PHB special edition has corrected errata?

Gort said:
I have heard that it does look absolutely gorgeous.
Well, part of that is a matter of taste. I took one look at it in the store and thought, "ew, they bothered to get tooled leather covers, and they chose such an ugly design?" Similarly, i really think the edge-gilding is *way* too dark for a black-covered book. Moreover, is the interior changed at all? Because, if not, i just can't imagine that color gilding with the page design of the regular 3.5E printing--very clash-y, IMHO. The colors of the 3.5E books would work much better with coppery gilding, rather than dark gold. For that matter, dark brown leather would've been a much better match for the graphic design of the book.

Ghostwind said:
At $75.00, it is certainly not something that everyone will want to own. It is meant to be a collectible book that will sit on your shelf (worship optional) and be something to hand to your children. ;)
One thing to watch out for: it feels like there's foam under the leather cover (something i've never understood, but that's just a matter of taste). This presents two concerns. First, the sorts of foams used generally only have a shelf-life of a decade or two, so if that's still the case, it's less of a candidate for heirloom status. Second, they make the actual cover material much more susceptible to damage. With a hard cover, you basically can't damage the leather without taking a knife (or other sharp) to it. With the foam, it is sometimes possible to rip the cover if it is hit sharply by something pokey--such as being dropped and hitting the corner of a table at a funky angle. So, they did not make the optimal decisions for long-term durability. At least these days you can pretty much count on glossy stock and binding glues to be acid-free.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, now we know how much WotC charges for a (mostly) error-free book. ;) Just kidding editors and lawyers. Keep yer pants on.
 
Last edited:

I own a copy, and yes, the PHBv35 (Special Edition) has had errata opriginially released for the 3.5 PHB (Regular) incorporated directly into it. That is to say that internally (as well as externally) it is not exactly the same as the main PHBv35.

I'm quite happy with my purchase (in general - I ordered from amazon and recieved a damaged copy, but that's no fault of the concept), although it should be noted that on my copy, the pages kind of stick together in groups of 2\3, probably due to the silvering of the edges. They are easy to seperate without so much as putting a crease in the pages involved, and is really is a minor nitpick.
 

woodelf said:
Which, of course, doesn't answer the question, really--they keep saying it "has errata" and i *still* don't know whether that's because they have an illiterate ad-monkey who is actually trying to say that the errata has been corrected, or they are "reassuring" fans that it is unchanged from the current printing of the PH (which is known to contain errata). So, somebody who's actually got a copy wanna take a look for one of the bits of errata from the regular printing, and either confirm or refute that it is still present in the special edition? [sorry to get a bit rant-y, but "errata" are errors, not corrections--get a dictionary, WotC.]
The errata has been corrected. For example, page 36 reference to The Druid's Animal Companion no longer says it is treated like a magical beast. Page 50 adds "sap" to the list of rogue weapons. On page 148, Overrun no longer can no longer be part of a charge.
I cannot say if every single error has been corrected, but all three that I checked were correct.
 

If for some reason they do decide to release a DMG SE, I sincerely hope they include the most simplest errata regarding Prestige Class (does not incur multiclass XP penalty).
 

Ranger REG said:
If for some reason they do decide to release a DMG SE, I sincerely hope they include the most simplest errata regarding Prestige Class (does not incur multiclass XP penalty).
Please: "I sincerely hope they correct the most simplest errata..." I generally don't say anything about sloppy or even down-right bizarre grammar online--it's just chatting after all. But could we please not get in the habit of using non-slang words to mean their antonym? It starts to get confusing, especially in posts with less context.
 

[sorry to get a bit rant-y, but "errata" are errors, not corrections--get a dictionary, WotC.]

According to Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: er·ra·ta
Pronunciation: e-'rä-t&, -'rA-, -'ra-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, plural of erratum
: a list of corrigenda; also : a page bearing such a list

I would say that both WotC's usage & that being used most in this thread are indeed correct according to this (main) definition. Dictionary.com did differ, specifically:

An error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections and bound into a book.

For that definition, both usages would appear correct; this definition also seems to point to a shift in usage which has worked its way into the M-W main entry.
 


woodelf said:
Please: "I sincerely hope they correct the most simplest errata..." I generally don't say anything about sloppy or even down-right bizarre grammar online--it's just chatting after all. But could we please not get in the habit of using non-slang words to mean their antonym? It starts to get confusing, especially in posts with less context.
Though I thank you for the lesson, I would prefer we do this privately.
 
Last edited:

Snapdragyn said:
According to Merriam-Webster Online:

I would say that both WotC's usage & that being used most in this thread are indeed correct according to this (main) definition. Dictionary.com did differ, specifically:

For that definition, both usages would appear correct; this definition also seems to point to a shift in usage which has worked its way into the M-W main entry.
No, it doesn't. It's not a shift in usage--if anything, using "errata" to refer to errors without known/accompanying corrections is the shift. Errata used to only refer to a compilation of errors. In both definitions you quote, errata refers to the errors. Note that the dictionary.com definition specifically says that it is the errors in a compiled list of errors and their corrections that are the errata. There may well be support for the usage of "errata" to refer to corrections. However, neither of the dictionaries you quoted, nor any dictionary i've looked at (quite a few in the last few weeks, due to this specific topic), accepts "errata" as referring to the corrections to the errors--at the most expansive, it might refer to errors that have known corrections (whether those corrections are included or not).

And, no, i don't know why this particular one is bugging me so much. I usually just smile and nod when people use the completely wrong word and i know what they mean. I suppose this one was flagged for me because of the discussion about WotC initially planning on not correcting errata, and thus it actually not being clear whether the ad copy that bragged about "including errata" meant the mistakes had been left in or corrected.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top