Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 7959397" data-attributes="member: 5143">Here’s the deal. I was at GenCon shortly after Jeremy Crawford was announced as The Sage. He was wandering the D&D gaming room so I went over and talked to him about his philosophy on errata. He said he didn’t like errata because it fractured the player base. Some people didn’t have internet access or didn’t bother checking for errata so it created two different games: the one with errata and the one without and players wouldn’t know which one they were sitting down for. He didn’t want 4th edition style errata where every 6 months they were making 30 changes to various spells and abilities.I got concerned because I’ve seen what overpowered things do to the game, especially in Organized Play where DMs didn’t have the choice to apply house rules to fix issues and said that a lot of that 4e errata made the game playable. I asked what happens if something was so broken it needed to be fixed. He said that there wouldn’t be zero balance changes, it was just that they would heavily consider whether something was truly broken enough that it was worth fracturing the player base to fix it. He said they would consider whether leaving the overpowered thing in the game was worse than the problems caused by issuing errata and if it was, they would fix it. That made me feel better.</blockquote>