PDA

View Full Version : O HAY errata



Fax Celestis
2007-10-16, 04:17 PM
Like the title says: PHB-II Errata. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/PHB2_Errata.zip)

Matthew
2007-10-16, 04:19 PM
Heh, I just saw this whilst skimming the Wizards Archives. What an odd development.

Solo
2007-10-16, 04:24 PM
Heh, I just saw this whilst skimming the Wizards Archives. What an odd development.

And what wondrous news will it bring?

Fixer
2007-10-16, 04:28 PM
For those too lazy to download and read:

Player’s Handbook II Errata


When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.

Page 7, – Beguiler Class Features; Spells [Omission]
The beguiler “Spells” class feature should have a sentence at the end of the last paragraph that reads as follows: “A beguiler’s caster level is equivalent to his class level.”

Page 9 – Playing a Beguiler; Combat [Revision]
Grease should not appear as a spell available to beguilers in the “Combat” section.

Page 12 – Dragon Shaman Class Features; Class Skills [Omission]
Knowledge (arcana) should be listed as a class skill for the Dragon Shaman.

Page 19 – Duskblade Class Features; Weapon and Armor Proficiency [Omission]
The “Weapon and Armor Proficiency” Class feature for duskblades should state: “Duskblades are proficient with all simple and martial weapons.”

Page 19 – Duskblade Class Features: Spells [Substitution]
The first paragraph of the “Spells” class feature should read: “A duskblade casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the duskblade spell list on page 24. Duskblade spells unique to this book appear on a spell list Page 98

Page 19 – Duskblade Class Features: Spells [Omission]
The duskblade “Spells” class feature should have a sentence that reads the following at the end of the last paragraph: “A duskblade’s caster level is equivalent to his class level.”

Page 43 – Starting Packages; Package 2: The Healer [Revision]
The favored soul starting package has Spontaneous Healer as a starting feat, but a favored soul cannot meet the prerequisites for this feat at 1st level. An alternative is Augment Healing from Complete Divine (page 79). A similar change is necessary on the favored soul’s feat progression on page 210. Place Combat Casting in place of Spontaneous Healing, Brew Potion in place of Combat Casting, and Spontaneous Healing in place of Brew Potion.

Page 51—Starting Packages; Package 2: The Destroyer [Substitution]
The feat section should read: “Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack.”

Page 59 – Starting Packages; Package 2: The Hunter [Revision]
Delete Open Lock and Disable Device from the “Skills” section of this package.

Page 61 – Starting Packages; Package 1: The Battle Mage [Revision]
Should only have two 1st-level spells known instead of three and four 0-level spells known instead of five. Remove ray of enfeeblement and read magic from package.

Page 61 – Starting Packages; Package 1: The Blaster [Revision]
Should only have two 1st-level spells known instead of three and four 0-level spells known instead of five. Remove obscuring mist and disrupt undead from package.

Page 61 – Starting Packages; Package 1: The Infernal Summoner [Revision]
Should only have two 1st-level spells known instead of three and four 1st-level spells known instead of five. Remove grease and acid splash from package.

Page 68 – Benefits, Immediate Magic [Revision]
The first sentence should read: “You gain a supernatural ability that reflects your chosen school of magic.” Text describing these abilities as extraordinary abilities or spell-like abilities can be disregarded.

Page 75-86 – Feats [Omission]
Bounding Assault, Crushing Strike, Driving Attack, Overwhelming Assault, Rapid Blitz, Slashing Flurry, and Weapon Supremacy should indicate that a fighter may select the feat as a fighter bonus feat.

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission]
Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.”

Page 78 – Elven Spell Lore [Revision]
Change the second paragraph, third sentence of the “Benefit” section to the following: “When preparing that spell, you can alter the energy type of the damage it deals to some other energy type of your choosing.”

Page 79 – Fiery Ki Defense [Substitution]
Replace the second sentence of the “Special section with the following text: “A monk with the Stunning Fist feat can select Fiery Ki Defense as her bonus feat at 6th level, as long as she also possesses the Fiery Fist feat (other prerequisites can be ignored).

Page 80 –Ki Blast [Substitution]
Replace the second sentence of the “Special section with the following text: “A monk with the Stunning Fist feat can select Ki Blast as her bonus feat at 6th level, as long as she also possesses the Fiery Fist feat and an attack bonus of +6 (other prerequisites can be ignored).

Page 81 – Melee Weapon Mastery [Omission]
Add the following the two following sentence to the end of the “Benefit” section: “Weapons with two damage types (such as the morningstar, which does bludgeoning and piercing damage) the benefits of Melee Weapon Mastery (bludgeoning) and Melee Weapon Mastery (piercing) do not stack. But the bonuses from this feat do stack with those gained from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

Page 82 – Ranged Weapon Mastery [Omission]
Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: The bonuses from this feat do stack with those gained from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

Page 83 – Telling Blow [Omission]
Add the following sentence to the end of the “Benefit” section: “Skirmish or sneak attack damage is added only once, even if you meet other conditions for adding damage, such as if you scored a critical while the enemy was flat-footed.”

Page 89 – Profane Aura [Omission]
The first sentence of the “Benefit” section should read: “As a standard action, you can expend one of your rebuke undead attempts to fill the area around you with a cold, clammy mist that persists for 10 minutes.”

Page 92 – Imbued Summoning [Substitution]
In the benefits section it should read “creature or creatures” where now only “creature” appears.

Page 93 –Blood-Spiked Charger Tactical Feat; Spike Slam Ability [Substitution]
Should read that the attacks “deals extra damage equal to twice your Strength bonus” and not “twice your Strength.”

Page 109 – Curse of Arrow Attraction [Revision]
Remove “M” listed for components.

Page 109 – Deflect, Lesser [Omission]
Should indicate a minimum +1 bonus for the spell’s effect.

Page 112 – Energy Surge [Revision]
Change to lesser energy surge affects this spell.

Page 112 – Energy Surge, Greater [Revision]
Change to lesser energy surge affects this spell.

Page 112 – Energy Surge, Lesser [Substitution]
Last sentence of the spell’s description of should read, “The weapon then deals 1d6 points of damage of the specified energy type on the next attack with the weapon if the attack is successful.”

Page 116 – Legion of Sentinels [Omission]
Should include the following text at the end of its description: “The swordsmen’s attacks are at a bonus equal to your caster level, they threaten critical hits on a 19 or 20, and they deal 1d8 points of slashing damage per three caster levels (max +5). They only make attacks of opportunity, and their weapon damage is slashing and is affected by damage reduction.”

Pages 117– Luminous Assassin [Revision]
The three stat blocks should have no potions listed under “Combat Gear”.

Page 119 – Mark of Doom [Omission]
Add this sentence to the end of the spell’s description: “A caster cannot place more than one mark upon a single opponent. If a second mark is placed on a creature by the same caster, its effects supersede the previous mark.”

Page 119 – Mark of Doom and Mark of Judgment [Omission]
Add this sentence to the end of the spell’s description: “A caster cannot place more than one mark upon a single opponent. If a second mark is placed on a creature by the same caster, its effects supersede the previous mark.”

Page 123 – Rouse [Substitution]
Replace the spell description with the following text: “This spell awakens creatures from magical and nonmagical sleep. It has no effect on creatures that are otherwise unconscious.”

Page 124 – Seeking Ray [Omission]
Should include [Electricity] to the right of Evocation.

Page 125 – Sonic Shield [Omission]
Should include [Sonic] to the right of Evocation.

Page 126 – Thunder Field [Omission]
Should include [Sonic] to the right of Evocation.

Page 172 – Darkspire College of Thaun; Affiliation Score Table [Omission]
Add the following footnote connect ton the “Can cast arcane spells of 3rd level or higher” and “Can cast arcane spells of 5th level or higher” entries: “Affiliation score modifier for being able to cast 3rd level arcane spells and 5th level arcane spells do not stack.”

Page 174 – Golden Helm Guild; Affiliation Score Table [Omission]
Add the following footnote connect ton the “10 or more ranks in one Craft skill” and “20 or more ranks in one Craft skill” entries: “Affiliation score modifier for having 10 ranks in at least one Craft skill and 20 or more ranks in at least one craft skill do not stack.”

Page 175 – The Land of Honor; Affiliation Score Table [Omission]
Add the following footnote connect ton the “5 or more ranks in Diplomacy” and “10 or more ranks in Diplomacy” entries: “Affiliation score modifier for having 5 ranks in Diplomacy and 10 ranks in Diplomacy do not stack.”

Page 176 – Merata Kon; Affiliation Score Table [Omission]
Add the following footnote connect ton the “5 or more ranks in Survival” and “10 or more ranks in Survival” entries: “Affiliation score modifier for having 5 ranks in Survival and 10 ranks in Survival do not stack.”

Page 176 – The One and the Five; Affiliation Score Table [Omission]
Add the following footnote connect ton the “Can cast arcane spells of 3rd level or higher” and “Can cast arcane spells of 5th level or higher” entries: “Affiliation score modifier for being able to cast 3rd level arcane spells and 5th level arcane spells do not stack.”

Page 182 – Wintervein Dwarves'; Affiliation Score Table [Substitution]
15-20 affiliation score should grant a +4 bonus vs. orcs and goblinoids while the 21-29 score should grant a +6 bonus.

Page 206 – Forge of Remaking [Revision]
The last sentence, “This location is fully detailed in Tome of Magic” should be removed. The location does not appear in Tome of Magic.

Page 210 – Favored Soul Healer Build Table [Substitution]
Combat Casting should appear as the Human bonus feat for this build, replacing Spontaneous Healer. Spontaneous Healer should appear in place of Combat Casting at 3rd level.

Page 212 –Monk Destroyer Build Table [Substitution]
Improved Natural Attack cannot be attained until 6th level for a monk. An alternative is to take Power Attack at 1st level, Improved Bull Rush at 3rd level in place of Power Attack, and Improved Natural Attack in place of Improved Bull Rush.

Page 214 – Warlock Blaster Build Table [Substitution]
Point Blank Shot is listed twice. Combat Casting is a possible alternative at 6th level.

AslanCross
2007-10-16, 04:40 PM
Page 75-86 – Feats [Omission]
Bounding Assault, Crushing Strike, Driving Attack, Overwhelming Assault, Rapid Blitz, Slashing Flurry, and Weapon Supremacy should indicate that a fighter may select the feat as a fighter bonus feat.



