Typos in books [3.5]

[SilverLeaf167]

Sorry if there's already a thread like this. If yes, just delete this.

Have you noticed some silly/weird/confusing typos, mistakes or contradictions in books? There sure are a lot. Please note, this doesn't include things that should be treated as errata to earlier publications.

I've got one in mind right now:
In PHB II, the Twilight armor property is said to be especially good for Duskblades. However, a Duskblade is able to ignore the spell failure chance on light and medium armor anyway (thanks to Armored Casting), and if he uses heavy armor with this property he's still has quite a large armor penalty to take care of in some other way, as his Armored Casting doesn't reduce it at all.

[Runestar]

Sometimes, I wonder if they are typos, or the authors simply not knowing what they are talking about.

For example, in rules compendium, one of the designers talks about how a multiclassed rogue/fighter with TWF'ing and weapon spec is pushing the envelope in terms of powergaming?!? Umm...the same 7th lv rogue could have an extra +2d6 SA, which more than makes up for the loss of damage from weapon spec (though he will have a poorer attack bonus). :smallconfused:

Some oddities I also noticed:

Monster Manual
Dire boar vs boar. Both have the same NA and base 1d8 gore, despite the dire boar being large (and the boar only medium sized).

The horned devil has improved sunder, even though it cannot sunder with its spiked chain (being a piercing weapon).

[supermonkeyjoe]

The horned devil has improved sunder, even though it cannot sunder with its spiked chain (being a piercing weapon).

It has claw attacks which it can use to sunder.

I always enjoy the misprinted table like the Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) class on the WoTC website 21 first level spells known? yes please :p

[RaginChangeling]

There's also the classic Swordsage get six times the skillpoints at level 1 and that scorpion weapon that does 1d34 damage. Or Half Minotaur in general.

[Cartigan]

that scorpion weapon that does 1d34 damage.

That's not a typo per se. That's a formatting error. The "4" should be superscript for note indication. That's in a lot of the books. Makes me think their editors were incompetent...

[Emperor Ing]

There's also the classic Swordsage get six times the skillpoints at level 1 and that scorpion weapon that does 1d34 damage. Or Half Minotaur in general.

Where are your gods now?! (http://www.dicecollector.com/D34_OPAQUE_ROUNDED_SOLID_2.jpg)

[Eldan]

Phh. Everyone can do non-platonic dice. :smalltongue:

[TroubleBrewing]

Yeah. I had a pretty serious relationship with a die once, but she called it off, said she just wanted to be friends. I told her "Phh, anyone can do platonic. I wanted something non-platonic."

[The Glyphstone]

In Heroes of Horror, the Dread Necromancer has Death Ward as a 3rd and 4th level spell known.

[Daftendirekt]

In Oriental Adventures, the Ninja-to has a 19-29 crit range.

[Eldariel]

In Oriental Adventures, the Ninja-to has a 19-29 crit range.

Pretty nice if playing on d30s.

[Jack Zander]

Pretty nice if playing on d30s.

You don't need a d30 to abuse this typo. You just need to make it keen and double the threat range.

[Hazzardevil]

In Oriental Adventures, the Ninja-to has a 19-29 crit range.

For a moment I thought that said a Ninja. I was thinking a goliath Duel Weilding Ninja's.

[Keld Denar]

There's at least one example character in nearly every book published that either doesn't qualify for the PrC it is supposed to showcase, or has something else blatently wrong. Off the top of my head, the Green Star Adept in Complete Arcane doesn't qualify due to BAB issues, and the Ruby Knight Vindicator example worships St. Cuthbert, despite the VERY deliberate fluff in place that calls out RKVs as templar/assassins of the church of Wee Jas.

Can you find all of the examples that fail? Its like "Where's Waldo", but more depressing.

[Cartigan]

There's at least one example character in nearly every book published that either doesn't qualify for the PrC it is supposed to showcase, or has something else blatently wrong. Off the top of my head, the Green Star Adept in Complete Arcane doesn't qualify due to BAB issues, and the Ruby Knight Vindicator example worships St. Cuthbert, despite the VERY deliberate fluff in place that calls out RKVs as templar/assassins of the church of Wee Jas.

Can you find all of the examples that fail? Its like "Where's Waldo", but more depressing.

There's also the Abjurant Champion author's obsession with Mage Armor...
You would think these people never played the game before.

[Daftendirekt]

There's at least one example character in nearly every book published that either doesn't qualify for the PrC it is supposed to showcase, or has something else blatently wrong. Off the top of my head, the Green Star Adept in Complete Arcane doesn't qualify due to BAB issues, and the Ruby Knight Vindicator example worships St. Cuthbert, despite the VERY deliberate fluff in place that calls out RKVs as templar/assassins of the church of Wee Jas.

Can you find all of the examples that fail? Its like "Where's Waldo", but more depressing.

I think one of the most famous is the sample Abjurant Champion whose Mage Armor is improved by the class feature (forget its name) even though it's not an Abjuration spell. Really, if/when I ever play one of those, I'll just say I research an Abjuration version of the spell so it DOES get improved. Silly WotC.

EDIT: NINJA!

[Veyr]

To be fair, it's ridiculous that Mage Armor isn't an Abjuration in the first place.

[Daftendirekt]

To be fair, it's ridiculous that Mage Armor isn't an Abjuration in the first place.

Abjuration is already an amazing school without it? But, yeah, since Abjuration is all about protection, it doesn't make sense that Mage Armor is Conjuration. Same with the Orb spells; I think they're just there to give Evocation-banned casters some attack spells (necromancy has a FEW, but not enough).

[Veyr]

Abjuration is already an amazing school without it?
And Conjuration isn't?

