After reading a couple of reviews by John Cooper on EN World and see that the statblocks are still horrible, even its quite som time since they were going to hire proofreaders to fix this, I canceled my pre-orders of both Fiendish Codex I and MMIV.
Since I really got so many monsters it seems its time to avoid purchaseing statblook heavy WotC products until they manage to get the errors down to a minimum lv (10-20% I can live with). But just look at FC1, the statblock error is around 60%, that is just unforgiving.
I just hope I wont be to tempted to download any of these if I see them available on the big void called Internet.
O.
Is this confirmed??? I've ordered this book through your site and would hate for it to be true. :(((
Didn't you guys write the FC1?
Is this confirmed??? I've ordered this book through your site and would hate for it to be true. :(((
Didn't you guys write the FC1?
Read the review here:
http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2894741
You can see that the stats that were delivered is not the same that is used in the book, so it was edited to the garbage bin.
(From the review: But it's the stat blocks where the real problems lie. I guess it's somewhat appropriate that the stat blocks found in Hordes of the Abyss are themselves somewhat abysmal, but since there's only one Development Manager listed in the credits and no other Developers, it's pretty easy to point the finger of blame directly at Jesse Decker. (Author James Jacobs, while politely not naming names, also mentioned on a recent EN World messageboard thread on the subject that the stats he turned in are different from the stats as published, and in each case the errors were added by the developers; that's got to grate!) In any case, with my standard provisos that these are merely the errors I noted during a single read through of the book, and the list is therefore guaranteed to be neither necessarily complete nor entirely accurate (although I hope I didn't goof up anywhere myself - and if I did, please let me know so I can fix it!))
O.
Wait a minute! Does that mean the statblocks submitted were deliberately changed to be wrong??? What is to be acheived by that? Am I missing a trick?
James/Erik, are you able to add anything here without hurting your relationship with WoTC?
After reading a couple of reviews by John Cooper on EN World and see (seeing) that the statblocks are still horrible, even (if) its (it's) quite som (some) time since they were going to hire proofreaders to fix this, I canceled (cancelled) my pre-orders of both Fiendish Codex I and MMIV. (bad grammar; poorly constructed, run-on sentence)
Since I really got (bad grammar; "already have") so many monsters it seems its (it's) time to avoid purchaseing (purchasing) statblook (statblock-) heavy WotC products until they manage to get the errors down to a minimum lv (level) (10-20% I can live with). But just look at FC1, the statblock error (rate) is around 60%, that is just unforgiving (unforgivable).
I just hope I wont (won't) be to tempted to download any of these if I see them available on the (that) big void called (the) Internet. (morally murky theft rationalization)
O.
Sorry, you were saying?
GGG
As someone who has experienced editing error (i.e. errors that were accidently introduced into the manuscript after it was turned in), I can only say that the process of producing any work (written or otherwise) can always be muddled a bit by the introduction of humans into the process. So there you have it, no more humans, no more errors.
Given the amount of techincal writing that goes into stat block production it is no surprise that most errors occur there. That said most of these are as simple as someone forgetting to apply a size modifier correctly something that might affect a statblock by +4 to -4 one way or another; i.e. not a big deal, unless you are anal about numbers (as opposed to words).
;)
Gx3
As someone who has experienced editing error (i.e. errors that were accidently introduced into the manuscript after it was turned in), I can only say that the process of producing any work (written or otherwise) can always be muddled a bit by the introduction of humans into the process. So there you have it, no more humans, no more errors.
Given the amount of techincal writing that goes into stat block production it is no surprise that most errors occur there. That said most of these are as simple as someone forgetting to apply a size modifier correctly something that might affect a statblock by +4 to -4 one way or another; i.e. not a big deal, unless you are anal about numbers (as opposed to words).
;)
Gx3
That WotC use proofreaders that don't have english as their primary language, don't know their own system and can't add/subtract?
As I mentioned, a couple of errors is not that bad and I can live witht that. But when 60% of the statblock have errors, its just bad.
O
Because, you know, if Orcus has a bluff check of +29 instead of +32, its going to RUIN YOUR WHOLE CAMPAIGN. Yup, might as well chuck the whole book. Nevermind if its one of the best non-setting specific books WOTC has come out with in a while. Oh, and speaking english has little to do with getting stat blocks right.
