Community

AxeMurder0 wrote:

As written I think it does mean the compendium version for almost everything should be used.

Which unfortunately means a host of things as the compendium is full of "errors"

Write WotC and point the error out to them.

Also it's too bad that only monster write ups include keywords such as humanoid meaning no PCs can take Dhampyr. (Not that the PBH is any different then the Compendium here)

Taking this stance is near sighted at best. It's kind of absurd to suggest that if a human NPC and a PC were standing side by side that the NPC would be a Medium Natural Humanoid that's alive and the PC isn't.

No Farewell's needed.

If the compendium wants to change something, it can note any change like errata does and date them.

If not it is a tool you can pay for, which gives a summary of all the content, but clearly does not restate all of the content.


There is no way currently to use the compendium as a means to tell when something was changed or which change came first or if anything was changed or just partially reprinted.

After all it would be really dumb of WOTC to give any subscriber free copies of all books in complete form.

If they did that people would never buy anymore books.

The idea of teling people to update the compendium if the company made a mistake is rediculous. None of us work for WOTC and it is not our job to make sure their rules excerpts are not taken out of context. Nor could we know if they were simply refusing to print out entire articles.

I think it was very foolish of LFR to use the Compendium as a rules source, but I guess they realize that most people were not paying the monthly fee to download a magazine, when it used to be mailed.

Do I personally think the Apparatus is broken, of course.

I think there should be errata to Dragon and Dungeon magazine and it should be posted and dated in the errata section.

That would stop all these debates in their tracks.

I agree the changes to dragon and dungeon content should be issued as errata but they are not going to do that. WotC historically hates issuing errata.

The Rules Compendium is the only place they will issue updates for that content. As such it was necessary to allow the Rules Compendium as a rules source for LFR regardless of if you like it or not.

The Rules Compendium is a rules source as of 1.8. What does that mean to you?

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I agree the changes to dragon and dungeon content should be issued as errata but they are not going to do that. WotC historically hates issuing errata.

The Rules Compendium is the only place they will issue updates for that content. As such it was necessary to allow the Rules Compendium as a rules source for LFR regardless of if you like it or not.

The Rules Compendium is a rules source as of 1.8. What does that mean to you?

I raised this issue (and suggesting versioning or time stamping updates in the Compendium) and I've been told that the schedule for Rules Updats has been changed/refreshed and it should become (essentially) a non-issue.

If I were to read between the lines and try to make a semi-logical conclusion based on that, I'd presume that means we could look forward to rules updates more-or-less coinciding with Compendium Updates (on the 4th Thuesday of every month).

Wolfstar,

Can you look into this specific issue? It's commonly known as one of the most broken items in game. The main argument right now seems to be, "Is the warforged as written in the compendium the most current, and therefore, the legal version that should be used in RPGA?"

If it is, they are no longer constructs and the Reparation Apparatus no longer functions on them. If it isn't, we still use the Dragon version, they are still constructs, and they can still currently abuse this item.

Any help or insight would be appreciated.

Thanks!

ElJeffeX wrote:

Wolfstar,

Can you look into this specific issue? It's commonly known as one of the most broken items in game. The main argument right now seems to be, "Is the warforged as written in the compendium the most current, and therefore, the legal version that should be used in RPGA?"

If it is, they are no longer constructs and the Reparation Apparatus no longer functions on them. If it isn't, we still use the Dragon version, they are still constructs, and they can still currently abuse this item.

Any help or insight would be appreciated.

Thanks!

I've only been skimming the thread (in-depth rules discussions tend to make my head swim), so let me see if I can sum up the issue correctly before I assault Chris Tulach or Mike Mearls or one of the other guys here at the show.

Reparation Apparatus (from Dragon #365) adds 2d6 healing or temp HPs when healing/temping is done with another power to a construct.

Warforged, when introduced in Dragon #364 (for players) had both keyword "Construct" as well as "Living Construct". This clearly meant that they could be affected by the Reparation Apparatus.

In the Compendium (and by proxy, the Character Builder) the Warforged have "lost" the Construct keyword, while retaining Living Construct, which is leading to debate about whether the item can still be used.

The confusion stems from the following two concerns:
1) There's no date/version in the Compendium entry, so it isn't clear if the change is the result of a revision, or simple human error in creating the entry. The lack of a supporting Rules Update further muddies the water.

2) There is a question as to whether a Living Construct is or isn't still a "Construct" for purposes of construct effects/powers/etc.

Does that sum it up well?

Assuming I'm on the right track, I'll toss in my two cents (though I'll still ask the guys here at the show).

1) As of the CCG 1.8, the Compendium is an official rules source. While versions or time stamps would be useful, the flexible nature of the Compendium means it should always be the most up-to-date rules source. No, that isn't spelled out in black and white, no it doesn't account for human error, yes it is rather "assumed" and therefore not foolproof.

However, in my opinion that would make the Compendium the more up-to-date resource by default, and therefore the version we should be using. That would mean no "Construct" keyword.

2) Living Construct is defined in the write-up following that keyword. The included definintions do not say that effects/powers/etc related to constructs have any special effects on Living Constructs.

Previously the Construct keyword DID grant those effects - much as the "Fey" keyword will (from what I've seen here at the show) mean that powers that affect Fey creatures will apply to gnomes.

Without that keyword, I'd think the Reparation Apparatus no longer functions.

Again - that's just my 5-minute take on the issue. I'll try to get into someone official's head for more details.

I posed the question to Mike Mearls just now.

His answer?

"I believe that still works. I think the reason that Construct was removed was because it's redundant with Living Construct"

He clarified that that's unofficial - so it wouldn't hurt to contact Customer Service requesting official clarification (http://wizards.custhelp.com).

However, for people looking for a "supporting document" - there you go.

Waaait a minute... customer service for official clarification? Personally, I'll accept the word of the lead developer for D&D, whether he says it's official or not, though I would like to see supporting documentation for his answer (like, by defining what "living construct" means, or putting the construct keyword back on).

jeffv wrote:

Waaait a minute... customer service for official clarification? Personally, I'll accept the word of the lead developer for D&D, whether he says it's official or not, though I would like to see supporting documentation for his answer (like, by defining what "living construct" means, or putting the construct keyword back on).

not for clarification - to suggest they clarify the issue with a rules update.

Personally, I'd suggest adding a line akin to:

Special: You are considered a construct for the purpose of effects that relate to constructs.

Just to make it above/beyond debate.

Alternately something like:

Note: You are not considered a construct for the purpose of effects that relate to constructs

Either option would clarify the "gray area"

WolfStar76 wrote:

I posed the question to Mike Mearls just now.

His answer?

"I believe that still works. I think the reason that Construct was removed was because it's redundant with Living Construct"

Did you ask him about the issues with it? They may have fixed it due to the in-play issues without necessarily getting him fully involved with it - witness the Stealth errata issue, where he made some comments completely opposite of the eventual errata.

WolfStar76 wrote:

I posed the question to Mike Mearls just now.

His answer?

"I believe that still works. I think the reason that Construct was removed was because it's redundant with Living Construct"

He clarified that that's unofficial - so it wouldn't hurt to contact Customer Service requesting official clarification (http://wizards.custhelp.com).

However, for people looking for a "supporting document" - there you go.

Hopefully, an update will be issued soon. In the meantime, this is good enough for me!

MwaO wrote:

Did you ask him about the issues with it? They may have fixed it due to the in-play issues without necessarily getting him fully involved with it - witness the Stealth errata issue, where he made some comments completely opposite of the eventual errata.

I asked him based on the synopsis I provided above because it is/was my understanding of the heart of the issue at the time I bumped into him. As I said, I've only skimmed the issue, so my apologies if I didn't get all the detail into the question.

ElJeffeX wrote:

Per the new CCG1.8, the Rules Updates and Rules Compendium are valid resources for RPGA play.

In practice, using the Rules Compendium makes no sense. It's full of errors and it even contradicts itself in several places. So no, you can't really use the Rules Compendium as is.

if it's a redundancy, then living construct need to specifically say "counts as construct for abilities and effects", because otherwise it does not. There are no sub-subtypes anymore, you are or you are not.

