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

[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.