John Cooper does it again [Libris Mortis]

Michelle Lyons said:
The truth of the matter, though, is that mistakes happen in technical books, whether they are game books, or math textbooks, or science manuals. It's not new, it's not out of the ordinary, and it's not unexpected by anyone. Whether you feel WotC is committing an egregious number of errors or not, the process of errors creeping into documents or past editors is not a new one. If you figure out a way to stop it, let the world know. I'm sure publishers everywhere will beat a path to your door. :)
Thing is, one reviewer caught many, many errors in one week and this book has been in development how long? From some of the errors I'd guess since before 3.5. Somebody, somewhere should have/could have caught most of those. There really is no excuse for that many errors when the book has been promoted for as long as it has.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, that's something I never get as well. When a reviewer, or just about any non-professional reader picks up many, many of those errors in a single (quick) reading of such a book, a professional lector should be able to catch MOST of them!

And it should be a matter of a couple minutes to remove the WHOLE of those errors, so there is really no reason to have them in there, except sloppiness. ;)

Sure 100% error free would be a bit much asked for, but it shouldn't be that much of a problem to be close.

Bye
Thanee
 

As much as we complain, I'm sure nothing will change. Until WotC sees a significant dropoff in their sales, why would they change anything? I haven't bought a WotC book in close to a year and I don't plan to anytime soon. I'm doing my part, are you?!?! :cool:
 

I think a key point in this discussion is this: the sheer quantity of errors found in these recent WotC books greatly exceeds the standards set by none other than . . . WotC. We don't need to talk about other game companies, or other industries, or pure hypotheticals.

These recent books simply don’t seem to meet the proofreading standards established by the core books.
 

Garnfellow said:
(snip a good point) These recent books simply don’t seem to meet the proofreading standards established by the core books.

I think this is also because the core books sell so well whereas, by comparison, the other books are just better than marginal products. I stress that this is not meant be an excuse offered on behalf of WotC: I'm a firm believer that if you're going to do something, particularly something that other people pay money for, you should do it well. That's a lesson WotC, sadly, needs to learn.
 

Sidenote: Not really replying to your mail. I'm using it as an example against "minor errors don't matter" -argument, which someone will surely post. :)

hong said:
I don't really care if some entries in a statblock are off by +/-1.

I don't usually care about +/-1 either, but there are quite a few larger errors than that.

Below is a reduced list of errors from John Coopers Reviews. I removed entries where error was +/- 2 or less:

