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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?
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="Lord_Blacksteel" data-source="post: 6283608" data-attributes="member: 53082"><p>I don't care about sides - I've run, played, and liked both games and lived with the errata for each. There were definitely different approaches though, and you seemed to favor one over the other. That's fine.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like a lot of Monte's stuff but that's one guy's opinion. I'm sure economics was a factor. I'm pretty sure a "rules cleanup" was a factor too because that's how it was presented. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Someone else has taken this up above and I'll let them run with that ball but when one format is "sentences" and the other is "paragraphs" then yes, a 3 or 4-fold increase in volume is not out of line. This isn't theoretical - I'm looking at the 4E errata file as I write this. For the PHB every one of the first 14 pages has at least one power fully re-presented in color and formatted just as it is in the book. Very few of them actually needed that kind of treatment - they could have replaced a few words here and there 3E-style and cut that , oh let's say 10-line entry down to one line easily. They also reprinted entire tables when all that was changed were a few numbers. Even the smaller entries are explained pretty well:</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Page 195: In the Benefit entry, delete “and hit with</em></p><p><em>an attack.” This update syncs up this text with the</em></p><p><em>revision to infernal wrath.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Benefit: When you use the infernal wrath power,</em></p><p><em>you can push the target 1 square in addition to any</em></p><p><em>damage you deal.</em></p><p></p><p>That's errata to delete 5 words. That extra context takes up space. It's a style and formatting issue, not an edition issue. As far as usability I prefer the 4E-style approach but I can see why you liked 3.0's. The "amount of errata" though is more than just a simple page count.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They may have and I hope there is less. A lot of 4E's errata was not correcting errors but monkeying around with the rules. I liked some and didn't like others, but hopefully in the next edition they do less of that at the official level and leave it up to individual DM's.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord_Blacksteel, post: 6283608, member: 53082"] I don't care about sides - I've run, played, and liked both games and lived with the errata for each. There were definitely different approaches though, and you seemed to favor one over the other. That's fine. I like a lot of Monte's stuff but that's one guy's opinion. I'm sure economics was a factor. I'm pretty sure a "rules cleanup" was a factor too because that's how it was presented. Someone else has taken this up above and I'll let them run with that ball but when one format is "sentences" and the other is "paragraphs" then yes, a 3 or 4-fold increase in volume is not out of line. This isn't theoretical - I'm looking at the 4E errata file as I write this. For the PHB every one of the first 14 pages has at least one power fully re-presented in color and formatted just as it is in the book. Very few of them actually needed that kind of treatment - they could have replaced a few words here and there 3E-style and cut that , oh let's say 10-line entry down to one line easily. They also reprinted entire tables when all that was changed were a few numbers. Even the smaller entries are explained pretty well: [I]Page 195: In the Benefit entry, delete “and hit with[/I] [I]an attack.” This update syncs up this text with the[/I] [I]revision to infernal wrath. [/I] [I]Benefit: When you use the infernal wrath power,[/I] [I]you can push the target 1 square in addition to any[/I] [I]damage you deal.[/I] That's errata to delete 5 words. That extra context takes up space. It's a style and formatting issue, not an edition issue. As far as usability I prefer the 4E-style approach but I can see why you liked 3.0's. The "amount of errata" though is more than just a simple page count. They may have and I hope there is less. A lot of 4E's errata was not correcting errors but monkeying around with the rules. I liked some and didn't like others, but hopefully in the next edition they do less of that at the official level and leave it up to individual DM's. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would a repeat of the large errata from the previous edition put you off of Next?
Top