PDA

View Full Version : 4e November Update: Serious Rebalancing



Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 03:08 PM
No thread on this yet? Weird.

I checked up on the changes to the Monk, beyond taking away their enchantable fists and giving them Ki Focus, and I noticed several changes to its powers and several weapons:

1. There aren't any Weapon keyword powers in the preview material for the Monk. All of the powers previously previewed that were weapon powers are now implement powers.

2. Serious changes to Double weapons, at the least. All double weapons now list their secondary ends below the main head, and some have keyword and/or damage changes:

Stout: Added to all of the Double Weapons except the Double Sword. Lets you treat the weapon as a two-handed weapon rather than just a double weapon.

Double Scimitar: Gone. Dead. No more. Oops. I made this post looking at a character that had Eberron banned. Double Scimitar looks about the same, but with Stout. Still +2 1d6/1d6 off-hand defensive high-crit heavy blade.
Double Sword: Nerfed. No longer a Heavy Blade, and got demoted a die size. No longer strictly better than Rapier + Parry Dagger.
Double Axe: In return for Stout and not losing its damage dice, it no longer has the Defensive keyword.
Urgrosh: Spear head took a beating, in return for the Stout property and retaining the Defensive property. Lighter and 20 gp cheaper than the original version.

Personally, I like the Double Sword update, and I'm neutral about the other double weapons... Double Axe also makes a little more sense now, though. Not sure yet how I feel about the Monk changes, especially since there's no way for a Monk to qualify for two-weapon features using only his unarmed strikes now.

FoE
2009-11-17, 03:10 PM
Where the hell are Double Weapons again? AV1?

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 03:12 PM
Where the hell are Double Weapons again? AV1?

AV1, with the exception of Double Scimitar, which is in the Eberron Player's Guide... which I skipped by mistake when writing the OP thanks to which character I used while writing the post.

dsmiles
2009-11-17, 03:12 PM
I never really cared for double weapons...I prefered to wield a weapon in either hand...or a spiked chain as a double weapon. I think they should have left the double weapons behind in 3.5e, or better yet never invented them in 3.0e.

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 03:19 PM
I never really cared for double weapons...I prefered to wield a weapon in either hand...or a spiked chain as a double weapon. I think they should have left the double weapons behind in 3.5e, or better yet never invented them in 3.0e.

The problem with that is that The Phantom Menace was a new-ish movie when 3.0 came out. Guess who was the new "must-emulate" character?

dsmiles
2009-11-17, 03:27 PM
I realize that this is all just a ploy to bring in the younger players to re-vitalize DnD, but maaaaaan...sometimes the commercialization (is that even a word?) of DnD makes me vomit.

DSCrankshaw
2009-11-17, 03:39 PM
Lots of changes here, most of them good.

Hero of Faith now only applies to one hit, not the whole encounter.

Armor of Faith now applies for cloth armor only, not leather or hide.

Ritual Ring can't be used for item creation.

Pramxnim
2009-11-17, 03:43 PM
Oh come on, is that all you guys have to say?

I mean, on the Wizard's boards, they're rejoicing and singing Hallelujah! to the changes in this update. Much balancing has been made, and I'm damrned glad for the people at WoTC. They've shown that they're capable of listening to the advice of people who actually play the game and making balance changes, the way it should be done!

A few changes, to those who are curious:

- Bloodclaw + Reckless have been nerfed to encounter powers
- Spitting-Cobra Stance, Agile Opportunist have been nerfed to Immediate Reactions (woohoo, no more abusing forced movement!)
- Storm Pillar activates on an enemy's turn only, to prevent forced movement shenanigans.
- Quicksilver Stance has been nerfed to Standard action instead of move action, so no double attacks on a turn (but there's a weird typo-like thing with the power where you move your full speed in heavy armor but only half-speed in light armor).
- Eldritch Strike can now be selected instead of Eldritch Blast, without having the jump through hoops to do so.
- Avenger's Armor of Faith is now limited to Cloth only. Say bye bye to highest AC in the game, you striker you! Leave that to the defenders!
- Hero of the Faith has been heavily nerfed, it only lasts until you hit (once) or until the enemy drops to 0 hit points.
- Storm of Blades and Hurricane of Blades reduced to a reasonable level (3 attacks max for Storm, 4 for Hurricane with increased damage dice).

:smallsmile:

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 03:56 PM
- Eldritch Strike can now be selected instead of Eldritch Blast, without having the jump through hoops to do so.

'Bout dern time!

See, the only changes I noticed right away were the Double Weapon and some of the Monk changes, since I saw that the preview material for the Monk was updated, and noticed that the double weapons looked different when I was fiddling around with a Monk build.

FoE
2009-11-17, 03:58 PM
Wait, where's Eldritch Strike?

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 04:02 PM
Wait, where's Eldritch Strike?

It's an at-will power packaged with the first series of Arcane hero minis. It's basically trading Eldritch Blast for Melee Training (Charisma/Constitution). Formerly, the Character Builder wouldn't allow Warlocks to choose between the two powers, but now they can, freeing up a feat for HexHammer builds.

Artanis
2009-11-17, 04:05 PM
On the small off-chance that somebody out there hadn't noticed yet, they've released new errata that has the changes in it as well. One of the changes (out of those not yet mentioned in the thread) that jumps out at me is that Orb of Ultimate Imposition has been nerfed hard.

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 04:08 PM
One of the changes (out of those not yet mentioned in the thread) that jumps out at me is that Orb of Ultimate Imposition has been nerfed hard.

And the solos rejoice. Except for the low-level ones, since the +1 orb actually got boosted, and the +2 orb stays the same.

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 04:14 PM
FINALLY. Especially the double-weapon thing and Eldritch Strike.

But, what exactly is this 'stout' thing? What's this about the primary/secondary ends being listed different? Does that have a ruling effect? Can you post a link to all of this?

Does anyone think this will appear in print in PHB3 (like the revised Stealth rules in PHB2)

Not to feed any fuel to the "4.0" people, but are we now in "4.2"?

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 04:21 PM
But, what exactly is this 'stout' thing? What's this about the primary/secondary ends being listed different? Does that have a ruling effect? Can you post a link to all of this?
Stout is a new property that states you can use the weapon as a two-handed weapon instead of only two one-handed weapons. The ends being listed semi-separately (they're in the same slot, but on different rows) helps with figuring out how the Urgrosh and any other theoretical "Half & Half" weapons work.

Does anyone think this will appear in print in PHB3 (like the revised Stealth rules in PHB2)
I think the revised Double Weapon rules will appear in PHB3, and possibly Martial Power 2, depending on how many two-weapon classes will be available in those. Definitely in AV3.

Not to feed any fuel to the "4.0" people, but are we now in "4.2"?
It could be considered "4.1.8" or so, with 4.0.0 being hot-off-the-press PHB1, and 4.1.0 being PHB2 + MM2 + all 2008 products. "4.2.0" would be PHB/MM3, etc. and include all previous updates. X Power, Official Campaign Setting, and Magazine material would be add-ons that the producer puts in the "gold edition." All the updates and add-ons could also be considered "expansion packs."

mikeejimbo
2009-11-17, 04:37 PM
Why don't they want Monks to have enchantable fists? It's not like there are any disarming or sundering rules.

Inyssius Tor
2009-11-17, 04:40 PM
The full update notes (except for the monk stuff, which isn't actually errata) can be found here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateNov2009.pdf).

I am rather amused by some of the explanations given:


... This change prevents a character from using the stop action to accelerate.

