Goodman Games

Errata and Index PDF Download announcement:
- Marv



Well, despite the best of intentions, and numerous proofreading runs, a couple typos did creep through. This thread will record those that have been identified.

Per RAD C's excellent suggestion, we'll start collecting all the stomps here in the OP.

//H

Page 36 & 38, thief skills: Thieves do apply Intelligence modifiers to checks for casting scrolls.

Page 126, first paragraph: sussurated should be susurrated

Page 450, "Table of Titles (continued)": under Thief, I believe #89 Sonnateer should be "Sonneteer".

"The Warrior class also doesn't have the Lance listed as one of its trained weapons. Also, should the Elf class be trained in the Lance as well?"

"..the Warrior doesn't have Flail as one of his trained weapons."

Minor typo appears in the navigation pane- the word "GIant".

Page 43. "...the character used use a mace to smash out..." should be "...used a mace to...."

what is the first word of the "admonitions" paragraph?

No, that's actually correct."I hight" is an ancient way of introducing yourself, especially if you were a knight or nobleman.

Page 450, "Table of Titles (continued)": under Thief, I believe #89 Sonnateer should be "Sonneteer".

I'll bet the final "errata" on this book ends up being at most a few jots if that.

Won't name names but we've seen embarrassing and system-breaking mix-ups
from well-funded companies often enough.

For a book this big with this much art and this kind of layout to only have a very few
little quirks in production...c'mon now. This thing is a beauty.

However, I will henceforth be calling my son, and he will be signing up for GaryCon under the name of, Collin...



Hey..you got the last name right - which is more than those slackers over at Adventurer, Conqueror, King can say!

D'oh!



I'll make it up to him by next GaryCon.

//H

Not sure if it's errata or not, but as it stands, the Warrior doesn't have Flail as one of his trained weapons. Seems an odd one not to have in the class' list if it's not errata.

Colin

Sort of a typo. The hyperlink to "www.gamestation.net" is broken because it includes a hyphen as part of the word-wrap text formatting.

The Warrior class also doesn't have the Lance listed as one of its trained weapons. Also, should the Elf class be trained in the Lance as well?

Colin

Possible errata and typo: why on Earth would Listening be based on Luck, whereas Searching and Spotting is based on Intelligence?! Luck seems to be quite prone to go down and up, would this mean that a character becomes deaf or improve his skill at listening? Even admitting that Listening is mostly dependent on luck, why not other perception tasks?
Seeing that Intelligence governs perception-type tasks of searching and spotting, it would seem only fitting that Listening falls under Intelligence.
My suggestion: get rid of Luck as a stat to base Skills on; already too many things depend on Luck. And there is nothing skillful in being lucky! (if not, this is the first thing I am going to houserule.)

Cheers,
Antonio

Regarding perception type checks, this is also based on the specific situation. To me, a passive Listen or even Spot check ought to be based on Luck, but actively searching or trying to hear something is better left to Intelligence. DCC skills are supposed to be pretty loose, so if you as a judge think something should play differently, then you're right. In fact, it's probably best to use common sense and the description of PC actions before calling for a skill check at all.

p126, first paragraph under Known Spells of the Current Era
sussurated should be susurrated

Minor typo appears in the navigation pane- the word "GIant".

That's fine, to a point. Also in light of the fact that the Luck bonuses are "frozen" after character creation (I missed this bit) it might still be best to fold ALL perception types under Luck. So Search goes under Intelligence, and Spot and Listening go under Luck. I see no reason why two senses should be governed by two different stats.

Not trying to sound flippant, but the longer I played this game, the less I used any perception-related checks. Early on the above logic was exactly the kind of thought process I was engaged in. And early on, I called for more checks. As the game evolved I started challenging players more on how to define their characters' interaction with the environment. "You search the chest? What actions exactly does that entail?" "You scan the cavern? Where exactly do you look?" And so on. If they say they tap the bottom of the chest to listen for hollow spots, or otherwise specifically examine the bottom, then they find the secret compartment; otherwise, they don't -- no check needed. If they say they specifically scan the ceiling of the cavern, or look for odd shadows on the ground, then they spot the bat-creatures clinging to the roof; otherwise, they don't -- no check needed. After a while I ended up making perception checks only very rarely, and I often would use Luck just because...well, I don't know, it seemed most appropriate. Next time you play, ask yourself "is a check the best method? or should we role-play this?" every time you roll for Spot or Search or Listen...and it may change the way you use the skill system. It was a 3E habit I had to work to break. And getting back to the question above, there could be times when Intelligence is most appropriate as a modifier, and other times where it really is a case of sheer luck.

And that's word of Goodman on the topic! Although, just to add my own little wrinkle, Luck modifiers can indeed change. Lucky roll is locked (ie birth augur ) and the warriors lucky weapon. That is, of course, unless you as judge rule differently

Not to sound flippant, too; but while not having to roll anything at all is perfectly fine (I don't come from a 3e background, so I don't have any habit to break; my go-to D&D is Mentzer D&D), I am simply speaking about what is written in the book, and Joseph hasn't answered why two different senses are dealt with with two different attributes; it goes straight in the face of keeping things simple and straightforward. Unless it's to be understood that those are not the only way to address perception, and in some other instances spot might be handled by Luck and Listening by Intelligence. If this is the case, it should be clarified in the book, too.

Page 43.

"...the character used use a mace to smash out..." should be "...used a mace to...."

No worries, man! You all have been nothing but wonderful to us. Besides, he got a big kick out of it.

They are both huge fans...so I see DCC Core books for each of them at some point. He's already bugging me about the pdf because he wants to get going on his own DCC adventure for GaryCon V!

That is ten kinds of awesome. If he ends up doing something, let me know. I would *love* to read it.

//H

Any chance this can be made sticky an the actual errata collected in the first post of the thread? It almost disappeared off the front page of the collected DCC forum, and it'd save folks having to wade through rules debates/discussion.

Colin

Page 36

Read languages: Interpreting simple meaning requires a DC 15 check. Interpreting anything more detailed is DC 20.

Is it really DC 15, or should it be DC 5?

20' speed for halflings is only declared in the sections on armor (page 72) and movement (77); this should be included with demi-humans at level 0 (21) and halfling class (60) for consistency with the dwarf.


--Tony

Just to make my found errata clearer for folks:

Page 42, Warrior, Weapon Training
Add Flail and Lance to the warrior's weapon training list.

Page 56, Elf, Weapon Training
Add Lance to the elf's weapon training list.

Colin