D&D 5E Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?

[DEFCON 1]

Don't care if there's errata or not.

Most errata is completely unnecessary to me, as it involves parts of the game or character options that I am not currently using... so it's no skin off my nose if someone took the time to write it down and include it in a link on the website. It's existence doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And of course... even the errata that by some chance *did* affect me wouldn't bother me... because I deal much, much more with DDI than I do the books. And as the errata is going to inserted into the DDI material, I won't even notice it or need to remember it.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't use errata anyway. In fact, I prefer systems where the DM feels empowered to change the rules and prevent what he sees as abuses in the specific experience of his group. I'm on the "instead of rules, rulings" side of the discussion. That said, I hope they are careful with the game sent to the printers. The fact that I'm willing to change the game to better suit my needs doesn't mean I'm fine with editors who can't do their work correctly. In this regard, WotC has screwed badly in the past.

 

[am181d]

There are different kinds of errata, right? There are fixes to typos, omissions, etc. which are inevitable but hopefully minimal, and then there errata that constitute deliberate rules changes. It's this second type of errata that I'd just as soon avoid.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Quite the reverse: A dev team that cares enough about their game and customers to put out regular errata is a selling point.

 

[Mistwell]

Quite the reverse: A dev team that cares enough about their game and customers to put out regular errata is a selling point.

When you use hardcopy books instead of an electronic version, it's really not.

 

[TarionzCousin]

At some point, perhaps three or four months after the initial release, I think they should release a Book of Errata Fantasy.






[sblock]Too soon?[/sblock]

 

[Thaumaturge]

I don't want a new version of magic missile a couple of months after release.

I want the rules to feel relatively stable.

I understand there will be mistakes. I understand some need to be fixed, but 4 versions of polymorph over the course of the edition (and similar extensive, regular 'errata') is too many.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

When you use hardcopy books instead of an electronic version, it's really not.

Says you. I've been using dead-tree books and hand-written character sheets since day one of 4e, and I stand by my opinion.

Regular errata demonstrates care for the game, and respect for the customers.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Says you. I've been using dead-tree books and hand-written character sheets since day one of 4e, and I stand by my opinion.

Regular errata demonstrates care for the game, and respect for the customers.

Shows a bit of laziness in editing if you ask me. From looking back at 4th edition's errata, it reminded me of those people who when writing a paragraph or even a 1 page story, they don't actually go back and read over what they wrote. They just write it, only looking at the next word and never looking back.

If I see too much errata as a customer, I begin to lose a bit of faith in their skills if it takes that much errata to get it right.

 

[Aloïsius]

Errata's compilation should be put in the second printing of the book, and/or the ".5" edition that will follow Next three years later. Having a gaming revolution every three years is too much, as well as having a huge binder of errata along with your book.