Dragon Magic & the Dragonfire Adept base class

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Found the quote, it was on gamingreport.com: http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=21980

And you still have the actual writers saying that the amount of time spent to write it was the same as other WotC products. That GamingReport got their information a little confused -- most of the books on the schedule likely have been planned for years, even if they got the same actual development time as Dragon Magic -- isn't really something to keep banging on about.

 

[Barak]

Having nit picky players makes it not nit picky anymore? It would seem admiting the players are nit pickers would just support the statement these are nit picks.

No, having nitpicky players demand, you know, well-edited books?

How am I the bad guy for demanding mechanics that hold together? From the PREVIEWS FROM THE WOTC WEBSITE, no less.

It's not an error or sloppiness, it's using the mechanics from Complete Arcane, which has been out long enough for the warlock to be a pretty well picked-over class by this point. Your lack of familiarity with it does not constitute an editing error on the part of WotC.

Note that I didn't bring that up, someone else did. Are all the errors I brought up excused in Complete Arcane? And I wonder if Complete Arcane is listed as a "book needed to use this product.

 

[RodneyThompson]

"Hole in the schedule" doesn't mean "last minute" by any means. Hell, I started working on this book at GenCon last year -- a longer production cycle than I've had on any other book I've written for them. I'd suggest that perhaps they were making the schedule, saw a gap, got the idea from marketing, and said, "That's what we'll put there!"

But, then again, I'm but a simple unfrozen caveman freelancer. Your world frightens and confuses me.

 

[Sammael]

And you still have the actual writers saying that the amount of time spent to write it was the same as other WotC products. That GamingReport got their information a little confused -- most of the books on the schedule likely have been planned for years, even if they got the same actual development time as Dragon Magic -- isn't really something to keep banging on about.

I am sure that the writers are correct, which is why I posted the freaking link so they can contact gamingreport to post a correction. Lay off of me, will you?

 

[Crothian]

How am I the bad guy for demanding mechanics that hold together? From the PREVIEWS FROM THE WOTC WEBSITE, no less.

What mechancis are not holding together? We have natural armor not stacking with natural armor; which is how the stacking rules work. We have a line that says they aren't skilled in heavy armor and a line that says they are not proficient in any armor: nothing wrong there. We have Invocations working like spell like abilities except they require a somatic components.

:\

 

[IcyCool]

Invocations are an exception. It seems pretty straight forward.

These examples of problems are pretty nit picky.

Ahh, but which type of invocations? Warlock invocations are simple enough to be used in light armor. Is this the same with Dragonfire Adept invocations? Or are they not quite simple enough?

 

[Barak]

What mechancis are not holding together? We have natural armor not stacking with natural armor; which is how the stacking rules work. We have a line that says they aren't skilled in heavy armor and a line that says they are not proficient in any armor: nothing wrong there. We have Invocations working like spell like abilities except they require a somatic components.

:\

No, we have a bonus to natural armor not stacking with the natural armor it gives a bonus to.

Granted, the rest is not mechanic errors. Just sloppy editing. Well not the evocation thing, that's another poster's beef.

 

[Crothian]

No, we have a bonus to natural armor not stacking with the natural armor it gives a bonus to.

So, you feel in the way they wrote it it should stack. That must be why they have the line saying they don't to make sure there is no confusion.

 

[Barak]

So, you feel in the way they wrote it it should stack. That must be why they have the line saying they don't to make sure there is no confusion.

That'd be a good explanation if there was no way to write it to make it not stack without that line. Sadly, there is, and so they messed up.

 

[Crothian]

That'd be a good explanation if there was no way to write it to make it not stack without that line. Sadly, there is, and so they messed up.

Just because there is a different way of stating things does not mean the original statement was messed up.