# Collected Core Handbook Errata



## Underage AOLer

Here are all the errors (and their errata) in the core handbooks that we have collected so far.  Post here only for pointing out any potential errors you have found _in the actual books_ (not the PDFs, which are illegal and were not final).  Discussions about what things "should have been" belong somewhere else.  This list was inspired by Family's Core Handbook Errors thread, and compiled from the posts there (and here).  If I missed something, didn't credit something accurately, or have any other errors of my own, please let me know.

Official Word: Wizards has posted updates (read: errata) to all of the core books here.  Anything they cover will be noted by strike through and a <WotC update> tag.

Default color means "corrected".  Blue means "no definitive correction" or "clarification needed".

*-=Player's Handbook=-*​✦ p.3: under 'Table of Contents', below "Attack Results...276", add "Conditions...277" (given how important the topic is) [That One Guy] <added 11 June>
✦ p.25: under 'Languages and Scripts' replace "You can’t choose the Abyssal or Supernal languages as a 1st-level character" with "You can’t choose the Abyssal or Supernal languages with your racial bonus languages" [Mouseferatu]
✦ p.25: under the 'Language' 'Dwarven' says, "Dwarves, azer", even though they speak Giant in the actual monster stat blocks (MM, p.22-23) [shoplifter]
✦ p.28: under 'Retraining', in the Feat section, replace "You can retrain heroic tier feats (see page 193)" with "You can retrain heroic and paragon tier feats (see pages 193 and 202)" (for clarity) [MindWanderer] <added 17 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.45: under 'Physical Qualities' replace "Halflings have life spans comperable to humans" with "Halflings have life spans comparable to humans" [Zsig]
✦ p.49: under 'Physical Qualities' there is no age range description, there should be one [fba827] <added 25 June>
✦ p.55: under 'Keyword Categories', on the Reliable line, replace "If you miss when using a reliable power, you don't expend the use of that power" with "If you do not hit when using a reliable power, you don't expend the use of that power" [Lucas Blackstone] <added 15 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.62: under _Healing Word_, on the target line, replace "You or one ally" with "You or one ally in burst" [Jimmer] <added 17 June>
✦ p.65: under _Spiritual Weapon_ replace "You can move the weapon up to 10 squares to another enemy's square as a move action" with "You can move the weapon up to 10 squares to another enemy's square, within range, as a move action" [Fate Lawson] <added 13 June>
✦ p.71: _Punishing Strike_ (level 27 Cleric encounter prayer) is strictly worse than _Haunting Strike_ (level 23 Cleric encounter prayer) [Wisdom Penalty]
✦ p.74: _Battle Cry_ has the Implement keyword and says, "Hit: 2[W] + Wisdom modifier", it should have the Weapon keyword (or perhaps use a different base damage value) [kilpatds]
✦ p.77: under the Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics table it says, "Polearm: Wisdom [and rarely Dexterity]", there are no polearm exploits that take advantage of Wisdom, and only one that uses Dexterity [Diirk]
✦ p.77: _Cleave_ says, "Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and any enemy adjacent to you takes damage equal to your Strength modifier", it should say, "and any other enemy adjacent to you" in order to prevent the extra damage from being applied to the main target [Zsig] <WotC update>
✦ p.79: _Armor Piercing Thrust_ says, "Attack: Strength vs. Reflex" and "Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain a bonus to the attack roll equal to your Dexterity modifier", most more-reliable attacks have an attack roll bonus of +2-4, or attack reflex, this one does both [kilpatds]
✦ p.79: _Dance of Steel_ (level 3 Fighter encounter exploit) is strictly worse than _Steel Serpent Strike_ (level 1 Fighter encounter exploit, p.78) [ShinRyuuBR]
✦ p.79: _Rain of Blows_ says, "Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks" which implies their are two automatic attacks separate from the secondary target attack gained from a hit and using the correct weapon (so, are there two or four attacks?) [Kraydak]
✦ p.80: under Come and Get It, on the Keyword line, add "Charm" (or remove it from Warrior's Urging, p.85) [The_Fan] <added 25 June>
✦ p.86: replace "Level 29 Daily Powers" with "Level 29 Daily Exploits" [Orci]
✦ p.88: under the 'Steel Grace' section of 'Swordmaster Path Features' it says, “you can use _Containing Strike_ or _Reaping Strike_ instead of your melee basic attack”, it should say, “you can use _Reaping Strike_ instead of your melee basic attack” (_Containing Strike_ doesn't exist as a power in the Fighter's exploits section because it was folded into their Combat Superiority class feature) [salsb] <WotC update>
✦ p.93: under _Sacred Circle_, on the Keyword line, remove "Implement" [Lakkett] <added 20 June>
✦ p.102: under _Healing Font_, on the Effect line, replace “points equal to 1d6 [ts] your Wisdom modifier” with “points equal to 1d6 x your Wisdom modifier” [bobthehappyzombie]
✦ p.104: under the 'Suggested Feats' section of the 'Archer Ranger' build it lists _Agile Hunter_, even though _Agile Hunter_ only functions after a critical hit in melee [Zurai]
✦ p.105: under _Careful Attack_, on the Hit line, replace "1[W] damage (melee) or 1[W] damage (ranged)" with "1[W] damage" (no need for the distinction between melee and ranged) [Ziana] <added 25 June>
✦ p.107: _Shadow Wasp Strike_ (level 3 Ranger encounter exploit) is strictly worse than _Evasive Strike_ (level 1 Ranger encounter exploit) [Underage AOLer] <added 16 June>
✦ p.111: under _Wounding Whirlwind_, above the Target line, add "Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons." [fba827] <added 2 July>
✦ p.112: under _Blade Ward_ on the Hit line replace “[W] + Strength modifier damage” with “1[W] + Strength modifier damage” [Darth Cyric] <edited 16 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.113: under _Wandering Tornado_, above the Target line, add "Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons." [fba827] <added 2 July>
✦ p.117: under 'Rogue Weapon Talent' replace "When you wield a shuriken your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls" with "When you wield a shuriken your weapon damage die increases by one size with shurikens. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with daggers" (to prevent absurd combos, see this post) [Lucas Blackstone] <added 13 June> 
✦ p.133: _Frigid Darkness_ says, “target grants combat advantage to all of your enemies”, it should say, “target grants combat advantage to all of its enemies” [iceifur] <WotC update>
✦ p.138: under 'Raven's Glamor' replace "until the start of your next turn" with "until the end of your next turn" [Moribund] <added 15 June>
✦ p.141: _Whispers of the Fey_ says, "Feytouched (Fey) Utility 20", it should say, "Feytouched (Fey) Attack 20" [Flazzy] <WotC update>
✦ p.142: under the 'Fey' section of the 'Collect Life Spark' ability it does not specify when the stun ends (until the end of their next turn? save ends?) [MindWanderer] <WotC update>
✦ p.144: under the 'Recommended At-Will Powers' section of the 'Inspiring Warlord' build it lists _Commander's Strike_, even though _Commander's Strike_ keys off Intelligence (which is more important to the Tactical Warlord build) [zoroaster100]
✦ p.152: under _Stir the Hornet's Nest_, on the Requirement line, replace "You must be weilding a heavy thrown weapon" with "You must be wielding a heavy thrown weapon" [webrunner] <added 13 June>
✦ p.155: under 'Sword Marshal' replace "You have extensively studied the use of light blades and heavy blades" with "You have extensively studied the use of heavy blades" [That One Guy]
✦ p.156: under the 'Trained Skills' section of the Wizard summary it says, “Nature (Int)”, it should say, “Nature (Wis)” [Oldtimer] <WotC update>
✦ p.160: under _Sleep_, on the Hit line, add "If the unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious" (disputed) [Keenath] <added 15 June>
✦ p.161: _Jump_ needs a description of how it can be used in combat, especially when using it on a target other than the caster (free action to jump immediately, or next jump only?) [Cryptos] <added 2 July>
✦ p.162: under _Invisibility_, on the Effect line, replace "the target becomes visible" with "the power ends" [Dr. Awkward] <added 20 June>
✦ p.172: under 'Fulfilling Your Epic Destiny' it says, “The 'Immortality' feature of your destiny is not gained at 30th level. Instead, it is gained when you and your allies complete their Destiny Quest.  This is described more thoroughly in the Dungeon Master's Guide”, nothing in the DMG does this [Dionysos]
✦ p.179: under 'Knowledge Skills', in the second paragraph, remove one instance of "The check DC increases based on the specific topic and how common the knowledge is" (there are two) [Falchieyan] <added 15 June>
✦ p.185: the Endurance DCs do not match what are printed in the DMG (p.158-159, see this  post) and reference Chapter 3 (when it should be Chapter 9) [damiangerous] <added 13 June>
✦ p.200: under 'Shield Push', on the Special line, replace "You must carry a shield to benefit from this feat" with "You must be using a shield with which you are proficient to benefit from this feat" [Starfox] <added 12 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.204: in the 'Paragon Tier Feats' table, on the Armor Specialization (Scale) line, replace "Ignore speed penalty of scale armor" with "+1 to AC with scale armor, ignore speed penalty" [Starfox]
✦ p.208: the second sentence of the Warrior of the Wild benefit should say, “Once per encounter until the end of your next turn, you may use the Hunter's Quarry class feature” [WotC_Miko] <WotC update>
✦ p.209: in the 'Multiclass Feats' table, on the Warrior of the Wild line, replace “designate prey 1/encounter” with “Hunter's Quarry 1/encounter” [WotC_Miko]
✦ p.209: in the 'Multiclass Feats' table, on the Pact Initiate line, replace “eldritch blast 1/encounter” with “choice of pact's at-will power 1/encounter” (or similar) as per the feat's description (p.208) [Boarstorm]
✦ p.222: under the 'Adventuring Gear' table it lists lanterns, but no oil for those lanterns (despite a mention of fuel and duration on p.262) [Zelc] <added 13 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.225: under 'Residuum' it says, "It’s a fine, silvery dust", under 'Disenchant Magic Item' (p.304) it says, "then crumbles to golden dust" [bbbmmmlll] <added 12 June>
✦ p.227: under 'Armor' replace “+5 black iron dragonscale” with “+5 black iron wyrmscale” [Belphanior]
✦ p.232: under 'Thrown Weapons' replace "from the lowly +1 shuriken to a +6 perfect hunter's spear" with "from the lowly +1 shuriken to a +6 perfect hunter's javelin" (or other thrown weapon, because spears do not have a range increment and are not thrown weapons) [samursus]
✦ p.241: replace "if he scored a critical hit with the staff, he would add 3d10 fire damage" with "if he scored a critical hit with the staff, he would add 3d8 fire damage" [samursus]
✦ p.267: under 'Surprised' it says, "you can't take any actions (not even free actions, immediate actions, or opportunity actions)” which is inconsistent with the condition summaries where it says, “You can't take actions, other than free actions” (p.277) [trimeta] <WotC update>
✦ p.276: under 'Example' replace “If she wanted to use her thundering longsword's encounter power on this hit, she would add 10 thunder damage and push 1 square” with “If she wanted to use her thundering longsword's daily power on this hit, she would add 8 thunder damage and push 1 square” [komi, Amurayi] <edited 17 June>
✦ p.288: under 'End Harmful Effects after You Act' it says, "end effects that last until the end of your turn and are harmful to you.  For example, if an enemy stunned you until the end of your next turn, the stunned condition ends" even though you can't delay "if you're unable to take actions" (same page) and stunned (p.277) doesn't allow you to take actions [Flazzy]
✦ p.295: under the '20 or higher' section of the 'Death Saving Throw' description it says, "If you roll a 20 or higher but have no healing surges left expressed as a negative number, your condition doesn't change", it should say, "If you roll a 20 or higher but have no healing surges left, your condition doesn't change" (removing "expressed as a negative number") [Oldtimer] <WotC update>
✦ PHB, various: elixirs are mentioned in various places (usually in the same breath as potions), but no information on their in-game use is detailed (fluff difference only?) [skeptic]

*-=Dungeon Master's Guide=-*​✦ p.88: under 'Doomspore' replace "Level 3 Obstacle XP 350" and "Upgrade to Elite (700 XP)" with "Level 3 Obstacle XP 150" and "Upgrade to Elite (300 XP)" [OakwoodDM] <WotC update>
✦ p.145: under 'Campaign Handout' it says, "Keep a copy of the handout you made for your players (page 25). You might want to revise it from time to time, summarizing the major events of the campaign to date and adding hints of things to come", the referenced page only refers to handouts as props, not as outlines of a campaign (which this blurb implies) [Bolongo]
✦ p.146: under 'The Paragon Tier' remove "are able to use magic rings" from "They can spend action points to gain additional effects, are able to use magic rings, and can sometimes regain limited powers they’ve expended" [Simon Marks]
✦ p.159 under 'Starvation, Thirst, and Suffocation' it says PCs take damage from lack of food/air equal to their level, which would mean higher level characters could not survive as long as lower level character in the same situation (given the high amount of hit points compared to level at lower levels) [FabioMilitoPagliara]
✦ p.176: under 'Duplicate or Conflicting Monster Abilities' replace "See 'Bonuses and Penalties' on page xx of the Player’s Handbook" with "See 'Bonuses and Penalties' on page 275 of the Player’s Handbook" [Canageek]
✦ p.182: under the 'Power Source' section of 'How to Read a Template' it says, "This information sometimes interacts with other game rules. See page 54 of the Player’s Handbook for more information", this page on the PHB gives no information on rule interaction with power sources, just fluff [Bolongo]
✦ p.188: under 'Warlord NPC', on the Weapon Proficiency line, replace "military ranged" with "simple ranged" [Flazzy] <added 15 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.191: under 'Doors' replace "Refer to page xx in Chapter 4" with "Refer to page 64 in Chapter 4" [Underage AOLer]
✦ p.195: under 'Playing without a DM' replace “They doesn't need to be the same person” with “They don't need to be the same person” [bardon777]
✦ p.198: under the 'Defense' section of the 'Fallcrest' description it says, "The Fallcrest Guard numbers sixty warriors (see the accompanying statistics block)", there is no such block present [Darkness]
✦ p.202: under '14. The Bluffs' replace “roll about 2d6 [ts] 10 feet" with “roll about 2d6 x 10 feet" [Canageek]
✦ p.205: under the 'Kelson' stat block replace "Medium natural humanoid, human rogue" with Small natural humanoid, halfling rogue" [Henrix] <added 17 June>
✦ p.208: under 'Races', in the 'Dwarf' section, replace "a dwarf character could easily be a native of the city—perhaps a relative of Teldorthan Irontooth" with "a dwarf character could easily be a native of the city—perhaps a relative of Teldorthan Ironhews" [No Name]
✦ p.208: under 'Races', in the 'Dwarf' section, "a week's travel" may be overdoing it, as using the map of the area (p.206) and a Dwarf's overland speed (PHB, p.261) it should only take three to four days to get to Winterhaven from Hammerfast [pukunui] <added 25 June>
✦ p.210: under 'Hook: Dragon Hide' replace "The player characters are hired by Teldorthan Goldcap, the dwarf armorer" with "The player characters are hired by Teldorthan Ironhews, the dwarf armorer" [No Name]
✦ p.213: in the 'Dart Trap' stat block, under 'Perception', replace "DC 20: The character notices the firing mechanisms in the ." with "DC 20: The character notices the firing mechanisms in the suit of armor." [Hexdump] <added 13 June>
✦ p.217: the Kobold Slinger's Glueshot ability targets Reflex and doesn't deal damage, while in other descriptions (MM, p.168; KotS) it targets AC and deals damage normally [godfear]
✦ p.221: replace "terrain features, 110" with "terrain features, 60-69" [mrtomsmith]

*-=Monster Manual=-*​✦ p.3: under the 'Table of Contents', below "Dwarf...97", add "Efreet...98" [knizia.fan] <added 20 June>
✦ p.25: under 'Banshrae Lore' it says, "All banshraes love singing and the sound of wind instruments—although they have no way to sing or play such instruments themselves" (due to lack of an oral opening), this would make it impossible for the Dartswarmer to exist as written (it uses a blowgun) [Sashi]
✦ p.32: in the 'Beholder Eye of the Flame' stat block replace "HP: 240; Bloodied: 102" with "HP: 240; Bloodied: 120" [Barlach] <WotC update>
✦ p.49: in the 'Dark Stalker' stat block, under 'Killing Dark', replace "dark creeper" with "dark stalker" [Cavalorn] <added 2 July>
✦ p.50-51: the death knights seem to be adding incorrect values to their damage rolls [Flazzy]
✦ p.53: under 'Barlgura Tactics' it says, "A barlgura charges into battle, using its _double attack_ to pummel its opponents", its _double attack_ is neither a basic attack, nor does it specify that it can be used with a charge [Henrix] <added 12 June>
✦ p.79: in the 'Elder Blue Dragon' stat block, under 'Frightful Presence', replace “until the end of the black dragon’s next turn” with “until the end of the blue dragon’s next turn” [CarlosDosBrickos]
✦ p.136: in the 'Bugbear Strangler' stat block replace "HP: 82; Bloodied: 46" with "HP: 82; Bloodied: 41" [Wisdom Penalty] <added 11 June>
✦ p.136: the Bugbear Strangler's HP is substantially higher than other Level 6 Lurkers; it may need a level or stat adjustment [loseth] <added 2 July>
✦ p.138: under 'Goblin Underboss' it should say, "Saving Throws +2" and "Action Points 1" (for being Elite) [kerbarian] <added 11 June> <WotC update>
✦ p.167: Kobolds do not have the 'reptile' keyword which other reptilian humanoid races (Lizardfolk, Salamanders, Troglodytes, Yuan-ti) do (intentional omission? oversight?) [withak] <added 11 June>
✦ p.188: under 'Mine Flayer Mastermind Tactics' it says, "while it targets enemies with its _mind blast_, _mind warp_, and _enslave_ powers", _mind warp_ isn't one of its powers (could mean _illusion of pain_) [Alexander Heppe] <added 13 June>
✦ p.201: in the 'Greatsword' in the 'Oni Mage' stat block replace "2d6 + 6 damage" with "1d12 + 6 damage" (according to weapon sizing rules) [frankthedm]
✦ p.252: in the 'Troglodyte Warrior' stat block replace "Large natural humanoid (reptile)" with "Medium natural humanoid (reptile)" [withak] <added 11 June>
✦ p.278: under 'Kobold' it says, "Ability Scores: +2 Constitution, +2 Dexterity" and "Vision: Normal", even though Kobolds are notoriously weak and in the DMG and MM they have darkvision [Angrygodofmilk] <added 13 June>
✦ p.278: under 'Minotaur', on the Ferocity line, replace "If you are reduced to 0 hit points" with "If you are reduced to 0 hit points or fewer" [Natural Zero]
✦ p.278: under 'Orc' there is no Skill Bonuses line (unlike every other race in the MM and PHB) [Kingskin] <added 15 June>
✦ p.286: remove "Vine Horror Strangler Level 15 Lurker" [maragin]
✦ p.287: replace "Adult Blue Dragon Level 28 Solo Artillery" with "Ancient Blue Dragon Level 28 Solo Artillery" [maragin]
✦ various: many of the minions' stats don't match what the math says they should be (errors? or exception based design?) [Tarril Wolfeye]
✦ various: many weapons used by monsters don't have PHB stats, such as scourge, trident, blowgun, and rod (probably intentional) [Imban] <edited 12 June>
✦ various: monsters with insubstantial and regeneration have less HP than would be expected (perhaps intentional, though not specified in the rules) [Imban]


----------



## burntgerbil

This is great ! Is it possible to maybe ask if you can split this into separate sections for each of the three books - to make it a little easier to track ?


----------



## Underage AOLer

burntgerbil said:
			
		

> This is great ! Is it possible to maybe ask if you can split this into separate sections for each of the three books - to make it a little easier to track ?




I am currently at work formatting it to look all pretty and stuff.


----------



## Family

*I nominate this thread for StickyStatus(tm).  *  

Thanks for your effort.