* p. 83, Angel of Decay: Grapple should be +30, not +35 (+13 BAB, +4 size, +13 Str).
* p. 85, Blaspheme: Flat-footed AC should be 19, not 15 (+9 natural).
* p. 86, Bleakborn: Grapple should be +10, not "-" (+4 BAB, +6 Str).
* p. 87, Blood Amniote: Flat-footed AC should be 21, not 11 (-2 size, +13 natural).
* p. 88, Bloodmote Cloud: Initiative should be +1, not "-" as listed. Touch AC should be 19, not 11 (+8 size, +1 Dex).
* p. 88, Bone Rat Swarm Distraction Fortitude save should be DC 12, not DC 15 (10 + 2 + 0).
* p. 90, Brain in a Jar: Its Fly speed is listed as both "30 ft." and "8 squares." Obviously, that should either be "40 ft. (8 squares)" or "30 ft. (6 squares)." AC should be 15, not 13 (+2 size, +2 Dex, +1 deflection). Touch AC should be 15, not 13. Flat-footed AC should be 13, not 11.
* p. 95, Dire Maggot: AC should be 19, not 16 (+1 size, +2 Dex, +6 natural). Touch AC should be 13, not 10. Flat-footed AC should be 17, not 14. Grapple should be +1, not +15 (+4 BAB, -4 size, +1 Str). Bite attacks should be at +6 melee, not +3 (+4 BAB, +1 size, +1 Str). Bite damage should be 1d8+1, not 1d8+2 (it has a +1 Str bonus). Space should be 5 ft., not 15 ft. Reach should be 5 ft., not 10 ft. There's no Treasure line listed; presumably it's "None." The painting (and the -2 size modifier to AC as listed in the stats) indicate a Huge creature, not a Small one - perhaps the creature was reworked during the course of the book? Also, isn't it odd that a 4-foot-long maggot has a Speed of 40 ft.? I think I'd recommend dropping this down to at least 20 ft. Finally, maggots are larval forms of creatures like flies; what does a dire maggot grow up to be? No answer is provided here.
* p. 96, Dream Vestige: Grapple should be "-" instead of +16 (incorporeal creatures can't grapple). Average hit points should be 144, not 110 (it gets +34 hp from its Desecrating Aura special ability). Tendril attacks should be at +13 melee touch, not +15 (+8 BAB, -2 size, +5 Dex, +2 profane due to Desecrating Aura). Desecrating Aura damage should be 3d6+2, not 3d6 (the +2 profane bonus also applies to damage).
* pp. 106-107, Half-Vampire 1st-Level Gnoll Barbarian: In the Rage stats, AC should be 14, not 16 (-2 to AC due to Rage), and Grapple should read "+7," not "++5/+7." This creature shouldn't have Uncanny Dodge, as that's a feature of 2nd-level barbarians, and he's only 1st level.
* p. 116, Quell: With 5 HD, it should have 2 feats, not 4. Delete Weapon Finesse in any case, as it's an incorporeal creature and incorporeal creatures use their Dexterity modifiers for melee attacks anyway. Make the 3rd feat a bonus feat.
* p. 117, Raiment: HD should be 3d12, not 3d8 (it's undead, and undead have d12s for HD). This means that average hit points should be 19, not 13. Grapple should be +3, not +5 (+1 BAB, -4 size, +4 Improved Grab, +2 Str). Coat sleeve attacks should be at +4 melee, not +6 (+1 BAB, +1 size, +2 Str).
* p. 118, Revived Fossil Megaraptor: Average hit points should be 92, not 118. According to the rule on page 119, its Will save should be +6, not +4 (1/2 the creature's HD + 2, or in this case 4 + 2).
* p. 124, Swarm-Shifter, 13th-Level Mummy King Druid, Sand Swarm Form: With an AC breakdown of "(+8 size, +6 Dex, +10 natural)," AC should be 34, not 30; touch AC should be 24, not 30; and flat-footed AC should be 28, not 25.
* p. 128, Tomb Mote: With HD 3d12, average hit points should be 19, not 13.
* p. 131, Voidwraith: Why does this incorporeal creature have a natural armor bonus, a grapple bonus, and a Strength score, none of which incorporeal creatures are supposed to have? Taking them away, AC should be 17, not 22, and flat-footed AC should be 12, not 17. Also, you can trade in Weapon Finesse for a different feat, since it isn't going to do much for an incorporeal creature. Of course, air elementals aren't incorporeal, so perhaps voidwraiths ("undead manifestations of elemental air") shouldn't be, either - in which case, drop the +2 deflection bonus to AC: AC would be 20, not 22, touch AC would be 15, not 17, and flat-footed AC would be 15, not 17. Whichever way you look at it, this creature needs some major stat-fixing!
* p. 132, Wheep: Grapple should be +15, not +11 (+4 BAB, +11 Str).
* p. 147, Laddy Bristerbuck, male ghost halfling rogue 6: Flat-footed AC should be 19, not 15 (due to Uncanny Dodge). Flat-footed AC against ethereal foes should be 18, not 14 (also due to Uncanny Dodge).
* p. 158, Crocodile Skeleton: No AC values given, just the breakdowns (and one of those is wrong!); it should read "AC 14 (+2 Dex, +2 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12."
* p. 158, Dire Badger Skeleton: Space/Reach line is blank; it should be "5 ft./5 ft."
* p. 160, Athach Skeleton: Since it no longer has the Multiweapon Fighting feat, this creature should probably have a Full Attack line with one morningstar attack (at +13 melee), 2 claw attacks (at +8 melee), and a bite (at +8 melee).
* p. 163, Baanmukh, male fiendish minotaur vampire: Powerful Charge attack should be at +12 melee, not +9 (+6 BAB, -1 size, +7 Str).
* p. 166, Weasel familiar: AC should be 17, not 20 (+2 size, +2 Dex, +3 natural). Flat-footed AC should be 15, not 18. Intelligence should be 8, not 11 (its master is a 5th-level sorcerer), and it shouldn't have the Speak with Animals ability yet.
* p. 170, Gnome Warrior Zombie: Initiative should be -1, not +3.
be 23, not 18 (due to Uncanny Dodge, he retains his +5 Dex modifier even while flat-footed).
Flat-footed AC should be 18, not 15 (due to Uncanny Dodge).
* p. 184, Lieutenant, human rogue 6: Flat-footed AC should be 18, not 14 (due to Uncanny Dodge).
9d4+27, not 9d4+36 (she has a +3 Constitution bonus). As a result, average hit points should be 51, not 60. Speed should be 30 ft. not 20 ft.
13d12+9. Average hit points should be 97, not 90. Missing the feats Alertness, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes from being an atropal scion. Slam attacks should be at +8 melee, not +9 (+7 BAB, +1 Str).

Still quite many. In small levels mistakes like +10 hit points or +3 in AC can make a difference between a successful adventure and a TPK...

hong said:
However, I _do_ care if some boy wonder designer comes up with a brilliant idea that just happens to breaks the game. Undying frenzy, anyone?

Argh, my nemesis! Kreegah, Felonius bundolo!! :mad:

- F
 

Keep in mind that even if WoTC made massive changes today - we wouldn't see the end result of those changes for months down the road.

In fact, I do recall after Complete Divine that WoTC indicated that they were adding a layer of editing/cross-checking to their production process. Perhaps someone can dig that up.
 

[food for thought]Okay, so I've been hearing on this board and others how great Libris Mortis is for about two weeks. So how come nobody else mentioned all these stat problems earlier? [/food for thought]
 

Wombat said:
This is not just a harp on WotC, but on all publishers: Warner, Avon, Viking, Paragon, TOR, Norton (yes, even Norton, who once set the gold standard for editing). It is just a lack of will rather than a lack of skill. All the companies need to make this a higher priority for their products in general.
It's a lack of time and money. Editing standards will only get better if prices increase, sales increase, or publishers accept lower (in most cases, though not WotC's, read 'even lower') margins.
 

Maybe the WotC stat calculator is on the fritz...

It's a shame the stats are as messed up as they are, but thanks to John Cooper, it's no longer a problem. :)

Still, I think the creative energy in these books is excellent, even if the stat block creators & editors can't get it as sharp as we'd like.
 

Remove ads

Top