoyment of the game, the campaign, or their PC. It just prevents absurdity at the table.
LG bent over backwards all the time to prevent any player from feeling inconvenienced by any rules change. Is that really necessary? We already have retraining, special permission for changing playtest classes, etc. Life is good!
As players, we can easily advocate and request flexibility without advocating cheating. There is a valid conversation in saying that campaigns may be more fun for more players if they offer ways out of bad choices. While I'm fine with living with changes to the rules, maybe the game really is better for more people with some options. The easiest way is to have the option to "retrain" an item at each tier of play. When you reach Paragon or Epic, lose one item in exchange for re-opening a slot used to choose it or the gold spent to purchase the item.
Ask yourself what kind of campaign you want to be a part of? Can we really not deal with a game where sometimes we take a bit of a hit for thinking an item worked one way and finding it works another way? Is that so terrible in this game we play? The item as it stands won't lessen anyone's enjoyment of the game, the campaign, or their PC.
For some people, the answer is no, they can't. It doesn't personally bother me.
I can say cheating is bad all I want (and mostly mean it), but that doesn't change the fact that there is no way to catch someone cheating with regards to their character in LFR.
Personally I'm all for the answer to "retraining" updated items to be "tough, your stuck with it". Items should never be central to a character's concept. Having a single "wasted" found item slot won't cripple your character. Even having 4 or 5 over the course of your career won't.
I mean, geez, if I want to grind for hundreds of hours and get nerfed, I can play WOW. I didn't even get to use it once, for pete sake.
Anyway, that's my two coppers worth of analysis. I'm hoping WOTC will make it right somehow, but if not, well, caveat emptor for the future.
Guys, I think some of you are missing the point. When its necessary to make an adjustment to an item for play balance, it should be made, but it needs to be made in a way that doesn't dock somebody for playing the game as written. I obtained my set of Veteran's Armor barely a week ago when my local group ran the Shades of the Zhentarim mod. I wasn't aware of the new errata, and neither was my DM at the time. When the options for loot came up, who wouldn't want the ability to regain a daily by spending an action point? I think the thing that irked me most about this was that this wasn't done in roleplay. If a greedy evil merchant had sold me a rotten bill of goods, and I hadn't been able to hunt the bastard down for my money, I would have felt cheated but it would have felt like it was in the scope of play. If some evil wizard had hit me with a curse that neutralized my armor's effect, at least I would have had the satisfaction of trying to pound the snot out of him. This change, done with little to no fanfare, is akin (albeit in a small way) like getting a notice from your credit card company saying we're jacking your interest rate. Yeah we know, you paid your bill on time and you were playing by the rules, but we screwed up by letting to many low interest rate cards go out on the market, so now we have to make some corrections.
I mean, geez, if I want to grind for hundreds of hours and get nerfed, I can play WOW. I didn't even get to use it once, for pete sake.
Anyway, that's my two coppers worth of analysis. I'm hoping WOTC will make it right somehow, but if not, well, caveat emptor for the future.
It is still a viable lvl 2 magic item. I knew when I saw it in AV that it would be in the errata at some point.
Has your GM already reported the module you played last weekend? If not you can still change your bundle choice.
Guys, I think some of you are missing the point. When its necessary to make an adjustment to an item for play balance, it should be made, but it needs to be made in a way that doesn't dock somebody for playing the game as written. I obtained my set of Veteran's Armor barely a week ago when my local group ran the Shades of the Zhentarim mod. I wasn't aware of the new errata, and neither was my DM at the time. When the options for loot came up, who wouldn't want the ability to regain a daily by spending an action point? I think the thing that irked me most about this was that this wasn't done in roleplay. If a greedy evil merchant had sold me a rotten bill of goods, and I hadn't been able to hunt the bastard down for my money, I would have felt cheated but it would have felt like it was in the scope of play. If some evil wizard had hit me with a curse that neutralized my armor's effect, at least I would have had the satisfaction of trying to pound the snot out of him. This change, done with little to no fanfare, is akin (albeit in a small way) like getting a notice from your credit card company saying we're jacking your interest rate. Yeah we know, you paid your bill on time and you were playing by the rules, but we screwed up by letting to many low interest rate cards go out on the market, so now we have to make some corrections.
