Collected Core Handbook Errata

[firesnakearies]

PHB, pg. 119, Easy Target (Rogue Daily 1)

On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.

Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?

Because as written, it can be better to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.

I think it's good as written, no need for errata. Even if the miss result may, on occasion, turn out to be more advantageous to you, I think overall it's still better to hit.

 

[Khime]

PHB, pg. 119, Easy Target (Rogue Daily 1)

On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.

Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?

Because as written, it can be better to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.

On a miss, you're guaranteed to have combat advantage until your next turn, which improves your chances for hitting them with a power. On a hit, you get better than combat advantage - you hit them. Plus you may also get combat advantage for a follow-up attack. Sounds like the hit is better than the miss to me.

 

[doctorhook]

Forgive me for not reading all nine pages, but do you (or anyone else) have plans to continue this excellent process for additional books?

FRCG is next month, it would be dandy if someone was on top of it.

 

[misalo1]

Careful Attack Questions?
PHB page 105

Why do you require "two melee weapons" to hit only "one creature"?

And if "two melee weapons" are required, which weapon is used to calculate damage.

IMO I think the Requirement line can be deleted.
This would bring the power's description in line with other Ranger powers (ie,: Evasive Strike, Hawk's Talon, etc.)

 

[spinmd]

I think the errata for the death giant and hill giant has created the need for additional errata.

Death giant errata has increased basic attack damage to 4d6 + 9 so I would assume that changes the crit damage to 12d6 + 33 (from 6d6 + 21). Also, with the revision to the death giant's basic attack, it now does better damage than the death titan (4d6 + 9 vs. 2d8 + 10). Don't know if this is intentional or not.

Hill giant revised damage of 2d10 + 7 is now more than the earth titan of 2d10 + 6. Once again, don't know if this is intentional or not.

 

[Pennarin]

In the Implements section of the Wizard entry, it says one implement affects spells that take effect until the end of your turn, or something like that, and then gives examples of such spells in parenthesis. The errata is that these examples don't correspond to that type of duration.

 

[Khime]

In the Implements section of the Wizard entry, it says one implement affects spells that take effect until the end of your turn, or something like that, and then gives examples of such spells in parenthesis. The errata is that these examples don't correspond to that type of duration.

The examples given (cloud of daggers and ray of frost) normally last until the end of your next turn, true. However, during your next turn, these effects now only last until the end of your current turn. You can now use the Orb of Imposition to extend the duration of an effect that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn. The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn, which is now two turns after you cast it.

Looks fine as written to me.

 

[Pennarin]

Mmm, thanks. They could have actually said that, would have been nice.

 

[Oldtimer]

To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision.

To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace
imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an
enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.)

Unless someone can explain how the imaginary line can run along the edge of the obstacle and still not touch it, these two paragraphs contradict each other.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

They don't contradict each other, becuase they are for different things.
The first is for whether you can see someone - and so use powers which require line of sight.
The second is for whether the target has cover when you attack them.
A target can have cover, and still be seen - so no contradiction.