It was an attraction at first -- as was the idea that what little errata there was was being incorporated into future printings of the books -- but now that we're several years into the game, it is having the opposite effect on me. I *don't* want more errata now, and I *don't* like that there are now numerous versions of the core rules, all with slightly different wordings. That's not a headache I'm looking forward to having to deal with.And one of the great attractions of 5e is the lack of reams of errata that really need to be applied for the game to function correctly.
It was an attraction at first -- as was the idea that what little errata there was was being incorporated into future printings of the books -- but now that we're several years into the game, it is having the opposite effect on me. I *don't* want more errata now, and I *don't* like that there are now numerous versions of the core rules, all with slightly different wordings. That's not a headache I'm looking forward to having to deal with.
Question: if it’s that quick and easy then solve then why did they have to do anything?
LolI was wondering if someone could direct me to the page on the PHB or the DMG where you can buy a mastiff that will suicidally attack an ancient red dragon just because you bought it? I am pretty sure I can find the page that lets you buy a mastiff that will whimper and run away when it get in the fear aura, but all this talk about how you can just buy a dog and it is just as good as the AC makes me think I missed something.
This makes me more glad than ever that I'm not married to Crawford's interpretation of the rules. This is pretty darn far from what I consider to be errata. And one of the great attractions of 5e is the lack of reams of errata that really need to be applied for the game to function correctly.
Crawford's interpretations lost a great deal of credibility for me with his "roll 1d4 for all your magic missiles" ruling. His idea of what errata is versus what a revision is further pushes me away from giving him much credence. I view his 'rulings' more like 'advice from a seasoned pro, with whom you may or may not agree, and who has no say at your table.'