View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:55 am



Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Warlord RPG erratta 
Author Message
Writer
Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3846
Location: Exeter, UK
Post 
For the Necromancy spell, look at the 'Pain' spell entry (page 281). It is the same level and has the same effect, but must have been renamed at some point.

Errata: Page 232 of the Codex, replace the spell title 'Necromancy' with 'Pain'. Yes, that does mean that the Necromantic cantrips are 'Cause Pain' and 'Pain', but it's easier to rename the spell on the spell list than it is in the spell listings, since it would not be in alphabetical order then.

Errata: Page 170 of Monsters and Lairs, the Ss-eleer should have 'Spring Attack' listed as a bonus feat, since it is mentioned in its combat description yet absent from the stat-block.

_________________
Laurence J Sinclair


Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:43 am
Profile WWW
n00b
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:28 pm
Posts: 36
Post 
I'm not sure if this is Errata, but there are a lot of Feats that have more flaws then benifits. Isn't the whole point of a Feat to have an overall (and impressive) benifit? I just feel a lot of them could be rent-coned. I don't have my book with me right now, so I'll list the ones that concern me in this post latter. I just wanted to get some early feedback from you.

Perhaps WarLords of the Accordlands should introduce a Flaw system instead of mixing these powerful disadvantages into their Feats?

I know some players will argue "if you're not a total gumby powerplayer, and a true roll-player, you won't mind sacrificing some Feats for a flaw that brings character depth." I disagree with this view. It is very hard to earn Feats, and to force a Player to decide to sacrifice a Feat slot and take additional, powerful drawbacks when they are supposed to get an addvantage, in the name of character depth, seems needless.


Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:44 am
Profile
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Post 
*shrug* No, not really. If you and your DM don't like the idea of a feat that's detrimental, house rule it. Notice in the description of the Exile feat, they even _mention_ 'think carefully about removing the feats penalties'? A DM can do whatever they want.

Part of this setting is that it's a much different feel. Not every feat has to or SHOULD be put up and scrutinized against the other feats to 'advance the power curve'. I _like_ that about this setting. It makes it different and unique.

_________________
Tokhuah : "do people on the ToL really lack the imagination to apply a principle to a broader perspective?"

seige911: "It's unfortunate too. I wouldn't mind someone giving guys like this nut shock treatment."

T3chno: "Nihil doesn't have friends, he just has enemies that hate him less."


Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:52 am
Profile
Outer Circle
Outer Circle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Kansas
Post 
The sample generic elf in the campaign book has toughness and 3 HP. This is very amusing since w/o the feat he would be at 0. He/she/it needs a feat to be alive.


Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:59 am
Profile
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:00 pm
Posts: 511
Location: Southern Connecticut and Southern Vermont
Post 
Grim wrote:
I dont know if I'm just missing this or what. But the Necromancer spell Necromancy isnt in the spell descriptions at all. It is listed in the summary section but it dont tell you the range or duration or anything.


The spells in question are "Pain" and "Inflict Pain," there isn't a spell entitled "Necromancy."

_________________
Nale: Perfect! The Linear Guild is practically synonymous with with taking disproportionate revenge for quasi-imagined slights!
Sabine: It even says so on our business cards!

L.A.I.R. Team member and 7th level GM.


Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:26 am
Profile
Writer
Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3846
Location: Exeter, UK
Post 
HeartBreak wrote:
The sample generic elf in the campaign book has toughness and 3 HP. This is very amusing since w/o the feat he would be at 0. He/she/it needs a feat to be alive.


Yeah, it's odd how they chose to use a necromancer and not a scout as an example of a level 1 elf that a party is likely to encounter. Oh, well.

_________________
Laurence J Sinclair


Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:45 am
Profile WWW
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Post 
The Shaman spell War Rune allows you to increase the threat range of a weapon by your Wisdom modifier. It is missing the usual boilerplate of 'This does not stack with any other modifier to threat range'. Not sure if that's intentional or not, as Sharpen does have this text. :)

_________________
Tokhuah : "do people on the ToL really lack the imagination to apply a principle to a broader perspective?"

seige911: "It's unfortunate too. I wouldn't mind someone giving guys like this nut shock treatment."