Whats really funny is if you think about how many coding errors the programs on your computer probably have on them as we speak, but then they get patched, and the program still runs, so hey, who cares? In a lot of ways a stat block is just a string of code that your mental processor reads so you can play the game, and even if they are in error, if the error doesn't interupt the game, then its not really a big deal to me.
Because, you know, if Orcus has a bluff check of +29 instead of +32, its going to RUIN YOUR WHOLE CAMPAIGN. Yup, might as well chuck the whole book. Nevermind if its one of the best non-setting specific books WOTC has come out with in a while. Oh, and speaking english has little to do with getting stat blocks right.
Whats really funny is if you think about how many coding errors the programs on your computer probably have on them as we speak, but then they get patched, and the program still runs, so hey, who cares? In a lot of ways a stat block is just a string of code that your mental processor reads so you can play the game, and even if they are in error, if the error doesn't interupt the game, then its not really a big deal to me.
I added the speaking english part because GGG corrected my grammar.
And I can't help it, the little attention WotC gives to statblock editing really bothers me, atleast with monster heavy books.
Creative Director
|
Wait a minute! Does that mean the statblocks submitted were deliberately changed to be wrong??? What is to be acheived by that? Am I missing a trick?
James/Erik, are you able to add anything here without hurting your relationship with WoTC?
WotC did NOT go through and deliberately change the stat blocks in FC1 to be "wrong." The problem is that stat blocks in D&D have become horribly complicated, to the point that even professionals (and the same CERTAINLY goes for customers/fans/reviewers) have a tough time getting them right. With each and every book published, it gets MORE complicated. The amount of time and effort that would be required to guarentee every published stat-block is correct at print would increase the development/editing cycle for D&D products to such an extent that publishing these books would become even less profitable. Which would translate into even higher prices for the books at the end of the day.
WotC does, I think, generally an excellent job with the editing of their products. The problem is that once a book's released, the tens of thousands of eyes on the text are sure to find things that were missed. It's just simply not cost-effective to put the books through much more editing and proofing than they already get.
|
Creative Director
|
You can see that the stats that were delivered is not the same that is used in the book, so it was edited to the garbage bin.
I'm being misquoted a bit here, alas. Or perhaps misinterpreted. What I meant to say was that while some of the stats I turned over to WotC were changed (they seemed to have adjusted down the SR for the demon lords by 2 points, for one), I certainly don't claim that my stat blocks in the turnover were error free.
Are there errors in the book? Sure. Looking them over, though, few of them (if any) will ruin your game in play.
Wait a minute! Does that mean the statblocks submitted were deliberately changed to be wrong??? What is to be acheived by that? Am I missing a trick?
James/Erik, are you able to add anything here without hurting your relationship with WoTC?
WotC did NOT go through and deliberately change the stat blocks in FC1 to be "wrong." The problem is that stat blocks in D&D have become horribly complicated, to the point that even professionals (and the same CERTAINLY goes for customers/fans/reviewers) have a tough time getting them right. With each and every book published, it gets MORE complicated. The amount of time and effort that would be required to guarentee every published stat-block is correct at print would increase the development/editing cycle for D&D products to such an extent that publishing these books would become even less profitable. Which would translate into even higher prices for the books at the end of the day.
WotC does, I think, generally an excellent job with the editing of their products. The problem is that once a book's released, the tens of thousands of eyes on the text are sure to find things that were missed. It's just simply not cost-effective to put the books through much more editing and proofing than they already get.
Thanks for chiming in James, and the funny thing that is also worth noting is that several times on these very boards, when people have pointed out errors they were forgetting this or that rule and the stat block was actually correct. So I take claims of "gross neglect" with a grain of salt. As long as I'm not seeing a 1st level goblin rogue with a +20 move silent score, its generally not worth the effort to go over the block with a fine tooth comb.
|
Creative Director
|
It's also worth pointing out that Hordes of the Abyss is NOT a stat-block heavy book like a Monster Manual. It's more on par with something like Lords of Madness or the Draconomicon. Even if you never use ANY of the stats in the book, there's still a lot of flavor in there. Hell, the book's worth the price alone for Chapter Five, and the closest thing that chapter has to stat blocks is this: chaos beast (MM 33).
I think I just woke up at the wrong side of the bed today, and just felt like blow off some steam after reading some reviews. When I looked at the errors in the statblock again its nothing whitch is game breaking I guess. So, I will probably order both FC1 and MVIV again.
