D&D 5E How should 5e handle rules problems?

[Tony Vargas]

In AD&D, they were generally just left there. In 3e, the game got one big revision. In 4e, it got a constant trickle of errata and the occasional 'feat tax.'

Should 5e publish frequent errata as problems are identified? Kludge problems with feat taxes and replacements that obviate existing inferior elements? Have a '5.5' to fix problems identified in 5.0? Or just leave it to the DMs to tweak anything that's a problem 'for them?'

 

[underfoot007ct]

In AD&D, they were generally just left there. In 3e, the game got one big revision. In 4e, it got a constant trickle of errata and the occasional 'feat tax.'

Should 5e publish frequent errata as problems are identified? Kludge problems with feat taxes and replacements that obviate existing inferior elements? Have a '5.5' to fix problems identified in 5.0? Or just leave it to the DMs to tweak anything that's a problem 'for them?'

I would rather have errata to fix problems as they are discovered, than to buy a 3E & 3.5 etc, or have half the DM's invent 1,000 similar house fixes. I hope that GOOD play-testing should keep errata to a minimum.

 

[billd91]

Major issues only, batch them up in a periodical (maybe quarterly) document. I find a lot of little changes that trickle in very annoying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In AD&D, they were generally just left there. In 3e, the game got one big revision. In 4e, it got a constant trickle of errata and the occasional 'feat tax.'

Should 5e publish frequent errata as problems are identified? Kludge problems with feat taxes and replacements that obviate existing inferior elements? Have a '5.5' to fix problems identified in 5.0? Or just leave it to the DMs to tweak anything that's a problem 'for them?'

First and foremost they should weed out as many issues before release as possible. Once it is out in print I an not a fan of frequent erratta (too much erratta and your print book becomes somewhat meaningless). The bar should be set high. Erratta isn't a chance for designers to keep adjusting and perfecting their design (doing that after release is just another form of designer's disease). Genuine errors, mistakes or major problems need erratta. Things that only a few people notice don't. There will always be loopholes in any system but constantly plugging them after release creates its own issues. Instead the designers should encourage GMs to enforce the spirit of the rules not just the letter. This is why older editions strongly discouraged min/maxing. We all knew it could be done, but one of the GMs roles was to discourage it.

 

[Savage Wombat]

One would hope we could get a book without massive pages of "this monster has the wrong number of feats" and "the attack bonus should be +12, not +11" corrections needed.

I think we should embrace the power of the internet to get us rules corrections in a timely fashion, but I agree that this should not be permission for the designers to "tweak" the rules like the big MMORPGs do. We're not in beta at this point, people.

One caveat - I absolutely hated the way WotC handled balance issues from 3E splatbooks and such. They'd happily errata bad numbers and the like, but if you asked them "did you really mean for the halfling outrider to have no BAB adjustment?" or "should the cleric really be allowed to use multiple nightsticks to make all of his spells persistent?" or other game-breaking issues, the silence would be deafening. They should feel able to fix glaring rules problems if they arise, usually with an explanation of "we meant it to work this way, not that way."

 

[underfoot007ct]

Major issues only, batch them up in a periodical (maybe quarterly) document. I find a lot of little changes that trickle in very annoying.

I really would be pleased to see only 3-4 erratas a year. Then Maybe 3-4 times a year, small rule tweaks & rule clarifications, which the edition could run with or without, if you were to choose to ignore.

 

[Sunseeker]

Errata should always be issued for problems that arise on a regular basis, or problems that cause a significant amount of trouble in only a few cases.

It's the digital age, and Wizards should release a digital resource along with 5e, assuming they do, errata updates are fairly painless. I mean it's impossible to update an already-printed book(until a later printing), so they should do what they can.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Errata should be collected and then included with each new printing alongside an online document listing the changes.

In five years, when the game has stabilized, release an Anniversary Edition of the core books with a fancy binding, ribbon bookmarks, new trade dress, and new art. Then no more errata. The core rules are finished.

 

[Li Shenron]

In AD&D, they were generally just left there. In 3e, the game got one big revision. In 4e, it got a constant trickle of errata and the occasional 'feat tax.'

Should 5e publish frequent errata as problems are identified? Kludge problems with feat taxes and replacements that obviate existing inferior elements? Have a '5.5' to fix problems identified in 5.0? Or just leave it to the DMs to tweak anything that's a problem 'for them?'

I can't vote...

My preference is to play the game as-is (except for erratas in the sense of misprinting). House rules can take care of everything.

OTOH it is totally understandable for many groups to see the game as an evolving ruleset, constantly improving, so I'm not going to advocate that WotC shouldn't do this if gamers want it. I just know that I will mostly ignore revisions and updates, or at least I won't buy them... I'd rather cherrypick from them, and use those as house rules.

I believe that most updates don't really make the game better but just throw candies at different gaming tables.

 

[delericho]

In AD&D, they were generally just left there. In 3e, the game got one big revision. In 4e, it got a constant trickle of errata and the occasional 'feat tax.'

None of these are ideal. Simply leaving the problems is obviously sub-optimal. And I for one found the constant patching of 4e to be a major distraction, and detracted a great deal from my enjoyment of the game for little benefit.

IMO, the 3.0 -> 3.5 model was the best of the three... but that doesn't mean I consider it a good thing, merely the best of a bad bunch. 3.5e certainly introduced its fair share of problems; many of the so-called 'improvements' were nothing of the sort.

(Oh, incidentally, 3e got at least two big revisions - the revision to the polymorph rules was pretty huge.)

Should 5e publish frequent errata as problems are identified? Kludge problems with feat taxes and replacements that obviate existing inferior elements? Have a '5.5' to fix problems identified in 5.0? Or just leave it to the DMs to tweak anything that's a problem 'for them?'

