PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Thoughts on today's new errata?



Artanis
2010-03-02, 01:16 PM
Among other things, the new errata changes <insert thing here> Expertise to a Feat bonus and seriously nerfed a whole bunch of save-penalizing stuff. Anybody have thoughts on any of it?

DarknessLord
2010-03-02, 01:24 PM
Link, for those too lazy to find it otherwise. (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates)

Ewwww, my weapon expertise is less awesome now.

Edge of Dreams
2010-03-02, 01:37 PM
The re-write of <blah> expertise and feat bonuses is annoying, because there's so many feats affected by it, but I do think the new version of the rules is somewhat better. And the new clarification of bonus stacking in the PHB is nice.

Clarification that damage type = keyword, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

Other than that, more power-level nerfs all over the place, mostly. Some are clearly needed, like the bracers that add 1d10 and heal you when you hit with an arcane spell with CA. Those were ridiculous. Others, though, I feel like, darn it, it was nice to have a few really shiny items and powers here and there, why you gotta be so mean, WoTC?

I feel that powers/items which are fine by themselves but contribute to OP builds when used in conjunction with two or three other specific powers/items shouldn't need to be nerfed. They're part of the fun of building your character, and it should be up to DM's and players to say "okay, dude, you're too powerful and ruining it for the group, can we tone it down a bit?" Especially since not everyone optimizes that much.

Blackfang108
2010-03-02, 01:39 PM
Link, for those too lazy to find it otherwise. (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates)

Ewwww, my weapon expertise is less awesome now.

A lot of things got kicked squarely between the legs.

Edit: am i the only one seeing Seal of Binding as COMPLETELY USELESS now?

OK, I can hold one guy off to the side, but still, WTF?

tcrudisi
2010-03-02, 01:40 PM
Orb of Imposition was finally brought down to a more manageable level. Same with Righteous Brand. I'm pleasantly surprised to see Lasting Frost got a slight nerf as well. Plus Divine Miracle no longer allowing infinite combos? Cool by my book.

Staff of Ruin getting hit? I'm not so sure I agree with it, but I understand the logic. Well, I'm betting that Goblin Totem will be a lot more awesome now.

Salve of Power getting nerfed? Thank goodness. It's about time.

Their line about Implement Expertise confuses me. They said: "This revision...means that feats like Draconic Spellcaster can provide greater benefit to players that design their characters toward specific builds." Ummh... how so? Draconic Spellcaster is a feat bonus, as is Gnome Phantasmist, etc.

Oh, except they updated Draconic Spellcaster to also add a bonus to damage. Wooptie-doo.

Ankhmon's Bracers took a big hit, which doesn't really surprise me. I played a Swordmage and always had combat advantage for my attacks, so it was pretty darn ridiculous. I think it's useless as a "once an encounter" ability, but now it's not broken-good.

And Pacifist Healer got a boost? Really?

And Hide Armor Expertise: YAY!

Overall, WotC did a fantastic job and I am very pleased with the changes. /hugs WotC

illyrus
2010-03-02, 01:43 PM
*Edit - I guess overall I'd rather see WotC nerf general effect maximums (like a creature can only have a -5 to saving throws etc) rather than individual powers. It seems that it just adjusts the route a powergamer will take to the same goal as opposed to actually making the goal not feasible.

Zombimode
2010-03-02, 01:47 PM
Blood Pulse nerfed? Do not like it! :smallmad:
It is fun as it was. Now its lame.

Lasting Frost nerfed? What was wrong with it? I dont see it.

Blackfang108
2010-03-02, 01:52 PM
Blood Pulse nerfed? Do not like it! :smallmad:
It is fun as it was. Now its lame.

Lasting Frost nerfed? What was wrong with it? I dont see it.

Wintertouched.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-02, 01:54 PM
They finally, finally got rid of the idiocy that was Blood Pulse. That's the main win here, in my opinion. It surprises me that it took them so long to do it, considering how quickly Blade Cascade got the nerfhammer.

Orb of imposition is a funny thing. It always had two parts: sustain a power for one more round, and penalize saving throws. When the PHB was first printed, the former was pretty much worthless and the latter was the main attraction for all wizards. Now, after Arcane Power and this errata, the latter is mostly useless, and the former is suddenly very good.

tcrudisi
2010-03-02, 01:57 PM
Blood Pulse nerfed? Do not like it! :smallmad:
It is fun as it was. Now its lame.

Lasting Frost nerfed? What was wrong with it? I dont see it.

As Blackfang said, Wintertouched is what was wrong with it. That combo supplied un-ending C.A. and +5 damage. For a Ranger I played, it got pretty ridiculous, as I would be able to put cold vuln 5 on multiple targets in a round for my party to exploit. Now it's harder to do that as it only gives the vuln to the first target you hit. I approve.

icefractal
2010-03-02, 02:04 PM
I think changing Expertise to a feat bonus was a big mistake. Before, it was just a mandatory feat that provided a clumsy but workable way to fix the math. Now, it renders large swathes of existing feats obsolete.

The nerfs in this one are out of hand. Especially, if you try to implement these into an existing campaign, suddenly a lot of characters are screwed by choices they wouldn't have made, or find out their whole class/path sucks now. Problems not always fixable by retraining either. I think my policy will be that once a campaign starts, the current rules are locked in until the end of that campaign - then at least people can make characters without the fear that they'll spontaneously become obsolete.

Also, the nerfs to 30th level cap abilities are just stupid, even if they don't affect many people. You know what would have fixed Divine Miracle, to the extent that it even needed fixing? Making it only happen 1/round. You know what isn't something you care about at 30th level? One extra encounter power. And the Archmage one? What problem is there with using a Utility power more often? Were the big bad players daring to fly around all the time at 30th level? Oh no, we couldn't possibly have that, don't they know that blasting things is all they should aspire to?

Allan Surgite
2010-03-02, 02:14 PM
The nerfs in this one are out of hand. Especially, if you try to implement these into an existing campaign, suddenly a lot of characters are screwed by choices they wouldn't have made, or find out their whole class/path sucks now. Problems not always fixable by retraining either. I think my policy will be that once a campaign starts, the current rules are locked in until the end of that campaign - then at least people can make characters without the fear that they'll spontaneously become obsolete.
I may not be someone who plays a lot of D&D, but that path seems less like something innovative, but more like "common sense and hopefully standard practice."

Just sayin'.

Blazen
2010-03-02, 02:20 PM
So how many Rangers and Barbarians are gonna freak out from the changes?

Mando Knight
2010-03-02, 02:34 PM
I think changing Expertise to a feat bonus was a big mistake. Before, it was just a mandatory feat that provided a clumsy but workable way to fix the math. Now, it renders large swathes of existing feats obsolete.
They noted that some of it is intentional. They might have messed up when writing the old feat, so they wrote the Expertise feats to fix them. Now that the Expertise feats work the way they intended, the old feats are truly obsolete.

Also, the nerfs to 30th level cap abilities are just stupid, even if they don't affect many people. You know what would have fixed Divine Miracle, to the extent that it even needed fixing? Making it only happen 1/round. You know what isn't something you care about at 30th level? One extra encounter power. And the Archmage one? What problem is there with using a Utility power more often? Were the big bad players daring to fly around all the time at 30th level? Oh no, we couldn't possibly have that, don't they know that blasting things is all they should aspire to?
To be honest, using your level 27 Encounter power every turn is rather overpowered anyway. Nerfing Divine Miracle makes other Epic Destinies' cap abilities a good bit more attractive, even if the destiny doesn't grant a floating +2 to two ability scores.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 02:38 PM
Also, the nerfs to 30th level cap abilities are just stupid, even if they don't affect many people. You know what would have fixed Divine Miracle, to the extent that it even needed fixing? Making it only happen 1/round. You know what isn't something you care about at 30th level? One extra encounter power. And the Archmage one? What problem is there with using a Utility power more often? Were the big bad players daring to fly around all the time at 30th level? Oh no, we couldn't possibly have that, don't they know that blasting things is all they should aspire to?
I... actually agree with you on Divine Miracle. I mean, there are Paragon Path Powers with the Errata'd effect.

I agree that Expertise needed to be "fixed" but I'm not sure how helpful this is. I mean, now you don't get ridiculously high to-hits... but Expertise is still pretty mandatory - you just don't bother with the situational +1 feats.

Hide Armor Expertise needed fixing, but I dunno about making it a +2 - that's worse than the "expected" value of Hide Armor (e.g. Chain Mail's +6). Who is going to take it now?

Perhaps it's just Nerf Shock, but doesn't it seem like most of the big nerfs make the powers useless? I mean, who takes Rain of Blows when it's a LV 3 Encounter Power that usually does 2, 1[W] attacks? :smallconfused:

EDIT: Also, as a policy matter, I don't like "stealth obsolescence." If a feat or power is totally worthless, delete it (unless you plan on updating it... later?). Leaving them in creates traps - for example, Hammer Fall (Barbarian LV 3) is now strictly worse than a LV 3 power from Primal Power; they should delete Hammer Fall via Errata. Similarly, if there are worthless feats lying about in the wake of the Expertise Errata - delete them too.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-02, 02:43 PM
Perhaps it's just Nerf Shock, but doesn't it seem like most of the big nerfs make the powers useless? I mean, who takes Rain of Blows when it's a LV 3 Encounter Power that usually does 2, 1[W] attacks? :smallconfused:
WOTC has a tendency to overreact, yes.

Break
2010-03-02, 02:43 PM
I... actually agree with you on Divine Miracle. I mean, there are Paragon Path Powers with the Errata'd effect.

I agree that Expertise needed to be "fixed" but I'm not sure how helpful this is. I mean, now you don't get ridiculously high to-hits... but Expertise is still pretty mandatory - you just don't bother with the situational +1 feats.

Hide Armor Expertise needed fixing, but I dunno about making it a +2 - that's worse than the "expected" value of Hide Armor (e.g. Chain Mail's +6). Who is going to take it now?

Perhaps it's just Nerf Shock, but doesn't it seem like most of the big nerfs make the powers useless? I mean, who takes Rain of Blows when it's a LV 3 Encounter Power that usually does 2, 1[W] attacks? :smallconfused:

Rain of Blows is still quite good - it's basically Twin Strike as is, after all, and most who even bother with RoB qualify for the third attack.

And, uh, my main gripe's really with the new Bonuses and Penalties rewrite. As it stands, it's pretty ambiguously written, mainly because of the fact that they chose to use the words "game elements".

Past that, uh....I'll have to make sure if my frost archer still works well enough.

Reinboom
2010-03-02, 02:45 PM
This errata needs ... clarification.

Some bonuses are untyped. Bonuses that have
no type add together. However, if you gain multiple
untyped bonuses from the same named game element
(a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like),
only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise.
For example, if you spend an action point and
can see two warlords who have the Tactical Presence
class feature, you gain the bonus to attack rolls from
only one of the warlords, whichever one provides the
higher bonus.

What the hell is a game element? I see that they are suggesting that it is powers, feats, class features, and similar... but... they also say "named" specifically, which suggests that it is only referring to various pieces of the game that share the same name.

But it can also group mean "powers". :smallannoyed:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 02:57 PM
Rain of Blows is still quite good - it's basically Twin Strike as is, after all, and most who even bother with RoB qualify for the third attack.
Yeah, but DEX 15+ is expensive for most Fighters - and Light Blades, Spears, and Flails are still not "great" choices. So far my Eladrin Spearmaiden might still take it (but probably not), but I don't think any Dervish is going to bother. I mean, it's like Twin Strike except it can only be used 1/EN.

All I'm saying is that it went from a Must-Have to a truly Marginal Power. Couldn't it have been 1[W]+WIS?


And, uh, my main gripe's really with the new Bonuses and Penalties rewrite. As it stands, it's pretty ambiguously written, mainly because of the fact that they chose to use the words "game elements"
They did define the term, you know: "a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like." If two powers/feats/features/etc of the same name give untyped bonuses, they don't stack. Where is the ambiguity? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2010-03-02, 02:58 PM
This errata needs ... clarification.

