# Core Handbook Errors Discussion



## Family

I'd suggest you use this thread to help WotC with any type of error you may find. (I've been told they will be watching this thread).

-Constructive criticism for better gaming.


----------



## Scribble

error number 1: GLARING ERROR

Scribble has not received a free copy of all 3 rulebooks... Wassup with that???


----------



## Stormtalon

Scribble said:
			
		

> error number 1: GLARING ERROR
> 
> Scribble has not received a free copy of all 3 rulebooks... Wassup with that???




I would like to report the exact same error on my part -- amazing coincidence!

Also, to forestall any further reports of this error, I'd like to include the fact that an untold number of us may be ready to report it as well!


----------



## doctorhook

removed by poster


----------



## Wormwood

Scanning errors don't count, by the way.


----------



## Dragonbait

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Scanning errors don't count, by the way.




Drat, I was going to reccomend they use larger font on page 123 of the DMG. My scanner was not picking up the text that well so I could send it out over the internet.

I kid! I kid!


----------



## Transit

Does "turning the whole game into nothing more than a slightly expanded version of the D&D Miniatures game" count as an error?

Because there seems to be almost nothing in the three books that isn't focused entirely on fighting tabletop skirmish battles using plastic miniatures and a battlemat or dungeon tiles.

I figure it MUST be an error.  Why on earth would they do this to D&D on purpose?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Transit said:
			
		

> Does "turning the whole game into nothing more than a slightly expanded version of the D&D Miniatures game" count as an error?
> 
> Because there seems to be almost nothing in the three books that isn't focused entirely on fighting tabletop skirmish battles using plastic miniatures and a battlemat or dungeon tiles.
> 
> I figure it MUST be an error.  Why on earth would they do this to D&D on purpose?




No the error is the two words left off the cover. It should read *Advanced*_ Dungeons & Dragons *Miniatures*_


----------



## Wormwood

. . .


----------



## Piratecat

Quit threadcrapping.


----------



## The Little Raven

Family said:
			
		

> -Constructive criticism for better gaming.




I suggest you make this in bold, flashing letters, since obviously some of the previous posters neglected to read it.


----------



## frankthedm

Transit said:
			
		

> I figure it MUST be an error.  Why on earth would they do this to D&D on purpose?



Please tell me you are asking a retorical question.

[vodka] Because wotc knows where their bread is buttered. A tactical combat centric game, thus minis centric game, keeps money flowing in due to DDM sales, which in turn keeps them employed since wotc can prove viability to Hasbro {intentionally not typing 'Ha$borg' because shareholders are people too, whose own wellbeing may hinge on how well habro does in the financial market]. As it happens I am not that PO'ed D&D has gone from wargaming roots back to skirmish wargaming because I am a fan of minis. Yes, it would be all kinds of awesome if the D&D ruleset could switch from tactical minis combat to pure narrative from round to round without losing a step of precision, but that is not what we have ATM.  I'd mention a few more things related to Gygax, may he rest in peace, and Adkinson, but thank the Creator, I am not that drunk ...yet[/vodka]

Now back to making counters for those not blessed with 1000's of minis.


----------



## malraux

Grrr. What the heck is a 10 foot cube?  10 cubic feet?  A cube with 10 feet to a side?  Feet is a unit of length, not volume.


----------



## ender_wiggin

10 feet to a side. 10 cubic feet is ludicrous since we measure everything in sides.


----------



## malraux

ender_wiggin said:
			
		

> 10 feet to a side. 10 cubic feet is ludicrous since we measure everything in sides.



So a 1000 cubic foot cube?  Isn't that easier to say?


----------



## Treacherous_B

malraux said:
			
		

> So a 1000 cubic foot cube?  Isn't that easier to say?




I'm not sure if this is a joke or sarcasm or not, but no, it is not easier to say "a 1,000 cubic foot cube" than "a 10 foot cube".


----------



## Imban

Per my other thread, there are a whoooole bunch of weapons in the Monster Manual that don't have stats in the PHB equipment list. Worst of them is the scourge (which deals 1d6 damage with, as far as I can tell, no special features or reach - nice whip, dude), since you can derive stats for tridents easily and make up stats for a blowgun without too much trouble. Also, apparently the guys who wrote the Monster Manual were under the impression that rods could be used in melee as clubs, while the people who wrote the Player's Handbook were under the impression that rods could not be used as melee weapons at all.


----------



## malraux

Treacherous_B said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this is a joke or sarcasm or not, but no, it is not easier to say "a 1,000 cubic foot cube" than "a 10 foot cube".



Sorry, its the math and physics studies in me.  Feet are length, cubic feet are volume.  If I'm referencing a volume, its crazy to me to reference a linear distance.


----------



## william_nova

Whoops, my bad! Very sorry!


----------



## Moon-Lancer

i found an error. Scale mail Does not have a armor check penalty, and it has more armor then then chain that has a 1 armor check penalty.

It seems pretty fishy. I don't know if it would have 1 armor check penalty or 2, considering plate has 2. I think considering hide armor has 1 armor check penalty that scale would have some. It just lits it as "-"

Do i win something for finding the first possible typo?


----------



## Vempyre

william_nova said:
			
		

> For you and the rest of you cynics out there:
> 
> _Post removed by admin_




Line breaks make it hard to read text in a forum post.


----------



## william_nova

Vempyre said:
			
		

> Line breaks make it hard to read text in a forum post.




I have no idea what you are talking about.  Did you want that all as one continuous line?

It looks fine in my browser, sorry, I'm just sure what you mean.


----------



## hong

william_nova said:
			
		

> I have no idea what you are talking about.  Did you want that all as one continuous line?
> 
> It looks fine in my browser, sorry, I'm just sure what you mean.



 I think he's saying that if you're going to copy text from a torrented pdf, you should at least try to hide it by erasing the line breaks.


----------



## Shado

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> i found an error. Scale mail Does not have a armor check penalty, and it has more armor then then chain that has a 1 armor check penalty.
> 
> It seems pretty fishy. I don't know if it would have 1 armor check penalty or 2, considering plate has 2. I think considering hide armor has 1 armor check penalty that scale would have some. It just lits it as "-"
> 
> Do i win something for finding the first possible typo?




Not an error, me thinks.

It makes no heavy armor perfect.

Plate has better protection.

Scale has better mobility once you get the specialization feat.

Chain is the baseline heavy armor.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> Do i win something for finding the first possible typo?




Nope, because it's not a mistake. Scale is just better armor than chain. (Read the actual armor description; it talks about how flexible it is.)

That's why so few classes are proficient with it.


----------



## Aservan

We were told that nitpick little bonuses that only apply in certain specific circumstances were to be phased out.  If see a whole bunch of those masquerading as feats.  Umm.  Hello WoTC you said you were gonna not waste our time with that crap.

Precise Hunter: Allies gain +1 attack against target hit by critical hit.

?!

Now I have to remember that _if[/] I get a critical hit my buddies get a whole +1 to hit.  Holy cow batman.  +1.  Do ya mean it?  Really.  That's awesome.  And it only happens when I roll a twenty on the die if it happens to be the attack roll.

How is this not one of those countless niggling little bonuses we hate to keep track of?

I know this is a massive undertaking and some one out there is just thrilled with this super cool feat (it is the interwebs), but really we need to use precious space for this amazing power?_


----------



## Thikket

malraux said:
			
		

> Sorry, its the math and physics studies in me.  Feet are length, cubic feet are volume.  If I'm referencing a volume, its crazy to me to reference a linear distance.




What single measure is required to completely define a cube? The length of any side.


----------



## Piratecat

*William, please stop. if you copy any more text from your illegally downloaded pdf, you will be banned. * 

We're fine with people answering questions or writing snippets, but copying text isn't okay. Obviously, that goes for everyone, not just William. He just happens to be nearby when I noticed the problem.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nope, because it's not a mistake. Scale is just better armor than chain. (Read the actual armor description; it talks about how flexible it is.)
> 
> That's why so few classes are proficient with it.




thanks. I am glad I am wrong.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *William, let's make this clear: if you copy any more text from your illegally downloaded pdf, you will be banned. *




So we cant talk about 4e if we have a printed copy that has broken the street date? I want to be clear. I hope didn't do anything wrong as well. I think their should be a sticky that talks about the limits of what we are aloud to post and what we can not post.

*edit* I see your edit above mine... Thats cool. I think sticky will help though.


----------



## Piratecat

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> So we cant talk about 4e if we have a printed copy that has broken the street date? I want to be clear. I hope didn't do anything wrong as well.



If we felt that way, we'd have to close the forum! We expect people to use good common sense and respect WotC's copyright. That means answering questions if you want to, and posting snippets is okay, but copying and pasting chunks of text is not.

I edited my initial post to reflect this. 

Make sense?


----------



## Vempyre

Even after street date, we can't post whole powers n stuff or whole paragraphs textually. It's not about street date but about copyrights. (personal opinion)


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If we felt that way, we'd have to close the forum! We expect people to use good common sense and respect WotC's copyright. That means answering questions if you want to, and posting snippets is okay, but copying and pasting chunks of text is not.
> 
> Make sense?




crystal. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## william_nova

Gotcha.  No more cut and paste for me.  Sorry!


----------



## Imban

> If you roll 20 or higher but have no healing surges left expressed as a negative number, your condition doesn’t change.




This line sure makes sense! 

Seems like it originally said something else and then was edited to "If you roll 20 or higher but have no healing surges left, your condition doesn't change" without actually removing the inappropriate text.


----------



## NMcCoy

Wouldn't Leaping Dodge (Rogue Utility 16), as written, provoke an OA from the person you're dodging? This seems counterproductive (and non-obvious, so either way the power should be clarified).


----------



## Piratecat

Imban said:
			
		

> This line sure makes sense!
> 
> Seems like it originally said something else and then was edited to "If you roll 20 or higher but have no healing surges left, your condition doesn't change" without actually removing the inappropriate text.



Can it be a cut and paste error? I'm betting there's a similar phrase in the text nearby.


----------



## Imban

NMcCoy said:
			
		

> Wouldn't Leaping Dodge (Rogue Utility 16), as written, provoke an OA from the person you're dodging? This seems counterproductive (and non-obvious, so either way the power should be clarified).




EDIT: Whoops, see below post.


----------



## Traken

NMcCoy said:
			
		

> Wouldn't Leaping Dodge (Rogue Utility 16), as written, provoke an OA from the person you're dodging? This seems counterproductive (and non-obvious, so either way the power should be clarified).



You can't make OA's on your own turn, assuming that's what you're talking about.


----------



## Imban

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Can it be a cut and paste error? I'm betting there's a similar phrase in the text nearby.




Yeah, the same snippet is used in the bulletpoint just below it. Looks like a legitimate editing error.


----------



## NMcCoy

Traken said:
			
		

> You can't make OA's on your own turn, assuming that's what you're talking about.



Ah, right, and if you're dodging an OA with it then they've already used their OA for the turn against you.

Problem: 4e's Evard's Black Tentacles is too awesome for words, and yet the book uses words in the spell's description. I propose the text be replaced with a full-page illustration of huge tentacles dishing out pure necrotic pwnage and singlehandedly deciding an encounter on the first round. I mean, if you Sleep some guys and then use an AP to followup with EBT, they're slowed guaranteed, which means that they get 1 square of movement in the difficult terrain, so even if you missed with the Tentacles the first time you've got the Sustain attack against them next round, and probably the round after that...

Serious question:
If you Orb one of the targets of the Tentacles, it saves, and you immobilize it again with the sustain attack, does it still have the penalty to its save?


----------



## Belphanior

The ability for wizards to extend spell durations with an orb... actually doesn't do anything.

It states that you could enhance a duration from "ends at the end of your turn" into "ends at the end of your next turn". This only works on at-will wizard powers and mentions both Ray of Frost and Cloud of Daggers as examples.

Problem: they're both already "ends at the end of your next turn".


----------



## Imban

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Problem: they're both already "ends at the end of your next turn".




Solution: Next turn, they end at the end of your turn.


----------



## NaturalZero

Not really a typo, per se. But you can only use the minotaur's racial power "when reduced to 0 hp". Not below 0, but to 0 specifically.  I cant think of a single instance in 3E when anyone was reduced specfically to zero hp so i can imagine this being one of the most highly circumstantial racial powers in the books.


----------



## djdaidouji

NaturalZero said:
			
		

> Not really a typo, per se. But you can only use the minotaur's racial power "when reduced to 0 hp". Not below 0, but to 0 specifically.  I cant think of a single instance in 3E when anyone was reduced specfically to zero hp so i can imagine this being one of the most highly circumstantial racial powers in the books.




I think this is either a typo, or the language used for "when reduced to 0 or below." Look in the rest of the book and see if there are any similar abilities with other language. If they all say "When reduced to 0," then it would be safe to assume it triggers when you fall below it.


----------



## Protagonist

djdaidouji said:
			
		

> I think this is either a typo, or the language used for "when reduced to 0 or below." Look in the rest of the book and see if there are any similar abilities with other language. If they all say "When reduced to 0," then it would be safe to assume it triggers when you fall below it.




