What WotC ruling was the final straw for you?

[Rob_Knotts]

Seems most people who post here have some sort of enduring beef with the offical WotC boards and possibly WotC in general. One particular instance made me give up completely on WotC as an official source of rules, and I was curious if anyone else had a similar story.

For me, it was sneaky barbarian rages. At some point it was mentioned in the FAQ (only a year or two after 3e came out, I believe) with an official response to the question of whether or not a Barbarian with Rogue levels can Sneak Attack while Raging.

The answer was "yes".

Yes Virginia, you can perform a Sneak Attack while RAGING.

I don't really want to argue this example or examples from anybody else, but I would like to hear if anyone else had a similar turning point with WotC.

[Brobdingnagian]

For me it was the fact that a Nat 1 was an auto-miss or auto-fail on a save.

Really, a -"10" instead of a -"Infinity" is much more reasonable.

That and the very people who designed this game do not even use the rules in a manner that affects their game worlds.

Seriously, people everywhere use the pseudo-medival fuedal power-groups ideal. Which is utterly bogus. I hated that ever since 2nd Ed. with the FR and its retardedness.

[shirak]

Monks. The entire fucking class and any and every ruling pertaining to it. Every single fucking one of them. They all fucking suck. Fvck!

[Cielingcat]

I was actually pushed over the edge by the WotC forums, since the whole Druid debacle drove me away from reading any rulings they made.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

The outright, willful refusal to address many of the issues brought up here (such as "The fighter is a fine class," "How much is a feat worth? Who knows!" and "No one will actually ever use fabricate, major creation, magic jar, astral spell or any of those other things anyway! Who cares!").

Maybe it's how the Craft rules remained stupid in 3.5.
Maybe it's how the trapbuilding rules were included in 3.5.
Maybe it's how Andy fixed the gate spell in 3.5.
Maybe it's how 3.5 just… even… exists.

[Brobdingnagian]

Hey! Multiclassing was a good idea!

...

Just the idea, though. The mechanics blow.

Also, the last post there made by my account was Judging Eagle. I've got to stop letting him use my computer.

[tzor]

1184130349[/unixtime]]Seems most people who post here have some sort of enduring beef with the offical WotC boards and possibly WotC in general.

I have a beef with most boards in general, or rather the posters on them. When it comes to "official" WotC statements I have two general problems; a lack of due dilligence and a lack of proper explantion.

D&D is a complex system. The problem with any "good" idea is that it has to be considered with the whole system and all of the implications have to be weighed. Consider 3E multiclassing. There are sigificant implications of 3E multiclassing which were never considered. In 1E non linear as well as non paralel advancement was standard. In 3E we can have a Level X something. That character can either be a Level X+1 something, or a Level X something / Level 1 something else and both will have the same power (CR) level. Therefore, it is required by the law of math and simple addition that the delta of power in any level must always be the same for all levels and all classes.

It becomes vital when you have a complex system used by people who think outside of the box. It becomes vital when you don't have the absolute final say on the interpertation even within your own company.

The key point is that this is a game. There really is no "official" campaign that uses the official rules (even the RPGA uses its own set of house rules) and so I can freely ignore the obvious manure when it comes from on high. My problem is when I see this same shit where I work. When people start changing the database workflow and this causes my triggers not to behave properly and this causes information that is important not to get propogated to paying customers I tend to get very pissed and that annoyance flows over into other similiar examples.

[cthulhu]

I don't really give a rats ass in a way. I recognize the 'unique' business direction of WoTC has some limitations, but I don't really have the ability to actually care.

I think Frank & K's rules are cool though, hence the intrest.

[Fwib]

When they make a ruling which makes the game not fun, and cannot be ignored, then that will be the final straw.

[edit] My group does quite a lot of ignoring...

[Interested2]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon.

You know what they say. Wizards of the Coast: Taking the Dungeon and Dragon out of Dungeons and Dragons.

I've been pretty fed up with Skip's ever-changing polymorph raping too. Seriously, we know polymorph is broken. Please don't try to fix it by doing a series of complicated and self-contradictory updates.

Also, the WotC forums are infested with idiots.


Really the main thing that's kept me playing D&D has been Frank and K's ruleset and my hopes that they'll take it to completion some day, thus enabling people to have a source of houserules that MAKE SENSE.

[Leress]

I haven't really had the final straw since I can just ignore any stupid rule that comes down the line or make up my own. I don't buy any books that have less than 50% of things that interest me in it.

[Maj]

3.5 and the endless churning garbage that WotC keeps publishing killed my continued interest in keeping up with D&D.

The never-ending waves of moronic statements and disregard for thoughtful consideration is why I stopped posting on WotC's forums.

Math and the need to keep spreadsheets detailing my character's ability to kick ass in combat - and pretty much only in combat - are what killed my desire to make characters in D&D.

