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

[Jeff Carlsen]

All of the points above seem valid.

We wan't them to quickly release any errata that the game needs, but we don't want it to need any errata. Although, we each have different thresholds for when a change is needed or desirable.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

A certain amount of errata is expected and that is not the issue here. That is why I added the word "large" to the poll question. Spelling errors happen all the time so that's no big deal. What get's me are the obvious mistakes that you wouldn't think would get past even Stevie Wonder. Broken combos and poor wording are two that come to mind.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

I use both hard copy and digital... and I love errata... so in that case you would be wrong...

A certain amount of errata is expected and that is not the issue here. That is why I added the word "large" to the poll question. Spelling errors happen all the time so that's no big deal. What get's me are the obvious mistakes that you wouldn't think would get past even Stevie Wonder. Broken combos and poor wording are two that come to mind.

I think 100% reverse... Spelling errors and word misuse should be almost no existent from a finished book, but the broken combos are what they can't always find and need to be fixed...

Example: in 4e the paladin had a power that was meant to make them a holy champion that challenged one of the enemies. Then someone said "Hey if I use it and run away it works better" well if all your playtesters think paladins wouldn't do that... then they may never have noticed it... until someone did it. then once that 1 in a thousand player got it, and posted it then everyone saw it for what it was... it needed to be fixed.

 

[Mistwell]

I use both hard copy and digital... and I love errata... so in that case you would be wrong...

Yes and if you use hardcopy AND a giraffe AND digital, I'd be wrong. Good thing I said if you use only hardcopy, right?

Was the giraffe the key point I was making, or the use of hardcopy and not digital? Probably the giraffe.

I loved 4e. Really, I did. But I tried to keep up with the errata in the hardcopy book, and it eventually became impossible. I saw someone try to keep up and post their notes here at EnWorld for people to print, in tiny print formatted so you could glue it into your hardcopy book. They gave up eventually too, after a huge amount of work, because they started to have pages that folded open multiple pages, all glued for one page of the book. It was seriously ridiculous amounts of errata eventually, and impossible to keep in an easily used manner in hardcopy.

So, you either ignored errata (which apparently some did) or you didn't like the amount of errata (apparently many), or you used digital and so didn't care, or you just dealt with the mess of the errata print-outs with your hardcopy. But I don't know anyone who actually LIKED actively doing the later...not even the guy so devoted to it he tried to share his work on it here.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes and if you use hardcopy AND a giraffe AND digital, I'd be wrong. Good thing I said if you use only hardcopy, right?

Was the giraffe the key point I was making, or the use of hardcopy and not digital? Probably the giraffe.

I play at a FLGS with no acess to digital, and even have friends who didn't have DDI... YOU ARE WRONG THAT IT ISNT A SELLING POINT....

it may not be TO YOU, but stop trying to say everyone who used the books dislike errata

So, you either ignored errata (which apparently some did) or you didn't like the amount of errata (apparently many), or you used digital and so didn't care, or you just dealt with the mess of the errata print-outs with your hardcopy. But I don't know anyone who actually LIKED actively doing the later...not even the guy so devoted to it he tried to share his work on it here.

what we did was use the book, and look up the errata when leveling up... then each only needed to look up once every few games and only the books they used... worked fine for us...


as an example, my swordmage didn't care what errata effects fighters or wizards... and the Psion in the same game didn't care about swordmage ones...

 

[Balesir]

Yes and if you use hardcopy AND a giraffe AND digital, I'd be wrong.

No, you're wrong because even electronic errata can be printed out.

A design team that cares enough to issue errata if it is needed is most definitely a selling point, regardless whether I use hardcopy or electronic forms of the rules.

Of course, a rule set that did not need any errata at all would be an even bigger selling point - but in the case of such a complex and interacting rule set as D&D I am sceptical as to whether that is really feasible. Unintended interactions are too easy to create and too hard to find if tested by less than an extremely large group of testers.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

what we did was use the book, and look up the errata when leveling up... then each only needed to look up once every few games and only the books they used... worked fine for us...

Reading some of the responses here, I find myself thinking the same thing. "Did nobody think to print out the errata docs relevant to their class, and check it once per level-up? Or just keep it on their computer?" Granted, DMs have a little more to deal with, what with Stealth errata and such, but I never found it to be a problem.

 

[Jacob Marley]

It is a selling point to some and a turnoff to others. For me and mine it is a turnoff. We generally play campaigns that last multiple years; having character abilities work consistently is important to us. Errata, especially if it is constantly being tweaked (as was the case with Polymorph in 3.x), is just too disruptive to our campaigns.

 

[D'karr]

It is a selling point to some and a turnoff to others. For me and mine it is a turnoff. We generally play campaigns that last multiple years; having character abilities work consistently is important to us. Errata, especially if it is constantly being tweaked (as was the case with Polymorph in 3.x), is just too disruptive to our campaigns.

Then pick one version that works for you and keep it, ignore the rest.

Personally I prefer for the game to be fixed, through errata even, if the rules are not working as intended. But if the rules don't bother me I don't bother with errata.

3e had a lot of errata, but then it stopped, and there were quite a bit of things still left that really needed some errata. 4e had a lot of errata, but the devs kept tweaking all along. I preferred that to the alternative. If I didn't care about the errata I didn't have to use any or even all of it. To this day the majority of errata never really affected our group.

 

[Obryn]

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.

I think with 4e, the problem was several-fold. (1) they rushed the project completion for whatever internal reasons, releasing it probably 6 months to a year early, and (2) they were stuck in a half-state where they didn't pull all the triggers they should have and ended up hanging onto 3e-style holdovers (see: monster templates). And (3) they really didn't understand how their own game worked.

Most of the bugs and issues that slipped through were rather obvious, in hindsight. But it was what it was, and like I said, post-errata it ended up a damn good game.

Given a choice between "bugs" and "no bugs" I'd choose "no bugs" every time, though with any sufficiently complex system it's close to impossible. But if there's bugs and I'm given a choice between "errata" and "la la la no bugs here everything is fine!" I'll pick errata. The rule set itself should be functional and without huge & obvious exploits and errors; if it takes errata to get there, fine.