Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6283237" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'd point out two things though Mistwell.1.  Paizo was held up, more than once in this thread, as the "good" way of doing errata.  More than a few posters have said that Paizo is doing it right.  If Paizo is doing effectively the same thing as WOTC, then doesn't that mean that WOTC is doing it right too?2.  The two options, as far as D&D goes, are 3e/4e levels of errata (which aren't really all that different) or AD&D levels of errata - which is basically little to none.  Bill91 above claimed that the reason that AD&D has so little errata is due to the tolerances built into the system.  IOW, earlier D&D is apparently more robust than later D&D and doesn't need to have errata.  There's a number of problems with that.  For one, it's a bit cart before the horse.  We don't actually know how much errata 1e or 2e needed since so little was actually produced.  Unless you take the position that editing was better under TSR than under WOTC, I don't think that's terribly supportable.  The sheer number of simple typos and whatnot under TSR is pretty large, never minding actually making changes to the mechanics themselves.  IOW a straight up, pure errata with no mechanical changes document for AD&D (either 1e or 2e) would likely be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the same length as the entire 3e or 4e errata documents.  And, again, as a prime example, I point to the ADDICT document which needs 17 pages to explain 1e initiative rules.  Granted, you can certainly cut that down, but, it's still going to require several pages of explanation to fix 1e initiative rules. So, while you can take this as a simple question, I think you lose a lot of nuance.</blockquote>

Verification