Author Topic: Errata Complaints  (Read 8267 times)

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Errata Complaints
« on: November 07, 2011, 09:54:53 AM »
Please aim all complaints about any errata issued by this project here, and any changes you recommend here.


Do not complain about WotC's ability to errata things here. That's for the BLYHT section.


Keep in mind that we are an unofficial project, and that the errata issued by this project is largely our opinion of how things should be.



Flaming will not be tolerated, even in sarcastic posts.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline brainpiercing

  • PbP Game Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
  • Thread Killer
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2011, 07:16:10 AM »
Ok, first minor comment, and I'm guessing I'm really late, but I totally missed this on the old boards:

Quote
Page 149 - Crown of White Ravens [Addition]
After the last sentence in the Effect paragraph, add "Stances cannot be contained in this item. The maneuver is added to your list of maneuvers known for the purposes of readying maneuvers, but not meeting prerequisites of feats, prestige classes, magic items, maneuvers, or any other effect that requires maneuvers known. The maneuver must be readied as normal. You must meet all requirements for the maneuver in order to benefit from this item, including having a high enough initiator level to actually learn the maneuver."

If you attempt combine two or more Crowns into the same item (see the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 282), each crown involved must be of a different type (Novice, Scholar, Master), and must contain a different maneuver in each instance. You cannot, for example, combine three Crowns that each contain the Leading the Attack strike, but you could combine three crowns that contain Leading the Attack, White Raven Tactics, and White Raven Hammer.

The above rules apply to the variants of the Crown of White Ravens.

There is a problem with this: The Crown of the White Ravens and respective other items never contain just ONE maneuver of their levels, they contain ALL of them at the same time. You can just only attune them to grant one maneuver:
Quote
"After wearing it continually
for 24 hours, the wearer must choose one of the White Raven
maneuvers that the item can grant for which he meets the
prerequisite. He then gains knowledge of that maneuver and
can use it as long as the crown is worn."

So unless you errata that, too, then parts of this errata is useless, most notably the second paragraph about combining several of these items, or at least the restrictions are moot except those of using different level items. Even so, a Master Crown can be used to grant a first level maneuver without problems.

My recommendation:
Remove everything after "each crown involved must be of a different type (Novice, Scholar, Master)."

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2011, 10:03:39 AM »
What the hell was WotC thinking? Seriously, how the hell did that get out of the door?  :banghead

I'll update the PDF...
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline brainpiercing

  • PbP Game Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
  • Thread Killer
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2011, 01:13:59 PM »
Well, actually I kind of like the idea - it's a move towards more flexibility and not wasting money. I guess there can be differing opinions on this.

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2011, 01:33:42 PM »
Well, actually I kind of like the idea - it's a move towards more flexibility and not wasting money. I guess there can be differing opinions on this.

I feel it's like giving a Wizard a magic item that lets him prepare any spell on his list without needing to scribe it into his spellbook. Last I checked, that ability was printed on an artifact-level item, and it has limitations.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline Bard

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Medium sized Lemure
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2011, 08:25:59 PM »
Well, actually I kind of like the idea - it's a move towards more flexibility and not wasting money. I guess there can be differing opinions on this.

I feel it's like giving a Wizard a magic item that lets him prepare any spell on his list without needing to scribe it into his spellbook. Last I checked, that ability was printed on an artifact-level item, and it has limitations.

You're comparing manouvers to spells as far as their power and utility... Plus you're reading too much into it, I find the item has more in common with the Relic of Boccob (can't recall the name) that gives you ANY new spell each day for free (more or less).
Anyway I'm still new to this project and reading now into it, maybe I missed the point of it, or there's something else I'm not seeing, but from my PoV that specific "errata" doesn't feel like an errata at all... it majestly changes the raw of the item in an attempt to "balance" a subjective issue with an item that was meant to be like that.
"Playing the first 6 levels in D&D is like watching the story intro at the beginning of an action/disaster movie: it's boring and the shorter it is, the better."

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2011, 10:39:34 PM »
It's just so counter-intuitive. Maneuvers known was a balancing point of the Bo9S classes. Hell, even the Legacy Items (themselves being nearly Artifact-level equipment) don't grant that kind of power (although that's because the Legacy Items suck anyway).