----------



## blargney the second

You are full of rock.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Has someone submitted this to WotC? I am going to drop it in as a link for them.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Family said:
			
		

> ExploderWizard - Am I reading the effect line correctly? Does it actually say "The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible" ?




Improved Invisibility doesn't actually say that in the books, it was copied incorrectly.



			
				Family said:
			
		

> Malraux - PHB 226: The text immediately above the Special heading is misplaced and should go with the holy avenger text.




It may be awkward, but it is in the right place.  It is a layman's description of the Holy Avenger's Daily power, and it is under the Power heading for reading Magic Item stat blocks.



			
				Family said:
			
		

> Flazzy - The Feytouched's Whispers of the Fey is an attack 20, not a utility 20 as written.




It could go either way, and I see no reason why it can't be a utility.  Could someone please elaborate?



			
				Family said:
			
		

> Ander00 - It seems to me that utility powers shouldn't provoke opportunity attacks. Unfortunately, the PHB seems to use "ranged and area attacks" and "ranged and area powers" interchangeably in this context, when it really shouldn't.




Why shouldn't they provoke opportunity attacks?


----------



## pemerton

Dance of Steel is not worse than Steel Serpent Strike. Provided that the right weapon is being wielded, it slows on an attack. Steel Serpent Strike slows only on a hit (with any weapon).


----------



## mach1.9pants

pemerton said:
			
		

> Dance of Steel is not worse than Steel Serpent Strike. Provided that the right weapon is being wielded, it slows on an attack. Steel Serpent Strike slows only on a hit (with any weapon).



I don't think so, the slowed for DoS is only on a hit. The 'weapon' entry is under hit and not 'effect; which would be hit or miss.
So SSS: on a hit does damage, slows and stops target shifting
DoS: does the same damage and slows only with the listed weapons (no stopping shifting)


----------



## Graf

sticky it!
i love enworld


----------



## Lizard

My purchased copy of the MM does not reference a "Primordial Colossus". It references the Godforged Colossus, which does exist. Likewise, the index correctly lists Dusk Unicorn. I haven't checked every entry to see if the printed books match the errata list, but it's obvious the PDFs were not final versions.

To be useful, this list should contain errors which only made their way into the actual print books.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Lizard said:
			
		

> My purchased copy of the MM does not reference a "Primordial Colossus". It references the Godforged Colossus, which does exist. Likewise, the index correctly lists Dusk Unicorn. I haven't checked every entry to see if the printed books match the errata list, but it's obvious the PDFs were not final versions.
> 
> To be useful, this list should contain errors which only made their way into the actual print books.




I moved them to their own section.

I totally agree that only the errors in the final print books should be noted, but at the moment I have only the PHB with which to double check.  My gift set is on order.

If you see any other errata listed here that doesn't apply to the actual books, please let me know.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

I Demand Sticky!!!


----------



## Flazzy

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> It could go either way, and I see no reason why it can't be a utility.  Could someone please elaborate?




All paragon classes get a utility at 12, and a daily at 20.


----------



## Flazzy

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> ✦ p.50-51: the death knights seem to be adding incorrect values to their damage rolls (12 and 16 should be 13 and 19, respectively) [Flazzy]




Actually should be +5/+4 for the figher, +7/+2 for the paladin, as half level does not add to damage.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Not sure if it's an error -- but seems like one:

PHB 214 -- armor table

chainmail is AC +6 check -1 and speed -1
scale is AC +7 check -0 speed -1
plate is AC +8 check -2 speed -1

going by natural progression I think the check penalty for chain and scale has been reversed


----------



## silentounce

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Not sure if it's an error -- but seems like one:
> 
> PHB 214 -- armor table
> 
> chainmail is AC +6 check -1 and speed -1
> scale is AC +7 check -0 speed -1
> plate is AC +8 check -2 speed -1
> 
> going by natural progression I think the check penalty for chain and scale has been reversed




No, it's not an error, because it's not a natural progression.  Read the descriptions on 213 for a fluff explanation as to why chain has a penalty and scale doesn't.  Also, note the Armor Spec. feats on 202.  The chain one reduces it's armor check penalty, so it definitely has one.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

silentounce said:
			
		

> No, it's not an error, because it's not a natural progression.  Read the descriptions on 213 for a fluff explanation as to why chain has a penalty and scale doesn't.  Also, note the Armor Spec. feats on 202.  The chain one reduces it's armor check penalty, so it definitely has one.




I see, perhaps because of the extra feat cost then as far as balance goes.


----------



## mach1.9pants

I checked the real MM: your list of errors is correct, if you get me, but this one must have been changed since the PDF leaked:
"✦ p.286: the Ice Archon Hailscourge (p.20, Level 16 Artillery) does not have an entry [maragin]" It is the first entry on the level 16 list


----------



## Underage AOLer

Flazzy said:
			
		

> Actually should be +5/+4 for the figher, +7/+2 for the paladin, as half level does not add to damage.




Could you explain this a bit more so that I can add the correction to the list?  My previous corrected values were 3.X thinking with the Strength modifier determining damage... silly me.



			
				mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> but this one must have been changed since the PDF leaked:




Thanks, I moved it to the PDF section.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Could you explain this a bit more so that I can add the correction to the list?  My previous corrected values were 3.X thinking with the Strength modifier determining damage... silly me.



The Death Knights damage 1d8+*x* does not comply with the rules for strength bonus. But as both longswords are _soulswords_ I doubt it is an error just another example of monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs. The DMG damage by level table gives 2d8+7 (average 16) for a 17th level at will, and it is 1d8+12 (average 16.5) for the 17th level DK. Close enough for me


----------



## Oldtimer

Regarding the illustration on page 281 in PHB, it was debated and not resolved in the errors thread. As the one who debated against it being an error, I think it shouldn't be included. However, some statement on how to calculate the area of a burst in the presence of obstacles would be nice. In the absence of such a statement, I've assumed you use the same method as for movement (expect that it's stated that the first square counted can be around a corner). Using movement rules, the illustration of the burst is correct.

One PHB error to add:
pg 295: The words "expressed as a negative number" have been accidently copied into the very last sentence of the block *Death Saving Throw*. They should be deleted.


----------



## samursus

I have a fairly major error...surprised no one else has noticed ( or that I haven't seen a thread).

Spears have no range, cannot be thrown, according to the weapons list,  But on pg.232 PHB it mentions +6 perfect hunter’s spear under Thrown Weapons.  How can spears not be thrown??

Typo: Pg 241 Describes Staff of Fiery Might crit damage as +3d10, when according to the stats on the same page, it should be +3d8

Good work everybody.... 

seriously, how do some of these errors make it through editing??

PS: these have been noted from Core Giftset PHB


----------



## Orci

Player's Handbook:
p.87 Heading Level 29 Daily Powers should be Level 29 Daily Exploits
p. 295 Death Saving Throws, 20 or higher: remove expressed as a negative number


----------



## quindia

samursus said:
			
		

> I have a fairly major error...surprised no one else has noticed ( or that I haven't seen a thread).
> 
> Spears have no range, cannot be thrown, according to the weapons list,  But on pg.232 PHB it mentions +6 perfect hunter’s spear under Thrown Weapons.  How can spears not be thrown??




I suspect the error will be page 232 since there is no mention of throwing a spear in the fluff either. I suspect they were simply trying to differentiate between the spear and javelin. There are many examples in history where the spear was considered a melee weapon only. 

I agree that you should be able to throw a spear, but I think this is a casualty of the oversimplification of some aspects of 4e. It is a simple matter to HR a range of 5/10 to simply bring it line with the dagger as it has been in previous editions.


----------



## That One Guy

Thanks for this thread, it rocks something fierce.

I posted the following on page 17 (as part of a barely longer post) of the other forum thread...

Also,


> You have extensively studied the use of *light blades and* heavy blades



is stated under Sword Marshal, but everything he/she does is heavy blade based AND can be used w/ polearms. That's gotta' be a mistake.

It's on page 155.


----------



## Underage AOLer

I have updated the main post with the new errors, as well as adding a "Debated Errors" section where I'll put things that could land on either side of the error/intentional fence.


----------



## The_Pugilist

Bumping to make sticky AND suggest that perhaps the correction to the Serpent Steel Strike/Dance of Steel is to turn down the damage on the former to 1(W).  It does basically turn the target into slow moving OA bait, after all.


----------



## pemerton

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I don't think so, the slowed for DoS is only on a hit. The 'weapon' entry is under hit and not 'effect; which would be hit or miss.
> So SSS: on a hit does damage, slows and stops target shifting
> DoS: does the same damage and slows only with the listed weapons (no stopping shifting)



I'm still not sure that you're right.

The rules on power descriptions don't tell us how to interpret the "weapon" entries in the Fighter powers: all we have is the brief remark on p 77, that "The choice of weapon you make also provides benefits to certain fighter powers."

So we have to go on the text of the powers. On a quick read through, nearly all of the Weapon entries either adjust attack rolls or crit ranges, and appear indented after the Attack entry, or adjust damage and appear indented after the Hit entry, or modify a condition imposed by a hit and appear indented after the Hit entry, or modify an Effect and appear indented after the Effect entry.

Dance of Steel seems to be unusual in that the Weapon text is not modifying damage, nor an existing consequence of a hit, nor an existing Effect (that is, there is no "Effect" entry for it to appear under).

So I don't think my reading is excluded by layout or labelling considerations. I don't think it makes the power overpowered (Sleep gives auto-slow vs multiple targets as a 1st level Daily). It makes the power different from, and (at least plausibly) better than Serpent Steel Strike.

Another power with a complicated Weapon entry is Rain of Blows, which some have read as overpowerd on the basis that it gives a secondary attack for each hit. If it is read in the same way as I am suggesting that Dance of Steel be read (namely, as an effect independent of a hit, but not qualifying an existing Effect entry) then it becomes non-overpowered.

So I think that there is good reason to prefer my reading of the rules.


----------



## mach1.9pants

@Pemerton, fair enough but I am 100% happy with my interpretation, even though it makes errata!
Anyway another vote here for sticky


----------



## Zsig

PHB p.45, under "Physical Qualities", last line:

 "Halflings have life spans _comperable_ to humans."


----------



## pemerton

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> @Pemerton, fair enough but I am 100% happy with my interpretation, even though it makes errata!
> Anyway another vote here for sticky



I tried my analysis in another thread and my first reply was Mouseferatu telling me I'm wrong. But I'm still not 100% persuaded.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Zsig said:
			
		

> PHB p.45, under "Physical Qualities", last line:
> 
> "Halflings have life spans _comperable_ to humans."



I thought that was just an American way of spelling things, like armor instead of armour


----------



## mach1.9pants

pemerton said:
			
		

> I tried my analysis in another thread and my first reply was Mouseferatu telling me I'm wrong. But I'm still not 100% persuaded.



I agree with MF but he is only _quasi-official_ so you are well within your rights to stick to your guns!


----------



## Underage AOLer

Zsig said:
			
		

> PHB p.45, under "Physical Qualities", last line:
> 
> "Halflings have life spans _comperable_ to humans."




Noted.

I am also trying to make the post more readable by underlining headings, italicizing powers, and other stuff... does it help? or am I just too particular for my own good?


----------



## mach1.9pants

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> I am also trying to make the post more readable by underlining headings, italicizing powers, and other stuff... does it help? or am I just too particular for my own good?



Using bold, italics and (especially) underlining helps IMO. An idea might be to give a key to each type of text i.e. underlined means incorrect wording or somesuch.


----------



## Underage AOLer

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Using bold, italics and (especially) underlining helps IMO. An idea might be to give a key to each type of text i.e. underlined means incorrect wording or somesuch.




I went with underline to highlight the errors, _italics_ around powers/feats, and 's around headings.

I think it looks nice.


----------



## SPECTRE666

-Sticky!!!


*SPECTRE666*


----------



## Mouseferatu

Not sure if this requires errata or not, but it could--and it definitely needs some clarification, in either case.

Page 25, PHB, it says that you cannot learn Abyssal or Supernal as a 1st-level character. Does this apply even to people who take the Linguist feat, or does it refer only to those languages you automatically gain at 1st level? (Some races, such as humans and halflings, gain "Common plus one other.")

It seems to me that, once you've gone through the "expense" of the feat, you should have the option of taking those languages, since they won't break anything at 1st that they wouldn't at 2nd. (And since I'm pretty sure the point of the 1st-level restriction is to make sure you have to spend a feat to gain those languages.) But by a RAW reading, that's not what it says; the strictest interpretation would have it that, if you buy the Linguist feat at 1st level, you _still_ can't learn 'em.


----------



## Simon Marks

Straight out error, but a minor one...

"Paragon Tier adventurers ... are able to use magic rings" - Page 146, DMG.
Nothing anywhere else mentions anything like this. I assume it's been left in from when Heroic tier characters couldn't use rings.


----------



## NMcCoy

There are no rings in the PHB below 14th level, so Heroic-tier characters shouldn't be getting the chance to use them anyway. Admittedly, the 1 at Paragon/2 at Epic thing is gone, but the "no rings at Heroic" is still present, just cleverly hidden.


----------



## OakwoodDM

Technically, a heroic tier character could get a hold of a ring. The parcels of rewards for the progress from 10 to 11 would include a lvl 11, a lvl 12, a lvl 13 and a lvl 14 magical item. So a level 10 character could have a ring shortly before he hits Paragon.


----------



## Argyuile

Just because 1 encounter or daily power is strictly better than another doesn't necessarily mean its wrong or bad.  The same with powers with different names if they have identical effects.    What your doing at that point (if you take both) is saying that now I can use this particular power, albeit with different names, twice per encounter or twice per day instead of once.

If it was an at-will power I would totally agree but for encounter/daily I don't think it qualifies as a mistake.


----------



## OakwoodDM

I'm not 100% sure this is an error, but I'm pretty sure. Page 88 of the DMG, the Doomspore obstacle, says it is a lvl 3 obstacle, but that it's worth 350XP (and can be upgraded to Elite at 700XP). I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be 150XP (and 300 for Elite) and stay at level 3, or moved to level 8 with the same XP. Either way, it's wrong.

I'd lean towards the move it to lvl 8 option due to the elite option, but +6 vs Fort's pretty weak at that level...


----------



## Particle_Man

PHB page 7 "Throughout the 1980s, the game experienced remarkable growth.  Novels, a cartoon series, computer games and the first campaign settings (Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance) were released,"

Does not mention the Greyhawk campaign setting, which I am pretty sure was released (as a boxed set) before Forgotten Realms and am certain was released before Dragonlance.


----------



## Animal

> ✦ p.25: under 'Languages and Scripts' it says, "You can’t choose the Abyssal or Supernal languages as a 1st-level character", it should say, "You can’t choose the Abyssal or Supernal languages with your racial bonus languages" [Mouseferatu]



maybe it means that abyssal and supernal can't be picked by a 1st lvl character with a "linguist" feat either?


----------



## Flazzy

Under the strige sample encounters: 2 bonecrusher skeletons (level 7 soldier) - no such monster exists.

Also, many monsters with insubstantial and regeneration seem to get less HP than expected (brutes get 8/level instead of 10, lurkers get 4/level instead of 6 etc.) - not a mistake, just doesn't appear as an official rule in the books.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Argyuile said:
			
		

> Just because 1 encounter or daily power is strictly better than another doesn't necessarily mean its wrong or bad.  The same with powers with different names if they have identical effects.    What your doing at that point (if you take both) is saying that now I can use this particular power, albeit with different names, twice per encounter or twice per day instead of once.
> 
> If it was an at-will power I would totally agree but for encounter/daily I don't think it qualifies as a mistake.




I would _maybe_ agree with you if they were the exact same power.  However, given the fact that both powers' lower level versions are actually _better_ than their higher level incarnations, I have to disagree.  It makes much more sense that one of the powers was changed in isolation to make it better or worse (the lower or higher level power respectively), while the other one wasn't considered, and ended up almost the same.  This is especially true given the fact that the multitude of powers a PC has to choose from are supposed to give them _options_, and although another use of a [slightly worse] power is _technically_ an "option", it isn't one I think is in the spirit of the intent.



			
				Animal said:
			
		

> maybe it means that abyssal and supernal can't be picked by a 1st lvl character with a "linguist" feat either?




This post sums up the reasoning why it would be an error (or at least need clarification) better than I could.



			
				Flazzy said:
			
		

> Under the strige sample encounters: 2 bonecrusher skeletons (level 7 soldier) - no such monster exists.
> 
> Also, many monsters with insubstantial and regeneration seem to get less HP than expected (brutes get 8/level instead of 10, lurkers get 4/level instead of 6 etc.) - not a mistake, just doesn't appear as an official rule in the books.




Added.

It seems like a lot of the monsters in the manual don't follow their own rules very well.  I wonder which deviations are intentional and which are accidental.


----------



## silentounce

PHB, page 263.  Extended Rest section says under the "No Strenuous Activity" heading that you don't have to sleep during an extended rest.  Yet immediately below that under the "Sleeping and Waking Up" heading it says that you have to have slept at least six hours in the last 24 to get a benefit from the rest period.  Either these two statements are inconsistent or they are okay with the following:
Under the "Once per Day" heading it says that you have to wait at least 12 hours before resting again.  So, at 12am a party rests for six hours, they don't need to set a watch because they have an Eldarin party member.  They wake at 6am.  They decide to rest again at 6pm.  They don't have to sleep at all because by the time 12am rolls around they'll still have slept six hours in the previous 24.

Did they intend to allow this?  I doubt that's why there's an inconsistency, but it allows it.  Anyway, to summarize, it's a mess.


----------



## MOD

Pg. 32 MM.

Beholder Eye of Flame.   The Central Eye power doesn't have any numbers for attacking, its just states the range and then gives the effect.


----------



## Simon Marks

Flazzy said:
			
		

> Under the strige sample encounters: 2 bonecrusher skeletons (level 7 soldier) - no such monster exists.




No, it doesn't.

My MM lists a level 7 encounter with spiders and a level 12 encounter with flesh golems. Do you have the PDF? Because the PDF is riddled with errors.

MOD, my reading is that there is no attack for this effect, it just happens.


----------



## silentounce

MOD said:
			
		

> Pg. 32 MM.
> 
> Beholder Eye of Flame.   The Central Eye power doesn't have any numbers for attacking, its just states the range and then gives the effect.




AUTOHIT!


----------



## TimeOut

Thanks for this informative thread.

I have only one concern: The white text is nearly unreadable on the PHB style of the board. Also the text disappears if you want to print the page. Maybe another color would be better?


----------



## Bolongo

In the category of "unhelpful references"....  

DMG p 145: "Campaign Handout: Keep a copy of the handout you made for your players (page 25)."
Page 25 just mentions handouts for clues to an adventure and suchlike, it says nothing about giving the players a piece of paper with the outlines of your campaign (which is what's implied on p 145).

DMG p 182: "Power Source: This information sometimes interacts with other game rules. See page 54 of the Player's Handbook for more information."
This got me all excited: was there some crunch I had missed on my first read-through? Sadly, no. The text about power sources on page 54 (and 55) of the PH is pure fluff, there is nothing at all about interacting with other game rules.


----------



## ripster0

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Regarding the illustration on page 281 in PHB, it was debated and not resolved in the errors thread. As the one who debated against it being an error, I think it shouldn't be included. However, some statement on how to calculate the area of a burst in the presence of obstacles would be nice. In the absence of such a statement, I've assumed you use the same method as for movement (expect that it's stated that the first square counted can be around a corner). Using movement rules, the illustration of the burst is correct.



Additionally, using the rules under "Counting Distance" on pg 273, it is quite clear that the diagram is correct. The square in question is 3 away by the counting rules. If there is some issue with the square near the statue containing the monster, the statue is simply terrain, not an obstacle that completely fills it square. Very simple, and no need to confuse people about it, and I am not going through 18 pages of that other thread either


----------



## MerricB

I can't read your thread. Pretty colours don't help for those on other backgrounds.


----------



## WotC_GregB

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Here are all the core handbook errors we have collected so far.  This post is only for listing the errors themselves, discussion about what things "should have been" should stick with the already going Core Handbook Errors thread.  If I missed something, didn't credit something right, or have any other errors of my own, please let me know here.




