You've got to be kidding me...

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

So WotC releases an errata file for MM3. Great. Remember when they released an errata file for the MMv.3.5 and it was so bad that everybody wanted to know if there would be an errata for the errata? Well, this time nothing less than the name of the file needs an errata! They actually named it as if it had been released in January of 2004: "MM3_Errata01282004.pdf".

Now, seriously, how much confidence can we possibly have in the contents of the file, when they can't even get the file name right.

Oh, yeah, then when you actually open it up, you will find errata for over 50 monsters. All I can do is shake my head.

I mean, really, who's in charge of editing over there, and how can they not know that they have a real problem in that area?

 

[Piratecat]

You can have a tremendous amount of confidence in it. Almost all of the errata was found by John Cooper, one of our members, and sent in to WotC.

 

[EricNoah]

Or maybe it is 12-8-2004. You'll notice that a lot of the file names have dates that are anywhere between a few days to a few weeks earlier than the release date.

Doesn't make the 50 or so incorrect monsters any easier to swallow, but the file name is a non-issue.

 

[The Shaman]

Scene from a gaming table -

PC: "Hey, are you gonna buy that new Wizards abominations book?"
GM: "Nah, I'll wait for the errata."

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Or maybe it is 12-8-2004.

I'm not so sure about your logic. If it was 12-8-2004, the file name would have been "MM3_Errata12082004.pdf". The zero is in the wrong place. Plus, when you open the file, it is dated 01/28/2005, so it looks like whoever named the file got the month and date right, but the year wrong.

 

[Umbran]

Right. Let he or she who is without sin throw the first stone. That particular type of error is common during every January. Anyone who has ever misdated a check during the first month of the year has no grounds for griping.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Ooooh, the year is wrong. Ooooh, the world is ending. WotC is horrible because its the first month of 2005 and they got one little number wrong. Who the heck DOESN'T mess that up at least once or twice?!

As was said in the other thread about this...at least they RELEASE errata. And as was also said, the editors do NOT edit stat blocks. The actual designers do that part. It seems that no matter what, WotC will always get held to an unachievable high standard and then complained at for never reaching it.

 

[Mystery Man]

I'm heartened that WoTC actually swollowed their pride and published that errata. That had to be embarrasing.

 

[Piratecat]

Well, good for them -- and thanks to John for catching it. He's really good.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Right. Let he or she who is without sin throw the first stone. That particular type of error is common during every January. Anyone who has ever misdated a check during the first month of the year has no grounds for griping.

If someone was paying me to write checks, I would agree.