Will I write another stupid post one day when I'm in a bad mood?
probably :-p
will I learn from it?
don't think so
Oxi.
|
Creative Director
|
Until we get errata from WotC for the feats issues... the general rule is to always go with the text and to assume that the information on the summary table is wrong (this goes for any summary tables, not just feats).
I'm not involved with Fiendish Codex II, so I can't say if they'll have Heritor feats in there. I hope they do. I actually hope that eventaully we'll see Heritor feats for all the outer planes.
As for the demon lord CR... That was 100% my idea. Unfortunately, what didn't quite make it into the book as clearly as I would have liked is the fact that these stat blocks should represent the baseline of what a demon lord is—there was no way to pin down a demon lord's CR that would work for all campaigns, so instead we give the "starter" demon lord and then provide rules for advancing them to a point that works for your particular campaign. Personally, I prefer demon lords in a CR 24–32 range (as I've been presenting them in Dragon's Demonomicon articles). This works pretty well for Greyhawk, also. For Forgotten Realms, you should probably advance them up to CR 40 or so, since the power level of the Realms is significantly higher. For Eberron, they work perfectly as they are, since the power level is lower in that campaign world.
Since the VAST majority of D&D players don't play Epic games, the higher we went with the demon lord powers, the less useful they become to everyone (since it's easier to advance a creature than un-advance them).
And finally... don't get too caught up on the CR numbers. The demon lords, like true dragons, are really tough for their CR scores. (The balor, on the other hand, is actually fairly weak for a CR 20 creature as it turns out.)
Personally, in my campaigns (and in the adventures you'll be seeing in Dungeon—particularly in the Savage Tide Adventure Path), I feel that the stat blocks in FC1 work great for end-campaign demon lord bosses that represent a manifestation of the demon lord's actual power, kind of like avatars or aspects. You can kill the CR 23 version of Demogorgon, but the actual, CR 32 (or whatever) version is still out there and by killing the manifestation you'll certainly attract his attention!
|
Creative Director
|
I think I just woke up at the wrong side of the bed today, and just felt like blow off some steam after reading some reviews. When I looked at the errors in the statblock again its nothing whitch is game breaking I guess. So, I will probably order both FC1 and MVIV again.
Hey; no hard feelings here! :) I'm as frustrated with stat block errors as anyone else (or more so, since I'm on the side that should be FIXING them before they happen), but they happen nonetheless. Thanks for giving the book another try! :)
WotC does, I think, generally an excellent job with the editing of their products. The problem is that once a book's released, the tens of thousands of eyes on the text are sure to find things that were missed. It's just simply not cost-effective to put the books through much more editing and proofing than they already get.
Thanks for posting your reply, James. I forgot about this aspect and I should really remember as I work in Marketing/Publicity and have made mistakes myself; some embarrassing. :/
Thanks for rationalising things.
One of the first thing I learned in Editing and one of the first thing they teach in upper level college editing classes is that you cannot sucessfully edit your own work. Also, most editors dont get paid diddly, so it is often a work of love they are doing so unless it something in the NY Times, I generally cut most editors a break though the sold copy should be reviewed and be usable. 40% or more would definately be unusable.
Yeah, the editing process is a bummer sometimes, and stat blocks (particularly of more powerful creatures) can be an absolute bummer. I do think that the new stat block entry for monsters did not need to be changed. No one ever complained about the old stat blocks that I heard, so I was not quite sure why the change was warranted (particularly since the issue of whether the stat blocks are OGL is pretty hazy).
I do agree with the reviewer that perhaps more people need to be looking over the stat blocks. If one person is indeed doing all the work, that does seems a tad unnecessary.
Of course, all this won't stop me from buying the book. All those new juicy layers and fluff information is what I want to see! New demons are okay too, even if their stat blocks are slightly off!
After reading a couple of reviews by John Cooper on EN World ...
O.
As soon as I saw this name I had to post.
I was a contibutor and rules lawyer guy for a series of monster pdf's sold through EN world (they're called E.N. Critters and are still on sale as far as I know). My buddy, the line manager, and I did most of the work and a few other people submitted about half of the other creatures. These are just $5 pdf's with about 2 dozen creatures. Making up and statting out a creature is a lot of work. As the rules guy I spent hours cleaning up everyone else's monsters along with the line manager. We worked really hard to make the best product we could, but two people can only do so much and there are deadlines and such. We weren't lazy. We proofed everything many times over. We wanted to sell a great, affordable, and correct product. No matter what, someone's going to have a problem. (Even though our ads clearly said the pdf was a monster supplement, one reviewer slammed us for only being a book of monsters.)
