Awful proofreading

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The /Sandstorm/ supplement introduces rules for dehydration and a new
kind of damage, "desiccation." You'd think that a major rule with a
tricky word would at least get a once-over with a spellchecker. While
the spell /desiccate/ gets it right, most of the book uses the incorrect
"dessicate" instead. Silly, silly.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> The /Sandstorm/ supplement introduces rules for dehydration and a new
> kind of damage, "desiccation." You'd think that a major rule with a
> tricky word would at least get a once-over with a spellchecker. While
> the spell /desiccate/ gets it right, most of the book uses the incorrect
> "dessicate" instead. Silly, silly.

More silliness: /Sandstorm/ also reprints the Repose domain. Somehow,
they managed to misprint the 4th- and 5th-level spells (apparently cut &
pasted from the Nobility domain).

As I've been working on the spell-kit project, I've noticed a bunch of
minor mistakes in spells -- not giving a subschool to Conjuration or
Enchantment spells, for example -- but so far this book is the worst.
The actual material seems reasonable and flavorful, but the copy-editing
is lousy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>> The /Sandstorm/ supplement introduces rules for dehydration and a new
>> kind of damage, "desiccation." You'd think that a major rule with a
>> tricky word would at least get a once-over with a spellchecker. While
>> the spell /desiccate/ gets it right, most of the book uses the incorrect
>> "dessicate" instead. Silly, silly.
>
> More silliness: /Sandstorm/ also reprints the Repose domain. Somehow,
> they managed to misprint the 4th- and 5th-level spells (apparently cut
> & pasted from the Nobility domain).
>
> As I've been working on the spell-kit project, I've noticed a bunch of
> minor mistakes in spells -- not giving a subschool to Conjuration or
> Enchantment spells, for example -- but so far this book is the worst.
> The actual material seems reasonable and flavorful, but the
> copy-editing is lousy.

My favorite so far is from a Fast Forward Entertainment book (if you
really want, I can probably find which one).

"Insight Rage"

When I saw the name, I figured maybe it gave a bonus equal to your
Wisdom modifier while raging, or even gave you a bonus to Wisdom checks
(your fury sharpens your mind or some such), but no. The spell simple
causes people to rage.

"INCITE Rage" is what they *should* have used.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>
>>Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The /Sandstorm/ supplement introduces rules for dehydration and a new
>>>kind of damage, "desiccation." You'd think that a major rule with a
>>>tricky word would at least get a once-over with a spellchecker. While
>>>the spell /desiccate/ gets it right, most of the book uses the incorrect
>>>"dessicate" instead. Silly, silly.
>>
>>More silliness: /Sandstorm/ also reprints the Repose domain. Somehow,
>>they managed to misprint the 4th- and 5th-level spells (apparently cut
>>& pasted from the Nobility domain).
>>
>>As I've been working on the spell-kit project, I've noticed a bunch of
>>minor mistakes in spells -- not giving a subschool to Conjuration or
>>Enchantment spells, for example -- but so far this book is the worst.
>>The actual material seems reasonable and flavorful, but the
>>copy-editing is lousy.
>
>
> My favorite so far is from a Fast Forward Entertainment book (if you
> really want, I can probably find which one).
>
> "Insight Rage"
>
> When I saw the name, I figured maybe it gave a bonus equal to your
> Wisdom modifier while raging, or even gave you a bonus to Wisdom checks
> (your fury sharpens your mind or some such), but no. The spell simple
> causes people to rage.

It "simple" causes people to rage, eh?


> "INCITE Rage" is what they *should* have used.

I must admit, this IS funny.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> My favorite so far is from a Fast Forward Entertainment book (if you
>> really want, I can probably find which one).
>>
>> "Insight Rage"
>>
>> When I saw the name, I figured maybe it gave a bonus equal to your
>> Wisdom modifier while raging, or even gave you a bonus to Wisdom checks
>> (your fury sharpens your mind or some such), but no. The spell simple
>> causes people to rage.
>
> It "simple" causes people to rage, eh?

