New errata for core books, dated 7/2/2008

[James McMurray]

Take a look at the DMG errata. They've as much as admitted that the basic structure of skill challenges as admittedly released is wrong.

They admitted that in interviews and articles a while back.

I agree, but unfortunately, the text of the errata implies that a character can "opt out" of making a skill check in the skill challenge, so tactically-minded parties will just send out their "best" member to deal with the skill challenge by himself.

I think it all goes back to what I see as the main flaw of skill challenges: a skill check that doesn't succeed counts as a failure. In order to encourage all the PCs to participate meaningfully in a skill challenge, each character should be able to make at least one skill check per "round" which does not penalize the party on a failure (apart from the lack of progress).

Skill Challenge balance for multiple PCs comes from the DM, not the DC table.

 

[WhatGravitas]

No such luck. If you check the errata page on WotC's site now, you'll see that, in addition to the three core books errata, they have an errata file for the DM screen now too...
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates

But it's one to glue on the screen! I like that, because now I don't have to do that on my own once I get hold of the screen!

Cheers, LT.

 

[wayne62682]

Let me make sure I understand how the new resistance thing works, since it's confusing me:

Assume 10 Fire and 10 Thunder damage.

Old Rules
No Resistances: 20 Damage (10 fire, 10 thunder)
Resist 10 Fire: 10 Damage (10 thunder, 0 fire)
Resist 10 Thunder: 10 Damage (10 fire, 0 thunder)
Resist 5 Fire, Resist 5 Thunder: 10 Damage (5 fire, 5 thunder)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 5 Thunder: 5 Damage (5 thunder, 0 fire)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 10 Thunder: 0 (0 fire, 0 thunder)

New Rules
No Resistance: 20 Damage (20 thunder+fire)
Resist 10 Fire: 20 Damage (20 thunder+fire)
Resist 10 Thunder: 20 Damage (20 thunder+fire)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 5 thunder: 15 damage (Since you have at least some of each type of resistance, the lowest applies to the whole thing)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 10 Thunder: 0

Is this right? If so, it seems like it really screws you over with the errata. If you get hit with something that has multiple types, you might as well not have any resistance at all unless you have one of each.

 

[firesnakearies]

Let me make sure I understand how the new resistance thing works, since it's confusing me:

Assume 10 Fire and 10 Thunder damage.

Old Rules
No Resistances: 20 Damage (10 fire, 10 thunder)
Resist 10 Fire: 10 Damage (10 thunder, 0 fire)
Resist 10 Thunder: 10 Damage (10 fire, 0 thunder)
Resist 5 Fire, Resist 5 Thunder: 10 Damage (5 fire, 5 thunder)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 5 Thunder: 5 Damage (5 thunder, 0 fire)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 10 Thunder: 0 (0 fire, 0 thunder)

New Rules
No Resistance: 20 Damage (20 thunder+fire)
Resist 10 Fire: 20 Damage (20 thunder+fire)
Resist 10 Thunder: 20 Damage (20 thunder+fire)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 5 thunder: 15 damage (Since you have at least some of each type of resistance, the lowest applies to the whole thing)
Resist 10 Fire, Resist 10 Thunder: 0

Is this right? If so, it seems like it really screws you over with the errata. If you get hit with something that has multiple types, you might as well not have any resistance at all unless you have one of each.

The bottom line, "Resist 10 Fire, Resist 10 Thunder" - you'd take 10, not 0, if I'm understanding the rule correctly.

 

[wayne62682]

Wow if that's true than it's even worse; you'd need 20 of each to get it to 0, when before you'd need just 10.

 

[Stalker0]

Wow if that's true than it's even worse; you'd need 20 of each to get it to 0, when before you'd need just 10.

This is just giving the powers that deal 2 or more energy types at once a special advantage. And keep in mind, this doesn't screw the party necessarily, I'm sure the wizard is happy some of his spells will be better at taking out the bad guys.

 

[the8bitdeity]

But it just adds to the feeling that this game wasn't ready to be released yet in the first place. I'm willing to bet that very little playtesting went on using the core rules as published. Yeah, they play tested all kinds of things, and I'm sure they playtested most rules. But I doubt they gave the "final" product to groups that hadn't played before to test it. That's what WE are doing now. It's their own fault for waiting until the last minute. It appears they were just playtesting a mishmash of rules willy nilly up until the end. How many statements have we seen where WotC personnel mention not being familiar with the rules because they played with so many different iterations and there were so many changes? Of course, this is fundamental to any game design, but really. Once they had a complete product, they should have done final testing for a while. I feel that they couldn't do this because of a deadline, and rather than delay the product they figured they'd just release it as is. It's things like this that cause .5 editions to be released. Yes, most of that is opinion and assumption. I don't have any more of an inside view into the process than anyone else. My I'm sticking by it.

- I don't get why people whine about WoTC using players feedback to adjust the game for balance. This is EXACTLY what Blizzard does with WoW. How many balance changes have been made in the game? Too numerous to count. 4ed should evolve and change due to people getting it into their hands. With the nature of communication being the way it is now, I prefer a game that will respond to player feedback. The notion of 100% playtesting is a myth. No software gets it right at 1.0, you always have 1.01 or 1.02. Bug fixes are a part of any product development, and we're just seeing more of those principles applied to a table top RPG. Frankly, I'm all for it.

 

[Stalker0]

- I don't get why people whine about WoTC using players feedback to adjust the game for balance. This is EXACTLY what Blizzard does with WoW. How many balance changes have been made in the game? Too numerous to count. 4ed should evolve and change due to people getting it into their hands. With the nature of communication being the way it is now, I prefer a game that will respond to player feedback. The notion of 100% playtesting is a myth. No software gets it right at 1.0, you always have 1.01 or 1.02. Bug fixes are a part of any product development, and we're just seeing more of those principles applied to a table top RPG. Frankly, I'm all for it.

You make several solid points and ultimately it is good that WOTC listens to player feedback and changes the game based on it. I think the main reason for complaining is twofold:

1) When a computer game gets updated, everything is done by the program. I keep playing the game while the numbers are changed around me. In dnd, I have to consciously change the numbers myself.

2) In a computer game, when a patch is needed, the program is patched, and everything is done. In dnd, WOTC can't grab my books, update them, and then give them back to me. My books are wrong, and will forever be wrong, until an updated set of books come out...which I would have to pay for again.

 

[silentounce]

- I don't get why people whine about WoTC using players feedback to adjust the game for balance. This is EXACTLY what Blizzard does with WoW. How many balance changes have been made in the game? Too numerous to count. 4ed should evolve and change due to people getting it into their hands. With the nature of communication being the way it is now, I prefer a game that will respond to player feedback. The notion of 100% playtesting is a myth. No software gets it right at 1.0, you always have 1.01 or 1.02. Bug fixes are a part of any product development, and we're just seeing more of those principles applied to a table top RPG. Frankly, I'm all for it.

This may surprise you a bit, but I don't play WoW. So, I don't really care what they do or do not do. I hardly have time for any computer based rpgs. I'd rather spend my free time playing p&p. And I agree with what Stalker0 just said in the above post.

Yeah, errata is good, I said that it was. But I think the amount of it, and the nature of it, shows how unpolished 4e is. I don't expect a product to be perfect or 100%. But I do expect more out of D&D, especially considering the cost, and the fact that they could have taken as much time as they wanted with it. It's not necessarily the amount of the errata as it is that combined with the content. I expected this to be less broken out of the box. Maybe I had too high expectations, to each his own.

 

[pukunui]

But it's one to glue on the screen! I like that, because now I don't have to do that on my own once I get hold of the screen!

Cheers, LT.

That's awesome! When I asked about the DM Screen yesterday and Customer Service said it wasn't going to have the changes incorporated, I suggested that they put up a "patch" that we could print off and paste over. I wonder if they were going to do it anyway or whether this was in response to my suggestion?

You make several solid points and ultimately it is good that WOTC listens to player feedback and changes the game based on it. I think the main reason for complaining is twofold:

1) When a computer game gets updated, everything is done by the program. I keep playing the game while the numbers are changed around me. In dnd, I have to consciously change the numbers myself.

2) In a computer game, when a patch is needed, the program is patched, and everything is done. In dnd, WOTC can't grab my books, update them, and then give them back to me. My books are wrong, and will forever be wrong, until an updated set of books come out...which I would have to pay for again.

This! You stole the words right out of my mouth, Stalker0!