Inherent bonuses and non-weapon attacks

[abyssaldeath]

Actually Aulirophile, the power, in Dragon 381, is indeed missing the 'weapon' keyword. It is clearly an oversight since the power has a weapon range and does weapon damage, but the 'weapon' keyword is indeed missing.

The compendium version has the keyword though, but if you go by what you are saying about 'the source material always being right' then the power shouldn't add any bonuses that are dependent on the 'weapon' keyword. So if you go by the source material then reading "How to Read a Power" isn't going to do you and good because the keyword does not exist.

 

[kaomera]

You're right, I'm not confused at all. If you look at the warden powers in the CB they have received the equivalent update including adding the weapon keyword. As written the attack portion of the power is a "martial, stance" power, which makes no sense. The CB has the complete, playable version of the power therefore I'd go with it over the article.

 

[SSquirrel]

that WotC formated as two in the CB/Compendium (which, again, is not a rules source).

WotC would seem to disagree with you considering they keep all the most current errata in the Compendium and expect people to be using it for the most up to date rules.

 

[the Jester]

WotC would seem to disagree with you considering they keep all the most current errata in the Compendium and expect people to be using it for the most up to date rules.

Now come on, that's just silly.

Clearly they don't expect everyone to use it since not everyone subscribes to DDI.

 

[SSquirrel]

Now come on, that's just silly.

Clearly they don't expect everyone to use it since not everyone subscribes to DDI.

And yet DDI is getting pushed strongly, they keep making improvements, things like the VT and Monster Builder. If they can entice most of the customer base w/more and better utilities and maybe different pay tiers of access, why wouldn't they expect everyone to do so? DDI is a consistent paystream for them if they can make it enticing enough, much better monthly profit per customer than hoping that most of the players want to buy all the books they release.

EDIT: Also, I said people, not everyone. Even if only one person per table has it, it can be used for informational lookups for the group.

 

[the Jester]

And yet DDI is getting pushed strongly, they keep making improvements, things like the VT and Monster Builder. If they can entice most of the customer base w/more and better utilities and maybe different pay tiers of access, why wouldn't they expect everyone to do so?

Because if they make DDI a requirement to play the game, they will drive away all their potential casual player customers.

I'll absolutely agree that they are pushing it strongly and making improvements; however, it's still not even close to worth what it was a year ago, or at least it was as of late last month when I finally gave up and let my sub lapse.

EDIT: Also, I said people, not everyone. Even if only one person per table has it, it can be used for informational lookups for the group.

Seriously, I think it is absurd to suggest that WotC is assuming every group has DDI access. They are well aware that requiring DDI access is a deal breaker for many gamers, and they are well aware that not every group has at-the-table access to it, especially now that it also requires Internet access.

I also suspect- or rather, hope- that they are all too aware that their track record with digital offerings has been horrendously bad, and that putting too many eggs in that basket is likely to backfire the next time they alienate their customer base with yet another "screw the quality of DDI's offerings" decision. I would like to believe that we've seen the last gigantic backwards leap with DDI, but given the digital side's history I cannot convince myself of this.

 

[kaomera]

Seriously, I think it is absurd to suggest that WotC is assuming every group has DDI access. They are well aware that requiring DDI access is a deal breaker for many gamers, and they are well aware that not every group has at-the-table access to it, especially now that it also requires Internet access.

I don't think WotC is assuming groups have access to even the "Updates". The books are written and published without the deliberate intention that errata will be required. Unfortunately mistakes happen, all possibilities are not considered, etc. Even the errata isn't, and really can't be, complete.

But WotC can't really do anything to books that are printed with material that turns out to be in error. They can change things in the compendium and CB without too much difficulty, and ideally those changes are going to listed in the updates. I don't remember seeing anything about changes to these types of dailies, ones that grant the use of an attack "sub-power". I may just have missed it, but if not, given the fact that they seem to have realized the problem I think that's really sloppy.

Actually, the updates are pretty sloppy as-is. Not only is the release sporadic, but you end up having to plow through multiple documents to find pertinent information. I'd really like to see either an all-in one update document (with bookmarks!) or a compiled list of changes for each product. I don't think there should be multiple copies of the same change, since then you're just asking for errors to creep in, but just knowing which update you need to look in for changes to a given power would be huge...

 

[MrMyth]

WotC would seem to disagree with you considering they keep all the most current errata in the Compendium and expect people to be using it for the most up to date rules.

The compendium has a number of rules errors, typically in cases just like this, where the unique nature of a power doesn't translate properly to the Compendium format.

In any case, in the original article for Duelist's Prowess, the attack does not have the Weapon keyword, which is quite clearly a mistake given that it involves a weapon attack. It is clearly a result of the weapon keyword not being appropriate for the stance itself but being required for the actual attack, and the downside of not providing that attack with its own stat block.

Anyway, if it is incorrect in the Compendium and Character Builder, I'd recommend just telling the player to figure out the appropriate bonuses by hand.