Collected Core Handbook Errata

[mach1.9pants]

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

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

[Underage AOLer]

Originally Posted by WotC_GregB

Hey folks,

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 Aside from being illegal, this pdf is outdated and has many issues that were corrected in the final version of the books.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

Thanks
-Greg

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

I will also add a note to the front post.

Originally Posted by Fate Lawson

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

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

Originally Posted by Tratyn Runewind

Hi all,

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

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

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

[MeMeMeMe]

Originally Posted by Tratyn Runewind

Hi all,

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

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

[Tratyn Runewind]

Hi again,

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

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

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

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

[Underage AOLer]

Originally Posted by Tratyn Runewind

Hi again,

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

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

Does that sound better?

[pinbot]

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

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

[Admiral Caine]

I have confirmed this one in my book.

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

Orb of Imposition Page 157, 3rd paragraph, PHB

The rule reads:

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

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

Thanks Greg and Underage AOLer!

[Oompa]

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

[Underage AOLer]

Originally Posted by pinbot

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

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

Originally Posted by Admiral Caine

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

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

[Admiral Caine]

Originally Posted by Underage AOLer

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

Ahhh!

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

[Moribund]

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

[catsclaw227]

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

[Keenath]

I think Sleep is missing an important clause.

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

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

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

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

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

[MindWanderer]

Originally Posted by Keenath

I think Sleep is missing an important clause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[exodus747]

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

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

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

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by exodus747

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

Emphasis mine.

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

[Surgoshan]

how long does this last

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

[exodus747]

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

[Henrix]

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

[Mapache]

Originally Posted by exodus747

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

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

Originally Posted by exodus747

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

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

Originally Posted by exodus747

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

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