So I'm curious about when/if these errata are official. I'm particularly interested in the gold reward for DALE2-2, as I believe it would allow me to afford an item that I've been looking at for a while. With the errata, how much gold would a player have available to them at high tier and not choosing an item?
DALE2-2: Gold/more Gold should be 2200/3300 for low tier and 6000/6500 for high tier.
That means that high tier gold is 6000gp, and the More Gold option is 6500gp additional gold, for a total 12,500gp minus expenses.
DALE2-2: Gold/more Gold should be 2200/3300 for low tier and 6000/6500 for high tier.That means that high tier gold is 6000gp, and the More Gold option is 6500gp additional gold, for a total 12,500gp minus expenses.
So I'm curious about when/if these errata are official.
The moment it is posted here it is official. Although if not posted by one of the globals or WDs it might be a good idea to wait a week or so to give us the time to double check. If there is no reaction it is official until changed later by the campaign managers.
The moment it is posted here it is official. Although if not posted by one of the globals or WDs it might be a good idea to wait a week or so to give us the time to double check. If there is no reaction it is official until changed later by the campa
Bundle D - The adventure gives a divine boon, reflavored to be from Loviatar. The campaign is pretty clear that PCs cannot worship an evil deity. While there are no rules saying that an unaligned non-follower of an evil deity can't receive her favor and use her divine boon, this is something that I hope campaign staff carefully considered before allowing.
It strikes me as being a pretty big step down the slope: I would like to see LFR PCs be heroes, with the default being that I'm sitting down with PCs who are good-aligned or compatible with good-aligned groups; I would prefer not to deal with "Well, I'm not a worshiper of Loviatar, I'm merely a follower of her. And don't worry, I believe she's just misunderstood, not evil, so it's okay."
Bundle E - The Horreb ritual cube is a plot device from a Dungeon Magazine adventure. It has a value of 'priceless', and is a consumable intended to be destroyed at the end of that adventure, as a necessary component to complete a quest.
This item appears in only the most cheesy of CharOp builds, because it's clearly not intended for general use. As a slotted item, it's on the power level of a ~23rd level item (midway between the Ring of Protection and Nullifying Ring); slotless, calling it a 30th level item wouldn't be unreasonable. This item is extremely overpowered for its level (because it's supposed to be a consumable that goes away after a few sessions).
As a general note, I would urge campaign staff to add a step of review when a module has rewards from outside player resources (perhaps two steps, for items from Dungeon Magazine, since those are usually adventure-specific and only balanced in that context). The worst that happens when an adventure includes an overpowered item from a player resource is that it shows up in the campaign a few levels earlier than we could buy it, but including items from outside a player resource means adding items to the campaign that would not be allowed except for staff's approval of them in a module.
I would have pegged the ritual cube as pretty high up on my list of items the campaign would never let slip in. Now, I suppose it's only a matter of time until arcane slashers get their planestrider boots.
DALE2-2: Not errata, per se, but some things campaign staff might want to take a closer look at, and swiftly:Spoiler:
Show
Bundle D - The adventure gives a divine boon, reflavored to be from Loviatar. The campaign is pretty clear that PCs ca
The boon had been extensively discussed. Fact is that Loviatar always has taken a perverse pleasure in rewarding heroes when they do her bidding, especially when the heroes never realize they did so. As such it does fit the setting and the story.
AS for the cube, I see the problem. It is a bit unclear on whether the whole item is a consumable, or just the ritual part. There are no rules about refilling the ritual part, so that is something you can use exactly once. I will take a closer look at it.
Lets keep discussion items out of the errata thread.Spoiler:
Show
The boon had been extensively discussed. Fact is that Loviatar always has taken a perverse pleasure in rewarding heroes when they do her bidding, especially when the heroes neve
In Encounter 5 A Mist effect should be 5 Ongoing Fire (Save ends) not 5 Ongoing Fire Damage
Also is the loot option restricted to adventurers vault 2 items or player legal source?
Edit It just seems and odd generic yet specific at the same time kind of deal as written and i wasn't sure the admins were looking to tidy this up as part of the erratta. Judging by Madfoxs post below I guess not.
AKAN 1-7 Faint HopeIn Encounter 5 A Mist effect should be 5 Ongoing Fire (Save ends) not 5 Ongoing Fire DamageAlso is the loot option restricted to adventurers vault 2 items or player legal source?EditIt just seems and odd generic yet specific at the
Should Tieflings and mages with magic missile use the new infernal wrath and magic missile
Or should I apologise to the wizard who caught 3 tieflings in a fire shroud (I only bloodied him)
Should Tieflings and mages with magic missile use the new infernal wrath and magic missileOr should I apologise to the wizard who caught 3 tieflings in a fire shroud ;)(I only bloodied him)
May I suggest setting up a separate module errata subforum?
It would be a lot easier to find module errata if there was a separate thread for each module.
May I suggest setting up a separate module errata subforum?It would be a lot easier to find module errata if there was a separate thread for each module.
Encounter 9: The module states to adjust the Firebird's maximum hit points based upon the number of PCs, but there is no mention about adjusting the hit points gained from the Firebird's healing power (Feeding the Fire).
CORE 1-2
Show
Encounter 3: The Elite Brute has the pre-errata calculation for elite hit points. Hit points should be 138 and 176 for Low and High, respectively. This will also affect the amount of HPs healed from the Warrior's Surge encounte
Should Tieflings and mages with magic missile use the new infernal wrath and magic missile
Or should I apologise to the wizard who caught 3 tieflings in a fire shroud (I only bloodied him)
In regards to the tiefling fire shroud: maybe. Just remember that monster damage output is independend of their stats. I would also be careful with it in case of difficult adventures since for some tiefling builds this is an increase in power that has never been playtested for those adventures.
In regards to the magic missile: no. Monster attack powers are almost never directly related to the actual PC attack powers (except when a class template is implied) even though they might be called the same.
In regards to the tiefling fire shroud: maybe. Just remember that monster damage output is independend of their stats. I would also be careful with it in case of difficult adventures since for some tiefling builds this is an increase in power that ha
Bundle E - The Horreb ritual cube is a plot device from a Dungeon Magazine adventure. It has a value of 'priceless', and is a consumable intended to be destroyed at the end of that adventure, as a necessary component to complete a quest.