Thanks for all the hard work everyone, especially Underage AOLer. As one of the guys working on Updates, I'll be monitoring this thread frequently.


----------



## Underage AOLer

ripster0 said:
			
		

> Additionally, using the rules under "Counting Distance" on pg 273, it is quite clear that the diagram is correct. The square in question is 3 away by the counting rules. If there is some issue with the square near the statue containing the monster, the statue is simply terrain, not an obstacle that completely fills it square. Very simple, and no need to confuse people about it, and I am not going through 18 pages of that other thread either




From the 'Origin Square' section of 'Area Attack' (p.271): "For a target to be affected by an area attack, there needs to be line of effect from the origin square to the target."

From the 'Burst' section of 'Areas of Effect' (p.272): "A burst affects a target only if there is line of effect from the burst’s origin square to the target."

From 'Line of Effect' (p.273): "You can target a creature or a square if there’s an unblocked path between it and you—that is, if you have line of effect to it. If every imaginary line you trace to a target passes through or touches a solid obstacle, you don’t have line of effect to the target."

Looking at the picture, the upper right corner of the origin square has clear line of effect to the upper right corner of the square in question (A2 using Battleship coordinates) which is the only thing it needs to affect the square.  As far as counting the distance goes, even if we were to use those rules to determine affectedness it seems to me that the square is only two squares away, as follows.



		Code:
	

o2x#x
o#1xx
o#@xx
xxxxx
xxx##


o = unaffected, x = affected, # = physical obstacle, @ = origin square, 1 and 2 = counting the distance

Thusly, I believe the picture is in error.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I can't read your thread. Pretty colours don't help for those on other backgrounds.




So, you admit that they are pretty!  



			
				WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the hard work everyone, especially Underage AOLer. As one of the guys working on Updates, I'll be monitoring this thread frequently.




Thank _you_ for your hard work putting out a game that I would spend the effort to fix.  Not that it's broken or anything... 

Any chance you could give us the "Official Word" on any of the errors that need clarification?  I'd hate to incorrectly have something listed and have it be seen as wrong when it is actually right.


----------



## ripster0

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> As far as counting the distance goes, even if we were to use those rules to determine affectedness it seems to me that the square is only two squares away, as follows.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> o2x#x
> o#1xx
> o#@xx
> xxxxx
> xxx##
> 
> 
> o = unaffected, x = affected, # = physical obstacle, @ = origin square, 1 and 2 = counting the distance
> 
> Thusly, I believe the picture is in error.



From page 273 "The first step in choosing targets for an attack is to check the attack’s range." So Line of Effect is not even an issue until that square is in range. Further along "When counting the distance
from one square to another, start counting from any adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner)", which would be square 1. We can't go straight to the square in question because "and then count around solid obstacles that fill their squares" which works just like moving at this point. So you have to go around the corner, making the square in question a distance of 3.


		Code:
	

o32#x
o#1xx
o#@xx
211xx
xxx##


----------



## Underage AOLer

ripster0 said:
			
		

> From page 273 "The first step in choosing targets for an attack is to check the attack’s range." So Line of Effect is not even an issue until that square is in range. Further along "When counting the distance
> from one square to another, start counting from any adjacent square (even one that is diagonally adjacent but around a corner)", which would be square 1. We can't go straight to the square in question because "and then count around solid obstacles that fill their squares" which works just like moving at this point. So you have to go around the corner, making the square in question a distance of 3.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> o32#x
> o#1xx
> o#@xx
> 211xx
> xxx##




So, what you're saying is that I should just stick to cataloging, not interpreting?

The whole "count around solid obstacles that fill their squares" thing didn't make any sense to me.  In fact, it still sort of doesn't.  Whose squares are "their"s?  Bah.


----------



## WotC_GregB

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Any chance you could give us the "Official Word" on any of the errors that need clarification?  I'd hate to incorrectly have something listed and have it be seen as wrong when it is actually right.




I can't give the "Official Word" on anything here, but you can expect something soon. Also, could I ask that you date the additions to your list so I can see what you've added. Our review group meets once a week and it would help me to track what we've already talked about. Thanks!


----------



## Underage AOLer

WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> I can't give the "Official Word" on anything here, but you can expect something soon. Also, could I ask that you date the additions to your list so I can see what you've added. Our review group meets once a week and it would help me to track what we've already talked about. Thanks!




That's a good idea, anything added from now on will be dated.  I'll try to keep editing down to once a day as well so that the content doesn't change every three seconds (as is has been prone to do given my propensity for trying to make it "perfect"... I can see how errors can slip through if y'all at WotC are anything like me).

P.S. w00t, sticky!


----------



## withak

Kobolds don't have the "reptile" keyword, but other reptilian humanoid races (Lizardfolk, Salamanders, Troglodytes, Yuan-ti) do. Kobolds were "reptilian" in 3E, which has a slightly different meaning.

Oversight or intentional omission?

Out of the four Troglodyte variants, only the Warrior is Large; the rest are Medium. Intentional?


----------



## kerbarian

The Goblin Underboss (MM, p.138) is listed as an Elite, yet unlike every other Elite in the MM, it doesn't have "Saving Throws +2" or "Action Points 1"


----------



## That One Guy

> ✦ p.71: Haunting Strike (level 21 Cleric attack) is strictly better than Punishing Strike (level 27 Cleric attack) [Wisdom Penalty]



 Haunting Strike is level 23. But, yeah. It's completely better than Punishing Strike.

Edit: And grats on the recognitions, Family and Underage AOLer!
Edit2: I don't know if this counts as Errata or not, but in the PHB table of contents Conditions on page 277 is not listed at all. In the section it is not a large text header such as Attack Results, Durations, or Saving Throws, but I think it should be. This may be opinion and not errata, but considering how precisely organized the book tends to be (in spite of errata), this seems like an error.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

MM p. 136:

Bugbear Strangler has 82 hp, but Bloodied for 46.

It should either be 92 hp, or Bloodied 41.

Wis


----------



## Underage AOLer

I have updated the post with the corrections you all have noted.  Thank you for your diligent efforts.

Also, "errataishness" is now my new favorite word.


----------



## Henrix

MM p.53 Barlgura Tactics 
"_A barlgura charges into battle, using its _double attack_ to pummel its opponents._"

The _Double Attack_ cannot be used with a charge, it's neither a basic attack, nor does it state that it can be used with a charge.


----------



## Amurayi

> ✦ various: many weapons used by monsters don't have PHB stats (scourge, trident, blowgun, rod) [Imban]




This is intentional. I asked the designers on the DDXP about it and they said that these should be considered "monster weapons". They have no market value. But PC can use them but are always unproficient with them. The damage dice can be taken from the monster basic attack.


----------



## WotC_GregB

The first round of updates is now available. Look on the wizards website under:

Products > Updates

or just go http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates


----------



## lkj

WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> The first round of updates is now available. Look on the wizards website under:
> 
> Products > Updates
> 
> or just go http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates




First-- It's awesome that you guys are releasing errata this fast. I hope you keep it up.

Second-- The Hill Giant damage (among others) makes a lot more sense now.

Thanks,
AD


----------



## Underage AOLer

WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> The first round of updates is now available. Look on the wizards website under:
> 
> Products > Updates
> 
> or just go http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates




Cheers!

Would it be okay if I added all your errata to the first post? (so there could still be a central place for people to locate it)


----------



## WotC_GregB

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Cheers!
> 
> Would it be okay if I added all your errata to the first post? (so there could still be a central place for people to locate it)




It would be better if you didn't duplicate our material verbatim. Instead, I suggest providing the link to the updates in your first post and then identifying issues from your list that are addressed in the update. For example:

"✦ p.156: under the 'Trained Skills' section of the Wizard summary it says, “Nature (Int)”, it should say, “Nature (Wis)” [Oldtimer]" [See WotC Update]


----------



## Starfox

Page 200 said:
			
		

> Special: You must carry a shield to benefit from this feat.



This does not make sense. Carrying a shield implies it is in your backpack. 

Compare to [quote="page 206 Shield Specialization feat]Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to AC and Reflex when using a shield with which you are proficient.[/quote] Here you have to specifically use the shield. This gives further credence to the rules-lawyerly interpretation of the above.


----------



## blargney the second

GregB, thanks for making quick updates like that!  Is there any chance you can get the web guys to ditch the zips on those pdf files?
-blarg


----------



## WotC_GregB

blargney the second said:
			
		

> GregB, thanks for making quick updates like that!  Is there any chance you can get the web guys to ditch the zips on those pdf files?
> -blarg




Relayed the request. Should be switched shortly.


----------



## blargney the second

Awesome!  Thank you for the speedy reply. 
-blarg


----------



## Leatherhead

WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> The first round of updates is now available. Look on the wizards website under:
> 
> Products > Updates
> 
> or just go http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates




Nice, that cleared up a few questions I had.

On the other hand, ouch. That puts a cramp on my Half-elf rogue that was using Lay on Hands. I guess I will have to get Eyebite now.

Edit: Just noticed the bottom of the DMG and MM errata says "Have other questions about the Player’s Handbook?"


----------



## The_Pugilist

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> Edit: Just noticed the bottom of the DMG and MM errata says "Have other questions about the Player’s Handbook?"





"Even the errata has errata!"



No seriously this isn't that bad, I remember the original 3e corebooks.  I've honestly been spoiled with 3.5's improved quality in this regard.

Well, except for Polymorph's weekly rules shapeshift.


----------



## WOLead

Edit:
Discovered they already corrected this in the Official D&D Updates.


----------



## bbbmmmlll

My friend Cale found this flavor inconsistency:

On the sidebar on page 225 PHB bottom left it lists Residuum as having a "silvery color". However under the "Disenchant Magic Item" Ritual listing on page 304 of the PHB it's listed as "...golden [colored] dust..." So which is it?!


----------



## Hairfoot

Roll on, 4.5E


----------



## Alexander Heppe

This a typo?

On Page 188 of the Monster Manual, under "Mind Flayer Mastermind Tactics" the text refers to a power called "mind warp".

This power is not listet in the Mind Flayer Mastermind's Stat-Block. Has the power been renamed to "illusion of pain"? That would make sense in the context.


----------



## Witchfinder General

DMG page 213: Dart Trap, Perception: "DC 20: The character notices a firing mechanism in the ." should be "DC 20: The character notices a firing mechanism in the *suit of armor*.".


----------



## Henrix

Starfox said:
			
		

> This does not make sense. Carrying a shield implies it is in your backpack.



No, it doesn't. Carrying a shield is what you do with it. (And it's the same in swedish - bära sköld och vapen.)


----------



## webrunner

Stir the Hornets Nest, page 152: it says "weilding" instead of "wielding"


----------



## Angrygodofmilk

*Errata*

Errata.

MM. Page 278.

Kobolds (as player characters) are listed as having "Normal" vision. Kobold monsters (in both the MM and DMG) are listed as having "Darkvision".

I think this must be an errata, because Wizards had no problem granting Darkvision to Drow as player characters on page 276 of the MM.


----------



## Angrygodofmilk

*Update*

Update

MM. Page 278.

Kobolds (as player characters) are listed as having +2 Dexterity and +2 Constitution.

The bonus to Constitution seems misplaced. Not that averaging the ability scores of the 6 kobolds on Pages 167-169 has anything to do with determining their bonuses as player characters, but doing so does bear out the Dexterity bonus. The second highest "average" ability score of the 6 kobolds is Wisdom.

Looking strictly at the "role" of kobolds, and the wyrmpriest in particular, a +2 Wisdom bonus seems more warranted for kobolds than a bonus to Constitution.


----------



## damiangerous

Endurance has some serious issues.  The rules in the PHB and the DMG have almost nothing in common with one another.  For example, starvation.  The PHB lists a DC of 10 +2 per day.  The DMG says it's 3 weeks then a check at DC 20 for the next day and +5 each additional day.  Suffocation and thirst have the same issues.  Holding your breath is given in the PHB as DC 10 + 1 per round after the 5th.  The DMG has it as 3 minutes until a DC 20 + 5 per round.  Environmental damage is given as "base 15" in the PHB but nothing in the DMG is that low, severe weather starts at 20.

I would assume the rules in the DMG are correct in this case because they seem like a more complete system with the "rule of 3's" but it's very confusing for players.

Also the PHB points you to chapter 3 of the DMG for the Endurance rules, but only disease is in chapter 3.  The rest is in chapter 9.


----------



## Oompa

I cant acces the update files from my work overhere, is it much that is corrected? is it drastic or does it explain things?


----------



## Lucas Blackstone

I didn't see this in the complied thread and my apologies if this isn't even a mistake but here goes:

The rogue class features include "When you wield a shuriken, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls."

Page 270 of the PHB states you can WIELD two weapons but only attack with one of them. ( This is not in contention.)

However you could by the way these are worded, wield a shuriken in your offhand, and a bastard sword in your on hand, attack with your bastard sword, and the weapon damage die of your bastard sword would go up. I think it's an absurd reading of the rules, but there are people who do not and so I guess it should be clarified.


----------



## Oompa

as clarified before in other threads.. 

wielding is using.. so what you say cannot be done


----------



## Leatherhead

Oompa said:
			
		

> as clarified before in other threads..
> 
> wielding is using.. so what you say cannot be done





What if you have the two weapon fighting feat and use a dagger in the off hand, does that count as using a dagger? On the one hand, I could see it working fluffwise: Your expert handling of the dagger enables you to distract the enemy or counter their defenses more fluently than if you had used any other weapon, allowing you to slip your rapier into them with greater ease. But is that mechanically sound?


----------



## Oompa

If i am right, you can hold an weapon in both hands, attack with one of the hands and use an power associated with that weapon..

So an rogue can hold an long sword and dagger and attack in round 1 with the longsword, using powers that can be used with an longsword.. and in round 2 he could make an attack with the dagger, using powers for an dagger.. and only the ranger can make two attacks in one round, and some fighter powers i thought..


----------



## Zelc

This may already have been posted, but there is no cost listing for pints of oil despite the existence of lanterns and empty flasks and oil being mentioned in the lighting table.


----------



## WotC_GregB

Hey folks,

It came to my attention today after reviewing the issues here that some people are posting problems based on use of the pdf and not the actual books.  Aside from being illegal, this pdf is outdated and has many issues that were corrected in the final version of the books. For the sake of other players, please do not post a problem unless you can verify that it exists in the book.

Thanks
-Greg


----------



## Angrygodofmilk

Both of my kobold posts herald from the rules as they appear in the printed Player's Handbook.


----------



## marune

The issue about fighter and Wis is not clear, the problem is :

_All fighters rely on S. Fighters also need C, D, or *W*, depending on which weapon they favor._

No *weapon* powers are based on W in the PHB.

(I know that Pit Fighters benefit of Wis for number of OA)


----------



## Fate Lawson

The Effect description for Spiritual Weapon on PHB page 65 currently reads as:

*Effect: You conjure a weapon that appears in the target's square and attacks. Your allies gain combat advantage against the target. You can move the weapon up to 10 squares to another enemy's square as a move action. The weapon lasts until the end of your next turn.
*

 I believe , for the sake of clarity, the third sentence should be changed to:


You can move the weapon up to 10 squares to another enemy's square, *within range,*  as a move action.


In addition, strictly for the sake of layout consistency,  for the revised printing, under Mordenkainen's Sword on PHB page 163, the Effect listing should be moved down to follow the Hit listing.


----------



## Tratyn Runewind

*Wizard Spell Preparation Errata*

Hi all,

I'm thinking it would be good to list among these errata the clarification to wizard spell preparation (PHB p. 158) posted in this thread - the one that states, basically, that wizards can't prep all their high-level spells at once, but must keep roughly to the power-level distribution of other characters' daily or utility powers.

(Hmm...a few nice new tweaks to the VBulletin UI in the years since I last dusted off my account and posted here...musta been an upgrade or two, or at least some feature tuning by the mods...  )


----------



## mach1.9pants

DMG page 198 it says under Defense: The Fallcrest Guard numbers sixty warriors (see accompanying statistics block)...."

There are no stats for the Fallcrest Guard in the chapter.


----------



## Underage AOLer

WotC_GregB said:
			
		

> Hey folks,
> 
> It came to my attention today after reviewing the issues here that some people are posting problems based on use of the pdf and not the actual books. Aside from being illegal, this pdf is outdated and has many issues that were corrected in the final version of the books. For the sake of other players, please do not post a problem unless you can verify that it exists in the book.
> 
> Thanks
> -Greg




If you could point out any of the errors I have listed that aren't part of the final printings, that would be great.  I was under the impression that we already mentioned this, but if some slipped by then... oops.

I will also add a note to the front post.



			
				Fate Lawson said:
			
		

> In addition, strictly for the sake of layout consistency,  for the revised printing, under Mordenkainen's Sword on PHB page 163, the Effect listing should be moved down to follow the Hit listing.




I not sure I agree.  There are a few other powers (p.80: Come and Get It, p.85: Warrior's Urging) that have the Effect line before Hit.  Even if within the Wizard's spells they aren't entirely consistent, they seem to follow a pattern of "Does the effect cause damage?  No => before Hit, Yes => after Hit"  Since the sword's effect doesn't directly cause damage (unlike Flaming Sphere, p.160) it goes before the Hit line.  It also seems to read fine to me, and I hadn't even seen it before you mentioned it.



			
				Tratyn Runewind said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm thinking it would be good to list among these errata the clarification to wizard spell preparation (PHB p. 158) posted in this thread - the one that states, basically, that wizards can't prep all their high-level spells at once, but must keep roughly to the power-level distribution of other characters' daily or utility powers.
> 
> (Hmm...a few nice new tweaks to the VBulletin UI in the years since I last dusted off my account and posted here...musta been an upgrade or two, or at least some feature tuning by the mods... )




I'll try to figure out a way to incorporate this, but as mentioned in that thread, it might be kind of nice for someone to put together an ENWorld 4E FAQ thread.  There are certainly plenty of reoccurring issues that seem to pop up.  I might do it myself if I can find the motivation.


----------



## MeMeMeMe

Tratyn Runewind said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm thinking it would be good to list among these errata the clarification to wizard spell preparation (PHB p. 158) posted in this thread - the one that states, basically, that wizards can't prep all their high-level spells at once, but must keep roughly to the power-level distribution of other characters' daily or utility powers.




It's strange that people find that one confusing, because it's the area of Wizard that acts exactly like it did in 3e.


----------



## Tratyn Runewind

Hi again,



> Originally Posted by *Underage AOLer*:
> it might be kind of nice for someone to put together an ENWorld FAQ thread.




Not sure what you mean by this, but I hope my off-topic oohing and aahing over the new features didn't come across as a request for info on the board itself. 



> Originally Posted by *MeMeMeMe*:
> It's strange that people find that one confusing, because it's the area of Wizard that acts exactly like it did in 3e.




Perhaps.  But there's nothing in the book that says it acts like it did in 3e.  There's only the somewhat ambiguous phrase  "a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level".  And given that the "Total Powers Known" column of the big p.29 chart just gives straight numbers, without breaking down spells preppable by level as the wizard charts did in previous editions, I can see how people might become confused on the matter.  After all, I was confused myself, thinking that the ability to load up on top-level spells might have been both a simplification and a balancing factor, to make up for the drastic reductions in spell damage compared to previous editions.  But with class combat roles more tightly defined now, it turns out that the spell damage cutbacks are apparently themselves a balancing factor...


----------



## Underage AOLer

Tratyn Runewind said:
			
		

> Hi again,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underage AOLer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it might be kind of nice for someone to put together an ENWorld FAQ thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by this, but I hope my off-topic oohing and aahing over the new features didn't come across as a request for info on the board itself.
Click to expand...



Sorry, I didn't explain myself well enough.  I was talking about an ENWorld 4E FAQ.  The new mechanics (and sometimes unclear wording) seem to bring up a lot of the same questions, and I thought (in the same way that this thread works) we could pull together a lot of the repeated questions people have on the rules of the game (at least until WotC adds the questions to their FAQs).

Does that sound better?


