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.
Today, we posted a new version of the Class Acts: Ranger article that originally appeared on July 13, 2009.
To put it bluntly, the previous version of the article was of unacceptable quality. You, the readers, correctly pointed that out and we agreed. Hence, these revisions.
We apologize for this lapse in quality.
Though we believe that this particular article is an isolated failure in our mission to provide D&D Insiders with high-quality, exciting content every month, we still take this failure very seriously.
We're confident that the new version of the article adheres to our (and your) high standards for all published game material -- whether that material comes to you on paper or via the digital format.
We're also reviewing our process for designing, developing, and editing Insider content to identify places where additional time or training are required to avoid such errors in the future.
We appreciate the trust that you place in us, and we'll strive to continue to justify that trust.
Thank you, and good gaming.
Andy Collins
RPG Development & Editing Manager
Wizards of the Coast R&D
A lot of the powers in the original were mismarked as immediate interrupts when they had no triggers, and should have been standard actions. As far as I know that was the only problem.
(snip) If it was that bad, how did it get through editing and approved by probably more than one person before being posted online?
Hmmm... probably the same way all that late-3.5E crap got "approved by probably more than one person before being" printed with erroneous stat blocks, maps etc....
I still think that WotC's editing needs at least one extra step: toss the material to the CharOp posters and let them rip it apart before it is published in any form.
__________________ 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."
Hmmm... probably the same way all that late-3.5E crap got "approved by probably more than one person before being" printed with erroneous stat blocks, maps etc....
Honestly, if that happened often and I saw it, I don't much remember it. I largely stopped buying stuff from WotC after 3.5 was released, except for Lords of Madness and FCI and FCII. The last editing issue I remember from the 3.5 era was the state of the editing and development in Complete Divine. I think that one got a public apology of sorts as well, but I'd have to go back and look.
I suspect at a certain point once 4e was in full fledged development, less attention was paid to 3.5 books by the in-house developers and editors (since a lot of late 3.5 books were done almost exclusively by freelancers, and oddly enough happen to have been some of the most creative of that edition's offerings, seemingly with much more creative freedom). Speculation though just based on what I remember about the 3.5 books.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
The mistakes were caught within 24 hours of being posted (obviously), and were addressed by Andy Collins right away. A couple of days later, the new one was posted. Before the new one was posted, he expressed his concern and made it clear that this wasn't the type of quality that anyone should expect from WOTC. He didn't pull punches and from what he posted was quite upset at the situation. He took a strong stand and got the new one posted as quickly as they could.
They handled it very well, from what I saw, and I tracked it from the day the bad PDF was released.
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
The mistakes were caught within 24 hours of being posted (obviously), and were addressed by Andy Collins right away. A couple of days later, the new one was posted. Before the new one was posted, he expressed his concern and made it clear that this wasn't the type of quality that anyone should expect from WOTC. He didn't pull punches and from what he posted was quite upset at the situation. He took a strong stand and got the new one posted as quickly as they could.
They handled it very well, from what I saw, and I tracked it from the day the bad PDF was released.
Ah, come on, it's much more fun to rant and rave about the "poor quality" of DDI!! I mean, TSR, WotC, and Paizo never made mistakes like this with the print Dragon . . . .
I find it laughable that some use this as an excuse to deride the quality of Dragon online. It was a simple mistake, the kind of mistake that happens all the time in published RPG products, and it was caught and fixed before most folks even knew what happened.
To my eyes, it's a testament both to the quality of DDI and a strength of the online format.
__________________ Brian Zuber
Proud Member of ENWorld since 2000 (under several lost screen names). Gaming since the mid-80s!
Favorite Settings: Love all of the official settings, Mystara is my nostalgia fave! Trying to create a homebrew that blends the best elements of the various settings. Favorite Edition: Can't decide between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, like them both!
Honestly, if that happened often and I saw it, I don't much remember it. I largely stopped buying stuff from WotC after 3.5 was released, except for Lords of Madness and FCI and FCII. The last editing issue I remember from the 3.5 era was the state of the editing and development in Complete Divine. I think that one got a public apology of sorts as well, but I'd have to go back and look.
Complete Psionic.
Seriously. Complete Psionic. Nobody is ever allowed to claim 3.5 had few problems or editing mistakes. Because CPsi was printed.
__________________ 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!"
Seriously. Complete Psionic. Nobody is ever allowed to claim 3.5 had few problems or editing mistakes. Because CPsi was printed.
