You've got to be kidding me...

[JustKim]

If you fail a saving throw by 1 and get paralyzed, then later find out that the DC was 1 too high, would you still say that game play was not directly affected?

You and I have different ideas of what affects gameplay. I can only guess that your games are mathematically accurate to a fault and nobody ever miscalculates anything or acts erroneously. The games I play in are not nearly so robotic, and whether a single point error in a listen check comes from a book or player error, it does not derail the game. What does derail the game are improperly explained rules, unrealized combinations and omitted information. Of these, Monster Manual 3 has not one.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

You and I have different ideas of what affects gameplay. I can only guess that your games are mathematically accurate to a fault and nobody ever miscalculates anything or acts erroneously. The games I play in are not nearly so robotic...

With all due respect, the issue isn't whether or not my games are "robotic", it's whether or not I can expect to get a monster book with less than 50 of the monsters having stat errors when I shell out $35.

 

[Umbran]

With all due respect, the issue isn't whether or not my games are "robotic", it's whether or not I can expect to get a monster book with less than 50 of the monsters having stat errors when I shell out $35.

With all due respect, the issue you raised isn't whether or not you can expect to get a monster book with less than 50 of the monsters having stat errors. The issue you originally raised is whether they could get the filename correct.

The person who named the file followed a convention, and then had a typo in the very last character of the name. How much impact could this have? Well, if you're looking for a filename, you usually look in an alphabetical sort. The only time this error is likely to be noticed is if you've got this file in with the MM3 errata files from the same or similar dates of other years. How many of those are there likely to be?

It's not an error with any substance. It isn't one you'd expect anyone to catch, because there's no corporate filename editor looking for errors, and it has no real impact on the use of the file. It's one that can be easily made, especially early in the year. So, while perhaps ironic, I hardly find it to be a valid point for critique of the company.

Sometimes, it does seem that WotC cannot win. If they are anything short of absolue perfection, someone will use it as criticism. Even when they correct their errors, someone will find fault with how they do it.

 

[SpringPlum]

And that's a policy that needs to be seriously reevaluated. It's like releasing a math textbook that's only been checked for grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.

But the editors can't and shouldn't be expected to correct the stat blocks. That would be like expecting a textbook editor to know more math than the mathematics professor who wrote it. An editor is the person who corrects grammar, spelling, word choice, readability, and the like. That is what they are expected to know--not monster statistics. They aren't hired because they know all about DnD, they are hired because they are experts on the English language (or what ever language in which the book is being published).

Game designers aren't expected to know that "like I said" is actually grammatically incorrect. However, the designers should be expected to proofread their stat blocks.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

With all due respect, the issue you raised isn't whether or not you can expect to get a monster book with less than 50 of the monsters having stat errors. The issue you originally raised is whether they could get the filename correct.

My original post actually raises both of these issues. I'm not sure if you didn't read it all the way through or if you are just ignoring that. Now obviously one of these issues is important, and one really isn't. I wouldn't have started this thread if the errata file had 3 or 4 monsters with errors and an incorrect file name. But 50? If you want to focus on the file name, fine, but just pointing out that the file name isn't important does not demonstrate that the 50+ monsters with stat errors is also not important.

Sometimes, it does seem that WotC cannot win. If they are anything short of absolue perfection, someone will use it as criticism.

Fifty monsters with stat errors is not "anything short of absolute perfection." It's a major problem.

 

[Doug McCrae]

We managed to kill the Salt Mummy anyway. But it was tough.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Salt mummy is a cool monster. Dehydrating impact is the kind of ability that makes MM3 so fun. The designers did a terrific job of coming up with interesting, fun monsters.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

But the editors can't and shouldn't be expected to correct the stat blocks. That would be like expecting a textbook editor to know more math than the mathematics professor who wrote it. An editor is the person who corrects grammar, spelling, word choice, readability, and the like. That is what they are expected to know--not monster statistics. They aren't hired because they know all about DnD, they are hired because they are experts on the English language (or what ever language in which the book is being published).

Yes, of course, you have have me on that. The point I was trying to make is that a textbook manuscript would have gone through a copy editor and a fact checker once it had been handed in by the author.

Game designers aren't expected to know that "like I said" is actually grammatically incorrect. However, the designers should be expected to proofread their stat blocks.

Often proofreading isn't enough. Sometimes it takes another person pointing them out, in order for one to realize their own mistakes.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

Im glad they released errata. MM3 monsters are cheap as ****, ridiculously overpowered on nearly every monster, i specifically remember some undead monster around CR 7 that had nearly 150-180 hp, 4 attacks per round each with improved grab and was + 20something to grapple. It killed everyone in our 10th lvl party, minus the cleric. Much to the DMs chagrin (he loves to kill PCs) we have banned that book from our games

 

[Stone Angel]

I really don't know what to say for this. I am not really a detail freak but one guy I play with always has to have everything concise and quantified. He even makes a number matrix with with different variables for power attack, two handed, one handed just for his damage.

Anyway he has everything down to a science and usually those things are caught though I am not sure I am lucky as it has resulted in countless hours of bogged down game play.

I don't think it is that big of deal everyone makes mistakes, and when you have numerous people working on a single project rushed to meet a deadline it's easy to see how the errors sneak in. So I will not crucify WoTC because at least they print the Errata

But at the same time I completely understand VtU's point after paying 30-40 bucks for a book I want it to be right "I thought 140 was high for a strength score"

So be nice to one another let those unhappy show their unrest and those that are content sip you cooled drinks relax. Be nice to WoTC they are the base of our hobby in legality anyway lest we crumble and succumb to backbiting and infighting.


The Seraph of Earth and Stone