... This change prevents the property from being recursive.

... This change prevents an invoker from putting a Warlock’s Curse on a creature.

... This change makes the power usable.

... This prevents brutal weapons from being augmented to deal infinite damage.


Hee hee.

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 04:47 PM
Also, does this effect the feats from Dragon that allow Staffs and Spiked Chains to be Double-Weapons?

Gralamin
2009-11-17, 04:54 PM
Also, does this effect the feats from Dragon that allow Staffs and Spiked Chains to be Double-Weapons?

Judging from the Character builder, not yet.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-17, 05:39 PM
I am both impressed and worried by the pacing of Errata.

On one hand, they're finally fixing things that have been broken for ages. On the other hand, you practically need to use DDI to keep up with the changes.

I hope they make some sort of paper compendium - or at least reprint the PHB I with the rules corrections.

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 05:50 PM
I am both impressed and worried by the pacing of Errata.

On one hand, they're finally fixing things that have been broken for ages. On the other hand, you practically need to use DDI to keep up with the changes.

I hope they make some sort of paper compendium - or at least reprint the PHB I with the rules corrections.

I think they'll put them into the back pages of the PHB3, like they did with the updated Stealth rules in the PHB2.

horseboy
2009-11-17, 05:56 PM
I never really cared for double weapons...I prefered to wield a weapon in either hand...or a spiked chain as a double weapon. I think they should have left the double weapons behind in 3.5e, or better yet never invented them in 3.0e.
Double swords date back to 1st edition.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-17, 05:56 PM
I think they'll put them into the back pages of the PHB3, like they did with the updated Stealth rules in the PHB2.
I mean, back pages are nice and all, but one of the nice things about PHB I was that it was the most logically laid-out rulebook I've ever read. I'd hate to have to actually buy all three PHBs to get access to the (literally) Core rules in paper form.

Maybe I should go old school and make a looseleaf binder :smalltongue:

Artanis
2009-11-17, 06:47 PM
The errata on the website includes all updates, new and old, to (as far as I can tell) everything.

So just go, download, and print :smallbiggrin:

cupkeyk
2009-11-17, 06:48 PM
EPG has beebn updated? was there any changes to the zulaat? the Talenta sarrash? Did they gain reach or lose the polearm type?

Artanis
2009-11-17, 06:52 PM
I don't see anything about the sarrash. The zulaat has both ends being 2d4 heavy blades, with the main end being defensive+stout and the secondary end being off-hand.

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 07:15 PM
I'm trying to figure out the (if any) mechanical significance of 'Stout'. The only thing I can think of is a non-TWF barb that wants to take the occasional TWF-barb power.

AllisterH
2009-11-17, 08:05 PM
I realize that this is all just a ploy to bring in the younger players to re-vitalize DnD, but maaaaaan...sometimes the commercialization (is that even a word?) of DnD makes me vomit.

*LOL*

Yeah, I mean, 1st edition would never pander to the player's perceptions of what was popular around the time with younger players.

Hey, did you guys hear....David Carradine dies this year. Might not have heard of him other than Kill Bill, but he played some character back in the 70s...Kind of popular back then, not really sure what it was about though....

Used to be tied together with Sunday/Saturday afternoon bad dubbing movies..pretty unpopular I would imagine.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-17, 08:14 PM
Okay, writing this as I read...

(1) This is long, long overdue. I'm glad WOTC finally got their act together.

(2) This is overall rather sloppy. I notice several spots where the errata needs errata, such as Arcane Initiate, Mnemonic Staff, Quicksilver Stance, and Unicorn's Touch.

(3) Several loopholes (that I expect most DMs wouldn't allow anyway due to dubious interpretations) have been removed, such as Vengeful Weapon, Rod of Reaving, Mnemonic Staff, Swordmages wielding 2H weapons, and Dual Weapons in general. This is a good thing.

(4) Most importantly, many of the ubercombos, and the items or powers that everybody wanted regardless of class, are gone. Several of them have been nerfed into oblivion and are mostly useless now, others have a sensible power level. This includes Bloodclaw & Reckless, Cloak of Distortion, Quicksilver and Spitting Cobra, Hero of Faith, and the Riding Lizard.

(5) Some things haven't changed. Bloodiron is still uber, and Bolstering Blood is now even more explicit that it works on every square of Blood Pulse. I've seen lots of nerfs to saving throw penalties, but I believe there's still enough of them to make a viable stunlock wizard. I'll have to check that, though.

(6) Some things that really weren't overpowered have now been nerfed into oblivion. This includes Blastpatch and Storm Pillars.

(7) Some things that didn't work as printed, now do. In particular, Eldritch Strike.

Oh yeah, and Needlefang Drakes have a much-needed nerf. Overall, this is a much-needed fix, and addresses 90% of all the little things that people have been shouting about for months.

Does it strike anyone as odd that there's fifty-eight pages of errata now? Time for 4.5, perhaps?

AllisterH
2009-11-17, 08:35 PM
Here's my question.

Why the hell did WOTC never do this for 3.x? I mean, there are a LOT of stuff we could've used errata on back then.

They've basically gone through everything up to Divine Power it seems. I

nteresting that they increased the effectiveness of some features - e.g.
Swordmage - Features that incorporate aegis of assault and shielding now work for potentially all new Aegis, as well, going unconscious isn't as big a kick in the nads as before.

re: Is this 4.5?

Not entirely sure I would either agree or disagree. The *old* change to how Stealth works is a significant update on the core rules (I would lump the swordmage change, the warding effect, as a significant update) but changing how a specifc item or power works? eh...not really.

Especially if it is one that simply says "Ad the word Force to this line" That's just pure editing errata and not something I consider a major change to the system.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-17, 08:40 PM
On one hand, it kind of bothers me that non-DDIers will have a bit of a disconnect when it comes to new rules.

On the other hand, I played WoW long enough to recognize that balance is an ongoing process. The lack of PvP in D&D makes it easier, but it's certainly good that technology offers Wizards an easy way to patch the game.

Moff Chumley
2009-11-17, 08:41 PM
It's not 4.5e. The basic rules are still the same, just slightly updated.

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 08:42 PM
Yeah, it isn't like they've gotten rid of entire skills or rewritten entire classes or any number of the other changes that occurred between 3.0 and 3.5.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-17, 08:43 PM
Why the hell did WOTC never do this for 3.x? I mean, there are a LOT of stuff we could've used errata on back then.
They did. Kind of. Their forums compiled the "Book Of Incessantly Debated Topics" or something like that, and weeks before 4E came out, WOTC gave an explicit answer on pretty much all of those.

(of course, that's easily countered by "FAQ != RAW" but it's as official an answer as the community was going to get)

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 08:44 PM
On one hand, it kind of bothers me that non-DDIers will have a bit of a disconnect when it comes to new rules.
The rules are up there for any and all to see, what does this have to do with DDI?

AllisterH
2009-11-17, 08:53 PM
They did. Kind of. Their forums compiled the "Book Of Incessantly Debated Topics" or something like that, and weeks before 4E came out, WOTC gave an explicit answer on pretty much all of those.

(of course, that's easily countered by "FAQ != RAW" but it's as official an answer as the community was going to get)

Of course, giving an answer JUST as you're about to discontinue the edition is great timing.:smallsmile:

In a way, the errata kind of reminds me of 1st edition with DRAGON magazine. There was official errata listed in Dragon so my friends had different ways to incoporate them.

