Check it out here.

Yay now adepts with Astral perception cannot take the assensing skill.

Yaaaay! And only half a year has passed!

p.172 - the damage code that Wombat is getting is still wrong.
p.205 - glad to see a tank's armour is still no protection to the crew against a missile.
Still can't run Common programs on a commlink, the only correction to the wireless bonuses is fixing the periscope.
Impressive! Ggggodlike!

Thanks Patrick. I know you've been working hard to get this to be a thing.
The change to recoil, doesn't that basically make recoil just like it was in 4th edition unless you are taking either SA bursts or full auto bursts (the only ones which require a complex action)? Because for all other fire modes you are just using a simple action and you always have two of those available. I guess it works but I just wondered if that was the intention.
Also, yeah as Shortstraw pointed out, no assensing for adepts with astral perception? Huh?

Rather it never come out at all?

No, of course I am ecstatic to get an errata. Finally! I've waited long sleepless nights for it! And now, all the issues with the fifth are fixed! I will be moving over my campaign starting today!

Hey, better than no errata at all, neh?

Certainly, I've never said otherwise. It's good to see CGL improving quality control - it is of critical importance in a core book of a new edition, after all. Hooray to errata!

Actually, I thought six months was pretty quick, time to find out what the issues are, time for obscure things to start to come out and time for layout etc. Putting it out earlier would mean that you would have to put out several errata as new things come out.

Edit: Not to say that there won't be more, of course there will be.

Probably need additional errata explaining that "magic-specific" skills mean "Magic Attribute linked" skills.

Otherwise, an Adept could never Initiate.

ETA: I guess you could look at the Magic Skills section in the Magic section for clarification, but that really needs to be in the skills section.

Well, SR4 had about eight or so errata, and then SR4A, so I wouldn't expect the first errata for SR5 to fix everything. I still have a lot of issues with SR5, but I applaud them for going back to putting out errata again. It's a step in the right direction.

One step of many, I hope.

Or one of a few really big steps.

Well the errata thread had 535 posts and there were 38 sections in the errata document.

It reads that way but I doubt it. Most pistols would then have a fairly pointless recoil statistic.

Which also included numerous spelling, grammatical, and page reference errors. Which the document even states that they aren't going to directly address until they add the errata to the PDF of the core book.

I'll just notice that all the large stuff fixed was spotted in, like, the first day because it was never supposed to go into the print version to begin with.

I would expect it to fix everything since it took 6 months to produce and we had tomes of errors collected here with provided fixes that they completely ignored. It's a nice gesture but really more insulting than releasing nothing considering they broke more stuff with this release anyway.

I just want them all fixed so my group can give it a fair shake and see if it is worth switching editions.

I am thinking about this like Triage. While I'm sure they wanted to fix every little thing, I think it's good that they're releasing this version of errata for stuff they're sure they want to fix / change. My guess is that a lot of the minor stuff (grammatical errors, page reference misdirects, etc.) will be covered by the 2nd printing without having an errata document released.


-DrZ

Play nicely with each other. If you have feedback, make sure that it's constructive. Whining and complaining alienates those who have worked hard to help you out.

Thanks Patrick for pushing this through. I know it's been a struggle on many levels. Like others, I hope that this is the first step and that now the boulder is rolling down the hill, it will be easier to keep it going and get other errata posted.

For my two cents, I will also weigh in that I don't care about the "Add a comma" and "delete this hyphen" editing stuff. The big rules changes and clarifications are more important to me and my group.

Quite sparse, but one thing that I'd definitely see more often:

Huzzah, finally. Hopefully this is the beginning of an ongoing process and the next revision of errata will not take quite as long

One problem I've noticed in the errata so far:



Using Logic to limit the # of Registered Sprites contradicts the "Additional Purchases & Restrictions" table on p98, which at the bottom reads "Can only have a number of Registered Sprites equal to the character's Charisma."

Agreed. That's completely excessive, especially minding that the errata itself has (at a cursory glance) an unclosed parentheses and an unclosed quotation.

A "BIG THANKS" to the errata crew !

Well. I never thought I'd see the day. Congrats, Patrick, and a step in the right direction for CGL as a whole.


To be fair, 6 months is not THAT long. Better than "when hell freezes over", anyway.


Because mancers who like sprites don't need to be just pretty, they also need to be smart. I'd rule both apply. No contradiction, but another leg iron.

LOL! Yeah, TMs definitely need something else to keep their rampant power in check in SR5...

unless they spend a lot of time firing semi-automatic bursts...

Amen. I saw a technomancer... succeed in a data search check. My god, the metahumanity!

Good point. I'm just not sure that dropping back to a single shot every now and then is enough. I'll have to see it play out I guess.

AWESOME!!!! any idea when it will see print? I'm guessing another 6 months but at least now I can print it myself.

This is why we can't have nice things I understand your feelings, but at the end of the day they're humans just trying to do their best at what is essentially just a hobby. Is it perfect? No, but it's a step in the right direction and it's progress towards a better game. It's almost impossible to get everything perfect on the first, second, or third try, as such it should be an iterative process and I look forward to the next effort.

