Awful proofreading

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
13 answers Last reply
More about awful proofreading
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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 ^*^
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games Books