G'day!
I've just picked up a copy of Complete Divine and, knowing it had a few problems, started browsing the wizards boards to find out what they were.
I came across a couple of interesting posts when doing so.
From Andy Collins:
(this thread)
In the past several months, two new in-house editors have joined the RPG department: John Rateliff (who was one of the many unfortunate and undeserving victims of the multiple rounds of layoffs a couple years back) and Chris Thomasson (who brings years of experience on Dungeon and Dragon magazines). This should help alleviate the overworked conditions of our in-house editorial staff (which has resulted in an over-reliance on freelance editors, some of whom simply did not have the experience that these projects require).
While it would be inappropriate (and, indeed, unprofessional) for me to go into detail, I think it's safe to say that R&D does not believe Complete Divine to be an accurate representation of what the department is capable of producing. We're working even now (and indeed, for the past few months) to improve the process in the hopes that such egregious examples aren't repeated in the future.
We're also already working on CD errata. I'm taking "point" on this task, and will be reading this thread carefully over the next few days. If you have something to share, share it here. (*Don't* send it to me.) Be concise, including page references, when citing potential errata.
Thanks for your patience.
From Andrew Finch, Development Manager for D&D/Minis R&D:
(this thread)
Complete Divine Clarifications
With your help, David Noonan and I have identified some rules that we feel need to be adjusted in Complete Divine. Although it is too early to release official errata for this book, please consider these changes official:
pg. 11; Table 1-3: The Shugenja
Class Spells per Day
Level 8th 9th
14th - -
15th - -
16th 3 -
17th 4 -
18th 5 3
19th 6 4
20th 6 6
pg. 80; Divine Metamagic feat
Prerequisites: Ability to turn undead or rebuke undead, selected metamagic feat.
When you take this feat, choose a metamagic feat you already have. This feat applies only to that metamagic feat. As a free action, you can take the energy from turning or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat to divine spells that you know. ...
Special: Each time you take this feat, choose a different metamagic feat you know to which to apply it.
pg. 168-169: Miasma
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (and see text)
The subject cannot speak. Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, bardic music cannot be performed, and no noises other than coughing and spitting are possible.
General Notes Concerning Errata:
In general, if a mechanic works as printed, we don’t change it, even if it doesn't exactly work as the designers and developers intended. However, we feel that the spell miasma as printed in Complete Divine may detract from players' enjoyment of the game and therefore needs further adjustment.
We are sorry for any confusion these errors may have caused you in the use of this product, and we hope that these clarifications will help you enjoy the Complete Divine in your gaming group more.
We are aware of other errata issues. As with all our products, formal errata will be issued as soon as we have time to compile it. The official errata for the Complete Divine will include the information presented above.
And from Andy Collins on his boards:
(this thread)
Actually, I'd say yes, rule balance really is "that difficult." That's why we've recently added a new step to our process to further improve the quality of our rule mechanics.
Beginning with the Expanded Psionics Handbook, all core D&D products, and select other RPG products, now get a six-week development phase in-house, where two of our three developers and one designer focus on evaluating the mechanics within the book, including regular discussions and testing as needed. (That's in addition to the normal design, editing, and managing editing phases for each product.)
Unfortunately, we don't have the staff resources to afford every product as much time as we'd like. Typically, two RPG products are in development at any given time, plus a set of D&D minis, so every developer's time is at a premium. Ideally, we'd keep a product in development until we were 100% satisfied with every word of every feat, spell, prestige class, etc., but that's simply impossible. The time and staff allotment is mandated by the sheer number of products coming through the pipeline, as well as the profit margins dictated by the business needs of the product lines--we can only afford to spend so many hours per product. As frustrating as that may be, it's a reality of the business world we live in.
Do we miss things we should have caught, or occasionally second-guess ourselves when we see a book in print? Of course we do--it'd be foolish to claim otherwise. But remember that within *days* of a book's release, it's been read by at least *a thousand times* as many people as viewed it during design, development, and editing combined. That's more people than read an average non-WotC d20 product in its entire lifespan, and is bound to identify issues that don't come up, even in thorough in-house testing.
On the other hand, I believe that most internet claims of "broken" or "underpowered" are invalid. For every individual who points out a valid weakness in a mechanic, there are five, ten, or a hundred others who incorrectly assume such is true without actually testing it or evaluating it in context. (The "mystic theurge hullaballoo" comes to mind here--I quickly lost track of the number of people who claimed this prestige class would destroy the game, but I think we can agree that history has proven the claim incorrect.)
Frankly, I don't believe that very many people can see "at first glance" whether a game mechanic is properly balanced unless it's extraordinarily flawed. I think anyone who claims that they have that power is fooling himself--without actually evaluating a mechanic in context, you're making a snap judgment which is often based on flawed assumptions.
It's easy and fun to rail against perceived imbalances in the game. It makes the claimant appear (and feel) knowledgeable about the game, which feeds the elitist tendency of the gamer psyche. (Hey, I'm part of that demographic, too, so I understand the ego boost that comes from feeling you're smarter than whoever wrote the dreck you're reading.) It doesn't, however, make those claims true.
