PHB questions

[capmarvel]

Scanning the PHB tonight and had some perhaps odd questions.


1) why aren't the Classes lists on page 14 and page 17 and 18 in alphabetical order (they are presented in alphabetical order later).

2) why do you pick Class before race? You were a Dwarf before you were a Dwarf Cleric....shouldn't you pick Dwarf first?

[Omote]

1) They are in order of prime attribute.
2) Again, regarding primes. The class gives you a starting prime attribute. The race let's you select a prime. If you did it the other way you may select a prime attribute that the class already supplies.

~⊙

[capmarvel]

1) Ah...I see that pattern now. Not how I would sort it of course but whatever. (New reader not "prime centric" and won't get the pattern like I didn't get the pattern).

2) That makes sense I guess - wish it was explained in the intro. I also wish the note below was "highlighted" and maybe even stated again in the race stuff as it's easily missed by newbies - but I'm sure many would like to see the PHB get a revamp not just a reprint.

PRIME ATTRIBUTE: There is one prime attribute designated for each class. If the character is human, the player is allowed to choose two more prime attributes for that character for a total of three. All other races allow the player to choose only one more prime attribute for a total of two.

[Buttmonkey]

Later printings list the classes in alphabetical order. Certainly, the 6th printing does. I can't remember if the 5th printing does as well.

[capmarvel]

I'm in the 6th printing - it lists them Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin....

It doesn't list them Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, ....

[Rigon]

I'm in the 6th printing - it lists them Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin....

It doesn't list them Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, ....

Can't be a 6th printing. They started to list them alphabetically in the 5th printing. And I know my 6th print runs assassin, barbarian, bard, etc. Printings 1-4 had them by Prime and alphabetically.

R-

[Tadhg]

I'm not seeing any changes to the order in my 5th print PH.

[capmarvel]

I'm in 6th printing (for sure). Title page says: 6th Printing Edited by: Steven J. Ege

Page 14, page 17, page 18 - all have Fighter listed first in the listings of classes.

[Rigon]

I'm in 6th printing (for sure). Title page says: 6th Printing Edited by: Steven J. Ege

Page 14, page 17, page 18 - all have Fighter listed first in the listings of classes.

OK, my bad. I was misunderstanding what you were asking. The reason they are listed like that is because back in the good old days (printings 1-4 or 5 ), the classes were not presented in alphabeticall order in the class descriptions section, they were listed by Prime, then generic, then focused. So you would have Fighter (Prime: Str generic), Ranger (Prime: Str, focused), Rogue (Prime: Dex, generic), Assassin (Prime: Dex, focused), and so on. In the 6th printing (maybe the 5th), the Trolls changed how the classes were listed in the class section, but did not change any of those charts.

R-

[Captain_K]

I think you're reading too much into it.. once you read or know all the classes and races does the order matter? Like a place setting, if I put the fork on the right side of the plate will it prevent you from eating?

[capmarvel]

Part of my thinking is - I'm a new player...I'm 14 pages in and "confused" on something which could easily be changed in editing - why potentially turn off a new player with some odd formatting choices that were made 4 editions ago?

But yes in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make the game "less playable".

[Treebore]

Part of my thinking is - I'm a new player...I'm 14 pages in and "confused" on something which could easily be changed in editing - why potentially turn off a new player with some odd formatting choices that were made 4 editions ago?

But yes in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make the game "less playable".

Yeah, the Trolls have been horrible on the editing/errata front. They really pissed me off with the Victoriouos debacle, and there is no other word to use for it since all those errata issues were pointed out to them far in advance of printing.

[Traveller]

Just to point out, your humble editor did the best he could. But even he misses some things, like that chart.

@Treebore: I know what you mean. Victorious was a clusterf**k that could have been avoided.

[Treebore]

Just to point out, your humble editor did the best he could. But even he misses some things, like that chart.

@Treebore: I know what you mean. Victorious was a clusterf**k that could have been avoided.

Yeah, just to be clear, I know it wasn't you. Best I can figure it had to be Steve sending in the wrong document for the printing job. Plus it isn't like he hasn't made that mistake before. Haunted Highlands, wasn't it?