I really don't see what makes a "Living Construct" not a construct. The power doesn't say "a creature with the construct keyword" it says simply "a construct."

There's no reason to say, "living constructs count as constructs" because if we look at the noun involved here, it is still "constructs." It's like saying "these red apples are apples."

If the Reparation Apparatus said specifically that it applies to creatures with the "construct" keyword, then I would also agree that it would not work.

If you think it's broken, then don't allow it in your home play. You can change whatever you want there. If some guy is using it and sucking the fun and challenge out of the table, people will get sick and won't want to play with him.

It's not the warforged that needs modification/clarification. It's the item.

"construct" is a type in the monster manual as is "living construct". The words are similar, and if this was not a game it would be different. This , however, is a game with rules, you can't use inductive reasoning but rather must use deductive reasoning.

Drivelikebrazil wrote:

If you think it's broken, then don't allow it in your home play. You can change whatever you want there. If some guy is using it and sucking the fun and challenge out of the table, people will get sick and won't want to play with him.

If you don't think it's broken, then allow it in your home play. You can change whatever you want there. Just because some player wants broken rules to work in their favor doesn't mean you have to let them.

Corwynn wrote:

In practice, using the Rules Compendium makes no sense. It's full of errors and it even contradicts itself in several places. So no, you can't really use the Rules Compendium as is.

Look on the bright side... Pact Boons aren't Immediate actions anymore in the Compendium.

Drivelikebrazil wrote:

I really don't see what makes a "Living Construct" not a construct. The power doesn't say "a creature with the construct keyword" it says simply "a construct."

There's no reason to say, "living constructs count as constructs" because if we look at the noun involved here, it is still "constructs." It's like saying "these red apples are apples."

So monstrous humanoids in 3.5 were also humanoids?

Come on MwaO... you know better than that. New edition, different rules, different type structures. (all monstrous humanoids from 3.5 are now humanoids in 4e... just saying... )

Telvin3d wrote:

If you don't think it's broken, then allow it in your home play. You can change whatever you want there. Just because some player wants broken rules to work in their favor doesn't mean you have to let them.

Please remember this thread is in the RPGA LFR forum. Any DM with sense will house rule this in their home game, but the LFR DM's have to run it as is according to the rules. That's the issue I'm trying to resolve.

Corwynn wrote:

In practice, using the Rules Compendium makes no sense. It's full of errors and it even contradicts itself in several places. So no, you can't really use the Rules Compendium as is.

Sure, you might not be able to use it correctly, if there are errors and contradictions, but you have to "use" it, because it is a legal rules source. Actually, since it's updated monthly, it will usually be THE legal rules source. I'm not arguing it should be, just that it currently is. We'll have to deal with any problems that arise because of that. This (the warforged issue) is one of them.

WolfStar76 wrote:

I asked him based on the synopsis I provided above because it is/was my understanding of the heart of the issue at the time I bumped into him. As I said, I've only skimmed the issue, so my apologies if I didn't get all the detail into the question.

I truly appreciate that. His answer is definately good enough for us to go with for now as a general ruling, the warforged are still constructs and as such can still benefit from the apparatus.

It is something that is over-powered and I hope they look into it in the future. I don't the warforged should be changed (at least, I think they should be constructs, just as elves are fey and dhampyr are considered vampires for things that specifically affect that origin/type/keyword.) It gives them flavor and allows for some interesting moments in game.

Simply updating the item in some fashion should be enough. Instead of a property, make it an encounter power power if you still want it to be really nice, or make it a daily if you just want it to be moderately useful. Just a suggestion.

Thanks again.

MwaO wrote:

I'd just note here - the only reason you should be paying to check the Compendium, at least in theory, is if you used some non-book content - the books get updated for free.

That's got to be wrong, because othewise WotC is saying that Dragon magazine is useless to LFR players unless they pay indefinitely.

I think the major issue here is that errata is free and should be free we bought the books. Requiring people to have access to the compendium and search it at random times to assure that they have the most up to date rules is mind boggling.

If WOTC doesn't want to issue errata or allow some way for people to discover what is LFR legal without paying money, then people are going to get things wrong.

There is going to be endless table banter and debate over rules and in order to back it up someone is going to need to have a print out of the compendium, which won't have a date on it, or a laptop handy at the game to check over everything, which would destroy game time and fun.

This is no way to run a game and I for one will not put up with it.

If it is in the errata fine, if its in a player source fine.

If its not in a form easily accessible to me at the game without shelling out money and time to look up every single thing ever day to make sure nothing changed, then I will not be using it.

So What does 1.8 making the rules compendium a rules source mean to me? Nothing.

I will continue to go by the Preparing For Play section when I run each adventure. I will have the latest errata for PHB, DMG and Monsters manual. I will of course accept print ups from Dungon and Dragon Magazine and I have a few other player resources as well.

The rest of the rules I need will be provided in the adventure.

If I find a section where a player wants something to work differently because of the rules compendium, I will use DM empowerment to talk about it after the game and continue play using the rules listed in preparing to play.

If LFR tells me I need to become a D&D insider in order to run games, then they have lost a GM.

I asked about the Compendium being an RPGA Legal rules source at the R&D Q&A on Friday morning.

Chris told me that the Rules Update team has actually revised their timetables so that discrepancies between the Compendium updates and official "published" updates become less of an issue.

If I were to try and read between the lines, I'd hope/assume/think that means that Rules Updates are going to be published at (or near) the same time as Compendium updates - keeping the two in sync from here out.

I'd suggest that if we're finding changes that are in the Compendium, but not in the Rules Update we contact Customer Service about those changes, requesting that they be forwarded to the Rules Update team.

The "gray area" will probably be Dragon Magazine articles, but it shouldn't be hard for them to add a "Dragon Magazine" PDF and each update published there simply list the page and issue# that's being updated.

lightkira wrote:

I think the major issue here is that errata is free and should be free we bought the books. Requiring people to have access to the compendium and search it at random times to assure that they have the most up to date rules is mind boggling.

No one is saying you have to pay for access to the compendium. It's simply a legal rules source. Any errata will be published in the updates on the website which are free. They will also be reflected int he compendium. As MwaO stated, the only things which won't see such updates are non-book items such as stuff from Dragon. In this case, the only places you will see the changes are int he Compandium. But if you're using Dragon content, you probably already have a subscription anyway.

If not, then someone somewhere will know about a change and will inform you at a game that the rules item you are using has been changed.

JohnLynch wrote:

That's got to be wrong, because othewise WotC is saying that Dragon magazine is useless to LFR players unless they pay indefinitely.

No.

It means that if you're using a power from Dragon magazine and you're no longer a subscriber, there's the possibility that you've been errata'd and don't know about it. At which point, particularly if it is a broken combo, you'll probably get told about it.

Such as what is happening right now.

Dragon9 wrote:

Come on MwaO... you know better than that. New edition, different rules, different type structures. (all monstrous humanoids from 3.5 are now humanoids in 4e... just saying... )

Except there are now living constructs and constructs. Given "Living Construct" is a 'keyword', there should not be an assumption that you can therefore subdivide that keyword into parts.

As I mentioned in the other thread. The quote from Merls sounds like he didn't really know what he was talking about. It sounds like he just gave an answer when we was blind sided by this question.

It didn't sound affirmative at all.

MwaO wrote:

It means that if you're using a power from Dragon magazine and you're no longer a subscriber, there's the possibility that you've been errata'd and don't know about it. At which point, particularly if it is a broken combo, you'll probably get told about it.

So I check the errata on the website to see if an item been erratad, discover it hasn't so I buy it and get told a week later it was updated in the compendium and now I am stuck with an item I wouldn't otherwise have bought.

The idea of WotC charging for errata is simply ridiculous and makes Dragon 100% useless for those not willing to pay for errata.

