Drow of the Underdark Errata

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ok, I got my book, skimmed through it, and already found a huge error.

In the Monsters section, there's no statistics for the Vril goblinoid. I can't find it anywhere.

If anyone else finds something wrong, let's post it here.

1) Vril statistics block is missing

2) The Paralyzing Fists feat says the opponent must make another Fortitude save if you strike it with more than one Stunning Fist attack in the same round. You cannot make more than one Stunning Fist attack in a round unless you have the feat Rapid Stunning from Complete Warrior.
Found another one, I added it onto the list above
Completely off topic, but were you planning on getting Complete Champion?
Completely off topic, but were you planning on getting Complete Champion?

Yes, I have it on pre-order.

It just didn't ship yet. For some reason, Drow of the Underdark is being released 1-2 weeks earlier than Complete Champion. My order ended up being a partial order. I hope to get Complete Champion sometime next week.
I am supposed to get my copy on the 10th of May. Perhaps earlier now?
I am supposed to get my copy on the 10th of May. Perhaps earlier now?

Is this in the US or outside? Non-US nations like Germany and Japan get their D&D books ealier than US, that I am positive on.

But if you're US then that sounds about right. I might get mine on that date too.
Ok, it's official. There's absolutely no statistics block for the Vril. What gives?
One question: is the demonbinder really supposed not to improve your eldritch blast?
The sample character has a 4d6 eldritch blast... of course NPC stat blocks are notorious for their errors. Plus there is this text from the class:

Invocations Known: At each level above 1st, you gain new invocations as if you had also gained a level in the warlock class. You do not gain any other benefits a warlock would have otherwise gained.
Somebody pointed out that she had a chausable of fell power, which would explain the extra damage. Kind of odd for the PrC, though...I would have at least given +1d6 blast damage.
Eldritch Blast is considered an Invocation and improves with any invocation improving class feature. This is common knowledge.
1) Is it a fact that Vril are a seprate race from other goblins?

2) I don't have the book, I'd assume you should simply add Rapid Stunning as a Pre-requirement, or assume that you can stun two times in one round by taking that feat.
Eldritch Blast is considered an Invocation and improves with any invocation improving class feature. This is common knowledge.

Where does it say that EB is an invocation. I was never aware of this technicality...

And as pointed out, even the sample NPC's EB damage was not improved.
Posted by Razz:
The Paralyzing Fists feat says the opponent must make another Fortitude save if you strike it with more than one Stunning Fist attack in the same round. You cannot make more than one Stunning Fist attack in a round unless you have the feat Rapid Stunning from Complete Warrior.

sooo... how is this an error? seems to me its just an added caveat for those who have Rapid Stunning. i dont have the book, so maybe the exact wording is different from what you posted?
Just thought you should know. the countdown continues...
Eldritch Blast is considered an Invocation and improves with any invocation improving class feature. This is common knowledge.

It says invocations known.
sooo... how is this an error? seems to me its just an added caveat for those who have Rapid Stunning. i dont have the book, so maybe the exact wording is different from what you posted?

It's an error because you can't make two Stunning Attacks in one round, only once per round. The only way you can is by taking Rapid Stunning feat. Which is not a prerequisite nor is it even in the book as one (it's in Complete Warrior, to be exact).
1) Is it a fact that Vril are a seprate race from other goblins?

2) I don't have the book, I'd assume you should simply add Rapid Stunning as a Pre-requirement, or assume that you can stun two times in one round by taking that feat.

The vril is a new goblinoid creature, they even gave it 5 unique racial feats for it and statistics to make it a playable race, but there's no statistics block for it as a monster and, therefore, no where that explains its shifting and shriek ability.

And yeah, that's what I did to the feat for my games. I added Rapid Stunning as a prerequisite, which needs Combat Reflexes too.
Where does it say that EB is an invocation. I was never aware of this technicality...

And as pointed out, even the sample NPC's EB damage was not improved.

It's page 18 of complete arcane. Any class that grants +1 level of existing (arcane) spellcasting class gives him increased caster level and stacks with warlock class for eldritch blast damage. technically, according to the precise wording, it does not grant him new invocations, but examining the example for the acolyte of the skin shows that they are intended to recieve new invocations.

However, if this only does invocations known, rather than +1 level of spellcasting or invocation using class, then it could be something different. we'll have to ask the sage if we want an official ruling.