I think that monsters simply die at 0hp and you won't track negative hp for them at all. So 0 and -x would be the same for monsters.


----------



## Imban

Protagonist said:
			
		

> I think that monsters simply die at 0hp and you won't track negative hp for them at all. So 0 and -x would be the same for monsters.




They do. Which is why it's that way on the writeups for monsters as PCs.

Oh wait...


----------



## Rechan

Page 159. 

Cloud of Daggers:
Area *1 square* within 10 squares.

I've never seen any other spell only effect 1 square. I think this is supposed to be 'Area Burst 1'.


----------



## djdaidouji

Perhaps it interrupts death to use the ability? I don't know the ability, so I can't say anything.


----------



## Sashi

They _specifically_ say that these are for NPC's and are only _guidelines_ for playing these races as PC's and that some powers are particularly "monstery-y"

To be more constructive: the Banshrae's writeup implies that they have no mouth, or at least that they can't produce a strong enough breath to drive wind instruments ... but the DartSwarmer uses a blowgun? Huh?


----------



## Sashi

Rechan said:
			
		

> Page 159.
> 
> Cloud of Daggers:
> Area *1 square* within 10 squares.
> 
> I've never seen any other spell only effect 1 square. I think this is supposed to be 'Area Burst 1'.




Looks perfectly fine to me. You zap someone with force daggers, and then fill the area they were in with shards of force that make people think twice about moving through the square. If You filled a Burst 1 zone with shards that would be pretty overpowered for an At-Will power.


----------



## MindWanderer

Sashi said:
			
		

> Looks perfectly fine to me. You zap someone with force daggers, and then fill the area they were in with shards of force that make people think twice about moving through the square. If You filled a Burst 1 zone with shards that would be pretty overpowered for an At-Will power.



 It can also be useful under some specific conditions, such as hitting an invisible target or against swarms.


----------



## Imban

Sashi said:
			
		

> To be more constructive: the Banshrae's writeup implies that they have no mouth, or at least that they can't produce a strong enough breath to drive wind instruments ... but the DartSwarmer uses a blowgun? Huh?




The dudes had pretty much the same situation in 3.5e, only their blowguns were also flutes in 3.5e and they could play the flutes without a mouth due to a dark pact they had made.

Without those details, though, and since they explicitly don't have the ability to play wind instruments any more, banshrae are all sorts of goofy.


----------



## silentounce

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> i found an error.  *Scale* mail Does not have a armor check penalty, and it has more armor then then chain that has a 1 armor check penalty.
> 
> It seems pretty *fishy*. I don't know if it would have 1 armor check penalty or 2, considering plate has 2. I think considering hide armor has 1 armor check penalty that scale would have some. It just lits it as "-"
> 
> Do i win something for finding the first possible typo?




headdesk


----------



## Charwoman Gene

I saw a whitewolf style page XX error.


----------



## Grazzt

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I saw a whitewolf style page XX error.




There are several of those scattered throughout the books it seems. (Not so much in the MM, but definitely in the PHB and DMG.)


----------



## pogminky

> There are several of those scattered throughout the books it seems




That's pretty depressing.  Not a major problem in itself, but if the flagship core has such errors it bodes ill for future releases.

I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## trimeta

Slightly confusing property of the Surprised condition: In the section on Surprise rounds, it states that those who do not get to act are Surprised and cannot even take a free action. However, in the conditions table, it describes the Surprised condition as "Cannot take any actions, other than free actions," which would imply that you *can* take free actions during a Surprise round if you are surprised. It seems to me that the Surprise condition is so described on the table to differentiate it from Stunned (which does not allow for free actions), but still, this should be looked into.


----------



## DNH

*Keywords*

I am not so much concerned by typoes but any system that makes such extensive use of keywords is asking for trouble.  Their team of editors, sub-editors and proofreaders will have had to be very much on the ball (and evidence from KotS suggests they are not!) to ensure that any and all appropriate keywords are there.  That is, not just to spot extraneous ones that are included by mistake but also to add in ones that have been omitted for some reason.

I expect we shall see an errata document by the end of June.

DNH
"Lost in Karameikos"


----------



## malraux

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I saw a whitewolf style page XX error.



rerun latex and that should reference the correct page numbers.


----------



## Piratecat

Grazzt said:
			
		

> There are several of those scattered throughout the books it seems. (Not so much in the MM, but definitely in the PHB and DMG.)



I found one of these in the DMG.


----------



## shoplifter

Found one:

PHB, p.25: Azers speak Dwarven

MM, p.22-23: Azers speak Giant


----------



## iceifur

Possible error in the PH, on page 133:

The _Frigid Darkness_ Warlock power states that the target "grants combat advantage to all of *your* enemies until the end of your next turn."

Considering the flavor text and the rest of the power's effects, it should probably say "*its*" or "*their*" instead; then again, it could possibly be a _very_ situational effect (especially for a lvl 3 attack power ).


Edit: Cleaned up.


----------



## Sashi

shoplifter said:
			
		

> Found one:
> 
> PHB, p.25: Azers speak Dwarven
> 
> MM, p.22-23: Azers speak Giant




PC Azers who have escaped their Giant overlords return to speaking Dwarven. NPC Azers who remain slaves of their giant overlords speak giant?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Rechan said:
			
		

> Page 159.
> 
> Cloud of Daggers:
> Area *1 square* within 10 squares.
> 
> I've never seen any other spell only effect 1 square. I think this is supposed to be 'Area Burst 1'.




Nope. It's just an unusual spell.

"Area burst 1" would be way too potent, given the other traits of _cloud of daggers_ and the fact that it's an at-will power.


----------



## Imban

Sashi said:
			
		

> PC Azers who have escaped their Giant overlords return to speaking Dwarven. NPC Azers who remain slaves of their giant overlords speak giant?




There are no PC Azers in the MM and the PHB table lists plenty of races (mind flayers, kuo-toa, fomorians, efreets, archons, elementals, angels, devils, gods, demons, sahuagin) which are definitely not for PC consumption already.

So it seems to just be an error.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

silentounce said:
			
		

> headdesk




ironic isn't it?  I am sure this head desking had something to do with my spelling or grammar as I criticized a typo that didn't exist... but I still don't fully get it.


----------



## SuperGnome

NaturalZero said:
			
		

> Not really a typo, per se. But you can only use the minotaur's racial power "when reduced to 0 hp". Not below 0, but to 0 specifically.  I cant think of a single instance in 3E when anyone was reduced specfically to zero hp so i can imagine this being one of the most highly circumstantial racial powers in the books.




Opponents don't go negative.  At 0 they just die (and in this case, get the ability).  

So Minnie, the Minotaur Prostitute gets offended that Jozan isn't interested and they get in a fight.  She has 5 HP and he does 16, she would still be at zero (dead), not -11.

Am I right on this one?  I'm not pretending to be reference material. *8)


----------



## C.Chapman

Sashi said:
			
		

> To be more constructive: the Banshrae's writeup implies that they have no mouth, or at least that they can't produce a strong enough breath to drive wind instruments ... but the DartSwarmer uses a blowgun? Huh?




When they load a dart in their blowgun, turn away from you, drop their pants and bend over, it's time to take cover, because the darts are about to fly! 

cheers!
Colin


----------



## Zaister

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nope. It's just an unusual spell.
> 
> "Area burst 1" would be way too potent, given the other traits of _cloud of daggers_ and the fact that it's an at-will power.




I thought Burst X means an area of X by X squares... so waht is the difference between "burst 1" and "1 square"?


----------



## malraux

Zaister said:
			
		

> I thought Burst X means an area of X by X squares... so waht is the difference between "burst 1" and "1 square"?



Nope. a burst 1 is all squares within 1 square of the target square.  So its a 3x3 square.


----------



## Zaister

malraux said:
			
		

> Nope. a burst 1 is all squares within 1 square of the target square.  So its a 3x3 square.




Ah. Confused burst and blast.


----------



## MindWanderer

Zaister said:
			
		

> I thought Burst X means an area of X by X squares... so waht is the difference between "burst 1" and "1 square"?



 You're thinking Blast.  Take a look at the PrRC for diagrams.  Basically, the number is the radius for Bursts but the diameter for Blasts.


----------



## Darth Cyric

The Ranger power Blade Ward (Lv. 23 Encounter, IIRC, I'm not where I can access it right now) is missing a number behind the [W] for damage.


----------



## Spatula

They really should have renamed either burst or blast... or at least made the number following the term mean the same thing for both.  Is it a radius?  Is it the diameter?  Which is which?  Much needless confusion.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> The Ranger power Blade Ward (Lv. 23 Encounter, IIRC, I'm not where I can access it right now) is missing a number behind the [W] for damage.




ouch, thats a pretty bad typo. For 23, i doubt it would be 1[w] with a single attack.... sigh


----------



## Kordeth

Belphanior said:
			
		

> The ability for wizards to extend spell durations with an orb... actually doesn't do anything.
> 
> It states that you could enhance a duration from "ends at the end of your turn" into "ends at the end of your next turn". This only works on at-will wizard powers and mentions both Ray of Frost and Cloud of Daggers as examples.
> 
> Problem: they're both already "ends at the end of your next turn".




The ability works just fine. It goes like this:

Round 1: Wizard casts cloud of daggers. It will end at the end of his next turn.

Round 2: Cloud of daggers will now end at the end of the wizard's turn. Wizard uses his orb ability. Now cloud of daggers ends at the end of his _next_ turn.

Round 3: At the end of the wizard's turn, cloud of daggers ends.


----------



## Boarstorm

Found one.

The text of the warlock multiclassing feat (Pact Initiate) says that the PC gains an at-will power based on his pact of choice (fey, infernal, star) as an encounter power.

The table on the next page merely says he gets eldritch blast 1/encounter (no choice mentioned).

So can my planned rogue/'lock multiclass get eyebite or not?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Found one.
> 
> The text of the warlock multiclassing feat (Pact Initiate) says that the PC gains an at-will power based on his pact of choice (fey, infernal, star) as an encounter power.
> 
> The table on the next page merely says he gets eldritch blast 1/encounter (no choice mentioned).
> 
> So can my planned rogue/'lock multiclass get eyebite or not?




Oof. I think that's a throwback to prior playtest drafts, where the feat gave _eldritch blast_. But I'm pretty sure the text is correct. (Also, at least in 3E, text always trumped table, except where errata stated otherwise. Dunno if that's still the case in general, but I'm pretty sure it's the case here.)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oof. I think that's a throwback to prior playtest drafts, where the feat gave _eldritch blast_. But I'm pretty sure the text is correct. (Also, at least in 3E, text always trumped table, except where errata stated otherwise. Dunno if that's still the case in general, but I'm pretty sure it's the case here.)



Yep, looks like we missed this one in our list of issues a couple months ago.  We caught all the other table/text variations in the standard feat section but must have missed the multiclass table.  I even saw this one and forgot to mention it when asked about problems.  Looks like everyone can blame me for this.  Damn.


----------



## Michele Carter

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oof. I think that's a throwback to prior playtest drafts, where the feat gave _eldritch blast_. But I'm pretty sure the text is correct. (Also, at least in 3E, text always trumped table, except where errata stated otherwise. Dunno if that's still the case in general, but I'm pretty sure it's the case here.)




Still true (until proven otherwise). The table is in error because we changed the feat at the last moment to give the multiclasser a choice, rather than just sticking him with _eldritch blast_.

The table also references "designate prey" for the ranger, which should be Hunter's Quarry. (And as official "real" errata for Warrior of the Wild: it should be "once per encounter UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN, you can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry feature". Just like Sneak of Shadows, it's meant to give the extra striker damage for 1 round per encounter. )


----------



## Darth Cyric

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> (And as official "real" errata for Warrior of the Wild: it should be "once per encounter UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN, you can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry feature". Just like Sneak of Shadows, it's meant to give the extra striker damage for 1 round per encounter. )



Oh, good. That nips the potentially broken Warlock/Ranger or Rogue/Ranger in the bud.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't know if this is too much to ask, but what is Blade Ward's damage supposed to be?


----------



## MindWanderer

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> And as official "real" errata for Warrior of the Wild: it should be "once per encounter UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN, you can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry feature". Just like Sneak of Shadows, it's meant to give the extra striker damage for 1 round per encounter.



_Ouch_.  That's one heck of a nerf.  +1d6 damage for one attack?  My cleric/ranger character concept is looking worse and worse....


----------



## Darth Cyric

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> _Ouch_.  That's one heck of a nerf.  +1d6 damage for one attack?



_Next_ turn, which means it can actually be two attacks (one during the turn in which you activated HQ, and then one more on your next turn.)


----------



## Kordeth

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> _Next_ turn, which means it can actually be two attacks (one during the turn in which you activated HQ, and then one more on your next turn.)




It can be more if your party includes a warlord or your target provokes OAs, or if you have some additional power that lets you take attacks on another creature's turn.


----------



## Darth Cyric

Kordeth said:
			
		

> It can be more if your party includes a warlord or your target provokes OAs, or if you have some additional power that lets you take attacks on another creature's turn.



