PDA

View Full Version : 4E - Update/Errata out - How Long Until 4.5?



Person_Man
2008-06-12, 01:20 PM
Title of the thread says it all. The first 4E errata is out (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates), though they're calling it an "update."

1) I thought they were eliminating this and replacing it with automatic electronic updates?

2) I was also under the impression that 4E was supposed to avoid the level of rules complexity that lead to arguments/craziness that required errata/updates, and that the core books were going to be thoroughly play tested and edited?

3) The rules as written that WotC published one week ago are wrong, confusing, or just misprinted in several places. ONE WEEK. WTF? I could understand an update after a year or two, when they had received more feedback from players and churned out a few dozen supplements. But one week?

4) It's my prediction that within a month, they'll find dozens of other necessary changes to the core books. (For example, the ability to multi-class into Ranger). This will necessitate a printing a 4.5 edition (or at least "4.1: Sorry about the copy editing mistakes.") Otherwise people who use the WotC website and update won't be able to play the game with new players who just walk into a store and buy the book but don't spend hours on the internet researching rules and/or reading forums.

I haven't bought the physical 4E books yet. This is why.

I will though. I love D&D - it's been my hobby for 20 years. Even if I have qualms about specifics, I'm sure I'll end up playing 4E from time to time, and I want to support the product. But WotC isn't really encouraging me to be an "early adopter" of their product.

Discuss.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-12, 01:29 PM
.. Isn't this an electronic update? I'm not sure what you mean by your first point.

Also, you can't honestly expect for them not to put out erratas... I mean... I'm glad its out so soon.

Tengu
2008-06-12, 01:29 PM
Eh, just some minor clarifications. Nothing really worth mentioning if you ask me.

Valairn
2008-06-12, 01:34 PM
Title of the thread says it all. The first 4E errata is out (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates), though they're calling it an "update."

1) I thought they were eliminating this and replacing it with automatic electronic updates?


Isn't that exactly what this is? Also the "automatic" updates are suppossed to be a part of DnD insider, which is not finished yet. So this is their current method of delivering fixes.



2) I was also under the impression that 4E was supposed to avoid the level of rules complexity that lead to arguments/craziness that required errata/updates, and that the core books were going to be thoroughly play tested and edited?


No matter how many times you go over something, you are going to miss something. After going over these, it seems clear that their is clarification at the nature of what certain effects should be, normally to eliminate vagueness. Something completely understandable. It hardly has anything to do with complexity.



3) The rules as written that WotC published one week ago are wrong, confusing, or just misprinted in several places. ONE WEEK. WTF? I could understand an update after a year or two, when they had received more feedback from players and churned out a few dozen supplements. But one week?


Of course one could turn that around and say, it only took them a week to fix these? Not bad at all. Much better than questions about 3.5 that have never been answered or corrected for Core. Also once a book goes to print, they can't really turn around and stop the process, that would be very expensive and a waste. Instead they have quickly put out fixes to issues that they couldn't correct while the book was in printing and shipping and now everyone can enjoy clarified rules, without having to wait YEARS for it.



4) It's my prediction that within a month, they'll find dozens of other necessary changes to the core books. (For example, the ability to multi-class into Ranger). This will necessitate a printing a 4.5 edition (or at least "4.1: Sorry about the copy editing mistakes.") Otherwise people who use the WotC website and update won't be able to play the game with new players who just walk into a store and buy the book but don't spend hours on the internet researching rules and/or reading forums.


Honestly, this is silly. 4.5 will never be produced. First of all, 4.0 does not have the glaring and ridiculous issues that 3.0 does. Secondly, when 3.5 came out the internet wasn't nearly as all pervasive as it is for most gamers today. 3.5 was necessary, you can tell because I know of almost no one that uses the 3.0 rule set. The best method at the time for fixing things was distribution by printing, so that's what they did. This is different, the times have actually changed.

My 2 cents.

Armoury99
2008-06-12, 01:38 PM
Wow, thats... pretty shoddy, actually. I guess that the 'electronic updates' will kick in when D&Dinsider eventuallygoes live with a rules database - whenever that is. I had assumed that the new 'digital revolution in gaming' would have been launched when the books were. Apparently not. That's pretty shoddy too, come to think of it.

As is just about the entire approach to 4e from WotC, in my opinion. The game itself I'm still trying to keep an open mind about, but the more I read the less happy I am. This doesn't help.

