So according to folks here, celestials and devils used to have regeneration, but it was errata'd to be fast healing instead. And the Will save in stressful situations was errata'd out in Tome & Blood.
My take on this:
No.
I'm not objecting to the rules per se. What I'm objecting to is changing the rules and then declaring it an erratum.
If ONE celestial had regeneration while all the others had Fast Healing, and they fixed it, that would be an erratum. If the celestials all had regeneration but none had any listing for what caused normal damage, I could buy it. But look at the devils in my first printing Monster Manual -- they all had regeneration, and they all had listings for what caused normal damage. They had the names right and everything. This was not a TYPO that resulted in every single devil having regeneration and a listing for what causes normal damage. It was a choice that they made. And then, later, someone in charge went, "What do you mean they're pummeling the devils unconscious and taking them prisoner? Fix it! Say that the regeneration thing was errata!"
Errata are typos. Errata are things written incorrectly that are written correctly somewhere else -- if the paladin gets d8 hit points on page 53 but d10 hit points everywhere else in the book, then page 53 can get errata'd. But if you change something that wasn't a typo or an error at the time, that just happened to be a stupid rule you didn't test out very well, then, um, NO, that's not an erratum. Call it a rule change like a grown-up.
I know. For most people, not a big deal. I just see it as whitewashing. If you need to change the rules because something is unbalanced and you hadn't tested it properly before, just OWN that you didn't test it properly before and say you're changing the rules. Don't pretend it was a typo that managed to be misprinted consistently everywhere in the book that it's mentioned.
-Tacky the slightly nitpicky
My take on this:
No.
I'm not objecting to the rules per se. What I'm objecting to is changing the rules and then declaring it an erratum.
If ONE celestial had regeneration while all the others had Fast Healing, and they fixed it, that would be an erratum. If the celestials all had regeneration but none had any listing for what caused normal damage, I could buy it. But look at the devils in my first printing Monster Manual -- they all had regeneration, and they all had listings for what caused normal damage. They had the names right and everything. This was not a TYPO that resulted in every single devil having regeneration and a listing for what causes normal damage. It was a choice that they made. And then, later, someone in charge went, "What do you mean they're pummeling the devils unconscious and taking them prisoner? Fix it! Say that the regeneration thing was errata!"
Errata are typos. Errata are things written incorrectly that are written correctly somewhere else -- if the paladin gets d8 hit points on page 53 but d10 hit points everywhere else in the book, then page 53 can get errata'd. But if you change something that wasn't a typo or an error at the time, that just happened to be a stupid rule you didn't test out very well, then, um, NO, that's not an erratum. Call it a rule change like a grown-up.
I know. For most people, not a big deal. I just see it as whitewashing. If you need to change the rules because something is unbalanced and you hadn't tested it properly before, just OWN that you didn't test it properly before and say you're changing the rules. Don't pretend it was a typo that managed to be misprinted consistently everywhere in the book that it's mentioned.
-Tacky the slightly nitpicky