What they mean is that if you gain a bonus from something called X, and another bonus from something also called X, then the two don't stack. For instance, if your half-elf buddy gives you +1 to diplomacy, and your other half-elf buddy also gives you +1 to diplomacy, then you end up with +1, not +2. Likewise, if your party cleric (somehow) casts Bless twice in the same encounter, or two clerics each cast Bless, then you end up with a +1, not a +2.

Reinboom
2010-03-02, 03:06 PM
What they mean is that if you gain a bonus from something called X, and another bonus from something also called X, then the two don't stack. For instance, if your half-elf buddy gives you +1 to diplomacy, and your other half-elf buddy also gives you +1 to diplomacy, then you end up with +1, not +2. Likewise, if your party cleric (somehow) casts Bless twice in the same encounter, or two clerics each cast Bless, then you end up with a +1, not a +2.

That is still an interpretation of it... without precisely knowing what was intended.

I believe that is what they meant as well. However, it is still not precisely clear. And already I have seen the other possible interpretation being used.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 03:10 PM
That is still an interpretation of it... without precisely knowing what was intended.

I believe that is what they meant as well. However, it is still not precisely clear. And already I have seen the other possible interpretation being used.
Wait, what other possible interpretation? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2010-03-02, 03:10 PM
I believe that is what they meant as well. However, it is still not precisely clear. And already I have seen the other possible interpretation being used.

While I see your point, I don't think it makes much of a difference in practice.

Aside from that, lots of rules are ambiguous, and WOTC doesn't seem interested in making the D&D rulebook look like the Comprehensive Magic The Gathering Rules.

Artanis
2010-03-02, 03:13 PM
Hide Armor Expertise needed fixing, but I dunno about making it a +2 - that's worse than the "expected" value of Hide Armor (e.g. Chain Mail's +6). Who is going to take it now?

Nobody complained that Hide gave less AC than Chain before PP came out, so I don't see why returning it to that state should be a problem :smalltongue:

At any rate, it'll be taken by Barbarians who want more AC but either A) want a non-Chain magic armor property, or B) don't want Chain's speed penalty. This still keeps it close enough to Chain to make it worth considering, but takes away the problem of Barbarians getting stupidly high AC without sacrificing the two things I listed here.

Hzurr
2010-03-02, 03:14 PM
Honestly, I'm happy with the errata. The rational for most of the changes made sense, and it seems like the powers and items they hit hard were the ones I had heard a lot of murmurring about.

Overall, no problems here.

Reinboom
2010-03-02, 03:18 PM
Wait, what other possible interpretation? :smallconfused:

That Named Game Element refers specifically to the list that follows (a power, a feat, etc.) as a group.
Which would mean that an untyped bonus from one feat and an untyped bonus in another feat would not stack together.


They shouldn't use a game term that has no previous definition. If they wished to use it, they should have at the very least provided a more distinct example.


While I see your point, I don't think it makes much of a difference in practice.

Aside from that, lots of rules are ambiguous, and WOTC doesn't seem interested in making the D&D rulebook look like the Comprehensive Magic The Gathering Rules.

Which is not what I'm suggesting. :smallconfused:

Gametime
2010-03-02, 03:20 PM
That is still an interpretation of it... without precisely knowing what was intended.

I believe that is what they meant as well. However, it is still not precisely clear. And already I have seen the other possible interpretation being used.

What is the other possible interpretation you have seen used? I'm really not getting how the errata is open to interpretation.

Ninja explanation'd! That's...a bizarre way to read the ruling. They would've gotten just as valid a way of putting that if they had just said "game element." To me, this suggests that "named" refers to the names of game elements, and not to the types, if you will, of game elements.

They could have phrased it better, but I think the intention is clear.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 03:31 PM
That Named Game Element refers specifically to the list that follows (a power, a feat, etc.) as a group.
Which would mean that an untyped bonus from one feat and an untyped bonus in another feat would not stack together.
That's one of the craziest readings of that passage I can imagine - and I'm a law student; I create crazy readings of text all the time!

Hell, the example afterwards should have made it abundantly clear what they were talking about.

And the reason they used "game element?" Because they needed to make a general rule, and so they needed a term. They couldn't just say "If you get an untyped bonus from two thingees with the same name, they don't stack" after all.

@Artanis: I guess I'm just having a problem seeing how 1 Feat is going to be less valuable than 6 CPs when the Feat doesn't even give you a bonus to your Reflex Save, not to mention your Initiative.

Personally, I'd say capping Hide Armor Expertise at +4 or +5 would have been a better solution. Heck, even capping it at +3 would have been fine by me - and it still wouldn't have been as good as the Warden & Druid Class Features.

Reinboom
2010-03-02, 03:33 PM
What is the other possible interpretation you have seen used? I'm really not getting how the errata is open to interpretation.

Ninja explanation'd! That's...a bizarre way to read the ruling. They would've gotten just as valid a way of putting that if they had just said "game element." To me, this suggests that "named" refers to the names of game elements, and not to the types, if you will, of game elements.

They could have phrased it better, but I think the intention is clear.
Cats, even catworlds, are crafty ninjas.

I believe the intention is clear as well. It's just that for rules like this, especially with the errata, one should not be needing to use the terms "this suggests" or "intention" in trying to create an interpretation of the rule but any common means.


That's one of the craziest readings of that passage I can imagine - and I'm a law student; I create crazy readings of text all the time!

Hell, the example afterwards should have made it abundantly clear what they were talking about.

And the reason they used "game element?" Because they needed to make a general rule, and so they needed a term. They couldn't just say "If you get an untyped bonus from two thingees with the same name, they don't stack" after all.

The example did no such thing. If there was a need to draw attention to the "name", then the "name" should have been drawn attention to - usually best with a short counterexample "but X and Y do stack".

Also, I have never said they shouldn't of outright used a new term. :smallconfused:
The use of terms for such pieces of the game makes reading and wording much easier.
What I am saying, however, is that they should couple those terms with an explanation of what those words actually mean. Or, at the very least, a better example.

NeoVid
2010-03-02, 03:37 PM
Negatives for me: Staff of Ruin, Cunning Staff and Salve changes: nooooo!

