Just because a DM can implement any rule he wants to does not necessarily mean that he must, or should. He is only human, and when the rationale for him ruling the way he does is based more on gut feel and flawed reasoning (Oh my, ToB is broken because desert wind lets you do AoE fire damage. I will not allow it in my games. 
) rather than sound reasoning and extensive playtesting, it seems to make sense to want to use existing rules to try and rein in your DM, so to speak. It seems like the lesser of 2 evils, at least.
I have played with my fair share of DMs who have implemented their own rules which don't always make sense. Like limiting the number of prcs a PC may take, not realizing that the real power classes (ie: the spellcasters) did not need to prc, while the classes that did (ie: the melee ones) could not access the abilities they wanted to be viable. And the PC with the most classes/prcs turned out to be the one who was the best roleplayer, because his "frankenstein" of a build turned out to complement his unique backstory perfectly!
I personally feel that while a DM can certainly houserule whatever he wants to, the problem then comes when he attempts to change a rule he deems problematic because he is in authority (As a DM, he ought to have the final say in such matters, even if what he says is technically wrong, and may well do more harm than good), and not because he is an authority in the rules (eg: he is a rules guru who has spent a fair amount of time researching and debating the relevant material with his peers on the net, and his ruling is the result of sound logic backed by solid reasoning and evidenced with empirical playtesting).
And as a DM, I am not exempt from this, having made my fair share of ad-hoc rulings that seemed okay at 1st glance but turned out to be problematic upon closer inspection. Can you believed I tried to get mystic theurge banned for being too overpowered?
Which brings me back to the OP's point. I don't see errata is inherently a bad thing. It points out flaws in the dnd rulebooks, and then proceeds to fix them for me so that I do not have to. How is that a bad thing? A problematic aspect of the rules has been highlighted (better now than later in the game where it may disrupt play), and a plausible solution implemented (so that I do not need to agonize over how it should be resolved, because really, there is a reason why I am buying rulebooks to use rather than writing them). In the very least, even if I do not use it, it offers an alternate point of view, which may prompt me to re-evaluate my own understanding of the rules.
I have spent ~ 5+ years at the gleemax board debating/discussing 3e material, and find that my views on what is considered balanced/broken is constantly changing and evolving ever so often. And I am grateful for this. In fact, I feel that there is still so much to 3e that I can learn. Would I have made so much progress if I was boxed up in my own world, blithely ignoring all the errata or discussions going on around me?
I also did not respond to the poll because the option I wanted was not available. I don't use it blindly (because wotc has demonstrated that some of their errata do end up causing more harm than good, so each new ruling has to be carefully evaluated based on its own merit and less so simply because it is labelled errata), nor do I simply use what I like (because I feel that is a very poor criteria to use when judging what changes need/ought to be made, borders on sheer arrogance if I were to believe that I knew everything I needed to know with regards to running a balanced game). Likewise, the presence of errata suggests that something may be fundamentally flawed with the core mechanics, so even if I end up not using it, I cannot afford to ignore it.
So my relationship with errata is simply this - providing more fodder for discussion on forums such as this, so that I may improve my own understanding of the intricacies of the rules, all the better to make informed decisions in my games at the end of the day, which may or may not incorporate the existing errata.
Discuss.
) rather than sound reasoning and extensive playtesting, it seems to make sense to want to use existing rules to try and rein in your DM, so to speak. It seems like the lesser of 2 evils, at least.I have played with my fair share of DMs who have implemented their own rules which don't always make sense. Like limiting the number of prcs a PC may take, not realizing that the real power classes (ie: the spellcasters) did not need to prc, while the classes that did (ie: the melee ones) could not access the abilities they wanted to be viable. And the PC with the most classes/prcs turned out to be the one who was the best roleplayer, because his "frankenstein" of a build turned out to complement his unique backstory perfectly!
I personally feel that while a DM can certainly houserule whatever he wants to, the problem then comes when he attempts to change a rule he deems problematic because he is in authority (As a DM, he ought to have the final say in such matters, even if what he says is technically wrong, and may well do more harm than good), and not because he is an authority in the rules (eg: he is a rules guru who has spent a fair amount of time researching and debating the relevant material with his peers on the net, and his ruling is the result of sound logic backed by solid reasoning and evidenced with empirical playtesting).
And as a DM, I am not exempt from this, having made my fair share of ad-hoc rulings that seemed okay at 1st glance but turned out to be problematic upon closer inspection. Can you believed I tried to get mystic theurge banned for being too overpowered?
Which brings me back to the OP's point. I don't see errata is inherently a bad thing. It points out flaws in the dnd rulebooks, and then proceeds to fix them for me so that I do not have to. How is that a bad thing? A problematic aspect of the rules has been highlighted (better now than later in the game where it may disrupt play), and a plausible solution implemented (so that I do not need to agonize over how it should be resolved, because really, there is a reason why I am buying rulebooks to use rather than writing them). In the very least, even if I do not use it, it offers an alternate point of view, which may prompt me to re-evaluate my own understanding of the rules.
I have spent ~ 5+ years at the gleemax board debating/discussing 3e material, and find that my views on what is considered balanced/broken is constantly changing and evolving ever so often. And I am grateful for this. In fact, I feel that there is still so much to 3e that I can learn. Would I have made so much progress if I was boxed up in my own world, blithely ignoring all the errata or discussions going on around me?
I also did not respond to the poll because the option I wanted was not available. I don't use it blindly (because wotc has demonstrated that some of their errata do end up causing more harm than good, so each new ruling has to be carefully evaluated based on its own merit and less so simply because it is labelled errata), nor do I simply use what I like (because I feel that is a very poor criteria to use when judging what changes need/ought to be made, borders on sheer arrogance if I were to believe that I knew everything I needed to know with regards to running a balanced game). Likewise, the presence of errata suggests that something may be fundamentally flawed with the core mechanics, so even if I end up not using it, I cannot afford to ignore it.
So my relationship with errata is simply this - providing more fodder for discussion on forums such as this, so that I may improve my own understanding of the intricacies of the rules, all the better to make informed decisions in my games at the end of the day, which may or may not incorporate the existing errata.
Discuss.
Last edited:
