|
4 years ago ::
Feb 04, 2009 - 1:15PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 04, 2009 - 1:28PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2008
|
Just so you know, Wolfstar has started a thread specifically for commenting on the CCG.
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.
Create a working online tracking system.
Well, so far they have been either unwilling or unable. Neither possibility speaks well for the future prospects.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign.
The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic.
Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 04, 2009 - 8:40PM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
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.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 4:44AM
#94
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 5:22AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2007
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 5:35PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2008
|
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?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:05PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2004
|
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.
John du Bois
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Director, Netheril story area
Follow me on The Twitter: @JohnduBois
Follow my presence on The Intertubes: johncdubois.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 6:09PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2007
|
I heart JdB's summary.
*gives him a hug*
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2009 - 7:33PM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
- 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.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2009 - 5:55AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2008
|
- 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).
|
|
|
