Stomp the typo / Errata & FAQ

[Pesky]

Hi everyone! I think I've detected either a typo or a missing spell result. It's the wizard spell Locate object, level 2. Results 22-25 and 26-29 are exactly the same, both in the first and the third printing (the ones I have). If it's on purpose, why not grouping these results in just one?

Thanks Jose; we caught that one proofing for the 4th printing. I don't know exactly how it will be changed, but I'm guessing that it will be changed.

[josemasaga]

Hi everyone! I think I've detected either a typo or a missing spell result. It's the wizard spell Locate object, level 2. Results 22-25 and 26-29 are exactly the same, both in the first and the third printing (the ones I have). If it's on purpose, why not grouping these results in just one?

Thanks Jose; we caught that one proofing for the 4th printing. I don't know exactly how it will be changed, but I'm guessing that it will be changed.

Thank you, Terry!

I'm afraid that the same thing happens with the wizard spell ESP (second level), results 16-19 and 20-21...

[Pesky]

I'm afraid that the same thing happens with the wizard spell ESP (second level), results 16-19 and 20-21...

Thankfully, we caught the ESP duplication as well.

[GnomeBoy]

I'm afraid that the same thing happens with the wizard spell ESP (second level), results 16-19 and 20-21...

Thankfully, we caught the ESP duplication as well.

— by reading our minds!!! dun Dun DUNNNN!!

[Pesky]

— by reading our minds!!! dun Dun DUNNNN!!

I knew you were going to say that.

[Magsman]

Minor spelling, 3rd and earlier editions, Page 30, paragraph 3, should be "through", not though:

For every 50 gp of sacrificed goods, a cleric “cancels” one point of normal disapproval range. For example, a disapproval range of 1 through 4 can be reduced to 1 thRough 3. A natural 1 still counts as automatic failure and disapproval.

[Magsman]

Omission: Page 30, Turn unholy:
The Luck modifier is currently excluded from the formula:
"As with all spell checks, the turn unholy spell check is made as follows: 1d20 + Personality modifier + caster level."

The turn unholy spell check formula should be:
1d20 + Personality modifier + caster level + Luck modifier.

Actually, to match the wording on page 96, I'd arrange it as:
1d20 + caster level + Personality modifier + Luck modifier.


Page 96, TURNING UNHOLY, paragraph 2:
"A turn check is mechanically similar to a spell check, except that Luck matters. A d20 is rolled and added to the cleric's caster level. The cleric's Personality and luck modifiers are also included."

Edit: it would have been easier for me just to point out that page 31, Luck mentions the luck modifier applies to turn unholy.

[Pesky]

Omission: Page 30, Turn unholy:
The Luck modifier is currently excluded from the formula:
"As with all spell checks, the turn unholy spell check is made as follows: 1d20 + Personality modifier + caster level."

Thanks Magsman! We caught that one, but I'm not sure if we caught the "though" vs. "through" you posted previously. We'll find out in the 4th printing...

[Eric Fields]

Has the content of the 4th printing already been finalized and sent to the printer?

[Pesky]

Has the content of the 4th printing already been finalized and sent to the printer?

Don't know the answer. Sorry.

[Mofte]

As the PDF has already been updated (yay!), will there be a new errata for the 4th printing?

[josemasaga]

As the PDF has already been updated (yay!), will there be a new errata for the 4th printing?

Yes, please!!! That'd be hugely helpful.

[BanjoJohn]

In the PDF of the 4th printing, in the bookmarks, level 2 wizard spells section, the bookmark for the spell "Ray of enfeeblement" says "Rat of enfeeblement"

In the bookmarks, under chapter 9 monsters, and critical hits by monsters, you might want to capitalize "Devils and Demons", "Giants" "Un-dead" and "Monsters" instead of leaving them lower case.

[GnomeBoy]

...the spell "Ray of enfeeblement" says "Rat of enfeeblement"

Ooooh -- a new spell!!

