Glass houses.
Most of the D&D3 errata is very minor typoes, and I think is actually quite low for a book of its size and type. A recently reposted errata list seperating typoes from rules clarifications makes this considerably more clear.
Note that any errata for GIttHW would be significantly larger, just to correct language errors - and that for a book with no finicky rules, fewer, smaller pages and larger type. The level of errata in GIttHW is inexcusable. It's obvious the book was never proofread at all, by anyone.
> It's actually a miniatures game with a heavy layer of dust & varnish. The
> predecessor to D&D was Chainmail, a set of Fantasy Miniatures
> Wargame rules.
This was true of original D&D. The combat rules in original D&D required Chainmail. But just because it used the combat system of a miniatures game didn't make it any less a role-playing game.
In any case, AD&Dv1 no longer referred to Chainmail in any way. The one miniature wargaming legacy that remained was the peculiar time scale - in miniature wargaming, it's usual for a turn to represent a significantly larger period of time than the movement rates would indicate, to represent all the waiting around that occurs in battles.
D&D3 no longer has this convention.
Mind you, it's combat system is very miniatures oriented, and really only makes sense if you're using miniatures or counters on a square-gridded map. However, this is a new system that evolved from a previous 2nd Edition Player's Option book rather than Chainmail.
D&D3 combat is a skirmish-level game-within-a-game; I think this was a design mistake.
-- Jeff Johnson jsjohnso_at_...
Powered by hypermail