Valairn
2008-06-12, 01:45 PM
Wow, thats... pretty shoddy, actually. I guess that the 'electronic updates' will kick in when D&Dinsider eventuallygoes live with a rules database - whenever that is. I had assumed that the new 'digital revolution in gaming' would have been launched when the books were. Apparently not. That's pretty shoddy too, come to think of it.

As is just about the entire approach to 4e from WotC, in my opinion. The game itself I'm still trying to keep an open mind about, but the more I read the less happy I am. This doesn't help.

Software takes time to develop, especially for such a large undertaking. DnD Insider is huge, its a gigantic rules database that must be able to implement updates to the rules easily, and adapt to the home brewing effect that DnD comes with naturally, which wizards vowed to support. In fact, I would much rather wait for a piece of software until its right, than get something that isn't. It wouldn't look good on wizards at all if they came out with a 3/5th done piece of software. Think how many complaints there would be then, there is already enough crying going on and that's just about people's personal gaming tastes. Imagine producing software that has actual issues with it, Wizards would never hear the end of it. Not a good plan, they will release the thing when its done and not a moment sooner.

To repeat myself, only having to wait a week for errata FRIGGIN RULES. Additionally, the errata is free, one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

marjan
2008-06-12, 02:07 PM
Well, my thoughts have already been said here so I'll mostly just quote:

I'm a bit of concerned because


The rules as written that WotC published one week ago are wrong, confusing, or just misprinted in several places. ONE WEEK.

though good thing is that these are


just some minor clarifications. Nothing really worth mentioning if you ask me.

so


only having to wait a week for errata FRIGGIN RULES.

With a little less excitement than Valairn, probably.:smalltongue:

AKA_Bait
2008-06-12, 02:37 PM
Humm, must agree with pretty much everyone. What?

On one hand I'm dissapointed that the copy editing of the books was bad enough to need most of these updates within a week. Frankly though, given WotC's history, I pretty much expected the books to be rife with those kinds of errors.

On the other hand, I wish they had made some more useful corrections. At this point there are at least two powers that I'm aware of that need revision. Blade Cascade and Rain of Blows. Neither of those two have been addressed. I would have liked to see WotC making the substantive changes it needs to quickly.

On the one foot, I'm ticked about the monster adjustments. Not because I'm in love with any of the monster statistics, but because they are changing things like the number of damage dice and bonuses being used in particular critters. I'm not happy about this since I've spent a while already trying to figure out why there appear to be inconsistancies on these points in design in the MM. Also because the base damage of these creatues is not something I want to need to worry about errata for. It sucks back out a signifigant portion of the time I expected to save because of the new and easier encounter/monster design if I need to go back and check to see if their damage is still the same.

On the other foot, I'm glad they are fixing the problems early. I hope that second print run they ordered includes corrected masters...

nagora
2008-06-12, 02:44 PM
Software takes time to develop, especially for such a large undertaking. DnD Insider is huge, its a gigantic rules database that must be able to implement updates to the rules easily, and adapt to the home brewing effect that DnD comes with naturally, which wizards vowed to support. In fact, I would much rather wait for a piece of software until its right, than get something that isn't. It wouldn't look good on wizards at all if they came out with a 3/5th done piece of software. Think how many complaints there would be then, there is already enough crying going on and that's just about people's personal gaming tastes. Imagine producing software that has actual issues with it, Wizards would never hear the end of it. Not a good plan, they will release the thing when its done and not a moment sooner.
But they didn't, apparently. They released a product which a single week's playtesting has shown needs errata. Why didn't WotC do that playtesting? If these are such minor issues, does that mean that no one even proofread the rules (a sadly common thing in RPG publishing, it's not specifically a dig at WotC)?

In fact, this does in fact smack of exactly the software model we've all come to dispise over the last few decades: "release it now and get a load of beta testing from chumps who will actually pay for the privilege of doing our work for us; we'll fix it later and make a song and dance about how we respond quickly to customer feedback about our broken product, aren't we great?" Classic Microsoft!

marjan
2008-06-12, 02:53 PM
In fact, this does in fact smack of exactly the software model we've all come to dispise over the last few decades: "release it now and get a load of beta testing from chumps who will actually pay for the privilege of doing our work for us; we'll fix it later and make a song and dance about how we respond quickly to customer feedback about our broken product, aren't we great?" Classic Microsoft!

If it will make you feel any better, that is not just the case with Microsoft. ArenaNet also has this same approach - pay to do our work for us.

