I noticed some minor nitpicks with the Tatzlwyrm stat block:
The Senses line lists Listen +4, Spot +3, while the Skills line in the Statistics section has Listen +6 and Spot +8. The latter seems to be correct, as the skill bonuses from the Statistics section match up with the skill point total.
Armor Class lists a +3 armor bonus. I'm guessing this is supposed to be a natural armor bonus.
Will save is listed as +1, should be +3. Dragons have all good saves.
In Graypelt's stat block it seems his skills are off. As far as I can tell, he should have 7 skill points for 4 HD magical beast and another 2 for 2 warrior levels.
Bluff is a cross class skill for both worgs and warriors, so at 6 HD his maximum allowed ranks would be 4.5. +5 in Bluff at CHA 10 should not be possible, and even if it were, it would cost him 10 skill points.
Intimidate is a class skill only for his warrior class, so could not have taken more than 2 ranks without paying cross-class cost.
To match up the skills other than Bluff and Intimidate, he needs 2 more skill points. (Maybe skill bonuses for the default worg's Alertness feat weren't removed, when Graypelt's feats were changed from the default.)
Is there maybe an explanation for the high Bluff (and Intimidate) values missing somewhere?
Here's another: Page 4 lists the ingredients for Laurel's cure, one of which is elderwood moss. On the same page, it is called elderwood mold. The name only appears once more in the text, on page 7 where it is called elderwood moss. I'm assuming it's a moss, not a mold.
So this makes me curious. Will the PDF version of the modules (be it Pathfinder or Gamemastery) be updated to reflect corrections and errata or will they forever match the printed version?
It might be another selling point for the subscription route.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I already mentioned this one in another thread, but I'll repeat it here:
In the description of 'The Yard' in Part 3 of the adventure, it states in the 'read-aloud' text that the set of double doors are on the east side of the courtyard while, in the map and in the other descriptions, the doors are on the WEST side of the courtyard.
I think the idea has been bandied about before somewhere, but perhaps its time to suggest that there be a "limited pdf release" before the adventures go to print. Perhaps this could be handled similar to how video game Betas are run, with people signing up to test the adventure out for a day or two and give feedback. Video game manufacturerers require NDAs so that wouldn't be a big deal either.
I don't know how that would work with your deadlines, but it's something to think about. I feel safe in giving out a guarantee that you would have lots of people sign up for the test runs (including me), so perhaps you could have a revolving, limited number of people for each adventure, so that everyone who wants to would eventually get a turn in the queue. In return for the free editing that you receive from it, the test run people would get a look at the new adventures before everyone else, and that's a pretty cool thing too.
Oh, and Paizoians please don't get the idea that this is a slam against your editing skills because it's not. I think you guys do a great job, but with the deadlines you have, things like the errata already posted sometimes slip by. I've noticed several small items in the past few Dragon and Dungeon mags too.
|
I think the idea has been bandied about before somewhere, but perhaps its time to suggest that there be a "limited pdf release" before the adventures go to print. Perhaps this could be handled similar to how video game Betas are run, with people signing up to test the adventure out for a day or two and give feedback. Video game manufacturerers require NDAs so that wouldn't be a big deal either.
I like this idea a lot. Inevitably after a new product is released, you see the errata threads popping up cataloging minor (and sometimes not-so-minor) errors sprinkled throughout.
Anything like this that can be done to improve the QA before publishing should be seriously considered! I hate buying an adventure or sourcebook and then having to go back to read up on all the stuff I know I won't catch as I read through it, particularly stat block misprints and miscalculations.
As Rhothaerill said, this is no reflection on Paizo writers and editors; it's just the nature of the beast.
|
In Graypelt's stat block it seems his skills are off. As far as I can tell, he should have 7 skill points for 4 HD magical beast and another 2 for 2 warrior levels.
