To update or not to update? That is the question.

[Abraxas]

Example?

What kind of campaign have you got where characters regularly have identical powers or items or whatever, LFR? And how bad is it if Bob has an extra [W] written down; give both Bob and Larry the extra [W] and sort it out before next week.

They don't have Identical powers/items/whatever - also when I referenced players I was including the DM. Most recent example involved flying and the changes from the DMG to the RC - player assumed he was safe because he had his PC stay within his character's fly speed above the ground when fighting a creature that had a power that knocked you prone - according to the DMG rules his character would take no damage - according to the RC rules his character takes damage - game stops as this is discussed, books are gotten out, player asks if he could change his action.

 

[Gardukk]

I've always preferred to treat errata as suggestions rather than rules changes. In my games I go by the books, but if something seems like it needs fixing I check the errata to see if it has been. Nine times out of ten it has been and I adopt the change as part of the house-rules at the table.

That being said, I think it's important to keep everything up-to-date in official games like LFR or Encounters. The notion that you should use the errata in groups that like to optimize their characters is a valid one, as well. It boils down to the kind of environment you're playing in.

So to answer the original question, I'd take neither. It's just easier for myself and everyone at the table to pick-and-choose whatever seems most prevalent.

 

[AlioTheFool]

I can't stand the errata as it stands now.

To begin with, it is far too often. Once per year would be enough for my taste. (Preferably not at all.)

My biggest problem with errata is that it combats the min-maxing phenomenon. In the end though, the min-maxers find another loophole, and those of us who don't "optimize" get our characters nerfed. I've had characters (especially wizards) become significantly less effective thanks to errata (I still remember the Grasp of the Grave nerf -which fit my character concept- making me obviously less effective. And yes, I heard the arguments that it was overpowered at the time, so there is no need to rehash it here.)

It's really easy for people who like errata to say "If you don't like it just ignore it." The problem for someone like me, who only decided to play 4E because of the DDi toolset, is that the tools don't allow for the choice between using errata or not. You either choose to use errata or stop using the tools.

Even worse for me, one of the guys in my group is a total luddite. He doesn't even have his own e-mail address. He refuses to entertain the idea of viewing our campaign web site. Whenever I've shown up at a session with a stack of paper with the plethora of updates he effectively rolls his eyes and ignores it. How does one reconcile that? (Not to mention how irritating it is to rifle through all of that paper when someone recalls that something might have been changed during a game.)

I've seen the argument that people will houserule in place of errata. Is the implication that with errata people won't houserule? I'm very active on Twitter, and the #dnd community on there is always developing new houserules to "fill in gaps" even ones created (or supposedly fixed) by errata.

If it were realistic for me to ignore the errata then I'd have less of a problem with it. If Wizards put in a switch to "turn off" updates in the toolset I'd have far less of an argument.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Whenever I've shown up at a session with a stack of paper with the plethora of updates he effectively rolls his eyes and ignores it. How does one reconcile that?

You ignore it. So what if your character is built using errata and his isn't? What difference does it make? Are you competing against him in the party and thus feel like you both need to be on "even ground" so that you can determine who "wins" at the end of the night? No. You're both working together. So if he does some things one way and you do other things another way... it's all in service of the end result of getting through the adventure as a group.

 

[KidSnide]

I like the errata. Of course, I'd prefer a game that was perfect on first publication, but that's not realistic with a game this complicated. The developers learn and improve over time, and I want old material to reflect this evolution. I just wish there was a better way to filter out non-updated material (old feats, unaltered MM1 monsters) from my search results.

I don't think these updates have any negative effects on my game. When I go to the web to find new monsters or abilities, I'd rather those creatures and powers reflect the latest designs. If I (or my players) end up using some non-updated powers or monsters by accident, I don't see how the game is made worse just because better (unused) rules exist on some server?

-KS

 

[DracoSuave]

Even worse for me, one of the guys in my group is a total luddite. He doesn't even have his own e-mail address. He refuses to entertain the idea of viewing our campaign web site. Whenever I've shown up at a session with a stack of paper with the plethora of updates he effectively rolls his eyes and ignores it. How does one reconcile that? (Not to mention how irritating it is to rifle through all of that paper when someone recalls that something might have been changed during a game.)

Well if you're the DM, it's easiy. You don't come to game with a stack of papers of updates and expect someone to go through them for their character because most of that stuff is absolutely irrelevant to him.