Hunter's Quarry damage can only be applied once per round.


----------



## Xorn

Careful Attack (Ranger 1st level At-Will)
It shows Attack: as "Dex Mod +2 vs AC" and Hit: as "1[W]"
It seems like (from DDXP pregen) it should be "Dex Mod x2 vs AC"

Since a basic range attack is "Dex Mod vs AC" and "1[W] + Dex Mod", if you have +3 or higher Dex Mod, your trade off for Careful Attack gets worse and worse, rapidly.

I'm going to assume that you double your Dex Mod on your attack roll, in exchange for not adding it to your damage.


----------



## Thasmodious

Under the clerics trained skills it lists - religion + 3 more trained from this list: arcana, diplomacy, heal, history, insight, and *religion*.


----------



## Boarstorm

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Under the clerics trained skills it lists - religion + 3 more trained from this list: arcana, diplomacy, heal, history, insight, and *religion*.




Check the rogue list.  It'll blow your mind.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Xorn said:
			
		

> Careful Attack (Ranger 1st level At-Will)
> It shows Attack: as "Dex Mod +2 vs AC" and Hit: as "1[W]"
> It seems like (from DDXP pregen) it should be "Dex Mod x2 vs AC"
> 
> Since a basic range attack is "Dex Mod vs AC" and "1[W] + Dex Mod", if you have +3 or higher Dex Mod, your trade off for Careful Attack gets worse and worse, rapidly.
> 
> I'm going to assume that you double your Dex Mod on your attack roll, in exchange for not adding it to your damage.



It seems pretty cruddy. I wonder if its not x2 as well.


----------



## charlesatan

Xorn said:
			
		

> Careful Attack (Ranger 1st level At-Will)
> It shows Attack: as "Dex Mod +2 vs AC" and Hit: as "1[W]"
> It seems like (from DDXP pregen) it should be "Dex Mod x2 vs AC"
> 
> Since a basic range attack is "Dex Mod vs AC" and "1[W] + Dex Mod", if you have +3 or higher Dex Mod, your trade off for Careful Attack gets worse and worse, rapidly.
> 
> I'm going to assume that you double your Dex Mod on your attack roll, in exchange for not adding it to your damage.




Sounds right. Based on the playtest report, I think this was originally roll 2d20s on the attack roll, pick highest then nerfed to Dex +4 vs AC and now the final version is Dex +2 vs AC. You're trading damage for accuracy. And +2 is a big bonus.


----------



## Plane Sailing

When we originally saw the photograph of some of the wizard powers, one of them was 'Greater Invisibility'.

Wizard utility 16

Daily, arcane, illusion
Standard action, ranged 20
Target you or one creature
Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible.
Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain the effect


One assumes that there is a lower level power just called 'Invisibility' since this is a 'Greater' version. However, it doesn't seem particularly great... 

If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one? Any possibility of a typo creeping in via copy and paste and not amending greater invis to allow attacks or something?

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing

Not an error as such, but something that seems pretty strange...

In the thread where someone was posting information about the top level powers, it seemed that the top Wizard damaging spell was Meteor Swarm - something like Area burst 5 for 8d6+int damage, half on a miss.

So that was the controller (who excels in area damage).

Then there is the leader. What was his name? Oh yes, the cleric.

He gets Astral Storm - area burst 5 for 6d10+Wis damage, in four damage types (cold and fire and thunder and lightning) and with a sustain minor for extra damage(!)

So how is it that once again the cleric gets a better top end BOOM spell than the wizard eh? What about those role thingys!

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Under the clerics trained skills it lists - religion + 3 more trained from this list: arcana, diplomacy, heal, history, insight, and *religion*.



I think that's intentional - just in case someone gets the opportunity to pick a new skill from a class skill list. It's still a bit awkward.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld

C.Chapman said:
			
		

> When they load a dart in their blowgun, turn away from you, drop their pants and bend over, it's time to take cover, because the darts are about to fly!
> 
> cheers!
> Colin




Magic Beans just became a lot more sinister.


----------



## Imban

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one?




It has a maximum range of 5 instead of 20 and is sustained as a standard action rather than a minor action. If you just want to run around invisible for scouting purposes, they're basically equal.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> When we originally saw the photograph of some of the wizard powers, one of them was 'Greater Invisibility'.
> 
> Wizard utility 16
> 
> Daily, arcane, illusion
> Standard action, ranged 20
> Target you or one creature
> Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible.
> Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain the effect
> 
> 
> One assumes that there is a lower level power just called 'Invisibility' since this is a 'Greater' version. However, it doesn't seem particularly great...
> 
> If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one? Any possibility of a typo creeping in via copy and paste and not amending greater invis to allow attacks or something?
> 
> Cheers




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" ?

As I read it, the target was already invisible. Why does it need to become invisible again? Nowhere does it say that the target becomes visible until the effect ends. Mucho confused here.


----------



## silentounce

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> 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" ?
> 
> As I read it, the target was already invisible. Why does it need to become invisible again? Nowhere does it say that the target becomes visible until the effect ends. Mucho confused here.




Maybe it's supposed to say "if the target attacks, the target _remains_  invisible."  That would compare to 3.5 and earlier versions.  The non-Greater Invisibility probably says that if the target attacks, then the spell effect ends.


----------



## ExploderWizard

silentounce said:
			
		

> Maybe it's supposed to say "if the target attacks, the target _remains_  invisible."  That would compare to 3.5 and earlier versions.  The non-Greater Invisibility probably says that if the target attacks, then the spell effect ends.




That would actually make a little more sense.   I hope Plane misquoted and the book isn't like that.


----------



## beverson

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> ouch, thats a pretty bad typo. For 23, i doubt it would be 1[w] with a single attack.... sigh




It's not completely out of the question or it to be 1[W].  There are several other powers that are Immediate Interrupts like this one which only do 1[W], including other high level ones.


----------



## phil500

Clerics need to spend 4 feats to wear full plate and heavy shields.

that HAS to be a mistake.


----------



## heirodule

malraux said:
			
		

> So a 1000 cubic foot cube?  Isn't that easier to say?



what they should say is 103 ft.


----------



## WhatGravitas

phil500 said:
			
		

> Clerics need to spend 4 feats to wear full plate and heavy shields.
> 
> that HAS to be a mistake.



Or the cleric is more of a support cleric and the divine-frontline-basher role is now filled by the paladin.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## malraux

heirodule said:
			
		

> what they should say is 103 ft.



Nope.  103 ft3 would be correct.


----------



## Lacyon

malraux said:
			
		

> Nope.  103 ft3 would be correct.




Or (10 ft)3. Spelled out, ten-foot cube.


----------



## Mort_Q

phil500 said:
			
		

> Clerics need to spend 4 feats to wear full plate and heavy shields.
> 
> that HAS to be a mistake.




Design decisions you don't like are not always mistakes.


----------



## Ashardalon

silentounce said:
			
		

> Maybe it's supposed to say "if the target attacks, the target _remains_  invisible."  That would compare to 3.5 and earlier versions.  The non-Greater Invisibility probably says that if the target attacks, then the spell effect ends.



At least according to the photo that Plane Sailing refers to, the power says "if the target attacks, the target becomes _visible_." Though I seem to recall that there was another error on that page that hadn't been fixed at DDXP, but was changed since (namely an attack using wisdom rather than intelligence).


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

*Minion Mess*

Many Minions in the MM are wrong:
Cyclops Guard: Level 14, half level modifier on ability scores is +5
Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon: level 23, abilities modifier +10
Hobgoblin Grunt: level 3, abilities +0
Hobgoblin Warrior: level 8, abilities +3
Grimlock Minion: level 14, abilities +5
Grimlock Follower: level 22, abilities +8
Human Rabble: level 2, abilities +0
Kruthik Hatchling: level 2, abilities +0
Orc Drudge: level 4, abilities +0
Orc Warrior: level 9, abilities +3
Troglodyte Warrior: level 12, abilities +5
Vampire Spawn Fleshripper: level 5, abilities +3
Yuan-ti Snaketongue Zealot: level 12, abilities +5
Zombie Rotter: level 3, abilities +0

Some of these (Human Rabble, Zombie Rotter, Kruthik Hatchling, Hobgoblin Grunt, Vampire Spawn) are also in KotS, Orcs are the same as excerpt - all including the errors.
I just hope their defenses are the right numbers.

Math Errors are worse now, because the math should work.


----------



## silentounce

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Or (10 ft)3. Spelled out, ten-foot cube.




Actually, spelled out, that would be "ten feet, cubed."

But I don't see how "10 foot cube" is confusing anyway.  What else could they mean besides a cube with ten feet per side?  Especially, considering the context.  When would a measure of cubic feet be necessary in this version of D&D?  If they had meant 10 cubic feet they would have said so.


And, as far as the minion errors, which version of the MM do you have, the online version, or the pre-release version?  Because if it's in the online version, well, I'm not concerned.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

silentounce said:
			
		

> And, as far as the minion errors, which version of the MM do you have, the online version, or the pre-release version?  Because if it's in the online version, well, I'm not concerned.



It's in Keep on the Shadowfell too (the real one).
Concerned now?


----------



## GorTeX

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Or (10 ft)3. Spelled out, ten-foot cube.




still doesn't get it right, as that could be spread out in a different shaped area.  Saying a 10 foot cube spells out that it is a cube with 10 feet per side--it's not specifically talking about the volume of that cube, but the shape of that cube.


----------



## GorTeX

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Many Minions in the MM are wrong:
> Cyclops Guard: Level 14, half level modifier on ability scores is +5
> Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon: level 23, abilities modifier +10
> Hobgoblin Grunt: level 3, abilities +0
> Hobgoblin Warrior: level 8, abilities +3
> Grimlock Minion: level 14, abilities +5
> Grimlock Follower: level 22, abilities +8
> Human Rabble: level 2, abilities +0
> Kruthik Hatchling: level 2, abilities +0
> Orc Drudge: level 4, abilities +0
> Orc Warrior: level 9, abilities +3
> Troglodyte Warrior: level 12, abilities +5
> Vampire Spawn Fleshripper: level 5, abilities +3
> Yuan-ti Snaketongue Zealot: level 12, abilities +5
> Zombie Rotter: level 3, abilities +0
> 
> Some of these (Human Rabble, Zombie Rotter, Kruthik Hatchling, Hobgoblin Grunt, Vampire Spawn) are also in KotS, Orcs are the same as excerpt - all including the errors.
> I just hope their defenses are the right numbers.
> 
> Math Errors are worse now, because the math should work.




I don't have the books, but it looks like there is some reduction going on in the minons..from KotS, I had assumed it was either level/3 or (level-3)/2.


----------



## malraux

GorTeX said:
			
		

> still doesn't get it right, as that could be spread out in a different shaped area.  Saying a 10 foot cube spells out that it is a cube with 10 feet per side--it's not specifically talking about the volume of that cube, but the shape of that cube.



Oh, so they mean that the shape is supposed to be ridged?  So I couldn't mend a 20 foot pole with the mend spell?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye

GorTeX said:
			
		

> I don't have the books, but it looks like there is some reduction going on in the minons..from KotS, I had assumed it was either level/3 or (level-3)/2.



In MM other minions have their level/2 bonus just right. Just look at the excerpt for Legion Devil.


----------



## jaer

malraux said:
			
		

> Oh, so they mean that the shape is supposed to be ridged?  So I couldn't mend a 20 foot pole with the mend spell?




You could mend most of it, if you set it at an angle against a wall...


----------



## Grazzt

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> ....
> I just hope their defenses are the right numbers.
> 
> Math Errors are worse now, because the math should work.




Formulas in the DMG for monster's are not really hard set like in 3.x. They are guidelines more or less. 

Since a monster doesn't really follow the same rules for defenses a PC does (no 10 + 1/2 level + ability mod), those scores can apparently be adjusted as the DM/designer sees fit (most tend to be 1-3 points higher or lower if they are adjusted away from the suggested 'base'). Only numbers that really seem to be hard set with monster design are hit points, XP, and skills. Defenses, attack bonuses, damage, AC all seem to be pretty flexible based on what you want/need.


----------



## Xfer83

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> So how is it that once again the cleric gets a better top end BOOM spell than the wizard eh? What about those role thingys!
> 
> Cheers





I'd like to second this.  I can't see any way that the cleric power isn't better than the wizard power.  The cleric power seems to be a perfect controller power, and the wizard one seems inferior in every way.  Any ideas from the books that might help with this?


----------



## Spatula

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> When we originally saw the photograph of some of the wizard powers, one of them was 'Greater Invisibility'.
> 
> Wizard utility 16
> 
> Daily, arcane, illusion
> Standard action, ranged 20
> Target you or one creature
> Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible.
> Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain the effect
> 
> 
> One assumes that there is a lower level power just called 'Invisibility' since this is a 'Greater' version. However, it doesn't seem particularly great...
> 
> If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one? Any possibility of a typo creeping in via copy and paste and not amending greater invis to allow attacks or something?



Greater Invis ends if the target attacks (to correct the above typo).

