November Errata?

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Well, its a new month and there is a new batch of errata that has failed to materialise.

Any official word on the September/October/November errata release?
This is really starting to p*** me off. Come on WotC, you promised us an update months ago and since then there's been nothing but silence. If you're going to quit putting these out, at least have the courtesy to tell us. Otherwise an update on when we should expect them would be nice for your paying customers.
This is really starting to p*** me off. Come on WotC, you promised us an update months ago and since then there's been nothing but silence. If you're going to quit putting these out, at least have the courtesy to tell us. Otherwise an update on when we should expect them would be nice for your paying customers.



It's really kind of sad how they're treating 4e fans just like they did 3.5 fans. It's like a dad who beats his son, and then his son goes out and robs a liquor store. A vicious cycle that will most likely be repeated in 5th edition too. Oh well, I guess I'll just burn all this useless money I have lying around instead of giving it to WotC for some imaginary 4e support that I expected.
Oh well, I guess I'll just burn all this useless money I have lying around instead of giving it to WotC for some imaginary 4e support that I expected.



exactly how much money were you planning on spending on the free update?

INSIDE SCOOP, GAMERS: In the new version of D&D, it will no longer be "Edition Wars." It will be "Edition Lair Assault." - dungeonbastard

Its just shoddy practice to commit to deliver something, fail to deliver several times in a row, ignore queries about it and make no statement to clarify the situation. I would have thought that WotC had learnt the lessons about communication with its customers by now.
Its just shoddy practice to commit to deliver something, fail to deliver several times in a row, ignore queries about it and make no statement to clarify the situation. I would have thought that WotC had learnt the lessons about communication with its customers by now.



Exactly. Especially after WotC made a really big deal a year ago in telling us that they'd learned their lesson and were engaging in better communication (which was in fact correct). The fact they've dodged this issue for 3 months speaks volumes about their current attitude towards 4e which I can sum up in two words:

written off
FYI Yesterday over on the Errata Boards  WoTC_Trevor wrote:

You may have noticed that we haven't released an errata update recently. We have continued to monitor the errata coming in from the community, and over the past few months, there hasn't been enough material to justify a release. We have also been doing a second review of past releases, but at this point, we've covered a majority of fixes.


As a result, we're moving toward a system of updates in which we'll correct issues when we have enough material to merit a release, rather than once per month.

Please continue to post up any errors you find in the forums here, or through the help site and we will address them in a future update.
Thanks Yan.
FYI Yesterday over on the Errata Boards  WoTC_Trevor wrote:

You may have noticed that we haven't released an errata update recently. We have continued to monitor the errata coming in from the community, and over the past few months, there hasn't been enough material to justify a release. We have also been doing a second review of past releases, but at this point, we've covered a majority of fixes.


As a result, we're moving toward a system of updates in which we'll correct issues when we have enough material to merit a release, rather than once per month.

Please continue to post up any errors you find in the forums here, or through the help site and we will address them in a future update.



Wow, that's disingenuous.  There hasn't been much errata suggested, because there hasn't been much content released.  However, there are years of back suggestions on the boards, not to mention that community exercise in CharOp last year, to continue with.  There's enough errata for months of big releases still needed to the game.

Damn.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Update greatly appreciated. Why do they wait until everyone is riled up before making updates? It's always better to make these announcements early on.
Thanks to Plaguescarred for the heads up! :-) 

As for Trevors comment - I think the second review of previously published material is good, but I agree that there are a few threads where the community have expressed their concerns which have yet to be addressed. if this second review is going on, why not reach out to the community again and ask for people to report what they currently think needs looking at? This could cover both errata and updates for options that deemed below par.

As for the errata document itself - as I have previously posted I think the document has some omissions, such as the fulltext of amended Warlock powerrs, etc etc.
Wow, that's disingenuous.

It sounded genuous to me. ymmv.

 there are years of back suggestions on the boards

I can only imagine that a lot of that is conflicting overstatements written by fans that are rarely pleased with any result.

MVincent, the community has been very pleased as a whole when they followed up on what we suggested in the community exercise that thespacedinvader mentioned.  This is the document he is referring to.

No one is going to complain if they fix the remaining issues like shaman/druid AC scaling by letting them use their con mod when in light armor.  Or if they properly scale the attack bonus to non weapon/implement attacks like the dragonborn's dragonbreath attack.   And there is the dazing rebuke syndrome: immediate attack powers that say end of your next turn, when they need to be end of enemy's next turn to have a decent effect length.  Then there is the expetise issue, which a few builds still struggle with since they wrote feats that don't cover all their attacks.
In addition to the link posted by GO, (thanks GO Smile   ), I think wrecan and timmeh summarised the issues from both the DM and player side of things. There is also the originating thread that was turned into an anouncement.
 
