Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3391193" data-attributes="member: 22424">I think there are two reasons we're more aware of stat-block errors in D&amp;D than other games and/or in D&amp;D books by WotC as opposed to d20 books by other publishers. The first is that d20 is a lot more mathematically transparent than many other games - as mentioned before, with Shadowrun or Storyteller games you don't know how many XP the character has had applied, so can't determine whether the stat-block is correct, whereas d20 has clear rules for these things.The second reason is that any given WotC book has many many more eyes looking over it, such that any mistakes are more likely to be found.Personally, while I understand that no book will ever be flawless, and that mistakes are inevitable, I am rather concerned at the rate of errors - John Cooper's review of &quot;Scourge of the Howling Horde&quot;, for example, gives errors for 19 out of the 20 stat-blocks in that product, which is especially problematic when that is an 'introductory adventure'. (However, I believe SotHH is regarded as a particularly bad example from WotC.) I'm inclined to feel that Wizards really should do better, especially since it seems Paizo regularly do a better job with fewer resources (although, it should be noted, some of the very best RPG editors in the business on staff).I also feel that Wizards could probably save themselves a lot of grief by developing (perhaps internally) a really good stat-block generation tool. It's really easy for a human being to miss-count bonuses to get stat-blocks that are off by 1 or 2. But computers don't - that's exactly the sort of thing they are best at. (It would also mean that if the devlopers later decide to apply, for example, a 5-point Power Attack across the board, generating the revised blocks becomes trivial.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 3391193, member: 22424"] I think there are two reasons we're more aware of stat-block errors in D&D than other games and/or in D&D books by WotC as opposed to d20 books by other publishers. The first is that d20 is a lot more mathematically transparent than many other games - as mentioned before, with Shadowrun or Storyteller games you don't know how many XP the character has had applied, so can't determine whether the stat-block is correct, whereas d20 has clear rules for these things. The second reason is that any given WotC book has many many more eyes looking over it, such that any mistakes are more likely to be found. Personally, while I understand that no book will ever be flawless, and that mistakes are inevitable, I am rather concerned at the rate of errors - John Cooper's review of "Scourge of the Howling Horde", for example, gives errors for 19 out of the 20 stat-blocks in that product, which is especially problematic when that is an 'introductory adventure'. (However, I believe SotHH is regarded as a particularly bad example from WotC.) I'm inclined to feel that Wizards really should do better, especially since it seems Paizo regularly do a better job with fewer resources (although, it should be noted, some of the very best RPG editors in the business on staff). I also feel that Wizards could probably save themselves a lot of grief by developing (perhaps internally) a really good stat-block generation tool. It's really easy for a human being to miss-count bonuses to get stat-blocks that are off by 1 or 2. But computers don't - that's exactly the sort of thing they are best at. (It would also mean that if the devlopers later decide to apply, for example, a 5-point Power Attack across the board, generating the revised blocks becomes trivial.) [/QUOTE]

Verification