Positive: Demigod getting hit with the nerf bat. The devs have said that Demigod's turned out to be a huge design problem, so I'm glad to see something that might make it no longer be optimal for all characters. Though they could have picked something more relevant than a level 30 capstone to change.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 03:49 PM
The example did no such thing. If there was a need to draw attention to the "name", then the "name" should have been drawn attention to - usually best with a short counterexample "but X and Y do stack".
So... like this:

For example, if you spend an action point and can see two warlords who have the Tactical Presence class feature, you gain the bonus to attack rolls from only one of the warlords, whichever one provides the higher bonus.
I dunno, if a DM tried to claim that an Untyped Bonus from Feat A and Feat B did not stack, I think he'd be shouted down by the players.

I mean, read the section over again:

Some bonuses are untyped. Bonuses that have no type add together. However, if you gain multiple untyped bonuses from the same named game element (a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like),
only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise.
Why bother noting that "bonuses that have no type add together" if they, well, don't actually add together except very rarely. Particularly since Powers usually give "Power Bonuses," Feats give "Feat Bonuses" and Items give "Item Bonuses" which don't stack already?

Perhaps it would have been better if they had said "named Game Element" (as "Game Element" is the term of art) rather than leaving everything in lower case?

Who, exactly, tried to hand you that explanation anyhow? :smallconfused:

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-02, 03:52 PM
That Named Game Element refers specifically to the list that follows (a power, a feat, etc.) as a group.
Which would mean that an untyped bonus from one feat and an untyped bonus in another feat would not stack together.

The problem with this reading is that power bonus, feat bonus, item bonus, etc., already exist and do not stack with each other. Reading it like this would defeat the purpose of having those bonus types.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 03:54 PM
If two players both have the same class feature (or power, or feat) that grants an untyped bonus to allies (or penalty to enemies) they can't stack.

Seems fairly straightfoward.

Reinboom
2010-03-02, 04:05 PM
So... like this:

I dunno, if a DM tried to claim that an Untyped Bonus from Feat A and Feat B did not stack, I think he'd be shouted down by the players.

I mean, read the section over again:

Why bother noting that "bonuses that have no type add together" if they, well, don't actually add together except very rarely. Particularly since Powers usually give "Power Bonuses," Feats give "Feat Bonuses" and Items give "Item Bonuses" which don't stack already?

That example is only an example of "X and X", not a counterexample of "X and Y". Also "I see what you did there", and "...you have missed the point".

Pieces of how this was deduced, and why such a counterexample would be welcome:

"Tactical Presence" specifies a Class Feature with the name Tactical Presence
"named game element" is listed with {a power; a feat; a class feature; the like}.
"named" is never specified if it was modifying "game element" (suggesting to use the header name of a game rule) OR as a part of "game element" (suggesting that the entire term is referring to, say, {a class feature} for the case of the example.


With that, since just "Tactical Presence" used in situation "X and X" could refer to both sides of the OR there should be a counterexample (or a clearer definition) to suggest that it only one side.



Perhaps it would have been better if they had said "named Game Element" (as "Game Element" is the term of art) rather than leaving everything in lower case?
Yes.


Who, exactly, tried to hand you that explanation anyhow? :smallconfused:
This was mentioned in the giantitp irc channel.

Mando Knight
2010-03-02, 04:14 PM
Nobody complained that Hide gave less AC than Chain before PP came out, so I don't see why returning it to that state should be a problem :smalltongue:

At any rate, it'll be taken by Barbarians who want more AC but either A) want a non-Chain magic armor property, or B) don't want Chain's speed penalty. This still keeps it close enough to Chain to make it worth considering, but takes away the problem of Barbarians getting stupidly high AC without sacrificing the two things I listed here.

It also allows for bonuses from light armor, such as the Barbarian's agility feature, which evens out the AC a bit.

Yakk
2010-03-02, 05:29 PM
I suspect Hide Armor expertise was balanced against Barbarian Armored Agility.

A level 30 str/con-barbarian now has...
10 base
15 level
6 enhance
3 hide
3 masterwork
1 feat
2 stat
3 agility
42 AC with 2 feats (that have no other opportunity costs), or L+12.

Each of those feats grant +1 AC.

The barbarian using an urgosh instead of a standard 2H superior weapon gives up 1 damage per [W] for a +1 AC, and the option to go TWF/TWD for another +1 AC (with a +1 Reflex thrown in there somewhere).

So the Str/Con barbarian hits 44 AC, or L+14 AC, pre paragon path/epic destiny.

The Str/Dex barbarian retains the ability to hit 53 AC (!) (or more realistically, 51 to 52 AC).

...

The comparison with Chain is missing the fact that Chain gets +6 MW, while hide gets +3 MW.

So Hide is 3 + 2 + 3 = +8 + Stat AC, while Chain is 6+6 = +12, even after the feat, pre-enhancement-bonus.

The bonus to AC for the expertise should have been +2/+3/+4 at Heroic/Paragon/Epic really. Alternatively, it should have been 1/2 your Con bonus.

Nightson
2010-03-02, 05:54 PM
There's no clarification needed regarding the errata of named game elements, it's ridiculously clear.

SoC175
2010-03-02, 05:55 PM
Clarification that damage type = keyword, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Actually they didn't do that. They only clarified what happens if the damage type changes, not what happens if some damage type is added. So we know know what happens when a paladin uses a radiant power with his activated flaming greatsword, yet we're still in the dark what happens when an avenger uses the painful oath feat.

Camelot
2010-03-02, 05:57 PM
Every time the beach mages issue a rules update, I think, "Gee, what a great fix! There certainly can't be anything else that needs fixing after all those updates."

And I'm always proven wrong.

Thank you, beach mages.

(Ambiguity intentional.)

Gametime
2010-03-02, 06:32 PM
Unless Wizards further clarifies the bonus stacking ruling, our only recourse is to use the more sensible interpretation. Given that many of the terms involved in their ruling and example would be redundant under the interpretation that untyped bonuses from feats (or class features, etc.) never stack, along with the fact that this would render obsolete already existing bonus types (feat, power, etc.), it seems reasonable to me to just stick with the interpretation that the "named" part actually refers to the name of a given feat, class feature, etc.

