Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Knightfall" data-source="post: 1811424" data-attributes="member: 2012">So far, I'm loving Monster Manual III. Way more than MM II, although I like that one too. I'm not a big stickler about rules, especially if a creature's AC, BAB, or grapple score is only off by one or two points. Would I prefer it if the book didn't have any errors, of course, but that's not how I solely judge a monster book. The book has to scream "ideas, ideas, ideas" to me, and MM III does that.And people wonder why we. as consumers, don't get more upset at WotC, or insert-name-here d20 company company, about rules mistakes. Well, the reason has already been stated on this thread. We have someone online who is willing to do a comprehensive review of the book, including pointing out errata in the review.Me, I've already cut and pasted that information into a word document, printed out, and stuck it in the back of my MM III. It might not be official or complete but it gives me errata on some of the more important statistics. I don't care about minor spelling or grammar errors because a game product is NEVER perfect on that level. Some come close, but perfect is nearly impossible.To me, the worse mistakes are when a creature's statistics are so error riddled that it makes it unplayable. So far, that isn't the case with MM III. The worse mistake I've read about so far is the sand giants AC being off by 10 points (salt mummy as well). Now, that's a bad mistake and is more "noticable" and "game affecting" then John's point about the sand giant champion's sand blaster and grapple errors. (However, those errors combined make the sand giant champion a bad encounter to run without modification, as its AC is also off by 10.) However, this won't stop me from using the sand giant in my homebrewed campaign, just with an AC of 18 and not 28. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Anyway, all this is why John gave it 3 out of 5 stars. If it had been proofread better then it would have likely got 4 or even 5 stars. That's what good reviews are all about.Cheers!KF72</blockquote>

Verification