Troll Lord Games

Then you haven't seen the seven pages of errata for the 1st printing.
It seems whenever the issue of errata comes up it's because the person making the statement seems to have a preconceived notion that because of improvements in technology, all current documents should be error free while older material such as AD&D 1st Edition should get a free pass because it wasn't done on a computer. Hell, I edited Caves of Sydwall (a 2d Edition AD&D adventure from the Back In Print Project that I'm quite proud of), and I still had a couple wonky uses of language creep into the adventure. This was despite the fact I had Microsoft Word, a spellchecker, a grammar guide, and three other people to look at the text besides me!

I've used this statement before when it comes to errata, and I will use it again. If you believe there to be too much errata, go take a look at the errata for d20 Fantasy, or even better, AD&D 1st Edition. Then come back and say there's too much errata, and do so without using the common excuses "one was produced in a much simpler age so it should be expected to have errata" and "they have a computer so it should be errata free".

Neither excuse is valid.

P.S. Kersus, while your post was a trigger for mine, please try not to take this personally. It's just a bit tiring to go through the book with a fine-tooth comb, find the stuff I find, compile it along with the stuff I didn't find that someone else did, post it all here (or on my site...and I might do a PDF eventually) only to have someone come along and say there's too much errata. Trust me, we know there's too much errata, even if it is only a page.
_________________
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.

Well if it hasn't been said before, Traveller, your efforts are much appreciated!

-Fox

Foxroe wrote:
Well if it hasn't been said before, Traveller, your efforts are much appreciated!

-Fox

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again...thanks much for the fine job on the errata. Makes my games run that much better.

I'll second that. Traveller, your work on this is very much appreciated.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Gentlemen, the accolades are all well and good, but credit cannot go solely to me. Jackal, you helped on the earliest printing, so you know that you too are a part of the team. Omote helped me a great deal this time around, which was a big help.

This isn't solely the work of one person, at least when it comes to finding this stuff, so I do my best to give credit where credit is due.

I'm still hoping I can put my red pen away once the 4th print comes out.
_________________
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.

Traveller wrote:
I'm still hoping I can put my red pen away once the 4th print comes out.

NEVER!!!

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

Then a hearty thanks to all!

-Fox

Foxroe wrote:
Then a hearty thanks to all!

-Fox

Indeed (I still say Traveller did most of the work but I'll take one of them thar beers).

I am sorry there has to be errata, but if it were perfect, where would all the lively discussions originate?

I think that the superiority of the game/mechanics far outweighs the errata issue (IMHO of course ).

-Fox

Foxroe wrote:
I think that the superiority of the game/mechanics far outweighs the errata issue (IMHO of course ).

-Fox

Seconded!

And, on the subject of errata for the 3rd printing, I see Sneak Attack still hasn't been cleared up (or maybe it has). The assassin version on page 17 indicates the target can't roll initiative in a round he has been hit with a sneak attack (auto surprised). The rogue version of sneak attack on page 15 doesn't mention this however. I'm assuming both versions should match (one way or the other) but, perhaps the assassin just has a better sneak attack?

New (I think) Errata:

1- The above mentioned sneak attack difference between rogues and assassins (not 100% sure it's errata but I'd guess it is).

2- Page 83 (Minor Creation) - In the first sentence the word "magical" should be replaced with "nonmagical." I'm basing this off the 3e SRD and the fact that Minor Creation is only a 4th level illusionist spell.

3- Page 83 (Minor Image) - The saving throw should read "intelligence (if disbelieves)." Again, basing this off the 3e SRD and the other similar spells in C&C (major image for example).

For this one, I'm going to have to ignore the SRD because it wasn't all that helpful anyway and base this one on what I feel the intent was supposed to be. The AD&D Players' Handbook doesn't mention rolling initiative in regards to a back stab, thus surprise is automatic in that game. It follows then that the wording on the rogue version of sneak attack should be identical to the assassin version, and the target is automatically surprised.

The errata for minor creation and minor image will be added.

New errata: p82 - major image duration should be "see below", which is consistent with minor image duration note on page 83. Major creation duration should also be "see below" instead of "see text". As mentioned previously for casting times, everything in the spell lists should be consistent in terms of the units used, where applicable.
_________________
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.

Me thinks I found another. pg 42 arrows (20) cost 2gp arrows (12) 15sp. Whats amiss/missing? Numbers dont add.

It makes sense if you remember that 1gp=10sp and 1sp=10cp (page 40). So you can buy 12 arrows for 15sp (12.5cp per arrow) or buy 20 for 2gp (20sp) and get a discount per arrow (10cp per arrow).
_________________
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.

Traveller wrote:
It makes sense if you remember that 1gp=10sp and 1sp=10cp (page 40). So you can buy 12 arrows for 15sp (12.5cp per arrow) or buy 20 for 2gp (20sp) and get a discount per arrow (10cp per arrow).

Ok.. so the 20 2gp is a " discount " rate? I can see the discount thing but still look a bit off. Why no other discount rates for say "bolts" then? But not gunna look a gift beholder in the eye(s) so cool.

Anyone could use a bow, but it took training to use a crossbow. In a nutshell, you don't see discounts on bolts because a crossbow is far less common than a bow. The crossbow is a battlefield weapon while the bow is far more multi-purpose. You can use a bow to hunt, use a bow for entertainment, use a bow in battle. It's simple to produce, with no moving parts, and simple to store when not in use.

As armor became thicker, and began to encompass not just the torso but the arms and legs, the wearer became more difficult to stop. A bow had little effect, bouncing off the armor shell. To stop the armored warrior, the crossbow was born. With mechanisms to provide tension, and replacing the catgut string of a regular bow with a thicker cord, you have a weapon that can punch through virtually any armor. However, there was a trade off. Crossbows were slow, and required training to use. In time though they did supplant the bow, despite these limitations.

