Quote from: estar;402413The test will come when those who played with the core books sit down at the same table with those who only have Essentials and they feel they playing the same game. If they start going "no it this way in my rulebook" for stuff outside of a person's class then it is a edition change although one on the order of 3.0 to 3.5. If that not the case then it just a lot of hot air blowing around the internet.

My concern is that how much errata is already floating around for 4e whether that errata in of itself can be considered a 4.5. I am reading over on http://rpg.stackexchange.com of people wanting to revise the monsters in MMI to the standards of the MMIII because of some problem with the numbers making MMI (and MMII) monsters underpowered. Along with other errata like the various revisions to Skill challenges.

I seen in games like Star Fleet Battles, Battletech, Traveller (various editions), too much errata carries all the problems of minor editions changes. In effect those playing with errata are playing a different game then those without.

Specifically in regard to this question then: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1980/how-to-update-a-monster-using-the-dnd4-monster-builder

The example the guy wants to change is a Harpy Screecher.



Note: Strangely enough, that's not even a MM1 monster. That's a monster from Dungeon 161 (December 08) and the Tomb of Horrors (which just came out a couple of months ago!). The standards in the earlier MM aren't wrong, they're just different. And not a whole lot different, either.

To compare: Here's a Meenlock Stalker (level 9 controller) from MM3.



So, while I agree that the Meenlock is going to do more damage with it's basic attack- (and that Horrid Link power is cool).. it's not as if the harpy is "useless", especially if the battle takes place on a ship, high cliff, or atop a tall building.

Also, note that if the DM is doing his job, he really wants to use the Meenlock's 1d6+4 attack and be dazing and "twisting" the PCs while other Meenlocks do the damage. It's entirely feasible to use both the Harpy and the Meenlock without ever resorting to a basic attack, unless you absolutely had to.

THIS doesn't make it a new edition.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402414THIS doesn't make it a new edition.

No but 37 pages for the core rule books (along with this) has the same effect.  This is not just edition bashing either I seen the problem afflict MegaTraveller and later editions, Star Fleet Battle, Battletech.

It not a good thing when this much errata accumulates for a game as it makes the first time buyer feel that he was ripped off when he bought his copy. If D&D Essentials doesn't a get a grip on this then it going to hurt D&D bad in the long run.

DDI in theory should help with this but given the level of use of the internet for gaming it only mitigates the problem for the core fans. The large periphery of causal gamers this situation will only be a negative. Every time errata got out of control the game started shedding players like crazy.

By the way, this prompted me to give my own answer to the question. I think benchmarking is a lot more than just resetting the damage values (do the harpy's claws really become sharper when it hits 9th level?)

My recommendation is to leave the base attack like it is, and add in a rechargeable minor action (similar to the Meenlock) that grants a vulnerability to thunder damage and/or a reduced defense against charm attacks. The claw attack on a ranged controller isn't that important in the way it should be used, I think. By the time that particular type of harpy is down to claws, it's probably already as good as dead.

Quote from: estar;402416No but 37 pages for the core rule books (along with this) has the same effect.  This is not just edition bashing either I seen the problem afflict MegaTraveller and later editions, Star Fleet Battle, Battletech.

It not a good thing when this much errata accumulates for a game as it makes the first time buyer feel that he was ripped off when he bought his copy. If D&D Essentials doesn't a get a grip on this then it going to hurt D&D bad in the long run.

DDI in theory should help with this but given the level of use of the internet for gaming it only mitigates the problem for the core fans. The large periphery of causal gamers this situation will only be a negative. Every time errata got out of control the game started shedding players like crazy.

Ok, honest question though: Who seems to *really* have a problem with D&D Essentials? Is it the core fans or the outsiders? I know what kind of errata annoys people who are playing this game. For example, Veterans Armor, that drove people nuts, including my 11 year old son. Matt James of Loremaster was accumulating crazy temp hit points for his Battlerager dwarf long after the errata was released. But monster standards? That's not even errata. That's just a new way of building stuff.