----------



## pinbot

> ✦ p.79: Rain of Blows says, "Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks" which implies their are two automatic attacks separate from the secondary target attack gained from a hit and using the correct weapon (so, are there two or four attacks?) [Kraydak]




The basic power gives you two attacks, if you meet the criteria under weapon you get a secondary attack, for a total of three.  It doesn't really look like there's any error here.


----------



## Admiral Caine

*Orb of Imposition Page 157 PHB*

I have confirmed this one in my book.

If it's been already tagged, my apologies. I skimmed each post, but I could have missed it. I'm short on time and I want to make sure I get this in..

Orb of Imposition Page 157, 3rd paragraph, PHB

The rule reads: 

*"Alternately, you can choose to extend the duration of an effect created by a wizard at-will spell (such as cloud of daggers or ray of frost) that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn. The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn."*

The rule reads okay, except those at-will powers already end at the end of your next turn without this ability. Flip the page and you can confirm it. Should it be at the end of the next turn after which the spell would normally have ended? (Or some statement which is less clumsy?)

Thanks Greg and Underage AOLer!


----------



## Oompa

I think it isnt an mistake but an bit miswording, how you see it is the right way, so simply said instead of 1 round, it lasts 2 rounds..


----------



## Underage AOLer

pinbot said:
			
		

> The basic power gives you two attacks, if you meet the criteria under weapon you get a secondary attack, for a total of three. It doesn't really look like there's any error here.




Except that every other power that grants two attacks has "per attack" after the damage on the Hit line, and without it I can see it being argued that the second of the "two attacks" is referring to the secondary attack itself (or that the secondary attack applies to each of the "normal" two attacks).  It needs a little clarification from WotC methinks.



			
				Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> The rule reads okay, except those at-will powers already end at the end of your next turn without this ability. Flip the page and you can confirm it. Should it be at the end of the next turn after which the spell would normally have ended? (Or some statement which is less clumsy?)




However, on the turn _after_ you originally used a power, it will be ending 'at the end of your turn', so you could use the orb's power then to extend the duration.  I didn't get it until it was explained to me somewhere else on these boards either.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> However, on the turn _after_ you originally used a power, it will be ending 'at the end of your turn', so you could use the orb's power then to extend the duration.  I didn't get it until it was explained to me somewhere else on these boards either.





Ahhh!

Okay...  Yeah, I see that. That's not very initutive, but I see what you're saying.


----------



## Moribund

_Raven's Glamor_, p. 138.  Since its effect lasts until the *start* of your next turn it ends before it can be sustained.  Should last until end of next turn.


----------



## catsclaw227

Wasn't there a thread that discussed how much better Twin Strike was over Careful Attack, and that it seemed that Careful Attack was nerfed too far to match up with the math?


----------



## Keenath

*Possible entry: sleep*

I think Sleep is missing an important clause.

Garrote Grip says, "...the target falls unconscious. If an unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious."

Knockout says, "...target is knocked unconscious (save ends). If the unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious."

Sleep says, "the target becomes unconscious (save ends)."

Sleep seems to be overpowered for a 1st level power.  *I think Sleep was meant to have that clause, "If the unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious."*

Circumstantial evidence:
Note that the June 7th D&D Game Day wizard had Sleep, and it said "...the target falls asleep" with no further explanation of what "sleeping" meant.  That probably means that pretty close to the printing date, they were intending "sleeping" to be a condition, but it was folded into "unconscious" at the last minute and nobody remembered to add the damage clause to the Sleep spell.


----------



## MindWanderer

Keenath said:
			
		

> I think Sleep is missing an important clause.
> 
> Garrote Grip says, "...the target falls unconscious. If an unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious."
> 
> Knockout says, "...target is knocked unconscious (save ends). If the unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious."
> 
> Sleep says, "the target becomes unconscious (save ends)."
> 
> Sleep seems to be overpowered for a 1st level power.  *I think Sleep was meant to have that clause, "If the unconscious target takes any damage, it is no longer unconscious."*
> 
> Circumstantial evidence:
> Note that the June 7th D&D Game Day wizard had Sleep, and it said "...the target falls asleep" with no further explanation of what "sleeping" meant.  That probably means that pretty close to the printing date, they were intending "sleeping" to be a condition, but it was folded into "unconscious" at the last minute and nobody remembered to add the damage clause to the Sleep spell.



 Probably not.  Mearls ran a DDXP session where the PCs put his black dragon to sleep, and he didn't wake it up on the first hit.


----------



## exodus747

*New Error page 79 Rain of steel*

Rain of Steel
Daily Martial,stance,weapon
Minor action Personal
Effect: Any enemy that starts its turn adjacent to you takes 1[w] damage, as long as you are able to make opportunity attacks.

3 things about this
1 If at the start of your turn u have 8 enemys around you they all take 1[w] damage just for standing there no rolls ? 
2 how long does this last as it reads "as long as you are able to make opportunity attacks" that would mean this lasts what till u get stunned or goto sleep (effective forever) ? 
more really it should last A. till the end of the encounter or B. untill the end of your next turn
3 if it is just an effect then why does it says fighter attack 5 and not fighter utility 5 

this is just one of the errors i noticed reading the book it is sad cuz i really like the new edition, however does anyone know if the collector edition is goin to have any error correction or if wizards ever releases a Fixed/patched book ?


----------



## catsclaw227

exodus747 said:
			
		

> Rain of Steel
> Daily Martial,stance,weapon
> Minor action Personal
> Effect: Any *enemy that starts its turn adjacent to you* takes 1[w] damage, as long as you are able to make opportunity attacks.



Emphasis mine.

This means that the damage doesn't happen on the Fighter's turn, but on the individual turns of the adjacent enemies.


----------



## Surgoshan

> how long does this last




It's a stance, so it lasts until the end of the encounter or until you adopt a different stance.


----------



## exodus747

*ok*

at the start of the enemies turn they just take damage no attack rolls 
so as i said if u have 8 enemeys around you they will all take 1[w] as soon as there turn starts this seems a little silly considering u should have to hit them if u are making weapon damage against them 
and since it is a stance i guess logically at the end of the encouter it would end but 
can u move and keep your stance ? 
can u use total deffense and keep your stance ? 
if u fall prone do u lose the effect for the rest of the round or just till u get up  ? 
is the key word stace in the PHB ? at all ?


----------



## Henrix

Can we please keep this thread to errata, and have the rules questions in other threads?


----------



## Mapache

exodus747 said:
			
		

> is the key word stace in the PHB ? at all ?




Page 55, where all the Keywords are located.  It lasts until end of encounter, five minutes have passed, or you activate another stance.  While it is active, you deal damage as long as you can make OAs.



			
				exodus747 said:
			
		

> 3 if it is just an effect then why does it says fighter attack 5 and not fighter utility 5




Because it's an effect that damages opponents.  More importantly, it takes an attack power slot, not a utility power slot.



			
				exodus747 said:
			
		

> this is just one of the errors i noticed reading the book




There are errors in the book, but this is not one of them.  Everything about this power works exactly as written.


----------



## NMcCoy

Page 55, under "keywords", oddly enough:

_Stance: A stance power lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes, or until you use another stance power._

At the start of an adjacent enemy's turn, if you are currently capable of making opportunity attacks, that enemy takes 1[W] damage. That's really all there is to it.



			
				Henrix said:
			
		

> Can we please keep this thread to errata, and have the rules questions in other threads?



*exodus747* seemed to think there was some error in this power, for some reason _("this is just one of the errors i noticed reading the book")_. But yes, I second this request.


----------



## Flazzy

DMG page 188 - Warlord's weapon proficiency: military ranged should be simple ranged.


----------



## Kingskin

MM - Page 278. Orcs don't have a line for skill bonuses.

I've checked all the other races in the PHB and MM and they all have at least one +2 bonus so I'm assuming it's a typo rather than intended. In my game we went for +2 Endurance and +2 Intimidate which seemed appropriate.


----------



## Particle_Man

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> PHB page 7 "Throughout the 1980s, the game experienced remarkable growth.  Novels, a cartoon series, computer games and the first campaign settings (Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance) were released,"
> 
> Does not mention the Greyhawk campaign setting, which I am pretty sure was released (as a boxed set) before Forgotten Realms and am certain was released before Dragonlance.




Was I wrong, or does this not count as errata?


----------



## Damador

its intentionally omitted (like ravenloft etc ) thay only named settings that they want to update to 4th edition ( FR eberron dragonlance and new one not yet discovered)


----------



## Falchieyan

PHB 179(typo): The second paragraph under the heading Knowledge Skills starts,
"The check DC increases based on the specific topic and how common the knowledge is.  The check DC increases based on the specific topic and how common the knowledge is."


----------



## Lucas Blackstone

Reliant Keyword pg. 55 of the PHB

" If you miss when using a reliable power, you don't expend the use of that power. "

Should read as....

" A reliable power is not expended unless it hits. "

Reasoning: A power like Thicket of Blades is reliable and attacks multiple targets. It is not intended to do 3w damage for multiple rounds, which the fighter could control by choosing to miss targets or imposing penalties on his attack rolls to ensure a miss.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Keenath said:
			
		

> I think Sleep is missing an important clause.




I'm not entirely convinced either way, but I'll add it to the list.  Garrote Grip seems like a pretty lame power, by the way.  You have to hold a grab for _three rounds_ before they fall unconscious?  I suppose you get cover and such... but still.



			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Was I wrong, or does this not count as errata?




Oh, sorry.  I meant to comment on that but I must have forgotten.  I'll just echo Damador in saying that I believe it was intentional, not an oversight (even though it may be not entirely accurate).


----------



## Prodigal_Sun

Hi, 
thanks for the good work since your errata seems to draw Wotc's attention. Maybe you could add this to the list?

PHB p.111 Under the daily exploit cruel cage of steel; A target hit three times is weakened and stunned until the end of your next turn.

Stunned doesn't grant the target any actions, so what's the benefit of having it weakened?


----------



## silentounce

Prodigal_Sun said:
			
		

> Hi,
> thanks for the good work since your errata seems to draw Wotc's attention. Maybe you could add this to the list?
> 
> PHB p.111 Under the daily exploit cruel cage of steel; A target hit three times is weakened and stunned until the end of your next turn.
> 
> Stunned doesn't grant the target any actions, so what's the benefit of having it weakened?




Perhaps certain creatures are immune to one of those two effects?  Then only the other would apply.


----------



## Prodigal_Sun

silentounce said:
			
		

> Perhaps certain creatures are immune to one of those two effects?  Then only the other would apply.




Good call, still my hart would rest easier if WotC clarified the intent of this power.


----------



## Gladius Legis

I got an official Customer Service response for Blade Ward's missing damage figure:



> Blade Ward, 4e
> 
> Discussion Thread
> Response (Support Agent)	06/15/2008 01:41 PM
> xxx,
> 
> This is a 1[W] damage power.
> 
> Good Gaming!
> 
> We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
> 
> To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
> 
> xxx
> Customer Service Representative
> Wizards of the Coast
> 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
> 425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
> Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST




1[W], eh? Pretty disappointing, actually. It doesn't seem that much better than the 3rd level power Disruptive Strike, but there you go.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Prodigal_Sun said:
			
		

> Hi,
> thanks for the good work since your errata seems to draw Wotc's attention. Maybe you could add this to the list?
> 
> PHB p.111 Under the daily exploit cruel cage of steel; A target hit three times is weakened and stunned until the end of your next turn.
> 
> Stunned doesn't grant the target any actions, so what's the benefit of having it weakened?




I agree that having both effects is redundant, but (as already noted) if a creature is immune to stun, they could still be weakened.

Someone should ask WotC Customer Service if that is what they intended, or if there is something that actually needs errata.  Until then I shan't put it in the first post.

In fact, maybe I should submit all the ones in blue and see what customer service says, we already got clarification on the Lay on Hands one from them...

Perhaps after class.


----------



## OakwoodDM

Does the Needlefang Drake Swarm qualify as something requiring errata? Cos the way it is at the moment, it far outstrips any other level 2 monsters. There's no way that thing's an appropriate challenge for anyone lower than about 7th level! It's not even Elite or Solo!


----------



## MeMeMeMe

I think you may be over-rating it. My 4 player group (Warlock, Paladin, Cleric, and Fighter) took on an encounter including needlfang drake swarm, 2 rat swarms, and the weakest flying drake and survived. They took out the needlefangs, one rat swarm, and the flying drake, and fled the remaining rat swarm.
If they'd had any burst or area effect attacks, they wouldn't have needed to run. A wizard would have been very handy.


----------



## OakwoodDM

What level were they? I only ask because my pair of players (Cleric and Rogue) got ripped apart by it in 2 rounds, having not hit it once. The encounter was with it, a Kruthik Hatchling (which went down first round without doing anything) and a Spiretop Drake. 256XP, should have been well within their capabilities, and would have been if they weren't subject, when the Needlefang had a go, to a knock prone attempt, followed by an attack for 2d10+4, followed at the start of their turn by another 2d10+4. Not many 1st level characters can survive if all that hits, and it's pretty likely to hit. The average damage for that's 30, which you have to be a fairly Con heavy fighter to have.


----------



## Keenath

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Probably not.  Mearls ran a DDXP session where the PCs put his black dragon to sleep, and he didn't wake it up on the first hit.



I don't know about that, but my friend informs me that the wizard character from the Game Day game had the sleep spell with the text "..the target falls asleep" rather than "..the target falls unconscious", and that the DM guide defined the sleep condition as ending with damage.

Honestly, I rather think Mearls' example should be telling; no party could beat the dragon unless they successfully Sleep'd it, and it was (as I recall) four levels higher, an overwhelming encounter... That suggests the way he was running Sleep was overpowered, doesn't it?  If it can allow the party to defeat a monster that could be defeated no other way?


----------



## infocynic

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> What level were they? I only ask because my pair of players (Cleric and Rogue) got ripped apart by it in 2 rounds, having not hit it once. The encounter was with it, a Kruthik Hatchling (which went down first round without doing anything) and a Spiretop Drake. 256XP, should have been well within their capabilities, and would have been if they weren't subject, when the Needlefang had a go, to a knock prone attempt, followed by an attack for 2d10+4, followed at the start of their turn by another 2d10+4. Not many 1st level characters can survive if all that hits, and it's pretty likely to hit. The average damage for that's 30, which you have to be a fairly Con heavy fighter to have.




As long as monsters with wildly inappropriate stats for their level are on the list, what about Zombie Rotters? Weaker than any 1st-level minion, and yet it's worth 1.5x the experience since it's level 3. At what point here are we straying too far from "clearly wrong or misleading" and into "possibly wrong", which we probably don't want to open up (yet) or at least not in this thread.


----------



## Henrix

I think the thread should keep to the errata - i.e. printing errors and obvious mistakes.

Discussions of whether monsters and powers are suitable for their level and such is not errata.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

Well, the Zombie Rotters are on my list of Minions with wrong math. A level 3 minion should have a +1 to all ability score modifiers. It's not there.
My list:
Cyclops Guard
Horde Ghoul
Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon
Hobgoblin Grunt
Hobgoblin Warrior
Grinlock Minion
Grimlock Follower
Human Rabble
Kruthik Hatchling
Orc Drudge
Orc Warrior
Troglodyte Warrior
Vampire Spawn Fleshripper
Yuan-ti Snaketongue Zealot
Zombie Rotter

There are Minions with working math, so it can't be exception-based design. (Also MM p. 7, Ability Scores: the adjusted ability score modifier includes one-half the monster's level) 

Except for the Abyssal Ghoul Hungerer and the Halfling Stout all Minions in MM with working math have these numbers as half their level: 0, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13.
It all would make sense if initially all minions were levels 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 and they just changed level, but not adjusted ability score modifiers. There ARE a lot less minions in-between these levels.


----------



## Harlock

In the equipment section Flask (Pint?) of Oil is omitted from the Adventuring Gear table as well as from Ranged Weapons table. However, Lantern is listed in the Adventuring Gear section and Lantern's entry in the Vision and Light section (page 262, PHB, 4th Ed.) specifically lists Lantern as lasting 8 hours/pint of oil.

I have contacted customer support regarding this and here is the reply:



			
				WOTC Customer Support said:
			
		

> "There are no rules for Flasks of oil, either as items to purchase or as grenade like weapons.
> Thanks for the great feedback! We’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign."




Hopefully this is remedied soonish.


----------



## MindWanderer

P. 28, Retraining:

It says that you can retrain heroic-tier feats into higher-tier feats, but it doesn't say the same about paragon-tier feats.  The way it's written, an optimizing player would have to hold on to as many heroic-tier feats as possible to retrain them into epic-tier feats, because heroic->paragon and heroic->epic work but not paragon->epic.


----------



## pukunui

EDIT: Nevermind. I should've read through the actual list of errata before posting. I was just going to comment on the dwarf with an identity crisis in the DMG but that's already been covered.

It's sad to see so much errata already.


----------



## Jimmer

*Warlord's Inspiring Word vs. Cleric's Healing Word*

Healing Word's Target line:
Target: You or one ally

should it be written as Inspiring Word?
Target: You or one ally in burst

Or is the area supposed to be different?


----------



## damiangerous

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> IThe rule reads okay, except those at-will powers already end at the end of your next turn without this ability. Flip the page and you can confirm it. Should it be at the end of the next turn after which the spell would normally have ended? (Or some statement which is less clumsy?)



That is correct as written.  You don't use the Orb on the turn you cast the spell.  You use the Orb on the turn the spell is going to expire.


----------



## Henrix

DMG, p.205 - Kelson the rogue.
Listed as a human rogue, but has the halfling _second chance_ ability. 
(It might be all right, of course, I suppose he could have that ability dspite not being a halfling. Or he could be a giant halfling, of course   )


----------



## Underage AOLer

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> P. 28, Retraining:
> 
> It says that you can retrain heroic-tier feats into higher-tier feats, but it doesn't say the same about paragon-tier feats.  The way it's written, an optimizing player would have to hold on to as many heroic-tier feats as possible to retrain them into epic-tier feats, because heroic->paragon and heroic->epic work but not paragon->epic.



Added.  Although I wouldn't say the RAW disallows retraining paragon feats, it should at least include them in the text to make it clear.



			
				Jimmer said:
			
		

> Healing Word's Target line:
> Target: You or one ally
> 
> should it be written as Inspiring Word?
> Target: You or one ally in burst
> 
> Or is the area supposed to be different?



I checked a few other Burst and Blast powers, and it looks like the "in burst" was missing from _healing word_ (rather than being unneeded in _inspiring word_).



			
				Henrix said:
			
		

> DMG, p.205 - Kelson the rogue.
> Listed as a human rogue, but has the halfling second chance ability.
> (It might be all right, of course, I suppose he could have that ability dspite not being a halfling. Or he could be a giant halfling, of course )



Good catch.  It looks like he was supposed to be a halfling (given his 20 Dexterity, _nimble reaction_, _second chance_... etc.) so that is the correction until WotC says otherwise.


----------



## Hambot

Does the actual book list stormcage, a spellstorm mage attack 11 power with burst 2 as having a outer perimeter of effect of 16 squares?

That's = burst 2 as under 3.5, not counting out from a central square as in 4e, giving a 5x5 perimeter.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

Hambot said:
			
		

> Does the actual book list stormcage, a spellstorm mage attack 11 power with burst 2 as having a outer perimeter of effect of 16 squares?
> 
> That's = burst 2 as under 3.5, not counting out from a central square as in 4e, giving a 5x5 perimeter.



Yes, and 16 squares is correct. 5x5 squares has exactly 16 on the outside, 5 to each side, but don't count the corners twice.


----------



## knizia.fan

*Efreet not in Monster Manual TOC*

MM p. 3  
Efreet is not listed in the table of contents.  (It's the only one missing as far as I can tell.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

This isn't an error, just something that needs clarifying.  Also, I've been out of the loop, so forgive me if this has been done to death already.

Invisibility and greater invisibility last until the end of your next turn or until the target attacks.  They also have "Sustain:" entries (standard and minor, respectively).  Does sustaining the power prevent a target from becoming visible when it attacks?