[Cartigan]

Same with the Orb spells; I think they're just there to give Evocation-banned casters some attack spells (necromancy has a FEW, but not enough).

No, the Orb spells actually make sense. But you are right, they ARE a bs reason to given Conjurers a way to do direct damage.

[Warlawk]

It has claw attacks which it can use to sunder.

I always enjoy the misprinted table like the Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) class on the WoTC website 21 first level spells known? yes please :p


There's also the classic Swordsage get six times the skillpoints at level 1 and that scorpion weapon that does 1d34 damage. Or Half Minotaur in general.

I clicked on the thread thinking of the Swordsage, but figured I would get swordsaged :smallbiggrin:

As for the other, it's just a matter of someone not properly formatting the text to represent that the second number is supposed to be superscript reference to a footnote.

Spells known 21

Spells known 2{sup}1{/sup}

I guess it technically qualifies as a typo, but I tend to think of that as more a formatting issue, bad editing or just outright lazy copypasta in the case of the Avenger. The intent and functionality is there, and the text listed is correct enough that anyone who isn't completely clueless knows exactly what it means.

[Eldariel]

Abjuration is already an amazing school without it? But, yeah, since Abjuration is all about protection, it doesn't make sense that Mage Armor is Conjuration. Same with the Orb spells; I think they're just there to give Evocation-banned casters some attack spells (necromancy has a FEW, but not enough).

Abjuration is an alright school with a handful of 100% absolute must have spells (Dispel Magic-line, Anticipate Teleport) but very shallow. Conjuration is the best and the deepest school in the game sans Polymorph, and equal to Transmutation with Polymorph in the mix.

[mootoall]

Well, the ToB errata never changed the Swordsage skillpoints, if I recall correctly, so ... yeah, not a typo, just the Swordsage being a whole lot sexier.

[Veyr]

Well, the ToB errata never changed the Swordsage skillpoints, if I recall correctly, so ... yeah, not a typo, just the Swordsage being a whole lot sexier.
Err... have you read the so-called Tome of Battle errata? It gets like three items in before whatever text it was supposed to include is replaced by the errata from Complete Arcane.

[grarrrg]

Err... have you read the so-called Tome of Battle errata? It gets like three items in before whatever text it was supposed to include is replaced by the errata from Complete Arcane.

He is technically right.
The errata did NOT fix the Swordsage skill points.

[Amnestic]

Err... have you read the so-called Tome of Battle errata? It gets like three items in before whatever text it was supposed to include is replaced by the errata from Complete Arcane.

Got a link? I'm not doubting you, I just want to see it for myself.

[Veyr]

All 3.5 Errata can be found here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a); the Tome of Battle errata in particular is here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Errata_ToB.zip).

Also, it looks like Complete Mage rather than Complete Arcane.

[Amnestic]

Wow. I didn't think it could be that blatant...but it is. How very embarassing (and yet somehow expected) of them.

[Pentachoron]

He is technically right.
The errata did NOT fix the Swordsage skill points.

Not only did it not fix the skill points, but the few lines of errata that are appropriate are past the page where the fix would come.

[Veyr]

That doesn't really mean anything, though, unless all of the Errata goes in page order?

[Pentachoron]

That doesn't really mean anything, though, unless all of the Errata goes in page order?

It appears to be in order. At least the complete mage material is.

[Veyr]

It also assumes that the first Erratum left in the document would have been the first Erratum in the complete one; we just don't know.

[Warlawk]

I think that leaving the swordsage skill number as is works out just fine.

Mostly because any DM worth playing under is going to laugh in your face if you actually try to play it that way, and you've just given the entire group a very important piece of information about you as a player.

[Veyr]

I've actually had a DM who told us to go ahead and take the extra 8 skill points; he thought it was a funny little typo. He also thought it was funny that the example NPCs seemed to round non-initiating-levels up when calculating IL, and allowed that too.

[Zaq]

Editing errors? You want editing errors? Page through, oh, pages 191 to 285 of Tome of Magic. I lose count every time I try to actually look for them.

[erikun]

You don't need a d30 to abuse this typo. You just need to make it keen and double the threat range.
What good would a 19-39 threat range do on a d20? :smalltongue:

[Jack_Simth]

I think one of the most famous is the sample Abjurant Champion whose Mage Armor is improved by the class feature (forget its name) even though it's not an Abjuration spell. Really, if/when I ever play one of those, I'll just say I research an Abjuration version of the spell so it DOES get improved. Silly WotC.

EDIT: NINJA!That one was errat'd. Oh so many of them aren't....

[Amnestic]

What good would a 19-39 threat range do on a d20? :smalltongue:

Aren't threat ranges doubled in the downwards direction (eg. 19-20->17-20)? :smallconfused:

[Warlawk]

Aren't threat ranges doubled in the downwards direction (eg. 19-20->17-20)? :smallconfused:

That they are, so you get a default 9+ threat range. Heck, then you could use it in a disciple of dispater/blood in the water build.

[Veyr]

Really, there's no real way to even begin to guess how Improved Critical/Keen would affect something with a 19-29 threat range; that's just nonsensical.

The goal, of course, would be a 8-29 threat range, though I could totally imagine a computer implementation of things setting it to -1-20 or something equally silly.

[Jack Zander]

Really, there's no real way to even begin to guess how Improved Critical/Keen would affect something with a 19-29 threat range; that's just nonsensical.

The goal, of course, would be a 8-29 threat range, though I could totally imagine a computer implementation of things setting it to -1-20 or something equally silly.

I dunno, it seems pretty basic to me. You double the threat range (11 numbers) downward (19-11=8) to get 8-29. If you roll anywhere from an 8-29 on a d20, you threaten a critical.