Dragon9 wrote:

It's kind of absurd to suggest that if a human NPC and a PC were standing side by side that the NPC would be a Medium Natural Humanoid that's alive and the PC isn't.

Welcome to 4e. The PCs are from a different world/universe from the NPCs.

-James

JamesMaissen wrote:

Welcome to 4e. The PCs are from a different world/universe from the NPCs.

-James

Agreed! NPCs and MM creatures can have different abilities that PCs of the same race (or even class!) don't get.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

As I mentioned in the other thread. The quote from Merls sounds like he didn't really know what he was talking about. It sounds like he just gave an answer when we was blind sided by this question.

It didn't sound affirmative at all.

I agree. But what was said was said. That's not an official issue of errata though, so until warforged have a keyword: construct or similar (like eladrin and fey), that apparatus wouldn't work. I also feel comfortable doing that in RPGA games.

JohnLynch wrote:

The idea of WotC charging for errata is simply ridiculous and makes Dragon 100% useless for those not willing to pay for errata.

Well, since you get it with your Dragon subscription... it kind of goes hand in hand. if you're using stuff from Dragon and not paying for it, then you'll have to do your due diligence.

The burden of making sure you are using the current rules is up to the player. I would, however, suggest writing WotC and requesting that they look at errata issues for Dragon content and release an Update pdf for it.

If enough people want it, they will likely look into doing it.

Dragon9 wrote:

Well, since you get it with your Dragon subscription... it kind of goes hand in hand. if you're using stuff from Dragon and not paying for it, then you'll have to do your due diligence.

The problem is people who had a dragon subscription. If you get it for a year, download all your issues and then decide not to renew the subscription you then lose access to the errata for the content you paid for.

They have said in the past that they are looking at publishing 'best of dungeon/dragon' hardcopy books. My guess is that is where they will be doing the official updates, so DnDi subscribers will actually have to pay twice to get their errata.

Also, 90% of the crunch content people care about are things that are due to be published at a later date already. For example we don't have to wait for Dragon to update the Warforged info, just fr the Eberron book to come out.

They are... there's a Best of Dragon Annual on the schedule for release on September 15th.

I dunno, the rules compendium seems ill-conceived to me, and looks like it will cause more problems than it will solve.

And again, the idea of having to pay indefinitely once one discontinues their subscriptionjust so you can have legal content and the updates bugs me.

Dragon9 wrote:

if you're using stuff from Dragon and not paying for it, then you'll have to do your due diligence.

I have paid for it. I've paid for 3 months worth of it. Having read those three months worth of Dragon, I don't want to pay for any further Dragon content as while I think some of it is useful, I don't think its $5/$8 a month useful.

Why should I have to pay more just to make sure they haven't changed what I already paid for? It would be like paying for errata to the books.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

As I mentioned in the other thread. The quote from Merls sounds like he didn't really know what he was talking about. It sounds like he just gave an answer when we was blind sided by this question.

It didn't sound affirmative at all.

Sooooo. . . for what it's worth, and to further cloud the issue. . .

I was lucky enough to get into a disucssion on rules interpretations and discussions with Chris Tulach and Chris Sims. As part of the discussion I re-visited this issue with them.

Chris Sims agrees that "Living Construct" is a wholly unique keyword that isn't to be broken down into two separate words ("Living, Construct"). As such, he agrees that unless/until the definitions of Living Construct includes wording to make them constructs in regards to powers/effects they don't get those powers/effects. (IE - no reparation apparatus).

Chris Tulach mentioned that he and Mike Mearls re-discussed the issue with the rules in front of them the night before, and they both agreed (when looking at the rules more closely) that a Living Construct is, indeed, a separate entity as well.

In short? Mike wasn't fully prepared to answer the question when I "sprung" it on him - and now appears to be reconsidering his opinion.

At this point it looks like the general (and yes, still unofficial) consensus is that Reparition Apparatus (and other "Construct" related effects) do nothing to a Warforged.

My apologies for further muddying the waters, but hopefully the (now) unanimous opinion of 3 Rules Update Team members will help further sway opinions.

(and better still, here's hoping the Rules Update team includes language to fully silence the issue - IE "living constructs are not considered constructs, blah blah blah." I suspect, however, they may not as Chris Sims, at least, seems to be of the opinion that people shouldn't look for rules/interpratations that aren't there. IE - if it doesn't define you as a construct, you shouldn't assume you're a construct.)

Dragon9 wrote:

Well, since you get it with your Dragon subscription... it kind of goes hand in hand. if you're using stuff from Dragon and not paying for it, then you'll have to do your due diligence.

The burden of making sure you are using the current rules is up to the player. I would, however, suggest writing WotC and requesting that they look at errata issues for Dragon content and release an Update pdf for it.

If enough people want it, they will likely look into doing it.

I wholly support the inclusion of rules changes to content made in Dragon being included in the Rules Update documents. IE:

Dragon 364. Page 28 Warforged Racial traits. Remove the constructs keyword and the definition that follwed it.

Of course, the warforged is something of a special case since it's almost certainly going to be re-printed in the Eberron Player's Guide, but you get the point.

I tried to petition for this (and if you agree, by all means, write to customer service http://wizards.custhelp.com) and was told that one of the ways they envision updates for Dragon content will be to review/update the content for articles that end up in the Dragon Annual volumes.

So, I guess we wait and see.

JohnLynch wrote:

I don't want to pay for any further Dragon content as while I think some of it is useful, I don't think its $5/$8 a month useful.

Why should I have to pay more just to make sure they haven't changed what I already paid for? It would be like paying for errata to the books.

Well, you don't have to pay for more if you don't want to. Unlike taxes, yo aren't forced to. Sound sliek you won't be using much, if anything out of it anyway. if you do, that's fine. Like I said, you just have to do your due diligence and make sure you are using the most up to date rules. Someone will point it out to you if you play it wrong, or if you have a friend who has a subscription I'm sure they'll inform you as well.

In the mean time, write CS and tell them you'd liek to see them do Updates to the errata. Or, just wait for the Dragon compilation and buy those instead of having a subscription. if you are on the Yahoo group, someone always posts a summary of changes made with updates. I would expect someone would give a heads up if something changed in the Compendium.

Dragon9 wrote:

Well, you don't have to pay for more if you don't want to. Unlike taxes, yo aren't forced to. Sound sliek you won't be using much, if anything out of it anyway. if you do, that's fine. Like I said, you just have to do your due diligence and make sure you are using the most up to date rules. Someone will point it out to you if you play it wrong, or if you have a friend who has a subscription I'm sure they'll inform you as well.

In the mean time, write CS and tell them you'd liek to see them do Updates to the errata. Or, just wait for the Dragon compilation and buy those instead of having a subscription. if you are on the Yahoo group, someone always posts a summary of changes made with updates. I would expect someone would give a heads up if something changed in the Compendium.

There's a major difference, though, in that the compendium doesn't have a list of changes made to it(no transparency), so nobody knows if it's a simple error or whether it's actually meant to be errata. For example, does the Luckbringer of Tymora really have the action point ability pushed off to 16th level?

Sithobi1 wrote:

For example, does the Luckbringer of Tymora really have the action point ability pushed off to 16th level?

Have you written CS for a clarification?

Dragon9 wrote:

Have you written CS for a clarification?

Why should we have to? Unclear rules, flawed updates and borderline idiotic policies regarding transparency aren't our fault.

Yet another thing bugging me about the administration of this whole 4e affair.

JohnLynch wrote:

The idea of WotC charging for errata is simply ridiculous

Absolutely agree. You can't charge players to get rules fixes.

On top of that, the Rules Compendium doesn't go through the normal vetting process that errata and FAQ answers do, so it's rife with errors. At one point (probably still there), the Rules Compendium made up whole rules (the Warlock's "Curse" ability became a power; a ranged immediate action, so they couldn't use it on their own turn) that contradicted the Warlock entry... in the Rules Compendium!

In other words, the Rules Compendium has been known to:

• Contradict itself
  
• Make up rules.
  

Edit: just checked. Read the entry for the Warlock class. The Warlock's Curse is still a power.