I mean, geez, if I want to grind for hundreds of hours and get nerfed, I can play WOW. I didn't even get to use it once, for pete sake.
Anyway, that's my two coppers worth of analysis. I'm hoping WOTC will make it right somehow, but if not, well, caveat emptor for the future.
I'm curious, why don't you roleplay the change? Nothing is stopping you from claiming that a Banite priest cursed you with his last breath and your armor took the brunt of it. Alternately, maybe you did buy it from a cheat of a merchant who claimed it had better properties than it did. And, you can spend your career hunting the wily rapscalion down (never quite finding him). The only thing stopping your from roleplaying the change is you.
-SYB
After reading some of the posts about people up in arms about this Veteran's armor change, I'm in disbelief that I am actually playing the same game as some of you. In fact, I'm a little ashamed.
Guys, we're playing in a living game system, one that evolves as people play it. The fact that changes are being made to game rules means that people out there care about the quality of the games we play. It's ONE magic item that was changed because it was too good. It's really not a big deal. If you feel that your character is now ruined, then you've learned your lesson about basing a character around a magic item. If you feel that you "wasted your time and money" obtaining said item for your character, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
WotC and Chris Tulach will find some way to address changes like this. Chances are, the change won't leave everyone happy. That's the bitter truth. However, changes like these are necessary and this is certainly not the first. Deal with it and move on. Let's find something less inane to cry about.
Don't base your character around an item, power, or other specific rules tidbit, especially if it seems to be overly powerful.
Because then your character is subject to getting screwed over if that rule changes.
Instead, base your character design around a larger theme or goal in mind, preferably one not grounded in the wording of the rules.
Some examples for the characters in my signature:
Tiana is all about being older than you. Than any of you. She's over four centuries old, older and wiser than Szass Tam, and will let you know it. She's ever so slightly arrogant. Just a little.
Fulcrum was a field medical unit in the Lantan defense forces. Then the Spellplague happened. The island sank into the sea and one of the buildings fell on him. By the time he dug himself out and walked across the seafloor to the nearest land, a century had passed. He's still adjusting.
Kro'tak is from the Kingdom of Many-Arrows. He is young and out to see the world for the first time. It's an exciting and dangerous place. He hopes to gain the wisdom he will need to return home an assume the role of a Speaker of Truth.
Justice St. James is a brawler, like his father, and his father before him. He's all about destroying things with his fists and his shield. He's probably my most rules-intensive character.
All of these characters are combat-optimized in different and varying degrees, yet none has a concept so rooted in a particular ruling that a change in the rules is likely to make them unplayable.
Like everything else in life, if you specialize TOO much, you risk making yourself obsolete when the thing you're specialized in loses value.
-karma
I listened for a bit to people's complaints on this in my local area and finally decided to look at the cost of the item and its power level after errata compared to other armors. I found that in reality, it is still a reasonably good deal and compares well to other level 2 armors for its cost and property.
The only flaw I see with the armor that would warrant any trade-ins or corrections is that at higher tiers, its level seems higher than comparable armors, and even then not by more than 1 level, which is probably a flub factor on most armors as they move up to some degree anyway, just like when you try to calculate the appropriate EL for a trap encounter and other abstract items in the game.
Donovan Hicks
SF California
I hate WotC. I just drove to another state and paid around $200 for a hotel room and admission to a convention so could get +2 Veteran's armor for two of my characters.
:OMG!
:heehee Sorry... but I mean... geez. The non-nerfed armor isn't worth that much!
Plus,
No orb wizard update.
What needs updated with that?
What needs updated with that?
Read this thread, or more specifically, this post.
Meh... I still don't see what the big deal is. Sure, my Wizard by late Epic level will be able to impose a penalty to an enemy on a save ends effect that they can only save on a 20. It's usable 1/encounter on one effect. *shrug* Sure it stays until they save on the effect, but I just don't see that as inherently broken.