After the deadline we still look at our product trying to find anything that slipped through the cracks. Then Mr. Cooper posts a review. And he slams our stuff for all the errors, the manager gets in touch with him and goes over Mr. Cooper's findings. Less than a month later we posted a fixed version for new buyers and was free to anyone who bought the original. Meanwhile we kept putting out new ones, and fixing old ones. And Mr. Cooper made mistakes too. One that stands out is that we put in Knowledge charts similar to those in Dragon, but used the rules in the SRD for identifying creatures (base 10 + HD). And he said it was wrong, refering us to the Dragon articles, which are more logical, but not OGL.
We worked with him anyway, and eventually our products started getting great reviews. Nobody's is perfect, and we did our best. We put up revised versions, free to anyone who already bought them. And we made almost no money (like $.75 an hour). It gave me a perspective on the industry though. Game designers need to pay their bills as much as anyone else. I'm not saying to buy every piece of garbage out there, but mistakes get through. That doesn't mean the product is useless, and WotC does a good job of keeping up errata. But only so many hours can be spent on proofing. I tried the game design thing because I love the game, and I'm sure everyone working on it at WotC does too. That makes me think that everyone is doing what they can to make the best product possible. They don't do it for the money, but they need it.
A lot of people complain about layoffs and company close-outs in the game industry, and then they complain that game companies only care about profit. I'd rather have frequent new and original game material with a few stat block errors than have safe, rehashed, perfectly edited products come out at a much slower pace.
While I understand that mistakes get made, I don't accept the view that they are ever acceptable. The percentage of erroneaous statblocks in WotC products has been problematic for quite some time, and needs addressed. (True, the bulk of the errors won't derail a campaign, but they still need addressed, IMO.)
I am of the opinion that the task of editting a statblock is probably very different from the task of editting text. If nothing else, the latter requires detailed knowledge of the D&D system, where the former does not. Therefore, WotC should probably divide the roles, and start listing "Statblock Editors" separately in the credits pages of their books. If nothing else, we'd then know who to blame.
However, one thing they should also do is develop an in-house monster and NPC generation tool. Most of what goes into creating a creature is adding levels of PC classes, NPC classes, or monster types. The vast majority of that work can therefore be automated quite handily. This tool would then provide a quick and accurate count of the number of skill points and feats that a creature has, could total up all the bonuses, apply size modifiers, and so on. Then, if the monster needs more feats, a higher Hide bonus, or whatever, these can be added and automatically marked as special bonuses for the creature. (It won't be able to produce 100% accurate results, or deal with every permutation - which is why it should be an in-house rather than commercial tool. However, it could be set up to do the foundations really quickly, and should instantly reduce the number of errors.)
As regards the Demon Lords CRs, I think I would have been inclined to the following line of thinking: Kyuss (as per Age of Worms) is about ideally powerful for an end-of-campaign encounter. We want the Demon Lords to be end of campaign encounters. Therefore, Demogorgon and the rest should be about as powerful as Kyuss (which makes them what? CR 28 or so?). Still, I can see why the designers went for a lower power level for these monsters.
There were also a lot of tools handed out to the party specifically for the Kyuss fight, and ways provided for them to weaken him before ever encountering the Worm Man. So the relative challenge was probably quite a bit lower (though still very difficult, considering it was designed for a party of level 20-21 characters).
And, in line with what James said, all CRs are not created equal. My friends and I discovered that when we compared a red dragon to other creatures of its CR and found it to be much stronger in almost every way. These listings are for good "boss" monsters, where you want them to be stronger than a normal encounter of that level. But, upping (sp?) the CR then increases the treasure and XP handed out, and thus makes it a normal-difficulty encounter for a higher CR, rather than a higher-difficulty encounter for a lower CR.
And, in line with what James said, all CRs are not created equal. My friends and I discovered that when we compared a red dragon to other creatures of its CR and found it to be much stronger in almost every way. These listings are for good "boss" monsters, where you want them to be stronger than a normal encounter of that level. But, upping (sp?) the CR then increases the treasure and XP handed out, and thus makes it a normal-difficulty encounter for a higher CR, rather than a higher-difficulty encounter for a lower CR.