Draz74
2008-06-12, 02:59 PM
So they're emulating Microsoft in the way they put out their books, but emulating Blizzard Entertainment (i.e., wait to release it until it's actually ready and high-quality, even if it means we miss a dozen deadlines that we promised you) in the way they're releasing D&D Insider.

Interesting hybrid of strategies.

Well, as long as errata are inevitably needed, I'd just as soon have them release them ASAP. And I hope, even once D&DI is working, that they keep releasing old-fashioned errata like this for the sake of those who try to play just out of the books. But I hope the promised "automatic electronic updates" mean that, once D&DI is working, the PDF version of the core rulebooks there will just be edited to include the changes, rather than having the changes in a separate place you have to look up.

That is weird that they're bothering with errata for minor things like specific monster damage dice. On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised about them not yet doing anything to Blade Cascade or Rain of Blows. That's the kind of imbalance that they're infamous for not fixing; and in any case they probably want more than a week to determine just how big of a problem those imbalances are.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-12, 03:04 PM
On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised about them not yet doing anything to Blade Cascade or Rain of Blows. That's the kind of imbalance that they're infamous for not fixing; and in any case they probably want more than a week to determine just how big of a problem those imbalances are.

Honestly, I don't know how much more they would need. Blade Cascade was clearly broken from the first time I read it, it didn't matter that someone else came along to optimize the destruction. That's the kind of mechanic they should have learned their lesson about from the 1d2 crusader.

The issue with Rain of Blows for me is not just a balance thing, it's a clarity thing. It's clearly meant to be one way. Reading it though, there are 4 reasonable interpretations as to what way that is, exactly.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-12, 03:31 PM
2) I was also under the impression that 4E was supposed to avoid the level of rules complexity that lead to arguments/craziness that required errata/updates, and that the core books were going to be thoroughly play tested and edited?

Yes, that's totally realistic and feasible, and not empty marketing hype at all.

wtf?

The changes are minor and largely stylistic, the issues clarified weren't that confusing to begin with, and the corrections are not life-threatening. The sky is not, in fact, falling.

Many far better games (like Mongoose's RuneQuest and Decipher's The Lord of the Rings) were actually published with glaring errors, bad editing (warhorses have a Defence and Movement of 'x'?), or flawed core mechanics (MRQ's opposed tests), and the updates and corrections were far longer in the coming.

Now, what they really need to fix is the bad formatting. Information is in the wrong places, and you don't form a solid picture of the rules immediately by just reading through the PHB in order. Rules relevant to powers (or even just an explanation of what [w] is) are not in the powers section, etc. Here's hoping a second printing will fix all that.

THAC0
2008-06-12, 03:33 PM
What is this week thing everyone is complaining about?

Yes, maybe the books were only released a week ago, but they went to press MONTHS ago. Printing takes time. Playtesting was continuing AFTER the books went to press. So yes, there is errata.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-12, 03:36 PM
Sloppy, if you ask me.

Yes, some of the things here are certainly worth mentioning. For instance, this upgrades the thief's pickpocket skill from worthless to powerful, and downgrades the warrior of the wild feat from one of the best multiclassing feats to a mediocre one.

I note there are a few things they haven't fixed yet, such as the fact that Warrior of the Wild and Sneak of Shadows don't actually allow you entry to any paragon paths, as written.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-06-12, 03:37 PM
Just read up on Blade Cascade and Rain of Blows. I don't really see the problem with Rain of Blows, can somebody explain?

AKA_Bait
2008-06-12, 03:37 PM
Yes, maybe the books were only released a week ago, but they went to press MONTHS ago. Printing takes time. Playtesting was continuing AFTER the books went to press. So yes, there is errata.

Copy editing does not need playtesters. Most of this errata should have been caught there.


The changes are minor and largely stylistic, the issues clarified weren't that confusing to begin with, and the corrections are not life-threatening. The sky is not, in fact, falling.

No one is saying that it is, but I'll admit to being annoyed by it. There is a substantial difference bettween the two. For example, I go shotgun shopping when the sky is falling...


Just read up on Blade Cascade and Rain of Blows. I don't really see the problem with Rain of Blows, can somebody explain?

There's a question as to how many attacks it actually lets you make. Some discussion here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83007).

E^G
2008-06-12, 03:43 PM
Of course one could turn that around and say, it only took them a week to fix these?

Some of the changes are important (including damage values in MM).
And there are a *lot* of them.

OP is correct, very shoddy work getting this thing out.

marjan
2008-06-12, 03:50 PM
For example, I go shotgun shopping when the sky is falling...