One used to cut out the errata and have them clipped to the back of the PHB while another would simply write over the PHB (this one I don't see happening....How many people actually WRITE in their RPG rulebooks these days? Since the 3.0 PHB, I've never heard of players doing this anymore but we used to do it all the time before)

Artanis
2009-11-17, 09:08 PM
The Errata may be a lot of pages, but it could easily be a LOT shorter if they cut it down to the bare bones like the old errata versions were. Instead, this has whole new blocks for updated powers and items, a new sidebar about double weapons that's printed twice (once for each of two different books), and stuff like that.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-17, 09:21 PM
I also don't see what's so bad about an Invoker putting a Warlock's Curse on someone. He can't use the souls and can't do the extra damage. Unless he multiclasses, I suppose? Maybe there's some odd loophole I didn't consider, but I don't think it could be over powered.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-17, 09:31 PM
The rules are up there for any and all to see, what does this have to do with DDI?

The rules are up, but will Joe Schmoe who goes to my local gaming store know that anything's been changed? Will we know to tell him that the rules are change, or will it take us a few weeks before we realize he's been using the wrong double weapon rules?

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 09:37 PM
The rules are up, but will Joe Schmoe who goes to my local gaming store know that anything's been changed? Will we know to tell him that the rules are change, or will it take us a few weeks before we realize he's been using the wrong double weapon rules?

I don't know, does he have a computer and is he capable of going to the WotC website? Do the people he plays with have a computer and are capable of going to the WotC website?

If he's too lazy/out of touch to do that I doubt he'd find out if the errata was (were?) put out in a book carried by your FLGS.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-17, 11:08 PM
It's not a matter of "can he". It's a matter of "will he?" Not all D&D players hang out on D&D websites. His issue isn't "Oh no, I can't access the new rules", it's "New rules? I didn't know there were new rules."

Asbestos
2009-11-17, 11:11 PM
It's not a matter of "will he". It's a matter of "can he?" Not all D&D players hang out on D&D websites. His issue isn't "Oh no, I can't access the new rules", it's "New rules? I didn't know there were new rules."

And I think that your Joe the Gamer can find this stuff easy enough. Mainly because he isn't an island. Seriously, not a single person at the game store or his gaming group has heard about the errata?

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-17, 11:26 PM
Note that I do approve of the new rules and the idea of patching in general. But I'm just listing one downside, which will be some confusion and miscommunication, even if it's limited to, "So, I do x" "Oh, they errata'd that." "What? How does it work now?" "Um, well...now it's like...gah, someone ask Travis." or "Wait, was that errata'd to x?" "No, no, it WAS x before they errata'd..."

Gralamin
2009-11-17, 11:31 PM
Note that I do approve of the new rules and the idea of patching in general. But I'm just listing one downside, which will be some confusion and miscommunication, even if it's limited to, "So, I do x" "Oh, they errata'd that." "What? How does it work now?" "Um, well...now it's like...gah, someone ask Travis." or "Wait, was that errata'd to x?" "No, no, it WAS x before they errata'd..."

Solution: Take a binder. Label it Errata. Print out Errata, hole punch it. Take it with you. Simple and easy. When its updated, put in the new pages as needed.

Mando Knight
2009-11-17, 11:44 PM
Solution: Take a binder. Label it Errata. Print out Errata, hole punch it. Take it with you. Simple and easy. When its updated, put in the new pages as needed.

Indeed. Also, when using the Character Builder, it's still your job to make sure your powers are up to date, both on the machine and on your paper sheet.

Grynning
2009-11-18, 02:25 AM
*Cheers for the much needed nerf on Orb of Ultimate Imposition and Phrenic Crown*

Question:
Is there ANY reason to use the double weapons anymore? They seemed to have lost all their advantages except the ones that remained defensive. I guess a Hybrid or MC character might like the stout thing, but overall I think you'd be getting better mileage out of just two weapons now.

Colmarr
2009-11-18, 04:57 AM
When I tried to download the update I get an error about not being able to extract a font and the power text is simply ellipses.

Anyone else have that problem?

Kurald Galain
2009-11-18, 05:05 AM
*Cheers for the much needed nerf on Orb of Ultimate Imposition and Phrenic Crown*
Yes, but it still seems very viable to built a stunlock orbizard from other parts.


Is there ANY reason to use the double weapons anymore?
As near as I can tell, no.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-18, 05:06 AM
Indeed. Also, when using the Character Builder, it's still your job to make sure your powers are up to date, both on the machine and on your paper sheet.

Meh. It's WotC own fault that I don't have DDI when I was willing to pay for it. :smallannoyed:

Not sure if I like the lack of enchanted fists now that I rolled up a monk, I mean the monk is not even in a book yet and he's been errataed!

Aron Times
2009-11-18, 07:30 AM
I just noticed that double weapons were also buffed. A double weapon's enchantment now applies to both ends, unlike the old rules, where only the primary end benefited from the enchantment.

This means that there is still a reason for using double weapons. They're basically two weapons in one; TWF character save money by using a double weapon.

twilsemail
2009-11-18, 07:35 AM
Meh. It's WotC own fault that I don't have DDI when I was willing to pay for it. :smallannoyed:

Not sure if I like the lack of enchanted fists now that I rolled up a monk, I mean the monk is not even in a book yet and he's been errataed!

No. They released a playtest article and changed those playtest rules. That's kind of what a playtst article is for.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 07:39 AM
Meh. It's WotC own fault that I don't have DDI when I was willing to pay for it. :smallannoyed:

I, however am not willing to pay for "previews" or a character builder, or a web-based tabletop. I firmly believe that errata should be published free of charge. It's their fault that they screwed up the original rules, they should pay for the fix, not me. Also, I believe that you shouldn't have to pay to play a game (a la World of Warcrack and Evercrack), especially when you have to pay for the expansions just to keep current.

*steps down off of soapbox*

I'm just sayin'.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-18, 07:44 AM
I firmly believe that errata should be published free of charge.

But this errata is available free of charge.

Mando Knight
2009-11-18, 08:11 AM
Question:
Is there ANY reason to use the double weapons anymore? They seemed to have lost all their advantages except the ones that remained defensive. I guess a Hybrid or MC character might like the stout thing, but overall I think you'd be getting better mileage out of just two weapons now.

Double Sword is a pair of Short Swords with a +1 AC bonus. Double Axe lets not-Rangers dual wield d10 axes, and the second head has the off-hand property, for synergy with Tempest Fighters. Double Flail is much the same.

If you got proficiency in Double Sword, it may no longer be worth it. However, if you're a Rogue who wants AC or a Tempest Fighter, they're still worth a look. It's just not strictly better than a parrying dagger and rapier style anymore.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 08:18 AM
This 4.2 system they're doing seems significantly better than using increments of .5, which sort of displeases me. It means I'll have to wait even longer for 5e. :P

Kurald Galain
2009-11-18, 08:29 AM
Double Sword is a pair of Short Swords with a +1 AC bonus. Double Axe lets not-Rangers dual wield d10 axes,
+1 AC bonus isn't worth a feat. d10 axes are nice, but that drops its priority below weapon focus, at least, and probably below some other damage-boosting feats.

Asbestos
2009-11-18, 09:27 AM
As near as I can tell, no.

You're a BM ranger who wants to TWF or you're a TWF fighter? Still seems good for them.

We should add 'You need to pay for the errata' as a 4e misconception :smalltongue:

Blackfang108
2009-11-18, 09:37 AM
We should add 'You need to pay for the errata' as a 4e misconception :smalltongue:

Yeah.