Awesome. I'd always wondered why these weren't Fighter bonus feats.

Dhavaer
2007-10-16, 04:48 PM
Awesome. I'd always wondered why these weren't Fighter bonus feats.

I thought for Weapon Supremacy it was to stop multiclassed Fighters taking it. As it is now, I wonder if it's worth taking a dip in Fighter as a Warblade?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-10-16, 04:58 PM
A virtual moratorium on errata for over a year, and now, with 4th edition on the way, they add some to a book almost as old as that moratorium?

Wow.

EDIT:
....

The hell?

Why's it .doc rather than .pdf?

I rather appreciated the Microsoft-neutral errata, as I don't use any Microsoft programs. So much for that, now. Gotta break out the NeoOffice. :smallyuk:

TSGames
2007-10-16, 05:04 PM
Arcane Thesis just got better.

RTGoodman
2007-10-16, 05:07 PM
Page 93 –Blood-Spiked Charger Tactical Feat; Spike Slam Ability [Substitution]
Should read that the attacks “deals extra damage equal to twice your Strength bonus” and not “twice your Strength.”

Weren't there a few cheesy shield-based builds that exploited that? Guess those are done now.

martyboy74
2007-10-16, 05:14 PM
Arcane Thesis just got better.

If by better you mean 'less broken', then yes.

Kaelik
2007-10-16, 05:28 PM
If by better you mean 'less broken', then yes.

"Less Broken" is somewhat of an odd term to use. Technically it could do things before that it can't now, but DMs never let it do that anyway. Now it has specific changes that limit it to not being able to do the incredibly cheesy things, but can still be used better then most DMs allowed before hand.

IE

Enervation lvl 4

Split Rayed +1
Empowered +1

Same as allowed before.

But according to the new rules, an Uttercold Assualt build can get a free maximize still.

Fireball lvl 3
Energy Sub Cold -1
Energy Sub Uttercold -1
Maximize +2
lvl 3

Same level.

They can't reduce it to a first level spell, but before, a DM wouldn't even allow them to keep it at lvl 3. The wording still allows that.

Arbitrarity
2007-10-16, 06:04 PM
I thought for Weapon Supremacy it was to stop multiclassed Fighters taking it. As it is now, I wonder if it's worth taking a dip in Fighter as a Warblade?

Why would a warblade dip fighter? A level of fighter is the same as a level of warblade for fighter bonus feats, what with Weapon aptitude, unless you need it for the feats.

Draz74
2007-10-16, 06:14 PM
Why would a warblade dip fighter? A level of fighter is the same as a level of warblade for fighter bonus feats, what with Weapon aptitude, unless you need it for the feats.

A Level 20 Warblade can qualify for Weapon Supremacy thru Weapon Aptitude, yes. But he doesn't actually get a Feat at Level 20, so he can't get Weapon Supremacy unless the game is going epic.

With the errata, he can take a Fighter level at Level 20 and use his bonus feat to get Weapon Supremacy. That's what's changed.

... though I think I'd rather have 2 Stances than have Weapon Supremacy. Weapon Supremacy is a decent feat (unlike all its prereqs!), but it's not as good as the dual stance. :smallbiggrin:

Gralamin
2007-10-16, 06:28 PM
A virtual moratorium on errata for over a year, and now, with 4th edition on the way, they add some to a book almost as old as that moratorium?

Wow.

EDIT:
....

The hell?

Why's it .doc rather than .pdf?

I rather appreciated the Microsoft-neutral errata, as I don't use any Microsoft programs. So much for that, now. Gotta break out the NeoOffice. :smallyuk:

Its a .pdf for me.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-16, 06:51 PM
Its a .pdf for me.

Yes, it was an error. It has been fixed now.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-10-16, 06:55 PM
Its a .pdf for me.
Hm.

The link Fax gave led to a direct download, which is where the .doc came from. Going through the wizards website, however, I got my sweet, sweet PDF.

Oh, well.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 07:02 PM
They replaced the .doc file, which was a mistake, with a .pdf. Check the Character Optimization boards thread on this for more info, the WotC guy who wrote it posted in there.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-16, 07:06 PM
The Arcane Thesis errata conflicts with the FAQ:


If a character with Arcane Thesis (Player’s Handbook II, 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?

Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.




Can the Arcane Thesis feat (Player’s Handbook II, 74) reduce a spell’s level below the normal level for the spell?

No.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 07:07 PM
As the latest and more official source, the errata wins. The FAQ was issued before the errata, so it was a guess/damage control; the errata is the official intent.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-16, 07:13 PM
As the latest and more official source, the errata wins. The FAQ was issued before the errata, so it was a guess/damage control; the errata is the official intent.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. :smalltongue:

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 07:16 PM
Thank you for clarifying that for me. :smalltongue:

You're welcome, Floating Eyeball Thing.

The_Snark
2007-10-16, 07:17 PM
I see they also laid the Telling Blow argument (that you could double your sneak attack/skirmish damage if you scored a critical on a sneak attack/skirmish attack) to rest. Good.