This was NOT in the most recent errrata. They still have made up rules! So what are we supposed to follow now? Do we yo-yo?

1. Follow the Rules Compendium (most recent rules update)... so Warlock's Curse is a power.
2. Errata gets released, without Warlock's Curse as a power (follow errata, which is now more recent)
3. Rules Compendium is updated... I guess we're back to having the Warlock's Curse as a power!

Wolfstar, any suggestions?

Corwynn wrote:

Wolfstar, any suggestions?

Just the usual route of customer service.

I know _metz_ takes exception to that, but there IS a good reason for it.

I don't know how many people WotC employs in the "D&D Department" but let's call it a robust 200.

There's an estimated six MILLION of us playing. Let's assuming only 10% of us are DDI subscribers (and from what I saw at DDXP it's more likely that at LEAST 75% of us are subscribers).

That still means there's about 60,000 of us looking around and catching errors. No, it isn't our job to do that, but job or not - by numbers alone we're going to be better at it than they are.

So we have a choice when we find errors in the Compendium.

We can grouse about it, shaking our fists and bemoaning the fact that WotC isn't perfect. . .

. . . or we can take small steps to improve the product line for everyone involved. We can take part in our hobby and help foster improvements that will help us - AND help people who may well join the game after us.

For rulings like the Warlock Curse, I'd suggest a common-sense approach to contradictions. No, that isn't a perfect fix, but I think it's a *reasonable* solution - especially when we combine it with submitting that kind of thing to Customer Service for correction.

I'll do what little I can to escalate that sort of thing to the DDI team and/or the Rules Update team, but hearing a couple dozen requests from all of you will carry at least as much weight - if not more.

However Wolfstar, the problem isn't that WoTC is only so big, and trying as hard as it can etc... etc...

The problem is that the core issue here is incompetence, rather than erroneous entry of powers. The latter I can deal with, but the impression I am getting from the compendium is the former. Thus there is a problem with the system of compendium updates, rather than the mere human element.

This isn't fist shaking because my item has been nerfed, this is a comment that WoTC needs to get their act together. We can't operate in a living campaign where we are unsure of what the rules are due to this new random element.

It is odd that most people who I know who are disenfranchised with 4e (largely new players ceasing play) aren't so because of the mechanic, but rather with the administration. Frankly isn't the POINT of the rules compendium to provide one easy location for all of us to see the rules/updates?

Than why has it caused a swathe of unrelated issues because of it's inclusion? honestly it would be better to Not be included. I would rather see a dragon Magazine PDF update saying 'Reparation apparatus now don't work on warforged' than see the ill-conceived random changes they seem to be making to the rules - which are difficult to identify as changes rather than errors.

Such a dodgy compendium that

1. Requires payment (even from non Dragon users, or ex dragon users)
2. Is unpredictable, fickle, contradictory and incongruous with rules updates
3. Is so badly edited that it rings massive alarm bells if this is considered 'core rules' for any living campaign

In it's current form, it should NEVER have been a core rules source, and it should have been better tested.

That is why there is all this furore. not because we are intrinsically mean to WoTC (though I oft am)

- Telling it how it is.

All of that is (mostly) fair commentary.

Let me say that I suppose I'm a bit forgiving because they're trying something new with the Compendium - and that it looks to me like most of the mistakes of this sort are from when the project was really just gearing up.

In short, I think there may have been a disconnect in how to include class features that weren't *quite* powers.

Data entry, IMHO, seems to have gotten better however, as we've moved on down the road. What I suspect we're seeing are "ghosts" of some of their earlier implementations.

No, that doesn't make the problems any less. . . quarrlesome for those of us in the RPGA.

Let me ask this - since I don't really use the Compendium much. Are you (we) seeing similar errors with content from the last month or two worth of books/magazines?

I'm aware that Tiamat and Spellscar powers aren't in the Compendium yet, due to a need to increase the flexibility of the database to fit "things that break the mold" - but their exclusion (to me) is different from the issue of contradictory entries.

In short - do you think I'm being unfair to characterize those errors as "growing pains" from the early stages of the Compendium - and that simply pointing out those early errors might eliminate them now that better processes are in place?

WolfStar76 wrote:

In short - do you think I'm being unfair to characterize those errors as "growing pains" from the early stages of the Compendium - and that simply pointing out those early errors might eliminate them now that better processes are in place?

The problem isn't growing pains in DnDi. WotC has been trying to get its act together for about a decade now as far as digital products go. The next successful one will be the first. This is a known issue.

The problem is with the RPGA/WotC making known buggy software an official rules source. At some level, the powers-that-be think this is acceptable and that is unacceptable. And the RPGA doesn't get to say "this came down from on high" and pretend it's not an issue. They are either running the campaign or they are not. If they don't make the call as to official rule sources, they need to provide us with the contact information for the people actually running the campaign we are playing.

Telvin3d wrote:

The problem is with the RPGA/WotC making known buggy software an official rules source. At some level, the powers-that-be think this is acceptable and that is unacceptable.

This is the crux of the issue.

And the RPGA doesn't get to say "this came down from on high" and pretend it's not an issue. They are either running the campaign or they are not. If they don't make the call as to official rule sources, they need to provide us with the contact information for the people actually running the campaign we are playing.

There has been far too much LACK of accountability with this campaign so far. I am sick to death of hearing 'It's not our fault, it came down from on high' What is the point of the RPGA than? Are we are the mercy of the marketing department/folks not involved with the campaign?

The buck needs to stop SOMEWHERE and sooner or later we need to see the RPGA actually doing something other than towing the party line and apologising for incompetence/business decisions.

Basically we need a CCG 1.9 and it needs to actually SOLVE some issues for once, instead of merely adding more problems.

The LGCS despite all its flaws, was at least an attempt to fix the problem, rather than an enabler of them.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Just the usual route of customer service

Also, I see you point people towards customer service half a dozen times a day. Have you checked with customer service to see if this is part of their mandate? If they get an e-mail saying "such and such in this RPGA program really needs fixing" are they passing these along to specific people or are they scratching their heads as to why it is showing up in their inbox instead of a RPGA inbox?

Because I tell you, in the options given on the Why Are You Contacting Customer Service form there sure isn't an option for general suggestions or complaints. Is customer service the place to send things like this?

WolfStar76 wrote:

All of that is (mostly) fair commentary.

Let me say that I suppose I'm a bit forgiving because they're trying something new with the Compendium - and that it looks to me like most of the mistakes of this sort are from when the project was really just gearing up.

To be fair, I actually like the Rules Compendium. I even use it day-to-day. It's a very nice addition, overall, and that is reflected by the fact that I'm willing to pay for it.

But please don't make it an official rules source for LFR! That's a terrible way of issuing rule changes.

Wolfstar, if you make any suggestions, please send them to RPGA (Chris Tulach, since I know you have his ear). This is an RPGA issue, at heart.

• The RPGA can't have "mystery" updates to the rules without any notification.
  
• The RPGA can't have rules updates that you must pay for.
  
• The RPGA must have well-vetted rules updates, infrequently.
  

The last one may come as a bit of a surprise to some readers, but it's actually a well known principle in the software industry.

You need everyone to more or less be on the same page. It's incredibly frustrating if you have to keep up constantly with changing rules every month, by hearsay no less. It's much better to group together a bunch of small updates and release them at once in a well-publicized manner, then to have it be released piece-meal.

Don't get me wrong... I think that Wizards should continue to update the Rules Compendium with new content every month. But I *don't* think that we should use the Rules Compendium as a way to issue rule changes/updates.

And this thread is a great example. Someone suggested that since the Rules Compendium is different than Dragon magazine in regards to Warforged, then LFR should use the rules for Warforged from the Rules Compendium... uggh.

Corwynn wrote:

To be fair, I actually like the Rules Compendium. I even use it day-to-day. It's a very nice addition, overall, and that is reflected by the fact that I'm willing to pay for it.

But please don't make it an official rules source for LFR! That's a terrible way of issuing rule changes.

