• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

How should 5e deal with any rules problems that emerge?

  • It shouldn't. If you have a problem, fix it.

    Votes: 15 15.2%
  • It shouldn't. 'Problems' can be addressed in 6e.

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • New material should be adjusted to make up for any problems.

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Problems should be collected and fixed in one big revision.

    Votes: 12 12.1%
  • Errata should be issued, rarely, for major problems only.

    Votes: 37 37.4%
  • Errata should be issued whenever needed to fix problems.

    Votes: 31 31.3%

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
"The evil" is official = must be used.

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

According to what Lanefan set up in his point... the convention's DM is presenting a sheet of house-rules that MUST be used in the game he is running.

And there is no difference between a DM presenting a sheet of house rules that his game is using because he made up a bunch of things himself... versus the DM presenting a sheet of house rules that his game is using because he downloaded the official D&D errata.

Sure, bill91 is right in that the amount of changes on that sheet might be greater if taken straight from the D&D errata... but odds-are... 95% of those changes will never be used, read or see the light of day (and quite possibly already edited out of the house-rule document if the convention DM actually presented one to players.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dausuul

Legend
Here's how I would handle it:

  • Clarifications (things that do not change the meaning of the rules, just make them clearer): Apply these as found and update each print run of the books to reflect them.
  • Minor Issues (balance tweaks, exotic corner cases, etc.): Errata released in batches online, monthly or quarterly, with release numbers and detailed lists of what changes were made in each. DMs and players using the electronic tools can select which release they are using. The print books should not be updated for these, except when the Rules Compendium is released (see below). The electronic tools should have a little hyperlink next to each errataed section; the hyperlink takes you to the appropriate update list, so you can see how it differs from what's in print.
  • Major Issues (grossly overpowered mechanics, systems that simply don't work in fundamental ways): These should be issued alongside the monthly "minor errata batches." Each one should be a separate update with a checkbox, checked by default, so users can decide for each one whether to apply it or not. Update each print run of the books to include these. When doing so, put a note in bold face to indicate the change, so as to minimize confusion at the table.
I would also like to have a 5E Rules Compendium, say 3-4 years into 5E's run, where all the accumulated errata get added to the print books. Emphasize that this includes only errata; it's not a "half edition" like 3.5.
 
Last edited:

tlantl

First Post
If after a lengthy public play test there are any discrepancies or any other issues there's a bigger problem than how they are going to address it.

If the issues that pop up are personal preference issues then the individual or group needs to look at it.

For me the rules as written are going to be the rules I use. I'm not going to look up, down load, or amend anything I buy with external rules changes. I would expect better from a company that is printing books for me to use in their game. If the stuff they produce outside of the core rules needs those rules to be adjusted then those additions need to be tossed into the trash bin.
 

BobTheNob

First Post
Im for errata asap. Its a pain to keep track of, but when you get someone turning up to table with a cooky-cutter, game breaking DPS machine with nothing to contribute to the game except an illogical mix of capabilities designed purely to spoil the experience for everyone except the offending player, and then have them turn around and insist this is acceptable behavior because its in the rules...

Nah, I want breakages sealed as fast as they are identified
 

marleykat

First Post
Do fixes rarely and maybe put out something bundled up in Dragon every once in while. I hated the "trickle" model and it was not a small factor in making me give up 4e entirely.
 

Dannager

First Post
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 "pure evil" bit is a pretty clear indication that there's a sort of reactionary mentality at work here. I don't think you're going to make much headway against it, regardless of the strength of your argument.
 

Dannager

First Post
"The evil" is official = must be used.

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

Lanefan essentially demanded that the core rulebook be used as-is because it's official.

Errata (and rule updates, for that matter) is a net good. It improves the game. Use it, or don't. But stop griping about it. Incorporating errata is not the nightmare that a lot of people are trying to make it out to be. It's relatively easy, and we know it's relatively easy, so the people complaining about it just seem whiny.

Hey - you can make yourself clear without the insults. Enough with the "whiny," please. -- Piratecat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dannager

First Post
If after a lengthy public play test there are any discrepancies or any other issues there's a bigger problem than how they are going to address it.

If the issues that pop up are personal preference issues then the individual or group needs to look at it.

For me the rules as written are going to be the rules I use. I'm not going to look up, down load, or amend anything I buy with external rules changes. I would expect better from a company that is printing books for me to use in their game. If the stuff they produce outside of the core rules needs those rules to be adjusted then those additions need to be tossed into the trash bin.

This is a really, really unreasonable opinion.
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
*If you have a free, comprehensive online SRD*, than you can update it constantly and everyone can have access to it. This works pretty well for PF.

Of course, doing major revisions and putting updates in new supplements are viable options, but in the 21st century I think it's reasonable to expect frequent updates.

Frequent updates should (in theory) also allow more interaction between the official game and its fans. If problems are fixed fast, you have happy fans.
 

Dannager

First Post
*If you have a free, comprehensive online SRD*, than you can update it constantly and everyone can have access to it. This works pretty well for PF.

The Compendium does the same thing, though it is behind a paywall. That said, the argument that a DDI subscription is something every D&D DM ought to have (and probably every player, too) is a pretty strong one.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top