The lower-level version has range 5 and sustain standard, making it hard to use in combat (or to use on anyone but the wizard himself).


----------



## Xorn

Same issue with Fighter's Sure Strike as with Ranger's Careful Attack.

The attack roll is ABIL + 2 vs DEF, and 1[W] damage.

Basically they reduce your damage by ABIL for +2 to hit.  The higher your ABIL gets, it seems like the worse this ability is.

I did have a thought on this, though.  As long as you don't need a 1 to miss or a 20 to hit (which should be rare with the scaling), +2 to hit is a 10% greater chance to hit, period.  At the same time, giving up +4 damage at low level is probably similar to giving up +8 damage at high level.

So you're probably giving up a proportionate amount of damage for a 10% hit increase, at any level.  As a matter of fact, at high level, who _wouldn't_ give up +8 damage for +8 to hit!?  (+40% to hit)

I have a feeling the DEX + 2 for Careful Attack and STR + 2 for Sure Strike is NOT an error, now.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Spatula said:
			
		

> Greater Invis ends if the target attacks (to correct the above typo).
> 
> The lower-level version has range 5 and sustain standard, making it hard to use in combat (or to use on anyone but the wizard himself).




Sorry about the typo!

Interesting about the lower level version. The paragon version at level 16 doesn't seem much better, frankly. You can cast some extra utility spells while maintaining it, I suppose.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Sorry about the typo!
> 
> Interesting about the lower level version. The paragon version at level 16 doesn't seem much better, frankly. You can cast some extra utility spells while maintaining it, I suppose.





Ah. So it appears Greater Invisibility is a misnomer now. Has anyone found anything that permits attacking while invisible, even for a round or two?


----------



## Mengu

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Ah. So it appears Greater Invisibility is a misnomer now. Has anyone found anything that permits attacking while invisible, even for a round or two?




I hope not. One of my very few 3.x house rules was to cross out that spell.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler

Don't worry, guys! The core books will be error free. There will be no 4.5 edition. These aren't the droids you're looking for.   

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4218854&postcount=3

bmelee: _Please note that Scott was writing in the spirit of mirth in the above link._ )


----------



## Benly

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Ah. So it appears Greater Invisibility is a misnomer now. Has anyone found anything that permits attacking while invisible, even for a round or two?




Hide In Plain Sight, a rogue utility power, renders you invisible until you leave the square you're standing in. Nothing else you do will make you visible, including attacking.


----------



## themilkman

Benly said:
			
		

> Hide In Plain Sight, a rogue utility power, renders you invisible until you leave the square you're standing in. Nothing else you do will make you visible, including attacking.



 Rogues have another daily utility power (Hide from the Light) that allows them to make basic and at-will attacks and move 2 squares without becoming visible.

Cloak of Invisibility makes you invisible until the end of the encounter, or until you are hit by an attack.  Making attacks should be okay.

Other than that, attacking from invisibility gives you away.


----------



## ShinRyuuBR

Why is a fighter attack 1 equal to an attack 3, plus extras?

Steel Serpent Strike - Encounter
Fighter Attack 1
Standard Action; Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is
slowed and cannot shift until end of your next turn.

Dance of Steel - Encounter
Fighter Attack 3
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: Weapon: If you’re wielding a polearm or a heavy blade, the
target is slowed until the end of your next turn.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

ShinRyuuBR said:
			
		

> Why is a fighter attack 1 equal to an attack 3, plus extras?
> 
> Steel Serpent Strike - Encounter
> Fighter Attack 1
> Standard Action; Melee weapon
> Target: One creature
> Attack: Strength vs. AC
> Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is
> slowed and cannot shift until end of your next turn.
> 
> Dance of Steel - Encounter
> Fighter Attack 3
> Standard Action Melee weapon
> Target: One creature
> Attack: Strength vs. AC
> Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
> Weapon: Weapon: If you’re wielding a polearm or a heavy blade, the
> target is slowed until the end of your next turn.




That... is an excellent question. 

I think because it denotes a specific weapon, you get to add that weapon's bonus to the power, e.g., heavy blades add Dex to damage.  (Don't recall what polearms get).

The question is... do they add dex to damage on specific powers, or all the time?  I believe it's the former, but I need to read the books.


----------



## Belphanior

The section on magic armor (page 227 PHB) mentions _+5 black iron dragonscale armor_.

Such armor doesn't exist. It should be wyrmscale.


----------



## maragin

*MM index errors*

I posted this over on the wizards board, but I like this board as well.

-----

I made my DM monster spreadsheet today with all the monsters, level, xp, role, and page number. Here are the errors found just in the index in the back of the book.

    * Ice Archon Hailscourge not found in index (Page 21, Level 16 Artillery)
    * Ancient Blue Dragon incorrectly listed as Adult Blue Dragon
    * Dusk Unicorn incorrectly listed as Unicorn
    * Vine Horror Strangler listed, no entry in book

I have not cross-referenced to see if the listed monster levels are correct.


----------



## Oldtimer

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Interesting about the lower level version. The paragon version at level 16 doesn't seem much better, frankly. You can cast some extra utility spells while maintaining it, I suppose.



Another interesting (but probably meaningless) difference between the two, is that it's _not_ a copy-paste job with just range and sustain changed. The line about attacking with Invisibility reads:
_"If the target attacks, the target becomes visible."_
But for Greater Invisibility it reads:
_"If the target attacks, the power ends."_

Strange. I would have used copy-paste (but then I'm lazy).


----------



## salsb

*containing strike*

Steel grace (under Swordmaster path features) refers to "Containing strike", but I don't see that power. Though I could have missed it.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Another interesting (but probably meaningless) difference between the two, is that it's _not_ a copy-paste job with just range and sustain changed. The line about attacking with Invisibility reads:
> _"If the target attacks, the target becomes visible."_
> But for Greater Invisibility it reads:
> _"If the target attacks, the power ends."_
> 
> Strange. I would have used copy-paste (but then I'm lazy).



Even more strangely: You could argue that the invisibility _doesn't end_, the target just becomes visible again. And since you're sustaining it, the effect (invisible until end of next turn) would kick back again. Because the power never ended.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## samursus

Rechan said:
			
		

> Page 159.
> 
> Cloud of Daggers:
> Area *1 square* within 10 squares.
> 
> I've never seen any other spell only effect 1 square. I think this is supposed to be 'Area Burst 1'.




Not a typo I don't think...look at:

Target: each target in *square*


----------



## Canageek

Ok, from my fully legal DMG (only got shipped that one, seen another person on the WoTC board who said the same thing, not from Buy.com)

On pg202, point 14. The Bluffs ..."and roll about 2d6 [ts] 10 feet"
I bet thats supposed to be a * (or rather the nice pretty x that WoTC books use for times)

Also on pg 176 in the "DUPLICATE OR CONFLICTING MONSTER ABILITIES" box, 2nd paragraph "on page xx of the Player's Handbook"

Not trying to hash out every mistake like some people, just figure that if I point these out now when my friends get the second printing they won't have these errors.

Also can someone fill in what these are supposed to read?

I've also posted it at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15982348#post15982348
(Yes I'm one of those odd creatures who likes 4e so far, I'm on pg203 of the DMG as I've been talking about what I'm reading on IRC as I go, and doing other things, but so far its the best DMG I've read)


----------



## marune

- Elixirs are mentioned in various places, but not included in the magic items chapter.

- In the MM glossary, the last sentence of the Change Shape entry is not clear at all (_The creature must have seen the individual it is imitating and gains a +20 bonus to its Bluff check._)

- In the PHB, Carrying/Lifting/Dragging. 10 x STR = normal load. A wizard with 10 STR can carry 100 lbs as a normal load ?


----------



## frankthedm

The Large Oni's Great sword deals 2d6, rather than the 1d12 the weapon sizing rules seem to call for. This might be just exception based design, but just maybe the Greatsword is suppoded to be a 1d12 weapon.


----------



## Family

Y'all have been noticed. Time to keep bringing your "A" game.

Me: "Is the thread addressing Core Rulebook Errors of benefit?"



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> An single place where gamers can post errors they find is useful. We have an errata team forming, and I'll point them to that thread.





---
Book: "What are we up to, sweetheart?" 
River: "Fixing your Bible." 
Book: "I, um, what?" 
River: "Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics; doesn't make sense." 
Book: "No, no. You, you can't..."
River: "So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." 
Book: "Really?" 
River: "We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat."


----------



## Belphanior

skeptic said:
			
		

> - In the MM glossary, the last sentence of the Change Shape entry is not clear at all (_The creature must have seen the individual it is imitating and gains a +20 bonus to its Bluff check._)




How is this not clear? If a monster tries to make itself look like a specific person it must know what that person looks like, and it gets a +20 bonus to the opposed bluff/insight check. What's the problem?


----------



## beverson

skeptic said:
			
		

> In the PHB, Carrying/Lifting/Dragging. 10 x STR = normal load. A typical human (NPC) can carry 100/110 lbs as a normal load ???




An _ADVENTURER'S_ normal load.  That section is specifically written for Player Characters, who are, of course, heroes.  I would imagine that either the DMG notes it's different for NPC's or normal townsfolk, or it's one of the things the designers left for the DM to decide on his own.  I personally will be adjusting that to a more reasonable level for the non-heroic types, as I see fit.


----------



## marune

beverson said:
			
		

> An _ADVENTURER'S_ normal load.  That section is specifically written for Player Characters, who are, of course, heroes.  I would imagine that either the DMG notes it's different for NPC's or normal townsfolk, or it's one of the things the designers left for the DM to decide on his own.  I personally will be adjusting that to a more reasonable level for the non-heroic types, as I see fit.




This formula doesn't make sense for low-strength hero anyway (forget the NPC example).


----------



## Stonesnake

*Mistakes in the 4th Edition Books*

I've just been sort of jumping around the books but I saw a pretty big error...

The Fighter's Level 1 Daily Exploits seem to be missing key wording. In all of the DDXP sheets and the character sheets within the Keep on the Shadowfell the "Brute Strike" power has the wording:

"Miss: You don't expend the use of this power."

This "miss" wording is not included in the PHB ... I would think this is a pretty huge error as the ability to reuse your daily power if you miss is a big deal.

I haven't seen anything else so far but that is pretty disturbing. Anyone find anything else?


----------



## Nikosandros

I only have KotS, but the power has the reliable keyword. It is likely that the keyword is explained only once in the rules, avoiding unnecessary repetition.


----------



## ShadowyFigure

Page 55 of the PHB on keywords.



> *Reliable:* If you miss when using a reliable power, you don’t expend the use of that power.




They simply decided to include out of the power block.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

Stonesnake said:
			
		

> This "miss" wording is not included in the PHB ... I would think this is a pretty huge error as the ability to reuse your daily power if you miss is a big deal.




Brutal Strike has the "Reliable" keyword, which means if it misses, the power isn't used up (the keywords are described towards the beginning of the Class chapter)

Edit:  SNEAK ATTACKED by ninjae!


----------



## dervish

The "Miss:" entry is only included in the KotS character's ability because it would take up more space to describe the "Reliable" keyword than just note that the ability isn't expended on a miss.

I did see some other things in the PHB that would need errataing. I believe there is one ranger power that lists damage as [W] without a number. I guess it's 2[W] or 3[W], but it does need clarification.


----------



## Flazzy

Swordmaster's Steel Grace: allows you to use Containing Strike as part of a charge, yet no such power exists.


----------



## Shado

Flazzy said:
			
		

> Swordmaster's Steel Grace: allows you to use Containing Strike as part of a charge, yet no such power exists.




Mechanically, Tide of Iron seems to fill the evocative to a name like "Containing Strike."

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the errata changes it to Sure Strike.


----------



## Kzach

Shado said:
			
		

> Mechanically, Tide of Iron seems to fill the evocative to a name like "Containing Strike."
> 
> However, I wouldn't be surprised if the errata changes it to Sure Strike.



Any of the At-wills can make sense for this.

However I'm betting it will be Surestrike. Essentially this gives you a choice between assured, but very low damage (Reaping Strike), or a slightly better chance to hit for a lot more damage.


----------



## malraux

I don't think anyone's called this one yet.  PHB 226:  The text immediately above the Special heading is misplaced and should go with the holy avenger text.


----------



## Flazzy

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


----------



## entrerix

maybe not a mistake

rogue v ranger attack

rogue with 18 dex makes a sneak attack using a shortsword dam = 7-22 (3d6+4)

ranger w/18 str and two longswords makes a twin strike, dam = 2-16 (if they both hit, 2d8 plus NOTHING... no strength bonus on this hit)

was rogue meant to have this much more damage output than the other striker?  The rogue has more skills and does more damage than the ranger (though the rogue needs combat advantage, this is pretty easy to do if there is a fighter in the party - just flank) in fairly normal circumstances


----------



## Zsig

The wording on Cleave (p.77) doesn't specify that you can't target the same enemy for the additional Str damage, it only says "...and an enemy adjacent to you takes..." 

This means you could simply (effectively) do 1[W] + (2x) Strength mod damage to a single target.

