Any word from Chris Tulach???

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Okay. So an entire month has gone by since the November rules update.  And we now have the December update. 

Has anyone heard any word from Chris Tulach about what (if anything) players should or should not do in adapting their LFR characters to the rules changes?

  I think it is safe to say: play with the new rules.  If your Avenger lost 3 AC since the Armor of Faith doesn't work with Chainmail, start retraining as you level, or deal with having normal AC.  If your Dwarf is using an Urgosh, you don't have a proficency bonus on the spear end.  If your Grasp of the Grave isn't auto-dazing anymore and you hate it, retrain when you level.
  In fact, I think this has been the case all along, and there was just a lot of hope that someone would come along and say "Here's some gold for your character to make up for the remarkable effectiveness that you once had, have fun playing."
What makes me sad - no more compiled magazines: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27580349/Dungeon_and_Dragon_Magazine_PDFs&post_num=24#495423645
  In fact, I think this has been the case all along, and there was just a lot of hope that someone would come along and say "Here's some gold for your character to make up for the remarkable effectiveness that you once had, have fun playing."



No, there were a lot of people who did not think it reasonable for the campaign staff to effectively say, "oh, by the way, you're no longer proficient in your weapon and the armor you spent feats and item slots to get now reduces your AC. Ha ha. We long to see you suffer for one to four levels." And those people are correct. That approach would be a complete and total breach of the social contract that players and DMs (in a home or massively multiplayer campaign) enter into. If a home game DM did that, he would be looking for new players 5 minutes later. LFR players should not be expected to put up with it either.
  I think it is safe to say: play with the new rules.  If your Avenger lost 3 AC since the Armor of Faith doesn't work with Chainmail, start retraining as you level, or deal with having normal AC.  If your Dwarf is using an Urgosh, you don't have a proficency bonus on the spear end.  If your Grasp of the Grave isn't auto-dazing anymore and you hate it, retrain when you level.
  In fact, I think this has been the case all along, and there was just a lot of hope that someone would come along and say "Here's some gold for your character to make up for the remarkable effectiveness that you once had, have fun playing."



I think you might be right that this is the default answer.  But as far as a customer service response, it's b*******. 

One month ago, I proposed the suck-it-up option, and I've been less and less happy with that decision ever since.  Here's why.

When you bought X item, or you took Y feat, or you selected Z class feature, it had a specific wording.  That is the item, feat, or feature (or power) that you took.  The fact that they kept the name, but changed the wording does not mean that you took that item, feat, power, etc. 

If you order a car that's "Midnight Black" based on the color sample in a book, and when it comes, it's a crappy off-grey tone, you don't simply accept the explanation that "manufacturing that color was impractical, so we changed the paint mixture but kept the same name.  That's what you ordered - suck it up."

In fact, if you were to purchase a car that had a specific set of equipment, and when got it home you discovered that they had in fact removed some of that equipment in favor of less desirable gear, there is a term for it.  Bait - and - switch.

Bait and switch is an unacceptable business practice, and we would not expect a consumer to simply take what he was given instead of what he purchased. 

We should not expect players to accept bait and switch in their game.

I will recognize that the designers of the game feel that certain items are not working out how they might have intended them to work, and that they may feel the necessity of changing wording.  This is not the fault, nor the responsibility of the players (customers) who in good faith built their characters on wording-as-it-was, not wording-as-it-might-become.

I will recognize that allowing players to keep using an item as selected, and not as currently worded can lead to chaos at the convention table, with some players having items that work one way, while others have the same item working differently.  Again, this is not the fault, or the responsibility of the customer.

What then is the player (customer) to do, that is fair to that customer?

So.

My proposal is this:  If you took an item, power, feat, class feature which had had its description changed after your selection, then you should be able to treat that selection as if it had never happened. 

If you selected the Healer's Sash, and it is now not what you selected, then simply treat the selection as null and void.  (One side cannot unilaterally change the terms of a sale after the sale has already been agreed to.  The other side should always have the option to nullify that sale.)

Since a character with an unselected class feature is not a completed character, then you should feel free to select a different class feature.  If you selected feats, powers or items based on that class feature (and even ability scores), then you should feel free to rebuild/rebuy any affected feats, powers, or items.

I would hold similarly for any selection of powers, feats, items, paragon paths affected by a change in wording.  It is no longer the item you selected, therefore you did not select it.

Now.  The argument might be "This will just let power gamers rebuild to a maximum power character again!!!"  Maybe.  According to the DMG, power-gamer is a perfectly valid player characteristic.  But if the designers are making these changes to limit power, then this should not be a problem.  (It's not like they are getting to take feats not available to some who is only now starting a character and selecting feats.  They are just getting to _fairly_ nullify a sale on an item that is not what they contracted to buy.) 

The argument might be "Why are we rewarding people who took broken items???"  Well, since each of those items when through multiple stages of editing, playtesting, and updating before being published without anyone at WOTC deciding that they were broken, the only way that a player could have known that they were "broken" and not merely "well chosen" would be through some form of prescience, unavailable to the designers of the game.  We are not rewarding the customer who is being told that what he purchased no longer exists.  We are compensating him to make whole that which was taken from him. 

The argument might be "If we allow this, then almost everyone will have a claim on rebuilding their character from the ground up!!!"  True.  So what?  What harm is there to such an exercise?  We allow it of anyone taking a playtest class from Dragon magazine.  If it enhances fun for that player, why not?  My counter argument would be that if we don't want players rebuilding characters wholesale, then the designers should either 1) get it right the first time or 2) issue updates at a much more infrequent interval.  If each update were to generate a free rebuild, then the designers would understand how badly they are screwing with people who have invested time and money into their characters, and either cut out ill-designed cruft, or live with the ill-designed cruft.

(Essentially, my "suck-it-up" option for players has turned around into "the designers should suck it up.  If they change wording, they then owe it to the players to allow rebuilds.")

Absent any fair policy from WOTC, this is how I will be handling my characters.


