John Cooper reviews MMIII, and finds loads of mistakes

[Felonius]

Worth repeating as Garnfellow obviously reached into my brain while writing this.

First, I should say that I certainly understand why some people don’t get wound up about small math errors. Some of my favorite source books for my campaign are from different game systems altogether, particularly Ars Magica. When I plunder one of those books for ideas, I have no idea or even interest whether the game mechanics behind those ideas are rock solid or completely rotten.

For most of my DMing career (starting back in 1st edition AD&D), I almost completely improvised all encounters using just the average PC levels, ACs, hps, and THAC0s. My notes would only say something like "this is a bad-ass ogre," and when it came time to roll the dice I would fudge the stats on the fly to fit the situation.

But for me 3e is different, because there is a solid game mechanic framework underlying everything. I take a wonkish delight in seeing how all the little parts fit neatly together. From an aesthetic perspective, I appreciate good craftsmanship for its own sake. But I also realize that not everyone groks clean, elegant game mechanics.

But from a practical perspective, I also want to have confidence that the stats in my books are solid and reliable. Because sometimes, I need to quickly pull a monster out of those books and drop it into a game.

Just two weeks ago I ran an out-of-the-book encounter that resulted in a PC death from a claw attack that did 1d8+6 points of damage. Only afterward did I realize that the attack should have done only 1d8+4 -- the designers had incorrectly used 1-1/2 the monster’s Str bonus for damage. What was the different between 2 points of damage? As it turned out, one dead PC.

Does that mean I freak if a stat block has a wrong skill bonus? No -- as almost everyone recognizes, skill bonuses are one of the most complex pieces of the d20 system and also one of the least important for running most encounters. Knowledge (geography) +6 as opposed to +5? Whatev. So a glitch here and there is OK.

But if the glitches are here and EVERYWHERE, that’s a problem. What's worse: a lot of little errors or a few big errors? Neither is really very good. It suggests a level of carelessness that might run deeper than just math mistakes. Maybe these monsters haven't been properly playtested. Maybe some fundamental aspect of a special attack hasn’t been thought out thoroughly.

Note that John doesn’t even look at skill bonuses in his review -- almost all of the game mechanics that he calls out are important numbers in running the encounter: AC, hit points, save DCs. What’s the difference between 2 points of damage? See anecdote above.

And keep in mind this is only one guy, looking at this book one time, for one week. Sometimes, there are mechanical problems that run deeper than just the surface math, and can only be found in a playtest.

So based on John's review, the sheer number and type of errors in the MM III is, to me, deeply troubling. But also troubling is who is making these errors. I think Wizards of the Coast should be held to a higher standard than most other publishers. Different contexts demand different standards.

If you invite me over to your house for steaks and you accidentally overcook my porterhouse, no problem -- I'm not gonna complain and I’m not going to hold it against you, even though I may not like it. But if I take you out to a nice restraint, pay $200 a plate, and get overcooked steak, I'm sure as heck going to be ripped.

So if I buy a $5 pdf that is riddled with errors, that's still not cool but doesn’t really get me very incensed, either. But If I'm buying a $35 hardcover book from the industry leader, I expect that book to have excellent production values, including editing. Do I expect perfection? No, not at all. Given the complexity of the game system, some errors are inevitable. But to accept simple math mistakes on 38% of the monster entries? That seems a bit much, to me.

- F

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am not the rules lawyer type either, but I too reckon WoTC, who run this whole thing should get it right..more often.

One or two here and there for AC and Base ATT no problem? What? Try telling that to any palyer. Why bother with a masterwork sword?

These errors are not acceptable. Yeah, I love the monsters and I will still enjoy the game, but I still expect WoTC to get these right...I mean geez, do you think they would accept your submission with these kinds of errors. Dragon and Dungeon don't. read their guidelines. Right down to getting formatting right. Spells MUST be in itallics, orcs speak orc NOT ORCISH, let alone game stats as important as AC and att ratings?

Ah that is my stance. Now I would like to give a call out to John Cooper. I know in other threads he says he doesn't check skill mods, and I don't with every creature either, BUT I also like to have variants on common creatures. Take ponies, mules, horses etc Animals with fairly small skill calcualtions. I love to make breeds that have different skill alotments. So it was much to my horror when I checked what they did have and found that they did not add up? I may have missed something...I may be wrong, but could someone (John Cooper ) check these for me? I can accept being wrong - I just want to know where... I don't have books with me, but I guess i will have to look at these again myself and post exact error. Common animals, used in many sessions (not one fight) with stat probs just doesn't sit well with me. Over many sessions these things do make a difference...and again I ask you as players, would you stand for your DM not worrying about each of your plusses (especially to rolls they make)???

