Draconomicon Errata

[Urklore]

Does anyone know if there Draconomicon Errata anywhere? I know WoTC does not have any on their website and I have notice a few errors, namely the dragon golems do not have any bonus HPs for being constructs, etc.

 

[Scharlata]

Does anyone know if there Draconomicon Errata anywhere? I know WoTC does not have any on their website and I have notice a few errors, namely the dragon golems do not have any bonus HPs for being constructs, etc.

Maybe the DRACONOMICON's release date was between the shift from 3.0 to 3.5? Therefore the bonus hp for a particular golem's size could have been omissed.

Kind regards

 

[Cartigan Mrryl]

Actually, it was. It came out almost a month before D&D 3.5 did... more or less.

 

[Jdvn1]

Does anyone know if there Draconomicon Errata anywhere? I know WoTC does not have any on their website and I have notice a few errors, namely the dragon golems do not have any bonus HPs for being constructs, etc.

Lots of creatures in a variety of books have errors anyway. It's better to just make the creatures on your own.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Lots of creatures in a variety of books have errors anyway. It's better to just make the creatures on your own.

That was funny. Your joke actually made me laugh.

 

[Arnwyn]

Actually, it was. It came out almost a month before D&D 3.5 did... more or less.

Nope, Draconomicon is a fully 3.5 book (errors notwithstanding). It's release date was November 2003, some months past the release of 3.5.

 

[Mr. Patient]

I've asked custserv if they plan to release errata. The answer is "not at this time." There are a number of errors in the new monster chapter, especially the zombie dragon, which is a complete mess. The BABs for all the sample black, blue, brass, and bronze dragons are screwed up, too. Wizards is well aware of these errors, but has just decided not to bother fixing them.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Lots of creatures in a variety of books have errors anyway. It's better to just make the creatures on your own.

That was funny. Your joke actually made me laugh.

Really? I read it and got the impression that he wasn't joking... :\

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not to mention the occurence of the phrase type:dragon in the requirements for most of the feats, regardless of how much it actually makes sense.

"Oh, this is a book for dragons. Obviously only dragons can stomp hard..."