Eyes of the Lich Queen errata [Spoilers]

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
Removed since others seem to want to use the thread for non-errata issues, after I asked for this thread to stay on topic. Be my guest
Added pg 27 errata.

Any other errors?
Error:pg 41 in the Chain platforms section, last paragraph. It says the distance is 10feet and would take a DC 10 Jump, the map and all other evidence show it being a 20 foot gap between the platforms.
Correction: the Distance is 20ft. and and the Jump DC is 20. Not quite as easy of Jump now!
pg 41 in the Chain platforms section, last paragraph. It says the distance is 10feet and would take a DC 10 Jump, the map and all other evidence show it being a 20 foot gap between the platforms.

I noticed that before, but didn't catch it when I was putting together errors.

BTW, whenever possible if you point out an errata suggest a "correct" option, to assist those running it.
I think they copied the Cloudreavers a bit to directly from the Mini's game.

Should probably have 17 hp rather then 20. 10 for first + 5.5 for second + 2 for con rounded down is 17. Though mind you I'm probably splitting hairs. But if they wanted to give them toughness they should have writen it down instead of flexing the numbers.

And as fodder and not meaning full foes I'd usually work them out to be 5.5 x 2 level +2 con = 13hp.

Irks me in their sloppy fodder math.
The biggest problem I found was the incomplete map of Trebaz Sinara on page 84. C1 seems incorrectly placed, and C2, C3 and C4 are entirely absent.
In the chain bridge room, the tactics section is somewhat wrong. There is no way for a canoloth to attack a PC in the first round they appear (unless a PC has flown over to the central platform or the like). The canoloths appear as the first character steps onto the first moving platform. Even if that PC goes to the far edge of that platform as near to the central platform as she can get, she is still too far away for a toungue attack to reach her.

I am running this encounter in a couple of days, and I will amend this so that the canoloths appear as soon as the chain over the first platform is pulled.
In the chain bridge room, the tactics section is somewhat wrong. There is no way for a canoloth to attack a PC in the first round they appear (unless a PC has flown over to the central platform or the like). The canoloths appear as the first character steps onto the first moving platform. Even if that PC goes to the far edge of that platform as near to the central platform as she can get, she is still too far away for a toungue attack to reach her.

I am running this encounter in a couple of days, and I will amend this so that the canoloths appear as soon as the chain over the first platform is pulled.

I suspect that the scale issue is the reason for this. Something got confused somewhere and clearly the designers had something else in mind.

I was hoping Nicolas Logue or Shoe would stick their head in and make official unofficial suggestions for fixes.
The moons are actually in reverse order to what the adventure states, based on the KB Moons article. I just "errata'd" this with my own solution of "the moons go all transparent at the conjunction to form cocentric circles"
Yours, Dave the Brave
I suspect that the scale issue is the reason for this. Something got confused somewhere and clearly the designers had something else in mind.

I was hoping Nicolas Logue or Shoe would stick their head in and make official unofficial suggestions for fixes.

The distance between the center platform and the moving platform should be only 10 feet (basically, there's 20 extra feet of "length" on the map: 10 feet on either side of the central platform).

The idea was to allow a couple different ways to get around. Use the platforms, fly, jump, climb. The canoloths should appear at a dramatically appropriate time - such as when a PC first moves within 20' of the central platform.
Stephen Schubert Lead Developer, WotC RPG R&D
Thank you - I'll make those changes to the map when I run it!
page 122 - It is stated that the Dread Wraith always employs Combat Expertise, but he doesn't have this feat. I suggest you change one of his feats or just make him fight defensively.

page 123 - The Dread Wraith is shown to be medium sized on the map (should be large).
p19. In A7 there is a long description about the chests and their locking mechanisms. The contents is supposed to be listed under Treasure, but the only Treasure entry is the one in A11.

p78. Syn's raipier is listed as a +1 Keen rapier, but the statblock states that it is a +2 Wounding Rapier, even though the numbers in the statblock indicates that it is a +1 Keen Wounding rapier. Which one is correct?
page 122 - It is stated that the Dread Wraith always employs Combat Expertise, but he doesn't have this feat. I suggest you change one of his feats or just make him fight defensively.

