Community

Nov 30, 2009 -- 1:18PM, Mirtek wrote:

Which is something I really don't mind, as long as the campaign doesn't suddenly try to account for  their effectiveness. So if they have fun to turn every battle into a stroll through the park, let them do it. But don't change the difficulty to try to challenge them nonetheless, because that means that groups that are not PGing will soon be puddles on the ground.

But if modules are not tuned to account for PGers non-PGer are still hurt. It often times only takes one mix-maxed avenger/fullblade fighter to invalidate an encounter. Most non-PGers/part time PGers still want to feel like they were able to contribute to the party. It has happened several times in my area where the more average players left a game feeling like they didn't get to do anything because one or two players killed everything in a flurry of cheese.

Not really sure where to weigh in on the whole PG vs nonPG standpoint. I can say that I know two 14th level paladins - one of them deals 1d8+9 or so on his at-will and the other deals 1d12+27 on his at-will (feat that adds +3 to his at-will, holy strike +Wis, son of mercy +Wis, to head off incredulity). They both have fun, they're both quite valuable for the group. They definitely have very different strengths, though.

I'd probably think poorly of anyone who accused the first for not pulling his weight because he focused on having a higher AC, healing more, more save giving abilities, rather than damage. Mind you, if he did desire to deal more damage, I'd think well of someone who offered advice when asked or helped point out ways to improve his character. Of course, the first is the one harder hit by the last round of nerfs, since he was a Hospitaler. Guess he was a powergamer? Thinking on it, I actually know a lot of people who don't really think about their characters at all who were hit by this. In a lot of cases, cause of things like '+3 Bloodclaw? Haven't replaced my (+1 Lightning/+2 Vicious/+2 Wolfen) yet, should I replace that? Okay' or 'What's a good paladin paragon path?'

Petty vengeance on someone who was mean at a game is one thing, but this didn't affect just them. I, personally, got off amazingly lightly in LFR. My home character got hit up, but the DM told us to do whatever we wanted to change things, so really the errata is all full of good from my perspective. But I have a lot of empathy for people who are heavily invested in their characters and were affected, and I do know of a few people that covers who are not at all powergamers or optimizers.

A powergamer doesn't have to optimize damage to invalidate the other players at the table.

The avenger with the min/maxed AC invalidates the defender.

The defender with the min/maxed damage invalidates the strikers.

The swordmage with Grasp of the Grave and three Power Salves invalidates controllers.

I just enjoy how everyone can say 'sell your stuff at 20%', knowing that people have already sold other items at 20% to buy these.  So, I end up with a net worth 4% of what I started with.

Nope, I'm not nerfed.

Or, maybe I should wait for a rebuild and just retire the character. [eye roll]

Nov 30, 2009 -- 4:51PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

A powergamer doesn't have to optimize damage to invalidate the other players at the table.

The avenger with the min/maxed AC invalidates the defender.

The defender with the min/maxed damage invalidates the strikers.

The swordmage with Grasp of the Grave and three Power Salves invalidates controllers.

Not true, but don't worry about my disagreement. As a GM, I have seen many times where a high AC doesn't substitute for a good defender, as one example, since that doesn't include any of the stickiness included by a true defender.

My concern, rather trhan toward the high-level Avenger, lies with the low-level Avenger, specifically level 1, with a single mod under their belt, with their only feat spent on leather armor, rather than the less crunchy Improved Armor of Faith, or higher damage weapon. So, they are stuck, without access to their ONLY feat, for, likely, 2 more modules. Any idea how to make the pain less, without starting completely over?

Nov 30, 2009 -- 4:51PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

A powergamer doesn't have to optimize damage to invalidate the other players at the table.

The avenger with the min/maxed AC invalidates the defender.

The defender with the min/maxed damage invalidates the strikers.

The swordmage with Grasp of the Grave and three Power Salves invalidates controllers.

Does another defender with maxed AC invalidate other defenders?

Does another striker with maxed damage invalidate other strikers?

Does a wizard with grasp of the grave and three salves of power invalidate other controllers?

If characters acting within their WotC defined box do not invalidate other characters within the same box, why should we assume that characters who were built to do things that WotC assigned to a different box automatically invalidate the supposedly natural residents of that box?

For example, I have a new paladin character (just made 2nd level tonight) who is built as an ardent paladin. Despite supposedly being a defender, he tends to do striker level damage. That doesn't mean that he invalidates other strikers any more than an 18 strength/16 dex barbarian with disciple of divine wrath would. The barbarian would have similar at-will damage (howling strike rather than holy strike) with greater flexibility (full damage on a charge and against unmarked targets. His encounter damage would be similar. (Heedless Fury vs. Avalanche Strike). His daily damage would be somewhat lower but with a better effect and fewer drawbacks (blood of the mighty vs rage of his choice). His AC would be the same (Hide+Dex+barbarian agility vs plate) but he would have more movement, rampage, a feral might encounter ability (swift charge, thaneborn triumph, etc) and a feral might bonus for dropping or bloodying foes (rageblood vigor, etc). Instead of that, my paladin gets channel divinity, ardent vow, and several marking possibilities that are rendered weak by the exact same stat choices that made him high damage (and by the fact that things he marks have a tendency to die before they get to attack again--a lousy initiative mod means that he tends to killsteal). The character is labeled a defender by WotC but in some ways plays more like a striker (he's got the damage but not the mobility associated with the striker role). Any striker that he supposedly invalidates would be equally invalidated by a pretty standard striker at the same table.

Just because a character is built to focus on a class's secondary role does not mean that character invalidates other characters in that role. If that were true, all multiclassing would be broken and characters would not have secondary roles. If that were true, paragon paths that cater to classes' secondary roles like warpriest and rakish swashbuckler wouldn't exist. Looking back to my paladin again, he doesn't invalidate the barbarian the guy next to me is playing any more than a second barbarian would. And if someone had a defender specced avenger in the party with my paladin, that avenger would not invalidate my paladin--even though the avenger is probably better at the activities traditionally associated with defending. (Heck, a charisma warlord or a thaneborn barbarian with soldier of the faith has a significantly more scary mark than my paladin has).

Nov 30, 2009 -- 6:42PM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

I just enjoy how everyone can say 'sell your stuff at 20%', knowing that people have already sold other items at 20% to buy these.  So, I end up with a net worth 4% of what I started with.

Nope, I'm not nerfed.

Or, maybe I should wait for a rebuild and just retire the character. [eye roll]

If you define "nerfed" as becoming less powerful, then nobody is arguing the character did not get nerfed. If you define "nerfed" as becoming weaker then similar characters with other equally level items, then you would get a lot of arguments (and I would consider your stance rather weak at that in regards to most if not all errata).

People that argue tough luck in regards to weapons do so, because:
(a) The item is still very useful, but no more on par with the gold you actually spend on it.
(b) Getting full value for such an item is unfair to those people who accidently picked the wrong item. Exhanging it for an equal level item is even worse, because now you can pick an item they have no access to (assuming an item higher level then the PC).

Nov 30, 2009 -- 1:32PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

But if modules are not tuned to account for PGers non-PGer are still hurt. It often times only takes one mix-maxed avenger/fullblade fighter to invalidate an encounter.

Which is, imo, a problem that is not caused by the adventure, but by the DM and players.
Creating a fun experience means not only thinking of what you can do, but what others can do as well.
No matter how well written, an adventrue cannot create fun all on its own.

Gomez

Dec 1, 2009 -- 12:26AM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Does another defender with maxed AC invalidate other defenders?

Does another striker with maxed damage invalidate other strikers?

Does a wizard with grasp of the grave and three salves of power invalidate other controllers?

If characters acting within their WotC defined box do not invalidate other characters within the same box, why should we assume that characters who were built to do things that WotC assigned to a different box automatically invalidate the supposedly natural residents of that box?

Not necessarily, but don't change the discussion.

Some folks believe that AC is a primary, and perhaps the primary, ability or schtick for a defender. Likewise, damage or control effects for strikers or controllers. There is, I think, a belief that in the basic design of the game, classes whose primary role is X should not be overshadowed in that role by someone in a secondary or MC of that role. And I'd be one of them. However, I don't believe that single attributes, such as damage or AC are the sole measure of whether that whole of the class is invalidated if a secondary or MC does better at that attribute. But if there are several such "overages", then yes, I'm going to feel that in fact, there's some invalidation going on.

So, while I'm not sure that all of the above -are- true, I believe that in fact they could be, and yes, in some cases, might contribute to a need to re-examine those classes abilities. But if you're talking about classes whose primary function is NOT that role, then yes, if they are doing that much better than a class primary is that role, get out the errata pen.

Just because a character is built to focus on a class's secondary role does not mean that character invalidates other characters in that role. If that were true, all multiclassing would be broken and characters would not have secondary roles. If that were true, paragon paths that cater to classes' secondary roles like warpriest and rakish swashbuckler wouldn't exist. Looking back to my paladin again, he doesn't invalidate the barbarian the guy next to me is playing any more than a second barbarian would. And if someone had a defender specced avenger in the party with my paladin, that avenger would not invalidate my paladin--even though the avenger is probably better at the activities traditionally associated with defending. (Heck, a charisma warlord or a thaneborn barbarian with soldier of the faith has a significantly more scary mark than my paladin has).

In your opinion. Personally, by way of example, I find it very hard to want to play at tables where the Defender is doing more damage than my striker AND doing a good job at their primary role of Defender. Because it makes me feel like there's no need for the striker. Face it, if you're building a character that can handle several roles WELL, then the game mechanics are broken. Does that make all MC'ing broken? No. It just means that some versions of MC'ing could be.

Would we be having this discussion if it was some ridiculous example like a Rogue who healed better than a Cleric? I doubt it. It just happens that folks seem to believe that certain bailiwicks, such as AC or damage, are open to everyone and it doesn't matter if X does more damage than Y, even though damage is in Y's bailiwick.

I don't think having a good AC steps on the defender's toes. I think everybody has a right to protect themselves (especially in LFR where you aren't guaranteed to be playing with a defender), and it's the defender's job to protect other people. Having good defenses doesn't do anything to protect the other party members. If anything it's a disincentive for the monsters to attack you and go after them. That's not very defendery.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 9:45AM, tirianmal wrote:

Would we be having this discussion if it was some ridiculous example like a Rogue who healed better than a Cleric? I doubt it. It just happens that folks seem to believe that certain bailiwicks, such as AC or damage, are open to everyone and it doesn't matter if X does more damage than Y, even though damage is in Y's bailiwick.

Hard to say. If I did, I'd object to the hypothetical healing rogue more on conceptual grounds than on balance grounds. Why on earth is a sneaky Han Solo or Grey Mouser type character suddenly using the divine might of the gods to heal everyone? Or if it's not the divine might of the gods, what the heck is it? That said, I've played with a paladin who is better at healing than many clerics are (he's certainly better at healing than my cleric was at the same levels) while still being pretty good at the things people group together under the defending label. It didn't bother me a bit and would not have invalidated my character had I been playing him there. Leaders are (or at least can be) about a lot more than healing--in fact my most effective leader character has the fewest healing powers of all my leaders. At equal levels, the aforementioned paladin will heal far better than my warlord and it won't come close to invalidating the warlord. (My warlord is more about providing the party with large attack and damage bonuses and extra attacks to exploit those bonuses. If the enemies die quickly, the party doesn't need healing).

What I don't understand is why so many people seem intent to look upon the WotC assigned roles (which had no part in D&D at all prior to 4th edition and still have no mechanical impact except qualifying for son of mercy and guiding WotC in their class design choices) as straightjackets, taking the attitude that, "if your character sheet says "paladin or fighter" you are a defender and MUST do all of the things that defenders typically do and MAY ONLY do those things that defenders typically do, otherwise you are broken and invalidating everyone else's choices. Why do people on this board get their panties in a twist over whether the guy doing 13.5 damage on an at will and 24.5 damage with an encounter power, AC 18, with 30 odd hit points, has barbarian on his character sheet or paladin? If the paladin doing that invalidates your character, then the barbarian who could do the exact same thing without any more effort (the effort does come in different places--the paladin takes effort to bring his damage up to those levels; the barbarian takes effort to bring his AC up to that level) should invalidate the character too. (And really, if having a pretty standard, by the book character from the same role in your party would invalidate your character, you should either rethink your character design choices or come to terms with the fact that, apparently, you like to play wimpier characters than everyone else. That's not a problem in itself, but designing a wimpy character and then whining that everyone else is better than you is neither healthy nor conducive to a healthy game).

This belief is especially puzzling since WotC has deliberately built options for characters to assume out of the box roles and perform them well into the game since the release of the first PHB. Fighters got a pair of paragon paths devoted to bringing up their damage. Paladins got feats to make them good at healing, healing powers at nearly every other opportunity, and a paragon path to make them even better at it as well as multiclass options to let them take other classes' healing powers if their own weren't enough. Warlords have powers that stop enemies attacks, restrict enemies' movement, or encourage enemies to attack them at nearly every other level too. This deliberate designing to allow characters to step out of their restrictive little boxes has continued to be evident with every new release. In PHB 2 paladins got a build option that let them trade the healing they come with by default for more damage. In martial power, rogues got a paragon path that centers around marking opponents and giving them lose/lose choices. If players are really supposed to sit down, shut up, and stay in their little pigeonholes, what on earth do you think all those powers and build choices are for? If ardent paladins aren't supposed to deal good damage, why on earth do they get a build feature that gives them more damage? Is it supposed to suck? Are paladins not supposed to take it? If avengers aren't supposed to be able to defend, why do they get a heroic feat in PHB 2 that lets them mark the target when they deliver their oath? Is that just there to boost the book's wordcount? The roles are not intended to be cookie cutters that determine what characters should be permitted to do and if you happen to do something that doesn't fit within the outline, it should be chopped off.  Rather they were intended to inform players what a class could most easily do to help their party. And even if roles were intended to pigeonhole characters, it would be a poor design choice that ought to be fought tooth and nail rather than embraced.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 12:11PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Why on earth is a sneaky Han Solo or Grey Mouser type character suddenly using the divine might of the gods to heal everyone? Or if it's not the divine might of the gods, what the heck is it?

He is just examining your wounds and telling you that they're actually not as bad as you thought - aka whatever it is a warlord does

Being cleaved by this ogre's fullblade? Looks more like a small papercut to me. Now pick of your arm and get back to the fight!

For a while I was planning to do a fighter / warpriest that would have had one encounter single heal (healing strike), two encounter group heals (word of vigor, warpriest encounter) and a 1/day healing word, plus a daily regeneration (divine power). There are plenty of clerics who'd heal better, but plenty of leaders who'd have healed worse, and he'd still do well as a defender too, especially at 16th+ level. I decided against it, because I decided I didn't need to have that level of versatility for LFR, but it seems odd to me that there would have been people playing leaders (or defenders? in a way, my AC and mark might have been better then many basic fighters) who were upset because of the choices I happened to make, and I didn't/don't think of the character as really powergamed. Just a fighter/cleric mix that looked decent, but usually taking every multiclass feat isn't considered optimized I think

Dec 1, 2009 -- 12:11PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

What I don't understand is why so many people seem intent to look upon the WotC assigned roles (which had no part in D&D at all prior to 4th edition and still have no mechanical impact except qualifying for son of mercy and guiding WotC in their class design choices) as straightjackets, taking the attitude that, "if your character sheet says "paladin or fighter" you are a defender and MUST do all of the things that defenders typically do and MAY ONLY do those things that defenders typically do, otherwise you are broken and invalidating everyone else's choices.

You keep changing the argument. Stop it.

People are not objecting to the Paladin doing non-Defender-y things. They are objecting to the Paladin (who is not secondary -anything- by description) being better at his secondary role than someone who is primary in that role. And no one is objecting to the Paladin doing something else, if that is what they desire.

At least I haven't. But while I don't think of the "assigned roles" as straightjackets, they are both part of the design and intent of the class, and as such those assigned roles inform how the mechanics around this class work.

And since you brought up Han Solo ... how would you feel if Han Solo suddenly became a better Force user than Luke. Ruminate, whilst the example illuminates.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 1:50PM, tirianmal wrote:

And since you brought up Han Solo ... how would you feel if Han Solo suddenly became a better Force user than Luke. Ruminate, whilst the example illuminates.

I think that's more power source than role.

I wonder how Han Solo felt when Luke was not only the hot shot fighter pilot, but _also_ started picking up all those force powers.

I don't think that example is quite the one you're looking for.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 1:50PM, tirianmal wrote:

Dec 1, 2009 -- 12:11PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

What I don't understand is why so many people seem intent to look upon the WotC assigned roles (which had no part in D&D at all prior to 4th edition and still have no mechanical impact except qualifying for son of mercy and guiding WotC in their class design choices) as straightjackets, taking the attitude that, "if your character sheet says "paladin or fighter" you are a defender and MUST do all of the things that defenders typically do and MAY ONLY do those things that defenders typically do, otherwise you are broken and invalidating everyone else's choices.

You keep changing the argument. Stop it.

People are not objecting to the Paladin doing non-Defender-y things. They are objecting to the Paladin (who is not secondary -anything- by description) being better at his secondary role than someone who is primary in that role. And no one is objecting to the Paladin doing something else, if that is what they desire.

At least I haven't. But while I don't think of the "assigned roles" as straightjackets, they are both part of the design and intent of the class, and as such those assigned roles inform how the mechanics around this class work.

And since you brought up Han Solo ... how would you feel if Han Solo suddenly became a better Force user than Luke. Ruminate, whilst the example illuminates.

Actually I think I'm still right on target. Your argument appears to be that if a character who WotC didn't assign to a role is ever better than a character someone builds at doing something that is associated with said role, that character is broken. (Possibly even if the character is poorly built--I've seen more than a few characters who are incompetent in their primary role; even a by the book character from another role is often better at their role than they are). The practical effect of that is turning roles into straightjackets. If any character in a non-striker role deals better damage than a typical warlock (a striker), they are broken. (Then I guess every two handed weapon fighter or paladin who takes pitfighter or kensai is broken). My warlock packs more control than some blaster wizards. He must be broken. My paladin deals far more damage than my warlock. He must be broken. My friend's paladin heals better than any of my warlords, he must be broken. If that isn't a turning roles into straitjackets, I don't know what is.

Unless your position is "I don't object if characters try to take on new roles but they have to suck at them or else they're broken." To which I would reply that you can't really step outside your role if you can't actually be good at what you choose to do. So even that is still a straitjacket

As for the Luke/Han Solo question, any objections would have to be based on the Star Wars story which is irrelevant in a role-playing game where the players make the story. If Luke decided to blow off Yoda after the Bespin debacle and concentrated on fighter piloting and droid repair, but Han Solo decided to learn the ways of the Force, I don't see any reason Han shouldn't be better at it than Luke. (Now if it turned out that, mechanically in some Star Wars game system a default scoundrel is better at using the force than a default jedi, that is a problem with the game system--but not necessarily a balance problem. (A system that poorly designed might make jedi better at sneaking, lying, and smuggling than scoundrels. It would be balanced but still bad. D&D roles won't play into that, however, even by analogy. There would be no imaginative problem if fighters could be more destructive in combat than rangers but the classes were mechanically balanced. That kind of problem would only occur if fighters were better at casting spells than wizards)).

Dec 1, 2009 -- 2:26PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Actually I think I'm still right on target. Your argument appears to be that if a character who WotC didn't assign to a role is ever better than a character someone builds at doing something that is associated with said role, that character is broken. (Possibly even if the character is poorly built--I've seen more than a few characters who are incompetent in their primary role; even a by the book character from another role is often better at their role than they are). The practical effect of that is turning roles into straightjackets.

First you went from someone with an argument about Avengers being better defenders than a Defender to turning it into if any Defender is better than any other defender, from myself saying that if a character acting in a secondary role is better than a character acting in a primary role to turning the discussion to folks not wanting any character to be acting in a secondary role at all, and now you're going from that to comparing characters in a secondary role being better in a role than a character in a primary, to comparing characters in a secondard role being better in a role than a character in a primary role that sucks at it. No one else mentioned gimped PCs, no one other than you was saying that folks didn't want characters to do anything other than their primary, and no one said anything about comparing Defenders to Defenders. Let's quit changing the target.

And before you go there, no, I don't want to compare characters acting in a secondary role against characters in a different class acting in a secondary role of their own.

I think the Avenger AC being higher than a similar plate wearing Defender (Paladin or Fighter) is what kicked this off. I can certainly make a Defender whose AC sucks. I can certainly decide not to take Leather on an Avenger, but -that- wasn't the situation that was being discussed either.

When 4e came around I applauded the Roles.  I still have horrible memories of playign in 3rd in the RPGA and sitting at a table getting in the middle of a tough combat and being told by the Cleric that "he doesn't heal."

With the role system you know if a leader sits down you'll have some healing.  Granted, it's difficult to build a 4e class to the point where it totally loses its intended role, but I have already sat with at least one Paladin who told the table he wasn't a defender.  And he was the only one we had at the table.  That was a rough game.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 3:04PM, tirianmal wrote:

Dec 1, 2009 -- 2:26PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Actually I think I'm still right on target. Your argument appears to be that if a character who WotC didn't assign to a role is ever better than a character someone builds at doing something that is associated with said role, that character is broken. (Possibly even if the character is poorly built--I've seen more than a few characters who are incompetent in their primary role; even a by the book character from another role is often better at their role than they are). The practical effect of that is turning roles into straightjackets.

First you went from someone with an argument about Avengers being better defenders than a Defender to turning it into if any Defender is better than any other defender, from myself saying that if a character acting in a secondary role is better than a character acting in a primary role to turning the discussion to folks not wanting any character to be acting in a secondary role at all, and now you're going from that to comparing characters in a secondary role being better in a role than a character in a primary, to comparing characters in a secondard role being better in a role than a character in a primary role that sucks at it. No one else mentioned gimped PCs, no one other than you was saying that folks didn't want characters to do anything other than their primary, and no one said anything about comparing Defenders to Defenders. Let's quit changing the target.

And before you go there, no, I don't want to compare characters acting in a secondary role against characters in a different class acting in a secondary role of their own.

I think the Avenger AC being higher than a similar plate wearing Defender (Paladin or Fighter) is what kicked this off. I can certainly make a Defender whose AC sucks. I can certainly decide not to take Leather on an Avenger, but -that- wasn't the situation that was being discussed either.

What kicked this off is the claim that characters are invalidated if anyone from another role is better than they are at any aspect of their role. I think it was supposed to be part of an argument that avengers shouldn't be able to act as defenders or something. The problem is that it is not true.

My point is twofold. First, just because your character is invalidated doesn't mean the other character is broken. It could just mean that your character sucks. Second, the so-called role of a character is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a character is broken. A striker cannot be broken merely by virtue of being a character from a designated striker class who has a high AC. Likewise, a defender cannot be broken merely because he does high damage and is a character from a defender class. If a defender is a good defender and some avenger is better at being a defender while still doing more damage, then there could be a problem. (Though there is not necessarily a problem with that). But the problem would be that the hypothetical avenger is too good, not that the avenger is successfully filling a non-standard role.

Continuing with the non-hypothetical example of my paladin, I would expect an avenger who is designed to actually fill a defender role might well be better at defending than my paladin is. That is not a problem. My paladin is not  very good at the things people connect with being a defender. On the other hand, my paladin is probably better at dealing damage than said avenger. Neither of those situations are problems. (Though if I were mustering at a convention or somewhere, I would label both characters with what they actually do rather than what their class is. The paladin would be a striker and the avenger, a defender). If either character is broken, it is because they are, on the aggregate, outside of the range of acceptable total character ability. (To use the previous analogy, they are luke, the hot shot fighter pilot AND invincible jedi in a game where Han Solo is more the norm). It is not because they focused their abilities on something other than the role WotC stamped at the head of their class description and turned out to be good at it.

Furthermore, I submit that, if your character is in danger of being invalidated by characters from classes not normally associated with your role being better at your chosen role than you are, you almost certainly also have problems with your character being invalidated by characters from classes that are associated with your role being better at it than you are. The problem is not that some people are playing classes that break out of WotC's pigeonholes. The problem is probably either that you created a character that sucks or that the other player's character is broken--whether their character is in their class's traditional role or not. Once again, role has nothing to do with it. To go back to some of the examples I used before, my friend's paladin is a good healer, but if you are playing a leader character and he invalidates your build, then you are also invalidated every time a pacifist cleric sits down at your table because they are far better healbots than my friend's paladin is. If you actually did a good job building a leader who is focused on healing, you will be significantly better than the paladin. If you didn't focus on healing, then it won't invalidate you if he is better than you. If, as is the case with my leaders, the paladin is better at healing than you are, then you almost certainly have a number of leader abilities that the paladin does not duplicate. The same is true of most other characters. It is quite possible that my paladin might outdamage a real avenger. (The paladin is multiclassed to avenger). But odds are good that he doesn't outdamage the avenger by that much the real avenger should have better mobility and more control attached to his powers. (And since a fair amount of my character's potential damage advantage comes from delivering heedless fury with an oath of enmity, the avenger will, on the whole, have better defenses). And if, by some miracle, the paladin is better than the avenger at everything, then God forbid that the avenger's player show up at a table with a decently built ranger (who will almost certainly bring more damage and mobility to the table than my paladin does).

