Community

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 -- 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.