TheThan
2007-10-16, 07:23 PM
I’m just happy duskblades got the simple weapon proficiency, the other duskblade stuff as sort of a “duh” situation (such as the duskblades spells, and the caster level) but its nice to have them spelled out.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-10-16, 08:02 PM
I don't suppose they'll think to remove that now-incorrect entry from the FAQ.

Matthew
2007-10-16, 08:08 PM
Doubtful indeed. I'm still waiting to hear back about Light Shields and Spell Casting...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-16, 08:10 PM
I think they will keep it as a reminder of their indecisiveness. :smallamused:

(Hopefully it was marked for deletion as soon as they posted the errata.)

Merlin the Tuna
2007-10-16, 08:12 PM
Did the PDF version fix the typo in the Legion of Sentinels errata?

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 08:14 PM
Did the PDF version fix the typo in the Legion of Sentinels errata?

Not yet, but the guy writing it said in the WotC Optimization Forum thread that he was going to do that; I imagine it'll just be updated silently when he does.

Nonah_Me
2007-10-16, 08:22 PM
So with telling blow, you can add sneak attack damage along with a critical hit (but not multiplied sneak, I know that.)

I've always thought that sneak attack damage was ALWAYS added. A halfling who crits with his 1d4 shortsword would do only 2d4 dmg on a crit, as opposed as 1d4+10d6 on a roll of 2?

Bleah.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 08:26 PM
So with telling blow, you can add sneak attack damage along with a critical hit (but not multiplied sneak, I know that.)

I've always thought that sneak attack damage was ALWAYS added. A halfling who crits with his 1d4 shortsword would do only 2d4 dmg on a crit, as opposed as 1d4+10d6 on a roll of 2?

Bleah.

Uh... no. Where did you get that idea?
You add sneak attack damage whenever the enemy (a) is flanked by you and someone else, or (b) is denied their DEX bonus to AC, or would be denied their bonus if they had one (that is, creatures with 11 dex or less can still be sneak attacked). Those are the only times.
Telling Blow adds "you score a critical hit" with those times. It's not a very good feat, really.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-16, 08:40 PM
Uh... no. Where did you get that idea?
You add sneak attack damage whenever the enemy (a) is flanked by you and someone else, or (b) is denied their DEX bonus to AC, or would be denied their bonus if they had one (that is, creatures with 11 dex or less can still be sneak attacked). Those are the only times.
Telling Blow adds "you score a critical hit" with those times. It's not a very good feat, really.

Wait, so with telling blow, any time you strike an opponent when you're flanking him, not only do you sneak attack, but you also critical?

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 08:41 PM
Er, my bad. It adds it *to* those times. That is, you get to add sneak attack damage when you score a critical, whether you're flanking or not.

martyboy74
2007-10-16, 08:41 PM
No. When you get a critical, it lets you sneak attack. It adds 'critical hit' to the list of conditions under which a rogue can sneak attack.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a rogue!

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-16, 08:44 PM
Oh, alright, not so terrific.

Aquillion
2007-10-16, 08:54 PM
Honestly, how could they have errataed it and still gotten it wrong? I find it hard to believe that they actually intended for Arcane Thesis to let you get 'free' metamagic levels by adding normally +0 metamagic to a spell... but that's pretty clearly allowed even by the new wording (and could easily have been avoided if it had read "A metamagic feat's adjustment cannot be reduced to below zero under any circumstances.")

Do they show these to anyone at all before posting them? You'd think they'd think to maybe screen it for a big group of players from some forums or something...

Iku Rex
2007-10-16, 09:00 PM
I don't suppose they'll think to remove that now-incorrect entry from the FAQ.The FAQ still claims DR X/silver and DR X/cold iron are extraordinary abilities, despite the MM errata saying they're supernatural. In other words, don't hold your breath.

If they don't remove it, will it still be incorrect when the FAQ is published again with a new date stamp and the FAQ has the "most recent" official ruling...?

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-16, 09:01 PM
The FAQ still claims DR X/silver and DR X/cold iron are extraordinary abilities, despite the MM errata saying they're supernatural. In other words, don't hold your breath.

If they don't remove it, will it still be incorrect when the FAQ is published again with a new date stamp and the FAQ has the "most recent" official ruling...?

What happens when they come out with the "Rules Compendium"? Or was that "Complete Rules"?

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 09:06 PM
What happens when they come out with the "Rules Compendium"? Or was that "Complete Rules"?

Then the RC becomes the official source?

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-10-16, 09:08 PM
Oh, hey. A Telling Blow nerf. Because, you know, Rogues were so overpowered.

It's stabbity time.

The rest is pretty much completely ridiculous, too. But hey, go with what you love in terms of 'rage amplifiers'.

Jack Mann
2007-10-16, 09:11 PM
Officially, the FAQ can't actually override the books. That's the job of Errata. The FAQ is supposed to clarify the rules, not change them. Anytime the books and the FAQ differ, the "correct" rule is the one in the book.

That's not to say that you shouldn't use the FAQ's rule anyway, if it makes more sense.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 09:12 PM
Oh, hey. A Telling Blow nerf. Because, you know, Rogues were so overpowered.
Let's see, keen rapier, crit often, get double sneak attack damage when you do... yeah, that strikes me as more damage than is probably healthy. Rogues are fine; they're well-balanced, no need to turn them all into voracious crit-monkies.