He is right to ignore most of it because the errata or proposed changes to the cleric, sorcerer, and runepriest, won't mean a damn if he's sitting there with a warlord, and if he IS playing a warlord, the changes to bravura warlords, archer warlord, and the iron vanguard paragon path won't mean anything to him if he's a tactical warlord with the lazylord build.

Which is why the updates aren't as bad as you claim: You look at the sum total of updates and go 'ARGH' but a player can look up his character and never find a change that affects him.

So stop killing trees, find out what's on his damn character sheet, and only print that out. And only if you're the DM. If you're not the DM, don't bother, that's the DM's job.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Of course, I'd prefer a game that was perfect on first publication, but that's not realistic with a game this complicated.

True, but I feel like the core 3 from 2008 set a new standard for imperfect out of the gate. The math didn't actually work, necessitating the Expertise feats; the skill challenge numbers were completely out of whack and almost immediately errata'ed (making the challenges trivial, requiring yet another set of errata); and the MM1 monsters decidedly subpar, to the point where you can't use most of them as written after mid-heroic tier or so.

The onesey-twosey stuff that mudlock mentioned upthread is no issue with me. I appreciate that the designers are learning as they go, and that's great, and to everyone's benefit if the game ends up better. But the DMG and MM1 show that they really had very little understanding of the system they were publishing at the time. *That* sucks, and it's those fundamental, system-wide updates that I find really unfortunate, however necessary they might have been.

 

[KidSnide]

Of course, I'd prefer a game that was perfect on first publication, but that's not realistic with a game this complicated.

True, but I feel like the core 3 from 2008 set a new standard for imperfect out of the gate. The math didn't actually work, necessitating the Expertise feats; the skill challenge numbers were completely out of whack and almost immediately errata'ed (making the challenges trivial, requiring yet another set of errata); and the MM1 monsters decidedly subpar, to the point where you can't use most of them as written after mid-heroic tier or so.

Wow... if you think the 4e core 3 books a new standard for imperfection, you were obviously not reading many 3rd party products in the early 2000s.

More seriously, I think the original core 3 books were flawed, but not to any unusual degree. Everyone states that the math was wrong, but the designers (not implausibly) thought that escalating misc leader bonuses would make up for the change in numbers. I'm not even sure they were wrong. It's just that the game is more fun if the PCs hit more often. Individual powers were out of balance, but no more than certain spells in 3.0. (Haste anyone? Harm?) And, yes, the skill challenges totally blew (IMO, they still blow, but the math is better now), but well chosen DCs is mostly new to 4e, so it's not surprising that it took WotC so long to settle on a decent set of numbers.

None of this is to say that 4e was adequately playtested in 2008. It wasn't, and I think 4e suffered from some of these early failings. (Personally, I think it suffered even more from the fact that the original core 3 books were incredibly boring to read...) But it's not like WotC fell below the low standards of the RPG industry. WotC simply failed to surpass "barely adequate" to the degree it should have.

-KS

 

[Estlor]

To be fair, there are two different types of updates, and I feel differently toward each.

Type 1: Updates to fix broken/unbalanced things

I appreciate this type of update. Sometimes things that seem perfectly viable on paper or in a closed playtest prove to be problematic when released to the wild. Likewise, new options appear that make other options too appealing. Since 4e is a game that implies everyone will be of roughly the same power level, updates to ensure this are a-ok.

Type 2: Updates to fix "intent"

I hate these with a passion. I can understand that the designers had a particular idea in mind when they developed something, and sometimes it will function differently once it's released to the wild. But when something is otherwise balanced and acceptable in the boundaries of the rules, just not what they had in mind... Those changes sound too much like wrongbadfun to me.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Wow... if you think the 4e core 3 books a new standard for imperfection, you were obviously not reading many 3rd party products in the early 2000s.

Fair enough, yes -- there were a great many 3rd party 3.x supplements that were far worse. And I'm sure there were many TSR-produced supplemental 2e books that were poorly designed and edited as well (I have heard of, but never seen, the "dawizard" book, for example).

We'll agree to disagree on how unusual the flaws in the 4e core books are. I find them far worse (in terms of updates needed, not contents or gameplay) than the core books of any previous editions. I can't use the MM1 without redoing all the monsters' damage on the fly (which is easy, but annoying), and fixing the solos (which requires more effort, and is thus even more annoying), and I never had that experience with previous MMs. I can't use the DMG for much of anything at all -- almost every number or table or rule worth using has been errata'ed.

All water under the bridge, I know, and I'm glad the game is improving. I just find my shelf of pre-MM3 books rather depressing and useless.