Not sure if it's a typo or if it's intended.


----------



## bobthehappyzombie

Does it say anywhere what _1D6[ts] your Wisdom_
Means on the Healing font power on page102?
Or is it just a type error?


----------



## Kordeth

bobthehappyzombie said:
			
		

> Does it say anywhere what _1D6[ts] your Wisdom_
> Means on the Healing font power on page102?
> Or is it just a type error?




If I recall my WotC-ese correctly, [ts] is layout code for "times symbol," so it should be a multiplication sign. Contrary to popular belief, the multiplication sign (×) isn't the same thing as a lower case "x". I'd wager the layout folks just missed replacing this one.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld

entrerix said:
			
		

> maybe not a mistake
> 
> rogue v ranger attack
> 
> rogue with 18 dex makes a sneak attack using a shortsword dam = 7-22 (3d6+4)
> 
> ranger w/18 str and two longswords makes a twin strike, dam = 2-16 (if they both hit, 2d8 plus NOTHING... no strength bonus on this hit)
> 
> was rogue meant to have this much more damage output than the other striker?  The rogue has more skills and does more damage than the ranger (though the rogue needs combat advantage, this is pretty easy to do if there is a fighter in the party - just flank) in fairly normal circumstances




Ranger with Twin Strike and Hunters Quarry: 3-22 (1d8+1d8+1d6), with the option of splitting the attack between two targets, always useful in a game with minions that die on a single hit. There's other stuff that adds to damage for either class, but the ranger will be adding some damage bonuses twice, once per each weapon, and has access to higher base damage weapons by default, and Hunter's Quarry works with any weapon and works more often than Sneak Attack, so overall damage output will be similar.


----------



## MindWanderer

bobthehappyzombie said:
			
		

> Does it say anywhere what _1D6[ts] your Wisdom_
> Means on the Healing font power on page102?
> Or is it just a type error?



 [ts] is pre-print jargon for the multiplication symbol.  So it means 1d6 times your Wis.







			
				entrerix said:
			
		

> was rogue meant to have this much more damage output than the other striker?  The rogue has more skills and does more damage than the ranger (though the rogue needs combat advantage, this is pretty easy to do if there is a fighter in the party - just flank) in fairly normal circumstances



Also think of it like Careful Attack: you get an additional chance to land one attack, and thus add your Hunter's Quarry damage.  Between getting +4 to one attack or getting two attacks, I'll take the latter.


----------



## Diirk

The fighter weapon table on pg 77 lists Wisdom (and rarely dexterity) as the governing attribute for polearms, this is in relation to powers that work better with specific weapons and grant secondary effects etc. However of the 3 powers that work better with polearms, none of them use wisdom at all, and only 1 uses dexterity:

Dance of Steel, 3rd lvl attack: No effect from attributes
Silverstep, 13th lvl attack: Dexterity determines effect
Paralyzing Strike, 23rd level attack: No effect from attributes

In fact, I believe the only use fighters specifically can get from wisdom is the pit fighter paragon path... unless I missed something.


----------



## Kraydak

Fighter Rain of Blows (Enc 3): comparing to the ranger's Twin Attacks (at-will), it appears to me that Rain of Blows gives you two attack, each one of which can proc a secondary attack, for a max of 4 attacks.  Intended?  Appropriate reading?

What the heck is up with the +2 (or +4) to hit, reduced damage abilities?!  Every one I have examined so far is a booby trap *at best*.


----------



## marune

Diirk said:
			
		

> The fighter weapon table on pg 77 lists Wisdom (and rarely dexterity) as the governing attribute for polearms, this is in relation to powers that work better with specific weapons and grant secondary effects etc. However of the 3 powers that work better with polearms, none of them use wisdom at all, and only 1 uses dexterity:
> 
> Dance of Steel, 3rd lvl attack: No effect from attributes
> Silverstep, 13th lvl attack: Dexterity determines effect
> Paralyzing Strike, 23rd level attack: No effect from attributes
> 
> In fact, I believe the only use fighters specifically can get from wisdom is the pit fighter paragon path... unless I missed something.




You are right, probably a last minute change of mind from the designers. Wisdom is also mentioned in the Creating a Fighter section.


----------



## Blackeagle

skeptic said:
			
		

> You are right, probably a last minute change of mind from the designers. Wisdom is also mentioned in the Creating a Fighter section.




My guess is it refers to powers that got cut.  I guess we'll find out when the Martial splatbook comes out this fall.


----------



## Dracollich

Kraydak said:
			
		

> What the heck is up with the +2 (or +4) to hit, reduced damage abilities?!  Every one I have examined so far is a booby trap *at best*.




One situation I can think of off the top of my head is if a squishy PC teammate is getting beating on by a minion.  Ranged attack with a bonus to hit/no damage bonus would be the best choice.

Thought of a second one... if a magical weapon has an encounter/daily ability that takes effect after a successful attack.  Don't know if these exist (don't have the books yet), but if they do, I'd go for the 10% bonus to hit to help make sure the effect triggers.


----------



## Kraydak

Dracollich said:
			
		

> One situation I can think of off the top of my head is if a squishy PC teammate is getting beating on by a minion.  Ranged attack with a bonus to hit/no damage bonus would be the best choice.




If you are using Careful Attack to get a more probable hit than Twin Attacks (ranger), you are facing someone you need a 20 or 21 (but not 22 or higher) to hit.  Planning for such scenarios should involve Running Away (universal at-will) rather than expenditure of a valuable class at-will slot.



> Thought of a second one... if a magical weapon has an encounter/daily ability that takes effect after a successful attack.  Don't know if these exist (don't have the books yet), but if they do, I'd go for the 10% bonus to hit to help make sure the effect triggers.




Fights are long enough that you will score a hit *anyways*.

The problem isn't that there literally aren't uses for the abilities, it is that they are *so* corner that they might as well not exist.  Someone messed up the math at WotC.  (for Careful Attack to be useful compared to Twin Attacks, it would need to add about a +6 to hit, rather than +2, maybe +5 given the interaction with Hunter's Quarry)


----------



## RigaMortus2

On page 281, the image that shows how a Burst 2 works doesn't seem right to me.  Wouldn't the 2 top left squares be affected by the burst as well?


----------



## Kraydak

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> On page 281, the image that shows how a Burst 2 works doesn't seem right to me.  Wouldn't the 2 top left squares be affected by the burst as well?




I make it only the second from left square missing from the burst.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I make it only the second from left square missing from the burst.




At the very least...  If you are allowed to skim corners when drawing the imagineary line when checking for LoE, then the first one should be hit too.  You can draw an unobstructed line starting from the upper right corner of the origin burst to the upper right corner of the top/left most square.


----------



## Kraydak

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> At the very least...  If you are allowed to skim corners when drawing the imagineary line when checking for LoE, then the first one should be hit too.  You can draw an unobstructed line starting from the upper right corner of the origin burst to the upper right corner of the top/left most square.




Going by the figure on page 274, it looks like corners (and presumably sides as well) don't count as parts of squares.  I didn't see anyplace where it is called out specifically either way, but then I didn't look too hard.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

The Ranger's Level 23 Encounter Power, Blade Ward says:

Hit: [W] + Strength modifier damage.

The "X" in X[W], and should probably be higher than 1.


----------



## Seizure Robot

I am a dumb person, please ignore


----------



## trimeta

A fairly significant mistake in the MM: The Encounter Groups section for Colossus (page 44) mentions a "primordial colossus (level 24 elite brute)", but there's only one stat block in the Colossus entry, for the Godforged Colossus (Level 29 Elite Brute). Which implies to me that a whole stat block got missed somehow. Well, either that, or the Primordial Colossus was intentionally removed from the book, but the Encounter Group mention of it was not. A mistake either way.


----------



## DeLiRiUm

I don't know if this is an error, but Fighters don't start with plate armor proficiency?


----------



## Destil

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> My guess is it refers to powers that got cut.  I guess we'll find out when the Martial splatbook comes out this fall.



Polearm Gamble requires Wis... not that it makes any sense, since I think someone with 15+ Wis would know better than to open themselves up to combat advantage.


----------



## Dionysos

This one is a bit annoying to me.

Page 172 of the Player's Handbook introduces the concept of the Destiny Quest, the final quest of the campaign which leads to the culmination of the PCs' respective epic destinies. 

It explicitly says that detailed information about Destiny Quests can be found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The fact that the term Destiny Quest is capitalized, and the fact that the book directs the reader to the DMG for a thorough explanation, implies that the game provides explicit guidelines on said quests.

In reality, the DMG barely has a couple of sentences regarding this issue, which basically just summarize the little bit that was in the PHB. And unless I am quite daft (always a possibility), the term Destiny Quest is not mentioned in the DMG. Just some vague statements about how the campaign should culminate in some sort of big adventure.

It looks like this Destiny Quest stuff was probably cut for space.


----------



## CarlosDosBrickos

Not sure if this has ben mentioned, but there's a typo in the elder blue dragon stat block: Frightful Presence mentions a black dragon, not blue.


----------



## Pistonrager

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> The Ranger's Level 23 Encounter Power, Blade Ward says:
> 
> Hit: [W] + Strength modifier damage.
> 
> The "X" in X[W], and should probably be higher than 1.





it's an interrupt to an attack that makes it harder for you to be hit. 1W is fine with the penalty added in


----------



## small pumpkin man

Diirk said:
			
		

> The fighter weapon table on pg 77 lists Wisdom (and rarely dexterity) as the governing attribute for polearms, this is in relation to powers that work better with specific weapons and grant secondary effects etc. However of the 3 powers that work better with polearms, none of them use wisdom at all, and only 1 uses dexterity:
> 
> Dance of Steel, 3rd lvl attack: No effect from attributes
> Silverstep, 13th lvl attack: Dexterity determines effect
> Paralyzing Strike, 23rd level attack: No effect from attributes
> 
> In fact, I believe the only use fighters specifically can get from wisdom is the pit fighter paragon path... unless I missed something.



In a similar, but less important version, the War Wizard build mentions taking powers which "make the best use of your dexterity score". AFAICT there aren't any Wizard powers which use dexterity.


----------



## Ander00

Related to my complaint elsewhere about ranged utility powers for a melee type:

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.


cheers


----------



## Psikus

The "How to read a power" section doesn't seem to explain "Weapon:" lines, such as those used in many Fighter powers:

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: If you’re wielding a polearm or a heavy blade, the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.

It's not that difficult to guess its meaning, but i'd prefer if they spelled it out. The fact that the Weapon text is part of the "Hit:" section might not be obvious.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

This much required errata is ridiculous.  They should have released the near-final pdf's to the public for a nominal fee and used everyone as proofreaders.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg

Diirk said:
			
		

> The fighter weapon table on pg 77 lists Wisdom (and rarely dexterity) as the governing attribute for polearms, this is in relation to powers that work better with specific weapons and grant secondary effects etc. However of the 3 powers that work better with polearms, none of them use wisdom at all, and only 1 uses dexterity:
> 
> Dance of Steel, 3rd lvl attack: No effect from attributes
> Silverstep, 13th lvl attack: Dexterity determines effect
> Paralyzing Strike, 23rd level attack: No effect from attributes
> 
> In fact, I believe the only use fighters specifically can get from wisdom is the pit fighter paragon path... unless I missed something.




Perhaps they take Combat Superiority into account, a Fighter class feature that lets you add Wisdom to Opportunity Attacks. With a reach weapon you are likely to get to make Opportunity Attacks more often.


----------



## neoweasel

Fredrik Svanberg said:
			
		

> Perhaps they take Combat Superiority into account, a Fighter class feature that lets you add Wisdom to Opportunity Attacks. With a reach weapon you are likely to get to make Opportunity Attacks more often.



No you're not.  Reach weapons only threaten adjacent squares.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg

neoweasel said:
			
		

> No you're not.  Reach weapons only threaten adjacent squares.




Oh, ok. Nevermind then. But perhaps the guy who wrote up the list for what abilities goes with what weapons made the same mistake I did.


----------



## zoroaster100

The warlord builds are transposed, at least as far as at-will powers.  The at-will powers suggested for inspired warlord are intelligence based and the at-will powes suggested for tactical warlord are charisma based, when they should be the opposite.


----------



## Nikodemus

Not sure if this one has been noted (I didn't read the whole thread).  The summary table for mutli-class feats says that Pact initiate grants eldritch blast once per encounter.  The actual description of the feat says that you get the at will power of your chosen pact once per encounter.


----------



## RigaMortus2

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> The warlord builds are transposed, at least as far as at-will powers.  The at-will powers suggested for inspired warlord are intelligence based and the at-will powes suggested for tactical warlord are charisma based, when they should be the opposite.




Well, Furious Smash is ok for the inspiring warlord's at will, because part of it's effect is based off Charisma.

The two that are suggested for the tactical warlord (intel based warlord) do not take advantage of intelligence or charisma, so either one of them will work with either build.

So the only fubar I see is selecting Commander's Strike for the inspiring warlord, since it utilizes intelligence and not charisma.  It's still not bad, but is probably more useful for the tactical warlord.  The inspiring warlord still does use intel, it is just suggested to be the least important of the important stats.