This item appears in only the most cheesy of CharOp builds, because it's clearly not intended for general use. As a slotted item, it's on the power level of a ~23rd level item (midway between the Ring of Protection and Nullifying Ring); slotless, calling it a 30th level item wouldn't be unreasonable. This item is extremely overpowered for its level (because it's supposed to be a consumable that goes away after a few sessions).
As a general note, I would urge campaign staff to add a step of review when a module has rewards from outside player resources (perhaps two steps, for items from Dungeon Magazine, since those are usually adventure-specific and only balanced in that context). The worst that happens when an adventure includes an overpowered item from a player resource is that it shows up in the campaign a few levels earlier than we could buy it, but including items from outside a player resource means adding items to the campaign that would not be allowed except for staff's approval of them in a module.
I would have pegged the ritual cube as pretty high up on my list of items the campaign would never let slip in. Now, I suppose it's only a matter of time until arcane slashers get their planestrider boots.
AS for the cube, I see the problem. It is a bit unclear on whether the whole item is a consumable, or just the ritual part. There are no rules about refilling the ritual part, so that is something you can use exactly once. I will take a closer look at it.
Horreb Ritual Cube - there are also no rules (that I could find) that say which rituals can be put in the cube. The text of the item just says "triggers the ritual stored in it during the cube's creation." Is the ritual supposed to be preset? Or do players get to choose which ritual is stored in it? If so, what guidelines are there for which ritual can be placed in it? Any ritual up to the PCs level? Any ritual up to the level of the item (18th)? Any ritual at all? Besides the fact that the item is very overpowered, it is unclear what the item actually is (i.e. which ritual it holds). I also agree that it's confusing whether the entire item is consumable or just the ritual part.
As for divine boons... The DALE 2-2 treasure bundle list specifies that the boon cannot be sold but does not indicate if it ever expires. In another recent adventure that handed out a divine boon Spoiler:Show
(ADCP 2-1?)
, the text clearly stated that the boon expires after a certain amount of time (5 levels?). Is that a mistake in DALE 2-2 (typo/omission)? It would be good to have some consistency on divine boons among LFR modules. (Also, can a character have an unlimited number of divine boons?)
On the DALE 2-2 items:Spoiler:
Show
Horreb Ritual Cube - there are also no rules (that I could find) that say which rituals can be put in the cube. The text of the item just says "triggers the ritual stored in it during the cube's creation."
The ritual in the cube is preset - it's the ritual in the adventure (Scramble Portal). I don' t think it would be too overpowered if it acts as a consumable with a set ritual, though ia dmit it woudl then make for a poor item for an item slot. However, I believe the globals are looking into it.
When we used the boon, there were no guidelines for how to deal with boons, so it was an oversight (though I don;t think the boon is as powerful as most boons). Personally, I am in favor of adding the 5-level rule as a default rule for all boons (possibly to add in the CCG, and/or the adbventures treasure section). One could errata the adventure as well, though there is no story award in which to put the 5-level rule, hence I am in favor of making it a campaign-wide rule.
A few answers:Spoiler:
Show
The ritual in the cube is preset - it's the ritual in the adventure (Scramble Portal).I don' t think it would be too overpowered if it acts as a consumable with a set ritual, though ia dmit it woudl then make for a
The ritual in the cube is preset - it's the ritual in the adventure (Scramble Portal). I don' t think it would be too overpowered if it acts as a consumable with a set ritual, though ia dmit it woudl then make for a poor item for an item slot. However, I believe the globals are looking into it.
Oh, ok. Well, it didn't seem very clear in the mod that the treasure bundle version of the Horreb Ritual Cube already had a preset ritual. The mechanical distribution of treasure bundles in LFR does not always equal the roleplaying/story of the mod (i.e. at the end of the adventure there are suddenly 6 copies of everything, even if that's completely illogical based on the story). It probably would have been more clear if the treasure bundle was listed as "Horreb ritual cube containing Scramble Portal ritual." Encounter 5 specifies that the ritual cube contains Scramble Portal, but Encounter 7 seems to offer PCs a generic ritual cube. (Players may think Jonster Yate is offering to make or obtain a Horreb ritual cube for them containing whatever ritual they want.) What if the PCs get the ritual cube in Encounter 5 and use it in Encounter 6? Does that mean that if they take it as their treasure bundle that the Scramble Portal ritual in it is already consumed? In general, putting an unusual item into a mod as a treasure bundle should be done with care as it has the potential to generate lots of confusion and questions and misinterpretations. (Personally I'm planning to just walk around with the cube and never use it, because a slotless +2 item bonus to saves is pretty awesome by itself, but I'm sure other players will have these questions.)
When we used the boon, there were no guidelines for how to deal with boons, so it was an oversight (though I don;t think the boon is as powerful as most boons). Personally, I am in favor of adding the 5-level rule as a default rule for all boons (possibly to add in the CCG, and/or the adbventures treasure section). One could errata the adventure as well, though there is no story award in which to put the 5-level rule, hence I am in favor of making it a campaign-wide rule.
I agree, some sort of campaign-wide ruling about boons should be introduced. The 5-level rule seems to make sense.
Spoiler:
Show
Oh, ok. Well, it didn't seem very clear in the mod that the treasure bundle version of the Horreb Ritual Cube already had a preset ritual. The mechanical distribution of treasure bundles in LFR does not always equal the rolep
[Moderator]Removed the discussion on boons. I tried to move them, but apparently I cannot move individual posts. Sorry. This is not a thread for rules discussions.[/Moderator]
[Moderator]Removed the discussion on boons. I tried to move them, but apparently I cannot move individual posts. Sorry. This is not a thread for rules discussions.[/Moderator]
The Amulet of Protection +2 included in the treasure summary for Encounter 11 should not have the "(high-level)" designation. This item is available at both Low and High tier play, as indicated in the treasure bundles summary at the conclusion of the module.
MINI 1-1
Show
The Amulet of Protection +2 included in the treasure summary for Encounter 11 should not have the "(high-level)" designation. This item is available at both Low and High tier play, as indicated in the treasure bundles summary at
With Essentials fast approaching, what's the rule on substituting in the new versions of monsters?