Artanis
2010-03-02, 06:54 PM
Unless Wizards further clarifies the bonus stacking ruling, our only recourse is to use the more sensible interpretation. Given that many of the terms involved in their ruling and example would be redundant under the interpretation that untyped bonuses from feats (or class features, etc.) never stack, along with the fact that this would render obsolete already existing bonus types (feat, power, etc.), it seems reasonable to me to just stick with the interpretation that the "named" part actually refers to the name of a given feat, class feature, etc.

Agreed.



*stuff about Hide Expertise*

Regardless of the worth of its updated version, I'm sure we can at least agree that the old version was so broken that the game itself is better off now.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 06:57 PM
Regardless of the worth of its updated version, I'm sure we can at least agree that the old version was so broken that the game itself is better off now.
Very much so.

Still, there's no reason for WotC to do a sort of yo-yo of "release really broken stuff" and then "nerf it so hard it's barely worth taking." Particularly when they could just pre-release the Errata on their forum so that folks like Yakk could point out "hey, your math is off."

Or maybe they could just hire some guy who can do math?

Kurald Galain
2010-03-02, 08:18 PM
The concept "feat", or the list of feats as a whole, is not a "named game element", it is a type of game element. An individual feat, such as Power Attack, is a named game element.

rayne_dragon
2010-03-02, 08:22 PM
Well, all of this stuff affects my character... I hope my DM lets me respec a little bit.

That said, I still think the update is alright. I'm happy to see WotC making a good effort to keep the game balanced, even if it mucked up my character. =D

Katana_Geldar
2010-03-02, 08:45 PM
Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but I could not help but notice the Martial Power 2 background Camp Follower.

:eek:

Okay...anyone else like me a little surprised who know what this euphemism actually is?

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-02, 08:46 PM
SweetRein, even after carefully re-reading your posts several times I still haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to say. :smallconfused:

DSCrankshaw
2010-03-02, 08:49 PM
Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but I could not help but notice the Martial Power 2 background Camp Follower.

:eek:

Okay...anyone else like me a little surprised who know what this euphemism actually is?

While it's often used in the way you're thinking, it has a broader definition.

rayne_dragon
2010-03-02, 08:50 PM
Also, anyone notice they seem to have missed spell focus? Or did I just miss it?


Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but I could not help but notice the Martial Power 2 background Camp Follower.

:eek:

Okay...anyone else like me a little surprised who know what this euphemism actually is?

It's not so surprising; you gotta be born somehow.

Reinboom
2010-03-02, 08:51 PM
The concept "feat", or the list of feats as a whole, is not a "named game element", it is a type of game element. An individual feat, such as Power Attack, is a named game element.

I am not aware of any place in the books where they are declared as a type of game element. :smallconfused:


SweetRein, even after carefully re-reading your posts several times I still haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to say. :smallconfused:

That Wizards should word their errata better.

Nai_Calus
2010-03-02, 09:06 PM
Even WotC can't spell Corellon right, apparently. :smallsigh:

I'm getting tired of how much errata there is to everything at this point. It makes getting any of the physical splatbooks seem utterly worthless. Hell, by now the PHB feels halfway worthless due to rules changes. It's annoying. I mean, yeah, it's nice that it's not all just languishing, but at this point it's like... Why bother with the books?

My CB is out of date(I've got Dec '09 update), did they ever fix the issues with the Chosen ED and Corellon's High Arcana Utility? By which I mean that the DP Chosen ED that's limited to Divine only isn't in CB(If I disable FRPG as a source, it vanishes entirely), and the FRPG version of High Arcana isn't either(Not that I'm sad, it's god-awful and should never have been released as written). And will they ever errata one or both issues if the way it's been in CB is intended for people without DDI?

Runestar
2010-03-02, 09:11 PM
You people don't know a good thing when you have it. I have been waiting for tome of battle errata for like forever. :smallfrown:

What I would give for the degree of support for 3e...

Asbestos
2010-03-02, 09:36 PM
So how many Rangers and Barbarians are gonna freak out from the changes?

Only the ones in it for the cheese.

BobTheDog
2010-03-02, 09:37 PM
While I agree that having constant updates is a good thing, I also think that at this point the printed books are pretty much useless. Way back when, I got the errata (1st or 2nd version) and underlined all relevant parts of the books so that, when using them without DDI around, I could see what had changed and lookup my printed copy. But now it's 90 pages long!

I just wish they'd start releasing some updated books... Even if just the "big ones" (PHB, DMG, MM)... They might even make all doomsayers happy and put a .X in there, to start the 4.5/5e predictions going (faster/harder). :smallbiggrin:

rayne_dragon
2010-03-02, 10:06 PM
I think we'll see a rerelease of the core books in a year or so when WotC finally decides they're happy with the rules and that they won't be needed to errata it much further. On the other hand, they might not for fear of all the people who would call "cash grab" on them.

Zaq
2010-03-03, 02:22 AM
I very much like that Spirit Talker now allows you to use your spirit-based opportunity power at will. Now it's slightly more than just a burned prereq for the feat that gives you a healing power 1/encounter. Oddly, though, the character builder still doesn't let me choose the at-will powers from Primal Power, despite the reading of the feat itself changing. And yes, I did update. Anyone else notice this?

Asbestos
2010-03-03, 03:01 AM
I think we'll see a rerelease of the core books in a year or so when WotC finally decides they're happy with the rules and that they won't be needed to errata it much further. On the other hand, they might not for fear of all the people who would call "cash grab" on them.

Are the 3 original books still in print? Yes.
Would it be difficult to go and update the books and then continue printing them? More so than you'd think.

Telok
2010-03-03, 03:42 AM
Some bonuses are untyped. Bonuses that have
no type add together. However, if you gain multiple
untyped bonuses from the same named game element
(a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like),
only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise.
For example, if you spend an action point and
can see two warlords who have the Tactical Presence
class feature, you gain the bonus to attack rolls from
only one of the warlords, whichever one provides the
higher bonus.

This is the bonuses errata from the PDF.

