How important is stat accuracy to you?

[Klaus]

Yeah, but that is something that is VERY significant. Comparing a desk where the drawers don't fit to a statblock that is missing a couple ranks is a HUGE difference. The renders the desk unusable. Almost everyone who posted here so far said its not a big deal as long as their aren't a lot of mistakes so I think this example is far too extreme and doesn't relate to the situation at all.



You most certainly are entitled to a product that has the stats done 100% accurately and doesn't have a single editing error. Realistically, that is never going to happen, but that is not the reason for this discussion. I agree, products should be as error free as possible and should have eratta done for them.

My intention of the post was me being curious how many people really care about minor statblocks errors and such as I don't mess around with those myself. It seems like a lot of people's responses echo those concerns and because of this, I wouldn't be surprised if this really isn't a top priority over at Wizards.

If the publisher is selling game stats for a creature (as in a monster book), and those stats are wrong/innacurate, isn't the product defective?

If I write an adventure for my game and I make a couple of mistakes when putting a monster together, it's not a big deal, as I'm making it myself. But if I'm essentially hiring someone to put that monster together for me, and the monster doesn't abide by the rules as written, what am I paying for?

Of course, there are levels of error. A typo is one thing (like a +! instead of +1 or something). But creatures that don't have they synergy bonus accounted for, or that don't have their Weapon Focus feat included in the attck bonus, it kinda stretches the patience.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Would I prefer the stats be accurate? Of course I would prefer that.

But the vast majority of the errors I have seen talked about I probobly couldn't care less about. If a skill is off by 1 or 2 I for one won't be worrying about it.

Now, I'm not saying that I haven't seen stat blacks talked about on these boards that didn't have some big errors that should be pointed out. That's one of the great things about this site; that there are people here that do go over these statblocks so if something major (whatever I or anyone else feels is major) gets through we can know about.

I just happen to know that what others consider a "major" error I am likely to shug and say 'whaterer' to. What do I concider "major"? It would depend on the focus of the stat block and the level it is built for. It's hard to pin down exact figures but I'll know a "major" error for me when I see one.

On the errata issue, I definately look at the errata when it comes out. If I use it depends entirely on if I actially remember that there is errata out for it or not when it comes times to use it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I could never begin to care less about something like skill points being off. The d20 skill system is, frankly, ridiculous in its fiddliness; if, say, skill points in a system like Star Wars Saga were off, I'd be less forgiving. Even then, I could count on one hand the number of times an OMG Accurate sk!llz0rz!!111 down to the +2 synergy bonus would EVER have mattered for a monster or NPC in my campaign.

This is not a desk where the drawers don't fit, it's a desk where there's a scratch on the inside of the keyboard tray, right where the keyboard would go. Is it less than perfect? Yes. Does it impair its functionality or even appearance in any way? No.

Frankly, the idea that someone would NOTICE that was wrong freaks me out.

Things like BAB and save progression are different. Those are constant mathematical formulae that have been around for almost a decade (or half a decade in the case of the medium save progression). A professional company should get those right.

Nonetheless, I'd much prefer a monster or NPC that created an interesting encounter than one that was technically correct even in broad strokes. A creature whose BAB is off by five points but who presents a half dozen interesting choices for the PCs each round is more likely to be a memorable encounter than a technically perfect creature whose mechanics encourage both PC and monster to go "I hit him for x damage" each round.

 

[Klaus]

Nonetheless, I'd much prefer a monster or NPC that created an interesting encounter than one that was technically correct even in broad strokes. A creature whose BAB is off by five points but who presents a half dozen interesting choices for the PCs each round is more likely to be a memorable encounter than a technically perfect creature whose mechanics encourage both PC and monster to go "I hit him for x damage" each round.

But it isn't an "or" situation. Would you prefer a creature "who presents a half dozen interesting choices for the PCs each round" with 5 points off of BAB or with a correct BAB?

Some skill points are meaningless, but in my games there have been ambushes who were successful (or not) by a margin of 1 or 2 in the skill check. And skill modifiers are just an example of stuff that can be wrong in a stat block. I wouldn't mind if the monsters came with an entry like:

Class Skills (8 ranks): Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot.

 

[Desdichado]

Of course I'd prefer an accurate one to an inaccurate one, all other things being equal. That seems so obvious as to make me think the question can't possibly mean that.

It's just literally one of the very last priorities in terms of stat block design for me.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

But it isn't an "or" situation. Would you prefer a creature "who presents a half dozen interesting choices for the PCs each round" with 5 points off of BAB or with a correct BAB?

The latter - provided making the BAB correct didn't render the encounter uninteresting. Which it could. For example, a creature with good regular attacks and poor-to-okay (Su) abilities, whose BAB is arbitrarily low. Such a creature would normally just break out its strong attack, but now it has to choose between its strong attack or its weaker, more accurate attacks - and the PCs can choose to take different actions, for example closing to melee because they are more afraid of its AoE breath weapon (despite low damage) than its inaccurate melee attacks.

Could you achieve that with an accurate stat block? Sure; you could append a -10 insight penalty, or an exceptionally low Strength, or an exceptionally high Dex, Con and Wis (so it has sufficient saves and hp to be an interesting encounter). And that would be *better.*

But given the choice between rigorous editing or interesting design, I'd take interesting design ten times out of ten.