T3chno: "Nihil doesn't have friends, he just has enemies that hate him less."


Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:43 am
Profile
Head of Insanity Division
Head of Insanity Division
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3422
Location: Oak Park, IL
Post 
This is all from memory, so bear with.

Edannan wrote:
ShadowStar wrote:
There are alot of possible knowledge skills that aren't listed, in the skill section they only list the most common ones and the ones that have specific gameplay applications.


Except that it seems silly that a race/class combo gets bonuses to Knowledge(Anatomy) checks... when there aren't even sample reasons for those checks in the book...

And I could've sworn I've seen reference to K: Tactics.
But maybe that was K: Battle.

Anyway, I agree - sure there are knowledge skill areas of study one could take that are not in the book.
But if the authors are going to specifically lay one of those out, it would help to back that up with a listing under the skill.

On the flipside...
Deverenian bonus knowledge class skills are not all knowledge skills.
Two of 'em are examples of the Nobility and Royalty knowledge skill.
(( Which doesn't jive with most of the other knowledge skill references (including one of the other Dev class skills). ))

btw - Where would The Storm fall?
Religion, I'd guess, unless it is its own new category.

...

Speaking of Knowledges:

Monsters.
Is that supposed to be a catch-all topic K:Monsters?

I mean, why take K:Aberrations when I can take K:Dungeoneering?
The DCs seem higher, the results the same.

...

Deverenian Fighter Minor ability.
You gain a +1 Competence bonus.
Which is the exact same type of bonus you get with your Favored Weapon.
Is this benefit designed to be for a different weapon?
Or is it supposed to be an additional +1 for the same weapon?
(( Competence bonuses don't stack. ))

Plus, the 'free masterwork' benefit is pretty crappy unless you're dirt-poor.
Ooo, MW Chain at 7th level. Wowie.
Even the custom Full Plate at 11th is pathetic compared to either the Half-Breed's auto-reduction of All armor check penalties or the Human's free Dodge bonus.

Maybe the level-threshold on those 'gifts' should be lower.
(( Of course, if the +1 to hit does become 'unnamed' so it stacks with everything, that makes the gifts a lot less important to the ability. ))

...

One last, as much question as error - d8 HP for Paladin?

May all your rolls be 20's
-VIC

_________________
Have a rules question? There's a forum for that!
I reserve the right to ignore all rules-related PMs that I deem should be asked there. 8)


Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:27 pm
Profile
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 2553
Location: The Netheryn bonegardens
Post 
Okay, batch 1 of things I've found, excluding simple tpyos...

All in the Master Codex so far.

p.333, Natural Weapons: It says the die type increases to d8, where before the smaller weapons were d4 and the medium ones d6; do the previously d4 weapons jump right up to d8?

p.351, Your Greatest Foe: The wording on this seems unclear, I'm having trouble parsing what it's trying to say. I -think- it's saying that the knight waits to attack until his opponent does something. When his opponent does that thing, the knight attacks, which is a critical threat, and -then- gets an attack of opportunity (which isn't an auto-threat). In any case, it looks as if the wording could use some cleaning up.

p.352, Blood Drain: It says the priest gains temporary hit points, but it says he loses Constitution gained at the rate of 1 point per hour; did he gain hp or Con?

p.352, Damage Reduction: In 3.5, damage reduction of particular weapon bonuses, like +1, +2, etc, was replaced by damage reduction of just Magic. I've noticed a mix of both +1/etc and Magic through the book; unsure if it's intentional or just a holdover from previous versions of the book.

p.354, Undead Toughness: "Energy drain" is listed twice; was something else supposed to be in its place, or was it just repeated accidentally?

p.358, Sure Shot: I'm not sure, but I think accidentally hitting targets in a melee was removed between 3.0 and 3.5, with the exception of grenade-like weapons.

p.365, Monstrous Form: The damage for the natural weapons isn't listed; just refer to the Bascarite Ascendant entry?

p.103, Dodge: Fighter-only feat? Really? It seems much more standard than to limit it to fighters. And looking through the World Atlas, just flipping to a random page with NPCs, both Darian Windson and Captain Dukat have the feat, with neither being a Fighter.
p...all the feats: In fact, a bunch of the Fighter feats seem as if they shouldn't be exclusive to fighters. Point Blank Shot is a requirement for most of the archery feats, and it's odd that Scouts and Rangers not be allowed access to those. Alot of the bonus feats that Rangers have listed are Fighter feats, keeping them from taking them. It seems as if there was a change in what the "Fighter" designation meant somewhere in the middle of the book's development, going between "This feat can be taken as one of the fighter's bonus feats" and "this feat is exclusive to fighters". I think most of these feats need to be looked at to see if they should really be fighter-only.

p.104, 112: Endurance is listed as being a feat that Rangers get as a bonus at some level, and Improved Grapple listed the same for Monks, yet neither is mentioned in the class entries. Either it's a holdover from previous rules versions, and thus needs to be removed, or it's just only stated in the feat section, and thus should really be mentioned in the class entries, so when making a character you don't need to search through all the feats making sure you don't get free feats you didn't know about.

p.102, Greater School Resistance: A +4 on what? Saves? Resistance checks if you already have spell resistance? I suspect it's the former, but it should be explicit.

p.360, Vital Spot/Precision Killer: Make up your mind on what you want to call the ability. :lol:

p.123, Patience: Another in the mystery of "Fighter" feats, this one also lists "Fighter level 1+" in its requirements. Seems either redundant or just odd.

p.125, Resistance: Mentions "demons". Does the Accordlands have demons? Does it mean Abyssals?

p.126, Sacrifice: Does it really mean Con score, and not Con bonus? So if I have 16 constitution, I can channel 16 of my hp into damage, and not 2?

p.128, Stunning Fist: Not really a mistake, per se, but needing a +8 BAB seems rather steep for this, when monks in normal D&D get it for free at first or second level.

That's all for now, but still searching...

_________________
Image
"Turn from the temporal. Embrace the eternal."


Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:10 pm
Profile ICQ
Command Staff
Command Staff
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3074
Location: Hamburg - Germany
Post 
"Fighter-Feat" does just mean that fighters can take them as a bonus feat (it is explained at the beginning ;) )

_________________
Team Großraum Berlin Helium
Lord of War


Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:06 pm
Profile
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 2553
Location: The Netheryn bonegardens
Post 
Solitaris wrote:
"Fighter-Feat" does just mean that fighters can take them as a bonus feat (it is explained at the beginning ;) )


Then why do so many General feats say "This feat may be taken by Fighters as one of their bonus feats", and why do some prestige class features and other such exceptions say things like "May ignore the fighter class requirement for Feat X"? (I'll have to find an example of that somewhere, but I remember hearing it mentioned here and then noticing it in the book).

I assumed, given this information, that the explanation at the beginning of the feat section was just a further rule about Fighter feats, in addition to them being Fighter-exclusive.

Edit: Found the answer here, I hadn't watched the thread long enough to see the resolution. Though that still doesn't answer why, for instance, the Dev Paladin "ignores being a fighter for these feats" or why feats like Greater Weapon Focus, a General feat, says "A fighter may select GWF as one of his fighter bonus feats".

_________________
Image
"Turn from the temporal. Embrace the eternal."


Last edited by Ahriman on Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:18 pm
Profile ICQ
Command Staff
Command Staff
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3074
Location: Hamburg - Germany
Post 
would make no sense, because there are general- feats, which build on fighter feats.

_________________
Team Großraum Berlin Helium
Lord of War


Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:26 pm
Profile
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 2553
Location: The Netheryn bonegardens
Post 
Solitaris wrote:
would make no sense, because there are general- feats, which build on fighter feats.


Yes.