Wolfstar, if you make any suggestions, please send them to RPGA (Chris Tulach, since I know you have his ear). This is an RPGA issue, at heart.

• The RPGA can't have "mystery" updates to the rules without any notification.
  
• The RPGA can't have rules updates that you must pay for.
  
• The RPGA must have well-vetted rules updates, infrequently.
  

The last one may come as a bit of a surprise to some readers, but it's actually a well known principle in the software industry.

You need everyone to more or less be on the same page. It's incredibly frustrating if you have to keep up constantly with changing rules every month, by hearsay no less. It's much better to group together a bunch of small updates and release them at once in a well-publicized manner, then to have it be released piece-meal.

Don't get me wrong... I think that Wizards should continue to update the Rules Compendium with new content every month. But I *don't* think that we should use the Rules Compendium as a way to issue rule changes/updates.

And this thread is a great example. Someone suggested that since the Rules Compendium is different than Dragon magazine in regards to Warforged, then LFR should use the rules for Warforged from the Rules Compendium... uggh.

Speak for yourself.

I approve of the Rules Compendium as a rules source. The way it is implemented currently could be better but I like it in theory. I would much rather have frequent annoying updates than infrequent updates where we are left arguing for months while we wait for new errata. A change log listing the changes made from month to month is really all I ask for.

WotC historically hates issuing errata. They would rather their game be broken for months or even years rather than issue errata clarifying or fixing something. The RPGA cannot issues rulings on things involving the core rules. So where does that leave us?

I, for one, hate having to constantly argue about stupid little things within the rules. I wish WotC would issue more clarification and errata. Right now there probably a dozen different things that the message groups I frequent are debating (and will continue to debate for the months to come). I hate the lines "expect table variation" and "DM's judgment call". I shouldn't have to plead my case with the judge for every table I sit at.

The whole, "I shouldn't have to pay to use the up to date rules" line isn't anything new either. Didn't we have similar situations back in the LG days too? Spells were released in Complete Arcane and then re-released in the Spell Compendium. The Spell Compendium version was the one that we were required to use. I don't remember people complaining that much back then.

Lastly, Warforged were in need of a nerf. Now they are back down on the same level as the other str/con races.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I approve of the Rules Compendium as a rules source. The way it is implemented currently could be better but I like it in theory.

We all like the theory, the problem is that currently it doesn't help at ALL. It just caused more of these annoying little rules arguments. A simple PDF of an update is better. I mean some of the errors are almost laughable. How do we know the warforged nerf IS a nerf, rather than just stuff up like all the other issues? There is no transparency.

I, for one, hate having to constantly argue about stupid little things within the rules. I wish WotC would issue more clarification and errata.

Again, the compendium has caused more issues than it has fixed by being contradictory, incongruous, and unclear as to whether changes are errors or intended. Look around, it hasn't stopped arguments, it's made MORE.

The whole, "I shouldn't have to pay to use the up to date rules" line isn't anything new either.

That was different; there was an option to pick another spell whenever that happened. LG had a mechanic for that. Moreover, the compendium isn't a book; no one is arguing that should warforged be updated in the Ebberon book that is fine (as it is just a preview in Dragon) they are arguing over the online subscription. It is a different issue.

Lastly, Warforged were in need of a nerf. Now they are back down on the same level as the other str/con races.

Sophistry. That is irrelevant as to the viability of the Compendium. Just because Warforged are too good doesn’t mean the updating makes sense. Again as already stated, we aren’t even sure if it IS a nerf, due to the incompetence of the rest of the compendium. (P.S: I agree, they need to be toned down)

The issue isn't the idea of the compendium, it's its execution thus far, untried, badly edited and causing greater woes than it is fixing.

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

WolfStar76 wrote:

That still means there's about 60,000 of us looking around and catching errors. No, it isn't our job to do that, but job or not - by numbers alone we're going to be better at it than they are.

If as much care for the Compendium was taken as there is with Errata/Updates/whatever you want to call them, we wouldn't have a problem. Which is also why I think Errata should be the only source used to update previously published rules rather then a Compendium that doesn't have the same quality control.

It also happens we get the higher quality version for free, whereas we have to pay for the error-filled version. Why on earth is the error-filled version being used to ajudicate rules?

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

If it didn't errata stuff on its own initiative. The errata that WotC publishes (last one was published only a couple of weeks ago) is clear and unambiguous and clearly not an error from data-entry personnel.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

WotC historically hates issuing errata. They would rather their game be broken for months or even years rather than issue errata clarifying or fixing something. The RPGA cannot issues rulings on things involving the core rules. So where does that leave us?

This seems to be a strawman given that WolfStar has repeatedly said that Errata will be issued every month along with the update to the compendium.

I have no problem with the compendium being used to determine the latest version of an item/race/power/whatever. What I have a problem with is it being the only way to determine what the latest version of something is.

One reason is that it appears to be much easier for the employees in charge of the compendium to make errors then it is for the employees in charge of issuing errata.

Another reason is that DMs have no way of knowing if my item/power/race is being correctly used unless they pull out a laptop with an internet connection. Because the changes made in the compendium aren't compiled in an easy to read list (which is also easy to print off), all they have to rely on is my print-out of the relevant page from the Dragon PDF. For all they know, I'm using the latest version however in reality I may be using a horribly broken version that hasn't garnered anywhere near the attention other items (like Reparation Apparatus) have.

Finally a big reason being that WotC is charging for errata. I don't know why people think that's acceptable. If it truly were acceptable, WotC would close down the Errata section on the website completely.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

If the rules changes were transparent, there was a clear editing process, and the actual changes were also announced on a regular basis, (By email, or front screen, ideally via some sort of announcement) so that we were AWARE of said changes.

Also if random errors were thus found, as they weren't identified as deliberate updates, we'd know the difference.

Telvin3d wrote:

Also, I see you point people towards customer service half a dozen times a day. Have you checked with customer service to see if this is part of their mandate? If they get an e-mail saying "such and such in this RPGA program really needs fixing" are they passing these along to specific people or are they scratching their heads as to why it is showing up in their inbox instead of a RPGA inbox?

Because I tell you, in the options given on the Why Are You Contacting Customer Service form there sure isn't an option for general suggestions or complaints. Is customer service the place to send things like this?

I haven't sent a message to customer service saying "is this the place for RPGA issues" but have instead, in talking with people ranging from Community Management to Chris Tulach, been told that's the place to send feedback in general.

Specifically, if I wanted to comment on the CCG, I'd use the drop-down selector to choose "RPGA -> General Information".

To be sure, all "official" feedback on anything WotC does should be sent in to Customer Service where it can be logged and tracked. Discussions here in the forums are good - if only because it helps spread the word about issues to the rest of us quickly and can help focus a beam on problems.

Customer Service is where WotC wants to receive feedback, however.

_metz_ wrote:

Basically we need a CCG 1.9 and it needs to actually SOLVE some issues for once, instead of merely adding more problems.

The LGCS despite all its flaws, was at least an attempt to fix the problem, rather than an enabler of them.

Would it help if I created a "directed discussion" thread on what changes people would like to see in the CCG 1.9 (or even 1.8a) to let everyone give specific feedback?

I could then point Chris Tulach toward the thread to take into consideration for the next version.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Would it help if I created a "directed discussion" thread on what changes people would like to see in the CCG 1.9 (or even 1.8a) to let everyone give specific feedback?

I could then point Chris Tulach toward the thread to take into consideration for the next version.

You mean actually do something constructive with my whining? That's crazy talk WolfStar. Stop being level headed.

Sigh, will that mean we'll have to sort through our rants and post them in a useful way?

Sigh. Fine.

(That's me saying 'Yes' that would help, In LG we had an LGCS discussion thread, where people talked about stuff, and it often made a huge difference to the effectiveness of the final product.)

JohnLynch wrote:

This seems to be a strawman given that WolfStar has repeatedly said that Errata will be issued every month along with the update to the compendium.

Point of clarification.

What I was told is that the Rules Update team has revised their update schedule.

What I said was that if I (and I mean me, personally) were to read between the lines I'd hope/expect this means monthly updates to coincide with the Compendium.

I was *not* told point-blank what the revised schedule would be.

I'll take full blame for any confusion my speculation has caused, but would also like to nip it in the bud before it starts getting quoted as fact.

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

The biggest thing is that all articles need to be date stamped and a change log needs to be public.

WolfStar76 wrote:

Would it help if I created a "directed discussion" thread on what changes people would like to see in the CCG 1.9 (or even 1.8a) to let everyone give specific feedback?

I could then point Chris Tulach toward the thread to take into consideration for the next version.

Suggestions? How about you let us write it and pass it on?

Ferol, Debtor of Torm wrote:

I'm curious, what would it take for you to be happy with the compendium as a rules source? (Assuming it still required a subscription)

For myself it would be this: require subscription to play LFR.

Then it would be perfectly reasonable for elements thereof to be the rules source for the campaign.

Beyond that, then they would need to maintain a list of changes. They are doing a very nice job of that mind you with the 'updates' though I would add in the color that they used to highlight changes as well as the summary at the end.

-James

Let's see changes I'd like to see in 1.9

Remove the Rules Compendium as a rules source and instead create public erratta on a monthly basis, which includes errata for all player and rules resources.

Add that whenever you are in town or between adventures you can find an NPC to perform any legal ritual you'd like for material costs +20%

Give adventuring companies a few of following choices for bonuses. +3 to aid another checks for a member of your company, +2 company to a skill for the company, 1 action point per session for the company, +1 to hit when 2 other company members are adjacent to the target, +1 ac when 2 other company members are adjacent to you.


Put in rules for resolving disease during a mod and have diseases matter. Find a way to not make it a roulette money sink. This may involve a rewrite of the disease rules. Alternatively remove diseases from LFR.

Create a working online tracking system.

Make LFR only errata.

Just so you know, Wolfstar has started a thread specifically for commenting on the CCG.

lightkira wrote:

Give adventuring companies a few of following choices for bonuses. +3 to aid another checks for a member of your company, +2 company to a skill for the company, 1 action point per session for the company, +1 to hit when 2 other company members are adjacent to the target, +1 ac when 2 other company members are adjacent to you.

The problem with these types of things is unbalancing power creep. There are already the reward cards that everyone now has, plus the regional benefits, and now adventuring companies. None of these are particularly overpowering on their own, but combined they make a LFR character much more able than a standard D&D character. Think of it as giving every character three bonus feats. Due to experience caps for the adventures none of this can be accounted for when modules are created.

lightkira wrote:

Create a working online tracking system.

Well, so far they have been either unwilling or unable. Neither possibility speaks well for the future prospects.

lightkira wrote:

Give adventuring companies a few of following choices for bonuses. +3 to aid another checks for a member of your company, +2 company to a skill for the company, 1 action point per session for the company, +1 to hit when 2 other company members are adjacent to the target, +1 ac when 2 other company members are adjacent to you.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this. ACs are meant for roleplaying purposes, not for mechanical advantages. The AP is already pretty powerful as it is.

A couple of points:
- The designers of D&D are humans. Not only that, they are gamers. As is the case when discussing these matters with a random lot of gamers, they are on occassion going to have a different opinion from each other and their opinion can change. The whole official procedure to publish errata is to make sure any change is accepted and approved by those in charge of the process and it is never done on a whim. Hence asking for an opinion at a convention is a great way to get to learn about the intent, and an even greater way to make sure that the designers are aware of problems. However, it is not a way to acquire errata. As the discussion with Mike Mearls about the apparatus shows, opinions can change.

- I had an extensive discussion with SRM (one of the designers in charge of the errata process) on how much detail the rules should provide during the seminar about the game rules at DDXP. He made it clear that they would try to deal with known issues, but that they also expected DMs and players being adult enough to deal with issues at the gaming table. In his eyes that human factor is one of those things that makes D&D such a great game. If we all wanted a strict game mechanic with no exceptions or rules discussions we might as well all play WoW or other computer run games. He is aware that at the RPGA we have less leeway to change things than at a home campaign, since players make there characters based on expectations on how things work. Still, the few times I did run across these differences of opinion on the rules between me and my players, I always managed to resolve it quickly and to the satisfaction of the player (I tend to err on the side of the players).

- Customer service has direct communication channels with the people in charge of the errata process. If you come across a problem, don't hesitate to make them known, since that is the best way to get them resolved on an official level. The Global Administrators also have direct channels to R&D, and we constantly keep our eyes open for things that are problematic within LFR. Don't hesitate to express your concerns on these boards, although unless LFR related, CS is a better channel.

Having said that, right now I have no solid opinion on the rules compendium and errata. I haven't taken a good look at it. I do know that the lack of errate in 3E certainly caused a lot of issues with LG, and that the 90 page LGCS posed a huge hurdle to new players to join the campaign. I applaud anything that would allow errata to be published quickly. I also think that holding previous electronic projects against WotC is rather unfair. The character generating program certainly still has some flaws, but it looks great and I know it gets a lot of attention. The designers are open to suggestions from the public, and they made many notes during the various meetings at DDXP.

Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator

Madfox11 wrote:

I do know that the lack of errata in 3E certainly caused a lot of issues with LG, and that the 90 page LGCS posed a huge hurdle to new players to join the campaign. I applaud anything that would allow errata to be published quickly.

Agreed. But is an insufficient document and a buggy incongruous rules source going to be better? I think you not only confuse new players but bug the old ones with stuff like that.

Having said that, right now I have no solid opinion on the rules compendium and errata. I haven't taken a good look at it.

The issue isn't the intent, or one or two errors, the problem is that there are so many errors, and a lack of correlation to pdf updates, that we don't know whether something that is different is a rules update or merely an error. Without transparency, it's hard to forgive human errors.

Nobody's unhappy with regular updates. The PDF system works fine. What we are unhappy with is the Rule-Compendium being buggy, dodgy, contradictory, costs money to view, and completely unclear as to it's reliability.

Not a suitable rules source for a living campaign - for the millions of reasons that have already been posted.

I also think that holding previous electronic projects against WotC is rather unfair.

Well the problem is that at the moment, most of the fears are well founded. It is one thing to be ambitious and try Electronic stuff. It is another to be short-sighted and jump the gun on a faulty product.

- Dave Metcalfe

Madfox11 wrote:

Having said that, right now I have no solid opinion on the rules compendium and errata. I haven't taken a good look at it.

I think the issues are:

• You should not charge for errata, unless LFR itself requires DDI. No other business does this. Not even software.
  
• Changes are not reported, so it's impossible to know what rules have changed.
  
• You cannot charge for errata.
  
• The Rules Compendium is *not* vetted by the Game Devs. It still has lots of issues (ex.: Warlock curse, Hunter's Quarry, etc...) where the Rules Compendium actually contradicts itself. Been there since almost the beginning, and still not fixed.
  
• You cannot charge for errata.
  
• The Rules Compendium makes changes that do not get reflected in the PDF Errata. Therefore, what do we believe? Does the PDF Errata over-rule the Rules Compendium, at least until the next Compendium update. Therefore we yo-yo back and forth, depending on which is most recent?
  

Pieter (and anyone else who is reading),
I think the biggest issue that players, DMs, and organizers are currently having rotates around the following issue, outlined as explicitly as I can make it (just because I want to make sure everyone is on the same page here):

1. What the new CCG says about rules sources
a. The new CCG says that the online Rules Compendium is an official rules source.
b. The CCG has said for some time that the most recent rules version is the official one.
c. Since the online Rules Compendium is updated on a monthly basis, it is the most up-to-date rules source.

This, in and of itself, is not a problem - assuming that the Rules Compendium is kept consistent with the most recent printed product + published updates. However, we currently have a system where the Rules Compendium is not kept consistent as such (or so is said - I'll admit I haven't checked myself). As a result, only one of a limited number of possibilities can exist:

1. The Rules Compendium trumps printed rules, essentially making playing D&D while following all the rules a pay-to-play system (and those of us in the US know that when you do that, you are unanimously impeached from your position as governor)
2. The Rules Compendium does not trump printed rules, and thus is not considered to be the official news source.