Bluff is a cross class skill for both worgs and warriors, so at 6 HD his maximum allowed ranks would be 4.5. +5 in Bluff at CHA 10 should not be possible, and even if it were, it would cost him 10 skill points.
Intimidate is a class skill only for his warrior class, so could not have taken more than 2 ranks without paying cross-class cost.
To match up the skills other than Bluff and Intimidate, he needs 2 more skill points. (Maybe skill bonuses for the default worg's Alertness feat weren't removed, when Graypelt's feats were changed from the default.)
Is there maybe an explanation for the high Bluff (and Intimidate) values missing somewhere?
Huh, in double-checking these numbers, it appears that the basic worg's skill points in the PH and SRD are off. Including the effects of abilities, racial bonuses, and the Alertness feat, I count only 5 skill points spent (3 in Move Silently, 1 each in Listen and Spot, and none in Hide or Survival) instead of 7.
Recovering those 2 lost points, plus the 2 skill points from warrior levels, would allow Graypelt to compensate for the loss of Alertness, and account for the Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival scores. But those Bluff and Intimidate scores currently seem to come from nowhere.
I'll throw in my 2 cents on the errata issue. Whatever you all at Paizo do to handle this, I'm sure you'll do a better job than WOTC. Talk about a major sore point for years. Sheesh. (They're starting to promise an improvement, but it's too little, too late for me.)
As for Paizo products, whether it means posting an official errata pdf (and hopefully incorporating the changes into future printings), or something along the lines of what Rothaerill suggested above, your legions of fans will appreciate the effort!
Director of Game Design
|
Hmm... It appears that Greypelt's stats do indeed have some errors in the skill department. I currently blame gnomes...
Here is what they should read...
Bluff +1 (+1 worg ranks [2 ranks], +0 Cha)
Hide +5 (+2 racial, +3 Dex)
Intimidate +3 (+1 worg rank [2 ranks], +2 war rank, +0 Cha)
Listen +3 (+1 worg rank, +1 racial, +1 Wis)
M. Silently +5 (+1 worg rank, +1 racial, +3 Dex)
Spot +3 (+1 worg rank, +1 racial, +1 Wis)
Survival +1 (+1 Wis)
That should account for all 7 worg ranks and the 2 warrior ranks.
As for updating pdfs, I believe that we will do it as time permits and need dictates. The policy is not yet firm on this so stay tuned.
Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the idea has been bandied about before somewhere, but perhaps its time to suggest that there be a "limited pdf release" before the adventures go to print. Perhaps this could be handled similar to how video game Betas are run, with people signing up to test the adventure out for a day or two and give feedback. Video game manufacturerers require NDAs so that wouldn't be a big deal either.
I think the NDA would work, or randomly e-mail a different bunch of subscribers "Please download the latest product at (whatever HTTP) Report any errors you find to Its_all_the_gnomes_fault@paizo.com"
That way, you reward your testers with early sneak peaks, and if the product shows up on the pirate sites early (damned pirates) you have a smaller possible pool of thieves.
I think the NDA would work, or randomly e-mail a different bunch of subscribers "Please download the latest product at (whatever HTTP) Report any errors you find to Its_all_the_gnomes_fault@paizo.com"That way, you reward your testers with early sneak peaks, and if the product shows up on the pirate sites early (damned pirates) you have a smaller possible pool of thieves.
They could easily set up the "Betatest" PDFs with the same personalization structure that they do for their PDFs now. If anything did end up on the black market it would be easily traceable.
So Paizoians, do you think it's doable, or even something you could look into for the future?
|
|
Hmm... It appears that Greypelt's stats do indeed have some errors in the skill department. I currently blame gnomes...
Here is what they should read...
Bluff +1 (+1 worg ranks [2 ranks], +0 Cha)
Hide +5 (+2 racial, +3 Dex)
Intimidate +3 (+1 worg rank [2 ranks], +2 war rank, +0 Cha)
Listen +3 (+1 worg rank, +1 racial, +1 Wis)
M. Silently +5 (+1 worg rank, +1 racial, +3 Dex)
Spot +3 (+1 worg rank, +1 racial, +1 Wis)
Survival +1 (+1 Wis)That should account for all 7 worg ranks and the 2 warrior ranks.