On the other hand, WotC needs to make the errata link more obvious, also.

Holocron Coder
2009-11-18, 09:51 AM
See if anyone else has noticed these two errors I found in the current version:

1) The primal epic destiny related to wrath (I can't remember the name right off) provides a +2 bonus to either Strength or Wisdom at 21st level. However, the Character Builder doesn't allow you to pick which, nor does it apply either to your stats.

2) This was in the books as well, sadly. The feat Focused Assault (IIRC) has its description as receiving a bonus to attack "against enemies marking you." However, the feat details claims the bonus to attack is "against enemies marked by you." Quite a difference, ne?

Indon
2009-11-18, 10:45 AM
Bloodclaw's the weapon that you pay HP to make do extra damage, right?

...man, my Fighter got nerfed hard. :(

I thought that after I stopped playing WoW I wouldn't have to be saying that anymore!

Yakk
2009-11-18, 11:13 AM
The direct link:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates

The defensive weapons remain decent, but are no longer way better than superior weapons.

In particular, the double-axe produces a +2 d10 off-hand axe (but you are stuck with a battleaxe in your main hand). The Urgosh gives you a main-hand waraxe with an offhand parrying spear for one feat.

For a tempest fighter, the double sword is (strictly?) better than a sword sword + parrying dagger combo.

On top of that, you get half-price properties (ie, you need to buy 1 magic item to equip 2 slots).

Double weapons are no longer good enough to tempt a two-weapon ranger (who has a class feature that lets them equip two non-offhand weapons at once), because the TWR can use a feat to double-wield superior weapons.

The avenger fix is also interesting -- their AC boost only works in cloth now (same with the monk).

Mando Knight
2009-11-18, 11:23 AM
+1 AC bonus isn't worth a feat.

WotC believes it is: Two-Weapon Defense; Hide, Scale, and Plate Armor proficiency; Armor Specialization... for a heroic feat without prerequisites, it's decent. Not uber-optimized, but functional. Also remember that with the new version of Armor of Faith, it's one of the few tricks Avengers get to boost their AC.

Edea
2009-11-18, 11:30 AM
When I tried to download the update I get an error about not being able to extract a font and the power text is simply ellipses.

Anyone else have that problem?

Yes; don't download the PDF directly, use the ZIP file. (Or at least, I tried that and it fixed the problem).

Yakk
2009-11-18, 11:42 AM
So, Barbarians can use double weapons to mix their two-handed attacks with the new Whirling Barbarian attacks. The Urgosh might be the single best weapon for this?

Mando Knight
2009-11-18, 11:49 AM
So, Barbarians can use double weapons to mix their two-handed attacks with the new Whirling Barbarian attacks. The Urgosh might be the single best weapon for this?

Perhaps. And don't forget the Deadly Axe feat, which at paragon allows the Urgrosh and Double Axe to function as High Crit weapons.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-18, 12:13 PM
Yes; don't download the PDF directly, use the ZIP file. (Or at least, I tried that and it fixed the problem).

Didn't work for me. Still came up with the same error message about not being able to get the right font- which meant that all the body text in every stat-block was utterly useless to me.

BlackSheep
2009-11-18, 12:52 PM
Didn't work for me. Still came up with the same error message about not being able to get the right font- which meant that all the body text in every stat-block was utterly useless to me.

What version of Acrobat/Acrobat Reader are you using?

Artanis
2009-11-18, 12:55 PM
The .zip method worked for me as well.


And seriously, the errata has NEVER cost money, and it STILL doesn't cost a single cent. It's right there, on the website, ready to download, free of charge, just like it's always been. Why do people keep saying you have to pay for it? :smallconfused:

Mando Knight
2009-11-18, 01:02 PM
The .zip method worked for me as well.


And seriously, the errata has NEVER cost money, and it STILL doesn't cost a single cent. It's right there, on the website, ready to download, free of charge, just like it's always been. Why do people keep saying you have to pay for it? :smallconfused:

It's also nowhere near hard to find: Rules Updates is the fourth link in the "Quick Links" bar on WotC's D&D main page.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-18, 01:03 PM
What version of Acrobat/Acrobat Reader are you using?

7.0 I believe.

Mando Knight
2009-11-18, 01:10 PM
7.0 I believe.

Well, there you go. Adobe Reader 9.2 (http://get.adobe.com/reader/) is out, so your problems might be related to version incompatibility.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-18, 01:43 PM
Well, there you go. Adobe Reader 9.2 (http://get.adobe.com/reader/) is out, so your problems might be related to version incompatibility.

It appears they were, thanks for the assist.

tbarrie
2009-11-18, 02:26 PM
Aw, they got rid of infinite move actions for epic level Ranger/Warlords. I always thought that one was hilarious, and I don't think I ever even saw it mentioned online.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-18, 03:53 PM
Aw, they got rid of infinite move actions for epic level Ranger/Warlords. I always thought that one was hilarious, and I don't think I ever even saw it mentioned online.
You can still make the FTL Platoon of Elves - unless they actually put the "identical powers don't stack" rule somewhere, finally :smalltongue:

1of3
2009-11-18, 07:19 PM
Not sure if I like the lack of enchanted fists now that I rolled up a monk, I mean the monk is not even in a book yet and he's been errataed!

You perceive, that's what playtests are all about.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-19, 04:04 AM
WotC believes it is: Two-Weapon Defense; Hide, Scale, and Plate Armor proficiency; Armor Specialization...
Yeah, but WOTC also believes that a taclord should have a moderate strength and invest in scale armor...

Anyway, I'm sure that feats for +1 AC should exist (yes, there's several) but they're bottom-tier feats. Even if you don't use only top tier feats, there are plenty of more impressive ones to take.


unless they actually put the "identical powers don't stack" rule somewhere, finally :smalltongue:
PHB page 278 implies so, although this can also be interpreted differently.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-19, 10:41 AM
Eh, I'm sure there are *better* feats than proficiency in a double sword in exchange for +1 ac compared to merely weilding shortswords.

But for someone who wants their character to weild a double sword it's pretty good, I'd say. :smallwink:

mikeejimbo
2009-11-19, 10:48 AM
Why would someone want to wield a double-sword if it's sub-par? There's no room for flavor here!

Or that might just be because my DM consistently pits us against encounters three levels above us.

Yakk
2009-11-19, 01:59 PM
Yeah, but WOTC also believes that a taclord should have a moderate strength and invest in scale armor...

Anyway, I'm sure that feats for +1 AC should exist (yes, there's several) but they're bottom-tier feats. Even if you don't use only top tier feats, there are plenty of more impressive ones to take.
I dunno; going from 17 to 18 AC as a fighter at level 1 is probably worth it (chainmail tempest double shortsword fighter -> chainmail tempest fighter with double sword).

The double sword remains a top-tier weapon for a tempest fighter, even after this change.

Mando Knight
2009-11-19, 02:24 PM
It's also a decent weapon for defense-minded Rogues, though for them the Parrying Dagger grants the exact same bonus for the same feat.

Yakk
2009-11-19, 03:07 PM
It's also a decent weapon for defense-minded Rogues, though for them the Parrying Dagger grants the exact same bonus for the same feat.

Not particularly. The problem is that this throws out the class feature of "two full sized weapons" ... and the ranger has no use for the offhand property in the main hand weapon.

I guess the advantage is that it is the best "dex secondary" double weapon, and double weapons offhand part is better than a parrying dagger.