Should look like this...

Inspiring Warlord
Suggested At-Wills: Furious Smash, Viper's Strike OR Wolf Pack Tactics.

Tactical Warlord
Suggested At-Wills: Commander's Strike, Viper's Strike OR Wolf Pack Tactics.


----------



## Oldtimer

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> On page 281, the image that shows how a Burst 2 works doesn't seem right to me.  Wouldn't the 2 top left squares be affected by the burst as well?



No. Using normal movement rules, those squares are more than 2 distant from the origin square. Except for the first square, the burst seems to use normal movement rules. It seems to work similar to a Spread in 3.5e.


----------



## Kraydak

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> No. Using normal movement rules, those squares are more than 2 distant from the origin square. Except for the first square, the burst seems to use normal movement rules. It seems to work similar to a Spread in 3.5e.




A) The top, second from left square is only 2 away from the origin square.
B) I don't see any indication that bursts/blasts care about obstacles when determining their area.


----------



## fuzzlewump

For the burst picture on 281, I think if you can draw a line from any corner of the origin square to a corner of another square and also cross the actual area inside of the square in question at the same time, then that square is effected. Oh, and the square whose corner is touched and area is crossed must be within burst X.

I don't really see any mention of it, but that works for me.


----------



## Flazzy

STUNNED
✦ You grant combat advantage.
✦ _You can’t take actions._
✦ You can’t flank an enemy.

DELAY: NO ACTION
✦ Delay Entire Turn: ...You also can’t delay if you’re dazed or if
_you’re unable to take actions_.

End Harmful Effects after You Act: ...For example, _if an enemy
stunned you until the end of your next turn, the
stunned condition ends. _ You can’t avoid a harmful
effect by delaying.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kraydak said:
			
		

> A) The top, second from left square is only 2 away from the origin square.
> B) I don't see any indication that bursts/blasts care about obstacles when determining their area.



A) No, since you can't use the diagonal (can't move diagonally past a blocked square), it is 3 away from the origin.
B) Page 280: "When you make an area attack or a close attack, a target has cover if there is an obstruction between the origin square and the target" I take that as an indication that they care about obstacles.


----------



## Oldtimer

Here is another detail they missed:
The skill Nature is keyed of Wisdom, but in the class skill list for Wizard it says: "Nature (Int)".


----------



## Kraydak

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> A) No, since you can't use the diagonal (can't move diagonally past a blocked square), it is 3 away from the origin.
> B) Page 280: "When you make an area attack or a close attack, a target has cover if there is an obstruction between the origin square and the target" I take that as an indication that they care about obstacles.




A) point, but point B still holds (and if that statue is adequately big, the argument holds for the top right corner, too)
B) top right corner also has cover and is still getting hit.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> This much required errata is ridiculous.  They should have released the near-final pdf's to the public for a nominal fee and used everyone as proofreaders.



Agreed.  Green Ronin does this with for their Mutants & Masterminds line, and even set up official errata threads on their company message boards to list the errors and then try to correct as many as possible before the book goes to print.  And as an added bonus, give those that bought the pre-release pdfs the option to update with the corrected version a bit later after the book hits the shelves.  And it's worked out pretty well so far 

And fairly certain everyone knows the Microsoft rant of them putting a new OS on the market and letting the end-users serve as beta-testers...


----------



## Fifth Element

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> This much required errata is ridiculous.  They should have released the near-final pdf's to the public for a nominal fee and used everyone as proofreaders.



LOL. Seriously.


----------



## Fifth Element

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> And it's worked out pretty well so far



For Green Ronin, a small, privately-held (so far as I know) company.

Try selling this to management of a large corporation: "Yeah, we'd like to release the new game, the one we've spent millions on developing, for a nominal fee because we think it needs more proofreading. Don't worry, I'm sure no one will post it on the internet or anything."


----------



## Blackeagle

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Try selling this to management of a large corporation: "Yeah, we'd like to release the new game, the one we've spent millions on developing, for a nominal fee because we think it needs more proofreading. Don't worry, I'm sure no one will post it on the internet or anything."




Gee, not doing that sure did a good job of keeping 4e off the internet.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara

I have a problem with damage from lack of food/air

it calls for 1hp of damage for each character levels

while I understand the reasoning of this

maybe the damage should be hp damage=hp from healing surge or half that, 1hp/level make for a longer death at 1st level than at 30th level


----------



## Kraydak

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> I have a problem with damage from lack of food/air
> 
> it calls for 1hp of damage for each character levels
> 
> while I understand the reasoning of this
> 
> maybe the damage should be hp damage=hp from healing surge or half that, 1hp/level make for a longer death at 1st level than at 30th level




Wow.  Serious wierdness there.  On the other hand, you do get a *massive* initial buffer.  A first level wizard might be able to hold his breath for 5 1/2 minutes while a lvl 10 wizard might only get 4 minutes and change, but both are still doing pretty well.  At least the DC20 endurance check for taking damage while holding your breath seems to not have a cumulative 5 point penalty, so high level characters do much better while actively fighting underwater.


----------



## Vendark

neoweasel said:
			
		

> No you're not.  Reach weapons only threaten adjacent squares.




The Polearm Gamble feat gives limited threatening reach. 

And, to address a previous poster's concerns, the feat has Wis 15 as a requirement. Combine that with the Wis influence on Combat Superiority, and it starts to become clear why Wis matters to polearm users.


----------



## furthestaway

I'm not sure if this is an error or not, but I've noticed something odd with Healing Surges. Both Leaders get 7+con/day, and all the Strikers get 6+con/day; however, one Defender (the paladin) gets 10, while the other (the fighter) only gets 9.  

Are Paladins actually meant to have more healing surges than Fighters, as I can't really think of a reason why (the Divine Leader doesn't get any more than the Martial Leader, so that can't be why)?


----------



## malraux

furthestaway said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this is an error or not, but I've noticed something odd with Healing Surges. Both Leaders get 7+con/day, and all the Strikers get 6+con/day; however, one Defender (the paladin) gets 10, while the other (the fighter) only gets 9.
> 
> Are Paladins actually meant to have more healing surges than Fighters, as I can't really think of a reason why (the Divine Leader doesn't get any more than the Martial Leader, so that can't be why)?



Paladins can give their HS to other characters.  The fighter only has to heal himself, and the cleric's and warlord's powers trigger using the target's HS.  That probably explains it.


----------



## RigaMortus2

The Elf Racial Feat *Running Shot* states that _you don’t take any attack penalty to ranged attacks after you use the run action._

So, if you run before you make a long ranged attack with your weapon, you take no penalty (normally, you take a -2 when you fire long range).


----------



## Plane Sailing

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> The Elf Racial Feat *Running Shot* states that _you don’t take any attack penalty to ranged attacks after you use the run action._
> 
> So, if you run before you make a long ranged attack with your weapon, you take no penalty (normally, you take a -2 when you fire long range).




That's not errata, its wilful misreading of the text.

You get -5 to attack if you attack after a run (or something like that). This feat removes the attack penalty that you get after you use the run action. That is all. They don't need to spell it out in excruciating detail in this and every other case what is and what isn't affected.

Regards


----------



## helium3

skeptic said:
			
		

> You are right, probably a last minute change of mind from the designers. Wisdom is also mentioned in the Creating a Fighter section.




Yo. Fighters get a lot more chances for OA's than other classes and they get to add their wisdom modifier to their OA's. That's a good reason right there.


----------



## helium3

Has anyone else looked at the Paladin Attack 9, Radiant Pulse? I get the general idea of what the power is supposed to do (and even re-wrote it to reflect that for the 10th level pregens I made for my group, but holy heck is the rules verbiage confusing. It's seriously unclear whether the power sustains against the primary or somehow continues to affect secondary targets long after they were zapped for standing to close to the primary.

I think this is my biggest complaint about a lot of the "weirdness" I'm finding. Not so much out and out errors, as really vague sections that can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways.


----------



## Starfox

Plater's Handbook, page 204. In the table, Armor Specialization (Scale) does not mention the +1 bonus to AC.

PS:
Could a moderator please cut all the opinions and comments into a separate thread? Which seems like 90% of the thread at the moment. And yes, this includes my post-scriptum. There are enough pure typos and copy-paste errors in the books to merit a thread of its own.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> For Green Ronin, a small, privately-held (so far as I know) company.
> 
> Try selling this to management of a large corporation: "Yeah, we'd like to release the new game, the one we've spent millions on developing, for a nominal fee because we think it needs more proofreading. Don't worry, I'm sure no one will post it on the internet or anything."




Regardless of what steps companies take these days, stuff ends up on the internet.  Heck, I'm sure someone with a small amount of computer savvy can find and download the entire WotC 3.5e library in a day, and most of those weren't made available as PDFs.  As others noted, for those with a bit of larceny in their heart, 4e is available now.

As for how much to charge, WotC could have put them on the market around $25 each ($10 below hardcover retail), and even if the amount of internet piracy went up, the fact they don't have to pay printing costs or as much in distribution costs will help offset, if not overshadow entirely, whatever losses piracy would entail.  And again, they can point to Green Ronin's success record as proof of concept.  Besides which, I'd like to think that most folks are decent enough to cough up the bucks to buy official copies online prior to "the big release."  A lot of the posters that I've seen here that have admitted to dl'ing the books have also stated they are still buying the actual books, which more than a few people did for Green Ronin's M&M books.


----------



## MindWanderer

Here's an apparent error, in the Life-Stealer's Collect Life Spark ability.  When you collect a Fey life-spark, you can cause an opponent to become dazed.  Is that until the beginning of your next turn?  The end of your next turn?  Save ends?


----------



## Oompa

Self buffs are till the end of youre next turn
Damage is on the next attack

So i think dazed will be till the end of the creatures next turn.


----------



## doctormandible

Anyone else notice that the MM has no Good or Lawful Good monsters in it?  It doesn't even have Gold Dragons and Unicorns (UNICORNS?!) are listed as Unaligned.  Granted, this is from a d/l copy.  My legit copy will ship soon though.  So here's hoping it's different!


----------



## Blackeagle

doctormandible said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that the MM has no Good or Lawful Good monsters in it?  It doesn't even have Gold Dragons and Unicorns (UNICORNS?!) are listed as Unaligned.  Granted, this is from a d/l copy.  My legit copy will ship soon though.  So here's hoping it's different!




Do you fight a lot of good creatures?

The designers said in one of the podcasts that they intentionally removed a lot of the good creatures from the MM, or reclassed them as unaligned.  Since most parties are good, the good creatures didn't really see a lot of use, so the designers thought DMs would get more mileage out of creatures the PCs could actually fight.


----------



## Family

Now that many people are reading the books I thought I would bump this thread. Any typographical errors, format errors, or broken gameplay mechanics are welcome here.


----------



## Eryndur

I'm not sure if this a mistake, but I definitely don't understand it:

The Paragon Tier Feat "Point Blank Shot" on p.204 states, "If you make a ranged attack against a foe within 5 squares of you, your attack ignores cover and concealment, including superior cover but not total concealment."

Shouldn't superior cover and total concealment be reversed here? How could you nail a guy standing behind a 20 foot high rock wall, but not someone who's just standing in total darkness?


----------



## Kordeth

Eryndur said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this a mistake, but I definitely don't understand it:
> 
> The Paragon Tier Feat "Point Blank Shot" on p.204 states, "If you make a ranged attack against a foe within 5 squares of you, your attack ignores cover and concealment, including superior cover but not total concealment."
> 
> Shouldn't superior cover and total concealment be reversed here? How could you nail a guy standing behind a 20 foot high rock wall, but not someone who's just standing in total darkness?




Superior cover isn't "guy standing behind a rock wall," it's "guy standing behind a rock wall with a tiny arrow slit."


----------



## Wormwood

Eryndur said:
			
		

> Shouldn't superior cover and total concealment be reversed here? How could you nail a guy standing behind a 20 foot high rock wall, but not someone who's just standing in total darkness?



Because the standing behind a 20' wall removes you from line of sight entirely.

Superior cover would be standing behind an arrow slit in a 20' wall.

Total Concealment, on the other hand, is effective invisibility.

edit: ummmm...like Kordeth said. Serves me right for not having the book handy


----------



## Eryndur

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Superior cover isn't "guy standing behind a rock wall," it's "guy standing behind a rock wall with a tiny arrow slit."




Ah, you are correct. I forgot the difference between total cover and superior cover. Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

until proven otherwise: minion attributes seem weired on many low level minions...

they don´t follow the rule at the beginning of the monster manual where they are explained.... no exception for minion is mentioned besides "exeption based design" philosophy...


----------



## komi

TYPO:

On page 276 in the PHB under the Valenae example, it says the encounter power of a thundering longsword does 10 damage, when it should be 1d8 (p. 236).