  I think it is safe to say: play with the new rules.  If your Avenger lost 3 AC since the Armor of Faith doesn't work with Chainmail, start retraining as you level, or deal with having normal AC.  If your Dwarf is using an Urgosh, you don't have a proficency bonus on the spear end.  If your Grasp of the Grave isn't auto-dazing anymore and you hate it, retrain when you level.
  In fact, I think this has been the case all along, and there was just a lot of hope that someone would come along and say "Here's some gold for your character to make up for the remarkable effectiveness that you once had, have fun playing."



I think you might be right that this is the default answer.  But as far as a customer service response, it's b*******. 

One month ago, I proposed the suck-it-up option, and I've been less and less happy with that decision ever since.  Here's why.

When you bought X item, or you took Y feat, or you selected Z class feature, it had a specific wording.  That is the item, feat, or feature (or power) that you took.  The fact that they kept the name, but changed the wording does not mean that you took that item, feat, power, etc. 

If you order a car that's "Midnight Black" based on the color sample in a book, and when it comes, it's a crappy off-grey tone, you don't simply accept the explanation that "manufacturing that color was impractical, so we changed the paint mixture but kept the same name.  That's what you ordered - suck it up."

In fact, if you were to purchase a car that had a specific set of equipment, and when got it home you discovered that they had in fact removed some of that equipment in favor of less desirable gear, there is a term for it.  Bait - and - switch.

Bait and switch is an unacceptable business practice, and we would not expect a consumer to simply take what he was given instead of what he purchased. 

We should not expect players to accept bait and switch in their game.

I will recognize that the designers of the game feel that certain items are not working out how they might have intended them to work, and that they may feel the necessity of changing wording.  This is not the fault, nor the responsibility of the players (customers) who in good faith built their characters on wording-as-it-was, not wording-as-it-might-become.

I will recognize that allowing players to keep using an item as selected, and not as currently worded can lead to chaos at the convention table, with some players having items that work one way, while others have the same item working differently.  Again, this is not the fault, or the responsibility of the customer.

What then is the player (customer) to do, that is fair to that customer?

So.

My proposal is this:  If you took an item, power, feat, class feature which had had its description changed after your selection, then you should be able to treat that selection as if it had never happened. 

If you selected the Healer's Sash, and it is now not what you selected, then simply treat the selection as null and void.  (One side cannot unilaterally change the terms of a sale after the sale has already been agreed to.  The other side should always have the option to nullify that sale.)

Since a character with an unselected class feature is not a completed character, then you should feel free to select a different class feature.  If you selected feats, powers or items based on that class feature (and even ability scores), then you should feel free to rebuild/rebuy any affected feats, powers, or items.

I would hold similarly for any selection of powers, feats, items, paragon paths affected by a change in wording.  It is no longer the item you selected, therefore you did not select it.

Now.  The argument might be "This will just let power gamers rebuild to a maximum power character again!!!"  Maybe.  According to the DMG, power-gamer is a perfectly valid player characteristic.  But if the designers are making these changes to limit power, then this should not be a problem.  (It's not like they are getting to take feats not available to some who is only now starting a character and selecting feats.  They are just getting to _fairly_ nullify a sale on an item that is not what they contracted to buy.) 

The argument might be "Why are we rewarding people who took broken items???"  Well, since each of those items when through multiple stages of editing, playtesting, and updating before being published without anyone at WOTC deciding that they were broken, the only way that a player could have known that they were "broken" and not merely "well chosen" would be through some form of prescience, unavailable to the designers of the game.  We are not rewarding the customer who is being told that what he purchased no longer exists.  We are compensating him to make whole that which was taken from him. 

The argument might be "If we allow this, then almost everyone will have a claim on rebuilding their character from the ground up!!!"  True.  So what?  What harm is there to such an exercise?  We allow it of anyone taking a playtest class from Dragon magazine.  If it enhances fun for that player, why not?  My counter argument would be that if we don't want players rebuilding characters wholesale, then the designers should either 1) get it right the first time or 2) issue updates at a much more infrequent interval.  If each update were to generate a free rebuild, then the designers would understand how badly they are screwing with people who have invested time and money into their characters, and either cut out ill-designed cruft, or live with the ill-designed cruft.

(Essentially, my "suck-it-up" option for players has turned around into "the designers should suck it up.  If they change wording, they then owe it to the players to allow rebuilds.")

Absent any fair policy from WOTC, this is how I will be handling my characters.  Rather than quietly make the changes and hope nobody in my games notices, I'm coming right out and saying that this is what I am going to do.  I urge others to openly do so as well.





The argument might be "Why are we rewarding people who took broken items???"  Well, since each of those items when through multiple stages of editing, playtesting, and updating before being published without anyone at WOTC deciding that they were broken, the only way that a player could have known that they were "broken" and not merely "well chosen" would be through some form of prescience, unavailable to the designers of the game.  We are not rewarding the customer who is being told that what he purchased no longer exists.  We are compensating him to make whole that which was taken from him.



Vis a vis the discussion being part of LFR, and not D&D ... since after all in a home game the player and GM may all agree to make some, all, or none of the changes in the update ... or others.

... as part of LFR, I've seen the above argument made plenty of times now. And for a -small- sampling of players, generally newbies who have just started and are being told, or realize on their own, that certain options are "the bomb" or "powerful" or "must have", I might agree. They probably don't know better.

But the rest of the LFR player base is among the best informed and most capable players I know. So I call BS. If you're playing LFR, and have been doing so for a few months, you're know where the cheese is. If you're claiming otherwise, you're either not paying attention, or deliberately not paying attention. Even then, assuming I didn't feel that way, claiming that the product needs to be perfect or somebody will assume that it is meant to be used this way, is like saying that all cars should come with speed limiters to prevent them from being used above the speed limit ... or we're all going to assume that speeding is legal. And when and if someone does finally install a speed-limiter, well then the government should compensate me for the lost speed.

Tchyah ... no.

But the rest of the LFR player base is among the best informed and most capable players I know. So I call BS. If you're playing LFR, and have been doing so for a few months, you're know where the cheese is. If you're claiming otherwise, you're either not paying attention, or deliberately not paying attention. Even then, assuming I didn't feel that way, claiming that the product needs to be perfect or somebody will assume that it is meant to be used this way, is like saying that all cars should come with speed limiters to prevent them from being used above the speed limit ... or we're all going to assume that speeding is legal. And when and if someone does finally install a speed-limiter, well then the government should compensate me for the lost speed.