It's stabbity time.

The rest is pretty much completely ridiculous, too. But hey, go with what you love in terms of 'rage amplifiers'.
Are you kidding me? This errata was great. Hammered down answers for things like Elven Spell Lore, Legion of Sentinels, and Melee Weapon Mastery; made things that should've been Fighter bonus feats actually be Fighter bonus feats; made Arcane Thesis less ridiculous (though it's not entirely fixed)...

Draz74
2007-10-16, 09:33 PM
... yeah, that strikes me as more damage than is probably healthy.

Healthy for whom? :smallwink:

I agree, though. Sneak Attack and critical hits should have a stronger connection to each other, but Telling Blow was a poor implementation, and it's better for the errata to make it a weak, worthless feat instead of making it good enough that tons of rogues want it and start using the same weapons.

Nonah_Me
2007-10-16, 09:39 PM
Uh... no. Where did you get that idea?
You add sneak attack damage whenever the enemy (a) is flanked by you and someone else, or (b) is denied their DEX bonus to AC, or would be denied their bonus if they had one (that is, creatures with 11 dex or less can still be sneak attacked). Those are the only times.
Telling Blow adds "you score a critical hit" with those times. It's not a very good feat, really.

Ok, just to be super sure:

Sneak attack happens when a creature is flanked, flat-footed (prone, dazed, helpless, incapacitaed, paralyzed, etc.). I knew this, but my post was less than clear.

What the feat seems like it's saying is that when you're flanking, and you score a critical hit, you get to apply sneak attack damage. For extreme ultimate clarification: Why doesn't that happen anyway?

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 09:42 PM
Ok, just to be super sure:

Sneak attack happens when a creature is flanked, flat-footed (prone, dazed, helpless, incapacitaed, paralyzed, etc.). I knew this, but my post was less than clear.
Not flat-footed, just denied DEX to AC (you're always denied DEX to AC when flatfooted, but you're not always flatfooted when you're denied DEX to AC), but yes.


What the feat seems like it's saying is that when you're flanking, and you score a critical hit, you get to apply sneak attack damage. For extreme ultimate clarification: Why doesn't that happen anyway?
Er, no, no. That does happen anyway. Telling Blow lets you add sneak attack damage to critical hits even when you're *not* flanking, attacking someone who is denied their DEX to AC, etc.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-16, 09:43 PM
What the feat seems like it's saying is that when you're flanking, and you score a critical hit, you get to apply sneak attack damage. For extreme ultimate clarification: Why doesn't that happen anyway?

The feat is: when you critical, regardless of what your opponent's dexterity/flanking situation is, add sneak attack. With the feat, the following MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE circumstances allow sneak attack:

a flatfooted opponent
a flanked opponent
an opponent you strike with a critical hit

Nonah_Me
2007-10-16, 09:46 PM
The feat is: when you critical, regardless of what your opponent's dexterity/flanking situation is, add sneak attack. With the feat, the following MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE circumstances allow sneak attack:

a flatfooted opponent
a flanked opponent
an opponent you strike with a critical hit

Oh. Well, thank you so much. I've been skipping that page of the PHB II ever since I misunderstood it the first time I looked at it. I almost expected the book to burst into flames.

Thanks again. I might have some NPC's face my group with that feat.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 09:51 PM
Oh. Well, thank you so much. I've been skipping that page of the PHB II ever since I misunderstood it the first time I looked at it. I almost expected the book to burst into flames.

Thanks again. I might have some NPC's face my group with that feat.

IMO, that's an example of a bad feat to give NPCs, for the same reason scythes and greataxes are bad weapons for them: a sudden lucky shot can take a player out. You want more average damage, not a high variance, from NPCs--or at least I do.

Nonah_Me
2007-10-16, 09:53 PM
Perhaps you're right. Too bad the next campaign my freind's going to run is going to be a Ravenloft game: I would make a rogue with that feat there, but... no.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 09:57 PM
Perhaps you're right. Too bad the next campaign my freind's going to run is going to be a Ravenloft game: I'd make a rogue with that feat there.

Er, again, bad idea. Ravenloft, full of undead, which you can't crit or sneak attack, generally...

Besides, the feat's a bad move for player characters, too: as a rogue, you should pretty much always *be* flanking. Meleeing and hoping for a crit is a bad move. Flanking is a good move, and usually pretty easy to get, especially since you can tumble.

Person_Man
2007-10-16, 10:28 PM
Hmm. Looks like pretty straitforward stuff. I'm sad they officially nerfed Telling Blow, essentially making it useless. But Legion of Sentinels got slightly better. Time to dust off one of my Knockback builds?

Matthew
2007-10-16, 10:36 PM
I'm just waiting for the errata for Complete Champion and the Barbarian Pounce Class Feature thingy now...

RTGoodman
2007-10-16, 11:32 PM
I'm just waiting for the errata for Complete Champion and the Barbarian Pounce Class Feature thingy now...

