[4E] Player's Handbook 2 Errata

[RTGoodman]

Just noticed from Bruce Cordell's Twitter that new 4E errata "updates" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates) were posted today, and I was surprised to see that some PHB2 errata had already been posted. Apparently, the book was released on March 17th, but, uh, the errata dates from March 9th. Methinks some realized just a little late that a couple of now-infamous feats could cause some troubles. :smalltongue:


Implement Expertise [Addition]
Player’s Handbook 2, page 185
Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if an implement qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that implement.”

Weapon Expertise [Addition]
Player’s Handbook 2, page 190
Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if a weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”

So, there you go. No more stacking worries, I think.


(The other update for today, by the way, was for Open Grave, and it adds in the Zombie Plague disease that apparently was missing from the Infected Zombie.)

[hamishspence]

Nice.

Things I think should be changed/updated:

Barbarian Multiclass feat: I think that after the "per day" ability description, it should say:

"This counts as raging for all powers, paragon paths, items, etc that use rages."

After all, if multiclass druids get wild shape, it seems a bit silly for multiclass barbarians to not get rage.

[NPCMook]

That's good, now people can't claim by RAW they can gain Heavy Blade and Axe on a Khopesh

[Colmarr]

The Expertise errata strikes me as a pretty clear indication that WotC is watching the various D&D forums.* I suspect the errata arose from concerns expressed there rather than an internal eureka moment.

If so, the fact that the errata only addresses that one specific issue suggests that WotC is aware of the general hubbub surrounding these feats and chose not to nerf them (cf. the errata to Veteran's armour).

Which in turn suggests to me that the feats are in fact (1) maths corrections in the form of feats, or (2) deliberate power creep for the purpose of selling books.

Hmmm.

* I can't access ENworld from work. Can anyone tell what date its Expertise thread started, and on what date the first mention of double weapons was made?

[Asbestos]

Which in turn suggests to me that the feats are in fact (1) maths corrections in the form of feats, or (2) deliberate power creep for the purpose of selling books.

1 is probably correct. I think that 2 is a bit too cynical, would people really buy a 30+ dollar book (that's full of other useful stuff) for two feats?

[Crow]

1 is probably correct. I think that 2 is a bit too cynical, would people really buy a 30+ dollar book (that's full of other useful stuff) for two feats?

There are people out there who will buy a splatbook for 1 spell or feat, let alone 2. Not to say that this is what WotC is doing...I'm just saying is all...

[Gralamin]

(1) maths corrections in the form of feats, or (2) deliberate power creep for the purpose of selling books.

(1) Doesn't make much sense. The stated design goals wish for about a 50/50 shot, and you basically have them all the way through (I've posted math on it, basically people tend to focus on the growth and ignore the inital conditions). Which means this is probably a (Rather large) bonus. If it was a fix, then it should of been nerfed.
(2) Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[Colmarr]

Stuff

I've PMed you to avoid derailing the thread.

[Thajocoth]

I assumed the extra line they just added... It just makes more sense. Seems more... "The intent". In my group, whenever there's rule that seems exploitable or questionable, we try to think of the intent and rule it that way.

[TheOOB]

Well, the internet can find mistakes in rules faster then they can internally. Apparently it got to the point where they felt they needed to be more clear.

Here how I imagine it going down.

Playtest Player: Can I take this feat twice if my weapon is two different types and have it stack?

Playtest DM: No, that would be silly.

Player: Well then you should change the wording so that it is more clear.

DM: Nah, who aside from you would ever thing that is the intent

[Kurald Galain]

The Expertise errata strikes me as a pretty clear indication that WotC is watching the various D&D forums.
I'm afraid it does not, because there are five or six hotly debated issues on those very forums that have been there for months, and that would be resolved in a minute by a single response from WOTC, and no such response is forthcoming.


Which in turn suggests to me that the feats are in fact (1) maths corrections in the form of feats, or (2) deliberate power creep for the purpose of selling books.
(1) would seem to be the case. Originally players were expected to compensate at high levels through better tactics, more teamwork, and useful items/powers/combos; but of course that would be less fun than simply giving everybody a big bonus.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, the internet can find mistakes in rules faster then they can internally. Apparently it got to the point where they felt they needed to be more clear.

Well, the good news is that rulebooks are being written for (rules) lawyers instead of normal people now :smalltongue:

No, seriously, I've read contracts that use fewer terms of art than 4E does. I'm not complaining, mind you, but I do find it humorous.

[TheOOB]

Well, the good news is that rulebooks are being written for (rules) lawyers instead of normal people now :smalltongue:

No, seriously, I've read contracts that use fewer terms of art than 4E does. I'm not complaining, mind you, but I do find it humorous.

Makes sense when you think about it. Writing it as such won't hurt the average player much, but it will reduce the amount the munchkins rattle the cages.

...In theory. Perhaps now that there are not as many blatant overly powered things now it just makes them work harder.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Makes sense when you think about it. Writing it as such won't hurt the average player much, but it will reduce the amount the munchkins rattle the cages.

...In theory. Perhaps now that there are not as many blatant overly powered things now it just makes them work harder.

Oh yes - after all, there is a reason lawyers use it :smalltongue:

I just find it is an interesting sign of how sophisticated RPGs are these days. Looking back at my AD&D PHB (2nd Edition, to the n00bs :smalltongue:) it's amusing to see how confused and vague many of the rules descriptions are.