D&D 3E/3.5 The 3.5 PHB Errata Update

[D+1]

Sorry if my response was a little... stern? I's feelin' a bit peevish but I'm all better now.

Ok, so with my example of the dying friend, it's legal to move in and administer the potion. Sounds good. Next round, when we're attacked, do we suffer any penalties to our armor class? When we attack, do we suffer any penalties to our attack bonuses? Why is the legality of ending our turn in such a situation directly linked to whether or not we took a move action this round?

When you're attacked you have no particular AC or attack penalties for being in the same square, though your ally would still be prone, so he'd have that adjustment. If the game simply doesn't legally allow it, there aren't any specific penalties for it. A DM could apply some if it were deemed appropriate. A simple circumstance penalty if nothing else. After that though, one of you would need to move to their own square. It's generally going to be in everyone's interest to let you do so - you would not have to worry about being wrapped up in the same square with somebody and your opponents would likely be able to surround you better. Otherwise, I would tend to assume that your ally would have to remain prone and try to stay out of your way until such time as you can move and make room for him to stand up and take serious action again.

When you talk about entaglment, squeezing, or pushing as possible solutions, I think you're right that we need something like this. Pushing would be dangerous, it's essentially a free, automatically successful bull rush. It might push someone into an open pit, or into a disadvantaged position after they carefully moved to exactly where they wanted to be. In some situations, it might simply not be an available option. But, yeah, basically we need something to parallel the squeezing rules for this situation, that's what I've been using in my campaigns.

But this is one of those things where it's really better,IMO, to leave it up to the DM to rule on rather than try and cover all situations. Too many variations on what kind of restrictions there are on the available room, what the enemy is trying to do, what the PC's are trying to do. It's easier for the DM to make a ruling and have done with it than to write a page of official rules to cover what happens when two creatures of M size occupy a single square.

1) Just because good DMs can figure out a solution to this problem doesn't excuse incompleteness. There are bad Dm's out there, and they should get to have fun too.

I disagree because then there's no end to the rules that would have to be written. DM's MUST be able to make rulings where there are no rules. It is simply part of the job because there CANNOT be a rule for everything.

2) It comes up often enough to warrant consistent rulings, as can only be provided through official source material. I mean, are the rules on creatures of varying size categories fighting from the same square so much more frequent that they are justified in their inclusion, but these are not?

Actually, yes. It's far more common to see tiny or smaller creatures occupying the same square in order to attack, or for Small creatures to occupy the same square as a Huge or larger creature, than it is to see two Medium creatures trying (or being forced) to occupy the same space.

3) I don't think living campaign dm's can just make up rules like these on the fly, they don't have the luxury of house dm's like us.

Well not to put too fine a point on it but the game isn't written for living campaign DM's - it's written for us "House DM's." Besides, if this is the sort of thing they have to seriously worry about we should all have their problems.

But once we detail rules for two people fighting from the same square, is there any justification for retaining the latter rule, which prohibits you from ending your movement in an occupied square? Or isn't that rule only serving to prohibit such situations from arising?

Actually, that brings up another good argument against it - once you make it "legal" with nice, detailed rules then it becomes a tactic, not a debilitation, and do we really want to go there? It's certainly arbitrary to simply say "No, you can't do it, period," but it's not something that ought to be encouraged in any way. I mean, there's still other issues to consider besides AC and to-hit penalties. Things like cover, concealment, spell effects, and I'm sure plenty more that I just can't think of off the top of my head. If it's necessary in a rare instance in the game it can be handled as the DM sees fit. The rest of the time the very lack of rules for it and the "no, you can't do that" treatment by the rules that do deal with the subject keeps it in the position it ought to be: Something to always be avoided, never something to be exploited - by either side of a fight.

 

[Remathilis]

Couple of Clairifications to address...

40,41: Table and text reference to "lawful" Ki strikes. (As an effect, "Lawful" has been renamed to "Axiomatic".)

Lawful is the name of a type of weapon alignment used to bypass alignment DR. Axiomatic is a +2 enchantment that bypasses Lawful DR and does 2d6 dmg to chaotic creatures. A weapon (or ability) can be "lawful" without being Axiomatic, just look at any fiend in the MM (their natural attack count as Evil and Chaotic/Lawful for purposes of overcoming DR) or the Holy Avenger (and Holy Sword) for more examples.

44***: Multiple uncertainties regarding a paladin's special mount, now summoned as a spell-like, conjuration ability: For the purposes of "detect magic", how magical is the mount? Can the summoning of the mount be interrupted by Dispel Magic, Break Enchantment or Silence? Does the summoning require verbal or somatic components? What is the paladin's effective spell-level while summoning? Is the mount, since it is summoned, susceptible to being thwarted by Protection from Good (or Law), Magic Circle, Dismissal, etc?

As a spell-like ability, it can be interrupted by a Dispel Magic (during its summoning), but has no components (negating silence or even binding/hold spells). As a summoned creature, it doesn't radiate magic, but could be dismissed by Dismissal. It seems its alignment is still neutral however, so a Protection/Magic Circle wouldn't work unless it affected neutral beings.

63: What "C" and "cc" mean isn't listed underneath the skill chart -- sure to confound newbies seeing it for the first time.

Its discussed on the adjacent page, but not spelled out exactly.

73: Disguise refers to a non-existent "Deceptive" feat.

Deceptive was the name of the Decietful feat in d20 Modern. Seems the text got copied by not checked (hence the errata eh?)

Reference to "light lance" in art.
115,117: Sai: (1) This monk weapon should be added to p115 art.
115: Ordinary (i.e., neither short nor long) spears absent from art.

I'm assuming that chaning the existing art would have been a bigger pain ten int warrented, so they just let this slide. Sloppy? Yes. Cost Saving? You bet!

115: The glaive pictured is capable of piercing damage.
(2) Some sais are made with sharp tips, and blunt ones are easily sharpened. As it would be unrealistic to disallow sharpening them, sais should do bludgeoning or piercing damage.
115,118: Kama: (1) This monk weapon should be capable of piercing and slashing damage, not slashing only.
116: Sap: As these are essentially just "soft clubs", positioning them as a martial weapon is an odd choice.
118: Greatclubs: If these are bludgeoning only, then text references to being studded with nails or spikes should be omitted, and the art altered. Otherwise, greatclubs should do piercing and bludgeoning damage like a morningstar.
120: In the weapons picture, flails have spiked balls (spikier than the head of the nearby morningstar), but do only bludgeoning damage. Either the art or the damage categories of the weapon should be altered.
120: In the weapons picture, the gnome hooked hammer portrayed is implausibly short to enable functionality as a double weapon.

Without re-hashing some of this arguement, these are judgement class/opinions, not errata. I suggest listing them in a seperate section. Art is rarily cause for errata (except maps, of course)

Just some things I saw I wanted to comment on.

 

[mannix]

D+1 makes some good points; convinced me anyway.

thomas

 

[Conaill]

I'm assuming that chaning the existing art would have been a bigger pain ten int warrented, so they just let this slide.

<making desperate attempts to avoid making a bad pun about INT 10 graphic artists>

 

[Artoomis]

Hobgoblin skill points are wrong. His points were spent as if his skills were class skills, but they are cross-class skills since he is a warrior.

Before spending any points, after adjusments for armor worn and abaility scores:

Hide 0, Listen +1, Move Silently +0, Spot +1

Listed: Hide +3, Listen +2, Move Silently +3, Spot +2 (Uses 16 cross-class skill points vs. the 8 he has to spend)

Should probably be:

Hide +1, Listen +2, Move Silently +1, Spot +2 (uses 8 cross-class skill points)

 

[Artoomis]

#$^!# double post $%^~#$^

 

[Ferox4]

140,306***: Concentration: Inconsistency between skill text and glossary text regarding provocation of AoOs.

Also inconsistency on p.141, Table 8-2, saying it does not provoke AoO. The glossary is simply wrong.

 

[Ferox4]

And, in the spirit of nitpicking, p. 239, Haste - "Material Component: A shaving of licorice root."

Um, sorry, but there's no such plant. Licorice is made from Anise. There is however a Twizzler tree.....

 

[mannix]

two bits

someone from wizards dropped me this line:
"In the rare instances where more than 1 creature are allowed to be in
the same square when a flaming sphere hits, all creatures in that square
take damage. If the flaming sphere moves out of sight, it stops moving
until the spellcaster moves and is able to see it again."

That's mostly as we expected, though flaming sphere cannot be moved when out of LOS, that's different.

thomas

 

[Pielorinho]

And, in the spirit of nitpicking, p. 239, Haste - "Material Component: A shaving of licorice root."

Um, sorry, but there's no such plant. Licorice is made from Anise. There is however a Twizzler tree.....

Always Google before correcting somebody.

[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Licorice:[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][size=-1](Liquorice) (Glycyrrhiza glabra)[/size][/font][font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]- What is it?
[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT][size=-1]Licorice is a botanical, a shrub native to southern Europe and Asia, the roots of which have two primary desirable qualities: first, some varieties of licorice root are fifty times sweeter than sugar and may be chewed or eaten as a sweet and making it a useful component of candies and flavorings; second, licorice has been for thousands of years sought after for its reputed medicinal qualities. Licorice grows wild in southern central Europe and Asia. It is used for its roots and its rhizomes (underground stems). Glycyrrhizic acid is extracted from the root and used as a flavoring in food, tobacco, alcohol, and cosmetics. ​

[/size][/font]​

Daniel