July Errata is up

[DracoSuave]

I really wish they would encompass all the updates into new printings of the books.

They'd have to stop making them so often for this to be viable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not a great argument (as 2.5 is better than 2), but if you actually expand it out to the real world, the new MM does a lot more damage than the old one did (yes, even with Bracers of the Perfect Shot factored in). The old MM had a DPR of (13 * 50% + 6.5*.05) 6.825 at 2nd level (with bracers); the new one has a dpr of 8 at 2nd level, and you don't need to acquire a 3rd level item to do it. And yes, I'm quite certain you can optimize the old MM to do more damage than the new one at 30th level due to the optimization limits that "static damage" imply -- but even that's a sucker move; against really tough foes, the comparably unoptimized MM (doing 2+10+6+5 (dual implement spellcaster) = 23 damage) is going to start outdamaging an optimized single-target will just through hitrate.

I agree, the new MM has a nice niche. When you really cannot hit stuff for crud you can still do perfectly acceptable damage with a MM. It may not be attractive enough to take up an at-will slot on most wizards, but it is worth considering. Especially for those players that aren't super excited about T-Wave. Also consider that its nice to have an at-will for as many defenses as you can, but now really with the new MM you effectively have a spell that will work well on that super high FORT guy or super high WILL guy that you can't seem to do much to. It does have its uses for sure.

I'm still not fond of the concept of using errata to create new powers out of old ones, and I don't think MM needed a change to make it useful, but whatever, its changed now. The new version probably isn't WORSE than the old one overall anyway.

 

[Salamandyr]

One side effect of the change to magic missile is that it's a huge nerf to invisibility. Since it's an auto-hit, and the attack is visible (silvery darts streaking towards their victim), it's like tracer fire to identify what square the invisible opponent is hiding in.

 

[DracoSuave]

That's not a great argument (as 2.5 is better than 2), but if you actually expand it out to the real world, the new MM does a lot more damage than the old one did (yes, even with Bracers of the Perfect Shot factored in). The old MM had a DPR of (13 * 50% + 6.5*.05) 6.825 at 2nd level (with bracers); the new one has a dpr of 8 at 2nd level, and you don't need to acquire a 3rd level item to do it.

Dpr of 8? Show the math. I have:

2+4+1= 7...

....or do we have two magic implements at level 2 I don't know about and that the treasure tables and money you get don't actually support?

....assuming Dual Implement Spellcaster works on the new magic missile, which it actually might not, as you are not actually attacking with the off-hand implement and therefore Magic Missile's Special line probably does not apply to it.

....and that the average hit rate of a wizard with a +4 int, +1 implement, +1 level bonus (6) against an average reflex on an equal level monster of 14 is somehow 50% (Protip: 14-6 = 8, 21-8 = 13, 13/20 = 65%)

....unless you have 20 int, in which case it's 70%, which changes your 6.825 to... 8.775.

8.775 > the 8 you're giving.

If you're gonna do a DPR calculation, please use numbers that exist in the game, not assumptions that were proven two years ago to NOT exist in the game.

And yes, I'm quite certain you can optimize the old MM to do more damage than the new one at 30th level due to the optimization limits that "static damage" imply -- but even that's a sucker move; against really tough foes, the comparably unoptimized MM (doing 2+10+6+5 (dual implement spellcaster) = 23 damage) is going to start outdamaging an optimized single-target will just through hitrate.

2+10+6+5? Seriously. Show your math. You can have, at most (without contraversy) 5+6+6 = 17, and that's using a Staff of Magic Missiles.

 

[Verision]

Evard's tentacles were errata'd in may; the immobilizing effect is merely save-ends now - and anyhow, how is this impossible with any other ranged attack? As long as you deal damage on average, you can do this; no need for effect damage.

Lol. I guess I don't keep up to date on errata

It's not that it's impossible with other ranged attacks, it's simply that I know how my PCs think, and something that is auto-hit would be treated differently then something that "deals damage on average", even if the average damage is equivalent.


(Side question: Do they sell PDFs that include all the errata? Or am I looking at an Insider account?)

 

[Mirtek]

Well, Magic Missile needed a buff very badly. It was by far the worst of the Wizard at-wills,

Given that it was one of the very few powers with range 20 on a class that's otherwise surprisingly helpless against anything greater than range 10, I don't agree.

It's also something they are dropping in all fairness. I don't believe allabah, Lolth, Imix or the other dood actually have this. I never understood the point because such creatures will squish PCs trivially below level 20 (even with optimized cheese).

With the "low damage, high hp" formula used for 4e monsters (even with the MM3 damage increase) "squish" is exaggerated. Yes, they would defeat one such creature eventually, but it would take some time. So swarm them with enough level 19 dragons and they will eventually take the deity/primordial/... down.

Lolth does, though it only triggers when she loses 1/2 of her spidery form's HPs. I don't believe the others do.

It seems to be reserved for gods; primordials and far realm abominations need not apply.

I don't see it in either of her stat blocks, seems the have dropped it. And the god-like primordials also used to have that ability. I also always thought it should have been below 21st level and not below 20th level

You lost me there. The old MM did 2d4 base which averages to 5; the new MM does a flat 2. That's a loss of only 3 damage, in exchange for never missing, which is a great tradeoff.

Rule #1 in 4e: The "x" in x[W]x+static-damage-mods doesn't matter

The only thing that matters is getting the static damage after the the + into the atmosphere. As such MM lost much damage potential

 

[Mengu]

(Side question: Do they sell PDFs that include all the errata? Or am I looking at an Insider account?)

No, they don't "sell" them. The updates are freely available, here is the latest, and the archive. The compilation in the archive should have everything.

 

[kerbarian]

One neat thing about the new MM is that it doesn't require an attack roll - so situationally that's great (trying to hit an invisible foe, usage when you're blinded, that kind of thing.) I'm not picking it for my wizard, but it might be neat for some human wizards, I guess. Also nice for hybrids, by the way.

With plenty of at-will bursts and blasts, wizards are probably the least affected by blindness, invisibility, etc. already. The new spell fills an interesting niche, but not one that's useful to wizards, IMO.

I think the new version is comparable to the old MM for unoptimized characters and quickly falls behind as you add gear and feats for attack and damage modifiers. That's a perfectly fine thing to have somewhere in the wizard's list of powers -- I just wish they hadn't taken away the only range 20 at-will to offer it.

 

[Verision]

No, they don't "sell" them. The updates are freely available, here is the latest, and the archive. The compilation in the archive should have everything.

Sorry, I meant the full books with the errata included. You know, so I don't have to look through the errata whenever I browse through one of the books I bought. (Or go back through and put *stars* next to everything that has been errata'd)

 

[DracoSuave]

I just wish they hadn't taken away the only range 20 at-will to offer it.

This is my opinion on it.

The old magic missile was -fine-. It did what it was supposed to, and with certain options was a perfectly serviceable control or damage power depending on what items you used to support it.

Is the new power fine? Yes. It is a perfectly good power. It does something unique, and interesting, and if they feel the wizard needs that niche, well that's okay. I don't mind it.

Where the problem lies is that they've removed an old, perfectly fine power, so they can include a new, perfectly fine power, instead of simply printing a new, perfectly fine power. The old power wasn't broken, why get rid of it?

Errata to fix problem powers? Sure. Errata to bring things to intended functionality? Absolutely. Errata to make things that don't work well so that they work well? Okay.

Errata to remove something perfectly fine for something completely different? That's where it gets a bit messy, and I don't think I like this trend.

They should have just printed a new power.