I'm not sure how they could fix that even with errata. Unless it's something like, "The sentence should read 'At first level, lion totem barbarians don't gain Pounce." :smallbiggrin:

Reel On, Love
2007-10-16, 11:51 PM
I'm not sure how they could fix that even with errata. Unless it's something like, "The sentence should read 'At first level, lion totem barbarians don't gain Pounce." :smallbiggrin:

By swapping the level 1 and level 6 Spirit Lion Totem abilities. They even make more sense that way--what's a level 1 Barbarian gonna do with Pounce? At level 6, however, he gets a second attack. That may well have been the original intention.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-10-17, 12:08 AM
Hm. They still haven't given that Paladin Battlecries sidebar. I can't believe they forgot a whole flippin' sidebar!:smallannoyed:

Quietus
2007-10-17, 01:05 AM
Did the PDF version fix the typo in the Legion of Sentinels errata?

So I'm NOT the only one who noticed that, eh?

CockroachTeaParty
2007-10-17, 03:54 AM
Ah, good, Legion of Sentinels makes sense now. That always rustled my cattle.

namo
2007-10-17, 03:57 AM
Ooh, Arcane Thesis...

*runs to hide from the metamagicked Scorching Rays that start to rain down everywhere*

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-10-17, 04:39 AM
Officially, the FAQ can't actually override the books. That's the job of Errata. The FAQ is supposed to clarify the rules, not change them. Anytime the books and the FAQ differ, the "correct" rule is the one in the book.

That's not to say that you shouldn't use the FAQ's rule anyway, if it makes more sense.

Yes, the important thing is not the date, but the source.
(I guess I should have clarified that in my earlier posts instead of trying to be funny (which also failed))

There are several things to consider when trying to figure out, which source has the authority.

There is the primary/secondary source rules, which says that if two sources disagree the primary source takes precedence.

This means that if some note about attacks of opportunity under an entry for cooking is in conflict with the combat chapter, the primary source for combat takes precedence over the cooking profession.

Likewise, a text entry trumps a table entry.


Then there is the rule about newer sources replacing older. However, the primary/secondary source rule would still apply if there is a direct contradiction between something new and something old.
The rules of combat still does not change, because Complete Cooking comes out and happen to mention AoO in an entry for how to spice up your popcorn.


The FAQ is meant to provide the correct interpretation or the official RAI, but it is not RAW in that sense and if there is any contradiction between the FAQ and the actual RAW, the RAW takes precedence.

Sometimes the FAQ takes it a step further and adds new definitions or even tell us to ignore some rule, which is really in the realm of errata rules wise.

Borogove
2007-10-17, 04:50 AM
I see they've clarified the energy surge series of spells as completely worthless. I'm pretty sure 3d6 damage doesn't warrant a 6th level spell slot.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-10-17, 07:48 AM
Let's see, keen rapier, crit often, get double sneak attack damage when you do... yeah, that strikes me as more damage than is probably healthy. Rogues are fine; they're well-balanced, no need to turn them all into voracious crit-monkies.

Are you kidding me? This errata was great. Hammered down answers for things like Elven Spell Lore, Legion of Sentinels, and Melee Weapon Mastery; made things that should've been Fighter bonus feats actually be Fighter bonus feats; made Arcane Thesis less ridiculous (though it's not entirely fixed)...
Sure, sure. But chargin' marvin' is always going to deal it out better than I, so why not let ol' sneaky have his fun?

And I mean 'ridiculous' in the sense of 'hey, this should have been caught before publication, by a matter of weeks', not 'unnecessary'. Much of the errata was necessary, of course- it's just I'm surprised it needed to be errata.

Keld Denar
2007-10-17, 08:38 AM
Wait, does this mean they removed Grease from the Beguiler spell list? That makes me a sad panda. Grease is such a mischivious spell, it deserves to be on the beguiler spell list.

In other news, I'm SO making a wizard with AT for Ray of Stupidity. I'll call him the "Dumbifier". Beware my Split (+1), Empowered (+1), Maximized (+2), Stilled (+0), Silent (+0) Rays at 6th spell level that average 13.5 Int damage per cast (followed by Split, Empowered, Maximized, Silled, Silent, Quickened at 9th spell level for another 13.5 Int damage average). Can you say 27 int damage with 2 touch attacks in a single round? No you can't, cause your int score is now zero! That's enough to dumb down even most other wizards and some dragons! Never mind doing it AGAIN the next round.

And to someone above, you included in your paranthasis of conditions that deny dextarity. This is not true. The only penalties prone gives is the +/- 4 to hit you with melee/ranged and the -4 you have to hit, and the movement restrictions (5' in a full round, stand as a move equivilent).

Telonius
2007-10-17, 08:43 AM
One page 3: "Add the following footnote connect ton the ..."

Connect ton, huh? :smallbiggrin: Looks like the errata needs an errata.

kamikasei
2007-10-17, 08:53 AM
Wait, does this mean they removed Grease from the Beguiler spell list? That makes me a sad panda. Grease is such a mischivious spell, it deserves to be on the beguiler spell list.

It wasn't on the spell list in the first place, but was mentioned as an option in the paragraph on a Beguiler's combat role. That's what was removed.

Person_Man
2007-10-17, 10:03 AM
By swapping the level 1 and level 6 Spirit Lion Totem abilities. They even make more sense that way--what's a level 1 Barbarian gonna do with Pounce? At level 6, however, he gets a second attack. That may well have been the original intention.

