Kudos and Errors: Dungeon 118

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I continue to enjoy the reformatted Dungeon. There's some great stuff in issue 118. I think the Throne of Iuz adventure -- suitably modified -- will make it into my campaign. The other adventures are great, even if I'm not the biggest fan of flumpfs. I particularly liked Monte Cook's article, and the other columns are decent as well.

Oh -- the Greyhawk map is fantastic. I'm tempted to frame it when I get all four parts. Could we maybe get it in a one-piece, rolled tube as special order?

But -- does anyone check the stat blocks? I'm not talking nitnoid things like having skill bonuses correct. I expect those to be right, but I don't bother to add them up to check errors, nor do they have much impact on the game, really. I'm talking about consistency with the adventure text.

For example, on page 22, the rogue Cami is supposed to be waiting to sneak attack an NPC with a sap -- except she doesn't have a sap in her equipment, nor do her stats include attacks or damage data for a sap. Easy enough for a DM to add, but a jarring inconsistency -- did anyone read the stat block?

Similarly, on page 72, the Serpent Mound entrance guards are supposed to be

Spoiler

"A pair of Hant captains, three Hant clerics, and two vrock demons"

, yet the encounter text provides text instead for

Spoiler

6 Hant soldiers, one cleric, and two vrocks -- I'm not even sure what the stats of a "captain" are supposed to be, as olny "soldier" stat blocks are provided.

. Again, it's an easy adjustment for a DM to make -- but it does make me wonder if this sort of obvious thing can be missed, what sorts of errors are buried deep in the stat blocks.

C'mon, Erik! You've got such great content and organization now -- hope the proof reading can keep up!

 

[Mighty Halfling]

The stat blocks for the captains are on Page 64, right after the soldier listing. Hope that helps!

 

[Mighty Halfling]

But -- does anyone check the stat blocks? I'm not talking nitnoid things like having skill bonuses correct. I expect those to be right, but I don't bother to add them up to check errors, nor do they have much impact on the game, really. I'm talking about consistency with the adventure text.

As the author of "Throne of Iuz", I can say that there's a pretty detailed process for determining things like skill points, feats, bonus feats and the like.
When I hand in a draft for a character, its skills/feats would look something like this:
(Note that this is an example I'm making up off the top of my hed, not an actual skill set I've handed))
Skills ((Total skill points: 35 ftr, 20 rog)): Move Silently +18 ((+2 racial, +4 Dex, +4 ranks, +10 boots of silence, -2 armor)), Spot +11 ((+2 feat, +2 feat, +1 Wis, +6 ranks)), etc.
Feats: Alertness ((1st lvl)); Combat Reflexes ((2nd Ftr bonus)); Skill Focus: Spot ((3rd lvl)); Weapon Focus: Short Sword ((1st ftr bonus)); etc.
---
Once I hand the character in, all the notes in the double parenthesis are plucked out by the editor after he reviews them.
Even then, the editor might alter the stats as the author submits them. Sometimes, they add stuff that's more appropriate. Sometimes they edit them for space.
IIRC King Bog had quite a few more skills, most of which were of little use in combat, so only the combat-oriented statistics remained. (In particular, he had an amped up Intimidate skill. It's good for bossing around orcs and scaring adventurers).

 

[Arnwyn]

For example, on page 22, the rogue Cami is supposed to be waiting to sneak attack an NPC with a sap -- except she doesn't have a sap in her equipment, nor do her stats include attacks or damage data for a sap. Easy enough for a DM to add, but a jarring inconsistency -- did anyone read the stat block?

Ouch. That's pretty annoying.

I don't read the adventures in-depth until I'm ready to run them (I just read enough to be able to meaningfully add it to my adventure database), so I don't notice such errors regularly.

But that error that you mention above would bug me.

 

[diaglo]

i'm glad i didn't read the new one yet... but sad to say i don't get my issues on time.

diaglo "1 issue in the last 15 months on time" Ooi

 

[James Jacobs]

Hi everyone!

I’m glad you’re all enjoying the reformatted Dungeon. As for the Greyhawk map, at this time it’s only going to be available as the four parts in the magazine; we have no plans at this time to produce one as a one-piece map (although I agree that a one-piece map would be awesome!).

As for the stat block woes... yes, someone does check the stat blocks. That would be me. And I’ll be the first to admit that errors creep in there now and then. And yes, they distress me when they do creep in. Fortunately, these two errors are fairly easy to fix. Giving Cami a sap is relatively easy; she has a +2 melee attack with it and does 1d6+1 nonlethal damage with this weapon. For the Serpent Mound entrance guards on page 72, go with the guards listed at the end of the encounter in the stat block section.

Anyway, we do our best proofing each issue, given the agonizinly short amount of time we have to edit each issue's contents. Often, we'll need to modify or even completely rebuild a stat-block for whatever reason, in which case that stat block gets even more attention. Once I’m done with the initial development and editing of an adventure, it gets proofed 2-3 times each by myself, Erik (editor-in-chief), and Jeremy (editorial assistant). Still... errors creep in there, and that sucks. That said, if someone finds an error and posts it, I’m always willing to provide corrections!