MM3 Typos

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

First flip through I catch more than a half-dozen editing problems. Looking back I find:

p3, the Table of Contents: Only the first word of a listing is capitalized, unless later words are proper names. However, in the full listings, the entire name is capitalized.

p3, the Table of Contents: "Apes...10", however the listing on p10 is for "Ape". Same goes for the listing for Beholder/s, Banderhobb/s, Meazel/s, etc.

p15, the listing for Light of Amoth: "Whenever the light [sic] of Amoth takes damage...]

p30, the entry for Chitine: there is one illustration of a chitine even though the entry covers four pages, six different entries, five different roles, and two different sizes. The same problem exists for Yuan-Ti and other entries. (Not a typo, but I consider this a major editing problem.)

P160, the listing for Ogremoch: "See 'The Elder Elemental Eye' sidebar on page xx [sic] for more information."

Am I picking nits? Mostly, yes. But that's what the editors are supposedly paid to do! This books is $35 MSRP for 200 pages. I don't think I'm wrong to expect perfection.

There are eight people with editing credits in MM3.

 

[wedgeski]

Yep, no excuse whatsoever for errors that can be caught with a simple pattern search.

 

[Jhaelen]

I don't think I'm wrong to expect perfection.

lol.

 

[Herschel]

Is here only one type of ape? One type of beholder? I will get mine tonight but if there is a "generic" entry followed by types, then the listing in the contents is correct: multiple apes starting on page 10 with the generic "ape" listed first.

 

[MrMyth]

This is a humor post, right? I've always been rather impressed with your other posts, so I'm assuming this is just sarcasm, yes?

If not.... well, I would really only count a single one of those - the Ogremoch one - as a genuine typo. The rest of those either are accurate as they are, or really aren't something that is needed. The one picture of a Chitine tells you what you need to know for the five versions of it - the rest, you can just describe via different equipment just like you would with humans, or orcs, or elves. The one that does appear different has a description in the entry. That really is all you need.

What I am interested in the editors doing is making sure there aren't genuine typos. In making sure the monsters are well-designed and complete. I remember older monster books that were filled with serious issues throughout the stat blocks. Monsters whose entry contradicted itself three times over about the size of the monster. Numbers that were off, or inconsistent, or otherwise flawed.

If MM3 doesn't have those, then the editors have done their job. If the only typos in the book are the ones you have turned up, then I'll consider this book a rousing success!

All that said, if this post was genuinely sarcasm, then... congrats, ya got me.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Am I picking nits? Mostly, yes. But that's what the editors are supposedly paid to do! This books is $35 MSRP for 200 pages. I don't think I'm wrong to expect perfection.

Yes, you are picking nits. I am unaware of any rule that the typography in the table of contents must match the typography at the head of a table (or stat block, in the case of D&D). The TOC also abbreviates for lack of space. Note that it combines all apes into one entry, as well as all verbeegs, as well as others, I'm sure.

In general, perfection is a fine ideal, but not a practical goal. If the points you mentioned are the most serious issues you've encountered so far, it sounds to me like the eight editors you called out did a commendable job. I'm sorry to hear these issues detract from your satisfaction with the book. (Yeah, I'm something of a perfectionist too, but I'm trying to get over it....)

 

[the Jester]

p3, the Table of Contents: Only the first word of a listing is capitalized, unless later words are proper names. However, in the full listings, the entire name is capitalized.

Not a typo. Formatting choice/proper grammar.

p3, the Table of Contents: "Apes...10", however the listing on p10 is for "Ape". Same goes for the listing for Beholder/s, Banderhobb/s, Meazel/s, etc.

Not a typo. Table of Contents uses the plural because there are multiple entries; the entry uses the singular because each is described individually. (Or so I would guess, not having the book yet.)

p15, the listing for Light of Amoth: "Whenever the light [sic] of Amoth takes damage...

Not a typo. "Light" is not a proper noun. You don't automatically capitalize "aspect" when you write "aspect of Demogorgon" either.

p30, the entry for Chitine: there is one illustration of a chitine even though the entry covers four pages, six different entries, five different roles, and two different sizes. The same problem exists for Yuan-Ti and other entries. (Not a typo, but I consider this a major editing problem.)

Do we really need a bunch of pictures for variants that pretty well look the same? Not a typo, as you acknowledge.

P160, the listing for Ogremoch: "See 'The Elder Elemental Eye' sidebar on page xx [sic] for more information."

Typo.

Am I picking nits? Mostly, yes. But that's what the editors are supposedly paid to do! This books is $35 MSRP for 200 pages. I don't think I'm wrong to expect perfection.

I expect you should prepare for a life full of disappointment.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Yes, my post was deliberately overblown. I hoped my "I expect perfection" line would have tipped it. It didn't translate as well as I had hoped. Carry on.

The Ogremoch typo is pretty bad, though.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, my post was deliberately overblown. I hoped my "I expect perfection" line would have tipped it. It didn't translate as well as I had hoped. Carry on.

The Ogremoch typo is pretty bad, though.

All right, you got me.

"See page xx" has been popping up in almost every DnD book since early on in 3e. I would think they would catch these, and it's one of those rare cases when the typo actually does affect usability, even if only a little.

 

[ourchair]

They'll fix that in the typographical errata update.