Wow, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.  I'm going to define the words I use myself:

Being nerfed means this:  "As a result of errata, if I began playing from level one now, and played exactly the same modules in exactly the same order, I would be more powerful than I am currently simply due to being weakened by the errata to a level worse than I would be had I simply made alternative choices in the first place."  It boils down to that.  Is the post-errata 8th level item ok for an 8th level item?  Maybe.  Is it worth having sold a 13th level item to get with cash?  Definitely not.  Am I unquestionably worse with a now-average 8th level item than I would have been with the then-and-still-average 13th level item I sold to get the good 8th level item?  Of course.  Is the fact that Wizards can't price their items in proportion to their utility my fault?  In your eyes, it apparently is.

I'm sorry, but your strawman argument that I'm in some fashion arguing that this character is weaker than a character owning an equal-level item is simply not true.  I'm not making that argument.  I'm making the argument that a useful 8th level item happened to be of more benefit to my character than a dubious 13th level item, and now I'm being punished with an errata simply for making the trade, because I can't undo that trade now that the 8th level item is now an 'average' 8th level item instead of being one whose real value was a few levels higher.

The problem you have is convincing people in my situation that we're being treated fairly, instead of being accosted for using the rules options you wrote.

I don't remember who wrote this earlier, but some admin said something along the lines of 'The campaign won't grind to a halt because there are no rules for the circumstance, because there are'.  You're right.  If it's grinding to a halt, it is because people are unimpressed by your handling of the situation and are less willing to contribute.

If someone can explain why I should be punished for the heinous crime of selling an item and buying another one, then I'll be fine with it.  But last time I checked, it was in the rules and not discouraged.

Finally, I reject as false the argument that 'being unfair to people who weren't nerfed' is more of a concern than 'being unfair to people who were nerfed'.  As far as I would have guessed, there is no difference in the RPGA good standing status of the groups.  If it is true that some players making certain choices possibly at random from a list of allowed choices made them second-class RPGA members, then I am sure that the current LFR administration would be wise enough to rectify that problem immediately.

Brayden Glad

Madfox wrote

If you define "nerfed" as becoming less powerful, then nobody is arguing the character did not get nerfed. If you define "nerfed" as becoming weaker then similar characters with other equally level items, then you would get a lot of arguments (and I would consider your stance rather weak at that in regards to most if not all errata).

People that argue tough luck in regards to weapons do so, because:
(a) The item is still very useful, but no more on par with the gold you actually spend on it.
(b) Getting full value for such an item is unfair to those people who accidently picked the wrong item. Exhanging it for an equal level item is even worse, because now you can pick an item they have no access to (assuming an item higher level then the PC).

Dec 1, 2009 -- 10:30PM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

If someone can explain why I should be punished for the heinous crime of selling an item and buying another one, then I'll be fine with it.  But last time I checked, it was in the rules and not discouraged.

I don't think you got punished. In a way, you actually got rewarded - by having been able to use an item far over it's actual power level for a good amount of time.
It may be unfortunate that you sold a 13th level item to buy an 8th level one, but that act should have told you something - that the item you bougth was overpowered. That may not be enough to predict the later errata, but the act is odd enough that you could have deduced it being something unintended by the game (as in: the game does not normally assume you sell a higher level item because you want an lower level item for the power level it offers). Yet you did it anyway. That act - dropping a 13th level item for an 8th level one - is your respsonisbility, not the game's.
Even though, after the 'nerf', I woudl doubt that you are now weaker than people who made other choices. Other people would not have picked the 13th level item they couldn't use, but migth have picked an 8th level item instead. So the comparison doesn't really hold up.
Note, by the way, that I sold a higher level item to buy a lower level one as well - because I really wanted that item (a harsh songblade for my bard, hardly powerful).
So from that view, your character is not weaker than mine, and my character is not weak (and definitely not useless).

Gomez

Your statement that the 8th level item must be overpowered because I sold a 13th level item for it has not been proven.  Indeed, the game itself allows someone to swap an arbitary 13th level item for an 8th level item of one's choice; that's what the 20% selling rule actually means.  The fact that you did it yourself indicates that you accept that exchange is reasonable, yet you are willing to assume that I should have known better than to do it under any circumstances.  Remember, while you may say that this harsh songblade is hardly powerful, you traded a higher level item for it.

Thus your logic is internally inconsistant and cannot be true.

The game absolutely assumes that an arbitrary item of level x is the same value as a chosen item of level x-5; that is why the sell price is at 20% rather than 50%, 29% or 81.4%; it's an inevitable consequence of the math.

The problem is I now have an arbitrary item (arbitrary because the text has been changed) of 8th level, which the game informs me is worth a 3rd level item of my choice.  So, I have gone from having an 8th level item of my choice, to a 3rd level item of my choice.

The solution is not at all difficult to find:  items bought for money represent having already accepted (effectively or explicitly) that 5-level penalty to get an item of one's choice, thus they should get 100% gold back.  Anything less is simply making someone pay a second time for the right to choose an item, just because they chose item x instead of y.

It's a reasonable issue that there are now more items available than there were before, I will grant that.  This problem could have been accounted for by having people note the day they played modules, just as we did for the 8 years before LFR, and then restrict people to purchasing options that were available at the time.  As it is, they didn't do that.  It might not be unreasonable to restrict item access to items that were available at Gen Con 09, or some other arbitary date, to avoid people switching to new items.

I don't think anyone is expecting a choice that they didn't have at the time, just the opportunity to again choose between the same choices as were available.  It happens that for a cash purchase, that happens to be anything available at the time.  Oh well.  Clearly the opportunity to have that choice was built into the game, so limiting them for using it IS punishing them.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 11:15PM, gomeztoo wrote:

Dec 1, 2009 -- 10:30PM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

If someone can explain why I should be punished for the heinous crime of selling an item and buying another one, then I'll be fine with it.  But last time I checked, it was in the rules and not discouraged.

I don't think you got punished. In a way, you actually got rewarded - by having been able to use an item far over it's actual power level for a good amount of time.
It may be unfortunate that you sold a 13th level item to buy an 8th level one, but that act should have told you something - that the item you bougth was overpowered. That may not be enough to predict the later errata, but the act is odd enough that you could have deduced it being something unintended by the game (as in: the game does not normally assume you sell a higher level item because you want an lower level item for the power level it offers). Yet you did it anyway. That act - dropping a 13th level item for an 8th level one - is your respsonisbility, not the game's.
Even though, after the 'nerf', I woudl doubt that you are now weaker than people who made other choices. Other people would not have picked the 13th level item they couldn't use, but migth have picked an 8th level item instead. So the comparison doesn't really hold up.
Note, by the way, that I sold a higher level item to buy a lower level one as well - because I really wanted that item (a harsh songblade for my bard, hardly powerful).
So from that view, your character is not weaker than mine, and my character is not weak (and definitely not useless).

Gomez

Dec 1, 2009 -- 11:15PM, gomeztoo wrote:

Dec 1, 2009 -- 10:30PM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

If someone can explain why I should be punished for the heinous crime of selling an item and buying another one, then I'll be fine with it.  But last time I checked, it was in the rules and not discouraged.

I don't think you got punished.  In a way, you actually got rewarded - by having been able to use an item far over it's actual power level for a good amount of time.
Gomez

This argument is your problem Gomez.  It doesn't matter what you think about this situation really*.  The players who feel punished by this change aren't going to suddenly feel like they were rewarded because they got to use a cool toy for a while simply because you think that way. They have had their toy taken away, that is punishment.  They did nothing wrong at all when they were using it, they played by the rules and now it's been taken away, that is not a reward in any way, and you have to twist things pretty hard to make taking something powerful away from someone into a reward.  You obviously feel different about this but that just doesn't matter because there are players who played by the rules and had those rules changed against them, and they feel punished.   If campaign staff wants to mitigate the feelings of punishment and allow changes, they need to get crackin, every week it's delayed just angers some players more.

Now I don't care one whit about bloodclaw, I don't even have a single character with one despite having 4 paragon characters in the campaign.  I do feel the changes with no allowance for exchange or character changes to compensate is unfair.  I subscribe to the methods that current MMO companies have taken to, if we change the way your character works, we will let you re-work it to a degree, some things will remain fixed but for the most part, if we change something big, we try to work with those affected so they don't get hosed.  And before I get blasted for bringing up MMO's, they are the closest thing to a living campaign out there to compare to.

*I'm not saying your opinion doesn't count at all, just saying it doesn't matter what you think when it comes to how someone else feels about how the changes affected them 

Dec 2, 2009 -- 12:35AM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

Remember, while you may say that this harsh songblade is hardly powerful, you traded a higher level item for it.

And payed money for it as well. However, I am quite sure the higher level item was more powerful. It was just something (an orb) that I couldn' t use.
Anyway, I believe my songblade is very unlikely to be more powerful than your item. Your statement that your PC is weaker than my PC because your item's power level got changed to a more appropriate one is based on false assumptions.
Realistically, your PC is now at the same power level as mine. Of courese, for you tahts till feels as a loss. But realistically, when compared to my PC, you ahd a period where you were more powerful. So from that perspective you had an advantage over my character.
It may be different when compared to others, of course, but since I don't consider my character weak or unplayable, I don't expect yours to be either.
So from that perspective, I don' t see a direct need for rules to compensate the changes, as that will then suddenly gives your PC advantage ove rmy PC, and why doesn't she have a right on that same advantage then? After all, I played by the rules as well...

Gomez

Dec 2, 2009 -- 1:34AM, ibixat wrote:

This argument is your problem Gomez.  It doesn't matter what you think about this situation really*.  The players who feel punished by this change aren't going to suddenly feel like they were rewarded because they got to use a cool toy for a while simply because you think that way.

True, but you can turn it around as well: if the players are compensated with a rule that gives them an advantage (i.e exchanging an item for whatever they want), I feel punished for *not* having made such a choice, and at that point I don't care much about what they think of that either, really.
I feel that if there is a ruling, it should not be one that ' harms'  a majority just to please a minority.
I think that those who decide on the ruling should take that into consideration.

Gomez

Dec 2, 2009 -- 12:35AM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

Your statement that the 8th level item must be overpowered because I sold a 13th level item for it has not been proven.  Indeed, the game itself allows someone to swap an arbitary 13th level item for an 8th level item of one's choice; that's what the 20% selling rule actually means.  The fact that you did it yourself indicates that you accept that exchange is reasonable, yet you are willing to assume that I should have known better than to do it under any circumstances.  Remember, while you may say that this harsh songblade is hardly powerful, you traded a higher level item for it.

Thus your logic is internally inconsistant and cannot be true.

The game absolutely assumes that an arbitrary item of level x is the same value as a chosen item of level x-5; that is why the sell price is at 20% rather than 50%, 29% or 81.4%; it's an inevitable consequence of the math.

The problem is I now have an arbitrary item (arbitrary because the text has been changed) of 8th level, which the game informs me is worth a 3rd level item of my choice.  So, I have gone from having an 8th level item of my choice, to a 3rd level item of my choice.

The solution is not at all difficult to find:  items bought for money represent having already accepted (effectively or explicitly) that 5-level penalty to get an item of one's choice, thus they should get 100% gold back.  Anything less is simply making someone pay a second time for the right to choose an item, just because they chose item x instead of y.

It's a reasonable issue that there are now more items available than there were before, I will grant that.  This problem could have been accounted for by having people note the day they played modules, just as we did for the 8 years before LFR, and then restrict people to purchasing options that were available at the time.  As it is, they didn't do that.  It might not be unreasonable to restrict item access to items that were available at Gen Con 09, or some other arbitary date, to avoid people switching to new items.

I don't think anyone is expecting a choice that they didn't have at the time, just the opportunity to again choose between the same choices as were available.  It happens that for a cash purchase, that happens to be anything available at the time.  Oh well.  Clearly the opportunity to have that choice was built into the game, so limiting them for using it IS punishing them.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 11:15PM, gomeztoo wrote:

Dec 1, 2009 -- 10:30PM, just_be_glad_now wrote:

If someone can explain why I should be punished for the heinous crime of selling an item and buying another one, then I'll be fine with it.  But last time I checked, it was in the rules and not discouraged.

