FixTheSloppyEditing/ExaltedPlayersGuide

||Page||Type|[Description||Reporter|| ||98||TYPO|["proscribed" should be "prescribed" in the bottom line of the left column.||Everyl|| ||101||TYPO|["Gold Faction" should say "Bronze Faction" in the section about the Cult of the Scarlet Empress.||Everyl|| ||101||TYPO|[Extraneous ending parenthesis at the end of the "Sorcerer-Assistants of Lookshy" paragraph.||Everyl|| ||104||TYPO|[Unnecessary hyphen in the word "Savants" about halfway down the right column.||Everyl|| ||109||TYPO|[Hyphen where there should be a dash in the second line of the "Backgrounds" paragraph.||Everyl|| ||115||TYPO|["long-tem" should be "long-term" at the bottom of the first column.||Everyl|| ||115||ERRATAED|[Sciences cost 7XP for the first dot, CRx6 for each additional dot. See PGErrata.||Toram|| ||116||ERRATAED|[Sciences cost 5 bonus point for the first dot, 7 bonus points for each additional dot. See PGErrata.||Toram|| ||116||ERRATAED|[Step Four should read "5 in addition to recorded Knowledge" instead of "5 in addition to recorded Inheritance". See PGErrata.||Toram|| ||116||CONTRADICTION|[Under "Backgrounds" on page 113, it says that Backgrounds marked with an asterisk on page 116 may only be purchased with bonus points. Page 116 says that they may only be purchased with bonus points and the Knowledge Background in the first clummn, but it says bonus points from the Knowledge Background in the second column.||Everyl|| ||116||TYPO|[The italicized text after the asterisk should say "bonus points", rather than "conus points".||Everyl|| ||117||TYPO|[Under "Cult", the reference to "Henchman" should be "Henchmen".||Everyl|| ||122||TYPO|[In the last paragraph on the page, the first hyphen should be a dash.||Everyl|| ||123||TYPO|[Under "Investment", it refers to an "Investment Charms" sidebar, but the Charms are described in the main text. Probably should read "... using the Charms listed below."||Everyl|| ||132||TYPO|[The header for the Art of Exorcism is not separated from the above table. It should be bolded and on its own line.||Everyl|| ||136||TYPO|[In the "Erroneous Conclusions" sidebar, "mislead" should be "misled".||Everyl|| ||138||TYPO|[The highest level of Alchemy has six dots. It should only have five.||Everyl|| ||139||CONTRADICTION|[Page 139 says that a given level of Alchemy must be learned before a character can learn a formula. This contradicts page 125 of the same book, it draws a distinction between knowing "only" a formula and possessing understanding of the Science.||Everyl||

Comments

There's a bunch of other things that I think are probably editing errors in the thaumaturgy chapter of the PG... but the ones I've entered above are the only ones that I am certain enough about to post without asking for opinions. There are some spelling errors I remember spotting but haven't tracked down again yet, too. Anyway, here are the ones I was uncertain of:
Page 125: Implies that Enchantment works on a Procedure system that mirrors Alchemy's Formula system (however that's supposed to work). No such Procedures are presented in the Enchantment description, however.
Pages 136-142: No brewing times are given for the formulae, but the difficulty modifier chart on page 139 gives modifiers for taking double time or half time.
Page 148: Weather Working says, "Time: Standard for spell casting." I am unaware of any standard time for spell casting being mentioned anywhere else in the chapter.
I'll go hunt down some spelling errors now. I know that they misspelled "Daiklaive" at some point in there... -Everyl

Another suspected (but unconfirmed) error:
Sheltered Upbringing raises the difficulty of "all rolls based on Social Attributes." This makes sense for social interaction, but the wording would also apply to the numerous Charisma + Occult and Manipulation + Occult rolls involved in the practice of sorcery. How does a sheltered upbringing make you a worse Weather Worker?
Anyone have opinions on whether the stuff I've listed down here in the Comments section counts as editorial errors? -Everyl

Jeez. While I'm all for finding editorial errors that might cause the wrong impression to be given by the rules, bitching that "daiklave" was spelt "diaklave" seems a bit much. Typos get through - they always will. Unless you rename this part to TypoHunters I think you're being waaaaay too anal. - Moxiane

Hey, I was just following the guidelines posted in the main part of this section. Typos are specifically one of the things it says to catch and list, so I did. In all honesty, the only reason I bothered with this is because I'd already typed up a list of most of the system problems I've found in the thaumaturgy chapter, so I knew where the worst stuff was already; the spelling errors are just the result of a quick re-read of the chapter. That's why I have two separate comments; one update was for the big stuff I had written down before, the other for stuff that took margainally more effort to find. In all honesty, I have seen very little in Exalted that would need this kind of attention - only this one chapter of one book had enough errors in it to catch my attention. If I've gone beyond the call of duty in actually listing typos as suggested on the main FixTheSloppyEditing page, I'll remove the more extraneous ones, but right now it just looks like I'm doing what Toram was asking for. Do you have anything to say on the subject, Toram? - Everyl

The point of this section is to find editing mistakes, and IMHO typos count; I'd say Everyl's doing a great job. Part of the benefit is that should WW ever print revised editions of this material, they'll at least have a place to find the errors in the original. Part of the reason for noting the Type of the mistake is so that people who don't care about Typos can skim past them. If they start to cause a problem, we can always sort the rows by type. --Toram

I'm actually looking at the corebook right now, and everywhere I can find Daiklave, that's how it's spelled. Perhaps you're holding Daiklaive over from WoD? - Panache

As far as I can tell, "daiklave" is the correct spelling, not "daiklaive". Accordingly, I have removed Everyl's "daiklave / daiklaive" note, as it seems to be erroneous. - David.