----------



## Beastman

p.62 Healing Word - question:

Original target: you or one ally

Corrected: you or one ally in burst

So my question: What's the point of the burst if only 1 target is affected? If the power is a burst, all allies (and you) within the burst should be healed, otherwise it would be a ranged X power? Please clarify / correct / enlighten me. Thanx.


----------



## JGulick

Beastman said:
			
		

> So my question: What's the point of the burst if only 1 target is affected? If the power is a burst, all allies (and you) within the burst should be healed, otherwise it would be a ranged X power? Please clarify / correct / enlighten me. Thanx.



Ranged would trigger OA, Close Burst does not.

[Edited to clarify Close Burst specifically, as that seems to matter.]


----------



## StormCrow42

Beastman said:
			
		

> So my question: What's the point of the burst if only 1 target is affected? If the power is a burst, all allies (and you) within the burst should be healed, otherwise it would be a ranged X power? Please clarify / correct / enlighten me. Thanx.




Burst effects don't provoke OAs, ranged ones do.


----------



## Oldtimer

StormCrow42 said:
			
		

> Burst effects don't provoke OAs, ranged ones do.



You are both right and wrong. Close attacks don't provoke OAs, Ranged ones do.

The shape of an AoE attack has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Lakkett

Possible typo:  The level 2 utility prayer Sacred Circle has Implement in the description.  The power has no attack rolls or damage rolls, which holy symbols augment, so an implement for this power shouldn't do anything, right?  Or by some chance would an implement actually augment the AC bonus?


----------



## Underage AOLer

knizia.fan said:
			
		

> MM p. 3
> Efreet is not listed in the table of contents.  (It's the only one missing as far as I can tell.)



Added.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This isn't an error, just something that needs clarifying. Also, I've been out of the loop, so forgive me if this has been done to death already.
> 
> Invisibility and greater invisibility last until the end of your next turn or until the target attacks. They also have "Sustain:" entries (standard and minor, respectively). Does sustaining the power prevent a target from becoming visible when it attacks?



I think Greater Invisibility's wording ("the power ends") makes it pretty clear that the power cannot be sustained after an attack, so I modified Invisibility's wording to match.



			
				Lakkett said:
			
		

> Possible typo: The level 2 utility prayer Sacred Circle has Implement in the description. The power has no attack rolls or damage rolls, which holy symbols augment, so an implement for this power shouldn't do anything, right? Or by some chance would an implement actually augment the AC bonus?



Added.


----------



## Henrix

Lakkett said:
			
		

> Possible typo:  The level 2 utility prayer Sacred Circle has Implement in the description.  The power has no attack rolls or damage rolls, which holy symbols augment, so an implement for this power shouldn't do anything, right?



A magic implement could have a power that would be usable - I don't think this is necessarily an issue for the errata, even though the implement often would be useless.


----------



## sirshandlar2

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> ✦ p.91: under _Lay on Hands_, on the Target line, replace "One creature" with "One ally" [Iku Rex, Nikosandros] <edited 16 June>




Um, when and where was this specified?  It looks like the WotC FAQ is still saying this:

----

9. Can a Paladin gain healing from his own lay on hands ability? 

Yes he can.

----

~SirShandlar


----------



## James McMurray

sirshandlar2 said:
			
		

> Um, when and where was this specified?  It looks like the WotC FAQ is still saying this:
> 
> ----
> 
> 9. Can a Paladin gain healing from his own lay on hands ability?
> 
> Yes he can.
> 
> ----
> 
> ~SirShandlar




Where's that FAQ at? The FAQ link on WotC's D&D page under Products only shows 3.5 FAQs.


----------



## StormCrow42

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Where's that FAQ at? The FAQ link on WotC's D&D page under Products only shows 3.5 FAQs.



http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396


----------



## Underage AOLer

Henrix said:
			
		

> A magic implement could have a power that would be usable - I don't think this is necessarily an issue for the errata, even though the implement often would be useless.




Good point, but I checked out all the other Utility powers and not one that I could see had the Implement Keyword, so it leads me to believe it is an error.  I made it blue anyway, until we get word from WotC.



			
				sirshandlar2 said:
			
		

> Um, when and where was this specified? It looks like the WotC FAQ is still saying this:




We've had a few different answers from customer service on that question, and coupled with the fact that the Healing Hands feat only gives it benefit to _allies_ healed with Lay on Hands, there was some disagreement.  Also, I didn't see that the FAQ had an answer for that particular issue... I guess I should read my own threads, huh?


----------



## redrover

*Silvered Missiles*

PHB p 220

Silvering arrows gives you a full quiver. Silvering stones gives you a full pouch. Silvering bolts gives you half a case.

Perhaps that "10" should be a "20"?


----------



## redrover

*MM Glossary*

cf:  p282 "minion" -- This suggests the term "standard" should be defined in the glossary, maybe something like:

*Standard:* A standard monster counts as one monster of its level for encounter building and rewards.


----------



## redrover

*DMG Action Example*

p42, col 2, para 2, DC 20

Seems to be a math error here--the DC should be 19, not 20.

base 15 + 4 (for half level) = 19

If the printed text was intentional, it both rounds off against the players and displays sloppy math. Both of these are unfortunate precedents to establish for DMs.


----------



## James McMurray

StormCrow42 said:
			
		

> http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396




Thanks!


----------



## silentounce

redrover said:
			
		

> p42, col 2, para 2, DC 20
> 
> Seems to be a math error here--the DC should be 19, not 20.
> 
> base 15 + 4 (for half level) = 19
> 
> If the printed text was intentional, it both rounds off against the players and displays sloppy math. Both of these are unfortunate precedents to establish for DMs.




Read the note at the bottom of the table at the bottom of that page.  They're not adding the half level modifier, they're adding the skill check modifier to the Easy DC from that table for a PC of 8th level.

No error.


----------



## Imban

Since it's a point of hilarity with my group, Eidolons, despite being statues, aren't immune to poison. We wrote in to CustServ and received the reply that this was an intentional omission (!) but with no explanation, and on a reply question of "...why?" we were told that it was being referred to the development staff, and have heard no official response.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Imban said:
			
		

> Since it's a point of hilarity with my group, Eidolons, despite being statues, aren't immune to poison. We wrote in to CustServ and received the reply that this was an intentional omission (!) but with no explanation, and on a reply question of "...why?" we were told that it was being referred to the development staff, and have heard no official response.




I believe it is because they tried to do away with blanket immunities.  Notice that undead are no longer immune to critical hits, and constructs are not immune to sleep.


----------



## Imban

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> I believe it is because they tried to do away with blanket immunities.  Notice that undead are no longer immune to critical hits, and constructs are not immune to sleep.




Yeah, but every single other construct is immune to disease and poison, except for warforged, which are explicitly living constructs and have a weird and involved explanation of why they are not.

So as it stands, you can't poison arcane stone golems, but you can poison divine stone golems.


----------



## Underage AOLer

Imban said:
			
		

> Yeah, but every single other construct is immune to disease and poison, except for warforged, which are explicitly living constructs and have a weird and involved explanation of why they are not.
> 
> So as it stands, you can't poison arcane stone golems, but you can poison divine stone golems.




I guess I didn't know that.  Odd.  We'll have to wait for the response I suppose?


----------



## Angrygodofmilk

Errata...

Encumbrance. I don't always use it, but when it crops up, I want it to make sense. Check out Carrying, Lifting, and Dragging on page 222 of the PH.

Encumbrance = Strength x10, x20, and x50 for a normal lord, heavy load (slowed), and maximum drag load (slowed and no difficult terrain) respectively.

Now apply those calculations to the heaviest and lightest PH races with average height and weight...

--Medium dragonborn; 6'5" tall; 270 pounds; 10 Strength.
--Small halfling; 4' tall; 80 pounds; 10 Strength.

Both of these races can carry exactly the same amount (100/200/500 lbs.). If that isn't nonsensical enough, the 10 Strength halfling (above) can carry 20 lbs. more than their own weight with the greatest of ease.

There's keeping the rules simple and then there's simplifying them too much. If encumbrance is so unimportant, then Wizards should at least base their calculations on character weight *and* Strength in some manner. Perhaps the printed ranges of character weight can be the base values for encumbrance.

If these encumbrance rules stand, not even a warhorse can carry a naked dragonborn of average weight more than 2 squares per move action (see Mounts and Transport, also on page 222 of the PH). In addition, while there is a +25% encumbrance modifier for quadrupeds, there are no multipliers for size.

I think encumbrance might of been one of those things that was overlooked in the final edit.


----------



## The_Fan

P. 80, "Come and Get It" Fighter attack 7. Nearly identical to the higher level power Warrior's Urging, which has the Charm keyword. This should also have the Charm keyword, or neither should.


----------



## Ziana

Noticed something interesting on p105:



> *Careful Attack*
> Hit: 1[W] damage (melee) or 1[W] damage (ranged).
> Increase damage to 2[W] (melee) or 2[W] (ranged) at 21st
> level.
> 
> *Twin Strike*
> Hit: 1[W] damage per attack.
> Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level.



It's like they meant to add Str/Dex modifier to Careful Attack, but forgot, or removed it and didn't reduce the Hit field to a single entry as it is with Twin Strike.

If damage is 1[W] for both melee and ranged, there's no reason to list them separately. Since Careful Attack is mathematically inferior to Twin Strike, it's very possible they omitted adding ability modifier damage here.


----------



## WotC_GregB

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> I believe it is because they tried to do away with blanket immunities.  Notice that undead are no longer immune to critical hits, and constructs are not immune to sleep.




Correct.


----------



## fba827

Perhaps a small oversight, but ...
PHB p49. No mention of age/lifespan for the Tielfing (though it is mentioned for all the other races)


----------



## pukunui

The scale for the map of Nentir Vale (which, btw, sounds too much like Elsir Vale for my tastes) on p. 206 of the DMG seems off. It states on p. 208 under "Dwarf" that Hammerfast is "a week's travel distant" from Fallcrest, but judging by the map's scale, even with a dwarf's slower overland travel speed, it would only take 4-5 days to travel from Fallcrest to Hammerfast.

Personally, I'm not surprised that the scale is off. WotC isn't all that good at marrying map scales with distances mentioned in fluff text. (They're also not all that good at keeping map scales consistent -- some of the close-up map scales in _Red Hand of Doom_ didn't match the main Elsir Vale map scale.)


----------



## Bigassgeek

*Wizards' Implement Mastery - Orb*

PHB pg. 157, describing the effects of using an orb as a Mastered Implement:

"Alternatively, you can choose to extend the duration of an effect created by a wizard at-will-spell (such as cloud of daggers or ray of frost) that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn.  The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn."

The problem is, the Cloud of Daggers and Ray of Frost spells effects already end at the end of the wizard's next turn.  Either the spell listings are incorrect, or the description of the effect of orb mastery is.


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

Bigassgeek said:
			
		

> PHB pg. 157, describing the effects of using an orb as a Mastered Implement:
> 
> "Alternatively, you can choose to extend the duration of an effect created by a wizard at-will-spell (such as cloud of daggers or ray of frost) that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn.  The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn."
> 
> The problem is, the Cloud of Daggers and Ray of Frost spells effects already end at the end of the wizard's next turn.  Either the spell listings are incorrect, or the description of the effect of orb mastery is.




You use the orb the round after you've used the at-will.


----------



## Oompa

Angrygodofmilk said:
			
		

> Errata...
> 
> Encumbrance. I don't always use it, but when it crops up, I want it to make sense. Check out Carrying, Lifting, and Dragging on page 222 of the PH.
> 
> Encumbrance = Strength x10, x20, and x50 for a normal lord, heavy load (slowed), and maximum drag load (slowed and no difficult terrain) respectively.
> 
> Now apply those calculations to the heaviest and lightest PH races with average height and weight...
> 
> --Medium dragonborn; 6'5" tall; 270 pounds; 10 Strength.
> --Small halfling; 4' tall; 80 pounds; 10 Strength.
> 
> Both of these races can carry exactly the same amount (100/200/500 lbs.). If that isn't nonsensical enough, the 10 Strength halfling (above) can carry 20 lbs. more than their own weight with the greatest of ease.
> 
> There's keeping the rules simple and then there's simplifying them too much. If encumbrance is so unimportant, then Wizards should at least base their calculations on character weight *and* Strength in some manner. Perhaps the printed ranges of character weight can be the base values for encumbrance.
> 
> If these encumbrance rules stand, not even a warhorse can carry a naked dragonborn of average weight more than 2 squares per move action (see Mounts and Transport, also on page 222 of the PH). In addition, while there is a +25% encumbrance modifier for quadrupeds, there are no multipliers for size.
> 
> I think encumbrance might of been one of those things that was overlooked in the final edit.




Maybe they just did it to make it easier.. And why shouldnt someone that is smaller be able to carry as much as an normal person? 
And as i can remember, it is stated in the phb what the carrying load is for an horse..


----------



## Oompa

Seeker_of_Truth said:
			
		

> You use the orb the round after you've used the at-will.




No you use the orb when the spell is cast, only it lasts an round longer..


----------



## James McMurray

Oompa said:
			
		

> No you use the orb when the spell is cast, only it lasts an round longer..






> Alternatively, you can choose to extend the duration
> of an effect created by a wizard at-will spell (such as
> cloud of daggers or ray of frost) that would otherwise end
> at the end of your current turn. The effect instead ends
> at the end of your next turn.




If you're using it on Ray of Frost or Cloud of Daggers, you have to wait until your next turn, because that's when the spell will "end at the end of your current turn."

I'll have to keep that in mind. I did it wrong last session, and it could save me an orb use in the future.


----------



## Angrygodofmilk

Oompa said:
			
		

> And why shouldnt someone that is smaller be able to carry as much as an normal person?



Since when has a 10 year old been able to carry the same amount as an adult? You can't divorce physical mass from the equation. That should go without saying.



			
				Oompa said:
			
		

> And as i can remember, it is stated in the phb what the carrying load is for an horse..



That was my point. A normal load for a warhorse (going by their Carrying Capacity on page 222 of the PH) is 262 pounds.

The average weight of a dragonborn (going by their racial entry on page 34 of the PH) is 270 pounds.

A warhorse is therefore always "slowed" (reduced to Speed 2) when mounted by a dragonborn of average weight ... and that's not even counting their equipment. I'm willing to bet that Wizards simply didn't put those two together before the PH was sent off to the printers.

Size matters. This problem is easily solved with an errata that adjusts the multipliers for normal loads, heavy loads, and maximum drag loads by creature size.


----------



## Cryptos

Don't know if this has been added yet:

Per a recent thread, someone had trouble interpreting the level 2 Wizard Utility Jump.

It's missing language that makes it clear how it is used in combat.

The Move Action appears to be so that the Wizard can use the spell as part of his action to jump.  But he can also use it on another creature.  It does not say whether this would be done on the creature's next athletics check, his next move action, or whether he gets a free jumping motion as soon as the wizard casts it on the wizard's turn.

It's not clear at all.

My belief is that it does not grant a free jumping move on the Wizard's turn if used on another creature in combat.  That's a bit much for a level 2 utility, as it would give both an enhancement and a free move.  Most level 2 utilities of that nature give one or the other - an enhancement bonus or an extra shift-like move, not both.

Thread Link 

(Incidentally, Cause Fear creates the same issues but I'd imagine it's already been mentioned.)


----------



## VannATLC

Angrygodofmilk said:
			
		

> Since when has a 10 year old been able to carry the same amount as an adult? You can't divorce physical mass from the equation. That should go without saying.
> 
> That was my point. A normal load for a warhorse (going by their Carrying Capacity on page 222 of the PH) is 262 pounds.
> 
> The average weight of a dragonborn (going by their racial entry on page 34 of the PH) is 270 pounds.
> 
> A warhorse is therefore always "slowed" (reduced to Speed 2) when mounted by a dragonborn of average weight ... and that's not even counting their equipment. I'm willing to bet that Wizards simply didn't put those two together before the PH was sent off to the printers.
> 
> Size matters. This problem is easily solved with an errata that adjusts the multipliers for normal loads, heavy loads, and maximum drag loads by creature size.




Actually, it really means that a Dragonborn needs something stronger than a horse.

A RL horse should carry no more than 20% of its bodyweight, or so. A charger or horse with similiar bone-density can hold a bit more, but not a lot. Clydesdale and similiar draught-horse breeds made good warhorse base stock, due to size/density and stamina.

You'll be damnably lucky to find a horse that can carry a 270lb weight for long, and once you add tack and gear, you're going to be breaking that horse. 

Sooo.. Dragonborn needs bigger/different mounts. Its not a problem with the Mounts carrying capacity.

Dragonborn are also freaking huge, the average weight being 120kgs.


----------



## Angrygodofmilk

VannATLC said:
			
		

> A RL horse should carry no more than 20% of its bodyweight, or so. A charger or horse with similiar bone-density can hold a bit more, but not a lot. Clydesdale and similiar draught-horse breeds made good warhorse base stock, due to size/density and stamina.



Without different Carrying Capacity multipliers for larger than Medium and smaller than Medium creatures, the encumbrance inconsistently gets progressively worse. For example, using the rules as printed, small kobolds and huge titans with the same Strength can supposedly carry the same amount of weight. Something tells me that kobolds can't quite hurl 2d8 damage rocks 20 squares in the same way that earth titans can, no matter how much a Strength a kobold gains...


----------



## Henrix

Can we please relegate the discussion of the encumbrance rules to another thread? It is clearly not just a printing error, and if it needs changing it is a rule change and not appropriate for this thread.


----------



## Underage AOLer

I've updated the first post, except for Cryptos' addition, which I'll get to after class.

As for those that dislike the encumbrance rules: I'll echo Henrix in saying that it seems like a discussion to be had in its own thread, and I shan't add it to the first post until someone from WotC comments.  Maybe it should be sent to customer service for an inquiry?

Good day.


----------



## loseth

I've been reverse engineering the humanoids in the MM and I think that the Bugbear Strangler's HP were hit by some sort of type-o or multiplication error:

The Bugear Strangler is one of three level 6 humanoid lurkers. They all have similar attack bonuses (10 or 11), but the Bugbear has slightly better damage, speed and defences. However, although almost all other humanoid lurkers conform exactly to the HP formula 6 + CON + 6/level, the Bugbear violates this formula severely (it's got 24 extra HP than you would expect using the formula). As this is not balanced by lower stats elsewhere (in fact, as mentioned above, the bugbear is slightly superior in its other stats), I have to assume it was an error.


----------



## Tharian

DMG, P200, stats for Barstomun Strongbeard

All attributes have the bonuses based as if the +0 is at 6 instead of 10 (basically 2 higher than they should be).

Same holds true for stats for the NPCs on pp. 203 (Orest Naerumar), 204 (Armos Kamroth), and 205 (Kelson).


----------



## infocynic

Tharian said:
			
		

> DMG, P200, stats for Barstomun Strongbeard
> 
> All attributes have the bonuses based as if the +0 is at 6 instead of 10 (basically 2 higher than they should be).
> 
> Same holds true for stats for the NPCs on pp. 203 (Orest Naerumar), 204 (Armos Kamroth), and 205 (Kelson).



 That's because enemies add half their level to their ability modifiers.


----------



## Tharian

infocynic said:
			
		

> That's because enemies add half their level to their ability modifiers.



Where is that from?  I know you would normally add half the level to attack bonuses, defense, etc.  I'm not seeing where they would add them to the attribute bonuses directly.  Is this just a shortcut way to track the totals?


----------



## infocynic

Tharian said:
			
		

> Where is that from?  I know you would normally add half the level to attack bonuses, defense, etc.  I'm not seeing where they would add them to the attribute bonuses directly.  Is this just a shortcut way to track the totals?



 It's in the beginning of the MM if I recall correctly. In the interest of getting you a response before enworld goes away, I didn't stop to look it up, since I'm off for the night.


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

*Suggested Errata*

Page 160 Flaming Sphere

Since the wizards update makes this no longer occupy a square it needs text that makes it occupy a square.  Not sure if it should block movement.


