Troll Lord Games

The PHB and M&T errata have both been updated (long overdue...sorry) to reflect new errata discovered by the players, and in some cases, authors.

I am anticipating another update to the Monsters & Treasure errata at some point, as one of the players out there has a list he's going through as we speak.

If I missed anything, drop me a PM here.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

I'm probably gonna feel like a dunce. Where is the updated errata located?

*grins*

Check my signature.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Oh, I did initially go there but didn't initially find where the errata files were kept. Thanks!

Traveller,

First, thanks for keeping track of the errata.

Second, I've got many potential contributions to share.

Here it goes :
PHB, 2nd printing

p.41: "Main Guache" should be written "Main Gauche".

p.41: In footnote 4, damage should be 1d4 not 14.

p.42: Javelin; damage should be 1d4 not d4 (layout problem).

p.43: Pack, Shoulder; EV should be 3(w) and Cap. should be 10.

p.50: For Spell Resistance, the description indicates that "this d20 roll is modified by the intelligence of the caster" which goes against the descriptions of p.123 of the PHB and p.5 of the M&T which indicate that the roll is "unmodified".

p.68: Dancing Lights; title should read as "Level 0 wizard, 0 illusion".

p.72: Entangle; area of effect should be a 50 feet diameter circle?

p.75: Ghost Sound; title should read as "Level 0 wizard, 0 illusion".

p.77: Holy Aura; a description of the reverse spell is missing.

p.84: Move Earth; duration permanent and "the amount of earth affected can be moved a total distance of 10 feet, and no further" instead of "the earth moved cannot exceed 10 feet"?

p.89: Remove Blindness or Deafness; title should read as "Level 3 cleric, 2 illusion".

Missing asterisks indicating spell reversibility; Darkness (pp.51,55,57), Locate Object (p.51), Hallow (p.51), Healing Circle (pp.51,77), Restoration (p.51), Tongues (pp.51,55,100), Discern Location (p.52), Mass Heal (p.52), Cure Serious Wounds (p.53), Cure Critical Wounds (p.53), Antipathy (p.58), Detect Chaos, Evil, Good, Law (p.68), Dispel Chaos, Evil, Good, Law (p.70), Fire Shield (p.73), Holy Aura (p.77), Protection from Chaos, Evil, Good, Law (p.88).
M&T

p.52: Kobold; a description of the effects of Light Sensitivity is missing (-1 to attack rolls?).

p.64: Black Pudding; Size should be large not huge.

p.64: Orc; the description suggestes Light Sensitivity but effects are missing.

p.65: Otyugh; a description of the effects of Light Vulnerability is missing (-4 to attacks rolls?).

p.72: Shadow; undead sub-type is not given (common?).

p.111: Mantle of Spell Resistance; not sure but doesn't a SR of 21 (effectively meaning immunity in C&C) sound kind of overpowered?

Missing creature Types; Lion (p.55), Lizard, Giant (p.55), Lynx, Giant (p.58), Tiger (p.79), Toad, Giant (p.79).
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

There you go, Trav and Met taking care of the Crusading masses.

*I hope TLG incorporates these into the 3rd printing* Speaking of the 3rd printing... Anybody?

..............................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Omote wrote:
Speaking of the 3rd printing... Anybody?

..............................................Omote

FPQ

Its not too far away.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Metathiax wrote:
p.41: "Main Guache" should be written "Main Gauche".

Whaaaaat? You dont think paint is an effective weapon?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Forgot another typo :

p.41: "Flameberge" should be written "Flamberge".

In the updated errata of the PHB, I guess the Sleeve Tangler should be a two-handed weapon if the Man Catcher is. I also find it weird that the Light Lance and Heavy Lance are to be considered two-handed weapons...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

gideon_thorne wrote:
Its not too far away.

Cool. I hope with the Christmas Grab Bag that the PHB2 will sell out fast. I needs me a PHB3!!!

.........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Man! I must be fast and loose with the rules, I hadn't noticed most of the errata.

Page 55/89: RAY OF ENFEEBLEMENT

The blurb spell listing on page 55 doesn't match the description under the actual spell on page 89.

.......................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore wrote:
Man! I must be fast and loose with the rules, I hadn't noticed most of the errata.

You and me both!

Dristram wrote:
You and me both!

Lol, I notice so much errata or "issues" I wish I could just stop noticing sometimes! I really should have gone got a degree in something that would helped me be an RPG Editor, prolly don't pay as good as my IT job though.

Traveller, I'll have that list for you tonight, I'm at work right now.. ah, um... working

Metathiax, thank you for your contributions. I'll have to look them over and add them posthaste.

But, there's one on your list that isn't errata, and that is the Mantle of Spell Resistance. There was discussion when M&T was released claiming it to be errata, but neither the Trolls (specifically Mac Golden) nor I believe it to be errata, UNLESS that has changed. Here's my reasoning as to why (taken from the Monsters & Treasure errata thread on the old forums):

Quote:
Certain other items may negatively affect SR, lowering it from the SR21 that the Mantle has. There currently aren't any such items that negatively affect SR to my knowledge in Monsters & Treasures, but that does not mean that such items cannot exist. However, I do clearly recall during the Q&A period of the Player's Handbook Mac specifically mentioning this in regards to spell resistance.