Tchyah ... no.



I stand by my statement.  Every item that received update today and last month went though:

1) writing
2) editing
3) playtesting
4) rewriting
5) re-editing
6) publishing

with every single layer okaying each and every item.  If the designers, playtesters, and editors did not deem these items "broken", then there was no expectation for any player to have assumed that they were anything other than the superior choice for the appropriate build.

You can say they were obviously broken, but unless you are the designer admitting to a mistake, then you are simply spouting opinion that diverges from the evidence. 

Bloodclaw was even included in multiple written modules as a treasure bundle, demonstrating even more layers of checks and balances that could/should/did take place.  You can call bs all you want, but you are doing so in the face of all available evidence.


You're the one who's ignoring the available evidence. That people can make mistakes without ever being either willing or able to admit to them. And by providing errata, WotC is -implicitly- admitting to mistakes it has made. Since it is clear that WotC does make mistakes, and since anyone can look at a power can say "Wow, that's really powerful, so much so that it doesn't make any sense to take anything else. *alarm bell* Ding. Waitaminute ...", perhaps the onus isn't so completely on Wizards to "fix things" [edit: to add -- to "fix things" in LFR usage]

perhaps the onus isn't so completely on Wizards to "fix things."


So, given the nerf to Battle Engineer, should I decide that PitFighter is obviously too good?  It's known good, used in many char-op builds.

How about Daggermaster?  Is Daggermaster obviously too good, and smart players should avoid it?

If the issue was just the power lasting too long, then should I avoid Stormwarden (encounter stance) or Simbarch of Aglarond (encounter-long effect from an encounter power)?

Battlecrazed?  LDB recently redid his Nova Ranger/Pitfighter build, and managed to keep the same damage by switching from Bloodclaw to Battlecrazed.  Obviously too good?


At any point in time, something's the "best".  Should we be auto-nerf ourselves and never take the best item?  What do we do when the previously second best item becomes the best item?

Everyone's special ... which means that no one is.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

You're the one who's ignoring the available evidence. That people can make mistakes without ever being either willing or able to admit to them. And by providing errata, WotC is -implicitly- admitting to mistakes it has made. Since it is clear that WotC does make mistakes, and since anyone can look at a power can say "Wow, that's really powerful, so much so that it doesn't make any sense to take anything else. *alarm bell* Ding. Waitaminute ...", perhaps the onus isn't so completely on Wizards to "fix things" [edit: to add -- to "fix things" in LFR usage]




As you've failed to read my entire post on the subject, further arguement with you would be pointless.  Simply - I understand that the designers feel that items that they published are not working out as they intended.  They are free to change those items as they wish.  I am free to nullify any unilateral change to a purchase agreement.  I will rebuild my characters as if I had never chosen the modified items.  In some cases I may still take the item.  In others I will not.   You are free to accept whatever dreck you are offered. 
The argument might be "Why are we rewarding people who took broken items???"  Well, since each of those items when through multiple stages of editing, playtesting, and updating before being published without anyone at WOTC deciding that they were broken, the only way that a player could have known that they were "broken" and not merely "well chosen" would be through some form of prescience, unavailable to the designers of the game.  We are not rewarding the customer who is being told that what he purchased no longer exists.  We are compensating him to make whole that which was taken from him.



Vis a vis the discussion being part of LFR, and not D&D ... since after all in a home game the player and GM may all agree to make some, all, or none of the changes in the update ... or others.

... as part of LFR, I've seen the above argument made plenty of times now. And for a -small- sampling of players, generally newbies who have just started and are being told, or realize on their own, that certain options are "the bomb" or "powerful" or "must have", I might agree. They probably don't know better.

But the rest of the LFR player base is among the best informed and most capable players I know. So I call BS. If you're playing LFR, and have been doing so for a few months, you're know where the cheese is. If you're claiming otherwise, you're either not paying attention, or deliberately not paying attention. Even then, assuming I didn't feel that way, claiming that the product needs to be perfect or somebody will assume that it is meant to be used this way, is like saying that all cars should come with speed limiters to prevent them from being used above the speed limit ... or we're all going to assume that speeding is legal. And when and if someone does finally install a speed-limiter, well then the government should compensate me for the lost speed.

Tchyah ... no.



Wait a minute. Now you're telling us that there is some mystical level of "just right" character power (and I assume that all your characters are conveniently at this "just right" power level) which everyone is supposed to know and abide by even though (unlike speed limits) it is not printed or stated anywhere and that anyone (else) who builds a character better than that is somehow cheating and deserves to be knocked down below everyone else's level? Really. And where is that level printed? If I made a ranger with Careful attack and Hit and Run as my at-will powers and then took beast stalker as a paragon path, the character would have one level of power. If I took Twin strike and nimble strike and then took battlefield archer as the paragon path, the character would have a much higher level of combat effectiveness. What reason is there to suppose that the beast stalker is the "right" level of power and that the battlefield archer is cheesy? (If the designers actions count for anything, the latest errata upgrading careful attack would point towards twin strike as the intended power level and the careful attack build as a subpar failure). And how is whatever definition of cheesy you decide to use going to be any less arbitrary than that?

So, let's take another specific example here: how exactly were players supposed to know that the healer's sash was not supposed to grant out of turn healing? By your argument, it was obviously not intended to be used that way since it was changed. So, just how was it supposed to be used.

For another example: how were barbarian players supposed to know that Storm of blades was not supposed to grant one attack per point of con mod? It was certainly more powerful than other options, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that granting one attack per point of con mod grants one attack per point of con mod. Suggesting that the designers actually meant "4 attacks max" when they wrote something different is like saying that everyone should know that the sign saying "Speed Limit 70 MPH" really means "55 MPH."
You're the one who's ignoring the available evidence. That people can make mistakes without ever being either willing or able to admit to them. And by providing errata, WotC is -implicitly- admitting to mistakes it has made. Since it is clear that WotC does make mistakes, and since anyone can look at a power can say "Wow, that's really powerful, so much so that it doesn't make any sense to take anything else. *alarm bell* Ding. Waitaminute ...", perhaps the onus isn't so completely on Wizards to "fix things" [edit: to add -- to "fix things" in LFR usage]




God I hate this false logic.  There is always going to be a BEST option, unless everything is the same something will stick out.  If they give us rules, we play by them.  It's not our job in any sense to have alarm bells go off when we see options that are good, that is their job.  We play a game with dynamic rules, to force our choices to be static in that environment is not fair to players, if rules change players need to be allowed to change with them or you do nothing but harm your relationship with those players.  Harming the relationship of your most rabid customers is not really good business.  And WotC IS a business.
Blah blah blah
Were LFR my home campaign, I would not allow pre-errata Hero of Faith and double swords.

