What rules most need more official errata/clarification?

[Jhaelen]

In my humble opinion, skill challenges are so messed up that they ought to be dropped entirely and maybe redesigned from ground up.

Reading the section on skill challenges I found them to be a generally disruptive in the flow of the game and technically confusing. Also it's been discussed on these forums that the skill challenges as presented may in fact be completely broken.

Fortunately, in this game, skill challenges can be omitted completely and it won't cause a disruption. I'd rather do skill checks the old fashion way; present a simple obstacle and have the player(s) roll a check to overcome it. Clever players can justify certain skills for certain things, etc, etc.

I'd recommend you playtest skill challenges before you judge them. Just because the math doesn't work if you simply use the DCs from the DMG table and the complexities as presented, doesn't mean that the idea behind the skill challenges is bad.

Most of the examples I've seen in adventures look really great. They're way ahead of a simple, single skill check.

 

[Tale]

Like a stubborn andstern judge who's gonna go by the letter of the law regardless of what the nuances of a particular situation might be

That sounds like the Judge's (DM) fault, not the law's (Skill Challenges).

It sounds like you're afraid that something about it will make DM's unresponsive.

 

[Mort_Q]

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what does and does not get maximized when you roll a critical hit with a :

• Vorpal Weapon
• Sneak Attack
• Hunter's Quarry

 

[Tale]

Number 1 issue for me is keyword inheritance. The interpretation of it being that keywords are inherited simply for being on a power on a weapon at all is a well reasonable interpretation of the words. However, it seems reasonably not the intent.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

I think the Keyword rules need better explanation.
I Also think that the 3rd dimension could do with some discussion.

The third dimension thing actually made me laugh out loud for some reason. I completely agree on both counts. Especially the keywords though, I just saw a customer service response over on the gleemax boards that completely disagreed with the understanding I though I had.

 

[Sanzuo]

I'd recommend you playtest skill challenges before you judge them. Just because the math doesn't work if you simply use the DCs from the DMG table and the complexities as presented, doesn't mean that the idea behind the skill challenges is bad.

Most of the examples I've seen in adventures look really great. They're way ahead of a simple, single skill check.

I may have to get over my aversion and try just that. It might be I just have trouble finding places in an adventure to put skill checks, and in a new system where the philosophy seems to be "game flow is key" it seems hard to come up with reasons the party needs to do a skill challenge, especially on the fly.

It seems to me like a video game quick-time event out of nowhere in a perfectly good action game. I hate those things.

 

[Zsig]

Rain of Blows (number of attacks and conditional attack(s)).

 

[Tuft]

What rules in your opinion are most in need more official errata/clarification (more than just CustServ commenting on it)?

For me, the list includes:

1) Skill Challenge Rules
2) Stealth Rules

Which rules do you guys think need attention right away?

Unfortunately, Skill Challenges are not going to be in the errata, but may receive alternative options in next year's DMG.

Source: http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/0...hing-you-wanted-to-know-about-fourth-edition/
(Critical Hits summarizes a Q&A panel at Origins.)

Q: There’s a big thread on ENWorld about the math behind skill challenges. There’s been experience that shows that they work, but the math to prove that they are broken seems solid.
A: Skill challenges are interesting, since they are not reflected in the written rules as they were intended. They started as more “combat” with initiative, etc., but eventually moved them to be more free form. They were intended as more of a framework, not strictly mechanical. When planning a non-combat encounter, try to come up with options, different ways to play out while not stopping the game. (i.e. don’t build in a roadblock if they don’t succeed at the skill challenge.)

They want to address different ways to handle it without errata-ing. That might make it into a future DMG. Here are ways to do things differently, not “these rules are different.”

 

[Tripgnosis]

That sounds like the Judge's (DM) fault, not the law's (Skill Challenges).

This is true. But like I said, I like em as a base mechanic. So long as the DM isn't overly strict on it's application

It sounds like you're afraid that something about it will make DM's unresponsive.

Kinda yeah. It can let them be lazy, and less imaginative. I don't think it would MAKE them unresponsive. Those kinds of DM's were probally already unresponisve and likely never had much use for RP situations in their adventures. Now they can put in situations other than combat, and still deal with it like combat. But yeah, I guess my problem isn't with the mechanics but with how a DM would use them.

 

[t3nk3n]

Rain of Blows (number of attacks and conditional attack(s)).

From Customer Service:

The maximum number of attack Rain of Blows can make is four.

You always make two attack, if you are wielding the correct weapon, you get two secondary attacks.

Good Gaming!

Joe
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST