D&D 3E/3.5 The 3.5 PHB Errata Update
- Thread starter Mike18xx
- Start date
Brian Gibbons
Explorer
A few I noticed:
Divine Power (PHB, p. 224) and Tenser's Transformation (PHB, p. 294): BAB becomes equal to character level, which is a problem for epic characters (i.e., a 30th level wizard would get a BAB of +30 plus his +5 epic attack bonus). This should be "equal to the BAB of a fighter of your total character level" or just "(max +20)".
Sundering. DMG, p. 222 says that you can't sunder an opponent's weapon unless your own weapon's enhancement bonus is equal or greater. This seems like the sort of thing that should be mentioned somewhere in the PHB, either under the Improved Sunder feat (PHB, p. 96) or the step-by-step description of sundering (PHB, p. 158).
Divine Power (PHB, p. 224) and Tenser's Transformation (PHB, p. 294): BAB becomes equal to character level, which is a problem for epic characters (i.e., a 30th level wizard would get a BAB of +30 plus his +5 epic attack bonus). This should be "equal to the BAB of a fighter of your total character level" or just "(max +20)".
Sundering. DMG, p. 222 says that you can't sunder an opponent's weapon unless your own weapon's enhancement bonus is equal or greater. This seems like the sort of thing that should be mentioned somewhere in the PHB, either under the Improved Sunder feat (PHB, p. 96) or the step-by-step description of sundering (PHB, p. 158).
There's currently a whole other thread about the sai's damage type.Mike18xx said:
Last edited:
3 unclear rules. are they errata?
3 issues, sorry for the long post.
First is on Flaming Sphere, second is on the Cover/Concealment rules, third is on illegally occupying squares.
1) Flaming sphere, PH 232, unclear.
Relevant text: "if [the flaming sphere] enters a space with a creature, it stops moving... and deals 2d6 points of fire damage to that creature."
Question: what about squares containing multiple creatures? Maybe they are tiny, or maybe one's small and the other is huge, maybe one's helpless… Is damage dealt to each creature, or just one creature?
Also: I'm unclear how to run flaming sphere if line of sight is interrupted, but I probably just overlooked something.
--------------
2) Cover & concealment, PH150&152, several points unclear,
Relevant text: "to determine whether a target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square with concealment, the target has concealment."
Cover on ph150 is the same with one slight change "if any line from this square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover."
a) If the line between two such corners passes along the border of a concealing square, is there concealment, like with cover? For cover, must the border provide cover, or will the border provide cover if its square provides cover?
b) Additionally, if my square is well lit and my opponent’s square is well lit, but there is a square of shadow between us, do they really intend for that to provide concealment? Is a man holding a torch really ever concealed by shadows? In our world, shadows aren't tangibly opaque like their other examples (foliage, smoke...), if a man wields a torch, the fact that there is darkness between us doesn't obstruct my vision. Maybe in the dnd world, shadows are like a wispy black smoke?
c) But the real biggie is this: it appears everyone in ranged combat gets a cover bonus. When you draw a line from a corner of your square to the farther corners of an opponent's square, you've drawn the line through a square which contains a creature (your opponent). This is sufficient, according to ph150, to provide cover.
-------------
3) PH 148 "accidentally ending movement in an illegal space"
Text: "When [a character ends its movement where it's not allowed to stop], put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer."
a) <spit-take> This can't be right. In certain circumstances, I can artificially increase my movement an indefinite amount, move through opponents squares without sufferring attacks of opportunity, or maybe even teleport through doors? The extreme cases are rather contrived, but the basic cases have serious game effects nonetheless.
If I tumble in to aid a dying but surrounded companion, administering a potion that moves him from helpless to conscious, I would get to immediately move my miniature to safety?
b) Do you really only check to see if someone’s in a legal square after they end a move action? So they could occupy the same square indefinitely, as long as they each always took standard actions? If so, what are the associated penalties we might expect?
It might be time for wotc to write up some rules for same sized creatures fighting from the same square when they are allies, or at least when neither is willing to grapple. I know it sounds like a huge modification to the game, but the fact is that this situation comes up. And not just in overly contrived ways practiced by the gamebreakingest rules lawyers. What if a medium someone uses enlarge in a 2 square by 2 square room, what happens to him and his opponent? When a black pudding splits (MM201), it might not fit in it's original space (going from medium to small, for example). Where do the new creatures go, do they both stay in the same square and move out of it on their turns? What if they are in a very small room?
I don't think the solution is "make all your rooms bigger." In fact, I’m not sure what the exact solution to these worries should be, but I’m really uncomfortable with giving my players access to free teleportation.
Maybe this shouldn’t go in the errata; maybe this is just a personal gripe. Eh, either way.
Sorry again for the long post,
Thomas
3 issues, sorry for the long post.
First is on Flaming Sphere, second is on the Cover/Concealment rules, third is on illegally occupying squares.
1) Flaming sphere, PH 232, unclear.
Relevant text: "if [the flaming sphere] enters a space with a creature, it stops moving... and deals 2d6 points of fire damage to that creature."
