Core Handbook Errors Discussion

Michele Carter

First Post
Mouseferatu said:
Oof. I think that's a throwback to prior playtest drafts, where the feat gave eldritch blast. But I'm pretty sure the text is correct. (Also, at least in 3E, text always trumped table, except where errata stated otherwise. Dunno if that's still the case in general, but I'm pretty sure it's the case here.)

Still true (until proven otherwise). The table is in error because we changed the feat at the last moment to give the multiclasser a choice, rather than just sticking him with eldritch blast.

The table also references "designate prey" for the ranger, which should be Hunter's Quarry. (And as official "real" errata for Warrior of the Wild: it should be "once per encounter UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN, you can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry feature". Just like Sneak of Shadows, it's meant to give the extra striker damage for 1 round per encounter. )
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Darth Cyric

First Post
WotC_Miko said:
(And as official "real" errata for Warrior of the Wild: it should be "once per encounter UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN, you can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry feature". Just like Sneak of Shadows, it's meant to give the extra striker damage for 1 round per encounter. )
Oh, good. That nips the potentially broken Warlock/Ranger or Rogue/Ranger in the bud.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't know if this is too much to ask, but what is Blade Ward's damage supposed to be?
 

MindWanderer

First Post
WotC_Miko said:
And as official "real" errata for Warrior of the Wild: it should be "once per encounter UNTIL THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN, you can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry feature". Just like Sneak of Shadows, it's meant to give the extra striker damage for 1 round per encounter.
Ouch. That's one heck of a nerf. +1d6 damage for one attack? My cleric/ranger character concept is looking worse and worse....
 

Darth Cyric

First Post
MindWanderer said:
Ouch. That's one heck of a nerf. +1d6 damage for one attack?
Next turn, which means it can actually be two attacks (one during the turn in which you activated HQ, and then one more on your next turn.)
 

Kordeth

First Post
Darth Cyric said:
Next turn, which means it can actually be two attacks (one during the turn in which you activated HQ, and then one more on your next turn.)

It can be more if your party includes a warlord or your target provokes OAs, or if you have some additional power that lets you take attacks on another creature's turn.
 

Darth Cyric

First Post
Kordeth said:
It can be more if your party includes a warlord or your target provokes OAs, or if you have some additional power that lets you take attacks on another creature's turn.
Hunter's Quarry damage can only be applied once per round.
 

Xorn

First Post
Careful Attack (Ranger 1st level At-Will)
It shows Attack: as "Dex Mod +2 vs AC" and Hit: as "1[W]"
It seems like (from DDXP pregen) it should be "Dex Mod x2 vs AC"

Since a basic range attack is "Dex Mod vs AC" and "1[W] + Dex Mod", if you have +3 or higher Dex Mod, your trade off for Careful Attack gets worse and worse, rapidly.

I'm going to assume that you double your Dex Mod on your attack roll, in exchange for not adding it to your damage.
 

Thasmodious

First Post
Under the clerics trained skills it lists - religion + 3 more trained from this list: arcana, diplomacy, heal, history, insight, and *religion*.
 

Boarstorm

First Post
Thasmodious said:
Under the clerics trained skills it lists - religion + 3 more trained from this list: arcana, diplomacy, heal, history, insight, and *religion*.

Check the rogue list. It'll blow your mind.
 

Moon-Lancer

First Post
Xorn said:
Careful Attack (Ranger 1st level At-Will)
It shows Attack: as "Dex Mod +2 vs AC" and Hit: as "1[W]"
It seems like (from DDXP pregen) it should be "Dex Mod x2 vs AC"

Since a basic range attack is "Dex Mod vs AC" and "1[W] + Dex Mod", if you have +3 or higher Dex Mod, your trade off for Careful Attack gets worse and worse, rapidly.

I'm going to assume that you double your Dex Mod on your attack roll, in exchange for not adding it to your damage.
It seems pretty cruddy. I wonder if its not x2 as well.
 

charlesatan

Explorer
Xorn said:
Careful Attack (Ranger 1st level At-Will)
It shows Attack: as "Dex Mod +2 vs AC" and Hit: as "1[W]"
It seems like (from DDXP pregen) it should be "Dex Mod x2 vs AC"

Since a basic range attack is "Dex Mod vs AC" and "1[W] + Dex Mod", if you have +3 or higher Dex Mod, your trade off for Careful Attack gets worse and worse, rapidly.

