John Cooper reviews MMIII, and finds loads of mistakes

[Naathez]

I see your point, wizardru...

Let's say I agree that WOTC should do better editing. And I disagree that it is so serious, in the final result...

I am so full of contradictions...


Anyway, there were a couple TRULY interesting ideas in that book... I loved the petals, just what I had in mind for faeries.

And I ADORE the alchemical golem....
But that's the mad Biogenetist in me speaking, I'm afraid.

 

[Knight Otu]

Perhaps I value stats too little. But when I use a resource, like a Monster book, I use it for ideas. And I don't care if hit points are wrong by 2 or BAB is 1 lower than correct.

As someone who enjoys creating monsters (and is somewhat nit-picky), 1 point differences don't bother me too much, but I'd rather have them correct. But there are things in the book that are more than 1 point differences (and the 1 point differences are numerous).
For example, the sandblaster of the sand giants: Maybe I'm just dense, but what is the penalty to use one without proficiency? Normally, you'd take a -4 penalty to your attack roll. Oops, no attack roll required.

That said:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]as well as some weird texturing effect that looks like gold-banded cables ripping through holes in the book's "skin"[/size][/font]

Maybe it was just me, but I took those "cables" to be maggots.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]p. 74, Web Golem: ... Also, since spider climb is a continuous effect, shouldn't it have a Climb speed listed? [/size][/font]

Vampires and vampire spawn have a similar ability, and are not listed with a climb speed.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]p. 197, Woodling Monitor Lizard: ... Also, the Treasure and Alignment lines are missing; based off of the base creature, they should be "None" and "Always neutral," respectively. [/size][/font]

"Normal" animals from the animal file in the SRD neither have Alignment nor treasure lines. That is stated at the beginning. I'm assuming it's the same in the revised MM.

And here's some more.

 

[philreed]

Perhaps I value stats too little. But when I use a resource, like a Monster book, I use it for ideas. And I don't care if hit points are wrong by 2 or BAB is 1 lower than correct.

Am I alone on this....?

Not at all. While I try to not make mistakes in my own work, I don't feel that minor errors have any effect on the game. MMIII, for me, was packed with some great monsters. The cadaver collector, night twist, and necronaut were all awesome and instantly gave me cool adventure ideas.

In my opinion, one of the biggest weaknesses of the game these days is the rigid rules structure. Far too many times the rules get in the way. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be any rules, just that it's important to sometimes overlook, bend, or shatter the rules to suit the fun of the players.

 

[Davelozzi]

The legendary John Cooper...

What makes John legendary? I've never heard of him before.

 

[WizarDru]

In my opinion, one of the biggest weaknesses of the game these days is the rigid rules structure. Far too many times the rules get in the way. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be any rules, just that it's important to sometimes overlook, bend, or shatter the rules to suit the fun of the players.

While I agree, the devil's advocate in me feels the need to point out that there's an up and a down to the whole thing. The good part of the rules structure is that it allows for the creation of creatures that help liberate the more modest or less experienced DM from the task of 'running the numbers' too much (i.e. is the AC of this creature to high for a 4th-level party to hit). On the other hand, too much blind adherence to the rules stifles new ideas.

In essence, if I have to choose between poorly edited with minor mistakes and great ideas versus excellently edited rote and unoriginal material, I'll take the ifirst one.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I greatly respect John's ability to find both grammar and mechanical errors in products. I'm very glad that Morrus added him to the list.

For me, game mechanics are very important. It all hails back to the days when Creature Collection came out and was basically wrong on almost every point. When it's things that are basic math, I do think that the extra time should be made to fix the errors.

Do I think that there are too many areas that are incorporated into the statistics themselves? I mean AC has things like size, natural bonus, dexterity, and other modifiers so yea, I do think it's rough, but it's part of the business.

Do I think that WoTC needs to be more proof reading of their own products and 'lead' the herd so to speak? Yea, it would be nice.

Am I still getting a lot of use out of books that have such errors like Conan? Yup.

 

[wedgeski]

I agree with the general sentiments in this thread: disappointing that there should be so many errors, not too bothered about it myself either. As a mine of ideas and hooks, MMIII was well worth the money to me. My main disappointment was the proliferation of variants on existing beasts - this needs to be nipped in the bud right now.

Awesome review too, even if it does read a little like an application for a job in the Wizards editing dept.

 

[Psion]

Perhaps I value stats too little. But when I use a resource, like a Monster book, I use it for ideas. And I don't care if hit points are wrong by 2 or BAB is 1 lower than correct.

Am I alone on this....?

Not at all.

But it's a shades of wrongness sort of thing for me. When some sloppy third party publishers were doing things like giving undead con scores and giving creatures with the abilities of 16th level sorcerer and 16 hd a CR of 8, they wailed about how picky I was being about mechanics for knocking them on it in a review. But 90% of the mistakes that are mentioned here probably wouldn't even spring up in play.

Not that I consider John to be wrong in any way. It's certainly something worth noting.

 

[Knight Otu]

By the way, since John Cooper brings it up in his review - the Night twists' area of effect. Can anyone give me some comparable sizes (75 miles for the average, 125 for the elder)?

 

[Breakdaddy]

I'll take the ifirst one.

You on a macintosh there, WD?