Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 1416438" data-attributes="member: 9789">I apologize if there are other threads covering this topic, but I couldn't find any (if anyone knows of one, please link to it.)  I just recently started flipping through the Book of Exalted Deeds, and although I think it looks like a great concept, I found tons of typos, inconsistencies, and other errors in the book - some of which are so big, it makes me wonder if the people proof-read certain parts of this book at all.  (One of the PrC's has the text for "Improved Evasion" written twice - with slightly different wording.  ...Meaning that they actually took the time to write it out twice, and included both versions right next to each other.)  My main question is:  are there any FAQs or errata for this book, and if so where can I find them?  If not, how are people dealing with the inconsistencies?  Here are two examples:Apostle of Peace<a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b" target="_blank">Apostle of Peace on WotC Site</a>One of the AoP requirements is the Vow of Poverty - which expressly says you cannot use or wear any magic item of any sort, ever, EVER.  Then the W&A Proficiency description of this class talks about not wearing armor, but says that wearing magic protection items is fine (check the link).  Normally I'd say this is just a simple error, but since they took an entire paragraph to explain it, it makes me wonder if there is some sort of exception to the vow here?  And furthermore, why is the Vow of Poverty the only vow that does not contain text about being "magically compelled" to break the vow?  All other vows go into why you aren't actually completely stripped of the vow when you're basically forced to break it against your will; this one does not.  Does that mean it isn't possible, or that there are no grey areas (i.e. any prohibited action means you lose the vow, even if against your will)?  (Why is this so unclear?)Initiate of Pistis SophiaOne of the requirements for this PrC is "Sanctify Ki Strike."  One of the prereqs for that feat is "Ki Strike (lawful)."  Monks don't get that ability until level 10, and a straight-classed monk couldn't therefore possibly qualify for this PrC until after level 12 (since that's when they could take their next feat, and therefore the soonest they could grab Sanctify Ki Strike, as written).  The 10-level Pr class was obviously written for monks, so why make requirements impossible to meet before level 10?  Along those same lines, the "next" Ki Strike ability is "Holy Ki Strike" - which requires "Ki Strike (Good)" - something that never actually exists.  You'd think they might mean "Sanctify Ki Strike," but that is also listed as a requirement.  I'm guessing that the first Ki strike is actually tied to "Ki Strike (magic)" - since that's the first Ki strike a monk would get - and the second actually means "Ki Strike (lawful)" - since that's higher up the ladder and more consistent with how much later that feat would be taken.  Ideas?  (Again:  why so poorly written?)My second question is one that has undoubtedly been asked before, but again, I haven't found a thread:  does a monk's (or any humanoid's) unarmed attacks count as "natural attacks?"  More specifically, can a monk (or anyone who likes to attack unarmed) take "natural attack" modification feats, such as "Improved Natural Attack" from the MM?  Initially, I thought "of course not," but different people seem to think different things.  Ideas?  Comments?Edit:  Ok, so the monk description clearly says "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."  So do people usually allow monks to take Improved Natural Attack?  It seems like the letter of the law supports that, but the spirit of the feat seems obviously not designed for that purpose.</blockquote>

Verification