Still, longsword primary/parrying dagger secondary has the same total average damage, and on any power where the ranger can choose which weapon to use the ranger gets to roll d8s: for the same feat cost.

Then burn another feat, and you hit d10s in primary.

Then again, nimble blade on the Ranger works on both ends of a double sword, but is not worth it for the longsword/dagger pairing...

I guess a Bow Ranger MC Rogue might grab a double sword as the go-to weapon.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-19, 03:13 PM
The advantage of wielding two actual weapons is that you get to benefit from two different properties.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-19, 03:19 PM
Why would someone want to wield a double-sword if it's sub-par? There's no room for flavor here!

Why would somebody want to wield such a horribly impractical and risky weapon?

Optimystik
2009-11-19, 03:22 PM
I am rather amused by some of the explanations given:

Hee hee.

So am I

"This power no longer sucks."

"We figured you guys could use a break from houseruling this power."

"Wow, what were we thinking?"

HMS Invincible
2009-11-19, 04:35 PM
Why did they nerf storm pillar? How was it suppose to work before? I know if you interpret it a certain way, it's very strong, but if you interpret a different way, its only a rattlesnake type power, scary only if you cross it.

Blackfang108
2009-11-19, 05:34 PM
Why did they nerf storm pillar? How was it suppose to work before? I know if you interpret it a certain way, it's very strong, but if you interpret a different way, its only a rattlesnake type power, scary only if you cross it.

IIRC, one of the interpertations is that each square entered gave damage. that could easily be more than a little broken if used right.

Asbestos
2009-11-19, 05:35 PM
Why did they nerf storm pillar? How was it suppose to work before? I know if you interpret it a certain way, it's very strong, but if you interpret a different way, its only a rattlesnake type power, scary only if you cross it.

I think it is supposed to be a 'rattlesnake type power'. Its controlly.

HMS Invincible
2009-11-19, 05:51 PM
It's suppose to deal 1d6 damage per square? So if an enemy ran around it for 6 squares, its 6d6 damage?

mikeejimbo
2009-11-19, 06:06 PM
Why would somebody want to wield such a horribly impractical and risky weapon?

Right, that too.

Vic_Sage
2009-11-19, 07:03 PM
Why would somebody want to wield such a horribly impractical and risky weapon?
Because most people don't care about realism and go for Rule of Cool.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-19, 07:08 PM
Eh, cool is subjective. You can be cool without a double sword. I'd rather not damage suspension of disbelief when the cool bonus is minimal.

But hey, subjective. Whatever floats one's boat.

Hoggmaster
2009-11-19, 08:34 PM
With the monk and no weapon keyword... only implement keyword powers. They made it so that any of the weapons on the monk list of proficient weapons count as implements as well as the Ki-foci.

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-19, 09:06 PM
It's suppose to deal 1d6 damage per square? So if an enemy ran around it for 6 squares, its 6d6 damage?

1d6+int+enh+whatever else per square for every square an enemy moves into. In open fields it's pretty much only useful if you have any means of forced movement, as most enemies won't even trigger the damage. In cramped quarters, it becomes insanely awesome.

Of course, if you add forced movement into the mix, it becomes very "haha oh wow" in execution.

Because of 1d6+bonus damage per square.

NEO|Phyte
2009-11-20, 12:03 AM
With the monk and no weapon keyword... only implement keyword powers. They made it so that any of the weapons on the monk list of proficient weapons count as implements as well as the Ki-foci.

Technically, it's any weapon they are proficient in, not just the monk proficiencies, meaning if you decide you want to pick up a greatbow, you could use it as an implement for monk powers, and also have a decent RBA.

Shardan
2009-11-20, 12:10 AM
They nerfed Storm Pillar because everyone else who acts only had to move the critter one square and stack extra damage on it. way too powerful for an at will.
Fighter luring strike.. oh look bonus storm pillar damage. The barbarian pushes him, add storm pillar damage. that wizard at will could deal 1d6+int damage PER PC turn.. or more.. fighter's 'come and get it' move.. everything walks to him BZZZZZZT. If it were an encounter, I'd say sure. but thats a LOT of damage for an at will that doesn't even have to roll a to hit.

its still a nice little at will wall, it just keeps the other PC's from grabbing the mobs and dragging them through a free shredder.

Nai_Calus
2009-11-20, 03:07 AM
Yay Swordmage Warding errata. Meh on UT, but it makes L6 utility power easier for me to decide on.

Maybe someday they'll tell us if we're supposed to just pretend the Chosen L26 utility power for Corellon Larethian in FRPG never existed and use the DP version for Core's Corellon or if we're supposed to continue to use that miserable waste of ink for FR characters. (Or for that matter why two completely identical except for gods used EDs have different requirements)

Kurald Galain
2009-11-20, 04:41 AM
I do believe a better fix for Storm Pillar would have been to do the damage for entering the zone around it, rather than damage per square.

I haven't been in many combats where an enemy could conceivably be trapped behind a pillar; they would just move around it, so I have better things to do with my action. Even if you, say, ready an action to throw a storm pillar in front of someone, they can still go around.

Break
2009-11-20, 05:15 AM
Yay Swordmage Warding errata.

Seriously. I don't know how they ever thought that the warding drop was a good idea, ever.

Drager
2009-11-20, 07:40 AM
It's also a decent weapon for defense-minded Rogues, though for them the Parrying Dagger grants the exact same bonus for the same feat.


Not particularly. The problem is that this throws out the class feature of "two full sized weapons" ... and the ranger has no use for the offhand property in the main hand weapon.


Relevant bit bolded for emphasis. I think you and mando were talking about two different classes Yakk.

I like the parrying dagger fro the rogue and was rather dissapointed when the DS obsoleted it, now Rapier/PD is no longer a waste of time.

Nai_Calus
2009-11-20, 09:45 AM
Seriously. I don't know how they ever thought that the warding drop was a good idea, ever.

Yeah, really. "You already do the worst damage of the defenders and possibly of any class, here's something else to screw you over at some point as well!" Clearly Swordmages having AC on par with other defenders all the time is overpowered. :smallannoyed:

Now I only need to be mildly pissed that the only way to maintain warding while unconscious is to be a Deva and take that one feat, instead of extremely pissed.

Since you do still have a massive disadvantage *while* unconscious, so if you go you'd better hope your allies pop you up right away. Which they probably won't based off the one time I did go unconscious. (Wasn't a Swordmage at the time though.)

Jack_Banzai
2009-11-23, 03:24 PM
I saw most of these coming. I think I even posted to that effect. Double swords, Reckless/Bloodclaw, Phrenic Crown: All were overpowered.

Sebastian
2009-11-23, 06:36 PM
Solution: Take a binder. Label it Errata. Print out Errata, hole punch it. Take it with you. Simple and easy. When its updated, put in the new pages as needed.

More practical, simple and easy solution: play something that don't change rules every 3 months. :)

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-23, 07:09 PM
More practical, simple and easy solution: play something that don't change rules every 3 months. :)

He's right. Remember everybody, errata is bad, and all RPG systems should come out of the box absolutely perfect in every way possible and never, ever, ever, ever change in any way at all.

Jack_Banzai
2009-11-23, 08:15 PM
He's right. Remember everybody, errata is bad, and all RPG systems should come out of the box absolutely perfect in every way possible and never, ever, ever, ever change in any way at all.

They didn't used to listen to fans or playtesters, and people complained.