----------



## jaldaen

Does anyone know how the Student of the Faith feat's Divine Challenge works? I know WotC clarified that the Ranger's Hunter's Quary is 1/encounter "until the end of your next turn." But my question is does Divine Challenge work the same way "until the end of your next turn" or does it last for the rest of the encounter/until the target is marked by someone else? I seems the latter in the PHB, but the clarification of the Warrior of the Wild feat's benefit makes me wonder if that's not how things work. Thanks.


----------



## Xane

*Cover Rules*

Ok, take 2.  It took me forever to write this blasted reply and I got logged out while I was writing it and lost the first copy.  ARG!  That goes to show... write your long winded replies in notepad first!!  Anyway...

On page 280 under "Determining Cover" it says, "A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square."  It seems that the rules of determining line of effect are inferred from the rule for determining line of sight, which makes sense.  It says (page 273), "To determine whether you can see [or have line effect to] a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see [or have line of effect to] the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object..."

On page 281 there is a diagram that shows the example of a Burst 2 effect (a 5x5 square effect).  It would be really hard for me to describe what I'm trying to say in writing, so I'll make my own little 5x5 diagrams to illustrate what I'm trying to convey.  a = affected square, x = non-affected square, o = obstruction

The diagram in the example is as follows:

x   x   a   o   a
x   o   a   a   a
x   o   a   a   a
a   a   a   a   a
a   a   a   o   o

This is what I think it ought to be by my reckoning of the rules:

x   a   a   o   a
x   o   a   a   a
a   o   a   a   a
a   a   a   a   a
a   a   a   o   o

I replaced 2 of the x's with a's.  The upper x=a because I can trace an imaginary line from the chosen origin square's corner to the target square in question without touching an obstacle.  The lower x=a because the imaginary line runs along the edge of the wall, so it isn't considered blocked for determining whether the target square in question is affected by the burst.  Now, I don't think that it makes a whole lot of sense that a square that's directly on the other side of a wall from the origin square is affected by a burst, so I think some errata needs to be written...

In this same vein, I would also like to propose some errata.  All the examples seem to suggest that you determine line of sight/effect by tracing an imaginary line from a chosen corner of the origin square to any one of the corners of the target square.

The rules say (page 273),
"...pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space..."

The ought to say,
"...pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any corner of the target’s space..."

This change makes sense to me because there are an infinite number of lines from a corner of one square to any part of another square.  This change is further reinforced by the following rule on page 281, "If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."  If you were to follow both rules as written, then any kind of obstruction, no matter how small, would provide superior cover!

Moreover the following rule,
"If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."

Ought to say,
"If three of those lines are blocked, the target has superior cover. If all four lines are blocked, you don't have line of effect."

Since there are only 4 imaginary lines that can be drawn from the chosen origin square corner to any of the target square's corners, then you wouldn't have line of effect if all 4 lines are blocked.

In summary, if one or two lines are blocked the target has cover.  If three lines are blocked the target has superior cover.  If all four lines are blocked, then you don't have line of effect.  This falls in line with the line of effect rules (page 273), "If every imaginary line you trace to a target passes through or touches a solid obstacle, you don’t have line of effect to the target."

Let me know what you all think!  Thanks!


----------



## Cavalorn

There seems to be an attack roll missing from the Killing Dark power common to both the Dark Creeper and Dark Stalker. The text in each is identical, suggesting the error was propagated across with a simple c&p; the Dark Stalker text states that 'when slain, a dark creeper explodes in a spout of darkness'. Obviously, this should be Dark Stalker.

The other interpretation is to see the attack as autohit, but seeing as it confers a fairly nasty status effect (blinded), I doubt this was the intention. ('Let's bombard the Tarrasque with Dark Creepers and keep it blinded!')


----------



## StormCrow42

jaldaen said:


> Does anyone know how the Student of the Faith feat's Divine Challenge works? I know WotC clarified that the Ranger's Hunter's Quary is 1/encounter "until the end of your next turn." But my question is does Divine Challenge work the same way "until the end of your next turn" or does it last for the rest of the encounter/until the target is marked by someone else? I seems the latter in the PHB, but the clarification of the Warrior of the Wild feat's benefit makes me wonder if that's not how things work. Thanks.




Divine Challenge already needs renewed each turn, so it never would last until the end of the encounter.  You get to issue it once per combat.

Edit: Ok, I've misremembered, forget all of this


----------



## knizia.fan

Xane said:


> The diagram in the example is as follows:
> 
> x   x   a   o   a
> x   o   a   a   a
> x   o   a   a   a
> a   a   a   a   a
> a   a   a   o   o
> 
> This is what I think it ought to be by my reckoning of the rules:
> 
> x   a   a   o   a
> x   o   a   a   a
> a   o   a   a   a
> a   a   a   a   a
> a   a   a   o   o
> 
> I replaced 2 of the x's with a's.  The upper x=a because I can trace an imaginary line from the chosen origin square's corner to the target square in question without touching an obstacle.




The diagram in the book is correct.  The 2 squares you mention are outside of the burst not because of cover, but because they are out of range.  To go around the corner of a wall, you can't go diagonally.  PHB p. 273 says you count range from the origin by taking one step to _all_ adjacent squares (allowing you to cut corners only for the first step), and then count further steps normally (without diagonally cutting corners).  So those 2 squares are at a range of 3 from the origin square.  The statue doesn't fill its square like a wall, so you can count through its space.



Xane said:


> The lower x=a because the imaginary line runs along the edge of the wall, so it isn't considered blocked for determining whether the target square in question is affected by the burst. Now, I don't think that it makes a whole lot of sense that a square that's directly on the other side of a wall from the origin square is affected by a burst, so I think some errata needs to be written...




Actually, if the only line you can draw to the target square passes along a wall, you don't have line of effect.  The rules say the line is blocked if it passes through _or touches_ a blocking obstacle.  (It seems that that the 3.5E concept of a spread no longer exists in 4E -- no more fireballs going around corners.)



Xane said:


> In this same vein, I would also like to propose some errata.  All the examples seem to suggest that you determine line of sight/effect by tracing an imaginary line from a chosen corner of the origin square to any one of the corners of the target square.
> 
> The rules say (page 273),
> "...pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space..."
> 
> The ought to say,
> "...pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any corner of the target’s space..."
> 
> This change makes sense to me because there are an infinite number of lines from a corner of one square to any part of another square.  This change is further reinforced by the following rule on page 281, "If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."  If you were to follow both rules as written, then any kind of obstruction, no matter how small, would provide superior cover!




I think the rules are OK as written.  You seem to be mixing up line-of-sight/line-of-effect with cover, but the rules are slightly different for those two concepts.  PHB p. 273 is about line-of-sight/line-of-effect.  If you can draw a line to any point of a square, even if all the corner points are blocked, you can target that square with an effect.

PHB p. 281 is about cover.  Superior cover only checks to see if lines to the target square's _corners_ are blocked.  So no, a small obstruction doesn't automatically provide superior cover, because we're not checking every single line of sight to see if 4 are blocked.  We only check the 4 lines to the corners.



Xane said:


> Moreover the following rule,
> "If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."
> 
> Ought to say,
> "If three of those lines are blocked, the target has superior cover. If all four lines are blocked, you don't have line of effect."
> 
> Since there are only 4 imaginary lines that can be drawn from the chosen origin square corner to any of the target square's corners, then you wouldn't have line of effect if all 4 lines are blocked.
> 
> In summary, if one or two lines are blocked the target has cover.  If three lines are blocked the target has superior cover.  If all four lines are blocked, then you don't have line of effect.  This falls in line with the line of effect rules (page 273), "If every imaginary line you trace to a target passes through or touches a solid obstacle, you don’t have line of effect to the target."




You can have all 4 target space corners blocked but still have line of effect. For example, an archer behind an arrow slit would have all of her space's corners blocked, but one would still have line of effect to her space. She has superior cover, but one can still shoot her or throw a spell at her.  The arrow slit is the classic example of the difference between cover and line of effect.  It's harder to show this happening on a map, but you could have:



		Code:
	

. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . w
. X . . . . . . . . .
m . . X . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .


If I've drawn this right, the walls 'X' keep the wizard 'w' from drawing a line to any corner of the monster's 'm' space, but he can still draw a line to the middle of the right edge of the 'm' space.  So 'w' has line-of-effect to 'm', but 'm' has superior cover from 'w'.

-- k.fan


----------



## knizia.fan

jaldaen said:


> Does anyone know how the Student of the Faith feat's Divine Challenge works? I know WotC clarified that the Ranger's Hunter's Quary is 1/encounter "until the end of your next turn." But my question is does Divine Challenge work the same way "until the end of your next turn" or does it last for the rest of the encounter/until the target is marked by someone else? I seems the latter in the PHB, but the clarification of the Warrior of the Wild feat's benefit makes me wonder if that's not how things work. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> StormCrow42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divine Challenge already needs renewed each turn, so it never would last until the end of the encounter.  You get to issue it once per combat.
Click to expand...



The mark from Divine Challenge doesn't need to be renewed each turn.  The power is clear that the target remains marked as long as you meet the conditions in the power.

The wording on the damage is badly written.  It's not clear to me whether it only kicks in once, or every turn.  Whichever way they wanted it to work, there would be better ways to say it.  So maybe it doesn't repeat until you reapply the challenge.

And actually, you _can't_ renew Divine Challenge each turn, at least not on the same target.  See the Special section in the power.  

So this leaves us in a very confusing spot.  If you're fighting one opponent, how can you get the damage to apply for more than one turn?  If "the first time ... before the start of your next turn" means it only happens once, then you actually have to step away from the enemy, let the Challenge expire, wait a turn because if you let it expire then you're not allowed to use it again right away, and then finally reapply it.  Blech.  The ugliness of that makes me believe the power is meant to apply the damage every turn if the conditions kick in.  But they should correct the phrasing here, or issue a FAQ to clarify it.

To answer jaldaen, as the rules are currently written, the multiclass Divine Challenge can keep a target marked for the whole encounter if you meet the conditions.  That makes it more powerful than the other multiclass powers, so they probably didn't want it to work that way.  But that's what the rules say at the moment.

-- k.fan


----------



## bardolph

Underage AOLer said:


> ✦ p.77: under the Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics table it says, "Polearm: Wisdom [and rarely Dexterity]", there are no polearm exploits that take advantage of Wisdom, and only one that uses Dexterity [Diirk]



The Paragon Tier feat, Polearm Gamble, requires a Wisdom of 15.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld

VannATLC said:


> Actually, it really means that a Dragonborn needs something stronger than a horse.
> 
> A RL horse should carry no more than 20% of its bodyweight, or so. A charger or horse with similiar bone-density can hold a bit more, but not a lot. Clydesdale and similiar draught-horse breeds made good warhorse base stock, due to size/density and stamina.
> 
> You'll be damnably lucky to find a horse that can carry a 270lb weight for long, and once you add tack and gear, you're going to be breaking that horse.
> 
> Sooo.. Dragonborn needs bigger/different mounts. Its not a problem with the Mounts carrying capacity.
> 
> Dragonborn are also freaking huge, the average weight being 120kgs.




They forgot to include stats for the equort...


----------



## Andor

The damage example on page 276 makes reference to an earlier version of the thundering longsword. They no longer have an encounter power that adds 10 thunder damage and a 1 square push. It is now a Daily power that adds 1d8 Thunder damage and a 1 square push.


----------



## fba827

PHB p111
Wounding Whirlwind, add line  Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.

PHB p113
Wandering Tornado, add line  Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.

(while it seems implied and reasonable for both instances given the hit and damage lines, it is not stated even though it is stated for all the other burst/blast abilities that are two weapon / ranged weapon specific.  There may be others but those are the two I noticed)


----------



## Underage AOLer

Seeker_of_Truth said:


> Page 160 Flaming Sphere
> 
> Since the wizards update makes this no longer occupy a square it needs text that makes it occupy a square.  Not sure if it should block movement.




I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  I looked at the Update and there was no mention of Flaming Sphere, so perhaps you could elaborate?


			
				Cavalorn said:
			
		

> There seems to be an attack roll missing from the Killing Dark power common to both the Dark Creeper and Dark Stalker. The text in each is identical, suggesting the error was propagated across with a simple c&p; the Dark Stalker text states that 'when slain, a dark creeper explodes in a spout of darkness'. Obviously, this should be Dark Stalker.
> 
> The other interpretation is to see the attack as autohit, but seeing as it confers a fairly nasty status effect (blinded), I doubt this was the intention. ('Let's bombard the Tarrasque with Dark Creepers and keep it blinded!')




There are a few other "when <monster> reaches 0 hit points" that are automatic hits, but not many.  I'm inclined to err on the side of no correction until I hear otherwise from WotC, or if you have a justification why _all_ the autohits that are missing an attack vs. something are incorrect.

I've updated the first post with some new additions.  Thanks again to everyone for pointing them out.


----------



## infocynic

Underage AOLer said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  I looked at the Update and there was no mention of Flaming Sphere, so perhaps you could elaborate?




Flaming Sphere is a conjuration. Conjurations now no longer take up space unless explicitly stated (due to errata). It makes some logical sense that a Flaming Sphere would take up space (but logic != D&D in all cases), and that there could be stated effects for movement into/through its square (forced or otherwise). But whether that's really a problem or not...


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

infocynic said:


> Flaming Sphere is a conjuration. Conjurations now no longer take up space unless explicitly stated (due to errata). It makes some logical sense that a Flaming Sphere would take up space (but logic != D&D in all cases), and that there could be stated effects for movement into/through its square (forced or otherwise). But whether that's really a problem or not...




What he said ... the fact that a flaming sphere has a size "medium" and must be conjured originally into an unoccupied square implies that it should occupy a square.  As it is now since it only damages adjacent squares and doesn't occpy a square there's a 'safe square' in the middle of the sphere which is just silly.


----------



## WotC_GregB

Hey folks,

Just wanted to say thanks for your continued vigilance. I am continuing to monitor this thread. We have reviewed all the issues raised here and you can expect another update soon.

-Greg


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

wotc_gregb said:


> hey folks,
> 
> just wanted to say thanks for your continued vigilance. I am continuing to monitor this thread. We have reviewed all the issues raised here and you can expect another update soon.
> 
> -greg




*great news!!!!*


----------



## Ganadai

Question: 
Is each additional Quarry subject to the extra damage each round? IE: does only one Quarry take the damage, which is one reading of the rules on page 104, or does each Quarry that you attack that round take the extra damage?

Customer service response:
If you have multiple Quarries, and you hit multiple Quarries, you choose which one takes the extra damage.

PHB pg. 104

"If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled."

Should read

"If you attack multiple quarries in a round, you decide which quarry to apply the extra damage to."

The fact that you can make multiple attacks, and that the attacks are rolled is totally irrelevant to the situation.


----------



## StormCrow42

Ganadai said:


> Question:
> Is each additional Quarry subject to the extra damage each round? IE: does only one Quarry take the damage, which is one reading of the rules on page 104, or does each Quarry that you attack that round take the extra damage?
> 
> Customer service response:
> If you have multiple Quarries, and you hit multiple Quarries, you choose which one takes the extra damage.
> 
> PHB pg. 104
> 
> "If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled."
> 
> Should read
> 
> "If you attack multiple quarries in a round, you decide which quarry to apply the extra damage to."
> 
> The fact that you can make multiple attacks, and that the attacks are rolled is totally irrelevant to the situation.




You're missing the point of this rule.  This rule allows you to decide to apply your Hunter's Quarry to the attack roll that was a critical hit, therefore maximizing it with the crit.


----------



## silentounce

StormCrow42 said:


> You're missing the point of this rule.  This rule allows you to decide to apply your Hunter's Quarry to the attack roll that was a critical hit, therefore maximizing it with the crit.




No, the only thing you maximize with a crit is the weapon damage.  You don't maximize sneak attack damage or any additional rolls like that.  The Hunter's Quarry is "extra damage."  You only maximize damage that "you can roll with
your attack."  Also, since you apply the HQ damage AFTER the attack is rolled, it couldn't benefit from the maximized damage any way.  In any case, they should have explained this better because I can see how you got your interpretation.

However, I have a feeling that you'll disagree.


----------



## Oldtimer

silentounce said:


> No, the only thing you maximize with a crit is the weapon damage.  You don't maximize sneak attack damage or any additional rolls like that.  The Hunter's Quarry is "extra damage."  You only maximize damage that "you can roll with
> your attack."  Also, since you apply the HQ damage AFTER the attack is rolled, it couldn't benefit from the maximized damage any way.



You are misinformed about how crit damage works. Everything is maximized except any dice rolled due to the hit being a crit. This has been clarified more than once.


----------



## silentounce

Oldtimer said:


> You are misinformed about how crit damage works. Everything is maximized except any dice rolled due to the hit being a crit. This has been clarified more than once.




Well, I'm sorry that I missed it then "more than once."  I can believe that, but can you show me where this has been clarified?  Just telling me that I'm wrong isn't much help.

Because that's not how I read it in the book.  And I just reread it when I made that post.  Also, part of my point was that the HQ damage is applied AFTER the attack.  It's extra damage.  It doesn't even say that the attack is required to hit.  That's ridiculous.  It seems to me, RAW, that you'll damage your HQ target every round as long as you attack it even if you miss.


UPDATE:  This is under the Critical section, pg 278 PHB. 
"*Extra Damage: *Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. *If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage;* you add the result of the roll."

Bolding was mine.  Look at the HQ definition on page 104. "Once per round, you deal *extra damage *to your quarry."  Yes, I know that magic weapons, implements, and high crit weapons were the only things mentioned, but the section is titled, "Extra Damage".

Emphasis mine.


----------



## Ganadai

StormCrow42 said:


> You're missing the point of this rule.  This rule allows you to decide to apply your Hunter's Quarry to the attack roll that was a critical hit, therefore maximizing it with the crit.




It doesn't actually say that anywhere, your just interpreting it that way, because that's what the rule implies.  However, the rule as written also implies that if you have multiple quarries, and hit them all with a single attack like Quarry’s Bane, you can apply the damage from Hunter's Quarry to all the quarries hit by the attack.  The rule needs to be clarified because dozens of people have posted asking if Hunter's Quarry + Battlefield Experience + Quarry's bane = uber damage against all 5+ of your quarry, but it doesn't as customer service has pointed out.

The fact that you can make multiple attacks, and that the attacks are rolled is totally irrelevant to the situation.  You always apply the damage once a round to a single quarry.  Which attack is totally up to you and does not need to be stated because it is irrelevant.

[EDIT] If you want to argue this further I suggest we take it to one of the other dozens of Hunter's Quarry threads.
[/EDIT]


----------



## Ganadai

silentounce said:


> UPDATE:  This is under the Critical section, pg 278 PHB.
> "*Extra Damage: *Magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons, can increase the damage you deal when you score a critical hit. *If this extra damage is a die roll, it’s not automatically maximum damage;* you add the result of the roll."
> 
> Bolding was mine.  Look at the HQ definition on page 104. "Once per round, you deal *extra damage *to your quarry."  Yes, I know that magic weapons, implements, and high crit weapons were the only things mentioned, but the section is titled, "Extra Damage".




The term "extra damage" here refers to damage you roll after you score a critical hit.  You do not roll the extra damage from magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons until after scoring the critical hit.  You roll the damage from hunter's quarry, sneak attack,  etc. before scoring the critical.

Quote from this thread.


			
				Customer Service said:
			
		

> Q: On a critical hit, are the die rolls for Sneak Attack or Hunter's Quarry maximized as well?
> 
> A: Yes, both of those attack types are maximized. What is NOT maximized is the any damage that is assigned from a magical weapon on critical hits only. Those are listed with each weapon type and rolled each time a critical is landed. For instance if you take a look at Vicious Weapons it deals 1d12 per plus on a critical. A +4 vicious weapon deals max damage + random 4d12 roll.


----------



## silentounce

Ganadai said:


> The term "extra damage" here refers to damage you roll after you score a critical hit.  You do not roll the extra damage from magic weapons and implements, as well as high crit weapons until after scoring the critical hit.  You roll the damage from hunter's quarry, sneak attack,  etc. before scoring the critical.
> 
> Quote from this thread.




Thanks, but having seen how inconsistent CS reps are in their answers to questions I take what they say only as a recommendation.  I've seen too many CS reps give conflicting responses to the same questions.  Enhanced Spellbook and replacement powers for one example.

