Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nyarlathotep" data-source="post: 3716108" data-attributes="member: 1799">I'm of the exact opposite opinion <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />From some of the threads I've read, I'm of the opinion that what they consider errata and what we consider errata are vastly different things. With the advent of a new edition, why bother expending the resources to errata a system that will be replaced in less than 12 months?That said, I've always wondered why there isn't an ENWorld Unofficial Errata section to the site here. The rules forum is has some extremely knowledgable people and despite the sniping and snide posts is an incredibly valuable resource regarding rules questions. While there might be disagreement on some interpretations, you generally get a pretty good idea of what the problem with a particular rule is and the issues surrounding fixes for it.</blockquote>