For example, this black dragon is very different from the old one:Spoiler:Show
With Essentials fast approaching, what's the rule on substituting in the new versions of monsters?For example, this black dragon is very different from the old one:Spoiler:
Show
With Essentials fast approaching, what's the rule on substituting in the new versions of monsters?
(I think this has come up before and is not considered errata). In theory, the adventures were playtested and found to have an appropriate challenge level. Making changes would, in theory, make the fights too hard. I think DMs, if they have run the adventure before and find it too easy, could consider swapping it, but it would need to be done with kid gloves (and is not valid DME).
(I think this has come up before and is not considered errata). In theory, the adventures were playtested and found to have an appropriate challenge level. Making changes would, in theory, make the fights too hard. I think DMs, if they have
Yeah, hard to say - for example, adventures that use pre-errata needlefang drakes (IMPI1-7 was it?) should be errata-ed to use the new forms. But making auras stack in SPEC2-1 P2 may be a bad idea. One case where you should errata, one where you shouldn't. Bleah.
I suspect CORE1-10 could use an updated monster, but if there's a level 1-4 that has a black dragon, then it should _not_ use that new one since it'd be brutal.
Yeah, hard to say - for example, adventures that use pre-errata needlefang drakes (IMPI1-7 was it?) should be errata-ed to use the new forms. But making auras stack in SPEC2-1 P2 may be a bad idea. One case where you should errata, one where you shou
Yeah, hard to say - for example, adventures that use pre-errata needlefang drakes (IMPI1-7 was it?) should be errata-ed to use the new forms. But making auras stack in SPEC2-1 P2 may be a bad idea. One case where you should errata, one where you shouldn't. Bleah.
I suspect CORE1-10 could use an updated monster, but if there's a level 1-4 that has a black dragon, then it should _not_ use that new one since it'd be brutal.
CORE 1-14 is more dangerous, as far as stacking auras go - SPEC 2-1 P2 already used different aura types (at least in the 1st combat anyway) to get around the old no-stacking rule. I played CORE 1-14 again after the errata and it made the aura guys significantly more dangerous.
I believe MINI 2-2 uses an updated White Dragon, but I didn't read the mod.
CORE 1-14 is more dangerous, as far as stacking auras go - SPEC 2-1 P2 already used different aura types (at least in the 1st combat anyway) to get around the old no-stacking rule. I played CORE 1-14 again after the errata and it made the aura guys
Errata is different than a new monster. Again, I think we talked about this before (and probably an admin deleted the posts). The needlefang drake has errata, so it is more acceptable, plus the fights they are in are pretty rough ones. The black dragon doesn't have errata, you just have an Essentials version. I would not make that change - it isn't errata.
CORE1-14 and SPEC2-1 P2 were written by the same fool... I've posted my (I'm the author as you guys know) thoughts on the threads for those mods, but I would not stack the auras. Playtesting was extensive and predicated on the auras not stacking. Even the Spec can have more aura at certain tiers/party sizes in at least one encounter and it isn't needed except for really strong parties. I would leave it as an option for DMs but based on the DM knowing that the group needs this. Stacking auras for these mods is a bad idea 90% of the time. Similarly, changing from the Dragon magazine version of the critter in Ectr 1 of the Spec to the version in MM3 is not suggested - they are pretty different creatures.
Errata is different than a new monster. Again, I think we talked about this before (and probably an admin deleted the posts). The needlefang drake has errata, so it is more acceptable, plus the fights they are in are pretty rough ones. The black drag
Teos is correct. Actual errata of monsters should be used, although, in the case of things such as stacking auras it should be done with care. In case of new version, it should not be used automatically. A DM could do so, but like Teos mentions, it falls far outside the scope of DME.
Teos is correct. Actual errata of monsters should be used, although, in the case of things such as stacking auras it should be done with care. In case of new version, it should not be used automatically. A DM could do so, but like Teos mentions, it f
CORE1-14 and SPEC2-1 P2 were written by the same fool... I've posted my (I'm the author as you guys know) thoughts on the threads for those mods, but I would not stack the auras. Playtesting was extensive and predicated on the auras not stacking. Even the Spec can have more aura at certain tiers/party sizes in at least one encounter and it isn't needed except for really strong parties. I would leave it as an option for DMs but based on the DM knowing that the group needs this. Stacking auras for these mods is a bad idea 90% of the time. Similarly, changing from the Dragon magazine version of the critter in Ectr 1 of the Spec to the version in MM3 is not suggested - they are pretty different creatures.
When I ran the playtest of CORE1-14 way back when, I allowed the auras to stack (not knowing that they weren't supposed to). I TPKed a strong and balanced party (that utilized poor tactics). I agree that the DM should avoid stacking the auras unless the PCs have it coming.
When I ran the playtest of CORE1-14 way back when, I allowed the auras to stack (not knowing that they weren't supposed to). I TPKed a strong and balanced party (that utilized poor tactics). I agree that the DM should avoid stacking the auras unless
I would say that with LFR adventures it should be remembered that they were written and balanced around certain assumptions. Based on that, even when there may be a new version of a monster it is not a given that it will fit.
So, unless specifically stated here or some other official place, a DM should handle with care and err on the side of caution.
There wont ever be total coverage on all the changes WoTC makes. Sometimes a DM will just have to be a DM and make the call..
As a side note: If you are using this community for official errata and adventure commentary, start referring the DM's to it? I know this probably can't/won't happen with the current boilerplate, but with the "reboot" (don't really like that term, but it sorta works) please consider both adding it and EMPHASIZING it in each adventure.
That is one way to view it I guess..I would say that with LFR adventures it should be remembered that they were written and balanced around certain assumptions. Based on that, even when there may be a new version of a monster it is not a given that i
Note: Use the latest version of EAST2-2 available for download on the website. Do NOT use the version from Origins 2010. A few monsters were replaced with other monsters (and the new version has been playtested to double check it still worked).
Note: Use the latest version of EAST2-2 available for download on the website. Do NOT use the version from Origins 2010. A few monsters were replaced with other monsters (and the new version has been playtested to double check it still worked).
In encounter 1, the Gul'othran Marauder has the Slave Taker power, which is an auto dominate. Should this power have the Charm key word? I ask for the purposes of abilities/items that give saves or immunities against Charm effects.