You do not automatically save on a roll of 20. That's a 3.5 rule, not a 4E rule.
The problem is that the orb wizard makes solo monsters obsolete starting at level 14. Anyways, this is not the thread to discuss it in. If you have further questions or comments about the Orb of Imposition I suggest you post them to this thread after you read it.
No Channel Divinity: Righteous Rage of Tempus update.
[...]
Maybe we will finally see those updates in another 5 months.
Ok, I'm a bit behind on all these updates. I came here researching the VA change/update/nerf/insert-your-own-description-here.
But I'm not following what you mean about no RRoT update. Was there supposed to be one? Or were you looking for one for one reason or another?
I also took a look at your follow-up when someone asked about the OoI, but I didn't see anything about RRoT.
Panickedly---
Lisa Ann
But I'm not following what you mean about no RRoT update. Was there supposed to be one? Or were you looking for one for one reason or another?
I can't speak for GANADAI, but there is a popular opinion that RRoT is way to powerful a feat and that it needs to be changed.
I've started an inquiry to see if there we be any sort of "retrain" or other changes allowed for those that have taken Veteran's Armor in light of this (rather significant) change.
WolfStar---
Thanks for initiating the inquiry concerning this. I trust you included the clarification between purchase vs. bundle acquisition to your inquiry (pleasepleaseplease)?
I hope this update (NOT "errata"! ;) ) will also lead to a general ruling concerning a player's options in light of an update to any item chosen as a bundle.
Thank you again for your help in this matter!
---Lisa Ann
Originally Posted by GANADAI
The problem is that the orb wizard makes solo monsters obsolete starting at level 14.
Warlocks in LFR are making minions obsolete by level 5. No update for the Rod of Reaving + Rod of Corruption combo.
Removing all minions from the battlemat with a single minor action is to much.
WolfStar---
Thanks for initiating the inquiry concerning this. I trust you included the clarification between purchase vs. bundle acquisition to your inquiry (pleasepleaseplease)?
I hope this update (NOT "errata"! ;) ) will also lead to a general ruling concerning a player's options in light of an update to any item chosen as a bundle.
Thank you again for your help in this matter!
---Lisa Ann
I didn't make any specific notes about how items are aquired, and went with a more genreal approach for "when rules items are updated" since powers, feats, and etc might all be affected in the future.
I've not received a reply, but hope that DDXP will shed light.
Warlocks in LFR are making minions obsolete by level 5. No update for the Rod of Reaving + Rod of Corruption combo.
Removing all minions from the battlemat with a single minor action is to much.
People have argued that there is a difference between "placing" your curse and "transfering" your curse. If you, as a DM, have a problem with someone clearling the battle field of minions with a minior action it's within your right as a DM to rule that transfering the curse does not activate the property on the Rod of Reaving.
Further discussion on the subject should be done in this thread. ;)
it's within your right as a DM to rule that transfering the curse does not activate the property on the Rod of Reaving.
My good friend, there is nothing in the rules that suggests a difference between "transfer" and "place". LFR DMs should be careful about creating rules out of thin air.
The main reason players/DMs don't like this item combo is the ability to kill minions. Here is what the DMG says when it defines minions on p 54: "Minion: Sometimes you want monsters to come in droves and go down just as fast. A fight against thirty orcs is a grand cinematic battle. The players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter, feeling confident and powerful."
The whole point of minions is not to test the PCs, but to be cinematic and to establish the superiority of the PCs. DMs are missing the point of 4E if they try to limit any item or power's ability to destroy minions. I completely understand where they are coming from, but minions in 4E are supposed to be destroyed quickly. There is no question that the mechanic does not work that well. The designers have mentioned in at least three podcasts that minions are one area they feel they did not get right. (They do too much damage to be worth less than 1/4 of a normal monster, but can be killed too easily to merit 1/4 experience... the core mechanics don't easily allow for a fix). Still, the concept is there and unchanged. PCs should have ways to vaporize minions.