Question: what about squares containing multiple creatures? Maybe they are tiny, or maybe one's small and the other is huge, maybe one's helpless… Is damage dealt to each creature, or just one creature?
Also: I'm unclear how to run flaming sphere if line of sight is interrupted, but I probably just overlooked something.
--------------
2) Cover & concealment, PH150&152, several points unclear,
Relevant text: "to determine whether a target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square with concealment, the target has concealment."
Cover on ph150 is the same with one slight change "if any line from this square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover."
a) If the line between two such corners passes along the border of a concealing square, is there concealment, like with cover? For cover, must the border provide cover, or will the border provide cover if its square provides cover?
b) Additionally, if my square is well lit and my opponent’s square is well lit, but there is a square of shadow between us, do they really intend for that to provide concealment? Is a man holding a torch really ever concealed by shadows? In our world, shadows aren't tangibly opaque like their other examples (foliage, smoke...), if a man wields a torch, the fact that there is darkness between us doesn't obstruct my vision. Maybe in the dnd world, shadows are like a wispy black smoke?
c) But the real biggie is this: it appears everyone in ranged combat gets a cover bonus. When you draw a line from a corner of your square to the farther corners of an opponent's square, you've drawn the line through a square which contains a creature (your opponent). This is sufficient, according to ph150, to provide cover.
-------------
3) PH 148 "accidentally ending movement in an illegal space"
Text: "When [a character ends its movement where it's not allowed to stop], put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer."
a) <spit-take> This can't be right. In certain circumstances, I can artificially increase my movement an indefinite amount, move through opponents squares without sufferring attacks of opportunity, or maybe even teleport through doors? The extreme cases are rather contrived, but the basic cases have serious game effects nonetheless.
If I tumble in to aid a dying but surrounded companion, administering a potion that moves him from helpless to conscious, I would get to immediately move my miniature to safety?
b) Do you really only check to see if someone’s in a legal square after they end a move action? So they could occupy the same square indefinitely, as long as they each always took standard actions? If so, what are the associated penalties we might expect?
It might be time for wotc to write up some rules for same sized creatures fighting from the same square when they are allies, or at least when neither is willing to grapple. I know it sounds like a huge modification to the game, but the fact is that this situation comes up. And not just in overly contrived ways practiced by the gamebreakingest rules lawyers. What if a medium someone uses enlarge in a 2 square by 2 square room, what happens to him and his opponent? When a black pudding splits (MM201), it might not fit in it's original space (going from medium to small, for example). Where do the new creatures go, do they both stay in the same square and move out of it on their turns? What if they are in a very small room?
I don't think the solution is "make all your rooms bigger." In fact, I’m not sure what the exact solution to these worries should be, but I’m really uncomfortable with giving my players access to free teleportation.
Maybe this shouldn’t go in the errata; maybe this is just a personal gripe. Eh, either way.
Sorry again for the long post,
Thomas
AuraSeer said:
The Rogue is able to make non-lethal Sneak Attacks only Unarmed, or with the Sap. This is very odd, if Sap proficiency is removed... Also, the formerly "Medium Rogue Weapon Proficiencies" are missing... Which leads one to believe that some things WERE overlooked, instead of a power-down for the Rogue being intentional...
D+1
First Post
It burns them too. Just because it refers to one creature in the description (largely as an example) shouldn't cause you to think the description is trying to exclude all other possibilities. It's unclear but only if you're trying not to see the obvious.mannix said:
Line of sight (or line of effect for that matter) is not needed except to cast the spell in the first place. After that it moves in the direction you indicate. If you can't see where it CAN go then you simply have to guess where it's moving until such time as it exceeds your range. You may want it to go 20' north and point in that direction, but if you can't see that it's blocked by a wall to the north then you simply don't see that it isn't going anywhere.
You didn't quote the whole text, or didn't quote it accurately. "To determine whether a target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."
Borders and corners are part of the square, they're just used as specific parts for purposes of seeing what crosses a border or intersects a corner. If a square provides cover/concealment then its borders and corners provide cover/concealment.
No. Shadows aren't going to provide concealment to creatures that are not actually in shadows, much less if they're standing in well-lit areas. Yes, p.152 is written to suggest it, but be serious. It's bad phrasing/a missstatement/an obvious error. It's clearly not the intent because that would be clearly daft.
Clearly the intent is not that all creatures should be considered to provide themselves cover and concealment. You're correct in that if you take it absolutely literally it's whacked, and for that reason it should probably be errata'd. However, that is so obviously not the intent if you're seriously trying to figure out what the way to handle it is you're either being obtuse or purely argumentative.
You're not quoting appropriately again. First sentence of the relevant paragraph is "Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop." The rule is talking about prematurely being stopped, not about the legality of stopping in the intended destination itself. That's covered at the first full paragraph of the same page where it says, "Ending your movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
In your example you would BE in a safe, legal position because your dying companion is helpless and there's no need for you to find someplace else to be. But for the sake of completeness of argument let's suppose your companion was not dying, merely heavily wounded and you wanted to tumble in and give him a potion. The DM who allows you to attempt to do things which by the rules you cannot do deserves the headaches he gets in trying to sort out the results. BTW, needing to teleport through doors would hardly constitute a "legal position" now would it?
