variant
Adventurer
Most of what is posted there aren't errors. The actual errors listed there are very minor.
D&D 5E Kind of confused about the staggered releases.
Most of what is posted there aren't errors. The actual errors listed there are very minor.
MortalPlague
Adventurer
Is there a compiled list of typos, errors, and omissions anywhere? I don't really want to browse through that whole thread to find them. At a glance, most of them seem to be mis-named spell references and the like.
doctorhook
Legend
You're not wrong; I feel a bit dumber for having read three pages of that. Most of the thread seems to be about rules clarifications; the handful of actual errors discussed over there certainly don't reflect any kind of major proofreading failure like the OP here suggests.
...Now that map of the Sword Coast in HotDQ, that thing needed a better proofreader! (Actually, maybe just a different cartographer in general.)
I haven't counted them all, but there seems to be about 8 errors listed on the first page of that link.
316 pages - 20% pictures is about 254 pages of actual text with 8 errors. If there is one minor error every 30+ pages, that's not too bad, especially considering the font size of 5E.
I found a couple of minor errors while reading and blew them off. I've probably read at least 60% of the book skimming around. I did not read everything carefully. I keep promising myself to read it cover to cover (like I promised on earlier editions and failed), but I started to fall asleep after the first 6 pages and had to cut to the chase.
Even if 50 eventual minor (and a few major) errors are found, that's still only one every 5 pages. White noise compared to some earlier editions of the game.
316 pages - 20% pictures is about 254 pages of actual text with 8 errors. If there is one minor error every 30+ pages, that's not too bad, especially considering the font size of 5E.
I found a couple of minor errors while reading and blew them off. I've probably read at least 60% of the book skimming around. I did not read everything carefully. I keep promising myself to read it cover to cover (like I promised on earlier editions and failed), but I started to fall asleep after the first 6 pages and had to cut to the chase.
Even if 50 eventual minor (and a few major) errors are found, that's still only one every 5 pages. White noise compared to some earlier editions of the game.
Quickleaf
Legend
That is the truth. [MENTION=63245]Evenglare[/MENTION] you seem to be exaggerating.
I read that whole thread, and found mostly spell list minor errors - Destructive Smite named, Thunderwave referenced in the warlock entry but not on it's spell list, that sort of thing.
Along with several glaring examples of players not grasping the rules. For example:
zoroaster100
First Post
I think the reason is that they knew they couldn't finish all three books with proper care by GenCon 2014, so they came up with this plan. And it's fine by me. If the alternative was waiting for all three books until December 2014, I'm much happier getting to start now even though I won't have 100% support in terms of optional rules and more monsters until a bit later. If someone really doesn't want to start until WOTC could have everything ready, you can always just wait until its all ready in December. I really don't think they could have had them all ready now. I don't think they had all three books ready and simply decided to release one at a time and hold the Dm's Guide back a couple of months on a whim or for some marketing reason.
the Jester
Legend
That's not errata, that's a list of people's opinions of what needs to be clarified, with a few mistakes thrown in here and there.
It isn't errata until WotC issues it. Until then, there might be a few mistakes in the text, but the errata is the actual fix.
From what I saw, there are a few errors in the text of the PH. Only a couple seem to be at all meaningful.
Ravenheart87
Explorer
Staggered realease? AD&D1e had a year or more between two core books. We've been waiting for the HackMaster GMG way more than a year. And if you think that there is such a large number of errors, then check out 4e...
evilbob
Explorer
I am very happy to see that 5.0 has FAR, FAR fewer editing goofs, typos, and generally horrid examples of copy-editing than the sad 4.0 books. Those were amazingly bad, and for more information on them, see page XX.
But I disagree that asking for zero is asking too much. If an attentive player can find a few mistakes in one readthrough, why do they still exist?
But I disagree that asking for zero is asking too much. If an attentive player can find a few mistakes in one readthrough, why do they still exist?
Agamon
Adventurer
Yeah, a mind scrub is always needed after visiting the WotC boards. There's nothing of great import from what I can see. I would have been completely surprised if there were no errors.
As for clarifications, I think some people might be expecting the game to do their thinking for them.