Let's take Divine Metamagic as an example. This feat, introduced in Complete Divine, allows a character to spend turn/rebuke attempts to apply the effects of a specific metamagic feat to a spell; the cost is equal to the normal level adjustment of the chosen metamagic feat +1. Thus, if the character chose his Divine Metamagic feat to use Empower Spell, he'd spend 3 turn/rebuke attempts to empower a spell with no adjustment to the spell's level.
Now, "free" metamagic excites a lot of players (probably more than it should, IMO), which inevitably leads to claims of "broken." But what does this feat really accomplish?
Well, most clerics (and really, this feat is most rewarding for clerics, as paladins have such limited spellcasting ability that the feat's effectiveness is quite restricted) have only about 3 to 5 turning attempts per day, since the number is based on their Charisma, and most clerics don't boost that stat very much. That's a grand total of one empower per day, or maybe a couple of extends or enlarges if that's what he chose instead. To quicken a single spell costs 5 turn/rebuke attempts, which means the cleric's blown a feat slot and most or all of his daily turn attempts for that one extra spell. (It's true that the cleric gets to apply these effects to higher-level spells than he'd normally be able to with a traditional metamagic feat. That's a potent benefit that shouldn't be overlooked, but it's not at all clear to me that it's a fatal flaw of the feat.)
To get much payoff from this feat, the cleric needs either a high Charisma score (which probably means he's sacrificing some other useful stat, such as Strength or Constitution, which can drastically restrict his capability in a fight), or Extra Turning (which means he's spending another of his precious feat slots to gain another use or two of his Divine Metamagic), or both. That's cool--the cleric has chosen a specific path of focus (a few uses of "free" metamagic) that varies from the traditional cleric's path.
Note that by following this path, the cleric probably *isn't* pursuing any of the other attractive alternative options for using his turn/rebuke attempts, such as Divine Spell Power, Glorious Weapons, Sacred Healing, Divine Vigor, or Sacred Vengeance, to name a few. (Choosing one path over another is a cost of sorts, and one that's often overlooked by readers quick to jump to conclusions.)
It's perhaps too obvious to point out, but remember also that the cleric is "spending" one of his resources--turn/rebuke checks--which means his utility against undead creatures is lessened.
#######
I'm sure that some of this has been posted before, but I thought gathering it into one place might be useful.
Cheers!
I've just picked up a copy of Complete Divine and, knowing it had a few problems, started browsing the wizards boards to find out what they were.
I came across a couple of interesting posts when doing so.
From Andy Collins:
(this thread)
In the past several months, two new in-house editors have joined the RPG department: John Rateliff (who was one of the many unfortunate and undeserving victims of the multiple rounds of layoffs a couple years back) and Chris Thomasson (who brings years of experience on Dungeon and Dragon magazines). This should help alleviate the overworked conditions of our in-house editorial staff (which has resulted in an over-reliance on freelance editors, some of whom simply did not have the experience that these projects require).
While it would be inappropriate (and, indeed, unprofessional) for me to go into detail, I think it's safe to say that R&D does not believe Complete Divine to be an accurate representation of what the department is capable of producing. We're working even now (and indeed, for the past few months) to improve the process in the hopes that such egregious examples aren't repeated in the future.
We're also already working on CD errata. I'm taking "point" on this task, and will be reading this thread carefully over the next few days. If you have something to share, share it here. (*Don't* send it to me.) Be concise, including page references, when citing potential errata.
Thanks for your patience.
From Andrew Finch, Development Manager for D&D/Minis R&D:
(this thread)
Complete Divine Clarifications
With your help, David Noonan and I have identified some rules that we feel need to be adjusted in Complete Divine. Although it is too early to release official errata for this book, please consider these changes official:
pg. 11; Table 1-3: The Shugenja
Class Spells per Day
Level 8th 9th
14th - -
15th - -
16th 3 -
17th 4 -
18th 5 3
19th 6 4
20th 6 6
pg. 80; Divine Metamagic feat
Prerequisites: Ability to turn undead or rebuke undead, selected metamagic feat.
When you take this feat, choose a metamagic feat you already have. This feat applies only to that metamagic feat. As a free action, you can take the energy from turning or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat to divine spells that you know. ...
Special: Each time you take this feat, choose a different metamagic feat you know to which to apply it.
pg. 168-169: Miasma
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (and see text)
The subject cannot speak. Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, bardic music cannot be performed, and no noises other than coughing and spitting are possible.
General Notes Concerning Errata:
In general, if a mechanic works as printed, we don’t change it, even if it doesn't exactly work as the designers and developers intended. However, we feel that the spell miasma as printed in Complete Divine may detract from players' enjoyment of the game and therefore needs further adjustment.
We are sorry for any confusion these errors may have caused you in the use of this product, and we hope that these clarifications will help you enjoy the Complete Divine in your gaming group more.
