D&D 5E Non Listed PHB changes

[Hriston]

Yes it's a good thing the edit was made... but why isn't that edit *in the freaking errata*?! If it hadn't come up in a discussion here, they would have never known...

It seems the corrections that have made it into the errata document actually constitute a change in meaning. This one only prevents a misinterpretation of a passage that otherwise means exactly what it says.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems the corrections that have made it into the errata document actually constitute a change in meaning. This one only prevents a misinterpretation of a passage that otherwise means exactly what it says.

Is there any particular reason why you resist acknowledging that it might have been a good idea to include the change in the errata?

I mean, it appears you post only to "explain" why it wasn't. Why do that, when the simplest reason is "they couldn't be bothered"?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[jasper]

Yep, but sometimes the cleaning can lead to rule change. A coma, a single word, a semi-colon can make quite a difference. I just have been rebuted in a rule I was sure to know, that we had discussed a lot and agreed upon in my area. Wizard never answered our question so we thought we were alright and yet, the wording changed. That will change quite a lot of things in my games and in many others.

Any change of wording should be written in the errata. I think it's time for me to buy a third PBH...

Word up! People like this need to be place in a coma and a have their colon exam. insert evil grin.

 

[Hriston]

Is there any particular reason why you resist acknowledging that it might have been a good idea to include the change in the errata?

No, that would be alright, although I think it would be even better to track all changes in a separate document to avoid gumming up the errata document with changes like this one that don't change the meaning of the text. The errata document lists corrections to wording the meaning of which was unintended because they made an error the first time they wrote it. The OA text was fine as written in that it expressed the intended meaning faultlessly, except that it was vulnerable to misinterpretation and so was deemed to require "idiot-proofing" by the removal of the more "difficult" part of the text, which was also conveniently redundant.

I mean, it appears you post only to "explain" why it wasn't. Why do that, when the simplest reason is "they couldn't be bothered"?

I disagree. To expect every single change to the text to appear in the errata document is a misunderstanding of its purpose.

 

[CapnZapp]

I disagree. To expect every single change to the text to appear in the errata document is a misunderstanding of its purpose.

I am not expecting "every single change" to be recorded.

This thread is about a specific change that at least the OP thought significant.

Does your continued resistance against simple agreement mean you dismiss the OP's concerns?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Does anyone have access to copies of the errata document from updates previous to the current one for the 6th printing? I was looking at it again and it just seems shorter than the ones they put out for the 2nd and 3rd printings. So either I am remembering wrong or they dropped older errata as they added new errata.

 

[Ancalagon]

I am not expecting "every single change" to be recorded.

This thread is about a specific change that at least the OP thought significant.

Does your continued resistance against simple agreement mean you dismiss the OP's concerns?

There are at least 2 changes that I know of, the other one may be even more drastic as it clarified that the warlock ability was one way.

The goal of the thread is to discover if anyone has been tracking these changes...

But yes, the goal is not to argue over the exact semantics of those changes, thank you

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hriston]

Does your continued resistance against simple agreement mean you dismiss the OP's concerns?

No, in fact I've directly addressed the OP's concerns, at least in reference to this one change, several times now. The errata document just isn't the best place to record such a change, which is a direct answer to the question posed by the OP. Whether the change is significant or not has no bearing on whether it's recorded in the errata document. Whether it changes the actual meaning does.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Does anyone have access to copies of the errata document from updates previous to the current one for the 6th printing? I was looking at it again and it just seems shorter than the ones they put out for the 2nd and 3rd printings. So either I am remembering wrong or they dropped older errata as they added new errata.

Quoting myself here because I did track down an earlier errata document and it was shorter than the current one and nothing was left off from the older to the newer, so I guess I was just remembering wrong.