Now, if that idea is not the correct one, here is one other line of reasoning, based solely upon the RAW. Try comparing the Mantle with the Armor of Spell Resistance.

The Armor of Spell Resistance has SR13, 15, 17, or 19 depending on CK whim. The Mantle of Spell Resistance has a SR of 21. This means that someone wearing the armor can still be affected by spells. The wearer of the Mantle is for all intents and purposes invulnerable to spells.

Advantage: Mantle.

The Armor of Spell Resistance is only wearable by classes that can wear armor. The Mantle of Spell Resistance can be worn by anyone.

Advantage: Mantle.

The Armor of Spell Resistance is valued between 1 and 25,000GP. The Mantle is valued at 120,000GP, a near tenfold jump in value.

Advantage: Mantle.

If the Mantle was only intended to have SR 19, like the top Armor of Spell Resistance, then the 120,000GP price tag on the Mantle would NOT be justified. However, given that the Mantle can be worn by anyone, and given that the 120,000GP value of the Mantle is in fact correct, it stands to reason that the Mantle of Spell Resistance was in fact intended to have a SR of 21, and not a lower number.

Therefore, SR21 for a Mantle of Spell Resistance IS correct.

_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Metathiax wrote:
p.111: Mantle of Spell Resistance; not sure but doesn't a SR of 21 (effectively meaning immunity in C&C) sound kind of overpowered?

Well, to me, it sounds really powerful, but not overpowered unless you ask a wizard! Any class not casting spells couldn't care less about it. But it's not immunity. A magic-user would just need to roll damn high to affect the target with the spell, just as a fighter would need to roll damn high sometimes just to hit a target's AC.

A 21 cannot be beat. SR in C&C is a flat roll, meaning a roll of a 20 fails against a 21, because 20 is lower than 21. However, there are ways, or will be, to lower SR... which is the intent of such effects like the mantle. Without these things, a SR of 21 is immune to magic. At least... against spells that allow SR.

serleran wrote:
A 21 cannot be beat. SR in C&C is a flat roll.

I beg to differ Serl. PHB p. 50 states, "The result of that d20 roll must be equal to or greater than the spell resistance of the target for the spell to take effect. This d20 roll is modified by the intelligence of the caster." So, as long as the caster has a positive INT mod. there is a chance!

I see. They added that as part of the 2nd print, then. Good, since a 21 would be invulnerable otherwise... and, seeing as there are no in-print ways to lower SR, it did make a non-artifact rather totally powerful.

At least, until the disjunction.

Dristram wrote:
I beg to differ Serl. PHB p. 50 states, "The result of that d20 roll must be equal to or greater than the spell resistance of the target for the spell to take effect. This d20 roll is modified by the intelligence of the caster." So, as long as the caster has a positive INT mod. there is a chance!

Wow, I actually hadn't noticed that either... hmpf. Thanks for bringing that up Dist.

................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Traveller wrote:
The PHB and M&T errata have both been updated (long overdue...sorry) to reflect new errata discovered by the players, and in some cases, authors.

I am anticipating another update to the Monsters & Treasure errata at some point, as one of the players out there has a list he's going through as we speak.

If I missed anything, drop me a PM here.

As always, thanks for your efforts, Traveller!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

Personally, I think all these SR ratings should come down by a factor of 11. This was mentioned by Serleran in converting 3.x spell resistance (he mentioned subtracting 11, or 10 seems 11 is the most common).

This would bring the respective SR ratings of the Armors and Mantle down to:

2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. And the mantle can still be worn by anyone.

Comparing these SR ratings, to the SR ratings typical in C&C, it makes MUCH more sense. Most old dragons only have an SR around 4... An SR of 21 from an item? Just doesn't fit the rest of the game.

The SRD D20 mantle has an SR 21. As Serleran mentioned in a conversion thread, monsters from 3.x should have their SR reduced by 11. I see no reason as to why you would reduce Monster SR by 11, but NOT magic items. And M&T is based on the SRD (as you can tell, the SR ratings of the Mantle and Armors is straight from the SRD).

I don't see any monsters with an SR higher than 10 in M&T from a quick flip. Monsters in the SRD go up to 21 and even higher (for dragons etc).

Still not convinced? See here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hag.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devourer.htm

SRD Green Hag SR 18, Annis 19, C&C versions have 6 and 7 SR.

Devourer has an SR 21 in the SRD (same as the Mantle!) but in C&C it is 10!

Dragons have 17-25 taken away from the SR (depending on age, I just looked at 2 of them)

Some monsters have SR that didnt before in M&T, and the rule of 11 is not always followed (seems to be 11+) but 11 seems to be the right number.

It would be silly to ignore these facts and just say: Hey, its whats written in the book. Especially since we know that M&T has quite a few errors and miscommunications in it.