We are aware of other errata issues. As with all our products, formal errata will be issued as soon as we have time to compile it. The official errata for the Complete Divine will include the information presented above.
And from Andy Collins on his boards:
(this thread)
Actually, I'd say yes, rule balance really is "that difficult." That's why we've recently added a new step to our process to further improve the quality of our rule mechanics.
Beginning with the Expanded Psionics Handbook, all core D&D products, and select other RPG products, now get a six-week development phase in-house, where two of our three developers and one designer focus on evaluating the mechanics within the book, including regular discussions and testing as needed. (That's in addition to the normal design, editing, and managing editing phases for each product.)
Unfortunately, we don't have the staff resources to afford every product as much time as we'd like. Typically, two RPG products are in development at any given time, plus a set of D&D minis, so every developer's time is at a premium. Ideally, we'd keep a product in development until we were 100% satisfied with every word of every feat, spell, prestige class, etc., but that's simply impossible. The time and staff allotment is mandated by the sheer number of products coming through the pipeline, as well as the profit margins dictated by the business needs of the product lines--we can only afford to spend so many hours per product. As frustrating as that may be, it's a reality of the business world we live in.
Do we miss things we should have caught, or occasionally second-guess ourselves when we see a book in print? Of course we do--it'd be foolish to claim otherwise. But remember that within *days* of a book's release, it's been read by at least *a thousand times* as many people as viewed it during design, development, and editing combined. That's more people than read an average non-WotC d20 product in its entire lifespan, and is bound to identify issues that don't come up, even in thorough in-house testing.
On the other hand, I believe that most internet claims of "broken" or "underpowered" are invalid. For every individual who points out a valid weakness in a mechanic, there are five, ten, or a hundred others who incorrectly assume such is true without actually testing it or evaluating it in context. (The "mystic theurge hullaballoo" comes to mind here--I quickly lost track of the number of people who claimed this prestige class would destroy the game, but I think we can agree that history has proven the claim incorrect.)
Frankly, I don't believe that very many people can see "at first glance" whether a game mechanic is properly balanced unless it's extraordinarily flawed. I think anyone who claims that they have that power is fooling himself--without actually evaluating a mechanic in context, you're making a snap judgment which is often based on flawed assumptions.
It's easy and fun to rail against perceived imbalances in the game. It makes the claimant appear (and feel) knowledgeable about the game, which feeds the elitist tendency of the gamer psyche. (Hey, I'm part of that demographic, too, so I understand the ego boost that comes from feeling you're smarter than whoever wrote the dreck you're reading.) It doesn't, however, make those claims true.
Let's take Divine Metamagic as an example. This feat, introduced in Complete Divine, allows a character to spend turn/rebuke attempts to apply the effects of a specific metamagic feat to a spell; the cost is equal to the normal level adjustment of the chosen metamagic feat +1. Thus, if the character chose his Divine Metamagic feat to use Empower Spell, he'd spend 3 turn/rebuke attempts to empower a spell with no adjustment to the spell's level.
Now, "free" metamagic excites a lot of players (probably more than it should, IMO), which inevitably leads to claims of "broken." But what does this feat really accomplish?
Well, most clerics (and really, this feat is most rewarding for clerics, as paladins have such limited spellcasting ability that the feat's effectiveness is quite restricted) have only about 3 to 5 turning attempts per day, since the number is based on their Charisma, and most clerics don't boost that stat very much. That's a grand total of one empower per day, or maybe a couple of extends or enlarges if that's what he chose instead. To quicken a single spell costs 5 turn/rebuke attempts, which means the cleric's blown a feat slot and most or all of his daily turn attempts for that one extra spell. (It's true that the cleric gets to apply these effects to higher-level spells than he'd normally be able to with a traditional metamagic feat. That's a potent benefit that shouldn't be overlooked, but it's not at all clear to me that it's a fatal flaw of the feat.)
To get much payoff from this feat, the cleric needs either a high Charisma score (which probably means he's sacrificing some other useful stat, such as Strength or Constitution, which can drastically restrict his capability in a fight), or Extra Turning (which means he's spending another of his precious feat slots to gain another use or two of his Divine Metamagic), or both. That's cool--the cleric has chosen a specific path of focus (a few uses of "free" metamagic) that varies from the traditional cleric's path.
Note that by following this path, the cleric probably *isn't* pursuing any of the other attractive alternative options for using his turn/rebuke attempts, such as Divine Spell Power, Glorious Weapons, Sacred Healing, Divine Vigor, or Sacred Vengeance, to name a few. (Choosing one path over another is a cost of sorts, and one that's often overlooked by readers quick to jump to conclusions.)
It's perhaps too obvious to point out, but remember also that the cleric is "spending" one of his resources--turn/rebuke checks--which means his utility against undead creatures is lessened.
#######
I'm sure that some of this has been posted before, but I thought gathering it into one place might be useful.
Cheers!