These problems originate, as far as I'm concerned, with human error, which is fine. Humans, by their very nature, are error-prone, and none of us are any exception (except for, as I've been quite explicitly told on many occasions, my ex-girlfriend). What we as needy forum posters are looking for is clear guidance as to what to do when the Rules Compendium (which you need to pay to access) is in conflict with the print published rules plus updates (which we have been told practically from the announcement of 4e is all you need to have the most updated rules). It seems inherently unfair that we would have to pay to get the "correct" rules, but the "monthly-updated" status of the Rules Compendium combined with the language of the CCG seems to make it trump anything we would get by only paying 30 bucks for a PHB.

I heart JdB's summary.

*gives him a hug*

Corwynn wrote:

• You cannot charge for errata.
  

Not true... they could charge for errata if they really wanted to. It's their business. I'm not saying that it woudl be a smart decision, just that there's nothign stopping them.

Heck, they got chided for doing that with the release of the Spell Compendium back in 3e. They may be chided for that again when they put out the hardback Dragon compilation in September.

Corwynn wrote:

• You should not charge for errata, unless LFR itself requires DDI. No other business does this. Not even software.
  
• You cannot charge for errata.
  
• You cannot charge for errata.
  

Although you raise many good points, having rules and/or errata that is only accessible online is unusable at cons, store games by the majority of DMs (DMs are less likely to carry laptops then players, and only a few players do it).

"Updates" (i.e. free errata), Modules, Dragon articles, Character Creation Guide, etc are all printer-friendly. The compendium isn't (while printing off a page or two is fine, printing off the whole thing certainly isn't fine).

The rules compendium is:
1) Buggy (technology-wise) - the whole login issue with it makes it annoying enough to use that I avoid ever using it.
2) Buggy (game-wise) - it has wrong entries in it
and
3) Incomplete - Since some of the stuff on the warforged article are missing (like components), people at the con this weekend ruled that warforged PCs can't use component items. Even though the compendium ALSO includes warsoul weapons and whatever that "are always component weapons".
4) Doesn't get updated. I've reported various problems with the rules, like the Paladin's Divine Challenge, which has been broken (in the sense that it doesn't work), since 4th Edition came out, traded a couple emails with Cust Serv until they realized what the problem was, got a "we'll talk to R&D about it", and then it's still broken. At the last gameday I went to, it got bogged down for about 15 minutes with everyone arguing about how they thought Divine Challenge was supposed to work. It's things like that that kind of irk me. =)

But I think the real issue here is with the insanity of the reparation apparatus. Trying to fix the reparation apparatus cheese with some combination of hand-waving, pointing at the D&D compendium, and making official rulings in the middle of a forum post, is just not a workable combination for a worldwide campaign.

Dragon9 wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath on this. ACs are meant for roleplaying purposes, not for mechanical advantages. The AP is already pretty powerful as it is.

And the AP makes little sense, roleplaying wise.

I mean, if I had to, I could probably come up with a roleplaying reason why belonging to an organization magically gives my group extra actions when we're together. But it'd be something kludged on after the fact to justify the AP.

I was EXPECTING some roleplaying related effects from AdCo membership. Not combat effects.

Something like, bonuses (or penalties) to social interactions, information gathering, resource acquisition, etc. You know, the stuff that an organized group of people can do that an individual might find difficult.

For example, if your AdCo took a build option as High Society, you might be able to get into a classy party easier but have penalties dealing with working class groups.

Instead we got an Action point.

Don't get me wrong, an AP is nice and all, but I'm finding it difficult to understand how this relates to my character, say, being a member of a politics-and-intrigue-based AdCo.


-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

I mean, if I had to, I could probably come up with a roleplaying reason why belonging to an organization magically gives my group extra actions when we're together. But it'd be something kludged on after the fact to justify the AP.

The members of your adventuring company know each other and know how to work well together. That manifests itself in being able to take an extra action at a critical juncture in a combat. Makes a fair bit of sense to me, though if you've got an adventuring company that doesn't have requirements dealing with combat, I guess it's a bit of a stretch...

That said, there's at least one module out there that allows spending an action point to reroll a failed check in a skill challenge. Use your AP that way, and you've got a pretty decent RP benefit.

JohnLynch wrote:

(DMs are less likely to carry laptops then players, and only a few players do it).

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

In My Experience:
Most of the DMs I play with use laptops when they can, (all but 3 out of 8, and one of them is me) while only a few of the 15-20 players use their Laptops while playing.

Maybe it is different in Australia, there are hardly any DMs here with Laptops, and most don't like players with them either.

We have found that:

1. Laptops combined with dice, and other stuff usually take up an inordinate amount of room.
2. There is usually insufficient power to run all of them.
3. Burning said power aint too great for the environment.
4. Time taken to find things on a laptop is usually less than checking a printed copy
5. Laptops encourage less participation as players are constantly trolling through rules, building characters, or generally mucking about.
6. Excessive use of electronic character sheets often result in people not understanding their abilities and becoming over-reliant on others to do their work for them - this means they don't understand why their 'to hit' is that number, etc. This leads to errors and often an increased lack of understanding, rule-wise.
7. If a player/gm is looking at a screen they are not addressing other players/interacting interpersonally that much
8. Said Laptops cause a worry at cons with other people being careless with drinks, etc, also it's a lot worse losing the laptop than having some dice stolen.

I am personally of the opinion that technology is a great aid, but I have met many players who don't understand how their powers work, take up a huge amount of space with those darn power cards (write em on a piece of paper FFS, and tick em off when used) and often have ask questions like "why are my numbers klkike tis? where is the random +1 coming from?"

- Metz does think that all this newfangled technology can result in people not knowing the rules and becoming over reliant though - he has seen it.

1. Point.
2. As I said, it's mostly the DMs who use them, so we've never had a big issue. There is one venue where we tend to have 3-4 computers going, but that's one person's house, and 3 of the computers are fixtures. (and one of them's usually running FFXI or a PS emulator anyway...)
3. Instead of risking violating Community Rules, I will ignore this point, except to say that, YMMV re/ "carbon footprint" and its (percieved) effect.
4. Depends on how well the person knows the source.
5. Depends on the person.
6. I'll grant you this one.
7. Only if they constantly stare at the screen. We haven't had any problems with this.
8. Point.

And I'll agree with the reliance issue. I'm the only person in my Accounting class (Including the professor) who doesn't need a calculator for anything harder than addition/subtraction.

On the other hand, those in our group who don't understand how their powers work are the ones who have no interest in the powers, and only on "I attack this, does it die?"

YMMV, of course.

_metz_ wrote:

I am personally of the opinion that technology is a great aid, but I have met many players who don't understand how their powers work, take up a huge amount of space with those darn power cards (write em on a piece of paper FFS, and tick em off when used) and often have ask questions like "why are my numbers klkike tis? where is the random +1 coming from?"

- Metz does think that all this newfangled technology can result in people not knowing the rules and becoming over reliant though - he has seen it.

There are some of us, however, that use laptops at the table and know damn well how our powers work (as well as everyone else's), take up less space than most people without laptops, and still interact interpersonally with our tablemates just as much as we would if we didn't have a laptop

I actually use a laptop while playing quite often. I thought it was kind of weird when I saw people do it when 3.5 was prevalent, but nowadays, I'm a big fan. First of all, I have 5 PCs and each one levels every 3 adventures. I don't feel like printing that much... STUFF. Second of all, I like having all of my books and resources in one place. Third of all, when I DM, I like to track initiative in notepad.

I agree with you about many people, though. There are some people that just shouldn't be using laptops. For others, it can be a really useful and powerful tool - even at the gaming table.

Darkwolf_Bloodsbane wrote:

3. Instead of risking violating Community Rules, I will ignore this point, except to say that, YMMV re/ "carbon footprint" and its (percieved) effect.