I'm going on two assumptions that may not exactly be universally held positions, but nonetheless, it's what i think:

• Errata serves to correct mistakes and make a game better.
• Most games don't release errata, not because they are "designed perfect", but because the companies that produce them lack the resources or interest. They rely on people being willing to work around or house rule obvious problems.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418Ok, honest question though: Who seems to *really* have a problem with D&D Essentials?

For me? I don't see a problem with D&D Essentials. Pundit, myself and others have advocated that Wizards should be doing something like this for years. As long as they make it complete and not some bastardized stripped down version (like say First Quest) it will achieve the goal of being a good introduction to Dungeons & Dragons. Even if it is based on the 4e ruleset

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418

• Errata serves to correct mistakes and make a game better.

You #2 point I think is an accurate observation. But as for the above there is a negative when you have too much errata. Players of the older edition book feel ripped off as there books are not an accurate reflection of the game and/or just has broken rules.

Arguments of "Well you can just ignore the errata for your group." doesn't work in this situation because we are not talking isolated little pockets of gamers anymore. With the internet this stuff gets spread around. Even my casual gamers friend are aware that there is a lot of "fixes" to 4e and they feel negative about it. I just didn't realize that it was 117 pages bad.

Quote from: estar;402420For me? I don't see a problem with D&D Essentials. Pundit, myself and others have advocated that Wizards should be doing something like this for years. As long as they make it complete and not some bastardized stripped down version (like say First Quest) it will achieve the goal of being a good introduction to Dungeons & Dragons. Even if it is based on the 4e ruleset

AKA, the best version of D&D ever published!

QuoteYou #2 point I think is an accurate observation. But as for the above there is a negative when you have too much errata. Players of the older edition book feel ripped off as there books are not an accurate reflection of the game and/or just has broken rules.

Arguments of "Well you can just ignore the errata for your group." doesn't work in this situation because we are not talking isolated little pockets of gamers anymore. With the internet this stuff gets spread around. Even my casual gamers friend are aware that there is a lot of "fixes" to 4e and they feel negative about it. I just didn't realize that it was 117 pages bad.

Well, if it helps the conversation, I don't think you can just ignore errata. I do think it's worth reading the errata commentary and decide if you agree or not.

In the AD&D1e DMG I seem to recall there's a section of commentary about how certain spells should be handled. It clarifies things about (for example) how a light spell could be used to blind an opponent, or whether or not you could use create water to drown an opponent, or how many spells starting characters should have in their spellbook. I recall entire dragon articles clarifying how Hold person works (are you paralyzed? Do you freeze in position? can you talk?). It's not always clear how stuff works even when you simplify it.

Errata at it's best, tries to explain that stuff, and I think a rules update is better than a Dragon Article or a section in a future book or just ignoring the issue.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402428AKA, the best version of D&D never published!

A foolproof version of D&D?  

Quote from: ggroy;402433A foolproof version of D&D?  

If it were "fool"proof, I'd barely have anyone to argue with.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418Ok, honest question though: Who seems to *really* have a problem with D&D Essentials?

I have no problem with Essentials. I'm kind of hopeful about it, truth be told.

I see a lot of 4E fans confused, though. Some of them disappointed. And some (few) actually angry.

Quote from: estar;402416It not a good thing when this much errata accumulates for a game as it makes the first time buyer feel that he was ripped off when he bought his copy.

As errata has been around for some time in the land of RPGs and as folks are used to products being patched and updated, I'm not sure they'd be exactly shaking in anger over the game having been updated since it was printed.

And, as others have noted, the actual errata itself isn't 37 pages long.

Personally, I feel the only errata that matters is that which substantially affects the core of the game for the majority of folks using it. How much of that is true of the current 4e errata I don't know as I'm happily playing without it...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;402453As errata has been around for some time in the land of RPGs and as folks are used to products being patched and updated, I'm not sure they'd be exactly shaking in anger over the game having been updated since it was printed.