But this thread isn't for this type of discussion so let's just leave me to wallow in my ignorance.


----------



## redrover

*More on Equipment*

*p222. Equipment Table*

  Here is a list of unanswered equipment questions from the table on p222.

  1. *Backpack (empty): *How much does it hold (in volume and weight)?


  2. *Flint** & Steel:* What type of action is used to light a fire or a torch in combat? Is there a success roll and, if so, what is a fair standard default?

  (The question of whether or not we are going to see Ed. 3.0 _tindertwigs_ may bear on this answer.)

  3. *Chest (empty):* How much does it hold (in volume and weight)?

  4. *Grappling Hook*: How far can you throw a grappling hook with a line attached? What is a good default number for a successful throw that anchors a rope for climbing?

  5. *Flask (empty):* How much does it hold (in volume and weight)?

  6. *Spellbook: * These are available, and wizards presumably write in them. Quills/pens/ink are not on the equipment list. Are they free? If not, how much do they cost?

  7. *Tent:* How many characters can sleep in this tent? (One? Two? More?)



Slightly off-topic, but should be noted:

*Waterskin:* How much liquid does this hold? (If you assume the weight is for a full skin, it works out to about two quarts, but this should have been made explicit.)

  Some info is buried on p262 of the PH—not much use to players who have to find the information in a hurry, or those new to the books.

*Candle*: How long does it burn? How much light does it produce?
*Lantern:* How long does a flask of oil last? How much light does the lantern produce? (The absence of oil flasks has been noted already.)

  While many experienced DMs can easily deal with these, failure to define  basic equipment functions is something of a design gaffe. Also, if no defaults are provided, what happens when you want a group of DMs ruling the same way (as in a tournament event)?


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

silentounce said:


> Thanks, but having seen how inconsistent CS reps are in their answers to questions I take what they say only as a recommendation. I've seen too many CS reps give conflicting responses to the same questions. Enhanced Spellbook and replacement powers for one example.
> 
> But this thread isn't for this type of discussion so let's just leave me to wallow in my ignorance.




I doubt it will change anyone's opinion, but it's covered in the FAQ http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...y5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1


----------



## silentounce

Seeker_of_Truth said:


> I doubt it will change anyone's opinion, but it's covered in the FAQ http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...y5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1




Thank you, it's been a while since I looked at that.  But that just proves my argument about CS.  You can find threads on here that gave different answers from them about the Spellbook issues.  But thanks for that.  Hmm... it appears that they answer the crit issue as well, maybe that's what you were talking about.

"11. Which dice do I maximize when scoring a critical hit?

    "Only the dice you would normally roll to calculate damage are maximized.  If another bonus (like from a weapon or feat) causes you to roll extra damage dice when scoring a critical hit, those dice are rolled as normal. "

Looks to me like HQ wouldn't be maximized because you woulndn't "normally" roll them as party of the attack.

Thanks again!!!


----------



## Henrix

silentounce said:


> "11. Which dice do I maximize when scoring a critical hit?
> 
> "Only the dice you would normally roll to calculate damage are maximized.  If another bonus (like from a weapon or feat) causes you to roll extra damage dice when scoring a critical hit, those dice are rolled as normal. "




On a normal hit, i.e. not a critical hit, the dice for sneak attack or hunter's quarry would be rolled, they are not extra damage due to it being a critical hit. Thus sneak attack and hunter's quarry are maximised on a critical.

The extra dice a magical weapon gives when scoring  a critical hit are not maximised.

But, please argue about this in another thread - there have been and will probably be others specifically about this. Keep this thread for errata.


----------



## hyphz

Errata submission:

On page 197, in the table of Feats, for Potent Challenge, "Add Con modifier damage to target hit with opportunity attack" should read "Add Con modifier damage to target hit with attack from Combat Challenge class feature" to match actual feat.


----------



## Fedifensor

*Wizard of the Spiral Tower*

There are a few separate issues involving the Wizard of the Spiral Tower, all revolving around *Corellon's Implement*.



> *Corellon's Implement*:  Choose an arcane implement _that you specialize in,_ whether the wand, staff, or orb.



This means that anyone who multiclasses into wizard cannot utilize this class feature.  While this may not be an error, if this is by design then the Paragon Path should have the prerequisite "specialized in an arcane implement".



> You can use a longsword _as if it were that type of arcane implement_



Per the rules for Reading a Magic Item, specifically the Power section (page 226), the keywords of the longsword's power can be attached to any spell cast that uses the longsword as an implement.  For example, a frost longsword can be used to make _any_ spell cast have the cold keyword, and thus activate feats like Wintertouched and Lasting Frost.  Is this intentional?



> _when casting your spells._



Last issue - in addition to not working for multiclassers, this class feature doesn't even work with specialized implements as written.  None of the Staff of Defense features can be used with the longsword, effectively negating the specialization that is required to use this class feature.  Furthermore, the ability of the Orb of Imposition to extend an at-will spell effect is done separate from the casting of the spell, and thus would not work.  That's one implement that is completely useless, and a second which is limited.  Only the Wand of Accuracy works at full effect with this feature.  

I would highly recommend that the wording be changed to allow full use of Corellon's Implement with a single specialized implement, or perhaps even allowing multiclass wizards to benefit (as not allowing them to do so limits options for the classic 'gish').


----------



## clydesdale4437

*Pages 161 and 166*

Both Stinking Cloud (161) and Cloudkill (166) are described as thick clouds in their descriptive text, but only Stinking Cloud (the lower level of the two) blocks line of sight.


----------



## pukunui

The text on pg. 261 of the PHB refers to a "Base Exploration Speed table" at least 4 times. I think this should actually read "Base Overland Speed table".


----------



## Grandpa

Not sure if this was caught:

PHB, P. 149 Make Them Bleed
Attack Type is empty. Add "*Melee* weapon"


----------



## firesnakearies

Underage AOLer said:


> ✦ p.102: under _Healing Font_, on the Effect line, replace “points equal to 1d6 [ts] your Wisdom modifier” with “points equal to 1d6 x your Wisdom modifier” [bobthehappyzombie]




I don't believe this correction is right.  I think it's meant to be 1d6 PLUS Wisdom modifier, not TIMES.  Given the relative power of other abilities around that level, the fact that it lasts for the whole encounter, and the fact that it is bonus "free" healing that doesn't use any healing surges, it would be too overpowered if it was multiplication rather than addition.


----------



## Belares

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underage AOLer  
✦ p.102: under Healing Font, on the Effect line, replace “points equal to 1d6 [ts] your Wisdom modifier” with “points equal to 1d6 x your Wisdom modifier” [bobthehappyzombie] 

I don't believe this correction is right. I think it's meant to be 1d6 PLUS Wisdom modifier, not TIMES. Given the relative power of other abilities around that level, the fact that it lasts for the whole encounter, and the fact that it is bonus "free" healing that doesn't use any healing surges, it would be too overpowered if it was multiplication rather than addition.

I DO believe that its is 1d6 x your Wis. Modifer. As at that level healing surges can be do a lot of healing. Lets say you have a Wisdom modifer of +7 and you roll a 6 that is 42 which is comparable to a healing surge of that level.


----------



## Stalker0

"p.77: under the Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics table it says, "Polearm: Wisdom [and rarely Dexterity]", there are no polearm exploits that take advantage of Wisdom, and only one that uses Dexterity [Diirk]"

While this is true as far as powers go, there are feats (such as polearm gamble) that rely on high wisdom and spear mastery that rely on high dex. I don't believe this needs errata.


----------



## Runestar

Must a push be in a straight line, or am I allowed to zig-zag the foe in and out of a wall of fire, so long as each square he moves brings him further away from me?


----------



## pukunui

Stalker0 said:


> "p.77: under the Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics table it says, "Polearm: Wisdom [and rarely Dexterity]", there are no polearm exploits that take advantage of Wisdom, and only one that uses Dexterity [Diirk]"
> 
> While this is true as far as powers go, there are feats (such as polearm gamble) that rely on high wisdom and spear mastery that rely on high dex. I don't believe this needs errata.



Me neither. I'm guessing we'll see more powers that use wisdom and dexterity in the _Martial Power_ book. What people have to keep in mind is that the PHB is just laying down the ground rules. They couldn't possibly have fit absolutely everything into that book. It would have ended up looking like a dictionary if they'd tried. And it would have cost as much too.


----------



## JGulick

Runestar said:


> Must a push be in a straight line, or am I allowed to zig-zag the foe in and out of a wall of fire, so long as each square he moves brings him further away from me?




I don't know how this is Errata... the rules in no way imply the requirement of a straight line that I can see.

The only restrictions in the rules are the need to move further away (and only movement along the longer axis matters due to the diagonal counting rule) and maintain LoE to the destination square.  Wall of Fire doesn't block LoE (just LoS), so the idea of pushing someone thru a WoF several times with one push is possible.

The DMG expansion on the "Catching Yourself" rule to reflect Hazardous Terrain, however, strongly implies a save each square of the push which would result in damage, limiting this strategy somewhat.


----------



## infocynic

JGulick said:


> I don't know how this is Errata... the rules in no way imply the requirement of a straight line that I can see.
> 
> The only restrictions in the rules are the need to move further away (and only movement along the longer axis matters due to the diagonal counting rule) and maintain LoE to the destination square.  Wall of Fire doesn't block LoE (just LoS), so the idea of pushing someone thru a WoF several times with one push is possible.
> 
> The DMG expansion on the "Catching Yourself" rule to reflect Hazardous Terrain, however, strongly implies a save each square of the push which would result in damage, limiting this strategy somewhat.



As a DM I would certainly rule that your push must go in a path that does not reverse direction... that is, if you move "East" with the first move, you can then move "North", "South", "Northeast", "Southeast" or continue "East" (which doesn't change anything, just brings you back here). After selecting North(east) or South(east) you are locked into those two directions and their diagonal. You can't push someone East, Northeast, Southeast (unless the effect is one by which you can follow them in which case I would rule that you are pushing them one square at a time and shifting to follow, and each square is indepenent). Likewise pulls follow the same rules. Slides are immune to restrictions.


----------



## MeMeMeMe

infocynic said:


> As a DM I would certainly rule that your push must go in a path that does not reverse direction... that is, if you move "East" with the first move, you can then move "North", "South", "Northeast", "Southeast" or continue "East" (which doesn't change anything, just brings you back here).




Pushes have a rule: each square must be further away from you. That stops any doubling back.


----------



## infocynic

MeMeMeMe said:


> Pushes have a rule: each square must be further away from you. That stops any doubling back.





		Code:
	

P-
E-
-1
2-
-3


P=Player, E=Enemy, # = square pushed into. Each square moves the enemy further away while still zigzagging, which seems to me against the spirit of "push". RAW I see no problem with this, RAI... well... who knows?


----------



## Runestar

> Pushes have a rule: each square must be further away from you. That stops any doubling back.



Not doubling back, zig-zagging. Like my wizard pushes the foe NW, then SW, then NW and so on. 

Something like this scenario here. The yellow line shows the route of movement.


----------



## MeMeMeMe

That's pretty funny, but now that I see it, I agree its silly.

Personally, I'd rule you only get the damage for entering a damaging zone once per full action of movement (where a push, pull, or personal move action, whatever). 
Scenari 1: I push someone 6 squares. Like that picture, I zigzag him in and out of the fire, so he entes it three times.
Scenario 2: I push someone 6 squares. The first square pushes him into the wall of fire; the remaining five push him 5 squares along the wall, never leaving it, so he's entirely within the fire for the full mvement.

In the first scenario, the victim spends about half the time in the fire but takes three times as much damage. That's silly.
So I'd rule as above: in both scenarios, the guy takes damage just once. If someone else then moved him out of the fire and back in, I'd be happy to let him take the damage again.


----------



## JGulick

I would rather use the existing rules where possible.  I count 4 steps along this push where the subject is pushed into a space more dangerous/damaging than the prior one (the first step, from not adjacent to the WoF to adjacent where damage is immanent if not immediate, then each of the steps that enter the Wall itself except the last one, which is from in wall to in wall).  That would, to me, allow 4 Saves to avoid the push, which means completing the whole pattern shown is quite unlikely (~4.1%, less if the pushed opponent has any Save bonuses).

Meanwhile, replace the WoF with a crowded battlefield of allies and enemies, tight spots, etc. (some of which you can push thru and some of which you can't) and you'll see why allowing a zig-zagging Push is sometimes necessary for the Push to have any possibility of being used at all.

But, either way, this is not a discussion of Errata in any meaningful way.


----------



## fba827

fyi errata update on the wotc site for the core rule books.. it addresses some of these


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

Blade Cascade is now reasonable while still being very good. I am happy Wizards quickly curtailed the abuse of this ability as it was way too good. The fact of this was actually being argued by some players, when they knew it was way too good.

Blade Cascade [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 109
On the Attack line, replace the second sentence with “Alternate main and offhand
weapon attacks until you miss or until you make five attacks.”


----------



## silentounce

fba827 said:


> fyi errata update on the wotc site for the core rule books.. it addresses some of these




http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates


----------



## pukunui

silentounce said:


> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates



Yeah, and that includes a fairly big change to the way DCs are calculated. There's a lot to change in the DMG with regard to that. I _really_ hope that they caught this error before they sent the DM's Screen to print. It's got that lovely improv chart from page 42 on it, and it'll really suck if it's the now out-of-date version.

It also looks like skill challenges themselves have changed -- you get fewer chances of failure.


----------



## pukunui

They've errata'd the DCs for Mummy Rot in the DMG but not the MM. There's only one form of Mummy Rot in the DMG but three different versions in the MM. I'm guessing the DCs for all three versions will have to be decreased.

I have to say that I'm becoming really disappointed with the amount of errata for 4th edition. Especially something as major as the reduction of all these DCs and the changes to skill challenges and stuff.


----------



## Majushi

Being as I am unable to access the Wizards pages at work I was wondering if someone could post the full list of what has been errata'd.

Alternatively, could someone e-mail me with the information?

Thanks


----------



## pukunui

In case anyone's interested, I've just heard from WotC Customer Service that the upcoming DM Screen will require errata, at least where the DCs and Damage By Level chart is concerned. Pooh.


----------



## volanin

The DM Screen errata is already available in the official site as well.


----------



## pukunui

volanin said:


> The DM Screen errata is already available in the official site as well.



Right but my point is that you won't be able to use the DM Screen without altering it in some fashion. I'm hoping that someone will do a "patch" for it that I can print off and paste over the bit that needs fixing. Although, the more I think about it, the less sure I am that I like the changes. I'm starting to agree with people who think they've gone too far in the opposite direction.


----------



## Henrix

I suggest that you look at the errata for the screen in question, it does indeed look like a patch.

Anyway, let's keep to what needs errata.


----------



## pukunui

Henrix said:


> I suggest that you look at the errata for the screen in question, it does indeed look like a patch.
> 
> Anyway, let's keep to what needs errata.



You're right. When volanin first brought it up, I thought he just meant the DMG errata. I hadn't realized they'd actually put up a "patch" for the DM Screen. I wonder if they did that because I suggested it via Customer Service or whether they were planning on doing it anyway ... either way, that's pretty cool.

OK. Back to your regularly scheduled transmission ...


----------



## fba827

From the original post list, the following items can be crossed off in green as having an WotC update (per the 7/2 errata updates)

PHB

p.28: under 'Retraining', in the Feat section, replace "You can retrain heroic tier feats (see page 193)" with "You can retrain heroic and paragon tier feats (see pages 193 and 202)" (for clarity) [MindWanderer] <added 17 June>

p.55: under 'Keyword Categories', on the Reliable line, replace "If you miss when using a reliable power, you don't expend the use of that power" with "If you do not hit when using a reliable power, you don't expend the use of that power" [Lucas Blackstone] <added 15 June>

p.74: Battle Cry has the Implement keyword and says, "Hit: 2[W] + Wisdom modifier", it should have the Weapon keyword (or perhaps use a different base damage value) [kilpatds]

p.112: under Blade Ward on the Hit line replace “[W] + Strength modifier damage” with “1[W] + Strength modifier damage” [Darth Cyric] <edited 16 June>

p.142: under the 'Fey' section of the 'Collect Life Spark' ability it does not specify when the stun ends (until the end of their next turn? save ends?) [MindWanderer]

p.200: under 'Shield Push', on the Special line, replace "You must carry a shield to benefit from this feat" with "You must be using a shield with which you are proficient to benefit from this feat" [Starfox] <added 12 June>

p.222: under the 'Adventuring Gear' table it lists lanterns, but no oil for those lanterns (despite a mention of fuel and duration on p.262) [Zelc] <added 13 June>


DMG

p.88: under 'Doomspore' replace "Level 3 Obstacle XP 350" and "Upgrade to Elite (700 XP)" with "Level 3 Obstacle XP 150" and "Upgrade to Elite (300 XP)" [OakwoodDM]

p.188: under 'Warlord NPC', on the Weapon Proficiency line, replace "military ranged" with "simple ranged" [Flazzy] <added 15 June>

MM

p.32: in the 'Beholder Eye of the Flame' stat block replace "HP: 240; Bloodied: 102" with "HP: 240; Bloodied: 120" [Barlach]



Of course, other things (aside from what is mentioned here) also got recent errata updates.


----------



## fba827

To add to the original post, PHB
p168 Forceful Retort, Add the keyword "Force"

(since it is a force effect and does does force damage and all the other force effects and force damages have the force keyword)


----------



## Prodigal_Sun

I discovered some new discrepancies.

1. The Mindflayers do not have darkvision, even though they are creatures of the underdark. 

2. Orcus has darkvision and low-light vision (overkill?) other high lvl demons have truesight 6.

3. (Rant) One of the  wraiths has his regeneration line above his HP, the other has it below. Not a big deal maybe but this is the kind of little editing error that makes me wonder if they have editors. The stat blocks are next to each other, it's a stupid mistake so don't make it. (don't mind me venting of my frustrations , but after seeing the list on the front page of this post and the makeover skill challenges received, ...)


----------



## pukunui

Mummy Rot in the DMG received errata for its Endurance DCs (as did every other disease in the DMG). However, the Mummy Rot in the MM (of which there are actually three versions), did not. I contacted Customer Service about this and they said that the one that used to match the one in the DMG should be errata'd so that it matches again, but that the "lesser" and "greater" versions should be left alone for now ...

I haven't bothered to check -- are any of the other diseases in the DMG also in the MM? If so, their MM versions will need errata as well.

I also wonder about any diseases that are in the MM but not the DMG (are there any?).


----------



## JGulick

pukunui said:


> I also wonder about any diseases that are in the MM but not the DMG (are there any?).




Yes.

p.180, 211, and 219 Filth Fever
p.181 Moon Frenzy
p.239 Chaos Phage


----------



## Henrix

Creating NPCs, DMG, p.188: 
All Hit Points ought to be 'n + Constitution score + (level x n)' not 'n per level + Constitution score', at least if the text about NPCs' hit points being on par with monsters' hp on p.187 is correct. 

I also think the roles for the classes, both on p.182-3 and 188, do not really conform with the definitions of the roles on p.54-5.


----------



## Jhaelen

Henrix said:


> I also think the roles for the classes, both on p.182-3 and 188, do not really conform with the definitions of the roles on p.54-5.



I'm pretty sure they're correct. It's important to keep in mind that the pc role of 'Controller' is NOT the same as the monster role of 'Controller'. That's why wizard monsters are 'Artillery' while cleric monsters are 'Controllers'.


----------



## pukunui

JGulick said:


> Yes.
> 
> p.180, 211, and 219 Filth Fever
> p.181 Moon Frenzy
> p.239 Chaos Phage



I thought so. Thanks.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if they get any errata (and if the "lesser" and "greater" versions of the mummy rot do too - they certainly ought to, since mummy rot's DCs are determined by a formula, not just a flat number, and that formula has changed).


----------



## WotC_GregB

You can expect to see the disease DCs in the Monster Manual updated in the next release.


----------



## pukunui

WotC_GregB said:


> You can expect to see the disease DCs in the Monster Manual updated in the next release.



