Ripping apart the ELH...

[KarinsDad]

So, for anyone that says, "Couldn't they see the simple error on page xxx!" Well, probably not after staring at it for a few hundred hours.

I respectfully disagree.

Finding errors is a matter of technique and due diligence, not a matter of just reading.

You could, for example, assign each person on the team to check the entire book for errors.

You then have a committee which rates the severity of the error (1 = simple typo such as "their" instead of "there", 2 = chart disagrees with text, etc.). The first person to report an error gets credit for it (Email date/time stamp). You keep a master list that is updated each day in order to reduce the number of repeat Emails.

You then give incentives to the people by giving out prizes for people who get a certain number of points worth of errors. You give prizes to the original Editors for the points per page staying under a certain level.

The prizes are things like paid hours off from work, etc.

The point is that reviewing a document is tedious to do. Hence, a good mechanism is to give incentives to people to do it. But, if you have a day in your schedule for every 40 pages in a product where most of the team is reviewing the book and they get rewarded above and beyond for doing a good job, 90% of the errata on the current WotC site would not be there. IMO. YMMV.

Now back to your previously scheduled topic.

 

[Greatwyrm]

So, for anyone that says, "Couldn't they see the simple error on page xxx!" Well, probably not after staring at it for a few hundred hours. [/B]

Speaking of page "xxx", I'm getting pretty sick of seeing references like "see table 2.1 on page XX" in books. I understand the need for placeholders, but can't somebody just do a search for "XX" and make sure the references are replaced? That's gotta be the easiest to fix and most common error I've seen in game books in the past few years.

 

[Forrester]

The point is that reviewing a document is tedious to do. Hence, a good mechanism is to give incentives to people to do it. But, if you have a day in your schedule for every 40 pages in a product where most of the team is reviewing the book and they get rewarded above and beyond for doing a good job, 90% of the errata on the current WotC site would not be there. IMO. YMMV.

Now back to your previously scheduled topic.

Glad to have someone on my side . An additional point -- reviewing a document is NOT always tedious to do. It's easy to miss that an AC is off by one or two because the Max Dex for adamantine armor wasn't accounted for, and catching those kinds of errors *is* hard and tedious. But simple grammar/spelling/wording errors are much easier to catch, especially for those who haven't seen the document before. I imagine that there are other folk like me -- that is, who are A) serious gamers and B) are anal-retentive about editing, who would not find it tedious at all to read some new product before it hit the shelves, for a smaller price than you'd expect.

Go find these people. Bribe them. Get them to read your stuff. It shouldn't be hard. You're not writing a boring ass technical manual that no one wants to read closely without being paid a thousand bucks.

 

[wallshot]

back to the subject at hand....

ok, now back to real errors in the book....

Table 2-3 pg 91. backlash has a footnote "2" after it...should be a "1"

same table and page. Notes under table say "Mitigating factors are always applied last in development of an epic spell." that is true only if U are not making the spell permanent. If you break apart the sample spell Verdigris Tsunami, the only way to get the DC at 170 is to subtract the mitigating factors before applying the permanency factor.

 

[Crothian]

Under the description of the Cup and Talisman of Al'Akbar in the last paragraph Dictum (evil) should be Dictum (Chaos).

 

[Marshall]

Updated list

Pages 58-59, Improved Manyshot: This feat has no apparent benefit over Manyshot, as the number of attacks is capped at 4 with either feat.

Not an error. The only place it mentions the cap is under the "normal' section which is superceded by the benefit.

Page 174, Mithral Golem: The mithral golem requires polymorph any object to convert the iron into mithral, which is beyond the limits of the spell. Furthermore, the value of the mithral golem’s body is 8,500,000 gp, about 100 times the treasure of a standard EL 21 encounter – and roughly 8 times the total wealth of a 21st level character!
Page 174, Adamantine Golem: The adamantine golem requires polymorph any object to convert the iron into adamantine, which is beyond the limits of the spell. Furthermore, the value of the adamantine golem’s body is far beyond the expected treasure of an EL 25 encounter.

Limits of the spell have no bearing on Magic Item creation, and thats all golems are, Large, animate, Magic Items.
There is no indication in the book that the entire body is Mithral/Adamantite and it would be easy to rule that when the Golem is destroyed the pieces revert back to iron/steel.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not an error. The only place it mentions the cap is under the "normal' section which is superceded by the benefit.

The cap I'm talking about is BAB - you can't get more than 4 attacks, since the highest BAB possible is 20.

Limits of the spell have no bearing on Magic Item creation, and thats all golems are, Large, animate, Magic Items.
There is no indication in the book that the entire body is Mithral/Adamantite and it would be easy to rule that when the Golem is destroyed the pieces revert back to iron/steel.

The text actually states that the spell is to be used during the creation of the golem's body, so it does apply. The text is explicit on the fact that it's made completely out of mithral (or adamantine).

 

[Usumcasane]

Rules Errors:

Page 58, Improved Ki Strike: This feat is strictly worse than Penetrate Damage Reduction.

Improved Ki Strike can be taken multiple times, stacks with existing Ki Strike, and provides a +1 ENHANCEMENT bonus to unarmed attacks each time.

Penetrate Damage Reduction can be taken only once and only allows a character's attack to overcome a DR 2 higher than normal. It is the quick and dirty way for a Monk to be able to hit creatures with a DR of +4 or +5 immediately at 21st level.

Long term thinking would opt for multiple Improved Ki Strikes on top of the Penetrate Damage Reduction.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Improved Ki Strike can be taken multiple times, stacks with existing Ki Strike, and provides a +1 ENHANCEMENT bonus to unarmed attacks each time.

Penetrate Damage Reduction can be taken only once and only allows a character's attack to overcome a DR 2 higher than normal. It is the quick and dirty way for a Monk to be able to hit creatures with a DR of +4 or +5 immediately at 21st level.

I don't have a copy of the ELH with me at the moment, so forgive any mistakes.

Can't you take Penetrate DR more than once? Doesn't IKS only increase your Ki Strike (that is, lets you hit as though you had an enhancement bonus) rather than providing an enhancement bonus?

 

[Usumcasane]

I don't have a copy of the ELH with me at the moment, so forgive any mistakes.

Can't you take Penetrate DR more than once? Doesn't IKS only increase your Ki Strike (that is, lets you hit as though you had an enhancement bonus) rather than providing an enhancement bonus?

Neither do I. I know you cannot take Penetrate DR more than once, because it doesn't say you can. And I could have sworn that it said Enhancement bonus in Imp. Ki Strike. Perhaps it said "as if."

I'm not super savvy on Monks, so...

Even still, if you can take the latter multiple times, that makes it worth it's own feat slot -- but only after you take Penetrate DR first.