Presumably a 1st level Lion Totem Barbarian takes TWF, and/or he's a member of a race with natural attacks that can use it as a secondary attack at -5, like a Warforged, Darfellon, or variant Kobold.

But I think your larger point is correct. I think the number of 1 level Barbarian dips I've seen is retarded. I'd be in favor of changing it to 6th level.

Zherog
2007-10-17, 10:19 AM
The hell?

Why's it .doc rather than .pdf?

I rather appreciated the Microsoft-neutral errata, as I don't use any Microsoft programs. So much for that, now. Gotta break out the NeoOffice. :smallyuk:

At the risk of answering a question that's already answered...

I brought this up on their boards, and they basically said, "Oops. We'll fix that." So I would expect that it'll switch to PDF soon.

Also, you should expect to see errata for Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium soon, if the info they've posted on their own message boards is correct.

honkuimushi
2007-10-17, 11:27 AM
I'm not at all surprised by the change to Telling Blow. That's the way I've always read it since there doesn't seem to be any way to get doubled sneak attacks on a single attack. I still think it's useful for builds dual wielding 17-20 weapons like rapiers or kukris. With Keen Edges or Improved Crit you could get sneak attacks on nearly 25% of your attacks. For builds with significant full BAB class levels like Invisible Blade or a build with Daring Outlaw it makes them much more dangerous if for some reason you are denied a flank.

What I'm curious about is how it applies to archery. If you score a crit at 120 ft or any other distance beyond the 30 or 60ft limit, do you still get sneak attack damage? If you do, that would pretty nice for an archer with sneak attack.

Given that Telling Blow has no prereqs, I can think of several feats that are a lot less useful.

Indon
2007-10-17, 12:39 PM
In other news, I'm SO making a wizard with AT for Ray of Stupidity. I'll call him the "Dumbifier". Beware my Split (+1), Empowered (+1), Maximized (+2), Stilled (+0), Silent (+0) Rays at 6th spell level that average 13.5 Int damage per cast (followed by Split, Empowered, Maximized, Silled, Silent, Quickened at 9th spell level for another 13.5 Int damage average). Can you say 27 int damage with 2 touch attacks in a single round? No you can't, cause your int score is now zero! That's enough to dumb down even most other wizards and some dragons! Never mind doing it AGAIN the next round.


I'd take metamagic feats that had +0 spell adjustment, if I had Arcane Thesis (and Quickened or some other high-adjustment feat). Energy Substitution is one example, surely there are others. I'd also take all the +1 adjustment ones that I would fancy; Shape spell I think is one... Explosive spell may be another.

The possibilities are immense, not just for cheesy spells but for spells such as the humble Fireball.

namo
2007-10-18, 12:33 AM
Also, you should expect to see errata for Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium soon, if the info they've posted on their own message boards is correct.

The errata guy that posted on the CO board mentioned he was working on Complete Mage, Complete Scoundrel and Complete Champion.

Matthew
2007-10-18, 08:44 AM
Better late than never, I suppose.

Saph
2007-10-18, 08:47 AM
The errata guy that posted on the CO board mentioned he was working on Complete Mage, Complete Scoundrel and Complete Champion.

That would be nice. I'd really like to see the Abjurant Champion / Mage Armour thing sorted out.

- Saph

Zherog
2007-10-18, 09:21 AM
The errata guy that posted on the CO board mentioned he was working on Complete Mage, Complete Scoundrel and Complete Champion.

He mentioned those here (post #53) (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=386) as well.


Spell Compendium, Player's Handbook II, and Magic Item Compendium errata will be up shortly.

Next on my agenda is Complete Mage, Complete Scoundrel, and Complete Champion. Hopefully these will be up within the next couple weeks.

I'd like to thank Essex for his hard work compiling errata and corrections. His comments and notations make my job a lot easier.

Thanks
Greg, New Errata Guy

Aquillion
2007-10-18, 03:38 PM
The possibilities are immense, not just for cheesy spells but for spells such as the humble Fireball.Nah, not worth it for Fireball, at least not if your game is going into higher levels. Remember, you can't change the spell you select for Arcane Thesis; eventually, even the damage from a maximized empowered fireball isn't going to cut it (especially with so many things making its 3rd level save.)

GimliFett
2007-10-18, 04:15 PM
Page 79 – Fiery Ki Defense [Substitution]
Replace the second sentence of the “Special section with the following text: “A monk with the Stunning Fist feat can select Fiery Ki Defense as her bonus feat at 6th level, as long as she also possesses the Fiery Fist feat (other prerequisites can be ignored).

Page 80 –Ki Blast [Substitution]
Replace the second sentence of the “Special section with the following text: “A monk with the Stunning Fist feat can select Ki Blast as her bonus feat at 6th level, as long as she also possesses the Fiery Fist feat and an attack bonus of +6 (other prerequisites can be ignored).

Huh? The only way this is possible is if you started off as something else first and then became a Monk, right? This just got more confusing, I think... Maybe I'm missing something. :smallconfused:

Zherog
2007-10-18, 06:29 PM
That's correct - you would need levels in something else before your monk levels to have a +6 BAB at 6th monk level.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-18, 06:33 PM
Nah, not worth it for Fireball, at least not if your game is going into higher levels. Remember, you can't change the spell you select for Arcane Thesis; eventually, even the damage from a maximized empowered fireball isn't going to cut it (especially with so many things making its 3rd level save.)