Thank you Patrick and everyone else involved with making this a reality, and may tomorrow's Shadowrun be better than today's.

Amen. Errata is good keep them coming!

Errata: Ignore double post from user FuelDrop.

Imagine applying the same to magicians and spirits for a second - certainly you can see where the issues with inter-tradition balance would set in, yes?

Yeah
A Thanks from Germany too
I hope more Erratta will follow

HougH!
Medicineman

With a missing dance?

Errata: Post 35. Above the line HougH! insert 'With an errata'd dance'

A question about Mystic Adepts: Can they buy new PP for 5 Karma when they raise their Magic Rating post-chargen?

Bye
Thanee

Probably not, but it's what I'd allow & do.

Here's what the errata says on the matter:



So basically, Initiation is the only way you're getting any PP if you're a mystic adept.

I think (and I could be wrong) the official interpretation, for Missions and the like, is that the only way a Mystic Adept can get additional PP post-chargen is when initiating, and then the character selects a PP instead of a metamagic technique. I also think this is the most common interpretation due to fears of Mystic Adepts being overpowered.

However, neither the errata nor SR5 explicitly states that the 5 karma per PP up to your magic rating is only limited to chargen, so under a strict interpretation, buying PP up to your current magic rating for 5 karma would be RAW. That being said, the Missions errata specifically states you can buy PP up to the characters starting magic rating, not current magic rating, which, if read literally, has some nonsensical results.

As a house rule, I wouldn't have a problem with it as it lowers the demand to buy all 6 PP in chargen which then opens up spending the chargen karma for a more well rounded character, and if the character is already at the magic limit, going through the process of raising the magic rating is karma intensive enough as to make me shrug. And really, compared to grabbing another spell for 5 karma, 1 PP usually isn't enough to sweat.

Just a hobby? Maybe for you and I, but it is literally their job to create a usable/accurate product. On this site alone there is a 20+ page thread of eratta. Aaron, Patrick, Bull, and others have said they were working on a full eratta and we get this 2 1/2 page single-lined document that breaks more things and doesn't address issues known since June. The SR regime under Hardy is making the SR3 run under Rob Boyle and Steve Kenson look like the freaking Golden Age.

Some people here seem to be ok with paying real world money for terrible customer service and a spotty product, but forgive me for not sharing that sentiment.

Hardy's job. All the others are freelancers who live off actual jobs.

Yeah, I know? Catalyst are responsible for the ultimate product but when freelancers tell us "the eratta is in the works" and "this will be in the eratta" and then it's not, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in them either.

They're working the changes into the book as we speak; I'm not sure when the updated PDFs should be out, but it shouldn't be too much longer now, IIRC. You should get an email from your PDF purchase place when they're ready.

If I'm reading things correctly, the changes should make it into the third printing, but I'm not certain about that. Depends on when the second printing sells through.

If a freelancer gets hired to do job X, it is his job. That's why they are freelancers and not fanfic writers. Anything above and beyond (and drafting a clear agreement where to border to above and beyond lies) is obviously not their job, but "if it's a side job you're not responsible for quality" is just wrong.

Oh why the heat up.
We've already discussed in another thread that doing the job for money is the only thing that makes you a professional; no responsibility or self-consciousness is implied.
Why are you constantly on CGL's case, people are just pursuing their hobby to the best of their ability.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you defending Catalyst for putting out a broken product and then not offering any official fixes for over 6 months? Nobody is blaming the freelancers.

My gripe is that there are two giant communities of fans (here, and the official forums) that would happily bug check and re-format the base files FOR FREE and they don't bother to take advantage of the fan base OR even listen to what we're saying in terms of real life playtesting and fact-checking. Maybe there are legal issues I am unaware of in regards to letting freelancers fix the product, but as a hobbyist I have done far less exciting work for no pay, and would happily do all the formatting and error checking for $1 and a freelancer credit in the book if that's what it took to make it legal.

It just comes off as lazy and insulting when there are errors noted in the eratta thread from day one of the PDF release that somehow didn't make it into this eratta document, including several instances where changing merely one word can make a huge difference in understanding the rules as intended, but they didn't address them.

Now, will they release more fixes? Probably, but with the amount of errors we've seen from the core book alone that were not addressed for whatever reason in this first fix, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence - that goes for the supplements that have been released as well, most notably GH3. I fear we're going to be looking at a SR5.5 release in a couple years since they don't seem in any hurry to address a long list of issues that keep large portions of the game in houserule-only territory.

Given the unpaid internship boondoggle over at Conde Nast and some of the other big magazines, there probably is. With that said, I believe there are several gaming company websites that state that anything posted to the website is property of said company. Seems like that could be a work-around...

Maybe some kind of "rules wiki" as a live document that people could contribute to (with probably some amount of moderation/validation) could work. There'd be plenty of devilsome and time-consuming details involved - it would probably require some detailed annotation concerning what's official and/or approved and what's still "pending suggestion", voting/"liking" on suggestions, a trusted review committee, and viewing it might have to be login-restricted to those who have purchased a PDF - but ultimately it could alleviate a lot of the apparent bottlenecks involved in finding and fixing stuff.