My guess is that its Combat Reflexes was supposed to be Combat Expertise. I'm going to recommend that change in my list.

I've updated the errata. The only thing that I didn't include was Dragom's suggestion, because it's not incorrect. Having that many hit points is quite possible for them, although changing it might make sense.

Still looking for more errata. My first session was delayed because of some schedule conflicts. (Who forgets they are graduating on the day they are supposed to game? ;) ) So, I won't be picking up later subtle errors yet.

The Trebaz Sinara map error is really irksome. Nic, Stephen, any suggestions here?
Looking closely at the map, and directions, here is my feeling.

C1 should be on the coast, probably just south of the monolith. The C1 mark should actually be C2. C3 should be at the other end of the arrow. C4 should be to the east, about the distance of the arrow (i.e. C4 is as far from C3 as C3 is from C2).
p. 80 - I can't find any information about the stances of the Exarch (see the crusader class in Tome of Battle for information about stances).

p. 81 - There are two F marks (Blood of Vol Fanatics) on the map, although the encounter features only one such character.
p. 80 - I can't find any information about the stances of the Exarch (see the crusader class in Tome of Battle for information about stances).

Hah! Added this earlier today (as I just got a copy of the Bo9S).

Looked at the character, he has maneuvers from two of the disciplines. The White Raven's stances don't fit the combat, and there are only 3 he qualifies from that one (IIRC, it was Diamond Mind). I recommend giving him those three.
On page 26, the second paragraph references 2 1st-level poison dusks to be spotted with a DC 24. They are 2 2nd-level poison dusks, and I believe with their +15 to Hide, that would make the DC 25.
On page 26, the second paragraph references 2 1st-level poison dusks to be spotted with a DC 24. They are 2 2nd-level poison dusks, and I believe with their +15 to Hide, that would make the DC 25.

Related to this:

When sniping the 2nd level lizardfolk will have a hide modifier -5 (not -6).
Page 84 - Map of Trebaz Sinara is missing C2-C4, and C1 seems misplaced.

Still no word on this?
Page 14 - Sur'kil offers the PCs 250 gp per week(for 4 weeks) and half up front then hands them a bag of 200 gp each. This doesn't seem to add up.
Page 14 - The text says that the journey takes just over a week (3 days overland and 5 days at sea) however in the boxed text Sur'kil tells the PCs that it will be a 5 day trek overland. And according to the map it appears to be over 200 miles which would probably take even longer overland than 5 days.
Page 42 - The text under Spinning Bladed Column says to count diagonals as 1 square each as if they were a large creature, however the dotted lines on the map don't seem to indicate this.
Page 14 - Sur'kil offers the PCs 250 gp per week(for 4 weeks) and half up front then hands them a bag of 200 gp each. This doesn't seem to add up.

The players noted this issue in my game. It's covered, though, in the next sentence ("he indicates that their additional down payment will be given to them once they board the rail.")
The players noted this issue in my game. It's covered, though, in the next sentence ("he indicates that their additional down payment will be given to them once they board the rail.")

Actually, it says "If they negotiate more, then the additional down payment will be given to them when they board the rail." Assuming that if they negotiate up to the 350 gp per week, they still only get 500.
Actually, it says "If they negotiate more, then the additional down payment will be given to them when they board the rail." Assuming that if they negotiate up to the 350 gp per week, they still only get 500.

That's possibly the intent. However, it's also possible that the intent was always to give them a limited down payment at first and at the rail everything else, including any extra.

I'd put this down as an oddity not necessarily an error (which will eventually have its own section).
p. 45, p.64 - The Emerald Claw soldiers' second feat isn't printed. This feat is Toughness (refer to the EC soldier in the ECS).
Hello,

not sure if this is an errata, but how does the Trap in Room A12 on Page 21 / 39 function?