I am yet to see a good reason why there should be "lower-difficulty", "normal-difficulty" and "higher-difficulty" encounters at any given CR. I'm not arguing that they don't exist, since they obviously do, but I'm more inclined to think that they are (slight) game imbalances that ideally should be fixed, rather than intentional features to exploit.
(CR is, after all, just a tool. If you want a tougher challenge, it strikes me that the way to do it is to use a higher CR, rather than a tougher monster at the same CR.)
I'm not condoning it, as it strikes me as odd, too, that they would make a tool to help a DM and then not follow their own rule, without any clear announcement that some things are tougher than their CR indicates. I suppose it ups the fear factor for everyone, since even those greedy for treasure and XP might like to fight a dragon, but the increased challenge and standard XP (treasure is still pretty good at three times normal!) might make them a little more scared. It also helps preserve them as an icon of the game when you get the feeling that they are so great that the CR system can't effectively pin them down (though to me, that just makes me think someone made a calculations mistake or the system needs work).
But, they do indeed exist.
I would agree that around CR26 is the right level for an end of encounter. It should by definition be the toughest encounter you've ever faced. My favourite such encounter is probably Ashardalon - a half-fiend great wrym red dragon, CR28 in today's money. I found it especially interesting when Age of Worms pulled a similarly dual-typed opponent with a powerful undead dragon, only to successfully top it with a deity.
I suppose it's better to make the demon lords weaker and then let people beef them up, than make them too strong and have peoeple undertake the tougher task of weakening them.
WotC just needs to hire John Cooper to fix their stat block errors.
i would tend to take the thought a little further. a bad end boss monster/demon prince/what have you of CR 22 to CR 24 seems quite reasonable for the centerpiece of a campaign wrapup monster. Unlike the combats of the two AP's, however, don't let the party face the creature alone. Don't beef up the Big Bad's stats, give him allies. If a single opponent of CR 24 is facing a level 20 party, he's a reasonable challenge for the party...
EXCEPT....
The party gets four hits (or groups of hits) for his every one, assuming a four member party. This is why the people playing Age of Worms have, if they make it to Kyuss, been ending that battle in one to two rounds. The Big Bad, even at a reasonable CR, is overwhelmed by being outnumbered. If the party charges, for example, Graz'zt (CR 22 in the Fiendish Codex), first off, keep in mind the party is confronting an aspect, not necessarily the true foe. And second, a brace of mariliths, succubi and lamia (the logical 'lieutenants' for Graz'zt's style), you can easily boost the CR and further, give the party enough opponents to confront that they have to divide their energies and give Graz'zt a chance to really use his own talents. (I do tend to feel that most of the CR 20 + foes don't really get to use their abilities to their maximum effect because of this.)
On another point, if there are flaws in the stat blocks, i don't feel that they are anything remotely near 'horrendous'. I've been looking them over, and seen a few things i may personally disagree with, but you know what? in my campaign, if i disagree, i'll either make the change, or not use the specific opponent or that stat block if an alternate is available. I really feel that people who are jumping on WOTC for this kind of thing are really trying to combine a sour personality with rules lawyering. The quality of the overall work is stellar, and that stands out to me far more than any minor quibbles over 'is this a balanced distribution of stats, skills, powers and does the assigned CR match how i manage to interpret CR values?'
If you don't like the stats, make your own. An editorial staff maintaining a series of well over 50 volumes at so much more depth than the prior editions of the game, you'll expect some variance, espcially over subjective creation and application of things like stats.
i'm sorry if i have picked up a little venom here, but i don't like seeing folks cut down a WOTC product like this, especially since they are only commenting on one small aspect of it.
It is obvious to anyone who has worked in the publishing field for any time that some of the thoughts regarding the publishing process that have been floated out on this thread are being submitted by those who don't have a very good concept of what it takes to mass produce a text product. From project proposal to the press, a first edition text at the company that i work for can take up to two years to produce and errors can be introduced to a clean manuscript (although any author worth his/her salt will tell you there is no such thing) at any part of the process, as the text passes through: developmental editors, copyeditors, project managers, graphic design, marketing, sales, multimedia, and production...and those are just IN HOUSE hands. A finished product still needs to be farmed out to be typeset by a compositor, typically in another country (COMP: {insert your asian country here that rarely follows instructions as laid out}) and finally to the press...both of which can nerf up the final product. I'm not sure what the orginizational charts look like at WoTC, but we typically wear more than one of the in house hats listed above and have title lists of 20-30 per editor/developer (if not more). In short, the staff at WoTC and Paizo do a great job getting their publications out in a timely manner with the amount of quality game play source manterial that is produced every year. Kudos to all the hard working authors, editors, designers, and publishers who produce and have produced the quality products that we gamers use on a daily (or sometimes montly) basis.
