Errata and reprints

[Peregrine]

A simple enough question: Have any of the official D&D errata (for the core books, specifically) made it into reprints?

I was under the impression that all printings of the core rulebooks were the same, and that the errata applied equally to all. A quick Googling on this question has reinforced that impression (with the exception of those fancy 30th anniversary editions, which did reportedly incorporate the errata).

However, looking through my fairly recently-purchased Monster Manual v3.5, it looks as though it includes some (though not quite all) of the current errata document! Without doing an exhaustive search, I can see that the Alternate Form text matches some (at least) of what the relevant erratum describes, that the Damage Reduction erratum is in there verbatim, that the angels all have their prescribed Change Shape entries, that Improved Natural Attack bears the appropriate Special clause about being taken more than once...

On the other hand, the Weapon Finesse erratum isn't reflected in the text before me. Badgers, for instance, don't have the feat, while the vargouille and the pseudodragon actually meet the feat prerequisite, contrary to the errata. Also, the Alternate Form text isn't entirely what the erratum describes: it lacks the note about gaining the Aquatic subtype, and the note about ability scores and hit points (although the hit points information is included elsewhere with other wording).

As I said, this isn't at all an exhaustive search, but I think I've made my point.

The errata file I have is MM_Errata02062006.zip, containing a PDF with the filename MM_Errata02172006.zip (which I'm sure is the latest available). My MM has nothing that I can find about printings and reprintings, except to say that the first printing was 2003.

Hmm, I bought my PHB at the same time, but the DMG is an older one (to which all errat definitely applied)... And again, without doing an exhaustive search, it looks as though my PHB includes all errata except those marked as being the latest (that is, the changes to polymorph-like effects). It certainly includes the corrections to animal companions, rogue proficiencies, run speeds...

What gives?

[Laurellien]

Bad editing probably. Just stick to the SRD and you can't really go wrong.

[Peregrine]

If you mean the SRD plus the errata, then sure. (Which, conveniently, is what d20srd.org gives.) The SRD (unlike the printed books, it seems) is almost guaranteed to be the pre-errata version, so applying the errata is easy.

But the thing is, I want this for use at the table. I pencilled in the errata for the DMG (and slipped in a piece of paper with the erratum scribbled on it when I couldn't fit the changes in the margin). But I didn't like the effect, so I decided to print off the errata as neat little bookmark-like slips and insert them where appropriate. This took some time in reformatting the errata for the PHB and DMG, and then I stopped cold when I hit the MM. It has tables, which didn't really fit my format, and it has "this applies in various [unspecified] places" errata too.

So I took an idle moment to look at what they were changing, and lo and behold, it seems that the errata have already been applied to my MM. Only it's a different version to what's available online, because what, they came up with a better way to fix badgers (but not cats)? It's frustrating. I don't know what changes have been made already, and what changes need to be made to make sure I'm using the same rules as anyone else with a printed book and the official errata.

End rant. Yeah, the SRD would fix the problem. But again, not so convenient for at-the-table use. So if anyone with greater Google-fu than me can tell me where to find some info on this, please do!

(Maybe I should just email WotC?)

EDIT: Even the SRD complicates things. In the errata, the pseudodragon is given as a creature that had the Weapon Finesse feat illegally (didn't meet the BAB prerequisite). But in the SRD, as in my MM, it clearly has a more-than-sufficient BAB of +2! (Nevertheless, d20srd.org has taken the errata at face value and applied the mandated 'fix' for the pseudodragon's pseudoproblem.)

What on Oerth is going on?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

But in the SRD, as in my MM, it clearly has a more-than-sufficient BAB of +2! (Nevertheless, d20srd.org has taken the errata at face value and applied the mandated 'fix' for the pseudodragon's pseudoproblem.)

Just a bit of a nitpicky comment:

It's final +2 BAB isn't as important as it's 1st level +1 BAB. Weapon Finesse is the Pseudodragon's 1st-level feat. It has to meet the prerequisite at the time the feat was taken.

Of course, as a Dragon type, the Pseudodragon does meet the prerequisite at the time the feat is taken. So it still doesn't mesh with the reason given for the errata.

Only other thing I can think of is that someone decided that Pseudodragons were meant to have Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat and Alertness as the regular feat all along and just inserted it with the rest of the "because it doesn't meet the prerequisite" changes.

[Rockphed]

Only other thing I can think of is that someone decided that Pseudodragons were meant to have Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat and Alertness as the regular feat all along and just inserted it with the rest of the "because it doesn't meet the prerequisite" changes.

Looking at my version of the MM, the Pseudodragon has weapon finesse, but not alertness, so this is probably it.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Looking at my version of the MM, the Pseudodragon has weapon finesse, but not alertness, so this is probably it.

Well, it's not in the MM. It's part of the MM errata. The MM only lists Weapon Finesse. The errata says it should have Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat and Alertness as it's regular feat. The problem being it claims that this change must be made because the Pseudodragon does not have a +1 BAB at level 1 (which, as we pointed out, is false).

[Peregrine]

Just a bit of a nitpicky comment:

It's final +2 BAB isn't as important as it's 1st level +1 BAB. Weapon Finesse is the Pseudodragon's 1st-level feat. It has to meet the prerequisite at the time the feat was taken.

Nitpicky is good. Thank you, Shhalahr. I did indeed overlook that part, but at least it turned out I wasn't wrong on the basic problem. (About the same time I made that post, I'd also been poring over the sample goblin warrior, analysing its modifiers and trying to work out why it only had half the skill ranks it should have. I finally realised it was taking cross-class skills... I hate missing things like that.)

Yeah, I think I'm going to try my luck with contacting WotC. Having an MM with the errata already applied would be okay (though it would be nice to be warned), but this seems to have 'extra' fixes they decided on after the errata. I don't want to end up having to reconcile a player's summoned badger stats between having Track and Weapon Finesse (SRD), or Track, Weapon Finesse and Agile (SRD+Errata), or Track and Multiattack (my MM). And what to do about Alternate Form and the Aquatic subtype...

[Peregrine]

Well, forget contacting WotC. Never mind that I couldn't find an appropriate email address (I didn't look all that hard). Instead I found this thread that discusses the post-Special Edition printings, and confirms from others' observations that they do include the errata. No mention of the discrepancies between the official errata and the fixes found in the books, though. I'm just going to go through a bit more carefully and decide what to do (like putting the bit about the Aquatic subtype back in). And I do still have a couple of things I want to ask of Wizards regarding this, but it's not urgent.

Now that I know it definitely is the revised text from the Special Editions, it tells me one thing (at least) that I didn't already guess: the revision dates. The PHB was October 2004 (hence the lack of the latest errata), the DMG was October 2005 (not that my copy was that recent), and the MM was October 2006 (and thus later than the latest errata release).

I hope this has been as educational for some of you as it was for me.