I don't think you got punished. In a way, you actually got rewarded - by having been able to use an item far over it's actual power level for a good amount of time.
It may be unfortunate that you sold a 13th level item to buy an 8th level one, but that act should have told you something - that the item you bougth was overpowered. That may not be enough to predict the later errata, but the act is odd enough that you could have deduced it being something unintended by the game (as in: the game does not normally assume you sell a higher level item because you want an lower level item for the power level it offers). Yet you did it anyway. That act - dropping a 13th level item for an 8th level one - is your respsonisbility, not the game's.
Even though, after the 'nerf', I woudl doubt that you are now weaker than people who made other choices. Other people would not have picked the 13th level item they couldn't use, but migth have picked an 8th level item instead. So the comparison doesn't really hold up.
Note, by the way, that I sold a higher level item to buy a lower level one as well - because I really wanted that item (a harsh songblade for my bard, hardly powerful).
So from that view, your character is not weaker than mine, and my character is not weak (and definitely not useless).

Gomez

Brayden,

I actually like your logic her, and it's the first time I've seen anyone quantify why this errata is perceived by many as "unfair".

If I can restate it here in short sentences...

1) 4E rules state that selling any item nets you 20% of item value.
            ITEM[sale price] = ITEM[cost]/5

2) Any item costs 20% of an item 5 levels higher.
            ITEM[cost] = (ITEM + 5)[cost]

3) LFR awards arbitrary items.
            A_ITEM

4) Players on their own would prefer to choose items and must do so with money from selling arbitrary items.
           C_ITEM[cost] = A_ITEM[sale price]
   
5) Thus - by 4e rules and LFR design - a chosen item has the same value as an arbitrary item 5 levels higher.
          C_ITEM = (A_ITEM+5)

So when people talk about an item being overpowered, the question becomes - Are people saying that the chosen item is worth more than any other chosen item at that level, or are they saying that the chosen item is worth more than what they gave up for that item?

is C_ITEM[a] > A_ITEM[b]  or are they saying C_ITEM[a] > (A_ITEM+5)[c]

People who have sold arbitrary items are saying that of course C_ITEM[a] > A_ITEM[b] - that's why they sold the arbitrary items in order to buy the chosen item.  The game design itself states that in order for you to choose any item yourself, you have to either make the economic decision that its value is 5 levels higher than the arbitrary items you are given up, or you are making a poor economic decision.

The rules update has taken items that people choose and placed their effectiveness in line with items of their level.

    C_ITEM := A_ITEM                    [ :=  (becomes equal to)  ]

So the situation that the people who made (at the time) what they believed to be good economic decisions (ie choosing purchasing a +2 bloodclaw from money gained by selling arbitrary items) are now left with an item that has been effectively reduced 5 levels in value.

   C_ITEM[updated] := (C_ITEM-5)[purchased]

or just as true

   C_ITEM[updated] := C_ITEM[purchased] / 5

Or, stating it another way, by involuntarily changing the item, the chosen item becomes just another arbitrary item. 

   again C_ITEM := A_ITEM

The problem is that people have purchased this item believing it had five times the value of the arbitrary item, and are now simply handed another arbitrary item. 

(real life type example - You wheel and deal and manage to purchase, fix up, trade for several used Hyundai's.  You use these to sell/bargain/trade for a really nice used hign end Mercedes Benz.  After all, for you it was worth five Hyundais.  You are quite happy with your economic decision as you really like the comforts of the Mercedes.  One morning, a government agent comes to your door and says that they have determined that the Mercedes that you bought is worth much more than the Hyundais that you previously owned, and they have rectified the situation.  In your driveway is a used low-end Mercedes that has none of the comforts that you wanted and is probably worth about as much as the used Hyundai's that you sold to get the car you had the day before.)

All of this has really made me think that the way the items were handled, could have been much better accomplished by simply changing their level to reflect their true value.  If the Bloodclaw was really a 12th level item in power, (instead of 7th level), then it should have simply been updated to be a 12th level item.  Anyone who owned the bloodclaw would still own it, and it would still do what they bought it to do.  If you had bought it with your found items, then the update would have simply validated your economic decision that the bloodclaw was indeed worth a 12th level found item. 

(Of course this says nothing about powers and feats - unless they too were simply increased in level, but still available. (?))

Dec 2, 2009 -- 5:52AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

All of this has really made me think that the way the items were handled, could have been much better accomplished by simply changing their level to reflect their true value.  If the Bloodclaw was really a 12th level item in power, (instead of 7th level), then it should have simply been updated to be a 12th level item.  Anyone who owned the bloodclaw would still own it, and it would still do what they bought it to do.  If you had bought it with your found items, then the update would have simply validated your economic decision that the bloodclaw was indeed worth a 12th level found item. 

So in other words, someone who found a +3 Bloodclaw weapon would suddenly have a 17th level item to sell?

The economics of 4e reflect game mechanics, not commonsense or any attempt to be realistic. It is silly in a realistic sense that a found non-magical sword has zero value or that you can only get 20% for sold magic items.

From a game mechanics PoV, this is good - it forces players to value found items over arbitrary items. Arbitrary items that a PC is willing to sell a found item for either reflects a lack of items that have perceived value to the character, an unrealistic player, or that some arbitrary items have real or perceived value issues. LFR enhances this issue more so than a home game, because the DM doesn't have control over found items or what can be purchased.

What some players are viewing as a bad thing is a feature of 4e - by buying the arbitrary item, you were well aware that you weren't going to get as much gold back when you sold it(or you were aware that you were going to pay lots of gold to upgrade it) - realizing this after the fact doesn't change the reality that you weren't going to get as much gold back.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 7:35AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Dec 2, 2009 -- 5:52AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

All of this has really made me think that the way the items were handled, could have been much better accomplished by simply changing their level to reflect their true value.  If the Bloodclaw was really a 12th level item in power, (instead of 7th level), then it should have simply been updated to be a 12th level item.  Anyone who owned the bloodclaw would still own it, and it would still do what they bought it to do.  If you had bought it with your found items, then the update would have simply validated your economic decision that the bloodclaw was indeed worth a 12th level found item. 

So in other words, someone who found a +3 Bloodclaw weapon would suddenly have a 17th level item to sell?

The economics of 4e reflect game mechanics, not commonsense or any attempt to be realistic. It is silly in a realistic sense that a found non-magical sword has zero value or that you can only get 20% for sold magic items.

From a game mechanics PoV, this is good - it forces players to value found items over arbitrary items. Arbitrary items that a PC is willing to sell a found item for either reflects a lack of items that have perceived value to the character, an unrealistic player, or that some arbitrary items have real or perceived value issues. LFR enhances this issue more so than a home game, because the DM doesn't have control over found items or what can be purchased.

What some players are viewing as a bad thing is a feature of 4e - by buying the arbitrary item, you were well aware that you weren't going to get as much gold back when you sold it(or you were aware that you were going to pay lots of gold to upgrade it) - realizing this after the fact doesn't change the reality that you weren't going to get as much gold back.

The person who took the +3 bloodclaw as part of a treasure bundle would now have a Lvl 17 item.  It would be unusable (and unsellable) until that character was Level 13.  At which point it would be sellable.  The player took what was the best item in the bundle, and reality intervened to reflect the true value of that item.  The blame lies with WOTC for initially under-costing the item, and with the writer for placing an under-costed item in a treasure bundle and with the editor for not pointing out how under-costed the item was.  The blame does not lie with the player who recognized a good deal when he saw it.  (I've had a 7th level character take a level 14 item (+3 Amulet of False Life) for a treasure bundle, even though he cannot use it or sell it for three levels, simply because it was the best item in the bundle, and at some point it will be salable for ~ 5Kgp.  Economics applies even in 4E)

If it was part of a treasure bundle, then the module would need to be modified as the item is no longer suitable.

If the person had sold a level 17 item to buy the +3 bloodclaw, well, they are out nothing, and they gained nothing.  They were simply able to trade a level 17 item for a level 17 item.

Saying that players should make do with what they find in treasure bundles ignores the reality that for many classes, there are few (if any) items for their class to be found in treasure bundles, and that in order to progress in power at anything close to the original base classes, they will need to do a lot of selling of found items.

You are correct in one respect.  It is absolutely ridiculous that found non-magical items cannot be sold, even for one fifth of their value.  Found a suit of plate mail?  Throw it away.  Nobody would pay a single gp for it.  Collected leather armor, axes and shields from fallen foes?  Nope, leave it to rust and rot, as nobody in the world would pay a gp for them.  Their mounts?  Nope.  Just eat their horses, or drakes, or hippogriffs.  They can't be sold.    That is silly, and a very poor game mechanic.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 7:52AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

You are correct in one respect.  It is absolutely ridiculous that found non-magical items cannot be sold, even for one fifth of their value.  Found a suit of plate mail?  Throw it away.  Nobody would pay a single gp for it.  Collected leather armor, axes and shields from fallen foes?  Nope, leave it to rust and rot, as nobody in the world would pay a gp for them.  Their mounts?  Nope.  Just eat their horses, or drakes, or hippogriffs.  They can't be sold.    That is silly, and a very poor game mechanic.

I consider that subsumed into the gold reward for mods.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 7:52AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

You are correct in one respect.  It is absolutely ridiculous that found non-magical items cannot be sold, even for one fifth of their value.  Found a suit of plate mail?  Throw it away.  Nobody would pay a single gp for it.  Collected leather armor, axes and shields from fallen foes?  Nope, leave it to rust and rot, as nobody in the world would pay a gp for them.  Their mounts?  Nope.  Just eat their horses, or drakes, or hippogriffs.  They can't be sold.    That is silly, and a very poor game mechanic.

It is ridiculous in a real-world sense. It is not ridiculous in terms of game mechanics. Being able to sell non-magical items adds a lot of work for both DMs and players without actually doing very much. You can't just create an encounter with 4 human knights wearing plate, longswords, lances, and shields who are riding horses without having to tabulate how much that equipment is actually worth compared to expected gold values. Especially if someone decides to keep a horse and screw everything up.

Economic system of 4e makes no real world sense and that's a very deliberate choice. That doesn't mean there aren't economic decisions to make.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 10:23AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Dec 2, 2009 -- 7:52AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

You are correct in one respect.  It is absolutely ridiculous that found non-magical items cannot be sold, even for one fifth of their value.  Found a suit of plate mail?  Throw it away.  Nobody would pay a single gp for it.  Collected leather armor, axes and shields from fallen foes?  Nope, leave it to rust and rot, as nobody in the world would pay a gp for them.  Their mounts?  Nope.  Just eat their horses, or drakes, or hippogriffs.  They can't be sold.    That is silly, and a very poor game mechanic.

It is ridiculous in a real-world sense. It is not ridiculous in terms of game mechanics. Being able to sell non-magical items adds a lot of work for both DMs and players without actually doing very much. You can't just create an encounter with 4 human knights wearing plate, longswords, lances, and shields who are riding horses without having to tabulate how much that equipment is actually worth compared to expected gold values. Especially if someone decides to keep a horse and screw everything up.

Economic system of 4e makes no real world sense and that's a very deliberate choice. That doesn't mean there aren't economic decisions to make.

Hmm.  Four suits of plate (50 gp each), four longswords ( 15 gp each), four lances (longspears 10gp each), four shields (heavy 10gp each), four horses (75 gp each).  Each knight has 160gp in equipment (including horse), or 640 total equipment.  If salable at 20%, this would be worth 128 gp.  Almost the same amount that could be gained by selling a 3rd level item.  But in this case, the players would have choices about what they sold and what they kept.  "Hmm, we'll sell the armor, swords and shields, but keep the horses and lances because they'll be useful for overland travel."  "Okay, that's 300gp worth of items, netting you 60 gold".  "We'll spend it on a potion of healing in town, and keep the other 10gp aside towards more community gear".

Wow.  That was a lot of work.  It took me more time to write the dialog than to look up the item values.

Needless to say, I disagree.

I'm currently in another campaign where every single bullet is a precious commodity.  Buying a pair of leather armor pants involves finding someone who can sell them, negotiating not only the price for them, but also the value of whatever you are trying to trade.  (Having traded toothpaste for armor on one occasion.)  Does this detract from gameplay?  No.  Of course not.  It adds to ROLE-PLAY. 

I am _so_ glad that the penny tracking nature of things like selling mundane equipment has been discarded. One of the best decisions they made for 4e, most particularly wrt campaigns like LFR.

