Community

Dec 1, 2009 -- 2:00AM, Madfox11 wrote:

Personally I really find discussions about people expecting WotC to deliver prime products with no errors what-so-ever really funny. In a perfect world they would be right, but considering the amount of errors one find in prime products that have a much bigger impact such as computer security, computer OS or less important stuff like any RPG published by any random publisher (if you really think that games like Pathfinder or Shadow Run do not have abusable stuff, then I admit there is little point in discussing things) or any computer game out there (I certainly never played a game that did not required a patch or more, many times even before being able to play the game). Of course, products like an airplane or new medicine have a much higher standard, but somehow I doubt that WotC would survive a product development phase that takes decades, nor would hundreds of people die when there is a fault. Even laws get constantly changed. I find it really odd that you somehow hold WotC against a much higher standard then the rest of the world (either that or you are constantly unhappy with many other products in the world).

They give us the errata for free, and it is really easy to implement in your own game without any issues. Mind you, if you are the type of gamer that is angry about these changes for their own game because it ruins your DPS build, then just keep it the same. Nobody is forcing you to use the errata. If you have a DM that sticks to the RAW, even though one player outshone the rest or all the players love to make truly optimized characters, then talk with your DM. The group apparently prefers another style of gaming then the DM. If it would be otherwise, the DM already changed most of these items or the group avoided them and they never realized they could be problematic.

Now for a public campaign like LFR it is a different story. Players are more tied to RAW, and people with different gaming style preferences are much more likely to mix. So I can see how this irritates the LFR crowd (both the need for the errata in the first place, as well as the implementation of it, although, rarely within the same person). Then again, how many game companies out there run world wide campaigns offering 1 to 2 adventures per week for free? Of course, the game designers are not designing the game for a public world wide campaign. They keep it mind, otherwise there would not be this many errata, but it is not their prime concern. And I don't blame them. I wished all D&D gamers also played LFR, but we all know it is only a relatively small crowd that does...

Having worked in the gaming industry for several years (software), I've got a pretty good idea as the what is an acceptable level of testing and bug fixing, and what is simply alphaware packaged as a finished product.

It's obvious to me which of these WOTC is selling.

Do other companies (Catalyst, Paizo, etc) release product that has things that later need to be fixed.  Sure.  On the first day of Gencon when Paizo released Pathfinder, they also issued an errata to cover the typos and mistakes that they found between release to printer and first sales date.  Catalyst maintains an errata to each of their books as well, though the amount of changes between printings is surprisingly small.  (Largest change I noticed was that the point cost for certain magical abilities changed, and the karma cost to increase stats significantly increased.  Neither of these were things that players by and large felt were broken, but were more in the line of tweaks.)  I guess the idea of fixing problems quickly, and not releasing things with enormous brokenness to start with impresses me more than it might impress others.  Opinions vary.  Mine may be wrong.

I am personally dissatisified with the sheer volume of items, powers, and feats that I and ( judging by the "ha! everyone knew it was due for the nerf hammer" atitude so prevalent here) just about every customer finds in the printed material that should not have survived even the most basic technical review (I can only liken it to buying a flight simulation where the plane was unable to bank to the left...?)  only serve to prove my point that what I have bought in PH1, PH2, AV, DP, AP, MP are simply untested, unedited, unflavorful dreck that WOTC has no motivation to correct on a timely basis.

Yes, I have a DDI subscription, and yes I will continue to play LFR and my home game.  But unless and until WOTC improves the quality of the printed product that they sell, I have no reason to buy it.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 9:37AM, Keithric wrote:

Winged Horde at-will

Agreed on winged horde--it would not surprise me in the least if that got nerfed.

However, I can't say that this is really one of the "use at your own risk; you knew it was too good" abilities because, I don't think that the direction the expected nerf will take is predictable. Depending upon the designers' whim, I could see any of the following happen:
A. Targets change to "creatures" in a burst rather than "enemies" in a burst
B. Lose the "and may not take opportunity actions" element
C. Reduce damage to 1d4
D. Damage type change to untyped (this would be a nerf since it would eliminate the possibility of applying the increasingly broken psychic lock feat to it).
E. Lose the illusion keyword (this would eliminate the synergy with the various gnome illusion feats and abilities.
F. Defense targeted changes from Will to Fortitude or Reflex. (This would be a nerf since will is generally thought to be the best defense to target and a number of paragon paths (such as divine oracle) grant bonuses or a double roll for attacks against will).

A or B I would consider to be the most likely nerfs, but none of them are outside the realm of the imagination and each of the different nerf options would hit different characters in different ways.

For instance:
A would leave players who follow the "thunderwave and winged horde are the only options now" school of thought by leaving them without any at will power that can hit a surrounded enemy without hitting their friends.
B. Would make players who wanted the control of preventing opportunity actions regret their choice (perhaps they would rather have chilling cloud at that point).
C. Would hit those wizards who looked at it as scorching burst plus (they might want to go back, change to thunderwave or give up on at-will area attacks altogether)
D. Would hit any wizards playing with psychic lock and dark fury (they might want phantom bolt or illusory ambush instead)
E. Would hit the gnome illusionists (not that I would object--beating of gnomes should be encouraged at every opportunity; they should never have let those varmits out of the monster manual)
F. Might hit any wizard who was trying to keep a set of at-wills targeting diverse defenses and might make divine oracles, etc look for another at-will.

For my part, I plan to retrain my wizard into winged horde as soon as possible and would be happy to keep playing with it if it gets nerf A, B, D, or E, would think about keeping it with nerf C, but would want to drop it entirely if it gets nerf F. I want my wizard's at-will powers to target different defenses and to deal different damage types so if it got changed to target Reflex, I wouldn't want it anymore. (And in that event, I don't think I should be obliged to wait two levels to get back to a scorching burst/phantom bolt combo).

Dec 2, 2009 -- 2:22AM, Madfox11 wrote:

How much do those other companies publish in comparison to WotC? Is the number of errors per product for WotC really higher then for other publishers? And are most of these changes really more then little tweaks? Besides, are those games played by the same number of people? The people that prefer the same style of game breaking (I would be rich if I get a dollar for anybody who start a game saying that they use this broken build at the start of a game or on these boards)? Would those companies be as diligent in publishing errata?

One thing you ignore though is the difference between a home game and LFR. In my home game those dice would cause no issues, nor would a power salve. First of all, as a DM I control the amount of treasure. Secondly, I have seen people build characters, they begrudgingly admit would never have built in a home game. Thirdly, my players in a home campaign cannot meta-game about healing surges and the number of encounters per day. Fourthly, if I really want to, I as a DM can easily change encounter design to take items and attack powers into account. Fifthly, I can easily change the item after consulting the players of course. A mass public game like LFR that targets a broad audience just has an easier time to bring out the faults in a system.

Could WotC do a better job? Probably, although, likely at the cost of their publication schedule and an increase in the price of their products. Does the current stuff bother me, hardly. I am not going to let my enjoyment of the game being ruined about something like this.

P.S. Can somebody tell me why a player would knowingly play something that player considers broken, brag about it and then turn around complaining it was easy? I can see how a player want to own a fight through tinkering with a build, and I gladly give these players what they apparently want (an easy fight), but bragging about it is not going to endear you to your fellow players and complaining about the difficulty is odd since that conflicts with the signal of building "broken" builds

So your argument comes down to: WOTC publishes tons of material, and they can't be bothered to playtest it - besides, a good DM can make up for crappy rules and writing.

If that is how you feel, then we really don't have an argument. 

My enjoyment of the game isn't ruined.  I never stated it was, and by implying that that was my argument, you are being disengenuous. 

I stated that I have no reason to purchase WOTC printed material unless and until they decide to playtest before publishing.  This is a personal decision.  You are free to buy all of the alphaware you want. 

If a lot of people feel as I do that the material being published by WOTC is of inferior quality and not worth the cover price, then WOTC's sales will decline and they will either increase quality or sell less material to adjust.  If I am the sole voice calling for better quality, then WOTC's sales won't suffer, and they simply won't get my sales dollar and I won't be missed.

As I stated, they have my DDI subscription money, which probably accounts for more as much of  my printed sales dollars (after markups at distributor, and retail). 

per your Post Script - Will I use material that I think has high enough power that it is worth selling an item five levels higher.  Sure.  And when they eventually possibly some day issue an errata that should have been issued before release date, I'll suck up the change.  (If you will look at the errata thread, I have consistently called for the "suck it up" approach to nerfed items, rather than whining and asking for a free upgrade to something else.) 

Dec 2, 2009 -- 6:33AM, Keithric wrote:

Dec 1, 2009 -- 7:16PM, Joe_Shill wrote:

I just noticed that Auspicious Dice made it into the Compiled Issue #381.

Bloody hell. I guess we didn't raise a big enough stink on the dragon errata forum, or maybe too many people were out for holiday. That one could actually break games, might be worth raising a stink so it hopefully gets hit by February.

I really didn't think that Auspicious Dice would have made it through to the compiled issue. 

I know I've been really ragging WOTC about editing/playtesting lately, but this is exactly what I meant.  On its face, these dice are very very powerful.  Given the stink on the errata forum, these should not have been published.  They don't need any other item for their power.  They are just that good.

Is this a signal that WOTC is having more in-house problems?  Are they so short staffed that nothing is getting playtested?  (I know the RPGA guy was unavailable to deal with repercussions of the big rules update because he was out doing "Learn to Play" for magic at a big tournament.)

Per another thread.  Maybe we should be talking about what level these dice should be set at.  They are much more powerful than an 11th level item.  If they were a 21st level item, I'd think they were reasonably balanced.  (Epic level ability).