What's with this stealth errata?

[Aegeri]

I was having a discussion with a friend about his paladin and various neat ideas he had, when I suggested that he takes the Cavalier Mount. This was published in a dragon article and at the time, was listed as a paladin utility 4 (which meant a regular paladin could take it eventually as well). Well I discovered to my surprise that the mount had been changed without errata anywhere, basically to remove the level. By removing the level it makes it impossible for an original paladin to pick up the power. This quite surprised me, because it's really not that imbalanced or at least I didn't realize it was (open to ideas about that). This soon became the minor issue though.

Because what really surprised me was what stuff is Wizards changing that I don't know about? For example it made me immediately recall the flaming weapon stealth errata thread. I really have to wonder if Wizards are going to be posting an update saying what stuff they are changing, because stealth errata like this is immensely frustrating. Errata should be announced in clear change documents, so that it's obvious what was changed and sometimes the logic behind why. Is there anything else that was changed in this manner anyone else has noticed?

 

[Truename]

Wizards used to revise DDI articles when they were compiled (without calling it errata). Perhaps they're still doing something similar, and you happened to get the early version?

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, because there are so many people who fume and rage about any and all errata, I imagine WotC has adopted a policy of doing without telling to keep them from flooding the internet with angry rants.

 

[Aulirophile]

Wizards used to revise DDI articles when they were compiled (without calling it errata). Perhaps they're still doing something similar, and you happened to get the early version?

No, was changed four days ago. Article is months old.

[MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION]: ...Are you under the strange impression that not telling the community and just doing it is somehow less likely to piss them off? Because the opposite is true.

 

[SteveC]

This is again the point where I get to be "that guy." Sigh. I don't like being him, but it seems appropriate.

Doesn't it make sense that when something is updated or errataed, there might me an official mention of it made so that people know about it? The thing is, we do have errata, updates for books and dragon magazine... all great ways to get out the word about rules changes. It works, most of the time, but then there's random things like this that just get dropped and no one is the wiser.

It doesn't help that the Compendium, at one time the best source for the most current rules has not updated some items for months. I don't get it.

How about having a "changelog" page, where when updates happen to resources, it's listed? Someone has to update the documents or web pages, after all...

 

[Incenjucar]

No, was changed four days ago. Article is months old.

[MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION]: ...Are you under the strange impression that not telling the community and just doing it is somehow less likely to piss them off? Because the opposite is true.

Nope.

I am however under the impression that not everyone is good at choosing which rants to filter out.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

The Power has been listed correctly in the Compendium and the Character Builder since the magazine was compiled into them. They have just now gone and corrected the power in the article/magazine within the last few days.

The inclusion of a level on the power in the article was a typo.

On the Flaming Weapon issue I dont see the uproar or outrage. I believe that WOTC has always stated that the most recent release of an item, race, class etc is to be used as the most current and up to date. The Flaming Weapon was reprinted in the DM's kit so it is exactly that. Did it change how the weapon works from what people were used to .... Yes. Its really no different from the Warforged article in Dragon having the Construct and Living Construct keywords and then when it was reprinted in the Eberron books the Construct keyword was removed. (Probably because of the whole Reparation Apparatus fiasco)

 

[Aegeri]

The problem is that these changes should be announced clearly in an errata document: That's what I dislike. I think the flaming weapon should have been free errata somewhere, especially because while I own the DMs kit I did not closely read something I thought was reprinted from the PHB. I actually only figured out that the flaming weapon had been changed when I saw the thread on this forum, then checked for myself. I don't religious check elements for errata, especially when it's this inconsistently applied.

 

[Obryn]

I agree on the flaming weapon. That's a clear change that should have been included in some document somewhere.

I disagree on the paladin mount. It was pretty clear from the outset that calling it a "Utility 4" was a simple mistake, especially because the same mistake wasn't reflected anywhere but the magazine article. It was always, IMO, wishful thinking that the power should have a level - much less giving it Level 4.

-O

 

[frogged]

The problem is that these changes should be announced clearly in an errata document: That's what I dislike. I think the flaming weapon should have been free errata somewhere, especially because while I own the DMs kit I did not closely read something I thought was reprinted from the PHB. I actually only figured out that the flaming weapon had been changed when I saw the thread on this forum, then checked for myself. I don't religious check elements for errata, especially when it's this inconsistently applied.

While that may be true for the flaming weapon, it isn't the case for the subject of this post. Prior to the ending of issue compilations earlier this year, the individual articles were not considered finalized until they were included in the compilation at the end of the month. (This is the reason why the rules for those articles weren't LFR legal until the compilation was posted.) For the article in question, while the initial posting had a level listed for the power, it was removed in the compilation when it was posted five months ago.

Incidentally, this was one of the reasons listed for why WotC stopped compiling dragon issues at the end of every month; very few people actually read the compiled version.