Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4386797" data-attributes="member: 5889">Its not the quantity of the errata, its the quality.Of course most books are going to full of little editing errors. Change this word here, alter that sentence there. Or it clarifies a stance most people have figured out, like, &quot;in fact you cannot abuse feather fall in that manner&quot; etc. However, so far the errata of the books has been very large in magnitude. Reduce this DC by half, double this monsters hitpoints, double this monster's damage, reduce this challenge DC by 30%, etc.Those aren't little clarifications that a person who wasn't paying attention to the errata could easily ignore and carry on his business. These are fairly significant, game changing alterations.Now 3rd edition had a few of these as well...the most prominent in my opinion was the change on righteous might, whose bonuses got nearly cut in half. But so far, many of the 4e changes have been this significant in scope.I will say that I do like the errata that changes how damage types are split up and compared to resistances....with one exception. This makes the tieflings fire resistance even weaker, and its already considered one of the weaker races. It would have been nice improvement to them if their resistance had been the exception to the rule, &quot;When dealing with damage that is part fire and part another type, the tieflings fire resistance can always be used.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 4386797, member: 5889"] Its not the quantity of the errata, its the quality. Of course most books are going to full of little editing errors. Change this word here, alter that sentence there. Or it clarifies a stance most people have figured out, like, "in fact you cannot abuse feather fall in that manner" etc. However, so far the errata of the books has been very large in magnitude. Reduce this DC by half, double this monsters hitpoints, double this monster's damage, reduce this challenge DC by 30%, etc. Those aren't little clarifications that a person who wasn't paying attention to the errata could easily ignore and carry on his business. These are fairly significant, game changing alterations. Now 3rd edition had a few of these as well...the most prominent in my opinion was the change on righteous might, whose bonuses got nearly cut in half. But so far, many of the 4e changes have been this significant in scope. I will say that I do like the errata that changes how damage types are split up and compared to resistances....with one exception. This makes the tieflings fire resistance even weaker, and its already considered one of the weaker races. It would have been nice improvement to them if their resistance had been the exception to the rule, "When dealing with damage that is part fire and part another type, the tieflings fire resistance can always be used." [/QUOTE]

Verification