D&D 5E They Broke Arcane Archer!!!

[Jacob Lewis]

Slings and arrows, people. Slings and arrows.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know it, don't want to know it, and will just assume it's something similar to that g**T.se meme years ago.

Which I also wished I never knew about.

Oh, it's far worse than that. It's completely safe for work, and but falls firmly in the, "I wish I didn't know this, because knowing this makes things worse."

 

[Sacrosanct]

If anyone had tried to actually build and play an arcane archer from one of the almost-final drafts that contained this error it seems likely that they would have noticed the breakdown. It's not difficult to see the problem. If he feels like that's "lazy" on the part of WOTC then he has a basis for that complaint. How are you inferring that's a shot a someone in particular? Is it possible your experience in the field is making you extra-sensitive to the criticism here?

That has nothing to do with my experience. Calling a work effort lazy is literally calling the person(s) involved lazy. Work by itself can't be lazy, by definition. Only the people doing it because lazy is a description of behavior. So by literal definition, that's a shot at someone and not just a criticism of the work. Especially since it's just an opinionated guess with not evidence or objective basis behind making it.

And as for "armchair quarterbacks" - you mean everyone who bought the book that isn't an editor? So almost everyone who bought the book? So "customers"? And then you had to go and work a shot in yourself.

Reread what I said. I didn't say everyone who bought the book is an armchair quarterback. This is a weak strawman. I said people such as the OP who are throwing a fit and assuming they could do better. That's what an armchair quarterback is, by definition. Someone who doesn't actually do the job, but makes comments about how they can do or know better. That is a much tighter group than "everyone who bought the book who isn't an editor". By your logic, me calling a football fan who yells at the coach for a poor job an armchair quarterback means I'm calling all football fans who watch the game armchair quarterbacks. Obviously not true.

How is rendering one of the main features of a class unplayable not a big deal? He bought a new book and found an error that broke the class he was most interested in playing. In particular, he was interested in playing it in the fairly rules-tight environment of the AL. It is a problem. It's good that it's fixed now, but that doesn't make it not a problem. Raising a fuss about it this time should help improve the process for next time. Take a look at what Paizo had to deal with after the Advanced Class Guide fiasco. Subsequent books have been much better.

Again, go back and read my posts. I play in the AL. And I'm here to tell you, even with that error in the books, I don't know a single person in the AL that wouldn't play that subclass as intended and realize the error for what it is. It's obviously an error, and I don't know a single person who would say, "Nope, rules as written says you don't get it until 7th level no matter how obvious it is, or how many times WoTC has already put out information about how it should be. I'm gonna ignore the errata and force you to play as it says in the book." Anyone who DMs AL should already know how to play that class based on the info WoTC put out. It's your responsibility as a DM to keep up with these things, and that's even ignoring how every DM I know in AL would play it as intended, and not the actual text. Therefore, it's not an actual problem that occurs. If anyone can provide me with one example of an AL DM forcing the player to play an arcane archer as it's written in the book, I'll retract that.

That's good advice, and not just for the other guy.

Indeed. Avoiding strawmen is another piece of good advice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh no, you stared into the face of the D&D equivalent of Roko’s Basilisk! (don't Google it if you don't get the reference. You will regret it. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

Meh. If you don't buy into LessWrong and utilitarianism, it's pretty harmless fluff.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

That has nothing to do with my experience. Calling a work effort lazy is literally calling the person(s) involved lazy. Work by itself can't be lazy, by definition. Only the people doing it because lazy is a description of behavior. So by literal definition, that's a shot at someone and not just a criticism of the work. Especially since it's just an opinionated guess with not evidence or objective basis behind making it.

To go with your football analogy, have you ever heard a team described as "lazy" or "lacking effort"? Is that "by literal definition" a shot at a person? Or is that a shot at the whole team? or in this case, a shot at the department responsible for this?

Reread what I said. I didn't say everyone who bought the book is an armchair quarterback. This is a weak strawman. I said people such as the OP who are throwing a fit and assuming they could do better. That's what an armchair quarterback is, by definition. Someone who doesn't actually do the job, but makes comments about how they can do or know better. That is a much tighter group than "everyone who bought the book who isn't an editor". By your logic, me calling a football fan who yells at the coach for a poor job an armchair quarterback means I'm calling all football fans who watch the game armchair quarterbacks. Obviously not true.

Ah, it's the "you have to have done it to legitimately criticize it" fallacy. Awesome!

As for "Strawman" why don't you clarify who is allowed to criticize the job done here? Everyone who bought the book has this error. Is it when they complain that they become a problem? Or only if they complain specifically about "editing"?

Again, go back and read my posts. I play in the AL. And I'm here to tell you, even with that error in the books, I don't know a single person in the AL that wouldn't play that subclass as intended and realize the error for what it is. It's obviously an error, and I don't know a single person who would say, "Nope, rules as written says you don't get it until 7th level no matter how obvious it is, or how many times WoTC has already put out information about how it should be. I'm gonna ignore the errata and force you to play as it says in the book." Anyone who DMs AL should already know how to play that class based on the info WoTC put out. It's your responsibility as a DM to keep up with these things, and that's even ignoring how every DM I know in AL would play it as intended, and not the actual text. Therefore, it's not an actual problem that occurs. If anyone can provide me with one example of an AL DM forcing the player to play an arcane archer as it's written in the book, I'll retract that.