They started listening to fans and playtesters, initiated changes, and people complained.

You can't win.

sofawall
2009-11-23, 08:39 PM
And I think that your Joe the Gamer can find this stuff easy enough. Mainly because he isn't an island. Seriously, not a single person at the game store or his gaming group has heard about the errata?

Not a single person in my group or gaming store has heard of errata, other than me.

EDIT: Or at least hadn't until I brought it up.

Asbestos
2009-11-23, 09:40 PM
Not a single person in my group or gaming store has heard of errata, other than me.

EDIT: Or at least hadn't until I brought it up.

Well, then you are that single person at the gaming store that has a computer and knows of the errata. Congrats.

TheEmerged
2009-11-23, 09:46 PM
They didn't used to listen to fans or playtesters, and people complained.

They started listening to fans and playtesters, initiated changes, and people complained.

You can't win.

^This.

Well, I suppose you could win if you actually did better testing than most gaming companies seem to. But then people would complain about the rate things come out (cf Blizzard), so we come full circle :smallredface:

Asbestos
2009-11-23, 09:55 PM
^This.

Well, I suppose you could win if you actually did better testing than most gaming companies seem to. But then people would complain about the rate things come out (cf Blizzard), so we come full circle :smallredface:

Oh come on, Blizzard patches things constantly. That and I don't think they've ever had an original idea.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-23, 09:58 PM
Were the same people complaining, though? Are less people complaining, based on data? Saying that more than two persons complained during each scenario does little for comparison purposes.

Jack_Banzai
2009-11-24, 01:11 PM
Were the same people complaining, though? Are less people complaining, based on data? Saying that more than two persons complained during each scenario does little for comparison purposes.

After having read that sentence three times, I have come to the conclusion that I don't know what you're asking me.

dsmiles
2009-11-24, 02:11 PM
He's right. Remember everybody, errata is bad, and all RPG systems should come out of the box absolutely perfect in every way possible and never, ever, ever, ever change in any way at all.

I spent some time playing HARP...sooo nice to have a stable ruleset.

Anyways, is there a list of 4e books currently in print (so I can check to make sure I got them all)?

Gametime
2009-11-24, 02:43 PM
It's worth noting that this errata mostly falls into two categories:
1. Clarification, obvious houserules, and other things most non-official gaming groups could probably already have figured out; and
2. Nerfing the most powerful items and powers of the most powerful builds.

Most gaming groups that don't know about errata probably don't have characters cherrypicking from the most powerful items, powers, and feats to begin with, so the errata hardly affects them. All the people decrying a change that some people won't notice should probably take a step back and wonder if the D&D players who can't be bothered to keep up with errata are the sorts that habitually build the monsters this errata nerfed.

My guess is that they are not.

Personally, I love that Wizards released this errata. It shows a willingness to own up to mistakes and issue changes that was lacking from much of 3.5. The fact that they admitted that they released poorly balanced items and powers makes me believe that they honestly do care about releasing a good, balanced game. They may never fully succeed, but at least they're trying.

Gametime
2009-11-24, 02:45 PM
Oh come on, Blizzard patches things constantly. That and I don't think they've ever had an original idea.

I don't think anyone releasing an RPG in the last thirty years has had an original idea.

Actually, I don't think anyone doing anything involving the fantasy genre has had an original idea since Robert Howard, and he probably stole his from somewhere, anyway.

What was the old saying? Video-game rips off tabletop game rips off Tolkien rips off mythology? Something like that.

dsmiles
2009-11-24, 02:47 PM
Actually, I don't think anyone doing anything involving the fantasy genre has had an original idea since Robert Howard, and he probably stole his from somewhere, anyway.


HERETIC!!!!!!BLASPHEMER!!!!!!

:smalltongue:

Asbestos
2009-11-24, 02:48 PM
I don't think anyone releasing an RPG in the last thirty years has had an original idea.

Actually, I don't think anyone doing anything involving the fantasy genre has had an original idea since Robert Howard, and he probably stole his from somewhere, anyway.

What was the old saying? Video-game rips off tabletop game rips off Tolkien rips off mythology? Something like that.

I'm talking about how Blizzard pretty much looks at Games Workshop stuff and is like "I bet we could make a video game out of that". I'm not even a big fan of GW, but still...

dsmiles
2009-11-24, 02:57 PM
I'm talking about how Blizzard pretty much looks at Games Workshop stuff and is like "I bet we could make a video game out of that". I'm not even a big fan of GW, but still...

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Blizzard was originally under contract to produce the first 40k video game, and GW pulled out at the last minute. Blizzard already invested many man-hours into this game, and didn't want to lose the profits...hence the similarities (read: renamed races and story).

Anyways (again), is there a list of 4e books currently in print (so I can check to make sure I got them all)?

tcrudisi
2009-11-24, 03:01 PM
More practical, simple and easy solution: play something that don't change rules every 3 months. :)

I'm betting a lot of people thought they were doing just that when they played a non-crit fishing Avenger... except they took the Leather Armor Proficiency feat. That was definitely something most people could not predict would be errata'ed.

Sebastian
2009-11-24, 04:47 PM
He's right. Remember everybody, errata is bad, and all RPG systems should come out of the box absolutely perfect in every way possible and never, ever, ever, ever change in any way at all.

yeah, because there are no alternatives, either you have one errata every three month or you have never ever any errata at all.

And god forbid you actually playtest before printing the books, after all why should you, when you have a bunch of people willing not just to playtest for free, but to pay you for playtesting your products.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-24, 04:58 PM
yeah, because there are no alternatives, either you have one errata every three month or you have never ever any errata at all.

And god forbid you actually playtest before printing the books, after all why should you, when you have a bunch of people willing not just to playtest for free, but to pay you for playtesting your products.
To be fair, most of 4E has passed the playtest bar. I, for one, am glad to see WotC doing the following:

(1) Responding to consumer feedback on their product
(2) Carefully considering the proposed changes before issuing Errata
(3) Releasing the Errata in big chunks rather than continual dribbles

This way we can play by universally recognized rules of good quality, and not need to keep our eye on the WotC website every day. Plus, they're putting the Errata in an easy-to-read format; making whole new power cards & such is far better than trying to do it freehand.

And DDI gets seamlessly updated. It's a new paradigm of pen & paper RPGs, to be sure; but so far, so good :smallsmile:

Gametime
2009-11-24, 05:10 PM
yeah, because there are no alternatives, either you have one errata every three month or you have never ever any errata at all.

And god forbid you actually playtest before printing the books, after all why should you, when you have a bunch of people willing not just to playtest for free, but to pay you for playtesting your products.

Yeah, because there are no alternatives, either you perfectly playtest your product and release it without any mistakes or you didn't playtest it at all and obviously don't care about the quality.

(See what I did there?) :smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2009-11-24, 07:46 PM
Why would somebody want to wield such a horribly impractical and risky weapon?
Too much time watching Bad 80's cartoons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95pB_eVkolc) or Comic Books (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:ADD_2.jpg). (Yes, that's from 1st edition)
I spent some time playing HARP...sooo nice to have a stable ruleset.
HARP, what 4th edition should have been. :smallamused:

Mando Knight
2009-11-25, 01:35 AM
I'm betting a lot of people thought they were doing just that when they played a non-crit fishing Avenger... except they took the Leather Armor Proficiency feat. That was definitely something most people could not predict would be errata'ed.

