Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[Razz]

I thought WotC errata was available free on their website, no?

They used to. I think the last errata was Tome of Magic. But there's still a ton of books that need it.

It's the fact that they put errata in products instead of doing it for free on their website. I don't mind errata in products, fine, but don't tell customers that in order to get it they have to buy the book that contains the errata only.

I have seen dozens of books where they say "This was originally presented in (insert book name). This supercedes the feat/spell/magic item/etc. in that book)."

Then you have Spell Compendium with duplicated spells from all over WotC 3E products, including Dragon Magazine, with the errata mixed in. What if I didn't want the spells, just the errata for what I do have? I'd have to get the book for that. So I buy the book for that sole purpose, and I come to find out the book itself needs errata. So when will we get Spell Compendium errata? In another book that offers new material and errata you'll have to pay $30 to $40 for?

And now they're about to do it again with Rules Compendium. They hide it behind the highly anticipated "All rules in one book" gimmick to draw attention away from the customers. Political comment deleted.

Some people think I should play without errata. That I should keep it as is. Why? I'm paying money for a quality product, I should expect only a few errors that can be rectified, not dozens. And I shouldn't have to pay for them, either.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Haven't read the thread, so some of this might be duplication. Sorry.

---the Spell Compendium offering errata (which also need errata) on the hundreds of spells spread throughout the other books.

Then ... by like me and don't buy the book. Nobody forces you to buy it.

---The apparent errata for Magic Item Compendium such as the revised item creation rules

Then ... by like me and don't buy the book. Nobody forces you to buy it.

---The errata being presented in Rules Compendium

Then ... by like me and don't buy the book. Nobody forces you to buy it.

---The errata of material in books so obscure from the original source

Then ... by like me and don't buy the book. Nobody forces you to buy it.

I believe if you make a mistake on a product, I send it back and you fix it or send me a new one at no extra costs. In this case, WotC has the obligation to present errata for their material ASAP. When was the last time we saw errata for any of the books recently? It wasn't recent, that's for sure. They're still behind on some 3.0 books.

I disagree with this premise entirely. The books are not faulty. The books come bound, usually quite well. Most of the time the covers are intact without scratches, dents, and other blemishes. Most of the time all the pages are there and they are in the proper order. Most of the time there aren't blank pages. These are the types of things WotC are obligated to repair because the product is broken.

If you buy a book with faulty printed content, then shame on you for spending the money on it! Yes, I realize that is a bit snippy, but there is a reason that I preview a book on three seperate occasions before buying it. Normally, I only purchase books that I have already read cover to cover at least twice (usually three times over 3-4 sittings). WotC is only obligated if the product doesn't function .. I.E. the book doesn't open, it falls apart, the pages are missing, etc.

As for errata, if you know something is broken, then fix it! If you (or any DM) is smart enough to see that something is breaking their game, then I guarantee that they are also smart enough to fix it themselves! The dependency that some people place on the FAQ and errata often surprises me. Sure, if WotC issues errata it is easier, but I am not dependant upon the errata to fix something broken! I can do it myself.

I didn't want Spell Compendium. I have most of the sources those books are from. But I HAD to buy it in order to get my spells fixed. I shouldn't have to do that and neither should anyone else.

By saying "HAD" and capitalizing it, I am assuming there was no choice? I didn't buy the Spell Compendium. I have most of the sourcebooks, too. But I didn't see the point shelling out a bunch of money to get things I already had and deal with WotC's ideas for fixes. By the time the spell compendium came out I had already fixed the spells that I thought were broken and moved on. There was no "had" to buy it. There was an "option" to buy it, and I so declined.

Wonderful thing about life. We all can choose our actions.

 

[MerricB]

There's a difference between errata and revision.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I hate yes-or-no questions that are worded so that every answer reflects badly on your scapegoat.

It's like

"Do you still wear women's underwear at work? (o Yes o No)"

I have to agree whole-heartedly with this post. Beautiful job debunking the poll.

My own version of debunking the poll was to choose Yes.

Note: I don't think WotC should sell there errata. But, considering that I don't consider WotC guilty of selling their errata at all, I voted Yes to the fact that they should charge for the Spell COmpendium, Rules Compendium, etc. Those aren't (primarily) errata, so yes, they deserve to charge for the product.

 

[Nyaricus]

I'm abstaining from voting in your poll: it is a misleading question not cogent to the topic of your post.

I agree. No vote here.

 

[brehobit]

There's a difference between errata and revision.

True. But I have to believe there are a lot of things that need errata in the new books (there were in the old). WotC seems to have stopped issuing errata for the new books. As far as I can tell they haven't issued any errata for any books issued in the last 7-8 months (is that right?). It use to be you'd get errata soon after the book was released. Are things now error free? IME the tome of battle and the like need some clarification at the least. The PHB2 needs a bunch. Instead we seem to be getting errata pretending to be revision. I think that's a problem and we, as the customers, should be asking for it to be fixed.

Mark

 

[griff_goodbeard]

Last time I checked WotC made it abundantly clear that a large pecentage of spells in the SC would be reprints from various sources. Hell, they used it as a marketing point. Nobody hoodwinked you into buying SC.

 

[MerricB]

I agree they're getting behind on errata; but there isn't that much errata going on in the Spell Compendium - it's mostly revision. There's a big difference between the two.

Spells like "Summon Undead" in Libris Mortis needed errata; that it wasn't provided free reflects badly on Wizards. (It wasn't, was it?) However, cleaning up spell descriptions that worked as-is isn't errata. It's revision.

Cheers!

 

[wingsandsword]

I think his argument is with the fact that he bought something that was broken and they are selling him the fix, when they should be like any other company who has a broken product - if you sell something that is broken, then you have an obligation to fix it.

The thing here is, WotC hasn't sold anybody a "broken" product.

When we as gamers call a product "broken" we are meaning it might be not perfectly balanced, and might potentially influence gameplay, but the game itself isn't unplayable. It's not "broken" in the common sense of the word. If you buy a copy of Complete Something that it is unusable for gaming purposes because of manufacturer negligence or obvious flaw, and WotC then comes out with Complete Something II that reprints everything that was in there but this time correctly, then you'd have reason to complain.

Many thousands (or maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of people) play the game just fine without buying every new book that comes out from WotC. 3.0 was perfectly playable, and was played for years, but that didn't mean we were inherently entitled to a free copy of 3.5 since as a new product that amended rules that came before, 3.0 was unplayable or "broken" and WotC somehow defrauded us all by making us pay for new rules.

If WotC sold D&D books that couldn't be reasonably used to play a game of D&D, then there would be a case to complain about being sold products that contained rules changes to increase playability, otherwise, it's assuming that by purchasing a PHB, MM, and DMG you're getting a free subscription to whatever improvements or revisions WotC comes up with for the life of the game.

 

[MerricB]

Last time I checked WotC made it abundantly clear that a large pecentage of spells in the SC would be reprints from various sources. Hell, they used it as a marketing point. Nobody hoodwinked you into buying SC.

The percentage was... 100%

Cheers!