CORE2-10: One of the monsters appear to be missing key words on their attacks. For instance:Spoiler:
Show
In encounter 1, the Gul'othran Marauder has the Slave Taker power, which is an auto dominate. Should this power have the Charm key wo
In encounter 1, the Gul'othran Marauder has the Slave Taker power, which is an auto dominate. Should this power have the Charm key word? I ask for the purposes of abilities/items that give saves or immunities against Charm effects.
That monster is straight out of the Compendium, and the power does not have the Charm keyword.
That monster is straight out of the Compendium, and the power does not have the Charm keyword.
In CORE2-10 on page 12 it states "Since it takes four hours to reach Ravens Bluff, PCs killed in Encounter 1 can be raised during this time." The Raise Dead ritual takes eight hours to cast. Should the trip take eight hours, or is Raise Dead not possible on the trip?
In CORE2-10 on page 12 it states "Since it takes four hours to reach Ravens Bluff, PCs killed in Encounter 1 can be raised during this time." The Raise Dead ritual takes eight hours to cast. Should the trip take eight hours, or is Raise Dead not
Isn't ritual time halved if cast from a scroll? So it is possible that it could be done in 4 hours. I think they probably put 4 hours there so an extended rest can't occur.
Isn't ritual time halved if cast from a scroll? So it is possible that it could be done in 4 hours. I think they probably put 4 hours there so an extended rest can't occur.
Isn't ritual time halved if cast from a scroll? So it is possible that it could be done in 4 hours. I think they probably put 4 hours there so an extended rest can't occur.
Going back a ways: WATE 1-1: Encounter 3 is listed as being worth 925xp (total, not per PC), but only includes 775xp worth of enemies. This is likely the result of failing to increase the level of two of the three enemy types when advancing from low to high. Spoiler:Show
The wererat is increased 2 levels, but the Human Bandits and Halfling Thief are not. Increasing them all to level 4 would make the xp totals match.
Going back a ways:WATE 1-1: Encounter 3 is listed as being worth 925xp (total, not per PC), but only includes 775xp worth of enemies. This is likely the result of failing to increase the level of two of the three enemy types when advancing from low t
Is CORE1-11 Drawing a Blank high tier supposed to grant 3200 XP (the usual cap), or 3220 XP (the amount listed)?
Generally, when I see an unusual amount there is a notice.
Thanks!
Is CORE1-11 Drawing a Blank high tier supposed to grant3200 XP (the usual cap), or 3220 XP (the amount listed)?Generally, when I see an unusual amount there is a notice.Thanks!
The consumable bundle sell price is greater than the more gold option.
25 * 650 * 20% = 3250 > 1300 and 2100
(also the name of the consumable is a typo)
SPEC2-2 (P1): Tyranny's Bleak DepthsThe consumable bundle sell price is greater than the more gold option.25 * 650 * 20% = 3250 > 1300 and 2100(also the name of the consumable is a typo)
The Adult Volcanic Dragon in encounter 5 is different in a few ways from the one in the Compendium. Most of the differences don't matter a great deal, but the module version has Growing Heat as a standard action, which is a pretty big limiter in LFR against any alpha-striking party.
CORE 1-15 Where Dragons DieSpoiler:
Show
The Adult Volcanic Dragon in encounter 5 is different in a few ways from the one in the Compendium. Most of the differences don't matter a great deal, but the module version has Growing Heat as a standa
Encounter 6A: "Score 5 Pionts" replace with "Score 3 points"
If playing with 4 PCs, this is 2 points. If playing with 6 PCs it is 4 points. It is a bit of a complicated way to tell that it is a group check where one PC need to make an Arcana check and all other PCs can pick another skill instead of the usual everybody needs to make the same skill check.
Also replace: "Exceeding the DC by 10 or more earns 2 points." with "If the PC made the hard DC (DC 28/29) instead, change check failed by another PC during this round into a success."
IMPI2-2 Wetwork:Encounter 6A: "Score 5 Pionts" replace with "Score 3 points"If playing with 4 PCs, this is 2 points. If playing with 6 PCs it is 4 points. It is a bit of a complicated way to tell that it is a group check where one PC need to make
2 or 3 points would make that challenge excessively easy, if you're keeping the possibility for a single character to earn 2 points. That'd change the chance of failure down to below 1% for most groups.
Ie, 5 characters - say the average chance of failure is 40%, 35% normal success, 25% hard success (+12 vs DC 21 at high tier, a trained character with a 10 stat has a +12, untrained with the right stat has +12, trained with the right stat has +17, untrained with 10 stat is +7). Average points per character is .85, without factoring in any outside bonuses, use of action points (which they just got), utility powers, etc. There's only a 1.3% chance that someone doesn't get a Hard success for 3 rounds in a row, even ignoring the chance for normal success.
Though in my experience the group will actually be better than +12, since it's covering three disparate skill types (ritual, thievery, athletics) which is a good spread. Still, better to err on the side of caution. Making it possibly even below .1%
2 or 3 points would make that challenge excessively easy, if you're keeping the possibility for a single character to earn 2 points. That'd change the chance of failure down to below 1% for most groups.Ie, 5 characters - say the average chance of fai
Added some math to my prior post in case anyone questioned me on the 1% bit
Eh... it's got a real bite, so what chance of failure are you looking for? I'm tentatively willing to run the math on it, though it's more complex.
I'd be tempted to go with # of players - 1, with the updated Hard DCs, for a home game... but if you want to make it much less likely to fail, make it # of players - 2. That's probably reasonable so that there's a _possibility_ of failure, but more in line with the way the campaign is setup.
Added some math to my prior post in case anyone questioned me on the 1% bit :)Eh... it's got a real bite, so what chance of failure are you looking for? I'm tentatively willing to run the math on it, though it's more complex.I'd be tempted to go with
Another question. Does the math change significantly if you use the Essentials DCs vs the pre-Essentials DCs. skill checks has become harder post-Essentials. (Hard is 28/29 for P1 low/high).
So maybe the answer is to lower the points to 2, but errata the adventure to use the new DCs.
Another question. Does the math change significantly if you use the Essentials DCs vs the pre-Essentials DCs. skill checks has become harder post-Essentials. (Hard is 28/29 for P1 low/high).So maybe the answer is to lower the points to 2, but e
Another question. Does the math change significantly if you use the Essentials DCs vs the pre-Essentials DCs. skill checks has become harder post-Essentials. (Hard is 28/29 for P1 low/high).