And really nothing to do with the november rules update

Dec 2, 2009 -- 10:44AM, Keithric wrote:

I am _so_ glad that the penny tracking nature of things like selling mundane equipment has been discarded. One of the best decisions they made for 4e, most particularly wrt campaigns like LFR.

And really nothing to do with the november rules update

Keithric,

I think it really is a personal preference.  Some like the "Oregon Trail" type campaign, where everything must be accounted for.  Others simply want to bash monsters.  The fact that it was taken out of the rules simply removes the choice from those who enjoy such.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 10:47AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

I think it really is a personal preference.  Some like the "Oregon Trail" type campaign, where everything must be accounted for.  Others simply want to bash monsters.  The fact that it was taken out of the rules simply removes the choice from those who enjoy such.

Nothing prevents you from calculating it all out and inflicting it on your home play group. You know the costs...

It is just no longer the default choice. 

Dec 2, 2009 -- 10:47AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

I think it really is a personal preference.  Some like the "Oregon Trail" type campaign, where everything must be accounted for.  Others simply want to bash monsters.  The fact that it was taken out of the rules simply removes the choice from those who enjoy such.

In a home game, you can totally do the oregon trail thing. There are people who do sale prices at 50%, some who don't allow magic item purchasing at all. All kinds of things in home games, so there's plenty of capability to do the Oregon Trail thing at home. I actually think the recent DMG2 automatic enhancement rule would help a lot for that kind of game.

Still on the tangent of selling mundane objects:
I have always explained to my players something along the lines of "You find 20 gold each in the encounter: 5 silver on two of the knights, and enough salvagable weapons and armor to make up for the other 19 gold.   The enemies you are fighting are not carrying their life savings around."  Worrying about collecting all of that crap every single time so you can gain an extra few gold is just silly when good items cost multiple hundreds.

As far as the update "breaking" your characters, you do have a really elegant solution: when at a table, in front of all of the other players and DM, suggest that since there is not yet anything official in the CCG about updates, you would like to play with the pre-errata version so that you can do your bloodclaw damage at-will, and have all of your AC bonuses as an Avenger.  I'm sure the other players and the DM will be understanding.  Obviously this only works until something is specified in the CCG, but it should be legal and fair.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 10:36AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

Hmm.  Four suits of plate (50 gp each), four longswords ( 15 gp each), four lances (longspears 10gp each), four shields (heavy 10gp each), four horses (75 gp each).  Each knight has 160gp in equipment (including horse), or 640 total equipment.  If salable at 20%, this would be worth 128 gp.  Almost the same amount that could be gained by selling a 3rd level item.  But in this case, the players would have choices about what they sold and what they kept.  "Hmm, we'll sell the armor, swords and shields, but keep the horses and lances because they'll be useful for overland travel."  "Okay, that's 300gp worth of items, netting you 60 gold".  "We'll spend it on a potion of healing in town, and keep the other 10gp aside towards more community gear".

And you just spent more time than the amount it takes to say '128 gp' for something that is irrelevant to most games. Most gamers don't like intensive recordkeeping for things that don't really affect play, role or game.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 10:36AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

I'm currently in another campaign where every single bullet is a precious commodity.  Buying a pair of leather armor pants involves finding someone who can sell them, negotiating not only the price for them, but also the value of whatever you are trying to trade.  (Having traded toothpaste for armor on one occasion.)  Does this detract from gameplay?  No.  Of course not.  It adds to ROLE-PLAY.  

And that's part of that specific campaign. Arguably, still not even necessary to calculate out as the transactions you're boasting about are part of the main scene, not off-camera.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 11:08AM, Atras wrote:

Still on the tangent of selling mundane objects:
I have always explained to my players something along the lines of "You find 20 gold each in the encounter: 5 silver on two of the knights, and enough salvagable weapons and armor to make up for the other 19 gold.   The enemies you are fighting are not carrying their life savings around."  Worrying about collecting all of that crap every single time so you can gain an extra few gold is just silly when good items cost multiple hundreds.

As far as the update "breaking" your characters, you do have a really elegant solution: when at a table, in front of all of the other players and DM, suggest that since there is not yet anything official in the CCG about updates, you would like to play with the pre-errata version so that you can do your bloodclaw damage at-will, and have all of your AC bonuses as an Avenger.  I'm sure the other players and the DM will be understanding.  Obviously this only works until something is specified in the CCG, but it should be legal and fair.

I will agree that in a game higher than 5th level, counting armor, swords, arrow, etc. can become tiresom.

However, a Giant Riding Lizard, or any non-horse mount can mean huge dollars.  Being non-magical, these cannot be sold. 

Just because they are mundane, does not make them cheap.

Re: your solution.  CCG does actually define what to do about updates.  It clearly states to use the newest version of the rules, including the released product updates.  So playing with the old ruleset really isn't a choice.

As I said...  My Dwarf Battlerager is still riding his Giant Riding Lizard, and still using his +2 bloodclaw, each bought with hard earned gp.  He's just figuring that the evil elf gods are screwing with him yet again.  (As I've said from the start, I favor the suck-it-up approach).  He's retrained Dwarven Stoneblood to Weapon Expertise, and has taken Barbarian multiclass rather than Avenger.  Eventually WOTC will find something else to screw him, and he'll suck that up too.  Just gives him something to rage about in battle. 

Dec 2, 2009 -- 11:08AM, Atras wrote:

As far as the update "breaking" your characters, you do have a really elegant solution: when at a table, in front of all of the other players and DM, suggest that since there is not yet anything official in the CCG about updates, you would like to play with the pre-errata version so that you can do your bloodclaw damage at-will, and have all of your AC bonuses as an Avenger.  I'm sure the other players and the DM will be understanding.  Obviously this only works until something is specified in the CCG, but it should be legal and fair.

Oddly, as a DM I'd probably let it go on the avenger or urgrosh wielder who lost proficiency, but I wouldn't allow bloodclaw at-will. The avenger or double weapon wielder has lost access to chunks of their character. The bloodclaw user has just been reduced in power. Ditto giant lizard, hero of the faith, etc.

While it is relatively easy to calculate the value of all equipment, it becomes a real pain when you need to balance that against the treasure gain in the adventure as a whole. Treasure and equipment in LG adventures took an incredible amount of time (it litterally took hours) to sort out for the authors and the editors to check, either that, or there was a huge overcap of gold in an adventure and you were basically doing the exact same thing as is done now in 4E: you basically ignore anything but the most powerful treasure items. Finally, if you did take it into account, it also made you wonder how the players were going to lug around those 20 falchions, 15 sets of scale mail and 5 sets of full plate. As an author and LFR editor I am very glad that they removed it

As I recall from when the whole debate over item picks per level raged, Even if you spend your gold and pick, sell and buy items perfectly, alot of the wealth advantage to be had over some one not making destructive wealth choices mostly comes down to getting things a little earlier and having more dailies than you can really hope to use. It's rarely going to amount to more than a +1 to hit or a few points of damage for more that a handful of mods.

Unfortunately, the player who is going to be drawn to the broken combos that are most likely to get nerfed is often the same player who is going to perseverate on wasted expenditures of wealth. It really doesn't amount to much unless you feel you NEED to have a truly optimal character. You can make a few interesting/bad build choices and pick your items in a more organic/story-driven manner and still have a very viable PC.

As for the reselling of mundane goods, I applaud the choice of simplicity and ease of play over logistics and "realism". I don't think accounting is fun. Besides, I feel like alot of people are only looking at the positive side of the balance sheet. When you start consider all the fees, taxes, transport expenses, lifestyle costs, maintenance and training expenses a character would likely incur, the wisdom of simplifying things down to just the magical makes more and more sense.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 12:18PM, Keithric wrote:

Oddly, as a DM I'd probably let it go on the avenger or urgrosh wielder who lost proficiency, but I wouldn't allow bloodclaw at-will. The avenger or double weapon wielder has lost access to chunks of their character. The bloodclaw user has just been reduced in power. Ditto giant lizard, hero of the faith, etc.

I think I'd have to agree with you on this. The Bloodclaw is a single rule that now works the "right" way. Just not as well as it used to. Especially as such a discussion with a DM is basically a negotiation, asking to keep the old bloodclaw rules makes the whole offer alot harder to swallow.

So is Chris Tulach back from the only place on earth without e-mail?

Are we going to get a ruling from the PTB on the errata?

Or is just tough luck -- either cheat or get hosed by the changes (at least with respect to Avengers,  and some 2 weapon fighters)?

Would be nice if the PTB could actually release something.

Daren

Indeed. It's been nearly three weeks now.

I know the administration are taking this seriously and trying to come to a universal solution for future errata, but a progress update would be nice. Especially since the word on the grapevine is that there will be more errata forthcoming in next week's update.

I don't think it happened in the last batch, but it is possible that people could find their paragon path powers nerfed (there's a particular one that seems to be headed for the chopping block). What would happen in that case? The 'suck it up' argument is a bit harder in this case, because you can't retrain a PP and could potentially be stuck with twenty levels of a choice you'd never have made post-errata.

Dec 7, 2009 -- 3:56AM, Bigfluffylemon wrote:

(there's a particular one that seems to be headed for the chopping block).

Which one do you expect to get hit?

Dec 7, 2009 -- 10:23AM, Mirtek wrote:

Dec 7, 2009 -- 3:56AM, Bigfluffylemon wrote:

(there's a particular one that seems to be headed for the chopping block).

Which one do you expect to get hit?

My guess would be that he is referring to Fleeting Dweomer, the level 12 Utility from the Battle Engineer path.

I would think that the DaggerMaster crit on 18-20 would be headed for the chopping bloick.

Brutal Enchantment was already nerffed.  I don't see any reason to nerf Fleeting Dwoemer.  I think that they wrote that up as intended and that it works as expected for them. 

An ally gets a bonus to damage equal to the Battle Engineer's Intelligence bonus with a chance to do some ongoing damage on a crit.

As a 'Leader', this kind of buffing is taken in place of the healing that many other leaders do - and Artificers tend to buff damage while Warlords tend to buff attacks.

Dec 7, 2009 -- 6:45PM, kinevon wrote:

I would think that the DaggerMaster crit on 18-20 would be headed for the chopping bloick.

I hightly doubt that any changes will occur to the path that affect anyone doing melee attacks with a dagger, it may be changed to work on melee only, even then that is iffy, the caiphon paragon path would need adjusted as well if that were to happen.

Dec 7, 2009 -- 9:06PM, ibixat wrote:

Dec 7, 2009 -- 6:45PM, kinevon wrote:

I would think that the DaggerMaster crit on 18-20 would be headed for the chopping bloick.

I hightly doubt that any changes will occur to the path that affect anyone doing melee attacks with a dagger, it may be changed to work on melee only, even then that is iffy, the caiphon paragon path would need adjusted as well if that were to happen.

I think it more likely that, if it is changed, it will be adjusted to be adjusted to work with [weapon] attacks only.

Dec 7, 2009 -- 7:23PM, Locksley wrote:

Brutal Enchantment was already nerffed.  I don't see any reason to nerf Fleeting Dwoemer.  I think that they wrote that up as intended and that it works as expected for them. 

The person in charge of updates has already mentioned it as being in his sights. +Int damage mod to a multi-attack striker as an encounter power does a lot of damage...the ongoing damage isn't bad either. Combine a multi-attack striker with a high crit chance and things go out the window...

Not to mention, keyword abuse is potentially really uncool - all bursts with resounding thunder or all attacks with lasting frost in play, etc... 

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:35AM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Dec 7, 2009 -- 9:06PM, ibixat wrote:

Dec 7, 2009 -- 6:45PM, kinevon wrote:

I would think that the DaggerMaster crit on 18-20 would be headed for the chopping bloick.

I hightly doubt that any changes will occur to the path that affect anyone doing melee attacks with a dagger, it may be changed to work on melee only, even then that is iffy, the caiphon paragon path would need adjusted as well if that were to happen.

I think it more likely that, if it is changed, it will be adjusted to be adjusted to work with [weapon] attacks only.

I would also not be surprised to see, if it was changed, it only working on at-wills.

Dec 8, 2009 -- 9:27AM, amysrevenge wrote:

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:35AM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Dec 7, 2009 -- 9:06PM, ibixat wrote:

Dec 7, 2009 -- 6:45PM, kinevon wrote:

I would think that the DaggerMaster crit on 18-20 would be headed for the chopping bloick.

I hightly doubt that any changes will occur to the path that affect anyone doing melee attacks with a dagger, it may be changed to work on melee only, even then that is iffy, the caiphon paragon path would need adjusted as well if that were to happen.

