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

[ForeverSlayer]

The main problem is having a closed beta test as your final testing. I know they want to keep the game a secret until release but I would rather have more eyes looking at the rules so we would have less errata.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Yep. Actual misprints yes fix by all means. Rules changes simply because adequate playtesting wasn't done- no thanks.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder how many pages of errata of AdnD we would have gotten had TSR actually bothered to print any. Note I am aware that the did print a very small amount in Dragon a couple of times.

What is an ADDICT doc if not errata?

 

[delericho]

Not as such - by the time errata come out I'll either have the books or be not interested, so either way my decision will be done. I'm not intending to buy many if any supplements anyway, so that's also a factor.

But a repeat of the extensive errata (as seen in both 3.5e and 4e) will be a very distinct strike against 6e.

(It's also worth noting that I make a big distinction between errata and revisions. I'm fine with a reasonable amount of errata, though would consider a lot of errata to indicate a sloppy product. But I'm much less forgiving of revisions being made; IMO, the time for those is at the half-edition rerelease that I'm sure will be coming.)

 

[delericho]

I wonder how many pages of errata of AdnD we would have gotten had TSR actually bothered to print any. Note I am aware that the did print a very small amount in Dragon a couple of times.

As I understand it, TSR reprinted the books far more often than WotC has done (was it 17 printings in all for the 1st Ed PHB). My guess is they felt no great need for separate errata as a result - if they really bothered you, just pick up a new copy.

It's also worth noting, though I'm not sure just how important it really is, that the errata in 1st/2nd Ed were just the correction of mistakes in the printings, rather than rules revisions (as frequently was the case with 3.5e and 4e). One could argue that that was because the 1st/2nd Ed rules were just that much less robust than the later editions... but I don't think I dare comment.

 

[n00bdragon]

I can't even comprehend the point of view of someone who does not want errata. All the editions before 4e are choc-a-bloc with typographical errors, poorly worded rules text, and more than a few game bustingly broken things that you just had to learn to read, interpret, and ignore respectively. 4e as printed is actually far better in this regard than any previous edition, but the designers did you one better and issued clarifications and fixes for the things that remained. 95% of the errata for 4e doesn't actually change the functionality of the game. It's just clarifications, the addition of keywords where they are obviously missing, or fixing things so they work as they are clearly intended to do. You just notice it more because instead of pretending all the errors don't exist and leaving the product as-is they actually put out a regular document highlighting the errors and fixing them. Do you so soon forget that 3.5 was essentially one big patch that made you re-buy all your books?

It'd be lovely if game designers could issue material with zero errors, perfect clarity, and with all the broken things caught in playtesting before it's released. Unfortunately we live in real life where human beings write this stuff on a deadline and then playtest with a small group compared to the overall population of consumers for a limited period of time. You will never get a game without errors or things that couldn't possibly be written better. Better that they own up to their mistakes and fix them rather than pretending they didn't happen and leaving DMs to house rule and hand waive everything on their own.

 

[Mistwell]

I can't even comprehend the point of view of someone who does not want errata.

53% if respondents to this poll either are put off by it or ignore it. And you can't even comprehend the viewpoint of the majority? I mean, not disagree with it, but can't comprehend it, really?

Maybe try harder? Pretty useful for critical thinking to start by understanding the people you disagree with. Hard to dispute what they say if you don't even comprehend it to begin with.

I don't think anyone really minds a page or two. But I think it's a quantity issue, and I think people have gone to some lengths to try and explain why that quantity issue becomes a problem over time. It's worth trying to understand that point of view, even if you disagree with it.

 

[delericho]

I can't even comprehend the point of view of someone who does not want errata.

I suspect you'd find that very few people don't want any errata at all. But a great many people look at the sheer volume of errata in both 4e and 3.5e and say "too much". A few unfortunate mistakes is a fact of life; a huge listing of errors and revisions indicates a sloppy, low-quality product.

And this is especially true if WotC do indeed intend to ask us for $50 for the PHB. That's an absolutely fine, entirely valid price point for a high-quality product. It's much less reasonable to ask for an above-inflation price increase (over 3e, 3.5e, and 4e) and not deliver a higher-quality produce in return.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I can't even comprehend the point of view of someone who does not want errata. All the editions before 4e are choc-a-bloc with typographical errors, poorly worded rules text, and more than a few game bustingly broken things that you just had to learn to read, interpret, and ignore respectively. 4e as printed is actually far better in this regard than any previous edition, but the designers did you one better and issued clarifications and fixes for the things that remained. 95% of the errata for 4e doesn't actually change the functionality of the game. It's just clarifications, the addition of keywords where they are obviously missing, or fixing things so they work as they are clearly intended to do. You just notice it more because instead of pretending all the errors don't exist and leaving the product as-is they actually put out a regular document highlighting the errors and fixing them. Do you so soon forget that 3.5 was essentially one big patch that made you re-buy all your books?

It'd be lovely if game designers could issue material with zero errors, perfect clarity, and with all the broken things caught in playtesting before it's released. Unfortunately we live in real life where human beings write this stuff on a deadline and then playtest with a small group compared to the overall population of consumers for a limited period of time. You will never get a game without errors or things that couldn't possibly be written better. Better that they own up to their mistakes and fix them rather than pretending they didn't happen and leaving DMs to house rule and hand waive everything on their own.

Once again, for the 3rd time I think, nobody here is realistically expecting an errata free game. Several other posters have already said this but I want to say it again; large amounts of errata are the problem. Nobody is against actually fixing things, what I am against is things a 5 year old child could see, is being missed.

 

[RevTurkey]

the less misprints/mistakes in the book the better.

rule revisions and changes? Hopefully not needed.

we'll find out soon enough...