Typo or retro wackiness?
Yeah, probably the same kind of goof.
It gives you a warm fuzzy feeling concerning the editing of the books doesn't it? :P
My wife has a BA in English, with her minor being a focus on Publishing/Editing. I like to watch her eye twitch involuntarily when I show her the typos that squeeze through. My favorite so far is as follows:
[INDENT]Example: $Derek's hoard contains 3,150 gp worth of trade goods.[/INDENT]
~Draconomicon, page 72
Unless I missed the memo, D&D does not use the money sign anywhere.
She tells me that if they hired her to edit these "God-damned" (her words, not mine) books, that they wouldn't have to, "Worry about stupid **** like this making them look like rank amateurs." (Again, her words).
She makes me laugh so hard sometimes.:D
The books would gain in quality quickly if someone with basic reading/writing comprehension was in charge.
Fixed that for you.
Well, notice in Modern d20, how Advance Classes suddenly disappeared and these Prestige Classes suddenly appeared?
Well, d20 Modern does actually have both advanced and prestige classes.
Plus, check back at the schedule, all of a suden it's paragon paths, hmmm.....
And I never touched Eberron in 3.5 and maybe they copied the intro over to 4e but that pdf has a timestamp of April 8, 2009 on it so that is the 4e EPG introduction as that does look like the 'going to the rpinters' markup of the pdf.
As an aside note that the end of the intro (in the How to Use this Book part) it says races and classes both. So we may see more than one class, and it sounds like at least two races.
If we are going to use plural forms of words to indicate numbers, then I believe we know that there are at least thre races. I wouldn't look too deep into the classes part though, as there are multiple ways to include an "additional class" without having a full 30 level class. Considering that there is no mention of paragon paths or epic destinies(which we know are in the book) in that blurb, they could very well be referring to those as the classes beyond just artificer.
She tells me that if they hired her to edit these "God-damned" (her words, not mine) books, that they wouldn't have to, "Worry about stupid **** like this making them look like rank amateurs." (Again, her words).
YES. I've been saying this for ages, but I gave up when I thought no one was listening!
Damn, now I want to meet your wife! Though given my sudden affection for her, it's probably best for everyone that I don't.
As an aside note that the end of the intro (in the How to Use this Book part) it says races and classes both. So we may see more than one class, and it sounds like at least two races.
I'm willing to bet that the other "classes" will be dragonmark multiclasses much like the spellscars in FR.
YES. I've been saying this for ages, but I gave up when I thought no one was listening!
Damn, now I want to meet your wife! Though given my sudden affection for her, it's probably best for everyone that I don't.
She says she wouldn't sign your manhood at the first meeting. ;)
And she appreciates all the kind words too, people.
So, anyone know an "in" at WotC ?
She says she wouldn't sign your manhood at the first meeting. ;)
Hmm... Sounds like she likes me. :P
YES!!!
This is my BIGGEST issue with WOTC...
This is the reason I stopped buying their books after Adventurer's Vault...
I am tired of having books that are only partially useful. How can a DM adjudicate the game when you never know if the rules you are looking at have been errata'd?? I mean, there's a LOT of errata with the PHB and MM, plus some major changes in Stealth and Skill Challenges....
Not that its a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it seriously impairs the usefulness of a dead tree resource when you have to go through pages of errata BEFORE even looking in the book itself.
And as someones editor wife said...WTF?? This is a professional publishing venture...the editing makes them look like ****ing rank amateurs...
Hmm... Sounds like she likes me. :P
You should think about the many tools she could use to sign you with. Some can be quite sharp :D
I think the thing that bothered me the most is that they left an entire disease, the infected zombie one, out of Open Grave. Then they errated it in. I can sort of understand missing a typo or two, but a whole stat block? That's just poor in my opinion.
Though I will still buy their books, I now know exactly how much they care about their product.
This is the reason I stopped buying their books after Adventurer's Vault...
To be fair, speaking as someone who owns almost all of the 4E hardcover books so far released, Adventurer's Vault is the worst IMHO. I'd still prefer to see much higher editing standards, but they seem to have stepped up since that terrible, terrible (editing-wise) book...
Playtesting-wise, OTOH...
I play Warhammer 40k. IMHO, WotC's editing mistakes have Nothing on GW's.
I've yet to see a multipage debate here on whether or not a Bullrush counts as a charge for certain purposes. As opposed to Warseer where the phrase "Ramming is a special form of Tank Shock" means that Ramming isn't Tank Shock, and so Deffrollas can't be used during a Ram.
For those of you who aren't familiar with 40k, this is the equivalent of asking whether or not a Horned Helm adds it's 1d6 of damage to a Bull Rush attack, then saying that "A Bull Rush can be Performed after a Charge, and it is a Special Attack, but it is not a Charge Attack, and therefore no extra damage is added."
Concerning the Editing skills of WOTC...
I play Warhammer 40k. IMHO, WotC's editing mistakes have Nothing on GW's.
I've yet to see a multipage debate here on whether or not a Bullrush counts as a charge for certain purposes. As opposed to Warseer where the phrase "Ramming is a special form of Tank Shock" means that Ramming isn't Tank Shock, and so Deffrollas can't be used during a Ram.
For those of you who aren't familiar with 40k, this is the equivalent of asking whether or not a Horned Helm adds it's 1d6 of damage to a Bull Rush attack, then saying that "A Bull Rush can be Performed after a Charge, and it is a Special Attack, but it is not a Charge Attack, and therefore no extra damage is added."
I'm not familiar with Warhammer, 40k or otherwise, and your example did confuse me. But! I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to say.
This morning I noticed that MM2's Ancient Iron Dragon stat block seemed to miss some editing, but not in an obvious way; some of the power descriptions just didn't seem to make sense.