Monster Manual Errata

[Crothian]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20020331a

I didn't see this posted anywhere else, so I'll put it up. Hill Giants still have a 17 cha, though

 

[Darkness]

They probably got to keep it 'coz they're such charming fellas.

Anyway... Many thanks for pointing me to this!

(Oh, and please e-mail Morrus about this update if you haven't already. Thanks! )

 

[EOL]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20020331a

I didn't see this posted anywhere else, so I'll put it up. Hill Giants still have a 17 cha, though

Wow they still have a 17, at this point I may have to ask the sage what the rational for that is... Besides thier innate charm and good looks.

 

[JLXC]

Charisma can represent a "Forceful" personality, still doesn't explain it. But at least you can rationalize it away now!

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Monster Manual Errata

Wow they still have a 17, at this point I may have to ask the sage what the rational for that is... Besides thier innate charm and good looks.

It's so they don't have to substitute their Str for Cha when they try to intimidate people.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Errata for the MM Errata

I found a few mistakes in the MM errata. Here they are for anyone who cares.


On page 2, the p.20, Aranea entry should be p.21, Assassin Vine.

On page 3, the p.41, Add to the retriever attacks: entry says to add bite damage of bite 1d6. Shouldn't this be bite 1d6+3 because of the Str of 25 (+7 halved to +3)?

On page 3, the p.56, Change the tyrannosaurus's swallow whole entry to: entry has the text for the behir's swallow whole entry mixed into it.

On page 8, the p.207, Monstrous spider entry is really located on page 205 of the MM.


On a positive note, I am really happy to finally have the MM errata.

 

[nameless]

They also didn't fix the monkey's advancement. It goes straight from tiny to medium with one HD change.

-nameless

 

[Gromm]

Do weapons of wounding do actual damage to their targets?
Tarrasque's errata seems to indicate that they do, but I don't remember seein it in the DMG errata or the description of wounding.
I know its the way it used to be, but I don't remember it being transferred to 3e.

 

[Crothian]

Do weapons of wounding do actual damage to their targets?
Tarrasque's errata seems to indicate that they do, but I don't remember seein it in the DMG errata or the description of wounding.
I know its the way it used to be, but I don't remember it being transferred to 3e.

I've played it as that and I've yet to see anything to make me think otherwise.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Do weapons of wounding do actual damage to their targets?
Tarrasque's errata seems to indicate that they do, but I don't remember seein it in the DMG errata or the description of wounding.
I know its the way it used to be, but I don't remember it being transferred to 3e.

DMG page 187 under Wounding says:

A weapon of wounding deals damage to a creature such that a wound it inflicts bleeds for 1 point of damage per round thereafter in addition to the normal damage the weapon deals.

So a +1 wounding longsword does 1d8+1 points of damage, plus the wound bleeds for 1 point of damage per round thereafter.