No need for that. When the sky falls, it will take 20d6 dmg and most likely die. If it doesn't you can just finish it with your knife, no need to waste the money.

nagora
2008-06-12, 04:03 PM
What is this week thing everyone is complaining about?

Yes, maybe the books were only released a week ago, but they went to press MONTHS ago. Printing takes time. Playtesting was continuing AFTER the books went to press. So yes, there is errata.

I would have thought that a normal workflow for a game would be:
Design->Test {repeat as required}
Design book layout
Typeset->Proofread {repeat as required}
Print.

Design and testing is the first step; proofreading, which would probably have caught most of these, still comes before printing. Printing is last.

This really isn't a specific WotC issue, but I am heartily sick of it in the hobby in general. If anyone has the resources to do it right, surely it's Haribo Hasbro.

Enlong
2008-06-12, 04:03 PM
So, I just printed out the changes. Should I just keep the pages in the books for reference, or should I write the new rules in?

(or is writing them in a bad idea in case they release eratta'd books, and I'll then need to replace the ones I have?)

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-12, 04:27 PM
Copy editing does not need playtesters. Most of this errata should have been caught there.
What, didn't you hear? They fired all their editors a year or two ago. At least, that's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for the state of some of their releases in 2007, Dragons of Faerun in particular. :smallmad:

nagora
2008-06-12, 04:43 PM
So, I just printed out the changes. Should I just keep the pages in the books for reference, or should I write the new rules in?

(or is writing them in a bad idea in case they release eratta'd books, and I'll then need to replace the ones I have?)

I'd stick them in the back of the book and pencil in a small "e" beside where the error is to remind you.

wakazashi.juice
2008-06-12, 04:53 PM
Look at the Monster Manual errata: What's the Hill Giant [Revision]? I don't see any revision listed under it... Looks like they're going to have to make an errata for the errata :smalltongue:

EDIT: Nevermind

Rachel Lorelei
2008-06-12, 05:11 PM
I'm amazed at how prompt errata is suddenly a bad thing. I'd have killed to have errata this quickly issued for, say, World of Darkness books! Issued now means they could've found the issues at absolutely any point after they sent it off to the printer, BTW.

While IDEALLY, games wouldn't need errata, the practical fact of the matter is that there isn't any large roleplaying game that hasn't. I mean, Reign of Steel has errata and a single person wrote it all! Some games might not have errata, but that doesn't mean they couldn't use it.

If WotC is going to be this prompt with errata as a way of avoiding a need for a 4.5E, I'm overjoyed. That will be really, really helpful. Anyone who suggests that the errata shouldn't have been necessary is theoretically light, but practically kidding themselves (or just hasn't ever looked at the industry).

Edit: Nagora, a game published by Haribo would be colorful and delicious.

Valairn
2008-06-12, 05:20 PM
but emulating Blizzard Entertainment (i.e., wait to release it until it's actually ready and high-quality, even if it means we miss a dozen deadlines that we promised you) in the way they're releasing D&D Insider.

Interesting hybrid of strategies.


I'd like to remind you Blizzard patches the crap out of there games. Errata is an almost identical concept.

Really yeah, in a perfect world errata wouldn't be needed. And we should all hope things are proof checked, but now that we are done talking about fantasy la la land in a far away universe where Cthulhu enjoys petting puppies and saving unicorns, we can come back to reality, where he in fact sleeps in Ry'leh. :smallbiggrin:

Inevitably, no matter how many people are working on any project, there are going to be mistakes. One person goes, "Oh yeah that looks fine." But didn't really read it cause he was busy with something the boss thought was more important. Happens all the freaking time. Take if from a bureaucracy pro.

So I think putting out errata quickly is a good thing. I'd rather have quick errata than no errata.

Enlong
2008-06-12, 06:07 PM
I'd stick them in the back of the book and pencil in a small "e" beside where the error is to remind you.
Hm... that's a good idea... Though I think I'll wait a little bit to see if WotC prints errata'd books. If they're going to, I'll just keep my books in as good condition as possible and exchange when the new ones are out. If they aren't going to, I'll do what you said.
And I'm with some of the other people in here, swift, free errata is better then late, costly, or no errata at all.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-12, 06:23 PM
I'm amazed at how prompt errata is suddenly a bad thing.

It's not, but it does mean that the people who have waited a few weeks rather than ordering in advance will receive the second print, which assumedly has the errors fixed. Karma does not approve.

But they should send out stickers with the errata on it, because there's quite a lot of details that changed.

JaxGaret
2008-06-12, 06:27 PM
While the sheer amount of items errata'd in this update is annoying, it is good that it was released sooner rather than later.

