Morty's Typo of Foes

[Foxhound438]

Anyone else getting annoyed about how dense this book is with typos? I know, first printing, but it looks like they didn't bother to proofread it at points..

under drow favored consort: "No position of consort is assured for long; priestesses are infamous for being fickle with their favor, which are they are especially glad to lavish on..." This looks really bad. That kind of error is something you would someone would expect from a forum post, not an official 50$ source book.

and it's not just fluff- the duergar despot- "innate spellcasting ability is intelligence (save DC 12)"- this doesn't at all add up. It's a CR 12, so it has prof +4 and int +2, which means it should be DC 14. I really hope this is the only place where that kind of mistake has been made, I would hate to have to double-check the stats on every monster I pull from this book.

there are a ton of referencing issues that I can get over, but still annoy me; for example, with the boneclaw: "Multiattack. The boneclaw makes two claw attacks." On the surface fine, but it doesn't have "claw" attacks, it has "piercing claw" attacks. Maybe they did this intentionally, but I feel like if they were going to give the attack an exuberant name they would stick to it.

another example is with armor references; first the Gith Anarch: "Armor Class 20". Looking at the stats, you can tell that they got this from the monk's unarmored defense, but no where in the stat block does it say that. Again, it's usable, but noticeable and distracting. It's significantly worse for the Elder Oblex though- it has AC 16, no mention of any modification done to it, and only +3 dex. Maybe it's natural armor, but maybe it's actually using int for AC. It doesn't say, so here we're left to guess. Then under tortles, they give them the natural armor that the PC race has, but in the stat block just put "natural" next to the AC. In that case we know exactly what it's talking about, but the fact remains that it's an error that proofreading would eliminate.

I found all of those without even looking for errors. Maybe I have an absurdly keen eye, but assuming I don't, there's bound to be more.

[Aembrosia]

How's your resume coming along?

[Grear Bylls]

How's your resume coming along?

What's this mean? That he needs a life?

[Theodoxus]

TIL WotC is too proud to load up Grammarly on their laptops...

[Pharaon]

an official 50$ source book.

As long as we're nitpicking, the "$" goes in front of the number (e.g. $50).

For actual spelling/grammar issues, sure, they should caught it. But they are a small team and stuff happens.

For the AC and DC issues, it is important to remember monsters and NPCs don't always play by the same rules as PCs.

[Chaosvii7]

As long as we're nitpicking, the "$" goes in front of the number (e.g. $50).

For actual spelling/grammar issues, sure, they should caught it. But they are a small team and stuff happens.

For the AC and DC issues, it is important to remember monsters and NPCs don't always play by the same rules as PCs.

Good example from the Monster Manual: Purple Worms aren't proficient with their own bite attack. AFAIK, no other creature has that problem. When asked about it, it's confirmed as being intentional, which would make sense only if you assume they're balancing the sheer damage it does by swallowing you whole into the DPR of the creature and lowering the attack bonus to balance it out.

Which even then is a stretch since monster building can really break its own rules at one's leisure, this whole thing sort of boils down to "does it need to be a big number?" to which I'd posit that there's not really a point for a duergar's innate spellcasting to be that amazing unless it's predicated entirely off of it, though I do acqiuese that there's a few psionic duergar so they do rely on it more than your regular garden-variety deep dwarf.

tl;dr, monster math is as unreliable as it is vague. Embrace the weirdness.

[PhantomSoul]

As long as we're nitpicking, the "$" goes in front of the number (e.g. $50).

That actually varies by region ;)

(The international standard for the dollar sign is for it to go after the number, though.)

[utopus]

Good example from the Monster Manual: Purple Worms aren't proficient with their own bite attack.

Another example is that brown bears add half their proficiency bonus to attacks. You bring up a really good point though

[Beechgnome]

I have come to accept that buying the first run of any book is going to have typos. Zariel's horrid touch lack of DC is one. The duergar hammerer and screamer being listed as constructs in their stat blocks and humanoids in the back pages list (they are kind of both).

But I have decided I'd rather have it now and figure it out later. I've spotted a few but it hasn't been too bad. Yet.

[Kalashak]

The Anarch's stat block does actually mention the AC in Psychic Defense, it adds its wisdom modifier so long as it isn't wearing armor or wielding a shield.

[Foxhound438]

The Anarch's stat block does actually mention the AC in Psychic Defense, it adds its wisdom modifier so long as it isn't wearing armor or wielding a shield.

Ah, that was a case of me being blind then.

[qube]

Meh, much overreacting if you ask me.

Except for the drow example, I would chalk all your examples up to nitpicking (or even potentially not even mistakes, but balance fixes) over actual "typo's".

If you're already "distracted" by the book not litterly telling you where the Githzerai's AC comes from (correction - you having failed to spot it), dispite it being obvious for a monk race, I'm not sure you should be DMming.