I should add that there is a recourse for any DM that feels threatened by this combo. The rules allow you to space out enemies. The rules allow you to pace the arrival of enemies into an encounter. The rules allow you to use varied minis and to not reveal what is a minion. You can place a non-minion as the closest enemy to the party. All of these techniques will extend the life of your minions if you feel a warlock is destroying the game. However, I really doubt that is the case. It is likely that the warlock is very much fulfilling the very spirit of the game by using the RAW to do exactly what the game intends.
My good friend, there is nothing in the rules that suggests a difference between "transfer" and "place". LFR DMs should be careful about creating rules out of thin air.
Is there something in the rules that says they are the same?
The main reason players/DMs don't like this item combo is the ability to kill minions. Here is what the DMG says when it defines minions on p 54: "Minion: Sometimes you want monsters to come in droves and go down just as fast. A fight against thirty orcs is a grand cinematic battle. The players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter, feeling confident and powerful."
A fight against thirty orcs is not a grand cinematic battle if it reqires a single mior action to kill them all. I also doubt that the other 3-5 player at the table would "enjoy" it.
The whole point of minions is not to test the PCs, but to be cinematic and to establish the superiority of the PCs. DMs are missing the point of 4E if they try to limit any item or power's ability to destroy minions. I completely understand where they are coming from, but minions in 4E are supposed to be destroyed quickly. There is no question that the mechanic does not work that well. The designers have mentioned in at least three podcasts that minions are one area they feel they did not get right. (They do too much damage to be worth less than 1/4 of a normal monster, but can be killed too easily to merit 1/4 experience... the core mechanics don't easily allow for a fix). Still, the concept is there and unchanged. PCs should have ways to vaporize minions.
There are plently of other ways to vaporize minions without using this cheezy combo.
I should add that there is a recourse for any DM that feels threatened by this combo. The rules allow you to space out enemies. The rules allow you to pace the arrival of enemies into an encounter. The rules allow you to use varied minis and to not reveal what is a minion. You can place a non-minion as the closest enemy to the party. All of these techniques will extend the life of your minions if you feel a warlock is destroying the game. However, I really doubt that is the case.
DM: You stand before a hord of 3000 orcs.
Player: I use a minor action to curse one dealing one point of damage to it.
DM: It dies. It's a minion.
Player: Then I transfer my curse to all enemies within 5 squares of it.
DM: Ah, sorry, but all 3000 orcs are spread exactly 6 squares apart from each other.
It is likely that the warlock is very much fulfilling the very spirit of the game by using the RAW to do exactly what the game intends.
Haven't you learned yet that agruing intent will get you know where.
So the spirt of the game intends for Warlocks to make minions worthless past level 5? Does the spirit of the game intend for Wizards to make solo monsters worthless past level 14?
These are flaws in the system which inhibit other players ability to be challanged and their enjoyment of the game. This is the reason we have rules updates.
Is there something in the rules that says they are the same?
Yes. You can't make up rules. Because these are undefined terms, they must mean the same thing. Lacking an express definition of the terms or consistent use to show they mean different things, you can't make up a rule that the terms have a different mechanical purpose.
A fight against thirty orcs is not a grand cinematic battle if it reqires a single mior action to kill them all. I also doubt that the other 3-5 player at the table would "enjoy" it.
Remove the sorry minion rules from the equation. Go back to what the point of them is: to die quickly. To be fodder. To please players. Without minions, the huge HP totals can make battles drag. Various classes have ways to shine against minions. For the warlock, it requires items made expressly for them.
In play, I very much see players enjoy it when minions are wiped from the table. The problem with minions is not so much their 1 HP and the ease with which they can be removed (that part works really well!!!), but their XP value compared to the threat level. Because of the way the system works, they can deal significant damage and even be harder to hit (they often have a slight edge in defenses), but aren't truly worth the 1/4 XP. Lowering their damage, lowering their attacks... none work really well with the mechanics.