If you ask me, a wall which was a secret door before is a little bit impossible to move in this way. Ok, maybe with magic.. but this isn´t mentioned (and could be detected).

For my part, I will use the trap otherwise. As soon as it is sprung, a huge stonesphere fall down and roll down the hallway (which has a slight aptitude). Like Indy! But how do the characters get out of the dungeon?
Hnot sure if this is an errata, but how does the Trap in Room A12 on Page 21 / 39 function? :

IMO, a wall drops down in front of the door and moves forward. It's possible that the wall splits with half moving down the hallway, but I prefer the first option.
IMO, a wall drops down in front of the door and moves forward. It's possible that the wall splits with half moving down the hallway, but I prefer the first option.

It is a mechanical Trap. Call me unimaginative, but I can´t imagine that! My players are a curious pack - they often want me to describe how a trap works, just that they can better imagine or disable!
It is a mechanical Trap. Call me unimaginative, but I can´t imagine that! My players are a curious pack - they often want me to describe how a trap works, just that they can better imagine or disable!

A wall drops down in front of the secret door after it if forcibly shut (can you imagine that). A mechanism of some sort (screws, pneumatics, etc.) push taht wall down the corridor. I don't see the issue.
Such an mechanism would be easily detected.
Cleaned it up a bit. I know I found another error last time I ran it, but have to go back over the area.

Feel free to suggest anything I'm missing.
Updated errata with webbed caverns encounters.
any help with the last dread hold encounter. there are two arcane balistas, but they are missing a few powers, I know that they appered in minatures and I am lucky to have them but I have lost the cards. I know that in both games they can do a fire ball or lightning blast maybe even both 1/day but I cannot remember.

Help

P.S. the spell deep slumber or sleep makes this part of the module far to easy, I hate it.
any help with the last dread hold encounter. there are two arcane balistas, but they are missing a few powers, I know that they appered in minatures and I am lucky to have them but I have lost the cards. I know that in both games they can do a fire ball or lightning blast maybe even both 1/day but I cannot remember.

Help

P.S. the spell deep slumber or sleep makes this part of the module far to easy, I hate it.

The cards are available as free downloads. I recommend running them as written though. In my game it was a very tough encounter (then again, missing the ranger archer they almost had a TPK against the Grey Render Zombies).
I ran the Dura's Revenge encounter (pgs 102-103) tonight and it's horribly done. The encounter first describes that Dura and the Boneclaws start the encounter ready to board the PC's ship along with Cloudreavers. Later it states the Boneclaws stay "hidden" until Dura is attacked (how you hide 2 large creatures on that battlefield, I don't know). Then the map only has the two Boneclaws shown, and they are front and center where the PCs can't miss them. Dura is no where to be seen (nor are the Cloudreavers, but it's clear they are meant to be "flavor" and not represented).

Finally, the tactics for the Boneclaws state they won't initially attack, but try to lash at the Cargo Bay doors and have the PCs drop through. The doors aren't marked on the map, but the only thing I see that qualifies is a single 5' square on the enemies ship (and maybe one on the PCs). The odds of a PC being on that single square is pretty rare, especially since a PC has to get by a Boneclaw to be on that square.

All and all the encounter listed in the "delve" format is pretty useless. Look it over, decide how you want to handle the tactics, and pretty much just use the statblocks.

Clearly miscommunication between the authors and cartographers. The editors also must have horribly mangled this somehow, since it plain doesn't make sense.
I ran the Dura's Revenge encounter (pgs 102-103) tonight and it's horribly done. The encounter first describes that Dura and the Boneclaws start the encounter ready to board the PC's ship along with Cloudreavers. Later it states the Boneclaws stay "hidden" until Dura is attacked (how you hide 2 large creatures on that battlefield, I don't know). Then the map only has the two Boneclaws shown, and they are front and center where the PCs can't miss them. Dura is no where to be seen (nor are the Cloudreavers, but it's clear they are meant to be "flavor" and not represented).

