4e PHB2 Errors? Or maybe just issues I have with it...

[Elsidar]

I'm not sure what else to call them, but I'm noticing some errors in the book already. Some might be simple formatting errors or fixable with errata, but there's one that makes me wonder about the design process.

First, the big one: The bard class uses wands as an implement for his powers. In the PHB1, the magic item section had wands made from different wizard and warlock powers, and AV1 had new wands with some new wand rules. However, the magic item section of PHB2 contains no wands at all. Not only is this disappointing (I wanted to see what kind of "Master's Wand of <Power>" wands would be in there), but it makes me wonder if bards were always going to use wands as implements? If that decision were made after the bard powers were written, would it be possible that bardic wands a la AV wands were just forgotten about?

While I don't mind that bards use wands, the fact that they'd have to switch between wand and sword sometimes bothers me. Unfortunately, I can't imagine a better idea for a bardic implement; Instruments usually require two hands to play, unless they're treated like holy symbols, where their mere presence on your person confers their bonuses, but that seems awfully silly. My only other idea would be a necklace or something that grants an enchantment to the wearer's voice, but that seems to step on the toes of existing neck items...

[EDIT] Right. I've realized my mistake about the Shaman's at-wills. Nevermind. ^_^[/EDIT]

I'm still reading, but this is all I've found so far. I'll probably update with more if I find them.

~Elsidar

 

[nightwyrm]

The bard can hold a sword in one hand and a wand in the other. If your off hand uses a light shield, he can hold a wand in that hand. If he uses the wand, he just loses the shield benefit for a round.

 

[ppaladin123]

Moving on, the other error I noticed was in the Shaman's class description. In the description of the Spirit Companion, your choice of Companion type determines which at-will opportunity action you gain, and then says "you choose your remaining at-will as normal." However, this means that Shamans only get one real "at-will" power that they can use on their own turns. Plus, none of the sample Shaman builds seem to follow that restriction. What do you all think is correct, here?

The shaman spirit companion choice gives you two things: 1. a special at-will opportunity action and 2. one of your regular at-wills (predator strike/defending strike I believe). As in the case of the warlock, non-humans only have a choice of one at-will. They still start with two though.

 

[Negflar2099]

I looked it over and there are plenty of Bard powers that are Melee weapon based. Enough that if you wanted to create a melee fighting Bard who cracks enemy skulls to the staccato beat of his own voice then you can. Then there's the songblade to consider which is a must have for most bards. Then there's the fact that some bard builds will have wand + shield or sword + wand and switch as needed. Or some will just have both hands on their lute the entire battle.

I don't know about the Shaman thing but Warlocks have a similar restriction. They get Eldritch Blast plus another At-Will based on Pact choice so if it's lack of choice you're worried about the Shaman is not alone. If it's lack of actions well the Shaman is a pet class and is meant to have their pet do most of the fighting. Not really seeing the problem here.

 

[Shroomy]

Pffft....bards have it easy. My artificer has to switch between a magic crossbow, magic rod, and a magic rapier. Plus, bards can always just use songblades as weapons and implements.

 

[WalterKovacs]

One big error I saw was with the bard's epic destiny:

It says that you can spend an action point to allow an ally to attack as a free action.

It does not specify if that is a basic attack, or any standard action with an attack roll, etc ... just "attack".

 

[lutecius]

The bard can hold a sword in one hand and a wand in the other.

Gnome bards cannot.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One big error I saw was with the bard's epic destiny:

It says that you can spend an action point to allow an ally to attack as a free action.

It does not specify if that is a basic attack, or any standard action with an attack roll, etc ... just "attack".

Well lets look at this realistically. A Warlord can grant another character a Melee Basic Attack with his Commander's Strike at-will. An option available to characters at Level 1. I have a hard time believing that an Epic ability for a Bard would allow him to grant the same exact thing, except he'd have to spend an Action Point to do it. That makes no sense.

And as a character who spends an Action Point for himself can make any type of attack he wants with it (again, something a character can do at Level 1)... I would say that an Epic ability for a Bard should be able to match it. Otherwise... it wouldn't be an Epic ability.

 

[WotC_GregB]

First, the big one: The bard class uses wands as an implement for his powers. In the PHB1, the magic item section had wands made from different wizard and warlock powers, and AV1 had new wands with some new wand rules. However, the magic item section of PHB2 contains no wands at all. Not only is this disappointing (I wanted to see what kind of "Master's Wand of <Power>" wands would be in there)...

Look [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Adventurers-Vault-4th-D-Supplement/dp/0786952040/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237577176&sr=8-1"]here[/ame].

I rest my case.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Well lets look at this realistically. A Warlord can grant another character a Melee Basic Attack with his Commander's Strike at-will. An option available to characters at Level 1. I have a hard time believing that an Epic ability for a Bard would allow him to grant the same exact thing, except he'd have to spend an Action Point to do it. That makes no sense.

And as a character who spends an Action Point for himself can make any type of attack he wants with it (again, something a character can do at Level 1)... I would say that an Epic ability for a Bard should be able to match it. Otherwise... it wouldn't be an Epic ability.

Admitedly it's likely that the PCs can immediately take a standard action to attack ... but it doesn't say that. Even while the intent may be clear, it's worded badly. They've already made powers like this one which allow for ally's to take actions as free actions. However they use things like move action or standard action. It make require you attack using the standard action, but it doesn't actually say that.