I've picked up a lot of the 3.5 complete books through used book stores for pretty cheap, but that's one I do not have, largely because I've never played a psionic PC. Of course I've had some insane, psionic githyanki looming in my current campaign, so had pondered picking that up. That bad?
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
I've picked up a lot of the 3.5 complete books through used book stores for pretty cheap, but that's one I do not have, largely because I've never played a psionic PC. Of course I've had some insane, psionic githyanki looming in my current campaign, so had pondered picking that up. That bad?
Comments regarding CPsi include "Wow, they didn't even know how psionics works," "Wow, did they even have an editor," and "Wow, did they just ask the people making it to ensure psionics can never touch wizards and clerics?"
Example: The lurk class. It's designed as a sort of psionic assassin, only as a base class. Ignoring the huge faults in it mechanically, such as a skill monkey with only 4+ skill points and no innate trapfinding, we come across two big problems.
1) Lurk DC for all their abilities is 10+int modifier. That's it. No +class, no +1/2 class. Just 10+int modifier. And that's for ALL their abilities. See the problem there?
2) The Lurk is described as having the reach ability. It's listed more then once. Only the ability itself is never explained. WotC eventually answered what it does: Nothing. It was cut. Only they never removed it from the lists and tables.
Example: Practiced Manifestor. They took the practiced spellcaster feat and changed one or two words. Ok, but here's the problem: the feat says "Does not increase your powers per day."
Uh. What?
Powers per day?
Oh good grief, they really did just literally copy-paste Practiced Spellcaster and replaced the words.
Those are just three examples of CPsi really screwed up editing wise. There's a lot more. Now include the fact that most of the feats are all the same thing - add x weapon to your mind blade. Thanks. We couldn't get just one feat that says that? You had to make 4? Oh hey, look, you made a feat for each and every racial ability to add 3 more uses per day. That couldn't be just one feat? - some really, really iffy fluff on the new classes, and the fact that, of the three new base classes, two were originally ONE class that was split because it didn't suck enough, the "errata" that only exists to nerf psionics to the ground (Oh yes, psionic powers now suffer from DR. That makes sense. That's something that all spellcasters have to deal with. Oh yes, the psionic variant of summon x can now summon only one. That makes sense. That's something that all summon x spells have. Right?), and, to top it all off, more then half the material was recycled...
...actually, to condense it all into one sentance: Despite being the ONLY other fully Psionics book that was ever released in 3.5, pretty much all psionics fans have completely disowned 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!"
So much for the often promoted notion of e-Dragon quality being better than Dragon because it's all being done by WotC in-house.
If it was that bad, how did it get through editing and approved by probably more than one person before being posted online?
On the contrary, the fact that an article can be released prior to its final publication, reviewed by the community, have errors spotted and reported promptly, have a response by the design and development teams within a matter of days, and have a corrected, high-quality version of that article ready for the final issue publication at the end of the month is just about the coolest publication method I can imagine.
I really have difficulty understanding why someone might want to dump on this whole process, especially given the promptness and maturity with which WotC handled the corrections.
__________________ Tales from the Rusty Dragon - A 4th Edition Conversion Blog Covering Paizo's Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path
...actually, to condense it all into one sentance: Despite being the ONLY other fully Psionics book that was ever released in 3.5, pretty much all psionics fans have completely disowned it.
I think it was partly that the other psionics book was the Expanded Psionics handbook...which rocked so hardcore it brought a lot of people back to psioincs.
On the contrary, the fact that an article can be released prior to its final publication, reviewed by the community, have errors spotted and reported promptly, have a response by the design and development teams within a matter of days, and have a corrected, high-quality version of that article ready for the final issue publication at the end of the month is just about the coolest publication method I can imagine.
I really have difficulty understanding why someone might want to dump on this whole process, especially given the promptness and maturity with which WotC handled the corrections.
Because some folks are edition warriors, and will take any justification, no matter far they have to reach, to criticize 4e and Wizards? I dunno.
I agree though, Wizards handled this very well. They owned up to the mistake, and corrected it within a week. Very classy.
__________________ Gothmog
________________________________________________
"I feel like I've been mauled by Jesus." -Frye, Futurama.
On the contrary, the fact that an article can be released prior to its final publication, reviewed by the community, have errors spotted and reported promptly, have a response by the design and development teams within a matter of days, and have a corrected, high-quality version of that article ready for the final issue publication at the end of the month is just about the coolest publication method I can imagine.
Actually, I can think of a few print mags (non RPG) that would LOVE to have this kind of pre-release review and finalize process.
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