Most people. I didn't expect it until a couple weeks before the update, when I just randomly decided to make a max-AC Avenger and ended up with one that had better AC than a Swordmage or Paladin. (Double Sword + Two-Weapon Defense + Hide armor + Improved Armor of Faith)

BobVosh
2009-11-25, 01:42 AM
Most people. I didn't expect it until a couple weeks before the update, when I just randomly decided to make a max-AC Avenger and ended up with one that had better AC than a Swordmage or Paladin. (Double Sword + Two-Weapon Defense + Hide armor + Improved Armor of Faith)

I'm not really surprised. Avenger always seemed overly powerful as the full class goes. Not really broken, but all good defenses, AC, decent to hit with two chances to hit, and some really nice powers for each level.

Asbestos
2009-11-25, 01:50 AM
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Blizzard was originally under contract to produce the first 40k video game, and GW pulled out at the last minute. Blizzard already invested many man-hours into this game, and didn't want to lose the profits...hence the similarities (read: renamed races and story).

Anyways (again), is there a list of 4e books currently in print (so I can check to make sure I got them all)?

I've heard that explanation as well... but SCs expansion and SC2 only seem to be taking more from 40k rather than doing anything different.

A list... um... the products section of the D&D website might have that, but you'll have to search through by year. So far we have 2 MMs, 2 PHBs, 2 DMGs, 2 Draconomicons (2nd is out right?), a X Power book for each of the 4 released power sources, Libris Mortis Open Grave, Manual of the Planes, 2 Eberron books, 2 FR books, 1 Dragon Annual, Dungeon Delve (which I actually like as a DM because sometimes I feel like doing one-offs)... I think that's it.

I wish they'd come out with a better paragon multiclassing system though...

Inyssius Tor
2009-11-25, 02:06 AM
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Blizzard was originally under contract to produce the first 40k video game, and GW pulled out at the last minute. Blizzard already invested many man-hours into this game, and didn't want to lose the profits...hence the similarities (read: renamed races and story).

Indeed, this legend is entirely false.

Kylarra
2009-11-25, 02:15 AM
I've heard that explanation as well... but SCs expansion and SC2 only seem to be taking more from 40k rather than doing anything different.

A list... um... the products section of the D&D website might have that, but you'll have to search through by year. So far we have 2 MMs, 2 PHBs, 2 DMGs, 2 Draconomicons (2nd is out right?), a X Power book for each of the 4 released power sources, Libris Mortis Open Grave, Manual of the Planes, 2 Eberron books, 2 FR books, 1 Dragon Annual, Dungeon Delve (which I actually like as a DM because sometimes I feel like doing one-offs)... I think that's it.

I wish they'd come out with a better paragon multiclassing system though...Don't forget two AVs.

Mando Knight
2009-11-25, 05:37 PM
And Revenge of the Giants...

Bah. Look through the WotC product catalog (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Catalog.aspx?page=0&category=all) yourself.

Belobog
2009-11-25, 05:46 PM
And Revenge of the Giants...

Bah. Look through the WotC product catalog (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Catalog.aspx?page=0&category=all) yourself.

That's, uh...quite the projected schedule, there.

Guess it's a good thing they're thinking ahead, but still, that's pretty far ahead.

horseboy
2009-11-26, 12:22 AM
Indeed, this legend is entirely false.
If you click on the flying dwarves in WCII they even lampshade it with: "This warhammer cost me 40K."

Kurald Galain
2009-11-26, 04:31 AM
HARP, what 4th edition should have been. :smallamused:
What's HARP?


I'm not really surprised. Avenger always seemed overly powerful as the full class goes.
Interestingly, I've also heard many people proclaim that avengers suck big time. In other words, I think I should go and play one, to find out.

horseboy
2009-11-26, 10:30 AM
What's HARP?

High Adventure Role Playing. It's what you get 9 months after Character Law wakes up sticky and naked next to Tomb of Battle after a party at Steve Jackson's. Basically, it has GURPS's magic, Rolemaster's customization and 3.x's goofiness with a "Life Points" system that looks very suspiciously like the wounds and vitality system. With minor tweaking can convert any 3.x character straight over and it's magnitudes more stable.

Yakk
2009-11-26, 12:37 PM
I actually spent time reading over HARP
HARP looks like the RPG for people who think that D&D from 1e to 3e didn't have enough tables involved in character creation. I didn't get much beyond that.

It is also a d% game, which turns me off: what isn't clear about having the resolution mechanic ridiculously more fine grained than what can be detected over an entire gaming session being a waste? Possibly they do something really funkey with their d% mechanic more than "add modifiers, and roll under"? Probably not.

But yep, that was a lot of reworking in that update. I'm wondering how long it goes before they make scorching burst a d8 power?

horseboy
2009-11-26, 01:02 PM
I actually spent time reading over HARP
HARP looks like the RPG for people who think that D&D from 1e to 3e didn't have enough tables involved in character creation. I didn't get much beyond that.

It is also a d% game, which turns me off: what isn't clear about having the resolution mechanic ridiculously more fine grained than what can be detected over an entire gaming session being a waste? Possibly they do something really funky with their d% mechanic more than "add modifiers, and roll under"? Probably not.


Actually it's a d100, not a d%. You roll, add skill modifier add/subtract situational modifiers and try and hit 101+.
Character creation works like 3.x's skill system. Everything is either a class or cross class skill. Class is 1, cross is 2. The cross class limit is the same as the class skill limit and you get around 30-50 points per level. So if you want a fighter who can actually make a will save you just spend 2 points on Will every level.

Matthew
2009-11-26, 01:22 PM
If you click on the flying dwarves in WCII they even lampshade it with: "This warhammer cost me 40K."

Heh, heh.



Too much time watching Bad 80's cartoons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95pB_eVkolc) or Comic Books (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/File:ADD_2.jpg). (Yes, that's from 1st edition)

Yikes! January 1989, and the AD&D franchise is being ridden hard. So many 80s cartoons never made it across the pond, I would definitely have watched Galtar and the Golden Lance.

tbarrie
2009-11-26, 09:58 PM
That's, uh...quite the projected schedule, there.

Guess it's a good thing they're thinking ahead, but still, that's pretty far ahead.

Less than a year, isn't it?

The New Bruceski
2009-11-27, 01:00 PM
I've heard that explanation as well... but SCs expansion and SC2 only seem to be taking more from 40k rather than doing anything different.


No, Starcraft isn't 40K, it's an AvP RTS that doesn't suck.

Asbestos
2009-11-27, 01:04 PM
No, Starcraft isn't 40K, it's an AvP RTS that doesn't suck.
While you could say that it shares a similar paradigm to AvP (Humans w/ guns, Monstrous Aliens w/o tech, Aliens w/ Tech) it doesn't really mesh in any way beyond that. Zerg are a much closer match with Tyarnids than Xenomorphs and Protoss are much closer to Eldar than Predators (they even have the Eldar's walkers in SC2! Which are both War of the Worlds ripoffs, but whatever), the Terrans might as well be saying 'For the Emperor'.

Artanis
2009-11-27, 01:39 PM
The SC races actually have virtually nothing in common with the WH40K races.

Zerg vs. Tyranids

Similarities: They're both swarmy bugs.
Differences: Origin, objectives, numbers, diversity, individual capabilities, overall capabilities, method of "evolution", command structure, method of reproduction, method and style of construction, overall success, and probably quite a few more I can't remember off the top of my head.

