Community

Dec 4, 2012 -- 1:38PM, mvincent wrote:

Dec 4, 2012 -- 10:21AM, thespaceinvader wrote:

Wow, that's disingenuous.

It sounded genuous to me. ymmv.

 there are years of back suggestions on the boards

I can only imagine that a lot of that is conflicting overstatements written by fans that are rarely pleased with any result.

I don't doubt there's a lot of silly overstatement.  But maybe, 10% of it's reasonable.  And 0% of 4 years of suggestions is still enough reasonable suggestions to be going on with, particularly when there are whole books which simply haven't been touched, and maybe 70% of the non-implement/weapon keyworded attack powers don't scale to match the expected game maths.

I still find the comment... maybe disingenuous is the wrong word.  Shortsighted?  Short-memoried?

I'm not suggesting a complete rewrite (which the game, nonetheless, could benefit from, to fix the issues with the conflation of attack and attack power, the confusion around use/hold/wield etc etc etc), but there are a wide variety of things which simply, technically, don't WORK. 

Take Academy Master's e11, for instance.  It's clear what the intent is (use an arcane power, if it misses, don't expend learned boost), but the Reliable keyword does nothing in this instance, because the reliable keyword refers to the attack roll made BY the power that has it, and Learned Boost no more has an attack roll than Commander's Strike does.  So, the intended mechanic doesn't work by RAW. 

Similarly, Ironwrought's e1 - the intent seems to be 'roll twice, if either hits, you hit, if both hit, you deal 1/2/3d8 extra damage'.  But the writing of the power is not clear by RAW, because by RaW, making an attack roll twice is not defined, and the timings of no actions like this are not clear.  It could be read as 'make an extra attack roll for 1d8 extra damage on a hit'.  It could be read as 'make the entire attack again, dealing 1d8 extra damage if you hit the second time'.  It could easily be clarified to match the probable intent of 'roll twice, take the higher, if the lower hits, deal extra damage'.  But it hasn't been; indeed, I'm reasonably sure that the entirety of HotF and HotEC haven't been errated at all, and they need it.

That's just two examples of the top of my head, in 10 minutes, that are in need of errata to clarify their intent or how they actually work.  They may be minor examples, and they may be clear by intent (I'd certainly say they are) - but it concerns me that the lack of care over the design of this game, will reflect poorly on the care they're putting into the new one.  It wouldn't take long to fix most of these minor issues.  So why not do it, at least as a token effort to please the paying customers of the current edition of the game?