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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Stances cannot be contained in this item.This is true and was needed, no issues with it
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.
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).
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..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"?
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.
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)
Pages 48 & 58 - Divine Surge [Revision]
The damage listed is incorrect on both pages. It should say 6d8 in both cases.
Quote from: ToB ErrataPages 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.
Quote from: ToB ErrataPages 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.
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.