Errata Update

Cubicle 7 // 2018
macd21
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am

Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:10 am

Rat Catcher wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:19 am
macd21 wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:00 am
(for those you have to look at the FAQ, or else track down discussions on Facebook or Discord to find out what the devs have said on it).
I find ambiguity as bad as errata, maybe even worse. If something is plain wrong (errata), you could guess the correct intent. But with vague rules, anyone can be right or wrong - because it's all up for grabs.
Sure, I’m just explaining the context. I think it would be better to rewrite the unclear stuff, but that’s not what they’re doing. And I think it’s important to understand this context - I’ve seen people state that because their interpretation of the rules wasn’t contradicted by the errata, it must be true.

In theory a lot of the ambiguous stuff should be covered in the FAQ, but so far it’s only covered a few of the more common issues.
CapnZapp
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:56 am

Orin J. wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:11 pm
i suggest running a couple practice combats to determine how serious the issue is for your group.
This is good advice.
User avatar
Rat Catcher
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 1:11 am

Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:08 am

It isn't a question of using the system to see if I like it. For example, I understand how attacks and damage works, and I understand that bigger targets are easier to damage, simply because they are bigger (at least that's what the rules on pg 161 imply). The question for me now - is whether or not I can be bothered to house rule things.
CapnZapp
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:28 am

Rat Catcher wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:08 am
It isn't a question of using the system to see if I like it.

...

The question for me now - is whether or not I can be bothered to house rule things.
With all respect, could it be that you're missing the point of the advice given?

The advice is:

Don't houserule a system before you have given it a good test run yourself.

Have a nice day!
User avatar
Rat Catcher
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 1:11 am

Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:53 am

CapnZapp wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:28 am
Rat Catcher wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:08 am
It isn't a question of using the system to see if I like it.

...

The question for me now - is whether or not I can be bothered to house rule things.
With all respect, could it be that you're missing the point of the advice given?

The advice is:

Don't houserule a system before you have given it a good test run yourself.

Have a nice day!
Not in this instance. I know how that rule is intended to work, and it works in an illogical manner. A bigger target should not suffer additional damage because it is easier to hit. Testing out that rule is not going to change that fact.
CapnZapp
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:24 am

Rat Catcher wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:53 am
Not in this instance. I know how that rule is intended to work, and it works in an illogical manner. A bigger target should not suffer additional damage because it is easier to hit. Testing out that rule is not going to change that fact.
Sorry, but that consequence is built into the system. Anything easier to hit also takes more damage. Being skilled = being strong.

For any reason. For instance, a magic weapon that gives +10% to Weapon Skill also comes with +1 Damage built in. (If you give out both +10 to hit and +1 to damage, you're effectively giving out +2 to Damage)

Trying to counteract this, probably the most fundamental property of the 4E combat system, just for a special case is ill-advised in my opinion. Or at least premature. At least try the game and see how the rules work in many different situations (instead of just getting hung up on this case). Then you can decide whether you can live with the system (in all cases) or if you need a different ruleset.

I promise this is the final time I will try to make you see my point. Have a nice day!
redvampire7
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:20 am

Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:35 pm

Hello everyone.

I think that pg. 162 refers to ranged combat only. And the extra modifier from size does not translate in extra damage. "If this modifier allows you to hit when the Test would otherwise have failed, you succeed with +0 SL."

pg. 341 refers to melee combat where the bonus is a flat +10.
User avatar
Rat Catcher
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 1:11 am

Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:51 pm

redvampire7 wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:35 pm
Hello everyone.

I think that pg. 162 refers to ranged combat only. And the extra modifier from size does not translate in extra damage. "If this modifier allows you to hit when the Test would otherwise have failed, you succeed with +0 SL."

pg. 341 refers to melee combat where the bonus is a flat +10.
You are absolutely right! Thanks for clarifying

Though that said, wouldn't that +10 to hit bigger sized targets translate into additional damage?
redvampire7
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:20 am

Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:03 pm

Rat Catcher wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:51 pm
redvampire7 wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:35 pm
Hello everyone.

I think that pg. 162 refers to ranged combat only. And the extra modifier from size does not translate in extra damage. "If this modifier allows you to hit when the Test would otherwise have failed, you succeed with +0 SL."

pg. 341 refers to melee combat where the bonus is a flat +10.
You are absolutely right! Thanks for clarifying

Though that said, wouldn't that +10 to hit bigger sized targets translate into additional damage?
Well yes. But it's just +1 Dmg. Nothing gamebreaking I believe.
User avatar
Rat Catcher
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 1:11 am

Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:21 pm

That's what I was thinking.
mormegil
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:48 am

Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:59 am

+40 is for shooting ranged, not for melee.
Post Reply