News on upcoming Wizards errata

[Vrecknidj]

One part of me wants one of those editing jobs, because I, like many of you, am so sure I could get it right. (Though I, like many of you, am not really so sure...)

Another part of me wouldn't want such a job because I suspect that the process by which editing takes place is multifaceted and disjointed, and just because something leaves my desk without mistakes doesn't mean it makes it into a book that way.

I've done plenty of editing and look forward to doing more. And, I feel for the four insanely busy people.

Dave

 

[Tharen the Damned]

snip...and just because something leaves my desk without mistakes doesn't mean it makes it into a book that way.

And that is the reason for my rant above. Is it so hard to make sure a correct stat block is a correct stat block is a correct stat block...?

Before a book goes to the printer a dedicated person/staff/designer/developer/whomever should have a look at the stat blocks and make sure they are ok.

This is like selling a software program and only the users spot glaring security errors...

 

[Henry]

For me, the biggest errata mistakes they've made is in some of their past instances of including errata in printed product, but not including those same changes in their free errata, as in the classic Complete Psionic example of the Astral Construct and Energy Missile spells. If a product has errors, I'm cool with it - but if they're major corrections that you can only get with purchase of another product, that's the only time I've ever taken issue with WotC over it.

 

[Deset Gled]

For me, the biggest errata mistakes they've made is in some of their past instances of including errata in printed product, but not including those same changes in their free errata, as in the classic Complete Psionic example of the Astral Construct and Energy Missile spells.

Actually, I'm a big believer that the re-prints are actually the errors in this case. Pesky Primary Source Rule, and all that.