 Maybe it would be worth revisiting these summaries, knocking off what has been addressed and listing out what remains. Hopefully this is what the developers are doing, but just to be sure we as a community could do it.

 It is somewhat annoying to have this news now, right when we are on the run up to the biannual developer-fed errata. Will there still be dedicated developer input in the new errata schedule now being put together?

[Edit] - The 3 links I mentioned are;
Original thread - community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Players Summary - community.wizards.com/timmeh/blog/2011/0...
DM Summary - community.wizards.com/wrecan/blog/2011/0...
Wow, that's disingenuous.

It sounded genuous to me. ymmv.

 there are years of back suggestions on the boards

I can only imagine that a lot of that is conflicting overstatements written by fans that are rarely pleased with any result.



I don't doubt there's a lot of silly overstatement.  But maybe, 10% of it's reasonable.  And 0% of 4 years of suggestions is still enough reasonable suggestions to be going on with, particularly when there are whole books which simply haven't been touched, and maybe 70% of the non-implement/weapon keyworded attack powers don't scale to match the expected game maths.

I still find the comment... maybe disingenuous is the wrong word.  Shortsighted?  Short-memoried?

I'm not suggesting a complete rewrite (which the game, nonetheless, could benefit from, to fix the issues with the conflation of attack and attack power, the confusion around use/hold/wield etc etc etc), but there are a wide variety of things which simply, technically, don't WORK. 

Take Academy Master's e11, for instance.  It's clear what the intent is (use an arcane power, if it misses, don't expend learned boost), but the Reliable keyword does nothing in this instance, because the reliable keyword refers to the attack roll made BY the power that has it, and Learned Boost no more has an attack roll than Commander's Strike does.  So, the intended mechanic doesn't work by RAW. 

Similarly, Ironwrought's e1 - the intent seems to be 'roll twice, if either hits, you hit, if both hit, you deal 1/2/3d8 extra damage'.  But the writing of the power is not clear by RAW, because by RaW, making an attack roll twice is not defined, and the timings of no actions like this are not clear.  It could be read as 'make an extra attack roll for 1d8 extra damage on a hit'.  It could be read as 'make the entire attack again, dealing 1d8 extra damage if you hit the second time'.  It could easily be clarified to match the probable intent of 'roll twice, take the higher, if the lower hits, deal extra damage'.  But it hasn't been; indeed, I'm reasonably sure that the entirety of HotF and HotEC haven't been errated at all, and they need it.

That's just two examples of the top of my head, in 10 minutes, that are in need of errata to clarify their intent or how they actually work.  They may be minor examples, and they may be clear by intent (I'd certainly say they are) - but it concerns me that the lack of care over the design of this game, will reflect poorly on the care they're putting into the new one.  It wouldn't take long to fix most of these minor issues.  So why not do it, at least as a token effort to please the paying customers of the current edition of the game?
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
If only there were releases for errata to even take place. Of course not much has come in...

I like the statement above about the treatment of 4th fans.
Well, we are into the new year and as far as I know there has been no further word on the second review of the outstanding errata.
 - Do we need to start opening threads up on issues that have been previously raised (but not addressed). 
- Is there any output from the second review that WotC can share? Hopefully addressing the remaining issues which the community have raised previously but which the devs think do not require correction?

At the moment, it feels like they have been called on failing to fulfill their commitment to monthly errata, have thrown out a very late response to say they are moving away from this commitment, then failed to produce any further output.
What bugs me is that there are a good number of nice interesting pieces of the game that simply don't work for minor reasons. Like the Swarm druid. This is a very nice cool build, but it is utterly hamstrung by AC issues to the point where it is basically unplayable, even at a casual level. There are several other builds that have similar issues. These are things that could all be fixed with a line or two of errata, but lacking that errata it isn't super clear what fix to go with, and there isn't one that is CB compatible.

That is not dead which may eternal lie
Fully agree with you. It seems to be the same issues raised again and again, which have been raised in the 'what works what doesnt' summeries linked above, which even appeared over in the 'new year new 4e', thread. How can these issues still exist when the official claim is that they have nailed things?
I don't normally do thread necromancy, but i think its important see retain the good points made above. AFAIK there has been no output from this second review being performed - have i missed something?

Was there any output from this second review of errata? Even just a confirmation that nothing had been found that needed amendment?

Sign In to post comments