I think it more likely that, if it is changed, it will be adjusted to be adjusted to work with [weapon] attacks only.

I would also not be surprised to see, if it was changed, it only working on at-wills.

At which point, a paragon path retrain option would need to be invented and allowed, or you'd have people very angry.

Dec 8, 2009 -- 7:12AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

The person in charge of updates has already mentioned it as being in his sights. +Int damage mod to a multi-attack striker as an encounter power does a lot of damage...the ongoing damage isn't bad either. Combine a multi-attack striker with a high crit chance and things go out the window...

Not to mention, keyword abuse is potentially really uncool - all bursts with resounding thunder or all attacks with lasting frost in play, etc... 

But we've been doing just that since level 2, minus the ongoing damage on crits.  See: Adaptive Strategem

Oof, just noticed that Fleeting Dweomer's damage boost lasts for the encounter.   Yeah I could see that getting nerfed to an "end of next turn" duration.

Also, the power may add a type of damage to a weapon/implements attacks, but the power does not have any Keyword except Arcane.  So it would not make the affected attack a Thunder power for Resounding Thunder, etc.

Dec 9, 2009 -- 7:45AM, tyweise wrote:

Also, the power may add a type of damage to a weapon/implements attacks, but the power does not have any Keyword except Arcane.  So it would not make the affected attack a Thunder power for Resounding Thunder, etc.

Except that's not really spelled out...

That's likely to be one of the major areas of the update, namely that things that add little bits of damage don't add keyword unless the power says so. 

Nov 17, 2009 -- 3:59PM, soccerref73 wrote:

The Global Admins haven't had any opportunity to review the errata and our boss (Mr. Tulach) is out of the country for a couple of weeks.  In general, we want people to use official updates as soon as they become official, but at the same time, there are so many changes in this update that will affect character builds and magic items, I do think we will need to offer some kind of "trade-in program" for people with affected items.  Exactly what that might look like, I am really not certain. Changes to powers and feats should be able to be addressed through the rebuild rules that already exist, although we might allow a free retrain for those items, too. 

Is this progressing? Any idea of when we'll have a decision?

I'm sure that, in general, the Global Admins will be the first to inform us when something is decided on, and if they aren't, it'll come from myself or one of my VCLs (I really need to start delegating more news to them. . . I digress).

As for predicting "when" we'll get news, I'd assumme that the defacto answer is going to be the usual WotC deadline of "When it's ready, and not until then".

No, this isn't what those currently affected and in-limbo want to hear, but if I might hazard a guess, I'd think this is because the suggestion to come up with long-term rules for this type of situation are being hammered out.  To that end, I'd actually prefer that Chris and the Admins take their time to do it right, since the rate of change for these sorts of things isn't exactly blindingly fast.

Keep tuned, and when something official is decided, you can be sure it'll be here, on the mailing lists, and even spread via twitter (@WolfStar76 for my feed/shameless plug).

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:18PM, WolfStar76 wrote:

I'm sure that, in general, the Global Admins will be the first to inform us when something is decided on, and if they aren't, it'll come from myself or one of my VCLs (I really need to start delegating more news to them. . . I digress).

As for predicting "when" we'll get news, I'd assumme that the defacto answer is going to be the usual WotC deadline of "When it's ready, and not until then".

No, this isn't what those currently affected and in-limbo want to hear, but if I might hazard a guess, I'd think this is because the suggestion to come up with long-term rules for this type of situation are being hammered out.  To that end, I'd actually prefer that Chris and the Admins take their time to do it right, since the rate of change for these sorts of things isn't exactly blindingly fast.

Keep tuned, and when something official is decided, you can be sure it'll be here, on the mailing lists, and even spread via twitter (@WolfStar76 for my feed/shameless plug).

Yeah, at this point, they might as well take their time since they're really writing for the next update rather than this one.

At this point, 90% of the people severely affected by the change have probably gone ahead and made whatever changes seemed right to them and their DM under the table.

O.o

 "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent"

I loved a Man for All Seasons 

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:40PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Yeah, at this point, they might as well take their time since they're really writing for the next update rather than this one.

At this point, 90% of the people severely affected by the change have probably gone ahead and made whatever changes seemed right to them and their DM under the table.

You are probably right. I can't imagine any avid player not having made some substitution. I think the admins missed the ball on this one if they were planning on at all being restrictive.

Then again, they are likely consumed with D&DXP planning as well as the normal release schedule, plus at least one global has some other issues taking up their time. It isn't easy being an admin, I'm sure.

I do wish Chris Tulach would change the ratio of Tweets to Forum posts. If we just had one Forum post for every 10 Tweets, we would be in much better shape!

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:40PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

I do wish Chris Tulach would change the ratio of Tweets to Forum posts. If we just had one Forum post for every 10 Tweets, we would be in much better shape!

So is it time for a twitter-based protest?

"@christulach My dwarf ranger forgot what his Urgrosh does. Must I waste money to transfer enchantment? Or level to retrain Polearm Momentum?"

140 

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:18PM, WolfStar76 wrote:

I'm sure that, in general, the Global Admins will be the first to inform us when something is decided on, and if they aren't, it'll come from myself or one of my VCLs (I really need to start delegating more news to them. . . I digress).

As for predicting "when" we'll get news, I'd assumme that the defacto answer is going to be the usual WotC deadline of "When it's ready, and not until then".

No, this isn't what those currently affected and in-limbo want to hear, but if I might hazard a guess, I'd think this is because the suggestion to come up with long-term rules for this type of situation are being hammered out.  To that end, I'd actually prefer that Chris and the Admins take their time to do it right, since the rate of change for these sorts of things isn't exactly blindingly fast.

Keep tuned, and when something official is decided, you can be sure it'll be here, on the mailing lists, and even spread via twitter (@WolfStar76 for my feed/shameless plug).

Thanks for the reply.  I put my errata'ed characters on the back burner, but this weekend I have to play with one (It's my only paragon character).  I guess I'll figure something out.

Well, the second half of the update is either in 5 days, or in the first two weeks of January - the goal will be that the January CB update is the valid one that will be used for DnD XP.

My guess is they are aiming to have the policy posted wheever the second half of the errata goes live.  This could be as soon as Monday or Tuesday - so there is some reasonable hope available for those who wish to grasp it.

Dec 9, 2009 -- 11:21PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:40PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Yeah, at this point, they might as well take their time since they're really writing for the next update rather than this one.

At this point, 90% of the people severely affected by the change have probably gone ahead and made whatever changes seemed right to them and their DM under the table.

You are probably right. I can't imagine any avid player not having made some substitution. I think the admins missed the ball on this one if they were planning on at all being restrictive.

I'm an avid player, yet I felt no need to cheat.  I play with avid players and none of them cheated either.  I don't see how being an avid player has anything to do with a willingness to break the rules.

-SYB

Dec 10, 2009 -- 4:30PM, SYB wrote:

Dec 9, 2009 -- 11:21PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Dec 9, 2009 -- 9:40PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Yeah, at this point, they might as well take their time since they're really writing for the next update rather than this one.

At this point, 90% of the people severely affected by the change have probably gone ahead and made whatever changes seemed right to them and their DM under the table.

You are probably right. I can't imagine any avid player not having made some substitution. I think the admins missed the ball on this one if they were planning on at all being restrictive.

I'm an avid player, yet I felt no need to cheat.  I play with avid players and none of them cheated either.  I don't see how being an avid player has anything to do with a willingness to break the rules.

-SYB

Is it cheating? They had a PC impacted by a rules change, need to make that change, and have no rules by which to do so. Any assumption is an assumption without guidance. They could not play the PC, which is lame. They could make a substitution. They could only use retraining and sell stuff... which is what I would do (assuming the worst), but who knows?

I was under the impression all the rules you needed to update your character were available.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 4:56PM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

I was under the impression all the rules you needed to update your character were available.

There are rules that cover retraining. Technically those tell you how to make changes to a character. However, rules exist to create a fair game that is enjoyable by the players and when the rules do not do a good job of that most players will arbitrarily decide to make up their own rules rather than blindly follow rules which are destructive to the ends they were created for.

Is that cheating? If you want to interpret the rules like a legal code, I suppose it is. But I don't think that the rules for retraining and transferring enchantments are sufficient or just to cover situations where a change in the way item proficiencies or class features work interact--particularly when those affect the so-called big three slots: weapon, armor, or neck slot (not that there are any neck slot items that are require proficiency). So I won't condemn people for taking unauthorized actions in this case. If the PTB don't like that, they should work harder to have reasonable rules in place in advance of changes or institute a waiting period before implementing changes and ensure that they get it right the next time.

Are the few people who decided to put affected characters on the back burner and who may end up being stuck with less generous terms than other people created for themselves going to get screwed? You bet. Will that make them less likely to follow even reasonable rules next time? Probably. That's one of the reasons why this delay shouldn't have happened and why they should work hard to have timely rules in the future.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Is that cheating? If you want to interpret the rules like a legal code, I suppose it is.

Muddying the issue is the indication from global admins that they are/were considering how to adjudicate the issue fairly, with quotes to the effect that they didn't want to be overly tough on people if serious problems came from the update. I think most posters agree that at least one or two of the updates can create serious problems. A good number of posters seem to think just about any update can be serious and should grant a complete/free retrain.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Are the few people who decided to put affected characters on the back burner and who may end up being stuck with less generous terms than other people created for themselves going to get screwed? You bet. Will that make them less likely to follow even reasonable rules next time? Probably. That's one of the reasons why this delay shouldn't have happened and why they should work hard to have timely rules in the future.

Agreed. That's really what I was getting to with my comment. I'm really opposed to the situation we have now, which basically ends up suggesting that a PC should just be retrained until/if a policy comes out. But I can't really argue with a swordmage player or two weapon fighter that wants/needs to play their PC and doesn't want to wait for three levels and or whenever they get clarity on the situation. If they wait, they might be dumb to have done so. And previous updates suggest they will get a retrain, so...

Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:17PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

A good number of posters seem to think just about any update can be serious and should grant a complete/free retrain.

But not the majority of players, afaik. The people who post here do not form the majority.
I identified some changes that cause actual problems:

- Avenger armor (in case the current armor is a magic leather that can't be transferred to cloth)
- double weapon proficiency in certain cases (i.e dwarf urgosh)

I have not yet heard of any others.
In specific cases, those could be troubling. In many, changing to another weapon (double axe, cloth armor - which can be done within the rules using Transfer Enchantment, which a DM could provide for free if he uses DME), solves most of the problem. A PC may still have some feats he wants to retrain, but that does not make a character useless.

Gomez

The real question -- if you fiddled with your character to match your definition of playable, are you going to fall in line with the official decision when/if it's made?

Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:17PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Is that cheating? If you want to interpret the rules like a legal code, I suppose it is.

Muddying the issue is the indication from global admins that they are/were considering how to adjudicate the issue fairly, with quotes to the effect that they didn't want to be overly tough on people if serious problems came from the update. I think most posters agree that at least one or two of the updates can create serious problems. A good number of posters seem to think just about any update can be serious and should grant a complete/free retrain.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Are the few people who decided to put affected characters on the back burner and who may end up being stuck with less generous terms than other people created for themselves going to get screwed? You bet. Will that make them less likely to follow even reasonable rules next time? Probably. That's one of the reasons why this delay shouldn't have happened and why they should work hard to have timely rules in the future.

Agreed. That's really what I was getting to with my comment. I'm really opposed to the situation we have now, which basically ends up suggesting that a PC should just be retrained until/if a policy comes out. But I can't really argue with a swordmage player or two weapon fighter that wants/needs to play their PC and doesn't want to wait for three levels and or whenever they get clarity on the situation. If they wait, they might be dumb to have done so. And previous updates suggest they will get a retrain, so...

As we get further downstream of the rules update with absolute silence from RPGA on what options a player has to a character affected by the update, I find myself getting more and more irritated.  If you follow this thread back, I pushed hard for wizards to simply issue the "suck it up" directive, and send us on our merry way.  But alas, even that appears to be too much effort for Chris Tulach.  (yet he has time to twitter about the Packers-Ravens game).

My most-affected character is a dwarf battlerager.

Having taken the battlerager talent, I also took Dwarven Stoneblood, as the temp hp granted me with each hit I took would be increased.  Given that I was primarily interested in getting the temp hp from missed attacks, and didn't care about the temp hp from invigorating attacks, I initially did not take Crushing Surge.

So the big battlerager errata hit. 

And I needed to retrain out of Dwarven Stoneblood - which now gave me nothing on being hit, and into Crushing Surge.  Okay - that's 2 levels to recover from an errata.

Being a battlerager - which is just a step away from a barbarian rager - the bloodclaw weapon seemed a natural choice.  I sold found items in order to buy and then upgrade a bloodclaw.

The giant riding lizard would give me additional attacks.  Also a great choice for a defender/fighter.  I sold more found items to purchase a giant riding lizard.  And of course still more found items went to buy impenetrable barding.

And then the November update hit.

And I sucked this up.  The giant riding lizard is now just a fast mount that one DM wants me to make ride checks (not even a skill anymore) in order to use the lizards climb speed.  The barding no longer protects to the extent it once did, and the lizard would be better off with something like mirrored caripison or shoes of speed.  Under the rules, I can't sell the lizard at all, and if I sell the impenetrable barding, I'm essentially getting 4 percent of the value of the original found items.

In order to keep being an effective defender-striker, I'm looking at at least trying to use the unsellable mount to some advantage and take up charging.  So I'm thinking of selling just about every other found item I have for something like Horned Helm, and Avalanche Hammer and then transfering enchantment to make my +2 bloodclaw an off-hand weapon to use with dual strike on non-charge attacks.  (That way I can at least mark two enemies a turn.) Oh, and yet more retraining to turn Crushing Surge into Dual Strike, especially as I haven't used Crushing Surge a single time in at least 3 weapons.

Okay, so what is all this leading to.  In 3.5 the word broken came to mean using one item or power or feat in conjunction with another item or power or feat in order to gain an advantage through synergy that the designers probably didn't forsee.   Apparently in 4e the word broken now means selecting an item that is useful just as written, all on its own. 

Having made economic choices for my character since I started, each one being the apparent best decision at the time, it is especially frustrating to me to be told that what was a good economic choice at the time was somehow unfair for me to have made.  As if following the rules carries some sort of inherent unfairness.

When we go out and purchase an item in real-life, if that item does not perform as advertised at the time of sale, then we can return it and get our money back.  (Warranty of Merchantability - that anything you buy should work).  If you bought a car, and the dealer came to your house one night and substituted your V-6 engine for a 1.6L 3-cylinder engine, you would have a serious cause of action.  Yet what many on the boards have been gloating is that we never should have had that V-6 engine in the first place - it was too powerful, and being shafted with the 3-cylinder is only our just desserts for having bought an overpowered engine in the first place. 

So again, what am I getting to?

Well, we've got a major con coming up locally at end of January.  And I'm really getting disappointed in the continual nerf that has been done to my character. 

There's a rule in the CCG that if you use a playtest class - when the final version of the class is published you can then rebuild your character up from first level, on the presumption that material gets changed between playtest and final release and that players would make entirely different choices once the final version is available.

I'm seriously considering interpreting this rule as a reason to rebuild my character from first level.   If what I have been using with this character has essentially been playtest material - ie not a finalized version - as evidenced by the massive and continual errata to it, then why should I not be entitled to the same rebuild that early bard players could have, or that current monk players can have?

There might be some who would say that this is cheating, and to them I really don't have an answer, but a question.  If it is cheating for me to arbitrarily change my characters power, feat, and item choices retroactively, then why is it not cheating when WOTC does the same?  Even if I buy the argument that all of the changes that WOTC made to my character were for game balance (and really, did anyone at all gain an unfair advantage with Impenetrable Armor???  In three levels, I've had one (ONE -1- only one) single monster ever take a swing at my mount.  He missed. ), then the argument that I would make is that since they have balanced the game, then there's nothing I could do in a rebuild that would make my character unbalanced, all it would do would make me happier that I was making the choices of what my character was to be, not WOTCs errata editor.

So you went from Suck it up to I think I should get to remake my character so he doesn't suck in the course of 3 weeks just because wotc didn't tell us to suck it up?

Odd.

The only thing I really care about in your post is your issue with Chris's tweets.  His twitter account is his personal account, he can do whatever the hell he wants to on his time off and with that account.  He doesn't owe us anything, we don't pay for the RPGA benefits we receive, his job is the events guy etc, we really have very little insight into his day to day and none of us really have any right to criticize his free time activities.  I mean, you aren't doing your day job when you're here posting about DND.  Chris's day job intersects with our hobby, that doesn't mean that all of his free time belongs to us or Wotc simply because he is accessible.  He doesn't get paid for 24 hours every day so you can't expect him to be "working" all the time.

 

It seems sort of likely that Chris Tulach is going to put more thought into the retraining issue than he puts into an NFL game. I'm not sure you can really compare the two effectively.

Dec 11, 2009 -- 12:43PM, ibixat wrote:

He doesn't owe us anything, we don't pay for the RPGA benefits we receive, his job is the events guy etc, we really have very little insight into his day to day and none of us really have any right to criticize his free time activities.  I mean, you aren't doing your day job when you're here posting about DND.  Chris's day job intersects with our hobby, that doesn't mean that all of his free time belongs to us or Wotc simply because he is accessible.  He doesn't get paid for 24 hours every day so you can't expect him to be "working" all the time. 

I agree with this. But...

I think it would be a good customer relationship move to simply say something to the effect of: "We're still working on this - we want a permanent solution. If you feel your character has been significantly hurt, don't update until we implement that solution. But be warned, most of the update will be implemented as is and with no do-over."

Dec 11, 2009 -- 12:43PM, ibixat wrote:

So you went from Suck it up to I think I should get to remake my character so he doesn't suck in the course of 3 weeks just because wotc didn't tell us to suck it up?

Odd.

Yep, you are right.  It didn't really strike me until last night when describing what I was trying to do to suck it up and fix my character within the retraining/reselling rules to another player that this was just getting to be more trouble that the enjoyment that I got out of the character.  The fact that I've been playing this character for several months now, and each time I set down a course for it and make some progress wotc issues an errata makes me feel like I'm climbing a mountain of sand and simply sliding down more than I'm actually climbing.

I've gone from suck it up to considering remake in the course of 3 weeks looking at what it is actually going to take to be happy playing this character.  As it is, I'm simply growing more pissed off.  Pissed off that WOTC can't seem to playtest or edit a book and sell alphaware as though it were completed product.  Pissed off that they cavalierly issue game-changing errata without a bit of notice or apology to the players who have invested time and money into their game.  Pissed off that three weeks after issuing said errata, they still haven't said word one.  Pissed off that the one person in WOTC who is apparently capable of making any such a statement or determination was sent to Europe to run a "learn to play" booth for Magic:The Gathering at the time the errata was issued.  Pissed off that he either wasn't told about the errata, or didn't plan far enough ahead to see what a crapstorm would come from it and couldn't be bothered to email in even the most basic of "I'll get on it when I get back", or "I'm working on it, expect an answer soon.".

You're right.  Chris can tweet whateverthehellhewants.  A brief glance indicates that the overwhelming number of his tweets are about DND or wotc activities.  Again, I don't know what his day job is, and I don't really care outside of the fact that it's been stated that he's the only person in all of WOTC that can make any kind of authoritative statement.  And three weeks out, he still hasn't. 

4e is a game.  And a hobby.  It's an investment of both time and money for its players.  The fact that there has been no real response from wotc is probably simply indicative of the amount of respect that the hold for their customers. 

Well I'm glad you at least can see how the suck it up and deal response is kinda of unfair to players, well I'm not glad you are experiencing the "why" it sucks part, but I'm glad you can see that it does indeed suck.

The part about Chris in europe etc, Chris was doing his Job in europe, DND isn't his only schtick at work.   Unfortunately for the RPGA we are the ONLY group of players "required" to play by the most current rules on everything, eratta from wotc is not really aimed at us or planned for us etc.  They look at their game, think things are out of balance and adjust the rules, anyone in any game other than an RPGA game can just ignore or work around these updates however they see fit, RPGA being the official MMO (and I'm using that as massive multiplayer organization, which fits entirely) has to follow the base rules, and there is where we run into all the problems.  3 weeks is a while to wait sure, but unfortunately 3 weeks is not that much time to a business especially around november/december and all the holidays.  Did they screw up in our view for not having something ready for this occurance, yes, I think we can all agree on that.  It's just that yelling at Chris isn't going to help matters.

In 3.5 the word broken came to mean using one item or power or feat in conjunction with another item or power or feat in order to gain an advantage through synergy that the designers probably didn't forsee.   Apparently in 4e the word broken now means selecting an item that is useful just as written, all on its own.  

I think this is essentially right, except that I'd state it more like "In 3.5 they allowed abusive stuff and only fixed broken stuff; in 4e they will fix abusive stuff too". There is definitely a harder line on anything that starts to edge towards abusive. You mention bloodclaw and riding lizard. They're clearly way better than they should be. The riding lizard in particular is just obvious (my son has one for his two-weapon melee ranger, I've seen it in play frequently). I do think that if you make a lot of your choices to maximize your character's power, you are indeed putting your character at risk -- precisely as you say, because you may get hammered several times by fixes. It's just risky. When my multi-wizard fighter took blood mage, I was pretty sure we were going to see errata -- but I figured I hadn't power-gamed much else for him (vicious weapon would be his next most likely nerfable) -- so it wasn't too risky. I would never try building a character I care about around a single high-power shtick. Again, too risky. 

Wizards will continue to fix abusive items. It's clearly their plan. I personally like it as it means I can actually play the game past mid-levels (I never played optimized characters in LG and retired all my characters at level 8-9 when the abusive combinations dominated the game and made it absolutely no fun for me -- either to play or DM). It means that I can have some confidence that if I pick a mix of choices, some for power-game reasons, some for roleplaying, some for fun, then my character will not be useless at some point in the future. That's very important to the life of LFR and so I really don't see a change.

Last time I said in a post that if I was GMing for people who felt totally nerfed, I'd use DME to make it work, I got shouted out for some reason, so I won't make that suggestion again (God forbid DMs try and make the game fun when clearly they should just sulk and blame WOTC). But I do suggest you bring along your character and explain to the GM what's happened. My experience of GMs in LFR has been pretty good, so I would strongly hope that most would be at least somewhat helpful ....

Dec 11, 2009 -- 5:28AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:17PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

In order to keep being an effective defender-striker...

I basically stopped reading right there.  In 4th edition D&D, a character can be effective with no feats, non-optimal powers and nothing more than vanilla magic items.  Optimization does not make a character effective, it makes a character optimal.  Just about every complaint that a character is no longer playable is simply bunk.

An avenger in non-magical cloth still does the primary job of an avenger (striker) effectively... though I will admit that the loss of treasure for magical leather that can't transfer sucks and deserves compensation.

A tempest dwarf fighter with an urgosh can pick up two handaxes (transfering the enchantment to one of them) and still be effective.  The same is true for an eladrin.

Heck, I am currently playing an effective tiefling fighter that started with a 14 strength.  Effective is EASY in 4th edition.  If the complaint is that the character is no longer optimal, fine, I will acknowledge it.  If the complain is that the character is no longer effective, that is simply false.

-SYB

Dec 11, 2009 -- 7:11PM, ibixat wrote:

The part about Chris in europe etc, Chris was doing his Job in europe, DND isn't his only schtick at work.

That's kind of the point.  There's only one RPGA guy.  Why, when the RPGA is already suffering from backlogs and delays, does that guy have to go work a Magic booth?  There must be a couple of dozen people working Magic: the Gathering full-time who could do it instead.  Why does the RPGA have to suffer a three-week delay to give Magic a rather marginal benefit?

Dec 11, 2009 -- 7:11PM, ibixat wrote:

3 weeks is a while to wait sure, but unfortunately 3 weeks is not that much time to a business especially around november/december and all the holidays.

I'm far less inclined to give that line any credit after having seen it several times already, modified for whatever's current.  A few months ago it was GenCon.  Now it's the holiday rush.  Next month it'll be DDXP.

Dec 11, 2009 -- 7:11PM, ibixat wrote:

It's just that yelling at Chris isn't going to help matters.

The yelling is directed at the position, not the person.  After all, we've only got the one RPGA guy; is it surprising that all the complaints go to him?

More importantly, though, you're wrong; complaining does help.  When Tulach goes to the penny-pinchers at WotC to request more [funding|time|minions|other resources] one of the first questions they'll ask is, "Has anybody complained about the way things are?"  If the answer is "No," then they're apt to conclude that things are working just fine, and he doesn't need extra resources just now.  With a bevy of complaints at hand, his request for additional resources will have a great deal more weight.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:17PM, Alphastream1 wrote:

A good number of posters seem to think just about any update can be serious and should grant a complete/free retrain.

Which I see as one of the main problems which basically leaves them with no other option than to allow a complete/free retrain everytime one item/feat/feature on your character sheet get's mentioned in a rules update.

Otherwise, no matter where they decide to draw the line between "exception-rule-worthy" and "standard-rules-case" will have a lot of people just on the other edge of the line complaining loudly that it's unfair that they didn't drew the line just a little more in their direction.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Are the few people who decided to put affected characters on the back burner and who may end up being stuck with less generous terms than other people created for themselves going to get screwed? You bet.

Note that this also currently applies to the few people who did not buy any of the nerfed items when they had the chance solely for fear of suffering a loss if they were ever nerfed.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 5:20PM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Will that make them less likely to follow even reasonable rules next time? Probably.

Personally I am willing to tick the period where I had to stuggle (and even died) against monsters we could have slain with ease a couple of rounds earlier if I had not been too chicken about the prospect of having them nerfed without compensation (thus never taking them in the first place) as earlier learning experience if they now release clear and strict rules they'll stick to in all future cases (which means that they better already cover possible PP and ED errate now).

Dec 10, 2009 -- 10:49PM, gomeztoo wrote:

I identified some changes that cause actual problems:

- Avenger armor (in case the current armor is a magic leather that can't be transferred to cloth)
- double weapon proficiency in certain cases (i.e dwarf urgosh)

But that's only your point of view which can (and does) drastically differ from other people's point of view.

Dec 10, 2009 -- 10:49PM, gomeztoo wrote:

I have not yet heard of any others.

Really? You have not heard/read the complains from people with bloodclaw/reckless weapons? Or for that matter from people with veteran's armor (which I would consider the same impact category than the respective weapons)?

Or do you just think these do not require a special-permission (to which I agree with you, but that doesn't make everyone agree with us, there a lot of complains about them)?

Dec 11, 2009 -- 5:28AM, Joe_Shill wrote:

There's a rule in the CCG that if you use a playtest class - when the final version of the class is published you can then rebuild your character up from first level, on the presumption that material gets changed between playtest and final release and that players would make entirely different choices once the final version is available.

Yet even that is not quite complete. You are not allowed to change your class feature (unless you also spend your one-time-class-feature-retrain) and you're not allowed to change your ability scores (if the second build, formerly unknown during the playtest, is much more to your liking but requires a differen ability you're also SOL)

Dec 12, 2009 -- 4:16AM, Mirtek wrote:

Note that this also currently applies to the few people who did not buy any of the nerfed items when they had the chance solely for fear of suffering a loss if they were ever nerfed.

I don't think people should have to play like that.  If we're offered an item at the end of an adventure, and printed right there in black and white is what the item does; we should be able to trust that that's what the item is, and take it or not based on that.  We should be able to make a choice based on what we have in the mods and in the books we bought and paid for, not on what may or may not be changed a month or year down the line.  We should ask "is this good for my character," not "is this too good to exist."  Why should we play in fear that our choices are going to be invalidated or lost?

We should be able to trust that items are what they are.  Unless we want to go back to the days of 1st and 2nd edition with cursed items, where you think you're putting on a magic belt, but you're actually getting a sex change.

Dec 12, 2009 -- 4:16AM, Mirtek wrote:

Dec 10, 2009 -- 10:49PM, gomeztoo wrote:

I have not yet heard of any others.

Really? You have not heard/read the complains from people with bloodclaw/reckless weapons?

Imo, those changes do not make a character useless. These weapons can still be used effectively. They are useful, and still do extra damage 1/encounter. They are just not broken.
Changing them does not actually cause problems (as in: making feats worthless etc).
Btw I had veteran's armor befiore the nerf - and I still have it.

Gomez

Dec 12, 2009 -- 11:29AM, gomeztoo wrote:

Btw I had veteran's armor befiore the nerf - and I still have it.

Ditto. My bard has had +1 Veteran for 8-9 levels - I've been holding out for +3, because none of the +2 armors really seemed worth it for just a mere +1 to AC and I really like the property of the Vet's armor.

Better yet, my bard, who has only found maybe 4-5 items offhand, used one of those choices on a +3 longsword, something almost strictly worse than a +3 bloodclaw longsword.

Dec 12, 2009 -- 12:20PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Better yet, my bard, who has only found maybe 4-5 items offhand, used one of those choices on a +3 longsword, something almost strictly worse than a +3 bloodclaw longsword.

I'd rather have a basic +3 than a bloodclaw.

Dec 12, 2009 -- 8:18PM, Crodocile wrote:

Dec 12, 2009 -- 12:20PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Better yet, my bard, who has only found maybe 4-5 items offhand, used one of those choices on a +3 longsword, something almost strictly worse than a +3 bloodclaw longsword.

I'd rather have a basic +3 than a bloodclaw.

There is a valid point here.  In retrospect, a player who had taken a basic +3 weapon would be able to make it any +3 he wished by simply paying the difference in price between the level 11 weapon and the desired weapon.

The player who owns the bloodclaw must first sell it for the price of a +2 bloodclaw (level 7 item) and then pay the difference in price between the Level 7 bloodclaw and the desired weapon.

This amounts to a 6,400 gp difference in price.  (Enough to buy a level 10 item, and a level 5 item and a level 1 item.)

Well, I don't think anyone has proposed this for a solution on the item issue, so here goes:

Allow someone with a magic item changed by errata to change it for a different magic item that is the lower of the current item level or the character's level.

Rationale:  My Realms adventures already allow a person to use a found item slot to choose from a wide selection of items of their character level or lower.  This would effectively convert the item into one found in such an adventure.  It prevents people from getting access to items they could not normally access in a current LFR adventure.

Granted, a level 10 character may not want to convert their +3 Bloodclaw weapon into a magic item of level 10 or lower...they don't have to.  But if they feel the item is unusable, they can still get some value from it under this suggested rule.

The question is: how do you implement the rule?
For everyone who is affected by the last errata?
For everyone who is affected by any errata?
For everyone, all the time?

Gomez

Dec 13, 2009 -- 2:32AM, gomeztoo wrote:

The question is: how do you implement the rule?
For everyone who is affected by the last errata?
For everyone who is affected by any errata?
For everyone, all the time?

I would say that you would implement it for everyone who is affected by the November update, and the individuals affected must make the change before the next game they play with that character.

Going forward, I would put it into the LFR guidelines that anytime new errata is released that affects an item carried by a character, the item may be traded out for another item with a level equal to the lower of character or item level.  The trade must be made before the next game played with that character.

Dec 13, 2009 -- 9:14AM, Fedifensor wrote:

Going forward, I would put it into the LFR guidelines that anytime new errata is released that affects an item carried by a character, the item may be traded out for another item with a level equal to the lower of character or item level.  The trade must be made before the next game played with that character.

Given that people can not find out about errata until they're at a game trying to use an item, perhaps already hours into the game, I'd suggest something slightly more flexible than 'immediately, before you play again'.

Dec 13, 2009 -- 9:39AM, Keithric wrote:

Given that people can not find out about errata until they're at a game trying to use an item, perhaps already hours into the game, I'd suggest something slightly more flexible than 'immediately, before you play again'.

Well, you could make it effective from when the player finds out about the errata, rather than when the errata is published.  Not that it matters...most DMs are going to give some flexibility if the player finds out at the table during a game.

This might be nothing but hoping people here are more informed.

Reading through some threads I've seen some people saying Wizards might be nerfing some PP features and others just hinting that Wizards is looking into it.  Then there's also the problem of someone taking a single comment that they've heard and posted, then having others run with it, blowing it  out of proportion.

So has anyone heard anything definite on if any Paragon Paths are being errated?

If so, what have you heard and where from?

Dec 13, 2009 -- 10:48PM, Matt12 wrote:

This might be nothing but hoping people here are more informed.

Reading through some threads I've seen some people saying Wizards might be nerfing some PP features and others just hinting that Wizards is looking into it.  Then there's also the problem of someone taking a single comment that they've heard and posted, then having others run with it, blowing it  out of proportion.

So has anyone heard anything definite on if any Paragon Paths are being errated?

If so, what have you heard and where from?

I don't have any information that paragon paths are being errataed, but they have been errataed in the past. Champion of Order's Certain Justice initially didn't care whether the target was marked by you or someone else. Now it has to be marked by you to get the full nastiness.

Dec 12, 2009 -- 9:13PM, Fedifensor wrote:

Well, I don't think anyone has proposed this for a solution on the item issue, so here goes:

Allow someone with a magic item changed by errata to change it for a different magic item that is the lower of the current item level or the character's level.

Rationale:  My Realms adventures already allow a person to use a found item slot to choose from a wide selection of items of their character level or lower.  This would effectively convert the item into one found in such an adventure.  It prevents people from getting access to items they could not normally access in a current LFR adventure.

Granted, a level 10 character may not want to convert their +3 Bloodclaw weapon into a magic item of level 10 or lower...they don't have to.  But if they feel the item is unusable, they can still get some value from it under this suggested rule.

I had suggested that they should allow someone with a +x weapon to convert it to a generic +x magic weapon, a +x armor to a +x magic armor, and/or +x neck slot with a +x amulet of protection.  That way, you can convert item types (ie, leather to cloth armor) if the new type you want isn't a valid type for the enchantment you had.  It also puts you in a position to pay for an item upgrade from +x magic to +x whatever without having to sell the old item at 20%.

Dec 14, 2009 -- 8:26AM, tyweise wrote:

I had suggested that they should allow someone with a +x weapon to convert it to a generic +x magic weapon, a +x armor to a +x magic armor, and/or +x neck slot with a +x amulet of protection.  That way, you can convert item types (ie, leather to cloth armor) if the new type you want isn't a valid type for the enchantment you had.  It also puts you in a position to pay for an item upgrade from +x magic to +x whatever without having to sell the old item at 20%.

Both ideas sounds fine to me in principle (assuming we need/want a generic rule at all), but the question is why you would it be limited to erratas? Sounds overly complicated imo.
Maybe I want to exchange an item even if it isn't affected by errata?

Gomez

Dec 14, 2009 -- 10:06AM, gomeztoo wrote:

Maybe I want to exchange an item even if it isn't affected by errata?

Different people have different thresholds on what they accept. Some people don't want any changes allowed. Others are fine with any level of change.

Personally, I'll admit, I'm a total carebear* and I'd be fine if we let anyone at any time convert their +X of Foo into a generic +X. I'm actually surprised you can't do that as part of the enchant magic item ritual.

But, in terms of allowability, I'm more firmly in favor of ensuring that those impacted by errata have a method to adapt and repair, and less worried about people unaffected by errata. One is an exterior event, the other is whim. If we can do both? Sure, good with me. I'm pretty sure I've got a couple of retired weapons - +2 vicious and all that - that I'd cheerfully change into +2 distance javelins

* As a DM, I actually have a simple formula. Given two choices, in which is the table having more fun? That choice wins. Usually, that means being pretty permissive around this kind of thing.

Dec 13, 2009 -- 10:48PM, Matt12 wrote:

So has anyone heard anything definite on if any Paragon Paths are being errated?

Battle Engineer got hit with the nerfbat today.

Dec 15, 2009 -- 10:48AM, kilpatds wrote:

Dec 13, 2009 -- 10:48PM, Matt12 wrote:

So has anyone heard anything definite on if any Paragon Paths are being errated?

Battle Engineer got hit with the nerfbat today.

As a player with a 15th level Battle Engineer, I'd say we got hit with the balance bat. The first time I looked at Fleeting Dweomer, I thought it was absurd as an encounter power.

Dec 15, 2009 -- 10:50AM, JohnduBois wrote:

As a player with a 15th level Battle Engineer, I'd say we got hit with the balance bat.

I stand by my comments in the other thread (Fleeting Dweomer... Overpowered?  Meant to be?") (which can be summarized as "Pitfighter?  Son of Mercy?  Moon Stalker?  Class features hidden as powers has also been done in several places before...")

At any rate, that change is signficant enough that some may no longer want to play their paragon level character, and is thus relevant to this thread.

Another errata update, and still no word on how to handle stuff that massively changed?

(I'm looking at the new Healer's Sash which is essentially a new item that serves a completely different intent)

I'm a little surprised, given that WotC/RPGA was responsive to Veteran's Armor.  Not sure why they're hiding their head in the sand now.

Given ChrisT's laid-back casual approach to rules he created (see [1] and [2]), I'm begining to think his silence is essentially "don't tell me, I won't ask" on people making swaps.