As a contrast, consider the Spycraft minion rules, where almost all foes are minions (with the exception of usually 1 boss). The minions get a damage save, with the save based on a flat DC plus 1/2 the accrued damage. This usually results in easy kills (which is the point, as in the Bond movies), but every now and then the DM rolls high and the minion tenaciously hangs on for 2-3 hits... with a correspondingly table-pleasing cinematic feel.
Again, the problem here is the minion rules not working well with the challenge level. Any fight ends up being easier if it has minions in it, unless the DM works really hard to make them inaccessible.
There are plently of other ways to vaporize minions without using this cheezy combo.
And why are those other methods ok but this one not? Isn't that subjective? I mean, we are talking about warlocks, the class that is ridiculously un-cheesy and under-powered in the killing department (check the optimization boards if needed). It is no surprise that Warlocks want this combo, and not for the minion killing but for the difficulty in getting priority targets (often not the closest target) cursed so they can gain decent damage against them and play their role correctly. The ability to kill minions is just the icing that makes them actually feel like they too can be a force to be reckoned with (the whole point of minions).
The RAW and CS absolutely support the two-rod combo. Nothing in the rules prohibits it. Two properties work together, as shown by the contrast in the section on holy symbols (unlike other implements, only 1 property works for holy symbols). 'Place' and 'Transfer' are not mechanics. CS supports this working, including a trail of CS requests that makes it pretty clear developers helped write the answer.
DMS in LFR cannot make up rules. They don't have to like the rules, but they must use them. They really must allow the two-rod combo.
Again, DMs do have the freedom to do other things, such as control the rate at which minions show up on the battlefield. That's a wise move for many reasons, none of which is to deny a particular class a way to be more effective.
When it comes to the rules update, it is pretty clear that a good many of the cheesy combos are ok for the developers. There seems to be no active attempt to reel in power-creep (*cough* sorcerer) or other powers and combos that seem to be somewhat out of balance. My guess is that this is deliberate, and based on the knowledge that there is a class of players that thrives on finding and playing the most broken combination possible. Broken combos is, in many ways, the key difference between 2nd Ed and Skills and Powers (and later 3E). The whole stacking effect is in essence a blessing of brokenness. I think we should not be surprised to see only the most truly broken things be addressed by errata. These will probably be things that upset the intended balance of the game.
As an example, Reparation Apparatus and Veterans Armor vs these two rods. The former two are violating what developers expect should happen in the game regarding resource management, while the later is merely overly efficient at accomplishing what is already intended.
A fight against thirty orcs is not a grand cinematic battle if it reqires a single mior action to kill them all. I also doubt that the other 3-5 player at the table would "enjoy" it.
Depends. It's the DM's job to make it enjoyable and cinematic.
Consider:
Player1: I cast Fireball.
DM: All the minions in the area die. The boss takes X damage.
Player2: I move 6 squares to engage the boss.
vs.
Player1: I cast Fireball.
DM: Your blast wave of arcane fire explodes, roasting a number of creatures where they stand. As the flames die away, their commander, smoking from the inferno, roars in fury and brandishes a massive broadsword at you.
Player2: I better shut that guy up. I charge.
What's not cinematic about that? And note the tone shifts to the next threat immediately so the other players aren't left to dwell on what they DIDN'T get to kill.
-karma
At the very least, fireball is an attack, has a chance of missing. If a wizard can kill ten minions with a fireball, it is a major accomplishment. Something that the table gets more and more excited about as the dice roll. If the Warlock kills ten minions, it is a yawn.
There is retraining of all sorts of things based on new rules coming out, or changing your mind. It makes sense to me that there should be something in the system regarding this.
Heck, even video games let you retrain when things change...
* As in, the entry was deliberately changed, rather then an error from data-entry personnel
Aside from the update on the Bard power, there haven't been any updates outside of whatever changed between the article release and the full version.
Yeah, and that was a stunning success
Aside from the update on the Bard power, there haven't been any updates outside of whatever changed between the article release and the full version.
Thanks.
Yeah, and that was a stunning success
Plus, the errata apparently removed the Words of Friendship power from the class.
Guess what power showed up in the Compendium and the character generator?
-karma