Errata is most often correction of errors in the original.
D&D 5E Have you moved on yet? Has Wizard's handled this properly?
Errata is most often correction of errors in the original.
Tony Vargas
Legend
If something is promptly fixed, there's no longer anything wrong with it. No, errata is not evidence that there's something wrong, it's evidence that there's less wrong than there was before the errata. Conversely, absence of errata doesn't mean there's nothing wrong - it could just mean there's no commitment to fixing what's wrong.
But, there /is/ something wrong with 4e. It's dead. Can't get much more wrong than that.
That I can take as a partial refutation...at least at this time of day.
However, I'm still unwilling to say 4Ed was without flaws: grind, for instance, is a flaw. While later-published critters didn't have this problem, not using the earlier critters is not a real solution. The problem exists, there's just a kludge to get around it.
Magical potions of healing that cannot heal you because you are out of HSes? Flaw.
Bland feats that got introduced to fix math flaws instead of merely correcting the math removes flavorful options form PC builds. Flaw.
There is a power- Crown of Stars- that I had to get clarified from WotC. It took them 3 emails to finalize their response to me, and they said it would be corrected when reprinted in a future product. This was shortly before the announcement of 5th, and AFAIK, it has not been used in another product or otherwise officially corrected. (The version that showed up in the DDI when I did my power swap recently is unchanged.)
I'm not picking on 4Ed- like I said, you can find fault with any edition of the game.
Last edited:
I'm actually getting more excited about 5e as time goes on. Pathfinder is better then 3.5 but I had moved on from D&D before 4e came out and gone to true 20 and warhammer FRPG.
I dont know why for sure but the feel of the game so far is hitting most of the same sweet spots for me as those games, except for the gritty lethality of warhammer but thats an easy houserule.
I dont know why for sure but the feel of the game so far is hitting most of the same sweet spots for me as those games, except for the gritty lethality of warhammer but thats an easy houserule.
Caused by a variety of roots, (e.g. poor copyediting) and not necessarily design flaw.
Seriously though, my reply to your original statement was granted only because you saw the need to snark
The better answer is the one you were given by Tony Vargas; good show on his part.
No, I wasn't being snarky. I just have never seen a RPG- or any other man-made system- without flaw, so I could not let the statement stand as it was...and I did so without singling out 4Ed.
Will_bunny
First Post
Anyone else get the 2nd Ed. vibe of having to argue with the DM over every little action, when playing Next, or is it just me? I really want this to be the uniting thing for roleplaying, but it just seems really vague, crunch-wise...
Skanderbeg
First Post
Quite the opposite here. I've had more arguments and disagreements in the previous editions I have played of DnD (2nd-4th) then thus far in Next. Granted I've only played a couple of games of Next at this point but am running one weekly campaign and playing in one tri-weekly campaign. So far so good. Character creation is streamlined, fast, and easy and combats have been the same. The bulk of our games have been roleplaying. In each 6 hour session combats lasted 15 minutes 45 minutes total. I'm a happy camper!
Do people say that anymore? Happy camper? I feel like I just became my dad. Like I'm a were-dad or something.
Similar Threads
