The reason I ask is that I have noticed some things that just don't jive.
On page 215 of the DLCS and I quote:
Draconian, Aurak
Medium Dragon
Hit Dice: 8d12 (76 hp)
.....
Save: Fort +6
Abilities: Con 10
Skills: Concentration +11
The mean average for d12 is 6.5
This means that the average hit points for a creature with 8d12 would be 52, which in the above example leaves 24 additional hit points unaccounted for. If the 24 points comes from a +3 Con bonus (+3 x 8 (HD) ) = 24, then the Con score would have to be 16 not 10.
This would also have an effect on the Fort Save bonus and the Concentration skill bonus, if the +3 has not already been added.
On pages 217 and 219 of the DLCS, it states
Draconian, Baaz
Medium Dragon
Hit Dice: 2d12+5 (18 hp)
.....
Abilities: Con 13
Draconian, Kapak
Medium Dragon
Hit Dice: 2d12+5 (17 hp)
.....
Abilities: Con 13
Again, the mean average for d12 is 6.5.
2 x 6.5 = 13
13+5= 18
Yet two draconians with same HD and Con score have differing hit points, but it gets better.
Where does the +5 come from?
Con 13 grants a +1 hit point bonus, which in this case would grant a +2 total making both the Baaz and Kapak have 15 hp.
Is there a rule that I missed somewhere that has an exception for creatures of either dragon type or that have d12 for HD.
Don't get me wrong I am all for beefing up the Draconians, but I know my players will definitely question the fairness/inconsistency of these stats.
Has this been brought up in the past?
If so, I think there should be a permanent thread for errata or rules clarification (similar to what was done for the 3.5 edition books).
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
I did miss the Toughness feat on the Baaz and the Kapak.
Page 172:
Listed in People of interest for the town of Pashin
Klaudia Lorn, Female HALF-ORC
Also in the adventure on Page 278:
There is mention of an elven bard that doesn't appear in the rest of the adventure
Originally posted by Gnash Firewalker
I found a couple other problems:
Page 172:
Listed in People of interest for the town of Pashin
Klaudia Lorn, Female HALF-ORC
Also in the adventure on Page 278:
There is mention of an elven bard that doesn't appear in the rest of the adventure
I'll take the blame for that one. It's supposed to be a half-ogre, but it slipped through the writing and revision process at Sovereign Press, then also slipped by the editors at WotC. The second I'll have to check on.
Thanks!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Originally posted by Magus_Extreme
Possible Errata for Draconians: they are listed as having the dragon type and benefits. however, for their monster entries (before they talk about each seperate race, they define draconians as a whole), you have it that they have True Dragon traits, which are far beyond standard dragon type traits. This isn't consistent with either each race's entry, as well as the player character races for Kapaks and Baaz's in the begining. personally, shouldn't they have normal dragon traits?
Right, much as wyverns and other creatures of the dragon type have only the basic traits listed in the Monster Manual. Anything extra would be specifically pointed out, and listed in the creature's Special Attacks and Special Qualities entry.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by talinthas
I'm not sure i understand, jamie. How did half orc 'slip by'? I thought that by now, orc was excised from the vocabulary of every DL fan out there =)
Same way that the Schallsea/Sancrist error slipped by the folks at the book department when the War of Souls was printed, really.
It's a pretty intense and time-consuming point of the creation process, sometimes with some very lengthy changes needing to be made (depending on how far-reaching a fix is needed) and I think we can forgive Jamie and the WOTC developers for missing something we all knew wasn't really a half-orc.Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by talinthas
I'm not sure i understand, jamie. How did half orc 'slip by'? I thought that by now, orc was excised from the vocabulary of every DL fan out there =)
I wanted to beat my head against the wall when Chris Coyle pointed that one out to me. I remember going ape when a half-orc first appeared in a Dragonlance novel all those many years ago. I certainly wasn't thinking half-orc when I wrote it, but through typo, lack of sleep, or some other reason it came out "half-orc."
What amazes me it has the half-orc survived all the revision and editing. But my experience in publishing shows me that such things happen all the time, and no matter how hard you try, some errors creep through. That's what errata and later printings are for!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
I guess it just wouldnt be DL without happy little slips all over =)
:D
Click Here
I have recieved alot of input on it, and a second version is about ready to go. I will add the Aurak mistake to my errata.
