Will 3.5 first printings be full of errors?
- Thread starter Joshua Randall
- Start date
L0rd_Dark0n
First Post
I've seen some D20 publishers post on these boards. What do they think? (that is, if they're allowed to say anything. if you can't, knock twice for "No") Are the new books nice and clean? Or error ridden and confusing!
P.S. By the way, thanks Eric Noah for pointing me in the right direction here!
P.S. By the way, thanks Eric Noah for pointing me in the right direction here!
Last edited:
Will
First Post
In my experience, based on freelancing, awareness of the economies of game publication, and so forth...
I'm amazed _anything_ is done right.
That is, the money is tight, schedule is tight, people drastically underpaid, etc etc. Sure, this is less true of WotC than other companies... but, well, it's still true.
I'm amazed _anything_ is done right.
That is, the money is tight, schedule is tight, people drastically underpaid, etc etc. Sure, this is less true of WotC than other companies... but, well, it's still true.
FDP Mike
First Post
In my professional opinion ... er, what Andy Collins and Will said.
Honestly, the 3.5 books are solid. No one can guarantee that they won't include the occasional typo and awkward sentence (I've noticed a very few here and there). That written, remember that the WotC folks have been at these revised versions for about a year now, and they've enjoyed (
) the benefits of all the comments and critiques of those publishers given access to drafts of the 3 core books.
The writing's been cleaned up and clarified, the organization of the books (especially the DMG and the MM) has been rethought, and the overall attention to detail has been intensified. Very often on the top secret revision mailing list, the WotC folks had already caught and attended to stuff that publishers brought to their notice (they also looked carefully into addressing whatever issued they had not already covered.)
You will, of course, need to decide for yourself by looking through the books. Yet, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Take care,
Mike
P.S. I'd just like to thank Duke Frinn for posting those comments from Andy Collins. Mr. Collins is dead on right, I think (though perhaps editors of science and math books also have it tough
). Editing game books well, particularly d20 books as the system itself is rather intricate and complex, really is a special kind of skill. I've needed three years to understand that fully, and I still have a ways to go .... ("Salad Lord," anyone? [NOTE: See The Tome of Horrors.])
Honestly, the 3.5 books are solid. No one can guarantee that they won't include the occasional typo and awkward sentence (I've noticed a very few here and there). That written, remember that the WotC folks have been at these revised versions for about a year now, and they've enjoyed (
) the benefits of all the comments and critiques of those publishers given access to drafts of the 3 core books.The writing's been cleaned up and clarified, the organization of the books (especially the DMG and the MM) has been rethought, and the overall attention to detail has been intensified. Very often on the top secret revision mailing list, the WotC folks had already caught and attended to stuff that publishers brought to their notice (they also looked carefully into addressing whatever issued they had not already covered.)
You will, of course, need to decide for yourself by looking through the books. Yet, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Take care,
Mike
P.S. I'd just like to thank Duke Frinn for posting those comments from Andy Collins. Mr. Collins is dead on right, I think (though perhaps editors of science and math books also have it tough
). Editing game books well, particularly d20 books as the system itself is rather intricate and complex, really is a special kind of skill. I've needed three years to understand that fully, and I still have a ways to go .... ("Salad Lord," anyone? [NOTE: See The Tome of Horrors.])
Gargoyle
Adventurer
L0rd_Dark0n said:
The books I received (DMG and PHB) a few months ago didn't have art or diagrams yet, but were fairly nice and clean. There were some mistakes. We and other d20 publishers made certain to comment on any mistakes we found to WOTC as soon as possible. WOTC was happy to get the feedback; sometimes they had spotted the errors already, sometimes they hadn't. It's a good sign that the number of e-mails of this type dwindled to nearly nothing even before the books went to the printer.
However, I'm certain that there will be some small errors to annoy us. The books are too big and complex to avoid that. (FDP Mike's post and Andy Collin's quote further up are dead on) But overall, I was impressed. Many sections that didn't have rule changes were edited to be more readable or received grammar improvements.
Last edited:
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
A lot of people point to how the 3E PHB received a second print, and wonder if they should wait on the 3.5E PHB for the same reason...
One thing I never see people mentioning though is the opposite example: In three years, the 3E DMG and MM never once got a second printing, despite having plenty of corrections to make in their errata files and FAQs. Keep that in mind when you wonder over whether you should wait to buy the first print 3.5E PHB or not.
One thing I never see people mentioning though is the opposite example: In three years, the 3E DMG and MM never once got a second printing, despite having plenty of corrections to make in their errata files and FAQs. Keep that in mind when you wonder over whether you should wait to buy the first print 3.5E PHB or not.
FDP Mike said:IP.S. I'd just like to thank Duke Frinn for posting those comments from Andy Collins. Mr. Collins is dead on right, I think (though perhaps editors of science and math books also have it tough
I don't know, I think that editting for a software product can be even worse.
You have to keep both the online help and the written material in sync. You have to have installation instructions that *anyone* can follow, anticipating many of the errors and trying to steer around them, you sometimes have to present a bug as a feature.
All fields have their own problems. Some are a little harder than others, but that doesn't make it easy in any of them.
That said, I hope they did case insensitive searchs for all the spell names that they changed throughout all three manuals. According to all the rumors, many of the spell names have changed. I also hope they caught things like adjusting the Rogue weapon proficiencies (if they list small versions of all the weapons, there is no reason not to allow small rogues the full list).
By now, I suspect they have found all the spell names left over from 1st & 2nd edition. Lets see how well they did at making their changes consistent.
FDP Mike
First Post
Alzrius said:
???
I'm not sure I follow your intent. You are still advising caution with the 3.5 books? If so, fair enough, I guess ....
Oh, quite true. Every field of editing comes with its own specific issues and difficulties, so, in a way, claiming that one field is harder than another may not be easy to prove.
Still, game editing is a rather varied exercise, as Mr. Collins describes. It's often much more than attending strictly to grammar, spelling, and clarity. One needs to understand the gaming system and know the particular styles of representing terms of the system (i.e., spell school names are no longer capitalized in 3.5); one also needs to know a problematic stat block when one sees it, how monsters are designed, and so forth. Well, there's certainly more that I could point toward, but that's the general idea.
Editors have it tough whatever they do. Period. Sigh ....
Take care,
Mike
L0rd_Dark0n
First Post
FDP Mike said:Honestly, the 3.5 books are solid. No one can guarantee that they won't include the occasional typo and awkward sentence (I've noticed a very few here and there). That written, remember that the WotC folks have been at these revised versions for about a year now, and they've enjoyed (
The writing's been cleaned up and clarified, the organization of the books (especially the DMG and the MM) has been rethought, and the overall attention to detail has been intensified. Very often on the top secret revision mailing list, the WotC folks had already caught and attended to stuff that publishers brought to their notice (they also looked carefully into addressing whatever issued they had not already covered.)
Thanks guys, that's exactly the news that I was hoping to hear. A few errors here and there are certainly acceptable, I was just hoping that they wouldn't be so thick that even I could find them!
Thanks for replying.
Pbartender
First Post
FDP Mike said:
He's saying that overly cautious (pessimistic? skeptical? disaffected? paranoid?) gamers might end up waiting for second printing that will never occur.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