[Pesky]

In the PDF of the 4th printing, in the bookmarks, level 2 wizard spells section, the bookmark for the spell "Ray of enfeeblement" says "Rat of enfeeblement"

In the bookmarks, under chapter 9 monsters, and critical hits by monsters, you might want to capitalize "Devils and Demons", "Giants" "Un-dead" and "Monsters" instead of leaving them lower case.

Thanks BanjoJohn! I've passed it on.

[beshawn]

Page 85, 4th printing (softcover):

Heading for table reads "Crit Table IV: Level 3-4 Warriors, and Level 4-5 Dwarves"

The number '5' in '4-5 Dwarves' isn't using the normal font used elsewhere for all the other tables, including other 5's printed elsewhere.

Very minor

[Pesky]

Page 85, 4th edition (softcover):

Heading for table reads "Crit Table IV: Level 3-4 warriors, and Level 4-5 Dwarves"

The number '5' in '4-5 Dwarves' isn't using the normal font used elsewhere for all the other tables, including other 5's printed elsewhere.

Very minor

Noted, and thanks!

[GnomeBoy]

...4th edition (softcover)...

Also pretty minor, but--

File under "Stomp the misconception": 4th printing, not 4th edition.

[Mofte]

Will there be an errata containing the changes between 3rd and 4th printing?

[Pesky]

Will there be an errata containing the changes between 3rd and 4th printing?

Sorry, not that I know of. If you're on the fence about whether to get a 4th printing, then I say "do it." There is a ton more art (chunks of white space were annihilated), updated info on available modules, online resources, etc., and lots of typos and rules clarifications. When I look at the 3rd and 4th side by side, the extra art goes a long way. Hope that helps!

[Mofte]

Thanks for the answer, but it's more a quirk of me, wanting to know, what exactly did change, I already got 1st, 2nd and 4th printing on my shelf.

[KJ Obrien]

I read "The Abbot of the Woods" for the first time last night and found (what I think is) some errata:

p. 457, 2nd column, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence:
"Undying, yet trapped ..."
Should "Undying" be "Un-dying"?

p. 459, 1st column, 2nd from last paragraph, last sentence:
"Specifically, the undying blood ..."
Again, should "undying" be "un-dying"?

p. 459, 1st column, last paragraph, 3rd sentence:
"... what appears to common slime."
I think the intention was "... what appears to be common slime."

p. 460, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence:
"... topped by great mound of stones."
I think the intention was "topped by a great mound of stones."

p. 462, under the Spirit of Violence stat block:
"Act 1d20 [1d0+1d16];"
I think the intention was "[1d20+1d16]".

p. 462, under "The Hoof":
The previously mentioned Wand and Head are elaborately decorated and have a suggested value. Was it intentional to omit a suggested value for the decorated hoof?

p. 462, under the Spirit of Disease (Rat Swarm) stat block:
"SP wasting disease (DC 15 Ref save or 1d3 hp + 1d3 Sta damage);"
This seems to suggest that the victim takes both 1d3 hp and 1d3 Sta damage if they fail the DC 15 Ref save, but in the Area 2-3 text (p. 462, 2nd column, 1st paragraph) a character that fails the DC 15 Ref save takes 1d3 hp of damage, they must then make a DC 10 Fort save or else suffer 1d3 Stamina damage.

p. 463, 1st column, 6th paragraph, last sentence:
"... passing the through the crowd without ..."
I think the first "the" should be omitted.

p. 463, 1st column, 7th paragraph, 1st sentence:
"It is likely that the player's character sheets have little or no record of their supplies."
Should player's be players'?

p. 463, 1st column, 7th paragraph, last sentence:
"... and a PC with -2 Luck would roll 1d4."
The PC would actually roll 1d5 if following the dice chain. Subtracting 1 die step for each negative point of Luck: starting at 1d7 --> 1d6 --> 1d5.

p. 463, 2nd column, 1st sentence of Round 1:
"... is labored with chamber's dead air."
I think the intention was "... is labored with the chamber's dead air."

p. 463, 2nd column, 2nd sentence of Round 3:
"... armor looses its sheen ..."
Was "looses" the intended word or "loses"? Could work either way.