Enlong
2008-06-12, 06:28 PM
It's not, but it does mean that the people who have waited a few weeks rather than ordering in advance will receive the second print, which assumedly has the errors fixed. Karma does not approve.

But they should send out stickers with the errata on it, because there's quite a lot of details that changed.

Actually, stickers would work well. The changes are to wording for the most part, and to values in the MM, so stickers might work well.

So there is going to be a reprint? Officially, I mean? If so, then I suppose I can just exchange my copies of the books for the new ones. I saved the receipt, after all.

Reinboom
2008-06-12, 06:30 PM
Most of these changes are minor, and really, they don't effect the difference between groups much. Nothing that will be warrant a 4.5e...


Hm... that's a good idea... Though I think I'll wait a little bit to see if WotC prints errata'd books. If they're going to, I'll just keep my books in as good condition as possible and exchange when the new ones are out. If they aren't going to, I'll do what you said.
And I'm with some of the other people in here, swift, free errata is better then late, costly, or no errata at all.

You wouldn't try to keep them in great condition if there wasn't a period of time to see if there will be a new book set? The first thing I did to my books was bookcovers...

Enlong
2008-06-12, 06:39 PM
Most of these changes are minor, and really, they don't effect the difference between groups much. Nothing that will be warrant a 4.5e...



You wouldn't try to keep them in great condition if there wasn't a period of time to see if there will be a new book set? The first thing I did to my books was bookcovers...

No... that's not what I meant.

I am trying to keep them in good condition, (though I don't exactly have bookcovers to give them, I am keeping from dropping them or mistreating them in any way other then reading them) but what I meant was that I'm going to keep them in especially good condition now there's a possibility of a re-print, 'cause I don't know my store's return policy for this.

Starsinger
2008-06-12, 08:43 PM
I recommend writing errata down on index cards and paper clipping the card to the relevant page.

Reinboom
2008-06-12, 08:50 PM
No... that's not what I meant.

I am trying to keep them in good condition, (though I don't exactly have bookcovers to give them, I am keeping from dropping them or mistreating them in any way other then reading them) but what I meant was that I'm going to keep them in especially good condition now there's a possibility of a re-print, 'cause I don't know my store's return policy for this.

Go to your local grocer. Ask for paper bags.
Make paper bag book covers. They are incredibly effective, and for your case, I would say they would be a better choice than going out and putting a flower print cloth bookcover that I put on mine. :smalltongue:

mikethepoor
2008-06-12, 08:52 PM
One of the updates worries me a little, the change in relevant ability score for the Nature skill. Now, instead of INT, it's WIS. I mean, this is likely what it should have been in the first place; I'm just curious as to how it wasn't caught before the books went to press.

The rest of the stuff is clarification, and for the most part I'm not concerned.

JaxGaret
2008-06-12, 08:52 PM
I totally spilled greasy chinese food brown sauce on Bait's books the day after he got them.

And not a small amount of it, either.

Reinboom
2008-06-12, 08:53 PM
One of the updates worries me a little, the change in relevant ability score for the Nature skill. Now, instead of INT, it's WIS. I mean, this is likely what it should have been in the first place; I'm just curious as to how it wasn't caught before the books went to press.

The rest of the stuff is clarification, and for the most part I'm not concerned.

I didn't even notice that.
That is rather... very irking.


I totally spilled greasy chinese food brown sauce on Bait's books the day after he got them.

And not a small amount of it, either.

I would've loved/still love to see someone licking food off a 4e book... or any D&D book, for that matter...

marjan
2008-06-12, 08:54 PM
One of the updates worries me a little, the change in relevant ability score for the Nature skill. Now, instead of INT, it's WIS. I mean, this is likely what it should have been in the first place; I'm just curious as to how it wasn't caught before the books went to press.

The rest of the stuff is clarification, and for the most part I'm not concerned.

Well, maybe we should be concerned, since there are still some unclear things.

Little_Rudo
2008-06-12, 09:01 PM
The Nature-related ability error is in the Wizard stat block; in the Skill section, it's very clearly Nature (Wisdom). An annoying error, sure, but not too bad.

THAC0
2008-06-12, 09:20 PM
Well, maybe we should be concerned, since there are still some unclear things.

How long has 3.5 been out, and there are still broken/unclear things?

I'll cut 4.e a little slack there, myself. :smallwink:

JaxGaret
2008-06-12, 09:20 PM
I would've loved/still love to see someone licking food off a 4e book... or any D&D book, for that matter...

