What's with this stealth errata?

[Damon_Tor]

Yeah, the compendium shows it as being updated in the Class Compendium, so I went to the Weaponmaster article. The new version is in the pages from the Class Compendium, but not in the updates file. So in a way this is stealth errata.

It seems to me that wizards has decided they don't need to release errata documents for things that get updated in print products, as we saw in the Dm's kit, or updates from the Class Compendium, which was supposed to be in print, and is now available free on the website.

This has always been the policy, it's just come up very rarely before now. I think the best known example is the reliable keyword: after PHB it received one update via the errata process, but then it received another eupdate in PHBII. The end result is, the keyword is defined in one way in the official errata, but because it's errata for a book that comes before another, the errata is overuled by the printed PHBII.

This has only recently becomre really problematic. The rules compendium contained dozens of rules updates which will never be free online. That entire book is effectively "Errata you pay for" and nothing else.

 

[Aegeri]

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.

It's not about if I agree or not with the errata, it's that they did it without telling anyone and so I end up making myself look silly. I always thought it shouldn't have had the level and that was a mistake, others did as well. The point there was that it was left intact when the issue was compiled. At the time I thought "Fair enough" and just let it work that way (I never heard of it being imbalanced or anything). It was only the other day when I went to look it up that I even knew it had been changed. It's a pretty huge change if you're an original paladin, as it's one of few ways of getting an actually decent mount in the game.

But again, it has nothing to do with if I agree with the errata or not: It has everything to do with actually knowing the errata exists. Right now, I am wondering what the hell else they changed without me knowing. I've already had this misery in the past. One of my campaigns final battles was rather more trivial than it should have been, because I failed to spot that Wizards had "silently" updated Punisher of the Gods. The update removed a key sentence, which allowed the character to regain the use of the automatic damage feature (Immortal Curse IIRC). If I had known that wasn't there anymore, it would have been a different fight (and much easier to balance) but because I didn't know they had errata'ed it, I allowed the PC to use it multiple times in one battle (with obvious consequences at level 30).

I much prefer errata to be in the obvious, free and completely visible errata documents. Not assassinated quietly through books or just by pure stealth months down the track. If they change something published previously it MUST be in the errata IMO.

 

[mneme]

Er. I think the Punisher eratta was in the official eratta document. Did they eratta it further?

I don't think Tide was stealth eratta either -- didn't they change it when they changed every single "move a critter and shift into a square it left" power in existence (so you couldn't pick a route that shifted you all over the map and ended in that square). Tide and Leading Stride won't, I think, let you shift into difficult terrain -- but you can use an item that boosts your shift length and do so (or be an elf, or wield a Staff of the Traveller).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I much prefer errata to be in the obvious, free and completely visible errata documents. Not assassinated quietly through books or just by pure stealth months down the track. If they change something published previously it MUST be in the errata IMO.

Maybe they innocently missed it? Why would you think they're being nefarious on this issue and not on the others that they identified as errata in April 2011? Also, maybe there's a lag (i.e. race condition) on this particular issue and the errata release, so perhaps it'll be in May 2011?

 

[Aegeri]

Er. I think the Punisher eratta was in the official eratta document. Did they eratta it further?

Yes, yes they did. It was errata'ed once in the documents and then errata'ed again. It was actually stealth errata'ed twice. The first reduced the immortals curse thing from an extra action point, to an extra free action attack. It was then reduced to an at-will attack. It was then changed so that wording to the effect of getting immortals curse back was removed.

Effectively it's a giant mess. I sometimes check it every now and again, to see if they changed anything else.

Edit: I see now it has gone back to being a standard action (buffed back up from being an at-will attack I guess) and this final change was included in the errata (2009ish).