I'm going to assume that you double your Dex Mod on your attack roll, in exchange for not adding it to your damage.

Sounds right. Based on the playtest report, I think this was originally roll 2d20s on the attack roll, pick highest then nerfed to Dex +4 vs AC and now the final version is Dex +2 vs AC. You're trading damage for accuracy. And +2 is a big bonus.
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
When we originally saw the photograph of some of the wizard powers, one of them was 'Greater Invisibility'.

Wizard utility 16

Daily, arcane, illusion
Standard action, ranged 20
Target you or one creature
Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible.
Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain the effect


One assumes that there is a lower level power just called 'Invisibility' since this is a 'Greater' version. However, it doesn't seem particularly great...

If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one? Any possibility of a typo creeping in via copy and paste and not amending greater invis to allow attacks or something?

Cheers
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Not an error as such, but something that seems pretty strange...

In the thread where someone was posting information about the top level powers, it seemed that the top Wizard damaging spell was Meteor Swarm - something like Area burst 5 for 8d6+int damage, half on a miss.

So that was the controller (who excels in area damage).

Then there is the leader. What was his name? Oh yes, the cleric.

He gets Astral Storm - area burst 5 for 6d10+Wis damage, in four damage types (cold and fire and thunder and lightning) and with a sustain minor for extra damage(!)

So how is it that once again the cleric gets a better top end BOOM spell than the wizard eh? What about those role thingys!

Cheers
 

Thasmodious said:
Under the clerics trained skills it lists - religion + 3 more trained from this list: arcana, diplomacy, heal, history, insight, and *religion*.
I think that's intentional - just in case someone gets the opportunity to pick a new skill from a class skill list. It's still a bit awkward.
 


Imban

First Post
Plane Sailing said:
If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one?

It has a maximum range of 5 instead of 20 and is sustained as a standard action rather than a minor action. If you just want to run around invisible for scouting purposes, they're basically equal.
 

Plane Sailing said:
When we originally saw the photograph of some of the wizard powers, one of them was 'Greater Invisibility'.

Wizard utility 16

Daily, arcane, illusion
Standard action, ranged 20
Target you or one creature
Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible.
Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain the effect


One assumes that there is a lower level power just called 'Invisibility' since this is a 'Greater' version. However, it doesn't seem particularly great...

If there is a lower level version of invisibility, how does it compare with this one? Any possibility of a typo creeping in via copy and paste and not amending greater invis to allow attacks or something?

Cheers

Am I reading the effect line correctly? Does it actually say "The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible" ?

As I read it, the target was already invisible. Why does it need to become invisible again? Nowhere does it say that the target becomes visible until the effect ends. Mucho confused here.
 

silentounce

First Post
ExploderWizard said:
Am I reading the effect line correctly? Does it actually say "The target is invisible until the end of your next turn, if the target attacks, the target becomes invisible" ?

As I read it, the target was already invisible. Why does it need to become invisible again? Nowhere does it say that the target becomes visible until the effect ends. Mucho confused here.

Maybe it's supposed to say "if the target attacks, the target remains invisible." That would compare to 3.5 and earlier versions. The non-Greater Invisibility probably says that if the target attacks, then the spell effect ends.
 

silentounce said:
Maybe it's supposed to say "if the target attacks, the target remains invisible." That would compare to 3.5 and earlier versions. The non-Greater Invisibility probably says that if the target attacks, then the spell effect ends.

That would actually make a little more sense. :) I hope Plane misquoted and the book isn't like that.
 

beverson

First Post
Moon-Lancer said:
ouch, thats a pretty bad typo. For 23, i doubt it would be 1[w] with a single attack.... sigh

It's not completely out of the question or it to be 1[W]. There are several other powers that are Immediate Interrupts like this one which only do 1[W], including other high level ones.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top