Here's another good one:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wo ... heArchmagi

The SRD robe of the archmage has an SR 18, but the C&C version (which is basically identical) only has an SR 9.

So maybe 9 would work better for the mantle and armors? That makes them 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12... pretty damn good.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Its not too far away.

Hearing this my initial reaction was, "3rd Printing??". But then I noticed, my old 1st Ed. PHB with the wizard logo, which was printed in 1979...is the 3rd printing! My 1st. Ed. PHB with the Easley art is the 6th printing!

Traveller, check your PMs.

I included some stuff from the old forum before it got converted to this one, and some stuff from Dragonfoot and some stuff from PMs with Serleran (Robert).

Quote:
But, there's one on your list that isn't errata, and that is the Mantle of Spell Resistance. There was discussion when M&T was released claiming it to be errata, but neither the Trolls (specifically Mac Golden) nor I believe it to be errata, UNLESS that has changed.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure about this one anyway. It could've been a SRD holdover for all I know...

Quote:
I beg to differ Serl. PHB p. 50 states, "The result of that d20 roll must be equal to or greater than the spell resistance of the target for the spell to take effect. This d20 roll is modified by the intelligence of the caster." So, as long as the caster has a positive INT mod. there is a chance!

Actually Dristram, I'm not that sure that the roll should be modified. Take a look at p.123 of the PHB and p.5 of the M&T and you'll notice conflicting informations (I listed this in the errata I've proposed). In the latter, it's even specified that the roll is unmodified. As written, the rule would also be somewhat unfair (at least, in my opinion) to divine spellcasters since only INT is used...

I think most of us would still agree that the Mantle of Spell Resistance stands firmly on the border between magic items and artifacts.
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

phadeout wrote:
Personally, I think all these SR ratings should come down by a factor of 11. This was mentioned by Serleran in converting 3.x spell resistance (he mentioned subtracting 11, or 10 seems 11 is the most common).

This would bring the respective SR ratings of the Armors and Mantle down to:

2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. And the mantle can still be worn by anyone.

Comparing these SR ratings, to the SR ratings typical in C&C, it makes MUCH more sense. Most old dragons only have an SR around 4... An SR of 21 from an item? Just doesn't fit the rest of the game.

The SRD D20 mantle has an SR 21. As Serleran mentioned in a conversion thread, monsters from 3.x should have their SR reduced by 11. I see no reason as to why you would reduce Monster SR by 11, but NOT magic items. And M&T is based on the SRD (as you can tell, the SR ratings of the Mantle and Armors is straight from the SRD).

I don't see any monsters with an SR higher than 10 in M&T from a quick flip. Monsters in the SRD go up to 21 and even higher (for dragons etc).

Still not convinced? See here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hag.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devourer.htm

SRD Green Hag SR 18, Annis 19, C&C versions have 6 and 7 SR.

Devourer has an SR 21 in the SRD (same as the Mantle!) but in C&C it is 10!

Dragons have 17-25 taken away from the SR (depending on age, I just looked at 2 of them)

Some monsters have SR that didnt before in M&T, and the rule of 11 is not always followed (seems to be 11+) but 11 seems to be the right number.

It would be silly to ignore these facts and just say: Hey, its whats written in the book. Especially since we know that M&T has quite a few errors and miscommunications in it.

I second that. In the SRD, a very important aspect of bypassing Spell Resistance comes from adding the caster's level to the d20. This obviously makes high SR values much less intimidating...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

Metathiax wrote:
I second that. In the SRD, a very important aspect of bypassing Spell Resistance comes from adding the caster's level to the d20. This obviously makes high SR values much less intimidating...

Exactly, and SR in C&C is suppose to be like old school Magic Resistance which used flat percentile rolls, but now it is just converted do a d20 roll a'la Armor Class. So the Mantle's SR is like 110%, but that doesn't correspond with the intent that C&C has for SR. I think, like the Robe of the Archmagi (Magi), 9 should be pulled from all magic item SR's - and they are clearly hold overs from the SRD that did not get modified for C&C.

Metathiax wrote:
Actually Dristram, I'm not that sure that the roll should be modified. Take a look at p.123 of the PHB and p.5 of the M&T and you'll notice conflicting informations.

Interesting. It looks like the Trolls adjusted page 50 but not page 123. And page 5 of the M&T is the 1st printing writing. My guess is they meant to add a modifier.

Quote:
As written, the rule would also be somewhat unfair (at least, in my opinion) to divine spellcasters since only INT is used...

I agree somewhat. Unless Iintelligence is seen as the ability needed to punch past SR in which cace the arcane magic-users just have an advantage.

Quote:
I think most of us would still agree that the Mantle of Spell Resistance stands firmly on the border between magic items and artifacts.

I can agree with that. Fortunately, the DM can control the availablity of such an item and item creation is harder in C&C than in 3e.

I think your right, the PH second printing has the most up to date errata, so should be the one given priority when we are worried about RAW.

As for adding INT bonus, it obviously needs to be re-written again to say "add any stat bonus given by the spellcasters Prime required for their spellcasting class". IE INT or WIS.

At least that is going into my house rule list.