D&D 5E Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?

ForeverSlayer

Banned

Banned

• Mar 28, 2014

• #1

One of the many many things that bothered me about 4th edition was the large amounts of errata that kept coming out. Now I understand that things need to be corrected, but it seemed like the devs at the time proof read nothing and just let the community find the errors. I'm starting to look forward to D&D Next, but if we have a repeat of the last edition then it could really put me off. I play with a group who likes to play 'by the book' as much as possible and I don't want to have to have a separate binder sitting beside my PHB containing mountains of errata. I would rather they take their time and really really think about the long term effects of what certain rules may be capable of.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Li Shenron

Legend

• Mar 28, 2014

• #2

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: it may not prevent me to jump on 5e wagon, but it will at least make me wait before buying the core books, in hope for a second print with much less errata.

Does it matter? Yes, because I have a precedent: when 3.5 came out, I wanted to buy it but purposefully waited in order to avoid possible errata (don't even know how many there really were). In the meantime, I switched to 3.5 and run the game only using the SRD. After a few months of playing the game, I realized 3.0 was superior for my tastes, switched back, and never bought any 3.5 book. Had I felt safe about the books being errata-free, WotC would have got at least 100e more from me.

I still don't fully get why can't we have errata-free core books... Supplements have less errata, even tho they have less people working on them, less time before publishing, and less playtest. Scientific/mathematic books have thousands of formulas, and many of them manage to be virtually errata-free.

 

Obryn

Hero

• Mar 28, 2014

• #3

On the one hand, errata is annoying and, in an ideal world, shouldn't be necessary.

On the other hand, it made 4e a dramatically better game, once implemented, and I'd rather have a strong rule set than one with deep flaws.

So if 5e has mistakes and unintended exploits when published, I'd rather they fix them than leave them be.

 

M

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer

• Mar 28, 2014

• #4

No. I love errata. Well, love is probably too strong a world. Would I prefer a perfect system that never requires it? For sure. Do I think that's possible? No. I think there are only two kinds of rules systems: Those with large amounts of errata and those with large problems in their rules(that they likely refuse to acknowledge as problems).

I'd want D&D Next to have Errata because it means they are listening to the fans and know where the problems lie and are looking for solutions to them.

 

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf

• Mar 28, 2014

• #5

I haven't expected Wizards to cross-playtest anything they publish following the initial release of an edition since 2004. More or less immediately following any initial release, everything is going to shatter like a crystal chandelier hitting pavement. The presence or absence of errata to the core rules is almost irrelevant in the face of that kind of disregard for rules consistency and balance.

As it always does, it will fall to dungeon masters to determine what rules work and do not work for their campaigns and adjust accordingly. If Wizards surprises me and actually holds the demons of glut and creep at bay in D&D Next, so much the better, but, well... fool me three times, shame on both of us.

 

variant

Adventurer

• Mar 28, 2014

• #6

They need to crowd source their proof reading among the people that are in their closed beta test in addition of the normal quality control that Wizards of the Coast uses.

 

Last edited: Mar 28, 2014

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012

• Mar 28, 2014

• #7

No, but ideally i'd prefer if 5E doesn't need as much errata as 4E did.

 

Halivar

First Post

• Mar 28, 2014

• #8

What is the functional difference between options #2 and #3?

 

GMforPowergamers

Legend

• Mar 28, 2014

• #9

I rather erratA to mistakes

 

Ahnehnois

First Post

• Mar 28, 2014

• #10

I'm more concerned with the RAI than the RAW.