New Errata/Updates at Wotc

[lukelightning]

Hooray, I no longer have to forbid the cloak of distortion!

 

[Kzach]

Armor of Faith: Now only functions when the avenger is in cloth armor or no armor and not using a shield.

Who was complaining about this? And where do they live?

 

[Destil]

Someone please explain to me why we still have 'Defensive' on double weapons? This new design I actually kind of dig, it's how they should have worked in the first place.

But why does a double weapon guy get the same AC as sword and board with two feats?

EDIT: I think I get it now, looking closer. You don't so as much damage anymore with them, the new double sword is like fighting with two short-swords, and you get an extra +1 AC for the feat. Not the direction I'd have preferred things to go, but at least makes some sense. Here's hoping for a 1d8 +2 Defensive one-hander at some point...

But why does the urgosh get it? In the hands of a fighter who gets a LOT of one-off attacks (through mark and AoO) that thing is still crazy...

Also, why is the off-hand part of the double scimitar an axe?

 

[Saagael]

Glad WotC got around to this.

The Quicksilver Stance errata is backwards. It makes no sense to say "you can shift your speed (or 1/2 your speed if you aren't wearing heavy armor)." This should be the other way around.

A dev (or a representative for a dev) left a comment on the Wizards forums saying that it is backwards and they'll get around to fixing it.

 

[Klaus]

Someone please explain to me why we still have 'Defensive' on double weapons? This new design I actually kind of dig, it's how they should have worked in the first place.

But why does a double weapon guy get the same AC as sword and board with two feats?

EDIT: I think I get it now, looking closer. You don't so as much damage anymore with them, the new double sword is like fighting with two short-swords, and you get an extra +1 AC for the feat. Not the direction I'd have preferred things to go, but at least makes some sense. Here's hoping for a 1d8 +2 Defensive one-hander at some point...

But why does the urgosh get it? In the hands of a fighter who gets a LOT of one-off attacks (through mark and AoO) that thing is still crazy...

Also, why is the off-hand part of the double scimitar an axe?

A sword-n-boarder wields a heavy shield for +2 AC. A double-weapon-wielder gets, at most, a +1. And this is from a weapon that functions as two he might have wielded anyway. For instance, there's no point in wielding a double sword now if you can wield two short swords, except for the defensive quality.

 

[Hammerhead]

The only change that really sucks is the Avenger armor nerf. Were Avengers too good? I mean, considering their crappy damage, high defenses were basically the only thing they had. Now that's gone too.

 

[FireLance]

Quickcurse Rod question - Before the errata you could get an extra curse off - your minor action curse plus the rods power. Can you still do that or does the rods power now just let you curse for free instead of a minor? I'm thinking no at this point.

I think it can still be argued that the specific ability of the quickcurse rod trumps the general restriction that you can use the Warlock's Curse power once per turn. Phrasing along the lines of: "You may use your Warlock's Curse as a free action and you may place it on any target in sight." would have made it obvious that the once per round restriction is still in force, but the simpler and more ambiguous wording used in the errata doesn't make it so clear. Since it's an encounter ability, even the more generous interpretation is unlikely to have much of an impact most of the time.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The only change that really sucks is the Avenger armor nerf. Were Avengers too good? I mean, considering their crappy damage, high defenses were basically the only thing they had. Now that's gone too.

I disagree that they had particularly crappy damage. Keep in mind that the difference between Avenger damage and most striker damage is between 3 and 9. Not a huge difference. It used to seem like a big deal when a lot of other classes were combining Bloodclaw and multiple attack powers in order to increase that dramatically. With those things changed...I think you'll find the difference is very small.

The avenger already has high end striker AC, with the addition of leather it put them into high end defender ACs. That needed to be fixed.

 

[Markn]

I think it can still be argued that the specific ability of the quickcurse rod trumps the general restriction that you can use the Warlock's Curse power once per turn. Phrasing along the lines of: "You may use your Warlock's Curse as a free action and you may place it on any target in sight." would have made it obvious that the once per round restriction is still in force, but the simpler and more ambiguous wording used in the errata doesn't make it so clear. Since it's an encounter ability, even the more generous interpretation is unlikely to have much of an impact most of the time.

The blurb for the change seems to indicate they just want to keep the Invoker from using it, so it would seem that you could still do an extra curse but you are right, the wording is very ambiguous.

For my character, I really rely on it. I have the Master of the Starry Sky PP and two fold curse (I think thats what its called). So, first round, I curse the two closest, then one other person for free with the rod. Second round, move so that I can curse 2 more and then the 3rd round, I use Minor gift of foresight to produce an extra +10 bonus to hit by stripping the curses. The rod is additionally important because now I can target the far guy instead of the closest guys letting me get to creatures that we normally have to wait to attack.

Granted without the rod, it could still be +8 but its not so much a corner case with this build.

Edit - Basically, the rod makes me more versatile depending on the tactics needed for the fight.

 

[Kzach]

The avenger already has high end striker AC, with the addition of leather it put them into high end defender ACs. That needed to be fixed.

Their secondary role is either defender or controller so no, it really didn't need 'fixing'.