PHB Eratta Corrected Contrary to The Acaeum
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Author


Active Collector

Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 24, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 11, 2003
Location: Chicago IL USA

Post Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:08 am 
 

It says on this site: "Errata for the Players Handbook, first released in Jun 1978. Unlike the errata for the Dungeon Masters Guide, which were incorporated into the "Revised Edition" of Dec 1979, the Players Handbook changes were never published in any print."   This is inaccurate, as I checked every correction or addition against my copy when I printed them in the correct font to stick in the back of my book. The Players Handbook certainly had some corrections after Dragon #35 because the following items are corrected/included in my copy:  Correction 38A  Correction 38B  Addition 87A  I have a 7th print from, I assume, late 1980.  I DOUBLE checked this before posting.  Can anybody else back me on this?


There is no edition but first.

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 190
Joined: Dec 30, 2002
Last Visit: Apr 21, 2008

Post Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2003 9:58 pm 
 

jacobite1688 wrote:Can anybody else back me on this?
 All I know is that I have an 11th printing of the revised cover PHB and it still claims that monks attack as thieves.

  


Active Collector

Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 24, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 11, 2003
Location: Chicago IL USA

Post Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2003 3:00 am 
 

Hey gentlemen, what's the deal?  Am I high, or do I have something here?  Once again:  
the following items are corrected/included in my copy of the PHB:  Correction 38A  Correction 38B  Addition 87A  I have a 7th print from, I assume, late 1980.   Can anybody else back me on this?
 Well, can SOMBODY?


There is no edition but first.

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 576
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2011

Post Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:36 am 
 

To be honest Jacobite, some of us don't have the time to check their PHBs for the errata and changes made to it. You need to know many have their collections put away and don't have it right in front of them.  Hold your horses and someone will answer your question eventually. Adam, len, lawrenson, adrian, etc anyone wanna help this fellow out? This is a important question for him.

  


Active Collector

Posts: 22
Joined: Jan 24, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 11, 2003
Location: Chicago IL USA

Post Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:44 am 
 

Sorry,  :oops:  but it is a point of contention elsewhere.  You might say I got five bucks riding on it.  No rush really, I guess.


There is no edition but first.

  


Active Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 50
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Last Visit: Mar 05, 2012

Post Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 9:48 pm 
 

jacobite1688,  Ok, I checked my copies of the PHB and here's what I found: the following changes had been incorporated into my 7th, 8th and 9th print copies (I also checked the errors against a couple of 3rd prints to verify the changes):  15A 38A 38B 87A  The first three changes are in tables, which seems to make sense since intermittent shading was added to the tables of the PHB by the 7th printing - although it doesn't explain why correction 11C wasn't incorporated since it also occurs in a table. It also doesn't explain why 87A (one of two corrections of spell components) was incorporated.  So, first, let Scott know about this (in case he doesn't already) so he can update the PHB page, and second - go collect your $5.  Also, unlike some on this forum, I actually think the Acaeum's value resides in exactly this kind of information and it does the Acaeum staff a service for others here to help verify this type of information. But hey, that's just my opinion.  - Rene

  

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 2105
Joined: Oct 19, 2002
Last Visit: Jul 28, 2021
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:59 pm 
 

These corrections have been made to the PHB Errata page; it will appear in the next update.  If anyone here has Fourth or Fifth print PHB's, you can help us narrow down in which of these prints the errors were corrected.

  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1