Connors

 

[WizarDru]

Take ponies, mules, horses etc Animals with fairly small skill calcualtions. I love to make breeds that have different skill alotments. So it was much to my horror when I checked what they did have and found that they did not add up?

Animals, in particular, may vary somewhat due to the fact that they are, well...animals. For example, to compensate for the fact that Elephants have a ST30, we get "Natural Tendencies: Some creatures simply aren’t made for certain types of physical activity. If it seems clear that a particular creature simply is not made for a particular physical activity, that creature takes a –8 penalty on skill checks that defy its natural tendencies. In extreme circumstances the creature fails the check automatically." To prevent that super-jumping elephant from coming into play.

But for horses? I'm not seeing what you're refering to, here. I see the Heavy Warhorse has a Listen +5, versus other horses...but he also has one more hit die, so that's where he spent his skill point, AFAICT. The mule has a Listen and Spot of +6...but he also has the alertness feat, so that should be OK, too. What are you refering to, specifically?

 

[John Cooper]

Originally posted by MerricB:

I've just found a couple of errors that John made:

"p. 140, Rejkar: The Full Attack line should include the Powerful Charge stats, as the Attack line does. "

"p. 174, Triceratops Topiary Guardian: Full Attack line doesn't include the Powerful Charge information like the Attack line does. "

So, nitpicking the nitpicker, huh? Fair enough.

You're absolutely right, MerricB. I added those to the errata list because I had recalled seeing two Powerful Charge entries in the same monster's stat block, and I had thought at the time that they had been in both the Attack and Full Attack lines. Turns out (as I double-checked after you posted your comment), it was the Protean Scourge that had the double Powerful Charge, and they both show up in the Attack line. I should have gone back and verified that, or at least looked up the rules for Powerful Charge to refresh my memory on how it worked.

Entirely my fault, and an embarrassing mistake at that. I deleted those entries in my review (and left incriminating notes as to my errors - I'm not trying to "sweep them under the carpet"), and posted a comment on the review explaining there what I'm explaining here. Naturally, this brings the number of monsters in Monster Manual III with problems with their stats down to 59 out of 162, or 36%. A little better, but still not great.

Incidentally, my own error rate for my review of Monster Manual III is 2 out of 61, or 3%. I'll have to do much better than that in future!

As for the "smash the phoera eggs" trick - yeah, that would work, too. Note, however, that I didn't list that as an "error," just as something that I personally found a bit weird.

 

[Knight Otu]

So, nitpicking the nitpicker, huh? Fair enough.

As for the ironclad mauler: It does not have to mention that constructs are immune - it requires a Fort save and does not affect objects, and constructs are immune to such effects (Undead, too, of course; I don't know why undead are mentioned but constructs are not).

The ironclad mauler however suffers from a logic problem: The flavor text implies they are no longer artificially created. It also implies they are capable of breeding. Presumably, new maulers can be born in the wild. But where would these new maulers get their grafted armor, considering it cannot be transferred between maulers?

 

[John Cooper]

Oh, and to confirm what a couple of people have already surmised: Yes, if there weren't so many problems with the stats, I'd definitely have given Monster Manual III a 4/5 rating.

I'll also confirm that I haven't received any review copies of S&SS books. Many companies do tend to stick with one or two main reviewers, and that's fine. There's certainly plenty of other stuff to keep me busy. (I'm reading through Libris Mortis at present.)

 

[John Cooper]

Originally posted by Knight Otu:

As for the ironclad mauler: It does not have to mention that constructs are immune - it requires a Fort save and does not affect objects, and constructs are immune to such effects (Undead, too, of course; I don't know why undead are mentioned but constructs are not).

That's why I mentioned it - it was a standardization issue.

 

[sfedi]

The problem when there are errors (specially when there are so many of them) is that it makes you wonder if there are any serious errors.

I mean, the level of uncertainty is huge.

And that, in my case, makes the whole book suspect, and I start to double check everything.
Thus, why buying a book that have all the stats?

I'd rather buy a book with the ideas, and do the stats myself.
Or at least, have the stats suggested, not calculated.

 

[Knight Otu]

Originally posted by Knight Otu:That's why I mentioned it - it was a standardization issue.

Point taken. I wasn't sure which part you considered the error.

 

[CRGreathouse]

There's certainly plenty of other stuff to keep me busy. (I'm reading through Libris Mortis at present.)

I'd like to see that review when it comes out -- the Brain in a Jar preview has at least one obvious mistake, and I wondered if similar errors would occur throughout the book.