Illusion Power Inconsistencies

[HP Dreadnought]

Lately it has struck me at least once per day that there seems to be a lack of pedantic faultfinders at WotC. I am not joking. Sceptics who enjoy looking for holes, mistakes and faults are invaluable in creative processes - as they stop all those yay-sayers from making costly mistakes.

Why should they keep those people on the payroll, when there are thousands who will do it for free?

Isn't all the stuff in Dragon eventually going to make its way into a future release? By the time it does so, it will already have been nitpicked to death - and then they can release the 'fixed' version in the final product. Thus, dragon is just a method of getting free rules-checking/development for them.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. . . that's just the way it is.

The real shame will be if they don't take the opportunity to fix the stuff before it gets published in its final form. At the company I work for, very close attention gets paid to details like that to make sure that doesn't happen. . . but my experience with gaming companies, even relatively big ones like WotC, is that they tend to miss details like that. I guess that's just a difference between financial services and the gaming industry. Still frustrating for me sometimes though!

 

[FadedC]

The duration inconistency actually makes no difference at all.

Immobilization gives no bonuses to your attackers and only prevents the person from moving. Slow is the same way, except it reduces your movement to 2.

Regardless if your enemy is immobilized or slowed until the end of your turn or the end of his turn, it effects him for exactly one move.

 

[Maximillian]

The duration inconistency actually makes no difference at all.

Not really in this case, but as I pointed out, it implies a certain laziness, and could definitely cause issues if it were a different condition. (Prone, Dazed, Weakened, etc.)

This isn't game breaking stuff, this isn't going to make these powers useless or unworkable or overpowered, but it's definitely going to make me doubt their attention to detail.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Max: I don't have my books currently with me, but I do seem to recall a few powers in the PHB that have slightly different effects (similar to the power under discussion) on a hit or miss. I believe one's a Rogue power; the one I can clearly 'see' is the Warlord's 'Feather Me Yon Oaf' power.

 

[Makaze]

Also, you can't really being your turn within the area of effect unless you were targeted by the attack, so you would already be covered by the first part of the power.

Actually there are ways such as the wizards orb specialization to extend the duration of an ongoing power that end at the end of your turn so it is possible and something of an oversight.

 

[Shroomy]

Actually there are ways such as the wizards orb specialization to extend the duration of an ongoing power that end at the end of your turn so it is possible and something of an oversight.

I would agree if you could sustain that particular power, but you can't in this case.

 

[Mort_Q]

Regardless if your enemy is immobilized or slowed until the end of your turn or the end of his turn, it effects him for exactly one move.

It does make a slight difference, at least if I have this straight, depending on your relative positions in the initiative order.

If the creature is immobilized until the end of its next turn, and if the creature is ahead of you in the initiative order, its next turn ends before your next turn starts, so it can move before you can act again.

If the creature is immobilized until the end of your next turn, and if the creature is ahead of you in the initiative order, it is still immobilized when your next turn starts. This may or may not be of benefit.

If it's behind you in the initiative order, it makes no difference.

I think.

 

[WalterKovacs]

It does make a slight difference, at least if I have this straight, depending on your relative positions in the initiative order.

If the creature is immobilized until the end of its next turn, and if the creature is ahead of you in the initiative order, its next turn ends before your next turn starts, so it can move before you can act again.

However, they would be required to have an ally, or a power, which allows them to move after their turn, as they are immobilized for the duration of the turn.

Similarly, if they are later on the init order, and they are immobilized until the end of your turn, any power could be used BEFORE their turn to allow them to move.

Other than that, either way, they spend one turn immobilized ... when it ends is entirely based on outside of turn movement. Which, depending on the creature type may matter. [Kobolds and Goblins have immediate reaction shifting powers, for example].

 

[small pumpkin man]

It does make a slight difference, at least if I have this straight, depending on your relative positions in the initiative order.

If the creature is immobilized until the end of its next turn, and if the creature is ahead of you in the initiative order, its next turn ends before your next turn starts, so it can move before you can act again.

If the creature is immobilized until the end of your next turn, and if the creature is ahead of you in the initiative order, it is still immobilized when your next turn starts. This may or may not be of benefit.

If it's behind you in the initiative order, it makes no difference.

I think.

Your turn, you immobolize them.
Their turn, they can't move.
if you hit, Immobolize ends
Your turn, you do something.
if you missed, Immobolize ends
Their turn, they can move.

The initiative order will make no difference.

Indeed, generally with regard to immobilize, end of it's turn or end of your turn won't make any difference, allthough there are enough exceptions to make the difference feel like sloppy editing. If you use it on a Dragonshield and try to shift away, if an NPC Warlord with wolf pack tactics uses it between the creatures turn and yours, a Cleric ally casts cause fear between it's turn and yours for some quick examples.

 

[Tervin]

Thus, dragon is just a method of getting free rules-checking/development for them.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. . . that's just the way it is.

The real shame will be if they don't take the opportunity to fix the stuff before it gets published in its final form. At the company I work for, very close attention gets paid to details like that to make sure that doesn't happen. . . but my experience with gaming companies, even relatively big ones like WotC, is that they tend to miss details like that.

Agreed about the Dragon situation - especially considering that it is online, and can even be fixed before the Dragon issue itself is finialized. I am not so sure about them fixing small mistakes like that though. The KotS characters were put up as PDFs on the site, without including all the corrections that they have made earlier. Doesn't matter at all to me in itself, more than as a hint of how they look at things. The amount of small mistakes in the core books is also way higher than it should be.

On the other hand - as was said in the thread earlier - they have pedantic faultfinders working on MTG. I agree that Magic is a lot less forgiving when it comes to mistakes like that, but the type of mistakes they make in the D&D products are actually not that hard to avoid in my experience. I would say that professional practices plus perhaps one more nitpicking inhouse proofreader intern would do the trick.