Actual Errata?

[Necroticplague]

Hey I found something and just want to check if its real. I was searching the forums when i found some errata for the TOB. What struck me as oddest was the date it had on it, oct 26, 2011. It seems odd that the errata would be released so late after support for 3.5 went "bamf", so it does seem to correct several issues. Here's a link (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/36965/b09s-complete-errata-pdf-october-26-2011-8-18-pm-126k?da=y), so, is this official and real, or just someone's collection of houserules?

[Darth_Versity]

No, the official errata is here
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20060531a

[Darrin]

Hey I found something and just want to check if its real. I was searching the forums when i found some errata for the TOB. What struck me as oddest was the date it had on it, oct 26, 2011. It seems odd that the errata would be released so late after support for 3.5 went "bamf", so it does seem to correct several issues. Here's a link (http://www.keepsandshare.com/doc/36965/b09s-complete-errata-pdf-october-26-2011-8-18-pm-126k?da=y), so, is this official and real, or just someone's collection of houserules?

I believe that's the result of a fan-created ToB errata project that they were doing over on Brilliant Gameologists (your link isn't working for me, and the BG site is having... "issues" of some sort or another). I'm not sure if BG is permanently down, or if anyone was able to grab the content from wayback/browser history. Last I checked, though, it was very thorough and extremely solid as far as errata goes.

[Lateral]

I believe that's the result of a fan-created ToB errata project that they were doing over on Brilliant Gameologists (your link isn't working for me, and the BG site is having... "issues" of some sort or another). I'm not sure if BG is permanently down, or if anyone was able to grab the content from wayback/browser history. Last I checked, though, it was very thorough and extremely solid as far as errata goes.

It's just temporary, they're having spam problems.

[Psyren]

No, the official errata is here
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20060531a

Must you re-open old wounds? :smallfrown:

[docnessuno]

Any reason the ToB errata (with the PDF named "Tome of battle errata" and starting with the same title) contains actually the complete mage errata?

[CactusAir]

The official TOB errata is two sentences and then the errata for another book. Because WOTC had stopped caring by then.

[Psyren]

Any reason the ToB errata (with the PDF named "Tome of battle errata" and starting with the same title) contains actually the complete mage errata?

Because WotC.

[Big Fau]

Hey I found something and just want to check if its real. I was searching the forums when i found some errata for the TOB. What struck me as oddest was the date it had on it, oct 26, 2011. It seems odd that the errata would be released so late after support for 3.5 went "bamf", so it does seem to correct several issues. Here's a link (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/36965/b09s-complete-errata-pdf-october-26-2011-8-18-pm-126k?da=y), so, is this official and real, or just someone's collection of houserules?

Yeah, that's the BG project, as stated above.

Unfortunately, WotC's opinion of 3.5 is that "It is the worst system ever, you should switch to 4E". WotC is never going to provide official errata for dozens of books (CP, Sandstorm, the Bo9S, MoI, etc).

[Darth_Versity]

Yeah, that's the BG project, as stated above.

Unfortunately, WotC's opinion of 3.5 is that "It is the worst system ever, you should switch to 4E". WotC is never going to provide official errata for dozens of books (CP, Sandstorm, the Bo9S, MoI, etc).

You also have to look at the fact that 4e has been out for three and a half years. In that time they have churned out a massive series of books and already done the 4.5 equivilent (essentials). The liklihood is that they have already got a huge chunk of 5e designed and will be getting ready to announce it in the next couple of years.

At that point 4e will be 'the worst system ever' and people will be begging for errata for that.

I really hate it when companies completely abandon their old products in favor of new ones. I can understand the need to focus on the new stuff more, but to ignore it entirely shows a lack of respect for the customers (and the product) you had.

[Malachei]

Well, errata are a kind of luxury the internet brought us. Previously, rules were mostly updated via editions or, sometimes, printings.

So while I agree on the general comment regarding companies dropping support for their product lines, I think the WotC design department has been under increasing pressure to publish more books, especially with Pathfinder rivaling 4E. While I'm not playing 4E, I can understand they have limited resources. Also, I assume the massive success of 3E is still a problem for 4E, because so many people stick with 3E (you can see on the play-by-post boards) or make the smaller transition to PF. So they might feel they have to demonstrate that the edition is not supported every time they can.

[Runestar]

The fact that the first few sentences of the errata is actually relevant suggests the designers have in fact spent time making the necessary ammendments, and should have the relevant documents saved somewhere. They are evidently too lazy or disinterested to just spend a minute or two uploading a simple pdf file. Heck, even copying it into a text file or simply posting it on their website would have sufficed. :smallconfused:

[Dsurion]

Because WotC.I feel like this should become the go-to phrase every time someone asks why something is the way it is with 3.x/4e D&D.