So maybe the answer is to lower the points to 2, but errata the adventure to use the new DCs.
ADCP 2-2 (H) and ADCP 2-2 (P) have two very similar story awards if you succeed at the main challenge. In the heroic version, it's a minor action to activate the story award's ability. In the paragon version, it's a standard action. I believe the paragon version should be changed to a minor action.
ADCP 2-2 (H) and ADCP 2-2 (P) have two very similar story awards if you succeed at the main challenge. In the heroic version, it's a minor action to activate the story award's ability. In the paragon version, it's a standard action. I believe the par
SPEC2-1 H2 The Beastcaller in Encounter 6A has Murderous Flock as an at-will power, whereas when originally printed in Dragon magazine it's Recharge 6. Said power is a completely ridiculous huge burst enemy-only save-ends blind that does ongoing damage even on a miss. For reference, on the original level 7 monster:
Murderous Flock (standard, recharge 6) Ravens appear from nowhere and descend upon the battlefield. Burst 3 within 20; targets enemies; +11 vs Reflex; 2d4+5 damage, and the target is blinded and takes ongoing 5 damage (save ends both). Miss: Half damage, and ongoing 5 damage (save ends) and the target is not blinded.
SPEC2-1 H2The Beastcaller in Encounter 6A has Murderous Flock as an at-will power, whereas when originally printed in Dragon magazine it's Recharge 6. Said power is a completely ridiculous huge burst enemy-only save-ends blind that does ongoing dama
The claw doppelganger darkmages in encounter 6A and 6B list applying their curse as a standard action, not a minor one. I know there's a discussion about extra curse damage applying only to PC's cursed by that particular darkmage, but the standard/minor action issue isn't specifically addressed.
something I think is an erratum in MINI 2-3, although I'd like somebody to confirm it:Spoiler:
Show
The claw doppelganger darkmages in encounter 6A and 6B list applying their curse as a standard action, not a minor one. I know there's a discus
At the end of the 1st combat encounter, it tells the DM to refer to treasure bundle B to find out what the belt is - that is clearly Treasure Bundle A - this is a pretty simple typo, and not too difficult to figure out, though.
The Quasits (and the Elite Quasit) at AL 10 do not have appropriate defenses or HP (EDIT: The defenses are about right, actually) - they seem more appropriate for AL 6 (via Mark 1 Eyeball). This is a more difficult change to make on the fly, and I believe should be fixed. I also wonder whether AL 8 is supposed to have Level 6 Quasits like AL 6, although I believe they get more minions as well.
In the 1st combat encounter, the canal is described as calm, but requires a DC 15 Athletics check which is not the one associated with calm water...so which is it?
ELTU 3-2
Show
At the end of the 1st combat encounter, it tells the DM to refer to treasure bundle B to find out what the belt is - that is clearly Treasure Bundle A - this is a pretty simple typo, and not too difficult to figure out, thoug
ELTU 3-1 Encounter 6 - Horrid Bhaal Spawn should have not have Hit: 1d10+712 vs Will on his top triggered action but should have Hit:+??? vs Will (is it 12?)
ELTU 3-1 Encounter 6 - Horrid Bhaal Spawn should have not have Hit: 1d10+712 vs Will on his top triggered action but should have Hit:+??? vs Will (is it 12?)
The first property of Faervian says that it can be used as an implement by any class that gets implement powers. Nothing else allows it to be used as an implement. This means that every martial class, barbarians, wardens, ardents, and battleminds cannot use either of Faervian's implement powers, which is a pretty big drawback and one that isn't readily apparent.
I'm also not sure why the item is so wordy, especially since it's only going to be used in LFR's epic campaign. Specifically, there's no need to state:
"You can have only one power stored in the weapon at a time." and "If a new power is stored before the old one is used, the old power is lost." (These say the same thing)
"Faervian cannot store a power of higher level than the weapon." (Faervian automatically levels up to a level 30 item at PC level 27, so there's no way to store a higher-level encounter or at-will power in it than the PC level.)
"You cannot use a power stored in the weapon if the power’s level is higher than yours." (The epic campaign is designed so that all PCs will be of equal level, so there's no way for an ally to put in a higher-level power)
"Apply your applicable bonuses, penalties, and other conditional modifiers." (This is always true when making an attack; it was already clear that you use your ability scores from the previous sentence)
The bit about "You may not activate other powers or take other free actions between hitting with your first attack and triggering the stored power to make a second attack." reads to me like there's some sort of rules interaction that the LFR admins fear. I can't say I know what it is.
The story award version of Spoiler:
Show
Faervian in EPIC 3-1 has an issue with its wording.Spoiler:
Show
The first property of Faervian says that it can be used as an implement by any class that gets implement powers. Nothing else allo
I play 21, get the weapon, play 27-30, store a 27e, then play 22 and try to use the 27e.
You're thinking of it in terms of someone who plays every module in order, which is likely, but there's another scenario as well.Spoiler:
Show
I play 21, get the weapon, play 27-30, store a 27e, then play 22 and try to use the 27e.
That's actually covered by the text in Appropriate Character Levels, found on page 3 of the module. The relevant part is under "Adjusting Level Down":
"Anything that happened in the higher-level adventures is temporarily “unwound,” as if the character had played the adventures in the correct order."
You wouldn't gain the benefit of having that higher power in there.
That's actually covered by the text in Appropriate Character Levels, found on page 3 of the module. The relevant part is under "Adjusting Level Down":"Anything that happened in the higher-level adventures is temporarily “unwound,”
The first property of Faervian says that it can be used as an implement by any class that gets implement powers. Nothing else allows it to be used as an implement. This means that every martial class, barbarians, wardens, ardents, and battleminds cannot use either of Faervian's implement powers, which is a pretty big drawback and one that isn't readily apparent.
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.
Or we designed a more generically worded item just in case. Besides, experience in organized campaigns has shown that you are better of stating the obvious several times to make sure it is seen and even than people are going to miss it
Or we designed a more generically worded item just in case. Besides, experience in organized campaigns has shown that you are better of stating the obvious several times to make sure it is seen and even than people are going to miss it ;)
The first property of Faervian says that it can be used as an implement by any class that gets implement powers. Nothing else allows it to be used as an implement. This means that every martial class, barbarians, wardens, ardents, and battleminds cannot use either of Faervian's implement powers, which is a pretty big drawback and one that isn't readily apparent.