Protoss vs. Eldar

Similarities: Ancient psychic aliens who got their butts kicked.
Differences: Psychology, physiology, objectives (seriously, "go extinct" is not a Protoss objective), force structure, method of warfare, holdings, what beat them in the first place, chances of coming back and winning against that enemy, method of construction, construction materials.

SC Terran vs. WH40K Terran

Similarities: They both use power-armored soldiers called "Marines"
Differences: WH40K's marines are ultra-powerful super-soldiers while SC's marines are drugged-up convicts, size of civilization, overall tech level, SC's Terrans do NOT worship their rulers, objectives, level and number and type of external threats, method and type of construction, individual capabilities, overall capabilities, command structure.


tl;dr version: The SC races have one vague, general similarity to WH40K races, but are otherwise almost as different as it is possible to get.

And yes, this is a pet peeve of mine. Or could you tell? :smalltongue:

Drakyn
2009-11-27, 02:28 PM
Besides agreeing with all of the above post, I'd like to add in that I'm really glad that Starcraft and WAR40K are being added to 4E for serious rebalancing. I look forward to hearing the first infinite damage strategies for the Space Marine and Ghost, and finding out how you can use cheese to one-turn-kill the Overmind or perma-stunlock Nurgle.

Nai_Calus
2009-11-27, 11:26 PM
That's, uh...quite the projected schedule, there.

Guess it's a good thing they're thinking ahead, but still, that's pretty far ahead.

I just picked up a copy of Dragon 236 at a local game store because I've been meaning to get it and they had it. It's the December 1996 issue, and the back has a fold out schedule for TSR releases for the next year, covering a bunch of settings and several other lines. If anything, WotC is slacking on their projected schedule. :P

Teron
2009-11-28, 04:35 AM
Protoss vs. Eldar

Similarities: Ancient psychic aliens who got their butts kicked.
... and adopted a lifestyle of rigid self-discipline to protect themselves from the psychic fallout of their former excesses, use their fallen warriors to control walking war machines, and have "dark" counterparts who rejected the aforementioned discipline.

Those similarities are a lot more significant than many of the differences you named. Things like building materials aren't a meaningful part of the races' identity, but the "curves and crystals" aesthetic of the finished products -- which both races share, incidentally -- is.

I could likewise expand on the Zerg/Tyranid comparison; the Terrans, admittedly, don't have much in common with anything from 40k beyond the basic "space military" template, though it may be significant that Blizzard made guys in unusually bulky power armour the poster boys of the Terran faction. The races of Starcraft certainly aren't carbon copies of their alleged inspiration, but there are enough similarities that you can't dismiss the claim out of hand.

lord_khaine
2009-11-28, 05:22 AM
... and adopted a lifestyle of rigid self-discipline to protect themselves from the psychic fallout of their former excesses, use their fallen warriors to control walking war machines, and have "dark" counterparts who rejected the aforementioned discipline.

As i remember the rigid dicipline of the Protoss warrior is just a nececary thing to master their psionic powers, and i recall no tales of former excess, also its just maimed Zealots they stuff into their dragoons, not dead people.

And the Dark Templars are dark in name only, they are if anything more reasonable than their light counterparts.

Teron
2009-11-28, 08:27 AM
As i remember the rigid dicipline of the Protoss warrior is just a nececary thing to master their psionic powers, and i recall no tales of former excess, also its just maimed Zealots they stuff into their dragoons, not dead people.

And the Dark Templars are dark in name only, they are if anything more reasonable than their light counterparts.
As I recall, the manual has some backstory about widespread conflict and uncontrolled psionic storms before the adoption of the Khala -- not exactly the same as creating a god of perversion that hungers for your souls, but there's a thematic similarity in the idea of a shameful history resulting in the need for strict discipline to avoid psychic ruin. Likewise with war machines operated by casualties sealed into them, despite the difference in mechanics (in fact, dragoons work more like dreadnaughts in that the crippled/dead guy is physically stuffed inside, but that doesn't really help the "Starcraft isn't based on WH40K" case). It's not hard to change details; but if enough of the basic concepts match up, it's unlikely to be a coincidence.

Finally, while it's true Blizzard pulled off Dark is not Evil pretty well with the DT, the fact remains that they're a nominally dark faction that rejected the high (space) elves/templars' discipline for a more individualistic existence. "Dark" versions of a race aren't exactly common in science fiction, but it's another concept Starcraft shares with 40K.

Artanis
2009-11-28, 11:44 AM
Because the Eldar and Dark Eldar totally moved in together and all worked as allies for at least several years, with the latter willingly inviting the former into their homes with no ulterior motives.

And the Eldar totally took on a race-wide psychic link to further the unity of their race while the Dark Eldar totally wanted nothing more than to keep their individuality while still doing what they could to look after their brethren from afar.



But really, Drakyn is right: let's get this back on topic :smallredface:



Edit: @Teron

AllisterH
2009-11-28, 04:22 PM
I just picked up a copy of Dragon 236 at a local game store because I've been meaning to get it and they had it. It's the December 1996 issue, and the back has a fold out schedule for TSR releases for the next year, covering a bunch of settings and several other lines. If anything, WotC is slacking on their projected schedule. :P

Heh...

I don't think people realize just how much stuff TSR used to produce.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachments/general-rpg-discussion/41335d1251629286-road-not-taken-what-if-there-had-been-no-d-d-4th-edition-product_graph.jpg

And yes, in 1995, TSR produced nearly 80 RPG products.

Throw in first run (no reprints and collections) novels, and it REALLY makes WOTC look like they are slacking

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachments/general-rpg-discussion/41337d1251648665-road-not-taken-what-if-there-had-been-no-d-d-4th-edition-including_novels.jpg

Now fess up, which of you guys were buying all of that from the 2e era?

tyckspoon
2009-11-28, 05:29 PM
Now fess up, which of you guys were buying all of that from the 2e era?

Nobody, which IIRC is part of what took TSR down- they tried to support too many product lines at once and ended up making stuff which just didn't have the market interest to justify the cost of producing it.

Jack_Banzai
2009-11-28, 10:17 PM
What's HARP?


Interestingly, I've also heard many people proclaim that avengers suck big time. In other words, I think I should go and play one, to find out.

What makes Avengers awesome is that they almost always hit and they crit pretty often.

What makes Avengers terrible is that they never quite achieve the dizzying highs that other Striker classes do. Their powers are generally geared for mobility and accuracy. There are no bonus dice like Hunter's Quarry, Sneak Attack, or hell, even Warlock's Curse. They don't have the raw damage output of the Barbarian.

So if you play an Avenger, make sure you get a high crit weapon.

Mando Knight
2009-11-28, 10:19 PM
So if you play an Avenger, make sure you get a Fullblade or Execution Axe.

Beginning and end of your options for awesome there. :smalltongue: Fullblade makes you always hit and grants access to some neat enchants, Execution Axe has Brutal to prevent low damage rolls and access to some of the more brutal enchants.

Of course, you could go with a defensive build (which will be short only around 3-4 AC as compared to before, which is still roughly on-par with Defenders...) and pick up the Two-Weapon feats for slightly more damage and 2 extra AC (1 from TWD, 1 from Parrying Dagger, which gets paired with something like the Waraxe)...

Jack_Banzai
2009-11-28, 10:21 PM
Beginning and end of your options there. Fullblade makes you always hit and grants access to some neat enchants, Execution Axe has Brutal to prevent low damage rolls and access to some of the more brutal enchants.

Since you have the reroll to hit, the +1 proficiency bonus becomes much less important. I opt for the Executioner's Axe.