I'm ticked about the mistake on the new goblins. I love new goblins! curse you sub par editors!
i has a questtion (i know i spelled that wrong)
what is a vril?
as you said it it sounded like a kind gobling
so why should its statistiks be in a book about drow?
Ok, I got my book, skimmed through it, and already found a huge error. In the Monsters section, there's no statistics for the Vril goblinoid. I can't find it anywhere.

We noticed the error immediately after the book went to press (of course). The error happened during typesetting as stuff was getting pushed around to make the chapter fit. We'll be posting the relevant text on the website shortly.

If it makes you feel *any* better, we're still waiting for our office copies to show up so that we can share in your displeasure.
However, if this only does invocations known, rather than +1 level of spellcasting or invocation using class, then it could be something different. we'll have to ask the sage if we want an official ruling.

Well, I was checking only because as mentioned, the sample NPC seems to have confirmed my worst fears.:P

Will wait to see what the designers have to say about this.
We noticed the error immediately after the book went to press (of course). The error happened during typesetting as stuff was getting pushed around to make the chapter fit. We'll be posting the relevant text on the website shortly.

If it makes you feel *any* better, we're still waiting for our office copies to show up so that we can share in your displeasure.

Cool.

And what about a fix to Paralyzing Fists?

I've explained it's errors above. I am assuming we should either just add Rapid Stunning as a prerequisite or should the wording of the benefit be altered? Your call when it comes down to it, but for now I've simply threw Rapid Stunning in there as a prerequisite.
I must say, I am really, deeply impressed with the rapidity of the reaction this day.

The Vrill has already been errata'ed... : http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070504a
^^^^ Quite amazing, and much appreciated!
Is just me or that +1 against drow and spiderkind poison in Fort should be -1 for the Vulnerability to Poison...
C´mon Guys! Errata in an arreta? It toke me 2 minutes to see that!
Is just me or that +1 against drow and spiderkind poison in Fort should be -1 for the Vulnerability to Poison...
C´mon Guys! Errata in an arreta? It toke me 2 minutes to see that!

It has Fortitude +5, but +1 against drow poison and spiderkind poison.

Which means vril receive a -4 penalty to their saves against those poisons. Looks right to me.
Okay I dont have the book but... the stat block confuses me. It says its a small goblinoid. But it's using a medium pick. It has the size bonus to AC and the penalty to grapples, but its hide check is only +2 with a 13 dex and being small?
We noticed the error immediately after the book went to press (of course). The error happened during typesetting as stuff was getting pushed around to make the chapter fit. We'll be posting the relevant text on the website shortly.

Congrats. Now go errata the errata.
Here another errata for the errata

"The shriek’s damage increases by 1d6 at 3rd level and every three levels thereafter (2d6 at 6th, 3d6 at 9th, and so on) up to a maximum of 4d6 points"

This both contradicts the stat block where the 3rd level warrior has a 2d6 shriek and also implies that a Vril doesn't get a shriek until 3rd level.

Probably should be (3d6 at 6th, 4d6 at 9th, and so on) up to a maximum of 5d6 points
It's 1d6 to begin with, so there's no contradiction: it improves to 2d6 at 3rd level.

The LA is missing. What should it be?
The vril is a new goblinoid creature, they even gave it 5 unique racial feats for it and statistics to make it a playable race, but there's no statistics block for it as a monster and, therefore, no where that explains its shifting and shriek ability.

These abilities are actually mentioned in the errata right after the stats block. Which you can find at the link in the next quote.
I must say, I am really, deeply impressed with the rapidity of the reaction this day.

The Vrill has already been errata'ed... : http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070504a

i has a questtion (i know i spelled that wrong)
what is a vril?
as you said it it sounded like a kind gobling
so why should its statistiks be in a book about drow?

Because in its descriptive text it states that the drow bred these creatures. "Vril are the product of dark elf wizards' experiments over many generations."
Okay I dont have the book but... the stat block confuses me. It says its a small goblinoid. But it's using a medium pick. It has the size bonus to AC and the penalty to grapples, but its hide check is only +2 with a 13 dex and being small?

It probably has powerful build or that should be an appropriately sized weapon. I think it's Skills are a little messed up, As a warrior class it gets 1 rank per level(2+(-1))*6 for three levels=6 skill points.
These abilities are actually mentioned in the errata right after the stats block. Which you can find at the link in the next quote.