QuoteI didn't say they were shaking in anger.  My meaning with feeling ripped off is that the typical gamer feels that they got a substandard product. It discourages new gamers. Basically they start evaluating alternatives that doesn't have these issues. And the more errata that piles the more apt they will feel.

there is a line and I think Wizards has crossed it with the first version of 4e. Hopefully this won't an issue with Essentials.

Quote from: Seanchai;402453And, as others have noted, the actual errata itself isn't 37 pages long.

QuoteNo but the print document you have to pick through to find out what is important errata for the PHB is 22 pages. And 5 and 7 pages are on the border for the MM and DMG.

Quote from: Benoist;402452I have no problem with Essentials. I'm kind of hopeful about it, truth be told.

I see a lot of 4E fans confused, though. Some of them disappointed. And some (few) actually angry.

I consider myself more annoyed than angry.  And my sole complaint is that they want to change the fundamental ways some powers (rules) work without giving me the option to not use that rule change in the DDI.  If I could turn off the "rule update" for magic missile, and any future similar changes, I would be fine with the whole thing.

As for Essentials themselves, my biggest complaint is that I wish they would have come out with it first because its a lot closer to what I was originally hoping 4e would be (and in fact, comes pretty close to the pseudo-4e version I created when I ran a one-shot based on the preview material before 4e actually came out).  But now I'm deep into my campaign, so no point switching now.

Quote from: estar;402457I didn't say they were shaking in anger.

I know. You meant they'd be upset or irritated. But I don't think they'll be too upset because they're used to it.

For example, I got and installed StarCraft II two days after it was released. There were already patches. There have been several since the game came out. Also, I can wander down to my FLGS and still get the first edition of SpyCraft (and quite a bit of supporting materials). If someone who didn't know there was a significantly expanded second out there, they could easily pick up outdated first edition materials.

That's just the way of the world.

Quote from: estar;402457No but the print document you have to pick through to find out what is important errata for the PHB is 22 pages.

When did looking at a 22 page document become a challenge for people in a hobby centered around books?

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;402452I have no problem with Essentials. I'm kind of hopeful about it, truth be told.

I see a lot of 4E fans confused, though. Some of them disappointed. And some (few) actually angry.

This.

I have no problem with them making changes to the game. I want them to make changes to the game. Heck, the new Wizard power preparation rule is much better than the old one.

But having people go out and say that changes are not being made is just asshattery. Not only is it blithely counterfactual, but it makes it harder for the changes to be implemented if you tell people ahead of time that changes are not being made. If you make changes, you tell people you are making changes. Anything else spreads confusion.

After an advance look at the Heroes of the Something Something player's guide part 1, it appears that Marks are essentially gone. To be replaced with little aura thingies instead. That's fine. In fact, it's easier book keeping than the marks were (no little tokens to hand around for such a minor effect). But it is different. And telling the player base that no differences exist causes such differences to be surprising and counterintuitive.

They should be saying "We figured out better ways to get these ideas across and we're changing the rules to something that is more intuitive." By claiming that no changes exist, they provoke cognitive dissonance every time players encounter a new rule in the books. Which is actually kind of a lot.

-Frank

Quote from: Seanchai;402474I know. You meant they'd be upset or irritated. But I don't think they'll be too upset because they're used to it.

For example, I got and installed StarCraft II two days after it was released. There were already patches. There have been several since the game came out. Also, I can wander down to my FLGS and still get the first edition of SpyCraft (and quite a bit of supporting materials). If someone who didn't know there was a significantly expanded second out there, they could easily pick up outdated first edition materials.

That's just the way of the world.



When did looking at a 22 page document become a challenge for people in a hobby centered around books?

Seanchai

Well, when you get a patch for a computer game, you load it and you're done. It is now part of that computer game. Not really an issue anymore once it is loaded.

When you have just spent a similar amount of money on a RPG, and then find that you have to chase down errata, or get a subscription to DDI which turns your RPG into a "living document" (like an ISO 9000 manual) with constant game rule changing updates - you might not be as interested in getting into the hobby.

It is an unneeded barrier to entry for new Players.