Were LFR my home campaign, I would allow divine PCs to take a feat to use a weapon as an implement and would get rid of the Expertise feat tax.

Were LFR my home campaign, I would not use solo flying artillery creatures or pre-errata needlefang drake swarms.

This isn't my home campaign.  On a basic level, I don't comprehend the idea that if someone does not create characters under the rules I would use in my home campaign, that is in any way a moral failing and something for which punishment is due.

Give me the power to change the things I feel are underpowered, or are overpowered on the opponent's side, and I'm fine with also living by my sense of balance on my side.

WOTC R&D has a responsibility not to put broken items in the game.  RPGA staff has a responsibility not to approve broken items for use in the game.  I have neither the power nor responsibility to balance the campaign.

To take an obvious example, I believe that anyone of reasonable intelligence should have immediately seen that the Bloodclaw weapon was overpowered.  However, the item went through multiple levels of review that clearly disgreed with me, and campaign staff sufficiently disagreed with me that they affirmatively handed out Bloodclaw weapons in a module.

Why should a player be held responsible for believing something is not too powerful to be taken, when those in a position of responsibility (some of whom are doing this for a living) felt otherwise?  If someone is going to take the hit for getting a decision wrong, it should be those who were responsible for making it.

We don't get to make our own rules when R&D or campaign staff make decisions we disagree with that underpower our characters; I do not comprehend why we should be responsible for making our own rules when R&D or campaign staff make decisions we disagree with that overpower our characters.
I'd like to point this out, anything you can legally pick in game is fine until wotc changes it to be otherwise, there is no looking at powers and wondering if it's too good to be true, pick what is available, play by the rules and if they get changed, lobby to get your character altered because it wasn't your fault you played by the rules in the first place.
Blah blah blah
Harming the relationship of your most rabid customers is not really good business.  And WotC IS a business.



The customers who are taking the items that were changed aren't their only rabid customers. While a few of my characters have been affected, most haven't. Battlerager? Nope. Bloodclaw? Nope. Grasp of the Grave? Nope. etc. etc. I could go on and on. Avenger AC, btw, I don't care. My character in LFR still works great. And by rabid, I mean that I've bought all but the most recent books (paper), buy DDM minis, buy dungeon tiles, have a DDI subscription, and play LFR practically every week, plus volunteer a lot of my time to LFR.

But, I'm supposed to feel ok if some folks get these "free" changes/rebuilds but I don't? Hell, while we're at it, why don't we just allow all players to rebuild their PCs completely every level. There, everything is fair, everyone gets what they want, no one is inconvenienced in the least. C'mon ... seriously, there's got to be a point at which you just call "crazy", and walk away.

As for those that want to unilaterally just decide to rebuild their PCs, fine. You probably can't be caught doing it. And even if you were, you probably won't face much more than a snicker or a glare, but if you have so little respect for the game, WotC or LFR, why are you even playing?

Finally, as to "there will always be a Best option". Sure. And lots of folks will disagree about what the "Best" is. And that's part of the game. But there's Best, and then there's Broken. While the line isn't always clear, certainly not if folks will still argue it after the fact, let's not mistake "Best option among several great options" with "Broken option with no equals". If anyone wants to argue that Grasp of the Grave should go back to the way it was, or that the Auspicious Dice of Cheese aren't begging for an errata, please, go ahead. Me, I'm going to await the necessary changes and nod when they arrive.

Oh look, one of them did. Hallelujah and pass the Monster Manual.
We play a game with dynamic rules, to force our choices to be static in that environment is not fair to players, if rules change players need to be allowed to change with them or you do nothing but harm your relationship with those players.



and btw, the characters aren't static. There -are- retraining options. There -are- ways of buying things. Or moving enchantments. And there are new mods. The characters are hardly static.

And by rabid, I mean that I've bought all but the most recent books (paper), buy DDM minis, buy dungeon tiles, have a DDI subscription, and play LFR practically every week, plus volunteer a lot of my time to LFR.


Congradulations.  I give WotC a lot of my money and time too...(match all of the above)

But, I'm supposed to feel ok if some folks get these "free" changes/rebuilds but I don't?


Yes.  They did something allowed by the rules in good faith, and have had the item/feature/etc they took changed on them without their consent.  That's not normally considered fair.

Hell, while we're at it, why don't we just allow all players to rebuild their PCs completely every level.



Wow.  I thought someone was gonna call me on my slippery slope argument...

Finally, as to "there will always be a Best option". Sure. And lots of folks will disagree about what the "Best" is. And that's part of the game. But there's Best, and then there's Broken.


So everything that was changed in the errata was broken?  Sash of the healer broke games?  Footwork Lure having a range of melee reach (as opposed to 1) broke games?  Seriously?

My Avenger having an AC of 23 at 8th level (hit on a 5 by most monsters I faced) was broken?  That had to be reduced to 22?  Really?

Auspicious Dice of Cheese aren't begging for an errata


Bloodclaw went how many months before errata?  And they released an errata in that time frame that didn't touch it.  If it was obviously overpowered, why did they pass it over?

And if Battle Engineer is obviously overpowered, I really don't know what to expect next.  Battle Engineer wasn't as good as Battle Captain, War Chanter, Battlelord of Kord, or even Grave Caller.  If that's too good ... I have no real idea what I should avoid.

Ok, one really hopes that the Auspicious Dice will be nerfed.  But nerfing that is not the same as nerfing the Healers Sash.  When they nerf one of those, everyone understands.  When they do the other, you're gonna get some angry annoyed people.  Huh.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima


Ok, one really hopes that the Auspicious Dice will be nerfed.  But nerfing that is not the same as nerfing the Healers Sash.  When they nerf one of those, everyone understands.  When they do the other, you're gonna get some angry annoyed people.  Huh.



Looking at the compiled issue dice, it is a daily to roll the dice and only stores the rolls until your next extended rest. Does it need more of a nerf?
Yes.  They did something allowed by the rules in good faith, and have had the item/feature/etc they took changed on them without their consent.  That's not normally considered fair.



Consent? WotC needs players' consent now?

Slippery slope met. And rolled off of.
Congradulations.  I give WotC a lot of my money and time too...(match all of the above)

That was my point, to one of the posts above it. Let's not turn this into a conga line of "A, B, A ..."


 claiming that the product needs to be perfect or somebody will assume that it is meant to be used this way, is like saying that all cars should come with speed limiters to prevent them from being used above the speed limit ... or we're all going to assume that speeding is legal. And when and if someone does finally install a speed-limiter, well then the government should compensate me for the lost speed.

Tchyah ... no.



This poster has an excellent point.  Ironically, it betrays his point of view, but it is an excellent point.  Our cars don't come with speed limiters, at least in the US.  As a consequence, the vast, vast majority of people exceed the speed limit.

Really, this situation matches the characteristics of speeding tremendously well:

1.  Speeding laws, like the LFR rules, are almost never formally enforced.

2.  There is a level of rules violation above which people around the cheater begin to care, and below which most people don't.  Just as many people got angry when learning that people at Gen Con got to play illegal high level characters, most people get angry when someone passes them on the highway going 120 mph.  However, people generally doesn't get angry at someone exceeding the speed limit slightly, so it is not surprising that many people seem to be suggesting more or less to ignore the issue of making minor changes to compensate for odd errata changes.

3.  Because of one and two, people who steadfastly follow the letter of the rules find themselves hampered with respect to the rest of the population.  Whether they get to their destination more slowly than necessary or suffer being 'slow' for a few levels, they are clearly inhibited.

4.  Speeding almost always has no meaningful effect on anyone other than the speeder.  Quite frankly, neither does someone else at my table changing their character.  Of course, I notice if their character simply doesn't work, just as I notice the idiot blocking my lane and driving down the highway at 30 mph.

5.  The point of 'the government should compensate for lost speed' is amusing to me given that when I encountered a lane closure in New Zealand, the highway commission had stationed a construction worker with a big bowl to hand out candy to the motorists as a sort of apology for the hassle.  So that's not at all as bizarre as you would suggest.

So, for these reasons, I have to say that I can almost understand the gradual increase in lenency that seems to have occurred in discussions on this list.  It proves to be a pretty good analogy, and one in which tirianmal looks a lot like the council member who wants to put out speeding cameras to improve $afety...

Tchyah ... yes.

Brayden Glad



Dealing with WotC customer service is like milking an emu... You might get scratched, bitten or kicked, or might simply be ignored, but you won't be successful... and people will think you odd for trying.
Looking at the compiled issue dice, it is a daily to roll the dice and only stores the rolls until your next extended rest. Does it need more of a nerf?

Actually that's the same than in the single article, they didn't change anything while compiling it.

5.  The point of 'the government should compensate for lost speed' is amusing to me given that when I encountered a lane closure in New Zealand, the highway commission had stationed a construction worker with a big bowl to hand out candy to the motorists as a sort of apology for the hassle.  So that's not at all as bizarre as you would suggest.



If only all governments were so enlightened.

So, for these reasons, I have to say that I can almost understand the gradual increase in lenency that seems to have occurred in discussions on this list.  It proves to be a pretty good analogy, and one in which tirianmal looks a lot like the council member who wants to put out speeding cameras to improve $afety...



You assume you know my position on the matter, which you don't. However I feel about the apparent cheating, the changes, or what policy should actually be put in place, I don't wish those among the PTB that read these complaints to believe that the feelings of those around here are uniform.

And not to thread-jack, but since you mention speeding affecting no one but those speeding, keep in mind that those speeding often go rushing around others and can increase the danger to all on the road. While I wouldn't say that the analogy holds here, since no analogy is perfect, do keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "victimless" crime ... no matter the source of the rules/governance.

So according to CCG 1.9, there's supposed to be a new version in December 2009.  Which is nowish.  Maybe Chris Tulach's keeping quiet about the erratas because there will be something officially in there or not in there.  I guess if there's a change to the rules about what you can do to a character that's been altered due to an errata that's really where it should be. Does anybody know when exactly the new guide is supposed to come out?  Or the odds that it'll resolve this issue?
And not to thread-jack, but since you mention speeding affecting no one but those speeding, keep in mind that those speeding often go rushing around others and can increase the danger to all on the road. While I wouldn't say that the analogy holds here, since no analogy is perfect, do keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "victimless" crime ... no matter the source of the rules/governance.




Perhaps there is no such thing as a victimless crime. But if we wish to pursue this analogy, there are such things as unjust laws, stupid laws, counterproductive laws, and ex-post facto laws.

Just because it is a crime doesn't mean it's wrong (tell that to Rosa Parks).

Just because it was made a law does not mean it accomplished the results it set out to accomplish (observe the Missouri compromise (which certainly did not settle the question of slavery in the territories), or Lyndon Johnson's great society program).

And, in a particularly relevant case, ex-post facto laws where laws are made retroactive and people are prosecuted for things that were not illegal at the time are recognized as unjust in most civilized countries and are explicitly prohibited by the constitution of the United States.

If we want to go with the legal analogy, errata without a rebuild mechanism is more comparable to an unjust ex-post facto law than anything else. The speed limit is 75 today, but will change to 65 next week and the automatic speed camera sends you a ticket for going 75 in a 65 zone.
And not to thread-jack, but since you mention speeding affecting no one but those speeding, keep in mind that those speeding often go rushing around others and can increase the danger to all on the road.


That's not as simple as you think either... but that's very off topic.  (Short form: do close to what traffic is doing.  But the speed where you are least likely to be involved (cause or victim of) a serious traffic accident is slightly FASTER than the prevailing speed.  Which, in the US, is certainly speeding)

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Looking at the compiled issue dice, it is a daily to roll the dice and only stores the rolls until your next extended rest. Does it need more of a nerf?