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.
Actually, you don't. I had also been thinking that, but I remembered that a multiclass feat only allows you to count as a member of a class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, including prerequisites for feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and rituals. That property is not a prerequisite for anything, so multiclass feats wouldn't change it. (This is based on the PHB2 wording; I didn't see anything in the Rules Compendium which changed it to be more general).
At the same time, I think the intent is clear. I'd just like the rules wording to match up with that intent.
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.[/quote]Actually, you don't. I had also been thinking that, but I remembered that a multiclass feat only allows you to count as a member of a class for the purpose
The first property of Faervian says that it can be used as an implement by any class that gets implement powers. Nothing else allows it to be used as an implement. This means that every martial class, barbarians, wardens, ardents, and battleminds cannot use either of Faervian's implement powers, which is a pretty big drawback and one that isn't readily apparent.
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.
Actually, you don't. I had also been thinking that, but I remembered that a multiclass feat only allows you to count as a member of a class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, including prerequisites for feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and rituals. That property is not a prerequisite for anything, so multiclass feats wouldn't change it. (This is based on the PHB2 wording; I didn't see anything in the Rules Compendium which changed it to be more general).
At the same time, I think the intent is clear. I'd just like the rules wording to match up with that intent.
If the MC feat allowed you to use X as an implement, could you use the rare?
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.[/quote]Actually, you don't. I had also been thinking that, but I remembered that a multiclass feat only allows you to count as a member of a class for the purpose
I assume Multiclass feats would qualify one to be able to use these additional powers.
I had also been thinking that, but I remembered that a multiclass feat only allows you to count as a member of a class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, including prerequisites for feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and rituals. That property is not a prerequisite for anything, so multiclass feats wouldn't change it. (This is based on the PHB2 wording; I didn't see anything in the Rules Compendium which changed it to be more general).
At the same time, I think the intent is clear. I'd just like the rules wording to match up with that intent.
If the MC feat allowed you to use X as an implement, could you use the rare?
Yes, that would also work. In that case, the MC feat would be allowing it, rather than Faervian's property. I believe that swordmages are the only ones who can use heavy blades as implements via MC feat (monks and assassins only give ki focuses), but either of their MC feats should work with that.
I had also been thinking that, but I remembered that a multiclass feat only allows you to count as a member of a class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, including prerequisites for feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and rituals. That prope
One of the bundels in CORM2-4 Fury of the Queen of Thorns is a Spoiler:Show
Ring of Wizardry
. The version in the appendix on page 29 gives an untyped +3 bonus to Arcana checks. This should be a +3 item bonus.
Also, Treasure F in the Rewards Summary is a duplication of the default Treasure X, which is also present.
One of the bundels in CORM2-4 Fury of the Queen of Thorns is a Spoiler:
Show
Ring of Wizardry.The version in the appendix on page 29 gives an untyped +3 bonus to Arcana checks. This should be a +3 item bonus.Also, Treasure F in the Rewards Sum
Treasure D: Whistling Weapon +3 exists in the Compendium but is NOT in the compiled issue of Dragon 390. Also, in the New Rules section the weapon is referenced erroneously as page 25 of Adventurer's Vault 2.
The treasure isn't legal.
Treasure error in DALE2-4 IllsyldraTreasure D: Whistling Weapon +3 exists in the Compendium but is NOT in the compiled issue of Dragon 390. Also, in the New Rules section the weapon is referenced erroneously as page 25 of Adventurer's Vault 2.The tre
Treasure D: Whistling Weapon +3 exists in the Compendium but is NOT in the compiled issue of Dragon 390. Also, in the New Rules section the weapon is referenced erroneously as page 25 of Adventurer's Vault 2.
The treasure isn't legal.
While it is not in a player resource, does not mean it can not be used as a treasure in an adventure's reward section? Reading page 4 of the LFR-CG I see nothing making this an illegal item. If I am missing something here, please enlighten me
While it is not in a player resource, does not mean it can not be used as a treasure in an adventure's reward section? Reading page 4 of the LFR-CG I see nothing making this an illegal item. If I am missing something here, please enlighten me :)
Doesn't really matter if the treasure was just completely made up by the author; if it's in the rewards section, it's legal.
There are quite a few rewards which do not appear in a player resource. It appears that the author might not have realized that this item was one of them, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Doesn't really matter if the treasure was just completely made up by the author; if it's in the rewards section, it's legal.There are quite a few rewards which do not appear in a player resource. It appears that the author might not have realized th
Doesn't really matter if the treasure was just completely made up by the author; if it's in the rewards section, it's legal.
There are quite a few rewards which do not appear in a player resource. It appears that the author might not have realized that this item was one of them, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Brian is correct in regards to access. As the reviewer I did not check it. I am used to double checking Rules Compendium monsters with their source, but apparently it is necessary with items as well. I will double check it. The item did not trigger any alarm bells with me, but that is not always a guarantee.
Doesn't really matter if the treasure was just completely made up by the author; if it's in the rewards section, it's legal.There are quite a few rewards which do not appear in a player resource. It appears that the author might not have realized th
Doesn't really matter if the treasure was just completely made up by the author; if it's in the rewards section, it's legal.
There are quite a few rewards which do not appear in a player resource. It appears that the author might not have realized that this item was one of them, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Brian is correct in regards to access. As the reviewer I did not check it. I am used to double checking Rules Compendium monsters with their source, but apparently it is necessary with items as well. I will double check it. The item did not trigger any alarm bells with me, but that is not always a guarantee.
Based on this response, what are we (judges) supposed to do with this adventure and its treasure?
Doesn't really matter if the treasure was just completely made up by the author; if it's in the rewards section, it's legal.There are quite a few rewards which do not appear in a player resource. It appears that the author might not have realized t
Based on this response, what are we (judges) supposed to do with this adventure and its treasure?
Since the response states that while the item's rule source went unchecked. it is legal....I would say... nothing out of the ordinary? Run the adventure, hand out the treasure option as normal.
Since the response states that while the item's rule source went unchecked. it is legal....I would say... nothing out of the ordinary? Run the adventure, hand out the treasure option as normal.
