Revision to Class Acts: Ranger article and a letter of apology

[Larry Latourneau]

Not sure if anyone was following htis, but WoTC recently released a Class Acts article that was chock full 'o errors. A lot looked like someone got trigger happy on the cut and paste when it came to the power section.

Well WoTC re-released the article today, along with a letter of apology:

Andy Collins wrote:

Today, we posted a new version of the Class Acts: Ranger article that originally appeared on July 13, 2009.

To put it bluntly, the previous version of the article was of unacceptable quality. You, the readers, correctly pointed that out and we agreed. Hence, these revisions.

We apologize for this lapse in quality.

Though we believe that this particular article is an isolated failure in our mission to provide D&D Insiders with high-quality, exciting content every month, we still take this failure very seriously.

We're confident that the new version of the article adheres to our (and your) high standards for all published game material -- whether that material comes to you on paper or via the digital format.

We're also reviewing our process for designing, developing, and editing Insider content to identify places where additional time or training are required to avoid such errors in the future.

We appreciate the trust that you place in us, and we'll strive to continue to justify that trust.

Thank you, and good gaming.

Andy Collins
RPG Development & Editing Manager
Wizards of the Coast R&D

[Dragnmoon]

I missed the original one, what was the problem with it?

[Larry Latourneau]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I missed the original one, what was the problem with it?

Most of the powers were listed as Immediate Interrupts, which actually made some of them unplayable (i.e. there was a level 10 power that was an immediate interrupt with the trigger being that you kill your quarry. Given that you can't do an immediate action on your own turn, it would be very unlikely that this power would ever come into play.

[Dragnmoon]

Larry Latourneau wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I missed the original one, what was the problem with it?

Most of the powers were listed as Immediate Interrupts, which actually made some of them unplayable (i.e. there was a level 10 power that was an immediate interrupt with the trigger being that you kill your quarry. Given that you can't do an immediate action on your own turn, it would be very unlikely that this power would ever come into play.

DId they update the Full Dragon PDF, or just that article?

[Larry Latourneau]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Larry Latourneau wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I missed the original one, what was the problem with it?

Most of the powers were listed as Immediate Interrupts, which actually made some of them unplayable (i.e. there was a level 10 power that was an immediate interrupt with the trigger being that you kill your quarry. Given that you can't do an immediate action on your own turn, it would be very unlikely that this power would ever come into play.

DId they update the Full Dragon PDF, or just that article?

The Dragon compilation does not happen until the 31st, so it will contain the new and improved article :)

[Matthew Koelbl]

There were basically two problems with the original:

One was a variety of encounter powers being listed as Immediate Interrupts with no trigger. Given the power level of the powers, it seemed pretty clear this was entirely a typo - probably a copy/paste error, with them all being intended to be standard actions.

The second issue was one or two utility powers that were designed to go off when you kill an enemy, but were immediate reactions - as Larry points out above, since you don't have an immediate action on your turn, these were basically unusable. This is an area of the rules we've seen a number of folks stumble over before, since the 'go-to' action for 'something that happens in response to something else' is an immediate action, usually forgetting about the inability to use them on your own turn. They fixed it with the usual method, making it a free action instead.

And apparently there was a final complaint raised that one of the utility powers - a 'death glare' where the ranger brutally dispatches one foe, and lets another enemy know the ranger is coming for them - did ongoing psychic damage to the enemy to represent their sudden drop in morale. Apparently several folks complained this was too 'magical'.

~shrug~ It didn't bother me at all, but they changed it to not doing damage and just creating combat advantage, or something similar, which seemed to satisfy those who complained. I can't say it was truly a problem, but I also can't fault the designers for listening to the complaints of the players. At least, not this time. ;)

[Shroomy]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

And apparently there was a final complaint raised that one of the utility powers - a 'death glare' where the ranger brutally dispatches one foe, and lets another enemy know the ranger is coming for them - did ongoing psychic damage to the enemy to represent their sudden drop in morale. Apparently several folks complained this was too 'magical'.

~shrug~ It didn't bother me at all, but they changed it to not doing damage and just creating combat advantage, or something similar, which seemed to satisfy those who complained. I can't say it was truly a problem, but I also can't fault the designers for listening to the complaints of the players. At least, not this time. ;)

The real problem with that power from a rules perspective is that an encounter power involved ongoing damage; save ends conditions are not usually found in encounter powers.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Shroomy wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

And apparently there was a final complaint raised that one of the utility powers - a 'death glare' where the ranger brutally dispatches one foe, and lets another enemy know the ranger is coming for them - did ongoing psychic damage to the enemy to represent their sudden drop in morale. Apparently several folks complained this was too 'magical'.

~shrug~ It didn't bother me at all, but they changed it to not doing damage and just creating combat advantage, or something similar, which seemed to satisfy those who complained. I can't say it was truly a problem, but I also can't fault the designers for listening to the complaints of the players. At least, not this time. ;)

The real problem with that power from a rules perspective is that an encounter power involved ongoing damage; save ends conditions are not usually found in encounter powers.

True, though they've often made an exception before for (save ends) powers that are damage alone - since the damage is generally quantifiable, while an extended condition like Daze or Stun is a complete game-changer. But yeah, I can definitely imagine that plus the other complaints being enough for them to fully revamp the power.

[Scott Betts]

Shroomy wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

And apparently there was a final complaint raised that one of the utility powers - a 'death glare' where the ranger brutally dispatches one foe, and lets another enemy know the ranger is coming for them - did ongoing psychic damage to the enemy to represent their sudden drop in morale. Apparently several folks complained this was too 'magical'.

~shrug~ It didn't bother me at all, but they changed it to not doing damage and just creating combat advantage, or something similar, which seemed to satisfy those who complained. I can't say it was truly a problem, but I also can't fault the designers for listening to the complaints of the players. At least, not this time. ;)

The real problem with that power from a rules perspective is that an encounter power involved ongoing damage; save ends conditions are not usually found in encounter powers.

Huh, I hadn't noticed that before, but a quick Compendium search shows a mere 14 powers with a (save ends) attached. It looks like usually avoiding (save ends) in encounter powers is probably part of their design philosophy. Cool.

[Sebastian]

Scott Betts wrote:

Huh, I hadn't noticed that before, but a quick Compendium search shows a mere 14 powers with a (save ends) attached. It looks like usually avoiding (save ends) in encounter powers is probably part of their design philosophy. Cool.

That is interesting. I wish they'd publish some more articles about their design and development process - that's the type of content I most enjoy and seems to be somewhat lacking so far. The closest thing I can think of are the skill challenge articles, which are pretty good.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Sebastian wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Huh, I hadn't noticed that before, but a quick Compendium search shows a mere 14 powers with a (save ends) attached. It looks like usually avoiding (save ends) in encounter powers is probably part of their design philosophy. Cool.

That is interesting. I wish they'd publish some more articles about their design and development process - that's the type of content I most enjoy and seems to be somewhat lacking so far. The closest thing I can think of are the skill challenge articles, which are pretty good.

My favorite part of the game too. I'd love to read more such articles.

[Eremite]

I'm still laughing because Andy Collins apologised for a really minor article but never apologised for the Epic Level Handbook! ;)