Actually that's the same than in the single article, they didn't change anything while compiling it.


In the original article, the rolls were stored until the power was used again. The problem there was using the dice during non-adventuring days to store up good rolls, so that you always had good rolls going into an adventuring day.

You CANNOT blame the player base for taking what is a completely legal game option.

It's NOT their fault if an option is overpowered. The blame lies those that allowed it to begin with.

It is not the player's responsibility to guess what is or is not overpowered.

It simply is not. Seriously.

That is the job and the responsiblility of the game designer, and the GM. The player base needs to be able to trust that you, as a designer or GM, know what you're doing.

From a larger game design theory perspective, you will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS get a percentage of your player base taking the optimum legal options over others that are less effective. The greater the level of effectiveness, the larger the percentage will be.

This is not something you can just wish away. This is an inevitable result, something that will happen in any game system with a significant player population. I don't care if it's a pen and paper game campaign, a MMORPG, an organized sporting league, whatever.

It is the inexorable result of human nature. You CANNOT fight this phenomenon.

This is not to say you cannot change rules and options that you as the designer deem to be broken. It does mean, however, that since it IS your fault the option is out there, changing or removing it from the players means you owe the affected players a reasonable process of fairly changing to comply with the new rules, or the ability to evenly exchange an option that no longer functions as it did, for a new one.

The changes are an inconvienence to the player base, and if you want to maintain the trust of that population, you need to be fair about it, even potentialy erring on the side of generousity.

I repeat, it is not the fault of the players.

I say this as someone who has been intimately involved with Living Campaigns for well over a decade, as someone who has been a campaign coordinator for one.

You MUST maintain a fair and reasonable stance on this kind of thing. Otherwise you lose trust. You lose respect. At that point, you get players that either stop paying attention to the rules, or just stop playing altogether.

I know some folks don't like the comparisons, but take a look at any of the major MMOGs out there when they make a major rules change. They allow players to alter their characters to better fit the new paradigm. For free. This is because the smart ones have realized the importance of what I've posted above.

Lose the trust, lose the respect, and you lose the campaign.



-karma

LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard | Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard | Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric

AL Character: Talia Ko'bori Silverwane - Tiefling Tome Fiend Warlock


For those people telling us that the rules effect to just use our re-train options I'd like to clarify something.


Retraining, PH1 page 28, is for -


*You make decisions when you create or advance your character that you later regret.


Retraining, RPGA CCG v1.9 pg 2 -


*You make a decision with your character that you're no longer happy about.


*You want to take advantage of a new feat, power, or skill when a new rule book or articale comes out.


Retraining, according to what I understand this to all mean, is that it's there for you to train out of a power you picked for a different power. Allowing the player to try out some different stuff and pick the ones that work best for him. Plus giving the player a option to keep his character updated with new feats & powers.


Errata material is not 'new' material. It's old material that's been changed. Requirering a player to actually spend his retraining feats on these 'old' feats, stops the players from trying new, fun stuff. Which then pretty much defeats the reason why retraining is allowed.

Then there's the paragon Paths.  Those we aren't even allowed to retrain.  So what do we do if we pick a PP that is then errated so all it's powers and features are useless to the character?
This usually happens to those that take a MC paragon path.  So are you going to turn those characters into cripples?

[VCL HAT ON]

Nothing too bad.  A little snippiness, but so far cooler heads have prevailed.  I just wanted to step in and say: Let's keep it that way.

At this point I think everyone's just bashing their heads against the wall with the same arguments and positions seeing as this is the third thread with the suck-it-up vs. free-retrain positions, and that's the point where things tend to devolve into internet behavior.

[VCL HAT OFF]

Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Then there's the paragon Paths.  Those we aren't even allowed to retrain.  So what do we do if we pick a PP that is then errated so all it's powers and features are useless to the character?

This usually happens to those that take a MC paragon path.  So are you going to turn those characters into cripples?



On the one hand, there's no retraining of PP for anyone for any reason right now. So it is the same across the board. On the other hand, if there were to be retraining for some because of changes to their Paragon Paths, then I expect folks will also ask for retraining PPs when any new PP path comes out. After all, it might apply "better" than the existing Paragon Paths. And it is a change. To the options available to their character. But then ... nevermind.


I don't know how I feel about such a (slippery) slope. I can actually agree to an extent simply because I think there ought to be a paragon path retrain option in the core rules, but then folks would ask for free retrains and -that- would not necessarily sit well with other folks.


And I dislike the suggestion that changes like the errata are turning characters into cripples. It just ain't so.

I know some folks don't like the comparisons, but take a look at any of the major MMOGs out there when they make a major rules change. They allow players to alter their characters to better fit the new paradigm.

Which is often quite useless if there's only a single tree, the tree that just got nerfed, that is doing what you did before (aka "Oh, just by the way, we nerfed retribution paladins into oblivion, but we offer you a free respec into healing or tanking"). Even for classes with multiple ways to perform the same role it depends on how you define your goal. If you want to be the guy hitting stuff with a 2h weapon, a free respec to dual-wield after they just nerfed the 2h-tree is completly useless to you despite still being in the same roll.

And yet all these players keep paying and keep paying and keep ... Undecided

So I blame Blizzard for opening the eyes of other companies how much crap customers are willing to take while still keeping paying
I can't help but recall how we used to all wish WotC would issue errata, make changes, and fix problems. Now they fix problems and we complain that they had problems in the first place. D&D editions have always had problems! So has Spycraft, Legend of the Five Rings, Shadowrun (man, don't get me started on Legend of the Five Rings... if it was half as popular as 4E the Internet might burn down from all the cheese being flamed).

The point is, games are never perfect. The options are to provide updates or leave the game static. This game comes with updates. Fairly often. It also has tons of content. I dare say no game has ever seen this volume of rules and this much crunch. Ever. Ever. With that in mind, you will see a lot of updates and a lot of issues big and small.

In a home campaign, this works just fine.

In LFR, we need a policy. That's all. We all agree that we need a policy. With a little luck, Chris Tulach is following this and with a little luck the admins can provide him with feedback (assuming he needs it and assuming they can get away from the many things they have to do) so he can provide some guidance. It likely has to be him, because this may need WotC input.