Well, that certainly makes his bluffing tactic less effective. I'm tempted to swap in a level of rogue, although the elite array would bump his CR.
The published skill numbers seem like something left over from a previous build. Was Graypelt originally something other than a 2nd-level warrior, and if so, what was he?
|
Director of Game Design
|
Well, that certainly makes his bluffing tactic less effective. I'm tempted to swap in a level of rogue, although the elite array would bump his CR.The published skill numbers seem like something left over from a previous build. Was Graypelt originally something other than a 2nd-level warrior, and if so, what was he?
Greypelt went through a number of builds.. and at one point in time, had the elite array and levels in rogue. Both of those explain why he had so many skill points. Apparently the wrong skill file was used.
Sorry about the mix up.
Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager
Kinda small, but I noticed the Dwarven Skeletons are described as:
Dwarf Skeletons
(Medium Human Skeletons)
This is actually deliberate. We are telling you to use the stat blocks for human warrior skeletons on that page of the MM. It's just a clarification, since there aren't any dwarf skeletons in the MM.
Report any errors you find to Its_all_the_gnomes_fault@paizo.com"Slander!
Isn't it libel?
In the encounter with Grung Knifetongue, should the stat block for the razorcrows read "RAZORCROW (2)," not "RAZORCROWS (2)?" As a reference, I point to the "Approaching the Ruins" encounter, and the stats for the wolves--"WOLF (2)."
/me admits this is a very minor deal, but figured "what the heck."
|
This is actually deliberate. We are telling you to use the stat blocks for human warrior skeletons on that page of the MM. It's just a clarification, since there aren't any dwarf skeletons in the MM.Kinda small, but I noticed the Dwarven Skeletons are described as:
Dwarf Skeletons
(Medium Human Skeletons)
I noticed that after I said it, I'd never really looked at skeletons before so I looked it up after talking to a couple of people and learned my mistake. You live, you learn.
Encounter 14. Secret Prison
- The stat block title should likely be singular: Dwarf Warrior Skeleton (3).
- In the TACTICS section it reasons that the skeletons attack with their natural weapons because "they have no scimitars." I couldn't figure out why this would be mentioned. Were the dwarves of this area known to wield scimitars? The odd thing is that this is _the only_ mention of a scimitar in the entire module. I'd just kill the entire phrase, unless there's something significant which we need to know :)
|
|
- In the TACTICS section it reasons that the skeletons attack with their natural weapons because "they have no scimitars." I couldn't figure out why this would be mentioned. Were the dwarves of this area known to wield scimitars? The odd thing is that this is _the only_ mention of a scimitar in the entire module. I'd just kill the entire phrase, unless there's something significant which we need to know :)
The dwarf skeletons use the human skeleton stats from the MM. Human skeletons in the MM are armed with scimitars, the dwarf skeletons in the module aren't.
/me sits down.
And a question:
Has the fungus in room 9 a CR?
Yeah, it's effectively a CR 1 hazard (as you can probably guess by the EL given for the encounter). We should have included an Ad-hoc section specifically saying that though. Oh well.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Probably! I'm obviously not a lawyer... ;DSlander!Isn't it libel?
Being a lawyer doesn't help me remember the difference. The only way I ever remember is the line from Spider-Man, where Peter accusses JJ of slandering Spider-Man, and JJ responds by saying that it's not slander, it's libel because it's in print.
If, for some reason, we were to re-release the text of D0 as part of another product, we would endeavor to incorporate any errata to the adventure as part of that product. (Something like what happened with the SCAP book)
But, barring that, it's unlikely we'll ever go back and fix it.
As for the translations, I have no idea, I'm not involved with that process at all. But somehow I doubt it.