If there was any errata here it would be the near identical prices for bows and crossbows (it's not errata folks, so don't say it).
_________________
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.

On page 22 the illusionist is called "The Illusionist". All of the other classes are labeled without the "the."

I don't know if these have already been listed - I can't find them anywhere, so far at least...

C&C: M&T

Back cover:

(Forgive the casing as I can't match the font used)

Quote:
You are enteringthe grand adventure that is

is missing a space and should read

Quote:
You are entering the grand adventure that is

C&C: PH

Page 79, Invisibility:

Quote:
An eye wrapped int tar. clay or the like...

needs a comma instead of a full stop, and should read

Quote:
An eye wrapped int tar, clay or the like...

Craig J. Brain

While I'm looking at C&C I suppose I can help out too. There is a typo on:

Page 110:

Quote:
If Logmars Strength wa 7

I am assuming this should be "was".

Another place that may need changing. This is not a typo, just an observation:

Page 112:

In the example of Arack, a 5th level dwarf fighter. There is no possible way for Arack to pass the challange, even on a 20 +1, seeing that the "CC" is 24. It was stated earlier in the chapter that if the CK doesn't deem the feat possible, to not allow a roll. I know, I know, sometimes you still roll the dice for suspense, but if THIS is the purpose, it should be noted in the example. This will keep down confusion.

Perhaps the example needs to be changed so that the CC is 21, or the note I mentioned can be added. Others won't ask the same question later down the road.

Another typo:

Page 112:

Quote:
Polymorph Petrification

in the saving throw break down under wisdom.

For a second I was confused. There should be a "/" between these two words.

another one:

Page 124 reads:

Quote:
Even more

than the wizard, the breadth of an illusionists magic is limited only the

players imagination.

It needs a "by" before "player's imagination"

Ok everybody.

This errata discussion thread and the Monsters & Treasure discussion thread have been moved back to The Rules, The Laws, and The Chaos from Keeper Advice. The actual errata is located in this thread on that forum.

This thread will not be stickied, but the sticky containing the errata itself has links to this thread and the Monsters & Treasure thread.
_________________
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.

mmtbb wrote:
Another place that may need changing. This is not a typo, just an observation:

Page 112:

In the example of Arack, a 5th level dwarf fighter. There is no possible way for Arack to pass the challange, even on a 20 +1, seeing that the "CC" is 24. It was stated earlier in the chapter that if the CK doesn't deem the feat possible, to not allow a roll. I know, I know, sometimes you still roll the dice for suspense, but if THIS is the purpose, it should be noted in the example. This will keep down confusion.

Perhaps the example needs to be changed so that the CC is 21, or the note I mentioned can be added. Others won't ask the same question later down the road.

mmtbb, the opening paragraph of that section says "In general", meaning it's applicable to the majority of individuals involved. However, it does not apply to all individuals. Thus there isn't any confusion from what I can see.
_________________
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.

Yeah, C&C does not assume a natural 1 = failure, or a natural 20 = success. Sometimes, regardless of what you have going for you, you simply cannot "win." In those situations, you learn to quickly find more ways to resolve a solution and get out...

Craig_in_ACT wrote:
For some reason I can't post these where I posted the others...

Page 61
should read


and Page 67
should read


Craig J. Brain

Craig posted this in the Keeper Advice forum, which doesn't allow anyone who is not a moderator to reply.
_________________
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.

Traveller wrote:
mmtbb, the opening paragraph of that section says "In general", meaning it's applicable to the majority of individuals involved. However, it does not apply to all individuals. Thus there isn't any confusion from what I can see.

I just found your reply. With all the moving around of this thread, I sort of lost its location.

I reread the section and now realize that I read it wrong. The point of my post has nothing to do with the "in general" statement. There are actually TWO different things going on here which added to my confusion.

One is the "in general" statement we were both talking about. This is talking about allowing a class to perform a "non-class" ability. You are right, I completely read this wrong. In this example, the CK decides to allow him to try a "non-class" ability.

The second part is what I was trying to point out; the fighter actually has no chance of success. He needs a 24. The book says he rolls a 13 and so he fails. Yet, it wouldn't have mattered what he rolled. Even had the fighter rolled the highest he possibly could, it would have only been a 21 - still a failure. This ca open up a strange can of worms.

I believe that someone starting out as a DM/CK is not going to know what to do with this unless the intent is written a little clearer. They may even find themselves in an awkward situation. However, I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll start another one to explain what happened to me once in this situation.

I don't believe that this example opens up a can of worms, nor do I believe that a starting CK isn't going to know what to do in this situation. Page 112 as you discovered, describes the change in the SIEGE engine when it comes to non-class abilities: not adding level to the check. Therefore it isn't important whether there is any chance of success at the task or not. All that matters is that the process is explained properly, which it is.

As to the starting CK, if he's bothered to read the section on page 109 titled "The Rules Are Your Servant, Not Your Master!" then he will have a very good idea of what to do if he encounters a situation that is awkward: make a ruling and move the game along. Discuss the impact of the ruling after the game, and research the rule before the next session. After all, this is a rules-light game system that encourages "out of the box" thinking, not a rules-heavy monstrosity that bogs down in the details.
_________________
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.

Well, it's just my opinion for past experience. No biggy.

However, I will say you never know what people are going to get out of a book. The position that if they "bothered" to read such and such a page doesn't hold true for a new reader. Take me for instance. I misread the "in general" statement, yet just in casual reading I found 3 typos that no one else found, though this errata has been out for 9 or so months. Shoot those typos probably even stem from the first print. It seems we all see something different even though we are all reading the same pages.