Unofficial Black Company Errata

[jdrakeh]

I didn't know quite where to post this (on ENWorld), so I'm posting it here. My copy of the Black Company Campaign Setting arrived this afternoon and I wanted to start using it as quickly as possible, so I went ahead and put this together, culling the official errata thread on the GR forums:

Unofficial Black Company Errata

I figured that all the work toward an official errata PDF had ceased given the dates in said thread, so until GR puts the real deal together you can print out this handsome one-page document and paste it inside the front cover of your Black Company book with a glue stick.

Happy gaming!

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Thanks!

Good work jdrakeh,

I have the book since it came out but never got around to compile the errata. I was always to lazy.

 

[jdrakeh]

Good work jdrakeh

Thanks, but all I really did was take the initiative to edit and order the content in the offical thread. That is, the errata was already there -- I just compiled it into a single document and organized it by page number so that we (BCCS owners) didn't have to sort through the thread anymore.

I have the book since it came out but never got around to compile the errata. I was always to lazy.

Don't feel too bad -- the line editor never got around to compiling an errata document, either

 

[Nikosandros]

Thanks a lot!

Is this all, though? I haven't read my copy in a while, but I seem to remember that there were a lot mistakes...

 

[Henry]

Thanks for the work, James. I never thought about it, myself, just using it pretty much as-is when I've used it. Because it was a one-time license, I don't think there was that much incentive to devote any resources to it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Thanks a lot!

Is this all, though? I haven't read my copy in a while, but I seem to remember that there were a lot mistakes...

This is all of the actual errata. There is some retconning of the magic system talked about on the thread, but this was less to address actual errors than it was to address a perceived lack of internal consistency.

That said, yeah -- the thread makes it look like there's a lot more errata because it's interspersed with multiple replies and short discussions for nearly each individual error. The way that I went about compiling the errata document made this very clear.

I copied and pasted the entire errata thread and then went throguh it one post at a time, deleting duplicate mentions of errata, suspected errata, and personal complaints to focus only on the confirmed errors and corrections (per the line developer).

I then went back through the suspected but unconfirmed instances of errors and cross-referenced my own copy of the BCCS book. Any errors discovered got added to the errata (for the record, there were only two of these that actually had merit).

Personal complaints (many of which amounted to simple misunderstandings, rather tha rule errors) were ommitted.

There are actually not as many errors as the thread would lead you to expect upon a quick glance (which is good, because if their had been that many errors, I probably would have traded my copy of the book off rather quickly).