According to the latest campaign guide, whisling weapon is legal since it is in a Dragon Magazine. Dragon Magainze articles are legal as they are available.
According to the latest campaign guide, whisling weapon is legal since it is in a Dragon Magazine. Dragon Magainze articles are legal as they are available.
According to the latest campaign guide, whisling weapon is legal since it is in a Dragon Magazine. Dragon Magainze articles are legal as they are available.
I am afraid that is an incomplete and oversimplified rendition of the actual rules.
Something has to actually still be in the most up to date version of a dragon article to be legal as a player resource. As I understand it, whistling weapon is not in the compiled issue (which when they still had them were comprised of the most up to date versions of the articles) and as such it would not be legal from a player perspective. I.e. a player can never obtain the item unless an adventure specifically includes the item in its treasure list, as those lists are not limited to player resources.
So just because something shows up in a dragon article once, does not make it eternally legal for players. For instance the what-were-they-thinking version of Tiamats bullwark has been superceded and so have several other bits of player content from "say what?!?" land. Things quite often dont pass the char-op test when first published and concequently get changed.. Make sure to keep up to date as it is the players respesponsibility to keep a PC legal.. ( yeah I know, naive I am )
I am afraid that is an incomplete and oversimplified rendition of the actual rules.Something has to actually still be in the most up to date version of a dragon article to be legal as a player resource. As I understand it, whistling weapon is not in
According to the latest campaign guide, whisling weapon is legal since it is in a Dragon Magazine. Dragon Magainze articles are legal as they are available.
I am afraid that is an incomplete and oversimplified rendition of the actual rules.
Something has to actually still be in the most up to date version of a dragon article to be legal as a player resource. As I understand it, whistling weapon is not in the compiled issue (which when they still had them were comprised of the most up to date versions of the articles) and as such it would not be legal from a player perspective. I.e. a player can never obtain the item unless an adventure specifically includes the item in its treasure list, as those lists are not limited to player resources.
So just because something shows up in a dragon article once, does not make it eternally legal for players. For instance the what-were-they-thinking version of Tiamats bullwark has been superceded and so have several other bits of player content from "say what?!?" land. Things quite often dont pass the char-op test when first published and concequently get changed.. Make sure to keep up to date as it is the players respesponsibility to keep a PC legal.. ( yeah I know, naive I am )
Things are even more tricky nowadays, since compiled issues are dropped and errata is not up to date. I suppose they have better things to do now.
I am afraid that is an incomplete and oversimplified rendition of the actual rules.Something has to actually still be in the most up to date version of a dragon article to be legal as a player resource. As I understand it, whistling weapon is not in
AGLA2-1 The Undumor ConnectionThe experience from Encounter 5 is missing from the Rewards Summary.I assume that it should be something like this.Spoiler:
Show
Encounter 5: House of the Devil350 / 500 XPTotal experience for the adventure is cor
I figured this is the best place for this instead of starting a new thread. I am organizing my P3 content for the group I run, and I want to run the "sign of four" & "Sschindylryn" mods. The group is in P2 currently and I wanted to give them the opportunity to find:
a few of the broken fragments. I was reading through "Sschindylryn" and in the chart at the end it lists IMPI2-3 Rooting Out Corruption as having a tablet in the Demon shrine. I am prepping IMPI2-3 to run tomorrow night and for the life of me, I can't mind a mention of the tablet anywhere in the mod...I have read it 3-4 times, and done searches through the PDF, am I missing something or is it not there? [/spoilers]
I figured this is the best place for this instead of starting a new thread. I am organizing my P3 content for the group I run, and I want to run the "sign of four" & "Sschindylryn" mods. The group is in P2 currently and I wanted to give them the oppo
I am used to double checking Rules Compendium monsters with their source, but apparently it is necessary with items as well. I will double check it. The item did not trigger any alarm bells with me, but that is not always a guarantee.
There's a good reason the item was removed from the Dragon magazine issue. An item that can stun-lock a monster for an entire encounter is very poor design.
There's a good reason the item was removed from the Dragon magazine issue. An item that can stun-lock a monster for an entire encounter is very poor design.
Core 2-6 Ripples in the Stream of Souls Apparently the GP total on high is wrong: 6000GP is P3/high, not P2. If that's already known, I didn't find it here.
Core 2-6 Ripples in the Stream of SoulsApparently the GP total on high is wrong: 6000GP is P3/high, not P2. If that's already known, I didn't find it here.
Core 2-6 Ripples in the Stream of Souls Apparently the GP total on high is wrong: 6000GP is P3/high, not P2. If that's already known, I didn't find it here.
Core 2-6 Ripples in the Stream of Souls Apparently the GP total on high is wrong: 6000GP is P3/high, not P2. If that's already known, I didn't find it here.
As far as I know, 6000 GP is correct for P2 high.
Ah, I see my problem: DALE 2-2 had on high 2200GP.
As far as I know, 6000 GP is correct for P2 high.[/quote]Ah, I see my problem: DALE 2-2 had on high 2200GP.
I suspect it was meant to be found in Encounter 7, but it's not.
ELTU 3-4 Blue Beast has a treasure listed in the Rewards Summary, but that treasure isn't found in any of the encounters.Spoiler:
Show
Treasure I, gloves of the bounty hunterI suspect it was meant to be found in Encounter 7, but it's not.
I suspect it was meant to be found in Encounter 7, but it's not.
Actually, it was intended for Encounter 4: Spoiler:Show
The original intent was, if the PCs are fully direct and honest with Pon Tram, he provides them to help capture the bad guys, if desired. But it didn't make it from my thought into the final version.
Frankly, there's enough going on with it, so it shouldn't be in the entry.
Actually, it was intended for Encounter 4:Spoiler:
Show
The original intent was, if the PCs are fully direct and honest with Pon Tram, he provides them to help capture the bad guys, if desired. But it didn't make it from my thought into the f
Not that it matters THAT much one way or the other; it's not an uber-item or anything.
Meaning: this treasure* shouldn't exist?*Spoiler:
Show
gloves of the bounty hunterNot that it matters THAT much one way or the other; it's not an uber-item or anything.
Bundle F: poisoned weapon +2* (AV, 12th level) Found in Encounter 7
The item level listed does not match the actual item level.