My personal issues with it aside, errata'ing it to work as "intended" is the ultimate goal. However, I now have a more negative opinion of those items.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline Bard

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Medium sized Lemure
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2011, 08:14:44 AM »
My personal issues with it aside, errata'ing it to work as "intended" is the ultimate goal.
That's actually what got me interested in the project: with a nice and well thought out errata on hand a lot of the "wording issues" and discussion during gameplay would cease and it'll go faster.

Fact is, by its own designers admission, D&D was never meant to be balanced, it was made in a way that would reward owning more books and knowing more stuff about the game, that would give more power to expert players that are able to discern good stuff from the bad one, etc..
So if an item, class, feature, race, etc is overpowered, there's a good chance it was meant to be that way. I really cannot believe they EVER thought the druid and monk, the cleric and the paladin, etc were on the same level.
This should always be kept in mind when trying to figure out the "intended effect" of a rule IMHO.

Back into the specific of the Crown of White Ravens, I also feel the errata for it has two issues:
1. puts on it limitations that were never there
2. fails to address some issues with unclear wording in the description of the item
I'm not sure if I should create a thread about it or discuss it here, so to be safe I'll put my ideas here and if it's not the right place just tell me so and I'll move them :P

About 1:
Quote
Stances cannot be contained in this item.
This is true and was needed, no issues with it

Quote
The maneuver is added to your list of maneuvers known for the purposes of readying maneuvers, but not meeting prerequisites of feats, prestige classes, magic items, maneuvers, or any other effect that requires maneuvers known. The maneuver must be readied as normal. You must meet all requirements for the maneuver in order to benefit from this item, including having a high enough initiator level to actually learn the maneuver.
This however is, in my opinion, both too much and lacking.
I think it should be clarified if, for example, a Fighter 10 would benefit from the crown (I'd say yes since some manouvers have no prerequisite except for Initiator level and a Fighter 10 has IL 5) and how would he ready/use/recharge the manouver granted (at least a reference to the page where it's explained).
I also don't see why that manouver wouldn't count for feats, PrC, Manouvers, etc... you DO know the manouver, and you had to pay a slot and money for it (often a poor trade in my opinion). Of course like any other case, if you lose access to it, you'd lose anything that required it to work, till you get it again.

Quote
If you attempt combine two or more Crowns into the same item (see the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 282), each crown involved must be of a different type (Novice, Scholar, Master), and must contain a different maneuver in each instance. You cannot, for example, combine three Crowns that each contain the Leading the Attack strike, but you could combine three crowns that contain Leading the Attack, White Raven Tactics, and White Raven Hammer.
Here's the other issue I have. I agree that if you've a "double crown" of White Raven, choosing twice the same manouver would just waste one of the two (mind you, you CAN choose the same manouver twice, it just means you wasted "one crown", just like you can have two item granting a +2 enhancement bonus to Str, they won't explode, but they won't stack either).
I don't see why tho you can't stack on the same item more than one of the same type.

As usual, I may have missed or misread something so, just tell me what you think about it.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 08:17:54 AM by Bard »
"Playing the first 6 levels in D&D is like watching the story intro at the beginning of an action/disaster movie: it's boring and the shorter it is, the better."

Offline Prime32

  • Over-Underling
  • Head Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2011, 10:52:34 AM »
Fact is, by its own designers admission, D&D was never meant to be balanced, it was made in a way that would reward owning more books and knowing more stuff about the game, that would give more power to expert players that are able to discern good stuff from the bad one, etc..
So if an item, class, feature, race, etc is overpowered, there's a good chance it was meant to be that way. I really cannot believe they EVER thought the druid and monk, the cleric and the paladin, etc were on the same level.
This should always be kept in mind when trying to figure out the "intended effect" of a rule IMHO.
I believe it, especially since the designer who "admitted" that did so when the system had been known unbalanced for years... and that whenever the designers (including him) try to give optimisation advice it's awful. Didn't he say at some point something like "Yes, not all options are created equal. Skill Focus is more powerful than Leadership"?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 10:54:50 AM by Prime32 »

Offline Bard

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Medium sized Lemure
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2011, 03:58:51 PM »
Didn't he say at some point something like "Yes, not all options are created equal. Skill Focus is more powerful than Leadership"?
:lmao last time I heard it, it was the opposite, but if it's like you say it'd be way more fun. Still the point of the choices not being equal stands, as do the intentions since they never really tried to put out any balanced stuff or meaningful rebalancing fixes. Not even with the "next" version (3.0 --> 3.5)
Anyway I'm not really looking into a discussion about how broken D&D is, since I think we all agree it is. I'm just trying to understand where this Errata Project stands between a try at rebalancing a bit D&D and a simple errata (trying to clarify ambiguous points taking in consideration wording, similar cases and logic, and NOT the effective power or lack of power of the ambiguous rule).
If it's the second I'd be interested about it and try to help when I can, if it's the first I'll just wish you all good luck and spam some other area of the forums :D
"Playing the first 6 levels in D&D is like watching the story intro at the beginning of an action/disaster movie: it's boring and the shorter it is, the better."

Offline Monotremeancer

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2011, 09:52:36 AM »
Quote from: ToB Errata
Pages 48 & 58 - Divine Surge [Revision]
The damage listed is incorrect on both pages. It should say 6d8 in both cases.

*nitpick* Divine Surge is mentioned on p. 49, not 48

May or may not be relevant. Just thought I should point it out.
I'm what's staring back from the abyss.
How come you guys never wave?

Please send me a PM if you give me kudos. I'm interested in what I'm doing right.

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2011, 11:30:31 AM »
Quote from: ToB Errata
Pages 48 & 58 - Divine Surge [Revision]
The damage listed is incorrect on both pages. It should say 6d8 in both cases.

*nitpick* Divine Surge is mentioned on p. 49, not 48

May or may not be relevant. Just thought I should point it out.

Stupid PDF listed the page number as 48 for some reason.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6153
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2011, 06:16:18 PM »
Quote from: ToB Errata
Pages 48 & 58 - Divine Surge [Revision]
The damage listed is incorrect on both pages. It should say 6d8 in both cases.

*nitpick* Divine Surge is mentioned on p. 49, not 48

May or may not be relevant. Just thought I should point it out.

Stupid PDF listed the page number as 48 for some reason.

Quite a few PDFs will have screwed up page numbers, especially Dragon Mag PDFs.  Heck, my ECS PDF is off by three pages.

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2011, 06:18:07 PM »
Quite a few PDFs will have screwed up page numbers, especially Dragon Mag PDFs.  Heck, my ECS PDF is off by three pages.

Same here.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline DonQuixote

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2946
  • What is sickness to the body of a knight errant?
    • View Profile
    • The Spellshaping Codices (Homebrew Board)
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2011, 09:50:13 PM »
The Tome of Battle errata currently doesn't address the fact that Searing Blade has an Initiation Action of 1 standard action, making it effectively useless.
“Hast thou not felt in forest gloom, as gloaming falls on dark-some dells, when comes a whisper, hum and hiss; savage growling sounds a-near, dazzling flashes around thee flicker, whirring waxes and fills thine ears: has thou not felt then grisly horrors that grip thee and hold thee?”

Offline Sinfire Titan

  • Hustler 3
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • You have one round to give a rat's ass.
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2011, 11:17:29 PM »
The Tome of Battle errata currently doesn't address the fact that Searing Blade has an Initiation Action of 1 standard action, making it effectively useless.

Thank you for pointing this out. The next update will include it.
Concerned about how moderation works here? Please PM this account.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2014, 07:20:12 PM »
ToB 89 needs to have say "it doesn't matter if" rather than "it doesn't if"

I'm not sure if I'm happy that Shadow Jaunt is still (Ex). Just saying. Maybe the highest maneuver one should be Ex but the rest should be Su... I wonder why they don't have any prereq's either

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 14372
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2015, 03:40:18 AM »
Shouldn't Searing Blade be a Swift Action?

Page 50 lists Bloodletting Strike as a Boost.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 03:09:12 AM by bhu »

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Errata Complaints
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2015, 04:00:44 PM »
Also (unlike martial study) Martial Stance, doesn't allow you to use the manuever learned if you have no martial adept levels. It is only useful for 'breaking into' a stance from another martial school that you wouldn't normally have access to.

I suggest we grant it a "stance pool," like a martial adept level with the language: "If you do not have martial adept levels, you can use this stance as a martial adept with an initiator level equal to 1/2 your character level. Once you choose a stance with this feat, you cannot remove, change or exchange it for a different maneuver (see the class descriptions in Chapter 1 for details on swapping out maneuvers as you gain levels)."

Either way, there is no point in the sentence: "You can chose this feat more than once." I suggest it be removed. You are better off using Martial Study if you need to fulfill prereqs.