Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[Razz]

Apparently, WotC has this nerve with selling us errata. For example:

---the Spell Compendium offering errata (which also need errata) on the hundreds of spells spread throughout the other books.

---The apparent errata for Magic Item Compendium such as the revised item creation rules

---The errata being presented in Rules Compendium

---The errata of material in books so obscure from the original source

I believe if you make a mistake on a product, I send it back and you fix it or send me a new one at no extra costs. In this case, WotC has the obligation to present errata for their material ASAP. When was the last time we saw errata for any of the books recently? It wasn't recent, that's for sure. They're still behind on some 3.0 books.

So who agrees with having to pay for errata? If so, then why? I'm curious.

I didn't want Spell Compendium. I have most of the sources those books are from. But I HAD to buy it in order to get my spells fixed. I shouldn't have to do that and neither should anyone else.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Razz, seriously this rant is getting old. You didn't HAVE to buy anything. You could have played your D&D games perfectly well with the rules as they were originally published. The errata printed in future books is a convenience, not a forced purchase. It seems to me that your decision to actually purchase the errata is more of an obsessive/compulsive need to have the rules exactly as they are supposed to be played according to some game developers rather than a practical need to enjoy the game.

PS - I voted no, because that's not how I see these books as being sold. If there were a simple errata document being sold, I would disagree with that. Since these books provided a different value, I have no problems with them as is.

 

[zibeck]

The value of a book like Spell Compendium is that all your spells are in 1 book, not the revised ruling of said spells. That said, if you were going to have a Spell Compendium, it only makes sense to incorporate the errata.

 

[hexgrid]

I disagree with the way the question is framed, because the products in question are not errata, even if they contain updated information.

 

[MarkAHart]

I disagree with the way the question is framed, because the products in question are not errata, even if they contain updated information.

Well said...

A revision is substantively different from errata.

 

[Storm Raven]

I believe if you make a mistake on a product, I send it back and you fix it or send me a new one at no extra costs.

Really? From where does this entitlement stem? If the book has a mistake in your opinion, it has a mistake. They are under no obligation to fix it to please you.

In this case, WotC has the obligation to present errata for their material ASAP.

Really? Where do you get this idea? Errata for books is a very recent phenomenon, and if given away, is essentially the company being nice by giving you an extra bonus that you didn't pay for. But the Spell Compendium isn't errata, it is a compilation. Some spells were changed, sure, but the point of the book is to have all the spells in one place, not issue errata. The fact that it contains errata is a nice bonus. Treat it as such.

Your sense of entitlement is overwhelming, and off-putting. I would prefer that WotC sell their errata, then they would have a reason to double check it.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I would disagree if they were charging a few bucks for a one or two page PDF that was nothing but errata for a couple of books.

I don't think that is what you are asking though.

I don't see the Spell Compendium or the Rules Compendium or "updated reprints" or anything similar as "selling errata". In fact, I would have a problem if they reprinted this stuff and didn't update it with the corrected versions.

 

[Henry]

Check with previous editions on the speed of Errata, and you'll find WotC lightning-quick in relation to the glacial or non-existant pace of TSR. I don't think errata was issued for more than one or two books in the 2E days, and 1E might have had ONE (Unearthed Arcana).

That said, I agree in a couple of circumstances -- the power revisions in Complete Psionic and the spells dramatically changed in Spell compendium (such as the one that bolsters the amount of undead you can turn) should really have been issued. But I don't believe every single thing that was revised needs to be released as free on the internet. And even if they never do, it registers on a minor level of annoyance, if that. After all, they HAVE released errata on a regular basis (just most recently last year with the "alternate form" business) but I don't see it as a big issue.

 

[Odhanan]

Razz, seriously this rant is getting old. You didn't HAVE to buy anything. You could have played your D&D games perfectly well with the rules as they were originally published. The errata printed in future books is a convenience, not a forced purchase. It seems to me that your decision to actually purchase the errata is more of an obsessive/compulsive need to have the rules exactly as they are supposed to be played according to some game developers rather than a practical need to enjoy the game.

PS - I voted no, because that's not how I see these books as being sold. If there were a simple errata document being sold, I would disagree with that. Since these books provided a different value, I have no problems with them as is.

I agree with everything there.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I hate yes-or-no questions that are worded so that every answer reflects badly on your scapegoat.

It's like

"Do you still wear women's underwear at work? (o Yes o No)"