Update Madness!

[Plane Sailing]

There was no way in the Offline Character Builder to choose whether or not you used or did not use errata. All you could choose is which books and even down to specific powers for your game. But they would all still be the most recent version of the powers.

Well, there was - you could decide whether you want to get the latest update or not. You might choose to get the update because it included new books you wanted, you might choose to get the update because it had errata you considered critical or you might choose to forgo updates until you got to the end of a campaign, or the end of a particular adventure.

i.e. in the old model you were in charge of when you applied updates. in the new model you are not in charge.

Clearly this change is great for some people and annoying for others. Rejoice or commiserate as appropriate, but I do hope that we don't see people poking fun or attempting to 'convert' someone who has a different reaction to you.

Thanks.

 

[delericho]

Well, no. But I don't think the game design is nearly as interconnected as your average piece of code.

Remember the recent change to magic missile? Tiny little change, nice and safe.

Except... by switching from a "roll to hit/lots of damage" model to "auto-hit, small damage", they vastly altered the power level of minions. Basically, the Wizard can now auto-kill any minion of any level with an at-will power.

Granted, only one example, but there's the law of unintended consequences right there.

Do they occasionally need to errata the errata? Sure. A small part of it. Just like a new book like Martial Power might offer 1000 new options, of which 5% (50) need errata... those 50 pieces of errata might have a fraction that need fixing. Given the shorter turnaround, maybe at twice the usual rate of errors, so let's say 10% of those updates themselves need errata - or 5 items. And once those are fixed - which is probably done with extra care - we should now have most imbalances taken care of.

Unfortunately, not true. Because at the same time, they're also adding a huge number of new elements, and also adding errate to other things that need it. And any or all of these may have the consequence of knocking out the balance of elements that already exist, meaning that they need errata again.

Even worse, since this isn't all being done by one person, you potentially have the situation where two people are implementing "duelling errata", where elements A and B get fixed at the same time and in different directions, thus leaving the combination just as broken as before.

I disagree entirely. Comparing the game as it currently stands to at first launch ignores the fact that in addition to the errata, you've also many books filled with new content.

It may not be a fair comparison, but since WotC want us to stay current with their latest and greatest ruleset, that's the comparison they have to deal with. Sorry, but there it is.

 

[Locutus Zero]

Remember the recent change to magic missile? Tiny little change, nice and safe.

Except... by switching from a "roll to hit/lots of damage" model to "auto-hit, small damage", they vastly altered the power level of minions. Basically, the Wizard can now auto-kill any minion of any level with an at-will power.

Granted, only one example, but there's the law of unintended consequences right there.

SURELY WotC knew how the power would effect minions.

 

[Dannager]

Remember the recent change to magic missile? Tiny little change, nice and safe.

Except... by switching from a "roll to hit/lots of damage" model to "auto-hit, small damage", they vastly altered the power level of minions. Basically, the Wizard can now auto-kill any minion of any level with an at-will power.

Granted, only one example, but there's the law of unintended consequences right there.

Yeah, that wasn't unintended.

 

[MrMyth]

Remember the recent change to magic missile? Tiny little change, nice and safe.

Except... by switching from a "roll to hit/lots of damage" model to "auto-hit, small damage", they vastly altered the power level of minions. Basically, the Wizard can now auto-kill any minion of any level with an at-will power.

Granted, only one example, but there's the law of unintended consequences right there.

There are a stupid number of ways in the game to auto-kill minions, and have been from day one. I remember playing through... I think H2, early in the edition, and ending up in a room filled with minions, and someone triggering a lightning weapon which instantly wiped out all of them.

The wizard is already plenty good at killing minions. Autokilling one a round isn't going to impact game balance one way or another.

And again, even if 1 in 10 pieces of errata has some unintended consequence, that is still a better environment than if those same 10 elements were left flawed and unbalanced.

Unfortunately, not true. Because at the same time, they're also adding a huge number of new elements, and also adding errate to other things that need it. And any or all of these may have the consequence of knocking out the balance of elements that already exist, meaning that they need errata again.

Even worse, since this isn't all being done by one person, you potentially have the situation where two people are implementing "duelling errata", where elements A and B get fixed at the same time and in different directions, thus leaving the combination just as broken as before.

Do you have examples? And, again - not just a single case, but any sort of indication that this is a regular and reoccuring problem making things worse rather than better?

Because I just don't see it. I occasionally see small snafus in the errata, but nothing like you are talking about. Yes, adding new elements usually means adding new problems - which are usually addressed within a few months.

I certainly don't see mutiple conflicting pieces of errata cropping up - I suspect the errata team is much more tightly connected than the design team as a whole.

It may not be a fair comparison, but since WotC want us to stay current with their latest and greatest ruleset, that's the comparison they have to deal with. Sorry, but there it is.