My reading is that two untyped bonuses from the same "named game element" won't stack. So two feats that apply untyped bonuses won't stack, or two powers that apply untyped bonuses won't stack. But feats that apply one untyped bonus and one feat bonus will stack, and powers that give a power bonus and an untyped bonus will stack. Also, the untyped power and feat bonuses would stack.

For example the feats Against All Odds and Two Weapon Fighting both give an untyped damage bonus. You would get the TWF damage bonus on your main hand weapon attacks, and you would only get the Odds damage to your offhand weapon attacks when you are adjacent to 3+ enemies.

That's my reading of it.

Personally I'm of the belief that there is so much errata out now, and so many of the books are just lists of powers, feats, and items, that it's not worth buying any more books. There's just too much crap and it goes out of date so fast that buying hardcopy is pointless. Buying a character builder update once every six months is much better than buying books that need errata immediately on publishing and keep getting more every month. One of the big points of 4e was that it was much simpler than 3.5, I'm not sure that's true any more.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-03, 03:50 AM
While I agree that having constant updates is a good thing, I also think that at this point the printed books are pretty much useless.
The solution is to print the errata on sticker paper, and paste it over your books.

At any rate, nearly all of the errata to the splatbooks is to powers and items you are not all that likely to encounter en masse unless you take your builds from the charop boards, and that your players are unlikely to abuse. So all of this can essentially be ignored without impacting the average player group, except in RPGA of course. These are all the obscure combos that are the inevitable result of exception-based design.

It's the large amounts of errata to the core rules in the PHB and DMG that bothers me. This I find indicative of sloppy playtesting.

Totally Guy
2010-03-03, 04:11 AM
Personally I'm of the belief that there is so much errata out now, and so many of the books are just lists of powers, feats, and items, that it's not worth buying any more books. There's just too much crap and it goes out of date so fast that buying hardcopy is pointless. Buying a character builder update once every six months is much better than buying books that need errata immediately on publishing and keep getting more every month.

Seems to be true. And because I use a mac that second option is closed to me. I guess I'll have to play some other game.:smallsigh:

tcrudisi
2010-03-03, 05:02 AM
My reading is that two untyped bonuses from the same "named game element" won't stack. So two feats that apply untyped bonuses won't stack, or two powers that apply untyped bonuses won't stack. But feats that apply one untyped bonus and one feat bonus will stack, and powers that give a power bonus and an untyped bonus will stack. Also, the untyped power and feat bonuses would stack.

For example the feats Against All Odds and Two Weapon Fighting both give an untyped damage bonus. You would get the TWF damage bonus on your main hand weapon attacks, and you would only get the Odds damage to your offhand weapon attacks when you are adjacent to 3+ enemies.

That's my reading of it.

At least on this forum, that's generally accepted as an incorrect reading. The example given, in my eyes, doesn't say that TWF and Against All Odds won't stack. It says that TWF and TWF won't stack.

I'm curious as to what the D&D 4e boards say, but I can't access them. I have two profiles, one of which I use to download the char builder and the other which I use to post on the forums. No matter how many times I log out of the former, it refuses to let me leave a page that requires me to fill in my personal information, which I refuse to do since I've already done that with my other profile. They don't need my information twice. As such, it won't let me log into my forum profile, and it's getting very, very annoying.


Personally I'm of the belief that there is so much errata out now, and so many of the books are just lists of powers, feats, and items, that it's not worth buying any more books. There's just too much crap and it goes out of date so fast that buying hardcopy is pointless. Buying a character builder update once every six months is much better than buying books that need errata immediately on publishing and keep getting more every month. One of the big points of 4e was that it was much simpler than 3.5, I'm not sure that's true any more.

Hmm... let's look at some of the books, shall we?

FRCG: not even 1/2 a page of updates.
FRPG: 2 1/2 pages of updates
Draconomicon, Chromatic Dragons: less than 1 1/2 pages of updates
Martial Power: 2 1/2 pages of updates
Manual of the Planes: less than 1 page of updates
Open Grave: less than 1 page of updates
PHB2: less than 5 pages of updates
Arcane Power: slightly more than 5 pages of updates
MM2: 2 pages of updates
EPG: barely more than 2 pages of updates
ECG: one paragraph of updates
AV2: 3 pages of updates
DMG2: less than 1 page of updates
Divine Power: 3 pages of updates
Primal Power: 1 1/2 pages of updates
Draconomicon, Metallic Dragons: 1 page of updates
Plane Below: 1 paragraph of updates
PHB Races, Dragonborn: 1/2 page of updates

When you consider how they do their updates, ie - telling you their reasoning for changing them, then telling you how to fix them, and then giving the proper power-card or whatever... it means that one update is a lot bigger than if they were to just reprint the card. So even 5 pages of updates might be closer to 3 if they were to just reprint it. However, as you can see from above, most of the books are still solid.

Yes, they've mostly fixed the core books, but so what? I'm happy about that. As for the supplement books? They've gotten hit with the least errata, as demonstrated above, so buying those are not hard to fix in the book. It's certainly not as though 1 page is a lot of errata for a 288 page book (Draconomicon, Metallic Dragons).

Sophismata
2010-03-03, 07:05 AM
My reading is that two untyped bonuses from the same "named game element" won't stack. So two feats that apply untyped bonuses won't stack, or two powers that apply untyped bonuses won't stack. But feats that apply one untyped bonus and one feat bonus will stack, and powers that give a power bonus and an untyped bonus will stack. Also, the untyped power and feat bonuses would stack.

That reading is incorrect. Note the indefinite article used when WotC clarify the term 'game element'. The result is fairly plain, unless you're deliberately looking for ambiguity.

Reinboom
2010-03-03, 07:16 AM
\That's my reading of it.

Thank you for making me look less insane.


That reading is incorrect. Note the indefinite article used when WotC clarify the term 'game element'. The result is fairly plain, unless you're deliberately looking for ambiguity.

I'm not sure how "one feat", "one power", helps much.

Also, I doubt most of the people who find this interpretation are deliberately looking for ambiguity. So far, it's always seem to be "wait.. what? RAGE!"