*I'm* not writing for publication. If I had a proofreader at all, that
should have been caught.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony.

>> "INCITE Rage" is what they *should* have used.
>
> I must admit, this IS funny.

It was amusing when I realized what was happening, but also a 'goddamn
it they've got lousy proofers' moment.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Shadow Wolf <shadowolf3400@NOSPAMyahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
> news:slrndh6gqm.t7b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My favorite so far is from a Fast Forward Entertainment book (if you
>>>> really want, I can probably find which one).
>>>>
>>>> "Insight Rage"
>>
>>>> "INCITE Rage" is what they *should* have used.
>>>
>>> I must admit, this IS funny.
>>
>> It was amusing when I realized what was happening, but also a 'goddamn
>> it they've got lousy proofers' moment.
>
> FFE not only has lousy proofers, they just don't get d20 at all. For
> instance, many of their magic items grant odd-numbered attribute
> bonuses.

Yeah, I'm not pleased with them that way either.

> But the most egregious examples were in their Treasure Quest books
> (got one cheap from eBay). The first encounter is with a level 2
> barbarian - with a 2000gp gem in one boot and a 3000 gp gem in the
> other.
>
> 5000 gp, in the *first* encounter. That's more than the expected
> wealth for the entire first *level* for a party of four.

Heh, I've got that one.

On a *technical* level I think it's great. How the book is produced
(two *facing* pages per encounter, lie-flat binding, etc.) I really,
really like that.

The content, OTOH...

> (Then the local innkeeper and his wife had another 25000 gp of
> treasure hidden in their inn, etc.)
>
> These guys clearly did not get that D&D3 has certain expected wealth
> levels that need to be adhered to if the game is to be balanced.
>
> (Then again, the foreward explained why - the author gamed with Gygax,
> and loved it when the entire party was slaughtered by natives at first
> level and then resurrected by a *wish* Gygax gave his nephew's
> character. As I understand it, this was pretty typical Gygax DM-ing -
> deliberate TPK, ridiculous rewards, nepotism...)

bleah.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Shadow Wolf wrote:
> FFE not only has lousy proofers, they just don't get d20 at all. For
> instance, many of their magic items grant odd-numbered attribute bonuses.

While I'm not defending FFE's generally shoddy handling of the d20
rules, I will note that I can think of at least one situation in which
I *would* ignore this otherwise legitimate design guideline.

(It would be an elegant way of modeling a pair of items with bonuses to
the same attribute (of different bonus types, of course) which are
supposed to be more powerful when used in conjunction than a simple
2+2=4 metric would suggest.)

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>
<snip spelling mistake in d20 publication>
>
>>> When I saw the name, I figured maybe it gave a bonus equal to your
>>> Wisdom modifier while raging, or even gave you a bonus to Wisdom checks
>>> (your fury sharpens your mind or some such), but no. The spell simple
>>> causes people to rage.
>
>> It "simple" causes people to rage, eh?
>
> *I'm* not writing for publication. If I had a proofreader at all, that
> should have been caught.
>
> And yes, I'm aware of the irony.

The Law of Pedantfy is not mocked.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020729205828/http://www.nurgle.net/~slayer/quotes/quotes.shtml

______________________________­______________________________­____________
"All grammar/spelling/language flames will contain an error
themselves."
- The Law of Pedantfy
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯­¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯­¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Arivne

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justin Bacon <triad3204@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Shadow Wolf wrote:
>> FFE not only has lousy proofers, they just don't get d20 at all. For
>> instance, many of their magic items grant odd-numbered attribute bonuses.
>
> While I'm not defending FFE's generally shoddy handling of the d20
> rules, I will note that I can think of at least one situation in which
> I *would* ignore this otherwise legitimate design guideline.
>
> (It would be an elegant way of modeling a pair of items with bonuses to
> the same attribute (of different bonus types, of course) which are
> supposed to be more powerful when used in conjunction than a simple
> 2+2=4 metric would suggest.)

That's a possibility I hadn't considered, but bear in mind that it may
be functionally equivalent to a pair of +2 items in the right hands.

