Page XX?

[CharlesRyan]

I've seen several references here on EN World to the 4E books having "see page XX" editing errors.

I'm not claiming that they aren't there, but I haven't noticed any yet. (I have found other editing mistakes here or there--nothing major--so I'm certainly not claiming that the core books are perfect!)

Are these "page XX" refs really there, or is this a burgeoning internet myth? Can anyone point out some actual examples (citing page numbers)?

(Er, citing the page numbers of the editing errors, not the page numbers that the errors were supposed to be pointing to. You know what I mean.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've seen several references here on EN World to the 4E books having "see page XX" editing errors.

I'm not claiming that they aren't there, but I haven't noticed any yet. (I have found other editing mistakes here or there--nothing major--so I'm certainly not claiming that the core books are perfect!)

Are these "page XX" refs really there, or is this a burgeoning internet myth? Can anyone point out some actual examples (citing page numbers)?

(Er, citing the page numbers of the editing errors, not the page numbers that the errors were supposed to be pointing to. You know what I mean.)

I heard someone made a search on a PDF and found two instances in one book (PHB?).

Since the PDF is essentially a leaked, pirated copy, it is possible that only the PDF has the error.
If that is true, anyone claiming to have seen the "page XX" reference is outing himself as a software pirate. So be careful, folks.
I remember that Scott said that the MM was definitely an older print proof and contained several errors, so this could also apply to the rest.


I haven't found any myself, but it's hard to search for "XX" in a print copy. I don't really feel up to the task. Maybe if someone made a search in the PDF and then checked the same pages in the print copy?

 

[Khuxan]

Page 176 of the DMG: "See "Bonuses and Penalties" on page XX of the Player's Handbook"
Page 191 of the DMG: "Refer to page XX in Chapter 4 for details of different sorts of doors and portcullises"

That's all in the three core rulebooks (I think).

Not too many, but still: surely it's an error that is laughably easy to catch. Just search the proofs for XX... it would take, what, half a minute max?

 

[MerricB]

There are a couple. I know I've seen at least one and I only have the print books. Can't remember where at present, though!

 

[Darkness]

I haven't found any myself, but it's hard to search for "XX" in a print copy. I don't really feel up to the task. Maybe if someone made a search in the PDF and then checked the same pages in the print copy?

Someone must have posted the page numbers. This is the internet, after all.

Alright, Google gives me this:

[DMG]p.176: under 'Duplicate or Conflicting Monster Abilities'

[DMG]p.191: under 'Doors'

Hm, these errors are indeed present in the real DMG.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Someone must have posted the page numbers. This is the internet, after all.

Alright, Google gives me this: Hm, these errors are indeed present in the real DMG.

What would we do without google?

Still, I was to lazy to even try it. And I don't have my books here, any way...

 

[evilbob]

Personally, I think this is the height of irresponsibility. I was really hoping that these types of errors, which had gotten so bad toward the end of the 3.5 publishing cycle, could be avoided. Alas: no.

I mean, they KNOW a million people will be reading every word of this book! Could they not get someone to take one last pass before it went to the printer?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally, I think this is the height of irresponsibility. I was really hoping that these types of errors, which had gotten so bad toward the end of the 3.5 publishing cycle, could be avoided. Alas: no.

I mean, they KNOW a million people will be reading every word of this book! Could they not get someone to take one last pass before it went to the printer?

Yes they know full well how many people will read it. Errors cause more buzz about the game, more hits on the website to get free errata (which can lead to more subscribers) and perhaps to a second printing. It can also irritate people enough to be done with WOTC. Its a calculated gamble.

 

[Mark]

Personally, I think this is the height of irresponsibility.

While not a good thing, I think we can all imagine less responsible things that would rank higher.

 

[wedgeski]

Yes they know full well how many people will read it. Errors cause more buzz about the game, more hits on the website to get free errata (which can lead to more subscribers) and perhaps to a second printing. It can also irritate people enough to be done with WOTC. Its a calculated gamble.

I just have to LOL at this.

Otherwise, while it's easy to point and laugh at such an 'easy mistake to fix', I've seen stupid errors like this creep through the systems where I work. It's not that people don't know how to find them, it's that the editing procedures designed to catch them either didn't work, or weren't followed. If it can happen for the relatively short technical manuals we have to produce at my place, it sure as hell can happen for something which passes through as many hands as the DMG.