Telok
2010-03-03, 07:17 AM
At least on this forum, that's generally accepted as an incorrect reading. The example given, in my eyes, doesn't say that TWF and Against All Odds won't stack. It says that TWF and TWF won't stack.


If you're right then they could have used much clearer wording. A simple "Bonuses from the same feat, power, or class feature cannot stack. Use the higher of the two bonuses." would have done nicely and avoided all the confusion.

I think they need to clear up exactly what a "named game element" is. Is it all feats, or just feats with the same name?

Reinboom
2010-03-03, 07:19 AM
If you're right then they could have used much clearer wording. A simple "Bonuses from the same feat, power, or class feature cannot stack. Use the higher of the two bonuses." would have done nicely and avoided all the confusion.

I think they need to clear up exactly what a "named game element" is. Is it all feats, or just feats with the same name?

It seems to be supposed to be any piece of game information that is named separated by any piece of game information sharing the same name only. So feat X and feat Y stack, but feat X and feat X do not.

This is the same clarification I trumpeted would be needed in the first two pages.

Optimystik
2010-03-03, 07:46 AM
If two players both have the same class feature (or power, or feat) that grants an untyped bonus to allies (or penalty to enemies) they can't stack.

Seems fairly straightfoward.

I have to agree, I don't see what all the fuss is about.


You people don't know a good thing when you have it. I have been waiting for tome of battle errata for like forever. :smallfrown:

What I would give for the degree of support for 3e...

I wouldn't hold my breath - 4e is New and Shiny, whereas 3.5 is a done deal.
ToB is practically a 4e book anyway :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2010-03-03, 08:14 AM
If you're right then they could have used much clearer wording. A simple "Bonuses from the same feat, power, or class feature cannot stack. Use the higher of the two bonuses." would have done nicely and avoided all the confusion.

The problem with that is that it has an obvious loophole: suppose character A has a feat that gives the entire group +2 to perception, and character B has the same feat. You can then use the arguable loophole that it's not the same feat: A's feat is not B's feat.

Or, similarly, suppose character A has an item that gives him +1 to hit. If he buys another version of this item, he has two bonuses from two different items (the one in his left hand, and the one in his right hand). Clearly this is the same kind of item, but not the same item.

I realize that using the loophole in this fashion is cheesy; nevertheless your wording is subject to multiple interpretations.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-03, 08:21 AM
I realize that using the loophole in this fashion is cheesy; nevertheless your wording is subject to multiple interpretations.

Certainly more-so than the original piece of Errata.

As far as I can see, you just wanted it to be confusing, Sweetrein. I doubt you were actually confused about it for a second. Not that it matters. :smallsmile:

As for me, I buy any non-setting-specific book and enjoy a good flip through, then get all my character sheet stuff from the Character Builder anyway, so the minutae really don't matter too much. I like that they do consider it though.

Hell, I remember trying out the old form of Bloodclaw weapons the very day after they errata'd it. Man, it was amusing but I really, really saw the reasoning behind it.

(But oh, that minotaur barbarian had fun for a day!)

deathpigeon
2010-03-03, 11:36 AM
Of the three classes WotC errata'd the extra damage class features of, I think warlocks would be the least happy because it restricts them to extradamaging only one cursed enemy each turn.

Artanis
2010-03-03, 11:40 AM
Hmm...what about replacing "game element" with "source", getting rid of the little list, and fiddling with the Warlord example a bit? So it'd look something like this*:

"However, if you gain multiple untyped bonuses from the same named source, only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise. For example, if you spend an action point and can see two Warlords who have the Tactical Presence class feature, you only get the bonus to attack rolls from the instance of Tactical Presence that provides the larger bonus, not both of them."

Of course, knowing my track record, I'm no doubt missing something obvious here that instantly shoots this down :smalltongue:



*I'm no legalese expert, so obviously this'd need improvement - especially the example - but hopefully it shows the gist of what I'm aiming for.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-03, 11:50 AM
Hmm...what about replacing "game element" with "source", getting rid of the little list, and fiddling with the Warlord example a bit?

"A bonus from a feat, power, or item never stacks with itself. Furthermore, a bonus from a feat or power does not stack with the bonus from an identically-named feat or power possessed by a different character. Finally, a bonus from an item does not stack with the bonus from an identically-named item, regardless of who possesses or uses it."

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-03, 12:04 PM
"A bonus from a feat, power, or item never stacks with itself. Furthermore, a bonus from a feat or power does not stack with the bonus from an identically-named feat or power possessed by a different character. Finally, a bonus from an item does not stack with the bonus from an identically-named item, regardless of who possesses or uses it."

Class Feature. Racial bonus. Divine Boon?

Artanis
2010-03-03, 12:15 PM
Class Feature. Racial bonus. Divine Boon?

Exactly. There's too many sources of untyped bonuses to list, and there's probably going to be more and more as time goes on. They need some sort of generic term.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-03, 12:18 PM
Class Feature. Racial bonus. Divine Boon?

Get me a job at WOTC and I'll work on it :smallbiggrin:

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-03, 02:00 PM
{Scrubbed}

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-03, 02:38 PM
I still suspect the misreading of the Errata is a very tiny portion of the overall population.

Still, if it is persistant, all it'll take is for a FAQ that fully details what a Game Element is. Considering that the actual space in the book the Errata is supposed to fit in is already a footnote of sorts, it's not like they had space to add a whole new definitional section.

Re: Lots of Errata
While I am frustrated that the physical books are (by and large) nigh unusable thanks to all this Errata, I still am glad they did it. The fact that DDI seamlessly incorporates the Errata as it is published minimizes the downside a great deal - and the books are still good for all the fluff they incorporate.

I trust that, when it comes time to re-print the books, they'll release a new "edition" that incorporates all the Errata. Unlike the 3.5 debacle, there will not be any need to re-buy all the books just to play the game - but if you'd like to spend the extra money on an updated book, you are free to do so.

Mando Knight
2010-03-03, 02:51 PM
I think they need to clear up exactly what a "named game element" is. Is it all feats, or just feats with the same name?

Named Game Element means exactly what it says (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin). It's a game element with a name. Feats, powers, divine boons, whatever. If it's an element that grants an untyped mechanical bonus to something in the game and it has a name, then it's a Named Game Element.

Yakk
2010-03-03, 03:10 PM
Meh, barring monsters and magic items, from the text of a power I suspect I could guess it had errata or not.

They are pretty systematic at the kind of thing they are fixing.

Master_Rahl22
2010-03-04, 03:59 PM
I think they went overboard with nerfing Blood Pulse, but most of the rest of the changes I'm happy with. The main thing I don't like is making the Solitaires Daily powers. I am 0% likely to want an item that is completely useless except for 1 turn 1/day, and uses up one of my chances to use other items. They were good, fun, decent items as Encounter powers, and useless as Dailys. I'm sure I'm not the only person who looks for good/usable Encounter powers or properties on items over Daily powers, and this change makes me feel like they're trying to get rid of all Encounter powers on items.

Yakk
2010-03-04, 04:13 PM
Really, encounter powers on dailies should use up your daily magic item use the first time you use it.

Blackfang108
2010-03-04, 04:14 PM
Really, encounter powers on dailies should use up your daily magic item use the first time you use it.

Um...

Huh?

Kurald Galain
2010-03-04, 04:23 PM
They were good, fun, decent items as Encounter powers, and useless as Dailys. I'm sure I'm not the only person who looks for good/usable Encounter powers or properties on items over Daily powers, and this change makes me feel like they're trying to get rid of all Encounter powers on items.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the big deal was about Solitaires. Once per encounter, when you roll a crit, you may roll a saving throw. It's nice and all that but not a big deal, and you aren't that likely to roll a crit when you need it (and if you have to save vs. stun, of course you can't roll a crit).

It has been true since the first Adventurer's Vault that getting good properties and encounter powers on your items is much more useful than item dailies. This is because you can use them when you want and need; whereas all item dailies are in direct competition with one another. There are a handful of really good item dailies (e.g. Staff of the Warmage) and literally hundreds of mediocre ones. As soon as you have two or three of the former, in one fell swoop all of the latter become useless to your character.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 04:24 PM
Um...

Huh?
I believe he meant "encounter powers on magic items" - which I agree, actually.

Encounter Items are really powerful because they (1) can be used multiple times per day and (2) don't use up Daily Item Uses. However, the powers are not (by and large) strong enough to actually be worthwhile as Dailies - yet they are too strong to be used strictly as Encounters.

Next 4e game I run, I may use that rule.

Yakk, would you give an additional DIU to the PCs as well?

Kurald Galain
2010-03-04, 05:21 PM
Musing about it, I find that the "magic item daily usages" are really a kludge. The main thing they're trying to prevent is that a character uses the Item Daily from his magical boots, and then switches boots for the next encounter to do it again.

So what I find a more elegant solution is this: you may use as many "item dailies" as you want, but a magic item only works for you if you have worn it continuously since your last extended rest (or wielded, and you may sheathe one or two weapons and still have them count, because otherwise you'd look silly in a tavern).

Assume that during an extended rest you aren't sleeping all the time, but you spend some time practicing with your weapons, attuning your amulet, or strapping in your armor so it fits comfortably. It's less bookkeeping this way and it doesn't strike me as overpowered.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 05:42 PM
Musing about it, I find that the "magic item daily usages" are really a kludge. The main thing they're trying to prevent is that a character uses the Item Daily from his magical boots, and then switches boots for the next encounter to do it again.

So what I find a more elegant solution is this: you may use as many "item dailies" as you want, but a magic item only works for you if you have worn it continuously since your last extended rest (or wielded, and you may sheathe one or two weapons and still have them count, because otherwise you'd look silly in a tavern).

Assume that during an extended rest you aren't sleeping all the time, but you spend some time practicing with your weapons, attuning your amulet, or strapping in your armor so it fits comfortably. It's less bookkeeping this way and it doesn't strike me as overpowered.
But what about when someone finds a new magical item? They can't use Sting until they've slept with it? :smallconfused:

DIU may be a kludge, but it's not that bad of one. In addition to your point, it also disincentives the collection of a Christmas Tree of gear - which is why Encounter Items occupy an awkward space in 4e.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-04, 05:57 PM
DIU may be a kludge, but it's not that bad of one. In addition to your point, it also disincentives the collection of a Christmas Tree of gear - which is why Encounter Items occupy an awkward space in 4e.
Admittedly my approach is also a kludge. But I don't think that DIU really does much against the christmas tree effect; even without item encounter powers, there are just too many item properties.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 06:54 PM
Admittedly my approach is also a kludge. But I don't think that DIU really does much against the christmas tree effect; even without item encounter powers, there are just too many item properties.
By and large, I haven't found Item Properties overwhelming in the same way that Encounter Powers are. They're usually fairly narrow and/or weak - hardly enough incentive to keep a huge stack of them around "just in case."

Tehnar
2010-03-04, 07:38 PM
Various resistance bonuses on items, bonuses to skills, teleport speeds, to push/pull/slide powers, saving throws,....

Personally I find that for any melee character Iron Armbands of Power and Acrobat boots are probably top of the list, before any item encounter powers. Dailies are a distant third.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 07:50 PM
Various resistance bonuses on items, bonuses to skills, teleport speeds, to push/pull/slide powers, saving throws,....

Personally I find that for any melee character Iron Armbands of Power and Acrobat boots are probably top of the list, before any item encounter powers. Dailies are a distant third.
But how much of that can you really stack on at a time?

I mean, Resistances don't "stack" so it's not like you'll end up with Resist 20 (all) any time soon. Skill Bonuses are almost always Item Bonuses and therefore they don't stack either. And so on.

Can you throw a particular build in front of me? I'll admit that Acrobat Boots do basically nullify any prone-making attacks, but they're not going to be able to wear any other kind of boot while they have it on (like Catstep - which is handy when fighting around pits!) and Iron Armbands are +4 levels over Armbands of Mighty Striking; not that game breaking.

...yeah, I know that Iron Armbands are super-good for multi-attackers, but multi-attackers are already super good. I think it's probably a bad idea for an item, but again, not broken.