Mix together and liberally sprinkle with the apathy brought about by the realization that no RPG will ever really be balanced because people don't all want to play the same exact thing, and... Voila! You have the highly cynical, overly critical dish that killed my desire to play D&D.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

For me, it wasn't so much a ruling, as I generally make my own anyway. What irritated me is the fact that they put out the complete books, then started putting out another set of complete books under different names.

That's what irritates me.

For the recor,d I don't see the problem with raging sneak attacks. Sneak attacks aren't "sneaky" at all. You basically stab someone in the nuts, there's not reason to think you can't stab someone in the nuts when you're really pissed off.

[MrWaeseL]

The release of the corebooks v2 (PHB 2, DMG 2). MM2 sucked as well but that was way back when I was young and forgiving.

[Username17]

For me it was a gradual process. I lost faith in the ability of WotC personel to answer questions with Skip Williams' rant about Sorcerers and Quicken Spell. After all, he said that Sorcerers couldn't quicken spells on the grounds that the Player's Handbook said that they couldn't (the 3rd edition PHB said nothing of the kind). I was of course well known on WotC as a proponant of the idea that Skip Williams "smoked crack" and that the actual written rules (the stupid RAW acronym had yet to be put into common use) were paramount as a basis for discussion and house rules.

But I didn't completely lose hope for the WotC forums as a way to discuss those written rules and their consequences until I got hit by a one-two punch: I was banned for discussing the consequences of the rules for polymorph, and they brought out 3.5 complete with its complete madness involving the shapechange rewrite. Once it became clear that the WotC board funneled things back to the designers in a manner that was specifically editted to prevent said designers from being confronted with actual problems I gave up on it altogether.

But it wasn't until the publication of Complete Divine that I really gave up on the idea that D&D rules as written actually meaning anything. That seems to have been the floodwater where they stopped even bothering to have the rules mean anything individually or in aggragate.

-Username17

[Crissa]

The last book I bought was Savage Species. That book made me cry.

Then 3.5 came out. I read it. I didn't like any of the combat resolution explainations - they were really grognard and stupidly unusuable to someone who didn't use a mat, and even then they were easily cheesed.

Then they came out with all the books with the old TSR names. With nothing new in them. And nothing 2.0 in them, either.

Now Dragon and Dungeon are gone. I kept up with those.

So they never printed anything I needed anymore...

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

When they republished natural spell as a core feat in 3.5 and didn't do anything to revise polymorph wild shape.

[Interested2]

Actually, I gotta amend my post to say:

When they issued errata for Complete Warrior making Invisible Blade useless and doing NOTHING to Hulking Hurler.

[erik]

I was most annoyed when 3.5 was published. Rather than making a 3.1 with a few needed changes, they altered almost everything in tiny ways that were mostly changes for the sake of forcing people to upgrade editions.

And even still this leads to me messing up due to stupid incongruities between editions. I'm sure there's more surprises lying in wait for me in 3.5's dark recesses. The untold random changes to spells et cetera make life exceptionally hard on me since I play campaigns in both 3.0 and 3.5 as most of my gaming friends never took to 3.5.

Hell, it took me until last year to finally buy a 3.5 PHB and spell compendium, and I had been playing living greyhawk for a couple years by then. I wouldn't have bought the PHB even, if not for the liklihood that I was going to be judging some LG games before gencon last year, and I needed it for reference when I got mixed up between 3.5 and 3.0 at a table.

My hatred for 3.5 runs deep. Almost as deep as my hatred for drow. If I weren't driven into playing living greyhawk due to a dearth in roleplaying amongst my friends for an extended period, I never would have bought a single D&D book once they changed editions.

[edit: and I should have known something was rotten in the state of denmark when the monster manual errata erroneously claimed that shocker lizards should have an int of 2. Shocker lizards are far too clever to be represented by a laughable animal intelligence. That 3.5 perpetuated this fallacious "erratum" by altering the shocker lizard stat block is unconscionable. Final straw indeed.]

[Fwib]

1184238325[/unixtime]]Actually, I gotta amend my post to say:

When they issued errata for Complete Warrior making Invisible Blade useless and doing NOTHING to Hulking Hurler.

The improvised weapon damage rule? Yeah. That's crazy-awesome-damage.

[Captain_Bleach]

Druids were also a problem for me, but it was the shapechanging and polymorph spells and their following fiascoes that drove me over the deep end.

[Captain_Bleach]

1184199203[/unixtime]]For me it was a gradual process. I lost faith in the ability of WotC personel to answer questions with Skip Williams' rant about Sorcerers and Quicken Spell. After all, he said that Sorcerers couldn't quicken spells on the grounds that the Player's Handbook said that they couldn't (the 3rd edition PHB said nothing of the kind). I was of course well known on WotC as a proponant of the idea that Skip Williams "smoked crack" and that the actual written rules (the stupid RAW acronym had yet to be put into common use) were paramount as a basis for discussion and house rules.

But I didn't completely lose hope for the WotC forums as a way to discuss those written rules and their consequences until I got hit by a one-two punch: I was banned for discussing the consequences of the rules for polymorph, and they brought out 3.5 complete with its complete madness involving the shapechange rewrite. Once it became clear that the WotC board funneled things back to the designers in a manner that was specifically editted to prevent said designers from being confronted with actual problems I gave up on it altogether.

But it wasn't until the publication of Complete Divine that I really gave up on the idea that D&D rules as written actually meaning anything. That seems to have been the floodwater where they stopped even bothering to have the rules mean anything individually or in aggragate.

-Username17

To the Bold: Why would they ban you for something like that?! If this is true, then please show me where you discussed it, as my curiosity is calling out.

[Username17]

To the Bold: Why would they ban you for something like that?! If this is true, then please show me where you discussed it, as my curiosity is calling out.

Seriously, the boards have been through two or three overhauls since my banning - I doubt that the thread still exists anywhere in their archives. I was told that my statement to Rich (the "Giant in the Playground") of:

Don't try to out "Frank-logic" me, you're not good enough.

...was rude beyond the scope of what could be allowed, though Rich Burlow did not think it so at the time. As it happened the specific discussion was about whether having your Constitution change without modifying your hit points was a reasonable or even enforceable rule. I held that the rules governing your Constitution modifier on page 6 and 8 of the Player's Handbook were actually quite clear and that your entire modifier was eiher added or not added and that you were instructed to recalculate your hit points every single time your Con changed. Thus, having your hit points not change when your Con did one time was basically meaningless as a character could simply change their con later on and then recalculate their hit points according to the complete value.

But of course it didn't actually have anything to do with that discussion. Skip Williams was leaving the company and I got banned as a going away present. Or possibly as a preemptive move by Andy Collins, I've never been sure.

And this isn't paranoia on my part either - Rich Redman had already told me that I would be banned if I kept making the "Skip vs. Frank" threads. And of course, they kept happening despite the fact that I never actually made any of them. The removal of my presence from the WotC boards by the design team was quite deliberate and thorough.

-Username17

[Captain_Bleach]

1186296404[/unixtime]]

To the Bold: Why would they ban you for something like that?! If this is true, then please show me where you discussed it, as my curiosity is calling out.

Seriously, the boards have been through two or three overhauls since my banning - I doubt that the thread still exists anywhere in their archives. I was told that my statement to Rich (the "Giant in the Playground") of:

Don't try to out "Frank-logic" me, you're not good enough.

...was rude beyond the scope of what could be allowed, though Rich Burlow did not think it so at the time. As it happened the specific discussion was about whether having your Constitution change without modifying your hit points was a reasonable or even enforceable rule. I held that the rules governing your Constitution modifier on page 6 and 8 of the Player's Handbook were actually quite clear and that your entire modifier was eiher added or not added and that you were instructed to recalculate your hit points every single time your Con changed. Thus, having your hit points not change when your Con did one time was basically meaningless as a character could simply change their con later on and then recalculate their hit points according to the complete value.

But of course it didn't actually have anything to do with that discussion. Skip Williams was leaving the company and I got banned as a going away present. Or possibly as a preemptive move by Andy Collins, I've never been sure.

And this isn't paranoia on my part either - Rich Redman had already told me that I would be banned if I kept making the "Skip vs. Frank" threads. And of course, they kept happening despite the fact that I never actually made any of them. The removal of my presence from the WotC boards by the design team was quite deliberate and thorough.

-Username17

How immature. Do they hate your guts or something?

P.S How does Andy Collins figure into this?

[Username17]

How immature. Do they hate your guts or something?

Uhh... yes. I was a very vocal proponent of game designer fallibility. I had a hard agenda of literal reading of the rules combined with a no-nonsense evaluation of probability and game effects combined with a vocal set of claims about how the game could be made better. Recall that I didn't just invent the "Cleric Archer", I coined the word.

Many of the quantified and named broken power loops (Spell Dancing, More Wishes, Balor Mining, Phoenix Duplication, Chain Binding) are named because I wrote pieces up on them and gave them names. If your stance is that the rules are already flawless, having me around was perhaps... not the best thing.

P.S How does Andy Collins figure into this?

Skip Williams liked to be treated as an infallible Pope of D&D. He rested upon his designer laurels rather hard and hand waved discussions of the quality and even the contents of the D&D rules. I did not, and often dismissively said of the "I said so" arguments he liked "Skip smokes crack, what the rules actually say... (fill in exact page citations with precise contents)"

This spawned an actual schism on the WotC boards. There were multiple threads that were hundreds of responses long based on the simple premise "Skip Williams said XXX, but Frank Trollman said YYY, which is right?" When 3.5 happened, Skip Williams left the company as a full time employee and Andy Collins became the lead designer and "The Sage". Before he made a single ruling I was banned from the boards and my name was forbidden to be spoken of. Making a "Frank vs. Anyone" thread was officially ruled to be a warnable offense and any such threads were automatically deleted.

-Username17