As ever,
ACE
Errors will happen. Adapt to them and be a better human.
As James already pointed out, 3.5 rules are awfully complicated. I couldn't even imagine putting together so many different stat blocks. It takes me 30 minutes to create a specific boss monster with class levels and such... To do that ten times over seems like a pain, and to get them all right seems like a Herculean task.
If you find errors, just fix them. One should actually EXPECT errors in both WotC books and issues of Dragon/Dungeon. It's hard putting stat blocks together, and as someone else pointed out, it has more to do with math and organization rather than English.
Further, if a campaign fizzles or has a meltdown (or a TPK) because of an error in the books, that's the fault of the DM, not the writers/developers/editors. Like I said above, expect errors, identify them, and adapt. Prepare in an adequate fashion, make your changes and modifications (as all DMs should do), and use the books as a guideline, not a manual.
One should actually EXPECT errors in both WotC books and issues of Dragon/Dungeon.
Expect, yes. But accept?
The problems with stat-blocks in WotC products is an ongoing issue that Wizards assured us they were aware of and taking steps to correct. Yet they seem unable to do so. If John Cooper is right, 61% of the stat-blocks in this book are in some way flawed. The monsters in "Complete Psionic" are completely missing some key information. Other books have had problems. How long should we continue to make allowances for this before we say, "this is not good enough"?
So they're skimping a little on the editing and quality assurance to save on costs. Should this be a surprise, where Hasbro is placing Wizards under pressure to be as profitable as possible? As long as they're the best-looking, most interesting books on the shelves and are good enough to keep people buying, they're still going to be successful.
They should send it to me in PDF for proofreading and statblocking. I'd do it just to give my players something interesting for once ;)
As James already pointed out, 3.5 rules are awfully complicated. I couldn't even imagine putting together so many different stat blocks. It takes me 30 minutes to create a specific boss monster with class levels and such... To do that ten times over seems like a pain, and to get them all right seems like a Herculean task.
This is one of the reasons I hate 3.0/3.5 (which is not to say I hate it overall or don't play it). The switch to a largely skill-based system from a class-based system has the effect of lengthening stat blocks. (I remember many years ago playing Mythus for a -- very -- short time and thinking, "I'm so glad D&D doesn't have stats like this." So much for that!)
When the system has become unweildy enough that the professionals can't get their "own" system correct, it's time to re-examine or streamline some things.As I've mentioned in past threads, I'd love to see an official, simplified method of "bossing-up" leveled creatures (a method sanctioned for publication in Dungeon and elsewhere, not simply home use). Leveling up a creature to boss levels -- properly, without cutting corners or neglecting skills -- is a royal pain. Not missing one of the many inconnected stat changes and getting the stat block perfect -- again, I'm talking for publication here -- is practically impossible. (No doubt there are some -- including Cooper -- to which this stat math comes natural, but I am not one.)
It is obvious to anyone who has worked in the publishing field for any time that some of the thoughts regarding the publishing process that have been floated out on this thread are being submitted by those who don't have a very good concept of what it takes to mass produce a text product ...
Well said Ace.
One should actually EXPECT errors in both WotC books and issues of Dragon/Dungeon.Expect, yes. But accept?
The problems with stat-blocks in WotC products is an ongoing issue that Wizards assured us they were aware of and taking steps to correct. Yet they seem unable to do so. If John Cooper is right, 61% of the stat-blocks in this book are in some way flawed. The monsters in "Complete Psionic" are completely missing some key information. Other books have had problems. How long should we continue to make allowances for this before we say, "this is not good enough"?
You can say "this isn't good enough". But are you going to put out the material that a lot of us want to buy? Is John Cooper? Two things I remember from dealing with Cooper during the pdf work is that he wasn't always correct, and that his idea of "error" wasn't always bad math. If he's saying 61% figure half of that as minor printing mistakes, like a misplaced semi-colon. Think about it. Until you read his review were you losing your mind over the errors in the books? Did you even notice them? Once in a while you might have realized an error occurred somewhere, but did it ruin a game? Is somebody else putting out a better product? I guarantee there is no flawless mass-produced d20 book out there.