I will rephrase:

Arbitrary wastage of power based on expensive non-renewable resources is an issue if a whole Con wants laptops ot be running a whole weekend...

First of all, I have 5 PCs and each one levels every 3 adventures. I don't feel like printing that much... STUFF.

I use a pencil, paper and eraser... What "STUFF" do you need to print so much of? Admittedly, I'm seemingly the only person in our group not a DDI subscriber. And a bit of a Luddite. But even so, with one character sheet, and one A4 sheet (or the back of a character sheet!) for powers, plus the adventuring pages, 5 characters now take up less space than 1 LG character did. And updating takes what... 5 minutes? I'm with Metz and Darkwolf on this one. Players are getting (mentally) lazy.

Ira_Dei wrote:

I use a pencil, paper and eraser... What "STUFF" do you need to print so much of? Admittedly, I'm seemingly the only person in our group not a DDI subscriber. And a bit of a Luddite. But even so, with one character sheet, and one A4 sheet (or the back of a character sheet!) for powers, plus the adventuring pages, 5 characters now take up less space than 1 LG character did. And updating takes what... 5 minutes? I'm with Metz and Darkwolf on this one. Players are getting (mentally) lazy.

I designed a fairly in-depth Excel sheet that I particularly like using. I wouldn't call myself mentally lazy at all (if you knew me, you'd probably agree). I simply prefer to use the tools that I created to be used for a specific purpose. I agree that levelling up a PC isn't exactly difficult, but when your character sheet isn't hand-written in pencil to begin with, updating it over and over again (i.e. crossing things out and writing over them) gets really sloppy and detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

It's similar to how some people (including me) get more enjoyment out of the game when they're using a nice, hand-painted mini as opposed to a plastic mini or a green Sorry! game piece. The same goes for a nice character sheet.

I tend to construct my own Character sheets and Power sheets as well, typed font is easier than otherwise, however, I usually input things on the sheet by hand afterwards. I usually use size 8-10 font (I can read small writing easily) and so in theory could fit a LOT of powers on two sheets.

I just spent a good hour doing up power sheets for a couple of my characters.

I still like to print off a nice sheet and fill it in personally however - it forces me to make sure I am doing it right.

I find that for the majority, Electronically generated sheets are fine. I have just met the minority for whom it has resulted in a lack of rules understanding, innate laziness with numbers for their powers, and know SEVERAL people that were fine in LG, who now take extra long/extra space as a result of powercards...

I am always far too pessimistic however. And whilst in the hands of a competent gamer, these tools add a lot of value - in the hands of a struggling or average gamer, I have seen them diminish said player's capability over time.

The space of the power cards is a really big pet peeve of mine, I have said it a thousand times, but there are some players that are just really bugging a few of us atm, with those darn things... (Will go unnamed) - It's really a player issue, I can't help it if the cards appear to be the enabler though...

_metz_ wrote:

I will rephrase:

Arbitrary wastage of power based on expensive non-renewable resources is an issue if a whole Con wants laptops ot be running a whole weekend...

This I can agree with. And yes, the why matters.

Although, I was, for the most part, referring to the smaller, non-convention-sized, games I play in. LFR, in particular, is held at a local Games store. (Where, coincedentally, I buy most of my swag now...)

Having not been to a Gaming Con since 2003~4, I can't really speak to it there.

My power cards take up the space of 2 decks of cards, I used to lay them out all over but they got too big, so now I just keep them stacked and flip through them when it's not my turn deciding what to do next, when used they go face down in front of me and used dailies tend to get stuffed into the back of the character sheet page holder.

Though to be fair we are waaaaaaaay off topic on this post at this point.

_metz_ wrote:

The space of the power cards is a really big pet peeve of mine, I have said it a thousand times, but there are some players that are just really bugging a few of us atm, with those darn things... (Will go unnamed) - It's really a player issue, I can't help it if the cards appear to be the enabler though...

Personally I use my own cards, for which I found a PowerPoint template last summer, and which do not do any calculating - the cards include the text of the power and boxes for me to fill in the numbers with a pencil.

Regarding automated character builders - I like to use the DDI builder to plan ahead for my characters, selecting feats, powers, paragon paths, and other things. I hand-calculate my numbers though, because I think that if you don't then you can't know where improvements can be made.

Specific to the above quote, I put my power cards in binder pages (meant for collectible cards, nine per page) and mark them off with a wet-erase pen when I use them. I get the best of both worlds - I can rearrange the placement of the cards to suit my preference, but only take up one open binder worth of space on the table.

ibixat wrote:

Though to be fair we are waaaaaaaay off topic on this post at this point.

Ibixat brings up a great point. Let's try to get it back on topic. I'll make a suggestion to Wolfstar about maybe spawning a new thread re: power cards with the discussion that has already happened with that.

See... this is what happens when I don't check a particular thread in a while.

According to CS the compendium change does not overrule the magazine despite being more recent.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1152774

Yes, but like the FAQ, CS answers are not binding nor is CS considered an official rules source for the campaign. So unless it's in a book, in the Errata updates, or in the Compendium, it doesn't count and we are required to use the most up to date rules source.

Dragon9 wrote:

Yes, but like the FAQ, CS answers are not binding nor is CS considered an official rules source for the campaign. So unless it's in a book, in the Errata updates, or in the Compendium, it doesn't count and we are required to use the most up to date rules source.

Exactly. The RPGA needs to post an official answer.

Which would be awesome, it would show they actually administer the campaign they are supposedly running...

Dragon9 wrote:

Yes, but like the FAQ, CS answers are not binding nor is CS considered an official rules source for the campaign. So unless it's in a book, in the Errata updates, or in the Compendium, it doesn't count and we are required to use the most up to date rules source.

What the heck are we (well, those who actually do it. As I don't have a DDi subscription I have no way of knowing what it says unless someone prints it out and shows it to me :P) doing treating a rules source as binding when even CS admits it shouldn't be used in such a way?

As I posted in the other thread, I'm turning what resources I have toward hunting down Chris Tulach and trying to get an official comment from him on the issue.

One of the community managers will be hunting him down on Monday, and I've got an e-mail into him as well about this issue.

As always, I can't promise anything, but CM is usually pretty good about at least getting a quote from Chris - even if Chris doesn't have the time to come in here and post himself.

So, sit tight, everyone, and we'll hopefully get clarification come Monday afternoon (Wizards Time).

WolfStar76 wrote:

As I posted in the other thread, I'm turning what resources I have toward hunting down Chris Tulach and trying to get an official comment from him on the issue.

One of the community managers will be hunting him down on Monday, and I've got an e-mail into him as well about this issue.

As always, I can't promise anything, but CM is usually pretty good about at least getting a quote from Chris - even if Chris doesn't have the time to come in here and post himself.

So, sit tight, everyone, and we'll hopefully get clarification come Monday afternoon (Wizards Time).

Here, you can use my fishing net to grab him, if you need it.

/me attaches some pastries to his finishing line in a vain attempt to help.

/me leaves out a trail of chocolate for the vast and mysterious Tulach.

/me begins to wonder which Monday exactly you meant.

Despite my lack of progress I'm still poking and prodding as best I can.

I'll follow-up with community management again on this coming Monday (3-2-09 for those playing along at home), and see if they've made any headway.

[EDIT]
For what it's worth, I have confirmation that the question has been given to Chris Tulach.

What has to be done to get an answer, I don't now - but at least he's been made aware that the question is being asked.

Thanks a lot for the reply WolfStar, on a vaguely amusing not: I specifically didn't buy a pact hammer and veteran's armor for my Warforged warlock since I figured they'd get errated, so I suppose I could in a lot worse shape rules wise if I had a those as well and was trying to figure out what to do with myself.
Still will suck if my apparatus stops working since they'll likely be no recourse other then to sell the item for peanuts but for the 5 or so adventures I used it for it was ridiculously awesome.

In addition to my personal involvement in this issue I would very much appreciate a rules system that was consistent and made sense.


-AxeM |-}