Spell Compendium Errata Up!

[Henry]

Don't forget what they've stated their (Wizards) purpose of errata is -- to fix things that have a tangible effect in the game, not necessarily if something is particularly strong or weak, misspellings, etc. So things like Kelp Strand, while strong, they may not consider to have a game breaking effect.

I don't know what does need fixing, myself, but they likely have different definitions of "needs errata" than many fans.

 

[eamon]

I hadn't looked at kelpstrand before, but OMFG??

Say, at 12th level, you could take improved grapple (should just work), say with 24 wis, you'd have a grapple check of +32 vs. 4 targets.

In practice, even a Kraken (best grappler of CR12 in the SRD) would usually be grappled... (it has a grapple of +44, but it's an oceanic beast, so the druid would generally gain a +4 to the checks). And a poor Kolyarut... with a grapple of +11 - or for that matter any enemy humanoid.

It's might not be game breaking, but it's sure dramatically game altering. The thing just keeps on scaling too. How many other 2nd level spells are potentially decisive at level 20? 6 targets with a grapple check of around +50, at level 20... that sounds broken (course, I never really play beyond level 12, so I don't care).

 

[evermind]

Perhaps the problem with 'Kelp Strand' is simply that they (WotC) read the effect description as

D20 + caster-level + Primary casting attribute bonus = X

instead of

D20 + BA + caster levell + primary casting attribute bonus + possible boni from feats = Y

?

Which would certainly explain why they consider the spell with a result of "X" is quite ok, while a possible rule munchkin (I am pointing no fingers in any way ) who reads the spell description would naturally think of "Y" as the only "correct" result. While it is rather obviously a result totally out of proportion....

That is certainly no excuse for the sloppy editing and formulation, but.... well if there are no bigger problems with the current rules than reading them in the bendiest, most sophist and least realistic way possible....

I usually find it most convincing to have players insisting on such a reading of some rules to suffer a healthy dose of backlash from precisely that reading... e.g. hitting them with their own club, very soon, and mercilessly. Usually makes them agree almostinstantaneously to a worldview which is far more "common sense".

 

[Creamsteak]

I'm surprised at how little there is. I would have expected at least three times as much.

 

[eamon]

Perhaps the problem with 'Kelp Strand' is simply that they (WotC) read the effect description as

D20 + caster-level + Primary casting attribute bonus = X

instead of

D20 + BA + caster levell + primary casting attribute bonus + possible boni from feats = Y

?

Which would certainly explain why they consider the spell with a result of "X" is quite ok, while a possible rule munchkin (I am pointing no fingers in any way ) who reads the spell description would naturally think of "Y" as the only "correct" result. While it is rather obviously a result totally out of proportion....

Selectively reading rules is potentially annoying. But I don't think there's much doubt that kelpstrand says Y and not X:

You add your caster level and your Wisdom bonus to the result of your grapple check rather than your Strength bonus and size bonus.

A normal grapple check includes a strength bonus and a base attack bonus (and other bonuses when applicable, such as size bonuses and/or feats or other effects). The spell clearly states that you're still performing a grapple check, and that two specific bonuses are replaced by two other specific bonuses. If you were to argue that it's not you grappling but the kelp, then you wouldn't ever add your Strength and size bonuses anyhow, which makes the spell description pretty nonsensical. Further, it actually literally says "your grapple check", after all.

Really, I can only see one possible interpretation - you roll an entirely normal grapple check with all applicable bonuses and penalties, with only one modification: you don't add your Strength bonus and size bonus, but instead add your Wisdom bonus and your caster level.

That's far too abusable, and should have been in the errata. Oh well... I'll just ban it ;-).

 

[Beastman]

:-/ i get a "page not found" error when trying to download the file:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MIComp_Errata.zip

anyone problems with this?

 

[Deset Gled]

:-/ i get a "page not found" error when trying to download the file:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MIComp_Errata.zip

anyone problems with this?

You may be following the wrong link. Try http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/SpellComp_Errata.zip

 

[Vegepygmy]

No errata to triadspell? They've got to be kidding...