Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Wasn't there supposed to be a big errata push?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rowport" data-source="post: 3680025" data-attributes="member: 9729"><p>Well, first off, let me say again that it is refreshing to have a dialogue, even if you ultimately decide to go a different way. So, thanks for accepting the input!</p><p></p><p>That said, I do get the feeling that there are different 'levels' of errata, for lack of a better way to put it. If rules changes/corrections are at the high-end (which is what you seem to mean above), then stat block mathematics are at the low-end. Somewhere in between might be cited Tactics that rely on abilities that creature does not have (e.g. flying-based tactics where the warlocks do not have Fly). Given your earlier posts, I understand that you are saying that stat blocks on the whole are not game-critical, and therefore may be ignored in favor of the high-end (as I have grouped them) rules corrections. I generally agree with that, and I also can understand where those require more thought and discussion to avoid unintended negative consequences.</p><p></p><p>However, the stat block errors cannot realistically be expected to have 'spill-over' consequences; they are self-contained but in some cases can dramatically affect a given encounter. Moreover, the errors are generally not a judgement call "solution" so much as a demonstrable math-correction. I would call those the low-hanging fruit, easily addressed by consolidating community errata input. If they are readily available to you, are unlikely to have spill-over effects, but yet would positively affect game-play for published product, why not use those?</p><p></p><p>I just do not see the down side. While I might phrase it more diplomatically than Razz did, it does leave an impression of ignoring the community-- which is likely correct (at least in regard for stat block math)!</p><p></p><p></p><p>In the context of rules changes (the 'high-end' group), I agree with all of your points. I do not agree this is true of math errors, etc., but again, I think you are not addressing those types of errors in these statements, so fair enough. But, consider: if a very large percentage of your total errata are simple math corrections and such, might it not be advantagous to correct them, and thereby fix the *majority* of the errors instead of focusing on the *minority* of problems?</p><p></p><p></p><p>On this, I hear you loud and clear. Props to you for thinking about this on Saturday morning. OTOH, thinking in terms of my own job, if I had a community of volunteers willing to review and identify corrections that they would post for me to use rather than starting from scratch with my own edits, I sure as heck would figure out how to use that free brainpower. I mean, after all, I am *also* thinking about this on Saturday, and I do not get paid! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> Sure, not ever comment is always going to be correct, and many (most?) will not be diplomatically phrased, but those are a *lot* of eyes doing the reviewing.</p><p></p><p>Of course, a tighter effort on editing *before* publishing might even help more! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rowport, post: 3680025, member: 9729"] Well, first off, let me say again that it is refreshing to have a dialogue, even if you ultimately decide to go a different way. So, thanks for accepting the input! That said, I do get the feeling that there are different 'levels' of errata, for lack of a better way to put it. If rules changes/corrections are at the high-end (which is what you seem to mean above), then stat block mathematics are at the low-end. Somewhere in between might be cited Tactics that rely on abilities that creature does not have (e.g. flying-based tactics where the warlocks do not have Fly). Given your earlier posts, I understand that you are saying that stat blocks on the whole are not game-critical, and therefore may be ignored in favor of the high-end (as I have grouped them) rules corrections. I generally agree with that, and I also can understand where those require more thought and discussion to avoid unintended negative consequences. However, the stat block errors cannot realistically be expected to have 'spill-over' consequences; they are self-contained but in some cases can dramatically affect a given encounter. Moreover, the errors are generally not a judgement call "solution" so much as a demonstrable math-correction. I would call those the low-hanging fruit, easily addressed by consolidating community errata input. If they are readily available to you, are unlikely to have spill-over effects, but yet would positively affect game-play for published product, why not use those? I just do not see the down side. While I might phrase it more diplomatically than Razz did, it does leave an impression of ignoring the community-- which is likely correct (at least in regard for stat block math)! In the context of rules changes (the 'high-end' group), I agree with all of your points. I do not agree this is true of math errors, etc., but again, I think you are not addressing those types of errors in these statements, so fair enough. But, consider: if a very large percentage of your total errata are simple math corrections and such, might it not be advantagous to correct them, and thereby fix the *majority* of the errors instead of focusing on the *minority* of problems? On this, I hear you loud and clear. Props to you for thinking about this on Saturday morning. OTOH, thinking in terms of my own job, if I had a community of volunteers willing to review and identify corrections that they would post for me to use rather than starting from scratch with my own edits, I sure as heck would figure out how to use that free brainpower. I mean, after all, I am *also* thinking about this on Saturday, and I do not get paid! :D Sure, not ever comment is always going to be correct, and many (most?) will not be diplomatically phrased, but those are a *lot* of eyes doing the reviewing. Of course, a tighter effort on editing *before* publishing might even help more! :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Wasn't there supposed to be a big errata push?
Top