----------



## godfear

*Kobold Slinger: Glue Shot*

In the _Monster Manual_ (p. 168) and _Keep on the Shadowfell_(p. 16 and others), the Kobold Slinger's "Gluepot" Special Shot ability targets AC and deals damage in addition to its immobilizing effect. In the _DMG_ short adventure Kobold Hall (p. 212), the "Glue Shot" Ability targets Reflex and only has the immobilizing effect. Might have been trying to simplify (and alter tech) in the short adventure, which _is_ intended as an introduction, but I would like to know if it was intentional or accidental.


----------



## mrtomsmith

The index entry in the DMG for "Terrain Features" refers to page 110, which is the "Setting Details" sub-section with a paragraph on relating Terrain Features to setting and plot, rather than the actual full section on Terrain Features, found on pages 60-69.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

PHB, p. 71.

Level 23 Enc Prayer - Haunting Strike

Level 27 Enc Prayer - Punishing Strike

They are identical except the level difference _and_ other than the fact the L23 Enc Prayer give a +2 power bonus whereas the higher L27 Enc Prayer does not.

In other words - they are the same Power, except the lower level power is actually better than the upper level Power.


----------



## WOLead

PHB, p.141 
Doomsayer's Proclamation deals with powers that are effect type Fear and have Saving Throws attached to those effects.  Basically, its makes an enemy close by you have about 68% chance of failing a saving throw against Fear effects against the standard 45% chance of failure.

I went and searched to see what skills would be useful for that Paragon Feature...
I found three, Dread Star is a level 1 Daily Attack Power that has a Fear type effect that requires a saving throw for -2 Will Def until they make their saving throw.

The other two?  They aren't even in the Warlock's skill list.  They are the Paladin's Astral Weapon Daily Power Astral Whirlwind for -2 to all Def until they make their saving throw.  The other is Prismatic Spray, a Wizard level 25 Daily attack power for stun and maybe slow.

So, am I missing anything there?  Cause as great as the Doomsayer's Proclamation sounded when I read it, there just isn't anything except a level 1 Daily to use with it as a Warlock.


----------



## silentounce

WOLead said:
			
		

> PHB, p.141
> Doomsayer's Proclamation deals with powers that are effect type Fear and have Saving Throws attached to those effects.  Basically, its makes an enemy close by you have about 68% chance of failing a saving throw against Fear effects against the standard 45% chance of failure.
> 
> I went and searched to see what skills would be useful for that Paragon Feature...
> I found three, Dread Star is a level 1 Daily Attack Power that has a Fear type effect that requires a saving throw for -2 Will Def until they make their saving throw.
> 
> The other two?  They aren't even in the Warlock's skill list.  They are the Paladin's Astral Weapon Daily Power Astral Whirlwind for -2 to all Def until they make their saving throw.  The other is Prismatic Spray, a Wizard level 25 Daily attack power for stun and maybe slow.
> 
> So, am I missing anything there?  Cause as great as the Doomsayer's Proclamation sounded when I read it, there just isn't anything except a level 1 Daily to use with it as a Warlock.




That kind of makes the Bold halfling ability kind of weak as well.  And the Astral Weapons' 16th level ability.  I'm assuming some magic items also fall into this category.  Unless a lot of monsters have fear powers.

That brings up another question.  The justicar's 16th level ability grants adjacent allies immunity to fear and charm effects.  That seems pretty powerful.  I mean, I know that you divide the damage if a power has more than one damage type, but neither charm nor fear is a damage type.  It's an effect type.  So, how does this work?  Do they take the damage, but suffer from no "effect" listed.  What if there isn't anything listed under the heading "Effect".  Some powers have the keyword listed, but don't have an "Effect" entry.  No explanation is give in the PHB.  Also, does the justicar also have this immunity?  It doesn't say anywhere that they would, just that their adjacent allies do.


----------



## Zsig

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> PHB, p. 71.
> 
> Level 23 Enc Prayer - Haunting Strike
> 
> Level 27 Enc Prayer - Punishing Strike




Ouch. As someone else pointed same thing happens with two fighter powers (Steel Serpent Strike vs. Dance of Steel).



			
				WOLead said:
			
		

> So, am I missing anything there? Cause as great as the Doomsayer's Proclamation sounded when I read it, there just isn't anything except a level 1 Daily to use with it as a Warlock.




Not sure if it counts as well but Terror Weapons have a Fear effect that ends with a save.

Anyway, the ability still sucks (Doomsayer's). But it has potential to become something useful in the future with new splatbooks and such.


----------



## chaotix42

silentounce said:
			
		

> That kind of makes the Bold halfling ability kind of weak as well.  And the Astral Weapons' 16th level ability.  I'm assuming some magic items also fall into this category.  Unless a lot of monsters have fear powers.




Oh, there are a good amount of Fear effects with saves in the MM. The halflings and Astral Weapons will be happy they have those bonuses to fear saves when they go up against dragons for instance. 



> That brings up another question.  The justicar's 16th level ability grants adjacent allies immunity to fear and charm effects.  That seems pretty powerful.  I mean, I know that you divide the damage if a power has more than one damage type, but neither charm nor fear is a damage type.  It's an effect type.  So, how does this work?  Do they take the damage, but suffer from no "effect" listed.  What if there isn't anything listed under the heading "Effect".  Some powers have the keyword listed, but don't have an "Effect" entry.  No explanation is give in the PHB.  Also, does the justicar also have this immunity?  It doesn't say anywhere that they would, just that their adjacent allies do.




In the colored header above a monster's power the keywords are listed. If it says Fear or Charm then any allies adjacent to the Justiciar are immune to the effects of the power, including damage.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

wow. This book is choked full of errata. I want my money back...


----------



## silentounce

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> In the colored header above a monster's power the keywords are listed. If it says Fear or Charm then any allies adjacent to the Justiciar are immune to the effects of the power, including damage.




But the Justicar himself isn't immune?  That's a bit weird, story wise.  He's keeping the others from being afraid of the dragon, but he might be soiling his armor at the same time.



			
				Zsig said:
			
		

> Anyway, the ability still sucks (Doomsayer's). But it has potential to become something useful in the future with new splatbooks and such.




I've seen so many comments like this on here.  This isn't directed at you, zsig, but why is this okay?  The core books should stand on their own.  A useless power like this shouldn't have made the core book, simple.  This is the problem you get when you start cutting stuff from the core to save for later supplements.  If you take a "balanced" system and then separate stuff out for space, you won't have a balanced system until you get those parts back.  They probably didn't even notice this because they have access to stuff they've already written but haven't realeased yet.  Or, hell, maybe they did know it.

Have people become that used to splat book syndrome?  Yeah, TSR had their fair share of expansions.  But I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming when the creators of MAGIC took over.  Don't get me wrong, they've done a lot for the game.  But they are also good at churning out the carrots to put in front of the horse.


----------



## windoze9x

Either I've been playing wrong for YEARS or this is an error.

PHB pg.8 -- "So a 10 on the tens die and a 7 on the ones die is a result of 7 (not 107!)."

Wouldn't it be 17?  Wouldn't a 7 require a 00 on the tens die and a 7 on the ones?  Or am I on crack?


edit:  nevermind I think I get it.  but they should make this more clear.  since most modern die have one d10 as (10,20,30,40,etc.) and one as (1,2,3). making it sound like if you have that type that a 10 and a 7 would be 7.


----------



## WOLead

Might as well place another:

PHB p.133

Frigid Darkness says "target grants combat advantage to your enemies until ..."

I'm pretty sure thats either supposed to be "his enemies" or "you and your allies."

Went and did a Google search to make sure this one hasn't been posted yet.


----------



## silentounce

windoze9x said:
			
		

> Either I've been playing wrong for YEARS or this is an error.
> 
> PHB pg.8 -- "So a 10 on the tens die and a 7 on the ones die is a result of 7 (not 107!)."
> 
> Wouldn't it be 17?  Wouldn't a 7 require a 00 on the tens die and a 7 on the ones?  Or am I on crack?
> 
> 
> edit:  nevermind I think I get it.  but they should make this more clear.  since most modern die have one d10 as (10,20,30,40,etc.) and one as (1,2,3). making it sound like if you have that type that a 10 and a 7 would be 7.




Heh, I don't think you can get d10s anymore that are numbered 1-10 instead of 0-9, can you?  Well, anyway, they aren't standard.  I think the only "d10"s that I have that are numbered 1-10 are actually 20 sided with each number on two faces from back in the day.  We were purists back then.  Modern d10s aren't even regular polyhedrons (Platonic solids), those bastards!


----------



## Flazzy

Both Deathknights in the MM seem to be adding incorrect values as their + to damage, and the fighter has the elusive Containing Strike at-will which was supposedly cut from the PHB (but appears in the Steel Grace Swordmaster path feature)


----------



## bardon777

A typo yes, and not about rules, but a fairly glaring one.

DMG p195-Playing without a DM
"They doesn't need to be the same person."

Pretty sure they mean 'don't' there.


----------



## Kraydak

As uncovered elsewhere, it is virtually impossible to attack objects: in the entire Class chapter, only two powers can target objects (Force Orb and Disintegrate, both Wiz Dailies).  Basic Attacks (PHB 287) also don't have objects as legal targets.

While house-ruling that is easy, it (a) shouldn't be necessary and (b) runs into the problem that objects don't have resistance and have feeble numbers of HP (and so walking through walls becomes trivial).


----------



## silentounce

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As uncovered elsewhere, it is virtually impossible to attack objects: in the entire Class chapter, only two powers can target objects (Force Orb and Disintegrate, both Wiz Dailies).  Basic Attacks (PHB 287) also don't have objects as legal targets.
> 
> While house-ruling that is easy, it (a) shouldn't be necessary and (b) runs into the problem that objects don't have resistance and have feeble numbers of HP (and so walking through walls becomes trivial).




I refer you to page 65-66 of the DMG; especially, the very first sentence of 66.


----------



## Zurai

I apologize if this has been mentioned before:

In the recommended feats section for the Archer Ranger, it recommends taking the Agile Hunter feat at 1st level.

Problem: Agile Hunter _only works when you land a critical hit *in melee*_.


----------



## Zsig

silentounce said:
			
		

> I've seen so many comments like this on here.  This isn't directed at you, zsig, but why is this okay?  The core books should stand on their own.  A useless power like this shouldn't have made the core book, simple.  This is the problem you get when you start cutting stuff from the core to save for later supplements.  If you take a "balanced" system and then separate stuff out for space, you won't have a balanced system until you get those parts back.  They probably didn't even notice this because they have access to stuff they've already written but haven't realeased yet.  Or, hell, maybe they did know it.




Totally agree with you. I didn't say it is Ok to have it as it is, I just mentioned that it might get useful someday.


----------



## burntgerbil

P 133 
under "Frigid Darkness" it states that it gives combat advantage to all your *enemies* until end of your next turn. 

I am still learning the rules, but I believe it should grant combat advantage to all your *allies* until EONT. 

*ALSO * Family, there seems to be a lot of fluff in this thread. Is it possible to keep a tally of what errors on what pages of books in your first message so we can see if our error has already been spotted and to aid wotc in determining the errors ?


----------



## Family

*Good Idea*

I'd be behind someone starting a new thread with an "all crunch" 1st post that is updated every week or so, I'd even nominate it for Sticky Status(tm).


----------



## Tharizdun

in the DMG, the illustrations make Fallcrest look like a typical medieval European town, while the map looks like a typical (dare I say it?) American one. Ik think they should let the illustrator make the map next time, or at least cooperate during the creative process


----------



## Underage AOLer

Family said:
			
		

> I'd be behind someone starting a new thread with an "all crunch" 1st post that is updated every week or so, I'd even nominate it for Sticky Status(tm).
> 
> As it is I'll probabibly wait until the end of the month if no one else does this, just to get the large initial surge out of the way.




Done.

Edit: Also, on page 191 of the DMG under the Doors heading it says, "Refer to page *xx* in Chapter 4", it should have referenced page 64.


----------



## Kraydak

silentounce said:
			
		

> I refer you to page 65-66 of the DMG; especially, the very first sentence of 66.




Do you see *anything* that says you can use a power that targets creatures against objects?  Including Basic Attacks as powers, the only two powers available to PCs that can target objects are Force Orb and Disintegrate.  Thats it.  The details on the resolution of attacks against objects are irrelevant if you can't target them in the first place.


----------



## silentounce

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Do you see *anything* that says you can use a power that targets creatures against objects?  Including Basic Attacks as powers, the only two powers available to PCs that can target objects are Force Orb and Disintegrate.  Thats it.  The details on the resolution of attacks against objects are irrelevant if you can't target them in the first place.




How about "A close burst power allows you to target creatures or objects" page 56.  So maybe only bursts and blasts can target objects.  I don't know, I guess they should have spelled it out better.  Yet another error.

I would just apply common sense and let character use anything that the DMG doesn't say that objects would be immune to.  But they should have been more clear about that.


----------



## Kraydak

silentounce said:
			
		

> How about "A close burst power allows you to target creatures or objects" page 56.  So maybe only bursts and blasts can target objects.  I don't know, I guess they should have spelled it out better.  Yet another error.
> 
> I would just apply common sense and let character use anything that the DMG doesn't say that objects would be immune to.  But they should have been more clear about that.