Well, no, there it isn't. Again, the problem isn't comparing the two - it is attributing any reduction in balance to the errata itself. Rather than, you know, all the new game elements that have been added.

Your point was that the errata doesn't fix anything. But it does - the PHB with errata is a superior product to the PHB without errata. And the current environment as a whole, with errata, is an improvement over what the current environment would be without errata.

Now, some folks might not feel that the hassle of dealing with the updates and staying up to date is worth the improvements the errata makes to the game. And, sure, some folks might disagree with specific pieces of errata, much as some folks might not like new classes or powers or feats.

But if you genuinely feel that the errata and updates made over the course of the game have had unintended consequences and have inevitably just created more work, and have only served to make the game worse... I think you'll need to show some evidence of this to convince me, rather than just comparing it to debugging code. The situations are similar, but that doesn't make them identical, and analogy alone can't serve as proof.

 

[interwyrm]

Remember the recent change to magic missile? Tiny little change, nice and safe.

Except... by switching from a "roll to hit/lots of damage" model to "auto-hit, small damage", they vastly altered the power level of minions. Basically, the Wizard can now auto-kill any minion of any level with an at-will power.

Granted, only one example, but there's the law of unintended consequences right there.

I play a mage in my home group, and not *once* have I used magic missile to kill a minion. A lone minion is pretty much ignorable, and minions within 2 squares of each other get bursted.

If your DM is throwing level+4 minions at you, he's doin it wrong.

 

[catastrophic]

Yeah, autokilling a minion is a pretty common feature, everyone from monks to whirling slayers have an option to do that.
In fact, it's pretty much the only option whirling slayers do have.

But that's the problem right there... With the current system of automatic updates to the online tools, the groups don't get to decide whether or not they will incorporate it mid-game. It happens automatically, with no option to stick with the status quo.

But you only level up once a month. And changes are rare, even on that time frame. I'm sorry, I really think you're blowing this way out of proportion.

Seemingly, the only other option to give up the exceptionally useful online tools altogether. And that's an admittedly difficult habit to break, after using them for so long.

I have an alternative approach for your group. Call it a software fix. The next time you come across a rule that has been changed, follow these instructions:

Pause, for a moment of calming silence.

Take in a deep, gentle breath.

Exhale fully, with a long, cleansing sigh.

Say "it's not important, we'll just go with what we know until we want to change".

Problem solved.

 

[delericho]

But if you genuinely feel that the errata and updates made over the course of the game have had unintended consequences and have inevitably just created more work, and have only served to make the game worse...

That is not the claim I made. I asserted that the game now is no more balanced than it was when first published.

And that in turn was in response to the equally-unsupported assertion that all these errata/updates were making the game constantly better.

As for evidence: I don't have any. What I do know is that given the choice between playing a game with no errata and having to live with the broken bits, or dealing with the monthly ordeal of working out how WotC have 'fixed' my character this time, I'll take "no errata" please. There's a middle ground that would be better still, but what we have now is not progress.

 

[MrMyth]

That is not the claim I made. I asserted that the game now is no more balanced than it was when first published.

And that in turn was in response to the equally-unsupported assertion that all these errata/updates were making the game constantly better.

As for evidence: I don't have any. What I do know is that given the choice between playing a game with no errata and having to live with the broken bits, or dealing with the monthly ordeal of working out how WotC have 'fixed' my character this time, I'll take "no errata" please. There's a middle ground that would be better still, but what we have now is not progress.

Well, not in your mind. And that's a fair opinion to have! For myself, I feel the errata has most certainly positively improved the game. But I definitely get that the benefits it offers are, for some, outweighed by the downside of needing to keep up with the fixes. That's a perfectly fair opinion - I just think it is a different one from claiming the errata doesn't offer any benefits at all.

You can claim that the current game is not more balanced than the game at launch, but you have to admit that is due to the addition of many new books of content. I'm not sure you can claim that the game as it is now is no more balanced than the current game as it would be without any errata at all.

 

[delericho]

That's a perfectly fair opinion - I just think it is a different one from claiming the errata doesn't offer any benefits at all.

True. I certainly wouldn't (intentionally) claim that.

You can claim that the current game is not more balanced than the game at launch, but you have to admit that is due to the addition of many new books of content.

Some of it certainly is.

I'm not sure you can claim that the game as it is now is no more balanced than the current game as it would be without any errata at all.

I agree - it is extremely unlikely (although not completely impossible) that this is the case.

FWIW, my preferred solution would be:

1) A bit longer for books in editing/playtesting. Improve the quality right out the gate.

2) An initial pass on errata fairly soon after release - catching all the mistakes that were found after the book went to press but before release.

3) A later pass on errata (say 2 months after release) to clean up whatever has been found since.

4) After that, live with it. If something is found to be so broken it cannot be let stand, then it should be removed from the game, rather than trying to fix it. Though if we get to that point, I have to ask why it wasn't caught before now.