TYMA1-3 Tools of the Trade includes the following bundle.Spoiler:
Show
Bundle F: poisoned weapon +2* (AV, 12th level)Found in Encounter 7The item level listed does not match the actual item level.
These statistics can be found in Dragon #364, pg. 46
SPEC1-3 Ghosts of the Past: Dark Portalpg. 16-17Encounter 2B: CrematoriumFlameharrow: add Saving Throws +2, and teleport 3 (after Speed 6) These statistics can be found in Dragon #364, pg. 46
Encounter 3 Twisted Priest -- Reflex is much too low. Recommend Twisted Priest's level + 12, or level + 10 at absolute minimum.
Red Arcanians -- Defenses are too low. AC should be level + 14, Fort level + 10, Ref level + 13, Will level + 11. -- Fiery Touch attack bonus is wrong. Should be level + 3 vs. Ref. -- Scorching Burst and Burning Hands could arguably be improved to level + 5 vs. Ref (Artillery get extra accuracy), although Wand of Accuracy partly makes up for this.
Death Knight Blackguard -- Not that it really matters, but this is a Skirmisher, not a Brute. -- Abyssal Blast should either be renamed or have its area changed from Close BURST to Close BLAST. (Yes, this is wrong on the source monster also.)
Encounter 5 Scene 7 -- The Janessar tell the PCs that Arkose has "a pair of large wraith guards with him." (p. 28, 2nd column, 4th bullet point) There are no wraiths in the next encounter.
Encounter 6 Helmed Horror -- Elemental Greatsword attack bonus is wrong. Should be level + 5 vs. AC. (Compare any soldier from Monster Vault or later.)
Ghost Beholder -- Eyes of the Beholder: it has 3 eye rays, and the Monster Manual 3 instructs you to roll a d4 and reroll on a 4 to determine which one it uses. That's incredibly silly. Roll a d6, 1-2 = 1st ray, 3-4 = 2nd ray, 5-6 = 3rd ray.
CALI4-3 Twisted RuneEncounter 3Twisted Priest -- Reflex is much too low. Recommend Twisted Priest's level + 12, or level + 10 at absolute minimum.Red Arcanians-- Defenses are too low. AC should be level + 14, Fort level + 10, Ref level + 13, Will lev
Pg. 14-18 Zhent Dreadnaught's Triggered Action is incorrectly labeled and should read Minor Action.
Pg. 26-35 Zhent Dark Adept's Minor Action is incorrectly labeled and should read Triggered Action.
ELTU4-2 The Iriaebor GambitPg. 14-18 Zhent Dreadnaught's Triggered Action is incorrectly labeled and should read Minor Action.Pg. 26-35 Zhent Dark Adept's Minor Action is incorrectly labeled and should read Triggered Action.
Pg. 14-18 Zhent Dreadnaught's Triggered Action is incorrectly labeled and should read Minor Action.
Pg. 26-35 Zhent Dark Adept's Minor Action is incorrectly labeled and should read Triggered Action.
Actually, the Zhent Dark Adept's action is supposed to be aminor action, the text uses the wrong word (trigger, not effect) and should say:
Minor Actions
Dark ImperativeRecharge when first bloodied
Effect: Close burst 5 (one ally in the burst). The dark adept slides the target up to 3 squares, and the target gains 10 temporary hit points. Until the target has no temporary hit points, its melee attacks deal 3 extra necrotic damage.
Actually, the Zhent Dark Adept's action is supposed to be a minor action, the text uses the wrong word (trigger, not effect) and should say:
Pg. 34 Tactic forRupture Demon say that when it explode it strengthen the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm with its Demonic Infestation power, but Demonic Infestation only latch onto a demon within 5 squares of it and the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm is not a demon.
ELTU4-2 The Iriaebor Gambit
Pg. 26-35 Champion of Bane's Expanding Threat power incorrectly refer to him as a dragon.
ELTU4-1 Born By FiendPg. 34 Tactic for Rupture Demon say that when it explode it strengthen the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm with its Demonic Infestation power, but Demonic Infestation only latch onto a demon within 5 squares of it and the Abyssal
Pg. 34 Tactic forRupture Demon say that when it explode it strengthen the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm with its Demonic Infestation power, but Demonic Infestation only latch onto a demon within 5 squares of it and the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm is not a demon.
I think you're suggesting errata for the wrong thing.
"Add demon tag to Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm" (the arachnid clockwork soldier in the compendium is a construct, demon fwiw)
I think you're suggesting errata for the wrong thing."Add demon tag to Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm" ;) (the arachnid clockwork soldier in the compendium is a construct, demon fwiw)
I wasn't suggesting anything, i was simply reporting a conflicting rule. The Tactics could either be altered or the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm could be given the demon keyword for sure.
I wasn't suggesting anything, i was simply reporting a conflicting rule. The Tactics could either be altered or the Abyssal Clockwork Spider Swarm could be given the demon keyword for sure. ;)
Oblivae's hit points are listed as 936, and a bloodied value of 418. 418 should be the correct bloodied value if her hit points were 836. What is the correct hp and bloodied value please?
EPIC 4-2Spoiler:
Show
Oblivae's hit points are listed as 936, and a bloodied value of 418. 418 should be the correct bloodied value if her hit points were 836. What is the correct hp and bloodied value please?
Oblivae's hit points are listed as 936, and a bloodied value of 418. 418 should be the correct bloodied value if her hit points were 836. What is the correct hp and bloodied value please?
Solo hp are calculated as 32 * (Lvl + 1) + (Con * 4), so 936 is correct (and thusly 468 bloodied). No real harm caused by the difference, though.
Solo hp are calculated as 32 * (Lvl + 1) + (Con * 4), so 936 is correct (and thusly 468 bloodied). No real harm caused by the difference, though.
I've posted my (I'm the author as you guys know) thoughts on the threads for those mods, but I would not stack the auras. Playtesting was extensive and predicated on the auras not stacking. Even the Spec can have more aura at certain tiers/party sizes in at least one encounter and it isn't needed except for really strong parties. I would leave it as an option for DMs but based on the DM knowing that the group needs this. Stacking auras for these mods is a bad idea 90% of the time. Similarly, changing from the Dragon magazine version of the critter in Ectr 1 of the Spec to the version in MM3 is not suggested - they are pretty different creatures.