Things not making sense is pretty much the entire purpose of this post. ;)

_________________
Image
"Turn from the temporal. Embrace the eternal."


Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:29 pm
Profile ICQ
Inner Circle
Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Post 
Ahriman wrote:
Solitaris wrote:
"Fighter-Feat" does just mean that fighters can take them as a bonus feat (it is explained at the beginning ;) )


Then why do so many General feats say "This feat may be taken by Fighters as one of their bonus feats", and why do some prestige class features and other such exceptions say things like "May ignore the fighter class requirement for Feat X"? (I'll have to find an example of that somewhere, but I remember hearing it mentioned here and then noticing it in the book).

I assumed, given this information, that the explanation at the beginning of the feat section was just a further rule about Fighter feats, in addition to them being Fighter-exclusive.

Edit: Found the answer here, I hadn't watched the thread long enough to see the resolution. Though that still doesn't answer why, for instance, the Dev Paladin "ignores being a fighter for these feats" or why feats like Greater Weapon Focus, a General feat, says "A fighter may select GWF as one of his fighter bonus feats".


I have a feeling that at some point in development, they were toying with the idea of Fighter Feats being Fighter specific, in order to give more of a sense that being a Fighter _meant_ something more than just being a generic toolbox. At another point in development, they scrapped that idea after realizing that it took the point out of nearly every other melee class. Unfortunately, half the book still had referrences and language dealing with the earlier design decision, and they were interested in getting it out the door and to the fans screaming for their heads, and so missed a lot of those old refferences. :)

_________________
Tokhuah : "do people on the ToL really lack the imagination to apply a principle to a broader perspective?"

seige911: "It's unfortunate too. I wouldn't mind someone giving guys like this nut shock treatment."

T3chno: "Nihil doesn't have friends, he just has enemies that hate him less."


Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:34 am
Profile
Head of Insanity Division
Head of Insanity Division
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3422
Location: Oak Park, IL
Post 
Ahriman wrote:
p.351, Your Greatest Foe: The wording on this seems unclear, I'm having trouble parsing what it's trying to say. I -think- it's saying that the knight waits to attack until his opponent does something. When his opponent does that thing, the knight attacks, which is a critical threat, and -then- gets an attack of opportunity (which isn't an auto-threat). In any case, it looks as if the wording could use some cleaning up.

Not saying cleanup would be bad... ;)

My interpretation was that the knight readied a swing.
If he takes it and hits, then - regardless of the roll - it is considered a threat and he can roll to confirm.
In addition, the hit (confirmed or not) distracts the opponent enough to give just the knight an AoO.

Quote:
p.358, Sure Shot: I'm not sure, but I think accidentally hitting targets in a melee was removed between 3.0 and 3.5, with the exception of grenade-like weapons.

Did 3.5 remove the 'random target' aspect when shooting into a grapple?
I'm not saying that's the point of this, just tossing out a thought.

Although - I think they did. :shrug:

Quote:
p.104, 112: Endurance is listed as being a feat that Rangers get as a bonus at some level, and Improved Grapple listed the same for Monks, yet neither is mentioned in the class entries. Either it's a holdover from previous rules versions, and thus needs to be removed, or it's just only stated in the feat section, and thus should really be mentioned in the class entries, so when making a character you don't need to search through all the feats making sure you don't get free feats you didn't know about.

Sounds like a C-n-P goof, since Endurance is gained by rangers in the 3.5 system.
If it's not in the class description, I'd expect it's not really meant to be there.

Quote:
p.123, Patience: Another in the mystery of "Fighter" feats, this one also lists "Fighter level 1+" in its requirements. Seems either redundant or just odd.

I could totally see a prereq of 'Fighter level 1+'.

Based on the concensus about the misnomer of feats labeled Fighter vs General (Fighters may take)...
I'd guess this a general feat that can be taken a bonus Fighter feat but only if you have a level of Fighter.
(( Much like Weapon Specialization is supposed to be. ))

Quote:
p.128, Stunning Fist: Not really a mistake, per se, but needing a +8 BAB seems rather steep for this, when monks in normal D&D get it for free at first or second level.

That's the 3.5 prereq too, but monks get to ignore it.

-VIC

_________________
Have a rules question? There's a forum for that!
I reserve the right to ignore all rules-related PMs that I deem should be asked there. 8)


Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.