General rule: close bursts can target stuff.
Specific rule: a given power can only target things in its "target" line.

Because of the way WotC did this, the biggest problem is that there isn't any really good way to house-rule it: there is absolutely no indication of what abilities they intended to be able to target objects.

*mutter* yay for leaked PDFs that let me wait until a corrected printing comes out *mutter*


----------



## Darkness

DMG, page 198

The stats of the Fallcrest Guard warriors are supposed to be in "the accompanying statistics block," but this stat block seems to be missing.


----------



## pemerton

Zsig said:
			
		

> Ouch. As someone else pointed same thing happens with two fighter powers (Steel Serpent Strike vs. Dance of Steel).



What is the problem with these powers? Steel Serpent Strike slows on a hit with any weapon. Dance of Steel slows on an attack with a heavy blade or polearm. Dance of Steel is better than Steel Serpent Strike provided that you wield the right sort of weapon - this is a feature of a Fighter power, not an error.


----------



## The Grackle

pemerton said:
			
		

> What is the problem with these powers? Steel Serpent Strike slows on a hit with any weapon. Dance of Steel slows on an attack with a heavy blade or polearm. Dance of Steel is better than Steel Serpent Strike provided that you wield the right sort of weapon - this is a feature of a Fighter power, not an error.




Dance of Steel isn't better.  It's level 3.  It' doesn't prevent shifting. It requires a polearm or heavy blade.


----------



## UrsusTas

no price/weight for oil? (ie. for lanterns)


----------



## That One Guy

Flazzy said:
			
		

> Both Deathknights in the MM seem to be adding incorrect values as their + to damage, and the fighter has the elusive Containing Strike at-will which was supposedly cut from the PHB (but appears in the Steel Grace Swordmaster path feature)



This is a commenty question, but does this then imply that Containing Strike was originally the Fighter's marking anti-shifting jazz? If so, then it becomes that you can mark the enemy with a charge. Maybe it's supposed to be any at will power?

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.


----------



## Barlach

TYPO: The Beholder Eye of Flame stat block lists it's total hp as 240 and it's bloodied hp as 102. It's either 204 and 102 or 240 and 120.


----------



## IanArgent

UrsusTas said:
			
		

> no price/weight for oil? (ie. for lanterns)




Does it matter? (OK - if the PCs need an accelerant to burn down a building I suppose it might in those quantities).


----------



## silentounce

UrsusTas said:
			
		

> no price/weight for oil? (ie. for lanterns)




Naw, it's 4e, they use batteries.


----------



## Amurayi

Komi - TYPO: On page 276 in the PHB under the Valenae example, it says the encounter power of a thundering longsword does 10 damage, when it should be 1d8 (p. 236).

It's also a daily power not an encounter power!


----------



## pemerton

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Dance of Steel isn't better.  It's level 3.  It' doesn't prevent shifting. It requires a polearm or heavy blade.



Correct. But it doesn't require a hit, only an attack, which is a rather more liberal criterion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not that I'm planning on playing 4Ed, but I'm subscribing to this thread just in case.

As to the amount of errors in the new ed, I've been complaining about this kind of thing for years in my sig.  Not that you can catch all the mistakes, but things like identical powers or lower level powers being better than higher level ones...that's nigh unforgivable.


----------



## silentounce

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not that I'm planning on playing 4Ed, but I'm subscribing to this thread just in case.
> 
> As to the amount of errors in the new ed, I've been complaining about this kind of thing for years in my sig.  Not that you can catch all the mistakes, but things like identical powers or lower level powers being better than higher level ones...that's nigh unforgivable.




Why, when they have customers like us who'll buy the product anyway and then let them know all the errors for free which they may or may not correct with a future printing/errata?  I have to say though, that I've seen some kind of error that real proofreading could have fixed in nearly every thing that has come out for 4e so far, including Dragon and Dungeon magazine online content.


----------



## No Name

In the DMG:

pg 204 Teldorthan Ironhews in 24. Teldorthan's Arms section.

pg 208 Teldorthan Irontooth in the Races: Dwarf section.

pg 210 Teldorthan Goldcap in the Hook: Dragon Hide section.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Why, when they have customers like us who'll buy the product anyway and then let them know all the errors for free which they may or may not correct with a future printing/errata?




Good point.

OTOH, too many mistakes in Publisher X's products makes it less likely that I'll buy another product from Publisher X.  There are many game companies I simply won't buy stuff from due to that kind of problem.


----------



## Underage AOLer

No Name said:
			
		

> In the DMG:
> 
> pg 204 Teldorthan Ironhews in 24. Teldorthan's Arms section.
> 
> pg 208 Teldorthan Irontooth in the Races: Dwarf section.
> 
> pg 210 Teldorthan Goldcap in the Hook: Dragon Hide section.




That is hilarious.  I've added it to the compendium.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler

I'm going to put up a link to my thoughts on multiclass weirdness here. This might be another example of a rules misinterpretation on the part of the reader (me) or simply a rules disagreement, but it seems glaring enough to me that I think it might be the result of some last minute changes not being applied wholesale.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230062


----------



## Iku Rex

I'm confused by the paladin's lay on hands ability. It may need errata.

_Target: One creature
Effect: You spend a healing surge but regain no hit points. Instead, the target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge. You must have at least one healing surge remaining to use this power._ (PHB 91)

What is a valid target for this power? 

_“Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you. _(PHB 57)

So far so good. The target is one creature, you are one creature, you can target yourself. Simple.

The intent is not so clear. You regain no hit points from spending a healing surge, and then you gain hit points as if you had spent a healing surge. Wait, what? 

The fluff description says that a paladin can _"grant their comrades additional resilience with a touch of their hands and a short prayer"_. No mention of using the ability on yourself.

The Healing Hands feat says that when you_ "use the lay on hands power, the affected ally regains additional hit points equal to your Charisma modifier"_. "Ally" doesn't include yourself in 4.0 so if you can target yourself with lay on hands this is an oddly worded feat.

And some powers, like the cleric's Cure Light Wounds or the wizard's Jump have_ "Target: You or one creature"_, which is unnecessary if "One creature" includes yourself.


----------



## Bruherd

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> I'm confused by the paladin's lay on hands ability. It may need errata.
> 
> _Target: One creature
> Effect: You spend a healing surge but regain no hit points. Instead, the target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge. You must have at least one healing surge remaining to use this power._ (PHB 91)
> 
> What is a valid target for this power?
> 
> _“Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you. _(PHB 57)
> 
> So far so good. The target is one creature, you are one creature, you can target yourself. Simple.
> 
> The intent is not so clear. You regain no hit points from spending a healing surge, and then you gain hit points as if you had spent a healing surge. Wait, what?
> 
> The fluff description says that a paladin can _"grant their comrades additional resilience with a touch of their hands and a short prayer"_. No mention of using the ability on yourself.
> 
> The Healing Hands feat says that when you_ "use the lay on hands power, the affected ally regains additional hit points equal to your Charisma modifier"_. "Ally" doesn't include yourself in 4.0 so if you can target yourself with lay on hands this is an oddly worded feat.
> 
> And some powers, like the cleric's Cure Light Wounds or the wizard's Jump have_ "Target: You or one creature"_, which is unnecessary if "One creature" includes yourself.




Page 57 of the PHB: "Creature or creatures means allies and enemies both, as well as you."


----------



## Iku Rex

Bruherd said:
			
		

> Page 57 of the PHB: "Creature or creatures means allies and enemies both, as well as you."



Yes, that's the rule I just quoted, complete with page reference. 

And then I explained why the intent is unclear, and why certain other rules may need errata or clarification if paladins can use lay on hands on themselves.


----------



## Bruherd

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> Yes, that's the rule I just quoted, complete with page reference.
> 
> And then I explained why the intent is unclear, and why certain other rules may need errata or clarification if paladins can use lay on hands on themselves.




Yes, my bad, I missed that quote in your post.

Well, uhm, you can use lay on hands on yourself but wont get any bonuses from high cha if you have the feat?

Meh, actually it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## kilpatds

Maybe not wrong, but sure seems out of bound....

Armor Piercing Strike: +second stat to hit, not just to damage, and it already targets Reflex

Less questionable:

 Warpriest power Battle Cry: Implement, but does 2[W]


----------



## Underage AOLer

kilpatds said:
			
		

> Maybe not wrong, but sure seems out of bound....
> 
> Armor Piercing Strike: +second stat to hit, not just to damage, and it already targets Reflex
> 
> Less questionable:
> 
> Warpriest power Battle Cry: Implement, but does 2[W]




Both powers seem okay to me.

Armor Piercing Thrust works as the flavor would imply (no armor bonus for a power that "drive your weapon through a weak point in your foe’s defenses", and its damage is in line with other powers of a similar level (1[W] + STR + DEX (if using a light blade or spear) vs. 2[W] + 2 x STR (Rain of Blows))

Battle Cry, as a level 11 attack power seems fine, especially compared to the Angelic Avenger's Astral Wave (2d8 + WIS to each enemy in Burst 8, _and_ it has the Implement keyword).


----------



## silentounce

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Both powers seem okay to me.
> 
> Armor Piercing Thrust works as the flavor would imply (no armor bonus for a power that "drive your weapon through a weak point in your foe’s defenses", and its damage is in line with other powers of a similar level (1[W] + STR + DEX (if using a light blade or spear) vs. 2[W] + 2 x STR (Rain of Blows))
> 
> Battle Cry, as a level 11 attack power seems fine, especially compared to the Angelic Avenger's Astral Wave (2d8 + WIS to each enemy in Burst 8, _and_ it has the Implement keyword).





I think you're missing the point.  It's a power with the Implement keyword yet it uses weapon damage.  If it does weapon damage, surely it should have weapon as a keyword.


----------



## kilpatds

Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Both powers seem okay to me.
> Armor Piercing Thrust works as the flavor would imply (no armor bonus for a power that "drive your weapon through a weak point in your foe’s defenses", and its damage is in line with other powers of a similar level





Yep, its damage is fine.  It's the to-hit bonus I find questionable.  Most more-reliable attacks are at +2, or attack reflex. This one is at +3 or more AND attacks reflex.



			
				Underage AOLer said:
			
		

> Battle Cry, as a level 11 attack power seems fine, especially compared to the Angelic Avenger's Astral Wave (2d8 + WIS to each enemy in Burst 8, _and_ it has the Implement keyword).




So, my to get the damage, I multiply the base damage of my holy symbol by 2.  What's the base damage of the holy symbol again?

I think it's supposed to be a Weapon power....


----------



## Underage AOLer

kilpatds said:
			
		

> Yep, It's damage is fine.  It's the to-hit bonus I find questionable.  Most more-reliable attacks are at +2, or attack reflex. This one is at +3 or more AND attacks reflex.
> 
> So, my to get the damage, I multiply the base damage of my holy symbol by 2.  What's the base damage of the holy symbol again?
> 
> I think it's supposed to be a Weapon power....




Okay, I thank you for showing me the error of my ways.  I've added them to the list.


----------



## MindWanderer

silentounce said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the point.  It's a power with the Implement keyword yet it uses weapon damage.  If it does weapon damage, surely it should have weapon as a keyword.



 True, but it appears to be the only cleric power that uses Wis and a weapon.  Clearly there was only a partial revision there.


----------



## Iku Rex

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet:

_If you ever lose a prerequisite for a feat (for example, if you use the retraining system to replace training in a prerequisite skill with training in a different skill), you can’t use that feat thereafter._ (PHB 193)

However, 

_You can’t replace a skill if it’s required for a feat, a power, or any other attribute you have, or if it’s predetermined by your class (such as Arcana for wizards or Religion for clerics)._ (PHB 28)


They probably shouldn't be using an example that's explicitly prohibited by the retraining rules.


----------



## Simon Marks

The Hobgoblin archer has an incorrect History skill. It reads +6.
Hobgoblins get +2 History as a racial bonus. The base Int modifier for the Archer is +1. There is no way to get a +6 bonus from +1. 

So, I guess it should be +3.

Yeah, I know. It doesn't matter at all. But still, an error is an error.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> The Hobgoblin archer has an incorrect History skill. It reads +6.
> Hobgoblins get +2 History as a racial bonus. The base Int modifier for the Archer is +1. There is no way to get a +6 bonus from +1.
> 
> So, I guess it should be +3.
> 
> Yeah, I know. It doesn't matter at all. But still, an error is an error.



I think it might be that the Hobgoblin Archer does not use the racial write-up for NPCs, and is simply trained in History? After all, he's just following the monster creation guidelines, and there are no racial ability or skill modifiers in there.


----------



## Simon Marks

Possibly, but I checked the other Hobgoblins and they all follow the rule of either +2 or +7 over basic Int.


----------



## silentounce

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think it might be that the Hobgoblin Archer does not use the racial write-up for NPCs, and is simply trained in History? After all, he's just following the monster creation guidelines, and there are no racial ability or skill modifiers in there.




That begs the question of why all Hobgoblin Archers are historians.  Too bad that OOTS isn't upgrading to 4e, because that would be an amusing strip.


----------