You should note that Razz was talking about the book, and the errata was posted after he started this thread.
Anyone know if the entire drow pantheon is discussed..or just Lolth?
I would guess that the entire Drow Pantheon is discussed, they do have at least three gods/goddesses if not more.
It's an error because you can't make two Stunning Attacks in one round, only once per round. The only way you can is by taking Rapid Stunning feat. Which is not a prerequisite nor is it even in the book as one (it's in Complete Warrior, to be exact).

Again, how is this an error? They wrote a feat, they were even forward thinking enough to consider what would happen if you somehow got more than one stunning fist attack in the same round, this is good open design. There doesn't even need to be rapid stunning for this to be a good idea, it's thinking that the possibility of more than one stunning fist in a round isn't out of the realm of possibility (and in this case, there is a way to do it) so they should cover what happens. I also see no reason to make rapid stunning a prerequisite for the feat as it sounds like it has absolutely nothing to do with hitting someone with a stunning fist more than once, but that the feat was written well enough to clearly cover what happens if you did use that feat.

For that matter, without seeing the rules, is it just as possible for it to be another opponent delivering a stunning fist (with the same feat)?
Anyone know if the entire drow pantheon is discussed..or just Lolth?

Just Lolth. In fact there is something to the effect of "other deities in the drow pantheon don't count. Only Lolth."



As for another goof, the drow blackguard (inquisitor?) doesn't have Power Attack or other prereqs for the PrC.


All mistakes aside though, I liked this book. Good stuff.
I agree with Frugal. I don't see why the stunning thing is "errata" as opposed to just "covering all the bases."
John Ling Freelance Writer/Editor PM for availability VCL for General Gaming and play-by-post groups
I agree with Frugal. I don't see why the stunning thing is "errata" as opposed to just "covering all the bases."

I look at it this way, if they hadn't said how it works with multiple stunning fists in the same round then we'd have a pile of people on here complaining about how they use rapid stunning and it doesn't say how it works.
Does anyone know if Future printings of "Drow of the Underdark" will be errated to include the Goblin stat block?
Does anyone know if Future printings of "Drow of the Underdark" will be errated to include the Goblin stat block?

Propably, if they have to print more.
Again, how is this an error? They wrote a feat, they were even forward thinking enough to consider what would happen if you somehow got more than one stunning fist attack in the same round, this is good open design. There doesn't even need to be rapid stunning for this to be a good idea, it's thinking that the possibility of more than one stunning fist in a round isn't out of the realm of possibility (and in this case, there is a way to do it) so they should cover what happens. I also see no reason to make rapid stunning a prerequisite for the feat as it sounds like it has absolutely nothing to do with hitting someone with a stunning fist more than once, but that the feat was written well enough to clearly cover what happens if you did use that feat.

For that matter, without seeing the rules, is it just as possible for it to be another opponent delivering a stunning fist (with the same feat)?

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "error".

The feat, without Rapid Stunning provided, is a MAJOR error. Go open up the PHB I'm sure you own, open up to Stunning Fist, and read the darn feat again. You can only make ONE

see it?

ONE stun attack per round.

I have Drow of the Underdark in my hands. I've had it for over a week now. According to Paralyzing Fists, if you hit an opponent in the SAME round with 2 successful stunning fists, the opponent has to make an additional Fortitude save or find himself paralyzed for 1d2 rounds instead. The DC is (10 + 1/2 character level + Wisdom modifier + 1 per successful stun in the same round).

This is completely contradictory to the statement on Stunning Fist in PHB. You simply CANNOT make more than one stunning attack in a round. Nor does Paralyzing Fists state that you can or allow it as an additional feat benefit. It's a simple fix, really, they need to simple re-word it or add Rapid Stunning as a prerequisite, a feat that GRANTS you the ability to make more than one stun attack in a round.

We have to assume not everyone owns Complete Warrior and knows about Rapid Stunning. Therefore, to those people, the feat is an ERROR. It needs to either be fixed, reworded, or they need to slap on Rapid Stunning as a prerequisite.

Now do you get it?!

I'll repeat it again: the owners of this book who do not own Complete Warrior will furrow their brows and say "Huh?" because these are the same people who've probably read the PHB inside and out and know you can't make more than one stun attack per round since the group most likely would've had about a dozen monk players in their games. To these folks, it is an error. It's still an error to those who own Complete Warrior, such as myself, because no matter what, the fact remains that you CANNOT make more than one stun attack per round UNLESS you have an ability to do so.

And, according to my knowledge and thanks to the 80+ 3E WotC books I own, there's only ONE place you can ignore that restriction, and that's from Rapid Stunning. There's no prestige class, spell, or feat that allows you to do so otherwise.