Until we have a policy, the most rational logic is that the rules of the game have not changed. Under the rules of the game, we are all stuck with whatever choices we made, for whatever reasons we made them. A cheesy item can make a cheesy PC cheesier. It can make a normal PC... still normal. A player may take a broken item to be broken - because that's what they like - and they have a right to do that. A player may take a broken item because they just saw it and liked it and didn't grasp how broken it was or didn't ever plan on making it broken. It doesn't matter. Everyone can play.

There is no good or evil. There is just the question of what any player can change when an update is issued. What is fair?

Because we are humans, the policy perhaps should consider the reality that rules influence behavior because people react to incentives. To that extent, it should consider how players may react to one policy or another. Perhaps being shy to make some choices if they fear errata, which isn't the point of 4E, or perhaps being more eager to make powerful choices because there is no reason not to do so - impacting play balance.

I've given my opinion on what I would choose. It's just an opinion. In the end, the admins and/or Tulach must decide. Until then, the rules are the rules. If we break them, we are rule breakers.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

However, the item went through multiple levels of review that clearly disgreed with me, and campaign staff sufficiently disagreed with me that they affirmatively handed out Bloodclaw weapons in a module.



Let me point out that putting stuff in an adventure as a bundle does not mean that the one putting it in has any clear idea of the item's power level. I put stuff into adventrues for flavor, not for how powerful they are. Apparently, sometimes that turns out to be a bad choice.

Gomez,
Who is happy bloodclaw got adapated, and thinks it is still a quite excellent weapon
On the one hand, there's no retraining of PP for anyone for any reason right now. So it is the same across the board. On the other hand, if there were to be retraining for some because of changes to their Paragon Paths, then I expect folks will also ask for retraining PPs when any new PP path comes out. After all, it might apply "better" than the existing Paragon Paths. And it is a change. To the options available to their character. But then ... nevermind.


Exactly. If you agree with the (flawed) "I paid for it" logic, then it certainly follows that you should be able to change your mind whenever a more exciting option shows up. Because, after all, you're paying for it.

Ultimately, you're paying for rulebooks. The big gaping flaw in the logic is that you aren't paying for LFR.

...Under the rules of the game, we are all stuck with whatever choices we made, for whatever reasons we made them....

...I've given my opinion on what I would choose. It's just an opinion. In the end, the admins and/or Tulach must decide. Until then, the rules are the rules. If we break them, we are rule breakers.



No.

This only applies if the player is allowed to keep using the item as selected.  Because the item no longer matches what the player selected, that choice is nullified.

The player is free to act as if the selection had never been made.

There is no rule-breaking occuring here, as the rules are silent on what happens when items, feats, powers, paths become different than what the player selected.  The rules only state:

"When a rule is updated, use the newest version. Keep an eye out for rules updates, particularly Dragon Magazine options that later appear in a rulebook. Make sure that you’re using the most current version of the rule. This is especially important if you use a playtest class from Dragon Magazine."

The rules state nothing about what players are or more importantly are not allowed to do when an item is no longer the item they took. 

Basic fairness demands that the player be allowed to nullify that choice.

You may state your interpretation of the rules, but it is only your interpretation (as mine is only mine).  Absent any other policy, all is fair game.

My characters (collectively) did not take:

1) a bloodclaw with a 1/encounter power.  The one my character bought was promised to work at-will.  Since this is now what it does, then I am entitled to a full refund on that bloodclaw, as if I had never purchased it at all.

2) Potent restorables that only work on artificer powers.  The feat my character selected worked on all powers.  Since this now works differently than advertised, I am entitled to return it, and select otherwise. 

3) a giant riding lizard that can only attack with its master 1/encounter.  See #1.

4) the battlerager class feature that no longer provides temp hp on an enemy hit.  The one my character selected was promised to work differently.  Since he can no longer use the class feature that he selected, he is entitled to reverse that selection.

5) Barding that resists 3 (now 4) less hp than advertised.  See #1.

6) Targeted assault that now only affects who the enemy wishes it to affect, and not who he wishes it to affect (creatures marking him, not creatures who he is marking).  See #2.

7) Dwarven Stoneblood that now only works when he uses certain powers, not everytime he got hit.  See #2.

As I have stated, WOTC is free to change how items work.  It would be chaos if every player had their items grandfathered in.  I am simply returning my purchases as they do not work as advertised.

As the party responsible for the changes to the rules, the onus is on WOTC to make it right for the customer.  To imply that the customer should for one moment have to suffer any consequences for playing within the rules (selecting items based upon their text) is simply absurd. 


On the one hand, there's no retraining of PP for anyone for any reason right now. So it is the same across the board. On the other hand, if there were to be retraining for some because of changes to their Paragon Paths, then I expect folks will also ask for retraining PPs when any new PP path comes out. After all, it might apply "better" than the existing Paragon Paths. And it is a change. To the options available to their character. But then ... nevermind.


Exactly. If you agree with the (flawed) "I paid for it" logic, then it certainly follows that you should be able to change your mind whenever a more exciting option shows up. Because, after all, you're paying for it.

Ultimately, you're paying for rulebooks. The big gaping flaw in the logic is that you aren't paying for LFR.





I have not argued that a player should be able to change their mind whenever a more exciting option shows up.  Nice strawman, but this was not the argument. 

You should be able to use items that you have purchased, as purchased, or you should be able to nullify that purchase. 

As for the second part of your post - actually, you are paying for LFR.  It's just included in the sales price of the rulebooks and online content, and used as a driver to encourage the purchase of more rulebooks and online content.

The big gaping flaw in your logic is that you fail to recognize that you are paying for something and are entitled to be treated with all the respect a customer deserves. 




This only applies if the player is allowed to keep using the item as selected.  Because the item no longer matches what the player selected, that choice is nullified.

The player is free to act as if the selection had never been made.

There is no rule-breaking occuring here, as the rules are silent on what happens when items, feats, powers, paths become different than what the player selected.  The rules only state:

"When a rule is updated, use the newest version. Keep an eye out for rules updates, particularly Dragon Magazine options that later appear in a rulebook. Make sure that you’re using the most current version of the rule. This is especially important if you use a playtest class from Dragon Magazine."

