| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| scererar |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 03:12:03
4E errata for the 3 core books are available for download at the following link
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080716 |
| 28 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 18 Oct 2008 : 03:52:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You know, I'm as cynical as the next person when it comes to WotC motives. But seriously, do people really think that WotC is deliberately and knowingly releasing flawed material? Why would they do that? They make no money from free errata, and doing something like that only damages their credibility. And even WotC wouldn't be foolish enough to release 4.5 in anything less than at least a year, if not 2 or 3.
I mean, I've grown to serious dislike WotC (or at least their corporate masters) in the last year, but I try to be reasonable about it. Some of these motives I'm seeing ascribed to them are simply not reasonable.
<snip>
WotC is not evil. Misguided, maybe. Evil, no. We need to stop acting like they are.
Re: 4.5: I dunno. They've stated that there will be no more "half-editions"... so naturally we will assume that 4.5 *must* be around the corner, simply based on how they handled the leadup to 4.0. 
Re: motives: Of course they're not reasonable! We wouldn't be ascribing such motives to WotC if they were reasonable! WotC has clearly demonstrated that "reasonable" is not an adjective that describes them. 
Re: evil: This, I can agree with... but only because I'm starting to doubt the existence of evil in RL. Moral relativism, here we come!  |
| Ikki |
Posted - 25 Sep 2008 : 15:59:35
Wasnt all that more to it, frankly.
"best handled as events", ie nothing for players.
And even if the epic spells were botched as to effectiveness, a 40d6 hellball atleast tried to be impressive.
4e, irrelevant, i think describes it best. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 22:52:54
quote:
Originally posted by Ikki
I found some funny stuff, they have decided to make elven high mages into a prc of sorts.. or whatver those paths are called in 4e. Anyway.. the grand power of high magic amounts to... 20' burst granting a +1 on the next throw :D
Aside from mythal gates allowing a 20' teleport..
I mean like, who are they trying to kid? That stuff is so pathetic compared to what even a 9th level wizzie could do in the hands of a noob...
That's combat powers, look at the sidebar for mythal creation. |
| Ikki |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 22:13:07
I found some funny stuff, they have decided to make elven high mages into a prc of sorts.. or whatver those paths are called in 4e. Anyway.. the grand power of high magic amounts to... 20' burst granting a +1 on the next throw :D
Aside from mythal gates allowing a 20' teleport..
I mean like, who are they trying to kid? That stuff is so pathetic compared to what even a 9th level wizzie could do in the hands of a noob... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Jul 2008 : 18:49:23
Which is why I agree with this statement by HtD -
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I just wish (however much in vain) that they would finish something completely instead of knowingly putting out a flawed product. Paizo is giving their Pathfinder RPG a year and a half-ish of open playtesting before publishing their final product. I can only guess that this is to completely and utterly cut out all errors that may.
There was a limited number of playtesters - almost all of whom were part of the design process and therefore clearly 'in the know' about how the rules work.
By NOT bringing in outsiders (as Paizo has done), you are NOT going to spot your mistakes, because it is the same people that made them that are testing them. Its almost like trying to spot your own typos - of course your mind's eye is going to skip right over the second time through, because YOU know what its supposed to say.
The biggest errors seams to be in the Skill Challenges sub-system, which has been taken completely out-of-context (if I understand the debacle correctly). The people playtesting the system knew exactly how the system worked, and in which instances it should be incorporated, but the rules simply did not make that clear.
An open play-test would have resolved that before they went to print. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 05:13:36
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You know, I'm as cynical as the next person when it comes to WotC motives. But seriously, do people really think that WotC is deliberately and knowingly releasing flawed material? Why would they do that?
Sorry Wooly,  as you know occasionally my fingers and thoughts get away from the rational parts of my brain. However, I was not as much trying to create a conspiracy theory as point out that I think that they should take the time to figure these things out before publishing the books...
I quite agree. But they were prolly under a serious time constraint to get things done before Gen Con, and didn't get as much time to playtest as they planned for (or had to go back too much to fix things). |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 03:31:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You know, I'm as cynical as the next person when it comes to WotC motives. But seriously, do people really think that WotC is deliberately and knowingly releasing flawed material? Why would they do that?
Sorry Wooly, as you know occasionally my fingers and thoughts get away from the rational parts of my brain. However, I was not as much trying to create a conspiracy theory as point out that I think that they should take the time to figure these things out before publishing the books... |
| scererar |
Posted - 19 Jul 2008 : 02:33:56
other D&D supplements have had errata come out fairly soon after a publication and I am fairly sure 3 and 3.5 did as well. Not sure it was this fast though.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 21:09:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than the result of rushing to get the books out.
And even if the books weren't rushed, there'd probably be some mistakes in them.
I don't like all the decisions WotC makes, but I think we should take the rational route and assume good faith on their part unless it can be proven that their motives were malicious. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 20:57:58
You know, I'm as cynical as the next person when it comes to WotC motives. But seriously, do people really think that WotC is deliberately and knowingly releasing flawed material? Why would they do that? They make no money from free errata, and doing something like that only damages their credibility. And even WotC wouldn't be foolish enough to release 4.5 in anything less than at least a year, if not 2 or 3.
I mean, I've grown to serious dislike WotC (or at least their corporate masters) in the last year, but I try to be reasonable about it. Some of these motives I'm seeing ascribed to them are simply not reasonable.
I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than the result of rushing to get the books out. And while that is worthy of criticism, it's not worthy of some of the things I'm seeing people say in here.
