Collected Core Handbook Errata

[mach1.9pants]

DMG page 198 it says under Defense: The Fallcrest Guard numbers sixty warriors (see accompanying statistics block)...."

There are no stats for the Fallcrest Guard in the chapter.

 

[Underage AOLer]

Hey folks,

It came to my attention today after reviewing the issues here that some people are posting problems based on use of the pdf and not the actual books. Aside from being illegal, this pdf is outdated and has many issues that were corrected in the final version of the books. For the sake of other players, please do not post a problem unless you can verify that it exists in the book.

Thanks
-Greg

If you could point out any of the errors I have listed that aren't part of the final printings, that would be great. I was under the impression that we already mentioned this, but if some slipped by then... oops.

I will also add a note to the front post.

In addition, strictly for the sake of layout consistency, for the revised printing, under Mordenkainen's Sword on PHB page 163, the Effect listing should be moved down to follow the Hit listing.

I not sure I agree. There are a few other powers (p.80: Come and Get It, p.85: Warrior's Urging) that have the Effect line before Hit. Even if within the Wizard's spells they aren't entirely consistent, they seem to follow a pattern of "Does the effect cause damage? No => before Hit, Yes => after Hit" Since the sword's effect doesn't directly cause damage (unlike Flaming Sphere, p.160) it goes before the Hit line. It also seems to read fine to me, and I hadn't even seen it before you mentioned it.

Hi all,

I'm thinking it would be good to list among these errata the clarification to wizard spell preparation (PHB p. 158) posted in this thread - the one that states, basically, that wizards can't prep all their high-level spells at once, but must keep roughly to the power-level distribution of other characters' daily or utility powers.

(Hmm...a few nice new tweaks to the VBulletin UI in the years since I last dusted off my account and posted here...musta been an upgrade or two, or at least some feature tuning by the mods... )

I'll try to figure out a way to incorporate this, but as mentioned in that thread, it might be kind of nice for someone to put together an ENWorld 4E FAQ thread. There are certainly plenty of reoccurring issues that seem to pop up. I might do it myself if I can find the motivation.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Hi all,

I'm thinking it would be good to list among these errata the clarification to wizard spell preparation (PHB p. 158) posted in this thread - the one that states, basically, that wizards can't prep all their high-level spells at once, but must keep roughly to the power-level distribution of other characters' daily or utility powers.

It's strange that people find that one confusing, because it's the area of Wizard that acts exactly like it did in 3e.

 

[Tratyn Runewind]

Hi again,

Originally Posted by Underage AOLer:
it might be kind of nice for someone to put together an ENWorld FAQ thread.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I hope my off-topic oohing and aahing over the new features didn't come across as a request for info on the board itself.

Originally Posted by MeMeMeMe:
It's strange that people find that one confusing, because it's the area of Wizard that acts exactly like it did in 3e.

Perhaps. But there's nothing in the book that says it acts like it did in 3e. There's only the somewhat ambiguous phrase "a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level". And given that the "Total Powers Known" column of the big p.29 chart just gives straight numbers, without breaking down spells preppable by level as the wizard charts did in previous editions, I can see how people might become confused on the matter. After all, I was confused myself, thinking that the ability to load up on top-level spells might have been both a simplification and a balancing factor, to make up for the drastic reductions in spell damage compared to previous editions. But with class combat roles more tightly defined now, it turns out that the spell damage cutbacks are apparently themselves a balancing factor...

 

[Underage AOLer]

Hi again,

it might be kind of nice for someone to put together an ENWorld FAQ thread.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I hope my off-topic oohing and aahing over the new features didn't come across as a request for info on the board itself.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself well enough. I was talking about an ENWorld 4E FAQ. The new mechanics (and sometimes unclear wording) seem to bring up a lot of the same questions, and I thought (in the same way that this thread works) we could pull together a lot of the repeated questions people have on the rules of the game (at least until WotC adds the questions to their FAQs).

Does that sound better?

 

[pinbot]

✦ p.79: Rain of Blows says, "Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks" which implies their are two automatic attacks separate from the secondary target attack gained from a hit and using the correct weapon (so, are there two or four attacks?) [Kraydak]

The basic power gives you two attacks, if you meet the criteria under weapon you get a secondary attack, for a total of three. It doesn't really look like there's any error here.

 

[Admiral Caine]

Orb of Imposition Page 157 PHB

I have confirmed this one in my book.

If it's been already tagged, my apologies. I skimmed each post, but I could have missed it. I'm short on time and I want to make sure I get this in..

Orb of Imposition Page 157, 3rd paragraph, PHB

The rule reads:

"Alternately, you can choose to extend the duration of an effect created by a wizard at-will spell (such as cloud of daggers or ray of frost) that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn. The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn."

The rule reads okay, except those at-will powers already end at the end of your next turn without this ability. Flip the page and you can confirm it. Should it be at the end of the next turn after which the spell would normally have ended? (Or some statement which is less clumsy?)

Thanks Greg and Underage AOLer!

 

[Oompa]

I think it isnt an mistake but an bit miswording, how you see it is the right way, so simply said instead of 1 round, it lasts 2 rounds..

 

[Underage AOLer]

The basic power gives you two attacks, if you meet the criteria under weapon you get a secondary attack, for a total of three. It doesn't really look like there's any error here.

Except that every other power that grants two attacks has "per attack" after the damage on the Hit line, and without it I can see it being argued that the second of the "two attacks" is referring to the secondary attack itself (or that the secondary attack applies to each of the "normal" two attacks). It needs a little clarification from WotC methinks.

The rule reads okay, except those at-will powers already end at the end of your next turn without this ability. Flip the page and you can confirm it. Should it be at the end of the next turn after which the spell would normally have ended? (Or some statement which is less clumsy?)

However, on the turn after you originally used a power, it will be ending 'at the end of your turn', so you could use the orb's power then to extend the duration. I didn't get it until it was explained to me somewhere else on these boards either.

 

[Admiral Caine]

However, on the turn after you originally used a power, it will be ending 'at the end of your turn', so you could use the orb's power then to extend the duration. I didn't get it until it was explained to me somewhere else on these boards either.

Ahhh!

Okay... Yeah, I see that. That's not very initutive, but I see what you're saying.