Maitre Du Donjon
First Post
Tom Cashel said:
4 editions
(OD&D, AD&D 1ed, AD&D 2ed, D&D)Maitre D
No end to polymorph self?
- Thread starter Tom Cashel
- Start date
4 editions
(OD&D, AD&D 1ed, AD&D 2ed, D&D)Maitre D
Tom Cashel
First Post
Errata
for "all" read latter.
for "all" read latter.
Artoomis
First Post
IceBear said:
I guess I've been in the software industry too long. I never expect a "perfect" product, and I DO expect something getting broken when something else gets fixed.
Rule 0 may be for suckers, but they tend to be happy suckers
IceBear
That attitude, which is pervasive throughout at least the software industry, is one of the reasons that we can't seem to fix something without breaking something at the same time.
The poor products are mostly due to lack of good design and test discipline when making the new product (be it software or D&D rules). Improve the attitude, design and test discipline and it's amazing what can be done.
Alas, I have not high hopes for the world in general in this area. I do have high hopes for D&D 3e, but, then again, I'm an optimist - forever expecting the best only to have my hopes dashed against the ragged cliffs of reality.
IceBear
Explorer
Artoomis said:
Well, since I'm in SUPPORT and not software design (ie, I don't do any coding), there's not much my attitude can do to make it better can it?
As for being an optimist, I used to be, but after getting disappointed so much I've decided to lower my expectations to a realistic level.
Besides, for as many people that dislike rule X, there are some that like rule X (the harm debates alone should convince you of this). Thus, at best WotC will please some of the people, not all of them (which is what I really meant with my cynical comment). A rule revision might make Tom happy and upset me (or visa versa). A "perfect" product would please EVERYONE.
IceBear
Last edited:
It's quite true that you can't fix one problem without causing another one. That's why I don't bother debugging anymore. Rather than waste time hunting for the error, I just go to a different part of the program and randomly break something. This has 50% of the effects of conventional debugging, and takes only 1% of the time!
--AuraSeer
(random coder guy)
--AuraSeer
(random coder guy)
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Not to be a killjoy, but Tom: You can get a version of the errata'd polymorph from the PsiHB errata. See the following link:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20010819a
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that WotC tends to fix more problems than they create new ones. IMHO, the errata and Sage interpretations have been well-reasoned and generally pretty good.
If what you're bothered by is the appearance of a book like T&B which errata's one spell into reasonableness while presenting a whole bunch of new and unbalancing stuff; well, that's the difference between expansion and revision, isn't it? The classbooks tend to focus upon the former (with the possible exception of MotW, which does a lot of revision with which I, incidentally, happen to be quite comfortable). Whenever you expand a system, you're generating more options, and thus more potential for rules abuse. You're also creating more rules, meaning there's a larger rule set out there that's subject to flaws. So it's not so much a case of every fix leading to a worse imbalance, but rather fixes being imbedded in rules expansions that lead to a larger set of rules to be abused.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20010819a
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that WotC tends to fix more problems than they create new ones. IMHO, the errata and Sage interpretations have been well-reasoned and generally pretty good.
If what you're bothered by is the appearance of a book like T&B which errata's one spell into reasonableness while presenting a whole bunch of new and unbalancing stuff; well, that's the difference between expansion and revision, isn't it? The classbooks tend to focus upon the former (with the possible exception of MotW, which does a lot of revision with which I, incidentally, happen to be quite comfortable). Whenever you expand a system, you're generating more options, and thus more potential for rules abuse. You're also creating more rules, meaning there's a larger rule set out there that's subject to flaws. So it's not so much a case of every fix leading to a worse imbalance, but rather fixes being imbedded in rules expansions that lead to a larger set of rules to be abused.
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
Heh. Tom's just mad because he threw my Wizard in a cell with no items or spellbooks. Luckily, he had Poly-self memorized (verbal only component) and got out easily. He kept getting caught, but since it lasts for hours and hours, he kept getting out until he escaped. Sorry, Tom...
And luckily, Tom doesn't house rule everything like IceBear. House ruling is fine... but it makes it so that you can't just look up a rule or post a rules question on ENWorld. You're totally at the whim on your DM. And you never know when your DM, in the middle of a game, will say, "Ah, no.. that's not a fair spell. He gets a save." So really, by houseruling everything, why have rules at all? Just roleplay and have a good time.
That may make some people "happy," but it make me feel "crappy."
Save Harm.
Lucius
And luckily, Tom doesn't house rule everything like IceBear. House ruling is fine... but it makes it so that you can't just look up a rule or post a rules question on ENWorld. You're totally at the whim on your DM. And you never know when your DM, in the middle of a game, will say, "Ah, no.. that's not a fair spell. He gets a save." So really, by houseruling everything, why have rules at all? Just roleplay and have a good time.
That may make some people "happy," but it make me feel "crappy."
Save Harm.
Lucius
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Artoomis said:
IMNSHO, WotC's design and test discipline are a country mile ahead of most of their competitors. They may be quite up to the standards of my heart's desire but let's be fair.
RPGs are the hardest product in the world to debug. Unlike compiled code, the mechanics are open to interpretation and reinterpretation. The functionality is large and diverse, with countless interfaces. Many users purposefully attempt to break the system. The designers have to rely on self-trained, uncertified sysadmins (DMs) to keep the system running. There are high expectations for backwards compatibility. If we consider the OGL, outside vendors expect their products to be stable on the system.
That is a pretty representative list of what makes a software project a nightmare. The only things missing from the Perfect Nightmare are artificial deadlines, a pointy-haired boss (Hasbro?), and a changing requirements list.
Similar Threads