The rules state nothing about what players are or more importantly are not allowed to do when an item is no longer the item they took. 



Hm, that's interesting. Can you show us an example of what you would consider an "update" to an item? (Or, to be more pedantic, an update to the rule explaining what a given item does?)

In my conception of the cosmic all, a change is an update. But apparently you don't think a change is an update? So... what would an update be?

Going back to your car purchase example: the CCG guide you quote is analogous to a car purchase contract that says "when you buy a car, the actual item you receive might vary in color." You may decide not to purchase a car under those terms -- but you had the right to make that decision before you purchased it. You read the CCG before you made a character, I presume. You knew that items might be changed. 

This only applies if the player is allowed to keep using the item as selected.  Because the item no longer matches what the player selected, that choice is nullified.

The player is free to act as if the selection had never been made.

There is no rule-breaking occuring here, as the rules are silent on what happens when items, feats, powers, paths become different than what the player selected.  The rules only state:

"When a rule is updated, use the newest version. Keep an eye out for rules updates, particularly Dragon Magazine options that later appear in a rulebook. Make sure that you’re using the most current version of the rule. This is especially important if you use a playtest class from Dragon Magazine."

The rules state nothing about what players are or more importantly are not allowed to do when an item is no longer the item they took. 



Hm, that's interesting. Can you show us an example of what you would consider an "update" to an item? (Or, to be more pedantic, an update to the rule explaining what a given item does?)

In my conception of the cosmic all, a change is an update. But apparently you don't think a change is an update? So... what would an update be?

Going back to your car purchase example: the CCG guide you quote is analogous to a car purchase contract that says "when you buy a car, the actual item you receive might vary in color." You may decide not to purchase a car under those terms -- but you had the right to make that decision before you purchased it. You read the CCG before you made a character, I presume. You knew that items might be changed. 



I've never seen a purchase contract for a car that allowed the dealer to deliver an orange car, where I had specified blue, and that would bind me to accepting the orange one.  Or a contract that allowed for the blue car I purchased to later turn orange, and still bind me to keeping the color-changing car without recourse.

Could you give me any real world examples where you are bound to keep something purchased that does not perform the task for which it was specified?

If you want to drive the car-analogy further - there are entire class-action lawsuits that have ensued on the basis of Cadillac cars being fitted with engines tagged as being manufactured by Chevrolet. 

Again, you are free to keep whatever dreck you are handed.  I'm not telling you that you have to do anything.

Okay, completely honest here and not trying to be sarcastic:

Can someone from the "I payed for this" camp explain to me how LFR (seemingly at the center of debate) ends up being a "consumer service" with attached rights? 
I see the argument time and time again, but I find myself unable to gain access to the viewpoint. Even having read several threads in which the argument surfaces, I cant seem to wrap my head around it.

I take this to be a failing to comprehend on my part and would like to at least understand its underpinnings before deciding to agree, disagree or just ignore. 

edit:
ok upon reading back would like to add:
the consumer service wording is mine as that is how I translate what I see, if that is not how people view it, explanation also appreciated..
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
Okay, completely honest here and not trying to be sarcastic:

Can someone from the "I payed for this" camp explain to me how LFR (seemingly at the center of debate) ends up being a "consumer service" with attached rights? 
I see the argument time and time again, but I find myself unable to gain access to the viewpoint. Even having read several threads in which the argument surfaces, I cant seem to wrap my head around it.

I take this to be a failing to comprehend on my part and would like to at least understand its underpinnings before deciding to agree, disagree or just ignore. 

 



I'll take a stab.

There are two different "I paid for this"  (assuming a typo on your part).

1) I paid for this item.

If you buy a sammich at McDonalds, and drive away from the window.  (We all know what happens - they somethingsomething you at the drive thru ).  You take a bite of your sammich, and find that they left off the meat.  You go back to McDonalds and say.  "There's no meat in my sammich!" 

Do you a) accept the argument that McDonalds reserves the right to change sammich ingredients, and b) you took a bite, therefore you are not entitled to a refund on that sammich?  or do you a) expect them to give you a sammich with the meat on it, and hearing that they discovered the meat was bad and are now making sammiches without meat b) simply get your money back and get a different sammich that has chicken or fish-like-product ?

That's the "I paid for this item" argument.

I have bought/selected option X.  Upon using it for a short time, I discover that it suddenly works quite differently than what I paid for in gold/feat/paragon path selection.  I am entitled to either a) have the item works as it did when I selected it, or b) nullify the selection and choose something else. 

Since option a) is not available - grandfathering the item into the campaign would be more chaotic than a DM should have to worry about, I am left with option (b) - reselecting an item based on what is available on the menu.  This still places a burden on me to retool a character that was doing what I wanted it to do, but does not place a burden on an already overburdened DM.  And it's still WOTC's fault for having bad meat in the first place.

Then there is

2) I paid for this content.

I have purchased a huge stack of content from WOTC.  Not only that but I have purchased online content through my DDI subscription. 

The content itself drives sales ("Hey, look at all the nifty stuff your character can use!!!") LFR also drives sales ("Hey look at the cool setting and campaign that we are putting out for everyone to use our content in!!!")  Both are paid for in the cost of the content.    In buying books and DDI, you are paying for both the content in the book, and the context in which it is available for use (LFR).

As a customer of the content, you have a right to expect that you are buying a quality product.  When WOTC issues updates 1-2 years after publishing the content, there is an implication that a) their quality control did not find defects before printing, and b) the decision was made to not fix the defects until print sales would be unaffected by the change. 

As a purchaser of the LFR (though book and DDI sales), you have a right to expect timely and appropriate customer service.  If defects are found in the content, then you have a right to expect your investment in time (character creation, progression, DMing, playing) and money (book and DDI, and travel) to not be thrown by the wayside without your consent.  Given the shared-world nature of the campaign, it is understandable that quality defects at publishing time will lead to changes in content.  These changes in content should burden the consumer (you) as little as possible, and everything should be done by the seller (wotc) to accept responsibility for the defects on a timely basis.



Sign In to post comments