Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6618476" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I see the &quot;need&quot; part...so I guess that means it &quot;in my opinion&quot;? Because otherwise I think the word errata needs the quotes.Example: (1a) &quot;You get +2 when doing X&quot;&nbsp; &lt;----&gt;&nbsp; (1b) &quot;When doing X, you get +1&quot;. That is in need of errata. Both statements are attributing specific, and different, values for X.Example: (2a) &quot;You get a bonus when doing X&quot; &lt;----&gt; (2b) &quot;When doing X, you usually get a bonus&quot;. That is not in need of errata. Both give the same rough idea...a bonus for doing something...usually. What that bonus is, and exactly what X covers is up for individual interpretation and DM judgement.So...with all the things you listed...I'd have to say... NONE of it &quot;needs&quot; errata.The only thing I think I'd add in as errata if/when they do a 2nd printing of the books is add something with it's own heading, in the first few pages (in the Introduction, I'd guess) of the PHB and DMG that basically says &quot;Yeah, some things in these rules you may think are vague or incomplete. It's supposed to be that way. The rules are open enough that we wanted to encourage each individual DM to decide exactly how his game will run. This lets everyone run their games their own way....from high-fantasy super-heroic, down to street-level, gritty death-comes-easy, games. When we use a word like 'hidden', we mean it in the English language meaning first, and game-rules mechanics second.&quot;...or at least something along those lines. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6618476, member: 45197"] Hiya! I see the "need" part...so I guess that means it "in my opinion"? Because otherwise I think the word errata needs the quotes. [B]Example[/B]: (1a) "You get +2 when doing X" <----> (1b) "When doing X, you get +1". That is in need of errata. Both statements are attributing specific, and different, values for X. [B]Example[/B]: (2a) "You get a bonus when doing X" <----> (2b) "When doing X, you usually get a bonus". That is [I]not[/I] in need of errata. Both give the same rough idea...a bonus for doing something...usually. What that bonus is, and exactly what X covers is up for individual interpretation and DM judgement. So...with all the things you listed...I'd have to say... NONE of it "needs" errata. The only thing I think I'd add in as errata if/when they do a 2nd printing of the books is add something with it's own heading, in the first few pages (in the Introduction, I'd guess) of the PHB and DMG that basically says [I]"Yeah, some things in these rules you may think are vague or incomplete. It's supposed to be that way. The rules are open enough that we wanted to encourage each individual DM to decide exactly how his game will run. This lets everyone run their games their own way....from high-fantasy super-heroic, down to street-level, gritty death-comes-easy, games. When we use a word like 'hidden', we mean it in the English language meaning first, and game-rules mechanics second."[/I] ...or at least something along those lines. :) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification