<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0">
							<channel><title>New Posts For Thread: WotC needs PreFroctors</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29490577/WotC_needs_PreFroctors</link><description>The number of errors and typos, and other idiocy within published books and modules is shocking.I offer this thread on the off chance that WotC is actually paying attention. Please submit any typos you run across.Some examples: one monster (don't rem</description><item><title>yes, it was a joke, based on an old cartoon.As for the standard action stun, no problem. Just make sure the mechanics are sound. Which, as presented in the supposedly self-contained module, they were not.What made the white wings dangerous in the mod</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29490577/WotC_needs_PreFroctors?post_id=526009657#526009657</link><description>yes, it was a joke, based on an old cartoon.As for the standard action stun, no problem. Just make sure the mechanics are sound. Which, as presented in the supposedly self-contained module, they were not.What made the white wings dangerous in the mod</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:59:18 -0600</pubDate></item><item><title>can only hope it's ironic.  any post complaining about proofreading should be immaculate and probably run past at least 2 editors and a spellchecker.The problems with the whitewings are just a transcription error by the Compendium.  The compiled arti</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29490577/WotC_needs_PreFroctors?post_id=526004119#526004119</link><description>can only hope it's ironic.  any post complaining about proofreading should be immaculate and probably run past at least 2 editors and a spellchecker.The problems with the whitewings are just a transcription error by the Compendium.  The compiled arti</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:17:58 -0600</pubDate></item><item><title>I'm just wondering.  Is the title of this thread ironic intentionally or not?</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29490577/WotC_needs_PreFroctors?post_id=525999167#525999167</link><description>I'm just wondering.  Is the title of this thread ironic intentionally or not?</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:48:53 -0600</pubDate></item><item><title>There is a whole forum section dedicated to that (4E Errata)</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29490577/WotC_needs_PreFroctors?post_id=525997837#525997837</link><description>There is a whole forum section dedicated to that (4E Errata)</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:21:56 -0600</pubDate></item><item><title>The number of errors and typos, and other idiocy within published books and modules is shocking.I offer this thread on the off chance that WotC is actually paying attention. Please submit any typos you run across.Some examples: one monster (don't rem</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29490577/WotC_needs_PreFroctors?post_id=525997417#525997417</link><description>The number of errors and typos, and other idiocy within published books and modules is shocking.I offer this thread on the off chance that WotC is actually paying attention. Please submit any typos you run across.Some examples: one monster (don't rem</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:30:36 -0600</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