Oh, the old "I don't know anyone who does this so it can't possibly be happening" fallacy. Clearly your experience with the AL completely overrides his experience with it. I mean, they couldn't possibly be handled differently in different areas! Just like every DM runs D&D in exactly the same way!

 

[Ovinomancer]

To go with your football analogy, have you ever heard a team described as "lazy" or "lacking effort"? Is that "by literal definition" a shot at a person? Or is that a shot at the whole team? or in this case, a shot at the department responsible for this?

Regardless, it's people you're calling lazy, not work. If you're calling people lazy, that's insulting, even if true.

Ah, it's the "you have to have done it to legitimately criticize it" fallacy. Awesome!

Pretty sure Sacrosanct has made it clear they don't believe this at all. They said it explicitly in an earlier post. Sacrosanct isn't saying people can't criticize, he's pointing that the kind of criticism that involves assuming the work is easy and something the criticizer could easily accomplish is armchair quarterbacking.

The error was a mistake and regretable. Noting it isn't bad, or something Sacrosanct is saying you shouldn't do or can't do if you haven't done it. His point is assuming the job is easy when you have no experience with it. (And it's not easy, I've had to do it for national publications of technical material, and I never, not once, turned in an error free draft. We had four review cycles with different review teams - the initial by the drafter, the drafting team, the editing team, and then the final acceptance review team. None of our documents ever made it through the final acceptance review without finding at least one error, and we had a professional editing team. It's not trivial work, and mistakes happen.) Noting them isn't bad, but claiming it's lazy editing (which can exist, but isn't characterized by very small number of errors in Xanthar's) exposes ignorance on the part of the complainer.

As for "Strawman" why don't you clarify who is allowed to criticize the job done here? Everyone who bought the book has this error. Is it when they complain that they become a problem? Or only if they complain specifically about "editing"?

Ironically, this is a strawman.

Oh, the old "I don't know anyone who does this so it can't possibly be happening" fallacy. Clearly your experience with the AL completely overrides his experience with it. I mean, they couldn't possibly be handled differently in different areas! Just like every DM runs D&D in exactly the same way!

Then it would be trivial for you to provide a counterexample that disproves him. He noted than, and said that if someone did so, he'd recant. Instead of attacking the statement as impossible, maybe you could take up his offer and prove him wrong?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, it's nice to see that in response to me advising you to avoid fallacies, you doubled down on the strawmen. Also, I'm not sure you know what the word "fallacy" means, by how you use it.

To go with your football analogy, have you ever heard a team described as "lazy" or "lacking effort"? Is that "by literal definition" a shot at a person? Or is that a shot at the whole team? or in this case, a shot at the department responsible for this?

No one says the field is lazy. Or the stands are lazy. Or the goalposts are lazy. "Lazy" is a term used to described behavior from someone. So by saying the editing was lazy, he's making an attack (and false assumption) on the people involved. That is literally the definition of a personal attack. Speaking of definitions...

Ah, it's the "you have to have done it to legitimately criticize it" fallacy. Awesome!

That is not a fallacy. I'm using the literal definition of an armchair quarterback: someone who does not do occupation X, but complains how they know or could it better than the people who are actually doing it. That includes people like the OP. It does not include "everyone who bought the book" like you said I said (mostly because most people who got the book haven't expressed how they could do it better). That, is what a strawman is because I never made that argument.

As for "Strawman" why don't you clarify who is allowed to criticize the job done here? Everyone who bought the book has this error. Is it when they complain that they become a problem? Or only if they complain specifically about "editing"?

Since you asked for clarification, I'll repeat what I said earlier. Everyone can criticize a product. No one should personally attack or ascribe pejorative motivations for designers. And everyone should caution against being an armchair quarterback if they don't have any experience in the actual field.

Oh, the old "I don't know anyone who does this so it can't possibly be happening" fallacy. Clearly your experience with the AL completely overrides his experience with it. I mean, they couldn't possibly be handled differently in different areas! Just like every DM runs D&D in exactly the same way!

Again, that's not really a fallacy. Well, actually the fallacy part is once again you making a strawman because I never said that "it can't possibly happen". I said it's "not an actual problem that occurs." I.e., I'm not saying it could never happen, just that it hasn't happened. I made that assessment based on how the AL actually works (like I said when the DM has to keep up to date with communication from WotC which clearly states how to handle this) along with my own experience. Both anecdotal and objective evidence. Based on that, I stick with my assessment until anyone, even just one person, can show me where an AL DM forced a player to use the text RAW from the book, it is a problem that hasn't happened. And even then, my first response would be, "then that is the DM's fault for not keeping up with errata, which is a requirement to DM AL games".

Also, he doesn't have any experience with it. This problem never happened. He made an assumption.

So again, before responding to me, perhaps you should read what I actually wrote and stay off the strawmen please. They are fattening and not good for your heart.

 

[Satyrn]

I don't know it, don't want to know it, and will just assume it's something similar to that g**T.se meme years ago.

Which I also wished I never knew about.

Don't we all!

 

[Prakriti]

Are you guys arguing over whether Xanathar's Guide is poorly edited, or whether the OP's choice of words was appropriate for suggesting that Xanathar's Guide is poorly edited?

 

[Mistwell]

Meh. If you don't buy into LessWrong and utilitarianism, it's pretty harmless fluff.

Right. It either is incredibly damaging to your psyche, or it's just meh. There is no upside to reading it. It's not likely anyone walks away from it thinking, "I am so happy I read that, it made my day!" Unless I suppose you're already devoting your life to making artificial intelligence happen I suppose.