Why so many errors in MM3.5?

[Ambrus]

I've indeed noticed several errors in the MM 3.5, most often in the skills stat block. Even when taking into account synergy bonuses, racial bonuses, feat bonuses and ability modifiers, quite often the skill modifiers just don't add up. They usually end up with more skill points than can be accounted for by virtue of the creature's type and hit dice. In fact, of the monsters' whose skill blocks I've gone over (which I admit isn't many) I have yet to find a perfect set. If you want an example, check out any of the sample dragons, check it's "class" skill list, figure out it's maximum ranks, deduct it's ability modifiers and synergy bonuses and you'll end up with a total of points usually 10-20+ over what it should be. After I discovered this I tried the same backwards engineering with a handful of monsters in the MM and discovered similar discrepancies. Most of these issues aren't even hinted at in the errata. I concluded that the entire MM most be chock full of such errors long ago. Admitedly, such errors won't affect most encounters, but it is quite disapointing to be aware of the lack of solid math from the industry's leader.

 

[coyote6]

For skills, don't forget to account for armor check penalties.

IIRC, most of the monsters I've checked came out right. But I haven't checked many.

 

[Andre]

Admitedly, such errors won't affect most encounters, but it is quite disapointing to be aware of the lack of solid math from the industry's leader.

I think it's time we stopped viewing the creature "rules" as inviolate.

First, they say flat out in the MM that "Many creatures in this book do not adhere to the guidelines on the table." [Page 296, referring to table 5-1 and recommended HD based on size). In fact, all through the section on creating monsters the book uses words such as "recommend", "guidelines", "suggested". Concerning skill points and feats, the rules specifically suggest ways to tweak the creature when the rules and tables don't generate the desired result.

Second, concept is far more important than a slavish adherence to rules which cannot possibly cover every possible eventuality. Even when applying a template, which is a fairly straightforward exercise, it's reasonable for the writer to rule that the resulting creature is not quite right and needs tweaking.

Third, legitimate errors should be caught. An example: AC 14 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +2 natural) is an error. Whether or not the creature should have such a high Dex can be argued, but the fact that the AC as written adds up to 15 is clear. But if a dragon has too many skill points - is that really "wrong" or just tweaking?

I think it's time we started looking at the rules for creating monsters as guidelines, much as we do with pricing magic items. Otherwise, we just get bogged down in unimportant minutia. Just my two cents'...

 

[Voadam]

I think it's time we stopped viewing the creature "rules" as inviolate.

First, they say flat out in the MM that "Many creatures in this book do not adhere to the guidelines on the table." [Page 296, referring to table 5-1 and recommended HD based on size). In fact, all through the section on creating monsters the book uses words such as "recommend", "guidelines", "suggested". Concerning skill points and feats, the rules specifically suggest ways to tweak the creature when the rules and tables don't generate the desired result.

Second, concept is far more important than a slavish adherence to rules which cannot possibly cover every possible eventuality. Even when applying a template, which is a fairly straightforward exercise, it's reasonable for the writer to rule that the resulting creature is not quite right and needs tweaking.

Third, legitimate errors should be caught. An example: AC 14 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +2 natural) is an error. Whether or not the creature should have such a high Dex can be argued, but the fact that the AC as written adds up to 15 is clear. But if a dragon has too many skill points - is that really "wrong" or just tweaking?

I think it's time we started looking at the rules for creating monsters as guidelines, much as we do with pricing magic items. Otherwise, we just get bogged down in unimportant minutia. Just my two cents'...

Except that the mechanism for when you are tweaking is to have it explicit such as by giving them a racial bonus or special quality. If you notice a discrepancy that is not specified then yes it appears to be an error and not a deliberate design choice. This sloppiness has less game balance effect in skills but cannot really be called a creative design choice instead of an error. It is simply a less important error than screwed up attacks or CR or whatnot.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

creative design choice.

Creative design choice for error. It's been a while since I heard a good euphimism - and I'm not too sure whether this one was intended but I'm running with it.

"Jones, why are there so many creative design choices on this document?"

Classic!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[billd91]

I'm not surprised to see more errors at all. The stats for creatures have gotten a lot more complex than in the old AD&D days. Are all of the stat bonuses added correctly? Are all of the synergy bonuses added in where appropriate? Is the grapple bonus calculated correctly? And so on...
There are many more opportunities for errors now and so we'll see more even if the rate errors are generated stays the same.

 

[Andre]

Except that the mechanism for when you are tweaking is to have it explicit such as by giving them a racial bonus or special quality.

So if a publisher doesn't explicitly list each and every exception to the design rules, it's an error?

On a more general note:

Which is more important: staying absolutely faithful to the monster creation guidelines/rules, or creating an interesting creature with a good concept?

Or another way to ask the question: why so much focus on errors, instead of whether the creatures are interesting and useful?