A combination.

For the most part, they should release new material initially through the DDI. Then, over a period of time they should be able to identify the issues and apply patches.

Once they're reasonably sure that they've fixed the issues, they should compile the new material into the print version, and then leave it alone. IMO, they need to have the discipline to refrain from revising material once it's in print. (True errata is a slightly different beast - that usually consists of correcting typos. But many of the 4e changes went way beyond simple errata, and were true revisions; it is those that were most objectionable.)

Where they find that some new option means that an older one is suddenly obselete or too powerful, they need to adopt the policy of fixing the new material. Again, once in print the older stuff should be considered 'locked'.

However... no matter how careful you are with getting material into print, and no matter how disciplined you are with revisions, you will eventually come to a point where something simply cannot go unchanged any longer. Perhaps some power has been written so that any expansion in that area becomes impossible without revising it, or perhaps some feat just needs removed from the game.

But that's fair enough, and is actually something they should embrace. So, a suitable time after the edition is first released, they should do "5e Revised" (or "5.5e", or 6e, or whatever), collecting the accumulated wisdom of the previous few years, applying those revisions they've wanted to make but been unable to do so (because the material was "locked"), and perhaps adding or removing some elements to the core. In effect, this would be the same notion as the 3.5e books, although I wouldn't advocate making changes of that scope again short of a full new edition.

 

[Lanefan]

If you find a problem at your table, fix it yourself at your table.

Having played Magic for many years I have long ago come to this conclusion: errata are pure evil and should not exist as they invalidate the material in my hands.

If I bring my books to a game at a convention I expect to play using those books as written unless the DM at that table over-rides them with house rules provided at that table for that table. At home I'll house rule the hell out of them if I have to - though I'd prefer not to have to.

Lanefan

 

[steeldragons]

Still have to "spread it around" before getting you again, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] .

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] as well.

But yes. I agree with both of their posts.

Errata is for legitimate errors and mistakes not "loopholes".

To answer the question posed in the thread, "5e should not have to 'handle' rules problems at all."

That's a big part of what the DM is in the game for.

Something's not "right" or contradictory? Fix it/make a ruling/decision/adjudication/whatever you want to call it in a way most fair for those involved, hopefully/presumably in the "spirit of the rules" as Bedrockgames points out, and move on.

--SD

 

[Hassassin]

Errata should be limited to spelling fixes and things where the text as written makes no sense - e.g. because they changed how something works at the last minute without noticing all things that used it.

Suggested optional rules for increasing balance and playability can be published either online or in supplements, but they shouldn't be called "errata" as if they were print corrections.

 

[Li Shenron]

There's something bothering me about continually revising the game like a software program...

If I understand right, OD&D got updated multiple times (there were the white box, the B/X, the BECMI...) but people still play all of them. If you have the B/X edition, you don't care what came before or after, you play the game and it works.

I'm not really aware of how it works in 4e, so probably here I'm just thinking of an exaggerated model, but the feeling I get is that if a game is in continual revision mode, it's much harder to understand how you should play it, unless you're either playing the first (printed) version or the last (current online) version. You're kind of forced to be up to date all the time with the rules, and the rules may be updated in waves but also by patches and individual fixes...

 

[mkill]

I want perfect books as much as anyone, but humans aren't perfect and D&D is written by humans. I'd rather have them say "look, we thought this would work, but it didn't so please try this" right away when a problem becomes apparent, rather than muddle along for years until a new edition. However, some 4E fixes were haphazard. Some were mistargeted, for example, fixing the problem of monster stats increasing a little to fast with feats, or changing a feat that's necessary for half a dozen classes because it's (arguably) overpowered for a class that doesn't need it.

Quarterly errata sounds about right. I don't want to change stuff in my campaign more frequently.

Also, Captain Obvious says that you can always ignore errata and fix things yourself (as long as you live outside of the dispatch area of the black vans of the WotC houserule prevention squad)

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I bring my books to a game at a convention I expect to play using those books as written unless the DM at that table over-rides them with house rules provided at that table for that table.

And what if the house-rules the DM at the table gives you just coincidentally are the game's official 'errata'? What's the difference? If the DM creates his own game corrections and house-rules that's okay... but if he uses the communally-accepted corrections and house-rules that WotC put out, that's 'pure evil'?

Sorry. I don't buy it.

 

[billd91]

And what if the house-rules the DM at the table gives you just coincidentally are the game's official 'errata'? What's the difference? If the DM creates his own game corrections and house-rules that's okay... but if he uses the communally-accepted corrections and house-rules that WotC put out, that's 'pure evil'?

Sorry. I don't buy it.

The difference? Usually scope. Most GMs bringing house rules to a convention game will keep them short and simple so that the new players at the table can know and understand them without too much loss of play time.

How many errata changes will there be? Could be dozens.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And what if the house-rules the DM at the table gives you just coincidentally are the game's official 'errata'? What's the difference? If the DM creates his own game corrections and house-rules that's okay... but if he uses the communally-accepted corrections and house-rules that WotC put out, that's 'pure evil'?

Sorry. I don't buy it.

"The evil" is official = must be used.

Anyone demanding something be used because its "official" is the problem.

 

[Andor]

Rule 0.

And if they typo rule 0, we lynch them.

 

[boredgremlin]

Errata should be collected and then included with each new printing alongside an online document listing the changes.

In five years, when the game has stabilized, release an Anniversary Edition of the core books with a fancy binding, ribbon bookmarks, new trade dress, and new art. Then no more errata. The core rules are finished.

Perfect way to handle it.