Updated errata will be released within the next month!

[SkidAce]

Not really.
The existing errata just corrects the languages. Places where the rules aren’t clear. But the rules don’t change.

Does this mean that Crawford's fix to the ranger will be to clarify what they meant (correct languages) all along?

Kinda hard for me to believe that. If people have been misunderstanding "what they meant" all this time, they shoulda explained it already.

 

[Jester David]

Does this mean that Crawford's fix to the ranger will be to clarify what they meant (correct languages) all along?

Kinda hard for me to believe that. If people have been misunderstanding "what they meant" all this time, they shoulda explained it already.

*shrug*
We'll find out.
From his comments on the stream, I'd assume he was doing some tweaking. But that seems to be contradicted by his statements that they're not changing their approach to errata and that he wants to get more feedback on what the audience wants or sees as problematic.

Whatever is in there, I expect it to be fairly minor. And mostly clarifying the existing rules rather than adding or revising rules.

 

[5ekyu]

*shrug*
We'll find out.
From his comments on the stream, I'd assume he was doing some tweaking. But that seems to be contradicted by his statements that they're not changing their approach to errata and that he wants to get more feedback on what the audience wants or sees as problematic.

Whatever is in there, I expect it to be fairly minor. And mostly clarifying the existing rules rather than adding or revising rules.

i never get my hopes up because honestly why worry about it but... from some tweets and discussion like the one on DDb and others in various places i have seen - they are going out of their way to pimp "ranger changes we think you will like" so if the ranger ends up being nothing really addressing any actual issue - that will strike me as poorly handled.

i do not expect a major re-write but i would expect something of note - just by their obvious efforts to tease that eratta and ranger together.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Both 3e and 4e started turning errata into patches. And it wasn’t well received.
Once they started down that road it was hard to stop, rapidly invalidating the physical books and causing problems and disconnects between those who have the latest errata and those who don’t.

Why would they do that again? People didn’t like it the first two times. Why do it a third time?

If they hadn’t done that, we wouldn’t have gotten the Warlock overhaul.

Worth it.

 

[Jester David]

If they hadn’t done that, we wouldn’t have gotten the Warlock overhaul.

Worth it.

Warlock overhaul?
You mean changing the 3e warlock's eldritch blast from a spell of 1/2 level to 1st-level? Did that make a lot of difference? I still remember people saying the warlock didn't work as written and the designer (Rich Baker IIRC) saying it didn't work as intended...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Warlock overhaul?
You mean changing the 3e warlock's eldritch blast from a spell of 1/2 level to 1st-level? Did that make a lot of difference? I still remember people saying the warlock didn't work as written and the designer (Rich Baker IIRC) saying it didn't work as intended...

4e Warlock. I don’t particularly care about 3/.5, tbh. It’s pretty handily my least favorite edition, and IMO everything it did right is done even better in 4e and/or 5e.

The 4e Warlock got a complete math and playability overhaul, with changes to something like 80% of its powers, and it’s core damage dealing mechanic. It was fun before the patch, but a lot of issues with playability of specific pacts and play styles were fixed.

I wish they’d done the same for the Assassin, since it wouldn’t even have changed anything in a book...but oh well.

 

[Jester David]

4e Warlock. I don’t particularly care about 3/.5, tbh. It’s pretty handily my least favorite edition, and IMO everything it did right is done even better in 4e and/or 5e.

The 4e Warlock got a complete math and playability overhaul, with changes to something like 80% of its powers, and it’s core damage dealing mechanic. It was fun before the patch, but a lot of issues with playability of specific pacts and play styles were fixed.

I wish they’d done the same for the Assassin, since it wouldn’t even have changed anything in a book...but oh well.

Amusingly, I ran 4e for a couple years and had two warlocks at my table and had no idea. Which is probably a good argument against the errata/patches. After a while, you have no idea what has and has not changed, and there might be a huge disconnect between someone using the errata and someone not. Imagine someone showing up at an AL table with a character pre-overhaul... :/

This made me look closer at the 4e errata document: you can't even use it in your game. It's really more of a change log. (Likely because reprinting all the revisions would make it too long.) Without the revised numbers in the defunct character builder, this is of no use.

 

[pukunui]

4e Warlock. I don’t particularly care about 3/.5, tbh. It’s pretty handily my least favorite edition, and IMO everything it did right is done even better in 4e and/or 5e.

As an aside, I reckon the 3e warlock had some of the most flavourful abilities. There was one that let you detach your hand so it could crawl around on its own, and another that let you pluck out your eye so it could fly through the air and let you see around corners and things. They seem to have abandoned that kind of creepiness for both the 4e and 5e versions.

 

[Mistwell]

Not really.
The existing errata just corrects the languages. Places where the rules aren’t clear. But the rules don’t change.

What is being asked for is an actual change. Not just a clarification, but a revision. A change to rebalance certain elements. Some pet peeve.
But that’s a slippery slope. Because once you decide to start changing, it’s hard to stop. There’s always another problem or fix required. Because the game is never perfect.
That’s how you get 3e’s 3 pages plus all the polymorph discuss, or 4e’s 27 pages, or Pathfinder’s 9 pages. To say nothing of 3.5e or Essntials.

I disagree. I think it's one reasonable existing interpretation of the rules, right now pre-errata, to say once you've issued a command to your animal companion, it will keep on doing that same thing until you issue another command to it. So if you order it to attack in round 1, and don't order it to do anything else in round 2, it will continue to attack in round 2 without the use of the Ranger's action. Clarifying that's how it should work is not any different than the other errata we've had before this.

Plus it will REALLY piss off [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] if they call it a clarification rather than a revision like that. Which is a huge bonus! *






*I kid I kid! I like CapNZapp. I just like to poke at him from time to time.

 

[Jester David]

I disagree. I think it's one reasonable existing interpretation of the rules, right now pre-errata, to say once you've issued a command to your animal companion, it will keep on doing that same thing until you issue another command to it. So if you order it to attack in round 1, and don't order it to do anything else in round 2, it will continue to attack in round 2 without the use of the Ranger's action. Clarifying that's how it should work is not any different than the other errata we've had before this.

I agree. That's the kind of small errata that would work just fine. It "fixes" things without rewriting rules and is arguably something that could have been done all along.
Hopefully they'll also add a line that gives the animal companion extra Hit Dice each level too.

I don't want errata as patches and disguised rule updates. I don't want errata to become a stealth 5.5 Edition. But small tweaks that clarify what was intended seem alright. After all, if people can't understand what you said, rephrasing is better than having to explain yourself continually. (See contagion for an example.)

Plus it will REALLY piss off [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] if they call it a clarification rather than a revision like that. Which is a huge bonus! *
*I kid I kid! I like CapNZapp. I just like to poke at him from time to time.

I'll take your word for it. I got tired of the negativity months back and muted him, and haven't looked back...