[capmarvel]

Can I ask...is Victorious corrected now or if I purchase it now will I be "ticked off", editorially speaking?

What have the Troll Lords said about errata from 4 editions ago still not being fixed? Just curious. Maybe the miniscule bump in possible sales isn't worth the effort?

[Buttmonkey]

Can I ask...is Victorious corrected now or if I purchase it now will I be "ticked off", editorially speaking?

What have the Troll Lords said about errata from 4 editions ago still not being fixed? Just curious. Maybe the miniscule bump in possible sales isn't worth the effort?

I can't speak to Victorious, but the errata from 4 printings ago (which would be the 2nd printing if you are looking back from the "current" 6th printing) have been significantly improved. I believe there are still a few items that have sneaked through the revision process. Tree and Traveller can point those out if you are interested. However, the 6th printing is pretty damn clean. I don't recall the Trolls commenting about the few errata that have persisted since the 2nd printing.

[Treebore]

Can I ask...is Victorious corrected now or if I purchase it now will I be "ticked off", editorially speaking?

What have the Troll Lords said about errata from 4 editions ago still not being fixed? Just curious. Maybe the miniscule bump in possible sales isn't worth the effort?

The Trolls have yet to do a new printing, so you would be pissed off. Not as much as I am, since I bought in for a leather copy too, thinking the errata issues were handled. Silly me.

[capmarvel]

Treebore - you know you're issue is that you hold too much inside. You've got to let your feelings out. How do you really feel about Victorious?

[Traveller]

Just to point out, your humble editor did the best he could. But even he misses some things, like that chart.

@Treebore: I know what you mean. Victorious was a clusterf**k that could have been avoided.

Yeah, just to be clear, I know it wasn't you. Best I can figure it had to be Steve sending in the wrong document for the printing job. Plus it isn't like he hasn't made that mistake before. Haunted Highlands, wasn't it?

My "humble editor" comment was about the chart in the PHB.

But if he's made that error before, I can't recall when or where.

[Treebore]

Treebore - you know you're issue is that you hold too much inside. You've got to let your feelings out. How do you really feel about Victorious?

I love Victorious! Just the editing is very crappy, when it absolutely should not have been.

[capmarvel]

Has the Victorious PDF been updated at least?

[Rigon]

Has the Victorious PDF been updated at least?

I think that was the problem with the printed version. The PDF was fairly error free, but Steve sent an earlier version, without the edits, to the printer and we got a poorly edited hardback. That being said, the print version is still quite readable and usable. It would have just been nice to have the fixes put in when they already were in the PDF.

R-

[Treebore]

Has the Victorious PDF been updated at least?

I think that was the problem with the printed version. The PDF was fairly error free, but Steve sent an earlier version, without the edits, to the printer and we got a poorly edited hardback. That being said, the print version is still quite readable and usable. It would have just been nice to have the fixes put in when they already were in the PDF.

R-

Yeah, the most irritating fixes you will want to do yourself is replace the "refer to page XX" with the proper page numbers, which is a error left in place in 4 or 5 locations in the book. As for the PDF, I do not recall if the errors are still in there, once I fixed the errata I could in my print copies, I have been reading them exclusively, because I do not like learning a game from a PDF. I would think/hope that at least the PDF doesn't have any of the errors we identified prior to printing.

[Traveller]

As part of the TLG style guide, the Trolls don't want authors or editors referring to specific page numbers, because the page numbers can change between printings. They want references to be by chapter and, if appropriate, section within the chapter. Something I didn't find out until after the fact.

[Treebore]

As part of the TLG style guide, the Trolls don't want authors or editors referring to specific page numbers, because the page numbers can change between printings. They want references to be by chapter and, if appropriate, section within the chapter. Something I didn't find out until after the fact.

THAT is stupid. Then don't even put such references in the text.

[Traveller]

Umm, if I recall correctly, I slipped them into the manuscript during editing, because no one told me otherwise. Like I said, I didn't find out I wasn't supposed to do that until after the fact.

See page XX is a Traveller gaffe, not a Troll one.