5 foot step trick

[Nail]

....because they don't update the errata and SRD?

 

[mvincent]

I use the leatherbound PHB v3.5

Oh snap.

 

[MarkB]

....because they don't update the errata and SRD?

We've already had one major errata update this year. And it's a lot longer than a year since the leatherbound PHB was published.

 

[Dracorat]

Oh snap.

Yeah, it IS nice. woot.

 

[Transit]

If I remember correctly, the letter that came in the front of the Leather Player's handbook said something like "we've included the most recent errata and cleaned up a few other things."

I assume the Special Edition DM Guide, and Monster manual got the same treatment. So the special addition books are another source of rule alterations and corrections that aren't in the errata.

 

[MarkB]

If I remember correctly, the letter that came in the front of the Leather Player's handbook said something like "we've included the most recent errata and cleaned up a few other things."

Okay, that makes sense. Well, at least there's one official source out there that has the feat sensibly worded.

 

[Nail]

...but, but, but......*I* want access to the "sensibly worded" feat! And being in the leather bound SE PH ain't access, bud.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is about the fourth time this has happened in the last couple of months - a point has been debated using the text in the PHB, SRD, and errata for several days, and then someone has pulled out a quote from the Special Edition that contradicts it all.

It's getting to be a pain!

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

This is about the fourth time this has happened in the last couple of months - a point has been debated using the text in the PHB, SRD, and errata for several days, and then someone has pulled out a quote from the Special Edition that contradicts it all.

It's getting to be a pain!

-Hyp.

Ummm I believe I have stated the same thing several times already. The word pain also seems familiar.

IIRC I also suggested compilng a list of these "stealth errata" and sending them to WotC for inclusion into the "official" errata.

 

[mvincent]

Well, my general philosophy is "Divine intent from what's written. If they wrote 'X does Y', why not assume that their intent was that X does Y?"

I feel being able to interpret writer's intent is important in rules discussions, otherwise you can get weird things like:
“A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.” Taking the Rules As Written literally here would imply that spiked gauntlets prevents someone from disarming any of your weapons.

“A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.” a literal interpretation implies that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself

“Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor.” a literal interpretation implies that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can.

"Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small." a literal interpretation implies that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower.