Do you agree with WotC selling errata?

[Zaruthustran]

I offer an alternative: I wish WotC just gave serious attention to editing/playtesting.

I mean, look at Hypersmurf and other qualified rules lawyers*. WotC should let these guys spend a month with a product before release. The guys on the character optimizaton board would catch each and every error or inconsistency. They'd clean up "small" stuff like confusing damage with penalty, or misused bonus types, as well as gross errors and mechnical inconsistencies. Not to mention the notoriously error-filled "example characters".

To answer the question: I think WotC should offer free errata as a download, but I also think they should sell corrected/revised reprints of the same book. It's stupid to issue errata for a book, yet continue to publish brand-new books with the original, error-filled content.

-z

* I like rules lawyers. These guys strive for a deep understanding of the rules and improve the game for everyone by keeping things logical and consistent. I use the term as a compliment.

 

[jdrakeh]

PS - I voted no, because that's not how I see these books as being sold. If there were a simple errata document being sold, I would disagree with that. Since these books provided a different value, I have no problems with them as is.

Get out of my head!

 

[Treebore]

I will never pay for errata, I'll fix it myself first. I do not look at the books you use for examples as simply errata, though. I like having to only look spells up in the Spell Compendium rather than figure out/remember which book it is in. I don't know if I'll buy the other books, but I will definitely look at them.

 

[Mistwell]

Apparently only a few here understand where I am coming from in this. A lot of people here really don't and simply bash me for expressing a very solid opinion.

We can understand where you are coming from with your opinion and still justifiably bash you for it. I think it's a bit condescending to assume we don't understand where you are coming from simply because we disagree with your opinion. And that's what it is - we disagree with your opinion, and think it is not based on a solid bedrock of evidence and logic.

 

[Felix]

I didn't answer the poll, since I reject the premise upon which it's based.

Would I pay for errata?

Frequently updating their errata would inspire confidence in their business for me, but what goes into my games gets put through the strainer fairly thoroughly so given the choice between paying for errata or not having any, I'd rather not have any.

However,

That is not the case, as you can find errata on WotC's website free of charge.

Is the Spell Compendium errata?

Of course it's not errata. It's a book of spells from wholly different sources. I have the Complete series, but none of the Races or Environment books. I am not interested in the Races or Environment books, so spending money on all of them doesn't make sense when I can buy all of their spells and not deal with Illumians or the next race of Catfolk.

That's what you pay for when you buy the Spell Compendium. Spells without the other dead weight of the books they were originally printed in. And for that it was excellent. I will consider buying the Rules Compendium and any magic item compilation they may provide.

And saying, "I HAD to buy it" does not reflect well upon your ability to restrain your purchasing habit. If you didn't like it, return it. Or not buy it to begin with.

 

[Richards]

Splunge.

Johnathan

 

[Starglim]

What makes you think that anything printed in a supplement, such as Spell Compendium, could unilaterally become errata for the core books? Errata are in the errata. Anything else is merely a variant presented in a non-core book.

Now, if the official errata stated "Spell X is revised as printed in Supplement Y, go buy that book" then Wizards would be charging for errata and your complaint would be justified.

 

[Agamon]

Damn, I voted before I read the poll. I disagree with selling errata. Selling updated rulebooks, yeah, that's okay.

 

[3catcircus]

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.

If it isn't broken, them how come people always complain about each new book's broken feats, spells, classes?!?!

I think the hate and discontent revolves around two major issue -

1. The inability to properly proofread, properly calculate, or properly edit prodiucts. Sure a typo here or there isn't broken. What about the Herald PrC in Powers of Faerun? They completely forgot to include a whole table for it. Or the *many* incorrect stat blocks that John Cooper points out?

2. The trend for a while to reprint selected rules in multiple products. In some cases, the reprints contained *also* errata or revision that may or may not have been provided separately in the errata files. I shouldn't see, for example, 3 different FR products, each containing "Nybor's Gentle Reminder" spell, and each book having different versions of the spell, without also seeing the errata for the previous two books that brings all 3 sources into agreement.

In terms of free subscriptions.... Let's look at Microsoft Windows (95, 98, NT, XP, whatever). They push out updates and revisions via hotfix, patch, or service pack. I can get those for free. For the life of the software. I don't *need* to download them in most cases since the OS isn't "broken" and works without them. But, I am able to get them, if needed or wanted. I don't have to wait for them to release the next version of their software. If I *do* buy, for example, Vista, I'm reasonably assured that what they fixed in XP was made correct during Vista development. However, if I chose not to buy Vista, the free hotfix, patch or service pack is also available.

Basically - want to errata or revise a specific spell, feat, etc. Fine. Feel free to then sell it in a new product. But at least make the errata or revision available to those who choose not to buy the new product. Otherwise, you have people at the gaming table who may not all be using the same rules.

 

[Nifft]

I want to vote for Thog. Where's my Thog option?

-- N