I'd rather just say that "together, these two items give a +2 bonus to
Strength" (or whatever).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Justin Bacon <triad3204@aol.com> wrote:
> > (It would be an elegant way of modeling a pair of items with bonuses to
> > the same attribute (of different bonus types, of course) which are
> > supposed to be more powerful when used in conjunction than a simple
> > 2+2=4 metric would suggest.)
>
> That's a possibility I hadn't considered, but bear in mind that it may
> be functionally equivalent to a pair of +2 items in the right hands.
>
> I'd rather just say that "together, these two items give a +2 bonus to
> Strength" (or whatever).

It's less useful at the +1/+1 level, but at the +3/+3 level you start
to see the effect I'm talking about.

A +2/+2 combination is equal to a +4.

A +3 item is, at best, equal to a +4 (if you're starting from an odd
attribute value and are primarily concerned about the resulting bonus,
which you usually are). So a +3 item is sometimes equivalent to a +2
and sometimes equivalent to a +4.

But a pair of +3/+3 items is equal to a +6, which is always going to be
better than a +2/+2 combo.

This gives you a pair of items which, individually, are inconsistent in
their benefit, yet are much more powerful when brought together. This
may or may not be a useful effect to model, and comes with certain
drawbacks (your +3 item works better with any other +3 item -- not just
the specific pairing).

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Behold! for "Justin Bacon" <triad3204@aol.com> spake unto the
multitude thus:

>But a pair of +3/+3 items is equal to a +6, which is always going to be
>better than a +2/+2 combo.
>
>This gives you a pair of items which, individually, are inconsistent in
>their benefit, yet are much more powerful when brought together. This
>may or may not be a useful effect to model, and comes with certain
>drawbacks (your +3 item works better with any other +3 item -- not just
>the specific pairing).

I'd probably do it that either in isolation is worth +2 but the pair
are worth +6 together. But by then, you're talking Big Numbers,
especially if they're the same type of bonus (so will potentialy stack
with yet another item).

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justin Bacon wrote:

<Re: Odd stat bonuses>

> (It would be an elegant way of modeling a pair of items with bonuses to
> the same attribute (of different bonus types, of course) which are
> supposed to be more powerful when used in conjunction than a simple
> 2+2=4 metric would suggest.)

That is inherant to the system without using odd bonuses. A +2 item
only costs 1/4 the amount of a +4 item; and even at double cost for the
second type it's still only 3/4 the cost to use two different +2's than
to go for a +4.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> The /Sandstorm/ supplement introduces rules for dehydration and a new
> kind of damage, "desiccation." You'd think that a major rule with a
> tricky word would at least get a once-over with a spellchecker. While
> the spell /desiccate/ gets it right, most of the book uses the incorrect
> "dessicate" instead. Silly, silly.

Most companies put less resources into books the farther they get from
the "main line". The 3 core D&D books are very well done. Things like
the Complete books are prety good but the lack of extra polish starts
to show. The environment books seemed like a real strech to me for
reaching a large audience and obviously Wizards thinks so too because
they aren't trying too hard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Shadow Wolf <shadowolf3400@NOSPAMyahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
> news:slrndh6r2s.t7b.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>
>>> But the most egregious examples were in their Treasure Quest books
>>> (got one cheap from eBay). The first encounter is with a level 2
>>> barbarian - with a 2000gp gem in one boot and a 3000 gp gem in the
>>> other.
>>>
>>> 5000 gp, in the *first* encounter. That's more than the expected
>>> wealth for the entire first *level* for a party of four.
>>
>> Heh, I've got that one.
>>
>> On a *technical* level I think it's great. How the book is produced
>> (two *facing* pages per encounter, lie-flat binding, etc.) I really,
>> really like that.
>
> Definitely. I'd *love* to see a well-done (i.e. following the *rules*)
> set of adventures in this format.

I've been meaning to write up an adventure in this format. I think for
proof of concept it would be reasonable to (try to) port an existing
module, preferably something short.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway