4/19 DDI Update

[sigfile]

I'm unable to recreate the issue with A4 printing (sent to an image printer - this technique failed to produce whole pages until this update) or the issue creating a nethermancer.

 

[mudbunny]

Did you submit the A4 printing problems to WoTC, or is it listed in their known bugs? If not, then maybe they don't realize that it's such a big issue.

According to everyone I have seen mention it (WotC forums, twitter), A4 printing has been fixed.

 

[delericho]

According to everyone I have seen mention it (WotC forums, twitter), A4 printing has been fixed.

If that is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), then that is fantastic news. While there are other things about the Character Builder that could be better, that was the last one that was truly broken. IMO, at least.

Now... the Monster Builder.

 

[Herschel]

I have to admit, renaming Warlords as Marshals kind of pisses me off.

 

[Ajar]

I see the logic, but I don't think it's a great solution.

I think the logic is that the Knight and Slayer (for example) are unique from other Fighter builds and from one another. The pre-Essentials Fighter builds are more similar to one another than to the Essentials Fighters. Therefore there are three types of Fighters -- pre-Essentials Fighters, Knights, and Slayers.

Personally, I'm not a fan of conflating build with class. I think Knight and Slayer character entries in the CB should list their class as Fighter, rather than my warforged battlerager's class being listed as Weaponmaster -- a designation that doesn't suit him at all.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I see the logic, but I don't think it's a great solution.

I think the logic is that the Knight and Slayer (for example) are unique from other Fighter builds and from one another. The pre-Essentials Fighter builds are more similar to one another than to the Essentials Fighters. Therefore there are three types of Fighters -- pre-Essentials Fighters, Knights, and Slayers.

Personally, I'm not a fan of conflating build with class. I think Knight and Slayer character entries in the CB should list their class as Fighter, rather than my warforged battlerager's class being listed as Weaponmaster -- a designation that doesn't suit him at all.

It is problematic because they haven't really used good terminology. The idea of "build" used to be say ... resourceful warlord or inspiring warlord. Now there is a higher level of build. So you could be a weaponmaster battlerager fighter or a knight hammer fighter. So when a book like HoS comes out, there is a new build of paladin and warlock ... but also new builds for the mage, hexblade and warpriest builds.

So, they should probably have defined what the names are called ... maybe subclasses? And leave the build choice as builds?

Battlerager is one case where it could be argued they aren't really a weaponmaster. Two weapon fighter, brawler fighter and arena fighter are all defined by their weapon/shield mix in the same way as the 1hander vs. 2hander were ... the battlerager (while encouraged to use hammer/axes) less so. It would have made sense to make battlerager and TWF as seperate subclasses) [if they had that at the time]. Then they would have needed less "X replaces class feature Y" and they wouldn't have needed to include "incentives" to wear lighter armor ... they could have just taken away scale armor, for example. The beastmaster ranger is another one that could have been spun off in his own subclass, etc.

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

The thing is, they were called Subclasses from the beginning, but only in the non-formal communications from WotC like the podcasts, not in the actual products.
And I agree with previous posters, mostly. Its okay to call them weaponmasters, as long as its listed as Fighter first. But I don't like giving classes like the warlord subclass names, when we only have one subclass of them to begin with. What other kind of warlord do you need to differentiate it from?