Awesome. Thanks, Greg!

Any chance you can tell us when that will be? I mean, are we talking days, weeks, months?


----------



## wordsmithpdx

*PHB: Easy Target*

PHB, pg. 119, Easy Target (Rogue Daily 1)

On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.

Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?

Because as written, it can be *better *to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.


----------



## firesnakearies

wordsmithpdx said:


> PHB, pg. 119, Easy Target (Rogue Daily 1)
> 
> On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
> On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.
> 
> Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?
> 
> Because as written, it can be *better *to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.




I think it's good as written, no need for errata.  Even if the miss result may, on occasion, turn out to be more advantageous to you, I think overall it's still better to hit.


----------



## Khime

wordsmithpdx said:


> PHB, pg. 119, Easy Target (Rogue Daily 1)
> 
> On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
> On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.
> 
> Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?
> 
> Because as written, it can be *better *to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.



On a miss, you're guaranteed to have combat advantage until your next turn, which improves your chances for hitting them with a power.  On a hit, you get better than combat advantage - _you hit them_. Plus you may also get combat advantage for a follow-up attack.  Sounds like the hit is better than the miss to me.


----------



## doctorhook

Forgive me for not reading all nine pages, but do you (or anyone else) have plans to continue this excellent process for additional books?

FRCG is next month, it would be dandy if someone was on top of it.


----------



## misalo1

*Careful Attack* Questions?
PHB page 105

Why do you require "two melee weapons" to hit only "one creature"?

And if "two melee weapons" are required, which weapon is used to calculate damage.

IMO I think the Requirement line can be deleted.
This would bring the power's description in line with other Ranger powers (ie,: Evasive Strike, Hawk's Talon, etc.)


----------



## spinmd

I think the errata for the death giant and hill giant has created the need for additional errata.

Death giant errata has increased basic attack damage to 4d6 + 9 so I would assume that changes the crit damage to 12d6 + 33 (from 6d6 + 21).  Also, with the revision to the death giant's basic attack, it now does better damage than the death titan (4d6 + 9 vs. 2d8 + 10).  Don't know if this is intentional or not.

Hill giant revised damage of 2d10 + 7 is now more than the earth titan of 2d10 + 6.  Once again, don't know if this is intentional or not.


----------



## Pennarin

In the Implements section of the Wizard entry, it says one implement affects spells that take effect until the end of your turn, or something like that, and then gives examples of such spells in parenthesis. The errata is that these examples don't correspond to that type of duration.


----------



## Khime

Pennarin said:


> In the Implements section of the Wizard entry, it says one implement affects spells that take effect until the end of your turn, or something like that, and then gives examples of such spells in parenthesis. The errata is that these examples don't correspond to that type of duration.



The examples given (_cloud of daggers _and _ray of frost) _normally last until the end of your _next_ turn, true. However, during your next turn, these effects now only last until the end of your _current_ turn. You can now use the Orb of Imposition to extend the duration of an effect that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn. The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn, which is now two turns after you cast it.

Looks fine as written to me.


----------



## Pennarin

Mmm, thanks. They could have actually said that, would have been nice.


----------



## Oldtimer

PHB said:
			
		

> To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision.





			
				PHB said:
			
		

> To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace
> imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an
> enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.)



Unless someone can explain how the imaginary line can run along the edge of the obstacle and still not touch it, these two paragraphs contradict each other.


----------



## MeMeMeMe

They don't contradict each other, becuase they are for different things.
The first is for whether you can *see* someone - and so use powers which require line of sight.
The second is for whether the target has cover when you attack them.
A target can have cover, and still be seen - so no contradiction.


----------



## Oldtimer

MeMeMeMe said:


> They don't contradict each other, becuase they are for different things.
> The first is for whether you can *see* someone - and so use powers which require line of sight.
> The second is for whether the target has cover when you attack them.
> A target can have cover, and still be seen - so no contradiction.



Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.


----------



## JGulick

Oldtimer said:


> Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.




The difference, I think, is between seeing at all (Line of Sight) and seeing clearly and completely (cover or the lack thereof).


----------



## silentounce

Oldtimer said:


> Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.




"Not seeing" is concealment, not cover.  Someone standing behind a solid glass door would have total cover, but no concealment.  So, really, there are not different rules for "seeing" and "not seeing" as you put it.  Nothing in the rules says that cover has anything to do with sight.  Blind opponents don't grant cover, neither does darkness.

From page 280, which you referenced:
"Solid obstructions that can physically deflect or stop objects are considered cover. Objects or effects that don’t physically impede an attack but instead hide you from an enemy’s view are considered concealment."


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

Underage AOLer said:


> ✦ p.102: under _Healing Font_, on the Effect line, replace “points equal to 1d6 [ts] your Wisdom modifier” with “points equal to 1d6 x your Wisdom modifier” [bobthehappyzombie]




D&Di now has this fixed and it is indeed times and not plus.


----------



## volanin

Oldtimer said:


> Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, *they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target*. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.




No no.
Only the "cover imaginary line" requires to start in a corner of your square and end in a corner of the enemy square. The "line-of-sight imaginary line" must start in a corner of your square and end ANYWHERE in the enemy square.


----------



## Runestar

Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?

Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs, and it apparently disregards terrain. So in theory, a PC could use a power like command to order another PC to slide a certain distance, which among other things, could allow him to escape immobilizing effects such as being grabbed, and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs). 

Those limitations were clearly instituted to prevent monsters from being at the mercy of players (such as pushing an enemy past multiple PCs having it provoke AoOs from all of them), but the flip side is that it then becomes some sort of "get out of jail free" card because it allows you to bypass just about every sort of restriction on movement.

Thoughts?


----------



## silentounce

Runestar said:


> Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?
> 
> Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs, and it apparently disregards terrain. So in theory, a PC could use a power like command to order another PC to slide a certain distance, which among other things, could allow him to escape immobilizing effects such as being grabbed, and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs).
> 
> Those limitations were clearly instituted to prevent monsters from being at the mercy of players (such as pushing an enemy past multiple PCs having it provoke AoOs from all of them), but the flip side is that it then becomes some sort of "get out of jail free" card because it allows you to bypass just about every sort of restriction on movement.
> 
> Thoughts?




If people want to use a level 3 encounter power to restrict their friends to one action while also granting combat advantage for an entire round in exchange for a half dozen squares of free movement I have no problem with letting them do so.


----------



## Drakona

This was partially mentioned already, but for completeness:  

In the Heroic Tier Feats summary on p. 196 - 197, we have: 



> *Distracting Shield* - Target hit by *opportunity attack* takes -2 to attack rolls.
> 
> *Potent Challenge* - Add Con modifier damage to target hit with *opportunity attack*
> 
> * Shield Push * - Push 1 square to target hit by *Combat Challenge attack*




All three feats begin the full description with, "If you hit a foe with an attack granted by your Combat Challenge class feature . . . "  This attack is not an opportunity attack (though there is widespread confusion on this point). 

The language of the _Distracting Shield_ and _Potent Challenge_ short descriptions should be changed to match _Shield Push_.


----------



## DracoSuave

Runestar said:


> Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?
> 
> Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs,




Correct



> and it apparently disregards terrain.



Incorrect.  It disregards difficult terrain.  Other terrain such as challenging, blocking or hindering terrain have different effects on forced movement.  Cover terrain may block line of effect.

Challenging terrain may or may not hinder forced movement, depending on its nature.  Blocking terrain cannot be circumvented by forced movement in any way.  Hindering terrain permits a save to allow the victim to fall prone and end the forced movement rather than enter it.



> So in theory, a PC could use a power like command to order another PC to slide a certain distance, which among other things, could allow him to escape immobilizing effects



Unless the effect says otherwise, yes.



> such as being grabbed,



Which is correct.  Restrained, however, prevents it.



> and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs).



Correct.



> Those limitations were clearly instituted to prevent monsters from being at the mercy of players (such as pushing an enemy past multiple PCs having it provoke AoOs from all of them), but the flip side is that it then becomes some sort of "get out of jail free" card because it allows you to bypass just about every sort of restriction on movement.
> 
> Thoughts?



Command not only slides them 3+your Cha Mod, it also dazes them, which is almost as bad as where he was before, except -now- he's granting combat advantage and can't struggle to get free.

But hey, if that's what you wanna do to get out, be my guest.

The 'get out of jail free' card aspect of the different movement types and forced movement is a part of combat in 4e.  Movement is not as simple as it was in 3e, and it has multiple possibilities for PCs and NPCs.


----------



## Henrix

Runestar said:


> Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?




Please excuse me if I keep nagging, but discussions regarding changes in the rules are not errata. Keep them out of this thread.


----------



## Runestar

Whoops...mia culpa...


----------



## hennebeck

MM
Goblin Hand of Bane.

Perception (+5)  is less then Wisdom modifier (+8).
I believe they just forgot to add the Wisdom bonus to the Trained Perception skill.
For a total of +13 to Perception.


----------



## zoroaster100

The new August 11, 2008 errata for the PH makes Brew Potion a level 1 ritual, but the weakest potion, the potion of healing, at a mere 50 gp value, is a level 5 item.  Perhaps potion of healing was meant to be a level 1 item?


----------



## pukunui

zoroaster100 said:


> The new August 11, 2008 errata for the PH makes Brew Potion a level 1 ritual, but the weakest potion, the potion of healing, at a mere 50 gp value, is a level 5 item.  Perhaps potion of healing was meant to be a level 1 item?



Doh!

That's worse than the disease errata issue (they had initially changed the DCs for the diseases in the DMG but not the ones in the MM, so there were quite a few variations of the mummy rot disease -- this has since been fixed).

I wonder if either the ritual should still be level 5 or whether there should be something you can make with it at levels 1-4? Perhaps there will be something in the _Adventurer's Vault_?

Still, it's a rather useless errata change at the moment as it doesn't actually fix anything ... You can now take the ritual at 1st level but you still can't do anything with it until 5th level.


----------



## Jhaelen

zoroaster100 said:


> Perhaps potion of healing was meant to be a level 1 item?



I doubt it. I could imagine potions from future sources being level 1, though.


pukunui said:


> You can now take the ritual at 1st level but you still can't do anything with it until 5th level.



It's still a pretty nice change for clerics and wizards who get free rituals.

If you look at the market price of the brew potion ritual it's also quite clear it was meant to be a level 1 ritual from the beginning.


----------



## pukunui

Jhaelen said:


> I doubt it. I could imagine potions from future sources being level 1, though.



That's what WotC Customer Service says. I'm willing to bet there's something in _Adventurer's Vault_.



> It's still a pretty nice change for clerics and wizards who get free rituals.



At least, once there's actually something they can do with it, it will be.



> If you look at the market price of the brew potion ritual it's also quite clear it was meant to be a level 1 ritual from the beginning.



That's a good point.


----------



## brehobit

*Page74*

Page 74, PHB

Solar wrath lacks either implement or weapon as a key word.  

I have to imagine it was to have implement.


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth

brehobit said:


> Page 74, PHB
> 
> Solar wrath lacks either implement or weapon as a key word.
> 
> I have to imagine it was to have implement.




Already covered in errata.  Yes it does have the implement keyword.


----------



## doctorhook

The OP is still missing the most recent errata... What's up, UnderageAOLer? Summer vacation?


----------



## Henrix

I cracked open the DM screen today, I saw (in the middle column of the third panel):



> *Heal*
> Let a character use a healing surge​




which should be:



> *Heal*
> Let a character use second wind​


----------



## pukunui

Henrix said:


> I cracked open the DM screen today, I saw (in the middle column of the third panel):
> 
> 
> 
> which should be:



That sucks.


----------



## Oldtimer

Henrix said:


> I cracked open the DM screen today, I saw (in the middle column of the third panel):
> 
> 
> 
> which should be:



Two lines below that we find "Help a dying character recover". That application of the Heal skill is not listed in PH.

Also, on the second panel, the action "Ready or stow a shield" is listed as a minor action, but it's a standard action in the rule book (table on page 289).

At last, in the fourth panel (under "Healing a dying character" / "Regain Hit Points") we read "If a healing effect requires you to spend a healing surge, but you have none left, your condition doesn't change", but the rule book (PH page 295) says you are restored to 1 hit point in that case.


----------



## pukunui

Oldtimer said:


> Two lines below that we find "Help a dying character recover". That application of the Heal skill is not listed in PH.
> 
> Also, on the second panel, the action "Ready or stow a shield" is listed as a minor action, but it's a standard action in the rule book (table on page 289).
> 
> At last, in the fourth panel (under "Healing a dying character" / "Regain Hit Points") we read "If a healing effect requires you to spend a healing surge, but you have none left, your condition doesn't change", but the rule book (PH page 295) says you are restored to 1 hit point in that case.



Aargh. And it's too late for me to cancel my order because it shipped on Saturday. What's the use of a DM screen if it's riddled with errors? I was hoping that the errata'd table would be the only thing I'd have to change. Sigh ...


----------



## silentounce

Call and complain, there's a chance that they'd give you a refund I would hope.  Or at least let you return it.  You'd probably have to pay to ship it back though.  I've never dealt with WotC CS so I don't know.  Shipping a defective product is pretty bad form though.


----------



## pukunui

silentounce said:


> Call and complain, there's a chance that they'd give you a refund I would hope.  Or at least let you return it.  You'd probably have to pay to ship it back though.  I've never dealt with WotC CS so I don't know.  Shipping a defective product is pretty bad form though.



I have been thinking about complaining. Chances are I'll keep it though. I don't really have time/money to make my own - and the overall utility of it may outweigh the errors (assuming there aren't any/too many more).


----------



## Henrix

Once again, please stick to errata in this thread. Complaining and other things belong in other threads.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk

MM p139:
"Hobgoblin archers take up positions behind cover (if available)
and form a tight line to gain the benefits of _coordinated
fire_."

The hob archer's listed powers are longsword, longbow, and hobgoblin resilience.

I'm guessing it is supposed to be the ability that is tacked on to its longbow attack: "grants an ally within 5 squares of it a +2 bonus to its next ranged attack roll against the same target"


The phrase "coordinated fire" is in italics which means the authors are refering to a power, not the general military tactic.


----------



## WotC_GregB

Hey folks,

I just wanted to take a moment to encourage anyone who has gathered potential update material to check out our new forum at the wizard's site for collecting errors. You can find it here:

4e Books Errata - Wizards Community

I will continue to monitor this thread (and ENworld as a while), but the main focus of my efforts will be devoted to collecting materials from the aforementioned thread. Thanks for all your hard work.

-Greg Bilsland


----------



## Dracorat

I thought Gleemax was being obliterated?


----------



## MerricB

Dracorat said:


> I thought Gleemax was being obliterated?




Gleemax (as the networking/blogging site) has been obliterated. However, the Wizards forums continue to exist.

Cheers!


----------



## Dracorat

Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## adam_antio

DMG, page 188, rogue class features: "rogue weapon mastery" is wrong, the right name is "rogue weapon talent".


----------



## tmatk

In the phb, every power that has 2 attacks states the damage is "per attack". Rain of Blow's and Dragon's Fangs do not, even though their are 2 attacks.


----------



## CapnZapp

PHB page 261:

Under the "Speed" section, the *Speed per Day:* entry says "The Dungeon Master's Guide explains what happens if you travel for more than 10 hours."

Also under the "Speed" section, the *Speed per Hour:* entry says "Rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide explains what happens if you push yourself too hard."

Neither of these two items of information can actually be found in the DMG.


_Is this PHB errata, DMG errata, or both? Apologies if this has been discussed already; I did not read the whole thread._


----------



## Majushi

I don't know if this has been caught yet. I haven't found it anywhere else tho:

Page 73, PHB, Angelic Avenger Paragon Path lvl 20 daily power has no targets.

-Majushi


----------



## JoeNotCharles

Is this a good thread to report errata for PHB2?  What about Arcane Power and Martial Power?


----------



## tmatk

*Magic items*

-deleted-

Reread, I'm pretty sure my assessment was wrong.


----------



## Arlough

*The difference between potions and elixirs*



> ✦ PHB, various: elixirs are mentioned in various places (usually in the same breath as potions), but no information on their in-game use is detailed (fluff difference only?)




Though I cannot find anywhere that explicitly states it, all officially released material leads me to think that potions consume a healing surge to take effect, while elixirs instead count as one of your item daily powers.  Elixirs tend to be more powerful, given that you have many healing surges, but only 1 item daily power per milestone per tier (or would that be per tier per milestone?).

Example:  *Potion of Fonzie* vs *Elixir of Cool* (because I daren't use actual WOT examples.)

*Potion of Fonzie*
*Power (Consumable):* Drink this potion and
spend a healing surge. You do not regain hit
points. Instead, gain a +5 on the next skill
check that uses your Charisma modifier.


*Elixir of Cool*
*Power (Consumable):* Minor Action. You
drink the elixir and gain a +5 to your Charisma
modifier for all skill checks, (but not for
attacks) until the end of the encounter or for
5 minutes.
*Special:* Consuming this counts as a use of
a magic item daily power.

-Arlough the Wonderfuzz

"I've never actually been poisoned.  I've been drugged, addicted, diseased, and set on fire a few times, but never poisoned."  -Icemoore Riogale


----------



## Flipguarder

*Warforged hunger*

misplaced post. sorry


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Arlough said:


> Though I cannot find anywhere that explicitly states it, all officially released material leads me to think that potions consume a healing surge to take effect, while elixirs instead count as one of your item daily powers.  Elixirs tend to be more powerful, given that you have many healing surges, but only 1 item daily power per milestone per tier (or would that be per tier per milestone?).
> 
> Example:  *Potion of Fonzie* vs *Elixir of Cool* (because I daren't use actual WOT examples.)
> 
> *Potion of Fonzie*
> *Power (Consumable):* Drink this potion and
> spend a healing surge. You do not regain hit
> points. Instead, gain a +5 on the next skill
> check that uses your Charisma modifier.
> 
> 
> *Elixir of Cool*
> *Power (Consumable):* Minor Action. You
> drink the elixir and gain a +5 to your Charisma
> modifier for all skill checks, (but not for
> attacks) until the end of the encounter or for
> 5 minutes.
> *Special:* Consuming this counts as a use of
> a magic item daily power.
> 
> -Arlough the Wonderfuzz
> 
> "I've never actually been poisoned.  I've been drugged, addicted, diseased, and set on fire a few times, but never poisoned."  -Icemoore Riogale



Nothing I official I would know off, but I think the general idea is that you spend a healing surge for a magic item to help you deal with damage you take. The Cryptspawn Potion and similar things are good examples of that. Spending a Healing Surge for these benefits can, if you deal with the right monsters, be more useful than just trying to get your hit points back.

Elixirs work like Potions, except they don't affect how you take damage or anything like that. Therefore, they don't use Healing Surges.

The larger concept seems to be about avoiding people spending surges for offense and thus leading to 15 minute denaturing days and/or cakewalk encounters.


----------



## fba827

Arlough said:


> Though I cannot find anywhere that explicitly states it, all officially released material leads me to think that potions consume a healing surge to take effect, while elixirs instead count as one of your item daily powers.  Elixirs tend to be more powerful, given that you have many healing surges, but only 1 item daily power per milestone per tier (or would that be per tier per milestone?).




It may be mentioned elsewhere, but it is explicitly stated in Adventurer's Vault, p185 (the last paragraph before the chart starts) - though you have surmised the gist of it.

"The difference between a potion and an elixir is that a potion usually requires the imbiber to expend a healing surge to use its power, whereas drinking an elixir does not.  However, consuming an elixir usually counts as a use of a magic item daily power; the same cannot be said for most potions."


----------



## DracoSuave

Kenetic Trawl (Psion level 1 at-will, PHB3) is missing the Augmentable keyword.


----------



## zoroaster100

I am not sure if DDI errata is supposed to be collected here as well, but I'm not sure where to bring this to WOTC's attention.  The latest update of the Compendium has errata in the Fighter class description.  It no longer has the Combat Challenge description about being able to attack adjacent marked enemies who shift or who use an attack that does not include the Fighter. It has a description of Combat Challenge description that references the Combat Challenge power, which is not included.


----------

