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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="amethal" data-source="post: 4120209" data-attributes="member: 22784">Assuming you think I mean what I think you think I mean, then you are right  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Monster Manual 3 has a lot of stat block errors. John Cooper points out hundreds of them in his review; there might be more.Its one of my favourite monster books, and I run all of the monsters straight from the book just fine. From things WotC designers have said since the 4th edition announcement (but never prior to it) they got a bit exasperated with people pointing out trivial errors in stat blocks that had minimal game impact - or even not quite so trivial errors; does it really matter if sometimes a monster makes a save when "strictly" it should have failed by one or two or vice versa?If they'd cared, they could have spent resources getting stat blocks more accurate. They didn't, because they thought the game was just fine with a high level of stat block errors, and the resources were better spent somewhere else.Fourth edition fixes this "problem" by having stat blocks you can't check. Presumably you can have a look to see that their monsters meet the new monster "guidelines" e.g. having an attack bonus within the range suggested for a monster of its type and level, but as far as I can tell that's intended to be an aid to design rather than a "rule" you can be criticised for "breaking".Nothing in this post is intended as a criticism of WotC designers, John Cooper or any other fine people!</blockquote>

Verification