D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Contradication between PHB/DMG?

[melkoriii]

Too true. They obviously did not get the correct editor(s) for the job and/or did not let the editor(s) do the job right. Production deadlines and/or too many last-minute changes can cause the latter.
Gerneally speaking, to get pretty much error-free technical books of this sort takes about 3 to 3-1/2 hour per page after the rules are set. That's a lot of hours.

Sound like you (like me) work in the field that product written products.

writing/Editing/Production/Test of a written product is very time consuming.

Especially if someone breaks protocol in the product life cycle.

Common phrase.
“What you mean you have to test that doc again? I just made a few minor changes.”

 

[Li Shenron]

Sound like you (like me) work in the field that product written products.

writing/Editing/Production/Test of a written product is very time consuming.

Especially if someone breaks protocol in the product life cycle.

Common phrase.
“What you mean you have to test that doc again? I just made a few minor changes.”

Obviously I trust you that this is what happens always... but I can't still figure out why in all my hundreds of schoolbooks I have owned there was altogether less errata than in the 3 D&D core rulebooks. I suppose it's much easier to check something which contains TRUE information and not rules of fantasy, but still...

 

[AGGEMAM]

The Andy Collins response is "animal". Ref: www.andycollins.net

The SRD response is magical beast.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The SRD response is magical beast.

Why am I not surprised?

But, didn't The Andy (the intern) do the SRD? Who did he have to pass that with? Or did he make that decision on his own? Did Andy Collins want them to be animals, but someone else on the team want them to be magical beasts and they never resolved their differences? Must we have to ask questions like these??

D&D has gotten a lot less cohesive of late, with 3.5 hitting the shelves, and with the Sage making rulings that fly in the face of the RAW. Don't they care about cohesion anymore?

 

[ThirdWizard]

The SRD response is magical beast.

Actually, it contains the exact same wording as the PHB, and it describes them as both type magical beast and animal in the druid description text.

 

[Nail]

Obviously I trust you that this is what happens always... but I can't still figure out why in all my hundreds of schoolbooks I have owned there was altogether less errata than in the 3 D&D core rulebooks.

Actually, you'd be surprised at how many errata you find in textbooks. AS a college professor, I even get to review these monsters.....and I don't go over it nearly as closely as I do the D&D books.

There's yer answer right there: hobby books are held to a higher standard and closer scrutiny.

 

[jgsugden]

Expect the (hopefully soon to arrive) errata to indicate animal instead of magical beast. Also expect it to clarify that animal companions gain hit dice, skills and feats, but not size increases when they increase in hit dice. Andy Collins was pretty clear that this was the intention, and he is ultimately responsible for the PHB.

As for lazy editing: It was not the best possible job, but it wasn't bad. D&D is a huge collection of interlocking rules. It isn't easy to edit. A small change to one word in a spell description can require fifty changes throughout the rest of the core books, each of which can cause other changes in the core rules ... The cascade of changes is impossible to completely control. Anyone expecting perfectly clear and complete rules has no concept of how complex and interwoven the D&D rules actually are. WotC did do a good job. Not great, but clearly acceptable.

 

[WizarDru]

Obviously I trust you that this is what happens always... but I can't still figure out why in all my hundreds of schoolbooks I have owned there was altogether less errata than in the 3 D&D core rulebooks. I suppose it's much easier to check something which contains TRUE information and not rules of fantasy, but still...

Nail mentions it above. Here's some examples of flawed textbooks for your entertainment:

From an article in the New York Times.

Here's a link to a PDF at the Education Reform site discussing many of the problems with textbooks.

Here's an excerpt at the Textbook League site from a nobel-winning scientist who was tasked with reviewing textbooks...in 1964:

"Finally I come to a book that says, "Mathematics is used in science in many ways. We will give you an example from astronomy, which is the science of stars." I turn the page, and it says, "Red stars have a temperature of four thousand degrees, yellow stars have a temperature of five thousand degrees . . ." -- so far, so good. It continues: "Green stars have a temperature of seven thousand degrees, blue stars have a temperature of ten thousand degrees, and violet stars have a temperature of . . . (some big number)." There are no green or violet stars, but the figures for the others are roughly correct. It's vaguely right -- but already, trouble! That's the way everything was: Everything was written by somebody who didn't know what the hell he was talking about, so it was a little bit wrong, always! And how we are going to teach well by using books written by people who don't quite understand what they're talking about, I cannot understand. I don't know why, but the books are lousy; UNIVERSALLY LOUSY! Anyway, I'm happy with this book, because it's the first example of applying arithmetic to science. I'm a bit unhappy when I read about the stars' temperatures, but I'm not very unhappy because it's more or less right -- it's just an example of error. Then comes the list of problems. It says, "John and his father go out to look at the stars. John sees two blue stars and a red star. His father sees a green star, a violet star, and two yellow stars. What is the total temperature of the stars seen by John and his father?" -- and I would explode in horror. "

 

[ThirdWizard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they lay off most (all) of their editors and now developers are in charge of editing? Which doesn't work becuase its difficult to edit what you actually wrote.

 

[jgsugden]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they lay off most (all) of their editors and now developers are in charge of editing? Which doesn't work becuase its difficult to edit what you actually wrote.

Open your PHB, DMG and MM. Read the credits page. The managing editor is listed as Kim Mohan. She did not write the initial version of the 3.5 material. She, and her staff (uncredited), are the ones responsible for editing the books. Not Andy or any of the other top designers of 3.5.