Finally, the tactics for the Boneclaws state they won't initially attack, but try to lash at the Cargo Bay doors and have the PCs drop through. The doors aren't marked on the map, but the only thing I see that qualifies is a single 5' square on the enemies ship (and maybe one on the PCs). The odds of a PC being on that single square is pretty rare, especially since a PC has to get by a Boneclaw to be on that square.

In our campaign we met Dura, Boneclaws and Cloudreavers and Boneclaws were invisible on their ship until we attacked Dura ... Don't know if it's per book or just our DM handled the encounter that way ...
Clearly miscommunication between the authors and cartographers. The editors also must have horribly mangled this somehow, since it plain doesn't make sense.

Yeah, my original encounter had no Cloudreavers, and Dura and her two boneclaws (which were supposed to be the reanimated corpses of the ogre mage twins from Vorgaard's Estate) were actually waiting in ambush on the PCs own boat (after slaughtering her crew). That's where the boneclaws laying in hiding and opening the cargo bay doors underfoot of the PCs comes in. Was wicked fun in the playtest I ran, but it got radically changed in development and some pieces didn't get changed along with. Curses. Sorry about that DBlizzard!
Yet again, I'm glad I haven't ran this yet. More and more, I'm discovering how to make lame parts as they were intended/more awesome.
Yours, Dave the Brave
Was wicked fun in the playtest I ran, but it got radically changed in development and some pieces didn't get changed along with.

I hate to point fingers, but I definitely get the impression that the large number of issues with the errata was the fault of the developers and editors.

Honestly, I think this adventure would have been 100% better if it had been playtested from a final copy. Too many encounters just don't follow from the text (another example is the description of the webbed areas which also contradicts itself). The developers seemed to change things for whatever reasons came to mind, but still left in references to the original plan.

I do think the Cloudreavers as written in the encounter are cool. They don't really work in a miniature oriented game, though. They work well with a description oriented combat style as something to give players a sense of the battle and to give the players something to do when they are in an "ineffective" position.
I do think the Cloudreavers as written in the encounter are cool. They don't really work in a miniature oriented game, though. They work well with a description oriented combat style as something to give players a sense of the battle and to give the players something to do when they are in an "ineffective" position.

I think part of the problem is that 3.5 is a kind of ugly transition period between the mostly descriptive combats of 2nd ed and older and the miniature based combat of (presumably) 4th ed and beyond.

As it stands now: the more interesting and unusual combat is, the more you have to have aspects of combat be narrative rather then rules/miniatures based since the practical aspects of the latter make certain things difficult. A good example of that is the Skyway resturant encounter from the Eberron pulp-action encounter contest. That is a very interesting combat that requires a LOT of narration or else nothing makes sense ("Why am I falling sideways?"). It is also true with any sort of three dimensional combat (underwater, in the air, etc) since you can only prop up a model so high before it gets unstable and falls

Kinda back to the point: It is easy to make an encounter that SOUNDS awesome and makes sense when you imagine it but makes none when actually played out (and vice versa). So I do have some sympathy for the editors but a lot of these kind of issues could be worked out with simply playtesting the final version =\
Kinda back to the point: It is easy to make an encounter that SOUNDS awesome and makes sense when you imagine it but makes none when actually played out (and vice versa). So I do have some sympathy for the editors but a lot of these kind of issues could be worked out with simply playtesting the final version =\

Which is maybe why the current adventure format is a bad thing for WotC. It starts from a good intention (i.e. reducing the prep time for DMs), but if the modules do not go through a lot of editing and playtesting you end up with faulty encounters and laconic stat-blocks.

I am under the impression that the current staffing of WotC (after their downsizing of some years ago), does not give them the manpower to make this Encounter-based format work well.

It might be better for them to go back to a format like that of Dungeon adventures or previous modules: it is supposed to be a bit more work for DMs, but not really if you factor in the "fixing time" one has to invest in making the current format work because of mistakes.

And the other good thing would be that it would give back some more freedom to DMs in shaping encounters that work for THEIR group and THEIR game.

Bocklin
Sign In to post comments