No. You determine beforehand where they intend to end their move action to prevent them from even beginning to try it, even though they ought to know darn well they aren't allowed to do it.
The existing rules are sufficient because they don't allow it to happen in the first place, but it's not difficult to make a house rule to allow it if you feel it's needed in your campaign. For example you could consider both characters entangled.
1.)It should only be a problem when gamebreakingest rules lawyers are attempting to get away with something, 2.)You use common sense and have one of the two occupants pushed out of the room to available spaces and/or apply appropriate penalties to the M-size creature who suddenly (and stupidly) has turned himself into a size that doesn't fit the area he's in, 3.)the new black pudding occupies the first available legal space next to its former self, or if no such legal space is available it pushes other creatures out in order to make room with all appropriate consequences. If they are in a small room then at least one of them is probably considered to be squeezing into the area.
There may not be hard and fast rules for this sort of thing but it's not hard to adjudicate a solution either without having hard and fast rules.
Not errata at least. A little closer reading of the rules, and willingness to do what the DM is there to do - adjudicate in situations that the rules don't cover. Absence of a rule to cover a given situation is not necessarily errata.
thanks d+1, your response largely reflected my intuitions.
after rereading flaming sphere, it seems clearer. i wish they would have just written something like, "any creature occupying a square with a flaming sphere takes 2d6 points of fire damage." but then all i need to know is how often to check. i guess it just deals damage on the caster's turn, unless someone moves through the square with the sphere, in which case it does damage on their turn? and if they stop in the square with the flaming sphere... then it just deals damage on the casters turn, as normal perhaps? but then, if someone moves into it's square and stops, can the sphere move, or does it just stay there, dealing damage to that creature?
-----
On Borders:
two small words make all the difference, my apologies for the misquotation.
------
On Shadows:
"It's bad phrasing/a missstatement/an obvious error. It's clearly not the intent because that would be clearly daft."
Yeah, that's why I posted it here, in the errata thread.
--------
On Everyone Getting Cover:
"You're correct in that if you take it absolutely literally it's whacked, and for that reason it should probably be errata'd. However, that is so obviously not the intent if you're seriously trying to figure out what the way to handle it is you're either being obtuse or purely argumentative."
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I needed help with flaming sphere, but these later entries I was just pointing out so they could be considered as possible errata. I was not intending to come off as argumentative; nobody should attempt to make these rule discussions heated; I mean, that'd be silly. You probably get a lot of trolls, though, so I should have been more careful.
Anyway, I think we're in agreement on this issue, it just needs rewritten, not for clarity's sake, just because it's a simple error.
-------
On Being in a square with another occupant:
You write "In your example you would BE in a safe, legal position because your dying companion is helpless and there's no need for you to find someplace else to be."
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 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.
Why is it WotC's responsibility, when Dm's are there to adjudicate such things?
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.
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?
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.
After all that though, I'm glad to see we're in agreement that such situations (two medium sized creatures occupying the same square) shouldn't necessarily be barred outright. 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?
Thanks,
Thomas
after rereading flaming sphere, it seems clearer. i wish they would have just written something like, "any creature occupying a square with a flaming sphere takes 2d6 points of fire damage." but then all i need to know is how often to check. i guess it just deals damage on the caster's turn, unless someone moves through the square with the sphere, in which case it does damage on their turn? and if they stop in the square with the flaming sphere... then it just deals damage on the casters turn, as normal perhaps? but then, if someone moves into it's square and stops, can the sphere move, or does it just stay there, dealing damage to that creature?
-----
On Borders:
two small words make all the difference, my apologies for the misquotation.
------
On Shadows:
"It's bad phrasing/a missstatement/an obvious error. It's clearly not the intent because that would be clearly daft."
Yeah, that's why I posted it here, in the errata thread.
--------
On Everyone Getting Cover:
"You're correct in that if you take it absolutely literally it's whacked, and for that reason it should probably be errata'd. However, that is so obviously not the intent if you're seriously trying to figure out what the way to handle it is you're either being obtuse or purely argumentative."
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I needed help with flaming sphere, but these later entries I was just pointing out so they could be considered as possible errata. I was not intending to come off as argumentative; nobody should attempt to make these rule discussions heated; I mean, that'd be silly. You probably get a lot of trolls, though, so I should have been more careful.
Anyway, I think we're in agreement on this issue, it just needs rewritten, not for clarity's sake, just because it's a simple error.
-------
On Being in a square with another occupant:
You write "In your example you would BE in a safe, legal position because your dying companion is helpless and there's no need for you to find someplace else to be."
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 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.
Why is it WotC's responsibility, when Dm's are there to adjudicate such things?
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.
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?
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.
After all that though, I'm glad to see we're in agreement that such situations (two medium sized creatures occupying the same square) shouldn't necessarily be barred outright. 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?
Thanks,
Thomas
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
