D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Eratta? or I found a mistake in my 3.5 DMG?

[dreaded_beast]

Does anyone know if there is errata for the 3.5 Core Rule books out yet?

(Sorry if this has already been asked, )

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the 3.5 DMG on page 119, in the table for the NPC Monk, I think the progression for Flurry of Blows is incorrect.

 

[diaglo]

the WotC site has the PHB and the Minis game plus the 2000ed

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

 

[MichaelH]

Right, no DMG errata yet, only PH and MH.

But you are correct, the monk's flurry of blows attack progression is incorrect. The monk in question has a Str of 14 throughout the progression until 19th level, where his Str increases to 16 via magic.

The progression is not correct at levels 8, 9, 10, and 11. Level 8 should read +7/7/2. Level 9 should read +8/8/3. Level 10 should read +9/9/4. And level 11 should read +10/10/10/5.

 

[DiFier]

yeah there seem to be a number of misdtakes in the sample NPC's

 

[jgsugden]

The DMG errata is supposedly close to being approved. Expect a minimalist approach (like with the PHB errata) where they fix only the 'dire' problems.

Unfortunately, it has been close to approval for many months now, so we have no idea when it will finally be released ...

 

[Kershek]

Speaking of errata, there appears to be an inability to use previously written errata in the DMG as well. At the end of the 3.0 DMG (p 244-6) they talk about how a wizard doesn't need the spell components or XP costs from a prerequisite spell to make magic items. The errata changed that saying that you did need the spell components and XP charge. Well, now the 3.5 DMG again (p286-8) states that you don't need the spell components and XP, word-for-word from the un-errata'd 3.0. I take it this will be updated for the second time?

 

[dcollins]

Well, now the 3.5 DMG again (p286-8) states that you don't need the spell components and XP, word-for-word from the un-errata'd 3.0. I take it this will be updated for the second time?

I wouldn't be sure of that -- the 3.0 errata on that was highly questionable, I thought. 3.0 as written was neatly divided into raw spell-storage items (potions, scrolls, wands and staffs -- did charge for components) and other items (did not charge for components). After the errata, no one could answer whether all those latter items needed to have their market prices updated or not, based on that change.

The original rule made sense if one is playing with out-of-the-book, rules-as-written magic items. The 3.0 errata sort of seemed confused on whether you were trying to craft book items or invent new items. 3.5 may have correctly analyzed that errata as mistaken.

But of course it's conceivable the same somebody gets confused again and munges it a second time.