Sorry to disappoint, but there was no licking of book involved in the process. :smallwink:

Siosilvar
2008-06-12, 09:27 PM
Look at the Monster Manual errata: What's the Hill Giant [Revision]? I don't see any revision listed under it... Looks like they're going to have to make an errata for the errata
:smalltongue:
EDIT: Nevermind
Speaking of erratas for erratas (is that the proper plural?), Cloudkill [Deletion/Revision] should be Cloudkill [Addition], you know, 'cause they're adding something.

Jayabalard
2008-06-13, 06:41 AM
Software takes time to develop, especially for such a large undertaking. DnD Insider is huge, its a gigantic rules database that must be able to implement updates to the rules easily, and adapt to the home brewing effect that DnD comes with naturally, which wizards vowed to support.None of that sounds especially difficult; I wouldn't call that a large undertaking. I'm having a hard time thinking of functionality that you wouldn't have with an off the shelf CMS. They've had quite a bit of time for their development cycle, so there's not much excuse other than that they screwed up somewhere while planning or that their developers are less than competent.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-13, 06:49 AM
One of the updates worries me a little, the change in relevant ability score for the Nature skill. Now, instead of INT, it's WIS. I mean, this is likely what it should have been in the first place; I'm just curious as to how it wasn't caught before the books went to press.

Eh? Both in the Skills section of my PHB, and in the Ranger class description on page 103, it says "Nature (Wis)"...

Totally Guy
2008-06-13, 07:16 AM
I've used post-it notes. It looks quite funny where I've blanked out words


As a standard action creatures can make a basic attack against one square of the wall

At least now the book feels customised. I think I ought to find a way to damage it a little to make it more "mine".

Talya
2008-06-13, 07:18 AM
Clerics don't out-melee fighters (let alone sacrifice nothing while futilely trying to.) Clerics suck at melee unless they build for it at the expense of everything else. Someone who attempts to be clericzilla is irritating to have in your party not because he outshines the fighter, but because (A) he becomes just another melee fighter, and a somewhat less effective one at that because he doesn't have the feats to support it, and (B) he's not casting spells...and when he does, they aren't as good...because he put points into physical ability scores rather than wisdom, and spends his actions swinging at stuff. We had a cleric that tried to melee a lot in our party for over a year. What an irritation...

Rachel Lorelei
2008-06-13, 07:27 AM
Clerics don't out-melee fighters (let alone sacrifice nothing while futilely trying to.) Clerics suck at melee unless they build for it at the expense of everything else. Someone who attempts to be clericzilla is irritating to have in your party not because he outshines the fighter, but because (A) he becomes just another melee fighter, and a somewhat less effective one at that because he doesn't have the feats to support it, and (B) he's not casting spells...and when he does, they aren't as good...because he put points into physical ability scores rather than wisdom, and spends his actions swinging at stuff. We had a cleric that tried to melee a lot in our party for over a year. What an irritation...

Whaaat? Clerics don't suck at melee. A couple of melee feats and Quicken Spell is all it takes; Divine Power and Quickened Divine Favor are a great combo. Clerics don't have that many great spells with DCs anyway.

And, of course, cleric-archers have a high damage output and full spellcasting capabilities due to maxed-out wisdom (thanks, Zen Archery!).

Human Paragon 3
2008-06-13, 08:46 AM
I found a couple of the errata quite shocking.

Thievery DC is twice as hard as it should have been? (Corrected to 1/2 target's level from target's level)

About 10 monsters who do the wrong damage (1d8 instead of 2d8 etc)

One attack that is written as a minor action but is supposed to be a standard action? That's a pretty big error.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-13, 08:55 AM
I found a couple of the errata quite shocking.

Thievery DC is twice as hard as it should have been? (Corrected to 1/2 target's level from target's level)

About 10 monsters who do the wrong damage (1d8 instead of 2d8 etc)

One attack that is written as a minor action but is supposed to be a standard action? That's a pretty big error.

Are you kidding me? Those are incredibly minor issues. Look up the errata for something like Decipher's LOTR - probably not even the biggest offender. Mongoose got the entire core task-resolution wrong, and had to correct it in a 4-6 -page PDF published on their site. (The updated mechanic is best described as "sublime.") Both are still great games, and perfectly playable as published.

I'd like to know where people get it in their heads that any RPG has ever been published without needing significant errata. Maybe you just haven't looked at errata for other games?