p. 465, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence:
"His freedom comes at a cost of his immortality ..."
Was the intention "at the cost of his immortality"? Could work either way.

p. 465, 2nd column, under The Hoof:
"A save of 15 would result in a speed of 25' per round and a 17 would result in 15' per round."
The Abbot's stat block lists its base MV speed as 60', not 30'. If a 15 reduces the speed by one 5' step, wouldn't the MV now be 55'? And a 17 would reduce the MV to 45'?

p. 465, 2nd column, under Hoard of the Abbot, last sentence:
"How the PCs attempt to scoop up the loot may the final arbiter ..."
Was the intention "... scoop up the loot may be the final arbiter ..."?

[Pesky]

All noted. Thanks KJ!

[john_lollard]

I think I found a misprint in the MM effects table. Result 00 says to roll 4d20 twice. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be 5d20.

For one, 4d20 doesn't cover the same range as d%, whereas 5d20 does (excluding 1-4). 4d20 leaves out a fifth of the possibilities, and the ones it leaves out are the "good" ones at the higher ends.

For two, I notice that 41-60 are that the spell manifests as normal. This corresponds very closely to the middle 68% in the bell-curve produced by rolling 5d20 (41-64), which would mean this result has about a 2/3rd chance of putting you at normal, plus whatever your luck is.

This result is if you roll a perfect 00 on a d%. The MM effects are sort of scaled, starting at the awful "someone you know dies" result, then the "cast at -2d", and up to "cast at +2d". The MM effects sort of get better with higher roll. This is the highest roll, so should give at least a decent benefit.

However, if it is 4d20, rolled twice, this gives you a really serious deficit. You average at 42, just inside the "no effect" zone and you have basically 50% of one of the "bad" lower results. Even if you have the pretty extraordinary (all told) luck bonus of +2, that barely gets you out of "no effect". If your luck is the average +0, then the highest you can do is 80, and that's once in 160,000. And you roll this twice.

If it is 5d20, then most of the time you will be somewhere in the "no effect" zone, with about 1/6 above and 1/6 below. This gives you the benefit of basically guaranteeing a normal spell, or at least a spell that doesn't deviate too much from normal.

That all leads me to think this was a mistake. The MM table's "no effect" region just corresponds too well for this to be coincidence.

Was this a misprint, or are the RAWs supposed to be 4d20 here?I think I found a misprint in the MM effects table. Result 00 says to roll 4d20 twice. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be 5d20.

For one, 4d20 doesn't cover the same range as d%, whereas 5d20 does (excluding 1-4). 4d20 leaves out a fifth of the possibilities, and the ones it leaves out are the "good" ones at the higher ends.

For two, I notice that 41-60 are that the spell manifests as normal. This corresponds very closely to the middle 68% in the bell-curve produced by rolling 5d20 (41-64), which would mean this result has about a 2/3rd chance of putting you at normal, plus whatever your luck is.

This result is if you roll a perfect 00 on a d%. The MM effects are sort of scaled, starting at the awful "someone you know dies" result, then the "cast at -2d", and up to "cast at +2d". The MM effects sort of get better with higher roll. This is the highest roll, so should give at least a decent benefit.

However, if it is 4d20, rolled twice, this gives you a really serious deficit. You average at 42, just inside the "no effect" zone and you have basically 50% of one of the "bad" lower results. Even if you have the pretty extraordinary (all told) luck bonus of +2, that barely gets you out of "no effect". If your luck is the average +0, then the highest you can do is 80, and that's once in 160,000. And you roll this twice.

If it is 5d20, then most of the time you will be somewhere in the "no effect" zone, with about 1/6 above and 1/6 below. This gives you the benefit of basically guaranteeing a normal spell, or at least a spell that doesn't deviate too much from normal.

That all leads me to think this was a mistake. The MM table's "no effect" region just corresponds too well for this to be coincidence.

Was this a misprint, or are the RAWs supposed to be 4d20 here?

[Raven_Crowking]

I believe that 4d20 was intended.