Thanks!
Of course that doesn't fix the hit point issues, but it does add some points on... or am I wrong one this?
Originally posted by carteeg
When something has multiple die, aren't you supposed to max the first die before averaging the rest - in order to be similar to maxing a level 1 characters 1st hit die?
Of course that doesn't fix the hit point issues, but it does add some points on... or am I wrong one this?
That's what I thought too, but perhaps that is not the case for monsters, who know?
Originally posted by carteeg
When something has multiple die, aren't you supposed to max the first die before averaging the rest - in order to be similar to maxing a level 1 characters 1st hit die?
Only for "elite" opponents, such as specific monster NPCs with character levels designed to be above the norm. Player characters are assumed to be "elite" from the get-go, but a warrior, adept, expert NPC that's not a significant character may only have the average for their first hit die (check out the elf and dwarf stats in the MM, for example, both of which are warriors.)
Cheers,
Cam
But seriously, as long as the HPs are in the range of the hit dice what does it matter? Maybe the Aurak in the book was having an exceptionally good day and therefore had more HPs than normal. Consequently there is an Aurak out there that is having a bad day and would have less than the normal. It all evens out in the long haul.
Just look at what is "Full" and what is "New" and that will tell you which part of the symbol represents the lit part of the moon and which represents the dark part.
But, what with the moons being gods, I suppose they can do whatever they darn well please, can't they?
Originally posted by DemonTriscuit
but i now realize that in addition the symbols for waning crescent and waxing crescent are switched.
So, I checked it again last night just to be sure (cause I haven't looked at it in several months). Sure enough...it's wrong.
Well...thanks, I'll add that to my errata.
EDIT: Although, on second thought...the shape of the moon doesn't really matter...or I mean, you as the DM, don't care about what the moon looks like...you just care about where it is in its cycle...and in that aspect, the moon tracking chart is not wrong. And when you get to the waxing and waning crescents (of which the names are correct)...that's all you have to say, and the players will know what it looks like...waxing, "D" and Waning, "C."
Sorry...wouldn't normally do this...but I edited my post enough that I thought it was more like a new post...but it didn't go back to the top...hence the bump. :D
Thanks for the link to the "Unofficial" Errata page. I am still wondering if an "Official" Errata document is going to be made (perhaps from the collection already gathered in the "Unofficial" Errata).
Did the boards for the DLCS ever get up and running on DL.com (as I know future released products should be discussed at the appropriate site)? If so, if anyone has the link, it would be greatly appreciated.
*tap*
*tap*
Is this thing on?
I would think most likely not for a couple reasons.
1) There are several "errata" that I included that could just be more of a "personal preference" on the canon of said item. I marked all of these of course...but it still might not be impartial enough for them.
2) It's the Whitestone Council who have the errata at the moment...and they work with Sov. Press, not WotC. WotC is responsible for the DLCS...so I'm not holding my breath.
Sorry I don't have better info for you.
Thanks for sharing what you do know. Sometimes I am happy with just hearing a "not sure" rather than hearing nothing. At least this way I don't feel neglected! :D
In the Aurak description he has a noxious cloud breath weapon. But in the draconian breath weapon feat description it states that no draconian has a breath weapon ability.
So if an aurak draconian takes this feat does he switch he breath weapon to the new one, or doe s the aurak gain a second breath weapon.
Thanks!
Also: If the aurak takes that feat (Draconian breath weapon) does he get a second breath weapon or what.
Originally posted by darthsylver
Well where is that version. The link you posted only leads to the 1.0 version.
In work.
If I hadn't gotten sick this weekend, the Nexus guys would have it now.
Hopefully this week though! :D
One thing I was wondering about (and may be why I left it out in the first place...I'm not 100% sure of my thinking at the time) was is the caustic breath a true "breath weapon" in the sense that they mean?
Let me try again. Is "Breath Weapon" it's own attribute on creatures or is the breath weapon creatures (like dragons) have considered an SQ/SA?
Originally posted by Brimstone
Let me try again. Is "Breath Weapon" it's own attribute on creatures or is the breath weapon creatures (like dragons) have considered an SQ/SA?
Breath weapons are supernatural abilities that are considered special attacks. Auraks who pick up the Draconian Breath Weapon feat gain a 30-ft. cone of fire, in addition to their normal cloud of weakening gas (which does Str damage). Although the 'Normal' entry under the feat states that draconians do not normally have a breath weapon, this isn't the case with auraks.
Cheers,
Cam
Can I just get a direct line to your house for these kinds of questions? ;)
Originally posted by Brimstone
Thanks Cam! That's exactly what I was looking for.
Can I just get a direct line to your house for these kinds of questions? ;)
There are easier ways to reach me, but I do check these boards often, so...
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
There are easier ways to reach me, but I do check these boards often, so...
I have a tendency of losing e-mail addresses (luckily Microsoft Outlook now remembers them for me...but much like caller ID, this will be my downfall). Anyway...I always remember the first part of your e-mail address (at least the one I had from a couple years ago) but the the second half that always escapes me.
And it seems like everytime I have a question...I no longer have an old e-mail of yours saved from the DL-L.
Of course...I could always just ask someone for it..
I appreciate everything you are doing in gathering, compiling and searching for the answers to questions that are possible errata in the DLCS. I was thinking though, since the DLCS was released by WotC that they should have a link on their Errata page for this book, which could be your v1.1 or whatever version you happen to be at.
After all, there is a link for errata for Oriental Adventures. I am definitely for all the guys that worked so hard to keep DL alive before the DLCS came out to be in charge of correcting any found or overlooked discrepancies.
I just can't help but feel like the DLCS is still the red-headed step-child of WotC. (No offense to red-heads or step-children.)
The DLCS was released by WotC and it should have its spot on the Errata Page with the other products that they have released (regardless of who compiles and corrects it).
Again thanks to Brimstone and anyone else that has helped to point out inconsistencies/errors and more so those that provided the corrections to those inconsistencies/errors.
Originally posted by darthsylver
I have question for Cam then. If the Aurak takes the "Improved Draconian Breath Weapon" feat, can he apply this to his first breath weapon the cloud of weakening gas. And if he can how is this breath weapon changed?
I would probably not, though if you wanted to allow a player to do so (given that he's already an aurak and thus more powerful than other draconians) or create a nasty aurak villain, I would increase the Strength drain to 2d4 and blindness for 1d6 rounds. You could push the number of times per day up to 5/day in this case.
But then again, it's a 5 ft. cone, and the alternative is getting a 30 ft. cone of fire that deals 6d8 points of fire damage. I would go for that instead.
Cheers,
Cam
If the aurak went your way he would have to use two feats. If he just increases his normal breath weapon he only uses 1 feat. We all know that players pay alot of attention to feats.
So I was just preparing myself in case this came up later.
Thanks.
Originally posted by darthsylver
If the aurak went your way he would have to use two feats. If he just increases his normal breath weapon he only uses 1 feat. We all know that players pay alot of attention to feats.
He'd have to use two feats, anyway. Improved Draconic Breath Weapon requires Draconic Breath Weapon as a prerequisite. The aurak's own breath weapon doesn't take the place of the feat requirement.
Cheers,
Cam
On to the harder questions.
Can draconians select feats in the Draconomicon that have dragon as requirement. To include feats the require breath weapons such as "Metabreath" feats?
Originally posted by darthsylver
Can draconians select feats in the Draconomicon that have dragon as requirement. To include feats the require breath weapons such as "Metabreath" feats?
Draconians have the dragon type, so if they meet the perequisites, then yes.
Note that only creatures who have breath weapons that measure the time between uses in rounds can take metabreath feats, though. This would rule out a draconian who can breathe once per day, or even three times a day.Cheers,
Cam
You white dragons are cold and blues are earth. Etc...
Originally posted by darthsylver
Another question for Cam. How come draconians don't have a element subtype like normal dragons.
You white dragons are cold and blues are earth. Etc...
Draconians aren't true dragons. Wyverns don't have a subtype, either, yet they have the dragon type. A creature with the dragon type has certain qualities that it shares with others, but you shouldn't confuse true dragons (which have age categories, blindsense, etc etc) with dragon-typed creatures.
Cheers,
Cam