Human Paragon 3
2008-06-13, 09:00 AM
You're right, I rarely do. Most people don't. Which is why it's important to copy edit the document before it goes to print. We're not talking about a mispelling or an ability that can be misinterpreted (like Shock Trooper), we're talking about the wrong rules being in the rule book. If I bought a nintendo game that says to hit A when you're supposed to hit B, I'd be pissed.

The game is certainly playable as printed, but there will be a lot of POd people who are having trouble making their thievery checks.

Lastly, "Company B has a product that sucks worse" is not a valid excuse for issueing a defective product. I just thought WotC would have learned from 3.0.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-13, 09:04 AM
One of the updates worries me a little, the change in relevant ability score for the Nature skill. Now, instead of INT, it's WIS. I mean, this is likely what it should have been in the first place; I'm just curious as to how it wasn't caught before the books went to press.

The rest of the stuff is clarification, and for the most part I'm not concerned.
Shoddy typer and bad revision.
If most changes are just bad typing, I'm not really too much concerned (I work making business programs, and I know what a pain it is when you make a perfect program, but you fail to catch a typo, specially ones that makes the program doesn't work sometimes), the problem will be when they start rewriting the rules itself. Take the Ranger in 3.5, for example. No way of errata'ing the 3.0 one.
In this case, maybe the playtesters were better explained things, so they didn't notice how bad worded it were on paper (they probably know how Rain of Blows is supposed to work, for example).
Anyway, the faster they pick the errors, the best to me.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-13, 09:21 AM
I would've loved/still love to see someone licking food off a 4e book... or any D&D book, for that matter...

Calm down there missy. We aren't that kind of friends and there was no book licking to be had. There was however, much dabbing with paper towels.



Lastly, "Company B has a product that sucks worse" is not a valid excuse for issueing a defective product. I just thought WotC would have learned from 3.0.

Thank you for making this totally valid point. Look, just because the standard in the table top industry is to put out products that my 11th grade english teacher would have thrown a dictionary at me for doesn't mean that it's ok.


Shoddy typer and bad revision.

True for some but not all of these changes. The thievery DC is an example of where it is a typing error, possibly and hopefully, that really should have been caught.


Anyway, the faster they pick the errors, the best to me.

As I said, I'm torn on this issue. I'm happy that they are correcting some of the errors quickly. I'm concerned in that there are still glaring errors in the books that require errata and will be very dissapointed if I must constantly revise my $35 books.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-13, 05:08 PM
You're right, I rarely do. Most people don't. Which is why it's important to copy edit the document before it goes to print. We're not talking about a mispelling or an ability that can be misinterpreted (like Shock Trooper), we're talking about the wrong rules being in the rule book. If I bought a nintendo game that says to hit A when you're supposed to hit B, I'd be pissed.

The game is certainly playable as printed, but there will be a lot of POd people who are having trouble making their thievery checks.

Lastly, "Company B has a product that sucks worse" is not a valid excuse for issueing a defective product. I just thought WotC would have learned from 3.0.

You'd hate the famed Night Trap (the game that gave USA videop game atings like Teen, etc).
In the actual game, they tell you push A (I think it was A) when they should hasve told you B.
Best part: the video had actual filmed images so they messed the whole scene up.

It had a music Video type song in the game. You had to trap the enemies. Congress started bsing about violence issues (what!?) like you trap the everyone. It was like they never played the game; just heard bad things about it.

Joran
2008-06-13, 11:57 PM
Good copy editors are worth their weight in gold. I'm not too annoyed, but I do have the errata as three sheets tucked into the back.

I really like the idea about penciling in an e next to each rule. I did have a friend who printed, formatted, and taped the errata of d20 Modern into his book. Hopefully he won't do it for this ;)

seedjar
2008-06-14, 12:07 AM
2) I was also under the impression that 4E was supposed to avoid the level of rules complexity that lead to arguments/craziness that required errata/updates, and that the core books were going to be thoroughly play tested and edited?

Also, P = NP. And Microsoft will publish the semantic web in early 2009.
~Joe

Jarlax
2008-06-14, 12:50 AM
certainly these are minor updates and the majority of them seem to be misprint issues which snuck into the final print copy.

and i wonder how much of this is our doing, by popular demand wizards changed their release schedule so that we would have all the books at once pushing one book back and another forward release wise, impacting their printer schedule. so i wonder if this lead to less time is the "testing" (in this case proof reading) phase, which anyone doing projects will know is the first to get the axe in the face of a deadline.

these kinds of errata have been going on for several editions now (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20060531a) and as everyone who has played 3.5 will know there probably will be a 4.1 edition, and they will be the same as 3.6. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/179230000) leather bound special edition copies containing all errata changes, released sometime toward the middle or end of 4e's lifetime.

