D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Errata Reporting

[locustus]

The 3.5 PHB errata list: 7-29-03

8. DMG p222 says armour and shields get +1 to hardness and hp for every +1 enhancement, shield section says +2 and +10 respectively.

Actually it says weapons and shield get +1 hardness/hit points. It should probably be weapons +1 hardness/hp (P.222*) and shields +2 hardness/+10 hp (P.217)??

*Remeber that you can't sunder a armor while worn, but what if you want to damage it otherwise?

 

[Mike18xx]

>http://www.uechi-ryu.com/oldsite/sai_article.htm

Sorry, Mac, but I'm looking right at it; and sias, as can be plainly seen, are pointy and sharp.

More: http://images.google.com/images?q=sai&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en

 

[Mike18xx]

(Just a lame avatar test)

If it worked...Yay!
It if didn't....

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think the issue with Sai's is a red herring. Errata is things which are wrong because they are misleading or incorrect in terms of game terminology.

Whether sai's are pointy or otherwise in real life has no bearing on how D&D portrays them. As long as they are consistent in the way that they portray the specifications of what they call a sai, there is no errata necessary

 

[Iku Rex]

The blink spell (PH page 206): "An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down."

Ethereal creatures are not "incorporeal". Change "incorporeal" to "insubstantial" (as in the ethereal jaunt spell).

 

[Iku Rex]

Whether sai's are pointy or otherwise in real life has no bearing on how D&D portrays them. As long as they are consistent in the way that they portray the specifications of what they call a sai, there is no errata necessary

So, if the equipment table listed arrows as dealing bludgeoning damage we should just keep quiet and assume that DnD has "special" arrows?

When you rapport "errata" to WotC you should not limit yourself to obvious mistakes. If WotC doesn't know about an unclear rule or possible mistake there is no chance at all that they'll clarify/change/fix it in a later printing.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

>http://www.uechi-ryu.com/oldsite/sai_article.htm

Sorry, Mac, but I'm looking right at it; and sias, as can be plainly seen, are pointy and sharp.

Tapered, yes. Clearly by looking at them you can see that they are tapered. "Pointy and sharp," however, is a different thing, which none of the pictures referenced shows. And in fact, the article in question specifically points out that the tip is dull, and that the sai is used like a club, not a dagger. The only piercing maneuver I saw discussed is the throw.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

The "deflect arrows" feat says (SRD): "Attempting to deflect a ranged weapon doesn't count as an action."

The word "attempting" doesn't make sense in 3.5 - you don't "attempt" to deflect the weapon any more. (That was 3.0 .)

Sure you do. The very next sentence points out that unusually massive weapons and those generated by spell effects cannot be deflected. The fact that there's no die roll involved doesn't mean that it isn't something you "attempt" with some possibility of failure.

 

[Belbarrus]

In version 3.0, one of the Deck of Many Things cards granted a 50,000 xp bonus, which was fine for previous editions, but a ridiculously huge boost for the 3rd Ed XP chart (e.g. you could go from level 17 to 20 with 50,000 XP)
There was a 3.0 DMG errata stating that this value should be lowered to 20,000 XP.
However:

p. 278 of the DMG 3.5 still shows the value as "50,000xp".

Belbarrus

 

[Iku Rex]

For bickering about the sai, go here: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58950