Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7548363" data-attributes="member: 12731">There's errata threads for many WotC modules, but I couldn't find one for Tomb of Annihilation.So let me offer one possible item that you might want to inform WotC about. If there is an existing thread and I just missed it, feel free to copy this here and then close this thread.Acererak (ToA p.209)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">His Paralyzing Touch is listed as a melee spell attack, but its attack bonus is only listed as +8, when according to his Spellcasting trait it should be +15. This is how the MM lich works, so this appears to be an error.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As written, his Disrupt Life affects "each creature", however the MM lich's Disrupt Life affects "living creatures." This is a significant difference because Acererak can at-will cast animate undead as a Legendary Action, meaning that during the encounter with Acererak he may animate lots of skeletons. It seems strange if his Disrupt Life power were to then destroy them. I submit that this is an error, and Acererak's Disrupt Life should work like the MM lich.</li> </ul>[SBLOCK=Possibly misinformed item]Acecerak (page 209) has this Legendary Action listed:Talisman of the Sphere (Costs 2 Actions). Acererak uses histalisman of the sphere to move the sphere of annihilation underhis control up to 90 feet.What it doesn't say is that this movement is per levitation and thus up and down only.See Also:<a href="https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/128430/does-acereraks-spoiler-legendary-action-function-this-way" target="_blank">https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/128430/does-acereraks-spoiler-legendary-action-function-this-way</a>D&D 5e uses natural language. For the DMG p.207 to say that a talisman of the sphere allows you to levitate a sphere of annihilation a certain distance is not the same as saying it allows you to cast the levitate spell on the sphere of annihilation, anymore than an adventure module describing 10 goblins which are deep in sleep would not imply they're under the effect of a sleep spell. When the authors intend to describe a spell effect, they are explicit about it calling it out as such.[/SBLOCK]</blockquote>

Verification