Animefunkmaster
2008-06-14, 01:35 AM
Also because the base damage of these creatues is not something I want to need to worry about errata for. It sucks back out a signifigant portion of the time I expected to save because of the new and easier encounter/monster design if I need to go back and check to see if their damage is still the same.

This is the most significant to me. I can deal with stuff in the PHB needing to be fixed, but monster entries and pregens need to get it in gear.

TheThan
2008-06-14, 01:36 AM
The point of having editors is so these things are found BEFORE you start printing the books. Having to produce errata this early in the life of 4E does not bode well for their product.

Seriously it is rather shoddy work for them to not have spotted and made these changes before they began printing. They claimed to have “thoroughly ” playtested this system and still there were enough things missed that they have to errata the book though it just came out.


I knew something like this was going to happen. Seriously, I’m amazed that people thought the books were going to be perfect. I’m still surprised that they released an errata so early, I expected at least 6 months before anything was done, just so you know, they would get some feedback.

I know that errata is enviable, but still these things should take time to find an to correct.

Jarlax
2008-06-14, 01:56 AM
Seriously it is rather shoddy work for them to not have spotted and made these changes before they began printing. They claimed to have “thoroughly ” playtested this system and still there were enough things missed that they have to errata the book though it just came out.

playtesting and proofreading are separate tasks, these errors are not mechanical but the placement of 1's instead of 2's, etc. most of the playtesting would not have been performed using the printers edition of the books, rather the massive manuscripts described by the developers is many of the podcasts and blogs.



I know that errata is enviable, but still these things should take time to find an to correct.

revisions to the rulesets have always been a persistent thing for any gaming system be it RPGs, cardgames, etc. while there are some powers people feel need to be addressed it is nice to see WOTC are on the ball enough to get a print errata out quickly, especially considering the significance of the mistakes made. the rules errata (one that addresses mechanics rather than print errors) likely will be several months down the track.

JaxGaret
2008-06-14, 06:54 AM
these kinds of errata have been going on for several editions now (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20060531a) and as everyone who has played 3.5 will know there probably will be a 4.1 edition, and they will be the same as 3.6. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/179230000) leather bound special edition copies containing all errata changes, released sometime toward the middle or end of 4e's lifetime.

4e (http://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Deluxe-Core-Rulebook/dp/0786950439/ref=pd_sim_b_title_47) Deluxe (http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Manual-Deluxe-Core-Rulebook/dp/0786950455/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2) Edition (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Masters-Guide-Deluxe-Rulebook/dp/0786950447/ref=pd_sim_b_title_7) is already in the pipe for release this October.

Valairn
2008-06-14, 10:03 AM
4e (http://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Deluxe-Core-Rulebook/dp/0786950439/ref=pd_sim_b_title_47) Deluxe (http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Manual-Deluxe-Core-Rulebook/dp/0786950455/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2) Edition (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Masters-Guide-Deluxe-Rulebook/dp/0786950447/ref=pd_sim_b_title_7) is already in the pipe for release this October.

Oh wait, its just the PHB bound in leather.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-14, 10:11 AM
Oh wait, its just the PHB bound in leather.

Wow, that's a big price jump just to get it bound in leather. :smalleek:

JaxGaret
2008-06-14, 11:00 AM
Oh wait, its just the PHB bound in leather.

It's not just the PHB bound in leather.

It's the PHB, MM, and DMG each bound in leather, and sold separately for maximum profitability (at double the price).

Can't you feel the love? :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2008-06-14, 08:27 PM
It's not just the PHB bound in leather.

It's the PHB, MM, and DMG each bound in leather, and sold separately for maximum profitability (at double the price).

Can't you feel the love? :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, deluxe. Any deluxe item will always have cool looking stuff. Even Vampire: The Masquerade did it :smallbiggrin: And a LOT of people bought it.
A friend lended me the books I'm reading so I can translate it for him, but I could try to get that deluxe version. Because I can :smallamused:
Doesn't look much more expensive than the 3e and 3.5 books in launched in Portuguese...

Glawackus
2008-06-14, 10:16 PM
It's not just the PHB bound in leather.

It's the PHB, MM, and DMG each bound in leather, and sold separately for maximum profitability (at double the price).

Can't you feel the love? :smallbiggrin:

As a cow, I resent this statement.

:smalltongue: