|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:26PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2007
|
Except this isn't some Dragon article or new book. This is the Errata for the PHB, this is suppose to be the one thing above all else you want to use.
If they wanted to make a because they felt like it change to something it should have been in an optional dragon article, NOT in the bloody Errata.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:27PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2008
|
I love the idea of Wizards making sweeping changes with the online updates. That's why we do all the crunch in the CB instead of ourselves.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:32PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
@Areola: My thoughts exactly, pretty much. Honestly, I'd not be bothered so much if (as I've said previously) it were a change, rather than a complete gut-and-replace. There were other ways to make this an "auto-hit" that wouldn't be such a big change. As I've said elsewhere, I would have much rather had it be: Hit: 2d4 force damage. Effect: Int modifier force damage. That said, they should change the (mostly useless) Fighter at-will, Sure Strike, to work similar to the new MM. Remove the Attack and Hit lines. Add the following instead: Effect: 2 + Strength modifier damage, and the target is marked until the end of your next turn. Level 11: 3 + Strength modifier damage, and the target is marked until the end of your next turn. Level 21: 5 + Strength modifier damage, and the target is marked until the end of your next turn. Special: If the weapon used with this power has an enhancement bonus, add that bonus to the damage. Still mostly useless, but if new MM fits a niche, I'm sure new Sure Strike would fit one too. 
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:36PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2010
|
@greatfrito: I bow before your ability to decide what's "changing" and what's "gutting and replacing". If one is okay and the other is terrible, then I'm doomed to keep enjoying terrible things because I'll never know the difference.
That said, I honestly approve very much of the Sure Strike idea... and of course, Ranger needs an updated Careful Attack even more.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:36PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2006
|
Nothing is stopping you from nixing that out of the erratta. It's your game. Play it as you like. Hell use BOTH versions, either roll to hit for more damage or auto hit for less.
I really don't see the big deal in it. But then again I miss a lot of the classical elements from the game because it was what I was used to for over a couple decades of play so seeing this get put back is something that I think is cool.
Though I don't care either way about it in the end.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net
My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna
My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:49PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
@greatfrito: I bow before your ability to decide what's "changing" and what's "gutting and replacing". If one is okay and the other is terrible, then I'm doomed to keep enjoying terrible things because I'll never know the difference.
I don't think it's that hard, really.
They removed nearly all of the mechanical "guts" of the power (everything but keywords, range, and target), and replaced it with a completely new power.
If they took, say, Valiant Strike, removed the Attack and Hit lines, and replaced it all with Effect: 2 + Strength modifier damage, +1 damage per enemy adjacent to you. Special: If the weapon used with this power has an enhancement bonus, add that bonus to the damage.
I'd call that "gut-and-replace" instead of "changing" - it's a completely different power, just using the same Valiant Strike heading.
That said, I honestly approve very much of the Sure Strike idea... and of course, Ranger needs an updated Careful Attack even more.
Careful Attack is, at the very least, better than Sure Strike.  But yeah, since they've already swapped to New Magic Missile, (and addressed Careful Attack being sub-par in prior errata), I really would be satisfied with something like that for Sure Strike.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:53PM
#57
|
|
|
T-Mack: Well, it's your opinion that those are the only two valid reasons for an update. It's also your opinion that this change was made to reflect what one individual didn't like about a power. My opinion is that it was made in response to widespread and ongoing discussion among the player base about something that was wrong with a power, and that this is a perfectly valid use of the update process, though I'd prefer it happens rarely (once after two years? Rare enough.) Though I do have to add a cynical caveat to my cheerleading: I can't help but think that the reason the developers are suddenly acting on a complaint that's been there since the beginning is that they hope the Essentials line will draw old players back to the game, and they think this version will help with that rather than forcing them to deal with the initial backlash all over again.
Of course it's my opinion, AlexandraE. We should all be passed the "IMO" caveat by now.
I submit there are just as many if not more opponents to this new change as supporters, so the question becomes who were they really trying to please. Besides that, if they are going to start gutting the game to please their "fans", "customers", "player-base", etc...this game is headed for the anthill and soon.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 6:57PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2010
|
Oh, I forget they errata'd Careful Attack. So it's less useless than Sure Strike in a vacuum, but perhaps still just as apt to be overlooked. Given that CA has been spruced up a bit, I agree that SS is more overdue for a makeover.
As for gutting versus changing:
They didn't turn it from a longer-than-normal-range force attack to something that teleports the target, or heals an ally, or is default-fluffed to involve a stampede of pretty pretty ponies. From the point of view of a character using or being hit with the spell, the same thing is happening... except that it's become more reliable.
Adding a hit bonus or a miss line or an effect or the reliable keyword to an extant power when it's determined that the power needs to be more reliable doesn't feel like a gutting to me, so neither does this.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 7:03PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2010
|
@T-Mack:
I didn't say that because I thought you needed to disclaim yourself. I said that because I felt it was worth pointing out that the change made it into print because one guy didn't like the power wasn't rooted in the world of fact and evidence. It's hyperbole at best, as is the idea that this constitutes the onset of the gutting of the game. It's one change to one power (which many people bypassed as being "suboptimal" to begin with), and it came after two years of feedback and complaints and back-and-forth discussions all over the interwebz.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 7:16PM
#60
|
|
|
Yes there was/is discussion. Is that reason to effect a change in the game? Somebody in WotC wanted this change, because it doesn't make much since for them to backtrack on the design philosophy of 4e on the basis of some relatively quiet complaining about a marginal wizard power.
Let me be clear here as well. I don't care about Magic Missle. If there were no wizards at all in 4e, I wouldn't blink. What I object to is initiating changes for the sake of changes. I trust the errata in most cases, because I've felt WotC made changes based on a set of criteria. This change doesn't follow any criteria I trust.
|
|
|
