So, what happened to the Design writeup on Expertise?

[Tuft]

Anther thread reminded me of this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ike-mearls-should-you-happen.html#post4731384

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers View Post
as long as we have you here mike could you go take a look at all the Expertise feat arguments both here and at WotC board. It seams to me it is a very hot button topic that maybe if one of you guys had time to we could get a nice Design and development like thing on.
The intent of this rule isa major fight on alot of boards

We talked about addressing the issue this week, but a bunch of folks have been out of the office and we haven't made an official decision. I think it'll be a design and development column, but we just need to hammer out the details.

Has anything come out of this?

 

[Henrix]

I suppose that even after the article is written (which might not be Mearls' top priority) Dragon has a couple of months before it goes to press.

So I'm patient.

 

[Byronic]

I'm rather bitter, don't you think?

I'm sorry but it should be out this month. Next month at the latest, after that they're just being silly. It's been over 5 weeks already. They should KNOW why they put the feat in, I assume they had a reason and they didn't just use a ouija board.

It seems to me that they have to get together and actually agree on an *official* reason which would be both satisfying to the player base and make them sound like they had a really good idea for putting it as a feat instead of errata. This is made harder because it can't just be a designers personal opinion but it has to be representative of the company.

If it was just a screw-up that they're trying to correct (which I suspect) I wish they'd simply say it. Take the risky no- be honest path and simply admit that they screwed up. Offer an alternative route to simply give the feat as a freebie in the article, maybe even recommend it.

It's quite human to err you know. I make it my business to err at least three times per day.

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm sorry but it should be out this month. Next month at the latest, after that they're just being silly. It's been over 5 weeks already. They should KNOW why they put the feat in, I assume they had a reason and they didn't just use a ouija board.

It seems to me that they have to get together and actually agree on an *official* reason which would be both satisfying to the player base and make them sound like they had a really good idea for putting it as a feat instead of errata. This is made harder because it can't just be a designers personal opinion but it has to be representative of the company.

If it was just a screw-up that they're trying to correct (which I suspect) I wish they'd simply say it. Take the risky no- be honest path and simply admit that they screwed up. Offer an alternative route to simply give the feat as a freebie in the article, maybe even recommend it.

It's quite human to err you know. I make it my business to err at least three times per day.

Yeah, I'd say you are a little bitter.

I don't have a problem with it taking a few weeks or even months. I suspect they did make a mistake and are choosing their words carefully by devoting a column to it in order not to make another mistake. That's a good thing.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I suppose that even after the article is written (which might not be Mearls' top priority) Dragon has a couple of months before it goes to press.

So I'm patient.

QFT

I love the fact that right after you pointed this out others jumped into conspiracy mode with “They didn’t know why it was this way”

I do not feel there is a problem so far, I know our warlock has it, and I don’t, he also has a 20 main stat, I don’t. But I hit more often then he does.



Check out the link to my gaming blog if you want to see the characters in quastion...(Shamelesss plug)

 

[Alan Shutko]

I suppose that even after the article is written (which might not be Mearls' top priority) Dragon has a couple of months before it goes to press.

I can understand that in print, but the advantage of digital was supposed to be that the content could be more timely.

 

[Henrix]

I can understand that in print, but the advantage of digital was supposed to be that the content could be more timely.

In print it would be, and was, longer. When making a magazine like Dragon you don't just rip out the articles as they come - you make plans, try to hold on to the deadlines, and see to it that you really have an article in time. You decide what articles you want in each issue, and ask people to write them.

If it's just an irregular one-man magazine then sure, you can publish each article as soon as you write them - but that would be chaos for Dragon.

Mearls isn't the editor of Dragon - he can't just snap his fingers and say that they should publish this now, even if he wanted.

And if Mearls is going to write it he has to find room in his schedule to write it (and it has to be a reasonably good article, not just something he threw together in ten minutes).

And there's no real hurry, no panic. Really.
There's no reason why that article should take precedence before other articles, already written and planned for.


All that's been said is that Mearls thinks it might be a good idea to write such an article.
There are other articles that also are good ideas. And if he'd said they were going to publish them, perhaps, sometime, there would be some guys raging about how they were important and should appear now - never mind that other silly article about those Expertise feats or whatever it was.

 

[Legildur]

...never mind that other silly article about those Expertise feats or whatever it was.

Except that the Expertise feats seem to generate a lot of gnashing of teeth (and numerous threads).... so an article would help quell some dissatisfaction about an element of the game.

Then again, there may be other issues that are more burning. I haven't been following all of it THAT closely.

 

[Cadfan]

Except that the Expertise feats seem to generate a lot of gnashing of teeth (and numerous threads).... so an article would help quell some dissatisfaction about an element of the game.

I really doubt this will be the case.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think they could expand what they have in the FAQ. Rather than specific how do you rule this FAQs, why not FAQ a why we have these rules.

The Expertise thing is a Frequently Asked Question after all.