Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="3catcircus" data-source="post: 3320637" data-attributes="member: 16077">I take issue with the idea that you seem to think that "completely unusable for it's intended purpose" and "broken" as used by people on these boards are mutually exclusive.  In many cases, it is a direct cause-effect relationship.You've completely missed my point - if I'm using Spell Compendium and everyone else at the table *isn't*, then that presents a problem, regardless of which version of a spell is more playable.  it doesn't matter if the original source is usable.  It is called Configuration Management. If WotC chooses not to provide the errata/revisions so that people can update the original source, then I guess I'd have no problem with the player or DM who has Spell Compendium to make photocopies (or OCR it) for the spells in question so that everyone else can update their books.If you want to revise something and not release the information, only releasing errata for free - fine - but don't make those changes *during the current* version of the game.  Wait until the next version (4.0, 5.0, whatever you want to call the next version.)I think that that is the *key* problem with WotC - the need to revise something (so many things) mid-stream - because of poor playtesting, poor editing, or poor R&D.</blockquote>