First of all: Nice to see there´s an active errata process right from the get-go. Thanks
Now if there would have been proper proofreading in the first place, that would have been even nicer. But alas...
Some observations that astonished me (not necissarily in a bad way), both about the Errata and the Core rules that can be extrapolated from them:
Cover I like the fact that cover now still gives you bonus defense dice in the errata, but the "can´t gain Edge on your attack" penalty seems like a
really bad idea. It just further devaluates the Edge mechanic by putting arbitrary shakles on Edge gain (But
hey, at least the Edge is not falling victim to the communist 2-Edge-per-round-limit, amirite?
) So yeah, you
might want to have a second look on that. What astonishes me more than the new rules itself is the scope of this item: I don´t know how the original version of the cover mechanic in the Core Rules work, but this doesn´t look like the typical "First-Aid" errata, but like a full-blown rules change.
Edge: Wow, there´s a lot of Edge uses hinted at all over the place! Not that this is a bad thing, but maybe another reason to overthink that 2-Edge-per-round limit?
The Edge mechanic is supposed to be a selling point of SR6, stop neutering it by adding arbitrary restrictions to it! I´m rather having a system that´s
a bit unrealistic but fun than a system that´s
neither realistic nor fun. At least the errata team fixed the restriction on Edge
uses per round. Good catch, I´ll gladly forgive you the typo on that ("one expenditure of Edge per
round action")
Beauty Corrections: The scope of the different errata items varies drastically; There are the usual suspects like missing tables, there are wording changes for better clarification, typos, and there are some items look more like actual rule changes than fixes. And then there are items that do look a bit... arbitrary? I mean stuff like
- p. 70, New Spells, sentence 3: Change “After a week of study” to “After about a week of study, (see p. 131). So there´s a bit of leeway for the GM now, in case (s)he forgets who controls the game world?
Is that really worth an errata item? - p. 90, Weapon Specialist, skills: Change Close Combat 6 to Close Combat (Unarmed Combat) 5. Assuming that buying skills at chargen works remotely similar to 5E, isn´t that just a kind of modification that any player could do themselfes?
To put some constuctivism in the criticism: You people should consider some kind of priority annotation to distinguish different types of errata items: Actual rules changes / "fixes", missing stuff, clarification, typos and lastly, beauty modifications like the above. If this document gets longer (and I´m sure it will), it becomes more and more tedious to pick out the more important changes.
Athletics: So, Archery and Throwing is part of Athletics now, making it a kind of semi-combat skill? That´s... wild. Would have never guessed that. But it actually makes sense. Hell, I like it
