Whining about Errata

[Graf]

??

There are heaps of passages in the core books where the text is taken directly from the corresponding 2E material (itself sometimes unchanged from 1E).

Like what?

 

[hong]

Re: ??

Like what?

Off the top of my head:

- the description of the protection from evil spell, re warding against "summoned and conjured creatures". Summoning is a subschool of Conjuration, so in the context of 3E jargon a better wording might be "summoned and called creatures", or just "conjured creatures".

- the various cards from the deck of many things

- mace of smiting (previously the rod of smiting: constructs are immune to crits, but the item needs a crit to destroy a construct)

- the freedom of movement spell (wording practically unchanged from 2E, except for the renaming of the spell)

- the tarrasque's description talking about taking it to negative hp to kill it (impossible for something that has regen that can't be bypassed; the distinction between regen and fast healing didn't exist before)

There are others, especially in the magic item lists -- some of the language still bears Col_Pladoh's inimitable polysyllabic stamp.

 

[reiella]

Not sure for core books, but for FR books, there are alot (See Elminster, see the Magister, see the Modrons-ok web enhancement).

 

[Darkness]

I guess what I'm against is the idea that it was an error. It wasn't an error. They were very confident in what they were writing down.

And that prevents them from making an error how?

 

[Zappo]

An errata means that they have fixed a mistake. If giving regeneration to outsiders was a mistake, then the errata is where it has to be fixed. I don't see the problem. Besides, what would the alternative be? Leaving outsiders with regeneration?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hi Tacky,

Unlike everyone (?) else here, I think you you've got a valid point. I think that there is a valid difference between errata and rules changes.

After all, one of the peeves with the original PHB errata was that it was difficult to find the rules changes amongst all the typographical errata!

I think the greatest clarity would be served by having three documents for each product:

Errata (typographical corrections)
Rules changes (changes to the rules)
FAQ (clarifications of rules).

At present we have the (useful) FAQ, which pulls together clarifications for rules in various products, and we have errata which contains typographical changes and rules changes. Just pull the rules changes out into a separate document and all would be fine and dandy IMO.

Cheers

 

[hong]

I think the greatest clarity would be served by having three documents for each product:

Errata (typographical corrections)
Rules changes (changes to the rules)
FAQ (clarifications of rules).

That would be the ideal solution, but given the current situation at WOTC, I'll take whatever I can get....

 

[Skullfyre]

Re: ??

Like what?

Best error in my DMG->under Rings it has the following for sub headings
Minor medium Major Potion


*acting all Mr Rogers like*
Can you say "Cut and Paste"? I knew you could

 

[Numion]

This point has been made before, but hey, what the hell:

If people are down to whining about things like this, everything can't be that bad in D&D-land, really.

Luckily we live in high-bandwidth times

 

[Tharkun]

Errata...phewy, we don't need no stinking errata We played with whatever we got and if we didn't get it we made it up as we went.

But seriously I can't believe that WoTC doesn't take that extra week to X4 check any inconsistancy or messed up rule, they would get many high praises if they did that I think.