Some skill points are meaningless, but in my games there have been ambushes who were successful (or not) by a margin of 1 or 2 in the skill check. And skill modifiers are just an example of stuff that can be wrong in a stat block. I wouldn't mind if the monsters came with an entry like:

Class Skills (8 ranks): Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot.

I would mind a block like that because the GM would have to do the math at the table - considerably slowing down play if you want it to be accurate, or simply shifting blame for the inaccuracy.

A better skill system would solve the problem, but is beyond the scope of an individual supplement.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Would you prefer a creature "who presents a half dozen interesting choices for the PCs each round" with 5 points off of BAB or with a correct BAB?

I realise that 5 is kind of an arbitrary number for this discussion. Being off by five is much more of a problem for a 1st level encounter than it is for a 20th level encounter so I will look at this as being off X in BAB; where X is a "large enough number to be a problem but small enough that you won't notice it right away".

(I phrase it like this because if a 1st level kobald has a +11 to attack it should raise a flag for the DM to take a closer look at that number so the error gets caught. I'm talking about the errors that are juuuust off enough to not get caught at first glance.)

I think I would rather have an interesting encounter if I would be forced to choose - and I'm usually a player instead of a DM. I'd rather have a fight I'll remember instead of "another attack by big brutes". I want my PC to survive and complete the story. But I'm there to have fun.

Being attacked by a critter that is just like a bunch of other critters I don't find fun. Sometimes this is the DM's fault. Othertimes the description is different enough and the the picture is cool enough that the fact that the critter is just like what we faught last week won't be immediately apparent. Give me the cool fight.

Some skill points are meaningless, but in my games there have been ambushes who were successful (or not) by a margin of 1 or 2 in the skill check. And skill modifiers are just an example of stuff that can be wrong in a stat block.

And I've been in fights where we missed because we rolled just 1 below the AC or JUST get hit because the critter rolled our AC exactly. I wouldn't be surprised of some of those stat blocks are off and we should have hit or the critter should have missed.

I don't know the critters write-up. Maybe they have a high STR score. Who's to say that monster should have a 20 STR instead of an 18 or 22 STR? Maybe they have a high natural armor. Even in mid-CR range critters there is alot of room to give the critter a higher AC (natural armor, DEX, etc). As a player how am I to know that stat-block is correct or not?

I wouldn't mind if the monsters came with an entry like:
Class Skills (8 ranks): Bluff, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot.

I wouldn't want to see that as a DM. The example given above doesn't look that bad. But I fear the day when I see a king with:

Class Skills (8 ranks): Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (History), Kowledge (Nobility & Royalty), Sense Motive, Perform (Sing), Use Magic Device

Not to mention the bunch of Skill Focus (X) feats that are in a different area of the stat block. I'll take the errors if I don't have to do the work on the fly.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

For the current book prices, the stat blocks'd BETTER be accurate. Anything else is like paying for an incomplete product.

Say you buy a desk. You pay money for the desk. When you get home and assemble the desk, you find out that the drawers don't fit their holes in the desk. They're a bit too large, and keep scraping at the sides of the desk. Wouldn't you call the store or the manufactorer and complain about the problem?

The same thing applies to RPG books. If the manufacturer sells you a product and, as it turns out, there are problems with the product (however immaterial "bad math" can be, since the rules are basically mathematical simulations), shouldn't you complain/get a correction?

Wow, Klaus, you and I are really on the same page with this.

I think the point that a lot of people are missing is not the fact that a few stat block errors could cause any serious issues with game play (although some certainly can), but rather that some publishers don't bother to spend the time and effort required to put out the best product they can. That's what irritates me.

If I pay good, hard-earned money for something, I want to get what I paid for. And when we are talking about a D20 product, part of what I paid for is accurate and complete stat blocks. Admittedly, I work in the business and I probably notice this stuff more than others, but it still irks me to no end.

BD


BD

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

As you said, a skill point here and there doesn't make a difference. What truly irks me is when a monster is presented as incredibly powerful but is actually terrible in combat as written, or vice versa. As long as this disparity does not exist, I am generally happy.

It matters, but less so than weak NPC design. I'm talking guys with levels in NPC classes inflating their CR or just plain crappy combinations. I recall theres a Derro Warlock Fighter in the Age of Worms just waiting to be relatively free exp and loot. I dont expect (or want) uber optimization, but I cringe when I see an NPC supposedly designed as a challenge with toughness, combat casting, etc. Or when their AC is a joke - melee characters above 10th level should NOT be sporting AC's under 20.

HP, AC, BAB, Saves etc matter more than skills (particularly unspent skill points). Even missing a feat isnt so bad, since it could have just as easily been something useless like High Altitude Adaptation. In general, spell lists could largely be trunctuated to the top 3 levels. It honestly doesnt matter how many castings of acid spash the 18th level Lich has.

 

[JVisgaitis]

If the publisher is selling game stats for a creature (as in a monster book), and those stats are wrong/innacurate, isn't the product defective?.

Sorta defective, but not unusable like a desk with drawers that don't fit. Your desk analogy is something that everyone is going to notice. A couple of points missing here or there is going unnoticed by a lot of people. Yeah, an extra rank in Hide can make a big difference and I'm not arguing that statblock errors are OK.

I'm just curious how important it is to other people, and apparently it isn't a big deal. You fall on the other side of the fence which is fine and no one (myself included) is saying that you shouldn't get a solid product. I just think saying that something is busted and unusable is inaccurate.