You can with PHB 2 retraining rules.

martyboy74
2007-10-18, 06:59 PM
Oh good. Hopefully when they errata SpC, Veil of Undeath will cease to grant immunity to death.

Curmudgeon
2007-10-18, 07:04 PM
I'm sad they officially nerfed Telling Blow, essentially making it useless. Not so useless. They haven't changed the absolute statement about when you add your sneak/skirmish damage, so you don't have to be within 30' range or move at least 10' for this precision damage, and concealment won't prevent it.

You still need a weapon with a wide threat range, but a keen rapier or great crossbow will threaten on 15-20. So Telling Blow gives you chances to add your precision damage when
you're a Scout and full attack;
your target has concealment; or
you're at long range.

Draz74
2007-10-18, 07:06 PM
Not so useless. They haven't changed the absolute statement about when you add your sneak/skirmish damage, so you don't have to be within 30' range or move at least 10' for this precision damage, and concealment won't prevent it.

You still need a weapon with a wide threat range, but a keen rapier or great crossbow will threaten on 15-20. So Telling Blow gives you chances to add your precision damage when
you're a Scout and full attack;
your target has concealment; or
you're at long range.


All of which might be worth a feat if you're the only melee fighter in your party (solo campaign anyone?). Otherwise, flanking is a much better tactic.

Or does Telling Blow work with Sudden Strike too? Ninjas might actually find it worthwhile, just in case they ever run into anyone with Uncanny Dodge.

namo
2007-10-18, 08:16 PM
He mentioned those here (post #53) (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=386) as well.

Completely missed it. That's excellent news !

@Draz : Ninjas will encounter opponents with Uncanny Dodge when they fight pirates with rogue levels !

Draz74
2007-10-18, 08:20 PM
@Draz : Ninjas will encounter opponents with Uncanny Dodge when they fight pirates with rogue levels !

YARRRR MATEY! :biggrin:

That part of my comment was actually supposed to be sarcastic; Uncanny Dodge is not really a very rare thing to face, and it's sad how completely it shuts down Sudden Strike.

Chronos
2007-10-18, 08:53 PM
One other advantage of this new interpretation of Sudden Strike is that it would also allow any special effects you might have with Sneak Attack, such as the rogue's Crippling Strike ability, or the Spellthief's spellthieving. Just adding the sneak attack dice to damage, as it was interpreted by some, wouldn't do that.

Indon
2007-10-19, 10:24 AM
Nah, not worth it for Fireball, at least not if your game is going into higher levels. Remember, you can't change the spell you select for Arcane Thesis; eventually, even the damage from a maximized empowered fireball isn't going to cut it (especially with so many things making its 3rd level save.)

I dunno. Isn't there a metamagic feat that lets you double-cast a spell, or am I thinking of Split Ray?

I guess you could try it with Solid Fog, though. I wonder what an Explosive Solid Fog would be like?

Zherog
2007-10-19, 10:46 AM
I dunno. Isn't there a metamagic feat that lets you double-cast a spell, or am I thinking of Split Ray?

There's two, depending what you're talking about - Twin Spell or Repeat Spell.

Indon
2007-10-19, 10:59 AM
There's two, depending what you're talking about - Twin Spell or Repeat Spell.

Can you have... both?

Zherog
2007-10-19, 11:12 AM
Sure, you can have both feats. However, I'm away from my books and can't tell you if both could be applied to fireball. ;)

Kaelik
2007-10-19, 12:21 PM
Sure, you can have both feats. However, I'm away from my books and can't tell you if both could be applied to fireball. ;)

I believe you could even without Arcane Thesis, (but it'd be 9th level.)

With Arcane Thesis (and Energy Substitution and as Many 1 level adjusts as you have) it would be I believe a 7th level spell. Or is that 6th?

Frosty
2007-10-19, 01:26 PM
I need to make an Arcane Thesis wizard sometime. Human, and with Flaws...combined with ORB spells and using energy substitution.

Sure, Blasters STILL suck, but at least this will make delay the irrelevance of blasters.

Oh yeah, and don't forget, if you wanna be a blaster, specialize in CONJURATION!

Indon
2007-10-19, 02:24 PM
I believe you could even without Arcane Thesis, (but it'd be 9th level.)

With Arcane Thesis (and Energy Substitution and as Many 1 level adjusts as you have) it would be I believe a 7th level spell. Or is that 6th?

Sixth, since Energy Substitution is a zeroth-level spell adjustment metamagic.

Minus an additional spell level for every applicable +0 metamagic you can find.

Edit: Frosty, I'd use a Metamagic Specialist variant Sorceror, personally (In the DMG, if I'm not mistaken). Much more versatility for the blastiness.

Indon
2007-10-20, 10:01 AM
Actually, I think I have an applicable question for Arcane Thesis:

Does Eschew Materials qualify as an 'applied metamagic feat' for the purposes of the ability?

Jack Mann
2007-10-20, 10:34 AM
Actually, I think I have an applicable question for Arcane Thesis:

Does Eschew Materials qualify as an 'applied metamagic feat' for the purposes of the ability?

No. In 3.5, Eschew Materials is not a metamagic feat.