General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
What's interesting to me is that Bruce Cordell is listed as the author. I wouldn't think that he'd make such egregious mistakes in an article. I'm wondering if perhaps somewhere along the line an incomplete version got used instead of a completed version. The fact that it would take some time to fix suggests to me it may have been early on in the process.
Given the power levels of the powers in question, I suspect they were intended as Standard Actions from the start - just, at some point, several copy/paste errors were made. Resulting in a good portion of the article being unusable, combined with a few slightly easier to make mistakes. (The immediate reaction that will often trigger on your turn.)
I think the real reason for the harsh response is that this was just several simple typos that editing should have caught. And didn't, and was prominent enough to cast the whole article in question, and so they pulled it so they could really give it the once over.
Which, I mean, I'm fine with. They made some mistakes, and not too terrible ones, and immediately set out to resolve the issue. Assuming the final product removes the problems, all's well that ends well.
That's more like it. It almost like the initial version was an early draft.
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
What's interesting to me is that Bruce Cordell is listed as the author. I wouldn't think that he'd make such egregious mistakes in an article. I'm wondering if perhaps somewhere along the line an incomplete version got used instead of a completed version. The fact that it would take some time to fix suggests to me it may have been early on in the process.
Well it must have been bad if the author of the Epic Level Handbook issued a public apology!
On a positive note, this is one of the really great things about publishing the mags online.
__________________ Regards
D
The philosopher Herbert Spencer once observed: "The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools."
I can't help but notice that 4e has had a lot of errata. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, god knows I can think of some 3e books that are in bad need of it COUGH COMPLETELY PSIONICS COUGH, but...well, yeah, there seems to be a lot of it.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
I can't help but notice that 4e has had a lot of errata. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, god knows I can think of some 3e books that are in bad need of it COUGH COMPLETELY PSIONICS COUGH, but...well, yeah, there seems to be a lot of it.
I'm not sure about that. The amount I've seen thus far has been quite light compared to 3rd Edition - and often well chosen, fixing both basic errors as well as being willing to fix overpowered options.
The errata is certainly there, but "a lot of it"? I'm not sure how much you are judging as 'normal', but the amount out thus far seems pretty standard, generally well chosen, and presented in a very usable format. I'm wondering if that might be part of the issue - since they aren't squeezing dozens of changes and fixes onto one page, it might look like a larger amount of updates than it actually is...
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
