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

[Mistwell]

This is some mad strawmanning and goalpost moving if I ever saw it. The errata is only no good because you can't print it out and glue it to your book? Really?

You said earlier you cannot comprehend the argument people are making against the quantity of errata. And now I think you're failing again to understand the objection. I will try to clarify, since I assume your intent is to understand.

There cannot be goalpost moving when I describe one reason why I object to a format of errata - there's no goal to begin with, it's just my opinion. More importantly, I was not responding to anyone else, so impossible to strawman someone. Finally, let's talk about strawmanning for a moment, since you did respond to my opinion - when I say "one reason something bothers me is X", that's not me saying "It's only good if you can do X".

There are benefits and drawbacks to printing out and pasting errata into a book. I said I think one INTENT of doing it in that format was to service that common thing people were doing, and I think it didn't service that very well after a while because it was often so long, compared to the original text, that you could no longer practically do that anymore.

At no time did I say errata is only useful if you can do that with that. So stop it. Stop telling people they're saying something they're not. You've done it a lot in this thread. Repeatedly when people stressed "quantity of errata" you twisted it to say "any errata". And when people objected to it, you accused them of edition warring and hating 4e. I loved 4e - the errata did not stop me from loving 4e. But I found THE QUANTITY OF ERRATA (not the mere existence of any errata) to be A PROBLEM (not the end all and be all of the edition, just an issue). It was a problem I could work with, but it was an ongoing and growing nuisance over time. It was too much for me.

Now is that clear? Have I made it utterly clear it's about quantity, and also not a deal breaker? Is it now obvious I don't hate 4e and am not saying this because of some hidden motive to edition war?

 

[OmegaMan950]

Are the changes to problematic rules in Pathfinder material made in later print runs or future splat books? Either way it's asking for the player to pay more money rather than download a free (but poorly presented) pdf. It kind of reminds me of running with 1st and 2nd Edition DMs with binders full of houserules.

We're also forgetting that Paizo has had a lot longer to experiment with the d20 system then WOTC has with 4E, even when considering new concepts (eg. the Gunslinger can be traced to 3.0 DMG firearm rules with inspiration from d20 Modern material) it's not a fair comparison.

With regards to the 'errata' semantics: We aren't talking about typos or incorrect referencing, but it wouldn't hurt if both were taken care of - rulings and 'see page XX' clean ups are just as handy.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I like the way WOTC does it's errata documents for 4e. It lets me see the whole change, rather than, "In the third sentence on page Y, change the word (This word) to (That word)." It's clearer and easier to read.

Then again, I'm weird because I like the white space and easier to read 4e books as well. I went back recently and took a look at my 3.5 PHB to read it. Gack. No thanks. That is not an easy to read manual.

 

[sheadunne]

Then again, I'm weird because I like the white space and easier to read 4e books as well. I went back recently and took a look at my 3.5 PHB to read it. Gack. No thanks. That is not an easy to read manual.

3e was horrible in the readability department. Small text and horrible lined background image.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I have to admit, I like the way WOTC does it's errata documents for 4e. It lets me see the whole change, rather than, "In the third sentence on page Y, change the word (This word) to (That word)." It's clearer and easier to read.

Then again, I'm weird because I like the white space and easier to read 4e books as well. I went back recently and took a look at my 3.5 PHB to read it. Gack. No thanks. That is not an easy to read manual.

I'm not sure I disagree, but I prefer errata to have an explanation of what they changed and why, not just a repaired text. If I'm reading the corrected paragraph, I don't want to have to puzzle out what they changed against my memory of the original.

 

[D'karr]

I'm not sure I disagree, but I prefer errata to have an explanation of what they changed and why, not just a repaired text. If I'm reading the corrected paragraph, I don't want to have to puzzle out what they changed against my memory of the original.

The 4e rules updates do all of the above, and even some more. In most clarifications they even provide design notes of why the rule was changed. If there are changes to a table they spell out what the changes are and even include a duplicate of the table if you want to change the table wholecloth (cut and paste). I can find very little fault with their approach and actually prefer it.

It is amazing sometimes to see the amount of "hatred" towards WotC when one actually takes a look at what they actually provide, and the amount of work they went to ensuring the changes were properly understood.

 

[Mistwell]

The 4e rules updates do all of the above, and even some more. In most clarifications they even provide design notes of why the rule was changed. If there are changes to a table they spell out what the changes are and even include a duplicate of the table if you want to change the table wholecloth (cut and paste). I can find very little fault with their approach and actually prefer it.

It is amazing sometimes to see the amount of "hatred" towards WotC when one actually takes a look at what they actually provide, and the amount of work they went to ensuring the changes were properly understood.

It's not hatred to simply say you don't like how something was done.

There's an awful lot of hyperbole being tossed about in this thread. It's OK to say "I think WOTC overdid it on the errata to the detriment of my game" without that being equated with "I hate WOTC" or "I hate 4e".

 

[billd91]

Are the changes to problematic rules in Pathfinder material made in later print runs or future splat books? Either way it's asking for the player to pay more money rather than download a free (but poorly presented) pdf. It kind of reminds me of running with 1st and 2nd Edition DMs with binders full of houserules.

Well, a little research would have answered your question. Not only does Paizo incorporate fixes into later printings, they do provide downloadable documents so nobody has to buy the new books to get them. And, if you bought the PDF version, you can download updated versions (they even email you when they update the files) for free.

So how about enough with the imprecations that there's an agenda or double-standard from fellow posters or some lack of customer service from Paizo?

 

[OmegaMan950]

Well, a little research would have answered your question. Not only does Paizo incorporate fixes into later printings, they do provide downloadable documents so nobody has to buy the new books to get them. And, if you bought the PDF version, you can download updated versions (they even email you when they update the files) for free.

You're right, I should have checked the Paizo website. My post was in response to Sunshadow21's post (I guess I forgot to quote it) and contained no intention of snark whatsoever.

So how about enough with the imprecations that there's an agenda or double-standard from fellow posters or some lack of customer service from Paizo?

What I don't understand is why WOTC is getting slammed for 'large errata' when Paizo are doing the same thing, in the same context of the title of this thread? Paizo's customer service is fine, I've bought their products and will continue to do so, but the errata is still there. There are problems with the way WOTC has handled D&D, but errata is not one of them.

 

[billd91]

What I don't understand is why WOTC is getting slammed for 'large errata' when Paizo are doing the same thing, in the same context of the title of this thread? Paizo's customer service is fine, I've bought their products and will continue to do so, but the errata is still there. There are problems with the way WOTC has handled D&D, but errata is not one of them.

I think part of it stems from failed expectations. When 4e hit the public. We had been told "the math was fixed". 4e fans bombarded the messageboards with "the math is fixed". But they had to fix it again. At least three times in various ways (I say at least three because I know of three separate fixes to the math, there may have been more but I ultimately don't care because the edition had already lost me as a player).

For what it's worth, I think there's been too much errata ever since 3e came out and that, of course, includes 4e. I can understand fixes in text for typos that change the meaning of information. Unearthed Arcana had a fair amount of that in its tables. MegaTraveller had a lot as well. But when you're rejiggering powers, spells, and rules, what a lot of errata tells me is that the game is over-designed. It doesn't have the tolerance it should have. It should be OK if there's a little slip in the gears. And that's why I consider constant errata as a negative for the system.