I read somewhere that something like 50 new typos are introduced into the dictionary everytime it's printed. Are we going to stop using English?
You can say "this isn't good enough". But are you going to put out the material that a lot of us want to buy?
No. I'm a software engineer, not a game designer.
WotC produce excellent books. 2006 in particular has been a strong year, with "Fiendish Codex I", "Players Handbook II" and "Red Hand of Doom" all being books I enjoyed thoroughly. However, there is now a pattern of errors in WotC stat-blocks - more than half the stat-blocks in FC1 have errors, all the monster entries in Complete Psionic are missing important information (such as Level Adjustments), and other books have problems. Since stat-blocks are probably the thing that has most direct impact on my game, and is also the thing I least enjoy working up for myself (and consequently the thing I am most keen to spend money to have done for me), they are the thing that I most want to be right. If there were three times the errors in the body text of FC1, but a third as many errors in the stat-blocks, the book would be significantly better overall.
Two things I remember from dealing with Cooper during the pdf work is that he wasn't always correct, and that his idea of "error" wasn't always bad math. If he's saying 61% figure half of that as minor printing mistakes, like a misplaced semi-colon.
Not in the review I read. Of the errors listed, one is a typo. Of the rest, the vast majority are attack roll modifiers, damage values, ACs, saving throw modifiers, or save DCs. All of which are fairly important.
Think about it. Until you read his review were you losing your mind over the errors in the books? Did you even notice them?
I don't read stat-blocks unless and until I'm going to use the creature. That doesn't mean I don't expect the majority to be correct when I do come to use them.
Once in a while you might have realized an error occurred somewhere, but did it ruin a game? Is somebody else putting out a better product? I guarantee there is no flawless mass-produced d20 book out there.
I don't ask for a flawless book. But there is now a pattern of errors in WotC products, and one they should be making every effort to break. If that means hiring more people specifically to edit stat-blocks, or slowing the rate of releases, they should do so. Because at the moment, their efforts just look sloppy. And the stat-blocks in FC1 are a blight on an otherwise excellent product.
I read somewhere that something like 50 new typos are introduced into the dictionary everytime it's printed. Are we going to stop using English?
I'll wager that the word count of the dictionary is significantly higher than most WotC products, and that the rate of errors is significantly lower. What's more, the typos that are discovered are almost certainly corrected in later printings. This is not the case with WotC products - most books have one or two printings and then disappear, so there is more pressure to get things right, because there will be no opportunity to put them right later.
I agree, yet disagree, with Delericho. One of the problems with 3.0/3.5 is Feats, Synergy Bonuses, Abilities, and Prestige Classes. There are just too many of them.
I like the idea of the in-house program to create NPCs. But whenever a new Feat, Synergy Bonus, Ability (Racial or Class), or Prestige Class is introduced, there needs to be exceptions to the rule. I've been trying to create my own (I am but one person, low on the programming totem pole), but it just doesn't pay to keep up with every book that WotC is putting out.
As far as the stat blocks, this in-house program would clean up some of the easier aspects (Skill Points, Ability Score Modifiers, etc), but there is always the additional things that are harder to keep up with (namely Feats).
Another complaint with d20 is the CR. It's not a hard and fast science. In order to really come up with a fix for the CRs, the entire system needs to be looked over. Assign a CR to individual aspects of the game. Special Abilites and Feats need to be considered into the process. If something has a paralyzing touch, it's much more powerful because it can take a character/creature out of the encounter. A PC with Great Cleave is more powerful than someone that doesn't. A 1st level Human Fighter can have Power Attack, Cleave and Great Cleave right off the bat (Which leads to my third complaint at 6th level, but I don't have the willpower to address that one now).
In all honesty, WotC needs to come up with something that can do everything. A Character Generator as well as a Combat Simulator. Using probability numbers to generate success and failure (something that only WotC can do based on the OGL) while taking into consideration the feats and abilities of both sides will show what kind of CR the creature/character is in line with the encounter.
Of course, there's no way to account for all possible combinations of PC parties. Alas, there's always the human side.
I agree with everyone that says "just deal with it". After all, it's only a game. So long as the players enjoy it, that's all that matters. But, there is something to be said about accuracy. Not even HERO is perfect...
Todd