WotC is not evil. Misguided, maybe. Evil, no. We need to stop acting like they are. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 18:27:15
I just wish (however much in vain) that they would finish something completely instead of knowingly putting out a flawed product. Paizo is giving their Pathfinder RPG a year and a half-ish of open playtesting before publishing their final product. I can only guess that this is to completely and utterly cut out all errors that may. |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 18:04:31
It's all just a plot so they can put out new Core Rulebooks in 6 months, rendering the previous ones obsolete... |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 17:45:20
It is possible that with the deadline, they had to release a finalized copy and that printing a massive ammount would take time and in that time and the time since the release put together, they have had time to go over everything again, thus needing an errata....just throwing out a possibility. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 13:17:17
Ha! I knew it was a good thing not to invest time, nerves and money into a thing that has less heart and soul but similar flaws than all those things that came before!
Good gaming folks, no matter what! 
Ergdusch
|
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 11:35:38
I guess it's like buying a pair of trousers then? Expect them to have a hole in the knee.
To be fair, I guess the poor sods who've worked on this probably had stupidly unrealistic deadlines. I guess every time we look at a $E product we're looking at failed marriages, infidelity, substance abuse and addiction, children crying because they no longer recognise one of their parents, collapsed friendships and a million blog entries about misunderstandings and pressure.
Hmm, that sounds interesting viewed in the light of schadenfreude, I'm almost tempted to buy the things now. |
| Kyrene |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 10:36:27
They are probably just following suit as so many game developers seem to do: release now, patch (if ever) later. And we should all be grateful that "at least they patched it". *feels gorge rise* |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 07:57:38
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
4E errata for the 3 core books are available for download at the following link
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080716
By Nobanion's Mane! By Bast's kitty-litter tray! I downloaded the $E errata only to discover that they were the entire rules from 2nd Edition! Have we all been dreaming?
I am, of course, just kidding.
So, not only have Wizards of the Cost alienated many in their fan base with their cash grab but judging by the very short time between publishing their rulebooks and issuing the errata it appears they have sold many people books that they knew were flawed. Of course, I can't prove that. And, of course, we're all fallible and make mistakes but how is it that from mentioning $E last year and letting slip that it had been in the planning for a while have they still managed to make so many mistakes?
By the Red Knight's Napolean Opening, this is bad.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 19:29:00
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Officially (as way back in September-ish), they stated that they would include the errata in the digital versions of your books that you could buy for "less than a cup of coffee" if you had purchased the hardcover copy of the book. I still think that it is lame that they want you to pay for the book yet again (no matter how inexpensively) if you have already purchased the hardcover copy of the book.
While I do agree that buying a print copy should get you the pdf for free, believe it or not, WotC offering a serious discount on a pdf if you have the hardcopy is actually a good deal. With FanPro (and with WotC, when they started doing pdfs of the 3.x stuff), buying a hardcopy has no bearing on buying a pdf -- both have the same list price.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
It does not help that since the DDi is a wreck that they do not have the digital copies even available. It is kinda funny that their whole business model depends on the DDi (and the multitude of ways to nickel and dime us through it) but they can't get the damn thing to work right, despite having been working on it since before the announcement of 4th Edition.
Their website has always been a disaster. When they first announced the digital stuff, I was wondering how, with their track record, they were going to pull that off. And now, all these months later, I'm still wondering. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 18:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrene
I would hope they could henceforth include the errata in the digital versions they are offering for sale. What? One can dream can't one? 
They should be able to do something like that... I know that FanPro has done it with Total Warfare and TechManual. When they do errata, the put the errata out there for the print books, but they also update the PDFs, and notify the buyers that a newer version is available. If you bought the previous version, you get the updated pdf for free. I think Total Warfare is at version 1.4 now.
Officially (as way back in September-ish), they stated that they would include the errata in the digital versions of your books that you could buy for "less than a cup of coffee" if you had purchased the hardcover copy of the book. I still think that it is lame that they want you to pay for the book yet again (no matter how inexpensively) if you have already purchased the hardcover copy of the book. It does not help that since the DDi is a wreck that they do not have the digital copies even available. It is kinda funny that their whole business model depends on the DDi (and the multitude of ways to nickel and dime us through it) but they can't get the damn thing to work right, despite having been working on it since before the announcement of 4th Edition. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 15:32:11
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrene
I would hope they could henceforth include the errata in the digital versions they are offering for sale. What? One can dream can't one?
They should be able to do something like that... I know that FanPro has done it with Total Warfare and TechManual. When they do errata, the put the errata out there for the print books, but they also update the PDFs, and notify the buyers that a newer version is available. If you bought the previous version, you get the updated pdf for free. I think Total Warfare is at version 1.4 now. |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 07:31:19
Just skip the fluff and cut straight to 5.0... |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 07:29:53
quote:
Originally posted by BARDOBARBAROS
I think it's time for the 4.5 version!!!
absolutely!
then quickly followed up with 4.75 and of course basic, intermediatre and advanced 4E boxed sets with multiple vital acsessories that mean you can't play the game unless you buy all of them. |
| BARDOBARBAROS |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 06:52:12
I think it's time for the 4.5 version!!! |
| Kyrene |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 06:46:11
I would hope they could henceforth include the errata in the digital versions they are offering for sale. What? One can dream can't one? |
| scererar |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 04:52:01
I thought it a little quick my self. 3E had errata fairly quickly as well, but not this soon from what I remember. Does anyone have a time frame for when 3E was released to it's 1st errata? |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 04:12:53
Off to a grand start is 4E... |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 03:48:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Already? Have the books even been out for a month?
Lol. 1 month and 10 days! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jul 2008 : 03:41:30
Already? Have the books even been out for a month? |
