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

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: Re: The 3.5 PHB Errata Update

He said "actual clear errata". I wonder why you left out that word?

I left the word out because it's irrelevant. A large chunk of his list is not errata at all, just his own personal preference. That's entirely different from something that is a possible error or a simple ambiguity.

If every player sends his own opinions like "I don't like this art" or "use bold lettering here" or "that weapon doesn't match what I saw in a movie once," the errata team is going to be buried under eighty zillion random complaints. It'll take much, much longer to sort through all the submissions and create an actual errata document.

There's nothing wrong with making suggestions, but you should label them as such, instead of lumping them in with the list of actual mistakes.

 

[Mike18xx]

Sais where always blunt weapons IIRC.

I owned a pair of Sais once, and they where indeed blunt.

Well, you can buy dull katanas too....

Do a Google image search for sai; the middle "tine" is pointy and sharp. (There's little point to throwing them, btw, if they're not sharp.)

 

[Mike18xx]

Re: Re: The 3.5 PHB Errata Update

Originally posted by AuraSeer
>Leaving the sap off the rogues' proficiency list
>is not errata, it's a change from the previous
>version.

Would you say the same of the prestige-class XP penalty omission?

>As of now there's no reason to believe it was
>a mistake, as opposed to an intentional change.

You believe bards are born knowing the sap, but rogues aren't?

 

[Mike18xx]

Re: You're wrong about Holy Word.

The killing effect does not necessarily render the other effects moot. Someone under a Death Ward effect would survive, but be rendered paralyzed, blinded, and deafened. And a paralyzed person who's blind and deaf is still blind and deaf. No need to change that.

That's a very good point. (And several spells can end paralysis.) I'll remove these objections in the next update.

 

[Bagpuss]

Well, you can buy dull katanas too....

Do a Google image search for sai; the middle "tine" is pointy and sharp. (There's little point to throwing them, btw, if they're not sharp.)

If you do a google search for Sai you would have discovered that even ancient Sai were blunt tipped. The image below shows three Sai one modern and two over 100 years old. Although they pointed the actual tips are blunt. As can be found in the description. Oh and as for throwing them old Sai where sold iron, so its much like throwing a heavy brick at someone.

http://home1.gte.net/fannin/shaolin/sai.htm

 

[coyote6]

Re: Re: The 3.5 PHB Errata Update

Leaving the sap off the rogues' proficiency list is not errata, it's a change from the previous version. As of now there's no reason to believe it was a mistake, as opposed to an intentional change.

Andy Collins said it was a mistake. I believe it was on WotC's boards, but it was fairly widely reported.

 

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: Re: The 3.5 PHB Errata Update

Andy Collins said it was a mistake. I believe it was on WotC's boards, but it was fairly widely reported.

I stand corrected on that point.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

1. Thanks for all your work in doing this!

2. Similar to points made about Holy Word, Color Spray is not redundant in having overlapping conditions (unconscious, stunned, blinded) because some creatures are immune to some but not all of those conditions, or because certain spells or other tactics might remedy some but not all of the conditions. This text seems carefully worded to incorporate errata and address questions people had about Color Spray in 3.0 in the FAQ and Sage Advice, I believe.

3. I agree that your hard work earns you the right to post your quibbles, but I think it would be far more useful to other people (and that is the point, right?) if you included those in a separate section, so that people can clearly tell what are your quibbles vs. actual errata. The fact that some of your quibbles are labelled as such and others aren't is misleading, and seems disingenuous, as if you're trying to tell other people what to think. Not that I think it's intentional, but I think it's bad form. Volunteering to take on a responsibility like this means nothing if we can't trust that all of the errata are errata and not just quibbles on your part. It's also a long list to go through and priority should go to actual errata. Please consider moving all quibbles to a separate section or at least using a clear, consistent indicator for your personal peeves.

Cheers,
MC

 

[Mike18xx]

<snip picture of blunt sais>

How wide is the tip on those things? 3/16ths inch?

It would still create a very nasty puncture wound. You might as well insist that round-nose bullets do bludgeoning damage.

http://www.daimaru-ss.com/info/sai.jpg

This is NOT a "bludgeoning" weapon, no matter how dull.

Why is the point not sharpened? Speculation: 95% of the sais ever made have been sold to martial arts studios, where the last thing the instructors want are dozens of students fumbling around with lethal weaponry.

If a PC bought a dull sai, he'd head off to the grinding wheel and have a sharp one five minutes later.

 

[Grazzt]

Re: Re: The 3.5 PHB Errata Update

Perhaps if you restricted yourself to things that are actual errata, you wouldn't be spending as many unnecessary hours.

"Please add boldface to every glossary entry" is not an error, it's a personal request. I'd like the books to include more art, but I don't claim "lack of art" as a hundred instances of errata.

Leaving the sap off the rogues' proficiency list is not errata, it's a change from the previous version. As of now there's no reason to believe it was a mistake, as opposed to an intentional change. (Whether you like the change is irrelevant.) Do you also claim that there's an error in the gnome description, because favored class is listed as "bard" instead of "illusionist" ?

Stating what a kama or glaive "should be" capable of is not errata, because the weapon tables are not intended to be 100%historically accurate. I might argue that a bastard sword "should be" a bludgeoning weapon, because it would have had dull edges for use against armored opponents; that doesn't mean such a change necessarily would be balanced or even sensible in D&D.

Similiarly, claiming to note errors in the weapon art is just plain silly. For example, the gnome hooked hammer is a fictional creation, as are the gnomes who use it, so any speculation about its use is entirely subjective. Though you consider it "implausibly short" for a double weapon, perhaps more length would be a hindrance in its particular fighting style. This is not errata by any stretch of the imagination.

Ya know, that is kinda what I was feeling when I looked over the list. Lots of things detailed above are not really mistakes/errors and shouldn't even be considered for errata. They seem to be more personal taste and opinion. Each to their own I guess.